CHAIRPERSON: We are here today to hear what has been called the Cronje Cluster, the second of them. The Committee consists of myself, Judge Andrew Wilson, Judge Pillay and Mr Wynand Malan. Would the legal advisors please announce themselves?
MR ALBERTS: As it pleases you Mr Chairman. My name is George Alberts. I am counsel acting for Momberg and Goosen on instructions of Attorneys Weavind and Weavind.
MR DU PLESSIS: May it please you Mr Chairman. Roelof du Plessis of the Pretoria Bar. I act on instructions of Strydom Britz Attorneys. I act on behalf of Brigadier Jack Cronje, Captain Jacques Hechter, Colonel Venter, Warrant Officer van Vuuren and Sergeant Pekaba.
MR ROSSOUW: Thank you Mr Chairman. My surname is Rossouw, I'm from the firm Rooth and Wessels on behalf of applicants Gouws, Oosthuizen and on behalf of implicated party Tiny Coetzer.
CHAIRPERSON: I assume Mr Rossouw that the implicated party Coetzer would not be implicated by Gouws and Oosthuizen?
MR ROSSOUW: That is correct, Mr Chairman.
MR MEINTJIES: Thank you Mr Chairman, I'm Roelof Meintjies, I'm from the firm Meintjies Waugh Attorneys. I represent implicated person J J H van Jaarsveld.
MR STEENKAMP: As it pleases you Mr Chairman, I'm Andre Steenkamp, I'm the evidence leader in this matter. Thank you Sir.
CHAIRPERSON: What matter will we be dealing with today or what matter will we be commencing with now?
MR STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, the matter we will be commencing with today is the matter of the kidnapping and assault of an unknown person and the first applicant will be Mr Momberg, W J, his application appears in bundle number 3 on page 551 to page 650 and he will be represented by Mr George Alberts. Bundle number 3, Mr Chairman, Mr Momberg, kidnapping and assault of unknown person. Thank you sir.
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, may I perhaps just before we commence just for clarity sake deal with some of the applications which are on your roll which should not have been on your roll?
CHAIRPERSON: Certainly.
MR DU PLESSIS: The first incident is the Vryburg incident in which Colonel Roelf Venter is mentioned. The original Committee already gave amnesty to Colonel Venter in that matter.
CHAIRPERSON: Would you refer us to where it is set out?
MR DU PLESSIS: It is the - I beg your pardon - it is bundle 3 page 668 to 842. Then secondly, if I may refer you to bundle 4, the application of Warrant Officer Paul van Vuuren, the last one in bundle 4 which relates to the torture and turning of Scheepers Morudi. Warrant Officer van Vuuren already has an amnesty for that incident. You will recall that Van Vuuren and Hechter applied for that incident. Both received amnesty so the only person left in that incident is Bokaba who will give evidence before you. Thank you Mr Chairman.
JUDGE PILLAY: Mr du Plessis, the murder that occurred at Vryburg, Bokaba is not involved in that.
MR DU PLESSIS: It covers only Venter, yes. Yes, only Venter applied and he was the only one who received amnesty. May I perhaps for the Committee deal with something else which may be the correct place to deal with before we start? I have noticed that in the bundles the evidence of Brigadier Cronje in respect of the Pienaarsrivier matter which is on your roll tomorrow was not included in the bundle, the evidence of Brigadier Cronje in any of your bundles during his application. You will recall, Judge Wilson, that he did receive amnesty and he applied for that matter during the previous hearings and he received amnesty. So for that purpose in bundle 1, the second last incident referred to in bundle 1, the second last application should also be removed because Brigadier Cronje has already received amnesty for this matter and then the fourth one from the top, the same incident refers to Captain Hechter. Captain Hechter has not applied for this incident. He was not involved. He is however implicated by certain parties but I believe in the evidence that will be tendered to you it will be shown that he was not involved.
And then lastly, I made copies of Brigadier Cronje's evidence in the Pienaarsrivier application for you and perhaps I should hand it up. So if you want to read it before tomorrow then it is available. Attached thereto, Mr Chairman, attached thereto are copies of the incidents I referred you to now in respect of - or copies of the amnesty judgements relating to the incidents that I've referred you to now. So you have copies of Venter's Vryburg judgement, the Scheepers Morudi judgement, they are all attached to that bundle together with the Pienaarsrivier evidence. As it pleases you Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Well, you've also given us earlier an application form?
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, perhaps I should just deal with that for purposes of the record, thank you Mr Chairman. In the bundle, in bundle 1, from page 83 to 291 it refers to an application of Brigadier Cronje and now the pages referred to there, Mr Chairman, are the pages of Brigadier Cronje's first set of applications. Brigadier Cronje has presented the Commission with a second set of applications consisting of three schedules which should have been the applications which should have been contained in bundle 1. I have handed his whole second set of applications to you which should have been the pages contained in bundle 1 from page 83.
CHAIRPERSON: So does that mean we should ignore pages 83 to 291 and instead have regard to the pages of the new bundle?
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, as it pleases you Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: It was suggested we might give it an exhibit number but I think we rather replace it in the bundle.
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes I actually should have numbered those pages Mr Chairman. I apologise for that.
CHAIRPERSON: Well the pages are numbered.
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes but as if they form part of the bundle.
CHAIRPERSON: We number the first page, page 291.
MR DU PLESSIS: Page 83.
CHAIRPERSON: Page 83.
MR DU PLESSIS: As it pleases you Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: It will go on to 111.
MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Now does that conclude the technical matters which have to be dealt with?
MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman, from my side yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Right, shall we then proceed with the first application?
MR ALBERTS: As the Committee pleases Mr Chairman, I beg leave to call Mr Momberg to give evidence. It's Willem Johannes Momberg.
CHAIRPERSON: And what page of his application deals with this?
MR ALBERTS: Mr Chairman, his application is contained in bundle 3 from page as it's paginated 553 onwards.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes but I was asking what specific passage deals with the kidnapping that we're going to hear today?
MR ALBERTS: This specific incident is dealt with at pages 637 to 645.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
MR ALBERTS: Mr Chairman, Mr Momberg prefers to testify in Afrikaans.
CHAIRPERSON: Is he sitting?
MR ALBERTS: He is sitting on my right hand side.
WILLEM JOHANNES MOMBERG: (sworn states)
EXAMINATION BY MR ALBERTS: Mr Momberg, you are applying for amnesty regarding amongst others a specific incident which is mentioned, the kidnapping of an unknown security guard. This you find in bundle 3, page 637 to 638, is that correct?
MR MOMBERG: Yes.
MR ALBERTS: Regarding general background, your application regarding the present relevance is from page 553 of the same bundle to 573 of the same bundle - I beg your pardon, to pages 581?
MR MOMBERG: That is correct.
MR ALBERTS: And there you give the general background to the various deeds for which you are applying for amnesty?
MR MOMBERG: That is correct, Mr Chairman.
MR ALBERTS: Do you confirm the correctness of pages 553 to pages 581?
MR MOMBERG: I confirm that it is correct.
MR ALBERTS: You were in the police force at that time?
MR MOMBERG: That is correct, Mr Chairman.
MR ALBERTS: Where were you stationed when that incident happened?
MR MOMBERG: Mr Chairman, I was a member of the security branch, Northern Transvaal, situated in Pretoria.
MR ALBERTS: What was your rank?
MR MOMBERG: During that incident I was a Lieutenant.
MR ALBERTS: In which unit did you serve in that security branch?
MR MOMBERG: I was a member of Unit A and I had to investigate Whites, Coloured and Indian affairs.
MR ALBERTS: Are you still a member of the South African Police Force?
MR MOMBERG: Mr Chairman no, my service was terminated in 1995.
MR ALBERTS: Regarding the application itself, can you give the Committee an indication when this kidnapping happened?
MR MOMBERG: Mr Chairman, this incident happened during July to December 1987.
MR ALBERTS: And this appears on page 637 of the application?
MR MOMBERG: That is correct.
MR ALBERTS: Will you then with reference to that page and further then shortly explain to the Committee what this whole incident entails?
MR MOMBERG: Mr Chairman, during that period mentioned here Captain Jaap van Jaarsveld at that stage was a member of Unit B, asked me and Sergeant Goosen who were members of Unit A, requested us to assist him with the interrogation of a security guard in service of the United Building Society on the corner of Andries and Pretorius Street in Pretoria. Van Jaarsveld during this discussion mentioned that Mamasela had information, indicated that that specific guard's brother was an MK terrorist and he had already infiltrated the country.
MR ALBERTS: Can I just interrupt you? This Sergeant Joe Mamasela, in which unit did he serve?
MR MOMBERG: Mr Chairman, Mamasela was also a member of Unit B.
MR ALBERTS: And Van Jaarsveld also?
MR MOMBERG: That is correct. Mr Chairman, Van Jaarsveld requested our assistance in this interrogation because we had knowledge of MK members and the way they infiltrated.
MR ALBERTS: Can I interrupt you? Will you just explain to the Committee and give more information regarding this specific knowledge you've just mentioned here?
MR MOMBERG: Mr Chairman, during the same period I and Sergeant Goosen were the handlers of a certain informer who was well placed in the special operations structure of MK in Boputhatswana. As such we were on a daily basis involved with finding information, obtaining information, handling information from this informer regarding infiltration routes and the establishment of safe houses etc.
MR ALBERTS: Were you also well aware of the identity of MK members?
MR MOMBERG: Mr Chairman, to a large degree yes.
MR ALBERTS: And all these factors enabled you to assist Lieutenant van Jaarsveld?
MR MOMBERG: That is correct, yes.
MR ALBERTS: Will you please continue on page 638?
MR MOMBERG: Between four and five o'clock that afternoon Lieutenant Hechter, Van Jaarsveld, Mamasela, Goosen and myself were driving in a bus to Andries Street and we stopped a little way from the United Building Society's offices. While the other members waited in the bus Mamasela walked through the United place to go and fetch the security guard. I did not know his name. When that guard came off service Mamasela enticed him to get into the bus with us. Lieutenant Hechter then drove in the direction of Warmbad where the member's family was living.
MR ALBERTS: Can I interrupt you here? Just general information please, Lieutenant Hechter, in which unit was he at that stage?
MR MOMBERG: Mr Chairman, Lieutenant Hechter was also a member of Unit B.
MR ALBERTS: Thank you will you please continue?
MR MOMBERG: And then in the vicinity of Warmbad we went to a Black township. I was not aware what the name of that township was, I've never been there again. It was a totally foreign environment and we went and stopped in a quiet area in this township and then the security guard was confronted with the information that his brother was a MK member. He denied that. Mamasela slapped the security guard and continued with the interrogation in English. During this interrogation the security guard was assaulted by Mamasela, Van Jaarsveld and myself. We slapped him through the face with an open hand and hit him with our fists against his chest. This interrogation lasted for a whole hour. Van Jaarsveld became despondent and told us to kill the security guard.
MR ALBERTS: Now why would Van Jaarsveld do that?
MR MOMBERG: Mr Chairman, I must speculate and say that because Van Jaarsveld became tired and despondent and because we had assaulted the security guard he did not want to leave him.
MR ALBERTS: That was his only way out then, as I understand it? To avoid personal involvement or incrimination?
MR MOMBERG: That will be my deduction too, yes.
MR ALBERTS: Thank you. Will you continue on page 640?
MR MOMBERG: At that stage I realised that this action was not sanctioned by any senior officer and I said that I first wanted to speak to the security guard and I requested all the other people to leave the bus so that I could have a discussion with him. I talked to him for twenty minutes and he said that he would become an informer of our office.
MR ALBERTS: Can I interrupt you again? You said that you realised that this action was not sanctioned. Which activity are you referring to here, which action?
MR MOMBERG: I'm referring here to kill the security guard.
MR ALBERTS: What made you realise this?
MR MOMBERG: Mr Chairman, from the nature of the security guard's suspected involvement he was not suspected of being an MK member but his brother was an MK member and I thought this would only be interrogation and not necessarily elimination.
MR ALBERTS: Thank you, will you continue with the next paragraph on page 641?
MR MOMBERG: And then I called all the other members back and said that the security guard agreed that he would become an informer and would cooperate with us. I also mentioned that I had decided to meet with him the following morning to finalise all the matters. I told the security guard that he was free to go. He got out of the bus and he walked away. Our group returned to Pretoria.
The next morning I waited at the place where we decided to meet but the security guard never came back. I was directly involved in this assault and I would say that this assault was minimal. He had no external injuries but it is possible that his face could have been swollen the next day and that there were certain marks on his chest.
MR ALBERTS: Could you say at what time this interrogation took place?
MR MOMBERG: I can't remember the specific time but it was already dark so I would say it was after 7 o'clock.
MR ALBERTS: Would you please continue?
MR MOMBERG: As I've said in the first paragraph the initial instruction was to be of assistance to the interrogation. This interrogation was justified in the light of Mamasela's information. Brigadier Cronje was not involved directly with this incident but I would not suspect that he would agree to this but I doubt whether Cronje would have been willing to taking the above information into consideration that this person had to be killed. The interrogation of the security guard was aimed at obtaining information to identify an MK operator. All other relevant information regarding this MK operator would then be obtained and we also wanted to intimidate this person. This experience would be a deterrent to him and other people should they get to know about it. In the milieu in which the security branch operated this message to the liberation fighters was clear, you would get resistance if you work with the enemy.
MR ALBERTS: Would you just mention to the Committee where Brigadier Cronje fitted into this whole picture?
MR MOMBERG: Brigadier Cronje at that stage was the commanding officer of the security branch, Northern Transvaal.
MR ALBERTS: And was he then your direct commanding officer, he was the head of the whole branch?
MR MOMBERG: That is correct.
MR ALBERTS: Do you know whether Brigadier Cronje knew about this incident or not?
MR MOMBERG: Mr Chairman, I assume that Brigadier Cronje was aware that this person would be taken to be interrogated, in the light of the fact that people like Mamasela and Hechter were involved.
MR ALBERTS: After this incident, after you have already described it, what is your attitude regarding an instruction of this kind? Did you act on instruction and from whom did this instruction come?
MR MOMBERG: Yes I was acting under instruction and the direct instruction to me was from Lieutenant van Jaarsveld.
MR ALBERTS: Brigadier Cronje, would he also approve this interrogation should he get to know about it at any other instance?
MR MOMBERG: I would assume so yes.
MR ALBERTS: From your evidence it's clear that the only victim was the unknown security guard?
MR MOMBERG: That is correct.
MR ALBERTS: From your application it is clear that his details are unknown and you do not know his identity or any of his next-of-kin?
MR MOMBERG: No Mr Chairman.
MR ALBERTS: On page 645 of the application you mention that the political which had to be achieved in this case, it's under paragraph 10a, can you please read that into the record?
MR MOMBERG: Chairperson, the maintenance of the then political status quo in the R.S.A. together with the accompanying government dispensation.
MR ALBERTS: What was the political status quo at that stage? What was the reigning political party in respect of the government of the day?
MR MOMBERG: Chairperson, the government of the day consisted of the National Party and the nature of our activities as members of the South African Police, it was our task to support the government and to maintain it. With that in mind and with the ANC MK on the opposite pole we regarded this whole situation as a low intensity guerrilla warfare and as such we fought for the maintenance of the National Party.
MR ALBERTS: Further, on page 643 of the application, you deal with amongst other things the motive that you had in committing this deed. Can you repeat that? That's sub-paragraph B, (i).
MR MOMBERG: The motive in committing the above deeds was to protect the safety of the country and to overcome the political opposition to the government.
MR ALBERTS: And further, under the next sub-paragraph, can you put on record what was the political situation in the country at that stage?
MR MOMBERG: Chairperson, these deeds or offences took place in the face of political opposition and it was a direct counter-action to that.
MR ALBERTS: On page 644 your application continues. You also mention that the aim or the objective of the deeds was -or rather that deeds were aimed at political opponents of the government and or their property, is that correct?
MR MOMBERG: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR ALBERTS: We have already dealt with the instruction under which you acted. Can I just refer you then to page 646 and further of the application up to page 649 of the application. Are you aware of the contents of those pages?
MR MOMBERG: I am up to date with the contents.
MR ALBERTS: Do you confirm the correctness thereof?
MR MOMBERG: Yes Chairperson.
MR ALBERTS: Something that is not in the application as it is in this bundle are certain annexures amongst others the submission that General van der Merwe made to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission which included a study of four former commanders of the South African Police Commissioners. Are you aware of the contents of that?
MR MOMBERG: Yes Chairperson.
MR ALBERTS: In broad lines, what is your attitude to the facts in that document?
MR MOMBERG: I agree with them Chairperson.
MR ALBERTS: I may perhaps refer to bundle 2 which is currently before the Committee, that is the application of your co-applicant, Mr Goosen, amongst others the documents that I've just referred to, the annexures are contained in that from page 493 and further. Is that the document that you have just agreed with?
MR MOMBERG: That is correct, Chairperson
MR ALBERTS: That is to the end of that bundle. You can perhaps just look at that and familiarise yourself with that?
MR MOMBERG: I am satisfied that that is what I referred to.
MR ALBERTS: And lastly, the deeds for which you are applying here for amnesty appear on page 637 of the application, is that correct?
MR MOMBERG: Yes that is correct.
MR ALBERTS: Is that kidnapping, assault and other offences or delicts which are exposed by the facts that you've just given evidence?
MR MOMBERG: That is correct.
MR ALBERTS: Thank you Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR ALBERTS
CHAIRPERSON: I should perhaps indicate that where there is an application in those sort of terms that we expect the applicant's legal advisor to give us a precise statement of what he is asking for amnesty for, not leave it to us to decide if there are any additional matters that fall under them, to set out precisely what offences.
MR ALBERTS: As the Committee pleases Mr Chairman, I've taken note thereof. I will consider the matter and if necessary I will amend the papers. Might I be given leave to deal with that aspect at the end of the ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, there's no hurry about that, it's just that where there's general things like "alle andere misdruiwe".
MR ALBERTS: I'm with you, Mr Chairman, I'll address that aspect later. As you please.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman, yes please.
Mr Momberg, Brigadier Cronje was your commanding officer at that stage?
MR MOMBERG: That is correct.
MR DU PLESSIS: And Brigadier Cronje in the previous hearings in which he was involved he gave detailed evidence with regard to a order that he received. Mr Hechter also gave such evidence, an order that they received from Brigadier Viktor, do you know anything about that?
MR MOMBERG: Chairperson, I did see it in the evidence of Brigadier Cronje but that is all I know of it.
MR DU PLESSIS: And this order was given at a stage during 1985 by Brigadier Viktor after he had informed Captain Hechter and Van Jaarsveld and his son and called them in and told them that Pretoria was burning and fire should be fought with fire and if someone threw a stone then a stone should be shown back, if someone burnt down a house another house should be burnt down in return and detailed evidence exists on that, that it was part of the counter-revolutionary strategy of the government and the National Party at that stage, do you have any knowledge of that?
MR MOMBERG: Yes Chairperson.
MR DU PLESSIS: You do not deny that this action of yourself under this broad instruction took place under this broad instruction?
MR MOMBERG: In no way Chairperson.
MR DU PLESSIS: And if the evidence of Brigadier Cronje is that all these actions were sanctioned by him or would have been sanctioned by him insofar as he cannot remember the incidents or was not told of them because the instruction of Brigadier Victor, then you would not deny that?
MR MOMBERG: No Chairperson.
MR DU PLESSIS: And Mr Momberg for the sake of completeness I want to put it to you that Captain Hechter could remember nothing of this incident when he submitted his first application and that he only became aware of this incident again after he had discussions with you and Mr Goosen when you drew up your applications. Do you have any comment on that?
MR MOMBERG: Chairperson no, I accept that. Mr Hechter has no reason to deny anything or to acknowledge it. If he says he can't remember it then I accept that.
MR DU PLESSIS: And lastly, I just want to ask you, do you agree that the action that was directed against the security guard because you wanted information about his brother was in general directed in your struggle against the liberation movements?
MR MOMBERG: Definitely Chairperson.
MR DU PLESSIS: And although the action was directed against the security guard because of his connection with his brother or possible knowledge of his brother, the action was not necessarily directed against the security guard as a person but against the liberation movement, is that correct?
MR MOMBERG: I agree Chairperson.
MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MEINTJIES: May it please you Mr Chair, I'm Roelf Meintjies appearing on behalf of Mr van Jaarsveld.
Mr Momberg, after your application came to my knowledge I consulted fully with Mr van Jaarsveld. Although Mr van Jaarsveld has applied for amnesty for certain incidents it is my duty to put the following to you, that Captain van Jaarsveld in my affidavit which will be handed up tomorrow will deny that he was in any way involved in this incident and that he will also deny that he has any knowledge of this incident. What is your comment to that?
MR MOMBERG: Chairperson, it is surely Captain van Jaarsveld's right to deny that he was involved in anything like that. However, I can remember that he was involved in this incident.
MR MEINTJIES: I have no further questions Mr Chair.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MEINTJIES
MR MALAN: Mr Momberg, did I understand your evidence right that Captain van Jaarsveld was with the other unit not the same as yours?
MR MOMBERG: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR MALAN: On what basis was he entitled to give you orders?
MR MOMBERG: Chairperson, purely on the basis that he was my senior and that although units were divided it wasn't structured in such a way that it was completely unsuitable for a person to approach me and give me an instruction.
MR MALAN: Would you have had to obey orders from people that did not fall in your unit's hierarchy?
MR MOMBERG: In most respects yes unless it seemed that it was a completely unlawful order or completely opposite to what my commanding officer would have given.
MR MALAN: In your written application you said that they asked for your assistance, you didn't say that they gave you an instruction.
MR MOMBERG: Chairperson, that is correct, it is a request but a request from an officer who is your senior is after all regarded as a polite instruction.
MR MALAN: You say you, after the assault you would have been the handler of the security guard?
MR MOMBERG: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR MALAN: And you said that you made an appointment to meet him?
MR MOMBERG: That is correct.
MR MALAN: Where would you have met him?
MR MOMBERG: Chairperson, I would have met him in Schoeman Street between Paul Kruger and the one to the east, I'm not quite sure what the street name is.
MR MALAN: Andries?
MR MOMBERG: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR MALAN: In other words at his work?
MR MOMBERG: No Chairperson, it's close to his work but it is also a distance away.
MR MALAN: Yes, it's just on the block behind?
MR MOMBERG: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR MALAN: What time would you have met him, can you remember?
MR MOMBERG: Chairperson, if I remember correctly I set a time of 8 o'clock?
MR MALAN: And you left him at Warmbaths and it was night?
MR MOMBERG: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR MALAN: How would he have been 8 o'clock, how could he have been back in Pretoria at 8 o'clock from Warmbaths?
MR MOMBERG: Chairperson, this action was done with a specific purpose, purely for the fact that it was a forced recruitment, if one could call it that. The fact that the guard had already been assaulted and that we then tried to recruit him to try and save the situation and I did it in fact so that I could test the guard, point one, to see if he would arrive, if he would take trouble to arrive for his appointment. So I basically made a test for him to see what he would do.
MR MALAN: Did you ever follow it up after he did not arrive?
MR MOMBERG: Chairperson no, after he didn't come to the first appointment I regarded it as too risky to do any follow up work.
MR MALAN: Thank you Chair.
JUDGE PILLAY: Mr Momberg, I get the impression that you feel justified in not doing what Van Jaarsveld asked you to do?
MR MOMBERG: Chairperson yes, as far as the killing of a person is concerned I would definitely insist on a bit more than just Van Jaarsveld's instruction.
JUDGE PILLAY: What was different with the order to commit kidnapping.
MR MOMBERG: In my opinion the fact that we enticed the applicant under false pretences and then interrogated him with the accompanying assault, that was a totally different situation than eliminating a person.
JUDGE PILLAY: This was not as bad then?
MR MOMBERG: Chairperson yes, seen as a whole. Now if you look back it is equally bad to take a person's freedom away, it is probably just as bad but at that stage I had to weigh up am I going to just interrogate a person and assault him or am I going to kill him and there was a definite shift in emphasis to me.
JUDGE PILLAY: You see, why I'm asking that question, what concerns me you didn't use the normal course, legal course, to interrogate this man and it concerns me why not?
MR MOMBERG: Chairperson, it is so and it is a question that many people would probably ask that the fact of the matter is that the normal channels at that stage of the struggle between the government and the ANC alliance on the other side, it was at such a stage that it was not practical always to follow the channels of the law.
JUDGE PILLAY: In 1987?
MR MOMBERG: That is correct, Chairperson.
JUDGE PILLAY: Many people were arrested without hearing and so on at that stage?
MR MOMBERG: Yes Chairperson, I'm not saying that no people were arrested and no people were held. All that I'm trying to say is that outside of the normal legal action there were also these clandestine actions if I may call it that.
JUDGE PILLAY: I can understand that. I found out now that it happened but here is a brother of a person who was suspected, now why an operation so no one would know?
MR MOMBERG: Chairperson, it's partly as an intimidating effect on the guard, the realisation that no one knew where he was. It would have made it easier for us to get information from this man. In the situation which was there at that stage it was so that the largest part of the population, the Black population of this country would not willingly, voluntarily have given a member of the South African Police information.
JUDGE PILLAY: Wouldn't you have gone to tell the people what happened to him?
MR MOMBERG: Chairperson yes, he probably would have if there wasn't an attempt at recruitment, he would afterwards have told people that he was taken by the police and assaulted.
JUDGE PILLAY: But in effect it wouldn't have stayed there because he would not have been able to identify us in the first place and secondly there would not have been any record of this person on any official register so he could have spread his story in a living area but he could never have come close to us to really create a problem for us.
JUDGE PILLAY: Because it wasn't in the incidents book?
MR MOMBERG: That is correct, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: But carrying on from there, as I understand it, this man had done nothing wrong, all you wanted was information that would enable you to make contact with his brother?
MR MOMBERG: Chairperson, not really contact with his brother but to find out where his brother was and then to make an investigation from there into his MK activities and then eventually to take him out of the community.
CHAIRPERSON: But wasn't it obvious that once you had interrogated him like this and beaten him up, that as soon as he was let go he would cause his brother to be informed "look out, the police are after you"?
MR MOMBERG: Chairperson yes, that is always a possibility that you have to look at surrounding circumstances. Distrust was the order of the day and the first question that this guard would probably have had to answer if he had told his brother that he was interrogated by the police would have been "well what did you do to draw attention to yourself?" So this would immediately have created distrust between brother and brother. And once again I get back to the recruitment attempt, had I succeeded in recruiting this man, if he had arrived for the next morning's appointment then this man would have been in a situation by mentioning something to someone, he would have put his own life in danger.
JUDGE PILLAY: What would have happened to him if he had said he did not want to be an informer?
MR MOMBERG: Chairperson, without sounding cold blooded we would have had to take our chances. I would definitely have not gone along with the man being killed.
MR MALAN: Mr Momberg, the unknown person, the security guard, did he ever acknowledge that his brother was an MK member?
MR MOMBERG: No Chairperson, he was evasive in that regard but his first reaction was denial.
MR MALAN: Mr Momberg, I assume his last reaction was also denial, is that what you are saying or are you saying that he acknowledged it after that. Please listen to my question. Did the security guard at any stage say that his brother was in fact a member of MK?
MR MOMBERG: Not in so many words Chairperson.
MR MALAN: In how many words did he then?
MR MOMBERG: Chairperson, during the interrogation you investigate various avenues, if I may say that, and at a stage when it appeared to us that this man had nothing to say to us about his brother that was important we started looking at other things, other political structures, other possible involvement and we aimed at what he knew of what was happening in the struggle. Even if he or his brother wasn't involved in the MK structures he could still have been worth something to me as an informer.
MR MALAN: Can you say anything about that information that you got from him that he could have given you or about which he could have given information?
MR MOMBERG: Chairperson, if I remember correctly, this man could give me information although not detailed at this stage, owing to the time limits, but he could give me information on structures in his township. If I refer to structures I'm referring to this F structures and so on in his own township. Now that was naturally also part of our activities.
MR MALAN: The group that went out with the mini-bus, did they all return that evening?
MR MOMBERG: That is correct, Chairperson, apart from the security guard himself.
MR MALAN: And there was no attempt ever again to approach the guard and to find out what happened to him? Do you know if there were any attempts to monitor him?
MR MOMBERG: Not as far as my knowledge goes, Chairperson, no. When he didn't arrive for his appointment when I wanted to finalise the recruitment with him I left the matter there because as I've already said I regarded it as risky because it could have gone either way, he could have made a case at the police or he could have reported the matter to other people and we could have been drawn into a trap, not an armed trap as such but we could have been identified by people.
MR MALAN: You answered to a question of Mr Rossouw I think, or was it Mr Meintjies that as far as you remember Mr van Jaarsveld was involved in this action?
MR MOMBERG: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR MALAN: Can you remember him specifically at all these occasions where you say that he was and the actions and the words that you ascribe to him, can you specifically remember that?
MR MOMBERG: Chairperson yes, I remember when he approached us, me and Sergeant Goosen in the office and told us that he would need us that night. He asked us to help with the interrogation. I also remember that he was in the mini-bus while we waited for Mamasela to bring the guard to the mini-bus and I also remembered that he actively took part in the interrogation, yes.
MR MALAN: Anything else that you remember of him?
MR MOMBERG: Chairperson, what stands out in this incident is the fact that Van Jaarsveld took the leadership and that is one of the reasons that made me decide to counter him with regard to the killing of the guard, the fact that Hechter played a very minimal role and at that stage I knew that Hechter and Brigadier Cronje and them were busy with operations and the fact that Hechter stood back made alarm bells go off for me.
MR MALAN: Can you explain that to me? Was their bad blood between Hechter and Van Jaarsveld?
MR MOMBERG: No, not at all, that's not what I want to say. All that I'm trying to say is the fact that should be an order from Brigadier Cronje to got further than merely interrogation, then at that stage my understanding was that that instruction would have gone to Hechter and not Van Jaarsveld.
MR MALAN: Would it then also be logical that when he gave the instruction that the guard should be murdered that Hechter would counter him and not you?
MR MOMBERG: That's possible Chairperson but it didn't happen. I can speculate of what Mr Hechter's attitude at that stage was, I can't speak on his behalf.
MR MALAN: But you are saying that Hechter was your senior? If I understand your evidence correctly you're saying you would have actually taken guidance from Hechter and when he stood back you were suspicious?
MR MOMBERG: Can I just explain. Van Jaarsveld was a senior in our group. After him it was Hechter and then myself, Goosen and Mamasela. What I'm trying to say is, I was approached from the start to do an interrogation, there was no question right from the start that this man would be eliminated.
MR MALAN: In what unit did you say that Hechter was, A or B?
MR MOMBERG: Unit B, Chairperson.
MR MALAN: So was Hechter directly under the command of Van Jaarsveld?
MR MOMBERG: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR MALAN: Were there other people from Unit A with you?
MR MOMBERG: No Chairperson, it was only myself and Sergeant Goosen.
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR ALBERTS: Mr Momberg, would it have served any purpose at all after this interrogation to have killed this particular guard?
MR MOMBERG: No Chairperson, apart from the fact that it would have hidden our deeds, it would not have served any other purpose.
MR ALBERTS: No incident took place in 1987. Was this within the security police customary modus operandi if I can put it in that way to gather information amongst other ways in a violent manner?
MR MOMBERG: Yes Chairperson.
MR ALBERTS: Now the choice that you had ex post facto at that time was to keep the person in detention and in that way to interrogate him with the purpose of acquiring information. Would you have been able to use the same violence within interrogation where he was kept in detention legally?
MR MOMBERG: No not at all, Chairperson.
JUDGE PILLAY: But it has happened before that people were unlawfully assaulted when they were in detention?
MR MOMBERG: That is correct, Chairperson and it created unending problems so we avoided it at all costs.
MR ALBERTS: Just a few other questions. From your evidence it is quite clear that you put a difference in emphasis on murder on the one hand and kidnapping on the other hand and assault on the other hand. What was the reason for this differentiation that you made. Why did you do that?
MR MOMBERG: Chairperson at that stage when the incident occurred although the definition probably reads kidnapping, I didn't see it at that stage as kidnapping, I saw it as we are removing a person in a clandestine manner for interrogation and to take a person away for interrogation where violence would be involved to what extent whatever and then to kill a person are to me to clearly different things.
MR ALBERTS: You were involved in Unit A and from your evidence it is clear that this interrogation was actually for the sake of the work of Unit B, is that correct?
MR MOMBERG: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR ALBERTS: So would it in any case not have been Lieutenant van Jaarsveld, would it not have been his duty to decide precisely what should be done to this person or not and in what way any information would be acquired of him?
MR MOMBERG: Chairperson yes, as far as it concerns the interrogation and the application of the information, yes it would have been Van Jaarsveld's duty and then also the final decision on what would be done to the man with this information that we had should he be detained, what should be done with him. The final decision would have been with Van Jaarsveld.
MR ALBERTS: And would that not also have been the case with regard to the aftermath of the incident and here I'm referring specifically to the meeting which was arranged for the next day. After that wasn't realised, whose work was that actually to follow it up or not?
MR MOMBERG: That would have been Unit B's work, Chairperson.
MR MALAN: Excuse, can I just ask further? Did Unit B ever come and ask you what happened after you were to have met the security guard at 8 o'clock?
MR MOMBERG: Yes Chairperson, there was an enquiry from Van Jaarsveld. Yes Van Jaarsveld did ask me if the man arrived and I answered negatively and we left it there. I didn't ask him to do anything else from his unit's side and as I said, I regarded it as risky, I didn't do anything else.
MR MALAN: Did he never speak to you about the order of killing, that you countered it?
MR MOMBERG: No Chairperson. I'm struggling a bit to find the right words but even after that there was not bad blood between us about the fact that I countered him. I think in his heart he was also glad that we could find another way out.
MR MALAN: On the way back in the mini-bus did you have any discussion about that instruction to kill and the decision not to do it?
MR MOMBERG: No Chairperson, not so far as I can remember. Had it come into discussion and this is pure speculation, then we would have kept it very neutral because it was so shortly after the incident. We would not then have discussed it in detail.
MR MALAN: But you are saying if I can just sum up, Van Jaarsveld was your senior, you would have been obliged to take instructions from him, a request is actually an instruction. He gives a certain instruction which you decide is unlawful, you do not carry it out, you actively go against him, the direction that you choose never has results because the security guard does not arrive and he never says anything else about it except to hear if the guard arrived?
MR MOMBERG: That is summarised correctly, Chairperson.
MR MALAN: Yes thank you.
MR ALBERTS: Thank you Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR ALBERTS
CHAIRPERSON: So that concludes the applicant's evidence?
MR ALBERTS: Indeed Mr Chairman.
WITNESS EXCUSED
