Amnesty Hearings

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Can I call Captain Hechter?

JACQUES HECHTER: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, you will find this schedule on page 45 of bundle 1. Mr Chairman, as a result of some of the questions which were asked this morning I have thought it prudent unless you stop me to lead some evidence pertaining to assaults and some of the background evidence which has already been led and which has been placed before the Committee in previous hearings but with the specific view to some of the questions which have been asked this morning, just to deal with those issues and not further than that. If however you feel that I'm going to wide please stop me.

CHAIRPERSON: Let's see how far you go.

MR DU PLESSIS: Captain Hechter, just to start with this application, you were involved in a previous trial hearing which took about five weeks where you submitted various applications during which provided evidence, you gave evidence and according to which you've already received amnesty. During those hearings you testified regarding your memory and the effect of post-traumatic stress on your memory. Can you just for the sake of those two members who were not part of that previous Committee what the effect is on your memory?

MR HECHTER: Many of these incidents I can't remember. For two years I was involved full time in these types of operations while I was involved in the security police. Instances like where Momberg and Goosen mention my name and I accept their version of the incident as the truth because they have no reason to lie and they will not try to cause problems for me in this regard.

MR DU PLESSIS: Can I just ask you then, the evidence which had been presented previously was that the effect on your memory is that certain incidents you can remember vividly, others you cannot remember at all, is that correct?

MR HECHTER: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: And you will also remember that regarding previous applications for example you just took the evidence of Van Vuuren into consideration and that first bundle of applications, your first set of applications at that stage there was little time to talk to anybody else about those applications and you tried and can I ask you rather, did you try at that stage to provide as full detail as possible in that first set of applications?

MR HECHTER: Yes, we tried to provide full details but there were time limits.

MR DU PLESSIS: This new set of applications, how was that brought about, how did you learn about those incidents and how did you learn about the fact that you have to provide new applications

MR HECHTER: During that time when we testified before the Commission other people for example Mr Momberg, Mr Goosen and Mr Pretorius and other members of the security forces, they contacted me and asked me "can you remember about this incident and about that incident?" and I could not remember that at all and then we put our heads together, we discussed these matters and one or two instances I can remember that I was involved there and I remember I was involved in Okasi in Britz in operations but I can't remember any details. This incident which we are addressing today I cannot remember at all. They told me I was there, I will accept that but I cannot remember anything at all.

MR DU PLESSIS: After you had discussions with Mr Goosen and Mr Momberg, it's not necessary to go into detail, I think there are about 11 applications, did you continue to on the basis of their applications to provide a new set of applications? In other words, Captain Hechter, what is on page 45 and 46 regarding the nature and the details of the incident. Is that based on Mr Goosen's application?

MR HECHTER: Yes it's based on Goosen and Momberg's evidence.

MR DU PLESSIS: Do you have any independent recall of this incident?

MR HECHTER: No, nothing at all.

MR DU PLESSIS: Captain Hechter, can you remember that during the previous hearing a report was submitted by Dr Roberster, a world known authority regarding post-traumatic stress which addressed your memory problem?

MR HECHTER: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: And that evidence was submitted during the previous hearing.

I have a copy, not available here but if you would require one then I can make it available to you.

Captain Hechter, regarding certain of the background details, I want to ask you a few questions. You were there during the previous hearing when we listened to the evidence of Cronje and Van der Merwe in detail regarding the activities of the security branch especially in the Northern Transvaal by Cronje, the obtaining of information, the file system, etc?

MR HECHTER: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: And you did not have problems with any of that evidence which was submitted?

MR HECHTER: Nothing at all.

MR DU PLESSIS: That was correct according to you?

MR HECHTER: That was correct yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: Some of the aspects mentioned here this morning by Commissioner Malan regarding units A, B and C, the functioning of the security branch, the filing system, the informers and how they operated, that was covered in that evidence?

MR HECHTER: That is correct, yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: You can also remember that you testified regarding a broader command or instruction given by Viktor to you and you, Van Jaarsveld and Viktor's son, Captain Viktor, was there when that instruction was given?

MR HECHTER: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Can you remember that the evidence was led that this was conveyed from Viktor to Cronje?

MR HECHTER: At a later stage, yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: And the operations or the application we have in front of us and the other applications or the aspects for which you are applying for amnesty this week, does this all fall under the broad command of Colonel Viktor?

MR HECHTER: Yes they all happened during that time period as the dates will indicate.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman I may just point out that I have decided to lead some evidence on the different units, Unit A, B and C and the filing system via Brigadier Cronje so I'm not going to ask Captain Hechter those questions, I thought that Brigadier Cronje is the person who should explain that if there are questions to be asked.

Captain I want to ask you more detailed questions regarding interrogations because a few questions were posed this morning regarding that matter. There is a general political justification provided in your previous application. It's not contained in detail in this application because evidence was already led in this regard regarding the purpose of interrogation?

MR HECHTER: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: And you have a copy, a written copy from your previous application?

MR HECHTER: That is correct, yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I can make that available to you if you need that, I think Judge Wilson has seen that so many times that he doesn't want to see it any more but to the other Commissioners I will make it available.

Will you just read it to the Committee please in order to give the Committee a more detailed idea of the purpose of the interrogation and the reason why it was handled in a certain way?

MR HECHTER: The purpose of the interrogations was twofold. Mr Malan asked a question here previously or Judge Pillay asked a question. Mr Chairman, we did not assault the people right from the start. You picked up a person, that was on your mind that you were going or could assault him. You interrogated a person and if he did not answer these questions satisfactorily then that person was assaulted as hard and as harsh as you could to obtain your information. We did not start right from the beginning to assault a person.

We had a reasonable idea that this person was supposed to have access to some information and if you were sure about your case and this person denied it then you applied violence whether it was justifiable or not. It was never justified but in from our opinion if he did not want to talk then we took recourse to violence. We did not blindly assault people. Sometimes we picked them up, we talked to them and then if he co-operated we left them alone and in this case if that person co-operated nobody saw that he was picked up, he could have become an informer very easily. I'm generalising. Should he then say he would become an informer he would be turned but if he was arrested and if he was detained it would have been very difficult to use him as an informer. Should any other arrests be made afterwards they would know that that person was an informer and his life would have been in danger.

It's general knowledge the necklacing of informers of collaborators. So it was twofold, it would have been twofold. I can't remember this specific incident but I assume that was how it happened, that was how I operated. I picked up somebody, I stole the person, we interrogated him, if he gave his co-operation we used him as an informer, otherwise he was eliminated or we left him alone.

MR DU PLESSIS: Can I just stop you there? One aspect you've mentioned here regarding that, there was detailed evidence by you and Brigadier Cronje that only high profile activists under certain circumstances were eliminated?

MR HECHTER: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: What you are going to put here from your previous application, that means the justification for these interrogations, this is general evidence and does not pertain specifically to this incident?

MR HECHTER: That is correct, yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: Will you then read it to us?

MR HECHTER: "The purpose of the interrogation was twofold. Firstly interrogation and secondly obtaining information. Intimidation first of all. When an activist was interrogated they were intimidated to stop their activities and to inform other activists that they would be acted against, they had to understand the message that we were serious in our activities or actions against them."

MR DU PLESSIS: From Mr Goosen and Mr Momberg's actions from what you've heard here this morning, can you tell the Committee about the possible motive of intimidation which existed in the interrogation of this security guard with reference to what you've just said?

MR HECHTER: I assumed that they wanted to intimidate him in such a way that if he did not want to talk that if he in any way thought about or was part of this liberation struggle that he would rather think of leaving that alone, that he would be frightened that the police would get hold of him, that was the first factor and secondly, you frightened him so much that if he returned to his so-called comrades with a broken body they would not believe him that he did not tell the police everything he knew. The intimidation at that stage thought would work successfully by in the first place so that they could keep quiet in the fear of actions from their own people and secondly we intimidated him in such a way that he would rather work for us and then secondly prevent him then also from activities in future.

MR DU PLESSIS: And then also it could have the effect that he would not be able to assist his brother if he had done it before, it's just speculation?

MR HECHTER: For what it's worth, yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: Can you continue with the second paragraph?

MR HECHTER: During interrogation after certain information had been obtained we tried to convince activists or terrorists rather to become informers for the security police. These activists or terrorists which had been turned, that means they started working for us, were the most effective way of preventing the achievement of the purposes of the liberation struggle because the other activist still trusted them. The most obvious example is Joe Mamasela. As it appears from his applications Askaris became informers and they were important in the prevention of terrorist activities.

MR DU PLESSIS: There's a second main purpose of interrogation, that is to obtain information. Can you tell the Committee what was the broad purpose of interrogation regarding the acquisition of information?

MR HECHTER: Activists insurgents and activists needed information regarding command structures, command channels were of cardinal importance. Without an effective means of interrogation an intelligence network could never be established. To prevent the total onslaught interrogation and effective interrogation regarding the acquisition of information was absolutely necessary. Information was obtained regarding potential terror acts and also the execution of those successful counter-strategies and counter-measures could be done based on this information. Information regarding activists could also be obtained through interrogation. Interrogations were a way of obtaining information. Any method which proved effective was efficient in the context of the war and total onslaught.

MR DU PLESSIS: Can you please stop there? A question was asked this morning by one of the previous witnesses regarding the detention without trial of certain activists during which they could have been interrogated. Can you explain to the Committee why that channel or route, how does that compare with a more informal way of interrogation like you've just explained now?

MR HECHTER: When a person was arrested and detained in the cells you could not interrogate him in this way because he was regularly visited by a magistrate and then problems could have been caused for us. When he was arrested you could not interrogate him like that. When you picked him up it was already at the back of your head that you were going to force him to talk. You had that way of acquiring information, to arrest a person, to detain him, there was a huge time lag. If he talked you could act immediately, if you arrested him you took him to the police cells. The bush telegraph told all the other people that that person had been arrested. Like in this case, for example, that is this person had been involved, I can't say yes or no, his brother would have known immediately that he had been arrested and then the possibility would have been that he kind of sold him out.

MR DU PLESSIS: Can I just stop you there? In contrast with this, let's assume information was obtained about where his brother was at that stage.

MR HECHTER: Action would have been taken immediately. Immediately we could have gone to where this MK member was supposed to be and consequently we could have taken the necessary steps, not necessarily elimination and if such an important trained terrorist was arrested, the law would have taken it's course.

MR DU PLESSIS: Detention on the one hand, arrest on the other hand and that then this type of interrogation with immediate action, which was the most effective?

MR HECHTER: This one was the most effective, you steal this person, you take him away and this is most effective. He is frightened, nobody knows where he is and you if speak to him at such a stage the chances are better to obtain valuable information. It is much better than taking him through the usual channels.

MR DU PLESSIS: And which procedures were the most effective to turn such a person to become an informer, the formal way or the informal way?

MR HECHTER: The formal way of arresting and detention was seldom very effective in turning a person. When you steal a person he knew that nobody knew that he was kind of stolen and the chances were good that he could be turned. It was much better than when he was arrested, put in the cell where his colleagues or his comrades saw him.

MR DU PLESSIS: I want to ask you another question regarding detention without trial. Records were kept?

MR HECHTER: That is correct, yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: What was the effect of a person who was detained and was released eventually? How did the other activists regard it, the other people from the liberation struggle, what influence did it have on his status.

MR HECHTER: He immediately became a hero, became a martyr and he obtained a high status in the community because therefore just to detain him for a certain time caused more damage than any good because this person obtained a higher status in the community.

MR DU PLESSIS: And then there were also the questions regarding what intelligence there was or which intelligence Van Jaarsveld had regarding the brother of the security guard, this MK person. You can't remember that independently but what would you say from your experience of operations, what information did Van Jaarsveld have?

MR HECHTER: If Captain van Jaarsveld and he denies it now but Mamasela would have provided him with the information. Mamasela was actively involved in obtaining such information. He would have given him reasonably good information before Van Jaarsveld took such a step. He had to convince him that that person was the brother of a well known MK and that the MK was back in the country otherwise this operation would never have been executed.

MR DU PLESSIS: Captain Hechter, to return to your application itself. You testified that the facts on pages 45 to 47 in bundle 1 are facts which you can't remember independently but you've obtained this from Goosen and Momberg's applications and therefore I'm not going to ask you to testify because you can't remember these things independently. Do you confirm however and you don't deny that you were involved in this operation?

MR HECHTER: Not at all Mr Chairman.

MR DU PLESSIS: Do you confirm the broad political motive as explained in this application from page 47 to 49?

MR HECHTER: That is correct, yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: And then lastly, do you agree with the evidence that this activity was under the command of Brigadier Cronje and that it carried his approval?

MR HECHTER: That is correct, yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS

MR STEENKAMP: Thank you Mr Chairman, I have no questions.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MEINTJIES: May it please you, Mr Chairman, may I inform the Committee that Mr van Jaarsveld told me that he would be here by not later than 20

minutes to 4 this afternoon?

I just want to ask one question from Mr Hechter. Mr Hechter, if it is put to you Mr van Jaarsveld denies that he was involved in the incident or had any knowledge of it, what would your answer to that be?

MR HECHTER: Chairperson, I unfortunately can't say yes or no. I must accept what he said, if he said he wasn't there then I must accept that. He and I and Mr Goosen and Mr Momberg drove together so many times, not necessarily operated together, that these things create a confusion in one's mind so I can't argue with him, if he says he wasn't there then I have to accept his word for that.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MEINTJIES

MR MALAN: Mr Hechter, I take it that you know Mr van Jaarsveld well?

MR HECHTER: Yes that is correct.

MR MALAN: I heard you say that he would not have authorised the operation if Mamasela had not given him good information?

MR HECHTER: I must accept that, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: That is how you know him?

MR HECHTER: That is how I knew him, he's responsible he would not simply himself had said "let's do that" the information must have been good.

MR MALAN: Do you know if he applied for amnesty?

MR HECHTER: Chairperson I heard here that he apparently did not apply but I only heard that today.

MR MALAN: Do you know if he applied in other cases for amnesty?

MR HECHTER: Here and there in general we lost contact with each other after we left the force because we have both left the force. We lost contact so we hear he did this or that or he said something about this or that but I don't really know what he applied for or what he didn't apply for.

MR MALAN: All the evidence was based on assumptions and generalisations or possible application on the case before us. I deduct that I think you regard the evidence of both Mr Goosen and Mr Momberg, you also consider them to be responsible people?

MR HECHTER: Yes that is correct, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: Now why would there be a difference, why should there be two stories from people that you regard as equally responsible.

MR HECHTER: I'm not going to say anything about that, I know there wasn't antagonism while we worked together.

MR MALAN: You don't have any knowledge of antagonism later on?

MR HECHTER: No not later, I don't know why Mr van Jaarsveld doesn't agree with us or why they say it did happen, I don't know. I would like to put light on the matter but unfortunately I can't.

MR MALAN: You said follow up actions, when you get information in such cases it takes place immediately?

MR HECHTER: Yes immediately.

MR MALAN: You cannot afford the news spreading?

MR HECHTER: As far as possible not, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: Can you try to explain to us in the same way as you testified why an arrangement was made to meet the involved person the next morning?

MR HECHTER: Chairperson, according to what Mr Momberg testified, he could agree with this person that he would become an informant. It was after all our purpose as far as possible to recruit informers because that was our weapon against the armed struggle. Without these informants we could not have operated at all so in all cases we tried, no not in all cases but in many cases, we tried to turn a person so that he could rather work for us. I can say that on the one hand and on the other hand this person had been beaten up so now don't you want to win his good will, to say come, become an informant for us because then at least after that you have control over him, you do have your hand on him.

MR MALAN: Mr Hechter, isn't it also so and I'm referring to other applications and other evidence that certain tests are put before you, recruit a man for an informant, to test his trustworthiness and his commitment in the turning process itself, if I can use the expression, in other words you check his information?

MR HECHTER: That would have been done the next day, that's the normal procedure. The next day you're going to talk to this man, the first thing you do is you get his signature on a piece of paper because then you are tying him down because on that piece of paper you can you take to his comrades and say "this person has informed" if he turns and it is appropriate for you so you could blackmail him constantly with this, you could oblige him to work for you. That would have been the next step the next day.

MR MALAN: Now who would you recruit as an informant?

MR HECHTER: You recruit people as informers who have information. At that stage we must assume we didn't know if this person was just keeping information back or whether he actually didn't have information.

MR MALAN: I'm not talking to them now, I'm speaking to you, who recruits an informant?

MR HECHTER: It's those people who are involved or whose family members are very involved. "Your brother is an AWB, you don't agree with that, I'm going to try and recruit you." Excuse me Chairperson, by manner of speaking. I would have tried to recruit you to give information about him because I know that you are an opponent of the AWB so I will see if I can't turn you to give me information about him. At a stage we compromised a person, that's the type of person that we want to turn. We find him where he shouldn't be, those are the types of people that we turn. We set him up and we bring him in for interrogation. We bring ten with for interrogation but we actually just want him, we don't want the other nine, we just want him but the other nine come with, then we concentrate on him. All ten are interrogated, all ten are seriously interrogated all night long, perhaps they aren't all assaulted, they weren't always beaten but we pick him up 9 or 10 o'clock or 2 o'clock at night and you question him right through until the next night and in that time you try to turn him, you speak to him nicely, harshly, you tell him stories, you promise him money, you try to convince him.

MR MALAN: Mr Hechter, Mr du Plessis led you to say or he led your evidence to say your application is based on the information that you obtained from Messrs Goosen and Momberg?

MR HECHTER: That is correct.

MR MALAN: That you discussed the matter with them, you can't remember that at all? You still can't remember it?

MR HECHTER: At this stage no, it sounds as if I can remember it but we discussed it back then, that was shortly after our applications were in and we started giving evidence. These applications were already I think May last year and even before that it had been discussed so I have heard it so many times now, if I suddenly have to go and say now yes I can remember it, then I would have to be telling lies.

MR MALAN: No I don't expect you to remember about the original incident, what I want you to do now is to remember from the discussions that you had with them concerning the incident, can you remember a name?

MR HECHTER: A name was never mentioned.

MR MALAN: Did you ever ask them about a name? I assume you must have discussed it?

MR HECHTER: I assume it must have been broached but I cannot swear to that. At that time it was surely logical that we would have had to have a name, you are not simply going to pick up a man even if his name was just Ben and Ben's brother, Ben Zwane and Ben Zwane's brother that's a possible MK, there must have been names mentioned. You know we're talking about thirteen, fourteen, twelve, thirteen years ago and it is just one incident of many. That is why I listen to what they said, it never even came to me to ask them about that during our discussions but I cannot see that we would have gone to pick up a man if we didn't have a little bit of background as well, we wouldn't just have said there is a guy whose brother might be a terrorist and we would have responded to that. I cannot think that we were so naive.

MR MALAN: Then the process, I'm talking in general, if you had a possible link because it's not at this stage really an informant, it's a link through which you want to obtain the address of a trained terrorist who has infiltrated an MK soldier, that is now the purpose, what would you do if such a request had come to you. Here is a man, he's the brother of a person who has just infiltrated?

MR HECHTER: I understand where you're going to. A little bit of homework would have been done. We would first have tried to ascertain, you must remember they were youngsters, they were really youngsters, little boys, you saw on their ages. Japie came from head office security to the branch so he was my senior lieutenant or he was a captain at that stage already, he was quite a senior person, he'd gone through head office so if they came to him they would have assumed he'd done their homework, I would also have assumed Japie had done his homework. He might have checked the names just a bit, it wouldn't have helped to go through the photo album because we didn't know about photos, but he would have gone through the register to look for names to see if the alleged MK member if his name was in the register. But that's not to say that because his name did not appear there that he wasn't out. There were many people out that we didn't know about, many people went out that we knew nothing about. Joe Mamasela came with the story according to information that he knew about this guard whose brother was an MK, so you talk to Joe, you debrief him properly to hear what he has to say, he'll look at our register or at our map. We had a card system, an alphabetical name system, you go and look there, see if there's any information there. If these peoples names are on there. If it's not there you still carry on. The fact that it is not on file does not mean that the person was not out, that he did not receive training.

MR MALAN: Can you tell me, why would Jaap van Jaarsveld in your judgement have gone to these two to accompany him?

MR HECHTER: I listened to the evidence Chairperson and I must probably go along with that.

MR MALAN: No you don't have to.

MR HECHTER: Yes, I know the agent that they had was one McKenzie and he was a reasonably strong source so they were reasonably up to date with operations. Unit C which is the so called terrorist unit, they basically just did the investigations. When we arrested the terrorists, he is arrested, he is caught. What would have happened that night, if we had arrested him the next day he would have been handed over too, if we had decided to do so, he would have been handed over to Unit C for further follow up. They would have interrogated him, they would have brought that photo album to him a thousand times to see who can he identify to see if he has the same story every time. He would have written out his statement for the next six months, every day he would have written out his little statement about something else to see if he wasn't busy with disinformation. That was the procedure of Unit C. The arrest of such a terrorist was quite a plum if you could arrest a terrorist so if any further information had come to light we would have acted immediately to arrest this man, we wouldn't have called for assistance or anything else, we would have gone to catch him at his house that morning early while he was still in bed.

MR MALAN: Now no information comes forth, the individual is not an activist, he's a security guard, the reason why he was fetched was simply to get information about his brother. On what basis would you make him an informant and turn him so called turn him? Don't you turn someone who is already involved in the struggle?

MR HECHTER: We still don't know if his brother is an active or was an ANC member. He denied it, that's not to say that he was not an ANC member, it's not to say that his brother was not involved.

MR MALAN: No, I'm talking about him.

MR HECHTER: Yes, we still don't know this, he said he wasn't but it is possible, it's still possible.

JUDGE PILLAY: Did you have reason to think that he was?

MR HECHTER: As a result of Joe Mamasela's information we had to. I'm trying to deduce now my modus operandi how I would have acted. If Joe had come to me and said Jacques or Lieutenant, this guy, this guy is a terrorist or this guy's brother is a terrorist, I picked up information in Mamelodi, this guy's brother is a terrorist and he's now back from Botswana, then we would have gone to speak to the brother whether nicely or not nicely, preferably not nicely because we understand the people, those people did not speak to us in those days, they were so antagonist towards us which of course was good right, but they were so antagonistic you got very few voluntary information from these people. Now you go and you talk to this guy, you get all the information that he has, he doesn't want to share it with you and you go, you follow the other way, "come and see me tomorrow, come and become an informant". Obviously he agreed because he was afraid he was going to get another beating. He said "don't worry, I'll see you guys tomorrow morning in town" with never the intention of doing so, I don't think he came back to Pretoria. He probably just disappeared in that country, found himself work there and kept away from his work. That's what I would have done if I was in his shoes.

MR MALAN: We're talking about a distance of a hundred kilometres. When you leave someone in a township in Warmbaths at night and you have to meet him the next morning 8 o'clock a hundred kilometres further on in Pretoria, is that practice?

MR HECHTER: Trains, taxis, we are now talking about a particular circumstance Chairperson, I cannot say that is really logical now today, here. You also give the guy a chance to cool off because we don't know, he might still go to the police and open a case, he might not be able to identify us but you keep him away a bit. I am speculating, I'm speculating. I can think that it wasn't a bad idea, leave him there, let him come back by himself, let him come back himself to Pretoria because you're not going to drop him off here, he's still full of bruises and bumps. I hear they say it was close to his house, I don't know if it was close to his house, his family's house.

JUDGE PILLAY: Tell me, did you expect that this guy who came back full of bruises and bumps back to the people who caused those bumps?

MR HECHTER: Chairperson, unfortunately I can't honestly give you an answer of what we expected. I can't really remember this incident. I am thinking, I'm busy thinking about what would have happened, how we would have reasoned at that stage. If you sit here nice in comfort it sounds a bit foolish but at that stage, in the heat of the struggle ...(intervention)

JUDGE PILLAY: Was it also foolish at that time?

MR HECHTER: But that's what I mean, at that time it was nice and foolish but in the heat of the struggle you didn't think like that, you didn't think like that. Things were very hot then, things were quite rough and many things, if you think about it now in retrospect and you look at it, you would never have done it like that. You know we're sitting in comfortable circumstances, talking about things that happened 14 years ago when there was a tremendous amount of tension and hate and aggression in the air.

JUDGE PILLAY: For who?

MR HECHTER: For my enemy, at that time he was my enemy. I hunted him, that man, his brother was a terrorist according to me.

JUDGE PILLAY: So why is he the enemy?

MR HECHTER: His brother was the terrorist according to my information.

JUDGE PILLAY: Okay let's accept that, what is his status?

MR HECHTER: His status? That's why we tried to turn him, well we would have tried to turn him. His status is, that's why I'm saying it's very difficult now to describe the feeling that was then.

JUDGE PILLAY: Why then hate for him?

MR HECHTER: No, perhaps I didn't express myself right, my enemy the hated, there wasn't really hate towards him as such because we tried to turn him. I understand how you feel about that, it's difficult to explain to someone precisely at this stage to say precisely how we felt at that time and how we didn't feel about a specific person.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm afraid I must have missed something in the evidence, perhaps you could help me. You said a short while ago that they said this was near his family?

MR HECHTER: The evidence was read as such. Apparently we went out with him to Warmbaths district, it says so in the evidence which apparently was close to his family environment. I assume that must be because his family, his brother, if it is, then he's already in the vicinity. I cannot say that was a motivation but I suspect that would be the logical conclusion.

CHAIRPERSON: So you picked him up in Pretoria, drove him out to a township in Warmbaths where you beat him up and then left him there?

MR HECHTER: I doubt if it would have been a township Chairperson, I think it would have been somewhere in the veld, I believe so. Can I please just look at the application?

The story goes Chairperson to a place close to Warmbaths, page 46 at the top in bundle 3. We took him to a place near Warmbaths, excuse me bundle 1, my legal representative says bundle 1. Page 46, top.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I know you said that but what worries me is that Mr Momberg in his evidence said "we went to a Black township in the vicinity of Warmbaths, I am not aware of what the name of this township is and I was never there before or since then".

MR HECHTER: Chairperson, I cannot help you there. I spoke to Mr Goosen most of the time and this is the information I got from him. I don't know if we were in the township or whether we were in the veld but I'm not going to take someone to a township and question him or interrogate him in a township, there are other people there.

CHAIRPERSON: That's what Mr Momberg said. He goes on to say: "After we went into a quiet area in this township Lieutenant van Jaarsveld and Hechter confronted the security guard with the fact that his brother was an MK member."

MR HECHTER: That may be Chairperson, unfortunately I can't help you with that. Just from logic I can just think we would not have done that.

CHAIRPERSON: I agree with you, it seemed to me to be totally illogical that you take someone into a township and start assaulting him. Goosen apparently also talks of a "woongebied".

MR HECHTER: They allege it was an open veld in the township.

CHAIRPERSON: Because once he had been left there, if it was where his family lived, he could immediately go home to his brother to tell him that the police had been after him, had beaten him up?

MR HECHTER: That is so Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: It wasn't very clever, was it?

MR HECHTER: I can quite believe it.

MR MALAN: Do you still believe everything that they've said?

MR HECHTER: Chairperson I must actually agree with them, if they say it did happen like that I cannot argue with them.

MR MALAN: So you accept you are so stupid?

MR HECHTER: I was so stupid yes, I will accept that. It wasn't my operation, I just went with.

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, may I if everybody else has had an opportunity just for purposes of re-examination just ask one question?

Captain Hechter, from the testimony that you have just heard with regard to the action against the security guard, would you label this as a specific activity aimed at the security guard or would you describe it as an act in general against the liberation movement?

MR HECHTER: The liberation movement, the ANC specifically, specifically against the ANC as concerned the identification and possible tracing of an MK member, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Chairperson, I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS

WITNESS EXCUSED