CHAIRPERSON: Ms van der Walt, are you in a position to proceed with the evidence of Mr Kruger, who is the next applicant in this matter?
MS VAN DER WALT: Yes, I am ready.
DANIëL JOHANNES KRUGER: (sworn states)
MR MALAN: Thank you, you may be seated.
EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Kruger, last week you also appeared before the same Honourable Committee and you gave evidence before them. Do you once again confirm that your application from page 355 to 365 within the Bundle, is correct?
MR KRUGER: Yes, that is correct.
MS VAN DER WALT: And the incident for which you are currently applying for amnesty appears on page 360?
MR KRUGER: That is correct.
MS VAN DER WALT: Do you confirm the content of the statement which is of relevance for the incident regarding Ernst Ramangu?
MR KRUGER: Yes.
MS VAN DER WALT: Do you know the person as Ernst Ramangu or how was he known to you?
MR KRUGER: No, I only knew him as Source 406.
MS VAN DER WALT: And the name Ernst Ramangu, when did you come to hear of this?
MR KRUGER: When the documents were compiled, I saw that they called Ernst Ramangu, Source 406.
MS VAN DER WALT: And questions were asked by the Amnesty Committee as to whether or not you could assist them in establishing the identity of Source 406, and you could not assist them?
MR KRUGER: No, I could not.
MS VAN DER WALT: During the assault, you were not present?
MR KRUGER: No, I was not present.
MS VAN DER WALT: And also not when the cold drink was given to Ernst Ramangu?
MR KRUGER: No, I was not.
MS VAN DER WALT: Nothing further, thank you Chairperson. May I just put something else, thank you. Therefore you request amnesty from the honourable Committee with regard to any offence which may emanate from the death of Ernst Ramangu, is that correct?
MR KRUGER: Yes, that is correct Chairperson.
MS VAN DER WALT: As well as any delictual accountability?
MR KRUGER: That is correct.
MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS VAN DER WALT
ADV STEENKAMP: I have no questions, thank you Chair.
NO QUESTIONS BY ADV STEENKAMP
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr du Plessis, do you have any questions to put to Mr Kruger?
MR DU PLESSIS: I have no questions, Madam Chair.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Malan, do you have any questions?
MR MALAN: I have no questions, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Motata?
ADV MOTATA: I have no questions, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: I take it Ms van der Walt, you don't wish to re-examine?
MS VAN DER WALT: No Madam Chair.
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Kruger, you are excused as a witness.
WITNESS EXCUSED
CHAIRPERSON: I take it that both counsel are in a position to give us a very short legal argument in relation to the applications
before us?
MR DU PLESSIS IN ARGUMENT: Yes, Madam Chair, may I proceed.
CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed, Mr du Plessis.
MR DU PLESSIS: Madam Chair, the facts in respect of this application and the motivation appears clearly from Crafford's application which we will find on page 505. It is clear that Ramangu was a double agent, that it was necessary to eliminate him and it also appears clearly from Crafford's application that he not only had information which came from Mandla, but also confirmation from Ramangu when he was interrogated, that he was a double agent. Under the circumstances, taking into account the evidence which you have heard in lots of other applications pertaining to the necessity to eliminate somebody in that position, especially somebody who is ...
CHAIRPERSON: May I interrupt, I see Mr Kruger is leaving. I am going to request him to take a seat and not to leave the hearing whilst counsel is arguing. You may proceed Mr du Plessis.
MR DU PLESSIS: The necessity to eliminate somebody who is in the position of a double agent, appears clearly from various different applications, Madam Chair. There is no reason to really elaborate on the question of full disclosure as in my submission it is clear that the information that is or was available to both applicants, Kruger and Roodt, coupled with the information in the application of Crafford, is a full disclosure of what happened here. Roodt went further and told you that there were assaults in respect of the interrogation, although he did not participate to a large extent with the interrogation, he said that it did happen. Under those circumstances, I will request you to grant amnesty. In respect of Mr Crafford, you will see that he requested amnesty for murder as well as assault and Mr Roodt as pointed out, did not apply for assault, but I wish to include that as an application, a separate application on page 449 in his application for amnesty.
CHAIRPERSON: So you want, what (indistinct) do you seek for Mr Roodt?
MR DU PLESSIS: It is for murder and for assault with intent and then obviously it remains, all other offences and all delicts as well, I see it wasn't included there. I request for delicts, but I think it follows in any event from the judgment.
CHAIRPERSON: What specific delicts would you want him to be granted amnesty for?
MR DU PLESSIS: The assault and murder. As it pleases you Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Ms van der Walt, on behalf of Mr Kruger?
MS VAN DER WALT IN ARGUMENT: Thank you Honourable Chairperson. I am not going to add anything further to what Mr du Plessis has stated. The only point that I wish to indicate to you is that Mr Kruger was the subordinate to Mr Crafford and that it appears to be quite clear that he acted in order of Mr Crafford. He was not present during the assault, however, he was present when the person was killed in Mamelodi. I therefore request that the Honourable Committee grant him amnesty for the murder of Mr Ramangu or any other offence which may emanate from his actions there, as well as any delictual accountability that he may have, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. This Committee is in a position to pronounce its decision immediately without having to break.
F I N D I N G
We have an application made by the following applicants, Mr Sarel D.P. Crafford, the second applicant, Mr Johannes Petrus Roodt, the third applicant, Mr Daniël Johannes Kruger. The applicants apply for amnesty for the killing of Ernst Ramangu an alleged police informer known as Source 405 in or about 1987 or 1988.
The first applicant informed inter alia the second and the third applicant that subsequent to his interrogation of Ramangu, he had become convinced that Ramangu was a double agent and that because of the political conditions prevailing at the time, it had become necessary to eliminate him. The first applicant gave Ramangu a cold drink laced with sleeping pills to drink, after he and the second applicant had assaulted him. As a result of the drinking of that cold drink, Mr Ramangu was rendered unconscious. The first applicant then instructed both applicants to put the unconscious Ramangu into the car. Later that day, the second applicant was instructed to drive the car which had the unconscious Ramangu in it to the direction of Mamelodi. At a certain spot near Mamelodi East the second applicant was instructed to stop the car and the third applicant and other Security Police present thereat, whose identities are no longer, can no longer be remembered by both applicants, were instructed to carry the still unconscious Ramangu out of the car. The first applicant was in possession of explosives which he had brought with him to the scene. He then instructed the third applicant as well as the other Security Police present thereat, to assist him to place the explosives around the body of the late Ramangu. He thereafter detonated the explosives, thereby killing Ramangu and destroying his body. Having considered all the evidence before us, we are satisfied that the second and the third applicant participated in the gruesome killing of Ramangu under instructions of the first applicant, who was in command of their unit, consequently their participation in the killing of the late Ernst Ramangu and in the desecration of his body, are acts associated with a political objective, as defined in the Act.
It is our view that the applicants have complied with the recommendations of Section 20(1) of the Act and amnesty is therefore GRANTED to the second and third applicant for in so far as the third applicant is concerned, the murder of Ernst Ramangu and the desecration of Ramangu's body. In so far as it relates to the second applicant, for the murder of Ernst Ramangu, the assault on Ernst Ramangu and the desecration of Ramangu's body. We reserve our judgment in so far as it relates to the application of the late Sarel Crafford, which we hope will be delivered once we have considered all the incidents in which he is an applicant.
MR DU PLESSIS: As it pleases you, Madam Chair.
MS VAN DER WALT: As it pleases you, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
MR DU PLESSIS: Madam Chair, may Ms van der Walt and I be excused?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR DU PLESSIS: I don't think we are involved in the next incident.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much for the assistance you have rendered to the Committee in reaching a just and speedy decision.
MR DU PLESSIS: May we express our thanks for the just and speedy decision, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
