ON RESUMPTION
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you everybody. Yesterday the applications of van Vuuren, Jaba(?), Pretorius, Cronje and Hechter stood over to today because we could not finish our business yesterday, but my recollection is that we finished with Jaba. Would I be correct, Mr Roux?
MR ROUX: That's correct, Chairperson, Mr Jubber's application was completed yesterday. As it pleases you.
CHAIRPERSON: I suppose you've got to play the ball now.
MR ROUX: The next applicant is Paul van Vuuren, with regard to the Leonard Brown, Celo Ramakope and David Modimeng incident.
P J VAN VUUREN: (sworn states)
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Malan. Mr Roux, you may proceed to lead the applicant.
EXAMINATION BY MR ROUX: As it pleases you.
Mr van Vuuren, before we commence with the leading of the factual evidence, I wish to ask you the following. You were involved and present with the evidence of Mr Pretorius as well as Mr Jubber. You have heard their evidence, is that correct?
MR VAN VUUREN: That's correct, yes.
MR ROUX: Do you associate yourself with the evidence that was offered by them insofar as it is applicable to you?
MR VAN VUUREN: That is correct, yes.
MR ROUX: Will you please study the bundle and confirm your application which starts on page 5, and the information on page 7, opposite the number 10(a), will you confirm that up to page 10?
MR VAN VUUREN: Yes I do, I confirm it.
MR ROUX: And then from page 13 up to page 17.
MR VAN VUUREN: I do yes, that's correct.
MR ROUX: And furthermore from page 20 up to page 22.
MR VAN VUUREN: I do yes, that's correct.
MR ROUX: You have already studied this bundle and the information embodied in here you have studied.
MR VAN VUUREN: That is correct, yes.
MR ROUX: Will you please look at page 28 with regard to the general background, whether you have studied these sections up to page 49, and you confirm this as well.
MR VAN VUUREN: Yes, I do confirm this. - or no, this not me this, in my bundle is 28, I think this Jubber's application. I did not go to school in Natal.
MR ROUX: My apologies.
MR VAN VUUREN: The first part of page 28, my page 28 is not applicable to me, it is only applicable to Jubber, the factual background.
MR ROUX: I apologise, it would appear that ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Jubber's application would start from page 26, so his goes up to page 23.
MR ROUX: I apologise, Chairperson, the reference that I have noted down here is incorrect.
Mr van Vuuren, the information - I will lead you with regard to all three incidents, firstly with regard to the incident of Leonard Brown and Celo Ramakope and the first reference to that you will find on page 5 at the bottom and at the top of page 6, along with the incident of Ramakope, about which Pretorius had given evidence that this had taken place in one evening, and that is why I ask leave to deal with it as one incident.
Firstly, would you tell the Committee the information that is factually mentioned here, where did you receive this information?
MR VAN VUUREN: I received it with my amnesty application when it was already handed in, when Sgt Pretorius went to the attorneys, Strydom Britz and asked whether we could recall these incidents and I think he suspected that Capt Hechter and I were involved in these incidents.
MR ROUX: In other words, did you receive your information from him with regard to these incidents?
MR VAN VUUREN: Yes, from him and from Hechter. That's correct, yes.
MR ROUX: Can you recall bits and pieces of this incident from your own memory?
MR VAN VUUREN: I can recall some of it vaguely. If I can just say that Mr Hechter and I for three years worked in covert operations, as we referred to them then, we must have met about 300 times during these three years, so it is basically impossible to say which incident is which incident. Everything that I can recall I put in my first application which I could pertinently recall from my own memory. I set this out clearly in my first application and I received amnesty for this. These incidents I can only recall bits and pieces of it vaguely and I am the only one who worked with Mr Hechter after Mr Viktor worked with him. So the logical inference we can draw is that I was the only person who was there with him along with Mr Mamasela.
MR ROUX: Can you specifically recall the incident of Ramakope and Brown? If you go over to page 5 and 6, as well as page 11 which goes over to page 12. Let us commence with page 5.
MR VAN VUUREN: I can only recall this incident vaguely. As I've said I can only recall parts of it, that we had met and that we had thrown a bomb. I can recall correctly, but if you tell me to tell you what it looks like there, I can recall it only in vague terms. My recollection has been refreshed after Sgt Pretorius and Capt Hechter had given their evidence.
MR ROUX: In other words, from your own knowledge, can you recall the incidents of Brown and Ramakope?
MR VAN VUUREN: No.
MR ROUX: All the information with regard to the activities of the persons, to which extent they were involved, is this all information which you received from Pretorius?
MR VAN VUUREN: That's correct. I did not know them before the incident, today is the first day that I see them.
MR ROUX: And the same applies to Cyril Ramakope.
MR VAN VUUREN: Yes, that is correct, actually yesterday was the first day that I saw them.
MR ROUX: Because you cannot recall all the facts exactly, if you cast your mind back, would you have associated yourself with the action and would you have associated yourself with the consequences which emanated from those given circumstances at that specific time?
MR VAN VUUREN: That is correct, I associate myself with the action and the consequences thereof.
MR ROUX: Where did you fit in in the command structure, what was your rank?
MR VAN VUUREN: I think at that stage I was a Sergeant.
MR ROUX: Who was your direct Commander?
MR VAN VUUREN: My direct Commander was Lieut Hechter and he and I and Mr Mamasela worked as a team together, and we received our instructions directly from Brig Cronje, who at that stage was the Divisional Commander of Security Branch Northern Transvaal.
CHAIRPERSON: Wouldn't the true position be that since you were under Hechter, that he would receive the command and filter it down to you guys?
MR VAN VUUREN: Usually he will receive the instruction from Brig Cronje. He and I were in one office at that stage and he came to me and he and Mamasela and I would execute the instruction.
ADV SANDI: ...(indistinct) something flowing directly from this. Would it also have been part of the normal way of doing things, that if Mr Hechter gives you an order, assuming that the order comes from Mr Cronje, you would simply carry out the instruction without asking questions?
MR VAN VUUREN: That's correct, yes, everything was dealt with on a need-to-know basis and especially us, Mr Hechter and I and Mr Mamasela who basically were used for covert operations, we accepted our instructions without asking any questions. One does not ask a Brigadier from a the Divisional Branch Northern Transvaal, why and how, you do not speak to him, you only speak to him when he speaks to you.
MR ROUX: And the instructions which came through Hechter, were you in any position to question Hechter's authority and the rank structure above you?
MR VAN VUUREN: No, I did not have the authority to question him.
MR ROUX: Will you please have a look at page 18, this is the incident of David Modimeng. The spelling is apparently incorrect there. This was during the month of May 1986, and Pretorius gave evidence that it was the 27th of May, will you associate yourself with that date?
MR VAN VUUREN: Yes, I can associate myself with that date, but I cannot recall it.
MR ROUX: Can you recall this incident where Joyce Modimeng was killed in the attack?
MR VAN VUUREN: As I have already said in my application, I can only recall the incident vaguely. I filled in my application following on Capt Hechter and Pretorius' applications.
MR ROUX: You did not have any information with regard to Modimeng's activities and his involvement in active movements?
MR VAN VUUREN: No, that was not my work, at that stage I was only used in covert operations along with Capt Hechter and Sgt Mamasela.
MR ROUX: And in the last paragraph on page 19, before the letter B, the words appear
"During this time one Buis and Molokwane were murdered because they did not want to cooperate with the campaign, the anti-removal campaign."
Where did you receive this information?
MR VAN VUUREN: I heard at Strydom Britz' offices. I heard this from Pretorius and Hechter.
MR ROUX: So in other words, this does not fall within the ambit of your own personal knowledge?
MR VAN VUUREN: No, not at all.
MR ROUX: You do not have any knowledge of the manner and the handling of information which was gathered by Pretorius and Hechter?
MR VAN VUUREN: Not at all, Chairperson, I was stationed at head office under Brig Cronje's command and Capt Hechter at that stage was at a sub-branch of the Division Northern Transvaal, and that was at Brits under the command of Capt Jubber.
MR ROUX: The filing system that was used by Capt Jubber, which you have heard Pretorius and Jubber give evidence about, did these files and the information with regard to activists, did you ever see this at head office or did Jacques Hechter handle this?
MR VAN VUUREN: No, neither Hechter not I dealt with the documents that came from Brits, it was directly sent to the Divisional Commander, namely Brig Cronje.
MR ROUX: Do you I understand you correctly that the command structure at head office works in a line, if one should look down that line from Jack Cronje to Lieut Jacques Hechter at that stage and that you and Mamasela were the two Sergeants who were the executive officers of this task force?
MR VAN VUUREN: I would not say that Lieut Hechter as well as Mamasela along with myself, all three of us were the executive officers of the branch because Lieut Hechter would receive the instruction from Brig Cronje and come and tell us that we had to this and we had to go out and do it.
I may also just mention that the information that came from Brits Branch, these things went to Brig Cronje at head office and from there it went to Security Head Office. We were a division within head office. May I just mention to facilitate, we were above the old police museum, that's where our offices were, and the Security Head Office was a building entirely apart from us, next to uniform head office.
MR ROUX: Will you please look at the information contained on page 19, with regard to the Modimeng incident. You did not know these persons, David Modimeng?
MR VAN VUUREN: No, not at all. I may have heard their names that evening with the operation, but I cannot recall. I never knew them, I saw them for the first time yesterday.
MR ROUX: Was part of the covert operation the intimidation of activists?
MR VAN VUUREN: Yes, that is correct.
MR ROUX: If you would just grant me one moment please. Thank you, Chairperson, that is the evidence, there is nothing that I have omitted.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR ROUX
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Roux. Should I start with you, Mr Richard?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR RICHARD: Thank you, Chairperson.
Mr van Vuuren, as I know understand the picture that's painted, it was you and Mr Hechter who in fact were there to carry out the operation of carrying out the attacks against Mr Modimeng and Mr Brown's homes and persons, not Mr Jubber and the previous witnesses.
MR VAN VUUREN: That is correct, Chairperson, and Sgt Mamasela.
MR RICHARD: Now what role did Sgt Mamasela play in these two particular incidents?
MR VAN VUUREN: He was part of the team. When one throws a bomb into the house, the one protects our backs and two would go and throw the bomb into the house. We always worked in a team over a matter of three years, so it's difficult ...(intervention)
MR MALAN: I apologise for interrupting you, the question is, what did Mamasela do there that evening, not how it worked in general. If it is not within your knowledge, then you must say so.
MR VAN VUUREN: I am not able to say who said what that evening or who did what that evening.
MR RICHARD: Was Mr Mamasela with you that night?
MR VAN VUUREN: He must have been with me because we always worked together.
CHAIRPERSON: Could I ask for a moment, there is a problem with the mikes. Could we give him an opportunity just to attend to the mikes.
CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed, Mr Richard.
MR RICHARD: Thank you, Chairperson.
Now when you left Pretoria to go to Brits, did you know what you were going to do that evening?
MR VAN VUUREN: As I have said Chairperson, I cannot recall this specific incident, but if we went to Brits, as I have said I can recall bits of it, then I would have known what we would have done.
MR RICHARD: You would have known that you were going to throw bombs at particular houses, throw petrol bombs, and you would have known the identity of your targets.
MR VAN VUUREN: No, I would have known that we would throw bombs at house, I would have known the exact attack but I would not have known the people. It's impossible for me to have known the people. I did not work with their files, not at all, I was not used for that purpose at all.
MR RICHARD: Now when you went out on such an operation, is it not true to say that you knew full well that intrinsic in what you were going to do, there was a danger that innocent civilians, bystanders, would be affected by what you were doing?
MR VAN VUUREN: The targets were innocent bystanders, the targets were political activists.
MR MALAN: That is not the question, Mr van Vuuren, the question is whether you had known in such instances - and this is a general question, that when you would target activists and plant bombs, that innocent civilians could be killed or injured?
MR VAN VUUREN: That is correct, we did foresee that it could happen.
MR MALAN: Mr Richard.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Richard, before you do.
If we look at the operation, the evidence before is that it was going to be a disruptive action, in other words that people were to be intimidated, and if people would intimidated, would we use such methods as throwing bombs where innocent bystanders could be caught in the cross-fire?
MR VAN VUUREN: Will you repeat the question please.
CHAIRPERSON: The evidence before us is that this was going to be a disruptive action, that the victims in this instance were merely going to be intimidated and if people were to be intimidated and such legal weaponry is used, like bombs, is that a form of intimidation where people would be caught, innocent people would be caught in the crossfire? I'm asking this because we know that a lady in the Modimeng incident, that is Mrs Modimeng, died in the process and under cross-examination of the previous witnesses it was put to them that she was not even interested in politics, it was probably the husband who was interested.
MR VAN VUUREN: Chairperson, I did not know these persons at all, we conducted a disruptive action under the command of Brig Cronje and we must have foreseen that innocent persons could be killed or injured if we used bombs.
CHAIRPERSON: In the Security Forces we know that now during the '80s that in the words of some of the witnesses, there was a full-scale war in South Africa, where there was insurgence by the so-called terrorists into the country and they were causing harm to the country, would we say when we for instance get a person like Modimeng, where the evidence is that he was a courier of arms for the ANC, a person who would be disrupted and just intimidated when in the background we know that there was a full-scale war?
MR VAN VUUREN: I could not decide on these things, I was only a person who had to execute orders. But according to my knowledge, if he transported firearms according to the information, then he would have been a target, depending on high a profile activist he was.
CHAIRPERSON: I understand that probably a footsoldier you would carry out orders, but I take it the person to be attacked or intimidated, would be identified and his profile briefly given to you why he's got to be attacked. Wouldn't that be the case?
MR VAN VUUREN: No Chairperson, that would not be the case. The information, where it came from would come from Brits Security Branch and persons who would deal with that is Brig Cronje and then he would convey it to Lieut Hechter. The name might have been given to me and the address, but before the time I did not even know of his existence.
CHAIRPERSON: Other than the orders that emanate from the Commanders, people who are giving instructions, I just want to find out from you, don't within the Security Branch, individuals discuss - and obviously the state of the war and the individuals who are executing that war, wouldn't that be discussed within the meetings if you do hold meetings in this instance?
MR VAN VUUREN: Chairperson, if I may make it clear to you, Lieut Hechter, I and Mamasela were used for special covert operations, I never sat in on any meetings, no names were submitted to me that we had to investigate it ourselves. I never personally investigate Mr Modimeng and I never sat in on any meeting and no mention was made of acts that had taken place or that would take place, Lieut Hechter and I only shared things on a need-to-know basis.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. I'm sorry, Mr Richard, to have interrupted your cross-examination.
MR RICHARD: I have no objection, Chairperson.
Now let me put this proposition to you. An order is given, it's communicated to your Commander, for the purposes of discussion, that's Lieut Hechter, wouldn't Lieut Hechter call an order group or some sort of meeting to convey what you're going to do, tell each other, plan it, how you're going to do it.
MR VAN VUUREN: Everything would have depended upon the sort of operation that it was. This sort of operation was conducted over a period of three years. He would simply have told me that "tonight you have to meet at the office at 12 o'clock or 1 o'clock", but it was never discussed prior to the time. I'm sure that he was afraid of leakages, that is why it was never discussed prior to the time.
MR RICHARD: But nonetheless, you knew that you were going to proceed and throw a bomb of some sort at what was ostensibly a civilian resident, and by all appearances from the outside to a casual observer, was a civilian residence.
MR VAN VUUREN: When we met that evening at for example, 12 o'clock a night, we would have proceeded from that point onwards. I cannot tell you whether it was a civil house or not, the house was identified to us by Sgt Pretorius.
MR RICHARD: Mr van Vuuren, you've said that for a number of years you conducted hundreds of similar operations, so you've seen, I must assume, many hundreds of building, houses, places where people lived, if you looked at your normal target it would look like an ordinary civilian establishment, is that not correct? I'm not talking specifically about those targets that night, but if you went to a house in a township, my proposition is very simply, it would look like an ordinary civilian establishment, would it not?
MR VAN VUUREN: Chairperson, all the houses looked more-or-less the same, I couldn't distinguish between which was civil and which were the homes of activists.
MR MALAN: Mr Richard, I'm not sure that I follow the question.
MR RICHARD: Now my next question Chairperson, makes what my line is about, apparent.
When you went to a particular house, how did you personally directly know who was inside that house?
MR VAN VUUREN: I didn't know. It wasn't my job to know who was inside the house, it was my job to intimidate people.
MR RICHARD: So that means you're telling us that you did not make any effort whatsoever to find out who was in a particular house before you threw a bomb or a petrol bomb ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Flowing from his previous answer, it would impossible for him to know that as well.
MR RICHARD: I will rephrase my question.
Did you ever make any effort whatsoever to discover who was inside a particular domestic residence?
MR MALAN: Mr Richard, he's answered that question, he said "I didn't do it, it wasn't my job".
MR RICHARD: Well whose job was it then?
MR VAN VUUREN: As I have already stated, Sgt Pretorius identified the houses, it wasn't my job to identify the houses, I cannot assist you any further on that point.
MR RICHARD: Now isn't it standard orders that when an operation is launched, that those launching the operation make sure that their targets are legitimate targets? In other words, the enemy and not mere civilians.
CHAIRPERSON: In this instance, wouldn't the target identified be that of the enemy by Pretorius?
MR RICHARD: Pretorius has given evidence, Chairperson, that he was passive in the sense that he would direct them to the particular house. He had got the instruction from above that that was his function, on the information that had been fed up through him and others. He made it very plain that he wasn't the only source of information. The command structure above then sends Messrs van Vuuren, Mamasela and Hechter to do an operation, the local unit simply points out the target. Now what my thesis is, is that it is incumbent on those who have come to do the job so to speak, to take responsibility for what they're going to. And I'm going to say that there's a direct and immediate obligation on them to take every reasonable precaution appropriate to make sure that they do not attack civilian targets. And my thesis continues in this case, that no such precautions of efforts were ever made, in fact they behaved in a reckless, contemptuous manner, disregardful of their obligations not to cause civilian injuries.
CHAIRPERSON: I think that question would probably be a question to be asked of Hechter, because he was merely executing orders and it is Hechter who wanted to know those targets, his job was merely to execute the orders of Hechter in this instance.
MR RICHARD: I'll leave the point by asking this question, if I may Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Certainly.
MR RICHARD: When you approached a particular target, did you ever make any effort to check that you were not throwing your bomb or other device at a civilian or an innocent bystander? Or the wrong target.
MR VAN VUUREN: Chairperson, the house was identified to us, it was night and Lieut Hechter decided that the house should be petrol-bombed, and if that was the decision, then that is what would have been done. It was not my job to determine who was inside the house, my job was to throw the petrol bomb and to intimidate the occupants of the house. As I have stated, I did not know these persons, I did not know where they were, I have seen them for the first time yesterday. And if they decided that these persons were to receive an explosive device, then the house would be attacked by means of an explosive device.
I simply followed orders, I did not possess any further capacity, I was a Sergeant, I was merely 24 years of age at that stage and one would not ask of a Brigadier why one house would receive a petrol bomb, why the other would receive an explosive device of a different nature.
MR RICHARD: And it follows from that that if in a particular situation there was one activist and eight innocent bystanders, civilians who did not participate in political activism, it was legitimate to intimidate and terrorise all nine.
MR MALAN: Mr Richard please, be fair to the witness, he told you what he saw his work to be, if you want to argue that he had a different duty, you can argue that, but he's given you unequivocally his position, is exactly that he threw the bombs with total disregard for life or limb, simply on the instructions of his superior. You have that before you.
MR RICHARD: Thank you, Chairperson. If I have established that much, I've established my purpose.
Now as a matter of factuality on that particular night vis-à-vis, Mr Brown, if I understood the general import of your evidence you have no specific recollection of Mr Brown's house or an attack on it or any other house associated with him.
MR VAN VUUREN: Sir, my recollection about that is very poor, I can only say that over a period of three years many such incidents took place. I really cannot remember it at all.
MR RICHARD: So it is possible that you were part of the attack on Mr Brown's parents' home and by the same token, possible that you weren't?
MR VAN VUUREN: I must have been a member of the team because it was always the three of us who worked together. I have no doubt in my mind that I could not have been there, I simply cannot remember every particular incident.
ADV SANDI: Sorry Mr Richard, just one bit of information here.
Would you be able to estimate the number of similar operations that you may have been involved in during that period of three years?
MR VAN VUUREN: It is very problematic to estimate but I would say approximately between 200 and 300.
ADV SANDI: Thank you.
MR RICHARD: Very well, so you cannot give us any particular information beyond conjectural reconstruction about the particular incidents.
Now when it came to decision making during the course of an operation, the inference that I'm drawing is that between Mr Mamasela and Mr Hechter, the decisions were made.
MR MALAN: No Mr Richard, he said Mr Hechter and Mr Cronje, Mamasela and himself simply followed orders.
MR RICHARD: With respect, Chairperson, my question is they had orders and there were decisions to make in the execution. Now if there was a decision during the course of the execution ...(intervention)
MR ROUX: Chairperson, I object, my learned friend is misleading Mr van Vuuren, that is not what he stated, not at all.
CHAIRPERSON: I would rather have you rephrase your question, Mr Richard, because he says the decisions, as Mr Malan has pointed out, they would be made above and he and Mamasela would merely follow those orders, in other words execute those orders.
MR RICHARD: Thank you, Chair, for granting me the opportunity to rephrase the question.
If after you had received your orders from Pretoria, Cronje, a decision had to be made during the course of the execution of the order. Who made the decision, was it Lieut Hechter alone or a combination of Lieut Hechter and Sgt Mamasela?
MR VAN VUUREN: Lieut Hechter received the order from Cronje, Sgt Mamasela was a Sergeant like me, he never took decisions in co-operation with Hechter, in terms of what would happen where and when. He and I were Sergeants and Hechter was at that stage our Unit Commander, we co-operated as a team. That is all that I can tell you. He received the orders from Brig Cronje and from that point onwards it was up to Lieut Hechter, and he would tell us that we were working at a certain time, he would tell us when to report at the office, we accepted it as such, and we would then meet at a certain time and once we had gathered he would inform us of what we were going to do and how we were going to do it, and so we operated as a unit. That was the case with such operations.
When it came to more extensive operations, it was something which would be discussed with us prior to the time, but that would be with an operation which was completely different by nature.
MR RICHARD: Who had the authority to abort an operation, for instance because there were too many civilians about to be affected?
MR MALAN: Please Mr Richard, really, can you explain to us the relevance of this question to this witness?
MR RICHARD: We know ...(intervention)
MR MALAN: If there is any such authority, shouldn't that be asked of Hechter?
MR RICHARD: We know from what has been said at the beginning, that Mr Hechter will probably answer he can't remember ...(intervention)
MR MALAN: No, no, Mr Hechter may probably answer that - he may answer that he can't remember the incidents, which is exactly the answer you're getting from this person. You're now interested in questions about general procedures within structures, Hechter will be better in a position to answer those questions in the same general terms. Please let us not unnecessarily waste time with questions to witnesses who are not able to answer those questions.
MR RICHARD: My last question in the circumstances is, when it came to standard orders, did you know what the position was as to how and who could make decisions?
MR VAN VUUREN: I don't understand the question very well, can you please explain.
MR RICHARD: My question is simple, three of you for example, that's you, Mr Mamasela and Mr Hechter are out on an operation, when could you personally make a decision as to whether to carry on or stop? In what circumstances could you use a discretion?
MR VAN VUUREN: It would depend on the type of operation, but on an operation such as this one could not exercise one's own discretion in ceasing the operation, one had an order and one had to carry it out.
MR RICHARD: Thank you, no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR RICHARD
CHAIRPERSON: Just before you do, Mr Ngomane.
Do I understand you correctly that you do not recall this incident? And if that is so, when you make mention of Mamasela, are you merely assuming that he was in most instances part of your team, or you have independent recollection that when you went to Okasi? in Brits, Mamasela was definitely present?
MR VAN VUUREN: Chairperson, I'm assuming that he would have been there. I do not have a specific recollection because there were so many different cases.
ADV SANDI: Just one question related to this.
But do you know of any other instances where he was not there?
MR VAN VUUREN: Yes, there were cases when he was not present, but these are specific cases, do you want me to mention specifically for you?
CHAIRPERSON: Now I understand perfectly that once you've been involved in so many instances, it's not easy to have an independent recollection of each and every incident in which you were involved, but let's just bring this one of Okasi in Brits, how many times have you executed incidents of this nature in Brits, or was this the only three incidents within a space of six months?
MR VAN VUUREN: I would not be able to recall, Chairperson, I was not the field officer, Mr Pretorius would be in a better position to respond. I cannot recall precisely the number of incidents which took place.
CHAIRPERSON: No, no, not incidents, that you been involved in. Like look the evidence before us is that the field worker was Sgt Pretorius in Okasi in Brits and he gave all the information to his Commander Jubber, and Jubber would then transmit that information to head office here in Pretoria and Pretoria, Cronje would take decisions that certain people were to be dealt with. Now being under Hechter, other than these two nights when there was an invasion or visitation of Okasi township to intimidate these people, other than these two occasions, had you been to Okasi in Brits, to execute other incidents?
MR VAN VUUREN: Not as far as I can recall, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. You must be anxious to ask questions, Ms Ngomane, I'm sorry to have taken much of your time.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR NGOMANE: It's not problem, Mr Chairperson. Thank you.
Mr van Vuuren, I take it your legal rep has explained to you that in terms of the proceedings you have to make full disclosure. I take it that he has enlightened you about why you are here today. Would you bind yourself, Mr van Vuuren, in matters where you don't have any personal knowledge?
MR ROUX: Chairperson, I do not know what my learned friend means, because she is not specific at all, she asks whether or not the witness would bind himself to a matter that he does not have any knowledge about. What does this pertain to, it is non-specific. Could she rephrase this in a more suitable manner for the witness.
CHAIRPERSON: I would request you to rephrase your question, Mr Ngomane.
MS NGOMANE: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.
Mr van Vuuren, just explain to me whether you would associate yourself and say your memory is so vague you cannot recall all the incidents in Okasi, would you then come to this Commission then to be subject to cross-examination? Because I'm instructed, Mr van Vuuren, to ask questions. Will you have knowledge of the incidents relating to Mrs Modimeng, who died in the bombing in 1986?
MR VAN VUUREN: I have knowledge of this incident, which I have obtained in the offices of Strydom Britz. After my amnesty applications had been completed, Sgt Pretorius arrived there and we began to discuss the matter and the logical conclusion was that I was definitely involved in these acts because I was the only other person who worked with Lieut Hechter. Because it was a covert operation, I was the only other person who could have been there.
MS NGOMANE: I take it you were here yesterday, you heard what Sgt Pretorius said, that you were part of the operation that ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: No, Mr Pretorius said the only person he remembered was Lieut Hechter, the other people who accompanied Lieut Hechter are not known or he cannot recall those persons, but they were definitely in the region of four to five.
MS NGOMANE: My apologies, Mr Chairperson.
Mr van Vuuren, were you part of the operation that targeted activists, namely Celo Makope and David Modimeng in 1986, were you part of that operation?
MR ROUX: With all due respect, Chairperson, this question has already been answered by him, in all probability he would have been involved, unfortunately he cannot recall. The same questions are being asked over and over again and all this does is reaffirm his evidence. I do not understand the purpose behind this, with all due respect.
CHAIRPERSON: I think you should tread cautiously. The import of Mr van Vuuren's evidence is that he does not recall these incidents, his memory was refreshed when he made his application when he visited the offices of his attorneys and mention was made that he was part of it, but he doesn't have any independent recollection, but because he worked with Lieut Hechter for over three years in these covert operations, then if he's name is mentioned, he must have been there but that he's got independent recollection, he does not.
MS NGOMANE: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.
Mr van Vuuren, you said you don't know who the persons were in those particular houses that were targeted, it wasn't your job to know this. Do you recall that, Sir?
MR VAN VUUREN: That is correct, Chairperson, I cannot recall who the persons were.
MS NGOMANE: You say in your declaration that
"My job was only to intimidate these people by throwing bombs through the windows of their houses."
...(inaudible)
MR VAN VUUREN: Yes, that is correct.
MS NGOMANE: By intimidation, Mr van Vuuren, would it mean that a person has to die in the process?
MR VAN VUUREN: If you toss a bomb through somebody's window, the possibility does exists that he or she may be killed, that is correct.
MS NGOMANE: So you reconciled yourself that people and especially Mrs Modimeng, an innocent bystander, will be killed in the process and children in the house? You foresaw that and you reconciled yourself, Mr van Vuuren.
MR VAN VUUREN: I cannot say whether or not Mr Modimeng was innocent, you are asking me about innocent persons and whether I associated myself with their deaths. If there were other persons in the house and if they died as a result of the actions, yes, then I did associate myself with this.
MS NGOMANE: Thank you, Mr van Vuuren. Mr van Vuuren, just like you confirmed that you associated yourself, you also associated yourself that it might be possible that children would be in the house, is that not so Mr van Vuuren?
MR VAN VUUREN: Yes, that is correct, there may have been children inside the house.
MS NGOMANE: Let's got back to this question Mr van Vuuren, you said that your job was to intimidate people, did you take precautions when you and Hechter and Mamasela - to protect children or innocent people who were not members of the so-called liberation movement. Will you take precautions to see that it only kills the person who you targeted?
CHAIRPERSON: But - before you do, but the answer was that "I would ..." - like he says, ..."throw a bomb, it was not my task to know who is there, I was merely to follow orders". And now he says if people or children in a house were to be injured in the process, he then reconciles himself with that, but that was not what was uppermost in his mind, what was uppermost in his mind was to execute orders which were given.
MS NGOMANE: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.
Mr van Vuuren, was it the only way so to speak, intimidation, was there any other method besides throwing bombs, that could have been ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: His job did not task him to find out, his job was to execute orders which emanated from above. I think that is the evidence. He had not reason to assess anything and he further unequivocally said that you would not question an officer who was above you, what you had to do is to execute the instructions given, that is what he was tasked to do and nothing else.
MS NGOMANE: Mr van Vuuren, let me take you back to page 19(?). To you have the bundle in front of you? Just peruse page 19 for us please.
MR VAN VUUREN: 19 or 90?
MS NGOMANE: The last paragraph, your declaration that you made to your attorneys that
"According to Sgt Pretorius and Lieut Hechter, Mr Modimeng was also an ANC member who was involved in the transportation of firearms for the ANC, as well as the assault and intimidation of persons who did not support the anti-removal campaign. For this reason one, Buis and Molekwane were murdered because they did not wish to cooperate with the anti-removal campaign."
Do you recall making this statement to your attorney, Mr van Vuuren? Do you confirm it?
MR VAN VUUREN: Chairperson, I have already stated that I obtained this information from the offices of my attorneys, Strydom and Britz, and I have stated that this is according to Sgt Pretorius and Capt Hechter. I obtained this information from Strydom Britz after I completed my amnesty application. I did not know Buis or Molekwane.
MS NGOMANE: You wouldn't say that they were killed as a result of the anti-removal campaign, would you Sir?
ADV SANDI: I don't know, I have a different understanding of this, I think the witness also has somehow mentioned it. I think it says that
"According to Pretorius and Hechter ..."
This is not information coming from him, he was assisted remember. He says he cannot remember the precise details of the incident, but he does remember that they went to Brits one night but he does not remember the details, the details come from Pretorius and Hechter. He does not claim personal knowledge.
MS NGOMANE: That's my point, Mr Chairperson, I wanted to put to this witness that he doesn't have any personal knowledge.
CHAIRPERSON: I think it would serve no purpose because he has admitted that up front. It won't serve any purpose to say to him again "you have no personal knowledge', when he himself says "I know nothing, I can't recollect other than what my colleagues have said to my attorneys, that's where I picked up all the information". And again that "I worked in covert operations with Hechter, whatever he says I was involved in, I would take it because I worked with him." So to say to him that "you have no personal knowledge", won't serve any purpose.
MS NGOMANE: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.
Mr van Vuuren, the intimidation you mention here, was it the only method or way, to only throw bombs, was there not any other method that you can use to stop those people who were causing unrest in the townships?
MR VAN VUUREN: As I have explained, Chairperson, Capt Hechter and I and Mr Mamasela were a covert unit and that was the only two methods used to intimidate the people, by means of a bomb or a petrol bomb into their houses.
CHAIRPERSON: So in other words that you had no discretion, your job description was merely to intimidate by throwing bombs into those suspected to be members of the African National Congress or those who are involved in terrorist activities?
MR VAN VUUREN: That is correct yes, Chairperson.
MR MALAN: May I just - I think the question as I understood it asked of you, whether any other methods were every used to intimidate. Your answer was that these were basically the two methods used.
MR VAN VUUREN: That were used by myself and Capt Hechter. There were other operations, but those were not intimidation operations, they were more the elimination of persons.
MR MALAN: So in other words when an instruction came to you for a disruptive action or for intimidation, it was continually one of these two types of actions?
MR VAN VUUREN: Yes, it was continually one of these two types of actions.
MS NGOMANE: Since you mention Mr van Vuuren that you were in the covert operations, your job description was to intimidate by throwing bombs to the targeted persons, it wouldn't matter whether there were children in the house, would it Mr van Vuuren?
MR ROUX: With respect, Chairperson, this question has been posed repeatedly.
CHAIRPERSON: And we have five answers to it.
MS NGOMANE: Mr Chairperson, I'll withdraw that question. Just a moment, Mr Chairperson.
Mr van Vuuren, my last question to you is, did you succeed in this operation in intimidating those victims? Would you say yes you did succeed?
MR VAN VUUREN: It was not my work to find out whether it was successful or not, so I am not able to answer that question.
ADV SANDI: I thought you said you don't even remember those victims, you don't know who those people were.
MR VAN VUUREN: That's correct, I didn't know.
MS NGOMANE: Thank you, Mr Chairperson. Lastly - just a moment, Mr Chair.
Mr van Vuuren, it was you and Hechter and Mamasela who threw bombs in Okasi ...(intervention)
MR MALAN: With all due respect, he said he only accepts that because of the information put to him, he cannot give that on any personal recollection.
CHAIRPERSON: And hence a response from a question I posed to him about the presence of Mamasela, he also assumes Mamasela could have been there because he was part of this unit, but he doesn't have a recollection that Mamasela was there, he merely assumes that he was there.
ADV SANDI: Ja in fact even if he was there, as I understand it, he does not recall what specific role Mamasela could have played.
MS NGOMANE: Thank you, Mr Chairperson, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS NGOMANE
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Ngomane. Mr Steenkamp.
ADV STEENKAMP: No questions thank you, Honourable Chairperson.
NO QUESTIONS BY ADV STEENKAMP
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Steenkamp. Adv Sandi?
ADV SANDI: Thank you, no questions Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Malan.
MR MALAN: I have no questions, thank you Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Roux, do you have any re-examination?
MR ROUX: None Chairperson, thank you.
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR ROUX
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr van Vuuren, you are excused.
WITNESS EXCUSED
CHAIRPERSON: We will have a 10 minute adjournment, then I suppose we'll have to start with Mr Hechter.
MS NGOMANE: Mr Chairperson, just a moment. There's a request by Mr Modimeng, he has questions for Mr van Vuuren. Will that be allowed, Mr Chairperson?
CHAIRPERSON: I would put it this way. Mr van Vuuren, after 10 minutes could you make yourself available again? We shall do that after the adjournment and we'll consider that. I would implore you to speak to client and probably approach us in chambers and tell us the import. Thank you.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, we're in a position to proceed, but I must apologise for having taken more than 10 minutes. The reason therefor was that we had to perform certain administrative functions. I apologise to everybody for the delay.
MR ROUX: Yes, Chairperson. I do not know what happened to my learned friend's request. My instructions are in any case that you have already excused the witness and that she had concluded her questioning, and in any case I object if her clients wants to put any questions to my client. Even if he was entitled to put questions, my instructions are that he does not have to answer any questions from the victim himself.
CHAIRPERSON: Partly some of the administrative duties was to do that function as well and we have cleared that up and I want to
say now finally, Mr van Vuuren, you are excused.
WITNESS EXCUSED
MR ROUX: Chairperson, the final applicant in this application is Jacques Hechter.
