ON RESUMPTION
CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you. The next applicant will be?
MR DU PLESSIS ADDRESSES: Mr Chairman, we have decided that I will call Capt Hechter now at this point in time. May I perhaps, just before we deal with Capt Hechter's application, just deal with the situation I find myself in and Capt Hechter finds himself in as well? You would have seen that in the bundle, the first bundle - sorry, the second bundle, page 118, was an application which was made by Capt Hechter in respect of various incidents of arson relating to the burning of houses in Mamelodi, Soshanguve and Atteridgeville, during the period 1985 to 1987. That application, Mr Chairman, related to petrol bomb attacks on various houses, and you will see on page 119 that amnesty was granted in respect of this application. On page 119.
Then if I can refer you to page 115 of that bundle, you will see that this is an extract of the Judgment in respect of the amnesty application of Brig Cronje and it refers to Schedule 11, which dealt with offences committed by members under his command and his general instructions. And in terms of this application, Brig Cronje was therefore also granted amnesty in respect of each incident Capt Hechter was granted amnesty for, meaning that Brig Cronje was also granted amnesty for petrol bomb attacks in Soshanguve, Atteridgeville and Mamelodi.
If I may then refer you to page 186 of that bundle, this is an application which was made by Capt Hechter under Schedule 17, with the heading "Bomb Ontploffings" and this application related also to, in general, all bomb attacks on, specifically, houses in Atteridgeville, Mamelodi, Soshanguve and other places as well. Now this application was different from the petrol bomb application, in that this referred to the kind of bomb you've heard evidence of this morning, the mellow-yellow kind of bomb. The Judgment in respect of Schedule 17, was the one which I referred you to this morning, which does not appear in this bundle, but which does appear in the copies that I have given to you this morning of the Judgment of Capt Hechter. I'm sorry, I beg your pardon ...
NO SOUND
MS COLERIDGE: 121.
MS COLERIDGE: Then I did not see it, I beg your pardon. Yes, yes, thank you, I'm indebted to Mr Visser. Page 121, Mr Chairman. I only had an opportunity to peruse the bundle this morning.
Mr Chairman, you will note there that reference is made to other Schedules, but for these purposes we can only concentrate on Schedule 17. It refers to Mr Hechter's physical and mental condition. It says:
"The Committee accepts that due to his present mental condition he cannot remember details and particulars of certain incidents. It transpired however since the hearing, that applicants in other hearings may be able to supply details which may influence or enable the Committee to come to a fair and just decision regarding the incidents referred to under these Schedules.
The Committee is at present of the opinion that the applicant attempted to make a disclosure of his involvement in the incidents under the above Schedules, and if it transpires that it's bona fide and falls within the ambit of the Act, after the hearing of further evidence, the matters will be decided on with reference to all the evidence."
In my submission Mr Chairman, the two applications of Mr Goosen, which related to the two incidents where bombs were used ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: The Soshanguve one and Mamelodi?
MR DU PLESSIS: The Mamelodi one, yes. ... where the mellow-yellow bombs were used Mr Chairman, in those two incidents I will apply for amnesty under this Judgment, for Capt Hechter, and I will also apply for amnesty, if you will allow me to, in this regard, for and on behalf of Brig Cronje. Now Brig Cronje's application in this regard, is not before you, but I do have copies thereof and I beg leave to hand it up to you. The copies I hand up to you, Mr Chairman, are copies of Brig Cronje's second application, or second main application, if I can put it like that. There was a bundle of applications handed in in December 1996, and then again later on in 1997. This is the second bundle of applications.
CHAIRPERSON: We'd better mark this as, although we've got other documents, we'll mark this as B.
MR DU PLESSIS: As it pleases you, Mr Chairman.
Now Mr Chairman, you will see that Brig Cronje there applied for each and every incident which the people who worked under him applied for. He refers there to Col Loots, Van Vuuren, Hechter, Viktor, Goosen, Roos and Crafford, but it's not a full complete list. Then you will see on the marked page 102, the typed page 20, you will see that he says the following there:
"I'm also applying for amnesty with regard to any accountability and liability which I may have with regard to acts committed by my subordinates. All deeds which I could I recall have been disclosed by me. I've also become aware of other deeds which I cannot recall and which may not have been disclosed to me when they took place.
"In as far as these acts took place under my command and in as far as it was part of the execution of the duties of my subordinates and in as far as it was necessary to combat the total onslaught of the liberation movement on the Republic of South Africa, I will then accept responsibility for this."
Mr Chairman, on the next page, and he lists the names of the persons whom he believes applied for amnesty and who worked under him, and then he says:
"In all the cases to which reference has been made, I have indicated where action was taken with my order, expressly or specifically. These acts were committed in execution of the general orders by Brig Schoon.
I cannot recall the name, time, time of discussion and acquisition of my approval for such incidents. I do however accept responsibility for these incidents, in as far as it is in line with the criteria set out before me."
We attempted at the stage when this application was made, to include all the amnesty applications of people who worked under Brig Cronje in his application, but obviously we did not know exactly which applications they were and which applications had to be specifically listed. It seems that we have nearly succeeded in listing all the applications. The only applications which we have not done, apparently, are the two of Mr Goosen, which I've referred to just now, of which Capt Hechter is going to be an application. And then the only other problem that we have is this Ekangala incident, of which we are not certain if it's the same incident for which Capt Hechter and Brig Cronje have already received amnesty, and if it is not.
CHAIRPERSON: That will come to light when Mr Oosthuizen - is it Mr Oosthuizen, Mr Lamey, who was involved in Ekangala?
MR LAMEY: It was Mr Coetser.
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes. Mr Chairman, may I perhaps just say that we have made certain enquiries and it seems to have been two different incidents. It seems to be the case. I have made enquiries about what Mr Coetser is going to say. And I may perhaps just give you an indication and that is that Capt Hechter testified that Mr Gouws was present with him at that incident, Mr Coetser is apparently going to say that Mr Gouws was never present at the Ekangala incident, which indicates that it in all probability, may have been two incidents and because of that I have decided ex abundanti, Mr Chairman, if you will allow me to, to make application or to seek leave on behalf of Capt Hechter, to make application for the Ekangala incident.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Wouldn't you be adding an incident then that wasn't applied for?
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, you would have noted that the bomb attacks included areas such at Atteridgeville, Soshanguve, Mamelodi, Mbutsi, as well, which means that it was an application in respect of a wide range of areas where these attacks and these incidents took place.
JUDGE DE JAGER: If you would have stated "for attacks in South Africa", would you then be able to introduce any attack in South Africa?
MR DU PLESSIS: Well Mr Chairman, the problem that we had at that stage, obviously, was that Capt Hechter did not know or could not remember exactly in what incidents he was involved in and that is why the applications were made on the wide basis they were made. Obviously this creates the problematic situation which I raised with the first Committee, right at the outset of this matter, and this, if an applicant does not remember about an incident and he's made aware of an incident that he was involved in, after the cut-off date, what happens then? Does he not get amnesty because his memory doesn't serve him well? And that is exactly this kind of situation which will arise if one does not interpret the application in a wide sense, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: So with regard to Cronje, you're looking for - if you'd turn to page 116 of that second volume, you're looking for, if these applications are successful, a similar sort of thing, adding in Goosen number so and so, or Oosthuizen, whatever it is? Just an extension of page 116?
MR DU PLESSIS: Exactly, Mr Chairman, I will apply for a similar Order in exactly the same fashion. I may mention, Brig Cronje is not here, but in previous applications where this kind of situation arose with his application, the applications were dealt with without Brig Cronje having been present. He suffered during one of the previous applications, a heart attack, he had a double bypass operation and because of that reason, Judge Pillay excused him and he was excused for various other hearings on those grounds. The fact of the matter is that he cannot usually add to this, because he cannot remember what the situation was and he was usually not involved in any of the operations in an intricate way, so he can't remember and he won't be able to add anything to these incidents as well, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Are you going to now call Capt Hechter?
MR DU PLESSIS: If it pleases you, Mr Chairman. I apologise for making things a bit difficult.
CHAIRPERSON: No we'll have to consider it at the end of it and arrive at a decision.
JACQUES HECHTER: (sworn states)
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, may I perhaps just before I carry on with the evidence, enquire from you if it is necessary to hear Brig Cronje, or to call him as a witness, then I could attempt to make arrangements to do so.
MACHINE SWITCHED OFF
ON RESUMPTION
CHAIRPERSON: Having briefly deliberated with my colleagues, the view is that if possible, he should be here just to confirm, seeing we are dealing with human rights violations and it does require a hearing as such. If it can happen.
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes Mr Chairman, I can make enquiries, but I may just say that the problem arises that we only became aware of these applications yesterday. Brig Cronje lives in Swellendam, which is a ...
MS COLERIDGE: Chairperson, I just want to rectify Mr du Plessis, that they have been notified, Cronje, Hechter, Van Vuuren, but not as applicants. Just keep that in mind regarding that.
CHAIRPERSON: Well I think let's at this stage proceed with the evidence of Mr Hechter and we'll see how far we can get.
EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: As it pleases you, Mr Chairman, thank you. We have been informed obviously of the hearings, but in not in the sense of the position that I've sketched to you now.
Captain Hechter, you studied the amnesty application of Capt Viktor and you were also present for a portion of the evidence when you heard his testimony regarding the Ekangala incident.
MR HECHTER: That is correct.
MR DU PLESSIS: Can you recall anything of this incident?
MR HECHTER: Chairperson, regarding this particular incident, I cannot recall anything at all. I can vaguely recall the incident in which Gouws and I were involved. After my recollection was refreshed I can basically recall that we were there. Regarding the incident of which Mr Viktor and Mr Coetser are speaking, I cannot recall anything at all.
MR DU PLESSIS: Thus, you are not in a position to dispute that you were indeed present during the incident that they were involved in?
MR HECHTER: No, Chairperson.
MR DU PLESSIS: And in that case, you then also apply for amnesty for precisely the same offences for which Mr Viktor has applied for amnesty?
MR HECHTER: That is correct.
MR DU PLESSIS: And you cannot really add anything regarding the facts pertaining to the application?
MR HECHTER: No, Chairperson.
MR DU PLESSIS: Captain Hechter, you were also present when Mr Goosen gave evidence regarding two bomb attack incidents. The one can be found in volume 2 from page 25 onwards, you have read this and you've also listened to his evidence, is that correct?
MR HECHTER: Yes, that is correct.
MR DU PLESSIS: The other incident can be found on page 45 of volume 1, you've also read this and you've also listened to his evidence, is that correct?
MR HECHTER: Yes, that is correct.
MR DU PLESSIS: Do you have any independent recollection of these two respective incidents?
MR HECHTER: Vaguely I can recall the incident at Soshanguve. I can recall that we went to work one evening in this particular Volkswagen Golf motor vehicle, where exactly we went I cannot recall. I cannot recall exactly who was there. I do recall Van Jaarsveld. After I spoke to Mr Coetser about it, I recalled that we went out to a job one evening, but I cannot recall anything else.
MR DU PLESSIS: Therefore you cannot add anything else with regard to Mr Goosen's evidence?
MR HECHTER: That is correct.
MR DU PLESSIS: And you request amnesty for precisely the same offences as has been requested by Mr Goosen in these two incidents?
MR HECHTER: That is correct.
MR DU PLESSIS: Capt Hechter, previously, upon previous occasions during such proceedings you have offered expert evidence and submitted expert evidence with regard to the problem that you have with your recollection and the fact that it has been caused, among others, by post-traumatic stress disorder, is that correct?
MR HECHTER: That is correct.
MR DU PLESSIS: And the effect, which is embodied in the report which is in the possession of the Amnesty Committee, which has upon various previous amnesty applications been submitted, confirms that you have a memory problem as a result of this disorder?
MR HECHTER: That is correct.
MR DU PLESSIS: As a result of post-traumatic stress disorder, and this has meant that there are certain incidents that you can recall quite vividly and others which you cannot recall at all?
MR HECHTER: That is correct.
MR DU PLESSIS: And you are still suffering from the same ailment?
MR HECHTER: That is correct.
MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you, Chairperson, I have nothing further.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Alberts, any questions?
NO QUESTIONS BY MR ALBERTS
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey.
MR LAMEY: Chairperson, I've got questions, I've just got to get to ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Maybe if you could just swop chairs with Ms Coleridge.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Mr Hechter, there are just a number of general questions that I want to put to you, especially since we have not had the opportunity to cover these aspects during previous hearings.
If I study the applications and your applications which have also been incorporated in the bundle, it is clear to me that with regard to the petrol bomb attacks and also the explosions, the incidents of explosions, basically the same modus operandi was employed to a greater extent in every case. What I mean by modus operandi is the fact that this series of events began with a general order which originated from Brig Viktor's office, is that correct?
MR HECHTER: Yes, that is correct.
MR LAMEY: And then, you have led every incident, you were the senior person with regard to every single incident, is that correct?
MR HECHTER: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: Did you then undertake the target identification and intelligence collection and determination of the activists homes every single time?
MR HECHTER: Yes, that is correct.
MR LAMEY: You had sources and you also had black members of the branch who were collecting information regarding the target.
MR HECHTER: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: And with every one of these cases junior members who were involved did not necessarily know everything about the political activist or the reason why his home was being attacked, they were taken along based upon an instruction, is that correct?
MR HECHTER: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: And your overall Commander, Brig Cronje, was also aware of the events which were taking place, is that correct?
MR HECHTER: Yes, that is correct.
MR LAMEY: And the activists that we have referred to, from the position of an applicant which did not have direct access to the information, would have accepted that these were activists who were involved in the liberation struggle of that time and who played a large role in rendering the suburbs ungovernable at that stage?
MR HECHTER: That is correct, we called them high profile activists, because they were very active in crimes of violence, or violent actions during those times.
MR LAMEY: Were these activists who were then involved with the ANC or front organisations of the ANC?
MR HECHTER: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: Then I would just like to put it to you for the sake of clarity, you cannot recall much about the Ekangala incident, you do recall an incident in which Mr Gouws was involved and I represent him and he will confirm that he was involved with you in the incident at Ekangala, as has been set out in the application. He has studied your application. It is my instruction from Mr Gouws that he was not involved in an incident in Ekangala, where Mr Coetser was also present. And so also, Mr Coetser will stage that he was involved in an incident with you at Ekangala, but that Deon Gouws was not involved. Just to clear up that aspect.
MR HECHTER: Yes, I have deduced that, Chairperson. I really cannot recall the incident in which Mr Coetser and Mr Viktor were involved, according to their allegation, I can only recall the incident in which I and Mr Goosen were involved, but then again very vaguely I can recall that we were involved there. I beg your pardon, that was Mr Gouws, the incident in which we were involved during one evening.
MR LAMEY: Is it correct that after Mr Coetser was initially involved, Mr Gouws was later implicated?
MR HECHTER: Yes, they were involved.
MR LAMEY: And is it correct, as per Mr Viktor's evidence, that there were several such incidents which took place in the approximate number of 30 to 40 such incidents?
MR HECHTER: It is difficult to attach a number or a quantity, but I would say that that is more-or-less correct, if indeed it was not more.
MR LAMEY: Can we also accept that the quantity of the incidents creates problems with regard to recollection in separating every one of them and distinguishing between every one of them?
MR HECHTER: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: Thank you, I have nothing further.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Lamey. Ms Coleridge, do you have any questions?
FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Perhaps just one, Chairperson. I omitted one aspect which arises from Mr Coetser's application. I have to put it to you, Mr Coetser mentions it, he does not have direct evidence but in his statement on page 71 in bundle 2, that he heard from you that a person was killed during one of these attacks in Mamelodi and his inference was that it was this attack where he was involved in in Mamelodi. He refers to one incident where he was involved. Do you have any recollection?
MR HECHTER: Unfortunately no, Chairperson, I cannot recall any specifics with regard to these incidents.
MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chairperson, I've got no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY
CHAIRPERSON: Ms Coleridge?
NO QUESTIONS BY MS COLERIDGE
CHAIRPERSON: Any re-examination, Mr du Plessis?
MR VISSER: Chairperson, perhaps before my learned friend does, there was a matter that has now arisen from Mr Lamey's cross-examination.
CHAIRPERSON: Would you like to ask a question?
MR VISSER: I think it would be more reasonable if I did it now...
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think so, before re-examination. Certainly, Mr Visser.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Thank you, Chairperson.
Mr Hechter, from questions put to you by Mr Lamey it would appear that your evidence is that the attacks on houses with petrol bombs, was an execution of an order from Brig Viktor, is that your evidence?
MR HECHTER: That is correct, that is my evidence Chairperson.
MR VISSER: You know, Mr Viktor junior and Mr Goosen gave evidence here that the instructions came from Brig Jack Cronje.
MR HECHTER: That is correct, that is all from the original instructions that came from Brig Viktor, right at the beginning.
MR VISSER: Who gave the direct instructions for these instances where houses were attacked?
MR HECHTER: Originally this came from Gen Viktor. He gave those instructions to myself and Johan Viktor and then Brig Cronje went to speak to the General about it and from there the instructions came from Brig Cronje.
MR VISSER: Will you accept, Mr Hechter, that the Judgment of the original Amnesty Committee found that Brig Viktor did not give instructions?
MR HECHTER: I have no knowledge about that, Chairperson, so I cannot shed any light on it.
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, may I perhaps just come in here? This whole issue has been a bone of contention between my clients and Mr Visser's clients for at least four years. We have been in various situations fighting about this conflict. I have cross-examined Brig Viktor, he has cross-examined my clients in finitum, ad nauseam about this issue ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Let me just express what my views on this are, well not views but my understanding of what it is, only having been involved in this hearing and not in any of the previous hearings involving these applicants. Perhaps both you and Mr Visser can tell me that I'm wrong, but my understanding was that the initial instigation of this series of operations, these so-called petrol bomb and mellow-yellow bomb operations that took place, particularly in Mamelodi, Soshanguve, Atteridgeville, Ekangala areas, were initiated from a general, and I don't know what word to use, suggestion, instruction or view expressed by then Brig Viktor at a meeting, and that thereafter with regard to each specific operation, the bombing at such an such an activist's house or in Soshanguve or Mamelodi, etcetera, there the operation was initiated by an instruction from Brig Cronje. Is that right? So it was - Gen Viktor then wouldn't have known prior to the attack on the house at Soshanguve, that that would have taken place?
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes Mr Chairman, there was only one discussion with Brig Viktor, and Brig Cronje in his evidence also related everything that he did back to that blanket sort of suggestion, so you've put it a hundred percent correct, Mr Chairman.
MR VISSER: With great respect Chairperson, then I don't understand the objection, because that's the question I asked Mr Hechter, whether he received specific instructions for specific bombings from Brig Viktor and he said yes. And I put to him ...
And I put it to you that the evidence of Mr Viktor, as well as Mr Goosen. as well as what the Chairperson put to you now, is the correct position, that the specific instructions were given by Brig Cronje.
MR HECHTER: That is correct, Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER
MR LAMEY: Chairperson, I might also just say that that was also, in the way that you have summed it up, the intention of my question and I ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but you used the word "general", you said a general order.
MR LAMEY: ; Whether it came out right, that was the intention.
CHAIRPERSON: Any re-examination, Mr du Plessis?
MR DU PLESSIS: I have no re-examination, Mr Chairman.
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS
CHAIRPERSON: Judge de Jager, any questions? Advocate Sigodi, any questions?
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Capt Hechter, that concludes your testimony.
MR HECHTER: Thank you, Chairperson.
MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman, may Capt Hechter be excused?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
WITNESS EXCUSED
MR LAMEY: Chairperson, may we just have a moment so that I could just move back there. I think my clients are now next.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR VISSER: While Mr Lamey is in the process, perhaps I might be able to interrupt him for a change.
Chairperson, I was asked by Judge de Jager about particulars about the previous applications, perhaps I should refer you again to page 99. The first two incidents relating to Tembisa, A and B at that page, Chairperson, those were apparently heard during the early or the first part of 1999 and it was before Judges Wilson and Pillay and Mr Wynand Malan, in the IDASA Centre. We might be able to obtain a more accurate date for you once I get back to my chambers, Chairperson.
The second incident, the Oupa Masuku one, you would have noticed that the application was signed on the 24th of March 2000, that is at page 97 of bundle 2 ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Are you talking now about B, Godfrey Kwabe?
MR VISSER: No, Chairperson, I am now referring to F, "The Residence at Mashifani Street, Atteridgeville", that is the Oupa Masuku one, Chairperson. The 24th of March was a Friday, when this document was signed and we recall that the hearing started on the 27th of March of this year and Mr Viktor gave evidence on the 28th. We seen to recall that the Chairman was Judge Motata and that Mr Wynand Malan was a member, but we cannot recall the other member. But that's ...
CHAIRPERSON: I, in fact in briefcase here, have got a list of outstanding decisions which indicates dates and who the Panel Members were, so I think a quick reference to that might get these answers.
MR VISSER: If we could be of assistance with reference to that document, we'll gladly do so Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Anything else that you want to say, Mr Visser?
MR VISSER: No, thank you Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Visser. Mr Lamey.
MR LAMEY: Thank you, Mr Chairman. The next applicant is Mr Coetser.
