 |
News | Sport | TV | Radio | Education | TV Licenses | Contact Us |
|
News | Sport | TV | Radio | Education | TV Licenses | Contact Us |
Amnesty HearingsType AMNESTY HEARING Starting Date 25 February 1997 Location PRETORIA CAPTAIN HECHTER Day 2 Names JACK CRONJE, WILLEM WOUTER MENTZ, THOLAKELE NGQULUNGA, PAUL J. J VAN VUUREN Back To Top Click on the links below to view results for: +wilson +s Line 29Line 32Line 465Line 493Line 496Line 500Line 503Line 505Line 507Line 653Line 657Line 810Line 818Line 840Line 848Line 851Line 854Line 859Line 1304Line 1309Line 1419Line 1422Line 1431Line 1435Line 1613Line 1615Line 1617Line 1670Line 1918Line 1921Line 1923Line 1926Line 1933Line 1936Line 1940Line 1943Line 1945Line 1949Line 1952Line 1960Line 1997Line 2004Line 2008Line 2012Line 2015Line 2022Line 2044Line 2060Line 2081Line 2210Line 2306Line 2310Line 2313Line 2612 JUDGE MALL: ... video to be shown, I leave this in the hands of my learned friends who are lawyers as well as technicians, thank you. ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, first of all, we would like to apologise for the fact that we are starting a little bit late. It is due to one specific problem and that is that we exactly pin-pointed last night on a time counter on a video machine, exactly which excerpts we want to show. However, the video machine that was provided to us this morning, does not seem to have a time counter That is why I tried to fix that and it seems that I can't get passed that. If you will excuse me, then what I will do is we will try to show to you the excerpts that we decided last night to do, but I will in all probability have to search backwards and forwards a little bit if you would allow me that opportunity. JUDGE MALL: Yes, certainly, certainly. ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, we intend to show just parts of the Prime Evil video which we deem important and then I intend to, with your permission, call Captain Hechter, just to give very shortly, some comments and some evidence on certain of the aspects that we intend to show. There are PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG two video's. The one video will deal with Prime Evil, or is the Prime Evil video with some excerpts that we deem important and, the second video is a video which deals with inter alia the actions of comrades and the actions of activists. It shows necklaces and what is also very important, is it shows exactly what kind of violence the South African Police was, and probably still is exposed to, today. I have to point out to you, that in respect of the second video, there are certain parts of that video that are very gruesome. We think that it is important that we should show that because of the fact that that indicates visually what the applicants were exposed to from day to day at that time, but I have to warn you that some of the excerpts are very gruesome. JUDGE MALL: Shall we clear this room of all those under 25? ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, whoever is going to be offended, and I can say to you that it is going to be bad, should not look then. JUDGE WILSON: Where are we going to see this video? JUDGE MALL: Here in this room? ADV DU PLESSIS: In this room, yes, on the screen in front of you. JUDGE WILSON: Well in that case, can you please ask them to turn out that bright light, Ms Khampepe and I have to look straight at to see the video? ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, I'll see to that. Having looked at the light, Mr Chairman, I understand that completely. May I proceed? JUDGE MALL: It's made a vast difference thank you. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS: May I proceed? Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, before I go ahead, I have to point out that I am not going to show certain parts. If the Committee feels I am going to fast forward it on the basis that one can see it on the screen, if the Committee feels that they want to view something specifically, please indicate to me or otherwise if the Committee wants to see the whole video, we can show the whole video. I don't know what the Committee would prefer. JUDGE MALL: Well, at this stage we don't have a clue as to what we are about to see. ADV DU PLESSIS PLAYS THE VIDEO EXCERPTS OF VIDEO: It was a time of growing Black resistance against the National Party's apartheid policy. Most White people believed it was a communist onslaught against Christianity and civilization. The Soviet must be stopped in Southern Africa. We need your help as a team to stand up against the evil forces wishing to destroy our lovely country. There is too much to be protected to leave it in the hands of (Excerpt) We were also taught, I mean we were literally taught to hate. If you look at the Security course that I went on for five weeks we were subjected to and we swallowed all of this - the ranting and raving of a person that I describe as a cross between Eugene Terreblanche and Adolf Hitler, about the satanic godless communists, and their Black surrogates that were going to swamp us. I've got for example, my Criminology and Ethnology training manual from when I joined the Police and I can read to you a little piece here about the differences PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG between Whites and Non-Whites in respect of crime. "The Bantu are less civilized, the more primitive the people is, the less they are able to control their emotions. At the slightest provocation they resort to violence. They cannot distinguish between serious and less serious matters, they are less self-controlled and This video was taken at the Police Training .... ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I am going to comment every now and then just to indicate the relevance of certain parts of the video. You will recall that evidence was given in respect of this specific issue by Brig. Cronje in respect of the propaganda that the Police was subjected to, and this is a further indication of exactly what kind of propaganda they were subjected to at that stage. SCREENING OF VIDEO CONTINUES: It shows White policemen undergoing anti-terrorist training, a mock ambush is set up. Eugene de Kock's predecessor at Vlakplaas is Captain Dirk Coetzee, who completed his Officer's training in 1975, one year before De Kock. (DE KOCK SPEAKS): We had a special lecturer, Brigadier Neels du Plooy, who was the so-called specialist, a big Christian too, and he came to lecture us junior officers on communism, terrorism and worked us up into a frenzy with his knowledge and the viciousness and the cruelty of the enemy, of the These people they call human beings, how could they cut up nuns in East London during the riots in those early years, and they deserved nothing else but the worst, no mercy at all. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG No casualties were sustained by Security Forces and follow up operations are continuing. That is the end of this communication. COMMENTARY CONTINUES: It was a war in which 40,000 people died, fought between the White dominated forces of Ian Smith and the liberation armies or Robert Mugabe and Joshua Nkomo. South Africa refused to impose United Nations' sanctions Our orders, and ever since 1965 we refused to be a party to these boycotts and the policy of South Including war supplies you will continue to allow them to go through ... (indistinct) I am afraid the answer that I have just given you, is the answer that I want to give you at this stage. Unofficially, however, the Government had to help its northern neighbour. South African policemen were sent to fight alongside the Rhodesian counterparts. This film was shot in 1974 and shows South African policemen on war duty in Rhodesia. (Indistinct) and De Kock were amongst them. ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I show this because Brigadier Cronje has given evidence that his started his career partly in the Rhodesian war and that the South African police were already at that stage involved in a war situation and not simply involved in a situation pertaining to normal police duties. SCREENING OF VIDEO CONTINUES: ... He was very, very loyal to the cause. A man who was practically skilled in the skills and the arts of warfare. The man who was in hundreds of contacts, who was in multiple landmine explosions, a man who PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG for 20 years, for two decades ...(fast forward) Policemen in battle dress, armed to the teeth, rising on top of armed vehicles, called caspers. In front of the caspers, a group of trackers running on the spoor of SWAPO insurgents. These were the men of Koevoet, the police counter-insurgency unit, during the Namibian Bush war. The unit with the highest kill rate, but also implicated in committing atrocities against the local people. ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I show this to indicate the police's involvement in the Namibian bush SCREENING OF VIDEO CONTINUES: ... wait in the base and send you out after - on a mission that could get you killed, and he expected you to follow him on such a mission. People develop a hero worship for such a man. (Indistinct) with his people inside the trucks. ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman that was the evidence given about Brigadier Cronje by, as far as I can recall Captain Hechter and of the other applicants. He was a similar kind of man and he was involved also in operations, not just behind his desk, but he was involved as a leader. SCREENING OF VIDEO CONTINUES: ... leave Koevoet and come back to South Africa because "die vyand is nou hierso", the enemy is now in our backyard, not on the Angolan border. It is strange to me that anybody should be surprised at what he then did and the way he would then react. ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, you must just please bear with me, I am finding it a little bit difficult in finding the right places. I've got the correct time slots where they should be, but as I told you I can't find them so, please just bear with me. SCREENING OF VIDEO CONTINUES: .... with Mozambique. The PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG bodies of two ANC activists were burnt to ashes. (Indistinct) worked with both men, they were the, basically the armed wing of the National Party. It was from here that Death Squads hunted down and killed anti-apartheid activists. Dirk Coetzee found Vlakplaas in 1980, Eugene De Kock went to Vlakplaas in 1983 and became Commander two years later. Craig Williamson knew and worked with both men. They were the basically, the armed wing of the National Party. They were the National Party's equivalent of Umkhonto weSizwe. They were people who believed absolutely that they had a mission, that they had a job that only they could do, not only for themselves, but for their country, for their people, for their church and for their future and for their survival and for everybody else's survival. For their people The formation of Vlakplaas signalled a new phase in the Government's campaign against the ANC. Craig Williamson calls it the Secret War. Williamson is not only a former Security Policeman, but he was also National Party member of the President's Council. None of us who were doing that job in those years were policemen in the sense of upholding law and order and walking the beat, we were soldiers and we were used to fight a secret war. Statements by State President P.W. Botha during the 1980's left no doubt, South Africa was in a state of war. "The terrorist games of SWAPO and the ANC are the primary enemy and must be confronted and eliminated. We will not talk to these people, we will fight PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG them for the simple reason that they are part and parcel of the terrorist curse besetting The enemy at that time was blowing us up...... ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I just want to draw your attention to exactly what President Botha said here on this video. I am going to show it again. SCREENING OF VIDEO CONTINUES: ... of P.W. Botha during the 1980's left no doubt, South Africa was in a state of war. "The terrorist games of SWAPO and the ANC are the primary enemy and must be confronted and eliminated". ADV DU PLESSIS: I draw your attention to the fact that he uses the word "eliminated". "... we will fight them for the simple reason that they are part and parcel of the terrorist curse besetting the world of today". (Comments) The enemy at that time was blowing us up and was killing us and we were blowing up the enemy and we were killing them. Dirk Coetzee started Vlakplaas with a handful of White policemen and so called ascaris. ANC and PAC guerrillas that were captured and turned by the Security Police. One of the first ascaris to arrive at Vlakplaas was Joe Mamasela. MAMASELA: In my - in the years of school I became a member of SASM, South African student movement. I was the Secretary General of SASM at Morris Isaacson and also the school campus, I was the Deputy National Permanent Organiser of SASM. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG COMMENTARY: Mamasela joined in the 1976 Soweto uprising. Inspired by the student revolution, he joined the ANC and became the Organisation's courier in Botswana. But in 1979 the young activist was arrested and interrogated by the Security Branch. MAMASELA: They put some electrodes all over my body, in my testicles, private parts, my anus - here, it was terrible. I was bleeding profusely, I don't know how many times I lost consciousness. I lost consciousness for several times. The last time I fell into a deep, deep coma. QUESTION: And why did you start working for them? MAMASELA: There was no way I could salvage my life other than to work for them because this is what COMMENTARY: He became an ascari at Vlakplaas. He turned against his own people and became a killing machine, first for Dirk Coetzee and in later years for Eugene de Kock. MAMASELA: My first mission that I had to kill a human being, it was through Dirk Coetzee. COETZEE: I was prepared to kill as many people as I was instructed to kill. MAMASELA: And if you don't do this killing, they kill you. ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I was requested to make the sound louder, it is impossible. The sound is at its loudest. I believe that on the earphones, one can hear perhaps a little bit better. ADV DU PLESSIS: If there is a problem. MAMASELA: More than six ascaris were killed. COETZEE: We were untouchable, completely. NEWS READER: "Goeie naand, agt swartmans is in PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG afsonderlike handgranaat and bomontploffings vanoggend in the swart woongebiede aan die Oos-rand dood. Minstens sewe is ernstig beseer. Ten minste vier van die slagoffers was op pad om terreurdade te pleeg toe hulle deur hulle eie plofstof gedood is. Die polisie ondersoek die moontlikheid dat van die ander vier ook moontlik op pad was om COMMENTARY: The next morning violence erupted in the Duduza township. Residents believe the police informant was behind the deaths of the students. At the first funeral Archbishop Desmond Tutu saved a suspected informant from being necklaced. But at the second funeral the fury of Duduza was unleashed on Martha Skosana, the girlfriend of one of the students. Soon after Martha's necklacing, State President P.W. Botha, declared a state of emergency. P W BOTHA: Every responsible South African has with growing concern taken note of conditions of violence and lawlessness which in recent times has increased and have become more severe and more cruel in certain parts of the Country, especially in Black townships. COMMENTARY: More than 10 years later the memory of Martha Skosana's death has faded, but now Vlakplaas assassin Joe Mamasela is talking. The students didn't blow themselves up by accident - it was a Security Police dirty tricks operation played by, amongst others, Vlakplaas commander Eugene de Kock. ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, this part relates to the Zero handgrenade incident, just to make it 100% MAMASELA: They were infiltrated by me for about two weeks PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG and in the ultimate analysis De Kock gave me some booby traps, you know what I mean, handgrenades and one SPM limpet mine, the big one to give to them and this stuff we handed to them and they were told to choose whatever target they want (indistinct), and they blew themselves up. QUESTION: And what happened to the limpet mine you gave to one of the student leaders? MAMASELA: It was terrible, you know, because once he started pulling off the safety-pin it went off. There was a black smoke billowing in the air with a little tongue of red smoke, a red flash, flash-light and COMMENTARY: After the operation, Mamasela reported back to his Commander. MAMASELA: He was ecstatic about it, he was ecstatic about it, he was extremely happy, he jumped like COMMENTARY: Eugene de Kock became Commander at Vlakplaas in 1985, the time of growing Black MAMASELA: The first impression that he created was that he was a brutal man, he was an aggressive MAMASELA: (Indistinct), you know he wanted to make us dogs of war. COMMENTARY: His job was to combat terrorism and terrorism was then defiant. His job was to combat the onslaught against South Africa. The onslaught at that time, first of all was in Rhodesia then it was later in South-West Africa Namibia and when the onslaught became hot behind our own alliance inside South Africa, he was used to combat that PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG Well anyone could see that this is a cookie you don't play with, you see. He was quiet, well- spoken, but there was something that ... They told you don't play with this guy. QUESTION: Do you think the Generals knew what he was doing? ANSWER: It depends which Generals, but I have no doubt there were certain Generals that knew what he was doing, because they weren't that dumb as not to know what he was doing. At least once a month the top structure of security headquarters, the Generals, would come for a "potjiekos" or a "braai" and then Colonel De Kock used to foresee us with finance to go buy the meat and the booze etc, and it started about twelve o'clock on a Friday afternoon and end whatever. QUESTION: Did the Generals know what was going on at Vlakplaas? ANSWER: There was a full time party there, three times a week all the Generals were there, celebrating and as soon as the shit hit the fan, they disappeared and no one came, nobody. The Generals did visit the farm frequently and I am sure that they had report-backs from Eugene, actions that were taken, but to say that they knew in detail, I wouldn't agree with that. They drew the parameters, they drew the counter- evolutionary strategy, they gave us the budgets, they gave us the men, they gave us the means, the equipment and they monitored our effectiveness and whether we were doing our job or not and they were happy, they gave us the highest declarations that this Country can give and yes, many of PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG them turned round at the end of the day and said goodness, gracious, we didn't know that these band of merry men of ours were doing such nasty things. If they were doing these nasty things, they must have been doing it on their own initiative. Because of the police, the top police ...(indistinct) was the family. It is one of the dichotomies of man that in fact perhaps because you are a loving father and because you love your people, and because you love your Country, you prefer to kill for it, (indistinct). You may also have to be prepared to die for it. .... (tape ends) MAMASELA?): How I don't know but you must suffer, and God is going to punish me, that's what I'm ... beweerde apartheidmisdade. Die Kommissie het gesê as mnr Botha weier om te antwoord op ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, if you will just bear with me for a minute please. Mr Chairman, I think it is nearly at the end of what I want to show, I just want to make hundred percent sure that I've covered everything. This is the last part of the video that deals with Colonel de Kock, which was not important for purposes of this hearing. ...."Spanbou" is usually four days, it is nice the Government expenses who doesn't do it, everyone does it. One big party. ....(Indistinct) get intoxicated, wrestle and stuff like that. COMMENTARY: In this instance the men were joined by General Krappies Engelbrecht. He was the unit's so-called Sweeper. De Kock will have to cover up. He was implicated in Court PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG in some of the charges against De Kock. ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I show that excerpt because I am also going to call Brigadier Cronje very shortly on that. He already gave evidence that he distances himself from Colonel De Kock and from Captain Dirk Coetzee and he will testify about things like that and if that happened during his period COMMENTARY: ....bravery, outstanding service and combatting terrorism. In December 1985 he received the Police Cross for Bravery for this raid into Lesotho. De Kock.... - the former police Commissioner, General Johan van der Merwe, to this day, the General denies any knowledge of the existence of Police Death Squads. Eugene de Kock was charged with only one murder. COMMENTARY:... Hit Squad members as ascaris, according to General Coetzee former terrorists who had joined the Security Police and assisted in the identification of infiltrating ANC and PAC members. Praising their work, General Coetzee denied the Ascaris had ever been ordered to assassinate, adding and "Just the thought of such a squad would defeat all the Police stands for". QUESTION: What did you tell you colleagues in the National Party, at that time? ANSWER: I told them what the system wanted them to believe and that Dirk Coetzee was obviously an agent of International Communism who was attempting to destabilise the psychological status of our counter-revolutionary efforts. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG QUESTION: Why didn't you tell them the truth? ANSWER: (Laughs) That would have been an interesting occurrence if I had. COMMENTARY: In meetings with policemen around the country Minster of Law and Order, Adriaan Vlok, said Coetzee was part of the dirty tricks campaign against the Police. VLOK: "Die polisie wat hulle lewens opoffer vir die land, wat hulle tyd, alles gee vir Suid-Afrika en sy mense en al dank wat ons kry van 'n groot klomp mense, is dat ons word beswadder en beskuldig van die lelikste dinge wat denkbaar is." ANSWER: I can expect some naive people on the (indistinct) maybe can believe that story, but people who were in the management structures of the State, didn't believe that story, they knew who was COMMENTARY: Coetzee went into hiding in Zambia..... QUESTION: Did you lie to the Harms Commission? MAMASELA: Oh, I lied, I lied. We all lied from Cape to Cairo. It was a shambles. ANSWER: It was totally the nonsense that was fed to them, I mean the whole Harms Commission was a farce, it was fed manure and it was kept in the dark and it grew, the type of mushrooms that it was MAMASELA: No, we were told to lie, it was instructions from the Generals that we should lie. There was no way that we could compromise the police, no when we told - in all sections that we should lie. ANSWER: I think one of the important things that we in this country are going to have to come to terms with is the total lie that we all lived with. I find this now sometimes PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG very difficult to believe the - that they'd lie. We often used to talk or you hear about people saying that as long as you make the lie big enough, you can in fact fool all of the people all of the time. COMMENTARY: While the men at Vlakplaas continued to lie to the Harms Commission, De Kock and his Squad attacked a house in Botswana. They shot and killed a PAC activist, his wife and two children. De Kock and his superiors would stop at nothing to hide their crimes even if it meant another murder. This is the grave of Constable Brian Ngqulunga. For nine years, one of the unit's most trusted members. MAMASELA:(?) Brian, the whole thing shook him to the marrow, it disturbed him. He was a completely devastated person, he was a pathetic sight. You know he was frail, he drank too much. The whole exposure into the media went into his mind. He couldn't take it. He was on the verge of complete breakdown. And as a result he shot his wife three times, his pregnant wife. Fortunately the poor COMMENT: Eugene never boasted or he never talked about that, but yes, I knew and he would mention that he had to eliminate someone because of the fact that the person was posing a threat, and threatened to go and talk about certain things. MAMASELA: There was a meeting at General Engelbrecht's office. Nick van Rensburg was also there, De Kock was there, a lot of guys was there and it was - concern was raised about Brian Ngqulunga's behaviour and his drinking problem and that he is becoming progressively agitated and nervous and they were afraid that this condition will PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG jeopardise the police case in the Harms Commission and De Kock suggested that Brian should be killed, he COMMENTARY: On the 20th of July 1990 Brian Ngqulunga was shot dead in the township of Soshanguve near Pretoria. His grave is on a hill overlooking Vlakplaas. He was given an official police Nine months after his appointment, Mr Justice Louis Harms released his findings. There were no police Death Squads, he said. Dirk Coetzee, had lied. ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman, can I just make a request. Seeing that we are watching something on Brian Ngqulunga and the wife and the relatives are here, that it be re-shown and they be allowed to come and sit at a place where they can see that for themselves. It is a request. JUDGE MALL: When you say they are here, do you mean they are in this hall? ADV MPSHE: They are in this hall, Mr Chairman. JUDGE MALL: Then, should they not be able to see it now whilst it is being shown to us? ADV MPSHE: That is the request I am making that they be allowed to come forward and see it. JUDGE MALL: Oh, I thought you said they should be screened to them on another occasion. Certainly. ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Chairman, while we are on this point, Captain Mentz will testify about this specific incident and especially relating to the orders that they were given in respect of Brian Ngqulunga. I am showing this video now before Captain Mentz' evidence. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG I just want to indicate to you at this stage that the evidence of Captain Mentz will be that he and the others that were instructed to eliminate Brian Ngqulunga were never informed of the reason that is now alleged by Mr Mamasela to have been the reason for the elimination. I am just making that point. ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, and Mr Chairman furthermore I want to point out to you that Mamasela was not involved in that operation at all. So the evidence that is shown on the video will, to a certain extent, be contradicted by the evidence of Captain Mentz. ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I am just making hundred percent sure that I've covered Mr Chairman I would like with your permission, in respect of this video before we show the other video, to call Brigadier Cronje very shortly just to give his comments on one or two of the aspects.I want to After having, well showing the excerpt of Brian Ngqulunga, I realised that the excerpt itself and what was said in the excerpt is obviously detrimental and perhaps prejudicial to Captain Mentz' application. We, however, decided that because of the fact that we are speaking the truth from Captain Mentz' point of view and what happened to him, that it would be in our interest to show this excerpt in respect of Brian Ngqulunga even if what was said there, might and I am not saying that it does, but might contradict what I want to make that point very clear Mr Chairman. JUDGE MALL: You will obviously tell us who compiled that PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG particular video, would you not? ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, we will be able to give you the JUDGE MALL: The Committee will take a short adjournment at this stage. ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. JUDGE MALL: In fairness to counsel I think it should be told that a member of the Committee felt that as a result of what we had seen, a certain question may be cleared up amongst ourselves and it was in order that this short adjournment was taken and I am hoping it hasn't inconvenienced anybody. ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, may I allowed to call Brigadier Cronje very shortly for five minutes? BRIGADIER JACK CRONJE: (s.u.o) EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: Brigadier, you have now seen the video. Parts of the Rhodesian war and the Namibian Bush war. Do you confirm that you were also involved in a similar BRIG CRONJE: Yes, that is correct. ADV DU PLESSIS: Brigadier, you also heard what Craig Williamson said in the video with regards to the fact that the Security Branch was the military wing of the National Party. ADV DU PLESSIS: Do you agree with that? PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS: You've also heard the ex-President Botha specifically speaking about the fact that ANC activists, I think he said ANC activists and terrorists, would be eliminated? ADV DU PLESSIS: Did you hear that? ADV DU PLESSIS: Brigadier could you just give the Committee an indication of how you regarded that in the light of Brigadier Victor's instruction? BRIG CRONJE: Brigadier Victor probably received his instruction from higher up and I thus believed instructions came from higher up and that these were the correct instructions. ADV DU PLESSIS: And Brigadier, do you regard it in the light of what has been said in the video by President Botha that there was a possibility that the instruction came from him? BRIG CRONJE: Yes, I saw it as such. ADV DU PLESSIS: Brigadier, you also saw what was said with regard to the Zero hand grenade incident, was there anything you would like to dispute with regards to that? BRIG CRONJE: I would like to differ in the sense that De Kock was not in charge of the Operation, I was ADV DU PLESSIS: Very well. Brigadier it appears as though the producers of the video, either out of ignorance or for convenience sake, the period which you were in charge of Vlakplaas or otherwise omitted to include that in the video would you care to give any explanation to that effect? BRIG CRONJE: I cannot give any explanation. I would like to say to the Committee that I took over PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG not De Kock. And furthermore I would like to say that the people who worked with me, did not look anything like the people on the video. I refer to Colonel Venter, he was the type of man who worked with Furthermore, parties as the one on the beach, would not have been, never have been allowed in my time. I would also like to say that De Kock was transferred to me from Koevoet, I did not want him there, but I was given an instruction to take him. Those type of things never happened under my command and it would never have happened foot on De Kock's throat and such things would never have happened under my command. ADV DU PLESSIS: Brigadier, as far as Dirk Coetzee's evidence is concerned that he was like God over there and he could do as he pleased, what is your comment on that? BRIG CRONJE: It did not work like that Mr Chairman. Dirk Coetzee exaggerated as far as that is concerned, that is not how we operated. ADV DU PLESSIS: Very well then. Brigadier, what is said there by Craig Williamson with regards to the involvement of the Generals in Vlakplaas, that what happened at Vlakplaas happened with the knowledge of the Generals, do you identify with that? BRIG CRONJE: Could you please repeat that? ADV DU PLESSIS: What Craig Williamson said on the video with regards to the involvement of the Generals in Vlakplaas and the fact that they knew and also the higher authorities, the fact that they knew about the operations of Vlakplaas, do you identify with that? BRIG CRONJE: Yes, I do, they all knew what was happening PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG JUDGE WILSON: When you say "all" do you mean every single General in the police force or are you limiting yourself to a limited number? BRIG CRONJE: I would limit it to the Generals in the Security Branch, the Commissioner of South African Police, who were all members of the Security Branch before. ADV DU PLESSIS: Brigadier, at some stage there were also photographs of the members posing for photographs with corpses laying around as if they were very proud of what they had done, was that your approach at the time, did you allow such things? BRIG CRONJE: No, Mr Chairperson. ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman I have no further questions. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DU PLESSIS. JUDGE MALL: Whose decision was it to transfer De Kock from Koevoet to Vlakplaas? BRIG CRONJE: As I understood it, De Kock had been such a cause of trouble in Oshakati by fighting that they had no option, his Commanding Officer there requested that he be transferred and Brigadier Schoon instructed me to take him in. JUDGE MALL: Was there a time when you and Dirk Coetzee were together at Vlakplaas? JUDGE MALL: Precisely how would reports of what was happening at Vlakplaas be conveyed to BRIG CRONJE: It would have been done orally, Chairperson and would very seldom have been done in JUDGE MALL: How would instructions to Vlakplaas or to PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG you be conveyed from headquarters? JUDGE MALL: Would there be an intermediary between the people that were going to give you instructions and yourself or would the instructions be conveyed to you directly? BRIG CRONJE: To me directly, Chairperson. To me directly, Chairperson. JUDGE WILSON: You were asked about the video that we've looked at and in particular what I want to ask you about is a speech made by Mr P.W. Botha. You remember that? JUDGE WILSON: Is it correct that the video we have just been shown, consisted largely of reports, matters of that nature? BRIG CRONJE: It appeared to me as such Chairperson. JUDGE WILSON: That the speech that we heard from Mr P.W. Botha was a speech he made in the 1980's, not something that was made for this video? BRIG CRONJE: I do not know when he made it. JUDGE WILSON: It was in the past, something you, all of us would have heard many years ago? JUDGE WILSON: And ...(indistinct) at that time? JUDGE WILSON: And the second matter which is not of the same relevance is these parties on the beach we're showed, there had been frequent complaints in the Natal Parks Board about a certain military place down on the coast there, is that where the parties were? BRIG CRONJE: It seems to me that it was at a house on the north coast. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DE JAGER: Brigadier Cronje, the reports you said were done verbally to head office, were these done during regular meetings or were they done at any time when an incident took place or how often were BRIG CRONJE: The way in which we operated was that I had four divisions which worked in different regions. One for example in Natal, one in the Eastern Transvaal, the other in the Northern Transvaal and so forth, and depending on what took place there at the end of the month those people would come back and report to me and I would report to my head, Brigadier Schoon. ADV DE JAGER: So it was not a report made at a formal meeting? ADV DE JAGER: Were there any agreements, standing agreements where strategic reports would be made? BRIG CRONJE: Every morning Brigadier Schoon would attend the San Hedrin and I would - what I reported back to him, he would report back to this San Hedrin. MR CURRIN: We have no questions at this stage, thank you. ADV MPSHE: No questions Mr Chairman. FURTHER EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I just want to ask two questions pertaining to the questions that the Committee asked. Brigadier, the parties which they showed here, I believed that they were held at Sodwana, was it during Colonel De Kock's time, do you know during which period these parties took place? BRIG CRONJE: I do not know during which period they took place, but they had to have been during his ADV DU PLESSIS: Would Captain Mentz be able to give us a bit PRETORIA ADV DU PLESSIS: I would just like to put it to you for the Committee's benefit, that Captain Mentz will say that those parties were held in the 1990's, so that was long after you had left Vlakplaas. Brigadier Cronje, would you say that it is possible that the fact that you were not mentioned in this video is simply because you were not involved in sensational incidents such as De Kock and them, could you just BRIG CRONJE: I suspect that that is the reason why I am not mentioned as a Commanding Officer. MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, may I be allowed to say something? Can you see me, I am a bit far away? MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, first of all we must place ourselves on record before the Committee. Acting for certain people who have applied for amnesty and we have some points which we wish to make in regard to the evidence and particularly Section 19(4) notices. We don't want to interrupt at this stage, the reason why I am addressing you right now is ...(intervention) JUDGE MALL: I would rather you tell me who you are appearing for. MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, for record purposes, my name is L.J.L. Visser, I am instructed by Wagenaar, Muller & Du Plessis. May I hand up to you a document, Mr Chairman, which will summarise what I wish to say to you right now and part of the reason why I wish to hand it up to you is you will PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG find an annexure attached to the document which I present to you right now, that contains the names of those people whom we represent in their amnesty applications. May I by way of short introduction Mr Chairman say that we act if you look at the annexure containing the names if they were numbered, you would have seen that they number 81 on the list as they stand at present. So presently we act for 81 applicants, Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, what this really is about is the issue of how the Committee is going to deal in future with evidence of applicants before you which implicate other individuals. more in particular, those for whom I appear. It appears to us Mr Chairman, and we have stated that at page 2, that in regard to the Section 19(4) notices, there appears to us to be two permutations mainly and that is that our clients might deny their involvement or alternatively they might admit their involvement. Now ...(intervention) JUDGE MALL: Or there is another alternative - might ignore it. MR VISSER: Well, we can assure you we are not going to ignore it. So as far as we are concerned that is not a permutation. What we wish to say just at this stage very shortly Mr Chairman, is that insofar as our clients either admit or deny being implied by other applicants, we, as we stated to you yesterday in your chambers, if we know of an incident which is going to be brought before you on a particular date, we will see to it that we are here and that we inform you of the exact position of that particular implicated client of Broadly speaking ins far as, we don't want to go through this every time for 81 people, and that is why we've PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG handed in this little document, simply to say that where we admit being involved, it does not necessarily mean that we agree with the evidence tendered by an applicant before you or with his particular motivation, it goes without saying, Mr Chairman. The reason why we make this point right now is that it does not occur to us to be the time or the place to place in issue all the evidence placed before you by the present applicants, where we should disagree with them. We would be in your hands as to how you want to deal with those disputes, all that we will do at this stage, and we undertake to do, is to draw your attention to any disputes which may exist. What we want to make absolutely clear is that we are not objecting on behalf of any of our clients to any of the applications now before you. If it should happen Mr Chairman, that on the evidence as disputed perhaps by any of our clients in future, it becomes necessary for you to make credibility findings, well then we will have to be led by you at that stage, presently we are assuming that there may not be such material disputes as will disenable you to make a finding on their application. We are hoping that that is going to be the situation that prevails. I will finish Mr Chairman, this is really a build up to the question of the Section 19(4) notices. We are in this position for example, this morning we heard evidence which affect Victor and Schoon for whom we appear and we had no notice that this was going to happen. Now quite clearly from an administrative point of view, it occurs to us that the Committee is in an invidious position. My attorney and myself discussed yesterday the PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG practical situation that acting for these people, we know in which incidents they are involved, but Mr Mpshe does not, for the simple reason that an applicant may not have mentioned the name and he informs us that he hasn't read through all the amnesty applications, so he is completely in the dark. What we wish to suggest by way of assisting if we can, is that my attorney should draw up a list of incidents of all the incidents in which our applicants are involved, for example the Nietverdiend incident and the Zero incident and whatever and then give a list of names of our clients who are involved in those incidents to Mr Mpshe, so as to make it possible for him to give us 19(4) notices. May I just, while we are on the issue of 19(4) issues, make our position clear. We have in fact, my attorney has in fact told Mr Mpshe it is not necessary to give us the notices and then we reconsidered. The problem with that Mr Chairman, is that it is one thing to know that you are implicated, but it is another thing to know on what evidence. We had to retract that offer and you will see that in the letter which we've handed up to you which you ...(intervention) ADV DE JAGER: Wasn't it perhaps accepted before you retracted it? MR VISSER: Well, my learned friend Mr Mpshe did not take that point against us, Mr Chairman and I'm hoping that we don't have to go into the law of contract on that issue. But the point is that it does seem necessary to know beforehand Mr Chairman what the other person who implicates our clients, is going to say. I think it is a matter of logic, so it is not as if we wish to make more work for Mr Mpshe, PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG but it occurs to us to be necessary and I just wanted to explain that. So Mr Chairman, thank you for listening to me for so long, but what we suggest then is that we should give you that list and that that would enable Mr Mpshe to give us due notice of when a particular incident will be heard and at that stage we will then come and if we may, by way of a short affidavit on behalf of that client of ours, simply state very briefly what is in dispute and what is not in dispute. That is the best we can think of offering our assistance at this point in time, but we will obviously be led by whatever you decide, how you wish to do it. JUDGE MALL: Speaking for myself, I think that it will be very very helpful to carry out the suggestion which you have made about giving us a list of your clients setting out how, briefly or rather in respect of which matters, they were implicated. I am glad that you appreciate the difficulty we have in carrying out Section 19(4) notices, simply because as evidence unfolds names are mentioned, we hear them for the first time and it seems that the only way in which that can be done, would be at the end of each day to draw up a list of people whose names are mentioned, who may be implicated. Not people whose names are merely mentioned, but who may be implicated and at the end of each day take steps to notify people. But I see that all your clients whose names appear here have themselves applied for amnesty and, it may very well be that they will have ample opportunity at that stage to give their version as fully as they would like to and the Committee, I can assure you, will give full consideration to PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG the evidence of their account and the extent of their participation in whatever they are applying amnesty It may be that if we can avoid a repetition of hearing evidence, in other words if we can avoid calling a man simply because his name is mentioned and he is given notice in terms of Section 19(4), for him to come here and respond to what was said yesterday about him, and then find out that he has made an application for amnesty and he will be repeating what he said then, one certainly wants to avoid that. You understand the time constraints within which this Committee is functioning. We are always looking for ways of streamlining procedures and it would seem that if you furnish this document with what your clients have to comment on and in what matters they are implicated in, it will facilitate matters and that document should be handed to counsel for the applicants. Now we understand you are telling us that your clients do not object to the applications for amnesty by the applicants. That is a matter of some importance. It is a question of hearing their version of what is being said and we will have an open mind in that regard and I can assure you on behalf of the Committee, that we will do so. JUDGE WILSON; Can I add something Mr Visser that I think may be of assistance. I don't know how many of your clients are policemen or army officers, but ...(intervention) MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I can answer the question immediately, 80 of them are policemen and one is JUDGE WILSON: It would be much easier to identify them if you could also give ranks, so when PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG Captain Coetzee, because you've got about five different Coetzee's, if you could put the ranks onto the list, I think it would make it easier for Mr Mpshe and others to identify. MR VISSER: We hear what you say Mr Chairman, but there is a problem with that and that is the changing of the ranks, but we will do it anyway as near as possible. We can identify them. May we accept then that for as far as our clients have been implicated here today, you will appreciate that obviously we have no instructions on that, we will not forego any rights by asking you to allow whatever our reaction is going to be to stand down to a later date? MR VISSER: May I also add Mr Chairman, you've suggested it and we have already done that, we have also circulated these affidavits which we spoke about earlier in which we say what is admitted and what is denied to the applicants' legal representatives. The reason for that is that they might, with that knowledge, be able even from their side to shorten proceedings by perhaps avoiding disputes or cutting out disputes where it is possible. May it please you, thank you Mr Chairman. ADV DE JAGER: Mr Visser, as far as the affidavits that you've given to the other people, if you intend that they should be part of our material to be considered, we will be glad to receive it ourselves so if you could hand it into the Commission, if you consider that to be necessary? As far as the evidence given this morning, could I say that insofar as the video's have been confirmed under oath, as far as I am concerned that would be considered as evidence, the mere showing of PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG appearing thereon, wouldn't as far as we are concerned, implicate those persons except as far as they've in fact implicated by this person giving evidence now. MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman. Dealing with the last point that certainly accords with our view of the law and we are thankful for that direction which you have given. As far as handing up the affidavits to you, we didn't mention it because we thought it spoke for itself, the whole intention of the affidavits would be for your information, for your consumption, but we will also make it available to the legal representatives of the applicants. MR VISSER: Yes, of course we will. MR VISSER: May I say one last thing. General Johan van der Merwe, the issue which we spoke about yesterday, I am hoping that I won't have to speak again today, so while it is my turn, while I've been given a turn, I wish to put it all in - he will be available on Thursday the 27th for Mr Currin to put his questions to him. MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman. MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Visser, would you have any objection in making those affidavits available to legal representatives of victims or the relatives of the deceased in respect of which the applicants are applying for MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, may we respond this way. Obviously we would have a practical problem, knowing who these people are, what we would say with respect Mr Chairman, and my attorney can stop me if I am wrong, is that we would have no objection if Mr Mpshe imparted that PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG information to - may I just take an instruction on that? Yes, of course the practical problem is also that as we are sitting here we still don't really know what is going to develop so that we can't tell you now that we are going to give you affidavits of 81 people, we will have to see what is alleged against them and in fact for Schoon we had an affidavit here this morning, which has now become irrelevant because of some of the evidence that had been given here, so at the time when Mr Mpshe gets it, it will hopefully be in its semi or final form and at that stage we would have no objection to him imparting that information. JUDGE MALL: Thank you. We think that that is an imminently sensible way of doing it. MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman. ADV DE JAGER: Mr Visser, only another practicality. We haven't been supplied with the ranks, but would you say that you are representing all the Generals in the Security police? MR VISSER: Not even close, Mr Chairman. ADV DE JAGER: Because the trouble we've got is that there was a reference to the Generals in the Security police would have known, and we can't give notices to people we don't know. MR VISSER: I was listening to the evidence and that very problem struck me Mr Chairman. I was saying to myself that if I had to cross-examine now I would have to ask who were these Generals, but I didn't want to interfere, but we have that problem, but we certainly don't act for all the Generals, no. You will see from the names, although the ranks are not there, from the list you will, I think Mr PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG Chairman with respect, you will be able to identify the Generals. We are talking about General Johan Coetzee, General Johan van der Merwe - may I just take instructions? My attorney suggests in order to attempt to assist, if you feel that there are Generals which you would like to send Section 19(4) notices to, perhaps to send him a copy of that notice and he might be able, or he would probably be able to locate that person and deliver that notice on behalf of the Committee to them, which may circumvent that problem Mr Chairman. MR VISSER; Other than that, I am not sure whether we can be of much assistance in that regard. ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, may I perhaps comment just on two aspects. The first aspect is that the evidence pertaining to Brigadiers Victor and Schoon which was given this morning, was actually in the light of the previous evidence that was given, no more than probably a repetition of what was given already. So that evidence was in any event available to Mr Visser and there is nothing new in terms of which his clients have been implicated. In respect of the affidavits that they want to hand up Mr Chairman, clearly we do not have a problem with that, except for one aspect thereof, and that is that I would like to be in a position to be able to consider the contents of such an affidavit before evidence is led pertaining to a specific incident, so that I can take it up with my clients, so that I can lead evidence pertaining to any contradictions PRETORIA between my client's evidence and whatever is contained in such an affidavit. We do not have any objection that the contents of our amnesty applications be made available to Mr Visser for that purpose so that they can go through that and so that they will then obviously be able to provide us with copies of such affidavits beforehand. Obviously it would have an effect on our client's applications, because of the fact that the contradictions might cause us certain difficulties which we do not know at this stage what facts will be contradicted, otherwise Mr Chairman I will have to ask the Committee to recall my clients after giving evidence and after having received the affidavits in specific incidents, JUDGE MALL: Yes, I think nobody wants to have these proceedings carry on indefinitely. There must be finality in the submissions that you wish to make on behalf of your clients, and if the time comes when Mr Visser's clients make their application for amnesty, the Committee will bear in mind whatever differences there are, between the evidence they give and the evidence you give. Some of these differences may be faulty recollections, because of passage of time, they may be on side issues and not on material issues, those are factors which we will take into account, but I think that in fairness to your clients, if there is anything material you client's attention will be drawn to those. ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, do I understand then that the Committee will draw our attention to any contradictions which the Committee deem important and which will then be taken up? PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG JUDGE MALL: That is in addition to the fact that you will be given the affidavits by Mr Visser? JUDGE MALL: You will have an opportunity of deciding yourself as to whether the differences between your clients' version and his clients' is on a material issue or on a side issue and so on. ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Chairman, I understand. JUDGE MALL: And we rely on your good judgement. ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, the only point that I am trying to make is that I would prefer having those affidavits before my clients give evidence, that is the only request that I have. JUDGE MALL: If that is possible, we must do so. Mr Visser? MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, we have offered to make these available to my learned friend. He hasn't what I've been saying. We are under no obligation to him to give it to him, I am not going to undertake to give it to him any period of time beforehand because it depends on when they are going to become available, we've got the right to place before you evidence where we are implicated Mr Chairman, so I don't need his objection or his admission either. We've offered it Mr Chairman, we certainly don't want to get involved in an argument about it with my learned friend. JUDGE MALL: No, I think it is a question of not merely making a verbal offer, I am talking about MR VISSER: Yes, yes, we will make it available. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I still don't understand my learned friend. JUDGE MALL: I think if you have a chat with him during the adjournment you might be able to ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, alright, then I would like to do that Mr Chairman, because I don't understand my learned friend to say that he will give it before we give evidence, Mr Chairman. JUDGE MALL; Alright, would you clear it up with him during the adjournment, please. I'd like us to ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes. Mr Chairman, I just want to make this clear, if we are not going to be provided the opportunity of having sight of whatever they are going to place before the Committee ...(intervention) ADV DE JAGER: Mr du Plessis how can he reply to an allegation before you've given evidence? He obviously has to hear the evidence and then reply thereto. ADV DU PLESSIS: But Mr Chairman because the evidence is contained in the applications and we offered to make the applications available. ADV DE JAGER: Ja, he hasn't had the applications up to now. ADV DU PLESSIS: But we are offering to make it available now, Mr Chairman. JUDGE MALL: I appeal to the good sense of the parties in this matter, not to engage in this kind of debate. I am sure that commonsense will prevail if you come together and sort this matter out as best as you ADV DU PLESSIS: We will endeavour to do so, Mr Chairman. JUDGE WILSON: But I think you must bear in mind is that PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG what Mr Visser, as I understand him is trying to do, is to comply with the provisions of the Act which entitle his clients to be heard, but to avoid having days and days of oral evidence by giving affidavits which if we accept, we need not hear his clients and obviously if those affidavits conflict with what your clients have said, then that witness will have to be heard, they cannot conflict merely by affidavit. ADV DU PLESSIS: Well, Mr Chairman, that is one of the problems that I have got. JUDGE WILSON: Yes you will get the affidavit, if it conflicts you can ask for the witness to be called. If it agrees with what your clients have said, we waste no further time. MR VISSER: That is precisely correct, Mr Chairman, we are trying to help streamline the procedure. ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. JUDGE MALL: Yes, thank you. You may proceed. ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman, I would like to proceed with the second video. Mr Chairman, I don't know when the tea break would be. If it is quarter past eleven we will not be finished JUDGE MALL: Alright. We will then take the adjournment now and resume at a quarter past eleven. ADV DU PLESSIS: We have had discussions with the legal representatives of the 81 other policemen. We have received certain affidavits, I am not hundred percent sure that they are all the affidavits. We have PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG concerned, come to a hundred percent final arrangement in that regard. I still need to clear up one or two points. I must say that in principle in a discussion between my attorney and Mr Wagenaar, there was agreement in principal and both parties intend to work together so it is just a question of clearing up one or two points, I just want to make that clear. JUDGE WILSON: Can I ask something Mr Visser, which you will have to ask your attorney I think, that is how quickly would he be able to give us a list of persons implicated in your applications and would he be able to give a list, this would be for our assistance and not binding, of the incidents in which persons are involved in your applications? MR VISSER: Yes, that was the suggestion Mr Chairman, that we make a list of the incidents and then we will add to the incidents or under the incidents the names of those of our clients who are involved in them. I think that is probably the way to go - or would you want us to make a list of names and add the incidents to each name, because then it is going to be far too difficult? JUDGE WILSON: No, your suggestion, but not only the names of your clients who are involved, but the names of the persons your clients allege were implicated. MR VISSER: Yes, that is a second aspect which I think could be done, Mr Chairman. JUDGE WILSON: If it could be done. MR VISSER: Yes, of course that list is for the eyes of the Committee only, clearly. JUDGE MALL: To facilitate the work of the Committee. MR VISSER: Oh, and His Lordship Mr Justice Wilson asked PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG me when this can be done, my attorney suggests that he can probably be ready with it by Thursday morning when we have to be here anyway. JUDGE WILSON: Well, if he can, I will be very pleased. And the list of names of persons involved, will be for our eyes, but we may make use of it in notifying people? MR VISSER: Yes, that is the idea, as long as it is not for publication purposes, it is clearly just to assist JUDGE MALL: It is to facilitate the work of this Committee. MR VISSER: Absolutely Mr Chairman. JUDGE MALL: Thank you. May we proceed with the video? ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, before I show this video I just want to indicate to you the specific aspects that will be dealt with in the video itself. The first incident that will be shown is the Church Street bomb, and the bomb in the Hallmark The second part of the video which shows the murder on the Niemand family in Pretoria. Now that part of the video Mr Chairman, relates to normal violence that policemen are exposed to and that would be important for purposes of the evidence of the psychiatrist later on as well as to give the Committee a visual general background of what policemen in the normal course of their duties are exposed to. The third part of the video would entail pictures of murders etc, which were not politically The fourth part of the video shows the actions of crowds, necklaces, violences on innocent people PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG involvement of youths and activists in crowd behaviour. This will have a political connotation. The fifth part will show provocation during crowd control, which will also be of political The sixth part of it relates to attacks on policemen in Mamelodi and Westonaria, and that is also important for purposes of the Zero hand grenade incident as the whole planning of that incident was borne out of specifically attacks on policemen. Then the next part would relate to attacks on civilians and deaths of civilians in political related And the last part would show riots and burning of vehicles. ADV DE JAGER: Mr Du Plessis ... ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Chairman. ADV DE JAGER: I don't want to interrupt you, but we are dealing with political related offences, we are not dealing with extenuating circumstances. That is what the court would deal with. As I've already indicated, what we see there, I don't regard it as evidence. Once it's confirmed by a witness under oath that may be a different position. So really what the police are doing in the ordinary prevention of crime, I don't think that is very relevant to our task here and we don't want to be engaged in long hearings about ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Chairman, the video is quite short. I think it is approximately in total JUDGE MALL: Well, let's proceed. ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Chairman, I just want to make clear I intend to call Captain Hechter thereafter to give evidence in general about what was shown and the fact that PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG he was exposed to similar kinds of incidents. Obviously we don't have video footage of incidents where our clients were involved in to a large extent, but I will make the video relevant in evidence by way of calling Captain Hechter to testify about what was seen. JUDGE MGOEPE: The Chairman said you could proceed. ADV DU PLESSIS: May I proceed, thank you? JUDGE MGOEPE: Sorry, just a moment before you do that, I am not sure why you should proceed to show us pictures which deal with incidents which have nothing to do with political issues. ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, the reason for that is the following. The psychiatric evidence which we will present to this Committee will deal specifically with the fact that policemen in the general course of their work became exposed and that is the case today as well, become exposed to extreme violence and That causes an acceptance by such policemen of violence to the extent that serious violence becomes something that is not so important to such a policemen as a normal person in the street, it is a psychological process which at the end of the day makes such a person somebody who is prone to much easier or prone to acts of violence much easier because of the psychological situation he is JUDGE MALL: I don't want to interrupt you, but please understand at the end of the evidence I have no doubt you will be addressing us and you will be making the points that you are making now. You are going to call psychiatric evidence and at the end of the that evidence you will tell us what the relevance of the evidence was at that stage. So I don't think that there is any need for you to address PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, I just want to make this point as well and that is that this video was used at all educational facilities of the South African Police in courses that policemen underwent for training. ADV DU PLESSIS PLAYS THE SECOND VIDEO CONTENTS OF THE SECOND VIDEO: (No audible communication) ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, this part I am going to skip, that contains just further pictures of murder which are very gruesome. SCREENING OF SECOND VIDEO CONTINUES: (No audible communication) ..."Dit is 22H40 op 4 Desember 1990, te (onduidelik) waar daar vermoedelik vroeër vannaand 'n aanval op lede van die polisie was. Om ongeveer 21h15 het mev Darron van oorkant die straat, 'n geweer vanaf die kragsentrale skote gehoor en onmiddellik Randfontein polisiestasie laat weet. Op hulle beurt het hulle na bewering 'n voertuig uitgestuur hiernatoe en die toneel gevind soos dan nou ook op band vasgelê. Op die toneel vind ons ook 'n (onduidelik) doppie wat reeds afgevuur is ..." COMMMENTARY: The streets of the Coloured townships have been the scene of rioting. This lorry was hijacked and set on fire across one of the main access roads into Athlone township. Similar attacks occurred elsewhere while the police and the army have again been in action opening fire on demonstrators. Not only with shotguns but rifles, too. Some Athlone residents have now started using guns themselves, a worrying development for the Security Forces. This evening a substantial force of police and troops poured into the Coloured townships around Cape Town. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG Operation Clean up it is called aimed at restoring law and order. This is Graham Leach for the nine o'clock news in South Africa. COMMENTARY: ... bring down the Government by violent means if sanctions imposed against South Africa. This was one of the most dramatic sabotage attacks they have carried out, the bombing of the Sasolburg Oil Refinery near Johannesburg five years ago. There has been a whole series of attacks on police stations and military targets over the years, but the Government has always insisted they don't amount to much more than flea bites. Even so President Botha would have to force President Machel into agreeing to shut down ANC bases in Mozambique next door to South Africa. ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman, that is the end of the video. If I could call Captain Hechter very shortly on this, if you would allow me to. ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Hechter, can you please state very briefly to the Committee the background to the video recording and what it was used for? CAPT HECHTER: Mr Chairman, the video and similar material was shown to various members of the police force. This video and similar video's were shown on a number of courses to the persons attending the course. Some contained worse violence, some less violence, all the members of the Security Forces were exposed to video's containing crowd violence and crowd control and then Black on Black violence in the Black townships. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 104 CAPT HECHTER ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Hechter were these video's used in training of policemen? CAPT HECHTER: Yes, that is correct. ADV DU PLESSIS: And Captain Hechter, were the video's which were shown during video's of the same nature and if you were to look back on them today, would you regard them as propaganda or what would CAPT HECHTER: They were definitely propaganda, but I also have to add that most of that which we have seen on the video's were also experienced by us, these incidents in the Black townships while ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Hechter, can you tell the Committee from your own personal experience are there incidents similar to what you have seen on this video that you experienced yourself and to what CAPT HECHTER: It is correct. Mr Chairman as members of the Security Branch, myself and colleagues experienced these things first hand and we also found that many of these violent incidents and this violence, also affected Black colleagues of ours and affected their lives and their houses. On a daily basis we also found some of these people next to the road. You would find a Black man lying next to the road who had been murdered, either by necklacing or by stabbing. Many of these acts were committed by very young comrades who - these things were later determined in investigations and we were informed of whom had been involved in the previous night's attack on a house or necklacing. ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain, these incidents and similar ones PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 105 CAPT HECHTER to what we've seen here, for example the crowd rioting, the necklacing etc, did these take place against the political background? Could you give us a bit more information on this? CAPTAIN HECHTER: Yes, it was purely politics by the comrades, so-called comrades, which was used by the ANC as cannon fodder, these people were used as cannon fodder by the ANC. ADV DU PLESSIS: Okay, Captain so the effect that exposure to this kind of violence had on you and your colleagues, could you sketch to the Committee in more detail what it was like? CAPT HECHTER: Well, after a while you grew cold and distant when you saw this kind of action and you encountered it. It no longer really involved people, it was just another body. In the beginning you were shocked and shaking, but later on it just became just another corpse. It left you cold. ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Hechter, are you aware of any instances of your colleagues who sustained psychological damage because of this? CAPT HECHTER: Yes, that is correct. There are a number of my colleagues who are at present receiving psychological treatment, many who have been under such treatment, many who have left the police service because of psychological problems, who were medically boarded from the service. There are numerous of them. I would say that most of the Security Police who took medical packages did so because of trauma and stress levels which were brought about by this kind of ADV DU PLESSIS: Are you personally aware of such instances? PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 105 CAPT HECHTER CAPT HECHTER: Yes, that is correct, Mr Chairman. One of our colleagues who are sitting here with us, Captain Mentz, is presently undergoing treatment. The well-known Snor Vermeulen and Lionel Snyman were both boarded because of stress related incidents or because of stress. ADV DU PLESSIS: Okay, you don't have to continue with more examples. Captain, and can you inform the Committee whether in the period relating to these incidents for which you are applying for amnesty, when they took place in the middle 80's, could you give us a broad estimate of the regularity of exposure to this kind of incident of violence? CAPT HECHTER: It was really on a daily basis and as at the time, the Press was totally banned from entering the Black townships, so this kind of incident, or these incidents which kept occurring, were never broadcast to the broad public in South Africa. The public didn't really know what was going on, they were kept under the impression that things were under control, whereas violence was escalating on a daily ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain, are you aware of any similar kind of video of the South African Police action which are still in existence, any of these video's? CAPT HECHTER: As I told you they were training video's which I later got to understand when I was trying to obtain more of them, had been destroyed together with the documentation because the instruction had been given that all video's containing this kind of violent activity had to be destroyed in order to obtain better cooperation among the population groups, to bring this about and then also to show less violence to the members who were in training. ADV DU PLESSIS: I don't have any other questions, Mr PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 106 CAPT HECHTER NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DU PLESSIS. MR CURRIN: I just have one question. During the training sessions that you referred to when these videos were shown, I assume that it was never part of your training that you, the police should commit acts PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, may we then proceed with Captain Mentz' evidence? Thank you. Mr Chairman you will find that on page 53. EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: Very well, Captain Mentz, your application with regards to this incident has been set out in the compilation of applications and there are further aspects which you would like to inform the Committee about. Could you just tell the Committee about them? CAPT MENTZ: As I gave evidence yesterday in the incident of Brian Ngqulunga, the date which I gave was 1987 and 1988, in the meantime I have found out it was the 19th of July 1990. An instruction was issued by General Van Rensburg from Security Headquarters who at that stage unit C at Vlakplaas. His instruction, I was not present when he issued the instruction, but it was passed on by Colonel Eugene de Kock to Colonel Baker to say that Brian Ngqulunga was transferred from Vlakplaas to Unit C2 at Security Headquarters in Pretoria. The instruction was that Brian Ngqulunga was to be eliminated. Colonel de Kock gave Colonel Dave Baker instruction to execute the instruction. He then took myself, Colonel Bellingham, Colonel Piet Botha and Simon Dubele instructions to execute the instruction. The instruction which was given to me was the Ngqulunga was working at Unit C2 at Security Headquarters as I have already said and that from there he had secret documents and secret information about the Security Police which he was passing onto the ANC. The impression was thus that he was a double agent. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG The information which he was to have been leaking, was that the SAP members and their families were being subjected to intimidation. Especially the Black members, their houses were attacked and they were sometimes stoned and in some instances they were killed. Reporters were identified who were intimidated and some of them were killed by being necklaced as we saw on the video footage and the community was intimidated not to cooperate with the Security Police anymore and not to give them information any longer. The identification of ascaris was also done and the exposure of covert operations. Ascaris were afraid that if they were identified they and their families would be murdered. That is the information which I received from Colonel Baker and Bellingham and that is the information which Brian Ngqulunga was alleged to have been leaking. I do not have any specific knowledge of any specific incidents about which Brian Ngqulunga was to have leaked information, it was conveyed to me in a general manner. The instructions which we received from Colonel De Kock, as I said yesterday in my evidence, were to put a spade in covert defence and defence activities. Colonel De Kock received direct instructions from the Commanding Structure at Security Headquarters. I never participated in any planning of any couvert operations, I was merely a foot soldier who executed instructions as though they had been approved by Head Office. I am now on page 55. The operations were planned after we had agreed that Simon Radebe would point Ngqulunga out to us at a point where we would pick him up. I never PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG personally knew Brian Ngqulunga. He had already been transferred to Unit C2 from Vlakplaas before I A kombi was hired from Avis and balaclavas and gloves were issued to us. Radebe was waiting on a gravel road near Vlakplaas in a red Golf and that was the road which headed to Vlakplaas, and we would pass Vlakplaas, reach a T-junction and turn right. This gravel road then led back to Attridgeville where you met up with Church Street and then proceeded into town. We approached the Golf from behind in this kombi, Colonel Baker was driving, Botha and I were sitting in the middle and Bellingham was sitting in front on the left. We put on the balaclavas and ran to the car, we went to where Ngqulunga was sitting on the left of the dragged him out of the vehicle. We wrestled with him a bit and in the wrestling I remember very well that he screamed and said, no comrades, no comrades, I am one of you, I am one of you. At that stage and because we were disguised he must have thought that we were ANC members. That is the conclusion which I reached. And the conclusion was that he was still an ANC supporter although he was an ascari with us. We brought him under control by manhandling him and in the process we assaulted him. In the vehicle, when we put him in the kombi we closed his mouth, we tied up his hands and feet and we went - we drove in the direction of Brits. The exact place is not as shown in the footage, it is not in Soshanguve. If you drive from Brits in the Lehabele area and head towards Bophutatswana, that - somewhere along that PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG road, I do not know the name of that road, but it is somewhere in the Lehabele area. We stopped, Bellingham opened the kombi door for us and Piet Botha and I dragged him out of the kombi and threw him in the field. Bellingham fired several shots, I cannot remember how many. To me it sounded as though he had emptied the whole magazine on Brian Ngqulunga and killed him. I cannot remember, but I later heard that Piet Botha had also fired several shots at him with a pistol. I looked away, because I could not handle it. When we got back into the kombi I became nauseous. We went to a place near Pretoria North among the plots where we cleaned the kombi inside, because Ngqulunga had urinated and so forth and we then cleaned up. And from there we went to the Wonderpark Shopping Centre where we met up with Johnny (Chet)(?) who had a vehicle with secret compartments. We handed the firearms that we had used to Johnny Chet who concealed them in his vehicle and from there we went to the Pretoria Holiday Inn in Beatrix Street. We met Colonel De Kock and other In the process when we were driving from the scene, I know that Colonel Baker was in radio contact with De Kock and he had informed him that the operation had gone off well. I cannot remember specifically who was there, but once again it was De Kock's confidantes and others. We met him at the Holiday Inn where he ordered drinks for us. We drank up and I cannot remember exactly, but we went to a restaurant somewhere near there, I think it was at the Sterland complex. I also had something to eat. Thereafter he informed us that we were booked in at a PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG hotel in Johannesburg, if I remember correctly it was the Braamfontein Hotel and the reason for this was that we would be at this hotel and if anyone was to have enquired they should have seen that we were at This was a very shocking experience for me and it has left emotional scars on my life. I never ever want to become involved in anything like this again. Since receiving the instruction from De Kock and the others that Ngqulunga was an informant and was leaking secret information from Headquarters, I accepted it, but in 1995 I read in press reports as result of allegations made by Dirk Coetzee, Joe Mamasela who we saw in video footage, that Ngqulunga was involved in the murder of Griffiths Mxenge and that he was a potential witness who could have given evidence against Dirk Coetzee, Almond Nofomela, Brigadier van der Hoven and Colonel Andy Taylor. I also read in the press reports that Ngqulunga was one of the persons who had killed Griffiths Mxenge - these after allegations that had been made. I then got the impression that because he had been killed and, according to what we had been told, he had leaked information, one reason was possibly that it could have been used as evidence that he was indeed a witness and that he had to have been eliminated so that he could not testify against Coetzee and van der Hoven and Nofomela and Company. The conclusion which I made, although it has never been proven to me, was if Colonel Taylor or any of the other people involved should come and admit to it, I would say that it is also one of the reasons, but those are mere PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG assumptions which I made and I think his brother who was also in a programme sometime ago, also said that he had said so, but it has never been proven to me in a court of law. I never enquired about this, I left the unit, I did not want to be there any longer, and that was merely an assumption which I made. I have since distanced myself from Vlakplaas and the persons who were there with me, I don't even want to be associated with them any more. The instruction which I received, as I said, came from Colonel De Kock who instructed Baker and I assumed that it came from Colonel Van Rensburg because at that stage he was in charge of Unit C1. Although I just saw that Joe Mamasela alleged that he was involved where General Engelbrecht, Nick van Rensburg and I cannot remember who the other person was, were allegedly involved in the discussions. I heard about that for the first time when I saw this. I did not watch the whole of Prime Evil because it disturbed me. As I said I was under the impression that these operations had been sanctioned by Head Office at all times and that the objective was to eliminate anyone who was leaking secret information to the ANC. It was also part of the strategy to combat the ANC and others and it was at a time when the country was in Ngqulunga, I cannot remember exactly how it happened, but it was arranged that he be buried at Vlakplaas and his entire family was there. It is not like where it is being said on the video footage that it was an official police burial, it was more of a private burial at Vlakplaas on the mountain, the hill there as I can remember Ngqulunga's family and friends were all PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG present there and De Kock gave instruction that everyone was to attend the funeral. I simply couldn't bring myself to attend the funeral. It was too much for me and I just couldn't be involved in somebody's funeral whom I had assisted in murdering. While the funeral was taking place, I sat in the pub at Vlakplaas and while I was there De Kock and Nortje came there and De Kock asked me why I was not at the cemetery and I told him that it is just not acceptable to me, I assisted in killing this man and I just couldn't bring myself to attend. I feel very bitter about this and I am every sorry that I got involved in this, but I believed at the time that what I was doing was in the best interests of the country and I do not believe that any longer. I would now like to mention in the video footage parties were shown and it was mentioned that thrice a month parties would be held at Vlakplaas - that was not the case. We worked for a period of two to three weeks and thereafter we'd leave and we would come back with our group of ascaris, we would submit our forms and our reports and then because we as colleagues had not seen each other for a while, we'd have a braai and drink. That is so. And occasionally there were functions where the Generals were involved, but it was not thrice a month or every month, although there were functions that were held at Vlakplaas was a unit under the command of De Kock. There were certain logistic problems amongst the staff and the Generals at Head Office then decided that unit C had to be divided into three divisions. Initially it was two divisions, Colonel Baker remained behind at Vlakplaas with PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG his group of people and De Kock remained with his group of people including myself, and in Pretoria we At the time there were problems between De Kock, myself and Colonel Van Dyk and De Kock. Colonel Engelbrecht then launched a third unit and we worked from a safe house in Midrand. There we were joined by other members, including John Tait(?). There was one incident where I was present where we were in the team at Sodwana on the North coast at the holiday resort there. We lived in tents and Colonel Engelbrecht was there, we were on the beach, but we are not the persons who drove over the tortoise eggs. We then went back to unit C1, Baker and - Colonel Baker's unit, De Kock's unit and Paul van Dyk's unit. Thereafter, however, I heard that - while I was there there were no naked women with us. Thereafter I heard that De Kock and his group of people from his unit were busy with team building again and I do not know if Colonel Engelbrecht was part of that. ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. I have a few questions which I want to ask the witness just to clear up certain things. Captain Mentz, the instructions which you received was there any reason for you when you received the instruction at that stage, to doubt the command in any way whatsoever? CAMP MENTZ: No Mr Chairman. As I had testified, I said that we had accepted De Kock, he had access to many Generals' offices. Every day that he was working at Head Office he had access to the Generals. At that stage I wouldn't have thought that he would have taken a decision PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG like this on his own. I am sure that higher authority was involved. I cannot say exactly who the Generals were, I've mentioned - some of them had been mentioned before. The only reason why I imply General Nick van Rensburg was because he was in command of C1 at that stage and I believed that it came from ADV DU PLESSIS; Captain Mentz, now what I would like you to explain to the Committee, is what you had thought at the stage when you received the command and when you carried it out, what you had thought the purpose of the command had been, the instruction, was it politically motivated or what did CAPT MENTZ: Yes, Mr Chairman it was absolutely political in the sense that a security policeman who was an ascari and then a security policeman at the same time, was in a confidential unit, C2, which had all the information on the country, they evaluated information and if any information which had passed through C2 had been leaked it could affect the police, the security branches, and be to the advantage of the liberation movements. Then it was political to me and it was important to me at that stage that should there be somebody who was a traitor, he had to be eliminated. I didn't know at that stage how much information he had given out, but as I said many policemen's houses had been burnt down, etc and it was important for me to do this. The man had to be eliminated. He was passing on information and it endangered his fellow policemen's lives, so he had to be eliminated. ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain, during the period after the incident until you read in 1995 in the press about the allegations that he had been murdered in order to protect PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG other members, besides the fact that he was an informant of the ANC, did anybody ever tell you anything that could have led you to think that he had been murdered for any other reason than being an informer? CAPT MENTZ: No, not at all Mr Chairman. The first time I heard about this was in the newspaper and I later saw it on TV, it's only Ngqulunga's brother and Mamasela mentioned this, but from the time that it happened until 1995 when I had left Vlakplaas long before, I hadn't discussed it with anybody, I was no longer a security policeman. But in the period after leaving Vlakplaas when I was still a security policeman I never heard anything about this again. I vaguely remember that Baker long after that said that De Kock had told him that the Generals had said that the operation had been carried out successfully, I don't know which Generals were involved, but I deduced that it was General van Rensburg. At Vlakplaas, when something happened, you were forbidden to discuss it with anybody because everybody drank there and you never knew what somebody would say if he were to be under the influence, these things were never discussed again, definitely not from my side, it was something which I wanted to ADV DU PLESSIS: Okay, Captain Mentz, did you regard your activity or your actions as something against liberation movements? ADV DU PLESSIS: And to whose advantage did you regard your action to be at that stage? CAPT MENTZ: Well, the Government of the day Mr Chairman. I as a policeman had to serve the PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS: Okay, Captain Mentz, did you have any discussions with the other persons who were involved in the incident, the people whom you've mentioned, Colonel Baker, Captain Bellingham and I think it is Captain Botha? Did you have discussions with them? CAPT MENTZ: I had Mr Chairman, but only at the end of last year when they had indicated that they were also submitting amnesty applications. I can't remember the exact date. ADV DU PLESSIS: Could you briefly indicate to the Committee what their point of view was with regard to the reason for this operation? Did it agree, did it disagree? CAPT MENTZ; It was exactly the same Mr Chairman, that the man leaked information from Security was Baker and Bellingham's instruction to me at the time as well. ADV DU PLESSIS: Okay. Captain Mentz the allegations made that Ngqulunga was a potential witness, where did you hear these allegations? CAPT MENTZ: As I've already stated Mr Chairman, in the newspapers and Mamasela, but not that which he had said here in the Prime Evil video, it was on another programme, as well as Ngqulunga's brother which I saw on TV one evening. The rest of it was in the newspapers. ADV DU PLESSIS: Are you aware that these allegations went any further as far as your knowledge goes CAPT MENTZ: No, Mr Chairman. As I've already stated Brigadier van der Hoven or Taylor, if they were to come and state it here that that was the reason, then I will agree and say no, I believe it, but until PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG Mr Chairman, because in my opinion it was a matter that he gave out information, no other facts had been ADV DU PLESSIS: Okay. Captain Mentz then could I take you to page 55 paragraph 3, you testified there that Ngqulunga had said "no comrades, no comrades, I'm one of you", can you remember those words CAPT MENTZ: Yes, Mr Chairman, I can remember that. Not in Afrikaans, he stated it in English, he didn't say it, he shouted it out. The man knew that he was possibly going to be murdered. He was a small, slender man and he struggled and he shouted these words. ADV DU PLESSIS: Could you then just state very clearly to us why you thought he would have stated these words, or shouted these words? CAPT MENTZ: Mr Chairman, I would have imagined he was an ascari who was working for the Security Police, he was passing on information to the ANC or to whichever liberation movement, but I mean he would have realised that it would have been totally impossible for everybody in the liberation movement to know about him, because then he would have been smoked out and at the stage when he was shouting out, I thought he wanted an opportunity to explain to the members of the ANC as he suspected, to explain to them that he was still working with them. So it was my impression that he was still involved JUDGE MGOEPE: If he had realised he was going to be killed, surely a man under those circumstances would have said anything to save his life? If he had been under the impression or if he had realised that you were the police, he still would have said the same thing and said people, I am working PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG CAPT MENTZ: I have to grant that Mr Chairman, yes. JUDGE WILSON: Who were grabbing him at the time? CAPT MENTZ: It was I myself, Piet Botha, Riaan Bellingham. Baker was standing at the vehicle - no I can't remember whether he was standing outside or whether he was sitting in the vehicle, but Bellingham and I and Piet Botha opened the left-hand door, hit him, grabbed him and dragged him over to the kombi, it was a struggle from the Golf to the kombi. JUDGE WILSON: You were all white men wearing balaclavas which would have left your face CAPT MENTZ; Mr Chairman, it was quite strong dusk and the balaclavas were not the balaclavas where you have an open face, you could only see the eyes, we were wearing dark clothes and long dark gloves. You wouldn't really be able to see our skin colour. Mr Chairman, I can't really remember the exact time, but it was late afternoon when it was going onto dusk. I can't remember, I can't tell you exactly what the time was. After five, probably six o'clock, but I can't remember the exact time, JUDGE MALL: The instructions to eliminate this man, came to you not from De Kock himself but CAPT MENTZ: Yes, Mr Chairman if I remember correctly I was on the farm and Baker and Bellingham came and told me. It didn't come from De Kock directly to me as far as I can remember. JUDGE MALL: Have you finished Mr du Plessis? ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, I am finished, Mr Chairman. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DU PLESSIS. QUESTIONS BY ADV DE JAGER: Mr Mentz, could you clarify. You said you arrested Nofomela at some stage or were you PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG CAPT MENTZ: Almond Nofomela, yes, that is correct. ADV DE JAGER: Is that when you were working at the murder division? CAPT MENTZ: Yes, that is correct. ADV DE JAGER: And you were then recruited to go over to Vlakplaas? CAPT MENTZ: That is correct Mr Chairman. ADV DE JAGER: During his arrest, did you receive information regarding the functioning of Vlakplaas? CAPT MENTZ: No Mr Chairman, as a matter of fact I didn't even know of the existence of Vlakplaas when I was working at the murder division. It was after I had first arrested Nofomela's co-accused Johnny Mohane if I remember correctly, it was only after that when he had been arrested that evening, that he made an admission to me that he had implied Almond Nofomela ...(tape ends) I made enquiries then and said that we were looking for the man and then Almond Nofomela was sent from Headquarters to my office and when he arrived there, I arrested him. ADV DE JAGER: Was there at any stage an effort made to cover up Nofomela's deed at that stage? CAPT MENTZ: No Mr Chairman. If I remember correctly during the investigation the deduction was made and it came out in the hearing as well, the trial, that there had not been adequate evidence against Nofomela, but I remember on the last day of the trial when the finding was given, some of the ascaris were sitting in court. I have since heard at that stage of Vlakplaas that they tracked terrorists etc, and on the day some of his fellow colleagues were sitting there in court. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DE JAGER: Was that the first time during those episodes that you met Eugene De Kock himself? CAPT MENTZ: No sir. De Kock was at the murder division offices long before and that was when I met him, he was still a Captain at this stage, not a Major. ADV DE JAGER: So your arrest of Nofomela had nothing to do with the fact that you were going to work CAPT MENTZ: No, Mr Chairman, I would say that at that stage I got to know Vlakplaas members and they got to know me. We often met at the police canteen in Pretoria and there I got to know them better, and they approached me to find out whether I would be interested in coming to work with them. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DE JAGER. QUESTIONS BY MS KHAMPEPE: Didn't you testify yesterday that before you were attached to Vlakplaas Mr Hechter occasionally extended an invitation to you to join them on some of the operations? CAPT MENTZ: That's correct Chairperson. MS KHAMPEPE: So you must have known at that stage what kind of operations Vlakplaas was involved CAPT MENTZ: When I was contacted by Captain Hechter, he was not attached to Vlakplaas, he was with Brigadier Cronje at Pretoria, they had nothing to do with Vlakplaas at the stage. He was just working MS KHAMPEPE: Thanks for the explanation. You've also led evidence today that the experience that you had when Mr Ngqulunga was brutally killed, was very shocking to you and it has left emotional scars? CAPT MENTZ: That's correct Chairperson. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MS KHAMPEPE: Now, before you went on to execute the instructions to eliminate Mr Ngqulunga, had you discussed as members who had been picked up by, is it Colonel Dave Baker on how those instructions to eliminate Mr Ngqulunga were to be executed, did you discuss the mode of execution? CAPT MENTZ: No Chairman, we did not discuss it with Colonel Van Dyk. As I say it was an instruction and I assumed it was an instruction from Head Office and it was something that had to be done. I did not ask why they did not arrest him instead or anything like that. I just did it at that stage, because it was something that had to have been done. It is a good few years ago and these things started affecting me very seriously in the last four to five years. Nobody said he had to be kidnapped along the way and killed with an AK47, I did not, I mean those were the instructions, I did not ask why it had to be done. MS KHAMPEPE: My question was to merely ascertain whether you knew what kind of method would be used in eliminating Mr Ngqulunga? CAPT MENTZ: Yes, we did know. As I said it was said that Botha and I had to overpower him with the assistance of Bellingham, we had to take him away and then Bellingham was to have shot him. As I also said I cannot remember specifically about Piet Botha shooting him, but it is something MS KHAMPEPE: You did expect some measure of violence? MS KHAMPEPE: Which would be a precursor to any elimination? CAPT MENTZ: Yes, that is correct. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MS KHAMPEPE: I have therefore some profound difficulties in comprehending how you could have, how you could not have known that Ngqulunga would be eliminated in the manner that he was. I mean what CAPT MENTZ: Mr Chairman, it is easy when it is said to you go and do a certain gruesome deed, but if I may use the expression, at the stage, at 99th stage, at the last minute when it is to happen, it is too late, you are at a point of no return, you function like a machine and when the deed has been done you start to think about what actually happened and as I say I did not physically vomit, but I was extremely nauseous in the kombi and my nerves were shattered. It is easy to say we are going to do this, but when you get there and while it is happening, while the deed is taking place or after it has happened the full impact of what you had done, strikes you and at that stage I thought I could deal with it, but I mean if I had to go out and do something like that at this MS KHAMPEPE; Can you explain to us the nature and the extent of your participation in the whole operation? I mean you've explained that when he was dragged out of the car, you assaulted him. CAPE MENTZ: As I said the operation was not planned by me, it was just said that Piet Botha and I had to drag him and Baker had to drag him out of the vehicle, overpower him and then put him in the back of the kombi on the floor. We were to bring him under control so that he was unable to scream or resist in any way and then we were to drive away with him, because there was a long distance between there and Lehabele so we were to silence him basically by keeping his mouth closed and fastening his hands and feet so that he PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MS KHAMPEPE: Did any of you cut his tongue? CAPT MENTZ: No Chairperson, not at all, not one of us. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS KHAMPEPE. QUESTIONS BY JUDGE WILSON: If I can add to questions you've just asked. You'd participated in numerous attacks and murders before then, hadn't you? CAPT MENTZ: That is correct, Chairperson. JUDGE WILSON: Why did you suddenly get shocked by a murder? You took part in the murder of eight people at KwaNdebele, nine people was it, yes? You took part in that murder, didn't you? Capt Hechter, Joe Mamasela, Deon Gouws, Andre Oosthuizen. CAPT MENTZ: Yes, Chairperson, I will give evidence about that later. You will hear from my evidence that I was not physically involved in the shooting of people. I cannot explain why one agrees - I cannot affects you differently to others, but I was badly affected by this. Perhaps my state of mind at the time was I am not a psychologist or a medical doctor, so I cannot give an explanation for it. JUDGE WILSON: No, but you were now doing something officially, properly, ordered to by your senior officers, where as previous occasions you had just gone off and joined Captain Hechter in these murderous attacks, hadn't you? CAPT MENTZ: That is correct Chairperson. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY JUDGE WILSON CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV MPSHE: Captain you testified in your application on page 55, that "we brought him under control by handling him roughly". PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG CAPT MENTZ: Mr Chairperson, when we opened the door, I cannot say exactly who did what, we grabbed him around his neck, around his body, we shut his mouth, we hit him. In the process trying to get him unconscious so that he did not put up as much of a fight, so he was physically assaulted, we had him around the neck, we dragged him, somebody had his feet and in the kombi, one person was to have stuffed something in his mouth and then sealed it and also tied his hands. He was assaulted. ADV MPSHE: How many of you took part in this assault that led to him losing consciousness? CAPT MENTZ: Three of us, myself, Bellingham and Piet Botha. ADV MPSHE: And for how long did the assault take place? CAPT MENTZ: Mr Chairperson, I cannot attach a time to it, I think it was, everything happened so have been a matter of a minute getting him from the car to the kombi, it was seven to ten metres, we took him from the - grabbed him out of the vehicle and first he was on the ground so that we could bring him under control by assaulting him and then we picked him up and ran to the kombi. The door was open, the seat was down, we put him at the back and then we were able to tie his hands. Everything happened ADV MPSHE: ....if it took such a short time and the man was rendered unconscious, it would mean that he was delivered quite a number of blows, and very hard blows that made him be unconscious very ADV MPSHE: Now an AK47, how many bullets does it have? CAPT MENTZ: 25 to 30, I am not sure. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG CAPT MENTZ: 25 to 30, that is correct. ADV MPSHE: If we assume that it had 25 at the time, would it mean that he was pumped with 25 CAPT MENTZ: Mr Chairperson, Bellingham was firing this firearm automatically so it was impossible to count and to me it sounded as if the entire magazine had been emptied. It happened too fast, I was ADV MPSHE: Two shots, even one from an AK47 have rendered this man dead? CAPT MENTZ: Yes, Sir it would have. ADV MPSHE: You were part of this operation, do you think it was necessary for 25 bullets to be pumped into his body? Was this not an extreme? CAPT MENTZ: Yes, Chairperson, it was. ADV MPSHE: After shooting him, you wrote in your application that "we left him there and drove back", where exactly did you leave him? CAPT MENTZ: Where we threw him out of the kombi, where he was shot dead, that is where we left ADV MPSHE: How did it come about that he landed at Vlakplaas for the funeral? CAPT MENTZ: Mr Chairperson, the local police of Lehabele or someone in the area was - apparently encountered the corpse and informed the police who came in a hearse and picked up the corpse, identified it. His family and next of kin were then informed that this was a policeman, an ascari and the funeral was ADV MPSHE: So when he was identified by the local police and the family, you then came around and shed crocodile tears and claimed his body to bury? PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG CAPT MENTZ: No Mr Chairman, I cannot remember exactly, but I think there were riots. I think he stayed somewhere in Winterveld, which was on the other side of Pretoria, somewhere near Soshanguve and Mabopane. If I can remember correctly there were riots and unrest and I think it would have been problematic to bury the man there at the time, so the police offered and then De Kock said he had no objection to him being buried at Vlakplaas. ADV MPSHE: Do you want this Committee to accept that you acted on instruction, agreed to partake in the killing of a human being for reasons given to you without yourself verifying whether it was necessary CAPT MENTZ: As I already testified I believed that the instruction came from Head Office, I believed that the gentleman who was leaking information was a traitor and as I already said we were not, I believed that, we didn't question anything, I believed that the instructions came from Head Office, I was merely a Warrant Officer at the time and I was in no position to go to a General's office at Head Office and say give me proof that this man has been leaking information before I do anything. It just didn't work like that in the police system. ADV MPSHE: So if you were given any information and instruction by your seniors to kill, you just go about killing? Is that what was happening there? CAPT MENTZ: That is correct, Chairperson. ADV MPSHE: And was the family informed as to what caused Brian Ngqulunga's death when they CAPT MENTZ: No Mr Chairperson, the impression was to have been created that the ANC, I think he was an ANC or PAC member, I am not too familiar with that, that the liberation PRETORIA movement because he was an ascari, had killed him. The impression was to have been created that the ANC or PAC had killed this man because he was an ascari in the Security Police. It was never said that he was killed for any other reason, it wouldn't have made sense. The police never said that we killed an ascari because he was leaking information. ADV MPSHE: You stated, when led by your counsel, that the purpose of instruction was politically motivated, but was the death of this man politically motivated? CAPT MENTZ: Yes Mr Chairman. As I've already testified he was a freedom fighter who had been arrested, who had been turned into an ascari, who had decided to work with the police which he had indeed then done. He had been transferred from Vlakplaas to Headquarters at C2. The reasons for this and the period when this happened, I don't know, but then he worked for a unit where there were very sensitive information and documentation and if he had been leaking this information to ANC, PAC whichever liberation organisation, this turned him into a political problem. He was affecting the National Party by working for these other parties and for the police on the one hand and for example, the ANC on He had sensitive information, policemen's houses were burnt down, we've heard much testimony to this effect, people were attacked when people found out that somebody was an informant. When informers were exposed, they were necklaced, they were burnt, their throats were cut, they were shot, their families were attacked, so he was - he just had to be eliminated. You couldn't charge the man and take him to court because what proof was there, I was not in a position to question this. The thing to eliminate him, PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG the quickest solution and the easiest one, but I was not in a position to go and question General why did you say that this had to be done, it was not my position to do this. I was a foot soldier, I had to carry out my task, I believed it. It was part of the political struggle of keeping the National Party in control. As a policeman I had to support the Government of the day, that was my job. ADV MPSHE: Are you in a position to tell this Committee that very sensitive "inligting" which Brian Ngqulunga gave to the ANC that led to the incidents that you've just mentioned, the specifics thereof? CAPT MENTZ: No Mr Chairman, I testified to this effect earlier, I said I didn't know of specific incidents where he had given out "x" information and this person, informer had been killed or that person had been necklaced, I don't know about specific incidents, but I accepted that the seniors had ascertained this, had obtained the necessary information and had given us the instruction. I couldn't go and determine that myself, I don't know of specific incidents of leaked information. ADV MPSHE: So you acted on general information, and perhaps even better weight on hearsay about CAPT MENTZ: Mr Chairman, I didn't regard it as general information. I saw it and I believed that it was an instruction that came from my seniors who wouldn't have said this man had bothered me, he needs to be killed. They would have probably got the right information, well let's call it then hearsay, but it is not hearsay, it is an instruction, command that came from above, from De Kock, Baker, Bellingham, through to me. I couldn't go back up the line of command and ask for evidence, I believed that was not a PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG general thing, it was a specific thing and the command was valid. ADV MPSHE: What is your comment to what Joe Mamasela said on the video this morning that this man had to be eliminated because he was now posing a threat to the position of the police inasfar as the Harms Commission was concerned, how do you comment on that? CAPT MENTZ: Mr Chairman, that which Joe Mamasela said here, he said in a certain office with certain Generals, I don't know anything about it, it hasn't been proven, I am not in a position to tell whether it is the I cannot comment on this, I don't believe at any rate everything that Joe Mamasela says, because it hasn't ADV MPSHE: But is that what Joe Mamasela said this morning on video not in accord with your application page 57, the contents of page 57 of your application? The first paragraph, somewhere in the middle where you start your sentence, it is right in the middle of the first paragraph Mr Chairman and "I read in press articles about Dirk Coetzee and others and discovered that Ngqulunga had probably been murdered because he wanted to testify against Coetzee and Nofomela, Van der Hoven, etc.", CAPT MENTZ: Yes, it is in agreement with what Mamasela said, but as I said it is untested evidence, it has not been proven and as I've also testified if one of these people came and testified here to this effect, then I would believe them that it was one more reason why he had been killed. Griffiths Mxenge's background, I don't know at all, it is PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG only the bits that I hear about in the press, so the deduction that I had to make, or if I were to make the deduction that he was a political activist who had to be murdered, I wouldn't know, it is things that I hear There is agreement between what Mamasela said and what I say here and what is said on TV and in the press articles, but it is a deduction that I make, but I am still convinced that the main reason was that he had been leaking information and this was just something that had become an additional factor, I didn't know about this beforehand at all. ADV MPSHE: But what I am trying to make out to you, is that Brian Ngqulunga did not die because of his being an informer for the ANC, but he died because the police force was afraid that he was going to break down and spill the beans at the Harms Commission, that's all? CAPT MENTZ: Mr Chairman, I don't know anything about it, I don't have any knowledge about it. These are things that I've heard about afterwards, after the fact and which I had testified about before the Committee. I can't say that this is the case, these things have to be proven, the specific facts haven't been proven, the fact that he is a witness before the Harms Commission, I don't in my application, I don't think the Harms Commission was even mentioned. ADV MPSHE: The family would like to know as to who erected a tombstone on Ngqulunga's grave, CAPT MENTZ: It came from police funds. I don't know specifically which fund, it was probably the PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DE JAGER: Did you have anything to do with the erection of the tombstone ...(intervention) ADV MPSHE: But the money came from the police fund to buy a tombstone. CAPT MENTZ: No, I didn't. Yes, I had heard that the tombstone was to be erected, I don't know specifically from whom and when, but I don't have first hand knowledge of this. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV MPSHE ADV DE JAGER: Could you inform us if a firearm is set on automatic, an AK47, how many shots are fired during a second or how many seconds does it take to empty a magazine, or don't you have any CAPT MENTZ: I don't have knowledge. ADV DE JAGER: Can you distinguish the shots if it is fired on automatic? CAPT MENTZ: If you have a very finely tuned ear and if you are used to shooting a lot with the firearm, you could probably distinguish, but I can't tell you. ADV DE JAGER: In the post-mortem and at the inquest it was found that his tongue was missing, do you have any explanation how this could have happened? CAPT MENTZ: No, I don't have any knowledge of this fact. JUDGE WILSON: Could you tell me when the attack was on Khan House in Botswana? CAPT MENTZ: Yes, Mr Chairman, I can. CAPT MENTZ: Mr Chairman, I can't remember the exact date. JUDGE WILSON: It is page 68 in your application. CAPT MENTZ: Mr Chairman, I wrote it in in pencil afterwards, I can't remember exactly, it was in that PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG 1989 to 1991, I can't remember an exact date. JUDGE MALL: Any re-examination? RE-EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Captain Mentz, there were various events for which you applied for amnesty. I think purely, briefly for the sake of the questions put to you, we have to refer to this, the event with regard to the KwaNdebele Nine, were you physically present when the people were shot? ADV DU PLESSIS: So you didn't participate or see this yourself? ADV DU PLESSIS: And the events at Khan House? CAPT MENTZ: No, I did surround protection, I wasn't at the premises, I wasn't present in the house myself, I was not near the building. I was told to go and look out from a certain point that people from the houses say in the area would approach the place when we were busy there. ADV DU PLESSIS: You were not involved in the physical death of the people, you were not ADV DU PLESSIS: And with regard to the Komatipoort Four, were you present when those people ADV DU PLESSIS: Okay. Now Captain Mentz, the only two events with regard to which you ask for amnesty contained in your application where you were present when the people were killed, were Brian Ngqulunga and the event at Pentz Mine? CAPT MENTZ: That is correct Mr Chairman. ADV DU PLESSIS: May I take you to page 108 of this compilation of documents. 108, second PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG the application regarding Pentz Mine, I don't want to go into this in detail, I just wish you to read to the Committee the second paragraph on page 108 about how you felt after the person had been shot at the CAPT MENTZ: I became nauseous again Mr Chairman. ADV DU PLESSIS: Could you read to us this. CAPT MENTZ: "While we were walking back, I became nauseous, I was walking at the back. Everything that had happened there, was totally unacceptable to me and I couldn't identify with it at all". ADV DU PLESSIS: That is page 108. Now Captain Mentz, in the case of this Pentz Mine incident, were you physically at all involved in the person's death? CAPT MENTZ: No Mr Chairman I was in the background. ADV DU PLESSIS: Did you see his death? CAPT MENTZ: When I saw he was going to be shot, I looked away and you can see that in the rest of ADV DU PLESSIS: So you didn't see his actual death? CAPT MENTZ: No, I didn't see anything about the explosion, I didn't touch the man, I didn't handle him physically. At that stage I was just De Kock's motor car driver, the person wasn't even in the same car with us or anything. ADV DU PLESSIS: Okay, Captain Mentz, so the only event for which you apply for amnesty where you were physically involved in the death of a person, the case of Brian Ngqulunga? JUDGE WILSON: How was he physically involved - he stood there and looked, he took no part in PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS: Mnr die Voorsitter, ek sal die vrae vrae. Captain Mentz were those the only events where you were in physical contact with the person by way of the assault before he was killed? ADV DU PLESSIS: And was that the only event where you really saw that the person was shot ADV DU PLESSIS: Okay. Now against that background, Captain Mentz, would you possibly from these facts be able to give an explanation to the Committee as to why you reacted in such an emotional manner to the death of Brian Ngqulunga? Captain, okay let me restate the question. Would the fact that you were so closely involved in the death of Brian Ngqulunga not perhaps have caused you to be more emotional with regard to that event than in the case of others where you were involved? CAPT MENTZ: That is possible Mr Chairman, but as I've already stated psychiatrists etc can be called in. I can't explain why I feel like this or like that from time to time, we don't feel the same every morning we get up. These are terrible things that happened and it affects one in different manners. JUDGE MGOEPE: Mr du Plessis really, why are you putting this man through such a lot of trouble, I mean what is the weighty point that you are making here? I mean you kill somebody, somebody is killed in front of you in a very barbarous way, I mean it must just trouble him. ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, clearly Mr Chairman, but certain questions were asked to the witness, the PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG am not hundred percent sure, but what I would want to address the Committee on during argument, and that is why I am asking this question is the fact that Captain Mentz, and it all simply go to probabilities, that Captain Mentz did not react differently in the case of Brian Ngqulunga because of the possible fact that he knew he was killing in innocent man, not for political motives, but simply to exterminate him as a witness. It all goes towards probabilities. Mr Chairman, I see it is past one o'clock already, I have a few JUDGE MALL: Shouldn't we finish it if you have those? ADV DU PLESSIS: If you will allow me? JUDGE MALL: Yes, I think we should get done with it. ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Mentz, I just wish to clarify one matter. It was asked when you were contacted by Captain Hechter, whether you hadn't been involved in Vlakplaas, can you explain to the Committee briefly the stage when you were contacted in the case of the KwaNdebele Nine for example by Captain Hechter, was Colonel De Kock at that stage still there, in 1988 and was Captain Hechter involved CAPT MENTZ: No Sir, both cases, no. ADV DU PLESSIS: Very well Captain Mentz, was there any incident where an instruction such as this, where you just assumed it was a normal instruction like this would you have questioned it in the past? ADV DU PLESSIS: Are you aware of instances where policemen, especially at the time, questioned CAPT MENTZ: No, not as far as I know, not at Vlakplaas. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS: What would have happened to you if you were to started questioning instructions or questioning people senior to Eugene de Kock? CAPT MENTZ: We all know about Eugene de Kock, I would have been seen as a traitor at that stage and anything could have happened. I would definitely have been transferred to a place not of my choice. ADV DU PLESSIS: If you had questioned such an instruction in the South African police context and in the Security Police context, would they have taken steps against you? ADV DU PLESSIS: Very well Captain Mentz, I will present this evidence through one of the other witnesses, but I am going to put it to you would you be able to dispute it if I put to you that an AK47 can fire approximately 75 rounds per minute? CAPT MENTZ: I cannot dispute that. MR MPSHE: Mr Chairman, Sir, may I be allowed just to put one question which I omitted, to the ADV MPSHE: Thank you Mr Chairman. Captain, you testified that as you were manhandling the somebody stuffed something into his mouth, do you remember that? CAPT MENTZ: Yes, that is possible. Yes, I know that his mouth was also closed at some stage. ADV MPSHE: Was the mouth stuck closed with something or was it stuffed with something, there is a difference between the two please. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG CAPT MENTZ: Mr Chairman, I have already answered, I did not do anything to his mouth. I saw that it had been closed with something, I do not know if anything was stuffed into his mouth, I know that his mouth had been closed with something, something had been placed over his mouth. I had more to do with his arms, bringing his arms under control. ADV MPSHE: With what was the mouth taped closed? CAPT MENTZ: With sellotape, coloured sellotape, I cannot remember what colour the sellotape was, but it was this very strong type of sellotape. ADV MPSHE: Is it possible that before his mouth had been taped closed that something had been CAPT MENTZ: It is possible Mr Chairman, but I did not do that, I do not know. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV MPSHE JUDGE MALL: Yes, you are excused, thank you. JUDGE MALL: We will take an adjournment at this stage. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG JUDGE MALL: Are we ready to proceed? ADV MPSHE: Thank you Mr Chairman, Mr Chairman the next of kin to the deceased, Brian consulted with them Mr Chairman, in particular the wife. Mr Chairman she wants to give evidence, to take the witness stand, Mr Chairman if the Committee permits, I will call her to the witness stand. MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Mpshe, what are her full names? MS NGQULUNGA: Tholakele Catherine. THOLAKELE CATHERINE NGQULUNGA: (sworn states) ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman, I just want to mention to the Committee that part of the evidence that she is going to give Mr Chairman is going to relate to what was said before lunch and that I did not have the privilege of having knowledge thereof up till during lunch time, Mr Chairman and we decided with herself that she must testify on all those other things that she wants to dispute Mr Chairperson. EXAMINATION BY ADV MPSHE: Mrs Ngqulunga, you are the wife to Brian Ngqulunga? ADV MPSHE: If you could just speak up please. You were here present today when evidence was given about your deceased husband and you understood everything? MS NGQULUNGA: That is correct. ADV MPSHE: During lunch you indicated to me that there are certain aspects or parts of evidence given so far that you would like to dispute and you want to do that yourself under oath, is that correct? PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MS NGQULUNGA: That is correct. ADV MPSHE: Can you then tell the Committee what you want the Committee to know, starting first MS NGQULUNGA: When we went to the funeral, it was a Saturday afternoon, when we were approaching the graveside, we met the comrades, the comrade group and the group said we won't bury the corpse there and suddenly there were attacks and they started shooting and we took one of the injured ones On Monday Captain Van Dyk came. ...(intervention) ADV MPSHE: Where did this fighting take place? The first incident you mentioned? MS NGQULUNGA: It took place just when we were taking - gaining entrance to the graveside MS NGQULUNGA: Soshanguve graveyard. ADV MPSHE: Thank you. Continue. MS NGQULUNGA: We went back, was taken back to the mortuary Saturday afternoon. On Monday Captain Van Dyk came and said Eugene de Kock had said there is a conducive place in Vlakplaas where Brian could be buried, so he might as well be taken there. Although we did not even know the causes of his killing, but we agreed to the fact that he should be buried in Vlakplaas. And on Wednesday we were four of us headed to Vlakplaas and some others from Vlakplaas were present. We buried him on Wednesday. When we got there, I found that there was no conducive place whatsoever, it was just a forest where we were going to bury him. I did not even have an opportunity to ask him where is the conducive place that you were PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG talking about because what I am seeing here is a hill and it is just a forest. And we finished the whole service and we went back home, though we did not know who the perpetrators were. I was just told that he was killed by ANC when I tried to enquire next to Brits. The second thing I think when they killed Brian, he was naked, they had taken off his clothes, the way he was brutally injured, because the clothes he had on, he had a suit, a black suit on. Brian's body was brutally injured and his clothes were just intact, they were in perfect condition. The shirt and the suit were clean as ever, no blood whatsoever. I think they had taken off his clothes and they put the clothes back ADV MPSHE: You did hear the evidence that he was buried, or he had to be buried at Vlakplaas because there was rioting going on in the Soshanguve township, did you hear that? MS NGQULUNGA: Yes, we had heard that. ADV MPSHE: Was there any violence going on at the time? MS NGQULUNGA: There was no riot. ADV MPSHE: Were you ever informed about the tombstone that was laid on his grave? MS NGQULUNGA: I was not informed, I was just told that they had already erected a tombstone ADV MPSHE: Were you given any information as to who laid the tombstone? MS NGQULUNGA: No one gave me any information regarding this, I was just fetched to Brian's ADV MPSHE: If you do have knowledge was Brian involved PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MS NGQULUNGA: No, I don't have any knowledge in that regard. He never made mention of that. All I knew is that he was a police, working with the police. The only thing he said to me was that he was no longer happy at work, because he had received threatening calls, that he should tell his White employers to put everything in place, his records so that when he dies, the families were taken care of. And when he had tried to ask who are you talking to me in this fashion, they refused to tell him the names. The following day he moved from one office to another and the same phone rang and he was told that - the same message that, tell your employers to give you all your monies because you will die very soon and you will see us soon to kill you. That means he saw them, he met the people on Friday when he was killed, the very people that threatened him. ADV MPSHE: Did he perhaps tell you why there were these death threats? MS NGQULUNGA: He did not tell me anything, he only told me that he was no longer happy at his ADV MPSHE: Evidence was led, sorry Mr Chairman, I withdraw that, no evidence was led to it in fact, but it was shown on the TV today which video you saw, that Mamasela stated that your husband was drinking a lot, that he was broken down and at one stage he even shot at you, do you remember hearing ADV MPSHE: Did you know as to why he had to shoot you? MS NGQULUNGA: That is a family matter, all that I know is that because Joe Mamasela had said he drank very heavily, I repudiate that, he will only drink Saturdays and Sundays and PRETORIA still he was not a heavy drinker and he was also registered with Unisa, he had no time to drink as Joe What he did to me was just a mistake and it has nothing to do with this, it is all a family matter. ADV MPSHE: What was he studying with Unisa? MS NGQULUNGA: He was studying law with Unisa. ADV MPSHE: Studying towards a law degree? ADV MPSHE: Now the applicant is before this Committee, seeking amnesty, what is your response to MS NGQULUNGA: It is hard, it is difficult. ADV MPSHE: He is basically, amongst others, asking for forgiveness, how do you react to that? MS NGQULUNGA: (No audible reply) ADV DE JAGER: Mr Mpshe if she doesn't want to answer that it.... ADV MPSHE: Thank you Mr Chairman, that will be all the evidence. JUDGE MALL: Has it been explained to her Mr Mpshe, as to what is meant by amnesty and so on? ADV MPSHE: Yes, Mr Chairman, that has been done, yes. JUDGE MALL: Yes. Is the position that she hasn't answered what her attitude is towards the granting of ADV MPSHE: Yes, Mr Chairman this has been explained, but perhaps I am not speaking for her Mr Chairman, as I look at her she is becoming emotional, perhaps it is because of that that she cannot say how she feels about it Mr Chairman. JUDGE MALL: Let her calm down and afford her an opportunity. ADV MPSHE: Are you ready to come and comment on the PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MS NGQULUNGA: I don't have any forgiveness, I have no forgiveness for him. ADV MPSHE: Thank you Mr Chairman that will be all. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV MPSHE JUDGE MALL: Mr Mpshe has it been explained to her that if she is in need of assistance which might become available through the Reparation and Rehabilitation Commission, that she should approach them? ADV MPSHE: Yes, Mr Chairman, that was done to her and her two sisters by myself, yesterday and which discussion went down to the question of exhuming the body and burying him where they want to bury him and I referred - connected her with the gentlemen next to him who is from the R&R Committee, that has been taken care of by him, Mr Chairman. JUDGE MALL: Thank you. Are there any questions to be asked under cross-examination? CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Can you indicate to us when you saw the clothes of your husband was that just before the burial? MS NGQULUNGA: We saw the clothes after the funeral, the clothes were sent to us on Monday. ADV DU PLESSIS: Was it the clothes that he had on for the burial or ...? ADV DU PLESSIS: So ...(intervention) ADV DE JAGER: Mr du Plessis, I am sure you don't intend asking that question. ADV DU PLESSIS: I am just trying to determine whether the clothing was the clothing he was ADV DE JAGER: So you are asking the question whether he had PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 137 T C NGQULUNGA ADV DU PLESSIS: No, what I mean is had he dressed for the burial in different clothes than those which he had been wearing? Okay, let me rephrase the question. The clothing which you are testifying about, was that the clothing he was dressed in for the burial or was it clothing that was sent to you in a different manner, which clothes are you talking about? MS NGQULUNGA: I am talking about the suit that he had on on Friday when he was going to ADV DU PLESSIS: Was he dressed in that particular suit of clothes when he was buried? MS NGQULUNGA: We burnt the other suit and we put on a different suit altogether. ADV DU PLESSIS: The suit which you burnt, were these the clothes which he had on when he was MS NGQULUNGA: That was the suit that he had on when he was shot. ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you very much. I have one more question. Do you know who made the MS NGQULUNGA: I don't know, because he also did not know, he also wanted to know. ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman, I have no further questions. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DU PLESSIS JUDGE WILSON: You've told us that your husband went to work on the Friday, wearing these MS NGQULUNGA: Yes, that is correct. JUDGE WILSON: And I take it he did not come home that PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG JUDGE WILSON 137 T C NGQULUNGA MS NGQULUNGA: Yes, that is correct. JUDGE WILSON: When did you discover that he had been killed? MS NGQULUNGA: I discovered the following - on Saturday around 9 pm, when Captain van Dyk came and Engelbrecht to tell me that Brian was killed and he is in the mortuary. When I asked as to what happened to him, they told me ANC attacked him. On Monday they came to fetch me and we went to the mortuary where I located him and no one could stand firmly and look at him because he was brutally JUDGE WILSON: Did he have no clothes on then, on the Monday? MS NGQULUNGA: He was covered with a sheet and we only saw his head because it was not JUDGE WILSON; When did you next see him, his body dressed in these clothes that you've told MS NGQULUNGA: We clothed him on Friday evening, he was naked and that was after the post- mortem when we saw him in the mortuary. That is where we saw him, he was naked. JUDGE WILSON: Would you know what had happened to his clothes, they were given back to MS NGQULUNGA: Yes, I was given the clothes after the funeral. JUDGE WILSON: Those are the clothes he had been wearing, not the clothes he was buried in? MS NGQULUNGA: That is correct. JUDGE WILSON: These clothes you were given were undamaged, perfectly clean, is that what MS NGQULUNGA: The suit was completely perfect, except the PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG JUDGE WILSON 138 T C NGQULUNGA pair of trousers, just in front right next to the zip, that's where there was a bullet hole, otherwise the whole JUDGE MALL: Mr Mpshe, any re-examination? ADV MPSHE: No re-examination, Mr Chairman, thank you. NO RE-EXAMINATION BY ADV MPSHE. JUDGE MALL: Thank you very much, you are excused. ADV DE JAGER: Did they also give you a shirt? MS NGQULUNGA: Yes, they also gave me the shirt, everything, JUDGE WILSON: Who is "they" who gave you these things? MS NGQULUNGA: The Garankua policemen. JUDGE MALL: Yes, you are excused. ADV MPSHE: That will be all Mr Chairman in the Ngqulunga incident. The next incident is as per schedule, the interrogation of Scheepers Morudi. Mr Brian Currin is appearing for the victim in this incident. Thank you Mr Chairman. ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, could you just afford me a short opportunity please? ADV DE JAGER: Mr Mpshe, in this post-mortem report there is a reference to annexure A - I haven't got a copy of annexure A with the report, have you perhaps got it? In the last instance of Mr Ngqulunga? ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman I will check for the annexure and I think to save time, I will look for it and give it to members in chambers. Thank you Sir. ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, thank you, thank you for PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG the opportunity. There is something that I would wish to clear up in the evidence of Captain Mentz, just to make hundred percent sure about that. Would it be possible for me to recall Captain Mentz just to testify about one aspect that flows from the evidence of this witness? JUDGE MALL: Is it in connection with the Scheepers Morudi? ADV DU PLESSIS: No, Mr Chairman in connection with the previous matter, in connection with Brian Ngqulunga. I beg your pardon Mr Chairman, it is something that I just want to make hundred percent clear that that evidence I cannot recall that the witness gave that specific piece of evidence and I deem it important after the questions which have been asked now. JUDGE MALL: Well, you may call him. ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. FURTHER RE-EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Mentz, there is only one specific aspect which I would like to clarify with you, did you specifically see when Mr Ngqulunga was shot, did you see that yourself specifically, when Captain Bellingham shot him? CAPT MENTZ: Mr Chairman, yes, if I remember correctly he was shot in the head. I can remember vaguely there was something said that they wouldn't have to recognise him by his face because they could look at his fingerprints, but his identification had to be delayed. I think the magazine was emptied on his head, I am not sure whether Piet Botha also shot him with a pistol, but that could be so. ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman, that is the only question that I had. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DU PLESSIS JUDGE MALL: Any questions Mr Mpshe? ADV MPSHE: No questions Mr Chairman, thank you. NO FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MPSHE JUDGE MALL: Very well, you are excused thank you. JUDGE WILSON: I notice from the post-mortem report that he had fractured first to third ribs on both sides of the body and of both clavicles, could this have been caused by the assault you and the others CAPT MENTZ: It could be so Mr Chairman. JUDGE WILSON: And he had a collapsed lung and a lacerated upper lobe of the left lung, a ruptured heart, could this all have been a result of your assault? CAPT MENTZ: Mr Chairman, when he was lying in the back of the vehicle, we sat on top of him. I am not a medical officer, but I, it is quite possible. JUDGE WILSON: Ruptured small intestines, ruptured bladder, is this also all possible as a result CAPT MENTZ: It is possible Mr Chairman. As I told you we sat on him. JUDGE WILSON: From my experience of post mortems there was considerably more done to the body than sitting on it to have caused all these injuries. You can't comment? ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman the witness wanted to answer the question. JUDGE MALL: Yes please allow him to do so. CAPT MENTZ: Mr Chairman, as I've already testified from the time that he was taken out of the car, he fell on the ground, we were on top of him, it was not a pretty sight, he was overcome, he was attacked and assaulted to make him lose PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG consciousness as quickly as possible. We came down on him with our knees, we had no mercy, he was subjected as quickly as possible, so that we could get him into the kombi and get away. It was a public road, we didn't want to be spotted there, it happened very quickly and it was very serious. So these things could all have happened. It is so, I can't say that it wouldn't have happened. JUDGE MALL: Yes. Have you seen the document which is supposed to be Annexure A to the post- ADV DU PLESSIS: I have seen the post-mortem. JUDGE MALL: No, the Annexure A. ADV DU PLESSIS: It doesn't seem that - can you just refer me a little bit closer Mr Chairman. JUDGE MALL: I am told that the Annexure A to the post ADV DU PLESSIS: I haven't got an Annexure A. JUDGE MALL: If you look at the second page, in answer to question 4, paragraph 4, it says," body of a "Big laceration on the right side of the face with fractured mandible. Right facial bones on right side of the skull anterially with protruding bones. Multiple wounds as ADV DU PLESSIS: I don't have Annexure A. JUDGE MALL: You don't have it. ADV DU PLESSIS: I don't know, it seems that you also don't have it? JUDGE WILSON: If you look at the first page - we've got the typed copy where it says, PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG "Due to brain injuries and hyper-volemic shock from multiple injuries. From gunshot So it may well be that the post-mortem indicates that all the injuries are from gunshot wounds. ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, it is possible, obviously the evidence creates certain questions, that is why I asked Captain Mentz when the victim's wife testified, exactly - if he can remember exactly where he was shot. He told me and that is why I have decided to volunteer that evidence. It is possible that that evidence might contradict this, it is possible that it might not contradict this unless we have some sort of expert evidence to explain to us that some of the injuries could not at all have been caused by any assault. Or that the injuries could have been caused by gunshot wounds. The only point I am trying to make Mr Chairman is that it doesn't appear from the post-mortem in the light of Captain Mentz's evidence, it doesn't appear from the post- mortem exactly that there were gunshot wounds anywhere else, JUDGE WILSON: Well that depends on the reading, if it says brain injuries and hyper-volemic shocks, multiple injuries from gunshot wounds, then that falls away completely, so we must get a proper copy of the post-mortem report and the annexure. ADV DU PLESSIS: Obviously Mr Chairman. All I am trying to point out is that it is not clear and that one cannot come to a specific conclusion regarding this and, the point I am trying to make is that it is possible that the clothes that the witness testified about, could have been the clothes that he had on during PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG I also want to point out to you that the photographs, whatever that might be worth in evidence, photographs on the video that was shown this morning, as far as I can recall, indicated that the clothes had some damage to it. As far as that may be important and as far as the Committee may take any note of that. I have not further questions for the witness Mr Chairman. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DU PLESSIS JUDGE MALL: Mr Mpshe, you will endeavour to get hold of this Annexure A? ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman, I will endeavour to do that. JUDGE MALL: It may be possible that we might have to recall this witness, depending upon the contents ADV MPSHE: Yes, Mr Chairman, just to inform the Committee, there is a three page post-mortem report which was given to me by the Investigative Unit, so they did not give me all the annexures, but I will get in touch with them to check as to where Annexure A is, Mr Chairman. JUDGE WILSON: Did they give you a typed copy of the port-mortem report or was it ADV MPSHE: It is typed, also mine is typed. Thank you Mr Chairman. JUDGE MALL: Thank you. You are excused for the time being. ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I just want to place on record, there are other witnesses that I can call in respect of this incident, they are not here at the moment and I would simply want, in the light of the PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 143 W/O VAN VUUREN have to get further information, want to reserve my rights in that regard to be allowed later on, to call other witnesses in respect of this incident. JUDGE MALL: Yes, we are really concerned with the nature of his injuries. ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, I can understand that. JUDGE MALL: May we then proceed with the next matter? ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman, yes. I call Warrant Officer Paul van Vuuren. PAUL JACOBUS JANSEN VAN VUUREN: (sworn states) EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Van Vuuren can you remember exactly when this W/O VAN VUUREN: Approximately 1986 or 1987. ADV DU PLESSIS: You set out the nature of the offence. W/O VAN VUUREN: Myself, Captain Hechter, Sergeant Van der Westhuizen and Slang, his name was Danny (indistinct) questioned him. We used a gas mask, assaulted him and executed electrical shocks He was a great ANC activist, he had thrown several petrol bombs in Mamelodi and he was the petrol attacks on policemen's houses. The South African Defence Force could not trace him and at the request of Captain Van Jaarsveld to trace him, at that stage Captain Jaap van Jaarsveld was our temporary Commanding Officer because if I remember correctly, Flip Loots was on a special investigation. Myself and Sergeant van der Westhuizen went to look for him on the instruction of Captain Hechter. We traced him within three days. The way in which we traced him was out of informant reports, we started monitoring his movements very closely and within three days we traced him. That just showed how effective PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 144 W/O VAN VUUREN the Security Police was at that stage. The questioning took approximately two hours and in that time, his oxygen supply was limited. He was assaulted by Slang and Hendrik with handcuffs and electrical shocks were also executed on him and it was necessary to gain information from him about his activities and strategies and thereafter he became a source of the police and gave us very important information. ADV DU PLESSIS; Could I ask you about the methods which were used in his interrogation, were these the normal methods which were used? W/O VAN VUUREN: Yes, these were the normal methods which we used. ADV DU PLESSIS: Did you obtain any relevant information from him? ADV DU PLESSIS: Do you remember which injuries he sustained? W/O VAN VUUREN: At this stage it is difficult for me to remember, I can't remember exactly, but we assaulted him quite seriously. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DU PLESSIS. MR CURRIN: Thank you Mr Chairman. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CURRIN: WO van Vuuren, you've said that he threw petrol bombs and was involved in many activities, did you see him throwing petrol bombs, on what basis are you making W/O VAN VUUREN: I never saw him personally, but out of the informant reports which we received it was quite clear that he was involved and he was a leader in Mamelodi who was involved in petrol bomb PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR CURRIN: Was he ever charged with any offence ever sentenced? W/O VAN VUUREN: I cannot remember, I cannot say. MR CURRIN: So it is all hearsay? It is hearsay, what you've repeated here with regard to his activities, is hearsay, you don't know it as a matter of fact? W/O VAN VUUREN: No, I know it for a fact out of the various informant reports, we did not only have one informant who was supplying us with information, there were several informants who were bringing us information on Scheepers Morudi and his name came up quite often, so it was not just hearsay evidence, it was fact because the informants did not know about each other and did not work together. MR CURRIN: I will not argue with you as to what constitutes hearsay, I will leave it there. Could you give a little bit more information with regard to the torture? W/O VAN VUUREN: It is a long time ago, but if I remember correctly we used a gas mask, we put it over his head and we left the plug in and we denied him oxygen. His hands and feet were tied and we assaulted him several times. We assaulted him with our bare hands and some of the Constables involved, we kicked him too. Some of the Constables involved assaulted him with the handcuffs. MR CURRIN: Would you say that he was severely assaulted? W/O VAN VUUREN: That is correct. MR CURRIN: He has asked me to put to you that he was never a member of the ANC, he was a student activist, he was not an ANC activist. Do you have proof that he was a member of the ANC? W/O VAN VUUREN: No, I have no proof that he was a member of PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG the ANC because all those documents have been destroyed as it has been said time and again in the evidence. MR CURRIN: You assumed, I would imagine that if one was an activist, whether it was a student activist that one was an ANC activist? W/O VAN VUUREN: That is possible. MR CURRIN: Have you spoken to him at all since he has been here the last couple of days, have you W/O VAN VUUREN: No, I haven't spoken to him at all. MR CURRIN: Have you possibly approached him about your application and the way you feel and your remorse and asked him for forgiveness? W/O VAN VUUREN: No, I did not do that. MR CURRIN: Were you involved in the bombing of his house before that, a couple of months before he W/O VAN VUUREN: It is possible, I was involved in several bomb attacks on several houses. MR CURRIN: Have you applied for amnesty in respect of all these bomb attacks on all the houses? MR CURRIN: And you can't recall the details? W/O VAN VUUREN: No, there were too many, I can't remember. ADV DU PLESSIS: I really don't have a problem that the witness testifies, but I would ask Mr Currin to keep to this specific amnesty application in respect of this specific incident. As you are aware, WO van Vuuren has made various applications pertaining to various incidents, as well as one global application pertaining to certain incidents which he cannot remember a lot about. I object against further interrogation about other amnesty applications. MR CURRIN: Mr Chairman, it just relates to the question PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG of full disclosure and I am just ensuring that there has JUDGE MALL: Well, as you know he has applied, made application for amnesty for various offences. Among them is the bombing of houses. MR CURRIN: Would you just bear with me for a moment? MR CURRIN: You personally participated in the physical assault? W/O VAN VUUREN: Yes, it is correct, I did. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CURRIN. JUDGE MALL: Mr Mpshe, are there any questions you wish to put to this witness? CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV MPSHE: Can you explain as per your application page 156, the last paragraph - "the telephone method was used on him", exactly what does that entail? W/O VAN VUUREN: Mr Chairman, it is an old fashioned telephone where you had the crank that you turned, there were two wires coming from the telephone, you took that and you connected it to the person to his feet or hand or whatever, it all depended on what you felt like on the particular day towards the activists, and then you turned the crank and you put electrical shocks through him. ADV MPSHE: Now in this incident, to which part of his body did you tie the wires? W/O VAN VUUREN: I cannot remember, I really cannot remember but we did use the instrument. ADV MPSHE: Why can't you remember? W/O VAN VUUREN: It is 10 years ago. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV MPSHE: But you were present when these things were done? W/O VAN VUUREN: But that was not the only time that I was present, there were many other times in JUDGE WILSON: This was in fact one of the most common of the machinery used by the police for this shock treatment wasn't it? W/O VAN VUUREN: That is correct, Your Honour. ADV MPSHE: Can you recall how long was this execution done on him? W/O VAN VUUREN: Normally about ten seconds, five to ten seconds per shock, per shock treatment. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MPSHE JUDGE MGOEPE: What exactly did you want from him? W/O VAN VUUREN: We questioned him to obtain information from him regarding the fellow persons who worked with them, to control whether the information that we had, which we thought was correct, we wanted to verify those and to get general information regarding the unrest situation in Mamelodi. JUDGE MGOEPE: What was the ultimate objective? W/O VAN VUUREN: The purpose was to find people who were working with them, to arrest them or to eliminate them and to find out exactly where they were hiding from the Security Police and the Defence Force at that stage, where firearms or weapons might have been concealed or hidden away, in the general state of emergency which was prevalent exactly where they were hiding. Where we could get hold of them. JUDGE MGOEPE: The aspect of weapons seems to be something that you did not allude to earlier on. You mentioned that he was involved in "brandstigting", intimidation, "petrolbom PRETORIA JUDGE MGOEPE 148 W/O VAN VUUREN aanvalle op polisiemanne se huise" and that is a distinct criminal character. W/O VAN VUUREN: I can only mention that Scheepers at that stage, I could say was the leader in Mamelodi. The Defence Force looked for him for months, and they couldn't trace him and Captain van Jaarsveld requested us and there were many activities for which they were looking for him, but as I have stated to you my information was that it was only concerning schools' boycotts, arson, petrol bomb attacks, but while we interrogated him, we asked him whether he knew about any weapons which had been hidden JUDGE MGOEPE: To the extent that you wanted information for the purpose of effecting some arrest, the impression I get is that this was a criminal investigation after all. It was nothing else but a criminal investigation which was going on here, criminal investigations by yourselves? W/O VAN VUUREN: I don't clearly understand the question. JUDGE MGOEPE: I asked you to tell us what the ultimate objective of your exercises were, and you mentioned also that you wanted information from him so that you could effect some arrests and I am saying to you therefore it would seem that you were busy with nothing else but a criminal investigation here for purposes of arrest and prosecution? W/O VAN VUUREN: At that stage it was so, we wished to arrest people and prosecute people who worked with Scheepers, that is correct, yes. JUDGE MGOEPE: And I am saying to you the torture, the interrogation and the torture that accompanied it, was not any different to the torture and interrogation you would have done on somebody who had committed a robbery? It was PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG JUDGE MGOEPE 148 W/O VAN VUUREN trying to extract information purely for criminal purposes, not politically? W/O VAN VUUREN: No, Mr Chairman, Scheepers was involved in petrol bomb attacks on policemen's houses, he was an activist in the townships, it was not just criminal affairs, criminal matters if I understand JUDGE MGOEPE: And you say that he made mention of firearms only during the interrogation? W/O VAN VUUREN: I can't remember whether he referred to firearms. We asked him whether he knew about any firearms that had been hidden in Mamelodi, ANC, we referred to DLB's, we asked him, he didn't JUDGE MGOEPE: Well you don't remember whether you got any answer from him in that regard? W/O VAN VUUREN: I cannot remember, Mr Chairman. JUDGE MGOEPE: For all you know he might have said he didn't know anything about those W/O VAN VUUREN: That is quite possible. JUDGE MGOEPE: Did you get any information out of him that eventually led to the arrest of W/O VAN VUUREN: Mr Chairman I cannot remember today. This all happened 10 years ago, I really cannot remember, it is possible, but I cannot remember. JUDGE MGOEPE: You mentioned that some people were looking for him, I don't know whether police, I don't know, but your help was eventually called in. W/O VAN VUUREN: That is correct, it was the Defence Force, the Defence Force was stationed in Mamelodi, they had an office there. JUDGE MGOEPE: Your group felt that they could help, they PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG JUDGE MGOEPE 149 W/O VAN VUUREN could trace him and thereafter beat the information out of him? W/O VAN VUUREN: That is correct, Mr Chairman. JUDGE MGOEPE: And then take that information and then pass it over to the other branches of law enforcement agencies that had been looking for him? W/O VAN VUUREN: That is correct, we would have passed it on, but we would have kept most of it for ourselves and used that. We also didn't hand him over to the Defence Force, he became an informant of the JUDGE MGOEPE: But that was after the assault, possibly as a result of the assault? W/O VAN VUUREN: That is correct. That is correct, that is possible, that it was as a consequence ADV DE JAGER: I think what my learned colleague wishes to determine is what the political motive was when you questioned the man, was it not just a matter of trying to trace a criminal offences? W/O VAN VUUREN; That is correct, it was to trace criminal deeds and to trace the people who were ADV DE JAGER: But what has this got to do with politics? W/O VAN VUUREN: Mr Chairman, he was at that stage an ANC activist, in other words he was involved with the ANC activists who were causing great trouble in Mamelodi and that was why we questioned him. He was an ANC activist and after all that had to do with politics in my books. ADV DE JAGER: I think you have to draw a distinction, there can be nationalists or any other party whose members may commit housebreaking and burglary and have nothing to do with politics? W/O VAN VUUREN: That is correct, Your Honour, but if ANC PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DE JAGER 150 W/O VAN VUUREN activists attack policemen's houses with petrol bombs and arrange boycotts, it is a political motive in my ADV DE JAGER: The question is simply whether in this particular instance the purpose of the investigation was of a criminal nature or what exactly it was? W/O VAN VUUREN: It was a criminal investigation, Mr Chairman. JUDGE WILSON: And you have no idea if you got information from him that resulted in any arrests, prosecutions or matters of that nature? W/O VAN VUUREN: Mr Chairman, I cannot remember today, it is too long ago. It is possible that it was so, I cannot remember, there were many instances of this nature. JUDGE WILSON; Can you remember that about 10 minutes ago when Mr Currin was questioning you, you said it might be possible that he wasn't a member of the ANC? JUDGE WILSON: My recollection is that Mr Currin specifically put to you that he wasn't and you said you couldn't challenge that, you had no proof. W/O VAN VUUREN: I cannot prove it because I don't have proof, all the proof that existed was destroyed after my time in terms of a national command from Security Headquarters, all documentation was burnt, I don't have anything to prove what I am saying today. MS KHAMPEPE: Sir was it not true from the evidence which has been given by Mr Cronje, that the general practice of the Security Police was to eliminate people who would have committed acts such as these committed by Mr Scheepers Morudi? W/O VAN VUUREN: That is correct that people like him had PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MS KHAMPEPE 151 W/O VAN VUUREN to be eliminated, or were eliminated in certain instances. MS KHAMPEPE: Can you just explain what would be the criteria which would be used to determine whether a person was capable of immediate elimination or would be rehabilitated as in the instance of Mr W/O VAN VUUREN: It is very difficult today to sit and explain here which people were eliminated and which people were not eliminated. We played it by ear, depending on how things went at that stage, whether the person seemed prepared to work with the Security Police at that stage or whether he was not prepared to cooperate with us. I think to a large extent if Scheepers had not agreed to become an informer, we would quite possibly have eliminated him. MS KHAMPEPE: So after this incident Mr Morudi became an informer? W/O VAN VUUREN: That is correct. RE-EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr van Vuuren, in the Security Branch where you were working at that stage, what did you activities involve? Did your activities involve actions against the liberation movements, deeds of activists, or did your activities involve normal police docket investigation of burglaries etc? W/O VAN VUUREN: No, it involved actions against activists, no normal investigations. ADV DU PLESSIS: So in other words your activity as a member of the Security Branch at that stage Warrant Officer, was primarily aimed at what - normal thieves, robbers or were your activities aimed at people who were involved in destabilising the Country? W/O VAN VUUREN: It was people who were politically PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 152 W/O VAN VUUREN involved in destabilising the country. ADV DU PLESSIS: Okay, now WO van Vuuren, people like these activists or terrorists, as we have often testified before the Committee, were these people also involved in criminal activities? W/O VAN VUUREN: That is correct, they were. ADV DU PLESSIS: Did such people also make themselves guilty of normal common law or criminal transgressions in an effort to destabilise the country? W/O VAN VUUREN: Yes, they did make themselves - they were guilty of crimes to destabilise the ADV DU PLESSIS: Okay, as you can remember, was Mr Morudi a person who was involved in this political destabilisation attempt or was he an ordinary criminal? W/O VAN VUUREN: He was a person who was involved in the destabilisation efforts of the country and the campaign for destabilisation. ADV DU PLESSIS: And the methods used by activists to destabilise the country at that stage, which W/O VAN VUUREN: It was arson, petrol bomb attacks, intimidation and in certain cases murder, ADV DU PLESSIS: And is that the sort of action in which Mr Morudi was involved in and made himself guilty of as you can remember? W/O VAN VUUREN: Yes, it is correct. ADV DU PLESSIS: And when you interrogated him, did you obtain information from him or attempt to obtain information in order to accuse him and to have him found guilty in a PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 152 W/O VAN VUUREN criminal court of criminal transgressions or was the purpose to get other information? W/O VAN VUUREN: The purpose was to obtain information from him in order to accuse him - no, to accuse him wouldn't have helped at that stage because we wouldn't have had a witness to testify against him because the witness would be dead the next day were he to testify, so the idea was not to interrogate him, to take him to court, the idea was to interrogate him to obtain more information regarding the activities of the activists in Mamelodi. Criminal activities as well as other activities, meetings which they were holding, when they were having meetings, who would address them, whether they had any contact ADV DU PLESSIS: Okay, Warrant Officer van Vuuren, in your application you give in great detail the purpose of the interrogations, that which was set out in the application has been stated on numerous occasions with the same motivation as in all other interrogations for which amnesty applications are made with regard to all the applicants before the Committee and for that reason I am not offering this testimony verbally, verbatim before the Committee on every occasion, but on this regard questions had been asked regarding things which are stated very clearly in your statement. Will you turn to page 158 please of your application and there the general motivation which we applicants' applications with regard to your actions, will you please read that to the Committee. From the ADV DE JAGER: Mr du Plessis, I don't think this what is PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 153 W/O VAN VUUREN being disputed, the specific question was whether it was political or criminal and I think that is the difference between a general motivation and the motivation ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, but Mr Chairman, with respect, in the motivation in the application, it comes out very clearly that the whole purpose of the interrogation and the investigation was absolutely of a political nature and that is also clearly apparent further on, where the specific motive is set out on page 161 I don't attempt to prefer the evidence every time with regard to every case, but if I could just with regard to the questions which had been asked, if I could just be afforded the opportunity to read into the record, the testimony and I also wish to make the point and I will argue to it at the end, that I was under the impression that he did not quite clearly understand the full scope of the questions and therefore I think it is very important to get this stated in the record. Will you just continue please. W/O VAN VUUREN: "The purpose of interrogations were dual, Intimidation and obtaining information: Intimidation - When activists were interrogated they were intimidated to stop their activities and also to inform other activists that they would be interrogated and fought with tooth and nail, they had to understand that we were serious in our actions against them. During interrogation and after certain information had been obtained, attempts were made to turn activists and informants to become informants for PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 154 W/O VAN VUUREN the Security Police. These activists and/or terrorists who were turned, were the most effective means to combat the liberation movements, because they were trustees of the other terrorists and activists. The most striking example was Joe Mamasela as is apparent from this application. Ascaris who were former terrorists, were very effective in the suppression of political ADV DU PLESSIS: Were you successful in this attempt, if we can just pause a moment with that? W/O VAN VUUREN: Yes, that is correct. "For the purpose of insurgents and counter-insurgents' activities, it was important to obtain information in this regard, it was of cardinal importance to get channels exposed etc, and without interrogation techniques a network of information would never have been determined to combat the total onslaught. Interrogation which was effective with regard to obtaining information was essential. It was essential to trace deeds of terror and to plan counter strategies and take measures on the basis of the information obtained. Information was also obtained with regard to ADV DU PLESSIS: Can I stop you, you can't remember exactly which information you obtained, is it possible that your information during that interrogation was that you gained information which could be used against the liberation movements? W/O VAN VUUREN: That is correct, that is possible. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 155 W/O VAN VUUREN ADV DU PLESSIS: And was he after that of assistance to you as an informant? W/O VAN VUUREN: That is correct. INTERPRETER: The interpreters would just like the witness to read slowly. "The motive was to combat terrorism and to protect the country. A further motive was to obtain information regarding his actions and strategies". ADV DU PLESSIS: Okay. Mr Chairman the rest of the aspects therein can that be regarded as being incorporated? Thank you. Okay, Warrant Officer van Vuuren, lastly, did you regard a person as Scheepers Morudi as an activist and a criminal seen in broad terms? W/O VAN VUUREN: We as Security Police did not work with criminals, we worked with activists, but many of the activists also made themselves guilty of criminal deeds. ADV DU PLESSIS: Okay, one last aspect which I forgot to ask you about. Exactly where did your command come from, you state that on page 163, where the instructions originated? W/O VAN VUUREN: It came from Captain van Jaarsveld and from Captain Hechter. W/O VAN VUUREN: I could just mention that Captain van Jaarsveld did not tell me to assault Scheepers Morudi. That we did of our own accord. ADV DU PLESSIS: Okay. So he didn't repudiate you after that, he didn't tell you what you had W/O VAN VUUREN: No, he didn't. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 155 W/O VAN VUUREN ADV DU PLESSIS: Now, Warrant Officer van Vuuren just to return to the matter of elimination, put before the Committee regarding eliminations in particular circumstances. Could you just make your testimony clear. The type of person whose elimination was decided upon, could you tell us? W/O VAN VUUREN: It was normally a high profile activist or terrorist who was concerned with the ADV DU PLESSIS: And then a last question. Mr Morudi is present here today, are you prepared in your application - I would like to refer you to your application - in your application on page 224, could you ADV DU PLESSIS: Page 224, could you please read that to the Committee? INTERPRETER: Could the speaker please be asked to slow down while reading. W/O VAN VUUREN: "Reconciliation: I have believed seriously that what I was doing was in the interest JUDGE MGOEPE: Captain, the Interpreters are having a problem, you read too fast for them, there are difficulties in keeping up with you in their interpretation. ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Chairman, it is marked with pen on the right=hand side, page 224 of the bundle of applications. Mr Chairman it was attached as an annexure and it is entitled "versoening". ADV DU PLESSIS: I beg your pardon Mr Chairman, may I enquire from the other members of the Committee if they have (...indistinct). Thank you Mr Chairman, may the witness PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 156 W/O VAN VUUREN W/O VAN VUUREN: "Reconciliation. - I believed that what I was doing was in the interest of the Republic of South Africa, its people, my religion and christian convictions. Today I am uncertain as to where I stand and how I ended up in the position which I currently find myself in. I am sorry about the loss which family members of the victims suffered and also the loss of lives. I hope that this revelation of mine will lead to greater understanding, reconciliation and unity among the people of South Africa. It is not my decision who was right or wrong, but I am also a committed citizen of the new South Africa. The truth of the past must be exposed, that goes for all Security Forces and also freedom fighters of the liberation movements". ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, as we recall, previously Warrant Officer van Vuuren was the one witness in respect of which we didn't confirm his general background as set out on pages 4 to 16, may I just ask the witness his confirmation of that. Warrant Officer van Vuuren, on pages 4 - 16 your background has been set out, do you confirm that as correct? W/O VAN VUUREN: Yes, it is correct. ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman I have no further questions. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DU PLESSIS. JUDGE MGOEPE: Mr Currin can I ask you in the meantime just to help refresh our memories - by the way have you put it to the witness that your client will deny that he was a political activist? PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR CURRIN: I put it to the witness that my - I challenged that my client was not an ANC activist and put it to the witness that my client was a student activist, that I put to him. That is what he will testify, that he was a student activist, but he was never a member of the ANC. I put that to him. JUDGE MGOEPE: What does that mean "student activist"? MR CURRIN: Well he was as a student at school, he was involved in student activist politics. I think that we know what sort of politics the students were involved in. He was never a member of the African National Congress or any political organisation. He will testify ...(intervention) JUDGE MGOEPE: Yes, but I just want to have this clarified because at some stage I personally put questions to the witness which would have tended to tax him severely on whether or not the victim could have been a legitimate political target, a legitimate political target and if there is no severe disagreement on the question as to whether or not he was in fact in politics at whatever level, that may actually, I mean I am speaking for myself, that may clarify or make certain issues a little bit easier. JUDGE MGOEPE: So I understand you to concede that the victim was engaged in politics. FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CURRIN: Mr Chairman while I have the microphone I do have one question that I would like to clarify in re-examination which arose during some of the subsequent questioning if I may put something to the witness. JUDGE MALL: Yes, you may ask your question, sure. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR CURRIN: It is one question. My learned friend put it to you that we have heard a lot about eliminations and assassinations and when an activist qualifies to be eliminated and you said something a moment ago which, in my recollection, has been said for the first time and I just want to hear whether what I heard, is correct and you mean what you said. You said that high profile activists were targets for elimination. Now that we've heard often before, but you've added something to that. I think you added that high profile activists who were involved in killing or in murders qualified for elimination, is that correct? W/O VAN VUUREN: That was usually the case. That is correct, that was usually the case but if a person threw a petrol bomb at another's house, then it was an attempt at their lives, he wasn't playing with them, then that would also have qualified the person to have been eliminated, yes ....(intervention) MR CURRIN: Even if no one died as a result of the petrol bomb? MR CURRIN: So it is not correct to add the rider "if that person was involved in a murder"? W/O VAN VUUREN: That is correct. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CURRIN. ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman, may I beg leave to call Captain Hechter on this incident? You will find his application on page 127 of the bundle. CAPTAIN HECHTER: (still under oath) EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Hechter in your PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 158 CAPT HECHTER application on page 128, the first paragraph under "Nature and details", you say that you cannot remember the circumstances in this incident, is that correct? CAPT HECHTER: That is correct. ADV DU PLESSIS: Do you accept the evidence with regards to the facts of this incident as said by CAPT HECHTER: That is correct. ADV DU PLESSIS: Now Captain Hechter, the political motivation has been set out in your application from page 130 to page 134. Do you confirm it as being correct? CAPT HECHTER: Yes, that is correct, Chairperson. ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Hechter, with regards to one or two aspects about which Warrant Officer van Vuuren was questioned. Could you perhaps just give the Committee an indication of the type of persons who were involved in petrol bomb attacks and so forth, were they normal criminals or were these CAPT HECHTER: Chairperson, the youth activists as Mr Currin called them, were furthering all the aims and objectives of the ANC at the time. In Tshaba it was often announced, even on Radio Freedom, that the youth - the so-called informants had to be attacked, they had to attack the police, they had to be involved in the struggle which included the burning of buses, the boycotting of buses, consumer boycotts. So that when we were out looking for activists it was purely a political activist. We were not involved in normal criminal activities and that is why the police detectives who were at the stations in the areas, they were deployed to do that type of work, we did not do those cases, we did political matters and we investigated political cases. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 159 CAPT HECHTER ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Hechter, what was your general experience with such activists, were some of them members of the ANC were others not members of the ANC, could you comment on that? CAPT HECHTER: It is very difficult when you start monitoring an activist to know if it is a card carrying member of the ANC, what they did do was through the person's actions by furthering the objectives of the ANC at the time, by the methods that they applied, you were able to identify an activist. ADV DU PLESSIS: Just to include there, this attack was in 1986 and 1987? CAPT HECHTER: That is correct. ADV DU PLESSIS: Was it permissible at the time to be a card carrying member of the ANC? CAPT HECHTER: That is correct, so they would not have had their cards with them either, they would have been members of the ANC but would not have carried any cards. ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Hechter, the type of interrogations you were involved in at the time, what was the aim of the interrogation with regards to obtaining information, could you just elaborate to the CAPT HECHTER: Firstly it was to obtain information, further information which could assist us in combatting further acts of terrorism, greater acts of terrorism, lesser acts of terrorism, such as consumer - the launching of consumer boycotts to identify the involved instigators and prevent them proceeding. The interrogations were fairly violent. In order to intimidate the youths to such an extent that - it was an attempt to prevent them from participating in this type of PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 160 CAPT HECHTER ADV DU PLESSIS: After having heard what Warrant Officer van Vuuren testified here, would you say that the objective at the time would have been to obtain information, charge the person and have them convicted in a court of law or was the objective to obtain information with regards to the liberation CAPT HECHTER: It is very difficult for me to answer that question at this point. What I heard from Warrant Officer van Vuuren was that thereafter he was made a member of the Branch, so he would have given us his cooperation, which is why we would have decided to use him as a source, but I doubt whether we would have wanted to arrest him and have him charged and so forth, because at the time we did not try to arrest activists. The information which we confronted them with could not be aligned to any witnesses due to the intimidation factor which existed at the time. I would not say that it did not happen at all, there might have been cases where persons were arrested and detained in terms of the law, but it was very minimal. ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Hechter could you please page to page 339 of your application. Captain Hechter, can you page to the next page entitled "Reconciliation", that is part of your application. Could you please just read it to the Committee. Yes, I beg your pardon Mr Chairman, it appears twice in my volume, I beg your pardon, it is 338. CAPT HECHTER: "I had steadfastly believed that what I was doing at that time, was in the PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 160 CAPT HECHTER the Republic of South Africa, its people, my religion and religious convictions. Today I am uncertain as to where I stand and how I ended up in the position I currently find myself in. I am very unhappy and I am sorry about the loss which the family members of victims suffered and also the loss of life. I hope that this revelation of mine will lead to greater understanding and reconciliation". JUDGE WILSON: This is word for word what the previous witness said, can't he just confirm it? What is your purpose of getting it on the record twice? ADV DU PLESSIS: As it pleases you. Will you confirm it please? CAPT HECHTER: I will confirm that. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DU PLESSIS. JUDGE MALL: Would you rather Mr Currin put his questions first? ADV MPSHE: I will prefer to do it that way, thank you Mr Chairman. JUDGE MALL: There you are, Mr Currin. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CURRIN: Thank you Mr Chairman. You stated something which has been said before, namely that detentions at that time were an exception, that one normally did not prosecute, arrest and prosecute and one did not normally detain, that was an absolute exception? CAPT HECHTER: Not really, what I meant by it, there was a lot of detentions, but it had such little impact on the general anarchism that was at that stage rampant in the Black townships, that in certain cases PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG people working with us, still did arrest some of these people and kept them under the Security regulations, but me, as a person, in our department or in our section, we felt in certain circumstances, we could by intimidation, we could get a better reaction out of the people, because when those people were left out of jail after a while, they came back. They were the real "rammetjies" around there, so we battled with them. My department, the Black Power MR CURRIN: What you are saying relates generally to what you refer to as the Black activists? CAPT HECHTER: The Black activists, that is correct. MR CURRIN: So there wasn't a tendency to detain, as far as you were concerned and in your division, the CAPT HECHTER: There were many, if we just could have kept records, you would have seen that many of them were detained, but in certain instances the decision was taken by me as the Officer that a arrested, but be picked up, interrogated, intimidated and then released. MR CURRIN: But the reality Captain Hechter is that the vast, vast, vast majority of people were in fact CAPT HECHTER: You say so I do not know, that may be so, I cannot argue with you. MR CURRIN: I put to you that also, we will lead evidence on behalf of the victims that the tendency was in fact to detain and not to eliminate which is ...(intervention) CAPT HECHTER: We are not talking about elimination, we are talking about intimidation. MR CURRIN: You heard also what the previous witness said with regard to elimination, as to when a PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG qualify for elimination, do you agree with his answer? CAPT HECHTER: Could you please tell me ...(intervention) MR CURRIN: He said a prominent activist who was involved in an act which would result in the death of a person and he changed that to say for example, if there was a petrol bombing and a prominent activist was involved, then that person would then qualify for elimination. CAPT HECHTER: The English have a saying that "there is no rule if there is no exception", those decisions were taken by us on the basis of information obtained from sources and the decision was taken by me quite often and in many instances by Head Office, when one should be eliminated and when not. There was no set rule that if this was the third house that person would be eliminated, it went according to the circumstances at the time, the amount of violent acts which the person had committed and how you, as a leadership figure, had blossomed in the community. If you remember correctly we tried to eliminate Father Mkatshwa which was a good example. Look at the leadership figure that he turned out to be. He was a prominent leader. MR CURRIN: If I understand you correctly there were no fixed criteria, it was an ad hoc decision taken depending on the circumstances at the time? CAPT HECHTER: That is correct, that is correct. MR CURRIN: That is very different from what the previous witness said. CAPT HECHTER: He was a Sergeant at the time and he worked under my command, so it could MR CURRIN: I have no further questions to this witness. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CURRIN. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG JUDGE MGOEPE: Go ahead, maybe you will cover the point which I wanted to cover. ADV MPSHE: Captain, in your application page 127 thereof, you're asking for amnesty on "opsetlike saakbeskadiging asook brandstigting", but you haven't told this Committee anything about those two CAPT HECHTER: I think it was rectified. I think Adv du Plessis submitted a rectified schedule in which those errors had been rectified. The rectification had been made, there was no damage to property, I hope it is contained in that schedule. Thank you. JUDGE MGOEPE: I just want to clear this because earlier on, by reason of the fact that the name of Captain van Jaarsveld was mentioned, immediately after a sentence which made reference to the South African Defence Force, I was under the impression that he was attached to the South African Defence Force. He was in fact in the Security Branch? CAPT HECHTER: He was my second in command, Captain van Jaarsveld was our acting Commander, yes, acting Commander. JUDGE MGOEPE: But is he not the person who asked you to CAPT HECHTER: According to what I can deduce from Warrant Officer van Vuuren, I think that was the case. I can't remember this specific incident, but if he says so, it is so because he was in control. Then he would have addressed the request to me and I would have sent out the people to go and pick up the JUDGE MGOEPE: Yes in fact I think this is what Mr van Vuuren says, that you were asked by, he PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG CAPT HECHTER: No, no, we were never. Captain van Jaarsveld, Warrant Officer van Vuuren and myself were never stationed at Vlakplaas, we were just in the Security Branch of Pretoria or the Northern Transvaal, we had no ties with Vlakplaas, we never liaised with them. JUDGE MGOEPE: If in fact the instruction to, or the request to trace the victim did come from Captain van Jaarsveld, it would have meant that it was a request that came from the Security Branch CAPT HECHTER: It is possible. You see in the mornings, and we touched on that last year, we had the joint management centre which consisted of the various sections or departments including Civil Defence, the Defence Force, National Intelligence and ourselves, we met and problem cases were discussed with reference not only to problem persons, but also to problem cases where for example there was bad sewerage systems, these were all discussed at these meetings and I suspect that it was on this occasion that the request was addressed to Captain van Jaarsveld, whether we couldn't trace this man for them, because they were unable to trace him. They were situated on top of the hill in Mamelodi and they also had their problems ADV DE JAGER: Could we just have clarity in this regard, did you ever operate under the orders of CAPT HECHTER: Yes, but at that stage he was the Head of the Security Branch, not at Vlakplaas. ADV DE JAGER: So when he was at Vlakplaas, you were not under his command? CAPT HECHTER: No, I only got to know him when he took over as Commanding Officer of the ADV DE JAGER: You yourself were never stationed at PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG Vlakplaas or under that command? CAPT HECHTER: No, not at all Mr Chairman. ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Hechter, when exactly did Brigadier Cronje come over from Vlakplaas CAPT HECHTER: I am not sure, I suspect it was about 1986, late 1985, it must have been then JUDGE MALL: We've already had (...indistinct) ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Chairman the evidence was led right at the beginning. It makes it very difficult the time period inbetween, because a lot of the issues and the aspects which seem to create certain problems, have already long ago been dealt with in evidence, but obviously nobody's recollection is so good that one can remember everything, but that was dealt with specifically in the evidence previously. JUDGE MALL: No further questions? ADV DU PLESSIS: No further questions, thank you Mr Chairman. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DU PLESSIS JUDGE MALL: I think at this stage we will take an adjournment if it's convenient. We will resume at nine o'clock tomorrow morning. MR CURRIN: Mr Chairman, Scheepers Morudi is here, will we not hear him today? JUDGE MALL: Unfortunately not, I've indicated that for certain reasons we are going to adjourn at quarter to four today and if he can be available tomorrow PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG |
