 |
News | Sport | TV | Radio | Education | TV Licenses | Contact Us |
|
News | Sport | TV | Radio | Education | TV Licenses | Contact Us |
Amnesty HearingsType AMNESTY HEARINGS Starting Date 27 February 1997 Location PRETORIA Day 4 Names ERIC WINTER Back To Top Click on the links below to view results for: +smit +aj ADV MPSHE: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, the next matter is the Pepco Three. No. 2 on the Schedule. Mr Chairman you will recall, and members of the Committee that evidence was led in this matter and the matter was postponed because some of the implicated persons did not have sufficient time to ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman, may I state that these people were Gideon Nieuwoudt, Sakkie van Zyl and Eric Winter. Mr Chairman, inasfar as Sakkie van Zyl is concerned I have in my possession a letter from his attorney, Roux Attorneys in Pretoria to the effect that if I have to sum it up, to the affect that they request that they be excused from attending this hearing, the reason being that they have filed Amnesty applications with regard to the Pepco Three. With regard to Gideon Nieuwoudt, the Attorney Francois van Der Merwe in Port Elizabeth was in contact with me three weeks ago, telephonically, and he indicated to me that he has received documents that I sent him, but he also asked that he be excused from attending because they have also filed Amnesty application in this regard. He promised to fax me through a letter containing that message, but to date I Pertaining the lawyers or legal representatives of the victims, that is Mrs Belinda Hartel(?) as well PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG from Port Elizabeth, they have also contacted me telephonically, that they are aware of the hearing going on and that they are not going to attend. It seemed that the matter will be dealt with fully in Port Elizabeth later on. Thank you Mr Chairman, that is all. JUDGE MALL: What about Winter? ADV MPSHE: Mr Winter is present, the Attorney has put his name on the record yesterday, Mr Chairman. I will then hand over, Mr Chairman, to my learned friend, Mr van der Merwe, appearing JUDGE MALL: Yes, Mr van der Merwe. MR V/D MERWE: Mr Chairman, I have discussed the matter with my learned colleague, Mr Britz, and he has indicated in order to curtail the proceedings that we might just clarify a point in - where Mr Winter has been implicated regarding his presence on the evening, or the period just immediately before the Pepco Three were eliminated. We have prepared a sworn statement and I beg leave to read it into the record at this stage. Can I proceed then. It was done in Afrikaans as the person implicated is Afrikaans speaking. The interpreters request a copy: "I, the undersigned Eric Frans Norman Winter hereby declare under oath as follows: JUDGE WILSON: The Interpreters asked if they could have a copy, have you another copy? MR V/D MERWE: I have unfortunately handed out my copies. JUDGE WILSON: Well they can borrow mine. MR V/D MERWE: It continues then and says, "The facts contained herein fall within my personal knowledge as far as I know they are PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG I then continue at Paragraph 2, Mr Chairman. "I am a retired police officer and I was a Colonel at the time of my retirement. I was affiliated to the Security Branch of the South African Police. During the first week of March 1985 I took over the command of the Security Branch of the South African Police which was situated in Cradock. In the Cradock District there was an old police station known as Post Chalmers which was used for the purposes of interrogation, after my arrival, by the Security Branch of Port Elizabeth. Although this building fell under the jurisdiction of Cradock, this building was used by members of the Security Branch of Cradock for recreational purposes and not for the purposes affiliated to the works of the Cradock Security Police. I note that Mr R E Venter mentioned that, alleged that I was to have taken him and a Gert Beeslaar to the Cradock police station. I would like to mention that he is referring to the Post Chalmers police station as mentioned above. Although I was aware that Sakkie van Zyl was involved in the interrogation of persons, at the Post Chalmers police station, at no stage was I aware of who was being interrogated and what the nature of the interrogation was. I was aware of this because I was informed by Sakkie van Zyl that they interrogated persons at Post Chalmers, he mentioned that it was a Port Elizabeth case but in case there was information which PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG Cradock that he would pass it through to my branch. I did not at any stage mention that Mr Venter or Beeslaar came to give evidence at the police station. I met them for the first time in October 1996 when I came - during the sitting of the Truth and At no stage did I have any contact with the Pepco Three, either visual or otherwise. I was also not present at the information session of Deon Nieuwoudt or Sakkie van Zyl where Mr Venter allegedly said that the interrogation was going well and that information was being obtained. I was never in any position to conclude that the three men would later be eliminated. Firstly, because I was never aware of the progress of the interrogation and secondly, because I was never present there. I did not transport anyone from Cradock to Post Chalmers interrogation office as alleged by Mr Venter. I was not involved in any way, in any aspect relating to the Pepco Three". and attested to by Mr Winter. Thank you Mr Chairman. JUDGE MALL: Is there anything you wish to add to what your client has said in his affidavit? MR V/D MERWE: There is nothing to add at this stage. Thank you Mr Chairman. JUDGE MALL: Mr Mpshe, is there any other matter allied to this that we are going to deal with now? ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, yes please may I be afforded the opportunity. Mr Chairman, in respect of the Pepco Three matter, in respect of this affidavit, I would ask the Committee humbly if Colonel Venter PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG to respond to this one aspect about Major Winter's affidavit. After that, I intend to call another witness on the Pepco Three matter and that is Mr Gert Beeslaar. He will present the Committee with an affidavit that he made about this occurrence to the Attorney General which affidavit is dated 24 May 1996. So that is what I intend to do if the Committee would allow me to. Mr Chairman, I may mention regarding this, that I should have said in Chambers that this is another document which I, this affidavit is another document which I will have to hand up. JUDGE MALL: Will you call your witness first, I think. ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you, Mr Chairman. COLONEL VENTER: (sworn states) EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: Colonel Venter, I'd like to ask you, you have gone through the statement made by Colonel Winter as you said in your application, you said that Major Winter took you to the police station where the people were being interrogated. Could you just tell the Committee whether you are prepared to concede that you possibly made a mistake? COL. VENTER: That is correct, Mr Chairman. ADV DU PLESSIS: Could you just give the Committee an indication just elaborate on that a bit. COL. VENTER: After I testified here, W/O Beeslaar, who had accompanied me, and I discussed the matter, he refreshed my memory and told me that he does not agree with what I said on page 110 of my application where I said that "Major Winter took us to the police station". After we spoke, he and I, it was clear to me as it is now that we, at that stage, we Major Winter was the Commanding Officer, Station PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG Commander but that it was someone else who had accompanied us to the police station where I met van Zyl, and that is all I would like to rectify. And I would also like to add here that I did not deliberately try and create a false impression to this Committee. It happened a long time ago and I am also sorry if I inconvenienced Mr Winter in any way or prejudiced him by saying that he had accompanied us. I cannot, however, remember who the person was who accompanied us, whom Colonel Winter assigned to ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you, Mr Chairman. JUDGE WILSON: I think in fairness to you Colonel I would like to refer to the record of the previous proceedings on page 216, when you were asked was Winter the person who took you to the police station and you said, "As far as I can remember". It is quite clear that even then you were not certain. ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you, Mr Commissioner, I am indebted to you. MS KHAMPEPE: Was W/O Beeslaar not able to refresh your memory on the identity of the person who COL. VENTER: Mr Chairman, no, he was not sure, he also does not know who it was and I cannot NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DU PLESSIS JUDGE MALL: Mr Mpshe, you have no questions of this witness? NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR V/D MERWE JUDGE MALL: Thank you very much. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 269 MR BEESLAAR ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman, may I be permitted to call Mr Beeslaar? ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I beg leave to hand up to the Committee copies of the affidavit made by Mr Beeslaar to the Attorney General. Mr Chairman, that would be "Exhibit S". EXHIBIT S HANDED UP - AFFIDAVIT BY W/O BEESLAAR GERHARDUS CORNELIUS BEESLAAR: (sworn states) ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I may point out that Mr Beeslaar is going to apply for Amnesty in respect of this incident himself. I don't intend to call Mr Beeslaar to give evidence about any political motives in respect of his own personal involvement, I am just calling him on the facts. ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Beeslaar could you please read your statement to the Committee, you can just ADV DU PLESSIS: Paragraph 3, Mr Chairman. JUDGE MALL: Will you make a copy available to the Interpreters please. Is it necessary for you to ask him to read his entire statement when the issue was a very limited issue? ADV DU PLESSIS: No, Mr Chairman if you are happy, I will just ...(intervention) JUDGE MALL: Could you not just put the question, the relevant question to him, he can confirm what he ADV DU PLESSIS: I will do so, Mr Chairman. Thank you very much. Mr Beeslaar, you submitted your affidavit, is that correct, is that your signature at the bottom of paragraph PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 270 MR BEESLAAR MR BEESLAAR: That is correct, your Worship. ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Beeslaar, do you confirm the correctness of it? ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman may I refer you to page 3 of this affidavit. Mr Beeslaar, on the 5th line, in the middle of the 5th line, could you please just read that sentence to the Committee. "As stated in the statement I tried to speak to them myself and tried to attract one's attraction with my foot by touching him with my foot". that is not correct Mr Chairperson, I kicked him. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DU PLESSIS ADV DE JAGER: Can you remember who transported you to the place which was used as a police MR BEESLAAR: Mr Chairman, Captain Venter and I went to Cradock from the airport a day or two after the incident and at the Cradock Security Branch we reported to the Commander and heard from him where the members of the Security Branch were and he assigned a member of his Unit to us to accompany us to the police station or to the place where we were to find the other members of the security police. JUDGE WILSON: And you say in paragraph 8 that he was unknown to me, is that so? MR BEESLAAR: The Commanding Officer assigned someone unknown to me, I do not know who the person was but it was obviously a member of his branch because that person accompanied us because he would have known and would have known the area as well. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG JUDGE MALL: Are there any question, Mr Mpshe? ADV. MPSHE: Mr Chairperson, I am still struggling to go through the affidavit which was given to me during the hearing so if the Chair could just give me about four minutes I will be through with it. ADV MPSHE: Thank you. I am indebted to you, Mr Chairman, I have no questions on this witness. JUDGE MALL: Thank you very much, you are excused. JUDGE MALL: Does that conclude the matter as far as the Pepco Three is concerned? ADV MPSHE: That concludes the matter, Mr Chairman. Thank you. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman the next matter is the killing of Dr Ribiero and his wife Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, Members of the Committee will recall that evidence was led in this matter in the last hearing. The only thing that was not done was cross-examination on the applicant by the legal representative of the victims, Mr Brian Currin. So what is going to happen now Mr Chairman is the cross-examination on those witnesses. The people who testified were Hechter as well as Colonel Cronje. ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I have one problem Mr Chairman and that is the fact that we have spent a lot of time in preparation in respect of the KwaNdebele Nine matter, I did not foresee, although the Ribiero matter was placed for today, I did not foresee that it will come on soon and I wanted to use lunchtime to work with my clients on the Ribiero matter still. JUDGE MALL: But they have given evidence already. ADV DU PLESSIS: Brigadier Cronje has given evidence already, Mr Chairman, yes. I don't know if the Committee would perhaps allow an earlier adjournment for lunch to give me the opportunity to speak to the applicants about the Ribiero matter and then we can go on after lunch. JUDGE MGOEPE: Sorry, Mr du Plessis they have already testified, I assume, they have given evidence- ADV DU PLESSIS: Brigadier Cronje has given evidence-in- chief but Captain Hechter has not given JUDGE MGOEPE: We can continue with the one who has given evidence-in-chief. ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, we can do that, yes. JUDGE MALL: Can we do that please. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 272 BRIG CRONJE ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairperson, before my learned friend leads the witness, on the 19(4) notices, I want to bring to the notice of the Committee that certain individuals were served with 19(4). I have the returns with me. That will be: General A J M Joubert; Captain Goosen; General Coetzee; Brigadier Schoon; S J J Smit. And the legal representatives in the names I have just mentioned are present, but not all of them Mr JUDGE MALL: Well, before we proceed with this evidence should we just have them place themselves MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, if I may, I appear on behalf of General Coetzee and Brigadier Schoon. MS H KRUGER: Mr Chairman I appear on behalf of General Smit. JUDGE MALL: Yes. I am sorry if we've inconvenienced you in starting a little later than we thought we CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CURRIN: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Brigadier Cronje you start your evidence by saying "Special forces requested a memorandum on Dr Ribiero from me", did you know why they wanted the memorandum? BRIG CRONJE: As far as I can recall they told me that they have identified Dr Ribiero as a target. MR CURRIN: So, you knew at that stage their intention was to assassinate Dr Ribiero? JUDGE MALL: What is the answer to the question, to the first question, you asked him why? MR CURRIN: His answer was that he assumed that they had identified him as a target. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR CURRIN: So from that moment on you knew that Dr. Ribiero was a candidate for assassination? MR CURRIN: Now, from your written statement, you deny any direct participation in the killing of Dr MR CURRIN: Why are you applying for amnesty in respect of Dr Ribiero and his wife? BRIG CRONJE: I knew about the incident, I was also involved and therefore I am making an application. MR CURRIN: So at that early stage you could have taken steps to stop any attempt or assassination? BRIG CRONJE: I could have, but I did not. MR CURRIN: What was the role of Captain Hechter? BRIG CRONJE: I have been requested by Commander Charl Naude and I think Noel Robey to help Hechter with the planning and I gave permission for that. MR CURRIN: Why was it necessary to involve Captain Hechter in the planning of the assassination? BRIG CRONJE: Probably because Hechter new the area where Dr Ribiero lived. MR CURRIN: And the SADF presumably you say didn't know the area? BRIG CRONJE: That was how I thought. MR CURRIN: Did you not ask the defence force or query the defence forces' request that the police participate in the assassination? BRIG CRONJE: I did, however, ask Naude whilst they have already targeted Ribiero why they have requested me for a memorandum. His answer was "they wanted to affirm their PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR CURRIN: The fact that you took no steps to intervene or to stop the assassinations suggests that you shared the view of the defence force that he should be assassinated? BRIG CRONJE: Let me put it this way. I had the impression that the command came from Trivets. Naude said that he had to report back to his General, who was General Joubert. I was not in a position to query a MR CURRIN: Even if you knew the General was going to commit a murder? BRIG CRONJE: As I said I thought it came from Trivets and I didn't want to interfere. MR CURRIN: Why do you say you presume it came from Trivets, you participated on Trivets? BRIG CRONJE: No, I wasn't always part of Trivets. When it was said that he was identified as a target, I then thought it came from Trivets. MR CURRIN: Did you do some of your own research, looking at your file to see what there was on Dr BRIG CRONJE: I was aware of his activities, yes, I was aware of that. MR CURRIN: I get back to an earlier question. It sounds to me as if you did nothing to interfere or intervene in any way, can we assume that you shared the view of the Defence Force that he should be MR CURRIN: That opinion must have been based on information which you had? BRIG CRONJE: Yes, information on his files. MR CURRIN: Can you tell us what Dr Ribiero had done to qualify to be assassinated? PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG BRIG CRONJE: As far as I can recall, Dr Ribiero was involved in assisting activists and terrorists, he helped them medically and he generally assisted them. MR CURRIN: So was that general information that he assisted, and I assume particularly with regard to medical attention, the activists? BRIG CRONJE: Yes, that was the information. MR CURRIN: Well that is correct. I think it is common cause that in Mamelodi at that time he was regarded as the people's doctor and he certainly did attend to the activists who were injured in the confrontations. Do you have a problem with a person being injured qualifying for medical attention, did BRIG CRONJE: No, not in the sense that the doctor treats injured people. But what is the problem is that he helped terrorists and that he never actually reported their presence and he assisted them, that was my MR CURRIN: Can we now maybe distinguish between terrorists and activists. We know that Mamelodi was full of young activists at the time, and I think we can assume that from time to time so-called terrorists from outside of the country and within the country were in Mamelodi. What information do you have with regard to his medical attention on terrorists and his receiving of terrorists as opposed to the young activists? BRIG CRONJE: No, I cannot give full particulars, I cannot recall that. MR CURRIN: Isn't the reality of the situation, Brigadier, that Dr Ribiero was a source of strength to many of the activists in the township because he was there on the spot to provide them with the medical attention PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG BRIG CRONJE: Could you please repeat the question? MR CURRIN: Isn't the truth of the matter that Dr Ribiero was a source of strength to the people of Mamelodi, to the young activists because he was there as a doctor in the township, available and willing to provide medical attention to those who needed it? BRIG CRONJE: I would grant that, yes. MR CURRIN: And that strength and source of strength that he was providing was a problem to the security police and to the security forces generally. Is that the situation? BRIG CRONJE: No, maybe it did contribute but he mainly assisted terrorists that was our problem. MR CURRIN: Dr Ribiero was a high profile person in this part of the country. Everyone knew where he lived. He lived a very transparent and open life. You knew or you could identify his daily movements, is BRIG CRONJE: That is presumably so. MR CURRIN: If Dr Ribiero was providing support for terrorists as you allege, why didn't you charge BRIG CRONJE: As far as I can recall, he was detained on several occasions. MR CURRIN: Oh so what is that, detained? BRIG CRONJE: Yes, detained in terms of security legislation. MR CURRIN: Do you know when he was detained? BRIG CRONJE: No, I cannot remember that. MR CURRIN: I would like to come back to this a little later because I, according to my instructions, that is not the case but I need to verify that with family members, so I will come back to that a little later. Why PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG BRIG CRONJE: I can at this stage not tell you why. This is a long time ago and I cannot remember all the MR CURRIN: I put it to you that for a period of two years before he was assassinated I was his attorney and he never ever came to me with instructions that he had been charged with anything. BRIG CRONJE: Well if you say so then it must be correct. JUDGE MALL: Your question really related to why was he not charged and he says he doesn't know. MR CURRIN: You could have charged him if you wanted to. BRIG CRONJE: I don't know what evidence was available to do that. I cannot tell you. MR CURRIN: What are your views regarding the assassination of Mrs Ribiero? BRIG CRONJE: I would not have approved it and it was never discussed with me. MR CURRIN: Are you applying for amnesty in respect of the killing of Mrs Ribiero as well? BRIG CRONJE: Because I became aware of it afterwards and I could be seen as a collaborator. MR CURRIN: Because you heard about her assassination and did nothing about it? MR CURRIN: But surely you don't think that if because you did, you only heard about it after she had BRIG CRONJE: Yes, that is correct. MR CURRIN: That knowledge surely in your mind can't make you responsible for her killing? JUDGE MALL: Maybe out of precautions. MR CURRIN: I am just trying to establish whether there wasn't another reason and if that is in fact the PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG reason. When Captain Hechter kept you briefed on the planning of the operation, did he inform you about any failed attempts to assassinate Dr Ribiero? BRIG CRONJE: I have no information to that extent. MR CURRIN: In March 1986, there was an attempt to assassinate Dr Ribiero, a failed attempt, were you ever advised about that by Captain Hechter. BRIG CRONJE: No. I have no information about that. MR CURRIN: And a few months before the assassination Dr Ribiero's house was bombed, petrol bombed and virtually totally destroyed. Do you have any knowledge about that? BRIG CRONJE: I knew about a fire at his house, I don't know the details. MR CURRIN: So you know he had a fire? MR CURRIN: The house was petrol-bombed, did you not know that? BRIG CRONJE: I know nothing about it, I just know the house burnt down. MR CURRIN: How did you know the house had burnt? BRIG CRONJE: I would have picked that up at one of the meetings either at the joint management service meeting or at some of the joint meetings of services. MR CURRIN: When it was discussed on that level, did anyone claim responsibility for the bombing for BRIG CRONJE: No, as far as I remember it was investigated as a normal case of house-burning that burnt MR CURRIN: And that matter was never ever dealt with internally or reported on up the ranks? BRIG CRONJE: Not as far as I can remember. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR CURRIN: In your written statement you say, "I accepted the task, the command on Ribiero and I accepted that it came from the Minister or from the State Security Council". BRIG CRONJE: I already indicated that I believed the existence of Trivets, that because of Trivets' involvement the State Security Council knew about it. And when he I was told that they have identified him as a target, then I realised that Military Intelligence had input in Trivets, they sat on Trivets and I gathered it must have come from them. MR CURRIN: Just remind us when Trivets came into existence? BRIG CRONJE: You are asking since when did Trivets was in existence, since when? MR CURRIN: 1985. The beginning of 1986. If I remember your evidence in chief regarding Trivets, you said it was originally established purely for hits, identifying targets abroad and that is the reason why there were only Trivets' centres in those areas of the country which were on borders, which were close to borders, those provinces which bordered on other countries and only later did Trivets get involved in identifying targets within the country. BRIG CRONJE: Ja, originally that was the planning behind Trivets to target external targets. MR CURRIN: So it was in its first year of operation, I mean it started in 1986, Trivets, this planning must have happened some months before the actual hit, already you say now Trivets started to operate within the PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR CURRIN: It's only possible? So it is possible that Trivets had nothing to do with this assassination? BRIG CRONJE: I didn't say that. I say Trivets could already in '86 have been in operation. They could have operated internally already by then. MR CURRIN: In the spirit of, and also in the letter of the law, as far as full disclosure is concerned, who was giving you information about Dr Ribiero? BRIG CRONJE: Informants, several informants. BRIG CRONJE: I never worked personally with the file so I cannot tell you who the informant was. MR CURRIN: Were there informers? BRIG CRONJE: That is what I said. MR CURRIN: Can you tell us who they were? BRIG CRONJE: I do not know who they were because I did not personally work on the file, I was only the Commander there. MR CURRIN: And who worked on the file? BRIG CRONJE: I don't know who personally worked with the file. It wasn't me, it was one of the persons in the White section, no, no I must apologise it was the Black Power section. MR CURRIN: Can you find out who that person is so that we can hear from that person about information that was being gathered on Dr Ribiero. BRIG CRONJE: Probably Colonel Lootz can help us. MR CURRIN: Hopefully we will hear from Colonel Lootz. The day before the assassination there was a helicopter reported to be hovering above Mamelodi generally, PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG particularly in the area where Dr Ribiero lived, Dr Ribiero and his wife, do you have any knowledge of MR CURRIN: And I take it from your evidence that you had no idea when this assassination was going to happen, I mean you didn't know about it the day before? It was something you read afterwards? MR CURRIN: So you have no knowledge about that helicopter. Is there a log book which the police used when signing off or signing out hardware like a helicopter? BRIG CRONJE: I suppose there must be a log book. MR CURRIN: Where can we get access to the reports on the use of police helicopters on the 3rd BRIG CRONJE: That you will find at police headquarters. MR CURRIN: Would the Committee bear with me for a moment, I just want to read a note that I have received from the family. I just need to take a brief instruction, if I could just ask one of the family members to come around. Just excuse me for one moment while I do that. Thank you. ADV DE JAGER: If its convenient you can walk up to him. MR CURRIN: Thank you very much for that opportunity. I just want to inform you that Chris Ribiero, one of the sons of Dr Ribiero will testify that his father was detained on one occasion and that was in 1980 and since 1980 he was never again detained. BRIG CRONJE: I cannot comment on that. MR CURRIN: I am just putting that on the record. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CURRIN JUDGE MALL: Mr Mpshe are there any questions you wish to put to this witness? PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV MPSHE: Yes, Mr Chairperson. Mr Cronje will my conclusion be correct that Dr Ribiero died for the simple reason that he was assisting medically activists and or terrorists who were injured? BRIG CRONJE: I would not say only for the medical assistance, but the information if you can remember was that he had also assisted them in other ways such as arranging accommodation, he provided them with ADV MPSHE: Now the question of accommodating them as well as giving them money, is it part of your application because this is new evidence now? BRIG CRONJE: I cannot remember if I included it. ADV MPSHE: Well I put to you it is not mentioned in your application. BRIG CRONJE: To me he was a high profile activist. ADV MPSHE: He was a high profile activist because he was giving money to activists and terrorists and giving them medical treatment and accommodating them, does that make him a high profile activist? Wasn't he really a person assisting them? BRIG CRONJE: Yes, it is that he assisted them and that to me was being a high profile activist, but the fact that I did not mention it in my application is because I probably wasn't involved in the action. ADV MPSHE: Yes, you were involved indirectly and you knew about this planning. BRIG CRONJE: Yes I was indirectly involved. ADV MPSHE: Yes, I know but we can still come to the same conclusion that he died for assisting people, assisting activists and terrorists? BRIG CRONJE: It was my opinion to that he was a high PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV MPSHE: What is a high profile activist? What criteria do you use? BRIG CRONJE: Persons who assist terrorists coming into the country with the intention of committing acts of terrorism within the Republic and wanting to overthrow the government of the day and to destabilise the area, someone who assisted that type of terrorist I regarded as a high profile activist. ADV MPSHE: Do you know of any terrorist or terrorists who were assisted by Dr Ribiero to enter the BRIG CRONJE: I cannot say at the moment because I do not know, I cannot remember. ADV MPSHE: You cannot say or you cannot remember? BRIG CRONJE: I cannot remember. ADV MPSHE: But possibility exists that it happened is that what you are trying to say? ADV MPSHE: How did you obtain that information that that happened? BRIG CRONJE: It would have been obtained from the file. ADV MPSHE: Would you have had insight into the file? BRIG CRONJE: What I just said. ADV MPSHE: Were names of specific terrorists mentioned in that file? BRIG CRONJE: It could have been, I do not remember. ADV MPSHE: How many terrorists were involved? BRIG CRONJE: I also cannot remember that. ADV MPSHE: Do you know then again of any terrorists or PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG terrorist who entered the land and were assisted by Dr Ribiero in the country? BRIG CRONJE: I have already said that I saw that in the file. ADV MPSHE: What became of the file? BRIG CRONJE: As I testified it was destroyed after I retired. ADV MPSHE: What made you or under what circumstances did you have access into the file what was BRIG CRONJE: As Commanding Officer I would see the file from time to time. ADV MPSHE: Are you saying to me that it would be brought to you for perusal? BRIG CRONJE: From time to time inspections were conducted and normally I would see such a file. ADV MPSHE: If, speaking subject to correction, if I remember my learned friend, Brian Currin, asked you questions about this file and you said you did not have access into this file because you were not directly involved, do you remember that? If need be I can check that. BRIG CRONJE: I sorry, I said that I did not handle the file as an investigating officer. ADV MPSHE: Thank you, I stand corrected. Can we then furthermore on Mrs Ribiero state that she was killed for nothing else other than being the wife to Dr Ribiero who was assisting terrorists, as you allege? BRIG CRONJE: Yes, I would say that I had no knowledge that Mrs Ribiero was to be affected in any ADV MPSHE: And as you had access into this file, you cannot remember anything said about Mrs BRIG CRONJE: I cannot remember if her name was ever PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG mentioned in the file but as far as I know we had nothing on her. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV MPSHE ADV DE JAGER: Brigadier as far as the making available of the facts to the public here today and to the press, was it known before you lodged your application or did it become known after you applied? BRIG CRONJE: I am the first one who made known. MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Cronje, you stated that Dr Ribiero was eliminated because he gave both medical and general assistance to the terrorists and activists. Now, let me start with the medical assistance he was alleged to have rendered to the terrorists. What in your opinion was so intrinsically wrong about a doctor assisting human beings who required medical assistance? BRIG CRONJE: I don't think I'd say that there was anything wrong with that, but the fact that they were terrorists and that Dr Ribiero did not report their presence would have had something to do with it but not the mere fact that he rendered medical assistance. MS KHAMPEPE: Are you saying that there was a request which was probably made to Dr Ribiero to advise the security police of any assistance he rendered to the so-called terrorists? BRIG CRONJE: No, I am not saying that there was a request. MS KHAMPEPE: Then why did you expect him to have informed you of the medical assistance he was giving to people, whether they were terrorists or not, he was a doctor, he had an oath by which to comply with to render assistance to people who wanted such assistance, irrespective of their political affiliation? PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG BRIG CRONJE: He would have been selected to prevent terrorists from obtaining medical assistance, as I said when terrorists came into the country to commit acts of terrorism then it would have been a high profile activist in my opinion and to eliminate him in order to stop him from doing that would have been necessary for me to act in that fashion. MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Cronje, to your knowledge was he the only doctor probably in Mamelodi who was rendering such medical assistance to the activists? BRIG CRONJE: No, I would not say, I am sure that there were others who assisted activists, I do not MS KHAMPEPE: Did you not target them because they probably did not also assist the terrorist in crossing the borders and entering our country? Those doctors who also medically assisted the terrorist, were they not targeted because they probably did not got to an extent that Dr Ribiero had allegedly had BRIG CRONJE: I believe that if there was information that they were also treating terrorists that action would have been taken against them as well. MS KHAMPEPE: My last question Mr Cronje. You have stated that had you been able to take steps to prevent Dr Ribiero's elimination, you would have done so. What would these steps have entailed? BRIG CRONJE: Do you mean that if I could have taken steps or the steps which I did not take to prevent his elimination, is that what you mean? MS KHAMPEPE: The steps that you did not take to prevent his elimination. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG BRIG CRONJE: I could have reported it to the police, to my head office and if they did not take any steps to prevent it then it would not have been my fault, but the steps which I could have taken was to have reported it to my head office and whether or not they would have taken steps I cannot say. MS KHAMPEPE: Thank you Mr Cronje. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS KHAMPEPE JUDGE MGOEPE: Brigadier, can we just focus on the killing of Mrs Ribiero. I understand that your evidence tries to give some political motivation for the killing of Dr Ribiero, but I also understand your evidence not to be able to offer any political justification for the killing of his wife, am I right? BRIG CRONJE: That is correct, Mr Chairperson. I cannot remember that Mrs Ribiero was actively involved in any terrorist - with any terrorists, but as I said it was beyond my control, I would never have allowed it. I also did not know about it. JUDGE MGOEPE: To the extent that you even say that you could not have allowed her assassination. It seems to me that, and tell me if I am wrong - well first let me put it this way. Of course after she was also killed and after it became common knowledge that she was also killed, those who were responsible for the plan and the carrying out of it never came out to say "well, we accept responsibility in respect of the killing of Mrs Ribiero, we have made a mistake, we are sorry, the whole thing got out of hand, Mrs Ribiero should not have been killed, it is us who committed these murders", nobody every came out to accept responsibility accept until recently. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG JUDGE MGOEPE: It was a cover up? JUDGE MGOEPE: Obviously in respect of Mrs Ribiero's killing as well? JUDGE MGOEPE: The purpose of the "cover up" in respect of the killing of Mrs Ribiero was purely to JUDGE MGOEPE: Which killing in the light of your evidence could not be politically justified? BRIG CRONJE: As far as my knowledge goes, yes, Mrs Ribiero was not involved. JUDGE MGOEPE: But you never received, as far as you recall, any information or report that she should be killed or that she qualified as a target to be eliminated? JUDGE WILSON: There was a very determined effort to cover up, wasn't there? BRIG CRONJE: Om Mev. Ribiero te dood? JUDGE WILSON: The investigation into the killing? You were asked to take all steps you could, weren't you, to stop the investigation? BRIG CRONJE: I was not in charge of the investigation, Mr Chairman. JUDGE WILSON: No, it was Brigadier Smit, wasn't it? BRIG CRONJE: No, no. You would see that General Joubert requested me to attend a meeting at his office at the Defence Force and there he told me that Brigadier Smit was in the Vehicle Unit, affiliated to the Vehicle Unit, and that the Landrover which they had seen was sold to the PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG Defence Force and I concluded from that that Brigadier Smit was involved in the investigation. I do not JUDGE WILSON: Are you going to be dealing with this? JUDGE WILSON: Because I had the page reference and I have lost it at the moment but if you are going to deal with this I will leave it to you and follow up afterwards, because that is not my recollection of what this witness said earlier. You say you don't know if Brigadier Smit was involved or not? BRIG CRONJE: What I am saying, Mr Chairperson, is that General Joubert informed me that Brigadier Smit ascertained that the Landrover was sold to the Defence Force. JUDGE WILSON: I will leave it for the moment. JUDGE MGOEPE: Sorry, Brigadier, can I just ask you this. Was it or was it not policy that where you, I don't mean you in particular, I just mean the police in general, where you were to eliminate somebody who was regarded as a legitimate target, and once you see that he was in the company of somebody else or another person emerges, who could possibly be a witness to the killing, what was the policy? Was the policy to kill that prospective possible witness and to eliminate that witness as well or the policy was that "well, that person must know me, you don't have the authority to kill such a person, what was the position? BRIG CRONJE: Mr Chairperson, there was no policy as far as I can recall, but as I reported yesterday, I left someone alive in Swaziland who could possibly have identified me, so I did not have such a policy. If it was the intention of the Defence Force, then I cannot accept responsibility for that. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG JUDGE MGOEPE: Now, in terms of how you operated, in terms of how you understood the system to be working, was the elimination of possible witnesses permissible? BRIG CRONJE: It was never permissible to kill a person or it was not standing policy, but I would hasten to add that there could have been cases where the potential witnesses were eliminated. MR CURRIN: Mr Chairman it may just be helpful to indicate that there will be a witness who will testify that the assailants all wore balaclavas at the time - just around this question. ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman I note that it is past one o'clock already. JUDGE MALL: I think you are quite alert to the passing of time. (General laughter) We will take the adjournment at this stage, adjournment till two o'clock. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG JUDGE MALL: Are we ready to proceed? ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman we are in the hands of my learned friend. ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairperson, I haven't re-examined, but I think Mr Visser and Mrs Kruger have JUDGE MALL: No, no, no quite right, I am not talking about that, I thought that there were some questions to be asked by learned counsel. Mr Currin are there any more questions you wish to ask? NO FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CURRIN JUDGE MALL: Mr Visser thank you very much, have you any? MR VISSER: Yes, Mr Chairman I do have questions. JUDGE MALL: That is if they have not already been covered. MR VISSER: Mr Chairman my two clients, General Coetzee and Brigadier Schoon are implicated only in one respect and I shall contain myself, I shall restrain myself to that issue only and the questions that I will ask will pertain to that matter only. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Brigadier, the question or the picture that your answer gives us as also stated in your statement is that the Security Branch has not been involved. Is that correct? MR VISSER: You have limited it to the security branch and now I want to put it to you, is the police in MR VISSER: You have also said, and please stop me if I am PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG wrong, that you cannot for certain say that Trivets is involved? MR VISSER: Now, I want to put it to you in all fairness, but you have actually put it much stronger on page 131 of your application, you have said there, "I have accepted that the command to eliminate Dr Ribiero came from the Minister or the State Security Council or Trivets". BRIG CRONJE: I did say that I stand with what I have said. My idea was that ...(intervention) MR VISSER: So, you are not very sure at this moment? MR VISSER: General Joubert that you refer to on page 132, is that General J B Joubert? BRIG CRONJE: I am not sure, but it is probably him. MR VISSER: Let me come to page 132, it will probably be easier if you refer to that yourself. Let us look at the second paragraph. Mention is made of an army vehicle that was either purchased from the Defence Force or used - do you know what the case is? BRIG CRONJE: It is a vehicle that was used and registered in his name. MR VISSER: You allege that General Joubert informed us that Brigadier Basie Smit already established that the Landrover was the property of the Defence Force? BRIG CRONJE: That is that correct. MR VISSER: Can you remember that clearly? BRIG CRONJE: Yes. I do. Joubert asked whether we ...(intervention) MR VISSER: That must be you and Hechter? PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG BRIG CRONJE: No. Me. When we were in the meeting he asked -I can't remember whether he said "we", "you" or what he said but ...(intervention) MR VISSER: You say in your statement that he asked you, you and Hechter, is that correct? MR VISSER: Could not interfere with the investigation of Basie Smit, is that correct? MR VISSER: I said "I will see what I can do?" is that also correct? MR VISSER: Did you do anything? MR VISSER: If you go further in your statement, you give a report on a meeting, gathering, whatever you want to call it, where General Coetzee and Brigadier Schoon was available in your presence and you have mentioned there that you have informed General Coetzee that special forces have eliminated the Ribiero's. MR VISSER: That was in a meeting where Brigadier Schoon was present and you said this to General MR VISSER: General Coetzee will, if required, give evidence, he denies that you have ever given them BRIG CRONJE: Well, that is his right to do that. MR VISSER: No, that is not the case of his right, the case is here, the question is what is the truth. BRIG CRONJE: Sir, what I am telling you is the truth. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR VISSER: I discussed the case with him and Brigadier Schoon. You see the implication of what you are saying, if you are correct and he lies, is that he did not act at all to bring this action to light, is that your BRIG CRONJE: That is my allegation. Yes. ADV DU PLESSIS: Could Mr Visser please repeat the allegation that he made toward the witness of exactly what General Coetzee is going to testify, could I request that please? MR VISSER: Well, it is very simple he is going to deny that it was ever, that he was ever told anything of JUDGE MGOEPE: Precisely what, precisely what, I think that is what Mr du Plessis is curious about? MR VISSER: He was not informed by anyone that the Defence Force was involved in the murders of Ribiero. Certainly also not by this witness. There is another interesting discussion according to you, General Coetzee then asked you why you are working with the Defence Force. Is that correct? "Schoon told me to work with special forces, Brigadier Schoon was there, he doesn't deny it and you accepted that he agrees with that". MR VISSER: Well I find this very peculiar, Brigadier. Did Brigadier Schoon say this or not? BRIG CRONJE: He said we must work closer with special forces. MR VISSER: Why then did you find it necessary to say in your statement that you accepted that he agrees PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG that you take it for granted, what do you mean by that? It is almost like putting it as a proof. BRIG CRONJE: May I read that please? MR VISSER: Page 133, Mr Chair, the second paragraph, the second last sentence. Let me assist you. Officially, if you know another man gave you a specific command then the way you have phrased it here is BRIG CRONJE: As far as I can recall, Brigadier Schoon - during the discussion but please give me a moment, I need to ...(intervention) MR VISSER: Let me assist you, when did Brigadier Schoon give you this command? BRIG CRONJE: I do not know exactly when, but it was before this case, some time before it. But Brigadier Schoon at some point in time did deny, I pardon myself. Brigadier Schoon spoke to me, I said to him that that specific command to work with special forces came with compliments of the Commissioner. I then asked him about this and for this reason, I mentioned it. I said to him, you gave me the command, and this was in the presence of Coetzee, to work with special forces. He then did not deny it. MR VISSER: Let us look, can you give us the context of this command. What exactly was the cooperation BRIG CRONJE: What he said was "with the compliments of Compo. please work very closely with MR VISSER: Now, how did you understand that? BRIG CRONJE: I understood it that special forces were a fighting force and I understood it that we are now shifting towards a military operation. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR VISSER: Is it not the case Brigadier that there were general commissioner commands that the entire security family, Intelligence, Defence Force and Police, should work together in terms of information, BRIG CRONJE: Yes, exchange of information, correct. MR VISSER: But not actively involved with one another. Isn't that perhaps what Brigadier Schoon tried to explain to you? Isn't that the co-operation he is talking about? BRIG CRONJE: No, then he would not have mentioned "special forces" in specific. If he said Military Intelligence, which is the information wing of the Defence Force, then I would have understood differently. MR VISSER: Did Brigadier Schoon give you the impression that you should help with the killing of the MR VISSER: No. Your command doesn't go that far? ADV DE JAGER: Well, can you just inform us now that Coetzee's evidence will say that there was not cooperation in terms of the execution of commands. Is that what you are going to tell us? BRIG CRONJE: No. ...(intervention) ADV DE JAGER: I am trying to establish whether there was a clear command. Will the evidence be that there was no cooperation between special forces and the police? BRIG CRONJE: No. That will not be my evidence. ADV DE JAGER: So, in fact there is evidence that they have cooperated? BRIG CRONJE: Yes Chairperson, that is exactly what I am trying to prove here. MR VISSER: It is also the case that the police played a PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG supportive role towards the Defence Force when they have operated in townships. Are you aware of that? MR VISSER: What I am trying to ascertain here is that that did not include the elimination of people or even the planning of elimination of people? BRIG CRONJE: That was not policy. That was the policy in the Defence Force not in the special forces, MR VISSER: So are you then saying that there was a police policy to support special forces when it comes BRIG CRONJE: That was my perception, I took it for granted. BRIG CRONJE: Internally, not externally. MR VISSER: So that's not externally. BRIG CRONJE: No, that's not externally, no. MR VISSER: Brigadier, did I understand you correctly today, that before the murder you knew that Ribiero was a target to be eliminated? BRIG CRONJE: Could you please repeat? MR VISSER: Do I understand you correctly that when Mr Currin cross-questioned you that before the murder was committed you were aware of the fact that at least he was a target for elimination? BRIG CRONJE: No. I don't think I said that. MR VISSER: You didn't say that, well then, I probably heard you incorrectly. If you had known it, the evidence said "he thought that that would have happened", is there a difference between that and knowing it? Did you assume beforehand that he was going to be eliminated by special PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG BRIG CRONJE: I misunderstood you, I did know that. MR VISSER: What did you do with that information, if any? BRIG CRONJE: I did nothing about it. MR VISSER: Did you report it to any senior officer? MR VISSER: Then I want to put it to you that General Coetzee alleges that your version stating that first Basie Smit and now General Smit was involved in the investigation in the Ribiero case was not correct? BRIG CRONJE: I made the deduction that Brigadier Smit was involved in the investigation after General Joubert told me that he established that the vehicle belonged to the Defence Force. MR VISSER: No, that is so, but please explain to us how do you get to the evidence that General Coetzee removed Basie Smit as investigating officer because, according to you, he already traced the vehicle back to the Defence Force and that somebody else replaced him? BRIG CRONJE: Because I knew that the investigation was taken up by Brigadier Daantjie van Wyk MR VISSER: How do you know that General Coetzee replaced Basie Smit by Daantjie Van Wyk? BRIG CRONJE: I assumed that he was involved, I don't know who handled the dossier but there were other investigating officers afterwards. It was my deduction. MR VISSER: Let us look at page 133 the last sentence of the second paragraph. You make a statement, "The investigation was removed from Basie Smit and PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG was given to Daantjie van Wyk". is that a direct statement, do you agree? BRIG CRONJE: Yes, I assumed that he was the investigating officer, yes, that was my deduction. That he was removed and that Daantjie Van Wyk was appointed. MR VISSER: So your evidence on page 133 was - you are changing that in fact now, you are assuming BRIG CRONJE: Yes, it is true that I have assumed that. MR VISSER: So, are you changing the evidence here by saying, "I have assumed that the investigation was removed and given to Daantjie Van Wyk"? Just answer my question. BRIG CRONJE: Basie Smit was no longer involved and that is why I have gathered that. MR VISSER: Do you understand my question correctly? JUDGE WILSON: If you are talking about evidence perhaps you should put the evidence to him not what he put in his application. At page 464 of the record he is recorded as having said and I quote, "General Coetzee then took the investigation away from Basie Smit and gave it to Brigadier van Wyk. He tasked Brigadier van Wyk with the investigation". MR VISSER: I am indebted to you Mr Commissioner, I have not been privy to the record nor was I present when this witness gave his evidence, I find myself at a bit of a disadvantage therefore. Thank you Would you like to amend that evidence? BRIG CRONJE: As I said, it is as I testified before. MR VISSER: I don't know what your answer means. BRIG CRONJE: As I testified before, that is the truth. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR VISSER: That is based in an assumption which you made out of something which General Joubert MR VISSER: Would it surprise you to know that Brigadier Basie Smit was never involved in this BRIG CRONJE: I merely had the information from General Joubert. If he was not involved then I do not MR VISSER: You do not dispute it? But do you see what the result is, because the result is that the evidence which the Commissioner, the statement which the Commissioner just put to you could not be correct, because if he was never the investigating officer he could never have been removed off the case, is JUDGE WILSON: But you see you said more than that when you gave evidence last. At page 463 you said and I quote again from line 10, "General Joubert informed me that Basie Smit had determined that the Landrover did belong to the SADF and that Noel Robey was in fact in command of the vehicle and had driven the vehicle. He requested me to, not to assist Basie Smit's investigation and in fact to ruin it one way or another, and I told him that I would do whatever I could in this Now that is not assumptions, Brigadier Cronje, that is a direct statement made to you by General Joubert, you agreed and say you would do what you could, it is no assumption is it? How can you now say it was an BRIG CRONJE: Mr Chairperson, let me explain. When he said PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG to me that General Basie Smit has ascertained, I assumed that he was involved in the investigation. JUDGE WILSON: But what you said was, "He requested me not to assist Basie Smit's investigation and in fact to ruin it, one way that is what he told you. It is no assumption. BRIG CRONJE: At that stage I did not know if Brigadier Smit was involved in the investigation. JUDGE WILSON: What do you mean when you say, "General Joubert requested me not to assist Basie Smit's investigation". what does that mean? What was General Joubert doing? BRIG CRONJE: He wanted me to see if I could disturb the investigation in some way or another so that it could not be linked to the Defence Force. JUDGE WILSON: He was talking about Basie Smit's investigation? JUDGE WILSON: Yes, not an assumption by you. He specifically used the words as you did. Why are you trying to get away from it Brigadier? BRIG CRONJE: I am not trying to get away from it, I am trying to tell the truth the way I know it. JUDGE MGOEPE: You might have, I don't know, you might have made assumptions that Brigadier Smit or yes, was involved in investigations I don't know but you are certainly not making an assumption in terms of your evidence that you were told to derail investigations? JUDGE MALL: Well, the answer is "do you have a recollection of being told that you must either not PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG cooperate with or derail the investigations" do you recall that happening? BRIG CRONJE: Could you please repeat, Mr Chairperson? JUDGE MALL: Were you ever told to derail investigations? ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman may I request that the witness, if it is in English uses the earphones. I JUDGE MALL: Certainly, yes, fair enough. JUDGE MGOEPE: Were you ever requested to derail the investigation? BRIG CRONJE: Only at that one stage by General Joubert. He asked me to see if I could do something about it and I did not do anything about it. JUDGE MGOEPE: Now, this is not an assumption, what you are saying now is that you remember being told directly, being given a direct instruction to derail the investigation. BRIG CRONJE: No. General Joubert was from the Defence Force he could not give me such an instruction he could merely request. MR VISSER: Perhaps I could put the question to you this way. JUDGE MALL: Are we still on the same matter, I thought we had finished with that matter? MR VISSER: Which matter, Mr Chairperson? JUDGE MALL: About the derailing of instructions, have we not dealt with that? MR VISSER: Yes, indeed, but I am still only on the one issue and that is the implication of my two clients, Is the simple truth not this, that your implication of Brigadier Schoon and General Joubert was a PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG extraordinary here and it was based on assumptions and suspicions which you had, but not fact? I mean General Coetzee and Brigadier Schoon. BRIG CRONJE: I insist that that is what happened. MR VISSER: Very briefly, I would like to put to you what Brigadier Coetzee says, General Coetzee says, he says he remembers that there were talks regarding the Ribieros but firstly, that they were about the refusal of the family and/or witnesses of the Ribieros to make statements to the police, that it was about discussions about what to do about that. Did you attend any discussions about what to do about that? BRIG CRONJE: No Sir. I was not the investigating officer in the matter, so they would not have discussed MR VISSER: He will say that the investigating officer, the leader of the investigative team was Brigadier BRIG CRONJE: Suiker Britz was a Colonel at that stage and van Wyk was a Brigadier, so I cannot understand how van Wyk could not have been in command of the investigation. MR VISSER: At that stage Britz was the commanding officer of Pretoria Murder and Robbery and that was something that fell under their jurisdiction. MR VISSER: General Coetzee says that he never discussed the matter with Britz at all? BRIG CRONJE: I will not be able to comment on that. MR VISSER: He says that at some stage he came to know that Brigadier Daantjie van Wyk was requested to assist with the investigation. You say that he put him in there and that he replaced Smit with Daantjie PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG BRIG CRONJE: That is also an assumption which I made because Brigadier van Wyk was busy with the investigation. I don't know who had the docket but I know that he was in charge of the investigation. MR VISSER: To proceed or elaborate on what Commissioner De Jager put to you, General Coetzee says that at certain times the South African Defence Force was deployed to assist the South African Police in Mamelodi and other Black townships, and that it was his standing instruction, we are now referring to General Coetzee, was that even in such situations that South African Police should not get involved in the South African Defence Force actions of any nature since each force was acting within its own doctrines and authorities, but the Defence Force played a supportive role to the South African Police. This is a mouthful and I am sorry that I am putting so much to you at the same time but it that not what the policy BRIG CRONJE: That probably was the policy with reference to the Black townships as far as the ordinary troops were concerned, but not with the special forces. MR VISSER: You are saying that there was a difference as far as the special forces were concerned? MR VISSER: And you are saying that there was a policy in that regard which said that you had to be on standby to assist in eliminations? BRIG CRONJE: I am not saying that it was policy, I am saying that I was instructed to work with the MR VISSER: Let us put the questions directly to each other. The instruction to eliminate Ribiero? PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG BRIG CRONJE: Not specifically. MR VISSER: I have already put it to you and I am putting it to you again for the sake of completion, it was also the government instruction at that time 1986, if I am not mistaken, that all information available within the security family had to be swopped with each other in order to make the whole function cost- effective. I am merely putting it to you to get the two together. He goes on to say that he was not specifically, he does not specifically recall if Brigadier Schoon or Cronje said to you that the Ribieros' details were given to the South African Defence Force by the South African Police. Do you remember your MR VISSER: And he says that if it happened, it would have been normal. BRIG CRONJE: Once again, if Military Intelligence asked me, but not special forces, special forces was a MR VISSER: Is your evidence then that there was something sinister about the fact that Special Forces asked you for information on the Ribiero's and not the Defence Force? BRIG CRONJE: It gave me the indication that there was going to be action taken against the Ribieros by MR VISSER: General Coetzee says that if your evidence attempts to implicate that he, as Commissioner, then Commissioner of Police, knew that members of the South African Defence Force or Special Force committed the murders and that he manipulated the investigation at a later stage, he would deny that. Can I ask you is that your suggestion, that he was indeed manipulating the investigation by PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG replacing Basie Smit with Van Wyk? BRIG CRONJE: I do not know what he did thereafter, but if he did not do anything then he did manipulate MR VISSER: Is it not correct that this investigation ended in court with an inquest? BRIG CRONJE: It ended with a provisional inquiry. MR VISSER: Is it not so that a provisional inquiry was held? BRIG CRONJE: I am aware of that. MR VISSER: That's as far as General Coetzee goes. As far as Brigadier Schoon, Mr Chairman, I would like to refer you to the affidavit which was submitted. We failed to ask you to give it an exhibit number. May we ask now that you number it Exhibit P4. I am sorry, P3. EXHIBIT P3 HANDED UP - AFFIDAVIT BY BRIGADIER SCHOON MR VISSER: In the course of time I will liaise these exhibits and number them accordingly, Mr Chairman. Brigadier Schoon says that he cannot recall the question about an instruction to cooperate with the South African Defence Force being discussed in this meeting which you are referring to. Incidently, he cannot even remember the meeting itself that well, but he does not dispute that it could have indeed taken place. He says what was discussed, and I refer to page 3, paragraph 4.2 and following, 4.2 and 4.3. He says what remains prominent in his memory is the fact that there was no cooperation as far as obtaining statements from the Ribieros. You say you cannot remember that that was discussed? BRIG CRONJE: I was not the investigating officer and they would have not have discussed it with me MR VISSER: He says that there is doubt that he would have PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG told you that there should be closer cooperation with the Special Forces, specifically, but that it never meant that the police should be attentive to the elimination of people within the borders, that was never BRIG CRONJE: I cannot comment on what he said. MR VISSER: But you received an instruction from him according to what you told the Commission, is BRIG CRONJE: I did receive an instruction from him to work with the Special Forces. MR VISSER: He says that he can also not remember that Basie Smit was replaced by van Wyk, and he says the same as General Coetzee and I think that is all. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER ADV DE JAGER: He says I cannot recall that General Basie Smit and his replacement by Brig Van Wyk was discussed. He does not say that they were not replaced. He says that he cannot remember it being MR VISSER: I am reading that now, thank you for the correction. He says that he cannot remember something like that being discussed. Your comment is that it was discussed? MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I do have an affidavit by Gen Coetzee which has not been handed up to you, I would ask your directions as to when you wish us to hand up the affidavit whether now is a convenient time or later is irrelevant, is immaterial to us, I have no further questions to the witness. JUDGE MALL: Well that is the affidavit from which you put extracts to the witness. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG JUDGE MALL: You might as well hand it in now. MR VISSER: That will be P4, Mr Chairman. JUDGE MALL: Now, will you just tell me kindly, how you have numbered these because I have got Brigadier Schoon's affidavit as P1 and then the document ...(intervention) MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I have just forwarded to you a list which I commenced drawing to show the exhibit numbers, if you would agree with those numbers and if you would agree that it makes sense to number the exhibits that way, you will observe that it now runs to Exhibit P4 and I have written in pencil on the affidavit of General Coetzee as P4, as I have said before I will update the list, Mr Chairman and provide you with a list and make the exhibits into a bundle for your easy reference. JUDGE MALL: Well it has now become easier. MR VISSER: Exhibit P4, is still in my possession, may I hand it to you now? ADV DE JAGER: What is P1 and P2? JUDGE MALL: P1 is the document headed "Written Representations". P2 is the photocopy from "Beeld". MR VISSER: Mr Chairman just for the record, P1 was the written representation which was handed in on MR VISSER: P2 was the report from the "Beeld". MR VISSER: P3 was the "Affidavit of Willem Schoon". MR VISSER: P4 is now the "Affidavit of General Coetzee". JUDGE MALL: Mrs Kruger has you any questions to ask. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MRS KRUGER: Yes, I do, but perhaps to facilitate the process I think it an opportune moment at this stage to hand in the affidavits I have prepared so that you can follow that. I have also got one available for the Interpreters and for the people sitting around. There is just one aspect that I want to draw your attention to, it is first of all, I think it was referred to that you have an Exhibit R is the statement of Winter. JUDGE MALL: We have an S as well. MRS KRUGER: Do you have an S already? JUDGE MALL: That's right, that is the statement by Mr Beeslaar. MRS KRUGER: So then this will then be Exhibit T. MRS KRUGER: The Exhibit T also refers to an affidavit by Assistant Commissioner Britz. In that respect I beg your indulgence, I only have a faxed copy because Assistant Commissioner Britz is in Cape Town, it was faxed through to him on Tuesday, yesterday morning, and in fact - sorry, Wednesday, yesterday morning he faxed it through to us due to the fact that we didn't have sufficient time to get hold of him and he is busy with a course in Cape Town for the whole week, so I have got the original affidavit by General Smit and then the original fax and a copy of the fax has been made and annexed to Exhibit T. JUDGE MALL: That should be T1 and T2. ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairperson, may I just be afforded an opportunity please. ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairperson, as I recall the discussion yesterday that we had pertaining to cross- examination of the PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG applicants by representatives of witnesses who contradict the applicants, that would be done on the basis that those witnesses will then be available to be questioned by us. Now I have now been informed that, I hear now that Colonel Britz, I don't know what his - General Britz is in Cape Town this week, I just want to have clarity on whether he will be available to give evidence and obviously then I accept that General Coetzee and Brigadier Schoon as well as General Basie Smit will be here tomorrow to be examined. JUDGE MALL: Can you throw any light on the availability of these individuals? MRS KRUGER: First of all, I only act for General Smit so I can only speak on his behalf, but I am sure if the Commission or if the Committee decides to subpoena Assistant Commissioner Britz, he will be available, depending whether or not Brigadier Cronje is going to admit the allegations I am going to put to him with regard to what is contained in the affidavit by General Smit it might not be necessary to call him as a witness. So at this stage I think it is to be dealt with. JUDGE MALL: We will decide then at a stage when it is convenient, because it may be that it might not be relevant, but depending upon what is said in the evidence, but if it is necessary for them to be called then they will have to be called to give evidence. ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairperson, may I just enquire that that obviously opens the opportunity for representatives also to hand in affidavits of people they don't represent, I just want to make sure that, that is PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR VISSER: Perhaps I should also go on record, Mr Chairman I may advise at this stage as you know General Coetzee is also an applicant for amnesty as well as Brigadier Schoon, so first of all, in due course, they will find themselves in the witness box before you, that is the one aspect. The other is if you feel that, if the Committee feels that it is important to decide an issue, a dispute which reflects on credibility now, then we will obviously make these witnesses available within a reasonable time, Mr Chairman. JUDGE MGOEPE: General Coetzee would not be, from what you have being saying, it would appear that he would not be an applicant for amnesty in respect of this incident. MR VISSER: No, not in respect of this one. JUDGE MGOEPE: So that kind of difficulty that bothered us about witnesses who are prospective applicants does not arise with regard to him? And Schoon as well. MR VISSER: (...indistinct) but clearly Mr Chairman you would not be precluded from asking questions about what was put on on his behalf at any stage, clearly. ADV DE JAGER: I just need some clarity, this statement by Britz, is that General Suiker Britz? MS KRUGER: Yes, that is correct. ADV DE JAGER: Did he never actually do the investigation himself or was it De Bruyn? MS KRUGER: It was De Bruyn, that is correct. It happened under his instructions. ADV DE JAGER: So I just want clarity it seems as though you have stated that Suiker Britz conducted the investigation. MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I hope that was not incorrect. My intention was to say that Suiker Britz was at the head of the investigation. I did not intend to say that he was the PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DE JAGER: I just want clarity then. Daantjie Van Wyk was then involved at some point as well? MR VISSER: Yes, we do not deny that. JUDGE MALL: The Committee will take a very short adjournment. JUDGE MALL: Earlier in these proceedings, Mr du Plessis, counsel for the applicants, raised the question of the right of counsel of implicated persons cross-examining applicants. We have allowed the situation to proceed up to now and as a result of what has transpired, in the last hour or so this afternoon, my Committee has to reconsider precisely what attitude to adopt on the issue. We have decided that we will give a ruling on this matter tomorrow morning, the matter being the right of counsel representing implicated persons to cross-examine applicants. We have received the affidavits that have been submitted this afternoon by Mr Visser on behalf of his clients. We have received an affidavit submitted by Advocate Kruger on behalf of her client. On the evidence contained in the affidavit submitted by Mrs Kruger, it does seem that the evidence as a whole does not implicate Lieutenant General Smit in terms of the Act. We have come to the conclusion that he is, strictly speaking, not an implicated person in terms of the Act. It is, therefore, not necessary for counsel for Lieutenant General Smit to cross-examine this witness. We have, however, accepted his affidavit as part of the record of PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG Counsel will understand that unless a decision is taken now on the matter, hearings of this nature may snowball and we may start finding ourselves handling with trials within applications, within applications, within applications, without there being any prospect of coming to any finality. Speaking for myself, and it is a matter on which the Committee will give a ruling, speaking for myself, we are concerned to see that justice is done in this regard in terms of the Act and that we would like to achieve that objective in the best way possible without causing too much inconvenience to all the parties, particularly also the So now, Mrs Kruger, we have come to the conclusion that as far as we are concerned, there will be no need for you to cross-examine Brigadier Cronje. MRS KRUGER: Thank you. I accept the decision of the Committee. JUDGE MALL: Thank you. The Committee will now adjourn and meet at 9 o'clock tomorrow MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, may I just say one thing, Mr Chairman, with respect, being a representative of implicated persons I have not been given any opportunity to make any submissions to you in regard to Mr du Plessis' application. I just want to remind you Sir, of that fact. JUDGE MALL: Just repeat that again. I understand first of all, I draw a distinction between you and Advocate Kruger because you are representing clients who have themselves applied for amnesty. JUDGE MALL: Your clients will be heard in due course. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR VISSER: Correct. Mr Chairman. JUDGE MALL: Now you were talking about the foot, the shoe that you wear on the other foot, in the capacity as an implicated person. MR VISSER: All that I am saying Mr Chairman is that I would have liked to have made one or two submissions to you in that regard which may or may not assist you in coming to a decision. JUDGE MALL: I think we have come to a decision in this matter. MR VISSER: You have come to a decision. JUDGE MALL: Yes. But if you are going to talk about the other issue and that is whether implicated persons would be entitled to cross-examine applicants, if that is the matter on which you want to say a few things, then I would like to hear you. MR VISSER: Yes, that is what I am talking about, Mr Chairman, that is precisely what I am talking about. MR VISSER: I won't be long, Mr Chairman, I really have only a few submissions to make. First of all, may I refer you again to Annexure P1 in which we hopefully made it quite clear that we are not here to insist on cross-examination. What we stated in paragraph 4 at page 3 of Exhibit P1 was that if the Committee should feel, Mr Chairman, that an issue of credibility has arisen which requires a decision by the Committee in order to deal with the application for amnesty, then clearly it could only be done by way of cross-examination. But we certainly do not insist, Mr Chairman, on PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG cross-examining witnesses. This was one of those cases where we had to place the dispute before you, we could have done that by way of affidavit only, there would have been no problem with that, Mr Chairman, I assume, perhaps incorrectly so, that it was expected for us to cross-examine now and put the evidence by way of cross-examination, but we are quite content to accept any ruling in that regard, Mr Chairman, that is why we offered to do it by way of affidavit. Mr Chairman but, as far as an implicated person is concerned there is the issue that presumably a man who is implicated stands in danger of his rights being impaired. If that presumption is correct Mr Chairman, it is reasonable that he should also be heard. Now again it may be that the handing in of an affidavit is sufficient, but there may be situations where that will not suffice. JUDGE MALL: The Act talks about him being allowed to make representations, he may make representations either orally or in writing. MR VISSER: Yes, Mr Chairman but Section 34 is quite clear in its presumption that cross-examination will be permitted because it assumes that because it speaks of the right of the Committee to restrict cross- examination. And what is more Mr Chairman the matter was albeit obiter, was dealt with by the Appellate Division in the matter of DU PREEZ AND VAN RENSBURG v TRC. If the Committee members have a copy of that judgment it starts on page 38 at the foot and it runs over to page 39, I haven't got it in front of me. Oh in fact, I do have it in front of me, would you prefer me to read it to you Mr Chairman? JUDGE MALL: Yes, will you just read it to us, we may need PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR VISSER: Yes certainly we will make one available, Mr Chairman, we will hand it up to you now. JUDGE MALL: Just that particular section, that portion of the judgment. MR VISSER: It starts at the foot of page 38 and His Lordship, the ex-Chief Justice states: "There are important advantages to be gained by having reasonable and timeous notice of such a hearing. The person likely to be implicated is thereby enabled to be personally present and/or to be legally represented at a hearing. It will enable him and/or his legal representative to actually hear the implicating evidence and see the demeanour of relevant witness or witnesses. Conceivably....." and these are the important words. "As pointed out by King J, the implicated person might be able readily to rebut the allegations of the witness. In such a case the Committee might well be under a duty to hear the rebutting evidence forthwith or to permit immediate cross-examination". You will observe Mr Chairman it is assumed and accepted by the Chief Justice that the right of cross-examination exists. What he is dealing here with is the right to do it immediately, the so-called right ADV. DE JAGER: Yes. Instant or cross-examine, isn't the word "or" used? MR VISSER: No, no, no but these are the things that he may do, Mr Chairman, he may do a lot of things, he may draw your PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG attention to inadmissible evidence, he may draw your attention to the fact that the particular matter doesn't fall within the scope and ambit of your brief. He may cross-examine, he may lead evidence, he may hand documents to you, these are all the rights which a person who is implicated has. JUDGE MALL: Will you complete the passage? MR VISSER: It is completed Mr Chairman. JUDGE MALL: If it is possible we would like to have a copy of that. JUDGE MALL: I'm sorry, my brother has a copy. Thank you very much. MR VISSER: The only submission I make on this, Mr Chairman is on a careful reading of that passage you will observe that it is accepted by the Appeal Court that such right exists. Now, again, I do not rely on it as an unqualified assumption that we have the right to cross-examine in all circumstances, clearly, that is not my submission, Mr Chairman. May it please you. MR VISSER: Mr Chairman my attorney's concerned that I should tell you about something else, about the undertaking I gave on his behalf the day before yesterday to give yo |
