 |
News | Sport | TV | Radio | Education | TV Licenses | Contact Us |
|
News | Sport | TV | Radio | Education | TV Licenses | Contact Us |
Amnesty HearingsType AMNESTY HEARINGS Starting Date 28 February 1997 Location PRETORIA Day 5 Names BRIGADIER CRONJE Back To Top Click on the links below to view results for: +wilson +sel Line 53Line 81Line 83Line 93Line 102Line 143Line 145Line 206Line 211Line 215Line 234Line 332Line 337Line 341Line 365Line 367Line 373Line 377Line 381Line 383Line 387Line 389Line 391Line 394Line 397Line 400Line 403Line 407Line 409Line 413Line 459Line 464Line 467Line 470Line 474Line 476Line 479Line 483Line 559Line 561Line 563Line 565Line 572Line 580Line 657Line 660Line 662Line 666Line 682Line 684Line 697Line 734Line 742Line 744Line 795Line 799Line 856Line 864Line 1055Line 1074Line 1161Line 1163Line 1187Line 1406Line 1410Line 1420Line 1513Line 1623Line 1825Line 1878Line 1956Line 1959Line 1965Line 1969Line 1977Line 1981Line 1986Line 1989 ADV MPSHE: Thank you Mr Chairman, Members of the Committee. Today is the 28th. Continuation in Van Vuuren and Others matter. Mr Chairman we continue today in the matter of Dr Ribeiro and wife and thereafter we will proceed to the KwaNdebele Nine matter Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman if my memory serves me well another applicant, I think Hechter, was to testify if we are at that stage, but I leave that in the hands of my learned friend. Thank you Mr Chairman. JUDGE MALL: Before proceeding with the leading of evidence, yesterday we indicated that we will announce our decision on the question of the rights of implicated persons to cross-examine applicants and witnesses, whether or not cross-examination is allowed will depend upon the circumstances of each case. Factors which will be taken into account include, inter alia, whether the person implicated is opposing the application for amnesty. The other factor is whether the concerns of the implicated person can be adequately met by an affidavit furnished by him wherein he states his version. Another factor we would take into account is whether the purpose of the cross-examination is to show that the applicant is not entitled to amnesty. Finally whether the interests of justice demand that cross-examination be allowed. I trust that this clears the air on this issue, at any rate. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR VISSER: Mr Chairman if I may say something. We certainly agree with the ruling insofar as it does coincide with what we suggested in the beginning. Certainly all that we were interested in is just fair administrative action. May I just add one thing Mr Chairman to your point number two, it is quite conceivable that in many instances, like today already, it may not even be necessary to hand up an affidavit to you, even though there are some disputes on the papers but it will be in matters where the disputes are, in our view, so negligible that we don't have to draw it to your attention. JUDGE MALL: Ja, thank you very much. Are you ready to call your witness? ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Chairman I still have to do the re-examination of Brigadier Cronje. BRIGADIER JAN HATTINGH CRONJE: (s.u.o.) RE-EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: Brigadier, many questions were put to you yesterday, and there are a few aspects which I would like to clear up with you. Could you just give an indication to the Committee of more-or-less how many files were there during your time in the security force. BRIG CRONJE: Approximately ten thousand. ADV DU PLESSIS: And how often did you have insight into these files? BRIG CRONJE: In all of them, probably once a year. ADV DU PLESSIS: Would you have seen the file on Dr and Mrs Ribeiro regularly or once a year? ADV DU PLESSIS: When was the last time you saw the file, as far as you can recall. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 309 BRIG CRONJE BRIG CRONJE: When Charl Naude asked me for a memorandum. ADV DU PLESSIS: And you testified that Captain Hechter worked together with the special forces with regards to inter alia information which was contained in this file, is that correct? ADV DU PLESSIS: Would you say that Captain Hechter was in a better position to tell the Committee exactly what was in the file and what information was in the file? BRIG CRONJE: Yes, because he worked with this. ADV DU PLESSIS: Would he have studied the file in closer detail than you? ADV DU PLESSIS: Brigadier, in your evidence, the record of your testimony on page 464 to 465, you said that Dr Ribeiro was a very active activist for the ANC, he recruited MK members for training abroad and also provided medical assistance to terrorists and activists. BRIG CRONJE: Yes, that is correct. ADV DU PLESSIS: Brigadier, is that what you can recall? BRIG CRONJE: Yes, Chairperson. JUDGE WILSON: What page please? ADV DU PLESSIS: 464 and at the end of the page over to page 465. Brigadier, I would like to present to you what Captain Hechter set out in his application with regards to the information which was available as far as Dr and Mrs Ribeiro were concerned. Before I proceed with that I would like to ask you, you testified yesterday that you did not know anything about Mrs Ribeiro having been active in any or involved in any liberation movement activities, is PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 310 BRIG CRONJE BRIG CRONJE: That is the was I recall it. ADV DU PLESSIS: Can you remember reading anything about her in the docket? ADV DU PLESSIS: Or in the file. ADV DU PLESSIS: Is it possible that Captain Hechter would recall her involvement in more detail? BRIG CRONJE: That is very possible. ADV DU PLESSIS: I am going to read to you what Captain Hechter says in his application on page 203 Captain Hechter said the following, and he will testify to that effect. "Mrs Ribeiro and her husband were involved in the recruiting of MK members and also ANC inspired actions. It was thus necessary to eliminate both. The purpose was that the ANC organisation of which Ribeiro and his wife were members, to destabilise it and thus obtain stability in the Pretoria area and in the country, for the protection of the country and it's people. Ribeiro was an influential man as far as the information of the SAP and the SADF goes. He played a cardinal role in recruiting aspirant MK JUDGE WILSON: What is the relevance of reading what Hechter is going to say to this witness? ADV DU PLESSIS: Because I am going to ask the witness Mr Chairman ...(intervention) JUDGE WILSON: You've told us he remembers nothing about PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 311 BRIG CRONJE ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, yes Mr Chairman, what I want to ask the witness Mr Chairman, if you will allow me is if he has any reason to doubt the correctness of the evidence Captain Hechter is going to give. And Mr Chairman I want to place on record here and now, that when I call Captain Hechter I intend to call him in respect of his own application as well as in respect of Brigadier Cronje's application. May I proceed JUDGE WILSON: Should he go on with this wasting our time? ADV DU PLESSIS: May I proceed Mr ADV DU PLESSIS: Brigadier Cronje, ".... he played a cardinal role in recruiting aspirant MK, he also MK recruits. He was also involved in the destabilisation......" INTERPRETERS: Could the Speaker please slow down a bit the Interpreters cannot keep up. ADV DU PLESSIS: Do you have any reason to doubt the correctness of this? JUDGE WILSON: But you, yourself have no recollection of it whatsoever, although you read the files? BRIG CRONJE: No I cannot recollect this, that's correct. ADV DU PLESSIS: Brigadier, I would like to refer you to page 6 of your application. It deals with your memory, you have already testified about this, is this one - this is one of the aspects about which you have already testified, that your memory is not of such a nature that you can remember the details. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 312 BRIG CRONJE BRIG CRONJE: That is correct, Chairperson. ADV DU PLESSIS: Brigadier, with regards to your action after you came to hear about the death of Dr and Mrs Ribeiro, let us assume for a moment for the purposes of the question, that Mrs Ribeiro was not involved in any such activities, would it have been possible for you to do anything with regards to the investigation? More specifically I would like to know, would you have been able to take steps so that the person who shot Mrs Ribeiro as well could prosecuted in a court of law? BRIG CRONJE: No, Chairperson, I would not have been able to have done anything about that for the simple reason that the Security Branch, the South African Police and the South African Defence Force and the National Party, the Government of the day, would have been prejudiced and I would have jeopardised all the operations and I foresaw that there were some more serious incidents of unrest which could arise as a consequence of that becoming common knowledge. ADV DU PLESSIS: Would it have jeopardised the safety of the Security Branch? ADV DU PLESSIS: Brigadier, with regards to Mrs Ribeiro herself, you testify that you cannot recall anything about her involvement in this file. Can you recall if you had any idea to the effect, or had any intention that Mrs Ribeiro should be assassinated together with Dr Ribeiro? BRIG CRONJE: Not at all, Chairperson. ADV DU PLESSIS: Brigadier, there were questions put to you with regards to special forces and information, and it was put to you that General Coetzee says in his affidavit that the South African Police work cooperated with the defence PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 312 BRIG CRONJE force as far as that was concerned, could you just tell us what the special forces were? BRIG CRONJE: Special forces were not an information gathering unit, it was purely a combat unit which had to attack and eliminate targets. Information was conveyed and dealt with by military intelligence. ADV DU PLESSIS: Brigadier, right at the beginning of the hearings you testified with regards to the instruction issued by Brigadier Schoon, could you please page to pages 17 and 18, in your application. That evidence you gave in October already, and on pages 17 and 18 you say that, "Brigadier Schoon's instruction to me was to cooperate with the South African Defence Force and the special forces". And there you also said that the special forces were a combat group, who conducted covert operations. Brigadier, do you maintain what you said in that testimony, in spite of what was put to you yesterday by Mr Visser in cross-examination? BRIG CRONJE: Yes, I maintain that. JUDGE WILSON: Where did he say that in his testimony? ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman I haven't got the whole record with me but he ...(intervention) JUDGE WILSON: Well then don't put it to as testimony, you put it that he maintains what he said in his ADV DU PLESSIS: But Mr Chairman he read that part into the record so it is part of the record. If Your Lordship would allow me to I will provide you with the exact page on Monday. I will determine the exact page. Mr Chairman, as I can recall Brigadier Cronje read that whole first part into the record in the PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 313 BRIG CRONJE Brigadier, in his statement at paragraph 6.3, Brigadier Schoon says, it appears to me that you are correct, he said "...it is possible that there was a discussion between Cronje and I, as alleged by him and that the instruction came down to the fact that there should be closer cooperation between the South African Defence Force and that there should be closer cooperation with the special forces". ADV DU PLESSIS: So, it would appear, Brigadier, as though you and Brigadier Schoon worked together? Brigadier, with regards to the instruction by Brigadier Schoon, when he gave you the instruction to work closely with the South African Defence Force and special forces, did he give you specific instructions to military information and so forth, or was there no such instruction? BRIG. CRONJE: I cannot remember any such instructions, Mr Chairman. ADV DU PLESSIS: Brigadier, there was a hue and cry yesterday during cross-examination with regards to your testimony in respect of the instruction which you received and also the discussion after the incident took place where General Joubert said certain things to you, and if I could just refer you to the application ADV DE JAGER: Excuse me for interrupting, Mr Mpshe has notice been given to General Joubert with ADV DE JAGER: Have you heard anything from him? PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 314 BRIG CRONJE ADV DE JAGER: That he disputes it or otherwise? ADV MPSHE: No, nothing, but I do have the return of service. JUDGE MALL: I am sorry what page were you referring the witness to? ADV DU PLESSIS: Page 132 of his application Mr Chairman. ADV DU PLESSIS: Brigadier, you testified yesterday that you were under the impression that as a result of what General Joubert said to you, that Basie Smit ascertained that the Land Rover, with regards to the Land Rover and that the investigation was handled by Basie Smit? ADV DU PLESSIS: You also said that it was an assumption which you made in the light of what General ADV DU PLESSIS: Was it an assumption that you made? BRIG CRONJE: Yes, it was an assumption. ADV DU PLESSIS: When the application was drawn up in September, were you still under that BRIG CRONJE: I was, Chairperson. ADV DU PLESSIS: When you gave evidence in October, were you still under that impression? BRIG CRONJE: Yes, Mr Chairperson. ADV DU PLESSIS: And when you testified yesterday, were you still under that impression? BRIG CRONJE: Yes, Mr Chairman. ADV DU PLESSIS: Brigadier if you say that Brigadier Daantjie van Wyk, after your cross-examination PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 315 BRIG CRONJE and testify that he investigated, he was in charge of the docket and that he was responsible for the investigation and not Basie Smit, would you accept that your assumption was wrong? JUDGE WILSON: What I questioned him about yesterday was not an assumption, but the words he used which was that he got specific instructions, which does not accord with what you have just go him to say ADV DU PLESSIS: I know Mr Chairman, the wording in the application did not refer to the fact that he made an assumption, I understand that. JUDGE WILSON: Nor did his evidence on oath. ADV DU PLESSIS: Nor did evidence-in-chief, that is correct Mr Chairman. What the witness has done now is he has explained to the Committee that it was an assumption which seems to be a wrong assumption which he has made, and he is saying that honestly to the Committee now. JUDGE WILSON: What he is doing is changing his evidence in the light of other information that's been put to him. Whether that is honestly or not is for us to decide. ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Chairman, yes. He is saying that it was an assumption and that it was a wrong assumption. I will address you in argument on that Mr Chairman. Brigadier let me just put it to you clearly. What you testified about in October and what you set out in your application, was it based on the assumption which you made? BRIG CRONJE: Yes, it was Mr Chairperson. ADV DU PLESSIS: Were you ever involved in the investigation? PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 316 BRIG CRONJE ADV DU PLESSIS: Were you ever, after these discussions, approached by anyone to discuss the ADV DU PLESSIS: Were you ever involved after the investigation in this incident in any way? ADV DU PLESSIS: Before you testified in October did anyone ever come to you and tell you specifically who the investigating Officer was? ADV DU PLESSIS: Brigadier, with regards to the facts, as Judge Wilson just put it to you, that you changed your evidence, is there any reason why when you testified in October, you would deliberately have tried to mislead this Committee? BRIG CRONJE: I had no reason whatsoever, Mr Chairperson. ADV DU PLESSIS: Did you have any such intention? BRIG CRONJE: No, Mr Chairperson. ADV DU PLESSIS: Very well. Is there any benefit which you would have gained out of creating the wrong impression in front of this Committee with regards to these specific aspects? ADV DU PLESSIS: Very well then. Brigadier, I would like to refer you with regards to Brigadier Schoon's statement, I would like to refer you to General Coetzee's affidavit, I think it is Exhibit P4, if I am not mistaken, paragraph 3.6, where he says that, "At the time the South African Defence Force was deployed to assist the South African Police in Mamelodi and other unrest areas in Pretoria. It PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 316 BRIG CRONJE was my standing instruction that even in such a situation the South African Police should not get involved in any such activities since each force operated under its own instructions and the South African Defence Force was there to support, to play a supportive role to the South African Police". Brigadier, it appears as if that is contradictory to what Brigadier Schoon says, do you agree with that or do you dispute it? General Coetzee, in the extract I have just read to you said that the South African Police should not get involve in the South African Defence Force activities in any way, do you understand that? ADV DU PLESSIS: Does that differ from what Brigadier Schoon said to you? ADV DU PLESSIS: It would appear that it also differs from what he said in his affidavit as well. MR VISSER: Mr Chairman my learned friend is advancing basically legal argument to a witness in evidence. With great respect we don't agree with what he's putting to the witness. I just want to place that ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman I will argue this point and I'm putting it to the witness to get his JUDGE MALL: I understand. You may carry on. ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman I have no further questions. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DU PLESSIS PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG JUDGE MGOEPE: Brigadier, your counsel read to you what Captain Hechter says about Mrs Ribeiro, do JUDGE MGOEPE: Were you ever told, either before or after her death, that she was an activist in the manner in which Captain Hechter describes her? BRIG CRONJE: I cannot recall anything about those discussions. JUDGE MGOEPE: It is surely something that you would have remembered? BRIG CRONJE: I said that I cannot remember how Mrs Ribeiro was involved. JUDGE MGOEPE: I am not asking you to tell us how she was involved, I am asking you whether you were ever told that she was an activist? BRIG CRONJE: It is possible Chairperson, but I cannot remember. JUDGE MGOEPE: That is why I am asking you, isn't it something that you would have remembered, that isn't it something that you would remember, it must have bee? important. BRIG CRONJE: Because I was not responsible for the operation, I did not execute the operation, I do not know if I would have gone into such depths in the matter. JUDGE MGOEPE: There was a file on Dr Ribeiro wasn't there? BRIG CRONJE: There was Chairperson. JUDGE MGOEPE: And you knew, even before a memorandum was asked of you about him, you knew that he was an activist, didn't you? PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG JUDGE MGOEPE: Well did you know - was there a file about Mrs Ribeiro? BRIG CRONJE: I cannot recall that Mr Chairperson, as I said, there were ten thousand files under me. JUDGE MGOEPE: Well if she was that much active would you not have remembered? BRIG CRONJE: I never worked with the files personally. Captain Hechter and his section dealt with that type of file, so I cannot remember. JUDGE MGOEPE: Well we were told that Dr Ribeiro was a person of a very high profile. BRIG CRONJE: Yes, that is correct. JUDGE MGOEPE: If his wife, who was living with him in Mamelodi, was that much politically active, are you saying that you wouldn't be about to remember that now? BRIG CRONJE: I cannot remember Chairperson, really. JUDGE MGOEPE: Well if Captain Hechter had this information that she was that much politically active, particularly when this operation was planned, would you not be expected to be informed about that? BRIG CRONJE: As I said, they never informed me that Mrs Ribeiro was to be eliminated in any way, I didn't know anything about that. JUDGE MGOEPE: After her death were you told that she had been politically active? BRIG CRONJE: I cannot recall, Chairperson. JUDGE MGOEPE: Not even after her death? JUDGE MGOEPE: Isn't it something that you would have to remember, Brigadier, because that would have been the reason for her murder? PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG BRIG CRONJE: If it was discussed with me, I would probably have recalled, but I cannot recall if it was discussed, but, I did not pay that much attention to the matter because I was not involved. JUDGE MGOEPE: But it is reasonable to expect that you would have discussed the operation with Captain Hechter after the incident, he would have told you how the operation went, whether it was a success or not, isn't it so? ..(tape ends) BRIG CRONJE: It is possible that I did, I cannot recall. JUDGE MGOEPE: That would have been a very important question to ask, because in terms of your evidence, she was not supposed to be killed. Why can't you remember whether you queried him, and said to him but why was his wife killed? BRIG CRONJE: I cannot explain, I could have asked him, but I do not recall. JUDGE MGOEPE: You see I am putting these questions to you because the contents of Captain Hechter's statement which were read to you by your counsel, quite surprised me that he says that much about Dr Ribeiro's wife, and you say completely nothing about her. BRIG CRONJE: I also did not make any mention of it in my application, Mr Chair, because I never discussed the matter with Hechter. JUDGE WILSON: Do you remember in your evidence yesterday, you said that you would not have approved of the assassination of Mrs Ribeiro, you would not have approved of it, you heard about it later, and did nothing? So yesterday you told us that you would not have approved of it, now, you are telling us that you can't recollect, you can't recollect, you can't recollect, you can't recollect. Which PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG is the truth? Is it that you knew nothing about her activities and would not have approved of her assassination, as you told us yesterday? BRIG CRONJE: It is possible that at that stage, I could not recall if Mrs Ribeiro was active in any way. JUDGE WILSON: At what stage yesterday, you couldn't recall, because yesterday you gave us specific evidence on her, and on your reaction, I have just read it to you, would you like me to read it again? "I would not have approved of the assassination of Mrs Ribeiro, I would not have approved of it. I heard about it later and I did nothing" That is what you told us yesterday, now today you say you can't recall if you were told. My brother here has asked you numerous questions, and you have pleaded ignorance the whole time. Why did you yesterday, tell us that you wouldn't have approved of it? You didn't say yesterday, I can't remember if I BRIG CRONJE: That is correct Chairperson. If the file or files were given to me and I had read through them I would have recalled, but because there was nothing said about Mrs Ribeiro being eliminated, I cannot remember. I didn't have the file with me. It was never said to me that she was going to be shot. If they had said that to me, I would probably have looked at the file. I don't know if there was a file, but I would have probably looked at it. JUDGE MALL: I think the difficulty arises whether you were told after the event, and whether you remember being told after the event that Mrs Ribeiro had also been killed. I think that is where the difficulty is. Yesterday your evidence was that you knew nothing about it. I want to know PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG now what the position is today, do you say that after the event you were told that Mrs Ribeiro had been killed, or do you no longer remember whether that was told to you or not? BRIG CRONJE: Do you mean after the incident, if I was informed after the incident that she had been BRIG CRONJE: They did inform me that she was shot Mr Chairperson. JUDGE WILSON: They informed you exactly how didn't they? JUDGE WILSON: You were told how they had been shot, weren't you? JUDGE MGOEPE; Did they tell you why they shot her? BRIG CRONJE: As far as I can recall they said that she was present. They were together, and both were JUDGE MGOEPE: They didn't say to you well we killed her because she was politically active herself? BRIG CRONJE: No, I cannot recall that. JUDGE WILSON: You have told us yesterday, sorry, in October when you gave evidence, of various meetings after the killing. First of all you told us that Hechter told you how two black Angolan men had been flown in to kill Dr Ribeiro and his wife, do you remember telling us that? BRIG CRONJE: I don't know whether I mentioned the wife Sir. JUDGE WILSON: You did. Page 462 of your evidence, it says that they shot Dr Ribeiro and his wife. You were then summonsed to a meeting with General Joubert, Colonel Joe Verster, Lieutenant Colonel Charles Naude, and discussed the investigation into the shooting. Do you remember that? JUDGE WILSON: And the following evening you received PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG another message that the Commissioner General Johan Coetzee would be visiting the next morning and he had a meeting with you about this. BRIG CRONJE: That is correct Mr Chairman. JUDGE WILSON: He asked you whether you knew anything about the Ribeiro matter. JUDGE WILSON: And you told him that you did. You told him that it was an operation of special forces. JUDGE WILSON: And he told you about a visit that he had had from General Joubert, and General Gleeson, and asked you why you were cooperating. JUDGE WILSON: So you told your commander that you knew about the Ribeiro operation. Did you not explain that you knew nothing about why his wife had been killed? BRIG CRONJE: It was not discussed at the meeting. JUDGE WILSON: But you are being asked now about this operation, and you said that you knew about it. Why didn't you explain that you did not know why the wife had been included? BRIG CRONJE: It was never put to me, I was never asked. JUDGE WILSON: Well what you've told us is that General Coetzee asked me whether I knew anything BRIG CRONJE: That is correct, I did say that. JUDGE WILSON: Surely the answer is then, I knew they were going to kill Dr Ribeiro, but I knew nothing about the attack of his wife/ BRIG CRONJE: I did not say that, I just said that special PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG forces wanted to do that, but more than that they did not inform me. JUDGE WILSON: We are asking you why you didn't inform anybody, not what they informed you, why you never explained to anybody that you didn't know? BRIG CRONJE: It was not my case Mr Chairperson, I was not involved. I did not commit the act so that is probably why I didn't say ...(intervention) JUDGE WILSON: You were asked if you knew about it and you said yes, why didn't you explain then that you didn't know about the wife, because you were asked about the Ribeiro killing? BRIG CRONJE: I was never asked why Mrs Ribeiro had been shot. MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Cronje, Captain Hechter kept you up to date with regard to the planning of the elimination of Dr Ribeiro, that is the evidence that you gave in October. MS KHAMPEPE: Did he never at any stage advise you about the plan to also assassinate Mrs Ribeiro? JUDGE MGOEPE: Sorry Brigadier. Can I just take you back again to an answer you gave about Mrs Ribeiro when I asked you, you said that you were told that she was - they told you that she was shot, I may not be accurate in summarising your evidence, you were told she was shot because she was there in the vicinity, something to that effect, because they were together. Now what I want to find out from you is, what did you understand thereby, did you understand them as saying that she was shot by accident, or how did you understand the explanation for her killing? PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG BRIG CRONJE: I understood that the two were together, and that both were shot. I cannot explain why she was shot, but they were together and I believe that because they were together, she was shot. JUDGE MGOEPE: Isn't that the explanation they gave you as to why she was killed, simply because they BRIG CRONJE: That is what I suspected and I don't know if it was discussed Mr Chairperson. ADV DE JAGER: General, the day after the shooting, the whole world knew that Mrs Ribeiro was shot. BRIG CRONJE: That is correct Mr Chairperson. ADV DE JAGER: General Coetzee and every journalist and approximately every person in Pretoria knew. JUDGE MALL: Mr Mpshe are there any questions you wish to put? NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MPSHE JUDGE MALL: Mr du Plessis, you are finished with your re- examination of this witness? MR DU PLESSIS: Yes Mr Chairman. Well Mr Chairman as a result of the questions of this Committee, I have one question to ask, if you would allow me. FURTHER RE-EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Brigadier, you were asked about when you had the meeting after the incident, when General Coetzee asked you if you knew anything, your words were "I told him that I did", now were you in any was involved in the planning BRIG CRONJE: I was not Chairperson. ADV DU PLESSIS: What did you mean by the fact that you knew PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 323 BRIG CRONJE about the operation, what did you know at the stage when General Coetzee asked you about the operation? BRIG CRONJE: I knew that special forces had executed the operation. ADV DU PLESSIS: Is that all you knew? BRIG CRONJE: Yes, that is all I knew. ADV DU PLESSIS: Did you know who within the special forces it was? BRIG CRONJE: I knew afterwards, but not at that stage. ADV DU PLESSIS: And did you know how it was planned? BRIG CRONJE: I did not know how it was planned. JUDGE WILSON: Can I put one final thing on this to you. You have told us, the last time you gave evidence in October, that you were approached by Charl Naude and you realised that when he mentioned the word 'target', that this was a terrorist operation, and you said that you would make the applicable file available, that he would have to draft the memorandum himself. JUDGE WILSON: You then volunteered in your evidence, I must mention that there was no mention of JUDGE WILSON: "I then instructed Captain Hechter to keep an eye on a member of Charl Naude's staff who drafted the memorandum personally". JUDGE WILSON: "Hechter informed me at a later stage that the Special Branch requested him particularly Charl Naude, and one of his staff persons, A Robin, to assist them in their planning with regard to the elimination of Dr Ribeiro". PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG JUDGE WILSON: "Hechter kept me up to date with regard to their plans". BRIG CRONJE: Yes, Chairperson. JUDGE WILSON: So your subordinate was told to assist them, he did, and he kept you up to date with the plans. How can you say you weren't concerned with it? BRIG CRONJE: I was involved to the extent that I knew who was going to do it, but I was not involved in JUDGE WILSON: No your subordinate was, and he kept you informed of all the plans. Is that correct? BRIG CRONJE: That is correct, he kept me abreast of what they were going to do, but nothing was ever mentioned to me about Mrs Ribeiro? JUDGE MALL: Brigadier Cronje, you are now excused. Thank you. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 325 BRIG VAN WYK ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman the next witness who I intend to call is Brigadier Daantjie van Wyk. DAANTJIE VAN WYK: (sworn states) EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: Brigadier van Wyk, could you just explain to the Committee how you were involved in the investigation of the Ribeiro murder? BRIG VAN WYK: Mr Chairperson, at the time of the murder of Dr Ribeiro and his wife, I was affiliated to the police headquarters in Pretoria. I was the commanding officer of the special units, that was the murder and robbery units, the narcotics, vehicle thefts, and also stock theft. The Monday before the murders, General Schutte called me to his office and gave me instruction to take over the investigation into the murder of Dr Ribeiro and his wife. He informed me that the murder and robbery unit in Pretoria had attended to it over the weekend and that I was to take over the I went to the murder and robbery unit where I spoke to General Britz and Captain De Bruin, who was actually involved in the investigation. I took over the investigation in cooperation with Captain De Bruyn. We then attempted to visit the scene. I did the necessary as far a possible. I prepared the docket, and at some stage, handed it over to the Attorney General of the Transvaal. After he had looked at the evidence, he authorised a provisional inquiry and after that inquiry my involvement ended. ADV DU PLESSIS: Brigadier, during the discussion between you and Schutte, was there any mention of BRIG VAN WYK: His name could have been brought up Mr Chairperson, I cannot remember it specifically being mentioned. It is possible that his name could have been PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 326 BRIG VAN WYK mentioned, but I cannot remember. ADV DU PLESSIS: Very well, Brigadier. There are affidavits that have been submitted here by various persons with regards to these aspects, I am just going to question you very briefly about that. General Basie Smit says that he was never the investigating officer or that he was ever involved in the investigation into BRIG VAN WYK: As far as I know that is correct. ADV DU PLESSIS: And then, General Britz says in his affidavit that Lieutenant de Bruyn was appointed as the investigating officer in the matter. BRIG VAN WYK: Originally until the Monday, when I took over the investigation. ADV DU PLESSIS: Very well, and then he says, "In my capacity as station commander, I conducted inspections of the docket from time to time, and I oversaw the investigation". BRIG VAN WYK: That is not correct. I worked from the office of the murder and robbery unit, but they did not inspect my dockets in any way. As far as my personal knowledge goes, I can say that de Bruyn and I were the only investigating officers in the Ribeiro murder. That is incorrect, Mr Chairperson. ADV DU PLESSIS: He goes on to say that, "During the investigation by Lieutenant de Bruyn, the docket was never taken away BRIG VAN WYK: That is incorrect. The Monday I took over the docket, the docket was in my possession at all times, up until it was handed over to the Attorney General. ADV DU PLESSIS: Very well. General Coetzee says in his PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 326 BRIG VAN WYK "In the light of the aforegoing, I can remember that the Brigadier Suiker Britz, of the murder and robbery unit was in charge of the investigation. I never discussed the matter with him at any stage. At some stage I heard from someone that Brigadier van Wyk was involved in the investigation". BRIG VAN WYK: It sounds as though it is correct. I do not know what Britz's involvement was the NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DU PLESSIS JUDGE MALL: Thank you. Mr Currin? MR CURRIN: Brigadier van Wyk were you surprised when the preparatory, after the preparatory examination, there was not a finding that Noel Robey was responsible for the murders? BRIG VAN WYK: No, the finding, as far as I can remember was that the evidence to commit him for trail MR CURRIN: Were you surprised at that finding? MR CURRIN: You weren't surprised? MR CURRIN: Are you aware of the fact that Captain Hechter suggests in his application that there was a MR CURRIN: Are you aware of the fact that Captain Hechter suggests in his evidence that the magistrate had been instructed as to what his findings should be? BRIG VAN WYK: No, I am not aware of it. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CURRIN JUDGE WILSON: From your questioning, I take it there was a preparatory examination held? MR CURRIN: There was a preparatory ...(intervention) JUDGE WILSON: Is the record of that available. MR CURRIN: I have tried to establish that, there should be. I haven't been able to get hold of one. JUDGE WILSON: Has the Attorney General's office got, have enquiries been made of them and also of the dockets and what information they may have? So if one could see it and not waste time on who was doing what and where, if there are official documents prepared at the time they will surely settle the MR CURRIN: Mr Chairman there was - just to mention after the Harms Commission, we tried to get all the documentation and we were then told that all the documents were stolen out of the boot of the car of the investigating officer, Suiker Britz, and we have not been able to get anything since then. JUDGE WILSON: Doesn't he say in his affidavit or somewhere else I read very recently that he then prepared a duplicate? After the documents had been stolen he spent a great deal of trouble in preparing MR CURRIN: That is what it says in his affidavit, but it is not what we have been told when we have tried ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I may place on record here that we have done our utmost to get hold of this preliminary investigation. We were simply not able to. We have requested the investigation unit of the Truth Commission to assist us with that and we simply could not find this. JUDGE WILSON: This is a court record now, not just the PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG docket, it is court record, has that also disappeared? ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, we couldn't find it, I didn't do the research myself, but we couldn't find JUDGE MALL: Brigadier, I understood your evidence to say that after you prepared your docket, and handed it over to the Attorney General, he authorised an inquiry to be made? BRIG VAN WYK: A preparatory examination Mr Chairman. JUDGE MALL: Oh, I see, not an inquiry, it is a preparatory examination. JUDGE MALL: Were you present at the preparatory examination? BRIG VAN WYK: I was, Mr Chairman. JUDGE MALL: Were you not surprised when the magistrate found that there was inadequate evidence, or there was no evidence against the perpetrators? BRIG VAN WYK: Mr Chairman, I think I must just elaborate here. When I started the investigation, I was refused access to the premises of the deceased. On the Monday when I went there, I was confronted by a crowd of about two to three hundred people. I was denied access. I was eventually referred to Mr Brian Currin, the attorney of the family. He refused us access to any of the witnesses. For a period of 18 days I couldn't talk to any of the witnesses. In the meantime there had appeared numerous articles in the newspapers where the journalists had interviews with different witnesses, and by the time that we were allowed access to the witnesses, the stories all went around the newspaper reports. And during the preparatory examination, I think most of the witnesses didn't make much of an impression. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG JUDGE MALL: You say that you were refused access, apart from Mr Currin, who acted on behalf of the family, did any body else refuse you access? BRIG VAN WYK: No, it was just that none of the witnesses were made available. I was told and asked not to even contact them, and told that he would make them available when they were ready and I think it was about 18, 19 days after the height of the investigation that I got a phone call that these people were JUDGE MALL: At that stage did you take statements from them? BRIG VAN WYK: I took statements from everyone. There was an arrest made. Identification parades were held. The matter was fully investigated, and all the evidence was led during the preparatory examination. During the Harms Commission, I was phoned about it, and I referred them to the Pretoria North magistrates court for the records, Mr Chairman. ADV DE JAGER: Brigadier, could you perhaps tell us whether you can remember, I understand you don't have the file in front of you, but can you remember whether a motor vehicle was identified which was possibly involved in the incident? BRIG VAN WYK: Yes, a motor vehicle was identified. A description of the vehicle was given in the newspaper. If I remember correctly a registration number was also given, it appeared in the newspaper. I confiscated a vehicle and I held an identification parade in respect of a person and the vehicle, and the vehicle was not identified, and the person was similarly not identified. ADV DE JAGER: Were you not able to determine who gave the PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG information about the vehicle or the registration number? BRIG VAN WYK: It was in the newspaper, I think it appeared in the newspaper on the Monday or the Tuesday. I can't remember the reporter's name. Some of the witnesses alleged that they had taken down the registration number of the car. JUDGE MGOEPE: With hindsight now you can see now that the police withheld information from you, important information, more particularly the security police? BRIG VAN WYK: Yes, that is correct Mr Chairman. JUDGE MGOEPE: You were in the police force, you are investigating murder, the security police know exactly who did it, and where that person is, and the other arm of the police, that is yourself, is busy trying to investigate that, wasn't this just a farce? BRIG VAN WYK: No, it wasn't just a farce, for the simple reason that I myself had no idea as to who was responsible, until eventually it pointed in a certain direction with the arrest of a Mr Robey. I had no idea. At no time did I have any idea that the security police were involved. I can mention that a vehicle number was given to me. The number I traced eventually to a Captain Hechter, it was his car, and he made a statement as to why his car was in Mamelodi on that particular day and if I remember correctly, he gave evidence at the preparatory examination on that. JUDGE MGOEPE: Well, I accept you as a person, you must of acted in good faith, I accept that, but what I am saying to you is that senior policemen know exactly who did that, where is that person, where can that person be found. But on the other hand State resources are being used to try and investigate when in fact it is known who the murderers are, and it's just - it's farcical isn't it? PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG BRIG VAN WYK: No, if I had known who the murderers were, I would have gone ahead and charged them and the little bit of information that I had to work on, I actually made an arrest. ADV DE JAGER: I think there is a misunderstanding between the two. What the learned Commissioner is trying to say is that with hindsight it appears that you are investigating a murder whilst some of your colleagues in the police had information which they could have given you to help you to make the arrest, armed with the proper facts, but they withheld these from you. BRIG VAN WYK: Yes, I suppose that is so. We were very aware of the silence. The only information which I could obtain was from the witnesses at the scene. JUDGE WILSON: Sorry, can I just clear up something in my own mind. You have told us something about a vehicle and an identification parade where the vehicle was not identified. BRIG VAN WYK: That is correct Mr Chairman. JUDGE WILSON: Was that Captain Hechter's vehicle? BRIG VAN WYK: No, no, that was a Mr Robey's vehicle. JUDGE WILSON: Do you know who that vehicle belonged to? BRIG VAN WYK: The vehicle was registered in some security company's name which I couldn't trace, I don't think it ever existed. I tried through the chassis number, engine number, and the factory to trace ownership and I wasn't successful. JUDGE WILSON: So if somebody knew that, they were also not telling you that? BRIG VAN WYK: That is correct Mr Chairman. JUDGE MALL: Did you ever come to know that it wasn't the police but the special forces of the army that PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG BRIG VAN WYK: I had no specific information, I suspected that Mr Robey was the - but I had no specific information or evidence to connect him with it. He himself, after he had been arrested and warned according to Judges' rules gave a short statement as to his movements on that day, and he refused to say MS KHAMPEPE: Why did you suspect Mr Robey out of all the people that you could have suspected? BRIG VAN WYK: Mr Chairman, by the time that I got onto the scene it was fully reported in the newspaper number one, even including his vehicle registration number, and the reporters had been to see his wife, he was apparently away, they had been to see his wife and they had done a full investigation and reported it in the newspapers. That was on the Monday or on the Tuesday when I arrived on the scene, that this had already been published. JUDGE WILSON: You must have had a very impossible task. BRIG VAN WYK: That is correct Mr Chairman. JUDGE WILSON: One last point. I think you have told us, I just want to make it clear, Captain Hechter presumably made a statement to you and then gave evidence at the preparatory examination indicating his BRIG VAN WYK: Yes, that is correct Mr Chairman. JUDGE MALL: Is there any re-examination? NO RE-EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MPSHE: Mr van Wyk, were you, when General Schutte gave instructions to take over the investigation, were you given reasons why you had to do that? BRIG VAN WYK: No, he didn't have to give me reasons, I was the senior Brigadier available to him at the time, and I was PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG continuously involved in investigations of murders, wherever it occurred, countrywide, because the murder and robbery branch countrywide came under me. JUDGE WILSON: And I take it that this was an extremely high profile murder? BRIG VAN WYK: That is correct. ADV MPSHE: Yes, but there was already a Captain charged with the investigation, Captain de Bruyn. That is why I am saying were you given reasons why it had to be taken from a Captain? BRIG VAN WYK: Well, as it came from the Chair, it was a high profile murder and that is why they took it and gave it to the brigadier and not the captain. The captain also reported that he had no access to the scene or to the witnesses, and I tried too. ADV MPSHE: Now, this vehicle that you could not trace, even if you were to check the chassis numbers thereof, where did you find it. BRIG VAN WYK: I found it in the possession of Mr Robey. ADV MPSHE: It was in his possession? BRIG VAN WYK: That is correct, yes. ADV MPSHE: Did he make any explanation to you about that vehicle, whose vehicle it was? BRIG VAN WYK: He told me it was his vehicle. ADV MPSHE: Well now perhaps I may be confused, which vehicle were you checking, you said you checked the chassis number and so, which vehicle? BRIG VAN WYK: I am talking about the Land Rover. ADV MPSHE: Now where did you find this Land Rover? PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG BRIG VAN WYK: In the possession of Mr Robey. ADV MPSHE: Now did you have to check the chassis number when he said that it was his vehicle? BRIG VAN WYK: He said to me that the vehicle was being used by him. I checked the registration number, which was registered in a name of a security company if I remember correctly, which I could not trace, I couldn't find any address of such a company, and therefore I checked through the records of the vehicle, the chassis number, back to the factory, and I couldn't find anything. ADV MPSHE: Now, he told you it was his vehicle, he was using it, didn't you ask him where did you get this vehicle from since you could not get information? BRIG VAN WYK: He told me it was the company's vehicle. ADV MPSHE: And you stopped there and you ...(intervention) BRIG VAN WYK: No, I didn't stop there, I went further. I tried to trace the correct ownership, but I was ADV MPSHE: Yes, you know, I find it funny that you find this vehicle in this man's possession, he tells you he is using this car, it is a company vehicle, I find it funny that you don't ask him which company gave him - give me the particulars ...(intervention) JUDGE WILSON: He told him, he gave him the name of a company which it was registered in the name of but that company was apparently a non-existent company that he could not be traced, that's the BRIG VAN WYK: That's correct Mr Chairman. ADV MPSHE: Thank you, leave it at that. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV MPSHE ADV DE JAGER: And you in fact arrested Robey? PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG BRIG VAN WYK: Ja I did Mr Chairman. JUDGE WILSON: And once having told him that he was not obliged to say anything, and that if he did say anything it would be taken down, you couldn't go on questioning him, could you? BRIG VAN WYK: I couldn't, he gave me an explanation Mr Chairman that he was with his family and that he had witnesses to call, he said, and just on that particular day and I couldn't question him any further. JUDGE MGOEPE: As far as I can remember, that is not how the murder and robbery squad usually interrogated people. That is not how they usually obtain confessions ...(intervention) BRIG VAN WYK: That is how I usually did ...(intervention) JUDGE MGOEPE: They had a method of ...(intervention) BRIG VAN WYK: That is how I usually did it. JUDGE MGOEPE: .... part of this murder and robbery squad of which you headed. BRIG VAN WYK: Ja I headed that is correct, but I cannot account for individual members countrywide, FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CURRIN: Mr Chairman, arising out of questions from the Chair, from the Commissioners, there are just one or two questions that I would like to put to the witness by way of cross-examination, I wont be more than a couple of minutes, thank you. You only arrived at the house a few days after the murder. BRIG VAN WYK: That is correct. I arrived on the Monday. MR CURRIN: You realise of course, that part of your investigating team was there within hours and had PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG the house, picked up the cartridges and so on? BRIG VAN WYK: Yes, I can just elaborate here Chairman. I was told by Captain De Bruyn that although they had access, it was limited and they had huge problems doing a proper investigation of the scene. MR CURRIN: I put it to you immediately after the murder the police were there in a very short time, they picked up the cartridges, you should know that you've got the cartridges. BRIG VAN WYK: Yes that's correct. MR CURRIN: And that in fact you went into the house, your investigators went into the house, they searched the house, and uplifted certain documents. Are you aware of that? BRIG VAN WYK: Yes, I cannot remember that, but I can remember that they were on the scene, I don't know exactly, I cannot remember how long after the incident. MR CURRIN: Well I put it to you it was very shortly, literally, within an hour, and that they uplifted BRIG VAN WYK: I cannot recall that. MR CURRIN: I am putting it to you that they uplifted documents, are you aware of that? I also just want to put on record that the family members found it difficult to cooperate with the police because they suspected police involvement and that was a difficulty which their attorney explained to you at the time and their attorney did not stop your investigation or stop you from interviewing witnesses, the attorney merely conveyed to you what the feelings were of the family at the time. I just put PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG BRIG VAN WYK: That is not correct. MR VISSER: Why didn't you charge the attorney with frustrating the ends of justice? BRIG VAN WYK: For the simple reason Mr Chairman that I was busy with an investigation and if you have your witnesses that were on the scene and you have to subpoena them in terms of the Criminal Procedure Act then it is a very bad start to any investigation. If you've got to force your witnesses that were actually related to the family, to the people killed, if you have to force them to give evidence, then it is a bad start to the investigation. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CURRIN JUDGE WILSON: Were you aware of the fact that the deceased wasn't suspected of being a very militant BRIG VAN WYK: No, Mr Chairperson, I had no idea, I only discovered it on that particular day that he was an activist, I knew nothing about it. JUDGE WILSON: As soon as you started your investigation, you discovered this? BRIG VAN WYK: That is correct yes. JUDGE MALL: Thank you Brigadier van Wyk, you are now excused. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman the next witness I want to call is on a very, very limited aspect which is very relevant in respect of the evidence that was given here, that is Colonel PHILLIPUS JOHANNES CORNELIUS LOOTS: (sworn states) ADV DU PLESSIS: Colonel Loots, in the time of the Ribeiro incident, what was your rank? COL LOOTS: I was captain, if I remember correctly, a junior captain. ADV DU PLESSIS: Were you attached to the security branch? ADV DU PLESSIS: Colonel Loots, were you in any was involved in the planning of the operation relating COL. LOOTS: No, I couldn't have been, at that stage I was in the command of the administration of the safety emergency regulations for Northern Transvaal and KwaNdebele. ADV DU PLESSIS: Were you in any was involved in anything which happened after the murder? ADV DU PLESSIS: Colonel Loots, could you try and give the Committee a bit of background as to the system of files which you had in the department, relating to activists such as Dr and Mrs Ribeiro. COL. LOOTS: Chairperson, yes, if you will allow me, I will try and be as brief as possible to give you a synopsis of how the system worked. You have heard that there were various units in the various security branches and the situation was the same in the Northern Transvaal. There was a unit for White, Coloured and Asian matters, there was a unit for Black affairs and issues and I was the unit head of that one. There was also a unit for terrorist matters and PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG that was unit C. D, was for instance the Trade Union unit. Now, each unit had its own filing system and dealt with its own files. I will give you an example, if, for instance, there was a White person who had focused attention on himself, he would be given an S1 reference, a Coloured, an S2, Indian, an S3, and a Black person, an S4 number. That is how the files worked. In other words, I dealt with the files dealing with all the S4 numbers. Under my command there was Captain van Jaarsveld, who later took over when I did the administration as Unit Head. There was Captain Hechter and Henning Brandt. These three officers, Hechter was in charge of Mamelodi, and the staff in my command, were also so divided that Captain Hechter had his unit who worked with him in Mamelodi. One of these people was a warrant officer, Paul van Vuuren, and as far as Soshanguve was concerned, there was a Captain Henning Brandt, at the time he was a lieutenant. And then before he took over as Unit Head, there was a Captain van Jaarsveld, he was in charge of the total Attridgeville and Saulsville areas. That would explain perhaps, why Captain Hechter was approached relating to something which happened in Mamelodi. Usually the files were brought forward on a monthly basis and when the file reached me, I booked it out to the officer in charge of that particular residential area in which the person concerned was living. For instance, in the case at hand, the Ribeiro case, I would have booked the file out to Captain Hechter, he would then have decided to which one of the staff members he would book out that particular file because, Captain Hechter that is, he also had command and control of the discipline and administration of the informers working in Mamelodi. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG Is there anything more you would like to know? ADV DU PLESSIS: No, we don't have to go into too much detail. What I would like to know from you is, would you, in respect of the contents of files which your department dealt with, did you check the COL. LOOTS: Yes, most definitely. Before I booked it out, I would have read it through. ADV DU PLESSIS: Right, let us turn specifically to the Ribeiro case. Can you remember whether you had perused this file of the Ribeiro's? COL. LOOTS: Yes, Mr Chairperson. I would like to say that I think it was Judge Wilson who asked whether there was a file on Ribeiro's wife. There was no file on Dr Fabian Ribeiro's wife. The issues relating to her were dealt with in the same file as that of Dr Ribeiro himself. Up until the beginning of 1995 I had knowledge of the contents of the docket. I can't tell you what happened after 1995 and 1996 because in 1995 I was involved in the treason trail, the UDF treason trail, you will know what I am talking about, and in 1996 I was busy doing administration of the emergency regulations. So what I am saying now is, as far as my knowledge goes, up until the start of 1995, of course things were documented in 1995 and 1996, and Captain Hechter can testify about those matters. ...(intervention) JUDGE WILSON: You talk about 1995? COL. LOOTS: '85, 1985 Mr Chairman. ADV DU PLESSIS: I don't know if he mentioned '95, I didn't pick it up. COL. LOOTS: 1985. But I did read the file and what I read in this file were certain reports and a couple of things were mentioned in those reports. I would like to mention PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG some of these things that I read in the file. For instance that Dr Fabian Ribeiro and his wife, in respect of people who indicated that they wanted to go abroad for military training, that they gave them financial support. I would also like to say that people who later went abroad, were trained and returned, obviously as trained terrorists, and once again, they received financial support from the Ribeiro's. It is true, as was testified before the Commission, that Dr Fabian Ribeiro gave medical treatment to activists and terrorists at his home. I can also remember that I read a report that in Dr Ribeiro's garage at his home, film shows were held from time to time. I can't remember the names of the films shows, but I think I can recall that there was one which was banned at the time, Cry Freedom. I think you will recall that. That was only one of the movies shown to youths at his home, and at these movie shows Dr Ribeiro was present, but also his wife as well. She was also present at the movie shows. They spoke to the youth, and I think you might recall the ANC's programme of mass mobilisation, I am sure you will recall that, and in many of these reports it became clear that the core of the issue was a matter of inferior education, and these two people addressed the young people on this particular issue and of course that also helped to lead to the situation of ADV DU PLESSIS: Good. So Colonel would you have read the files on a more regular basis that COL. LOOTS: Yes, Brigadier Cronje was the divisional commander of the total security branch, so he had to deal with all the units. He would have had to deal with all the files relating to all the units, whilst my PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG commander, was such that I only saw the S4 files. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DU PLESSIS CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CURRIN: Colonel Loots if I remember correctly Brigadier Cronje said that you would be in a position to provide the names of informers in regard to information that was COL. LOOTS: Yes, that is what he said. Chairperson could I explain it to you as follows. When an informant was registered with us he was registered as a number, and in the reports which I, as head of the unit read, or whoever read, would read about informant (...indistinct) would report as follows and the reports that were sent to head office did not contain the names of these informants, but merely the numbers, such as the one which I referred to. The names affiliated to the numbers were kept in a safe for the protection of the informants. If I was to mention names here, I would be speculating. The persons who would be able to mention names would be the people who handled that, people like Captain Hechter and Warrant Officer Owen van Vuuren who will still come and give evidence here. If I said, for example NT486, they would be able to identify the man. MR CURRIN: Colonel Loots can I just understand what you were doing up until 1985, you were involved in administering the emergency regulations, is that what you said? COL. LOOTS: Only in 1985 did I become involved in the UDF High Treason trial, the Allan Boesak matter. It started in 1985, if I can remember correctly, if I am not mixing up my dates. In 1985 it began, and I think that early in 1986 it ended. The first security emergency regulations were in 1986, and that was when I was appointed to administer them PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG and I think you are aware of that. MR CURRIN: When did you start that job involved in administering the emergency regulations? COL. LOOTS: The first announcement of the first emergency regulations? (The Speaker's microphone is MR CURRIN: It's very relevant Mr Chairman and you'll get an indication of that in a moment. In 1986 COL. LOOTS: That is correct Mr Chairman. MR CURRIN: Not at that stage, if I remember correctly, you were directly involved in the detention of activists in the Pretoria region? COL. LOOTS: I would not say that I was directly involved in the detention, I was directly involved in the administration. What usually happened was when someone was arrested documents which dealt with his arrest were given to me for administrative purposes. MR CURRIN: You knew at the time, of the activists in the Pretoria region who were being investigated MR CURRIN: Names for example like, Sandy Lebisi. COL. LOOTS: I can specifically remember him. MR CURRIN: A prominent activist who was often detained. COL. LOOTS: That is correct, Dansie Khumalo. COL. LOOTS: Moss Chikane, that is correct. COL. LOOTS: Reeves Mabitse, ja. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG COL. LOOTS: Ronnie Mamoepe, yes, that is correct. COL. LOOTS: Jacky Mamasela, I can remember. COL. LOOTS: I remember Adrian Nkomo from Attridgeville, I can remember. COL. LOOTS: Dr Ribeiro from Mamelodi, I can remember. MR CURRIN: Was he ever detained? COL. LOOTS: I cannot think, you know, if I was to try and recall. I dealt with approximately a thousand names, just by the administration regulations of the Northern Transvaal. KwaNdebele was a septic mess, and because of the mess that was caused there, I had to take over the administration of KwaNdebele as well and I was trying to think here that a name was raised of a Dr Fabian, who was a prominent person, and I can honestly not recall if I saw his name. MR CURRIN: So you can't remember whether you saw his name, you can't remember whether he was ever detained, but you can remember reading in the file that both he and his wife were providing funds for activists to leave the country for military training? COL. LOOTS: That is what I said, Chairperson. May I just add that I did not compile the list of people who had to be arrested, I just did the administration. The list would have been compiled by the person who at that stage was in an acting capacity as the unit chief, that would probably have been Captain van MR CURRIN: I put it to you that there will be evidence on behalf of the family, that neither Dr Ribeiro PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG Ribeiro were actively involved in politics from the early 1980's, and that they did not provide funds for activists to go and be trained by the ANC and they were not generally politically active during that COL. LOOTS: Chairperson, that may be put to me, but I maintain what I said and what I read in the file. MR CURRIN: You were present throughout the period of evidence-in-chief, cross-examination and re- examination of Brigadier Cronje, is that correct? COL. LOOTS: That is correct, I have been here all the time. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CURRIN CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV MPSHE: Colonel, is it correct that when you dish out a file as you said, you were responsible for doing that in the S4 files, you would give an instruction to the person who was to investigate the matter further? COL. LOOTS: That is what I said, Chairperson, that is how it worked. ADV MPSHE: Good. Now what instruction did you give inasfar as the Ribeiro file is concerned? COL. LOOTS: To monitor the person's current activities, whoever he liaised with and whatever other information with regard to the security information and compile it in the file. ADV MPSHE: And I want to believe that you gave instruction and the person did that and came back to you to report back, is that what happened? COL. LOOTS: Not necessarily. The person didn't necessarily come back to me every time to report back to me because that was a difficult phase at the time. We had too many irons in the fire, and there were too many incidents and several were PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV MPSHE: And in this specific incident, did he report back to you, that is what I am trying to ask you? COL. LOOTS: He could have reported back to me, Chairperson. I know at some stage Captain Hechter, Paul and I, discussed a specific informants report, which was contained there, and I think Captain Hechter is going to address this informant's report in his testimony. ADV MPSHE: Very well. What was the final command which you gave with regard to this instruction? COL. LOOTS: Normally when I was satisfied that the information was satisfactory, that it was correct and a report had been compiled which had been typed, and this typed up report was sent to head office and in that report all the activities which I mentioned to you would be reflected, the file would then be taken with a postponed date, normally the date to which it had been postponed, and unless the person had attracted out attention to such an extent that his file had to been drawn before the time. ADV MPSHE: Let's put it to you this way. Everything was done, you issued a command, you reported back, perhaps you reported back again about the final phase. What was the final stage of this file? COL. LOOTS: It was taken back to the store where the files were kept. ADV MPSHE: And nothing was done with that? COL. LOOTS: No, nothing more was done with the file, it was kept in the store for record purposes with ADV MPSHE: What was the purpose of the investigation if the file was to be kept? PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG COL. LOOTS: Chairperson, I will be very brief. I would say that the files with regards to the activities of the activists, the information would be compiled in a report and taken to head office, and head office would also probably have had a Black persons' desk, an activists desk, a terrorists desk, or whatever, and head office, when upon receipt of that report, was supposed to look into the information which they found and then they had a legal department and in certain instances they would pay attention to the content and if it constituted an offence, they discussed with their legal department and it would come back to us, and they would say that that look you should see if you don't have enough information on the incidents and activities so that we can charge this person in a court of law. ADV MPSHE: Colonel Loots, did the file have anything specific to say about Mrs Ribeiro? COL. LOOTS: Yes, there were cases were Dr Ribeiro was not at home. I am talking about reports from informants, where he was not at home, and where she assisted financially herself. As I said, Mr Chairperson, she was involved in the film shows that were done there. ADV MPSHE: Is it not so that activists, if I may use the word, were categorised as probably high level activists or whatever, in which category did you place Mrs Ribeiro? COL. LOOTS: She was contained in the file of Dr Ribeiro. ADV MPSHE: Yes, but, with regards to what she did, how would you have categorised her? COL. LOOTS: I would have said she was a high profile activist. ADV MPSHE: Due to the fact that she provided financial aid PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG COL. LOOTS: Yes, and also because she was the wife of Dr Ribeiro. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV MPSHE JUDGE MGOEPE: Colonel I would have thought that a file would have been opened for anybody who was regarded as being an important political activist? COL. LOOTS: Chairperson, you are right. I think that it was convenient for us that these two persons' details were contained in one file. We could have dealt with it as such, we did not have a problem with it. We could also obviously have opened a file for her, and I would like to concede that you are correct. JUDGE MGOEPE: But if she was that important why didn't you made a separate file for her? COL. LOOTS: I had to decide on that, and I did not decide as such, to me it was more convenient to have JUDGE MGOEPE: Well isn't this the position that the situation and the information that you had about her simply didn't warrant the opening of a file on her? Isn't that the position? COL. LOOTS: I would not say that. I would like to concede that if I deemed it necessary that there was enough in one file to make copies of and file in another file, which would have contained information on her only if that is good enough for you Chairperson. JUDGE MGOEPE: But, she was a separate individual. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG JUDGE MGOEPE: Was she simply a shadow of her husband? COL. LOOTS: I wouldn't say that she, as I testified, she functioned in an individual capacity, where she JUDGE MGOEPE: And in your good judgment you did not deem it necessary to open a file on her? COL. LOOTS: That is correct, that is what I said. JUDGE WILSON: The example you gave of where she contributed was when her husband was absent she would make payments, which I think supports what my brother has just put to you, she was merely a wife assisting her husband, wasn't she? COL. LOOTS: Of course you can say that, Mr Chairperson, can see that you are correct. MS KHAMPEPE: Colonel Loots we of course already know that Brigadier Cronje was requested by special forces to provide a memoranda on the activities of Dr Ribeiro, did he come to you to ask for the file COL. LOOTS: No, I was absent at the time. The person who was in my place was Captain van Jaarsveld. MS KHAMPEPE: But the file was ultimately given to Brigadier Cronje? COL. LOOTS: I assumed so, I had no control over that. I do not know, but I believe that the file could have gone to him. As I responded to Mr Mpshe the file was liaised in the record room with all the other files, and it could have been taken to Brigadier Cronje. MS KHAMPEPE: Now, if Brigadier Cronje had had sight of the file of Dr Ribeiro, it would therefore accordingly follow that you would have had knowledge of the details of Mrs Ribeiro's political activities? COL. LOOTS: I cannot say. You should remember that there PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG were approximately ten thousand files that were dealt with. It is possible that they read it, but he cannot remember it. I cannot comment on that as much as I may want to. JUDGE WILSON: But this was not one of ten thousand files which were dealt with annually, this was a specific file that the defence force had asked him to prepare a memorandum on, to apply his mind to it, to COL. LOOTS: I understand your question Mr Chairperson, thank you, and as I said, I cannot explain why Brigadier Cronje cannot remember the file, I really cannot explain that. MS KHAMPEPE: Captain Loots, the activities of Mrs Ribeiro were contained in the same file that contained the activities of Dr Ribeiro. COL. LOOTS: That was my evidence, and that is as it was. MS KHAMPEPE: So, we are not talking of ten thousand files, we are talking of one specific file. COL. LOOTS: That is correct. He knew about the content of that file, but, what I am trying to say is that there were also other files which he had to have insight into and I really cannot explain why he cannot JUDGE MALL: Whose decision was it to decide whether an activist was a high profile activist or not? COL. LOOTS: Chairperson, it was usually done by the unit heads, the commanding officer of the division and in certain cases the person affected, the person who was in charge of the area, let's say for example the Mamelodi area it would have been Captain Hechter, it would have been the division head, the unit head, and the head of the area which was being dealt with, and also of course head office had a role PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG JUDGE MALL: Would there be anything on the file cover to show anybody that this file relates to a high COL. LOOTS: Yes, Chairperson, that is correct, you got A, B, and C files. And A file was - and it worked the same in all the units. If someone had an A file, it was a very active person, a B file was of somebody who was less involved, and a C file was a person who was the least involved. JUDGE MALL: From what I have heard now, up to now, it would seem that this was an A file? COL. LOOTS: That is correct Chairperson. JUDGE MGOEPE: Why didn't you open the file in her name, and then just add on Dr Ribeiro? COL. LOOTS: I do not understand the question. JUDGE MGOEPE: Why was the file not opened in Mrs Ribeiro's name and then her husband simply COL. LOOTS: I think the simple answer to that would be that Dr Fabian Ribeiro was the man who drew ADV DE JAGER: You say that the decision was taken by the head of department and the unit head and then the area head, let's say in the Mamelodi incident Captain Hechter or whoever else was in charge of the Mamelodi area. Who was the divisional head at that time? COL. LOOTS: Brigadier Jack Cronje. ADV DE JAGER: And the unit head? ADV DE JAGER: And the head of the area? COL. LOOTS: That was Captain Hechter. In this case it was Hechter. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DE JAGER: Were there ever requests or do you know of any requests that you had to cooperate with COL. LOOTS: Not ever during my time Mr Chairman. MS KHAMPEPE: Captain Loots, that statement may not necessarily reflect that such requests were not made directly to your divisional commander, requests by "Spesmagte" to cooperate with the security COL. LOOTS: It was not necessary directed at the commanding officer, that is correct. RE-EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: Colonel Loots, if an instruction was issued or there was a discussion by persons above you about the cooperation with the South African Defence Force, would you COL. LOOTS: No, Mr Chairperson. ADV DU PLESSIS: Now Colonel Loots the money which Dr Ribeiro and his wife made available, what was the purpose of that money? COL. LOOTS: Firstly, as I testified here, it was to assist people who indicated that they would like to go abroad for military training, and once again I would like to refer you to the content of the informants' reports and after their training, they would return to the country as trained persons, and they would once again give them financial assistance. ADV DU PLESSIS: Did Dr Ribeiro and his wife financially assists terrorists within South Africa? COL. LOOTS: Yes, as far as the information contained in informants' reports, that is the information of ADV DU PLESSIS: And was your information that Mrs Dr Ribeiro was involved in the struggle of the PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS: Very well. Of the information which you had, and which you can recall about this person, if only Dr Ribeiro was to be eliminated, would Mrs Ribeiro, according to the information which you had available to you, would you say that Mrs Ribeiro would simply have been apolitical or would she have continued with the activities of herself and Dr Ribeiro? COL. LOOTS: I think to anyone it is a fairly difficult question, one wouldn't be able to know. She could possibly have stopped totally with her activities, or she could have proceeded. I cannot answer that. ADV DU PLESSIS: Colonel Loots, if Dr Ribeiro was to have been eliminated by himself ...(intervention) ADV DE JAGER: Mr du Plessis, with all respect, should we speculate about circumstances, this is a factual situation. He now has to speculate about what would have happened if - whatever the facts were, and anyway he cannot say what other people would have done. It is not within his ability to say how you ADV DU PLESSIS: I understand that, Mr Chairperson, I merely wanted to ask the witness if he would have deemed it necessary to open up a separate file for Mrs Ribeiro if Dr Ribeiro was eliminated. Would you have deemed it necessary? COL. LOOTS: Definitely, until we could prove that she was no longer active. There would have been an additional file, yes Mr Chairman. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DU PLESSIS JUDGE WILSON: I take it she was not a professional medical officer or anything of that nature? PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG COL. LOOTS: I cannot recall, I really cannot remember Chairperson. I do not know if we can obtain assistance from counsel this side. JUDGE MGOEPE: What do you remember about her, except that she was the wife to Dr Ribeiro, and that she provided help to train terrorists as you said, what else do you remember about her? COL. LOOTS: Chairperson, what I have testified about is what I can remember. JUDGE MGOEPE: Well, you haven't said anything else except that she was the wife to Dr Ribeiro, and repeatedly you said that she provided financial help to train terrorists, what else did you know about her? COL. LOOTS: That is what I have said, and that is what I know, that is all I know. JUDGE MGOEPE: Is that all that you know? COL. LOOTS: That is all I know, that is correct. JUDGE MALL: Very well, thank you very much, you are excused. COL. LOOTS: Thank you very much Chairman. MR CURRIN: Mr Chairman it just struck me when listening to the evidence whether I could request the Committee, to ask the previous witness to make available to this Committee, the records which the police security branch have in respect of the detention of high profile political activists in the Pretoria region during the period 1984 to 1989. It will serve two very good purposes, I would suggest. Just very briefly, the one is that we have no documentary evidence available with regard to what political activists were doing in this particular region, and I think the files regarding PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG detention of political activists will give a good indication of the interests which the security police had in JUDGE WILSON: Before you go on any further Mr Currin, having looked at the gestures that Colonel Loots had just made, are there such files in existence? ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I can recall Colonel Loots as a witness. I didn't want to ask him that because the evidence has been repeated over and over again. I can however tell you that Colonel Loots told me that he was personally involved in the destruction of numerous documents, he told me now that these documents do not exist anymore. MR CURRIN: Mr Chairman, I am told that there is a record of who was detained, and when people were detained, and I would submit that that record would at least give an indication to this Committee of the interest which the security branch showed in various political activists, or lack of interest, including Dr Ribeiro and his wife. So, I would submit that that information could be of assistance. JUDGE MALL: Mr Currin as at present, I don't think that it is a matter that concerns us in deciding whether these gentlemen are entitled to amnesty or not. We are not investigating the activities of activists in the area, and I must put some limit in the nature of the investigations that we are conducting. There might be some other forum that may attend to matters of that kind. MR CURRIN: Mr Chairman I understand your point. Could I just raise the second reason why, and then you can consider it in the context of the second motivation. JUDGE MALL: I wish the most important motivation is put PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR CURRIN: I leave the best until last Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman the second one is just that we have heard that high profile activists were subject to assassination and that the detention of high profile activists was therefore not the best option. The provision of the information regarding detention of activists in this region will give us a good sense as to how high profile activists in this region, were dealt with by the security branch, and that is the other reason why I believe it would be of assistance to get that information because then one could then from objective documentation get a sense of how high profile activists were in fact dealt with by the security branch. JUDGE MALL: Yes, thank you very much. We will take an adjournment at this stage, and let you know our views on the matter. We will adjourn for 15 minutes. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 351 CAPT HECHTER ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman, I beg leave to Captain Hechter. Mr Chairman perhaps I could just, before we start with the evidence of Captain Hechter just raise a point. I accept the judgment that the Committee gave this morning. I am, however, not clear at this point in time, in respect of this specific matter what the position is pertaining to Mr Visser's clients. Obviously I don't want to protract the JUDGE MALL: You will (...indistinct) (Speaker's microphone not on)... Mr Visser has accepted and that is where the matter rests. So I think you had better just proceed with calling Mr Hechter. ADV DU PLESSIS: As it pleases you Mr Chairman. I will then raise it after my total evidence of this JUDGE MALL: Yes. If it is relevant you must raise it. ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes Mr Chairman. EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. You will find it on page 203 of his application. Captain Hechter, the nature and particulars of the events in question are set out from page 203 onwards, up until page 208. You are going to testify further to elaborate on what has been set out in the application. May I ask you to deal with it step by step. On page 203 you refer to the actions of Dr and Mrs Ribeiro, and things in which they were involved, could you please elaborate on this, and what was your knowledge relating to the involvement of the Ribeiros before we continue telling the Committee in how you became involved in the events? CAPT HECHTER: According to our sources at the time Mrs PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 351 CAPT HECHTER Ribeiro was involved, along with her husband, in the recruitment of youths for sending them out for training. It was also known that they gave money to these people. Dr Ribeiro and his wife, who obviously never distanced herself from his conduct, and was always involved with him in showing the video's for instance, our information was that they were both involved in the showing of the videos. ADV DU PLESSIS: Now, which video's are you referring to? CAPT HECHTER: I think Colonel Loots, at the time he was a captain, I think he referred to these videos, for instance, Cry Freedom. She was always present. These videos were shown in the garage, and it was necessary for her to have been there, if she wanted to distance herself from this, she could have stayed in the house, so it wasn't necessary for herself to associate herself with this action. ADV DU PLESSIS: Can you perhaps, before we talk about Mrs Ribeiro, explain to the Committee what you knew about Dr Fabian Ribeiro. CAPT. HECHTER: He was very involved, especially with the young people in Mamelodi, and inciting them, specifically the activists, the ANC activists. He was involved in cases of arson, perhaps he wasn't personally involved in cases of arson, we didn't have information to that effect, but he certainly was involved in inciting young people to commit these acts. Yesterday, I listened to evidence and questions, he also treated terrorists at home, after they had been wounded, instead of, as the Act required of him, referring them to the police, reporting the matter to the police, because these people who had taken part in illegal marches, the correct procedure would have been to treat the person but then to notify the police. So PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 352 CAPT HECHTER over to criminal prosecution in helping these political criminals. These people were guilty of political He was also involved in the consumer boycotts, according to our information, and there again, he incited young people to take part in these boycotts, and that inevitably lead to intimidation and assaults on members of the general public in Mamelodi. Dr Fabian Ribeiro was most definitely involved in promoting the objectives of the ANC in Mamelodi by means of his involvement in activists and the youth ADV DU PLESSIS: The money that was made available to activists, what was the purpose of that? CAPT. HECHTER: The young people who wanted to leave the country weren't, according to our questioning, we often questioned the parents about the movements of their children, and it appeared that he recruited these children and provided them with help and money to be able to leave the country. ADV DU PLESSIS: What was the purpose of their going overseas? CAPT. HECHTER: The recruitment was purely for purposes of being trained as terrorists, and with the concomitant results upon their return. These youths after having been trained and returning to the country were regarded as formidable soldiers and it is not necessary for me to tell the Commission, they would know of the acts of violence committed by terrorists, the planting of bombs and mines, shooting of innocent people, etc. That was the work of the trained people who returned to the country. ADV DU PLESSIS: Now, Dr Ribeiro's wife, did she, according to your information, associate herself with PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 353 CAPT HECHTER CAPT HECHTER: Yes, totally. If I remember correctly, she, on certain occasions, when he was not present, also gave money to these people, and we must therefore accept that she was involved in the harbouring of these people on occasion because according to our information, Dr Ribeiro also gave shelter ADV DU PLESSIS: Would you say that they acted jointly? CAPT HECHTER: Yes, that is the inference that I can draw. ADV DU PLESSIS: Now, Captain Hechter, the facts which you are testifying about at the moment, can you tell us where you got these facts from? CAPT HECHTER: It came from a source file, source information in their file, so the information was written up in this particular source file. ADV DU PLESSIS: You heard the evidence of Colonel Flip Loots, is that correct? ADV DU PLESSIS: Do you confirm, or do you agree with his evidence? CAPT HECHTER: Yes, I agree with it. ADV DU PLESSIS: Do you agree with him about the way in which the file system operated? CAPT HECHTER: Yes, as far as I can recall. ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Hechter, would you regularly have had a look at this particular file? CAPT HECHTER: On a monthly basis, yes, but what must be said here, is that we were dealing with a large number of files, and I think Colonel Loots said that we were under pressure, there was a lot of action at that time in the different Black residential areas, and the administration PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 353 CAPT HECHTER could perhaps have fallen behind as a result of the numerous actions by the young people. ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain, do you also confirm Colonel Loots' evidence relating to ...(tape ends)... perusal of the file and his knowledge of the file? CAPT HECHTER: Yes, positive, the Brigadier did not deal with the files very much. ADV DU PLESSIS: Now if you turn to page 204, could you explain to the Committee how you became CAPT HECHTER: The date wasn't known, and the time was also not known to us, I don't know at what time of day it was, but Brigadier Cronje, at the time was a colonel, he told me to come to his office and in the office was a person whom I had already met at a previous occasion, Charl Naude. I don't know whether he was alone or not. Now this file, was at this stage, I think, I could perhaps just mention this in passing, in Brigadier Cronje's presence, he told me that Commandant Charl Naude was very interested in Fabian Ribeiro and that I should make available our file to them, but that I shouldn't part with it at all, and that what they needed, they could get from that file. So, it was made available to them, but they couldn't take it to their offices. It had to stay in our office. I think that Charl Naude and I went to my office to continue with this conversation. At that stage, I had already come to the conclusion that Dr Ribeiro and his wife had to eliminated, or perhaps just Dr Ribeiro. We are busy with word play here, you must remember, it was 11 years ago. My inference was that there was going to be a hit, depending on our further deliberations. Charl Naude and I went to my PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 354 CAPT HECHTER office, if I recall correctly, we spoke further and he then left. The file was left in my possession, and then a person, I can remember he had a white moustache, he looked like a Scotsman, and his name was indeed Paddy. He introduced himself as a major, I can't remember his correct surname. He then started coming to me on a regular basis. He started visiting me in the office. I may have given a complete photostat copy of that file to him, or I might just have told him certain relevant bits of information, it is difficult for me to recall. What I can remember, I do know, something which made quite an impression on me was that here was an operation launched by the Defence Force, and they sent out a big airplane, with cameras mounted on the plane and they took aerial photographs of Mamelodi and the area in which Dr Ribeiro lived, because I had to go and point out his home to them and photographs were taken, they were incredible. Rolls and rolls of film of photographs were stored in my office. I don't know whether they just brought me copies for my information or whether those were the only copies in existence, but the money spent must have been astronomical to deal with an operation of this size. I mentioned this to a number of people that I couldn't believe that such a lot of money was spent on such an operation. I see that in the file that I mentioned, that the file was in fact photostatted, and I will stand by that, but if they say no, that it was never photostatted, then I will also abide by that, because I can't really The Defence Force was, over a period of about a month, perhaps longer, were often in contact with me, and I reported back to Brigadier Cronje in a very superficial basis to tell him that the Defence PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 355 CAPT HECHTER and that they were still busy with the planning of the elimination. Whether we called it an elimination I can't remember, but I think we would have called it that. ADV DU PLESSIS: May I interrupt you here. Do you have any detail about the planning of the CAPT. HECHTER: They came to me and they said "Jacques what are you suggesting, how would you do ADV DU PLESSIS: No, to Brigadier Cronje. CAPT. HECHTER: I might have, I can't actually remember. I can't see what the point would have been to impart detail to them, because at that stage there wasn't much detail. They came to me and asked me for my suggestions as to how I would have done this operation. They never really came back to me as far as I can recall to tell me exactly how they were going to do it, beforehand. What did happen, was that Charl Naude came to me and said Jacques tomorrow the elimination will take place. Whether he told me how it was to happen, that I can't tell you at this stage, what I do know is that I do know how it happened, whether I knew beforehand, or found it out later, I can't remember, but I accept and assume that I would have told Brigadier Cronje that it would happen tomorrow, but perhaps I didn't inform him of that fact, it is not impossible. I wasn't in my office very often, as I said, I was in Black residential areas most of the time, so I would have had to telephone him, or speak to him on the radio which obviously wasn't used much. As I said, I knew when it was to take place. I knew the day. I think it was on a Saturday. We can check that. I can't remember the day, I think Mr Mpshe may be able to help us out. I then, as was normal PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 356 CAPT HECHTER the ulterior motive of being in the area when the thing took place, I moved around in the area with my ADV DU PLESSIS: Now, let us turn to the particular day, page 204 of the application, first paragraph. In the middle of the paragraph, it says, "Mamasela and I also planned to kill Ribeiro". CAPT. HECHTER: That is correct. Before this specific incident, because Ribeiro was such a thorn in our flesh, I discussed it with Mamasela, I discussed his elimination with him, and we went to his flat, and we waited there for him, but he didn't turn up and I once again, at a later stage, I went to his flat, but he didn't turn up. I also tried to eliminate him on my own accord, but he never turned up. ADV DU PLESSIS: Who gave you the command to do this? Who gave you the order? CAPT. HECHTER: Chairperson, I am prepared to accept that I did it of my own accord. I might of discussed it with Brigadier Cronje, maybe he gave approval for it, but I don't know, I might have acted completely on my own. I am prepared to concede that. ADV DU PLESSIS: Now on page 206 you refer, at the top of page 206, to the two other incidents, is that ADV DU PLESSIS: Could you please just read the first paragraph. CAPT. HECHTER: There were two other occasions, in which I was involved in attempts, to apprehend Ribeiro, but he didn't turn up. I take it that it wasn't an attempt. I did in fact do so. I can't remember the details of this particular incident. I think, by details I mean the very specific planning about the why's and the wherefore's. Now, PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 356 CAPT HECHTER why, we know, but the planning around it, that is a bit vague because it happened in the past. I do know that I went in the evenings, it wasn't very late, and I lay in wait for him at his house. Once in the back garden, and once also in the road. There was a school and we waited opposite his house, we waited in the ADV DU PLESSIS: Now, you say that Warrant Officer Paul van Vuuren was also involved? ADV DU PLESSIS: He is also applying for amnesty, for as far as necessary. ADV DU PLESSIS: Now, in the second paragraph on page 206. CAPT. HECHTER: I remember that I went with an AK47 armed with an AK47 or pickaxe handles. During the pickaxe handle incident Mamasela was with me. I assume that if Ribeiro and his wife appeared, we would have knocked them down, robbed them of their valuables, to make it look like a normal robbery. ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain, could we please turn to the particular day, and what happened there. I would like to refer you very specifically ...(intervention) JUDGE WILSON: Before you go on to something, could I just ask you to clarify, I am a little confused. You were referred to page 204, where you say, "Mamasela and I also planned to kill Ribeiro, but the opportunity didn't arise". CAPT. HECHTER: That is part of what I have just spoken about, yes. JUDGE WILSON: Yes. You then go on and say, "Captain Jaap van Jaarsveld was also involved on PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 357 CAPT HECHTER one occasion when we went to Ribeiro's home in Mamelodi, to eliminate him". CAPT. HECHTER: That is correct, Chairperson. I asked him to wait in the garden, I was unarmed. Mamasela didn't have a firearm, we only had the pickaxe handles, and we left van Jaarsveld in the front, in the garden, to - if the youths saw us there, he had to act as sort of a cover for us. ADV DU PLESSIS: Was that the same event at which Mamasela was present? JUDGE WILSON: It was the same event. ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Chairperson. Mr Chairman, I may just apologise to the Committee. When this was drawn, as you know these applications were drawn in a lot of haste, this is one application where the chronological sequence of the events don't follow, that is why I am leading the evident in a Captain, now, we turn to the specific day. Can I ask you did you know exactly what would happen on that day, the planning beforehand? CAPT. HECHTER: I may have known to some extent, but the actual detail I don't think I was aware of that. The Defence Force, you must remember, also operated on a need to know basis, and it might have been that I was told in more detail, but the actual detail I can't remember. As I said, afterwards, as the drama unfolded, I learnt certain facts, and also from certain discussions and questioning. Perhaps I knew these things beforehand, but I can't swear to that. If they tell me that they Jacques we told you everything, I would say yes, that is correct. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 358 CAPT HECHTER ADV DU PLESSIS: Can I take you to page 205, the second paragraph. Is that what happened? CAPT. HECHTER: There was decided on a certain manner and a date. Now maybe the way in which it was to be done was told to me, maybe I knew of the two Black men, who, I see I mentioned Angola, but they also came from South West, because Angola bordered Namibia. My inference was that these people were not able to speak English, or a Black language, they could only speak Portuguese, so I think they were probably part of Savimbi's people whom the Defence Force had contact with, I am not certain, however, that was just my inference. I said that we decided on these two Black men, but whether that was in fact the case, let's just suppose I knew, what happened was that these two people lay in wait for Dr Ribeiro and his wife, and when they got out of their car, they were shot at point blank range. I think that is what happened, I am not 100% certain because I wasn't present. ADV DU PLESSIS: Now where did you get these facts from? CAPT. HECHTER: I think it must have been in the newspapers afterwards, the whole South African was on fire. So I assumed that that is how it happened. I was on the scene first, out of all the policemen ADV DU PLESSIS: Did you speak to the people? CAPT. HECHTER: I had contact with Robey, and I had contact with Charl Naude, and I think that the thing was discussed afterwards. I know that I had contact with them, but whether we discussed it in fine detail, that might have happened, but I can't remember. I know that what went wrong was that after the two Black men shot them they went to the N1 highway in the direction of Witbank Middelburg, but PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 359 CAPT HECHTER apparently what they didn't notice was that they were being followed by a vehicle, bearing family members, I think, and they saw how they got out of this vehicle and got into the much discussed Land Rover and they then took down the registration number of the Land Rover. Afterwards they returned. I don't know whether they attempted to stop the men. That I don't know. It sounds familiar to me that it was reported, but I can't remember. I heard on the radio, or I think I drove past there, or perhaps I saw a gathering of people outside Dr Ribeiro's house because the exact time is also not known to me, but I drove to Mamelodi, knowing that this would happen. ADV DU PLESSIS: For the purposes of the Committee, could I take you to page 207, the third paragraph. CAPT. HECHTER: I was aware of the fact that there was a plan, that Dr Ribeiro would be eliminated. I drove past a particular address and it seemed that I drove past there just after the elimination had taken place. There was a big crowd of people around the house and there was an ambulance at that stage. I drove up to the side of the ambulance and I saw that the people were very tense and excited and I then went directly to the police station. It was about a kilometre or so from Dr Ribeiro's home. I drove there directly and went to the branch commander and I told him, do you know that Dr Ribeiro has been shot, there are problems, you had better get out there. I then made radio contact with the reaction unit and I also contacted murder and robbery, or I contacted my radio control and told them to get the reaction unit and murder and robbery, the fingerprint people, all the necessary units, to come and investigate the matter. At that stage I PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 359 CAPT HECHTER nothing. I then went with the commanding officer, and the branch commanding officer, to the scene, the branch commander got out of the car and they started investigating the scene, they started picking up cartridges, and I said, no, stop, you are interfering with the evidence, put the cartridges back, that can only take place after the photographers have photographed the scene, and he then put the cartridges back where he thought they belonged. I then contacted the safety service officer, he was on duty at the time, and I then withdrew from the scene. I also withdrew from Mamelodi. I think I informed Brigadier Cronje, but it is not impossible that I didn't do so. If he was to say to me that I didn't, then I would accept that, because I can't remember. I would just assume that I would have telephoned him, but I can't swear to it. ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain, you have now testified about the portions on page 207 and 208, now, I would like to take you to page 206, the last paragraph. It deals with exactly what happened afterwards, and conversations at which you were present. It is page 206. What I would like you to tell the Committee, Captain Hechter, is exactly what conversations you were involved in after the events, also with reference to CAPT. HECHTER: As I said, I think the operation took place on a Saturday, it sounds right to me. Then it would have been on the Monday, I know it wasn't the very next day, it was some time after that. We were then contacted, no not us, Brigadier Cronje was contacted, he told me that General Joubert wanted to see us. We then went to General Joubert at Speskop, special forces they were stationed there, on the other side of Erasmia. We went in there, I didn't know the PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 360 CAPT HECHTER Defence Force general staff, I only knew Joe Verster, whom I had had contact with previously, Commandant Naude, Charl Naude, I can't even specifically remember whether he was there, I remember we sat at a long conference type table. I was introduced to the general and the other people present, and I (...indistinct) to his left. Why I remember this, is that I noticed that they had a psychologist present, he was introduced as a psychologist. At that stage, I was also very worried about this need to know basis and I know that Joe Verster was present, and Charl I think would have been present, but I am not certain of that. We made some small talk, and then General Joubert said, you realise we have problems, that vehicle was traced back to us, and his words were, Basie Smit traced the vehicle back to us. Those were his words. That is why I assume that Brigadier Cronje said that he was under the impression that he was the investigating officer. We then sat and talked, and the General asked the Brigadier, can you do anything ADV DU PLESSIS: What General are you referring to? CAPT. HECHTER: That was General Joubert, he very specifically said that. I can stake my life on that. He asked, are you able to do anything about this? Obviously I was a lieutenant, so I didn't count. What he meant was whether Colonel Cronje could do anything about this investigation. The Brigadier said, well, JUDGE WILSON: What do you mean by Brigadier, a minute ago, a second ago you said Colonel Cronje, and now you say Brigadier Cronje. CAPT. HECHTER: Apologies at the time he was a colonel, he PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 361 CAPT HECHTER only later became a Brigadier. For convenience, I will talk about him as a Brigadier, but it's the same person. We then sat and chatted and talked, discussing the problems. The vehicle had apparently been registered in the name of a front company, the security fraternity at the time registered the names of their vehicles in the names of front companies, companies which didn't actually exist, you just gave a name, and then the investigation usually came to nothing. As I understand Brigadier Smit at the time was involved in the vehicle branch and he went to Leyland to which the vehicle belonged or to whom it had been sold originally. He wasn't involved in covering up anything. Later, in a very ingenious way he determined whom the vehicle belonged to. That is as far as I could gather what had happened. ADV DU PLESSIS: Now, what was Basie Smit's position? CAPT. HECHTER: I think he was the head of the vehicle branch. As Brigadier van Wyk testified, he was under his command, but I didn't realise it, and that is another assumption, I think he was in command of the vehicle branch, or he was in command of that branch, but he had the necessary contacts, and he knew how these things worked, that you could actually trace a vehicle, right back to the factory, and if it was a defence force vehicle, he would then be able to actually gather the relevant information from his contacts. Whilst we were still sitting there, it was also said by General Joubert, right, we will leave it in your hands, we are in your hands, we will not discuss is with General Coetzee. We then undertook to keep it to ourselves. They did the work, and that we would just try and rectify the PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 361 CAPT HECHTER matter amongst ourselves and it wouldn't be discussed with Coetzee, and we then left. ADV DU PLESSIS: What was General Coetzee's position? CAPT. HECHTER: He was then the Commissioner of the South African Police, if I remember correctly. We then left, we went back to the office. I assume that we discussed the problem, and what we were to do. I can't remember the detail. The next morning, it was early in the morning, 6:00, 6:30, I went to special forces, I went to Joe Verster. If I remember correctly, I went to fetch ammunition for an AK47. He offered me a cup of coffee and we sat chatting across his desk and he then said to me, you know of course that the General went to your Commissioner last night and that after we specifically decided the matter wouldn't be discussed with our seniors, I got a huge fright. ADV DU PLESSIS: Was he referring to General Joubert? CAPT. HECHTER: Yes. He said the General, and that was the only General I had contact with. I don't know whether we discussed the matter, but I recall that he said, you know of course that your General went to General Coetzee, or to your commissioner, something like that. I drank my coffee, jumped into my car and drove off. I couldn't contact the Brigadier on the radio with this sensitive kind of information, I went to the nearest phone booth, and I phoned him and told him, Brigadier, problems. The Defence Force General Joubert last night had contact with General Coetzee, and you better watch it. He then told me over the phone, oh, that's why Brigadier Schoon told me that I had to come and see him, he is probably going to take me to the General. Thank you very much, put the phone down, that was it. Later that day, the Brigadier phoned me, and told me to PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 362 CAPT HECHTER come to his office. In his office he told me Jacques it is like that, Brigadier Schoon told me to the General and you know what a bloody fool I would have been if I, in front of my commanding officer had denied knowledge of this operation, when in fact I did know. Thank you very much for the call. He then continued and said that the General was furious about the whole matter, very unhappy about the incident. Brigadier Schoon he mentioned to me, Brigadier Schoon gave me this order for cooperation with the special forces, something like that. He said nothing, when the commissioner told me how unhappy he was, and reprimanded me about this. That is all hearsay but that is what Brigadier reported to me. He didn't report to me, he just told me that morning about the whole operation. ADV DU PLESSIS: Very well, Captain Hechter on page 206, the last two sentences, could you just read CAPT. HECHTER: I merely assisted with the planning and also did not help tidy up the scene afterwards. Tidying up referring to the fact that I went and got the police so that they could maintain order in the process. I had nothing to do with the execution of the murder, I was never really part of the hit squad although I knew of it, and was kept abreast of everything, and to an extent I was part of things, but I was not really part of the execution on that day, I did not pull any trigger. ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain, can you recall after the time, whether you had any discussion with Brigadier CAPT. HECHTER: I cannot believe that we would have discussed it in such detail, it was an operation which had been executed according to us, the operation was PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 363 CAPT HECHTER successfully executed. Perhaps we did discuss it, but I cannot give you a positive answer. I would assume that I would have reported to him, and in all probability, I would assume that I did say that I cannot imagine reporting to him, and saying that the man has been shot, and not saying anything about the woman, that is not normal. A normal person would have said both have been shot. ADV DU PLESSIS: And then on page 208, the last paragraph. CAPT. HECHTER: As far as I understood the instruction came from head office, that the security branch, together with special forces, had to work together to eliminate Ribeiro. ADV DU PLESSIS: On page 214, where you are asked with regard to the specific instruction, could you just give an indication there please? CAPT. HECHTER: It was to the execution of Brigadier Cronje's instruction. ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Hechter, the political motive is set out in the application, from page 210, the general justification has been set out to page 212, and then on page 212, you have set out further details of the motivation. Do you confirm the correctness of page 212, and 213? CAPT. HECHTER: That is correct, Mr Chairperson. ADV DU PLESSIS: And the previous pages? ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman I don't intend to lead this evidence again. CAPT HECHTER: Could I just mention, I am not sure whether it is in my application, I don't see it here. The fact that afterwards, the Attorney General summoned me. I don't know if it is mentioned there. ADV DU PLESSIS: It is in your application, on page 207. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 363 CAPT HECHTER CAPT. HECHTER: Then after there was a provisional inquiry ....(tape ends) ....The vehicle which I drove, which I took over from another member when I started off at the branch, its registration number was registered, and when they investigated it, it was registered as a vehicle at head office. The number plates belonged to a vehicle belonging to head office and not the security branch. That I can recall as something that happened then as well. There was a big hue and cry about that. At some stage, I had to make statements because the State attorney called me to come and see him, because there would have been a provisional inquiry into Dr Ribeiro's death. I wonder if it was when I was in the office or at the State attorney or the public prosecutor when I found Noel Robey, who I came to know during this time. He was also in the office, either at the State attorney's office or the public prosecutor's office. We walked together to the public prosecutor's office at Church Square, and I assumed that was the inquiry where the Attorney General's investigative team was until recently. We had to sign in, we couldn't just walk in. It was the Attorney General, Noel Robey and I, and the public prosecutor was sitting in the office. We spoke, we asked questions, and continued to speak, and then the public prosecutor took out something and said, I have written down some questions for you, with the answers, study this. I know Noel's were in English, because Noel was English speaking. He said to me, study this, if you answer these questions in this fashion tomorrow the magistrate knows which decision to make, or something to that effect. But it was obviously quite clear that the questions, answers, and the magistrate, everyone knew PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 364 CAPT HECHTER matter will not go any further at all costs. That was the conclusion I made there after they had spoken to me. The following day I went to give evidence to that effect. I don't know if Noel testified according to the question and answers, but I know that afterwards, nothing happened in that regard. JUDGE WILSON: Did you say that the Attorney General was present at that interview? CAPT. HECHTER: No, not at all. ADV DU PLESSIS: He said the State attorney Mr Chairman. CAPT. HECHTER: The public prosecutor and the State attorney. ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Hechter can you remember if the evidence that you gave was the truth or CAPT. HECHTER: I assume that it could not have been the truth. I assume that I would probably have lied in that statement because I assume I said that I was in the area in essence because I worked there, and I got to the scene incidentally, that is what I was supposed to say, and I suppose I would say that. ADV DU PLESSIS: Why did you do it, was there a political motive? CAPT. HECHTER: If I had told the truth at that stage, the entire security branch would have gone to ruins, and it would have been a national embarrassment since Dr Ribeiro was a very prominent figure. It was impossible to allow that information to become public knowledge. ADV DU PLESSIS: So it would have been prejudicial to the work of the security branch? CAPT. HECHTER: Yes, it would have brought the security branch into further dispute. It would have PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 365 CAPT HECHTER government into further dispute, and it would have sparked off more riots, and unrest in the country. ADV DU PLESSIS: Would it have influenced the struggle against the liberation movements? CAPT. HECHTER: Yes, it would have been extremely prejudicial to us at the time because at that stage there was extreme pressure on the government by international media, by the other countries, and it would have harmed them in such a way that at that stage, they would have taken rash decisions. ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain, let us assume that Mrs Ribeiro was not involved in activists, in such activities at all. If it was decided to expose the information that she was killed and that the involved person would be prosecuted, would it have ...(intervention) CAPT. HECHTER: It was not possible, because the same person who shot at Dr Ribeiro, shot at her too. They had instructions to eliminate. I do not know if they had instruction to eliminate her as well, but I think it was as a result of her activities she would have been targeted by the Defence Force. I cannot say how their thoughts went, she could have been an innocent bystander, I cannot say. If I had executed the operation, I would also have killed her. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CURRIN: Thank you Mr Chairman. You gave a lot of evidence about what actually happened on the scene, when the shooting took place, there were two imports from either Angola or Namibia, whatever, and they drove away, and they were followed to the highway. That is just what you have heard. You were not there, you don't know. CAPT. HECHTER: No, no, I cannot say I was there. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR CURRIN: You also said the same person who shot Mr Ribeiro shot Mrs Ribeiro. CAPT. HECHTER: That is just what I have heard, I don't know if there were two different people, or if there was more than one firearm, I don't know. MR CURRIN: I just want to put it to you that there will be evidence that there were four people who CAPT. HECHTER: That must be it then, I don't know. I was under the influence that it was only the two. MR CURRIN: I put it to you that there were four. Chris Ribeiro was there, he arrived on the scene, and in fact, one of the assassins, who was White, took a shot at him. There were three Blacks and one White. CAPT. HECHTER: If you put it that way, I would accept it, I cannot dispute it. MR CURRIN: You were very active as a security policeman in Mamelodi during those years. CAPT. HECHTER: That is correct, Chairperson. MR CURRIN: You worked on a daily basis in relation to the high profile activists in Mamelodi? CAPT. HECHTER: That is correct. MR CURRIN: Can you recall the names of high profile activists in Mamelodi? CAPT. HECHTER: After 11 years it is very difficult, but names as the ones you have mentioned, that is so. I also worked in Soshanguve, and in Attridgeville and further afield. I cannot remember the names of the persons, it was back then, you are asking me about something that took place 11 years ago. Unfortunately I cannot remember, it is very difficult for me. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR CURRIN: I just ask you because you have such a vivid recollection of the content of Dr Ribeiro's file CAPT HECHTER: Certain incidents which were very important. MR CURRIN: Can I just remind you, and just to follow up with a couple of questions. Sandy Lebisi, he was a high profile activist. CAPT. HECHTER: I can remember the name of Sandy. MR CURRIN: Do you recall that he was often detained? CAPT. HECHTER: That may be so. MR CURRIN: Now, I want to ask you, Dansie Khumalo, a high profile activist, in and out of jail on a CAPT. HECHTER: That is correct. CAPT. HECHTER: I can remember Moss. MR CURRIN: Pasty Molefi, also a high profile activist, often detained. CAPT. HECHTER: I can remember Pasty Molefi. MR CURRIN: Dr Ribeiro, high profile activist. Did you ever detain him? CAPT. HECHTER: Was he not perhaps too much of a high profile activist, that political circumstances were such that it was difficult. We are busy surmising, I don't know, I cannot answer you because those instructions came from head office, the detention of these high profile activists, apart from where I took a decision on the ground that it was necessary where I found him in a meeting for example, otherwise the information was forwarded to head office, I think Colonel Loots explained it to you very nicely. Then the legal team would decide that there is enough evidence. You see, we had a problem with evidence. We had PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG problem with intimidation. If we could overcome the intimidation problem, we would probably have been able to detail more people. The problem with the intimidation was so bad that people were terrified of coming to testify. Pasty or Patsy attended public gatherings and addressed public meetings, and they were extremely high profile. Dr Ribeiro's high profile was underground. He was much more intelligent than the youth. He became involved with the terrorists and providing finance and the support. He was the brain behind the problem, as far as I am concerned, and as far as my head office was concerned, and as far as MR CURRIN: I put it to you that the evidence about Dr Ribeiro's involvement grows by the moment, as CAPT. HECHTER: I had that docket and I had the information where did it become more? MR CURRIN: Your answer as to why he was not detained that there was a problem with intimidation. You know very well that you detained people with very often little information, and that the court's jurisdiction was ousted, you just needed to make a general allegation and that was sufficient grounds on CAPT. HECHTER: That is correct to which effect release him after three weeks, or after 60 days, and they would come back as this big hero and he would be detained again, and the regime couldn't touch him. There was a whole hue and cry about the fact that they had to be released. MR CURRIN: Captain Hechter, you did it in respect of a whole hosts of other very prominent activists. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR CURRIN: You and your colleagues. CAPT. HECHTER: I did not do it. MR CURRIN: The security police. CAPT. HECHTER: I cannot speak on behalf of the security police, I can only speak on my own behalf. MR CURRIN: You testified that he committed crimes. You said that he committed political criminal trials, you had evidence that he was treating terrorists, he didn't report their presence to the police, and those are crimes. You had that information, why didn't you charge him? CAPT. HECHTER: I had evidence in this regard that I said, I had source information, and source would obviously not come to court, and it would testify that his life was not worth 5 minutes, and although there were criminal offences because terrorists were forbidden from the country because he was representing a banned organisation, to treat them, and not report it. The fact that he gave them medical treatment, is not the issue. The security police would say that the fact that he did not report to the security police that I have a certain person that you are looking for in my office, that was the problem, and the fact that you got your informant's report afterwards. MR CURRIN: Your evidence in regard to Dr Ribeiro and his wife's involvement in political activist, terrorist activity is an after the event fabrication to justify the killings, that we will lead evidence on behalf of the victims, that neither Dr Ribeiro nor his wife were politically active since the early 80's. CAPT. HECHTER: You may put it to me. MR CURRIN: Just to clarify, the family is a little bit concerned about one of the allegations which you PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG I understood you actually withdrew it. I want to clarify this. At one stage you spoke about them being involved in arson, but then clarified that and said, no, their actions resulted in arson. That was your CAPT. HECHTER: They incited the youth to take this action against the government. That is the word I MR CURRIN: Of course that is also strenuously denied. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CURRIN CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV MPSHE: (...indistinct) CAPT. HECHTER: Chairperson, unfortunately I cannot remember the names of the magistrate, the prosecutor, or the other parties. The court records would be able to indicate that, but I understand that the court record has also since acquired feet and disappeared, but I cannot recall. I met the people once or ADV MPSHE: But you were present at the preparatory examination? CAPT. HECHTER: The hearing yes, the day that I met them and the day on which I testified. I cannot remember people from 11 years ago. I know that it was in Pretoria North magistrate's court, that I can remember, but I cannot recall the names of the persons. I heard today for the first time that the documents have also disappeared, but I knew about the - I heard about the docket that disappeared, but it is news to me now that even the court records disappeared. ADV MPSHE: Do you know whether any of these three persons are still in the employ of the CAPT. HECHTER: If I knew I would have been able to ascertain their names for you, but I do not recall PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV MPSHE: You testified that in respect of Mrs Ribeiro that if you were carrying out the operation, you would have eliminated her, why? CAPT. HECHTER: As a result of her involvement with her husband, and I assume her own involvement and if I am missing the point completely, she was also the sister of Robert Sibukwe in the PAC, so she came from a politically active family. ADV MPSHE: Now the fact that she came from a politically active family, that made her qualify to be CAPT. HECHTER: Not totally, but that also served to prove -it doesn't serve to prove that it she was involved, but it is a further example of the milieu in which she grew up. ADV MPSHE: I've been having this problem, perhaps you may be able to help me, what criteria did you people use to determine the high profile of a person, that he is a high profile activist? CAPT. HECHTER: Chairperson, it was determined on an ad hoc basis. In cases, such as for example, Father Mkachwa who was also a high profile activist, they were the untouchables, so to speak. They mobilised the youth. The youth were incited by them to committing these acts. We could hardly obtain any concrete evidence to prosecute them in a court of law, so we couldn't touch them basically. They proceeded with this incitement of the youth and the only way which we would have been able to get hold of them was to eliminate them. But as I say it was on an ad hoc basis on the basis of information which we had in our possession at that stage. In many cases I would not even have been in the position to give you the information of the less important ones. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV MPSHE: Captain, you dealt with the file, with Dr Ribeiro's file. CAPT. HECHTER: That is correct. ADV MPSHE: And we have listened to evidence from Colonel Loots and others that an informer would never be quoted by name, save numbers. CAPT. HECHTER: That is correct, yes. ADV MPSHE: Now as you were dealing with this file, what numbers were given to the informers in CAPT. HECHTER: The number would have been NTG462 or 428, I can give you any numbers. Unfortunately there is no way to determine that. Could I ask the Committee, my colleagues and I are asked to publish the names of these informants, is it necessary for us to make known the names of these informants, and consequently, unnecessarily endanger their lives once again? I assume that those peoples lives would definitely be placed in jeopardy if their names should be made known now. Their information lead to the death of these people, so I cannot think that those persons would be able to move around in their areas, freely. I am thus asking the Commission to give serious consideration to this. I may be able to mention names, but I think that it is grossly unfair to these persons. ADV MPSHE: I know of no provision in our enabling Act, save in the Criminal Procedure Act that forbids disclosure of such names, but I think in the name of full disclosure, which you have to do, you have got to disclose these names ...(intervention) ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, may I please come in here. In respect of this issue, before it goes further, before it goes to disclosure,it is something which we can do, which I PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG do not think goes towards full disclosure requirement in terms of the Act, if we are ordered to do so, we will do so, but I would like, on this point, to have an adjournment, and to have a discussion with you in JUDGE MALL: The question of whether this witness should be asked to disclose names of people who were known to him as informers at the time of the commission of the offence is a matter of which the Committee would like to consider. We would like to decide the relevance of that information for present purposes, and if it is at all possible, we will make our decision known when we resume after the I think you may proceed with the rest of your questioning in the meanwhile. JUDGE WILSON: Can I clarify one point. I take it that you are not asking the witness for the name of informants in general, you are asking the witness for the names of informants who gave them information relating to Dr Ribeiro on which they have come to conclusions, not just a general ...(intervention) ADV MPSHE: That is correct, Mr Chairman, specifically in this matter. ADV DE JAGER: But if that is in principle applicable in this case, it would be applicable in principle in ADV MPSHE: In other cases that come it may be applicable. Again it would depend on whether it would be necessary for them to disclose then. ADV DE JAGER: And would that be in the interest of reconciliation? JUDGE MALL: Well now I have indicated ...(intervention) ADV MPSHE: I think that is a matter that the Committee will PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG JUDGE MALL: Yes, I haven't had a chance of consulting one of my Committee members, there hasn't been any opportunity to discuss this at all, and if it is possible for you to proceed with the rest of your questioning on other matters that might be relevant, then do so, but we will consider this matter during the adjournment and let you know what our decision will be. ADV MPSHE: I will abide by that Mr Chairperson. MR CURRIN: Mr Chairman, if you are going to consider this issue during the adjournment on behalf of the Ribeiro family, they just asked me to express their views on the matter, just so that you can take that into consideration when you consider the matter, and their views are that they would like to know who the informers were. Not because they want to take revenge against the informers, but simply because they need that information to help them have a full picture, to help them deal with the matter, to help them know what the source of this information was, and in the spirit and context of full disclosure they believe it is JUDGE MALL: I might as well hear your views on the matter, Mr du Plessis. ADV DU PLESSIS: Do you want my views Mr Chairman? JUDGE MALL: On this aspect of the matter. ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes. Mr Chairman, I can say to you now, in this matter, as well as in some of the other matters where we have given evidence, that if we are required to disclose the identity of informers it would have one effect, that I can assure you, and that is that it will definitely not be to the advancement of reconciliation in this country. There PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG are people in the current government, in current government structures, high profile people in the current government structures, who were informers of the security police at that time. We do not believe that the disclosure of such names would be to the benefit of anybody concerned, taking into account the fact that we are talking of reconciliation, and specifically not to the benefit of those people themselves. Mr Chairman, I want to submit to you, in all honesty, and I want to stress this point, that the Committee consider this very seriously, that the repercussions of the disclosure of such information, I can promise you, can be very serious. The second point I want to make in this regard is the fact that in respect of the requirement of full disclosure, it deals with full disclosure pertaining to acts for which the applicants ask amnesty for. What the Committee has to consider is if the applicants, as I understand it, made a full disclosure of all the facts pertaining to the specific deeds in respect of which the applicants apply for amnesty. If you will just give me one moment, Mr Chairperson. If I can refer you Mr Chairman firstly in this regard, to Section 3 of the Act, reflecting the objectives of the Commission, which refers to the promotion of national unity and reconciliation in a spirit of understanding, and then it sets out the exact objectives of the Commission, including establishing a complete picture of the causes, nature and extent of the gross violation of the human rights. That is what the gist of the matter is. If you will just bear with me. Section 19(3) refers to the question of full PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG disclosure, and it refers ...(intervention) JUDGE WILSON: While you are on ...(tape ends) is to kill people, based on what informants told them. Is it not in the interest of a proper inquiry to be able to verify whether what they are saying is the truth, whether informants did tell them that? If this witness, for example says, Mr John Smith told me this, and John Smith is available as a witness to say that that is utter nonsense, I never told him, I told him that Dr Ribeiro was a very busy doctor who was giving this and that, that is all I told him. Isn't that extremely relevant? That is what worries me. I can see your difficulty about the informant, and it is maybe desirable that if such information is supplied, it should be supplied in camera, for the purpose of further enquiries being made, not to embarrass the informant. I have every sympathy with them, because we have heard evidence here about how people were forced to become informants in certain cases and it must be extremely worrying for them. But I would like to deal with, if you can, the question of, here we have heard from Mr Currin, representing the family, they specifically put that they were not politically active in a certain period. The applicants justify their action by saying, oh you see, our informants told us this. Now it seems to me that it is relevant to be able to check who the informant was, was there such an informant, or ADV DU PLESSIS: Well Mr Chairman obviously we said that it may be possible to disclose some of the informers. I am not sure in respect of this matter, I have not taken it up with Captain Hechter in detail. What I can say to you, Mr Chairman, is clearly one can accept that such an informer PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG will not gladly admit that he was an informer, but I understand the argument, I understand the argument completely. That is also probably one of the reasons why the mechanism was created in the Act to hear certain evidence in camera. That is an aspect in which the Committee has to consider, but I would submit that that is not the only aspect that the Committee should consider. Mr Chairman, I don't know how good this argument is, but I want to state again that in all probability, such an informer is not going to say, yes, I was an informer, so at the end of the day, one doesn't know really where such an enquiry and such information will lead. It might be that it might affect the applicants' application, it might be that it might have no affect on the applicants' application, according to how the Committee views the matter. JUDGE MGOEPE: Even if, Mr du Plessis, even if he were to come here and say I was an informer, how likely is it that he would come and say, I told them that Dr Ribeiro was politically active thereby, in innocence, admitting that Dr Ribeiro was killed as a result of his information? ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, and such an admission would an incriminating act, and he would have to apply JUDGE MGOEPE: There may be a proliferation of issues. ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, a proliferation of issues. I haven't even considered all the possible issues that might arise from this. Perhaps if the Committee would give me an opportunity my attorney and I could discuss this and there might be other considerations which we might think of that we can put to you before the end of lunch time when we resume again, which might influence the decision. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG JUDGE MALL: I have come to the view, at this stage, that our decision in this matter does not only affect, or will not only affect present proceedings, but are likely to be issues like this that are going to arise in other cases. So whatever decision we give here may have a bearing on the future conduct of this Committee when dealing with a problem of this kind. It may not be possible, therefore, during the adjournment, to fully canvass this issue fully amongst ourselves, to be able to give a decision, a properly considered decision, and I am going to canvass the view of my colleagues to find out whether we cannot reserve that decision until we resume on Monday morning. Mr Mpshe, it seems the view of the members of my Committee is that we would like to consider this matter and give a decision on Monday morning. If it is possible for you to proceed, if you have any further questions, to proceed with this, and depending upon our ruling, you may have another opportunity to cross-examine this witness, depending upon how we rule. ADV MPSHE: I will abide by this Mr Chairman. One last question. It is possible, or it could be done, that you detain and charge a person for harbouring terrorists or activists in terms of our law, not so? CAPT. HECHTER: At that stage, yes, it was possible, if you had concrete evidence. ADV MPSHE: Now, in respect of Dr Robeiro, I want to believe you had concrete information that he knew of terrorist activities, but did not report them. CAPT. HECHTER: Concrete proof would have entailed somebody coming forward and being prepared to testify to that effect. You, yourself, lived in the Black areas at the time and you PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG would know what that meant. If I had today testified against such a high profile person, with so much power or clout, then the chances of me being available tomorrow for further testimony would have been very slim indeed. Necklace murders were the order of the day. It was a call by the ANC, "necklace the collaborators", and an informer was definitely a collaborator. ADV MPSHE: Which tells us that amongst others he was eliminated because he did not report the activities of the activists and terrorists? CAPT. HECHTER: That is an over simplification of the position but that is what is amounts to, yes. That is part of the surrounding description. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV MPSHE JUDGE MGOEPE: Captain, may I request you to keep on trying to remember the names of the State attorney in question, the prosecutor in question, the magistrate in question, to keep on trying to remembering that? We are still going to sit here for some time, let us know when you remember the name of any one of them, or do you suspect that you have permanently forgotten them? CAPT. HECHTER: Chairperson, no. I assume that if we can ascertain on which dates this case was before court, a magistrates court of Pretoria North, then Mr Mpshe and his investigators will be able to form a good idea of who was in that particular court on that day, and I am sure he will be able to ascertain who was sitting in that court on that day, and we could perhaps thereby identify the magistrate, and then we could identify the other people involved. JUDGE WILSON: Captain I don't know the geography of Pretoria very well, and of that court, I don't PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG brother does, are there more than one courts in that building, it might help if you could tell us what court CAPT. HECHTER: No, it is too long ago. I know exactly where the court is, I know what it looks like, and I have friends who live close by, that is why I know the area so well, but the court specifically, no, that JUDGE WILSON: Now, the other one on the same line, is this building you told us in Church Square which you said was where the Attorney General's investigative unit was. CAPT. HECHTER: They have now moved. It's on the south-east point of the Square, or in a north- easterly direction, it is one of those buildings. JUDGE WILSON: Could you point it out if you were taken there? CAPT. HECHTER: No, unfortunately I couldn't. I understand what you are saying, I could go there, but I may be wrong. At that stage the Attorney General's offices were in a building society building, there were advocates rooms there as well. I had an office there myself. Yes, that is correct, that is where it was, you signed at the bottom in the visitors book, you couldn't just walk into the building, there was security. JUDGE MALL: I think further questioning of Captain Hechter will have to be postponed, depending on the ruling we may give on this matter. JUDGE WILSON: Can I just clear up one point, it has got nothing to do with that ruling at all. As I understand your evidence, and going by your application, you were told that after - that these two men shot, well one or other of them shot Dr Ribeiro and his wife, these two men then got into a PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG vehicle of some sort and drove away. They were followed by an unknown car, and they got out of the first car, and they got into the Land Rover that was driven by Robey, and that number was taken down? CAPT. HECHTER: That is correct. I do not know if the other vehicle was ever identified, Chairperson, but Noel Robey's vehicle was identified. JUDGE WILSON: So what you were told was that there were two men, because it was put to you before and Robey was waiting for them somewhere else. CAPT. HECHTER: Yes, he waited for them on the freeway, Chairperson, that is correct. JUDGE MALL: Sorry, just one more question. It seems that you were most, of all your colleagues perhaps, the best informed about what was going to be happening to Dr Ribeiro. CAPT. HECHTER: That is correct Chairperson. JUDGE MALL: You have told us that two people were brought in from outside the country, who were to CAPT. HECHTER: That is the way I was informed, Chairperson. JUDGE MALL: So when it was put to you by Mr Currin that the family will say, or there will be evidence, that there were in fact four people, three Blacks and one White, how is it that you weren't able to give an answer to that question? CAPT. HECHTER: When Mr Currin put the question to me the same thought occurred to me that these two persons are either from Angola or Namibia. They would not have been able to, in all probability, they would not have been able to drive a vehicle, so there had to an extra person, but the finer details of the operation was not discussed with me. We did not go and sit and discuss the planning of this PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG operation word for word. It was not my plan, it was not my operation, so to me it was not really necessary. I do not know how much of what I am relating here is what was contained in newspapers because newspapers reported on this quite extensively so it is possible that it was mentioned in the newspapers back then already, so it is possible that there were more than two people or more than three people. I cannot really testify on the exact amount of persons that were present there, all I can say is about the two persons who were there for the elimination, that they were apparently flown into the country and that night, after the operation, they were flown out of the country. They came in, executed the operation, and they were flown out again that night. Whether or not I was told that they were Angolan or Savimbi's people, I am not sure, they could have told me that they were from South West Africa, I cannot give you a certain reply on that. But I know that what struck me was that they did not use local persons because what was also discussed back then was the simplest route to Dr Robeiro's home, because the persons had to escape in a hurry. I remember that was also discussed. MR CURRIN: Mr Chairman, I have just been told that the Attorney General's office has actually got a copy of the preparatory examination, and got the documents. JUDGE MALL: Well you will make endeavours to get hold of it. MR CURRIN: We are going to take steps now to get hold of it and I am sure that Mr Mpshe will ensure that everybody who needs to will get a copy. MS KHAMPEPE: Captain Hechter I am just troubled by one PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG aspect of your evidence. You have taken great pains to explain the several attempts you made to eliminate Dr Ribeiro yourself, but in all the attempts you made, there was no attempt, not a single one, that you made to eliminate Mrs Ribeiro. Can you probably just throw some light as to why there was no such attempt when you then considered her to be a high profile activist? CAPT. HECHTER: Chairperson, I understand your question. The two of them moved together most of the time, and the intention was that if we encountered them together we would eliminate both of them. We considered the fact that if we eliminated her before we did him it would have caused such a storm, that the chances of us getting close to him would have slimmed down considerably since he was such a high profile activist. The fact that we would have eliminated her, he had so much influence that the situation back then would have been explosive, so there was no consideration given to eliminating her by herself. It never JUDGE MALL: Mr Mpshe will you and counsel plan how the hearing this afternoon should be dealt with, and what matters can be dealt with in the short time that will be available. ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman, may we be afforded the opportunity to do that during lunch time. JUDGE MALL: As I understand it had been explained to you that the time available will be very short this ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes Mr Chairman, I might say now that the one incident, the KwaNdebele 9 incident, is an incident that PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG we foresee could take a long time, so Mr Mpshe and I will have a discussion. JUDGE MALL: Very well we will adjourn now and resume at two o'clock. MR VISSER: Mr Chairman may I perhaps just ask some elucidation Mr Chairman. I listened to the order which to made this morning. I am not certain how the practical implementation of that order is going to work. Mr Chairman, I find myself in a very difficult position here. We have been placed on record as having an interest in the Ribeiro affair. General Coetzee has been implicated. This witness has implicated him directly. The evidence of van Wyk this morning was also relevant in regard thereto. I can't help feeling that we are pointedly not asked whether we have any questions to put to these witnesses. Is the approach, from the order, is the departure, Mr Chairman, we really must know, that we will not be allowed to cross-examine, unless we make an application every time a witness gives evidence.? This is not how I understood the order. I understood the order to mean that when a situation arises, we will discuss the matter and you will make a decision, take a decision on how effectively and adequately to deal with the matter. I didn't understand it to mean that I will not have any right of cross-examination, because that is what the order means, Mr Chairman, and that is not how I understood it, then I've got to seriously consider JUDGE MALL: We didn't say that there would be no cross- examination at all. MR VISSER: But, the point is, in effect Mr Chairman, I am not asked whether I have any questions, which really in effect has the same result. May I, with great respect, Mr PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG Chairman, just put it to you this way. I have got to ask myself the question, why I am sitting here. There doesn't seem to be any purpose in me being here. I may as well go away. JUDGE MALL: Part of the order is that your client may put forward what they wish to say by way of an MR VISSER: Yes, but I may not cross-examine. JUDGE MALL: If we consider that absolutely essential in the interest of justice that cross-examination be allowed we will be allowing it. If we think that the kind of questions you are going to put, will go to the root of the application in that they are opposing the application for amnesty, it is a factor we take into account. If it is not going to be in that direction, and if it is merely to test the credibility on a side issue, then we might consider it not necessary for cross-examination on such a side issue. MR VISSER: Must I make an application each time I wish to ask questions, and inform you as to what JUDGE MALL: I think you must decide whether the questions you ask are germane and relevant to whether amnesty should be granted or not, or whether your questions relate to side issues. If you think that your questions relate to the question of amnesty and are vital in that regard, then you must tell us and we will allow you to cross-examine. MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, each and every question I hope that I would be putting, and I have put is germane to my applications for amnesty, which involves also the credibility of my witnesses. JUDGE MALL: Your clients' application for amnesty is a different matter altogether. They will have that PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG opportunity, I am not talking about that. MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, may I then make it easy for all of us. If you tell me now that you will not hold anything against my clients regarding their credibility in the light of what these witnesses have testified, by the time they come before you, that is one thing, then I accept that. JUDGE MALL: We can't make findings of credibility where there are differences in the evidence without hearing both sides. It may be necessary for us to wait in giving decisions in this matter until we have heard the evidence of other people who might be implicated. But for the time being my advice to you is, that if you think that the evidence has been given here which implicates your clients in such a way we would be happier if you would present us with short affidavits from your clients putting forward their versions MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, with great respect, you know what General Coetzee says. His affidavit is before you. You heard what Hechter has just told you. There are conflicts in that evidence. MR VISSER: And must we now file another affidavit to say that we now deny what he is saying? JUDGE MALL: If your affidavit has not covered the points that have been raised, then I think it would be easier and cheaper to have your case put on those points in the form of an affidavit than to go around calling these people as witnesses. MR VISSER: But, Mr Chairman, I am here, I could have just asked him a quick few questions and JUDGE MALL: I think that we have taken a decision in the PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG matter, and we stand by that decision. You've got to do the best you can. We adjourn now. JUDGE MALL: Just before we adjourned for lunch Mr Visser had complained that he had been ignored by not being asked whether he had any questions of the witnesses, and pursuant to that I made certain I want to say, that when I made the ruling this morning, the impression my Committee members and I had was that Mr Visser was in complete agreement with the ruling. He created the impression that he agreed and understood what we were saying. He may have had reservations about them. However, when evidence was being led this morning, and at the end of the evidence-in-chief, when the time came to cross- examine, I did not - I was lulled into believing that Mr Visser was not going to put any questions, and I didn't then ask him. I've questioned my colleagues, they all say that they formed that impression, that Mr Visser had no questions to put, either because he felt that there were no questions to be asked, or because he had come to the conclusion that as a result of the ruling we gave, there might be no need for him to ask questions. I want to clear this up. If this is the feeling and the sense in which my Committee members understood the position, I want Mr Visser to know that no disrespect was meant to him by not having asked him, Mr Visser do you have a question or do you have any questions to put. I want Mr Visser to accept that. Mr Visser is an experienced lawyer. He indicated very early on that he is hear to assist the PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG had no hesitation in accepting his attitude towards this Committee. I would like us to see that we can go on working along those lines, and let us see how mutually we can advance the work of this Committee as Mr Visser, as a result of the misunderstanding, I am prepared to give you an opportunity to put questions to the witnesses whom you didn't question, and whom I believed that you had no intention of putting any questions to, but if there is any matter of importance which you think has to be cleared up in the interest of your client, I ought to afford you the opportunity to do so. We may be able to dispose of this aspect of the matter here and now, and if you indicate to me which witnesses you would like to be recalled for that purpose, let us get done with it. MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I am most indebted to you for your explanation, which clearly I accept, because the way you explained it makes sense, and I can understand that there could have been such a misunderstanding, and certainly from our part we would like to contribute towards the proper functioning of the Committee, particularly in view of the short life span of this Committee and its work load. We are Mr Chairman, perhaps the problem may just be sorted out, that if in the normal course of events when the witness gives evidence, that I would just be given an opportunity along and equally to the victim's legal representative, that would solve that problem entirely. JUDGE MALL: We must do that, you have my undertaking. MR VISSER: As it pleases you, Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, there are really two witnesses, Brigadier PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG van Wyk that gave evidence this morning, you will recall he was the investigating officer. He has been excused, I don't particularly wish to call him back. What did occur to me at the time, Mr Chairman, is that the question, pertinent question why he was called in the first place was never put to him by anyone, and that is why, and no reflection meant by that Mr Chairman, but whether he could shed any light upon Brigadier Cronje's allegation that there was a cover-up from the side of General Coetzee by replacing him, or any other cover up for that matter. I thought that, well perhaps General Coetzee might not like the answer that came out, but I thought that in the light of a full disclosure of the facts, he should probably have been asked that because that really was the crux of why he was called. That is the one thing. Then, Mr Chairman, I am wasting a little bit of time but I am hoping that I might be able to save time by doing so, then we have Hechter, Mr Chairman, who gave evidence this morning. Well, apart from the fact that it would be a pleasure cross-examining him, with due respect, the fact is that technically speaking, his only contribution in support of Brigadier Cronje was based on pure hearsay evidence, and from that point of view, it would appear to us, Mr Chairman, with respect, that it is hardly worthwhile cross-examining him on that issue. If the Committee feels differently, then Mr Chairman, then I would like to ask him a few questions. JUDGE MALL: Well Mr Hechter's evidence is not over, he will be completing his evidence at a later stage, and you might reconsider your position, arising out of what he has to say tomorrow. MR VISSER: I thank you Mr Chairman. Tomorrow I won't be PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG here. (General laughter) Thank you Mr Chairman, and thank you for clearing the air Mr Chairman. JUDGE MGOEPE: Sorry, there is something that, and I hope that I am not going to cause more confusion, but, there is something that, a remark I should make with regard to what Mr Chairman has said. He has said to you that he was making a certain undertaking to you. Now lest there be some problems later, it should be understood, and I hope I understand everything in that way, it should be understood that what the Chairman is saying is not that you are guaranteed an automatic right of cross-examination every time, because that would obviously undermine the ruling that was made this morning. It would render it nonsensical. I think what the Chairman is saying, and I would like to understand him to mean that, is that for as long as for example, Mr Visser, you are here, sitting in here, cognisance of your presence will be taken and you will be entitled to, if you feel you want to put questions to a witness, you would inform the Chair, and say, I feel in this respect I want to put questions to it. No guarantee can be given to anybody that he has got an automatic right of cross-examination, otherwise I would have profound difficulties in understanding the import and implications of the order that was made. I would also be totally unable to understand why certain criteria where articulated, where the criteria that would have to determine whether, in a particular case, one should or should not be allowed to put questions to cross-examine. MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, unfortunately that has now created a great deal of confusion in my mind, just when I thought we PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG understood each other. Let me remind Judge Mgoepe where this whole issue came from. You remember that when we arrived here on Monday, we suggested leading with our chins, which we did, obviously. We suggested that in order to save time, we will present you as far as we can deal with evidence, short affidavits, just to place before you what the issues are. That is where that came from. That was never suggested as a replacement for the right to cross- examine. Obviously if the matter, if the matter JUDGE MGOEPE: Sorry to interrupt you, an order has already been made, and I have difficulty in understanding how anybody could understand that they have got an automatic right guaranteed to them of cross-examination of the applicants. It just simply cannot - the order stands, it is very clear, it simply does not guarantee anybody an automatic right to cross-examine, unless we vary that order. MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I understood you just now ...(intervention) JUDGE MGOEPE: Neither, as my colleague says, neither does it automatically exclude everybody from putting questions. But it does not, certainly it does not guarantee anybody the right of automatic cross- examination of the applicants. MR VISSER: In spite of the provisions of section 34(2)? JUDGE MGOEPE: I beg your pardon? MR VISSER: In spite of the provisions of section 34(2) of the probation ...(intervention) JUDGE MGOEPE: In spite of the way you understand that section. MR VISSER: Well Mr Chairman ...(intervention) JUDGE MGOEPE: But the order was made this morning Mr PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG Visser and if your interpretation of the order is that it guarantees you, or anybody appearing on behalf of the applicants, the right to cross-examine, then that is not how I understand it. MR VISSER: Yes, I see. Is the ruling then, Mr Chairman, that there is no right? JUDGE MGOEPE: There is no automatic right of cross- examination by anybody representing an implicated person. That is the effect of the order. MR VISSER: I see, and if I wish to cross-examine what must I do? JUDGE MGOEPE: Exactly what you said earlier on in the morning. You indicated that the practical effect would be that if you feel there is a need for you to put questions, you would have to tell the Chair that as far as this witness is concerned, taking into account the criteria that you articulated, I feel this is a proper case where I should cross-examine an applicant on behalf of the implicated person. That is exactly how you understood it when you spoke before lunch time, and that is exactly the practical effect of the MR VISSER: Must I then justify why I want to cross-examine as was also put to me before lunch? JUDGE MGOEPE: Otherwise those criteria would have no meaning unless somebody has to justify. You can only apply the criteria where you have got to justify the occasion. MR VISSER: Why then, Mr Chairman, is there a differentiation between the situation of my learned friend, Mr Currin, and myself. JUDGE MGOEPE: Because you are not representing the victims. He is representing the victims. And as I PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG Mr Visser, the order has already been made, should we really discuss that, debate that? The order is made and is standing and you said you accepted it. MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I understood you just now to say what is meant by section 19(4) as we read "A. If an application is not dealt with in terms of subsection 3, automatically in other words, the Committee shall conduct a hearing as contemplated in chapter 6 and shall, subject to the provisions of section 33, which deals with hearings in a. in the prescribed manner notify the applicant and any victim or person No differentiation is made. No differentiation is made between victims of Mr Currin, on behalf of whom he gets an automatic request whether he wants to put questions every time, in terms of section 34. JUDGE MGOEPE: Mr Visser that may be so, but yesterday before we made the order, we invited all of you, including you, to present argument, which you did. MR VISSER: Well I insisted on presenting argument, Mr Chairman, with respect, I wasn't invited. JUDGE MGOEPE: Eventually you did, and our ruling is against you and it stands. Unless you want us to MR VISSER: Mr Chairman I thought, when you came in after lunch and explained it, that the whole matter was sorted out and that is why, before lunch I asked questions in elucidation. Now, it is clear to me that some members of your Committee do not agree with what I understood you to PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG tell me, after you came in, after lunch. JUDGE MGOEPE: Well, certainly, to the extent that you understand the order to say that everybody, each time counsel representing an implicated person is automatically entitled and guaranteed to cross-examine, then certainly, you are right in saying that some members at least, do not understand it that way. In fact, may I add, if that is the case I would have seen no need for an order to be made. MR VISSER: Now, Mr Chairman ...(intervention) JUDGE MGOEPE: And the criteria to be set out. MR VISSER: May I please, through the Chair, just ask this one last elucidatory question. Does the ruling mean that we do not have an automatic right to cross-examination Mr Chairman? JUDGE MGOEPE: Certainly, that is what the ruling means. MR VISSER: Mr Mgoepe says we don't. Is that a ruling of the Committee? JUDGE MALL: The ruling of the Committee is no different to what we read out this morning. You know we said there, as you understand quite clearly, that whether or not cross- examination is allowed, will depend upon circumstances, inter alia, we set out what the circumstances were. Do you understand. Those are the circumstances which include factors such as whether we consider it to be in the interest of justice to allow cross-examination, so each time we'll have to consider this, whether an application is in the interest of justice, whether we should allow it or not, and the other factors that may be taken into account. Assuming you have questions which to go the root of an applicant's case. JUDGE MGOEPE: And that can hardly mean automatic right. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG JUDGE MALL: You see. So we would have to afford that opportunity wherever. So in other words, Mr Visser, you understood the ruling this morning, and we will, whenever you think that there is an aspect of the evidence which is germane to whether the applicant should get amnesty or not, or that impinges on something which your client is going to say, bearing in mind that your clients are themselves going to give evidence at some stage, you will then decide whether you want to cross-examine on this particular point or another point. Do you understand? You see, Mr Visser, you will appreciate today, there is just counsel representing the applicants, the counsel representing the members of the family....(intervention) MR VISSER: I am counsel representing implicated persons. JUDGE MALL: I haven't finished yet, I am talking to you. You represent counsel. If there are ten counsel representing different interest groups, assuming for arguments sake all of them are present and each one of them wants to cross-examine, I do not think that it was ever visualised that that is how the Committee is to conduct it's work. There are limits that are placed upon us, there are constraints that are place upon us, with the result that there is a limited right of cross-examination on point of time. I have never restricted anybody's cross-examination, and said no, I am allowing you ten minutes to cross-examine or anything of that kind. Up to now that right of cross- examination has not been abused as far as I am concerned, but if it is, then we may at some stage have to tell people that you are allowed cross-examination, I am giving you five minutes, or ten minutes or whatever it is. MR VISSER: But that is a different matter. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG JUDGE MALL: Now, we can't take the matter very much further, Mr Visser, I am telling you now, I afford you an opportunity to put any questions you want to the witnesses that gave evidence, and if the witness is not here, I should appeal to Mr Du Plessis to call that witness and make him available to you on Monday, if he is not here now and let us get going with the work. Mr Du Plessis is the witness here, I understand we excused him from further attendance? ADV DU PLESSIS: That is correct, Mr Chairman, Brigadier van Wyk the first witness this morning is not present, but we could endeavour to make him available first thing on Monday morning. JUDGE MALL: Yes. I think that if Mr Visser wants to put questions to him please make him available. ADV DU PLESSIS: We will do so Mr Chairman, yes, I will do my best endeavours, obviously I don't know where he is going to be, and what his plans are, but I will address the Committee on that on Monday, JUDGE MALL: Thank you very much. ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Hechter is here, he is available. ADV DE JAGER: Could I, in calmer waters say, I didn't understand the witness to implicate any of your clients directly or indirectly. On his evidence, as far as I am concerned, I can't even draw the inference that he has implicated your clients. So, in that light, I ask you to consider whether in fact we should take the trouble of recalling him, or what your position and you need not answer now. MR VISSER: I want to answer now, Mr Chairman, in fact, I PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG have already indicated to the Committee that I don't think that there is any point in cross-examining him on the evidence, on the intrinsic value of his evidence as it was given. I really don't insist on asking him any PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG JUDGE MALL: Thank you. Mr Mpshe, where do we go from here. ADV MPSHE: Chairperson, if I am correct Captain Hechter has testified and he is through, according to my learned friend, then we are now in the hands of Mr Brian Currin's team. I am told they want to call the JUDGE MALL: Yes, is Mr Currin here? MR VAN DEN BERG: Mr Chairman, Eric van den Berg, Mr Currin asked that he be excused, he has some urgent and personal business which he had to attend to, which he put off from this morning, so he asked that he be excused, and he apologised for not doing so to you personally. Our instructions are to call the family of the Ribeiro's and two other activists who were involved in Mamelodi at the time. We are more-or-less ready to commence with the evidence of Chris Ribeiro, if that would please the Committee. Mr Chairman, I also note that it is nearly 25 minutes past, and we certainly won't finish with Mr Ribeiro's evidence this afternoon, and it again it will end up being done piecemeal, but we are in your hands, as far as that is concerned. JUDGE MALL: I think we may be able to get through with his evidence-in-chief, or a greater part of his evidence-in-chief. Let us make a beginning, please. MR VAN DEN BERG: As the Committee pleases. MR VAN DEN BERG: We would then ask leave to call Chris Ribeiro. CHRISTOPHER REGINALD RIBEIRO: (sworn states) MR VAN DEN BERG: Mr Ribeiro when were you born? PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR RIBEIRO: On 18 December 1961. MR VAN DEN BERG: And that makes you 35 years old today? MR VAN DEN BERG: How old were you at the time that your parents were killed? MR VAN DEN BERG: Mr Ribeiro can you just tell us just a little bit about the background of your parents. Your father we understand was a medical doctor. MR RIBEIRO: Yes my father was a medical doctor, and my mother was a former teacher, who became a businesswoman after marriage and she was the owner of a retail butchery in Mamelodi. MR VAN DEN BERG: When we talked earlier today we talked about two distinct periods of activity in your family household. The first was prior to your father's detention. Can you tell us when your father was MR RIBEIRO: He was detained in 1980. I don't remember the month exactly but it was in 1980. MR VAN DEN BERG: What happened after his detention? MR RIBEIRO: Well the matter that was generally brought to court, he was tried and he was acquitted on the charges that had been brought against him. MR VAN DEN BERG: What charges did he face? MR RIBEIRO: He was charged, I think, under the Terrorism Act, treason, and along those lines. I don't MR VAN DEN BERG: If we can take a step back, what activities were your parents involved in prior to MR RIBEIRO: They aided comrades who were going to exile, PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG logistically and financially. You are talking to the period prior to my father's detention? MR VAN DEN BERG: That is correct, Mr Ribeiro. MR RIBEIRO: And, they also acted in an advisory capacity in that they would advise comrades who were detained, or arrested on the channels that they could utilise to legal representation and so forth. MR VAN DEN BERG: Was there anything else? MR RIBEIRO: Not that I can recall now, but that was generally the gist of the involvement. MR VAN DEN BERG: Insofar as they assisted people, you said logistically, was that limited to any particular liberation movement, or political party? MR RIBEIRO: No, they assisted comrades from all liberation movements, because it was their philosophy that their input, it was a struggle at that stage, was for the broader freedom of the oppressed, and as such, it was not party specific, so they would assist comrades from all liberation movements, in transporting them from one house to another, and all that. MR VAN DEN BERG: After your father's detention, trial and subsequent acquittal, what happened? MR RIBEIRO: Well I remember my father coming home and saying that seeing that the security police were so hot on his trail, that he is going to substantially reduce, or stem his political activity until the appropriate time. So since then both my parents were not politically active. My father just went about his normal work as a doctor, and his contact with comrades generally would be in the treatment of comrades who were injured by the police, through the atrocities, and he would document the injuries, advise them of their rights to lay charges and he would forward the PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG documented evidence to the attorney who was generally handling all the matters. So his involvement was MR VAN DEN BERG: And as far as your mother is concerned? MR RIBEIRO: My mother went about her daily cause as a businesswoman, a mother and a housewife. MR VAN DEN BERG: The day on which your parents were killed, can you tell this Committee what MR RIBEIRO: Well I was standing about 10 to 15 metres from my parents, chatting to a friend and I noticed my parents coming home. They parked the van in the driveway and went in. MR VAN DEN BERG: Do you recall what day of the week it was? MR RIBEIRO: It was a Monday, 1st of December 1986, it was a Monday. As I was chatting to my friend I saw this orange Kadett stop at the stop sign, which is next to a creche, which is opposite my parents home. I just saw it, and then I continued chatting to my friend. Then I heard a series of bangs. The van my parents were driving was a 20 year-old van, and the bonnet was problematic in closing it, so when I heard those bangs I thought for some reason or other, they were just trying to close the bonnet, because you really had to bang it several times before it could lock, and I continued chatting to my friend. When I next looked towards my home, I saw three people running out of my home towards this orange Kadett, which I said I had seen earlier. It was now parked alongside my home. I ran to the Kadett, opened the driver's door and I was grappling with him, trying to pull him out, when someone seated in the rear left-hand seat fired three shots at me. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG The first two, I just heard the bangs, the pops, but I didn't take notice of them because I still had not registered what had happened, and I was still busy trying to pull the driver out the car. I then looked up after the second shot, this person was like stretching across the car, and he fired a third shot. That is the shot that actually made me realise that I am now being shot at. JUDGE MALL: You say that is the shot? MR RIBEIRO: That made me realise that I am actually being shot at. When he shot at me, I mean there was only the distance of the width of the car, and the Kadett is a very small car, I'd say it is about one and a half metres. So as he pointed the gun at me, I saw his hands, they were all wearing balaclavas, so I saw his hand, and it was definitely a White man, or a White person. I can vividly recall that because I can even still picture an orange spark that came from the gun. Thereafter ...(intervention) MR VAN DEN BERG: Can I interrupt you. The other occupants of the motor vehicle, what can you MR RIBEIRO: The other occupants of the car, the driver was Black and the other two were also Black, so all in all it was four people, three Blacks and one White. After this person had shot at me, for the third time, I ran off in a westerly direction and this car sped past me. When this car had sped past me, I then ...(intervention) MR VAN DEN BERG: Take your time Mr Ribeiro. MR RIBEIRO: Thank you. When this car had sped past me I then ran back home with the intention of telling my parents that some thieves had just shot at me, because I was under the impression that these people had stolen something from my home. When I reached home I found my father sprawled at PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG the drain in the courtyard, with what seemed to be about 20, 25 bullet holes in his head, and my mother lying spreadeagled in the courtyard. She seemed to have been shot once only. I knew my father was dead, I mean I could see that he was dead because he was already turning blue, but I still tried talking to him you know to try and provide him, resuscitate him, but I just -. Then I went to my mother. She didn't seem to be outwardly injured. I mean there was no blood, or what, so I held her in my arms and she sighed. That was The ambulances were summoned, I don't know by whom. They came, and must have also seen that my father was dead already, checked my mother, ran back to the ambulance, came back with the oxygen mask and put it over her, on her. Then we rushed to the ambulance with both my parents, and the ambulance firstly couldn't start, so we had to push start it, and it took a long route to the hospital, instead of taking the shortest route, and it is my family's belief that that was part of security polices' plans, just to further delay in expert medical attention that they may have been able to receive. They were both certified dead on arrival of the hospital, and we subsequently went home and asked the ambulance people to take When we arrived home, there were, what seemed to me to be hundreds of soldiers there, who refused us entry into my home. One of them, as I was trying to insist that I have got the right to go into my home to see what was happening, actually said to me, 'kaffir, we will shoot you as well', which I gather was the attitude of the security policemen during that period. After what seemed to be two hours, we were eventually allowed in. Now, in the house, we found, PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG not soldiers, but policemen from the security branch, who had collected the shells and had removed certain documents, I don't know what the contents thereof was, and they were also still busy searching drawers. Then thereafter one of them asked us what happened. We told them that we cannot tell you what happened, we cannot give you a statement because it's you who killed my parents, there was no way which we could, I mean the same killers what happened, they knew what happened, why must I tell them. It was a firm belief that even in telling them there is just going to be one big cover up as has been the case. MR VAN DEN BERG: Mr Ribeiro what is the basis of your belief that the police were responsible? MR RIBEIRO: Firstly in March 1986, my parents', my home was extensively damaged by fire bombs and it happened at about 2 a.m., and I was at the University of Natal at the time, so a witness told my father, unfortunately he is not here to testify to that. He told my father that he had seen police in a casper, because my home is surrounded by a two metre high wall, throwing fire bombs into my parents' home. Secondly, in September of the same year, somebody came to Mamelodi and actually went to the wrong doctor's surgery and asked if he's Dr Ribeiro, he said no and asked him why, and he said, no, he just wanted Dr Ribeiro, so he said well I am not Dr Ribeiro, this is not his surgery. Thereafter, he went out, the doctor got in touch with my father and told him to be careful, that there was someone who is out for him. He described what he was wearing, and told him that he was carrying a blue kit bag. I went to my mother to close the surgery and we subsequently took my father to a safe house, and went back home to pack our PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG while my mother was in the house packing the belongings, my brothers and I stood at the gate of my home, and we noticed this person, wearing the same clothes as were described by the doctor who informed us of this person, with the same carrier bag, kit bag as described standing under a tree about 10 metres from our home, and then he walked passed my home twice. In fact we went back to stand on the chair, and we went back to him, we approached him, and asked him if he has a problem, my elder brother actually asked him that, "do you have a problem?". He said no, we said no,but we can see you've got a problem because we knew it was the person who was described. We asked him, but you do have a problem, so he said, look, I am actually looking for Dr Ribeiro, so we said well what is your problem with him, he said no he stays here, I said, yes, he stays here, and we invited him into our home. When he was inside, he started shaking like a - I don't know he started shaking. We called my mother, and he told us that he has been sent by the security police to plant a bomb in my father's surgery, and he told us that there were two other people who were sent to kill my father. The bag that he was carrying was where the bomb was, and he told us that it is so primed, the idea of leaving it in my father's surgery was that, should he see it, and try and find out maybe from the documents to whom it belongs, as he tried to unzip it, it would explode in his face. So we went into hiding, and on our return, we knew that the police, the security police will definitely be out to get them, so we are - we've absolutely been proud these years, been firm in our knowledge that it is the security police. MR VAN DEN BERG: Mr Chairman, I understood that we were to PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG complete today's proceedings at quarter to, it is now nearly between ten and five to. We still have two or three questions which we would like to ask Mr Ribeiro, but there is also his cross-examination by the applicants, so perhaps this might be a convenient time for proceedings to stop this afternoon. JUDGE MALL: Yes. Mr du Plessis, it does seem that we have come to the end of the day, for the time ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Chairman, I would in any event, in the light of Mr Ribeiro's emotion, not have wanted to cross- examine him this afternoon. JUDGE MALL: Very well, the committee is now going to adjourn and will resume at 9:30 on Monday |
