--------------------------------------------------------------------------CHAIRPERSON: Morning everybody. Just before we proceed I'd like to introduce the Panel to you. On my right is Acting-Judge Chris de Jager, he's a Member of the Amnesty Committee, he comes from Pretoria. On my left is Adv Sibongile Sigodi, also a Member of the Amnesty Committee, she comes from Port Elizabeth. I'm Selwyn Miller, I'm a Judge and I come from Umtata.

We'll be proceeding with the application of E Goosen and others today. At this stage I'd just request the legal representatives please to place themselves on record.

MR VISSER:: Chairperson, may it please you. My name is Louis Visser, I act on instructions of Wagener Muller. I act in this particular matter for J J Viktor.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR ALBERTS: May it please you, Mr Chairman. My name is George Alberts, I act for Mr Eric Goosen, on instructions of attorneys Weavind and Weavind Incorporated.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Alberts.

MR LAMEY: Thank you, Mr Chairman. The surname is Lamey, from the firm Rooth and Wessels and I represent the applicants, Gouws, Deon Gouws, Stefanus Oosthuizen and J D L Coetser.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Lamey.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, may I perhaps just place myself on record as well? It's Roelof du Plessis, I act on behalf of Hechter, Van Vuuren, Mentz and Cronje, insofar as it may be necessary, on instructions of Strydom Britz Attorneys.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, that's for Messrs Hechter ...

MR DU PLESSIS: Hechter, Van Vuuren, Mentz and Cronje. CHAIRPERSON: Insofar as it may be necessary?

MR DU PLESSIS: I haven't determined yet in what sense I will have to safeguard the interests of Van Vuuren, Mentz and Cronje, but for Hechter specifically, I will act for him in this matter as an applicant.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr du Plessis.

MS COLERIDGE: Thank you, Chairperson. Lyn Coleridge, Evidence Leader for the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

Chairperson, I'd like to place on record that the following implicated persons have been notified: Flip Loots, Jaap van Jaarsveld, Joe Mamasela, Calla Botha, Bennie Knoetze and Momberg. Chairperson, as Mr du Plessis has stated, Cronje, Hechter, Mentz and Van Vuuren have also been notified as implicated persons.

And then we've placed an advert in the Sowetan in relation to the incidents that are on the roll, Chairperson, and we've had two responses from two victims, Chairperson. I will give you their names. It's a William Mampoer and he referred to the Mamelodi West incident Chairperson, occurring between January and April 1986. He responded to that advert. And then Albert Bhele as well also responded to the advert in relation to that incident, Chairperson. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Coleridge. Will you be looking after the interests of the victims in this matter?

MS COLERIDGE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: Mr Chairperson, might I be permitted to make one comment in regard to Momberg, who I understand was notified as an implicated person? I acted for Momberg in previous applications. As far as Momberg is concerned, he isn't implicated in anything, any of the applications which will serve before you now and therefore he's not present. In respect of him there are however, two incidents which are still outstanding, but which I submit can be dealt with without a hearing being ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Will those be chamber matters?

MR ALBERTS: Chamber matters.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Alberts. But if he happens to be implicated during the course of the evidence, will you be representing his interests, although you probably haven't been specifically briefed for that?

MR ALBERTS: No, I haven't. I'm sure I'll be able to take care of that, whatever it might be.

CHAIRPERSON: And then perhaps, Mr Alberts, if you could also just give us the incidents, if you know them, which can be dealt with in chambers, so that we can follow it up when we are in Cape Town.

MR ALBERTS: I will do so.

CHAIRPERSON: Because sometimes these things, it's possible to be overlooked, but if we have a note, or if you can just tell us we can write it down, you don't have to have it typed out or anything.

MR ALBERTS: I will do so, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Who will be testifying first?

MR VISSER:: Chairperson, we are ready to begin. Visser on record. We call J J Viktor (Jnr), to give evidence. He wishes to give his evidence in Afrikaans and he has no objection to taking the oath.

CHAIRPERSON EXPLAINS TRANSLATION CHANNELS

JOHANNES JACOBUS VIKTOR: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER:: Mr Viktor, you are an applicant in various petrol bomb attacks on houses in various areas in Pretoria, Ekangala and in Pietersburg, is that correct?

MR VIKTOR: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VISSER:: You have handed in a proper application to the Amnesty Committee of the TRC, dated 28th November 1996, and this appears in bundle 2 from page 78 to page 88, is that correct?

MR VIKTOR: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VISSER:: Do you confirm the contents of that document, according to your knowledge and recollection, true and correct?

MR VIKTOR: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VISSER:: You have previously studied a document with the title: "General Background to Amnesty Applications" that has served in many hearings, usually as Exhibit A before the Committees. Is that correct?

MR VIKTOR: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VISSER:: Are there parts of that document that you are not able to confirm?

MR VIKTOR: Yes, Chairperson, that is the part about outside the country, as well as informers.

MR VISSER:: That deals with Botswana, Lesotho, Swaziland and so forth and that is not within your knowledge.

MR VIKTOR: No.

MR VISSER:: And with regard to the rest you ask that the Committee reads that along with your application.

MR VIKTOR: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR VISSER:: Chairperson, this document has been handed up on so many occasions ...

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we don't actually need another copy, we've got various copies.

MR VISSER:: Thank you, Chairperson.

Mr Viktor, except for your statement, on page 89 in bundle 2 there has been a further statement of yours bound in and this goes up to page 97.

MR VIKTOR: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR VISSER:: Is it correct that this statement formed the foundation of your application in an application for amnesty with regard to murder on one, Madiposo Esther Masuku and attempted murder of Ezekial Oupa Masuku, Thabo Masuku and Ndumazi Masuku, as it would appear from page 90 of bundle 2?

MR VIKTOR: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VISSER:: Has that application been completed?

MR VIKTOR: Yes Chairperson, during the beginning of 2000.

MR VISSER:: And you are still waiting for the decision?

MR VIKTOR: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VISSER:: if I may refer back to your amnesty application - I beg your pardon Chairperson, you have in any case in your amnesty application said that you were not aware of any persons who were killed or injured during attacks in which you participated.

MR VIKTOR: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VISSER:: And it later appeared to be incorrect in that Esther Masuku had indeed been killed in the attack.

MR VIKTOR: That is so, Chairperson.

MR VISSER:: And you explained it as such to the Sub-Committee who heard your application and it was accepted as such.

MR VIKTOR: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VISSER:: If we may then move once again to page 81. In your amnesty application you asked for amnesty for various attacks on houses and you said that as far as you can recall, on page 82 at the bottom you say you were involved in approximately 40 such incidents, of which 10 were bomb explosions and 30 were petrol bomb attacks, is that correct?

MR VIKTOR: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VISSER:: You specified further that these attacks had all taken place during the time period of February to May 1986, is that correct?

MR VIKTOR: That is correct.

MR VISSER:: Why did you specify that particular period of time?

MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, that is the period of time that I was attached to Mamelodi Unrest Unit, as well as the Security Branch Pretoria.

MR VISSER:: And just to briefly summarise, on page 81 you say - and other places which we will also refer to, that you were the Commander indeed of the Mamelodi Unrest Unit, is that correct?

MR VIKTOR: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, what is that second word, Mamelodi ... what unit?

MR VISSER:: "Onluste Ondersoekeenheid". That you'll find at page 81, the last paragraph, the second line. The translation would be, I suppose, Mamelodi Riot Investigation Unit, yes Chairperson.

MR VIKTOR: That is so Chairperson, I was the Commander of that unit.

MR VISSER:: From the nature of your work, did you come into contact with the Northern Transvaal Security Branch?

MR VIKTOR: That is correct.

MR VISSER:: How did that take place?

MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, the incidents which we investigated and the persons, were the same persons who fell within the ambit of their work.

MR VISSER:: So you were busy with the same work?

MR VIKTOR: That is correct.

MR VISSER:: Just by the way, did you have a network of informers and did you handle informers, you yourself?

MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, at Mamelodi yes, but not at the Security Branch.

MR VISSER:: And was it your knowledge that the Security Branch had an extensive network of informers who supplied information to them with regard to the unrests during that time?

MR VIKTOR: That is so, Chairperson.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Mr Visser, I do not understand his answer, because he says at Mamelodi he had contact with informers, but not at the Security Branch. Would you like to explain that pleases?

MR VIKTOR: At Mamelodi, with the Detectives, we had our own informers and sources from which we gained information, but Security Branch worked on an entirely different system with informers and I did not have any contact with any of those informers.

JUDGE DE JAGER: But you did not have contact with informers ...(intervention)

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone.

JUDGE DE JAGER: You did not have contact with informers who worked for the Security Branch, but in the Detective Branch you had your own informers?

MR VIKTOR: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VISSER:: And in the Detective Branch, to enlighten it further, was this the same type of information that you received from your informers, or was it on another level from the Security Branch?

MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, to an extent it was about the same incidents and the same persons, but our informers were definitely not as well infiltrated as the Security Branch informers.

MR VISSER:: The time period of February to May 1986, in and around Pretoria, and to tell the truth, throughout the country, what was the situation like Mr Viktor?

MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, there was war, a civil war. There were serious incidents of violence, people were murdered, alternative structures were established by the activists and in Mamelodi, for example, police officer's houses were attack, as well as in the rest of the country, a landmine exploded in Mamelodi.

MR VISSER:: Did the police find that they had free access to the black townships?

MR VIKTOR: No, Chairperson, there were areas that were known as no-go areas and it was difficult for the police, especially at night, to do normal policing in the area.

MR VISSER:: Did it happen at some date, on occasion - or perhaps I should ask you this first, who is Mr Johannes Jacobus Viktor senior?

MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, he's my father and at that stage he was second-in-command of the Counter-Insurgency Unit of the Police, on national level.

MR VISSER:: Did it happen that you visited him at his office, along with some others?

MR VIKTOR: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VISSER:: On page 82, in the second paragraph you refer to this incident and as you can recall, who visited your father along with you?

MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, it was Mr Jacques Hechter and Mr van Vuuren. They were both Lieutenants.

MR VISSER:: Do you say Van Vuuren?

MR VIKTOR: I beg your pardon, Van Jaarsveld.

MR VISSER:: What was the conversation about between you persons?

MR VIKTOR: The conversation was about the unrest situation in the greater Pretoria, problems we were experiencing with executing successful prosecutions, or successful investigations and prosecutions and also that this did not have an effect on the violence and unrest in the area.

MR VISSER:: Was there then a discussion as to what could be done?

MR VIKTOR: That is so, Chairperson. My father made a suggestion that these people have to be attacked, if he attacks a police officer's house, then his house should be attacked.

MR VISSER:: That is of course if you know who it was?

MR VIKTOR: That is correct.

MR VISSER:: Was reference made to so-called counter-intimidation operations?

MR VIKTOR: Yes, that was counter-intimidation.

MR VISSER:: What was your father's rank at that stage?

MR VIKTOR: He was a Brigadier in the Police.

MR VISSER:: Later he became a General?

MR VIKTOR: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VISSER:: In your application you say that at the conclusion of the conversation, Brig Viktor, your father, told you that he thinks that you should on a limited basis launch such attacks as you have referred to here now.

MR VIKTOR: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Did you regard this as an instruction from him to the Security Branch and to yourself?

MR VIKTOR: No.

MR VISSER: Did you regard this as an instruction to kill people?

MR VIKTOR: No, Chairperson, although the possibility did exist that persons could be injured and/or killed if these operations were realised.

MR VISSER: And you are saying this because when you throw a petrol bomb into a house, or a bomb, it is possible that someone could be inside the house that could be killed or injured?

MR VIKTOR: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Chairperson, would you allow me to digress for a moment, just to give you a little bit of background. In the Jack Cronje applications there were allegations that Brig Jack Cronje and the other applicants for whom my learned friend, Mr du Plessis, appeared before the original Committee on Amnesty, acted the way they did as a result of a so-called general instruction from Brig Viktor. In that sense, Brig Viktor became an implicated person. This led to him giving evidence in Benoni before the original Amnesty Committee, Chairperson, and the original Amnesty Committee made a finding in that regard. I will refer you to the finding, it is in Cronje and it is at page 5, Cronje Decision, Chairperson, and it is at page 5, the bottom of that paragraph. It is stated that:

And it then refers to the evidence of Gen van der Merwe, who conceded that ...(intervention)

JUDGE DE JAGER: Are you reading from bundle 2?

CHAIRPERSON: From the Cronje decision.

JUDGE DE JAGER: From the Judgment itself, not from those extracts in the bundle here?

CHAIRPERSON: It's page 5 of the Cronje decision, at the bottom of the page.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, it is on page 112 of the bundle.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR VISSER: My thanks to my learned friend. Chairperson, the reason why I mention this background is that we certainly don't intend going through that whole exercise again in regard to Gen Viktor, and we mention this simply because we say we accept the Committee's decision on this matter and we go from there.

Mr Viktor, just to make it quite clear, did any attacks take place in which you participated, on houses that fell outside the period February to May 1986?

MR VIKTOR: No, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Where were you from the end of May 1986?

MR VIKTOR: From the end of May 1986 I was transferred to Wierabrug and later in the same year I did border service for four months at Josini.

MR VISSER: And you are certain that during that period at the end of May, you did not participate in any attacks on houses?

MR VIKTOR: No, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: And before January 1986, where were you then?

MR VIKTOR: Before that I was with the Murder and Robbery Branch.

MR VISSER: I beg your pardon, I said January, I meant February. That was at the Murder and Robbery Unit. And before you became the Commander of Mamelodi Unrest Investigative Unit, were you involved in any other attacks on houses?

MR VIKTOR: No, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Mr Viktor, if I may then refer you to your statement in the Masuku incident, page 89 and following. Do you confirm the evidence that you gave there?

MR VIKTOR: I do, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: And in that statement you once again dealt with Brig Viktor, on page 91, the same evidence that you gave now.

MR VIKTOR: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: And the other evidence that you had also given.

MR VIKTOR: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: If I may then refer you to page 98, this is an affidavit that was drawn up by you after you were requested by the Amnesty Committee to provide particulars with regard to incidents that you can recall being involved in.

MR VIKTOR: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: And in that affidavit in paragraph 5, you mention - on page 98 of bundle 2, paragraph 5, you mention that you have a poor memory.

MR VIKTOR: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Will you please inform the Committee with regard to the situation with your memory.

MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, I suffer from post-traumatic stress syndrome and for the last two or three years I have been receiving psychological treatment for it.

MR VISSER: And on page 106, with your application in the Masuku incident, you attached a statement from a certain Lindi Burger, a Psychologist, where there is reference made to your problem.

MR VIKTOR: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Mr Visser ...

This treatment you've been receiving Mr Viktor, has it had any beneficial effects at all?

MR VIKTOR: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Has it had any effect on your memory? Do you find that you can recall matters perhaps better now than three years ago, before you started your treatment?

MR VIKTOR: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Are you today able to recall all the incidents in which you participated?

MR VIKTOR: I still am not able to do that, Chairperson, but there are some of the incidents that I can recall certain parts of.

MR VISSER: So it is so, like the Englishman would say, you have flashes of recollection with regard to incidents, but not the total picture?

MR VIKTOR: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Chairperson, I'm going to ask Mr Viktor to confirm the contents of the affidavit. I don't know whether you wish me to read it into the record.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think it will be necessary to read the whole affidavit into the record, but if you wish to read any particular part, please feel free to do so.

MR VISSER: We will refer to certain portions of it.

Do you confirm the truth and correctness of your affidavit, Mr Viktor?

MR VIKTOR: I confirm it, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: And do you ask that this be incorporated into your evidence today?

MR VIKTOR: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: In paragraph 6 on page 98, you say:

And you say that your memory has been refreshed since you had handed in your application, through the evidence of other applicants and you continue by saying on page 99, by means of refreshing your memory you can recall that you were involved in the incidents from A to F on page 99, in paragraph 5, is that correct?

MR VIKTOR: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: And there you refer to an attack on the house of one, Gregory Tulari at Tembisa, the house of one, Godfrey Kwabe at Tembisa, is that correct?

MR VIKTOR: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Is that also an application in which you have already given evidence?

MR VIKTOR: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: And you are still awaiting the decision on your application, is that correct?

MR VIKTOR: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: In C you refer to Ekangala, in D you refer to the house of the later Ribeiro in Mamelodi, and in E, houses in black townships close to Pietersburg, and the ho use in Mashifani Street in Atteridgeville. And then in paragraph 6 ...(intervention)

JUDGE DE JAGER: Mr Visser, will you please assist us? The first two incidents, are they not included here?

MR VISSER: Not with the present application of today.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Can you possibly give us an indication as to when, where and by whom it was heard? Well if you cannot do it now, can you do it later?

MR VISSER: I can tell you that the Chairperson was Judge Motata and Mr Wynand Malan was one of the Panel Members. We cannot recall who the third person was. It was heard last year at this venue, but in the other hall. We'll get the information for you, it will be available somewhere.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Visser, before you proceed, just while we're dealing with these itemised incidents, so the other four, C to F, we'll be dealing with in this application? Is that correct?

MR VISSER: Indeed, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Viktor, you said that certain of the bombings were bombs, as opposed to others that were petrol bombs, can you remember of these four, that is the Ekangala, Dr Ribeiro "woonbuurt naby Pietersburg" and Mashifani Street, whether they were ordinary bombs or petrol bombs?

MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, I would just like to assist you. Point F, the house in Atteridgeville, it's not part of this application, it's the one that we have already given evidence about. Chairperson, with regard to point C, this was a manufactured explosive device. With regard to point D, the house of Dr Ribeiro, is petrol bombs and point E, the houses in the black townships were manufactured explosive devices.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser.

MR VISSER: Thank you, Chairperson.

You continue in your affidavit and from page 100, to the best of your knowledge you attempted to provide as much information of the individual incidents as you could, is that correct?

MR VIKTOR: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: On page 100, paragraph 15, you refer to Pietersburg, is that correct?

MR VIKTOR: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Who can you recall was involved in that incident?

MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, it was myself, Capt Hechter and Sgt Joe Mamasela.

MR VISSER: And it is not a secret now, what you briefly tell us there is that you went there under the instruction of Mr Hechter and there you met a member of Security Branch Pietersburg and two houses were attacked there.

MR VIKTOR: That is correct, Chairperson, we were tasked by Brig Cronje.

MR VISSER: While we are on this point, elsewhere you have also said in your application and in your affidavit and in previous evidence, that every time you acted under instructions, is that correct?

MR VIKTOR: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Where did those instructions come from?

MR VIKTOR: Those instructions came from Brig Cronje, who was the Commander of the Security Branch in Pretoria.

MR VISSER: And how were these instructions conveyed to you?

MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, the instructions either came directly from him where we personally spoke, or it came via Capt Hechter.

MR VISSER: And was this the only manner in which you received instructions?

MR VIKTOR: Yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Mr Visser, sorry to interrupt.

Mr Viktor, what was your rank at that particular time, February to May 1986?

MR VIKTOR: I was a Captain, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And would you consider yourself at that stage to have been senior to Hechter or Hechter senior to you?

MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, I was the senior, that is why he acted as a messenger when the instructions came. The instructions did not come from him personally.

CHAIRPERSON: So on every occasion when Hechter gave an instruction, he was merely relaying it from his Commander, Brig Cronje?

MR VIKTOR: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: He wasn't initiating the instruction himself.

MR VIKTOR: That is correct, Chairperson.

MS COLERIDGE: Chairperson, if I can just come in here, I don't want to disturb Adv Visser's examination-in-chief, but I just want to clarify. The incidents that are placed on the roll for today is the Ekangala, the Soshanguve, the Mamelodi incidents, and now we are going into Pietersburg incidents which are not on the roll and this affidavit, Chairperson, was submitted at the previous hearing and it's for purposes to assist us in his evidence at that hearing, relating to the Soshanguve, Ekangala incidents. So now we are going into Pietersburg and other incidents that we've never decided on and no-one's been notified in relation to these incidents. So I'm a bit confused here, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: So what then is the intention regarding Pietersburg and Dr Ribeiro, for instance?

MS COLERIDGE: Chairperson, my discussions was that I thought, I was under the impression that these were dealt with at that previous hearing and because of the affidavit and so forth, but we'll have to crystallise Mr Viktor's application, Chairperson, and I think we should leave it at this stage and not go into these incidents and set it down for a later date. We have informed Mr Jan Wagener regarding the incidents that we're only doing today, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you just reiterate those incidents.

MS COLERIDGE: It's the Soshanguve and the Ekangala incidents and the attacks in Mamelodi. Because for instance, the Ribeiro incident, it's easy to notify these people and so forth, but it's not set down on this roll, Chairperson, so it's unfair for us to go into these.

JUDGE DE JAGER: That was the Mamelodi incident.

MS COLERIDGE: Chairperson, the purpose of these incidents was to get the attacks on the unknown persons and it was very difficult with Mr Viktor's application. His initial application was that he couldn't remember anything and therefore you'll note that I made an asterisk next to his name, because I was trying to rope him into incidents where he was mentioned by other applicants. So I just want to place on record that the intention is to deal with all the incidents and then just the request for the legal representatives just to send us a note as to all those incidents that haven't been dealt with yet. I know I'm going beyond, but ...

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps we could just quickly do that. So you say there's been no notification regarding Pietersburg?

MS COLERIDGE: It's the ...(inaudible - no microphone)

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible - no microphone) 100 now. Right. And then Ekangala, that's fine. Dr Ribeiro, no notification?

MS COLERIDGE: No, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mamelodi, paragraph 32, that's alright? Page 102.

MS COLERIDGE: That's right, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And Brits, no notification?

MS COLERIDGE: No, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Soshanguve is okay?

MS COLERIDGE: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Atteridgeville?

MS COLERIDGE: That's fine, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Is Atteridgeville fine? That's Masuku?

MS COLERIDGE: That's been dealt with.

CHAIRPERSON: So that one's been dealt with, so that one's not ...

MR VISSER: Chairperson, there's another incident in paragraph 38, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: 38, a house ...

MR VISSER: It talks about another incident of an attack on a house.

CHAIRPERSON: And that one, can we deal with that one now or?

MS COLERIDGE: That's fine, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, it looks as though we're hamstrung in regard to Pietersburg and the Ribeiro incidents and Brits, because the procedure is we've got to give, or at least ...(inaudible) a bona fide attempt to get victims ...(inaudible)

MR VISSER: ...(inaudible) appreciation for that, Chairperson. We were hoping that we might be able to complete all of this, but I must say that I wasn't thinking about the victims and I should have been.

CHAIRPERSON: I think it's just come about because of a bit of confusion and misunderstanding, because obviously we could quite easily, if there had been notification, have dealt with it together. There's no reason why it's been separated, other than a miss-communication or misunderstanding.

MR VISSER: Yes. Thank you, Chairperson. You wouldn't stop us if we refer to the attack on Dr Ribeiro, in passing, as we will do.

CHAIRPERSON: No.

MR VISSER: Can we then go to page 101, Chairperson.

Here you refer to an attack in Ekangala and you say that you received the order from Brig Cronje, is that correct?

MR VIKTOR: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: Could you tell the Committee what you recall of this.

MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, during the night we drove to Ekangala. I have also heard from Sgt Coetser in his amnesty application, that he was also there and that he drove the vehicle.

MR VISSER: But you cannot recall him?

MR VIKTOR: No, I cannot recall him at the scene. We were already aware of the location of the house, due to prior information. We always acted against activists, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: And did this house also belong to an activist?

MR VIKTOR: According to the information and the instructions which came from Brig Cronje, yes.

MR VISSER: And do you recall the location of the house?

MR VIKTOR: I recall that this house was situated next to a broad tar road which was an important access route to the residential area. It was next to that road.

MR VISSER: And earlier you said to the Chairperson that you recall that an explosive device was used in this incident.

MR VIKTOR: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Did you handle the explosive device yourself?

MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, during this operation it would be between me and Mr Hechter, as to the one who handled the device. I cannot recall with regard to this specific incident, who particularly handled the device.

MR VISSER: Very well. How was the device placed, can you recall?

MR VIKTOR: No, I cannot recall at all where at this house we placed the device.

MR VISSER: How would such a device usually be manufactured, who conducted the manufacturing of the device?

MR VIKTOR: Mr Hechter manufactured the device. I was not present.

MR VISSER: And generally when petrol bombs were used, who would prepare the petrol bombs?

MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, I and the other persons who where included by Mr Hechter.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Visser, if we could just get some more - if you can recall, more information about the device. What was it, sort of like a limpet mine, did you throw it or place it, did it have a timer, can you remember?

MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, generally I can state that such devices were usually in a tin, it could be a paint tin or a liquor tin.

MR VISSER: And did it work with a fuse? How would it be set off?

MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, it operated with a fuse which had to be lit with a match.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Can you recall the name of the activist that you were targeting?

MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, not at all, but upon a later occasion I was in the A-G's office to find out which charges were being investigated against me and they informed me that one of the charges pertained to a bomb explosion at Ekangala, which took place on 28 February 1986. And I accept that this is the incident which we are testifying about today.

MR VISSER: Were you informed regarding who the Complainant was in that regard?

MR VIKTOR: No.

MR VISSER: And you referred to the matter that you have just testified about, on page 101, paragraph 26.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Visser.

We don't come from this part of the world, Mr Viktor, whereabouts is Ekangala, more-or-less whereabouts it is?

MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, it is east of Pretoria, east of the greater Pretoria area.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Bronkhorstspruit?

MR VIKTOR: Yes, that is correct.

ADV SIGODI: Sorry Mr Visser.

When did you go to the A-G's office?

MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, it was also during 1996, approximately, during the time surrounding the amnesty applications that we submitted.

ADV SIGODI: Do you think it's possible for us to get the information so we can be able at least to locate the victim, or if there was a Complainant in respect of this? Or didn't they know who the Complainant was?

MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, I believe that they knew who the Complainant was in this incident because there was a dossier regarding this incident.

CHAIRPERSON: And did you receive any information whether anybody received any physical injuries in the incident, or is it just malicious damage to property and unlawful handling of explosives?

MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, the specific charges were never put to me, therefore I cannot say what precisely the dossier involved, whether it was pertaining only to a bomb explosion or whether the charge may have been attempted murder. I don't know.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Could one of the legal representatives perhaps get in touch with the Attorney-General's office during the tea adjournment and find out whether you can get details? Mr Lamey, or somebody?

MR LAMEY: Chairperson yes, well one of the applicants that I represent, Mr Coetser, is also an applicant in this incident. The details that you're looking for, is that concerning whether there was in fact somebody killed?

CHAIRPERSON: On the 28th of February, this Ekangala charge and whether there ...(end of side A of tape) ... they know the name of the Complainant and whether there was any physical injury.

As far as you know, you don't know whether there was physical injury or not, there may have been, there may not have been, you can't remember?

MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, no, I do not have any personal knowledge.

CHAIRPERSON: And these explosive devices that were put in tins, what was their capability? Could they blow down a brick wall? Have you got any idea as to the strength of these things? And was it a brick house or was it a tin house, or what?

MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, my recollection of the houses in Ekangala, are that they were brick houses. But I'm not certain of the size of the charge in the tin, so I cannot really testify regarding the capacity of the explosive devices.

MR VISSER: Didn't you ever visit the scene of an explosion at any stage, subsequent to the explosion, to examine the scene?

MR VIKTOR: Not at all, that would have been the last place where one would have wanted to be.

MR VISSER: So would you light the fuse and then leave the scene, or would you sit in your car and watch the explosion?

MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, we ran. One would place the device and then immediately start running away, back to the vehicle.

MR VISSER: I don't know whether you heard the other question which I asked of the witness, Chairperson, I saw that you were conversing with Mr de Jager. He says that he never went back afterwards to go and inspect any of the scenes where explosions took place.

Mr Viktor, on page 101 you refer to an attack on the residence of Dr Ribeiro. This was before his murder, is that correct?

MR VIKTOR: Yes.

MR VISSER: And all that you can recall there is that you and Hechter and Gouws went there and that there was an explosion which caused large-scale damage.

MR VIKTOR: Yes, I suspect that Joe Mamasela was also there and we attacked this house with petrol bombs.

MR VISSER: You also state in your statement that large-scale damage was caused, and I want to know whether or not you visited that house subsequent to the explosion, because how do you know about the damage that was incurred?

MR VIKTOR: It was situated along one of the major access routes in Mamelodi, so subsequently, in passing we viewed the premises and saw the extent of the damage which had been incurred.

JUDGE DE JAGER: If the people would read about the testimony about the Ribeiro house in the papers today, I can assure you there would be an objection, so let's not carry on with that, because they won't be pleased that they haven't been notified and evidence has been led about it.

MR VISSER: Chairperson, I understand that. The only reason was that I wanted the witness to explain that he says that he didn't go back to scenes of explosions, but here he knew of the damage and I wanted him just to explain that to you, Chairperson.

If we could come to page 102, there you deal with Mamelodi, and as I've understood your affidavit there are two incidents which you can recall of all the incidents in which you were involved, in which you have managed to have these so-called flashes of memory, is that correct?

MR VIKTOR: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: The first case in paragraph 32, refers to a situation where your car broke down and you went to get help, is that correct?

MR VIKTOR: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: And upon your return to the vehicle you found that the spare wheel and other accessories had been stolen.

MR VIKTOR: That is correct.

MR VISSER: What I want to ask you is whether in that case you later went to bomb a house or not.

MR VIKTOR: I cannot recall whether we continued with the bombardment on that evening.

MR VISSER: Chairperson, you will notice - perhaps I should do that now, I've drafted, Chairperson, from the point of view of Mr Viktor's evidence, a list. I don't know whether it's been handed to you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Is this the list? Has everybody got a copy of this list? Thank you.

MR VISSER: I'm not sure of what assistance it will be to you, Chairperson, there are some cross-references and you will, for example, see in Mamelodi, that's the first page, at the name Oosthuizen there's a reference to bundle 1, page 66. Mamelodi and Atteridgeville he calls it, but it's clear that Atteridgeville is incorrect, it's Mamelodi, because he also refers to an incident where there was a transport problem and we thought it might be the same incident and therefore we gave a cross-reference to Viktor's evidence, which we've just read to you in paragraph 32. We're hoping that this exercise might be of some assistance to you. As we go along, it might become of more assistance to the cross-references of people implicating each other, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: But Mr Viktor at this stage can't recall who he was with on that occasion when the spare wheel was stolen.

MR VISSER: Can you recall who you were with there on that particular evening?

MR VIKTOR: No, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: And you cannot recall whether or not you continued with the bombing?

MR VIKTOR: No.

MR VISSER: But it was your intention to attack a house when your car broke down?

MR VIKTOR: That is correct.

MR VISSER: In the further incidents to which you refer in Mamelodi, it is in paragraph 34, is that correct?

MR VIKTOR: Yes.

MR VISSER: And what can you recall of that incident?

MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, I can recall that we struggled at this particular house to light the fuse, although the address of this house is unknown to me. We had to try a number of times before the fuse took flame.

MR VISSER: And is it only the fuse aspect that you can recall of this incident and nothing further?

MR VIKTOR: That is correct.

MR VISSER: There you refer to Brits Okkasie, which we will not deal with now. And then in paragraph 36 on page 102 you refer to Soshanguve. Can you recall anything regarding this incident in order to try to identify it more?

MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, I cannot recall the address of the residence which we attacked during this incident, but what I can recall is that we threw petrol bombs at this house, but that the petrol burnt out only on the outside of the house. To me it appeared as if the windows were covered with some form of object.

MR VISSER: Chairperson, just for your information, on page 1 - perhaps this could be an exhibit, Exhibit A perhaps, Chairperson, for easier reference.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think so, we could mark this table consisting of various pages, 6 pages compiled by Messrs Wagener and Visser, as Exhibit A.

MR VISSER: Thank you, Chairperson. And at page 1 ...

CHAIRPERSON: Go ahead, Mr Visser.

MR VISSER: Thank you, Chairperson. You will notice, just as a cross-reference point for you, for what it's worth, on the first page next to the name Van Vuuren, you will see a reference to bundle 2, page 152 to 153, where Mr van Vuuren seems to recall that there was a place where burglar proofing was attached to a house, but he places in Mamelodi and if there's a possible connection, that's the reason why we mentioned that. Because this witness remembers it to be in Soshanguve. It might the same incident, it might be of some assistance to my learned friend who acts for Mr Oosthuizen.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Visser.

MR VISSER: You also do not know - or at least, which damage would have incurred due to the burglar proofing which was in the front?

MR VIKTOR: My recollection of this incident is that there was little or no damage brought to the house, because all the petrol burnt out on the outside of the walls.

MR VISSER: Not inside the house?

MR VIKTOR: Not at all.

MR VISSER: Could you then proceed ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, I'm told Adv Sigodi's got a problem with ... if you could just wait a minute.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we'll take an early tea break while they're sorting out the sound system there. We'll take a 20 minute tea break, thank you.

MS COLERIDGE: All rise.

JOHANNES JACOBUS VIKTOR: (s.u.o.)

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, before we start ...(intervention)

EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: (cont)

Chairperson, can't we just finish with the evidence, then my learned friend can tell you what the A-G has told him? With respect. I hope the sound problem has been sorted out, Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, we have reached page 103, paragraph 38.

Mr Viktor you refer to a second attack on a house in Atteridgeville, what can you recall regarding that incident which remains in your memory?

MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, after I threw the petrol bomb and it burst, some of the burning petrol splashed onto my clothing and caught alight, but fortunately I managed to extinguish it and I did not incur any injuries in the process.

MR VISSER: Can you recall anything more regarding where it was, apart from the fact that it was in Atteridgeville?

MR VIKTOR: Not at all.

MR VISSER: And today as far as your recollection goes, have you told the Committee everything that you can recall regarding the incidents that you were involved in?

MR VIKTOR: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Then I would like to refer you to Exhibit A regarding Mamelodi, in the fourth column there is a summary of your reference to the cases regarding which you testified pertaining to Mamelodi, everything is in bundle 2 and in the pages which have been indicated. In volume 1, Mr Gouws, on page 66 implicated you on a very broad level, namely, he refers on page 65 of volume 1, to the black suburbs in and surrounding Pretoria and Bronkhorstspruit, the former KwaNdebele, Brits, Pietermartizburg and Tembisa and other places. Did you ever act with Mr Gouws during attacks?

MR VIKTOR: There was a stage during which he and I were involved in attacks with Mr Hechter.

MR VISSER: Did you act with him in Pietermaritzburg?

MR VIKTOR: No.

MR VISSER: In your affidavit, paragraph 9, you stated that you tried by means of your attorney, to gather as much information as possible, as well as the amnesty applications of the other persons and you state in paragraph 9 that as soon as you are in possession of information which could implicate you, you would consider it and if you are correctly implicated, you would accept it as such.

MR VIKTOR: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: And is it in terms of the fact that you could not recall it yourself and that you would be prepared to accept if some of your fellow members were to implicate you?

MR VIKTOR: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Mr Oosthuizen states in bundle 1 - we have dealt with that, then Mr Coetser states in bundle 2, on page 57 and 70, that he was involved in various petrol bomb attacks in Mamelodi and Soshanguve and on page 70 he refers to an attack in Mamelodi and two in Soshanguve. He implicates you on page 57 and 70. Did you ever act with Mr Coetser?

MR VIKTOR: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: And would you accept it if he stated that you were involved in the incidents to which he refers?

MR VIKTOR: I accept it Chairperson, yes.

MR VISSER: And then Mr Hechter, in bundle 2 page 166 and 168, implicated you. The one of page 168 has to do with the home of Dr Ribeiro. You have a recollection of this and you have summarised it in your affidavit.

MR VIKTOR: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And then the one on page 166 has not been specified. And then, Chairperson, in the last column we have made a note for your convenience, where the Amnesty Committee has granted or refused amnesty applications in regard to the matters mentioned in the previous columns, and this particular case is at volume 2, page 118, where amnesty was granted on a general basis for various attacks.

That is with regard to Mamelodi. And then with regard to Soshanguve, Mr Gouws has involved you on a broader basis. Mr Gouws on page 57 and 70 once again and then once again Mr Hechter on page 166, and your evidence regarding this is the same, is that correct?

MR VIKTOR: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And then with regard to Atteridgeville, Mr Gouws has once again broadly implicated you and you have dealt with this in the evidence which is contained in the fourth column.

MR VIKTOR: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And to which Mr Coetser refers is the application which has already been heard and you have already testified about this.

MR VIKTOR: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Then with Ekangala it is once again Mr Gouws and Mr Coetser who implicate you, and your evidence regarding this is then the same.

MR VIKTOR: That is correct.

MR VISSER: We cannot continue with Brits or with Pietersburg and these are then the matters regarding which you are able to comment. Just one further aspect, when you were the Commander at Mamelodi Investigation Unit and you co-operated with the Western Transvaal Security Branch, were you indeed deployed to the Northern Transvaal Security Branch?

MR VIKTOR: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Who was your Commander in the Investigation Unit for Unrest?

MR VIKTOR: With the Unrest Investigation Unit I reported to the District Officer of that region.

MR VISSER: Who was that?

MR VIKTOR: At that stage he was a Col van Niekerk.

MR VISSER: Van Niekerk, very well. Did you ever inform him regarding the matters that you were involved with, with the members of the Security Branch, the attacks on homes and so forth?

MR VIKTOR: No.

MR VISSER: Did you involve any of the members serving below you in the Unrest Unit, in these matters?

MR VIKTOR: No.

MR VISSER: I think I've already put everything to you, we will leave it at that. Thank you, Mr Chairman, thank you for your ...

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Lamey, you wanted to say something just after the tea adjournment.

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, during the tea adjournment I managed to make contact with Adv Regal du Toit of the Attorney-General's office, who was with investigators, I gather involved with investigations. He says that he doesn't have the docket immediately available, if it really needs be he would need a day to get the docket. But what he did say is that it doesn't ring a prominent bell, the Ekangala incident, of any particular person injured or deceased, but he's also not sure. What he does say is that the investigations of the attacks commenced with, they knew about the death of Esther Masuku in the Oupa Masuku incident. That incident was already dealt with, and then statements were taken from witnesses inter alia, the applicant Coetser, relating to also the other incidents of which Ekangala was also mentioned. That is as far as I can assist the Committee at this stage.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, I appreciate your efforts, Mr Lamey. Thank you very much. Mr du Plessis, do you have any questions you'd like to put to the applicant, Mr Viktor?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you, Mr Chairman, just one or two.

Mr Viktor, with regard to the Ekangala incident, my client Mr Hechter applied for a similar incident in Ekangala, of which the fact sound more-or-less the same to me, and he has already been granted amnesty for this. As I understood your evidence you could not recall precisely who was involved in this particular incident.

MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, I can recall that it was he and I.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, what I mean is that you cannot recall who else was involved in this particular incident.

MR VIKTOR: No, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. Then in other words, or let me put it to you as such, you were not involved in any other incidents in Ekangala, that you can recall?

MR VIKTOR: No, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: And therefore I accept that you do not have any other information regarding any incident that Mr Hechter was involved with in Ekangala?

MR VIKTOR: No, not personal knowledge.

MR DU PLESSIS: So as far as you are concerned the incident for which Mr Hechter has already received amnesty and the incident to which you refer, for all practical purposes could be one and the same?

MR VIKTOR: Yes, it is a possibility.

MR DU PLESSIS: Because you see - and Mr Chairman, just for your benefit I may refer you to page 119 of bundle 2, there you will find the Judgment in terms of which Capt Hechter was granted amnesty in an Ekangala incident. He didn't remember very much and it seems to accord very much with the evidence presented by Capt Viktor, the only difference is that Capt Hechter testified that as far as he recalled, it was himself and Sgt Gouws who bombed the house at Ekangala. Now it may be that it is a different incident, or it may be that Capt Hechter's memory in respect of who was present, was not correct. I'm therefore in a bit of a quandary in this situation, in that I don't know if it's the same incident or not, and that is why I asked these questions to Capt Viktor, to determine if it's the same incident or not. I'm at this point in time not certain if my client is going to be an applicant in this incident as a separate incident or not, I will inform you in due course what position I will take in this regard.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr du Plessis. Mr Lamey, do you have any questions you'd like to put to Mr Viktor?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Yes thank you, Chairperson.

Mr Viktor, I just want to specifically put Mr Coetser's version to you, that he recalls that he was involved in two incidents in Soshanguve and that with both those incidents you and Mr Hechter were also involved with him. You have already indicated that it may possibly be so.

MR VIKTOR: Yes, it is so.

MR LAMEY: And then with regard to the aspect pertaining to the presence of persons in Mr Hechter's office, with regard to the general background and instructions before the commencement of the incident, I put it to you that Mr Coetser will also testify that this aspect was already dealt with, if you recall correctly, in terms of the Atteridgeville incident before another Committee, and this case has already been heard. I just want to put it to you that if necessary, Mr Coetser's version will be that he was present there.

MR VIKTOR: I cannot recall that he was present, but I can also not dispute it if he says that he was present.

MR LAMEY: Very well. And then Mr Coetser's comprehension of that discussion was that it was foreseen that persons could be killed in the process.

MR VIKTOR: Yes, Chairperson, it is correct.

MR LAMEY: Your recollection is that you were only involved in one Ekangala incident.

MR VIKTOR: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Mr Coetser will also testify that he was involved only in one incident and that you and Lieut Hechter accompanied him on that incident.

MR VIKTOR: Yes, I accept it as such.

MR LAMEY: Then one final aspect, I don't know if you are capable of commenting on this, Mr Coetser himself does not have direct evidence regarding this but has mentioned it in his affidavit, that regarding the incident in Mamelodi he was informed by Lieut Hechter that subsequently it was discovered that someone had been killed. Do you have any knowledge of this?

MR VIKTOR: I also saw it for the first time in his amnesty application.

MR LAMEY: Is it correct that Mr Coetser's role was that he was involved in fewer of the incidents and that he withdrew himself eventually and you have knowledge of this?

MR VIKTOR: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And during every incident in which you were involved his role was to drive the vehicle and then to wait for you and Hechter, who would then handle the explosive device or the petrol bomb?

MR VIKTOR: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chairperson, nothing further.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Alberts, do you have any questions you'd like to put to the applicant?

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Coleridge, do you have any questions you'd like to put?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS COLERIDGE: Yes, thank you Chairperson.

So you were the Commander of the Mamelodi Riot Investigation Unit, is that correct?

MR VIKTOR: That's correct, Chairperson.

MS COLERIDGE: And was Mr van Niekerk your Commander for that specific unit?

MR VIKTOR: Yes, he was the overhead Commander in the district, he had various other units working under him.

MS COLERIDGE: And I want to know from you as to how many incidents - because you were there from January to May '86, is that right?

MR VIKTOR: That's correct, Chairperson.

MS COLERIDGE: How many incidents of violence was reported to your unit that occurred in Mamelodi as a result of the violence in that area? Can you tell us, do you have any idea?

MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, this has to be a guestimate, it must be hundreds of incidents of violence, because we are not only referring to matters where dossiers were opened and investigated, but incidents of stone throwing could only be investigated if it was reported, without there being a dossier for it.

MS COLERIDGE: And you were involved in about 40 attacks in Mamelodi, is that right?

MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, no, not only in Mamelodi but in totality, in the whole area that I had acted.

MS COLERIDGE: Oh, because I just got confused in your application when you referred to it separately. Chairperson, I can't find my reference now, but I misunderstood the position that 30 petrol bomb attacks, I thought you specified between Mamelodi and Soshanguve. Can you comment on that?

JUDGE DE JAGER: May it be paragraph 6 on page 98?

MR VISSER: Page 82, at the bottom.

CHAIRPERSON: And my notes of the evidence given is that he said he was involved in plus-minus 40 incidents, 10 bombs and 30 petrol bombs, but he didn't restrict it to any particular area.

MS COLERIDGE: Thank you, Chairperson, I just assumed, because in that same paragraph he spoke about his time being in ... from January to May, and I just associated that because he was in that unit in Mamelodi, that it occurred there and therefore I just asked in relation to that.

CHAIRPERSON: Just on that point, the Mamelodi Riot Investigation Unit of which you were the Commander, did that also have jurisdiction in Soshanguve and Atteridgeville and Ekangala?

MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, we were specifically tasked only for Mamelodi, but the other townships had their own investigative units and at a later stage these units were all combined and I was once again the Commander of all the units that had investigated unrest incidents in the whole Pretoria area.

MS COLERIDGE: And then just my question, in relation to - how many persons were involved in your unit, besides yourself?

MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, if you could specify in which unit. Are we referring to the Mamelodi Unrest Unit? If recall roughly, about 8 to 10 people were involved in that unit.

CHAIRPERSON: And when all the units were combined and you became the Commander for the Pretoria area?

MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, I cannot even guess, it may have been 30-plus, maybe more people who were involved.

MS COLERIDGE: And were any members, part of your unit at that time, involved in any of these incidents with you?

MR VIKTOR: No, Chairperson.

MS COLERIDGE: And why not?

MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, when we started with these incidents we did it under the banner of the Security Branch and we used Security Branch persons, we didn't use those people.

MS COLERIDGE: And so the Commander of that Security Branch was who?

MR VIKTOR: It was Brig Cronje, Chairperson.

MS COLERIDGE: So would you say that you would actually fall under his - would he then be your Commander, so to speak?

MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, that is correct, I was basically devolved to the Security Branch. That means that one does not have responsibility at your previous base but at the new base.

MS COLERIDGE: And you never informed Van Niekerk of any of these incidents?

MR VIKTOR: Not at all, Chairperson.

MS COLERIDGE: And why not?

MR VIKTOR: He did not have to know, Chairperson, the information about these incidents was kept among the people of the Security Branch, Brig Cronje, myself, Mr Hechter, Mr Coetser. The other members of the Security Branch didn't know this. This was done for security reasons.

MS COLERIDGE: But surely, Mr Viktor, if you were placed in command at Mamelodi area for instance, and you were involved in attacks of this nature, surely Van Niekerk as your Commander, you should have informed him about it, don't you think?

MR VIKTOR: No, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: So what would have happened just on the ground, Mr Viktor, let's just say for example, you said there were about 40 incidents, let's say there's 10 bombings of private residences in Mamelodi over a period of two weeks, how do you explain that to your boss, Van Niekerk, and they get into the newspapers and stuff like that, I mean do you just ignore them? Would you go to him and say, do you tell a lie to him and say well, look we're investigating these bombings, or do you just not mention it to him at all? What did you think he thought about these unexplained bombings going on and nobody's telling him about it?

MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, I cannot try to tell you here what I thought he thought, but many of these incidents of the houses that we attacked were not reported to the police by the people. For whatever reasons I would not know.

MS COLERIDGE: And then who chose the targets?

MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, as I've already testified, the instructions came from Brig Cronje, which houses had to be attacked and we executed these orders.

MS COLERIDGE: And how regularly would you meet with Brig Cronje?

MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, it is difficult to attach a time to it, we never held any meetings after these attacks and the way these orders came to me, it was also not necessary to personally contact him because the instructions came via Mr Hechter many times.

MS COLERIDGE: And then Mr Coetser mentions that in one of the Mamelodi incidents one person was killed.

MR VIKTOR: That is correct that he mentions it, although I do not have any personal knowledge of the death there.

MS COLERIDGE: But surely Mr Viktor, that is your area, don't you think you should have showed a bit of sign of interest as to the people that were being killed in that community?

MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, as I have already said, I was devolved to the Security Branch, so I did not work on a daily basis in Mamelodi when I worked at the Security Branch.

MS COLERIDGE: So how many days would you be at the Security Branch and how many days would you be based in Mamelodi?

MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, it is difficult to give a direct answer to that question, I will just guess.

MS COLERIDGE: I then just want to refer you to your psychological report.

CHAIRPERSON: Which page?

MS COLERIDGE: Page 106, Chairperson, in bundle 2. I just want to check.

At paragraph 2, were you referred to ... because of the trauma as a result of the loss of your child, or how were you referred? Was that the sole reason for your referral?

MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, that was one of the aspects which came out after the discussions or after I started consultation and I was referred there because of certain symptoms that I had shown because of this traumatic aspects. So it's not an issue of I was referred because of the death of my second child, it is one of the aspects along with all the other violence which I was exposed to which led to certain characteristics.

MS COLERIDGE: And then I just want to - one other question in relation to the psychological report. Did you - were there tests done, did you fill out the tests or was it done through consultation?

MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, this was done through consultation.

ADV SIGODI: Just on that point, how long have you had this post-traumatic stress disorder? When did you realise you had it?

MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, the last two or three years I have received treatment, psychotherapy, but I believe some of these symptoms may have manifested to a greater or lesser extent in the past, although I wasn't aware of it.

MS COLERIDGE: And then just in relation to the Ekangala incident, Coetser mentions that the Technical Unit was probably responsible for making the bombs and so forth, who at the Technical Unit was responsible for that?

MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, no I do not know whether Technical Unit was responsible for it. As far as I know about explosive devices was that Mr Hechter manufactured them.

MS COLERIDGE: So for all the incidents that you were involved in, did you have any ties with the persons manufacturing the bombs, generally, or did you just have no involvement whatsoever with any unit?

MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, I was not involved in the manufacturing thereof. Whether it was directly manufactured by the unit or by Mr Hechter, I was not present when it was manufactured.

MS COLERIDGE: So what would you say in these incidents were your involvements really?

MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, after I received the instructions planning was obviously made and I've already testified at many of these incidents I manufactured petrol bombs myself. In this incident I threw the petrol bomb myself. I also placed manufactured explosive devices. That was my involvement in these incidents.

MS COLERIDGE: And for none of these incidents did you do any follow-ups as to how many people were killed, if anybody was injured, etcetera, is that correct?

MR VIKTOR: That is correct, Chairperson.

ADV SIGODI: Why did you do so?

MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, for security reasons, what you don't know of you can't talk about.

ADV SIGODI: But tell me, if you had received an instruction that you must go and attack a particular target, who would go and check where this house is and so on? Like if you'd be given an address that look, this person stays at such and such a place, who would - or if you are told that go and attack so and so, who would check where does this person stay, how do you get there and so on?

MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, any one of us who was involved in this team did some reconnaissance and that is how we knew how to get to the particular houses.

ADV SIGODI: Did you personally do any reconnaissance in respect of some of the victims?

MR VIKTOR: Yes, for sure.

ADV SIGODI: Now after having done the reconnaissance, I mean you would know exactly where the person, or which house you had bombed, then why was it not of interest to you to find out how successful your mission was?

MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, for security reasons. One of the greatest mistakes that one could make was to after an offence go back to the scene.

ADV SIGODI: What security? I mean, how could the security be affected, you were the security?

MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, we mostly acted, or we acted in black residential areas and if we later went back there, then they would see that there was a white man sticking out like a sore thumb in a black area.

ADV SIGODI: And then? I mean there were Riot Units, there were white people always going out in the black areas, it wasn't something unusual? What security were you scared of, or how would it affect you?

MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, I've already testified that for security reasons we did not go back there, unfortunately I cannot add anything to that.

ADV SIGODI: And did you report back to anybody after having done your mission?

MR VIKTOR: Yes, Chairperson, we gave feedback to Brig Cronje, that the place had indeed been attacked.

ADV SIGODI: Thank you.

MS COLERIDGE: Just a follow-up in relation to the victims of the houses that were blown up. Did you ever just verify whether a whole family was in the house, whether only the activist was there, or anything like that, or it was just carte blanche?

MR VIKTOR: Chairperson no, we did not always have information with regard to who was present in the house when we acted there.

ADV SIGODI: Did you not take any extra precautionary measures to make sure that when you bombed the house at least you'd be able to attack your required target? It didn't matter if there were innocent people to you?

MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, we often knew in which room the activist would sleep and then we would attack that specific room. In other incidents we, for example, caused an explosion at the lounge where no-one would be sleeping.

ADV SIGODI: Roughly at what time would you place these bombs?

MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, that would be very late at night when there is as little as possible movement in the residential area.

MS COLERIDGE: And the vehicles that were used, which vehicles were used for these operations?

MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, I heard from Mr Coetser that we drove with a minibus and then there were also other vehicles that were used. As far as I know it could not be traced back to the police.

MS COLERIDGE: Thank you, Chairperson, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, do you have any re-examination?

MR VISSER: With your leave Chairperson, may I just first rectify on Exhibit A a mistake which has just been pointed out to me. On the first page next to the name Oosthuizen, in the second column there's a reference to volume 1, page 65 to 66.

CHAIRPERSON: You say the first page next to the name Oosthuizen? ...(inaudible) 1, page 66, yes.

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Could you just strike that reference out. The reference itself in the second column, Chairperson. If there's any reference that is applicable, it's page 77, but even that's not applicable, because he doesn't implicate Mr Viktor. Chairperson, with your leave, just two issues.

One may think that during the time period February to May 1986, when you were involved in the bomb attacks in Mamelodi, that those were the only explosions that had taken place, namely those that the Security Police caused there. Was that the position or were there others?

MR VIKTOR: Not at all, Chairperson, the activists amongst each other also attacked each other in order to extend their power bases and there were also other police officers who were seen as part of the State structure and they were also targets of these activists who were trying to undermine the loyalty of these police officers. And there were also various other attacks on innocent people in the townships, because of the reason that they did not agree with the activists' political ideas.

MR VISSER: And council members, black council members and persons who worked in State structures and who were seen as collaborating with the former government?

MR VIKTOR: Yes Chairperson, specifically the black council members, that was part of the liberation movement's strategy to render the country ungovernable. These structures that had been put in place had to be destroyed so that alternative structures could be put in place.

MR VISSER: Another aspect, you tried to explain it but I don't think it came through quite clearly. You were asked why did you not go back to the scenes where the previous evening you had thrown a bomb, would you please explain why you did not do that? You said something about standing out like a sore thumb.

MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, these are black residential areas where we acted, Mr Hechter, Mr Coetser and I are white men, if a white man moves around the area during the day you will immediately stand out and people look at you and they want to know: "Who is this guy, what is he doing here".

JUDGE DE JAGER: But the white police officers, did they not visit such scenes to investigate what explosives were used, how did the explosion take place? Were there no white police officers who went out to do those investigations?

MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, yes, if it was reported to the police they would have gone out, but as I have said earlier many of these incidents were not reported to the police at all.

JUDGE DE JAGER: But then the police had a reason to be at the scene, why would that raise suspicion if a white police officer was there?

MR VIKTOR: That is so, the police had a reason to be there Chairperson, if it was reported. We thought because of - as I've already said, for security reasons we felt that we should not go back to these scenes.

MR VISSER: But I am referring to these security reasons. If at night you went into Mamelodi, would you not stand out like a sore thumb if you were white?

MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, at night it's dark and we are not easily visible at night, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Advocate Sigodi, do you have any questions you would like to put to the applicant?

ADV SIGODI: Chairperson, the matter which I would have loved to get more clarity on, I think the applicant has, I think we've exhausted that, as to why they wouldn't go back to the scene to check if their target had really been attacked, the target that they sought to attack. I think we've exhausted this matter, so I will not take it any further.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Judge de Jager, any questions you'd like to ask?

Mr Viktor, I just want to get this straight, you were with Murder and Robbery before January '86, and that's the ordinary police, it's not the Security Branch, just ordinary Murder and Robbery Squad?

MR VIKTOR: That's correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Then you came across to this Mamelodi Unrest Unit, was that also just ordinary police? I mean the eight men that worked under you, were they just ... or were they also all Security Branch members?

MR VIKTOR: Chairperson no, we were all Detectives.

CHAIRPERSON: So why were you deployed to the Northern Transvaal Security Branch, for what reason?

MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, I believe one of the greater reasons was so that I and Mr Hechter could launch these attacks.

CHAIRPERSON: This is what I'm getting at. Why did the Security Branch have to use you, why couldn't they just use Mr Hechter and Mr Coetser and Mr Gouws and Mr Oosthuizen, whoever, they had many people at their disposal, why bring in an outsider, as such, or was it because you were the son of the Brigadier?

MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, that may be a possibility, I do not know.

CHAIRPERSON: So you don't know of any specific reason why you were brought in?

MR VIKTOR: No, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: So your people who worked under you in the Unrest Unit, they didn't know about your activities with the Security Branch, your active participation in the business of the Security Branch?

MR VIKTOR: No, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And also another thing that just comes to mind, it just seems that if you become a Commander of the Mamelodi Unrest Unit and then that's expanded to include Soshanguve, Atteridgeville, why were you only the Commander for four months and then you get transferred to Wierda Bridge? What's Wierda Bridge, is that a police station or? You know, why only a Commander in a unit like that for four months, was there a problem?

MR VIKTOR: Chairperson no, the reasons advanced then was that at Wierdaburg, I should have started at the beginning of the year at Wierdabrug and because there was no officer there and an officer had to perform certain functions at the Detective Branch and because they had problems there I was placed back. That is the reasons that were given to me.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you.

JUDGE DE JAGER: When you went to see Brig Viktor, your father, were you still attached to the Murder and Robbery Unit?

MR VIKTOR: No, Chairperson, that was when I was already at Mamelodi with the Unrest Investigative Unit.

JUDGE DE JAGER: What was the reason, why did you go and see him?

MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, I cannot recall whether he called for us or whether we went there to go and discuss our problems with him, the problems we experienced in the black residential areas, the unsuccessful prosecutions and investigations. That is the reason why we went to see him.

JUDGE DE JAGER: But Hechter had nothing to do with these investigations, he was with the Security Police.

MR VIKTOR: That is correct, Chairperson, but they investigated some of these incidents and they worked with the information situation and their task was to oppose the whole war situation.

JUDGE DE JAGER: I have a problem with him calling to see Hechter, because Hechter does not fall under him.

MR VIKTOR: Chairperson no, I cannot answer as to why Mr Hechter was also called or what happened.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Did you not go to him to get advice and to hear what how he would feel as to the actions you would follow?

MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, part of the visit was to obtain advice but we did not go to him to get the yes word for these types of attacks, no.

JUDGE DE JAGER: But he did give you advice?

MR VIKTOR: That is correct, Chairperson.

JUDGE DE JAGER: And amongst others he did say that if there was an attack on a police house, why don't you attack an activists house?

MR VIKTOR: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And when you had that meeting, was the Head of the Soshanguve Unrest Unit present at the meeting and the Atteridgeville, your colleagues in the other units?

MR VIKTOR: No, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Any questions arising, Mr Visser?

MR VISSER: None, thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr du Plessis, Lamey, Alberts, Ms Coleridge, any questions arising?

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Mr Viktor.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, are you calling any other witnesses?

MR VISSER: Chairperson, we have no further evidence to produce, thank you. That is the application for Mr J J Viktor (Jnr). May I be allowed to address later on the form of the amnesty for which we apply?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Who is going to be the next applicant to testify?

MR ALBERTS: As it pleases, Chairperson. I think Mr Goosen is next.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------ERIC GOOSEN: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Alberts.

EXAMINATION BY MR ALBERTS: Thank you, Chairperson.

Mr Goosen, you are applying for four incidents which have to be heard presently.

MR GOOSEN: Yes, that is correct.

MR ALBERTS: Now as general background to the particular incidents ...(intervention)

JUDGE DE JAGER: Could you please just give us the four incidents, so that we know from the very beginning what amnesty is being requested for.

MR ALBERTS: As it pleases you.

Mr Goosen, the four incidents involved, three of these appear in bundle 2, is that correct?

MR GOOSEN: Yes, that is correct, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: The first one of a bomb attack on a residence in Mamelodi and that incident is dealt with from page 25 in bundle 2 before the Committee, up to and including page 32 thereof.

MR GOOSEN: That is correct.

MR ALBERTS: The second incident is also a petrol bomb attack in Mamelodi and it follows immediately thereafter in the same bundle, from 33 up to and including 40, is that correct?

MR GOOSEN: Yes, that is correct.

MR ALBERTS: The third incident is also one which took place in Mamelodi West, it is an assault on an unknown ANC courier, is that correct?

MR GOOSEN: Yes, that is correct.

MR ALBERTS: And this can be found from page 41 up to and including 48 of that bundle.

MR GOOSEN: That is correct.

MR ALBERTS: And then the fourth application can be found in what is reputedly bundle 1, the bundle in which there is no number but indeed an index, and which refers to certain extracts from your amnesty application.

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: And from pages 45 up to and including 53, is that correct?

MR GOOSEN: Yes, that is correct, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: Now that final incident is one which took place in Soshanguve and it is also a bomb attack on a residence, is that correct?

MR GOOSEN: Yes, that is correct.

MR ALBERTS: Now as general background to these attacks or these incidents among others, the introductory section of your amnesty application serves for this purpose and can be found in volume 1 from page 1 to 44.

MR GOOSEN: That is correct.

MR ALBERTS: Mr Goosen, are you aware of the content of those 44 pages?

MR GOOSEN: I confirm the content thereof.

MR ALBERTS: And then in conclusion of your application there is also a short conclusion which can be found in volume 1, immediately after the last incident to which we referred and that can be found on pages 54 up to 57, is that correct?

MR GOOSEN: Yes, that is correct.

MR ALBERTS: Do you also confirm the correctness thereof?

MR GOOSEN: Yes, I confirm the correctness thereof.

MR ALBERTS: Could we then return to the first incident which is at hand, it is the incident on page 26 or 25 of bundle 2, the bomb attack on a residence in Mamelodi. In terms of your application, the place where it took place was Mamelodi West and more specifically, north of Samaya Street.

MR GOOSEN: According to my recollection that is correct.

MR ALBERTS: And the period during which this incident took place appears to be approximately January to April 1986.

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: On page 26 and further you deal with the details pertaining to this particular incident under the heading "Nature and Particulars".

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: And you deal with this up to and including the top of page 29 of the bundle.

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: It is not my intention - because your application regarding this is thorough, it is not my intention to discuss every single aspect with you, I will pause for examination on more significant aspects of your application. Under whose instruction were you involved in this incident?

MR GOOSEN: I received my order from Brig Jack Cronje and I was under the command of Lieut Jacques Hechter during the operation.

MR ALBERTS: The instruction that you received from Brig Cronje, why would he have been involved in this?

MR GOOSEN: He was the Commander of the Security Branch of Northern Transvaal.

MR ALBERTS: And you were a member there?

MR GOOSEN: Yes, I was a member of Unit A of that particular Security Branch.

MR ALBERTS: What was your rank at this point in time?

MR GOOSEN: I was a Sergeant at that point.

MR ALBERTS: When for the first time did you become involved in incidents of violence which eventually necessitated your amnesty application?

MR GOOSEN: This is the first incident in which I was involved in a covert operation of this nature.

MR ALBERTS: And is this why you were approached by Brig Cronje personally?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct.

MR ALBERTS: You have stated that for the purposes of this particular operation you would have fallen under the command of Lieut Hechter.

MR GOOSEN: That is correct.

MR ALBERTS: When did he contact you with regard to the planning for this operation?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, on the day that I received the instruction from Brig Cronje to assist Lieut Hechter, without specifying the operation on that very same day, Mr Hechter made contact with me and made an arrangement with me to meet him at a specific time that evening in the parking area of the Northern Transvaal Security Branch.

MR ALBERTS: And did you meet in that fashion?

MR GOOSEN: Yes.

MR ALBERTS: What time that night?

MR GOOSEN: I suspect that it was approximately midnight.

MR ALBERTS: Who were all the persons that rendezvoused there?

MR GOOSEN: In the parking area I found Lieut Hechter and Sgt Deon Gouws, who I met for the first time.

MR ALBERTS: And was Sgt Gouws a member of the Security Branch or not?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, upon previous evidence that we have given before previous Committees, at that stage he was not involved with Murder and Robbery, he was involved with a special unit, so I did not have my facts correct.

MR ALBERTS: You've referred to the second paragraph on page 27.

MR GOOSEN: That is correct.

MR ALBERTS: What took place after you met?

MR GOOSEN: In my presence Lieut Hechter attached false number-plates to a silver Ford Cortina Station Wagon, it was a Regulation 80 vehicle, which meant that it was a stolen vehicle of which the owner could not be traced. In many operations such vehicles would be used by the Security Branch. It was also known as an unmarked vehicle.

MR ALBERTS: Proceed.

MR GOOSEN: Hechter, Gouws and I drove out to Mamelodi afterwards. Hechter was driving. Somewhere in Mamelodi West we stopped to the north of Samaya Street. Hechter and Gouws disembarked and they were in possession of a tin.

I was then requested to man the vehicle and to park it in such a manner that it would be as unobtrusive as possible. During the journey to Mamelodi, Hechter told me that he was in possession of a mellow-yellow, with which it was his intention to blow up a residence.

MR ALBERTS: Could you just elaborate on this mellow-yellow.

MR GOOSEN: The mellow-yellow to which has been referred here is a tin which contained flakes of pentolite, with a fuse as the detonator. This is something that I heard subsequently.

MR ALBERTS: So it was a homemade bomb or sorts, as you have indicated in your application?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct.

MR ALBERTS: What took place after the vehicle was parked and so forth?

MR GOOSEN: Hechter and Gouws left the vehicle, they walked away into the darkness. I could not see precisely into which street they were walking. Later I lost sight of them as they moved away from the vehicle. After a few minutes I heard an explosion and shortly afterwards Hechter and Gouws came running toward the vehicle.

MR ALBERTS: And you continue with your application to state that you left the scene immediately.

MR GOOSEN: That is correct. We left the scene immediately and drove back to the Compol building.

MR ALBERTS: Do you know whether this bomb caused any damage?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, as indicated, I remained in the vehicle. I simply heard the sound of the explosion, so I'm unaware which target was targeted during the explosion and whether or not people were injured.

MR ALBERTS: Did it come to your knowledge during this operation what the purpose with the operation was? Was it ever said to you?

MR GOOSEN: No specific indications were revealed to me regarding which activist would be the target of the operation and what the objective of the operation was to be.

MR ALBERTS: In this regard you had to rely upon your superiors?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct.

MR ALBERTS: But you knew that Brig Cronje himself had approved whatever the plan was?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, I received my orders directly from the Brigadier and later I received further instructions from Hechter.

MR ALBERTS: You knew prior to the time that in all probability a bomb explosion would follow. Certainly you were aware that something like this was dangerous?

MR GOOSEN: Yes, that's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Alberts, if I could just intervene briefly while it's in my mind.

What did Brig Cronje say to you when he spoke to you personally earlier that day? What sort of instruction did he give to you?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, the order that I received from the Brigadier was to assist Hechter with a specific operation. No details were given to me. I waited for Hechter to contact me and then I would receive further instructions.

CHAIRPERSON: So essentially you weren't involved in the planning, you didn't know who the target was, you were basically just the driver of the vehicle?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson, initially I was not the driver, on the way to Mamelodi West, Hechter himself drove and subsequently I was supposed to man the vehicle.

CHAIRPERSON: But then left you in the car?

MR ALBERTS: That's correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Sorry Mr Alberts.

MR ALBERTS: Did the realisation set in with you before the operation was executed, that damage could be caused by the bomb or that persons could be injured or killed with it?

MR GOOSEN: As I've already indicated Chairperson, on the way to Mamelodi, Hechter briefly informed me that a residence was to be blown up and that the bomb to which he referred as a mellow-yellow would be used. At that point when the facts were disclosed to me, I realised that property or life could be damaged or injured or killed as a result of it and I associated myself with the rest of the operation.

MR ALBERTS: In the pages from 29 to 32 you deal with the political objective and motivation and so forth, do you confirm the correctness thereof?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson. And I just want to state at this point that on 31 October 1996, I made an attempt after I returned physically to Mamelodi, to try to trace the physical address to include this in my amnesty application, but I was unsuccessful in my attempts to identify the place where I had parked that evening.

MR ALBERTS: And then finally Mr Goosen, you apply with regard to this particular incident, for amnesty regarding murder, malicious damage to property, arson, offences with regard to Act 26/56. Can you recall what this has to do with?

MR GOOSEN: It is the possession of explosives.

MR ALBERTS: And conspiracy with regard to the aforementioned offences.

MR GOOSEN: Correct.

MR ALBERTS: And then finally, any other offence or delict which may emanate from your involvement in this case.

MR GOOSEN: That's correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: But do you know if anybody died?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, I myself was not there when the bomb was thrown into the premises and subsequently no revelations were made to me of any casualties. I can just state that I was placed with Unit 8(?) at that stage, we worked primarily with activists, white, Coloureds and Indians. It was not my task and function to visit Mamelodi as such, to determine whether or not there had been any casualties. So it was beyond my framework.

CHAIRPERSON: So when you apply for amnesty for murder, you're just taking the worst scenario, the theoretical worse scenario, although you don't know whether there is in fact murder involved?

MR GOOSEN: I was advised as such.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it would probably be any - if amnesty is granted, any offence or delict arising out of the use of that explosive device at that place at that time.

MR ALBERTS: I would submit that in the circumstances that would most probably be the most appropriate course. Mr Chairman, that then disposes of the first incident, I don't know whether for purposes of ... we should possibly interrupt going on directly to the second one if there's any cross-examination in this regard.

CHAIRPERSON: I think let's finish his evidence-in-chief and then take it from there, Mr Alberts, it will be more convenient that way.

MR ALBERTS: Very well. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Goosen, the following incident appears on page 33 and further, it is also a petrol bomb attack on a residence in Mamelodi, also to the north of Samaya Street in Mamelodi West, and during the same period in time, January to April 1986. Is that correct?

MR GOOSEN: Yes, that is correct to the best of my recollection.

MR ALBERTS: And with regard to this incident, are you also applying for the same offences and/or delicts as what we have discussed with the previous incident?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct.

MR ALBERTS: On page 34 the nature and particulars of the particular incident commence, if we could just begin there. How did you become involved in this incident?

MR GOOSEN: I cannot recall how long after the first incident with Mr Hechter, but if - or I was once again approached by Lieut Hechter to assist with another operation.

MR ALBERTS: And were you or were you not aware that this operation which he had in mind had also been approved by Brig Cronje or any other superior officer?

MR GOOSEN: In our initial discussion I deduced that this particular operation had been planned with the approval and sanction of Brig Jack Cronje and that it would be executed as such.

MR ALBERTS: Did Lieut Hechter have more-or-less the same working method in this operation as what we have heard of during the previous operation, namely that he arranged a previous meeting and that you departed from that point onwards?

MR GOOSEN: Yes. I must just state at that the stage when I was approached by Hechter no details of the particular operation were disclosed to me.

MR ALBERTS: Did you meet again later that same evening?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, on the designated time that evening we met once again in the parking area behind the Volksstem building and during the rendezvous, Lieut Hechter was there and Deon Gouws was also present. The same silver Ford Station Wagon was once again used. It was once again fitted with false number-plates. After we climbed into the vehicle I noticed a box in the back of the station wagon, containing approximately six petrol bombs. I do not know who manufactured these bombs, but I suspect that it would have been Mr Hechter.

MR ALBERTS: Could you give us a brief description of every petrol bomb?

MR GOOSEN: Some of the petrol bombs were furnished with a fuse and some of the others did not have a fuse.

CHAIRPERSON: Were they in glass bottles?

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone.

MR GOOSEN: They were in glass bottles.

MR ALBERTS: Very well. And where did you depart to?

MR GOOSEN: Once again we travelled to Mamelodi and we parked in a specific place. I can only recall that Mamelodi was not very familiar to me at that point because my work was not focused on Mamelodi, but on suburbs such as Laudium and other suburbs in the greater Pretoria environment.

MR ALBERTS: And as you were under way to this point did you speak about what you were planning to do or what you were about to do?

MR GOOSEN: During the journey in the car, Lieut Hechter was driving and he once again stated that an identified target had been identified and it was clear that it was an activists who was active on many fronts. I can no longer recall the name of the particular person, if it was ever disclosed to me. He was apparently a youth organiser who was responsible for stay-away actions at the schools and general intimidation of the various black council members.

ADV SIGODI: Could you speak a little bit slower so that we can keep up with the interpretation as well, because she's got to speak fast now.

MR ALBERTS: Was there anything else regarding this person in public?

MR GOOSEN: Lieut Hechter told me further that this particular youth organiser had been involved in numerous petrol bomb attacks on the homes of black council members and other black persons who were supporting the existing State dispensation.

MR ALBERTS: Is this why Lieut Hechter remarked to you that the target would have to receive a bit of his own medicine, as you have stated in your application?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, I assume so.

MR ALBERTS: What happened after you had entered the area surrounding the target place?

MR GOOSEN: The vehicle was parked, Hechter, Gouws and myself disembarked from the vehicle. Every one of us was armed with two petrol bombs, of which one was furnished with a fuse and the others not.

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone please.

JUDGE DE JAGER: If you could please go a bit slower, otherwise the Interpreter cannot interpret what you are saying. ...(intervention)

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

JUDGE DE JAGER: If you could just take us to the important points, it is not necessary for the applicant to reiterate the entire statement.

MR ALBERTS: Thank you, Chairperson. I will attempt ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I think if you could, seeing that we've got to this part, if you could just describe exactly where the bombs were thrown or what the house looked like, whether they threw it through open windows or down the chimney, or whatever.

MR ALBERTS: Very well. You, Hechter and Gouws approached the house and in what ways did you proceed with the bomb attack?

MR GOOSEN: To the best of my recollection, Chairperson, three different windows of the particular residence were targeted. Firstly, the petrol bombs which were not fitted with the fuses were thrown through the windows and afterwards the remaining petrol bomb with the fuse, which was in possession of every person, was lit and these bombs were also thrown through the broken windows.

MR ALBERTS: And did you then run away?

MR GOOSEN: Yes, that is correct. Immediately after the completion of the petrol bomb attack we ran back to the vehicle and we returned to Pretoria.

CHAIRPERSON: And as far as you were concerned, the bombs worked, you saw fire or evidence of fire?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson, the fire was inside the residence.

MR ALBERTS: Do you know whether anyone was injured because of this?

MR GOOSEN: I am unaware whether anyone was killed or injured during this incident, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: But you accept that there was damage done by the fire that was caused by the bombs?

MR GOOSEN: I accept that there was damage done and I also foresaw that if someone was in the house during the attack, that that person could be killed or injured by our acts.

MR ALBERTS: And you associated yourself with that?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: With regard to the rest of the application, do you confirm the contents of pages 37 to 40?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: Then we can continue to the third incident, Mr Goosen. This appears on page 41 and further. This is also an incident that had taken place in Mamelodi West, it entails the assault of an unknown ANC courier. It is on page 138 of your own application. According to your application this was during the time period June to December 1987, do you recall this incident?

MR GOOSEN: I recall it yes, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: How did you become involved in this assault?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, as it appears from my application before you, I indicated that I received an instruction from Capt Flip Loots, and I would also like to add that during consultation with Mr Momberg who forms part of the legal team, it became clear that I had received the instruction from him, Lieut Momberg and that he had taken up the issue with Capt Loots and from there W/O Paul van Vuuren became involved.

MR ALBERTS: So where does W/O van Vuuren fit into the whole picture?

MR GOOSEN: Paul van Vuuren worked at Unit B, of which Capt Loots was the Commander and at that stage I was with Unit A, of which Lieut Momberg was the Commander.

MR ALBERTS: So if I understand you correctly, the instruction came from Capt Loots via Lieut Momberg to you?

MR GOOSEN: No, Chairperson, the instruction - the request came from the Security Branch Witwatersrand, Sgt Bennie Knoetze had attended a course about one or two weeks before that and Witwatersrand established a needs list, Momberg agreed to supply assistance. I was involved by Capt Momberg, or Lieut Momberg. He discussed the matter with Capt Loots and Capt Loots tasked Paul van Vuuren to give assistance.

MR ALBERTS: So what was the purpose of this operation?

MR GOOSEN: The Security Branch John Vorster Square had a female informer who had information about an ANC courier who was in Mamelodi.

MR ALBERTS: And what did they wish to achieve on that particular day?

MR GOOSEN: So that the female informer of John Vorster Square could do the identification of the address and the person who would be an ANC courier.

MR ALBERTS: And would you then question the courier?

MR GOOSEN: It was not conveyed to us in so many words, but we had to assist in a supportive role for John Vorster Square.

MR ALBERTS: For whatever they wanted to do with the courier or whatever the information they wanted from him.

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: Very well. Was the house then pointed out to you?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, we met the members from John Vorster Square at Compol building and from there we went to Mamelodi. The informer had indeed pointed out the house to us as that being that address of the alleged ANC courier.

MR ALBERTS: Did you enter this house?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson, Paul van Vuuren, one of John Vorster Square's members and I entered and the house.

MR ALBERTS: Did you find the alleged courier or not?

MR GOOSEN: The alleged courier was found in the house. Initially we checked the house and we did not find him, but later we found him in one of the rooms.

MR ALBERTS: And how did you know that he was the courier?

MR GOOSEN: The informer mentioned the name to us. I cannot recall the name of the courier. Upon enquiries in the house, a male person indicated that he was the same person that the female source was the ANC courier.

MR ALBERTS: Was the courier interrogated?

MR GOOSEN: That's correct, Chairperson, initially he was questioned and we came up with nothing, he denied everything. Thereafter we struck him in the face and on the chest in order to convince him to tell the truth, or to admit that he was a courier.

MR ALBERTS: Who is this "us" that you are referring to?

MR GOOSEN: The assault was undertaken by myself and Paul van Vuuren.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you use anything to assault the suspected courier with? Did you use any instrument or just your hands or fist?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, the open hand and closed fists we used.

MR ALBERTS: Was that initially how you went about it?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: Because on page 44 of your application you mention that there was an intensification in the extent of the violence that you used on him.

MR GOOSEN: Yes, Chairperson, the extent was one or two kicks.

MR ALBERTS: And in the following paragraph you mention that you continued, you had punched him with fists to the face and one or two kicks.

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: Now this intensified assault, did this give you any positive results?

MR GOOSEN: None whatsoever, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: What did you do then?

MR GOOSEN: We removed the person from the house. We visited the address with two vehicles, the one vehicle was my own, a State vehicle used by me and the other vehicle was one of John Vorster's vehicles. We took the person to my vehicle and placed him into the boot of my vehicle.

MR ALBERTS: Why did you do that?

MR GOOSEN: At that stage we did not want anyone to know that we were abducting the person and secondly, we were on our way to Compol building and we did not want to disclose the address to him. Although in application I do say that we went to my flat, but on our way to the Compol building we stopped at my flat, so that I could make a call.

MR ALBERTS: And who did you call?

MR GOOSEN: I called Lieut Momberg and gave him a situation report with regard to the incident there.

MR ALBERTS: And did you receive any further instructions from him?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson, he instructed me to take the person back to Mamelodi immediately because it was not our operation, and at that stage there was no information to indicate that he was indeed an ANC courier.

MR ALBERTS: And did you follow these instructions?

MR GOOSEN: Yes, I did, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: Were did you leave the person, this courier?

MR GOOSEN: Is this now in Mamelodi, after we took him back?

MR ALBERTS: Yes.

MR GOOSEN: We took him to a remote field next to the road.

MR ALBERTS: And what was his condition at that stage? You'll find that on page 142 of your application.

MR GOOSEN: The courier had clear injuries to his face, his mouth was bleeding, his cheeks were swollen, his eyes were swollen shut and he had bruises on his chest.

MR ALBERTS: You also mention that he was disorientated when you last saw him.

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: And then you continue on paginated pages 45 and 46 and you deal with the objective of the removal and assault of this person. Do you confirm the correctness thereof?

MR GOOSEN: Yes, I do Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: Do you also confirm the rest of this part that deals with your application up to page 49?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: Now Paul van Vuuren also applied for this incident and amnesty has already been granted to him, have you read the parts of his application with regard to this incident? You'll find this on page 143 to 146 of volume 2. Did you have a look at this?

MR GOOSEN: Yes, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: And in general this concurs with your evidence?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: Afterwards you had trouble from Brig Cronje, both you and Van Vuuren, can you recall that?

MR GOOSEN: Yes.

MR ALBERTS: What was that about?

MR GOOSEN: The following morning Van Vuuren and I were called into Brig Cronje's office and this followed on a call that Brig Cronje received from the Commander of the John Vorster Square Security Branch, where members of the Witwatersrand mentioned that we had assaulted the person to get the necessary information.

MR ALBERTS: Mr van Vuuren on page 144, mentions the facts, he says that the Brigadier was concerned that the person could be killed because he was severely assaulted. Afterwards it was determined that it was not so. Do you have any personal knowledge of this?

MR GOOSEN: No, I do not Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: In this regard in your application you apply for amnesty with regard to, amongst others, assault with the intent to do grievous harm and abduction and any other delicts which may emanate from the facts, is that correct?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson. I would also like to add that once again on the 31st of October 1996, I had attempted to find the exact address or to find the particulars of the person there, but I was unsuccessful.

MR ALBERTS: Chairperson, might I just mention that the decision in regard to the Van Vuuren application, which concerns the same incident, appears at pages 126 and 127 of this bundle. Amnesty has been granted to him already.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR ALBERTS: Mr Goosen, I shall go over to the last incident in which you were involved. This appears in volume 1, from pages 45 and following, page 118 and following from your own application. This incident is with regard to a bomb attack on a house in Soshanguve, during the time period, September to November 1986. Do you recall that?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: Do you recall the address of the house in Soshanguve?

MR GOOSEN: I do not recall the exact address, and as I've already said, on the 31st of October 1996, I also tired here to determine the address here but I was unsuccessful, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: How did you become involved in this incident, who approached you?

MR GOOSEN: I was once again approached by Lieut Hechter to assist with an operation.

MR ALBERTS: Where did you meet Hechter for purposes of the execution of this operation?

MR GOOSEN: Once again in the parking area behind Compol. The time and date I cannot recall though.

MR ALBERTS: Who was involved in the incident, except for Lieut Hechter?

MR GOOSEN: Lieut van Jaarsveld and Sgt Joe Mamasela.

MR ALBERTS: What happened there at the meeting, at the place where you met?

MR GOOSEN: This time a Skyline motor vehicle was used - Lieut Hechter came there with a Skyline vehicle, he removed three AK47 rifles from the boot, as well as a mellow-yellow bomb.

MR ALBERTS: What did he do with the rifles?

MR GOOSEN: An AK was given to myself, Van Jaarsveld and Mamasela and he kept the bomb with him.

MR ALBERTS: And how did you go to Soshanguve?

MR GOOSEN: We used Lieut Jaap van Jaarsveld's vehicle, it was a grey/charcoal coloured Volkswagen Golf that had false Lesotho number-plates.

MR ALBERTS: You say Van Jaarsveld drove?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: Did you know what the target would be of this operation?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, not at the stage when we met but on our way to Soshanguve, Hechter informed us what the target would be.

MR ALBERTS: Can you recall what he told you?

MR GOOSEN: Amongst others, that this was a leading activist who in a violent manner managed the people's court in Soshanguve and at that stage, according to indications from Mamasela, he was involved in the recruitment of youths who intended to go abroad for military training.

MR ALBERTS: What was the primary objective of this operation?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, the fact that to each of us an AK was given and the fact that a bomb was present, I drew no other inference that this person would be eliminated.

MR ALBERTS: And did Lieut Hechter tell you with regard to this purpose, anything else?

MR GOOSEN: If the bomb attack was not successful to kill this person, that he would be shot dead.

MR ALBERTS: Was that the instruction?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: How was the operation executed? How did you find the particular house and what happened afterwards?

MR GOOSEN: A way from the house we stopped, Van Jaarsveld, myself and Mamasela, took up position with the AKs around the house and Hechter approached the house and threw the bomb through a window.

MR ALBERTS: You say that you suspect it was thrown into the lounge.

MR GOOSEN: It is a suspicion, it was the front of the house and I would deduce that it was the lounge.

MR ALBERTS: And after the bomb was thrown, what happened then?

MR GOOSEN: Hechter turned around and ran away, the rest of us still remained in our positions. The bomb exploded. It was quite a large explosion.

MR ALBERTS: And on page 49 you refer to it as a tremendous explosion.

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: Do you know whether the person was targeted was hit by this explosion?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, my recollection, I did not see it myself, but Van Jaarsveld told us that moments after the bomb exploded a male person, possibly the activist, had ran out the back door of the house and had jumped over the fence.

MR ALBERTS: And were shots fired at this person?

MR GOOSEN: No, Chairperson. According to Van Jaarsveld things happened so quickly that he could not fire a shot.

MR ALBERTS: In your application you mention that the operation failed in its primary objective, namely the killing of this identified person.

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: Do you know whether there was any other loss of life because of the explosion?

MR GOOSEN: No, Chairperson, I did not get feedback from anyone that anyone else had been killed and/or injured in the explosion and I was also unaware whether the activist had been alone in the house or whether other persons were present, but we associated ourselves with the operation, the elimination of the activist.

MR ALBERTS: And you must have realised that other persons could have been injured or killed in the process.

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: But you do not know whether this had happened or not.

MR GOOSEN: No, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: Do you know whether Brig Cronje was aware or involved in the planning and execution of this operation?

MR GOOSEN: I can only accept that this operation was discussed between Capt Hechter and Brig Cronje and that it would have been sanctioned by him, like all other previous operations that were launched by Capt Hechter.

MR ALBERTS: We know by this time, it's a well known fact that Brig Cronje would take responsibility for all these actions by all his subordinates in any case.

So you apply for amnesty with regard to the following offences: attempted murder. We may have to consider murder here, even if only on a theoretical level, malicious damage to property, arson. Have you anything to say in that regard?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, at that stage I was already a fully trained explosives expert and in many cases where bombs exploded it leads to the burning of the carpets and curtains and so forth.

MR ALBERTS: And you also apply - amongst others, you mention under the offences, Act 26/56.

MR GOOSEN: That is the Explosives Act.

MR ALBERTS: And any offences connected with that Act.

MR GOOSEN: That is correct.

MR ALBERTS: You also request amnesty with regard to the possession of an unlicensed firearm, what is that about?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, at that stage the AK47s were not licensed firearms or used as official firearms.

MR ALBERTS: And you also mention transgressions of the Act on Arms and Ammunitions.

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: And any other offences or delicts which might emanate from the facts.

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: Mr Goosen, do you confirm the correctness of the contents of the pages from page 50 up to 53?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: Of bundle 2. And we have already dealt with the conclusive remarks from page 54 to 57.

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: Thank you, Chairperson, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Alberts. Mr du Plessis, do you have any questions you'd like to put to Mr Goosen?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: Yes Mr Chairman, thank you, just one.

Mr Goosen, as I understand your evidence the instruction actually came from Brig Cronje, but it was conveyed to you by Capt Loots, is that correct? In the courier incident, the incident that you testified about, the ANC courier and the assaults.

MR GOOSEN: No, Chairperson, the instruction Lieut Hechter gave to me, or Lieut Momberg rather. As I have explained, he and Knoetze went on a course, Bennie Knoetze called Momberg, he involved me in the story, he discussed the whole story with Capt Flip Loots.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well, that is what I wanted to know. So your evidence is not that Capt Loots gave any instruction before the operation itself?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: And in other words, Capt Loots also did not know that you would assault the person or do anything unlawful with him?

MR GOOSEN: No, Chairperson, neither Capt Loots nor Lieut Momberg gave us a direct instruction which would move us to assaulting or abducting the man, but on previous occasions I have said before the Committee that it was expected of us to, in particular circumstance, show initiative and to take immediate decisions to a handle a situation.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Lamey, any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chairperson, just one or two.

Mr Goosen, can you recall who came in the place of Sgt Coetser after he withdrew himself from certain types of these acts?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, I was aware that Mr Coetser experienced a problem with further participance in such covert operations and I do not know whether I was the first or the fourth member after Mr Coetser's withdrawal, but I think he was approached by the Brigadier to play an assisting role.

MR LAMEY: The question I actually want to get to is, except for the first time when you received the direct instruction from Brig Cronje, you were involved by Lieut Hechter in the other incident, in the Mamelodi incident and the Soshanguve incident.

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: You as subordinate, did you accept the instruction on the assumption that the information had already been gathered, the time had already been determined?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: And then you referred briefly to Mr Gouws, I infer from your evidence that there was a previous incident that had been heard where this aspect had been cleared up with regard to the unit where he was, before he became involved in the incident, is that correct?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: With regard to that, is it correct, it's my instructions from Mr Gouws that he was devolved to the Security Branch, although he was with another unit at Head Office at that stage?

MR GOOSEN: That is what I heard later, Chairperson, and my understanding was that he was at Murder and Robbery Unit while he was devolved to the Security Branch Northern Transvaal.

MR LAMEY: Yes, my instructions are that he later joined Murder and Robbery in that year.

MR GOOSEN: I would accept that, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chairperson, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, any questions you'd like to put?

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Coleridge, any questions?

MS COLERIDGE: Yes, thank you Chairperson. Chairperson, I just want to know whether this is a convenient time to adjourn, or shall I ...

CHAIRPERSON: I think let's conclude the evidence of Mr Goosen, unless you anticipate to be very, very long.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS COLERIDGE: No, Chairperson. Thank you.

I just want to refer to the Mamelodi incident - no the ANC courier incident. You stated that Calla Botha was also involved in this incident, do you know which branch Calla Botha belonged to?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, that is correct, Calla Botha as well as Bennie Knoetze and another member who is unknown to me, were at that stage attached to John Vorster Square Security Branch in Johannesburg.

CHAIRPERSON: Was Calla Botha the person who went into the house with you?

MR GOOSEN: No, Chairperson, when we climbed over the gate of the residence, Calla injured his foot or his leg and he remained at the vehicle.

MS COLERIDGE: The Soshanguve incident, you said you were all given AK47s, what happened to your AK47 after the incident?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, immediately after our return to Pretoria, in the parking area behind the Volksstem building, these particular AKs were all returned to Lieut Hechter.

MS COLERIDGE: And then just in relation to Mr Momberg, was he your Commander at the time of the incident involving the ANC courier?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct Chairperson, he was my Commander in Unit A where I was placed.

MS COLERIDGE: Thank you, Chairperson, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Alberts any re-examination?

CHAIRPERSON: Judge de Jager, any questions? Advocate Sigodi, any questions?

ADV SIGODI: Yes, just one aspect that I'd like to clarify in my mind.

You say that after you had taken this person and put him in the boot, the ANC courier incident, you stopped at your flat and then you called Momberg to give him a report on what had happened. Now you mentioned that you had trouble from Mr Cronje, you, that is you and Van Vuuren, and Cronje was angry with you because you had assaulted the person, do you know where he got the information from about the assault?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, as I've already indicated, the Commander of the Security Branch in John Vorster Square Johannesburg contacted the Brigadier the next morning. The other reason or contributing factor for Mr Cronje's dissatisfaction was that we were involved with an operation regarding which we had not established and confirmed the information prior to our involvement and that we relied upon information which the members from John Vorster Square Johannesburg gave us.

ADV SIGODI: So do you know if he knows the person who had been assaulted? Is it possible to trace the person who had been assaulted, the person who was an ANC courier?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, as already indicated, on the 31st of October 1996, I made an attempt firstly, to identify the premises and secondly, I made an attempt to get to the victim, but it was unsuccessful from my side.

ADV SIGODI: Okay, thanks.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Any questions arising? Mr Goosen, we believe that a victim is only going to be arriving after lunch and it's in relation to one of the Mamelodi incidents, we don't know if it's one of the incidents which you've now described, but if you could please just be on standby in case there's a need to recall you to give further details about a particular bombing. If that victim has a particular interest. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: We'll now take the lunch adjournment. I think if we can take it till about quarter to two, if that would be convenient. Oh, the victim's only coming at two, we may as well make it till 2 o'clock then.

MS COLERIDGE: All rise.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you. The next applicant will be?

MR DU PLESSIS ADDRESSES: Mr Chairman, we have decided that I will call Capt Hechter now at this point in time. May I perhaps, just before we deal with Capt Hechter's application, just deal with the situation I find myself in and Capt Hechter finds himself in as well? You would have seen that in the bundle, the first bundle - sorry, the second bundle, page 118, was an application which was made by Capt Hechter in respect of various incidents of arson relating to the burning of houses in Mamelodi, Soshanguve and Atteridgeville, during the period 1985 to 1987. That application, Mr Chairman, related to petrol bomb attacks on various houses, and you will see on page 119 that amnesty was granted in respect of this application. On page 119.

Then if I can refer you to page 115 of that bundle, you will see that this is an extract of the Judgment in respect of the amnesty application of Brig Cronje and it refers to Schedule 11, which dealt with offences committed by members under his command and his general instructions. And in terms of this application, Brig Cronje was therefore also granted amnesty in respect of each incident Capt Hechter was granted amnesty for, meaning that Brig Cronje was also granted amnesty for petrol bomb attacks in Soshanguve, Atteridgeville and Mamelodi.

If I may then refer you to page 186 of that bundle, this is an application which was made by Capt Hechter under Schedule 17, with the heading "Bomb Ontploffings" and this application related also to, in general, all bomb attacks on, specifically, houses in Atteridgeville, Mamelodi, Soshanguve and other places as well. Now this application was different from the petrol bomb application, in that this referred to the kind of bomb you've heard evidence of this morning, the mellow-yellow kind of bomb. The Judgment in respect of Schedule 17, was the one which I referred you to this morning, which does not appear in this bundle, but which does appear in the copies that I have given to you this morning of the Judgment of Capt Hechter. I'm sorry, I beg your pardon ...

MS COLERIDGE: 121.

MS COLERIDGE: Then I did not see it, I beg your pardon. Yes, yes, thank you, I'm indebted to Mr Visser. Page 121, Mr Chairman. I only had an opportunity to peruse the bundle this morning.

Mr Chairman, you will note there that reference is made to other Schedules, but for these purposes we can only concentrate on Schedule 17. It refers to Mr Hechter's physical and mental condition. It says:

In my submission Mr Chairman, the two applications of Mr Goosen, which related to the two incidents where bombs were used ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: The Soshanguve one and Mamelodi?

MR DU PLESSIS: The Mamelodi one, yes. ... where the mellow-yellow bombs were used Mr Chairman, in those two incidents I will apply for amnesty under this Judgment, for Capt Hechter, and I will also apply for amnesty, if you will allow me to, in this regard, for and on behalf of Brig Cronje. Now Brig Cronje's application in this regard, is not before you, but I do have copies thereof and I beg leave to hand it up to you. The copies I hand up to you, Mr Chairman, are copies of Brig Cronje's second application, or second main application, if I can put it like that. There was a bundle of applications handed in in December 1996, and then again later on in 1997. This is the second bundle of applications.

CHAIRPERSON: We'd better mark this as, although we've got other documents, we'll mark this as B.

MR DU PLESSIS: As it pleases you, Mr Chairman.

Now Mr Chairman, you will see that Brig Cronje there applied for each and every incident which the people who worked under him applied for. He refers there to Col Loots, Van Vuuren, Hechter, Viktor, Goosen, Roos and Crafford, but it's not a full complete list. Then you will see on the marked page 102, the typed page 20, you will see that he says the following there:

Mr Chairman, on the next page, and he lists the names of the persons whom he believes applied for amnesty and who worked under him, and then he says:

We attempted at the stage when this application was made, to include all the amnesty applications of people who worked under Brig Cronje in his application, but obviously we did not know exactly which applications they were and which applications had to be specifically listed. It seems that we have nearly succeeded in listing all the applications. The only applications which we have not done, apparently, are the two of Mr Goosen, which I've referred to just now, of which Capt Hechter is going to be an application. And then the only other problem that we have is this Ekangala incident, of which we are not certain if it's the same incident for which Capt Hechter and Brig Cronje have already received amnesty, and if it is not.

CHAIRPERSON: That will come to light when Mr Oosthuizen - is it Mr Oosthuizen, Mr Lamey, who was involved in Ekangala?

MR LAMEY: It was Mr Coetser.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes. Mr Chairman, may I perhaps just say that we have made certain enquiries and it seems to have been two different incidents. It seems to be the case. I have made enquiries about what Mr Coetser is going to say. And I may perhaps just give you an indication and that is that Capt Hechter testified that Mr Gouws was present with him at that incident, Mr Coetser is apparently going to say that Mr Gouws was never present at the Ekangala incident, which indicates that it in all probability, may have been two incidents and because of that I have decided ex abundanti, Mr Chairman, if you will allow me to, to make application or to seek leave on behalf of Capt Hechter, to make application for the Ekangala incident.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Wouldn't you be adding an incident then that wasn't applied for?

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, you would have noted that the bomb attacks included areas such at Atteridgeville, Soshanguve, Mamelodi, Mbutsi, as well, which means that it was an application in respect of a wide range of areas where these attacks and these incidents took place.

JUDGE DE JAGER: If you would have stated "for attacks in South Africa", would you then be able to introduce any attack in South Africa?

MR DU PLESSIS: Well Mr Chairman, the problem that we had at that stage, obviously, was that Capt Hechter did not know or could not remember exactly in what incidents he was involved in and that is why the applications were made on the wide basis they were made. Obviously this creates the problematic situation which I raised with the first Committee, right at the outset of this matter, and this, if an applicant does not remember about an incident and he's made aware of an incident that he was involved in, after the cut-off date, what happens then? Does he not get amnesty because his memory doesn't serve him well? And that is exactly this kind of situation which will arise if one does not interpret the application in a wide sense, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: So with regard to Cronje, you're looking for - if you'd turn to page 116 of that second volume, you're looking for, if these applications are successful, a similar sort of thing, adding in Goosen number so and so, or Oosthuizen, whatever it is? Just an extension of page 116?

MR DU PLESSIS: Exactly, Mr Chairman, I will apply for a similar Order in exactly the same fashion. I may mention, Brig Cronje is not here, but in previous applications where this kind of situation arose with his application, the applications were dealt with without Brig Cronje having been present. He suffered during one of the previous applications, a heart attack, he had a double bypass operation and because of that reason, Judge Pillay excused him and he was excused for various other hearings on those grounds. The fact of the matter is that he cannot usually add to this, because he cannot remember what the situation was and he was usually not involved in any of the operations in an intricate way, so he can't remember and he won't be able to add anything to these incidents as well, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you going to now call Capt Hechter?

MR DU PLESSIS: If it pleases you, Mr Chairman. I apologise for making things a bit difficult.

CHAIRPERSON: No we'll have to consider it at the end of it and arrive at a decision.

JACQUES HECHTER: (sworn states)

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, may I perhaps just before I carry on with the evidence, enquire from you if it is necessary to hear Brig Cronje, or to call him as a witness, then I could attempt to make arrangements to do so.

CHAIRPERSON: Having briefly deliberated with my colleagues, the view is that if possible, he should be here just to confirm, seeing we are dealing with human rights violations and it does require a hearing as such. If it can happen.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes Mr Chairman, I can make enquiries, but I may just say that the problem arises that we only became aware of these applications yesterday. Brig Cronje lives in Swellendam, which is a ...

MS COLERIDGE: Chairperson, I just want to rectify Mr du Plessis, that they have been notified, Cronje, Hechter, Van Vuuren, but not as applicants. Just keep that in mind regarding that.

CHAIRPERSON: Well I think let's at this stage proceed with the evidence of Mr Hechter and we'll see how far we can get.

EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: As it pleases you, Mr Chairman, thank you. We have been informed obviously of the hearings, but in not in the sense of the position that I've sketched to you now.

Captain Hechter, you studied the amnesty application of Capt Viktor and you were also present for a portion of the evidence when you heard his testimony regarding the Ekangala incident.

MR HECHTER: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Can you recall anything of this incident?

MR HECHTER: Chairperson, regarding this particular incident, I cannot recall anything at all. I can vaguely recall the incident in which Gouws and I were involved. After my recollection was refreshed I can basically recall that we were there. Regarding the incident of which Mr Viktor and Mr Coetser are speaking, I cannot recall anything at all.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thus, you are not in a position to dispute that you were indeed present during the incident that they were involved in?

MR HECHTER: No, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: And in that case, you then also apply for amnesty for precisely the same offences for which Mr Viktor has applied for amnesty?

MR HECHTER: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: And you cannot really add anything regarding the facts pertaining to the application?

MR HECHTER: No, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: Captain Hechter, you were also present when Mr Goosen gave evidence regarding two bomb attack incidents. The one can be found in volume 2 from page 25 onwards, you have read this and you've also listened to his evidence, is that correct?

MR HECHTER: Yes, that is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: The other incident can be found on page 45 of volume 1, you've also read this and you've also listened to his evidence, is that correct?

MR HECHTER: Yes, that is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Do you have any independent recollection of these two respective incidents?

MR HECHTER: Vaguely I can recall the incident at Soshanguve. I can recall that we went to work one evening in this particular Volkswagen Golf motor vehicle, where exactly we went I cannot recall. I cannot recall exactly who was there. I do recall Van Jaarsveld. After I spoke to Mr Coetser about it, I recalled that we went out to a job one evening, but I cannot recall anything else.

MR DU PLESSIS: Therefore you cannot add anything else with regard to Mr Goosen's evidence?

MR HECHTER: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: And you request amnesty for precisely the same offences as has been requested by Mr Goosen in these two incidents?

MR HECHTER: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Capt Hechter, previously, upon previous occasions during such proceedings you have offered expert evidence and submitted expert evidence with regard to the problem that you have with your recollection and the fact that it has been caused, among others, by post-traumatic stress disorder, is that correct?

MR HECHTER: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: And the effect, which is embodied in the report which is in the possession of the Amnesty Committee, which has upon various previous amnesty applications been submitted, confirms that you have a memory problem as a result of this disorder?

MR HECHTER: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: As a result of post-traumatic stress disorder, and this has meant that there are certain incidents that you can recall quite vividly and others which you cannot recall at all?

MR HECHTER: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: And you are still suffering from the same ailment?

MR HECHTER: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you, Chairperson, I have nothing further.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Alberts, any questions?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey.

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, I've got questions, I've just got to get to ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Maybe if you could just swop chairs with Ms Coleridge.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Mr Hechter, there are just a number of general questions that I want to put to you, especially since we have not had the opportunity to cover these aspects during previous hearings.

If I study the applications and your applications which have also been incorporated in the bundle, it is clear to me that with regard to the petrol bomb attacks and also the explosions, the incidents of explosions, basically the same modus operandi was employed to a greater extent in every case. What I mean by modus operandi is the fact that this series of events began with a general order which originated from Brig Viktor's office, is that correct?

MR HECHTER: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: And then, you have led every incident, you were the senior person with regard to every single incident, is that correct?

MR HECHTER: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Did you then undertake the target identification and intelligence collection and determination of the activists homes every single time?

MR HECHTER: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: You had sources and you also had black members of the branch who were collecting information regarding the target.

MR HECHTER: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And with every one of these cases junior members who were involved did not necessarily know everything about the political activist or the reason why his home was being attacked, they were taken along based upon an instruction, is that correct?

MR HECHTER: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And your overall Commander, Brig Cronje, was also aware of the events which were taking place, is that correct?

MR HECHTER: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: And the activists that we have referred to, from the position of an applicant which did not have direct access to the information, would have accepted that these were activists who were involved in the liberation struggle of that time and who played a large role in rendering the suburbs ungovernable at that stage?

MR HECHTER: That is correct, we called them high profile activists, because they were very active in crimes of violence, or violent actions during those times.

MR LAMEY: Were these activists who were then involved with the ANC or front organisations of the ANC?

MR HECHTER: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Then I would just like to put it to you for the sake of clarity, you cannot recall much about the Ekangala incident, you do recall an incident in which Mr Gouws was involved and I represent him and he will confirm that he was involved with you in the incident at Ekangala, as has been set out in the application. He has studied your application. It is my instruction from Mr Gouws that he was not involved in an incident in Ekangala, where Mr Coetser was also present. And so also, Mr Coetser will stage that he was involved in an incident with you at Ekangala, but that Deon Gouws was not involved. Just to clear up that aspect.

MR HECHTER: Yes, I have deduced that, Chairperson. I really cannot recall the incident in which Mr Coetser and Mr Viktor were involved, according to their allegation, I can only recall the incident in which I and Mr Goosen were involved, but then again very vaguely I can recall that we were involved there. I beg your pardon, that was Mr Gouws, the incident in which we were involved during one evening.

MR LAMEY: Is it correct that after Mr Coetser was initially involved, Mr Gouws was later implicated?

MR HECHTER: Yes, they were involved.

MR LAMEY: And is it correct, as per Mr Viktor's evidence, that there were several such incidents which took place in the approximate number of 30 to 40 such incidents?

MR HECHTER: It is difficult to attach a number or a quantity, but I would say that that is more-or-less correct, if indeed it was not more.

MR LAMEY: Can we also accept that the quantity of the incidents creates problems with regard to recollection in separating every one of them and distinguishing between every one of them?

MR HECHTER: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Thank you, I have nothing further.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Lamey. Ms Coleridge, do you have any questions?

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Perhaps just one, Chairperson. I omitted one aspect which arises from Mr Coetser's application. I have to put it to you, Mr Coetser mentions it, he does not have direct evidence but in his statement on page 71 in bundle 2, that he heard from you that a person was killed during one of these attacks in Mamelodi and his inference was that it was this attack where he was involved in in Mamelodi. He refers to one incident where he was involved. Do you have any recollection?

MR HECHTER: Unfortunately no, Chairperson, I cannot recall any specifics with regard to these incidents.

MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chairperson, I've got no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Coleridge?

CHAIRPERSON: Any re-examination, Mr du Plessis?

MR VISSER: Chairperson, perhaps before my learned friend does, there was a matter that has now arisen from Mr Lamey's cross-examination.

CHAIRPERSON: Would you like to ask a question?

MR VISSER: I think it would be more reasonable if I did it now...

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think so, before re-examination. Certainly, Mr Visser.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Thank you, Chairperson.

Mr Hechter, from questions put to you by Mr Lamey it would appear that your evidence is that the attacks on houses with petrol bombs, was an execution of an order from Brig Viktor, is that your evidence?

MR HECHTER: That is correct, that is my evidence Chairperson.

MR VISSER: You know, Mr Viktor junior and Mr Goosen gave evidence here that the instructions came from Brig Jack Cronje.

MR HECHTER: That is correct, that is all from the original instructions that came from Brig Viktor, right at the beginning.

MR VISSER: Who gave the direct instructions for these instances where houses were attacked?

MR HECHTER: Originally this came from Gen Viktor. He gave those instructions to myself and Johan Viktor and then Brig Cronje went to speak to the General about it and from there the instructions came from Brig Cronje.

MR VISSER: Will you accept, Mr Hechter, that the Judgment of the original Amnesty Committee found that Brig Viktor did not give instructions?

MR HECHTER: I have no knowledge about that, Chairperson, so I cannot shed any light on it.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, may I perhaps just come in here? This whole issue has been a bone of contention between my clients and Mr Visser's clients for at least four years. We have been in various situations fighting about this conflict. I have cross-examined Brig Viktor, he has cross-examined my clients in finitum, ad nauseam about this issue ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Let me just express what my views on this are, well not views but my understanding of what it is, only having been involved in this hearing and not in any of the previous hearings involving these applicants. Perhaps both you and Mr Visser can tell me that I'm wrong, but my understanding was that the initial instigation of this series of operations, these so-called petrol bomb and mellow-yellow bomb operations that took place, particularly in Mamelodi, Soshanguve, Atteridgeville, Ekangala areas, were initiated from a general, and I don't know what word to use, suggestion, instruction or view expressed by then Brig Viktor at a meeting, and that thereafter with regard to each specific operation, the bombing at such an such an activist's house or in Soshanguve or Mamelodi, etcetera, there the operation was initiated by an instruction from Brig Cronje. Is that right? So it was - Gen Viktor then wouldn't have known prior to the attack on the house at Soshanguve, that that would have taken place?

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes Mr Chairman, there was only one discussion with Brig Viktor, and Brig Cronje in his evidence also related everything that he did back to that blanket sort of suggestion, so you've put it a hundred percent correct, Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: With great respect Chairperson, then I don't understand the objection, because that's the question I asked Mr Hechter, whether he received specific instructions for specific bombings from Brig Viktor and he said yes. And I put to him ...

And I put it to you that the evidence of Mr Viktor, as well as Mr Goosen. as well as what the Chairperson put to you now, is the correct position, that the specific instructions were given by Brig Cronje.

MR HECHTER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, I might also just say that that was also, in the way that you have summed it up, the intention of my question and I ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but you used the word "general", you said a general order.

MR LAMEY; Whether it came out right, that was the intention.

CHAIRPERSON: Any re-examination, Mr du Plessis?

MR DU PLESSIS: I have no re-examination, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Judge de Jager, any questions? Advocate Sigodi, any questions?

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Capt Hechter, that concludes your testimony.

MR HECHTER: Thank you, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman, may Capt Hechter be excused?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, may we just have a moment so that I could just move back there. I think my clients are now next.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR VISSER: While Mr Lamey is in the process, perhaps I might be able to interrupt him for a change.

Chairperson, I was asked by Judge de Jager about particulars about the previous applications, perhaps I should refer you again to page 99. The first two incidents relating to Tembisa, A and B at that page, Chairperson, those were apparently heard during the early or the first part of 1999 and it was before Judges Wilson and Pillay and Mr Wynand Malan, in the IDASA Centre. We might be able to obtain a more accurate date for you once I get back to my chambers, Chairperson.

The second incident, the Oupa Masuku one, you would have noticed that the application was signed on the 24th of March 2000, that is at page 97 of bundle 2 ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Are you talking now about B, Godfrey Kwabe?

MR VISSER: No, Chairperson, I am now referring to F, "The Residence at Mashifani Street, Atteridgeville", that is the Oupa Masuku one, Chairperson. The 24th of March was a Friday, when this document was signed and we recall that the hearing started on the 27th of March of this year and Mr Viktor gave evidence on the 28th. We seen to recall that the Chairman was Judge Motata and that Mr Wynand Malan was a member, but we cannot recall the other member. But that's ...

CHAIRPERSON: I, in fact in briefcase here, have got a list of outstanding decisions which indicates dates and who the Panel Members were, so I think a quick reference to that might get these answers.

MR VISSER: If we could be of assistance with reference to that document, we'll gladly do so Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Anything else that you want to say, Mr Visser?

MR VISSER: No, thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Visser. Mr Lamey.

MR LAMEY: Thank you, Mr Chairman. The next applicant is Mr Coetser.

J DANIEL LOURENS COETSER: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Mr Coetser, you apply for amnesty before this Committee for incidents which are described as the petrol bomb attack in Mamelodi and Soshanguve, as well as an explosion in Ekangala/Bronkhorstspruit, is that correct?

MR COETSER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Is it also correct that your other amnesty application ...(intervention)

JUDGE DE JAGER: What page are we now?

MR LAMEY: I beg your pardon, Chairperson, the applicant's applications commences from, the initial application commences from page 50, this is just the form that was filled in and I shall in his evidence briefly refer to it. The incidents are dealt with from page 70 of bundle 2, up to and including page 76.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Lamey, the incidents which we're dealing with here is the bomb attack at Soshanguve, the second one?

MR LAMEY: Bomb attacks at Mamelodi and Soshanguve, which is one attack in Mamelodi and two Soshanguve, as set out on page 70 up to and including page 73, and then one incident, explosion at Ekangala, from page 73 up to and including 76.

MR VISSER: I'm sorry Mr Chairman, to interrupt my learned friend, but I'm getting confused now. Could Mr Lamey tell us what the status is of the incident mentioned at 57 to 58, because there's also reference to Mamelodi there?

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, if I could just explain that, the incidents referred to on page 56 to 58, you will note that the places on the previous page refer to Masuku, Atteridgeville, Ekangala, Mamelodi and Soshanguve. This was part of an initial application by the applicant before he obtained legal representation and during which he was assisted by the staff of the Attorney-General's office. What you find from page 62, with the annexure thereto, is an extract from a supplemented application in which the incidents are more specifically referred to under headings. And then the incident referred to initially in the first application of Atteridgeville is referred to on page 76, but that incident has already been dealt with by another Panel of the Committee. I don't know whether that clarifies it, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: If you can tell us what he was involved in, then I'm sure it will become clearer as well.

MR LAMEY: Mr Coetser, let us just go back to page 50, can you see that there was a form that you completed and which was signed in December 1996, and this was attested to before a Commissioner of Oaths in 1996?

MR COETSER: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: Is it correct that with your first application you were assisted by staff from the Attorney-General's office?

MR COETSER: I confirm that, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: And then on page 55 up to page 61, a statement is found where reference is made to the places on page 56, Masuku, Atteridgeville, Ekangala, Mamelodi and Soshanguve, is that correct?

MR COETSER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: And then there is a statement of yours with regard to all of these incidents, explained from page 71 to 78.

MR COETSER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Now I would just like to ask you, what is further dealt with in the supplementary application from page 62, is it correct that that is from page 62, the supplementary application and in annexures to that?

MR COETSER: That's correct.

MR LAMEY: And specific extracts have been made from there, the only one which is not dealt with in particular here is the bomb attack in Atteridgeville.

MR COETSER: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And that has already been dealt with by another Panel from the Amnesty Committee. Is it correct that you were only involved in these incidents, namely one petrol bomb attack in Mamelodi and two petrol bomb attacks in Soshanguve?

MR COETSER: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: The attack in Atteridgeville, where Esther Masuku was deceased?

MR COETSER: That's correct.

MR LAMEY: And then the explosion in Ekangala.

MR COETSER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Very well. Is it correct that on page 68 and 59 there is a brief background that you sketch with regard to your involvement in the Security Police?

MR COETSER: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And then in paragraph 1.8 you refer that you were present at a discussion in Brig Viktor's office - let me just find the paragraph, where you met him at Brig Viktor's office, that he indicated that "we would start eliminating political activists"?

MR COETSER: That's correct.

MR LAMEY: Is that the understanding you had from that conversation?

MR COETSER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: And is it correct that afterwards you received instructions, specifically requested by Capt Hechter then, to participate in these actions?

MR COETSER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Is it correct that you had the opportunity to look at the particulars that you supplied on page 70 72 and 73, with regard to the petrol bomb attacks in Mamelodi and Soshanguve?

MR COETSER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Do you confirm the correctness as it is stated there?

MR COETSER: I confirm that, yes Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: And then in paragraph 4 on page 71 you say that what you can recall is that Capt Hechter indicated to you that a person had died in one of these attacks.

MR COETSER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Do you have any direct evidence of this, or more particulars than you supply there?

MR COETSER: None, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Can you briefly tell the Committee what your rank was when you received your instructions.

MR COETSER: I was a Sergeant, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: And you were with the Northern Transvaal Security Branch, Section B.

MR COETSER: Yes, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: And was Capt Hechter also a senior officer in that regard?

MR COETSER: Yes, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Did you understand that this instruction came from higher up than Capt Hechter, with all these incidents?

MR COETSER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: And from whom would this come from above Capt Hechter?

MR COETSER: I believed from the Commander, Brig Cronje, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Is that how you understood it?

MR COETSER: Yes, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: You role - let us refer to the attacks in Soshanguve and Mamelodi, what was your role there?

MR COETSER: I was the driver of the minibus in which we moved in, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Did you leave the minibus at the places where you arrived and where you had to stop?

MR COETSER: No, Chairperson, I stayed in the minibus until after the attack.

MR LAMEY: Who identified the targets, or who indicated to you where to stop?

MR COETSER: Capt Hechter told me where to drive and where to stop, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: I would just like to ask you then, in all these incidents that you were involved in, was it yourself, Capt Hechter and Maj Viktor, that you can specifically recall?

MR COETSER: Yes, and an unknown black man that I cannot recall, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: What I would just like to ask you is, was Sgt Deon Gouws involved in any of these incidents where you were involved?

MR COETSER: No, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: And Mr Eric Goosen?

MR COETSER: No he was not, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: And the time period during which these incidents had taken place, you refer to it as from February to March 1986.

MR COETSER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: And if we could briefly go to the Ekangala incident, in this incident is it correct so that you once again drove the minibus?

MR COETSER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: And in this instance your inference was that an explosive device would be used.

MR COETSER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Do you know whether any persons were killed and/or injured?

MR COETSER: I do not know, Chairperson, I could not determine whether it was so.

MR LAMEY: Did you foresee the possibility, and when I refer to this incident I also refer to the other incident, that people could be injured and/or killed?

MR COETSER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Because of these attacks?

MR COETSER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Did you bear any knowledge in any of these instances, that there was a specific purpose, or that the plan and purpose of this was to eliminate someone specifically that evening, or was it just a general attack with the foreseeability that someone could be injured or killed?

MR COETSER: It was in general, with the foreseeability that somebody could be killed and/or injured, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: And with regard to the Ekangala incident you recall that there were members of the Bronkhorstspruit Security Branch present.

MR COETSER: That is correct, Chairperson.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Mr Lamey, I never realised that I should ask you to go slower.

MR LAMEY: I apologise.

Can we repeat that. Your recollection is that members of the Bronkhorstspruit Security Branch were also there.

MR COETSER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Can you recall anyone specifically?

MR COETSER: I cannot recall who it was, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: And then you have heard the other evidence. You make mention with regard to the Ekangala incident, that the explosive device was manufactured by the Technical Division. Can you shed some light on this? You have heard the evidence of Mr Viktor, that it was a manufactured explosive device that was made by Capt Hechter, in a type of tin.

MR COETSER: I assumed that the Technical Division would manufacture these items, Chairperson, but I cannot doubt it if Mr Hechter says that he manufactured them himself.

MR LAMEY: Did you see a tin like this before the time?

MR COETSER: Yes, I did Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Very well. And then on page 76, with regard to orders and approval, you say that you accepted that the attack had taken place in consultation and with the knowledge of Bronkhorstspruit Security Branch and also possibly the approval of Col Kendal. You do not know whether he gave instructions or approval for this?

MR COETSER: I do not know Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Is it also correct that in each instance where you were involved you depended on the information that Lieut Hechter had collected, you were not in a position yourself to verify this information?

MR COETSER: No, I accepted Lieut Hechter's word, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Is it correct that after the Atteridgeville incident where you heard that somebody had been killed there, that you did not want to be involved in any of these operations and you informed Brig Cronje to that effect?

MR COETSER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: And you were then excused from any further participance?

MR COETSER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: And you were not involved in any more of these incidents other than the ones you have mentioned?

MR COETSER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chairperson, that is the evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Lamey. Mr Visser, do you have any questions you'd like to put to Mr Coetser?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Thank you, Chairperson.

Mr Coetser, I'm not sure whether I understand properly, do you have page 55 of bundle 2 before you?

MR COETSER: I have it before me, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: That is the one that you signed as it would appear from page 61, before a member of the investigative team of the Attorney-General, is that correct?

MR COETSER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Is that your original amnesty application?

MR COETSER: This is the one that I sent to the Attorney-General.

MR VISSER: Yes, is this your original application?

MR COETSER: Yes, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: And the one from page 62, is this a supplementary or replacement application?

MR COETSER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Now I wish to refer you to page 57 in order to clear up something that might be unclear. If you look at the bottom of the page you will see a small (b) Ekangala there, do you see that? Page 57.

MR COETSER: I see that.

MR VISSER: Do you see the paragraph just above that, where the paragraph reads:

and then you gave reasons.

MR COETSER: That is correct.

MR VISSER: To what do you refer when you say that you remained in the vehicle, because it follows on the paragraph that deals with a visit to Brig Viktor at his office in Head Office? Is there any relation between the two paragraphs or is there no relation? I can see you are confused, let me ask you this way. Did you remain in the vehicle when the people went in to speak to Brig Viktor?

MR COETSER: No, we walked to his office from Compol building.

MR VISSER: Were you present?

MR COETSER: Yes, I was.

MR VISSER: Now you are saying that Brig Viktor gave you an instruction to eliminate black activists.

MR COETSER: That's correct.

MR VISSER: What does that mean, to remove them, to kill them?

MR COETSER: That's correct, as I understood it.

MR VISSER: Did you listen to the evidence of his son, Mr Viktor who gave evidence here?

MR COETSER: I have listened, yes Chairperson.

MR VISSER: And I want to tell you that Brig Viktor also gave evidence before the original Amnesty Committee, in which he denied that this had ever happened, that he had given such an instruction and the Committee found that he made a suggestion that there had to be counter-elimination activities of bomb attacks and petrol bomb attacks, but not elimination. What do you say about that?

MR COETSER: That is how I understood it, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Can you possibly be mistaken with your comprehension of what was said there exactly?

MR COETSER: I could have made a mistake, yes Chairperson.

MR VISSER: I think your representative asked you this, but I want to make sure with regard to the instances about which you gave evidence, with regard paragraphs 56 to 58 and pages 70 and following in bundle 2. You cannot recall any further information? These are the instances where you refer to the Mamelodi incidents. You cannot recall any further particulars?

MR COETSER: No, I cannot.

MR VISSER: And with regard to the Ekangala incident, is it your clear recollection that Mr Viktor junior was present there?

MR COETSER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ms Coleridge.

MS COLERIDGE: I have no questions, thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: You don't want to ask any questions Mr Goosen, seeing that Mr Alberts is not here? Do you want to ask any questions yourself?

MR GOOSEN: No thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Any re-examination, Mr Lamey?

CHAIRPERSON: Just de Jager, any questions? Advocate Sigodi?

Thank you Mr Coetser, that concludes your testimony.

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, at this point I just wish to ask for a short indulgence. The other applicant that I represent, Mr Oosthuizen, has arrived a couple of minutes ago, I just need to clarify one or two aspects with him.

CHAIRPERSON: No, certainly you don't have to convince us, we'll allow for you to speak to him. We'll take a short adjournment, if you can let us know when you're ready, Mr Lamey, then we can continue.

MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chairperson.

MS COLERIDGE: All rise.

MR LAMEY: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, the next applicant is Mr Stephanus Adriaan Oosthuizen.

STEPHANUS ADRIAAN OOSTHUIZEN: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: The applicant's application appears from page 70 in the first bundle and then the particular incident which the applicant is applying for before this Committee, is referred to as "Incident 8" on page 77 and it continues up to page 79. Thank you.

Mr Oosthuizen, is it correct that you applied for various incidents in which you were involved in the past as a member of the South African Police, and that some of them have already been heard?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: I have already referred the Chairperson to the pages in the bundle where your application appears. Is it correct that the form was signed by you in November 1996, and that an annexure was attached to this document?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: The specific incident for which application is made before this Committee appears on page 77, and there you refer to an attempt to a bomb attack or arson and you state the place as Mamelodi or Atteridgeville. Now I would like to ask you whether you are capable of giving us more clarity today regarding the place where the incident took place?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: Chairperson, if my memory serves me correctly I think that it was Atteridgeville and not Mamelodi. I cannot recall any incident in which I was involved which took place in Mamelodi.

MR LAMEY: Very well. And where were you stationed at that point?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: I was on deployed service to the Security Branch Northern Transvaal, under the command of Capt Hechter.

MR LAMEY: Did you serve under his command at that stage when you were deployed?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And were you requested by Capt Hechter to assist in this case?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Can you recall what took place? Can you recall whether a petrol bomb or a bomb was used in this case?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: Chairperson, unfortunately I cannot say with certainty, I did not see the instrument that evening, however I would recall that we would set the house on fire by means of a petrol bomb.

MR LAMEY: You did not see the device itself?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: No, I did not.

MR LAMEY: Can you recall what took place? Was this action executed or what?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: Chairperson, we drove to the vicinity of the house ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, who was present with you, can you remember, Mr Oosthuizen?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: Chairperson, I can recall that Capt Hechter and Deon Gouws were present, however I cannot say with certainty whether Wouter Mentz was involved in it. My recollection regarding this is rather vague. And whether anybody else was present as well.

MR LAMEY: Who conducted the specific target determination?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: The information came from the Northern Transvaal Security Branch.

MR LAMEY: But who had it, who took you to the place?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: Capt Hechter.

MR LAMEY: I just interrupted you, was the action executed or what took place?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: The action was not executed, circumstances in that environment dictated that it was either Army patrols of police presence in the area, but we decided that we would not execute the action and we withdrew back to the office.

MR LAMEY: Very well. At which point did you withdraw, where were you when you withdrew? Can you recall?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: We were not near the house, we went into the same suburb or street block, we were that far from the target. I also cannot recall that the house was identified to me, but there was definitely a problem which stood in our way, for which reason then we could not continue.

MR LAMEY: Very well. Then I would like to refer you to a passage from the bundle - Chairperson, I'm referring to bundle 2, page 131.

Previously there have been applications which have been heard and I want to refer you to a decision of the Amnesty Committee, which pertains to an application by Wouter Mentz, where he refers to an abandoned attempt in Mamelodi in 1986 or '87. Just by the way, can you recall which year this was? The incident to which you referred.

MR OOSTHUIZEN: No.

MR LAMEY: But Mr Mentz apparently stated that the vehicle, and this is what the decision refers to, the vehicle in which they were travelling broke down on the way to Mamelodi and the whole operation was abandoned as a result of this. This case during which you withdrew, could this possibly be the same, or was your withdrawal not due to the breakdown of a vehicle?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: It is improbable, Chairperson. I cannot recall that I would have been involved or was involved in an incident in Mamelodi, and I also really cannot recall that Wouter Mentz, over and above the one other incident, was involved in this incident. And I also don't think that our withdrawal on that particular evening was due to the breakdown of a vehicle, there was another reason for it. So I don't believe this to be the same incident which has been mentioned.

MR LAMEY: And then furthermore, the particulars which are provided regarding your comprehension of the attempt was that it was to intimidate political supporters or activists.

MR OOSTHUIZEN: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Did you foresee at the stage when the instruction was given and when it was planned that you would throw a petrol bomb, that there could possibly be persons in the house who could be injured or killed as a result of your actions?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: Yes.

MR LAMEY: Do you confirm the particulars as set out on page 78 and 79?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chairperson, I have nothing further.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Lamey. Mr Alberts, do you have any questions?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Thank you, Chairperson.

Mr Oosthuizen, these applications for amnesty, you were not present this morning, but I want to tell you that they are characterised by one thing and that is the collectively poor memory that all of you have regarding the events of that time. I'm putting this to you as a fact. It would appear as if your own memory has failed you as well, and I will tell you why I have said this. This morning Mr Viktor junior, you know him.

MR OOSTHUIZEN: Yes.

MR VISSER: He applied this morning for a case, among others, in Mamelodi, in which according to him, they went, he and others went to bombard a house with petrol bombs. Furthermore, he states on page 102, paragraph 32 of bundle 2, he states:

He adds that he cannot recall that this operation was continued with. Your counsel has referred you to page 114 of bundle 2, and that is the application of Willem Wouter Mentz, who refers to an attempt at Mamelodi. Furthermore, he also states that they were on their way to Mamelodi, he states you specifically - you are W/O Andre Oosthuizen? He says that you were present and furthermore, he states that the Ford Station Wagon in which they were travelling broke down outside Mamelodi and that the operation was cancelled. Now I have heard you saying today that it is your evidence that you were not involved in a case where a vehicle broke down. Is that what you have stated, among others?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: Chairperson, I think you are mistaken if you implicate in an incident in which Mr Viktor junior was involved, because I never operated with him. I cannot tell that Wouter Mentz is mistaken, because his memory could also fail him as mine has failed me, but I do not think that one should try to bring the two together, because they are not related.

MR VISSER: I understand what you have said and it is practically the answer to my following question, because I wanted to refer you to bundle 2, or rather bundle 1, page 77 and 83, where in both cases you refer to a problem with transport. Now there is one of two possibilities, either it is the same incident in which Viktor and Mentz have made reference, or it is something different. On the grounds of what you have stated it would appear that it was something different, because you state that you never operation with Viktor junior.

MR OOSTHUIZEN: That is correct, Chairperson, we must be referring to two different incidents.

MR VISSER: You see, Mr Viktor junior confirms what you have stated, he also stated that he never acted with you. So for the purposes of the information of the Committee, it must be accepted that the incident described by you on page 77 and 83 as Incident 8, is not the incident to which I have just referred, which Viktor has spoken of.

MR OOSTHUIZEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Visser. Ms Coleridge, any questions?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey, do you have any re-examination?

CHAIRPERSON: Judge de Jager, any questions? Advocate Sigodi?

ADV SIGODI: No questions, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Oosthuizen, that concludes your evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey.

MR LAMEY: Thank you Chairperson. The next applicant is Mr Gouws.

MS COLERIDGE: Chairperson, I just want to check with you whether we could just adjourn for a short while. Our victim, Mr Willem Mampoer has arrived and I just wish to consult with him.

CHAIRPERSON: Certainly. We'll take a short adjournment and if you can let us know as soon as you are ready, Ms Coleridge, then we'll resume.

MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, the next applicant is Mr Deon Gouws.

DEON GOUWS: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Chairperson, before I lead the evidence, I understand that we only, as indicated previously you will not from Gouws' application on page 65 that he refers to incidents that happened in Pretoria, Bronkhorstspruit, KwaNdebele, Brits, Pietermaritzburg and Tembisa. In view of the previous ruling we will only then focus on those incidents in the areas around Pretoria and then Bronkhorstspruit, which is Ekangala. Thank you.

Mr Gouws, is it correct that you completed or handed in an application for amnesty in which you apply for amnesty for various incidents which you were involved in as a member of the South African Police?

MR GOUWS: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: In the bundle before the Committee on page 58, there is an initial application that was handed in, is that correct?

MR GOUWS: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And signed by you and then after you obtained legal representation, a supplementary application was prepared in which, amongst others, you deal with incidents of arson, petrol bombs, as well as home manufactured bombs, as you mention there. Is that correct?

MR GOUWS: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: With regard to the dates, you say:

Mr Gouws, may I then ask you, most of the applicants whose applications deal with the period '86, and I think Hechter ... could your reference to '84 be incorrect in this regard?

MR GOUWS: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: At the stage when you supplied these particulars did you have the opportunity to have insight to other applicants' applications?

MR GOUWS: No, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Will you please tell the Committee, during the time period, the areas to which you refer to on page 65, how many incidents in total were you involved with? If you should guess.

MR GOUWS: Chairperson, I have to guess, I would say between 40/50, maybe 60 incidents.

MR LAMEY: Was it possible for you when you drew up your application to individually and independently recall all those incidents with regard to the specific time and place and the specific residential area, who was with you on every occasion, or what is the position?

MR GOUWS: Chairperson, it is impossible to recall everything, who was present, which incident and when, I cannot recall it.

MR LAMEY: If we study page 66, or let us commence with page 65, the areas to which you refer to in Pretoria, which areas does that include?

MR GOUWS: That would be Soshanguve, Atteridgeville, as well as Mamelodi.

MR LAMEY: And then Bronkhorstspruit?

MR GOUWS: That would be Ekangala.

MR LAMEY: I would just like to ask you, according to your recollection how many incidents were you involved in in Ekangala?

MR GOUWS: Only one, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: I shall get back to that. Can you possibly, with regard to Mamelodi, Atteridgeville and Soshanguve, can you recall how many incidents there?

MR GOUWS: No, Chairperson, I cannot recall.

MR LAMEY: You have also had the opportunity of looking at the bundle, insofar as particulars are supplied there by other applicants where it has regard to you, is that correct?

MR GOUWS: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: We will have a look at each and every one of them shortly. Where you say houses were attacked by petrol bombs, when you refer to Julius Schultz, Joe Mamasela and Jacques Hechter and yourself, do you refer there in general?

MR GOUWS: Yes, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: You could not connect them to each and every incident?

MR GOUWS: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Now in this bundle - you have heard here at this hearing that Mr Eric Goosen had also applied for amnesty.

MR GOUWS: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: And then you say in each of the incidents the attacks were carried out on identified houses, and according to what you understood they were all the homes of activists, is that correct?

MR GOUWS: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: And a standard modus operandi was followed, the vehicle was parked far away from the house and then you moved to the house on foot, where a petrol bomb would be thrown through the window of the house, is that correct?

MR GOUWS: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: And does that include manufactured explosive devices?

MR GOUWS: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: At a stage when you were involved in these incidents, where were you stationed?

MR GOUWS: I was doing devolved service at the Security Branch.

MR LAMEY: Where was your permanent base at that stage?

MR GOUWS: I was with the Special Investigative Unit at Head Office.

MR LAMEY: If you were devolved down to the Security Branch, under whose command did you serve there?

MR GOUWS: Brig Cronje, but directly under Capt Hechter.

MR LAMEY: And in each of these incidents you received instructions from Capt Hechter?

MR GOUWS: That's correct.

MR LAMEY: On page 163 up to page 167, Mr Gouws, of bundle 2 before this Committee, is an extract from the amnesty application of Capt Hechter and in there he also mentions your involvement in Mamelodi and Atteridgeville and Soshanguve, is that correct?

MR LAMEY: You have had the opportunity of studying the contents thereof.

MR GOUWS: I went through it briefly, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: And would you concur in general with the contents therein?

MR GOUWS: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: May I then ask you, were you involved in any incident where you and Sgt Tiny Coetser were both present?

MR GOUWS: Not at all.

MR LAMEY: And then on page 186, I beg your pardon, on page 171 of the application of Hechter, up to page 179, reference is made to your involvement in an incident at Ekangala, is that correct?

MR GOUWS: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: That is the earlier incident to which you referred.

MR GOUWS: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And do you concur with the version of Capt Hechter there?

MR GOUWS: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: That particulars supplied by him should be considered in the decision of your application?

MR GOUWS: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you just briefly tell us what happened, taking into account the fact that Capt Hechter says he can't remember very well.

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

MR GOUWS: I see in his application he says that we reconnoitred the house during the day. I cannot recall that. I doubt whether I would have moved into a black residential area during the day, but the rest I can recall vaguely, the window that I broke and the bomb that was thrown into the house. It was a general modus operandi anyway.

JUDGE DE JAGER: But what did you do?

MR GOUWS: ...(no audible reply and no interpretation)

MR LAMEY: And then on page 186 reference is made to bomb explosions, not petrol bombs, where he refers to your involvement at Atteridgeville, Mamelodi, Soshanguve. Do you agree that you were involved in such incidents?

MR GOUWS: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: And you role, can you recall was your role more active, in the sense that every time you climbed out physically, walked to the premises, or were there occasions when you remained behind in the vehicle and so forth? What is your recollection?

MR GOUWS: Chairperson, it is difficult to state it, but I would say I was fit at that time and I could easily climb over walls, so the possibility that I would have remained with the car would be very remote. So I would think I was present when the bombs were thrown.

MR LAMEY: But with regard to target identification and the house that was identified, you depended on whom?

MR GOUWS: That was Capt Hechter.

MR LAMEY: And then if I may refer you to the application of Mr Goosen, that is in bundle 2 page 26, there he also refers to your particulars with regard to an incident at Mamelodi West. This is a bomb attack on some house and there he refers to a mellow-yellow explosive device.

MR GOUWS: Chairperson, I cannot specifically recall it, but I shall not dispute it.

MR LAMEY: You do not dispute his version?

MR GOUWS: No, I do not.

MR LAMEY: As well as page 32 where he refers to a petrol bomb attack where he also refers to you, similarly to the previous one, do you agree, or do you have any reason to dispute the correctness of that version?

MR GOUWS: I agree with him, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Then there is an application of Mr Mentz that has already been heard ...(intervention)

JUDGE DE JAGER: What page?

MR LAMEY: Bundle 2, page 214 Chairperson.

... where Mr Mentz refers to Mamelodi and then in the Judgment, or he refers to a Ford Station Wagon which they drove in and which broke down and the operation was then cancelled. Can you recall such an incident?

MR GOUWS: I recall that, yes Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Can you recall at which stage the operation - where did you get to before the operation was cancelled?

MR GOUWS: Chairperson, I recall correctly we were just outside the black residential area, we had not entered it yet and the car broke down, and from there we went to seek assistance.

MR LAMEY: Do you know or can you recall whether Mr Oosthuizen was present on this occasion?

MR GOUWS: Chairperson, because he was with me under other circumstances most of the time, I cannot say with certainty whether he was with me or not.

MR LAMEY: The question is actually whether you can recall today whether he was at the scene?

MR GOUWS: No, I cannot.

CHAIRPERSON: And Mr Viktor junior? Or whether Mr Viktor was with you when the vehicle broke down?

MR GOUWS: ...(no audible reply and no interpretation)

MR LAMEY: And then Mr Oosthuizen also gave evidence before this Committee, and initially he referred in his application to an incident that had been cancelled and he referred to it as Mamelodi or Atteridgeville, and he also refers to you there. I would just like to get to the particular passage, it's on page 77. Can you recall whether you were involved in an incident in Atteridgeville where a mission was abandoned? He also refers to you there.

MR GOUWS: I cannot recall that from the top of my head, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Or can you recall another incident where because of a vehicle problem, the operation was cancelled?

MR GOUWS: No.

MR LAMEY: So you recall the one in Mamelodi?

MR GOUWS: That's correct, yes.

MR LAMEY: And then with regard to the political motive as supplied by the other applicants and by yourself, this appears from page 67 and 68, do you concur?

MR GOUWS: Yes, I do.

MR LAMEY: You also foresaw here when each and every time an attack was launched that would be someone in the ho use that could be killed or injured?

MR GOUWS: Yes, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Did it come to your knowledge that in any of the attacks that you were involved with any persons were killed or injured?

MR GOUWS: Chairperson, I did not have any knowledge about anything like that up until about six months ago when Mr Eric Goosen came forward with the information that there was an incident in Atteridgeville. I've already given evidence about that.

MR LAMEY: Was that at another hearing where you had already given evidence?

MR GOUWS: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: But except for that incident there is no other incident where persons were killed or injured that you know of?

MR GOUWS: No, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chairperson, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, at that time Mr Gouws, what was your rank, what rank did you hold?

MR GOUWS: ...(no audible reply and no interpretation)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Alberts, any questions?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Yes, thank you Chairperson.

May I just refer to page 56 of volume 1 and ask you, at the bottom of the page you refer to Pietermaritzburg, is the intention to refer to Pietermartizburg, or possibly to Pietersburg?

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

MR GOUWS: ...(no audible reply - no interpretation)

MR VISSER: I would just like to put it to you that insofar as you mention on page 66, Johan Viktor in general as a person with whom you had acted, I would just like to tell you that he says he never acted with you in Pietermaritzburg.

MR GOUWS: That is true.

MR VISSER: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, the question, was that reference to Pietermaritzburg? Did you operate in Pietermaritzburg area?

MR GOUWS: ...(no audible reply and no interpretation)

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Coleridge, any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS COLERIDGE: Just a few questions, Chairperson.

Where were you originally stationed, with these incidents? Were you at the Special Investigations Unit?

MR GOUWS: I was stationed at Police Head Office.

MR COLERIDGE: And were you formally seconded or whatever, to the Security Force Unit? Just explain that to me, I just need some clarity on that.

MR GOUWS: Chairperson, at the Special Investigative Unit at Head Office we worked right throughout the country, if there were any problem areas we would go there and during this specific term we went to Northern Transvaal Security Branch.

MR COLERIDGE: And then who was your Commander at the Special Investigations Unit?

MR GOUWS: Brig van Wyk.

MR COLERIDGE: And was Brig van Wyk aware of these activities, these operations you were involved in?

MR GOUWS: I'm not sure, I'm not sure.

MR COLERIDGE: Did you give any feedback or report-backs to Brig van Wyk?

MR GOUWS: No, he and Brig Cronje from the Security Branch did liaise with each other.

MR COLERIDGE: So you expected that Brig Cronje would actually inform him of these operations that you were involved in?

MR GOUWS: That is correct, yes Chairperson.

MR COLERIDGE: But was it expected of you to report back to Brig van Wyk?

MR GOUWS: No, Chairperson, not at all.

MR COLERIDGE: Thank you, Chairperson, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Any re-examination Mr Lamey?

CHAIRPERSON: Judge de Jager, any questions?

JUDGE DE JAGER: I just have a little problem. You were involved in approximately 60 incidents and you cannot give us any particulars of a particular incident, not from one of the 60, is there not something that you might recall, like at this house somebody was screaming, at that house they ran out and at that house there were many cars, or something like that?

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone.

MR GOUWS: Chairperson, my problem is it was at night and we were also nervous, so we didn't take all that much note.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you at any stage informed of the identity of the target, the activist whose house you were going to attack? Did you know his name or her name?

MR GOUWS: Not at all, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: You were never told that by Hechter?

MR GOUWS: ...(no audible reply and no interpretation)

ADV SIGODI: Just on that, you mean you went to attack or bomb houses without knowing who it was that you actually sought?

MR GOUWS: Chairperson, I had knowledge that it was identified houses of persons who threatened the State, so I concurred with it.

ADV SIGODI: And the people that you sought, I mean the targeted people, you had no knowledge who they were, you only knew the houses?

MR GOUWS: That is correct, Chairperson.

ADV SIGODI: You were never shown the photos in the albums that the Security Branch had?

MR GOUWS: No, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you do operations singly, or would you on a night go and hit five houses or three or four, or would you just do one at a time?

MR GOUWS: Chairperson, it could be that we did more than one house per evening, but it would then be that the areas would be somewhat separate from one another, one would not strike the same number of houses in the same area in the same evening.

CHAIRPERSON: And were you an explosives expert in any way? Did you know about the bombs, be they petrol bombs or mellow-yellows that you were handling?

MR GOUWS: Chairperson, I only knew how to light it, that's all.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you know who made those bombs?

MR GOUWS: Chairperson, I made some of the petrol bombs myself. It is very simple, but those which operated with explosives I would not know, it came from Capt Hechter, and before him I don't know from whence they came.

CHAIRPERSON: Any questions arising, Mr Lamey?

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Coleridge?

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Gouws, that concludes your testimony.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey, are you calling any other witnesses?

MR LAMEY; I've got no further witnesses, thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Coleridge.

MR COLERIDGE ADDRESSES: Chairperson, I'd just like to place a few facts on record. We traced Mr William Mampoer and I've consulted with him, Chairperson. It appears that the application of Mr Goosen relates to Mr Mampoer and his family. That is the incident in Mamelodi West, between January and April 1986. That's north of Tasemajaas(?) Street. Thank you.

Chairperson, in relation to the facts Mr Mampoer states that a bomb, he's not sure whether it was a petrol bomb or what kind of bomb it was, was thrown through the bedroom window. There were eight people in the house at the time, Chairperson. Their names are Dingaan Mampoer, it's his brother, Archie Mampoer, Kenneth Mampoer, Regina Mampoer, Jeanette Mampoer, Lydia Mampoer and Jacob Mampoer. These are all his brothers and sisters, Chairperson. His mother and father were also in the house at the time, but they are deceased, Chairperson.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Sorry, the first name you mentioned?

MR COLERIDGE: Dingaan Mampoer.

CHAIRPERSON: And was the victim, Mr Willie Mampoer, himself in the house?

MR COLERIDGE: Chairperson, I believe he was not in the house, he was moving from place to place at that point in time, Chairperson. And also, the facts relate to him being the organiser of the Mamelodi Youth Organisation, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: It was referred to by Mr Goosen?

MR COLERIDGE: That is correct, Chairperson. And the other fact, that it did also occur during the early hours of the morning, it was between two and four o'clock.

CHAIRPERSON: It seems very probable that it's the same incident. And what about any personal injuries, or was it damage to property?

MR COLERIDGE: Chairperson, just damage to property, fortunately no-one was injured.

CHAIRPERSON: ... notwithstanding that, the persons in the house would be referred to the Reparations Committee as victims, there might be a shock element or they might have lost property, but that would be for the Reparations Committee to sort out, but we will mention the names to that Committee. Thank you. Anything else?

MR COLERIDGE: No thank you, Chairperson, that concludes ...

CHAIRPERSON: Thanks. That then seems to be all the evidence in the hearing, can we hear submissions now? Who is going to start?

MR VISSER: Chairperson, I have no problem starting, but my learned friend Mr Alberts seems to be under pressure for time, perhaps he wants to address you as to what his situation is.

MR ALBERTS IN ARGUMENT: Chairperson, if I'm allowed to, I'll be very brief.

In my submission it's not necessary to deal any further with Mr Mampoer's situation, as you've point out that will be taken care of in due course and any other victims in that regard. On the assumption of course, that it pertains to this ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: It seems highly likely, same area, youth organiser, bomb at two to four in the morning, I'm sure it's probably the same, we'd be quite safe to accept that.

MR ALBERTS: It could be, yes. But I don't believe that's either here nor there at this stage. And I'm not being callous about it.

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, it's just that we have a duty insofar as possible in making our decisions, to give opinions as to who victims are. So from our point of view it's relevant, but it doesn't have any real effect on the merits of the application in this particular instance.

MR ALBERTS: As it pleases you.

Insofar as the four incidents are concerned relating to Mr Goosen, in my submission, in respect of each incident he made a particularly detailed and full disclosure. There is nothing suspicious or inherently unreliable in his evidence. In fact, everyone else who had anything to say about this incident, although they didn't positively confirm it, certainly couldn't detract from the truthfulness of that ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: It would seem that of all the applicants, perhaps Mr Goosen's recollection is probably the most detailed.

MR ALBERTS: I agree fully with you Mr Chair, on that. But that has been a feature of Mr Goosen's application in its entirety. In all the incidents we've heard he's made an absolutely full disclosure, he has good memory about this. Possibly it's because Mr Goosen at that stage was young and particularly impressionable and was involved in this type of activity to a very limited extent. But nevertheless, he has a good recollection and thus he's put everything forward frankly. If his application is taken in its whole, I submit that he is speaking the truth and he is speaking the full truth. And under those circumstances it merely remains for me to submit that Mr Goosen has complied with all the requirements set by the Act, and that amnesty should be granted to him in respect of these four incidents, and particularly in respect of each incident for all offences and delicts evidenced by his evidence, or shown by his evidence, including the particular acts which are enumerated in each instance. Unless there is anything further that you would like to hear me on, those are the submissions I have to make at this stage.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Alberts. If you are in a hurry, you may be excused if you wish.

MR ALBERTS: Thank you ever so much, Mr Chairperson, and thank you to the Committee Members as well.

JUDGE DE JAGER: ...(indistinct - no microphone)

MR ALBERTS: Sorry, I thought I'd dealt with that.

JUDGE DE JAGER: ...(indistinct - no microphone)

MR ALBERTS: No, no, I have been implicated. It really hasn't been necessary to take it further than that.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't know if you want to wait, if there's any response you might want.

MR ALBERTS: Mr Goosen has just indicated to me that finally he would like to say something, may he be granted that opportunity?

CHAIRPERSON: Certainly, Mr Goosen.

MR GOOSEN ADDRESSES COMMITTEE: Thank you, Chairperson.

Today I heard that a victim had been identified in one of these incidents in which I was involved. I wish one could turn back the hands of time, and in hindsight, it appears that our actions were very wrong. I would like to ask the witness or the victim and his family for forgiveness for any pain or discomfort that was caused by any of my actions. Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Goosen, I must say we appreciate the attitude shown by yourself. Thank you.

MR VISSER IN ARGUMENT: Chairperson, I shall attempt to beat my learned in brevity, but I don't think I'll succeed.

Chairperson, the hearings before you have been marked and characterised by applicants who cannot remember the details and lest it become something that concerns you Chairperson, I've attempted to find an explanation for that.

Mr Viktor said in his affidavit that perhaps the reason, well apart from his bad memory because of his post-traumatic stress syndrome, perhaps one of the reasons why he cannot remember is the fact that they were not really always told, they were not told beforehand, given full information, nor were they told afterwards what had happened. One must perhaps bear in mind Chairperson, that where they operated were in black areas, which are not known for their well lit and well marked streets and often there is a situation of a shanty town pathways, etcetera, and where under normal circumstances, it would be difficult to find a place which you visited at night.

Chairperson, perhaps, as it was stated by one of the other witnesses, I think it was the last witness, perhaps what he said is of great significance, and that is that there was a modus operandi, and come to think of it Chairperson, one doesn't suppose that there are a great many ways in which you would bomb a house, and it sounds logical that there would have been a modus operandi by which they lit whatever they threw into the house, threw it through the window and ran away. And if that is so, and that happened on 30 or 40 occasions ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Nothing spectacular about any particular incident, nothing unique about any particular incident.

MR VISSER: Correct, Chairperson. Unless of course, as Viktor has done, to remember in the case of Masuku, the dogs that were barking and in the case of the one Mamelodi incident where they threw the petrol bomb and it burst against the wall and it burnt outside and his clothes got caught.

Chairperson, I wish to make the submission to you not to put too much ...(indistinct) in the fact that the applicants could not remember details. It's not a question, in my submission, of a failure to make a full disclosure. In fact, in the case of Viktor he certainly, if one looks at his affidavit and his statements which he made, attempted as best he could to give as much information as he could.

But Chairperson, this very same problem was experienced, quite evidently, by the original Committee on Amnesty, and I wish to refer you to page 118 of volume 2, where the original Amnesty Committee dealt with the application of Mr Hechter. You have seen his application Chairperson, he couldn't really remember anything. And the Committee, in its decision, deals with his loss of memory at page 117 and then over the page at 118, please allow me to read this to you, because it does appear to be on all fours with the applications now before you. I start under the heading:

I can possibly go quicker, because it doesn't have to be interpreted, I don't believe, Mr Chairman.

The Committee says:

and one might add the mellow-yellows.

Chairperson, it is evident, in my submission, that the original Committee on Amnesty were faced with the same problem of a lack of specifics and peculiarity on the part of Cronje, Hechter and Van Vuuren. We don't know about the others, but certainly from those. Which gave to rise to this, I might almost say, extraordinarily widely worded amnesty. It is wide, Chairperson, it does not specify any incident, which one would normally expect, it does not give any dates, it does not hook any of the amnesties to any particular timeframe, person, and only to areas in the vaguest of terms.

Chairperson, in my submission, if you added to (a) at page 119: 'Ekangala' and after "offences", the word 'delicts', we would submit that that is all that we could ask for before you. And in my submission that would cover, certainly, the amnesty asked for by Viktor, and I don't want to speak on behalf of the others, but probably all the applicants before you.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Except that he limits his participation to February to May.

MR VISSER: Correct, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: ... that is he's a hundred percent sure of, because of his posting, I mean he couldn't have done it before February and he couldn't have done it after May, because he wasn't around.

MR VISSER: Absolutely Chairperson, he couldn't possibly qualify for any amnesty outside those periods and that is why that evidence had been led with great precision, in order to perhaps in a way, narrow it down in order for you to relate your Order to a more specific period, yes.

Chairperson, you heard the evidence, I'm not going to repeat it. I'm hoping Chairperson, as I said before, that Exhibit A might be of some use to you. If one runs through it, it actually is of this assistance that if you look at Goosen, he does not implicate Viktor. Gouws implicates Viktor, and I'm referring to Mamelodi, page 1, at page 65 to 66, but only in the broadest terms, without specifics. Oosthuizen we can strike out, because according to Oosthuizen's evidence the issue of the transport problem referred to Soshanguve and not Mamelodi, so we're talking about two incidents, therefore Viktor is not implicated there ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, on that, if somebody's going - okay, we're going to the house of Mr X to throw a petrol bomb, car breaks down, what is that? A conspiracy? It's not even - where does an attempt start? I suppose when you pack the bombs in the boot and you set off. Or does the attempt start when you get out the car with the bomb in your hand? You know it's that sort of ... I think it might be a little bit remote for an attempt, I don't know.

MR VISSER: Yes, but again Chairperson, if you were to consider granting amnesty simply for all offences and delicts, it would cover it. And that's the beauty of that approach.

CHAIRPERSON: That's more Mr Oosthuizen's case, whether it's an attempt or a conspiracy, because that's the only one we're concerned with, with him.

MR VISSER: Viktor is the same, he was also ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, but I mean Mr Viktor's got 40 incidents he says that he was involved in, whereas Mr Oosthuizen, for us at this hearing, it's only the one and that one is one of these dud operations. So we'll hear from Mr Lamey what he says about it.

MR VISSER: Yes, you're quite correct Chairperson, in your view of the legal principles.

Chairperson, Hechter was granted amnesty, as I've read to you, and we could only ask you to consider granting amnesty to Viktor in the same terms. As far as Viktor is concerned and as far as his memory goes, we have in the fourth column given you the references and in parenthesis the three incidents that he remembers. The one is the abandoned one which we've just spoken about, the other is the Ribeiro one, which is not heard now, and the one is the one that he can recall having had to strike a whole lot of matches and that seems to have stuck in his memory.

Chairperson, as far as Mamelodi is concerned, that we can't take any further, except that we would ask you to add the incident mentioned by Coetser at pages 56 to 58 and 70, in bundle 2. He specifically implicates Viktor. Viktor has given evidence to say that if he's implicated, he's not able to deny it, and therefore Chairperson, we would ask you to include that particular incident in his amnesty application.

As far as Soshanguve is concerned Chairperson, again Gouws in the broadest of terms, as well as Coetser and Hechter, we can't take the matter any further. You've heard the evidence of Viktor, there were two incidents here that he can remember about. We've given you the references, bundle 2 page 102, paragraph 36, Chairperson, in that fourth column.

Atteridgeville. Again Gouws, but again in the widest of terms Chairperson, Coetser refers to the Masuku incident, that's the application that has been heard, and Van Vuuren, Chairperson, he doesn't specify any particular incident. So we can't gather too much assistance from any of the evidence or the applications of those applicants.

If I may refer you to page 4, Ekangala, it would appear Chairperson, that on Coetser's evidence Viktor was present in the incident referred to by him in volume 2, page 56 to 58, regarding Ekangala, and we would ask you then to add as it were, that incident to the other incident at Ekangala which Viktor gave evidence about. It's not an extension of his application, with respect Chairperson, it falls square within what he had stated in his affidavit.

Chairperson, other than that, Brits, Okasie and Pietersburg are left for another day and we would therefore ask you, Chairperson, to consider favourably granting amnesty to Viktor for any offence or delict committed by him, regarding petrol bombing or other bombing of houses in the areas mentioned by him, Chairperson, being Mamelodi, Soshanguve, Atteridgeville and Ekangala, including conspiracy and any other possible offence flowing directly from those attacks, during that period of February to May 1986. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Visser. Mr Lamey.

MR LAMEY IN ARGUMENT: Thank you, Chairperson. I'll start with the application of Mr Coetser.

Chairperson, as far as the offences are concerned I submit that subject to the opinion of the Committee, that it will be in order to grant him similarly amnesty for any offence, as also submitted by my learned friend, Mr Visser.

Chairperson, I do however see that in the previous decisions specific mention was made of contraventions of, for instance, the Dangerous Weapons Act and the Explosives Act ...(intervention)

JUDGE DE JAGER: I think at that stage we were not sure of what the exact Order ... and that was asked for and in those terms the decisions were framed, but if you have this general one of offences and delicts related to this, it would include that.

MR LAMEY: Yes. I would then also ask that Mr Coetser was in a position, probably in view of the fact that he could count the incidents that he was ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: He can remember each one, yes, unlike Gouws.

MR LAMEY: Yes, yes. I would then submit that it would be proper to grant him amnesty in respect of the period February to March 1986, in respect of one incident in Mamelodi, two incidents in Soshanguve and then the petrol bomb explosion at Ekangala.

CHAIRPERSON: What was his period again?

MR LAMEY: February 1986 to March 1986.

JUDGE DE JAGER: What do you say about the incident in Ekangala?

MR LAMEY: Similar, in the same way the broad Order, any offence in relation to that incident.

Chairperson, then if I could refer to Mr Oosthuizen. I submit, Chairperson, that at the most it was attempt here, to commit the act of arson or malicious damage to property or murder, so to speak, as the applicant did testify that it was foreseeable that, in the planning that somebody could be injured or killed. And I think that is applicable to all the applicants that have testified before you. But I think the offence in relation to the Explosives Act or the Dangerous Weapons Act, could have been completed.

JUDGE DE JAGER: If we would grant him amnesty in respect of any offence or delict committed on ... he was only involved on one occasion. ...(inaudible - no microphone) terms, but only limit it to one incident in Ekangala?

MR LAMEY: No, no, he said in his application, Mamelodi or Atteridgeville and during his evidence he says he was more certain it was actually Atteridgeville.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Ja, sorry.

MR LAMEY: But to be safe here, his memory is also not clear, I would say either Mamelodi or Atteridgeville.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, because I suppose one could start theorising, because you take a bomb, you go into a house to throw a bomb at a house, you put it in the boot of your car, you drive, car breaks down, now that might be an attempt in relation to arson, but not necessarily more than a conspiracy in relation to murder, because you don't even know whether there was anyone in the house or ... The attempt is closer to arson, because you put the bomb there, you're going to throw the bomb, you just haven't got there, but it's little bit further removed from murder. So it might be an attempt and/or conspiracy to arson and/or murder, or something like that.

MR LAMEY: Yes no, I agree with that, Chairperson. And as I've said, the offence relating to the Explosives Act or the Dangerous Weapons Act, could ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: In that particular incident where the car broke down, as you say that one was complete.

MR LAMEY: It was a completed offence, yes.

Chairperson, then as far as Mr Gouws is concerned, I must support the submission of my learned friend Mr Visser in this regard. You don't have any evidence of Mr Gouws relating to a specific stress disorder which impacted on his condition. Chairperson, the - and I submit that the most logical explanation for his inability to define each and every incident and to pinpoint a specific number of incidents, bar the Ekangala incident which he recalls was only incident where Coetser was not involved, Chairperson I submit that because the modus operandi has been almost the same in each and every instance and bearing in mind that he was involved in so many incidents in that period, Chairperson, that it would be proper also to give him amnesty in relation to incidents of arson or malicious damage to property, or in the order that you have suggested in the wide sense in relation to areas, Mamelodi, Atteridgeville, Soshanguve and Ekangala, which is then the specific incidents which are the subject matter of this hearing.

CHAIRPERSON: What is his period of operation, can you recall?

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, he said '84 to '86, but in his evidence he said he would rather go along with the other applicants, which suggests it was round about 1986/1987. I think in the application of Hechter he refer also to '86/'87. I think it would be safe to rather use that period, Chairperson, and he went along with that in his evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: But seeing that it started in - if we accept the evidence that the kick-off of these operations was that meeting with Brig Viktor, that is according to the applicant Viktor it was after February, or during February '86, when he was deployed to the units in Mamelodi.

MR LAMEY: Yes, yes. And it's also most probably the time, because the other evidence which we have heard before as to the incidents of violence was during that '86 period in the Pretoria area, Chairperson.

Chairperson, I don't know whether there's anything else that you wish to know from me regarding this specific incident. The other incidents like KwaNdebele, Brits, Pietermaritzburg and Tembisa is then for another day. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Coleridge.

MS COLERIDGE IN ARGUMENT: Yes, thank you Chairperson, I just have a few submissions to make in relation to Mr Viktor's amnesty application and the incidents that he's involved in.

We know that he was attached and he was the Commander of the Riot Investigative Unit in Mamelodi. His Commander at the time was Van Niekerk, who, as he had submitted and presented to us, had not known of any of the incidents that he was involved in, Chairperson, and he was just an ordinary policeman, he was not attached to the Security Branch, and I just have a problem in relation to his submissions relating to the orders he had received. We can't really say that he specifically received any instructions or orders from his Commander, but that he attended a general meeting which included his father, Mr Viktor. And Chairperson my submission is that he was in charge of the Mamelodi Riot Unit and he also had many people working below him, who he was the Commander of, but he'd never used anybody in any of these incidents and my submission is, Chairperson, that it's an extraordinary kind of a situation, where someone who is so detached from another unit and is totally involved in the workings of the Security Branch activities, and his submission was that he received the orders from Cronje. Whether Cronje could give him orders Chairperson, is another contentious issue, because shouldn't he take orders from his own Commander? And he'd never ever informed his own Commander of his activities which involved numerous incidents.

That is my submission in relation to his application, Chairperson, that there was a duty on him to inform his Commander and not get involved as he did, without anybody in his unit knowing of his activities and taking on tasks of other units and being involved in all these incidents, Chairperson. He just singled himself out in a sense. Those are the only issues that I'd like to highlight, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Does anybody wish to say anything?

MR VISSER IN REPLY: I suppose I have to, Chairperson.

I don't know what Mr Viktor does or did to single out a distinction of being singled out for criticism by Ms Coleridge. I also don't know what the authority of Ms Coleridge is, because there's no victim here who was affected by, on the evidence that we have, by what Mr Viktor did. His evidence was very simple and very clear, "hy was afgedeel", he fell under the orders and under the command of Brig Cronje, Chairperson. I don't know what the mystery is, with great respect.

CHAIRPERSON: Well that then concludes the hearing. We will reserve our decision, a written decision will be handed down.

I'd like to thank the legal representatives, all of them, for their assistance in this matter. I would also like - is this the end of the roll now, Ms Coleridge?

MS COLERIDGE: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: I'd also like to thank everybody who made this hearing possible, caterers, security, sound engineers, etcetera, members of the TRC staff and also to the church for providing us with this very beautiful and convenient venue. It's the first time I've been here and I must say it's very pleasant. Thank you very much. We'll then adjourn now.

MS COLERIDGE: All rise.

------------------