TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION COMMISSION
PRETORIA AMNESTY HEARINGS
------------------------------------------------------------
INDEX
DATE: 24 FEBRUARY 1997 DAY 1
NAME: PAGE NO:
BRIG CRONJE 1 - 20
CAPT HECHTER 21 - 37
ADDRESSES 38 - 67
LEGINA MABELA 68 - 71
CAPT MENTZ 72 - 90
DATE: 25 FEBRUARY 1997 DAY 2
VIDEO COMMENTARY 91 - 109
BRIG CRONJE 109 - 115
2ND VIDEO COMMENTARY 116 - 134
CAPT HECHTER 135 - 138
CAPT MENTZ 139 - 170
THOLAKELE NGQULUNGA 171 - 180
CAPT MENTZ 180 - 184
W/O VAN VUUREN 184 - 204
CAPT HECHTER 204 - 214
DATE: 26 FEBRUARY 1997 DAY 3
ADDRESS 215 - 225
S MURUDU 225 - 258
BRIG CRONJE 258 - 291
CAPT HECHTER 291 - 294
W/O VAN VUUREN 295 - 299
DATE: 27 FEBRUARY 1997 DAY 4
GEN VAN DER MERWE 300 - 344
ADDRESS 345 - 349
COL VENTER 350 - 350
W/O BEESLAAR 351 - 353
BRIG CRONJE 353 - 395
RULING - JUDGE MALL 395 - 396
ADDRESS 396 - 401
DATE: 28 FEBRUARY 1997 DAY 5
BRIG CRONJE 401 - 423
BRIG VAN WYK 424 - 437
COL LOOTS 438 - 454
CAPT HECHTER 455 - 495
ADDRESS 495 - 509
C RIBEIRO 509 - 518
DATE: 3 MARCH 1997 DAY 6
RULING - JUDGE MALL 519 - 520
C RIBEIRO 520 - 534
CAPT HECHTER 535 - 597
M CHIKANE 598 - 635
W/O VAN VUUREN 635 - 653
COL LOOTS 655 - 667
GENERAL RAS 669 - 687
DATE: 5 MARCH DAY 7
COL SIBULELA 688 - 719
MS HLABANGANE 722 - 745
ADDRESS 745 - 750
CAPT HECHTER 751 - 804
DATE: 6 MARCH DAY 8
CAPT HECHTER 805 - 832
CAPT MENTZ 833 - 848
M MALOBOLA 849 - 855
ADDRESS 855 - 860
COL VENTER 860 - 882
ADDRESS 882 - 886
W/O VAN VUUREN 886 - 905
CAPT HECHTER 906 - 907
J LERUTLA 909 - 913
M SIBAYA 914 - 919
ADDRESS 919 - 928
DATE: 7 MARCH DAY 9
BRIG CRONJE 928 - 954
COL VENTER 955 - 958
MR LUKHELE 959 - 1003
TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION COMMISSION
AMNESTY HEARING
DATE: 24 FEBRUARY 1997 NAME: JAN HATTINGH CRONJE
HELD AT: PRETORIA JACQUES HECHTER
LEGINA MABELA
WILLEM WOUTER
MENTZ
DAY 1
_________________________________________________________
JUDGE MALL: ... and their dependants that if they do need the assistance of members of the R & R
Committee, they should know who to contact.
ADV MPSHE: That will be done Mr Chairperson.
JUDGE MALL: Thank you. Are we ready to proceed?
ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman we are ready to start. It is a continuation in the matter of the five
applicants. Mr Chairman as agreed in chambers, we are going to stick to the matters as mentioned for
today, but I want to hasten to mention that inasfar as the Nietverdiend 10 matter is concerned, as I indicated
in chambers and as it is indicated also on record, that the office of the Attorney General was to assist in the
investigation pertaining to the determination of the identity of the deceased.
Mr Chairman I have been in contact with the office of the Attorney General, they are aware of
this sitting, I've set them with all the necessary documents, this morning I tried again to contact them to see
whether they are on the way, but unfortunately I could not get through, I left
messages on the cellphone, Mr Chairman.
I then propose with respect that the Nietverdiend 10 matter be dealt with later and we continue
with the schedule
Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MALL: Very well.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
3 BRIG CRONJE
ADV MPSHE: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, we will then start with the first matter for the
day, that is the killing of Joe Tsele. I will hand over to my learned friends for the applicants.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman before I start with the evidence
pertaining to this matter, I just want to raise one aspect and that is that I undertook to provide the
Committee with amendments to the applications pertaining to specific criminal offences.
That entails a detailed reference to the sections of the Arms and Ammunitions Act, etc. I have
compiled the amendments and I wish to hand them up to the Committee. Mr Chairman, I don't intend to
deal with this at all. You will note that this is a compilation just containing a reference to each schedule
and then to the paragraph where the offences are set out and then I have just listed the offences that should
be added to the offences already contained in the applications.
Thank you Mr Chairman. I then wish to call Brigadier Cronje.
JAN HATTINGH CRONJE: (sworn states)
EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, you will find this application on page 99 of
the volume of Brigadier Cronje. Brigadier, do you have the particular page in front of you, page 99 in your
application?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes, I do have it in front of me.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Brigadier, you may use the earphones if anyone asks questions in English.
Brigadier Cronje, could you indicate to the Committee the nature and the particulars
of this particular act. I will stop you and ask you questions when we want to add anything.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 4 BRIG CRONJE
BRIG CRONJE: This was during 1968 when Captain Crafford was a member of my staff and he made a
presentation to me namely that he had heard from a variety of informants that Joe Tsele was the UDF
organiser and that his house in Bophuthatswana was used as a transfer point for terrorists.
And that from that house he planned acts of terror in South Africa and provided arms and food to terrorists.
Subsequently I sent Mamasela to find if he could confirm this information, he returned to me and
said that the information was in fact correct.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Brigadier, can we stop at this point. Could you indicate or expand for the
Committee somewhat on the particular acts in which Tsele was involved with regard to your testimony?
Please expand somewhat on the safe house and the circumstances with regard to that. And in addition
whether he was involved in any planning with regard to particular targets.
BRIG CRONJE: As I have said Your Honour, he planned acts of terror from his home, he also used the
house as a hiding place for terrorists. He was also involved in strikes and boycotts.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Brigadier, were any arms passed through the house or kept in the house, what
was your information in this regard?
BRIG CRONJE: Information available to me was that Tsele knew where the caches of arms were and that
he pointed out
these particular places to the terrorists. Yes, these were arms caches.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Can you remember whether the information was that Tsele was involved in any acts
direct or indirect where people were killed?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 5 BRIG CRONJE
BRIG CRONJE: Yes, he was involved in such acts. I cannot remember any particular such acts, but the
terrorists who stayed with him as far as our information went, were involved in such acts.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you, you may continue with the third paragraph.
BRIG CRONJE: Myself, Captain Hechter, Mamasela and Captain Crafford, as well as a certain Bafana on
a particular morning were driving in my official vehicle until we were some distance from Tsele's home,
where we sent Mamasela and Bafana on to investigate the house and to determine whether any terrorists
were present there. While we were waiting for them, the instructions were that if there were any people in
the house, they had to return and inform us of the state of affairs.
While we were there, we heard shots. Mamasela and Bafana returned and informed us that they
had seen Tsele sitting in front of the television and that they had shot him. This was contrary to the
instruction which I had given them. The instruction was not that they were supposed to shoot the person.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Could you continue on the next page, this is page 100. If there is anything that
you did not give testimony to with regard to, please indicate so.
BRIG CRONJE: Tsele was involved in arson and strikes and
labour union activities as well as the generalised destabilisation of the State and the purpose of this
operation was to neutralise Tsele as well as other
terrorists in Tsele's home if they were found there and, to neutralise this terrorist safe house. It was
necessary to neutralise Tsele, since he was an activist engaged in a
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 5 BRIG CRONJE
variety of crimes as mentioned above. It was in addition necessary to eliminate him in his home. In
order to stabilise the area where he operated.
In addition the purpose was to remove the use of the ANC of the safe house and other operations
in this regard.
ADV DU PLESSIS: ... as previously pertaining to the general motivation in respect of intimidation
and the influence on White voters, etc, if I may take you Brigadier to page 109 in the middle of the page, if
you could read it for the Committee until page 110.
ADV DE JAGER: Only a moment please Mr du Plessis. Are you only not guiding the testimony because it
is irrelevant or because you consider it as having been read?
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman as in October during the hearings at that time, some of the motivations
in these particular acts concur and remain the same. This testimony has been provided at previous hearings
and for this reason I will not present it again and again.
You will note that the testimony from page 102 in the application through to 109, page 109, will
provide exactly the same motivation with regard to certain actions in terms of intimidation etc.
ADV DE JAGER: You want us to consider this as having been read in this case?
ADV DU PLESSIS: As a matter of course yes, as I remember it
was the position of the Committee that they didn't want to hear this testimony again and again. Certainly
the testimony given in the written presentation is considered to be part of the political motivation. Thank
you Mr Chairman. Brigadier, page 109, from the middle of the page, from PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 6 BRIG CRONJE
the words "this action ..."
BRIG CRONJE: The purpose of this action was to destabilise the ANC and other liberation movements
against the then Government and it must be seen against the subsequent state of emergency with the
purpose of combatting the state of terror and intimidation.
The ANC and other liberation movements made an attempt to make the country ungovernable as
part of their political revolt.
The legal nature of the act is apparent from the information above. With regard to the purpose,
the purpose was to eliminate an ANC supporter and terrorists and in addition to eliminate a safe house for
terrorists. This act was necessary with the purpose of to eliminate an ANC organiser in view of the state of
emergency and the war and the state of the security situation in the country.
This was necessary because of the strategy of the SAP at that time against the ANC which
attempted to destabilise the State.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Was this act also a part of the anti-revolutionary, or counter-revolutionary
approach of the State at that time?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes, it was.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Was the instruction in terms of which you acted, if you page to page 111, what were
your instructions?
It was because of the general instruction given by Brigadier Victor which is referred to in the general
background as well as Marius Schoon's instructions with regard to which
previous testimony has been given?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: I have no further questions.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 7 BRIG CRONJE
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DU PLESSIS.
JUDGE WILSON: Were you able to ascertain who actually killed Tsele?
BRIG CRONJE: As far as I could determine from Mamasela, he and Bafana both shot Mr Tsele, or fired
shots.
JUDGE MALL: Yes, Mr Mpshe?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV MPSHE: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Cronje, on page 99
of your application, you state that Tsele was a UDF organiser. Now my question to you is was this
confirmed by yourself before you could undertake the operation?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes Mr Chairman. We kept a file on Tsele and it was in fact confirmed. This file was
compiled by some of my investigative officers and was comprised of information by informants.
ADV MPSHE: May this file be made available to this Committee?
BRIG CRONJE: These files were all destroyed, Mr Chairman.
ADV MPSHE: Who destroyed them?
BRIG CRONJE: This was subsequent to my retirement, there was a general instruction to do this.
ADV MPSHE: In addition you gave testimony that you sent Mamasela to see whether he could confirm
the information which he then did confirm, how did Mamasela confirm this, was this orally or in writing?
BRIG CRONJE: He confirmed this to me orally.
ADV MPSHE: You were satisfied with this information
which he made available to you?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes, I was satisfied by this information.
ADV MPSHE: What distance from Mr Tsele's house did you
park, you say it was some distance from the house?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 8 BRIG CRONJE
BRIG CRONJE: It must have been about 300, 400 metres.
ADV MPSHE: Could you see the house from where you were parked?
BRIG CRONJE: No, we could not see the house and that is why I sent Mamasela and Bafana to the
house.
ADV MPSHE: Was it not necessary for yourself to keep the building in view in order to see what
Mamasela was doing?
BRIG CRONJE: No, I trusted Mamasela, it was the intention that he would return to me and tell me what
he had found at the house.
ADV MPSHE: You've said in addition that Mr Tsele was involved in arson and labour union activities,
boycotts, etc. Could you tell this Committee what exact or particular acts of arson or which particular
boycotts he arranged, or do you just have general information?
BRIG CRONJE: This was general information gained, or rather information gained from the file. He
worked for a particular company in Bophuthatswana from where he arranged boycotts and strikes.
ADV MPSHE: Are you able to tell the Committee when and how he committed these acts of arson?
BRIG CRONJE: No, I am unable to remember this.
ADV MPSHE: Can you remember whether he was engaged in maybe five or six or ten or how many acts
or arson?
BRIG CRONJE: No, not at all.
ADV MPSHE: Was he at any time involved in the organisation of boycotts?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes, he was.
ADV MPSHE: Could you mention any particular such events? Could you tell us which exact boycotts he
engaged in?
BRIG CRONJE: I cannot give you the dates or the particular PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 9 BRIG CRONJE
incidents, I cannot remember them.
ADV MPSHE: This particular paragraph seems to me very general, we have to do with the life of a person
and on very general information, this person was killed. Should this be enough for this Committee?
BRIG CRONJE: No, this was not just general information, this was confirmed information, confirmed by
informants. I also sent Mamasela with the intention of confirming the information in addition and all of
this information was in fact confirmed.
ADV MPSHE: This is what I am asking you, or what I am asking you is whether you can mention
particular cases of arson or boycotts and you cannot remember this?
BRIG CRONJE: This is 10 to 11 years ago and I cannot remember that far ago. This is not the only case
in which I was involved, I had many cases in which I was involved.
ADV MPSHE: I understand that, but for the purposes of this application, surely you must have made
some effort to gain this information for the Committee.
BRIG CRONJE: This information was available, I had told the Committee that this information had
existed, it had been confirmed, also it had been confirmed that this was in fact a safe house for terrorists.
I must mention that this was in Bophuthatswana, I could not trust the Bophuthatswana police to
give us information or to assist us. Bophuthatswana at that time was an independent State.
ADV MPSHE: How did you get involved in Bophuthatswana, were you invited to go and help there?
BRIG CRONJE: No, as the information was made available to
us, we acted on our own. I could not personally go and do
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 9 BRIG CRONJE
investigations there, we had to depend on information made available by our informants and also on
Mamasela. We could not operate inside Bophuthatswana itself.
ADV MPSHE: Nevertheless, this person was living in Bophuthatswana at that time?
BRIG CRONJE: Exactly, and he planned these acts of terror from there inside South Africa. That is
exactly why I am saying that he lived there and the operation was acted out in Bophuthatswana.
ADV MPSHE: Were you invited by the then Government of Bophuthatswana to act there?
BRIG CRONJE: No, we were not invited, we acted on our own without the knowledge of the then
Bophuthatswana Government.
ADV MPSHE: So did you enter Bophuthatswana at that time?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes, we did.
ADV MPSHE: No further questions, Mr Chairman, thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV MPSHE
JUDGE MGOEPE: Page 99, the bottom thereof, the last sentence but one -
"The instruction for Mamasela was to determine whether there were terrorists in the
house and to call us if that was the case. It was not the intention that he should simply
shoot the person."
BRIG CRONJE: That is correct, Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Do I understand this to mean that the killing was in your view, premature?
BRIG CRONJE: That is correct. Should there have been terrorists in the house, he would have called us
and we would all have gone in together at that time.
JUDGE MGOEPE: To do what?
BRIG CRONJE: We would not have been able to arrest them, PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
10 BRIG CRONJE
it was the intention to shoot them.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Now, had they not found any terrorists, would you have shot him or would you
have given instructions that he be killed?
BRIG CRONJE: No, he acted outside of his instructions. The instruction was not that he should have shot
Tsele.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Now if you first wanted to establish whether there were terrorists in the house
before you could give instructions for his elimination, doesn't that suggest that you still wanted some more
evidence before you could regard him as a legitimate target?
BRIG CRONJE: No, Mr Chairman, we had already considered him and identified him as a target. But we
would have preferred that there were terrorists in the house so that we would be able to eliminate them also.
That is why my instruction was not to shoot the person in the absence of terrorists.
JUDGE MGOEPE: What was the relevance of the presence of terrorists in relation to the question
of eliminating him?
BRIG CRONJE: Mr Tsele, from his house planned and organised acts of terror with those terrorists. For
that reason we felt that we had to eliminate him because we were not able to arrest him inside
Bophuthatswana.
JUDGE MGOEPE: The decision to eliminate him - well let me put it this way, I am not so sure
whether you thought of eliminating him subject to finding any terrorists in his house or whether the
decision had finally in any case been taken to eliminate him, even before you went to the house to look for
terrorists?
BRIG CRONJE: No Mr Chairman, we would only have eliminated
him if we found terrorists in his house. The intention was
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
11 BRIG CRONJE
to keep him alive and to allow him to continue with his activities so that at a later time we could find the
terrorists with him, and eliminate all of them together.
JUDGE MGOEPE: So had Mamasela and Bafana not acted rather prematurely in the way that they
did, the deceased might still have been alive today, if subsequently no terrorists were to be found in his
house at all?
BRIG CRONJE: That might be possible, Mr Chairman.
MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Cronje, I probably am not with you. What was the intention then of you, Captain
Hechter, Mamasela, Crafford, Bafana - I mean you are talking of quite a number of people, what was the
intention of going to Mr Tsele's house?
BRIG CRONJE: The intention Mr Chairman was that if we were to have found terrorists in Mr Tsele's
house, we would have shot them.
MS KHAMPEPE: And your intention was to shoot Mr Tsele as well?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes, we also would have eliminated him.
MS KHAMPEPE: Did you believe on the reliability of the information that you had received from the
informers, which information was later corroborated by Mr Mamasela, did you really believe in that
information at that stage?
BRIG CRONJE: I did believe this information Mr Chairman, because there were on numerous occasions,
on every previous occasion in fact, Mamasela had told the truth and we trusted our informants. This was
not the only case where they have provided us with information and we found that their information was
always correct.
MS KHAMPEPE: So you knew then that the house was used as a safe house for terrorists, you knew then
that Mr Tsele was
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
12 BRIG CRONJE
engaged in the activities which you were told by both your informants and Mr Mamasela. What then was
the reason for you to send Mr Mamasela and Bafana to establish information
which you already had from a number of sources?
BRIG CRONJE: Terrorists were not always in the house, sometimes they came to his house and
immediately left again or simply passed through or by after they have planned an act of terror and then on
occasion they had to return to his house. It was never possible to determine whether terrorists were going
to be there on a particular moment.
MS KHAMPEPE: Was it an act of negligence to have sent Mr Mamasela and Bafana armed with AK47's
merely to investigate whether there were terrorists in the house or not?
BRIG CRONJE: I sent them with the AK's so that if they were to have been noticed or found by anyone,
they were able to defend themselves.
MS KHAMPEPE: Why did you not proceed with the other activities that you had gone down there to do,
why didn't you bomb the house? I mean you had information to eliminate both Mr Tsele and to eliminate
the use of that house which was used as a safe house.
BRIG CRONJE: I knew that if we eliminated Mr Tsele that particular house would not again have been
used as a safe house. Since the terrorists would then have known that we were informed of the use of this
house.
JUDGE WILSON: You have told us that you trusted Mamasela to that stage.
BRIG CRONJE: I did trust him.
JUDGE WILSON: Did you carry on performing operations with him after this?
BRIG CRONJE: I did, Mr Chairman.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
13 BRIG CRONJE
JUDGE WILSON: Why, he had now proved himself to be unreliable, against your instructions he
had killed a man, what action did you take against him?
BRIG CRONJE: I took no action against him. He was a most reliable source of information and a good
operative. I believed that this was a mere oversight on his part to shoot the person without having followed
my instructions.
JUDGE WILSON: A mere oversight, is that what you regarded the killing of a man as?
BRIG CRONJE: (Tape ends....) ...namely that he had misunderstood my instructions. At that time I was
unable to believe this since my instructions to him were very clear but I did indeed have to use Mamasela
further.
JUDGE WILSON: So he ignored your instructions and then lied to you, but you went on using
him?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes, Mr Chairman.
JUDGE WILSON: Thank you.
ADV DE JAGER: The purpose of the visit was not simply to eliminate or to do the elimination on that day?
BRIG CRONJE: No, Mr Chairman.
ADV DE JAGER: Was the intention to see whether on that particular occasion you would have been able to
eliminate more than one of the freedom fighters and to eliminate a number of them, was that the intention?
You've given testimony that your intention was rather to keep Tsele alive, for how long did you want to
keep him alive?
BRIG CRONJE: Our information was that there were terrorists passing through his house regularly and so
we would have waited and would have kept his house under observation until there were terrorists.
ADV DE JAGER: If you kept his house under observation, how
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
13 BRIG CRONJE
far would this house have been from your station? How quickly would you have been able to react?
BRIG CRONJE: It would have taken us quite some time to
react, but the terrorists normally stayed there for a day or two.
ADV DE JAGER: What was the distance of this house from Vlakplaas?
BRIG CRONJE: No, we did not operate from Vlakplaas. We operated from Pretoria to Bophuthatswana,
about 50 kilometres, or so.
ADV DE JAGER: I want to know the distance to the particular house.
BRIG CRONJE: Yes, to the particular house that would have been the distance about.
ADV MPSHE: Mr Cronje, is this not a case where we have circumstances where Mr Bafana and
Mamasela simply had no instructions and were not able to carry out any act, when in fact they should not
have killed the person?
BRIG CRONJE: That is what I said, Mr Chairman. At that time they did not have particular instructions
to eliminate this person, it was the intention that they had to first come back to me and report back to me
with regard to what they had found at the house.
MS KHAMPEPE: Just a further point Mr Cronje, if they had come back and reported to you that there were
no terrorists, what would you have done?
BRIG CRONJE: In that case we would have driven back to Pretoria without having done anything to
Tsele.
MS KHAMPEPE: After having come all the way from Pretoria in order to ascertain that kind of
information, you are talking of senior policemen who were part of this operation
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
14 BRIG CRONJE
merely to investigate and assess whether there were terrorists in that house? Is that what you want us to
believe?
BRIG CRONJE: That was the case. Had there been terrorists, then one person would not have been able
to engage in combat with them. We needed more men, we would not have been able to get people there
quickly from a distance and that is why we all drove out there.
JUDGE WILSON: But you've just told us that terrorists usually stayed there for a day, you could
have kept someone watching the house, now you say oh, you couldn't have got there, you couldn't have
done the 50 kilometres in time, what do you want us to accept?
BRIG CRONJE: Mr Chairman, if the terrorists had been there, then the five of us would have gone in and
shot them. Then I would not have driven back to Pretoria.
JUDGE WILSON: And if someone had gone there, Mamasela had gone there alone and phoned
you up, how long would it have taken you to do the 50 kilometres from Pretoria?
BRIG CRONJE: Maybe three quarters of an hour.
JUDGE WILSON: Now it has just been put to you, not knowing whether there was a target there
or not, five policemen, including two comparatively senior policemen set off on this journey, is that what
you are saying?
BRIG CRONJE: That is in fact the case.
JUDGE MALL: Any re-examination?
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, thank you Mr Chairman.
RE-EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: Brigadier, I just want to clarify the operation
somewhat. The information which you received from Mamasela with regard to the particular address,
when did you receive this information? Was it on
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 15 BRIG CRONJE
that same day?
BRIG CRONJE: On the same day of the operation, yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Okay, so the information which you received on that day from Mamasela, what was
this information? Did it simply confirm the particular address?
BRIG CRONJE: It confirmed that the house was used as a safe house for terrorists and he also said to me
that it was possible for terrorists to have been there the coming evening.
ADV DU PLESSIS: When did you drive out? In the evening?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes, it was that evening that we drove out.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Brigadier, let's just go through this again. Your intention with regard to your action,
if Mr Tsele had been there on his own, what would you action have been?
BRIG CRONJE: We then would have done nothing and would have returned to Pretoria.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And had there been, say, 10 armed terrorists with him in the house?
BRIG CRONJE: We would then have gone in and shot.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Would you have acted against armed terrorists and unarmed persons or against
whom would you have acted?
BRIG CRONJE: Normally if there are terrorists in the house they would have had firearms.
ADV DU PLESSIS: In addition Brigadier, when you sent Mamasela and Bafana to scout the situation,
what was the particular intention of this?
BRIG CRONJE: The intention was to determine whether there were terrorists in the house.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Brigadier would it have been normal in
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 16 BRIG CRONJE
an operation like this to have sent Mamasela out on his own to determine whether there were persons and
then to have phoned back and you would then have had to come out?
BRIG CRONJE: No, that would not have been the case. I could not send Mamasela on his own with the
knowledge, or
the possibility that there might have been terrorists in the house. He would not have been able to act
against them on his own.
MS KHAMPEPE: Brigadier, you are saying that you would not have eliminated Mr Tsele if Mr Mamasela
had come back to report that Mr Tsele was in the house if there were no other people in the house whom
you would have classified as terrorists? Is that what you are saying?
BRIG CRONJE: That is the case, yes.
MS KHAMPEPE: On page 110 Mr Cronje, the purpose which you state is that you had to eliminate ANC
supporters, activists who were involved in acts of terrorism and there had been information, and reliable
information for that matter, that Mr Tsele was a high profile activist. So why would you not have
eliminated him if Mr Mamasela had advised you of his presence there?
BRIG CRONJE: For this reason Mr Chairman, I wanted to kill - to reach two objectives at the same time,
I would very much have wanted to have also caught other terrorists with Tsele and for that reason we
would have preferred to have waited until there were other terrorists present in the house.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Brigadier, let's clarify this. If we look at this hypothetically, had Mamasela not shot
Tsele and had come back to you and said Tsele was here on his own, then you would not have shot Tsele,
is that correct?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 17 BRIG CRONJE
BRIG CRONJE: That is correct.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Would you then on a further occasion have gone out to see whether Tsele and other
terrorists were to
be found in the house?
BRIG CRONJE: I would have placed informants there to observe until there were terrorists in the house
and then to
have informed us.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Would you then have acted against the terrorists?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes.
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Cronje, now I don't understand you very clearly. Why do you accept responsibility
with regard to the death of Mr Tsele? Your instruction to Mamasela and Bafana was not that they were to
have shot this man?
BRIG CRONJE: These people were under my command, I was present and I believe that I was in fact an
accessory to this act.
I did not do anything thereafter to charge Mr Mamasela, so I was definitely, I regard myself as an
accessory.
ADV DE JAGER: Is that the basis on which you accept responsibility?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes, sir.
MS KHAMPEPE: ...that the additional factor, Mr Cronje, that you allowed Mr Mamasela to go and
investigate and you did nothing to prevent him to go there without an AK47, which you probably could
have foreseen that he might have used on Mr Tsele?
BRIG CRONJE: I could probably have foreseen, but I could not have allowed him to go there unarmed
with the knowledge that there were possibly terrorists there.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Brigadier, at that stage was there a
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 17 BRIG CRONJE
decision taken that Tsele, if other terrorists were to have been found in the house there, that he should be
eliminated alongside with them?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And Mamasela knew that?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes, he did.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Brigadier, you were asked with regard to Mamasela, did you do anything with
regards to the fact that Mamasela was not acting with regard to your instructions?
BRIG CRONJE: Of course I gave him a warning.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And Brigadier, would Mamasela's actions at that stage, would they have enabled you
to form an opinion that he was unreliable or not trustworthy?
BRIG CRONJE: No, I did not see it as such. I trusted him.
ADV DU PLESSIS: What was your experience at a later stage with him with regard to his reliability and
trust?
BRIG CRONJE: I had no reason to doubt him.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, would you just give me a moment please. Thank you Mr Chairman, I
have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DU PLESSIS
JUDGE MALL: You are excused.
WITNESS EXCUSED
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 18 CAPT HECHTER
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, may I proceed?
JUDGE MALL: Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: I beg leave to call Captain Hechter on the same incident.
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Mpshe, are any of the victims present in this case?
ADV MPSHE: They are present.
ADV DE JAGER: Have they got any representatives?
ADV MPSHE: They do not have any representatives.
ADV DE JAGER: And did you see them and what is their position?
ADV MPSHE: Yes, I've seen them even in the previous
hearings, I was always in contact with them. And they had indicated that they don't need any
representatives.
JACQUES HECHTER: (sworn states)
EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Captain Hechter, you have now
heard the evidence of Brigadier Cronje. The evidence somewhat went further than what the application
itself states and even your application states. Do you confirm the correctness of what Brigadier Cronje had
said here? Could you please speak up?
CAPT HECHTER: I agree with you, Mr Chairman.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Hechter, is there anything which you would like to add with regard to
Brigadier Cronje's evidence?
CAPT HECHTER: I could perhaps just elaborate on the circumstances at that stage in
Kwandebele, I mean in Bophuthatswana.
There were constant, serious consumer boycotts ...(intervention)
ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Hechter, could you just stop for
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 19 CAPT HECHTER
a moment. You will find it in the application on page 259, I beg your pardon.
CAPT HECHTER: There were constant consumer boycotts, transport boycotts and also we did not
work with Joe Tsele specifically in my department, but his name surfaced in source reports that as someone
who was involved in the organisation of such consumer boycotts.
A lot of the busses were burnt at that time, people were forced, those who did go and work, were
forced - or people who wanted to go and buy food and so forth were assaulted and Joe Tsele's name
surfaced all over in these reports. Basically in the evening you could not really move around unarmed,
if you were not part of the comrades culture.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Hechter the evidence was before, and also in the case of Brigadier Cronje
before that, the files which contained the information were destroyed and that you have to rely on your
memory? You have already testified that as far as certain aspects were concerned, that you cannot
remember everything, but in this particular case, can you remember on which type of serious offences Mr
Tsele was involved and if he was involved in the death of any persons?
CAPT HECHTER: Chairpersons, we have to accept that these boycotts in most instances led to the
death of innocent people. These are people who went to work, who worked in the Republic and when
these bus boycotts were announced and any of these buses operated, they would be set alight and whoever
was in the bus, would be stoned and seriously injured and generally they would be so badly intimidated that
some of them would die.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 20 CAPT HECHTER
Some of them are impossible to remember because there were literally hundreds of these cases
between Pretoria and the area where the bus was. This was at the bus depot. Tsele was living near the bus
depot in Bophuthatswana. And it was a matter of there having been constant attacks and to remember
them all is unfortunately impossible. It is also 10 to 11 years ago when these incidents took place.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Hechter, the action against this house and against Tsele, was it part of the
State's anti-revolutionary action against liberation movements?
CAPT HECHTER: Definitely. Tsele would have been eliminated at some stage, even if it wasn't
that particular evening, it would have been at some other stage, but he would have been
eliminated.
ADV DU PLESSIS: I have got no further questions Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DU PLESSIS
JUDGE MALL: Mr Mpshe?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV MPSHE: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Hechter, in this
arson, boycotts were there any other activists in the same are who were doing the same things?
CAPT HECHTER: Mr Chairman, we have to accept that there were other names, at this stage I
cannot tell you who they are, where they were or when these incidents took place, it is very difficult to
remember after 11 years. To remember any specific incidents and names in particular.
ADV MPSHE: But you can tell us at that time it was Joe Tsele and so and so and so and so at that time?
CAPT HECHTER: Joe Tsele's name surfaced so clearly because he was eliminated. He was
targeted and eliminated, so if other activists were acting together with him, they weren't
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 21 CAPT HECHTER
as prominent, they didn't feature as prominently as he did and they weren't targeted to be eliminated.
ADV MPSHE: Now the people that you said, the said activists you said you are going to check whether
they were in there and if found, they would be killed, were they targeted?
CAPT HECHTER: They were not activists, they were actually trained terrorists. Mr Tsele's house
was used as a safe house and what happened in this instance is that returning terrorists would report to his
house where they would get food and be informed of targets and where they would find
their arms caches. And if we were to have found them there, we would all have gone in and we would have
eliminated them all. That was the main objective of that evening.
ADV MPSHE: Was Mr Tsele ever detained for any of these incidents mentioned by yourself, the arson,
the boycotts and so forth?
CAPT HECHTER: He was a subject of the Unit, he was did not fall under my direct field of
expertise, so I did not work with Unions and if he was to have been dealt with, it would have been dealt
with by the members of the Union Units. What I knew about Joe Tsele is, as I told you, the information
which you got from your informants, sometimes overflowed and all that you did, is you would contact the
Union Unit and after you rewrote your report from your informant, you sent them a copy and said that Joe
Tsele was there when he was spotted in this meeting.
So you would inform people from other disciplines, you would pick up their names and then you
would merely inform the other Units. That is how I came to know about Joe Tsele, but I did not work with
him directly.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 21 CAPT HECHTER
ADV MPSHE: You were involved in the operation with Mr Cronje who told this Committee that there
was a file but unfortunately this file has been destroyed. Did you have access to this file because you
operated with him?
CAPT HECHTER: I did not see that particular file myself. We were in the position that all our
files are destroyed and this was done after we had left the Force. I had already left the Force when I heard
about the destruction of these files. This was apparently done to protect our sources, that is why the files
and all the information they contained, were destroyed. It must have come from a very high ranking senior
officer in the South African police, or even higher, I do not know. Unfortunately I do not know and I have
attempted to find out, but at this stage, nobody knows who issued the instruction.
ADV MPSHE: You say that you joined this operation on this day on the basis of hearsay given to you?
CAPT HECHTER: I received an instruction from Brigadier Cronje, who was my Commanding
Officer, he said that I should come along.
ADV MPSHE: But did you enquire from him what this operation entailed?
CAPT HECHTER: Yes, he did tell me. We had a meeting where we were informed. I knew about
Joe Tsele and he told me what was happening, he told me that there was information that that night there
would probably be some terrorists at that house and if we were to find them there, we would eliminate
them all and if not, we would go back and wait and see if they did not come at a later stage.
Information came through, it is not to say that if they said tonight the people were there, that they
were there.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 22 CAPT HECHTER
You know, you obtain information which said that the terrorists were on their way, they should be there
tonight and when you go up there, they weren't there. Then you would go back the following night, or you
would make contact with your source and say look, I was there last night, the people aren't there, what is
happening?
You know we were in a war situation, that is not a matter of picking up the phone and phoning
people quickly. Your sources aren't always readily available and we worked
to the best of our ability on information which we received from our informants at that stage.
ADV MPSHE: ... Tsele's house two days or three days after as you've just indicated, to check whether
the terrorist were there?
CAPT HECHTER: No, after he had been shot the terrorists would have avoided that house at all
costs because it would have been spread throughout the Black township.
ADV MPSHE: ... Joe Mamasela, Joe Mamasela that day?
CAPT HECHTER: He was under Brigadier Cronje's command.
ADV MPSHE: Did the Botswana Police or Botswana Internal Security Unit have knowledge about this?
CAPT HECHTER: Not at all?
ADV MPSHE: Why?
CAPT HECHTER: They did not have any knowledge about our actions at all.
ADV MPSHE: Why not?
CAPT HECHTER: We did not work as closely with them at this level.
ADV MPSHE: But surely you had to go and operate in another country?
CAPT HECHTER: Yes, but we did not know them in this
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 23 CAPT HECHTER
instance.
ADV MPSHE: Thank you Mr Chairman, no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV MPSHE
JUDGE WILSON: You and Brigadier Cronje have told us what a dangerous man this Tsele was,
that is correct, isn't it?
CAPT HECHTER: That is correct, Chairperson.
JUDGE WILSON: If I understand you, you have told us more than the Brigadier had, that there
were hundreds of people who were injured or killed as a result of the bus boycotts?
CAPT HECHTER: That is correct, Chairperson.
JUDGE WILSON: And this was going on all the time?
CAPT HECHTER: That is also correct, Chairperson.
JUDGE WILSON: And Tsele's house was being used as a safe
house all the time, terrorists were coming through there, flocking back to the country?
CAPT HECHTER: I came to know about that at the office that day for the first time, Chairperson.
JUDGE WILSON: What I have difficulty in understanding is why you didn't go there
immediately to eradicate Tsele, this danger, this constant danger to the country? Can you explain why?
CAPT HECHTER: I understand your problem. Chairperson, if you eliminated one man and you
had the opportunity - as our information which was brought to us on that day said that there was a
possibility that there will be four or five or more terrorists who were going to come through. As I
explained to Mr Mpshe, the information came through that Tsele was expecting men from the other side,
those were people trained across the borders and that he was expecting them that evening.
If we were to get there and the people were not there,
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
24 CAPT HECHTER
we would have withdrawn. If they were to have been there, we would have shot them all. If Mr Tsele was
not eliminated that evening, he would probably at a later stage, we are not trying to reason away the fact
that he would have been eliminated, even if it was at a later stage, but what remains a fact is that that
evening, he would probably not have been eliminated if the terrorists were not there. He was eliminated
by, let's call it an oversight on the part of Joe Mamasela. Perhaps he misunderstood the Brigadier, perhaps
he thought that it was easier to shoot him. We cannot try and make you understand how he saw it, but what
we know is when the Brigadier stopped us and said go and see what is happening there and come and
report back.
Then further decisions would have been taken as to what to do.
JUDGE WILSON: What worries me is it appears from your evidence and Brigadier Cronje's that
you were more interested in using this dangerous man Tsele as bait to get terrorists into his house than in
eliminating him. That is the evidence you've both given.
CAPT HECHTER: That may have been so, but that evening it was so. That evening we had
information that the terrorists were coming, or that they were on their way so if we could have eliminated
five or six terrorists together with Tsele, it would have been better than eliminating only Tsele.
At that time the terrorists had come in, they had received the warning that Tsele was dead and we
did not know who they were or where to trace them. So if we were to have found them at Tsele's house, it
would have been so much better.
JUDGE WILSON: And how long had Tsele been carrying on this
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
24 CAPT HECHTER
work of his, this boycotting, safe house?
CAPT HECHTER: I cannot answer you about the safe house. The boycotts took place over a
period of time, but as I said I do not know, it was not my forte, it was the Union Unit, we worked with
different members and the labour Union Unit would have known the exact actions and from time to time I
received the information from my informants and his name would have surfaced and I had received
information that he was involved.
But my people were not given the task of monitoring his movements. He was a subject of the
labour unions and we had a specific Unit which dealt with union people.
JUDGE WILSON: So you didn't really know very much about
him? You heard rumours that there were going to be terrorists there that night and on the strength of this
rumour, which was unfounded as it turned out, you went there as part of the Force that was going to hit?
CAPT HECHTER: There was no need for me to know that, I was acting on instruction of my
Commanding Officer, he gave me an instruction to accompany him and I accompanied him to go and
perform a duty.
MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Hechter, the instructions you received, was that if the trained terrorists were present
in the house of Mr Tsele, you were to eliminate both Mr Tsele and the trained terrorists?
CAPT HECHTER: That is correct Chairperson.
MS KHAMPEPE: At that stage, had you discussed the modus operandi you would have used in the
elimination?
CAPT HECHTER: No Chairperson. We would have waited for Mamasela to have come back and
explain to us how many persons there were, and where they were and then we would
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
25 CAPT HECHTER
have finalised the plan. We could not have finalised the plan under those circumstances before the time
because you did not know what the exact circumstances were, you had to wait to find out what the
circumstances were.
After the circumstances were explained to us, we would have taken a decision as to what to have
done.
MS KHAMPEPE: But your intention was to eliminate them once that information had been received from
Mamasela, there and then?
CAPT HECHTER: Yes, there and then.
MS KHAMPEPE: How were you armed? There were five officers some of which were senior officers.
CAPT HECHTER: It is difficult to say, but I assume I would have been armed with an AK47 and I
would also have had handgrenades - in all probability I would have had handgrenades in my possession as
well. That is probably how I would have been armed.
MS KHAMPEPE: Thank you.
JUDGE MALL: Is there any re-examination?
ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman.
RE-EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Hechter, if we could just sketch a
hypothetical situation. Let us assume you went out eight to ten times or more or slightly less, and each
time the information was wrong and there were no terrorists in the house and it was only Tsele, would there
have been a stage, and I am asking you to speculate, would there have been a stage where Tsele would
have been eliminated on his own?
CAPT HECHTER: In all probability, as a result of the information which was received in my
office, where he was involved at the staging of these bus boycotts. I believe
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 26 CAPT HECHTER
that that instruction would have been issued at a later stage that he should have been eliminated.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And at that stage there was a decision?
CAPT HECHTER: Definitely. We got together and said that if the terrorists were there, we would
have eliminated them all and if there were no terrorists we would have waited for them. It was a golden
opportunity to eliminate these terrorists together who had been trained.
ADV DU PLESSIS; So his elimination was not something additional to the terrorists? The terrorists
were not the main objective, he and the terrorists were the objective?
CAPT HECHTER: I believe so. As I say it is difficult for me to explain, I did not take the
decision, but from what I could deduce from the reports which I received from my
informants was that Joe Tsele was extremely active in destabilising the transport system and staging
consumer boycotts and so forth, which resulted in serious assaults on innocent people, his own people in
the area.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DU PLESSIS.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Captain we don't know whether the Bophuthatswana police did take any action
against this person and at the time when you went out to go to his place, you had no information as to
whether or not Bophuthatswana police had taken any action against him, did you?
CAPT HECHTER: No, I had no information Chairperson. I don't know if the Brigadier had, but I
did not have any information.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Well, I am asking you now, would the fact that the Bophuthatswana as it was
then, and the fact that they had their own security police, would the fact that they PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
27 CAPT HECHTER
did not take any action against him, would it not have shown that the reports you received about him might
have been incorrect?
CAPT HECHTER: We operated on a variety of independent sources, information from
independent sources and, I would not like to criticise the Bophuthatswana police of the time, but they did
not work much and in any case, they did not have anything to do with our problems in the Republic of
South Africa, they had problems of their own, so they would not have acted as such against persons who
were causing problems in the Republic of South Africa.
We had very little contact with them, with the
police or the Security Branch and what I know is, while I was a Detective, one would go to the police
station and say
that you were looking for Joe Tsele and that they would give you someone who could accompany you to
go and look for this person. This is the type of cooperation which we had with them. We did not have
great cooperation, so I would not know if they had taken any action that night or not.
JUDGE MGOEPE: But are you saying that the reports you had about him, were only in regard to
incidents which took place in the Republic of South Africa?
CAPT HECHTER: No, no, the buses were burnt inside and outside the depots, around the depots
and also on the Republic of South Africa's side. And normally as people would come back from work,
they would be assaulted or in the morning while they were on their way to work in the Republic,
information which surfaced said that he was in control or in charge of this boycott.
JUDGE MGOEPE: In those instances you would get reports that those incidents ... (intervention)
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
27 CAPT HECHTER
CAPT HECHTER: As I said to you, I did not specifically work with Union matters. What
happened is, for example if you found a target you would instruct your informants to monitor this person as
thoroughly and for as long as possible and to try and infiltrate his organisation and become part of his
activities so that they could tell you exactly what was happening there. I did not work with the Union Unit,
but at that stage I had informants.
JUDGE MGOEPE: I know you didn't work with the union, but I am just troubled by the fact that
shouldn't you people before deciding on whether on not somebody should be killed, shouldn't you at least
compare notes with the Security, your colleagues in Bophuthatswana, to confirm certain things? I
mean you knew they had their own security system.
CAPT HECHTER: That is correct. We did not work with them, there was no cooperation. There
was no close working relationship with the Bophuthatswana police.
JUDGE MGOEPE: That would have been one of the best ways to establish the veracity of some of
the allegations that were made against him.
CAPT HECHTER: That may be so but we had no reason to doubt our informants.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Well you might have had no reasons to doubt your informants, but you had
every reason to confirm the reports on the strength of which you would have to take a decision whether
somebody should die or live.
CAPT HECHTER: It was not my decision.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Well didn't you ordinarily expect that that sort of thing be done?
CAPT HECHTER: I accept that Brigadier Cronje's information was such, I did not see the file or
the docket in which such PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
28 CAPT HECHTER
information was liaised, I accepted that at that stage Brigadier Cronje was convinced that that was the
correct action. I would not have doubted his decision in any way. He was an honourable officer who I
respected back then and I still have the greatest respect for.
MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Hechter, you on your version relied strongly on the confirmatory reports received
from Mr Mamasela with regard to Mr Tsele's activities?
CAPT HECHTER: For that evening, yes.
MS KHAMPEPE: And that is why obviously senior police
officers were part of the group which went on to Mr Tsele's house?
CAPT HECHTER: A captain is not a very senior officer, Chairperson. At that stage Brigadier
Cronje was the Commanding Officer of the Unit and I did not question why he was accompanying us.
MS KHAMPEPE: Did Mr Mamasela explain to you how he had gone about to confirm the reports with
regard to Mr Tsele's activities?
CAPT HECHTER: He reported this to Brigadier Cronje, not to me.
MS KHAMPEPE: Do you know the contents of the report he made to Brigadier Cronje with regard to how
he had gone about to confirm?
CAPT HECHTER: No.
MS KHAMPEPE: Do you know how long it had taken Mr Mamasela to come with a confirmatory report
regarding Mr Tsele's activities?
CAPT HECHTER: No, Brigadier Cronje only called me in and said to me listen, this is the
situation with regard to Joe Tsele, this was verified by Mamasela, we are going out
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
29 CAPT HECHTER
tonight, there are possibly terrorists there and you must be prepared for this eventuality.
MS KHAMPEPE: So you had not been privy to any information with regard to Tsele's activities?
CAPT HECHTER: No, the Brigadier during this meeting informed us in detail what the case was,
but we did not discuss this over a length of time. He only informed us what Mamasela had reported.
I did not ask him questions whether this had been done over a certain period of time, three weeks,
six weeks, I
simply accepted that Mamasela obtained the necessary information and that it was reliable.
ADV DE JAGER: Captain Crafford did accompany you?
CAPT HECHTER: That is correct.
ADV DE JAGER: Do you know where he is at this time?
CAPT HECHTER: He is sitting in this hall, Mr Chairman.
ADV DE JAGER: And Bafana?
CAPE HECHTER: As far as my information goes, he has since deceased.
ADV DE JAGER: Thank you.
FURTHER EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I have one further question. Captain
Hechter, would it have been normal procedure, let's forget about Bophuthatswana for the time being, but if
you acted in other places, say in the Northern Transvaal or in kwaNdebele, a couple of places with regard
to which you have given testimony, would you normally have informed or contacted the South African
police to verify your information?
CAPT HECHTER: No, not at all. We verified the information by means of our informants and
evaluated it and acted in response.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 30 CAPT HECHTER
ADV DU PLESSIS: So you did not act in cooperation with any of the other security structures
except when you worked with the South African Defence Force, the Army?
CAPT HECHTER: No, that is the case.
ADV DU PLESSIS: It would then not have been normal for you, in this particular case, to have worked
with the Bophuthatswana police or security police?
CAPT HECHTER: No, not at all.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DU PLESSIS.
JUDGE WILSON: So you realised that what you were doing was
in no sense of the word ordinary police work?
CAPT HECHTER: I realised this entirely, Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MALL: You are excused.
CAPT HECHTER: Thank you Mr Chairman.
WITNESS EXCUSED.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I believe the representative of the Attorney General's office is
here. I would really like to take the matter which I did discuss with you in chambers up with him, if at all
possible and if you would afford me the opportunity to do that now, I would be grateful.
JUDGE MALL: Yes. I understand your request to mean that you would like a short adjournment?
ADV DU PLESSIS: As it pleases you.
JUDGE MALL: I trust that it is not something that is going to take five minutes, is it?
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I foresee that it is going to take a bit longer than five minutes.
JUDGE MALL: It might be convenient at this stage then to take the adjournment.
ADV DU PLESSIS: That is what I wanted to suggest Mr
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
S 30
Chairman.
JUDGE MALL: Mr Mpshe, will it inconvenience you if we took an adjournment at this stage?
ADV MPSHE: It would not inconvenience me Mr Chairman, as long as we can indicate what time we
are coming back.
JUDGE MALL: We will resume at a quarter to two, will that be convenient?
ADV DU PLESSIS: That would be convenient Mr Chairman, thank you very much.
JUDGE MALL: Alright, we now adjourn until quarter to two.
ADV MPSHE: Thank you Mr Chairman.
COMMISSION ADJOURNS.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS ADDRESS
COMMISSION RESUMES
JUDGE MALL: Are we ready to proceed?
ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, we have had a discussion with Dr
Pretorius of the Attorney General's office pertaining to the issue of Captain Van Jaarsveld and the question
if we can call him as a witness.
Now I want to place on record that the applicant's request was that Captain Van Jaarsveld should
be called to give evidence to this Committee in respect of the State Security Council, the structure of the
State Security Council, how the State Security Council operated, especially in the middle 1980's, the way in
which orders were given and something that is very important for the applicants, pertaining to their
applications and that is evidence about the Government of the time of their counter-revolutionary strategy
that was developed during the early 1980's and which was put into practice in the middle 1980's.
As you will recall Mr Chairman, we have given evidence in a lot of instances where the applicants
testified that they had to take pro-active action against activists and terrorists, that they were given orders to
eliminate terrorists and activists and, that this was part of the Government's counter-revolutionary strategy.
Captain Van Jaarsveld was involved in the State Security system. He was involved with the
development of the counter-revolutionary strategy of the Government of the time; the drawing of a specific
document setting out the whole strategy which we have not been able to get hold of. He was also involved
with the implementation of the counter- revolutionary strategy. He has intricate knowledge thereof, and
furthermore he was also present when Brigadier Victor
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 32 ADDRESS
gave the order that the applicants have testified to, to Brigadier Cronje.
Now Mr Chairman this evidence would obviously be of a general nature. It will be important to
further sketch the background against which the applicants and all Security Policemen acted during that
time. It will therefore be of great importance to the applicants' applications and I would want to submit Mr
Chairman, that it will also be of great importance to the Committee in respect of all future applications by
Security Policemen before this Committee - applications for amnesty.
The evidence will not relate to any specific incidents for which Captain Van Jaarsveld might want
to ask amnesty for, it will furthermore not relate to his involvement, his personal involvement, in any
incidents which the applicants refer to in their applications. And as I have stated will be of a general
nature.
Now Mr Chairman it is so that Captain Van Jaarsveld is a State witness in respect of certain
incidents which the applicants have testified about and for which they in certain instances have been
charged already.
It is also true that we did launch an application in October, right at the beginning of the hearings,
for State witnesses to be called as witnesses in support of the applicants' applications which application was
refused.
I went through my notes of that time pertaining to that application, and as I can recall the main
reason was that the applicants could not advance to the Committee the specific facts and evidence which
would be contained in dockets of the Attorney General and what the witnesses would come and testify
about.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 33 ADDRESS
I want to draw a distinction between that application
and this application, and the distinction is simple Mr Chairman and that is that this application pertains to
evidence of a general nature.
We cannot understand why the Attorney General at this stage of the proceedings would wish to
keep important information, especially pertaining to the counter-revolutionary strategy of the Government
of the time and the working of the State Security Council from this Committee.
We furthermore cannot see why the Attorney General would want to keep such evidence from the
general public at large. We wish to state that we have tried to get hold of possible other witnesses to come
and give this evidence, and that we have not succeeded in getting any cooperation.
We want to place on record specifically that nobody has offered us any help in this regard or any
assistance, especially our superiors, the applicants' superiors at that time.
We find ourselves, therefore, in the predicament that the applicants' superiors who would be in a
position to give this information to the Committee, do not seem to want to voluntarily participate in the
proceedings and assist the applicants.
ADV DE JAGER: Mr du Plessis, would General van der Merwe be in a position to assist you?
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, it is difficult because certain people were intricately involved
over a long period. General van der Merwe was involved to a certain extent and I intend, when he gives
evidence again, to ask him certain questions about the State Security Council. I did raise that with
Captain van Jaarsveld and as I understand it,
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 34 ADDRESS
General van der Merwe would only be able to assist the Committee in a very general, limited way.
One must remember that certain people were involved in certain capacities with the State Security
Council and what is also of importance is that Captain van Jaarsveld was involved with the development of
the whole counter- revolutionary strategy.
ADV DE JAGER: General van der Merwe offered to give evidence without being subpoenaed.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes. The only difference between General van der Merwe and Captain van
Jaarsveld, well two differences, was that, or the only difference is that General van der Merwe is not a State
witness and he offered voluntarily to come and give evidence.
Captain van Jaarsveld, I may mention, has indicated his willingness to give such evidence before
the Committee. He is represented by Mr Meintjies, an attorney, and Mr Meintjies mentioned to me that he
will place his client's view on record, but I can submit to you at this stage that they have given an indication
that he has no problem whatsoever to assist this Committee with this evidence and to place this evidence
before this Committee.
Mr Chairman, the last point I want to make about this is that we cannot see that there can be any
prejudice for any party involved in these proceedings if such evidence is placed before this Committee,
after all this procedure is about truth. Truth first and foremost and we fail to understand why the truth
should be kept from this Committee and from the public at large and from the applicants, where it can
assist the applicants in their applications. And especially the evidence that they have given where nobody
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 34 ADDRESS
can be prejudiced. We fail to see that the Attorney General can be prejudiced in respect of his investigations
or perhaps any future criminal proceedings.
There is, however, Mr Chairman, one last request which Captain van Jaarsveld asked me to raise
and I am sure that Mr Meintjies will confirm that, and that is his request is that he be allowed to give such
evidence before this Committee in camera. Mr Chairman that can be done in terms of Section 33 of the
Act and, in respect of Section 33 I wish to draw your attention to the fact that the Commission can in any
proceedings, if it is satisfied that it would be in the interest of justice firstly, or and with the emphasis on
or, there is a likelihood that harm may ensue to any person as a result of the proceedings being open, may
direct that such proceedings be held behind closed doors and that the public or any category thereof shall
not be present at such proceedings.
ADV DE JAGER: Mr du Plessis, didn't you advance that one of the reasons that it is in the interest of the
public to know and now you are asking us to do this in camera?
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, in the interest of the public in respect of not necessarily
publication of that information now. What I am saying is publication of that information after the
Committee has considered the evidence and when the Committee gives the judgement in this matter.
It is also obviously in the interest of the public not necessarily to hear the evidence, but it would
be in the
interest of the public to know that any evidence which might be of importance to an applicant, is
entertained by the
Committee, even if it is done in camera, and that nobody is allowed to influence the proceedings of this
Committee in
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 35 ADDRESS
respect of evidence and the truth.
And for that purpose it is also important for the public. Mr Chairman, however, that is a request
from Captain van Jaarsveld. Obviously the applicants - I am applying for that on behalf of Captain van
Jaarsveld, simply and purely because he asked that it be done in that way.
As far as the applicants are concerned, we deem the evidence of such importance that we would
request the Committee to give serious consideration to Captain van Jaarsveld being called as a witness.
JUDGE MALL: Mr Meintjies, is there anything you wish to add?
MR MEINTJIES: As the Committee pleases, Mr Chairperson. I appear on behalf of Captain van Jaarsveld.
I have appeared sporadically before this Committee on behalf of Captain van Jaarsveld and would once
again like to confirm that Captain van Jaarsveld is not unwilling to come and give evidence before this
Committee. On the contrary he is very willing but the problem that I am struggling with and which
Captain van Jaarsveld is also having difficulty with is being necessitated to apply for amnesty.
The applicants' legal representative submits to this Committee that Captain van Jaarsveld will not
be prejudiced in his amnesty application by evidence which he may give here if he should come and testify.
If we were to have an open situation, this applicant will have no control over which questions will be put to
Captain van Jaarsveld and it could definitely be to the prejudice of Captain van Jaarsveld. Be that as it
may, Captain van Jaarsveld is willing to come and give evidence.
The request which the applicants' representative
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR MEINTJIES 36 ADDRESS
submitted on his behalf, is as such and this application is thus submitted to this Committee that the
application be heard in camera should Captain van Jaarsveld be called upon to testify.
The reason for this would be that the matters which will be addressed in the evidence of Captain
van Jaarsveld and under cross-examination will be limited to the position with regards to the structures and
workings of the State Security Council.
Lastly, Captain van Jaarsveld is willing to give evidence where and when the Committee decides
that the Committee would like to call him as a witness and we will stick to the Committee's decision.
Thank you very much Mr Chairperson.
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Meintjies, there has been an indication that it would be required of him to give
evidence with regard to the anti-revolutionary plan.
MR MEINTJIES: That is correct, Chairperson.
ADV DE JAGER: You said that you would not mind that it be limited to the structures and those aspects,
but that he should be asked to give evidence about the anti-revolutionary plan and also instructions from
the State Security Council and for instance Mr Cronje - what is your attitude?
MR MEINTJIES; Once again Mr Chairperson, it should not be a problem for my client as long as he is not
expected to
give evidence about matters which he is going to apply for amnesty, where he was personally involved.
Thank you very
much.
ADV DE JAGER: How are we going to know what his amnesty application will entail and
prevent such questions being put PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR MEINTJIES 36 ADDRESS
to him?
MR MEINTJIES: Mr Chairman, this is part of the problem I have with a public hearing, I do not know
which questions will be put to him and it has to be limited in some way or another so that my client is not
prejudiced.
ADV DE JAGER: Certainly, whichever way this is done, it can only be determined if we know which
matters he is applying for amnesty for and in such a way prevent such questions being put to him,
otherwise there is no other way of us knowing.
MR MEINTJIES: It seems to me that the solution to that Mr Chairperson, would be that he not be
questioned about specific actions but about the structures and operations of the State Security Council and
the anti-revolutionary action of the State, in other words an objective - excuse me for a minute, I am
looking for the word - perhaps searching for the spirit ...(intervention)
ADV DE JAGER: You mean about the policy and not the application thereof?
MR MEINTJIES: Thank you very much Mr Chairperson, that was very helpful.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Mr du Plessis, I am going to ask you this question because I would like you to
deal with it so that Mr Pretorius can, when his turn comes, he will be able to respond to the points that you
would have made in response to the query I am going to raise to you.
It seems to me if one listens to your argument, one
gets an impression as though the kind of evidence that you want can only be found peculiarly within the
mind or
knowledge of Captain van Jaarsveld. I would be surprised if that would in fact be the case, in fact his rank
suggests
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 37 ADDRESS
that, as you say he is a Captain, I would have thought that there would have been people more senior to him
who would have knowledge of all these things in respect of which you want him to come and testify. If
that is the case, if the position is that this knowledge that you want him to come and share with us, the
knowledge does not peculiarly reside in him alone, I would have thought that any other person who is just
as much conversant with all these facts, would be as good a witness as he could be, unless of course there
are some other reasons that we don't know of why you particularly want this particular witness.
And on the submissions that you have made to us so far, you emphasise the generality of his
evidence, that you want him to come and give. On the submissions you have so far made nothing suggests
that he and he alone out of the security establishment can come and testify about these aspects.
Nothing that I have picked up - I am not through yet.
If I can just make one point just to round the point up. You see I am troubled by the fact that we
are going to have to go back to the same argument which you had last time. I am also troubled by the fact
that it seems to me that low and behold by coincidence the State has an interest in a particular witness and it
turns out that that happens to be the witness in respect of which you also want to call that particular
witness.
And then it takes us back to the same argument which we had last year; given that fact that this
matter was argued before us last week in more or less the same nature; given the fact that the kind of
evidence does not peculiarly reside within the knowledge of a particular witness about
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
38
whom there is some argument; given the fact that other witnesses can possibly, competently, perhaps even
more knowledgeably, come and testify about those particular aspects; given the factors also raised by Mr
Meintjies, is there a basis on which we should still be arguing about whether this particular witness should
come or should you not in fact take the liberty that you do have, and you can have, to call other witnesses
who are more knowledgeable which would obviate us sitting here again, going through the same argument
which we had last year?
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Chairman, I would like to answer that. Mr Chairman one must take
the history of the applicants and their applications, under what circumstances they launched the
applications and the general attitude of the Security Forces towards the proceedings before this Committee
into account.
Clearly it is very difficult for the applicants to even get to speak to certain people who were
involved with the State Security Council. As I have made clear in the application when I advanced
reasons, we have tried to do so.
We have had, however, difficulty in getting cooperation. Not just in respect of this issue, but in
respect of other issues. There is, Mr Chairman, a general feeling it seems, especially amongst the superiors
of the applicants, that this Commission should not be assisted.
In the light of that it makes the applicant's position very difficult because of the fact that if we cannot even
arrange a consultation with a possible witness to determine what that witness could assist us with, if we
cannot get
information pertaining to who served on the State Security Council and its various sections, it makes the
applicant's
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 39 ADDRESS
task very difficult.
Now, that initially, that is the one reason why the applicants find themselves in a lot of difficulty.
The second point I want to make is, and I have already made that point, is that the party for whom the
applicants gave their whole lives and their career during that time, namely the National Party, has not
offered the applicants any assistance whatsoever with these proceedings, has not contacted the applicants
and has made no effort whatsoever to be of any assistance.
The only senior person who has up to this stage been prepared to take responsibility for and on
behalf of the applicants has been General van der Merwe, for which the applicants are very grateful.
Mr Chairman, at this point in time it is the applicants who were really, if I can call them, the foot
soldiers, who stand before this Committee, who took the responsibility to give evidence before this
Committee about the whole background of the National Party struggle, about the whole background of
apartheid, in respect of which they were foot soldiers Mr Chairman. They were not the people who gave
the orders.
They were not the people who were in charge and they are simply not assisted by people who are
in a position to assist them. And although I am taking a time to raise this, I will address the Committee
again in my heads of argument when I deal with this matter in argument, but that is a reality of the
applicants' applications.
The applicants have access to certain people who are
prepared to testify on their behalf and when we deem it necessary we will call such witnesses.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 39 ADDRESS
But in respect of this issue, the applicants have grave difficulties. The difficulties, as I have said,
are firstly to identify who was involved and, secondly, to get those people to assist the applicants. Now the
application of Mr Currin which he did discuss with you in chambers which hasn't been made yet, but the
request to subpoena certain witnesses would include witnesses for instance who were involved in the State
Security Council.
One of those persons as far as my knowledge goes was a secretary of the State Security Council in
1985. If that object is attained those witnesses will give evidence before this Committee, but those
witnesses do not want to support the applicants and they do not want to help the applicants in their
applications. That is the first point that I want to make.
The second point I want to make in answer to your question is that Captain van Jaarsveld was
involved with the development of the counter-revolutionary strategy right from its inception. As far as I
understood that was round about 1980 and the development of the strategy took place until approximately
1985 when it was implemented.
Captain van Jaarsveld was intricately involved in this whole process throughout the time. He was
also involved as the representative of the Security Police on the State Security Council for a long period of
time and he was therefore, over a long period of time, intricately involved with the system.
Captain van Jaarsveld also completed a Masters' Degree as far as I know in Political Science,
which dealt with, I
think the name of his thesis was "The role of the population in counter--insurgency".
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 40 ADDRESS
He is therefore Mr Chairman, a witness who has intricate knowledge of the subject and the
counter-revolutionary strategy over a long period. He was involved with the inception as well as the
practical implementation thereof.
In respect of the State Security Council, he also has a broad knowledge of the working thereof and
he would be able probably as any other person, apart from possibly the most senior politician, to give the
Committee the general information pertaining to the working of the system.
If evidence of Captain van Jaarsveld is denied, and the applicants cannot call Captain van
Jaarsveld as a witness, it would in all probability mean that the applicants will not be able to place that
evidence before the Committee. We will still strive to obtain witnesses and get people to assist us in this
regard, but I want to make it very clear that it is not as in the case of a simple court case, simply phoning
somebody and asking him to come and assist. There are various problems involved for possible witnesses
and most of the people are very reluctant to participate in the process. And that is the reality of the
problems which the applicants have.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Well, what you described in the second point is important but certainly it
cannot be blown out of proportion, the important thing from what you have been saying is that they have
difficulties, the applicants have difficulties as I understand you, in securing anyone else who could be
willing, who is willing to come and help them.
The fact that Captain van Jaarsveld was involved in the development of that surely he couldn't have done
that
single handedly, he must have done it in collaboration with
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 41 ADDRESS
a number of people and subject to the approval and veto and whatever suggestions of many other people,
that surely it is not, that aspect, while it is important, is not such that it makes him singularly relevant to the
proceedings more than anyone else. But I take your point about the fact that they have got difficulties in
getting other people.
ADV DU PLESSIS; Yes, Mr Chairman, I just want to make one point which I probably didn't come
through clearly and that is that Captain van Jaarsveld was involved, there was a long period in which he
was involved with this. Now there are lots of people who were involved, but some people were involved
for shorter periods of time. Some people were involved in State Security Council, but not involved in the
development of the counter-revolutionary strategy. So yes, it might be possible perhaps to obtain other
witnesses even if they should be forced to come and testify, but that would mean probably three or four
witnesses where Captain van Jaarsveld himself can give evidence because he was involved over a long
period.
JUDGE MALL: Dr Pretorius?
DR PRETORIUS: As the Committee pleases. I am appearing on behalf of the Prosecution. Again the State
wants to oppose this request in the most strongest terms. Allow me to sketch some background.
The applicants has heard that Mr Brian Currin wants to cross-question General van der Merwe
with regard to the State Security Council and they requested additional
information with regard to the State Security Council. They have approached the Prosecution that they
want to consult
with Captain van Jaarsveld.
In agreement with the Tshabalala decision and the
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
DR PRETORIUS 42 ADDRESS
Hassam decision, the Prosecution has agreed that they may consult with Captain van Jaarsveld. In this way
they were able to obtain the necessary information as well as the background information should General
van der Merwe give testimony they could then make - state the evidence to him.
The Prosecution is not closed with regard to the general public and so forth, they allowed our
learned friends to consult with Captain van Jaarsveld and to obtain the necessary information from him.
The request that he must bring testimony, however, is it was a spurious application and now
Captain van Jaarsveld, the State witness must now be called.
While I am on this point of sketching background, this morning the names of other persons were
given who might bring some information to the fore with regard to the background theory and policy in this
regard. I was only provided these names this morning and I doubt whether in this very limited period of
time, they were able to contact these other persons.
Mr Chairman, on the previous occasion I have already presented to you the possible prejudice of
this very, and in fact, key witness, State witness who might be subjected to extended hearings. He is
indeed a key witness to the Prosecution. As in my previous presentation to you, when such a request was made at the beginning of the hearing, there is however a crucial difference which must be understood Mr Chairman, these are a request from the applicants with regard to amnesty. It is their detailed knowledge, the way in which they thought and the acts which they took part in which is at hand here. If
there is information peculiarly in the mind of Captain van Jaarsveld, PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
DR PRETORIUS 42 ADDRESS
then it is of no use to them, because what is of importance here is the motives and actions of the applicants.
The applicants must say what their political motives were and how they saw the matter. It is of no use
for them when Captain van Jaarsveld knew more than what they did. If any information is peculiarly in the
knowledge of Captain van Jaarsveld, then it is of no use to them, since this application for amnesty is that
of the applicants and not that of Captain van Jaarsveld.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Certainly Dr Pretorius if instructions were given from above that certain
actions should have to be taken or if a policy was made with in which people acted, surely this must be of
importance?
DR PRETORIUS: This is the case Mr Chairman, and if Captain van Jaarsveld should come with his own
amnesty application at a later time, he will indeed give testimony with regard to his peculiar knowledge
and should he have given such instructions, he will make such application.
Any applicant can say that they received instructions from say, General van der Merwe or
whomever else, but the general knowledge, the broad policy decisions which might be of relevance here,
tells us nothing about the peculiar knowledge relevant in the case of every application. This crucial
difference must be kept in mind at all times.
The other difficulty against which, with respect, you must guard at all times, is that this process
must not
be abused to circumvent any possible future prosecution.
That this process will be used with regard to Joe Mamasela or a Willie Nortje to discredit such persons, so
that in the case that amnesty is not granted, that the possibility of prosecution will be reduced because the
main State witnesses PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
DR PRETORIUS 43 ADDRESS
will at that time have been discredited. And this is a danger with respect which I want to submit, you must
at all times keep in mind.
The crucial question which we must ask here is whether it is really necessary for Captain van
Jaarsveld to be called. Mr Brian Currin wanted to ask General van der Merwe with regard to the State
Security Council and now, suddenly out of the blue, this key witness must be called to bring testimony in
this regard.
Again, this is premature and when at the end of the day you as a Committee might have a
difficulty, then the Prosecution would have always been willing to give any help or cooperation that might
be necessary. The statement that the attitude of the Attorney General is strange, or that he is trying to hide
the truth from the general public and anyone else, this with respect, cannot be held. This is a very
important prosecution which the State is taking care of and we do not want to keep anything from the
Committee. If there were any detailed or particular problems, then the Attorney General's office would at
all times have been available to bring you assistance. We allowed our learned friends to consult with the
witness this morning and I cannot understand how they can make such a claim in view of this.
With respect, it is my submission that during the consultation this morning, when the prosecution
was present, other names were given and a true effort was made with regard to representatives of the
Defence Force or other
members of the Police Force and until this time, surely there has not been enough time to make an attempt
to contact these persons and therefore this application must be
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
DR PRETORIUS 44 ADDRESS
premature.
When and if General van der Merwe brings testimony, and if he agrees with any of the claims of
my learned friends, then it will be available to you. The other names made available by Captain van
Jaarsveld to them give them adequate opportunity, if granted sufficient time, to contact these persons. And
even if these witnesses are not very willing to bring testimony, they can none-the-less the brought before
you and it is therefore not necessary that it must be this State witness who brings this testimony. This
is the applicants' application and it must not be made necessary to bring a State witness before this
Committee when other witnesses can in fact give this testimony.
None-the-less the Prosecution is not in any way attempting to keep information from the public
and even less so from this Committee. If the Committee would like to clear up any particular matter from
the side of the Prosecution, the Prosecution will make every attempt to support this Committee in this
regard, but this, however, is a spur of the moment application, no effort has been made to bring other
witnesses in this regard and if General van der Merwe is cross-questioned with regard to the State Security
Council, then the information made available to my learned friends during the consultation, can be stated to
him and in that way the entire matter will be possibly dealt with.
I thank you.
JUDGE WILSON: ... Captain van Jaarsveld that it is so important?
DR PRETORIUS: Firstly he would be giving evidence My Lord when his application for amnesty will be
heard by this Committee.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
DR PRETORIUS 44 ADDRESS
JUDGE WILSON: You are talking about a State witness, when is he giving evidence for the State?
DR PRETORIUS: The State has to wait until the amnesty applications of most of the applicants has been
finalised by this Committee. The State's charge sheets have already been drawn up and he is a very
important witness in one of those possible prosecutions, but we wait for the decision of the Amnesty
Committee on these matters. So we are dependent on this Committee to make its decision either to the one
way or to the other and in that prosecutions, he would be a key witness.
ADV DE JAGER; And if we are not able to give a decision before we've heard him?
DR PRETORIUS: I don't understand the question.
ADV DE JAGER: If we are not able to make a decision with regard to these applications if we have not
heard this particular witness, because we might believe that he is an important witness, what do we have
then, that then is checkmate situation.
DR PRETORIUS: Mr Chairman, should this application take so long and should his amnesty application
come before you in the mean time, then in the course of events he will have to bring complete testimony
before you with regard to his background and his personal knowledge and then it will of course crucially
involve the case that it is his amnesty application at that time.
ADV DE JAGER; When we returned to the previous application, we were then asked not to allow Mr
Mamasela to bring testimony or to call him to bring testimony. In the meantime he allows television
interviews, he tells the whole world what he is going to say and where he differs. Now you are
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
DR PRETORIUS 45 ADDRESS
asking us not to call him because he is a State witness, but this witness is allowed to speak anywhere else
except before this Committee.
DR PRETORIUS: Allow me to sketch you some background in this regard. Mr Mamasela, because of the
unique history of South Africa takes care that he has guarantees. He is indeed a State witness and he had
some initial doubts with regard to the State. Mr Mamasela's name is mentioned time and again in the press
and sometimes unjustly so.
When or if Mr Mamasela will bring testimony in a court case it will be statutory. Mr Mamasela
you had heard that you are entirely innocently accused of this or that, that for instance you killed someone
in Botswana, that you held this person. Mr Mamasela's version is something entirely different. It is
necessary for him to defend himself, he must be given the opportunity to defend himself, so that should he
be in a position where he is prosecuted at a later time, he must be allowed to say in cross-questioning Mr
Mamasela, you were falsely accused, why did you do nothing about it? Now Mr Mamasela can say that in
every event where he was falsely accused, he had in fact gone to the media, to the press. In that way we
have some cheques and balances
with regard to the office of the Attorney General.
Mr Mamasela indeed, on occasion has a good relationship with the Press. He does that.. (tape
ends) .....
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Pretorius is it not important for us to know whether the persons who accuse him, for
instance with regard to the example given by you, to determine whether it is true or not. Should Mr
Mamasela then not rather come to us than to the media to state his differences?
DR PRETORIUS: This is a sensitive situation. Mr Mamasela
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
DR PRETORIUS 46 ADDRESS
has given his full cooperation and his own version of that particular event. The way in which it must be
approached, I cannot give a final answer in that regard. An additional question?
ADV DE JAGER; You heard with regard to what Captain van Jaarsveld must give testimony. It has to do
with the process of the counter-revolutionary plan and the membership of the State Security Council, do
you have particular objections to him giving testimony in that regard?
DR PRETORIUS: These two kinds of testimony are related. Should he claim for instance that the counter-
revolutionary planning included particular executive directives and so that the secretariat became involved
in specific cases where they gave direct commands with regard to the execution of these policy decisions,
then it would be very difficult to distinguish between the kinds of testimony. These two kinds of testimony
will be woven so closely together that it would be impossible to distinguish between these kinds of
testimony.
ADV DE JAGER: Should for instance he put a document in writing with regard to what he might want to
say in this
regard, would you not be able to come to an agreement with the other parties?
DR PRETORIUS: Yes, if General van der Merwe wants to, or brings testimony and our learned friend, Mr
Currin would then ask him questions using such a document which is indeed a good suggestion, then he
could use the document drafted by Captain van Jaarsveld to ask questions to General van der Merwe, he
could then say for instance in 1981 the counter-revolutionary policy was put on paper in such and such a
way and then that would be a way in which such, the whole
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
DR PRETORIUS 47 ADDRESS
problem can in fact be addressed.
JUDGE MALL: Mr Meintjies can you tell me when the application for amnesty was made by Captain
van Jaarsveld?
MR MEINTJIES: Thank you Mr Chairman. Yes it was during early December with the support of the
Attorney General.
JUDGE MALL; Mr Currin, I understand that you wish to make some comments?
MR CURRIN: Mr Chairman, just one or two issues that we would like to record on behalf of the
victims. We obviously don't know what this witness is going to say about the State Security Council and
we don't know what General van der Merwe is going to say about the State Security Council, so we are
really not in a position to assess the value of the evidence. What we would say, however, is that if we were
to take on face value the representations made by Mr du Plessis, it sounds to us as if the Captain is not
being called in his capacity as a Captain, but rather as a person with particular expertise around the State
Security Council and who represented the Security Police on that structure, so it seems to us that he would
be a very important witness.
And we would therefore support the application, because our clients would certainly like to hear what he
has to say
about the State Security Council.
I would also just like to comment briefly on the question of the evidence being heard in camera
and record that our clients would be strenuously opposed to the evidence being heard in camera. We don't
believe that really any real motivation has been submitted to support the application if one looks at the Act,
it says that if it would be in the interest of justice. In our view it would be in the interests of justice for the
public at large to
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 47 ADDRESS
hear about the State Security Council and how it functioned.
And then secondly that there is a likelihood that harm may be caused to any person as a result of
the proceedings being open. There has been no evidence at all of harm resulting from the proceedings
being open. The only harm that was referred to was possible harm in relation to prejudice with his own
application, but quite frankly whether the application is heard behind closed doors or in public, the situation
as far as his subsequent amnesty application is concerned, would be exactly the same.
In any event that possible prejudice could be dealt with in the same way as the Committee would
deal with any prejudice to General van der Merwe when he testifies, where, if for example a question may
prejudice his application, your Committee is quite entitled to curtail that question and one could deal with
questions on an ad hoc basis as and when they are before the Committee.
So quite frankly we have heard no serious motivation for it to be heard in camera and I think we
need to remind ourselves that the constitutional dispensation in this
country really underscores and underwrites and emphasises the need for openness and transparency, and I
think the
situation should be unique before the Committee were to decide in favour of a hearing in camera.
Thank you Sir.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Mr Currin, the distinction that you are seeking to draw is more apparent than
real. Really that he is coming to testify as an expert and not in his capacity as a police officer, I think the
distinction is more apparent than real. The fact of the matter is that he is not coming here before us to come
and theorise and teach us about
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 48 ADDRESS
theories of counter-revolutionary strategies and the like, he is coming to tell us about his experiences in his
capacity as a policeman during the time when he was involved in the police as Mr du Plessis so many
times, countless times, emphasised, from the 80's over a long period. I mean he is coming here to testify
about those experiences.
I am not sure whether a lot of things turns around that point, but I am just saying that that
distinction really - it is not real.
MR CURRIN: Mr Chairperson, I think maybe my point was misunderstood. The only reason why I made
that comment was because someone said he is only a captain and there must be other people of higher
ranking that would know more about it than him. It is in that context that I am saying, it is not his
capacity as a Captain which gives him the knowledge, it is his experience on the ground.
JUDGE MALL: Mr Mpshe, is there anything you wish to say?
ADV MPSHE: Nothing I wish to say Mr Chairman, thank you.
JUDGE MALL: The Committee would like to consider the
application that has been made and to consider the various points that have been advanced for and against
the application. We will give our decision on this matter in due course, but as soon as we can. We are not
in a position to do so now. I realise that it is important for all parties concerned to know as soon as possible
where they stand in connection with the preparation and the conduct of their application, and we shall
endeavour to do so as soon as we can.
I want to know whether in the meanwhile we are prepared to proceed with the leading in evidence
in any of the other applications?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 49 ADDRESS
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Chairman, may I perhaps just be afforded the opportunity to reply to Dr
Pretorius very, very shortly?
JUDGE MALL: Yes, please do so.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you. Mr Chairman it is true that we requested a meeting with Captain van
Jaarsveld because he is a State witness, we cannot really speak to him. We requested a meeting this
morning purely to obtain information which might be relevant in respect of General van der Merwe's
evidence. During the discussion certain information was divulged to us which we deemed of grave
importance for the applicants and on that basis we requested Dr Pretorius, at that stage this morning, if the
Attorney General would not be prepared to allow Captain van Jaarsveld to come and testify.
Clearly we were aware of your decision previously and that was not something that we wanted to
consider previously. We were also not informed of the extent of
Captain van Jaarsveld's knowledge until we spoke to him this morning.
We did take steps last year to obtain other witnesses and it is not a question of only becoming
aware of certain people who were involved this morning. In any event as I can recall Captain van Jaarsveld
gave us an indication that whoever was named this morning, would not in all probability be prepared to
assist us.
In respect of the evidence that Captain van Jaarsveld will give evidence in his own amnesty
application, he would be in the same position as General van der Merwe, he is also going to give evidence
in his own amnesty application and we cannot see that one should wait for that amnesty application
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 50 ADDRESS
before this evidence is placed before this Committee.
I also want to draw a distinction between Mamasela and van Jaarsveld simply and purely because
of the fact that Mamasela would have been a witness if the Committee allowed him to be called on behalf
of the applicants, would have been a witness pertaining to specific incidents.
Captain van Jaarsveld is only needed by the applicants at this stage and that is the only request
that we make, is to call him on this issue. He was also a State witness which was included in the previous
application which was refused by the Committee and that application entailed evidence pertaining to the
specific facts of these specific deeds. This application is of a much more limited nature and the evidence
will also be of a much more limited nature. The submission by Dr Pretorius that whatever information
we obtain during consultation this morning, could be put to General van der Merwe, I find that strange. I
cannot see how that can lead to evidence before this Committee, which can be taken into account at the end
of the day when the amnesty applications are considered.
ADV DE JAGER: But Mr du Plessis the information that you obtained and which you want to put before
us, why can't you put that on paper and give it to Dr Pretorius and ask him whether he has got any objection
to this information being placed before us?
ADV DU PLESSIS: We don't have any problem if Dr Pretorius is prepared to let the evidence be dealt
with in that way, we don't have any problem. The most important aspect for us is to place the facts before
the Committee and we don't mind if Captain van Jaarsveld gives evidence or if he does it by way of a
statement which could be placed before the
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 50 ADDRESS
Committee, we are simply interested in putting the facts before the Committee and specifically the facts
pertaining to the counter-revolutionary strategy because that will lend tremendous support to what the
applicants have testified up to now in respect of specifically incidents such as the Nietverdiend 10.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Shouldn't that course be more diligently followed because unlike in the case of
General van der Merwe, who did not complain about possible prejudice to himself, in this particular case
Mr Meintjies has specifically raised the point that Captain van Jaarsveld may very well be prejudiced if he
comes to testify here.
So that the Committee is now in a difficult position of whether in his quest to assist the applicants,
we should compel Captain van Jaarsveld, albeit at the danger of, on the other hand, prejudicing that other
person, so we wouldn't like to prejudice anyone, anyone of the applicants.
So shouldn't you more diligently follow that course
which my colleague is suggesting that you could put something in writing to Dr Pretorius and then sort it
out along those lines?
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes. Mr Chairman, clearly that would involve further consultations with Captain
van Jaarsveld in the presence of Dr Pretorius which I don't have a problem with.
JUDGE MGOEPE: But then you can come back to us as soon as possible and spare us the agony
of trying to decide whether we should sacrifice your clients or Captain van Jaarsveld.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, if Dr Pretorius gives an indication now that he is prepared to do it that
way, and if the Committee finds that that would be acceptable, taking
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 51 ADDRESS
into account that the Committee obviously then cannot ask questions to Captain van Jaarsveld to clarify
certain issues, then we will stand by that.
Obviously we think that, and we would submit that the best procedure would be evidence, but if
that is not something that the Committee would want to order, the second best thing would be a procedure
such as that.
What I don't want to do Mr Chairman, or what I wouldn't like to do, is to waive the applicants'
rights, if I can put it like that, pertaining to the giving of evidence. Obviously the applicants would prefer
that Captain van Jaarsveld can be asked questions in respect of these issues. And we cannot see that there
is any detriment to that regard, but if the only possible alternative is to place it before the Committee by
way of a statement, we will gladly do so.
I don't know what Dr Pretorius' view to that is.
DR PRETORIUS: Mr Chairman, the State supports a solution
like that where we can come together in further consultations and that we can do it by means of a
statement. The State supports such a solution.
MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Currin, what would be your response to the proposal which has been put? Do you
think it would impinge on the rights of your clients if a statement in writing is put before the Committee?
JUDGE MALL: If you are afforded an opportunity to see that statement before it is handed into us.
MR CURRIN: Yes, I was actually going to suggest that if we are given that opportunity, then I think we
could go with the proposal.
JUDGE MALL: No objection to that?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
52
ADV DU PLESSIS: No objection.
JUDGE MALL: Assuming that this is the most amicable way in which to go about and the most
expeditious way in which to deal with this matter, is there any suggestion as to how soon this can be done?
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, yes, we wouldn't have a problem in trying to do that over, during
the evenings, during this week so that may be possible to finalise that at the end of the week or over the
weekend. I just wish to mention Mr Chairman that the applicants would obviously prefer that Captain van
Jaarsveld gives evidence instead of the second procedure.
JUDGE MALL: I understand that. This is a balancing act that is required to be fulfilled. If your clients
were not faced with a trial, maybe this problem wouldn't arise, but you have got a situation where there are
conflicting interests.
The function and purpose of this Committee is to arrive at the truth insofar as it is possible to
arrive at that
truth. Now in order to arrive at that truth, the best evidence possible should be made available to this
Committee. I realise that it has been said that the best evidence is the evidence in open court tested under
cross-examination, but if evidence is submitted by consent of the parties and your clients will know what is
being said in that statement before it is submitted in its final form, they may be able to instruct you to
formulate it in a way that would meet their requirements.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Chairman, I will accept the Committee's decision on this and we give
our undertaking to try and obtain that evidence and finalise it as soon as
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
53
possible and to be able to place it before you.
JUDGE MALL: Yes. And Mr Currin, this might impinge on your request about subpoenaing a number
of people because the ground that maybe will be covered in the kind of information that might be placed
before us, might eliminate to call or subpoena a lot of people.
MR CURRIN: It may well do so and if that is in the interests of this Committee and justice in the broader
public, we would accept that, but we would reserve our rights to deal with that once we are in possession of
the information which is to be made available.
JUDGE MALL: Yes. But you will apply your mind to the need and the possibility of dealing with the
matter in this way?
MR CURRIN: We certainly would do so.
JUDGE MALL: Alright then, may we proceed then with the hearing of evidence Mr Mpshe?
ADV MPSHE: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, we are
back on the first matter as per schedule, Joe Tsele Mr
Chairman. This pertains to the victims or the next of kin to the deceased, Mr Chairman. They are here
present and I have consulted with them. They do not have a legal representative, but they have indicated
that one of them would like to take the stand and say something on behalf of the family and that will be the
sister to the deceased.
But it is not only the sister who is present, the children are also here in person. May I then Mr
Chairman, with your permission, call the sister to the stand?
JUDGE MALL: Yes, please do.
ADV MPSHE: Thank you. Ms Mabela. Mr Chairman, the witness is Tswana speaking, may she be
made to take an oath?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 53 MS MABELA
LEGINA MABELA: (sworn states)
JUDGE MALL: What are your full names?
MS MABELA: My name is Legina Mabela.
JUDGE MALL: How old are you if you could remember?
MS MABELA: I am 72 years old.
EXAMINATION BY ADV MPSHE: The deceased who is Joseph Tsele, was he your elder
brother?
MS MABELA: That is true.
ADV MPSHE: You would remember that I had discussions with you the last time about this issue, do
you remember?
MS MABELA: Yes, I remember.
ADV MPSHE: That is when you agreed that you are going to be the one who is going to represent the
relatives.
MS MABELA: That is true.
ADV MPSHE: You are before this Committee, would you explain about the event on behalf of the
family? You can explain.
MS MABELA: When we were listening, when they were
talking we realised that we are not happy the way they were
talking. It seems if we may meet Mr Mamasela who was responsible for this act as they were telling. We
have nothing to say except meeting Mr Mamasela to tell us his position.
ADV MPSHE: I did explain to you about Joe Mamasela, that the possibility for him to be present in this
Committee, how does it work.
MS MABELA: Yes, you did explain to us but we feel that we don't agree with this issue because he is
the only one who knows what has happened.
ADV MPSHE: The applicants within their applications have asked forgiveness about this act. As you
know that this is
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 54 MS MABELA
the time for reconciliation and forgiveness in our country, what is your feeling about the forgiveness and
reconciliation?
MS MABELA: We cannot be able to forgive them if we can know the truth from Mr Mamasela to know
what they have done and what was his part in the incident, then therefore we will be able to think how we
can forgive them. If you know the truth, you are able to forgive. We don't know as whether what they
have told us is the truth or not.
ADV MPSHE: Your own feelings about reconciliation, what kind of feelings do you have about
reconciliation and forgiveness?
MS MABELA: I want to know the truth.
ADV MPSHE: Is there anything you want to say?
MS MABELA: I want to know the truth only.
ADV MPSHE: Do you end up there?
MS MABELA: Yes.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV MPSHE
ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman, may I mention before any
questions ... (intervention) (no interpretation) ...who are herein present, thank you.
JUDGE MALL: Are there any questions you wish to put to this witness?
ADV DU PLESSIS: I have no questions Mr Chairman.
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS.
MS MABELA: May I talk sir?
JUDGE MALL: Yes, please.
MS MABELA: What bothers me, as I said I am looking for the truth, is that he was destroyed. He was
shot and he was cut and then on the floor, we found 25 bullets. That is the truth I want to find out as what
is the part of Mr Mamasela
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
55 MS MABELA
as depend our discovery on the scene, that is why I am looking for Mr Mamasela.
JUDGE MALL: Do I understand her evidence to mean that unless Mr Mamasela himself comes and
admits to her that he killed her brother, she has nothing to say. She wishes to hear it from him, is that the
position?
ADV MPSHE: That is the position Mr Chairman, but as I've indicated, I did explain to them during
lunch the position as far as that is concerned.
JUDGE WILSON: Could I ask you whoever interpreted her last answer, whether my note is
correct where she said what bothers me is that "he was shot and cut", did she in fact refer to cutting as
separate injuries to the shooting?
ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman, if I am correct on the word she used, she used (Tswana words stated), in
other words she was brutally killed.
JUDGE WILSON: Oh, thank you.
JUDGE MGOEPE: If I listen to the original version in her
language, and not to the English translation or Afrikaans translation, isn't also what she is saying isn't it that
she said that when she was asked about forgiving, she said that she doesn't know whether these people are
telling the truth and she needs to know what Mamasela says happened there. Mr Mpshe?
ADV MPSHE: That is correct, that is what she said in her evidence, that is what she said.
JUDGE MGOEPE: She intimated that she has no knowledge as to whether or not what the applicants are
saying, whether their version is true or not and only Mamasela could tell us whether the version is - their
version is the true one or not. That is actually what she was saying.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
56 MS MABELA
ADV MPSHE: That is correct.
JUDGE WILSON: Does she know if there were other people present in the house with her brother
the night he was shot?
ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman, inasfar as that is concerned, during consultation they mentioned including
herself, that there were people present on the premises of the deceased. The deceased had some outside
rooms rented out to local students as well as lady teachers. They stated to me that these people were
present when this thing happened. And if I may continue I indicated to her that I did read their statements,
two lady teachers who in the statements state that they were not present ... (tape ends) they went and
knocked at the deceased's door. That is her version.
JUDGE MALL: Ask her if she has anything else to say besides her request that she would like to hear Mr
Mamasela himself.
ADV MPSHE: Is there something that you would want to add on top of what you have already said, and
besides Mr Mamasela or are you through?
MS MABELA: I am through Sir.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Was he active in politics?
MS MABELA: I don't know.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Was he involved in trade unions or labour unions?
MS MABELA: I was not staying with him, I don't know.
JUDGE MALL: Very well, you are excused, thank you very much.
WITNESS EXCUSED.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
57
ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman, then that puts us onto matter number 2, that if the killing of Brian
Ngqulunga. I leave that in the hands of my learned friend and the next of kin of victims are also present
here in.
MS KHAMPEPE: Are they represented Mr Mpshe?
ADV MPSHE: They are also not represented.
MS KHAMPEPE: Thank you.
ADV MPSHE: Thank you.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, thank you. There is just one issue that I would want to raise
now before I call Capt Mentz and that is that there was a meeting on Friday between myself, Mr Britz, Mr
Mpshe and Mr Currin pertaining to documents to be used during these trials.
I requested both gentlemen to provide us with documents in their possession. I requested Mr
Mpshe to provide me with documents in his possession pertaining to any of these applications. I
wanted to get hold of those documents beforehand so I can take it up with my clients and have knowledge
of what the documents entail.
I also requested Mr Currin to provide me with any documents in his possession which are, we
discussed it,
which are of evidentiary nature and which he would want to
use in cross-examination of any of the applicants. He gave me an indication that he will provide me with
such documents and I accept that he will do so.
The only reason why I am raising this point now and I want to place this simply on record Mr
Chairman, that I made such a request, is that the moment any documents come about or are introduced into
evidence which have not been provided to the applicants in terms of that request and arrangement,
I want to place on record now that I am going to object
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 58 ADDRESS
against such documents, that I will ask for an adjournment to study the documents, to take it up with my
clients if the Committee will allow me to, and that that is the case.
I want to place that on record now and the reason why I do so is that Mr Mpshe mentioned when
he addressed you that he was in possession of statements of people who were on the premises or who
arrived at the body of Mr Tsele later, afterwards. I didn't understand him hundred percent correctly - I don't
know if he is in possession of statements or if he had seen statements or whatever.
Now it is not something that has prejudiced my clients, I am not going to make an issue of that at
this stage but in any event in respect of this application, in respect of Mr Tsele, but what I want to do is I
want to place this on record, so that if a document comes up later on in any application that I am not
prejudiced.
JUDGE MALL: Well, that shouldn't present any difficulties. Up to now your applicants have not been
cross-examined on the contents of any documents.
Mr Currin, you have given an undertaking that you will
make documents available?
MR CURRIN: That is correct and I certainly would do so. My learned friend overlooked to mention
that he'd given a similar undertaking.
JUDGE MALL: No, right now I am not interested in that debate. I want to know whether that can be
done as soon as possible.
MR CURRIN: It certainly can Sir.
JUDGE MALL: Right. Thank you very much.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. May I call Captain Mentz?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 58 CAPT MENTZ
JUDGE MALL: Yes please.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you.
WILLEM WOUTER MENTZ: (sworn states)
EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, thank you. In respect of Captain Mentz, he
hasn't given evidence in respect of any application before this Committee. He has set out a general
background at the beginning of his application, starting at page 5. I would want with the
Committee's permission that he is not required to read this out to the Committee into the record, but that
this be accepted as part of his evidence. That would be from page 5 until page 24 and that deals with the
following aspects:
His career, his functions at Unit C1, Vlakplaas, the structure of command, the way operations
worked at Vlakplaas, that is page 8, in respect of weapons that was used, page 9. Then the question of
racism, page 11. The effect of these actions, also page 11. The destruction of documents, page 12
and then specifically on page 12, the psychological evaluation. You will see that as Annexure A an
evaluation of him by a psychiatrist was attached. It is not the psychiatrist that I am going to use in
presenting evidence pertaining to his condition, but it is a similar report. Then the general background
about the struggle and then you will see on page 20 he refers to informants, page 21, the death of activists.
On page 22, he deals with propaganda and then on page 24, he also deals with reconciliation.
If you would allow me, I would request Captain Mentz to read to you the last paragraph on page
24.
CAPT MENTZ: I am no longer sure today whether the things which I did, the things which I
believed was in the interest PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 59 CAPT MENTZ
of South Africa and of the country. I am unhappy about the loss sustained by family members of victims
and I hope that my revelations in this regard will lead to reconciliation amongst all South Africans.
I am proud to be a citizen of the new South Africa and would like to put the past behind me.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. May I proceed with the witness?
JUDGE MALL: That is right.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain, before we continue with the application with regard to Mr Ngqulunga,
what is the nature of the psychological care that you are receiving? Do you still receive psychological
care?
CAPT MENTZ: This is the case.
ADV DU PLESSIS: For how long have you been receiving such psychological therapy?
CAPT MENTZ: For approximately three years, Mr Chairman.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Does this therapy include treatment for post-traumatic stress?
CAPT MENTZ: Yes, that is the case.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Mentz, could you briefly sketch the main events in your career just so
that the Committee would have a brief overview.
CAPT MENTZ; Mr Chairman, in 1977, December I joined the South African Police Force. In 1980 I
was stationed at Brooklyn Detective Branch in Pretoria, subsequently I was transferred to Murder and
Robbery Squad in Pretoria.
While serving at Murder and Robbery I operated on occasion with the Security Branch, Northern
Transvaal. While in service at Murder and Robbery, I arrested Mr Nofomela who was attached to
Vlakplaas Unit C10. This is
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 60 CAPT MENTZ
how I came in contact with the members of C1, Eugene de Kock and how I was transferred to Vlakplaas.
That was during August of 1989.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain, are you still a member of the Force?
CAPT MENTZ: Yes, I am a serving member of the Force.
ADV DU PLESSIS: When did the Vlakplaas Unit disband?
CAPT MENTZ: If my memory does not fail me I believe it was during 1991.
ADV DU PLESSIS: You do mention on page 7 of your application, November 1992, is that correct?
CAPT MENTZ: That is correct.
ADV DU PLESSIS: You were then transferred to the Unit for protected species in Pretoria, is that
where you are still attached?
CAPT MENTZ: Yes, that is where I am attached at this time.
ADV DU PLESSIS: When did you come in contact with Nofomela? When did you arrest
Nofomela and come into contact with Vlakplaas?
CAPT MENTZ: It must have been during the time that I was attached to Murder and Robbery.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, but what year?
CAPT MENTZ: If you allow me a moment ...
ADV DU PLESSIS: If you look at page 6, Captain Mentz at the top, you will notice that you were
transferred to Unit C1, Security Headquarters, Vlakplaas on this particular date.
CAPT MENTZ: It was during August of 1988 when I became involved with the members of C1.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Mentz, on page 6 you say in the
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 61 CAPT MENTZ
third paragraph, could you read this paragraph to the Committee?
CAPT MENTZ: During the cases where I served the Security Branch, Captain Jacques Hechter asked me
to assist them in operations. I helped the Security Branch because I considered this as part of my duties as
Murder and Robbery, since most of these cases were against ANC members who were on occasion
involved in murder. I needed this information in my own investigations as a Warrant Officer at Murder
and Robbery.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain, were you engaged in operations of the Security Branch while you were a
member of Murder and Robbery?
CAPT MENTZ: That is the case Mr Chairman.
ADV DU PLESSIS: During those operations did you have the agreement of your superiors to be involved
with the Security Branch?
CAPT MENTZ: On occasion.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Were there regular cooperation between the Security Branch and Murder and
Robbery?
CAPT MENTZ: Yes, that was the case.
ADV DU PLESSIS: For what length of time, or rather how well and for what period of time, did
you know Captain Hechter?
CAPT MENTZ: Mr Chairman, during 1980 I met Captain Hechter. We were personal friends. I know
him very well, or rather well.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Capt Mentz, a final aspect with regard to the general background, during 1989
you began your service at Vlakplaas which is somewhat later than some of the other applicants. What was
the position and attitude
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 61 CAPT MENTZ
with regard to the Unit at Vlakplaas from 1989 when negotiations started with the liberation movements?
CAPT MENTZ: Mr Chairman, the Vlakplaas Unit was still used primarily to track down arms used in
acts of terror since it was believed that if the negotiations failed the ANC and other liberation organisations
might well continue with the armed struggle.
During the time of their unbanning it was easier for them to gain entry to the country, it was far
easier for them to gain entry and it was believed that they would have had far easier access to firearms.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Were there efforts to smuggle in firearms during this time?
CAPT MENTZ: Yes, many such cases occurred.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Mentz, your view of your own actions during that time, say during the
early 1990's, how did you consider your own actions, did you consider this as action against the liberation
movements on behalf of the National Party?
CAPT MENTZ: Yes, that is how I viewed my actions.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Mentz, let's page to your application with regard to Brian Ngqulunga.
Captain Mentz, if we start at page 53, the date given there is 1987 or 1988, is that date correct?
CAPT MENTZ: No, this date is incorrect. I've since determined the exact and correct date, namely 19
July 1990. The date is 19 July 1990.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Mentz, what was your rank during 1990?
CAPT MENTZ: It was that of a Warrant Officer.
ADV DU PLESSIS: How high up was this in the rank
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 62 CAPT MENTZ
structure on Vlakplaas?
CAPT MENTZ: It was very low, a very low rank. I was one of the foot soldiers of the Unit.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Who was in charge of the Vlakplaas Unit at that time?
CAPT MENTZ: Colonel Eugene de Kock, Chairperson. He was physically on Vlakplaas and we served
directly under him and he was under the General Staff at Head Office and in this particular case, General
Nick van Rensburg.
ADV DU PLESSIS: From whom did you normally receive instructions while serving at Vlakplaas?
CAPT MENTZ: Normally from Colonel Eugene de Kock, or sometimes from a small group of people
who worked very closely with him.
ADV DU PLESSIS; Could you expand for the Committee somewhat, you have mentioned a small
group who worked with him. Could you give us some greater information about the structure of the
commands at Vlakplaas?
CAPT MENTZ: At Vlakplaas, you were not treated in terms of your rank. Eugene de Kock used several
of his own friends and people whom he trusted, such as Willie Nortje,
Chappie Klopper, people who are now State witnesses and who now work for National Intelligence. These
people, Willie Nortje for instance, was also a Warrant Officer and he could not under normal circumstances
give instructions to a Major or a Captain, but were he to give such instructions, it was considered to have
come directly from Eugene de Kock.
We did not receive all instructions directly, verbally from Eugene de Kock. Sometimes from
other persons who served under him and whose instructions were considered to have been instructions
from Eugene de Kock.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 63 CAPT MENTZ
The instructions we received from Eugene de Kock we never questioned or doubted, we believed
and the idea was created among us, that these were in fact the instructions of the top structure of the South
African Police Force since Eugene de Kock on his visits to Pretoria, was always at Head Office and since
he had access to several highly placed senior officers amongst whom were Generals.
ADV DU PLESSIS: May I interrupt. You mentioned Nortje, what was the other name?
CAPT MENTZ: Chappies Kloppers. There are several other such persons.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Are both these persons now in service of National Intelligence?
CAPT MENTZ: Yes, to my knowledge they are. They are also State witnesses for the prosecution.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Were there occasions with regard to instructions of Colonel de Kock where you
argued with him with regard to his instructions or asked him questions, or did you simply accept his
instructions?
CAPT MENTZ: No, Mr Chairman, the modus operandi within
which we lived on Vlakplaas was such that if De Kock gave an instruction or said something, you did not
ask questions. At a later stage in fact, when I started working at Vlakplaas, when I had just come from
Murder and Robbery, just after I had arrested Almond Nofomela I was in the trust of De Kock for a
number of months.
He could probably determine from my behaviour that I did not always agree with his approach
and the way in which he worked, I then ceased to be one of the people whom he trusted and I became a
mere foot soldier.
I want to confirm again that such instructions as I
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 64 CAPT MENTZ
received from De Kock, or from those persons who worked with him, I believed to have been instructions
from Head Office.
ADV DU PLESSIS: If you say it comes from Police Head Office, from whom do you mean did
these instructions come?
CAPT MENTZ; Firstly from the Commanding General at that time, the General in command of Unit C1,
now Unit C10 at Vlakplaas. There were several such Generals. With regard to the particular case now at
hand in my application, is General Nick van Rensburg and at a later stage it was General Krappies
Engelbrecht. And they were linked to General Johan le Roux as well as General Basie Smit. Several
other Generals and also the Commissioner serving at that time, at that particular time.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Mentz, had there ever been an incident in which you had doubts in the
reasons for an instruction given to you by Colonel de Kock?
CAPT MENTZ: No Mr Chairman, as I have already given testimony I personally saw these instructions
as having been agreed to by Police Head Office and that he had received
those instructions from Police Headquarters.
I did not consider myself to be in a position where I could ask questions as I have already given
testimony, I was a foot soldier who could simply act on instructions, I believed that if these instructions
were given from Head Office, that they were in fact in the interests of the country and I acted in terms of
that belief.
ADV DU PLESSIS: With regard to the general actions at Vlakplaas while you served there from
1990 to the end of 1992, could you for the Committee give a general idea of the kind of actions in which
you were involved while working there?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 64 CAPT MENTZ
CAPT MENTZ: Mr Chairman we worked in teams, the permanent police officer as well as a group of
ascaris. Then we would for instance go to the Eastern Transvaal and there we would go to the local
Security Branch and would assist them in the identification of returnee activists and terrorists.
We assisted them in tracking down such activists and during the last part of that period, we
largely acted to track down firearms used in acts of terror and we also assisted in a number of cases where
crimes were involved, where we could gain information.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Mentz, with regard to the firearms used by you during that time, were
these firearms which were legitimately made available to you or did you also use illegal firearms?
CAPT MENTZ; Mr Chairman, when I arrived at Vlakplaas there was a set of firearms of which there was
complete records kept which was made available to me. I had to sign for these firearms and take
responsibility for these
firearms, this was entirely legal and legitimate. There were as far as I know, occasions on which
firearms used in acts of terror which were then made available to us - such as mufflers for firearms, and so
forth. These firearms were then handed back subsequently and were then destroyed.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Mentz, could you briefly give the Committee an idea of the effect of
these operations at Vlakplaas, how successful do you consider the Unit at Vlakplaas to have been between
1990 and the end of 1992?
CAPT MENTZ: Mr Chairman, in documents that I would hand in at a later stage there are
results by the Unit which were considerably successful with regard to stolen vehicles, drugs, firearms. The
Unit functioned successfully, this was PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 65 CAPT MENTZ
a period of transition from the previous modus operandi of the Unit and the previous purposes as Brigadier
Cronje has already given testimony.
While we had to make these adjustments, when the liberation organisations were unbanned, we
particularly focused on firearms used in acts of terror and the tracking down of information with regard to
criminal activities.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Mentz, briefly again, you served at a far later stage or you served in the
Force after the other applicants were no longer serving. You are still a member of the Force. Could you
give the Committee any further information with regard to the destruction of documentation?
CAPT MENTZ: Mr Chairman, while still stationed at the Unit Vlakplaas, we were given instructions and
I cannot say that this came directly from De Kock or from whom, it may be from any of the other Officers,
that gave us the instruction to destroy all documentations in our possession. We for instance had photo
albums of identified activists who had been exiles and who might have been returnee exiles with their
particulars, there were a number of reports, all of these were burnt. Every person destroyed their own
documentation, as well as the documentation kept in our offices. All of that documentation was destroyed.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Were you personally involved in the destruction of these documents?
CAPT MENTZ: Yes, I destroyed and I burnt my own documentation and the photo albums as mentioned,
personally.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Can you remember who directly gave you instruction in this regard?
CAPT MENTZ: It must have been one of the Officers on
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 66 CAPT MENTZ
Vlakplaas, I cannot tell you that De Kock gave that instruction to me personally, but that might have been
the case. I considered this instruction to have been from De Kock and I had been under the impression that
it came from Security Branch Head Office, since I knew that we had an office at Security Branch Head
Office, and I know that that documentation had also been destroyed, my deduction had been that this was
an instruction from the top.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Mentz, while serving at Vlakplaas, were there any particular incidents
where courses were presented and during which you were given information where, if I may say so, you
were brainwashed with regard to the liberation movements?
CAPT MENTZ: Yes, Mr Chairman. I went to a Security Course and every day we were told that the
Republic, the
country could only be protected if the liberation movements were combatted in the most extreme way. This
continued even after some of the liberation movements were allowed. We were told that we had to see to it
that the people who worked for us, for instance the ascaris, that they did not have access to first hand
information which they could hand through, or give through to any of the liberation movements.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Mentz, you sat in on the evidence given by all four of the other
applicants with regard to a range of incidents, and you were present when Brigadier Cronje gave testimony
with regard to the general background to the struggle, the reasons for certain actions and certain steps that
were taken, and particularly the testimony with regard to the fact that the Security Branch, including
Vlakplaas, was in fact the political arm of the National Party, can you remember this testimony?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 67 CAPT MENTZ
CAPT MENTZ: I remember this testimony and I support it.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Mentz your involvement in Vlakplaas was at a later date than that of
Brigadier Cronje, was the view of the operatives at Vlakplaas during the time of your service there, while
in fact negotiations were already engaged in with the liberation movements, were you still considered to
have acted as the arm of the National Party?
CAPT MENTZ: Yes, that was still the view.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Political wing or military wing or police wing, what would that be?
CAPT MENTZ: Mr Chairman, the testimony was and I apologise that it was in fact the police arm, or in
reality, I am trying to remember the exact testimony of Brigadier Cronje at this time, but as far as I can
remember the testimony it was that the Security Branch was an extension, an arm of the National Party. It
was not simply a section of the South African Police which acted with regard to
normal Government and Police actions. It was in fact a
wing of the National Party, in the words of the speaker, a political wing of the National Party if I remember
the testimony of Brigadier Cronje.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Would you confirm this Captain Mentz?
CAPT MENTZ: I would confirm this, and the Vlakplaas Unit would have been the armed wing of the
Security Branch.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Mentz, there is a single aspect which I want to cover with you in
general testimony before we continue to specific testimony, namely the fact that prior to 1990, or rather
1989, when you became involved in Vlakplaas, you took part in a number, or rather one or two actions of
the Security Branch, while still in service at
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 67 CAPT MENTZ
Murder and Robbery. We have touched on this to some extent already. I want us to rather go into some
greater detail with regard to this testimony since it is of importance with regard to the general background
of your testimony as well as with regard to particular incidents. Could you sketch for the Committee how
you would have been approached by the Security Branch and what exactly would have taken place and
how you were involved in such actions of the Security Branch?
CAPT MENTZ: Mr Chairman during my service at Murder and Robbery I was a Detective at Murder and
Robbery, I had knowledge of the activities of the Security Branch and for the reasons of ...(indistinct), but I
had not undergone any security training. In my own individual manner I knew that for instance the
PAC or any of the liberation movements that some of the people said that, this is the information made
available to me, that were they not able to arm themselves they would have had to do an armed robbery to
gain funding sometimes for their organisations.
At that time I had very little knowledge of what an activist was. Were you a member of the
ANC/PAC or a communist organisation, you were considered to have been a terrorist and even if you were
only positively inclined towards these movements, you would have been in my eyes, a terrorist.
If any of these persons were then engaged in an armed robbery, I would have been interested in
their action. I can refer for instance to the Silverton bank robbery. I cannot remember the year in which
that occurred, but there were four or five terrorists who were killed and a number of members - civilians.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 68 CAPT MENTZ
The main purpose of liberation movements was to free the country from suppression and in the
process my view was that they took part in armed robbery and that innocent persons were killed. I then
saw the combatting of the liberation movements as part of my work at Murder and Robbery.
Captain Hechter and myself have known each other for a long period of time, we were in a
relationship of trust towards each other. He would have for instance phoned me in a late afternoon to ask
me whether I was available to assist him, I would have agreed and would have accompanied them. It was
not always necessary for me to go to my immediate Commanding Officer to receive his agreement for this
action, I saw this as part of my normal duties. I cooperated with the Security Branch and worked with
them as necessary.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Mentz, under whose command would you have acted in such a case?
CAPT MENTZ: According to me under Captain Hechter who was at that time a Lieutenant, under his
direct command and then eventually under Brigadier Jack Cronje on those occasions where he was at his
office. He did not always work, he might have been on leave, but I would have seen it as having been
under the District Commissioner of the District Northern Transvaal and of course eventually under Police
Head Office.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Mentz, it is important that we present this testimony because your period
differs somewhat from that of the other applicants, you were involved in Vlakplaas during the latter period
when Colonel de Kock was also involved. There were many reports in the newspapers with regard to
Colonel de Kock's actions during that time.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 69 CAPT MENTZ
Colonel de Kock has been charged with regard to certain of these actions and he has been found
guilty in a criminal court with regard to certain of these acts. While serving at Vlakplaas Captain
Mentz, were you aware of any criminal activities at Vlakplaas? I am not talking about your operations, I
am talking about other aspects.
CAPT MENTZ: Mr Chairman, I had some suspicions but Eugene de Kock had certain persons whom he
trusted and what they might have done, we other normal police officers who were the foot soldiers there,
would not have necessarily known. I had suspected that there were irregularities but during the last year
and a half while serving under Eugene de Kock, we seldom spoke to each other, we greeted each other
when necessary and that was the extent of our relationship.
General Engelbrecht also transferred me to another branch of the Unit, since I couldn't get along
with De Kock.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Mentz, did you ask for a transfer to Vlakplaas on your own? How
were you transferred to Vlakplaas?
CAPT MENTZ: Mr Chairman, with Almond Nofomela's arrest I came into contact with Eugene de Kock,
they approached me and asked me whether I wanted to come and work with them and this is how it works
in the police, you can't simply be drafted, so I made an application and my Commanding Officer, General
Britz then denied this application. At a later time I made a second application which was then orally
refused, but I asked him and he passed it on and I was then transferred.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Did you ever discuss this with Brigadier Cronje?
CAPT MENTZ: Yes, I did.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 69 CAPT MENTZ
ADV DU PLESSIS: What was his attitude Captain Mentz?
CAPT MENTZ: At that time he attempted do dissuade me from going to Vlakplaas.
ADV DU PLESSIS: What was his reasons for this, what did he say?
CAPT MENTZ: Mr Chairman, I cannot remember his direct words, but he basically said that there would
not have been a future for me at the Unit at Vlakplaas. General Suiker Britz, now General Suiker Britz,
then Commanding Officer at Murder and Robbery also strongly attempted to dissuade me from joining
Vlakplaas.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, it is necessary for me to lead this evidence because this specific
witness and the
incidents he applies for, fall a little bit outside the
ambit of the evidence that was presented in respect of all four the other applicants. Just to clarify the fact
that I am leading some of this evidence it was important to do that.
Mr Chairman, this specific incident is an incident in respect of which I intend to lead some further
evidence more broadly than what is contained in this application. I do not foresee that we are going to
finalise this application this afternoon and I would prefer, and I would request the Committee to give me
the opportunity to deal with this tomorrow after having viewed the video's that we want to show to the
Committee. If the Committee will allow me to.
JUDGE MALL; Is the position that those video's will be available to be screened at 9 o'clock?
ADV DU PLESSIS; Yes, Mr Chairman, we have made arrangements with the SABC, they will
assist us with that very graciously and we would like to extend out thanks to
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 70 CAPT MENTZ
them. They will assist us and we will be able to do that. We will also endeavour to go through the video's
tonight and I will try to pinpoint the exact, specific aspects that we want to show to the Committee so as not
to waste unnecessary time in that regard.
JUDGE MALL: Very well, you may resume the leading of the more specific evidence of this witness
tomorrow morning, after we have had an opportunity of viewing those video's which you want to show us.
We will then adjourn now and formally constitute ourselves, the Committee, at 9 o'clock
tomorrow morning.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MALL: Sure. Mr Currin, you will be available at nine o'clock tomorrow morning?
MR CURRIN: I will be available Sir.
JUDGE MALL: Mr Mpshe, that is convenient is it?
ADV MPSHE; It is convenient Mr Chairman, thank you.
JUDGE MALL: Thank you. We will adjourn.
COMMISSION ADJOURNS
TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION COMMISSION
AMNESTY HEARING
DATE: 25 FEBRUARY 1997 NAME: JACK CRONJE
HELD AT: PRETORIA CAPTAIN HECHTER
WILLEM WOUTER MENTZ
THOLAKELE NGQULUNGA
PAUL J. J VAN VUUREN
DAY 2
JUDGE MALL: ... video to be shown, I leave this in the hands of my learned friends who are lawyers as
well as technicians, thank you.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, first of all, we would like to apologise
for the fact that we are starting a little bit late. It is due to one specific problem and that is that we exactly
pin-pointed last night on a time counter on a video machine, exactly which excerpts we want to show.
However, the video machine that was provided to us this morning, does not seem to have a time counter
that is working.
That is why I tried to fix that and it seems that I can't get passed that. If you will excuse me, then
what I will do is we will try to show to you the excerpts that we decided last night to do, but I will in all
probability have to search backwards and forwards a little bit if you would allow me that opportunity.
JUDGE MALL: Yes, certainly, certainly.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, we intend to show just parts of the Prime Evil video which we deem
important and then I intend to, with your permission, call Captain Hechter, just to give very shortly, some
comments and some evidence on certain of the aspects that we intend to show. There are
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
72
two video's. The one video will deal with Prime Evil, or is
the Prime Evil video with some excerpts that we deem important and, the second video is a video which
deals with inter alia the actions of comrades and the actions of
activists. It shows necklaces and what is also very important, is it shows exactly what kind of violence the
South African Police was, and probably still is exposed to, today.
I have to point out to you, that in respect of the second video, there are certain parts of that video
that are very gruesome. We think that it is important that we should show that because of the fact that that
indicates visually what the applicants were exposed to from day to day at that time, but I have to warn you
that some of the excerpts are very gruesome.
JUDGE MALL: Shall we clear this room of all those under 25?
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, whoever is going to be offended, and I can say to you that it is
going to be bad, should not look then.
JUDGE WILSON: Where are we going to see this video?
JUDGE MALL: Here in this room?
ADV DU PLESSIS: In this room, yes, on the screen in front of you.
JUDGE WILSON: Well in that case, can you please ask them to turn out that bright light, Ms
Khampepe and I have to look straight at to see the video?
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, I'll see to that. Having looked at the light, Mr Chairman, I understand
that completely. May I proceed?
JUDGE MALL: It's made a vast difference thank you.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
72
ADV DU PLESSIS: May I proceed? Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, before I go ahead, I
have to point out that I am not going to show certain parts. If the Committee feels I am going to fast
forward it on the basis that one can see it on the screen, if the Committee feels that they want to view
something specifically, please indicate to me or otherwise if the Committee wants to see the whole video,
we can show the whole video. I don't know what the Committee would prefer.
JUDGE MALL: Well, at this stage we don't have a clue as to what we are about to see.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Alright.
ADV DU PLESSIS PLAYS THE VIDEO
EXCERPTS OF VIDEO: It was a time of growing Black resistance against the National Party's apartheid
policy. Most White people believed it was a communist onslaught against Christianity and civilization.
The Soviet must be stopped in Southern Africa. We need your help as a team to stand up against the evil
forces wishing to destroy our lovely country. There is too much to be protected to leave it in the hands of
irresponsible people.
(Excerpt) We were also taught, I mean we were literally taught to hate. If you look at the
Security course that I went on for five weeks we were subjected to and we swallowed all of this - the
ranting and raving of a person that I describe as a cross between Eugene Terreblanche and Adolf Hitler,
about the satanic godless communists, and their Black surrogates that were going to swamp us. I've got for
example, my Criminology and Ethnology training manual from when I joined the Police and I can read to
you a little piece here about the differences
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
73
between Whites and Non-Whites in respect of crime.
"The Bantu are less civilized, the more primitive the people is, the less they are able to
control their emotions. At the slightest provocation they resort to violence. They cannot
distinguish between serious and less serious matters, they are less self-controlled and
more impulsive."
This video was taken at the Police Training ....
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I am going to comment every now and then just to indicate the
relevance of certain parts of the video. You will recall that evidence was given in respect of this specific
issue by Brig. Cronje in respect of the propaganda that the Police was subjected to, and this is a further
indication of exactly what kind of propaganda they were subjected to at that stage.
JUDGE MALL: Yes.
SCREENING OF VIDEO CONTINUES: It shows White policemen undergoing anti-terrorist training,
a mock ambush is set up. Eugene de Kock's predecessor at Vlakplaas is Captain Dirk Coetzee, who
completed his Officer's training in 1975, one year before De Kock.
(DE KOCK SPEAKS): We had a special lecturer, Brigadier Neels du Plooy, who was the so-called
specialist, a big Christian too, and he came to lecture us junior officers on communism, terrorism and
worked us up into a frenzy with his knowledge and the viciousness and the cruelty of the enemy, of the
communist, of the terrorist.
These people they call human beings, how could they cut up nuns in East London during the riots
in those early years, and they deserved nothing else but the worst, no mercy at all.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
74
After his training .....
No casualties were sustained by Security Forces and follow up operations are continuing. That is
the end of this communication.
COMMENTARY CONTINUES: It was a war in which 40,000 people died, fought between the White
dominated forces of Ian Smith and the liberation armies or Robert Mugabe and Joshua Nkomo. South
Africa refused to impose United Nations' sanctions
against Rhodesia.
Our orders, and ever since 1965 we refused to be a party to these boycotts and the policy of South
Africa will remain.
Including war supplies you will continue to allow them to go through ... (indistinct)
I am afraid the answer that I have just given you, is the answer that I want to give you at this
stage. Unofficially, however, the Government had to help its northern neighbour. South African
policemen were sent to fight alongside the Rhodesian counterparts. This film was shot in 1974 and shows
South African policemen on war duty in Rhodesia. (Indistinct) and De Kock were amongst them.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I show this because Brigadier Cronje has given evidence that his
started his career partly in the Rhodesian war and that the South African police were already at that stage
involved in a war situation and not simply involved in a situation pertaining to normal police duties.
SCREENING OF VIDEO CONTINUES: ... He was very, very loyal to the cause. A man
who was practically skilled in the skills and the arts of warfare. The man who was in hundreds of contacts,
who was in multiple landmine explosions, a man who PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
75
for 20 years, for two decades ...(fast forward)
Policemen in battle dress, armed to the teeth, rising on top of armed vehicles, called caspers. In
front of the caspers, a group of trackers running on the spoor of SWAPO insurgents. These were the men
of Koevoet, the police counter-insurgency unit, during the Namibian Bush war.
The unit with the highest kill rate, but also implicated in committing atrocities against the local people.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I show this to indicate the police's involvement in the Namibian bush
war as well.
SCREENING OF VIDEO CONTINUES: ... wait in the base and send you out after - on a mission that
could get you killed, and he expected you to follow him on such a mission. People develop a hero worship
for such a man. (Indistinct) with his people inside the trucks.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman that was the evidence given about Brigadier Cronje by, as far as I
can recall Captain Hechter and of the other applicants. He was a similar kind of man and he was involved
also in operations, not just behind his desk, but he was involved as a leader.
SCREENING OF VIDEO CONTINUES: ... leave Koevoet and come back to South Africa because
"die vyand is nou hierso", the enemy is now in our backyard, not on the Angolan border. It is strange to me
that anybody should be surprised at what he then did and the way he would then react.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, you must just please bear with me, I am finding it a little bit
difficult in finding the right places. I've got the correct time slots where they should be, but as I told you I
can't find them so, please just bear with me.
SCREENING OF VIDEO CONTINUES: .... with Mozambique. The
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
75
bodies of two ANC activists were burnt to ashes. (Indistinct) worked with both men, they were the,
basically the armed wing of the National Party. It was from here that Death Squads hunted down and
killed anti-apartheid activists. Dirk Coetzee found Vlakplaas in 1980, Eugene De Kock went to Vlakplaas
in 1983 and became Commander two years later. Craig Williamson knew and worked with both men.
They were the basically, the armed wing of the National Party. They were the National Party's
equivalent of Umkhonto weSizwe. They were people who believed absolutely that they had a mission, that
they had a job that only they could do, not only for themselves, but for their country, for their people, for
their church and for their future and for their survival and for everybody else's survival. For their people
and their "Volk's" survival.
The formation of Vlakplaas signalled a new phase in the Government's campaign against the
ANC. Craig Williamson calls it the Secret War. Williamson is not only a former Security Policeman, but
he was also National Party member of the President's Council.
None of us who were doing that job in those years were policemen in the sense of upholding law
and order and walking the beat, we were soldiers and we were used to fight a secret war.
Statements by State President P.W. Botha during the 1980's left no doubt, South Africa was in a
state of war. "The terrorist games of SWAPO and the ANC are the primary enemy and
must be confronted and eliminated.
We will not talk to these people, we will fight
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
76
them for the simple reason that they are part and parcel of the terrorist curse besetting
the world of today."
The enemy at that time was blowing us up......
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I just want to draw your attention to exactly what President
Botha said here on this video. I am going to show it again.
SCREENING OF VIDEO CONTINUES: ... of P.W. Botha during the 1980's left no doubt, South
Africa was in a state of war. "The terrorist games of SWAPO and the ANC are the
primary enemy and must be confronted and eliminated".
ADV DU PLESSIS: I draw your attention to the fact that he uses the word "eliminated".
SCREENING OF VIDEO CONTINUES:
"... we will fight them for the simple reason that they are part and parcel of the terrorist
curse besetting the world of today".
(Comments) The enemy at that time was blowing us up and was killing us and we were blowing up the
enemy and we were killing them.
Dirk Coetzee started Vlakplaas with a handful of White policemen and so called ascaris. ANC
and PAC guerrillas that were captured and turned by the Security Police.
One of the first ascaris to arrive at Vlakplaas was Joe Mamasela.
MAMASELA: In my - in the years of school I became a member of SASM, South African student
movement. I was the Secretary General of SASM at Morris Isaacson and also the school campus, I was the
Deputy National Permanent Organiser of SASM.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
77
COMMENTARY: Mamasela joined in the 1976 Soweto uprising. Inspired by the student
revolution, he joined the ANC and became the Organisation's courier in Botswana. But in 1979 the young
activist was arrested and interrogated by the Security Branch.
MAMASELA: They put some electrodes all over my body, in my testicles, private parts, my anus -
here, it was terrible. I was bleeding profusely, I don't know how many times I lost consciousness. I
lost consciousness for several times. The last time I fell into a deep, deep coma.
QUESTION: And why did you start working for them?
MAMASELA: There was no way I could salvage my life other than to work for them because this is what
they emphasised.
COMMENTARY: He became an ascari at Vlakplaas. He turned against his own people and became a
killing machine, first for Dirk Coetzee and in later years for Eugene de Kock.
MAMASELA: My first mission that I had to kill a human being, it was through Dirk Coetzee.
COETZEE: I was prepared to kill as many people as I was instructed to kill.
MAMASELA: And if you don't do this killing, they kill you.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I was requested to make the sound louder, it is impossible. The sound
is at its loudest. I believe that on the earphones, one can hear perhaps a little bit better.
JUDGE MALL: Thank you.
ADV DU PLESSIS: If there is a problem.
SCREENING OF VIDEO CONTINUES:
MAMASELA: More than six ascaris were killed.
COETZEE: We were untouchable, completely.
NEWS READER: "Goeie naand, agt swartmans is in
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
78
afsonderlike handgranaat and bomontploffings vanoggend in the swart woongebiede aan
die Oos-rand dood. Minstens sewe is ernstig beseer. Ten minste vier van die slagoffers
was op pad om terreurdade te pleeg toe hulle deur hulle eie plofstof gedood is. Die
polisie ondersoek die moontlikheid dat van die ander vier ook moontlik op pad was om
dade van terreur te pleeg."
COMMENTARY: The next morning violence erupted in the Duduza township. Residents believe the
police informant was behind the deaths of the students. At the first funeral Archbishop Desmond Tutu
saved a suspected informant from being necklaced. But at the second funeral the fury of Duduza was
unleashed on Martha Skosana, the girlfriend of one of the students. Soon after Martha's necklacing,
State President P.W. Botha, declared a state of emergency.
P W BOTHA: Every responsible South African has with growing concern taken note of conditions of
violence and lawlessness which in recent times has increased and have become more severe and more cruel
in certain parts of the Country, especially in Black townships.
COMMENTARY: More than 10 years later the memory of Martha Skosana's death has faded, but
now Vlakplaas assassin Joe Mamasela is talking.
The students didn't blow themselves up by accident - it was a Security Police dirty tricks
operation played by, amongst others, Vlakplaas commander Eugene de Kock.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, this part relates to the Zero handgrenade incident, just to make it 100%
clear.
SCREENING OF VIDEO CONTINUES:
MAMASELA: They were infiltrated by me for about two weeks
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
78
and in the ultimate analysis De Kock gave me some booby traps, you know what I mean, handgrenades and
one SPM limpet mine, the big one to give to them and this stuff we handed to them and they were told to
choose whatever target they want (indistinct), and they blew themselves up.
QUESTION: And what happened to the limpet mine you gave to one of the student leaders?
MAMASELA: It was terrible, you know, because once he started pulling off the safety-pin it went off.
There was a black smoke billowing in the air with a little tongue of red smoke, a red flash, flash-light and
one could see it was blood.
COMMENTARY: After the operation, Mamasela reported back to his Commander.
MAMASELA: He was ecstatic about it, he was ecstatic about it, he was extremely happy, he jumped like
a beheaded chicken.
COMMENTARY: Eugene de Kock became Commander at Vlakplaas in 1985, the time of growing Black
resistance against apartheid.
MAMASELA: The first impression that he created was that he was a brutal man, he was an aggressive
man.
FAST FORWARD
MAMASELA: (Indistinct), you know he wanted to make us dogs of war.
COMMENTARY: His job was to combat terrorism and terrorism was then defiant. His job was to combat
the onslaught against South Africa. The onslaught at that time, first of all was in Rhodesia then it was later
in South-West Africa Namibia and when the onslaught became hot behind our own alliance inside South
Africa, he was used to combat that
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
79
onslaught here.
Well anyone could see that this is a cookie you don't play with, you see. He was quiet, well-
spoken, but there was something that ...
They told you don't play with this guy.
QUESTION: Do you think the Generals knew what he was doing? ANSWER: It depends which
Generals, but I have no doubt there were certain Generals that knew what he was doing, because they
weren't that dumb as not to know what he was doing.
At least once a month the top structure of security headquarters, the Generals, would come for a
"potjiekos" or a "braai" and then Colonel De Kock used to foresee us with finance to go buy the meat and
the booze etc, and it started about twelve o'clock on a Friday afternoon and end whatever.
QUESTION: Did the Generals know what was going on at Vlakplaas?
ANSWER: There was a full time party there, three times a week all the Generals were there, celebrating
and as soon as the shit hit the fan, they disappeared and no one came, nobody.
The Generals did visit the farm frequently and I am sure that they had report-backs from Eugene,
actions that were taken, but to say that they knew in detail, I wouldn't agree with that.
They drew the parameters, they drew the counter-
evolutionary strategy, they gave us the budgets, they gave us the men, they gave us the means, the
equipment and they monitored our effectiveness and whether we were doing our job or not and they were
happy, they gave us the highest declarations that this Country can give and yes, many of
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
80
them turned round at the end of the day and said goodness, gracious, we didn't know that these band of
merry men of ours were doing such nasty things. If they were doing these nasty things, they must have
been doing it on their own initiative.
FAST FORWARD
Because of the police, the top police ...(indistinct) was the family.
It is one of the dichotomies of man that in fact perhaps because you are a loving father and
because you love your people, and because you love your Country, you prefer to kill for it, (indistinct).
You may also have to be prepared to die for it. .... (tape ends)
MAMASELA?): How I don't know but you must suffer, and God is going to punish me, that's what I'm
sure about.
... beweerde apartheidmisdade. Die Kommissie het gesê as mnr Botha weier om te antwoord op
die beweerde ...
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, if you will just bear with me for a minute please. Mr Chairman,
I think it is nearly at the end of what I want to show, I just want to make hundred percent sure that I've
covered everything. This is the last part of the video that deals with Colonel de Kock, which was not
important for purposes of this hearing.
SCREENING OF VIDEO CONTINUES:
...."Spanbou" is usually four days, it is nice the Government expenses who doesn't do it, everyone
does it. One big party. ....(Indistinct) get intoxicated, wrestle and stuff like that.
COMMENTARY: In this instance the men were joined by General Krappies Engelbrecht. He was the
unit's so-called Sweeper. De Kock will have to cover up. He was implicated in Court
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
81
in some of the charges against De Kock.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I show that excerpt because I am also going to call Brigadier
Cronje very shortly on that. He already gave evidence that he distances himself from Colonel De Kock and
from Captain Dirk Coetzee and he will testify about things like that and if that happened during his period
at Vlakplaas.
SCREENING OF VIDEO CONTINUES:
COMMENTARY: ....bravery, outstanding service and combatting terrorism. In December 1985 he
received the Police Cross for Bravery for this raid into Lesotho. De Kock....
- the former police Commissioner, General Johan van der Merwe, to this day, the General denies any
knowledge of the existence of Police Death Squads.
Eugene de Kock was charged with only one murder.
Fast forward
COMMENTARY:... Hit Squad members as ascaris, according to General Coetzee former terrorists who
had joined the Security Police and assisted in the identification of infiltrating ANC and PAC members.
Praising their work, General Coetzee denied the Ascaris had ever been ordered to assassinate, adding and
we quote,
"Just the thought of such a squad would defeat all the Police stands for".
QUESTION: What did you tell you colleagues in the National Party, at that time?
ANSWER: I told them what the system wanted them to believe and that Dirk Coetzee was obviously an
agent of International Communism who was attempting to destabilise the psychological status of our
counter-revolutionary efforts.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
81
QUESTION: Why didn't you tell them the truth?
ANSWER: (Laughs) That would have been an interesting occurrence if I had.
COMMENTARY: In meetings with policemen around the country Minster of Law and Order, Adriaan
Vlok, said Coetzee was part of the dirty tricks campaign against the Police.
VLOK: "Die polisie wat hulle lewens opoffer vir die land, wat hulle tyd, alles gee vir Suid-Afrika en sy
mense en al dank wat ons kry van 'n groot klomp mense, is dat ons word beswadder en
beskuldig van die lelikste dinge wat denkbaar is."
ANSWER: I can expect some naive people on the (indistinct) maybe can believe that story, but
people who were in the management structures of the State, didn't believe that story, they knew who was
killing the ANC.
COMMENTARY: Coetzee went into hiding in Zambia.....
(Fast forward)
QUESTION: Did you lie to the Harms Commission?
MAMASELA: Oh, I lied, I lied. We all lied from Cape to Cairo. It was a shambles.
ANSWER: It was totally the nonsense that was fed to them, I mean the whole Harms Commission was a
farce, it was fed manure and it was kept in the dark and it grew, the type of mushrooms that it was
supposed to grow.
MAMASELA: No, we were told to lie, it was instructions from the Generals that we should lie. There
was no way that we could compromise the police, no when we told - in all sections that we should lie.
ANSWER: I think one of the important things that we in this country are going to have to come to
terms with is the total lie that we all lived with. I find this now sometimes PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
82
very difficult to believe the - that they'd lie. We often used to talk or you hear about people saying that as
long as you make the lie big enough, you can in fact fool all of the people all of the time.
COMMENTARY: While the men at Vlakplaas continued to lie to the Harms Commission, De Kock and
his Squad attacked a house in Botswana. They shot and killed a PAC activist, his wife and two children.
De Kock and his superiors would stop at nothing to hide
their crimes even if it meant another murder. This is the grave of Constable Brian Ngqulunga. For nine
years, one of the unit's most trusted members.
MAMASELA:(?) Brian, the whole thing shook him to the marrow, it disturbed him. He was a completely
devastated person, he was a pathetic sight. You know he was frail, he drank too much. The whole
exposure into the media went into his mind. He couldn't take it. He was on the verge of complete
breakdown. And as a result he shot his wife three times, his pregnant wife. Fortunately the poor
woman did not die.
COMMENT: Eugene never boasted or he never talked about that, but yes, I knew and he would mention
that he had to eliminate someone because of the fact that the person was posing a threat, and threatened to
go and talk about certain things.
MAMASELA: There was a meeting at General Engelbrecht's office. Nick van Rensburg was also there,
De Kock was there, a lot of guys was there and it was - concern was raised about Brian Ngqulunga's
behaviour and his drinking problem and that he is becoming progressively agitated and nervous and they
were afraid that this condition will
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
83
jeopardise the police case in the Harms Commission and De Kock suggested that Brian should be killed, he
should be eliminated.
COMMENTARY: On the 20th of July 1990 Brian Ngqulunga was shot dead in the township of
Soshanguve near Pretoria. His grave is on a hill overlooking Vlakplaas. He was given an official police
funeral.
Nine months after his appointment, Mr Justice Louis Harms released his findings.
There were no police Death Squads, he said. Dirk Coetzee, had lied.
ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman, can I just make a request.
Seeing that we are watching something on Brian Ngqulunga and
the wife and the relatives are here, that it be re-shown and they be allowed to come and sit at a place where
they can see that for themselves. It is a request.
JUDGE MALL: When you say they are here, do you mean they are in this hall?
ADV MPSHE: They are in this hall, Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MALL: Then, should they not be able to see it now whilst it is being shown to us?
ADV MPSHE: That is the request I am making that they be allowed to come forward and see it.
JUDGE MALL: Oh, I thought you said they should be screened to them on another occasion. Certainly.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Chairman, while we are on this point, Captain Mentz will testify
about this specific incident and especially relating to the orders that they were given in respect of Brian
Ngqulunga. I am showing this video now before Captain Mentz' evidence.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
84
I just want to indicate to you at this stage that the
evidence of Captain Mentz will be that he and the others that were instructed to eliminate Brian Ngqulunga
were never informed of the reason that is now alleged by Mr Mamasela to have been the reason for the
elimination. I am just making that point.
JUDGE MALL: Noted.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, and Mr Chairman furthermore I want to point out to you that Mamasela
was not involved in that operation at all. So the evidence that is shown on the video will, to a certain
extent, be contradicted by the evidence of Captain Mentz.
PORTION OF VIDEO RE-SHOWN
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I am just making hundred percent sure that I've covered
everything.
Mr Chairman I would like with your permission, in respect of this video before we show the other
video, to call Brigadier Cronje very shortly just to give his comments on one or two of the aspects.I want to
make one other point.
After having, well showing the excerpt of Brian Ngqulunga, I realised that the excerpt itself and
what was said in the excerpt is obviously detrimental and perhaps prejudicial to Captain Mentz' application.
We, however, decided that because of the fact that we are speaking the truth from Captain Mentz' point of
view and what happened to him, that it would be in our interest to show this excerpt in respect of Brian
Ngqulunga even if what was said there, might and I am not saying that it does, but might contradict what
Captain Mentz' evidence is.
I want to make that point very clear Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MALL: You will obviously tell us who compiled that
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
84
particular video, would you not?
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, we will be able to give you the
information Mr Chairman, yes.
JUDGE MALL: The Committee will take a short adjournment at this stage.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS.
COMMITTEE RESUMES.
JUDGE MALL: In fairness to counsel I think it should be told that a member of the Committee felt that
as a result of what we had seen, a certain question may be cleared up amongst ourselves and it was in order
to discuss that point,
that this short adjournment was taken and I am hoping it hasn't inconvenienced anybody.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, may I allowed to call Brigadier
Cronje very shortly for five minutes?
JUDGE MALL: Yes, certainly.
BRIGADIER JACK CRONJE: (s.u.o)
EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: Brigadier, you have now seen the video. Parts of the
Rhodesian war and the Namibian Bush war. Do you confirm that you were also involved in a similar
manner?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes, that is correct.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Brigadier, you also heard what Craig Williamson said in the video with
regards to the fact that the Security Branch was the military wing of the National Party.
BRIG CRONJE: Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Do you agree with that?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes, I do.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 85 BRIG CRONJE
ADV DU PLESSIS: You've also heard the ex-President Botha specifically speaking about the fact
that ANC activists, I think he said ANC activists and terrorists, would be eliminated?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Did you hear that?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Brigadier could you just give the Committee an indication of how you
regarded that in the light of Brigadier Victor's instruction?
BRIG CRONJE: Brigadier Victor probably received his instruction from higher up and I thus believed
that his
instructions came from higher up and that these were the correct instructions.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And Brigadier, do you regard it in the light of what has been said in the video by
President Botha that there was a possibility that the instruction came from him?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes, I saw it as such.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Brigadier, you also saw what was said with regard to the Zero hand grenade
incident, was there anything you would like to dispute with regards to that?
BRIG CRONJE: I would like to differ in the sense that De Kock was not in charge of the Operation, I was
in charge of the Operation.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Very well. Brigadier it appears as though the producers of the video, either out
of ignorance or for convenience sake, the period which you were in charge of Vlakplaas or otherwise
omitted to include that in the video would you care to give any explanation to that effect?
BRIG CRONJE: I cannot give any explanation. I would like to say to the Committee that I took over
from Coetzee and
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 86 BRIG CRONJE
not De Kock. And furthermore I would like to say that the people who worked with me, did not look
anything like the people on the video. I refer to Colonel Venter, he was the type of man who worked with
me.
Furthermore, parties as the one on the beach, would not have been, never have been allowed in
my time. I would also like to say that De Kock was transferred to me from Koevoet, I did not want him
there, but I was given an instruction to take him.
Those type of things never happened under my command and it would never have happened
under my command, I kept my
foot on De Kock's throat and such things would never have happened under my command.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Brigadier, as far as Dirk Coetzee's evidence is concerned that he was like God
over there and he could do as he pleased, what is your comment on that?
BRIG CRONJE: It did not work like that Mr Chairman. Dirk Coetzee exaggerated as far as that is
concerned, that is not how we operated.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Very well then. Brigadier, what is said there by Craig Williamson with
regards to the involvement of the Generals in Vlakplaas, that what happened at Vlakplaas happened with
the knowledge of the Generals, do you identify with that?
BRIG CRONJE: Could you please repeat that?
ADV DU PLESSIS: What Craig Williamson said on the video with regards to the involvement of
the Generals in Vlakplaas and the fact that they knew and also the higher authorities, the fact that they
knew about the operations of Vlakplaas, do you identify with that?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes, I do, they all knew what was happening
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 87 BRIG CRONJE
at Vlakplaas.
JUDGE WILSON: When you say "all" do you mean every single General in the police force or are
you limiting yourself to a limited number?
BRIG CRONJE: I would limit it to the Generals in the Security Branch, the Commissioner of South
African Police, who were all members of the Security Branch before.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Brigadier, at some stage there were also photographs of the members posing
for photographs with corpses laying around as if they were very proud of what they had done, was that
your approach at the time, did you allow such things?
BRIG CRONJE: No, Mr Chairperson.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DU PLESSIS.
JUDGE MALL: Whose decision was it to transfer De Kock from Koevoet to Vlakplaas?
BRIG CRONJE: As I understood it, De Kock had been such a cause of trouble in Oshakati by fighting
that they had no option, his Commanding Officer there requested that he be transferred and Brigadier
Schoon instructed me to take him in.
JUDGE MALL: Was there a time when you and Dirk Coetzee were together at Vlakplaas?
BRIG CRONJE: No, Chairperson.
JUDGE MALL: Precisely how would reports of what was happening at Vlakplaas be conveyed to
headquarters?
BRIG CRONJE: It would have been done orally, Chairperson and would very seldom have been done in
writing.
JUDGE MALL: How would instructions to Vlakplaas or to
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
88 BRIG CRONJE
you be conveyed from headquarters?
BRIG CRONJE: Also orally.
JUDGE MALL: Would there be an intermediary between the people that were going to give you
instructions and yourself or would the instructions be conveyed to you directly?
BRIG CRONJE: To me directly, Chairperson. To me directly, Chairperson.
JUDGE WILSON: You were asked about the video that we've looked at and in particular what I
want to ask you about is a speech made by Mr P.W. Botha. You remember that?
BRIG CRONJE; Yes.
JUDGE WILSON: Is it correct that the video we have just been shown, consisted largely of
extracts from earlier news
reports, matters of that nature?
BRIG CRONJE: It appeared to me as such Chairperson.
JUDGE WILSON: That the speech that we heard from Mr P.W. Botha was a speech he made in
the 1980's, not something that was made for this video?
BRIG CRONJE: I do not know when he made it.
JUDGE WILSON: It was in the past, something you, all of us would have heard many years ago?
BRIG CRONJE: That is correct.
JUDGE WILSON: And ...(indistinct) at that time?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes.
JUDGE WILSON: And the second matter which is not of the same relevance is these parties on
the beach we're showed, there had been frequent complaints in the Natal Parks Board about a certain
military place down on the coast there, is that where the parties were?
BRIG CRONJE: It seems to me that it was at a house on the north coast.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
88 BRIG CRONJE
ADV DE JAGER: Brigadier Cronje, the reports you said were done verbally to head office, were these
done during regular meetings or were they done at any time when an incident took place or how often were
these reports submitted?
BRIG CRONJE: The way in which we operated was that I had four divisions which worked in different
regions. One for example in Natal, one in the Eastern Transvaal, the other in the Northern Transvaal and
so forth, and depending on what took place there at the end of the month those people would come back
and report to me and I would report to my head, Brigadier Schoon.
ADV DE JAGER: So it was not a report made at a formal meeting?
BRIG CRONJE: No, Chairperson.
ADV DE JAGER: Were there any agreements, standing
agreements where strategic reports would be made?
BRIG CRONJE: Every morning Brigadier Schoon would attend the San Hedrin and I would - what I
reported back to him, he would report back to this San Hedrin.
MR CURRIN: We have no questions at this stage, thank you.
ADV MPSHE: No questions Mr Chairman.
FURTHER EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I just want to ask two questions
pertaining to the questions that the Committee asked.
Brigadier, the parties which they showed here, I believed that they were held at Sodwana, was it
during Colonel De Kock's time, do you know during which period these parties took place?
BRIG CRONJE: I do not know during which period they took place, but they had to have been during his
period.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Would Captain Mentz be able to give us a bit PRETORIA
HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 89 BRIG CRONJE
more detail?
BRIG CRONJE: I believe so.
ADV DU PLESSIS: I would just like to put it to you for the Committee's benefit, that Captain
Mentz will say that those parties were held in the 1990's, so that was long after you had left Vlakplaas.
Brigadier Cronje, would you say that it is possible that the fact that you were not mentioned in this video is
simply because you were not involved in sensational incidents such as De Kock and them, could you just
comment on that?
BRIG CRONJE: I suspect that that is the reason why I am not mentioned as a Commanding Officer.
WITNESS EXCUSED.
MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, may I be allowed to say
something? Can you see me, I am a bit far away?
JUDGE MALL: ...(indistinct)
MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, first of all we must place ourselves on record before the Committee. Acting
for certain people who have applied for amnesty and we have some points which we wish to make in
regard to the evidence and particularly Section 19(4) notices. We don't want to interrupt at this stage, the
reason why I am addressing you right now is ...(intervention)
JUDGE MALL: I would rather you tell me who you are appearing for.
MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, for record purposes, my name is L.J.L. Visser, I am instructed by
Wagenaar, Muller & Du Plessis.
May I hand up to you a document, Mr Chairman, which will summarise what I wish to say to you
right now and part of the reason why I wish to hand it up to you is you will
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VISSER 90 ADDRESS
find an annexure attached to the document which I present to you right now, that contains the names of
those people whom we represent in their amnesty applications.
May I by way of short introduction Mr Chairman say that we act if you look at the annexure
containing the names if they were numbered, you would have seen that they number 81 on the list as they
stand at present. So presently we act for 81 applicants, Mr Chairman.
Mr Chairman, what this really is about is the issue of how the Committee is going to deal in future
with evidence of applicants before you which implicate other individuals. more in particular, those for
whom I appear. It appears to us Mr Chairman, and we have stated that at page 2, that in regard to the
Section 19(4) notices, there appears to us to be two permutations mainly and that is that our clients might
deny their involvement or alternatively they might
admit their involvement. Now ...(intervention)
JUDGE MALL: Or there is another alternative - might ignore it.
MR VISSER: Well, we can assure you we are not going to ignore it. So as far as we are concerned that
is not a permutation. What we wish to say just at this stage very shortly Mr Chairman, is that insofar as our
clients either admit or deny being implied by other applicants, we, as we stated to you yesterday in your
chambers, if we know of an incident which is going to be brought before you on a particular date, we will
see to it that we are here and that we inform you of the exact position of that particular implicated client of
ours.
Broadly speaking ins far as, we don't want to go through this every time for 81 people, and that is
why we've PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VISSER 91 ADDRESS
handed in this little document, simply to say that where we admit being involved, it does not necessarily
mean that we agree with the evidence tendered by an applicant before you or with his particular motivation,
it goes without saying, Mr Chairman.
The reason why we make this point right now is that it does not occur to us to be the time or the
place to place in issue all the evidence placed before you by the present applicants, where we should
disagree with them. We would be in your hands as to how you want to deal with those disputes, all that we
will do at this stage, and we undertake to do, is to draw your attention to any disputes which may exist.
What we want to make absolutely clear is that we are not objecting on behalf of any of our clients
to any of the applications now before you. If it should happen Mr
Chairman, that on the evidence as disputed perhaps by any of our clients in future, it becomes necessary for
you to make credibility findings, well then we will have to be led by you at that stage, presently we are
assuming that there may not be such material disputes as will disenable you to make a finding on their
application. We are hoping that that is going to be the situation that prevails.
I will finish Mr Chairman, this is really a build up to the question of the Section 19(4) notices.
We are in this position for example, this morning we heard evidence which affect Victor and Schoon for
whom we appear and we had no notice that this was going to happen.
Now quite clearly from an administrative point of view, it occurs to us that the Committee is in an
invidious position. My attorney and myself discussed yesterday the
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VISSER 91 ADDRESS
practical situation that acting for these people, we know in which incidents they are involved, but Mr
Mpshe does not, for the simple reason that an applicant may not have mentioned the name and he informs
us that he hasn't read through all the amnesty applications, so he is completely in the dark.
What we wish to suggest by way of assisting if we can, is that my attorney should draw up a list
of incidents of all the incidents in which our applicants are involved, for example the Nietverdiend incident
and the Zero incident and whatever and then give a list of names of our clients who are involved in those
incidents to Mr Mpshe, so as to make it possible for him to give us 19(4) notices.
May I just, while we are on the issue of 19(4) issues, make our position clear. We have in fact,
my attorney has in fact told Mr Mpshe it is not necessary to give us the
notices and then we reconsidered. The problem with that Mr Chairman, is that it is one thing to know that
you are implicated, but it is another thing to know on what evidence. We had to retract that offer and
you will see that in the letter which we've handed up to you which you ...(intervention)
ADV DE JAGER: Wasn't it perhaps accepted before you retracted it?
MR VISSER: Well, my learned friend Mr Mpshe did not take that point against us, Mr Chairman and I'm
hoping that we don't have to go into the law of contract on that issue. But the point is that it does seem
necessary to know beforehand Mr Chairman what the other person who implicates our clients, is going to
say. I think it is a matter of logic, so it is not as if we wish to make more work for Mr Mpshe,
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VISSER 92 ADDRESS
but it occurs to us to be necessary and I just wanted to explain that.
So Mr Chairman, thank you for listening to me for so long, but what we suggest then is that we
should give you that list and that that would enable Mr Mpshe to give us due notice of when a particular
incident will be heard and at that stage we will then come and if we may, by way of a short affidavit on
behalf of that client of ours, simply state very briefly what is in dispute and what is not in dispute. That
is the best we can think of offering our assistance at this point in time, but we will obviously be led by
whatever you decide, how you wish to do it.
JUDGE MALL: Speaking for myself, I think that it will be very very helpful to carry out the suggestion
which you have made about giving us a list of your clients setting out how,
briefly or rather in respect of which matters, they were implicated.
I am glad that you appreciate the difficulty we have in carrying out Section 19(4) notices, simply
because as evidence unfolds names are mentioned, we hear them for the first time and it seems that the
only way in which that can be done, would be at the end of each day to draw up a list of people whose
names are mentioned, who may be implicated. Not people whose names are merely mentioned, but who
may be implicated and at the end of each day take steps to notify people.
But I see that all your clients whose names appear here have themselves applied for amnesty and,
it may very well be that they will have ample opportunity at that stage to give their version as fully as they
would like to and the Committee, I can assure you, will give full consideration to PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
93
the evidence of their account and the extent of their participation in whatever they are applying amnesty
for.
It may be that if we can avoid a repetition of hearing evidence, in other words if we can avoid
calling a man simply because his name is mentioned and he is given notice in terms of Section 19(4), for
him to come here and respond to what was said yesterday about him, and then find out that he has made an
application for amnesty and he will be repeating what he said then, one certainly wants to avoid that.
You understand the time constraints within which this Committee is functioning. We are always
looking for ways of streamlining procedures and it would seem that if you furnish this document with what
your clients have to comment on and in what matters they are implicated in, it will facilitate matters and
that document should be handed to counsel for the applicants.
Now we understand you are telling us that your clients do not object to the applications for
amnesty by the applicants. That is a matter of some importance. It is a question of hearing their version of
what is being said and we will have an open mind in that regard and I can assure you on behalf of the
Committee, that we will do so.
JUDGE WILSON; Can I add something Mr Visser that I think may be of assistance. I don't know
how many of your clients are policemen or army officers, but ...(intervention)
MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I can answer the question immediately, 80 of them are policemen and one is
an ex-Minister of Police.
JUDGE WILSON: It would be much easier to identify them if you could also give ranks, so when
somebody talks about
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VISSER 94 ADDRESS
Captain Coetzee, because you've got about five different Coetzee's, if you could put the ranks onto the list,
I think it would make it easier for Mr Mpshe and others to identify.
MR VISSER: We hear what you say Mr Chairman, but there is a problem with that and that is the
changing of the ranks, but we will do it anyway as near as possible. We can identify them.
May we accept then that for as far as our clients have been implicated here today, you will
appreciate that obviously we have no instructions on that, we will not forego any rights by asking you to
allow whatever our reaction is going to be to stand down to a later date?
JUDGE MALL: Quite right.
MR VISSER: May I also add Mr Chairman, you've suggested it and we have already done that, we
have also circulated these affidavits which we spoke about earlier in which we
say what is admitted and what is denied to the applicants' legal representatives. The reason for that is
that they might, with that knowledge, be able even from their side to shorten proceedings by perhaps
avoiding disputes or cutting out disputes where it is possible.
May it please you, thank you Mr Chairman.
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Visser, as far as the affidavits that you've given to the other people, if you intend that
they should be part of our material to be considered, we will be glad to receive it ourselves so if you could
hand it into the Commission, if you consider that to be necessary?
As far as the evidence given this morning, could I say that insofar as the video's have been
confirmed under oath, as far as I am concerned that would be considered as evidence, the mere showing of
the video with a lot of faces
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VISSER 94 ADDRESS
appearing thereon, wouldn't as far as we are concerned, implicate those persons except as far as they've in
fact implicated by this person giving evidence now.
MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman. Dealing with the last point that certainly accords with our view
of the law and we are thankful for that direction which you have given.
As far as handing up the affidavits to you, we didn't mention it because we thought it spoke for
itself, the whole intention of the affidavits would be for your information, for your consumption, but we
will also make it available to the legal representatives of the applicants.
ADV DE JAGER: Thank you.
MR VISSER: Yes, of course we will.
ADV DE JAGER: Sisi?
MR VISSER: May I say one last thing. General Johan van
der Merwe, the issue which we spoke about yesterday, I am hoping that I won't have to speak again today,
so while it is my turn, while I've been given a turn, I wish to put it all in - he will be available on Thursday
the 27th for Mr Currin to put his questions to him.
JUDGE MALL: Thank you.
MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman.
MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Visser, would you have any objection in making those affidavits available to legal
representatives of victims or the relatives of the deceased in respect of which the applicants are applying for
amnesty?
MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, may we respond this way. Obviously we would have a practical problem,
knowing who these people are, what we would say with respect Mr Chairman, and my attorney can stop
me if I am wrong, is that we would have no objection if Mr Mpshe imparted that
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VISSER 95 ADDRESS
information to - may I just take an instruction on that? Yes, of course the practical problem is also that as
we are sitting here we still don't really know what is going to develop so that we can't tell you now that we
are going to give you affidavits of 81 people, we will have to see what is alleged against them and in fact
for Schoon we had an affidavit here this morning, which has now become irrelevant because of some of the
evidence that had been given here, so at the time when Mr Mpshe gets it, it will hopefully be in its semi or
final form and at that stage we would have no objection to him imparting that information.
JUDGE MALL: Thank you. We think that that is an imminently sensible way of doing it.
MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MALL: Yes?
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Visser, only another practicality. We haven't been supplied with the ranks, but
would you say that you are representing all the Generals in the Security police?
MR VISSER: Not even close, Mr Chairman.
ADV DE JAGER: Because the trouble we've got is that there was a reference to the Generals in the
Security police would have known, and we can't give notices to people we don't know.
MR VISSER: I was listening to the evidence and that very problem struck me Mr Chairman. I was saying
to myself that if I had to cross-examine now I would have to ask who were these Generals, but I didn't want
to interfere, but we have that problem, but we certainly don't act for all the Generals, no. You will see from
the names, although the ranks are not there, from the list you will, I think Mr
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VISSER 96 ADDRESS
Chairman with respect, you will be able to identify the Generals. We are talking about General Johan
Coetzee, General Johan van der Merwe - may I just take instructions?
My attorney suggests in order to attempt to assist, if you feel that there are Generals which you
would like to send Section 19(4) notices to, perhaps to send him a copy of that notice and he might be able,
or he would probably be able to locate that person and deliver that notice on behalf of the Committee to
them, which may circumvent that problem Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MALL: Yes.
MR VISSER; Other than that, I am not sure whether we can be of much assistance in that regard.
Alright, thank you very much.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, may I perhaps comment just on two aspects.
The first aspect is that the evidence pertaining to Brigadiers Victor and Schoon which was given
this morning, was actually in the light of the previous evidence that was given, no more than probably a
repetition of what was given already.
So that evidence was in any event available to Mr Visser and there is nothing new in terms of
which his clients have been implicated.
In respect of the affidavits that they want to hand up Mr Chairman, clearly we do not have a
problem with that, except for one aspect thereof, and that is that I would like to be in a position to be able to
consider the contents of such an affidavit before evidence is led pertaining to a specific incident, so that I
can take it up with my clients, so that I can lead evidence pertaining to any contradictions PRETORIA
HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 96 ADDRESS
between my client's evidence and whatever is contained in such an affidavit.
We do not have any objection that the contents of our amnesty applications be made available to
Mr Visser for that purpose so that they can go through that and so that they will then obviously be able to
provide us with copies of such affidavits beforehand. Obviously it would have an effect on our client's
applications, because of the fact that the contradictions might cause us certain difficulties which we do not
know at this stage what facts will be contradicted, otherwise Mr Chairman I will have to ask the Committee
to recall my clients after giving evidence and after having received the affidavits in specific incidents,
which I would not want to do.
JUDGE MALL: Yes, I think nobody wants to have these proceedings carry on indefinitely. There must be
some
finality in the submissions that you wish to make on behalf of your clients, and if the time comes when Mr
Visser's clients make their application for amnesty, the Committee will bear in mind whatever differences
there are, between the evidence they give and the evidence you give.
Some of these differences may be faulty recollections, because of passage of time, they may be on
side issues and not on material issues, those are factors which we will take into account, but I think that in
fairness to your clients, if there is anything material you client's attention will be drawn to those.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, do I understand then that the Committee will draw our attention to
any contradictions which the Committee deem important and which will then be taken up?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 97 ADDRESS
JUDGE MALL: That is in addition to the fact that you will be given the affidavits by Mr Visser?
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes.
JUDGE MALL: You will have an opportunity of deciding yourself as to whether the differences between
your clients' version and his clients' is on a material issue or on a side issue and so on.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Chairman, I understand.
JUDGE MALL: And we rely on your good judgement.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, the only point that I am trying to make is that I would prefer having those
affidavits before my clients give evidence, that is the only request that I have.
JUDGE MALL: If that is possible, we must do so. Mr Visser?
MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, we have offered to make these available to my learned friend. He hasn't
been listening to
what I've been saying. We are under no obligation to him to give it to him, I am not going to undertake to
give it to him any period of time beforehand because it depends on when they are going to become
available, we've got the right to place before you evidence where we are implicated Mr Chairman, so I
don't need his objection or his admission either. We've offered it Mr Chairman, we certainly don't want to
get involved in an argument about it with my learned friend.
JUDGE MALL: No, I think it is a question of not merely making a verbal offer, I am talking about
making them available.
MR VISSER: Yes, yes, we will make it available.
JUDGE MALL: Thank you.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
98
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I still don't understand my learned friend.
JUDGE MALL: I think if you have a chat with him during the adjournment you might be able to
understand.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, alright, then I would like to do that Mr Chairman, because I don't understand
my learned friend to say that he will give it before we give evidence, Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MALL; Alright, would you clear it up with him during the adjournment, please. I'd like us to
proceed with the evidence.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes. Mr Chairman, I just want to make this clear, if we are not going to be provided
the opportunity of having sight of whatever they are going to place before the Committee ...(intervention)
ADV DE JAGER: Mr du Plessis how can he reply to an allegation before you've given evidence? He
obviously has to hear the evidence and then reply thereto.
ADV DU PLESSIS: But Mr Chairman because the evidence is contained in the applications and we
offered to make the applications available.
ADV DE JAGER: Ja, he hasn't had the applications up to now.
ADV DU PLESSIS: But we are offering to make it available now, Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MALL: I appeal to the good sense of the parties in this matter, not to engage in this kind of
debate. I am sure that commonsense will prevail if you come together and sort this matter out as best as you
can.
ADV DU PLESSIS: We will endeavour to do so, Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MALL: Please.
JUDGE WILSON: But I think you must bear in mind is that
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
99
what Mr Visser, as I understand him is trying to do, is to comply with the provisions of the Act which
entitle his clients to be heard, but to avoid having days and days of oral evidence by giving affidavits which
if we accept, we need not hear his clients and obviously if those affidavits conflict with what your clients
have said, then that witness will have to be heard, they cannot conflict merely by affidavit.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Well, Mr Chairman, that is one of the problems that I have got.
JUDGE WILSON: Yes you will get the affidavit, if it conflicts you can ask for the witness to be
called. If it agrees with what your clients have said, we waste no further time.
MR VISSER: That is precisely correct, Mr Chairman, we are trying to help streamline the procedure.
JUDGE MALL: Thank you.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MALL: Yes, thank you. You may proceed.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman, I would like to proceed with the second video. Mr
Chairman, I don't know when the tea break would be. If it is quarter past eleven we will not be finished
with the video I think.
JUDGE MALL: Alright. We will then take the adjournment now and resume at a quarter past eleven.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS.
COMMITTEE RESUMES.
ADV DU PLESSIS: We have had discussions with the legal representatives of the 81 other policemen.
We have received certain affidavits, I am not hundred percent sure that they are all the affidavits. We have
not yet as far as I am
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
99
concerned, come to a hundred percent final arrangement in that regard. I still need to clear up one or two
points. I must say that in principle in a discussion between my attorney and Mr Wagenaar, there was
agreement in principal and both parties intend to work together so it is just a question of clearing up one or
two points, I just want to make that clear.
JUDGE MALL: Thank you.
JUDGE WILSON: Can I ask something Mr Visser, which you will have to ask your attorney I
think, that is how quickly would he be able to give us a list of persons implicated in your applications and
would he be able to give a list, this would be for our assistance and not binding, of the incidents in which
persons are involved in your applications?
MR VISSER: Yes, that was the suggestion Mr Chairman, that we make a list of the incidents and then
we will add to the incidents or under the incidents the names of those of our clients who are involved in
them. I think that is probably the way to go - or would you want us to make a list
of names and add the incidents to each name, because then it is going to be far too difficult?
JUDGE WILSON: No, your suggestion, but not only the names of your clients who are involved,
but the names of the persons your clients allege were implicated.
MR VISSER: Yes, that is a second aspect which I think could be done, Mr Chairman.
JUDGE WILSON: If it could be done.
MR VISSER: Yes, of course that list is for the eyes of the Committee only, clearly.
JUDGE MALL: To facilitate the work of the Committee.
MR VISSER: Oh, and His Lordship Mr Justice Wilson asked
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VISSER 100 ADDRESS
me when this can be done, my attorney suggests that he can probably be ready with it by Thursday
morning when we have to be here anyway.
JUDGE WILSON: Well, if he can, I will be very pleased. And the list of names of persons
involved, will be for our eyes, but we may make use of it in notifying people?
MR VISSER: Yes, that is the idea, as long as it is not for publication purposes, it is clearly just to assist
you, yes.
JUDGE MALL: It is to facilitate the work of this Committee.
MR VISSER: Absolutely Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MALL: Thank you. May we proceed with the video?
ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, before I show this video I just want to
indicate to you the specific aspects that will be dealt with in the video itself.
The first incident that will be shown is the Church Street bomb, and the bomb in the Hallmark
building in Pretoria.
The second part of the video which shows the
murder on the Niemand family in Pretoria. Now that part of the video Mr Chairman, relates to normal
violence that policemen are exposed to and that would be important for purposes of the evidence of the
psychiatrist later on as well as to give the Committee a visual general background of what policemen in the
normal course of their duties are exposed to.
The third part of the video would entail pictures of murders etc, which were not politically
motivated.
The fourth part of the video shows the actions of crowds, necklaces, violences on innocent people
and the
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 101 ADDRESS
involvement of youths and activists in crowd behaviour. This will have a political connotation.
The fifth part will show provocation during crowd control, which will also be of political
importance.
The sixth part of it relates to attacks on policemen in Mamelodi and Westonaria, and that is also
important for purposes of the Zero hand grenade incident as the whole planning of that incident was borne
out of specifically attacks on policemen.
Then the next part would relate to attacks on civilians and deaths of civilians in political related
incidents.
And the last part would show riots and burning of vehicles.
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Du Plessis ...
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Chairman.
ADV DE JAGER: I don't want to interrupt you, but we are dealing with political related offences, we are
not dealing with extenuating circumstances. That is what the court would deal with. As I've already
indicated, what we see there, I don't regard it as evidence. Once it's confirmed by a witness under oath that
may be a different position. So really what the police are doing in the ordinary prevention of crime, I don't
think that is very relevant to our task here and we don't want to be engaged in long hearings about
irrelevant things here.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Chairman, the video is quite short. I think it is approximately in total
15 minutes.
JUDGE MALL: Well, let's proceed.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Chairman, I just want to make clear I intend to call Captain Hechter
thereafter to give evidence in general about what was shown and the fact that
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
102
he was exposed to similar kinds of incidents. Obviously we don't have video footage of incidents where
our clients were involved in to a large extent, but I will make the video relevant in evidence by way of
calling Captain Hechter to testify about what was seen.
JUDGE MGOEPE: The Chairman said you could proceed.
ADV DU PLESSIS: May I proceed, thank you?
JUDGE MGOEPE: Sorry, just a moment before you do that, I am not sure why you should proceed
to show us pictures which deal with incidents which have nothing to do with political issues.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, the reason for that is the following. The psychiatric evidence which
we will present to this Committee will deal specifically with the fact that policemen in the general course of
their work became exposed and that is the case today as well, become exposed to extreme violence and
extreme violent situations.
That causes an acceptance by such policemen of violence to the extent that serious violence
becomes something that is not so important to such a policemen as a normal person
in the street, it is a psychological process which at the end of the day makes such a person somebody who
is prone to much easier or prone to acts of violence much easier because of the psychological situation he is
subjected to.
JUDGE MALL: I don't want to interrupt you, but please understand at the end of the evidence I have no
doubt you will be addressing us and you will be making the points that you are making now. You are
going to call psychiatric evidence and at the end of the that evidence you will tell us what the relevance of
the evidence was at that stage.
So I don't think that there is any need for you to address PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
102
us on that aspect.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, I just want to make this point as well
and that is that this video was used at all educational facilities of the South African Police in courses that
policemen underwent for training.
ADV DU PLESSIS PLAYS THE SECOND VIDEO:
CONTENTS OF THE SECOND VIDEO: (No audible communication)
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, this part I am going to skip, that contains just further pictures of
murder which are very gruesome.
SCREENING OF SECOND VIDEO CONTINUES: (No audible communication) ..."Dit is 22H40 op 4
Desember 1990, te (onduidelik) waar daar vermoedelik vroeër vannaand 'n aanval op lede van die polisie
was. Om ongeveer 21h15 het mev Darron van oorkant die straat, 'n geweer vanaf die kragsentrale skote
gehoor en onmiddellik Randfontein polisiestasie laat weet. Op hulle beurt het hulle na bewering 'n voertuig
uitgestuur hiernatoe en die toneel gevind soos dan nou ook op band vasgelê. Op die toneel vind
ons ook 'n (onduidelik) doppie wat reeds afgevuur is ..."
COMMMENTARY: The streets of the Coloured townships have been the scene of rioting. This lorry was
hijacked and set on fire across one of the main access roads into Athlone township. Similar attacks
occurred elsewhere while the police and the army have again been in action opening fire on demonstrators.
Not only with shotguns but rifles, too. Some Athlone residents have now started using guns themselves, a
worrying development for the Security Forces. This evening a substantial force of police and
troops poured into the Coloured townships around Cape Town.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
103
Operation Clean up it is called aimed at restoring law and order.
This is Graham Leach for the nine o'clock news in South Africa.
COMMENTARY: ... bring down the Government by violent means if sanctions imposed against
South Africa. This was one of the most dramatic sabotage attacks they have carried out, the bombing of
the Sasolburg Oil Refinery near Johannesburg five years ago. There has been a whole series of attacks on
police stations and military targets over the years, but the Government has always insisted they don't
amount to much more than flea bites. Even so President Botha would have to force President Machel into
agreeing to shut down ANC bases in Mozambique next door to South Africa.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman, that is the end of the video. If I could call Captain Hechter
very shortly on this, if you would allow me to.
JUDGE MALL: Yes, all right.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman.
CAPTAIN HECHTER: (s.u.o)
EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Hechter, can you please state very briefly to the
Committee the background to the video recording and what it was used for?
CAPT HECHTER: Mr Chairman, the video and similar material was shown to various members of
the police force. This video and similar video's were shown on a number of courses to the persons
attending the course. Some contained worse violence, some less violence, all the members of the Security
Forces were exposed to video's containing crowd violence and crowd control and then Black on Black
violence in the Black townships.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 104 CAPT HECHTER
ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Hechter were these video's used in training of policemen?
CAPT HECHTER: Yes, that is correct.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And Captain Hechter, were the video's which were shown during video's of the same
nature and if you were to look back on them today, would you regard them as propaganda or what would
you regard them to be?
CAPT HECHTER: They were definitely propaganda, but I also have to add that most of that which
we have seen on the video's were also experienced by us, these incidents in the Black townships while
working there.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Hechter, can you tell the Committee from your own personal experience are
there incidents similar to what you have seen on this video that you experienced yourself and to what
extent and how regularly?
CAPT HECHTER: It is correct. Mr Chairman as members of the Security Branch, myself and
colleagues experienced these things first hand and we also found that many of these violent incidents and
this violence, also affected Black
colleagues of ours and affected their lives and their houses.
On a daily basis we also found some of these people next to the road. You would find a Black
man lying next to the road who had been murdered, either by necklacing or by stabbing. Many of these
acts were committed by very young comrades who - these things were later determined in investigations
and we were informed of whom had been involved in the previous night's attack on a house or necklacing.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain, these incidents and similar ones
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 105 CAPT HECHTER
to what we've seen here, for example the crowd rioting, the necklacing etc, did these take place against the
political background? Could you give us a bit more information on this?
CAPTAIN HECHTER: Yes, it was purely politics by the comrades, so-called comrades, which was
used by the ANC as cannon fodder, these people were used as cannon fodder by the ANC.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Okay, Captain so the effect that exposure to this kind of violence had on you and
your colleagues, could you sketch to the Committee in more detail what it was like?
CAPT HECHTER: Well, after a while you grew cold and distant when you saw this kind of action
and you encountered it. It no longer really involved people, it was just another body. In the beginning you
were shocked and shaking, but later on it just became just another corpse. It left you cold.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Hechter, are you aware of any instances of your colleagues who
sustained psychological damage because of this?
CAPT HECHTER: Yes, that is correct. There are a number of
my colleagues who are at present receiving psychological treatment, many who have been under such
treatment, many who have left the police service because of psychological problems, who were medically
boarded from the service. There are numerous of them. I would say that most of the Security Police who
took medical packages did so because of trauma and stress levels which were brought about by this kind of
exposure.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Are you personally aware of such instances?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 105 CAPT HECHTER
CAPT HECHTER: Yes, that is correct, Mr Chairman. One of our colleagues who are sitting here
with us, Captain Mentz, is presently undergoing treatment. The well-known Snor Vermeulen and Lionel
Snyman were both boarded because of stress related incidents or because of stress.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Okay, you don't have to continue with more examples. Captain, and can you inform
the Committee whether in the period relating to these incidents for which you are applying for amnesty,
when they took place in the middle 80's, could you give us a broad estimate of the regularity of exposure to
this kind of incident of violence?
CAPT HECHTER: It was really on a daily basis and as at the time, the Press was totally banned
from entering the Black townships, so this kind of incident, or these incidents which kept occurring, were
never broadcast to the broad public in South Africa. The public didn't really know what was going on, they
were kept under the impression that things were under control, whereas violence was escalating on a daily
basis at a tremendous rate.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain, are you aware of any similar kind of video of the South African Police
action which are still in existence, any of these video's?
CAPT HECHTER: As I told you they were training video's which I later got to understand when I
was trying to obtain more of them, had been destroyed together with the documentation because the
instruction had been given that all video's containing this kind of violent activity had to be destroyed in
order to obtain better cooperation among the population groups, to bring this about and then also to show
less violence to the members who were in training.
ADV DU PLESSIS: I don't have any other questions, Mr
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 106 CAPT HECHTER
Chairman, thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DU PLESSIS.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR MPSHE
MR CURRIN: I just have one question. During the training sessions that you referred to when these
videos were shown, I assume that it was never part of your training that you, the police should commit acts
of violence?
CAPT HECHTER: Not at all.
WITNESS EXCUSED
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 107 CAPT MENTZ
ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, may we then proceed with Captain Mentz'
evidence? Thank you. Mr Chairman you will find that on page 53.
WILLEM WOUTER MENTZ: (s.u.o.)
EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: Very well, Captain Mentz, your application with regards to
this incident has been set out in the compilation of applications and there are further aspects which you
would like to inform the Committee about. Could you just tell the Committee about them?
CAPT MENTZ: As I gave evidence yesterday in the incident of Brian Ngqulunga, the date which I gave
was 1987 and 1988, in the meantime I have found out it was the 19th of July 1990.
An instruction was issued by General Van Rensburg from Security Headquarters who at that stage
was in charge of
unit C at Vlakplaas. His instruction, I was not present when he issued the instruction, but it was passed on
by Colonel Eugene de Kock to Colonel Baker to say that Brian Ngqulunga was transferred from Vlakplaas
to Unit C2 at Security Headquarters in Pretoria.
The instruction was that Brian Ngqulunga was to be eliminated. Colonel de Kock gave Colonel
Dave Baker instruction to execute the instruction. He then took myself, Colonel Bellingham, Colonel Piet
Botha and Simon Dubele instructions to execute the instruction.
The instruction which was given to me was the Ngqulunga was working at Unit C2 at Security
Headquarters as I have already said and that from there he had secret documents and secret information
about the Security Police which he was passing onto the ANC.
The impression was thus that he was a double agent.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 108 CAPT MENTZ
The information which he was to have been leaking, was that the SAP members and their families were
being subjected to intimidation. Especially the Black members, their houses were attacked and they were
sometimes stoned and in some instances they were killed.
Reporters were identified who were intimidated and some of them were killed by being necklaced
as we saw on the video footage and the community was intimidated not to cooperate with the Security
Police anymore and not to give them information any longer.
The identification of ascaris was also done and the exposure of covert operations. Ascaris were
afraid that if they were identified they and their families would be murdered. That is the information which
I received from Colonel Baker and Bellingham and that is the information
which Brian Ngqulunga was alleged to have been leaking.
I do not have any specific knowledge of any specific incidents about which Brian Ngqulunga was
to have leaked information, it was conveyed to me in a general manner.
The instructions which we received from Colonel De Kock, as I said yesterday in my evidence,
were to put a spade in covert defence and defence activities. Colonel De Kock received direct instructions
from the Commanding Structure at Security Headquarters.
I never participated in any planning of any couvert operations, I was merely a foot soldier who
executed instructions as though they had been approved by Head Office.
I am now on page 55. The operations were planned after we had agreed that Simon Radebe
would point Ngqulunga out to us at a point where we would pick him up. I never
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 109 CAPT MENTZ
personally knew Brian Ngqulunga. He had already been transferred to Unit C2 from Vlakplaas before I
started at Vlakplaas.
A kombi was hired from Avis and balaclavas and gloves were issued to us. Radebe was waiting
on a gravel road near Vlakplaas in a red Golf and that was the road which headed to Vlakplaas, and we
would pass Vlakplaas, reach a T-junction and turn right. This gravel road then led back to Attridgeville
where you met up with Church Street and then proceeded into town.
We approached the Golf from behind in this kombi, Colonel Baker was driving, Botha and I were
sitting in the middle and Bellingham was sitting in front on the left.
We put on the balaclavas and ran to the car, we went to where Ngqulunga was sitting on the left of the
vehicle,
dragged him out of the vehicle. We wrestled with him a bit and in the wrestling I remember very well that
he screamed and said, no comrades, no comrades, I am one of you, I am one of you.
At that stage and because we were disguised he must have thought that we were ANC members.
That is the conclusion which I reached. And the conclusion was that he was still an ANC supporter
although he was an ascari with us.
We brought him under control by manhandling him and in the process we assaulted him. In the
vehicle, when we put him in the kombi we closed his mouth, we tied up his hands and feet and we went -
we drove in the direction of Brits.
The exact place is not as shown in the footage, it is not in Soshanguve. If you drive from Brits in the
Lehabele area and head towards Bophutatswana, that - somewhere along that
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 109 CAPT MENTZ
road, I do not know the name of that road, but it is somewhere in the Lehabele area.
We stopped, Bellingham opened the kombi door for us and Piet Botha and I dragged him out of
the kombi and threw him in the field. Bellingham fired several shots, I cannot remember how many. To me
it sounded as though he had emptied the whole magazine on Brian Ngqulunga and killed him. I cannot
remember, but I later heard that Piet Botha had also fired several shots at him with a pistol. I looked away,
because I could not handle it.
When we got back into the kombi I became nauseous. We went to a place near Pretoria North
among the plots where we cleaned the kombi inside, because Ngqulunga had urinated and so forth and we
then cleaned up. And from there we went to the Wonderpark Shopping Centre where we met up with
Johnny (Chet)(?) who had a vehicle with secret compartments.
We handed the firearms that we had used to Johnny Chet who concealed them in his vehicle and
from there we went to the Pretoria Holiday Inn in Beatrix Street. We met Colonel De Kock and other
members there.
In the process when we were driving from the scene, I know that Colonel Baker was in radio
contact with De Kock and he had informed him that the operation had gone off well.
I cannot remember specifically who was there, but once again it was De Kock's confidantes and
others. We met him at the Holiday Inn where he ordered drinks for us. We drank up and I cannot
remember exactly, but we went to a restaurant somewhere near there, I think it was at the Sterland
complex. I also had something to eat.
Thereafter he informed us that we were booked in at a
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 110 CAPT MENTZ
hotel in Johannesburg, if I remember correctly it was the Braamfontein Hotel and the reason for this was
that we would be at this hotel and if anyone was to have enquired they should have seen that we were at
this hotel and not elsewhere.
This was a very shocking experience for me and it has left emotional scars on my life. I never
ever want to become involved in anything like this again.
Since receiving the instruction from De Kock and the others that Ngqulunga was an informant
and was leaking secret information from Headquarters, I accepted it, but in 1995 I read in press reports as
result of allegations made by Dirk Coetzee, Joe Mamasela who we saw in video footage, that Ngqulunga
was involved in the murder of Griffiths Mxenge and that he was a potential witness who could have given
evidence against Dirk Coetzee, Almond Nofomela, Brigadier van der Hoven and Colonel Andy Taylor.
I also read in the press reports that Ngqulunga was one of the persons who had killed Griffiths
Mxenge - these after allegations that had been made.
I then got the impression that because he had been killed and, according to what we had been told,
he had leaked information, one reason was possibly that it could have been used as evidence that he was
indeed a witness and that he had to have been eliminated so that he could not testify against Coetzee and
van der Hoven and Nofomela and Company.
The conclusion which I made, although it has never been proven to me, was if Colonel Taylor or
any of the other people involved should come and admit to it, I would say that it is also one of the reasons,
but those are mere PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 111 CAPT MENTZ
assumptions which I made and I think his brother who was
also in a programme sometime ago, also said that he had said so, but it has never been proven to me in a
court of law. I never enquired about this, I left the unit, I did not want to be there any longer, and that was
merely an assumption which I made.
I have since distanced myself from Vlakplaas and the persons who were there with me, I don't
even want to be associated with them any more. The instruction which I received, as I said, came from
Colonel De Kock who instructed Baker and I assumed that it came from Colonel Van Rensburg because at
that stage he was in charge of Unit C1.
Although I just saw that Joe Mamasela alleged that he was involved where General Engelbrecht,
Nick van Rensburg and I cannot remember who the other person was, were
allegedly involved in the discussions. I heard about that for the first time when I saw this. I did not watch
the whole of Prime Evil because it disturbed me.
As I said I was under the impression that these operations had been sanctioned by Head Office at
all times and that the objective was to eliminate anyone who was leaking secret information to the ANC. It
was also part of the strategy to combat the ANC and others and it was at a time when the country was in
turmoil.
Ngqulunga, I cannot remember exactly how it happened, but it was arranged that he be buried at
Vlakplaas and his entire family was there. It is not like where it is being said on the video footage that it
was an official police burial, it was more of a private burial at Vlakplaas on the mountain, the hill there as
shown on the footage.
I can remember Ngqulunga's family and friends were all
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 112 CAPT MENTZ
present there and De Kock gave instruction that everyone was to attend the funeral. I simply couldn't bring
myself to attend the funeral. It was too much for me and I just couldn't be involved in somebody's funeral
whom I had assisted in murdering.
While the funeral was taking place, I sat in the pub at Vlakplaas and while I was there De Kock
and Nortje came there and De Kock asked me why I was not at the cemetery and I told him that it is just
not acceptable to me, I assisted in killing this man and I just couldn't bring myself to attend.
I feel very bitter about this and I am every sorry that I got involved in this, but I believed at the
time that what I was doing was in the best interests of the country and I do not believe that any longer.
I would now like to mention in the video footage parties were shown and it was mentioned that
thrice a month parties would be held at Vlakplaas - that was not the case. We worked for a period of two
to three weeks and thereafter we'd leave and we would come back with our group of ascaris, we would
submit our forms and our reports and then because we as colleagues had not seen each other for a while,
we'd have a braai and drink. That is so. And occasionally there were functions where the Generals were
involved, but it was not thrice a month or every month, although there were functions that were held at
Vlakplaas.
Vlakplaas was a unit under the command of De Kock. There were certain logistic problems
amongst the staff and the Generals at Head Office then decided that unit C had to be divided into three
divisions. Initially it was two divisions, Colonel Baker remained behind at Vlakplaas with
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 112 CAPT MENTZ
his group of people and De Kock remained with his group of people including myself, and in Pretoria we
had our security offices.
At the time there were problems between De Kock, myself and Colonel Van Dyk and De Kock.
Colonel Engelbrecht then launched a third unit and we worked from a safe house in Midrand. There we
were joined by other members, including John Tait(?).
There was one incident where I was present where we were in the team at Sodwana on the North
coast at the holiday resort there. We lived in tents and Colonel Engelbrecht was there, we were on the
beach, but we are not the persons who drove over the tortoise eggs.
We then went back to unit C1, Baker and - Colonel
Baker's unit, De Kock's unit and Paul van Dyk's unit. Thereafter, however, I heard that - while I was there
there were no naked women with us. Thereafter I heard that De Kock and his group of people from his unit
were busy with team building again and I do not know if Colonel Engelbrecht was part of that.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. I have a few questions which I want to ask the witness
just to clear up certain things.
Captain Mentz, the instructions which you received was there any reason for you when you
received the instruction at that stage, to doubt the command in any way whatsoever?
CAMP MENTZ: No Mr Chairman. As I had testified, I said that we had accepted De Kock, he had access
to many Generals' offices. Every day that he was working at Head Office he had access to the Generals.
At that stage I wouldn't have thought that he would have taken a decision
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 113 CAPT MENTZ
like this on his own. I am sure that higher authority was involved. I cannot say exactly who the Generals
were, I've mentioned - some of them had been mentioned before. The only reason why I imply General
Nick van Rensburg was because he was in command of C1 at that stage and I believed that it came from
him.
ADV DU PLESSIS; Captain Mentz, now what I would like you to explain to the Committee, is
what you had thought at the stage when you received the command and when you carried it out, what you
had thought the purpose of the command had been, the instruction, was it politically motivated or what did
you think?
CAPT MENTZ: Yes, Mr Chairman it was absolutely political in the sense that a security policeman who
was an ascari and then a security policeman at the same time, was in a
confidential unit, C2, which had all the information on the country, they evaluated information and if any
information which had passed through C2 had been leaked it could affect the police, the security branches,
and be to the advantage of the liberation movements. Then it was political to me and it was important to
me at that stage that should there be somebody who was a traitor, he had to be eliminated.
I didn't know at that stage how much information he had given out, but as I said many policemen's
houses had been burnt down, etc and it was important for me to do this. The man had to be eliminated. He
was passing on information and it endangered his fellow policemen's lives, so he had to be eliminated.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain, during the period after the incident until you read in 1995 in the press about
the allegations that he had been murdered in order to protect
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 114 CAPT MENTZ
other members, besides the fact that he was an informant of the ANC, did anybody ever tell you anything
that could have led you to think that he had been murdered for any other reason than being an informer?
CAPT MENTZ: No, not at all Mr Chairman. The first time I heard about this was in the newspaper and I
later saw it on TV, it's only Ngqulunga's brother and Mamasela mentioned this, but from the time that it
happened until 1995 when I had left Vlakplaas long before, I hadn't discussed it with anybody, I was no
longer a security policeman. But in the period after leaving Vlakplaas when I was still a security
policeman I never heard anything about this again. I vaguely remember that Baker long after that said that
De Kock had told him that the Generals had said that the operation had been carried out successfully, I
don't know which Generals were involved, but I deduced that it was General van Rensburg.
At Vlakplaas, when something happened, you were forbidden to discuss it with anybody because
everybody drank there and you never knew what somebody would say if he were to be under the influence,
these things were never discussed again, definitely not from my side, it was something which I wanted to
forget about.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Okay, Captain Mentz, did you regard your activity or your actions as
something against liberation movements?
CAPT MENTZ: Yes, Mr Chairman.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And to whose advantage did you regard your action to be at that stage?
CAPT MENTZ: Well, the Government of the day Mr Chairman. I as a policeman had to serve the
Government of the day.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 114 CAPT MENTZ
ADV DU PLESSIS: Okay, Captain Mentz, did you have any discussions with the other persons who were
involved in the incident, the people whom you've mentioned, Colonel Baker, Captain Bellingham and I
think it is Captain Botha? Did you have discussions with them?
CAPT MENTZ: I had Mr Chairman, but only at the end of last year when they had indicated that they
were also submitting amnesty applications. I can't remember the exact date.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Could you briefly indicate to the Committee what their point of view was with
regard to the reason for this operation? Did it agree, did it disagree?
CAPT MENTZ; It was exactly the same Mr Chairman, that the man leaked information from Security
Headquarters and it
was Baker and Bellingham's instruction to me at the time as well.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Okay. Captain Mentz the allegations made that Ngqulunga was a potential witness,
where did you hear these allegations?
CAPT MENTZ: As I've already stated Mr Chairman, in the newspapers and Mamasela, but not that
which he had said here in the Prime Evil video, it was on another programme, as well as Ngqulunga's
brother which I saw on TV one evening. The rest of it was in the newspapers.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Are you aware that these allegations went any further as far as your knowledge goes
today than mere allegations?
CAPT MENTZ: No, Mr Chairman. As I've already stated Brigadier van der Hoven or Taylor, if they
were to come and state it here that that was the reason, then I will agree and say no, I believe it, but until
now I don't believe it
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 115 CAPT MENTZ
Mr Chairman, because in my opinion it was a matter that he gave out information, no other facts had been
proven.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Okay. Captain Mentz then could I take you to page 55 paragraph 3, you testified
there that Ngqulunga had said "no comrades, no comrades, I'm one of you", can you remember those words
specifically being stated?
CAPT MENTZ: Yes, Mr Chairman, I can remember that. Not in Afrikaans, he stated it in English, he
didn't say it, he shouted it out. The man knew that he was possibly going to be murdered. He was a small,
slender man and he struggled and he shouted these words.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Could you then just state very clearly to us why you thought he would have stated
these words, or shouted these words?
CAPT MENTZ: Mr Chairman, I would have imagined he was an ascari who was working for the
Security Police, he was passing on information to the ANC or to whichever liberation movement, but I
mean he would have realised that it would have been totally impossible for everybody in the liberation
movement to know about him, because then he would have been smoked out and at the stage when he was
shouting out, I thought he wanted an opportunity to explain to the members of the ANC as he suspected, to
explain to them that he was still working with them. So it was my impression that he was still involved
with the ANC.
JUDGE MGOEPE: If he had realised he was going to be killed, surely a man under those
circumstances would have said anything to save his life? If he had been under the impression or if he had
realised that you were the police, he still would have said the same thing and said people, I am working
with you?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 116 CAPT MENTZ
CAPT MENTZ: I have to grant that Mr Chairman, yes.
JUDGE WILSON: Who were grabbing him at the time?
CAPT MENTZ: It was I myself, Piet Botha, Riaan Bellingham. Baker was standing at the vehicle - no I
can't remember whether he was standing outside or whether he was sitting in the vehicle, but Bellingham
and I and Piet Botha opened the left-hand door, hit him, grabbed him and dragged him over to the kombi, it
was a struggle from the Golf to the kombi.
JUDGE WILSON: You were all white men wearing balaclavas which would have left your face
exposed?
CAPT MENTZ; Mr Chairman, it was quite strong dusk and the balaclavas were not the balaclavas where
you have an open face, you could only see the eyes, we were wearing dark clothes and long dark gloves.
You wouldn't really be able to see our skin colour. Mr Chairman, I can't really
remember the exact time, but it was late afternoon when it was going onto dusk. I can't remember, I can't
tell you exactly what the time was. After five, probably six o'clock, but I can't remember the exact time,
but it was dusk.
JUDGE MALL: The instructions to eliminate this man, came to you not from De Kock himself but
through somebody else?
CAPT MENTZ: Yes, Mr Chairman if I remember correctly I was on the farm and Baker and Bellingham
came and told me. It didn't come from De Kock directly to me as far as I can remember.
JUDGE MALL: Have you finished Mr du Plessis?
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, I am finished, Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DU PLESSIS.
QUESTIONS BY ADV DE JAGER: Mr Mentz, could you clarify. You said you arrested
Nofomela at some stage or were you
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DE JAGER 117 CAPT MENTZ
involved in the arrest?
CAPT MENTZ: Almond Nofomela, yes, that is correct.
ADV DE JAGER: Is that when you were working at the murder division?
CAPT MENTZ: Yes, that is correct.
ADV DE JAGER: And you were then recruited to go over to Vlakplaas?
CAPT MENTZ: That is correct Mr Chairman.
ADV DE JAGER: During his arrest, did you receive information regarding the functioning of Vlakplaas?
CAPT MENTZ: No Mr Chairman, as a matter of fact I didn't even know of the existence of Vlakplaas
when I was working at the murder division. It was after I had first arrested Nofomela's co-accused Johnny
Mohane if I remember correctly, it was only after that when he had been arrested that
evening, that he made an admission to me that he had implied Almond Nofomela ...(tape ends) I made
enquiries then and said that we were looking for the man and then Almond Nofomela was sent from
Headquarters to my office and when he arrived there, I arrested him.
ADV DE JAGER: Was there at any stage an effort made to cover up Nofomela's deed at that stage?
CAPT MENTZ: No Mr Chairman. If I remember correctly during the investigation the deduction was
made and it came out in the hearing as well, the trial, that there had not been adequate evidence against
Nofomela, but I remember on the last day of the trial when the finding was given, some of the ascaris were
sitting in court. I have since heard at that stage of Vlakplaas that they tracked terrorists etc, and on the day
some of his fellow colleagues were sitting there in court.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DE JAGER 118 CAPT MENTZ
ADV DE JAGER: Was that the first time during those episodes that you met Eugene De Kock himself?
CAPT MENTZ: No sir. De Kock was at the murder division offices long before and that was when I met
him, he was still a Captain at this stage, not a Major.
ADV DE JAGER: So your arrest of Nofomela had nothing to do with the fact that you were going to work
at Vlakplaas?
CAPT MENTZ: No, Mr Chairman, I would say that at that stage I got to know Vlakplaas members and
they got to know me. We often met at the police canteen in Pretoria and there I got to know them better,
and they approached me to find out whether I would be interested in coming to work with them.
ADV DE JAGER: Thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DE JAGER.
QUESTIONS BY MS KHAMPEPE: Didn't you testify
yesterday that before you were attached to Vlakplaas Mr Hechter occasionally extended an invitation to
you to join them on some of the operations?
CAPT MENTZ: That's correct Chairperson.
MS KHAMPEPE: So you must have known at that stage what kind of operations Vlakplaas was involved
in?
CAPT MENTZ: When I was contacted by Captain Hechter, he was not attached to Vlakplaas, he was
with Brigadier Cronje at Pretoria, they had nothing to do with Vlakplaas at the stage. He was just working
with the Pretoria branch.
MS KHAMPEPE: Thanks for the explanation. You've also led evidence today that the experience that you
had when Mr Ngqulunga was brutally killed, was very shocking to you and it has left emotional scars?
CAPT MENTZ: That's correct Chairperson.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MS KHAMPEPE 118 CAPT MENTZ
MS KHAMPEPE: Now, before you went on to execute the instructions to eliminate Mr Ngqulunga, had
you discussed as members who had been picked up by, is it Colonel Dave Baker on how those instructions
to eliminate Mr Ngqulunga were to be executed, did you discuss the mode of execution?
CAPT MENTZ: No Chairman, we did not discuss it with Colonel Van Dyk. As I say it was an
instruction and I assumed it was an instruction from Head Office and it was something that had to be done.
I did not ask why they did not arrest him instead or anything like that. I just did it at that stage, because it
was something that had to have been done. It is a good few years ago and these things started affecting me
very seriously in the last four to five years. Nobody said he had to be kidnapped along the way and
killed with an AK47, I did not, I mean those were the instructions, I did not ask why it had to be done.
MS KHAMPEPE: My question was to merely ascertain whether you knew what kind of method would be
used in eliminating Mr Ngqulunga?
CAPT MENTZ: Yes, we did know. As I said it was said that Botha and I had to overpower him with the
assistance of Bellingham, we had to take him away and then Bellingham was to have shot him.
As I also said I cannot remember specifically about Piet Botha shooting him, but it is something
that surfaced recently.
MS KHAMPEPE: You did expect some measure of violence?
CAPT MENTZ: That is correct.
MS KHAMPEPE: Which would be a precursor to any elimination?
CAPT MENTZ: Yes, that is correct.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MS KHAMPEPE 119 CAPT MENTZ
MS KHAMPEPE: I have therefore some profound difficulties in comprehending how you could have, how
you could not have known that Ngqulunga would be eliminated in the manner that he was. I mean what
was so shocking?
CAPT MENTZ: Mr Chairman, it is easy when it is said to you go and do a certain gruesome deed, but if I
may use the expression, at the stage, at 99th stage, at the last minute when it is to happen, it is too late, you
are at a point of no return, you function like a machine and when the deed has been done you start to think
about what actually happened and as I say I did not physically vomit, but I was extremely nauseous in the
kombi and my nerves were shattered.
It is easy to say we are going to do this, but when you get there and while it is happening, while
the deed is taking place or after it has happened the full impact of what you had done, strikes you and at
that stage I thought I could deal with it, but I mean if I had to go out and do something like that at this
stage, I wouldn't be able to.
MS KHAMPEPE; Can you explain to us the nature and the extent of your participation in the whole
operation? I mean you've explained that when he was dragged out of the car, you assaulted him.
CAPE MENTZ: As I said the operation was not planned by me, it was just said that Piet Botha
and I had to drag him and Baker had to drag him out of the vehicle, overpower him and then put him in the
back of the kombi on the floor. We were to bring him under control so that he was unable to scream or
resist in any way and then we were to drive away with him, because there was a long distance between
there and Lehabele so we were to silence him basically by keeping his mouth closed and fastening his
hands and feet so that he PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MS KHAMPEPE 120 CAPT MENTZ
did not offer any resistance.
MS KHAMPEPE: Did any of you cut his tongue?
CAPT MENTZ: No Chairperson, not at all, not one of us.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS KHAMPEPE.
QUESTIONS BY JUDGE WILSON: If I can add to questions you've just asked. You'd
participated in numerous attacks and murders before then, hadn't you?
CAPT MENTZ: That is correct, Chairperson.
JUDGE WILSON: Why did you suddenly get shocked by a murder? You took part in the murder
of eight people at KwaNdebele, nine people was it, yes? You took part in that murder, didn't you? Capt
Hechter, Joe Mamasela, Deon Gouws, Andre Oosthuizen.
CAPT MENTZ: Yes, Chairperson, I will give evidence about that later. You will hear from my evidence
that I was not physically involved in the shooting of people. I cannot explain why one agrees - I cannot
explain why one incident
affects you differently to others, but I was badly affected by this. Perhaps my state of mind at the time was
different to other times.
I am not a psychologist or a medical doctor, so I cannot give an explanation for it.
JUDGE WILSON: No, but you were now doing something officially, properly, ordered to by your
senior officers, where as previous occasions you had just gone off and joined Captain Hechter in these
murderous attacks, hadn't you?
CAPT MENTZ: That is correct Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY JUDGE WILSON:
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV MPSHE: Captain you testified in your application on page
55, that "we brought him under control by handling him roughly".
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 121 CAPT MENTZ
CAPT MENTZ: Mr Chairperson, when we opened the door, I cannot say exactly who did what, we
grabbed him around his neck, around his body, we shut his mouth, we hit him. In the process trying to get
him unconscious so that he did not put up as much of a fight, so he was physically assaulted, we had him
around the neck, we dragged him, somebody had his feet and in the kombi, one person was to have stuffed
something in his mouth and then sealed it and also tied his hands. He was assaulted.
ADV MPSHE: How many of you took part in this assault that led to him losing consciousness?
CAPT MENTZ: Three of us, myself, Bellingham and Piet Botha.
ADV MPSHE: And for how long did the assault take place?
CAPT MENTZ: Mr Chairperson, I cannot attach a time to it, I think it was, everything happened so
quickly, it could
have been a matter of a minute getting him from the car to the kombi, it was seven to ten metres, we took
him from the - grabbed him out of the vehicle and first he was on the ground so that we could bring him
under control by assaulting him and then we picked him up and ran to the kombi. The door was open, the
seat was down, we put him at the back and then we were able to tie his hands. Everything happened
so fast.
ADV MPSHE: ....if it took such a short time and the man was rendered unconscious, it would mean that
he was delivered quite a number of blows, and very hard blows that made him be unconscious very
quickly?
CAPT MENTZ: Yes Sir.
ADV MPSHE: Now an AK47, how many bullets does it have?
CAPT MENTZ: 25 to 30, I am not sure.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 121 CAPT MENTZ
ADV MPSHE: 25 or 30?
CAPT MENTZ: 25 to 30, that is correct.
ADV MPSHE: If we assume that it had 25 at the time, would it mean that he was pumped with 25
bullets of an AK47?
CAPT MENTZ: Mr Chairperson, Bellingham was firing this firearm automatically so it was impossible
to count and to me it sounded as if the entire magazine had been emptied. It happened too fast, I was
unable to count.
ADV MPSHE: Two shots, even one from an AK47 have rendered this man dead?
CAPT MENTZ: Yes, Sir it would have.
ADV MPSHE: You were part of this operation, do you think it was necessary for 25 bullets to be
pumped into his body? Was this not an extreme?
CAPT MENTZ: Yes, Chairperson, it was.
ADV MPSHE: After shooting him, you wrote in your
application that "we left him there and drove back", where exactly did you leave him?
CAPT MENTZ: Where we threw him out of the kombi, where he was shot dead, that is where we left
him and we then left.
ADV MPSHE: How did it come about that he landed at Vlakplaas for the funeral?
CAPT MENTZ: Mr Chairperson, the local police of Lehabele or someone in the area was - apparently
encountered the corpse and informed the police who came in a hearse and picked up the corpse, identified
it. His family and next of kin were then informed that this was a policeman, an ascari and the funeral was
conducted at Vlakplaas.
ADV MPSHE: So when he was identified by the local police and the family, you then came around and
shed crocodile tears and claimed his body to bury?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE MGOEPE 122 CAPT MENTZ
CAPT MENTZ: No Mr Chairman, I cannot remember exactly, but I think there were riots. I think he
stayed somewhere in Winterveld, which was on the other side of Pretoria, somewhere near Soshanguve
and Mabopane. If I can remember correctly there were riots and unrest and I think it would have been
problematic to bury the man there at the time, so the police offered and then De Kock said he had no
objection to him being buried at Vlakplaas.
ADV MPSHE: Do you want this Committee to accept that you acted on instruction, agreed to partake in
the killing of a human being for reasons given to you without yourself verifying whether it was necessary
to do that?
CAPT MENTZ: As I already testified I believed that the instruction came from Head Office, I believed
that the gentleman who was leaking information was a traitor and as I already said we were not, I believed
that, we didn't question anything, I believed that the instructions came
from Head Office, I was merely a Warrant Officer at the time and I was in no position to go to a General's
office at Head Office and say give me proof that this man has been leaking information before I do
anything. It just didn't work like that in the police system.
ADV MPSHE: So if you were given any information and instruction by your seniors to kill, you just go
about killing? Is that what was happening there?
CAPT MENTZ: That is correct, Chairperson.
ADV MPSHE: And was the family informed as to what caused Brian Ngqulunga's death when they
attended his funeral?
CAPT MENTZ: No Mr Chairperson, the impression was to have been created that the ANC, I
think he was an ANC or PAC member, I am not too familiar with that, that the liberation PRETORIA
HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 123 CAPT MENTZ
movement because he was an ascari, had killed him. The impression was to have been created that the
ANC or PAC had killed this man because he was an ascari in the Security Police. It was never said that
he was killed for any other reason, it wouldn't have made sense. The police never said that we killed an
ascari because he was leaking information.
ADV MPSHE: You stated, when led by your counsel, that the purpose of instruction was politically
motivated, but was the death of this man politically motivated?
CAPT MENTZ: Yes Mr Chairman. As I've already testified he was a freedom fighter who had been
arrested, who had been turned into an ascari, who had decided to work with the police which he had indeed
then done. He had been transferred from Vlakplaas to Headquarters at C2. The reasons for this
and the period when this happened, I don't know, but then he worked for a unit where there were
very sensitive information and documentation and if he had been leaking this information to ANC, PAC
whichever liberation organisation, this turned him into a political problem. He was affecting the National
Party by working for these other parties and for the police on the one hand and for example, the ANC on
the other hand.
He had sensitive information, policemen's houses were burnt down, we've heard much testimony
to this effect, people were attacked when people found out that somebody was an informant. When
informers were exposed, they were necklaced, they were burnt, their throats were cut, they were shot, their
families were attacked, so he was - he just had to be eliminated. You couldn't charge the man and take him
to court because what proof was there, I was not in a position to question this. The thing to eliminate him,
was
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 124 CAPT MENTZ
the quickest solution and the easiest one, but I was not in a position to go and question General why did
you say that this had to be done, it was not my position to do this. I was a foot soldier, I had to carry out
my task, I believed it. It was part of the political struggle of keeping the National Party in control. As a
policeman I had to support the Government of the day, that was my job.
ADV MPSHE: Are you in a position to tell this Committee that very sensitive "inligting" which Brian
Ngqulunga gave to the ANC that led to the incidents that you've just mentioned, the specifics thereof?
CAPT MENTZ: No Mr Chairman, I testified to this effect earlier, I said I didn't know of specific
incidents where he had given out "x" information and this person, informer had been killed or that person
had been necklaced, I don't know
about specific incidents, but I accepted that the seniors had ascertained this, had obtained the necessary
information and had given us the instruction. I couldn't go and determine that myself, I don't know of
specific incidents of leaked information.
ADV MPSHE: So you acted on general information, and perhaps even better weight on hearsay about
this man?
CAPT MENTZ: Mr Chairman, I didn't regard it as general information. I saw it and I believed that it was
an instruction that came from my seniors who wouldn't have said this man had bothered me, he needs to be
killed. They would have probably got the right information, well let's call it then hearsay, but it is not
hearsay, it is an instruction, command that came from above, from De Kock, Baker, Bellingham, through
to me. I couldn't go back up the line of command and ask for evidence, I believed that was not a
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 125 CAPT MENTZ
general thing, it was a specific thing and the command was valid.
ADV MPSHE: What is your comment to what Joe Mamasela said on the video this morning that this
man had to be eliminated because he was now posing a threat to the position of the police inasfar as the
Harms Commission was concerned, how do you comment on that?
CAPT MENTZ: Mr Chairman, that which Joe Mamasela said here, he said in a certain office with certain
Generals, I don't know anything about it, it hasn't been proven, I am not in a position to tell whether it is the
truth or not.
I cannot comment on this, I don't believe at any rate everything that Joe Mamasela says, because it hasn't
been proven.
ADV MPSHE: But is that what Joe Mamasela said this morning on video not in accord with your
application page 57, the contents of page 57 of your application? The first paragraph, somewhere in the
middle where you start your sentence, it is right in the middle of the first paragraph Mr Chairman and
members of the Committee.
"I read in press articles about Dirk Coetzee and others and discovered that Ngqulunga
had probably been murdered because he wanted to testify against Coetzee and
Nofomela, Van der Hoven, etc.",
Mamasela said this morning?
CAPT MENTZ: Yes, it is in agreement with what Mamasela said, but as I said it is untested evidence, it
has not been proven and as I've also testified if one of these people came and testified here to this effect,
then I would believe them that it was one more reason why he had been killed.
Griffiths Mxenge's background, I don't know at all, it is
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 125 CAPT MENTZ
only the bits that I hear about in the press, so the deduction that I had to make, or if I were to make the
deduction that he was a political activist who had to be murdered, I wouldn't know, it is things that I hear
about afterwards, now.
There is agreement between what Mamasela said and what I say here and what is said on TV and
in the press articles, but it is a deduction that I make, but I am still convinced that the main reason was that
he had been leaking information and this was just something that had become an additional factor, I didn't
know about this beforehand at all.
ADV MPSHE: But what I am trying to make out to you, is that Brian Ngqulunga did not die because of
his being an informer for the ANC, but he died because the police force was afraid that he was going to
break down and spill the beans at the Harms Commission, that's all?
CAPT MENTZ: Mr Chairman, I don't know anything about it, I don't have any knowledge about it.
These are things that I've heard about afterwards, after the fact and which I had testified about before the
Committee. I can't say that this is the case, these things have to be proven, the specific facts haven't
been proven, the fact that he is a witness before the Harms Commission, I don't in my application, I don't
think the Harms Commission was even mentioned.
ADV MPSHE: The family would like to know as to who erected a tombstone on Ngqulunga's grave,
because they did not do that?
CAPT MENTZ: It came from police funds. I don't know specifically which fund, it was probably the
secret fund.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 126 CAPT MENTZ
ADV DE JAGER: Did you have anything to do with the erection of the tombstone ...(intervention)
ADV MPSHE: But the money came from the police fund to buy a tombstone.
CAPT MENTZ: No, I didn't. Yes, I had heard that the tombstone was to be erected, I don't know
specifically from whom and when, but I don't have first hand knowledge of this.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV MPSHE
ADV DE JAGER: Could you inform us if a firearm is set on automatic, an AK47, how many shots are
fired during a second or how many seconds does it take to empty a magazine, or don't you have any
knowledge of it?
CAPT MENTZ: I don't have knowledge.
ADV DE JAGER: Can you distinguish the shots if it is fired on automatic?
CAPT MENTZ: If you have a very finely tuned ear and if you are used to shooting a lot with the firearm,
you could probably distinguish, but I can't tell you.
ADV DE JAGER: In the post-mortem and at the inquest it was
found that his tongue was missing, do you have any explanation how this could have happened?
CAPT MENTZ: No, I don't have any knowledge of this fact.
JUDGE WILSON: Could you tell me when the attack was on Khan House in Botswana?
CAPT MENTZ: Yes, Mr Chairman, I can.
JUDGE WILSON: When was this?
CAPT MENTZ: Mr Chairman, I can't remember the exact date.
JUDGE WILSON: It is page 68 in your application.
CAPT MENTZ: Mr Chairman, I wrote it in in pencil afterwards, I can't remember exactly, it was in that
period
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 127 CAPT MENTZ
1989 to 1991, I can't remember an exact date.
JUDGE MALL: Any re-examination?
RE-EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Captain Mentz, there
were various events for which you applied for amnesty. I think purely, briefly for the sake of the questions
put to you, we have to refer to this, the event with regard to the KwaNdebele Nine, were you physically
present when the people were shot?
CAPT MENTZ: No, Mr Chairman.
ADV DU PLESSIS: So you didn't participate or see this yourself?
CAPT MENTZ: No Mr Chairman.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And the events at Khan House?
CAPT MENTZ: No, I did surround protection, I wasn't at the premises, I wasn't present in the house
myself, I was not near the building. I was told to go and look out from a certain point that people from the
houses say in the area would approach the place when we were busy there.
ADV DU PLESSIS: You were not involved in the physical death of the people, you were not
present there?
CAPT MENTZ: No Sir.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And with regard to the Komatipoort Four, were you present when those people
were shot?
CAPT MENTZ: No Mr Chairman.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Okay. Now Captain Mentz, the only two events with regard to which you ask
for amnesty contained in your application where you were present when the people were killed, were Brian
Ngqulunga and the event at Pentz Mine?
CAPT MENTZ: That is correct Mr Chairman.
ADV DU PLESSIS: May I take you to page 108 of this compilation of documents. 108, second
paragraph, this is
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 128 CAPT MENTZ
the application regarding Pentz Mine, I don't want to go into this in detail, I just wish you to read to the
Committee the second paragraph on page 108 about how you felt after the person had been shot at the
Pentz Mine event.
CAPT MENTZ: I became nauseous again Mr Chairman.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Could you read to us this.
CAPT MENTZ: "While we were walking back, I became nauseous, I was walking at the back.
Everything that had happened there, was totally unacceptable to me and I
couldn't identify with it at all".
ADV DU PLESSIS: That is page 108. Now Captain Mentz, in the case of this Pentz Mine incident,
were you physically at all involved in the person's death?
CAPT MENTZ: No Mr Chairman I was in the background.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Did you see his death?
CAPT MENTZ: When I saw he was going to be shot, I looked away and you can see that in the rest of
my testimony.
ADV DU PLESSIS: So you didn't see his actual death?
CAPT MENTZ: No, I didn't see anything about the explosion, I didn't touch the man, I didn't handle him
physically. At that stage I was just De Kock's motor car
driver, the person wasn't even in the same car with us or anything.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Okay, Captain Mentz, so the only event for which you apply for amnesty
where you were physically involved in the death of a person, the case of Brian Ngqulunga?
CAPT MENTZ: Yes, Mr Chairman.
JUDGE WILSON: How was he physically involved - he stood there and looked, he took no part in
the death, did he?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 129 CAPT MENTZ
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mnr die Voorsitter, ek sal die vrae vrae. Captain Mentz were those the only
events where you were in physical contact with the person by way of the assault before he was killed?
CAPT MENTZ: Yes, Mr Chairman.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And was that the only event where you really saw that the person was shot
before your eyes?
CAPT MENTZ: Yes, Sir.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Okay. Now against that background, Captain Mentz, would you possibly from
these facts be able to give an explanation to the Committee as to why you reacted in such an emotional
manner to the death of Brian Ngqulunga?
Captain, okay let me restate the question. Would the fact that you were so closely involved in the
death of Brian Ngqulunga not perhaps have caused you to be more emotional with regard to that event than
in the case of others where you were involved?
CAPT MENTZ: That is possible Mr Chairman, but as I've already stated psychiatrists etc can be called in.
I can't explain why I feel like this or like that from time to time, we don't feel the same every morning we
get up. These are terrible things that happened and it affects one in different manners.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Mr du Plessis really, why are you putting this man through such a lot of trouble, I
mean what is the weighty point that you are making here? I mean you kill somebody, somebody is killed
in front of you in a very barbarous way, I mean it must just trouble him.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, clearly Mr Chairman, but certain questions were asked to the witness, the
reasons whereof I
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 129 CAPT MENTZ
am not hundred percent sure, but what I would want to address the Committee on during argument, and
that is why I am asking this question is the fact that Captain Mentz, and it all simply go to probabilities, that
Captain Mentz did not react differently in the case of Brian Ngqulunga because of the possible fact that he
knew he was killing in innocent man, not for political motives, but simply to exterminate him as a witness.
It all goes towards probabilities. Mr Chairman, I see it is past one o'clock already, I have a few
other questions.
JUDGE MALL: Shouldn't we finish it if you have those?
ADV DU PLESSIS: If you will allow me?
JUDGE MALL: Yes, I think we should get done with it.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Mentz, I just wish to clarify one matter. It was asked when you were
contacted by Captain Hechter, whether you hadn't been involved in Vlakplaas, can you explain to the
Committee briefly the stage when you were contacted in the case of the KwaNdebele Nine for example by
Captain Hechter, was Colonel De Kock at that stage still there, in 1988 and was Captain Hechter involved
at that stage?
CAPT MENTZ: No Sir, both cases, no.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Very well Captain Mentz, was there any
incident where an instruction such as this, where you just assumed it was a normal instruction like this
would you have questioned it in the past?
CAPT MENTZ: No.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Are you aware of instances where policemen, especially at the time, questioned
these type of instructions?
CAPT MENTZ: No, not as far as I know, not at Vlakplaas. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 130 CAPT MENTZ
It was never done.
ADV DU PLESSIS: What would have happened to you if you were to started questioning
instructions or questioning people senior to Eugene de Kock?
CAPT MENTZ: We all know about Eugene de Kock, I would have been seen as a traitor at that stage and
anything could have happened. I would definitely have been transferred to a place not of my choice.
ADV DU PLESSIS: If you had questioned such an instruction in the South African police context
and in the Security Police context, would they have taken steps against you?
CAPT MENTZ: Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Very well Captain Mentz, I will present this evidence through one of the other
witnesses, but I am going to put it to you would you be able to dispute it if I put to you that an AK47 can
fire approximately 75 rounds per minute?
CAPT MENTZ: I cannot dispute that.
MR MPSHE: Mr Chairman, Sir, may I be allowed just to put one question which I omitted, to the
witness?
JUDGE MALL: Yes, please do.
ADV MPSHE: Thank you Mr Chairman. Captain, you testified that as you were manhandling the
deceased
somebody stuffed something into his mouth, do you remember that?
CAPT MENTZ: Yes, that is possible. Yes, I know that his mouth was also closed at some stage.
ADV MPSHE: Was the mouth stuck closed with something or was it stuffed with something, there is a
difference between the two please.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 131 CAPT MENTZ
CAPT MENTZ: Mr Chairman, I have already answered, I did not do anything to his mouth. I saw that it
had been closed with something, I do not know if anything was stuffed into his mouth, I know that his
mouth had been closed with something, something had been placed over his mouth. I had more to do with
his arms, bringing his arms under control.
ADV MPSHE: With what was the mouth taped closed?
CAPT MENTZ: With sellotape, coloured sellotape, I cannot remember what colour the sellotape was, but
it was this very strong type of sellotape.
ADV MPSHE: Is it possible that before his mouth had been taped closed that something had been
stuffed into his mouth?
CAPT MENTZ: It is possible Mr Chairman, but I did not do that, I do not know.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV MPSHE
JUDGE MALL: Yes, you are excused, thank you.
WITNESS EXCUSED.
JUDGE MALL: We will take an adjournment at this stage.
COMMISSION ADJOURNS
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 132 T C NGQULUNGA
COMMISSION RESUMES
JUDGE MALL: Are we ready to proceed?
ADV MPSHE: Thank you Mr Chairman, Mr Chairman the next of kin to the deceased, Brian
Ngqulunga are present. I have
consulted with them Mr Chairman, in particular the wife. Mr Chairman she wants to give evidence, to take
the witness stand, Mr Chairman if the Committee permits, I will call her to the witness stand.
JUDGE MALL: Yes, please do.
MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Mpshe, what are her full names?
MS NGQULUNGA: Tholakele Catherine.
THOLAKELE CATHERINE NGQULUNGA: (sworn states)
ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman, I just want to mention to the Committee that part of the evidence that she
is going to give Mr Chairman is going to relate to what was said before lunch and that I did not have the
privilege of having knowledge thereof up till during lunch time, Mr Chairman and we decided with herself
that she must testify on all those other things that she wants to dispute Mr Chairperson.
JUDGE MALL: Thank you.
EXAMINATION BY ADV MPSHE: Mrs Ngqulunga, you are the wife to Brian Ngqulunga?
MS NGQULUNGA: Yes.
ADV MPSHE: If you could just speak up please. You were here present today when evidence was
given about your deceased husband and you understood everything?
MS NGQULUNGA: That is correct.
ADV MPSHE: During lunch you indicated to me that there are certain aspects or parts of evidence
given so far that you would like to dispute and you want to do that yourself under oath, is that correct?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 133 T C NGQULUNGA
MS NGQULUNGA: That is correct.
ADV MPSHE: Can you then tell the Committee what you want the Committee to know, starting first
with the issue of the
funeral?
MS NGQULUNGA: When we went to the funeral, it was a Saturday afternoon, when we were
approaching the graveside, we met the comrades, the comrade group and the group said we won't bury the
corpse there and suddenly there were attacks and they started shooting and we took one of the injured ones
to the mortuary.
On Monday Captain Van Dyk came. ...(intervention)
ADV MPSHE: Where did this fighting take place? The first incident you mentioned?
MS NGQULUNGA: It took place just when we were taking - gaining entrance to the graveside
...(intervention)
ADV MPSHE: Which graveyard.
MS NGQULUNGA: Soshanguve graveyard.
ADV MPSHE: Thank you. Continue.
MS NGQULUNGA: We went back, was taken back to the mortuary Saturday afternoon.
On Monday Captain Van Dyk came and said Eugene de Kock had said there is a conducive place
in Vlakplaas where Brian could be buried, so he might as well be taken there. Although we did not even
know the causes of his killing, but we agreed to the fact that he should be buried in Vlakplaas.
And on Wednesday we were four of us headed to Vlakplaas and some others from Vlakplaas
were present. We buried him on Wednesday. When we got there, I found that there was no conducive
place whatsoever, it was just a forest where we were going to bury him. I did not even have an
opportunity to ask him where is the conducive place that you were
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 134 T C NGQULUNGA
talking about because what I am seeing here is a hill and it is just a forest.
And we finished the whole service and we went back home, though we did not know who the
perpetrators were. I was just told that he was killed by ANC when I tried to enquire next to Brits.
The second thing I think when they killed Brian, he was naked, they had taken off his clothes, the
way he was brutally injured, because the clothes he had on, he had a suit, a black suit on. Brian's body was
brutally injured and his clothes were just intact, they were in perfect condition. The shirt and the suit were
clean as ever, no blood whatsoever. I think they had taken off his clothes and they put the clothes back
after they had injured him.
ADV MPSHE: You did hear the evidence that he was buried, or he had to be buried at Vlakplaas
because there was rioting going on in the Soshanguve township, did you hear that?
MS NGQULUNGA: Yes, we had heard that.
ADV MPSHE: Was there any violence going on at the time?
MS NGQULUNGA: There was no riot.
ADV MPSHE: Were you ever informed about the tombstone that was laid on his grave?
MS NGQULUNGA: I was not informed, I was just told that they had already erected a tombstone
and I was taken to see it.
ADV MPSHE: Were you given any information as to who laid the tombstone?
MS NGQULUNGA: No one gave me any information regarding this, I was just fetched to Brian's
grave to see the tombstone.
ADV MPSHE: If you do have knowledge was Brian involved
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 134 T C NGQULUNGA
with the ANC Party?
MS NGQULUNGA: No, I don't have any knowledge in that regard. He never made mention of that.
All I knew is that he was a police, working with the police. The only thing he said to me was that he was
no longer happy at work, because he had received threatening calls, that he should tell his White employers
to put everything in place, his records so
that when he dies, the families were taken care of. And when he had tried to ask who are you talking to me
in this fashion, they refused to tell him the names. The following day he moved from one office to another
and the same phone rang and he was told that - the same message that, tell your employers to give you all
your monies because you will die very soon and you will see us soon to kill you. That means he saw them,
he met the people on Friday when he was killed, the very people that threatened him.
ADV MPSHE: Did he perhaps tell you why there were these death threats?
MS NGQULUNGA: He did not tell me anything, he only told me that he was no longer happy at his
workplace.
ADV MPSHE: Evidence was led, sorry Mr Chairman, I withdraw that, no evidence was led to it in fact,
but it was shown on the TV today which video you saw, that Mamasela stated that your husband was
drinking a lot, that he was broken down and at one stage he even shot at you, do you remember hearing
that?
MS NGQULUNGA: Yes.
ADV MPSHE: Did you know as to why he had to shoot you?
MS NGQULUNGA: That is a family matter, all that I know is that because Joe Mamasela had said
he drank very heavily, I repudiate that, he will only drink Saturdays and Sundays and PRETORIA
HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 135 T C NGQULUNGA
still he was not a heavy drinker and he was also registered with Unisa, he had no time to drink as Joe
Mamasela alleged
What he did to me was just a mistake and it has nothing to do with this, it is all a family matter.
ADV MPSHE: What was he studying with Unisa?
MS NGQULUNGA: He was studying law with Unisa.
ADV MPSHE: Studying towards a law degree?
MS NGQULUNGA: Yes.
ADV MPSHE: Now the applicant is before this Committee, seeking amnesty, what is your response to
that?
MS NGQULUNGA: It is hard, it is difficult.
ADV MPSHE: He is basically, amongst others, asking for forgiveness, how do you react to that?
MS NGQULUNGA: (No audible reply)
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Mpshe if she doesn't want to answer that it....
ADV MPSHE: Thank you Mr Chairman, that will be all the evidence.
JUDGE MALL: Has it been explained to her Mr Mpshe, as to what is meant by amnesty and so on?
ADV MPSHE: Yes, Mr Chairman, that has been done, yes.
JUDGE MALL: Yes. Is the position that she hasn't answered what her attitude is towards the granting of
amnesty.
ADV MPSHE: Yes, Mr Chairman this has been explained, but perhaps I am not speaking for her Mr
Chairman, as I look at her she is becoming emotional, perhaps it is because of that that she cannot say how
she feels about it Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MALL: Let her calm down and afford her an opportunity.
ADV MPSHE: Are you ready to come and comment on the
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 136 T C NGQULUNGA
forgiveness being asked?
MS NGQULUNGA: I don't have any forgiveness, I have no forgiveness for him.
ADV MPSHE: Thank you Mr Chairman that will be all.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV MPSHE
JUDGE MALL: Mr Mpshe has it been explained to her that if she is in need of assistance which might
become available through the Reparation and Rehabilitation Commission, that she should approach them?
ADV MPSHE: Yes, Mr Chairman, that was done to her and her two sisters by myself, yesterday and
which discussion went down to the question of exhuming the body and burying him where they want to
bury him and I referred - connected her with the gentlemen next to him who is from the R&R Committee,
that has been taken care of by him, Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MALL: Thank you. Are there any questions to be asked under cross-examination?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Can you indicate to us
when you saw the clothes of your husband was that just before the burial?
MS NGQULUNGA: We saw the clothes after the funeral, the clothes were sent to us on Monday.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Was it the clothes that he had on for the burial or ...?
MS NGQULUNGA: Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: So ...(intervention)
ADV DE JAGER: Mr du Plessis, I am sure you don't intend asking that question.
ADV DU PLESSIS: I am just trying to determine whether the clothing was the clothing he was
wearing.
ADV DE JAGER: So you are asking the question whether he had PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 137 T C NGQULUNGA
dressed for his burial?
ADV DU PLESSIS: No, what I mean is had he dressed for the burial in different clothes than those
which he had been wearing? Okay, let me rephrase the question.
The clothing which you are testifying about, was that the clothing he was dressed in for the burial
or was it clothing that was sent to you in a different manner, which clothes are you talking about?
MS NGQULUNGA: I am talking about the suit that he had on on Friday when he was going to
work.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Was he dressed in that particular suit of clothes when he was buried?
MS NGQULUNGA: We burnt the other suit and we put on a different suit altogether.
ADV DU PLESSIS: The suit which you burnt, were these the clothes which he had on when he was
shot?
MS NGQULUNGA: That was the suit that he had on when he was shot.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you very much. I have one more question. Do you know who made the
threatening calls to him?
MS NGQULUNGA: I don't know, because he also did not know, he also wanted to know.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DU PLESSIS
JUDGE MALL: Yes.
JUDGE WILSON: You've told us that your husband went to work on the Friday, wearing these
clothes.
MS NGQULUNGA: Yes, that is correct.
JUDGE WILSON: And I take it he did not come home that
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE WILSON 137 T C NGQULUNGA
evening?
MS NGQULUNGA: Yes, that is correct.
JUDGE WILSON: When did you discover that he had been killed?
MS NGQULUNGA: I discovered the following - on Saturday around 9 pm, when Captain van Dyk
came and Engelbrecht to tell me that Brian was killed and he is in the mortuary. When I asked as to what
happened to him, they told me ANC attacked him.
On Monday they came to fetch me and we went to the
mortuary where I located him and no one could stand firmly and look at him because he was brutally
injured.
JUDGE WILSON: Did he have no clothes on then, on the Monday?
MS NGQULUNGA: He was covered with a sheet and we only saw his head because it was not
covered.
JUDGE WILSON; When did you next see him, his body dressed in these clothes that you've told
us about?
MS NGQULUNGA: We clothed him on Friday evening, he was naked and that was after the post-
mortem when we saw him in the mortuary. That is where we saw him, he was naked.
JUDGE WILSON: Would you know what had happened to his clothes, they were given back to
you later, were they?
MS NGQULUNGA: Yes, I was given the clothes after the funeral.
JUDGE WILSON: Those are the clothes he had been wearing, not the clothes he was buried in?
MS NGQULUNGA: That is correct.
JUDGE WILSON: These clothes you were given were undamaged, perfectly clean, is that what
you are saying?
MS NGQULUNGA: The suit was completely perfect, except the
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE WILSON 138 T C NGQULUNGA
pair of trousers, just in front right next to the zip, that's where there was a bullet hole, otherwise the whole
suit was intact.
JUDGE WILSON: Thank you.
JUDGE MALL: Mr Mpshe, any re-examination?
ADV MPSHE: No re-examination, Mr Chairman, thank you.
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY ADV MPSHE.
JUDGE MALL: Thank you very much, you are excused.
ADV DE JAGER: Did they also give you a shirt?
MS NGQULUNGA: Yes, they also gave me the shirt, everything,
even the shoes.
JUDGE WILSON: Who is "they" who gave you these things?
MS NGQULUNGA: The Garankua policemen.
JUDGE MALL: Yes, you are excused.
WITNESS EXCUSED
ADV MPSHE: That will be all Mr Chairman in the Ngqulunga incident.
The next incident is as per schedule, the interrogation of Scheepers Morudi. Mr Brian Currin is
appearing for the victim in this incident. Thank you Mr Chairman.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, could you just afford me a short opportunity please?
JUDGE MALL: Yes.
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Mpshe, in this post-mortem report there is a reference to annexure A - I haven't got a
copy of annexure A with the report, have you perhaps got it? In the last instance of Mr Ngqulunga?
ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman I will check for the annexure and I think to save time, I will look for it and
give it to members in chambers. Thank you Sir.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, thank you, thank you for
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 139 CAPT MENTZ
the opportunity. There is something that I would wish to clear up in the evidence of Captain Mentz, just to
make hundred percent sure about that. Would it be possible for me to recall Captain Mentz just to testify
about one aspect that flows from the evidence of this witness?
JUDGE MALL: Is it in connection with the Scheepers Morudi?
ADV DU PLESSIS: No, Mr Chairman in connection with the previous matter, in connection with
Brian Ngqulunga. I beg your pardon Mr Chairman, it is something that I just want to make hundred
percent clear that that evidence I cannot
recall that the witness gave that specific piece of evidence
and I deem it important after the questions which have been asked now.
JUDGE MALL: Well, you may call him.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman.
WILLEM WOUTER MENTZ: (s.u.o)
FURTHER RE-EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Mentz, there is only one specific
aspect which I would like to clarify with you, did you specifically see when Mr Ngqulunga was shot, did
you see that yourself specifically, when Captain Bellingham shot him?
CAPT MENTZ: Mr Chairman, yes, if I remember correctly he was shot in the head. I can remember
vaguely there was something said that they wouldn't have to recognise him by his face because they could
look at his fingerprints, but his identification had to be delayed. I think the magazine was emptied on his
head, I am not sure whether Piet Botha also shot him with a pistol, but that could be so.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman, that is the only question that I had.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE WILSON 140 CAPT MENTZ
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DU PLESSIS
JUDGE MALL: Any questions Mr Mpshe?
ADV MPSHE: No questions Mr Chairman, thank you.
NO FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MPSHE
JUDGE MALL: Very well, you are excused thank you.
WITNESS EXCUSED.
JUDGE WILSON: I notice from the post-mortem report that he had fractured first to third ribs on
both sides of the body and of both clavicles, could this have been caused by the assault you and the others
launched onto him?
CAPT MENTZ: It could be so Mr Chairman.
JUDGE WILSON: And he had a collapsed lung and a
lacerated upper lobe of the left lung, a ruptured heart, could this all have been a result of your assault?
CAPT MENTZ: Mr Chairman, when he was lying in the back of the vehicle, we sat on top of him. I am
not a medical officer, but I, it is quite possible.
JUDGE WILSON: Ruptured small intestines, ruptured bladder, is this also all possible as a result
of your assault?
CAPT MENTZ: It is possible Mr Chairman. As I told you we sat on him.
JUDGE WILSON: From my experience of post mortems there was considerably more done to the
body than sitting on it to have caused all these injuries. You can't comment?
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman the witness wanted to answer the question.
JUDGE MALL: Yes please allow him to do so.
CAPT MENTZ: Mr Chairman, as I've already testified from the time that he was taken out of the car, he
fell on the ground, we were on top of him, it was not a pretty sight, he
was overcome, he was attacked and assaulted to make him lose PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE WILSON 141 CAPT MENTZ
consciousness as quickly as possible. We came down on him with our knees, we had no mercy, he was
subjected as quickly as possible, so that we could get him into the kombi and get away. It was a public
road, we didn't want to be spotted there, it happened very quickly and it was very serious. So these things
could all have happened. It is so, I can't say that it wouldn't have happened.
JUDGE MALL: Yes. Have you seen the document which is supposed to be Annexure A to the post-
mortem?
ADV DU PLESSIS: I have seen the post-mortem.
JUDGE MALL: No, the Annexure A.
ADV DU PLESSIS: It doesn't seem that - can you just refer me a little bit closer Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MALL: I am told that the Annexure A to the post
-mortem.
ADV DU PLESSIS: I haven't got an Annexure A.
JUDGE MALL: If you look at the second page, in answer to question 4, paragraph 4, it says," body of a
Black male", then it says,
"Big laceration on the right side of the face with fractured mandible. Right facial bones
on right side of the skull anterially with protruding bones. Multiple wounds as
numbered on Annexure A".
ADV DU PLESSIS: I don't have Annexure A.
JUDGE MALL: You don't have it.
ADV DU PLESSIS: I don't know, it seems that you also don't have it?
JUDGE MALL: No, we don't.
JUDGE WILSON: If you look at the first page - we've got the typed copy where it says,
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
142 CAPT MENTZ
"Due to brain injuries and hyper-volemic shock from multiple injuries. From gunshot
wounds."
So it may well be that the post-mortem indicates that all the injuries are from gunshot wounds.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, it is possible, obviously the evidence creates certain questions,
that is why I asked Captain Mentz when the victim's wife testified, exactly - if he can remember exactly
where he was shot. He told me and that is why I have decided to volunteer that evidence. It is possible that
that evidence might contradict this, it is possible that it might not contradict this unless we have some sort
of expert evidence to explain to us that some of the injuries could not at all have been caused by any
assault. Or that the injuries could have been caused by gunshot wounds.
The only point I am trying to make Mr Chairman is that it doesn't appear from the post-mortem in
the light of Captain Mentz's evidence, it doesn't appear from the post-
mortem exactly that there were gunshot wounds anywhere else,
than possibly in the face.
JUDGE WILSON: Well that depends on the reading, if it says brain injuries and hyper-volemic
shocks, multiple injuries from gunshot wounds, then that falls away completely, so we must get a proper
copy of the post-mortem report and the annexure.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Obviously Mr Chairman. All I am trying to point out is that it is not clear and
that one cannot come to a specific conclusion regarding this and, the point I am trying to make is that it is
possible that the clothes that the witness testified about, could have been the clothes that he had on during
the incident.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 142 CAPT MENTZ
I also want to point out to you that the photographs, whatever that might be worth in evidence,
photographs on the video that was shown this morning, as far as I can recall, indicated that the clothes had
some damage to it. As far as that may be important and as far as the Committee may take any note of that.
I have not further questions for the witness Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DU PLESSIS
JUDGE MALL: Mr Mpshe, you will endeavour to get hold of this Annexure A?
ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman, I will endeavour to do that.
JUDGE MALL: It may be possible that we might have to recall this witness, depending upon the contents
of that document.
ADV MPSHE: Yes, Mr Chairman, just to inform the Committee, there is a three page post-mortem
report which was given to me by the Investigative Unit, so they did not give me all the annexures, but I will
get in touch with them to check as to where Annexure A is, Mr Chairman.
JUDGE WILSON: Did they give you a typed copy of the port-mortem report or was it
handwritten?
ADV MPSHE: It is typed, also mine is typed. Thank you Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MALL: Thank you. You are excused for the time being.
WITNESS EXCUSED
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I just want to place on record, there are other witnesses that I can
call in respect of this incident, they are not here at the moment and I would simply want, in the light of the
fact that we still
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 143 W/O VAN VUUREN
have to get further information, want to reserve my rights in that regard to be allowed later on, to call other
witnesses in respect of this incident.
JUDGE MALL: Yes, we are really concerned with the nature of his injuries.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, I can understand that.
JUDGE MALL: May we then proceed with the next matter?
ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman, yes. I call Warrant Officer Paul van Vuuren.
PAUL JACOBUS JANSEN VAN VUUREN: (sworn states)
EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Van Vuuren can you remember exactly when this
incident took place?
W/O VAN VUUREN: Approximately 1986 or 1987.
ADV DU PLESSIS: You set out the nature of the offence.
W/O VAN VUUREN: Myself, Captain Hechter, Sergeant Van der Westhuizen and Slang, his name
was Danny (indistinct) questioned him. We used a gas mask, assaulted him and executed electrical shocks
on him to gain information.
He was a great ANC activist, he had thrown several petrol bombs in Mamelodi and he was
involved in arson and
the petrol attacks on policemen's houses.
The South African Defence Force could not trace him and at the request of Captain Van Jaarsveld
to trace him, at that stage Captain Jaap van Jaarsveld was our temporary Commanding Officer because if I
remember correctly, Flip Loots was on a special investigation. Myself and Sergeant van der Westhuizen
went to look for him on the instruction of Captain Hechter. We traced him within three days. The way in
which we traced him was out of informant reports, we started monitoring his movements very closely and
within three days we traced him. That just showed how effective
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 144 W/O VAN VUUREN
the Security Police was at that stage. The questioning took approximately two hours and in that time, his
oxygen supply was limited. He was assaulted by Slang and Hendrik with handcuffs and electrical shocks
were also executed on him and it was necessary to gain information from him about his activities and
strategies and thereafter he became a source of the police and gave us very important information.
ADV DU PLESSIS; Could I ask you about the methods which were used in his interrogation, were
these the normal methods which were used?
W/O VAN VUUREN: Yes, these were the normal methods which we used.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Did you obtain any relevant information from him?
W/O VAN VUUREN: Yes, we did.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Do you remember which injuries he sustained?
W/O VAN VUUREN: At this stage it is difficult for me to remember, I can't remember exactly, but we
assaulted him quite seriously.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DU PLESSIS.
JUDGE MALL: Mr Currin?
MR CURRIN: Thank you Mr Chairman.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CURRIN: WO van Vuuren, you've said that he threw petrol bombs and
was involved in many activities, did you see him throwing petrol bombs, on what basis are you making
those allegations?
W/O VAN VUUREN: I never saw him personally, but out of the informant reports which we received
it was quite clear that he was involved and he was a leader in Mamelodi who was involved in petrol bomb
attacks.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 145 W/O VAN VUUREN
MR CURRIN: Was he ever charged with any offence ever sentenced?
W/O VAN VUUREN: I cannot remember, I cannot say.
MR CURRIN: So it is all hearsay? It is hearsay, what you've repeated here with regard to his activities,
is hearsay, you don't know it as a matter of fact?
W/O VAN VUUREN: No, I know it for a fact out of the various informant reports, we did not only
have one informant who was supplying us with information, there were several informants who were
bringing us information on Scheepers Morudi and his name came up quite often, so it was not just hearsay
evidence, it was fact because the informants did not know about each other and did not work together.
MR CURRIN: I will not argue with you as to what constitutes hearsay, I will leave it there. Could you
give a little bit more information with regard to the torture?
W/O VAN VUUREN: It is a long time ago, but if I remember correctly we used a gas mask, we put it over
his head and we left the plug in and we denied him oxygen. His hands and feet were tied and we assaulted
him several times. We assaulted him with our bare hands and some of the Constables involved, we kicked
him too. Some of the Constables involved assaulted him with the handcuffs.
MR CURRIN: Would you say that he was severely assaulted?
W/O VAN VUUREN: That is correct.
MR CURRIN: He has asked me to put to you that he was never a member of the ANC, he was a student
activist, he was not an ANC activist. Do you have proof that he was a member of the ANC?
W/O VAN VUUREN: No, I have no proof that he was a member of PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 145 W/O VAN VUUREN
the ANC because all those documents have been destroyed as
it has been said time and again in the evidence.
MR CURRIN: You assumed, I would imagine that if one was an activist, whether it was a student
activist that one was an ANC activist?
W/O VAN VUUREN: That is possible.
MR CURRIN: Have you spoken to him at all since he has been here the last couple of days, have you
spoken to him at all?
W/O VAN VUUREN: No, I haven't spoken to him at all.
MR CURRIN: Have you possibly approached him about your application and the way you feel and
your remorse and asked him for forgiveness?
W/O VAN VUUREN: No, I did not do that.
MR CURRIN: Were you involved in the bombing of his house before that, a couple of months before he
was assaulted?
W/O VAN VUUREN: It is possible, I was involved in several bomb attacks on several houses.
MR CURRIN: Have you applied for amnesty in respect of all these bomb attacks on all the houses?
W/O VAN VUUREN: Yes, I have.
MR CURRIN: And you can't recall the details?
W/O VAN VUUREN: No, there were too many, I can't remember.
ADV DU PLESSIS: I really don't have a problem that the witness testifies, but I would ask Mr Currin to
keep to this specific amnesty application in respect of this specific incident. As you are aware, WO
van Vuuren has made various applications pertaining to various incidents, as well as one global application
pertaining to certain incidents which he cannot remember a lot about. I object against further interrogation
about other amnesty applications.
MR CURRIN: Mr Chairman, it just relates to the question PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 146 W/O VAN VUUREN
of full disclosure and I am just ensuring that there has
been full disclosure.
JUDGE MALL: Well, as you know he has applied, made application for amnesty for various offences.
Among them is the bombing of houses.
MR CURRIN: Would you just bear with me for a moment?
JUDGE MALL; Certainly.
MR CURRIN: You personally participated in the physical assault?
W/O VAN VUUREN: Yes, it is correct, I did.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CURRIN.
JUDGE MALL: Mr Mpshe, are there any questions you wish to put to this witness?
ADV MPSHE: Yes, Mr Chairman.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV MPSHE: Can you explain as per your application page 156,
the last paragraph - "the telephone method was used on him", exactly what does that entail?
W/O VAN VUUREN: Mr Chairman, it is an old fashioned telephone where you had the crank that you
turned, there were two wires coming from the telephone, you took that and you connected it to the person
to his feet or hand or whatever, it all depended on what you felt like on the particular day towards the
activists, and then you turned the crank and you put electrical shocks through him.
ADV MPSHE: Now in this incident, to which part of his body did you tie the wires?
W/O VAN VUUREN: I cannot remember, I really cannot remember but we did use the instrument.
ADV MPSHE: Why can't you remember?
W/O VAN VUUREN: It is 10 years ago.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 147 W/O VAN VUUREN
ADV MPSHE: But you were present when these things were done?
W/O VAN VUUREN: But that was not the only time that I was present, there were many other times in
the same manner.
JUDGE WILSON: This was in fact one of the most common of the machinery used by the police
for this shock treatment wasn't it?
W/O VAN VUUREN: That is correct, Your Honour.
ADV MPSHE: Can you recall how long was this execution done on him?
W/O VAN VUUREN: Normally about ten seconds, five to ten seconds per shock, per shock treatment.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MPSHE
JUDGE MGOEPE: What exactly did you want from him?
W/O VAN VUUREN: We questioned him to obtain information from him regarding the fellow persons
who worked with them, to control whether the information that we had, which we thought was correct, we
wanted to verify those and to get general information regarding the unrest situation in Mamelodi.
JUDGE MGOEPE: What was the ultimate objective?
W/O VAN VUUREN: The purpose was to find people who were working with them, to arrest them or to
eliminate them and to find out exactly where they were hiding from the Security
Police and the Defence Force at that stage, where firearms or weapons might have been concealed or
hidden away, in the general state of emergency which was prevalent exactly where they were hiding.
Where we could get hold of them.
JUDGE MGOEPE: The aspect of weapons seems to be something that you did not allude to earlier
on. You mentioned that he was involved in "brandstigting", intimidation, "petrolbom PRETORIA
HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE MGOEPE 148 W/O VAN VUUREN
aanvalle op polisiemanne se huise" and that is a distinct criminal character.
W/O VAN VUUREN: I can only mention that Scheepers at that stage, I could say was the leader in
Mamelodi. The Defence Force looked for him for months, and they couldn't trace him and Captain van
Jaarsveld requested us and there were many activities for which they were looking for him, but as I have
stated to you my information was that it was only concerning schools' boycotts, arson, petrol bomb attacks,
but while we interrogated him, we asked him whether he knew about any weapons which had been hidden
which he knew about.
JUDGE MGOEPE: To the extent that you wanted information for the purpose of effecting some
arrest, the impression I get is that this was a criminal investigation after all. It was nothing else but a
criminal investigation which was going on here, criminal investigations by yourselves?
W/O VAN VUUREN: I don't clearly understand the question.
JUDGE MGOEPE: I asked you to tell us what the ultimate objective of your exercises were, and
you mentioned also that you wanted information from him so that you could effect some arrests and I am
saying to you therefore it would seem that you were busy with nothing else but a criminal investigation
here for purposes of arrest and prosecution?
W/O VAN VUUREN: At that stage it was so, we wished to arrest people and prosecute people who
worked with Scheepers, that is correct, yes.
JUDGE MGOEPE: And I am saying to you the torture, the interrogation and the torture that
accompanied it, was not any different to the torture and interrogation you would have done on somebody
who had committed a robbery? It was
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE MGOEPE 148 W/O VAN VUUREN
trying to extract information purely for criminal purposes, not politically?
W/O VAN VUUREN: No, Mr Chairman, Scheepers was involved in petrol bomb attacks on policemen's
houses, he was an activist in the townships, it was not just criminal affairs, criminal matters if I understand
you correctly.
JUDGE MGOEPE: And you say that he made mention of firearms only during the interrogation?
W/O VAN VUUREN: I can't remember whether he referred to firearms. We asked him whether he knew
about any firearms that had been hidden in Mamelodi, ANC, we referred to DLB's, we asked him, he didn't
ask us, Your Honour.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Well you don't remember whether you got any answer from him in that regard?
W/O VAN VUUREN: I cannot remember, Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MGOEPE: For all you know he might have said he didn't know anything about those
things.
W/O VAN VUUREN: That is quite possible.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Did you get any information out of him that eventually led to the arrest of
anybody?
W/O VAN VUUREN: Mr Chairman I cannot remember today. This all happened 10 years ago, I really
cannot remember, it is possible, but I cannot remember.
JUDGE MGOEPE: You mentioned that some people were looking for him, I don't know whether
you said SANDF and or the
police, I don't know, but your help was eventually called in.
W/O VAN VUUREN: That is correct, it was the Defence Force, the Defence Force was stationed in
Mamelodi, they had an office there.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Your group felt that they could help, they
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE MGOEPE 149 W/O VAN VUUREN
could trace him and thereafter beat the information out of him?
W/O VAN VUUREN: That is correct, Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MGOEPE: And then take that information and then pass it over to the other branches of
law enforcement agencies that had been looking for him?
W/O VAN VUUREN: That is correct, we would have passed it on, but we would have kept most of it for
ourselves and used that. We also didn't hand him over to the Defence Force, he became an informant of the
Security Police after that.
JUDGE MGOEPE: But that was after the assault, possibly as a result of the assault?
W/O VAN VUUREN: That is correct. That is correct, that is possible, that it was as a consequence
thereof Mr Chairman.
ADV DE JAGER: I think what my learned colleague wishes to determine is what the political motive was
when you questioned the man, was it not just a matter of trying to trace a criminal offences?
W/O VAN VUUREN; That is correct, it was to trace criminal deeds and to trace the people who were
working with him.
ADV DE JAGER: But what has this got to do with politics?
W/O VAN VUUREN: Mr Chairman, he was at that stage an ANC activist, in other words he was
involved with the ANC activists who were causing great trouble in Mamelodi and that was why we
questioned him. He was an ANC activist and
after all that had to do with politics in my books.
ADV DE JAGER: I think you have to draw a distinction, there can be nationalists or any other party whose
members may commit housebreaking and burglary and have nothing to do with politics?
W/O VAN VUUREN: That is correct, Your Honour, but if ANC
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DE JAGER 150 W/O VAN VUUREN
activists attack policemen's houses with petrol bombs and arrange boycotts, it is a political motive in my
books.
ADV DE JAGER: The question is simply whether in this particular instance the purpose of the
investigation was of a criminal nature or what exactly it was?
W/O VAN VUUREN: It was a criminal investigation, Mr Chairman.
JUDGE WILSON: And you have no idea if you got information from him that resulted in any
arrests, prosecutions or matters of that nature?
W/O VAN VUUREN: Mr Chairman, I cannot remember today, it is too long ago. It is possible that it
was so, I cannot remember, there were many instances of this nature.
JUDGE WILSON; Can you remember that about 10 minutes ago when Mr Currin was
questioning you, you said it might be possible that he wasn't a member of the ANC?
W/O VAN VUUREN: I doubt that.
JUDGE WILSON: My recollection is that Mr Currin specifically put to you that he wasn't and
you said you couldn't challenge that, you had no proof.
W/O VAN VUUREN: I cannot prove it because I don't have proof, all the proof that existed was
destroyed after my time in terms of a national command from Security Headquarters, all documentation
was burnt, I don't have anything to prove what I am saying today.
MS KHAMPEPE: Sir was it not true from the evidence which
has been given by Mr Cronje, that the general practice of the Security Police was to eliminate people who
would have committed acts such as these committed by Mr Scheepers Morudi?
W/O VAN VUUREN: That is correct that people like him had PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MS KHAMPEPE 151 W/O VAN VUUREN
to be eliminated, or were eliminated in certain instances.
MS KHAMPEPE: Can you just explain what would be the criteria which would be used to determine
whether a person was capable of immediate elimination or would be rehabilitated as in the instance of Mr
Morudi?
W/O VAN VUUREN: It is very difficult today to sit and explain here which people were eliminated and
which people were not eliminated. We played it by ear, depending on how things went at that stage,
whether the person seemed prepared to work with the Security Police at that stage or whether he was not
prepared to cooperate with us. I think to a large extent if Scheepers had not agreed to become an informer,
we would quite possibly have eliminated him.
MS KHAMPEPE: So after this incident Mr Morudi became an informer?
W/O VAN VUUREN: That is correct.
MS KHAMPEPE: Thank you.
RE-EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr van Vuuren, in the
Security Branch where you were working at that stage, what did you activities involve? Did your activities
involve actions against the liberation movements, deeds of activists, or did your activities involve normal
police docket investigation of burglaries etc?
W/O VAN VUUREN: No, it involved actions against activists, no normal investigations.
ADV DU PLESSIS: So in other words your activity as a member of the Security Branch at that stage
Warrant Officer, was primarily aimed at what - normal thieves, robbers or were your activities aimed at
people who were involved in destabilising the Country?
W/O VAN VUUREN: It was people who were politically PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 152 W/O VAN VUUREN
involved in destabilising the country.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Okay, now WO van Vuuren, people like these activists or terrorists, as we have often
testified before the Committee, were these people also involved in criminal activities?
W/O VAN VUUREN: That is correct, they were.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Did such people also make themselves guilty of normal common law or criminal
transgressions in an effort to destabilise the country?
W/O VAN VUUREN: Yes, they did make themselves - they were guilty of crimes to destabilise the
country and to create chaos.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Okay, as you can remember, was Mr Morudi a person who was involved in this
political destabilisation attempt or was he an ordinary criminal?
W/O VAN VUUREN: He was a person who was involved in the destabilisation efforts of the country and
the campaign for destabilisation.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And the methods used by activists to destabilise the country at that stage, which
methods did they use?
W/O VAN VUUREN: It was arson, petrol bomb attacks, intimidation and in certain cases murder,
boycotts, consumer boycotts.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And is that the sort of action in which Mr Morudi was involved in and made himself
guilty of as you can remember?
W/O VAN VUUREN: Yes, it is correct.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And when you interrogated him, did you obtain information from him or attempt to
obtain information in order to accuse him and to have him found guilty in a PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 152 W/O VAN VUUREN
criminal court of criminal transgressions or was the purpose to get other information?
W/O VAN VUUREN: The purpose was to obtain information from him in order to accuse him - no, to
accuse him wouldn't have helped at that stage because we wouldn't have had a witness to testify against
him because the witness would be dead the next day were he to testify, so the idea was not to interrogate
him, to take him to court, the idea was to interrogate him to obtain more information regarding the
activities of the activists in Mamelodi. Criminal activities as well as other activities, meetings which they
were holding, when they were having meetings, who would address them, whether they had any contact
with ANC infiltrators, etc.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Okay, Warrant Officer van Vuuren, in your application you give in great detail
the purpose of the interrogations, that which was set out in the application has been stated on numerous
occasions with the same motivation as in all other interrogations for which amnesty applications are made
with regard to all the applicants before the Committee and for that reason I am not offering this testimony
verbally, verbatim before the Committee on every occasion, but on this regard questions had been asked
regarding things which are stated very clearly in your statement.
Will you turn to page 158 please of your application and there the general motivation which we
have in all the
applicants' applications with regard to your actions, will you please read that to the Committee. From the
purpose of the investigation.
ADV DE JAGER: Mr du Plessis, I don't think this what is PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 153 W/O VAN VUUREN
being disputed, the specific question was whether it was
political or criminal and I think that is the difference between a general motivation and the motivation
which had already been given.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, but Mr Chairman, with respect, in the motivation in the application, it comes
out very clearly that the whole purpose of the interrogation and the investigation was absolutely of a
political nature and that is also clearly apparent further on, where the specific motive is set out on page 161
to 162.
I don't attempt to prefer the evidence every time with regard to every case, but if I could just with
regard to the questions which had been asked, if I could just be afforded the opportunity to read into the
record, the testimony and I also wish to make the point and I will argue to it at the end, that I was under the
impression that he did not quite clearly understand the full scope of the questions and therefore I think it is
very important to get this stated in the record.
Will you just continue please.
W/O VAN VUUREN: "The purpose of interrogations were dual,
Intimidation and obtaining information: Intimidation - When activists were interrogated
they were intimidated to stop their activities and also to inform other activists that they
would be interrogated and fought with tooth and nail, they had to understand that we
were serious in our actions against them.
During interrogation and after certain information had been obtained, attempts were
made to turn activists and informants to become informants for
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 154 W/O VAN VUUREN
the Security Police. These activists and/or terrorists who were turned, were the most
effective means to combat the liberation movements, because they were trustees of the
other terrorists and activists.
The most striking example was Joe Mamasela as is apparent from this application.
Ascaris who were former terrorists, were very effective in the suppression of political
activities".
ADV DU PLESSIS: Were you successful in this attempt, if we can just pause a moment with that?
W/O VAN VUUREN: Yes, that is correct.
"For the purpose of insurgents and counter-insurgents' activities, it was important to
obtain information in this regard, it was of cardinal importance to get channels exposed
etc, and without interrogation techniques a network of information would never have
been determined to combat the total onslaught.
Interrogation which was effective with regard to obtaining information was essential. It
was essential to trace deeds of terror and to plan counter strategies and take measures on
the basis of the information obtained. Information was also obtained with regard to
interrogation".
ADV DU PLESSIS: Can I stop you, you can't remember exactly which information you obtained, is
it possible that your information during that interrogation was that you gained information which could be
used against the liberation movements?
W/O VAN VUUREN: That is correct, that is possible.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 155 W/O VAN VUUREN
ADV DU PLESSIS: And was he after that of assistance to you as an informant?
W/O VAN VUUREN: That is correct.
INTERPRETER: The interpreters would just like the witness to read slowly.
W/O VAN VUUREN:
"The motive was to combat terrorism and to protect the country. A further motive was
to obtain information regarding his actions and strategies".
ADV DU PLESSIS: Okay. Mr Chairman the rest of the aspects therein can that be regarded as
being incorporated? Thank you.
Okay, Warrant Officer van Vuuren, lastly, did you regard a person as Scheepers Morudi as an
activist and a criminal seen in broad terms?
W/O VAN VUUREN: We as Security Police did not work with criminals, we worked with activists, but
many of the activists also made themselves guilty of criminal deeds.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Okay, one last aspect which I forgot to ask you about. Exactly where did your
command come from, you state that on page 163, where the instructions originated?
W/O VAN VUUREN: It came from Captain van Jaarsveld and from Captain Hechter.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Okay.
W/O VAN VUUREN: I could just mention that Captain van Jaarsveld did not tell me to assault
Scheepers Morudi. That we did of our own accord.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Okay. So he didn't repudiate you after that, he didn't tell you what you had
done was wrong?
W/O VAN VUUREN: No, he didn't.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 155 W/O VAN VUUREN
ADV DU PLESSIS: Now, Warrant Officer van Vuuren just to return to the matter of elimination,
much testimony has been
put before the Committee regarding eliminations in particular circumstances. Could you just make your
testimony clear. The type of person whose elimination was decided upon, could you tell us?
W/O VAN VUUREN: It was normally a high profile activist or terrorist who was concerned with the
deaths of other people.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And then a last question. Mr Morudi is present here today, are you prepared in your
application - I would like to refer you to your application - in your application on page 224, could you
please page to page 224.
W/O VAN VUUREN: Which page?
ADV DU PLESSIS: Page 224, could you please read that to the Committee?
INTERPRETER: Could the speaker please be asked to slow down while reading.
W/O VAN VUUREN: "Reconciliation: I have believed seriously that what I was doing was in the interest
...(intervention)
JUDGE MGOEPE: Captain, the Interpreters are having a problem, you read too fast for them, there
are difficulties in keeping up with you in their interpretation.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Chairman, it is marked with pen on the right=hand side, page 224 of
the bundle of applications. Mr Chairman it was attached as an annexure and it is entitled "versoening".
JUDGE MALL: I definitely ...
ADV DU PLESSIS: I beg your pardon Mr Chairman, may I enquire from the other members of the
Committee if they have (...indistinct). Thank you Mr Chairman, may the witness PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 156 W/O VAN VUUREN
proceed?
W/O VAN VUUREN: "Reconciliation. - I believed that what
I was doing was in the interest of the Republic of South Africa, its people, my religion
and christian convictions. Today I am uncertain as to where I stand and how I ended up
in the position which I currently find myself in.
I am sorry about the loss which family members of the victims suffered and also the loss
of lives. I hope that this revelation of mine will lead to greater understanding,
reconciliation and unity among the people of South Africa.
It is not my decision who was right or wrong, but I am also a committed citizen of the
new South Africa. The truth of the past must be exposed, that goes for all Security
Forces and also freedom fighters of the liberation movements".
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, as we recall, previously Warrant Officer van Vuuren was the one
witness in respect of which we didn't confirm his general background as set out on pages 4 to 16, may I just
ask the witness his confirmation of that. Warrant Officer van Vuuren, on pages 4 - 16 your background has
been set out, do you confirm that as correct?
W/O VAN VUUREN: Yes, it is correct.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DU PLESSIS.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Mr Currin can I ask you in the meantime just to help refresh our memories - by
the way have you put it to the witness that your client will deny that he was a political activist?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 157 W/O VAN VUUREN
MR CURRIN: I put it to the witness that my - I challenged that my client was not an ANC activist and
put it to the witness that my client was a student activist, that I put to him. That is what he will testify, that
he was a student activist, but he was never a member of the ANC. I put that to him.
JUDGE MGOEPE: What does that mean "student activist"?
MR CURRIN: Well he was as a student at school, he was involved in student activist politics. I think
that we know what sort of politics the students were involved in. He was never a member of the African
National Congress or any political organisation. He will testify ...(intervention)
JUDGE MGOEPE: Yes, but I just want to have this clarified because at some stage I personally
put questions to the witness which would have tended to tax him severely on whether or not the victim
could have been a legitimate political target, a legitimate political target and if there is no severe
disagreement on the question as to whether or not he was in fact in politics at whatever level, that may
actually, I mean I am speaking for myself, that may clarify or make certain issues a little bit easier.
MR CURRIN: Certainly.
JUDGE MGOEPE: So I understand you to concede that the victim was engaged in politics.
MR CURRIN: Absolutely.
FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CURRIN: Mr Chairman while I have the microphone I
do have one question that I would like to clarify in re-examination which arose during some of the
subsequent questioning if I may put something to the witness.
JUDGE MALL: Yes, you may ask your question, sure.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 157 W/O VAN VUUREN
MR CURRIN: It is one question. My learned friend put it to you that we have heard a lot about
eliminations and assassinations and when an activist qualifies to be eliminated and you said something a
moment ago which, in my recollection, has been said for the first time and I just want to hear whether what
I heard, is correct and you mean what you said.
You said that high profile activists were targets for elimination. Now that we've heard often
before, but you've added something to that. I think you added that high profile activists who were involved
in killing or in murders qualified for elimination, is that correct?
W/O VAN VUUREN: That was usually the case. That is correct, that was usually the case but if a person
threw a petrol bomb at another's house, then it was an attempt at their lives, he wasn't playing with them,
then that would also have qualified the person to have been eliminated, yes ....(intervention)
MR CURRIN: Even if no one died as a result of the petrol bomb?
W/O VAN VUUREN: Ja.
MR CURRIN: So it is not correct to add the rider "if that person was involved in a murder"?
W/O VAN VUUREN: That is correct.
MR CURRIN: Thank you Sir.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CURRIN.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman, may I beg leave to call Captain Hechter on this
incident? You will find his application on page 127 of the bundle.
CAPTAIN HECHTER: (still under oath)
EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Hechter in your
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 158 CAPT HECHTER
application on page 128, the first paragraph under "Nature and details", you say that you cannot remember
the circumstances in this incident, is that correct?
CAPT HECHTER: That is correct.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Do you accept the evidence with regards to the facts of this incident as said by
Warrant Officer van Vuuren?
CAPT HECHTER: That is correct.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Now Captain Hechter, the political motivation has been set out in your application
from page 130 to page 134. Do you confirm it as being correct?
CAPT HECHTER: Yes, that is correct, Chairperson.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Hechter, with regards to one or two aspects about which Warrant Officer
van Vuuren was questioned. Could you perhaps just give the Committee an indication of the type of
persons who were involved in petrol bomb attacks and so forth, were they normal criminals or were these
people politically active?
CAPT HECHTER: Chairperson, the youth activists as Mr Currin called them, were furthering all
the aims and objectives of the ANC at the time. In Tshaba it was often announced, even on Radio
Freedom, that the youth - the so-called informants had to be attacked, they had to attack the police, they
had to be involved in the struggle which included the burning of buses, the boycotting of buses, consumer
boycotts. So that when we were out looking for activists it was purely a political activist. We were not
involved in normal criminal activities and that is why the police detectives who were at the stations in the
areas, they were deployed to do that type of work, we did not do those cases, we did political matters and
we investigated political cases.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 159 CAPT HECHTER
ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Hechter, what was your general experience with such activists, were some
of them members of the ANC were others not members of the ANC, could you comment on that?
CAPT HECHTER: It is very difficult when you start monitoring an activist to know if it is a card
carrying member of the ANC, what they did do was through the person's actions by furthering the
objectives of the ANC at the time, by the methods that they applied, you were able to identify an activist.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Just to include there, this attack was in 1986 and 1987?
CAPT HECHTER: That is correct.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Was it permissible at the time to be a card carrying member of the ANC?
CAPT HECHTER: That is correct, so they would not have had their cards with them either, they
would have been members of the ANC but would not have carried any cards.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Hechter, the type of interrogations you were involved in at the time, what
was the aim of the interrogation with regards to obtaining information, could you just elaborate to the
Committee?
CAPT HECHTER: Firstly it was to obtain information, further information which could assist us in
combatting further acts of terrorism, greater acts of terrorism, lesser acts of terrorism, such as consumer -
the launching of consumer boycotts to identify the involved instigators and prevent them proceeding.
The interrogations were fairly violent. In order to intimidate the youths to such an extent that - it
was an attempt to prevent them from participating in this type of
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 160 CAPT HECHTER
action any further.
ADV DU PLESSIS: After having heard what Warrant Officer van Vuuren testified here, would you say
that the objective at the time would have been to obtain information, charge the person and have them
convicted in a court of law or was the objective to obtain information with regards to the liberation
movement's struggle?
CAPT HECHTER: It is very difficult for me to answer that question at this point. What I heard
from Warrant Officer van Vuuren was that thereafter he was made a member of the
Branch, so he would have given us his cooperation, which is why we would have decided to use him as a
source, but I doubt whether we would have wanted to arrest him and have him charged and so forth,
because at the time we did not try to arrest activists.
The information which we confronted them with could not be aligned to any witnesses due to the
intimidation factor which existed at the time. I would not say that it did not happen at all, there might have
been cases where persons were arrested and detained in terms of the law, but it was very minimal.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Hechter could you please page to page 339 of your application. Captain
Hechter, can you page to the next page entitled "Reconciliation", that is part of your application. Could
you please just read it to the Committee.
Yes, I beg your pardon Mr Chairman, it appears twice in my volume, I beg your pardon, it is 338.
Could you please proceed?
CAPT HECHTER: "I had steadfastly believed that what I was doing at that time, was in the
interests of
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 160 CAPT HECHTER
the Republic of South Africa, its people, my religion and religious convictions.
Today I am uncertain as to where I stand and how I ended up in the position I currently
find myself in. I am very unhappy and I am sorry about the loss which the family
members of victims suffered and also the loss of life.
I hope that this revelation of mine will lead to greater understanding and reconciliation".
...(intervention)
JUDGE WILSON: This is word for word what the previous witness said, can't he just confirm it?
What is your purpose of getting it on the record twice?
ADV DU PLESSIS: As it pleases you. Will you confirm it please?
CAPT HECHTER: I will confirm that.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DU PLESSIS.
JUDGE MALL: Would you rather Mr Currin put his questions first?
ADV MPSHE: I will prefer to do it that way, thank you Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MALL: There you are, Mr Currin.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CURRIN: Thank you Mr Chairman. You stated something which has
been said before, namely that detentions at that time were an exception, that one normally did not
prosecute, arrest and prosecute and one did not normally detain, that was an absolute exception?
CAPT HECHTER: Not really, what I meant by it, there was a lot of detentions, but it had such little
impact on the general anarchism that was at that stage rampant in the Black townships, that in certain cases
and a lot of the
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 161 CAPT HECHTER
people working with us, still did arrest some of these people and kept them under the Security regulations,
but me, as a person, in our department or in our section, we felt in certain circumstances, we could by
intimidation, we could get a better reaction out of the people, because when those people were left out of
jail after a while, they came back.
They were the real "rammetjies" around there, so we battled with them. My department, the Black Power
Department.
MR CURRIN: What you are saying relates generally to what you refer to as the Black activists?
CAPT HECHTER: The Black activists, that is correct.
MR CURRIN: So there wasn't a tendency to detain, as far as you were concerned and in your division, the
activists?
CAPT HECHTER: There were many, if we just could have kept records, you would have seen that
many of them were detained, but in certain instances the decision was taken by me as the Officer that a
certain person should not be
arrested, but be picked up, interrogated, intimidated and then released.
MR CURRIN: But the reality Captain Hechter is that the vast, vast, vast majority of people were in fact
detained, of the activists.
CAPT HECHTER: You say so I do not know, that may be so, I cannot argue with you.
MR CURRIN: I put to you that also, we will lead evidence on behalf of the victims that the tendency
was in fact to detain and not to eliminate which is ...(intervention)
CAPT HECHTER: We are not talking about elimination, we are talking about intimidation.
MR CURRIN: You heard also what the previous witness said with regard to elimination, as to when a
person would
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 162 CAPT HECHTER
qualify for elimination, do you agree with his answer?
CAPT HECHTER: Could you please tell me ...(intervention)
MR CURRIN: He said a prominent activist who was involved in an act which would result in the death of
a person and he changed that to say for example, if there was a petrol bombing and a prominent activist
was involved, then that person would then qualify for elimination.
CAPT HECHTER: The English have a saying that "there is no rule if there is no exception", those
decisions were taken by us on the basis of information obtained from sources and the decision was taken by
me quite often and in many instances by Head Office, when one should be eliminated and when not.
There was no set rule that if this was the third house that person would be eliminated, it went
according to the circumstances at the time, the amount of violent acts which the person had committed and
how you, as a leadership figure, had blossomed in the community. If you remember correctly we tried to
eliminate Father Mkatshwa which was a good example. Look at the leadership figure that he
turned out to be. He was a prominent leader.
MR CURRIN: If I understand you correctly there were no fixed criteria, it was an ad hoc decision taken
depending on the circumstances at the time?
CAPT HECHTER: That is correct, that is correct.
MR CURRIN: That is very different from what the previous witness said.
CAPT HECHTER: He was a Sergeant at the time and he worked under my command, so it could
have been his perception.
MR CURRIN: I have no further questions to this witness.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CURRIN.
JUDGE MALL: Mr Mpshe.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 163 CAPT HECHTER
JUDGE MGOEPE: Go ahead, maybe you will cover the point which I wanted to cover.
ADV MPSHE: Captain, in your application page 127 thereof, you're asking for amnesty on "opsetlike
saakbeskadiging asook brandstigting", but you haven't told this Committee anything about those two
incidents.
CAPT HECHTER: I think it was rectified. I think Adv du Plessis submitted a rectified schedule in
which those errors had been rectified. The rectification had been made, there was no damage to property, I
hope it is contained in that schedule. Thank you.
JUDGE MGOEPE: I just want to clear this because earlier on, by reason of the fact that the name of
Captain van Jaarsveld was mentioned, immediately after a sentence which made reference to the South
African Defence Force, I was under the impression that he was attached to the South African Defence
Force. He was in fact in the Security Branch?
CAPT HECHTER: He was my second in command, Captain van Jaarsveld was our acting
Commander, yes, acting Commander. JUDGE MGOEPE: But is he not the person who asked you to
come and trace the victim?
CAPT HECHTER: According to what I can deduce from Warrant Officer van Vuuren, I think that was
the case. I can't remember this specific incident, but if he says so, it is so because he was in control. Then
he would have addressed the request to me and I would have sent out the people to go and pick up the
person.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Yes in fact I think this is what Mr van Vuuren says, that you were asked by, he
was not at Vlakplaas?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 164 CAPT HECHTER
CAPT HECHTER: No, no, we were never. Captain van Jaarsveld, Warrant Officer van Vuuren
and myself were never stationed at Vlakplaas, we were just in the Security Branch of Pretoria or the
Northern Transvaal, we had no ties with Vlakplaas, we never liaised with them.
JUDGE MGOEPE: If in fact the instruction to, or the request to trace the victim did come from
Captain van Jaarsveld, it would have meant that it was a request that came from the Security Branch
anyway?
CAPT HECHTER: It is possible. You see in the mornings, and we touched on that last year, we
had the joint management centre which consisted of the various sections or departments including Civil
Defence, the Defence Force, National Intelligence and ourselves, we met and problem cases were
discussed with reference not only to problem persons, but also to problem cases where for example there
was bad sewerage systems, these were all discussed at these meetings and I suspect that it was on this
occasion that the request was addressed to Captain van Jaarsveld, whether we couldn't trace this man for
them, because they were unable
to trace him. They were situated on top of the hill in Mamelodi and they also had their problems
finding people.
ADV DE JAGER: Could we just have clarity in this regard, did you ever operate under the orders of
Brigadier Cronje?
CAPT HECHTER: Yes, but at that stage he was the Head of the Security Branch, not at Vlakplaas.
ADV DE JAGER: So when he was at Vlakplaas, you were not under his command?
CAPT HECHTER: No, I only got to know him when he took over as Commanding Officer of the
Security Branch.
ADV DE JAGER: You yourself were never stationed at
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 164 CAPT HECHTER
Vlakplaas or under that command?
CAPT HECHTER: No, not at all Mr Chairman.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Hechter, when exactly did Brigadier Cronje come over from Vlakplaas
to the Security Branch?
CAPT HECHTER: I am not sure, I suspect it was about 1986, late 1985, it must have been then
late 1985.
JUDGE MALL: We've already had (...indistinct)
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Chairman the evidence was led right at the beginning. It makes it very
difficult the time period inbetween, because a lot of the issues and the aspects which seem to create certain
problems, have already long ago been dealt with in evidence, but obviously nobody's recollection is so
good that one can remember everything, but that was dealt with specifically in the evidence previously.
JUDGE MALL: No further questions?
ADV DU PLESSIS: No further questions, thank you Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DU PLESSIS
WITNESS EXCUSED
JUDGE MALL: I think at this stage we will take an adjournment if it's convenient. We will resume at
nine o'clock tomorrow morning.
MR CURRIN: Mr Chairman, Scheepers Morudi is here, will we not hear him today?
JUDGE MALL: Unfortunately not, I've indicated that for
certain reasons we are going to adjourn at quarter to four today and if he can be available tomorrow
morning at nine o'clock ...
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
165
MR CURRIN: I see. I will advise him, thank you.
JUDGE MALL: We will adjourn.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS.
TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION COMMISSION
AMNESTY HEARINGS
SUBMISSIONS - QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
DATE: 26 FEBRUARY 1997 NAME: SCHEEPERS MORUDU
HELD AT: PRETORIA
DAY 3
__________________________________________________________
ADV MPSHE: Thank you Mr Chairperson and members of the Committee.
Mr Chairman before we start with the leading of evidence may I request that counsels herein
present today for the first time be put on record.
JUDGE MALL: Yes.
MR S VAN DER MERWE: Thank you Mr Chairman. My name is S W van der Merwe, I appear on
behalf of Mr Eric Winter who is implicated in the application of Mr Venter in relation to the PEPCO Three.
MS H KRUGER: Thank you Mr Chairman. My name is H Kruger, I appear on behalf of General Smit
who is implicated according to a notice received on 21 February in the matter of Dr Ribiero and his wife.
JUDGE MALL: There is little likelihood of these matters being reached during the course of today - Mr
Mpshe.
ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman, there is a likelihood that we may deal with he PEPCO three today but there
is no likelihood of dealing with Dr Ribiero and his wife's matter today.
JUDGE MALL: Yes. Well, Mrs Kruger then you may be, unless you wish to stay on you will be excused
from further attendance and I think it is hoped that we will reach your matter sometime tomorrow.
MS KRUGER: Thank you Mr Chairperson. I will return tomorrow.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
166
JUDGE MALL: Mr Mpshe, we understand that General van der Merwe is going to give evidence
tomorrow morning?
ADV. MPSHE: Yes, Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MALL: Is it your intention that immediately thereafter you will be dealing with the matter in
which Mrs Kruger is appearing?
ADV. MPSHE: Mr Chairman may I suggest that Mrs Kruger be here tomorrow at 2.00 o'clock so as to be
sure that at the time she arrives we shall be through with the other matters as per schedule, Mr Chairman?
JUDGE MALL: Mrs Kruger, will it inconvenience you?
MRS KRUGER: No. Not all. I will be available tomorrow afternoon.
JUDGE MALL: Thank you very much. The letters that you mentioned earlier, thanks very much,
copies of those have now come to my hand - the letters written by you to the Amnesty Committee here in
Johannesburg. Thanks very much for those letters.
Mr Mpshe, in the other matter that you are going to be dealing with today, is there no likelihood
of Mrs Kruger's client being implicated in it?
ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman, not to my knowledge because I went through the applications myself and I
issued all notices to people who are implicated as per applications, I don't know if this may be the case
inasfar as the mention of names at the hearing is concerned.
JUDGE MALL: But as far as you are concerned at present.
ADV MPSHE: As per applications, no.
JUDGE MALL: Yes.
JUDGE WILSON: (Aside discussion with Chairman) What about van der Merwe?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
167
JUDGE MALL: What about him?
JUDGE WILSON: Might he not implicate your client?
JUDGE MALL: He has not - cross-examination. Mrs Kruger we don't know what is going to happen
during the evidence of Mr van der Merwe when he is going to be cross-examined tomorrow and at this
stage one doesn't know whether there will be any mention made of your client in his cross-examination, but
perhaps you might just monitor the situation and make yourself available if it transpires that you have an
interest in the matter in what he says.
JUDGE WILSON: We have not had any clear evidence as to how their duties overlapped, but I have no
doubt he will be able to tell you whether they were working in the same office and his name may be
mentioned.
JUDGE MALL: At any rate, in his evidence-in-chief, which has been read into the record, your client is
not implicated in that.
MS KRUGER: I have got no problem to attend then if I understand you correctly, tomorrow morning
when General van der Merwe is going to testify. Will you then excuse me until tomorrow morning?
JUDGE MALL: Yes, certainly. Thank you.
ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman, then the next issue is the issue on which the Committee was approached in
chambers by Advocate Visser and Advocate du Plessis. The Committee gave an indication that it would be
dealt with right at the beginning before we commence leading evidence. That pertains to the report, Mr
Chairman.
JUDGE MALL: Yes. Mr Visser.
MR VISSER: May it please you Mr Chairman. The reason why we believed that it is important to
mention this in open
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VISSER 168 ADDRESS
Committee will appear from a report dated 25 February 1997 in the "Beeld" and I refer your attention
specifically to the last column in the middle to the following words.
"Advocate du Plessis said that the five mens' then seniors were not prepared to provide
the information. The general attitude of the security forces towards the Truth and
Reconciliation Commission is negative. The general feeling is that the Commission
should not be assisted".
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman I wish to place on record, that nothing could be further from the truth
regarding my clients, they have filed applications for amnesty. General van der Merwe has offered his
evidence and is going to testify tomorrow.
I wish us just to keep two matters separate. The one is the "alleged non-assistance of the five
applicants" before you now and what is stated here in the newspaper "assistance to your committee". Now
we say that there is no grounds for drawing the inference, and the inference is in fact false and we wish to
place that on record, Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MALL: Thank you. We trust that there will be more responsible reporting by newspaper reporters
of proceedings before this Committee.
MR VISSER: Well, except Mr Chairman that apparently according to my learned friend Mr Mpshe, my
learned friend Mr du Plessis did in fact say this.
JUDGE MALL: Yes. Inaccurate report.
JUDGE WILSON: (Aside to Chairman) It's an accurate report -JUDGE MALL: Yes, but it is
the wrong impression created. JUDGE WILSON: Well his counsel said it.
JUDGE MALL: Yes. Thank you very much for having placed
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
169
this on record.
MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman, I take it no further than that.
JUDGE MALL: You wish to comment on that.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, please Mr Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr Chairman, I did say this, in argument. It is true that the applicants, in October, when they
prepared for their evidence, did approach certain persons to request them to be of assistance and they did
have a lot of trouble with that. I do not withdraw any submission that I did make yesterday.
JUDGE MALL: Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: In respect of Mr Visser's clients, I can place on record that most of them were
represented by Mr Wagner, we did not approach them to help us at that stage or before this hearing, but
what I want to emphasise again is that we did give evidence and it is not simply just an argument, it was
evidence by Brigadier Cronje and Captain Hechter as far as I can recall that their superiors of that time, and
specifically of the National Party has not assisted the applicants, has not offered the applicants any
assistance whatsoever. I still stand by the view that we have difficulty and had difficulty finding witnesses
pertaining to certain aspects and it was in that context that I addressed the argument to you.
The second point I want to make in this regard is that we are grateful for the assistance of General
van der Merwe to our clients - who is a client of Mr Visser and Mr Wagner. He graciously agreed to assist
the applicants and the Committee at the time when we started with these hearings.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 169 ADDRESS
What I want to emphasise is that clearly my reference to people who do not want to assist the
Commission, could not have included Mr Visser's clients for the pure and simple reason that it was
knowledge at that time that all his clients applied for amnesty and that they are working together with the
Committee and are part of this process. That is an important point that I want to place on record.
Furthermore, in respect of what was said "Die algemede houding van die veiligheids magte" it
was simply a general reference, "a general attitude of the security forces", about the general attitude of
members of the South African Defence Force for instance and I made that statement as a general statement.
It obviously didn't include people who are willing to participate in the process and it obviously didn't
include Mr Visser's clients.
Mr Visser acts on behalf of 81 former South African Police members and, therefore, clearly he
cannot speak for the whole South African Security Forces including the South African Defence Force or
other policemen. We ourselves act for other policemen as well.
And then lastly, I want to say, Mr Chairman, that we are very appreciative of the fact that Mr
Visser has indicated that his clients intend to cooperate with the Commission and with us and we would
appreciate it if it could be possible for us, and we would discuss that with Mr Visser, if it would be possible
for us to perhaps have consultations with some of his clients who might be able to assist the applicants in
providing the Commission with important and necessary information which his clients might have and
might possess. Obviously, we do not want to drag the proceedings out and we will limit it to just the
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 170 ADDRESS
necessary information but, we deem it important that the Committee obtains evidence pertaining to the
order structure and the workings of the State Security Council and if they can be of assistance to us, we
would gratefully appreciate it. Thank you very much.
JUDGE MALL: Well, I have no doubt that that is a matter that you and Mr Visser would be able to work
out. This Committee can hardly direct Mr Visser and tell him that he should instruct his clients to render
assistance, I have no doubt that that is a matter that experienced legal men like you would be able to
resolve amongst yourselves.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Chairman, I will definitely endeavour to do so and we are grateful for the
fact that they have indicated in public that they are prepared to assist the Committee.
MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, if I may by way of reply. The matter seems to have resolved itself by my
learned friend now stating publicly, that his remarks were not intended to reflect on my clients and I am
sure Die Beeld's reporter who is here will rectify that in a next edition. Thank you Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MALL: Yes. Thank you very much.
ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman, yesterday when we adjourned we were busy with the matter no. 3. on Day 1
"Interrogation of Scheepers Morudu" my learned friend Mr Brian Currin was to sum up that matter. I hand
over to him.
MR CURRIN: Mr Chairman, that is correct, you will recall that we were to call Scheepers Morudu and I
will do that in a moment but before I do that and very briefly, there is an issue of importance that just needs
to be raised before you, I did discuss it with you previously.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 171 ADDRESS
As you will recall, Mr Chairman, on the 6th February, we approached, on behalf of the victims,
the Committee to subpoena a group of witnesses in regard to the whole question of the line of command,
the issue of trivets and cooperation between the SAP and the SADF, time is becoming important because
of the fact that if they, depending on your eventual ruling, if they are to be subpoenaed they need to be
given sufficient notice, and I just would, because I have instructions from the victims who are affected, to
raise with you now in the forum, the written application which we filed with the further motivation earlier
this week in regard to Brig. Victor, Brig. Schoon, Col. Louw, Gen. Buchner, Gen. Beukes, the former
Minister of Law and Order - Adriaan Vlok, the former Minister of Defence - Magnus Malan and the
former State President - P W Botha, to hear whether you have had an opportunity to consider the matter
and what your position is in regard to calling these witnesses. As I indicated and particularly with regard to
the Zero handgrenade case, where we in fact heard from General van der Merwe, who at the time was head
of the Security Police that he had taken up the matter with the then Commissioner Johan Coetzee, who in
turn had discussed the issue with the then Minister of Law and Order - Louis LeGrange - and he believed
that that had then been discussed with P W Botha. Now our clients are obviously keen to hear about that
chain of command and it is for that purpose, inter alia that we made the application and we would just like
you to give us an indication as to your views on the application.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Mr Currin, we reserved judgment I think on Monday, we reserved judgement and
obviously as soon as the
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 171 ADDRESS
judgement is at hand we will give it.
MR CURRIN: I am sorry, there must have then been an misunderstanding, I didn't understand that to be
the case, I was asked to make a written submission, which I did, and it hasn't really been discussed in an
open forum since then and my clients obviously were keen to hear what the situation is and it is for that
reason that I raised it, and I did raise it with Judge Mall this morning before the sitting began and said I
would raise it and he said it would be in order.
JUDGE MGOEPE: You circulated submission, written submissions to us, didn't you?
MR CURRIN: That is correct.
JUDGE MGOEPE: And we indicated that we would consider them and as soon as we have considered
them we would make a ruling.
MR CURRIN: That is correct.
JUDGE MGOEPE: But we are going to do that and as soon as we have reached a decision we will let you
know without delay.
MR CURRIN: I accept that.
JUDGE MALL: We understand the purpose for which you require these people to be subpoenaed, your
concern about the chain of command and how far it extends, there has been some evidence in that regard, I
have no doubt that when General van der Merwe comes, a great deal more light may be throw and
whatever difficulties there may be, a lot of them may be cleared up and we may have a better
understanding of this chain of command. There is likely perhaps to be other evidence as well apart from
General van der Merwe. The Committee would like to take its decision after it hears
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
172
that evidence because it does not want to rush into subpoenaing people to give evidence when a great deal
of that evidence may become clear through other witnesses. So Mr Currin I think that your clients, I have
no doubt you will advise your clients that due consideration will be given, but we would like to decide on
precisely who of these people should be subpoenaed if we feel that it is necessary to do so and then we will
let you know, but we would like to take that decision ultimately after we have heard evidence.
MR CURRIN: I accept that ruling, Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MALL: Thank you.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Mr Chairman I now sincerely hope that we are going to get started and hear evidence
in respect of a matter, which for that matter should have been heard on Monday. We hope that there is now
going to be progress and we hope that we are going to hear evidence.
ADV MPSHE: Thank you Sir. That will be so.
MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, at the risk of being out of order, and if I am so, please rule me so. I have now
heard for the first time of an application for apparently Section 29 for notices to be given to certain people
of which some are some of my clients, I am not certain how the Committee deals with such an application?
JUDGE MALL: The Committee will take into account the fact that these people have applied - a number
of them have themselves applied for amnesty - it is a factor that the Committee is going to take into
account.
MR VISSER: Yes. I was just wondering - we would have liked to have made some submissions but we
are obviously - we might be out of order you having reserved your judgement at this point in time. I just
wanted to place that on record
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VISSER 173 ADDRESS
that we were unaware, completely unaware of this application.
JUDGE MALL: Well, if you are unaware it is unfortunate that that was so but the Amnesty Committee
itself could not have warned your beforehand that this was going to happen. An application was made on
Monday and if you haven't a copy of that, you should get it from Mr Currin and study it, but my remarks
that I have made about when we will give our decision and so on, stands.
MR VISSER: Yes, I understand that, that is why I said I would probably be out of order, Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MALL: Thank you.
MR CURRIN: May I, just for the record, state that the surname is MORUDU, M-O-R-U-D-U, and not
Morudi as stated in the documentation.
SCHEEPERS MORUDU: (sworn duly states)
EXAMINATION BY MR CURRIN: Mr Morudu what is your date of birth?
MR MORUDU: 6th June 1969.
MR CURRIN: In what standard at school were you in when this incident occurred?
MR MORUDU: I was doing Std. 8.
JUDGE MALL: Was it Std. 8 or Form 8?
MR MORUDU: Std. 8.
MR CURRIN: Where were you at school?
MR MORUDU: Letlahbile High School.
MR CURRIN: Could you tell the Committee a little bit about your involvement in student affairs or
student politics?
MR MORUDU: In 1986 I was elected the Deputy Chairperson of the Mamelodi Students Congress.
MR CURRIN: I see. What were the activities of the Mamelodi PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 174 S MORUDU
Students' Congress, what was the nature of those activities?
MR MORUDU: The most aim was to get the students back to class and organise them and like fighting for
the things like free books for students.
MR CURRIN: Were you a member of any political organisation at that stage?
MR MORUDU: No.
MR CURRIN: You have heard evidence that you were involved in bombings, petrol bombings and other
acts of violence, what is your response to that evidence?
MR MORUDU: That is untrue. I was never involved in any violent acts.
MR CURRIN: I see. You have also heard evidence that you were severally tortured, the version of the
torture that you heard before the Committee, is that a correct version, would you like to add anything to
that?
MR MORUDU: What I would like to add on that is that they didn't use that shocking device of them on
my hands or my legs, it was used on my private parts.
MR CURRIN: Is there anything else that you would like to add with regard to the actual torture?
MR MORUDU: What I can just add is that these people before interrogating me they first started by
assaulting me severely without asking any questions.
MR CURRIN: Did they tell you what the purpose of the assault and interrogation was?
MR MORUDU: No.
MR CURRIN: What did they say to you during or after the torture?
MR MORUDU: What they told me to do was to write down the names of the members of my Executive
on a piece of paper.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 174 S MORUDU
MR CURRIN: Did you eventually do that?
MR MORUDU: Yes. I was under duress. I had to do it.
MR CURRIN: I see. Did they threaten you at all?
MR MORUDU: Yes, they threatened me, they swore at me and they were talking a lot of things to me.
MR CURRIN: What did they say when they threatened you, what did they threatened that they would do?
MR MORUDU: They threatened to kill me if I don't cooperate with them.
MR CURRIN: And you then became an informer?
MR MORUDU: That is correct.
MR CURRIN: How do you feel about that and what has that done to you as a person and to your life, will
you just share that with the Committee please.
MR MORUDU: This act ruined my life and I could not walk safe in the township and each and every
person suspected me of (...indistinct) and even today I knew that my conscience was clear, I wouldn't have
collaborated with them and they knew that for a fact when they interrogated me and that is why they
brought in Mr Mamasela to come and talk to me - whereby I even refused. And when one of them left the
office, Joe Mamasela told me in no uncertain terms that I am going to die if I don't work with them.
JUDGE MALL: Just repeat that, I didn't hear Mamasela told you what?
MR MORUDU: That van Vuuren and Hechter and together with him, they are going to kill me if I do not
work with them. That was their main intention if I do not work with them.
MR CURRIN: You probably heard the evidence of I think it was Warrant Officer Van Vuuren, he said
that if you did not work with them they probably would have killed you?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR MORUDU: Yes, I heard that.
MR CURRIN: How do you feel about amnesty?
MR MORUDU: In this matter which is - which they are asking for amnesty on this matter of which I am
involved, I would ask this Committee not to give them amnesty because they didn't even come to me
before they saw me on Monday and they didn't even make attempts of coming to me myself as a person
and ask for forgiveness.
MR CURRIN: This morning, were you not approached by one of the applicants?
MR MORUDU: This morning I was approached by van Vuuren and I think his approach came after Mr
Currin asked me whether he came to me yesterday or the day before yesterday and asked for forgiveness,
so I don't take that that I should first hear it from somebody then he should come and ask for it.
MR CURRIN: If we could maybe facilitate some discussion, some real sort of heart to heart discussion
between you and the perpetrators to help you deal with the matters, do you think it may help you?
MR MORUDU: No, at this stage no, I don't think it will help me.
MR CURRIN: Are you working at the moment?
MR MORUDU: Yes, I am working.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CURRIN
JUDGE MALL: What work do you do?
MR MORUDU: I am working at this moment.
JUDGE MALL: What work are you doing?
MR MORUDU: I am a clerk.
JUDGE MALL: You are a clerk?
MR MORUDU: Yes.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE MALL 176 S MORUDU
JUDGE MALL: Did you have to undergo medical treatment for the injuries that you suffered?
MR MORUDU: Yes. I underwent medical - my last operation was last October 31st.
JUDGE MALL: Where?
MR MORUDU: Medforum Hospital.
JUDGE MALL: For what was that?
MR MORUDU: According to that doctor they said my nose was -the bone which separates the two
nostrils was - went to the other side. I think it is as a result of them kicking me in my face.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Mr Morudu I think we need details, more details about what happened then at your
encounter with the applicants. I assume they came to you and picked you up?
MR MORUDU: Yes, they abducted me on the 17th May, it was around 7.00pm.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Ja, tell us about the abduction, start there, tell us what happened.
MR MORUDU: I was in Mamelodi East at a certain comrade of mine reading newspapers and when I
went home it was dark. It is an open veld. I noticed two Whites and two Blacks and they pulled out their
firearms and one of them shot and I was apprehended by one whom I realised as Hendrik Mokaba(?). And
from thereon my feet and my legs were chained and they drove me to the Security offices in Pretoria.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Did they tell you why they were taking you to Pretoria at that time?
MR MORUDU: No, they didn't tell me, they were sitting on top of me in fact inside in the kombi.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Did they identify themselves as the police or did they not?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE MGOEPE 177 S MORUDU
MR MORUDU: No, they didn't identify themselves.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Very well, then they drove with you to the Security offices in Pretoria?
MR MORUDU: That's correct, Mr Chairperson.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Yes.
MR MORUDU: From there they just started assaulting me and they were extremely happy when they
were busy assaulting me.
JUDGE MGOEPE: How did they assault you? I know it's a long time back, you may not be able to give us
an account, blow to blow as to what they did, but to the extent that you are able to remember how you were
assaulted, can you tell us how you were assaulted?
MR MORUDU: I was assaulted with fists, with open hands, kicked and they used a baton also to assault
me.
JUDGE MGOEPE: All of them, did all of them take part in the assault?
MR MORUDU: All of them took part in the assault but the person who assaulted me seriously and who
kicked me in the face is van Vuuren.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Did you bleed?
MR MORUDU: Yes.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Where?
MR MORUDU: From my nose.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Did you start bleeding on the way to offices already?
MR MORUDU: No, I started bleeding at their offices and my face was swollen, my hands, my feet and I
was denied medical attention.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Did you ask for it?
MR MORUDU: Yes.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Now you are at the office and you are
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE MGOEPE 177 S MORUDU
bleeding, you are swollen and then what happens then?
MR MORUDU: After giving me that page to write down names of the members of my Executive they
took me to Central Police Station where they couldn't detain me there because those cops there said I must
first get medical attention before that. Then from there they took me to Mamelodi Police Station where the
next day I was taken to Rust de Winter Police Station.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Rust de Winter?
MR MORUDU: Yes. Thereafter about some two months from there or a month, I can't remember very
well, they came with a guy, they introduced him as "Mike" ...(intervention)
JUDGE MGOEPE: Before they came with "Mike" as you saying that you were kept at Rust de Winter
Police Station for two months?
MR MORUDU: Yes, that is correct. Then another thing, they were giving me some white tablets, small
tablets and they said it will take off the way I was swollen, it will slow it and ...(intervention)
JUDGE MGOEPE: During the two months, did they come to interrogate you?
MR MORUDU: They never came to interrogate me while I was at Rust de Winter.
JUDGE MGOEPE: And then they came with this "Mike"?
MR MORUDU: Yes, whom I later realised that it was Joe Mamasela. And - there were three, van
Vuuren, Hechter and this "Mike" whom I realised as Mamasela - his face was covered and when one of
them left he told me in SeSotho that if I don't cooperate with them I am going to be killed.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Now, from that point on were you assaulted again or not?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE MGOEPE 178 S MORUDU
MR MORUDU: At that stage they didn't assault me anymore.
JUDGE MGOEPE: The medication that you received from whom did you get it?
MR MORUDU: I was given that by Hendrik Mokaba.
JUDGE MGOEPE: So from the time you were assaulted until, well say, the two months' period, you were
not seen by a doctor?
MR MORUDU: Yes, I was kept in solitary confinement, no I was not seen by any person.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Thank you.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Were you paid for - as if you were cooperating with them?
MR MORUDU: Yes, at times but at times we just signed that form and they will give you nothing.
JUDGE WILSON: They will give you?
MR MORUDU: Nothing.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Now, Mr Morudu, at
that time can you remember that there were a lot of riots and upheavals and political uprisings amongst the
Black people, can you remember that?
MR MORUDU: Not specifically during that time when I was arrested because members of the SADF
were in the townships.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Can you remember exactly which year this was?
MR MORUDU: Yes. In 1987.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Why was the South African Defence Force in the townships?
MR MORUDU: According to my knowledge they were brought in after a state of emergency.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Was there a state of emergency in existence at that time, can you remember?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 179 S MORUDU
MR MORUDU: Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Can you remember why there was a state of emergency?
MR MORUDU: It was because of the national unrest, the unrest nationally.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Because of the national unrest.
MR MORUDU: Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And was there unrest in your area?
MR MORUDU: There was sporadic acts of unrest, yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Can you remember what the reason for this unrest was?
MR MORUDU: I can't clearly remember that.
ADV DU PLESSIS: You can't remember?
MR MORUDU: Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: So, at that time, did you see acts of unrest at all in your career or in your life? Did you
experience any acts of unrest?
MR MORUDU: I only saw them on the television and so forth.
ADV DU PLESSIS: At that time in 1986/87 when you were in the township you don't know what the
unrest was about? Is that what you are testifying?
MR MORUDU: I said I can't remember. I didn't say I don't know.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Can't you remember?
MR MORUDU: Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: What the unrest was about?
MR MORUDU: Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: You also, if I understand you correctly, you can't remember why the South African
Defence Force was in the township except for the question of the unrest?
MR MORUDU: Yes.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 180 S MORUDU
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Morudu, at the school which you attended, did school go on in the normal way
throughout the time, 1986, 1987, 1985? Did you go to school every day?
MR MORUDU: We went to school but there were times when we stayed away from school for certain
reasons.
ADV DU PLESSIS: What were those reasons?
MR MORUDU: I can't remember them all, but one of them was when we wanted free books and so forth.
JUDGE MALL: I didn't hear that, you wanted what?
MR MORUDU: Free books.
JUDGE MALL: Thank you.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Was that the reason why you stayed away from school?
MR MORUDU: Some of the reasons.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Can you at all remember the other reasons?
MR MORUDU: No.
ADV DU PLESSIS: The other people in the schools, did they stay away?
MR MORUDU: Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Can you at all remember why they stayed away from school?
MR MORUDU: I said I can't remember some of those reasons.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Do you know if any schools in your area were burnt, ever?
MR MORUDU: Yes, I know that where I attended school in I think it was three years or two years before
I was abducted it was burnt.
ADV DU PLESSIS: What school was burnt?
MR MORUDU: (...indistinct)
ADV DU PLESSIS: Your school?
MR MORUDU: Yes.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 181 S MORUDU
ADV DU PLESSIS: Why was the school burnt, do you know?
MR MORUDU: I don't know.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Did you know at the time why your school was burnt, can you remember that?
MR MORUDU: No, in the morning when we went to school we found that section burnt.
ADV DU PLESSIS: You found the school burnt?
MR MORUDU: Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Were there other schools in the area that were burnt at that stage?
MR MORUDU: I can't remember.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Can you recall any other school that was burnt in your area?
MR MORUDU: No.
ADV DU PLESSIS: I am not sure, did I understand you correctly, you were not involved in any situations
where there were uprisings, crowds, etc?
MR CURRIN: He never said that, Mr Chairman, he said he was not involved in "bombings".
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, pardon Mr Chairman, perhaps I should ask questions to make sure.
Mr Morudu, were you ever present when people threw stones during that time?
MR MORUDU: No.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Were you ever present when cars were burnt?
MR MORUDU: No.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Were you ever present at any marches?
MR MORUDU: Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: How many?
MR MORUDU: I can't remember.
ADV DU PLESSIS: One or two or a lot?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 182 S MORUDU
MR MORUDU: There were a lot of marches, I can't remember.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Were you present at a lot of marches?
MR MORUDU: Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: What were these marches about?
MR MORUDU: In most cases it was for matters related to the school or schools in our township.
ADV DU PLESSIS: What matters?
MR MORUDU: Like what I have already stated, books and I said I can't remember some of the things at
that time.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Were you aware at that time who was in government, which political party was in
government?
MR MORUDU: I was aware, yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Which party was that?
MR MORUDU: The National Party.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Were you aware of any other political parties at that time?
MR MORUDU: Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Which ones?
MR MORUDU: The PFP.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Which other ones?
MR MORUDU: The Conservative Party.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes?
MR MORUDU: You mean parliamentary parties or what?
ADV DU PLESSIS: Well I am speaking of political parties in total, so I am referring to illegal as well as
legal political parties at that time.
MR MORUDU: Yes, I knew of the UDF also. I can't remember the others.
ADV DU PLESSIS: You just new of the UDF?
MR MORUDU: Yes, you asked me of any parties I knew and I gave you I think three or four, yes.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 182 S MORUDU
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes. Did you know of any other parties?
MR MORUDU: No.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Did you know what the UDF stood for, the letters UDF, did you know that?
MR MORUDU: No, I was not aware of it at that time.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Have you subsequently become aware of other parties that might have, other political
parties that might have been involved at that time, legal or illegal?
MR MORUDU: You mean now, am I aware of them now? Well, I now I am aware that the ANC was
there, I don't know whether it was a political party or a freedom party at all.
ADV DU PLESSIS: You have become aware of the ANC now?
MR MORUDU: Now I am aware that is why I say I can't distinguish between these other parties which I
have got and the ANC at that time.
ADV DU PLESSIS: When you were at these marches, what did you do?
MR MORUDU: We were singing and running and so forth.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Is that all you did?
MR MORUDU: Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: What were you singing?
MR MORUDU: We were singing a lot of - we were singing songs.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Which kind of songs?
MR MORUDU: I can't now say which kind, but there were a lot of songs like Nkosi Sikelele which we
sung at that time.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Do you know any of those songs still?
MR MORUDU: Yes, I know Nkosi Sikelele.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, and any of the other songs that you sang?
MR MORUDU: I can't remember them quite well now.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 183 S MORUDU
JUDGE MGOEPE: Sorry, did you sing so-called Freedom songs?
MR MORUDU: Yes, there were some, we sung them.
ADV DU PLESSIS: These Freedom songs you sang, what did they say, what did they mean?
MR MORUDU: You see, most of them are in Zulu and I don't understand Zulu.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Are there lots of Zulu's living in Mamelodi?
MR MORUDU: Well in my section they are "Peddies" living there, there are no Zulu's.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And where did these marches occur? Only in your section or where?
MR MORUDU: No. They were occurring in the township.
ADV DU PLESSIS: How did you know of the marches?
MR MORUDU: There were posters that were being posted in each and every corner of the township.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Why did you go to the marches?
MR MORUDU: I went to the marches because at that time each and every person was going to those
marches and I was a student leader. Where student demands were being there addressed, I was going to
those marches.
ADV DU PLESSIS: For what reason did you go to those marches?
MR MORUDU: As I have already said, as a student leader I had to attend those marches to see if the
things we want were being addressed and so forth.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Right, and you say you were a student leader?
MR MORUDU: Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Now, in respect of which organisations or to which organisations did you belong to?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 184 S MORUDU
MR MORUDU: Mamelodi Students Congress.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Now, this organisation, how many members did it have?
MR MORUDU: We didn't have registered members, but we had an Executive of about 10 people.
ADV DU PLESSIS: This Executive, were they all the same age as you?
MR MORUDU: Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Did they all live in Mamelodi?
MR MORUDU: Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Did they come from different parts of Mamelodi?
MR MORUDU: Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: How did it come that you were elected to this council?
MR MORUDU: I was elected to this council because I was the president of the students representative
council at my school.
ADV DU PLESSIS: How did you become president of the students representative council of your school?
MR MORUDU: I was elected by the students.
ADV DU PLESSIS: How did that election take place?
MR MORUDU: It took place at an assembly.
ADV DU PLESSIS: At an assembly?
MR MORUDU: Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: How did it come that you were elected?
JUDGE WILSON: I take it that people voted for him.
JUDGE MALL: Surely Mr du Plessis, do we have go into all these details at this stage?
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman I have a specific objective for this.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 185 S MORUDU
JUDGE MALL: Would you not put your particular question because we are going into minor details about
student organisations SRC's and so on?
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes Mr Chairman, but it is important to determine exactly what Mr Morudu's
position in Mamelodi amongst the youth was in relation to his evidence.
JUDGE MGOEPE: . . . (inaudible) ask him why he was elected, how did it come about?
ADV DU PLESSIS: I was coming to that, Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Yes, well then come to that one then.
ADV DU PLESSIS: As it pleases you. Now, Mr Morudu at that assembly, how were you elected?
MR MORUDU: Names were suggested and after that the election took place. That is how we were
elected.
ADV DU PLESSIS: What was discussed at that meeting?
MR MORUDU: About the election.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Mr Morudu why were you elected as president? Why did the students think that you
deserved the position of a president?
MR MORUDU: Maybe what I can think of at this stage is I was a prominent, I was an athlete at school, I
was in a debating committee and they said how good I can debate when we have our debates.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Are there any other reasons that might have made you think that you might be a
suitable person for the president other than the fact that you were a prominent athlete and good in debate?
MR MORUDU: I can't remember of any other thing.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Was it not because you had a political clout?
MR MORUDU: I don't think, I don't know how the way they perceived it, the students who elected me.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 186 S MORUDU
JUDGE MGOEPE: Did you think you had a political clout?
MR MORUDU: No. I didn't think of that at the time.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Were any political issues discussed when you were elected to this, to your school's
council?
MR MORUDU: We discussed only students matters at that time.
ADV DU PLESSIS: What were they?
MR MORUDU: Like the repairing of windows, corporal punishment and free stationery. Those are some
of the things I remember.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Was nothing discussed pertaining to the upheavals in the township, the fact that the
South African Defence Force was in the township, the UDF, anything of that nature?
MR MORUDU: No. We were only ...(intervention)
ADV DU PLESSIS: Nothing?
MR MORUDU: Nothing of that sort.
ADV DU PLESSIS: So the people at your school were totally disinterested in those kind of things?
MR MORUDU: We were only dealing with student matters at school.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And this Mamelodi Students Congress that you belonged to, what was that council's
function?
MR MORUDU: It was to coordinate all schools so that if there is a common demand so that it can be
raised at a highest level.
ADV DU PLESSIS: What issues were specifically discussed by you?
MR MORUDU: Common issues like stationery, books, free stationery book and corporal punishment, we
took those as common in all our schools.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Was this the only representative body of
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 186 S MORUDU
school students in Mamelodi at the time?
MR MORUDU: That is correct.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Was the presence of the South African Defence Force in the townships ever
discussed by that council?
MR MORUDU: I can't remember that one.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Was the UDF ever discussed at that council?
MR MORUDU: No.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Never?
MR MORUDU: Never.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Was anything pertaining to these marches you were involved in discussed at that
council?
MR MORUDU: Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: What was exactly discussed?
MR MORUDU: I am going to repeat that thing again. We were discussing things like - which were
common to all the schools - the nature of the things we were discussing about like stationery, books and so
forth as I have already said.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Was the ANC and riot - acts that happened during riots, burning of vehicles, other
school boycotts etc was that not discussed at those meetings of that council?
MR MORUDU: No, they were not discussed, but only school matters were discussed at that forum.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Did you belong to any other organisations?
MR MORUDU: No.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Now, Mr Morudu, that organisation, the Mamelodi Students Council, did that
students council belong to any other organisations?
MR MORUDU: No, we were not affiliated with any other organisations.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Morudu, I put to you that the Mamelodi
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 187 S MORUDU
Students Council was affiliated to COSAS - the Council of South African Students.
MR MORUDU: COSAS was banned at that time and we were not affiliated to it.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Do you deny what I am putting to you?
MR MORUDU: Yes, I deny it because COSAS was banned at that time.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Was what?
MR MORUDU: Banned.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Did you know anything of COSAS at that time?
MR MORUDU: Yes, I knew that COSAS was banned in 1985 - that is what I knew.
ADV DU PLESSIS: So Mr Morudu, do I understand your evidence correct, you were simply not involved
in politics at all?
MR MORUDU: I don't know if you are going to put it as student politics or what?
ADV DU PLESSIS: No, I am talking of normal politics, not student politics, normal politics, ANC, UDF,
apartheid whatever the issues were at that time?
MR MORUDU: Not at that time.
ADV DU PLESSIS: You were not concerned with those issues?
MR MORUDU: Not at that time, yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Not at that time.
MR MORUDU: Yes
ADV DU PLESSIS: Even though you were one of the ten student leaders in Mamelodi?
MR MORUDU: Yes, where I was concerned with student matters at the time.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And, do I understand you correctly the other people involved on this Mamelodi
Students Council, in
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 188 S MORUDU
respect of the council they were also not involved in politics at all?
MR MORUDU: I can't answer that one because I don't know after school I was (...indistinct) where their
position in the townships.
ADV DU PLESSIS: So, Mr Morudu, please then explain to us, why did four security policemen then
decide to interrogate you?
MR CURRIN: Mr Chairman, how is the witness supposed to explain why security police interrogated
him?
JUDGE MALL: He can say so. Yes, do you know why?
MR MORUDU: I don't know why they arrested me and I can only think that it was because of my student
leadership position.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Did they know you when they arrested you?
MR MORUDU: I don't know if they knew me at that time.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Did you know Hendrik Bokaba?
MR MORUDU: I didn't know him, I knew him after my arrest.
ADV DU PLESSIS: When they arrested you did they call you on your name or not?
MR MORUDU: No. They didn't call me on my name, they only fired a shot and the guy whom I was with
ran away and I was accosted there.
ADV DU PLESSIS: So, they might have accosted anybody else there in Mamelodi on that day, is that
what you are saying to us?
MR MORUDU: But according to what van Vuuren said yesterday, no.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, no, I am trying to find out from you, I am trying to find out in the light of your
evidence now before this Committee for what reason on earth Mr Morudu would four security policemen
accost you in Mamelodi?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 189 S MORUDU
JUDGE WILSON: Hasn't he answered that question when he said "I think it was because of my student
leadership position"?
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Chairman, he did answer it in that way....(tape ends) ...to arrest would you
say arrest you because you were a student leader, why?
MR MORUDU: I can't think of a reason now why they wanted to arrest me because of my position.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Because, Mr Morudu, you weren't involved in politics, so I have difficulty in
understanding, even if you were a student leader if you were not involved in politics, why the security
police would have been interested in you.
MR MORUDU: As I have already said, I can't know, maybe they got some information somewhere about
me, so I can't know their reasons for it.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Morudu, you heard the information which they have given and the evidence
which they have given before this Committee in respect of your involvement in student activities, school
boycotts and I can read from the application itself, "your involvement with petrol bombs, intimidation and
attacks on policemen's houses and your general involvement in politics".
MR MORUDU: They could have heard that about the petrol bombings, but I was never involved in any
violent acts as I have already said.
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Morudu, could you perhaps assist us, you were 23 years of age at that stage?
MR MORUDU: No, I was around 16 or 17 at that stage.
ADV DE JAGER: Weren't you born in 1963?
MR MORUDU: No. 1969 - 6 June.
ADV DE JAGER: '69.
MR MORUDU: Yes.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 190 S MORUDU
ADV DE JAGER: Sorry. Thank you for that, born in 1969. And as deputy chairperson of the whole
Mamelodi Congress, Students Congress, I presume you helped to organise the marches?
MR MORUDU: Yes, we organised the marches, some of the marches.
ADV DE JAGER: Did you walk at the front of the marches?
MR MORUDU: Yes.
ADV DE JAGER: Did you, the people carry placards or slogans?
MR MORUDU: Yes, placards were carried with our demands written on those boards.
ADV DE JAGER: Can you remember what those placards and slogans were?
MR MORUDU: It was things like "Away with corporal Punishment" and the "Demand for free
Stationery" and so on. I can't remember some of them very well now.
ADV DE JAGER: Weren't there even - nobody objected to apartheid at that stage - "Away with
Apartheid" for instance?
MR MORUDU: I can't remember everything which was written on those boxes.
ADV DE JAGER: Now when you were asked to be an informer, what did they tell you, what should you
inform them about?
MR MORUDU: About our meetings.
ADV DE JAGER: And did they pay you for the information sometimes that you have given them?
MR MORUDU: That is correct.
ADV DE JAGER: What sort of information did they pay you for?
MR MORUDU: Like things which we said at the meetings and so PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 191 S MORUDU
forth.
ADV DE JAGER: Were you paid for political information?
MR MORUDU: I was not for political organisations.
ADV DE JAGER: No, for political information concerning politics. Were you paid for that?
MR MORUDU: I don't understand when you say "politics" it is maybe when we attending and we talk
about our stationery and so forth, will that be classified as "politics" or not.
ADV DE JAGER: No, I think that may be related to politics, I won't say it is not politics but you know
today what "politics" is?
MR MORUDU: Yes.
ADV DE JAGER: Don't you know, politics in the general term concerning whose ruling the country and
who has got the vote and all those kind of things?
MR MORUDU: Yes.
ADV DE JAGER: Were you paid for any information of meetings dealing with those kinds of matters?
MR MORUDU: No, I didn't supply such information, because I didn't have it.
ADV DE JAGER: Were you asked whether you could supply such information?
MR MORUDU: I was, they at times forced me to give them such information but I denied such
information to them.
ADV DE JAGER: Ja, they forced you to supply, to give it, and then did you give it?
MR MORUDU: No.
ADV DE JAGER: Had you any information that you wouldn't give them about politics?
MR MORUDU: Yes, there was some information which I could supply at that time but I couldn't do it.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 191 S MORUDU
ADV DE JAGER: You wouldn't do it?
MR MORUDU: Yes.
ADV DE JAGER: So you were aware and you could differentiate about politics information and you
decided not to give it to them?
MR MORUDU: Yes, it can be like that.
ADV DE JAGER: Thank you.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Now, Mr Morudu, that kind of information that you are talking of, the information
that you did not provide to the security police, what kind of information was that?
MR MORUDU: Like the meetings other than student meetings which were to happen or to be held.
ADV DU PLESSIS: What meetings were those?
MR MORUDU: Of maybe like the Civic and so forth.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Sorry?
MR MORUDU: The Civic Organisation.
ADV DU PLESSIS: But why didn't you want to give information about the Civic Organisations to the
security police?
MR MORUDU: No, it was against my conscience.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Why?
MR MORUDU: It was against my conscience, I couldn't just give them that and as I have already stated I
didn't willingfully work with them, I was forced.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, but what I want to know is, the kind of information that you did not want to give
to the security police, you say it is meetings of the Civic Organisations. Why didn't you want to give
information about those meetings to the security police?
JUDGE MGOEPE: He says it was against his conscience because after all he was not willingly, he was
not willing, he was
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 192 S MORUDU
forced into being an informer.
ADV. DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Chairman. Why was it against your conscience then?
JUDGE MGOEPE: Because he was - he did not volunteer to cooperate with the police he was forced, that
is what he is saying. Is there any other reason other than you were forced to work with the police as to why
you did not give them information?
MR MORUDU: It was just I hated them at that time and especially of the bombing of my home when my
niece was killed.
JUDGE MGOEPE: We don't always get the answer we want by hammering the same question time and
again Mr du Plessis. JUDGE WILSON: When was the bombing of your home, before or after they
arrested and assaulted you?
MR MORUDU: Three months before they arrested me.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Now, Mr Chairman, may I go ahead?
JUDGE MALL: Yes Sir.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you. Mr Morudu, you say you were paid sometimes and you were
sometimes not paid?
MR MORUDU: Yes, that is correct.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Do you know why you were paid sometimes and not paid other times?
MR MORUDU: No, I didn't ask questions, they were very ruthless, even at that time, they would always
swear at you.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Now, I am going to put it to you, Mr Morudu, that the reason why you were paid
sometimes and sometimes not was that the security police only paid informers when they gave important
information to them. What do you say about that? Can you dispute that?
MR MORUDU: I don't have comment on that one.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 193 S MORUDU
ADV DU PLESSIS: You don't have any comment?
MR MORUDU: Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: The information that you gave to this security police, did you give correct
information or did you give them false information?
MR MORUDU: At times I gave them correct information and at times I gave them information which
came from Mamasela which he gave me and I wrote it with my handwriting and gave it to them.
ADV DU PLESSIS: This information that you gave to them, did it have anything to do with politics at all?
MR MORUDU: Yes, the one which Mamasela gave me, yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: You mean the information that you gave to Mamasela?
MR MORUDU: Which he gave to me.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Which he gave to you.
MR MORUDU: He gave to me to give to the White cops.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, now what I want to know is did you volunteer any information from you side
when you were an informer which was of a political nature at all?
MR MORUDU: I can't remember so well, but I was giving them information which I knew they can get
from anywhere.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Even if you gave them such information they came back for more, is that right?
MR MORUDU: Well, when they came back for more they were always swearing at me and trying to get
more.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And they paid you for information that they could get anywhere else. Is that right?
MR MORUDU: I said, sometimes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes. Now, when they paid you for information did you also give them information
which was
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 194 S MORUDU
just general knowledge and which they could get anywhere else? Is that what you are saying?
MR MORUDU: Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: How long were you an informer?
MR MORUDU: About two years.
ADV DU PLESSIS: They never found out that you were only giving them general information?
MR MORUDU: At times they found out that is why they were keeping on threatening me saying that I am
useless to them.
ADV DU PLESSIS: But did they come back to you for information again?
MR MORUDU: Yes, they were keeping on coming.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Do you know of anything that happened as a result of any information you gave to
the security police, any result of you giving such information?
MR MORUDU: No.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Do you know of anybody that was arrested because of giving such information?
MR MORUDU: No.
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Morudu, you said you were an informer for about two years?
MR MORUDU: Yes.
ADV DE JAGER: After leaving them, you hated them at that stage?
MR MORUDU: Yes.
ADV DE JAGER: Did you at then join any political party?
MR MORUDU: Yes, in 1990 I joined the ANC.
ADV DE JAGER: Did you tell them about these people and what they were doing?
MR MORUDU: I told some of them.
ADV DE JAGER: Did you tell them that they forced you to
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 195 S MORUDU
give information?
MR MORUDU: Yes.
ADV DE JAGER: And what information you in fact give them?
MR MORUDU: I gave them information about my organisation because, the Mamelodi Students
Congress, because I feel that they will get it from somebody and as they threatened to kill me, they would
eliminate me if I don't give them.
MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Morudu, did you not as members of the Mamelodi Students Congress put blame
onto the government of the day for the problems that you as students were facing?
MR MORUDU: Yes we did.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Morudu, you testified that you were kept at the Rust de Winter Police Station for
two months.
MR MORUDU: Yes, that is correct.
ADV DU PLESSIS: If we go through the registers, the police registers of that police station we will find
your name, probably there, isn't it?
MR MORUDU: I don't know whether they just put me in there or not, I don't know their procedure.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Right, because I put it to you that - because it wasn't put to Warrant Officer van
Vuuren he couldn't testify about that but I will request the Committee for him to testify about that now, I
put it to you that Warrant Officer van Vuuren will testify that you were not kept for two months at the Rust
de Winter police station and that you are lying.
ADV DE JAGER: Could you put to him when he was released and were was he kept?
ADV DU PLESSIS: I am going to, I am just waiting for a reaction. What do you say about that?
MR MORUDU: I will deny that because I myself was detained
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 195 S MORUDU
there, I can remember that.
ADV DU PLESSIS: You see, because Warrant Officer van Vuuren will testify that you were detained
afterwards for, he can't remember for how long, but for a maximum of a week at the Kameeldrift Police
Station.
MR MORUDU: On that one I can't say that he is correct, but I was at Rust de Winter, because I was
released in July, which would make it plus minus two months.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DU PLESSIS
JUDGE MGOEPE: Mr du Plessis, where is Kameeldrift, is it in the former KwaNdebele or something?
ADV DU PLESSIS: It is close to Pretoria, Mr Chairman, I am not just 100% sure, I can find out if you
just give me - Mr Chairman it's on the Moloto Road outside Pretoria, I also know now where it is, it's
on the way to Roodeplaat Dam.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Isn't it in the - I am not sure - I am just trying to find -
ADV DU PLESSIS: No, it is not Bophuthatswana area.
JUDGE MGOEPE: No, no, is it not in the area of Rust de Winter?
ADV. DU PLESSIS: No.
JUDGE MALL: Mr Currin any re-examination?
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR CURRIN: Thank you. Just on one point.
You were asked about political organisations that existed at that time and you named political organisations
that you were aware of, you never named the African National Congress, had you ever heard of that
organisation, at that stage?
MR MORUDU: Yes.
MR CURRIN: You had heard of it?
MR MORUDU: Yes.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 196 S MORUDU
MR CURRIN: Did you not name it as a political organisation for any reason?
MR MORUDU: As he said "parties" and I couldn't distinguish between political parties.
MR CURRIN: Sorry, yes, he spoke about political parties - is that correct?
MR MORUDU: Yes.
MR CURRIN: So you are saying that in your view the ANC was not a political party?
MR MORUDU: Yes.
MR CURRIN: Okay, thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CURRIN
JUDGE MALL: Mr Mpshe any questions from you?
ADV MPSHE: No questions Mr Chairman.
JUDGE WILSON: We were not told a word by the applicant about him being detained, were we? I have
been looking at my notes, the evidence given by Mr van Vuuren he merely said after the assault he became
an informant, not that we had to keep him locked up for a week?
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Chairman, the evidence was presented in terms of the application on that
basis, now what I would want to say to the Committee is that I raised this point, I did not deem that
evidence to be of a crucial nature pertaining to the application. Obviously if these aspects were put to my
clients when they testified that Mr Morudu was going to come and testify they would have volunteered to
have given that evidence. If the Committee should deem that information as important then, then I would
want to ask that Warrant Officer van Vuuren then be called as a witness so that he can testify about that
aspect.
JUDGE WILSON: You elected not to lead that evidence. You
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 197 ADDRESS
are leading your applicants who have to make a full disclosure, you chose not to. I am not asking him to
come and give evidence now.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, but Mr Chairman it has been disclosed to the Committee now and I will argue
that point, apart from the fact that ...(intervention)
JUDGE WILSON: You can argue what you like at the end, I merely asked you, it was not disclosed by
your witness, was it?
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, no it wasn't Mr Chairman.
COMMISSION ADJOURNS FOR TEA
ON RESUMPTION:
JUDGE MALL: Mr Mpshe?
ADV MPSHE: Thank you Mr Chairman.
MR VAN DER MERWE: Thank you Mr Chairman. I have been told by my learned colleague that we
will only commence with the Pepco Three tomorrow and in the circumstances I wish to be excused until 11
tomorrow morning if that will be in order?
JUDGE MALL: Yes you are excused.
MR VAN DER MERWE: Thank you Mr Chairman.
ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman we are on matter no. 1 on the 25th the killing of Zweli Nyanda and another.
Mr Brian Currin is appearing for the victims, Mr Chairman and I hand over to my learned friend, that is the
applicants.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman you will find ...(intervention)
ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman it would seem Mr Visser would like to say something first before we
proceed.
MR VISSER: Well Mr Chairman not really, I was just wondering whether from a practical point of view,
you shouldn't be informed when you go onto a new incident,
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV VISSER 198 ADDRESS
whether there had been Section 19(4) notices in that incident, because in the present case I would submit
that one can conveniently deal with the 19(4) notice, in this case it was directed to Brigadier Schoon, but I
am in your hands. I am going to sit and listen to the evidence anyway, but I just thought it might be
convenient for you to know beforehand what Brigadier Schoon is going to say?
JUDGE MALL: Mr Mpshe.
ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman I don't know how to respond to that one because if 19(4)'s have been served
and the legal representative is here, it is for him to indicate that we are here in these matters. Brigadier
Schoon has been served with a 19(4) as well as the other members who are implicated in this matter. I don't
know whether I should announce who all are being served in a particular matter, because the lawyers do
come in the morning and they meet the Committee, Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MALL: Well now, for present purposes in the Zwele matter...
ADV MPSHE: I will have to check my returns of service Mr Chairman then if the Chairman will give me
time.
JUDGE MALL: No, are the parties adequately represented now?
ADV MPSHE: Parties, Mr Chairperson is that ...(intervention)
JUDGE MALL: The interested parties, those implicated or likely to be implicated?
ADV MPSHE: Yes, Mr Chairperson, Advocate Visser is representing some of those who are implicated in
this matter Mr Chairman. If the Chairman could just give me a chance to go through my returns of service,
then I will tell who is there, but for what I know, Mr Schoon is a client of
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
199
attorney Wagenaar and Adv. Visser is here for Wagenaar and Schoon has been served.
JUDGE MALL: Yes.
ADV VISSER: That is correct Mr Chairman, that is correct, I think that's really the point. May I just say,
while my learned friend is scrambling his papers, we have prepared a short affidavit, it deals with three
incidents in which Brig. Schoon is implicated - the first one being the Zweli Nyanda and Keith McFadden
matter, I wonder whether I couldn't hand up to you Mr Chairman, the affidavit, the original is on top
thereof and there are copies for the other members of the Committee.
JUDGE MALL: Yes, please do hand them in.
ADV VISSER: Perhaps I could just, so that there are no secrets, perhaps I could just inform you what the
situation is in regard to the first matter.
You will notice the top one was the original Mr Chairman, you will notice Mr Chairman in
paragraph 2.1 that Brig. Schoon refers to application for amnesty by J Cronje and four others and then over
the page he lists the incidents in paragraph 2.2 in which he is implicated by way of the 19(4) notices and
then pertinent to this particular matter which you are about to deal with now, he deals with in paragraph 3
and perhaps I should read it into the record Mr Chairman then it is there, unless you have other directions
in this regard, perhaps you just wish to read it yourself?
JUDGE MALL: Will you just read that into the record?
ADV VISSER: Yes, if I may, Mr Chairman. Paragraph 3.1 he says,
"In December 1996 an amnesty application was
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV VISSER 199 ADDRESS
launched for me before the Amnesty Committee where inter alia I deal with this relevant
incident. I confirm the correctness of my own role in this as described in the application
of Jack Cronje ...."
obviously referring to the written application Mr Chairman,
"... but I do not have any personal knowledge of how the operation was executed. As a
result I cannot be of much assistance to the Amnesty Committee in this regard and for
that reason my amnesty application on Page 58 does not contain much information".
So it is really a question of no contest at this time as matters stand on the papers, Mr Chairman.
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Visser, could I just get clarity on that, we know that these men have been murdered.
Brig. Cronje says he received instruction from Brig. Schoon and Gen. van Rensburg, I don't know if you
are representing Gen. Steenkamp I am sorry not Van Rensburg - to go and find out where Nyanda resided
and then to eliminate him. Was that an instruction to go and kill him?
ADV VISSER: Mr Chairman as I understand it, yes, and Brig. Schoon confirms it as being correct but I
am not representing Steenkamp.
ADV DE JAGER: We just want some clarity on the word "eliminate" because it gets used quite often and
sometimes I get the impression that not everyone is ad idem as to what it means.
ADV VISSER: I would be surprised if he said "eliminated" meant anything other than what we know it to
mean.
JUDGE MALL: Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairperson, may I be
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 200 BRIG CRONJE
permitted to call Brig. Cronje?
JUDGE MALL: Yes, please do.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman you will find this on Page 52.
JUDGE WILSON: Has General Steenkamp been given notice Mr Mpshe?
ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairperson, I will have to go through my file.
JUDGE MALL: Alright, go through your file and let us know. Let's proceed in the meanwhile. I am
sorry, where were you referring to?
ADV DU PLESSIS: Page 52 Mr Chairman.
JUDE MALL: Thank you.
ADV DU PLESSIS: May I be permitted to proceed?
JUDGE MALL: Just swear him in.
JAN HATTINGH CRONJE: (s.u.o.)
EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: Brigadier Cronje, this incident took place approximately
February 1983. Is that correct?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes, that is correct.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Where were you stationed at the time?
BRIG CRONJE: I was the Commanding Officer at Vlakplaas.
ADV DU PLESSIS: What was your rank at the time?
BRIG CRONJE: I was a full Colonel.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Very well. If you look at Page 53 of your application, could you explain to the
Committee, and I will stop you where I want to put any extra questions, could you explain exactly what
happened in this incident?
BRIG CRONJE: Zwele Nyanda was a prominent member of the ANC. He was the head of the ANC's
operations in Natal, at Natal Machinery. The Security Branch knew that he resided
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 201 BRIG CRONJE
in Swaziland.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Could I just stop you there please, Brigadier, we have just received a request from the
interpreters that when you read off your documents you please do it a bit slowly because they cannot keep
up with you, so if you could please just read out a bit slower.
After several acts of terrorism where civilians had been killed had been planned by him, what
kind of acts were those?
BRIG CRONJE: These were bomb explosions as far as I know inter alia?
ADV DU PLESSIS: Were there any limpet mine explosions in which he was involved?
BRIG CRONJE: I am not sure, but it is possible that there was a limpet mine explosion.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Brigadier could you explain to the Committee how the instruction came about and
where it came from?
BRIG CRONJE: Brigadier Schoon, who was my direct commanding officer at Vlakplaas at the time, gave
me such an instruction and also General Steenkamp who at that stage was the head of the Security Branch
in the Republic. The instruction was to go to Swaziland, establish where Nyanda resided, where he
operated from and then to eliminate him.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Could we proceed with the third paragraph.
BRIG CRONJE: The information was obtained from an informant. I would just like to correct - it was
dealt with by the Piet Retief branch that Nyanda was residing in a house outside of Manzini. The informant
provided us with the address. Captain Eugene de Kok, Warrant Officer Van Dyk, Constable Almond
Nofomela, Constable Geoff - it was Sigu(?)
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 202 BRIG CRONJE
and I went to Vlakplaas from the Oshoek Border Post. At the Oshoek Border Post, a warrant officer from
Piet Retief and a Warrant Officer Rohrig from Witbank proceeded with us to a hotel between Mbabane and
Manzini. At approximately 1.00am that morning we went to Manzini and we initially attacked the house
with stun grenades. All of us were involved. When we launched our attack lights were switched on inside
the house and I could see Nyanda moving, running from one room in the house to another and also running
down the passage. Someone shot him in his legs from outside, I cannot remember exactly who that was.
Thereafter he went into the bathroom where he locked the door. Someone else who was in the house, in the
bedroom, at that stage, jumped out of the window and ran away.
Almond Nofomela shot at the man and injured Geoff Besigu(?) in his ankle in the process. I shot
the door of the house open and when I kicked the door open there was a man in the kitchen who had just
come from the passage into the kitchen, he was wrapped in a blanket, he jumped up and ran down the
passage. Immediately I went after him and I kicked open the door of the bedroom he had fled into, the light
was on and I started shooting at the man. I killed him.
There was a woman hiding in the wardrobe, we left her there and did not injure her. Thereafter I
went out through the kitchen door again and I saw Nyanda trying to jump out of the bathroom window.
Eugene de Kok shot him with an AK47, he fell, got up and ran away. De Kok shot him in his back
whereafter he remained lying there.
We quickly searched the house and found documents containing plans to attack defence force
vehicles
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 202 BRIG CRONJE
transporting defence force staff. The attack was approximately 150m from a Swaziland Defence Force base
and we could not hang around there for too long, so the house was not searched thoroughly.
After the operation we went back to Oshoek and crossed the border near the border post back into
the Republic. Thereafter I contacted Brigadier Schoon and informed him that we had killed two persons.
The following morning De Kok and I drove to Pretoria where I handed the documents which we
had seized to General Steenkamp. Before I left I had arranged that Geoff Besigu be treated in the Ermelo
Hospital. Thereafter I was merited with an award for outstanding service and also De Kok, Van Dyk,
Pienaar and Rohrig. Geoff Besigu and Nofamela were both promoted to the ranks of sergeant as well as Joe
Mamasela. Mamasela played a big role in the preliminary investigation into Nyanda but he was not
there that night and for this reason he was also promoted. The medals which were awarded to me were
handed over by the ex-Minister of police, Louis LeGrange.
When I entered the room where McFadden, the man whom I had shot, and I hadn't known at that
stage, I had no choice but to shoot at him. I did not know whether he was armed or not and whether he
would have shot me or not. The normal reaction in such a case is to shoot. We expected that everyone
should have been armed, everyone inside the house, and where such an attack was launched, there was no
time to ask the person whether or not they were armed first. I assumed that he was a member of the ANC -
that he assisted Nyanda and that he would probably have been armed.
This operation has to be seen in the light of the
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 203 BRIG CRONJE
unrest on the side of the Liberation Movements on the one side and the South African Government on the
other. There were many acts of terrorism at that time in Natal which increased from month to month.
Many of the attacks came from Swaziland and were planned by Nyanda. Nyanda, as far as I can
remember, was responsible for the death of several civilians in Natal at that stage, through his planning of
acts of terrorism. It was done in agreement with the government's revolutionary strategy to suppress the
liberation movements and to prevent the Republic of South Africa from being destabilised any further.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Very well, Brigadier. When you saw McFadden could you see whether he was armed
or not?
BRIG CRONJE: As I said he was wrapped in a blanket and I could not see what was in his hands under
the blanket.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Did you foresee that he could have been armed?
BRIG CRONJE: I expected that he would have been armed.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Was there any time for you to determine whether he was armed and if he was?
BRIG CRONJE: No, not at all.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Do you know today whether he was armed or not?
BRIG CRONJE: I do not know if he was armed, as I said, there were weapons found in the house, but
there was no time to search the property.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Was there a woman in the house?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes, there was a woman there, but it was our policy, so that where possible we did not
wage war against women and children, or at least I should say innocent women and children.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 204 BRIG CRONJE
JUDGE WILSON: Brigadier, you used the word "innocent" there, she was an innocent woman was she,
although she was in the same house and the same room as McFadden?
BRIG CRONJE: I didn't know her at all, Mr Chairman and I had to assume that she was innocent at the
time because I had never heard of her before.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Where was she Brigadier?
BRIG CRONJE: She was hiding in a wardrobe.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Did you know about McFadden before the time?
BRIG CRONJE: We did not know about McFadden. We knew that there was another man with the name
by "Cecil" who we knew was a trained terrorist, was also in the house, but Cecil is the one who jumped out
of the window.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Did you expect when you entered the house that there should be more than one
armed man in the house?
BRIG CRONJE: I knew that there would be at least two.
ADV DU PLESSIS: You expected there to have been at least two?
BRIG CRONJE: That is correct.
ADV DU PLESSIS: At the stage you shot at McFadden how many men did you see in the house?
BRIG CRONJE: There were only two. I would just like to mention that I, myself did not see Cecil
jumping out of the window because at that time I was at the kitchen door.
ADV DU PLESSIS: When you shot at McFadden you were aware of two males and the woman, where
was she?
BRIG CRONJE: She was in the wardrobe.
ADV DU PLESSIS: In the room where McFadden was shot, was she armed?
BRIG CRONJE: No.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 205 BRIG CRONJE
ADV DU PLESSIS: When you shot at McFadden, did you think that he was the other male whom you had
information about?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes, I was under that impression.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Now, Brigadier could we go to Page 58 where reference is made to the political
objective and the general justification which we have had from all the applicants is contained in this,
namely intimidation and protection of information and combatting acts of terrorism. Do you confirm the
information from page 58 to page 62? That is the justification.
BRIG CRONJE: Yes, I confirm it as such.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Could you go to page 63 or rather page 62. Could you just read from the bottom
paragraph to the Committee.
BRIG CRONJE: "All the above lead to the fact that the National Party remained in power and that
communism was combatted successfully. These actions, the objective of these
actions was to combat the ANC and other strong liberation movements who
were waging a revolutionary battle against the government and to destabilise
them. The objective was so that Nyanda, who a trained terrorist and who was
the head of the ANC operations in Swaziland, and who had been the cause of
several acts of terrorism in Natal, be eliminated. McFadden was shot in the
course of this operation. The context in which this act took place was part of
the Republic of South Africa's battle against the liberation movements who
were responsible at the time for political unrest
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 205 BRIG CRONJE
and unrest throughout the country and in order to destabilise the government".
ADV DU PLESSIS: Brigadier could you please just read the last paragraph on Page 63.
BRIG CRONJE: "The objective of the deed was directed at the ANC which was a liberation movement
which wanted to overthrow the government of the day".
ADV DU PLESSIS: Brigadier you say on page 64 that your direct command came from Brigadier Schoon
and General Steenkamp, is that correct?
BRIG CRONJE: That is correct Chairperson.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Do you confirm the rest is merely a repetition of evidence? Do you confirm the
contents of page 64?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes, I do.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Could you go to page 65. Did you receive any financial reward?
BRIG CRONJE: No. Not at all.
ADV DU PLESSIS: You merely received a medal?
BRIG CRONJE: That is correct.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Who awarded you with this medal?
BRIG CRONJE: Ex-Minister Louis LeGrange, he was the Minister of Police at the time.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DU PLESSIS
MR MPSHE: Mr Chairman may I, before I proceed in cross-examination, respond to the Committee
members question about serving notice, Mr Chairman, right now that in this matter all parties implicated
have been served except General Steenkamp and Geoffrey Besigu. And why they were not served is I did
not have the particulars where to contact them. I
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
206 BRIG CRONJE
have just perused the document that was given to this Committee on Monday by Advocate Visser. I have
noted there is a Steenkamp on their list but I don't know whether it is this Steenkamp mentioned herein Mr
Chairman, but all parties have been served and I have got returns of service. Thank you.
ADV VISSER: Mr Chairman I don't have the answer to that. I wasn't informed that the Steenkamp that is
implicated here is one of my clients, but I am not saying that he isn't. We are in early days still and we are
trying to sort out precisely what - who our clients are and what the situation is.
JUDGE MALL: Do you know whether you are representing General Steenkamp at this stage?
ADV VISSER: I am not sure whether this is the Steenkamp which is my client, certainly that doesn't
accord with my information at the moment. But may I say that I am going to ask a few questions and the
questions will relate to both Schoon and to anybody else that may have given an order so I don't foresee
with respect that any undue time would be wasted even if it is not my client.
JUDGE MALL: Mr Currin.
MR CURRIN: Thank you sir. We have instructions from the Nyanda family, I just want to mention that
they were here at the last hearing when we were in Johannesburg and we haven't been able to find them
here today or earlier in the week and they don't seem to be here, however, I just would like to place on
record that their instructions are to place on record that they are in favour of the amnesty process and that
they are in favour of reconciliation subject to full disclosure, and that is an area which they have instructed
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 207 BRIG CRONJE
me to ask questions and also subject to information obtained about the killing of McFadden which concerns
them as a family since he was a resident in the house at the time and the attack wasn't aimed at him. I just
put on record what the objective of my cross-examination objectives will be.
JUDGE MALL: Yes.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CURRIN: In your evidence Brigadier, you mentioned that you got
information from an informer and in your written document you stated that it was an informer in Piet Retief
and then you changed that in your evidence-in- chief. Please repeat that.
BRIG CRONJE: I changed it because it was not an informant who lived in Piet Retief, Mr Chairman, but
it was an informant who was dealt with by Warrant Officer Pienaar in Piet Retief and that is why he was
also involved in the operation.
MR CURRIN: His family, for no other reason other than full disclosure would like to know who the
informer was?
BRIG CRONJE: Mr Chairperson, I don't know who the informant was. I think Warrant Officer Pienaar
would possibly be able to answer that question.
MR CURRIN: Could I ask you to take steps to try and obtain that information.
BRIG CRONJE: I can do it, I undertake to do it.
MR CURRIN: Because it is important for the family in the context of reconciliation to have all the
information which they feel they need to deal with the process within themselves.
BRIG CRONJE: I understand that.
MR CURRIN: With regard to Keith McFadden, in your written submission, nowhere do you mention that
you sussed out the
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 208 BRIG CRONJE
house beforehand to find out how many people were in the house, then later you indicated that you had
information. Please explain what you found out about the house before you attacked? Shall I repeat the
question?
BRIG CRONJE: Please.
MR CURRIN: In your written application you make no reference to having sussed out the house before
you attacked to find out who was in the house, how many people were in the house, yet in your evidence-
in-chief you indicated that you had information that there was more than one male in the house, where did
you get that information from?
BRIG CRONJE: This information came from the same informant. We knew that Nyanda and Cecil
worked together and when we entered the house and I saw McFadden, when I entered the house and saw
McFadden I was under the impression that it could be Cecil.
MR CURRIN: Tell us about Cecil?
BRIG CRONJE: It was him who jumped out of the window and got away. I heard afterwards that it was a
man who worked with Nyanda. I can't remember his surname.
MR CURRIN: Was he a South African or a Swazi?
BRIG CRONJE: No. He was a South African.
JUDGE WILSON: Did he live in that house? Was your information that he lived in the same house as
Nyanda or as you have just told us that "they worked together"?
BRIG CRONJE: No, he worked together and he lived together in the house with Nyanda, Mr Chairman.
MR CURRIN: But in your evidence-in-chief, you said you didn't know who this person was that you were
chasing around the house, correct, you didn't know who he was, McFadden?
BRIG CRONJE: I didn't know that it was McFadden, I was
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 208 BRIG CRONJE
under the impression that it was Cecil.
MR CURRIN: Why didn't you say that in your evidence-in- chief?
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman he did.
MR CURRIN: Sorry, I must have misunderstood you. Okay, my apologies. Why did you assume that
this other person, who was a male was a guilty person, but yet another person in the house who happened
to be a female was innocent, I would just like to know the basis of those assumptions? And that the male
could be armed, but the female couldn't be armed.
JUDGE MALL: Is it because he had information that there were two people in the house, two men, who
were possibly the targets?
MR CURRIN: Possibly. Is that the answer?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes.
MR CURRIN: Thank you Mr Chairman. Have you found out subsequently who Keith McFadden was?
BRIG CRONJE: I later heard that he was also a member of the ANC who worked with Nyanda.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CURRIN
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairperson, excuse me, before Mr Visser starts cross-examining the witness, I
would like to make one point. I have read the Act, Mr Chairman, and the Act as we all know is a little bit
ambiguous, I do not have any problem with Mr Visser questioning my clients. What I, however, can
foresee is that in an incident where there are perhaps five or ten, maybe, persons implicated all represented
by lawyers that the applicants will then be cross-examined by a representative of each of them.
JUDGE MALL: What about dealing with the problem as it arises.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 209 ADDRESS
ADV DU PLESSIS: Well, Mr Chairman, with respect, the problem in principle is here now, the question
is if a person who is implicated and is represented at the hearings is entitled to subject the applicants to
cross-examination, I want to repeat we do not want to object to that, I am not objecting to that, all I am
asking is, I am asking a ruling of the Committee pertaining to this, Mr Chairman. I read Section 30 as
referring to a person that he should be afforded an opportunity to submit representations to the Commission
within a specified time with regard to the matter under consideration or to give evidence at a hearing of the
Commission. Now the fact that there is reference to giving evidence at a hearing of the Commission might
also include the right to cross-examination. I just cannot let this go by without raising the point because of
the fact that the Act is not clear on this.
ADV DE JAGER: The Act doesn't implicity authorise you to cross-examine.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Well, that is true, Mr Chairman, that is ...(intervention)
ADV DE JAGER: There is no explicit authorisation in the Act anywhere, it only states that we could limit
you in cross-examination.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, the Act also does not state specifically that Mr Currin has a right to cross-
examination. Now as I can recall this issue was dealt with in October when Mr Currin appeared and the
ruling was made in that regard and I accept that ruling. I am simply making this point because this is a
different situation than a representative representing the victims. It is a legal representative representing
somebody who has been implicated PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 210 ADDRESS
and I am just asking the Committee to make a ruling in this regard. I am not trying to be obstructive.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Mr Du Plessis, I have no doubt the Committee will make your ruling but speaking for
myself, I really don't see any difficulty about that, I can hardly imagine - take an extreme case, take a case
where a person is according to him, wrongly and falsely implicated and maybe he wasn't even there on that
day, and yet according to him nothing to do with the incident, you cannot seriously suggest that that person
couldn't have the right to cross-examine those people who say that he was involved? Now, I am just
making my point. That is the one, that is the extreme case.
ADV DU PLESSIS: I take the point.
JUDGE MGOEPE: I understand your difficulty with regards to, for example, a case and I myself would
remain curious to what extent Mr - without intimating that one would limit him, I would remain curious to
see to what extent a person who admits that he was there, is going to cross-examine the witness when that
person agrees entirely with the allegations. But that does not affect the fundamental question of the right to
cross-examine the person, it only affects the question of the reasonable limit to which that person would be
entitled to cross-examine. And I think we should maybe leave it at that point.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Chairman, in that regard I just want to make this clear, and that is the
procedure that Mr Visser is following is that he is providing us and the Committee with affidavits, either
admitting that what was said about his clients are true, or otherwise disputing certain aspects of the
applicants' evidence. Now if Mr
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 210 ADDRESS
Visser is allowed, in respect of a dispute, if we take that, because where they admit the correctness of the
applicants' evidence I don't have a problem. But if there is a dispute of one of his clients with the
applicants' evidence, if he is allowed to cross-examine an applicant it would mean that he could place his
client's version before this Committee by way of affidavit which would not give me the opportunity to
cross-examine that witness, but he can cross-examine the applicant on that version and put his witness'
version to the applicant without the applicant having the opportunity to do it vice versa. I haven't
considered that position yet, but that seems to me to lead to a direction where there might be prejudice for
the applicants, Mr Chairman, and I am raising that now although that hasn't occurred yet, but it is going to
occur. Tat situation is going to occur.
JUDGE MGOEPE: The point is important you're making because it may just happen that even though Mr
Visser's clients agree in broad terms they may not differ with your clients' version on an important aspect of
the matter, but that problem, let's see whether that kind of problem arises. Because the fact that he agrees
with, his clients agree with your clients' version does not mean that there may not be other things on which
he is not entitled to put questions because they may agree, he may agree but find it necessary to put a
slightly different complexion on the matter or emphasise in one or two other things and under those
circumstances he would be entitled to put questions.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman the only reason why I am raising the problem that is going to occur in
respect of disputes is the fact that, that it is intricately bound to the question, does Mr Visser have the right
to cross-
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 211 ADDRESS
examine.
JUDGE MALL: Yes, I think that this is a matter of some importance, it is a question of interpretation to
be placed on this Act, and I don't think that any of us can pretend that we have applied our minds in
interpreting every section or every phrase in the Act. There will come an appropriate time when we will
have to take a decision in this matter. Whether that appropriate time is now or at some stage in the future, is
a matter of which I have not made up my mind.
ADV DE JAGER: Mr du Plessis, a person who gave a command an instruction who is implied,
implicated in the matter certainly has a right you should be allowed to protect, now if he has a right, what is
your juridical objection against questions being posed?
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, yes, like I said, I am not trying to make the point that he does not have
the right, the point is that the Committee may limit cross-examination in terms of the Act and the point that
I am trying to make Mr Chair is that should Mr Visser in this instance be allowed to cross-examine will he
also be allowed to cross-examine in a case where his client has a dispute with one of the applicants?
Because the Committee has also made this decision. Should this happen, Mr Chair, the applicant or
applicants may be in the situation, problematic situation, where they will be confronted by an affidavit from
the side of Mr Visser's clients, if those persons aren't here, we cannot cross-examine them but he has the
right to cross-examine the applicants on exactly the same facts.
ADV DE JAGER: You will have the right also to cross-examine him should the facts be disputed, but we
are trying to limit matters and streamline the procedures and not to become too
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 212 ADDRESS
technical in the matter and we are trying to keep the process going and to complete it in everybody's
interest as quickly as possible.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Naturally, yes, Mr Chair, but I have to raise this point because I cannot simply let the
process, should it be contrary to the provisions of the Act, simply continue and should it later become
apparent and I don't foresee the problem now that it will be to the disadvantage of or the prejudice of my
clients, I can't turn around later and say that I have a problem, I have to put it on the table now.
JUDGE MALL: We accept the fact that you are placing this on record and my Committee is of the view
that for present purposes, at any rate at this stage, having seeing the kind of affidavit that has been
presented on behalf of his client, that if questions are asked, those questions may not go beyond what he
said in that affidavit. For present purposes we are going to allow that and I am going to appeal to Mr Visser
to confine, if he has any questions which are relevant, to confine them to what is contained in the affidavit.
JUDGE WILSON: Could I raise a further matter which I think there seems to be some misunderstanding
about. I understood Mr Visser to agree yesterday, I think when I put something to him, that if there was a
substantial dispute of fact, he would not be entitled to put up an affidavit from his client, he would have to
call his client to give evidence which appears to be the problem that Mr du Plessis is now contemplating
that a dispute of facts will arise on affidavit as I understood the position, it was agreed yesterday that would
not happen, that where there was to be
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 213 ADDRESS
a dispute of fact the witness, who was going to dispute the fact, would have to give evidence and you
would have the right to cross-examination.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman I am not sure that everybody understood it that way, if that is the case,
if that is the case then obviously I will be entitled to cross-examine any witness who contradicts any of the
applicants and I am totally happy. I won't have any problem.
MR VISSER: If I may respond very shortly. Commissioner Wilson is of course, quite correct, that was in
relation to paragraph 4 at page 3 of the written representation which we handed in. I am just beginning to
wonder whether one shouldn't perhaps give these documents some sort of identification, perhaps "W" for
Wagenaar 1, 2, 3 and 4. It may facilitate reference to these documents. May we mark this exhibit "W 1"
Mr Chairman?
JUDGE MALL: Well, I think we have a list of exhibits here and if we can, if it is possible for us to be
consistent we must give it the appropriate ...(intervention)
MR VISSER: Yes, yes, whatever number you wish to ....
JUDGE MALL: Yes, we will do that and as soon as I find it amongst the welter of these papers that are
before me.
MR VISSER: Yes. Well in that to-be-named "Annexure" Mr Chairman, page 3, paragraph 4
...(intervention)
JUDGE MALL: I think it is up to now, we have reached "Exhibit O" and I think this will be "Exhibit P".
MR VISSER: You are going to do it that way, Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MALL: Yes.
MR VISSER: Alright. The point being exactly as Commissioner Wilson pointed out.
JUDGE MALL: Yes, do carry on.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VISSER 213 ADDRESS
ADV DU PLESSIS: What we envisaged, Mr Chairman was were there are no serious dispute of fact but
obviously where there are, we suggested that we will have to make other arrangements.
MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, but in any event, my learned friends argument is ill-founded for two reasons.
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Visser, I think we have indicated that we will allow you to ask questions. If matters
arise that would give need for another ruling we will make the ruling we will protect your rights and we
will protect Mr du Plessis' rights.
JUDGE MALL: Yes, I think for the time being ...(intervention)
MR VISSER: I just want to warn the Committee about one thing, perhaps you were aware of it Mr
Chairman, there's been an Appellate Division decision exactly on this point, at page 39 of His Lordship,
Mr Justice Corbett's judgment in DU PREEZ and VAN RENSBURG v TRC.
JUDGE MALL: Yes. Will you ask your questions then.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman. Brigadier, I just want to hear
from you, how was this instruction issued by Schoon and Steenkamp, was it done by both of them at the
same time in an office, did the one issue the instruction and then the other, could tell us exactly how it
happened?
BRIG CRONJE: As far as I can remember Brigadier Schoon gave me the instruction in his office. I cannot
remember of General Steenkamp entered and if I later, was later summoned by him, but the instruction
came from both of them.
MR VISSER: The instruction from Schoon specifically, or let us say, from both of them, did they contain
detail such that PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VISSER 214 BRIG CRONJE
you should attack the house with stun grenades when you
were going to find Nyanda?
BRIG CRONJE: I was left to my own devices as far as the circumstances which I would encounter there.
MR VISSER: And you have already said that you knew nothing about McFadden prior to that, is that
correct?
BRIG CRONJE: That is correct.
MR VISSER: So, McFadden would not have come up in any of the discussions that you had had?
BRIG CRONJE: No.
MR VISSER: To just take it a bit further on what Mr Currin asked you, as far as McFadden is concerned
did you become aware after that of any evidence which indicated that he was a terrorist or a collaborator?
BRIG CRONJE: Later information was received that - I wouldn't say that he was a terrorist, but that he
was indeed a collaborator with Nyanda.
MR VISSER: Where did the information come from, could you tell us?
BRIG CRONJE: Mr Chairperson, I do not know. I cannot remember.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Do you know in which form this information came, was it verbal or was it by mean
of documentation?
BRIG CRONJE: I suspect that it would probably have been done in writing by an informant.
MR VISSER: Did you have any insight into the documentation which you people seized at the house
where Nyanda was found in Manzini? Did you go through the documentation yourself?
BRIG CRONJE: I went through it very briefly, Mr Chairperson.
MR VISSER: Was there any reference in that document made to PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VISSER 215 BRIG CRONJE
McFadden?
BRIG CRONJE: I do not believe that there was anything in there, as I said it was - it contained plans to
attack defence force staff buses.
MR VISSER: Mr Chairman that is all I wanted to ask. Thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER
JUDGE MALL: Any re-examination?
RE EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes Mr Chairman, thank you very much. Brigadier, the
instruction which was given to you, let us just go through it again, what was the information available to
you with regards to who could possibly have been in that house.
BRIG CRONJE: The information was that only Nyanda and Cecil were to be there. I can just explain
further that this investigation spanned over a long period of time and when we held observations on
Nyanda, when we followed him, he and Cecil were always together.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Brigadier, was anything said at the time of the instruction being issued about your
action in the case of anyone else being present?
BRIG CRONJE: Chairperson, not as far as I can remember, but as I said, I could not wait and still ask
McFadden "who are you?" and possibly die in the process myself.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Brigadier Schoon and Steenkamp were they informed about the death of McFadden
at the time?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes, they were.
ADV DU PLESSIS: What was their attitude at the time?
BRIG CRONJE: They accepted it.
ADV DU PLESSIS: During your training with regards to this type of operation, what did your training
entail, what was
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 216 BRIG CRONJE
expected of you during such operations where you did not know what to expect?
BRIG CRONJE: You had to shoot first and then ask questions later. Just to put it differently, you had no
chance to ask the person any questions, your training entailed the fact that where you were in a situation
where you knew that there were armed men or armed persons in a house, you would attack the house and
shoot without checking whether the person was armed or not.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Very well. Brigadier, the persons who you gave instruction to, were they also aware
of that approach?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes, I should think so.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And did they tell you before the time that you merely had instruction to eliminate
only two persons or was nothing said about that?
MR VISSER: That's not the evidence, The evidence was that there was an instruction to eliminate one
specific person, not two.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Very well, let me rephrase the question. The instruction which you had received with
regards to the elimination, was the instruction to eliminate Nyanda only or what?
BRIG CRONJE: Brigadier Schoon and Steenkamp were aware of the fact that this person, Cecil, was
working with Nyanda. It was contained in previous reports which were given to us so I could only assume
that they knew that I would not have left Cecil there because I would have expected him also to have been
armed.
JUDGE MALL: Does this person Cecil have any name, any other name?
BRIG CRONJE: He does Chairperson, but I have since
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE WILSON 216 BRIG CRONJE
forgotten that name. I cannot remember his surname.
JUDGE WILSON: The first question I have is for Mr Mpshe.
The woman in the house, has she been notified in any way? Has she been identified?
ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman the woman has not been notified because she has not been identified.
JUDGE WILSON: Has any attempt being made to identify her?
ADV MPSHE: The investigative unit has done that, they filed a report with me, Mr Chairman.
JUDGE WILSON: In the case of McFadden, has his family been notified?
ADV MPSHE: The same applies Mr Chairman.
JUDGE WILSON: What?
ADV MPSHE: That they have not been identified and notified Mr Chairman.
JUDGE WILSON: Well he has been identified positively.
ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairperson, I am referring to where to locate him, to locate the families thereof.
JUDGE WILSON: And presumably there was an inquest held by the Swaziland authorities?
ADV MPSHE: I may not know about the inquest in Swaziland, Mr Chairman.
JUDGE WILSON: Were inquiries made?
JUDGE MALL: It was ten years ago this happened.
ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman I am prepared to go and make available the report given to me by the
Investigative Unit as far as this incident is concerned Mr Chairman.
JUDGE WILSON: Because I ask these questions because it was put, I think, by Mr Currin that McFadden
was living in that house and I think that if he was living there, if he was known to have been living there by
people in the
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE WILSON 217 BRIG CRONJE
neighbourhood it is extremely relevant to the inquiry as to the attack on him that night.
ADV MPSHE: That is so.
JUDGE WILSON: We have no information, it is just that Mr Currin mentioned it. Is there information that
he was living in that house?
ADV MPSHE: I do not have that information. That was brought by Mr Currin.
JUDGE WILSON: Right, now, can you tell me Brigadier what you were armed with that night?
BRIG CRONJE: I was armed with an automatic 9 mm firearm Chairperson.
JUDGE WILSON: And how many times did you shoot Mr McFadden?
BRIG CRONJE: Mr Chairperson,I cannot say, with an automatic weapon it is difficult to determine but I
would never have emptied my entire magazine on him and then run the risk of having being without
ammunition.
JUDGE WILSON: Now I ask you this because you chased this man into a bedroom where the light was
on, he was wrapped in a blanket apparently, why did you kill him?
BRIG CRONJE: As I had already said Mr Chairperson, I did not know what he could have had under that
blanket, whether it was concealing a firearm or not. I could not have been sure.
JUDGE WILSON: You couldn't have been more than a few yards away from him, if that, could you, were
you?
BRIG CRONJE: I was standing in the doorway.
JUDGE WILSON: The bedroom door. Why didn't you shoot him through the shoulder or the leg, wound
him so you could ask questions? Why kill him?
BRIG CRONJE: Mr Chairperson, I have already said that I
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE WILSON 218 BRIG CRONJE
could not run the risk of injuring or missing him and then having him shoot me.
JUDGE WILSON: So what was at stake was your life against his and you had no choice but to kill him,
you didn't want to give him any chance, is that the position Brigadier?
BRIG CRONJE: That was my perception at the time that if I did not shoot he would shoot and I could
possibly have died.
JUDGE WILSON: You could have watched and seen whether he produced a gun from under the blanket
that was wrapped around him. You were in the dominant position, weren't you, standing, armed, ready to
shoot?
BRIG CRONJE: Chairperson I explained that I kicked the door open and started firing immediately, I did
not wait to see whether he had a firearm or not.
JUDGE WILSON: You didn't wait to see.
BRIG CRONJE: I was in as much danger if he had had a firearm and had shot at me. It would have been
my life and not his.
ADV DE JAGER: Brigadier do you know if Eugene de Kok was charged in connection with this incident?
BRIG CRONJE: No Chairperson, I do not believe that he was.
ADV DE JAGER: Was this not one of the charges which was brought against him.
BRIG CRONJE: No. I think that because it was in Swaziland he was not charged.
JUDGE MGOEPE: You testified of your own and tell me if I am wrong because I got the impression that
you said that because you had been told that Cecil was to be found in the house, you were under a
misconception that McFadden could have been Cecil and that is why you shot him?
BRIG CRONJE: That is correct and then I would have known
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE MGOEPE 219 BRIG CRONJE
the opposite that Cecil would have been armed.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Now, I am not so sure, at the end of the day whether you killed Mr McFadden because
you were worried that he might produce a firearm from underneath the blanket or you are saying that you
shot him because you thought you were killing Cecil? Or whether it is both reasons combined.
BRIG CRONJE: If I had found Cecil there I would definitely have shot him but I was not sure if it was
him and I was trying to prevent the fact that McFadden was Cecil.
JUDGE MGOEPE: But you did see somebody jump out of the window?
BRIG CRONJE: No Chairperson, I heard about that later.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Oh, 54.
"Thereafter he went into the bathroom and he locked himself in, somebody else who was
in the house jumped out of the window and ran away".
BRIG CRONJE: I could have put it like that, but as I said I was in the house at that time and I could not
see that window and I heard that from one of my people later.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Is that what you were told, that somebody jumped out of the window?
BRIG CRONJE: Ja, that is correct Chairperson.
JUDGE MGOEPE: I see. But I think I was under the wrong impression because it doesn't say that - you
don't say in your statement, you don't say that somebody told you so. But I will accept what you are telling
me that you got the information from somebody else.
BRIG CRONJE: Thank you Chairperson.
MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Cronje, when you obtained a report from the informers in Piet Retief, that Mr
Nyanda was staying with another person by the name of Cecil, did you make any
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MS KHAMPEPE 220 BRIG CRONJE
attempt to get in touch with both Brigadier Schoon and General Steenkamp to inform them that you have
now come into possession of other important information that another important and dangerous person was
staying in the house where Mr Nyanda was staying? Did you make any attempt to get in touch with your
superiors about that information?
BRIG CRONJE: As I said, Nyanda and Cecil were always together and my commanding officers knew
that so they could have assumed that Cecil could well have been there.
MS KHAMPEPE: But the instructions from Brigadier Schoon and General Steenkamp was to eliminate
Mr Nyanda and Mr Nyanda only?
BRIG CRONJE: I assume and I believe that they would also have given permission that Cecil also be
eliminated.
MS KHAMPEPE: Were there any difficulties you would have encountered in confirming those
assumptions with Brigadier Schoon and General Steenkamp?
BRIG CRONJE: Could you please repeat the question?
MS KHAMPEPE: Would it have been difficult for you to confirm your assumption that the instructions to
eliminate Mr Nyanda also would have applied to Mr Cecil? What would have been difficult for you to
confirm that with both Brigadier Schoon and General Steenkamp?
BRIG CRONJE: I believed that they would have granted permission anyway because Cecil was also a
trained terrorist who was assisting Nyanda in these operations so I did not expect them to object such a
thing.
MS KHAMPEPE: Are you saying then, Mr Cronje, that the information about Cecil was also the
information which was in the knowledge of both Brigadier Schoon and General Steenkamp, I thought that
was the information that you
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MS KHAMPEPE 220 BRIG CRONJE
obtained from the informers in Piet Retief?
BRIG CRONJE: No, no, no. Brigadier Schoon and General Steenkamp knew beforehand that Cecil was
working with Nyanda.
MS KHAMPEPE: Yet, Mr Cronje, they made no mention they gave no instructions that you should
eliminate Mr Cecil as well. Isn't that strange?
BRIG CRONJE: I believe that they would have issued that instruction Chairperson, I have no doubt about
that.
MS KHAMPEPE: If they had known about Mr Cecil, is that not a fact?
BRIG CRONJE: They knew about Cecil and that he was operating with Nyanda.
JUDGE MALL: The question was, why did they not give you instructions to eliminate Cecil if they knew
all this?
BRIG CRONJE: Chairperson, I can only say that if they had given me the instruction or had said that I
should eliminate Nyanda that it is possible that they could have said both. I believe they did say so to me
but I did not mention it like that.
JUDGE WILSON: Are you now changing your evidence and saying they did give you instructions to kill
Cecil? Is that what you have just said?
BRIG CRONJE: Chairperson, I am saying that they would have had no objection if I had eliminated Cecil
as well.
ADV DE JAGER: Brigadier there was no objection because they gave you a medal for what you had
done.
BRIG CRONJE: That is correct Chairperson, and they had no objection that night and the morning when I
filled them in.
ADV DE JAGER: So they knew what you had done and they knew that you had killed McFadden as well
and they gave you the
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 221 BRIG CRONJE
medal anyway?
BRIG CRONJE: That is correct Chairperson.
MR VISSER: Mr Chairman may I be permitted to place something on record here. The evidence which is
now been elicited, as you understand was not on the notice which Brigadier Schoon received. I can't
respond to it right now because I don't have any instructions on it. May, if necessary, it be raised again at a
later stage, Mr Chairman?
JUDGE MALL: Well Brigadier Schoon will give evidence at some stage.
MR VISSER: He will give evidence, yes. I don't think that you need that resolved in order for you to
consider the amnesty application, so it can conveniently be mentioned later.
JUDGE MALL: Yes. Thank you.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Brigadier, this Cecil was he a high profile activist?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes, he was Chairperson.
JUDGE MALL: No, he said he was a trained terrorist.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes. Brigadier did you and Brigadier Schoon and General Steenkamp know exactly
who was going to be in the house that night?
BRIG CRONJE: I do not believe that they would have known who were all in the house.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And the instruction was to eliminate Nyanda but if you had asked during the
discussion when you were receiving your instructions what happens if there are any other persons or any
other armed persons in the house what do you think the instruction would have been?
BRIG CRONJE: The same as the instruction with regards to
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 222 BRIG CRONJE
Nyanda.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Brigadier, would it have been normal for you to execute such an operation and to
foresee that you were only going to shoot one person or would it have been normal to foresee the fact that
you would possibly shoot other persons?
BRIG CRONJE: It would have been normal to foresee that there were possibly more persons who could
be shot.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Could you see whether McFadden was armed under the blanket or not?
BRIG CRONJE: No, I could not.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Did you expect that he would be armed?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes.
JUDGE WILSON: Should you not as any normal careful person who has a respect for life have taken
some steps to see who is in the house before you come to the conclusion that it is normal to foresee that
other people might be killed? Isn't it normal to take steps to find out who they are?
BRIG CRONJE: According to the informant it would only have been Nyanda and Cecil in the house and
our information was that Nyanda was renting that house for his own purposes, so I could not have foreseen
that McFadden would have been there.
JUDGE WILSON: You could have sent someone to look couldn't you? You were relying on information
you had been given at Piet Retief, you were now in Manzini, quite a way away.
BRIG CRONJE: This informant lived in Swaziland not far from this house and according to this informant
it was Nyanda and Cecil's house.
JUDGE WILSON: So you only discovered from the informant that it was Nyanda and Cecil's house? Is
that what you are
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 223 BRIG CRONJE
now saying?
BRIG CRONJE: That is correct, we did not know that there would be other people.
JUDGE MALL: Mr Mpshe are there any questions you wish to put.
ADV MPSHE: I do not have question, Mr Chairman, thank you.
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MPSHE
JUDGE MALL: Yes very well you are excused.
WITNESS EXCUSED
MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I wonder, could I ask one more question, perhaps it may solve the problem of
whether I am acting for Steenkamp or not. If I could just ask the Brigadier whether he can give us a
christian name of the Steenkamp that he is referring to?
JUDGE MALL: Certainly - clear that up.
MR VISSER: The General Steenkamp you refer to is it Francois Steenkamp?
BRIG CRONJE: No, it is Frans Steenkamp.
MR VISSER: Thank you Brigadier. The mystery deepens, I do appear for Frans Steenkamp but there is
no reference to this incident, Mr Chairman. I will have to follow it up.
JUDGE MALL: Very well. The Committee will adjourn and resume at 2.00pm.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
224
ON RESUMPTION
JUDGE MALL: Mr Mpshe.
ADV MPSHE: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman the next matter on our role is matter no 3, the
burning of Ezoso(?) House in Mamelodi. Mr Chairperson the applicants will be Van Vuuren and Hechter
if I am correct, Mr Chairperson? Van Vuuren Page 87, Hechter Page 302.
JUDGE MALL: Yes.
ADV. MPSHE: Mr Chairperson, before I hand over to my learned friend, I just want to put this on record
in as far as the victim is concerned. The victim is in this matter, Mr Chairperson, a Mr Dondsi Khumalo,
who is a Councellor in this Council, he knew about this matter since last year I have been in
communication with him. Today during lunch Mr Chairperson, I got him on the cellphone to check
whether he is on the way to the hearing and he indicated to me that he would not be able to attend the
hearing he has a meeting in Bloemfontein - actually he was on the way to Bloemfontein but he asked me to
put it on record that he does not oppose the application for Amnesty as done by the applicants and that
further to put on record that he did not sustain any injury whatsoever and further that actually the Izoso
House that was blown by the applicants is not his house, they blew a wrong Izoso house, his was the
neighbouring Izoso house, so he is not affected, thank you Mr Chairperson.
ADV. DE JAGER: What about the true victim then, whose house was blown? He suffered injuries not the
supposed victim?
ADV. MPSHE: That is true, I do not know who the true victims are and if I remember from the applicants
they stated clearly that nobody was injured save that the Izoso house was blown up and even with him, he
says it was not his Izoso House - and he does not know to whom did that one belong, it was in sort of a
Izoso Houses in a cluster form. Thank you.
JUDGE MALL: We will hear about it just now. Will somebody tell was what is a "Izoso House"?
MR VISSER: Mr Chairperson it is one of these pre-fabricated houses, manufactured of wood which one
can move easily from one place to the other - it can be assembled and disassembled from one place to the
other and it is 3m x 3m - the one that is involved in this matter - one can get different dimensions.
JUDGE MALL: Thank you.
ADV. MPSHE: Mr Chairperson, the reason why I gave this, I put this information on record is to indicate
to the Committee that this will then be one of the matters where only confirmation will be involved by the
applicants.
JUDGE MALL: I see. Very well.
ADV. DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairperson, I would beg leave to call Capt. Hechter first please.
225
ON RESUMPTION
JUDGE MALL: Mr Mpshe.
ADV MPSHE: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman the next matter on our role is matter no 3, the
burning of Zozo house in Mamelodi. Mr Chairperson the applicants will be Van Vuuren and Hechter if I
am correct, Mr Chairman Van Vuuren page 87, Hechter page 302.
JUDGE MALL: Just hold it, I'm sorry about this. Yes, what page.
ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman van Vuuren it will be page 87, the van Vuuren matter, page 87.
JUDGE MALL: Yes.
ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman before I hand over to my learned friend, I just want to put this on record
inasfar as the victim is concerned. The victim is in this matter is a Mr Dondsi Khumalo, who is a
Councillor in this Council, he knew about this matter since last year I have been in communication with
him. Today during lunch Mr Chairman I got him on the cellphone to check whether he was on the way to
the hearing and he indicated to me that he would not be able to attend the hearing he has a meeting in
Bloemfontein, actually he was on the way to Bloemfontein, but he asked me to put it on record that he does
not oppose the application for amnesty as done by the applicants. And further to put on record that he did
not sustain any injury whatsoever. And further that actually the Zozo house that was blown by the
applicants is not his house, they blew a wrong Zozo house, his was the neighbouring Zozo house, so he is
not affected. Thank you Mr Chairman.
ADV DE JAGER: But what about the true victim then, whose house was blown?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
225
ADV MPSHE: What about the?
ADV DE JAGER: What about the true victim whose house was blown, he suffered injuries not the
supposed victim?
ADV MPSHE: That is true, I do not know who the true victims are. And if I remember from the
applicants they stated clearly that nobody was injured save that the Zozo house was blown up and even
with him, he says it was not his Zozo house, and he does not know to whom did that one belong, it was in
sort of a Zozo houses in a cluster form. Thank you.
JUDGE MALL: We will hear about it just now. Will somebody tell us what is a "Zozo" house?
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairperson it is one of these prefabricated houses, manufactured of wood which
one can move easily from one place to the other. I can be assembled and disassembled from one place to
the other and it's 3m x 3m, the one that is involved in this matter.
JUDGE MALL: Thank you.
ADV DU PLESSIS: One can get different dimensions.
JUDGE MALL: Yes. Thank you.
ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman then the reason why I gave this, I put this information on record is to indicate
to the Committee that this will then be one of the matters where only confirmation will be involved by the
applicants.
JUDGE MALL: I see. Very well.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairperson, I would beg leave to call Capt Hechter first please.
ADV MPSHE: If it is Captain Hechter then it would be Page 302.
JACQUES HECHTER: (s.u.o.)
EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Hechter do you have the application in front of you?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 226 CAPT HECHTER
CAPT HECHTER: That is correct.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Do you affirm the information which is contained in Schedule 24, page 302 of the
application?
CAPT HECHTER: That is positively so, Mr Chair.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Hechter I would like to ask you one or two questions in this regard as far as
paragraph 1 is concerned. The two activists regarding whom you received information as to their being
asleep in this house, were they involved in serious crimes?
CAPT HECHTER: Yes, that is correct, Mr Chairperson.
ADV DU PLESSIS: How did you receive your information?
CAPT HECHTER: We at that stage only reacted to source reports and if the source reports indicated that
these persons were very active in intimidation, burnings, arson etc. then we decided to act on this.
ADV DU PLESSIS: If you page to page 310, will you please do so, there you mention upon whose
instructions you were reacting.
CAPT HECHTER: I will stick to that, it was the instruction of Brigadier Victor and Mr Villiers to control
the situation in Mamelodi.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Hechter, the political motivation which you find from page 306 onwards to
309, do these things agree with the political motivation which you have already testified to in broad terms
to this Commission?
CAPT HECHTER: Yes, that's correct.
ADV DU PLESSIS: With regard to information and dis-information and intimidation?
CAPT HECHTER: Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And also the more detailed information contained on 308 and 309?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 227 CAPT HECHTER
CAPT HECHTER: Yes, that is also correct, Mr Chairperson.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman I don't know if the Commission wants any further detailed
evidence. I don't think it's necessary.
JUDGE MALL: I just want to quickly look through some of it.
JUDGE WILSON: Can I mention one thing which might be of assistance to my colleagues. T this is one
of the items where there has been alteration and it is on page 23 of that file we were given of alterations.
The major difference is now amnesty is being asked for damage to property.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, yes, yes Mr Chairman. I don't seem to be able to find my list, but that is the
case.
JUDGE WILSON: It is on page 23 of the bundle.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, that would be correct.
ADV DE JAGER: Was there not an attempted murder?
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Chair that has already been contained in Schedule 24 of Captain Hechter's
application.
ADV DE JAGER: Not on the improved one?
ADV DU PLESSIS: No the improved schedules are just additions, it only contains additions so that which
had been applied for earlier remained in force, it is just in the schedule of "Additions and Alterations". I
am sorry if there is an understanding in this regard. You will notice that the Committee had asked me in
October with regard to certain transgressions in terms of specific Acts and that constitutes the core of the
alterations and this is set out in the schedule.
ADV DE JAGER: I am glad you told me because I thought the schedule was to replace what had been
stated.
ADV DU PLESSIS: No, I am sorry, that was a misunderstanding, I didn't express myself clearly. Mr Chair
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
228 CAPT HECHTER
otherwise my clients are going to be guilty of or going to be taken to task for several murders.
JUDGE MALL: Mr Mpshe have you any questions to ask?
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV MPSHE
JUDGE MALL: Very well. Captain Hechter you are excused and thank you.
WITNESS EXCUSED
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 229 W/O VAN VUUREN
ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, Warrant Officer Van Vuuren is also
applying for this incident and perhaps for the formality could I call him as witness?
JUDGE MALL: Yes, and you will refer us to the relevant pages of the papers.
ADV DU PLESSIS: 87, Mr Chairman, yes. Thank you.
PAUL VAN VUUREN: (s.u.o.)
ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Warrant Officer Van Vuuren, your Schedule 8,
page 87 contains the same incidents regarding which Captain Hechter has testified now, do you affirm the
correctness of your whole application?
W/O VAN VUUREN: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.
ADV DU PLESSIS: It is from page 87 to page 95, is that correct?
W/O VAN VUUREN: That is correct.
ADV DU PLESSIS: On page 95 you state upon whose instructions you were acting, whose were those
instructions?
W/O VAN VUUREN: It was in execution of a general order from Brigadier Victor and Brigadier Cronje.
ADV DU PLESSIS: But you acted in direct command of Captain Hechter?
W/O VAN VUUREN: Yes, that is correct, Mr Chairperson.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And you also confirm the political motive as set out from page 91 up to and including
page 94, is that correct?
W/O VAN VUUREN: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And do you also confirm the testimony of Captain Hechter with regard to the political
involvement of the persons who were present in the hut?
W/O VAN VUUREN: Yes, I do. That is correct, Mr Chairperson.
JUDGE MALL: Were they actually present in the hut?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 230 W/O VAN VUUREN
W/O VAN VUUREN: Could you please just ask the question again Mr Chair?
JUDGE MALL: Were people actually present in their hut.
W/O VAN VUUREN: I assumed so, Mr Chairperson.
ADV DU PLESSIS: When you went there that evening, did you know for sure that they would be in the
hut?
W/O VAN VUUREN: Well, yes, I had a strong suspicion that they were going to be there.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Was your information that they were there every night?
W/O VAN VUUREN: Yes, that is correct.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DU PLESSIS
JUDGE MALL: Mr Mpshe, any questions?
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV MPSHE
JUDGE WILSON: Isn't this the case when Captain Hechter came back he said, "anybody who was so
lucky, who had so much luck on their side, he'd rather leave alone"?
W/O VAN VUUREN: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.
JUDGE WILSON: The house had been blown down and they hadn't been hurt?
W/O VAN VUUREN: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.
JUDGE MALL: Just to refresh my memory, how was the house demolished, how was it blown down?
W/O VAN VUUREN: Captain Hechter and I one night went to the house, Captain Hechter carried the
self-constructed bomb, I knocked out the window with an AK47 and Captain Hechter threw the bomb into
the house, we turned around and ran away, Mr Chair.
JUDGE MALL: Thank you very much.
WITNESS EXCUSED
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
231
ADV MPSHE: That will be all Mr Chairman. That will then call for an adjournment to the following day,
Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MALL: Is there no other matter that we can dispose of?
ADV MPSHE: No, Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MALL: Counsel are aware of the fact that because this venue is required for a meeting by the
Council we are expected to vacate shortly and that is why we can't proceed for the rest of this afternoon.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Chairperson, we are aware of that, we thought that this matter would take a
little bit longer than it did, otherwise we might have been able to arrange for something else. Yes, but in
any event, any of the other matters would have had to stand over, and if they had to stand over there would
be General van der Merwe's evidence inbetween which we thought would not be appropriate.
JUDGE MALL: Yes, it would be inconvenient.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes.
JUDGE MALL: Can we resume again at 9.00 tomorrow morning.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, thank you Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MALL: Mr Mpshe, will you see to it that everybody that is involved will be available and ready to
proceed at 9.00am.
ADV MPSHE: That will be done, Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MALL: As I understand it, we will begin with Mr Van der Merwe, is it?
ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman it will be General van der Merwe and thereafter KwaNdebele Nine and
thereafter Pepco Three.
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Mpshe have you managed to receive any information about the identity of the
KwaNdebele Nine?
ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman I do not have it at hand but I had
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
231
a discussion this morning with a Dr Pretorius together with Mrs Antionette De Jager and they said to me
they could not do anything in this regard, but they will give me whatever they have done so far and I am of
the mind that they will be able to give me information tomorrow to table before the Committee. They said
they will also unsuccessful but they will give whatever they have done.
JUDGE MALL: Mr Mpshe, while you are about it, Annexure 8 to the post mortem report ...(intervention)
ADV MPSHE: Yes, Mr Chairman, as I indicated yesterday that I got the post mortem attached to the
report from the Investigative Unit.
JUDGE MALL: That's right.
ADV MPSHE: But it is not difficult for me to obtain that Annexure A, because the inquest was held at
Garankua, which is about 25 km from here, I have arranged for it to be brought.
JUDGE MALL: It's possible that it may very well be in the possession of the Attorney General's office.
ADV MPSHE: They may also be having that, Mr Chairman, I can obtain it.
JUDGE MALL: I think that if you just make a telephonic enquiry and find out, it might save some time.
ADV MPSHE: Thank you Mr Chairman, I will do that.
ADV DE JAGER: It might have been handed in at the De Kok trial.
JUDGE MALL: Yes.
ADV MPSHE: Yes, I think the Attorney General must be having that report of the inquest, but if they
don't it is available at the Magistrate's Offices.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Chairman, I was also told this
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
232
morning that it was part of the evidence in the De Kok trial, so it is ...(intervention)
JUDGE MALL: Evidence by - Mamasela?
ADV DU PLESSIS: Well, part of the State's evidence in the De Kok trial. So it might be part of the Court
record of that hearing.
JUDGE MALL: Yes, very well. If there is nothing that can usefully occupy us, we will adjourn and we
will resume at 9.00 o'clock tomorrow morning. Thank you.
COMMISSION ADJOURNS
TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION COMMISSION
AMNESTY HEARINGS
DATE: 27 FEBRUARY 1997 NAME: GENERAL VAN DER MERWE
HELD AT: PRETORIA
DAY 4
__________________________________________________________
JUDGE MALL: Are we ready, gentlemen?
ADV MPSHE: Thank you Mr Chairman.
Mr Chairman, it is 27th February 1997, continuation in the matter, Mr Chairman, as agreed
yesterday that we will first start with the evidence or questioning of General van der Merwe, he is herein
present Mr Chairman.
GENERAL JOHAN VAN DER MERWE: (sworn states)
JUDGE MALL: You gave evidence in this matter on a previous occasion and at the request of counsel,
further questioning of you was reserved and, you are here this morning to make yourself available to deal
with such questions as are relevant that are going to be put to you.
GEN V/D MERWE: I am at your disposal Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MALL: Mr Currin.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CURRIN: Thank you, Mr Chairman. General van der Merwe, you
will recall that during your evidence-in-chief a lot was said about so-called preemptive attacks, and these I
am referring particularly to the unlawful preemptive attacks that have been referred to by the applicants in
this particular matter. Would you please clarify for us what the SAP policy was in regard to preemptive
attacks by the security forces and if you are in a position to do so, whether you can tell us what the
government policy was with regard to preemptive attacks?
GEN V/D MERWE: I would just like to differentiate, Mr Chairman, between the internal and external
activities.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 233 GEN V/D MERWE
Firstly, as far as internal activities are concerned there was no policy either from the side of the government
or from the side of the police as far as preemptive attacks are concerned. Incidents which did occur,
occurred on an ad hoc basis against the background which I attempted to sketch to you, honourable
Chairman, taking into consideration all the facts which were relevant and all the considerations which
members had to operate under the circumstances.
As far as external activities were concerned there was also no policy. The government as far as
external activities were considered did this in terms of the international law and with the determined
circumstances at hand which had to be considered at that point. There was a general approach that we, as
far as threats in neighbouring countries were concerned, would act in order to combat potential threats and
where necessary persons who according to our information were ready to come into the country to come
and kill anyone, to commit any form of terrorism to eliminate such persons.
MR CURRIN: It would seem that from the evidence submitted by the applicants a perception existed in
their minds that there was a policy and a general instruction and a general authorisation to undertake
unlawful preemptive action. Do you have anything to say about that perception?
GEN V/D MERWE: Yes, Honourable Chairman. If a person bears in mind that for all practical purposes
we find ourselves in a war situation where members of particularly the South African Police, but the
Defence Force in general, were exposed to attacks and organisations such as the ANC policies were that
where they got the opportunity to shoot these persons or whichever other way they could, they could find to
eliminate these people.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 234 GEN V/D MERWE
Secondly, if you should look at certain ad hoc incidents where there was government permission
granted, in other cases where with the permission of higher authorities certain acts were performed or not
necessarily under the circumstances which prevailed at the time were not illegal, but at the time which is
now the question of amnesty, but I think to the ordinary person who had the privilege to be involved in
these discussions at a higher level and was exposed to political speeches and who had authority and who
created the impression that the enemy should be eliminated at all costs, it is possible that such an
impression could have been created.
MR CURRIN: Would that include divisional commissioners, for example we have heard from the
previous divisional commissioner of the Northern Transvaal that that was his perception, is he also a
"gewone man"?
GEN V/D MERWE: Yes, these are persons who were not necessarily directly involved in the State
Security Council and the different committees of the State Security Council and who at that level always
assumed how these things should be approached.
MR CURRIN: Are you then saying that that perception which existed in the minds of very, very senior
police officers, from your view was both understandable and justifiable?
GEN V/D MERWE: In the extraordinary circumstances which prevailed your Honourable Chairman, I say
yes.
MR CURRIN: Would you agree that the government, certainly the cabinet, the relevant Ministers played a
significant role in contributing towards that perception by not making strong statements against some of the
things which were in fact happening, and by some of the speeches which were made
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 235 GEN V/D MERWE
on television, radio etc.
GEN. V/D MERWE: Honourable Chairman, it is very difficult to generalise. You know when one applies
such a point of view to the whole government it is not necessarily applicable to all the members, but in
certain instances, the way I saw the circumstances, I would say yes.
MR CURRIN: If that is the case, and here we are talking about the perception to commit unlawful
preemptive assaults, attacks, would you agree with me that in contributing towards that perception or that
contribution towards that perception would be tantamount to implied authority?
GEN V/D MERWE: Honourable Chairman, I think that would be taking it a bit too far. One has to bear in
mind that persons who made these utterances and who occasionally were involved in certain incidents from
the side of the government, also saw it in the light that these particular incidents and I do not think it would
be appropriate or it would be fair to the previous government to generalise and to say that from their side
there was an indifferent approach and in that manner there was permission granted for these type of acts.
MR CURRIN: Are you therefore saying, do I understand you to be saying then, that in spite of the fact that
the perception was there and was partially as result of omissions or actions by government, when such
unlawful preemptive acts were committed by security force members, there was no authority to commit
them, either express or implied?
GEN V/D MERWE: What I mean by that is that the previous government chose to grant permission
silently without saying anything but if you are looking at the members who were
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 236 GEN V/D MERWE
involved and asking what their perception was, you would say that they obviously believed that they were
acting in the interests of the previous government. I do not think that one could put the two on the exact
same footing or have the same approach.
MR CURRIN: The difficulty I am grappling with and ...(intervention)
JUDGE MALL: When you say that the government gave permission silently, are you saying that after the
event the government approved of what was done, is that what you are tying to convey?
GEN. V/D MERWE: No, Mr Chairman. What I would like to concede here is that as a result of
statements which were made by members of the previous regime as result of certain limited incidents,
where members of the previous regime were involved, which are regarded as illegal under the present
circumstances and which amnesty is being applied for, to the ordinary man and when I refer to the
"ordinary man" I am referring to people who were not directly involved, a perception could have evolved
that the act which he committed bore the approval of the government, but not necessarily that the
government in some way or another came to know about it and silently approved of it or omitted,
deliberately omitted, to take any steps and in that way identified with that.
ADV DE JAGER: And if the government or a member of the government gives, awards a medal for an
incident or involvement in an incident, would you consider that to be approval?
GEN V/D MERWE: As far as I know, Honourable Chairman, it applies to external activities which I am
aware of, that
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 236 GEN V/D MERWE
goes without saying where, even where the previous government in some or other way was aware of the
actual circumstances it was not necessarily true that they approved of it.
MR CURRIN: I am still not absolutely sure of the answer to this question which I understand is a difficult
one because there was no policy.
JUDGE MALL: Well, are you merely dealing with perceptions, perceptions in whose mind? In the mind
of the perpetrators or in the mind of the victims?
MR CURRIN: Well, I am trying to establish whether or not there was authority, either implied or
expressed in regard to some of the Acts which were committed and I am having specific reference to the
provisions of the Act. One of the factors obviously which will be taken into consideration by your
Committee, Mr Chairman, is the question of authority, and clearly on behalf of the victims we need to
know whether the acts which were committed against the victims for whom we appear, did have the
authority.
JUDGE MALL: Now I understand that I am not clear in my mind whether your questions relate to
perceptions that may be in the minds of victims that so and so had authority or did not have authority. Or
perceptions in the minds of the perpetrators who believe that they may have had authority. If you clear that
up maybe we will make progress.
MR CURRIN: Yes, sure, okay. We are referring to the perceptions in the minds of the applicants, the
perpetrators. What we are trying to gather here, what I am trying to get on behalf of the victims is - and I
will deal specifically with the various cases in a short while, where a - let's take for example one particular
case, Sergeant
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 237 GEN V/D MERWE
Mutasi who was killed by security policemen as well as his wife, on information which was given to them
that he was giving information to the ANC. They took it upon themselves to murder, to kill him and his
wife. Can it be said in a situation like that, which is clearly a preemptive attack, preemptive unlawful
killing that they had authorisation to do that, and that you as the - well at that stage I think you were the
Commissioner at that stage, it was in 1989 or no, you were the Deputy Commissioner at that stage, whether
you in fact at least by implication authorised an act of that nature?
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I am sorry, may I come in here. The question was phrased by Mr
Currin from a specific point of view, evidence has not been lead in that matter. And I want to state here on
record that the applicants' version of the facts of what happened there differs slightly from what Mr Currin
stated to the General.
JUDGE MALL: I think you may formulate a question differently. So the evidence relating to Mutasi has
not yet been led and he may or may not be aware of that specific instance. Now you might be asking him
questions on matters ...(intervention)
MR CURRIN: I understand. Let's look for example then at the matter of the Nietverdiend attack on the
vehicle in which there were a number of young ANC activists. They were led to believe that they were to
be taken out for training. In a way, according to the evidence, one could say that a trap was set for
them.They gathered at a house, they were enticed into a kombi, into a vehicle, and they were driven out
towards the border and in Bophuthatswana they were killed preemptively, without having actually yet done
anything,
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 238 GEN V/D MERWE
committed any acts of violence. Could one say that they did that with the authorisation of the South African
Police force and the government of the day?
GEN V/D MERWE: Chairman, once again, and I have attempted to explain it as such, it depends on what
their perceptions were, in the mind of the person who was involved. Against the background of all the
circumstances which prevailed at the time certain Acts which did take place with the permission of the
government and also certain utterances which may have been made by members of the previous regime. I
would like to answer that by saying that if a person was to judge it objectively, then it definitely did not
bear that approval. If one was to look at it subjectively from the point of view of the person who
committed the act, my opinion would be that that person believed that in the light of other similar instances
could be regarded in a similar light that he was still busy acting within the permission, so there was implied
permission granted although there was not expressed permission granted.
MR CURRIN: Surely the question of authority, even if it is implied authority or ...(indistinct) authority,
doesn't depend on the mind of the perpetrator, doesn't it depend on the mind of the principle?
GEN V/D MERWE: Yes under normal circumstances. Here we were in a combat situation. I do not think
that one could consider dealings which happened under those circumstances as compared to what happened
under normal circumstances and also the reaction of persons under normal circumstances. But you are
correct, under normal circumstances it would obviously have been, it would have been like that, but here
were dealing with abnormal circumstances.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 238 GEN V/D MERWE
JUDGE WILSON: You talk about abnormal circumstances, are these what you have set out in your
submissions in paragraph 18, page 22? You refer to the prevailing circumstances, the lowering of the
morale of the community and the security forces and the belief that the enemy had to be destroyed no
matter what, and that this was aggravated to a great extent by speeches and pronouncements made by
certain people and the police who were emotionally involved, or the - sorry it's not - the security forces who
were emotionally involved were just not able to distinguish between what was normally justifiable and
what was not. That is the position you are talking about?
GEN V/D MERWE: That is correct, Mr Chairman. Thank you very much.
MR CURRIN: I understand your evidence then to be that to the extent that there may have been implied
authority, depending on the circumstances, there was certainly no general authority giving the security
police carte blanche to go out and to kill and to commit unlawful Acts according to a whim or a feeling at a
particular time?
GEN V/D MERWE: That is correct, Mr Chairman.
ADV DE JAGER: General, if a member of the previous regime were to say make a public statement to the
affect that the movements, let's say the - should eliminate the ANC or PAC, what did you understand by
that and what do you think the perception would be of ordinary members of the police?
GEN V/D MERWE: Mr Chairman, I myself was in a fortunate position where I had a liaison with the
members of the previous regime in the structures which determined the various actions, so I would have
had a better understanding, but I have no doubt in my mind that the ordinary person, and PRETORIA
HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 239 GEN V/D MERWE
by this I am referring to the lay-person who was not involved in this situation by that have understood that
action should be taken at all costs to combat illegal or violent acts on the regime, on the government of the
day.
MR CURRIN: What I am trying to now understand and maybe you can help me General, is in a way you
are saying that one has to take into consideration the subjective mind of the policemen at the time, the
perpetrator, the circumstances that prevailed, what had been said by politicians at around about that time,
and weigh up his actions in that context, there are many uncertainties around that as far as I am concerned.
Were there any implied guidelines, any criteria that you can possibly refer to which would help us to
understand when a security policeman in that situation is going beyond implied authority that there may
have been. Is there anything that you can help us to identify those sorts of guidelines that you think would
have been there by implication?
GEN V/D MERWE: Mr Chairman, definitely not. Over and above saying to you that in all circumstances
one was to consider what the exceptional approach would be of a certain member and what made him act
like that because as I said to you there was no policy. There was never any form of permission granted.
All I was trying to sketch to you was the factors which lead members to believe that certain things which
they did were in the interests of the structure of which they were serving.
MR CURRIN: I am going to move off that theme now and go onto another one. The unlawful attacks
that I have been referring to, very often after having committed an attack of that nature, we have heard
about bombings of - petrol
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 240 GEN V/D MERWE
bombings of houses which were committed by the security police and then the impression was created that
that attack was actually committed by the African National Congress or another liberation movement, was
it government policy or police policy to do that?
GEN V/D MERWE: Definitely not, Mr Chairman. As I have already explained there was no policy from
the police or the government.
MR CURRIN: Not in regard to the attack but in regard to creating the impression that in fact it was the
ANC that committed that particular attack?
GEN V/D MERWE: Definitely not, Mr Chairman, because in order to do that would have meant that
necessarily that the government or the authority had to have had knowledge of how those acts were to have
taken place and that was not the case.
MR CURRIN: I assume there is no record or information anywhere which would help us to know how
many of those attacks which were laid at the door of the liberation movement were actually committed by
the security forces?
GEN V/D MERWE: Mr Chairman, I think as the duties of this Committee proceed it would indeed be a
very good version. There are also attempts being made on our part to assist this Committee in that regard
and I think that as soon as it has been completed that there will be a very good indication to that affect.
ADV DE JAGER: General, just to try and clear up this point. You say that there was no such policy but
that you personally were involved in the Zero Handgrenade attacks. How do you explain your action if it
was not with the permission or under which circumstances would you be able to PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 240 GEN V/D MERWE
justify that?
GEN V/D MERWE: Mr Chairman here we spoke generally about general policy. I initially said that there
were certain acts which took place with the permission of the previous regime and that those very acts
contributed to the perception which existed in the minds of the workers with regards to such acts, but in
each case where there was such a doing we took all circumstances into consideration and we tried to
explain it as fully as possible to you why we did it that way.
MR CURRIN: Following up from that question, in your evidence, I think you referred to two incidents of
which you are aware, one is the Zero Handgrenade attack and the other was the attack on Zozo house,
which were both preemptive, unlawful attacks, as we are referring to them at the moment, are those the
only two specific cases of which you have knowledge?
GEN V/D MERWE: No, Mr Chairman, the only reason why I mentioned these two incidents to this
Committee was to give you a background around the perceptions which existed and to shed more light on
that, those are not the only two incidents there are more incidents in which I was involved.
MR CURRIN: And those other matters in which you were involved, and I don't want to get into this
because I know that you have yourself brought an amnesty application, and in fairness I appreciate that one
would want to, you would want to deal with your own amnesty application in your own time, but having
said that, may I assume that you will be referring to those other incidents when you bring your own
amnesty application?
GEN V/D MERWE: That is correct, Mr Chairman.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 241 GEN V/D MERWE
MR CURRIN: If the Committee would - I am not going to ask any more questions about that.
I would now like us to talk about the State Security Council and we would like as detailed
information as possible from you, on the workings of the State Security council, how it featured politically
and with regard to power and in regard to instructions and the whole question of instructions and line of
command from, for example, if one were to go down from a Divisional Commissioner to the
Commissioner to the Minister and then to the State Security Council, how that line of command actually
functioned and possibly fill us in on that? Thank you.
GEN V/D MERWE: Honourable Chairman, I am going to try my best but I would like to tell you from the
word go that the State Security Council with all its structures formed the concept of M-
dealings(?)(indelings)? and I am going to try and give it to you as briefly as possible where I was involved.
I might say to you that it may not be complete and it may not be completely correct because from time to
time there were many changes made to the structure, but to the best of my ability I will attempt to assist
you.
ADV DE JAGER: General, you refer to M-dealings (indelings)? to dissertations, could you just refer to an
authority in this regard?
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, perhaps I can help you there, I am in possession of Prof van der
Merwe's Doctorate thesis which is a document of approximately 300 pages when I was of the opinion that I
together with - I would deal with it with Captain van Jaarsveld and I have already given it to him and if the
Committee would like I would make it available to the Committee, Mr Chairman.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 242 GEN V/D MERWE
JUDGE MALL: I think that when you are preparing that if it is possible to prepare what is called an
"organogram" setting out the structures.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Chairman, we have various organograms in respect of various phases of the
period, so we are compiling that information, we will make it available to you.
JUDGE MALL: Thank you very much and I say that because it might avoid the necessity of calling a host
of other witnesses on that matter.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, that is why it was important to call Captain van Jaarsveld, he will be able to give
evidence about that whole issue.
JUDGE MALL: Thank you.
GEN V/D MERWE: Honourable Chairman, I am going to explain the dealings of the State Security
Council before 1990 because after 1990 there were certain changes and if you are interested in that, those
were merely technical changes, I might be able to inform you there as well.
Before 1990 the State Security Council was self-existent out of these the State President, the
Minister of Defence, the Minister previously of Police and thereafter of Law and Order, Minister of Justice,
Minister of Foreign Affairs and occasionally the Minister of Finance and the Minister of State Expenditure
would be there as the State President deemed necessary.
ADV DE JAGER: That was a bit fast as my colleague indicated, were there five permanent members?
GEN V/D MERWE: There was the State President, the Minister of Defence, Minister of Law and Order,
previously the Minister of Police, the Minister of Justice and the Minister PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 242 GEN V/D MERWE
of Foreign Affairs, they were permanent members and occasionally the Minister of Constitutional
Development, I don't know if he became a permanent member but he and the Minister of Finance
eventually were there and other members according to who the State President deemed necessary and also
the heads of the different departments.
The State Security Council in turn had a Secretariat. This Secretariat had various committees and
I think the committees whose dealings would be of interest to you and in whose dealings I would go into at
length would be the Strategic Committee which dealt with various incidents with regard to certain matters.
Then the Security Council had another committee, a Management Committee at divisional level where the
heads of the departments and heads of the Defence Force served. I would say the Divisional Heads and
other persons and it was further divided into branches with management centres where other members
served at a lower level.
The State Security Council itself determined policy as far as defence was concerned, took
decisions which were of National interest, which by way of the ministers involved and various departments
would be executed via those departments. The Executive - the system was under a Minister who also
reported directly to the Council from time to time and they served in a purely coordinational function.
There were also various departments who contributed to the security situation and in that way brought them
together and planned these things together and also would coordinate actions which were to take place.
But all instructions were done via the departments in their own systems. As far as the joint management
committee there was no authority to issue
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 243 GEN V/D MERWE
instructions, so it was merely coordinational. And when it came to policy and the execution of policy the
State Security Council, in the light of information which was received from all the other committees, would
determine the instruction and the policy and the department heads in their turn would execute these
instructions through the departments.
There was also the Coordinating Information Committee. The chairperson was also a permanent
member of the State Security Council. Previously it was Dr Neil Barnard and the coordinator was - the
coordinators consisted of the various of the heads of the various information committees which in those
days were the National Intelligence and Military Intelligence and Foreign Affairs who also had an
informatory role, and in their turn they would also contribute to what was submitted to the State Security
Council to consider and also determine policy and decide which steps should be taken in the interest of
National Security.
MR CURRIN: When you talk about taking a decision on policy and steps that need to be taken in the
interests of State Security, are you referring to, for example, a decision as to whether the emergency
regulations should be extended, is it that type of a policy decision?
GEN V/D MERWE: Ja, that is correct, Mr Chairman. Inter alia it included other aspects such as when
there was a specific area where there was unrest and it could overflow into other areas and cause a
nationwide unrest situation, then it would be such a situation where there had to be decisions taken.
MR CURRIN: Now, that's a general decision. What about specific issues? We have heard evidence, for
example, that Trivets which has been referred to fairly extensively, would PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 244 GEN V/D MERWE
have discussions they would identify targets, they would then implement action against a particular target,
but that those decisions to implement were done with the knowledge of the State Security Council because
there was a referral upwards through the Divisional Commissioner, through the Commissioner to the
Minister and then to the State Security Council, could you tell us whether that is in fact how it operated?
GEN V/D MERWE: Mr Chairman, I have already, in my evidence- in-chief testified about Trivets. It was
a Committee which was under the control of the Coordinating Information Committee and Trivets duty, I
would like to repeat that for your information, Trivets duty was, inter alia, to identify targets that were
threatening in surrounding areas and also work out ways of combatting such threats, and also where
necessary cross-border operations and necessary eliminations. And also within the country identify
potential threatening targets. I never understood it otherwise and I never received any other information but
thereafter within the law to combat such threat. Trivets did not report to the State Security Council directly
but by way of the Coordinating Information Committee, and the only incidents which I am aware about
where information was given by Trivets and where a decision was taken by the State Security Council was
about cross-border operations. But there were no other incidents which I can just remember off-hand
where the State Security Council, in the light of information which Trivets made available to the
coordinating Information Committee, took a decision.
MR CURRIN: And you are quite categorical when you say that any target identified within the borders of
South Africa by
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 245 GEN V/D MERWE
Trivets the only authority in regard to such a target would have been to act lawfully against such a target?
GEN V/D MERWE: That is correct, Mr Chairman, but at previous occasion I emphasised that due to the
fact that Trevits had to identify potential threats outside the country and by means of cross-border
operations and act against persons who were potential threats, it led to the confused or the misperception
that targets within the country were regarded in the same category as members outside the country and in
the past few months we encountered such perceptions. But in being, it was never the intention of Trevits
and indeed Trevits never operated in that manner.
MR CURRIN: If one takes for example the Nyanda attack which you are aware of, it is one of the
applications which has been submitted, the killing of Zwele Nyanda and Keith McFadden, an attack in
Swaziland, would that attack have been discussed at the level of the State Security Council before it was
implemented?
GEN V/D MERWE: Mr Chairman, it was possible but I do not know about it. I, myself cannot comment
on that.
MR CURRIN: So not all attacks that were exercised outside of the borders of the country would
necessarily have been discussed on the level of the State Security Council?
GEN V/D MERWE: Definitely not. There were acts committed without the necessary involvement or
without having approached the Security Council first, that was our approach to this matter.
MR CURRIN: We also heard evidence and you have testified to this and I just would like to get clarity
because I don't fully understand the evidence which you gave in-chief as to
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 245 GEN V/D MERWE
your position regarding joint projects between the SAP and the South African Defence Force. Was there an
official policy in regard to joint security projects, joint action to be taken by the SAP and the SADF or
wasn't there?
GEN V/D MERWE: Mr Chairman, It is actually a broad understanding. Let me say, our cooperation with
the Defence Force firstly took place where the coordination at management level and where certain
instances had to be decided upon where the Defence Force and the police were jointly going to work
together. I think you are referring to specific project. There was no policy as far as specific projects were
concerned but we operated on an ad hoc basis especially with other countries, but there was a policy in
general that we would act jointly and the general policy was that each force acts of its own accord, but
where it was on an ad hoc basis, they would act jointly. But there was no approach that that was the general
practice.
MR CURRIN: The last question which I would like to put to you for the victims, the victims want to know
whether the top structures, the State President, the State Security Council, Ministers involved in police
affairs in your instance, had knowledge and participated in giving instructions in matters where their loved
ones were killed. Now, I haven't been able to get that answer from you because we have only been able to
speak in general terms.
JUDGE MALL: Is the question related to whether specific Cabinet Ministers gave instructions to take part
in a specific act at a given time, is that what you are really saying?
MR CURRIN: That is what I am trying to establish, we haven't been able to get because of the generality
of the
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 246 GEN V/D MERWE
evidence which has been given, which I appreciate due to the circumstances at the time.
JUDGE MALL: I understand, but that is what you are really trying to get now?
MR CURRIN: Yes.
JUDGE MALL: The role of each, not each but Cabinet Ministers who were on the State Security Council
for example?
MR CURRIN: Precisely.
JUDGE MALL: Yes.
MR CURRIN: Was the Minister of Law and Order, for example, knowledgeable of acts that were being
committed by the Security Police? Was the State President aware of acts of violence which were being
committed, unlawful killings that were committed?
JUDGE MALL: No, not just was aware, it is not a question of who was aware, you are really interested in
whether he authorised?
MR CURRIN: Well, yes, either expressly or by implication if he was aware and they took no action or
they didn't reprimand, well then there would be at least implied authorisation. I understand that there was,
from the evidence, that there couldn't have been expressed authorisation, that is my understanding of the
evidence. Could we say that there was at least implied authorisation?
GEN V/D MERWE: Mr Chairman, once again I would like to emphasise I said apart from specific
incidents I have already testified about the Zero Handgrenade attack where I made a recommendation
which was approved by Minister Le Grange and in other words he was aware of that. It is very difficult for
me to speak about the other incidents because
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 247 GEN V/D MERWE
I cannot testify that the Ministers were involved or were aware of that, but I, myself did not inform them
and I am aware if they knew.
MR CURRIN: I want to ask you then just in regard to the matters where I am appearing on behalf of
victims whether you know as you do with the Zero Handgrenade as to whether or not there was such
information. The Ribiero killing?
GEN V/D MERWE: I do not have any knowledge. I also do not have any knowledge and I will tell you if
I do, I do not have any knowledge whatsoever.
MR CURRIN: There was, we have already heard the matter involving brutal torture, assault and then
killing of three activists, Maake, Makupe and Sefolo?
GEN V/D MERWE: I don't have no knowledge about that whatsoever, Mr Chairman.
MR CURRIN: Geoffrey Sibaya ...(intervention)
JUDGE MGOEPE: Sorry, Mr Currin I think the point which Mr Visser was trying to make is that, and I
have that difficulty, you've mentioned the Ribiero incident, you've made another one and the witness again
says "I have no knowledge", I don't know what it is that he doesn't know. I don't know whether the witness
is saying he has no knowledge or whether he is saying in terms of the long introduction that you made
before you came to specific incidents, whether the witness is saying "I don't know that the Minister or the
President knew"?
MR CURRIN: I think that is the question and I think that is what he is saying, that ...(intervention)
GEN V/D MERWE: It applies to both Mr Chairman. I don't know and I don't know if any of the Ministers
knew of it. Otherwise I would confirm it as such and I was not
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 247 GEN V/D MERWE
personally involved.
MR CURRIN: The focus of the question is whether there was the knowledge of the instruction going all
the way up, whether he knows whether there was such knowledge, as for example, with the Zero
Handgrenade case, where he knows that there was an instruction from the Commissioner and the Minister
knew. I am trying to establish whether that knowledge existed in any of these case, in his mind. Is that
clear?
JUDGE WILSON: What was the second one you mentioned?
MR CURRIN: The second one I mentioned was Maake, Makupe and Sefolo.
JUDGE WILSON: There wasn't one between Ribiero and that?
MR CURRIN: No. And then Geoffrey Sibiya?
GEN V/D MERWE: I don't know about it Mr Chairman, I don't even know if the Ministers or anyone else
knew about it.
MR CURRIN: The Nietverdiend matter?
GEN V/D MERWE: No knowledge, Mr Chairman. I don't have any information with regard to that.
MR CURRIN: The KwaNdebele Nine?
GEN V/D MERWE: No information, I don't know whether the Ministers know, I don't know.
MR CURRIN: And the killing of Sergeant Mutasi and his wife?
GEN V/D MERWE: No information, I don't know whether the Ministers know, knew anything about it.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CURRIN
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, before I go on with re-examination may I be afforded an opportunity
and before Mr Visser goes on with his questions, may I be afforded an opportunity for a short adjournment
if it would please you?
JUDGE MALL: We will grant you that opportunity - do you
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
248 GEN V/D MERWE
want that just now?
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Chairman, there are a few things I want to discuss with Mr Visser which I
haven't had the opportunity this morning.
JUDGE MALL: Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman.
MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I have only got one question which I wish to put to General van der Merwe.
JUDGE MALL: Yes.
MR VISSER: Perhaps it may be convenient for me to do so straight away?
JUDGE MALL: Yes, please do so.
MR VISSER: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: General, you have been referred to public comments or
speeches which would have been made by high officials in the government. My question to you with
reference to that is simply this. You as Commissioner of Police was told at a political platform - what you
were told at a political platform in a political speech was that how you understood your instructions or were
your instructions relayed to you in a different manner?
GEN V/D MERWE: Mr Chairman, obviously utterances made at a political platform as far as we, our
duty arrangements were concerned, did not impact on that but I think it was merely important to the
perceptions of the persons who heard that, but it had no influence in the course of our duties.
MR VISSER: And in your mind it also created no policy?
GEN V/D MERWE: No, not as far as we were concerned. As I said I was in the fortunate position where I
was in direct liaison with the policy-makers.
JUDGE MALL: We will take a short adjournment at this stage, PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
249 GEN V/D MERWE
you will call us as soon as you are ready.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, it will be short, Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MALL: Thank you.
COMMISSION ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION
JUDGE MALL: Mr Mpshe, are there any questions you would like to put.
NO EXAMINATION BY ADV MPSHE: No, Mr Chairman, there are no questions from me.
JUDGE WILSON: You have been asked about what knowledge the Ministers or the State Security
Council may have had of incidents that occurred, you said they wouldn't have had, as I understand, but
there were certain incidents that I think we all knew of that occurred in Lesotho, in Botswana and Maputo,
where it was accepted by everybody that the South African Armed Forces had been involved, now I take it
those would have been discussed by the State Security Council?
GEN V/D MERWE: Yes, that is correct, with cross-border attacks most of them were discussed by the
State Security Council and approved.
JUDGE MALL: Decisions taken by the State Security Council, you have described how they were
implemented by a Committee, a sub-Committee would implement its decisions, instructions to members of
the Security Force or to the Armed Force, who would give those instructions, Security Council decisions
instructions?
GEN V/D MERWE: It would have been by the departmental heads of each department after having being
conveyed to the members of his department, there were no other channels which were followed. The
decisions taken by the State Security Council were by the department head and the
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 250 GEN V/D MERWE
Minister involved, would be dealt with by the department and executed and where it affected other
departments and other Ministers, it would be conveyed by the State Security Council to the Minister
involved. The Committees had no authority over and above the State Security Council itself to issue any
instructions to any department or as far as it goes to act without or beyond the authorised guidelines.
JUDGE MALL: What would the role of the State President be in conveying instructions to anybody?
GEN V/D MERWE: Mr Chairman, the State President was the Chairman of the State Security Council,
but it was obvious where there were cases where the State President, during a visit or during a discussions
went beyond the ambient of the State Security Council, would issue certain instructions to persons present
there. The State President himself had the authority to instruct any Minister and that Minister in turn would
instruct the departments to execute such instruction.
JUDGE MALL: While you were Commissioner what was the Cabinet position of Mr Roelf Meyer?
GEN V/D MERWE: Mr Chairman, if I remember correctly he was first the Deputy Minister of
Constitutional Development and then he became the Minister. Since 1990 of course he also served on the
State Security Council.
ADV DE JAGER: Did you say that he was also Minister of Defence at some stage?
GEN V/D MERWE: He could have been Acting Minister, but I do not think that he was actually Minister.
He was Chairman of the GVS system, but you could be right, but I cannot confirm that.
JUDGE MALL: What system was it that you were talking about?
GEN V/D MERWE: Please repeat the question?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DE JAGER 251 GEN V/D MERWE
JUDGE MALL: Of what system?
GEN V/D MERWE: The General Management System.
ADV DE JAGER: General, I would just like to clear up several aspects on the report about which you
testified. You make mention of incidents where the police were victims and you also mention that in the
years, in those years, for a period of six years from 1973 to 1979 there were 76 to 90, 270 cases and in the
years 1991 and 1992, 385 cases. That was after negotiations had begun. In that year the ANC was
unbanned. To what do you attribute this escalation of attacks on police?
GEN V/D MERWE: Mr Chairman, we looked at several possibilities and one factor which played a very
important role was that the unrest situation in the country deteriorated drastically due to the fact that
different political parties had begun to form their power bases and this process led to clashes between
political parties and their supporters and that was what gave rise to escalating violence countrywide and
this process, in this process unfortunately, all the political parties and mainly the Black political parties took
a stance at the time because the police tried to remain neutral at the time, that the police were still the other
ones friend and the police became a target and because at the time we were from different political parties,
that is why the death rate and the murders of policemen, as far as we could determine, escalated like that.
The unrest situation also contributed to that because people moved around much easier under those
circumstances and they killed much more.
ADV DE JAGER: General, in that time you were also Commissioner of Police, if I remember correctly?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DE JAGER 251 GEN V/D MERWE
GEN V/D MERWE: That is correct, from January 1990.
ADV DE JAGER: And there was also something you mentioned in your report, an incident where 505
persons were killed by the necklace method. Were the police - and once again in how many incidents were
they successful in tracing the perpetrators in such cases and prosecuting them or what was the position?
GEN V/D MERWE: There was a very limited amount of incidents due to the fact the intimidation factor
played a great role. There simply wasn't anyone that was prepared to come forward under those
circumstances and testify against persons who were involved in necklacing. We considered witness
protection programmes, but at that stage it was utterly impossible to really protect witnesses due to the fact
that they - the exceptional situation which existed at the time, so we did not achieve much success in
tracing those offenders.
ADV DE JAGER: In some of these cases it was testified that people were no longer brought to a Court of
Law to be prosecuted, what was the reason for that?
GEN V/D MERWE: Mr Chairman, because especially in Black townships the justice system for the
persons living there it created problems. The fact that someone was arrested and shortly thereafter was set
free on bail led to many of the persons around that regarding it as nothing, sending a message out to these
persons that he was being exposed to the danger which existed yesterday and the day before and which he
was hoping would have been eliminated by the arrest of this person. Also because the courts brought
themselves to a standstill and it was very drastic and I think in many cases under those circumstances one
could say that it was
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DE JAGER 252 GEN V/D MERWE
more practical to act according to the opinion that justice should prevail and it also contributed to the fact
that our justice system which is based as you very well know - all the requirements of the criminal
procedure and what goes with that were not accepted very well.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Of course the picture that you have been giving in answer to the questions by
Advocate de Jager becomes even more complicated when one has to take into account the fact that the so-
called third force also came into the picture, played a major role with regards to the - to all these problems
that you have been describing. One cannot overlook that fact.
GEN V/D MERWE: Yes, Mr Chairman, the third force activity is a general term which is used with
regard to a specific incident which took place, although I would agree with you that it could also have
played a role.
JUDGE MALL: (...indistinct) re-examination, but I am not asking you to lead fresh evidence.
RE-EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Chairman, I am not going to lead fresh evidence.
ADV DE JAGER: Excuse me please, I would like to ask one more question which is bothering me.
When you say, and I think in your response you said that you did not know about it the Minister did not
know about it as far as you know. There were incidents, there was an incident let's take for example, the
Nietverdiend incident, how many persons died there, was it nine due to a bomb explosion? Surely
something like that was investigated by the police and it should have been reported back to the heads of
department, and also what the results of such an investigation were and who committed the offence or
whatever? Let us assume that they knew
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DE JAGER 253 GEN V/D MERWE
nothing about it beforehand, but you, as Commissioner, surely came to know about it thereafter and surely
you would have reported that to the Minister? What steps were taken in such cases where it was
determined, I don't know if you were able to determine how it happened, but if facts came to light as we
know was it repudiated in the Press or what was the position?
GEN V/D MERWE: Mr Chairman, I am not aware of any of these cases where the investigation or the
reports which were submitted thereafter reflected the circumstances as is coming to light now. But at the
time what was investigated was the deed without the high authorities which received the reports knowing
who was involved. In other words we would have dealt with it like any other incident of that nature and
there were many incidents of that nature. As we know in our country, in one year 16 to 17 000 persons
would be murdered, so violence in that regard was a common occurrence and it would have been dealt with
as such. If you were asking me whether there were specific incidents where we came to know about the
details of the circumstances, surely in the amnesty applications which would come before you there will be
such incidents but these incidents which are under discussion here as far as I know are not, were not dealt
with in that manner.
JUDGE MALL: Is it fair to say that this particular incident, Nietverdiend, was never itself reported to the
State Security Council?
GEN V/D MERWE: Quite correct, your Worship.
JUDGE MALL: And like that other single or specific incidents themselves would not reach the ears of the
State Security Council, is that what happened?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE MALL 253 GEN V/D MERWE
GEN V/D MERWE: That is quite correct, Your Worship, unless there were exceptional circumstances, but
the normal type of cases wouldn't have been reported to them.
JUDGE MALL: Now then, who is the highest authority to whom such a report would be made, for
example, this Nietverdiend incident?
GEN V/D MERWE: Mr Chairman, it would have depended on the circumstances. In most cases such
information would have been reported to the head of a division that would depend on the kind of act that
was reported, then that report would have become part of the general criminality reports and we have
submitted that to the Minister from time to time for his attention. We have also from him onwards went to
the Cabinet but we would never have individually reported these cases.
ADV DE JAGER: Just one further question regarding the cross-border action, did this answer apply to
Botswana actions as well, Transkei as well?
GEN V/D MERWE: Yes, in the case of Transkei, you would recall the case where Mr de Klerk himself
gave permission against APLA Forces, you recall their people being shot at that occasion, but not all cases
were approved by the State Security Council, but in some cases cross-border raids were approved by the
State Security Council.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Just to clear this up, do I understand you to be saying that with regard to Transkei,
Bophuthatswana or for that matter Venda for example or Ciskei, the approach was that they were treated as
much foreign as Swaziland, Lesotho, Uganda etc. I just want to clear that?
GEN V/D MERWE: Insofar as the State Security Council is concerned, yes Your Worship.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE MGOEPE 254 GEN V/D MERWE
JUDGE MGOEPE: Yes, and to that extent therefore the policy with regards to identification of targets,
elimination etc. inside Bophuthatswana, Ciskei, Venda and the like ...(intervention)
GEN V/D MERWE: Would have been the same.
JUDGE MGOEPE: It would have been the same?
GEN V/D MERWE: It would have been the same, yes.
JUDGE MALL: Was there a permanent Coordinating Committee between the South African Police and
the South African Defence Force?
GEN V/D MERWE: Yes, Chairman, it was the intervention of the joint management system done at all
levels countrywide but of course there was also the intervention of the Coordinating Information
Committee. As far as information was concerned we liaised with each other and also with the various
working committees of the State Security Council. So on a daily basis between the different, at different
levels there were times when the police and the defence force liaised with each other and planned the
workings were coordinated jointly.
JUDGE MALL: Thank you. Yes, Mr du Plessis.
RE-EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: (cont) Thank you, Mr Chairman. General you just gave
evidence with regards to the Security Acts and Legislation and the effectiveness of it. The evidence of the
applicants was that in certain instances they had to act against activists in the manner in which they did
outside of the parameters of the normal justice system due to the fact that the system, the Security System
itself, was not effective in combatting the liberation movement of the ANC and other movements. Would
you say that that was a contributing factor to the perception of the
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 255 GEN V/D MERWE
applicants and Brigadier Cronje who was the Commanding Officer and also other applicants in certain
instances that due to the fact that the Act itself was not affective enough that it was justified to act beyond
the parameters of the law?
GEN V/D MERWE: I have no doubt, Mr Chairman, that our justice system and the circumstances in
which we found ourselves which was a combat situation for all practical purposes was of such a nature that
one could not deal with it effectively. In my opinion if it was not for political gain, the riot actions if I
could put it that way, would be to declare a cross-justice system which would have been detrimental to our
country. But if you look at the situation which we had dealt with, to a limited extent you could refer to it as
a "civilian war" and the circumstances surrounding that were not enough to combat it effectively and that is
one of the reasons why at the end of 1989, Mr de Klerk decided to head in a new direction because there
was no other way to deal with the situation.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you General. You testified with regard to reporting of certain incidents, as I
understand your evidence you said that in most instances the - an incident would be reported to a head of
department and then it would have become part of the normal criminal report which would be given to the
State Security Council.
GEN V/D MERWE: From time to time the Minister would be informed of the crime situation. What I
would not like to pretend is that the State Security Council would have specifically paid attention to that
report.
ADV DU PLESSIS: What I am trying to determine is in how much detail the general crime report were
compiled. Would
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 256 GEN V/D MERWE
it for example in the Nietverdiend incident, I don't know if you know about it, it is the case where youths
were recruited for military training, loaded into a minibus and then eliminated. In such an incident would
the detail of such an operation be contained in that type of report or would a report be made with regards to
X-amount of terrorists?
GEN V/D MERWE: It would purely have been a report about X-amount of persons having been killed
under the certain circumstances nothing more.
ADV DU PLESSIS: General, just to add to that, where there were reports made by the applicants about
actions where they were involved, to their commanding officers and, where there was never any form of
repudiation, let us forget about the reports going higher up, would you say that it could have strengthened
the perception of the applicants that what they were busy doing was the kind of action which was, I won't
say it was approved, but which was implicitly accepted by the commanding officers and the authorities?
GEN V/D MERWE: If I understand your correctly, do you mean that all the facts as set out in the
Amnesty application now for the Commanding Officer?
ADV DU PLESSIS: What I am saying is that if there was a short report given with regards to the core of
what was happening?
GEN V/D MERWE: Surely you also mean the involvement of the applicant in that saying I was not
involved. Immediately that Commanding Officer would have become part of the act which had taken
place.
ADV DU PLESSIS: What I mean is, I am merely speaking about the perception of the applicant if no one
went back to the
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 256 GEN V/D MERWE
applicant with regard to this act would the applicants' perception then be deemed that the authorities
approved.
GEN V/D MERWE: Then it was no longer a perception, then it was a fact, if his Commanding Officer
knew about this act and did nothing about it then implicity the Commanding Officer agreed and then he
had all the reason in the world to believe that he bore the approval of his Commanding Officer, because the
Commanding Officer then granted his implied approval.
ADV DU PLESSIS: General, could you tell the Committee about your involvement at Vlakplaas. You
were never a Commanding Officer at Vlakplaas but could you just tell the Committee about your
involvement at Vlakplaas and how you were involved with Vlakplaas at Commanding Officer level.
GEN V/D MERWE: I think I have already testified about Vlakplaas, if you remember correctly where I
said that the Unit there was brought to a halt with the view to arresting persons there and rehabilitating
them - persons who had been arrested had to be rehabilitated and then I did try and assist in tracing persons
who were coming from the outside to commit acts of terrorism here and also use them as witnesses against
such persons in a court of law and there was no objective for that Unit, and what happened in the course of
time is that it developed due to the circumstances. I think I, myself was there twice at the most. I had no
liaison with them, but that is as far as my knowledge of Vlakplaas goes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: I was referring to the rank structure, were you ever Commanding Officer there?
GEN V/D MERWE: No.
ADV DU PLESSIS: I won't question you about that anymore. I
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 257 GEN V/D MERWE
would now like to come to an aspect which came to the fore in the application of the applicants, that is the
involvement of youths in the Liberation Movements. You knew about the ANC and the liberation
movements' methods, their tactics and their ideologies, can you briefly comment to this Committee about
your experience and your knowledge of the involvement of youths, and now I am referring to specifically
school children in acts of terrorism and also instigating boycotts and stone-throwing incidents and so forth
in areas where unrest was rife, especially in the '80's.
GEN V/D MERWE: Mr Chairman after the 1976 riots, which of course focused on the youth mainly,
there was a sharp increase in the involvement of youths in the struggle. Large amounts of youths went out
to receive military training and these youths became much more militant and the ANC also realised, mainly
the ANC, realised that this was an opportunity for a new approach because it was generally accepted that in
1976 it was the watershed as far as the liberation movement of the ANC was concerned. Thereafter, we
experienced the situation increasingly where youths were becoming involved in violence to such an extent
that during the State of Emergency in 1986 and 7 and thereafter we were obligated to detain large amounts
of youths who, not only participated in actions, boycotts and such in the townships but were also involved
in necklacing. And we had great problems with that because you can obliviously imagine how much
opposition there was to the fact that there were even persons as young as 13 whom we would detain, due to
the fact that their parents could not control them and they spiralled out of control under those
circumstances.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 258 GEN V/D MERWE
ADV DU PLESSIS: Very well General, I do not want to go into the commanding channels in too much
detail, but I would like to ask a question, the Sanhedrin that we heard about here, is it possible that the
Minister or Deputy Minister of Defence would occasionally attend meetings of the Sanhedrin and then
would issue instructions there as well?
GEN V/D MERWE: Did you say the Minister of Defence?
ADV DU PLESSIS: No the Minister of Police.
GEN V/D MERWE: Surely, it is possible that the Minister would attend from time to time by way of a
courtesy gesture but not on a regular basis,. It was possible that he could have made the input from time to
time, just shared ideas, but I cannot think of specific incidents but it could have happened during the course
of events.
ADV DU PLESSIS: General, in the South African Police itself with regards to training and normal day to
day activities, the normal policemen who were busy with the work and specifically policemen in the
Security Branch, were they aware of the revolutionary onslaught of the Liberation Movements, the
ideologies behind that and the objectives of the organisations? Before you answer that I would like to
show you a document. It is a document called "Die Strategy of the ANC" it is dated 15 March 1985. It was
compiled by the ...(intervention)
ADV DE JAGER: You put it very euphemistically by saying it is a "document"?
MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I have not been provided with a copy of this document which is now put to
my witness. I am just wondering whether there is a specific reason for that?
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, the specific reason is Mr Mpshe also hasn't got a copy, I apologise, I
haven't made
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 258 GEN V/D MERWE
enough copies, I had copies available.
JUDGE MALL: I would like us to have some limit within which we must proceed. I don't like the idea of
documents being handed in whenever it is convenient to counsel to do so. You are re-examining this
witness and I do not think it fair that at this stage you hand in a voluminous document, none of us have a
chance of knowing what it is all about and so on, with the result that this kind of questioning can just
snowball for ever and ever. I would like you to conclude your re-examination of this witness then apply for
permission to hand in documents and tell us why.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Chairman, the only reason why I am handing in this document now, is
because of the fact that I am not going to lead any evidence about this document except about where this
document comes from and how this document was compiled. The reason for this ...(intervention)
JUDGE MALL: Have you finished your re-examination?
ADV DU PLESSIS: I have finished the re-examination, Mr Chairman. May I then ask permission to deal
with the document? The only reason why I am doing this, Mr Chairman is I wanted to deal with this
document in argument, but I thought it prudent that this document be handed into the Committee at this
stage because it relates to a specific aspect that I want to ask the General about and that is the simple
reason, I am trying to assist the Committee, Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MALL: As experienced counsel you are aware of the limits of re-examination?
ADV DU PLESSIS: Right, Mr Chairman. I will then deal with the document in argument and I will
withdraw the document.
JUDGE MALL: Yes. If you have no further questions under
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 259 GEN V/D MERWE
re-examination ...(intervention)
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DU PLESSIS
JUDGE MALL: I would like to thank the witness for having made himself available - you want to ask
some questions, I am sorry.
JUDGE WILSON: Yes. I am sorry, there are two points that I would like to deal with General. The first is
Nietverdiend that you have been asked about and reports - as I understand this happened in
Bophuthatswana and was investigated by the Bophuthatswana police and that didn't fall under you?
GEN V/D MERWE: You are totally correct.
JUDGE WILSON: The second point is Vlakplaas. This was a most unusual station, wasn't it?
GEN V/D MERWE: That's correct.
JUDGE WILSON: It was as I understand it, an old farmhouse far away from anywhere that was taken
over for a specific Unit?
GEN V/D MERWE: That is correct, Sir.
JUDGE WILSON: They originally, I think you said, the purpose was to deal with persons who had
returned to this country to try to rehabilitate them to use, they were called ascaris and thereafter they started
being used to carry out more offensive activities. It seems to me that a policeman who was sent to
Vlakplaas and stationed there, might well have got the impression that they were a specific Unit formed to
carry out these specific anti-terrorist duties, that they were something out of the ordinary run of the police?
GEN V/D MERWE: Yes, that is correct, but you must keep in mind that they had a specific task, it was an
abnormal task. First of all people that were arrested were dealt with in
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 260 GEN V/D MERWE
covert action and their actions were abnormal that they had taken, that is the correct impression.
ADV DE JAGER: The Commissioner is asking, this Unit was used to exercise actions in Lesotho for
instance, on command?
GEN V/D MERWE: That is correct.
ADV DE JAGER: So they were actually the military wing of the police, can I put it like that?
GEN V/D MERWE: I wouldn't say the "War Wing" but they were used in an abnormal way.
ADV DE JAGER: Was that abnormal way to kill people?
GEN V/D MERWE: It was to do cross-border operations, it was never intended for them to act internally,
but they had to act where it was required to cross-border.
JUDGE WILSON: But we have heard evidence, as I recollect, of them being used internally, being
summonsed to various parts of the country, usually, admittedly, close to the borders?
GEN V/D MERWE: That is correct, but once again, not to eliminate people, they got specific tasks. There
were specific threats sometimes that they had to deal with because they had information and they had
special ways of doing that and dealing with it.
JUDGE WILSON: It seems to me, from what we have heard and from what we have heard from you, is
that it is easy to understand that persons stationed there might get a false impression of precisely what their
duties were?
GEN V/D MERWE: You are absolutely correct, Honourable member.
JUDGE WILSON: That they, having been sent to this odd place might believe they were wrongly perhaps
but they could
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE WILSON 261 GEN V/D MERWE
honestly believe they were there to carry out these functions?
GEN. V/D MERWE: That is correct.
JUDGE MALL: Who was the highest authority inasfar as Vlakplaas was concerned, who gave instructions
at Vlakplaas?
GEN V/D MERWE: Vlakplaas was under the command of the head of security police, not directly, they
had their own commander, but in terms of the command line, they were under the head of the Security
Branch and he was under the Commissioner so that was the normal command line in the case of Vlakplaas,
but because of the abnormal circumstances which they have operated the normal command line might not
have been, might not have applied like in normal cases - it would have been the case.
JUDGE MALL: So it would be the head of the Security Police basically?
GEN V/D MERWE: That is correct Your Worship. That is apart from their own Commander, they
obviously in all the cases there was a Commander in charge of the Vlakplaas Unit but he in terms would
have to report - he was under the command of the head of Security Police.
JUDGE MALL: Thank you.
JUDGE MGOEPE: General, with regard to the reports, the way the reports would be compiled from time
to time relating to specific incidents, for example, the killing of, or the elimination of some targets, I get the
impression that sometimes, if not always, the reports would not be detailed they would be in a crisp form,
for example, simply saying that 10 terrorists were eliminated at such and such a place and that kind of
report in that form, would be passed onto the next person etc. etc.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE MGOEPE 261 GEN V/D MERWE
GEN V/D MERWE: You are correct.
JUDGE MGOEPE: If that was the case, it seems to me that when we consider whether or not higher
authorities had given a tacit approval, we may have to bear in mind the fact that they might not have been
furnished with all the facts and details of the facts and circumstances under which a particular incident
occurred?
GEN V/D MERWE: Mr Chairman, we must be clear on this. They would have been supplied by
particulars on the specific incident. The information that you now have would not have been submitted to
them, that we must realise. They would have been noted on the number of people that were shot, under
certain circumstances, and what were the surrounding situations but details they would not have had before
then.
JUDGE MGOEPE: But the person who compiles the report decides what to put in and what not to put in?
GEN V/D MERWE: You are correct, but please bear in mind that, a person who was shot, that case would
have been reported in a normal fashion. The person now applying for Amnesty would not have personally
reported it, some other people on the scene might have reported it and the report would have been based on
what happened on the scene and what was investigated by police on the scene. So one must make a
distinction between members applying for Amnesty, whether they have reported it themselves, what is the
content thereof and whether on the other hand the person left the scene and the police then afterwards sent
someone there to investigate and that the facts then reported depended on exactly what was found on the
scene of the incident.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Nevertheless the person who compiles the report is the person who in the first
instance,
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE MGOEPE 262 GEN V/D MERWE
subjectively, as you said earlier on, believed that what he was doing was justified and he compiles the
report from that premises
GEN V/D MERWE: Not necessarily, I don't know whether that was the case at all, the reports that we
have here before us, it might be the case that people that were involved left the scene and to now create the
impression that there was an incident could be misleading. People that were killed, that case would have
been reported and the contents of such a report would have reflected what were the tasks of the people at
that point in time in terms of the law. Mention would not have been made of action out of the abnormal.
JUDGE MGOEPE: I am just concerned that it is highly inconceivable that the person who has in the first
instance subjectively believed that what he did was right would compile the report in such an objective
manner that room could be left for somebody else to come and say that the action was not justified.
GEN V/D MERWE: Yes, but we have to make a distinction. The person could have believed what he has
done did it in terms of his objectives to prevent the country being overthrown. I cannot think he would have
thought that what he was doing was justified, what I am saying he must have believed that what he was
doing was to save the country. You must read it against that background and therefore that he might have
felt that he was justified in his actions, although he exceeded his limits.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Now the Minister comes, one of the previous Ministers and he comes and gives
testimony here and he says "No, I deny giving permission, the reports I have, the reports submitted to me
did not give the full details". PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE MGOEPE 263 GEN V/D MERWE
(AFRIKAANS NOT TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH)
GEN V/D MERWE: Yes, you are correct, if that was the case that is the way he should have acted. There
were never reports that indicated what you now know to the previous Minister, he never had that
information. If the real information was available and we accepted then we would have been partially
responsible for it. There could have then been more information that we based our actions on.
ADV DE JAGER: In your case, the case of Swaziland there was some - a task given by Brigadier Schoon,
go and kill this person, the report would have been "we have done our duty"?
GEN V/D MERWE: That is correct.
ADV DE JAGER: We have also heard the term in your evidence, also other cases that there was a policy
of "need to know" you don't give more information that is than information required for the person that you
have passed it on to, do you know about that?
GEN V/D MERWE: Yes, that was policy in fact. That was general policy in terms of all information
services. Information is dealt with in a very restricted manner, so you only give information that that person
needs to know, that has always been the case. But remember there is another kind of information that is
necessary to provide to all people. Now you must remember the person in this case would, that has given
the command, would have received a report back and he would only have received information that he
required.
ADV DE JAGER: So the person who committed the murder he would not spread the word, he would only
give facts back to the person that has given the command?
GEN V/D MERWE: That is correct.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE WILSON 264 GEN V/D MERWE
JUDGE WILSON: As I understand from what you are saying, again this was completely different from
ordinary policing. There was no question of opening a docket, setting out what was done, anything of that
nature, it would usually be an oral instruction, they would carry out the operation and inform the person
who had instructed them that they had completed what they had been told to do and there would be no
written report made?
GEN V/D MERWE: Mr Chairman, in those cases where there was authority granted by a higher authority,
you are correct, no there would not have been a report. You are correct.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, may I put two further questions to the witness?
JUDGE MALL: Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you. It is really questions in elucidation about matters which I have forgotten
about.
General could you assist me, Commissioner De Jager asked me yesterday if in the police there was a
special meaning to the word "eliminate" or if the normal meaning of the word applied, in other words to
kill someone, could you assist us in that regard? If someone was to talk about "I received instruction to go
and eliminate someone" is there a special meaning to that in the police or does the normal meaning apply?
GEN V/D MERWE: No, the normal meaning applied, it would be to get rid of someone, to kill someone.
ADV DU PLESSIS: If someone were to testify about what happened at Vlakplaas and what took place
there was known to all the Generals in the police force, would that be a correct statement?
GEN V/D MERWE: Definitely not, Your Worship. As I have
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 264 GEN V/D MERWE
already testified with regards to certain incidents we would know, but as far as many other incidents are
concerned, like which are being placed before this Committee, we did not know about. What you are
saying is "all Generals" is a very broad statement, not all Generals would have known about it.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DU PLESSIS
JUDGE MALL: Thank you very much, you are excused from further attendance.
WITNESS EXCUSED
JUDGE MALL: We will take a short adjournment at this stage.
COMMISSION ADJOURNS
TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION COMMISSION
AMNESTY HEARINGS
DATE: 27 FEBRUARY 1997 NAME: ERIC WINTER
HELD AT: PRETORIA
DAY 4
__________________________________________________________
JUDGE MALL: Mr Mpshe.
ADV MPSHE: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, the next matter is the Pepco Three. No. 2 on
the Schedule. Mr Chairman you will recall, and members of the Committee that evidence was led in this
matter and the matter was postponed because some of the implicated persons did not have sufficient time to
respond.
JUDGE MALL: Yes.
ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman, may I state that these people were Gideon Nieuwoudt, Sakkie van Zyl and
Eric Winter. Mr Chairman, inasfar as Sakkie van Zyl is concerned I have in my possession a letter from his
attorney, Roux Attorneys in Pretoria to the effect that if I have to sum it up, to the affect that they request
that they be excused from attending this hearing, the reason being that they have filed Amnesty
applications with regard to the Pepco Three.
With regard to Gideon Nieuwoudt, the Attorney Francois van Der Merwe in Port Elizabeth was in
contact with me three weeks ago, telephonically, and he indicated to me that he has received documents
that I sent him, but he also asked that he be excused from attending because they have also filed Amnesty
application in this regard. He promised to fax me through a letter containing that message, but to date I
have not received same.
Pertaining the lawyers or legal representatives of the victims, that is Mrs Belinda Hartel(?) as well
as Mr Nyoka
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 265 ADDRESS
from Port Elizabeth, they have also contacted me telephonically, that they are aware of the hearing going
on and that they are not going to attend. It seemed that the matter will be dealt with fully in Port Elizabeth
later on. Thank you Mr Chairman, that is all.
JUDGE MALL: What about Winter?
ADV MPSHE: Mr Winter is present, the Attorney has put his name on the record yesterday, Mr
Chairman. I will then hand over, Mr Chairman, to my learned friend, Mr van der Merwe, appearing
for Mr Eric Winter.
JUDGE MALL: Yes, Mr van der Merwe.
MR V/D MERWE: Mr Chairman, I have discussed the matter with my learned colleague, Mr Britz, and he
has indicated in order to curtail the proceedings that we might just clarify a point in - where Mr Winter has
been implicated regarding his presence on the evening, or the period just immediately before the Pepco
Three were eliminated. We have prepared a sworn statement and I beg leave to read it into the record at this
stage. Can I proceed then. It was done in Afrikaans as the person implicated is Afrikaans speaking.
The interpreters request a copy:
"I, the undersigned Eric Frans Norman Winter hereby declare under oath as follows:
JUDGE WILSON: The Interpreters asked if they could have a copy, have you another copy?
MR V/D MERWE: I have unfortunately handed out my copies.
JUDGE WILSON: Well they can borrow mine.
INTERPRETERS: Thank you.
MR V/D MERWE: It continues then and says,
"The facts contained herein fall within my personal knowledge as far as I know they are
true
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR V/D MERWE 266 ADDRESS
and correct".
I then continue at Paragraph 2, Mr Chairman.
"I am a retired police officer and I was a Colonel at the time of my retirement. I was
affiliated to the Security Branch of the South African Police. During the first week of
March 1985 I took over the command of the Security Branch of the South African
Police which was situated in Cradock. In the Cradock District there was an old police
station known as Post Chalmers which was used for the purposes of interrogation, after
my arrival, by the Security Branch of Port Elizabeth. Although this building fell under
the jurisdiction of Cradock, this building was used by members of the Security Branch
of Cradock for recreational purposes and not for the purposes affiliated to the works of
the Cradock Security Police. I note that Mr R E Venter mentioned that, alleged that I
was to have taken him and a Gert Beeslaar to the Cradock police station. I would like to
mention that he is referring to the Post Chalmers police station as mentioned above.
Although I was aware that Sakkie van Zyl was involved in the interrogation of persons,
at the Post Chalmers police station, at no stage was I aware of who was being
interrogated and what the nature of the interrogation was. I was aware of this because I
was informed by Sakkie van Zyl that they interrogated persons at Post Chalmers, he
mentioned that it was a Port Elizabeth case but in case there was information which
could be used by
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR V/D MERWE 267 ADDRESS
Cradock that he would pass it through to my branch. I did not at any stage mention that
Mr Venter or Beeslaar came to give evidence at the police station. I met them for the
first time in October 1996 when I came - during the sitting of the Truth and
Reconciliation Commission.
At no stage did I have any contact with the Pepco Three, either visual or otherwise. I
was also not present at the information session of Deon Nieuwoudt or Sakkie van Zyl
where Mr Venter allegedly said that the interrogation was going well and that
information was being obtained. I was never in any position to conclude that the three
men would later be eliminated. Firstly, because I was never aware of the progress of the
interrogation and secondly, because I was never present there. I did not transport anyone
from Cradock to Post Chalmers interrogation office as alleged by Mr Venter. I was not
involved in any way, in any aspect relating to the Pepco Three".
and attested to by Mr Winter. Thank you Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MALL: Is there anything you wish to add to what your client has said in his affidavit?
MR V/D MERWE: There is nothing to add at this stage. Thank you Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MALL: Mr Mpshe, is there any other matter allied to this that we are going to deal with now?
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, yes please may I be afforded the opportunity. Mr Chairman, in respect
of the Pepco Three matter, in respect of this affidavit, I would ask the Committee humbly if Colonel Venter
could be allowed simply
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 268 ADDRESS
to respond to this one aspect about Major Winter's affidavit. After that, I intend to call another witness on
the Pepco Three matter and that is Mr Gert Beeslaar. He will present the Committee with an affidavit that
he made about this occurrence to the Attorney General which affidavit is dated 24 May 1996. So that is
what I intend to do if the Committee would allow me to.
Mr Chairman, I may mention regarding this, that I should have said in Chambers that this is
another document which I, this affidavit is another document which I will have to hand up.
JUDGE MALL: Will you call your witness first, I think.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
COLONEL VENTER: (sworn states)
EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: Colonel Venter, I'd like to ask you, you have gone through the
statement made by Colonel Winter as you said in your application, you said that Major Winter took you to
the police station where the people were being interrogated. Could you just tell the Committee whether you
are prepared to concede that you possibly made a mistake?
COL. VENTER: That is correct, Mr Chairman.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Could you just give the Committee an indication just elaborate on that a bit.
COL. VENTER: After I testified here, W/O Beeslaar, who had accompanied me, and I discussed the
matter, he refreshed my memory and told me that he does not agree with what I said on page 110 of my
application where I said that "Major Winter took us to the police station". After we spoke, he and I, it was
clear to me as it is now that we, at that stage, we Major Winter was the Commanding Officer, Station
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 268 COL VENTER
Commander but that it was someone else who had accompanied us to the police station where I met van
Zyl, and that is all I would like to rectify. And I would also like to add here that I did not deliberately try
and create a false impression to this Committee. It happened a long time ago and I am also sorry if I
inconvenienced Mr Winter in any way or prejudiced him by saying that he had accompanied us. I cannot,
however, remember who the person was who accompanied us, whom Colonel Winter assigned to
accompany us.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
JUDGE WILSON: I think in fairness to you Colonel I would like to refer to the record of the previous
proceedings on page 216, when you were asked was Winter the person who took you to the police station
and you said, "As far as I can remember". It is quite clear that even then you were not certain.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you, Mr Commissioner, I am indebted to you.
MS KHAMPEPE: Was W/O Beeslaar not able to refresh your memory on the identity of the person who
accompanied you?
COL. VENTER: Mr Chairman, no, he was not sure, he also does not know who it was and I cannot
remember either.
MS KHAMPEPE: Thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DU PLESSIS
JUDGE MALL: Mr Mpshe, you have no questions of this witness?
NO EXAMINATION BY ADV MPSHE
JUDGE MALL: Neither do you?
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR V/D MERWE
JUDGE MALL: Thank you very much.
WITNESS EXCUSED
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 269 MR BEESLAAR
ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman, may I be permitted to call Mr Beeslaar?
JUDGE MALL: Yes, certainly.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I beg leave to hand up to the Committee copies of the affidavit made
by Mr Beeslaar to the Attorney General. Mr Chairman, that would be "Exhibit S".
EXHIBIT S HANDED UP - AFFIDAVIT BY W/O BEESLAAR
GERHARDUS CORNELIUS BEESLAAR: (sworn states)
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I may point out that Mr Beeslaar is going to apply for Amnesty in
respect of this incident himself. I don't intend to call Mr Beeslaar to give evidence about any political
motives in respect of his own personal involvement, I am just calling him on the facts.
JUDGE MALL: I understand.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Beeslaar could you please read your statement to the Committee, you can just
read from paragraph 3.
JUDGE MALL: What paragraph?
ADV DU PLESSIS: Paragraph 3, Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MALL: Will you make a copy available to the Interpreters please. Is it necessary for you to ask
him to read his entire statement when the issue was a very limited issue?
ADV DU PLESSIS: No, Mr Chairman if you are happy, I will just ...(intervention)
JUDGE MALL: Could you not just put the question, the relevant question to him, he can confirm what he
said in his affidavit.
ADV DU PLESSIS: I will do so, Mr Chairman. Thank you very much. Mr Beeslaar, you submitted your
affidavit, is that correct, is that your signature at the bottom of paragraph
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 270 MR BEESLAAR
12 on the third page?
MR BEESLAAR: That is correct, your Worship.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Beeslaar, do you confirm the correctness of it?
MR BEESLAAR: I do confirm it.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman may I refer you to page 3 of this affidavit. Mr Beeslaar, on the 5th line,
in the middle of the 5th line, could you please just read that sentence to the Committee.
MR BEESLAAR:
"As stated in the statement I tried to speak to them myself and tried to attract one's
attraction with my foot by touching him with my foot".
that is not correct Mr Chairperson, I kicked him.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DU PLESSIS
ADV DE JAGER: Can you remember who transported you to the place which was used as a police
station?
MR BEESLAAR: Mr Chairman, Captain Venter and I went to Cradock from the airport a day or two after
the incident and at the Cradock Security Branch we reported to the Commander and heard from him where
the members of the Security Branch were and he assigned a member of his Unit to us to accompany us to
the police station or to the place where we were to find the other members of the security police.
JUDGE WILSON: And you say in paragraph 8 that he was unknown to me, is that so?
MR BEESLAAR: The Commanding Officer assigned someone unknown to me, I do not know who the
person was but it was obviously a member of his branch because that person accompanied us because he
would have known and would have known the area as well.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 271 MR BEESLAAR
JUDGE MALL: Are there any question, Mr Mpshe?
ADV. MPSHE: Mr Chairperson, I am still struggling to go through the affidavit which was given to me
during the hearing so if the Chair could just give me about four minutes I will be through with it.
JUDGE MALL: Yes, do carry on.
ADV MPSHE: Thank you. I am indebted to you, Mr Chairman, I have no questions on this witness.
Thank you.
JUDGE MALL: Thank you very much, you are excused.
WITNESS EXCUSED
JUDGE MALL: Does that conclude the matter as far as the Pepco Three is concerned?
ADV MPSHE: That concludes the matter, Mr Chairman. Thank you.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 272 ADDRESS
ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman the next matter is the killing of Dr Ribiero and his wife Mr Chairman. Mr
Chairman, Members of the Committee will recall that evidence was led in this matter in the last hearing.
The only thing that was not done was cross-examination on the applicant by the legal representative of the
victims, Mr Brian Currin. So what is going to happen now Mr Chairman is the cross-examination on those
witnesses. The people who testified were Hechter as well as Colonel Cronje.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I have one problem Mr Chairman and that is the fact that we have
spent a lot of time in preparation in respect of the KwaNdebele Nine matter, I did not foresee, although the
Ribiero matter was placed for today, I did not foresee that it will come on soon and I wanted to use
lunchtime to work with my clients on the Ribiero matter still.
JUDGE MALL: But they have given evidence already.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Brigadier Cronje has given evidence already, Mr Chairman, yes. I don't know if the
Committee would perhaps allow an earlier adjournment for lunch to give me the opportunity to speak to
the applicants about the Ribiero matter and then we can go on after lunch.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Sorry, Mr du Plessis they have already testified, I assume, they have given evidence-
in-chief?
ADV DU PLESSIS: Brigadier Cronje has given evidence-in- chief but Captain Hechter has not given
evidence at all.
JUDGE MGOEPE: We can continue with the one who has given evidence-in-chief.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, we can do that, yes.
JUDGE MALL: Can we do that please.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 272 BRIG CRONJE
BRIGADIER CRONJE: (s.u.o.)
ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairperson, before my learned friend leads the witness, on the 19(4) notices, I want to
bring to the notice of the Committee that certain individuals were served with 19(4). I have the returns with
me. That will be: General A J M Joubert; Captain Goosen; General Coetzee; Brigadier Schoon; S J J Smit.
Thank you Mr Chairman.
And the legal representatives in the names I have just mentioned are present, but not all of them Mr
Chairman.
JUDGE MALL: Well, before we proceed with this evidence should we just have them place themselves
on record.
MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, if I may, I appear on behalf of General Coetzee and Brigadier Schoon.
MS H KRUGER: Mr Chairman I appear on behalf of General Smit.
JUDGE MALL: Yes. I am sorry if we've inconvenienced you in starting a little later than we thought we
would be starting. Mr Currin.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CURRIN: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Brigadier Cronje you start your evidence by saying "Special forces requested a memorandum on Dr
Ribiero from me", did you know why they wanted the memorandum?
BRIG CRONJE: As far as I can recall they told me that they have identified Dr Ribiero as a target.
MR CURRIN: So, you knew at that stage their intention was to assassinate Dr Ribiero?
JUDGE MALL: What is the answer to the question, to the first question, you asked him why?
MR CURRIN: His answer was that he assumed that they had identified him as a target.
JUDGE MALL: Yes, do carry on.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 273 BRIG CRONJE
MR CURRIN: So from that moment on you knew that Dr. Ribiero was a candidate for assassination?
BRIG CRONJE: I knew it.
MR CURRIN: Now, from your written statement, you deny any direct participation in the killing of Dr
Ribiero and his wife?
BRIG CRONJE: Correct.
MR CURRIN: Why are you applying for amnesty in respect of Dr Ribiero and his wife?
BRIG CRONJE: I knew about the incident, I was also involved and therefore I am making an application.
MR CURRIN: So at that early stage you could have taken steps to stop any attempt or assassination?
BRIG CRONJE: I could have, but I did not.
MR CURRIN: What was the role of Captain Hechter?
BRIG CRONJE: I have been requested by Commander Charl Naude and I think Noel Robey to help
Hechter with the planning and I gave permission for that.
MR CURRIN: Why was it necessary to involve Captain Hechter in the planning of the assassination?
BRIG CRONJE: Probably because Hechter new the area where Dr Ribiero lived.
MR CURRIN: And the SADF presumably you say didn't know the area?
BRIG CRONJE: That was how I thought.
MR CURRIN: Did you not ask the defence force or query the defence forces' request that the police
participate in the assassination?
BRIG CRONJE: I did, however, ask Naude whilst they have already targeted Ribiero why they have
requested me for a memorandum. His answer was "they wanted to affirm their
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 274 BRIG CRONJE
information".
MR CURRIN: The fact that you took no steps to intervene or to stop the assassinations suggests that you
shared the view of the defence force that he should be assassinated?
BRIG CRONJE: Let me put it this way. I had the impression that the command came from Trivets. Naude
said that he had to report back to his General, who was General Joubert. I was not in a position to query a
General.
MR CURRIN: Even if you knew the General was going to commit a murder?
BRIG CRONJE: As I said I thought it came from Trivets and I didn't want to interfere.
MR CURRIN: Why do you say you presume it came from Trivets, you participated on Trivets?
BRIG CRONJE: No, I wasn't always part of Trivets. When it was said that he was identified as a target, I
then thought it came from Trivets.
MR CURRIN: Did you do some of your own research, looking at your file to see what there was on Dr
Ribiero.
BRIG CRONJE: I was aware of his activities, yes, I was aware of that.
MR CURRIN: I get back to an earlier question. It sounds to me as if you did nothing to interfere or
intervene in any way, can we assume that you shared the view of the Defence Force that he should be
assassinated?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes, I think so.
MR CURRIN: That opinion must have been based on information which you had?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes, information on his files.
MR CURRIN: Can you tell us what Dr Ribiero had done to qualify to be assassinated?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 275 BRIG CRONJE
BRIG CRONJE: As far as I can recall, Dr Ribiero was involved in assisting activists and terrorists, he
helped them medically and he generally assisted them.
MR CURRIN: So was that general information that he assisted, and I assume particularly with regard to
medical attention, the activists?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes, that was the information.
MR CURRIN: Well that is correct. I think it is common cause that in Mamelodi at that time he was
regarded as the people's doctor and he certainly did attend to the activists who were injured in the
confrontations. Do you have a problem with a person being injured qualifying for medical attention, did
you have a problem with that?
BRIG CRONJE: No, not in the sense that the doctor treats injured people. But what is the problem is that
he helped terrorists and that he never actually reported their presence and he assisted them, that was my
problem.
MR CURRIN: Can we now maybe distinguish between terrorists and activists. We know that Mamelodi
was full of young activists at the time, and I think we can assume that from time to time so-called terrorists
from outside of the country and within the country were in Mamelodi. What information do you have with
regard to his medical attention on terrorists and his receiving of terrorists as opposed to the young activists?
BRIG CRONJE: No, I cannot give full particulars, I cannot recall that.
MR CURRIN: Isn't the reality of the situation, Brigadier, that Dr Ribiero was a source of strength to many
of the activists in the township because he was there on the spot to provide them with the medical attention
that he needed?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 275 BRIG CRONJE
BRIG CRONJE: Could you please repeat the question?
MR CURRIN: Isn't the truth of the matter that Dr Ribiero was a source of strength to the people of
Mamelodi, to the young activists because he was there as a doctor in the township, available and willing to
provide medical attention to those who needed it?
BRIG CRONJE: I would grant that, yes.
MR CURRIN: And that strength and source of strength that he was providing was a problem to the
security police and to the security forces generally. Is that the situation?
BRIG CRONJE: No, maybe it did contribute but he mainly assisted terrorists that was our problem.
MR CURRIN: Dr Ribiero was a high profile person in this part of the country. Everyone knew where he
lived. He lived a very transparent and open life. You knew or you could identify his daily movements, is
that correct?
BRIG CRONJE: That is presumably so.
MR CURRIN: If Dr Ribiero was providing support for terrorists as you allege, why didn't you charge
him?
BRIG CRONJE: As far as I can recall, he was detained on several occasions.
MR CURRIN: Oh so what is that, detained?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes, detained in terms of security legislation.
MR CURRIN: Do you know when he was detained?
BRIG CRONJE: No, I cannot remember that.
MR CURRIN: I would like to come back to this a little later because I, according to my instructions, that is
not the case but I need to verify that with family members, so I will come back to that a little later. Why
wasn't he charged?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 276 BRIG CRONJE
BRIG CRONJE: I can at this stage not tell you why. This is a long time ago and I cannot remember all the
circumstances.
MR CURRIN: I put it to you that for a period of two years before he was assassinated I was his attorney
and he never ever came to me with instructions that he had been charged with anything.
BRIG CRONJE: Well if you say so then it must be correct.
JUDGE MALL: Your question really related to why was he not charged and he says he doesn't know.
MR CURRIN: You could have charged him if you wanted to.
BRIG CRONJE: I don't know what evidence was available to do that. I cannot tell you.
MR CURRIN: What are your views regarding the assassination of Mrs Ribiero?
BRIG CRONJE: I would not have approved it and it was never discussed with me.
MR CURRIN: Are you applying for amnesty in respect of the killing of Mrs Ribiero as well?
BRIG CRONJE: Because I became aware of it afterwards and I could be seen as a collaborator.
MR CURRIN: Because you heard about her assassination and did nothing about it?
BRIG CRONJE: Ja.
MR CURRIN: But surely you don't think that if because you did, you only heard about it after she had
been killed?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes, that is correct.
MR CURRIN: That knowledge surely in your mind can't make you responsible for her killing?
JUDGE MALL: Maybe out of precautions.
MR CURRIN: I am just trying to establish whether there wasn't another reason and if that is in fact the
only
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 277 BRIG CRONJE
reason. When Captain Hechter kept you briefed on the planning of the operation, did he inform you about
any failed attempts to assassinate Dr Ribiero?
BRIG CRONJE: I have no information to that extent.
MR CURRIN: In March 1986, there was an attempt to assassinate Dr Ribiero, a failed attempt, were you
ever advised about that by Captain Hechter.
BRIG CRONJE: No. I have no information about that.
MR CURRIN: And a few months before the assassination Dr Ribiero's house was bombed, petrol bombed
and virtually totally destroyed. Do you have any knowledge about that?
BRIG CRONJE: I knew about a fire at his house, I don't know the details.
MR CURRIN: So you know he had a fire?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes.
MR CURRIN: The house was petrol-bombed, did you not know that?
BRIG CRONJE: I know nothing about it, I just know the house burnt down.
MR CURRIN: How did you know the house had burnt?
BRIG CRONJE: I would have picked that up at one of the meetings either at the joint management service
meeting or at some of the joint meetings of services.
MR CURRIN: When it was discussed on that level, did anyone claim responsibility for the bombing for
the burning of the house?
BRIG CRONJE: No, as far as I remember it was investigated as a normal case of house-burning that burnt
down.
MR CURRIN: And that matter was never ever dealt with internally or reported on up the ranks?
BRIG CRONJE: Not as far as I can remember.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 278 BRIG CRONJE
MR CURRIN: In your written statement you say,
"I accepted the task, the command on Ribiero and I accepted that it came from the
Minister or from the State Security Council".
why do you assume that?
BRIG CRONJE: I already indicated that I believed the existence of Trivets, that because of Trivets'
involvement the State Security Council knew about it. And when he I was told that they have identified
him as a target, then I realised that Military Intelligence had input in Trivets, they sat on Trivets and I
gathered it must have come from them.
MR CURRIN: Just remind us when Trivets came into existence?
BRIG CRONJE: You are asking since when did Trivets was in existence, since when?
MR CURRIN: Since when?
BRIG CRONJE: 1985....
MR CURRIN: 1985. The beginning of 1986. If I remember your evidence in chief regarding Trivets, you
said it was originally established purely for hits, identifying targets abroad and that is the reason why there
were only Trivets' centres in those areas of the country which were on borders, which were close to
borders, those provinces which bordered on other countries and only later did Trivets get involved in
identifying targets within the country.
BRIG CRONJE: Ja, originally that was the planning behind Trivets to target external targets.
MR CURRIN: So it was in its first year of operation, I mean it started in 1986, Trivets, this planning must
have happened some months before the actual hit, already you say now Trivets started to operate within the
country, is this
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 279 BRIG CRONJE
now your evidence?
BRIG CRONJE: It is possible.
MR CURRIN: It's only possible? So it is possible that Trivets had nothing to do with this assassination?
BRIG CRONJE: I didn't say that. I say Trivets could already in '86 have been in operation. They could
have operated internally already by then.
MR CURRIN: In the spirit of, and also in the letter of the law, as far as full disclosure is concerned, who
was giving you information about Dr Ribiero?
BRIG CRONJE: Informants, several informants.
MR CURRIN: Who are they?
BRIG CRONJE: I never worked personally with the file so I cannot tell you who the informant was.
MR CURRIN: Were there informers?
BRIG CRONJE: That is what I said.
MR CURRIN: Can you tell us who they were?
BRIG CRONJE: I do not know who they were because I did not personally work on the file, I was only
the Commander there. MR CURRIN: And who worked on the file?
BRIG CRONJE: I don't know who personally worked with the file. It wasn't me, it was one of the persons
in the White section, no, no I must apologise it was the Black Power section.
MR CURRIN: Can you find out who that person is so that we can hear from that person about information
that was being gathered on Dr Ribiero.
BRIG CRONJE: Probably Colonel Lootz can help us.
MR CURRIN: Hopefully we will hear from Colonel Lootz.
The day before the assassination there was a helicopter reported to be hovering above Mamelodi generally,
but more
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 279 BRIG CRONJE
particularly in the area where Dr Ribiero lived, Dr Ribiero and his wife, do you have any knowledge of
that?
BRIG CRONJE: No.
MR CURRIN: And I take it from your evidence that you had no idea when this assassination was going to
happen, I mean you didn't know about it the day before? It was something you read afterwards?
BRIG CRONJE: That is correct.
MR CURRIN: So you have no knowledge about that helicopter. Is there a log book which the police used
when signing off or signing out hardware like a helicopter?
BRIG CRONJE: I suppose there must be a log book.
MR CURRIN: Where can we get access to the reports on the use of police helicopters on the 3rd
November 1986?
BRIG CRONJE: That you will find at police headquarters.
MR CURRIN: Would the Committee bear with me for a moment, I just want to read a note that I have
received from the family. I just need to take a brief instruction, if I could just ask one of the family
members to come around. Just excuse me for one moment while I do that. Thank you.
ADV DE JAGER: If its convenient you can walk up to him.
MR CURRIN: Thank you very much for that opportunity. I just want to inform you that Chris Ribiero,
one of the sons of Dr Ribiero will testify that his father was detained on one occasion and that was in 1980
and since 1980 he was never again detained.
BRIG CRONJE: I cannot comment on that.
MR CURRIN: I am just putting that on the record.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CURRIN
JUDGE MALL: Mr Mpshe are there any questions you wish to put to this witness?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 280 BRIG CRONJE
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV MPSHE: Yes, Mr Chairperson.
Mr Cronje will my conclusion be correct that Dr Ribiero died for the simple reason that he was assisting
medically activists and or terrorists who were injured?
BRIG CRONJE: I would not say only for the medical assistance, but the information if you can remember
was that he had also assisted them in other ways such as arranging accommodation, he provided them with
finance and so forth.
ADV MPSHE: Now the question of accommodating them as well as giving them money, is it part of your
application because this is new evidence now?
BRIG CRONJE: I cannot remember if I included it.
ADV MPSHE: Well I put to you it is not mentioned in your application.
BRIG CRONJE: To me he was a high profile activist.
ADV MPSHE: He was a high profile activist because he was giving money to activists and terrorists and
giving them medical treatment and accommodating them, does that make him a high profile activist?
Wasn't he really a person assisting them?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes, it is that he assisted them and that to me was being a high profile activist, but the
fact that I did not mention it in my application is because I probably wasn't involved in the action.
ADV MPSHE: Yes, you were involved indirectly and you knew about this planning.
BRIG CRONJE: Yes I was indirectly involved.
ADV MPSHE: Yes, I know but we can still come to the same conclusion that he died for assisting people,
assisting activists and terrorists?
BRIG CRONJE: It was my opinion to that he was a high
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 281 BRIG CRONJE
profile activist.
ADV MPSHE: What is a high profile activist? What criteria do you use?
BRIG CRONJE: Persons who assist terrorists coming into the country with the intention of committing
acts of terrorism within the Republic and wanting to overthrow the government of the day and to
destabilise the area, someone who assisted that type of terrorist I regarded as a high profile activist.
ADV MPSHE: Do you know of any terrorist or terrorists who were assisted by Dr Ribiero to enter the
land?
BRIG CRONJE: I cannot say at the moment because I do not know, I cannot remember.
ADV MPSHE: You cannot say or you cannot remember?
BRIG CRONJE: I cannot remember.
ADV MPSHE: But possibility exists that it happened is that what you are trying to say?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes.
ADV MPSHE: How did you obtain that information that that happened?
BRIG CRONJE: It would have been obtained from the file.
ADV MPSHE: Would you have had insight into the file?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes.
ADV MPSHE: What did you read?
BRIG CRONJE: What I just said.
ADV MPSHE: Were names of specific terrorists mentioned in that file?
BRIG CRONJE: It could have been, I do not remember.
ADV MPSHE: How many terrorists were involved?
BRIG CRONJE: I also cannot remember that.
ADV MPSHE: Do you know then again of any terrorists or
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 282 BRIG CRONJE
terrorist who entered the land and were assisted by Dr Ribiero in the country?
BRIG CRONJE: I have already said that I saw that in the file.
ADV MPSHE: What became of the file?
BRIG CRONJE: As I testified it was destroyed after I retired.
ADV MPSHE: What made you or under what circumstances did you have access into the file what was
happening?
BRIG CRONJE: As Commanding Officer I would see the file from time to time.
ADV MPSHE: Are you saying to me that it would be brought to you for perusal?
BRIG CRONJE: From time to time inspections were conducted and normally I would see such a file.
ADV MPSHE: If, speaking subject to correction, if I remember my learned friend, Brian Currin, asked
you questions about this file and you said you did not have access into this file because you were not
directly involved, do you remember that? If need be I can check that.
BRIG CRONJE: I sorry, I said that I did not handle the file as an investigating officer.
ADV MPSHE: Thank you, I stand corrected. Can we then furthermore on Mrs Ribiero state that she was
killed for nothing else other than being the wife to Dr Ribiero who was assisting terrorists, as you allege?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes, I would say that I had no knowledge that Mrs Ribiero was to be affected in any
way.
ADV MPSHE: And as you had access into this file, you cannot remember anything said about Mrs
Ribiero, in the file?
BRIG CRONJE: I cannot remember if her name was ever
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DE JAGER 283 BRIG CRONJE
mentioned in the file but as far as I know we had nothing on her.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV MPSHE
ADV DE JAGER: Brigadier as far as the making available of the facts to the public here today and to the
press, was it known before you lodged your application or did it become known after you applied?
BRIG CRONJE: I am the first one who made known.
MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Cronje, you stated that Dr Ribiero was eliminated because he gave both medical
and general assistance to the terrorists and activists. Now, let me start with the medical assistance he was
alleged to have rendered to the terrorists. What in your opinion was so intrinsically wrong about a doctor
assisting human beings who required medical assistance?
BRIG CRONJE: I don't think I'd say that there was anything wrong with that, but the fact that they were
terrorists and that Dr Ribiero did not report their presence would have had something to do with it but not
the mere fact that he rendered medical assistance.
MS KHAMPEPE: Are you saying that there was a request which was probably made to Dr Ribiero to
advise the security police of any assistance he rendered to the so-called terrorists?
BRIG CRONJE: No, I am not saying that there was a request.
MS KHAMPEPE: Then why did you expect him to have informed you of the medical assistance he was
giving to people, whether they were terrorists or not, he was a doctor, he had an oath by which to comply
with to render assistance to people who wanted such assistance, irrespective of their political affiliation?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MS KHAMPEPE 283 BRIG CRONJE
BRIG CRONJE: He would have been selected to prevent terrorists from obtaining medical assistance, as I
said when terrorists came into the country to commit acts of terrorism then it would have been a high
profile activist in my opinion and to eliminate him in order to stop him from doing that would have been
necessary for me to act in that fashion.
MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Cronje, to your knowledge was he the only doctor probably in Mamelodi who was
rendering such medical assistance to the activists?
BRIG CRONJE: No, I would not say, I am sure that there were others who assisted activists, I do not
know about terrorists.
MS KHAMPEPE: Did you not target them because they probably did not also assist the terrorist in
crossing the borders and entering our country? Those doctors who also medically assisted the terrorist,
were they not targeted because they probably did not got to an extent that Dr Ribiero had allegedly had
gone to?
BRIG CRONJE: I believe that if there was information that they were also treating terrorists that action
would have been taken against them as well.
MS KHAMPEPE: My last question Mr Cronje. You have stated that had you been able to take steps to
prevent Dr Ribiero's elimination, you would have done so. What would these steps have entailed?
BRIG CRONJE: Do you mean that if I could have taken steps or the steps which I did not take to prevent
his elimination, is that what you mean?
MS KHAMPEPE: The steps that you did not take to prevent his elimination.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MS KHAMPEPE 284 BRIG CRONJE
BRIG CRONJE: I could have reported it to the police, to my head office and if they did not take any steps
to prevent it then it would not have been my fault, but the steps which I could have taken was to have
reported it to my head office and whether or not they would have taken steps I cannot say.
MS KHAMPEPE: Thank you Mr Cronje.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS KHAMPEPE
JUDGE MGOEPE: Brigadier, can we just focus on the killing of Mrs Ribiero. I understand that your
evidence tries to give some political motivation for the killing of Dr Ribiero, but I also understand your
evidence not to be able to offer any political justification for the killing of his wife, am I right?
BRIG CRONJE: That is correct, Mr Chairperson. I cannot remember that Mrs Ribiero was actively
involved in any terrorist - with any terrorists, but as I said it was beyond my control, I would never have
allowed it. I also did not know about it.
JUDGE MGOEPE: To the extent that you even say that you could not have allowed her assassination. It
seems to me that, and tell me if I am wrong - well first let me put it this way. Of course after she was also
killed and after it became common knowledge that she was also killed, those who were responsible for the
plan and the carrying out of it never came out to say "well, we accept responsibility in respect of the killing
of Mrs Ribiero, we have made a mistake, we are sorry, the whole thing got out of hand, Mrs Ribiero should
not have been killed, it is us who committed these murders", nobody every came out to accept
responsibility accept until recently.
BRIG CRONJE: I agree Sir.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE MGOEPE 285 BRIG CRONJE
JUDGE MGOEPE: It was a cover up?
BRIG CRONJE: I suspect so.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Obviously in respect of Mrs Ribiero's killing as well?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes.
JUDGE MGOEPE: The purpose of the "cover up" in respect of the killing of Mrs Ribiero was purely to
avoid criminal prosecution?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes, certainly.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Which killing in the light of your evidence could not be politically justified?
BRIG CRONJE: As far as my knowledge goes, yes, Mrs Ribiero was not involved.
JUDGE MGOEPE: But you never received, as far as you recall, any information or report that she should
be killed or that she qualified as a target to be eliminated?
BRIG CRONJE: No.
JUDGE WILSON: There was a very determined effort to cover up, wasn't there?
BRIG CRONJE: Om Mev. Ribiero te dood?
JUDGE WILSON: The investigation into the killing? You were asked to take all steps you could, weren't
you, to stop the investigation?
BRIG CRONJE: I was not in charge of the investigation, Mr Chairman.
JUDGE WILSON: No, it was Brigadier Smit, wasn't it?
BRIG CRONJE: No, no. You would see that General Joubert requested me to attend a meeting at his
office at the Defence Force and there he told me that Brigadier Smit was in the Vehicle Unit, affiliated to
the Vehicle Unit, and that the Landrover which they had seen was sold to the
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE WILSON 286 BRIG CRONJE
Defence Force and I concluded from that that Brigadier Smit was involved in the investigation. I do not
know if that is indeed so.
JUDGE WILSON: Are you going to be dealing with this?
MRS KRUGER: Yes I am.
JUDGE WILSON: Because I had the page reference and I have lost it at the moment but if you are going
to deal with this I will leave it to you and follow up afterwards, because that is not my recollection of what
this witness said earlier. You say you don't know if Brigadier Smit was involved or not?
BRIG CRONJE: What I am saying, Mr Chairperson, is that General Joubert informed me that Brigadier
Smit ascertained that the Landrover was sold to the Defence Force.
JUDGE WILSON: I will leave it for the moment.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Sorry, Brigadier, can I just ask you this. Was it or was it not policy that where you, I
don't mean you in particular, I just mean the police in general, where you were to eliminate somebody who
was regarded as a legitimate target, and once you see that he was in the company of somebody else or
another person emerges, who could possibly be a witness to the killing, what was the policy? Was the
policy to kill that prospective possible witness and to eliminate that witness as well or the policy was that
"well, that person must know me, you don't have the authority to kill such a person, what was the position?
BRIG CRONJE: Mr Chairperson, there was no policy as far as I can recall, but as I reported yesterday, I
left someone alive in Swaziland who could possibly have identified me, so I did not have such a policy. If it
was the intention of the Defence Force, then I cannot accept responsibility for that.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE MGOEPE 286 BRIG CRONJE
JUDGE MGOEPE: Now, in terms of how you operated, in terms of how you understood the system to be
working, was the elimination of possible witnesses permissible?
BRIG CRONJE: It was never permissible to kill a person or it was not standing policy, but I would hasten
to add that there could have been cases where the potential witnesses were eliminated.
MR CURRIN: Mr Chairman it may just be helpful to indicate that there will be a witness who will testify
that the assailants all wore balaclavas at the time - just around this question.
JUDGE MALL: Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman I note that it is past one o'clock already.
JUDGE MALL: I think you are quite alert to the passing of time. (General laughter) We will take the
adjournment at this stage, adjournment till two o'clock.
COMMISSION ADJOURNS
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VISSER 287 BRIG CRONJE
ON RESUMPTION
BRIGADIER CRONJE: (s.u.o.)
JUDGE MALL: Are we ready to proceed?
ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman we are in the hands of my learned friend.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairperson, I haven't re-examined, but I think Mr Visser and Mrs Kruger have
questions.
JUDGE MALL: No, no, no quite right, I am not talking about that, I thought that there were some
questions to be asked by learned counsel. Mr Currin are there any more questions you wish to ask?
NO FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CURRIN
JUDGE MALL: Mr Visser thank you very much, have you any?
MR VISSER: Yes, Mr Chairman I do have questions.
JUDGE MALL: That is if they have not already been covered.
MR VISSER: Mr Chairman my two clients, General Coetzee and Brigadier Schoon are implicated only in
one respect and I shall contain myself, I shall restrain myself to that issue only and the questions that I will
ask will pertain to that matter only.
JUDGE MALL: Thank you.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Brigadier, the question or the picture that your answer gives
us as also stated in your statement is that the Security Branch has not been involved. Is that correct?
BRIG CRONJE: That is correct.
MR VISSER: You have limited it to the security branch and now I want to put it to you, is the police in
general involved at all?
BRIG CRONJE: No.
MR VISSER: You have also said, and please stop me if I am
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VISSER 288 BRIG CRONJE
wrong, that you cannot for certain say that Trivets is involved?
BRIG CRONJE: That is correct.
MR VISSER: Now, I want to put it to you in all fairness, but you have actually put it much stronger on
page 131 of your application, you have said there,
"I have accepted that the command to eliminate Dr Ribiero came from the Minister or
the State Security Council or Trivets".
BRIG CRONJE: I did say that I stand with what I have said. My idea was that ...(intervention)
MR VISSER: So, you are not very sure at this moment?
BRIG CRONJE: No, I am not.
MR VISSER: General Joubert that you refer to on page 132, is that General J B Joubert?
BRIG CRONJE: I am not sure, but it is probably him.
MR VISSER: Let me come to page 132, it will probably be easier if you refer to that yourself. Let us look
at the second paragraph. Mention is made of an army vehicle that was either purchased from the Defence
Force or used - do you know what the case is?
BRIG CRONJE: It is a vehicle that was used and registered in his name.
MR VISSER: You allege that General Joubert informed us that Brigadier Basie Smit already established
that the Landrover was the property of the Defence Force?
BRIG CRONJE: That is that correct.
MR VISSER: Can you remember that clearly?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes. I do. Joubert asked whether we ...(intervention)
MR VISSER: That must be you and Hechter?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VISSER 289 BRIG CRONJE
BRIG CRONJE: No. Me. When we were in the meeting he asked -I can't remember whether he said "we",
"you" or what he said but ...(intervention)
MR VISSER: You say in your statement that he asked you, you and Hechter, is that correct?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes.
MR VISSER: Could not interfere with the investigation of Basie Smit, is that correct?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes.
MR VISSER: I said "I will see what I can do?" is that also correct?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes.
MR VISSER: Did you do anything?
BRIG CRONJE: No Chairman.
MR VISSER: If you go further in your statement, you give a report on a meeting, gathering, whatever you
want to call it, where General Coetzee and Brigadier Schoon was available in your presence and you have
mentioned there that you have informed General Coetzee that special forces have eliminated the Ribiero's.
BRIG CRONJE: I did say that.
MR VISSER: That was in a meeting where Brigadier Schoon was present and you said this to General
Coetzee.
BRIG CRONJE: Yes.
MR VISSER: General Coetzee will, if required, give evidence, he denies that you have ever given them
this information.
BRIG CRONJE: Well, that is his right to do that.
MR VISSER: No, that is not the case of his right, the case is here, the question is what is the truth.
BRIG CRONJE: Sir, what I am telling you is the truth.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VISSER 290 BRIG CRONJE
MR VISSER: I discussed the case with him and Brigadier Schoon. You see the implication of what you
are saying, if you are correct and he lies, is that he did not act at all to bring this action to light, is that your
allegation?
BRIG CRONJE: That is my allegation. Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Could Mr Visser please repeat the allegation that he made toward the witness of
exactly what General Coetzee is going to testify, could I request that please?
MR VISSER: Well, it is very simple he is going to deny that it was ever, that he was ever told anything of
the nature.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Precisely what, precisely what, I think that is what Mr du Plessis is curious about?
MR VISSER: He was not informed by anyone that the Defence Force was involved in the murders of
Ribiero. Certainly also not by this witness. There is another interesting discussion according to you,
General Coetzee then asked you why you are working with the Defence Force. Is that correct?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes.
MR VISSER: And you then say,
"Schoon told me to work with special forces, Brigadier Schoon was there, he doesn't
deny it and you accepted that he agrees with that".
is that correct?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes.
MR VISSER: Well I find this very peculiar, Brigadier. Did Brigadier Schoon say this or not?
BRIG CRONJE: He said we must work closer with special forces.
MR VISSER: Why then did you find it necessary to say in your statement that you accepted that he agrees
with me,
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VISSER 291 BRIG CRONJE
that you take it for granted, what do you mean by that? It is almost like putting it as a proof.
BRIG CRONJE: May I read that please?
MR VISSER: You may.
JUDGE MALL: What page is it?
MR VISSER: Page 133, Mr Chair, the second paragraph, the second last sentence. Let me assist you.
Officially, if you know another man gave you a specific command then the way you have phrased it here is
very strange.
BRIG CRONJE: As far as I can recall, Brigadier Schoon - during the discussion but please give me a
moment, I need to ...(intervention)
MR VISSER: Let me assist you, when did Brigadier Schoon give you this command?
BRIG CRONJE: I do not know exactly when, but it was before this case, some time before it. But
Brigadier Schoon at some point in time did deny, I pardon myself. Brigadier Schoon spoke to me, I said to
him that that specific command to work with special forces came with compliments of the Commissioner. I
then asked him about this and for this reason, I mentioned it. I said to him, you gave me the command, and
this was in the presence of Coetzee, to work with special forces. He then did not deny it.
MR VISSER: Let us look, can you give us the context of this command. What exactly was the cooperation
about?
BRIG CRONJE: What he said was "with the compliments of Compo. please work very closely with
special forces".
MR VISSER: Now, how did you understand that?
BRIG CRONJE: I understood it that special forces were a fighting force and I understood it that we are
now shifting towards a military operation.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VISSER 291 BRIG CRONJE
MR VISSER: Is it not the case Brigadier that there were general commissioner commands that the entire
security family, Intelligence, Defence Force and Police, should work together in terms of information,
exchange of information?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes, exchange of information, correct.
MR VISSER: But not actively involved with one another. Isn't that perhaps what Brigadier Schoon tried to
explain to you? Isn't that the co-operation he is talking about?
BRIG CRONJE: No, then he would not have mentioned "special forces" in specific. If he said Military
Intelligence, which is the information wing of the Defence Force, then I would have understood differently.
MR VISSER: Did Brigadier Schoon give you the impression that you should help with the killing of the
Ribieros?
BRIG CRONJE: No, no.
MR VISSER: No. Your command doesn't go that far?
BRIG CRONJE: No.
ADV DE JAGER: Well, can you just inform us now that Coetzee's evidence will say that there was not
cooperation in terms of the execution of commands. Is that what you are going to tell us?
BRIG CRONJE: No. ...(intervention)
ADV DE JAGER: I am trying to establish whether there was a clear command. Will the evidence be that
there was no cooperation between special forces and the police?
BRIG CRONJE: No. That will not be my evidence.
ADV DE JAGER: So, in fact there is evidence that they have cooperated?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes Chairperson, that is exactly what I am trying to prove here.
MR VISSER: It is also the case that the police played a
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VISSER 292 BRIG CRONJE
supportive role towards the Defence Force when they have operated in townships. Are you aware of that?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes.
MR VISSER: What I am trying to ascertain here is that that did not include the elimination of people or
even the planning of elimination of people?
BRIG CRONJE: That was not policy. That was the policy in the Defence Force not in the special forces,
they were a different group.
MR VISSER: So are you then saying that there was a police policy to support special forces when it comes
to elimination of people?
BRIG CRONJE: That was my perception, I took it for granted.
MR VISSER: Internally?
BRIG CRONJE: Internally, not externally.
MR VISSER: So that's not externally.
BRIG CRONJE: No, that's not externally, no.
MR VISSER: Brigadier, did I understand you correctly today, that before the murder you knew that
Ribiero was a target to be eliminated?
BRIG CRONJE: Could you please repeat?
MR VISSER: Do I understand you correctly that when Mr Currin cross-questioned you that before the
murder was committed you were aware of the fact that at least he was a target for elimination?
BRIG CRONJE: No. I don't think I said that.
MR VISSER: You didn't say that, well then, I probably heard you incorrectly. If you had known it, the
evidence said "he thought that that would have happened", is there a difference between that and knowing
it? Did you assume beforehand that he was going to be eliminated by special
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VISSER 293 BRIG CRONJE
forces?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes, yes.
MR VISSER: Yes.
BRIG CRONJE: I misunderstood you, I did know that.
MR VISSER: What did you do with that information, if any?
BRIG CRONJE: I did nothing about it.
MR VISSER: Did you report it to any senior officer?
BRIG CRONJE: No, I didn't.
MR VISSER: Then I want to put it to you that General Coetzee alleges that your version stating that first
Basie Smit and now General Smit was involved in the investigation in the Ribiero case was not correct?
BRIG CRONJE: I made the deduction that Brigadier Smit was involved in the investigation after General
Joubert told me that he established that the vehicle belonged to the Defence Force.
MR VISSER: No, that is so, but please explain to us how do you get to the evidence that General Coetzee
removed Basie Smit as investigating officer because, according to you, he already traced the vehicle back
to the Defence Force and that somebody else replaced him?
BRIG CRONJE: Because I knew that the investigation was taken up by Brigadier Daantjie van Wyk
thereafter.
MR VISSER: How do you know that General Coetzee replaced Basie Smit by Daantjie Van Wyk?
BRIG CRONJE: I assumed that he was involved, I don't know who handled the dossier but there were
other investigating officers afterwards. It was my deduction.
MR VISSER: Let us look at page 133 the last sentence of the second paragraph. You make a statement,
"The investigation was removed from Basie Smit and
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VISSER 294 BRIG CRONJE
was given to Daantjie van Wyk".
is that a direct statement, do you agree?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes, I assumed that he was the investigating officer, yes, that was my deduction. That he
was removed and that Daantjie Van Wyk was appointed.
MR VISSER: So your evidence on page 133 was - you are changing that in fact now, you are assuming
that?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes, it is true that I have assumed that.
MR VISSER: So, are you changing the evidence here by saying, "I have assumed that the investigation
was removed and given to Daantjie Van Wyk"? Just answer my question.
BRIG CRONJE: Basie Smit was no longer involved and that is why I have gathered that.
MR VISSER: Do you understand my question correctly?
BRIG CRONJE: I do.
JUDGE WILSON: If you are talking about evidence perhaps you should put the evidence to him not what
he put in his application. At page 464 of the record he is recorded as having said and I quote,
"General Coetzee then took the investigation away from Basie Smit and gave it to
Brigadier van Wyk. He tasked Brigadier van Wyk with the investigation".
MR VISSER: I am indebted to you Mr Commissioner, I have not been privy to the record nor was I
present when this witness gave his evidence, I find myself at a bit of a disadvantage therefore. Thank you
Mr Commissioner.
Would you like to amend that evidence?
BRIG CRONJE: As I said, it is as I testified before.
MR VISSER: I don't know what your answer means.
BRIG CRONJE: As I testified before, that is the truth.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VISSER 295 BRIG CRONJE
MR VISSER: That is based in an assumption which you made out of something which General Joubert
said to you?
BRIG CRONJE: That is correct.
MR VISSER: Would it surprise you to know that Brigadier Basie Smit was never involved in this
investigation, in fact?
BRIG CRONJE: I merely had the information from General Joubert. If he was not involved then I do not
dispute it.
MR VISSER: You do not dispute it? But do you see what the result is, because the result is that the
evidence which the Commissioner, the statement which the Commissioner just put to you could not be
correct, because if he was never the investigating officer he could never have been removed off the case, is
that not so?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes, that is so.
JUDGE WILSON: But you see you said more than that when you gave evidence last. At page 463 you
said and I quote again from line 10,
"General Joubert informed me that Basie Smit had determined that the Landrover did
belong to the SADF and that Noel Robey was in fact in command of the vehicle and had
driven the vehicle. He requested me to, not to assist Basie Smit's investigation and in fact
to ruin it one way or another, and I told him that I would do whatever I could in this
regard".
Now that is not assumptions, Brigadier Cronje, that is a direct statement made to you by General Joubert,
you agreed and say you would do what you could, it is no assumption is it? How can you now say it was an
assumption you made?
BRIG CRONJE: Mr Chairperson, let me explain. When he said
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VISSER 295 BRIG CRONJE
to me that General Basie Smit has ascertained, I assumed that he was involved in the investigation.
JUDGE WILSON: But what you said was,
"He requested me not to assist Basie Smit's investigation and in fact to ruin it, one way
or another".
that is what he told you. It is no assumption.
BRIG CRONJE: At that stage I did not know if Brigadier Smit was involved in the investigation.
JUDGE WILSON: What do you mean when you say,
"General Joubert requested me not to assist Basie Smit's investigation".
what does that mean? What was General Joubert doing?
BRIG CRONJE: He wanted me to see if I could disturb the investigation in some way or another so that it
could not be linked to the Defence Force.
JUDGE WILSON: He was talking about Basie Smit's investigation?
BRIG CRONJE: That is correct.
JUDGE WILSON: Yes, not an assumption by you. He specifically used the words as you did. Why are
you trying to get away from it Brigadier?
BRIG CRONJE: I am not trying to get away from it, I am trying to tell the truth the way I know it.
JUDGE MGOEPE: You might have, I don't know, you might have made assumptions that Brigadier Smit
or yes, was involved in investigations I don't know but you are certainly not making an assumption in terms
of your evidence that you were told to derail investigations?
JUDGE MALL: Well, the answer is "do you have a recollection of being told that you must either not
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VISSER 296 BRIG CRONJE
cooperate with or derail the investigations" do you recall that happening?
BRIG CRONJE: Could you please repeat, Mr Chairperson?
JUDGE MALL: Were you ever told to derail investigations?
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman may I request that the witness, if it is in English uses the earphones. I
think that is the problem.
JUDGE MALL: Certainly, yes, fair enough.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Were you ever requested to derail the investigation?
BRIG CRONJE: Only at that one stage by General Joubert. He asked me to see if I could do something
about it and I did not do anything about it.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Now, this is not an assumption, what you are saying now is that you remember being
told directly, being given a direct instruction to derail the investigation.
BRIG CRONJE: No. General Joubert was from the Defence Force he could not give me such an
instruction he could merely request.
MR VISSER: Perhaps I could put the question to you this way.
JUDGE MALL: Are we still on the same matter, I thought we had finished with that matter?
MR VISSER: Which matter, Mr Chairperson?
JUDGE MALL: About the derailing of instructions, have we not dealt with that?
MR VISSER: Yes, indeed, but I am still only on the one issue and that is the implication of my two clients,
Mr Chairman.
Is the simple truth not this, that your implication of Brigadier Schoon and General Joubert was a
bit
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VISSER 297 BRIG CRONJE
extraordinary here and it was based on assumptions and suspicions which you had, but not fact? I mean
General Coetzee and Brigadier Schoon.
BRIG CRONJE: I insist that that is what happened.
MR VISSER: Very briefly, I would like to put to you what Brigadier Coetzee says, General Coetzee says,
he says he remembers that there were talks regarding the Ribieros but firstly, that they were about the
refusal of the family and/or witnesses of the Ribieros to make statements to the police, that it was about
discussions about what to do about that. Did you attend any discussions about what to do about that?
BRIG CRONJE: No Sir. I was not the investigating officer in the matter, so they would not have discussed
it with me.
MR VISSER: He will say that the investigating officer, the leader of the investigative team was Brigadier
Suiker Britz and no one else?
BRIG CRONJE: Suiker Britz was a Colonel at that stage and van Wyk was a Brigadier, so I cannot
understand how van Wyk could not have been in command of the investigation.
MR VISSER: At that stage Britz was the commanding officer of Pretoria Murder and Robbery and that
was something that fell under their jurisdiction.
BRIG CRONJE: That is correct.
MR VISSER: General Coetzee says that he never discussed the matter with Britz at all?
BRIG CRONJE: I will not be able to comment on that.
MR VISSER: He says that at some stage he came to know that Brigadier Daantjie van Wyk was requested
to assist with the investigation. You say that he put him in there and that he replaced Smit with Daantjie
Van Wyk?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VISSER 298 BRIG CRONJE
BRIG CRONJE: That is also an assumption which I made because Brigadier van Wyk was busy with the
investigation. I don't know who had the docket but I know that he was in charge of the investigation.
MR VISSER: To proceed or elaborate on what Commissioner De Jager put to you, General Coetzee says
that at certain times the South African Defence Force was deployed to assist the South African Police in
Mamelodi and other Black townships, and that it was his standing instruction, we are now referring to
General Coetzee, was that even in such situations that South African Police should not get involved in the
South African Defence Force actions of any nature since each force was acting within its own doctrines
and authorities, but the Defence Force played a supportive role to the South African Police. This is a
mouthful and I am sorry that I am putting so much to you at the same time but it that not what the policy
was?
BRIG CRONJE: That probably was the policy with reference to the Black townships as far as the ordinary
troops were concerned, but not with the special forces.
MR VISSER: You are saying that there was a difference as far as the special forces were concerned?
BRIG CRONJE: That is correct.
MR VISSER: And you are saying that there was a policy in that regard which said that you had to be on
standby to assist in eliminations?
BRIG CRONJE: I am not saying that it was policy, I am saying that I was instructed to work with the
special forces.
MR VISSER: Let us put the questions directly to each other. The instruction to eliminate Ribiero?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VISSER 298 BRIG CRONJE
BRIG CRONJE: Not specifically.
MR VISSER: I have already put it to you and I am putting it to you again for the sake of completion, it
was also the government instruction at that time 1986, if I am not mistaken, that all information available
within the security family had to be swopped with each other in order to make the whole function cost-
effective. I am merely putting it to you to get the two together. He goes on to say that he was not
specifically, he does not specifically recall if Brigadier Schoon or Cronje said to you that the Ribieros'
details were given to the South African Defence Force by the South African Police. Do you remember your
testimony in this regard?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes, I do.
MR VISSER: And he says that if it happened, it would have been normal.
BRIG CRONJE: Once again, if Military Intelligence asked me, but not special forces, special forces was a
combat group.
MR VISSER: Is your evidence then that there was something sinister about the fact that Special Forces
asked you for information on the Ribiero's and not the Defence Force?
BRIG CRONJE: It gave me the indication that there was going to be action taken against the Ribieros by
the Special Forces.
MR VISSER: General Coetzee says that if your evidence attempts to implicate that he, as Commissioner,
then Commissioner of Police, knew that members of the South African Defence Force or Special Force
committed the murders and that he manipulated the investigation at a later stage, he would deny that. Can I
ask you is that your suggestion, that he was indeed manipulating the investigation by
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VISSER 299 BRIG CRONJE
replacing Basie Smit with Van Wyk?
BRIG CRONJE: I do not know what he did thereafter, but if he did not do anything then he did manipulate
it.
MR VISSER: Is it not correct that this investigation ended in court with an inquest?
BRIG CRONJE: It ended with a provisional inquiry.
MR VISSER: Is it not so that a provisional inquiry was held?
BRIG CRONJE: I am aware of that.
MR VISSER: That's as far as General Coetzee goes. As far as Brigadier Schoon, Mr Chairman, I would
like to refer you to the affidavit which was submitted. We failed to ask you to give it an exhibit number.
May we ask now that you number it Exhibit P4. I am sorry, P3.
EXHIBIT P3 HANDED UP - AFFIDAVIT BY BRIGADIER SCHOON
MR VISSER: In the course of time I will liaise these exhibits and number them accordingly, Mr
Chairman. Brigadier Schoon says that he cannot recall the question about an instruction to cooperate with
the South African Defence Force being discussed in this meeting which you are referring to. Incidently, he
cannot even remember the meeting itself that well, but he does not dispute that it could have indeed taken
place. He says what was discussed, and I refer to page 3, paragraph 4.2 and following, 4.2 and 4.3. He
says what remains prominent in his memory is the fact that there was no cooperation as far as obtaining
statements from the Ribieros. You say you cannot remember that that was discussed?
BRIG CRONJE: I was not the investigating officer and they would have not have discussed it with me
anyway.
MR VISSER: He says that there is doubt that he would have
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VISSER 300 BRIG CRONJE
told you that there should be closer cooperation with the Special Forces, specifically, but that it never
meant that the police should be attentive to the elimination of people within the borders, that was never
what he said to you.
BRIG CRONJE: I cannot comment on what he said.
MR VISSER: But you received an instruction from him according to what you told the Commission, is
that not so?
BRIG CRONJE: I did receive an instruction from him to work with the Special Forces.
MR VISSER: He says that he can also not remember that Basie Smit was replaced by van Wyk, and he
says the same as General Coetzee and I think that is all.
JUDGE MALL: Thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER
ADV DE JAGER: He says I cannot recall that General Basie Smit and his replacement by Brig Van Wyk
was discussed. He does not say that they were not replaced. He says that he cannot remember it being
discussed.
MR VISSER: I am reading that now, thank you for the correction. He says that he cannot remember
something like that being discussed. Your comment is that it was discussed?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes.
MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I do have an affidavit by Gen Coetzee which has not been handed up to you,
I would ask your directions as to when you wish us to hand up the affidavit whether now is a convenient
time or later is irrelevant, is immaterial to us, I have no further questions to the witness.
JUDGE MALL: Well that is the affidavit from which you put extracts to the witness.
MR VISSER: Yes, yes.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VISSER 301 BRIG CRONJE
JUDGE MALL: You might as well hand it in now.
MR VISSER: That will be P4, Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MALL: Now, will you just tell me kindly, how you have numbered these because I have got
Brigadier Schoon's affidavit as P1 and then the document ...(intervention)
MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I have just forwarded to you a list which I commenced drawing to show the
exhibit numbers, if you would agree with those numbers and if you would agree that it makes sense to
number the exhibits that way, you will observe that it now runs to Exhibit P4 and I have written in pencil
on the affidavit of General Coetzee as P4, as I have said before I will update the list, Mr Chairman and
provide you with a list and make the exhibits into a bundle for your easy reference.
JUDGE MALL: Well it has now become easier.
MR VISSER: Exhibit P4, is still in my possession, may I hand it to you now?
JUDGE MALL: Yes, please.
EXHIBIT P4 HANDED UP
ADV DE JAGER: What is P1 and P2?
JUDGE MALL: P1 is the document headed "Written Representations". P2 is the photocopy from "Beeld".
MR VISSER: Mr Chairman just for the record, P1 was the written representation which was handed in on
the first day.
JUDGE MALL: That's right.
MR VISSER: P2 was the report from the "Beeld".
JUDGE MALL: That's right.
MR VISSER: P3 was the "Affidavit of Willem Schoon".
JUDGE MALL: Yes.
MR VISSER: P4 is now the "Affidavit of General Coetzee".
JUDGE MALL: Mrs Kruger has you any questions to ask.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MRS KRUGER 302 BRIG CRONJE
MRS KRUGER: Yes, I do, but perhaps to facilitate the process I think it an opportune moment at this
stage to hand in the affidavits I have prepared so that you can follow that. I have also got one available for
the Interpreters and for the people sitting around. There is just one aspect that I want to draw your attention
to, it is first of all, I think it was referred to that you have an Exhibit R is the statement of Winter.
JUDGE MALL: We have an S as well.
MRS KRUGER: Do you have an S already?
JUDGE MALL: That's right, that is the statement by Mr Beeslaar.
MRS KRUGER: So then this will then be Exhibit T.
JUDGE MALL: Yes.
MRS KRUGER: The Exhibit T also refers to an affidavit by Assistant Commissioner Britz. In that respect
I beg your indulgence, I only have a faxed copy because Assistant Commissioner Britz is in Cape Town, it
was faxed through to him on Tuesday, yesterday morning, and in fact - sorry, Wednesday, yesterday
morning he faxed it through to us due to the fact that we didn't have sufficient time to get hold of him and
he is busy with a course in Cape Town for the whole week, so I have got the original affidavit by General
Smit and then the original fax and a copy of the fax has been made and annexed to Exhibit T.
JUDGE MALL: That should be T1 and T2.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairperson, may I just be afforded an opportunity please.
JUDGE MALL: Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairperson, as I recall the discussion yesterday that we had pertaining to cross-
examination of the PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MRS KRUGER 302 BRIG CRONJE
applicants by representatives of witnesses who contradict the applicants, that would be done on the basis
that those witnesses will then be available to be questioned by us. Now I have now been informed that, I
hear now that Colonel Britz, I don't know what his - General Britz is in Cape Town this week, I just want to
have clarity on whether he will be available to give evidence and obviously then I accept that General
Coetzee and Brigadier Schoon as well as General Basie Smit will be here tomorrow to be examined.
JUDGE MALL: Can you throw any light on the availability of these individuals?
MRS KRUGER: First of all, I only act for General Smit so I can only speak on his behalf, but I am sure if
the Commission or if the Committee decides to subpoena Assistant Commissioner Britz, he will be
available, depending whether or not Brigadier Cronje is going to admit the allegations I am going to put to
him with regard to what is contained in the affidavit by General Smit it might not be necessary to call him
as a witness. So at this stage I think it is to be dealt with.
JUDGE MALL: We will decide then at a stage when it is convenient, because it may be that it might not
be relevant, but depending upon what is said in the evidence, but if it is necessary for them to be called then
they will have to be called to give evidence.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairperson, may I just enquire that that obviously opens the opportunity for
representatives also to hand in affidavits of people they don't represent, I just want to make sure that, that is
the case, Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MALL: Yes.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VISSER 303 BRIG CRONJE
MR VISSER: Perhaps I should also go on record, Mr Chairman I may advise at this stage as you know
General Coetzee is also an applicant for amnesty as well as Brigadier Schoon, so first of all, in due course,
they will find themselves in the witness box before you, that is the one aspect. The other is if you feel that,
if the Committee feels that it is important to decide an issue, a dispute which reflects on credibility now,
then we will obviously make these witnesses available within a reasonable time, Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MGOEPE: General Coetzee would not be, from what you have being saying, it would appear that
he would not be an applicant for amnesty in respect of this incident.
MR VISSER: No, not in respect of this one.
JUDGE MGOEPE: So that kind of difficulty that bothered us about witnesses who are prospective
applicants does not arise with regard to him? And Schoon as well.
MR VISSER: (...indistinct) but clearly Mr Chairman you would not be precluded from asking questions
about what was put on on his behalf at any stage, clearly.
ADV DE JAGER: I just need some clarity, this statement by Britz, is that General Suiker Britz?
MS KRUGER: Yes, that is correct.
ADV DE JAGER: Did he never actually do the investigation himself or was it De Bruyn?
MS KRUGER: It was De Bruyn, that is correct. It happened under his instructions.
ADV DE JAGER: So I just want clarity it seems as though you have stated that Suiker Britz conducted the
investigation. MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I hope that was not incorrect. My intention was to say that
Suiker Britz was at the head of the investigation. I did not intend to say that he was the
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VISSER 304 BRIG CRONJE
only person involved.
ADV DE JAGER: I just want clarity then. Daantjie Van Wyk was then involved at some point as well?
MR VISSER: Yes, we do not deny that.
JUDGE MALL: The Committee will take a very short adjournment.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION
JUDGE MALL: Earlier in these proceedings, Mr du Plessis, counsel for the applicants, raised the question
of the right of counsel of implicated persons cross-examining applicants. We have allowed the situation to
proceed up to now and as a result of what has transpired, in the last hour or so this afternoon, my
Committee has to reconsider precisely what attitude to adopt on the issue.
We have decided that we will give a ruling on this matter tomorrow morning, the matter being the
right of counsel representing implicated persons to cross-examine applicants.
We have received the affidavits that have been submitted this afternoon by Mr Visser on behalf of
his clients. We have received an affidavit submitted by Advocate Kruger on behalf of her client. On the
evidence contained in the affidavit submitted by Mrs Kruger, it does seem that the evidence as a whole
does not implicate Lieutenant General Smit in terms of the Act.
We have come to the conclusion that he is, strictly speaking, not an implicated person in terms of
the Act. It is, therefore, not necessary for counsel for Lieutenant General Smit to cross-examine this
witness. We have, however, accepted his affidavit as part of the record of
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE MALL RULING
these proceedings.
Counsel will understand that unless a decision is taken now on the matter, hearings of this nature
may snowball and we may start finding ourselves handling with trials within applications, within
applications, within applications, without there being any prospect of coming to any finality. Speaking for
myself, and it is a matter on which the Committee will give a ruling, speaking for myself, we are concerned
to see that justice is done in this regard in terms of the Act and that we would like to achieve that objective
in the best way possible without causing too much inconvenience to all the parties, particularly also the
victims and their dependants.
So now, Mrs Kruger, we have come to the conclusion that as far as we are concerned, there will
be no need for you to cross-examine Brigadier Cronje.
MRS KRUGER: Thank you. I accept the decision of the Committee.
JUDGE MALL: Thank you. The Committee will now adjourn and meet at 9 o'clock tomorrow
morning.
MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, may I just say one thing, Mr Chairman, with respect, being a representative
of implicated persons I have not been given any opportunity to make any submissions to you in regard to
Mr du Plessis' application. I just want to remind you Sir, of that fact.
JUDGE MALL: Just repeat that again. I understand first of all, I draw a distinction between you and
Advocate Kruger because you are representing clients who have themselves applied for amnesty.
MR VISSER: Yes Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MALL: Your clients will be heard in due course.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VISSER 305 ADDRESS
MR VISSER: Correct. Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MALL: Now you were talking about the foot, the shoe that you wear on the other foot, in the
capacity as an implicated person.
MR VISSER: Yes, Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MALL: Yes.
MR VISSER: All that I am saying Mr Chairman is that I would have liked to have made one or two
submissions to you in that regard which may or may not assist you in coming to a decision.
JUDGE MALL: I think we have come to a decision in this matter.
MR VISSER: You have come to a decision.
JUDGE MALL: Yes. But if you are going to talk about the other issue and that is whether implicated
persons would be entitled to cross-examine applicants, if that is the matter on which you want to say a few
things, then I would like to hear you.
MR VISSER: Yes, that is what I am talking about, Mr Chairman, that is precisely what I am talking about.
JUDGE MALL: Yes proceed.
MR VISSER: I won't be long, Mr Chairman, I really have only a few submissions to make. First of all,
may I refer you again to Annexure P1 in which we hopefully made it quite clear that we are not here to
insist on cross-examination. What we stated in paragraph 4 at page 3 of Exhibit P1 was that if the
Committee should feel, Mr Chairman, that an issue of credibility has arisen which requires a decision by
the Committee in order to deal with the application for amnesty, then clearly it could only be done by way
of cross-examination. But we certainly do not insist, Mr Chairman, on PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VISSER 306 ADDRESS
cross-examining witnesses. This was one of those cases where we had to place the dispute before you, we
could have done that by way of affidavit only, there would have been no problem with that, Mr Chairman, I
assume, perhaps incorrectly so, that it was expected for us to cross-examine
now and put the evidence by way of cross-examination, but we are quite content to accept any ruling in that
regard, Mr Chairman, that is why we offered to do it by way of affidavit.
Mr Chairman but, as far as an implicated person is concerned there is the issue that presumably a
man who is implicated stands in danger of his rights being impaired. If that presumption is correct Mr
Chairman, it is reasonable that he should also be heard. Now again it may be that the handing in of an
affidavit is sufficient, but there may be situations where that will not suffice.
JUDGE MALL: The Act talks about him being allowed to make representations, he may make
representations either orally or in writing.
MR VISSER: Yes, Mr Chairman but Section 34 is quite clear in its presumption that cross-examination
will be permitted because it assumes that because it speaks of the right of the Committee to restrict cross-
examination. And what is more Mr Chairman the matter was albeit obiter, was dealt with by the Appellate
Division in the matter of DU PREEZ AND VAN RENSBURG v TRC. If the Committee members have a
copy of that judgment it starts on page 38 at the foot and it runs over to page 39, I haven't got it in front of
me. Oh in fact, I do have it in front of me, would you prefer me to read it to you Mr Chairman?
JUDGE MALL: Yes, will you just read it to us, we may need
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VISSER 307 ADDRESS
a copy of it.
MR VISSER: Yes certainly we will make one available, Mr Chairman, we will hand it up to you now.
JUDGE MALL: Just that particular section, that portion of the judgment.
MR VISSER: It starts at the foot of page 38 and His Lordship, the ex-Chief Justice states:
"There are important advantages to be gained by having reasonable and timeous notice
of such a hearing. The person likely to be implicated is thereby enabled to be personally
present and/or to be legally represented at a hearing. It will enable him and/or his legal
representative to actually hear the implicating evidence and see the demeanour of
relevant witness or witnesses. Conceivably....."
and these are the important words.
"As pointed out by King J, the implicated person might be able readily to rebut the
allegations of the witness. In such a case the Committee might well be under a duty to
hear the rebutting evidence forthwith or to permit immediate cross-examination".
You will observe Mr Chairman it is assumed and accepted by the Chief Justice that the right of
cross-examination exists. What he is dealing here with is the right to do it immediately, the so-called right
of instant rebuttal.
ADV. DE JAGER: Yes. Instant or cross-examine, isn't the word "or" used?
MR VISSER: No, no, no but these are the things that he may do, Mr Chairman, he may do a lot of things,
he may draw your PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VISSER 307 ADDRESS
attention to inadmissible evidence, he may draw your attention to the fact that the particular matter doesn't
fall within the scope and ambit of your brief. He may cross-examine, he may lead evidence, he may hand
documents to you, these are all the rights which a person who is implicated has.
JUDGE MALL: Will you complete the passage?
MR VISSER: It is completed Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MALL: Is that all?
MR VISSER: Yes.
JUDGE MALL: If it is possible we would like to have a copy of that.
JUDGE WILSON: I've got it.
JUDGE MALL: I'm sorry, my brother has a copy. Thank you very much.
MR VISSER: The only submission I make on this, Mr Chairman is on a careful reading of that passage
you will observe that it is accepted by the Appeal Court that such right exists. Now, again, I do not rely on
it as an unqualified assumption that we have the right to cross-examine in all circumstances, clearly, that is
not my submission, Mr Chairman. May it please you.
JUDGE MALL: Yes.
MR VISSER: Mr Chairman my attorney's concerned that I should tell you about something else, about
the undertaking I gave on his behalf the day before yesterday to give yo
TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION COMMISSION
AMNESTY HEARINGS
DATE: 28 FEBRUARY 1997
HELD AT: PRETORIA NAME: BRIGADIER CRONJE
DAY: 5
__________________________________________________________
ADV MPSHE: Thank you Mr Chairman, Members of the Committee. Today is the 28th. Continuation in
Van Vuuren and Others matter. Mr Chairman we continue today in the matter of Dr Ribeiro and wife and
thereafter we will proceed to the KwaNdebele Nine matter Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman if my memory
serves me well another applicant, I think Hechter, was to testify if we are at that stage, but I leave that in the
hands of my learned friend. Thank you Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MALL: Before proceeding with the leading of evidence, yesterday we indicated that we will
announce our decision on the question of the rights of implicated persons to cross-examine applicants and
witnesses, whether or not cross-examination is allowed will depend upon the circumstances of each case.
Factors which will be taken into account include, inter alia, whether the person implicated is
opposing the application for amnesty. The other factor is whether the concerns of the implicated person
can be adequately met by an affidavit furnished by him wherein he states his version. Another factor we
would take into account is whether the purpose of the cross-examination is to show that the applicant is not
entitled to amnesty. Finally whether the interests of justice demand that cross-examination be allowed.
I trust that this clears the air on this issue, at any rate.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VISSER 309 ADDRESS
MR VISSER: Mr Chairman if I may say something. We certainly agree with the ruling insofar as it does
coincide with what we suggested in the beginning. Certainly all that we were interested in is just fair
administrative action. May I just add one thing Mr Chairman to your point number two, it is quite
conceivable that in many instances, like today already, it may not even be necessary to hand up an affidavit
to you, even though there are some disputes on the papers but it will be in matters where the disputes are, in
our view, so negligible that we don't have to draw it to your attention.
JUDGE MALL: Ja, thank you very much. Are you ready to call your witness?
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Chairman I still have to do the re-examination of Brigadier Cronje.
JUDGE MALL: Certainly.
BRIGADIER JAN HATTINGH CRONJE: (s.u.o.)
RE-EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: Brigadier, many questions were put to you yesterday, and
there are a few aspects which I would like to clear up with you. Could you just give an indication to the
Committee of more-or-less how many files were there during your time in the security force.
BRIG CRONJE: Approximately ten thousand.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And how often did you have insight into these files?
BRIG CRONJE: In all of them, probably once a year.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Would you have seen the file on Dr and Mrs Ribeiro regularly or once a year?
BRIG CRONJE: Once a year.
ADV DU PLESSIS: When was the last time you saw the file, as far as you can recall.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 309 BRIG CRONJE
BRIG CRONJE: When Charl Naude asked me for a memorandum.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And you testified that Captain Hechter worked together with the special forces with
regards to inter alia information which was contained in this file, is that correct?
BRIG CRONJE: That is correct.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Would you say that Captain Hechter was in a better position to tell the Committee
exactly what was in the file and what information was in the file?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes, because he worked with this.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Would he have studied the file in closer detail than you?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Brigadier, in your evidence, the record of your testimony on page 464 to 465, you
said that Dr Ribeiro was a very active activist for the ANC, he recruited MK members for training abroad
and also provided medical assistance to terrorists and activists.
BRIG CRONJE: Yes, that is correct.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Brigadier, is that what you can recall?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes, Chairperson.
JUDGE WILSON: What page please?
ADV DU PLESSIS: 464 and at the end of the page over to page 465. Brigadier, I would like to present to
you what Captain Hechter set out in his application with regards to the information which was available as
far as Dr and Mrs Ribeiro were concerned.
Before I proceed with that I would like to ask you, you testified yesterday that you did not know
anything about Mrs Ribeiro having been active in any or involved in any liberation movement activities, is
that true as far as you
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 310 BRIG CRONJE
can recall?
BRIG CRONJE: That is the was I recall it.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Can you remember reading anything about her in the docket?
BRIG CRONJE: No, I cannot.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Or in the file.
BRIG CRONJE: No.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Is it possible that Captain Hechter would recall her involvement in more detail?
BRIG CRONJE: That is very possible.
ADV DU PLESSIS: I am going to read to you what Captain Hechter says in his application on page 203
Mr Chairman.
Captain Hechter said the following, and he will testify to that effect.
"Mrs Ribeiro and her husband were involved in the recruiting of MK members and also
ANC inspired actions. It was thus necessary to eliminate both. The purpose was that the
ANC organisation of which Ribeiro and his wife were members, to destabilise it and
thus obtain stability in the Pretoria area and in the country, for the protection of the
country and it's people. Ribeiro was an influential man as far as the information of
the SAP and the SADF goes. He played a cardinal role in recruiting aspirant MK
soldiers...."
...(intervention)
JUDGE WILSON: What is the relevance of reading what Hechter is going to say to this witness?
ADV DU PLESSIS: Because I am going to ask the witness Mr Chairman ...(intervention)
JUDGE WILSON: You've told us he remembers nothing about
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 311 BRIG CRONJE
Mrs Ribeiro.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, yes Mr Chairman, what I want to ask the witness Mr Chairman, if you will
allow me is if he has any reason to doubt the correctness of the evidence Captain Hechter is going to give.
And Mr Chairman I want to place on record here and now, that when I call Captain Hechter I intend to call
him in respect of his own application as well as in respect of Brigadier Cronje's application. May I proceed
Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MALL: Yes.
JUDGE WILSON: Should he go on with this wasting our time? ADV DU PLESSIS: May I proceed Mr
Chairman?
JUDGE MALL: Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Brigadier Cronje,
".... he played a cardinal role in recruiting aspirant MK, he also MK recruits. He was
also involved in the destabilisation......"
INTERPRETERS: Could the Speaker please slow down a bit the Interpreters cannot keep up.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Do you have any reason to doubt the correctness of this?
BRIG CRONJE: No.
JUDGE WILSON: But you, yourself have no recollection of it whatsoever, although you read the files?
BRIG CRONJE: No I cannot recollect this, that's correct.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Brigadier, I would like to refer you to page 6 of your application. It deals with your
memory, you have already testified about this, is this one - this is one of the aspects about which you have
already testified, that your memory is not of such a nature that you can remember the details.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 312 BRIG CRONJE
BRIG CRONJE: That is correct, Chairperson.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Brigadier, with regards to your action after you came to hear about the death of Dr
and Mrs Ribeiro, let us assume for a moment for the purposes of the question, that Mrs Ribeiro was not
involved in any such activities, would it have been possible for you to do anything with regards to the
investigation? More specifically I would like to know, would you have been able to take steps so that the
person who shot Mrs Ribeiro as well could prosecuted in a court of law?
BRIG CRONJE: No, Chairperson, I would not have been able to have done anything about that for the
simple reason that the Security Branch, the South African Police and the South African Defence Force and
the National Party, the Government of the day, would have been prejudiced and I would have jeopardised
all the operations and I foresaw that there were some more serious incidents of unrest which could arise as
a consequence of that becoming common knowledge.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Would it have jeopardised the safety of the Security Branch?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes, that is so.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Brigadier, with regards to Mrs Ribeiro herself, you testify that you cannot recall
anything about her involvement in this file. Can you recall if you had any idea to the effect, or had any
intention that Mrs Ribeiro should be assassinated together with Dr Ribeiro?
BRIG CRONJE: Not at all, Chairperson.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Brigadier, there were questions put to you with regards to special forces and
information, and it was put to you that General Coetzee says in his affidavit that the South African Police
work cooperated with the defence
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 312 BRIG CRONJE
force as far as that was concerned, could you just tell us what the special forces were?
BRIG CRONJE: Special forces were not an information gathering unit, it was purely a combat unit which
had to attack and eliminate targets. Information was conveyed and dealt with by military intelligence.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Brigadier, right at the beginning of the hearings you testified with regards to the
instruction issued by Brigadier Schoon, could you please page to pages 17 and 18, in your application.
That evidence you gave in October already, and on pages 17 and 18 you say that,
"Brigadier Schoon's instruction to me was to cooperate with the South African Defence
Force and the special forces".
And there you also said that the special forces were a combat group, who conducted covert operations.
Brigadier, do you maintain what you said in that testimony, in spite of what was put to you yesterday by
Mr Visser in cross-examination?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes, I maintain that.
JUDGE WILSON: Where did he say that in his testimony?
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman I haven't got the whole record with me but he ...(intervention)
JUDGE WILSON: Well then don't put it to as testimony, you put it that he maintains what he said in his
application.
ADV DU PLESSIS: But Mr Chairman he read that part into the record so it is part of the record. If Your
Lordship would allow me to I will provide you with the exact page on Monday. I will determine the exact
page. Mr Chairman, as I can recall Brigadier Cronje read that whole first part into the record in the
evidence in October.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 313 BRIG CRONJE
Brigadier, in his statement at paragraph 6.3, Brigadier Schoon says, it appears to me that you are
correct, he said "...it is possible that there was a discussion between Cronje and I, as
alleged by him and that the instruction came down to the fact that there should be closer
cooperation between the South African Defence Force and that there should be closer
cooperation with the special forces".
Do you agree with that?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes, I do.
ADV DU PLESSIS: So, it would appear, Brigadier, as though you and Brigadier Schoon worked together?
Good.
Brigadier, with regards to the instruction by Brigadier Schoon, when he gave you the instruction
to work closely with the South African Defence Force and special forces, did he give you specific
instructions to military information and so forth, or was there no such instruction?
BRIG. CRONJE: I cannot remember any such instructions, Mr Chairman.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Brigadier, there was a hue and cry yesterday during cross-examination with regards
to your testimony in respect of the instruction which you received and also the discussion after the incident
took place where General Joubert said certain things to you, and if I could just refer you to the application
on page 132.
ADV DE JAGER: Excuse me for interrupting, Mr Mpshe has notice been given to General Joubert with
regards to these allegations?
ADV MPSHE: Yes, Mr Chairman.
ADV DE JAGER: Have you heard anything from him?
ADV MPSHE: No.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 314 BRIG CRONJE
ADV DE JAGER: That he disputes it or otherwise?
ADV MPSHE: No, nothing, but I do have the return of service.
ADV DE JAGER: Thank you.
JUDGE MALL: I am sorry what page were you referring the witness to?
ADV DU PLESSIS: Page 132 of his application Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MALL: Thank you.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Brigadier, you testified yesterday that you were under the impression that as a result
of what General Joubert said to you, that Basie Smit ascertained that the Land Rover, with regards to the
Land Rover and that the investigation was handled by Basie Smit?
BRIG CRONJE: That is correct.
ADV DU PLESSIS: You also said that it was an assumption which you made in the light of what General
Joubert said to you?
BRIG CRONJE: That is correct.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Was it an assumption that you made?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes, it was an assumption.
ADV DU PLESSIS: When the application was drawn up in September, were you still under that
impression?
BRIG CRONJE: I was, Chairperson.
ADV DU PLESSIS: When you gave evidence in October, were you still under that impression?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes, Mr Chairperson.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And when you testified yesterday, were you still under that impression?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes, Mr Chairman.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Brigadier if you say that Brigadier Daantjie van Wyk, after your cross-examination
would come
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 315 BRIG CRONJE
and testify that he investigated, he was in charge of the docket and that he was responsible for the
investigation and not Basie Smit, would you accept that your assumption was wrong?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes.
JUDGE WILSON: What I questioned him about yesterday was not an assumption, but the words he used
which was that he got specific instructions, which does not accord with what you have just go him to say
now. Nor does it explain it.
ADV DU PLESSIS: I know Mr Chairman, the wording in the application did not refer to the fact that he
made an assumption, I understand that.
JUDGE WILSON: Nor did his evidence on oath.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Nor did evidence-in-chief, that is correct Mr Chairman. What the witness has done
now is he has explained to the Committee that it was an assumption which seems to be a wrong assumption
which he has made, and he is saying that honestly to the Committee now.
JUDGE WILSON: What he is doing is changing his evidence in the light of other information that's been
put to him. Whether that is honestly or not is for us to decide.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Chairman, yes. He is saying that it was an assumption and that it was a
wrong assumption. I will address you in argument on that Mr Chairman. Brigadier let me just put it to
you clearly. What you testified about in October and what you set out in your application, was it based on
the assumption which you made?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes, it was Mr Chairperson.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Were you ever involved in the investigation?
BRIG CRONJE: No, Chairperson.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 316 BRIG CRONJE
ADV DU PLESSIS: Were you ever, after these discussions, approached by anyone to discuss the
investigation with you?
BRIG CRONJE: No, Chairperson.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Were you ever involved after the investigation in this incident in any way?
BRIG CRONJE: No, Chairperson.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Before you testified in October did anyone ever come to you and tell you specifically
who the investigating Officer was?
BRIG CRONJE: No, Chairperson.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Brigadier, with regards to the facts, as Judge Wilson just put it to you, that you
changed your evidence, is there any reason why when you testified in October, you would deliberately
have tried to mislead this Committee?
BRIG CRONJE: I had no reason whatsoever, Mr Chairperson.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Did you have any such intention?
BRIG CRONJE: No, Mr Chairperson.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Very well. Is there any benefit which you would have gained out of creating the
wrong impression in front of this Committee with regards to these specific aspects?
BRIG CRONJE: No Chairperson.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Very well then. Brigadier, I would like to refer you with regards to Brigadier
Schoon's statement, I would like to refer you to General Coetzee's affidavit, I think it is Exhibit P4, if I am
not mistaken, paragraph 3.6, where he says that,
"At the time the South African Defence Force was deployed to assist the South African
Police in Mamelodi and other unrest areas in Pretoria. It
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 316 BRIG CRONJE
was my standing instruction that even in such a situation the South African Police
should not get involved in any such activities since each force operated under its own
instructions and the South African Defence Force was there to support, to play a
supportive role to the South African Police".
Brigadier, it appears as if that is contradictory to what Brigadier Schoon says, do you agree with that or do
you dispute it? General Coetzee, in the extract I have just read to you said that the South African Police
should not get involve in the South African Defence Force activities in any way, do you understand that?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Does that differ from what Brigadier Schoon said to you?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes, definitely.
ADV DU PLESSIS: It would appear that it also differs from what he said in his affidavit as well.
BRIG CRONJE: Yes.
MR VISSER: Mr Chairman my learned friend is advancing basically legal argument to a witness in
evidence. With great respect we don't agree with what he's putting to the witness. I just want to place that
on record Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MALL: Yes I understand.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman I will argue this point and I'm putting it to the witness to get his
comment on that.
JUDGE MALL: I understand. You may carry on.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DU PLESSIS
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE MGOEPE 317 BRIG CRONJE
JUDGE MGOEPE: Brigadier, your counsel read to you what Captain Hechter says about Mrs Ribeiro, do
you remember that?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Were you ever told, either before or after her death, that she was an activist in the
manner in which Captain Hechter describes her?
BRIG CRONJE: I cannot recall anything about those discussions.
JUDGE MGOEPE: It is surely something that you would have remembered?
BRIG CRONJE: I said that I cannot remember how Mrs Ribeiro was involved.
JUDGE MGOEPE: I am not asking you to tell us how she was involved, I am asking you whether you
were ever told that she was an activist?
BRIG CRONJE: It is possible Chairperson, but I cannot remember.
JUDGE MGOEPE: That is why I am asking you, isn't it something that you would have remembered, that
isn't it something that you would remember, it must have bee? important.
BRIG CRONJE: Because I was not responsible for the operation, I did not execute the operation, I do not
know if I would have gone into such depths in the matter.
JUDGE MGOEPE: There was a file on Dr Ribeiro wasn't there?
BRIG CRONJE: There was Chairperson.
JUDGE MGOEPE: And you knew, even before a memorandum was asked of you about him, you knew
that he was an activist, didn't you?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes, I did.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE MGOEPE 318 BRIG CRONJE
JUDGE MGOEPE: Well did you know - was there a file about Mrs Ribeiro?
BRIG CRONJE: I cannot recall that Mr Chairperson, as I said, there were ten thousand files under me.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Well if she was that much active would you not have remembered?
BRIG CRONJE: I never worked with the files personally. Captain Hechter and his section dealt with that
type of file, so I cannot remember.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Well we were told that Dr Ribeiro was a person of a very high profile.
BRIG CRONJE: Yes, that is correct.
JUDGE MGOEPE: If his wife, who was living with him in Mamelodi, was that much politically active,
are you saying that you wouldn't be about to remember that now?
BRIG CRONJE: I cannot remember Chairperson, really.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Well if Captain Hechter had this information that she was that much politically active,
particularly when this operation was planned, would you not be expected to be informed about that?
BRIG CRONJE: As I said, they never informed me that Mrs Ribeiro was to be eliminated in any way, I
didn't know anything about that.
JUDGE MGOEPE: After her death were you told that she had been politically active?
BRIG CRONJE: I cannot recall, Chairperson.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Not even after her death?
BRIG CRONJE: I cannot recall.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Isn't it something that you would have to remember, Brigadier, because that would
have been the reason for her murder?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE MGOEPE 319 BRIG CRONJE
BRIG CRONJE: If it was discussed with me, I would probably have recalled, but I cannot recall if it was
discussed, but, I did not pay that much attention to the matter because I was not involved.
JUDGE MGOEPE: But it is reasonable to expect that you would have discussed the operation with
Captain Hechter after the incident, he would have told you how the operation went, whether it was a
success or not, isn't it so? ..(tape ends)
BRIG CRONJE: It is possible that I did, I cannot recall.
JUDGE MGOEPE: That would have been a very important question to ask, because in terms of your
evidence, she was not supposed to be killed. Why can't you remember whether you queried him, and said
to him but why was his wife killed?
BRIG CRONJE: I cannot explain, I could have asked him, but I do not recall.
JUDGE MGOEPE: You see I am putting these questions to you because the contents of Captain Hechter's
statement which were read to you by your counsel, quite surprised me that he says that much about Dr
Ribeiro's wife, and you say completely nothing about her.
BRIG CRONJE: I also did not make any mention of it in my application, Mr Chair, because I never
discussed the matter with Hechter.
JUDGE WILSON: Do you remember in your evidence yesterday, you said that you would not have
approved of the assassination of Mrs Ribeiro, you would not have approved of it, you heard about it later,
and did nothing? So yesterday you told us that you would not have approved of it, now, you are telling us
that you can't recollect, you can't recollect, you can't recollect, you can't recollect. Which
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE WILSON 319 BRIG CRONJE
is the truth? Is it that you knew nothing about her activities and would not have approved of her
assassination, as you told us yesterday?
BRIG CRONJE: It is possible that at that stage, I could not recall if Mrs Ribeiro was active in any way.
JUDGE WILSON: At what stage yesterday, you couldn't recall, because yesterday you gave us specific
evidence on her, and on your reaction, I have just read it to you, would you like me to read it again?
"I would not have approved of the assassination of Mrs Ribeiro, I would not have
approved of it. I heard about it later and I did nothing"
That is what you told us yesterday, now today you say you can't recall if you were told. My brother here
has asked you numerous questions, and you have pleaded ignorance the whole time. Why did you
yesterday, tell us that you wouldn't have approved of it? You didn't say yesterday, I can't remember if I
knew anything about her.
BRIG CRONJE: That is correct Chairperson. If the file or files were given to me and I had read through
them I would have recalled, but because there was nothing said about Mrs Ribeiro being eliminated, I
cannot remember. I didn't have the file with me. It was never said to me that she was going to be shot. If
they had said that to me, I would probably have looked at the file. I don't know if there was a file, but I
would have probably looked at it.
JUDGE MALL: I think the difficulty arises whether you were told after the event, and whether you
remember being told after the event that Mrs Ribeiro had also been killed. I think that is where the
difficulty is. Yesterday your evidence was
that you knew nothing about it. I want to know PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE MALL 320 BRIG CRONJE
now what the position is today, do you say that after the event you were told that Mrs Ribeiro had been
killed, or do you no longer remember whether that was told to you or not?
BRIG CRONJE: Do you mean after the incident, if I was informed after the incident that she had been
shot?
JUDGE MALL: Yes.
BRIG CRONJE: They did inform me that she was shot Mr Chairperson.
JUDGE WILSON: They informed you exactly how didn't they?
BRIG CRONJE: Pardon?
JUDGE WILSON: You were told how they had been shot, weren't you?
JUDGE MGOEPE; Did they tell you why they shot her?
BRIG CRONJE: As far as I can recall they said that she was present. They were together, and both were
shot.
JUDGE MGOEPE: They didn't say to you well we killed her because she was politically active herself?
BRIG CRONJE: No, I cannot recall that.
JUDGE WILSON: You have told us yesterday, sorry, in October when you gave evidence, of various
meetings after the killing. First of all you told us that Hechter told you how two black Angolan men had
been flown in to kill Dr Ribeiro and his wife, do you remember telling us that?
BRIG CRONJE: I don't know whether I mentioned the wife Sir.
JUDGE WILSON: You did. Page 462 of your evidence, it says that they shot Dr Ribeiro and his wife.
You were then summonsed to a meeting with General Joubert, Colonel Joe Verster, Lieutenant Colonel
Charles Naude, and discussed the investigation into the shooting. Do you remember that?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes, I do.
JUDGE WILSON: And the following evening you received
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE WILSON 321 BRIG CRONJE
another message that the Commissioner General Johan Coetzee would be visiting the next morning and he
had a meeting with you about this.
BRIG CRONJE: That is correct Mr Chairman.
JUDGE WILSON: He asked you whether you knew anything about the Ribeiro matter.
BRIG CRONJE: That is correct.
JUDGE WILSON: And you told him that you did. You told him that it was an operation of special forces.
BRIG CRONJE: That is correct.
JUDGE WILSON: And he told you about a visit that he had had from General Joubert, and General
Gleeson, and asked you why you were cooperating.
BRIG CRONJE: That is correct.
JUDGE WILSON: So you told your commander that you knew about the Ribeiro operation. Did you not
explain that you knew nothing about why his wife had been killed?
BRIG CRONJE: It was not discussed at the meeting.
JUDGE WILSON: But you are being asked now about this operation, and you said that you knew about it.
Why didn't you explain that you did not know why the wife had been included?
BRIG CRONJE: It was never put to me, I was never asked.
JUDGE WILSON: Well what you've told us is that General Coetzee asked me whether I knew anything
about the Ribeiro matter.
BRIG CRONJE: That is correct, I did say that.
JUDGE WILSON: Surely the answer is then, I knew they were going to kill Dr Ribeiro, but I knew
nothing about the attack of his wife/
BRIG CRONJE: I did not say that, I just said that special
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE WILSON 322 BRIG CRONJE
forces wanted to do that, but more than that they did not inform me.
JUDGE WILSON: We are asking you why you didn't inform anybody, not what they informed you, why
you never explained to anybody that you didn't know?
BRIG CRONJE: It was not my case Mr Chairperson, I was not involved. I did not commit the act so that
is probably why I didn't say ...(intervention)
JUDGE WILSON: You were asked if you knew about it and you said yes, why didn't you explain then
that you didn't know about the wife, because you were asked about the Ribeiro killing?
BRIG CRONJE: I was never asked why Mrs Ribeiro had been shot.
MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Cronje, Captain Hechter kept you up to date with regard to the planning of the
elimination of Dr Ribeiro, that is the evidence that you gave in October.
BRIG CRONJE: That is correct.
MS KHAMPEPE: Did he never at any stage advise you about the plan to also assassinate Mrs Ribeiro?
BRIG CRONJE: No Chairperson.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Sorry Brigadier. Can I just take you back again to an answer you gave about Mrs
Ribeiro when I asked you, you said that you were told that she was - they told you that she was shot, I may
not be accurate in summarising your evidence, you were told she was shot because she was there in the
vicinity, something to that effect, because they were together. Now what I want to find out from you is,
what did you understand thereby, did you understand them as saying that she was shot by accident, or how
did you understand the explanation for her killing?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE MGOEPE 322 BRIG CRONJE
BRIG CRONJE: I understood that the two were together, and that both were shot. I cannot explain why
she was shot, but they were together and I believe that because they were together, she was shot.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Isn't that the explanation they gave you as to why she was killed, simply because they
were together?
BRIG CRONJE: That is what I suspected and I don't know if it was discussed Mr Chairperson.
ADV DE JAGER: General, the day after the shooting, the whole world knew that Mrs Ribeiro was shot.
BRIG CRONJE: That is correct Mr Chairperson.
ADV DE JAGER: General Coetzee and every journalist and approximately every person in Pretoria knew.
BRIG CRONJE: That is correct.
JUDGE MALL: Mr Mpshe are there any questions you wish to put?
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MPSHE
JUDGE MALL: Mr du Plessis, you are finished with your re- examination of this witness?
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes Mr Chairman. Well Mr Chairman as a result of the questions of this Committee, I
have one question to ask, if you would allow me.
JUDGE MALL: Yes.
FURTHER RE-EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Brigadier, you
were asked about when you had the meeting after the incident, when General Coetzee asked you if you
knew anything, your words were "I told him that I did", now were you in any was involved in the planning
of this operation?
BRIG CRONJE: I was not Chairperson.
ADV DU PLESSIS: What did you mean by the fact that you knew PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 323 BRIG CRONJE
about the operation, what did you know at the stage when General Coetzee asked you about the operation?
BRIG CRONJE: I knew that special forces had executed the operation.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Is that all you knew?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes, that is all I knew.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Did you know who within the special forces it was?
BRIG CRONJE: I knew afterwards, but not at that stage.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And did you know how it was planned?
BRIG CRONJE: I did not know how it was planned.
JUDGE WILSON: Can I put one final thing on this to you. You have told us, the last time you gave
evidence in October, that you were approached by Charl Naude and you realised that when he mentioned
the word 'target', that this was a terrorist operation, and you said that you would make the applicable file
available, that he would have to draft the memorandum himself.
BRIG CRONJE: That is correct.
JUDGE WILSON: You then volunteered in your evidence, I must mention that there was no mention of
Mrs Ribeiro.
BRIG CRONJE: That is correct.
JUDGE WILSON: "I then instructed Captain Hechter to keep an eye on a member of Charl
Naude's staff who drafted the memorandum personally".
BRIG CRONJE: Correct.
JUDGE WILSON: "Hechter informed me at a later stage that the Special Branch requested him
particularly Charl Naude, and one of his staff persons, A Robin, to assist them
in their planning with regard to the elimination of Dr Ribeiro".
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE WILSON 324 BRIG CRONJE
BRIG CRONJE: That is correct.
JUDGE WILSON: "Hechter kept me up to date with regard to their plans".
Remember?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes, Chairperson.
JUDGE WILSON: So your subordinate was told to assist them, he did, and he kept you up to date with the
plans. How can you say you weren't concerned with it?
BRIG CRONJE: I was involved to the extent that I knew who was going to do it, but I was not involved in
the planning itself.
JUDGE WILSON: No your subordinate was, and he kept you informed of all the plans. Is that correct?
BRIG CRONJE: That is correct, he kept me abreast of what they were going to do, but nothing was ever
mentioned to me about Mrs Ribeiro?
JUDGE MALL: Brigadier Cronje, you are now excused. Thank you.
WITNESS EXCUSED
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 325 BRIG VAN WYK
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman the next witness who I intend to call is Brigadier Daantjie van Wyk.
DAANTJIE VAN WYK: (sworn states)
EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: Brigadier van Wyk, could you just explain to the Committee
how you were involved in the investigation of the Ribeiro murder?
BRIG VAN WYK: Mr Chairperson, at the time of the murder of Dr Ribeiro and his wife, I was affiliated
to the police headquarters in Pretoria. I was the commanding officer of the special units, that was the
murder and robbery units, the narcotics, vehicle thefts, and also stock theft.
The Monday before the murders, General Schutte called me to his office and gave me instruction
to take over the investigation into the murder of Dr Ribeiro and his wife. He informed me that the murder
and robbery unit in Pretoria had attended to it over the weekend and that I was to take over the
investigation.
I went to the murder and robbery unit where I spoke to General Britz and Captain De Bruin, who
was actually involved in the investigation. I took over the investigation in cooperation with Captain De
Bruyn. We then attempted to visit the scene. I did the necessary as far a possible. I prepared the docket,
and at some stage, handed it over to the Attorney General of the Transvaal. After he had looked at the
evidence, he authorised a provisional inquiry and after that inquiry my involvement ended.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Brigadier, during the discussion between you and Schutte, was there any mention of
Basie Smit?
BRIG VAN WYK: His name could have been brought up Mr Chairperson, I cannot remember it
specifically being mentioned. It is possible that his name could have been
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 326 BRIG VAN WYK
mentioned, but I cannot remember.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Very well, Brigadier. There are affidavits that have been submitted here by various
persons with regards to these aspects, I am just going to question you very briefly about that. General Basie
Smit says that he was never the investigating officer or that he was ever involved in the investigation into
the Ribeiro murders.
BRIG VAN WYK: As far as I know that is correct.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And then, General Britz says in his affidavit that Lieutenant de Bruyn was appointed
as the investigating officer in the matter.
BRIG VAN WYK: Originally until the Monday, when I took over the investigation.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Very well, and then he says,
"In my capacity as station commander, I conducted inspections of the docket from time
to time, and I oversaw the investigation".
BRIG VAN WYK: That is not correct. I worked from the office of the murder and robbery unit, but they
did not inspect my dockets in any way. As far as my personal knowledge goes, I can say that de Bruyn and
I were the only investigating officers in the Ribeiro murder. That is incorrect, Mr Chairperson.
ADV DU PLESSIS: He goes on to say that,
"During the investigation by Lieutenant de Bruyn, the docket was never taken away
from him, except by myself".
BRIG VAN WYK: That is incorrect. The Monday I took over the docket, the docket was in my
possession at all times, up until it was handed over to the Attorney General.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Very well. General Coetzee says in his
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 326 BRIG VAN WYK
affidavit, in paragraph 3.3,
"In the light of the aforegoing, I can remember that the Brigadier Suiker Britz, of the
murder and robbery unit was in charge of the investigation. I never discussed the matter
with him at any stage. At some stage I heard from someone that Brigadier van Wyk was
involved in the investigation".
BRIG VAN WYK: It sounds as though it is correct. I do not know what Britz's involvement was the
weekend before that Monday.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DU PLESSIS
JUDGE MALL: Thank you. Mr Currin?
MR CURRIN: Brigadier van Wyk were you surprised when the preparatory, after the preparatory
examination, there was not a finding that Noel Robey was responsible for the murders?
BRIG VAN WYK: No, the finding, as far as I can remember was that the evidence to commit him for trail
was not sufficient.
MR CURRIN: Were you surprised at that finding?
BRIG VAN WYK: No I was not.
MR CURRIN: You weren't surprised?
BRIG VAN WYK: No.
MR CURRIN: Are you aware of the fact that Captain Hechter suggests in his application that there was a
cover up?
BRIG VAN WYK: Am I surprised?
MR CURRIN: Are you aware of the fact that Captain Hechter suggests in his evidence that the magistrate
had been instructed as to what his findings should be?
BRIG VAN WYK: No, I am not aware of it.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE WILSON 327 BRIG VAN WYK
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CURRIN
JUDGE WILSON: From your questioning, I take it there was a preparatory examination held?
MR CURRIN: There was a preparatory ...(intervention)
JUDGE WILSON: Is the record of that available.
MR CURRIN: I have tried to establish that, there should be. I haven't been able to get hold of one.
JUDGE WILSON: Has the Attorney General's office got, have enquiries been made of them and also of
the dockets and what information they may have? So if one could see it and not waste time on who was
doing what and where, if there are official documents prepared at the time they will surely settle the
question.
MR CURRIN: Mr Chairman there was - just to mention after the Harms Commission, we tried to get all
the documentation and we were then told that all the documents were stolen out of the boot of the car of the
investigating officer, Suiker Britz, and we have not been able to get anything since then.
JUDGE WILSON: Doesn't he say in his affidavit or somewhere else I read very recently that he then
prepared a duplicate? After the documents had been stolen he spent a great deal of trouble in preparing
other documents.
MR CURRIN: That is what it says in his affidavit, but it is not what we have been told when we have tried
to get the documents.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I may place on record here that we have done our utmost to get hold of
this preliminary investigation. We were simply not able to. We have requested the investigation unit of the
Truth Commission to assist us with that and we simply could not find this.
JUDGE WILSON: This is a court record now, not just the
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE MALL 328 BRIG VAN WYK
docket, it is court record, has that also disappeared?
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, we couldn't find it, I didn't do the research myself, but we couldn't find
it.
JUDGE MALL: Brigadier, I understood your evidence to say that after you prepared your docket, and
handed it over to the Attorney General, he authorised an inquiry to be made?
BRIG VAN WYK: A preparatory examination Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MALL: Oh, I see, not an inquiry, it is a preparatory examination.
BRIG VAN WYK: That's correct.
JUDGE MALL: Were you present at the preparatory examination?
BRIG VAN WYK: I was, Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MALL: Were you not surprised when the magistrate found that there was inadequate evidence, or
there was no evidence against the perpetrators?
BRIG VAN WYK: Mr Chairman, I think I must just elaborate here. When I started the investigation, I
was refused access to the premises of the deceased. On the Monday when I went there, I was confronted
by a crowd of about two to three hundred people. I was denied access. I was eventually referred to Mr
Brian Currin, the attorney of the family. He refused us access to any of the witnesses. For a period of 18
days I couldn't talk to any of the witnesses. In the meantime there had appeared numerous articles in the
newspapers where the journalists had interviews with different witnesses, and by the time that we were
allowed access to the witnesses, the stories all went around the newspaper reports. And during the
preparatory examination, I think most of the witnesses didn't make much of an impression.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE MALL 329 BRIG VAN WYK
JUDGE MALL: You say that you were refused access, apart from Mr Currin, who acted on behalf of the
family, did any body else refuse you access?
BRIG VAN WYK: No, it was just that none of the witnesses were made available. I was told and asked
not to even contact them, and told that he would make them available when they were ready and I think it
was about 18, 19 days after the height of the investigation that I got a phone call that these people were
prepared to talk to me.
JUDGE MALL: At that stage did you take statements from them?
BRIG VAN WYK: I took statements from everyone. There was an arrest made. Identification parades
were held. The matter was fully investigated, and all the evidence was led during the preparatory
examination. During the Harms Commission, I was phoned about it, and I referred them to the Pretoria
North magistrates court for the records, Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MALL: Thank you.
ADV DE JAGER: Brigadier, could you perhaps tell us whether you can remember, I understand you don't
have the file in front of you, but can you remember whether a motor vehicle was identified which was
possibly involved in the incident?
BRIG VAN WYK: Yes, a motor vehicle was identified. A description of the vehicle was given in the
newspaper. If I remember correctly a registration number was also given, it appeared in the newspaper. I
confiscated a vehicle and I held an identification parade in respect of a person and the vehicle, and the
vehicle was not identified, and the person was similarly not identified.
ADV DE JAGER: Were you not able to determine who gave the
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DE JAGER 330 BRIG VAN WYK
information about the vehicle or the registration number?
BRIG VAN WYK: It was in the newspaper, I think it appeared in the newspaper on the Monday or the
Tuesday. I can't remember the reporter's name. Some of the witnesses alleged that they had taken down
the registration number of the car.
JUDGE MGOEPE: With hindsight now you can see now that the police withheld information from you,
important information, more particularly the security police?
BRIG VAN WYK: Yes, that is correct Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MGOEPE: You were in the police force, you are investigating murder, the security police know
exactly who did it, and where that person is, and the other arm of the police, that is yourself, is busy trying
to investigate that, wasn't this just a farce?
BRIG VAN WYK: No, it wasn't just a farce, for the simple reason that I myself had no idea as to who was
responsible, until eventually it pointed in a certain direction with the arrest of a Mr Robey. I had no idea.
At no time did I have any idea that the security police were involved. I can mention that a vehicle number
was given to me. The number I traced eventually to a Captain Hechter, it was his car, and he made a
statement as to why his car was in Mamelodi on that particular day and if I remember correctly, he gave
evidence at the preparatory examination on that.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Well, I accept you as a person, you must of acted in good faith, I accept that, but what
I am saying to you is that senior policemen know exactly who did that, where is that person, where can that
person be found. But on the other hand State resources are being used to try and investigate when in fact it
is known who the murderers are, and it's just - it's farcical isn't it?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE MGOEPE 330 BRIG VAN WYK
BRIG VAN WYK: No, if I had known who the murderers were, I would have gone ahead and charged
them and the little bit of information that I had to work on, I actually made an arrest.
ADV DE JAGER: I think there is a misunderstanding between the two. What the learned Commissioner
is trying to say is that with hindsight it appears that you are investigating a murder whilst some of your
colleagues in the police had information which they could have given you to help you to make the arrest,
armed with the proper facts, but they withheld these from you.
BRIG VAN WYK: Yes, I suppose that is so. We were very aware of the silence. The only information
which I could obtain was from the witnesses at the scene.
JUDGE WILSON: Sorry, can I just clear up something in my own mind. You have told us something
about a vehicle and an identification parade where the vehicle was not identified.
BRIG VAN WYK: That is correct Mr Chairman.
JUDGE WILSON: Was that Captain Hechter's vehicle?
BRIG VAN WYK: No, no, that was a Mr Robey's vehicle.
JUDGE WILSON: Do you know who that vehicle belonged to?
BRIG VAN WYK: The vehicle was registered in some security company's name which I couldn't trace, I
don't think it ever existed. I tried through the chassis number, engine number, and the factory to trace
ownership and I wasn't successful.
JUDGE WILSON: So if somebody knew that, they were also not telling you that?
BRIG VAN WYK: That is correct Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MALL: Did you ever come to know that it wasn't the police but the special forces of the army that
were involved in the murder?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE MALL 331 BRIG VAN WYK
BRIG VAN WYK: I had no specific information, I suspected that Mr Robey was the - but I had no
specific information or evidence to connect him with it. He himself, after he had been arrested and warned
according to Judges' rules gave a short statement as to his movements on that day, and he refused to say
anything more about it.
MS KHAMPEPE: Why did you suspect Mr Robey out of all the people that you could have suspected?
BRIG VAN WYK: Mr Chairman, by the time that I got onto the scene it was fully reported in the
newspaper number one, even including his vehicle registration number, and the reporters had been to see
his wife, he was apparently away, they had been to see his wife and they had done a full investigation and
reported it in the newspapers. That was on the Monday or on the Tuesday when I arrived on the scene, that
this had already been published.
JUDGE WILSON: You must have had a very impossible task.
BRIG VAN WYK: That is correct Mr Chairman.
JUDGE WILSON: One last point. I think you have told us, I just want to make it clear, Captain Hechter
presumably made a statement to you and then gave evidence at the preparatory examination indicating his
complete innocence?
BRIG VAN WYK: Yes, that is correct Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MALL: Is there any re-examination?
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MPSHE: Mr van Wyk, were you, when General Schutte gave
instructions to take over the investigation, were you given reasons why you had to do that?
BRIG VAN WYK: No, he didn't have to give me reasons, I was the senior Brigadier available to him at
the time, and I was PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 332 BRIG VAN WYK
continuously involved in investigations of murders, wherever it occurred, countrywide, because the murder
and robbery branch countrywide came under me.
JUDGE WILSON: And I take it that this was an extremely high profile murder?
BRIG VAN WYK: That is correct.
ADV MPSHE: Yes, but there was already a Captain charged with the investigation, Captain de Bruyn.
That is why I am saying were you given reasons why it had to be taken from a Captain?
BRIG VAN WYK: Well, as it came from the Chair, it was a high profile murder and that is why they took
it and gave it to the brigadier and not the captain. The captain also reported that he had no access to the
scene or to the witnesses, and I tried too.
ADV MPSHE: Now, this vehicle that you could not trace, even if you were to check the chassis numbers
thereof, where did you find it.
BRIG VAN WYK: The vehicle?
ADV MPSHE: H'n.
BRIG VAN WYK: I found it in the possession of Mr Robey.
ADV MPSHE: It was in his possession?
BRIG VAN WYK: That is correct, yes.
ADV MPSHE: Did he make any explanation to you about that vehicle, whose vehicle it was?
BRIG VAN WYK: He told me it was his vehicle.
ADV MPSHE: Well now perhaps I may be confused, which vehicle were you checking, you said you
checked the chassis number and so, which vehicle?
BRIG VAN WYK: I am talking about the Land Rover.
ADV MPSHE: Now where did you find this Land Rover?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 333 BRIG VAN WYK
BRIG VAN WYK: In the possession of Mr Robey.
ADV MPSHE: Now did you have to check the chassis number when he said that it was his vehicle?
BRIG VAN WYK: He said to me that the vehicle was being used by him. I checked the registration
number, which was registered in a name of a security company if I remember correctly, which I could not
trace, I couldn't find any address of such a company, and therefore I checked through the records of the
vehicle, the chassis number, back to the factory, and I couldn't find anything.
ADV MPSHE: Now, he told you it was his vehicle, he was using it, didn't you ask him where did you get
this vehicle from since you could not get information?
BRIG VAN WYK: He told me it was the company's vehicle.
ADV MPSHE: And you stopped there and you ...(intervention)
BRIG VAN WYK: No, I didn't stop there, I went further. I tried to trace the correct ownership, but I was
unsuccessful.
ADV MPSHE: Yes, you know, I find it funny that you find this vehicle in this man's possession, he tells
you he is using this car, it is a company vehicle, I find it funny that you don't ask him which company gave
him - give me the particulars ...(intervention)
JUDGE WILSON: He told him, he gave him the name of a company which it was registered in the name
of but that company was apparently a non-existent company that he could not be traced, that's the
evidence.
BRIG VAN WYK: That's correct Mr Chairman.
ADV MPSHE: Thank you, leave it at that.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV MPSHE
ADV DE JAGER: And you in fact arrested Robey?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE WILSON 333 BRIG VAN WYK
BRIG VAN WYK: Ja I did Mr Chairman.
JUDGE WILSON: And once having told him that he was not obliged to say anything, and that if he did
say anything it would be taken down, you couldn't go on questioning him, could you?
BRIG VAN WYK: I couldn't, he gave me an explanation Mr Chairman that he was with his family and
that he had witnesses to call, he said, and just on that particular day and I couldn't question him any further.
JUDGE MGOEPE: As far as I can remember, that is not how the murder and robbery squad usually
interrogated people. That is not how they usually obtain confessions ...(intervention)
BRIG VAN WYK: That is how I usually did ...(intervention)
JUDGE MGOEPE: They had a method of ...(intervention)
BRIG VAN WYK: That is how I usually did it.
JUDGE MGOEPE: .... part of this murder and robbery squad of which you headed.
BRIG VAN WYK: Ja I headed that is correct, but I cannot account for individual members countrywide,
and I couldn't at that time.
FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CURRIN: Mr Chairman, arising out of questions from the
Chair, from the Commissioners, there are just one or two questions that I would like to put to the witness
by way of cross-examination, I wont be more than a couple of minutes, thank you.
You only arrived at the house a few days after the murder.
BRIG VAN WYK: That is correct. I arrived on the Monday.
MR CURRIN: You realise of course, that part of your investigating team was there within hours and had
access to
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 334 BRIG VAN WYK
the house, picked up the cartridges and so on?
BRIG VAN WYK: Yes, I can just elaborate here Chairman. I was told by Captain De Bruyn that although
they had access, it was limited and they had huge problems doing a proper investigation of the scene.
MR CURRIN: I put it to you immediately after the murder the police were there in a very short time, they
picked up the cartridges, you should know that you've got the cartridges.
BRIG VAN WYK: Yes that's correct.
MR CURRIN: And that in fact you went into the house, your investigators went into the house, they
searched the house, and uplifted certain documents. Are you aware of that?
BRIG VAN WYK: Yes, I cannot remember that, but I can remember that they were on the scene, I don't
know exactly, I cannot remember how long after the incident.
MR CURRIN: Well I put it to you it was very shortly, literally, within an hour, and that they uplifted
documents from the house.
BRIG VAN WYK: I cannot recall that.
MR CURRIN: I am putting it to you that they uplifted documents, are you aware of that?
(...indistinct)
I also just want to put on record that the family members found it difficult to cooperate with the
police because they suspected police involvement and that was a difficulty which their attorney explained
to you at the time and their attorney did not stop your investigation or stop you from interviewing
witnesses, the attorney merely conveyed to you what the feelings were of the family at the time. I just put
that to you.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 335 BRIG VAN WYK
BRIG VAN WYK: That is not correct.
MR VISSER: Why didn't you charge the attorney with frustrating the ends of justice?
BRIG VAN WYK: For the simple reason Mr Chairman that I was busy with an investigation and if you
have your witnesses that were on the scene and you have to subpoena them in terms of the Criminal
Procedure Act then it is a very bad start to any investigation. If you've got to force your witnesses that
were actually related to the family, to the people killed, if you have to force them to give evidence, then it is
a bad start to the investigation.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CURRIN
JUDGE WILSON: Were you aware of the fact that the deceased wasn't suspected of being a very militant
activist?
BRIG VAN WYK: No, Mr Chairperson, I had no idea, I only discovered it on that particular day that he
was an activist, I knew nothing about it.
JUDGE WILSON: As soon as you started your investigation, you discovered this?
BRIG VAN WYK: That is correct yes.
JUDGE MALL: Thank you Brigadier van Wyk, you are now excused.
WITNESS EXCUSED
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 336 COL LOOTS
ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman the next witness I want to call is on a very,
very limited aspect which is very relevant in respect of the evidence that was given here, that is Colonel
Flip Loots.
PHILLIPUS JOHANNES CORNELIUS LOOTS: (sworn states)
ADV DU PLESSIS: Colonel Loots, in the time of the Ribeiro incident, what was your rank?
COL LOOTS: I was captain, if I remember correctly, a junior captain.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Were you attached to the security branch?
COL LOOTS: Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Colonel Loots, were you in any was involved in the planning of the operation relating
to the Ribeiros?
COL. LOOTS: No, I couldn't have been, at that stage I was in the command of the administration of the
safety emergency regulations for Northern Transvaal and KwaNdebele.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Were you in any was involved in anything which happened after the murder?
COL. LOOTS: No, not at all.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Colonel Loots, could you try and give the Committee a bit of background as to the
system of files which you had in the department, relating to activists such as Dr and Mrs Ribeiro.
COL. LOOTS: Chairperson, yes, if you will allow me, I will try and be as brief as possible to give you a
synopsis of how the system worked. You have heard that there were various units in the various security
branches and the situation was the same in the Northern Transvaal. There was a unit for White, Coloured
and Asian matters, there was a unit for Black affairs and issues and I was the unit head of that one. There
was also a unit for terrorist matters and
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 337 COL LOOTS
that was unit C. D, was for instance the Trade Union unit.
Now, each unit had its own filing system and dealt with its own files. I will give you an example, if, for
instance, there was a White person who had focused attention on himself, he would be given an S1
reference, a Coloured, an S2, Indian, an S3, and a Black person, an S4 number. That is how the files
worked. In other words, I dealt with the files dealing with all the S4 numbers.
Under my command there was Captain van Jaarsveld, who later took over when I did the
administration as Unit Head. There was Captain Hechter and Henning Brandt. These three officers,
Hechter was in charge of Mamelodi, and the staff in my command, were also so divided that Captain
Hechter had his unit who worked with him in Mamelodi. One of these people was a warrant officer, Paul
van Vuuren, and as far as Soshanguve was concerned, there was a Captain Henning Brandt, at the time he
was a lieutenant. And then before he took over as Unit Head, there was a Captain van Jaarsveld, he was in
charge of the total Attridgeville and Saulsville areas. That would explain perhaps, why Captain Hechter
was approached relating to something which happened in Mamelodi.
Usually the files were brought forward on a monthly basis and when the file reached me, I booked
it out to the officer in charge of that particular residential area in which the person concerned was living.
For instance, in the case at hand, the Ribeiro case, I would have booked the file out to Captain Hechter, he
would then have decided to which one of the staff members he would book out that particular file because,
Captain Hechter that is, he also had command and control of the discipline and administration of the
informers working in Mamelodi.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 337 COL LOOTS
Is there anything more you would like to know?
ADV DU PLESSIS: No, we don't have to go into too much detail. What I would like to know from you
is, would you, in respect of the contents of files which your department dealt with, did you check the
contents of the files?
COL. LOOTS: Yes, most definitely. Before I booked it out, I would have read it through.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Right, let us turn specifically to the Ribeiro case. Can you remember whether you
had perused this file of the Ribeiro's?
COL. LOOTS: Yes, Mr Chairperson. I would like to say that I think it was Judge Wilson who asked
whether there was a file on Ribeiro's wife. There was no file on Dr Fabian Ribeiro's wife. The issues
relating to her were dealt with in the same file as that of Dr Ribeiro himself. Up until the beginning of
1995 I had knowledge of the contents of the docket. I can't tell you what happened after 1995 and 1996
because in 1995 I was involved in the treason trail, the UDF treason trail, you will know what I am talking
about, and in 1996 I was busy doing administration of the emergency regulations. So what I am saying
now is, as far as my knowledge goes, up until the start of 1995, of course things were documented in 1995
and 1996, and Captain Hechter can testify about those matters. ...(intervention)
JUDGE WILSON: You talk about 1995?
COL. LOOTS: '85, 1985 Mr Chairman.
ADV DU PLESSIS: I don't know if he mentioned '95, I didn't pick it up.
COL. LOOTS: 1985. But I did read the file and what I read in this file were certain reports and a couple
of things were mentioned in those reports. I would like to mention
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 338 COL LOOTS
some of these things that I read in the file. For instance that Dr Fabian Ribeiro and his wife, in respect of
people who indicated that they wanted to go abroad for military training, that they gave them financial
support. I would also like to say that people who later went abroad, were trained and returned, obviously as
trained terrorists, and once again, they received financial support from the Ribeiro's. It is true, as was
testified before the Commission, that Dr Fabian Ribeiro gave medical treatment to activists and terrorists at
his home. I can also remember that I read a report that in Dr Ribeiro's garage at his home, film shows were
held from time to time. I can't remember the names of the films shows, but I think I can recall that there
was one which was banned at the time, Cry Freedom. I think you will recall that. That was only one of the
movies shown to youths at his home, and at these movie shows Dr Ribeiro was present, but also his wife as
well. She was also present at the movie shows. They spoke to the youth, and I think you might recall the
ANC's programme of mass mobilisation, I am sure you will recall that, and in many of these reports it
became clear that the core of the issue was a matter of inferior education, and these two people addressed
the young people on this particular issue and of course that also helped to lead to the situation of
ungovernability in the area.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Good. So Colonel would you have read the files on a more regular basis that
Brigadier Cronje?
COL. LOOTS: Yes, Brigadier Cronje was the divisional commander of the total security branch, so he had
to deal with all the units. He would have had to deal with all the files relating to all the units, whilst my
position as unit
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 339 COL LOOTS
commander, was such that I only saw the S4 files.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DU PLESSIS
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CURRIN: Colonel Loots if I remember correctly Brigadier Cronje
said that you would be in a position to provide the names of informers in regard to information that was
submitted?
COL. LOOTS: Yes, that is what he said. Chairperson could I explain it to you as follows. When an
informant was registered with us he was registered as a number, and in the reports which I, as head of the
unit read, or whoever read, would read about informant (...indistinct) would report as follows and the
reports that were sent to head office did not contain the names of these informants, but merely the numbers,
such as the one which I referred to. The names affiliated to the numbers were kept in a safe for the
protection of the informants. If I was to mention names here, I would be speculating. The persons who
would be able to mention names would be the people who handled that, people like Captain Hechter and
Warrant Officer Owen van Vuuren who will still come and give evidence here. If I said, for example
NT486, they would be able to identify the man.
MR CURRIN: Colonel Loots can I just understand what you were doing up until 1985, you were involved
in administering the emergency regulations, is that what you said?
COL. LOOTS: Only in 1985 did I become involved in the UDF High Treason trial, the Allan Boesak
matter. It started in 1985, if I can remember correctly, if I am not mixing up my dates. In 1985 it began,
and I think that early in 1986 it ended. The first security emergency regulations were in 1986, and that was
when I was appointed to administer them
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 340 COL LOOTS
and I think you are aware of that.
MR CURRIN: When did you start that job involved in administering the emergency regulations?
COL. LOOTS: The first announcement of the first emergency regulations? (The Speaker's microphone is
not on)
(...indistinct)
MR CURRIN: It's very relevant Mr Chairman and you'll get an indication of that in a moment. In 1986
is that when you started?
COL. LOOTS: That is correct Mr Chairman.
MR CURRIN: Not at that stage, if I remember correctly, you were directly involved in the detention of
activists in the Pretoria region?
COL. LOOTS: I would not say that I was directly involved in the detention, I was directly involved in the
administration. What usually happened was when someone was arrested documents which dealt with his
arrest were given to me for administrative purposes.
MR CURRIN: You knew at the time, of the activists in the Pretoria region who were being investigated
and detained?
COL. LOOTS: Indeed yes.
MR CURRIN: Names for example like, Sandy Lebisi.
COL. LOOTS: I can specifically remember him.
MR CURRIN: A prominent activist who was often detained.
COL. LOOTS: That is correct.
MR CURRIN: Dansie Khumalo.
COL. LOOTS: That is correct, Dansie Khumalo.
MR CURRIN: Moss Chikane.
COL. LOOTS: Moss Chikane, that is correct.
MR CURRIN: Reeves Mabitse
COL. LOOTS: Reeves Mabitse, ja.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 340 COL LOOTS
MR CURRIN: Ronnie Mamoepe.
COL. LOOTS: Ronnie Mamoepe, yes, that is correct.
MR CURRIN: Jacky Mamasela.
COL. LOOTS: Jacky Mamasela, I can remember.
MR CURRIN: Adrian Nkomo.
COL. LOOTS: I remember Adrian Nkomo from Attridgeville, I can remember.
MR CURRIN: Dr Ribeiro.
COL. LOOTS: Dr Ribeiro from Mamelodi, I can remember.
MR CURRIN: Was he ever detained?
COL. LOOTS: I cannot think, you know, if I was to try and recall. I dealt with approximately a thousand
names, just by the administration regulations of the Northern Transvaal.
KwaNdebele was a septic mess, and because of the mess that was caused there, I had to take over the
administration of KwaNdebele as well and I was trying to think here that a name was raised of a Dr Fabian,
who was a prominent person, and I can honestly not recall if I saw his name.
MR CURRIN: So you can't remember whether you saw his name, you can't remember whether he was
ever detained, but you can remember reading in the file that both he and his wife were providing funds for
activists to leave the country for military training?
COL. LOOTS: That is what I said, Chairperson. May I just add that I did not compile the list of people
who had to be arrested, I just did the administration. The list would have been compiled by the person who
at that stage was in an acting capacity as the unit chief, that would probably have been Captain van
Jaarsveld.
MR CURRIN: I put it to you that there will be evidence on behalf of the family, that neither Dr Ribeiro
nor Mrs
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 341 COL LOOTS
Ribeiro were actively involved in politics from the early 1980's, and that they did not provide funds for
activists to go and be trained by the ANC and they were not generally politically active during that
particular period.
COL. LOOTS: Chairperson, that may be put to me, but I maintain what I said and what I read in the file.
MR CURRIN: You were present throughout the period of evidence-in-chief, cross-examination and re-
examination of Brigadier Cronje, is that correct?
COL. LOOTS: That is correct, I have been here all the time.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CURRIN
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV MPSHE: Colonel, is it correct that when you dish out a file as you
said, you were responsible for doing that in the S4 files, you would give an instruction to the person who
was to investigate the matter further?
COL. LOOTS: That is what I said, Chairperson, that is how it worked.
ADV MPSHE: Good. Now what instruction did you give inasfar as the Ribeiro file is concerned?
COL. LOOTS: To monitor the person's current activities, whoever he liaised with and whatever other
information with regard to the security information and compile it in the file.
ADV MPSHE: And I want to believe that you gave instruction and the person did that and came back to
you to report back, is that what happened?
COL. LOOTS: Not necessarily. The person didn't necessarily come back to me every time to report back
to me because that was a difficult phase at the time. We had too many irons in the fire, and there were too
many incidents and several were PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 342 COL LOOTS
discussed with me.
ADV MPSHE: And in this specific incident, did he report back to you, that is what I am trying to ask you?
COL. LOOTS: He could have reported back to me, Chairperson. I know at some stage Captain Hechter,
Paul and I, discussed a specific informants report, which was contained there, and I think Captain Hechter
is going to address this informant's report in his testimony.
ADV MPSHE: Very well. What was the final command which you gave with regard to this instruction?
COL. LOOTS: Normally when I was satisfied that the information was satisfactory, that it was correct and
a report had been compiled which had been typed, and this typed up report was sent to head office and in
that report all the activities which I mentioned to you would be reflected, the file would then be taken with
a postponed date, normally the date to which it had been postponed, and unless the person had attracted out
attention to such an extent that his file had to been drawn before the time.
ADV MPSHE: Let's put it to you this way. Everything was done, you issued a command, you reported
back, perhaps you reported back again about the final phase. What was the final stage of this file?
COL. LOOTS: It was taken back to the store where the files were kept.
ADV MPSHE: And nothing was done with that?
COL. LOOTS: No, nothing more was done with the file, it was kept in the store for record purposes with
all the other files.
ADV MPSHE: What was the purpose of the investigation if the file was to be kept?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 343 COL LOOTS
COL. LOOTS: Chairperson, I will be very brief. I would say that the files with regards to the activities of
the activists, the information would be compiled in a report and taken to head office, and head office would
also probably have had a Black persons' desk, an activists desk, a terrorists desk, or whatever, and head
office, when upon receipt of that report, was supposed to look into the information which they found and
then they had a legal department and in certain instances they would pay attention to the content and if it
constituted an offence, they discussed with their legal department and it would come back to us, and they
would say that that look you should see if you don't have enough information on the incidents and activities
so that we can charge this person in a court of law.
ADV MPSHE: Colonel Loots, did the file have anything specific to say about Mrs Ribeiro?
COL. LOOTS: Yes, there were cases were Dr Ribeiro was not at home. I am talking about reports from
informants, where he was not at home, and where she assisted financially herself. As I said, Mr
Chairperson, she was involved in the film shows that were done there.
ADV MPSHE: Is it not so that activists, if I may use the word, were categorised as probably high level
activists or whatever, in which category did you place Mrs Ribeiro?
COL. LOOTS: She was contained in the file of Dr Ribeiro.
ADV MPSHE: Yes, but, with regards to what she did, how would you have categorised her?
COL. LOOTS: I would have said she was a high profile activist.
ADV MPSHE: Due to the fact that she provided financial aid
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 343 COL LOOTS
to activists?
COL. LOOTS: Yes, and also because she was the wife of Dr Ribeiro.
ADV MPSHE: Really.
COL. LOOTS: Yes.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV MPSHE
JUDGE MGOEPE: Colonel I would have thought that a file would have been opened for anybody who
was regarded as being an important political activist?
COL. LOOTS: Chairperson, you are right. I think that it was convenient for us that these two persons'
details were contained in one file. We could have dealt with it as such, we did not have a problem with it.
We could also obviously have opened a file for her, and I would like to concede that you are correct.
JUDGE MGOEPE: But if she was that important why didn't you made a separate file for her?
COL. LOOTS: I had to decide on that, and I did not decide as such, to me it was more convenient to have
everything in one file.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Well isn't this the position that the situation and the information that you had about her
simply didn't warrant the opening of a file on her? Isn't that the position?
COL. LOOTS: I would not say that. I would like to concede that if I deemed it necessary that there was
enough in one file to make copies of and file in another file, which would have contained information on
her only if that is good enough for you Chairperson.
JUDGE MGOEPE: But, she was a separate individual.
COL. LOOTS: I can see that.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE MGOEPE 344 COL LOOTS
JUDGE MGOEPE: Was she simply a shadow of her husband?
COL. LOOTS: I wouldn't say that she, as I testified, she functioned in an individual capacity, where she
also made a contribution.
JUDGE MGOEPE: And in your good judgment you did not deem it necessary to open a file on her?
COL. LOOTS: That is correct, that is what I said.
JUDGE WILSON: The example you gave of where she contributed was when her husband was absent she
would make payments, which I think supports what my brother has just put to you, she was merely a wife
assisting her husband, wasn't she?
COL. LOOTS: Of course you can say that, Mr Chairperson, can see that you are correct.
MS KHAMPEPE: Colonel Loots we of course already know that Brigadier Cronje was requested by
special forces to provide a memoranda on the activities of Dr Ribeiro, did he come to you to ask for the file
of Dr Ribeiro?
COL. LOOTS: No, I was absent at the time. The person who was in my place was Captain van Jaarsveld.
MS KHAMPEPE: But the file was ultimately given to Brigadier Cronje?
COL. LOOTS: I assumed so, I had no control over that. I do not know, but I believe that the file could
have gone to him. As I responded to Mr Mpshe the file was liaised in the record room with all the other
files, and it could have been taken to Brigadier Cronje.
MS KHAMPEPE: Now, if Brigadier Cronje had had sight of the file of Dr Ribeiro, it would therefore
accordingly follow that you would have had knowledge of the details of Mrs Ribeiro's political activities?
COL. LOOTS: I cannot say. You should remember that there
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MS KHAMPEPE 345 COL LOOTS
were approximately ten thousand files that were dealt with. It is possible that they read it, but he cannot
remember it. I cannot comment on that as much as I may want to.
JUDGE WILSON: But this was not one of ten thousand files which were dealt with annually, this was a
specific file that the defence force had asked him to prepare a memorandum on, to apply his mind to it, to
do something with it.
COL. LOOTS: I understand your question Mr Chairperson, thank you, and as I said, I cannot explain why
Brigadier Cronje cannot remember the file, I really cannot explain that.
MS KHAMPEPE: Captain Loots, the activities of Mrs Ribeiro were contained in the same file that
contained the activities of Dr Ribeiro.
COL. LOOTS: That was my evidence, and that is as it was.
MS KHAMPEPE: So, we are not talking of ten thousand files, we are talking of one specific file.
COL. LOOTS: That is correct. He knew about the content of that file, but, what I am trying to say is that
there were also other files which he had to have insight into and I really cannot explain why he cannot
remember.
MS KHAMPEPE: Thank you.
JUDGE MALL: Whose decision was it to decide whether an activist was a high profile activist or not?
COL. LOOTS: Chairperson, it was usually done by the unit heads, the commanding officer of the division
and in certain cases the person affected, the person who was in charge of the area, let's say for example the
Mamelodi area it would have been Captain Hechter, it would have been the division head, the unit head,
and the head of the area which was being dealt with, and also of course head office had a role
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE MALL 346 COL LOOTS
to play.
JUDGE MALL: Would there be anything on the file cover to show anybody that this file relates to a high
profile activist?
COL. LOOTS: Yes, Chairperson, that is correct, you got A, B, and C files. And A file was - and it worked
the same in all the units. If someone had an A file, it was a very active person, a B file was of somebody
who was less involved, and a C file was a person who was the least involved.
JUDGE MALL: From what I have heard now, up to now, it would seem that this was an A file?
COL. LOOTS: That is correct Chairperson.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Why didn't you open the file in her name, and then just add on Dr Ribeiro?
COL. LOOTS: I do not understand the question.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Why was the file not opened in Mrs Ribeiro's name and then her husband simply
added on into the file?
COL. LOOTS: I think the simple answer to that would be that Dr Fabian Ribeiro was the man who drew
attention first.
ADV DE JAGER: You say that the decision was taken by the head of department and the unit head and
then the area head, let's say in the Mamelodi incident Captain Hechter or whoever else was in charge of the
Mamelodi area. Who was the divisional head at that time?
COL. LOOTS: Brigadier Jack Cronje.
ADV DE JAGER: And the unit head?
COL. LOOTS: I myself was.
ADV DE JAGER: And the head of the area?
COL. LOOTS: That was Captain Hechter. In this case it was Hechter.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DE JAGER 346 COL LOOTS
ADV DE JAGER: Were there ever requests or do you know of any requests that you had to cooperate with
special forces?
COL. LOOTS: Not ever during my time Mr Chairman.
MS KHAMPEPE: Captain Loots, that statement may not necessarily reflect that such requests were not
made directly to your divisional commander, requests by "Spesmagte" to cooperate with the security
branch?
COL. LOOTS: It was not necessary directed at the commanding officer, that is correct.
RE-EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: Colonel Loots, if an instruction was issued or there was a
discussion by persons above you about the cooperation with the South African Defence Force, would you
have known about it?
COL. LOOTS: No, Mr Chairperson.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Now Colonel Loots the money which Dr Ribeiro and his wife made available, what
was the purpose of that money?
COL. LOOTS: Firstly, as I testified here, it was to assist people who indicated that they would like to go
abroad for military training, and once again I would like to refer you to the content of the informants'
reports and after their training, they would return to the country as trained persons, and they would once
again give them financial assistance.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Did Dr Ribeiro and his wife financially assists terrorists within South Africa?
COL. LOOTS: Yes, as far as the information contained in informants' reports, that is the information of
which I read.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And was your information that Mrs Dr Ribeiro was involved in the struggle of the
liberation
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 347 COL LOOTS
movements?
COL. LOOTS: Yes, indeed.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Very well. Of the information which you had, and which you can recall about this
person, if only Dr Ribeiro was to be eliminated, would Mrs Ribeiro, according to the information which
you had available to you, would you say that Mrs Ribeiro would simply have been apolitical or would she
have continued with the activities of herself and Dr Ribeiro?
COL. LOOTS: I think to anyone it is a fairly difficult question, one wouldn't be able to know. She could
possibly have stopped totally with her activities, or she could have proceeded. I cannot answer that.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Colonel Loots, if Dr Ribeiro was to have been eliminated by himself ...(intervention)
ADV DE JAGER: Mr du Plessis, with all respect, should we speculate about circumstances, this is a
factual situation. He now has to speculate about what would have happened if - whatever the facts were,
and anyway he cannot say what other people would have done. It is not within his ability to say how you
or I would act.
ADV DU PLESSIS: I understand that, Mr Chairperson, I merely wanted to ask the witness if he would
have deemed it necessary to open up a separate file for Mrs Ribeiro if Dr Ribeiro was eliminated.
Would you have deemed it necessary?
COL. LOOTS: Definitely, until we could prove that she was no longer active. There would have been an
additional file, yes Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DU PLESSIS
JUDGE WILSON: I take it she was not a professional medical officer or anything of that nature?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE WILSON 348 COL LOOTS
COL. LOOTS: I cannot recall, I really cannot remember Chairperson. I do not know if we can obtain
assistance from counsel this side.
JUDGE MGOEPE: What do you remember about her, except that she was the wife to Dr Ribeiro, and that
she provided help to train terrorists as you said, what else do you remember about her?
COL. LOOTS: Chairperson, what I have testified about is what I can remember.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Well, you haven't said anything else except that she was the wife to Dr Ribeiro, and
repeatedly you said that she provided financial help to train terrorists, what else did you know about her?
COL. LOOTS: That is what I have said, and that is what I know, that is all I know.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Is that all that you know?
COL. LOOTS: That is all I know, that is correct.
JUDGE MALL: Very well, thank you very much, you are excused.
COL. LOOTS: Thank you very much Chairman.
WITNESS EXCUSED
MR CURRIN: Mr Chairman it just struck me when listening to the evidence whether I could request the
Committee, to ask the previous witness to make available to this Committee, the records which the police
security branch have in respect of the detention of high profile political activists in the Pretoria region
during the period 1984 to 1989. It will serve two very good purposes, I would suggest. Just very briefly,
the one is that we have no documentary evidence available with regard to what political activists were
doing in this particular region, and I think the files regarding
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 349 ADDRESS
detention of political activists will give a good indication of the interests which the security police had in
various ...(intervention)
JUDGE WILSON: Before you go on any further Mr Currin, having looked at the gestures that Colonel
Loots had just made, are there such files in existence?
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I can recall Colonel Loots as a witness. I didn't want to ask him that
because the evidence has been repeated over and over again. I can however tell you that Colonel Loots
told me that he was personally involved in the destruction of numerous documents, he told me now that
these documents do not exist anymore.
MR CURRIN: Mr Chairman, I am told that there is a record of who was detained, and when people were
detained, and I would submit that that record would at least give an indication to this Committee of the
interest which the security branch showed in various political activists, or lack of interest, including Dr
Ribeiro and his wife. So, I would submit that that information could be of assistance.
JUDGE MALL: Mr Currin as at present, I don't think that it is a matter that concerns us in deciding
whether these gentlemen are entitled to amnesty or not. We are not investigating the activities of activists
in the area, and I must put some limit in the nature of the investigations that we are conducting. There
might be some other forum that may attend to matters of that kind.
MR CURRIN: Mr Chairman I understand your point. Could I just raise the second reason why, and then
you can consider it in the context of the second motivation.
JUDGE MALL: I wish the most important motivation is put
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 349 ADDRESS
first.
MR CURRIN: I leave the best until last Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman the second one is just that we have
heard that high profile activists were subject to assassination and that the detention of high profile activists
was therefore not the best option. The provision of the information regarding detention of activists in this
region will give us a good sense as to how high profile activists in this region, were dealt with by the
security branch, and that is the other reason why I believe it would be of assistance to get that information
because then one could then from objective documentation get a sense of how high profile activists were in
fact dealt with by the security branch.
JUDGE MALL: Yes, thank you very much. We will take an adjournment at this stage, and let you know
our views on the matter. We will adjourn for 15 minutes.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 351 CAPT HECHTER
ON RESUMPTION
ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman, I beg leave to Captain Hechter. Mr Chairman perhaps I
could just, before we start with the evidence of Captain Hechter just raise a point. I accept the judgment
that the Committee gave this morning. I am, however, not clear at this point in time, in respect of this
specific matter what the position is pertaining to Mr Visser's clients. Obviously I don't want to protract the
proceedings Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MALL: You will (...indistinct) (Speaker's microphone not on)... Mr Visser has accepted and that
is where the matter rests. So I think you had better just proceed with calling Mr Hechter.
ADV DU PLESSIS: As it pleases you Mr Chairman. I will then raise it after my total evidence of this
matter.
JUDGE MALL: Yes. If it is relevant you must raise it.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes Mr Chairman.
JACQUES HECHTER: (s.u.o.)
EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. You will find it on page 203 of his
application. Captain Hechter, the nature and particulars of the events in question are set out from page 203
onwards, up until page 208. You are going to testify further to elaborate on what has been set out in the
application. May I ask you to deal with it step by step. On page 203 you refer to the actions of Dr and Mrs
Ribeiro, and things in which they were involved, could you please elaborate on this, and what was your
knowledge relating to the involvement of the Ribeiros before we continue telling the Committee in how
you became involved in the events?
CAPT HECHTER: According to our sources at the time Mrs
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 351 CAPT HECHTER
Ribeiro was involved, along with her husband, in the recruitment of youths for sending them out for
training. It was also known that they gave money to these people. Dr Ribeiro and his wife, who obviously
never distanced herself from his conduct, and was always involved with him in showing the video's for
instance, our information was that they were both involved in the showing of the videos.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Now, which video's are you referring to?
CAPT HECHTER: I think Colonel Loots, at the time he was a captain, I think he referred to these videos,
for instance, Cry Freedom. She was always present. These videos were shown in the garage, and it was
necessary for her to have been there, if she wanted to distance herself from this, she could have stayed in
the house, so it wasn't necessary for herself to associate herself with this action.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Can you perhaps, before we talk about Mrs Ribeiro, explain to the Committee what
you knew about Dr Fabian Ribeiro.
CAPT. HECHTER: He was very involved, especially with the young people in Mamelodi, and inciting
them, specifically the activists, the ANC activists. He was involved in cases of arson, perhaps he
wasn't personally involved in cases of arson, we didn't have information to that effect, but he certainly was
involved in inciting young people to commit these acts. Yesterday, I listened to evidence and questions, he
also treated terrorists at home, after they had been wounded, instead of, as the Act required of him,
referring them to the police, reporting the matter to the police, because these people who had taken part in
illegal marches, the correct procedure would have been to treat the person but then to notify the police. So
he laid himself
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 352 CAPT HECHTER
over to criminal prosecution in helping these political criminals. These people were guilty of political
crimes.
He was also involved in the consumer boycotts, according to our information, and there again, he incited
young people to take part in these boycotts, and that inevitably lead to intimidation and assaults on
members of the general public in Mamelodi. Dr Fabian Ribeiro was most definitely involved in
promoting the objectives of the ANC in Mamelodi by means of his involvement in activists and the youth
in Mamelodi.
ADV DU PLESSIS: The money that was made available to activists, what was the purpose of that?
CAPT. HECHTER: The young people who wanted to leave the country weren't, according to our
questioning, we often questioned the parents about the movements of their children, and it appeared that he
recruited these children and provided them with help and money to be able to leave the country.
ADV DU PLESSIS: What was the purpose of their going overseas?
CAPT. HECHTER: The recruitment was purely for purposes of being trained as terrorists, and with the
concomitant results upon their return. These youths after having been trained and returning to the
country were regarded as formidable soldiers and it is not necessary for me to tell the Commission, they
would know of the acts of violence committed by terrorists, the planting of bombs and mines, shooting of
innocent people, etc. That was the work of the trained people who returned to the country.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Now, Dr Ribeiro's wife, did she, according to your information, associate herself with
this type of
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 353 CAPT HECHTER
conduct?
CAPT HECHTER: Yes, totally. If I remember correctly, she, on certain occasions, when he was not
present, also gave money to these people, and we must therefore accept that she was involved in the
harbouring of these people on occasion because according to our information, Dr Ribeiro also gave shelter
to these people.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Would you say that they acted jointly?
CAPT HECHTER: Yes, that is the inference that I can draw.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Now, Captain Hechter, the facts which you are testifying about at the moment, can
you tell us where you got these facts from?
CAPT HECHTER: It came from a source file, source information in their file, so the information was
written up in this particular source file.
ADV DU PLESSIS: You heard the evidence of Colonel Flip Loots, is that correct?
CAPT HECHTER: Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Do you confirm, or do you agree with his evidence?
CAPT HECHTER: Yes, I agree with it.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Do you agree with him about the way in which the file system operated?
CAPT HECHTER: Yes, as far as I can recall.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Hechter, would you regularly have had a look at this particular file?
CAPT HECHTER: On a monthly basis, yes, but what must be said here, is that we were dealing with a
large number of files, and I think Colonel Loots said that we were under pressure, there was a lot of action
at that time in the different Black residential areas, and the administration
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 353 CAPT HECHTER
could perhaps have fallen behind as a result of the numerous actions by the young people.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain, do you also confirm Colonel Loots' evidence relating to ...(tape ends)...
perusal of the file and his knowledge of the file?
CAPT HECHTER: Yes, positive, the Brigadier did not deal with the files very much.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Now if you turn to page 204, could you explain to the Committee how you became
involved in the matter?
CAPT HECHTER: The date wasn't known, and the time was also not known to us, I don't know at what
time of day it was, but Brigadier Cronje, at the time was a colonel, he told me to come to his office and in
the office was a person whom I had already met at a previous occasion, Charl Naude. I don't know
whether he was alone or not. Now this file, was at this stage, I think, I could perhaps just mention
this in passing, in Brigadier Cronje's presence, he told me that Commandant Charl Naude was very
interested in Fabian Ribeiro and that I should make available our file to them, but that I shouldn't part with
it at all, and that what they needed, they could get from that file. So, it was made available to them, but
they couldn't take it to their offices. It had to stay in our office.
I think that Charl Naude and I went to my office to continue with this conversation. At that stage,
I had already come to the conclusion that Dr Ribeiro and his wife had to eliminated, or perhaps just Dr
Ribeiro. We are busy with word play here, you must remember, it was 11 years ago. My inference was
that there was going to be a hit, depending on our further deliberations. Charl Naude and I went to my
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 354 CAPT HECHTER
office, if I recall correctly, we spoke further and he then left. The file was left in my possession, and then a
person, I can remember he had a white moustache, he looked like a Scotsman, and his name was indeed
Paddy. He introduced himself as a major, I can't remember his correct surname. He then started coming to
me on a regular basis. He started visiting me in the office. I may have given a complete photostat copy of
that file to him, or I might just have told him certain relevant bits of information, it is difficult for me to
recall. What I can remember, I do know, something which made quite an impression on me was that here
was an operation launched by the Defence Force, and they sent out a big airplane, with cameras mounted
on the plane and they took aerial photographs of Mamelodi and the area in which Dr Ribeiro lived, because
I had to go and point out his home to them and photographs were taken, they were incredible. Rolls and
rolls of film of photographs were stored in my office. I don't know whether they just brought me copies for
my information or whether those were the only copies in existence, but the money spent must have been
astronomical to deal with an operation of this size. I mentioned this to a number of people that I couldn't
believe that such a lot of money was spent on such an operation.
I see that in the file that I mentioned, that the file was in fact photostatted, and I will stand by that,
but if they say no, that it was never photostatted, then I will also abide by that, because I can't really
remember.
The Defence Force was, over a period of about a month, perhaps longer, were often in contact
with me, and I reported back to Brigadier Cronje in a very superficial basis to tell him that the Defence
Force had been to see me
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 355 CAPT HECHTER
and that they were still busy with the planning of the elimination. Whether we called it an elimination I
can't remember, but I think we would have called it that.
ADV DU PLESSIS: May I interrupt you here. Do you have any detail about the planning of the
operation?
CAPT. HECHTER: They came to me and they said "Jacques what are you suggesting, how would you do
this?" ...(intervention)
ADV DU PLESSIS: No, to Brigadier Cronje.
CAPT. HECHTER: I might have, I can't actually remember. I can't see what the point would have been to
impart detail to them, because at that stage there wasn't much detail. They came to me and asked me for
my suggestions as to how I would have done this operation. They never really came back to me as far as I
can recall to tell me exactly how they were going to do it, beforehand. What did happen, was that Charl
Naude came to me and said Jacques tomorrow the elimination will take place. Whether he told me how it
was to happen, that I can't tell you at this stage, what I do know is that I do know how it happened, whether
I knew beforehand, or found it out later, I can't remember, but I accept and assume that I would have told
Brigadier Cronje that it would happen tomorrow, but perhaps I didn't inform him of that fact, it is not
impossible. I wasn't in my office very often, as I said, I was in Black residential areas most of the time, so I
would have had to telephone him, or speak to him on the radio which obviously wasn't used much.
As I said, I knew when it was to take place. I knew the day. I think it was on a Saturday. We can
check that. I can't remember the day, I think Mr Mpshe may be able to help us out. I then, as was normal
practice, but also with
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 356 CAPT HECHTER
the ulterior motive of being in the area when the thing took place, I moved around in the area with my
vehicle.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Now, let us turn to the particular day, page 204 of the application, first paragraph. In
the middle of the paragraph, it says,
"Mamasela and I also planned to kill Ribeiro".
CAPT. HECHTER: That is correct. Before this specific incident, because Ribeiro was such a thorn in our
flesh, I discussed it with Mamasela, I discussed his elimination with him, and we went to his flat, and we
waited there for him, but he didn't turn up and I once again, at a later stage, I went to his flat, but he didn't
turn up. I also tried to eliminate him on my own accord, but he never turned up.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Who gave you the command to do this? Who gave you the order?
CAPT. HECHTER: Chairperson, I am prepared to accept that I did it of my own accord. I might of
discussed it with Brigadier Cronje, maybe he gave approval for it, but I don't know, I might have acted
completely on my own. I am prepared to concede that.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Now on page 206 you refer, at the top of page 206, to the two other incidents, is that
correct?
CAPT. HECHTER: Yes, yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Could you please just read the first paragraph.
CAPT. HECHTER: There were two other occasions, in which I was involved in attempts, to apprehend
Ribeiro, but he didn't turn up. I take it that it wasn't an attempt. I did in fact do so. I can't remember the
details of this particular incident. I think, by details I mean the very specific planning about the why's and
the wherefore's. Now, PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 356 CAPT HECHTER
why, we know, but the planning around it, that is a bit vague because it happened in the past. I do know
that I went in the evenings, it wasn't very late, and I lay in wait for him at his house. Once in the back
garden, and once also in the road. There was a school and we waited opposite his house, we waited in the
school grounds.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Now, you say that Warrant Officer Paul van Vuuren was also involved?
CAPT. HECHTER: Yes, he was.
ADV DU PLESSIS: He is also applying for amnesty, for as far as necessary.
CAPT. HECHTER: Yes
ADV DU PLESSIS: Now, in the second paragraph on page 206.
CAPT. HECHTER: I remember that I went with an AK47 armed with an AK47 or pickaxe handles.
During the pickaxe handle incident Mamasela was with me. I assume that if Ribeiro and his wife appeared,
we would have knocked them down, robbed them of their valuables, to make it look like a normal robbery.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain, could we please turn to the particular day, and what happened there. I
would like to refer you very specifically ...(intervention)
JUDGE WILSON: Before you go on to something, could I just ask you to clarify, I am a little confused.
You were referred to page 204, where you say,
"Mamasela and I also planned to kill Ribeiro, but the opportunity didn't arise".
CAPT. HECHTER: That is part of what I have just spoken about, yes.
JUDGE WILSON: Yes. You then go on and say,
"Captain Jaap van Jaarsveld was also involved on
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 357 CAPT HECHTER
one occasion when we went to Ribeiro's home in Mamelodi, to eliminate him".
CAPT. HECHTER: That is correct, Chairperson. I asked him to wait in the garden, I was unarmed.
Mamasela didn't have a firearm, we only had the pickaxe handles, and we left van Jaarsveld in the front, in
the garden, to - if the youths saw us there, he had to act as sort of a cover for us.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Was that the same event at which Mamasela was present?
CAPT. HECHTER: Yes.
JUDGE WILSON: It was the same event.
CAPT. HECHTER: Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Chairperson. Mr Chairman, I may just apologise to the Committee.
When this was drawn, as you know these applications were drawn in a lot of haste, this is one application
where the chronological sequence of the events don't follow, that is why I am leading the evident in a
different way.
Captain, now, we turn to the specific day. Can I ask you did you know exactly what would
happen on that day, the planning beforehand?
CAPT. HECHTER: I may have known to some extent, but the actual detail I don't think I was aware of
that. The Defence Force, you must remember, also operated on a need to know basis, and it might have
been that I was told in more detail, but the actual detail I can't remember. As I said, afterwards, as the
drama unfolded, I learnt certain facts, and also from certain discussions and questioning. Perhaps I knew
these things beforehand, but I can't swear to that. If they tell me that they Jacques we told you everything, I
would say yes, that is correct.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 358 CAPT HECHTER
ADV DU PLESSIS: Can I take you to page 205, the second paragraph. Is that what happened?
CAPT. HECHTER: There was decided on a certain manner and a date. Now maybe the way in which it
was to be done was told to me, maybe I knew of the two Black men, who, I see I mentioned Angola, but
they also came from South West, because Angola bordered Namibia. My inference was that these people
were not able to speak English, or a Black language, they could only speak Portuguese, so I think they were
probably part of Savimbi's people whom the Defence Force had contact with, I am not certain, however,
that was just my inference. I said that we decided on these two Black men, but whether that was in fact the
case, let's just suppose I knew, what happened was that these two people lay in wait for Dr Ribeiro and his
wife, and when they got out of their car, they were shot at point blank range. I think that is what happened,
I am not 100% certain because I wasn't present.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Now where did you get these facts from?
CAPT. HECHTER: I think it must have been in the newspapers afterwards, the whole South African was
on fire. So I assumed that that is how it happened. I was on the scene first, out of all the policemen
involved.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Did you speak to the people?
CAPT. HECHTER: I had contact with Robey, and I had contact with Charl Naude, and I think that the
thing was discussed afterwards. I know that I had contact with them, but whether we discussed it in fine
detail, that might have happened, but I can't remember. I know that what went wrong was that after the
two Black men shot them they went to the N1 highway in the direction of Witbank Middelburg, but
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 359 CAPT HECHTER
apparently what they didn't notice was that they were being followed by a vehicle, bearing family
members, I think, and they saw how they got out of this vehicle and got into the much discussed Land
Rover and they then took down the registration number of the Land Rover. Afterwards they returned. I
don't know whether they attempted to stop the men. That I don't know. It sounds familiar to me that it was
reported, but I can't remember. I heard on the radio, or I think I drove past there, or perhaps I saw a
gathering of people outside Dr Ribeiro's house because the exact time is also not known to me, but I drove
to Mamelodi, knowing that this would happen.
ADV DU PLESSIS: For the purposes of the Committee, could I take you to page 207, the third paragraph.
CAPT. HECHTER: I was aware of the fact that there was a plan, that Dr Ribeiro would be eliminated. I
drove past a particular address and it seemed that I drove past there just after the elimination had taken
place. There was a big crowd of people around the house and there was an ambulance at that stage. I
drove up to the side of the ambulance and I saw that the people were very tense and excited and I then went
directly to the police station. It was about a kilometre or so from Dr Ribeiro's home. I drove there directly
and went to the branch commander and I told him, do you know that Dr Ribeiro has been shot, there are
problems, you had better get out there. I then made radio contact with the reaction unit and I also contacted
murder and robbery, or I contacted my radio control and told them to get the reaction unit and murder and
robbery, the fingerprint people, all the necessary units, to come and investigate the matter. At that stage I
made as if I knew
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 359 CAPT HECHTER
nothing. I then went with the commanding officer, and the branch commanding officer, to the scene, the
branch commander got out of the car and they started investigating the scene, they started picking up
cartridges, and I said, no, stop, you are interfering with the evidence, put the cartridges back, that can only
take place after the photographers have photographed the scene, and he then put the cartridges back where
he thought they belonged. I then contacted the safety service officer, he was on duty at the time, and I then
withdrew from the scene. I also withdrew from Mamelodi. I think I informed Brigadier Cronje, but it is
not impossible that I didn't do so. If he was to say to me that I didn't, then I would accept that, because I
can't remember. I would just assume that I would have telephoned him, but I can't swear to it.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain, you have now testified about the portions on page 207 and 208, now, I
would like to take you to page 206, the last paragraph. It deals with exactly what happened afterwards, and
conversations at which you were present. It is page 206. What I would like you to tell the Committee,
Captain Hechter, is exactly what conversations you were involved in after the events, also with reference to
General Joubert and Coetzee.
CAPT. HECHTER: As I said, I think the operation took place on a Saturday, it sounds right to me. Then it
would have been on the Monday, I know it wasn't the very next day, it was some time after that. We were
then contacted, no not us, Brigadier Cronje was contacted, he told me that General Joubert wanted to see
us. We then went to General Joubert at Speskop, special forces they were stationed there, on the other side
of Erasmia. We went in there, I didn't know the
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 360 CAPT HECHTER
Defence Force general staff, I only knew Joe Verster, whom I had had contact with previously,
Commandant Naude, Charl Naude, I can't even specifically remember whether he was there, I remember
we sat at a long conference type table. I was introduced to the general and the other people present, and I
(...indistinct) to his left. Why I remember this, is that I noticed that they had a psychologist present, he was
introduced as a psychologist. At that stage, I was also very worried about this need to know basis and I
know that Joe Verster was present, and Charl I think would have been present, but I am not certain of that.
We made some small talk, and then General Joubert said, you realise we have problems, that vehicle was
traced back to us, and his words were, Basie Smit traced the vehicle back to us. Those were his words.
That is why I assume that Brigadier Cronje said that he was under the impression that he was the
investigating officer. We then sat and talked, and the General asked the Brigadier, can you do anything
about this investigation?
ADV DU PLESSIS: What General are you referring to?
CAPT. HECHTER: That was General Joubert, he very specifically said that. I can stake my life on that.
He asked, are you able to do anything about this? Obviously I was a lieutenant, so I didn't count. What he
meant was whether Colonel Cronje could do anything about this investigation. The Brigadier said, well,
we can see what we can do.
JUDGE WILSON: What do you mean by Brigadier, a minute ago, a second ago you said Colonel
Cronje, and now you say Brigadier Cronje.
CAPT. HECHTER: Apologies at the time he was a colonel, he
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 361 CAPT HECHTER
only later became a Brigadier. For convenience, I will talk about him as a Brigadier, but it's the same
person. We then sat and chatted and talked, discussing the problems. The vehicle had apparently been
registered in the name of a front company, the security fraternity at the time registered the names of their
vehicles in the names of front companies, companies which didn't actually exist, you just gave a name, and
then the investigation usually came to nothing. As I understand Brigadier Smit at the time was involved in
the vehicle branch and he went to Leyland to which the vehicle belonged or to whom it had been sold
originally. He wasn't involved in covering up anything. Later, in a very ingenious way he determined
whom the vehicle belonged to. That is as far as I could gather what had happened.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Now, what was Basie Smit's position?
CAPT. HECHTER: I think he was the head of the vehicle branch. As Brigadier van Wyk testified, he was
under his command, but I didn't realise it, and that is another assumption, I think he was in command of the
vehicle branch, or he was in command of that branch, but he had the necessary contacts, and he knew how
these things worked, that you could actually trace a vehicle, right back to the factory, and if it was a
defence force vehicle, he would then be able to actually gather the relevant information from his contacts.
Whilst we were still sitting there, it was also said by General Joubert, right, we will leave it in
your hands, we are in your hands, we will not discuss is with General Coetzee. We then undertook to keep
it to ourselves. They did the work, and that we would just try and rectify the
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 361 CAPT HECHTER
matter amongst ourselves and it wouldn't be discussed with Coetzee, and we then left.
ADV DU PLESSIS: What was General Coetzee's position?
CAPT. HECHTER: He was then the Commissioner of the South African Police, if I remember correctly.
We then left, we went back to the office. I assume that we discussed the problem, and what we were to do.
I can't remember the detail. The next morning, it was early in the morning, 6:00, 6:30, I went to special
forces, I went to Joe Verster. If I remember correctly, I went to fetch ammunition for an AK47. He offered
me a cup of coffee and we sat chatting across his desk and he then said to me, you know of course that the
General went to your Commissioner last night and that after we specifically decided the matter wouldn't be
discussed with our seniors, I got a huge fright.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Was he referring to General Joubert?
CAPT. HECHTER: Yes. He said the General, and that was the only General I had contact with. I don't
know whether we discussed the matter, but I recall that he said, you know of course that your General went
to General Coetzee, or to your commissioner, something like that. I drank my coffee, jumped into my car
and drove off. I couldn't contact the Brigadier on the radio with this sensitive kind of information, I went to
the nearest phone booth, and I phoned him and told him, Brigadier, problems. The Defence Force General
Joubert last night had contact with General Coetzee, and you better watch it. He then told me over the
phone, oh, that's why Brigadier Schoon told me that I had to come and see him, he is probably going to
take me to the General. Thank you very much, put the phone down, that was it.
Later that day, the Brigadier phoned me, and told me to PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 362 CAPT HECHTER
come to his office. In his office he told me Jacques it is like that, Brigadier Schoon told me to the General
and you know what a bloody fool I would have been if I, in front of my commanding officer had denied
knowledge of this operation, when in fact I did know. Thank you very much for the call. He then
continued and said that the General was furious about the whole matter, very unhappy about the incident.
Brigadier Schoon he mentioned to me, Brigadier Schoon gave me this order for cooperation with the
special forces, something like that. He said nothing, when the commissioner told me how unhappy he was,
and reprimanded me about this. That is all hearsay but that is what Brigadier reported to me. He didn't
report to me, he just told me that morning about the whole operation.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Very well, Captain Hechter on page 206, the last two sentences, could you just read
them to us.
CAPT. HECHTER: I merely assisted with the planning and also did not help tidy up the scene afterwards.
Tidying up referring to the fact that I went and got the police so that they could maintain order in the
process. I had nothing to do with the execution of the murder, I was never really part of the hit squad
although I knew of it, and was kept abreast of everything, and to an extent I was part of things, but I was
not really part of the execution on that day, I did not pull any trigger.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain, can you recall after the time, whether you had any discussion with Brigadier
Cronje about Mrs Ribeiro?
CAPT. HECHTER: I cannot believe that we would have discussed it in such detail, it was an operation
which had been executed according to us, the operation was
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 363 CAPT HECHTER
successfully executed. Perhaps we did discuss it, but I cannot give you a positive answer. I would assume
that I would have reported to him, and in all probability, I would assume that I did say that I cannot
imagine reporting to him, and saying that the man has been shot, and not saying anything about the woman,
that is not normal. A normal person would have said both have been shot.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And then on page 208, the last paragraph.
CAPT. HECHTER: As far as I understood the instruction came from head office, that the security branch,
together with special forces, had to work together to eliminate Ribeiro.
ADV DU PLESSIS: On page 214, where you are asked with regard to the specific instruction, could you
just give an indication there please?
CAPT. HECHTER: It was to the execution of Brigadier Cronje's instruction.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Hechter, the political motive is set out in the application, from page 210, the
general justification has been set out to page 212, and then on page 212, you have set out further details of
the motivation. Do you confirm the correctness of page 212, and 213?
CAPT. HECHTER: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And the previous pages?
CAPT. HECHTER: Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman I don't intend to lead this evidence again.
CAPT HECHTER: Could I just mention, I am not sure whether it is in my application, I don't see it here.
The fact that afterwards, the Attorney General summoned me. I don't know if it is mentioned there.
ADV DU PLESSIS: It is in your application, on page 207.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 363 CAPT HECHTER
CAPT. HECHTER: Then after there was a provisional inquiry
....(tape ends) ....The vehicle which I drove, which I took over from another member when I started off at
the branch, its registration number was registered, and when they investigated it, it was registered as a
vehicle at head office. The number plates belonged to a vehicle belonging to head office and not the
security branch. That I can recall as something that happened then as well. There was a big hue and cry
about that. At some stage, I had to make statements because the State attorney called me to come and see
him, because there would have been a provisional inquiry into Dr Ribeiro's death. I wonder if it was when
I was in the office or at the State attorney or the public prosecutor when I found Noel Robey, who I came to
know during this time. He was also in the office, either at the State attorney's office or the public
prosecutor's office. We walked together to the public prosecutor's office at Church Square, and I assumed
that was the inquiry where the Attorney General's investigative team was until recently. We had to sign in,
we couldn't just walk in. It was the Attorney General, Noel Robey and I, and the public prosecutor was
sitting in the office. We spoke, we asked questions, and continued to speak, and then the public prosecutor
took out something and said, I have written down some questions for you, with the answers, study this. I
know Noel's were in English, because Noel was English speaking. He said to me, study this, if you answer
these questions in this fashion tomorrow the magistrate knows which decision to make, or something to
that effect. But it was obviously quite clear that the questions, answers, and the magistrate, everyone knew
what it was all about. This
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 364 CAPT HECHTER
matter will not go any further at all costs. That was the conclusion I made there after they had spoken to
me. The following day I went to give evidence to that effect. I don't know if Noel testified according to
the question and answers, but I know that afterwards, nothing happened in that regard.
JUDGE WILSON: Did you say that the Attorney General was present at that interview?
CAPT. HECHTER: No, not at all.
ADV DU PLESSIS: He said the State attorney Mr Chairman.
CAPT. HECHTER: The public prosecutor and the State attorney.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Hechter can you remember if the evidence that you gave was the truth or
not?
CAPT. HECHTER: I assume that it could not have been the truth. I assume that I would probably have
lied in that statement because I assume I said that I was in the area in essence because I worked there, and I
got to the scene incidentally, that is what I was supposed to say, and I suppose I would say that.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Why did you do it, was there a political motive?
CAPT. HECHTER: If I had told the truth at that stage, the entire security branch would have gone to ruins,
and it would have been a national embarrassment since Dr Ribeiro was a very prominent figure. It was
impossible to allow that information to become public knowledge.
ADV DU PLESSIS: So it would have been prejudicial to the work of the security branch?
CAPT. HECHTER: Yes, it would have brought the security branch into further dispute. It would have
brought the
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 365 CAPT HECHTER
government into further dispute, and it would have sparked off more riots, and unrest in the country.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Would it have influenced the struggle against the liberation movements?
CAPT. HECHTER: Yes, it would have been extremely prejudicial to us at the time because at that stage
there was extreme pressure on the government by international media, by the other countries, and it would
have harmed them in such a way that at that stage, they would have taken rash decisions.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain, let us assume that Mrs Ribeiro was not involved in activists, in such
activities at all. If it was decided to expose the information that she was killed and that the involved person
would be prosecuted, would it have ...(intervention)
CAPT. HECHTER: It was not possible, because the same person who shot at Dr Ribeiro, shot at her too.
They had instructions to eliminate. I do not know if they had instruction to eliminate her as well, but I
think it was as a result of her activities she would have been targeted by the Defence Force. I cannot say
how their thoughts went, she could have been an innocent bystander, I cannot say. If I had executed the
operation, I would also have killed her.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CURRIN: Thank you Mr Chairman. You gave a lot of evidence about
what actually happened on the scene, when the shooting took place, there were two imports from either
Angola or Namibia, whatever, and they drove away, and they were followed to the highway. That is just
what you have heard. You were not there, you don't know.
CAPT. HECHTER: No, no, I cannot say I was there.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 366 CAPT HECHTER
MR CURRIN: You also said the same person who shot Mr Ribeiro shot Mrs Ribeiro.
CAPT. HECHTER: That is just what I have heard, I don't know if there were two different people, or if
there was more than one firearm, I don't know.
MR CURRIN: I just want to put it to you that there will be evidence that there were four people who
participated in the shooting.
CAPT. HECHTER: That must be it then, I don't know. I was under the influence that it was only the two.
MR CURRIN: I put it to you that there were four. Chris Ribeiro was there, he arrived on the scene, and in
fact, one of the assassins, who was White, took a shot at him. There were three Blacks and one White.
CAPT. HECHTER: If you put it that way, I would accept it, I cannot dispute it.
MR CURRIN: You were very active as a security policeman in Mamelodi during those years.
CAPT. HECHTER: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR CURRIN: You worked on a daily basis in relation to the high profile activists in Mamelodi?
CAPT. HECHTER: That is correct.
MR CURRIN: Can you recall the names of high profile activists in Mamelodi?
CAPT. HECHTER: After 11 years it is very difficult, but names as the ones you have mentioned, that is
so. I also worked in Soshanguve, and in Attridgeville and further afield. I cannot remember the names of
the persons, it was back then, you are asking me about something that took place 11 years ago.
Unfortunately I cannot remember, it is very difficult for me.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 366 CAPT HECHTER
MR CURRIN: I just ask you because you have such a vivid recollection of the content of Dr Ribeiro's file
...(intervention)
CAPT HECHTER: Certain incidents which were very important. MR CURRIN: Can I just remind you,
and just to follow up with a couple of questions. Sandy Lebisi, he was a high profile activist.
CAPT. HECHTER: I can remember the name of Sandy.
MR CURRIN: Do you recall that he was often detained?
CAPT. HECHTER: That may be so.
MR CURRIN: Now, I want to ask you, Dansie Khumalo, a high profile activist, in and out of jail on a
regular basis.
CAPT. HECHTER: That is correct.
MR CURRIN: Moss Chikane.
CAPT. HECHTER: I can remember Moss.
MR CURRIN: Pasty Molefi, also a high profile activist, often detained.
CAPT. HECHTER: I can remember Pasty Molefi.
MR CURRIN: Dr Ribeiro, high profile activist. Did you ever detain him?
CAPT. HECHTER: Was he not perhaps too much of a high profile activist, that political circumstances
were such that it was difficult. We are busy surmising, I don't know, I cannot answer you because those
instructions came from head office, the detention of these high profile activists, apart from where I took a
decision on the ground that it was necessary where I found him in a meeting for example, otherwise the
information was forwarded to head office, I think Colonel Loots explained it to you very nicely. Then the
legal team would decide that there is enough evidence. You see, we had a problem with evidence. We had
a great
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 367 CAPT HECHTER
problem with intimidation. If we could overcome the intimidation problem, we would probably have been
able to detail more people. The problem with the intimidation was so bad that people were terrified of
coming to testify. Pasty or Patsy attended public gatherings and addressed public meetings, and they were
extremely high profile. Dr Ribeiro's high profile was underground. He was much more intelligent than the
youth. He became involved with the terrorists and providing finance and the support. He was the brain
behind the problem, as far as I am concerned, and as far as my head office was concerned, and as far as
...(intervention)
MR CURRIN: I put it to you that the evidence about Dr Ribeiro's involvement grows by the moment, as
this hearing proceeds.
CAPT. HECHTER: I had that docket and I had the information where did it become more?
MR CURRIN: Your answer as to why he was not detained that there was a problem with intimidation.
You know very well that you detained people with very often little information, and that the court's
jurisdiction was ousted, you just needed to make a general allegation and that was sufficient grounds on
which you could detain.
CAPT. HECHTER: That is correct to which effect release him after three weeks, or after 60 days, and they
would come back as this big hero and he would be detained again, and the regime couldn't touch him.
There was a whole hue and cry about the fact that they had to be released.
MR CURRIN: Captain Hechter, you did it in respect of a whole hosts of other very prominent activists.
CAPT. HECHTER: Who, I?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 368 CAPT HECHTER
MR CURRIN: You and your colleagues.
CAPT. HECHTER: I did not do it.
MR CURRIN: The security police.
CAPT. HECHTER: I cannot speak on behalf of the security police, I can only speak on my own behalf.
MR CURRIN: You testified that he committed crimes. You said that he committed political criminal
trials, you had evidence that he was treating terrorists, he didn't report their presence to the police, and
those are crimes. You had that information, why didn't you charge him?
CAPT. HECHTER: I had evidence in this regard that I said, I had source information, and source would
obviously not come to court, and it would testify that his life was not worth 5 minutes, and although there
were criminal offences because terrorists were forbidden from the country because he was representing a
banned organisation, to treat them, and not report it. The fact that he gave them medical treatment, is not
the issue. The security police would say that the fact that he did not report to the security police that I have
a certain person that you are looking for in my office, that was the problem, and the fact that you got your
informant's report afterwards.
MR CURRIN: Your evidence in regard to Dr Ribeiro and his wife's involvement in political activist,
terrorist activity is an after the event fabrication to justify the killings, that we will lead evidence on behalf
of the victims, that neither Dr Ribeiro nor his wife were politically active since the early 80's.
CAPT. HECHTER: You may put it to me.
MR CURRIN: Just to clarify, the family is a little bit concerned about one of the allegations which you
made, but
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 369 CAPT HECHTER
I understood you actually withdrew it. I want to clarify this. At one stage you spoke about them being
involved in arson, but then clarified that and said, no, their actions resulted in arson. That was your
assumption.
CAPT. HECHTER: They incited the youth to take this action against the government. That is the word I
used, Mr Chairperson.
MR CURRIN: Of course that is also strenuously denied.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CURRIN
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV MPSHE: (...indistinct)
CAPT. HECHTER: Chairperson, unfortunately I cannot remember the names of the magistrate, the
prosecutor, or the other parties. The court records would be able to indicate that, but I understand that the
court record has also since acquired feet and disappeared, but I cannot recall. I met the people once or
twice only 11 years ago.
ADV MPSHE: But you were present at the preparatory examination?
CAPT. HECHTER: The hearing yes, the day that I met them and the day on which I testified. I cannot
remember people from 11 years ago. I know that it was in Pretoria North magistrate's court, that I can
remember, but I cannot recall the names of the persons. I heard today for the first time that the documents
have also disappeared, but I knew about the - I heard about the docket that disappeared, but it is news to me
now that even the court records disappeared.
ADV MPSHE: Do you know whether any of these three persons are still in the employ of the
government?
CAPT. HECHTER: If I knew I would have been able to ascertain their names for you, but I do not recall
anything about them.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 369 CAPT HECHTER
ADV MPSHE: You testified that in respect of Mrs Ribeiro that if you were carrying out the operation, you
would have eliminated her, why?
CAPT. HECHTER: As a result of her involvement with her husband, and I assume her own involvement
and if I am missing the point completely, she was also the sister of Robert Sibukwe in the PAC, so she
came from a politically active family.
ADV MPSHE: Now the fact that she came from a politically active family, that made her qualify to be
eliminated?
CAPT. HECHTER: Not totally, but that also served to prove -it doesn't serve to prove that it she was
involved, but it is a further example of the milieu in which she grew up.
ADV MPSHE: I've been having this problem, perhaps you may be able to help me, what criteria did you
people use to determine the high profile of a person, that he is a high profile activist?
CAPT. HECHTER: Chairperson, it was determined on an ad hoc basis. In cases, such as for example,
Father Mkachwa who was also a high profile activist, they were the untouchables, so to speak. They
mobilised the youth. The youth were incited by them to committing these acts. We could hardly obtain
any concrete evidence to prosecute them in a court of law, so we couldn't touch them basically. They
proceeded with this incitement of the youth and the only way which we would have been able to get hold
of them was to eliminate them. But as I say it was on an ad hoc basis on the basis of information which we
had in our possession at that stage. In many cases I would not even have been in the position to give you
the information of the less important ones.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 370 CAPT HECHTER
ADV MPSHE: Captain, you dealt with the file, with Dr Ribeiro's file.
CAPT. HECHTER: That is correct.
ADV MPSHE: And we have listened to evidence from Colonel Loots and others that an informer would
never be quoted by name, save numbers.
CAPT. HECHTER: That is correct, yes.
ADV MPSHE: Now as you were dealing with this file, what numbers were given to the informers in
...(intervention)
CAPT. HECHTER: The number would have been NTG462 or 428, I can give you any numbers.
Unfortunately there is no way to determine that. Could I ask the Committee, my colleagues and I are asked
to publish the names of these informants, is it necessary for us to make known the names of these
informants, and consequently, unnecessarily endanger their lives once again? I assume that those peoples
lives would definitely be placed in jeopardy if their names should be made known now. Their information
lead to the death of these people, so I cannot think that those persons would be able to move around in their
areas, freely. I am thus asking the Commission to give serious consideration to this. I may be able to
mention names, but I think that it is grossly unfair to these persons.
ADV MPSHE: I know of no provision in our enabling Act, save in the Criminal Procedure Act that
forbids disclosure of such names, but I think in the name of full disclosure, which you have to do, you have
got to disclose these names ...(intervention)
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, may I please come in here. In respect of this issue, before it goes
further, before it goes to disclosure,it is something which we can do, which I
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 371 ADDRESS
do not think goes towards full disclosure requirement in terms of the Act, if we are ordered to do so, we
will do so, but I would like, on this point, to have an adjournment, and to have a discussion with you in
chambers, in this regard.
JUDGE MALL: The question of whether this witness should be asked to disclose names of people who
were known to him as informers at the time of the commission of the offence is a matter of which the
Committee would like to consider. We would like to decide the relevance of that information for present
purposes, and if it is at all possible, we will make our decision known when we resume after the
adjournment.
I think you may proceed with the rest of your questioning in the meanwhile.
JUDGE WILSON: Can I clarify one point. I take it that you are not asking the witness for the name of
informants in general, you are asking the witness for the names of informants who gave them information
relating to Dr Ribeiro on which they have come to conclusions, not just a general ...(intervention)
ADV MPSHE: That is correct, Mr Chairman, specifically in this matter.
ADV DE JAGER: But if that is in principle applicable in this case, it would be applicable in principle in
every case.
ADV MPSHE: In other cases that come it may be applicable. Again it would depend on whether it would
be necessary for them to disclose then.
ADV DE JAGER: And would that be in the interest of reconciliation?
JUDGE MALL: Well now I have indicated ...(intervention)
ADV MPSHE: I think that is a matter that the Committee will PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
371 ADDRESS
have to decide on.
JUDGE MALL: Yes, I haven't had a chance of consulting one of my Committee members, there hasn't
been any opportunity to discuss this at all, and if it is possible for you to proceed with the rest of your
questioning on other matters that might be relevant, then do so, but we will consider this matter during the
adjournment and let you know what our decision will be.
ADV MPSHE: I will abide by that Mr Chairperson.
MR CURRIN: Mr Chairman, if you are going to consider this issue during the adjournment on behalf of
the Ribeiro family, they just asked me to express their views on the matter, just so that you can take that
into consideration when you consider the matter, and their views are that they would like to know who the
informers were. Not because they want to take revenge against the informers, but simply because they
need that information to help them have a full picture, to help them deal with the matter, to help them know
what the source of this information was, and in the spirit and context of full disclosure they believe it is
important.
JUDGE MALL: I might as well hear your views on the matter, Mr du Plessis.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Do you want my views Mr Chairman?
JUDGE MALL: On this aspect of the matter.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes. Mr Chairman, I can say to you now, in this matter, as well as in some of the
other matters where we have given evidence, that if we are required to disclose the identity of informers it
would have one effect, that I can assure you, and that is that it will definitely not be to the advancement of
reconciliation in this country. There PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 372 ADDRESS
are people in the current government, in current government structures, high profile people in the current
government structures, who were informers of the security police at that time. We do not believe that the
disclosure of such names would be to the benefit of anybody concerned, taking into account the fact that
we are talking of reconciliation, and specifically not to the benefit of those people themselves.
Mr Chairman, I want to submit to you, in all honesty, and I want to stress this point, that the
Committee consider this very seriously, that the repercussions of the disclosure of such information, I can
promise you, can be very serious.
The second point I want to make in this regard is the fact that in respect of the requirement of full
disclosure, it deals with full disclosure pertaining to acts for which the applicants ask amnesty for. What
the Committee has to consider is if the applicants, as I understand it, made a full disclosure of all the facts
pertaining to the specific deeds in respect of which the applicants apply for amnesty. If you will
just give me one moment, Mr Chairperson. If I can refer you Mr Chairman firstly in this regard, to Section
3 of the Act, reflecting the objectives of the Commission, which refers to the promotion of national unity
and reconciliation in a spirit of understanding, and then it sets out the exact objectives of the Commission,
including establishing a complete picture of the causes, nature and extent of the gross violation of the
human rights. That is what the gist of the matter is. If you will just bear with me.
Section 19(3) refers to the question of full
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 373 ADDRESS
disclosure, and it refers ...(intervention)
JUDGE WILSON: While you are on ...(tape ends) is to kill people, based on what informants told them.
Is it not in the interest of a proper inquiry to be able to verify whether what they are saying is the truth,
whether informants did tell them that? If this witness, for example says, Mr John Smith told me this, and
John Smith is available as a witness to say that that is utter nonsense, I never told him, I told him that Dr
Ribeiro was a very busy doctor who was giving this and that, that is all I told him. Isn't that extremely
relevant? That is what worries me. I can see your difficulty about the informant, and it is maybe desirable
that if such information is supplied, it should be supplied in camera, for the purpose of further enquiries
being made, not to embarrass the informant. I have every sympathy with them, because we have heard
evidence here about how people were forced to become informants in certain cases and it must be
extremely worrying for them. But I would like to deal with, if you can, the question of, here we have heard
from Mr Currin, representing the family, they specifically put that they were not politically active in a
certain period. The applicants justify their action by saying, oh you see, our informants told us this. Now it
seems to me that it is relevant to be able to check who the informant was, was there such an informant, or
was this just a cover up.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Well Mr Chairman obviously we said that it may be possible to disclose some of the
informers. I am not sure in respect of this matter, I have not taken it up with Captain Hechter in detail.
What I can say to you, Mr Chairman, is clearly one can accept that such an informer
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 373 ADDRESS
will not gladly admit that he was an informer, but I understand the argument, I understand the argument
completely. That is also probably one of the reasons why the mechanism was created in the Act to hear
certain evidence in camera. That is an aspect in which the Committee has to consider, but I would submit
that that is not the only aspect that the Committee should consider.
Mr Chairman, I don't know how good this argument is, but I want to state again that in all
probability, such an informer is not going to say, yes, I was an informer, so at the end of the day, one
doesn't know really where such an enquiry and such information will lead. It might be that it might affect
the applicants' application, it might be that it might have no affect on the applicants' application, according
to how the Committee views the matter.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Even if, Mr du Plessis, even if he were to come here and say I was an informer, how
likely is it that he would come and say, I told them that Dr Ribeiro was politically active thereby, in
innocence, admitting that Dr Ribeiro was killed as a result of his information?
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, and such an admission would an incriminating act, and he would have to apply
for amnesty as well.
JUDGE MGOEPE: There may be a proliferation of issues.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, a proliferation of issues. I haven't even considered all the possible issues that
might arise from this. Perhaps if the Committee would give me an opportunity my attorney and I could
discuss this and there might be other considerations which we might think of that we can put to you before
the end of lunch time when we resume again, which might influence the decision.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 374 ADDRESS
JUDGE MALL: I have come to the view, at this stage, that our decision in this matter does not only affect,
or will not only affect present proceedings, but are likely to be issues like this that are going to arise in
other cases. So whatever decision we give here may have a bearing on the future conduct of this
Committee when dealing with a problem of this kind. It may not be possible, therefore, during the
adjournment, to fully canvass this issue fully amongst ourselves, to be able to give a decision, a properly
considered decision, and I am going to canvass the view of my colleagues to find out whether we cannot
reserve that decision until we resume on Monday morning.
Mr Mpshe, it seems the view of the members of my Committee is that we would like to consider
this matter and give a decision on Monday morning. If it is possible for you to proceed, if you have any
further questions, to proceed with this, and depending upon our ruling, you may have another opportunity
to cross-examine this witness, depending upon how we rule.
ADV MPSHE: I will abide by this Mr Chairman. One last question. It is possible, or it could be done,
that you detain and charge a person for harbouring terrorists or activists in terms of our law, not so?
CAPT. HECHTER: At that stage, yes, it was possible, if you had concrete evidence.
ADV MPSHE: Now, in respect of Dr Robeiro, I want to believe you had concrete information that he
knew of terrorist activities, but did not report them.
CAPT. HECHTER: Concrete proof would have entailed somebody coming forward and being prepared to
testify to that effect. You, yourself, lived in the Black areas at the time and you
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 375 CAPT HECHTER
would know what that meant. If I had today testified against such a high profile person, with so much
power or clout, then the chances of me being available tomorrow for further testimony would have been
very slim indeed. Necklace murders were the order of the day. It was a call by the ANC, "necklace the
collaborators", and an informer was definitely a collaborator.
ADV MPSHE: Which tells us that amongst others he was eliminated because he did not report the
activities of the activists and terrorists?
CAPT. HECHTER: That is an over simplification of the position but that is what is amounts to, yes. That
is part of the surrounding description.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV MPSHE:
JUDGE MGOEPE: Captain, may I request you to keep on trying to remember the names of the State
attorney in question, the prosecutor in question, the magistrate in question, to keep on trying to
remembering that? We are still going to sit here for some time, let us know when you remember the name
of any one of them, or do you suspect that you have permanently forgotten them?
CAPT. HECHTER: Chairperson, no. I assume that if we can ascertain on which dates this case was
before court, a magistrates court of Pretoria North, then Mr Mpshe and his investigators will be able to
form a good idea of who was in that particular court on that day, and I am sure he will be able to ascertain
who was sitting in that court on that day, and we could perhaps thereby identify the magistrate, and then we
could identify the other people involved.
JUDGE WILSON: Captain I don't know the geography of Pretoria very well, and of that court, I don't
know if my
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE WILSON 376 CAPT HECHTER
brother does, are there more than one courts in that building, it might help if you could tell us what court
you were in?
CAPT. HECHTER: No, it is too long ago. I know exactly where the court is, I know what it looks like,
and I have friends who live close by, that is why I know the area so well, but the court specifically, no, that
I can't recall.
JUDGE WILSON: Now, the other one on the same line, is this building you told us in Church Square
which you said was where the Attorney General's investigative unit was.
CAPT. HECHTER: They have now moved. It's on the south-east point of the Square, or in a north-
easterly direction, it is one of those buildings.
JUDGE WILSON: Could you point it out if you were taken there?
CAPT. HECHTER: No, unfortunately I couldn't. I understand what you are saying, I could go there, but I
may be wrong. At that stage the Attorney General's offices were in a building society building, there were
advocates rooms there as well. I had an office there myself. Yes, that is correct, that is where it was, you
signed at the bottom in the visitors book, you couldn't just walk into the building, there was security.
Thank you, Chairperson.
JUDGE MALL: I think further questioning of Captain Hechter will have to be postponed, depending on
the ruling we may give on this matter.
JUDGE WILSON: Can I just clear up one point, it has got nothing to do with that ruling at all. As I
understand your evidence, and going by your application, you were told that after - that these two men shot,
well one or other of them shot Dr Ribeiro and his wife, these two men then got into a
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE WILSON 376 CAPT HECHTER
vehicle of some sort and drove away. They were followed by an unknown car, and they got out of the first
car, and they got into the Land Rover that was driven by Robey, and that number was taken down?
CAPT. HECHTER: That is correct. I do not know if the other vehicle was ever identified, Chairperson, but
Noel Robey's vehicle was identified.
JUDGE WILSON: So what you were told was that there were two men, because it was put to you before
and Robey was waiting for them somewhere else.
CAPT. HECHTER: Yes, he waited for them on the freeway, Chairperson, that is correct.
JUDGE WILSON: Thank you.
JUDGE MALL: Sorry, just one more question. It seems that you were most, of all your colleagues
perhaps, the best informed about what was going to be happening to Dr Ribeiro.
CAPT. HECHTER: That is correct Chairperson.
JUDGE MALL: You have told us that two people were brought in from outside the country, who were to
execute the plan.
CAPT. HECHTER: That is the way I was informed, Chairperson.
JUDGE MALL: So when it was put to you by Mr Currin that the family will say, or there will be
evidence, that there were in fact four people, three Blacks and one White, how is it that you weren't able to
give an answer to that question?
CAPT. HECHTER: When Mr Currin put the question to me the same thought occurred to me that these
two persons are either from Angola or Namibia. They would not have been able to, in all probability, they
would not have been able to drive a vehicle, so there had to an extra person, but the finer details of the
operation was not discussed with me. We did not go and sit and discuss the planning of this
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE MALL 377 CAPT HECHTER
operation word for word. It was not my plan, it was not my operation, so to me it was not really necessary.
I do not know how much of what I am relating here is what was contained in newspapers because
newspapers reported on this quite extensively so it is possible that it was mentioned in the newspapers back
then already, so it is possible that there were more than two people or more than three people. I cannot
really testify on the exact amount of persons that were present there, all I can say is about the two persons
who were there for the elimination, that they were apparently flown into the country and that night, after
the operation, they were flown out of the country. They came in, executed the operation, and they were
flown out again that night. Whether or not I was told that they were Angolan or Savimbi's people, I am not
sure, they could have told me that they were from South West Africa, I cannot give you a certain reply on
that. But I know that what struck me was that they did not use local persons because what was also
discussed back then was the simplest route to Dr Robeiro's home, because the persons had to escape in a
hurry. I remember that was also discussed.
MR CURRIN: Mr Chairman, I have just been told that the Attorney General's office has actually got a
copy of the preparatory examination, and got the documents.
JUDGE MALL: Well you will make endeavours to get hold of it.
MR CURRIN: We are going to take steps now to get hold of it and I am sure that Mr Mpshe will ensure
that everybody who needs to will get a copy.
JUDGE MALL: Yes, thank you.
MS KHAMPEPE: Captain Hechter I am just troubled by one
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MS KHAMPEPE 378 CAPT HECHTER
aspect of your evidence. You have taken great pains to explain the several attempts you made to eliminate
Dr Ribeiro yourself, but in all the attempts you made, there was no attempt, not a single one, that you made
to eliminate Mrs Ribeiro. Can you probably just throw some light as to why there was no such attempt
when you then considered her to be a high profile activist?
CAPT. HECHTER: Chairperson, I understand your question. The two of them moved together most of
the time, and the intention was that if we encountered them together we would eliminate both of them. We
considered the fact that if we eliminated her before we did him it would have caused such a storm, that the
chances of us getting close to him would have slimmed down considerably since he was such a high profile
activist. The fact that we would have eliminated her, he had so much influence that the situation back then
would have been explosive, so there was no consideration given to eliminating her by herself. It never
occurred to me, at least.
JUDGE MALL: Mr Mpshe will you and counsel plan how the hearing this afternoon should be dealt with,
and what matters can be dealt with in the short time that will be available.
ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman, may we be afforded the opportunity to do that during lunch time.
JUDGE MALL: Yes.
ADV MPSHE: Thank you.
JUDGE MALL: As I understand it had been explained to you that the time available will be very short this
afternoon.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes Mr Chairman, I might say now that the one incident, the KwaNdebele 9 incident,
is an incident that PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VISSER 379 ADDRESS
we foresee could take a long time, so Mr Mpshe and I will have a discussion.
JUDGE MALL: Very well we will adjourn now and resume at two o'clock.
MR VISSER: Mr Chairman may I perhaps just ask some elucidation Mr Chairman. I listened to the order
which to made this morning. I am not certain how the practical implementation of that order is going to
work. Mr Chairman, I find myself in a very difficult position here. We have been placed on record as
having an interest in the Ribeiro affair. General Coetzee has been implicated. This witness has implicated
him directly. The evidence of van Wyk this morning was also relevant in regard thereto. I can't help
feeling that we are pointedly not asked whether we have any questions to put to these witnesses. Is the
approach, from the order, is the departure, Mr Chairman, we really must know, that we will not be allowed
to cross-examine, unless we make an application every time a witness gives evidence.? This is not how I
understood the order. I understood the order to mean that when a situation arises, we will discuss the
matter and you will make a decision, take a decision on how effectively and adequately to deal with the
matter. I didn't understand it to mean that I will not have any right of cross-examination, because that is
what the order means, Mr Chairman, and that is not how I understood it, then I've got to seriously consider
...(intervention)
JUDGE MALL: We didn't say that there would be no cross- examination at all.
MR VISSER: But, the point is, in effect Mr Chairman, I am not asked whether I have any questions,
which really in effect has the same result. May I, with great respect, Mr
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VISSER 379 ADDRESS
Chairman, just put it to you this way. I have got to ask myself the question, why I am sitting here. There
doesn't seem to be any purpose in me being here. I may as well go away.
JUDGE MALL: Part of the order is that your client may put forward what they wish to say by way of an
affidavit.
MR VISSER: Yes, but I may not cross-examine.
JUDGE MALL: If we consider that absolutely essential in the interest of justice that cross-examination be
allowed we will be allowing it. If we think that the kind of questions you are going to put, will go to the
root of the application in that they are opposing the application for amnesty, it is a factor we take into
account. If it is not going to be in that direction, and if it is merely to test the credibility on a side issue,
then we might consider it not necessary for cross-examination on such a side issue.
MR VISSER: Must I make an application each time I wish to ask questions, and inform you as to what
questions I want to ask?
JUDGE MALL: I think you must decide whether the questions you ask are germane and relevant to
whether amnesty should be granted or not, or whether your questions relate to side issues. If you think that
your questions relate to the question of amnesty and are vital in that regard, then you must tell us and we
will allow you to cross-examine.
MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, each and every question I hope that I would be putting, and I have put is
germane to my applications for amnesty, which involves also the credibility of my witnesses.
JUDGE MALL: Your clients' application for amnesty is a different matter altogether. They will have that
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VISSER 380 ADDRESS
opportunity, I am not talking about that.
MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, may I then make it easy for all of us. If you tell me now that you will not
hold anything against my clients regarding their credibility in the light of what these witnesses have
testified, by the time they come before you, that is one thing, then I accept that.
JUDGE MALL: We can't make findings of credibility where there are differences in the evidence without
hearing both sides. It may be necessary for us to wait in giving decisions in this matter until we have heard
the evidence of other people who might be implicated. But for the time being my advice to you is, that if
you think that the evidence has been given here which implicates your clients in such a way we would be
happier if you would present us with short affidavits from your clients putting forward their versions
specifically on the points.
MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, with great respect, you know what General Coetzee says. His affidavit is
before you. You heard what Hechter has just told you. There are conflicts in that evidence.
JUDGE MALL: Yes.
MR VISSER: And must we now file another affidavit to say that we now deny what he is saying?
JUDGE MALL: If your affidavit has not covered the points that have been raised, then I think it would be
easier and cheaper to have your case put on those points in the form of an affidavit than to go around
calling these people as witnesses.
MR VISSER: But, Mr Chairman, I am here, I could have just asked him a quick few questions and
clarified the matter.
JUDGE MALL: I think that we have taken a decision in the
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VISSER 381 ADDRESS
matter, and we stand by that decision. You've got to do the best you can. We adjourn now.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION
JUDGE MALL: Just before we adjourned for lunch Mr Visser had complained that he had been ignored
by not being asked whether he had any questions of the witnesses, and pursuant to that I made certain
comments.
I want to say, that when I made the ruling this morning, the impression my Committee members
and I had was that Mr Visser was in complete agreement with the ruling. He created the impression that he
agreed and understood what we were saying. He may have had reservations about them. However, when
evidence was being led this morning, and at the end of the evidence-in-chief, when the time came to cross-
examine, I did not - I was lulled into believing that Mr Visser was not going to put any questions, and I
didn't then ask him. I've questioned my colleagues, they all say that they formed that impression, that Mr
Visser had no questions to put, either because he felt that there were no questions to be asked, or because
he had come to the conclusion that as a result of the ruling we gave, there might be no need for him to ask
questions. I want to clear this up.
If this is the feeling and the sense in which my Committee members understood the position, I
want Mr Visser to know that no disrespect was meant to him by not having asked him, Mr Visser do you
have a question or do you have any questions to put. I want Mr Visser to accept that.
Mr Visser is an experienced lawyer. He indicated very early on that he is hear to assist the
Committee and I have
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE MALL 381 ADDRESS
had no hesitation in accepting his attitude towards this Committee. I would like us to see that we can go on
working along those lines, and let us see how mutually we can advance the work of this Committee as
speedily as we can.
Mr Visser, as a result of the misunderstanding, I am prepared to give you an opportunity to put
questions to the witnesses whom you didn't question, and whom I believed that you had no intention of
putting any questions to, but if there is any matter of importance which you think has to be cleared up in the
interest of your client, I ought to afford you the opportunity to do so.
We may be able to dispose of this aspect of the matter here and now, and if you indicate to me
which witnesses you would like to be recalled for that purpose, let us get done with it.
MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I am most indebted to you for your explanation, which clearly I accept,
because the way you explained it makes sense, and I can understand that there could have been such a
misunderstanding, and certainly from our part we would like to contribute towards the proper functioning
of the Committee, particularly in view of the short life span of this Committee and its work load. We are
very aware of all of that.
Mr Chairman, perhaps the problem may just be sorted out, that if in the normal course of events
when the witness gives evidence, that I would just be given an opportunity along and equally to the victim's
legal representative, that would solve that problem entirely.
JUDGE MALL: We must do that, you have my undertaking.
MR VISSER: As it pleases you, Mr Chairman.
Mr Chairman, there are really two witnesses, Brigadier
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VISSER 382 ADDRESS
van Wyk that gave evidence this morning, you will recall he was the investigating officer. He has been
excused, I don't particularly wish to call him back. What did occur to me at the time, Mr Chairman, is that
the question, pertinent question why he was called in the first place was never put to him by anyone, and
that is why, and no reflection meant by that Mr Chairman, but whether he could shed any light upon
Brigadier Cronje's allegation that there was a cover-up from the side of General Coetzee by replacing him,
or any other cover up for that matter. I thought that, well perhaps General Coetzee might not like the
answer that came out, but I thought that in the light of a full disclosure of the facts, he should probably have
been asked that because that really was the crux of why he was called. That is the one thing.
Then, Mr Chairman, I am wasting a little bit of time but I am hoping that I might be able to save
time by doing so, then we have Hechter, Mr Chairman, who gave evidence this morning. Well, apart from
the fact that it would be a pleasure cross-examining him, with due respect, the fact is that technically
speaking, his only contribution in support of Brigadier Cronje was based on pure hearsay evidence, and
from that point of view, it would appear to us, Mr Chairman, with respect, that it is hardly worthwhile
cross-examining him on that issue. If the Committee feels differently, then Mr Chairman, then I would
like to ask him a few questions.
JUDGE MALL: Well Mr Hechter's evidence is not over, he will be completing his evidence at a later
stage, and you might reconsider your position, arising out of what he has to say tomorrow.
MR VISSER: I thank you Mr Chairman. Tomorrow I won't be
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VISSER 383 ADDRESS
here. (General laughter) Thank you Mr Chairman, and thank you for clearing the air Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MALL: Thank you.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Sorry, there is something that, and I hope that I am not going to cause more confusion,
but, there is something that, a remark I should make with regard to what Mr Chairman has said. He has
said to you that he was making a certain undertaking to you. Now lest there be some problems later, it
should be understood, and I hope I understand everything in that way, it should be understood that what the
Chairman is saying is not that you are guaranteed an automatic right of cross-examination every time,
because that would obviously undermine the ruling that was made this morning. It would render it
nonsensical. I think what the Chairman is saying, and I would like to understand him to mean that, is that
for as long as for example, Mr Visser, you are here, sitting in here, cognisance of your presence will be
taken and you will be entitled to, if you feel you want to put questions to a witness, you would inform the
Chair, and say, I feel in this respect I want to put questions to it. No guarantee can be given to anybody
that he has got an automatic right of cross-examination, otherwise I would have profound difficulties in
understanding the import and implications of the order that was made. I would also be totally unable to
understand why certain criteria where articulated, where the criteria that would have to determine whether,
in a particular case, one should or should not be allowed to put questions to cross-examine.
MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, unfortunately that has now created a great deal of confusion in my mind, just
when I thought we PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VISSER 384 ADDRESS
understood each other. Let me remind Judge Mgoepe where this whole issue came from. You remember
that when we arrived here on Monday, we suggested leading with our chins, which we did, obviously. We
suggested that in order to save time, we will present you as far as we can deal with evidence, short
affidavits, just to place before you what the issues are. That is where that came from. That was never
suggested as a replacement for the right to cross- examine. Obviously if the matter, if the matter
...(intervention)
JUDGE MGOEPE: Sorry to interrupt you, an order has already been made, and I have difficulty in
understanding how anybody could understand that they have got an automatic right guaranteed to them of
cross-examination of the applicants. It just simply cannot - the order stands, it is very clear, it simply does
not guarantee anybody an automatic right to cross-examine, unless we vary that order.
MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I understood you just now ...(intervention)
JUDGE MGOEPE: Neither, as my colleague says, neither does it automatically exclude everybody from
putting questions. But it does not, certainly it does not guarantee anybody the right of automatic cross-
examination of the applicants.
MR VISSER: In spite of the provisions of section 34(2)?
JUDGE MGOEPE: I beg your pardon?
MR VISSER: In spite of the provisions of section 34(2) of the probation ...(intervention)
JUDGE MGOEPE: In spite of the way you understand that section.
MR VISSER: Well Mr Chairman ...(intervention)
JUDGE MGOEPE: But the order was made this morning Mr
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE MGOEPE 384 ADDRESS
Visser and if your interpretation of the order is that it guarantees you, or anybody appearing on behalf of
the applicants, the right to cross-examine, then that is not how I understand it.
MR VISSER: Yes, I see. Is the ruling then, Mr Chairman, that there is no right?
JUDGE MGOEPE: There is no automatic right of cross- examination by anybody representing an
implicated person. That is the effect of the order.
MR VISSER: I see, and if I wish to cross-examine what must I do?
JUDGE MGOEPE: Exactly what you said earlier on in the morning. You indicated that the practical
effect would be that if you feel there is a need for you to put questions, you would have to tell the Chair
that as far as this witness is concerned, taking into account the criteria that you articulated, I feel this is a
proper case where I should cross-examine an applicant on behalf of the implicated person. That is exactly
how you understood it when you spoke before lunch time, and that is exactly the practical effect of the
order.
MR VISSER: Must I then justify why I want to cross-examine as was also put to me before lunch?
JUDGE MGOEPE: Otherwise those criteria would have no meaning unless somebody has to justify. You
can only apply the criteria where you have got to justify the occasion.
MR VISSER: Why then, Mr Chairman, is there a differentiation between the situation of my learned
friend, Mr Currin, and myself.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Because you are not representing the victims. He is representing the victims. And as I
have said to you,
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE MGOEPE 385 ADDRESS
Mr Visser, the order has already been made, should we really discuss that, debate that? The order is made
and is standing and you said you accepted it.
MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I understood you just now to say what is meant by section 19(4) as we read
it, and it reads as follows:
"A. If an application is not dealt with in terms of subsection 3, automatically in
other words, the Committee shall conduct a hearing as contemplated in chapter
6 and shall, subject to the provisions of section 33, which deals with hearings in
camera.
a. in the prescribed manner notify the applicant and any victim or person
implicated".
No differentiation is made. No differentiation is made between victims of Mr Currin, on behalf of whom
he gets an automatic request whether he wants to put questions every time, in terms of section 34.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Mr Visser that may be so, but yesterday before we made the order, we invited all of
you, including you, to present argument, which you did.
MR VISSER: Well I insisted on presenting argument, Mr Chairman, with respect, I wasn't invited.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Eventually you did, and our ruling is against you and it stands. Unless you want us to
review the order.
MR VISSER: Mr Chairman I thought, when you came in after lunch and explained it, that the whole
matter was sorted out and that is why, before lunch I asked questions in elucidation. Now, it is clear to me
that some members of your Committee do not agree with what I understood you to
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VISSER 386 ADDRESS
tell me, after you came in, after lunch.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Well, certainly, to the extent that you understand the order to say that everybody, each
time counsel representing an implicated person is automatically entitled and guaranteed to cross-examine,
then certainly, you are right in saying that some members at least, do not understand it that way. In fact,
may I add, if that is the case I would have seen no need for an order to be made.
MR VISSER: Now, Mr Chairman ...(intervention)
JUDGE MGOEPE: And the criteria to be set out.
MR VISSER: May I please, through the Chair, just ask this one last elucidatory question. Does the ruling
mean that we do not have an automatic right to cross-examination Mr Chairman?
JUDGE MGOEPE: Certainly, that is what the ruling means.
MR VISSER: Mr Mgoepe says we don't. Is that a ruling of the Committee?
JUDGE MALL: The ruling of the Committee is no different to what we read out this morning. You know
we said there, as you understand quite clearly, that whether or not cross- examination is allowed, will
depend upon circumstances, inter alia, we set out what the circumstances were. Do you understand. Those
are the circumstances which include factors such as whether we consider it to be in the interest of justice to
allow cross-examination, so each time we'll have to consider this, whether an application is in the interest
of justice, whether we should allow it or not, and the other factors that may be taken into account.
Assuming you have questions which to go the root of an applicant's case.
JUDGE MGOEPE: And that can hardly mean automatic right.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VISSER 386 ADDRESS
JUDGE MALL: You see. So we would have to afford that opportunity wherever. So in other words, Mr
Visser, you understood the ruling this morning, and we will, whenever you think that there is an aspect of
the evidence which is germane to whether the applicant should get amnesty or not, or that impinges on
something which your client is going to say, bearing in mind that your clients are themselves going to give
evidence at some stage, you will then decide whether you want to cross-examine on this particular point or
another point. Do you understand? You see, Mr Visser, you will appreciate today, there is just counsel
representing the applicants, the counsel representing the members of the family....(intervention)
MR VISSER: I am counsel representing implicated persons.
JUDGE MALL: I haven't finished yet, I am talking to you. You represent counsel. If there are ten counsel
representing different interest groups, assuming for arguments sake all of them are present and each one of
them wants to cross-examine, I do not think that it was ever visualised that that is how the Committee is to
conduct it's work. There are limits that are placed upon us, there are constraints that are place upon us, with
the result that there is a limited right of cross-examination on point of time. I have never restricted
anybody's cross-examination, and said no, I am allowing you ten minutes to cross-examine or anything of
that kind. Up to now that right of cross- examination has not been abused as far as I am concerned, but if it
is, then we may at some stage have to tell people that you are allowed cross-examination, I am giving you
five minutes, or ten minutes or whatever it is.
MR VISSER: But that is a different matter.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE MALL 387 ADDRESS
JUDGE MALL: Now, we can't take the matter very much further, Mr Visser, I am telling you now, I
afford you an opportunity to put any questions you want to the witnesses that gave evidence, and if the
witness is not here, I should appeal to Mr Du Plessis to call that witness and make him available to you on
Monday, if he is not here now and let us get going with the work.
Mr Du Plessis is the witness here, I understand we excused him from further attendance?
ADV DU PLESSIS: That is correct, Mr Chairman, Brigadier van Wyk the first witness this morning is not
present, but we could endeavour to make him available first thing on Monday morning.
JUDGE MALL: Yes. I think that if Mr Visser wants to put questions to him please make him available.
ADV DU PLESSIS: We will do so Mr Chairman, yes, I will do my best endeavours, obviously I don't
know where he is going to be, and what his plans are, but I will address the Committee on that on Monday,
but I will do my best.
JUDGE MALL: Thank you very much.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Hechter is here, he is available.
JUDGE MALL: Yes.
ADV DE JAGER: Could I, in calmer waters say, I didn't understand the witness to implicate any of your
clients directly or indirectly. On his evidence, as far as I am concerned, I can't even draw the inference that
he has implicated your clients. So, in that light, I ask you to consider whether in fact we should take the
trouble of recalling him, or what your position and you need not answer now.
MR VISSER: I want to answer now, Mr Chairman, in fact, I
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VISSER 388 ADDRESS
have already indicated to the Committee that I don't think that there is any point in cross-examining him on
the evidence, on the intrinsic value of his evidence as it was given. I really don't insist on asking him any
questions Mr Chairman.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VAN DEN BERG 389 C RIBEIRO
JUDGE MALL: Thank you. Mr Mpshe, where do we go from here.
ADV MPSHE: Chairperson, if I am correct Captain Hechter has testified and he is through, according to
my learned friend, then we are now in the hands of Mr Brian Currin's team. I am told they want to call the
son of Dr Ribeiro.
JUDGE MALL: Yes, is Mr Currin here?
MR VAN DEN BERG: Mr Chairman, Eric van den Berg, Mr Currin asked that he be excused, he has
some urgent and personal business which he had to attend to, which he put off from this morning, so he
asked that he be excused, and he apologised for not doing so to you personally.
Our instructions are to call the family of the Ribeiro's and two other activists who were involved
in Mamelodi at the time. We are more-or-less ready to commence with the evidence of Chris Ribeiro, if
that would please the Committee.
Mr Chairman, I also note that it is nearly 25 minutes past, and we certainly won't finish with Mr
Ribeiro's evidence this afternoon, and it again it will end up being done piecemeal, but we are in your
hands, as far as that is concerned.
JUDGE MALL: I think we may be able to get through with his evidence-in-chief, or a greater part of his
evidence-in-chief. Let us make a beginning, please.
MR VAN DEN BERG: As the Committee pleases.
JUDGE MALL: Please.
MR VAN DEN BERG: We would then ask leave to call Chris Ribeiro.
JUDGE MALL: Please do.
CHRISTOPHER REGINALD RIBEIRO: (sworn states)
MR VAN DEN BERG: Mr Ribeiro when were you born?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VAN DEN BERG 390 C RIBEIRO
MR RIBEIRO: On 18 December 1961.
MR VAN DEN BERG: And that makes you 35 years old today?
MR RIBEIRO: That is right.
MR VAN DEN BERG: How old were you at the time that your parents were killed?
MR RIBEIRO: I was 24.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Mr Ribeiro can you just tell us just a little bit about the background of your
parents. Your father we understand was a medical doctor.
MR RIBEIRO: Yes my father was a medical doctor, and my mother was a former teacher, who became a
businesswoman after marriage and she was the owner of a retail butchery in Mamelodi.
MR VAN DEN BERG: When we talked earlier today we talked about two distinct periods of activity in
your family household. The first was prior to your father's detention. Can you tell us when your father was
detained?
MR RIBEIRO: He was detained in 1980. I don't remember the month exactly but it was in 1980.
MR VAN DEN BERG: What happened after his detention?
MR RIBEIRO: Well the matter that was generally brought to court, he was tried and he was acquitted on
the charges that had been brought against him.
MR VAN DEN BERG: What charges did he face?
MR RIBEIRO: He was charged, I think, under the Terrorism Act, treason, and along those lines. I don't
remember all the charges.
MR VAN DEN BERG: If we can take a step back, what activities were your parents involved in prior to
your fathers detention?
MR RIBEIRO: They aided comrades who were going to exile,
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VAN DEN BERG 390 C RIBEIRO
logistically and financially. You are talking to the period prior to my father's detention?
MR VAN DEN BERG: That is correct, Mr Ribeiro.
MR RIBEIRO: And, they also acted in an advisory capacity in that they would advise comrades who were
detained, or arrested on the channels that they could utilise to legal representation and so forth.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Was there anything else?
MR RIBEIRO: Not that I can recall now, but that was generally the gist of the involvement.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Insofar as they assisted people, you said logistically, was that limited to any
particular liberation movement, or political party?
MR RIBEIRO: No, they assisted comrades from all liberation movements, because it was their philosophy
that their input, it was a struggle at that stage, was for the broader freedom of the oppressed, and as such, it
was not party specific, so they would assist comrades from all liberation movements, in transporting them
from one house to another, and all that.
MR VAN DEN BERG: After your father's detention, trial and subsequent acquittal, what happened?
MR RIBEIRO: Well I remember my father coming home and saying that seeing that the security police
were so hot on his trail, that he is going to substantially reduce, or stem his political activity until the
appropriate time. So since then both my parents were not politically active. My father just went about his
normal work as a doctor, and his contact with comrades generally would be in the treatment of comrades
who were injured by the police, through the atrocities, and he would document the injuries, advise them of
their rights to lay charges and he would forward the
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VAN DEN BERG 391 C RIBEIRO
documented evidence to the attorney who was generally handling all the matters. So his involvement was
basically his profession.
MR VAN DEN BERG: And as far as your mother is concerned?
MR RIBEIRO: My mother went about her daily cause as a businesswoman, a mother and a housewife.
That is what she was doing.
MR VAN DEN BERG: The day on which your parents were killed, can you tell this Committee what
happened?
MR RIBEIRO: Well I was standing about 10 to 15 metres from my parents, chatting to a friend and I
noticed my parents coming home. They parked the van in the driveway and went in.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Do you recall what day of the week it was?
MR RIBEIRO: It was a Monday, 1st of December 1986, it was a Monday. As I was chatting to
my friend I saw this orange Kadett stop at the stop sign, which is next to a creche, which is opposite my
parents home. I just saw it, and then I continued chatting to my friend. Then I heard a series of bangs. The
van my parents were driving was a 20 year-old van, and the bonnet was problematic in closing it, so when I
heard those bangs I thought for some reason or other, they were just trying to close the bonnet, because you
really had to bang it several times before it could lock, and I continued chatting to my friend.
When I next looked towards my home, I saw three people running out of my home towards this
orange Kadett, which I said I had seen earlier. It was now parked alongside my home. I ran to the Kadett,
opened the driver's door and I was grappling with him, trying to pull him out, when someone seated in the
rear left-hand seat fired three shots at me. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VAN DEN BERG 392 C RIBEIRO
The first two, I just heard the bangs, the pops, but I didn't take notice of them because I still had not
registered what had happened, and I was still busy trying to pull the driver out the car. I then looked up
after the second shot, this person was like stretching across the car, and he fired a third shot. That is the
shot that actually made me realise that I am now being shot at.
JUDGE MALL: You say that is the shot?
MR RIBEIRO: That made me realise that I am actually being shot at. When he shot at me, I mean there
was only the distance of the width of the car, and the Kadett is a very small car, I'd say it is about one and a
half metres. So as he pointed the gun at me, I saw his hands, they were all wearing balaclavas, so I saw his
hand, and it was definitely a White man, or a White person. I can vividly recall that because I can even still
picture an orange spark that came from the gun. Thereafter ...(intervention)
MR VAN DEN BERG: Can I interrupt you. The other occupants of the motor vehicle, what can you
remember about them?
MR RIBEIRO: The other occupants of the car, the driver was Black and the other two were also Black, so
all in all it was four people, three Blacks and one White.
After this person had shot at me, for the third time, I ran off in a westerly direction and this car
sped past me. When this car had sped past me, I then ...(intervention)
MR VAN DEN BERG: Take your time Mr Ribeiro.
MR RIBEIRO: Thank you. When this car had sped past me I then ran back home with the intention of
telling my parents that some thieves had just shot at me, because I was under the impression that these
people had stolen something from my home. When I reached home I found my father sprawled at
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VAN DEN BERG 393 C RIBEIRO
the drain in the courtyard, with what seemed to be about 20, 25 bullet holes in his head, and my mother
lying spreadeagled in the courtyard. She seemed to have been shot once only. I knew my father was dead,
I mean I could see that he was dead because he was already turning blue, but I still tried talking to him you
know to try and provide him, resuscitate him, but I just -. Then I went to my mother. She didn't seem to be
outwardly injured. I mean there was no blood, or what, so I held her in my arms and she sighed. That was
her last breath.
The ambulances were summoned, I don't know by whom. They came, and must have also seen
that my father was dead already, checked my mother, ran back to the ambulance, came back with the
oxygen mask and put it over her, on her. Then we rushed to the ambulance with both my parents, and the
ambulance firstly couldn't start, so we had to push start it, and it took a long route to the hospital, instead of
taking the shortest route, and it is my family's belief that that was part of security polices' plans, just to
further delay in expert medical attention that they may have been able to receive. They were both certified
dead on arrival of the hospital, and we subsequently went home and asked the ambulance people to take
them to the mortuary.
When we arrived home, there were, what seemed to me to be hundreds of soldiers there, who
refused us entry into my home. One of them, as I was trying to insist that I have got the right to go into my
home to see what was happening, actually said to me, 'kaffir, we will shoot you as well', which I gather was
the attitude of the security policemen during that period. After what seemed to be two hours, we were
eventually allowed in. Now, in the house, we found,
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VAN DEN BERG 393 C RIBEIRO
not soldiers, but policemen from the security branch, who had collected the shells and had removed certain
documents, I don't know what the contents thereof was, and they were also still busy searching drawers.
Then thereafter one of them asked us what happened. We told them that we cannot tell you what
happened, we cannot give you a statement because it's you who killed my parents, there was no way which
we could, I mean the same killers what happened, they knew what happened, why must I tell them. It was
a firm belief that even in telling them there is just going to be one big cover up as has been the case.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Mr Ribeiro what is the basis of your belief that the police were responsible?
MR RIBEIRO: Firstly in March 1986, my parents', my home was extensively damaged by fire bombs and
it happened at about 2 a.m., and I was at the University of Natal at the time, so a witness told my father,
unfortunately he is not here to testify to that. He told my father that he had seen police in a casper, because
my home is surrounded by a two metre high wall, throwing fire bombs into my parents' home.
Secondly, in September of the same year, somebody came to Mamelodi and actually went to the
wrong doctor's surgery and asked if he's Dr Ribeiro, he said no and asked him why, and he said, no, he just
wanted Dr Ribeiro, so he said well I am not Dr Ribeiro, this is not his surgery. Thereafter, he went out, the
doctor got in touch with my father and told him to be careful, that there was someone who is out for him.
He described what he was wearing, and told him that he was carrying a blue kit bag. I went to my mother
to close the surgery and we subsequently took my father to a safe house, and went back home to pack our
belongings. So
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VAN DEN BERG 394 C RIBEIRO
while my mother was in the house packing the belongings, my brothers and I stood at the gate of my home,
and we noticed this person, wearing the same clothes as were described by the doctor who informed us of
this person, with the same carrier bag, kit bag as described standing under a tree about 10 metres from our
home, and then he walked passed my home twice. In fact we went back to stand on the chair, and we went
back to him, we approached him, and asked him if he has a problem, my elder brother actually asked him
that, "do you have a problem?". He said no, we said no,but we can see you've got a problem because we
knew it was the person who was described. We asked him, but you do have a problem, so he said, look, I
am actually looking for Dr Ribeiro, so we said well what is your problem with him, he said no he stays
here, I said, yes, he stays here, and we invited him into our home. When he was inside, he started shaking
like a - I don't know he started shaking. We called my mother, and he told us that he has been sent by the
security police to plant a bomb in my father's surgery, and he told us that there were two other people who
were sent to kill my father. The bag that he was carrying was where the bomb was, and he told us that it is
so primed, the idea of leaving it in my father's surgery was that, should he see it, and try and find out
maybe from the documents to whom it belongs, as he tried to unzip it, it would explode in his face.
So we went into hiding, and on our return, we knew that the police, the security police will
definitely be out to get them, so we are - we've absolutely been proud these years, been firm in our
knowledge that it is the security police.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Mr Chairman, I understood that we were to
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VAN DEN BERG 395 C RIBEIRO
complete today's proceedings at quarter to, it is now nearly between ten and five to. We still have two or
three questions which we would like to ask Mr Ribeiro, but there is also his cross-examination by the
applicants, so perhaps this might be a convenient time for proceedings to stop this afternoon.
JUDGE MALL: Yes. Mr du Plessis, it does seem that we have come to the end of the day, for the time
being, at any rate.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Chairman, I would in any event, in the light of Mr Ribeiro's emotion, not
have wanted to cross- examine him this afternoon.
JUDGE MALL: Very well, the committee is now going to adjourn and will resume at 9:30 on Monday
morning.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION COMMISSION
AMNESTY HEARINGS
DATE: 03 MARCH 1997
HELD AT: PRETORIA
NAME: CHRIS RIBEIRO
JACQUES HECHTER
MOSES MABOKELA CHIKANE
PAUL VAN VUUREN
PHILLIPUS JOHANNES CORNELIUS LOOTS
MARTHINUS DAWID RAS
DAY: 6
_________________________________________________________
ON RESUMPTION
ADV MPSHE: We are ready to begin Mr Chairman. We are going to continue with the Ribeiro matter Mr
Chairman. The Chair and the members of the Committee will recall very well that when we adjourned the
son was still in the witness stand. So we are going to continue on that.
R U L I N G
JUDGE MALL: Before evidence is led in the matter we had indicated that we were going to announce our
decision on an application that was made before the close of proceedings or during the hearing last Friday.
The Committee has given due consideration to the application by Mr Currin that an order be made
calling upon applicants in this case to disclose the identity of their informers. Having regard to the
common law as expounded by the Appellate Division in, for example, R v VAN SCHALKWYK 1937
(AD) and subsequent decisions, the Committee has come to the conclusion that for present purposes it is
not appropriate to accede to the request and the Committee
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
396 RULING
accordingly rules that we will not call upon witnesses to disclose the identity of their informers.
-----------------------
JUDGE MALL: Mr Currin, your witness. Mr Ribeiro, you are reminded that you are still under your
oath. You understand that?
CHRISTOPHER REGINALD RIBEIRO: (s.u.o.)
EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DEN BERG: (cont)
Thank you Mr Chairman. I had commenced with leading Mr Ribeiro's evidence and so I will
complete that.
JUDGE MALL: Yes, please do.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Mr Ribeiro when we completed the hearings on Friday you had told us a little bit
about your parents' background as well as about the incidents on the day. Please will you tell the
Committee about your attitude and your family's attitude to these present applications?
MR RIBEIRO: We are vehemently opposed to the granting of any amnesty to the applicants. My parents
died a brutal death. To lose a single parent violently is extremely painful. To lose two parents
simultaneously, violently, is devastating, but no words can describe the sheer pain of losing both parents
violently for no reason at all. The applicants for amnesty have done nothing to ease the pain by their
blatant lies about my parents, especially my mother, whom they so unashamedly claim, assisted comrades
financially in my father's absence. My parents were extremely close and they would not have taken major
decisions without the other's knowledge. It is therefore evident to my family that the amnesty applicants
have come to this Committee without a modicum of remorse. They have come here just to save their own
skins.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VAN DEN BERG 397 C RIBEIRO
My brothers and I were at university at the time of my
parents' deaths. Through the actions of those who planned and carried out the assassinations we failed to
complete our education as my parents were our sole sponsors. It is not my parents who were so unjustly
punished, but those of us who are left behind to deal with the pain and emotional suffering. Since the
advent of the TRC, since 9 October
1995, my own personal life has been under threat by third forces who are, obviously, to, as far as my
family is concerned, in cahoots with the amnesty applicants as that is my family's opinion. They are
constantly monitoring my actions and I have had to go into hiding on several occasions to survive. The
latest was in January this year. I have reported those whom I have recognised to the highest authorities. I
have been to the Attorney General's office, I have consulted the Minister of Justice and I have also
informed other higher authorities. How can we be expected to forgive and forget or to condone the
granting of amnesty in the face of such animosity and hatred?
Furthermore, had the applicants been sincere in their endeavours to come clean they would have
done so before the advent of the TRC. With the knowledge of hindsight and under the same
circumstances, should they ever prevail today or in a different life, my parents would not hesitate to oppose
apartheid as vehemently as they did. My family's guess is that under the same circumstances and with the
knowledge of hindsight, the perpetrators would definitely murder again should such circumstances prevail
because none of them have had the slightest decency of even attempting to apologise in public for their
criminal actions. My family cannot condone the granting of amnesty to the applicants.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VAN DEN BERG 397 C RIBEIRO
We vehemently oppose their applications for amnesty.
In saying so, however, it must be clear that it is not vengeance or hatred that we pursue, but
justice. My parents were killed for nothing and the granting of amnesty could be a travesty of justice. We
can only reconcile if justice has been seen to be done.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN DEN BERG
JUDGE MALL: Mr du Plessis.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: If you will just bear with me for a moment. Mr
Ribeiro, the evidence that was given by the applicants in this matter about your parents' death entailed
evidence which was also given in October and other evidence included in their applications which, for
purposes of the Committee, is not repeated every time. Now, I have heard what you said now, the last few
remarks you made and I want to start with that. What I want to tell you is what the applicants testified
already before this Committee, in public, pertaining to all their applications. Firstly, in the opening
statement, which was addressed to this Committee right at the start of these hearings in October, the
applicants openly and publicly said that they were sorry about what happened during the time of the
struggle, expressed their sincere regret about the fact that people died on both sides and they expressed the
fact and the hope that the people of this country could reconcile and work together in future. That was read
into the record as part of the applicants' application.
Furthermore, I want to read to you what was also repeated in evidence already, what was said by
Captain Hechter and Warrant Officer van Vuuren and all the other applicants about reconciliation. I am
going to read it to PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 398 C RIBEIRO
you in Afrikaans. This was testified over and over again and it is also included in Captain Hechter and
Brigadier Cronje's applications. Mr Chairman, I know this has been dealt with before, but if you give me
the opportunity to read this to the witness.
JUDGE MALL: Your purpose of your reading this is really to convey to this witness that they have in fact
...
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes.
JUDGE MALL: ... said so, they have expressed remorse during the course of their evidence.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, yes.
JUDGE MALL: Because he was not present he was not aware of that.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Correct, correct.
JUDGE MALL: Maybe you could just ask him that question. Does he accept that that evidence was
provided?
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Ribeiro, you were not here when that evidence was given. Do you accept what I
say that such evidence was given before this Committee?
MR RIBEIRO: Yes, as you say it is on record, I cannot dispute that, but I still cannot forgive them.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Right. And Mr Ribeiro on Friday I personally went to you and offered my
condolences and regret to you on behalf of myself, my attorney and all the applicants, is that correct?
MR RIBEIRO: Yes, it is correct.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Do you accept that we are sincere?
MR RIBEIRO: No, not at all.
ADV DU PLESSIS: You also accept that I am not sincere as well as the applicants?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 399 C RIBEIRO
MR RIBEIRO: Let me put it this way. You are there to represent the interests of your client and as a, can I
say defence attorney, you will do anything to get your clients off the hook. So, I pursue it, I perceive it
basically as an attempt, a further attempt only of trying to get your clients off the hook and I cannot accept
that because there
is no sincerity and the pain cannot be wiped away by just saying sorry. None of them have even tried to
say, look, you are your brothers were at school, we can do this to send you back to school, but even that we
will not accept because we cannot go to school with blood money. We just cannot accept your apologies.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Alright Mr Ribeiro, that is your right to say that. I must say that I understand what
you feel and I understand what you have gone through. What I, however, do not understand is the fact that
you doubt our sincerity, but I hear what you say and I will leave it at that. Now, Mr Ribeiro, your father, he
was a leader in the community, is that not so?
MR RIBEIRO: Yes, he was.
ADV DU PLESSIS: You agree with that and he was somebody that the young people looked up to?
MR RIBEIRO: He was highly respected in the community.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Highly respected?
MR RIBEIRO: In the community. Not just young, I mean, that everybody respected him.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And your father was part of the struggle for freedom, if I can put it like that?
MR RIBEIRO: My entire family was opposed to apartheid.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Your entire family was opposed to the Government of the time, is that not so?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 400 C RIBEIRO
MR RIBEIRO: Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: They were opposed to the National Party?
MR RIBEIRO: Yes, we were.
ADV DU PLESSIS: They were opposed to white domination?
MR RIBEIRO: Yes, we were.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And therefore they were part of the
struggle for freedom, isn't that right?
MR RIBEIRO: Yes, we were.
ADV DU PLESSIS: The struggle for freedom of the oppressed majority of this country?
MR RIBEIRO: Yes, we were part of the struggle for freedom of the majority, of the oppressed masses, but
we were not violently supportive of ...(intervention)
JUDGE MALL: Can you speak a little louder, I did not hear. You were not?
MR RIBEIRO: We were not violently supportive of the struggle for freedom.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Right. Now, Mr Ribeiro, is it then fair, also, to say that your father and your mother
also supported the liberation movements?
MR RIBEIRO: How do you mean support? I mean could you just...
ADV DU PLESSIS: Well supported the ideas behind it, supported ...(intervention)
MR RIBEIRO: Yes, definitely.
ADV DU PLESSIS: ... the philosophies of the liberation movements.
MR RIBEIRO: Yes, definitely.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Supported the objects of the liberation movements?
MR RIBEIRO: Yes, we did.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 401 C RIBEIRO
ADV DU PLESSIS: The ultimate goal of the liberation movements, namely ...(intervention)
MR RIBEIRO: Yes, we did.
ADV DU PLESSIS: ... namely black majority power?
MR RIBEIRO: Not black majority power, but freedom, freedom for the masses.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Freedom, let us put it like that.
MR RIBEIRO: Democracy.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Freedom and democracy. Right. Now, Mr Ribeiro, and it was not a secret amongst
the supporters of the liberation movements at that time that your parents supported the ideas of the
liberation movements at that time, is that not so?
MR RIBEIRO: Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: You agree with me?
MR RIBEIRO: Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Right. Now, did your parents have contact with a lot of young people in that time?
Comrades and everybody, all the young people?
MR RIBEIRO: Yes, due to the, especially due to the nature of the work that my father was doing when
comrades were injured by police atrocities, they definitely did have a lot of interaction with youth.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And your parents also discussed with the comrades the struggle and the objects of the
liberation movement and what it stands for, is that not right?
MR RIBEIRO: That is a distinct possibility, yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Your parents were highly intelligent people?
MR RIBEIRO: Well, that is a compliment and, well, it is a compliment.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 401 C RIBEIRO
ADV DU PLESSIS: I am putting that to you because I perceive you and the rest of your family also as
highly intelligent people and I ...(intervention)
MR RIBEIRO: I will also regard that as a compliment and thank you for the compliment.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And your parents, am I right in saying,
that your parents also explained to the comrades what the struggle was about from somebody, from an
intelligent point of view, what the struggle was about, what the goals were, about democracy that was one
of the objects, etc., is that right?
MR RIBEIRO: I would submit that anyone who joined the struggle, joined it because he knew what was
wrong with the system at the time and anyone that joined the struggle knew what the struggle was all
about. So I would submit that it would be unfair to say that my parents would, as intelligent people as you
put it, would discuss with them the reasons for the struggle. They knew, all comrades knew exactly what
the struggle was about.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, on a broad basis, but your parents must have known exactly what the
philosophical ideologies of the PAC entailed, of the ANC, etc and they could, in an articulate way,
formulate it, but on an understandable level to the young people, is that not right?
MR RIBEIRO: Can I put it to you this way. That I too was a young comrade at that time and I had very,
very deep grasp of the policies of democracy at the time and if my parents did discuss the principles and
ramifications of the struggle with anybody, it was not in a teaching role, but just to discuss the dynamics of
it all. Not as in telling them they must do this, you must do that, no.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 402 C RIBEIRO
ADV DU PLESSIS: But in the capacity as a leader and somebody to whom the comrades and the people
looked up to?
MR RIBEIRO: I would not say in a capacity as a leader because as far as I am concerned my parents were
not leaders, they were just highly respected people in the community.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Ribeiro, I just want to make something clear. I am not trying to dispute what
you said about your parents so you need not be wary of my questions. I am simply asking you questions
about your parents.
JUDGE MGOEPE: On the other hand, Mr du Plessis, it became unclear as to whether your question was,
"did your parents", later it sounded as though you were saying, "could your parents as intelligent people"
and there is a vast difference. If you ask a witness to say, did your parents discuss politics with the
comrades, it is one thing, but if you come and say, could your parents, as intelligent people, discuss
politics, you get different answers.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes.
JUDGE MGOEPE: And somewhere along the way, you know, you just mixed the two and one did not
know exactly what you were dealing with.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, I am sorry, Mr Chairman. I did not realise that it came over that way. Let me
ask the question then as his Lordship, Mr Justice Mgoepe, said. Let me ask you straight out. Did your
parents discuss the ideologies and the ideas of the liberation movements with the people they treated, for
instance, as patients?
MR RIBEIRO: They discussed ...(intervention)
JUDGE WILSON: When you say "they", are you implying that his mother treated patients?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 403 C RIBEIRO
ADV DU PLESSIS: Well, let me first ask him about his father. Let me ask you about your father first.
MR RIBEIRO: Well, I would think it natural for my father to discuss ideologies and principles of the
freedom struggle with comrades.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And your mother?
MR RIBEIRO: I would say the same applies to her to.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Now, Mr Ribeiro, your father also, you testified that your father treated comrades
who were injured by the police?
MR RIBEIRO: Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Can you recall specific patients that they treated and what kind of injuries did they
suffer and because of what? Can you give us a little bit more information?
MR RIBEIRO: Well, firstly, I cannot recall the names of specific people who were injured because there
were hundreds of them. And secondly, I can only give a description of the injuries that they suffered
because I am not a doctor, I am a layman.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, I just want the examples on a broad basis. I am not asking you ...(intervention)
MR RIBEIRO: There were those who were shot in the back by birdshot. There were those who were
sjambokked with, I do not know what, but pieces of their flesh would either be torn away or open wounds
were the result and welts. Those with broken bones and other gunshot injuries. It was such injuries.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And am I right in saying they were mostly people who were injured as part of the
actions of the liberation movements during a struggle such as marches,
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 404 C RIBEIRO
boycotts, mass action, etc? Am I right in saying that?
MR RIBEIRO: Could you just repeat the question please?
ADV DU PLESSIS: What I am trying to put to you, Mr Ribeiro, is am I right in saying that the people
who were treated for these injuries suffered these injuries because of their participation in things like mass
action, boycotts and all
the other actions that went together with the struggle at that time?
MR RIBEIRO: I obviously cannot dispute the fact that some of them would have been present in marches
or such actions, but at the same time he has also treated hundreds of people who were innocent bystanders
and just maliciously assaulted by the police.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Did your mother support your father in his work?
MR RIBEIRO: Yes, she did.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Now, Mr Ribeiro, I am going to put to you what I am going to argue and I just want
your comment, in all fairness, for purposes of the Committee. I am going to argue that the evidence you
gave that your parents were not high profile activists cannot be right in the light of the fact that according to
the evidence both the South African Defence Force and the South African Police, separately, before they
started working together, but first separately, decided to target your parents or decided that your parents or
your father, specifically, was a target. I am going to argue that that indicates that your parents were high
profile activists. Would you want to comment on that?
MR RIBEIRO: The fact that both the Defence Force and the Security Police targeted my parents, in my
family's mind, as my family knows, because we were with them every single day, PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 404 C RIBEIRO
was not because of their so called "high profile". They were killed to intimidate and to try and destabilise
the community of Mamelodi only just because they were well- respected and well loved and that, we are of
the firm opinion, could have been seen as the reason to intimidate and destabilise the community of
Mamelodi. Definitely not
because, as you claim, that they were high profile activists.
Furthermore, I have already testified that after my father's detention and subsequent trial, he took
a back seat to politics and just lived an ordinary life. So at the time of his death he definitely was not high
profile, he was just an ordinary citizen.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Right. Mr Ribeiro, can you give us an indication exactly what is on your father and
your mother's tombstone?
MR RIBEIRO: Let the march to freedom proceed and ...
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Ribeiro, what I found particularly moving, of what is on their tombstone, is an
extract from a Psalm in the Bible. Do you recall that? You do not have to remember exactly. I am just
asking you do you recall that?
MR RIBEIRO: Yes, I recall it.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And I am putting it to you that I found it moving and what I also want to put to you is
that not only myself, but each of my clients, each one of the applicants, also found that very moving and I
would say that in sincerity. What is also on the tombstone, Mr Ribeiro, it says, "Your death was not in
vain".
MR RIBEIRO: Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Is that correct. And what is also on the tombstone on the top right-hand side or left
top side, I
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 405 C RIBEIRO
think, is the black power sign, the black fist. Is that correct?
MR RIBEIRO: Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Right and from that I deduct that you and your family are very proud that your
parents were part of the struggle and that they died as part of the struggle?
MR RIBEIRO: As I said earlier on that if you have got to live the same life again under the same
conditions, yes, we would oppose apartheid as vehemently as we did. As much as we have lost, we have
no regrets for having participated in the struggle against apartheid.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And one last point I want to make, Mr Ribeiro, and that is that I want to say to you
again, here, in public, in all sincerity, even though you doubt it, that I, my attorney and my clients extend,
in all sincerity, our sympathies to you and your family.
MR RIBEIRO: May I just say, in all sincerity, I have really no faith in lie detector tests because I know
they can be manipulated, but would your clients ever be prepared to undergo such?
ADV DU PLESSIS: I think they would. I have not taken it up with them, but I think they would. I would
definitely.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DU PLESSIS
JUDGE WILSON: Mr Ribeiro, we have heard that your parents used to have film shows in the garage,
was that just for entertainment purposes?
MR RIBEIRO: Mr Chairman, to put it in, as mildly as I can, that is a blatant lie. What happened in my
parents' garage was that due to the lack of facilities in the townships a group of amateur community actors
had asked for permission to rehearse in my parents' garage, to rehearse their plays PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE WILSON 406 C RIBEIRO
in my parents' garage and that is all that they were doing. There were no, there were never ever any videos
shown in my parents' garage.
JUDGE WILSON: Not even ordinary films?
MR RIBEIRO: Not even ordinary films. All the videos that we used to watch we use to watch in my
parents, in the house in the lounge and those were just family - that was just family and friends.
JUDGE WILSON: We have heard about one film that was supposed to have been shown there. I do not
know if you have seen it or had a chance to since then, Cry Freedom, is it. If I read the, that well known
producer Richard Attenborough.
MR RIBEIRO: Your Honour, I would submit that had Cry Freedom been shown in my parents' home, in
the garage, over ten years ago, then I would have seen it then and I would not have seen it for the first time
in the cinemas when it was recently unbanned in the 90's.
JUDGE WILSON: You have only seen it recently?
MR RIBEIRO: Pardon?
JUDGE WILSON: You have just seen it recently?
MR RIBEIRO: I just saw it recently in a cinema when it was unbanned recently, in the 90's I think it was
and, to the best of my knowledge, that film was also produced in the 1990's. I have got no, absolutely no
knowledge of it ever having been produced prior to that.
JUDGE WILSON: Well, if it had been, it would have been very difficult to get hold of a copy of a banned
film in this country, would it not?
MR RIBEIRO: Yes, definitely.
JUDGE WILSON: Thank you.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
407
JUDGE MALL: Any re-examination?
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DEN BERG:
JUDGE MALL: Mr Ribeiro, you may be excused.
MR RIBEIRO: Thank you, Sir.
WITNESS EXCUSED
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 408 ADDRESS
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, if you will just give me a moment please. Mr Chairman, I just wanted
to clear the
position up in respect of Captain Hechter, in respect of Captain Hechter's testimony. We have not been
provided with the preliminary investigation which was promised. Mr Mpshe told me this morning that the
Attorney General undertook to provide us with copies this morning. That means that that aspect still
remains open and, as far as I understood on Friday, Mr Visser wanted to ask Captain Hechter still
questions, but I am not sure. Otherwise my evidence is finished.
JUDGE MALL: Mr Mpshe can you throw on any light on whether the record of the preparatory
examination will be made available?
ADV MPSHE: Yes, Mr Chairman, my learned friend is correct. On Friday we had a discussion with a
member from the office of Attorney General, Antoinette de Jager, and she promised to make this available
to us today, but I have not received them as yet. That is correct.
JUDGE MALL: Yes. Before any further evidence is led were you able to get hold of Annexure A to the
post mortem report which you were to be furnished?
ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman, I do not have it with me now, but I have set the action to get it sent to me.
JUDGE MALL: Yes.
ADV MPSHE: I was in touch yesterday with one of the magistrates in Garankua, Mr Toebra Klaasie. He
said he will make copies for me and forward them.
JUDGE MALL: Thank you.
ADV MPSHE: I can promise, make an undertaking that before the Committee leaves their copy will be
made available,
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 409 ADDRESS
shall have been made available.
JUDGE MALL: Yes, it may be necessary to call witnesses or to recall witnesses depending on what is said
on Annexure A.
ADV MPSHE: Then, Mr Chairman, in, if there is a portion, I am going to request one of the days, either
today or tomorrow, that we adjourn early so that I can go and fetch it myself, because I know where they
are.
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Mpshe ...(intervention)
JUDGE MALL: Can they not fax these things to you Mr Mpshe?
ADV MPSHE: I can phone and find out whether it is possible for them to fax me, Sir.
JUDGE MALL: Yes.
ADV MPSHE: But the undertaking that he made was, when I spoke to him yesterday, was that he was
going to send it down to me here.
JUDGE MALL: Yes.
ADV MPSHE: Failing which I will find it at home because we live in the same area.
JUDGE MALL: Thank you.
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Mpshe, was it not handed in at the de Kock trial too?
ADV MPSHE: Sorry, could you repeat?
ADV DE JAGER: Was Annexure B not handed in at the de Kock trial?
JUDGE MALL: A.
ADV MPSHE: Annexure A.
ADV DE JAGER: Yes, Annexure A.
ADV MPSHE: I was told that it was handed in and that that
will form part of what Antoinette de Jager is going to give to us.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Mr Mpshe, may I just, the allegations made by PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 409 ADDRESS
Captain Hechter regarding the, an attorney or somebody who prepared questions for him in advance, as
also the fact that somebody presided over the proceedings. They have enjoyed
quite coverage in the press. While Captain Hechter was not able to remember the names of the people
concerned and taking into account, also, that this matter enjoyed a great deal of publicity, I had hoped that
the gentlemen concerned with the proceedings, they would have known about these allegations which were
made last week and, possibly, they would, on their own, come forward to try and put the record straight and
then they would, possibly, contact you. Now, have or have they not contacted you?
ADV MPSHE: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, nobody has contacted me, but I may hasten to
state this that when this was disclosed last week, Mr Brian Currin appearing for the victims of the - the
families approached me and said that he is aware of newspaper reports on this wherein the names of the
people are mentioned and that he will make copies thereof and make them available. I think I am speaking
under - he can confirm that.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Yes, Mr Currin?
MR CURRIN: Mr Chairman, what we said was that the, we were instructed by Mr Ribeiro that the
proceedings were reported in the newspapers and that he believed that the name of the magistrate was
mentioned and that he would try and get hold of those copies and let us have them. We have not got them
yet. Straight after today he is going to go and try and get hold of them so we can see whether the persons
are, in fact, named, but he believes that the magistrate was named in the newspaper report at the time.
JUDGE MGOEPE: In the meantime, bearing in mind that some of PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE MGOEPE 410 ADDRESS
the allegations imply some impropriety, it is sincerely hoped that the people concerned would be able to
remember that they themselves are the people referred to and they
will come forward and contact the Commission or the Amnesty Committee.
JUDGE WILSON: Even though we have not been given copies of the preparatory examination record,
surely it would only take a couple of minutes to telephone the Attorney General's office where they have
copies, they may not have made additional copies, and ask them. The preparatory examination record will
surely disclose the name of the magistrate who presided over it and the name of the parties who
participated, the prosecutor, defence counsel and things of that nature.
ADV MPSHE: Thank you Mr Chairman. That is indeed correct and these are some of the things that we
were promised by Advocate de Jager, as it may well be remembered, when she was here during the
hearings. When the hearings were going on she approached me and said that they do have the copy of the
PE available in the AG's office and copies will be made and be forwarded to us. The applicants' counsel
can also confirm that.
JUDGE WILSON: What I am interested in is notifying people who are now implicated because although
their names have been - not been mentioned there offices have and they should surely be informed.
ADV MPSHE: That is correct Mr Chairman. May I, if it will be apposite at this stage, be mindful of the,
our being behind schedule right now, that when Antoinette, when Advocate de Jager was here, her main
problem was that her hands are actually full and she cannot afford to be coming
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 411 ADDRESS
up and down all the time and actually insisted that if we can have somebody or who, myself or the
applicants' counsel to go up to their office to make these copies ourselves and
let them be made available. I do not know how that can be done because I am tied to this hearing. Perhaps
during lunch time if we adjourn at quarter to one and to resume at quarter to I may be able to dash up to
their offices.
JUDGE MALL: Okay, one of the Judge's secretaries could be able to assist you, I am sure, if you asked.
ADV MPSHE: Thank you. Thank you, I will make use of that.
JUDGE MALL: Thank you.
ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman, I do not know whether Mr Brian Currin or Mr van den Berg is through
leading their evidence now. If that is the case I just want to say something pertaining to this matter as well.
JUDGE MALL: Are you through?
MR VAN DER BERG: Mr Chairman, the position is we indicated on Friday that we wish to call an
activist to testify on behalf of the Ribeiro's. That was Mr Moss Chikane. We made arrangements for him
to be present today. I do not know whether he has arrived as yet, but perhaps when he does arrive then we
would call him. We are told that he is on his way.
JUDGE WILSON: From where?
MR VAN DEN BERG: From Mamelodi, Mr Chairman. That is the only witness we propose calling, Mr
Chairman.
ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman, I can make the comment now. It does not affect the witness, Mr Chairman,
it affects the
implicated persons in this matter in particular. Mr Chairman, I want to comment about the most implicated
persons here. That is Neil Robey as well as Charl Naude.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 412 ADDRESS
Mr Chairman, all other members, all other persons mentioned in this application have been informed and
served accordingly except the two. Inasfar as Charl Naude is
concerned, Mr Chairman, I could not find or his whereabouts and in my endeavour to ascertain his
whereabouts I wrote a letter dated the 12th of February to our nodal point SAPS to give me the information
about the two gentlemen. Up to date I have not received any information. If the Chair would like to see a
copy of my letter I have it with me.
Inasfar as Neil Robey is concerned, Mr Chairman, I also made contact with the investigative unit
through the person of Jerome Chaskelson before coming to this hearing and we together phoned Messina,
because our information was that Neil Robey was running a shop or a business down in Messina and we
contacted Messina. We were told by the people running that shop now that Neil Robey is no more in
Messina, but he may be found in Zambia. That is the report that I wanted to make Mr Chairman. Thank
you.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Chairman, I have no further comments in respect of the Ribeiro matter. I am
prepared to go on with the other matters.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 412 CAPT HECHTER
ADV MPSHE: Then the next matter will be the killing of the policeman and his wife in Hammanskraal.
Thank you.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. You will find that incident on page 324 of Captain
Hechter's application. Captain Hechter and Warrant Officer van Vuuren apply for this incident and I beg
leave to call Captain Hechter.
JUDGE MALL: The name of the people who died, the policeman and his wife. ?
ADV MPSHE: Irene Motasi.
JUDGE MALL: Just spell that.
ADV MPSHE: Irene.
JUDGE MALL: Yes.
ADV MPSHE: Motasi, M-O-T-A-S-I.
JUDGE MALL: Yes.
ADV MPSHE: And the husband was Richard Motasi.
JACQUES HECHTER: (sworn states).
EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Captain Hechter, could you explain
to the Committee how it happened that you received instructions regarding to this matter, could we start
right at the beginning.
CAPT HECHTER: If I remember correctly it was late in the second half round about December of '87, it
might have been a bit earlier, but it was late in that year. The then second-in-charge of the branch, Colonel
Ras, one morning called myself, Captain Loots and Sergeant van Vuuren in. He summonsed us to his
office and the then Commanding Officer, Brigadier Cronje, was ill at the time and not present. He
called us to his office and told us that there was an instruction from the Divisional Commissioner that an
agent, an ANC agent, who is also a policeman attached to the Hammanskraal training centre, had given
very damaging
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 413 CAPT HECHTER
information to the Zimbabwean forces which led to the death of many of our agents and he also had
information about the police stations in the vicinity, what they looked like, what was happening there, etc.
A sort of a target analysis is what he had done.
Now, the instruction was to eliminate this policeman and it was given to Colonel Loots, myself
and Warrant Officer van Vuuren where we were all gathered together. But the Colonel also said, Colonel
Ras also said that Phillip
Loots had to go to Brigadier Stemmet to obtain the necessary names and addresses and particulars in
connection with this man. Flip Loots then left, we remained behind in the office and I think it was about an
hour or two afterwards he returned to the office and gave me the man's particulars. Whether he did so in
writing or orally, I cannot remember.
I contacted Mamasela, asked him to come in and I gave him these particulars and told him to go
and verify these. To find out where the man lived, what kind of car he drove. I think that was more-or-less
the kind of information I needed.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Now Captain, could we just stop there for a moment. This particular instruction
which you received, you have testified now that it came from Brigadier Stemmet.
CAPT HECHTER: That is correct.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Was there any file in your unit or section regarding to this policeman?
CAPT HECHTER: As far as I can remember, no. I cannot
remember such a file. If there was such a file it was not a general topic in my office. It could have
perhaps, have related to one of the other units, but I did not have knowledge of that and I cannot remember
that I verified it. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 414 CAPT HECHTER
If I had done so, I cannot remember that.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Is it possible that Brigadier Stemmet had received information about this policeman
from another unit without your unit knowing about it?
CAPT HECHTER: Yes. Brigadier Stemmet, by virtue of his office, had contact with National Intelligence
and the Police's Intelligence Section, Military Intelligence. So it is possible that he received information
from them, but as far as I know we had no information.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Right, could you continue on page 345. Please continue.
CAPT HECHTER: After Mamasela came back later in the day with this information, we then decided to
attack that very evening. Captain Loots decided he would accompany us on this operation and that
evening, it was late, it would have been late or fairly late. I cannot say exactly what the time was. We left
Pretoria, away from the Security Branch and I think we once again drove in a combi because it just melted
and blended into these black residential areas and Danny Hletlhala(?) was, he was also a policeman, and he
accompanied us. I think he was a constable at the time and he had a nickname of Slang or Snake and he
was the driver and it was decided that he would guard the vehicle. Then there was Mamasela, Paul van
Vuuren, myself and Captain Loots.
We all left to go to Hammanskraal where this person was living at the time in that vicinity. We
stopped some distance away from the house. We got out, we were dressed in dark clothing and we had
also covered our faces with balaclavas. Mamasela wore a balaclava which he pulled very low over his ears
and forehead. We were armed. Captain
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 415 CAPT HECHTER
Loots, Paul and myself each had an AK47. Mamasela had a hand gun. I cannot remember what type of
hand gun it was. We went to the house. We sent Mamasela ahead. He knocked on the door and asked
whether Motasi was home. A woman answered the knock at the door and they stood there for a while
talking to each other. We stood round the corner. We could hear them speaking, but she could not see us
and we could not see them. He came back to us and told us that Motasi was not at home at that time.
We then discussed the matter and decided we would go back and wait for him in the house.
Mamasela once again knocked on the door, she once again opened the door and he then pulled out his hand
gun and took her, forced her back into the house to one of the back rooms. We did not want her to see
what we looked like. We then entered the house and to make things appear as normal as possible we put
the lights off, but switched the television on. I cannot remember how long we waited, but it was a
considerable time. Then a vehicle stopped outside. It was a small Mazda vehicle. I cannot remember the
colour. Somebody looked through the window and said, here he comes. The front door had been locked
again and whilst he was busy trying to open the front door with his key, as he was starting to open the door,
I pulled open the door from the inside and dragged him into the living room. He immediately realised there
were problems because he put up quite a fight. We were wrestling with each other and eventually I started
throttling him and so gained control over him. I then placed a pillow on his head. Warrant Officer van
Vuuren shot him four times with the AK47 rifle. The pillow was to deaden the sound of the gunshots so
that it could not be heard far away.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 415 CAPT HECHTER
ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain, I want to interrupt you there. On page 326, the last paragraph you refer to
Captain Loots and his involvement in the assault.
CAPT HECHTER: During this struggle and wrestling, Captain Loots hit me with the butt of his AK47
rifle and after that I told van Vuuren let us go or I said go and call Mamasela and let us go. As far as I can
recall that was the first time that Colonel or Captain Loots had been involved in any kind of operation of
this type so there was a lot of
tension. So automatically I gave the necessary instructions. I did not wait for him. The two of us left and I
sent Paul back to call Mamasela.
Whether I am still inside the door or just outside, I do not know, but I then heard a shot, but we
continued walking because we turned round and looked, but we continued walking and then Mamasela
came out and then Paul. He was standing in the doorway, if I remember correctly, in the passage I think.
We then went back to the car and we asked what shots these were and Mamasela said he had shot
the black woman. When I asked him why he had done so and he said that she had seen his face and would
be able to identify him and he was afraid of being identified by her and that that would cause problems for
him later. They then went back to the house and the next morning Captain Loots reported to Ras that the
operation had been completed.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Now Captain, as regards the black woman, did you ever give any instructions for her
to be shot?
CAPT HECHTER: At that stage, no. As far as I was concerned it was not necessary for her to be shot.
Later when Mamasela explained to me why he had shot her I accepted what PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 416 CAPT HECHTER
he said, that she would be able to identify him with negative consequences. Namely that we would be
identified, the hit squad activities would be revealed and the whole system, the whole security branch, the
Government, everybody would then be involved as a result of this identification and the revelations which
the witness could make.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Now Captain, did you ever have the intention for the woman to be shot and killed?
CAPT HECHTER: Originally, no. Initially, no. When we left to go and perform this operation it was not
my intention.
When we entered the house or just before we entered the house I said to Mamasela take her away to a back
room where she will not be able to see us. The idea was not then to shoot her. Later he also did not receive
any instruction to shoot her, but I can understand why he did so.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Before Mamasela pulled the trigger and shot her dead did you ever form the intent to
kill her?
CAPT HECHTER: No, I did not feel that it was necessary to shoot her. I would certainly not have shot
her.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Right, Captain you have already partially answered my question, but was any action
taken against Mamasela?
CAPT HECHTER: No, I did not act in any way against Mamasela and nobody else acted against
Mamasela. Mamasela, at that stage was of vital importance to the Branch due to his ease of movement in
infiltrating certain groups that we could not see our way clear to repudiating his actions and if he was
unmasked it would have been very dangerous for us and our
entire operation. It would have forced it to a halt.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain, do you know whether there was a report-back on the incident?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 417 CAPT HECHTER
CAPT HECHTER: As I said Captain Loots reported that he had told the Colonel what happened.
Thereafter, I do not know. He told Colonel Ras or he reported to Colonel Ras that the operation had been
successfully completed.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain, was it reported back that the woman had been shot?
CAPT HECHTER: I assume so. I do not think he would have said that we had only shot the man when
we had also shot the woman.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Now, the political objective is set out on
329 to 333 and the specific and more detailed motive on the bottom of 333 to 335. Do you confirm the
correctness of this?
CAPT HECHTER: Yes, I agree with it, Chairperson.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Now, could you look at 335. The last paragraph on page 335 and could you read that
to us please.
CAPT HECHTER: "The elimination of the particular informer was necessary by virtue of his
involvement in the ANC's activities whilst he was a policeman and part of the
security forces. It was a situation which could not be tolerated and which
demanded serious action".
ADV DU PLESSIS: Now Captain, the last aspect which I want to deal with. Did you ever, afterwards,
hear that there were ...(tape ends)... was eliminated?
CAPT HECHTER: I think the first time I heard about it was when you showed me certain documents or it
might have been during our earlier talks. The allegation was made that the man had been eliminated
because he had instituted a civil
claim against the police.
ADV DU PLESSIS: In the time that you had been involved in
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 418 CAPT HECHTER
this action and afterwards, was such a thing ever put to you?
CAPT HECHTER: No, not at all. No, it was never mentioned to me. I heard about this for the first time, I
think, from Warrant Officer van Vuuren. He told me about this in October, yes. The Attorney General
apparently told him that and he then told me about it and that was the first time I heard about it and then
you showed me certain documents which Mr Currin had made available to you and whether I had any
knowledge of the events or circumstances. Well, we will speak about that later.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DU PLESSIS
JUDGE MALL: Mr Currin?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CURRIN: Thank you Mr Chairman. Captain Hechter, your evidence
says that you had a meeting with Colonel Ras, General Ras at that stage, no, he was then Colonel Ras.
CAPT HECHTER: That is correct Chairperson.
MR CURRIN: And he gave you certain information about Sergeant Motasi and you have given us, you
have told us in evidence what that information is. Could you tell us how long that discussion took?
CAPT HECHTER: Unfortunately not, but I cannot imagine that it could have lasted for very long. He said
that the information had come from the Divisional Commissioner and just briefly explained what the man
was about. So how long could that have taken, maybe ten to 15 minutes, I do not know, but it would not
have been longer than that.
MR CURRIN: A short discussion.
CAPT HECHTER: It was a discussion.
MR CURRIN: I see and you got this information and you
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 419 CAPT HECHTER
accepted it?
CAPT HECHTER: I accepted it.
MR CURRIN: I see. Did you take any steps whatsoever to check or to verify the information?
CAPT HECHTER: Not at all.
MR CURRIN: So you were told by a senior officer that one of your colleagues who is a sergeant in the
police force stationed in Temba is passing on information to the security forces in Zimbabwe and that is
enough for you, without any questions, to proceed and to eliminate, to kill this person?
CAPT HECHTER: The information came from two senior officers in the police force. I had no reason to
doubt Colonel Ras at the time who was my Commanding Officer. If he had verified the information with
Brigadier Stemmet I certainly would not have questioned him or doubted his information.
MR CURRIN: I see.
CAPT HECHTER: I had worked with him for a long period and I never had any problems with him. I
trusted him completely. He was an honourable man, he was an officer of high repute. So I had no reason
to doubt his instructions.
MR CURRIN: I see. And you are given this broad, general information that he is giving sensitive
information to the security forces in Zimbabwe?
CAPT HECHTER: That was good enough for me.
MR CURRIN: Did you ask what sort of information?
CAPT HECHTER: I have already said that he told me that the man had certain information, that he was a
courier. I forgot to mention that. He was also a courier who took information through and passed it on to
the ANC. Whether he took it to Zimbabwe, I cannot tell you. I do not know whether he actually went over
to Zimbabwe, I do not know
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 419 CAPT HECHTER
whether that was discussed, but he was also a courier and, if I remember correctly, he had information
relating to the police stations. You see, at that stage many of our police stations were targeted by the ANC
for attack. So this was similar kind of information. General information about their police stations and so
on. That was what was conveyed to us.
MR CURRIN: So you are now saying that he was actually also a courier for the ANC? This is now new
evidence. You have not said that before.
CAPT HECHTER: It is very possible. If you say so then I will accept that. I have not mentioned it
previously, but I am saying it now.
MR CURRIN: In your written application you said,
"We understood that whilst he was a policeman he passed on information to the
Zimbabwe information services".
Then you go on to say,
"It was essential to eliminate him since he, as an ANC member, was dangerous for the
security forces in South Africa".
CAPT HECHTER: Correct. I also did not mention Stemmet's name in - or Brigadier Stemmet's name in
the application, but that was in fact the case. It is a fact that is what happened.
MR CURRIN: So it was also told to you that he was a courier for the ANC? That is what you are telling
us now?
CAPT HECHTER: I assume so. Maybe this fact came out whilst we were having discussions or perhaps
during the drafting of the application. It might have been told to me on that particular day. It must be
reiterated we are talking about
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 420 CAPT HECHTER
11 years ago and things that happened then. Many things have happened since then. I worked for many
more than 12 hours on each day. Many things were put to me, but I cannot remember exact words
verbatim. I cannot remember precise information. You must accept that.
MR CURRIN: I understand what you say. Did you ask what sort of information, did you ask for details of
the information that he was giving to Zimbabwe?
CAPT HECHTER: No, I would not have done that.
MR CURRIN: You would not.
CAPT HECHTER: I would not have queried my Commanding Officer on his information. It might have
been discussed, but at this stage I cannot say, yes, it was discussed. What I do know is that I would not
have queried him.
MR CURRIN: It was never suggested to you, though, from your evidence that he was involved in any way
in any acts of violence or anything of that nature?
CAPT HECHTER: No, not as far as I can recall.
MR CURRIN: The fact that you agreed to eliminate him must, we assume, that that is now based on a
conclusion that he was a - I am trying to think of the terminology that you have always use in your
applications, a prominent leader, a prominent activist, high profile activist?
CAPT HECHTER: No, he was simply a problem. Not at all, he was an agent. He was not an activist, he
was not high profile, he was simply an agent who worked underground, in all probability. I cannot testify
to that. I do not have, I did not check the information, I did not verify it. I have already told you that.
MR CURRIN: Did it enter your mind to suggest to your senior officers that if they have this evidence that
one of your
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 421 CAPT HECHTER
colleagues in the security forces is a spy, that he is a committing a very, very serious political offence, an
offence, it is treason, and that they, that he should be charged?
CAPT HECHTER: You simply did not make that kind of suggestion to a senior officer.
MR CURRIN: One does not put that sort of proposal to a senior officer?
CAPT HECHTER: I think if he had wanted to charge him, he would have done so. As a lieutenant you
simply cannot say to a higher ranking officer you are doing something incorrectly and let us do it this way.
It does not work that way in the military.
MR CURRIN: Even, are you telling us that if you, as a policeman, are instructed to commit murder by a
senior officer, you do not question the instruction?
CAPT HECHTER: That is under normal circumstances. I am speaking of very different kinds of
circumstances to what we experience here. Whilst we are sitting here calmly and collectedly many years
after the actual incident, in English it is called "heady days". You did as you were told. The Colonel was
in charge of the branch, his commanding officer, he was a Brigadier. He was actually a little god and those
were his instructions. I would simply not have considered doubting it. I would probably have been
demoted to uniform branch if I had made that kind of suggestion.
MR CURRIN: At that particular time ...(intervention)
JUDGE WILSON: So you were interested in saving your own skin, if I can put it that way, and were not
prepared to ask questions about this other policeman?
CAPT HECHTER: Not at all. I had no reason to doubt my
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE WILSON 422 CAPT HECHTER
Colonel. What reason would I have had to cast any doubt or dispute the actions of my Colonel,
Chairperson?
JUDGE WILSON: But a man had given away information to another country, you did not question him,
you did not seek to find out who his contacts were, you merely decided to murder him which is not the
conduct of a policeman, it is not the instructions one expects from a senior officer.
CAPT HECHTER: He was eliminated, that is correct.
JUDGE WILSON: He was murdered and you say that the, as I understand your evidence and correct me,
the position in your unit was that you would not question instructions to murder, you would just do it. ?
CAPT HECHTER: If I received instructions to eliminate a man, I would have done so, yes.
MR CURRIN: I want to put it to you before I proceed to the next point that it will be, it is strenuously
denied that Sergeant Motasi was an agent, that he was a spy and that he passed on any information
whatsoever to the security forces in Zimbabwe. It is also denied that he was a courier for the ANC. It is
the first time that information has come to our knowledge. I put that to you.
CAPT HECHTER: You put it to me, but in all the other applications which we have dealt with so far not
one of these high profile activists or anybody who had been eliminated, thus far, has it been put to me that
he had in fact been involved in any actions. Not one of them had been involved in anything wrong.
MR CURRIN: That may be the case. I want to read to you what you said in your written application with
regard to going out to the residence of Sergeant Motasi, his wife and his son.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 422 CAPT HECHTER
"We got into a car and late that evening we went to the policeman's address. The
address was identified beforehand by Mamasela. A black woman, presumably his wife,
opened the door and said that he was not at home. Because he was not at home we then
went away to discuss the matter".
The impression I get from that statement is that the group of you went to the house, knocked on the door,
Irene Motasi answered the door, told you that he was not there and you went away. Is that the situation?
CAPT HECHTER: We did not go away, we just moved to stand around the corner. Mamasela came from
the door to us, he stood there speaking to us, he turned round. She closed the door after speaking to him.
He then turned around. We are talking about seconds, minutes. He went back and knocked on the door
again.
MR CURRIN: I am interested in the first time he went to the door. Before, are you saying you did not all
go to the door? In your evidence-in-chief you said, your verbal, oral evidence, you said that only
Mamasela went to the door. I am trying to get clarification. The first time was it only Mamasela or was it
all of you?
CAPT HECHTER: All of us went to the house, we walked to the house and stood around the corner where
she could not see us.
MR CURRIN: Okay.
CAPT HECHTER: We are talking about five or six paces or perhaps ten paces. He then walked those ten
or how many paces to the front door to speak to her.
MR CURRIN: Okay, so he went on his own to speak to her.
CAPT HECHTER: Correct.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 423 CAPT HECHTER
MR CURRIN: I want to assume that before he went to speak to her you discussed your plan, namely, the
immediate plan of getting into the house.
CAPT HECHTER: Correct. Yes, we discussed it, that he would knock and ask whether Motasi was at
home. If he was at home he would have asked him to come outside.
MR CURRIN: Okay, alright. So he goes to the door and he knocks on the door. He is a visitor.
Obviously one does not want to create suspicion, is that correct?
CAPT HECHTER: Correct.
MR CURRIN: The lights in the house are on?
CAPT HECHTER: I cannot remember, but I assume that that would have been the case. She would not
have walked in the darkness.
MR CURRIN: She would have turned the lights on. So this friend, someone looking for Richard Motasi,
knocks on the door. She opens the door and she has a conversation with him. Could you hear the
conversation?
CAPT HECHTER: I am sure we would have heard it. I cannot specifically remember it, but we must have
because we were close enough.
MR CURRIN: You cannot remember what was said?
CAPT HECHTER: I assume that the conversation was conducted in a black language.
MR CURRIN: I see, but his instructions were to go and ask if Richard is there?
CAPT HECHTER: Correct.
MR CURRIN: Okay. Obviously there was a discussion. She said he was not, no suspicion is created.
Correct?
CAPT HECHTER: Yes.
MR CURRIN: Obviously not and because you went and you PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 424 CAPT HECHTER
knocked a few minutes later and she opened the door.
CAPT HECHTER: And she opened without any hassles. That is correct.
MR CURRIN: Obviously when he went to the door the first time he would not have stood there with a
balaclava on his face?
CAPT HECHTER: The blacks did walk around wearing their balaclavas. It was not a balaclava which
covered his eyes. It was actually rolled up which just rested on his forehead and covered his ears and the
back of his head.
MR CURRIN: But not over his face?
CAPT HECHTER: Not over his face, not at all.
MR CURRIN: So you knew and, in fact, all of you knew that when he went to the door the first time his
face would be completely visible to Mrs Motasi?
CAPT HECHTER: That is obvious, yes.
MR CURRIN: You then returned to the rest of the group?
CAPT HECHTER: No, he returned.
MR CURRIN: Sorry, he comes to the rest of the group and you have a discussion and you decide that he is
going to go back again and get into the house and you are going to wait for Richard Motasi, Sergeant
Motasi. Is that the discussion that took place?
CAPT HECHTER: That is correct.
JUDGE MALL: Tea.
MR CURRIN: I am told that it is tea time. Would you like to stop at this critical stage or should I finish
this particular point of the cross-examination?
JUDGE MALL: We will take a short adjournment Mr Currin.
MR CURRIN: Thank you.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 425 CAPT HECHTER
ON RESUMPTION
JUDGE MALL: Yes, Mr Currin.
JACQUES HECHTER: (s.u.o.)
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CURRIN: (cont)
Thank you, thank you. Joe Mamasela has now come back to you, he has told you that he had a
discussion with Mrs Motasi, that Sergeant Motasi is not there, you then have a debate and you decide to
proceed with the operation. Correct?
CAPT HECHTER: That is correct Chairperson.
MR CURRIN: You send Motasi back to the door?
CAPT HECHTER: Mamasela.
MR CURRIN: My apologies. You send Mamasela back to the front door. She is obviously not suspicious
of anything, she opens the door the second time. Correct?
CAPT HECHTER: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR CURRIN: He forces his way in and you then follow? Correct.
CAPT HECHTER: That is correct.
MR CURRIN: When you went into the house your intention was to kill Sergeant Motasi when he returns?
CAPT HECHTER: That is correct.
MR CURRIN: After the very first time that Mamasela knocked on the front door, each one of you knew
that Mrs Motasi had already seen Mamasela.
CAPT HECHTER: Is that a question? I am sorry.
MR CURRIN: Yes, I put it to you.
CAPT HECHTER: That is correct.
MR CURRIN: So you all knew that she had seen Mamasela. How could you hope to continue with your
operation and kill Richard Motasi without knowing at that stage that his wife
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 426 CAPT HECHTER
would have to be killed?
CAPT HECHTER: It is easy to say now. It was difficult to decide then.
MR CURRIN: Why do you say that?
CAPT HECHTER: One had to take so many decisions at that
moment. The thought might have occurred to us that she would have to die, but if I had wanted to kill her,
I would not have sent her to a bedroom in the back of the house. I would have said to Mamasela, take her
back and shoot her. I would have said to Mamasela, take her back and shoot her now because she is going
to be a problem to us. That instruction was never uttered, that thought never occurred to me, it was never
part of my planning.
MR CURRIN: I am testing the veracity of your evidence. I want, are you telling this Commission that the
disclosure of the identity of each one of you, including Mamasela, was not absolutely critical throughout
the operation?
CAPT HECHTER: That is why we had balaclavas. These that only revealed the eyes. So she would
never have been able to identify us. The, Mamasela had this over his face and she saw him for a maximum
of ten to 20 seconds while they were talking and thereafter he was sent back to take her to the bedroom. It
was easy. She would walk in front of him, she would be told to lie on the bed and she would be covered
with a blanket.
MR CURRIN: You were not there.
CAPT HECHTER: We are merely speculating now.
MR CURRIN: You were not there. You are speculating.
CAPT HECHTER: That is correct. I am saying ...(intervention)
JUDGE WILSON: You told us that Mamasela had his balaclava
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 427 CAPT HECHTER
rolled up above his ears when he went to knock on the door for the first time so as not to look suspicious.
Are you now trying to change your evidence?
CAPT HECHTER: Never, never. Not over his ears, above his ears, over his ears onto his forehead, on to
his forehead. So she could only see his eyes and his mouth.
MR CURRIN: And his nose.
JUDGE WILSON: The whole of his face.
CAPT HECHTER: And his nose, yes, by all means she could have identified him.
MR CURRIN: That is the point.
CAPT HECHTER: She could have identified him.
MR CURRIN: She could have identified him.
CAPT HECHTER: That is it. I have no problem with that.
MR CURRIN: Right, so you go into the house knowing beforehand that one of you will be identified,
could be identified as the killer of Richard Motasi.
CAPT HECHTER: Why did they not kill her immediately?
MR CURRIN: I am not, you must answer the questions.
CAPT HECHTER: No I am asking you.
MR CURRIN: I cannot answer the questions.
CAPT HECHTER: I cannot either.
MR CURRIN: So you cannot answer that question.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Mr Currin, maybe we should put it this way. Captain, after Mr Mamasela had been
there for the first time and when you people later decided to get, to proceed with the operation what did you
think eventually was to happen with that woman who had, just a few minutes ago, seen fully the face of Mr
Mamasela?
CAPT HECHTER: Chairperson, perhaps Captain Loots could say. At that stage I cannot think that we
had discussed it in any PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 427 CAPT HECHTER
way, that we were worried about it. I cannot say at this point. What I do know, however, is that it was
never discussed that we should take this woman out, eliminate her, but if it had to have been said to
Mamasela I would probably have said to Mamasela, take her to the room and kill her. Do you understand
what I am saying? If that was the
intention, to eliminate her, but that was not the problem. JUDGE MGOEPE: On the other hand it might
very well be that it was such a foregone conclusion that it needed no discussion, that she was going to be
killed.
CAPT HECHTER: That may be. I cannot dispute that, but it was never discussed. What was discussed
was that it was not necessary to shoot her.
JUDGE MGOEPE: I fail to see why you would not know as to what would have to happen to her when
this thing was planned with such precision, the whole operation?
CAPT HECHTER: Which precision are you referring to because we went there, we knocked at the door,
she opened, we went back. We did not foresee that this man was not going to be there. If we got there and
the man was not there, we discussed the fact that he was not there, we went back and we decided to go and
wait in the house.
JUDGE MGOEPE: But the fact that this woman had previously seen full face, Mr Mamasela, must have
made an impression on you surely?
CAPT HECHTER: We should have foreseen it, we did not.
JUDGE MGOEPE: No, I am saying it must have made an impression on you.
CAPT HECHTER: Possibly it did. I cannot dispute that with you. As I said we were operating under
controlled circumstances. One could, under those circumstances you
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 428 CAPT HECHTER
dealt with, you made decisions at the spur of the moment because it was a very heady situation, you were
incredibly charged. I cannot say. It could be. Unfortunately, I cannot give you a crystal clear answer.
JUDGE WILSON: Why go into the house, all of you, and sit there for some considerable time listening to
television
when Mrs Mamasela must have been aware that there
CAPT HECHTER: Motasi.
JUDGE WILSON: ... were a number of you there, that you were not talking any African language
amongst yourselves. Unless you knew she was never going to be able to tell anybody.
CAPT HECHTER: Chairperson, firstly let me start with your question. We all went in because we could
not hang around outside. It was an ordinary township. There were people walking up and down past the
house so we all had to go into the house. Secondly, we did not speak to each other while we were sitting in
the lounge. We all sat there and if we were to have spoken to each other we would probably have
whispered. She was taken to the back of the house and to tell you the whole story, I only saw a day or two
later in the newspaper that, I hear Mr Currin says that a boy was also involved. I only read in the
newspaper later that a boy had also been there. I did not know that and Mamasela did not report that to me.
He merely said that a woman had been shot so I did not know that there was a third person in that house.
We did not go into the house, we were in the lounge and we executed the operation and we left.
MR CURRIN: What I fail to understand is why this case is different from all the others. You have
repeatedly said before this Committee that the identification of Mamasela was a death warrant. If
somebody identified Mamasela, that
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 429 CAPT HECHTER
person would have to be eliminated because Mamasela was so important. You are telling us in this case
you did not even consider or think or discuss about hiding the identity of Mamasela. I put it to you that that
is highly improbable.
CAPT HECHTER: What do you want? Do you want me to say that I gave instructions that she should be
shot.
MR CURRIN: No.
CAPT HECHTER: Is that what you want me to say?
MR CURRIN: No, that is not what I am wanting you to say. I put it to you and I will argue to this
Committee that from the moment the group of you sent Mamasela to the door and Mrs Motasi opened that
door and she identified Mamasela and you then decided to go back into the house, from that moment Irene
Motasi was a dead woman.
CAPT HECHTER: Might be. I will never argue that with you, because if she did identify him we would
have had a problem, but the fact that it was discussed, no, it was left to his own - I am looking for the
appropriate Afrikaans word, his own conclusion. I did not give him the instruction, I cannot say at this
point in time. It was at his discretion, it was not discussed.
MR CURRIN: Can you explain why Sergeant Motasi suspected that he would be eliminated by the police?
CAPT HECHTER: Did I say that?
MR CURRIN: I am asking you a question.
CAPT HECHTER: I cannot think that he would have suspected something like that or he would have
thought so.
MR CURRIN: Well, I put it to you that Richard Motasi, five months before he was killed by the police,
came to see me as his attorney and advised me that the police would assassinate him.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 430 CAPT HECHTER
CAPT HECHTER: Did he tell you why?
MR CURRIN: He did.
CAPT HECHTER: Because if he did that it proves that he was an agent and that he was busy with
dangerous operations and that the police could come and eliminate him at any time.
MR CURRIN: There will be evidence before this Committee
that Richard Motasi, in the early 80's, was involved in a dispute with a Colonel van Zyl and that Richard
Motasi was assaulted by van Zyl which caused permanent injury to his eardrum. That assault resulted in
years of antagonism and victimisation by many members of the South African Police towards Richard
Motasi. That he was, attempts were made to intimidate him not to sue for the assault and that it was in fact,
that that dispute between Richard Motasi and the police and, in particular, van Zyl and other members
which resulted in the instruction to eliminate him. It had no ...(tape ends)
CAPT HECHTER: ... African police started to eliminate people who were claiming a lousy R10 000,00
from the State. It would have come from there. Then we would have been much busier than we were. We
would probably have had to kill thousands of persons if we had started killing people who had instituted
civil actions against the State. What I also picked up in your documents was the antagonism of Mr Motasi.
He also drew a firearm on his commanding officer before he assaulted him. Is that not an indication, I am
now talking about the documents which I saw from you, is that not an indication that Mr Motasi was really
an agent? That he was totally opposed to the establishment, the police, the Government? I do not know, I
am putting a question to you.
MR CURRIN: Maybe those are the conclusions that you and
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 431 CAPT HECHTER
many of your colleagues came to without any justification.
CAPT HECHTER: Unfortunately, we did not have the documents. I saw the documents on Friday so my
conclusion is one that I have just formed. I did not have insight to the documents at an earlier stage.
MR CURRIN: Richard Motasi wrote a letter which he sent to the then State President, Mr P W Botha, he
sent it to the
Minister of Law and Order, he sent it to the Commissioner of Police, it was after many years of conflict
regarding this particular matter and in the second-last paragraph of his letter, which is on page 26 of the
bundle, which I have asked my learned friend to make available to the Commissioners, he says, this is the
letter that he writes, he says,
"I love my career, but for the sake of my future and success in the force I am compelled
to make a humble and urgent request for an investigation before it is too late because I
am really penalised for nothing. I am asking for your based cooperation in this regard.
Looking forward to your sympathetic and positive response".
ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman, perhaps to assist the Committee members, I see Committee members are
having a problem. These are the documents that were put before the Committee last week, unmarked, but
the first cover has got an emblem of the Bophuthatswana Police. May I move that they be marked Bundle
"Q", 26.
JUDGE WILSON: Well, the trouble is I have a bundle that is marked, it is marked "I", in fact.
ADV MPSHE: It is marked "I".
JUDGE WILSON: And the paging goes on to page 20. Then it
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 431 CAPT HECHTER
skips to page 25.
ADV MPSHE: That is correct.
JUDGE WILSON: Then it goes to page 35.
MR CURRIN: Is it all mixed up?
JUDGE WILSON: Then it goes to page 54 and ...(intervention)
ADV MPSHE: (Aside to Mr Currin) Your letter is on page 25, the one you are reading now.
MR CURRIN: Okay.
JUDGE MGOEPE: And there is no page 26.
MR CURRIN: Okay. Mr Chairman, you could, it is one, it is one.
ADV MPSHE: Can we have it marked "Q" then.
MR CURRIN: If that is the case please ignore your bundle and we will rearrange it for you and make sure
that you get it in proper numerical order.
JUDGE WILSON: I do not think it is just the numerical order. I think there are numerous pages missing
or else they are all wrongly numbered.
MR CURRIN: I will have to check on those. One of the attorneys assisting me arranged for these things to
be put together.
JUDGE MALL: (Speaker's microphone not on) - Well, when you hand them in, will you number them as
exhibit "Q" (...indistinct) "U". We already have up to exhibit "T". This document, when it comes to us, I
recall that you said that at some stage some documents were handed in. The relevance of those documents
at that stage did not register with us. So they are probably ...(intervention)
INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.
MR CURRIN: We will rectify those documents and I apologise that they are in that state.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 432 CAPT HECHTER
JUDGE MALL: Thank you. Please proceed.
MR CURRIN: As you have already indicated the deceased's young son was in the house when they were
assassinated.
JUDGE MALL: When you say "as he has indicated", he merely says he read in the paper or some such
source that that was so.
MR CURRIN: Okay. I put it to you that it is correct that their son was in the house at the time. He is now
a young teenager sitting behind me over there. The neighbours heard his crying during the night and the
next morning when it had not stopped they went to the house and found him there with his parents. Do you
know about that?
CAPT HECHTER: I testified, as the Honourable Judge Mall said to you, a day or two later I read about it
in the newspapers.
MR CURRIN: Have you, once you heard that, that there was a child involved, have you ever at any stage
made any effort to find out what happened to that child?
CAPT HECHTER: No, not at all.
MR CURRIN: We have heard in other cases where you attacked houses with activists in the houses, that
before the attack was launched, attempts would be made to find out who is in the house to ensure that there
are not innocent woman and children in the house. Did you make any attempts to find out before you went
there the very first time who would be in the house?
CAPT HECHTER: No, no attempt.
MR CURRIN: Have you any idea what you would have done if that young child had walked down the
passage while this was happening?
CAPT HECHTER: No, in retrospect, none.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 433 CAPT HECHTER
MR CURRIN: In your application when it was lodged you filled in your forms and you were asked to
name the victims and on page 200 and, let me see which.....
JUDGE WILSON: 300.
MR CURRIN: Of your application, yes. I seem to have misplaced my papers with - in your application,
but in your application when asked to name the victims you say "Unknown".
CAPT HECHTER: Thereafter I filled in the name Motasi.
MR CURRIN: When did you do that?
CAPT HECHTER: At that stage it was not known to me. We
only found out the names afterwards.
MR CURRIN: At the time that you killed Sergeant and Mrs Motasi did you know their names?
CAPT HECHTER: I had grounds to believe that if I had sent Mamasela I would have known where I was
sending him and what.
MR CURRIN: And you would have known their names?
CAPT HECHTER: That is correct.
MR CURRIN: When did you decide to apply for amnesty in respect of Sergeant and Mrs Motasi?
CAPT HECHTER: All these applications were done at the same time.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, the applications were drawn during the last week of September last
year, first week of October.
MR CURRIN: The day after he was killed, he and his wife were killed, I read a report in the Sowetan
which said that he was killed by ANC terrorists. Did you, were you involved in putting out the information
that he was killed by ANC terrorists?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 434 CAPT HECHTER
CAPT HECHTER: No, not at all.
MR CURRIN: Who would have been responsible for making ...(intervention)
CAPT HECHTER: If it could have been read perhaps we could read the Sowetan and find out who
reported that, but possibly the person could have come to that conclusion since they were killed with an
AK47 rifle which was a known ANC terrorist weapon.
MR CURRIN: And of course that was the sort of statement that you would want to have read, is it not?
CAPT HECHTER: Yes.
MR CURRIN: If he was killed by ANC terrorists, if the
police wanted people to believe that he was killed by ANC terrorists, why was he not given a State funeral,
a proper State funeral that policeman that are killed in action are normally given?
CAPT HECHTER: I would not know.
MR CURRIN: There was not a policeman to be seen at his funeral.
CAPT HECHTER: I cannot answer you.
ADV DE JAGER: But if they killed him because they thought he supplied information would they give
him a State funeral?
MR CURRIN: Well, publicly he was killed by the ANC. He was ...(intervention)
ADV DE JAGER: No, that was in one newspaper.
MR CURRIN: Sure. Yes, that was the perception that was created. I understand why they were not there.
I am just wondering why the lie did not persist.
JUDGE MALL: I think if you just confine yourself to the real issues, the relevant issues.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CURRIN
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 434 CAPT HECHTER
JUDGE MALL: Thank you. Mr Mpshe, have you any questions.
EXAMINATION BY ADVOCATE MPSHE: Captain, on page 327 of your application, the first two
paragraphs, the first paragraph you state,
"I put a pillow over his head and van Vuuren shot him four times with an AK47".
May I ask was it necessary really to do it in this fashion, to suffocate him first and whilst suffocating, blow
him off with the AK47?
CAPT HECHTER: No Chairperson, he was not suffocated with a pillow. He had already been strangled.
I could have continued strangling him, but it would not have tallied with the alleged actions of the ANC at
the time. I put the
pillow on his face after he had lost consciousness to mumb, to sort of silence the sound. If you shot
through a pillow it could not be heard at a distance.
ADV MPSHE: Was he shot through the head?
CAPT HECHTER: Yes, as far as I know he was shot in the head.
ADV DE JAGER: You did have the intention to create the misconception that it was the ANC?
CAPT HECHTER: Yes, at that stage we operated in that fashion. Most of our attacks, the ANC would
have known that they were not responsible, but the broader public would have thought that it was the ANC
and at the time of - our attacks were often done in the way that the person themself had, who had killed this
person or the perception would be that it was the ANC, but there would be nothing indicating that we had
actually committed the offence.
ADV MPSHE: Now, you have already testified, Captain, that the death of Irene Motasi was unnecessary
and you would not
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 435 CAPT HECHTER
have done it yourself. Are you telling us then that she died because she happened to be in the house or is it
another case of being married to somebody wanted?
CAPT HECHTER: In retrospect, Chairperson, it is clear that after she had identified Mamasela and he
realised and he decided that he had been identified so she had to die. We could sit and rationally discuss
this. I could say that, yes, she should have died. She identified him, she could have been part of the
apparatus put there by the State and she could have exposed this apparatus by identifying him, but I cannot
say exactly what went on in the minds because it was a snap decision, it was a long time ago and at this
point in time I say, yes.
ADV DE JAGER: Anyway, did you as commanding officer approve of it and also your seniors?
CAPT HECHTER: Yes, afterwards it was approved. After he had, I had asked him and he had said that
she would have been able to identify him. I said that is fine, we will accept it as such.
ADV MPSHE: Captain, page 330 of your application, I think paragraph five, they are numbered. That is
where you talk why sometimes elimination takes place.
"Elimination usually took place of high profile or very effective activists..."
and in your evidence when cross-examined by my learned friend, Brian Currin, you stated it very clearly
that Richard Motasi was not a high profile activist.
CAPT HECHTER: That is correct Chairperson. This was a general motivation, but if you look at any of
my applications you will see that it was a general motivation, but in my testimony I explained why and
how it worked.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 436 CAPT HECHTER
ADV MPSHE: Yes, I understand that.
CAPT HECHTER: I accept that this is not correct. This where we referred to specifically as him being a
high profile activist is incorrect, he was an agent.
ADV MPSHE: So, this is misleading, actually, to the Committee.
CAPT HECHTER: Definitely.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, in this regard I just want to state this again as I have done previously.
At the stage when we drew the applications we were under a lot of time constraints. That is why we
incorporated general motivations and in certain instances a paragraph or two paragraphs might not accord
with the exact happening of that specific incident and that is why we give specific evidence
about that.
ADV MPSHE: Now Captain, was there a file about Richard Motasi?
CAPT HECHTER: As I said to you, Chairperson, if there was a file it was not kept in my office. If it was
in my office it was not my desk which was the Black Force desk. I did not have a file on him. If there was
a file I did not have insight into it.
ADV MPSHE: You know I am saying this because in all incidents wherein some of your colleagues
testified, including yourself, evidence would always be led that there was a file, but did not have access into
the file, but you believed that information was contained in the file.
CAPT HECHTER: That is correct.
ADV MPSHE: So in this one you are not even aware that there was a file?
CAPT HECHTER: Not in my files. It is possible that it was
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 437 CAPT HECHTER
with General Stemmet or at the time Brigadier Stemmet of National Intelligence. Perhaps it would be
better if he could be subpoenaed to come and testify as to where he obtained the information which, to
which I reacted.
ADV MPSHE: Captain, is it not done that if a member of the police force commits a crime, he be charged
for that crime? Discipline or whatever?
CAPT HECHTER: That is correct, Chairperson.
ADV MPSHE: Was Motasi ever charged for being an informer or for being an agent?
CAPT HECHTER: No, not at all.
ADV MPSHE: Why, if you know?
CAPT HECHTER: I would not know. I was not his Commanding Officer. I did not know about this man
prior to the night
on which we eliminated him.
ADV MPSHE: You see the question why I am asking you this is because I want to put it to you that this
man was never an informer as you stated or an agent. If he was he would have been charged. Mr
Chairman, members of the Committee, I want to refer to that bundle that is not properly compiled, but I
will direct the Chairman and the Committee to the exact page where I am going to refer the witness to.
JUDGE MALL: Please.
ADV MPSHE: In that bundle it is numbered page 7 with a black marking pen and it has got a heading,
"Proceedings of Trial". Mr Chairman, I just want to give the witness a copy. If the Chair could bear with
me. I want you to have a look at that page. This is when Richard Motasi was charged or it was a
disciplinary hearing and no mention is mentioned of him being charged for being an agent or whatever, but
simply for him having acted against a senior.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 438 CAPT HECHTER
CAPT HECHTER: I do not see any information about agents here. I do not see it mentioned here.
JUDGE WILSON: This was, of course, in 1984. Three years before the time we are talking of.
ADV MPSHE: Yes, Mr Chairperson, that is indeed so, but these are the incidents that led, ultimately, to
why we are here.
CAPT HECHTER: Chairperson, when one looks at these documents here, I just read them very quickly.
Then the conclusion can be drawn that Motasi did not get along well with the police, the Government and
everyone. In one of these letters he even made mention of his Captain. The fact that his Captain did not
like him. So it appears as though nobody liked him according to what he said to Mr Currin.
One has to draw the inference that the system, Government, Government and the system at the time did not
like him much and that is the conclusion which I draw now. I did not draw any conclusions then because I
did not know about this information. I received this information from Mr Currin and if one looks at the
information you can see that after he was transferred, there is not one policeman in South Africa that has
not been transferred. We spoke to the Minister about that. He absconded. In other words he did not want
to cooperate. He was a problem. Did that not perhaps lead to the fact that he started supplying
information? I am busy speculating, but most of the speculation is being referred back to me.
ADV DE JAGER: Then we could also probably speculate about the fact he was rebelling against
authority, had nothing to do with politics, but the, we could possibly see this as the reason why he was
killed.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 438 CAPT HECHTER
CAPT HECHTER: You see, I am being asked to speculate as well so I cannot testify, I can only testify
about what I know and what happened with me, but I am being asked to speculate constantly about whether
things could have been or could not have been.
ADV MPSHE: I will not take it any further Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman ...(intervention)
JUDGE WILSON: Well, can I ask you a question about this. I have not got all the papers here, but I like
you have had to read them very quickly, and it would seem that since about May 1987 when he said he was
ill, he did not go back to duty.
CAPT HECHTER: That is correct. I would fleetingly conclude that because I also looked at the
documents fleetingly. Mr
Currin made them available to us as a courteous gesture so to me it was not that important.
JUDGE WILSON: But he had stayed at home, he had not been at the police station, he had not been in
contact with the police despite written orders for him to come to duty wearing his uniform, he had ignored
them.
CAPT HECHTER: I presume so. I do not know Mr Chairman.
JUDGE WILSON: So on that it would seem he had been in no position to get any information of
assistance to anybody for at least six months before he was killed?
CAPT HECHTER: He still had free access to police stations due to the fact that he was a policeman. He
could have visited after hours. I do not know, we are merely speculating once again.
JUDGE WILSON: So this information that justified his killing, you know say his information he might
have picked up visiting police stations after hours?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE WILSON 439 CAPT HECHTER
CAPT HECHTER: I would say that we should ask General Stemmet that question, Chairperson.
JUDGE WILSON: Well, that is for your counsel to decide.
CAPT HECHTER: Thank you Chairperson.
ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman and members of the Committee, before I conclude my questioning of the
witness, I want to bring it to the attention of the Committee that, as I have stated earlier on, that I do obtain
information from the investigative unit and this information does not come to me simultaneously. It has
just been sent to me, couriered or faxed down to me. I did, I am in the possession of a statement made by
Joe Mamasela under Section 29 of our enabling Act. Now, I received this last week, Mr Chairman, and
this morning before we could commence I approached
counsel for the applicants and made him aware of the statement that I have that I may use when
questioning the witness and ask him, I actually said to him, I know I should have given you this last week
Friday, but I was also out of time to do that. Will you object if I give it to you now before we start, and he
will confirm if I am wrong, and he stated that if it favours him I can hand it up, I can give it to him. If it
does not he is going to object. But now the object I am trying to make here is that this document, Section
29 investigation or inquiry, I want the Committee's directive here.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, may I please respond to that. The discussion was held in that
...(intervention)
JUDGE MALL: May I just ask?
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MALL: Why are we talking about this if this witness is still being questioned?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 440 CAPT HECHTER
ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman, I am through with him. I just want ...(intervention)
JUDGE MALL: You are through with him?
ADV MPSHE: Yes Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MALL: So it has got nothing to do with him?
ADV MPSHE: It has a lot to do with him, Mr Chairman, on condition or provided I am allowed that to use
this Section 29 inquiry statement from Joe Mamasela. That is why I am still keeping him there, Mr
Chairman.
JUDGE MALL: I understand. Thank you.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, my attitude relates to the Committee's views on this matter. Right
when we started in October with leading evidence in this matter, we brought an application to the
Committee that certain State witnesses,
including Mamasela, be called to support the versions of the applicant. That was denied. That application
was denied that they be subpoenaed. We are confronted now, I have not seen this affidavit, because my
learned friend did not want to let me peruse the affidavit unless I said that I agree that the affidavit can be
used. I said I cannot do that because of the fact that I do not know what is in the affidavit.
What I cannot do, Mr Chairman, is or what I can do is if the affidavit clearly supports the
applicants I would have no objection if the affidavit goes in, obviously. If it does not support the applicants
it would open the question up again, would I be entitled to cross-examine Mr Mamasela. If that question
arises we come back to the Committee's decision that Mr Mamasela cannot be called or will not be
subpoenaed by the Committee to give evidence before this Committee.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 440 ADDRESS
So at the end of the day, if the affidavit does not - contradicts my clients and my clients are cross-
examined on that basis, they are going to be confronted by cross-examination on the basis of an affidavit of
which the evidence cannot be tested by us which would be grossly unfair towards the applicants, Mr
Chairman, and that was never the intention of the Act.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Can we clarify something? Is it an affidavit or is it a record of proceedings, Mr
Mpshe?
ADV MPSHE: It is a record of proceedings, it is not an affidavit.
JUDGE MGOEPE: It is not an affidavit?
ADV MPSHE: Not at affidavit.
JUDGE MALL: Thank you.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chair ...(intervention)
JUDGE MGOEPE: Sorry, can I just, Mr du Plessis, I am just trying to respond to what you are saying.
This is not an affidavit, this is a record of what the witness, Mamasela, said and he was recorded
somewhere else. Now, surely, should this not be treated the same way as if it was a court record? What
difficulties are there if, for example, somebody was to produce a record of proceedings at a criminal trial
of, say for example, Colonel de Kock and the record is produced and the witness is cross-examined on the
basis of what stands there in the record? The usual procedures, surely, should apply when, as if we were
conducting a trial. You would first have to agree with your learned friend whether or not you both agree
that the record is an accurate reflection of what transpired.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Well, Mr Chairman ...(intervention)
JUDGE MGOEPE: And then you would use it, you would not
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 441 ADDRESS
admit the truth of the contents thereof, but it could only be used solely for purpose of cross-examination.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Chairman, to show that Mr Mamasela said something different when he
gave evidence, but not necessarily that what Mr Mamasela said was necessarily the truth.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Yes, you do not admit the truth, you do not admit the truth of the contents thereof, it is
purely ...
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chair ...
JUDGE MGOEPE: ... for cross-examination purposes.
JUDGE MALL: I think it should be clear whatever a witness said in any previous trial or proceedings does
not automatically become evidence in a subsequent trial or in subsequent proceedings.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, that is clearly so in a normal
civil matter or even in a criminal matter. The only problem that I foresee is that in these proceedings we
deal with one principle and that is full disclosure. If the Committee can give me an indication that the
Committee if such, presumably contradictory evidence is put to Captain Hechter and conflicting statements
appear from the record, namely that Captain Hechter says one thing and Mr Mamasela said something in a
different proceeding under oath, that the Committee will not take that into account when deciding on full
disclosure, then I have no problem. However, if the Committee intends to take such contradictory
statements into account when considering full disclosure then, obviously, I have to safeguard my clients'
rights.
JUDGE MALL: That stage may or may not arrive. I do not know, none of us knows what questions are
going to be put, but I think you must concede that if there is information in PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 442 CAPT HECHTER
Mr Mpshe's possession which he would like to put to this witness, to say to him another witness in some
other proceeding has said this, what are your comments on that, the witness may well agree with it and that
is the end of the matter.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes. Mr Chairman, I do not want to be obstructive so I am not going to argue this
matter further. I just and ...(intervention)
JUDGE MALL: I understand the point you are making.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, I just, I do not want to say I want to place it on record because then I am on
television again saying that so I want to make that clear for record purposes, Mr Chairman, that, obviously,
we reserve our rights in this regard and if we are prejudiced at the end of the day in respect of the
Committee's decision relating
to this procedure, we reserve our rights now pertaining ...(intervention)
JUDGE MALL: I understand.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman.
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Chair, I have only got one problem. In the light of the decision, should this
document not have been served on the applicants and should they not have been informed that it would be
used?
ADV MPSHE: That is true Mr Chairman, but as I have indicated ...(tape ends)
ADV DE JAGER: ... the Truth Commission since October or since when?
ADV MPSHE: I am not sure whether it was since October, but they, on the top of the record they give me
it is dated 21st February. Now to respond fully to what the Committee member has said. As I have
indicated earlier on that the
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 443 CAPT HECHTER
investigative unit sends me document as they know that I deal with certain matters on certain days and they
peruse their information desk or whatever and send it down to me, but at the time when I informed even
implicated persons as well as the counsel for the applicants, I did not have this information because it is not
in our custody, but IEU's in team.
JUDGE MALL: Well, Mr Mpshe, to the extent that you are not going to hand that document in as part of
the record of these proceedings, to that extent, my view of the matter is that you be entitled to put questions
of the contents of that document as to what Mr Mamasela may have said or not to test this witness to hear
his views on the matter, but whatever Mr Mamasela said does not become evidence in these proceedings.
ADV MPSHE: I am well aware of that one, Mr Chairman. Mr
Chairman, may I then be given the opportunity to hand up these documents ...(intervention)
JUDGE MALL: Yes.
ADV MPSHE: ... to the Committee members as well as my learned friend.
JUDGE MALL: Well, you cannot - you can put your questions to this witness without handing the
document to us.
ADV MPSHE: Thank you Mr Chairman. I am indebted to the Chair. Captain, I want you to have a look
at page 2 of the document I have just given you. Let us start with page one then. One, two, three, four
under the fifth Mamasela down the page it starts with, "with in reference with Sergeant Motasi" do you see
that?
CAPT HECHTER: Yes, I did.
ADV MPSHE: I am going to read that out to you.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 443 CAPT HECHTER
"With in reference with Sergeant Motasi a lot of things have happened ..."
ADV DU PLESSIS: Opened.
ADV MPSHE: "... have opened my eyes in reference to this particular case because, more often than
not, when the Security Police wanted us to do something they will always use
false accusations and say this man is an informer, he works for CIO or he
works for this or that so that it must be justified as a political event".
What is your comment to that?
CAPT HECHTER: We have heard too many stories from Mamasela to really take anything that he said
seriously. For the Harms Commission and the Goldstone Commission he testified that he had no
knowledge of these events and now he is testifying that we were doing this and that and the other. So I am
not prepared to accept any of his accusations.
ADV MPSHE: Are you saying what he is saying here is false or are you just saying ...
CAPT HECHTER: Yes, that is what I am saying.
ADV MPSHE: ... you do not accept what he is saying?
CAPT HECHTER: Yes, I say they are false.
ADV MPSHE: And the very following paragraph again, have a look at it. I will read it for convenience.
"But after the death of this man when I read in the press I found that he was completely
innocent. He was not a member, he was not a spy of CIO, he was just a Sergeant in the
police force at Hammanskraal who was just doing his job and one of his commanders, a
Colonel "klapped" him and then
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 444 CAPT HECHTER
he made a civil case against him and that is precisely why he was killed".
Just comment on that.
CAPT HECHTER: Mamasela is drawing an inference from something which he read in the newspaper
and that is hardly evidence. He received instructions from a senior officer and he believes what he reads in
the newspaper, but that which is, his senior officer or what the senior officer told him, that he assumes must
be incorrect.
ADV MPSHE: Are you saying what stands there is wrong?
CAPT HECHTER: Correct.
ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman then I refer back, still with the witness, back to the bundle that was handed
in by my learned friend with particular reference to the question whether a civil claim was made or not.
JUDGE MALL: This is now Exhibit "U"?
ADV MPSHE: That is Exhibit "U", Mr Chairman. Sorry for that.
JUDGE MALL: What page on the exhibit?
ADV MPSHE: Exhibit "U", Mr Chairman, it is written "4"
right at the top, right-hand top. It is a letter from an Attorney S K S Makambeni to the Commanding
Officer of Hammanskraal. I just want to show the witness the letter, Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MALL: Page four of the bundle "U"?
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I do not have a page four.
JUDGE MALL: Just give us the date of that letter. Maybe it is paged differently.
ADV MPSHE: Thank you Chairman. It is dated August. No, no.
JUDGE WILSON: 8th of November 1984.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 445 CAPT HECHTER
ADV MPSHE: 8th November '84. My learned friend says they do not have it, Mr Chairman. I will leave
it at that, but the point I wanted to make was that a civil claim was indeed made.
JUDGE MALL: Well, put your questions to this witness if your want to question him about it.
ADV MPSHE: I put it to you that a civil claim, as Mr Mamasela has indicated here, was indeed made or
lodged by Motasi against his Senior, Mr van Zyl, as per letter I have referred to.
JUDGE WILSON: What ...
JUDGE MALL: Just hold it.
JUDGE WILSON: What has this letter got to do with the action that he later instituted?
JUDGE MALL: Roy, just let, Mr Hechter hasn't replied. You have asked a question of this witness, have
you not?
ADV MPSHE: I have done so, Mr Chair.
JUDGE MALL: Yes. Well, wait for his reply.
CAPT HECHTER: I do not have what you have in front of you. I do not have that document.
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Chair, could you kindly assist me? The document referred to, we have got a one,
two and then four, is that correct? Is that the document you are referring to, the letter of the 8th of
November 1984?
ADV MPSHE: That is correct. A letter ...(intervention)
ADV DE JAGER: Well, will you kindly help me, where does it state that there is any civil claim?
ADV MPSHE: Now my copy is gone again.
JUDGE WILSON: There is a letter page five in my bundle which clearly refers to a civil claim. That is a
letter addressed to Colonel van Zyl.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 446 CAPT HECHTER
MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Mpshe, are you perhaps not mistaken? Do you not want to refer us to page five of
the bundle and not page four?
ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman ...(intervention)
JUDGE MALL: Mr Mpshe, please I think ...
ADV MPSHE: ... and members I am, I ...
JUDGE MALL: ... I think that there will be a great deal of confusion before we start talking about this
bundle of documents. I would rather that we have those papers put right, in proper sequence so that there
can be no confusion. Each time you ask a question on page so and so, it will be differed, it will be
numbered differently here and we will be just making the thing a little more difficult than it is necessary to
do so.
ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman, I am indebted to the Chair. I think I may right now stop putting this to the
witness because there is still another witness, applicant on the same thing, by then I want to believe, the
documents will be in order. I will stop now with this witness.
JUDGE MALL: Yes, if there is anything in the letter dated
8th of November 1984, you say that certain things are said in that letter which show that an application or
an action was instituted. You want to ask him whether he agrees or knows about it, is that what you want
to do?
ADV MPSHE: Yes, Mr Chairman. I want his comment on that, Mr Chair.
JUDGE MALL: Yes, Mr Hechter, do you see that?
CAPT HECHTER: Chairperson, no, I have Mamasela's statement, I have read that. Could you please
repeat it to me.
JUDGE MALL: No, we are talking about Exhibit "U".
CAPT HECHTER: That is correct, Chairperson.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 447 CAPT HECHTER
JUDGE MALL: Yes, not Mr Mamasela's statement.
CAPT HECHTER: Yes.
JUDGE MALL: Exhibit "U" concerns Mr Motasi, the papers concerning Mr Motasi.
CAPT HECHTER: The page, Chairperson?
JUDGE MALL: No, just look at the letter dated the 8th of November 1984 please.
JUDGE WILSON: Page four.
CAPT HECHTER: I have it, it is page four, "Attention Captain Swanepoel".
JUDGE MALL: Yes, just read through it quickly first just before you can be questioned about it.
CAPT HECHTER: I have read it Chairperson.
JUDGE MALL: Now you are invited to make a comment. Put your question Mr Mpshe. His comment on
what?
ADV MPSHE: His comment, Mr Chairman, on the contents of the letter in relation to what he said where
Mr Mamasela mentioned a civil claim.
CAPT HECHTER: What do you want me to say? I do not understand the question. I deny that I had any
knowledge of it. I do not deny that a civil claim was instituted, that I have now seen. I saw these
documents for the first time on Thursday or Friday. It is clear, very clear that a civil claim was, indeed,
instituted against the State, but, as I have already testified, that does not mean a thing. There are thousands
of civil claims instituted against the State on a daily basis and those people are not eliminated. So one
cannot draw the inference that because he instituted a claim he was therefore killed.
ADV MPSHE: That is exactly what I am trying to do.
CAPT HECHTER: I think that is putting it a bit broadly.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 447 CAPT HECHTER
ADV MPSHE: That is exactly what I am trying to do. Then turn over to page five.
JUDGE MALL: Is that the second page of that letter?
ADV MPSHE: The second page of the document, Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MALL: Yes.
JUDGE WILSON: It is a completely, page five is a completely different letter, page five is a completely
different letter is it not?
ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman, as I have indicated I think I better ask my learned friend to put these things
right. I will stop my cross-examination here. It is a mess.
JUDGE WILSON: Page five is a completely different letter.
JUDGE MALL: Mr Currin, this is your bundle of documents is it not?
MR CURRIN: It is and again I apologise and we will sort it out during the lunch break.
JUDGE MALL: Very well.
ADV DE JAGER: Captain Hechter, on page five there is a reference to a claim instituted by the deceased
against Colonel van Zyl. The letter is addressed to him and he says
that he is claiming R10 000,00 in damages for assault and yes, assault, inter alia. Were you aware of the
fact that such a claim was instituted?
CAPT HECHTER: Chairperson, I have now testified on numerous occasions that the first time that I heard
of this claim which we later realised was, in fact, the truth was during October, I think, September or
October whilst we were busy drawing up the papers for this application. Warrant Officer van Vuuren came
and said that the investigation staff from the Attorney General's office had told him or their words were,
here we have one of the people and we are going to
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 448 CAPT HECHTER
catch him because this was not a politically motivated murder. You shot him, you eliminated him because
he had a claim against the State. That was the first that I had heard of anything about a civil claim against
the State and I want to state again that to shoot a man because he instituted a civil claim for R10 000,00,
well, the State would not have thought twice about paying that amount.
ADV DE JAGER: Yes, but one of your senior officers, possibly had some kind of a grievance against this
man. It is, it is possible that he could have wanted to eliminate an enemy under the guise of a political
crime. I am not saying that is what happened, but it is possible.
CAPT HECHTER: Yes, it is possible, it is highly unlikely, but it is possible.
ADV DE JAGER: Were you aware of it?
CAPT HECHTER: Never.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV MPSHE
JUDGE MGOEPE: Captain, who was in charge of the operation on that day? Was it you?
CAPT HECHTER: Since I was in command of the Hit Squad of
that branch I could say that I was in charge of that operation. There was a more senior officer present, but I
will accept that I was in overall command of that operation. JUDGE MGOEPE: Before the deceased was
killed was he questioned about his, so called ...(intervention)
CAPT HECHTER: No, no, he was fighting like a tiger.
JUDGE MGOEPE: But that was not the reason for the operation?
CAPT HECHTER: No, we did not even think about questioning him.
JUDGE MGOEPE: The fact that he fought like a tiger is
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE MGOEPE 449 CAPT HECHTER
irrelevant ...(intervention)
CAPT HECHTER: Yes, but after I had restrained him he was shot.
JUDGE MGOEPE: You could have questioned him if you had wanted to?
CAPT HECHTER: I could have. I believe I could have if I had taken him out of the house. We could not
question him there because he was screaming very loudly.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Was he ever questioned prior to that incident as far as you know?
CAPT HECHTER: No, not at all. We had to shoot him and get it over with and get away.
JUDGE MGOEPE: So whatever, if he was an agent and if that was indeed the reason why he was killed
and if he had never been questioned, he died with the information?
CAPT HECHTER: That is correct.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Which information you never sought to get from him?
CAPT HECHTER: With hindsight, yes, that is the position. He was shot without the information ever
being extracted
from him.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Well, did you not want that information if he had that information?
CAPT HECHTER: My instruction was not to arrest him or to kidnap him or to bring him in for
questioning. My instructions were to eliminate the man.
JUDGE MGOEPE: If, in fact, he was a person, he was an agent would the Security Branch not have been
interested in the information he had?
CAPT HECHTER: Possibly and possibly they already knew who his contacts were. Perhaps they already
knew that, I do not PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE MGOEPE 450 CAPT HECHTER
know.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Now, you said that he was also a courier?
You said he was also a courier?
CAPT HECHTER: Yes, that was part of the discussion around him on that morning.
JUDGE MGOEPE: If there was such a view why was his house not searched?
CAPT HECHTER: When I grabbed him and dragged him into the house he was screaming and shouting,
there was a lot of noise. He put up a terrible fight, made a lot of noise and the moment I managed to
restrain him we shot him and we left the house, we left the scene.
JUDGE MGOEPE: You never intended to search the house?
CAPT HECHTER: No.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Why not, if he was a courier?
CAPT HECHTER: Would he have concealed the information in his house? Information, a trained agent
does not carry around his information with him and he does not conceal it somewhere in his house.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Have you not searched the houses of suspected people in the past?
CAPT HECHTER: Those would have been just ordinary activists, but I concede, I will wholeheartedly
concede that it should have been done, but it was not.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Why? If there was the slightest belief that this man was an agent and he was a courier,
why was his house not searched? I mean ...(intervention)
CAPT HECHTER: Because you do not, if you are a trained agent, you will not conceal evidence or the
information somewhere in your home. You will, you have dead-letter boxes where you would hide or
secrete information or
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE MGOEPE 450 CAPT HECHTER
evidence so that should your house be searched the information is not found in your possession.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Did you search his vehicle?
CAPT HECHTER: No, we could not. We just had to run.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Now, as I understand your evidence, you surprised him?
CAPT HECHTER: Correct, yes.
JUDGE MGOEPE: He did not expect that you people would come to his house that day?
CAPT HECHTER: Well, nobody would expect the police to come to your house or a hit squad.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Now why would you think that it would be futile to search his house? Why do you
say that you would not expect him to, you would not expect him to have anything incriminating in his
house if you came under ...(intervention)
CAPT HECHTER: I never had any information regarding my actions, round about my home. You simply
do not operate in that way. You hide your information or evidence somewhere else and not at your home.
JUDGE MGOEPE: So, well, was his body searched?
CAPT HECHTER: No, his body was not searched as far as I can recall. Perhaps, Captain Loots, no, his
body was not searched.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Well, if he was an agent who was caught by surprise by yourselves, did you not think
that you might find something important?
CAPT HECHTER: It is possible.
JUDGE WILSON: Was his car searched?
CAPT HECHTER: No.
JUDGE WILSON: It was parked just outside.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE WILSON 451 CAPT HECHTER
CAPT HECHTER: No, at that stage we could not search the car. Shots had already been fired. More than
one shot had been fired and van Vuuren will testify that he fired four shots. I read very briefly in this letter
that according to Mamasela we shot six shots altogether. So, there had been a lot of noise and we simply
had to get away. It is hard to remember how many shots had been fired.
JUDGE MGOEPE: And ...(intervention)
JUDGE WILSON: Why were four shots fired? You need one shot to kill a man if you are worried about
noise.
CAPT HECHTER: I cannot answer that, I do not know.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Well, Captain, you kept on emphasising that a person could not have been killed
simply because he had a civil claim against the police and that a lot of people would have been killed for
that reason, but is it not so that quite apart from the civil claim, in this particular instance, there was a
continuous friction between the deceased and members of the South African Police?
CAPT HECHTER: Chairperson, I cannot give you an answer to that. Before this incident I had never met
the man, I saw him that night for the very first time and I eliminated him
according to my instructions. So, I did not know anything about this story. I did not know anything about
it. From September, October last year, I think, I learnt about this civil claim for the very first time. I had
no knowledge of it before then.
JUDGE MGOEPE: And I assume, because you did not search him, you did not search his car, you did not
search the house, I assume in your report nothing was said about what was found or not found?
CAPT HECHTER: There was no written report. The
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE MGOEPE 452 CAPT HECHTER
instructions required us to eliminate him. I do not know what Captain Loots reported back, but I assume
that he would just have said that the man had been eliminated. I cannot answer on his behalf.
JUDGE MALL: I want you to listen carefully. The fact that you were not even told before eliminating,
search his house, see what information you can pick up, search his car, question him, the fact that those
questions were not told to you must be some indication, surely, that the reason why this man was being
killed was not because he was suspected of being a courier? If he was suspected those who instructed you
to do it, would surely tell you, see that you can find maximum information to prove that he was a courier.
We have some information, but see what you can find on his person and in his house that would confirm it?
CAPT HECHTER: Chairperson, yes, in retrospect, yes, that is the case and I agree with you. Did they not,
perhaps, already have the necessary information? Information received through other intelligence
channels, perhaps, about this man. You see the Brigadier or the General had access to information from
Military Intelligence sources, National
Intelligence, Security Police, Intelligence so, I do not know. What you are saying to me actually makes
complete sense, but at that stage I did not see it that way.
MS KHAMPEPE: Captain, I can understand that you had very specific instructions and that was to
eliminate Mr Motasi and to do no more. So, when you planned how you were going to execute the
operation you did not know whether Mr Motasi was staying with his wife nor whether he was staying with
other people in the house?
CAPT HECHTER: At that stage Mamasela had already been sent
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MS KHAMPEPE 453 CAPT HECHTER
to verify the address. Whether he came back and said there was only the woman present in the house or
other people, I really cannot tell you now, but I assume he would have told us who was living in the house
in so far as he could ascertain those facts, but I cannot give you a clear answer.
MS KHAMPEPE: So you are not sure whether you established that information, whether there would be
other people in the house or not?
CAPT HECHTER: I believe that Mamasela would have ascertained that for us otherwise we would not
have gone to his house. If we were aware of the fact that there were lots of other people in the house, we
would not have gone there because we, it would not have been practically executable to go to the house and
eliminate a lot of people.
MS KHAMPEPE: Was it, perhaps, very important for the operation to be urgently executed before proper
and sufficient information was established in this regard?
CAPT HECHTER: That was not my inference, Chairperson, that it was a matter of great urgency. It
might have been, but as far as I can recall, those were not my instructions that it had to happen on that
particular night. The urgency of
it was not impressed upon me.
MS KHAMPEPE: Thank you.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Just to make a follow up to one of the questions I asked you about searching the
house. For how long did you wait in the house before the man arrived?
CAPT HECHTER: I do not think it could have been more than ten minutes. I am not sure, though. I do
recall that we had to wait for a while, but you are excited, you are charged up, I cannot remember.
JUDGE MGOEPE: And until he arrived you were just sitting in PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE MGOEPE 453 CAPT HECHTER
the house not doing anything?
CAPT HECHTER: It might have been. I stood at the door, I was waiting at the door to wait for him.
Perhaps Captain Loots searched the drawers, perhaps van Vuuren did, I cannot remember. I certainly
conducted no search and I cannot recall us, during our planning, discussing searching the house. As far as I
can recall that was not part of our planning.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Now, you are now saying that if your memory serves you well, but earlier on when I
put questions to you, you were very emphatic about it, you clearly said you did not search, there was no
plan to search?
CAPT HECHTER: As far as I can recall it was never discussed. So I do not think there was such an
instruction. I doubt that and I do not think we did any searching. If we did so it would have been done on
an ad hoc basis by one of my colleagues, but it was not discussed or planned beforehand.
JUDGE MGOEPE: You were very emphatic that you did not search and there were no instructions to
search?
CAPT HECHTER: I did not do any searching in the house and
as far as I can recall there was no instruction to search for documents. That is correct.
JUDGE WILSON: Would you describe ten minutes as a "geruime tyd".
CAPT HECHTER: Yes, definitely, depending on circumstances, but that is a reasonably long time,
considerably long time.
JUDGE MALL: And during that time while you sat or stood by the door and the others were in the room,
was Mamasela not in that room with you?
CAPT HECHTER: Not at all, he was somewhere in the back of
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE MALL 454 CAPT HECHTER
the house with the woman.
JUDGE MALL: Was he armed?
CAPT HECHTER: Yes, he had a hand gun with him.
JUDGE WILSON: Giving her more and more opportunity to observe him?
CAPT HECHTER: In all probability, yes.
JUDGE WILSON: Can I ask you one more, it is a completely different question. Do you know what
Brigadier Ras's initials are?
CAPT HECHTER: Not at all. I do not know any of these people. I went through the documents and I do
not know any of them, never met any of them as far as I know.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, it is M T. It is M D and he is present here.
JUDGE WILSON: It says that he has applied for amnesty.
ADV DU PLESSIS: He is going to, Mr Chairman, his application is not in yet, but he is going to and he is
here and I will call him as a witness as well.
JUDGE WILSON: Well, on the papers that somebody has given us, I read we have received additional
amnesty applications from W A Nortje, M D Ras and D Willemse.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Chairman, his sons initials are also M D and they are, his son is represented
by other lawyers.
JUDGE MALL: Any re-examination of this witness?
RE-EXAMINATION BY ADVOCATE DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman, very shortly. Captain
Hechter, would it have been dangerous for you to have searched the house after the shots had been fired?
CAPT HECHTER: Yes, after the shots had been fired it was definitely dangerous.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 455 CAPT HECHTER
ADV DU PLESSIS: In retrospect, would you have expected to found any information there?
CAPT HECHTER: No, you do not store information at your house.
JUDGE MALL: You know that might be how you as a, if you had been a courier or an intelligence man,
that is probably how you would have worked ...(intervention)
CAPT HECHTER: I am speaking from my own experience.
JUDGE MALL: Quite right. You cannot assume that everybody would work in the same way.
CAPT HECHTER: I will concede that.
ADV DU PLESSIS: I am asking you how you would have operated?
CAPT HECHTER: I would not have operated in that way and I would not expect any other agent to
operate in that way and to conceal information and evidence at his home.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Hechter, last question, when you acted in this incident were you convinced,
in your own mind, that you were eliminating an enemy of the State and the National Party Government?
CAPT HECHTER: Yes, definitely.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, if you will just bear with me please. Captain Hechter - Mr Chairman,
if you will just bear with me, please.
JUDGE MALL: Certainly.
ADV DU PLESSIS: My attorney and I was in a little bit of a disagreement about a question, Mr
Chairman, I am not going to pose the question as the Court, as it pleases you.
JUDGE MALL: I will allow your attorney to ask that question. (General laughter)
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DU PLESSIS
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
456
JUDGE MALL: Thank you very much. You are excused.
WITNESS EXCUSED
JUDGE MALL: It is five to one and we adjourn at two. You will be calling the next witness, Mr van
Vuuren, is that it?
ADV DU PLESSIS: That is correct, Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MALL: Okay, we will take the adjournment and resume at two o' clock.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION
ADV MPSHE: I do not know whether this will, what I am going to say will disrupt what is going on now,
but I am told by my learned friend, Mr Brian Currin, that the witness they have been waiting for, Mr Moss
Chikane, is now available. I do not know whether it will be possible to squeeze him in to get rid of the
Ribeiro matter or we continue with leading of the evidence, Mr Chairman. I am in your hands.
JUDGE MALL: (Not speaking into the microphone)... the evidence will be of a limited nature.
MR CURRIN: Mr Chairman, he will testify, his evidence will be of a limited nature.
JUDGE MALL: Any difficulties about that?
ADV DU PLESSIS: Well, Mr Chairman, I am not sure if he is a victim. Obviously we do not have a
problem, we are just
a little bit concerned whether dragging out of the time of these proceedings and, as I read the Act, an
affected person could be a person that is named in respect of which evidence is given to his prejudice or a
victim, Mr Chairman. I do not know what the purpose of the evidence is, but I am in the hands of the
Commission in that regard. We just do not want these hearings to drag out, we want to finish this
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
457
week, Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MALL: (Indistinct) that Mr Currin.
ADV DE JAGER: Mr du Plessis, just before Mr Currin answers, you are going to call Mr Ras? Is he a
victim, an applicant, he is a witness.
ADV DU PLESSIS: No, Mr Chairman, but clearly, he is a witness to exactly what happened. If this
person ...(intervention)
ADV DE JAGER: This one may be a witness for the victims.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Well, if he is a witness to what happened on that day or if he can shed some light on
the facts of the matter, clearly then I would leave it in the hands of the Committee, Mr Chairman, but on the
other hand, the question arises how far should the people concerned be allowed to call witnesses in respect
of the applicant's application.
JUDGE WILSON: The Act quite clearly says they can testify, adduce evidence, does it not?
MR CURRIN: It does Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, I think we are wasting time ...(intervention)
JUDGE WILSON: Yes ...(intervention)
MR CURRIN: ... with respect, by even arguing about this. He can cast light on the situation and we would
submit that his evidence is going to be relevant and will assist the Committee in coming to findings.
JUDGE MALL: Call him.
MR CURRIN: Thank you. Moss Chikane. My colleague, Mr van den Berg, will lead the evidence.
JUDGE MALL: Mr Chikane, will you be giving your evidence in English?
MR CHIKANE: English, Sir.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VAN DEN BERG 457 M CHIKANE
MOSES MABOKELA CHIKANE: (sworn states).
JUDGE MALL: Thank you. How do you spell your name?
MR CHIKANE: My name is Moses Mabokela Chikane.
JUDGE MALL: The second name, how do you spell that.
MR CHIKANE: It is M-A-B-O-K-E-L-A.
JUDGE MALL: Thank you. Yes, Mr Currin.
EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DER BERG: Thank you Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MALL: Sorry.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Mr Chikane, is it correct that you are presently a Parliamentarian?
MR CHIKANE: That is correct.
MR VAN DEN BERG: And that you have been in Parliament since 1994?
MR CHIKANE: That is correct.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Could you tell this Committee when you first met Dr and Mrs Ribeiro?
MR CHIKANE: I met the Ribeiro's, I think, in 1967 when I was a victim of, what then, would one call
apartheid. I travelled from the Commissioners office here in town, and I was going home by train and I
was assaulted by ticket, white ticket examiners then. Then my family decided to take me to a doctor and it
happened to be Dr Ribeiro.
JUDGE MALL: So that was 1967?
MR CHIKANE: 1967, Definitely.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Mr Chikane, what was your involvement in the struggle?
MR CHIKANE: I have been involved in the struggle since
1973, 1974. I was a member of the BPC, SASO, the Black Consciousness Movement group.
MR VAN DEN BERG: In the process of that involvement did you come into contact with Dr and Mrs
Ribeiro?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VAN DEN BERG 458 M CHIKANE
MR CHIKANE: Well, yes, besides that he acted as my doctor on the incident that I have already
mentioned. We were also attending the same church and beside we use to meet quite a great deal when we
had meetings. I would be one of the, those who would invite him to come and speak. It would be myself
and a certain Kanakana Matsela who is now late, unfortunately. So I have known and we have, in terms of
politics, I think we have been very close.
MR VAN DEN BERG: What became of the organisations BPC and SASO?
MR CHIKANE: Both organisations were banned in 1977. I think the month was October.
MR VAN DEN BERG: And that was shortly after the death of Steven Biko?
MR CHIKANE: That was shortly after the death of Steve Biko.
MR VAN DEN BERG: What became of your involvement in the struggle after the banning of those
organisations?
MR CHIKANE: Well, I think the black consciousness family then fell into two parts. There were those
who wanted to continue in the old philosophy of black consciousness and there were those who felt that we
should broaden the philosophical position to include everybody else, the non-racial group that later was to
be known as UDF.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Are you aware that Dr Ribeiro was detained in 1980?
MR CHIKANE: That is correct.
MR VAN DEN BERG: And that he faced a trial in 1981?
MR CHIKANE: That is correct.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Can you remember what the charges were?
MR CHIKANE: I think, amongst others, was assisting people with money when they were going to exile.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VAN DEN BERG 459 M CHIKANE
JUDGE MALL: When they were going where?
MR CHIKANE: When they wanted money for transport when they were going into exile. That is
amongst the charges that I can remember. Although I did not attend the trial, but this is what was reported
in the papers.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Your involvement in the struggle, where were you resident at the time?
MR CHIKANE: Mamelodi.
MR VAN DEN BERG: And all your involvement was in Mamelodi?
MR CHIKANE: It was in Mamelodi and, of course, the surrounding.
MR VAN DEN BERG: What was the extent of Dr Ribeiro's involvement in the struggle after 1981?
MR CHIKANE: I would say actually Dr Ribeiro was never a political activist of that classical sense. He
would not be a person who would go and organise a meeting, you know. He is a person that would get, I
would say he is a concerned person. He was a sympathiser, for lack of better words.
MR VAN DEN BERG: You said that after the banning of SASO and the BPC he became involved in one
section of what remained of the Black Consciousness Movement and that ultimately led to the
establishment of the United Democratic Front?
MR CHIKANE: Yes.
MR VAN DEN BERG: What was your involvement in the United Democratic Front?
MR CHIKANE: I was the Secretary, I was a founder member of the UDF and subsequently I became a
Secretary of the, co-Secretary of the Transvaal UDF.
MR VAN DEN BERG: And what activities were you involved in?
MR CHIKANE: Well, my activities was to set up structures,
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VAN DEN BERG 460 M CHIKANE
to educate our people politically. That was my task.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Were you ever detained?
MR CHIKANE: Yes, several times.
MR VAN DEN BERG: What is the link between the United Democratic Front and the African National
Congress?
MR CHIKANE: I think they shared almost a common ideal. They were all organisations, both
organisations were non-racial in nature and content. Both organisations wanted to overthrow the apartheid
and to remove it from the status quo of our country.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Were you aware of what the ANC was doing in Mamelodi during the middle
80's?
MR CHIKANE: Yes, we did come in contact with ANC people from time to time.
MR VAN DEN BERG: What was the nature and extent of your contact?
MR CHIKANE: Well, some of them would come to do political work, some of them would come for,
what we used to call, underground work. Bringing literature, various other things.
MR VAN DEN BERG: If Dr Ribeiro had been involved in ANC politics, would you have known about?
MR CHIKANE: I think I would have known.
MR VAN DEN BERG: How?
MR CHIKANE: Because I was part of that underground machinery, political underground machinery, so
more-or-less
I had an idea of all activists who were involved in the ANC structures there.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN DEN BERG:
JUDGE MALL: Mr Du Plessis.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 461 M CHIKANE
You say you met Dr Ribeiro in the 1960's, is that correct?
MR CHIKANE: '67.
ADV DU PLESSIS: '67. Now, Mr Chikane, did you have contact with Mr Ribeiro on a regular basis?
MR CHIKANE: Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: What would you term a regular basis?
MR CHIKANE: Well, regular is that, as I told you, that we used to attend the same church in Mamelodi.
We were both Catholics and, secondly, during the commemorations we would always invite Ribeiro to
come and be a speaker in some of those commemoration meetings and I did visit him several times at home
or in his business, the butchery then, which was run by his wife from time to time.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Now, we are talking of a long period of time now since you met him. Could you give
us an indication how frequently you visited him?
MR CHIKANE: I cannot count days, months, but sometimes I saw him thrice or four times a day, if that is
what you mean.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Were there other times that you did not see him for a few months?
MR CHIKANE: Yes, when I was detained I would not see him except when I was, the last time when I
was on trial in '85, Dr Ribeiro and other doctors came to see us in prison to attend to us.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Can you perhaps remember when you were on
trial there exactly?
MR CHIKANE: It was from April 1985 until December 15, 1988, but the last time I saw him was, I think,
it must have been '85 when he came to see us here in Pretoria Prison.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Were you in prison the whole time?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 461 M CHIKANE
MR CHIKANE: Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And you say you were detained a few times, can you remember when?
MR CHIKANE: Yes, I was detained in 1976. I was detained in 1977. I was detained in 1980. I was
detained in 1983, the shortest was 1983. I was also detained in 1985 and that is when I ultimately ended up
in trial, on the trial.
ADV DU PLESSIS: You say the shortest period was in 1983. Can you remember how long that was?
MR CHIKANE: I think it was a month.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And the other periods?
MR CHIKANE: The other periods ranged from three months, six months.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And, Mr Chikane, what was the view in, amongst the supporters of the liberation
movements at that time about people who were detained?
JUDGE MALL: About?
ADV DU PLESSIS: People who were detained?
MR CHIKANE: The view amongst what?
ADV DU PLESSIS: Amongst supporters of the liberation movements about people who were detained?
What did they think of people who were detained? Did they think well of them, did they think they were
criminals, did they think they were heroes?
MR CHIKANE: I think the majority of them would have seen them as heroes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: So, would you agree with me that the system of detention also worked against the
South African Government at that time making the leaders of the people heroes when they come out of
detention? Would you agree with me?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 462 M CHIKANE
MR CHIKANE: You could, I could say so, yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Now, Mr Chikane, when you, you say you visited Dr Ribeiro frequently, did you
discuss politics at all?
MR CHIKANE: Yes, sometimes if he had any political questions that he wanted to raise, he would raise it
with me and when he had a doubt about individuals, he would discuss that individual with me, such
individuals with me because we knew that amongst the people who were active there were also informers.
We attempted to establish a network of our own of informers so people will always inform those informers
about those who were seen in the company of police, those who were seen coming out of police houses or
frequenting with police. So whilst there was this information we always checked with each other.
ADV DU PLESSIS: So Dr Ribeiro would from time to time give you information about people he might
have seen with the police or people he might have thought were informers?
MR CHIKANE: No, normally it will be people who have either gone to his surgery asking for a
controversial, he was not profile, high profile, as I said, because otherwise, you know, he would say so and
so came to see me, maybe he wanted money for this or money for that, is he an activist? Do you know
him? That is what I mean.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Right. Mr Chikane, but you had, you say you had frequent discussions with him
...(intervention)
MR CHIKANE: Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: ... about politics?
MR CHIKANE: No, please do not say, about everything. Do not say ...(intervention)
ADV DU PLESSIS: But you say about everything.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 463 M CHIKANE
MR CHIKANE: ... about politics. We had social discussions also. We had various other discussions.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chikane, I wanted to say something, but I am ...(intervention)
MR CHIKANE: Please say it, you are free.
ADV DU PLESSIS: I wanted to say, but you must not take it too seriously. I want to say that you have
adapted to Parliament as it used to be in the old days very well, I must say. (General laughter)
MR CHIKANE: I do not know. I do not think that is a compliment. That is why I will not take kindly to
it.
ADV DU PLESSIS: I am saying that was a politician's answer, Mr Chikane. (General laughter).
...(intervention)
MR CHIKANE: No, we are only ...(intervention)
ADV DU PLESSIS: I meant that as a joke, Mr Chikane.
MR CHIKANE: Okay, we are only trained to listen very carefully.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes. Now, Mr Chikane, when you discussed politics with Dr Ribeiro, forget about
the other things ...(intervention)
MR CHIKANE: Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: ... just politics, did you find him a person with a lot of insight into the ideologies of
the liberation movements, the objects of the liberation movements?
MR CHIKANE: Not at all.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Why not?
MR CHIKANE: You know, as I told you, that he was like a sympathiser as a socially concerned person.
He would not be a person who discuss with you a policy position of any particular organisation. He was
not a person who would be
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 464 M CHIKANE
able to come with a decisive position on anything.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Well, did he sympathise with the National Party?
MR CHIKANE: He sympathised with the Liberation because at the time the National Party was a clear
category of people whom we have all identified and, I am sure you agree also, that actually they were
responsible and running, in running the oppressive State. So he, certainly, did not sympathise with the
National Party position.
ADV DU PLESSIS: So in that regard he took a stronger view? Am I right?
MR CHIKANE: I am saying, yes, in that regard, maybe, you can say so.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Now, Mr Chikane, you also testified that the doctor would be invited to speak?
MR CHIKANE: Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: At what occasions would he be required to speak?
MR CHIKANE: We had June commemorations, June 16th commemorations after the National Party has
killed, mowed down a lot of our youth, as you know. I am sure you were around the country then.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, yes I was.
MR CHIKANE: And, you know, from time to time we would organise commemorations. We would
invite people who would be able to help in, assist in mobilising the masses, and I will tell you when I say
mobilising, he was a doctor, he had treated a lot of people who were injured on that particular day and
many other days and we thought we, as people who were taking political decisions, we thought it will be
very important to have someone else who is seen not as a fire
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 464 M CHIKANE
brand, a fire-eater to speak in such commemorations. We got even mothers also, sometimes, to come and
speak depending on the issue that we put on the agenda for the commemoration.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Now this, as I recall it, Mr Chikane, the June 16 commemorations were one of the
most, if not the most important commemoration at that time.
MR CHIKANE: Commemoration.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Commemoration ...
MR CHIKANE: Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: ... at that time. One other one that I can recall was the death, the date of the death of
Mark Skosana. Is that not right? Was that not also a date that was highly regarded?
MR CHIKANE: I am sure you must have read a lot of Afrikaans papers. There were many such incidents.
We had January the 8th which was the day that you commemorated the ANC's birth. We had other,
Sharpeville commemorations. So it was just one of them. I do not think it was the day, it was one of those
days where you would be able to come together.
ADV DU PLESSIS: It was one of the most important days, is that not so?
MR CHIKANE: I do not know how you are rating of most?
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, I am asking ...
MR CHIKANE: What is ...
ADV DU PLESSIS: ... asking a general ...
MR CHIKANE: It was one of the days that we use to come
together.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, let us say it was the most, the ten most, it was one of the ten most important
days of the liberation movements?
MR CHIKANE: Look, if I wanted to use ...
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 465 M CHIKANE
ADV DU PLESSIS: Is that not right?
MR CHIKANE: ... the word "most", I would not have forgotten. I am saying it was one of the days that
we used to commemorate.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Alright. Now, Mr Chikane, and on those days where would these commemorations
have taken place?
MR CHIKANE: We use to organise venues in churches. Mainly churches and mainly churches that time
because we not be able to get the community halls. They were controlled by community councillors who
were, some of them were sympathetic to the National Party.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And what did the speakers speak about on those days?
MR CHIKANE: Well, we will speak about the oppression and how it affected us. We will speak about the
Land Acts, we will speak about the Pass Laws, we will speak about the education problems that we are
facing at that particular time and we will speak about anything, policies of the National Party as at that
time.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Operations of the South African Police?
MR CHIKANE: No, we would not. They will be sitting outside listening. You would not be able to speak
about that.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Right, now, Mr Chikane, and the people who were invited to speak at these
commemorations, what kind of people were those?
MR CHIKANE: It will be people who are, have got some
community credibility. We have invited, on several occasions, people like Mrs Mahlangu. We have
invited priests, we have invited various other people. We have invited, sometimes, teachers, trade union
people, you name it.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 466 M CHIKANE
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes.
MR CHIKANE: But it will be people who have got some kind of credibility, you understand, or a bit of
history. Some people would have been part of those who were there during the 1961 massacre and so
forth. We will invite such kind of people to come and give ....
ADV DU PLESSIS: So ...(intervention)
MR CHIKANE: To come and speak.
ADV DU PLESSIS: So would I be right in saying that you would, in general, invite the leaders of the
community?
MR CHIKANE: No, I would not agree with you because I do not know what exactly do you mean by
leaders of the community. You know, we did not have structures like we have now where you can actually
elect. I just want to get, if I get clarity on you, what do you mean by the leader of the community?
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, you ...(intervention)
MR CHIKANE: If you say respectable people in the ...
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, yes.
MR CHIKANE: ... community I will agree with you ...
ADV DU PLESSIS: That is what I am ...
MR CHIKANE: ... totally.
ADV DU PLESSIS: That is what I am - people whom the Comrades and the young people looked up to?
MR CHIKANE: Yes. And all the people, not only young.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And the people looked up to Dr Ribeiro, is
that not so?
MR CHIKANE: He was peoples' doctor, as I have already said.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And did the people look up to his wife as well? Did they respect her?
MR CHIKANE: She was a very good mother, but she was never,
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 467 M CHIKANE
never active.
ADV DU PLESSIS: She was never?
MR CHIKANE: She was not an, she has never come to any of the commemorations that I can remember.
She was just a loving mother who supported her husband both in the surgery, but she was not a political
activist at all.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Right now, Mr Chikane, would it be fair to say that Dr Ribeiro supported the, as his
son said this morning, the struggle for freedom waged by all the liberation movements?
MR CHIKANE: That could, yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: All the liberation movements?
MR CHIKANE: I said he was sympathiser, yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And his wife as well?
MR CHIKANE: I am not sure about it, I say his wife was not active. I had no close contact with his wife
politically.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, but you knew them well?
MR CHIKANE: Yes, I knew her well.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Did his wife support what he was doing?
MR CHIKANE: We have never discussed that with his wife, ...(intervention)
ADV DU PLESSIS: If you let me rephrase the question, Mr Chikane. If Dr Ribeiro, for instance, was
invited to make a speech at one of these commemoration days or if he had a political discussion, did his
wife support him politically?
MR CHIKANE: I do not know about that. I have never checked that with doctor, neither with Dr Ribeiro
nor with his wife.
JUDGE MALL: (...indistinct) is meant by supporting.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, in general terms, did his wife support the liberation movements? Was she a
supporter of the liberation movements or did she not support the whole idea
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 468 M CHIKANE
of the struggle for ...(intervention)
MR CHIKANE: Let me tell you, all the oppressed people, you know, were definitely supporters of the
change in this particular country and the liberation movements, if that is what you mean.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Now, Mr Chikane, you also testified that he would, Dr Ribeiro would financially
assist people to go into exile. Is that right?
MR CHIKANE: That is correct.
ADV DU PLESSIS: What, do you know what that would have entailed?
MR CHIKANE: I remember an incident where I went to his surgery and he was saying somebody came to
ask for money to go to KwaNdebele, you know, and it turned out, it was just before his arrest, it turned out
that Dr Ribeiro has given this person a cheque and I said to Dr Ribeiro how can you be so naive as to give
somebody a cheque, you know, when, you know, why did you not give him hard cash then because even if
he is going to KwaNdebele, the chances are that he, there is no banks in KwaNdebele. There were no
banks then, there may be now because, you know, this democratic Government, you know, some banks
may well have gone to KwaNdebele, but then there were no banks in KwaNdebele, you know, but by the
time when he told me this story, it is because somebody had been arrested and this was the allegation,
amongst the allegations that came later into his trial.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Right.
MR CHIKANE: So then I knew about that incident.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Now, do you know of other instances in which he gave money to people to go into
exile because that was your evidence?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 469 M CHIKANE
MR CHIKANE: No, no.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Was that the only ...(intervention)
MR CHIKANE: Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: ... instance of which you ...(intervention)
MR CHIKANE: The only incidence that we discussed because of this cheque problem and I was saying
you do not do that with young people.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Right, now why did you - I just want to understand your evidence, Mr Chikane. You
testified that he assisted people with money going for exile. That accords with Chris Ribeiro's evidence,
but you do not have any personal knowledge of that? Is that what you are saying?
MR CHIKANE: I have told you just an incident I know.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, apart from this incident?
MR CHIKANE: Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Apart from that incident?
MR CHIKANE: No, apart from this because some of the people will approach him. Some of the people
were actually sent by our structures, our own people to go if we had a problem, to say, no, tell him that you
are going to Hammanskraal, ask him for this much and then he will do that. So that he gave money, that
much I knew.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And the people who went into exile, Mr Chikane, is it fair to say that some of them
underwent, I am talking in general, some of them underwent military training?
MR CHIKANE: That is true.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And would it be fair to say that it can be possible that in some instances Dr Ribeiro
assisted people to go into exile to eventually be military trained?
MR CHIKANE: No, you know, if you put a sentence like that,
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 469 M CHIKANE
you assume that if you give me money now, you would know whether, I have not gone to Attridgeville or
Mamelodi. It is very difficult for you to know. I would agree that Dr Ribeiro did assist people with
money. Whether he knew that ultimately those people will go to military training or some of them will go
to school, I do not think I would be able to testify.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, clearly, you would not be able. I am just asking you if you would agree with me
that there is a possibility that people who were sent out with the money that was provided by Dr Ribeiro
were military trained. Do you agree with me that there is a possibility?
MR CHIKANE: A possibility, yes, that is correct.
ADV DE JAGER: Sorry, Mr Chikane, you said sometimes people were sent by your own structures to
him ...(intervention)
MR CHIKANE: Yes.
ADV DE JAGER: ... to ask for money.
MR CHIKANE: Yes.
ADV DE JAGER: In order to do what?
MR CHIKANE: For whatever problems that we have. Sometimes you wanted to send someone else to go
and organise in any portion of this country, you know, then we will ask him to do so and some of our
structures that were working in terms of removal, they will tell him that, no, Dr Ribeiro assist this person,
he is going to Nelspruit, for arguments sake. Why - because he was not a politician at all.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chikane, the, you say he was the peoples' doctor?
MR CHIKANE: Yes, he was the peoples' doctor.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Now, I suppose he treated people in the normal sense of the word in Mamelodi, but if
you say he was
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 470 M CHIKANE
the peoples' doctor would he also have treated comrades and other supporters of the liberation movements
who got injured in liberation actions such as marches, etc?
MR CHIKANE: You know, he treated people without money. That is why I said he is the peoples' doctor.
There were people who would get injured, some of them, people who were not injured, who were sick, but
they did not even have a cent to pay. Dr Ribeiro would be one of those people who would be prepared to
attend to those people even at the risk of not being able to recover his own money. That he did, that is why
I call him the peoples' doctor.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, I understand that.
MR CHIKANE: And he did treat people, yes, who were in the marches, who were injured in the marches.
That much I know. I do not know whether he treated people of, I cannot testify of anybody that I can
remember who came from, who were injured in, from exile or something like that, but inasfar as people
who were injured in the marches. I personally took some of the people, they did not have money to pay for
all those people. For all those kids who had inhaled teargas in their shacks, in their garages, in their houses
and their parents maybe would be at work at that particular time, we will take them to Dr Ribeiro and Dr
Ribeiro will be able to treat them.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Did he do this to further the cause of the liberation movements ...(intervention)
MR CHIKANE: I think ...(intervention)
ADV DU PLESSIS: ... as well?
MR CHIKANE: He did this as a professional. I think the ethics of doctors later was flouted by the
National Party, where a doctor does not treat a person in, even when that
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 471 M CHIKANE
person is ill or injured because of either colour or race.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, well that is very general, Mr Chikane, but what I want to know is could there
have been a possibility that Dr Ribeiro, if you say he treated everybody ...(intervention)
MR CHIKANE: Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: ... would you concede that there may have been a possibility that he also treated
people who had military training, people who, from the Whites' point of view, would have been called
terrorists? That he would have also treated people like that? Would you concede that possibility?
MR CHIKANE: I will concede the possibility that he really saw himself as a doctor who has got to treat
patients who come to him regardless of where they come from. I have taken one of my colleague, we had a
student exchange programme and there was this student who was staying, who came to stay with us in
Mamelodi. He was white and then this student fell ill. I took him to Dr Ribeiro, he was white, and Dr
Ribeiro treated that person.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Now, Mr Chikane, Dr Ribeiro's son also testified that his father acted in an advisory
capacity. He testified further, if my memory serves me correct, that he advised young people pertaining to
various issues, also political. Do you know anything about that? Can you say to this Committee or testify
to any advice that he gave to
young people in a political sense?
MR CHIKANE: No, I cannot. I was not living with him in his house, so, I cannot.
ADV DU PLESSIS: There was also evidence given that he assisted in transport of comrades. Do you
know anything
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 472 M CHIKANE
about that?
MR CHIKANE: To where? He did carry me to my home one day. He used to transport me from home, if
that is what you mean, yes, he did.
ADV DU PLESSIS: I do not know if that is what he meant, but he testified that he assisted comrades with
transport.
MR CHIKANE: Yes, he did take me from church several times, because I did not have a car then, home.
Is that what you mean?
ADV DU PLESSIS: No, that is not what I am referring to.
MR CHIKANE: What do you mean?
ADV DU PLESSIS: I did not know that. He testified that he assisted comrades with transport. I want to
know if you know anything about that?
MR CHIKANE: I said he, yes, he did, I did, he did transport me several times to meetings. If that is what
you mean, I think that is my answer.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Did he transport you to meetings?
MR CHIKANE: Yes, to meetings.
ADV DU PLESSIS: What kind of meetings?
MR CHIKANE: To commemoration rallies. Sometimes I would not have transport, from church
...(intervention)
ADV DU PLESSIS: Did he provide ...(intervention)
MR CHIKANE: ... meetings.
ADV DU PLESSIS: ... did he provide other people with transport?
MR CHIKANE: Yes, I know that, you know, by then, I think, there were two of us who were regarded as
prominent activists in Mamelodi. One of them was Mr Kanakana, Sammy Matsela. On several occasions
he would transport, you know, Sammy was staying in Mamelodi East and we will either have
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 473 M CHIKANE
meetings in Mamelodi West and there will be no transport for Sammy to go home and Dr Ribeiro would
gladly take him and drop him home.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Why did he do that? Do you know?
MR CHIKANE: Yes. I have told you that he was very sympathetic to the liberation of our people.
ADV DU PLESSIS: He was sympathetic to?
MR CHIKANE: To the liberation.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes.
MR CHIKANE: He knew that we were poor.
ADV DU PLESSIS: He did that because he was sympathetic to the liberation?
MR CHIKANE: He did that because he was, he knew that people had no transport and he was, he would
have come from a meeting where we have discussed all these things together and he will take you home.
He did not take us out, he took us home.
ADV DU PLESSIS: That was after you committed the speeches, if I can put it like that?
MR CHIKANE: Committed the speeches, what is that?
ADV DU PLESSIS: You say he took you home, he did not take you out.
MR CHIKANE: Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, it was after you were politically active he took you home. Is that what you are
saying?
MR CHIKANE: Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes. Now, Mr Chikane, you say that you were a founder member of the UDF. Is
that correct?
MR CHIKANE: That is correct.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And you regard the UDF also as part of the liberation movements?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 474 M CHIKANE
MR CHIKANE: That is correct.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Is that correct. Now, have you ever heard of the counter-revolutionary strategy of the
South African Government at that time against the liberation movements?
MR CHIKANE: Yes, we read about total strategy and total onslaught. It was in the papers and I think
Loots is somewhere here. Is that him? He can tell you better.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Who is that?
MR CHIKANE: Captain Loots. I do not know if he is still Captain or General now.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Sorry.
MR CHIKANE: There he is, yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes. Now, Mr Chikane, how, can you explain to the Committee, how did you,
yourself, experience the counter-revolutionary strategy waged against the liberation movements?
MR CHIKANE: How did I experience it?
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes.
MR CHIKANE: Well, you know, you will get detained, they will come and harass and search your
houses. They have never missed searching my house. I knew if ...(intervention)
ADV DU PLESSIS: Set your house alight, you mean?
MR CHIKANE: Search.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Search, sorry, sorry.
MR CHIKANE: Search, search.
ADV DU PLESSIS: I misunderstood you. I beg your pardon.
MR CHIKANE: Search the houses. I remember at one stage, it must have been 1980, when there was an
upheavals in Laudium. I did not even know where Laudium was and then they said, you know, they came
to search my house so I wanted to know
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 474 M CHIKANE
exactly why did they come and search my house. They say, you know, because they, "opstookers, jy is een
van die opstookers", I think that is the correct Afrikaans and there is a commotion in Laudium. So I asked
where is Laudium. You know, they said you know, do not pretend you do not know, but they have never
failed to search houses, that is amongst other things. Detention was one of the ways that they did that.
Sometimes, you know, in some cases they would spread lies, disinformation about people. I remember at
one stage when I was detained, while my interrogator was saying Sammy Matsela was an informer, you
know. As I was working very closely with Sammy Matsela, but because I was matured enough at the time,
you know, I knew what Sammy knew and he did not know, but amongst other things that is what they did
at that time. They would stop at nothing.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Now, if we could go to more serious acts apart from detention. Do you have any
personal knowledge of, for instance, the bombing of houses of people who sympathised with the liberation
movements?
MR CHIKANE: Who sympathised with the liberation movements, no, I do not have any.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Right, did you experience any sort of intimidation by the South African Police?
MR CHIKANE: Yes. I told you I was detained several times.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, apart from what you have told us, are there any other ...(intervention)
MR CHIKANE: My ...
ADV DU PLESSIS: ... situations which you can sketch to us.
MR CHIKANE: Yes, two cars, one I had given to a friend and they burnt it to ashes. Up to now, you
know, they have not actually admitted that it was them. At one instance, one,
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 475 M CHIKANE
when my car was burnt right in my yard there and, you know, I had parked it between the four roomed
house and, what you would call a store room, but in the township we call a garage and, you know, I had
filled it with petrol, full tank, because I was driving somewhere else that following morning and suddenly
that car was burnt during the course of the night. I had to literally push it out of the yard because we did
not have fire extinguishers in the township, naked. So I did experience those kind of things.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And when that happened did you experience that as intimidation against you because
you were a leader in the liberation movements?
MR CHIKANE: Yes, yes that is correct.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And I am sure you know of various other instances. I do not want to bore the
Committee with examples, but you know of various other instances in which ...(intervention)
MR CHIKANE: If you have the whole day, really, I can give you a catalogue of that.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Now ...(intervention)
MR CHIKANE: And Captain Loots will support me. He is nodding his head there.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, well, Mr Chikane, evidence to this effect has been led already. Would you,
would it also be fair to say that from the South African Police point of view, actions against trained,
military, I do not want to use the word terrorists when I ask you the question, military trained operatives,
freedom fighters, can I use that word, actions of the police against military trained freedom fighters
especially actions in which certain freedom fighters would have been eliminated. Would you also regard
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 476 M CHIKANE
that as part of the South African Government's counter revolutionary strategy?
MR CHIKANE: No, I, in fact then and even now, I saw it as abuse of, you know, position of power
because, you know, the policemen were supposed to protect the law and all the citizens regardless of colour
and race. I am not seeing it then or I am not referring to that incident only. Even up to now I still think that
no person must be able to abuse others and no police must be able, in his or her own right, abuse power
because a policeman was not actually supposed to be a killer.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Is that what happened according to your experience, that the police abused their
power to assist the National Party to uphold apartheid at that time? Am I right in saying that?
MR CHIKANE: Yes, by then I used to think that it was only the police, but then later with the evidence
that has been led through other incidents, sittings of this nature, it is clear that there were other people
actually who have abused the police to abuse their offices of trust and power.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Would it be fair to say that the South African Police, at that time, took sides in the, if
I can call it that, the struggle between the apartheid National Party, on the one hand, one party Government
on the one hand, and the liberation movement on the other hand. Would it be fair to say that the South
African Police took sides? MR CHIKANE: You know, there was no unanimous position. Let me tell
you, we also infiltrated the police, we had police that were working for us then.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Could you name them?
MR CHIKANE: No, not at this stage.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 476 M CHIKANE
ADV DU PLESSIS: Now, Mr Chikane, these actions of the police which we have gone now through.
MR CHIKANE: Yes, let me go back to that one.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes.
MR CHIKANE: The reason I would not name them is that because I do not remember their names, but
should you want their names I can compile that list and give it to you. Some of them are working for us
now.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, we can talk about that afterwards.
MR CHIKANE: Okay.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chikane ...(intervention)
MR CHIKANE: I think actually they should be named.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr, yes, well, Mr Chikane, these actions that we have been talking about now that,
where the police acted in such a way, can you recall from more or less what period did this start to happen?
MR CHIKANE: What?
ADV DU PLESSIS: When, more or less, did these actions of the police start where they would act pro-
actively, where they would search houses, where they would detain people more, where the would spread
disinformation, everything that we have spoken about now?
MR CHIKANE: You know, I, you know, we have, as I have told you, that we invited people to speak in
our meetings and some of them would, you know, really report about incidents that happened even far
beyond the, Nelson, President Nelson Mandela now, treason trials, far beyond the police were searching
people's houses, they were detaining them and, you know, it also happened in the times just prior to the
treason trial of President Mandela and the others.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, but what I am actually trying to get
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 477 M CHIKANE
at, let me rephrase it more specific. Let me rephrase it more specific. Would you say that there was an
escalation of police action pro-actively against the liberation movements from the early 1980's?
MR CHIKANE: I am unable to assess as I was not actually part of the 1961 ...
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes.
MR CHIKANE: ... so I cannot be able to say there was more or there was less.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And you also cannot say, Mr Chairman, if you will just bear with me, please. There
is a purpose in this cross-examination. It ...(intervention)
JUDGE MALL: I am waiting for it.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, thank you Mr Chairman. It relates specifically to evidence I will place before
this Committee by Captain van Jaarsveld and it does accord with the evidence that Captain van Jaarsveld
will give. Mr Chikane, all I am trying to ascertain or let me put it to you this way. Captain van Jaarsveld
will provide this Committee with evidence that the counter-revolutionary strategy of the South African
Government, and I am going to phrase it broadly because I have not spoken to him in detail about that, was
devised in the early 1980's and implemented round about 1984, 1985 and that is when policemen started
acting more pro-actively against the liberation movements instead of just arresting people.
MR CHIKANE: No, but that would include, in my recollection, what happened in Sharpeville in 1961.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, those are instances, ...
MR CHIKANE: And the police ...
ADV DU PLESSIS: ... but I am talking ...
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 478 M CHIKANE
MR CHIKANE: ... were involved at that time.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, I am talking generally.
MR CHIKANE: And actually they were not, they did shoot they did not arrest.
JUDGE MALL: No, I think that he is not talking about specific instances, he is talking about ...
INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.
MR CHIKANE: I would not know because I was not a policeman nor informer.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, but what I want to know, Mr Chikane, it is an easy question. Did you
experience any heightening of in the intensity of actions of police from 1984, in the periods 1984 to 1988,
let us say, from what it was previously in the 1970's?
MR CHIKANE: You know it, you know, it is very difficult. As I say, you know, I began to be active and
I was, I have been detained from 1976, that is the first time I got detained and from there on every time I
got detained so I do not know whether I can be able to give a fair general judgement because if I was to
give it on the basis of my own experience, I will say from '76, '77, as I have already told you. You know, I
got detained almost every year.
JUDGE WILSON: He has told us he was in prison from 1985 to the end ...
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes.
JUDGE WILSON: ... of 1988. I do not think ...
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes.
JUDGE WILSON: ... you can.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes. The question is unfair relating to up till 1988. Now, I, thank you Mr Chairman.
Now, Mr Chikane, let me just put to you what the evidence will be and has
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 479 M CHIKANE
been up to now and that is that the more successful the liberation movements became in respect of their
struggle, the more difficult they made it for the South African Government, the more the South African
Government became convinced that it had to devise what they called a counter- revolutionary strategy.
They did so and they implemented it and it meant proactive action against the liberation movements. That
included, for instance, what you testified about such as, things such as disinformation campaign against
leaders, it included proactive action and it also, at the end of the day, included the elimination of high
profile activists. I am putting that to you. Would you agree with me?
MR CHIKANE: Was that the evidence led by South African Government because I sit in Parliament there.
De Klerk has, Mr de Klerk has actually denied any direct knowledge of what the police did.
ADV DU PLESSIS: We know, we know he denied it.
MR CHIKANE: But are you saying that is his brief to you?
ADV DU PLESSIS: No, no.
MR CHIKANE: If that is so I will be glad to know. I will use it in Parliament.
ADV DU PLESSIS: No. Mr Chikane, I am ...(intervention)
JUDGE WILSON: Well, you are putting the South African Government to him ...
MR CHIKANE: Yes.
JUDGE WILSON: ... which he was the leader.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, well I ...(intervention)
JUDGE WILSON: Are you doing that with information?
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, he was not the leader in 1983, 1984, with respect, Mr Chairman.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 479 M CHIKANE
JUDGE WILSON: Well, are you saying the then leader was responsible?
MR CHIKANE: Yes.
JUDGE WILSON: (Indistinct).
ADV DU PLESSIS: The then, the then leader and the then Government. The then leader and the then
Government.
JUDGE WILSON: Was responsible for the elimination by the police ...
ADV DU PLESSIS: Well.
JUDGE WILSON: ... in the manner described of activists?
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, what I ...(intervention)
JUDGE WILSON: Is that what you are putting?
ADV DU PLESSIS: What I am putting is that the evidence will be that the elimination of activists was
part of the counter-revolutionary strategy. That is what I am putting.
MR CHIKANE: That they actually, they were, they denied that they were ever part, to date, that is how I
am talking to you. You know I came to Parliament, I came from Parliament Friday a week ago, you know.
There has never been any admission that actually the killing of activists was an instruction from the South
African Government. Now I just want to know, before I give my opinion, whether you have that kind of
brief.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Well, Mr Chikane, I am going to place such evidence before this Committee about
...(intervention)
MR CHIKANE: That they had, that they had.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Well, let me just finish. About the way in which the counter-revolutionary strategy
was developed, about the way it was implemented and evidence has already been led before this
Committee about certain orders which were given to the applicants by their superiors.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 480 M CHIKANE
MR CHIKANE: South African Government.
ADV DU PLESSIS: No, well, to the applicants by their superiors, that is what I am saying, to take action.
JUDGE WILSON: That is not what you are saying. You are continually saying South African
Government.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I am trying to put the evidence which I will place before this
Committee to the witness in as short a fashion as possible otherwise it is going to take me two hours to do
that.
JUDGE MALL: See if you draw a distinction in your own mind between what the South African
Government authorised ...
ADV DU PLESSIS: But Mr Chairman ...
JUDGE MALL: ... as a Government or what the top echelon of the police decided. That distinction is not
clear in my mind, but I think if you want to bring out that distinction, perhaps, then you should do so.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes. Well, Mr Chairman, I am not saying and I am not putting anything further than
what was already testified before this Committee pertaining to the representatives of the Government's
involvement in the counter-revolutionary strategy and that includes, for instance, an excerpt from a video
where it was shown that President Botha said that activists will be eliminated. It includes, for instance,
evidence about an order which was given in respect of the Zero hand grenade incident which was
authorised by President P W Botha at the time. It also includes evidence of General van der Merwe about
...(intervention)
ADV DE JAGER: Mr du Plessis.
ADV DU PLESSIS: ... Minister Adriaan Vlok's involvement.
ADV DE JAGER: Mr du Plessis. I think you should rather
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 481 M CHIKANE
carefully phrase some of your ...(intervention)
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes.
ADV DE JAGER: It was stated that he authorised it. It is ...(intervention)
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes.
ADV DE JAGER: ... that is another thing whether ...
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes.
ADV DE JAGER: ... he in fact authorised it. That is something we will have to ascertain at some stage or
other, but at present the evidence was not that he authorised, well, he did not admit it. It was stated that he
authorised it. So, be careful about what ...
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes.
ADV DE JAGER: ... you are putting to the witness. It should be the exact facts.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, but Mr Chairman, the evidence of General van der Merwe, as I recall it, was
that, as he recalled it, it was authorised.
ADV DE JAGER: He was told that it has been authorised by, he was told that it has been authorised by
Minister le Grange I believe.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, you are right.
ADV DE JAGER: So, Mr Botha ...
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes.
ADV DE JAGER: ... did not, in fact, tell him himself.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes. Yes, there is not direct evidence from President himself. That is true.
JUDGE WILSON: Well then ...
ADV DU PLESSIS: And now ...
JUDGE WILSON: ... there is no direct evidence of contact with him and that you must be very careful
about.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 482 M CHIKANE
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, yes. Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chikane, I do not know if you have followed
what was said now about the evidence that was led before this Committee. All I am trying to do, and I am
finding it difficult to do that, is to give you an explanation of the evidence that was presented to this
Committee about the implementation of the counter-revolutionary strategy devised by the South African
Police and the Government of the time.
MR CHIKANE: So you are putting it that that was the case. That the Government of the time and the
South African Police actually took a decision that some people must be eliminated?
ADV DU PLESSIS: Well, I am saying that a counter- revolutionary strategy was devised.
MR CHIKANE: By them to eliminate people?
ADV DU PLESSIS: Well, I am saying that evidence will be that part of the counter-revolutionary strategy
entailed the elimination of high profile activists.
MR CHIKANE: Is that, that is your position, that is your submission, okay. I am glad to know that we
have been struggling in Parliament to try to find out whether the ... ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes.
MR CHIKANE: ... South African Government was actually involved in taking decisions. Now we know.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Now, Mr Chikane, what I want to know from you, after having put that to you, what I
want to know from you is from your recollection, and I am trying to obtain your evidence from the, from
the side of the liberation movements, did you experience the actions that you have given evidence now
about, of the police actions?
MR CHIKANE: Yes.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 483 M CHIKANE
ADV DU PLESSIS: Did you experience that?
MR CHIKANE: I did not die, I am still here.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes.
MR CHIKANE: All that I have mentioned, I have experienced.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Did you experience that as a difference in the attitude of the South African Police at
that time?
MR CHIKANE: I told you I have a problem because I was continuously detained from 1976.
JUDGE MALL: His experiences as an individual differs.
MR CHIKANE: So, you know ...
ADV DU PLESSIS: But you cannot dispute what I put to you that there was a difference in the attitude
and that there, that a counter-revolutionary strategy was implemented at that time?
MR CHIKANE: I cannot dispute that.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Right, thank you very much. Mr Chairman, if you will just bear with me.
JUDGE MALL: Yes, certainly.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chikane.
MR CHIKANE: Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: According to your recollection, was the youth at all involved in the liberation
struggle?
MR CHIKANE: When you say the youth, you mean young people?
ADV DU PLESSIS: Young people, let us say ...
MR CHIKANE: There were young and old people ...
ADV DU PLESSIS: ... school children.
MR CHIKANE: ... involved, yes, they were young.
ADV DU PLESSIS: School children as well.
MR CHIKANE: Young, yes, school children, some of them were involved.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And do you have, perhaps, knowledge of
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 484 M CHIKANE
incidents where school children were involved in acts, things that happened during that period such as
stone throwing, burning of vehicles, etc, necklaces? Do you have any knowledge of school children being
involved in it?
MR CHIKANE: Yes, I did see some of them actually in, when there has been a confrontation because of,
between them and the police and ultimately there will be an upset. The situation will get out of control and
cars would be burnt, there would be stone throwing. Yes, that I saw in my own eyes. That did happen.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Right and now, Mr Chikane, a last question. I want to ask your honest opinion. In
the light of the fact that you are a high profile politician in South African politics today. Your opinion on
the applicants' participation in the process of truth and reconciliation and their participation in this process
before this Committee.
MR CHIKANE: You know, you know I believe that we have arrived at this period, it is, it has been a very
difficult process, lives are lost, other people are maimed forever, we have got widows and widowers, but I
believe that we can only arrive at a position where we can reconcile when the whole truth is known, when
no shred of evidence is left from the public's eye, when no one will feel protected even from himself
because if we do not have full disclosures, then I think this whole process is completely futile. It is my
honest opinion that, therefore, informers need to be known so that they must also be able to be reconciled
because I can assure you, they are sitting with a guilty feeling wherever they are because there is this much
that is not known of them and they will be set free, they will be better people. And I believe that that would
be a very good
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 484 M CHIKANE
stepping stone towards building a new South Africa that will be able to have full trust of its own citizens.
So that is my opinion, full disclosure of every evidence and, of course, I believe in reconciliation and
forgiveness. I have got no personal problem. We do greet each other with Captain Loots. He knows he
detained me several times himself. Now one day we meet I say, hi, how are you, Captain, but it is not a
question of person, it is not a personal vendetta here. We are trying to build a country and we are serious
about it. So, full disclosure of everything including informers. Everything, including those members that I
have seen in the papers that are supposed to be serving in high Government offices, there must be full
disclosure.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DU PLESSIS
JUDGE MALL: Mr Mpshe, are there any questions you would ...(intervention)
NO EXAMINATION BY ADV MPSHE
JUDGE MALL: Mr Currin, any re-examination? I am sorry.
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DEN BERG
JUDGE MALL: Yes, sorry.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Mr Chikane, with regard to the naming of informers, would there be no possible
backlash against people who may, quite possibly, falsely be named as having been informers and does the,
do, are the existing capacities of the, of societies, are they able to handle that kind of possible backlash?
MR CHIKANE: I guess they have handled it in the case of Captain Coetzee who is quite a high profile
...(tape ends) evidence. He went into exile, he was not killed, he is back. They have been able to handle it
in cases of Mamasela PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 485 M CHIKANE
now. I am sure a lot of people have come in contact with him and many others actually who were not only
informers, but who were actually, you know, involved, who have made total disclosure, but the society has
not taken action against them and I have got no doubt that even in this case, you know, we would be
helping those people to set them free from their own guilt conscious. I do not see any, feel any backlash, it
could have happened. Let me tell you as if you were to go to statements that we made under duress,
sometimes we lied, but, you know, we would want the public to know exactly what we said when we were
there. That is what I mean by full disclosure.
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Chikane, you said that he drove you back home from meetings where, my note is,
all this was discussed. Could you kindly tell us, did he attend meetings and what was it discussed, what did
you mean by all this was discussed?
MR CHIKANE: I meant after we had had a commemorations, sometimes we will have a prior meetings
before the commemoration. We will invite him to be with us to discuss what we would want him to speak
about, you know, because other speakers would be covering other topics. That is what I mean. Sometimes
after the commemoration itself, not preparatory meetings, you know, some people would, like the most
common name that I can name is the late Comrade Sammy Matsela who would not have transport. Then
he will take Sammy back. That is what I meant.
ADV DE JAGER: And did he attend the meetings of the after discussion, after the commemoration, for
instance, by the Committee coming together and discussing things?
MR CHIKANE: No, we would only call him when we are
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 486 M CHIKANE
discussing something that is pertaining to him like when he is, we know that he is going to be speaking on
a particular, maybe we would want him to speak about Sharpeville history 1961. Then we will invite him
to come and, to tell him that you can speak about that because the next speaker is going to be speaking
about a different topic. So that there is no repetition.
ADV DE JAGER: Yes.
MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Chikane, did your structures send people to Dr Ribeiro for financial assistance?
MR CHIKANE: Yes.
MS KHAMPEPE: And only to him only or was he one of the respectable members of the community on
whom you could place reliance with regard to financial assistance?
MR CHIKANE: He was one of them. He was not the only one.
MS KHAMPEPE: Thank you.
JUDGE MALL: Mr Chikane, thank you very much.
MR CHIKANE: Thank you, Sir
JUDGE MALL: You may be excused.
WITNESS EXCUSED
ADV DU PLESSIS: May I proceed with the evidence, Mr Chairman. May I call Warrant Officer van
Vuuren please?
MR CURRIN: Mr Chairman, can I just mention that we went through the bundle to try and deal with all
the confusion and the bundle as you had it was, in fact, in the intended order. The numbers that you need
to look at are the numbers on the top right-hand corner in black coki and the reason why they do not
follow, why it goes, for example, one, two three, four, I mean, why certain numbers are left out because the
original bundle was much larger and in order to assist we took out pages which we felt were irrelevant. So
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 487 ADDRESS
the order in which you have the document with the numbers as on the top right-hand corner, is quite correct
and they have been left exactly as they were except one additional page was inserted which was the second
page of a letter which Motasi wrote to, inter alia, the State President. Page 26 immediately after page 25
was inserted. That is the only change to the document otherwise it remains exactly as it was and when we
refer to the number of the page, we are referring to that which is written in coki on the right, top right-hand
corner.
JUDGE MALL: Yes.
MR CURRIN: Thank you, Sir.
JUDGE MALL: (Speaker not speaking into microphone) Now you have (indistinct) after page 26, the
next (indistinct) is page 35?
ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman, may I suggest ...
MR CURRIN: Correct.
ADV MPSHE: ... since we are going to use it as a bundle that they be re-numbered one up till the end to
avoid further confusion since they are a bundle.
JUDGE MALL: (Indistinct) talking about (indistinct).
ADV MPSHE: Sure.
JUDGE MALL: (Indistinct).
MR CURRIN: Thank you.
JUDGE MALL: We have said that this will be now Exhibit "U".
ADV MPSHE: That is correct.
JUDGE MALL: And if any reference is made to documents in Exhibit "U", you will find it.
ADV MPSHE: I am indebted to you, Sir.
JUDGE MALL: Thank you Mr Currin.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 487 W/O VAN VUUREN
PAUL VAN VUUREN: (s.u.o.).
EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Warrant Officer van Vuuren, you
heard the testimony after Captain Hechter.
W/O VAN VUUREN: That is correct.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Do you confirm the correctness of it?
W/O VAN VUUREN: Yes, I do.
ADV DU PLESSIS: In your application details of the incident as you recall are set out. You will find that
on page 201 of van Vuuren's application, Mr Chairman. What you have set out from page 201 to 203, do
you confirm it as correct?
W/O VAN VUUREN: That is correct.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Very well. Could I just refer you to page 203, second paragraph. Captain Hechter
testified that he gave you instruction to go and fetch Mamasela after Mr Motasi had already been shot.
Could you just read the second and third paragraphs to us.
W/O VAN VUUREN: Captain Hechter instructed me to go and fetch Mamasela. I went to the room
where Mamasela was and instructed him to come. I heard shots, but did not see who shot or who was shot.
I was informed by Mamasela that Mamasela had shot the woman because she had seen him. Captain Loots
never gave instruction and we did not foresee that Mamasela would shoot the woman.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Hechter, did he give you such an instruction?
W/O VAN VUUREN: No.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Did he give Mamasela such an instruction?
W/O VAN VUUREN: Not as far as I know.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Very well. Could you please page to page 205. Political objectives are set out there
from page 205
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 488 W/O VAN VUUREN
to page 211. Do you confirm the correctness thereof?
W/O VAN VUUREN: Yes, I do.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Page 212 says, you say that you were acting under instruction of Colonel Ras. Do
you confirm that?
JUDGE MALL: What page is that?
ADV DU PLESSIS: Page 212, Mr Chairman.
W/O VAN VUUREN: That is correct.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Very well. Lastly I would like to ask you when was the first time you heard about
the allegation which was made that Mr Motasi had been eliminated by you because he was in trouble with
the South African Police, he was in trouble because he had instituted a civil claim against the South African
Police?
W/O VAN VUUREN: That was when Captain de Jongh from the Attorney General's special investigative
unit asked me if I was aware of the fact and I informed him that I was not.
ADV DU PLESSIS: When was that?
W/O VAN VUUREN: Basically at the end of last year. I cannot remember the date. I would just like to
say something. At that stage Captain Hechter's wife had left him and he was extremely emotional and he
testified that he accepted responsibility for all these deeds and he and I worked together as a team and there
was no superior and subordinate relationship between us, we were more friends. So we decided jointly
about things which were to be done so he cannot take the blame for this all by himself. And with regard to
this specific incident, Captain Hechter and I after two years of basically being the hit squad had plenty of
experience with this type of thing and Captain Loots cannot accept responsibility for it alone. The three of
us all decided about what was to be done. That is all I would
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 489 W/O VAN VUUREN
like to say.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DU PLESSIS
JUDGE MALL: Mr Currin.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CURRIN: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr van Vuuren, when was the
decision taken that you would be the person that would actually pull the trigger and kill Richard Motasi?
W/O VAN VUUREN: It was not decided before the time. We at each incident where we were involved,
we dealt with it as the circumstances prevailed. I would just like to mention that Mr Motasi resisted and we
wrestled with him, Colonel Loots and I, and especially Captain Hechter and I wrestled with him and, if I
remember correctly, Captain Hechter and I are fairly stout men and Motasi was a slightly built man, but he
kept us fairly busy. Captain Loots assaulted him with the butt of the AK47 rifle where he assaulted, where
he struck Captain Hechter several times. It was not decided beforehand who was to eliminate him. It just
happened that way because, as you know, by that stage, if you remember correctly, there was the Defence
Force in the black townships and I cannot remember at that specific stage if it
was there or not and he made a lot of noise, he screamed and Captain Hechter and I worked together
without actually saying much. We each knew what to do.
MR CURRIN: Some of these questions I have already put to Captain Hechter, but each application is
considered on its own merit and I need to put certain questions to you which were put to Captain Hechter
as well. When you got this instruction from Colonel Ras to go out and to murder one of your colleagues,
did you not think of questioning that instruction?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 490 W/O VAN VUUREN
W/O VAN VUUREN: I would just like to say that when we got to Colonel Ras's office that morning, Flip
Loots got to the office early that morning, and said to me Colonel Ras wants to see us, that there is a
request that some of the Divisional Commissioners, Stemmet, and apparently an ANC agent is to be
eliminated and that we should please accompany him to his office. Captain Loots and I, Captain, and
Captain Hechter went to General, he was a Colonel at the time, Colonel Ras's office and he said to Captain
Loots, listen, there is someone who is an ANC agent who needs to be eliminated, but you are going to
receive further instructions from Brigadier Stemmet, the Divisional Commissioner. Captain Hechter and I,
if I remember correctly, went back to our offices and approximately an hour, possibly two hours, I cannot
remember the exact time, thereafter Captain Loots returned with the address of this policeman. He briefly
informed us what was said there and what the Divisional Commissioner's instruction was. I did not have
any reason to question the instruction of the Divisional Commissioner especially due to the fact that
Captain Hechter and I, at that stage, had been dealing with
this type of work for approximately two years. We were actually withdrawn from all other normal security
police duties. So to Captain Hechter and I, at that stage, it was not strange that such a request be put to us
or we should be given such an instruction to eliminate a policeman since he was an ANC agent. I did not
know this policeman before the time, I did not even, I was not even aware of his existence and to me that
was basically that.
MR CURRIN: Had you ever eliminated another colleague or was this the first time?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 490 W/O VAN VUUREN
W/O VAN VUUREN: No, at a previous occasion we killed an informant, but this was the very first time.
MR CURRIN: I am asking whether you have ever before eliminated a colleague, a fellow policeman?
W/O VAN VUUREN: No.
MR CURRIN: So, this is not just another assassination. Surely in your own mind there was a difference
between being asked to go and kill a colleague and being asked to go and kill an ANC activist?
W/O VAN VUUREN: No, Mr Chairperson, in my mind there was no doubt. We were told that he was an,
he was an ANC agent. Whether he was a policeman or not he remained an enemy to the State and for that
reason we eliminated him and that is why I believed I eliminated him.
MR CURRIN: Why are you now saying that he was an ANC agent whereas in your application you said
that he gave information, according to Ras, he gave information to the Zimbabwe Security Services?
W/O VAN VUUREN: That is correct, that is what was said to me at the time.
MR CURRIN: Why does that lead you to believe that he is an ANC agent if he was giving information to
the Zimbabwe Security Services?
W/O VAN VUUREN: I cannot remember Colonel Ras's precise words, it is too long ago, but he said that
the person was an ANC agent and that he was giving information to the Zimbabwe Security Service.
MR CURRIN: And nothing about giving information to the ANC in exile?
W/O VAN VUUREN: Not as far as I can recall.
MR CURRIN: Have you discussed this instruction with General PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 491 W/O VAN VUUREN
Ras in a more - more recently. I mean, General Ras, I believe, is here and is willing to testify.
W/O VAN VUUREN: That is correct.
MR CURRIN: And from what you can gather, does he confirm this instruction?
W/O VAN VUUREN: That is correct.
MR CURRIN: And what about the Divisional Commissioner, Stemmet, is he going to testify?
W/O VAN VUUREN: I do not know. You will have to ask my advocate.
MR CURRIN: Do you, have you had any discussions with him?
W/O VAN VUUREN: Not whether he was going to subpoena the Divisional Commissioner to testify, he
said he would decide about that.
MR CURRIN: Do you know whether he confirms that he gave the instruction to you?
W/O VAN VUUREN: As far as I know he denies that.
MR CURRIN: As far as you know he denies that the instruction was given. Is that what you are saying?
W/O VAN VUUREN: That is correct.
MR CURRIN: You heard the evidence of Captain Hechter in
regard to what happened when you arrived at the house, when you arrived at ...
W/O VAN VUUREN: Yes, that is correct.
MR CURRIN: ... the house of Sergeant Motasi and Irene Motasi.
W/O VAN VUUREN: That is correct.
MR CURRIN: And I take it that you confirm his evidence in that regard?
W/O VAN VUUREN: Yes.
MR CURRIN: So, you would agree then that when you decided
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 492 W/O VAN VUUREN
to proceed with the assassination after Irene Motasi had seen, what is his name, after Irene Motasi had seen
Mamasela, that the killing of Irene Motasi was an inevitable consequence?
W/O VAN VUUREN: It was not discussed there, but it is possible. I would just like to explain to you at
that time an operation was being executed, time was of the essence, one just, you know, you just do what
you have to do. You do not still deliberate there and then.
MR CURRIN: But look, let us be realistic. You are talking about your own identification as a murderer?
W/O VAN VUUREN: That is correct.
MR CURRIN: We have heard so often that if Mamasela were to be identified by any person it would have
been a major, major "terugslag", problem for the Security Forces in that he was so, of such a valuable, such
an asset to the Security Forces.
W/O VAN VUUREN: That is correct.
MR CURRIN: So we have that as a fact. Then we have your own identification, possibly, if he were to be
identified.
W/O VAN VUUREN: That is correct.
MR CURRIN: Are you saying that glibly you did not really take that into consideration?
W/O VAN VUUREN: That is what I am saying. At that specific, on that specific evening it, we did not
deliberate or discuss the fact that Mamasela, the woman would see Mamasela. We probably just did not
pay any attention to it and, with hindsight, I would say that we probably should have.
ADV DE JAGER: And if you had taken it into account would you have decided that she should be killed?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 493 W/O VAN VUUREN
W/O VAN VUUREN: I believe so, Mr Chairperson.
MR CURRIN: You would agree with me that if you were not going to place her at risk at all, once
Mamasela had knocked at the door the first time, she had seen him and she would have been advised that
he had gone off to go and buy supper, you would not have gone back. You would have packed your bags
and come back to Pretoria.
W/O VAN VUUREN: Could you please repeat the question?
MR CURRIN: I want to put it to you that if you had considered her safety at all, once she had seen
Mamasela, when he went to the door the first time and Mamasela had been told that Richard Motasi is not
at home, in order not to put her at risk at all, you would have packed your bags and come back to Pretoria
and decided to eliminate Sergeant Motasi in some other way. Is that not correct?
W/O VAN VUUREN: I would say that that is correct.
MR CURRIN: Would the Committee bear with me for a moment please. In your application you also do
not mention the fact that, whether or not you knew that there was a child in the house. Did you know
whether there was a child in the house?
W/O VAN VUUREN: No, no, I was not aware of that fact. I never saw the child.
MR CURRIN: Could you repeat your version of how you understood the killing of Irene Motasi?
W/O VAN VUUREN: Must I read it to you?
MR CURRIN: No, tell me in your own words.
JUDGE MALL: Do you want to know from him why?
MR CURRIN: No, not, I just want to know the sequence of events from this witness. From your
perspective.
W/O VAN VUUREN: After we had struggled with Richard Motasi
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 493 W/O VAN VUUREN
and Captain Hechter had placed the pillow over his head and I had shot him four times with an AK47 rifle,
Captain Hechter and Captain Loots went out of the door. I cannot remember, I think Captain Hechter then
said, go and call Mamasela, I went to the room and, if I recall correctly, the woman's face was hidden by a
blanket or a sheet, her face was covered. I told Mamasela, come on, we are finished. I then turned round
and I started running. I heard shots. When I arrived outside Mamasela was right next to me. I said, what
did you do and he said that he had shot the woman as well because she had seen him. I would like to
mention that at that stage it was not strange to me that somebody would have recognised Mamasela
because Mamasela and I were good friends and he had told me that he would undergo plastic surgery at the
expense of the State. So Mamasela told me a lot about his personal affairs and things like that. So as far as
I was concerned Mamasela's face would have been reconstructed, changed later on. That is how, that was
what my personal understanding and experience of Mamasela was. I do not know whether Captain
Hechter was aware of that, but as far as I was concerned, he
would later change his face and he discussed it with me and he said he would apply to head office for
paying for surgery, for plastic surgery.
MR CURRIN: Had Captain Hechter left the house before you?
W/O VAN VUUREN: That is correct, yes.
MR CURRIN: So you, when you went back, you went back on your own, you did not go back with
Captain Hechter?
W/O VAN VUUREN: No, Captain Hechter, I left him and Loots in the lounge. They left by the door and
I went to the bedroom.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 494 W/O VAN VUUREN
MR CURRIN: I just wanted to get clarity on that. Have you, behind me is not only sitting Richard and
Irene Motasi's son, but also Irene Motasi's mother. Have you had any opportunity to speak to her and, in
any way, about this incident?
W/O VAN VUUREN: No, I have not spoken to them yet.
MR CURRIN: I see.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CURRIN
JUDGE MALL: Mr Mpshe, any questions.
EXAMINATION BY ADVOCATE MPSHE: Yes, Mr Chairman. Warrant Officer, are you still in the
police force?
W/O VAN VUUREN: No, I am no longer in the force.
ADV MPSHE: When did you leave the force?
W/O VAN VUUREN: In '89, February '89.
ADV MPSHE: When did this incident take place?
W/O VAN VUUREN: In '87.
ADV MPSHE: When you were still in the police force did Brigadier Basie Smit take over your section?
W/O VAN VUUREN: That is correct.
ADV MPSHE: And I want to believe he was told of what you people did to Motasi and wife.
W/O VAN VUUREN: No, that is not true. He was never aware of what had happened. He had an idea.
Everybody at that stage, most of the senior officers in the security branch like Ras had an idea of what we
were doing and I believe he would have informed General Smit about our activities.
ADV MPSHE: Now, what made you leave the police force?
W/O VAN VUUREN: General Smit was transferred to head office and some other Brigadier took over, I
think his surname was van Rensburg, I think so, I cannot remember exactly because that was after
Brigadier Smit. I just could no longer be
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 495 W/O VAN VUUREN
a policeman in the true sense of the word as a result of my past activities. I simply could not continue as a
security policeman.
ADV MPSHE: Okay. I am going to read to you the statement, the, part of the transcript that I read this
morning as made by Joe Mamasela, Section 29. Just a short portion I will just read out to you and I want
your comment on that. It is on page three, it reads thus.
"After a couple of days Basie Smit took over command of our section. A Captain
Hechter told Smit what we had done. Brigadier Smit was furious and Captain Hechter
was transferred to Soweto and he then resigned later. I was transferred to C Section, van
Vuuren also resigned and Captain Loots was transferred somewhere else. The whole B
Section was dissolved".
Is that correct?
W/O VAN VUUREN: No, that is not true. Captain Hechter would never have discussed this with
Brigadier Smit because at that stage Brigadier Smit was very new in the force. He had just taken over and
we were rather wary of him because the rumours did the rounds that he was especially
transferred or he had been specially transferred there to cause problems for Hechter and myself and to
expose us. So Captain Hechter would never have discussed the matter with him. What actually happened
was that Brigadier Smit immediately took us into his confidence and on many occasions ...(tape ends)... in
KwaNdebele and so forth and Captain Hechter had never been transferred to Soweto. That is a lie.
Colonel Loots took a transfer or applied for a transfer to the Intelligence Unit. I assume that is the
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 496 W/O VAN VUUREN
Kudu Arcade and, as for myself, it was only a year and two months later that I resigned. General Smit was
not even in the branch anymore when I left the police force.
ADV MPSHE: Why were you wary of Basie Smit?
W/O VAN VUUREN: Because, if you will recall, I cannot remember the exact date, but there had been a
case in which one Sergeant van der Merwe and I think a Captain le Grange, they had shot a person, I think
it was a person who was dealing in mandrax, and they were prosecuted and they went to jail because
Brigadier Smit was the Chief Investigating Officer in that particular case.
ADV MPSHE: Now, are you saying to us, if I am correct, that you were careful about him because he may
also find out about what you did and to what he has done to le Grange?
W/O VAN VUUREN: Initially, yes, we were rather cautious around him, but after a while, well, it
happened often that I went with Brigadier Smit, just the two of us, we would drive somewhere and we
talked about police matters. So, I am sure he would not have asked somebody whom he did not like, he did
not trust to accompany him.
ADV MPSHE: No, no, I am not talking of any confidence. I am saying because of what he did to le
Grange, putting them
in jail, you were afraid that if he learns about this incident you may also follow suit. That is why you were
careful with him?
W/O VAN VUUREN: Initially, yes, when Brigadier Smit took that was the position. We were wary of
him, correct.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV MPSHE
JUDGE MALL: As I understand your evidence you opened fire without being instructed by anybody to do
so. That is correct, is it?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE MALL 496 W/O VAN VUUREN
W/O VAN VUUREN: That is correct. Yes, I knew we were there to eliminate that person. Nobody told
me to fire, I decided that by myself.
JUDGE MALL: Any questions, Chris?
ADV DE JAGER: It seems to me as if it was normally the task, also at Vlakplaas Unit, that the task of the
most junior member to actually carry out the deed?
W/O VAN VUUREN: No, that is not correct, Chairperson. At that stage Captain Hechter and I had
worked together for quite a long time and as, between the two of us there was no difference as to who
would do the actual elimination. It was simply the way it happened, but at that stage I did not wait for an
instruction, I knew what we were there to do. I knew what the purpose of our visit there was and I was
simply the person who first got hold of my AK47 and shot him.
MS KHAMPEPE: But then, Sir, are you saying that prior to going there you had not sat down to discuss
the planning of how the operation was going to be executed?
W/O VAN VUUREN: We never planned these operations like the Defence Force planned their
operations. That, for instance, person A would shoot and person B would wait outside and guard and
person C would remain at the vehicle. We were led by circumstances as they happened.
MS KHAMPEPE: What factors did you consider in this case because you did not seem to have conducted
any investigation to find out whether Mr Motasi was staying with anyone at his home?
W/O VAN VUUREN: No, Mamasela had gone to the house and he had determined that Mr Motasi lived
there.
MS KHAMPEPE: Had you also determined on whether Mrs Motasi, PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MS KHAMPEPE 497 W/O VAN VUUREN
on whether there were other people other than Mrs Motasi, had he determined that kind of information?
W/O VAN VUUREN: No, not as far as I can remember.
MS KHAMPEPE: So you actually planned in the dark. You did not know whether, in fact, there could be
other people who were ANC or probably related to the Zimbabwe Security Force who were staying with
Mr Motasi?
W/O VAN VUUREN: Not beforehand, no.
MS KHAMPEPE: If I can proceed then, Warrant Officer van Vuuren. You waited for about ten minutes
before Mr Motasi's arrival?
W/O VAN VUUREN: I think it was about ten minutes, yes.
MS KHAMPEPE: Now, you are a seasoned policeman and your curiosity must have been aroused to find
out more about the place where Mr Motasi was. Did you probably search the house other than switching
on the television set?
W/O VAN VUUREN: No, we did not search the house. We simply waited for him to return.
MS KHAMPEPE: Was your curiosity not aroused, did you not feel, probably, the urge to look around the
house, to search for documentation?
W/O VAN VUUREN: No, we were never instructed to collect documents as proof of his activities. I
never even thought about it. The thought never even occurred to me to look for documents.
MS KHAMPEPE: Not as a seasoned security policeman, I mean it was the nature of your job to find out
such information?
W/O VAN VUUREN: May I say that Captain Hechter and I were not really tasked with the normal,
ordinary functions. We did not collect papers and documents at that stage of our lives.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE WILSON 498 W/O VAN VUUREN
JUDGE WILSON: You said during the course of your evidence that time was of the essence in killing this
man. When you got to the house you said time was of the essence. Did you mean that?
W/O VAN VUUREN: Could you repeat the question please?
JUDGE WILSON: You said during the course of your evidence that time was of the essence when asked
why you went ahead as you did that night.
W/O VAN VUUREN: When you carry out an operation you then try to do it as quickly as possible
without arousing suspicion. That is why we had to act as fast as possible, do the elimination and then go
away.
JUDGE WILSON: This was a policeman, was it not, a Sergeant?
W/O VAN VUUREN: Correct.
JUDGE WILSON: I take it that the police station he was attached to would have had his address.
W/O VAN VUUREN: I assume so, yes.
JUDGE WILSON: And would have had details as to his family?
W/O VAN VUUREN: Yes.
JUDGE WILSON: But you people made no enquiries of any sort?
W/O VAN VUUREN: No, we did not. As I have already said Mamasela was told to go and verify the
address.
JUDGE WILSON: Which he could have done by telephone?
W/O VAN VUUREN: Yes, yes, I cannot deny that.
JUDGE WILSON: Because are you not, we have heard a lot of evidence about how you people went into
houses and you saw some person there you did not know so you killed them, have we not? A man
wrapped up in a blanket runs into a bedroom and gets shot by Colonel Cronje.
W/O VAN VUUREN: Yes, we have heard evidence to that effect.
JUDGE WILSON: So was it not important to find out who was
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE WILSON 499 W/O VAN VUUREN
in the house, how many people were there, whether there were innocent people there or did you intend to
kill everybody you found?
W/O VAN VUUREN: No, that was not our intention. As I said it was our intention to eliminate the
policeman.
JUDGE WILSON: Now you agreed, I think, that Joe Mamasela was extremely important to your unit?
His identity had to be preserved at all costs?
W/O VAN VUUREN: That is correct.
JUDGE WILSON: Why did you not send Danny Hletlhala to knock on the door?
W/O VAN VUUREN: Because he was not Joe Mamasela.
JUDGE WILSON: No, but all Joe Mamasela was doing was knocking on the door and saying is Richard
Motasi in.
W/O VAN VUUREN: Correct.
JUDGE WILSON: And are saying that Danny Hletlhala could not have done that?
W/O VAN VUUREN: Yes, because Slang was not Joe Mamasela. Mamasela was a completely different
type of operator, very different to Danny.
JUDGE WILSON: And what great talent did you need to knock on a door and ask if someone was in?
W/O VAN VUUREN: You do not need any talent to knock on a door, but for the events afterwards, I
suppose, you needed some kind of a talent.
JUDGE WILSON: Oh you wanted to use his talent to kill. Is that what you mean?
W/O VAN VUUREN: Correct.
JUDGE WILSON: So that is why you used Mamasela, because he had a talent to kill.
W/O VAN VUUREN: Correct.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE WILSON 500 W/O VAN VUUREN
JUDGE WILSON: And that is why you sent him to talk to the wife?
W/O VAN VUUREN: Correct.
JUDGE WILSON: Thank you.
JUDGE MALL: Any re-examination?
RE-EXAMINATION BY ADVOCATE DU PLESSIS: Warrant Officer van Vuuren, when Mamasela was
sent to knock on the door did you have any idea what to expect?
W/O VAN VUUREN: The first time or the second time?
ADV DU PLESSIS: The first time.
W/O VAN VUUREN: No, we had no idea.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And would Mamasela have been able to deal with any unexpected movement, be
able to deal with it far better than Danny?
W/O VAN VUUREN: Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And the question was put to you whether you have spoken to the family members.
Are you prepared to do so?
W/O VAN VUUREN: I am prepared to speak to them.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, if you will just bear with me. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV
DU PLESSIS
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I intend to call General Ras and Colonel Loots in this incident. The
evidence will be very short in both instances. I see, however, it is just before four o' clock.
JUDGE MALL: Mr Mpshe, will it inconvenience you and Mr Currin if we adjourn now and resume at
nine o'clock?
ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman, it will not inconvenience me, Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MALL: Mr Currin?
ADV MPSHE: Save that, Mr Chairman, I was going to make an
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 501 ADDRESS
appeal to the honourable Committee members that we round up this matter today, Mr Chairman, if
possible. I am appealing, Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MALL: Alright.
ADV MPSHE: That we have a short adjournment now and then resume and continue with General Ras
and others evidence. I am way, way behind schedule now, with respect.
JUDGE MALL: (Judge Mall discusses with Committee members)
MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Mpshe, would there be any particular reason why you would like us to adjourn
instead of proceeding until four thirty?
ADV MPSHE: Yes, Ma'am, I have to answer nature's call.
MS KHAMPEPE: I cannot argue with that, Mr Mpshe.
MR CURRIN: Mr Chairman, could I also just indicate that Mrs Hlabangane, Irene Motasi's mother is here,
she is sitting behind me. Richard Motasi's son is here, at least Mrs Hlabangane will be testifying. I am not
sure whether there will be time for her to testify today. She sat in this, in these proceedings the entire day, I
know that it has been a very emotional and exhausting experience for her and we would prefer to lead her
evidence tomorrow than at five o'clock this afternoon or quarter to five this afternoon after another two
witnesses. So, I am not sure whether there is a prospect of actually finishing it today.
There is also a police officer here that was subpoenaed by Mr Mpshe who was involved in the
inquiry into this whole incident which has been referred to and he too will be testifying. So it seems as if
there are at least four witnesses. We are quite happy to stay here until six o'clock this evening, I am sure
that is how long it is going to take. I just indicate that it is not just a matter of
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 501 ADDRESS
two witnesses.
JUDGE MALL: Mr Mpshe, the pace at which we have been working, is it a realistic assumption to make
that we will finish this afternoon?
ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman, my assumption is not realistic, Mr Chairman, but at least we shall have
moved a particular distance, Mr Chairman. Even if we do not sit up till all witnesses testify, but at least if
we hear one or two up till half past four, Mr Chairman, we shall have moved a
particular distance. That is my request.
JUDGE MALL: Yes, your request if for a short adjournment first.
ADV MPSHE: Yes, Mr Chairman, for a five minutes adjournment.
ADV DE JAGER: Could I just request in future when you foresee that we will sit late, kindly inform us
beforehand so that we could advise our families and tell them, listen, we will not be there at a certain time,
but make our arrangements too.
ADV MPSHE: That will be done. Thank you and I apologise.
JUDGE MALL: We will take a short adjournment.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 502 COL LOOTS
ON RESUMPTION
ADV MPSHE: Chairman, I leave this in the hands of my learned friend to call the witness, Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MALL: Yes, Mr du Plessis.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. I beg leave to call Colonel Flip Loots.
PHILLIPUS JOHANNES CORNELIUS LOOTS: (sworn states).
EXAMINATION BY ADVOCATE DU PLESSIS: Colonel Loots, you have heard the evidence of
Captain Hechter before this Committee. Is that correct?
COL LOOTS: I was present, Chairperson.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Do you confirm the correctness thereof?
COL LOOTS: I confirm the correctness thereof.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Are there any aspects, Colonel, which you would like to shed more light on before
this Committee especially with regard to the instruction and where it came from?
COL LOOTS: Chairperson, perhaps just to make it clear to this Committee here how I ended up before
Colonel Ras and how he requested me to do this. We were sitting in the old Compol Building as the
Security Branch of the Northern Transvaal and, as you know, the second and third floors we occupied. I
was on the third floor with my unit while the Divisional Commanding Officer was on the second floor and
I had to walk past the office where Captain Hechter and van Vuuren sat. Joe Mamasela occupied the same
office as they did and that is how I ended up asking them to accompany me to the office of the Acting
Divisional Commanding Officer, the now, Colonel Ras. When we got to the office, as it was testified here,
Colonel Ras, who was now General Ras, requested that we should go and see Stemmet who was the
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 503 COL LOOTS
Divisional Commissioner and he informed me that there was an ANC agent who was a policeman from
Hammanskraal who was to be eliminated, that I was to receive details from Brigadier Stemmet.
I stood up at that stage and Colonel Ras, Captain Hechter and Paul van Vuuren remained behind
in the office when I left. So they could have deliberated about the incident further. When I got to the office
of the Divisional Commissioner, please do not ask me which floor he sat on, but it was on the corner of
Bosman Street and Pretorius or Schoeman Street, I am not sure, Pretorius Street. That is where the
Divisional Commissioner's office was situated. I was on my way to his office and close to his office I
encountered then Colonel, Brigadier Koos Klopper, who is now retired. He was either the Regional
Investigating Officer or the Divisional Investigating Officer, I do not know if one of the other officers
could correct me. Be that as it may, when I approached him he started talking about this policeman from
Hammanskraal and I then indicated, before he said much more, I indicated that I was on my way to the
office of the Divisional Commissioner to go and discuss this matter with him.
Colonel Klopper turned back and walked into the office with me, the office of Brigadier Stemmet.
Brigadier Stemmet, at that stage, when we entered he was, he stood up behind his desk. We did not go and
sit either, we stood in front of his desk. Brigadier Stemmet started talking immediately and said, told us
about a policeman in Hammanskraal who was an ANC agent and that this man had to be eliminated and, in
all honesty, I really cannot tell you whether the piece of paper was torn off then already or
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 504 COL LOOTS
whether it had been torn off already, but it was your normal A4 folio books where we made entries. He
gave me approximately a quarter of a page with, containing this man's name and address. I did not read it.
I folded it and kept it in my hand. It was clear to me that Brigadier Stemmet was in a hurry to go
somewhere. At least, it appeared to me to be that way because he did not say much thereafter and I
concluded that he saw this matter as being concluded.
I would also like to add that it was not said to me that it was a conclusion that this person was an
ANC agent. Brigadier Stemmet said to me that this man was an ANC agent and I made the logical
conclusion that he had to have had information that he was an ANC agent. I did not question him about
that, not at all. With this piece of paper, to which I referred earlier on, I returned to my office. I am not
sure at which stage I gave it to Hechter. I could have gone back to my own office, Chairperson. As we all
know those were turbulent times and one had to keep up with the times and I went to Captain Hechter with
this piece of paper and said to him, here are the details of the man about whom we spoke when we were in
Colonel Ras's office, please investigate the address of this man. Mamasela left there and in my application
I also mentioned that I suspected that Danny Hletlhala referred to, could have gone with him, I am not sure
about them.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Very well, Colonel, the rest of the evidence deals with the incidence which you have
just confirmed. I do not want us to waste too much time on that. You referred to an application, is that
your own amnesty application with regard to this incident?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 504 COL LOOTS
COL LOOTS: That is the amnesty application I referred to.
ADV DU PLESSIS: The amnesty application has not yet been submitted, but it has almost been
completed, the compilation thereof. Can you recall whether anything was said to you with regard to
information which this man was to have given to the Zimbabwe Intelligence Service?
COL LOOTS: That is what we discussed in the office of Colonel Ras before I went over to Brigadier
Stemmet where the same information or should I say the same context of the information was discussed.
That was before the piece of paper was handed over to me, either torn out and handed over to me.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Was the information also given to you with regards to contact which this man should
have had with other members of the liberation movements?
COL LOOTS: I would like to say that before I went out Colonel, of Colonel Ras's office I was told that he
was in contact with persons in Johannesburg, that the people in Johannesburg, who these people were in
Johannesburg or what they were all about was not specified.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Are you referring to the discussion with Ras or Stemmet?
COL LOOTS: No, I am referring to the discussion with Colonel Ras.
JUDGE MALL: You say that you were told ...(indistinct).
INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.
JUDGE MALL: Who are you talking about?
COL LOOTS: As I testified, no names were mentioned or even places mentioned in Johannesburg. I did
not stay, I left. ADV DU PLESSIS: Are you referring to this specific policeman?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 505 COL LOOTS
COL LOOTS: Yes.
JUDGE MALL: Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: I am not going to question you about political objectives and testimony about that
because you are going to mention that in your own application.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DU PLESSIS
MR CURRIN: Thank you Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MALL: Yes.
EXAMINATION BY MR CURRIN: Was this not a most unusual instruction for you to go out and to kill
a person in cold blood?
COL LOOTS: Of course it was an unusual instruction.
MR CURRIN: I have not seen your amnesty application, but we know that both Warrant Officer van
Vuuren and Captain Hechter were for a long time involved in violent deeds of this nature and we heard
from Warrant Officer van Vuuren that this was just another killing. Did the same apply to you?
COL LOOTS: Chairperson, I would like to answer the question as follows. I am coming back to this in a
minute. If I could just take a few people back to the 80's and the circumstances under which we worked
and also probably just to say that you know that there was a time when over and above the administration
of the security emergency regulations because I said to you from the Northern Transvaal, the KwaNdebele
regions I had to take over as the Unit Commanding Officer of the black power movements. I had eight
persons under my command and at that time I dealt with the entire black power movement, black
consciousness movement. At the time it was such that our black members did not turn up at the office for
work anymore. They stayed PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 506 COL LOOTS
at home to watch their houses. We armed them with shotguns, automatic weapons, semi-automatic
weapons so that they could protect themselves. The persons who I worked with are the people who turned
up at the office. We were under immense pressure not just from the Commissioner, who I have just
mentioned, but from the riot squad, from the detectives, from the Defence Force wanting to know what do
the Security Force do. We were under immense pressure and it was also extraordinary circumstances apart
from the fact that it was extraordinary conduct.
Someone had asked me earlier if I would have done it or if somebody was to ask me today if I
would do it, I do not think that I would consider it favourably.
MR CURRIN: I do not want to ask you any details about your amnesty application. What I am trying to
establish, what I am trying to establish whether this particular incident is the only incident in which you
were involved in the killing of a person?
COL LOOTS: It is the only incident where I was involved and present where a person was killed,
Chairperson.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I just want to interrupt here. Colonel Loots has compiled amnesty
applications in respect of various matters. The evidence that he has given now is correct, but there will be
other amnesty applications in respect of matters where he was not personally involved, but where he was,
in some way or another, involved and I would beg the Committee not to preempt his evidence pertaining to
such applications, Mr Chairman. I have led him on the facts and if Mr Currin could cross-examine him on
the facts.
JUDGE MALL: Mr Currin appreciates this, I think.
MR CURRIN: Of course.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 506 COL LOOTS
JUDGE MALL: Yes.
MR CURRIN: Absolutely. I am very mindful of it and I am, I think I am walking a very careful path to
only ask relevant questions to this particular matter. What I am getting at, you now get an instruction, first
of all, from ...(tape ends) Stemmet to go and kill one of your colleagues. Most unusual instruction for you,
you have said that. What investigations did you undertake to try and establish whether or not this killing
could be justified?
COL LOOTS: Chairperson, I would just like to repeat what I said earlier in my testimony, what I said a
few minutes ago in my testimony that when I turned up at Brigadier Stemmet's office he said to me the
man is an ANC agent and the only logical conclusion I could come to is that when somebody says
somebody is something, they should obviously have information or someone should have provided them
with information. I, myself, did not attempt to make any investigation into this.
MR CURRIN: So you made no effort to find out who these people were in Johannesburg, you made no
effort to find out precisely what sort of activities he was involved in, where the source of information came
from? You just took it on face value?
COL LOOTS: That is correct. I would, once again, like to say it was done by my Divisional Commanding
Officer under the instruction of, an investigating officer, under the command of the Divisional
Commissioner.
MR CURRIN: I see. Did you, by any chance, suggest to either Ras or Stemmet that the man should be
charged and prosecuted for his committing high treason?
COL LOOTS: No.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 507 COL LOOTS
MR CURRIN: Not. Why did you not suggest it?
COL LOOTS: I believed that they had good reason to say that this man should be eliminated, Chairperson.
JUDGE WILSON: The mere fact that he was an ANC agent, did you think that entitled them to eliminate
him?
COL LOOTS: Yes, Chairperson, because at the time I believed and I still believe today that a country can
survive many things, but not a traitor.
MR CURRIN: And on hearsay you will kill a so-called traitor?
COL LOOTS: If it comes from a Unit Detective Officer and a Commissioner and so forth, yes.
MR CURRIN: Have you had any discussions with Brigadier Stemmet in regard to his instructions to you?
COL LOOTS: I telephoned him from the office of Mr Britz, the attorney present here, to try and convince
him that we should get together and talk about this matter, Chairperson. I managed to get hold of him on
his cellphone and he indicated to me, through our cellphone communication, that he has nothing else to say
except what he has always told us, is that we should use all means available as long as we operate within
the framework of the law. He indicated to me that the week thereafter or so he was going to go to Cape
Town, but it was very clear from the discussion on the cellphone that he was not prepared to enter into a
discussion with me. Is that enough?
MR CURRIN: That is sufficient. You have heard the evidence in regard to what happened when you
arrived at the house?
COL LOOTS: Yes, Chairperson.
MR CURRIN: And you were also aware of the fact that Mrs Motasi had seen Mamasela?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 508 COL LOOTS
COL LOOTS: Yes, Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CURRIN
JUDGE MALL: Mr Mpshe?
EXAMINATION BY ADVOCATE MPSHE: Thanks Chairman. Colonel, this Colonel Klopper, is it
Kobus Klopper?
COL LOOTS: I do not know if it is Kobus Klopper. It is a, I see General Ras is nodding that it was Kobus
Klopper. It could have been Kobus Klopper. I knew him as Koos Klopper, Chairperson.
ADV MPSHE: Okay. Could you provide the address of Brigadier Stemmet?
COL LOOTS: No, I cannot provide his address, but in my briefcase I do have a cellphone number of his
and I think I also have another telephone number. Unfortunately, I do not have his address, but I am quite
prepared to provide these two numbers.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV MPSHE
JUDGE MALL: Is that all Mr Mpshe?
ADV MPSHE: That is all Mr Chairman, thank you.
ADV DE JAGER: Were you aware that evening that Mrs Motasi was also shot dead?
COL LOOTS: I was aware of that. All of us heard the shot, Mr Chairperson.
ADV DE JAGER: Who reported back that this instruction had been executed?
COL LOOTS: I, myself, reported back, Chairperson.
ADV DE JAGER: To whom did you report?
COL LOOTS: To Colonel Ras. I could answer the Committee in this fashion. Early the morning I went
into the office specifically to go and report to Colonel Ras that this
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DE JAGER 509 COL LOOTS
action had been executed and it had been finalised. Before I could get to Colonel Ras, I am referring to the
following morning, my telephone rang and Colonel Ras asked me to come to him and at that stage it was
very early, I cannot say what time it was, it was very early, Colonel Kobus Klopper, as Mr Mpshe referred
to him, at that part of the morning was already in Colonel Ras' office and before I could speak to Colonel
Ras, Colonel Koos Klopper asked me how far is the matter with regard to the Hammanskraal policeman
and what you are asking me now, Mr Chairperson, illustrates to me the urgency with which they regarded
this and in the presence of Colonel Klopper I said to Colonel Ras the action has been executed, but
Mamasela also shot the wife. Not one of them said anything. I asked to be excused because there was
nothing more I could say to them, it was a busy day for me, a busy day lay ahead for me. I left the office of
Colonel Ras and I was not far from the office when I heard them talking and Colonel Klopper also left
immediately, Chairperson. That is how the report back went.
JUDGE MALL: Any re-examination?
MS KHAMPEPE: I just want to pose one question, Captain. When you were with Brigadier Stemmet did
he indicate when he expected the operation to be executed?
COL LOOTS: No, nobody told me, not my Unit Commander, not the District Investigation Officer, not
the Commissioner. None of them indicated when this operation had to be executed.
MS KHAMPEPE: Thank you.
JUDGE MALL: Any re-examination?
RE-EXAMINATION BY ADVOCATE DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Was there any reason
for you to question the
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 510 COL LOOTS
instruction of Brigadier Stemmet?
COL LOOTS: No, at that time, as I testified, I was a Captain, he was a very senior Brigadier and also the
Divisional Commander.
ADV DU PLESSIS: So would it have been normal procedure to question it?
COL LOOTS: No, not at all. A Captain does not question a Divisional Commissioner.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DU PLESSIS
JUDGE WILSON: Even when told to commit murder. Is that your answer?
COL LOOTS: In this extraordinary case, as I say it was in an unusual incident in an unusual circumstance
where someone was labelled an ANC agent or a traitor, yes.
JUDGE MALL: Nothing else Andrew?
JUDGE WILSON: No.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Sorry, can I just clear this up with you. From whom exactly did you get instructions
to go and eliminate this person? Was it from Colonel Ras or from Stemmet or was it from both?
COL LOOTS: He asked me to go to Brigadier, to his office and Brigadier Stemmet informed me about the
elimination and the matter that we are now discussing.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Did Colonel Ras simply say to you go and see Colonel Stemmet, he has got something
to tell you or did he, in fact, elaborate as to why you had to go and see Colonel Stemmet?
COL LOOTS: That the man should be eliminated, that he was an agent who was conveying information to
Zimbabwe.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Now, at that stage did you understand what,
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE MGOEPE 510 COL LOOTS
was it Brigadier, what Colonel Ras, did you regard it already as instructions or were you still expecting to
get instructions from Colonel Stemmet?
COL LOOTS: I would say that I regarded it to be an instruction because it was my Divisional Unit
Commander and he was sending me to take instruction from somebody else. He was instructing me to go
and see Brigadier Stemmet.
JUDGE MGOEPE: So as far as you are concerned you got instructions from two people?
COL LOOTS: Yes, Chairperson.
MS KHAMPEPE: Captain, would I be correct, therefore, to say that you got detailed instructions from
Brigadier Stemmet who was able to even give you details with regard to the address of Mr Motasi?
COL LOOTS: You are right, Chairperson.
JUDGE WILSON: Did he give you detailed instructions, I thought they were very brief?
COL LOOTS: As far as the name of the man and the address are concerned I thought those were
comprehensive instructions and that he was an ANC agent and that he was leaking information to
Zimbabwe. As far as I am concerned each person could differ in their opinion, but to me that was
comprehensive information.
JUDGE WILSON: Was that from Brigadier Stemmet?
COL LOOTS: That is correct, Chairperson.
JUDGE MALL: Anything else Andrew?
JUDGE WILSON: No.
JUDGE MALL: Yes, you are excused, thank you.
COL LOOTS: Thank you Chairperson.
WITNESS EXCUSED
ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman,
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 511 ADDRESS
General Ras is present here. However, the evidence that General Ras can give accords with the evidence
that Colonel Flip Loots has given now and will simply be the same evidence. I do not want to belabour the
Committee with hundreds of witnesses upon witnesses upon witnesses. I want to place on record that
General Ras is applying for amnesty and that in his amnesty application he will apply for this specific deed
and that he will, when he gives evidence, confirm the evidence that has been given now. I do not want to
call an unnecessary witness who will just confirm what has been placed in evidence before this Committee
now unless the Committee orders me to lead his evidence on the same issues.
ADV DE JAGER: Mr du Plessis, if he does not confirm it, it is not evidence.
ADV DU PLESSIS: I accept that it is not evidence before you, but the testimony which he can place
before the Committee is not really going to elaborate on the, on what we heard.
ADV DE JAGER: But if he can confirm it, let him confirm it.
ADV DU PLESSIS: As the Committee pleases. I will call him as a witness, Mr Chairman.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 512 GEN RAS
MARTHINUS DAWID RAS: (sworn states)
EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: May it please you. General Ras, you have heard the testimony
of Colonel Loots and also the testimony of Captain Hechter with regards to the instruction which was
issued by you to them. Do you confirm the correctness thereof?
GEN RAS: Yes, that is correct, Mr Chairperson.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Very well. Is there anything which you feel you would like to add with regard to this
testimony?
GEN RAS: Yes, there is. While Brigadier Jack Cronje was off sick in the last half of 1987 I was the
Acting Commanding Officer of the unit and it was my duty to have a crime conference every morning at
the Divisional Commissioner's office. At one of these crime conferences which I attended Colonel Kobus
Klopper, who was the Commanding Officer of the Investigative Unit in the Northern Transvaal, mentioned
to me that a policeman from Hammanskraal was an ANC agent and was active. According to Klopper he
was feeding sensitive information to the Zimbabwean Security Forces and this information led to the fact
that reporters and informants were exposed in Zimbabwe.
The discussion or the information which came from Koos Klopper ended there, but after the
meeting Brigadier Stemmet said to me that we, the Security Branch, were too soft on the enemy. He said
that we should put Hechter or van Vuuren on this job and also asked that I send Captain Loots to him. He
also said that such agents should be eliminated. The policemen he was referring to I did not know at all. I
never spoke to him or his Commanding Officers. Upon my return to the old Compol Building, where our
offices were situated, Captain Loots, who occupied the third floor of
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 513 GEN RAS
that building, I telephoned and asked him to come and see me and bring Hechter and van Vuuren with him
to my office.
They entered my office and while all three of them were present I said that Koos Klopper and
Brigadier Stemmet had information about an ANC agent that he wanted me to put Hechter and van Vuuren
on the job and that I should send Loots to him and Loots left for Brigadier Stemmet's office immediately. I
said to both Hechter and van Vuuren that things are getting bad because it seems as if it is an open secret
that they are being used for covert operations which entail violence. The discussion between Hechter, van
Vuuren and I did not last any longer than five minutes. They then left to their offices and I did not see
either of them or Loots that day, but the following morning, as usual, I got to the office between six and
quarter past six because I had to peruse information which had to come, which had come through and had
to be submitted to the crime conference and Colonel Koos Klopper also came to my office and from there
on it is exactly as Loots testified.
ADV DU PLESSIS: General, were you reported back to?
GEN RAS: Colonel Flip Loots came to me that morning while Colonel Koos Klopper was with me in my
office and Klopper asked him how far the investigation was, how far the matter had been taken and he said
the instruction has been executed, but the man's wife has also been slain.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DU PLESSIS
JUDGE MALL: Mr Currin.
MR CURRIN: Thank you Mr Chairman. Do you know Colonel W P van Zyl who was at the SAP
Training College in Hammanskraal?
GEN RAS: I never met him, I do not know him at all.
MR CURRIN: Do you know Lieutenant-General Stevens from the
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 513 GEN RAS
Commissioner's office?
GEN RAS: B?
MR CURRIN: Pardon. J B, J B Stevens?
GEN RAS: No, I know the old General Stevens who was in charge of training, but I do not know this
gentleman.
MR CURRIN: I just put the question to you because at the time shortly before the killing of Sergeant
Motasi, there will be evidence that Sergeant Motasi's attorneys were in the process of negotiating and
holding constant discussions with the Office of the Commission of Police regarding his situation.
GEN RAS: It could have been General Stevens.
MR CURRIN: Okay, and you have no knowledge of that?
GEN RAS: No, not at all.
MR CURRIN: So, the first you heard about this particular incident was from Colonel Kobus Klopper?
GEN RAS: Yes, at the time where we were having a crime conference at the Commissioner's office.
MR CURRIN: And he was part of what division of the police?
GEN RAS: He was in charge of the entire Investigative Unit in the Northern Transvaal.
MR CURRIN: And where was he stationed?
GEN RAS: It was the central police complex in Pretoria on the corner of Bosman and Pretorius Streets.
MR CURRIN: That is not Wagthuis?
GEN RAS: No.
MR CURRIN: Not Wagthuis. Compol?
GEN RAS: No, the central police office. I think it is opposite the so-called HSRC.
MR CURRIN: Yes, I know where that is, and he was situated there at the time?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 514 GEN RAS
GEN RAS: That is correct.
MR CURRIN: So, you heard it from him and then subsequently you got the instruction from Brigadier
Stemmet?
GEN RAS: Yes, I saw that it was actually a double instruction. Firstly that I should assign Hechter and
van Vuuren with the task and secondly that I should send Loots to him.
MR CURRIN: Now, General Ras, at the time you were a relatively senior police officer?
GEN RAS: I cannot remember if I was a Lieutenant-Colonel or a full Colonel, but I was second-in-
command then.
MR CURRIN: Yes. I find it strange that you never contemplated other options in regard to Sergeant
Motasi?
GEN RAS: I did not know this Sergeant Motasi. His name was never mentioned to me. I only came to
hear afterwards that he was Sergeant Motasi.
MR CURRIN: So you did not ask who is this person that you want eliminated?
GEN RAS: The details were not readily available at the conference and I believe that is why it was asked
that Loots should go and see him and that is where he obtained the information, but it was not given to me
then.
MR CURRIN: What I find strange, though, is that a senior police officer, like you, would get information
about one of your colleagues, who is a policeman, it is hearsay, it has not been confirmed by anyone, it has
not been proved and you are quite happy to give an instruction to have him murdered
without considering other options, for example, the man could be brought in for questioning, charges could
be laid against him, he could be arrested, prosecuted. He is committing a very serious offence. Now, as a
senior police PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 515 GEN RAS
officer, I cannot understand why you did not consider those options.
GEN RAS: Let me explain it like this, Mr Chairperson. At the crime conferences many branches of the
police had sittings and also the information service of the Defence Force and also National Intelligence and
snippets of information would come to the Security Branch from time to time for investigation and that is
where we obtained pieces of information and we would give them to the Security Branch for further
attention. I was in charge of the administration in the office and I never did those investigations. They
were given to units to conduct.
ADV DE JAGER: The crime conference to which you refer is it the Sanhedrin to which you refer?
GEN RAS: No, every morning at quarter past seven we would have a meeting at the Divisional
Commissioners office where the previous days serious crimes, political unrest and also matters regarding
the Security Branch would be discussed. I believe that after that conference the Divisional Commissioner
attended the Sanhedrin. I am not sure how those things worked because we would discuss the information
at the crime conference and strategies would also be discussed as to how crime could be curtailed and how
unrest could be curtailed.
MR CURRIN: General Ras, what I am finding difficult to comprehend, we have heard and, in your own
mind, we know you seem to believe that Hechter and van Vuuren were killers in the sense that they had
this job to do and they went out and they committed murders. We have heard that. From what I
understand listening to you, you were not a killer?
GEN RAS: I was not involved in any incident.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 516 GEN RAS
MR CURRIN: Now, here we have a policeman, a senior police officer who is not a killer, who has not
been involved in running around assassinating people, eliminating people, but yet you get this information,
which is purely hearsay, and you are quite happy to give an instruction without any investigation
whatsoever to have one of your own colleagues eliminated. I find that difficult to understand.
GEN RAS: Mr Chairperson, once again, those were abnormal circumstances, it was abnormal information
which surfaced and amidst all the abnormality I believe that the actions were normal. If it was an agent and
I did not do the investigation, I was in no condition to do the investigation, I had my own work and
Brigadier Cronje's work to do, I had to attend meetings and there was no time for me to conduct such
investigations.
MR CURRIN: Is the tenure of your evidence that even although your whole training as a police officer,
which must have been extensive given your rank then and given your rank now, was that police are given
information, they follow it up, they investigate, people are then charged, they are taken to court and they
are prosecuted.
GEN RAS: It is normal procedure.
MR CURRIN: I understand that, but that is, was your involvement as a policeman, as I understand it. That
if in any situation at that stage, not even, forget, let us forget for a moment about Sergeant Motasi, but did
you, if you had been given that sort of information about anybody else, you would have been quite happy
to say, that is fine, eliminate.
GEN RAS: I would, but I, myself, believe that I would have made sure that it was an enemy to the State
and I would also have executed it.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 517 GEN RAS
MR CURRIN: But you were a police officer, not a Judge and not an executioner?
GEN RAS: That is correct, but we were not living under normal circumstances, Mr Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CURRIN
JUDGE MALL: Andrew?
JUDGE WILSON: But you were a Colonel or Lieutenant-Colonel, it does not really matter at the time, in
charge of administration, you then get asked on a flimsy bit of information that is, you hear at a meeting, at
a conference to provide a hit squad to kill a man, no written instructions, no other information. How is it
that a policeman of your standing could act in this way, Colonel?
GEN RAS: Mr Chairperson, as I said, such snippets of information often came to the Security Branch and
I saw this in the same light. I did say to Hechter and van Vuuren that the Divisional Commissioner wants
this man eliminated, he wants you to do the job.
JUDGE WILSON: You said snippets of information came and they were passed on for investigation.
Here you did no investigation, you got this snippet of information, somebody says I want those people
taken out and you do it with no instructions in writing, none of the normal procedures. How can you do it?
GEN RAS: After it was given to them I never saw them again, Mr Chairperson. It was not discussed any
further. I believe that my action was also part of what they are now responsible for and what I am morally
obligated to take responsibility for.
JUDGE WILSON: Well, you gave the instructions to kill, we have been told. They say they got
instructions from two PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE WILSON 517 GEN RAS
sources. So you are responsible for the death of this man and his wife.
GEN RAS: That is so, Chairperson, I am responsible because I said to them that there is a request from the
Divisional Commissioner that this man be killed and that they should do the job.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Did you, in fact, discuss this with Brigadier Stemmet?
GEN RAS: No, I did not.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Well, was it not ...(intervention)
GEN RAS: I only heard about this in November. I did not even know that I was involved.
JUDGE MGOEPE: No, I am sorry. You misunderstood. I mean at the time.
GEN RAS: No, no, after the meeting on the way out from the office.
JUDGE MGOEPE: What about that?
GEN RAS: When Brigadier Stemmet mentioned to me that I should send Loots to him and that I should
put Hechter and van Vuuren on the job the meeting was already drawing to a close and there was no longer
a discussion, it was whilst we were walking to the passage that it was mentioned to me.
JUDGE MGOEPE: And you in the absence of Brigadier Cronje, were you the Head of the Security
Section, Security Branch?
GEN RAS: Yes, I was the Commanding Officer of the Security
Branch, Northern Transvaal ... command, acting.
JUDGE MGOEPE: And Colonel Klopper was the Head of the CID.
GEN RAS: Correct.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Now, this information on which to go and act against the deceased comes from, not
the Security Branch, but somebody who is, in fact, not in the Security Branch, PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE MGOEPE 518 GEN RAS
but who is the Head of the CID.
GEN RAS: Correct, yes.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Did that not suggest to you that the Security Branch, themselves, should at least do
something and not just act on the strength of information coming from another section?
GEN RAS: Chairperson, now, with hindsight, that would have been the desirable option, but at the time
that is not the way it happened.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Well, given the nature and gravity of the implications of the instructions, well,
shouldn't you have?
GEN RAS: Chairperson, I have said that I should have done so, but there was not even an opportunity for
me to do any investigation.
JUDGE MGOEPE: As far as Security Branch Section is concerned, you had had no problems whatsoever
from this person?
GEN RAS: I had never heard about him before, of the deceased.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Is it not reasonable to expect that if he was a security risk or he was of interest to the
security, is it not reasonable to expect that, given your position where you were, either you or Brigadier
Cronje would have known about him?
GEN RAS: If he was such a big security risk and the
security police knew about him, I would have known about it too, but there were so many other security
services which also had contact with the Divisional Commissioner and Divisional Detective Branch that I
really could not tell you.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Did you have a file on him? I am referring PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE MGOEPE 519 GEN RAS
to the security branch.
GEN RAS: A file on whom?
JUDGE MGOEPE: On the deceased.
GEN RAS: Not as far as I know.
JUDGE WILSON: Did you think of asking his Commanding Officer, of communicating with him?
GEN RAS: No, never thought of that.
JUDGE MGOEPE: The instructions, were they given on the one day and he was eliminated or you got a
report the very following day that he had already been killed?
GEN RAS: Correct.
JUDGE MALL: So that night he was killed.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Did you, when you gave instructions to Hechter and his colleagues, did you indicate to
them that the matter was urgent?
GEN RAS: No, no, I did not tell them that. I did not tell them it was that urgent or serious. I simply said
that the Divisional Commissioner said that he was an ANC agent and that he had to be eliminated. There
was no time frame laid down and I did not say how serious it was.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Did you think the matter was urgent?
GEN RAS: In my own mind, no.
JUDGE MGOEPE: So, why did you not say, well, let us look into it first?
GEN RAS: After Loots had been to the Commissioner I, since then, I have never seen him.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Yes, but you ...
GEN RAS: There was no time to have a joint conversation because I never saw the people again.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Why could there not have been time to discuss it if the matter was not urgent in your
view?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE MGOEPE 520 GEN RAS
GEN RAS: Chairperson, I believe that if one could have foreseen events as we can now, as we now know
how they unfolded, we would have made time.
JUDGE MGOEPE: You did not feel the need to investigate, did you?
GEN RAS: I did not have the opportunity, Chairperson. I was doing the work of two people at the time.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Now, why do you say you did not have the opportunity to investigate?
GEN RAS: I was the officer dealing with staff matters when Brigadier Cronje left, I also took over his
activities.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Did you want to investigate it?
GEN RAS: No.
JUDGE MGOEPE: So, it is not a question of not having had the opportunity to investigate, it is simply
because you saw no need to investigate the truth of the allegations?
GEN RAS: No, because if I had to investigate all these snippets of information it would have occupied all
my time and I would never have been able to do my actual job.
JUDGE MGOEPE: I would have thought this was important because it was a question of, literally, life and
death with regard to a particular person.
GEN RAS: That is the way I understand it now.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Well, you may have seen it differently then. It was so even at that time that this was a
question of, literally, life and death. Your investigations might have thrown a different light altogether.
GEN RAS: It is possible. If I was the Investigating Officer or if I had the opportunity to do the
investigation, but I do not think there was the opportunity for me to do so.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE WILSON 520 GEN RAS
JUDGE WILSON: But the opportunity was only too easy. You simply did not give instructions to
Hechter and van Vuuren till you had done it. You had no trouble giving them instructions immediately, did
you?
GEN RAS: Chairperson, yes, that is so, but, once again, I received the instruction send this person and
give the job to these two people. I received instructions from a senior officer. I told them, called the two
people and told them what the story was. That is how it happened.
MS KHAMPEPE: In fact, Sir, you were not particularly eager to investigate the matter at all nor to find
out more about the details connecting Mr Motasi to the treacherous act which you were advised of by Mr
Klopper. When Mr Klopper approached you, you did not ask for more information, did you?
GEN RAS: Was that on the first or the second occasion or when he came to see me in my office?
MS KHAMPEPE: On the first occasion when you met at the crime prevention conference.
GEN RAS: No, it was not discussed any further at that stage because other, there were other people
present who did not need the information.
MS KHAMPEPE: But if you had wanted more information you could have been able to get in touch with
him to discuss the matter further?
GEN RAS: I believe I could, yes.
MS KHAMPEPE: And you were never given any timeframe within which to execute the operation, were
you, Sir?
GEN RAS: No.
MS KHAMPEPE: So when you say there was no time to conduct investigation to establish more details
about Mr Motasi,
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MS KHAMPEPE 521 GEN RAS
that is not, in fact, true. You could have made that kind of investigation to be conducted if you were eager
to have it conducted?
GEN RAS: That morning I spoke to Loots, van Vuuren and Hechter and I never saw them again until the
next morning. Then the murder had already been committed and at that stage it was too late to do any
further investigation to find out whether it would be justifiable or not.
ADV DE JAGER: General, did your unit in the police force at that stage, did you ever check the
investigations done by any other unit of the police force?
GEN RAS: No, that was not the case.
ADV DE JAGER: Well, how did it work at the time?
GEN RAS: At the crime conferences there were various branches, riot squad, uniformed branch, detective
branch and when information was given to the detectives or were meant for the detectives, perhaps,
sometimes it was transferred to them. Information was passed on that so and so was busy stealing cars or
so and so was busy with ANC activities and then channelled to the correct people.
ADV DE JAGER: You said that it was transferred and channelled to the relevant branch for further
investigation. Now, what would the Regional Commissioner, Divisional Commissioner, what did he tell
you? Did he tell you to investigate the matter or not?
GEN RAS: No, the only thing that he did say was that we were too soft on the enemy and that here was
this ANC agent, he had to be eliminated, put Hechter and van Vuuren on the job.
MS KHAMPEPE: Colonel Ras was it in fact precisely that statement that might have pushed you to act
the way in which PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MS KHAMPEPE 522 GEN RAS
you did by not causing any investigation to be conducted because you would be considered too soft?
GEN RAS: That is possible, Chairperson.
JUDGE MALL: On serious matters, serious matters such as life and death ...
INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.
JUDGE MALL: On serious matters such as life and death, decision to eliminate people is taken as lightly
as you indicate. Is that so?
GEN RAS: It is shocking, Chairperson.
JUDGE MALL: And when it is reported that instead of just one person, two persons were killed, nobody
bats an eye, everybody takes it for granted.
GEN RAS: Correct, yes, but, once again, if the matter had been further investigated and been made public
then the activities of the people involved and the police force, in general, would have been discredited and
that would have been to the prejudice of the State, the State for whom we worked.
JUDGE WILSON: Did you make any enquiries as to how the wife came to be killed?
GEN RAS: No, I did not.
JUDGE WILSON: These were people under your command acting on your orders. They had committed a
killing that you had not ordered and you made no enquiries. That has got nothing to do with the interests of
the State. It is to cover up for yourself, is it not?
GEN RAS: That is true.
JUDGE MALL: Any re-examination.
RE-EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, thank you, Mr Chairman. General, when Brigadier
Stemmet at the crime
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 523 GEN RAS
prevention conference told you that action had to be taken against this ANC agent did you assume that
Brigadier Stemmet's information which he had about this person and his ANC connections, did you accept
that it was correct?
GEN RAS: Yes, Brigadier Stemmet was a very serious person and at that stage he was entirely serious.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Was there any reason for you to doubt his instructions?
GEN RAS: No, there was no such reason.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Did you also accept that some other investigation by another department of the police
had, perhaps, already been done?
GEN RAS: Not only by the police, but there were also other intelligence units with which he had regular
contact.
ADV DU PLESSIS: So, would he perhaps have been able to obtain the information from these agencies?
GEN RAS: That is possible.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Could you be more specific?
GEN RAS: Military Intelligence, National Intelligence or the Intelligence Unit of the police itself which
did not form part of our unit.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Would it have been normal practice for you to launch your own investigation after
receiving such an instruction?
GEN RAS: No, it would not have been normal in all cases.
JUDGE WILSON: Can you talk about normal practice when we are talking about policeman murdering
people?
GEN RAS: Actually, no, Chairperson.
ADV DU PLESSIS: The evidence which you offered relating to the abnormal circumstances reigning at
the time, now what exactly do you mean by that, what abnormal circumstances PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 524 GEN RAS
were these?
GEN RAS: We were a limited number of people dealing with a lot of different matters. Black power
matters were dealt with by Loots, trade union matters, I think that was Hendrik Britz who dealt with those,
terrorist investigations by Hendrik Prinsloo. Then the white affairs investigated by yet another person. So
there was a small complement of staff and we were absolutely inundated by work. Our black staff
members found that their homes were attacked so they often had to stand guard at their homes so there
were not often, they did not often report for duty. So the couple of white people present at the office had to
do their own jobs as well so that most of them also had to work in Mamelodi and Attridgeville, etc, and
almost never went home to their own homes. What was further abnormal, Brigadier Jack Cronje was
absent as a result of ill health. So I had to take over his responsibilities as well and there was nobody to
appoint in my place.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Now, Brigadier, and the situation in the country at the time, what was that like?
GEN RAS: There was total unrest.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Were there many instances of violence?
GEN RAS: Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Can you remember any instances of necklace
murders?
GEN RAS: Yes, I cannot remember the specific incidents because it all happened quite a long time ago.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Can you remember incidents of violence perpetrated by the liberation movements
against the police?
GEN RAS: Yes, very few of our police vehicles had not been damaged in some way as a result of stone
throwing.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 524 GEN RAS
ADV DU PLESSIS: Is that an abnormal situation?
GEN RAS: It was an abnormal situation.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Would you have been able to receive instructions from Stemmet?
GEN RAS: He was in charge overall of Northern Transvaal police. Apart from the head office
component, Northern Transvaal also dealt with Britz and Bronkhorstspruit areas and all policemen attached
to the police stations and their respective branches fell under his command.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Why did Loots have to go and see Brigadier Stemmet?
GEN RAS: I am convinced that it was to obtain this information as a result of which Motasi was killed.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Was it to give an instruction to Flip Loots?
GEN RAS: That is what I believe.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Would that have been the final instruction relating to this operation?
GEN RAS: That is exactly so.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And what did you think at the time? Did you think action was being taken against an
enemy of the State?
GEN RAS: When ANC agent was mentioned I always regarded it as an enemy of the State.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DU PLESSIS
JUDGE WILSON: There had been an enormous decrease in violent crimes in 1987, had there not?
GEN RAS: I did not ever see the relevant statistics.
JUDGE WILSON: Well, we have been told that there were 306 necklacings in 1986 and 16 in 1987.
Would you agree with that?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 525 GEN RAS
GEN RAS: Yes, I would agree, but 16 is also still 16 too many.
JUDGE WILSON: But, I am disputing that there was this enormous pressure that you could not even
make enquiries into anything?
GEN RAS: Circumstances now are very different. At the time things were very, very different and quite
rough.
JUDGE WILSON: Thank you.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Colonel, I know we have not yet dealt with your personal application for amnesty, but,
in all fairness, I should perhaps ask you the instruction to Loots and others, this instruction given to them
on the strength of what Captain Klopper had told you, just a moment please, or did you give them
instructions based on the strength of what you had seen as an instruction from General Stemmet?
GEN RAS: Chairperson, the order which I gave to them was as a direct result of the order by Brigadier
Stemmet and the information from Colonel Klopper.
JUDGE MGOEPE: But if General Stemmet had not given you this instruction, as you had told us, would
you have given this instruction to Loots and Captain Hechter?
GEN RAS: I had known Brigadier Stemmet for a long time and although he was a very serious man, he
was also able to be quite humorous and he often said that the Security Police were too soft on the enemy
because he would often say to me what handkerchief are you carrying today. I often wore these khaki
handkerchiefs or carried it in my pocket. I was very, very conservative in that way. He sometimes also
said, look, if you cannot cope with the work, then tell me and I will give it to the uniformed branch. I saw
this as a sort of a mockery, as a way of teasing me.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE MGOEPE 526 GEN RAS
JUDGE MGOEPE: Yes, but the General had given you an instruction?
GEN RAS: Yes, he gave me the instruction put these two people on the job and send Loots to me.
JUDGE MGOEPE: That is what I mean. Thank you.
JUDGE MALL: Yes, thank you very much.
WITNESS EXCUSED
JUDGE MALL: Next witness?
MR CURRIN: Mr Chairman, I indicated earlier that we would want to call the grandmother or the mother
of Irene Motasi. As I have indicated she has been sitting here all day today and it has been a very, I know,
a traumatic experience for her and we would rather call her tomorrow morning than call her now, but if you
indicate that we must call her now, then we would want to just talk to her for five minutes and then we will
put her in the witness box, but we would rather she testifies tomorrow.
JUDGE MALL: Well, the Committee will adjourn now and resume at nine o' clock tomorrow morning.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION COMMISSION
AMNESTY HEARING
DATE: 5 MARCH 1997 NAME: JABULANI F. SIBULELA
HELD AT: PRETORIA MRS HLABANGANE
JACQUES HECHTER
DAY 7
JUDGE MALL: Mr Mpshe, are we ready to proceed?
ADV MPSHE: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman we are ready to. We continue with the Richard
Motasi matter. We are in the hands of Mr Brian Currin.
JUDGE MALL: You are going to lead the evidence of certain witnesses this morning, Mr Currin?
MR CURRIN: That is correct. Mr Chairman, we would like to call as a witness Colonel Sibulela, he is
sitting here.
I would like him to testify, thank you.
JUDGE MALL: Are you prepared to take the oath, please stand.
JABULANI FRANK SIBULELA: (sworn states)
JUDGE MALL: Thank you. Mr Currin?
EXAMINATION BY MR CURRIN: It is my microphone that seems to be making the noise.
Thank you. Colonel Sibulela, will you be testifying in English?
COL SIBULELA: Yes, Sir.
MR CURRIN: When did you join the Police Force, Colonel?
COL SIBULELA: That was in 1968.
MR CURRIN: 1968. Did you know Richard Motasi?
COL SIBULELA: Yes, I knew Richard Motasi, he was in fact my student, I trained him at Hammanskraal
College in 1973, he was in my platoon.
MR CURRIN: Would you please tell the Committee about your interaction with Richard Motasi,
dealing with what
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 527 COL SIBULELA
happened after an assault on him by Colonel Van Zyl, insofar as you were involved in that particular
matter.
COL SIBULELA: It was during 1984, at that time I was a lieutenant. There was a lot of uprisings and there
was arrangements for duties. Unfortunately I was not at the College at that time, I was out also on duty and
then there had been a problem with Sergeant Motasi with one of the senior officers at the College, namely
Colonel Van Zyl who even assaulted Richard Motasi. And then a case of assault was opened against the
Colonel and then in turn the Colonel opened a departmental case against Sergeant Motasi for having
threatened a senior, a superior with violence.
Then I was deputised to trial Richard Motasi at the departmental trial. It was a very difficult
situation. I remember I was even interdicted to from trying him because Sergeant Motasi said I was part of
the officers at the College and I was not going to give him a fair trial. Then I was removed from trying
him. Then after the assault case, Sergeant Motasi instituted a civil case against Colonel Van Zyl and then
the relationship between him and the entire College staff, especially the White employees, were so bad that
he was even removed from the College. In fact he was supposed to have, he was transferred to
somewhere in Soweto and then he refused to go to Soweto because he had a house in Temba and then he
was removed from the College and transferred to Hammanskraal police station, which was very close, in
fact it is in the same premises as the College.
And then he used to come to the College to make some
photocopies and then he was eventually banned from coming to
the College. And we were warned in a meeting that we must see to it that Motasi does not enter the police
college.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 528 COL SIBULELA
MR CURRIN: How would you describe the relationship between Richard Motasi and the upper echelons
of the police in Hammanskraal, both at the police station and the training college?
COL SIBULELA: It was very strained.
MR CURRIN: Very strained.
COL SIBULELA: In fact it was a sort of a fight because the man was sick and then when he booked sick,
they would either call him to come and work or send him to special duties while he was so sick. And the
relationship was very strained.
MR CURRIN: Yes. Now we heard that, we know that Sergeant Motasi instituted grievance procedures in
relation to the assault and also instituted a civil claim against Colonel Van Zyl. As a result of that he was
treated in a particular way by these senior officers. In your own view, what - do you think he was treated
fairly given the circumstances and the events which gave rise to his suspension? Do you think that the way
in which he was being treated, was fair?
COL SIBULELA: No, I don't think he was treated fairly because in the first place this thing it started by
him being unfairly treated by a very senior person. Now in that process, while he was sick, I still
remember his transfer, when he was given his letter of transfer, he was laying in bed in a Garankua
hospital. Then an officer was sent to go and serve him the transfer. I mean you don't treat a person like
that, normally you wait for the person to recuperate and then from there. Now to show that there was a
fight, the person is laying in hospital in pain, there a person is sent to go and serve you with a transfer letter.
MR CURRIN: How well did you know Sergeant Motasi as a
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 529 COL SIBULELA
person?
COL SIBULELA: As I said I knew this boy very well. As I said I trained him in 1973, he passed out, he
went to work somewhere in Joburg and then he later came back and stationed at the College and then we
were staying together in the then Black residence. In fact he was my neighbour and to me he was sort
of my son, because I trained him. I used to communicate with him and everything.
MR CURRIN: Before this assault how would you have rated him as a policeman?
COL SIBULELA: He was a very good young man, clean and tidy doing his job. The whole problem
started immediately after this thing. All along there was nothing wrong with him, he was working right.
In fact he was promoted to the rank of a sergeant, on merit, he didn't write examination to show
that he was a good policeman.
MR CURRIN: There was a question in my mind that I wanted to ask this witness as a follow up and it
has slipped out of my mind for the moment. I just want to try and recall it if you would give me a moment,
thank you.
Did Sergeant Motasi ever speak to you about his predicament in the context of what was
happening to him at the time?
COL SIBULELA: Yes, he spoke to me. I remember just before
his death, we were at Zeerust we went to bury a father of one of our colleagues and then he spoke to me
and expressed his worry about the way that he is being treated by the Whites in the College as well as in the
police station, because they were threatening his life. And they were requesting him to withdraw the case
against Colonel Van Zyl, which he was never prepared to do.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 530 COL SIBULELA
MR CURRIN: Not prepared to do that?
COL SIBULELA: Ja.
MR CURRIN: You've heard evidence that he was providing information to the Security Forces in
Zimbabwe. Do you have any view on that?
COL SIBULELA: No, I have no knowledge of that.
MR CURRIN: Do you have any opinion on that?
COL SIBULELA: I don't think, because I knew Motasi, I knew his type of intelligence, I don't think that he
could have reached such a decision. Because he was not a man of very high intelligence to have thought of
that, he was just a man who was hard working and dedicated to his work.
MR CURRIN: Did he ever, at any stage, since you've known him, indicate any interest whatsoever in
politics?
COL SIBULELA: No. He was a photographer, most of the time you would find him at the College, taking
photos for the students.
MR CURRIN: He was a keen photographer?
COL SIBULELA: A keen photographer, yes. I remember he also took me some photos, some photos for
me.
MR CURRIN: After he was killed, after he and his wife were killed, did you hear anything about the
matter? Did the people say anything about what had happened to Sergeant Motasi within the Police Force,
within your ranks?
COL SIBULELA: No, there is nothing I heard. Besides that
the rumours, most people believed that the death could have
been the result of his strained relationship or because of his having instituted a civil case against a very
high senior officer, at that time.
MR CURRIN: And at that stage, did you ever hear from anyone at all that maybe he was working for
the ANC?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 531 COL SIBULELA
COL SIBULELA: No. I never heard such things.
MR CURRIN: I have no further questions. Oh, sorry, could I just ask one more question. No, I don't
want to ask it, thank you. I don't need to ask him, thank you sir.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CURRIN
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. You say that you never
heard anybody say that he gave information to the Zimbabwe Intelligence Services and you also testified
that you don't know about that, is that correct?
COL SIBULELA: Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: So you have no personal knowledge of the fact did he or did he not give
information to the Zimbabwe Intelligence Services?
COL SIBULELA: Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Right. Now the threats that you testified about, can you hear me, is that better?
COL SIBULELA: Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: The threats which you testified about, that he - you testified that before his
death he expressed his worry about the Whites and that they were threatening his life, did he say anything
more about that to you?
COL SIBULELA: Sorry?
ADV DU PLESSIS: Did he say anything more about that to you?
COL SIBULELA: No, no, no.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Did he say who was threatening his life?
COL SIBULELA: No, he spoke about the Colonel Van Zyl who was sort of after him all the time where he
was going.
ADV DU PLESSIS: But did he say specifically that anybody specific, did he name the people who
threatened him?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 531 COL SIBULELA
COL SIBULELA: No, as I say he was concerned about the Colonel, as I was saying.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Right, so is it fair to say, is it fair to say that he just mentioned to you in passing, that
he was threatened, and he didn't say anything further about that? Is that correct, is that your evidence?
COL SIBULELA: Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS; So you cannot enlighten the Committee about who, where, when and how he
was threatened. You also cannot enlighten the Committee about what he said or he knew about that, is that
correct?
COL SIBULELA: Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Right, the only fact that you testified about is that he was worried because he
was threatened with his life. Now, did you have more than one discussion with him where he mentioned
this threat or was it only once?
COL SIBULELA: It was once during the time we were at the Zeerust.
ADV DU PLESSIS: How frequently did you see him at the time?
COL SIBULELA: What do you mean, at Zeerust?
ADV DU PLESSIS: How frequently did you see him at the time? At that time when he mentioned the
threat?
COL SIBULELA: You see he was already out of the College, I didn't see him frequently.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Now, you say you've been in the Police Force for how long?
COL SIBULELA: Quite a very long time, Sir, since the 80's.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And do you have experience of any other policeman who worked with you
who were threatened with their lives by senior policemen?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 532 COL SIBULELA
COL SIBULELA: No.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Is this the only incident that you know about that senior policemen threatened a
junior colleague?
COL SIBULELA: Yes.
JUDGE MGOEPE: How long before his death did he communicate this concern of his?
COL SIBULELA: It could be early 1987 or late 1986, because we were at the funeral of one of our
colleagues' father in Zeerust I am not sure of the time, the date.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Thank you.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Do I understand you correctly, you say in 1986 or early 1987?
COL SIBULELA: Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS; Was that when he mentioned it to you?
COL SIBULELA: Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Right. What was his position then, can you remember? Was he still suspended
or did he leave the Police Force at that time?
COL SIBULELA: As I say he was now working at police station Hammanskraal, while I was at the
College. I can't say whether he was working or still off sick, I saw him there at that funeral.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Can you remember how many times thereafter did you see him before he died?
COL SIBULELA: No, I can't remember.
ADV DU PLESSIS: But you did see him thereafter?
COL SIBULELA: Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Now you say that he was banned from the
College at some stage?
COL SIBULELA: Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: What was the reason for that?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 533 COL SIBULELA
COL SIBULELA: Oh, there was no reason. In my view the fight was such that the people that were
fighting with him, they just got annoyed when they saw him coming there because he was just coming
there to do photocopies and then they just said he must never put his foot in the college any more. And
then we were given instruction in the meeting as officers, to make sure that he doesn't enter the College.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Alright. And for what period was he treated this way by these other policemen that
you testified about?
COL SIBULELA: No, he never came to the College any longer. As I say the police station and the College
are two separate premises. Immediately after that he never entered the College any longer because he was
stopped not to come to the College any longer.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Right, and did you discuss this whole conflict between himself and the other
policemen, the White policemen that you testified about, did you discuss that with him?
COL SIBULELA: No, we never discussed anything, in fact in those days, we couldn't discuss such things
with the White Officers, because they were apart, we were apart ...(intervention)
ADV DU PLESSIS: No, no, no, I am asking did you discuss that with Mr Motasi?
COL SIBULELA: Oh, with Motasi?
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes.
COL SIBULELA: No.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Did you never have any discussions with him regarding his treatment by the White
policemen?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 534 COL SIBULELA
COL SIBULELA; Yes, you see the only discussion I discussed,
in fact I advised him that in view of this conflict, which seemed not to be - to be gaining momentum, how
would it be that he gets transferred and go at least to a Black station, to go and work at Soshanguve which
he objected.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Did he tell you what they did to him, did he tell you what happened with
Colonel Van Zyl?
COL SIBULELA: When? I don't understand.
ADV DU PLESSIS; At any time, at any time, I am asking you did he ever tell you what happened
with him, what did Colonel Van Zyl do to him, did he tell you that?
COL SIBULELA: Yes, he told me.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And did he tell you what happened thereafter, how he was treated by the White
officers?
COL SIBULELA: No, no, he didn't tell me, I saw these things myself.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And did you, when that disciplinary hearing was to take place, did you have
any discussions with him at that time about that?
COL SIBULELA: As I said I was a trial officer, so as a trial officer you don't discuss with a person you are
going to trial. You have got a Prosecutor. The Prosecutor is the person that does everything and then I see
him the first time on the trial. And then there when I call him, then he objected to me trying him.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Right. Do you know how Mr Motasi, Sergeant Motasi felt about his treatment
by the Whites?
COL SIBULELA: How he felt? Yes, I think he felt very much, he felt very much unhappy about his
treatment. As a young Sergeant having to have a conflict with very senior people in the department, he felt
hopeless because he couldn't
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 535 COL SIBULELA
defend himself against such people.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And did this feeling of his about his treatment, did that persist, did that go on
all the time until his death?
COL SIBULELA: You see it is very difficult, it is a very difficult question as I say, this man when he was
killed, he was already at Hammanskraal police station, working there. So I was not able to meet with him
every now and then, he was - we were already separated by then.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, but as far as you know?
COL SIBULELA: Yes, as far as I know, yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Do you know of the fact and Mr Chairman, I am referring to Exhibit U, page
86, it seems that in September, on 9 September 1987, a letter was written to his attorneys indicating that his
suspension was withdrawn and further indicating that he refused to go for work and in fact the Afrikaans
says,
"Case docket, Hammanskraal, namely going absent without leave from the police or
refusal to serve in the Force was then made at the instruction of Police Headquarters."
Do you know anything about that?
COL SIBULELA: When was that?
ADV DU PLESSIS: That was in September 1987.
COL SIBULELA: No, I know nothing, he was already out of the College, he was at the police station by
that time.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Would that be in accordance with the fact that he didn't want to go
back to work after his suspension was uplifted, the fact that he was absent without leave, does that accord
with the way you perceived him in respect of what he felt what the White officers did to him? PRETORIA
HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 535 COL SIBULELA
Was that in accordance with his feelings which you testified just now?
COL SIBULELA: I would believe that because this man was
sick. I am sure the man was supposed to have been sick all the time and then somebody said he deserted.
That is why he responded in that way, he was sick. Because I still remember during the trial he was, when
he was called for trial, he was in the hospital and then he couldn't attend trial. I believe all those
periods, he was still off sick. That is why he responded in that way because he was off sick and then
somebody said he deserted and then he decided not to come because he was still sick.
ADV DU PLESSIS: When was that trial supposed to be, can you remember?
COL SIBULELA: That was 1985. That was the time when I was still at the College, he couldn't attend
because he was sick and he took a very long time before he could come to trial.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And do I understand you correctly, was he sick from 1985 until September
1987?
COL SIBULELA: I can't recall all the facts because this man was sick, I don't even know even when he
was transferred. It would appear to me he was transferred whilst still on sick leave and then he could come
and work for a short period and then go off sick again. He had a problem with his ears since his assault.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Can you remember what was wrong with him, you said something about his ears,
can you elaborate what was wrong with him?
COL SIBULELA: Yes, he was assaulted and then his eardrum was damaged and then he got operations and
his ear was giving problems.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 536 COL SIBULELA
MS KHAMPEPE: Are you saying Mr Sibulela, that his sickness
was as a result of the injuries he had sustained at the
hands of the White officers?
COL SIBULELA: Yes.
ADV DE JAGER: You saw him shortly before his death or fairly recently before his death, what was his
health at that stage?
COL SIBULELA: Mr Chairman, I never saw him before his death because I was also transferred from the
College by that time.
ADV DE JAGER: Approximately how long before his death did you last see him when you were together
when he complained?
COL SIBULELA: It is quite a long time Mr Chairman, because it was either during the last time I saw him
during 1986, late or early 1987 when we went for a funeral in Zeerust.
ADV DE JAGER: And at that stage, did he work, what was the position with his health?
COL SIBULELA: At that stage he was in good health because he drove himself from here to Zeerust for
the funeral, by his car.
MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Sibulela, am I wrong, I thought you said in your evidence that you stayed in the same
neighbourhood?
COL SIBULELA: Yes, that is before.
MS KHAMPEPE: Before he was transferred to Hammanskraal?
COL SIBULELA: Before he was transferred.
JUDGE WILSON: They were at the College
COL SIBULELA: We were at the College, all of us.
MS KHAMPEPE: Oh, I see at the College.
COL SIBULELA: He got transferred and then later on I also got transferred.
MS KHAMPEPE: Okay, thank you.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 537 COL SIBULELA
JUDGE WILSON: Tell me, this Hammanskraal College, what sort of place was it?
COL SIBULELA: It was a Training College for the police.
JUDGE WILSON: For who in the police?
COL SIBULELA: For the Black policemen.
JUDGE WILSON: Ordinary Constables?
COL SIBULELA: Yes.
JUDGE WILSON: Nothing to do with Security or anything of that nature?
COL SIBULELA: No, no, no.
JUDGE WILSON: So you did the ordinary marching or teaching the people what they had to do as
Constables?
COL SIBULELA: Ordinary training, marching, yes, yes.
JUDGE WILSON: And he was with you there?
COL SIBULELA: Yes.
JUDGE WILSON: And you say he was a diligent, hard working man?
COL SIBULELA: Yes.
JUDGE WILSON: And was he promoted to Sergeant?
COL SIBULELA: Yes.
JUDGE WILSON; And he then went to the Hammanskraal police station, which occupied the
same premises, sort of separate?
COL SIBULELA: Yes.
JUDGE WILSON: What sort of police station was Hammanskraal police station?
COL SIBULELA: I don't understand, I don't hear ...
JUDGE WILSON: Was it an ordinary police station?
COL SIBULELA: An ordinary police station, yes.
JUDGE WILSON: Did it have the Security Police Branch?
COL SIBULELA: No.
JUDGE WILSON: Did it just deal with ordinary crime?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 538 COL SIBULELA
COL SIBULELA: Ordinary crime.
JUDGE WILSON: You see I am asking you these questions
because the case made out for the applicants, is that he was killed because he was giving information to the
Zimbabwe Intelligence Services, now he wouldn't have learnt anything at Hammanskraal police station that
was of any interest to the Intelligence Service, would he?
COL SIBULELA: No.
JUDGE WILSON: And was he stationed anywhere else?
COL SIBULELA: No, no.
JUDGE WILSON: Was he in the uniform branch?
COL SIBULELA: Uniform branch, yes.
JUDGE WILSON: A Sergeant in the uniform branch, stationed at an ordinary police station?
COL SIBULELA: Yes.
JUDGE WILSON: He never went to the Security Police, anywhere? He never went to any other
police station, just at Hammanskraal?
COL SIBULELA: He was at Hammanskraal.
JUDGE WILSON: And he was still there when he was killed?
COL SIBULELA: Yes.
JUDGE WILSON: Whether he was on duty or not is in dispute, but he had not been transferred, he
had not been working anywhere else?
COL SIBULELA: Yes.
JUDGE WILSON: Thank you.
ADV DE JAGER: Have you seen any of the photo's he used to take?
COL SIBULELA: I've got photo's that he took, my own photo's.
ADV DE JAGER: Did he take photo's of the buildings, the
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 539 COL SIBULELA
Training College, and so on?
COL SIBULELA: You know sometimes we would pause, I remember the photo's that he took we were
swimming at the College swimming pool, but I don't know of any ... (tape ends)
ADV DE JAGER: The Training College and the Hammanskraal police station, they are not on the same
premises, are they?
COL SIBULELA: They are not in the exact premises, but depending what we mean, because later on it was
a big camp. There was a big fence around it, there was only one gate. If you enter that gate you get into
the police station and then just very close, you get to the College. In fact the residents are in the same
premises for both the police station and the College.
ADV DE JAGER: Thank you.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Now where were you, can you just give us an indication, where were you
stationed in 1987? Where were you stationed?
COL SIBULELA: When in 1987?
ADV DU PLESSIS: Where, at what place were you stationed in 1987?
COL SIBULELA: 1987, I was stationed at the College until the end of September, when I was transferred
to Soshanguve.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And when exactly was he banned from coming to the College?
COL SIBULELA: That was before my transfer. Immediately after his transfer from the College to the
police station. That could be somewhere 1986, early 1987.
ADV DU PLESSIS: So when you were at the College and he was stationed at Hammanskraal, is it
fair to say that you didn't really have any contact with him in working hours?
COL SIBULELA: During working, yes.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 540 COL SIBULELA
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes. Because he was banned from the College?
COL SIBULELA: Yes, he would never come to the College.
ADV DU PLESSIS: So you would not be able to testify about what he was involved in when he
worked at the police station, is that correct?
COL SIBULELA: During working hours, yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes. Is it also fair to say that you would not know exactly what cases he dealt
with and what information he dealt with?
COL SIBULELA: Yes, I couldn't know, but what I knew he was doing charge office work.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Right. At the College at that time, can you remember if there were any
problems with some of the people who were recruited and who were undergoing training in respect of the
liberation movements? Did some of them support the liberation movements, can you remember?
COL SIBULELA: We never had such a thing during my time at the College.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Can you remember that there were problems with some of them listening to
liberation speeches over tapes, speeches of ANC people?
COL SIBULELA: No, no, we never had such problems at that College during my time.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Alright. The Hammanskraal police station, that police station is stationed in
Hammanskraal which is a Black township, is that correct?
COL SIBULELA: No.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Or where, can you give us an indication?
COL SIBULELA: It is a White area just next to Hammanskraal, the railway station, if you come from this
side, you cross
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 541 COL SIBULELA
the bridge, it is not in Temba. That was not a Black police station.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Alright. Were there lots of unrest
incidents in 1986, 1987, can you remember in the Pretoria area?
COL SIBULELA: Yes, in the Pretoria area, yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS; And in that area?
COL SIBULELA: No, there was nothing there, I was there during that time.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Are you saying there were no unrest incidents at all in 1986 and 1987 in that
area?
COL SIBULELA: No, it was very quiet there in that place.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Nothing. Would you have known if Mr Motasi ever came into possession, as
part of his duties of sensitive information, or secret information, would you have known about it?
COL SIBULELA: No.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Would you have known if Mr Motasi had access to police information via the
Security Branch for instance?
COL SIBULELA: No.
JUDGE WILSON: You did say there wasn't a Security Branch at Hammanskraal, didn't you?
COL SIBULELA: Yes, at Hammanskraal per se there was no Security Branch.
ADV DU PLESSIS: If I present evidence to this Committee of Warrant Officer Van Vuuren that he
has knowledge that some of the trainees at the College picked up problems because they listened to ANC
tapes, would you be able to dispute that?
COL SIBULELA: Yes, I would be able to dispute that because
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 541 COL SIBULELA
I don't have any knowledge of such happenings.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, you don't have any knowledge of that, alright.
JUDGE WILSON: And you were stationed at the College were
you?
COL SIBULELA: Yes.
JUDGE WILSON: You were one of the officers there?
COL SIBULELA: I was one of the officers.
JUDGE WILSON: And was Warrant Officer Van Vuuren stationed there?
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I will present that evidence.
JUDGE WILSON: I am asking this witness. He is the officer, he is giving evidence and he says he
was an officer there.
ADV DU PLESSIS: As it pleases you.
COL SIBULELA: I have never seen him there, I am seeing him for the first time. He was never stationed
at the Police College.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Now there was also evidence that Mr Motasi was a courier for the ANC. Do
you know anything about that?
COL SIBULELA: First of all Mr Chairman, I don't know what is a courier. Perhaps if you can explain to
me what kind of a person or a thing is a courier.
ADV DU PLESSIS: It is a person who transfers information, or carries information from one place
to another.
COL SIBULELA: No, I have no knowledge of that.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Let's say hypothetically that he was a courier, would you have known about
that?
COL SIBULELA: No.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 542 COL SIBULELA
ADV DU PLESSIS: Can you remember during the time that Mr Motasi was suspended, did he work
or did he stay at home?
COL SIBULELA: You see, there I've got a problem because I don't know when he was suspended, because
as I said the man was transferred from the College to the police station. If the suspension had taken place
at the police station, I wouldn't have known as I could not even have known about his suspension.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, because you see in the documents provided to us, Exhibit U and I refer
specifically inter alia to page 68, there is reference in a letter to his suspension from duty and then more
specifically I refer to a letter dated, it is not clear it seems like 7 August 1987, page 83, it seems that he was
suspended until August 1987, the letter on page 83 says,
"Sergeant Motasi will therefore be instructed to resume duties at Hammanskraal police
station shortly".
Now do I understand you correctly, you don't know if before August 1987, he was physically on duty every
day at the Hammanskraal police station, you don't know?
COL SIBULELA: Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: You don't know?
COL SIBULELA: I don't know.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And there is also a letter, page 82 written by his attorneys, stating that he
attended the Hammanskraal police station on 30 June 1987 in order to collect his monthly salary which the
police refused to hand over to him. Now, I put it to you that from this I will argue that it is reasonable and
probable to accept that he was not on duty at least until August 1987 because he was
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 543 COL SIBULELA
suspended?
COL SIBULELA: Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: I see Mr Currin is shaking his head, he was the attorney at that time, he would
probably be able to confirm that. Now that means that he, if we accept that, that means that he wasn't
present from day to day at the police station, is that correct?
COL SIBULELA: Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Would he have been able during that time, to have contact with other
policemen stationed at other police stations and stationed at other places in say, Police Headquarters, would
he have been able to have had contact with such people?
COL SIBULELA: I don't know, because ...
ADV DU PLESSIS: You can't say that?
COL SIBULELA: Can't say.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Alright, you can't testify about that. Now, you yourself ...(intervention)
JUDGE MALL: Your question really relates to police at other stations, not at the Hammanskraal station?
ADV DU PLESSIS; Yes, at other police stations and anywhere else in the South African Police
Force and the witness testified that he can't say anything about that. Now, at that time, did you support the
struggle?
COL SIBULELA: Myself?
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes.
COL SIBULELA: No.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Not?
COL SIBULELA: I didn't know anything about the struggle.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And would you have known if Sergeant Motasi supported the struggle?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 544 COL SIBULELA
COL SIBULELA: No.
ADV DU PLESSIS: You would not have known about it?
COL SIBULELA: Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: So, you agree with me that there might have been a possibility that he could
have supported the struggle?
COL SIBULELA: No, I don't agree with it.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Why not?
COL SIBULELA: No, because in the first place he would have
been arrested. Why immediately after instituting the civil
case and the fight and then he is connected to the struggle, he could have been arrested long before that.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, you see you testified that you wouldn't have known if he had supported the
struggle, and clearly a policeman at that time who supported the struggle, wouldn't have been public about
it, isn't that so?
COL SIBULELA: No, but he would have been arrested and this thing couldn't have waited until the conflict
of assault.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Did the liberation movements have agents in the police services?
COL SIBULELA: That time, I don't know.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Was it possible?
COL SIBULELA: No.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Now - yes Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MALL: ... whether the liberation movement had persons in the College?
ADV DU PLESSIS; I am asking in general Mr Chairman, in the Police Force.
JUDGE MALL; Oh in the Police Force.
ADV DU PLESSIS: In the Police Force. Do you say it is impossible?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 545 COL SIBULELA
JUDGE MGOEPE: In the Police Force of the Republic of South Africa?
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, in the South African Police Force, I am asking if he concedes that it is
possible.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Are you asking with regard to the police station at Hammanskraal or at the
College or are you saying from the Limpopo to Cape Town?
ADV DU PLESSIS: I am saying he was part of the Police Force, does he ...(intervention)
JUDGE MGOEPE: No, I am asking you, are you asking him whether with regard to the members
of the Police Force at
Hammanskraal or at the College or as regards policemen throughout South Africa?
ADV DU PLESSIS: Generally, generally. Do you say that that wasn't possible, that there could be?
COL SIBULELA: It was not possible.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Right, because I want to put to you that we heard the evidence of UDF activist,
Mr Moss Chikane who said that the UDF and the ANC infiltrated the South African Police and that they
had agents in the South African Police.
Do you say that he is wrong?
COL SIBULELA: No, I didn't know about that.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Okay, you didn't know about that?
COL SIBULELA: Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DU PLESSIS
ADV MPSHE: Mr Sibulela, what happened to the departmental trial from which you had to recuse
yourself?
COL SIBULELA: It was transferred to Soshanguve and it was -the officer there continued with the trial.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 545 COL SIBULELA
ADV MPSHE: Do you know the result thereof?
COL SIBULELA: No.
ADV MPSHE: At that time, when you were at the College, can I say you were part of Management at
the Training College?
COL SIBULELA: It is difficult to say so during that time, in a way yes.
ADV MPSHE: Now why do you say it is difficult to know?
COL SIBULELA: No, I mean it was the time of Apartheid, we were just there and most of the things could
be decided by
Whites and then we will just do it.
ADV MPSHE: I see. You testified that Richard was at one stage your neighbour at the College?
COL SIBULELA: Yes.
ADV MPSHE: Did he visit you frequently at the time when he was your neighbour?
COL SIBULELA: Yes.
ADV MPSHE: And during the discussion, during his visitation at your place, did he ever discuss politics
with you?
COL SIBULELA: No.
ADV MPSHE: Did you ever during the discussions decipher or deduce some form of political
knowledge on his part?
COL SIBULELA: No, there is no such a thing, you see the people that we were staying, they were so
distant from the communities, these things of politics for us, it was just not there.
ADV MPSHE: Thank you Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MPSHE
ADV DE JAGER: The departmental trial that was transferred
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DE JAGER 546 COL SIBULELA
to Soshanguve, that was while he was still at the College?
COL SIBULELA: It would appear that he was already at the police station.
ADV DE JAGER: At the police station, not at Hammanskraal anymore?
COL SIBULELA: Not at the College anymore.
ADV DE JAGER: When you would have conducted the trial, was he still there at the College then or was
...(intervention)
COL SIBULELA: When I was to conduct the trial?
ADV DE JAGER: Ja.
COL SIBULELA: He was still at the College yes.
ADV DE JAGER: Yes. And did he never mention to you what
the result of this trial was and weren't you interested to
know what happened in this trial because you were the one who should originally have conducted the trial?
COL SIBULELA: No, you see at that time he was already at Hammanskraal police station, and it was not
easy to see him frequently.
ADV DE JAGER: Did he ever complain about this trial to you except that he asked you to recuse yourself
later on?
COL SIBULELA: No.
ADV DE JAGER: Was he treated fairly at the trial, do you know or not?
COL SIBULELA: At Soshanguve?
ADV DE JAGER: Ja.
COL SIBULELA: I think, because they did not complain then.
ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman through you may I be allowed to ask just one question that I forgot to put
to the witness?
JUDGE MALL: Yes.
ADV MPSHE: Thank you. Before the assault on Motasi, how long was Motasi in the Police Force?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 547 COL SIBULELA
COL SIBULELA: As I said, I trained him in 1973 as a student, so it could have been a very long time.
ADV MPSHE: A very long time?
COL SIBULELA: From 1973 to 1980, it is round about 10 years, to the assault in 1984.
ADV MPSHE: Now before the assault on him, how was he treated at the College, were there any
problems with him at the College?
COL SIBULELA: There were no problems, he was treated fairly and hence he was promoted.
ADV MPSHE: And during that period when he was treated fairly and there were no problems, was
Colonel Van Zyl
still at the Police College?
COL SIBULELA: He was at the College, yes.
ADV MPSHE: Would you then say the problems started after the assault on him?
COL SIBULELA; Yes.
ADV MPSHE: Thank you Mr Chairman, I am indebted to the Chair.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Colonel, your statement which to me sounds quite broad, your statement that
members of the South African Police Force throughout the Republic of South Africa, none of them
supported the liberation movements in one way or another, to me it requires some explanation because it is
very embrasive. What do you mean by that? Or rather, why do you say that?
COL SIBULELA: You see, I mean, I say so because you see, those days the control and the supervision
and the screening was such that it was very difficult for one to could have supported, I don't know in which
manner, but for me it was very difficult.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE MGOEPE 548 COL SIBULELA
JUDGE MGOEPE: Is that why you come to that conclusion?
COL SIBULELA: Yes, yes.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Now did you say that you were present when Sergeant Motasi was assaulted by
Colonel Van Zyl?
COL SIBULELA: No.
JUDGE MGOEPE: You were not present?
COL SIBULELA: I was not present.
JUDGE MGOEPE: And if I understand your evidence correctly, after that assault, the relationship
between the deceased and White members of the Police Force became very bad.
COL SIBULELA: Not the Police Force necessarily, it is the College.
JUDGE MGOEPE: At the College?
COL SIBULELA: At the College, yes.
JUDGE MGOEPE: It deteriorated very badly?
COL SIBULELA: It became strained. It was very much strained.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Yes. Now, are you aware of any further assaults on the deceased by his White
colleagues subsequent to that one?
COL SIBULELA: No, no I am not aware.
JUDGE MGOEPE: I read from one of the documents before us that apparently it is a letter which
the deceased wrote that on Tuesday, 8 April 1986, that is page 54 for those who have the documents,
"While off duty I was assaulted, insulted and threatened by Captain Kotze of the College
personnel and reported a case...."
then he gives the CR number. Were you aware of such a incident?
COL SIBULELA: Ja, that incident could have - I remember it
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE MGOEPE 549 COL SIBULELA
was - they met somewhere at the shopping centre in Hammanskraal, I don't know what happened there, but
I can recall such an incident, because that Captain even came back, but it was the time, Motasi, by that
time, he was no longer at the College. If I remember well it seems he came back and related the
story to us in a meeting of what transpired when they met at the shopping centre in Hammanskraal.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Now if that is correct and the date given is correct, which is the 8th of April
1986, that would mean that it was - this was a further assault on him by one of his White colleagues?
COL SIBULELA: Yes, because it was then after he was transferred from the College, as a result of that, to
the Hammanskraal College and then he met him at the shopping centre, then I don't know what happened
there.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Yes. And then he goes on to say,
"On Friday, 28 August 1986, while on sick leave, I was wake up sick (I suppose that
would have been woken up) threatened with a firearm by Sergeant Raath, assaulted and
arrested by Sergeant Raath and Constable Vredenburg and tortured by Sergeant
Vredenburg, Constable Vredenburg".
Now are you aware of this incident or are you not?
COL SIBULELA: No, that is the time he was now at the police station I am sure, those are things that took
place at the police station.
JUDGE MGOEPE: At the police station. There was a Sergeant Raath at the police station, or you
can't remember?
COL SIBULELA: I didn't know the personnel of the police station as we were not connected.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE MGOEPE 549 COL SIBULELA
JUDGE MGOEPE: And then he mentioned yet a further incident of harassment on the face of it by
a White police officer, I am just looking at the surname, tortured by Warrant Officer Le Grange and then
Sergeant Raath again. Again that would have been when he was at ...(intervention)
COL SIBULELA: At Hammanskraal, yes, there was a Le Grange at Hammanskraal police station, that one
I know.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Now, if one takes all these things into account and also the previous assault on
him, if these allegations are correct, it seems to me that he was assaulted many times by his White
colleagues?
COL SIBULELA: Yes.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Let me ask you, the assault on Black members of the Police Force at the time
by White police officers, was it something common?
COL SIBULELA: Very common, it was very common. That is why, just to add, that's why this thing it
became such an issue because they were not used to a Black man assaulted, to be so resistant like this, like
what Motasi did. Many of the Sergeants used to be assaulted at the College, but from there they would just
brainwash him and say - for instance I remember one case a Sergeant was assaulted and then from there to
please him and for him not to open a case, he was shifted to be made in charge of a certain section. These
kind of things were very common in those days.
JUDGE MGOEPE: So of all the people who were assaulted there from time to time by White
colleagues, by their White colleagues, the one person that you recall who really put up a resistance is
Sergeant Motasi?
COL SIBULELA: Motasi, and this thing they just couldn't understand it.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE MGOEPE 550 COL SIBULELA
JUDGE MGOEPE: It was something that they were not used to?
COL SIBULELA: Yes.
JUDGE MGOEPE: And it is something that saw to the deterioration of the relationship between
himself and his White colleagues?
COL SIBULELA: Yes.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Thank you.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, may I be afforded the opportunity perhaps further information has
come to my knowledge which I want to put to this witness if you would allow me to. I intend to call
Warrant Officer Van Vuuren on this, whenever he testifies again just to put the evidence before the
Committee, but I would like to put it to this witness if you would allow me to.
JUDGE WILSON: He has in fact given evidence on this incident, hasn't he?
ADV DU PLESSIS: He has given evidence on this incident, but what I want to put to him relates
specifically to what this witness testified.
JUDGE WILSON: Are you going to recall you clients every time some witness says something
about them without asking the Committee's leave?
ADV DU PLESSIS: Well, I am asking the Committee's leave now, Mr Chairman.
JUDGE WILSON: You didn't, you said I am going to recall.
ADV DU PLESSIS; Obviously with the Committee's permission, that is what I am trying
...(intervention)
JUDGE WILSON: You should learn to express yourself more accurately, then.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I ask the Committee's leave to put this to the witness and obviously if
I have the
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 551 COL SIBULELA
opportunity to put it to the witness, I would be able to lead Warrant Officer Van Vuuren in respect of it.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Mr Du Plessis, while the Chairman is still thinking about your request, I just
want to ask something as a follow up to questions that I am putting to the witness.
With regard to the incidents of assault that occurred there, from what you said, would I be correct
then to say that no steps were taken by those who should have taken steps?
COL SIBULELA: Yes.
ADV DE JAGER: And as a result of this question, there was good reason for Mr Motasi to feel aggrieved
about what the police have done to him?
COL SIBULELA: Yes.
FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman,
I want to make it clear, I do this
only because we are dealing with the Commission. In a normal civil case or a criminal case, obviously it
would not be the correct procedure and that is why I asked the Committee's permission for that.
What I want to put to you is that I have been informed by more than one, but I will, if the
Committee allows me to, lead the evidence of Warrant Officer van Vuuren, that there will be evidence that
in 1986 plans by the ANC were obtained by the Security Police which related to planned attacks on South
African Police Training Colleges, which included the Pretoria West College, the Durban College, the Cape
Town College and the Hammanskraal College. Do you know anything about it?
COL SIBULELA: No, I don't know anything about it.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
552 COL SIBULELA
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DU PLESSIS
JUDGE MALL: Any re-examination Mr Currin?
MR CURRIN: I have no re-examination Mr Chairman.
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR CURRIN.
JUDGE MALL: Thank you very much.
COL SIBULELA: Thank you.
WITNESS EXCUSED
MR CURRIN: Mr Chairman, there is an issue of - there is so much speculation Mr Chairman about
what was said and what was happening and whether Sergeant Motasi was assaulted on numerous occasions
and what the history is, as his attorney on record since February 1986, I have all that information in my
head. I saw him regularly, I advised him, I assisted him and it seems to me that if there is any doubt in the
Commission's head or if the Commission needs information with regard to Richard Motasi, I am probably
the best
person to be able to give that information.
I am very loathe to present myself as a witness, I am not keen to do that, but I just mention that
and I possibly, I just mention to the Committee that if there is any doubt in the Committee's head in regard
to any of these issues, and if the Committee would like further information, I am willing to make myself
available as a witness.
What I would obviously liked to have done, would be to hand up this entire bundle to say insofar
as that bundle refers to my interactions with Sergeant Motasi as a client and insofar as it relates to
correspondence between Savage, Jooste and Adams, the firm of attorneys of which I was a partner at the
time and the Commissioner of Police, I would want to submit that it be accepted as evidence insofar as it
can enlighten the Committee on the background, but I am not
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 553 ADDRESS
sure whether my learned friend would be willing to agree to that.
JUDGE MALL: Nobody has raised any questions about the contents of the documents that compile
Exhibit U, in fact extracts from that and portions of that had been put to the witness under cross-
examination, there's been no suggestion that these documents do not correctly reflect what happened.
The evidential value of it all is something which the Committee will have to decide when the time
comes. But as for your position as to whether you wish to give evidence or not, the Committee can't tell
you what you should do. It is a decision which you will have to take yourself.
MR CURRIN: Yes, Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MALL: Thank you.
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Currin, you wrote those letters yourself, you've handed it in as a bundle and you
didn't experience yourself the assaults, but that was what your client told
you at that stage.
MR CURRIN: That is correct, on a regular basis he came into my office and consulted with me and I
took instructions from him, we wrote letters and so on. I had meetings with the Commissioner's Office on
a number of occasions to try and resolve the matter. It is reflected in the documentation. The
documentation is before the Committee. All I am saying in the Committee's mind, you - if there is any
further clarification or confirmation which the Committee would like, which my learned friend would like
as counsel for the Commission, maybe it is a matter I should discuss with Mr Mpshe, then I would make
myself available as a witness. And I think I will discuss it with him as counsel for the Committee and we
will see what we can sort out at
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
553
lunch time which is not far from here, thank you Sir.
JUDGE MALL: Are you not calling any other witness? Yesterday you indicated you ...(intervention)
MR CURRIN: I am, I want to call Mrs Hlabangane. She is the mother of Irene Motasi and she is also at
the moment the guardian, and has been the guardian of their young son who was in the house at the time
that his mother and father were killed. I would like to call her as a witness.
JUDGE MALL: Very well, you may do so.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 554 MS HLABANGANE
MR CURRIN: Mrs Hlabangane.
MRS HLABANGANE: (sworn states)
EXAMINATION BY MR CURRIN: Mrs Hlabangane, I am going to ask you questions. What
was your relationship with Irene Motasi?
MRS HLABANGANE: Irene Motasi is my daughter.
MR CURRIN: Would you be comfortable to testify in English or would you rather testify in Zulu?
MRS HLABANGANE: I would like to testify in Zulu.
MR CURRIN: You can then answer the question in Zulu and the Interpreter can help us.
MRS HLABANGANE: Oh, okay.
MR CURRIN: How many children ... (intervention)
MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Currin, it would appear that she has a problem, she is not having the right channel.
Maybe we should ask the assistance of the translators, channel 3?
MR CURRIN: When did your daughter Irene and Richard Motasi get married?
MS HLABANGANE: In 1977.
MR CURRIN: How many children did they have?
MRS HLABANGANE: They only got - (no translation of Zulu)
MR CURRIN: Are you getting any interpretation? I am not getting any interpretation.
MRS HLABANGANE: You can continue in English, I will try.
JUDGE MGOEPE: No, I think it is not a question of trying, we want to be sure that you express
yourself accurately to avoid any possible confusion and we would encourage you,
unless you so insist, we would encourage and advise you to speak in the language that you prefer.
MR CURRIN: Could the interpreters indicate whether they are now ready?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 555 MS HLABANGANE
INTERPRETERS: Yes, we can hear now. She can hear now, she has just said that.
MR CURRIN: What I would like to know is whether the interpreters are now ready?
INTERPRETERS: She says she can hear us. We are talking, but nothing is coming out. Can
anybody hear me?
MR CURRIN: Can you hear us?
INTERPRETERS: Yes, I can hear you.
MR CURRIN: Can we proceed?
INTERPRETERS: Yes, you may proceed.
MR CURRIN: I think we will start from the beginning. How many children did they have?
INTERPRETER: The Speaker's mike is not on, I can't hear the witness. There seems to be a confusion,
we are not getting anything from the floor.
JUDGE WILSON: Were you not getting Mr Currin either?
INTERPRETER: No, I didn't get him.
MR CURRIN: Can you get me now? Yes, could we try and resolve this, it is not really fair on the witness
to be sitting in these circumstances.
JUDGE MALL: Yes. We will just stop for a short while. Call us as soon as you are ready.
MR CURRIN: Thank you.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION
MR CURRIN: If I understand your evidence correctly, you said they had one child, three children
passed away, babies?
JUDGE MALL: They had four children?
MRS HLABANGANE: That is correct, they had three children and those children died so it's only the
one that is left.
MR CURRIN: What is the name of the child, the surviving
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 556 MS HLABANGANE
child?
MRS HLABANGANE: It is Sidiso Charles Motasi.
MR CURRIN: I know that this is not going to be easy for you, but I would like you to tell the
Committee how you were informed of the murder of Richard and your daughter, Irene and what you did
when you heard that information.
MRS HLABANGANE: I received a telephone call in the morning as I was just preparing myself to go to
town and they said I should go to Hammanskraal. I got the telephone call from Jubilee Hospital, from
Shadi, that is Irene's friend. And I asked as to what the matter was and she told me that she would talk to
me as soon as I got to the hospital. And I started to panic because at the time I knew that something had
happened. She was working at Jubilee Hospital in Hammanskraal.
Then after she had told me I sat down and I begged her to tell me as to what had happened so that
I may be able to gather enough courage to face the truth. Then she told me that my son-in-law had died as
well as Irene had died. And I asked as to what had happened to the child and she said she didn't know.
May I go on?
MR CURRIN: Yes, please.
MRS HLABANGANE: At that time I phoned my son, Vusi, he was working and I told him
that I had got a message only to find that he had also got the message, so he rushed home and we went to
Hammanskraal. We were travelling at a very high speed when we were getting to Hammanskraal and we
got to the Hammanskraal hospital. When we got there, we saw quite a lot of people outside the hospital
and we realised that something must have happened and we went inside the hospital building. When we got there, there was a Black Maria as well PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 557 MS HLABANGANE
as policemen around the place.
MR CURRIN: What is a Black Maria, just to - I know what it is but just to put on record.
MRS HLABANGANE: It is a hearse.
MR CURRIN: Right, thank you. Was this at the hospital?
MRS HLABANGANE: Then I saw the hearse outside the hospital building, I ran into the kitchen and
when I got into the kitchen I came across somebody pushing a stretcher and the stretcher was carrying my
daughter's body, Irene and ...(intervention)
MR CURRIN: You were not at the house and please, speak more slowly.
JUDGE WILSON: Did you say the house or the hospital?
MR CURRIN: She started off at the hospital, but she's now got to the house and I just want her to go
more slowly. I understood it to be the kitchen of the house, but maybe she can just go back and tell us
where she is. Where are you now, just - you went to the hospital?
MRS HLABANGANE: I didn't get to the hospital, I went to Irene's home because the call that I got was
from Irene's home. I was phoned by a certain person from the hospital, but she told me that I should go to
Irene's home. We went to Irene's home and people were milling around the place, quite a lot, a large
crowd and I saw that something had happened.
I got out of the car and my son was following behind. When I got out of the car there was a hearse and
when I went into the kitchen, I came across somebody pushing a stretcher and I had a look, I saw that it
was my daughter, Irene, and I discovered that my daughter had died and she had one wound
on the forehead. And I left her because I realised that she had died. I went into the dining room because
their
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 558 MS HLABANGANE
house, you entered the house through the kitchen and to the lounge. When I got there I discovered that
Motasi was laying in a pool of blood. And he had also been shot. And the spent cartridges were on the
floor, his brains were also splattered, as well as certain pieces of the scull were on the floor, scattered all of
the place and I looked at his ear, something whitish was coming out of his ears. I don't know whether it was
his brains and he was also dead.
And from there I ran, I went into the bedroom. That is their son's bedroom, or their child's
bedroom. I looked for the child, but I couldn't find the child. I looked in all the other rooms, without any
success and I started getting very confused at this stage because I didn't know where the child was. And
when I went outside, I heard - I could feel
somebody grabbing me and it was the child. I took the child.
MR CURRIN: How old was he at that time?
MRS HLABANGANE: He was five years old. I took the child, I lifted her to my chest and the parents
were taken in the hearse and as we were just trying to just go back into the house, we were chased out by
the police because they wanted to gather some evidence. The police who was there was working
with my son-in-law and his name was Mnisi, I was seeing him for the first time at that time and they were
staying at the same street with my son-in-law. It is about three houses from my son-in-law's place and
there were also other policemen at the scene and we asked as to what had happened. And they told me that
my son-in-law was stubborn and that is why he had been killed. They said they had told him to drop or
withdraw the charges against Van Zyl and I asked as to why he had been killed. They told me
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 558 MS HLABANGANE
that it was the case of the eardrum. And up to such time that they allowed us to get into the house, when
we got into the house, we were told that we should fix the house, we should wash whatever was splattered
with blood and we should take all those things, we should also wash the pillows and when they came back,
they asked us as to who had told us to wash the blood splattered things. We told them that we had been
given permission by the police and they told us that we were not supposed to have washed these things
without their permission.
And we remained in the house and my other daughter-in-law, that is Vusi's wife, the child was
having some things like panic attacks or he was terribly disturbed, so I decided that they should take the
child to Soweto and the child should consult or get some medical attention, because he was exhibiting
some peculiar behaviour immediately after the death of the parents. And they went to Soweto, I was left
alone.
MR CURRIN: Just stop there for a moment. Before he was taken to Soweto, did you try and establish
where the child had been found, what had happened to the child during the night? The night that his
parents were killed, did you ask any questions about the son?
MRS HLABANGANE: When I asked my neighbours, they told me that the child was inside the house
at that time, but nobody
knows as to how he survived, because he escaped unscathed, but they heard the child screaming throughout
the night asking for help, saying help me, help me. He realised that something was happening, probably he
hid somewhere but people were woken up by the screams of the child inside the house. And my next-door
neighbour came into the house in the PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 559 MS HLABANGANE
morning to fetch the child and they stayed with the child. When I was looking for the child, the child was
at my neighbours' place.
MR CURRIN: So he spent the whole night in the house with his dead parents?
MRS HLABANGANE: That is true, he stayed with the corpses of his parents and he was running from
pillar to post trying to wake his parents up, but there was no help coming at that particular moment.
MR CURRIN: How do you know that he was trying to wake up his parents? Did you ask him what
happened?
MRS HLABANGANE; Yes, he related the story to me because
he still recalled very vividly what had happened and the people also told me that the child was screaming
for the whole night asking for help and he was taken to the neighbours' place and they gave him food in the
morning.
MR CURRIN: He then went off to Soweto, what happened in the afternoon at their home in
Hammanskraal?
MRS HLABANGANE: The child was taken to Soweto and I was left in the house as it is my culture
and my custom to remain. Then at about three in the afternoon, I still remember it was three o'clock, two
men, Black men came to me as well as one White man who was very tall. They got into the bedroom, they
approached me. When they came into the house, the other two men were standing at the door of the
bedroom and the White person came into the bedroom and when he got to me, he said we are from
Mafikeng, from the Head Office. And we have come to see what has happened. And I really believed
that they had come to sympathise with me as they were officers. After quite a few moments, this White
person changed, he said to me I must stand up. He said it
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 560 MS HLABANGANE
with so much force and I said to him, I cannot stand because I am here and I am staying here because my
daughter has died. They said they were looking for Motasi's uniform and I said I knew nothing about that
because I do not stay in that place. He said he didn't care about that, he wanted me to give him the keys
and I gave him the keys. I was in a state of shock at the way they were handling me. I was trying
to open the wardrobes, but apparently I was using the wrong keys. Up until such time that I got the right
keys and I opened up the wardrobes, he said he was looking for the uniform. I took the uniform out
and I gave it to him and he took out the stars that were in the uniform and he further said to me, even if I
don't know Afrikaans, but he spoke in Afrikaans, and he said I must give them to my old man. That is what
he said to me.
MR CURRIN: Give what, the uniform?
MRS HLABANGANE: Ja.
MR CURRIN: Right, and then?
MRS HLABANGANE: Now, he was giving me the uniform, but he took the pins that were on the
uniform, he said I should give them to my old man and he laughed at me and he took out his gun and he
was busy brandishing the gun towards me, he said do I know what a gun is used for and he said to me, do
you see what the gun has done to Motasi and his wife. He said if you talk too much, this is what you get
and at that time, he was pointing the gun at my forehead. And he said my son-in-law was talking too much
and at times he used English, at times he spoke Afrikaans.
MR CURRIN: And you don't know who any of those policemen are, do you know who any of those
policemen are?
MRS HLABANGANE: The person that I saw very well was Joe
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 561 MS HLABANGANE
Mamasela, who was standing at the door. I saw him. This other policeman was very tall, he had big eyes,
but I cannot identify him.
MR CURRIN: Okay. ...(intervention)
MS HLABANGANE: I saw Mamasela and I can positively identify him, he was with another light
complexioned Black policeman. The other one was looking like he wasn't really agreeing or seeing eye to
eye with the other policemen, because according to our culture, they did not have to manhandle me in the
manner that they did, especially under the circumstances.
MR CURRIN: Mrs Hlabangane, then later that - when did you eventually Leave the home? How long
did you stay at the house for, until the funeral?
MRS HLABANGANE: I stayed for a whole two weeks. And on that particular day when they came, I
had already sent my son-in-law's brother to go and fetch his parents and he went because he is also working
at the Training College, and he was working at the Training College at that time. And he said he felt
quite, very bad about what has happened. It looked like the police were very impressed with their work
and it was a joke at the Training College that Mr Motasi had died. And my son went away, my son's friend
went away. On Thursday the whole family came, that is the Motasi family, and we stayed together.
MR CURRIN: At the time that your daughter and Richard were killed, we heard that Richard was a
policeman and your daughter was a nursing sister, correct?
MRS HLABANGANE: Yes, that is true.
MR CURRIN: Since then, who has been taking care of your grandson?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 561 MS HLABANGANE
MRS HLABANGANE: I took their child. We were called at the police station and they asked me as to
how many people I was staying with and all the nurses at Jubilee wanted the child to be with me, they
wanted me to be her custodian. I have three children, two boys and one girl and all of them are married.
Now I was staying with my husband at that time.
MR CURRIN: Is your husband still alive?
MRS HLABANGANE: Yes, he is, but he is on pension at the moment.
MR CURRIN: Who is paying for the maintenance and
schooling of the child?
MRS HLABANGANE: They sent me to the Home Affairs office and I am getting some money for the
child's maintenance. It was R200,00 and we were also getting his father's pension, that is where I get the
money. And the child started school, at about standard, when he was doing standard four, I went to lodge a
complaint that the money was not enough, but later on I was receiving R500,00, so I am able to pay for the
schooling as well as the transportation and some groceries and school uniform and clothes.
MR CURRIN: The total amount you are receiving is R700,00
a month, if I understand you correctly? R500,00 a month?
MRS HLABANGANE: Now, it is R500,00.
MR CURRIN: And that contributes towards his maintenance and schooling?
MRS HLABANGANE: Yes, that is correct. And my husband was holding part-time jobs, because he
had worked there for 40 years at Eskom and he got his retirement package and we do receive a salary at the
end of the month, so we are coping.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 562 MS HLABANGANE
MR CURRIN: How has your grandson dealt with this terrible incident?
MRS HLABANGANE: My grandson didn't care throughout, he didn't show any signs of being
disturbed, but when he grew up, there were certain signs, even when he gets a paper that, a newspaper
where there is something about a person who has died, he always came with the newspaper clipping and
showed it to me. At some stage he got a Tribute magazine that had his father's photo and he showed it to
me and he said this is my father and look what they have done to him. And since then he has been very
disturbed, I had to seek medical attention for him.
MR CURRIN: Has he had fairly extensive medical treatment?
MRS HLABANGANE: Yes, I do take him to the clinic, but now I am facing a difficulty because where
he is attending, they want medical aid and I don't have a medical aid and that is the problem that I am
facing at this juncture. So I am usually taking him to the clinic.
MR CURRIN: Is he having psychological treatment?
MRS HLABANGANE: When I got to this place, they wrote me
a letter, that is the TRC, so that I should take this letter to the clinic because he was examined and they
analysed him, they said he is disturbed psychologically. So now he is having an appointment on Monday to
go to the clinic.
MR CURRIN: I see. You knew your daughter and your son-in-law very well, I gather?
MRS HLABANGANE: We were very close, we had a very close relationship. I did not regard him as a
son-in-law, but as a son. And when I was still working at a factory, my son-in-law would phone from
Hammanskraal and say please cook something very warm for me, and I would come and fetch you
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 563 MS HLABANGANE
and take you to work and he used to pick me up from home, take me to work and at times he would fetch
me from work and drop me off at home. We were very close. He was non-violent and it comes as a
surprise to me that he ended up dying so violently and they were claiming that he was a violent person and
he was doing all these sorts of things that he has been described to have been doing. He was very friendly
as far as I know him. He was quite a good person and they were married for 11 years, not even during a
single instant that we've had a problem.
MR CURRIN: Did they ever, at any stage, either Richard or your daughter talk politics to you?
MRS HLABANGANE: Not even on a single day, I've never heard them talking about politics. Even
though I was not staying with them, I would see them from time to time and whenever they came to my
place, they used to stay for about two days, maybe if my daughter was weekend off, they would sleep at
my place, today and the following day they would go to her brother's place. They were very close. I have
never seen Irene coming to my place without her husband, they were always together. At times they would
come to my place and they would look as to whether I had any groceries and they would open up the
cupboards and I would see them coming back with groceries and they would buy me some groceries. My
son-in-law used to buy groceries for me as well as for his mother.
MR CURRIN: Thank you for that Mrs Hlabangane, just one last question that I would like you to think
about and give us an answer to. You know that at one stage he was assaulted by a senior police officer and
this created problems in his relationships with some of his senior
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 563 MS HLABANGANE
officers. Did he talk to you at all about that incident?
MRS HLABANGANE: Yes, I am the one who went to Garankua to see him when he was admitted at
the hospital. His ear was oozing some puss after he had been assaulted by that policeman and he told me
that the person who assaulted him,
was Van Zyl. He was always talking about Van Zyl to me and at some stage he said to me when I die,
you must know that Van Zyl has killed me because he had this bad attitude towards me and he had some
sort of a vendetta against me.
MR CURRIN: I have no further questions to this witness Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CURRIN
JUDGE MALL: Perhaps it is an convenient stage to take the adjournment. We will resume at two
o'clock.
COMMISSION ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION
JUDGE MALL: Counsel made a request to us about the continued hearing of this matter. We will see
you in Chambers after we have finished the hearing today, at the close of the hearing.
Yes, Mr Mpshe? Mr Currin, were you busy with this witness?
MR CURRIN: Mr Chairman, I have finished leading this witness.
JUDGE MALL; Mr Du Plessis, any questions to put to this witness?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mrs Hlabangane, when
exactly did your son go to Zimbabwe?
MRS HLABANGANE: I don't know when he went to Zimbabwe, because I was not staying with him.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 564 MS HLABANGANE
ADV DU PLESSIS: Do you know if he went to Zimbabwe at some time before his death?
MRS HLABANGANE: I have a cousin who is in Zimbabwe and they once went there, but not recently,
not shortly before
he died.
JUDGE MALL: Are you talking about her son or her son-in-law?
ADV DU PLESSIS: Oh, the son-in-law, I beg your pardon. I am referring to Mr Motasi, your son-
in-law. What I want to put to you and I am going to put this because of a fact that we have knowledge of, I
put to you that your son-in-law and your husband on a date unknown to me, went to Zimbabwe.
Do you know anything about that?
MRS HLABANGANE: Yes, they once visited.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And was that at a time when your son was in the South African Police Force?
JUDGE WILSON: Son-in-law.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Oh, son-in-law, I beg your pardon.
MRS HLABANGANE: Yes, he was still a police, but they were just visiting a relative in Zimbabwe.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Can you at all remember when?
MRS HLABANGANE: That much I am not sure, I don't know, I don't know if it was 1983, but I was just
discharged from the hospital, I was admitted in hospital to have an operation.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Was it one of the operations that followed the assault on him?
MS KHAMPEPE: She is the one who had undergone an operation Mr Du Plessis.
ADV DU PLESSIS: I beg your pardon. Alright. Can you remember if this visit happened before
your son was
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 565 MS HLABANGANE
assaulted or after your son was assaulted? Oh, son-in-law.
MRS HLABANGANE: It was before the assault.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Can you mention, just call him by name and just say Motasi, it solves a
problem.
ADV DU PLESSIS; Yes Mr Chairman, as it pleases you. I am referring to Mr Motasi, was it before
he was assaulted?
MRS HLABANGANE: He was not yet assaulted at the time.
ADV DU PLESSIS: You see the reason why I put this to you is because of the fact that there was a
book written about your son, isn't that so? Son-in-law, Mr Motasi, who died, there was a book written
about him, is that correct?
MRS HLABANGANE: A book that was written about him, John Miles, yes, there is a book like that.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, yes, I am referring to the book that was written by John Miles, do you know
about that book?
MRS HLABANGANE: I saw that book and it was being sold at the CNA stores.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Now you testified that when you arrived at the house on that day when you were
informed that Mr Motasi and his wife were shot, that there were policemen at the house, is that correct?
MRS HLABANGANE: The police were keeping guard at the house and they were outside when we were
arriving. One of them was Mnisi.
ADV DU PLESSIS: How many of them were there?
MRS HLABANGANE: They were quite numerous in number, but the one that I remember quite well is
Mnisi, for he was a neighbour.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Was there any White policemen there?
MRS HLABANGANE: No, they were not there, it was only Black policemen.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 566 MS HLABANGANE
ADV DU PLESSIS: And did they speak to you?
MRS HLABANGANE: No, they never, the only thing they said was that, when I asked what had
happened, they said your son-in-law had died now and it has been some time now that we have been telling
him to drop this case and he insisted, that was the only thing they said. They never even made mention
of the fact that he was killed by the police, but people around were rumouring the fact that it was the police
who killed him.
ADV DU PLESSIS: So they never said he was killed by the police, is that correct?
MRS HLABANGANE: They said he was killed by the terrorists for he had joined the terrorist group
and all that, I don't know.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Did they say he was killed by the terrorists, do I understand you correctly?
MRS HLABANGANE: That is correct.
JUDGE MGOEPE: When did they say that, on that very day?
MRS HLABANGANE: When I was arriving, even before I went into the house, they had already told
me that.
MS KHAMPEPE: Mrs Hlabangane, was this a group of Black policemen whom you found around the
house?
MRS HLABANGANE: That is correct, a group of Black policemen.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Did they give a reason why the terrorists killed him?
MRS HLABANGANE: I don't know, I don't even know the term terrorists, at the time I did not even
know what it meant.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And can you, I am just a bit confused, can you explain to us what did they say
about the court case?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 567 MS HLABANGANE
MRS HLABANGANE: They said it has been time, they have been telling him that he should drop the
case and as a result the terrorists have killed him.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Can you remember after the assault, did he speak to you about the assault by
Colonel Van Zyl, did he discuss that with you in detail?
MRS HLABANGANE: My son-in-law told me about his assault
at Garankua when I went to see him at the hospital, that he was assaulted by Van Zyl and I shall know, if
he dies, it is because of Van Zyl's work.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Alright. And did he discuss the actions of White policemen against him
thereafter with you? After that day at the hospital?
MRS HLABANGANE: I don't quite understand your question.
ADV DU PLESSIS: I want to know if he discussed the actions of White policemen against him, that
is Mr Motasi, against him after that day at the hospital about which you testified now.
MRS HLABANGANE: Yes, he talked to me because I wanted to know what hurt him, I asked him and
he had to disclose.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And what did he say to you?
MRS HLABANGANE: He said he was assaulted by police at work and it is Van Zyl, he hit him on his
eardrum and I asked what had happened, and he said he will tell me after all that at home, and because I
come from Soweto and I didn't stay with them, we never had time after that.
ADV DE JAGER: I think what the counsel wants to know is whether there were other assaults by other
policemen with other names, not by Van Zyl?
MRS HLABANGANE: I will not know that far whether he was assaulted by other policemen or not,
because I come from
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 567 MS HLABANGANE
Soweto and it is not everything that I knew of.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Did you live at Soweto at that stage when he was assaulted by Colonel Van
Zyl?
MRS HLABANGANE: Yes, I have never been anywhere, I am still residing in Soweto.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And Mr Motasi and your daughter, where were they living at that time?
MRS HLABANGANE: They were living at the Training College first and they left in 1982, they
bought a house and they were now residing in Temba D Section.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Where exactly is that, is that close to Hammanskraal?
MRS HLABANGANE: Yes, it is in Hammanskraal.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And is that the house in which they were living in when they died?
MRS HLABANGANE: Yes, that is correct.
ADV DU PLESSIS; How frequently did they visit you?
MRS HLABANGANE: They usually visited me month ends, so
they could leave me with some groceries and go to "Vrystaat", they used to visit me around month end.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Did you have any knowledge of the work that Mr Motasi was doing, what he
was involved in, cases that he was involved in, did you have any knowledge of that?
MRS HLABANGANE: All I knew is that he was a policeman and he was dedicated to his work.
ADV DU PLESSIS: So, did he never discuss any details of the work that he was doing, with you?
MRS HLABANGANE: No. According to our culture, as a mother-in-law, I will never sit down and
discuss with the son-in-law, usually it will be my daughter who will have to tell my anything.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 568 MS HLABANGANE
ADV DU PLESSIS: And what did your son-in-law, do you know how your son-in-law felt after the
assault by Colonel Van Zyl, on him?
MRS HLABANGANE: I know that his eardrum was severely and brutally injured and he could not
hear properly.
ADV DU PLESSIS: What I actually mean is how did he feel, did he feel offended, did he feel
angry, how did he feel about the fact that he was assaulted by a White policeman?
MRS HLABANGANE: I know that he was no longer as happy as before. He was always worrying
about work and no longer happy.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Did he ever say to you that - or do you know if he said to your daughter, that
anybody threatened him with his life?
MRS HLABANGANE: He used to say that and he used to mention this White man quite often, Van Zyl
and he even said he will kill him, my son-in-law. And he even told me that should he die, I should
know that it is because of Van Zyl.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Alright. You testified about the next day when you were in the house, you
testified that certain people came to the house, that there was a tall White policeman, is that correct?
MRS HLABANGANE: That is correct.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Have you seen that policeman since that day?
MRS HLABANGANE: I have since seen the policeman since that day, I have never seen him after that.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Alright. And ...(intervention)
JUDGE WILSON: Sorry, could I clear up one point. Was it the next day or was it at three o'clock
on the afternoon of the same day?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 569 MS HLABANGANE
MRS HLABANGANE: That very day, that is why I am surprised, because I know that it was that very
day.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, thank you Mr Chairman. Now, how many other people were with this
one White policeman, can you remember, that afternoon?
MRS HLABANGANE: Two.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Right and you testified that you recognised the one man, is that correct?
MRS HLABANGANE: That is correct, his name is Joe Mamasela.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Now can you tell me or tell the Committee, how do you know that that was Joe
Mamasela?
MRS HLABANGANE: The person who assaults you, usually you will always know that this is the
person, you will never forget a person who has assaulted you and I have always known him since that day.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Did he assault you on that day?
MRS HLABANGANE: I will be lying if I say the other
Black policemen assaulted me, they were just standing looking at me. The only person who tortured me or
harassed me was the White policeman.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And Mamasela, where was he standing when the White policeman harassed
you?
MRS HLABANGANE: Mamasela was standing by the bedroom door where I was sitting in their main
bedroom.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And did you know Joe Mamasela at that time?
MRS HLABANGANE: I didn't know him at the time. But the first time I saw him on TV, I recognised
him, even now I can show you.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Was his face open that day or was his
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 570 MS HLABANGANE
face covered?
MRS HLABANGANE: It was not covered, it was during the day around three. They came and they
said they were coming from Mafikeng as I had already said.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Did you understand that Joe Mamasela also came from Mafikeng on that day?
MRS HLABANGANE: Joe Mamasela said nothing, it was only
the White, tall policeman who said they were coming from Mafikeng police station and they were coming
here to see what has happened.
ADJ DE JAGER: In what language did he address you?
MRS HLABANGANE: He was addressing me in English because he heard that I could not understand
any Afrikaans.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Alright. You further testified that it was a joke at the Training College that Mr
Motasi had died. Is that right?
MRS HLABANGANE: Yes, that is correct.
ADV DU PLESSIS: How do you know about that?
MRS HLABANGANE: His brother, who is here even now, he came back to tell me that this was turned
into a joke as if a dog had died.
ADV DU PLESSIS: You never heard any such joke yourself, did you?
MRS HLABANGANE: No.
JUDGE WILSON: Was his brother a policeman?
MRS HLABANGANE: He is working in the kitchen.
JUDGE WILSON: At the Training College?
MRS HLABANGANE: That is correct.
JUDGE WILSON: Thank you.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Can you remember a time when your son-in-law, Mr Motasi, did not work?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 571 MS HLABANGANE
MRS HLABANGANE: Yes, I remember.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Do you know what he was doing at that time during the day?
MRS HLABANGANE: During the day he would be at home, or probably go to town. He will also tell
me that occasionally when he was in town, he would go and see his attorneys and also taking his treatment
from the hospital.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, if you will just bear with me. Did he say, did he name at all any
other policemen who threatened him at any time?
MRS HLABANGANE: No, as I have said he always made mention of this one policeman. As I have
said, in our culture in our Black culture, you can't discuss with a son-in-law, maybe my daughter would be
in a position to answer that question, but according to our Black culture, I cannot have a conversation with
your son-in-law.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman, I have no further questions for this witness.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DU PLESSIS
JUDGE MALL: Mr Mpshe?
ADV MPSHE: I do not have questions, Mr Chairman, thank you.
NO EXAMINATION BY ADV MPSHE
ADV DE JAGER: How long did this visit to Zimbabwe last, your husband and son-in-law going to
Zimbabwe?
MRS HLABANGANE: They were there for three weeks and he came back because the wife had
already given birth to a baby.
ADV DE JAGER: So he went while his wife was expecting a baby and while she was in her last days?
Sorry, I couldn't hear the answer?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DE JAGER 571 MS HLABANGANE
MRS HLABANGANE: His wife had already given birth and had a baby in 1982, and they went there in
1983.
JUDGE WILSON: You've told us he was assaulted and his eardrum was injured.
MRS HLABANGANE: Yes, that is correct.
JUDGE WILSON: Did he have to have any hospital treatment as a result of the assault?
MRS HLABANGANE: He was admitted in Garankua and operated in the same hospital.
JUDGE WILSON: Was he operated on more than once?
MRS HLABANGANE: More than once, because the other one, he was operated in Lesedi.
JUDGE WILSON: Thank you.
MS KHAMPEPE: Mrs Hlabangane, how many times, to your knowledge did your son visit Zimbabwe, was
it only once in 1983?
MRS HLABANGANE: I only know once that he visited Zimbabwe.
MS KHAMPEPE: It was mentioned of a book which was written
about him by John Miles, do you know what the book says about your son?
MRS HLABANGANE: I saw that book, but it addressed them by Motali instead of Motasi, so it was a
different surname altogether.
MS KHAMPEPE: Do you know exactly what it says about them? Does it talk about both your son-in-law
and your daughter?
MRS HLABANGANE: It talks about my son-in-law, about his death, not about the wife.
MS KHAMPEPE: Do you know the title of the book?
MR CURRIN: Mr Chairman, sorry, Mr Chairman, maybe I could help with these questions. In an
attempt to give
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR CURRIN 572 MS HLABANGANE
publicity to this particular matter, I gave my entire file to John Miles many years ago and he wrote a novel
which is based on these facts, but it is fiction. And he wrote it around this particular story, there are many
gaps in the information that we had, there was lots of speculation and he filled in the gaps to make it a
whole story and in that book, he talks inter alia about Zimbabwe, so the book in fact is written as fiction,
although he does relate it very closely to the information he got out of my file.
ADV DE JAGER: Was there any information in your file about the visit to Zimbabwe?
MR CURRIN: There was no information at all in my file about the visit to Zimbabwe.
JUDGE MALL: Any re-examination Mr Currin.
MR CURRIN: No, can I just follow up the answer to that question, at that time he asked me, John Miles
did ask me if I knew anything about Zimbabwe and I said no. I read the book and I saw what he wrote and
as I say as far as I am concerned, it is fiction, I have no re-examination.
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR CURRIN.
JUDGE MALL: Thank you very much, you may be excused.
WITNESS EXCUSED
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 573 ADDRESS
JUDGE MALL: Any other witnesses?
MR CURRIN: I am calling no other witnesses in this matter, Mr Chairman.
ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman, that is the Motasi incident Mr Chairman. May I move that we move over
to the next matter, that is the KwaNdebele Nine, but before we do that Mr Chairman, I just want to report
to the Committee about certain instructions given by the Committee to me.
First it is about the Robeiro matter, the Chair and members of the Committee will recall that
names of certain people, that is the Magistrate, the Prosecutor as well as the State Attorney were wanted,
and the ...(tape ends) instead he gave me a Sowetan newspaper cutting dated 24 June 1987 wherein only
the name of the magistrate who held the PE is mentioned, unfortunately and I apologise in advance for that,
we do not have photocopying facilities.
I would have made copies for the members, I only have one copy that he gave me yesterday. May I hand
this up?
Should I just mention the name there Mr Chairman, or hand over to the Chair the copy?
JUDGE MALL: (Speaker's microphone not switched on)
ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman the reporter makes mention of what the (indistinct) fight about, that he
testified the same, gave the same evidence in the PE.
JUDGE MALL: What is the date on that copy?
ADV MPSHE: It is dated 24 June 1987, Sowetan newspaper. The name of the magistrate is mentioned
here as Mr J M Pretorius. Mr Chairman I am willing to give this over to
the Chair so that in the event of this is forgotten, it will be there.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, we are in possession of the PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 574 ADDRESS
record of the preliminary investigation and I think it is the last page thereof, gives all the names of the
people who were present at the preliminary investigation and who were involved. You will find that on
page 201. The name of the magistrate was J N Pretorius, the prosecutor was F E Roets.
JUDGE MALL: Is it Roots?
ADV DU PLESSIS: Roets, R-O-E-T-S. There is a name of the interpreter, I don't know if you are
interested in that and then the defence was conducted by Adv Hattingh, it seems like it is Adv Flip Hattingh
and Adv Wessels as his junior.
ADV MPSHE: Furthermore Mr Chairman, I have a document here, may I refer to it as a report from the
office of the Attorney General pertaining to the identification of the Nietverdiend victims. She has
compiled a report including the KwaNdebele and the names are being identified and in some instances, age
is being mentioned in the report. I repeat what I said about not having photostatting facilities and I would
hand this up to the Chair.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I want to state, while it is being handed up, our view in respect of this
document.
This document was apparently compiled by Adv De Jager of the Attorney General's office. It
contains information that is really evidence that goes further than the simple identification of the people
involved.
We have considered the matter and as far as we are concerned, Mr Chairman, this can be placed
before the
Committee as long as it is accepted, and I want to place that on record, that we do not admit that the
contents of this is correct. And we obviously have not had a chance to test the evidence, but for purposes
of the fact that it was a report compiled by Adv De Jager, with this information
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 575 ADDRESS
contained in it, it can be placed before the Committee. We don't admit the correctness necessarily thereof.
ADV MPSHE: V, this will be Exhibit V.
INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.
JUDGE MALL: This document will be Exhibit V, and it goes in on the understanding that the points
mentioned by the counsel for the applicants that they have no objection to it going in insofar as it reflects
the details of the names and ages of the individuals concerned.
ADV MPSHE: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, may I then refer the Chair to page 2 of Exhibit
V, that is under Item 6, all the names mentioned thereunder are names of people or of the deceased at
Nietverdiend. I did have the opportunity of discussing this with the parents who are here in person and
they confirmed that these are the names of their children who died at Nietverdiend. Save that paragraph 8 is
an amendment, still on page 2 Mr Chairman, age should read Jeremia Zondi Ntuli and not Masilela.
JUDGE MALL: That alteration as been made here.
ADV MPSHE: Sorry Mr Chairman?
JUDGE MALL; That alteration is reflected here.
ADV MPSHE: Oh, it is reflected, thank you Mr Chairman. Then page 3 thereof, Mr Chairman, Item
number 8, these are people who died in KwaNdebele. I have confirmed this with
the parents as well, thank you Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Mr Du Plessis, if you care to take instructions from your client, Captain
Hechter, I believe he is the applicant who said that certain questions were prepared for him in preparation
for an inquiry, I would like you to take instructions from him as to whether the names which have been
mentioned here, four names have been
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE MGOEPE 575
mentioned, we would like to know whether these names do ring a bell in his mind and take instructions
from him also as to where he places, if that is the case, anyone of those names in relation to the consultation
that he told us he had had before the investigations, the inquiry.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, my instructions are that Captain Hechter cannot recall exactly
who were involved, although he mentioned to me that there is a possibility that it could have been Frans
Roets, he cannot remember that a hundred percent in respect of the prosecutor.
JUDGE MGOEPE: What about the person who prepared for him a list of questions and answers in
anticipation of the provisional inquiry or preliminary inquiry? As also the
person who said to him, if that was not the same person, as also the person who said to him that the
magistrate would know what to do?
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, my instructions are that at the office when this was discussed the
State attorney and the prosecutor was present, that they were both present when this was discussed and he
cannot recall if either the State attorney or the prosecutor gave the information. We have heard, and I
haven't been able to verify the information pertaining to who the State attorney was.
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Du Plessis, you mention the name State
Attorney, that is a specific person. Isn't it a member of his staff?
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, a member of the staff of the State Attorney, yes.
ADV DE JAGER: Oh, that makes quite a difference.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, as it pleases you.
INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 576 ADDRESS
ADV DE JAGER: ... then only a member of the staff?
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Chairman, but I clearly meant somebody from his office. I meant
somebody from his office.
JUDGE WILSON: You said prosecutor too, does that mean the person who prosecuted in court the
next day?
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Mr Du Plessis, I don't think this kind of dialogue is going to be helpful, it may
create confusion. I think your client must come to the witness box so that we can deal with this thing
properly.
ADV DU PLESSIS; We don't have a problem with that Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Because otherwise there may be some
confusion.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes. Mr Chairman, I am informed by one of my clients, it is something that I
didn't pick up when I went through this, was that on the covering sheet of the preparatory examination, a
different prosecutor is mentioned, namely A van Tonder and it says there for the defence, P J Nieman,
those are different names from the names that appear right at the back of the record.
However, the first page of the record of the proceedings that was made by Lubbe Recordings,
indicate that on behalf of the State was Adv F Roets and on behalf of the
Defence Adv Hattingh assisted by Adv Wessels, and it also indicates on the first page of the typed record
that the Magistrate was Mr J N Pretorius. And it says Mr Roets was from the Office of the Attorney
General, Transvaal. If you will just bear with me I am going to see if there isn't any other information
which I might be able to place before the Committee.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 577 CAPT HECHTER
ADV DE JAGER: While we are busy with that, could we swear you in?
JACQUES HECHTER: (sworn states)
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, that seems to be the information that I could, from a quick
further glance, obtain. I may mention that it was mentioned to me during the discussions and I cannot
remember who the State Attorney was, but I don't want to name that person, unless there is some sort of
concrete evidence. I think it was mentioned to us by a journalist, I can't remember the guy's name. Yes, it
was mentioned to us by a journalist, but I don't have any confirmation.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Captain, you will recall that you told us
that prior to the commencement of the preparatory examination proceedings, certain questions and answers
had been prepared and were given to you in advance with the view that you should testify along those lines,
the following day?
CAPT HECHTER: That is correct, Chairperson.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Now certain names have been mentioned to us here of people who were
involved with these proceedings. You have heard these names, isn't it?
CAPT HECHTER: I have heard the names, Mr Chairperson.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Now, does any of these names ring a bell, do
you recall any one of these names?
CAPT HECHTER: Before I worked at the Security Branch, I was an Investigator at Brooklyn and I
dealt with Mr Roets, whether or not he was there that day, is difficult for me to remember. Mr Pretorius
was not there and I would not remember his face. I know Mr Roets' face as a result of having dealt with
him at several occasions at court. I
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE MGOEPE 578 CAPT HECHTER
cannot say for sure whether he was there or not. The same with the Prosecutor. The fact that I can
remember Mr Roets is due to the fact that I knew him personally due to my involvement in court cases in
Pretoria. The State Attorney for example, I cannot remember at all. Excuse me please Mr Chairperson, I
do not know if I remember Mr Roets, because I had seen him previously and because I am familiar with the
name, if that is the only reason I can remember him, I cannot say for sure, I cannot say whether it was
definitely him that day or not.
ADV DE JAGER: Captain Hechter, you say you knew him before?
CAPT HECHTER: That is why I say to you he is being
mentioned as the Prosecutor, then it has to be him, that is why I am saying to you I cannot say with
absolute certainty that it was him, but the record indicates that it was him, so we have to accept that. That
is why I said to you at a previous occasion that I cannot remember who was there. I cannot remember off
the top of my head who was there. But if you put it to me that he was there, I would say that it is
possible, I cannot remember. I appeared in court in connection with cases so many times, that someone
cannot always remember who the Presiding Officer or Prosecutor was.
JUDGE MGOEPE: I don't know what more is required to enable you to remember whether a
person you knew was there, we have gone into the records, you said you have forgotten the names, we
have taken the trouble to look for the records, we come out with the name, we give you the name, what
more is required to help you to remember that that person was there?
CAPT HECHTER: I cannot remember, it is as easy as that Mr Chairperson, I really cannot
remember if that man was there. If the record reflects it as such, I accept it as such, I
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE MGOEPE 579 CAPT HECHTER
will not dispute the record in any way. I accept that he was there.
JUDGE WILSON: Your Advocate has told us a moment ago in an answer to a query by me, that
the person who spoke to you the day before and told you what you must do in court, was the person who
appeared as a Prosecutor the next day, do you confirm that?
CAPT HECHTER: No, it would have been the State Attorney who acted on my behalf. Could I try
and explain this once again. At some stage I was contacted by my State Attorney, he said to me that I
should come and see him that day and I walked with him from his office. I know we walked quite a
distance, I am not sure whether their offices were where the Advocates' Chambers are today, but we
walked to the Square.
We had to sign a register downstairs, I kept that piece of paper for a long time and I tried looking for it the
other night, but I couldn't find it. We signed the register and we went up with a lift. And we went to the
Prosecutor, that is why I say that it could be Mr Roets, I cannot swear to that, but if I remember correctly,
Noel Robey was with me, or he probably was there already by the time I got there and the questions and
answers were written on a piece of paper and he said to me go and sit there, read this and remember it. If
you answer the questions the way the answers are written there, there shouldn't be any problems, the
magistrate has already received instruction as to what the result should be or something to that effect.
JUDGE MGOEPE: I think that evidence you have given it and we haven't forgotten it. But what I
want to find out from you is now, do you remember whether or not it was only yourself and that State
Attorney or was there apart from
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE MGOEPE 579 CAPT HECHTER
Robey ...(intervention)
CAPT HECHTER: As far as I can recall it was Noel Robey, myself, my Prosecutor, the Prosecutor
and my State Attorney. The four of us were present in his office, we went to his office.
JUDGE MGOEPE: The Prosecutor whose name you cannot remember?
CAPT HECHTER: The one who I accept could be Mr Roets.
JUDGE MGOEPE: On which basis do you accept that?
CAPT HECHTER: The court roll will definitely not make a mistake, Mr Chairperson.
JUDGE MGOEPE: But I thought Mr Roets was someone whom you knew long before then?
CAPT HECHTER: I knew him before then and I had seen him in court on several occasions before
then, he had prosecuted in matters where I was the Investigating Officer, so I used to see him in court on a
regular basis.
JUDGE MGOEPE: So if he were to come here and say that he was not there, what would your
attitude be?
CAPT HECHTER: I would say that he was disputing the court roll, he cannot dispute the court roll,
he can dispute my memory, but not the court roll.
JUDGE MGOEPE: The court roll is with regards to what would have happened at court itself not at
the consultation?
CAPT HECHTER: I would have to accept that it is the same person, it would be very strange to me
because as far as I can remember, the person at the consultation and the Prosecutor, were the same person
because you wouldn't go to one Prosecutor the one day and then the following day it would be someone
else. Certainly one Prosecutor would not come and speak to me the one day and then the next day
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE MGOEPE 580 CAPT HECHTER
another Prosecutor will be dealing with the matter. I understand what you are endeavouring to find out, but
I cannot ...(intervention)
JUDGE MGOEPE: Do you suspect that Mr Roets was there?
CAPT HECHTER: I suspect that he was there.
JUDGE MGOEPE: And if he says that he wasn't there, you would not be able to dispute that?
CAPT HECHTER: No, I would not Mr Chairperson.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Thank you Captain. The position that you don't remember who the State
Attorney was?
CAPT HECHTER: That is correct, I cannot remember at all because there isn't even a name on the
court roll Mr Chairperson.
JUDGE MGOEPE: I am not sure whether giving you a name would have helped Captain.
CAPT HECHTER: I don't know if it would have helped.
ADV DU PLESSIS: No Mr Chairman we looked, in the record that we have perused now twice, there is
no name mentioned of the State Attorney. As I say to you a name was mentioned to me, but in all fairness
to that person, I don't want to name that person unless there is some evidence.
ADV DE JAGER: There is no letters included as exhibits in the ....
ADV DU PLESSIS: Not as far as I can remember, but we can make sure again.
JUDGE MGOEPE: Another reason why this had to be cleared is that the Captain had testified
earlier on in public in the presence of the media and everyone else, about the fact that certain questions
were prepared for him in advance and today certain names have been mentioned and we just wanted to
clear it up so that wrong impressions should not be created
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE MGOEPE 581 CAPT HECHTER
that the names of the people who have been mentioned here were the people who were in fact involved in
such improprieties.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Chairman, we understand that.
JUDGE WILSON: Has any effort been made to check who went there with the witness? He tells
us you had to sign to get admission to that office and that he signed, presumably the other people would
have. Has any effort been made to check on that to get the names?
ADV MPSHE: No, Mr Chairman, no efforts has been made.
ADV DE JAGER: The building you referred to was in fact the Prudential Building Society's building on the
north-eastern corner of Church Square.
ADV DU PLESSIS: South-east. Thank you Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MALL: Yes, thank you very much.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Chairperson, hereafter we are proceeding with my application. Mr Chairman
the next incident I am going to call Captain Hechter, I don't want him to walk. If the Committee agrees.
JUDGE MALL: Yes, certainly.
MR CURRIN: Mr Chairman, before you do that, could I excuse myself. I am not going to be involved
in the next matter, my colleague Mr Powe will be involved in the next
matter and I am going to leave. I just would like to excuse myself.
JUDGE MALL: Thank you, you are excused Mr Currin. Where do we go to from here?
ADV MPSHE: Thank you Mr Chairman, we are starting the KwaNdebele Nine, Mr Chairman. We
shall be in the hands of the counsel for the applicants, Mr Chairman per agreement with him and counsel
for the victims, may I hand up upfront
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 582 CAPT HECHTER
the post-mortem reports in the KwaNdebele Nine, Mr Chairman.
That will be marked Exhibit W.
JUDGE MALL: Yes.
ADV MPSHE: Thank you Mr Chairman. We are in the hands of my colleague, thank you.
JUDGE MALL: Mr Du Plessis?
ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. May I proceed?
JUDGE MALL: Yes, please.
EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you. You will find this incident on page 75 of the
bundle of applications of Captain Hechter.
JUDGE MALL: Captain ...?
ADV DU PLESSIS: Hechter. It is the thickest bundle Mr
Chairman. And the particulars of the act appear from page 75. Captain Hechter, before you proceed with
the explanation of this incident, could you very briefly sketch, for the benefit of the Committee, when this
incident took place in 1986 or 1987, what the situation in the country was with specific reference to your
own application and specifically pages 9 and 10. ...(intervention)
JUDGE WILSON: It is 9 and 10 of what?
ADV DU PLESSIS: Of his bundle of applications. I am referring to the general background Mr
Chairman. Just briefly Captain Hechter, please.
JUDGE WILSON: Just the 73, 74, 75 not 9's and 10's.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Chairman, I am referring back to the beginning of the bundle, with the
general background.
JUDGE WILSON: Oh, fine.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Can you proceed please.
CAPT HECHTER: At that stage the intention of the ANC activists were to make the country
totally ungovernable and
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 583 CAPT HECHTER
in that way bring about a fall in Government.
ADV DE JAGER: Could you please help us, on which page are you reading?
CAPT HECHTER: Page 9 of the thick bundle which is the main application.
With other terrorist movements or similar organisations whose aim it was to overthrow the State
at that stage. Activists were particularly busy from 1984 to the end of 1989. Activists were normally busy
with the following type of activities: consumer boycotts, large scale intimidation of Black citizens and to a
lesser extent Whites, school boycotts, arson, assaults, assaults with the intent to do grievous bodily harm.
ADV DU PLESSIS: You do not have to go into detail on that Captain Hechter.
CAPT HECHTER: They were also involved in throwing bombs, the use of firearms and
specifically SAP members and persons
who had different political opinions to them, they wanted to intimidate them into identifying with the
ANC's objectives.
Because they were involved in such serious offences and illegal activities, it was necessary to
address this and counter this by way of actions which fell outside of the framework of the law and out of
the context of normal policing.
On page 10, due to the combat situation sketched above, in some cases it was necessary to
eliminate activists by killing them. It was the only way where, in the combat situation, we could
effectively deal with activists.
The detention law which was ineffective, normal court structures at that stage were ineffective
due to intimidation because people, witnesses would be intimidated
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 583 CAPT HECHTER
and killed if they did testify.
The objective of eliminations were aimed at eliminating and discouraging other activists from
proceeding with similar activities.
It also had a positive result on the White voters and if the Security Police, it made the work of the
Security Police effective if the activists fled the country and in this regard, it was regarded as necessary to
eliminate activists.
It was done for the protection of the State and also to combat the overthrowing of the State by
ANC/PAC activists and other liberation movements.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Hechter, you testified with regard to the Nietverdiend incident. With regard
to the question to which extent could trained terrorists who went outside of the country for training, be
stopped effectively from committing acts of terrorism, could you very briefly, I know we have heard the
testimony, could you just very briefly explain to the Committee, what your opinion was at that stage with
regards to the stopping such terrorists.
CAPT HECHTER: I would just like to tell the Committee that while I was involved in the Branch,
before these acts, it could have been in 1985 and 1986, as far as I can recall on two occasions some of these
youths in Mamelodi were recruited. They would then be transported out of Mamelodi by combi and there
was a road blockade a distance from Mamelodi and I know the first time I remember that these youths were
scared off by the combi being attacked and just to shake them up a bit, because they were on their way out
with whatever belongings they decided to take with them.
They would be told how wrong what they were doing was and if PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 584 CAPT HECHTER
they didn't know what would happen to them and these actions took place under officer's command and we
would then speak to the people and I would assume that assaults would take place although the details
aren't too clear to me anymore.
Thereafter these, I know the first time that same evening these youths were taken back to Mamelodi and
told to go home.
Shortly thereafter we conducted such an operation once again, it could have been under the
command of Captain Loots, I cannot recall the finer details, but what we discussed in the interim was that
there is no point in shouting at these people and not knowing what is happening to them. We recruited
another combi full of them, I cannot remember how many of them there were, took them to our Security
Branch office that evening, took photo's of them,
their fingerprints and a general background description of each of them, just to know what was going on
thereafter so that if they left the country thereafter, at least we would know who they were. Over a period
of time, although I cannot say how long, it came to our attention quite often that some of these youths had
left the country at a later stage on their own. Perhaps Colonel Loots could shed some more light on this, I
did not discuss it with him, I knew that he was involved and I suspect Warrant Officer Van Vuuren was
also involved in the last operation. The youths were then ready to leave the country for training at that
stage. To use a more appropriate word, they were very keen to leave the country for training.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Hechter, would you have regarded that in any way as having been successful
with reference to the two operations?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 585 CAPT HECHTER
CAPT HECHTER: Not at all, we did not monitor the first one, so I do not know what the success
rate of the first action was. The second one we monitored afterwards and as I said, some of the youths,
although I cannot say how many, did leave the country at a later stage. We received reports that they had
left the country for further training. Training meaning training as terrorists outside the country.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Can I just come back to my question. Could you just give the Committee an idea as
to what your opinion was at that time when anyone was to receive training on the outside as a terrorist.
Would you have been in a position with the normal legal system and the application of the justice system at
the time, to be able to stop such a
terrorist before committing an act of terrorism?
CAPT HECHTER: It was not possible at all, we did not know when the person was returning or
where the person was going to try and infiltrate the country, so it was impossible to stop the person from
entering the country. You would just hear that he was outside the country and you would only be
able to investigate the matter once the person had committed acts of terrorism.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Which was the most effective way of combatting the coming back of trained
terrorists?
CAPT HECHTER: I felt that to eliminate them beforehand
would be better than releasing them upon innocent citizens afterwards.
ADV DU PLESSIS: In this particular operation, when your testimony was heard with regard to the
Nietverdiend 10 incident, a whole hue and cry was made and I cannot remember exactly how, but an issue
was made that there was a link between the Nietverdiend 10 and the KwaNdebele 9. Can you
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 585 CAPT HECHTER
remember anything like that?
CAPT HECHTER: If there was any link I do not know about it. I did not know about it, I do not
know anything about it, and I do not know how the link is being made.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Before we come to this incident, this specific incident did you take Captain Wouter
Mentz and two other persons with you by the names of Gouws and Oosthuizen who were affiliated to the
Murder and Robbery Unit of the South African Police at that stage? Could you just tell the Committee
how this cooperation came to be?
CAPT HECHTER: That is correct Chairperson. These three members were affiliated to Brooklyn.
The one was a uniform branch member and the other two were Investigating Officers
and we worked together very closely for several years in Brooklyn. At that stage I was fairly new to the
Branch and I did not know the people very well. That afternoon when I received the information that the
people were at the point of leaving the country if they did not receive our assistance, I decided that we
should act immediately.
At that time Sergeant Mentz, I got his home number and contacted him at home. I contacted Gouws and
Oosthuizen and said that they should be prepared for an operation that evening against future terrorists,
persons who wanted to leave the country for training. They agreed to assist me that evening.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Was it strange to you that persons from the Murder and Robbery Unit worked
with the Security Branch?
CAPT HECHTER: No, I received instruction from Brigadier Cronje to work closely with Murder
and Robbery in all cases where terrorist weapons were being used. Weapons such as AK47's, Makorov and
Tokorov pistols and hand grenades. In
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 586 CAPT HECHTER
cases where such murder cases were being investigated, I would accompany them to investigate the
political side of the action.
ADV DE JAGER: Sorry, Mr Mpshe, could you perhaps tell us, or could anybody tell us whether Gouws
and Oosthuizen also applied for amnesty?
ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman, I do not know, but may I just say that I do not think they have done so,
since they are at this moment under the care of the Attorney General as Section 204 witnesses apparently,
and the notices were served by me on the Attorney General.
ADV DE JAGER: Oh, I see. The only reason why I am asking
is because we don't want to repeat the same case later, there is a lot of applicants waiting to be heard, and it
would duplicate work if they are involved, they should have applied - we should try and hear it at the same
time.
ADV MPSHE: That is very true and very correct. As I've indicated, I don't know, but I have served on
them. What I can do is, it's just a telephone call to the office of the Attorney General, they will tell me
whether they have applied or not, because they are under them. I will confirm that this afternoon, I will
make a call, thank you, but they have been served.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I may mention that I also have personal knowledge of the fact that
Gouws, Oosthuizen and Mamasela are State witnesses, strangely enough in terms of the evidence you are
going to hear now, the three people who did the shooting, are all State witnesses.
Apart from that Mr Chairman, I am informed by my clients that they have knowledge that both
Gouws and Oosthuizen did apply for amnesty.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 587 CAPT HECHTER
I may also mention that they also, my clients have had contact with them on an informal basis and
that they do know of the - Mr Mentz did have, and that they do know of this application, the evidence that
is going to be given and the fact that we are here today.
JUDGE MALL: Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Very well, Captain Hechter, could you describe this particular act to the Committee
very briefly in terms of your application?
CAPT HECHTER: This incident took place in 1986. I cannot remember the exact date and as far
as my knowledge goes, Brigadier Cronje was not at the office at that stage, for
some reason or another. Mamasela at that stage, operated under the MK acronym, he was known as
Mike and he moved around Mamelodi known as Mike and on a particular day he came to me and said that
some of the more militant youth had approached him and questioned him and asked him whether he could
arrange for them to leave the country for training.
I instructed him to proceed and to see if he could get together some of these people.
According to him at that stage, there was already a group. He gave me a list of names which he
had compiled. And he informed me that these persons due to the fact that we in our quest to eliminate
and detain and harass activists, these people had moved to KwaNdebele and that they were somewhere in
KwaNdebele. He could have given me an address, I cannot recall, but that they were all together in a house
and that they were very keen to leave the country.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Hechter, while we are dealing with this aspect, can you specifically recall
what the position
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 588 CAPT HECHTER
was, were these persons recruited by Mamasela or did they approach Mamasela?
CAPT HECHTER: I know that he said that some of - he mentioned some of the people, I cannot
say whether he recruited all of them, but that he said some of them had approached him, so one could draw
the inference that these persons and their friends, wanted to leave the country for training. These so-called
comrades who were extremely active in Mamelodi at that time, but who then moved out to KwaNdebele as
a result of our intimidation pursuits.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Can you recall any information whether there were any files or whether there was any
information on these activists?
CAPT HECHTER: They were so active that there would definitely have been files about them.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Can you recall in which type of acts they were involved?
CAPT HECHTER: Unfortunately not, Chairperson. I would by lying if I would say that John
threw a stone and Koos burnt a place, but the persons who moved out were youngsters who were very
active and who were known to us as being active,
because we were looking for them and who then fled to KwaNdebele to get rid of us.
ADV DU PLESSIS: What was the following step in the operation, could you explain that to the
Committee?
CAPT HECHTER: That is in the second paragraph, on page 75. I mentioned that Mamasela
pretended to be a MK member and his specific instruction was not to lure any people. There was a fuss
made in Brigadier Cronje's application with regard to the Nietverdiend 10, that these people were enticed,
but there was no need to solicit them. The fact
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 588 CAPT HECHTER
that Mamasela was a known terrorist who moved amongst their midst, they approached him for training
and hence it was not necessary to recruit them. I provided Mamasela with the Tokorov pistol and the hand
grenade to go - and sent him to show these people where the place was. A Makorov pistol. I also asked
him to establish whether these people really wanted to go for training.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Can you recall how long their training was?
CAPT HECHTER: It was about two or three evenings, from the
time Mamasela gave me the list up until we took action against them. I cannot remember exactly how long
it was.
JUDGE MALL: When you say how long the training was, training for what?
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, he testified that they would undergo - well let me just rephrase
the question then.
Captain Hechter, did the involved activists undergo training?
CAPT HECHTER: They wanted to be trained as terrorists.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Was that in the country?
CAPT HECHTER: No, they specifically wanted to leave the
country and while they were there, we gave them these Makorov pistols and the ammunition.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Exactly who did that?
CAPT HECHTER: Mamasela. I suspect that there was also a hand grenade, there should have
been a hand grenade with the stuff.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Did Mamasela provide any training?
CAPT HECHTER: As far as I can recall, he reported back that he showed them how the AK47
worked and also how the Makorov pistol worked and also how a hand grenade was operated. I
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 589 CAPT HECHTER
don't think he knew how a landmine worked, but I am merely speculating.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Over what period did he show them this?
CAPT HECHTER: It could have been two to three days. I think he could have been there with
them for two days and the third day we executed the operation.
ADV DE JAGER: I think we might as well try and get some clarity from the beginning. In your
submission you say that you cannot recall receiving instruction from anyone.
CAPT HECHTER: I issued the instruction, what I meant by
that was that I did not think that the Brigadier was there at that stage. He says that he was not there and that
would have meant that I would have issued the instruction of my own accord, that I decided on my own to
do this.
ADV DE JAGER: So you were the person in charge, you issued instructions and you did not receive
instructions from your superiors?
CAPT HECHTER: It was a general instruction because I had already received this instruction from
Brigadier Victor where he said that we should contain the activists in whichever way possible, we should
burn them, we should
attack them with bombs, but I was not told Jacques Hechter, go and do this specifically. At that stage I
took the decision.
ADV DE JAGER: Let us just get to the next thing. The three days training and as to how the firearms
could be operated, let us assume that these people were not going to leave the country, then you assisted in
training them to operate these things within the country?
CAPT HECHTER: That is correct Chairperson. At that stage - I cannot recall, perhaps the
decision had already been
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 590 CAPT HECHTER
taken at that stage to eliminate them.
ADV DE JAGER: Then the decision to eliminate them had nothing to do with whether they were leaving
the country or not?
CAPT HECHTER: Originally they approached Mamasela for training outside the country. This
stay at KwaNdebele and the training was an interim measure, I cannot explain to you what the exact
motivation was any longer.
JUDGE MALL: Where was the training?
CAPT HECHTER: It was in an outside room in KwaNdebele Chairperson. In an outside room at a house.
JUDGE WILSON: My recollection is that a moment ago you told us about how active these young
men were and you said you couldn't say what sort of acts they had done, but we were looking for them and
that is why they had run away to KwaNdebele.
CAPT HECHTER: Chairperson, if we were not looking for them, they would not have run away.
They were very active. You see we chased these young activists, but they were from Mamelodi and from
KwaNdebele, there was a group which got together and they slept in KwaNdebele, but they were still
active in Mamelodi, because we would chase them at night.
And they would then flee Mamelodi and they never even slept at their homes anymore, none of them slept
at their homes any longer.
JUDGE WILSON: You see because what you say in your application is Mamasela took them to
KwaNdebele, it's somewhat different from them running away to KwaNdebele, they were taken by
Mamasela.
CAPT HECHTER: I know that he did not take them there with a vehicle, whether he got them to
go there during the day,
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 591 CAPT HECHTER
I cannot say.
JUDGE WILSON: You say in your application, I am reading your words.
CAPT HECHTER: I understand what you ...(intervention)
JUDGE WILSON: Mamasela took them to KwaNdebele. That has a clear meaning doesn't it?
CAPT HECHTER: That is what I said, we accept it as such. That is correct Chairperson.
JUDGE WILSON: At the bottom of page 75, you've now changed your version?
MS KHAMPEPE: Were they not taken to KwaNdebele by Mr Mamasela specifically for the three day
instant training inside the country?
CAPT HECHTER: Mr Chairman, no, I cannot swear to that but
Mamasela did not take them because he did not have a combi available to him. He drove a blue
Volkswagen Golf, so he would not have been able to take nine persons there. As far as I know we did not
transport them anywhere per combi.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Hechter, could we just go to page 76 and could you read the first paragraph
to us?
CAPT HECHTER: After Mamasela informed me that the activists had received training and that at
their own request, they wanted to receive intensive training on the outside of the country, I decided that it
was the right time to eliminate
them.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Could you proceed please.
CAPT HECHTER: One evening I cannot remember the date, Wouter Mentz, Gouws, Oosthuizen,
Mamasela and I - I say here that we went to an unknown address. At that stage the place was unknown. I
can drive to that address now, but at that stage it was unknown to me. Only Mamasela knew where it
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 592 CAPT HECHTER
was. Mentz, Gouws, Oosthuizen and I who were all attached to the Murder and Robbery Unit at Pretoria
accompanied me at my request to assist me with the elimination. I cannot recall exactly when I requested
them to accompany me and provided them with the detail, but I know that Gouws and Oosthuizen and also
Mamasela said that they would like to conduct the shooting since we only had three firearms available,
they said that they would like to do the actual shooting. There was defence force staff and the area was
such that if one moved in an easterly direction on your right side, there were two Defence Force vehicles
moving up and down. If the one was on one side, the other one would be on the other side of the road. And
there was also just one road in as far as I could determine and from what I could see, there was also only
one road going in and one road going out. There weren't that many roads into the Black area and
Mamasela showed us where the house was.
I then had a can of fuel with me in the vehicle and I took it out and threw, emptied it on a tree
which was on the side of this Black residential area and set it alight. When this tree started burning, both
these Defence Force vehicles ceased their patrol and hastened to the tree to come and see what was
happening. I would also like to mention that the Defence Force patrol was there due to the activities of
these youths.
When they were out of the way, we drove in on the other side and I might add that Warrant
Officer Mentz was the driver of the vehicle. We drove into this residential area.
Mamasela took us to the address. If I remember correctly he first got out, we stopped a distance from
there, he got out and walked closer and went to speak to the people. He came
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 592 CAPT HECHTER
back and said the guys are ready. Gouws, Oosthuizen and he then went in, Mentz was still in the vehicle
and I stood on the corner monitoring, because you could still see the Defence Force vehicles lighting up the
area. I stood outside, I cannot remember exactly where, whether it was in front of the door or at the gate
or next to the house. Mamasela, Gouws and Oosthuizen went in and the next moment I just heard
gunshots. That was at my instruction, I had instructed them to go and eliminate them. They then went and
shot them dead, came out, got ... (tape ends) ... so that it should appear what the youth were doing to the
enemies at the time. When they eliminated them, they would set them alight. So all possible clues were
also destroyed. We then left again with this vehicle and whether or not the Defence Force came to the
scene, I do not know. We left the scene and never returned. We went back to our offices at the
Security Branch where we proceeded with our normal duties and if I remember correctly I had false
number plates on my vehicle, since it was a very fast car and no one would be able to catch up with me.
When I refer to my vehicle, I refer to my police vehicle, not my private vehicle.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain, when the persons were set alight, at the stage when they were set
alight, do you know whether they were deceased at that stage or not?
CAPT HECHTER: There were three AK47 weapons that were emptied on them, that would be
approximately 90 rounds in a small room, so there was no doubt that they were already dead.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain, before the Nietverdiend 10 incident, an issue was made of the fact that
the activists who were involved there, were youths. Since then various
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 593 CAPT HECHTER
versions of testimony have been heard about the involvement of youths in the liberation movements at that
stage. Is it possible for you to give the Committee any further testimony about the involvement of youths
and I am referring to documents which may be in your possession?
CAPT HECHTER: Perhaps I should mention to the Committee that I testified about incidents in the
Transvaal where youths went out of the country for training and then came
back and launched attacks and in the mean time I think, Adv De Jager mentioned, I think his grandfather
was someone who fought for the Boer Forces for 13 years. He was a "penkop", a young soldier who
fought for the Boer Forces for 13 years.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Last time with regard to the Nietverdiend 10 issue, it was presented to the
Committee as an example of how the youths were involved.
CAPT HECHTER: Yes, the penkop soldiers were known for their armed attacks on the English
forces.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And a book has also been written on that?
CAPT HECHTER: Yes, that is correct.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Are you in possession of that?
CAPT HECHTER: I am in possession of a few photostat copies, it was written by Piet Marais and
he says that penkops of the Second World War which lasted up until 1902, from 1899 to 1902.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, the book is available and I will, I am leading the evidence
because I will address you in argument in respect of this. I have made copies of the first two pages of the
book if the Committee is interested in that. It merely mentions youths were involved with the further
document that Captain Hechter will testify about now. The next document?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 594 CAPT HECHTER
CAPT HECHTER: Is Children of the Storm by Keith Campbell. Perhaps I can just read the
foreword.
"Assault and vandalism at the behest of extra-parliamentary political groups, was
revealed. It is this testimony of the comrades revealed in the Supreme Court which
forms the core and to (indistinct) of this publication"
There were statements from 11 year olds and 17 year olds who were involved in necklace murders, acts of
arson and in all acts of violence. I am not going to read it to the Committee because I do not believe
that it is necessary.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Have you read it?
CAPT HECHTER: Yes, and that was my experience of the youth at that stage.
ADV DU PLESSIS: These extracts do they deal with youths who were involved in liberation movements
and acts which were committed by liberation movements?
CAPT HECHTER: Yes, all these acts were committed in Black
residential areas and by persons whether youths or adults.
ADV DU PLESSIS; What ages are referred to?
CAPT HECHTER: As I said there was a 15 year-old boy, there was an 11 year-old girl, a 14 year-
old boy, a 17 year-old boy.
ADV DU PLESSIS; And according to that were they involved in deaths of people, Captain,
according to the book?
CAPT HECHTER; They were involved in burning of houses, necklacing, consumer boycotts, they
also set people alight, not necessarily necklaced them, where people were held and set alight.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I beg leave to hand in these two documents. That will be
Annexures X and Y. I
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 595 CAPT HECHTER
think that was Annexure W, Mr Chairman, yes. Mr Chairman, you will see the one is the book written by
Keith Campbell, Children of the Storm and the other one is the book about the young boys who were
involved in the Anglo Boer War.
Of the second book of the Anglo Boer War, I just made a copy of the first two pages, Mr Chairman, the
rest of the book is available if the Committee is interested in that.
JUDGE MALL: (...indistinct)
ADV DU PLESSIS: No, Mr Chairman, I think the first one will be Annexure X and the next one
will be Annexure Y.
JUDGE MALL; Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, thank you Mr Chairman.
INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.
JUDGE MALL: The photocopies are marked Annexure X.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, thank you Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MALL: The other one by Campbell is marked Annexure Y.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Captain Hechter, you testified about the political
objectives which were sought to be achieved in the Nietverdiend case, correct?
CAPT HECHTER: Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And Brigadier Cronje also testified about that. Now the evidence relating to
the Nietverdiend 10 event, does that correspond, the political objectives, do they correspond to those in this
particular case?
CAPT HECHTER: Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS; Do you also confirm the correctness of what was set out on page 79 to page 86
of that bundle of the application?
CAPT HECHTER: Yes, that is correct.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And on page 88, the last paragraph - or
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 596 CAPT HECHTER
the first paragraph on the top of that page, please read that to the Committee.
CAPT HECHTER: It was therefore necessary to eliminate those activists to prevent future acts of
terror and to in the war situation, to prevent the further recruitment of soldiers for MK, MK was Umkhonto
we Sizwe.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Do you also confirm the last paragraph on page 88 in respect of the order in
terms of which you acted?
CAPT HECHTER: It was in the execution of Brigadiers Victor and Cronje's orders relating to the
State of emergency and general unrest and intimidation by terrorists and potential terrorists.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman, I have no further questions to this witness.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DU PLESSIS.
JUDGE MALL: When you say that these were under the general instructions of Brigadier Cronje and
Victor, these two gentlemen together gave you these instructions?
CAPT HECHTER: Chairperson, no, I was - I later heard that it was during February 1986 that I
was summonsed to Head Office by Victor and there I received the order to act against these comrades in
accordance with their actions.
The comrades at that stage had controlled the Black townships of Pretoria totally and Brigadier Victor
called me in and gave me the instruction to neutralise these people by eliminating them and by intimidating
them.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Hechter, could I take you to the specific portion of your application?
Pages 5, 6 and 7, 7 and 8, you will remember that right at the beginning when we gave evidence about the
general background, evidence was
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 596 CAPT HECHTER
given to this Committee by Brigadier Cronje in respect of this general instruction. It would perhaps, for
purposes of the Committee, be of importance for me to take Captain Hechter just through the main
moments of this order.
Captain Hechter on page 5, the general situation at that stage which reigned at that time as set out
and there is reference to the fact that written orders were never
issued, only oral orders and then on page 6, could you please read the first paragraph on page 6.
CAPT HECHTER: The order given by General Victor to Brigadier Cronje and which was also
conveyed to myself, was given the beginning of 1986. I was summoned by Brigadier Victor to the South
African Police Head Office. Brigadier Victor was at that stage second in command of the counter-
insurgency Unit of the South African Police. It was at about six o'clock in the morning that I saw him. I
was present, Captain Jaap van Jaarsveld was present, as well as his son, Captain Johan Victor.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, may I just mention in Captain Van Jaarsveld's evidence he will
confirm, in his statement he will confirm that he was present at this meeting where this order was given.
Could you continue?
CAPT HECHTER: Early in 1986 Chairperson, I later heard that it was in February 1986
...(intervention)
ADV DU PLESSIS: The 12th of February, that is what Captain Van Jaarsveld says. That was the
exact date. Captain Hechter, for the convenience of the Committee, would you please read the rest?
CAPT HECHTER: Brigadier Victor was quite upset and excited during this conversation and told
me that South Africa was burning and that Pretoria in particular was burning. He
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 597 CAPT HECHTER
said that you security people, are not doing anything about this. I don't know whether it is mentioned here,
Brigadier Victor had previously been a Commanding Officer of the Security Branch, Northern Transvaal
region. Brigadier Victor then pointed out to me that I was in Unit B, the Black Power Unit and he said that
we had files pertaining to the activists, Black activists. At that stage we had about 100 informers who had
been tasked with, now something was left out here, to monitor specific activists. Reports came in on a
daily basis and further reports were compiled from this information.
Brigadier Victor also pointed out to me that from this information a profile could be built up of
who the most important activists and troublemakers were. I was aware of the fact that Brigadier Victor, oh,
here it is, had previously been with the Security Branch in Pretoria and knew exactly how things worked.
He was the Commanding Officer of the Security Branch before my time, but I was aware of that fact. On
page 7, Brigadier Victor's words were more-or-less to the following effect, namely "you do have the file
and you know who these people are." He gave instructions that if an activist for instance used petrol
bombs or handgrenades that we should act in exactly the same way and that if a house was set alight, petrol
bombs or bombs had to be thrown. His house and to be targeted, namely the activist's home. We in other
words had to constantly react in just slightly more serious way. The instruction clearly entailed that we
should act outside of the normal confines of law and the administration of justice, in other words we could
not go from the point of departure of policemen acting within the normal confines of
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 598 CAPT HECHTER
the administration of justice. And the implication of this was that we had to act outside of the confines of
the law to act as a counter measure to the instability in the country, and the reasons for this was obvious.
Despite the security legislation existing at the time,
the country was becoming totally ungovernable and it was impossible to restore stability by means of the
normal channels and methods. In reality there was a situation of war reigning in the country and the
situation cried out for answers which would be valid in a normal state of war. The possibility was also
discussed that people could die in this process.
Page 8, the instruction was a general blanket instruction to act and to counter-act the instability. It
was essential in the circumstances prevailing and the instruction had to be carried out. It was not
necessarily to constantly refer actions back to Brigadier Victor. He gave Brigadier Cronje the same order
and also told him that he had to establish a Special Task Force to facilitate the implementation of this order.
In this way I became involved in all the incidents set out in my amnesty application. Each one of
these incidents mentioned in my amnesty application must therefore be seen in the light and in the context
of this general instruction. Specific orders which I received from time to time, for instance instructions
from General Ras and from Brigadier Cronje, were specific orders relating to specific operations.
Instructions which I received from Brigadier Cronje were instructions which he had carried out in
pursuance of the general, or blanket instruction from Brigadier Victor. And in this context and respect of
the orders received by
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 598 CAPT HECHTER
Cronje as well as the other orders which I received from inter alia Brigadiers Victor and General Ras, I
refer to the amnesty application of Brigadier Cronje in which he makes specific mention of those particular
orders.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Captain. Captain, to just clarify one issue, the evidence has already been
put before the Committee, but can you remember what the circumstances were when these applications
were drafted?
CAPT HECHTER: Chairperson, we had to draft the applications on very short notice so that we
were ready for sitting during October in Johannesburg. I flew to Cape Town seven o'clock that morning,
and the previous night, I worked throughout the night and got no sleep so it was very rushed.
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Du Plessis, I have a lot of trouble with this kind of evidence. It was your choice as to
when you
were going to hand in those applications.
INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.
ADV DE JAGER: I apologise I will repeat what I said. You were not instructed by the Committee or by
anybody else when you should hand in the applications, it was your personal choice, so I simply can't see
how you can try and hide behind that fact at this stage.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Chairperson, I am simply submitting this evidence so that I will later be able to argue
certain facts in the application and this information is contained in each and every application, you will
notice that it's said that any extension of these facts or elaboration on these facts, will be done during
testimony before the Commission and that aspects such as for instance motives, objectives, etc, will also be
dealt with during evidence and will be more fully motivated. Due to time constraints I abide by what I
have
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 599 CAPT HECHTER
just said. I am just trying to place information before the Committee about the particular time constraints
referred to on page 17. Thank you Captain Hechter. Mr Chairman, I see it is quarter past four.
JUDGE MALL; Mr Mpshe?
ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman, may I be preceded by Mr Powe who is representing the victims, thank
you Mr Chairman.
MR POWE: Thank you Chairperson.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR POWE: Captain on the last bit of evidence you gave just before you
explained the pressure under which you prepared your applications and so forth, you testified at some
length about some instructions you received from Brigadier Victor and Cronje, and I find as to the general
import of the instructions you say you heard, but am I correct in saying that not even you would have
understood those instruction to mean that you can go out and engage in that sort of elimination before
having properly investigated matters and satisfied yourself as to the correctness or otherwise of whatever
allegation you were bringing against a particular activist, and we will come to the term activist in a
moment. Not even you could have understood it that way, am I correct?
CAPT HECHTER: No, that is a mistake, that is exactly how I saw it.
MR POWE: Are you saying to this Committee that when you received this instruction, you
understood it to mean that you can kill, eliminate as you say, regardless of what the true facts are or may
be, is that what you are saying to the Committee?
CAPT HECHTER: The true facts were contained in source reports and in files which were at my
disposal and the
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR POWE 600 CAPT HECHTER
disposal of my office and it was only on the basis of that
information, that we acted against people.
MR POWE: Was that your understanding of the instruction, did you understand it to mean
...(intervention)
CAPT HECHTER: That is correct. That is how I understood it. I am already involved in other
incidents before this KwaNdebele 9 incident, I was for instance involved in the Nietverdiend 10 in which
similar kinds of people had been eliminated and people who were actually activists who were involved in
these acts.
MR POWE: You have still not answered my question. Was it your understanding that before you
engaged in an act of
elimination you have to satisfy yourself as to the true facts, you personally if you execute such an order?
CAPT HECHTER: That is right.
MR POWE: Was it your understanding?
CAPT HECHTER: That is correct, that was my understanding.
MR POWE: If you did anything that does not accord with his instruction and with that understanding,
then you did not carry that - whatever act you engaged upon, was not in pursuance of such an instruction,
am I correct?
CAPT HECHTER: That is correct, yes.
MR POWE: I now come to the two documents that were handed in by your representative and -
rather two books, Penkoppe and Children of the Storm. When did you first get to read these books if ever?
CAPT HECHTER: I read those last week.
MR POWE: At the time when you engaged on these two missions, you were not aware of the
existence of this book?
CAPT HECHTER: No, I wasn't aware of the books, but I was aware of the acts because I was
constantly confronted with
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR POWE 601 CAPT HECHTER
actions by youths which corresponded to the actions depicted in these books.
MR POWE: It had no influence on your thinking at that time?
CAPT HECHTER: Not at all.
MR POWE: I will put another proposition to you, even if you had been aware of these books and the
contents thereof, not even you would have understood these books to mean free licence to kill whatever
youth moves around Mamelodi or KwaNdebele or whatever the case may be.
CAPT HECHTER: You are talking about youth and free licence. Those are two different concepts.
It wasn't a free licence and these youths weren't innocent. These were hardened activists who had
no respect for the lives of others. If you didn't agree with their political objectives, your house was burnt
down, your car was burnt down, you were set alight, so at that stage things were so bad that in respect of
Black policemen staying in the Black townships, these people didn't even dare to come to the office, they
simply had to stay at home and guard their homes. And we gave them special arms and ammunition
for this purpose. So these people weren't all youths.
MR POWE: That was a reply, but it was not a reply to my question. It could have never been your
understanding that these books or the contents thereof advocate for the elimination of innocent youths and
young men.
CAPT HECHTER: That is not what I've said, no.
MR POWE: Let us come to the incident and just examine it in totality. And before I do so I would
like to take you back to what you said about Mamasela in your evidence concerning the Nietverdiend
incident, and it is at page 646 of the record. I don't have the volume, I have an extract
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR POWE 602 CAPT HECHTER
Chairperson. Volume 5 I am told. I am indebted to you.
If I may proceed Chairperson.
JUDGE MALL; Yes, do so.
MR POWE: You say the following about Mamasela.
"Mr Chair, what Joe told these children I would of course not be able to repeat to you,
but as I had already gotten to know Joe Mamasela in 1986, he was a very intelligent and
pleasant person".
And I am taking extracts Chairperson, I am not reading the whole passage.
"He was an excellent operative, his loyalty was complete...."
and then further on in the same passage at 646, you say this,
"As I have said Mamasela is highly intelligent and extremely well trained operative. He
is an operative by nature".
Do you stand by that description of Joe Mamasela?
CAPT HECHTER: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR POWE: I then come to your application. With that in mind let's come back to your application
and in particular page 75 thereof. This is what you have to say in your application.
"I can't remember where the instruction came from. The proposal for the operation
came from Mamasela. Mamasela impersonated an MK member and his instructions
were specifically not to solicit people. He recruited a group of young activists who
would undergo training as MK soldiers. Mamasela gave an AK 47, handgrenades,
Makorov pistols etc. made these available to them to train
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR POWE 602 CAPT HECHTER
them".
it is this part,
"He recruited a group of young activists."
CAPT HECHTER: That is correct.
MR POWE: Now you take Mamasela, this highly trained operative, highly intelligent person and you
placed him
among these youths and on your own testimony, your application, he went out to recruit these youths.
CAPT HECHTER: I understand what you are saying, he, however, was not instructed to recruit the
people.
MR POWE: That is what happened, this highly intelligent, trained operative goes out to recruit these
youths, continues to train them.
CAPT HECHTER: No, ...
ADV DU PLESSIS: .....please be allowed to answer the question.
JUDGE MALL; Please put the question to him.
INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.
JUDGE MALL: ... question, give him a chance to answer.
MR POWE: As you please Chairperson. What I am putting to you Captain Hechter, is that between
you and Mamasela you devised the scheme in terms of which this highly trained, very intelligent operative,
went out and lured these youngsters into agreeing or showing a willingness to undergo training. That is in
a nutshell what I am putting to you.
CAPT HECHTER: I deny that.
MR POWE: Are you aware of the ages of the people who were involved? The people who ultimately
perished, are you aware of their ages or must enlighten you about that?
CAPT HECHTER: At that stage he would in all probability not have told us their ages, he would
only ... (tape ends)
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR POWE 603 CAPT HECHTER
ADV DU PLESSIS: I just have to point out for record purposes again, nothing in that regard has
been proven and we cannot admit at this stage, the ages of any of the people involved.
JUDGE MALL: (Indistinct)
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes.
JUDGE WILSON: He said the ages may have been in his files, he may know, have known that.
MR POWE: Mr Chairman, the comment is totally premature with respect.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I am just making the point that the question cannot be phrased as
if that fact is admitted. That is the point I am making.
INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.
MR POWE: If I put to you that they were as young as 15, would you have any quarrel with that?
CAPT HECHTER: I can't give you an answer.
MR POWE: These were youngsters who at that time, as you sketched the events, and the situation
and you testified at
length about that, would have been highly impressionable. Would you agree with that sentiment?
CAPT HECHTER: I unfortunately did not know how impressionable they were because I didn't
speak to them myself.
MR POWE: Was it not your experience at the time that virtually every youngster his or her desire
would have been to undergo training, was that your experience?
CAPT HECHTER: No, it was not.
MR POWE: It wasn't? Young people are by their very nature impressionable, can you argue with
that sentiment?
CAPT HECHTER: I cannot dispute that.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR POWE 604 CAPT HECHTER
MR POWE: A highly trained, someone who masquerades as an MK operative, who is highly trained
and intelligent and you put him amongst youths, would you argue with the sentiment that he is likely to
make a very high impression on them?
CAPT HECHTER: It is possible.
MR POWE: But to lure them into undergoing training, what would you say the likelihood of them
saying no, would be?
CAPT HECHTER: Could I give you a broad answer. I can't see that if I have 15 year olds and I
start telling them about how we would kill people, I am speaking of normal circumstances, about today's 15
year olds, that they would agree to go abroad, away from their parents and away from their homes and their
loved ones, to undergo training to come back in order to kill people. Those were unusual times and
circumstances, those people went to MK, they were not obliged to do so. They weren't in chains, they did
so of their own accord and went to him and asked him whether they could go for training.
MR POWE: Captain, they went to him on their own accord?
CAPT HECHTER: That is how it was told to me by Mamasela.
MR POWE: You cannot tell us as a fact that they came to Mamasela?
CAPT HECHTER: That is correct, but I also can't tell you for a fact that they were impressed by
Mamasela.
MR POWE: ... Mamasela would have said to them?
CAPT HECHTER: No, that I can't tell you or what they told him.
MR POWE: ....Mamasela used to threaten them?
CAPT HECHTER: Not, at all. I can tell you what I told him to tell them.
MR POWE: ... Committee, our sessions in very general terms
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR POWE 605 CAPT HECHTER
of what the situation was and what they youths were involved in, but all these other things, whether these
nine would have gone to Mamasela out of their own, that you do not know?
CAPT HECHTER: No, that is correct, I cannot tell you that.
MR POWE; Now, to come back to the first part of your answer and that is when you said that in this
day and age a youth, if you say to a youth I am going to train you to kill, that
youth would come with you, that is not what I am asking you.
Let's go back to the time then, in 1986, which you yourself said it was abnormal circumstances. Mamasela,
this intelligent operative, MK member, goes to 15 year olds, youngsters, says I Mamasela, will take you
there, will take you for training, you cannot argue with anyone who says that he is in all probability going
to succeed in getting them to agree to undergo training.
CAPT HECHTER: That is pure speculation, we don't know that. His instructions were not to do
that, so this is pure speculation whether he did so or not, we weren't there.
ADV DE JAGER: ...you say they were 15 years - (Speakers microphone is not on) - some of them were 20
years, put the facts correctly, let's keep to the facts please.
MR POWE: As it pleases you Sir. I started off by saying the youngest was 15, and of course one
draws a distinction from age to age, but I didn't want to go into the ages at this stage. I will do that in due
course. My proposition goes to if there were a number of 15 year olds, that they would have been
impressionable. And Mamasela is likely to have made an impact on them and on their way of thinking.
Given the time, surely there cannot be an argument about that?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR POWE 606 CAPT HECHTER
JUDGE MALL: But I think he has conceded that Mamasela must have made an impact on them.
MR POWE: He said we can't say that because we don't know what Mamasela said. If he has
conceded then I will drop the point Chairperson, it wasn't my understanding that he had.
JUDGE MALL: You understand that Mamasela is likely to have made an impact on these people?
CAPT HECHTER: That is very possible Chairperson, I
unfortunately can't say yes or no.
JUDGE MALL: Is it a matter on which you can't answer?
CAPT HECHTER: That is speculation, but it is highly possible that he could have.
JUDGE WILSON: ... clearly made an impact on all youths (microphone not on)
CAPT HECHTER: True, but we were all trained people.
MR POWE: Yes, even more so. You were trained people and he impressed you so much, what about
a 15 year old in this one case?
CAPT HECHTER: If you come to my 15 year old as a trained soldier and tell him to kill people, he
will run away. He
will simply not take that opportunity.
MR POWE: Captain you told us about the 1986, 1987 time and the situation, consumer boycotts,
intimidations, school boycotts, arson, assaults, firearms, etc., etc. That they have been the overall situation,
but the incident we are dealing with now is about these people. This group of people that perished in
KwaNdebele one winter evening. You personally, sitting here, and at the time when you and Mamasela
started this, do not on what you have told this Committee and what is in your application, seem to have had
any concrete proof of them ever been involved in any one of
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR POWE 606 CAPT HECHTER
these acts?
CAPT HECHTER: This act against them would not have been committed if we hadn't had files
which connected them to this type of conduct and actions. There wouldn't have been a general state of
emergency at the time if this problem hadn't already escalated to this extent, so I am saying we had files on
these people and they were involved in these acts. Otherwise they wouldn't have jumped at the chance of
being trained, this is how active they were.
MR POWE: ... perished, are you saying to this Committee, do you want this Committee to honestly
believe that on what you set out on your application and what you have testified, that you had concrete
evidence, information about these people, that they had been involved in acts of consumer boycotts,
intimidations, school boycotts, assault, are you honestly wanting the Committee to believe that?
CAPT HECHTER: Chairperson, this gentleman wasn't there. We didn't have the concrete
evidence, if we had, we would have prosecuted and charged the people, but we were reacting to
source reports, and not just a single report, but numerous source reports which identified these people as
the trouble makers in Mamelodi.
JUDGE MALL: Are you saying that you knew which people were involved in this group that Mamasela
was going to take with him?
CAPT HECHTER: Chairperson, at this stage it is difficult for me to say. As I have already
testified, I would never have, in respect of a person whose name was not on record with us, I would never
have exposed such a person to this. Unfortunately we are in this unenviable position whereby I have to
give you information without the necessary
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR POWE 607 CAPT HECHTER
documentary backing, which I would have had if those documents hadn't been destroyed.
JUDGE MALL: ... boils down to this, when Mamasela and you embarked on the scheme, do I understand
that you had with you, before you, a list of names of eight or nine young people, you've checked their
activities and you found out that they were people who had engaged in this kind of activity, and you then
tell Mamasela, very well, go ahead
and recruit these people, or is your evidence that there was general activity by youths between the ages of
15 and so on who were engaging in all kinds of activities, so you just instructed Mamasela to get hold of
such youths?
CAPT HECHTER: No, the way it worked was like this. Mamasela came to me and told me that he
had been approached by some youths. Now we have already argued that point. He had been approached by
these youths for purposes of training. Whether they all approached him or whether it was some of their
friends who just accompanied them, that I can't testify on. At some stage he brought us a list and
perhaps, no Mr Van Vuuren wasn't yet there at the time, but he brought a list to the office containing the
names of these youths. And these names were checked, or would have been checked, I wouldn't have
done it myself, I would have told him to do so. I would have told him to check the names and find out
whether there were files on these people, and if so these files would have been perused, this is Mamasela.
I would have told him to do that and he would then have drawn the files relating to these persons and those
files would have been checked to ascertain whether these people were actively involved or not, and
whether their names appeared in the index.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR POWE 608 CAPT HECHTER
JUDGE WILSON: So the whole thing depended on Mamasela. Mamasela came and told you
these people want to have training and he took them away somewhere. Later he came back with a list and
said these are the people. And you said Mamasela, go and check your list?
CAPT HECHTER: No, no, Mamasela go and draw the files. Bring the files.
JUDGE WILSON: He comes back and says yes, they have all got files?
CAPT HECHTER: That's right.
JUDGE WILSON: And then you go and kill them, because Mamasela said so?
CAPT HECHTER: Yes, I had no reason to doubt him.
JUDGE WILSON: ...Ascari, and you take his word to kill how many people altogether?
CAPT HECHTER: Files were available, if there were no files, we wouldn't have eliminated them
and acted against them. He would have brought me those files, he wouldn't have done so
by himself.
JUDGE WILSON: You said didn't do it yourself, you said so a minute ago, you said I would have
got Mamasela to check?
CAPT HECHTER: No, I told him to draw the files.
JUDGE WILSON: That is not what you said Captain.
CAPT HECHTER: I told him to go and draw the files and bring them to me.
JUDGE WILSON: Is it possible to have his words repeated, the Afrikaans version?
ADV DE JAGER: My note here is that Mamasela bring the names, I said draw the files and then the files
would be checked. He didn't say by whom it would be checked.
CAPT HECHTER: I can't dispute that, that would be in line
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR POWE 609 CAPT HECHTER
with what I wanted to say.
MS KHAMPEPE: Would the checking have been the function of Captain Loots?
CAPT HECHTER: Chairman, at that stage Captain Loots as you've heard, wasn't really involved in
my operation. I was quite a small unit within his larger unit, so he wouldn't have been involved. He wasn't
involved in that.
MR POWE: Coming from the questions from the Committee, can you tell us here today, did these
people die because they were involved in acts of boycotts, intimidation and so on or did they die because
they had expressed their wish or desire to undergo training? Why did they die in your own mind?
When you went out to eliminate them, why did you?
CAPT HECHTER: I understand what you are asking me. Firstly they were activists, they were
activists engaged in all these acts of terror and they furthermore also requested to go out and be trained as
activists, so the elimination was a preemptive strike to prevent trained people returning to
the country. Because then it is that much more difficult. Should we allow them to return, kill a large
number of people and then act against them. Just remember they were never forced to go for training.
MR POWE: You say that now. Have a look at your application, page 75. He recruited a group of
young activists.
CAPT HECHTER: Recruit does not mean I grab hold of and then force you to do something, or
yes, coerce you.
MR POWE: It still means you take an active step to go and get someone to be interested, you entice
someone into becoming interested in a particular course?
CAPT HECHTER: Correct.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR POWE 609 CAPT HECHTER
MR POWE: Yes, now you come here and tell the Committee that these are people who wanted out of
their own, to go and undergo training outside and they would come back as dangerous terrorists, that is
what you are now telling the Committee. It doesn't follow from your application, with respect. It
doesn't follow.
CAPT HECHTER: That is your view, it is not my view. I don't agree with your view.
MR POWE: Is it such an unreasonable (...indistinct)? Your words are there Captain, you recruited
them.
CAPT HECHTER: They went voluntarily, they went to him, he recruited them or told them that he
could help them after they approached him. He told them that he could help them, that is what recruit
means. And he even went so far, as far as I can infer, that he met them in Mamelodi, they went for
training, they furnished the house in Mamelodi, not us ...(intervention)
MR POWE: This document is in your language.
CAPT HECHTER: In KwaNdebele, not Mamelodi, I beg your pardon. I apologise, in KwaNdebele, not
Mamelodi.
MR POWE: ...it means to recruit, and it would mean that you go out positively, unsolicited and you
go and entice someone into a course. You cannot argue with that.
CAPT HECHTER: That is a technical point and I will concede that. As it stands here, that is the
case.
JUDGE WILSON: I think in fairness to the witness, if you are going to make so much use of the
word recruit, you should read the previous sentence: "His instructions were specifically not to solicit
people."
MR POWE: It may be so that there is that phrase, but then we have another difficulty and the witness
must explain
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR POWE 610 CAPT HECHTER
that. In that the two seem to be mutually contradictory, can you deal with that?
JUDGE MALL: Can we move on?
MR POWE: I had said that the witness must deal with these inherently contradictory statements. Are
you saying I must pass on and leave it for argument, Chairperson?
JUDGE MALL; I think he has already tried to explain to you that the word, these is a difference between
him and you on the technical meaning of the word recruit. I don't think you can take him any further than
that.
MR POWE: Okay, we will leave it for argument, Mr Chairperson.
JUDGE MALL; Yes.
MR POWE: I think, that anyone can argue with it, is beyond us, we will argue it. Not only - I
hear my learned friends find it extremely funny, I don't know why. Not only do you set this, or this man
who is highly intelligent goes out and he recruits, but you Captain Hechter, you give him the resources to
go and carry on this mission, this training, this "werwing", you give him an AK47, you give him a hand
pistol, you give him handgrenades and a landmine. You make resources available to him to go and
undertake this training. That we agreed about, I think that is common cause.
CAPT HECHTER: That is correct.
MR POWE: You don't find it morally questionable Captain, that you then thereafter having set
Mamasela upon these youths or these young people, some of them as the Chair correctly says, may have
not been so young, having given them no more than two days training on your own version of what
happened, you go out and you eliminate them in the
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR POWE 611 CAPT HECHTER
manner that you did.
CAPT HECHTER: That is correct.
MR POWE: It doesn't worry you at all?
CAPT HECHTER: I beg your pardon?
MR POWE: You don't find that morally questionable, to do that?
CAPT HECHTER: I do not believe that we are here to test my morals.
MR POWE: I will argue that the morality of your act is certainly startling, and that it makes your
cause, your application for amnesty even more so difficult to grant, or should, that is what we will argue to
the Commission.
These young men were not trained terrorists until Mamasela got involved with them, is that
correct? That we agreed upon?
CAPT HECHTER: That is correct. They were very active activists, who in all probability had
probably been involved
in offences.
MR POWE: That these people who died in KwaNdebele were not terrorists, trained terrorists, before
Mamasela got involved with them?
CAPT HECHTER: They were not trained yet, they were at the infancy stages.
MR POWE: And the scheme was that once Mamasela has given them a taste of training, they would
then be taken out, they would be eliminated, that was the ...(intervention)
CAPT HECHTER: For them, the intention was for them to change their minds, say that I cannot go
through with this.
MR POWE: How long do you need in order to change your mind about killing a person? You don't
know?
CAPT HECHTER: I cannot tell you, I was not present.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR POWE 612 CAPT HECHTER
MR POWE: You, yourself said that youths - to be trained at that stage in that year, you said so
yourself.
CAPT HECHTER: That's correct, to return to kill people.
MR POWE: Let's come to the night in question. What was your involvement other than just driving
to the scene and
setting the tree of fire?
CAPT HECHTER: I was in charge of the entire operation.
MR POWE: Did you fire any?
CAPT HECHTER: No.
MR POWE: You didn't set anyone alight?
CAPT HECHTER: No.
MR POWE: You just gave the instructions?
CAPT HECHTER: Yes, I issued the instructions, so everything that happened, happened under my
command. (...indistinct) No, not at all, it was not necessary for me, I had subordinates who could do that.
MR POWE: I see, so others could do the dirty work for you?
CAPT HECHTER: That's correct.
MR POWE: It was dirty work?
CAPT HECHTER: Chairperson, do not let us dispute about such things, I am ...(intervention)
JUDGE MALL: ...people to go around describing as dirty work, is a waste of words, isn't it?
MR POWE: The killing of people in these circumstances is particularly dirty, Chairperson.
JUDGE MALL: Yes, quite right, I don't think there is any doubt about that.
MR POWE: I will leave it at that, Chairperson, maybe I was going overboard.
JUDGE MALL: Yes.
MR POWE: You don't know that any of these people for
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR POWE 613 CAPT HECHTER
definite, because you weren't inside, you don't know that any of them would have been dead at the time that
they were set alight?
CAPT HECHTER: I stood in the doorway. I would have been able to see if any of them weren't
dead yet.
MR POWE: I thought earlier on you could not remember
whether you stood at the gate ...(intervention)
CAPT HECHTER: I was standing outside, I cannot remember during the shooting whether I was in
front of the house or at the gate or at the corner of the outside room, because there was an outside room and
there was a house and there was a gate. After they had shot, I instructed Gouws and went back with
him as far as the room. He then poured with petrol and set them alight. It was probably not as clear in
my testimony, but it was under my instruction, this whole operation was executed under my instruction.
MR POWE: We understand it all too well. I didn't understand your evidence to say you knew for a
fact, you said three AK47's were emptied on them, there is no chance that they would have still been alive?
CAPT HECHTER: That is correct, that is correct.
MR POWE: Okay, what you are saying now, is slightly different, but yet again, that is a matter
maybe for argument Chairperson, for what it is worth.
When you set out to put this scheme, this operation together, there had not been a specific
instruction from anyone above you that there is a group in KwaNdebele, we want you to go and eliminate
them. There wasn't such an instruction?
CAPT HECHTER: That is correct.
MR POWE: You said that these youths had fled Mamelodi
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR POWE 614 CAPT HECHTER
because of your, and I believe the Security Forces of your operations of that time, you drove them out of
Mamelodi?
CAPT HECHTER: That is correct, we'd accept it as such. I cannot swear to that, but that is an
inference which I made
because for what other reason did they not stay at their homes in Mamelodi. Because all the activists
which we had positively identified and whose names we had, we harassed on a regular basis, and
intimidated as well.
MR POWE: If you could bear with me one second, Chairperson. MS KHAMPEPE: Can I just
interpose there Mr Powe. Captain Hechter, how long before the elimination took place, had these
youngsters fled Mamelodi to KwaNdebele?
CAPT HECHTER: That is very difficult to say. I would not be able to say, I can't tell you. It could
have been a while, or they went directly to a house, but what I do know
is that they had a place to stay there, I do not know if they got it three days before then or a month before
then, I cannot answer you positively in that regard.
MS KHAMPEPE: You can't even give us a rough estimate?
CAPT HECHTER; Not at all Chairperson, I do not know if Mamasela found them by themselves
in Mamelodi, because he was also moving around KwaNdebele at that time. He did not work in one area
only, he also worked in KwaNdebele, he had his own vehicle, he reported for duty in the morning, and then
he would come the following morning or two or three days later to report back.
MR POWE: Chairperson, I just need to go back to one issue which I had raised and that is these files.
You had these files, I assume like in other matters, we don't have files today, they had been destroyed?
CAPT HECHTER: That is correct Chairman.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR POWE 614 CAPT HECHTER
MR POWE: It seems very - no, don't let me not say that. You've come here to apply for amnesty.
What you want is for this Committee to give you a pardon so to say, and amnesty for the deeds you did.
The one thing that I have not heard and that the families of those who perished, have not heard, when you
were being led by my learned friend, or at any stage during my questioning or the questioning of the
Committee, is the word to them, I am sorry. You don't think that that is necessary?
CAPT HECHTER: Chairperson, could I address this one. If you were here Sir, you would have
heard on several occasions that we, not only this unfortunate family, but the people of South Africa,
everyone who had been affected by my acts and those acts of my colleagues, we apologised to them.
These people only came here now and I am sure they would have seen that on TV, I am sure that it has
been broadcast on TV that we have apologised to them. I did not go to each and everyone individually, to
apologise.
INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.
JUDGE MALL: There was this evidence generally about remorse on their part for what they had done.
MR POWE: My instructions certainly are that as far as this group is concerned, they were not aware
of it? Chairperson, it is for you to decide whether the level of remorse that has been shown, is sufficient or
not. Our argument will certainly be that it doesn't go far enough.
JUDGE MALL: Yes.
MR POWE: As it pleases you I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR POWE:
JUDGE MALL: Thank you very much. Mr Mpshe?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV MPSHE: Thank you Mr Chairman.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 615 CAPT HECHTER
Captain, you testified that the whole operation was suggested by Joe Mamasela.
CAPT HECHTER: No, Chairperson, it may appear so now, you know, we did discuss it. It is
difficult at this point to
go back after 10 to 11 years and say this is precisely how things happened. We do not have any documents
to refer to, this type of thing took place in the heat of the struggle and I am not trying to shift the blame
onto Joe Mamasela in any way. He could not have executed instructions without me. It may be
possible that it was discussed at a morning conference or that he came to me and said Lieutenant, I have
been approached by these active youths in Mamelodi. As far as my memory allows, what happened is that
he came to me at some stage and said to me that there are these youths who are asking to be taken for
training. The formulation of the operation thereafter is very difficult to remember in precise detail at this
stage.
ADV MPSHE: I am referring to what you have said in your application, page 75.
CAPT HECHTER: That is so.
ADV MPSHE: Are you saying that which you said by yourself, isn't correct?
CAPT HECHTER: Meaning that he came to me and said that these persons are there. He could
have said let's do to them what we did with the Nietverdiend 10. I cannot say whether it was that way or
not, I would by lying if I was to give a definite response. I agree with what is in here, but I would not be
able to swear that what happened there is as set out here.
ADV MPSHE: .... want to believe under cross-examination that these young activists, as you call them,
may have
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 616 CAPT HECHTER
approached Joe Mamasela to be trained?
CAPT HECHTER: Not may, they did.
ADV MPSHE: Now, I've got a problem with that because
your application gives me something different. You say on page 75, I will read the third paragraph,
"The aim or specific aim was to discourage potential MK soldiers from going for
training."
CAPT HECHTER: To stop them, to present them with other insight, to bring them into a new way
of thinking, to change their train of thought. Discourage means to bring you to another way of thinking,
to stop you, to stop you or to change your mind.
ADV MPSHE: These young men were actually coerced, if I have to use that word to go for training.
CAPT HECHTER: (Speaks Afrikaans - no English translation)
ADV MPSHE: I'm not using the words "recruit" please, I say 'coerced'.
CAPT HECHTER: It comes down to the same thing, once again
it is a technical variation of the previous question, Chairperson.
JUDGE WILSON: I read it very differently Mr Mpshe.
JUDGE MALL: Were you thinking of the word enticed perhaps rather than coerced?
ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman, that word would also be suitable. Enticed by Mamasela to be trained.
CAPT HECHTER: Unfortunately I cannot answer you there, because I was not present at the time
when Mamasela was busy with them ...(intervention)
JUDGE WILSON: Can I interrupt. You see what you say here is that the suggestion for the
operation came from Mamasela.
CAPT HECHTER: I understand Chairperson.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 617 CAPT HECHTER
JUDGE WILSON: Yes. And then you say after you have told us about the weapons he had, he
was issued with to train people with, you then say,
"Mamasela and I discussed that after the activists had received training, we would
eliminate them".
CAPT HECHTER: That is correct.
JUDGE WILSON: They were going to be taken and given training and when they had had
training, they were going to
be eliminated?
CAPT HECHTER: In all probability Chairperson.
JUDGE WILSON: And then you said,
"The specific objective was to discourage potential MK soldiers".
that was to discourage others wasn't it?
CAPT HECHTER; It is possible, it could have been at that stage.
JUDGE WILSON: That after you had eliminated these people, others would be discouraged.
CAPT HECHTER: It might have been so.
JUDGE WILSON: You then go on to say, as I have already raised with you,
"Mamasela then took them to KwaNdebele. It was decided that they would stay there
for a time receiving training. And then when Mamasela told me that the activists had
received training and that they, out on their own account, asked for intensive training in
the outer world, they wanted to undergo intensive training outside the country, I decided
that this was now the right time to eliminate them".
The impression I get there is that Mamasela gathered
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 617 CAPT HECHTER
together groups, gave them three days training with weapons supplied by you and that when it was finished
and when he had got them enthusiastic, you would them decide to kill them. Is that what the plan was? It
was all a deliberate plan that they got taken to KwaNdebele, given three days training, intensive training in
weapons with a view to encouraging them to ask for more and then you could kill them? And you did kill
them.
CAPT HECHTER: Yes, we did kill them.
JUDGE WILSON: Do you agree with what I put to you that this was the pattern? That Mamasela
took them there, he trained them there ...(intervention)
CAPT HECHTER: He did not take them there, he could have taken some of them there, but
otherwise they would not have been in the house. At this point in time I cannot give you the exact version.
It is stated here that - he could possibly have taken some of them, but it is probable that some of
them could have had accommodation there, so one could then draw the inference that there were already
people there from this group.
JUDGE WILSON: I was just using your words. You said he took them there, I didn't.
CAPT HECHTER: I agree with you Chairperson.
JUDGE WILSON: And then having decided to eliminate them, you go and look for a couple of
your friends in the Murder and Robbery Squad to come and do it.
CAPT HECHTER: That is correct.
ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman, I know that it is now five o'clock, it may not take me less than 15 minutes,
to finish cross-examination, I am in your hands Mr Chairman.
INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 618 CAPT HECHTER
JUDGE MALL: Do I understand that the venue for tomorrow's proceedings is another venue?
ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman, that is so. We are moving to another venue. It is a building belonging to
a church.
JUDGE MALL: As long as there is no doubt and no difficulty in the minds of interested parties as to
where we will be.
ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman, the place is well-known, it is on the corner of Visagie and Andries Street,
it is very conspicuous.
JUDGE MALL: Alright, we will meet tomorrow morning. Mr Mpshe, what time will you be ready to
begin tomorrow
morning?
ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman, may I propose nine o'clock?
JUDGE MALL; Yes, very well, I will adjourn and resume at nine o'clock at the other venue. I would like
to see counsel in my Chambers.
COMMISSION ADJOURNS
--------------------
TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION COMMISSION
AMNESTY HEARINGS
DATE: 6 MARCH 1997
HELD AT: PRETORIA NAME: CAPTAIN HECHTER
DAY: 8
---------------------------------------------------------
JACQUES HECHTER: (s.u.o.)
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman before we go ahead with further evidence pertaining to Captain
Hechter, there is just something that I want to correct on record in public.
I was informed this morning about a press report that appeared in the Beeld about yesterday's
evidence and more specifically what was said by myself to the Committee in respect of who was involved
with the preliminary investigation in respect of the Robeiro matter. Now, the press report that appeared in
the Beeld of this morning referred to the fact that evidence was given by Capt Hechter that there was a
cover-up in respect of this preliminary investigation in terms of which the State Attorney or representatives
of the State Attorney and the Prosecutor was involved. That was the effect of the evidence. Now, what
was reported in this press report was the fact that, you will recall that Adv Flip Hattingh and Jurie Wessels
were named yesterday as counsel for the defence. Now, it is reported in this press report,
"Advocate Flip Hattingh assisted by Jurie Wessels were presumably the State Attorneys
at the time".
The effect of this report is that Flip Hattingh and Jurie Wessels are, if you read it properly, now being
implicated as being the State Attorneys who were involved in the cover- up.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 620 ADDRESS
I spoke this morning to Advocate Bertelsman of the Pretoria Bars and the Pretoria Bar Council
who pointed this out to me. I know Advocate Hattingh very well. I phoned him personally at his home
this morning. I explained to him that this report is absolutely factually wrong and I undertook that I will
raise this this morning in public and set the record straight so that there is no implication whatsoever
pertaining to Advocate Hattingh and Advocate Jurie Wessels. And I want also to request the press and I
will speak to the representatives of the Beeld to rectify this so that there is no implication whatsoever
pertaining to those two gentlemen.
Thank you Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MALL: Thank you. I trust that the press will take cognisance of the remarks that you have made.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV MPSHE: (cont)
Thank you, Mr Chairman. Captain, on Page 8 of you application, no.five, Roman letter - V.
"Elimination usually took place of high profile activists and very efficient activists
whose detention ....
(The interpreter could not hear the speaker.)
Do the deceased fall in this category?
CAPT HECHTER: In a certain sense, yes. They were very efficient activists. They were known activists.
If they had not been they would not have been where they were, but this was an ad hoc opportunity or
occasion. No operation ever undertaken can be described verbatim on each and every occasion, because
the circumstances differ, but broadly speaking yes, they could be categorised as such. Perhaps they were
not very well known or high profile activists at
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 621 CAPT HECHTER
that stage, but they were activists who were very active in the Black townships.
ADV MPSHE: Can you say they were efficient or ...(intervention)
CAPT HECHTER: If they had not been efficient they would not have drawn attention to
themselves by means of these source reports.
JUDGE WILSON: Surely if they had been efficient they would not have drawn attention to themselves,
Captain?
CAPT HECHTER: I understand your question, but as agents they would not have focused attention on
themselves but as activists they did draw attention to themselves.
ADV MPSHE: Captain, I am going to refer you to a statement which is part of the record in the Section
29 Investigation by Mr Joe Mamasela. Mr Chairman and members of the Committee this was
placed before the Committee members a week ago. I do not know whether the Committee members still
have it with them. It is the Section 29 version. It was not an exhibit at that time. I just put it before the
Committee members. It was never used at all.
JUDGE MALL: Let's just see if we can find it in the papers first.
ADV MPSHE: My learned friend tells me that he objected to it, but my memory, if it is a good servant of
mine, is that this statement was allowed to be used in another matter by the statement made by the very
same person.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, as far as I can recall we have not agreed that any statements of any
evidence of Joe Mamasela can be placed before the Committee as part of the evidence in these hearings. I
find it extremely perturbing, I must say.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 622 CAPT HECHTER
JUDGE MALL: Well, I think you can address us on that because Joe Mamasela has not given any
evidence. You can put to him that if it is said by somebody that this, that or the other happened you can
invite him to comment on that.
ADV MPSHE: That is what I intended doing.
JUDGE MALL: Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes. Mr Chairman, but I have to deal with this point. As I understand my learned
friend correctly, he placed before the Committee excerpts of the evidence in the Section 29 hearings at
some stage pertaining to this incident. I do not know if I understood him correctly or not.
ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman, the ruling that was made pertaining to these sort of things is that it will not
be accepted by the Committee as evidence, but it can be used if I refer a witness to it and say, this is what
was said, what is your response to that? The witness will just respond and that is it and I do not hand it up
as an exhibit. I hand it up for convenience to the Committee so that when I refer the witness to a page the
Committee must know that actually stands on the ...(intervention)
JUDGE MALL: It does not in any way suggest that what the document says is true.
ADV MPSHE: It does not at all, Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MALL: Yes, we do not accept that as evidence.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I understood that my learned friend could put questions arising from
the document to the witnesses. I did not understand that that document would be handed up, but if that is
not going to be accepted as evidence at all and the Committee gives me assurance that whatever is in that
document cannot be taken into account
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 622 CAPT HECHTER
when the application is considered at all also pertaining to full disclosure then I do not have a problem that
the document is before the Committee.
JUDGE WILSON: As I understood the position the document was handed to us, but certainly I have not
read it and it was not the intention that we should read it. It should merely be as a convenience if he wants
to say well I am going to read from page eight, rather that listen to him read we can look at it then.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I am just concerned of the fact that I did not know that the document
was handed up to the Committee, but be that as it may, if I have the assurance from the Committee that the
information contained in that document, even though the Committee members are in possession of the
document, will not be taken into account as evidence pertaining to the political motive or full disclosure
issues then I do not have a problem that the document is with the Committee.
However, if the Committee intends to take the document in some way or another into account
when considering these issues then I do have a problem.
JUDGE MALL: Mr Mpshe, what is the heading of that document if one wants to identify it, what is it
called?
ADV MPSHE: I just send a copy so that the jurors can see what the first page looks like.
JUDGE MALL: Very well.
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Mpshe can't you ask the question without referring to the document?
ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman, that will mean that I will have to memorise what is in the document. I do
not have time to do that.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 623 CAPT HECHTER
JUDGE WILSON: Mr Mpshe, I have just noticed, I do not know if it was your intention, that we have
been given, not only pages headed, "Joe Mamasela's 29 version", we have also been given one, headed
"Schoon's 29 version".
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, really I do not know anything about these documents. I do not know
anything about this.
JUDGE WILSON: Your attorney seems to, it was done last week.
ADV MPSHE: If there is any document on Schoon's version it does not come from myself at all.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, we have that document. That is so. My learned friend handed it to us,
and I am not perturbed about that. What I am perturbed about is the fact that documents such as this finds
its way to the Committee members without the fact that it has been addressed in a way that is satisfactory to
the applicants.
However, I want to say again, that if the document, if the Committee gives me the assurance that
the document will not be taken into account at all in respect of full disclosure or political motive at all, as
evidence or any other way, then it can remain there. Otherwise I have a problem Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MALL: Yes. ( Aside to Judge Wilson - Andrew until Mamasela gives evidence that document is
just another document).
JUDGE WILSON: Yes, but my copy, you can see quite clearly that Schoon's version was originally
stapled to Mamesela's.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes.
ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman, if that is the position I am not going to deal with Schoon at all. I am only
concerned with the part that I am going to deal with and that is Mamasela's PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 624 CAPT HECHTER
portion only. And as I have indicated the document handed up to Committee members is not intended to
be an exhibit at all. It is for the convenience of the Committee members. I will restrict myself to matters
pertaining to Mamasela only.
JUDGE MALL: Very well, do carry on.
JUDGE WILSON: Well, is Schoon's version the last four pages of your document?
JUDGE MALL: Let us just ignore it. Do carry on.
ADV MPSHE: Thank you. Captain Hechter, you have the document before you. I want you to have a
look at page one thereof. I will read so that you follow with me. The second paragraph, starting with,
"Thank you".
CAPT HECHTER: I see that.
ADV MPSHE: Thank you. Second sentence,
"I think I will have to proceed from 1986, the death of nine so-called ANC members. I
use the word, so-called, because they were never ANC members, and whoever said they
were nine ANC members probably, in my opinion, was trying to make it sound like a
political killing. These to me were very innocent young unarmed school children".
What is your comment to that?
CAPT HECHTER: I deny that.
ADV MPSHE: Then we move to the fifth paragraph on the same page, starting with, "Sam".
"So Sam was not a student, just a township tsotsi, having his own henchman, but always
where the students were, they were there. When the students were staging marches they
were there. When the
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 625 CAPT HECHTER
students were disrupting traffic or whatever they were there. Just to loot, to help the
students make as if they were having a - but they were actually looting".
What is your comment to that?
CAPT HECHTER: Could we continue?
"So it was then decided by Brig Cronje, that I should infiltrate. He gave me specific
instructions with the names and the addresses of a few students that I had to infiltrate in
Mamelodi".
We did not work political, we did not do any criminal investigations so we would not have investigated
tsotsi's. We had no contact with tsotsi's. We did not know who these tsotsi's were. We concentrated on
political crimes purely. So this statement from Mr Mamasela, I do not agree with.
ADV MPSHE: Then the same page, the last sentence ...(intervention)
JUDGE MALL: What page is that?
ADV MPSHE: The same page one Mr Chairman and members of the Committee, starting with the last
sentence,
"And I made it in my submission SAP 5, that no I believed that the students are carrying
innocently in their student activities but it is the tsotsi element that is burning the trucks
that are coming to deliver in the township. It is not the students. That was my
submission".
Did you receive such a report from him?
CAPT HECHTER: I see that. I also see that he made a submission on SAP 5 and I dispute that. He never
put anything in writing. The previous page at the bottom, SAP
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 625 CAPT HECHTER
5, is a police diary which was used and that I would also deny. He would never have committed anything
to writing. I do not think he knew how to write.
ADV MPSHE: He could not write?
CAPT HECHTER: He did not know how to write police documents. He could write, but he wouldn't
have completed police documents. That Mamasela did not do. You see what we did, it is an investigation
diary that we are talking of here, the SAP 5, that means he had to fetch a SAP 5 and complete it in an
investigation diary. Write down all his findings. As far as I know, Mamasela never did that. He reported
to me on a oral basis. He never put down anything in writing.
ADV DE JAGER: Kindly, he said, it was not the students. The students were busy with student affairs,
but what was the tsotsi element doing?
ADV MPSHE: He says, the students were busy with student affairs, their marches and so on, but there
was a person by the name of Sam who was organising this tsotsi element and they infiltrated the innocent
student marches and they did the looting and the burning, and whatever.
(...indistinct)
ADV MPSHE: From the student.....
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I do not understand what my learned friend is doing now. As far as I
understood it the questions could have been put pertaining to what is stated in the document Mr Chairman.
ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman, I am responding to the question by a member of the Committee. That is
what I was doing.
JUDGE MALL: He is answering a question by me.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, but Mr Chairman, he is really, he is, PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 626 CAPT HECHTER
as I understood it he is close to giving evidence himself about what happened there. As the Court pleases.
ADV MPSHE: We move to the second paragraph of the same page.
JUDGE MALL: What page is that?
ADV MPSHE: Page two, Mr Chairman. Second paragraph, starting with, "and they", and I will read,
"And then I really thought that our objective was achieved because now the tsotsi
elements were uprooted out of Mamelodi. They were now hiding in KwaNdebele,
because they were afraid not of the police now, they were afraid of the students. So I
thought every thing was fine, but I was shocked to the marrow at one stage when Brig
Cronje himself called me into his office and gave me specific instructions to go to
KwaNdebele to follow up the tsotsi's there".
do you know about this?
CAPT HECHTER: I would not know anything about that, but I would just like to focus the Committee's
attention on line 8,
"I did that so much so that even a student at one stage necklaced one of the tsotsi's".
I do not know about that instruction from the Brigadier to Mamasela. I cannot imagine that. I might just
have forgotten. I do not know.
ADV MPSHE: Page four Mr Chairman ...(intervention)
CAPT HECHTER: Could we on that page just look at something else. Page two, 12th line from the
bottom,
"The Security Police also visited tsotsi's homes with the purpose of arresting them".
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 627 CAPT HECHTER
The Security Police never had anything to do with tsotsi's, that would be an ordinary criminal investigation.
And the Security Police did not do that kind of work, only with political deeds.
ADV MPSHE: What you've actually just said also appears on page four.
CAPT HECHTER: It is on my page two, 12th line from the bottom.
ADV MPSHE: Could I just explain to you what I am talking about on page four? On page four, at the
top it says, "would go and pick up". Second paragraph, "Capt Hechter said", that actually entails what you
have just said, regarding investigation of criminal matters.
CAPT HECHTER: "Capt Hechter said that he had information regarding where the weapons were
hidden. He was badly assaulted, and he kept to his story that ... "
(The interpreter cannot hear the speaker.)
"It was decided that Sam should be killed".
To what case are we referring to here?
What Sam is this? Which Sam is being referred to?
ADV MPSHE: This is not evidence, but Sam according to the document is the person, well he was a
leader of a gang, which had infiltrated the students, infiltrated their boycott actions, etc.
CAPT HECHTER: In other words it was a purely criminal action?
ADV MPSHE: Correct.
CAPT HECHTER: Well I suppose Joe can say what he likes.
I deny that. I deny that.
ADV MPSHE: Page five, last page, third paragraph, starting PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 628 CAPT HECHTER
with the words, "the persons", but I am going down to the fourth paragraph, "at the door", can you see that?
CAPT HECHTER: Yes.
ADV MPSHE: " I left by the door and on the way I found Capt Hechter with a can of petrol in his
possession".
CAPT HECHTER: Yes, I see that.
ADV MPSHE: "He entered the room once again and after a while Capt Hechter came out of the room
which by this time was in flames".
Now, what he is stating here is that you had the can of petrol.
CAPT HECHTER: Yes, I see what he says here now. I would just like to point out, line eight from the
top, he says that Goosen would have remained in the vehicle. Now, Goosen was never involved. Mentz
and Goosen had done the shooting. Goosen was never involved. So I would also deny that statement.
Goosen was not on the scene that night at all, so I deny the rest of what he says on that page. What he
basically says here is that he was there. That is what we can infer from his evidence but that's about it.
ADV MPSHE: Now, just a line below that, "I noticed that his trousers were on fire".
CAPT HECHTER: Yes, I saw that.
ADV MPSHE: Was that the case?
CAPT HECHTER: No, definitely not.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV MPSHE
CAPT HECHTER: Kan ek ook dan net verder, net ondertoe, ook net asseblief, dit lyk vir my so nege
lyntjies van onder af. Dit is nog steeds bladsy vyf, Voorsitter, hy sê daar die opdrag om die bende uit te
wis, het van Brig Cronje self
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 628 CAPT HECHTER
gekom. Hy het ons tydens die Inligtingsessie ingelig dat hy met Moord en Roof-eenheid gereël het om ons
te help.
(Transcriber's translation: Further down, I think nine lines from the bottom, it is still on page
five... that is where he mentions the command to eliminate the gang came from Brig Cronje himself.
During the information session he arranged with the Murder and Robbery Squad to help us.)
He contacted Murder and Robbery and asked to help us and I think that is in line with the
evidence given yesterday and also the evidence given by Capt Mentz. That is untrue.
JUDGE MALL: Do you wish to re-examine?
RE-EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Capt Hechter, were you ever
repudiated by any of your superior officers as regards to the operation?
CAPT HECHTER: No, Chairperson.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yesterday you testified that you were not quite sure what Mamasela had told these
people and whether they had approached him or whether he had approached them. CAPT HECHTER:
Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: But, there are certain facts which may be important here. And let me ask you about
those facts, just to clarify the position. What was your instruction to Mamasela?
CAPT HECHTER: He was not to recruit anybody pertinently. He came to me and said that he had been
approached by the comrades element, the activists, to assist them with training abroad.
ADV DU PLESSIS: What did Mamasela tell you, did they approach him or did he approach them?
CAPT HECHTER: They approached him, that is what he told
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 629 CAPT HECHTER
me, that he had been approached by an element, by the activists. Since as I have already testified, he was
known as an MK member.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Capt Hechter, a lot was said about the fact the Mamasela was such a good operator
and that he could very easily influence young children, assuming that they were young children. Now the
question which I am about to ask is based on Exhibit V, although it is not admitted as being correct, but as
far as Exhibit V is concerned there the ages of the people are indicated and it ranges from 12 years to - it
would seem to me... Pardon me, it ranges from 15 to 24. Now, you testify that you had a lot of experience
about young comrades and their actions. What would your views be about the relationship between the
older children and the younger children?
CAPT HECHTER: Once again, we are making statements which are correct, because it is true that a
younger child is more likely to influence a younger child. A younger child holds an older one in some
awe. We do not know exactly what happened in this case. Once again we must surmise that that is what
happened.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Can you remember, based on your own experience, were the leaders mostly older
children or can't you generalise?
CAPT HECHTER: It is difficult to say. It is very difficult to say.
JUDGE WILSON: Can I interrupt while we are on ages, have you got any idea what Mamasela's age
was?
CAPT HECHTER: Chairperson, I estimated him to be about 30 years old. That is just an estimate.
JUDGE MALL: Isn't the difficulty really, that you did not
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 630 CAPT HECHTER
know any of these individuals at all? They were just names to you.
CAPT HECHTER: That is correct. They were just names to me and it might have been that we had some
of them come and visit at the offices.
JUDGE MALL: No, no, no, don't come and say 'it might have been' you see, because I mean this might
been can extend and extend. You did not know any of these young people?
CAPT HECHTER: No, not at all.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Capt Hechter, you testified that Mamasela would have drawn the files and these files
would have been checked. Who would have checked the files? Would you have done that?
CAPT HECHTER: I believe so, but once again I cannot swear to that fact, but I believe that I would have
looked at the files. He would have brought them to me. He would not have done this on his own. He
would only have drawn the files.
JUDGE MALL: Once again you are not saying that he did do it, you say he would have done it and he
would have brought it to you.
CAPT HECHTER: Yes.
JUDGE MALL: You can't say that he did it and that you actually checked the file yourself?
CAPT HECHTER: I might have asked one of the other members in the office, and told him here is the
list, go and draw the files.
JUDGE MALL: Yes, yes. Do carry on.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Kapt Hechter, daar is ook vir u vrae gevra gister met betrekking tot die vraag of u
alreeds aangedui het dat u jammer is oor die verlies van lewens en slagoffers aan beide kante. Ek gaan u
dit nie weer laat voorlees nie. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 631 CAPT HECHTER
Ek verwys u net na bladsy 340 van u aansoek.
(Transcriber's interpretation: Capt Hechter, yesterday you were questioned whether you have already
indicated that you regret the loss of lives and victims on both sides. I will not request you to read that
again. I refer you to page 340 only of your Application.)
Capt Hechter, do you confirm the evidence in this regard as well?
CAPT HECHTER: I accept it as such, Chairperson.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Page 340, Mr Chairman. It is that excerpt which he has read, I think twice already.
Page 340, I think there was a bit of confusion about the correct page last time. 339, I beg your pardon.
339. It seems a little bit confusing, because I think there are two pages 339. But it is on page 339.
JUDGE WILSON: It has confused me, because my page 339 is just a signature.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes. Mr Chairman, that is the number 339. You will see the other pages which are
annexures, were numbered in hand. And mine is not numbered, but the page I am referring to is the page
before the hand numbered page 340. ...(tape ends)
JUDGE MALL: ....question about that, could you put your question to him.
JUDGE WILSON: He confirms the question.
ADV DU PLESSIS: I just asked him to confirm that in the light of the cross-examination Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MALL: Thank you.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Hechter it was put to you during cross-examination that this is a planned
operation to expose youth to firearms and so-called military training to make
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 631 CAPT HECHTER
them more interested in that and also convince them or to try and persuade them to want to go abroad for
military training and the way I understood it, it was to indoctrinate them, and as soon as they were ready to
go abroad for training to eliminate them. Could you just comment on that, was that the case, or what was
the intention with the operation?
CAPT HECHTER: Any of those youths ...(intervention)
JUDGE WILSON: It was not put to him, I read his application to him where that appears.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes Mr Chairman he was cross-examined on that by Mr Powe as well Mr Chairman,
so I didn't just refer to the question His Lordship Mr Justice Wilson asked, but in respect of questions asked
by Mr Powe as well. Let us go back to your application Captain Hechter. On page 75, the third paragraph.
The first line of the third paragraph, do you have that, it's on page 75? The sentence reads,
"Mamasela and I discussed that after the activists have received training we would
eliminate them".
did the activists, before their training by Mamasela, express any desire to go abroad for military training?
CAPT HECHTER: That was where the operation took root. They said to him, or they conceded to him
that they would love to receive military training abroad. It is difficult to set out the motivations right now.
I could possibly think of a 110 different motivations, but they had a chance, before leaving the country they
had a chance to sit down and think about it while they were being exposed to war ammunition they had the
opportunity to change their minds and go back to their residential areas. It was not necessary for them to
go out.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 632 CAPT HECHTER
ADV DU PLESSIS: Very well Captain. The question which I think still needs to be resolved, what
would you have done with regard to an activist who during training by Mamasela decided to go back home,
he was not going to proceed with this?
CAPT HECHTER: In all probability we would have attempted to recruit that person as an informant and
if that person had gone back to their home and continued with their activities and drew our attention to an
extent that he was burning houses or attacking with handgrenades we would have eliminated him. But if
he was only politically active without committing these other political acts and did not want to become an
informant we would not have continued to keep a file on him. There were so many of them whom we did
not eliminate that it is highly probable that only the most active activists were the ones who were targeted.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Hechter if you look at page 76 where it says,
"After Mamasela had informed me that the activists had received training and they had
requested out of their own that they wanted to receive intensive training outside the
country I decided that it was the right time to eliminate them".
to which stage are you referring to, the stage before the training or after the training?
CAPT HECHTER: This is after they had been trained. You see they had already approached him and
said that they wanted further training so they were obviously people that wanted to go out of the country
and if, within those two or three days, they had decided to withdraw nothing would have happened to them.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 633 CAPT HECHTER
ADV DU PLESSIS: Did any of them withdraw?
CAPT HECHTER: No, none of them withdrew.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Hechter can you recall, generally speaking in that period, how many of these
young activists and young students went abroad for military training?
CAPT HECHTER: Chairperson I cannot remember off the top of my head but there were many of them
that left the country. There could be some of my colleagues that can recall but I know that on a daily basis
people left the country of their own accord.
JUDGE MALL: Captain Hechter what was the purpose of the training that Mamasela gave them?
CAPT HECHTER: Chairperson it's very difficult to say. We are now once again under normal
circumstances so one can think up all sorts of explanations.
JUDGE MALL: No at that time what was the purpose ...(intervention)
CAPT HECHTER: That is the problem I have, I really do not know, I would be lying if I tried to explain
why they were trained. Possibly it was just to show them. I do not know if it was my idea or Mamasela's
idea Chairperson, I cannot remember, but the idea had to have emanated from one of us.
JUDGE MALL: Yes, but if it was your idea you would know why you suggested that wouldn't you?
CAPT HECHTER: Possibly, I cannot give a positive answer. It's a long time ago Chairperson.
JUDGE MALL: Yes, but this is such a cunning plan, it's such a clever plan because from the very
beginning it became abundantly clear that these people were going to be eliminated.
CAPT HECHTER: Then I would have to say either Mamasela or
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 633 CAPT HECHTER
I and I am not prepared to point a finger at a third person. I cannot recall whether I came up with the
suggestion or whether Mamasela did. But I am not prepared to say he definitely came up with the
suggestion when I am not 100% certain Chairperson. It is easy to shift the blame to him but that wouldn't
be fair.
JUDGE MALL: So what do you think Mamasela's purpose was in training them?
CAPT HECHTER: If we were to look at his statement here I wouldn't know why he participated in the
operation because he was completely free to withdraw from the operation. So it would be difficult for me
to say what his intentions were.
JUDGE WILSON: You say Mamasela was completely free to withdraw from the operation, would he not
have been eliminated as you eliminated other ascaris? He knew far too much for you to let him go didn't
he?
CAPT HECHTER: I would not have eliminated him Chairperson, probably someone else, but at that
stage there was no thing such as eliminating your own people.
JUDGE MALL: Yes, but I mean it's important to know whether this wasn't all part of a cunning plan,
because before you even gave the weapons to Mamasela this was all sham training to excite and induce
youngsters to fall in with the suggestion of Mamasela that they should go overseas for training?
CAPT HECHTER: I understand what you say Chairperson, that's possible Chairperson, but it could also
have scared them off. Remember that 15 year old youth would generally be scared off by firearms or
handgrenade. You know they moved about in groups, Chairperson, and when you are in a
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE MALL 634 CAPT HECHTER
group you are much more gutsy than you would be on your own. If you took 20 persons and had them fire
at a group of 2,000 people, but to stand there on your own and do the same act takes much more courage
out of you than when you are in a large group.
JUDGE WILSON: But this was a group of nine people who were taken to a special house somewhere, we
are not talking about people on their own Captain, you know that perfectly well.
CAPT HECHTER: I understand what you are saying but if we look at Mamasela's own evidence he was
there already. According to this annexure Mamasela says that they were there already. So they were
prepared for what they wanted to do.
JUDGE MALL: Yes well now they were prepared because they, according to Mamasela and according to
you, the youth indicated to Mamasela that they would like to go overseas, they believed Mamasela to be an
MK.
CAPT HECHTER: That is correct.
JUDGE MALL: He must have won their confidence over into believing that he was an MK. So that's the
first deception in the step, is that right?
CAPT HECHTER: That is correct, but he was very well known in Mamelodi as an MK member. He was
a well known MK member in Mamelodi Chairperson.
JUDGE MALL: At that very time when he was a well known MK member, he was in fact more well-
known to you as one of your allies and associates.
CAPT HECHTER: That's correct.
JUDGE MALL: Right. So now let's not talk about him being an MK member. As far as the youths were
concerned they did not know that he was associated with the security.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE MALL 635 CAPT HECHTER
CAPT HECHTER: No, they did not know.
JUDGE MALL: They believed him to be an MK.
CAPT HECHTER: That is right.
JUDGE MALL: So now if they approached Mamasela that they would like to go overseas, it is because
he held himself out to be an MK?
CAPT HECHTER: That's correct.
JUDGE MALL: They trusted him. So that's the first step in the deception process, is that right?
CAPT HECHTER: That's correct.
JUDGE MALL: Once that process was started it became abundantly clear very early on that these
youngsters were going to be eliminated, is that correct?
CAPT HECHTER: If they proceeded with the desire to go abroad. They had the option to change their
minds anywhere along the way. That is correct.
JUDGE MALL: Of course they all had options to change their minds, I can understand that, but I am
saying that once the process is started and he holds himself out to be an MK he makes ammunition and
firearms available to them, that strengthens their belief that this man is MK, that merely strengthens the
deception of these youngsters they are being deceived further. At that stage the decision to eliminate them
becomes all the stronger isn't it?
CAPT HECHTER: That is possible Chairperson.
JUDGE MALL: So it became quite clear that immediately you were informed by Mamasela that he has a
group of youngsters who have either approached him or whom he has persuaded it became quite clear to
you that this was going to be a well-planned execution of these youngsters, am I right?
CAPT HECHTER: That may be so Chairperson.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MS KHAMPEPE 636 CAPT HECHTER
JUDGE MALL: Thank you.
MS KHAMPEPE: Captain Hechter on page 77 and in your evidence you testified that you instructed
Gous to set these young activists on fire after they had been shot.
CAPT HECHTER: That is correct.
MS KHAMPEPE: Why did you do that?
CAPT HECHTER: Chairperson at that stage it was a general action by activists when they killed someone
to set that person alight. They were setting houses alight all over the show in Mamelodi, KwaNdebele and
all the Black townships where they would set houses alight with people inside. It would have narrowed the
chances down of fingers being pointed at the Security Branch. It would have been merely another activist
operation.
MS KHAMPEPE: So the whole intention was to make this operation look like that of another activist
operation and you didn't want it to have a finger pointing at the Security Branch?
CAPT HECHTER: That is correct Chairperson.
MS KHAMPEPE: Now you have testified that the objective of the elimination of these young activists
was to discourage any potential young activist who wanted to go for training?
CAPT HECHTER: That is correct. Yes the activists knew what happened there. They would have
known amongst each other that they did not burn them, but to the broader public and the police it would
have seemed to be an ANC act. You see their friends knew that they were being trained, that they had
volunteered to leave the country for training and if they were killed they would know, the activists
themselves would know that the Security Police had a hand in it.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MS KHAMPEPE 636 CAPT HECHTER
MS KHAMPEPE: How? I find it difficult to connect the two Captain Hechter.
CAPT HECHTER: If the comrades killed each other, they did not kill each other they killed innocent
civilians who did not support the ANC objectives, by killing them and burning them. Here we had a group
of ANC activists who were killed. The other ANC activists would know that the other ANC activists were
not responsible, why would they do that. You see it was a general action by the youth at the time. People
who did not agree with them would be killed, so they knew that it had to have been the security forces.
They would not know specifically who within the security forces but they would know that these guys
prepared to leave the country and look what happened to them. So whenever a person came along
recruiting people they would have to think twice as to whether this person is genuine or not.
MS KHAMPEPE: This killing happened in KwaNdebele Captain Hechter and you are aware that in
KwaNdebele at that time there was a vigilante group which was called "Imbogoto"(?) which also was
launching ferocious attacks on people they called "comrades", who were young activists. So how would it
have been so easy for young activists to have connected this action to the action of the Security Branch and
not to a vigilante group action?
CAPT HECHTER: The vigilante group supported the objectives of the "State", we cannot say whether it
was really so or not Chairperson.
JUDGE MALL: Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman may I ask one or two questions in response to the questions from the
Bench?
JUDGE MALL: Certainly.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 637 CAPT HECHTER
FURTHER RE-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you. Captain Hechter these activists all
came from Mamelodi, is that correct?
CAPT HECHTER: Yes Chairperson.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And the comrades with whom they were working and who knew them, would they
have known that they would have left for training abroad?
CAPT HECHTER: Yes definitely.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Would they also have known that they died before leaving the country?
CAPT HECHTER: Yes definitely.
ADV DU PLESSIS: What would the result have been, or the conclusion have been?
CAPT HECHTER: They would have known that the security forces were involved. They would have
realised that the security forces were involved.
ADV DU PLESSIS: I do not want to lead you ...(intervention)
JUDGE WILSON: So they would have realised, undoubtedly, that Joe Mamasela, the prominent MK
person who had recruited them or who had trained them was involved with the security police in killing.
There can be no doubt in their minds about that, could there?
CAPT HECHTER: We do not know how Mike was identified Chairperson.
JUDGE WILSON: You've told us time and again how well-known he was, what a prominent MK person
he was and they would have known, the friends who remained in Mamelodi, that they had gone to be
trained by Mike.
CAPT HECHTER: We do not know if they would have told their friends that Mike was taking them for
training. They could
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 638 CAPT HECHTER
just have told their friends that we are leaving the country for training. We cannot say whether Mike's
name was ever mentioned amongst their friends.
JUDGE WILSON: So you think (...indistinct)... we will get the credit of them believing it was the security
police but they won't believe it was Mike, really Captain, I find it very hard to believe that you could have
acted in that way. Either they were going to suspect it was a security police operation in which case Mike
was at risk and would probably be killed the next time he went into the township or they wouldn't, isn't that
so?
CAPT HECHTER: I cannot answer you Chairperson.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain let me put the question this way. If Mamasela operated in Mamelodi and
these activists approached him with regard to military training would he have gone about announcing to
everyone in the area that he was discussing military training with them?
CAPT HECHTER: No the MK did not operate that way. Persons who approached him ...(intervention)
JUDGE WILSON: Mr du Plessis your witness has said (...indistinct)(speaker's microphone is not on)
....the activists would have told their friends, it's your ...(intervention)
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes Mr Chairman ...(intervention)
JUDGE WILSON: On that basis, if you are telling your friends something dangerous that you are in the
process of going overseas for military training, a very serious offence, wouldn't you have told them that
Mike is looking after us?
ADV DU PLESSIS: Well Mr Chairman that doesn't mean that Mike was exposed to them, that he spoke
to them or anything
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 639 CAPT HECHTER
in that fashion. That is why I want to establish that fact. If Mike, if the activists would have told their
friends, that would have created the effect later that they would have been scared to go out for military
training, what is the possibility that Mike was also exposed to their friends, that is the point I am trying to
establish Mr Chairman.
ADV DE JAGER: Mr du Plessis but all these possibilities, should these not be left for argument? You
and the witness are now putting arguments before us and not facts.
ADV DU PLESSIS: With respect Mr Chairman there were questions with regard to speculation on large
scale which were put to this witness, firstly. Secondly, this witness may be able to shed light on the
possibility or probability that Mamasela would have exposed himself to a host of people or probably have
maintained contact with this minimal group of people. It's possible that the other persons could have had
contact with the broader community. If you don't want me to ask the question I will withdraw that Mr
Chairman.
JUDGE MALL: It's all in the realms of conjecture really.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes that is so Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MALL: Yes, yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Hechter can you shed any light on that?
CAPT HECHTER: No I cannot but once again I will just have to accept he would not openly have said to
these young men go and tell everyone that, I, Mike, am going to take you out of the country. He would
probably have sworn them to secrecy. What they may have said was that they were leaving the country but
not whom they were going with. He would probably have sworn them to secrecy. Once again I am
speculating, I was not there, and I cannot give you a
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 639 CAPT HECHTER
definite answer.
JUDGE MALL: I think that we must try and cut down speculation because this record is taking on
immense proportions purely on speculative evidence.
ADV DU PLESSIS: As it pleases you Mr Chairman. Captain Hechter do you know or can you remember
cases where as you testified activists went abroad, do you recall any cases where ANC MK youth members
recruited youth to go for training abroad?
CAPT HECHTER: I personally did not have anything to do with it but it was well-known that it was an
ANC strategy to use MK members to recruit youths for training abroad. Tsishaba wrote about that quite a
bit and it was well-known articles.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DU PLESSIS
JUDGE MALL: Yes, you are excused.
CAPT HECHTER: Thank you Chairperson.
WITNESS EXCUSED
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman may Captain Hechter please be excused, he has a doctor's appointment
later on this morning.
JUDGE MALL: Yes certainly he is excused.
ADV DU PLESSIS: He will come back later. Thank you Mr Chairman.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 640 CAPT MENTZ
ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. I will call Captain Mentz.
WILLEM WOUTER MENTZ: (sworn states)
EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Mentz, Mr Chairman that's on page 41 of the bundle
of applications. Your application is on page 41 Captain Mentz. Your application is contained from page
42 to page 44, do you confirm the correctness thereof?
CAPT MENTZ: I confirm it Chairperson.
ADV DU PLESSIS: You've heard the testimony of Captain Hechter with regards to this incident as far as
he testified about his and your involvement, do you confirm that?
CAPT MENTZ: That's correct.
ADV DU PLESSIS: The political motive is contained from page 45 to page 50 as the general motive and
a more detailed motive from page 50 to page 52.
CAPT MENTZ: That is correct, Chairperson.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Mentz are there any aspects with regards this testimony by Captain Hechter
which you would like to add before this Committee?
CAPT MENTZ: Yes Chairperson. I was not involved with these activists at any stage. I did not know
who they were or who came into contact with them. I was merely informed by Captain Hechter, requested
to accompany him and I knew that these were people who wanted to leave the country for training and who
would come back at a later stage and commit acts of terror. At that stage I was not attached to the Security
Branch, I was attached to Murder and Robbery.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Mentz did you work with the Security Branch on a regular basis?
CAPT MENTZ: That's correct Chairperson. In the Black
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 641 CAPT MENTZ
areas where there were murders and so forth Murder and Robbery would initially be involved in the
investigation and then the Security Branch would come in if we would inform them that a Makorov or any
similar ammunition was used. And if they were of the opinion that they could link these weapons to their
suspects then they would become involved. So we were in regular contact.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DU PLESSIS
JUDGE MALL: Yes, on behalf of the dependants and victims?
MR POWE: Yes thank you Mr Chairman, a few questions.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR POWE: Captain if I understand you correctly you were attached to the
Murder and Robbery Unit at that stage, what was your rank at that stage?
CAPT MENTZ: That is correct Chairperson, my rank was that of Warrant Officer.
MR POWE: The cooperation that you gave to the Security Police at that stage would have been, as I
understand your evidence, to go to the scene and to investigate from the point of view of murder or robbery
or some other crime, was that what the cooperation was supposed to be?
CAPT MENTZ: That is correct Chairperson.
MR POWE: Your duties, first and foremost and perhaps exclusively ought to have been confined to the
investigation of crime, the arrest of suspects, booking them and bringing them before the courts, is that not
correct?
CAPT MENTZ: No Chairperson. I was a member of the South African Police at that stage. I was an
investigating officer at Brooklyn. Before that, directly after my training I did counter-insurgency
operations and while I was at Brooklyn Investigative Unit where I was a normal detective, I was sent to
Ovambo where I did border duty,
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR POWE 642 CAPT MENTZ
combatting terrorists as a police officer and the police policy was the combatting of terrorists. It was also
part of my duties at Murder and Robbery. It was still part of my duties to combat terrorism but I had to
specifically concentrate on murders, armed robberies and other offences, other crimes which I will not
elaborate on now. As I have already testified I knew that some of the liberation movements...(tape ends)
...I got to a scene, a murder or robbery scene and I saw that terrorist weapons were used I would
immediately inform the Security Branch and as I had already said where I deemed it necessary they would
take over the investigation, or alternatively we would proceed with the investigation and I did not just - that
where we were working I had many friends in the Security Branch then and our opinions were the same
with regards to combatting terrorism. If that answers your question.
MR POWE: Captain, you went some length - let's see whether you confirm how I see your duties. Out of
all that that you sketched to me your duties came down to this and only this. You were to investigate as
you yourself say. Are we correct?
JUDGE MALL: ...try and speed up this. If this is controversial at all, because if it is not controversial I do
not want to go all over this.
MR POWE: As it pleases you, Chairperson.
JUDGE MALL: Yes. Put your question pointedly.
MR POWE: It could have never been part of our duties to be part of elimination squads, was it, Captain?
CAPT MENTZ: That is correct, Chairperson. It was not on my duty sheet, but I personally felt that these
people left for further training and they returned. They were going to
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR POWE 643 CAPT MENTZ
commit more acts of terrorism, murder on policemen, bombings of places and I saw it as necessary to
eliminate them. I knew that they were going to be eliminated and I went along with that. It was basically
the same as what we did at the border, having to get rid of terrorists.
MR POWE: Captain you yourself got, as I understand it a call from Captain Hechter to come and assist.
You yourself had not been involved in any investigation involving any of the people who died that night in
July of 1986. Is that correct?
CAPT MENTZ: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR POWE: You yourself sitting here today cannot say to this Committee that this or that member of this
group would have been involved in this or that activity. Is that correct? You did not know it then, do not
know it now. Is that correct?
CAPT MENTZ: I did not have the facts but I believed that it was possible and foresaw that it could have
happened. I participated pro-actively in a combat situation.
MR POWE: You simply acted on what Captain Hechter told you without verifying the effects as it was
supposed to be done, as it was required of you as a (...indistinct) You did not do any of that?
CAPT MENTZ: That is correct Chairperson.
MR POWE: I put it to you, therefore, Captain that you could have never had a reasonable belief at that
time that what you went out to do that night was in the call of duty and was called for and appropriate.
You could never have formed an opinion like that at that time, what do you say to that?
CAPT MENTZ: That is not so. I did have such an opinion.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR POWE 643 CAPT MENTZ
MR POWE: If you have that opinion that could never have never be a reasonable opinion Captain. You
did not have the facts, you never verified. You never investigated. You just simply went out to kill.
CAPT MENTZ: I believed, as I have already testified previously and today that this was pro-activity.
These people were going for training. They were going to come back to commit further acts of terrorism,
which included murder and so forth. So I decided to go along because I saw it as combatting the PAC and
ANC.
MR POWE: Yes Captain it may be what you believe but you never had the facts to support the belief that
these people that you were going out to eliminate that night indeed were bent on performing the acts you
are telling us about.
CAPT MENTZ: I took Hechter's word and I believed they had a network of informers and they would
have made sure of the facts that these people were involved in the struggle. That they were responsible for
attacks on policemen and necklace murders and so forth and they could have been involved and even worse
when they returned they would have committed further acts of terrorism. So, I just accepted that the
Security Branch would have made sure.
MR POWE: You never exercised any independent thoughts on this matter. You followed "soos 'n blinde
lammetjie" so te sê. (like "a blind lamb", so to speak.)
CAPT MENTZ: No, Chairperson, I did not have insight into the Security Branch's files. Hechter was an
officer at the time and I believed that he would have made sure.
MR POWE: You never had any direct contact or any indirect contact with these people?
CAPT MENTZ: I already testified, no, Chairperson.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR POWE 644 CAPT MENTZ
MR POWE: They were never subjected to any investigations by you as part of the Murder and Robbery
Squad, were they?
CAPT MENTZ: No, Mr Chairperson.
MR POWE: You had no business to be there that night in fact I put it to you.
CAPT MENTZ: You may see it as such. I see it differently and I have already testified.
JUDGE WILSON: Did you make an entry in your pocket book about this duty of yours?
CAPT MENTZ: No, Mr Chairperson.
MR POWE: Because it was not part of your duties, was it?
CAPT MENTZ: I concede.
MR POWE: You then used the word during your testimony, either in response to a question or in
response to a question by Advocate Du Plessis and you said that you were involved in a war, oorlog, is the
word you used. Captain you were not a soldier, were you?
CAPT MENTZ: I was not a soldier ...(intervention)
MR POWE: If there were wars to be fought they were to be fought elsewhere not by you. Is that not
correct?
CAPT MENTZ: War was probably the wrong word to use ...(intervention)
MR POWE: You used it.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, may the witness please be allowed to answer the question.
MR POWE: Please answer.
CAPT MENTZ: There were unrest, murders, intimidation in the country at the time. Houses were burnt,
as you well know. We are merely repeating all these things. To me there was instability in the country.
War, in you interpretation may be where canons were shot from another
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR POWE 645 CAPT MENTZ
country, but to me it was a war situation. There was no peace in the country. There was unrest. And where
people die I regarded it at the time as a war.
MR POWE: Captain at that stage who was your immediate superior, who was your commander?
CAPT MENTZ: Colonel Britz.
MR POWE: What was Captain Hechter's rank at that time?
CAPT MENTZ: He was either a lieutenant or a captain, I think he was a lieutenant.
MR POWE: If you were to receive instructions with regards to the performance of your duties, those
could have not and should not have come from Captain Hechter of Lieutenant Hechter at the time, is that
not so?
CAPT MENTZ: I do not understand you very well. Do you mean that if I received instructions from
Murder and Robbery, from Hechter, from Lieutenant or Captain Hechter?
MR POWE: Where did you receive your instructions from?
CAPT MENTZ: From Hechter, from Captain Hechter.
MR POWE: As a member of the Murder and Robbery Squad, where did you take the instructions from?
CAPT MENTZ: From my Commanding Officer at Murder and Robbery.
MR POWE: And not from Lieutenant Hechter at that time?
CAPT MENTZ: No, Mr Chairperson.
MR POWE: Did your superior give you any instruction to be involved in this elimination operation?
CAPT MENTZ: Not in this specific operation, Chairperson.
MR POWE: Did anyone else above him give you, Capt Mentz an instruction to be involved in this
operation, this specific operation?
CAPT MENTZ: No, Mr Chairman. I concluded, as I said in my
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR POWE 646 CAPT MENTZ
previous testimony that I believed that it had the approval or bore the approval of the then Commissioner
who was under the General and right up the ranks, up to the Government. MR POWE: Let's test that,
where did you believe that from?
CAPT MENTZ: That is how the system works, even today.
MR POWE: The orders that were testified about, yesterday and other days, that emanated from Victor and
Cronje, I believe, were those ever communicated to you in any way?
CAPT MENTZ: No, Mr Chairperson. That is what I believed at the time. And we are now testifying
about a few years ago.
MR POWE: So these orders were not communicated to you, either by standing orders or by way of
circular or in any other way. You were never given an instruction to be part of elimination squads. Is that
not correct?
CAPT MENTZ: Not in this specific instance.
MR POWE: You went out and this was a frolic of your own. Is it not so?
CAPT MENTZ: The first day I testified I conceded. Yes, Chairperson, that is correct.
MR POWE: Captain, behind me are members of those who perished on that evening during an operation
in which you were involved. Do you have anything to say to them?
CAPT MENTZ: Yes, Mr Chairperson and it was my intention just before the Committee excused me, but
if the Committee will give me an opportunity to do that now, I would like to do that. I am sorry for the loss, pain and suffering which I inflicted on parents, family and friends of the victims. I am really sorry about that and I would just like to say to you that there was a possibility that these people could have come back as trained MK soldiers, whether they were for PRETORIA HEARING
AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR POWE 646 CAPT MENTZ
the PAC, ANC, or whatever. And it had to be foreseen that these people could possibly have committed a
second Church Street bomb, because their targets were not merely military people like us, but also other
innocent people. I would just like to mention that to you, but I would like to ask you to forgive us. We
are sorry for the persons who suffered and who lost loved ones.
MR POWE: Captain, I think between you and members of the families will have to be lots of talking.
But I am perturbed by your persistence, even having heard the testimony, your insistence that this group,
this particular group of youngsters were such people as you've mentioned, who would have gone out and
come back as trained terrorists, when in the first place it is questionable whether they ever wanted to go out
until Mamasela got working on them. Do you insist on that even today, having heard what the evidence is?
CAPT MENTZ: Mr Chairman, it was never proven that these persons did not intend leaving the country.
I am testifying about what happened at the time. At the time I believed and I testified about it earlier that
at that stage it did not matter to me who was a high profile activist or not, who was a political activist. At
the time somebody who was furthering the objectives of the ANC of PAC I regarded them as a terrorist.
These were terrorists who were going to receive further training and who were going to come back. I did
not have the detail the way the Security Branch had it. I just knew that these people were going out for
training and that I accepted it.
MR POWE: Let me ask you one further question and that will be the last. At any stage during this
operation, when these PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR POWE 647 CAPT MENTZ
people were shot at, when their bodies or they themselves were set alight, did it ever occur to you to walk
away from it, I'm not part of this, to put a stop to it?
CAPT MENTZ: Mr Chairperson I would like to respond in this way. I did not testify further about what
more took place that evening. So I would like to answer you. We spoke about my political motive. I'd like
to proceed. Hechter, Mamasela and I as well as Deon Gous and Andre Oosthuizen went there this night. I
was driving. And in the vehicle on the way there, Mamasela, Gous and Oosthuizen said that, volunteered
that they were going to do the shooting. We approached this place and today I might not be able to tell you
where the place is, I cannot remember any more. I remember that as we came along the gravel road the
house was on the right-hand side. We stopped not too far from the house. Mamasela got out by himself.
Went to the house and after a while he came back. I cannot tell you how many minutes it was, but he came
and said that the people were there. Hechter, Oosthuizen and Gous got out and went to the house. They
went ahead of me. I remained sitting in the vehicle. I very cautiously brought the vehicle closer to the
house and I half reversed into the gateway. My task as was testified were that there were Defence Force
troops patrolling, and my task was to keep an eye out for them.
All this took place so rapidly. It was dark. I did not see who shot, but as I said Mamasela, Oosthuizen and
Gous had their weapons and had volunteered to do the shooting. Hechter stood outside at the back, if I
remember correctly. Shots rang. I waited and watched. And then everything went quiet and the next
moment there were flames as the petrol was thrown on them and they ran to the vehicle, jumped in.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR POWE 648 CAPT MENTZ
We did not speed off. We tried to drive off as normally as possible, because if were to speed off we would
have attracted attention. We drove off, watched the troop carriers and we went out of the one exit, because
there were two, and drove back to Pretoria. I would like to say, what I can remember too, is that
remembering Gous and Oosthuizen having shot is that when they got back to the vehicle, one said to the
other, I cannot remember who said what, the one had struck the other one's AK47 round, the covering, so
that is why I was convinced that they had shot, but I did not see who had shot and I did not see who had
doused the people with petrol.
MR POWE: My question was really whether you did not think of stopping the whole thing, saying no this
is bad or walking away from it. Do I understand ...(intervention)
JUDGE MALL: He answered as far as he is concerned he drove off. He drove them there and he drove
off.
MR POWE: As it pleases you Chairperson. I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR POWE
JUDGE MALL: Mr Mpshe any questions of this witness?
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV MPSHE
ADV DE JAGER: To the question put by Mr Powe you said that they could have returned and attacked
ordinary civilians as well as police targets. Why did you say military targets or policemen? Why did you
make that distinction as between those targets and ordinary civilians?
CAPT MENTZ: That is correct Chairperson, that is what I said. What I meant was that I knew that the
struggle was waged against military targets, such as for instance the Police and the Defence Force, but in
the process civilians
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DE JAGER 648 CAPT MENTZ
were also injured, as for instance with the Church Street bomb.
ADV DE JAGER: Was there a distinction made in the struggle between ordinary policemen and Security
Police, or were they all a target?
CAPT MENTZ: They were all targeted.
JUDGE WILSON: You have just told us that flames broke out as petrol was thrown over them, but you
do not know who had doused them with petrol. Is that so?
CAPT MENTZ: Yes, that is my testimony, yes, but long afterwards, in discussions with Hechter, it
became clear that he gave the fuel to Gous. What I am trying to say is that I didn't specifically see that
taking place, because the place was behind me.
JUDGE WILSON: Didn't you see Hechter carrying the petrol?
CAPT MENTZ: Yes, Mr Chairman, I cannot really recall but it is possible. I do not think that Gous
would have been carrying the petrol and the AK. It is possible that Hechter could have done so.
JUDGE WILSON: But surely you must have known this because we have been told that on the way there
you stopped, poured petrol over a tree and set that on fire. Hechter has told us. Do you remember that?
CAPT MENTZ: That is so.
JUDGE WILSON: Did you see him doing that?
CAPT MENTZ: Yes Mr Chairman.
JUDGE WILSON: So you knew he was the person with the petrol.
CAPT MENTZ: Yes Chairperson.
JUDGE WILSON: Because in your application you said there was a fire at the scene but I do not know
how it had
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE WILSON 649 CAPT MENTZ
started. That's not correct is it, you knew there was petrol being used that night didn't you?
CAPT MENTZ: Yes Mr Chairperson. After we had recovered these things I made a note which says,
"During consultation and also after hearing evidence before the Commission I know
now that it was Gous..."
but you are right, I saw Hechter that evening, I see him pouring petrol onto the tree.
MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Mentz, you have testified that when you participated in this incident you believed
that you had the approval of the Commissioner of Police then. If you had such an approval did you report
your participation to Col Britz?
CAPT MENTZ: No, Chairperson.
MS KHAMPEPE: Why not Mr Mentz? If you did not think you had done anything out of the ordinary?
CAPT MENTZ: I do not think that the Commissioner of Police would ever have admitted that at that
stage. So the reason why I did not mention this to my Commanding Officer is that it was a very sensitive
matter and that the fewer people that knew about it the better. I did not tell anybody else about it. I also
never discussed it with anybody other than the people directly involved.
MS KHAMPEPE: Thank you.
JUDGE WILSON: There is just one other matter I want you to give me some background please.
Sergeant Gous, what unit was he with?
CAPT MENTZ: Oosthuizen and Gous were at Murder and Robbery.
JUDGE WILSON: The same unit as you?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE WILSON 650 CAPT MENTZ
CAPT MENTZ: Correct.
JUDGE WILSON: So apart from Hechter and Mamasela, the other three people who took part that night
were Murder and Robbery?
CAPT MENTZ: Correct.
JUDGE WILSON: None of them instructed to do so by their own officers and none of them reported
back, I take it?
CAPT MENTZ: No.
JUDGE WILSON: The other two were the ones who offered to do the shooting. As I understand you
Gous and Oosthuizen offered to do the shooting?
CAPT MENTZ: Yes, Chairperson along with Mamasela.
MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Mentz had you participated in this kind of activity with Capt Hechter before? I
cannot remember whether this incident comes earlier than the one you have already testified to?
CAPT MENTZ: Before the Brian Ngqulunga case, long before and I also mentioned in my application
that there was a further matter, I think it was - I cannot actually remember the date, I also applied for
amnesty for the case involving a petrol bomb, that was a home-made petrol bomb, and we exploded that in
Attridgeville, threw it into a house. I do not know whether anybody was injured but it is mentioned in my
application. That is all.
MS KHAMPEPE: Thank you.
JUDGE MALL: Any re-examination?
RE-EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS. Thank you Mr Chairperson. This Attridgeville bomb that
you have just mentioned, did this happened before the KwaNdebele Nine case? Can you remember?
CAPT MENTZ: I cannot remember.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 651 CAPT MENTZ
ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Mentz, you have already made it quite clear, but I just want to make a
hundred per cent clear, did you see how the fire actually started?
CAPT MENTZ: No, Chairperson.
ADV DU PLESSIS: You were not present?
CAPT MENTZ: No, I was in the vehicle in front of the gate. ADV DU PLESSIS: You were asked a
specific question by Mr Powe and I am concerned that it might have been misconstrued of misinterpreted.
You were asked or told, that what you had done was a frolic of your own. Now I do not know how it was
interpreted into Afrikaans but it has a very specific legal connotation and in all fairness, I would like to ask
the witness, frolic of your own means something which you do without any authorisation, totally outside
the course and scope of your duties. Do you regard this as having been a frolic of your own in that sense?
CAPT MENTZ: No.
ADV DU PLESSIS: What was your impression of the situation in the country at the time?
CAPT MENTZ: As I have already testified, it was war, unrest, innocent people were being killed. There
was an armed struggle in the country. And I saw it as war. We had terrorists active here.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DU PLESSIS.
JUDGE MALL: Thank you very much.
JUDGE WILSON: You mentioned a bomb attack in Attridgeville. That is not ... in the application, page
25.
(The speaker's microphone is not on.) - it's not for the record......
ADV DU PLESSIS: That seems to be the case Mr Chairman, I
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE WILSON 651 CAPT MENTZ
just want to make one hundred per cent sure. Yes, that is the one, Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MALL: This will be a convenient stage to take the adjournment. We will resume at 11H15.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR POWE 652 M MALOBOLA
ON RESUMPTION
JUDGE MALL: Mr du Plessis?
ADV DU PLESSIS: I have no further witnesses, Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MALL: Mr Powe are you calling any witness?
MR POWE: Mr Chairperson, it is a matter we have considered carefully. I am going to call one of them
and not all of them, who will speak on behalf of the group and I believe the sentiment she echoes would go
for all the group. I call Mrs Mabel Malobola.
MABEL MALOBOLA: (sworn states)
EXAMINATION BY MR POWE: Mrs Malobola, you are a resident of Mamelodi.
MRS MALOBOLA: That is correct.
MR POWE: I want to take you back to 1986, July of 1986. MRS MALOBOLA: I am listening sir.
MR POWE: Part of your family - Or let me ask you directly, do you remember Mbuswo Malobola?
MRS MALOBOLA: Yes.
MR POWE: What is Mbuswo Malobola of you?
MRS MALOBOLA: I am the grandmother. He was residing in Springs.
MR POWE: During July 1986, what happened?
MRS MALOBOLA: It was on a Wednesday, I was from work. I was working at a school. ...(tape ends)...
grandma, don't you remember me and I said to him Mbuswo what brings you here and he said to me we are
here to visit you. There is fighting in Springs so we want to come and cool off here. They spent the
Wednesday evening at home, Thursday and Friday. Saturday, at about five o'clock they just disappeared,
they just disappeared like that. I have a rockery outside my house and they were laughing, sharing
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR POWE 653 M MALOBOLA
jokes together, and his grandfather said to him Mbuswo can you please make fire so that we can get into
the house. He said okay grandfather I will do just that. He went to the back yard, he prepared the fire.
Their clothes were still on the line because I washed them. We then went into the house because the fire
was now ready and the grandfather said where are the children, I don't see them, they were outside. We
went outside to look for them but we couldn't see them. I stood at the gate and I saw only the rear portion
of a combi taking another turn. That was the street taking the left direction. I wasn't aware that this is the
combi that picked up our children. When we were still puzzled, asking where the children were, we
couldn't do anything, we went to bed. The next morning we woke up, the children were nowhere to be
seen. On Monday we decided to send the grandfather to Hammanskraal to search for them because his
grandfather was working at Hammanskraal and he said to us these children do not want ...(intervention)
MR POWE: Thank you Ma'am, so they disappeared one Friday afternoon you say?
MRS MALOBOLA: On Saturday, on Saturday five o'clock.
MR POWE: When next did you hear or see, did you ever see him again, Mbuswo?
MRS MALOBOLA: As we were asking everybody in the streets they said we saw Mbuswo and them
getting into a combi. Where were they going to? The children said no, we do not know and that was the
last of it. It was after a week when we heard that the children had died. It was a Tuesday morning. A
person knocked at the door and I was still at home and I asked who are you? This person said please open I
am Butiki Nkosi, I am here to tell you that those children PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR POWE 654 M MALOBOLA
are dead, the children that visited your place. And he said they were at KwaNdebele. And I said how can
we - how are we going to get there because I don't know where KwaNdebele is and he said don't worry I
will take you there. I said to him Buti KwaNdebele is an unrest place, how are you going to get there? He
said don't worry I will take you. He truly came and he took us to this area. We went into the room where
the children died. Do you know a farm that has been burnt down?
MR POWE: Carry on.
MRS MALOBOLA: When we got into this house it was burnt to ashes. It burnt completely and nobody
could help them. And they didn't have anybody to rescue them. They died in that house. And we asked
Johanna, Johanna how did you know that these are our children, and Johanna's daughter said I wrote their
names down and she pulled out a list and we said to her read their names out. She read them all. And we
said where are they now and he said they are at Bronkhorstspruit. We went into this house then. We
couldn't find their ashes. There was nothing we could get. When they were supposed to be buried we were
running up and down. We couldn't get the funeral arrangements done because it was during that time of
apartheid. They didn't want to see a group of people, I am referring to the White people now. They didn't
want to see any group of people. We conducted the funeral under very heavy circumstances. Johanna then
sent two bags full of parts and Johanna said these are the parts that you left behind. We said how did it
come because we went into the house and we couldn't find anything.
MR POWE: So Ma'am to sum up, Mbuswo, three of his friends disappeared one Friday or Saturday and
the next that you
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR POWE 655 M MALOBOLA
know ...(intervention)
MRS MALOBOLA: They disappeared on Saturday, it was five o'clock.
MR POWE: Yes. And the next that you know is that you were called to a place in KwaNdebele where
you were told they had died. Is that what you are telling the Committee?
MRS MALOBOLA: That's correct.
MR POWE: And are you saying to the Committee that Mbuswo had been to your place in Mamelodi for
three days at that time to visit you?
MRS MALOBOLA: Yes, yes.
MR POWE: Are you aware of what his political activities would have been at that time, if you are not
aware say you are not, if you are say yes?
MRS MALOBOLA: It is difficult to determine whether he was in politics or not because he was only
three days at home.
MR POWE: You have heard two applicants who have come before the Committee ...(intervention)
MRS MALOBOLA: Yes.
MR POWE: They have come to ask for amnesty from this Committee ...(intervention)
MRS MALOBOLA: I don't have forgiveness at all.
MR POWE: Have you got anything to say?
MRS MALOBOLA: I don't have forgiveness. They will get their forgiveness in heaven, I am not God.
MR POWE: Ma'am you have spoken to other people from Mamelodi whose relatives also perished in the
same incident, do you know what their feeling is about this matter?
MRS MALOBOLA: Please repeat?
MR POWE: Other people from Mamelodi whose relatives died in this incident, do you know how they
feel about this, do
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR POWE 655 M MALOBOLA
you know how they feel about amnesty and reconciliation with the two applicants?
MRS MALOBOLA: I do not know about how they feel but I am talking on my behalf, I don't have
forgiveness.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR POWE
JUDGE MALL: Did she know the names of the others who had accompanied her grandson?
MR POWE: Would you like me to put that question Chairperson in which I ...(intervention)
JUDGE MALL: Yes please.
MR POWE: Ma'am do you know the names of the others who accompanied your grandson Mbuswo?
MRS MALOBOLA: I only know Kenny Mahlangu of Vosloorus. I am sorry, he is not from Vosloorus
he is from Benoni.
MR POWE: Kenny Mahlangu from Benoni Chairperson, Mahlangu M-A-H-L-A-N-G-U, Kenny. The
other one, there were two of them, the other one you do not know?
MRS MALOBOLA: The one was China, he was visiting his family just around our area, but I forget his
surname. That's Mrs Maifadi's family.
MR POWE: Maifadi, M-A-I-F-A-D-I Chairperson. Ma'am we have amongst the documents that have
been handed in some of the names and the name Maifadi comes up and you say this other child was a
relative of the Maifadi's, let's just see whether you would know.
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Powe you have consulted with the other relatives, can't you perhaps help us there
and hand in or even state in a statement all the people involved?
MR POWE: Chairperson I was only responding to the Chair's questions. Yes, we have consulted with the
others. This witness may not be able to verify the names obviously, I can PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR POWE 656 M MALOBOLA
place them on record once she is over with her testimony. That perhaps might be the most convenient
thing to do. It is part of the inquest docket that was handed up as well as the report and I am mindful of my
learned friend's views on it that was handed up yesterday. That then would dispose of the questions I
wanted to put to this witness Chairperson and I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR POWE
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: How old was Mbuswo when he disappeared?
MRS MALOBOLA: He was about 20, he was very small.
ADV DU PLESSIS: About 20.
MRS MALOBOLA: Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And can you - how often did you see him, every day?
MRS MALOBOLA: Not.
ADV DU PLESSIS: How often did you see him?
MRS MALOBOLA: I last saw him as a small baby. I only saw him that day and I was surprised to see
him. He was staying in Springs, not Pretoria.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Do you know if he was a comrade at that time?
MRS MALOBOLA: I am not sure. I won't give evidence on that. How would you know a person who
has only visited you three times?
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DU PLESSIS
JUDGE MALL: Where are his parents?
MRS MALOBOLA: His mother passed away. His father is still alive.
JUDGE MALL: Where?
MRS MALOBOLA: His father is in Springs, at KwaThema.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MS KHAMPEPE 657 M MALOBOLA
MS KHAMPEPE: Mrs Malobola what standard - do you know whether he was attending school or not,
Mbuswo?
MRS MALOBOLA: Yes.
MS KHAMPEPE: What standard was he at school?
MRS MALOBOLA: If I am not mistaken he was doing standard eight.
MS KHAMPEPE: Do you know whether China was also attending school?
MRS MALOBOLA: I do not know.
MS KHAMPEPE: Kenny Mahlangu?
MRS MALOBOLA: Kenny was 12 years old so he was supposed to be in school. I asked him how old he
was and he told me that he was 12 years old.
MS KHAMPEPE: Thank you.
JUDGE MALL: Mr Mpshe are there any questions which you wish to put to this witness?
NO EXAMINATION BY MR MPSHE
JUDGE WILSON: You said, I think, that this boy was 20, are you sure of that age?
MRS MALOBOLA: If I am not mistaken he was 20.
JUDGE WILSON: (Aside - The inquest gives it as 26.)
JUDGE MALL: (Aside - Well she doesn't know, as far as she knows, she saw him when she was a baby).
Yes thank you very much.
WITNESS EXCUSED
JUDGE MALL: Mr Powe?
MR POWE: Chairperson flowing from the question that was put to me I don't intend calling any other of
the relatives Chairperson, but perhaps we could clear up the names of the persons we have consulted with.
We have consulted with the family of - if one has a look at Exhibit W that was handed
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR POWE 658 ADDRESS
in I believe yesterday.
JUDGE MALL: Yes.
MR POWE: The family of Jeremiah Magagula, who confirmed that his age was, as stated on the inquest
report. The mother Catherine Magagula and the father Hendrik Magagula are before you and they have
heard...
JUDGE MALL: Yes do carry on.
MR POWE: I need to place before you, however, that they believe that he might have well been part of
the Nietverdiend group and not the KwaNdebele group, but those are just some of the uncertainties that I
believe are going to be part of a case of this nature where identification was somewhat difficult. But he
perished in that time, in 1986. Elizabeth Mabena is also here. She is the sister of Jimmy Mabena.
ADV DE JAGER: These papers have not been paginated but I've got Mabena now.
JUDGE MALL: Yes, he's given as 21 years old.
MR POWE: According to the sister he was 18 years old at the time Chairperson.
JUDGE MALL: Carry on.
MR POWE: Maria Mothola is the sister of Obit Mukunwana(?).
JUDGE MALL: Yes. His age?
MR POWE: His age is confirmed as 20 years at that time.
JUDGE WILSON: Can I go back for a moment, did you say it was Mabel Malobola?
MR POWE: Mabel yes.
JUDGE WILSON: And the name is Malobola?
MR POWE: Malobola, that is the witness that has just been was Mabel Malobola.
JUDGE MALL: But the sister of Jimmy Mabena is here.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR POWE 659 ADDRESS
JUDGE WILSON: Sorry, well then in the form she appears to have - Mabel Malobola appears to have
identified Jimmy Mabena.
MR POWE: Chairperson I canvassed that issue and she says no she did not. It would seem that, to put it
mildly, there must have been great confusion at that time and she says she did not identify that particular
person.
ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairperson in terms of Exhibit V Jimmy Mabena was identified by Mbuswo
Malobola's father, that is on page three of V.
JUDGE WILSON: You have only handed in one copy of the - you haven't given the rest of us copies.
JUDGE MALL: Yes. Now on page three paragraph 8 yes, Mbuswo Malobola.
MR POWE: (...indistinct)(not speaking into the microphone) Next and before you Chairperson is Sophie
Maifadi. She is the mother of Benjamin Maifadi, and confirms his age as being 16 years at the time and a
scholar.
JUDGE MALL: Is she the mother?
MR POWE: She is the mother Chairperson.
JUDGE MALL: Yes.
MR POWE: Those, as far as I am aware, are the people who are here before you. One of the other
persons, the last in the bundle is Jeffrey Hlope but the mother was not present yesterday, I don't ..... Joyce
Mabena Hlope is here, she is the mother of Jeffrey Hlope, 17 years old at the time.
JUDGE MALL: Thank you.
MR POWE: All of the parents and the relatives who are here, save for the Makabula family did have
funerals after the event to bury the remains of some of the people, and one or other member of the family
went out to identify.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR POWE 659 ADDRESS
JUDGE MALL: Yes.
MR POWE: That then concludes our part of what we want to say to you Chairperson. The rest I think we
can deal with in submissions. Thank you.
JUDGE MALL: Thank you. Are you involved, Mr Powe, are you involved in any of the other matters
with us this morning?
MR POWE: Chairperson, no, I am in fact going to ask to be excused. My colleague Van den Berg will be
undertaking the next matter.
JUDGE MALL: Yes.
MR POWE: I am otherwise part of Mr Currin's team, so in that context I am involved in other matters.
JUDGE MALL: Yes. May I suggest that on behalf of all the clients of Mr Currin's team that at the end of
the evidence that they are interested in leading, or witnesses they propose questioning, that at the end of it
all may submit written argument to us. Will that be convenient to them?
MR POWE: Chairperson we obviously would prepare written submissions.
JUDGE MALL: Yes.
MR POWE: We, however, don't want the effects of oral submissions to you to be diluted. We would still
want to present our arguments to you orally. We would, however, make available our written submissions,
full written submissions.
JUDGE MALL: Well now one wants to try and avoid repetition. One doesn't want to do this in
instalments. At what stage were you thinking of making your submissions?
MR POWE: Once all the evidence in the matters in which we are involved as a team has been finalised
and has been led we will do a joint submission under different headings,
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR POWE 660 ADDRESS
KwaNdebele 9, Duduza, Springs, whatever, and present that as one submission.
JUDGE MALL: Yes. Well now it would be considerably valuable if that were done in writing rather than
hearing oral evidence and then again having your written submissions. You will appreciate the volume of
papers that are before us and the amount of oral evidence we have heard, and it would be better if we did
get written submissions rather than hear oral argument.
MR POWE: We are mindful and sensitive to the difficulties and to what is proper. We will do what is
appropriate Chairperson.
JUDGE MALL: We would appreciate that, thank you.
MR POWE: Thank you.
JUDGE MALL: You are excused if you do not wish to be hear for the rest of the morning.
MR POWE: I wish I could be here Chairperson, but I have to go, thank you for excusing me.
MR POWE EXCUSED
JUDGE MALL: Mr Mpshe?
ADV MPSHE: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman as I indicated the next matter will be the killing
of Jeffrey Sibaya Mr Chairman, but I discussed this with my learned friend Advocate du Plessis, they have
a bit of a problem in that Captain Hechter, who is involved in that matter, has not returned as yet from his
medical attention. Now we have decided that if we be afforded a short adjournment perhaps we could do
something whilst waiting for him inasfar as the confirmations are concerned.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman an adjournment isn't even necessary. Captain Hechter will be back at
two o'clock. We PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 661 ADDRESS
believe that the matter of Jeffrey Sibaya is not a long matter, it's a matter that we can easily resolve this
afternoon from two o'clock. I've enquired from Mr van den Berg, he intends leading one witness on behalf
of the victims, perhaps two, but we believe that we can finish that this afternoon. There is a request that I
would want to put to the Committee and that is that Colonel Venter is involved in two further incidents.
Colonel Venter is the only applicant who has a little bit of a problem with the situation next week. The two
matters that he is involved in are two matters which are not matters which we believe will take very long
and we believe that we can finish that before one o'clock Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MALL: I'd be pleased if we can proceed with that. I think it will be convenient for us to step
down for a while to enable you to sort out things so that we can save time.
COMMISSION ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION
ADV MPSHE: We are indebted to you Mr Chairman and members of the Committee. Mr Chairman we
are going to deal with matters on page 2 of the schedule. I will just mention them. It will be the Silent
Valley applications of Venter, application of Venter, both matters. Mr Venter's application is on page 67. I
will leave that in the hands of my learned friend Mr Chairman. Thank you.
ADV DU PLESSIS: May I proceed Mr Chairman?
JUDGE MALL: Yes.
ROELOF JACOBUS VENTER: (sworn states)
EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman this is an incident
where the victims could not be
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 662 COL VENTER
identified, firstly, as far as I know, and secondly they are obviously then not represented. With your
permission I am not going to lead Colonel Venter's evidence factually and I am going to ask him to confirm
the facts contained in this schedule, if that is all right with the Committee, otherwise I will just ask him to
read it.
JUDGE MALL: Just give us an outline.
ADV DU PLESSIS: As it pleases you Mr Chairman. It's very short. I am going to let him read it to you.
Colonel Venter please, for the convenience of the Committee, they haven't yet read the papers, please read
from pages 68 to 69.
COL VENTER: Certainly.
INTERPRETER: The Interpreters do not have a copy of the document now being read from.
COL VENTER: "Nature and Particulars". An informer of the Security Branch broke off contact with us
and was seen at Derdepoort border post by Crous and myself and we had positive information about this
informer, namely that he was involved in bringing in of trained terrorists. He was clearly surprised and
shocked to see us and when we asked him what he was doing in the area he told us that he would bring in
trained terrorists that night. Captain Crous and myself, we were under the command of Colonel Steyn, the
Commanding Officer of the Western Transvaal and currently General Steyn, we discussed the matter with
Colonel Steyn and Brigadier Loots, then Colonel Loots who was also in the area. We discussed this
matter. We decided that we would ambush them to intercept these trained terrorists.
At Silent Valley we planned the operation and the following members were present, Brigadier
Loots ...(tape ends) ... can't recall now. We were given arms to plant on PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 662 COL VENTER
the terrorists should they not be armed. The decision was taken to eliminate these terrorists and informers.
An ambush was laid for them and two terrorists, MK Karl Marx and Kruschev were shot dead.
JUDGE MALL: What were their names?
COL VENTER: MK Karl Marx - Chairperson those were their
aliases, Karl Marx and Kruschev. They were shot dead. We then found that we had been armed with
handgrenades, which we found on their laps after the incident. Should they not have been in possession of
arms we had weapons available which we would have planted on their bodies. The informer we shot dead
with them. The result was that that route of infiltration was cut off and let to disruption of the MK
strategies. It also intimidated other activists and discouraged them from becoming members of MK and
going for training.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Right Colonel, from page 71 to page 75 you confirm the general background and
motive relating to political conduct and then 76 to 77 the more specific motivation, do you confirm that?
And on page 77, could your please read the first paragraph.
COL VENTER: Trained ANC terrorists were to be eliminated whereby acts of terror and destabilising
actions would have been prevented. That was seen as an essential step due to increasing acts of terror
against inter alia civilians and the general situation in the country as appears from the background.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Could you also read the following paragraph.
COL VENTER: The act was also necessary to intimidate supporters of terrorists and activists which was
also
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 663 COL VENTER
necessitated by the current security situation in the country. As far as I could remember these actions were
successful for the most part and the activists against whom we took action refrained from further action.
Steps taken against the activists were, therefore, successful and the making ungovernable of the State was
prevented by the liberation organisations obviously.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Colonel, at that stage did you believe, or what did you believe relating to these
actions? For whose benefit would these be undertaken?
COL VENTER: These actions were not only to the benefit of civilians and society as a whole in this
country, but also to the benefit of the Government of the day, to keep the Government in power.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And against whom was this directed? What was your understanding?
COL VENTER: These attacks were aimed and directed at the Government of the day, the National Party
Government and also the general populace and the Police.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes. Against whom was it directed? Against whom were you acting?
COL VENTER: Pardon me, I misunderstood. We acted against trained members of the ANC, who were
trained abroad and they were also known as Umkhonto weSizwe members and an informer.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Was that common practice, that trained terrorists infiltrated the border in that
particular spot?
COL VENTER: Yes. Chairperson, there were many cases in that period and it increased as well, these
infiltrations. I must just mention that they did not cross the border posts legally, but they infiltrated under
cover of darkness.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And generally speaking, did you know
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 664 COL VENTER
whether these persons who would illegally infiltrate the country, did you know what their objectives would
be?
Just generally speaking.
COL VENTER: Chairperson, in general they infiltrated to commit acts of intimidation, attacks on
civilians, planting of landmines, attacks on military institutions and installations and just general acts of
terror in the Republic.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Could you turn to page 79. Before I ask you about the contents of that page, when
was this Col Venter?
COL VENTER: This was during May, 1984.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And under whose command were you acting, on whose instructions were you
acting?
COL VENTER: I acted under command of Colonel Steyn. He was overall in charge of Security in
Western Transvaal.
ADV DU PLESSIS: When you refer to Colonel Loots do you refer to Flip or Wikus Loots?
COL VENTER: I am referring to Wikus Loots and then I would rather refer to him by his rank, namely
Brigadier Loots to avoid confusion.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DU PLESSIS
JUDGE MALL: Your application gives the date as 4 May 1983. Was it 1983 or 1984 as you now say?
This is at page 67.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman.
COL VENTER: My apologies, my mistake. It was 4 May 1983.
JUDGE MALL: What about this informer, did you know him by name? Can you identify the person in
any other way?
COL VENTER: No, I cannot remember his name. I spoke to other members after we submitted this
application and it was one Mohatse who lived in Botswana. In other words he was
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 665 COL VENTER
not a South African citizen.
JUDGE MALL: Mr Mpshe, any questions.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV MPSHE: These people who you killed, Karl Marx and Kruschev,
how did you know that they were terrorists?
COL VENTER: Chairperson, the informer had previously been involved in bringing in of trained
terrorists and he informed Captain Crous and myself he was bringing Kruschev and Karl Marx. Those
were code names and the informer also did not know their real names. He was a well-known person who
brought in trained terrorists. So we knew he was going to bring in well trained terrorists.
ADV MPSHE: When did the informer tell you he was going to bring in particularly these two people?
Your application says he just admitted that he brings in terrorists, and not these two people.
COL VENTER: No, no that afternoon he told us that. He said that they were already prepared on the
other side of the border and that he would bring them across the border that night. I can explain to you
how it worked. The informer, well persons in general, not just the informer, see this was a method for
bringing in terrorists, the one would legally cross the border in a vehicle and have a legal passport, a valid
passport, and on the other side he would then wait somewhere in the bushes and the terrorists would then
illegally cross the fence at night. The border fence between the RSA and Botswana border post is just an
ordinary fence and for certain sections there was just a normal fence. So it was not impossible to scale this
fence. So they would cross in that way and this person would then convey them further in the vehicle to
where they were to
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 665 COL VENTER
infiltrate, wherever that was.
ADV MPSHE: Mr Venter, I am so specific with you. Lets go back. The fact that he told you that he was
going to bring in these two particular persons that afternoon, that is not in you application. Is that correct?
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, with respect, on page 68, the second paragraph, first sentence.
ADV MPSHE: At page 70 names are mentioned, but the point I am trying to take up with witness is that
he has given us evidence now that the informer told them that he was going to bring these two people.
Now what I am saying is this is not reflected in his application. Page 68, the first paragraph goes to say,
"We had positive information about the informer that he was involved in bringing in
trained terrorists".
but there is nothing that he told you that he would bring in these two people as terrorists. That is not in the
application.
COL VENTER: If you read just a little bit further down,
"He was clearly surprised and shocked to see us and when we asked him what he was
doing in the vicinity he told us he would bring in trained terrorists that night".
ADV MPSHE: Yes, but he did not mention their names.
COL VENTER: He did. Perhaps I just forgot to mention it here, but that is how we found out who these
people were, their names.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV MPSHE
JUDGE WILSON: The names appear again on page 69.
ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman, correct. The names appear on page PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 666 COL VENTER
69, but not in the form that he told him he would bring these people. The names appearing on page 69
when they had a discussion to make a trap for these people. Thank you.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. May I be afforded to ask one question. Mr Chairman, it
goes perhaps a little bit wider that re-examination. I ask the Committee's indulgence for this. This is a
question I should have asked in the examination. Col Venter you were present in testifying, or
listening to the other applicants testifying here and you were specifically present when Brig Cronje testified
as well as Capt Hechter, in which they sketched the general background of the political situation at the time
and the reasons why they committed certain acts, acted in certain ways. So they testified very broadly
about their political motivation. Is there anything in their testimony which you would like to differ with or
distance yourself from?
COL VENTER: No, Chairperson. Perhaps I could just mention something to the Committee and that is
that you must bear in mind that there were cases in which people who were politically active within the
borders of the country, where they actually left the country, young people, and eventually found themselves
in our neighbouring states and from there went for further training, not only military training, but also
intensive political training. If I remember correctly, there were also incidents where the police had some
contact and conflict with youths quite close to the border in Northern Transvaal for instance. With further
research we would be able to find out more about these incidents.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DU PLESSIS
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE MALL 667 COL VENTER
JUDGE MALL: How did it come about that you and your colleagues found yourself at this place, Silent
Valley on that day?
COL VENTER: Silent Valley is a little distance away from Derdepoort. It was a well known infiltration
route, especially the Derdepoort area and a little bit further down the Botswana border there were roads
leading to bigger areas, centres, and it was clear that that would be the only road, if they crossed the border
there, that would be the only road they could follow to places like Thabazimbi and other big cities.
JUDGE MALL: How did it happen that you were there on that particular day?
COL VENTER: In that period I was the Branch Commander of the Thabazimbi Security Branch and my
area went from Derdepoort to Buffelsdrift and I was busy with doing security work in that area. At that
time we not only had to deal with many infiltrations by terrorists but there was also a lot of insurgence of
illegal immigrants, crossing the fence, people from Botswana, people from Zimbabwe and we went to
Derdepoort on a daily basis and in that entire border area.
ADV DE JAGER: You have taken about 15 minutes to answer a question which was very simple. The
Chairperson asked you why were you there on that particular day?
COL VENTER: I am sorry, my apologies.
ADV DE JAGER: Could you please repeat, what is the answer to that question, what is the answer to the
Chairperson's question?
COL VENTER: Briefly, that I was simply performing my normal Security Branch duties at Derdepoort.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE WILSON 667 COL VENTER
JUDGE WILSON: This informant, where did you know him from?
COL VENTER: The informer was known to me, because he had contact with Capt Crous, who was the
Commanding Officer in Zeerust, which was our adjoining area. He was one of Crous's informers.
JUDGE WILSON: What sort of information did he used to give?
COL VENTER: He would usually pass on information relating to the movements of ANC activists and
trained terrorists in Botswana as well as information about infiltrations which were to take place,
infiltrations by terrorists.
JUDGE WILSON: Precisely the sort of information he gave you this afternoon? The afternoon in
question?
COL VENTER: Correct, yes.
JUDGE WILSON: Why did you kill him?
COL VENTER: Chairperson, we actually had no choice.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman I just want to, in all fairness to the witness, his testimony was on page
69, that only the two terrorists were killed, Marx and Kruschev.
JUDGE WILSON: If you look at page 69, (transcriber's translation: the informer had been shot with
them.)
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, as it pleases you.
JUDGE WILSON: Why did you kill him? He was doing what he normally did as an informant. He had
told members of the Police Force about an infiltration that night.
COL VENTER: That is correct. He sat between these two terrorists and we simply had no other choice
than to kill him in the process as well.
JUDGE MALL: Why, when you say you had no other choice, why was there no choice, why did you
have to kill him?
COL VENTER: He sat in the front, in the middle. They were PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE MALL 668 COL VENTER
in a bakkie, they were driving a bakkie and the terrorists were shot dead at this road block and he simply
was caught in the crossfire. He was sitting inbetween these two.
JUDGE MALL: This is cruelty, is it not? Here is a man who gives you information, has been giving you
information for some time, you are interested in killing terrorists and you do not think about this at all and
you just shoot this man down because he happens to with them. Is that what happened?
COL VENTER: Chairperson, it was a case of, if they had opened fire on us he would in any case would
have been caught in the crossfire and I may mention that Capt Crous also told me that he on previous
occasions had brought in people who had never given any information.
JUDGE WILSON: But you did not think they were going to be armed, they were not in fact armed,
except for handgrenades and you were taken weapons along to plant on them. Is that not so, is that not
what you told in the evidence?
COL VENTER: Not myself, I said that weapons were made available if they were unarmed.
JUDGE WILSON: They did not open fire. They were stopped at a road block you told us.
COL VENTER: Correct.
JUDGE WILSON: And yet you fired, killing everybody in the vehicle, knowing one of them was the
informer.
COL VENTER: Correct.
MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Venter, the informer was aware already that you knew that he would be bringing in
the terrorists into the country. Why was there no effort made on your part to warn him of the ambush, in
order to avoid the necessary killing?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MS KHAMPEPE 669 COL VENTER
COL VENTER: I cannot remember exactly what was said to him before he returned, before he crossed
the border back to Botswana, but we were acting on instructions of Col Loots, who was on the scene, as I
have said, and we decided there and then to set up an ambush and the chances were that they might be
armed and we decided to shoot them dead in the road block.
MS KHAMPEPE: It was quite a natural practice of the Security Branch to eliminate any terrorist who
would be crossing the borders of the country. It was something that you knew as soon as you knew that he
would be bringing in terrorists you knew that that would be the natural step to take to eliminate them.
COL VENTER: That was not the practice in all cases. They were not always eliminated summarily.
Sometimes we arrested them, but you must remember it was dark, it was night time. The people were
infiltrating and there was the possibility that they were armed. Is was 99% sure that they would be armed.
And at the scene, the decision was made by myself, Col Loots, Capt Crous and Capt Smit, we there and
then decided that this was our only option to eliminate these terrorists.
MS KHAMPEPE: What particular connection did this informer is his name Mohatse, is that the name of
the informer, Mohatse?
COL VENTER: His name was Moatse.
MS KHAMPEPE: Yes. Now what particular connection did Moatse have with the ANC?
COL VENTER: He was a member of the ANC, lived in Botswana and as I have already testified, he was
involved in bringing in trained terrorists. And we also had other information
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MS KHAMPEPE 670 COL VENTER
about the movements of trained MK terrorists, or he furnished us with this information. He himself was an
ANC member.
JUDGE WILSON: So we have now got the name of the informant?
COL VENTER: Chairperson ...(intervention)
JUDGE MALL: He mentioned that earlier. How did you know that he was an ANC member?
COL VENTER: Chairperson, nobody who passed on information about the movements of MK members,
or let me put it this way, about the total ANC set up in Botswana, he simply had to have been an ANC
member to have had access to that kind of information and to pass it on. Otherwise you would not have
that information at your disposal.
JUDGE MALL: He might have been one of your spies in that part of the world, how did you know he
was a member of the ANC?
COL VENTER: When you recruit an informer who belongs to a specific organisation, you can ask this
person to infiltrate the organisation, he then becomes a member of the organisation or he might already be a
member and for that reason you recruit him to obtain information about the organisation.
JUDGE MALL: Mr Mpshe are there any questions you wish to put to the witness?
ADV MPSHE: There are no questions, Mr Chairman. Thank you.
NO FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV MPSHE
JUDGE MALL: On the face of things as they stand whilst there might be some justification for what you
did, as far as two distinguished people, called Karl Marx and Kruschev
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE MALL 670 COL VENTER
are concerned, I can find no justification on what you say about why you killed this man. Can you give
any justification at all?
COL VENTER: Justification for this act is as I have already said, he had passed on information before, he
had already brought people into the country and it was known that he had already in the past brought
people into the country, people that he didn't mention to us.
JUDGE MALL: So the reward he gets for telling you beforehand, he is bringing in these two, the reward
he gets is that he is executed, is that it?
COL VENTER: No, no that is not the way I see it. He was eliminated. He was caught in a crossfire. He
was walking with these people and we had no option.
JUDGE WILSON: Did you just say he was walking with these people? Did you just say walking?
COL VENTER: Chairperson, I think that is just a way of expressing myself. What I meant is that he was
part of that group.
MS KHAMPEPE: But Mr Venter, you had made no attempt to try and warn your informer. What
attempts did you make to try and warn him of this elimination in order to avoid him being killed?
COL VENTER: Chairperson, he was not warned. He was simply in a situation where he was between
these people and he was sacrificed.
JUDGE WILSON: You repeatedly said he was caught in a crossfire. As I understand it that is when fire
is coming from both sides. But you have not suggested that the two terrorists opened fire, have you? They
did not.
COL VENTER: No, that is not what I testified. What I
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE WILSON 671 COL VENTER
meant was that he was sitting in the middle, inbetween these two people. He was caught in our fire.
ADV DE JAGER: Colonel, on page 68 of the application you say,
"We had positive information about this informer, namely that he was involved in
bringing in trained terrorists."
You continue,
"He was clearly surprised and shocked to see us and when we asked him what he was
doing in the area he said, he was bringing in terrorists".
Let me put to you what my problem is here. He's shocked and surprised to see you there, that implies that
he was afraid to tell you what he was doing there because he was busy doing something wrong. Correct?
COL VENTER: Yes. The idea which I had at the time was that he had entered the country illegally and if
we had not found him there, we would never have found out about these terrorists. As I mentioned
earlier...
ADV DE JAGER: That is the first part of my problem. The second part is, he could have said well, I
just happen to be here, maybe on business or whatever. But now he
gives this information to you that he is bringing in two people.
COL VENTER: Correct.
ADV DE JAGER: You would expect that if he wanted to help them and ...(tape ends)... or on the other
hand perhaps he would have called off the whole operation, but now that is speculative to some extent, but
you then went and reported this information that you found him there and my inference is that at this
meeting you had, and you must tell whether
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DE JAGER 672 COL VENTER
I am correct or not, you decided to eliminate him along with the terrorists?
COL VENTER: Yes that was my evidence, that myself, Captain Crous, Captain Smit and Colonel Loots
who was in charge there at the roadblock, we just decided that we were to eliminate the terrorists and him
as well. If I remember correctly Loots or Crous said that they could not sacrifice the lives of security
people and therefore that all three had to be eliminated.
ADV DE JAGER: No, I understand that, but as I understand the situation from your application you,
already that afternoon, decided to kill him.
COL VENTER: No, no, it was that evening at the road block, where we set up a road block, it was only
then because Colonel Steyn, who was the overall commander, he was not at the road block but his express
instructions were to arrest these people and we decided differently at the road block.
ADV DE JAGER: But Colonel if that was the decision then it wouldn't have mattered whether he was
sitting in the middle or in the back of the bakkie or wherever, you would have killed him.
COL VENTER: Correct.
JUDGE WILSON: So he wasn't killed in what you call crossfire because he was sitting in the middle, you
decided at the road block that when they came you were going to kill all three, that is what you are now
saying, is that so?
COL VENTER: Yes that was my evidence. What I meant was that he was sitting in the middle. He had
no chance, even if we had not decided to kill him he simply had no chance.
JUDGE MALL: The question of he had no chance, you made sure he had no chance, you were not going
to just kill Marx
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE MALL 673 COL VENTER
and Kruschev, you were going to kill him as well.
COL VENTER: Yes, yes I have said so.
JUDGE MALL: Who opened fire, did you open fire?
COL VENTER: Yes.
JUDGE MALL: And are you happy now that you killed a man who gave you valuable information and
brought two terrorists in and the reward he gets is you sacrifice his life?
COL VENTER: For the group of us there at the road block it was a case of eliminating the terrorists and
this man to prevent future large-scale acts of terrorism in the country.
JUDGE MALL: No that is not the explanation ...(intervention)
JUDGE WILSON: That is not what you said in your evidence. This man had been an informer for some
time, you have told us he gave you evidence about terrorists infiltrating the country, exactly what he did on
the day in question. He acted once again as a police informant, but you decided to kill him for it this time.
MS KHAMPEPE: But Mr Venter didn't I understand your evidence to say that obtained invaluable
information from Mr Mohatse?
COL VENTER: I said that he had passed on information in the past but I also said - you see initially I said
that Captain Crous was his handler, he conveyed his information to Captain Crous and Crous also
mentioned to me that in the past or that he was no longer trusted because he'd been bringing in terrorists
and he failed to report that fact.
JUDGE WILSON: So now you've a new version you're giving us ...(intervention)
MS KHAMPEPE: Yes, you killed him ...(intervention)
JUDGE WILSON: You never mentioned this before.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MS KHAMPEPE 674 COL VENTER
MS KHAMPEPE: You killed him because you actually lost faith in the guy, that's the evidence you are
now placing before us, is that so? Can we have your response to that remark Mr Venter?
COL VENTER: Could you repeat that please?
MS KHAMPEPE: You killed Mr Mohatse because you had lost faith in him.
COL VENTER: That was part of the reason, yes.
JUDGE MALL: Because you lost faith on him, the occasion on which you kill him is the occasion when
he keeps his faith, he brings two people and he tells you he's bringing them, and on that occasion you kill
him. I find that difficult to accept. Mr Mpshe are there any questions?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV MPSHE: Just one question. Mr Venter what happened to these
three corpses?
COL VENTER: I don't know. A post mortem was held and I think they went to Botswana. I don't know
whether the corpses were perhaps handed over to the families, but I could mention that the ANC later,
about a month or so after the incident in the Mayaboyu or Tsishaba of those years, I don't know which one
exactly, but it was after this incident, they had a report written by Mr Joe Modise in which it was said that
there had been this big battle and had mentioned these courageous soldiers who had died in the process.
But I don't know whether the corpses were given back to the families, but as far as I know the informer's
body went back to Botswana.
ADV MPSHE: He was dead, how did he go back to Botswana?
COL VENTER: Well after the post mortem I don't know how they conveyed the body, I wasn't involved
there.
ADV MPSHE: Listen Mr Venter, you shoot these three men,
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 674 COL VENTER
did you leave them there or do anything to them, that's what I am asking?
COL VENTER: No, the bodies weren't left there. Photographers arrived, they took photographs of the
corpses, they were taken to the mortuary, all the normal procedures took place.
ADV MPSHE: Who took the photos?
COL VENTER: It must have been one of the photographers.
ADV MPSHE: Was he present there when the three people were shot?
COL VENTER: No.
ADV MPSHE: So that's what I want to know, after the shooting did you leave the bodies there, go away,
and did the photographers then arrive later?
COL VENTER: No. After they had been shot everything was left exactly as it was. Colonel Loots stayed
at the scene, the uniformed branch was notified and they then came under the necessary investigation.
ADV MPSHE: So Colonel Loots stayed behind?
COL VENTER: Yes.
ADV MPSHE: And yourself and the others, you left?
COL VENTER: I think other people also stayed behind but I know Captain Crous and myself went off to
do further investigation. I left. Colonel Loots or Brigadier Loots and some of the other people stayed
behind on the scene until the police photographers arrived.
ADV MPSHE: Why did Loots and the others stay behind? What was the purpose of their remaining on
the scene?
COL VENTER: Well an investigation had to be done into this incident in which people had been killed.
The way it worked was - well that's the way it always happened where, for
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 675 COL VENTER
instance, a terrorist had been shot photographers would arrive, take photographs etc because a post mortem
had to be done and these photographs would then be submitted as part of their report.
ADV MPSHE: I find it very strange you are talking about investigate here, if you investigate an offence
or a crime that means you simply don't know what happened there, that's why you are investigating. Now
you knew and Loots knew that you yourselves had shot these people, so what investigation was actually
necessary?
COL VENTER: But Chairperson it simply is done in all cases where there was contact with terrorists and
in the next incident about which I testify exactly the same happened, the corpse was left there. The terrorist
had blown himself up with a handgrenade and the uniform branch people came to investigate.
ADV MPSHE: So you had to investigate whether they were in fact terrorists, is that what you are saying?
COL VENTER: NO.
ADV MPSHE: So what were you investigating?
COL VENTER: I did no investigation, I left the scene, Colonel Loots and other people stayed behind with
some other members and the photographers, and I think the fingerprint people came, those are the people
who would normally arrive at the scene of a crime or incident.
ADV MPSHE: It seems to me you don't want to answer my question. Thank you Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV MPSHE
JUDGE WILSON: Was an inquest held?
COL VENTER: Yes, correct, that's why I am saying that's why the people had to come and take
photographs etc, so that PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE WILSON 676 COL VENTER
it could form part of the docket of the inquest.
JUDGE WILSON: It was evidence led that you policemen, Colonel Loots, Steyn yourselves killed these
three men, was that the evidence led at the inquest?
COL VENTER: I only handed in a statement, I didn't actually go and testify.
JUDGE WILSON: Well did you in your statement say that you had planned the killing, you had
participated in the planning of the killing of these three people?
COL VENTER: In the statement we said that we shot dead terrorists and one of their hangers-on.
JUDGE WILSON: One of their hangers-on, is that how you described him? Not very accurate was it?
COL VENTER: Collaborator.
INTERPRETER: The Interpreter is interpreting "meeloper" as hanger-on or perhaps collaborator.
JUDGE MALL: Mr Mpshe have you finished?
ADV MPSHE: I have finished Mr Chairman thank you.
JUDGE MALL: Any re-examination?
RE-EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: Colonel Venter the evidence with which you started in
this application could you please just read it again, the very first sentence.
COL VENTER: "An informer in the security branch who had broken off contact with us was seen by
myself and Crous at Derdepoort Border Post".
You say that he broke off contact?
COL VENTER: Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Does that mean Colonel, that he was regarded by yourself as an informer or what
exactly does that mean?
COL VENTER: As I testified Captain Crous told me that this PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 677 COL VENTER
man could no longer be trusted and when a man breaks off contact with you, as I said he appeared clearly
to be shocked and surprised.
ADV DU PLESSIS: You are referring to shocked and surprised in the first sentence of the second
paragraph, is that correct?
COL VENTER: Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Why would he have been shocked and surprised?
COL VENTER: I don't think he expected to see us there, that is why he was shocked and surprised,
because he was already on this side of the border and he was actually doing something illegal and that's
why he was shocked and surprised.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Colonel Venter you're own view of the matter was that the informer at that stage was
regarded as one of your own people or did you regard him as an enemy of the government of the day?
COL VENTER: I personally regarded him as a member of the enemy.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And you also testified that he could no longer be trusted?
COL VENTER: Yes correct and we were in a state of war where people who could no longer be trusted
simply had to be regarded as your enemy.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Right now Colonel Venter I just want to clarify a point in your evidence because I
think the Committee misunderstood you. With regards to your evidence about the bringing in of terrorists
by the informer, did the informer bring in terrorists at stages when he should have given you the
information about it and when he failed to do
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 677 COL VENTER
so?
COL VENTER: That was my testimony, yes. He was involved in bringing in terrorists but he never
brought in other terrorists whom we could arrest. The information was there, he was involved in bringing
in terrorists and he passed on information but nothing ever materialised.
JUDGE MALL: How can you verify that? How would you know who was brought in by this man and
that he didn't inform you about it, how would you know that?
COL VENTER: There were also other informers. He was not the only informer in Botswana, there were
many others and by the arrest of some trained terrorists it appeared upon interrogation of these terrorists
that they gave the names of the people who brought them in, and that's how we often identified the people
responsible for bringing them in.
JUDGE MALL: Some terrorists had the benefit of being interrogated before they were shot?
COL VENTER: When he was arrested, yes.
JUDGE MALL: Yes. Do carry on.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Colonel at the stage when you shot this informer along with the two terrorists what
was your belief in your own mind, what did you think you were busy doing, did you think that you were
shooting one of your own people or did you believe that all those people that you had eliminated were
enemies?
COL VENTER: In my heart I was convinced that he was part of the enemy.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DU PLESSIS
JUDGE MALL: Yes thank you very much.
ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman may I take this opportunity of handing up affidavits from implicated
persons Mr Chairman. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 678 ADDRESS
These affidavits were given to me yesterday by Attorney Jan Wagner representing the implicated persons
and he indicated that they do not have any intention of being present but that I hand up the affidavits on
their behalf. It is the affidavits of the three implicated persons in this very matter we are busy with. I am
going to hand them up.
JUDGE MALL: What are their names?
ADV MPSHE: Wickus Johannes Loots, Christoffel Johannes Du Preez Smit and Philip Crous.
JUDGE WILSON: I take it all the others were also notified?
ADV MPSHE: Not all the others, those that I could get their whereabouts like the three I am just handing
up now. These were properly served. May I just mention that that of Philip Crous be marked P7, Exhibit
P7.
EXHIBIT P7 HANDED UP - AFFIDAVIT OF P CROUS
And that of Du Preez Smit be marked P9.
EXHIBIT P9 HANDED UP - AFFIDAVIT OF DU PREEZ SMIT
And Brigadier W J Loots be marked P8.
EXHIBIT P8 HANDED UP - AFFIDAVIT OF W J LOOTS
May I continue?
JUDGE MALL: Yes.
ADV MPSHE: I just want to make mention that P7 and P9 will also refer to the next incident to be
testified to by Colonel Venter the Vryburg Handgrenade. Thank you Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MALL: Thank you. We will take the adjournment at this stage and resume at two o'clock.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION
JUDGE WILSON: Mr Mpshe what are P5 and 6?
ADV MPSHE: P5 will be a letter from Attorney Wagner and Du PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 679 ADDRESS
Plessis, or best I think I will make copies and give to the Committee members on Monday. It is typed here.
JUDGE MALL: Where do we go from here?
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman at this stage I do not want to state emphatically that I am not going to
call any other witnesses. If the Committee will allow me I will finalise this matter next week in Cape
Town after I have made a decision pertaining to further witnesses in respect of this specific matter. Mr
Chairman my suggestion would be that we deal this afternoon with the matter of Jeffrey Sibaya which we
have intended to do with W/O van Vuuren who will give the primary evidence in that matter.
Before I deal with that, however, Mr Chairman, I have been provided with the report of Captain
van Jaarsveld which was compiled and finalised. He is present here. I beg leave to hand up copies to the
Commission of this report.
Mr Chairman I don't intend to read this into the record or deal with this in detail at this stage.
What I wanted to do Mr Chairman is to provide this to the Committee and if at all possible if there are any
aspects - there are aspects that I want to draw the Committee's attention to but I would suggest that I do that
next week, and if the Committee members may have any questions or anything pertaining to this I could
deal with that also next week.
JUDGE MALL: It is important for Mr Currin to have this report available. He has raised this question of
people whom he would want subpoenaed. He has given us a list of people, you have seen his application
for subpoenaing people.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Pardon Mr Chairman I am not with you?
JUDGE MALL: Mr Currin or his attorneys wrote a letter to
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 680 ADDRESS
us requiring us to subpoena a host of people.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes.
JUDGE MALL: And we've deferred our decision on that until we've heard evidence, more particularly at
that stage, van der Merwe, General van der Merwe's evidence because we thought once we've heard that
evidence it might avoid the need to call or subpoena some people. It was then hoped that this document
here, this report of Van Jaarsveld, once that is made available to us and to Mr Currin and we go through it,
this might also assist in making a decision on who, if anybody should be subpoenaed.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, yes I understood that in that way Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MALL: Yes. Now will this report be made available to Mr Currin?
ADV DU PLESSIS: It has already now Mr Chairman.
MR VAN DEN BERG: We have been given a copy of the report Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MALL: Yes.
MR VAN DEN BERG: We've obviously not had an opportunity to look at it.
JUDGE MALL: I understand, quite right.
MR VAN DEN BERG: And we will look at it and deal with it. Presumably if it's Mr du Plessis' intention
that this be finalised next week then perhaps we should revert to you in writing.
JUDGE MALL: Yes because ...(intervention)
ADV DU PLESSIS: We could deal with that tomorrow as well Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MALL: Alright. Let's then merely record at this stage that a report compiled by Mr van Jaarsveld
has been
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 680 W/O VAN VUUREN
handed in and let's give it a number before we run out of....
ADV DE JAGER: It will be "Z" Mr Mpshe?
JUDGE MALL: I think it is Exhibit Z, yes.
EXHIBIT Z HANDED UP - REPORT BY MR VAN JAARSVELD
JUDGE WILSON: Mr du Plessis Annexure G at the back of your - is that also taken from this book?
ADV DU PLESSIS: It's taken from the same book Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MALL: Alright.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman may I go ahead with the matter of Jeffrey Sibaya and I beg leave to
call W/O van Vuuren.
JUDGE MALL: Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman you will find that on page 116 of W/O van Vuuren's application.
JUDGE MALL: Just let me get that.
PAUL JACOBUS JANSEN VAN VUUREN: (sworn states)
EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: Very well W/O van Vuuren before we begin hearing
testimony in regard to this specific incident could you please give the Committee members information
with regards to Jeffrey Sibaya, the information which you obtained on him at the time.
W/O VAN VUUREN: The information obtained by informants' reports?
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes and the information which you had with regards to Sibaya, what was it all about,
what did it say what type of activities was he involved in?
W/O VAN VUUREN: He was involved in very militant activities. He was involved in the death of
Constable Sinki Vuma.
JUDGE MALL: Who, Constable?
W/O VAN VUUREN: Sinki Vuma. At that stage Constable Vuma
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 681 W/O VAN VUUREN
was attached to the Special Investigative Unit of the Riot Squad under the command of Captain Victor if I
remember correctly. Constable Vuma was shot dead with an AK47 rifle.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Page 170. Very well W/O van Vuuren, the information you received with regards to
the death of Sinki Vuma what was Sibaya's involvement in that death? Could you just give us some more
details on that.
W/O VAN VUUREN: According to informant reports he received military training and his MK name
was Jabu. He operated under that name at that stage.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Can you just read to the Committee from the top paragraph on page 117.
MS KHAMPEPE: Sorry Mr du Plessis, when did this incident take place? When was Constable.....
W/O VAN VUUREN: In 1986 if I remember correctly.
ADV DU PLESSIS: We say in the application 1986 or '87 but we think it's closer to 1986. Very well
could you proceed.
W/O VAN VUUREN: Should I start at the top. Sibaya was an activist and an ANC supporter in
Mamelodi. He was involved in petrol bomb attacks, arson and intimidation in Mamelodi, inter alia
attacking policemen's houses. The attacks were launched at the SAP and opponents of the ANC.
According to informants Sibaya had undergone a crash course in military training which entailed the use of
handgrenades, petrol bombs, the manufacture of petrol bombs, handling Makorov and Tokorov pistols and
the use of AK47's and also setting up landmines. The general behaviour of Brigadier Victor and them was
that we should neutralise the militant behaviour of Sibaya and other activists who were responsible for
arson, petrol bomb attacks and the death of innocent civilians. It was done to protect other Black persons
who were not
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 682 W/O VAN VUUREN
necessarily supporters of the ANC in Mamelodi. I attempted to recruit him as an informant but was
unsuccessful. I would also like to make mention here that I can recall him .. (tape ends)... and tried to
recruit him at that stage to become an informer. Informer reports showed that Sibaya was planning to
ambush Capt Hechter and I and eliminate us. I would just like to mention here that Capt Crafford also had
informer reports which indicated the same.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Could I just ask you, is that after you obtained information on him and tried to recruit
him as an informer?
W/O VAN VUUREN: That is correct. That was after I had attempted to recruit him as an informer. We
decided that since he wanted to entice us into an ambush and he was one of the activists and there was no
doubt in our minds that he was involved in Constable Sinki Vuma's death we were going to neutralise him
and eliminate him in the same manner.
Mamasela got it right to get Sibaya and another unidentified person, and another unknown person by the
name of Mpho, under the pretext that he was going to take them across the border into another country.
Capt Crafford, Capt Hechter and I, and I mentioned Hendrik Mokabo but I am not sure whether he was
with us or not, and also Slang were outside Mamelodi where we waiting in a minibus for Mamasela.
Mamasela brought Sibaya and other activists. Sibaya and the other activists did not realise that
we were leading them into an ambush. Mamasela informed us that they were both very militant and they
were eager to receive further military training out of the country. They offered that out of their own free
will and there was no need to convince them. From there we went to a place north of Pienaar's
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 683 W/O VAN VUUREN
River and thereafter we interrogated them by kicking them and assaulting them. I put an electrical cord
around the one's neck and Capt Hechter put an electrical cord around the other's neck. They were choked
with that in order to provide further information. Both died during the interrogation. We went to set them
up with a landmine in Bophuthatswana in order to destroy evidence and for it to seem as if they had planted
the landmine themselves.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Why did you not simply shoot them?
W/O VAN VUUREN: There were farmers' in the area. Shots would have rung out and let to the
consequence that people would realise that shots were taking place. Cartridges would have been lying
around and that was the reason why we did not shoot at them.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And during the interrogation, did you obtain any information from them?
W/O VAN VUUREN: Yes, we did. Sibaya acknowledged that he had received training at the Rand, but
he did not want to say who his contacts were on the Rand, but he acknowledged that he was responsible
for, one of the persons responsible for the death of Constable Sinki Vuma.
ADV DU PLESSIS: W/O van Vuuren I nearly neglected to mention, the political objective which you set
out on page 120 and 125, do you confirm it as correct?
W/O VAN VUUREN: That is correct.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And more specifically the setting out of the political objective on page 125 to 127, is
that correct?
W/O VAN VUUREN: Which pages?
ADV DU PLESSIS: 125 to 127.
W/O VAN VUUREN: That is correct.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Paragraph 11, the instruction, could you
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 683 W/O VAN VUUREN
just read that to the Committee, paragraph 11(a).
W/O VAN VUUREN: May I proceed? It was the execution of Brig Cronje and Brig Victor's instruction
with regards to the emergency situation and the general unrest. I acted under the instruction of Capt
Hechter and I wrote here Capt Crafford because Capt Crafford was present with us.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DU PLESSIS
JUDGE MALL: What about Capt Crafford, you say he was present?
W/O VAN VUUREN: Yes, he was present, Mr Chairperson.
ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman may I request that it be Mr van den Berg for the victims? Thank you Mr
Chairman.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you Mr Chairman. The other person
whom you killed together with Jeffrey Sibaya, can you describe him to us?
W/O VAN VUUREN: I can recall how he was built very vaguely, but if I would see him I would not
recognise him, but I would like to say that I suspected that he was between 18 and 20 years old.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Was he big built or was he a tiny man?
W/O VAN VUUREN: I would say he was of average build, like an average Black 18 year old man.
MR VAN DEN BERG: And you have no idea what his name was or who he was?
W/O VAN VUUREN: No, no idea at all. I cannot recall his name at all. I suspected that Mpho, I wrote
that down because that was what I could recall.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Did you anticipate that this person would accompany Sibaya?
W/O VAN VUUREN: Originally not, but it could be that
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VAN DEN BERG 684 W/O VAN VUUREN
Sibaya had a few militant people who were working with him. And when Mamasela brought those people
there and said that he was one of Sibaya's group and that he was involved in all Sibaya's acts I had no
reason to mistrust Mamasela and I believed him.
MR VAN DEN BERG: The information which you received with regards to Sibaya, you say came from
informer reports, is that correct.
W/O VAN VUUREN: That is correct.
MR VAN DEN BERG: And you did not deal with the informers directly?
W/O VAN VUUREN: I dealt with some of them directly. So that Capt Hechter and I could find about
these so-called hit squads. We did work with informers directly, specifically the informers who provided
this information with regards to Sibaya.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Did you work with them directly?
W/O VAN VUUREN: Yes, we did.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Which proof did you have with regards to the death of Sinki Vuma?
W/O VAN VUUREN: What do you mean, what proof?
MR VAN DEN BERG: Besides what was contained in the informer reports, what proof did you have?
Did you have any other proof that Sibaya was involved in the death of this person?
W/O VAN VUUREN: No at that stage we merely had information from our informer reports. Not just
one informer report, several informer reports. And I would just like to add that Capt Crafford at that stage
was at Unit C, which was the ANC section, and he also had his own informers. And they testified that he
also had informer reports which
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VAN DEN BERG 685 W/O VAN VUUREN
mentioned Sibaya's name, where he was involved in Sinki Vuma's death and he where operated with
someone by the name of MK Jabu.
JUDGE MALL: The death of the Constable, rather not the death of Sibaya. You say Sibaya was
involved in the death of the Constable, that is the question is it not?
You want to know what proof he had about that?
MR VAN DEN BERG: That is correct, Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MALL: What is you answer to that?
W/O VAN VUUREN: Captain Crafford was involved at the ANC section and he also had informers in
Mamelodi and they reported to him that Sibaya was involved in the death of Constable Sinki Vuma.
MR VAN DEN BERG: The information you received about Sibaya and his activities, was this
information received at a different time or at the same time you received information that Sibaya intended
to eliminate you?
W/O VAN VUUREN: Could you please repeat the question?
MR VAN DEN BERG: The information which you received in respect of the activities of Sibaya, that
information did you receive that at the same time that you received information that Sibaya intended to
eliminate you?
W/O VAN VUUREN: We received the information over a period of time. I cannot say exactly how long
it was. I cannot recall whether we received it at the same time. This is not information which you
received once off. It was information which you received on a regular basis.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Can you tell the Committee how old Jeffrey Sibaya was at the time that he was
killed?
W/O VAN VUUREN: I have no idea but I would take a guess and say that he was between 18 and 20
years old.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VAN DEN BERG 686 W/O VAN VUUREN
MR VAN DEN BERG: My instructions are that he was born on the 11 December 1968, and that he
disappeared during the first week of June 1987. So he would at that stage have been 18, going on 19.
W/O VAN VUUREN: I would say that is correct, because I'd estimated him to be approximately 18.
MR VAN DEN BERG: When did you first receive information that Sibaya intended to eliminate you?
W/O VAN VUUREN: After we received the information of his involvement in Sinki Vuma's death and
we assigned the informers to concentrate on Sibaya and it came to light after he had been involved in Sinki
Vuma's death and been involved in several activities in Mamelodi, it came out in two or three informer
reports that he wanted to ambush us as well.
MR VAN DEN BERG: This information that he intended to eliminate you did you receive that prior to
Sibaya's detention, at the time that you attempted to recruit him?
W/O VAN VUUREN: I cannot recall. I would say that it was after I had gone to visit him either at
Mamelodi Prison or wherever, but I would say it was after my visit to him.
MR VAN DEN BERG: So you and Capt Hechter were known to him?
W/O VAN VUUREN: No, not Capt Hechter. I went to visit him alone. I would not be able to say if
Capt Hechter was known to him or not.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Was the ambush them aimed at both of you or just at you?
W/O VAN VUUREN: The ambush which you refer to, as far as I can recall it was aimed at both of us. At
that stage Capt Hechter was the Commanding Officer of Mamelodi and as people
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VAN DEN BERG 687 W/O VAN VUUREN
testified here there were informers in the Police as well as in the ANC.
ADV DE JAGER: Could I just receive clarity. Was there an ambush or was it a planned ambush or did it
actually take place?
W/O VAN VUUREN: It was a planned ambush. I would like to mention that the sources working with
Crafford reported in regards to the same incident as far as I can recall, because he was working in a
different section.
MR VAN DEN BERG: The attempt to recruit Sibaya, can you recall when that took place?
W/O VAN VUUREN: No, I cannot recall it at all.
MR VAN DEN BERG: You say that he was detained for a period of time, was it during that period?
W/O VAN VUUREN: He was detained for a while if I remember correctly and it was probably during
that period.
MR VAN DEN BERG: I am instructed that he was detained in the early part of 1987. Would it have been
then?
W/O VAN VUUREN: It is possible.
MR VAN DEN BERG: You also said you could not recall where he was detained but you think it might
have been in Mamelodi, in Mamelodi cells.
W/O VAN VUUREN: I think so.
MR VAN DEN BERG: What methods did you use to attempt to recruit him?
W/O VAN VUUREN: The normal security methods, offering him money and talking to him about
politics and so forth.
MR VAN DEN BERG: You say the normal Security Police methods, were those methods different from
the methods you used for interrogation?
W/O VAN VUUREN: That is correct. If we interrogated him
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VAN DEN BERG 687 W/O VAN VUUREN
we would have made use of other methods, but I did not interrogate him. If I remember correctly, I cannot
even recall if I took him out of the cell or if I stood at the cells with him and spoke to him. It was too long
ago, I cannot remember.
MR VAN DEN BERG: At that stage you were already in possession of what you say is a lot of
information relating to his activities. Did you confront him with that information?
W/O VAN VUUREN: Yes, I did.
MR VAN DEN BERG: What was his attitude?
W/O VAN VUUREN: He said that he was not involved as they all denied at that stage. They denied
their involvement.
MR VAN DEN BERG: On the basis of the information that you'd received from the informers' reports,
together with the information that he intended to ambush you, you then sent Mamasela to recruit him, is
that correct?
W/O VAN VUUREN: Could you please repeat the question?
MR VAN DEN BERG: Perhaps I am expressing myself poorly Mr Chairman. I asked if on the basis of
the information that you had together with the report that Sibaya intended to ambush you, Mamasela was
instructed to recruit Sibaya for foreign training, for military training.
W/O VAN VUUREN: That is correct.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Who gave the instruction to Mamasela?
W/O VAN VUUREN: It would either have been Capt Hechter or myself.
MR VAN DEN BERG: And the instruction was purely in respect of Sibaya?
W/O VAN VUUREN: At that stage, yes.
MR VAN DEN BERG: And at the time that the instruction was
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VAN DEN BERG 688 W/O VAN VUUREN
given to Mamasela you had already formed the intention to kill Sibaya?
W/O VAN VUUREN: That is correct.
MR VAN DEN BERG: What information did you extract from Sibaya and the other person before you
killed them, can you recall?
W/O VAN VUUREN: What I do recall is that during the interrogation Sibaya admitted to his military
training and his involvement in Sinki Vuma's death, but I cannot recall the other person's admissions. It is
too long ago. What I do know is that Sibaya mentioned to us, if I understood him correctly that night, this
person was his second in charge of this type of cell or group which they had in their military movement
with the bombings and the death of Sinki Vuma. May I also add that he also admitted to me that he was
involved in the landmine explosion which took place in Mamelodi at that stage, where a Casper detonated a
landmine in Mamelodi on the other side of the Kloof.
MR VAN DEN BERG: You have described in you application the methods which you used to extract this
information?
W/O VAN VUUREN: That is correct.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Did Sibaya implicate anybody else in the death of Vuma?
W/O VAN VUUREN: He mentioned another name or two but I cannot recall those names here today. I
imagine that he spoke about a certain gunman or someone, but I am not sure about that and I did not
include it in my application.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Did you follow that information up?
W/O VAN VUUREN: I cannot recall.
MR VAN DEN BERG: On behalf of the family we are going to call two witnesses. One is the mother of
Jeffrey Sibaya. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VAN DEN BERG 689 W/O VAN VUUREN
She will confirm that he disappeared early in June 1987. The second person is Johanna Lerutla. She is the
mother of Matthews Lerutla, who disappeared at the same time. Matthews and Jeffrey were frequently seen
together and so there is a possibility that Matthews may be the other person.
JUDGE MALL: Very well.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN DEN BERG
JUDGE MALL: Mr Mpshe.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV MPSHE: When did Mr Sibaya undergo training as you stated?
W/O VAN VUUREN: It is difficult for me to say, but it had to have been in 1986 or 1987. I cannot tell
you at this stage.
ADV MPSHE: You stated that the two were assaulted somewhere at Pienaar's Rivier by kicking and
beating them. How did this assault really take place, what was used and so on?
W/O VAN VUUREN: What do you mean what was used?
ADV MPSHE: Page 119 of the application,
"Thereafter we interrogated them by beating and kicking them"
W/O VAN VUUREN: That is correct we beat them and kicked them.
ADV MPSHE: Is that all that was done at the scene?
W/O VAN VUUREN: I testified that electrical cord was used around each one's neck to strangle them.
ADV MPSHE: I am coming to that.
W/O VAN VUUREN: At that stage we just kicked and beat them in order to elicit further information
from them.
ADV MPSHE: How long did these assaults take place?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 690 W/O VAN VUUREN
W/O VAN VUUREN: It is a long time ago. I cannot give you the exact amount of time. But it was, if I
were to estimate I would say approximately half an hour or a bit more or slightly less.
ADV MPSHE: With regards to the assaults alone?
W/O VAN VUUREN: Yes, with regards to the kicking and beating.
ADV MPSHE: And the strangling, how long did that go on for?
W/O VAN VUUREN: I would say, at this point it is difficult to say, it is ten to eleven years ago, perhaps
another half an hour, perhaps ten minutes. I cannot tell you. I really cannot say.
ADV MPSHE: Is it not the position that when you were throttling them you wanted to get information
from them? That was the purpose of throttling and assault?
W/O VAN VUUREN: It is correct. That was the intention.
ADV MPSHE: Would it mean that if they had given you the information the throttling and the assault
would have stopped?
W/O VAN VUUREN: No, that was not the intention. We would have proceeded to assault and throttle
them.
ADV MPSHE: Yes, but the purpose of the assault and the throttling was to get information. They were
strangled to obtain further information.
W/O VAN VUUREN: That is correct.
ADV MPSHE: Which would mean that if they had given you more information the throttling would have
stopped, because you would have got what you wanted?
W/O VAN VUUREN: No, I testified that we had already decided to kill them. The idea was to elicit
information
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 691 W/O VAN VUUREN
and thereafter to eliminate them. And whether or not they were going to die during interrogation was a
possibility.
ADV MPSHE: Seeing that these people, these two men, two young men were defenceless, they could not
fight back, they could not do anything, was there really any need to throttle them further after having
assaulted them?
W/O VAN VUUREN: As I said we had already decided to kill them.
ADV MPSHE: Yes. Couldn't you have killed them, if there is any better way of killing, in a much better
way rather than let them go through the pain and the suffering before you decided to kill them?
W/O VAN VUUREN: I do not know if there is an easier way of dying.
ADV MPSHE: I am saying, was it necessary for them to be subjected to this torture for the period you
have mentioned when you knew that you wanted to kill them, couldn't you have just killed them once, and
not subject them to human torture of this nature?
W/O VAN VUUREN: We wanted to obtain information from them, we wanted to elicit the information
first and then we would have killed them.
ADV MPSHE: Had you asked for information without doing what you did to them, would they have
refused the information, in your hands, type of security men that you were? Would they have refused to
tell you?
W/O VAN VUUREN: No, they would not have done it out of there own free will. They were such
militants that they would not have provided information out their own free will.
ADV MPSHE: Thank you Mr Chairman, no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV MPSHE
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE MALL 691 W/O VAN VUUREN
JUDGE MALL: What did you do to him?
W/O VAN VUUREN: Is that now to Mr Sibaya?
JUDGE MALL: Yes.
W/O VAN VUUREN: I kicked him, I beat him and I strangled him. I cannot remember if Capt Hechter
or I, which one we each had.
JUDGE MALL: When you strangled him was he standing up or sitting down or lying on the ground or
what?
W/O VAN VUUREN: He was standing. I had him in a half-upright position while the other person did
the kicking and beating.
JUDGE MALL: What did you use for beating him? How did you beat him apart from kicking him?
W/O VAN VUUREN: With our hands.
JUDGE MALL: Yes tell us about it, who died first?
W/O VAN VUUREN: It is very difficult to say. They died more-or-less at the same time because it was
myself, Capt Crafford, Capt Hechter, Joe Mamasela and Slang and possibly Hendrik and at that stage
everyone was kicking and beating. Furthermore it was dark and there was no lighting. There was some
moonlight on that particular night so we could see a bit. But it is difficult for me to say which person died
first.
MS KHAMPEPE: W/O van Vuuren you had obtained very detailed and extensive information about the
litany of political activities that Sibaya had been involved in, what reliable information did you have about
Mpho's political involvement, apart from Mr Mamasela's say-so?
W/O VAN VUUREN: I may just mention that we worked with many different activists and as I said I
cannot remember the person very well. All I know is that night Mamasela told us PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MS KHAMPEPE 692 W/O VAN VUUREN
and he later admitted during interrogation that he was second in command to Jeffrey Sibaya in their cell, in
their group. He would probably have had a file with us, but I just cannot remember the person anymore. It
is very difficult for me to answer that question.
MS KHAMPEPE: But at the time when you picked them up with Mamasela you didn't know anything
about Mpho's political involvement, can you dispute that? That is what is standing in your own application
on page 118.
W/O VAN VUUREN: I cannot dispute that, but all I can say is that I cannot recall that, that is why the
name Mpho is all I have, all I can remember about that specific incident. So I would not dispute that.
MS KHAMPEPE: My other concern is why was it necessary to have this already dangerous man
recruited for training abroad by Mamasela? He already qualified for elimination as a high profile activist.
W/O VAN VUUREN: That is correct. That was just the way in which I could say we could "steal" them
for lack of a better word, to get hold of him.
MS KHAMPEPE: But why was it necessary for you to steal them? Could you not have eliminated them
without having to steal them?
W/O VAN VUUREN: It was very difficult, they moved around in the residential area. It's a large area
and they were not always there. As I said sometimes they were on the Rand and we were aware of their
activities. We were aware more-or-less as to where they were but we could not go to them physically and
arrest them and take them away. We had to do it in a very devious manner and get them out of the
residential area. That is why we used Mr Mamasela in this
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MS KHAMPEPE 693 W/O VAN VUUREN
way, in this specific incident.
MS KHAMPEPE: Warrant Officer if I understand you properly
you did not ambush them because they had instead intended to ambush you and that is why you had to steal
them to use your words, it was because they were difficult to get hold of in order to eliminate.
W/O VAN VUUREN: They were difficult to get hold of but because we had decided to eliminate them
we decided that Mr Mamasela would infiltrate them and then get them out of the residential area.
MS KHAMPEPE: I will take the matter no further Warrant Officer, but I still have difficulties.
JUDGE MALL: Re-examination?
RE-EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: W/O van Vuuren just to clear up this last point, I am not
sure if you understood exactly what was being meant. Would it have been possible for you - let me
rephrase that, would it have been safe for you and Capt Hechter and Capt Crafford to trace Sibaya in the
residential area where he stayed and interrogate him?
W/O VAN VUUREN: It was never safe in the townships at that stage. It was not safe to go into the
townships. Anyone could come from anywhere and attack you with an automatic rifle. We were in danger
24 hours a day and the intention was to eliminate Mr Sibaya. We wanted to do it in as clandestine fashion
as possible, that is why we used Mr Mamasela to recruit him.
ADV DU PLESSIS: When you refer to a clandestine manner could you just elaborate on that a bit?
W/O VAN VUUREN: In other words we did not want people to know what was going to happen to
Jeffrey Sibaya. It had to seem as if he had left the country for further training in
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 693 W/O VAN VUUREN
order to protect our identity, that is why we did that. We could not just go in broad daylight and go and
fetch the man and eliminate him, that was not the intention.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Would it have been safer for you to eliminate him where you did at Pienaar's Rivier
or where he normally moved around?
W/O VAN VUUREN: It would have been much safer to do it at Pienaar's Rivier. The places where he
moved around were usually - contained people who had the same way of thinking as he did and it would
have been dangerous.
ADV DU PLESSIS: What about the method which you used to get him there, was that the most effective
manner or were there other manners available to you?
W/O VAN VUUREN: To us at that stage it was the most effective way.
ADV DU PLESSIS: W/O van Vuuren you testified that you cannot remember much about the other
person apart from the fact that he acknowledged that he was second in command to Sibaya, would you
have eliminated him if you were not sure of his involvement in the same type of acts as Sibaya?
W/O VAN VUUREN: No we would not.
JUDGE WILSON: Does that mean that you would have let Sibaya go?
W/O VAN VUUREN: No we would have eliminated Sibaya.
JUDGE WILSON: And the other man would have known your identity, would have been able to tell the
whole world who you were, I thought that was what you wanted to avoid, that's why you set up this whole
scheme?
W/O VAN VUUREN: Could you please repeat the question?
JUDGE WILSON: I understand from your evidence that you set up this whole scheme so that people
would not be aware of
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 694 W/O VAN VUUREN
your identities, it had to be done in a clandestine manner. You now say you would not have eliminated this
other person you would have eliminated Sibaya, so the other person would have been in a position to
identify you and to tell people that you were the people responsible for the kidnapping and elimination of
Sibaya, which would have defeated the whole clandestine purpose wouldn't it?
W/O VAN VUUREN: It would have upset the whole aim of the clandestine operation.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Would it have been possible for you to recruit this person as an informer?
W/O VAN VUUREN: Yes it could have.
ADV DU PLESSIS: But that's merely speculation.
W/O VAN VUUREN: Yes that's speculation.
MS KHAMPEPE: Warrant Officer this person admitted to being second in command during
interrogation, is it not so?
W/O VAN VUUREN: That is correct.
MS KHAMPEPE: Which interrogation you had just described to us. It wasn't something that was given
to you of his own free will, it's information which you obtained under duress by torture and you can't
expect a person - can you rely on information which you obtained under these circumstances? Can you
rely on that kind of information? And then you say the basis on which that information was obtained was
fair and you could have therefore concluded that he was a political activist who qualified for elimination.
W/O VAN VUUREN: If I could just mention that before we started with the interrogation Mr Mamasela
said to us that the person and Sibaya were both very militant and they both wanted to leave the country for
training abroad, before the interrogation started.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 695 W/O VAN VUUREN
MS KHAMPEPE: You only relied on the unverified information from Mr Mamasela, you made no
attempt to verify Mr Mamasela's information with regard to the other unknown activist. I have no problem
with regard to the information which you had about Sibaya. You had extensive reports from different
informers, but you had nothing on which you could rely as far as the other activist was concerned.
W/O VAN VUUREN: That is correct. I relied solely on the information from Mr Mamasela, that is
correct.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DU PLESSIS
JUDGE MALL: Yes thank you, you are excused.
WITNESS EXCUSED
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman may I beg leave to call Capt Hechter on the same incident.
MS KHAMPEPE: What page is it Mr du Plessis?
ADV DU PLESSIS: I beg your pardon, 111 Mr Chairman.
JACQUES HECHTER: (s.u.o.)
ADV DE JAGER: You went to the doctor this morning, do you have any problems testifying this
afternoon?
CAPT HECHTER: No not at all Chairperson.
EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: Capt Hechter the details of this incident are set out in your
application from pages 113 to 115 is that correct?
CAPT HECHTER: That is correct.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And the political objective, do you confirm that as correct?
CAPT HECHTER: That is correct.
ADV DU PLESSIS: The political objective is set out from page 117 to 124 and the general political
motive from page 124 to 125 is the specific motive. Do you confirm that?
CAPT HECHTER: Yes.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 696 CAPT HECHTER
ADV DU PLESSIS: And page 126, paragraph 11(a), you say you were under the command of General
Victor and ...(intervention)
CAPT HECHTER: That is correct.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Capt Hechter you have heard the testimony of W/O van Vuuren, is there anything
which you would like to comment on?
CAPT HECHTER: Chairperson I cannot recall this incident at all, not in the least. What could possibly
occur to me is the part that we could have - where we blew them up, I am not sure whether I am confusing
this whole issue, I cannot remember the interrogation of these persons, I cannot recall Jeffrey Sibaya, I
cannot recall this strangulation, but because I have trust in W/O van Vuuren I do not believe that he would
involve me in something like this if I was not involved, and I accept full responsibility for this.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Capt Hechter in your application, in the cases where you cannot recall, we put the
written submissions before the Committee but it appears that there is something that hasn't been mentioned
in the beginning that you have added in, in your own handwriting, that you cannot recall this, was it left out
due to an oversight?
CAPT HECHTER: Yes. After I read this document I discovered that.
JUDGE WILSON: Where is this?
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman you would have noted in Captain Hechter's applications he previously
we led evidence about his memory. He remembers certain instances very vividly and others not.
JUDGE WILSON: No I am asking where is the bit in his handwriting.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 697 CAPT HECHTER
ADV DU PLESSIS: Oh, no, it's not in your applications, he said - I think he meant that he wrote it in
himself for his own purposes. But Mr Chairman it should have been in here as you will recall in other
applications we said it right at the beginning that he doesn't remember anything about the incident. It
should have been in here and it was an oversight. Is there anything which you would like to add to W/O
van Vuuren's evidence?
CAPT HECHTER: No.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DU PLESSIS
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman I may mention on this question of the memory, we are nearly - the
reports of the psychiatrist are nearly finalised. He is based in Stellenbosch and it would also make it very
easy for us to present you with the reports when we go down to Cape Town, so we will do that next week.
JUDGE MALL: Any cross-examination Mr van den Berg?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DEN BERG: In the light of what the witness has said that he
recalls nothing it's very difficult Mr Chairman. There are one or two aspects possibly that may assist. It
may also be that during some of the times that I was absent from here I missed some of the evidence, so if
you will indulge me for a short period. Thank you Mr Chairman.
Capt Hechter can you recall the incident with regard to Scheepers Morudi?
CAPT HECHTER: Yes there are certain parts of that incident which I can recall.
MR VAN DEN BERG: And that took place more-or-less in May 1987.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VAN DEN BERG 697 CAPT HECHTER
CAPT HECHTER: If you say so.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Secondly could you recall the incident with regards to Maake, Makupe and
Sefolo?
CAPT HECHTER: Unfortunately not.
MR VAN DEN BERG: You cannot recall that one?
CAPT HECHTER: No I cannot recall it. I did describe that to the Committee.
MR VAN DEN BERG: The nature of your application is that you are relying quite heavily on the
application of W/O van Vuuren?
CAPT HECHTER: That is correct.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN DEN BERG
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV MPSHE
JUDGE MALL: Yes, you are excused.
CAPT HECHTER: Thank you Chairperson.
WITNESS EXCUSED
JUDGE MALL: Are you calling any other evidence Mr du Plessis?
ADV DU PLESSIS: No Mr Chairman, thank you, that's the evidence. Thank you Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MALL: Mr van den Berg?
MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you Mr Chairman. We want to try and clarify the identity of the second
person and I will present you with the evidence that we have. It's not a 100% conclusive Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MALL: Yes, you may call your witness.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Mr Chairman I beg leave to call Johanna Lerutla.
JUDGE MALL: How do you spell that?
MR VAN DEN BERG: It's L-E-R-U-T-L-A.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VAN DEN BERG 698 J LERUTLA
JOHANNA LERUTLA: (sworn states)
EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you Mr Chairman. Are you the mother of
Matthews Lerutla?
MS LERUTLA: That's true.
MR VAN DEN BERG: When was he born?
MS LERUTLA: In 1970, 26th September 1976.
MR VAN DEN BERG: 1976 or 1970?
MS LERUTLA: 1970 Sir.
MR VAN DEN BERG: What was he doing before he disappeared, was he at school, was he working,
what was he doing?
MS LERUTLA: He was at school Sir.
MR VAN DEN BERG: And what standard was he in?
MS LERUTLA: Standard seven.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Do you know if he was politically active?
MS LERUTLA: He was still a young boy, about politics I don't believe so. He was only interested when
other youths were singing.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Was he ever arrested or detained?
MS LERUTLA: He was never detained or arrested. One day he was taken by the police then they said if
he didn't do some problems we'll bring him back, so they did the same way.
JUDGE MALL: I don't understand the Interpreter, will he just interpret that answer again please.
MS LERUTLA: The police came and picked him up and then they said if he doesn't create problems they
will bring him back, so they did the same.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Can you remember when that happened?
MS LERUTLA: It's a long time, I forget.
MR VAN DEN BERG: And how long did the police keep him?
MS LERUTLA: They took him in the evening, and then they said if he has not done something we will
bring him back, so PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VAN DEN BERG 699 J LERUTLA
truly they did bring him back and then they said he didn't do anything.
MS KHAMPEPE: Was he brought back the same evening?
MS LERUTLA: He was brought back the same night because they said he didn't do anything.
MR VAN DEN BERG: I am indebted Mr Chair. When did your son disappear?
MS LERUTLA: It was in 1986, the second week of June 1986.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Was it 1986 or 1987?
MS LERUTLA: 1987 Sir.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Did your son know Jeffrey Sibaya?
MS LERUTLA: This Jeffrey Sibaya, I did reprimand him about their relationship because when my son
was coming back from school they will talk together then I did reprimand him one day that when you come
back from school you always stand on the streets and why.
MR VAN DEN BERG: What happened when your son didn't come home?
MS LERUTLA: I don't hear you Sir?
MR VAN DEN BERG: You say that your son disappeared in the second week of June, when did you
realise that he was gone?
MS LERUTLA: Nothing happened Sir.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Did you go and look for him?
MS LERUTLA: Yes I did go to the school where he was attending, then I went to the police station to
look for him and then I told them to help me look for him.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Did you look anywhere else?
MS LERUTLA: Yes Sir. All the relatives and my neighbours were helping in searching for him and they
were not able to find him.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN DEN BERG
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE MALL 700 J LERUTLA
JUDGE MALL: Did you think of going to the family of Sibaya to find out where their son was?
MS LERUTLA: After some time I did go to the Sibaya family to ask for the whereabouts of my son.
JUDGE MALL: Yes, what did they say?
MS LERUTLA: The mother to Jeffrey said they went together with Jeffrey. I knew that on that day he
went to school and then he said he'll eat his lunch at school together with his friends, when I came back
from my employment then he told me at the gate that he's hungry, then I said I've borrowed R3,00, then
he'll take R1,00 and buy food, then he said prepare tea for me and that was the end. I only knew that he
went to the cafe.
NO EXAMINATION BY MR MPSHE
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: Did you see your son with Jeffrey Sibaya on the day
he disappeared?
MS LERUTLA: No Sir. I only know that he went to the shop.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DU PLESSIS
MS KHAMPEPE: Mrs Lerutla, when the police came and picked up your son did they explain to you
why they were picking him up?
MS LERUTLA: I did ask why they were picking him up and then they said he's one of these activists,
then they were asking me as to whether he was not destroying some other people's property outside.
MS KHAMPEPE: Thank you.
JUDGE WILSON: On the day that he disappeared he went to school, what clothes did he wear? ...(tape
ends)
MS LERUTLA: At three o'clock when I arrived I met him at the gate and then I gave him money he was
still wearing a school uniform at that time.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 701 J LERUTLA
JUDGE WILSON: So when he left your home he did so wearing a school uniform?
MS LERUTLA: He told me that if he failed his exams he's not going back to school.
JUDGE MALL: On that day, on the day he disappeared or was that some other time?
MS LERUTLA: Whilst he was at school, seeing the suffering at the house he was telling all these things.
JUDGE MALL: Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, because of the fact that the information or the evidence of this witness
was not put to W/O Van Vuuren, obviously he could not answer to that. In respect of His Lordship Mr
Justice Wilson's question about the school uniform I am informed by W/O Van Vuuren what the other
person wore and I can put it to the witness if the Committee wishes to allow me to.
I just want to put to you that the information of the applicants and of W/O van Vuuren was that
the person who was with Mr Sibaya on that day, according to W/O van Vuuren did not wear a school
uniform. Can you comment on that?
MS LERUTLA: Maybe I forgot, because I am now old.
JUDGE MALL: Was he ever called by any other name, besides Jeffrey?
MRS LERUTLA: Yes, he was called Sprompana, Matthews Sprompana.
MS KHAMPEPE: Mrs Lerutla, when you say he was wearing a school uniform can you just explain to us
what kind of a shirt we are talking about and what kind of a colour trouser we are talking about, so that Mr
Du Plessis can also reconcile whether in fact that was not a school uniform.
MRS LERUTLA: It was a white shirt and grey trousers. I
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 702 J LERUTLA
am not so sure whether he was wearing a jersey or not.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman I am informed by W/O van Vuuren that he can remember that he did
not have school clothes on, or similar kind of clothes, but he says he cannot say if they had jeans on or suits
on or anything like that, but he can remember that the clothes they had on was not anything like school
clothes or a school uniform.
JUDGE MALL: Did anybody call your son by the name of Mpho?
MS LERUTLA: No sir. His name is Sprompana.
ADV DE JAGER: Do you know whether Jeffrey Sibaya was in the same school or whether he was at
school with your son?
MS LERUTLA: My child was at Mamelodi High School, but I know nothing about Jeffrey Sibaya.
JUDGE MALL: Thank you. You are excused.
WITNESS EXCUSED
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VAN DEN BERG 703 M SIBAYA
MR VAN DEN BERG: Chairman I beg leave to call Maria Sibaya. She is the mother of Jeffrey Sibaya.
JUDGE MALL: Is it Sibaya or Sibaya?
MR VAN DEN BERG: I am instructed that it's S-I-B-A-Y-A.
MARIA SIBAYA: (sworn states)
EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DEN BERG. When was Jeffrey Sibaya born?
MRS SIBAYA: He was born in 1968.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Do you remember the exact date?
MRS SIBAYA: I do not remember. But I remember it was in December 1968. I do not remember the
exact date.
MR VAN DEN BERG: What was he doing at the time that he disappeared. Was he working? Was he at
school?
MRS SIBAYA: He was at school.
MR VAN DEN BERG: In what standard?
MRS SIBAYA: He was in standard eight.
MR VAN DEN BERG: And at which school?
MRS SIBAYA: He was at Ditabile School.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Was he at school in Mamelodi.
MRS SIBAYA: Yes, it was in Mamelodi. He was at Mamelodi East.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Was he involved in politics?
MRS SIBAYA: I would not say no, he would go but I would not know, as a parent I would not know
where he was going.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Did you know any of his friends?
MRS SIBAYA: Yes, I knew his friends.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Can you tell the Committee some of their names?
MRS SIBAYA: I knew Scheepers, but I did not know his surname. I also knew Abraham Nama. As well
as Snyman, but I do not remember Snyman's surname, but they were his
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VAN DEN BERG 703 M SIBAYA
friends.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Do you know a person called Matthews Lerutla?
MRS SIBAYA: Yes, I knew him, but I knew him as Prompana.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Was he a friend of your son?
MRS SIBAYA: That is correct.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Can you remember when your son disappeared?
MRS SIBAYA: Yes, he disappeared in 1978.
MR VAN DEN BERG: '78 or '87?
MS SIBAYA: 1987. I am getting old now, I think I am a bit forgetful.
MR VAN DEN BERG: That's fine Mrs Sibaya. What happened after your son disappeared?
MRS SIBAYA: When he disappeared he just went out. There was a white car that came to my place and
that white car, there were people who called him from that car, but they did not address him with his name.
They said Shadrack and he went to the car. They talked together and I thought they knew each other.
MR VAN DEN BERG: And what happened then?
MRS SIBAYA: Thereafter I never saw the car and I never saw him. The car went to the direction the
north and it turned upwards and I waited and waited, thinking that my son would come back. And two
sons said he did not come back. Then the following day I waited for him also. On the third day Mrs Ncusa
came to me. We went to the police station to report his disappearance. And the police was looking for
him. I know that he was bound to go to court at some stage.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Do you know why he had to go to court?
MRS SIBAYA: I did not know, because they came and told me
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VAN DEN BERG 704 M SIBAYA
that they had arrested him. When I went to court they remanded the case and he was given bail, together
with Abraham Mlambo. And they were given R50,00 bail each and that was R100,00 collectively.
Abraham's mother paid the bail and they came back. They stayed, that is thereafter the white car came that
fetched them.
MR VAN DEN BERG: When did you first meet Mrs Lerutla?
MRS SIBAYA: I knew her during the disappearance of the children, because we have both suffered the
same fate.
She was also looking for her child and I told her I was also looking for mine. And I told her that he was
taken by a white car that went towards the north and I did not know where it was heading to. And she
suggested that we should go and report the matter to the Police. And we went and reported the matter to
the Police, because Jeffrey was supposed to go to court that particular month. We went to the Police
together with Mrs Lerutla, and we reported the disappearance. They told us they would get in touch with
us at a later stage. And even till today they have not got in touch with us.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Do you know who was in the car?
MRS SIBAYA: I do not know his name but I saw a familiar face. The person had come before, but he
did not get into the house for me to properly identify him. I never saw him again. Even Stoffas and
Snyman was never to be seen again.
ADV DE JAGER: Sorry, you said even Stoffas, is it Stoffas or what's the first name with Snyman?
MRS SIBAYA: Scheepers and Snyman.
ADV DE JAGER: Thank you.
JUDGE MALL: What about Abraham Nana?
MRS SIBAYA: Yes I do know him but I do not know where he
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VAN DEN BERG 705 M SIBAYA
stays. I know his place but not his number.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Mrs Sibaya, you heard evidence of what happened to your son.
MRS SIBAYA: Yes, I have heard the evidence, but I do not understand. Nothing seems to fall into
place. The way they expressed themselves. The one who spoke first I do believe that I saw him. NoW
that he has killed my son, why didn't he come and tell me that he had killed my son?
MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you Mr Chairman. I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN DEN BERG
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. You testified about the
person who testified first, did you mean W/O van Vuuren who testified here?
MRS SIBAYA: I think I am getting a bit confused. What he's referring to I do not understand. Jeffrey - it
was not the first time for Jeffrey to get arrested. He was shot first but he was shot by the first guy or the
first man who testified when he was out on bail. Then he came into the house he said, Jeffrey, do you
know that you caused us problems. Then he said to them that they should take him to the hospital, because
they had shot him. That was in Mamelodi East. He said to them, they had already shot him and he
was in prison.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Have you ever seen any of the people here behind me in your life before, before
today?
MRS SIBAYA: The one I saw coming into my house is the one who is looking at me who has got black
hair.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Was he the one who testified just now?
MRS SIBAYA: No, the one who came first before the last one.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 706 M SIBAYA
ADV DU PLESSIS: Are you referring to the person who testified first, W/O van Vuuren? Is that the
person you saw before?
ADV DE JAGER: She will never realise van Vuuren with the surname, could you refer in some other
manner to him?
MRS SIBAYA: It's the fourth one.
ADV DE JAGER: Could you stand up.
MRS SIBAYA: The one who is standing up.
ADV DU PLESSIS: When did you see him before?
MRS SIBAYA: It quite some years back. I am not sure as to which year was it. And especially that I am
not educated. I am not able to say which year.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Where did you see him?
MRS SIBAYA: I saw him at my place. They came, but they were quite a group and they got into the
house. They said they wanted a gun. They wanted Jeffrey. They caught Jeffrey at that stage. They took
him with. They brought him into the house from a neighbour's place and they said he must point the gun
out and there was an altercation, Jeffrey denied any knowledge of the gun. And he said to them, you knew
that you had shot me before. So why are you looking for me now? And they continued to assault him.
They said he had killed a policeman. And he continually denied that.
And he told them that at the time they had shot him he had gone to prison during the happening of that
incident and he had gone to Pelindaba. And he was imprisoned in Central Prison. He said at the time he
had spent a year in jail, because he had been shot and he did not know as to why he had been shot. There
was an argument between that policeman and Jeffrey.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Did they find the gun at your house?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 707 M SIBAYA
MRS SIBAYA: No, they did not get any gun.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DU PLESSIS
NO EXAMINATION BY ADV MPSHE
JUDGE MALL: Thank you, you are excused.
WITNESS EXCUSED
MR VAN DEN BERG: There is nothing further from our side Mr Chairman, thank you.
ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman may I once more hand up affidavits by Johannes Jacobus Victor, who is one
of the implicated persons in this very matter, Jeffrey Sibaya. These again were given to me yesterday by
Attorney Jan Wagner.
JUDGE WILSON: What will it be? What number?
ADV MPSHE: They were sent to me with this schedule, already been numbered by the Attorney. I noted
that it seems we are going back. That is how they numbered them on their schedule.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, may I just enquire from Mr Mpshe if that is the affidavit, dated 20
February 1997, signed in Ladybrand?
ADV MPSHE: It relates to the Jeffrey Sibaya incident.
JUDGE MALL: I think the record will have to be put right. The surname should be reflected as Sibaya.
ADV MPSHE: Yes, Mr Chairman. I believe they took it from the application, as they wrote it this way.
It will read Sibaya, Mr Chairman. Thank you.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman you will note from the affidavit of Brig Victor that it really relates to
the general instruction which was testified to by Capt Hechter and by Brig Cronje. Now Mr Chairman
there is something important which I want to draw your attention to in the affidavit of Capt Van Jaarsveld
in this respect as well.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 707 ADDRESS
JUDGE WILSON: Just give us a minute to read it.
ADV DU PLESSIS: I beg your pardon. Mr Chairman I am referring to this specifically because we are
on the subject of what Brig Victor says about this. You will recall the evidence of Capt Hechter and Brig
Cronje about the effect of his order. Now in Exhibit Z, Capt Van Jaarsveld's affidavit on page 10, I want to
start with the fifth last paragraph, which says,
"In terms of this Trivets, the anti-revolutionary Task Team was launched at the end of
1985. Trivets was to deal with the strategy of the Government and also combatting
revolutionary onslaught. In 1986 the Security Forces were tasked to have their own anti-
revolutionary structures. In that way the South African Police had their Counter-
Insurgency Unit, which played a very important role in dealing with the unrest in the
then Black areas of South Africa. In this light Gen Victor's instruction of the 12
February 1986 was issued to the Security Branch of Northern Transvaal. On the 12
February 1986 at about approximately 5:30 I was present at a meeting in Brig Johan
Victor's office, at Compol, where he said to me, Jacques Hechter and Johan Victor
Junior instructed us in the following way. Pretoria burns. You have to act. Those who
intimidate have to be intimidated. If they are burning, they have to be burnt. If they are
throwing bombs, they have to be bombed. If they are murdering, murder them. In the
light of this I interpreted the instruction as follows:
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS ADDRESS
Revolution goes with the winning of hearts and minds of the people. Anti-revolutionary
strategy was also within this framework. This meant that whoever intimidated the
hardest would succeed".
And then he refers to (...indistinct). I am just pointing this out to you Mr Chairman because this confirms
the evidence of both Brig Cronje and Capt Hechter about what happened in Brig Victor's office that
morning, and it confirms it exactly the way they testified, or very substantially in the way they testified.
To a certain extent Brig Victor says that he can remember a telephonic discussion and he says that
there could possibly have been suggestions, but I want to point this out to you while we are busy dealing
with Brig Victor's affidavit.
JUDGE WILSON: Shouldn't the contents of this be made known to Brig Victor?
JUDGE MALL: (...indistinct)
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes.
JUDGE WILSON: It implicates him in a very different sense perhaps to what he has heard so far and I
think it would be fair to let him know this, particularly in the light of the suggestion he has got towards the
end of his affidavit, that he isn't thinking of applying for amnesty, but if he is advised to do so, he might
well do so.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman we will contact Mr Wagner. We will get touch with him. We will
provide him with a copy hereof.
JUDGE MALL: Thank you.
JUDGE WILSON: While we are on it, has anybody else - I haven't had a chance to read this document
yet, is there
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 709 ADDRESS
anybody else mentioned in it that you think ought to be told of anything?
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I wanted to suggest that I take you through this in a very broad
outline, just to give you an idea, without reading to you what is in it, just to give you an idea and then that
will also answer your question.
The first page is an affidavit confirming the correctness of that, the first two pages, and then it
starts with the National Safety Security System of the militarisation of society. And it refers there to
President Botha, it says, military men ...(tape ends)...conception of national security which penetrates into
virtually every aspect of political, economic and cultural life and as the powers of the legislator have been
eroded to the advantage of the office of Prime Minister and the State security network in the formation of
national policy.
Mr Chairman most of those excerpts come out of, or I think indeed all of them come out of the
doctoral thesis which I have in my possession which is also available in (...indistinct) which I don't think
you would want to read that is why I suggested that Capt van Jaarsveld makes a condensed version thereof.
ADV DE JAGER: I have only got trouble with this, it's a quote and there is no mention of from where.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes Mr Chairman that is why I want to go through this report in broad outline
because if it is necessary to expand on this I will ask Capt van Jaarsveld to explain on that especially
regarding this. I also noted that it doesn't specifically refer to exactly from where. And it would be
possible to do that in more detail. He has
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 710 ADDRESS
given an indication that that was a quotation from Hansard Mr Chairman, but I will ask him to make that a
little bit more clear and provide us perhaps with a reference to the specific place where it was found. Mr
Chairman then you will see paragraph two deals with the - maybe I should do this in Afrikaans because I
am going to switch to and fro.
It deals with the development of the so-called NVBS and then the structures of the NVBS. At national
level was the State Security Council, the Core Committee, the State Security Council and the secretariat
and then he goes further and he sets out exactly who was serving on the State Security Council. And then
he deals with the - on page 4 it dealt with the core work of the State Security Council, the secretariat of the
State Security Council and he also attached Annexure B which shows a diagrammatic version of that,
which shows the structure of this secretariat. Then he refers to inter-departmental committees and their
functions. The National Welfare Management System, the National Joint Management Centre and the
reasons for its setting up and why. And on the top of page 7 he says that it existed to handle the national
emergency situation and also to coordinate things. Then he refers to the NGBS committees. He says the
NGBS management was responsible for the anti-revolutionary onslaught and also the counter-
revolutionary plan.
He refers to the National Joint Management Committee, the National Security Committee, the
Strategic Communication Committee and the Joint Management Centres which have already been testified
about.
On page 8 the Internal Joint Management Councils, the External Joint Management Council. The
role of the State
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 710 ADDRESS
departments in the National Management System. And then the chief momentum and the workings of the
NDMS.
Mr Chairman this is quite important from page 9, here he refers to the ATO where it's said that
there should be a year book on war set up and inter-departmental committees had to oversee that. In the
last paragraph he says that the importance of that has to be seen in the light of the fact that there was no
formal war declared in the Republic of South Africa but the revolutionary struggle was such that
combatting this necessitated the setting-up of these structures in '84 and so forth.
What is also important is the Simonstown Town Council. It was important that a meeting be held
in Simonstown where certain decisions were taken. The second last paragraph refers to inter alia the fact
that a visit was made to Taiwan by a senior group of officials at the beginning of 1981 and a later
delegation for training, had to undergo training in Taiwan including political war and also psychological
warfare. The importance of political warfare was important for the ends of revolutionary war and was also
important with regards to these reactions as .....
He goes further and he discusses the development of the government's anti-revolutionary strategy
at that stage and you will see on page 10, the fifth paragraph he says that a recommendation led to the result
that the National Coordinating Committee was approved on the 31st of July 1985, and this was done to
combat the revolutionary onslaught at regional level and also at national level.
He says that the function of the NCC was to assist with combatting the regional onslaught at
regional level by coordinating strategies and reporting back at Cabinet and
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 711 ADDRESS
other levels.
In the next paragraph he says in terms of this Trivets was launched at the end of 1985. The
launching of Trivets and what went with that was the counter-revolutionary document and the strategy of
the government brought about a new phase in combatting the onslaught.
Then the part which I have already referred you to is Brigadier Victor's instruction at that stage.
Then on page 11, the National Coordinating Committee is discussed there. And then the Joint
Management Centres and their functions and a diagram has also been attached.
And then Chairperson at the end he refers to and he says that the NVBS was part of a need, the
reflection was this and it was to combat the revolutionary onslaught. The revolutionary war which was
taking place in South Africa could be defined as follows, and then he says,
"The forceable attempt by a politically organised group to gain control over or exchange
the structure and/or politics of the government using unconventional warfare integrated
by political and social mobilisation, resting on the premise that the people are both the
targets and the actors".
I would like to refer you on page 12, the third last paragraph, this direct stance of the ANC also
led to the government and also the Cabinet and the SVR have an anti-revolutionary doctrine and also have
a counter-revolutionary document so that those who were fighting against the revolution applied the same
techniques as the revolutionaries and in that way became revolutionaries. Total onslaught and anti-
revolutionary doctrines created the perception, especially in the minds of the Security Branch,
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 712 ADDRESS
that we were waging a war and that these people had to be combatted at all costs.
And then you will note from the next page you will find all the annexures setting out the difficult
structures of some of these committees etc. Mr Chairman this is really as condensed as one can get this and
really a very simplification of the whole structure and the system. It is not intended to be an exhaustive
document pertaining to these issues and it's really just intended to be a summary.
JUDGE WILSON: And Victor is the only person mentioned, senior and junior, so there is no need for you
to notify anyone else.
ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman I have in my possession post mortem reports received from the office of the
Attorney General pertaining to the Sibaya matter. I do not know whether I should hand them up Mr
Chairman because all the reports say, "Unknown Black adult male", they do not mention names at all
although the cover from the Attorney General's office indicates Jeffrey Sibaya and another person not
mentioned here today. I don't know whether these ...(intervention)
JUDGE MALL: There's no point in handing them in if they can't be of any assistance ...(intervention)
ADV MPSHE: Indeed, indeed Mr Chairman, thank you.
JUDGE WILSON: I take it from what you say that the post mortem report confirms what we have been
told happened to the bodies?
ADV MPSHE: It does confirm that the, if I may just say, it does confirm that the bodies were blown up,
legs were found 50 kilometres away, the head somewhere and so on, in Bophuthatswana. Thank you. Mr
Chairman then that closes the day for us, and tomorrow we will then proceed with the
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 712 ADDRESS
Zero Handgrenade matter at nine o'clock if the Committee permits.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION COMMISSION
AMNESTY HEARINGS
SUBMISSIONS - QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
DATE: 7 MARCH 1997 NAME: JAN HATTINGH CRONJE
HELD AT: PRETORIA BRIG CRONJE
DAY 9 PHILIP LUKHELE
__________________________________________________________
JUDGE MALL: Mr van den Berg, before the hearing of evidence this morning, I think that we should
inform you of our decision concerning the application made by your attorneys to subpoena nine people
whose names are set out in this letter, and in respect of which an application was made by Mr Currin on
behalf of your clients.
My Committee has considered this request for subpoena and of the nine names as presently
advised at least five of them are people who have applied for amnesty. There is a likelihood that more or
some of the others may apply, but at any rate in respect of those who have already applied for amnesty the
Committee is of the view that we ought not to subpoena them to appear in these proceedings.
We are, however, of the view that the request that Brigadier Victor who is described as the
commanding officer at the time of a number of the incidents and whose name figures prominently or has
figured prominently in the evidence, that he should be subpoenaed. If it transpires that he has applied or
will apply for amnesty then he will not be subpoenaed but in the event of him not applying for amnesty we
will subpoena him and the date and the time for the hearing of his evidence will be notified to your
attorneys. On the information presently on hand we do not consider it necessary to subpoena Mr P W
Botha. We are also informed that Mr Botha has undertaken to respond in writing
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE MALL 713
to certain requests from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and that being so, we do not consider it
necessary for Mr P W Botha to be subpoenaed.
We are advised that one or other of the applicants to amnesty will throw more light on the role
played by Mr P W Botha and we think it appropriate, therefore, that we should not issue a subpoena on
him.
This decision of ours concerns the present application made by your attorneys.
This Committee will be sitting for a considerable period of time and it is anticipated that it will be
considering many, many more applications. What I said now, concerning your present application, is not to
be a precedent for any future decision which we might take. It may transpire in the future that we might
consider it necessary to subpoena some of the people whose names appear in your list at present.
Yes, may we proceed?
MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you Mr Chairman. I just wanted clarity. So there is a subpoena to be issued
in respect of Victor but not in respect of the remaining persons and you provided reasons for that.
JUDGE MALL: Yes.
MR VAN DEN BERG: I just want to separate them out. If I understand correctly, the following persons
have applied for amnesty and therefore are not being subpoenaed. That is Brig. Schoon and the person
identified as Tom Louw, Adriaan Vlok. I understand possibly also Buchner and Beukes.
JUDGE MALL: My present information concerns Buchner. We have no information at this stage about
Beukes.
MR VAN DEN BERG: As the Committee pleases. Thank you Mr
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 714 ADDRESS
Chairman.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I may just place on record that according to Mr Wagner's list in respect
of amnesty applications filed by him already, Brig. Victor's application appears there as No. JW0035.
JUDGE MALL: Oh.
ADV DU PLESSIS: It appears on the list.
JUDGE WILSON: That doesn't relate to the events in which he's been mentioned here. In his affidavit
which is filed he says,
"In the light of this, I accordingly did not make application for amnesty".
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, obviously I am not saying that it relates to the incidents we testified about, but I
am just drawing to your attention the fact that he is one of Mr Wagner's client and he has applied for
amnesty.
JUDGE MALL: Very well, we will bear that in mind. Thank you for drawing our attention to that. Yes,
Mr Mpshe.
ADV MPSHE: Thank you Mr Chairman. The matter to be dealt with today is the Zero Handgrenade and I
leave that in the hands of my learned friend.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman, I will beg leave to call Brig Cronje on this matter, you will
find his evidence on page 67 of his bundle of applications.
JAN HATTINGH CRONJE: (sworn duly states)
EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairperson, may I proceed. Brig Cronje,
could you please read out the first paragraph from page 68?
BRIG CRONJE: During June of 1985, I was the Commanding Officer of Vlakplaas. I gave instructions to
Col Venter to go with me to the East Rand. I would just like to mention
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 715 BRIG CRONJE
something about this incident and this instruction. The operation of Vlakplaas was such that I had four
groups who operated countrywide. Each group had an officer in charge along with their non-commissioned
officer and a number of ascaris and at the beginning of each month they were placed out to various
divisions such as, for instance, the East Rand, West Rand or Northern Transvaal or whatever the case may
be. So this instruction to accompany me to the East Rand, I actually gave Venter and his group instructions
to go to the East Rand and to assist the local branch and I would - it started with Venter for a week - so it's
not entirely correct what I have said there.
At that stage the East Rand was like the rest of the country, in total chaos. There were cases of
arson, sabotage, unrest, murders, necklace murders, strikes and various forms of intimidation committed
against members of the public especially by ANC and other activists. Actions were specifically aimed
at the houses of policemen and at that stage there was an increase in attacks on policemen's homes.
I then refer to the next paragraph, the operation of this particular group, what they were supposed
to do in this group. The purpose was to be pro-active and to identify terrorists and activists and to search for
them. The purpose was also to arrest them in terms of security legislation in force at that time. I am now
speaking of the situation within the borders of the country, that was the normal working of such a group.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Could I interrupt you here, Brigadier. Colonel Venter's group, was this group
specifically sent to become involved in the operation about which you are about
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 715 BRIG CRONJE
to testify, the Zero Handgrenade Operation, or did it entail a lot more than that?
BRIG CRONJE: No. It wasn't specifically for this instruction because I had not yet been aware of this
instruction.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Please proceed on page 69.
BRIG CRONJE: Whilst I was Springs, General v/d Merwe, he was then a Brigadier and second in charge
of the Security Branch, he contacted me and requested me to come and see him the next morning at
Security head office in Springs. Genera; v/d Merwe met me the next morning for a meeting at the office of
Col. Delport, who was then the Divisional Commanding Officer for that division. At the meeting the
following people were present, Gen. v/d Merwe, myself, Col. Venter, then Capt. Venter, Col. Delport - the
Divisional Commander, and then Lt. Steenkamp. Mr Chairperson, after I had submitted my application for
amnesty, I contacted Lt. Steenkamp and told him that I had mentioned his name in this connection, he then
told me that he wasn't present when Gen. v/d Merwe gave the instruction but that he was the investigating
officer in the matter after the incident and he then became aware of what the real situation was. So I
assume and I will accept that perhaps I am confused in saying that he was present at the meeting.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Brigadier, in the fourth paragraph you explain exactly what was discussed at that
meeting. Could you please tell the Committee about that?
BRIG CRONJE: There were increasing attacks on policemen's homes and that was specifically discussed.
Gen. v/d Merwe asked whether we could not infiltrate these activists. If we could do so we had to supply
them with Zero Handgrenades,
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 716 BRIG CRONJE
and those are handgrenades of which the ignition device has been set to a zero delay, so that as soon as you
pull out the pin the hand grenade would then explode immediately.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Who made this suggestion?
BRIG CRONJE: Gen. v/d Merwe made the suggestion and he told me that it was done with the approval
of Gen. Coetzee who was then, I think, the Commanding Officer of the Security Branch, Minister Le
Grange, who was then the Minister of Police, and that was also done with the approval of the State
President who was then Mr P W Botha.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Were you at that stage in possession of any information relating to activists and their
actions and could you tell us something about that?
BRIG CRONJE: Information obtained at that stage by the Security Branch in Springs, was to the effect
that there were activists in search of weapons, specifically to use in the attacks on policemen's homes and
to kill policemen, it was also the information obtained from informers, I don't know who these informers
were because I didn't handle the informers.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Was that the information at the disposal of the Security Branch in Springs?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes. And if I remember correctly they also knew the names of these activists. I may just
explain that these Zero handgrenades worked as follows. I can't remember the exact date but there was an
occasion on which we were allowed, in respect of a consignment of handgrenades, we were allowed to
intercept this consignment and these grenades were sent to our training farm at Leeuwskop and during a
course these handgrenades, or one of these handgrenades was used by the instructing officer during a
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 717 BRIG CRONJE
demonstration. The hand grenade was a Zero Handgrenade which exploded immediately and a Col. van
Eeden and some other members were seriously injured.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Is that where the idea came from for the use of Zero Handgrenades?
BRIG CRONJE: That is correct.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Right, Brigadier, the information relating to the informers or what they had told you
regarding activists who were interested in attacking policemen's homes, was that also discussed at the
meeting?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes it was. It was discussed by Col. Delport, I assume, because that was his department.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Then on page 70 from the third sentence, could you please read that to the
Committee, from the instruction.
BRIG CRONJE: The instruction was given to use Zero Handgrenades and to supply the activists with
these grenades. The reason for this was to protect innocent policemen and also to eliminate activists and
terrorists involved in serious crimes and terrorist actions. The express instruction at that meeting was that
Zero Handgrenades had to be supplied to terrorists and activists who requested weapons in order to
eliminate them and to prevent attacks being launched on policemen's homes. The instruction was given on
the context of the political battle which was being waged at the time, the general destabilisation by the
ANC and other liberation organisation. The fact that the country was on fire, that there was unrest and
general intimidation and strikes across the country, it was regarded as essential to act in this way under
these circumstances and to eliminate the activists.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 718 BRIG CRONJE
Gen. v/d Merwe made it very clear, however, that the way in which the operation had to be
carried out, had to be such that the activists should not be solicited or enticed in any way, but that they
should of their own accord make a request for weapons after which these handgrenades would be supplied
to them. They would also have to act of their own accord and it should not be part of a process of training.
And here I could mention, we are talking about a training process, Mamasela later told me that he did
explain the operation of these handgrenades to them, how they had to pull out the pin and what would
happen thereafter.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Now, the second and third paragraphs on page 71 should actually be reversed. The
third paragraph should come before the second one. Could you please read the third paragraph first?
BRIG CRONJE: I went to Brig. v/d Merwe - or immediately after the instruction by van der Merwe was
given, I then went with - I summoned Eugene de Kock because he was a good operator and he could assist
me in the planning and the decisions which we had to make. Mamasela - well let me first mention this, that
the names given to me by Springs, the names of the activists, I did not tell Mamasela these names because
if he was to come to me with names, I then had a way in which I could verify his information. Mamasela
then infiltrated a particular group of activists within a week. I think that one of the other members operated
with Mamasela and if I remember correctly it was one, Nkala. He told me that they had asked him for
weapons to attack policemen's homes and to kill them. I then gave instructions that Zero Handgrenades
should be made available by Mamasela to those ANC activists. I sent Eugene de Kock to Pretoria to get
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 718 BRIG CRONJE
these handgrenades. Mamasela also told me that there was one of these activists who wanted to blow up a
power station in KwaThema and that he was looking for a bomb to be able to do this and for that reason I
also requested a limpet mine which works on the same principle as the handgrenade.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Now, the targets. The targets which the activists would have identified, how would
they have identified these?
BRIG CRONJE: The targets would have been chosen by themselves. Mamasela told me that these targets
were policemen's homes. I believed him because I knew that he had never before worked in the East Rand
and would not have known where the policemen lived. Now, I then sent De Kock to Pretoria to go and
fetch the handgrenades and the limpet mine. He went and fetched it from our technical department and I
assume that Gen. v/d Merwe, or one of the other officers there at head office, would have arranged it.
After De Kock returned, I gave the handgrenades to Mamasela as well as the limpet mine and the
handgrenades and limpet mine were then supplied to the ANC activists by Mamasela.
Mamasela told me that he had given the weapons to the activists that very night, or would give
them these weapons that night and he arranged a specific time and place for them. Mamasela said that the
activists had already identified their own targets and that they were very excited about it. I have already
said that it was acceptable to me because Mamasela didn't know where the policemen lived. On the same
evening after the weapons were made available to the activists by Mamasela there were several attacks on
policemen's homes. The activists involved killed themselves in the process or injured themselves. I can't
remember how
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 719 BRIG CRONJE
many were killed or injured. The activist who had received the limpet mine was also killed. Myself, Capt
Venter, De Kock, Col Delport and Lt Steenkamp who I rectified just now, his position - yes, no Lt
Steenkamp, and other members of the security branch were present in the area when these events took
place and the only people who knew, the only people amongst those staff who knew that these grenades
were Zero grenades and what would have happened were myself, Capt Venter, De Kock and Col Delport.
As I said I will accept that Steenkamp didn't know at that stage.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Brigadier, you say that the only people who knew about the Zero handgrenades, are
you referring here to the people who were the operatives as well?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes, I am referring to the operatives.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Were other people also aware?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes. Gen. v/d Merwe, Coetzee and as I have said Le Grange and the SP, that is what I
was told.
JUDGE WILSON: Did Mamasela know?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes, Mr Chairperson, he did know. Furthermore, I could mention that one of these
activists decided not to continue with this instruction or the operation and he took his handgrenade and the
next morning handed it into the attorney, Priscilla Jana, in Johannesburg.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Brigadier, you refer on page 73 to the names of the victims. Are these names known
to you?
BRIG CRONJE: No.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And you further say, could you please read the second sentence.
BRIG CRONJE: After the sentence, the names are currently unknown to me. Some of these injured
activists were later
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 720 BRIG CRONJE
prosecuted and charged. I don't know what the outcome would have been.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Now Brigadier you set out the general justification and the political objective, you set
these out from page 74 to the top of page 82. Do you confirm the contents as correct?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes, Mr Chairperson, I confirm that.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And then on page 82 you give a more specific setting out of the political objectives.
Do you confirm that as correct?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: On page 83, you say in the second last sentence that you were told that some of these
activists are currently in the employ of the South African Police?
BRIG CRONJE: That is what I was told quite recently Chairperson.
ADV DU PLESSIS: On page 84, you refer to the carrying out of the operation and on whose instruction
that occurred. Could you please read that to us.
BRIG CRONJE: Brigadier, now Gen. v/d Merwe gave me express instructions to use the handgrenades
and to make these available to activists in order to eliminate them. It was a specific instruction from him.
He told me that the instruction had been approved by Gen. Coetzee with the knowledge and approval of
Minister Louis Le Grange and President P W Botha and it was done to prevent and combat attacks on
policemen and these attacks were escalating at the time.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Paragraph B, the last paragraph, could you read that?
BRIG CRONJE: During about June of 1985 in Springs, Brig.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 721 BRIG CRONJE
later Gen. v/d Merwe gave me express instructions to use these tactics and I was told that the matter had
been cleared with Louis Le Grange who was very worried about the onslaught on policemen and that it met
with his approval. President P W Botha was also aware of the operation.
ADV DU PLESSIS: At that stage Brigadier, the particular operation, did you see this operation as
prevention and combatting of crime or did you see it as an operation aimed against the Liberation
Movements?
BRIG CRONJE: I saw the operation as aimed at the Liberation Movements.
ADV DU PLESSIS: For whose benefit did you think you were acting at the time?
BRIG CRONJE: I acted to keep the National Party Government of the time in power.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DU PLESSIS
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you Mr Chairman. Just for purposes of the
record, I act on behalf of the following families who lost members or lost a family member during the
course of this operation. We act on behalf of Philip Lukhele, he survived. On behalf of the family of
Khulele Nocqwinta. On behalf of the family of Congress Mutsweni. On behalf of the family of Samuel
Mashiane. ...(tape ends). ... Stephen Modisani. The family of Jabulani Mahlangu, and the family of
Solomon Mashibane.
Mr Chairman there were also other people who were killed during the process of this operation
and I understand from my clients that they are opposed to these proceedings and that they are not
participating and I understand that there are four or five other people including the policemen that the
Brigadier has referred to.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VAN DEN BERG 721 BRIG CRONJE
Mr Cronje just for my information and for general background, when were you made the
Commanding Officer at Vlakplaas?
BRIG CRONJE: It would have been at the beginning of 1983.
MR VAN DEN BERG : And until what time were you in charge at Vlakplaas?
BRIG CRONJE: Until approximately October 1985.
MR VAN DEN BERG : This incident occurred on the night of the 25th into the 26th June 1985, does that
accord with your recollection?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes, I remember June 1985. I cannot remember the exact date. If you say that, I accept it.
MR VAN DEN BERG : If I understand your involvement in this matter correctly, you were the person
who received an instruction from Gen. v/d Merwe and who conveyed that instruction and saw that it was
carried out. Is that correct?
BRIG CRONJE: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.
MR VAN DEN BERG : You testified about Vlakplaas being divided into four teams and if I understood
correctly, the team that was responsible for this operation was headed by at that stage you say Capt. Eugene
de Kock?
BRIG CRONJE: No Chairperson, it was under the command of Capt. Venter. Eugene de Kock at that
stage was in Durban with his team.
MR VAN DEN BERG : Perhaps I misunderstood you, you said that De Kock was called up from Durban.
What then was his specific involvement in this matter?
BRIG CRONJE: I said that De Kock was a good operative and I wanted him to support me in the planning
and the execution thereof.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VAN DEN BERG 722 BRIG CRONJE
MR VAN DEN BERG : Was Mamasela part of his team?
BRIG CRONJE: No Chairperson, he was part of Venter's team.
MR VAN DEN BERG : The information that you received about the activists you received from the
Security Branch at Springs?
BRIG CRONJE: I got names from them Chairperson.
MR VAN DEN BERG : This operation was discussed with the, if I understood you correctly, with the
officer commanding the Security Branch at Springs, is that Col. Delport?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes, Col. Delport, Chairperson.
MR VAN DEN BERG : He was aware that this operation was being planned?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes he was present at the time we were instructed.
MR VAN DEN BERG : And it was his office that provided you with information?
BRIG CRONJE: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR VAN DEN BERG : Part of my instructions, Mr Cronje, are that my clients want to know who it was
that identified them as targets for this operation. You can't assist them with that?
BRIG CRONJE: I do not know who the informers were, Chairperson.
MR VAN DEN BERG : The other person who operated with Mamasela, your recollection was that his
name was Nkala?
BRIG CRONJE: I think it was Daniel Nkala.
MR VAN DEN BERG : Do you know where this person is today?
BRIG CRONJE: No, I do not know at all.
MR VAN DEN BERG : Do you know whether he is still a member of the police force?
BRIG CRONJE: I do not know.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VAN DEN BERG 723 BRIG CRONJE
MR VAN DEN BERG : These two people were instructed to infiltrate, who were they instructed to
infiltrate? Let's get clarity on that.
BRIG CRONJE: They were specifically to infiltrate the activists who were responsible for the attacks on
houses of policemen. They were to find them and try and gather information about them and then infiltrate
them.
MR VAN DEN BERG : To whom did Mamasela report once he had infiltrated?
BRIG CRONJE: To me, Chairperson.
MR VAN DEN BERG : And did he provide you with a list of names of the persons who were going to be
involved in this action?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes he did, Chairperson, and that tallied with the names which Col. Delport gave me.
MR VAN DEN BERG : You were not present when Mamasela interacted with this group of activists,
were you?
BRIG CRONJE: No, Chairperson, not at all.
MR VAN DEN BERG : You have no idea what he said to them?
BRIG CRONJE: No Chairperson, but his instruction was expressed that he was not to solicit anyone.
MR VAN DEN BERG : And you can't testify positively that he didn't in fact do that?
BRIG CRONJE: No, I cannot.
MR VAN DEN BERG : I am going to call Philip Lukhele to testify, he was one of the persons who
survived and he was the person you referred to at the end of your testimony who took a handgrenade to the
offices of Attorney Priscilla Jana, he will say that Mamasela identified the targets for them, the type of
targets and that it was he who solicited and encouraged them to participate in this action.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VAN DEN BERG 724 BRIG CRONJE
BRIG CRONJE: Chairperson I cannot respond to the last question but I can respond to the first one and
that was that Mamasela did not know where the policemen on the East Rand were residing.
JUDGE WILSON: It wouldn't take him very long to find out would it, we have been told what an
intelligent man he was?
BRIG CRONJE: Chairperson, it was not only policemen in KwaThema but also at Duduza and other East
Rand townships, although I cannot remember exactly which townships those were, but I do not think that
he would have been able to find out something like that so quickly because he did not even know the
policemen.
MR VAN DEN BERG : It's not in your written application but you testified that there was some type of
training given to these people, do you recall that?
BRIG CRONJE: I recall having said that these handgrenades, these people were not to be subjected to
these handgrenades during training, but he said to me that he showed them how a handgrenade was
operated and that was by pulling out the pin and that was essential otherwise they would not have been able
to execute the operation.
MR VAN DEN BERG : We have heard that, certainly in respect of the KwaNdebele Nine that Mamasela
was provided with arms, with handgrenades, presumably to impress the people whom he was interacting
with. Did the same thing happen here?
BRIG CRONJE: No Chairperson, I did not provide him with any handgrenades for this purpose.
MR VAN DEN BERG : Philip Lukhele will state that they were given training, that they were taken to a
remote place, that they were shown how these handgrenades operated and that in fact two handgrenades
were thrown.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VAN DEN BERG 724 BRIG CRONJE
BRIG CRONJE: I would not know, Chairperson, but I did not provide Mamasela with any handgrenades
to train them with.
MR VAN DEN BERG : You testified that - well in your application you say that Steenkamp was present
when the instruction was given, you corrected that in your oral testimony saying that he was the
investigating officer, but did I understand you correctly to say that he was aware of this operation?
BRIG CRONJE: He informed me that when he started the investigation he became aware of it.
MR VAN DEN BERG : Philip Lukhele survived this incident, he was arrested, he spent approximately 20
months as an awaiting trial prisoner, he was convicted of sabotage and he spent four years in prison.
BRIG CRONJE: I do not know but I say that some of them were tried and sentenced.
MR VAN DEN BERG : This in an operation that was planned by the police, doesn't it offend your sense
of justice?
BRIG CRONJE: Chairperson, those persons decided on their own to attack a policemen's house by
throwing a handgrenade and at that stage the only person who could do that, in my opinion, was a terrorist.
He wanted to take lives of other persons.
MR VAN DEN BERG : You armed him?
BRIG CRONJE: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR VAN DEN BERG : Committee grant me a short indulgence?
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN DEN BERG:
JUDGE MALL: Mr Mpshe, are there any questions?
ADV. MPSHE: Yes, Mr Chairman, thank you.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MPSHE: Colonel this group that was to be infiltrated by Mamasela,
did it belong to any
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 725 BRIG CRONJE
particular organisation?
BRIG CRONJE: As far as I knew to the ANC, Chairperson.
ADV. MPSHE: Is this the information given to you by Mamasela?
BRIG CRONJE: No. It was information which I received from Col. Delport as well as Mamasela.
ADV. MPSHE: Now, in your application you stated that the handgrenades were provided by the technical
division of the Security Branch who in particular was responsible for that?
BRIG CRONJE: Chairperson, I didn't hear too well.
ADV MPSHE: You testified that the handgrenades were given to you by the technical division of the
Security Branch, now my question is, who in particular provided them in this Branch?
BRIG CRONJE: I am not too sure, but all I can say is Capt. or Col. Wahl du Toit was the head of this
division at the time.
ADV. MPSHE: In your meeting with the other members in Springs, was there no talk of a white nurse
who was killed?
BRIG CRONJE: No, Chairperson.
ADV. MPSHE: Was this operation simply on the basis that the area was ungovernable and nothing else?
BRIG CRONJE: It was done because policemen's houses were being attacked, Chairperson, and I testified
to that.
ADV. MPSHE: How will you respond to information that one of the main reasons why this operation had
to be launched was because a white female nurse was killed in the area?
BRIG CRONJE: Chairperson, I do not know anything about that but I would not have provided anyone
with handgrenades simply because a white nurse was killed.
JUDGE MALL: You were asked whether you were aware of the
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 726 BRIG CRONJE
fact that Mamasela used handgrenades to train his victims on how to use them, you recall that?
BRIG CRONJE: I remember that, Chairperson.
JUDGE MALL: And you have told us that you didn't supply Mamasela with any handgrenades for that
purpose?
BRIG CRONJE: I did not, Chairperson.
JUDGE MALL: It is possible, however, without your knowledge, for Mamasela to have acquired
handgrenades which he was going to use to show to these youngsters how to use them?
BRIG CRONJE: That is a possibility, Chairperson, I do not dispute that, but I would just like to say that I
do not believe that he had easy access to handgrenades.
JUDGE MALL: Yes. When you say he did not have "easy access" you are not saying that it was
impossible?
BRIG CRONJE: My instruction was that handgrenades were not to be made available to those groups and
to ascaris but it is possible that he could have obtained handgrenades.
JUDGE WILSON: On the question of handgrenades, counsel, as I understood it, asked you if Mamasela
had been supplied with weapons as he was in the previous case of various sorts to train and encourage the
activists. Your reply to that Colonel was "I didn't supply handgrenades to him", why did you concentrate on
"handgrenades" when you were being asked about weapons in general?
BRIG CRONJE: Chairperson, because in this specific instance, handgrenades were used and I concluded
that those were the weapons which he was referring to.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I just want to note this. I have been since yesterday, I was informed by
one of the other people who was sitting here, listening to the
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV MPSHE 727 BRIG CRONJE
translation of the questions, from English to Afrikaans, that there was a problem with the translation. I have
been listening to the translations now, since yesterday, since after Col. Venter's evidence when the
problems occurred and this specific question you posed now was translated to the effect that the question
was asked by me, which was not the case, it was asked by the other representative and the last part of the
translation was also not 100% correct. I am just drawing that to your attention. I intend in proper
circumstances to draw the cassettes and to provide you in argument with the translations so that one can see
where confusion arose.
JUDGE WILSON: I accept that entirely and in that case my question falls away because the question
immediately before had been about "handgrenades" if there was some confusion, it is quite possible.
ADV. DE JAGER: During 1986, the ANC took a decision that policemen and defence force persons were
targets, were you aware of that?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes, I was aware, Chairperson.
ADV. DE JAGER: And did that have anything to do with the attacks on policemen?
BRIG CRONJE: It would have had a great affect, Chairperson.
MS KHAMPEPE: Brigadier, what was De Kock's involvement in the whole operation except that which
you have testified, that he collected the consignment of the handgrenades from Pretoria?
BRIG CRONJE: Chairperson, he merely assisted me with the fetching of the handgrenades, planning the
operation and nothing beyond that.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MS KHAMPEPE 728 BRIG CRONJE
MS KHAMPEPE: Did you find out from Mamasela how it had come about that a request for a
consignment of handgrenades was made by the activist?
BRIG CRONJE: Mamasela informed me that he had infiltrated these activists and that they had requested
weapons, they did not specifically request handgrenade, but weapons, and we decided to make
handgrenades available and no other weapons.
MS KHAMPEPE: So, you did canvass this issue with Mamasela?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes, Chairperson.
JUDGE WILSON: Before Mamasela infiltrated them, I don't know if I quite understood it, you had
already decided, had you two tried to use these handgrenades?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes, Chairperson.
JUDGE WILSON: So Mamasela infiltrated them on the basis that he was going to use "doctored"
handgrenades to kill them and then comes back and tells you they've decided they want to use
handgrenades, is that the position? Or they decide, sorry, he came back and said they decided they wanted
to use weapons and you then said "give them handgrenades" is that the position?
BRIG CRONJE: That is as it was, Chairperson.
JUDGE WILSON: Thank you.
ADV. DE JAGER: What I am going to ask you now is not with regard to the testimony which you just
gave, but do you have any information which you can provide us with about the dealings of Trevits, were
you ever involved in the inner-circle, do you know how they went to work?
BRIG CRONJE: Chairperson, I was not in the inner-circle, I know about the broader workings of Trevits.
ADV. DE JAGER: What do you know about them directly, did
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DE JAGER 728 BRIG CRONJE
you ever receive instructions or information from them?
BRIG CRONJE: Chairperson, no, no information but as I said in my previous testimony that I suspect that
one of the cases was that, that was an instruction from Trevits.
ADV. DE JAGER: Was it an internal or external instruction?
BRIG CRONJE: It was an internal instruction.
ADV. DE JAGER: With regards to the general information which you had about them, did they operate
inland or out of the country?
BRIG CRONJE: They started within the country but I think by 1986 - they initially started out of the
country, but by 1986 they started operating within the country as well.
ADV. DE JAGER: To which cases are you referring, when you say that they operated within the country
as well?
BRIG CRONJE: I am referring to the Ribeiro case.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, just to set the record straight, as far as I can recall the evidence, he also
testified in the Piet Ntuli matter that - not that he knows but that he has a suspicion that the order came
from Trevits, so it was also in respect of the Piet Ntuli matter in October.
BRIG CRONJE: That is correct, Chairperson.
JUDGE MALL: (...indistinct)
RE-EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: When Mamasela reported back to you, your testimony as
far as I can recall was that he said that they were very keen and excited about the fact that they were now in
possession of handgrenades?
BRIG CRONJE: That is correct.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Did Mamasela specifically say that to you?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes he did.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Do you know if Mamasela was with each of
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 729 BRIG CRONJE
these activists when they went out to throw these hand grenades?
BRIG CRONJE: No, it was impossible.
ADV DU PLESSIS: In other words, Brigadier, they acted on their own?
ADV DE JAGER: Surely you would have had to have been at a reasonable distance.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Do you know if Mamasela forced them in any way to throw these handgrenades?
BRIG CRONJE: No, Chairperson, it was at their own request.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Did you or any other person in the security branch force these persons to go out and
throw these handgrenades?
BRIG CRONJE: No.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Brigadier, according to you would there have been a possibility that innocent persons
could have been killed or injured in these type of attacks?
BRIG CRONJE: No, Chairperson. The chances that that could have happened were approximately zero,
because it was early in the morning and there would have been no-one in the streets.
ADV DU PLESSIS: But Brigadier, if they were to have thrown handgrenades in policemen's houses were
there chances that their children or families could have been killed?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes, if they had the proper handgrenades, without the zero detonators, then it would have
definitely been a possibility.
JUDGE WILSON: As I understand the position, the only people who were in danger would be the person
pulling the pin out of the handgrenade or someone standing very close to him.
BRIG CRONJE: That is correct, Chairperson.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 730 BRIG CRONJE
JUDGE WILSON: Which one would imagine would be one of his gang. He is unlikely to take out a
handgrenade in front of innocent people, is he?
BRIG CRONJE: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Brigadier, can you recall at that stage, whether there were weapons which were being
brought into the country and then made available to members of the Liberation Movements to commit acts
of terrorism with?
BRIG CRONJE: Chairperson, we had several case of DLB's where weapons were stashed and were later
given back to the ANC, so they would have been able to obtain weapons.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Would there have been a possibility, according to your whereby these persons would
have been able to obtain weapons from operatives from other organisations?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes, definitely, Chairperson.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Would those also have included ...(tape ends) security forces back. Let us assume
these 14 or whatever amount of persons had obtained handgrenades and had obtained them from an ANC
or a Liberation Movement terrorist and had decided to execute these operations, what would you say were
the chances that the security forces would have been able to stop these persons in time from - stop
executing these operations?
BRIG CRONJE: Approximately zero, Chairperson.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Brigadier, the last question. On page 75 you refer to the question of intimidation. Did
this operation contain an intimidation motive?
BRIG CRONJE: It would definitely have had intimidation as motive because it would have made other
activists think twice before they touched a handgrenade again.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DU PLESSIS
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE WILSON 731 BRIG CRONJE
JUDGE WILSON: I want you to correct me if I have got the thing wrong but as I understand the operation
the first point one would decide is that handgrenades are not used for innocent purposes, that if somebody
wants to use handgrenades it is to attack other people with them.
BRIG CRONJE: And to kill, Chairperson.
JUDGE WILSON: Yes, when I say attack, I mean to kill, injure. And what you decided in this operation
was you would have the handgrenades so prepared that if anybody tried to use them for this illegal purpose,
they themselves would be killed.
BRIG CRONJE: That is correct, Chairperson.
JUDGE WILSON: But as I understand your evidence, and I think it was also in the document we have
received from Gen. v/d Merwe, there were instructions that nobody was to be enticed into using these
handgrenades, they had to decide for themselves to do it?
BRIG CRONJE: That is correct, Chairperson.
JUDGE WILSON: And as far as you were concerned the instructions that you gave was, there was to be
no enticement. And you don't know of any?
BRIG CRONJE: That is correct, Chairperson.
MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Cronje, I also just want to confirm something. Mamasela, without a list from you,
happened to infiltrate a host of young activists and by some shear coincidence the activists that he
happened to infiltrate were keen to bomb policemen's houses?
BRIG CRONJE: That is so, Chairperson.
JUDGE MALL: I think that the coincidence my fellow Committee member is thinking about really, was
the coincidence in the names on the list that Mamasela gave you
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE MALL 731 BRIG CRONJE
and the list that you had, that was a coincidence?
ADV DU PLESSIS: May I please just come in here again. I have been listening to the translation again
and the way you formulated it is correct but the Honourable Commissioner's questions wasn't formulated
correctly that is why the witness didn't understand what the question was.
MS KHAMPEPE: Though I think I may add that the coincidence is both in the names of the activist as
well as their eagerness in bombing, particularly policemen's houses.
BRIG CRONJE: Yes they were eager, Chairperson.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Brigadier, perhaps I should put the question to you in Afrikaans. The affect of the
question is that it was said that it sounds as if it was coincidental that the activists which were infiltrated by
Mamasela were activists who were involved in bomb attacks on policemen's houses, and it was also
coincidental that they were very keen to obtain weapons to attack policemen's houses with. Can you
comment on the coincidence?
BRIG CRONJE: It was not coincidental because I did not provide Mamasela with any names and in his
investigation he came to provide me with the same names, so it was not coincidental.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DU PLESSIS
ADV. DE JAGER: You had a list of say 20 names and he came back to you with a list of 20 names and
those names corresponded?
BRIG CRONJE: Yes, they did, Chairperson.
ADV. DE JAGER: But he could just as well have come back with 40 names because there were more than
20 activists?
BRIG CRONJE: I cannot recall if the names which he came back to me with were all the names which
Col. Delport gave
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 732 BRIG CRONJE
to me, but some of the names did correspond.
JUDGE MALL: Thank you very much.
BRIG CRONJE: Thank you Chairperson.
JUDGE MALL: You are excused.
WITNESS EXCUSED
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 733 COL VENTER
ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman, may I call Colonel Venter please. Mr Chairman, you will
find that in Col. Venter's application on page 126. May I proceed, Mr Chairman?
COLONEL VENTER: (s.u.o.)
EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: Very well, Col. Venter your application starts on page 127.
You set out your application from page 127 to page 130.
COL VENTER: That is correct, Chairperson.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Do you confirm the correctness of these pages?
COL VENTER: Correct, Chairperson. I would also just like to make one amendment with the name of Lt.
Steenkamp.
ADV DU PLESSIS: You have heard the testimony of Brig. Cronje. Do you confirm it as being correct?
COL VENTER: Yes, I do.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Do you, I have just asked you now with regard to Lt. Steenkamp. You heard the other
testimony of Brig. Cronje specially with regard to your involvement in this incident, do you confirm his
testimony as correct?
COL VENTER: Yes, that is correct, Chairperson.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And your political objective and the general justifications which you have set out
from page 149 to page 150, and more specifically page 152 to 153. Mr Chairman I may just mention that
the last paragraph on page 153 is not correct.
ADV DU PLESSIS: The last paragraph on page 153 relates to a different incident and it found its way to
this incident, it deals with interrogations and it is not correct.
JUDGE MALL: Is this paragraph marked 11A?
ADV DU PLESSIS: No, Mr Chairman, the top paragraph on page
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 734 COL VENTER
153.
JUDGE WILSON: You said the last paragraph.
ADV DU PLESSIS: I beg your pardon, the top paragraph. I beg your pardon.
JUDGE WILSON: Can we just scratch that out?
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes.
COL VENTER: Page 134 to 144 deals with that. 145 according to me is Schedule 10 which is another
application.
ADV DU PLESSIS: My apologies. Thank you very much. Could you just repeat that?
COL VENTER: From Page 134 the political objectives which was striven towards, are set out up until the
end of page 144.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I may mention that in my bundle was bound a little bit strangely, I
don't know if your bundles have been bound also differently? Pages 130 - you will see it goes until 148
then pages 131 to 139 appear from there. I don't know if your bundles are correct?
JUDGE WILSON: Mine finishes at 144 and 145 is a new application ...(inaudible)
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, I beg your pardon, my bundle is bound wrongly, that is where the mistake came
in. Sorry. Thank you Colonel. You confirmed the correctness of the political background. Let me
just repeat. Do you confirm from page 134 to page 144 as correct.
COL VENTER: That is correct, Chairperson.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Very well. I beg your pardon, Mr Chairperson. It was my mistake. And then the
instruction on page 144, do you confirm that you acted under the command of Gen. v/d Merwe.
COL VENTER: Correct, Chairperson.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 735 COL VENTER
ADV DU PLESSIS: And did you also act under the command of Brig. Cronje.
COL VENTER: That is correct, Chairperson.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Col. Venter is there anything else you would like to add with regards to your
application?
COL VENTER: Besides what I have said about Lt. Steenkamp, I have nothing.
JUDGE MALL: Any cross-examination of this witness?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DEN BERG: Mr Venter, I do not fully understand what your
involvement in this matter was. I understand that there was an instruction from Gen. v/d Merwe to Brig
Cronje. I further understand that Capt. de Kock was summoned from Durban, that he assisted Brig. Cronje
with the planning of this operation and the only involvement in respect of yourself that I can see is the
involvement of one of your team members, Mr Mamasela. Am I missing something?
JUDGE MALL: The question is, what was your involvement?
MR VAN DEN BERG: Indeed so, Mr Chairman.
COL VENTER: Chairperson, I was with Brig. Cronje from the beginning, I was also present at the
meeting where the planning was done at Springs and I was with Brig. Cronje all the time from the
beginning.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Did you give any instructions arising from the instruction by Gen. v/d Merwe to
one of your team members?
COL VENTER: No, Chairperson, Brig. Cronje already testified that he was in charge of the entire group
and that the instructions came from him.
MR VAN DEN BERG: I still have a difficulty, what you are saying is that you were present when the
instruction was
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VAN DEN BERG 736 COL VENTER
given, that you observed all of these proceedings, but that you had no active participation in the matter?
COL VENTER: I did not say that I did not actively participate, I was not actively involved in throwing the
handgrenade, but I was present during the whole process as Brig. Cronje testified before this Committee.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Are you saying then that you made a contribution to the planning, that you
contributed ideas and so forth?
COL VENTER: Chairperson, I was present during discussions as Brig. Cronje said, for the first time in the
office of the then commanding officer and thereafter I was present when he discussed and planned the
whole incident.
ADV. DE JAGER: If it could be regarded as murder, would you then be regarded as an accomplice as far
as planning and executing?
COL VENTER: That is correct, Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN DEN BERG
JUDGE MALL: Mr Mpshe, are there any questions. Oh, he is not here.
JUDGE WILSON: I am not quite sure of one aspect, did Mamasela report to Col. Cronje, Col. Cronje had
taken command and you were just present, he didn't report to you. Is that the position?
COL VENTER: That is correct, Chairperson.
JUDGE MALL: You are not calling any other witnesses?
ADV DU PLESSIS: I am not calling any other witnesses, Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MALL: Before you call witnesses, I am requested to adjourn for a short while, so we will adjourn
for a very short while.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VAN DEN BERG 737 MR LUKHELE
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION
MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you Mr Chairman. I beg leave to call one of the survivors, Philip Lukhele.
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Mpshe, wouldn't you like to hand in something before starting?
ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman, may I request that I do that now in the event I am controlled by some forces
again. Mr Chairman, it pertains to the police docket as well as the post mortem reports in this incident. I
have a report here from the investigative unit dated 18 October 1996 to the effect that they could not find
dockets nor even inquest reports or post mortem reports in this incident and they were told that's the
contents of their report. They told us the same were destroyed a long time ago at the Springs magistrate
offices. Just wanted the Committee to know that.
JUDGE MALL: Thank you very much.
ADV MPSHE: Thank you. That will be all.
JUDGE MALL: Right you are. Will the witness be giving evidence in English?
MR VAN DEN BERG: He will be testifying in Zulu, Mr Chairman.
MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Lukhele, state your full names.
MR LUKHELE: At the time I called myself Philip Mazuza. My name is Philip Jabulani Mazuza Lukhele.
PHILIP JABULANI MAZUZA LUKHELE: (sworn states)
EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DEN BERG: Mr Mazuza can you tell the Committee how old you are?
MR LUKHELE: I am 32 years old.
MR VAN DEN BERG: How old were you at the time when this incident took place?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VAN DEN BERG 737 MR LUKHELE
MR LUKHELE: I was 20 years old.
MR VAN DEN BERG: What were you doing at that time, were you working, were you at school what
were you involved in?
MR LUKHELE: I was at school.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Standard?
MR LUKHELE: Standard 7.
MR VAN DEN BERG: And at which school were you?
MR LUKHELE: At Lawani Matlabi(?)
MR VAN DEN BERG: And in which township is that?
MR LUKHELE: KwaThema.
MR VAN DEN BERG: What else were you involved in, were you active in politics, were you a member
of COSAS?
MR LUKHELE: That is true, I was an organiser for COSAS.
MR VAN DEN BERG: What can you tell the Committee about this incident. How did it come to be that
you were involved?
MR LUKHELE: On the 21st of June on a Friday, it was a night visual that is Sonto Thoba's(?) night visual
in Duduza. I called Maakie Skosana from inside the hall, she told me that Congress Mutsweni was looking
for me outside. The comrades that I was standing with, Paul Maruga, they said to me I shouldn't go outside
because probably he was calling me for police because the police were looking for me at that time. And
when I went out I got Congress standing next to a black Jetta. Inside the Jetta were two men. We got into
the Jetta and they introduced themselves to me as James and Mike. They told me that they came from
Zambia and that they had come to train us and they also promised me R10 000 as well as guns.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Can I interrupt you Mr Mazuza? The people who were identified to you as James
and Mike, do you know who they are now?
MR LUKHELE: Yes, I do.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VAN DEN BERG 738 MR LUKHELE
MR VAN DEN BERG: Please tell the Committee.
MR LUKHELE: It was James, it's Mamasela. I saw Mike in Duduza during the hearings.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Alright, you said that these people promised you money and they promised you
training. Please carry on with what you were telling the Committee.
MR LUKHELE: They also said I should recruit other comrades with whom I was going to work and I
recruited other comrades. I went to look for Stephen Modisani, Jabulani Mahlangu, Pofit Noncqwinta and I
told them about what I had been told before. They could not believe it and I told them that there was going
to be a meeting on Monday the 24, that is when the training was going to start. And just as I was going to
the night vigil some police came and they sprayed teargas as well as rubber bullets and we broke the front
door to get an escape route and we met the following morning.
That particular morning I told them, it was on a Saturday, and we met on a Sunday at the Civic
Centre, that's where we planned as to how we were going to meet these men and how we were going to
work, then Monday arrived. On Monday they got us at a certain square at Highland. They were driving a
combi, it was an E20 type of a combi, it had white curtains or white lace curtains. They took us to a certain
disused mine in Tsakane and they showed us as to how to use those things.
JUDGE MALL: Can I just disturb you for a minute. I'd like to know when you say "they took us" when
you tell us "us" can you tell us who?
MR LUKHELE: It was James and Mike as well as the other comrades that I had recruited from Duduza
and Tsakane.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VAN DEN BERG 739 MR LUKHELE
JUDGE MALL: Yes, quite right, I wanted to know who, who were "us" who were your companions?
MR LUKHELE: They were Jabulani Mahlangu, Stephen Modisani, Poffit Noncqwinta as well as myself.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Were there other people present, other people you hadn't recruited?
MR LUKHELE: No.
MR VAN DEN BERG: You said that they took you to a disused mine at Tsakane.
MR LUKHELE: That is correct.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Please carry on.
MR LUKHELE: When we got to the mine that is where they started showing us some handgrenades. The
person who was showing us as to how to use the handgrenade was Mike. He actually dismantled the whole
handgrenade and he showed us the pin or the head as to how to get it together and he showed us that it was
now complete and he said he was going to count up to three, he counted up to three, he threw it and we
threw ourselves on the ground - it exploded. The second one was given to Veli Mazibuko from Duduza. He
also did the same, it exploded.
JUDGE WILSON: Who is this person, Veli?
MR LUKHELE: It's Veli Mazibuko.
JUDGE WILSON: Where did he come from?
MR LUKHELE: These were the comrades from Duduza and Tsakane - we were together from Duduza,
Tsakane as well as KwaThema.
JUDGE WILSON: But you were asked by the Chairman to tell us the names of your comrades, and you
didn't, I don't think, mention this man? You only mentioned three names and you said there were no others.
JUDGE MALL: You said Mahlangu, Modisani, yourself,
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VAN DEN BERG 740 MR LUKHELE
Noncqwinta.
MR LUKHELE: We were mixed from Duduza, KwaThema and Tsakane. I did not know some of these
members because we were a lot in the combi.
JUDGE MALL: Alright, you tell us how many of you were all together in the combi, apart from the two
people who came to fetch you.
MR LUKHELE: There were quite many of us, we could probably have been 25 or 26 if I am not mistaken.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Mr Mazuza, the people you knew and the names that you have given, were those
people from KwaThema?
MR LUKHELE: Yes.
MR VAN DEN BERG: And the people that you didn't know, where did they come from?
MR LUKHELE: The other comrades were from Duduza and Tsakane.
MR VAN DEN BERG: You told us about the training, what happened after that?
MR LUKHELE: Then they promised us that they were going to give us money when we had come
together and we went into the combi we drove off. We got off in Tsakane and the people from Duduza
went with Mike and the other person. We took a taxi back to where we stay because they had told us at that
juncture that we were going to hit our targets.
JUDGE MALL: I am sorry about this, I don't think you should allow this witness to give evidence as he is
giving, because I get the impression that it is either not in sequence or is disjointed, so I don't have a clear
picture. Will you please put your questions to him from the stage where a demonstration - a handgrenade
was thrown after the count of three, they all threw themselves to the ground and it
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VAN DEN BERG 740 MR LUKHELE
exploded. And he was about to say that a second grenade was used, from then onwards in sequence please,
get the evidence.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you Mr Chairman. You told the Committee that Mike dismantled one of
the handgrenades, that he showed you how it operated and that he threw one of the handgrenades, do you
remember that?
MR LUKHELE: Yes, I do.
MR VAN DEN BERG: You also said that a second handgrenade was thrown?
MR LUKHELE: That is correct, they gave it to Veli Mazibuka and he also threw it, it exploded.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Did you receive any other training?
MR LUKHELE: No. That was the only time we were trained.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Were any other handgrenades thrown?
MR LUKHELE: No, two only.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Who identified the targets that these handgrenade ...(intervention)
MS KHAMPEPE: Mr van den Berg, may I just interrupt here.
MR LUKHELE: Mamasela.
MS KHAMPEPE: Can I just ask the witness for the purposes of the sequence. How long ...(tape ends)
JUDGE MALL: What happened after the second handgrenade exploded?
MR LUKHELE: That is where Mamasela told us that we had to hit our targets.
JUDGE MALL: What does that mean?
MR LUKHELE: He said the targets were policemen's houses. He also mentioned the Power Station as
well as Councillors' houses.
MS KHAMPEPE: Are you saying, Mr Lukhele, that he identified PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VAN DEN BERG 741 MR LUKHELE
the targets that you would have to destroy?
MR LUKHELE: No. He did not show us the houses, but he told us that we should target policemen's
houses.
MS KHAMPEPE: I am not saying that he showed you. I am asking if he identified what targets you would
have to hit, whether he named what targets you would have to hit?
MR LUKHELE: During the night he told us that we should go to a certain policeman's house and he
named that particular policeman.
JUDGE WILSON: When was this, you are now saying during the night?
MR LUKHELE: I am now referring to the matter on the 25th that is at KwaThema when the other
comrades were in Tsakane, the others were in Duduza at that time.
JUDGE MALL: No man, no man please it doesn't work that way.
MS KHAMPEPE: Try it on the Monday, that is the 24th of June and all these questions which are being
directed at you are aimed at eliciting information about what happened on the 24th of June. So just confine
your responses to the incident of the 24th of June, listen to your counsel when he asks you questions and
respond to the question put to you. Mr Van den Berg?
MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you. You said that the training took five or eight minutes.
MR LUKHELE: That is correct.
MR VAN DEN BERG: What happened immediately after the training?
MR LUKHELE: Thereafter we were told that we should start dealing with our targets.
MR VAN DEN BERG: What does that mean?
MR LUKHELE: That meant that we should attack our targets.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VAN DEN BERG 742 MR LUKHELE
MR VAN DEN BERG: Did this discussion take place at the mine?
MR LUKHELE: Yes, we were still at the mine.
MR VAN DEN BERG: How were the targets identified?
MR LUKHELE: On this particular day we were not given any further information.
JUDGE MALL: You were just told to attack policemen homes, Councillors' homes and power stations
that is what they were told. Carry on.
MR LUKHELE: That is correct.
JUDGE MALL: What happened after that?
MR LUKHELE: Then we were taken into the combi. When we were in the combi we drove off, along the
way that's where we were told about money, they promised us R10 000 each and that is where they took
our names down as well as our addresses, and they said whoever was having problems should ask for help
from them.
MR VAN DEN BERG: When you say "whoever has problems" what do you mean?
MR LUKHELE: They said that if we got arrested we should report to them so that they could get some
legal advice or legal assistance for us.
JUDGE WILSON: Did they tell you where to report to?
MR LUKHELE: They never told us that.
MR VAN DEN BERG: When they dropped you off, what did they say to you?
MR LUKHELE: They said the following morning at 12.00 we should start attacking our targets and they
were going to come at 7.00 o'clock in Thema and they would give us some handgrenades.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Is that 12.00 o'clock in the afternoon or
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VAN DEN BERG 743 MR LUKHELE
12.00 o'clock in the evening?
MR LUKHELE: 12.00 o'clock - midnight.
MR VAN DEN BERG: And where were you to meet them?
MR LUKHELE: We were supposed to meet at the Highlands Square where they picked us up before we
went to the mine.
MR VAN DEN BERG: And what time did they say they would meet you?
MR LUKHELE: They said they would come at 7.00 o'clock.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Were you at the Highlands Square at 7.00 o'clock?
MR LUKHELE: That is correct. We went there, we waited for them to 7, 8, 9 and they arrived around
about 11.35 and they said they were looking for comrades in Duduza, that's where they got delayed and
they said that we shouldn't be surprised that they arrived late. We got into the car and there was a certain
girl by the name of Maakie Skosana, James and Mike, Congress Mutsweni as well as Jabulani Mahlangu.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Can I interrupt you? When you talk about "they" are you referring to Mike and
James?
MR LUKHELE: That is correct, I am referring to Mike and James.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Was there anybody else in the combi other than the people that you have already
mentioned?
ADV DE JAGER: Could kindly mention the names again, I couldn't catch them?
JUDGE MALL: We couldn't catch them please.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Will you tell the Committee who else was in the combi, you said there was Mike
and James and you mentioned some other names, what were those names?
MR LUKHELE: It was not a combi on the 25th, they came in a
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VAN DEN BERG 744 MR LUKHELE
black Jetta.
MR VAN DEN BERG: And who was in the Jetta?
MR LUKHELE: Mike and James, Maakie Skosana, Congress, Comrade Mutsweni...(intervention)
MR VAN DEN BERG: Is that Congress or Comrade?
MR LUKHELE: Congress Mutsweni. Mike said that in Tsakane they wanted Jabulani Mahlangu. They
were going to work with him because Nocqwinta and another one were working in Tsakane.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Mr Mazuza will you just listen to my questions and answer my questions. You
said to us that it was Mike and James in the motor vehicle, Maakie Skosana, Congress Mutsweni, was there
anybody else?
MR LUKHELE: Yes.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Who was in there?
MR LUKHELE: Do you mean in the car?
MR VAN DEN BERG: Yes in the car. Who else was in the car, Just those four?
MR LUKHELE: Yes, there were only four.
MR VAN DEN BERG: And who were you with when you were waiting for the car?
MR LUKHELE: I was with Stephen Modisani, Jabulani Mahlangu.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Anybody else?
MR LUKHELE: No it was only the two of us.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Now you said it was about 11.35 when they arrived, when Mike and James
arrived in the black Jetta?
MR LUKHELE: That is correct.
MR VAN DEN BERG: What happened then?
MR LUKHELE: They got out of the car, they shook our hands, they told us that they wanted Jabulani
Mahlangu from Tsakane to also come and help. Myself and Stephen Modisani agreed
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VAN DEN BERG 745 MR LUKHELE
with them. Maakie Skosana also shook our hands and said we would work well. They got into the Jetta and
they went away. Before they went away ...(intervention)
JUDGE MALL: Before we go any further, who got into the Jetta and drove off, give us names?
MR LUKHELE: It was Jabulani Mahlangu.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Who else?
MR LUKHELE: Congress Mutsweni, Maakie Skosana as well as James and Mike.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Before they left did they give you any instructions, what did you talk about?
MR LUKHELE: Yes, they said we should go and bomb a certain house.
MR VAN DEN BERG: What was the house, which house?
MR LUKHELE: It was a CID's house at Mini Selcourt Section.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Is that a part of KwaThema?
MR LUKHELE: That is correct.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Who accompanied you when you went there?
MR LUKHELE: It was myself and Stephen Modisani.
MR VAN DEN BERG: And, were you armed?
MR LUKHELE: Yes, we had grenades.
MR VAN DEN BERG: How many?
MR LUKHELE: We had two grenades.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Was that two each or one each?
MR LUKHELE: One each.
MR VAN DEN BERG: You went to Mini Selcourt what happened then?
MR LUKHELE: We had watches, wrist watches on that particular day and at three minutes to twelve we
heard the explosion of the grenade ...(intervention)
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VAN DEN BERG 745 MR LUKHELE
MR VAN DEN BERG: Can I interrupt you, sorry, you said you heard an explosion of a grenade, where
was that explosion?
MR LUKHELE: That is correct, I heard the explosion of a grenade.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Do you know where the grenade exploded?
MR LUKHELE: No, I do not know where it came from.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Was it one of the grenades that you had?
MR LUKHELE: No, it wasn't one of the grenades that we had.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Alright, I interrupted you, you said that you were in Mini Selcourt that at three
minutes to twelve you heard and explosion, what happened then?
MR LUKHELE: Stephen Modisani decided that he should throw the grenade so that when the policeman
came out of the house he would actually throw the grenade at the policeman. Then he pulled - the grenade
blew off, it exploded and we got injured - he got injured in his hands as well as my own hands, but I picked
up my own handgrenade and ran away with it. At that time police were milling around already. I ran to the
disused mine called "Five chack"? that is where I hid myself and I could hear the noise from the policemen.
They were asking themselves as to where was I. I think I got out of the mine at about one, I was in so much
pain and I was bleeding profusely. That is where I took the handgrenade and I dug a hole next to United
new houses. I hid the grenade and I ran home. When I got home ...(intervention)
MR VAN DEN BERG: Can I interrupt you again. You said that whilst you were hiding, you heard them
calling, were they calling your name or who were they calling?
MR LUKHELE: They were using my name and they were saying "Where is this other dog which ran
away".
MR VAN DEN BERG: You said you went home?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VAN DEN BERG 746 MR LUKHELE
MR LUKHELE: Yes.
MR VAN DEN BERG: What time did you get home?
MR LUKHELE: I think it was past one.
MR VAN DEN BERG: What happened to you when you got home?
MR LUKHELE: I lost consciousness.
MR VAN DEN BERG: And when did you wake up again?
MR LUKHELE: I came to when I was at Roodepoort as Dr. Aswat's surgery.
MR VAN DEN BERG: How did you get there?
MR LUKHELE: I was taken there by my father.
MR VAN DEN BERG: How long did you stay at the surgery?
MR LUKHELE: I stayed there for two days, I was scared to go to the hospital.
MR VAN DEN BERG: After two days did you go back home?
MR LUKHELE: I went to Priscilla Jana's offices.
MR VAN DEN BERG: What did you do there?
MR LUKHELE: She hid me.
MR VAN DEN BERG: What happened after that?
MR LUKHELE: Time went on and I decided to go back home and as I was at home, they kept on telling
me that the police were looking for me so I should not remain at home and the White men who were
looking for me spoke Zulu. And it so happened that on one day whilst I was sleeping in the garage and the
garage door went through to the sitting room, I was awoken up by my father saying that the policemen
were already surrounding the house. They knocked at the door, I got into the ceiling, I hid myself there.
They came into the house, they swore at my father. One of them was Brig. Cronje he was present, De Kock
was also present, Sithole, CID Mbata, CID Dube, they called themselves the "A Team". That is where I
was taken.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VAN DEN BERG 747 MR LUKHELE
MR VAN DEN BERG: Did they arrest you that day?
MR LUKHELE: That is correct.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Can I take you back a little bit, what happened to the handgrenade that you had
hidden away?
MR LUKHELE: I took it and gave it to Priscilla Jana.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Once you were arrested, what happened?
MR LUKHELE: I was taken, they started assaulting me from my place, De Kock put a gun into my
father's mouth so that my father could point me out and my father pointed me out and they started
assaulting me. The one who seemed to be at the forefront of everything was Brig. Cronje. I was taken into
the combi, it had silver windows which was very well known in the residential area as the "A Team".
Outside there were 15 to 16 cars. That is where I was taken to a forest, my feet were handcuffed as well as
my hands.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Can you just take it a little more slowly, people have got to write notes. Once you
were arrested, you say that you had been assaulted, were you charged, were you charged with any crime,
did you appear in Court?
JUDGE WILSON: Shouldn't we hear what happened in this forest first. We haven't heard a word about
this before. I don't know if you had?
MR VAN DEN BERG: Mr Mazuza, you said that you were taken to a forest, can you tell us what
happened there?
MR LUKHELE: I was taken into the forest, they handcuffed both my feet as well as my hands. Brig.
Cronje pulled me out of the car as well as De Kock. They put me on the ground, flat on the ground. They
put some fire wood on top of me, they drained some petrol from the car. They said they were going to kill
the dog and they were going to claim that the dog had run away. At that moment certain people who were
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
MR VAN DEN BERG 748 MR LUKHELE
driving, who were riding bicycles asked as to what was happening. That is when these men took me, they
put me into the van and they also sprayed me with teargas, they closed the door of the car, I was taken to
the Denotto Police Station. I was assaulted further there. When I heard they said these "boers" were coming
from PE they had been transferred to Downwater, they called themselves the "trapmak". The other black
policemen whom I still remember and can identify was Jewel from Duduza he also assaulted me. That is
where I was assaulted severely. I injured my left ear. I was also electrocuted in my private parts and they
told me that the KwaThema Police Station was looking for me. I was taken to KwaThema Police Station at
that juncture, that is where I was assaulted further and I had other charges, further 24 charges. I stayed in
waiting trial as well as the State of Emergency, I stayed there for 20 months and 23 charges were laid
against me. The 24th one gave me four years in jail as well as six lashes and five years suspended.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Where were you imprisoned?
MR LUKHELE: I was in Modderbee Prison and I was transferred to the Baviaanspoort and Pretoria.
MR VAN DEN BERG: When were you released?
MR LUKHELE: In 1991 or '92, I am not really positive.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN DEN BERG
ADV DE JAGER: Mr van den Berg could you kindly clear up something for me. Were your instructions
according to the evidence?
MR VAN DEN BERG: Large portions, my instructions were in accordance with the evidence that has
been led. Some of this that we have heard now, the finer detail, I am only hearing
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DE JAGER 749 MR LUKHELE
for the first time now.
ADV DE JAGER: Did you in fact put, the questions you put to Brig. Cronje was that related to your
instructions or have you received other instructions since?
MR VAN DEN BERG: Those were in accordance with my instructions, the questions that I put to Brig.
Cronje.
ADV DE JAGER: Did you perhaps by an oversight fail to put certain questions to him?
MR VAN DEN BERG: No, Mr Chairman, I did not.
JUDGE MALL: What injuries did you receive?
MR LUKHELE: As I am showing you my hands, I was hit by splinters or splint.
JUDGE MALL: And your companion who was with you at the time, what happened?
MR LUKHELE: My friend died.
JUDGE MALL: On the spot?
MR LUKHELE: That is correct.
JUDGE MALL: Mr Du Plessis?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you, Mr Chairman. When did you last see
Maarkie Skosana?
MR LUKHELE: I last saw her when she was in the black Jetta.
ADV DU PLESSIS: You never saw her since that time?
MR LUKHELE: No.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Do you know what happened to her?
MR LUKHELE: Yes, I do.
ADV DU PLESSIS: What?
MR LUKHELE: She was burnt to death.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Why did that happen?
MR LUKHELE: She was burnt by the comrades from Duduza and I was not there, so I cannot tell you
why was she burnt.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Did you hear people discussing her death,
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 750 MR LUKHELE
did you hear that people - did anybody give you reasons why she died?
MR LUKHELE: Yes, the people who burnt her were with me in prison.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Did they tell you why she died?
MR LUKHELE: Yes, they did.
ADV DU PLESSIS: What did they say?
MR LUKHELE: There were allegations that she was an informer.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Who were those people?
MR LUKHELE: It was Linda Hlophe, Phineas Maseko, I have forgotten the rest.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Did they say why she was an informer?
MR LUKHELE: Yes they did.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And what did they say?
MR LUKHELE: She was an activist but she was never arrested and Jewel the policeman I referred to
before, they also told me about him, that he used to go to Maakie Skosana's place and I personally saw him
one day because at times I would visit Maakie Skosana's place as a fellow comrade.
ADV DU PLESSIS: But why did they say she was an informer, why? What did she do?
MR LUKHELE: I said before that she was an activist and she could not get arrested or they didn't arrest
her so she was giving the police some information about us.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Was that the only reason?
MR LUKHELE: That is correct.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Did you after that night with the handgrenade incident, did you ever speak to
somebody about Maakie Skosana?
MR LUKHELE: No I never did.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 750 MR LUKHELE
ADV DU PLESSIS: Why not?
MR LUKHELE: I don't get what you are asking me.
ADV DU PLESSIS: I am asking you why didn't you speak to anybody about Maakie Skosana after that
night, why?
MR LUKHELE: At the time that I saw here in Duduza or at the time that she was in the Jetta at
KwaThema, which period are you referring to?
ADV DU PLESSIS: I am saying after the night of the handgrenade incident, did you speak to anybody
about Maakie Skosana?
MR LUKHELE: I spoke to the attorneys, my attorneys, that is Priscilla Jana.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Did you say to them anything about Maakie Skosana?
MR LUKHELE: Yes, I told her about what happened and that I was called by Maakie Skosana and she
was present in the black Jetta when they gave us the handgrenades.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Sorry, I didn't get that. You were told that you were what by Maakie Skosana, that
you were - caught, that is the word I heard, caught by Maakie Skosana?
JUDGE WILSON: Called.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Called, called. Can you repeat again to us, exactly what did you say to Priscilla Jana,
what did you tell her about Maakie Skosana?
MR LUKHELE: I told Priscilla Jana that Maakie Skosana was in the black Jetta at Thobela's night vigil as
well as at the black Jetta, she was present when we were given the handgrenades. ...(tape ends)
ADV DU PLESSIS: ... now about that?
MR LUKHELE: Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And did you tell anybody else about that?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 751 MR LUKHELE
MR LUKHELE: No.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Why not?
JUDGE MALL: If he goes and tells his attorney that why should he go around the world telling everybody
about it?
ADV DU PLESSIS: Right Mr Chairman, I will follow a different line.
JUDGE MALL: Please.
JUDGE WILSON: Before you do, who was the person who called you from the night vigil?
MR LUKHELE: It is Maakie Skosana.
JUDGE MALL: Yes, do carry on.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Now, afterwards, after the handgrenade incident happened, what did you think
happened, what did you think caused the problem with the handgrenade?
MR LUKHELE: I don't understand your question.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Didn't you ask yourself the question "why did the handgrenade blow up?" Did you
ask yourself that question?
MR LUKHELE: Yes, I did ask myself thereafter.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And what did you think?
MR LUKHELE: I thought that as the people had told us that they were coming from Zambia they had
probably given us defective handgrenades, probably they made a mistake, but as time when on, I realised
that these grenades were coming from the police.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Alright, and when you realised that the handgrenades came from the police what did
you then think about James and Mike?
MR LUKHELE: I thought that they were police but we did not know them.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Did you ask yourself why Maakie Skosana was PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 752 MR LUKHELE
in the car the night they brought the handgrenades?
MR LUKHELE: No, I never asked myself because she was a fellow comrade as far as I was concerned.
ADV DU PLESSIS: So are you saying to us that you never suspected Maakie Skosana of being, of
working together with James and Mike?
JUDGE MALL: At what stage?
ADV DU PLESSIS: At the stage when they brought the handgrenades to you, you never suspected
Maakie Skosana at that stage?
MR LUKHELE: Not at that stage.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And thereafter you also never suspected her?
MR LUKHELE: Thereafter I did suspect.
ADV DU PLESSIS: So am I right in saying after you heard that other handgrenades blew up and you
thought it was the police you thought Maakie Skosana worked together with them?
MR LUKHELE: I suspected that when I heard that they were burning houses because I was not present
and I asked myself as to how she survived, because we were all injured as comrades and I asked myself as
to how she escaped those attacks because she was also a comrade.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And when you asked yourself this question how did she survive, did you discuss it
with your friends, with the other comrades?
MR LUKHELE: I never asked them.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Why not, I don't understand it?
JUDGE MALL: Let's put some limitation in this cross-examination. How does it advance your case, Mr
du Plessis? Please, the fact of the matter is that this woman was burnt according to what I have heard from
you now, because she was PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 753 MR LUKHELE
suspected of being an informer, what about going into all the details in that regard, what is the purpose?
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I am trying to determine in how far this person was responsible for her
death, but if you limit me in the cross-examination, I'll do that.
JUDGE MALL: I think that you should just realise the limits yourself, please.
ADV DU PLESSIS: As it pleases you. Now, can you tell us exactly when was the first time that the
question of money was mentioned to you by Mike and James?
MR LUKHELE: They told me whilst I was alone in the black Jetta in Duduza and they told us when we
were at the disused mine together with the other comrades from KwaThema and Duduza.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And exactly what did they say about the payment of the money, how much would it
have been?
MR LUKHELE: They said they would give us R10 000 each.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, if you will just bear with me, please. Alright, so am I right in - do I
understand you correctly, the first time they said they were going to pay you money was the time when
they arrived there with the black Jetta? Was that the first time or was that the second time?
MR LUKHELE: The first time they told me was in Duduza when Maakie Skosana came to fetch me at the
night vigil of Sonto Thobela and that is when they first mentioned the money that they would give me, R10
000 as well as a shotgun.
ADV DU PLESSIS: As well as a short gun, a shotgun, a shotgun is that what you are saying?
MR LUKHELE: Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Right, now did they offer you anything else PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 754 MR LUKHELE
apart from the money and the shotgun at that time?
MR LUKHELE: Nothing else.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Right, now, you were an activist weren't you?
MR LUKHELE: That is correct.
ADV DU PLESSIS: You were a comrade?
MR LUKHELE: I was an organiser for the Students Congress.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, but the people involved with COSAS were comrades, isn't that true, you called
yourself a comrade, isn't that true?
MR LUKHELE: We referred it to the Congress of South African Students.
ADV DU PLESSIS: So you were not a comrade?
MR LUKHELE: I was a comrade as well as an activist of the Students Congress in KwaThema.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And this Student Congress in KwaThema, what were they doing at the time?
MR LUKHELE: They were involved in peaceful demonstrations, we were also members of the SRC,
Release Mandela Campaign. We were doing quite a number of things.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Well give us some detail.
MR LUKHELE: Firstly, we were Freedom Fighters, I was a member of the SRC, we were from different
backgrounds and they needed school uniforms at certain schools and we were fighting that school uniforms
be made not compulsory, as well as school fees because the education that we had was not up to standard,
as well as rent matters that we were addressing. We also wanted Mandela to be released and we wanted to
recognise him as our Leader. That is all.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Were you fighting apartheid?
MR LUKHELE: That is correct.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 754 MR LUKHELE
ADV DU PLESSIS: Were you fighting the National Party?
MR LUKHELE: Yes, I was.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Were you fighting the "boere"?
JUDGE WILSON: Didn't he say something about government there?
ADV DU PLESSIS: I am not sure, Mr Chairman, I .....
JUDGE WILSON: I heard the word Government, it wasn't given up?
ADV DU PLESSIS: Can I repeat the question. Were you fighting the National Party?
MR LUKHELE: That is correct.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Were you fighting the government of the day? At that time?
MR LUKHELE: That is so.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Were you fighting the "boere"?
MR LUKHELE: I was not fighting the "boere" I was fighting what they were doing and the unjust
treatment.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And at that time did you know of the existence of the African National Congress?
MR LUKHELE: I did.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Did you support the African National Congress?
MR LUKHELE: That is correct.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Did you support the UDF?
MR LUKHELE: That is correct.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And did you support what the UDF and the ANC were doing at that time?
MR LUKHELE: Yes, I was supporting it, because at the time the government didn't want to listen to the
masses as far as negotiations were concerned.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And the other people who were with you,
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 755 MR LUKHELE
involved in this incident which you testified about, did they feel the same as you?
MR LUKHELE: Which people?
ADV DU PLESSIS: All the people you named, Mahlangu, Modisani, Noncqwinta all the other people,
Mazibuka the other people you mentioned, did they feel the same as you?
MR LUKHELE: That is correct, we were all Freedom Fighters.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And now, being a Freedom Fighter, there were different kinds of people in the
townships then, there were people who didn't want to get involved and there were people who were
Freedom Fighters, is that correct?
MR LUKHELE: Many people realised thereafter, like parents, parents were complaining that we should
not do it, but later on the police organised.......
ADV DU PLESSIS: And at that time, were the police in the townships, can you remember, did the police
go to the townships?
MR LUKHELE: Yes, they were present.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And what did they do there?
MR LUKHELE: Black policemen were the ones who were selling us out, they were telling Brig. Cronje
and his friends as to where we were staying, because they knew us.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Why would they give information about you to Brig. Cronje?
MR LUKHELE: I think they were protecting the apartheid regime.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Now, when the policemen came into the townships, did they spread teargas
sometimes, did they shoot you with rubber bullets, the people in the townships?
MR LUKHELE: Yes, where we were having peaceful demonstrations we were shot at, even though we
were
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 756 MR LUKHELE
demonstrating peacefully, we were shot at.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And then the Freedom Fighters, what did they then do, when that happened?
MR LUKHELE: I don't know who you are referring to.
ADV DU PLESSIS: I am referring to the Freedom Fighters in the townships, that the police came and they
threw teargas and they shot the people with rubber bullets, what did the Freedom Fighters do, did they run
away and stop their meetings?
MR LUKHELE: Yes, we would run away, at times we would throw stones at them.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And you threw stones as well?
MR LUKHELE: Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And if you got hold of a police car, if the police car broke down or stopped, did you
see people burning the police vehicles?
MR LUKHELE: Yes, I have seen people because the police were not listening even though we were
demonstrating peacefully. They would shoot at us even at a funeral, they were not cooperative, they would
throw teargas and rubber bullets, shoot at us, provoking us.
ADV DU PLESSIS: It was really the Freedom Fighters who fought the police, is that correct?
MR LUKHELE: That is correct.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And you as a Freedom Fighter, you also burnt vehicles?
MR LUKHELE: No.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Why not?
MR LUKHELE: I would throw stones when they were shooting at us whilst demonstrating peacefully.
ADV DU PLESSIS: So was it only the real Freedom Fighters
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 757 MR LUKHELE
who burnt the vehicles?
MR LUKHELE: I won't say anything on their behalf.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Right, and the Black policemen, the Black policemen, did you know some of the
Black policemen in the township?
MR LUKHELE: Yes I knew some of them.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Tell us again, what did you think of them?
MR LUKHELE: The Black policemen were troublesome and they were giving the White policemen
information as to our residential addresses for they were residing with us in the same residential areas.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Did the people want them in the township or did the people want them out of the
townships, the Black policemen?
MR LUKHELE: That is correct. We would just wish that they could leave the location, Black residential
areas.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Were there people who wanted to kill them?
MR LUKHELE: The Community at large, itself, wanted to kill them.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And you yourself, as a Freedom Fighter, you also wanted to kill them?
MR LUKHELE: No.
ADV DU PLESSIS: So, most of the people wanted to kill them but you didn't want to kill them, is that
right, do I understand you correctly?
MR LUKHELE: I tell you I used to throw stones.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Now, alright, tell us about that evening with the handgrenades, you and your friend
went with the two handgrenades, is that correct, where did you go to?
MR LUKHELE: We were going to Mini Selcourt, the two of us.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Repeat again, please. Where did you go to
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 758 MR LUKHELE
with the handgrenades?
MR LUKHELE: At Mini Selcourt section in KwaThema.
ADV DU PLESSIS: What is that?
MR LUKHELE: Those are new areas and usually bond areas, where you pay bond.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Alright.
JUDGE MALL: Mr v/d Berg, you might be able to clear it, what is the word Municell?
MR VAN DEN BERG: He is referring to an area of KwaThema called a "Mini Selcourt" - Selcourt is one
of the better suburbs in Springs and it is a reference.
JUDGE MALL: So it's called Mini Selcourt. Thank you.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And who was living there?
MR LUKHELE: You mean the particular house that we went to or you are asking the Mini Selcourt at
large?
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, the particular house, was there a particular house that you went to?
MR LUKHELE: CID Roy.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Who was living in that house?
JUDGE MALL: CID Roy.
ADV DU PLESSIS: CID Roy, I beg your pardon Mr Chairman, I didn't realise was that a name?
JUDGE MALL: CID meaning policemen. Roy is his name.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Roy, is that his name?
MR LUKHELE: Roy is his name, I don't know his surname, he is a CID.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Did you know him?
MR LUKHELE: Yes, I knew him.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Was he one of the policemen who gave information?
MR LUKHELE: Yes, he is one of the police who used to shoot
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 758 MR LUKHELE
the students in KwaThema.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And why did you go to his house?
MR LUKHELE: We wanted to eliminate him.
ADV DU PLESSIS: He was a policemen and you wanted to kill him, is that correct?
JUDGE MALL: He used the word your clients have been using.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Chairman, yes, eliminate. I didn't mean anything by the difference, I could
ask the question with the word eliminated.
JUDGE WILSON: I should think so.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, slight, so when you told us previously that you didn't want to kill the policemen
who gave the information you were wrong, is that correct? Because at this night you went to kill the
policeman, is that correct?
MR LUKHELE: I was telling the truth, I did not want to kill the policeman, but after seeing that all my
fellow comrades were dying therefore I decided to join the rest and intent to kill police because they were
informers and after that they will come and shoot us in the location, the Black residential areas.
ADV DU PLESSIS: So, even before you went out that night, before you got the handgrenades, you had
already decided that you were going to kill policemen, am I right?
MR LUKHELE: We were told by Mamasela to go there to that particular house and I realised that, that
this is the policeman who was taking part in the killing in the Black residential areas.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Who decided to kill this policeman?
MR LUKHELE: We decided that we are going to kill the police, all of us had this one intention to kill
him.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Who do you mean, who is all of us?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 759 MR LUKHELE
MR LUKHELE: Myself and Stephen Modisani.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And when did you make this decision?
MR LUKHELE: We decided that very night.
MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Lukhele can I just clear something with you. Did Mamasela identify Roy to you for
elimination or he simply said you must go and kill Black policemen without identifying the names of such
policemen?
MR LUKHELE: He told us to go to CID Roy.
JUDGE WILSON: That was to bomb the house, wasn't it?
MR LUKHELE: That is correct.
JUDGE WILSON: But you two decided you were going to do more, you were going to make sure you
killed the policeman, is that so?
MR LUKHELE: We were just going to bomb the house.
JUDGE WILSON: But that is not the evidence you gave earlier, you told us earlier, my recollection and
my note
that Stephen said he was going to throw the grenade and then he would get the policeman when he came
out of the house, didn't you say that?
MR LUKHELE: I said that because he is the one who threw the grenade and I said I will throw mine
thereafter.
JUDGE WILSON: When the policeman came out?
MR LUKHELE: That is correct.
ADV DU PLESSIS: So you wanted to kill the policeman on that night, is that correct?
MR LUKHELE: Yes. We wanted to kill him because he was also killing our brothers.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Now, let us just make sure about the reason why you wanted to kill him. You said he
was killing your brothers, you said he was one of the people who shot at the people in the township, is that
correct?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 760 MR LUKHELE
MR LUKHELE: Yes, that is correct.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Were those the reasons why you wanted to kill him?
MR LUKHELE: That is correct.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And you testified just now that at some stage you saw the policeman killing the
people and you were very unhappy about the way the policemen acted?
MR LUKHELE: Yes, that is correct.
ADV DU PLESSIS: But you never before intended to kill a policeman?
MR LUKHELE: That is correct.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And the other people in your group, did they also want to kill policemen?
MR LUKHELE: I had said it, that I am talking on my own behalf and Stephen, as for others I won't say a
thing on their behalf.
ADV DE JAGER: Here at the meeting on the Sunday, you told us about the meeting on the Sunday where
you and your comrades discussed what you were going to do. Is that correct?
MR LUKHELE: That is correct.
ADV DE JAGER: That was after you have had this lesson about handgrenades the previous day?
MR LUKHELE: That is correct.
ADV DE JAGER: Now, that meeting, what did you decide what are you going to do?
MR LUKHELE: We were just KwaThema comrades and we told ourselves that we were going to attack,
bomb police houses as we have been told by Mamasela.
ADV DU PLESSIS: So when were you told before that meeting by Mamasela about bombings?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 761 MR LUKHELE
MR LUKHELE: When we went to undergo training and when we were in KwaThema he was in the Jetta.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Now, when was the first time Mamasela said anything to you about bombing
policemen's houses and things like that, when was the first time when that was said to you?
MR LUKHELE: As for me, he told me when I was in the black Jetta.
MS KHAMPEPE: Was that at Thobela's night vigil? Was that on the day when you were attending the
night vigil at Thobela's house?
MR LUKHELE: That is correct.
MS KHAMPEPE: And that would be on the 21st June?
MR LUKHELE: That is correct.
ADV DU PLESSIS: You see because when you testified you said that the two men in the Jetta introduced
themselves as James and Mike and they said they were coming to train you and they offered you money,
that is what you testified?
MR LUKHELE: Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Are you saying now that they said more than that, are you saying now that they also
said that they were coming to train you to kill policemen?
MR LUKHELE: Yes. We were talking, you know, it was more of a discussion that we had, now I have
forgotten some of the things that we might have discussed.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Can you remember who were all present at that discussion?
MR LUKHELE: Yes, I do remember.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Who was that?
MR LUKHELE: Congress Mutsweni, Mike and James and myself.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And can you now tell us what was discussed
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 762 MR LUKHELE
at that meeting?
MR LUKHELE: They introduced themselves to us and they told me they were coming from Zambia and
they were going to train us and we should target police houses and the power station and the Councillor's
houses and they will give me R10 000 and a shotgun and I have forgotten some other things that we talked
about.
ADV DE JAGER: Did they at that stage ask you to get other people involved or were you the only one to
do all these tasks?
MR LUKHELE: They assigned me to go and get other comrades, fellow comrades that we will work
collectively with.
ADV DE JAGER: Yes, could I come back to the Sunday meeting. Mike and Mamasela and the other
person wasn't there that day?
MR LUKHELE: They were not there.
ADV DE JAGER: So it was only a meeting of comrades?
MR LUKHELE: That is correct.
ADV DE JAGER: At that meeting you decided to carry out or to carry out what he told you and to kill the
policeman?
MR LUKHELE: That is correct.
ADV DE JAGER: Did you discuss at that stage that each one of you should identify a house so that you
could know where to go to?
MR LUKHELE: At that time, he had already told us. I was supposed to work with Jabulani Mahlangu
and Stephen Modisani and Nocqwinta and it was impossible because they were to go and work in Tsakane,
but he had already told us what to do.
ADV DE JAGER: How many houses did he give you the addresses of?
JUDGE MALL: When you say "you" meaning him personally?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 763 MR LUKHELE
ADV DE JAGER: Yes. How many - at the meeting did every one of you exactly know to which house
you should go, or did you decide there?
MR LUKHELE: At the meeting he told us where we were supposed to go.
JUDGE WILSON: You've told us he was not at the meeting, we are talking about the meeting on Sunday.
ADV DE JAGER: Yes, the meeting on Sunday.
MR LUKHELE: No, I was thinking you were referring to the meeting at the mine.
MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Lukhele the meeting referred to is the meeting which you have said you held at the
Civic Centre, remember when you gave your evidence?
MR LUKHELE: I remember.
MS KHAMPEPE: Was Mr Mamasela present at that meeting?
MR LUKHELE: No he wasn't present.
MS KHAMPEPE: Who attended that meeting, was it only the comrades of KwaThema or you also had
comrades from Tsakane and Duduza?
MR LUKHELE: No, we were all from KwaThema.
ADV DE JAGER: How many of you were there?
MR LUKHELE: We were only four.
ADV DE JAGER: And did you identify police that you specially wanted to kill because you hated them
more than other police?
MR LUKHELE: We did identify some police that we wanted to attack.
MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Lukhele what was the purpose of convening that meeting at the Civic Centre?
MR LUKHELE: It was to discuss, to tell ourselves that we should be sober and no-one should delay and
no-one shall
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 763 MR LUKHELE
take any liquor and we should be sober and undertake this operation. I don't remember some other details.
MS KHAMPEPE: You have spoken about having promised R10 000 by Mr Mamasela?
MR LUKHELE: Yes.
MS KHAMPEPE: Well, by James, I suppose, that's how he introduced himself to you and this offer was
made on the 21st of June 1985, and that was when he met with you at the night vigil of Thobela's place,
now did he indicate to you why you would be paid R10 000?
MR LUKHELE: He said I should not tell anyone because it was myself, Congress Mutsweni and James
and Mike and he said I should not tell anyone, I should get fellow comrades who are also trustworthy and
he will give me R10 000.
MS KHAMPEPE: Just listen to my question Mr Lukhele, why would you have been paid R10 000 by
James? I just need you to respond to that question, and to that question only.
MR LUKHELE: He was going to pay us R10 000 so that we shut our mouth and not say anything.
MS KHAMPEPE: About what? Why should you be silenced to talk about what?
MR LUKHELE: He said this thing should not reach the police.
MS KHAMPEPE: What should not reach the police? At that stage you had only been told that you should
go and recruit people that you had utmost trust on.
MR LUKHELE: He said I should not tell anyone, I should only tell this to the comrades that I trusted and
he will give us R10 000. We should keep this secret.
MS KHAMPEPE: So you would have been paid R10 000 to keep quiet?
MR LUKHELE: That is correct.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 764 MR LUKHELE
JUDGE MALL: Mr du Plessis have you finished cross-examining this witness?
ADV DU PLESSIS: No, Mr Chairman, I am nearly finished, Mr Chairman, I am nearly finished, Mr
Chairman. Thank you very much. Now the - on that Sunday, the four of you were there the Sunday, the
Sunday meeting, the four of you were there, did you speak about the targets and the policemen you were
going to attack?
MR LUKHELE: Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And did you there decide who would attack which target?
MR LUKHELE: Yes, we had already decided as to who to attack but it never materialised.
ADV DU PLESSIS: What I want to know is did you decide on that day, did you speak about it and decide
on that day and decide who would attack which target?
MR LUKHELE: Yes, we decided on that day.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And what targets did you speak about there, can you remember which targets?
MR LUKHELE: Yes, I do remember.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Which targets, tell us?
MR LUKHELE: The person we wanted the most was Sgt. Sithole.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And others? Which others were discussed?
MR LUKHELE: I don't remember others, but the main person we wanted the most was Sgt. Sithole.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And when Mike and James discussed the previous evening when they arrived with
the Jetta and they talked about the military training, what did they say to you about targets?
MR LUKHELE: They said we should target the police houses, Councillors' houses, the power station and
that is it.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 765 MR LUKHELE
ADV DU PLESSIS: You see, Mr Chairman, if you will just bear with me, please, you see, because when
you testified, when you gave your evidence, you testified that Mike and James told you after they had
shown you how the handgrenades worked, they told you that you had to hit policemen's houses,
Councillors' houses and power stations, you didn't say in your evidence-in-chief that they said that to you
on that night when they approached you in the Jetta for the first time. Can you explain to us why there is a
difference?
MR LUKHELE: Where they told us that we should target police houses, I was actually alone and
Congress Mutsweni and the two of them in a Jetta, that is when they introduced themselves to me and I had
not recruited other comrades I was going to undertake this operation with.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Alright, when military training was mentioned to you and as you say it was
mentioned that police targets and other targets should be hit, how did you feel, did you feel eager to do that,
did you want to do it or did you feel unhappy about it?
MR LUKHELE: I felt good because of the fact that police were troublesome, I was sick and tired then
about the police.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And that is also why you testified that the other comrades couldn't believe it that
Mike and James said that they will give you training, they were also happy, isn't that so?
MR LUKHELE: Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And on that Sunday when you had that meeting, you discussed that you would kill
the policemen, is that correct, or eliminate them?
MR LUKHELE: We discussed about Sithole, Sithole was the
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 766 MR LUKHELE
main person we aimed at, Sgt. Sithole.
ADV DU PLESSIS: You discussed killing him, on that Sunday?
MR LUKHELE: That is correct. We had told ourselves that we are going to Sithole's house.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And was this Sithole, was he the policeman who lived in the house that you and your
friend went to with the handgrenades, was that the Roy policeman?
MR LUKHELE: No. Sithole is not Roy. That day we told ourselves that we are going to target Sithole, but
Mamasela told us to go to Roy, when he was bringing the handgrenades.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And you wanted to kill Roy that night is that correct?
MR LUKHELE: That is correct.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Right, I just want to understand this 100% clearly. If the first handgrenade had gone
into the house and Roy had come running out, you would have thrown the second handgrenade to Roy and
killed him?
MR LUKHELE: Yes, I would have done exactly that.
ADV DU PLESSIS: So there before your friend pulled out the pin of the first handgrenade, you had
already decided you were going to kill Roy, is that right?
MR LUKHELE: Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And at the mine, that day at the mine, when you were - you said about, I think 25
people, is that correct, were you 25 people at the mine?
MR LUKHELE: I did say that, I am not too sure about the figure, but maybe round about 25.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And all the people there at the mine, did they already identify policemen that they
wanted to kill or targets?
MR LUKHELE: I wouldn't know that much.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 766 MR LUKHELE
ADV DU PLESSIS: Didn't you discuss it with them there?
MR LUKHELE: We didn't discuss that, we were just given instructions by Mamasela.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Was there anybody after Mamasela had shown you the working of the handgrenades
and after he had said you must hit policemen and Councillors' houses, etc. was there anyone at that meeting
that said "no, we are not going to do that, I am not going to participate in this"?
MR LUKHELE: No-one and we were not shown the handgrenade by Mamasela it was Mike.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, alright, Mike - when you were shown the hand grenade by Mike. So nobody
said "No, I am not going to hit policemen's houses, I am not going to hit Councillors' houses" nobody said
that?
MR LUKHELE: No-one said that.
ADV DU PLESSIS: They were all happy with what was said by Mike?
MR LUKHELE: That is correct.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, if you will just bear with me, please. Now, this whole story of yours,
well your version if I can put it like that, about at your father's house, that you say Brig. Cronje came in
there, they took you into the forest, they put wood onto you, did you explain that to your legal
representatives before today, before you testified today?
MR LUKHELE: Yes, I did.
ADV DU PLESSIS: So you don't know why they didn't say to Brig. Cronje, "Why did you put wood on
my client's body", you don't know why they didn't confront Brig. Cronje with that, do you?
MR LUKHELE: Yes.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 767 MR LUKHELE
ADV DU PLESSIS: I just want to put to you that Brig. Cronje has informed me, I am doing this because it
wasn't put to Brig. Cronje during cross-examination that you would come and testify this, but I am putting
it to you that Brig. Cronje informed me that he left the following day after the incidents happened, he and
De Kock left the area, that area completely. I put that to you.
MR LUKHELE: That is a blatant lie, he is lying that is a green lie.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Why do you say he is lying?
MR LUKHELE: I saw him, I saw him at my home, he was there in person and he is the one who arrested
me, wanting the handgrenade.
JUDGE WILSON: I take it as the witness did, that when you put that, you meant that he left and he didn't
return. That he didn't participate in this?
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, that is how I understood it, I just want to take instructions personally,
my attorney took the instructions. Yes Mr Chairman, it is on that basis that I am putting it, he never
returned. I am putting to you that Brig. Cronje says that he never returned and that he never arrested you?
MR LUKHELE: He knows he is lying through his teeth because he actually arrested me.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Well then I find it strange that your legal representatives didn't put it to Brig. Cronje,
but I will leave it at that. Mr Chairman, I just want to make sure if there are further questions.
Do you know why Mike and James came to call you that first night when they came to discuss
with you when they came with the black Jetta, why did they contact you?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 768 MR LUKHELE
MR LUKHELE: I don't know.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Did they say to you why did they contact you?
MR LUKHELE: They didn't say.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And these other comrades that you contacted, did you know them all?
MR LUKHELE: Yes, I did.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Were you friends with them?
MR LUKHELE: Yes, we were.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Did they listen to you?
MR LUKHELE: That is correct.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Were you their leader?
MR LUKHELE: I was an organiser.
JUDGE WILSON: What does that mean?
MR LUKHELE: For instance if the comrades from Balfour came to visit us, I would look for a venue to
accommodate them or go to the Civic Centre and we would provide meals as well as transport for them.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Why did Mike and James ask you to get the other comrades together, why did they
ask you, do you know?
MR LUKHELE: I think they know, but I don't.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Don't you know why they didn't do it themselves?
MR LUKHELE: I do not know, because they came with comrade Congress.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Did they know the other comrades in that area, did they know the other comrades that
you got together?
MR LUKHELE: No, they didn't know them, or maybe they knew them, I wouldn't be sure.
JUDGE WILSON: Can I interrupt here for a moment and go
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 769 MR LUKHELE
back. They came with this one other comrade, Maakie Skosana, is it?
MR LUKHELE: Yes, that is correct.
JUDGE WILSON: Who was going around asking after you outside the hall and your comrades inside
advised you not to go out and join her, is that so?
MR LUKHELE: The comrades told her that she shouldn't call me for police, because the police were
actually looking for me at that time.
JUDGE WILSON: Did you ever ask her why she had come and called you?
MR LUKHELE: Yes, I did. She said to me I was wanted by Congress Mutsweni.
JUDGE MALL: Mr du Plessis, do carry on.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Chairman, I am nearly finished.
Can you tell us, when you spoke to Mike and James, please look at me and stop looking at your legal
representatives when I ask you the question, when you spoke to Mike and James was that the first time you
saw them, when they called you in the Jetta, when Maakie Skosana came to call you, was that the first time
you saw them, Mike and James?
MR LUKHELE: The first one, it was not the first time that I saw him.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Him, who, James or Mike?
MR LUKHELE: It was Mike.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Where did you see Mike before?
MR LUKHELE: He was staying at the corner house next to Maakie Skosana's place.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And why did you believe Mike and James that they could give you military training.
Why?
MR LUKHELE: It is because they came with a trusted or so-
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 770 MR LUKHELE
called trusted Congress Mutsweni.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Was Mutsweni an informer?
MR LUKHELE: Definitely not.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Alright, now can you remember in that period when people were detained, comrades
were detained by the police and they were set free later on again, were they regarded as leaders amongst the
comrades, were they respected?
MR LUKHELE: They were not respected.
ADV DU PLESSIS: I am referring to comrades who were detained by the police, comrades who were
caught throwing stones and burning vehicles, if they were detained by the police and they came out, were
they regarded as heroes in the community?
MR LUKHELE: We regarded them as part of the community.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Alright. And what did the people do with informers when they were caught?
MR LUKHELE: They would burn them.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Do you mean necklace them, or do you just mean burning?
MR LUKHELE: I am referring to burning, I didn't say necklacing.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Well, I am asking you, did that include necklacing?
MR LUKHELE: Necklacing.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Alright. And can you remember any attacks on policemen before your experience
that night, can you remember that the people attacked policemen's houses?
MR LUKHELE: I don't know about others, but I have never been involved in attacking police before then.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Did you speak to people before that who
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DU PLESSIS 770 MR LUKHELE
said that policemen's houses should be attacked?
MR LUKHELE: I never did.
ADV DU PLESSIS: I am not going to take it further. I am putting to you that I am going to argue that, that
contradicts with your previous evidence.
MR LUKHELE: At no stage did I say that.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Alright, and then one last question. Can you remember the comrades, were there
comrades and the people in COSAS and all these organisations, were there lots of school children involved
in these organisations?
MR LUKHELE: Yes.
ADV DU PLESSIS: And school children were comrades, is that right, like yourself?
MR LUKHELE: That is correct.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DU PLESSIS
JUDGE MALL: Mr Mpshe are there any questions?
NO EXAMINATION BY ADV MPSHE
JUDGE MALL: Any re-examination.
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DEN BERG: Mr Chairman, what I would have re-examined on
has been canvassed quite fully by Mr du Plessis. There is no re-examination.
JUDGE WILSON: You told us a moment ago that Mike stayed at the corner house next to Maakie
Skosana's place, which as I gather was a place which you used to visit?
MR LUKHELE: That is correct.
JUDGE WILSON: What did Mike do?
MR LUKHELE: Mike was a comrade, he would disappear and re-appear again.
JUDGE WILSON: He was a comrade and you knew him as such?
MR LUKHELE: That is correct.
JUDGE WILSON: He didn't work or anything that you knew?
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
JUDGE WILSON 771 MR LUKHELE
MR LUKHELE: Could the speaker repeat?
JUDGE WILSON: He didn't work, had he got a job as far as you know?
MR LUKHELE: No I never knew him as a working man.
JUDGE WILSON: Thank you.
JUDGE MALL: In your mind, is there a difference between a comrade and a Freedom Fighter?
MR LUKHELE: I see no difference.
JUDGE MALL: Thank you. Yes, you are excused. Thank you.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Mr Chairman, the witness indicates that he has something he would like to say, I
don't have instructions as to what it is, I don't know if you want to afford him the opportunity or whether I
should take instructions. I don't want to delay the proceedings any further.
JUDGE MALL: Just let him say what he wants to say.
MR LUKHELE: I would like the Truth Commission to investigate further because the man who was
training us, I saw him at Duduza during the hearings ...(intervention)
JUDGE MALL: Just hold it, I can't hear you properly, maybe if the Interpreter spoke a little more loudly,
carry on, you would like the Commission to what?
JUDGE WILSON: To investigate further ...(intervention)
MR LUKHELE: I would like the Truth Commission to further investigate because the man who trained us
was present at Duduza during the Duduza hearings and he was part of the audience, and I would request the
Honourable Committee to try as much as possible to get hold of this man.
JUDGE WILSON: Is that Mike?
MR LUKHELE: That is correct.
JUDGE MALL: Yes.
PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG
ADV DE JAGER 772 MR LUKHELE
ADV DE JAGER: Sorry, is that the man who stayed next to Maakie's house on the corner?
MR LUKHELE: That is correct.
JUDGE MALL: Is there anything else you wish to say?
MR LUKHELE: Yes.
JUDGE MALL: Yes?
MR LUKHELE: Yes, your Worship.
JUDGE MALL: Carry on.
MR LUKHELE: I am through.
JUDGE MALL: Thank you, you are excused.
WITNESS EXCUSED
MR VAN DEN BERG: Mr Chairman, it was my intention to call a further witness, I note that it is nearly
12.50. If I could give you an indication in five minutes or so as to whether I intend to call or not because if
we could adjourn now, I am sure that would assist the Committee.
JUDGE MALL: It would be convenient if we can sort this matter out as soon as possible.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Alright. Can I then take instructions, consider my position and then with Mr
Mpshe and Mr du Plessis, will revert to you.
JUDGE MALL: Yes.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
JUDGE MALL: Without too much delay.
MR VAN DEN BERG: As the Committee pleases.
COMMISSION ADJOURNS