TRC Final Report

Volume 1

Chapter 11

Part OtherDepts

Subsection 34

10 Another innovative concept involved assigning VIP protectors to protect witnesses in their own homes. This saved the costs of obtaining safe houses and ensured that witnesses’ lives were not disrupted.

11 Where there was justification for placing witnesses in safe houses, the witness protector persuaded various state organisations to make accommodation available free or at reduced cost.

12 In the regions, contact was made with persons in each area who could, at no cost to the Commission, deal with emergencies in their communities until the regional official became available. This kept staff appointments to a minimum. For example, a single officer was appointed in Cape Town to cover a region extending as far as Upington, Kimberley and Port Elizabeth.

13 Unofficial nodal points were established to assist in the gathering of intelligence. These included the National Intelligence Agency, the D’Oliviera investigative unit (a special unit set up by the Gauteng Attorney-General), the Investigation Task Unit and the Department of Justice witness protection programme. In addition, security officers were encouraged to maintain contact with their former units and dip into their informer networks.

14 At the outset, requests for protection came from three sources: first, victims who were being terrorised by vigilante groups linked to various political parties; second, potential witnesses who feared for their safety and security should they disclose what they knew or had done, and third, confidence tricksters who, often motivated by financial enrichment, wished to mislead the Commission by falsely professing knowledge of cases under investigation. Such misrepresentation was easily achieved because of the media publicity accorded to such cases over the years, the absence of independent eyewitnesses and the destruction of official documentation. It is a tribute to the calibre of the security officers that the confidence tricksters were identified without compromising the programme. In one extreme case, the culprit was prosecuted on a charge of making a false statement to the Commission, convicted and sentenced to a year’s imprisonment.

15 Geographically, most applications were received from the politically unstable KwaZulu-Natal region, followed by the former ‘Vaal Triangle’. Because of this, an early decision was taken to transfer the East London officer to Durban, where one officer on his own could not be expected to cope with the demand.

16 By October 1996, the emphasis had changed. During this period, requests were received from potential amnesty applicants who feared reprisals when testifying at public hearings. The protection of persons at hearings was labour intensive and involved bringing together security officers from various regions. This process led to further public exposure of the programme. These ventures could not have succeeded but for additional assistance provided by the South African Police Services (SAPS) Special Task Force and public order policing units.

17 By this stage, the witness protection programme had succeeded in placing a large number of witnesses under protection, well within the allocated budget. In November 1996, the Commissioner in charge of the Investigation Unit decided that the Witness Protection Unit should also be used for investigation work. As the Unit’s staff had long experience in the investigation and prosecution of political crimes, this decision was welcomed and regarded as a tribute to its success.

18 While maintaining its role as witness protector, the Unit achieved the following successes. A senior member of the security police compound at Vlakplaas was persuaded to make a complete disclosure. His statements, particularly as regards secret orders issued by generals, were passed on to the Investigation Unit and made a major impact on section 29 inquiries. As a direct and immediate result of this disclosure, a group of former security officers headed by an ex-director decided to ‘come clean’ and were debriefed by the Witness Protection Unit. In response to these developments, the Eastern Cape Security Branch, which had previously vehemently resisted the Commission’s investigations, made direct contact with the Unit. Consequently, the following cases were solved: the disappearance and murder of Madaka and Mthimkulu; the ‘PEBCO Three’; the ‘Cradock Four’; Steve Biko; Kondile and Mkhuseli Jack. Thereafter, the Unit extensively debriefed a significant number of members of the Directorate of Covert Intelligence of the South African Defence Force Military Intelligence. In addition, considerable low key assistance was given to regional investigation units.

■ STAFFING

19 Six posts were created for security officers. Given the circumstances surrounding the setting up of the programme, a decision was taken to fill the posts with persons seconded from the SAPS. One officer was posted at each regional office of the Commission, and two additional national appointments were made.

20 The two national security officers were given the titles of VIP protector and intelligence officer. The former was required to attend to all high-risk cases where witnesses required twenty-four hour a day protection. The latter acted as a link between the regional officers and the witness protector and also conducted risk evaluations.

21 The VIP protector and the Cape Town officer cancelled their secondments shortly after their appointment and were replaced with secondments from the offices of the Commissioner of Police, Pretoria and the regional Police Commissioner in the Western Cape. In January 1997, the intelligence officer cancelled his secondment; the Johannesburg officer followed suit in July 1997. A member of the uniform branch of the SAPS at Brixton and a member of the Department of Correctional Services filled their posts in March 1998.

22 A senior secretary/administrator was appointed to assist the witness protector.