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 AMNEST