TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION COMMISSION

AMNESTY HEARING

DATE: 29 MARCH 2000

HELD AT: PRETORIA

NAME: MAGIEL ANDRIES STEFANUS PRETORIUS

MATTER: CELO RAMAKOPE AND LEONARD BROWN INCIDENTS

DAY: 2

--------------------------------------------------------------------------CHAIRPERSON: Good morning everybody. Today is the 29th of March. I see familiar faces we had here yesterday, but for the record, I am Motata from the TPD. On my left we have Mr Malan from Johannesburg and on my right I have Adv Sandi from East London, and I would request legal representatives to place their names on record and who they appear for, just for the sake of having a beautiful record. I would start on my left.

MR ROUX: As it pleases you Chairperson. The name is Jaco Roux from the Pretoria Bar on instruction of the firm Strydom Britz of Pretoria. I appear in these applications on behalf of Paul Jacobus van Vuuren, Robert Lesley Jubber, Magiel Andries Stefanus Pretorius, Jan Hattingh Cronje and Jacques Hechter. During the pre-trial conference it was agreed that the fourth applicant, Johannes Jacobus Viktor, that it would be mentioned by our legal team to the representative of Viktor, Visser SC, whether there are any references to him the documents or in the evidence. The answer to that was negative and that is why he is not here today and he's also not represented because he cannot apply for these incidents, he was not involved here. As it pleases.

CHAIRPERSON: In other words, he withdraws his application.

MR ROUX: I would draw that inference, that he withdraws his application, from what has been agreed by the legal teams, I cannot speak on his behalf, but I will assume so.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Roux.

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon, Chairperson, before you continue, Mr Roux, if I have it correctly, in the application of Cronje with his supplementary application there is a reference to Viktor on page 148 of the bundle with regard to the Leonard Brown incident. I assume that you have a statement that would amend that?

MR ROUX: I do not have such a statement right now.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: We can continue.

MS NGOMANE: As it pleases the Court. I'm Helen Ngomane and I am representing the families of Modimeng and Ramakope at Brits. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR RICHARD: My name is Tony Richard. I represent Leonard Brown.

ADV STEENKAMP: Honourable Chairperson, my surname is Steenkamp. I will be the Evidence Leader. There was also a request from my Learned Colleagues that your leave be extended from yesterday that people do appear before the Committee without, at least the gentlemen, without jackets, Honourable Chairperson, if that can be allowed again. Thank you. Without their jackets, Honourable Chairperson, if they can remove their jackets during today. Thanks.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, may we just say that whoever feels very hot in this cold weather is entitled, even the applicants if they so feel that they would be more comfortable without jackets, please go ahead without getting any permission, for the entire day. Mr Roux, I think you would be in a position to start.

MR ROUX: Chairperson indeed, I am in a position to commence. We have discussed, the legal representatives, in order to clear up some disputes and I think we have succeeded that is why our evidence will only be led with regard to the aspects where there is a dispute.

CHAIRPERSON: The Committee is obliged. The Committee is indebted. Mr Roux, with whom will you commence?

MR ROUX: Chairperson, the first witness who will be led is Pretorius. Magiel Andries Stefanus Pretorius, this is the third applicant. In this regard I would like some leadership. I would like to ask for an amendment of a date which appears, this date, and wherever it may appear elsewhere, you will find on page 87 under the heading 9(a)(ii), you will note that in all the applicants' applications, I apologise that is my mistake. It is not that specific page. I would refer you to page 94. With regard to the incidents, Leonard Brown and Celo Ramakope, I shall request an amendment for all the applicants with regard to the date mentioned under 9(a)(iii), the amendment which I shall request is in line with the evidence and I shall request that that date be amended to "during May 1986". I do not want to pre-empt the evidence, but that will be the evidence that with regard to Leonard Brown and Celo Ramakope, that these two incidents had taken place on one evening and with the leave of the Committee, I shall ask for leave to lead evidence or to deal with the evidence of the two incidents as one, on the one evening, so that it would save some time and then afterwards the David Modimeng matter will be dealt with, that was later during the month of May, possibly on the 27th of May. And also to shorten the procedure because the two incidents, Brown and Ramakope, had taken place on one evening. If I may do so?

CHAIRPERSON: Are there any objections to this amendment?

MS NGOMANE: There's no objection. Thank you.

MR RICHARD: No objection.

ADV STEENKAMP: No objection, Honourable Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: The amendment is granted to all the applicants who will refer to that date.

MR ROUX: I am indebted to the Committee. I shall continue leading the evidence of Pretorius with regard to the disputes which have been identified by the legal representatives and as far as possible, to confirm the other aspects.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Malan, will you administer the oath please?

MAGIEL ANDRIES STEFANUS PRETORIUS: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Roux, you may continue.

MR ROUX: I am indebted to you.

EXAMINATION BY MR ROUX: Mr Pretorius, with regard to the amendments I would firstly like to request of you to confirm that the Leonard Brown incident as well as the Celo Ramakope incident had taken place during May but before the David Modimeng incident, is that correct?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR ROUX: And that these incidents, Brown and Ramakope, had taken place on one occasion, in other words on one evening?

MR PRETORIUS: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR ROUX: Will you please have regard for page 60, up to page 86, with regard to the general background and the various requirements of the Act and if you have completed studying this, would you confirm it?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, I have studied it and I confirm, Chairperson.

MR ROUX: And you associate yourself the contents thereof?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes I do, Chairperson.

MR ROUX: Will you please have a look at page 90, from the letter 10(a) and confirm the contents therein, up to page 93, at the bottom thereof?

MR PRETORIUS: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR ROUX: And then page 96, next to the letter 10(a), can you confirm the contents thereof, up to page 100?

MR PRETORIUS: Correct, Chairperson.

MR ROUX: And then page 102, next to the letter 10(a), at the bottom of the page up to page 107?

MR PRETORIUS: Correct, Chairperson.

MR ROUX: Do you associate yourself with the contents of all these pages which you have confirmed right now?

MR PRETORIUS: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR ROUX: Chairperson, I wish to place on record at this stage that these confirmations include all three incidents, so that we do not have to repeat it again. I do this in the initial stages, so that we have completed this and then we can continue with the factual disputes, if this has your approval.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, it shall so be approved.

MR ROUX: Mr Pretorius, during 1986, were you involved or were you attached to the Security Branch of the South African Police at a sub-branch at Brits?

MR PRETORIUS: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR ROUX: Who was your Commander?

MR PRETORIUS: At that stage I served under the command of the then Captain Jubber who, on his part, then served under the Security Branch Northern Transvaal.

MR ROUX: Will you briefly, because this aspect will be disputed, give us the factual situation and the background as to what had happened in the Brits area at that stage and specifically in Okasi? Would you please mention this to the Committee?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, at that stage Okasi was the same what had happened in the rest of the country, unrest and those types of things, but what had happened in Okasi was that the Government had decided to develop a black residential area at Letlhabile, it's approximately ... The reason for this was that Okasi's infrastructure was poor, there was no infrastructure, to put it as such and the Government of the day had decided that it would be better to move those people. So it boiled down to a forced removal and they were told that there would be better circumstances although it would be further from town. The inhabitants of Okasi were opposed to this, that they had to move to Letlhabile and then they began with an anti-removal campaign in Okasi. What followed on this was the Brits Action Committee was established, then the BAC, whose purpose was to mobilise the community against the removal and I think most of the people of Okasi supported or belonged to this organisation. Besides the anti-removal campaign, this was a period marked by school boycotts, consumer boycotts and Trade Union activities, which led to unrest at factories and so forth. Brits had a large industrial area but within two years, because of the industrial unrest there was constant strikes and if I recall correctly there were 24 factories who had to close their doors within two years and this was because of the labour unrest at the factories.

MR ROUX: What type of violence reigned in Okasi and in the surrounding areas, Brits, at that stage?

MR PRETORIUS: As I have said, what had happened then was that I recall specifically it was Sunday morning, I cannot recall the date. A meeting had taken place in the Roman Catholic Church hall, if I recall correctly, where the BAC was founded, or they were already founded but there was the meeting about this anti-forced removal campaign and it was made clear there that the people who wanted to move would have to keep in mind that many of the people in Okasi who wanted to move to Letlhabile out of their, because the circumstances would be better for them, there was running water and other amenities, they could buy plots for something like R40 where he could build a house of his own choice.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Pretorius, may I just interrupt you? It is difficult for the interpreter to keep up with you, would you please go a little bit slower so that he can keep us with you? Thank you.

MR PRETORIUS: As I have said earlier, this morning they met and during the meeting, youths came into the hall with petrol bombs in their possession and it was briefly afterwards that these youths went out and they started attacking places. I think the first place, if I recall correctly was Mr Rashinani, who owned a shop in Brits, in Okasi. His shop, his vehicles and his home were destroyed in the fire and afterwards there was total chaos in Okasi, various places were set alight, roads were blocked, the Administration offices in Okasi were burned down. These are some of the incidents that I can just recall off the top of my head. Residences of people who had indicated that they would move to Letlhabile were also attacked and persons were intimidated and assaulted.

MR ROUX: Would you describe the condition in Brits then with the rest of the country where total anarchy reigned, disorder, intimidation, assault and in the Brits vicinity specifically in Okasi?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, Chairperson, as I've already said, all over the country there were unrests, but what added to the Brits situation was the anti-removal campaign which had taken place, because of the proposed plan of the Government to force people to move to Letlhabile.

MR ROUX: Very well. What was your task as a field worker at that stage?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson as I have said, at that stage I was a constable attached to the Security Branch at Brits. I have already mentioned that we were a sub-branch of Northern Transvaal Security Branch. Us and Bronkhorstspruit were two sub-branches who were founded and we reported directly to Northern Transvaal Security Branch. My duties at that stage were, because it was not a big branch, and therefore many duties were given to persons. My responsibilities were to perform various duties, for example the monitoring of various Trade Unions and leadership figures within the Trade Unions as well as church organisations and any other black power activities that might take place, as well as far right organisations and as I've already mentioned, Trade Unions and with regard to ANC, PAC and Azapo, those types of activities.

MR ROUX: Very well. You have already confirmed, can you briefly refer us to how you had obtained this information with regard to the Church organisations and the Trade Unions?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, the best way we could gather information was to infiltrate the organisation by itself and this was done by means of informants. One would recruit persons who were offered payment for their duties in order to supply information with regard to persons and the organisation itself and supplementary to that observations were done wherever it was possible, in order to physically monitor certain persons' movements as well as the interception of mail as well as the tapping of telephones.

MR ROUX: Is it possible to say how many informers were used in Okasi with regard to the gathering of information with regard to persons about whom you will testify later?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson at this stage I cannot recall how many informers I handled, there were quite many, but as I said that there were other people who worked with me who also had their informers and they also gathered information and this came to my desk.

MR ROUX: You referred to information which came to your desk, how was that information put together and what did you do with it?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, after an incident on a weekly basis when one spoke to an informer, one would try to get a written report from him with regard to the activities which he would have monitored. The information was evaluated and thereafter a written report was drawn up which contained all the information. The information would then be submitted to my Branch Commander, Captain Jubber, who would check it and then if it is correct, he would submit it to Northern Transvaal Security Branch because we were directly under their command and all our information went to them.

MR ROUX: Who at the Northern Transvaal Security Branch was the Commander?

MR PRETORIUS: At that stage in 1986 it was Brig Jack Cronje.

MR ROUX: Did you ever were work with Jacques Hechter?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson as I have already said, I knew him well. They were my seniors, or they were my Commanders from Northern Transvaal Security Branch. I did not gather information directly with him, but I performed some other duties along with him.

MR ROUX: In rank, were you subordinate to Hechter at that stage?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, Chairperson, as I have said, at that stage I was a constable and if I recall correct Hechter was a Lieutenant. In other words, I was not an officer and he was an officer.

MR ROUX: Very well then. Let us then move on to the specific persons and let us start with Ramakope. Can you recall what the information was with regard to this specific person? What did he involve himself with and to what extent was he involved, if at all?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, Celo Ramakope was at that stage a member of the Trade Union National Automobile and Allied Workers Union, NAAWU, he was also the Chairperson of the shop stewards at Firestone factory in Brits and Firestone factory, from time to time, had strikes which dealt a heavy blow to production there. As I have already mentioned, the strikes led to the closure of some of these factories. Persons were paid off and became unemployed. The sat in Okasi and this became a breeding ground for violence because of the poor sociological conditions that reigned in Okasi.

As I've already said, the anti-removal campaign was a loudspeaker for the people who were opposing the removal.

MR ROUX: How active was Mr Ramakope with these organisations and how much of a prominent figure was he?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson at this Brits Action Committee that was founded, he was on the Committee, in other words he had some influence among the inhabitants of Okasi, he was very active at that stage.

MR ROUX: Very well. What other information did you gather with regard to Ramakope and how did you deal with that information?

MR PRETORIUS: As I have said, all the information that was gathered and information available to us was that these youths under the leadership of Leonard Brown, who acted as, I do not want to call it this, but I do not know what to call it, they acted as a hit squad, they did all the dirty work for the BAC and the instructions were given through from the Brits Action Committee as to who and what had to be attacked and the information which I gathered, as I have said, I conveyed to my Commander, Captain Jubber and he conveyed it on his part to the Northern Transvaal Security Branch.

MR ROUX: Very well. If we can deal with Leonard Brown. What type of information did you have and what was he involved with and to what extent?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, Leonard Brown was not involved with a specific organisation, but according to informants, he was a great supporter of the ANC. He advocated the ANC in Okasi, he had a dynamic personality and he had much influence, or he exerted much influence on the youth, they followed him blindly. The information that I had gathered was that Leonard Brown was involved in the training of the youths in the surroundings of Okasi where he taught them how to manufacture petrol bombs. There was furthermore information that he had contact with members of Umkhonto weSizwe, MK as we knew them. As I've said, later Leonard Brown, he joined the PPP, he was involved in the former Bophuthatswana elections.

MR ROUX: Very well. This factual conduct, are you able to tell the Committee how it came about that the houses of Ramakope and Brown were attacked, by commencing with telling us when this was?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, as I have said, I cannot recall the exact date, but during the day I was called in by my Commander, Capt Jubber, he informed me that that evening I had to report in Pretoria to the Northern Transvaal Security Branch parking area and that I would meet with Lieut Jacques Hechter there. He only informed me that we had to handle this on a need-to-know basis between him and I and that we would execute certain disruption actions in Brits.

MR ROUX: Did you know what this disruption would entail, or what action this would entail?

MR PRETORIUS: At that stage I did not know and as I have said, that evening ...(intervention)

MR ROUX: One moment please. What month was this? Can you recall what month this was of 1986?

MR PRETORIUS: If I recall correctly Chairperson, it was 1986.

MR ROUX: Was this before the David Modimeng incident?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, this was early in the month.

MR ROUX: Please continue.

MR PRETORIUS: As I have said, Chairperson, that evening I drove through to Pretoria to the Security Branch, which was in Pretorius Street and upon my arrival in the parking area, I met Lieut Hechter there. There were other persons there as well. It was dark at that stage. I cannot recall who the other persons were. The fact that I can recall Lieut Hechter was because it was told to me that I had to report to him and that Lieut Hechter would come to me and speak to me.

MR ROUX: And that was the evening that you met him there?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, in the parking area. Afterwards all of us climbed into a minibus, after which we departed for Brits. Lieut Hechter informed me that there were two homes in Okasi that I was to identify for them, namely the home of Celo Ramakope and Leonard Brown. Upon our arrival at Okasi, before we moved into Okasi, all of us donned balaclavas in order to render us unrecognisable. Lieut Hechter informed me that I was to identify Ramakope's residence first and after that the residence of Leonard Brown. Celo Ramakope's residence was situated at the upper part of Okasi and Leonard Brown's home was closer to the exit. I identified Ramakope's home to them. We stopped, some of the persons climbed out and I saw that they threw petrol bombs in the direction of Celo Ramakope's home.

MR ROUX: Who climbed out, can you recall?

MR PRETORIUS: No, I cannot recall who disembarked from the vehicle. The persons re-embarked into the minibus immediately and we drove away. We moved down into Okasi. At Leonard Brown's home we drove slower. His home was situated on the left-hand side as one departed from Okasi. I pointed out Leonard Brown's home to Lieut Hechter and I also identified where Leonard Brown would be sleeping in the home according to relevant information. We drove some distance past the house and then we stopped. Lieut Hechter and another person disembarked from the vehicle. I cannot recall the other person and they moved back in the direction of Leonard Brown's home. After a while they returned speedily, they climbed back into the vehicle and we departed in haste. Just after we had departed, I heard a loud blow occurring behind me. Upon this we returned to Pretoria where my vehicle was. I climbed back into my vehicle and drove back to my home in Mooinooi, where I was residing at that stage. The following day at the office, I was informed by the other members that there was a fire at Celo Ramakope's home and that there had been an explosion at Leonard Brown's home. As far as I know, nobody was injured or killed during these incidents.

MR ROUX: This information that you received with regard to the homes, were you well familiar with Okasi and where the prominent figures resided?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, as I have already stated, one of my duties as a field-worker was to gather as much information with regard to the activists or suspects who had been identified and because there were many problems in Okasi, we were in Okasi on a daily basis. We moved around in the area to determine whether or not people were at home, we monitored such persons, that is why I knew precisely where the home of the respective subjects were situated.

MR MALAN: While you are on this point, why did you know where Brown would be sleeping?

MR PRETORIUS: The information indicated that he slept with his parents and that was told to me by informers beforehand, that Leonard Brown stayed in the same room with his parents in that house. Because there was information that Leonard Brown could possibly be involved with MK activities, we also tried to conduct surveillance on his residence quite regularly and in so doing, we would be able to determine which rooms of the house Leonard Brown used.

MR MALAN: Well the reaction that I have to the evidence is the following. Why would you tell us that all that you knew was that you would be involved in disruptive activities when you met Hechter and he only asked you to identify two homes and you drove to Okasi and you told us that you also pointed out to him in which room Brown would be sleeping. It would appear, in other words, as if you had other information prior to the time and knew that certain disruptive actions were being planned and you did not tell us this in your evidence. Was the possibility of disruptive actions discussed beforehand?

MR PRETORIUS: No. No disruptive activities were discussed with me before the time. The day upon which I was informed by my Commander is the first day upon which I became aware.

MR MALAN: So if you surveiled people, you knew where they were staying and in which rooms of the houses they would be staying?

MR PRETORIUS: If it was possible, I tried to obtain as much information in order to compile a profile of such a person.

MR MALAN: But why was it important to know in which room of a house a person would be sleeping, for the sake of his profile?

MR PRETORIUS: Those were my duties and that is what I did at that stage, to identify the precise situation of a person.

MR MALAN: Was it part of the description of your duties to know precisely where a person stayed and in which room of a home he would be sleeping?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, as I have stated, it was important for me to identify the personís home.

MR MALAN: Yes, I can understand that, Mr Pretorius, but my question is that I cannot understand why it would be necessary for one to know in which room of which house a person would be sleeping. Can you provide any further information to me about that, or can you not assist me?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, as I have already stated, because I knew where Leonard Brown would be sleeping, the reason for this is that we had searched his home on previous occasions and during such search we had managed to procure documents about his activities and that is why I knew precisely which section of the home he would be using.

MR MALAN: When you say that you procured documents, did you do so with his knowledge, or did you steal these documents?

MR PRETORIUS: No, he was present during the search.

MR MALAN: Very well. Thank you.

ADV SANDI: Sorry. Just explain something to me before you go any further. Earlier on in your evidence, I understood you to say part of the information you had from your informers was that Mr Leonard Brown was a member of the MK, he had contact with the MK, the military wing of the ANC. You are now saying he was possibly involved with the MK. Can you explain what exactly is the position in this regard?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, Chairperson, I mentioned that there was information indicating that Leonard Brown could possibly be in contact with MK members who were infiltrating into the country and that he was involved with the training of the youth with regard to the manufacturing of petrol bombs. The information that we had indicated that he was definitely a member of the ANC which was a prohibited organisation at that stage and there was also information indicating that he was involved with MK activities, that he himself was not an MK member as such, but that he was definitely involved with their structures, that he collaborated with the MK.

ADV SANDI: In other words, this was not just a suspicion, it was something you established as a matter of fact, that he was in fact involved with the MK, is that what you are saying?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, we regarded someone as a full member of MK, if he had received training abroad, military training. As I have stated, I think the correct word would be that he was a collaborator with MK, he assisted MK and co-operated with them.

ADV SANDI: Can you just explain to me a little bit about this PPP? How did it feature into the politics and dynamics of the area in question, the PPP?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, I have stated it there. It was later, as I've already stated, if I recall Leonard Brown succeeded in becoming the Chairperson of the Brits Action Committee, especially due to all the conflict among the leadership, it was at this time when there were two prominent leaders from the Brits Action Committee, Marshall Buys, he was murdered and another member, Oliver Molokwane was also murdered, both murders have not yet been solved to this day and as I have stated, Leonard Brown was involved with everything which could possibly be against the Government.

ADV SANDI: Thank you. Maybe you can follow that up a little later on.

MR ROUX: In other words, Mr Pretorius, was your involvement with these two incidents due to instructions that you had received from Jubber at that stage and did you then perform under Lieut Hechter's command at that stage?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, that is correct. I received the order from my direct Commander, Capt Jubber, my Branch Commander and the incidents which took place, were executed under the command and instruction of Capt Jacques Hechter.

MR ROUX: In other words, were you the most suitable person at that stage, to assist Jacques Hechter in the disruptive actions?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson I was probably elected to assist with it, but it was due to the knowledge that I had with regard to the activities of these figures and also due to the work that I had performed and the fact that I was also very familiar with these places in Okasi.

MR ROUX: How accurate was the information that you have received from your informers?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, I did not rely on the information of only one informer. If I received information it would have to be confirmed by other informers before one could regard it as information of relevance or interest.

MR ROUX: Is it possible that with some cases, incorrect information may have been sent through to you from informers?

MR PRETORIUS: I cannot dispute that. It is a possibility.

MR ROUX: Is this all with regard to the relevant situation pertaining to Brown and Ramakope?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, that is correct.

MR ROUX: If you could grant me one moment please, Chairperson. I may have been mistaken by referring to Modimeng, it should be Brown and Ramakope, it was a slip of the mind, I beg your pardon. That is all the evidence pertaining to this applicant and with regard to these two incidents.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR ROUX

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Roux. Mr Richard and Ms Ngomane, who is able to start first with cross-examination?

MS NGOMANE: I will proceed. May I be granted a minute, Mr Chairperson?

ADV SANDI: I'm sorry Chair, can I ask a question whilst Ms Ngomane is trying to get herself ready?

CHAIRPERSON: Certainly, Adv Sandi.

ADV SANDI: Can I just ask, the PPP, that is the People's Progressive Party, that's what you were referring to? PPP, of which Brown became a member at some stage. Did I understand you correctly?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, Chairperson, if I recall correctly, I stated in my affidavit that I found out later that Leonard had joined the PPP of Mr Molokwane ...(indistinct) and by saying that he was no longer a member of the ANC.

ADV SANDI: At what stage was that? Would that be before the attack here?

MR PRETORIUS: No, Chairperson, it was long afterwards. I think it was approximately at the time of the election in 1994.

ADV SANDI: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Pretorius, just for the sake of the record, was the district of Brits part of Bophuthatswana?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, Brits was not part of Bophuthatswana, it was part of the RSA at that stage.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MS NGOMANE: Mr Chairperson, can I just adjourn for two minutes, I just want to confirm some facts with Mr Ramakope?

CHAIRPERSON: If it's agreeable to everybody, we'll have early tea. Is that agreeable, Mr Roux?

MR ROUX: Thank you Chair, it is acceptable.

CHAIRPERSON: We'll adjourn for 15 minutes and Ms Ngomane will, in the interim, take instructions from Mr Ramakope. We're adjourned.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

MAGIEL ANDRIES STEFANUS PRETORIUS (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Ngomane, are you in a position to begin with you cross-examination?

MS NGOMANE: I'm ready. Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS NGOMANE: Do you confirm the information on the declaration or affidavit that you made? Do you confirm the contents thereof?

CHAIRPERSON: He has confirmed that, if you recall, when he started testifying, pages 91 - 93, 96 to 100, 102 - 107. He confirmed the contents in respect of those pages, which is his application basically.

MR MALAN: Sorry, for clarity sake he did not confirm the specific description of the incidents, that was led viva voce, but he confirmed all the others.

MS NGOMANE: Mr Chairperson what I'm getting at is the contents in the affidavit which he made, how the incident took place when Mr Ramakope's house was bombed.

MR MALAN: That he did not confirm. He led that viva voce. If you have any inconsistencies, you're entitled to cross-examine on that.

MS NGOMANE: Thank you. Mr Pretorius you said earlier on in your examination in chief that you were a field worker, is that correct?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct, Chairperson.

MS NGOMANE: You had to make surveillance of different activists who were staying in Okasi, is that correct?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct, Chairperson.

MS NGOMANE: You had informants.

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, I had various informers.

MS NGOMANE: You had information that there was unrest at Okasi, is that correct?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, I didn't only have information, I was in Okasi myself at the time of the unrest.

MS NGOMANE: I didn't hear the answer. I asked you a question whether ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: Won't you use the earpiece, it will be easier for you to get the answer. There is an Afrikaans channel, I'm also listening to the Afrikaans channel, it's just clearer, it makes it much easier.

MS NGOMANE: As the Chairman pleases. Your task was to point out ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Ngomane, to come back to your answer, he says he was in Okasi itself when the unrest took place. He did not get information about that, he was within Okasi itself.

MS NGOMANE: Thank you Mr Chairperson. Did you rely on other evidence, except those of the known informants, who were supplying this information? Did you rely on other information, Mr Pretorius?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, as I have already stated in my application, we made use of the interception of private postal items as well as the tapping of telephones and we also bugged certain places, to put it that way, that was with tapping devices.

MS NGOMANE: On the day in question, Mr Pretorius, were all the telephones in Okasi taped, or were particular individuals whose telephones were taped?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, it would be impossible to tap all the telephones in Okasi, we didn't have the staff capacity to listen to all the telephonic conversations. It was only with regard to unique cases or cases that were of interest to us that we tapped telephones.

MS NGOMANE: Did you tape Celo Ramakope's telephone?

MR PRETORIUS: I cannot remember whether his was also tapped.

MS NGOMANE: You stated earlier on in your examination in chief that your duty was to monitor and survey, make surveillance of activists who were troublemakers at Okasi, is that correct?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct, Chairperson.

MS NGOMANE: Do you recall tapping Mr Celo Ramakope's telephone, Mr Pretorius?

MR PRETORIUS: As I have already stated, I cannot recall.

MS NGOMANE: Mr Pretorius, you stated earlier on that you met with Capt Jubber, you got information from your Commander, Jubber, that you had to meet Captain, as he was then, Lieut Hechter in Pretoria, is that correct?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, that is correct.

MS NGOMANE: Did you know Mr Hechter before you went to Okasi?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, I don't really understand "before I went to Okasi".

CHAIRPERSON: What happened is that he was called by his Commander Jubber, that he would meet with - he should go to Pretoria and meet with Capt Hechter and his evidence is that he is the only one he could remember because that's the person who would come and speak to him and that is Hechter and the inference drawn there from is that he did not know him. I don't know if I'm interpreting everything. And I'm just corrected that he did actually know him and that's the only person in the lot that was in the minibus that he remembers. He cannot recall the other persons.

MS NGOMANE: Mr Pretorius, you took a minibus to Okasi, is that correct?

MR PRETORIUS: No, Chairperson as I have stated I came to Pretoria, after which all of us climbed into a minibus and went to Okasi. I cannot recall who the driver was, I simply conducted the identification of the places.

MS NGOMANE: Mr Pretorius, I just wanted to go back to your declaration that you made just now, let me come to the specific page. You indicated that you were in your white Skyline, I just want to confirm with you whether you were in a white kombi or you were in a white Nissan Skyline, can you please clarify it?

MR ROUX: Chairperson, I do not wish to chastise my learned friend, but she is confusing matters. We are now busy with Ramakope and Brown, that is from 94 and further. The facts are on page 95. My learned friend is referring to the case of David Modimeng, which is on page 88 and I do not wish for any confusion to occur with regard to the evidence when it comes to what exactly is being discussed.

CHAIRPERSON: That is actually correct, Ms Ngomane.

MS NGOMANE: I beg Mr Chairman's pardon, I was looking at Modimeng. My apologies.

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, I was also wondering where you're getting to, but thanks to Mr Roux.

MS NGOMANE: Was it possible, Mr Pretorius, to arrest those people who were in favour of the anti-removal campaign? Was it possible to arrest those people in the circumstances? Mr Pretorius, I asked you a question. Let me rephrase it again.

CHAIRPERSON: Let me just assist you. Don't be impatient with the witness, because he is waiting from the translation from English to Afrikaans. He does hear, but he is waiting for the translation. Just bear with him in that respect.

MR ROUX: May I just clarify something? Perhaps we could change his headphones to ensure that he can hear everything. The witness indicates that he would prefer to indicates in Afrikaans so that he does not make a mistake, so unfortunately she will have to be a little bit patient, my learned friend.

CHAIRPERSON: It's his right to get the translation in his own language so that when he responds, he responds accordingly.

MS NGOMANE: As a field worker Mr Pretorius, you knew which activists were doing this anti-removal campaign.

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, Chairperson, as I have already testified, we monitored these persons, we identified them by means of the information that we received. There was the Brits Action Committee, which was basically a term for those persons who were opposed to the removal campaign and that is how we came to know of them.

MS NGOMANE: Just a moment, Mr Chairperson. You stated in your evidence-in-chief that the Government wanted to move the people of Okasi to Letlhabile, is that correct?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct, Chairperson.

MS NGOMANE: Was it possible to monitor who wanted to move to Letlhabile, or was it impossible, as you have monitored the situation before?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, it wasn't possible to say who was in favour of moving and who wasn't, that was an unknown figure. All that I can say is that some were in favour of doing so, because it would have been a new place for them to stay and some were not in favour of this.

MS NGOMANE: Why? Were they also monitored?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, as I have already stated, they were members of the management of the Brits Action Committee. I think Mr Buys was the Chairperson, if I recall correctly.

MS NGOMANE: What would you say if Mr Ramakope would come and state that Mr Buys and Mr Molukwane were in favour of the anti-removal campaign?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, if I understand the question correctly, you mean that it is so that Mr Buys and Mr Molukwane were members of the Action Committee who were opposed to the removal. That is the information that I have testified about and that I want to reconfirm. They were part of the management of the Committee, so they opposed the removal. The reason why they were later murdered is not known to us, all we know is that there was conflict amongst the members of the management and that the entire top structure of the Committee changed at a later stage. If I recall correctly, Leonard Brown was the Chairperson of this Action Committee at a later stage.

MS NGOMANE: Mr Molukwane was part of the Brits Action Committee. He was in favour of staying in Okasi, he didn't want to move.

MR MALAN: Yes, that was his evidence-in-chief and he confirmed it again.

MS NGOMANE: Mr Chairperson, these conflicts, he says they were opposed to the ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: No. No with respect, he never said they were opposed, he said now that at some stage, and he said it earlier, that conflict developed within the BAC in the management structures and at some later - these two individuals were then murdered, these cases haven't been solved and at a later stage Leonard Brown, if he remembers correctly, became the Chair of the BAC. That was his evidence and he's confirmed it again.

MS NGOMANE: Well, for the moment I'll just leave the question, but I'll come back to it to get clarity.

MR MALAN: No, if it's not clear, put it to him again, but that's how we heard his evidence and these are our notes.

MS NGOMANE: Mr Buys, you stated earlier - oh thank you, Mr Chairperson, pardon. Mr Pretorius, you stated earlier that you were a field worker, you were monitoring the situation. You had to show Capt Hechter where Mr Ramakope was staying, is that correct?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct, Chairperson.

MS NGOMANE: When you met Hechter you knew that Celo Ramakope and Leonard Brown would be bombed on that particular day. Is that correct?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson as I have already stated, upon my arrival in Pretoria, Lieut Hechter informed me that I was to identify Celo and Brown's homes to him in Okasi. He did not inform me what he was going to do. At that stage I knew that we were going to commit some form of a disruptive action, I didn't know precisely what sort of action they were going to execute. Furthermore, upon my arrival, after I had pointed out Celo's home to them, some of the occupants of the vehicle jumped out and I saw them lighting petrol bombs and then tossing these petrol bombs in the direction of the home. Subsequently we went to Brown's home. I told them where the house was, we drove some distance past the house. Two of the occupants climbed out, thereafter I heard a blow behind me. I didn't see precisely what they were going to do at every home.

MS NGOMANE: Earlier on you stated that you got an instruction from your Commander, that is Cronje, that you had to meet with Hechter.

CHAIRPERSON: From Jubber.

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct. As I have testified, he called me into his office and informed me that I had to report to Pretoria that evening, where I would meet Hechter in the parking area and that I was to assist Hechter and the others, with regard to disruptive actions that they were going to execute in the Brits area.

MS NGOMANE: Did you ask Hechter what was the purpose of this destruction action, Mr Pretorius?

MR PRETORIUS: Did I ask Hechter, or did I ask Jubber?

MR PRETORIUS: No, no, no, my question is, did you ask Hechter when you met in Pretoria, what was the purpose of you going to Okasi to destruct the ...(indistinct) to call it now? Did you ask what was the purpose of it?

MR PRETORIUS: No Chairperson, I did not ask. As I have said this thing was handled on a need-to-know basis. I reported myself. He told me what I had to do and we left. Nothing, no further discussion ensued.

MS NGOMANE: Were you not allowed to ask questions, Mr Pretorius?

MR PRETORIUS: I did not want to ask questions at that stage, Chairperson.

MS NGOMANE: Were you threatened, Mr Pretorius?

MR PRETORIUS: I don't understand, why would I be threatened?

MS NGOMANE: Mr Pretorius, if they give you an order and they say to you you must go to Okasi and identify houses, if you are a subordinate, can't you ask questions why, what is the purpose of it?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, as I've already testified, I worked under these circumstances. I knew what it was about. The unrest. Anything would have helped. I was involved with ...(indistinct) actions which came out previously, where we distributed pamphlets in Okasi to say that there was a meeting, in order to confuse the people there and this was just later a form of intimidation in order to try to cease the violence. I did what was told to me.

MS NGOMANE: My question again, Mr Pretorius, is did you ask Hechter why you had to go to Brits to identify the houses? That's my question, just answer my question.

MR MALAN: He did answer that, he did say no. You followed that up by asking him why not, to which he said it was a need-to-know situation, he didn't deem it necessary, he didn't want to ask. I wonder whether you shouldn't put what is in dispute? Wasn't that the arrangement? You're rehearsing his evidence.

MS NGOMANE: I wanted to get clarity from Mr Pretorius, to explain the situation, whether he was not supposed to ask questions, instead to just conduct himself in a particular way. I just want to find out from him whether he was not allowed to ask the seniors what was the purpose of going to Okasi. He said he met with Hechter. I just want to find out from the witness.

MR MALAN: But the point is simply that he did answer you. He said he did not ask, he had no need to ask, he didn't want to ask.

CHAIRPERSON: Because he knew something had to be done and the inference drawn is that he was identifying himself with that.

MR ROUX: Chairperson, I do not want to waste time unnecessarily, but I would like to request you to point out to my learned friend that it is not necessary to repeat all his evidence, he has already confirmed it and has already given that evidence. The disputes have quite clearly been agreed upon. It will take us the whole day if there is a dress rehearsal of what he has already said, with respect, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Ngomane, I do not want to disrupt your cross-examination, but this was the purpose why we called all legal representatives to our chambers and said we should just ...(indistinct) in on what is in dispute. We have heard this evidence of his, probably we are entitled to ask why he never asked questions, but if you have instructions that are contrary to what he has said or that something else obtained at Okasi which he has not brought forward, I think that this is an opportune time that we should hear that because for him to repeat his goings and comings, would not assist us anywhere.

MS NGOMANE: Thank you Mr Chairperson, but my instruction, Mr Chairperson, is to find out what the position was at that particular time, and I'm entitled to put questions to Mr Pretorius. I will want to find out whether he was not supposed to ask his superiors about the purpose of going to Okasi. He said to me yes, he went there, but I just want to take the question further and ask him whether he was not allowed to ask questions to his seniors.

CHAIRPERSON: I think we've got to explain something. The question of need-to-know basis, is the question that you don't ask any questions. As a foot soldier, when you come around those situations, you just execute instructions, that's basically it. That's why he's emphasising need-to-know basis.

MS NGOMANE: Thank you Mr Chairperson. Did you see the other occupants in the vehicle? Did you see them, or do you know them, Mr Pretorius?

ADV SANDI: Sorry, I thought he has already told us that he cannot remember who those people were and the only person he does remember is Mr Hechter. He doesn't know who those people were. Isn't that the position, Mr Pretorius?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, Chairperson, as I have already testified, it's almost 16 years ago. I can recall that evening.

MR MALAN: You don't have to explain that again. I apologise for interrupting you. Just answer the questions. Don't tell us things that are not asked of you.

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, Chairperson, I cannot recall who the other occupants of the vehicle were.

MS NGOMANE: Mr Pretorius, did you see the person who threw the bomb at Mr Ramakope's house?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, Chairperson, I testified that some of the persons climbed out of the minibus and threw petrol bombs. I cannot say who it was exactly. The persons wore balaclavas, Chairperson, when we went into Okasi.

MS NGOMANE: Was Hechter one of the people who climbed out of the car, Mr Pretorius?

MR PRETORIUS: I cannot recall whether he was one of those persons.

MS NGOMANE: Can you recall whether there was one or more than one person who climbed out of the vehicle?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, it was more than one person who climbed out at Ramakope's residence. How many there were, I cannot recall. I don't even recall how many of us were in the vehicle. If I say four or five, then it's just a statement I am making. I cannot confirm it.

MS NGOMANE: Mr Pretorius, you said afterwards you heard a loud bang behind, is that correct?

CHAIRPERSON: That would be the Leonard Brown house, we are dealing, I think, with Ramakope's.

MS NGOMANE: Mr Pretorius, you stated earlier on that the information that you gathered from informants, there were not, in some cases, accurate.

MR ROUX: I object, Chairperson. That is not what he said.

CHAIRPERSON: May you rephrase that Ms Ngomane?

MS NGOMANE: Thank you Mr Chairperson. Mr Pretorius, you had informants who were working for you?

MR PRETORIUS: That's correct, Chairperson.

MS NGOMANE: And they were paid?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, they were paid.

MS NGOMANE: They had to infiltrate the organisation?

MR PRETORIUS: Correct, Chairperson.

MS NGOMANE: Meaning that they had to go to their meetings, the Brits Action Committee meetings and the Union meetings, is that correct, Mr Pretorius?

MR PRETORIUS: Correct, Chairperson.

MS NGOMANE; They were paid for collecting that information?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, I've already mentioned that they were paid.

MS NGOMANE: Can you precisely say what kind of an instrument, if I can call it that, was thrown at Mr Ramakope's house? Do you have information, Mr Pretorius?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, I testified that it looked like petrol bombs that had been set alight that were thrown and as I said, the following morning I heard that there was a petrol bomb attack on Mr Ramakope's house the previous evening.

MS NGOMANE: Mr Pretorius, you stated that you had knowledge or you had information that some people in Okasi didn't want to move to Letlhabile, is that correct?

MR MALAN: Ms Ngomane, he gave evidence that he was monitoring all those people who didn't want to move, he said that the majority probably were against it. There was major resistance, that the BAC was formed exactly to mobilise that goal of non-removal. May I please urge upon you that we get to what is in dispute, that you state the version of the evidence that you will lead that is being disputed by your clients, so that we can get the response of the applicant to those versions?

MS NGOMANE: Thank you Mr Chairperson, but I beg Mr Chairperson's leave to lead evidence and to be allowed to put questions to the witness. Those are my instructions, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Proceed Ma'am.

MS NGOMANE: Thank you. Mr Chairman can I have a word or two with my witness?

CHAIRPERSON: Certainly. I would say call your witness to sit next to you, it will save a lot of time. He's allowed to sit next to you.

MS NGOMANE: Last question, Mr Pretorius. You were aware that Celo Ramakope was inside the house when it was bombed?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, because it was his residence and he lived there, I assumed that he would be in the house.

MS NGOMANE: You were aware because you had done surveillance before you knew where he stayed, you knew he was going to be bombed on that particular day, Mr Pretorius?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, I testified that the day of the attack, I was called in and told that I had to go to Pretoria and the evening before the attack I was told whose house would be attacked.

ADV SANDI: Did you do any surveillance that day? I hear Ms Ngomane asking you about surveillance. Did you do any surveillance that day before the actual attack was carried out on this house? Did you?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, I would not have done surveillance, I would have known - I would have done so if I knew why I had to, if I was in Okasi, but I did not go and do surveillance work at Mr Ramakope's house specifically that day.

MS NGOMANE: It wouldn't have mattered to you, Mr Pretorius, whether there were people in the house, would it, if someone had to be bombed? It wouldn't matter to you whether there were people inside the house?

CHAIRPERSON: I think that question should be asked of Hechter, because you must understand the tenor of the evidence here is that on that particular day he was told by his Commander, Jubber, to go to Pretoria, to meet with Hechter and when he got to Pretoria, Hechter said to him: "We want you to show us the houses of Ramakope and Leonard Brown." That is the tenor of the evidence, so I think that question would be more relevant when Mr Hechter testifies and bear it in mind and keep it safe so that you ask that question from Hechter.

MS NGOMANE: Thank you Mr Chairperson. Mr Pretorius, did you form the intention when you left Pretoria with the other accomplices who were in the car, the occupants of the car, that you would be going to Ramakope and Mr Leonard Brown's house to commit an unlawful act, you formed that intention when you left Pretoria, is that correct?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, I accompanied them to go on some disruptive action. I did not know what was supposed to happen at that stage.

MR MALAN: Mr Pretorius, the question was, did you know that it would be an unlawful act, a disruptive action is that by definition illegal or not?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, as I have said, for example disruptive action, the spread of pamphlets, is not illegal. I did not know whether it was to be illegal or legal, I only realised it when the petrol bomb was thrown, that this was unlawful.

MS NGOMANE: Mr Pretorius, you mentioned the spread of pamphlets, can you enlighten us? I don't understand what the relevance of these pamphlets are? Can you enlighten us?

CHAIRPERSON: No, that's a response to your question that he had not formed any intention because even distribution of pamphlets would have occurred, he did not know when he was there, so that's how the pamphlets comes, that he couldn't have formed that intention.

MS NGOMANE: Will I be correct, Mr Pretorius, if I say that you appreciated the acts of Mr Hechter and the other occupants and then you had the same common purpose to go and bomb Mr Ramakope's house?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, afterwards the incidents did decrease but at the stage when I accompanied them, I did not know we were to attack the houses. I did not know what they were going to do, but I associated myself with it, after it had taken place, it was done.

MS NGOMANE: So you had a common purpose Mr Pretorius?

MR ROUX: Chairperson, I don't know whether we have to refer to legal terms as common purpose, I think it's an unfair question to the witness.

CHAIRPERSON: Ja, we should bear in mind that you and I and other legal representatives know the nuances of certain legal jargon and if we were to ask them of a witness, we must put it as simply as possible, because we do not assume that witnesses would know those legal nuances, but I may say to you, he wouldn't be here if he did not associate himself with those illegal actions, hence he's applying for amnesty for those illegal actions and again, like I said, I don't know if you were present yesterday, before we ever even look at anything in respect of amnesty, you must admit that your actions were illegal, hence you come before us. That is something that is punishable in law, if you were to be prosecuted thereafter, hence with amnesty that would be expunged.

MS NGOMANE: Thank you Mr Chairperson, I will try and speak in the layman's term, so that the witness can understand.

CHAIRPERSON: But bear in mind his answer is that after the two houses were petrol bombed, he then associated himself with those illegal actions.

MS NGOMANE: Thank you, Mr Chairperson, I have no further questions for the witness.

CHAIRPERSON: Before you step down from asking questions, you intimated that you would call witnesses, is there anything contrary to what Mr Pretorius has testified to thus far that those witnesses would say, which does not accord with his evidence, because we must give him an opportunity to respond to that.

MS NGOMANE: Thank you Mr Chairman for coming back to that particular question. I was about to embark on it. Mr Pretorius, earlier on you stated in your examination-in-chief that Buys and Molukwane were killed, but like you don't have any information regarding what was the cause of their death. Do you still say the same version?

MR PRETORIUS: I stand by what I said Chairperson. If I recall correctly I said that these murders have not been solved yet and we did not understand why they were killed. We ascribed it to a dispute amongst the people in Okasi and that is why it happened.

MS NGOMANE: Mr Pretorius, my instructions are that Mr Buys, ...(indistinct) Marshall Buys and Mr Ivan Molukwane were members of the Brits Action Committee. They didn't want to be removed from Okasi, they were happy with the infrastructure, as you put it earlier on in your examination-in-chief. They were happy at Okasi, they didn't want to be removed, thank you.

MR MALAN: Just for the record, that was also his evidence, that's how he understood it. They organised for staying in Okasi.

CHAIRPERSON: And further, hence the formation of BAC. It was precisely to oppose removals, the formation of BAC, if I understood his evidence correctly.

MS NGOMANE: Thank you Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS NGOMANE

MR ROUX: Chairperson, may I at this stage interrupt the proceedings? I am not certain, my learned friend indicated with regard to these statements of witnesses, whether she would call these witnesses and in the light hereof, whether she will not call witnesses because if she will call witnesses, that a statement would be made, what they will testify, so that they could reply to it. If this is the statement and that is in any case his statement, I would like to get an indication whether she will be calling witnesses or not?

CHAIRPERSON: In short what he's saying is that you said you will call witnesses who would say something to the contrary, but when he listened to your cross-examination, it would appear there's nothing that would controvert what Mr Pretorius has thus far said and if you are calling witnesses, are they going to say something different, as I invited you earlier?

MS NGOMANE: Mr Chairperson, in relation to this witness, it won't be necessary for me to lead evidence in respect of this witness. Those witnesses will be called when I call Mr Modimeng, that will be in relation with the other applicants, van Vuuren ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: ... necessarily for this incident?

MS NGOMANE: There's nothing in dispute, he's saying what I wanted him to say. He confirms with me that Buys and Molukwane were in favour of the anti-removal. They didn't want to be removed, so he's saying basically what my witness will say, so there's nothing contentious between this evidence that was led, Mr Chairperson and ...

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Roux just wanted clarity, he was not really in opposition, he just wanted clarity. Mr Roux, you now follow that in this incident there's no - you are meeting somewhere.

MR ROUX: I do follow, thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Richard.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR RICHARD: Thank you, Chair.

Sir, if I over generalise, please correct me, but I'll make all encompassing statements to try and curtail the number of questions, which won't be many.

If I understand you correctly, until such time as you went to the first house and people whose identities you do not now know, got out and let off petrol bombs, you did not know that anything illegal was going to happen that night. Is that correct?

MR PRETORIUS: I knew that a disruptive action would take place, but I did not know what type of disruptive action. It could have been lawful or unlawful, I did not know what type of action it would be.

MR RICHARD: So that meant you anticipated that something unlawful might happen, even though you did not know what specifically would happen, is that correct?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct, I could foresee that something may happen.

MR RICHARD: And is it correct that you foresaw that something illegal might happen?

MR PRETORIUS: I could have foreseen it, but I didn't know what sort of disruptive action it would be. I was given instruction to accompany, but I didn't know what was going to happen. When it happened, I associated myself with it.

MR RICHARD: Did it matter to you whether what took place was legal or illegal?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, as I have already stated I did not know prior to the incident what sort of disruptive activities we would be conducting. I cannot really say whether or not it mattered to me at that stage. When the action was executed I associated myself with it, I felt that this was appropriate.

MR RICHARD: My question is more precise than that. During the period that you travelled from Pretoria back to Okasi in Britz, you knew that a disruptive action or actions was going to be taken, and that action could be either legal or illegal, it could have been either. My question is very simple, at that stage did you care whether what was going to happen would be legal or not legal?

MR PRETORIUS: I didn't think about it, so therefore it didn't matter to me.

MR RICHARD: Prior to this date in May, had you been on any other disruptive campaigns or actions?

MR PRETORIUS: I was not involved in other actions. I have applied for three incidents and that is the sum total of my involvement.

MR RICHARD: So prior to this particular night, you had no idea that the police and Security Forces sometimes committed illegal actions, or actions that could be considered illegal.

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, as I have stated I was a Constable from Britz, I didn't know what was going on in the larger areas.

MR RICHARD: Were you aware that security personnel, to give the actual phrase, had eliminated, killed, burnt, bombed activists' property and persons?

MR PRETORIUS: No, Chairperson.

MR RICHARD: So when a number of people got out of the kombi, the minibus and lit, if I understood your evidence-in-chief correctly, petrol bombs and threw them at the first house, what was your reaction?

MR PRETORIUS: My reaction was that I took cognisance of this happening and that I accepted it as such. At that stage I felt that it was appropriate. Although I knew that it was illegal, I associated myself with the action at that stage.

MR RICHARD: Now how long did it take for you to travel from the first house to Mr Brown's house?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, I cannot tell you.

MR RICHARD: Did it take a couple of minutes?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, as I have stated, Okasi wasn't a very large residential area at that stage, so it was a matter of minutes between the two houses.

MR RICHARD: Now what did you think was going to happen at Mr Brown's house, as you call it?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, I cannot recall what I thought at the time, but I assumed that a similar type of action would be executed there, the tossing of lit petrol bombs for example.

MR RICHARD: And so I put it to you that at that stage you knew directly that a criminal act was going to take place, is that not correct?

MR PRETORIUS: If it was the same type of incident I would say yes, that a similar criminal action was going to be executed.

MR RICHARD: And at that stage you knew it was going to be criminal, constitute a crime.

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, I knew this and I associated myself with this.

MR RICHARD: And I must put it into the record that I heard Mr Brown(sic) prompt the witness by saying "Ja".

MR MALAN: He said that in response to your question on the first occasion.

MR RICHARD: I saw Mr Roux answer the question for the witness, in anticipation of the witness, by telling the witness what to answer.

MR ROUX: May I just put on record ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: No, before you do, Mr Roux, what Mr Malan says is before you asked the question the second time, he had already replied that he knew that a criminal act similar to Ramakope's was going to happen at Mr Brown's place. And then you asked the same question again, but I did not see what Mr Roux did.

MR RICHARD: I pass, okay, carry on.

Now let me understand your function as a field worker, again a general statement which I would like you to correct or amplify. As a field worker it was your function to collect the information from various informers, telephone taps, postal interceptions, collate it and then pass it up to your superior, Mr Jubber. Is that not correct?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

MR MALAN: Mr Richard, I don't unnecessarily want to interrupt you, but he led that in evidence. This was canvassed again on the first cross-examination, won't you deal with what is in dispute please.

MR RICHARD: So that meant the information that Mr Jubber acted on, was essentially the information you supplied him with. Or would he get other information?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, I've already stated that there were various other persons who were also working in the area, who also collected information from their informers, so the information which was conveyed to Mr Jubber was all the available information regarding a specific person.

MR RICHARD: Now my client says that you were present when other members of the South African Police interrogated him, do you remember?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, if I recall correctly Mr Brown was interrogated on numerous occasions, but I cannot recall precisely which case this is.

MR RICHARD: Were you present while he was being interrogated at any point in time?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, I was present.

MR RICHARD: So to take it one step further, who kept the file on Mr Brown, was it you?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, as I have stated we didn't have various divisions at Britz, there was one file storage facility in which all the files were stored. If one required the file, then one would fetch the file from the storage unit. I did not work exclusively with Mr Brown's file.

MR RICHARD: Did you have access to the file?

MR PRETORIUS: I have already stated, any person at the branch could have access to the files.

MR RICHARD: And I put it to you that you had read and studied and considered and gone through the file on numerous occasions, because you had free and unrestricted access to it and you put information into it.

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

MR RICHARD: Thank you. Now how many houses were used by Mr Brown at that time?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, if I recall correctly there were two houses, there is the house which was allocated to him so to speak, and then there was the home of his parents.

MR RICHARD: Now how many people stayed in the house that was allocated to him?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, I cannot recall how many persons were living in that house.

MR RICHARD: How many people stayed and used his parents' house?

MNR PRETORIUS: "Voorsitter, ek weet van die sekere tydstip - omdat mnr Leonard Brown baie beweeg het en hy kennis gedra het dat die polisie is ook op soek na hom as gevolg van die intimidasie waarby hy betrokke was, het ons kennis gedra dat hy 'n tydperk by sy ouers gaan bly het, en daar weet ek van sy Ma en sy Pa wat ook in die woning gebly het."

MR RICHARD: Were his parents and sisters politically active?

MR PRETORIUS: I cannot recall this.

MR RICHARD: I put it to you that they were not politically active in any way at all, would you dispute that or would you admit it?

MR PRETORIUS: You have said it, I cannot dispute or confirm it.

MR RICHARD: Now if I put it to you that on the night in question there were nine persons in the parental home, would you dispute that?

MR PRETORIUS: I cannot respond to that.

MR RICHARD: Do you have knowledge of how many people stayed in the house?

CHAIRPERSON: I think it would be a fair question after the response that at the parental home he knew the parents, a sister and Brown, he was trying to avoid the police.

MR RICHARD: My point is, as a result of your surveillance and monitoring and investigations into Mr Brown's activities, which were pretty extensive and in fact detailed, you were present during his interrogation, you had access to his file, you knew where his house was, you knew where his parents' house was, isn't it obvious that we can assume that you full and complete knowledge as to who lived in his parents' house as well? Because that is what I'm putting to you.

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, as I have already stated, I knew that his parents lived in the parental home and that he also lived there from time to time and that there was also a brother who lived there from time to time, but that is all that I knew.

MR PRETORIUS: And I then remake the submission to you that it is correct that you knew that at the parental home, the only politically active person was Mr Brown sitting next to me.

MR PRETORIUS: I knew that he was there and I have just told you that I cannot recall whether any other members of his family were involved in political activities.

MR RICHARD: Now which house was bombed, his house or his parental home?

MR PRETORIUS: It was his parental home which was attacked that evening because he was living there at that stage according to our information.

MR RICHARD: Now you've used the words "periodically stayed there", is that not correct? A moment ago, not more than one minute ago. Is that not correct?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Richard, may I just interpose here, just to follow up something.

Now is the house which was at the entrance of Okasi, that Mr Brown's parental home?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct, Chairperson. As I have stated, it was close to the entrance, it was closer to the entrance of Okasi than Mr Ramakope's house.

CHAIRPERSON: And his own house, that is Mr Brown's, where was it situated within Okasi?

MR PRETORIUS: It was also there in the same vicinity if I recall correctly.

CHAIRPERSON: Near the entrance?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, in the lower section of Okasi.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Richard.

MR RICHARD: May I just ask an indulgence, my client has tried to tell me something which I'm not understanding.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct - no microphone)

MR RICHARD: It has been pointed out to me that Mr Leonard Brown's house was somewhere in-between the first house and his parents' house and in fact you would go past his house on the way to his parents house, would you be able to comment on that?

MR MALAN: From where to where, Mr Richard?

MR RICHARD: If you started at Mr Ramakope's house and travelled to Mr Brown's parents' house, halfway between you would go past Mr Leonard Brown's house.

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, I cannot give an affirmative response to that, I could imagine that it was situated in that approximate vicinity.

MR RICHARD: Now, the next question is, is it possible that Mr Jubber or Mr Hechter or any other superiors, would have any better information than you as to who precisely lived in Mr Brown's parents' home?

MR PRETORIUS: I cannot respond to that question.

MR RICHARD: Now it goes further, you knew from what had happened at Mr Ramakope's house that petrol bombs had been thrown at it, did you not foresee that if petrol bombs were thrown at Mr Brown's parents' house, people other than Mr Brown might be injured or killed? Who were mere innocent civilians.

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, my duty was to identify the place where Leonard Brown was living at that stage, that is what I did according to my orders.

MR RICHARD: Wouldn't it have been your duty if you foresaw injury to civilians, to point it out to your superiors?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, it was an illegal action which was executed at that stage and now I would have to point out something legal to them and contradict them. I went with them and they performed these actions after I had identified the place to them. At that stage I regarded this as right.

MR RICHARD: And you've said repeatedly that your instructions were to point out, and I use your words verbatim, Mr Leonard Brown's house, Mr Brown's house. Is that incorrect?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, that is correct, it was one of the subjects of the office, it wasn't only specifically for me, the other field workers who worked with me, also identified his home, I wasn't the only person who was working on his case.

MR RICHARD: Yes, but then to your full knowledge you proceeded to go and point out a house which was not Mr Brown's house, but that of his parents. The inference consistent with what you've said is what I've now put to you.

MR PRETORIUS: As I already testified, I had knowledge that Leonard Brown was not living in his own residence at that stage, when they asked me to identify his home. I knew that he was living with his parents. That was the information at my disposal after the request was made to me.

MR RICHARD: There's a world of differences between pointing out where Mr Brown might or might not be staying as opposed to pointing out his personal house, is there not?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, there is a difference.

MR RICHARD: And I put it to you yet again that your instruction was to point out Mr Leonard Brown's house and you pointed out where he was, coincidentally or according to your information staying that night, not his house.

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, that is correct. The action was aimed at Leonard Brown personally, therefore I assumed that Mr Hechter and the others wanted to know where Leonard Brown was, that is why I pointed out his parental home, because I knew he was residing there at that stage and that is why I identified that house particularly.

MR RICHARD: Please, that's a convenient reconstruction made this morning. There's a huge difference between Leonard Brown's house and his parents' house.

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

MR ROUX: I do not wish to obstruct my learned friend with his cross-examination, but isn't he engaging in a game of semantics at present, rather than cross-examining what the witness has stated? This is a technical game of semantics.

MR RICHARD: The man is lying.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Richard, let him make his point and then you'll respond thereafter. Let Mr Roux make his point and you will have the opportunity to do so. May you start from the beginning, Mr Roux?

MR ROUX: May I just then state my objection fully? My learned friend is engaging in a technical game of semantics by firstly asking what the witness was supposed to identify. If there is an ambivalence in the phrase or the concept of Leonard Brown's home, his personal property, that is not what is being discussed. Possibly my learned friend should then focus on asking the witness what he understood by the concept Leonard Brown's home, in stead of playing on the technical difference between Leonard Brown's home and where he was sleeping that evening and then inferring there from that he was lying in terms of his evidence. It is simply a word game and it is unfair towards the witness.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Richard.

MR RICHARD: I put it very clearly that I did give the witness every fair and courteous opportunity to make the distinction. The fact that he didn't make the distinction, indicates that he answered the first series of questions correctly and honestly and it was only when trapped into the contradiction of his evidence, that the so-called semantics, which my learned friend now sees to argue, come out and what my learned friend's argument is, is nothing more than speculative argument. The record stands and speaks for itself.

I turn to page 96 of the record ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I still have to rule on that. I think Mr Richard you have, through your questions, extracted enough what you would use in evidence rather than hone in on this because it was quite clear that the witness, which he conceded to, that he was asked about Leonard Brown's house and he went and pointed the parental home where he was putting up that night because he was as usual on the run again and this was his personal knowledge when he pointed out the home of Mr Brown. Let's not belabour it any further.

MR RICHARD: I simply say that I have laid the basis to argue that a bomb was thrown at a residence without any proper care or caution ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I don't want to hear that right now.

MR RICHARD: I will not go to page 96. That is a matter of argument.

Now, the next question is, is it not correct that you are now an explosives expert?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, I am an explosive technician at this point.

MR RICHARD: After persons got out of the kombi and walked back to Mr Brown's parents home, what did you hear? Did you hear the sound of a petrol bomb exploding or some other device?

MR MALAN: I think you gave evidence that he only heard the explosion as they were moving away.

MR RICHARD: I will raise it differently. When a petrol bomb explodes, does it make a loud bang, as you described?

MR PRETORIUS: Do you mean after we drove away from Leonard Brown's home and I heard the blow, whether that was a petrol bomb?

MR RICHARD: Yes.

MR PRETORIUS: No, I assumed that that couldn't be a petrol bomb because it was a very loud blow.

MR RICHARD: Other than that, you know that that is the sound of whatever exploded at that property, that's all you know.

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, that is correct.

MR RICHARD: No further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR RICHARD

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Richard. Mr Roux, we will take the order we utilised yesterday, that the - oh Mr Steenkamp, I'll come to him, I haven't forgotten him, that I just wanted to make it up front that the Committee would be allowed to ask questions as well before you re-examine.

MR ROUX: No problem, Chairperson, that is in order.

CHAIRPERSON: I wouldn't forget you Mr Steenkamp, I saw that worry on your face when I looked towards Mr Roux. It is now your chance.

ADV STEENKAMP: Well, Mr Chairman, I think Mr Roux was maybe more worried. Honourable Chairman, if you would allow me only one question.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV STEENKAMP: Unless I've misunderstood you, please correct me, did you ever report the incident that you were involved with to Mr Jubber subsequently?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, as I've already testified, I returned the following morning and at the office I heard from my colleagues that there was a petrol bomb attack at the home of Celo Ramakope and that there was a bomb attack at Mr Brown's residence and that is what I kept it to. I did not report it back, I returned to my home that evening. I assumed that Mr Jubber would have known that this is what happened due to the fact that he dispatched me to Pretorius.

ADV STEENKAMP: Just a follow-up question. Were you under the impression that Mr Jubber must have known or that he would have known subsequently of the operation that you had been involved with? Is that what you have said?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, he told me that I was to be involved in disruptive actions and I assumed that he was aware that this was what we were going to go and do, these disruptive actions.

ADV STEENKAMP: Thank you. Thank you Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV STEENKAMP

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Steenkamp. I would change my order. Mr Malan, do you have any questions?

MR MALAN: I have no questions, thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Malan. Adv Sandi?

ADV SANDI: I have no questions, Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Any re-examination Mr Roux?

MR ROUX: Three questions, thank you Chairperson.

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR ROUX: These incidents, Mr Pretorius, at what time at night did this usually happen and can you recall exactly when did these two incidents take place?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, I cannot recall at what time I had to report in Pretoria, but it was quite late in the evening and these incidents took place after 12 at night, when it was quieter in Okasi.

MR ROUX: Second question. Were you on a daily basis in Okasi with a variety of duties and would the community have known that you were a member of the Security Branch or of the South African Police?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, I was well-known in Okasi. It didn't even help me moving around in an unmarked vehicle, everyone knew me. If I passed they shouted at me or they greeted me because I moved around during the day in Okasi.

MR ROUX: And then a final question. If you study page 95 as well as page 96, the use of the words here in your application as well as your evidence earlier that you were supposed to point out Leonard Brown's house, do you understand by this ownership, or where he is, in other words, the house in which he would be?

MR PRETORIUS: It was to me, I had to point out Leonard Brown, where Leonard Brown was.

MR ROUX: And just to follow up and unfortunately this is the fourth question, in other words, the use of words here is not entirely correct, to you it was about the subject?

MR PRETORIUS: Correct, Chairperson. I had to point out Leonard Brown's house and that indicated to me that it was the house that he was using at that stage.

MR ROUX: Thank you Chairperson, those are the questions in re-examination.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR ROUX

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much for testifying before us Mr Pretorius, you are excused.

WITNESS EXCUSED

MR ROUX: May I, at this stage Chairperson, get some guidance? I think it would be best to deal with it at the end of all the evidence as to what list of offences every applicant, in my argument the applicants have to receive amnesty, and not at this stage mention it to you. This will just consume unnecessary time and possibly address you with regard to the amnesty with regard to this specific incident after all these applicants have given evidence with regard to Ramakope and Brown incidents, or shall I deal with each applicant individually?

CHAIRPERSON: It would be more desirable that with each applicant we know which incidents he's applying for or what, if we do grant amnesty at the end of the day, for which incidents. Let's not globalise them because even when applicants are involved in the same incident, like it was the experience yesterday with for instance Cronje, that you would fall under a certain category, not a blanket one in respect of these foot soldiers. I think it would be of very great assistance to the Panel if we could, with every applicant, know precisely what he's applying for. Are you - time now since we have just mentioned it?

MR ROUX: No, now that you have mentioned it, I think the list may possibly be supplemented with what specifically appears on page 94, which would appear from the evidence. There the following appears: arson, damage to property and then blanket, I think added to this it has to be attempted murder and possibly emanating from the facts, possession of explosives or a transgression of the Explosives Act, Act 26 of 1956, as well as any other offence and or delictual accountability which might emanate from the facts,

CHAIRPERSON: Not necessarily, or other lesser offences.

MR ROUX: I think possibly the first one, any other lesser offences which might appear, but the second one, all other offences, is unnecessary where it would be possession of explosives, arson, malicious damage to property and any other lesser offence which might appear from the facts, would be all the possible offences.

CHAIRPERSON: All other criminal offences ... (indistinct - no microphone) which will flow from 1, 2, 3, 4.

MR RICHARD: Chairperson, what my Learned Colleague is attempting to do at page 94, is to amend the application for amnesty to include offences that had emerged as a result of cross-examination. I don't believe that that would be competent. If the applicant, in his wisdom, confined his application to for instance arson and left out murder, but then under cross-examination realises that attempted murder should have been applied for, I would say the amendment sought is completely irregular.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you suggesting that a substantive application should be made?

MR RICHARD: I believe that a substantive application should be made.

CHAIRPERSON: Gentlemen, let's not debate this now. What I would suggest is that the Committee adjourns just for 10 minutes that this be clarified. I don't want it to be an unnecessarily hair-raising point.

MS NGOMANE: Mr Chairperson, if I may come. I have an objection to the amendment made ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Before you raise your objection, my attention has been drawn to page 101 where murder is one of the - because if it's murder that he seeks and murder did not occur, attempted murder would be a competent verdict in any Court of law, so I think this matter has been clarified.

MS NGOMANE: May I make ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: ... (indistinct- microphone not on)

MR ROUX: Chairperson, I do not wish to be rude, but page 94, to which I have referred to, is the incident Celo Ramakope. My learned friend does not appear on behalf of Ramakope, he appears on behalf of Brown. I shall arrive at Brown at a later stage. This is the incident where Ms Ngomane appears.

MS NGOMANE: Chairperson, I think my learned friend should just clarify the point. He should just state that he's opposing. I know that I represent Ramakope. What I'm saying is that you put it in general, it was so wide what you were saying that you were asking for an amendment. You should state for which amendment are you seeking, is it for Leonard Brown or for Celo Ramakope, you should state.

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, let's have it in perspective. I think a lot has not been understood here. Before he came with the offences for which amnesty is sought, Mr Roux asked me whether should he do it at the end of every applicant, after every applicant has been heard and I said no, I would rather have it that for each and every applicant we should know what amnesty is sought for and that's when there was this deliberation on 94, if I'm not mistaken. Yes. And after he had said that, Mr Richard objected. He said what he's doing, he's coming back door to amend and hence my question was that: "Are you suggesting a substantive amendment?" and my learned friend drew me to a certain page and said murder - 101- murder is one of what he's asking for and my response thereto was that if we don't find that murder did occur, attempted murder would be a competent verdict, so if you look at that in general terms, he seeks no amendment, he's merely clarifying the position how we should grant amnesty, if we do.

MR MALAN: Chair, if I may further come to the assistance of Mr Richard. The Act requires of every applicant to make a full and truthful disclosure of all acts which would constitute and offence or a delict. It does not require of an applicant to state exactly what in terms of specific offences, he should be granted amnesty for. That is for the Panel to decide. He should simply disclose all acts which constituted a crime or a delict and then it's for the Panel to decide in what terms they grant amnesty, so whatever they are asking is simply in assisting the Panel, it is not substantive or even necessary for an application.

Chair may ...(no microphone)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Roux, I am aware that I excused Mr Pretorius and that would have been in respect of the incident of Brown and Ramakope, but it would not make sense that we excuse him and call him back later to come and speak about Modimeng. We rather that, when we excuse him, he can even go home if he so wishes, but he should have dealt with all incidents he's applying for amnesty for.

MR ROUX: Correct, yes, that's how I understood it. As it pleases you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Pretorius, I must apologise to you that I excused you but my attention was drawn to the fact that you have also applied for amnesty for Mr Modimeng and according to us it would be desirable that you come with all incidents and thereafter you may be excused. That means that you can even go home if you so wish. My apologies to you. We will not swear you further, that you should only confirm that you still stand by your former oath. Thank you Mr Roux.

MR ROUX: Chairperson, may I at this stage request, I note that it is already almost quarter to one. I do not wish to start and then to have to stop with this evidence and start again. I would like to complete it as a whole. Is it possible to shorten the lunch-hour period and, if this has your approval, to take lunch now and then start earlier again after lunch, if it pleases you?

CHAIRPERSON: We will accede to your request. We will adjourn for lunch and reconvene at 1.30.

MR ROUX: I'm indebted to you.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Roux you were about to lead Mr Pretorius in respect of the Modimeng incident. You may proceed.

MAGIEL ANDRIES STEFANUS PRETORIUS: (s.u.o.)

MR ROUX: Thank you, Chairperson.

DAVID MODIMENG INCIDENT

EXAMINATION BY MR ROUX: Mr Pretorius, I am not going to ask you to confirm all the relevant pages. Once again, in order to expedite matters I would like to move over directly, specifically to the incident pertaining to David Modimeng. Can you tell the Committee which information you possessed in which David Modimeng was involved and to what extent?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, according to the information at our disposal, David Modimeng at that stage was the Chairperson of the ...(indistinct) Allied Workers Union, NAAWU. it was the other wing of NAAWU and they later amalgamated to form the current NUMSA. He was also a member of the anti-removal campaign and he participated in the campaign, as well as his spouse, the deceased, who was involved with women's organisations in Okasi, as well as the anti-removal campaign, which she supported. Furthermore we received information, I recall at that stage he drove a white microbus, that he used this vehicle regularly to travel abroad to Swaziland and Lesotho respectively, that I definitely know of and that he collaborated with the ANC and we also had information in our possession which indicated that he was transporting weapons from abroad into the RSA, which was under the cover of his representation as a Trade Union member, but later these weapons would then be used for acts of terrorism within the RSA.

MR ROUX: Very well. From page 87 you summarise the Modimeng case. Could you just confirm the date upon which it occurred, 27th of May 1986, is that how you recall it?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, that is correct Chairperson.

MR ROUX: Would you then present the factual version of what took place on that particular evening very briefly please?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson on this particular day, as upon previous occasions, I was once again called in by my direct Commander at that stage, Captain Jubber. Once again he informed me that on that evening disruptive actions would be executed from Northern Transvaal and furthermore he informed me that I should wait outside Brits on the Brits/Thabazimbi road at a certain point during that evening and that Lieut Hechter would meet me there. I cannot recall the precise time that he told me but I performed the orders as he told me. I parked my vehicle at the Brits police station and walked to the point of rendezvous. Shortly thereafter the white Skyline vehicle of Mr Hechter arrived. At that stage I was aware that this was the State vehicle that he used. He stopped at the point where I was waiting and I climbed into the Skyline vehicle, upon which Lieut Hechter informed me. As I embarked into the vehicle, we immediately donned balaclavas and Lieut Hechter informed me that I had to identify David Modimeng's residence in Okasi to them. I assumed that this would be another disruptive action, upon which I informed him that it would be best advisable in terms of escape routes, that we follow the canal road, as it was known in Brits. It was the canal of the Hartebeespoort Dam which ran through the Okasi area. We followed this road to a point where I warned Lieut Hechter that we were approaching Okasi and we parked at the side of the road. We disembarked and I went ahead along with them, until we were opposite the residence, in the street. I pointed out to Lieut Hechter that this was the residence which was used by Mr Modimeng upon which I and another person retreated to the corner where the canal road was. We sat there at the side of the road waiting. After a short while, I cannot recall precisely how long, Lieut Hechter and another person came running past us in great haste and we returned with them to the vehicle, that would be the white Nissan Skyline. Upon our arrival at the vehicle, if I recall correctly, just as we arrived there, or just after we departed, I heard a tremendous blow from the direction of Okasi. They then returned me, via the same route that I had identified, where they had picked me up. They dropped me off at that same point. I walked back, retrieved my vehicle and drove back to my residence in Mooinooi. The following morning upon my arrival at the office, I was informed by my colleagues that there had been an explosion at the residence of David Modimeng and that a person had died during the explosion, namely the spouse of Mr Modimeng and that children had also been injured during this explosion.

MR ROUX: Did you possess the necessary information with regard to Modimeng's residence and who was in the residence?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, as I have stated previously, I knew precisely where his residence was situated. I knew exactly where he lived and so forth. I also knew that on this particular premises, his parents also resided. In other words, if I recall the premises correctly, one would have a lounge in front and there would be a separate room to the other side. There was a large tree in the middle of the courtyard of the premises, so to speak and I knew that Mr Modimeng occupied the room to the right-hand side.

MR ROUX: Did you associate yourself with the action and the consequences thereof?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR ROUX: And just before the occurrence of this incident, were you aware what sort of attack it would be, in other words whether petrol bombs would be thrown and whether a bomb would be used or whether shots would be fired? What was your knowledge?

MR PRETORIUS: None whatsoever. As I've stated, I didn't see anything. It was pitch dark at that stage. Okasi didn't have any street lighting at that stage. I just moved with the group of persons and Lieut Hechter sent me back to the corner where I and another unknown person, or persons, I can no longer recall, but we sat there waiting. I cannot say that I knew exactly which action was going to be performed at the residence of Mr Modimeng.

MR ROUX: Did you discuss the incident subsequently?

MR PRETORIUS: No, Chairperson, I kept it to myself.

MR ROUX: Was this also a need to know operation?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, it was. As I have stated nobody else in my unit would have known about it. I cannot think that anybody knew that I was involved in this incident.

MR ROUX: Would your Commanding Officer, Mr Jubber, have known or have unavoidably inferred that, whereas you were given an order by him to meet Jacques Hechter, it would have in all probability have involved an action of the hit squad, so to speak, and that therefore he would have known about it in those terms?

MR PRETORIUS: I believe that he would have drawn the inference, seeing as he told me that we would be carrying out disruptive actions again, that this disruptive action was executed by us on the evening in question.

MR ROUX: Thank you Chairperson, that is the evidence-in-chief with regard to the relevant facts.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR ROUX

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Roux. Ms Ngomane and this is your incident.

MR NGOMANE: Thank you Mr Chairperson, can I have a word with my client?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MS NGOMANE: Thank you. Thank you Mr Chairperson.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS NGOMANE: Mr Pretorius, you said you pointed Mr Modimeng's house, do you remember a specific date?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, I am referring to the evening during the incident, that is when I identified the house. Is that what you are referring to, or do you mean prior to the incident?

MS NGOMANE: Did you identify the house on the day in question, or prior to the incident, Mr Pretorius?

MR PRETORIUS: No, long before the day already, because as I've stated, Mr Modimeng had been under our attention since he was a schoolboy.

MR NGOMANE: You said you were surveiling and monitoring him since he was a schoolboy, Mr Pretorius, did I understand you correctly?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, the Brits Security Branch monitored him. I cannot recall whether it was specifically when he was still at school, but it was when he was a member of the Young Christian Workers, YCW in the Brits area.

MS NGOMANE: Do you recall the specific year when you started monitoring him as a schoolboy?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, in 1985 I began working for the Brits Security Branch. Upon my arrival at the office, there was already a file on Mr Modimeng and from the information that I gleaned from the file in terms of his background, I saw that he was a member of the Young Christian Workers Union, he was the organiser of MAWU in the area.

MS NGOMANE: Why - sorry Mr Pretorius. What was the purpose of having a file on Mr Modimeng?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson as I have testified previously, if a person gained attention as an activist, one would have to open a file on such a person immediately, so that all relevant information which was gathered regarding the person's activities, would be filed within such a file. The whole objective with this was that if one could gather enough evidence against such a person, one would be able to prove any later crimes that would be committed by such a person in Court.

MS NGOMANE: Mr Pretorius, you made - you surveyed Mr Modimeng's house, you got information that he was a member of the Young Christian Movement and organiser of MAWU, is that correct?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, as I have already stated, at the time when I began working at Brits, he was an organiser for MAWU. With regard to the YCW information, this information was not collected by me, it was already on file upon my arrival at Brits.

MS NGOMANE: Did you confirm that information that he was also a member of the Young Christian Movement, as you stated Mr Pretorius?

MR PRETORIUS: I did not collect that information, as I have already stated. I only collected information regarding his trade union activities, because he was involved with the trade union at that stage. I do not believe that he was still a member of the YCW when I began working with his case.

MS NGOMANE: You drew that inference Mr Pretorius, without confirming whether in fact he was still a member of the other organisation?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, I don't really understand. I have stated that there was information indicating that he was a member of the Young Christian Workers. When I arrived at the Brits Security Branch it was already on file that he was a member of the Young Christian Workers. I began to monitor his trade union activities and I do not know whether or not he was still a member of the YCW, it may have been so.

MS NGOMANE: You gave - mentioned in your examination-in-chief that Mrs Modimeng was also a member of the union and she used to participate in the women's organisation. Did you get that information from an informant, Mr Pretorius, or you've just drawn that conclusion yourself?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, I did not draw any conclusions, it was due to the information given to me by informers that Mrs Modimeng was involved with the Okasi Women's League, which was also an anti-Government organisation. I think the leader at that stage was Helen Khosa and she was also involved in the anti-removal campaign. She was a member of that group.

MR NGOMANE: Mr Modimeng as you stated - sorry Mr Chairperson, Mr Pretorius, you stated you were monitoring Mr Modimeng since he was a schoolboy, you took office in Brits at the Security Branch, you saw his file that he was an active member of MAWU ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, let's - I don't think that's entirely correct. He says he was monitored as a schoolboy and upon his arrival in 1985, he found a file where it was actually said he's a member of this Christian Movement, but his duties were to monitor the Trade Union movements, so he did not monitor him as a schoolboy, but there was a file since he was a schoolboy, from his deduction.

MS NGOMANE: Thank you Mr Chairperson. Mr Pretorius, the information which was supplied, you said earlier on that it was supplied by informers, is that correct?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR NGOMANE: You stated earlier that you pointed houses in Okasi, is that correct, Mr Pretorius, again? Did you point Mr Modimeng's house?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, I identified the homes of those individuals who were under the attention of the Security Branch and Mr Modimeng was one of the "oldest" subjects of the Security Branch, so therefore his house had been long since identified and monitored.

MS NGOMANE: Did you make any investigation to find out in effect whether Mr Modimeng was a member of the Okasi Women's League?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, as I have stated, that was the information at our disposal as a result of the information that was given to us by the informers, as well as other information which had come to the other field workers from their informer networks.

MR MALAN: Ms Ngomane is your instruction that Mrs Modimeng was not a member of the Women's League?

MS NGOMANE: Sorry, Mr Chairperson, can you repeat what you've just said?

MR MALAN: My question is whether you have instructions that she was not a member of the Women's League?

MS NGOMANE: That's correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR MALAN: Wouldn't you just put that then to the witness?

MS NGOMANE: I'm about to, Mr Chairman, thank you. Mr Pretorius, there are witnesses that will be called today, who say that Mrs Modimeng was not a member of any organisation in Okasi. They will lead evidence to that. Mr Modimeng will also confirm that Mrs Modimeng was not active in any political organisation, she didn't have any interest whatsoever. Those witnesses will be called to state that she was a housewife, she never participated in any activities, whether it was the Women's League from Okasi or the union. What will you say to that?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, as I've stated, I dealt with the information which was conveyed to me by informers and other field workers and the information which was placed in the files at that stage.

MR NGOMANE: It's possible, Mr Pretorius, that informants can lie, don't they? It's correct that they can give incorrect information?

MR PRETORIUS: It is possible, but as I have stated previously, there were various informers, we didn't rely solely on the information conveyed by one informer. If information came to light, this information would be confirmed by means of other informers.

MS NGOMANE: My question to you, Mr Pretorius, just listen to my question. I said, they can give incorrect information to you, is that correct?

MR MALAN: He did confirm that. He did confirm that. He said that they do get checked, some of them may lie, others not, but they come to decisions on the weighing of the evidence. Maybe if you would allow me, I'll try to follow this up with him. From the application which appears before us, the written application Mr Pretorius, isn't it clear that his wife was a target and your evidence isn't very specific regarding that. It is something that has been mentioned by the way in your evidence regarding the spouse. It would appear that Mr Modimeng was the target that night.

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

MR MALAN: Now sketched against that background, was his wife specifically also a subject of attention of the branch?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: And can you recall whether or not there were any reports regarding her? Did she have her own file as well?

MR PRETORIUS: I cannot recall whether she had her own file. There was an index system which we maintained in which persons who were less involved were also monitored, but she definitely had gained attention during meetings and this was reported to us by the informer.

MR MALAN: And can you recall whether or not this was a point that you had to draw a conclusion on, or was it minor information?

MR PRETORIUS: It was information which was at the disposal of the office, that is all that I can say.

MR MALAN: Can you recall how many of the informers referred to her involvement with the Women's League and other activities?

MR PRETORIUS: That would be impossible for me to say. It wasn't a very large branch at that stage, I think there were only four or five members there, they had their own informers.

MR MALAN: Just answer the question. And the follow-up question is, can you recall whether or not there was more than one reference in the file pertaining to her activities?

MR PRETORIUS: If there was more than one reference, we would have monitored it, otherwise we would have left it at that.

MR MALAN: No, listen to the question. Can you recall whether or not there was more reference to her activities?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, there was definitely more than one reference.

MR MALAN: Were there many or were there few?

MR PRETORIUS: I cannot respond to the number.

MR MALAN: So if you had to weigh that up in terms of your responsibility when you received reports, would you have placed it into dispute and maintained that she was indeed a member of the Women's League?

MR PRETORIUS: As I have already testified, Chairperson, I wasn't certain to which organisation she belonged. I know that she was involved in the anti-removal campaign and that she was involved with Women's Organisations. I wasn't certain, but I assumed that it would be the Women's League, but that might be the specific name of the organisation. The information indicated only that she was involved in liberal women's organisations, so to speak. These organisations were operating in Okasi at that stage.

MR MALAN: And according to your experience and all the information that was conveyed, were you satisfied that she was indeed an activist?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, according to the information at my disposal.

MR MALAN: And you will stand by that?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, that is correct.

MR MALAN: And the allegation that she was not involved at all, would you dispute that?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, I dispute that in terms of the information that was at my disposal at that stage.

MS NGOMANE: Mr Pretorius, you were not certain. You just stated that you were not certain that she was a member of the Okasi, you could have been wrong. She was not a member of the Okasi Women's League, Mr Pretorius. She was not a member of MAWU, the union, she was never interested in any politics, she never participated, she never transported firearms for the ANC, Mr Pretorius. I put it to you Mr Pretorius that, you just said it now, you are not certain, you are just speculating. You don't know whether Mrs Modimeng was a member of the Union or she was part of the Women's League, you are just drawing speculation, Mr Pretorius, but I'll move to that - I will move to the next question. I will leave that for argument, Mr Chairman.

ADV SANDI: Just before you move on to what you say you'll be moving on to, can I just ask one thing, just on the question of files. Didn't you open a file on each and every person who was alleged to be a political activist?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, as I have already testified, persons were evaluated according to their activities. There would be a main file with regard to a person who was involved with serious activities, then there were also sub-files for the persons who were less involved and then there were regular cards for persons - if for example an informer had attended an Allied Worker's Union Meeting and there were persons there that he could identify, if the person had been identified upon various occasions of attending such meetings, we would then determine in consultation with the Branch Commander that it was now becoming necessary to open a personal file for this person because he or she was completely involved in the activities of that time.

CHAIRPERSON: Could you perhaps elaborate on how this card system operated?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, it would be a regular index card which would fit into a cabinet. If a report came in, indicating that the following persons had attended a meeting, or the following persons were speakers and a name was mentioned, then one would research the name and see whether or not the name had been mentioned previously. One would then consult the index cards. If that person's name did not appear there, one would open a card for this person who had received attention as a potential activist, then the reference of that particular report would be marked on the card so that one would re-consult the list of names of these persons with following meetings, so that if one had to send this information through to the Northern Transvaal Branch, one would be able to write down the reference numbers, if the person was unknown, you would write "no file". If the person had been noticed before, one would refer to previous reports which had been sent through, indicating that this person had been noticed and that is how it operated for every activist who was on file. They would start with a card system and then move up in rank as they gathered more attention.

MS NGOMANE: Mr Pretorius, you didn't have a file of Mrs Modimeng in the sub-branch, you didn't have it. You had no information whatsoever from your informants, because if you did you could have come with that evidence that Mrs Modimeng was a member. Your informers didn't see her transporting weapons for the ANC, Mr Pretorius. Are you disputing that?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, I never stated that Mrs Modimeng was transporting weapons for the ANC. I never stated this during my evidence-in-chief. As I have said, there could not have been a file on her because her name would either have been on the index card system, or on a sub-file.

MS NGOMANE: Mr Pretorius, was there a file for Mrs Modimeng? Can you answer the question? Just yes, or no, was there a file of Mrs Modimeng?

MR PRETORIUS: I cannot recall whether or not there was a file.

MR ROUX: I beg your pardon Chairperson, I do not wish to hinder my learned friend in her cross-examination, but with all due respect, he has already responded to the question.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Pretorius had already answered your question, but I would make an earnest request, much as we may have questions for witnesses, I think they must be treated with all respect whilst we want to still harp on the question that they should answer questions, but they must in all respects, every witness before me, must be accorded that respect and be asked questions in a civil manner.

MS NGOMANE: Thank you Mr Chairperson. Mr Chairperson, I'm just trying to get - elicit information from the witness. He came here to - for an amnesty, he came here to disclose facts to this Honourable Committee. I'm putting questions to him, I'm not hard to him, I just want him to tell me whether there was a file that was opened for Mrs Modimeng, as he stated earlier on that Mr Modimeng had a file, he was observed since he was a schoolboy, that he was a member of the Young Christian Movement, he was a member of the MAWU. I'm not harassing the witness, Mr Chairperson, with all respects.

ADV SANDI: Sorry, just for my own benefit. Are you asking him about a file for whom, Mr or Mrs?

MS NGOMANE: My specific again, I will come back to that question Mr Pretorius, I don't want you to give me the background how you opened the files, ...(indistinct) where you were working, I just want to know whether a specific file for Mrs Modimeng, just like you had a file for Mr Modimeng, did you monitor Mrs Modimeng, Mr Pretorius?

CHAIRPERSON: Let's finish about the file first. Mr Pretorius, was there a file for Mrs Modimeng, or not, yes or no? That will be the required answer from you.

MR PRETORIUS: In the context I have to place it as such. There was a file, it depends on what type of file it is, as I have explained. As we mentioned it, she did ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Was it high profiled, like you say a file that would be similar to Mr Modimeng, who was now receiving your close attention?

MR PRETORIUS: No, Chairperson, not on the same basis. As I have said, there were various profiles under which these persons resorted.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. You may continue Ms Ngomane.

MS NGOMANE: There was no file, Mr Pretorius. Thank you. Mr Pretorius, you said you had information from informants as well that Mr and Mrs Modimeng were transporting weapons. Why were they not ...(intervention)

MR ROUX: I object Chairperson. My learned friend does not listen to what the witness says, she's misleading the witness by saying that his evidence was that Mrs Modimeng had transported weapons, that was not his evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: No, definitely not Mrs Modimeng, but Mr Modimeng.

MS NGOMANE: Thank you, Mr Chairperson. Mr Pretorius, when Mr Modimeng was transporting the firearms for the ANC, were you there?

ADV SANDI: I thought you were still asking why was he not arrested?

MS NGOMANE: That's not my question, Mr Sandi.

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, what he's simply putting to you is that ask one fact questions, because you are coupling the questions. Just ask one fact question and then it will be clear to everybody. Why was he not arrested when he did that, Mr Pretorius?

MR PRETORIUS: As I've already said, Chairperson, there was information received that he may be involved in the transporting of weapons for the ANC. The case at that stage, it was still being investigated and it was about determining the route to receive confirmation from informants as to which day he would transport the firearms and the route which he would follow. If we received confirmation we would have acted and arrested him.

ADV SANDI: If I can just ask you to explain that. How long was this information received before his house was attacked?

MR PRETORIUS: This particular information was, if I recall correctly, was just briefly before the incident when we gained this information that he was going abroad and he was involved in the transport of firearms, Chairperson.

ADV SANDI: Briefly, what would that be, a week, two weeks, how long would that be? Can you estimate?

MR PRETORIUS: No, I cannot recall, Chairperson.

MS NGOMANE: Thank you, Mr Chairperson. If I understand you correctly, Mr Pretorius, you say you were waiting for confirmation and then you were going to arrest him when you had all the information that Mr Modimeng had the firearms.

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, as I've already said, the information came in, it was about that we needed more information as to when it would be transported and what route it would be transported and if the information was that he had stored it at his home we would have acted. We were waiting for confirmation before we could act.

ADV SANDI: Did you in the end get such information as you desired?

MR PRETORIUS: No, no information came to our further knowledge that he was arrested, so that he could be arrested with the firearms.

MS NGOMANE: Mr Pretorius, you had no information whatsoever that Mr Modimeng was transporting guns, or firearms, if I may put it, Mr Pretorius, you speculated that Mr Modimeng was transporting firearms to Swaziland as you have stated in your examination-in-chief. Mr Pretorius the information that he was travelling to Swaziland, did you get it from an informer and if so, why he was not arrested at the border?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson the information was received from informants. I cannot give an instruction "arrest him at the border", one needs confirmation that there were firearms in the vehicle before we could arrest him, otherwise there was no point in arresting him. The information I received and I conveyed it to my Commander who conveyed it on his part to Northern Transvaal Security Branch and from there I do not know what they did with the information.

MS NGOMANE: Mr Pretorius as a policeman, you can get a warrant and go to his house and say: "We suspect, or we have reasonable suspicion that you are transporting firearms inside or outside the country". you could have done that as a policeman.

MR PRETORIUS: I could have probably done so, but I did not have instruction. It was about gathering enough physical evidence so that we could prosecute him in Court and if I had stopped him or arrested him without firearms, then there was no point in it. Then he would know that we knew something. I had to receive confirmation first that on that day he would be transporting firearms.

MS NGOMANE: He was not transporting firearms, Mr Pretorius. He never transported firearms in or outside South Africa. He never went to Swaziland. But Mr ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Just as well, while you are at it, I've got a note here. It would appear we are pronouncing his surname wrongly. What is his surname? Modimeng, or Modimeng?

MS NGOMANE: He should say it for us for the record.

MR Modimeng: My surname is Modimeng, M-O-D-I-M-O-E-N-G.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Modimeng. Please let's try and correct it now, pronounce it correctly. Thanks for whoever brought it to my attention, that we've been calling him wrongly, we apologise profusely.

MS NGOMANE: Thank you Mr Chairman. You will agree with Mr Pretorius if I say the information you got was unreliable, it could not have been acted upon. Do you agree with me? The information that Mr Modimeng was transporting firearms?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, this was information which was received and it had to be tested and if we received this from various sources then we regarded it as information that we could handle or act upon.

MS NGOMANE: Mr Pretorius, you deem it fit to go and point Mr Modimeng's house in Brits and not gather information and arrest him for unlawful possession of firearms and ammunition, but you deem it fit to go to Okasi and point out his house?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, I have already said that I pointed out the house under instruction, or on instruction that I received from the Officers.

MS NGOMANE: You deem it fit to point out his house?

CHAIRPERSON: He said he did not deem it fit to point out his house, he had instructions to do so by his superiors.

MS NGOMANE: Thank you, Mr Chairperson, but he deemed it fit, he didn't question it, he had information at the sub-branch that Modimeng and the wife, if I ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Again he's a foot soldier. He was, as he said previously: "I was not an officer. People like Mr Hechter were officers, I was merely a constable and I had to obey orders and when you operate on a need-to-know basis, you don't question such things". That's his evidence, when we were dealing with the Ramakope and Brown evidence and I don't think it changes because the same thing apparently obtained here, but continue with your questions.

MS NGOMANE: Thank you Mr Chairperson. Mr Pretorius, you monitor houses and you monitor people as well. You've monitored the victim sitting next to me, you alleged to have monitored the wife as well. My question to you is, the day when you met with Hechter in Pretoria, you formed the intention that his house will be bombed.

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, I do not understand what is meant by this question, that I had formulated the intention that his house would be attacked with a bomb. I don't understand the question.

CHAIRPERSON: The evidence is that he received instructions from Jubber that he should meet people from the head office, that is the Northern Transvaal Security Branch at a certain spot along the Brits/Thabazimbi road and when he got there, Hechter again requested him that he wanted him to show him the house of Modimeng, not that he formed any intention. When he said they must meet people from the head office, he did not know what they wanted, he only knew that they wanted to know where he lived and this was in the evening, that is his evidence, he could not even see what they had in their possession. That's the evidence from Pretorius. Have I paraphrased your evidence correctly?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct, Chairperson. Thank you, Chairperson.

MS NGOMANE: You stated earlier in the other incidents, that you monitored houses, you knew who would be sleeping where, did you know where Mr Modimeng was sleeping?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson if I can recall correctly, the room in which Mr Modimeng slept was one room and this was on the right-hand side. That is the house that we went to. That is where he lived.

MS NGOMANE: Just one moment, Mr Chairperson. Mr Pretorius, you knew where the wife and also the parents, as you've just indicated to us in your examination, that they slept in this particular room. Do you agree with me?

MR PRETORIUS: I this Mr Modimeng himself? That's correct, Chairperson, I knew where he lived along with his spouse in this room.

MS NGOMANE: You knew that he had children in the house and you knew that he had a family as well?

MR PRETORIUS: I knew that he lived on the same plot with the rest of his family and that they lived in the other rooms on the plot.

MS NGOMANE: You foresaw that the acts of the other people you were with, Mr Hechter who was with you, you foresaw the acts that if the bomb was thrown in the residence, it could have killed one of his children, you foresaw that.

MR PRETORIUS: Afterwards I foresaw it. On the way there, I did not know what they were going to do, Chairperson, so I could not foresee it.

MS NGOMANE: You appreciated that the bomb might explode, you appreciated that, Mr Pretorius?

CHAIRPERSON: He did not know until - look, the evidence is that when he met them, it was "pitch dark" was the word he used, he could not even see what they had with them. He pointed out the house from across and pointed at the house and he was told, he and another person, should go and wait for them somewhere and then Hechter and company went and as they came back, that's when he heard this loud explosion. That's his evidence, so there's no question of foreseeability. Foreseeability will only arise if he knew what would obtain, or what is going to happen at that house, but at this stage no foreseeability arises, hence he says: "After the event, I appreciated that children could be injured or other people living in that house could be injured", but let's try our utmost best and treat the evidence as fairly as possible, when we cross-examine. You may proceed.

MS NGOMANE: Thank you. Your informants that you had, Mr Pretorius, you mention in your examination about destructive action, how does destructive action arise if you had to target a specific individual, just like the victim sitting next to me? Can you enlighten us please?

MR ROUX: Chairperson, once again, I do not even understand the question that my learned friend asks. Maybe she should formulate her questions a little better.

CHAIRPERSON: May you rephrase then, Ms Ngomane, the question? That's the request.

MS NGOMANE: I think Mr Pretorius is a competent person, if he doesn't understand my question, you just say: "I don't understand your question". The legal rep, Mr Chairperson, doesn't have to just disrupt my cross-examination. I'm asking Mr Pretorius and I'm not asking the question to him.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct - no microphone)

MS NGOMANE: I wouldn't Mr Chairperson. If the witness does understand the question, he should just be free to answer it.

MR MALAN: Would you please just put the question again because I didn't get it and I would also like to be able to monitor the answer.

MS NGOMANE: Thank you Mr Chairperson. Just a moment please. Mr Pretorius, once again, in your examination-in-chief, if you did listen to yourself, Mr Pretorius, you said that you were called in by Jubber and he informed you that there was a destructive action which has to be executed from Northern Transvaal. I don't know whether you remember saying this.

MR PRETORIUS: Correct, Chairperson, that is what I said.

MS NGOMANE: What it meant was to eliminate whoever, Mr Pretorius. I could be Mrs Joyce Modimeng as well. By destructive action it means that this person who has a file at the branch, if that person, according to the information from your superiors, Mr Jubber, you had to go to those particular houses and point out that this is one of the people that have to be eliminated, if I understood you.

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, I never spoke anywhere of elimination. I also said that I only pointed out houses, I did not even know whose house I had to point out. I was only informed that a disruptive action would be executed and that I had to point out some houses.

MS NGOMANE: Thank you Mr Pretorius. Mr Pretorius, you said when you moved away from where you were, you heard a loud bang. Will you say to me it was a petrol bomb that was thrown in that house?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, I said that before we arrived at the vehicle where we left the vehicle, I heard a loud bang and I knew immediately that that was not a petrol bomb.

MS NGOMANE: You knew it was not a petrol bomb, Mr Pretorius, is this what you are saying?

MR PRETORIUS: That's correct.

MR MALAN: Yes, he said immediately after he had heard the explosion, he knew it was not a petrol bomb.

MS NGOMANE: Mr Pretorius, you just mentioned in your examination-in-chief, your current status now, that you are an expert in bomb blasts. Would you say to me the bomb that was thrown, because now you are an expert Mr Pretorius, you said it for the record that it was not a petrol bomb, can you tell us what could have caused that explosion? What kind of a bomb, or what type, or what quantity in fact could have been thrown in that house and the damage, the extent of damage that particular bomb can cause? Can you just enlighten us, please?

MR MALAN: Would this not be a relevant question for Capt Hechter who, on his evidence in the application, assumes responsibility for the fabrication of the bomb and the explosion, if I understood my papers correctly.

MS NGOMANE: Thank you Mr Chairperson, I withdraw that question.

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed.

MS NGOMANE: Thank you. Mr Pretorius, on the day in question you pointed a house, you stated there were people who threw the bomb, but like you were not there when it happened, you stated that you heard a loud bang afterwards. My question to you is, if you are a person who monitors houses, Mr Pretorius, I think you would have, in the circumstances, taken precautions to point the exact room where the person, just like you stated that he was in the file, you know in your file, you could have thrown the bomb at that particular person, that particular room where he was, would you agree with me?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, if I understand the question correctly, I told the Committee why the bomb was thrown at this specific place. I do not understand what is meant by this question.

MR MALAN: If I understand the question correctly, you did the monitoring, you could point out the specific house where Mr Modimeng spent the evening?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: And I suspect the follow-up question to that is, did you indeed then point out the house where he slept?

MR PRETORIUS: That is what I did, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: That specific room?

MR PRETORIUS: I pointed out the house in the evening, Chairperson, if I recall correctly, it was only one room where he stayed, so I could point out the specific one to Mr Hechter.

MR MALAN: Very well. Thank you.

MS NGOMANE: Mr Modimeng will say that his house has two rooms. What will you say to that Mr Pretorius?

MR PRETORIUS: I cannot answer that, I cannot recall Chairperson.

MS NGOMANE: There are two rooms Mr Pretorius.

ADV SANDI: When was this? Is that two rooms today, or at the time of the occurrence of this incident?

MS NGOMANE: At the time of the occurrence, Mr Sandi. Thank you.

MR MALAN: Is it also alleged that the room that was bombed, was not the one that he was sleeping in?

MS NGOMANE: That's correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR MALAN: So the wrong room was bombed? Will that be his evidence?

MS NGOMANE: Can I just have - can you give me a moment, Mr Chairperson, let me just clarify this point?

MR MALAN: Won't you just please get him to answer the question? The room that was bombed, was that not the room in which he and his wife slept or stayed? It's a simple question. Just tell us what your instructions are, please.

MS NGOMANE: Thank you Mr Chairperson. That is the particular room where he slept with his wife, Mr Chairperson.

MR MALAN: Is the instruction that the room that was bombed was indeed the one that they slept in? Now why all this cross-examination which seems to be not relevant, about the pointing out of the exact room? Please can we try to contain to the issues that are in dispute and try and finish this? We have talked to all the representatives about the pressure of time.

MS NGOMANE: Thank you, Mr Chairperson. Mr Pretorius, your informants, all the information you had about the Modimeng family was incorrect, Mrs Modimeng was never a member of Okasi Women's League, witnesses will be called to say that she never participated in any of their meetings, Mr Modimeng will testify also that his wife was unemployed at that time. She couldn't have been a member of the union.

ADV SANDI: Sorry, did the witness say the deceased's wife was a member of a union, Mr Chairman? no, I'm talking about his viva voce evidence. Did he say that?

MR MALAN: Just for the record, in the written application which he did not affirm, or this relevant portion dealing with the incident itself, there is indeed a reference to Mr Modimeng and his wife being members of the union. In his viva voce evidence though, he made it clear that, well he didn't address the inconsistencies, but he said that Mr Modimeng was a member of the union, that Mrs Modimeng was a member of a Woman's Organisation which he thinks to be the Women's League of Okasi, he's not sure about the name and secondly that she was actively resisting the forced removal. So in his viva voce, he did not stick to what appears to be on the application.

MS NGOMANE: Just a moment Mr Chairman. Mr Pretorius, you still confirm that you associate yourself with the action after the bombing, as you've stated in your evidence-in-chief, that you associated yourself after the bombing, that Mr Modimeng was bombed and that his wife died in the process, you associate yourself with that?

MR PRETORIUS: Correct, Chairperson.

MS NGOMANE: No further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS NGOMANE

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Ngomane. Mr Steenkamp?

ADV STEENKAMP: No questions, thank you. No questions Honourable Chairperson, thank you.

NO QUESTIONS BY ADV STEENKAMP

MR MALAN: No questions, thank you Chair.

ADV SANDI: No questions, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Pretorius.

MR MALAN: Sorry, Chair, with your permission and I'll try really to be brief. Just following up on one question, I'm not sure that I understood your answer correctly, Mr Pretorius. I might as well change over to Afrikaans. You said that when you were on your way to point out the residence of Mr Modimeng, you did not know what the nature of the disruptive action would be, but certainly after the previous acts, you must have had a very good suspicion that it would be some or other form of bomb?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, Chairperson, I assumed that a petrol bomb or a bomb would be used, I did not know exactly.

MR MALAN: In other words, beforehand you knew that it is possible that injuries and loss of life could take place? You must have known.

MR PRETORIUS: I must have known, yes, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Malan. Mr Roux, any re-examination?

MR ROUX: None thank you Chairperson.

NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR ROUX

CHAIRPERSON: Finally I excuse you, Mr Pretorius. Thank you for coming before us.

WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Roux, ...(indistinct - no microphone)

MR ROUX: I wonder Chairperson, whether it would be to adjourn for the interpreters, we have already been sitting since half-past one.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for your consideration of our interpreters who are working very hard in those hot boxes. We will take an adjournment for ten minutes, let them catch their breath. We shall adjourn for ten minutes.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

NAME: ROBERT LESLEY JUBBER

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

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Roux, who's your next witness?

MR ROUX: The next witness, Chairperson, will be Robert Lesley Jubber and that is also the pronunciation of his surname, Jubber. He sounded like Jubber at a certain point, that is why I just want to make certain of this.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for that.

ROBERT LESLEY JUBBER: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed Mr Roux.

MR ROUX: Thank you Chairperson.

EXAMINATION BY MR ROUX: Mr Jubber, in order to expedite matters, before we begin with the relevant matter, I would like to ask you to confirm the following aspects. In the first place, do you associate yourself with the evidence that you have listened to and that you have been involved with in as far as it may be of application to you, the evidence then of Mr Pretorius?

MR JUBBER: Yes, I confirm this.

MR ROUX: Furthermore do you confirm, if you consult the bundle page 50, the heading is Robert Lesley Jubber, Schedule 1, Disruptive Action Okasi, Brits, will you confirm that page, up to and including - I beg your pardon, you will be testifying about the specific action from page 53 to 75, if you could just study that briefly.

MR JUBBER: Yes, I confirm this.

MR ROUX: Will you then page back to page 26 and more specifically then page 28 up to and including page 49 and also confirm the content thereof?

MR JUBBER: Yes, I have studied this and I confirm it as such.

MR ROUX: Very well. Will you state at the time of these incidents during May 1986, is it correct that you were the Commander of the sub-branch of the Northern Transvaal Security Branch which was situated at Brits?

MR JUBBER: That is correct.

MR ROUX: To whom did you report, in other words who were the command structures above you?

MR JUBBER: Chairperson, I reported directly to division Northern Transvaal, the Commander of which was Brig Jack Cronje.

MR ROUX: Were you familiar with Jacques Hechter?

MR JUBBER: Yes, I was familiar with Jacques Hechter.

MR ROUX: Who, at that stage, was a Lieutenant at the Security Branch Northern Transvaal, at the head office?

MR JUBBER: Yes, that is correct.

MR ROUX: Will you explain when disruptive actions were executed, who was the selected person or persons who were deployed for that task?

MR JUBBER: To make it easier Chairperson, I would say that I was tasked by Jack Cronje that if disruptive actions were to be executed in my division, that would then be the Brits environment, that we would provide the necessary support. This was put to me clearly according to the need-to-know principle and it was accepted as such. We had much experience over many years at the Security Branch and we were well aware of the need-to-know principle.

MR ROUX: Did Brig Cronje tell you at that stage who the persons would be who would be operating in your vicinity?

MR JUBBER: Yes, that is correct, it would be Lieut Jacques Hechter.

MR ROUX: Regarding the gathering of information and the application of informers and the processing by Pretorius of such information, do you confirm and associate yourself with the evidence that he has already presented, the evidence that you have heard?

MR JUBBER: Yes, I confirm this.

MR ROUX: When this information reached you, what did you do with it?

MR ROUX: Chairperson, I might elaborate somewhat on this. I conducted the evaluation, a report was divided as such that a specific code was allocated to such an informer report, so if there was more than one informer it would be indicated as such that it is confirmed by various informers who the informer was, the code name or number of such an informer and then in order to inform head office it would be indicated that it would be supported by WL11, that would be telephonically by means of tapping or the interception of the post of individuals and this would then also be indicated on the report and according to this the report would also receive a code as to whether it was A, information or whether it was still to be confirmed, or whether it had to be studied further.

MR ROUX: Very well. And when these reports reached your desk, did you process these reports, and then what did you do with the reports?

MR JUBBER: Chairperson I processed the reports and promoted these reports then to Division Northern Transvaal.

MR ROUX: In other words it would have gone to Brig Jack Cronje or the then Lieut Hechter?

MR JUBBER: Correct, it would have been conveyed to the relevant desk or officer who was dealing with that specific case.

MR ROUX: Very well. Do you confirm, if one could begin with Celo Ramakope, Leonard Brown and then David Modimeng, the information which was at the disposal of the Security Branch with regard to all their activities, which had already been testified to by Pretorius?

MR JUBBER: As far as I can recall, I confirm this.

MR ROUX: Can you recall the specific date during which the Ramakope and Leonard Brown incident took place?

MR JUBBER: Chairperson no, I have verified it and informed myself of the specific dates by means of Mr Pretorius, subsequently, because I could not recall these dates.

MR ROUX: Very well. Can you recall that it was approximately during the month of May in 1986, when Leonard Brown and Celo Ramakope's homes were attacked? I recall that it was in the former part of the year but I cannot recall the specific month or date, therefore you would depend upon that which was said by Mr Pretorius with regard to this?

MR JUBBER: That is correct.

MR ROUX: Could you then explain to the Committee how Mr Pretorius became involved with Jacques Hechter's task force which conducted the disruptive actions?

MR JUBBER: Chairperson, I received telephonic calls from Lieut Hechter, in which I was informed that they would be entering my area in order to execute actions and that I was to make a person available to them.

MR ROUX: Lieut Hechter, at that stage, you have already testified that you knew that he was a member of this task force under the command of Brig Jack Cronje, is that correct?

MR JUBBER: Yes, that is correct.

MR ROUX: Because he was a Lieutenant and you, at that stage, were a Colonel?

MR JUBBER: No, I was a Captain.

MR ROUX: Captain. In other words he occupied a lower rank to you.

MR JUBBER: Just to say, Chairperson, that if the order came from a commanding officer, then regardless of the rank of the person who was involved, he would act under the auspices of the head office authorisation and I would be subordinate to that.

MR ROUX: In other words you say that if Hechter telephoned you and needed someone to be made available to him, you would assume that he was acting under the order of Cronje and you accepted it as such?

MR JUBBER: Yes, that is correct, it would then be a legal order from the Northern Transvaal Division or Jack Cronje as the Commander.

MR ROUX: Although Jack Cronje had not contacted you personally but instead Hechter had contacted you?

MR JUBBER: That is correct.

MR ROUX: Did you then receive an order from Jacques Hechter to render a person available? That is the last point where you were, pertaining to the relevant facts. Could you proceed from there?

MR JUBBER: Chairperson, I stated that upon a previous occasion, I had visited Pretoria regularly as a Branch Commander, where I had attended meetings and on this occasion, I received a specific order from Jack Cronje to support them, should they make any such request. No time was attached to it, there wasn't a where or a when. In other words, when the call came from Jacques Hechter, I knew that it was a legal order from Brig Jack Cronje.

MR ROUX: And when you sent Pretorius to meet Jacques Hechter at the Head Office of the Northern Transvaal's parking area, did you tell him specifically why he would be meeting Jacques Hechter, or what did the order involve?

MR JUBBER: Chairperson, I simply gave the order to go to a specific place. There was no further information regarding what was to take place, because I myself had not been informed about this.

MR ROUX: Did you, at that stage, know that if Jacques Hechter contacted you, there would be disruptive actions to be executed in the Brits area by them?

MR JUBBER: Chairperson, it is difficult to say because I was never specifically informed about Brits. They could have done this in any area, including Bophuthatswana, but I assumed that the disruptive actions of that time, would take place in the vicinity of the Division.

MR ROUX: And is that how Pretorius became involved, based upon an order given by you?

MR JUBBER: That is correct. I specifically gave him the order.

MR MALAN: Just before you continue, I just want to take you back. Why did you select Pretorius?

MR JUBBER: Chairperson, at that stage he was my best desk officer, even though he didn't bear a commission rank, he was the most experienced member in his area. He was very loyal and reliable and that is why I gave him this order.

MR MALAN: Thank you, you may proceed.

MR ROUX: Just to avoid any confusion, what does the term "desk officer" entail?

MR JUBBER: Chairperson, this would be somebody who would specifically deal with trade unions, for example, or deal with black power organisations such as PAC or ANC, but with us, because we were such a small branch, it was very difficult. Some of my staff member who served under my command at that time, had various tasks, they covered a very wide field. In other words, whether it was weapons smuggling, or trade unions or churches, he could have been involved with it. At head office a desk dealt specifically with an aspect such as organisations or trade unions and the like, that is why all our members had more experience and involvement with a much wider range of activities than the regular person working at head office.

MR ROUX: Very well. The day after the Brown and Ramakope incident took place, were you aware that it had been Hechter and Pretorius and the others, or was it merely your inference that it was them, or did they discuss the matter with you? How did it happen?

MR JUBBER: Chairperson, at that stage, I was the trained demolitions officer or bomb disposal expert and I visited these scenes and upon my visit and investigation of these scenes, I accepted that it was them.

MR ROUX: Did you also associate yourself with their action and the consequences thereof? Let us begin specifically with the Ramakope and Brown incident.

MR JUBBER: Yes, I associated myself with it and at that stage I regarded these actions as legal.

MR ROUX: Regarding the Modimeng matter, do you also associate yourself with the action and the consequences which it held for, among others, Mrs Joyce Modimeng who was killed during the incident?

MR JUBBER: Yes, Chairperson, I associated myself with it.

MR ROUX: Did you reconcile yourself with the resultant effects?

MR JUBBER: Yes, I associated and reconciled myself with it and I assumed moral responsibility.

MR ROUX: Did Pretorius or Hechter ever report to you subsequent to such an action and tell you what they had done and explain to you whether or not it had been successful?

MR JUBBER: No, if they had it would have been a tremendous transgression and they would not have been with Security any longer.

MR ROUX: In other words, your reference a few moments ago to a legal action, in your own mind would that be a legal action within the parameters of the law or within your own opinion? For example, the right type of action?

MR JUBBER: That is correct, legally it was not legal, but I associated myself that under the circumstances it was correct.

MR ROUX: After the fact, did you make any reports with regard to these unlawful actions to any persons?

MR JUBBER: No Chairperson, no reports were compiled. It was not discussed during meetings, it was left at that. It was accepted as such and left at that.

MR ROUX: Did you realise at this particular stage after the attacks and after you became aware, that it had been Hechter and Pretorius and the other members of the task force, so to speak, that you were guilty of defeating the ends of justice in that you had not reported it?

MR JUBBER: That is correct.

MR ROUX: And did you also associate yourself with this?

MR JUBBER: Yes, I did.

MR ROUX: Thank you Chairperson, that is the evidence of this applicant.

MR MALAN: May I just follow up something? When you visited these scenes as demolitions expert, you went out as an investigating officer, what did you do, did you open any files?

MR JUBBER: Yes, that is correct. I conducted the necessary investigation as the demolitions expert and handed everything over to the Detective Unit of Brits as if it were a normal investigation.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: What about the last incident? Are we not dealing with it right away so that cross-examination could be complete?

MR ROUX: I beg your pardon, I'm not certain whether or not I have led his evidence with regard to this.

MR MALAN: I thought that you had dealt with everything collectively, but you did not deal with the date of Modimeng specifically.

MR ROUX: As it pleases you. Perhaps I have not dealt with the exact date, but I have sketched the broader picture. Can you recall when the David Modimeng incident took place, or is this information that you procured from Pretorius?

MR JUBBER: That is correct. I also obtained this from Insp Pretorius because I cannot recall the specific dates or times.

MR ROUX: Will you please consult page 51, it must be a spelling error in paragraph 5. Do you associate yourself with the date 27 May 1986? The 9 ought to be an 8.

MR JUBBER: Yes, that is correct because this incident took place during the 80s.

MR ROUX: And once again, with regard to this matter, did you give Pretorius the order to meet Hechter? I'm not certain whether I discussed this with you.

MR JUBBER: With regard to all the orders, they were issued during the 80s, I cannot recall anything that took place prior to this or during the 90s because in 1989 I was transferred from Brits so it had to have been during those years.

MR ROUX: Perhaps you have misunderstood me. With the second occasion, the Modimeng occasion, did you once again give Pretorius the order to meet Hechter as he testified with regard to the Brits/Thabazimbi rendezvous point?

MR JUBBER: That is correct.

MR ROUX: And did you also know, upon the second occasion, what was aimed at by Hechter and the rest of his team?

MR JUBBER: Yes, that is correct.

MR ROUX: Did you also visit the scene subsequent to the incident? I beg your pardon, with regard to the Modimeng matter?

MR JUBBER: Yes, that is correct. I also visited that scene.

MR ROUX: And if you also associate yourself, as you stated earlier, with everything that you had associated yourself in the case of Brown and Ramakope, that the same was of application to the Modimeng incident?

MR JUBBER: That is correct.

MR ROUX: Very well. Chairperson, I do believe that that will be all the evidence.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR ROUX

CHAIRPERSON: I suppose we assume the same order.

MR RICHARD: A slight change. I will go first this time around.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Oh because you've got one incident, it's much better.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR RICHARD: Sir, you were in Commander of the Brits area and in your capacity as such, did you originate any, what have been described as disruptive actions during the time period of these incidents, or was it originated from above you?

MR JUBBER: Chairperson, as the Branch Commander, I never gave such orders or initiated such actions. This came completely from head office.

MR RICHARD: Now, on what information would head office make a decision to give such an instruction? What information would they have at their disposal?

MR JUBBER: All information which came from the sub-branch, the reports that we sent through.

MR RICHARD: Now, is it not correct to say that as the Commander of the area, all those reports would be scrutinised by you before being sent to Pretoria?

MR MALAN: That was his evidence Mr Richard and he sent them, forwarded them to Pretoria, his own reports.

MR RICHARD: Now, do you know why Mr Brown's parents' residence was targeted for the action?

MR JUBBER: No, Chairperson, except that the information which Insp Pretorius gave, indicating that he was an activist and a suspect who was under our attention and that reports were sent through to head office. I do not have any further knowledge of the operation itself.

MR RICHARD: Now, did you go to the Brown's residence after the explosion? You said you did, but do you recall what you saw?

MR JUBBER: Chairperson, I know that I visited the scenes, but I really cannot recall precisely what took place there, or what I did there, in the sense that I accept that it was a normal investigation at the scene.

MR RICHARD: Do you remember the house to be badly damaged, or lightly damaged?

MR JUBBER: No, I cannot recall.

MR RICHARD: Now, with regard to the decision-making process above you, do you know whether it was Mr Cronje, or Mr Cronje and others who made decisions as to what actions were to be taken in your area?

MR JUBBER: Chairperson, I liaised with Brig Cronje as the Divisional commander. I did not liaise on head office level itself, that was up to Jack Cronje. I received orders from him only.

MR RICHARD: But you have no idea who made the decisions as to what orders would be given and who, for instance, would have decided to attack Mr Brown's home, or his parent's home?

MR JUBBER: Chairperson, I accept that it was on Divisional level, via Lieut Hechter's desk, through Brig Jack Cronje and whether or not it was taken any further I cannot tell you, I only know that it would have gone as far as Brig Cronje at least.

MR RICHARD: Were you ever present when Mr Brown sitting next to me, was interrogated?

MR JUBBER: Yes, Chairperson, I have been present when Mr Brown was at our offices, perhaps only for a brief while, but I myself was not completely involved with interrogation or the gathering of information such as the field workers, this was due to my administrative capacity.

MR RICHARD: Now my last question is, when you received the order that Mr Pretorius would go and meet Mr Hechter at the parking grounds in Pretoria, did you have any idea that damage to property and injury to persons might ensue?

MR JUBBER: I didn't know precisely what the disruptive action itself, at this specific time, would involve, but I associated myself with what was going to happen, or what could happen. That is all that I can say and I can state it clearly as Mr Pretorius has stated it, I cannot tell you any further regarding what took place, I didn't have any further information at my disposal, suffice to say that I accept responsibility for what took place.

MR RICHARD: Before Mr Brown's incident, how many other disruptive incidents had happened in your area?

MR JUBBER: Chairperson, I would not be able to answer that.

MR RICHARD: Had some happened?

MR JUBBER: Chairperson, I would not be able to tell you in the sense that I only know about the disruptive actions for which amnesty has been applied for. However, I do not know of any other disruptive actions which were executed by the Brits Security Branch.

CHAIRPERSON: May I just interpose Mr Richard? Other than these three incidents which brought us together, were there any other for instance, I don't want a number, other than these three, were there any other disruptive actions within your jurisdiction?

MR JUBBER: There were normal legal actions which were executed, that would be for example propaganda pamphlets. I can confirm such actions, but I do not know of any other.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Jubber.

MR RICHARD: Thank you. Do you know anything about the name Jacob Moatse?

CHAIRPERSON: Come again with the surname Mr Richard.

MR RICHARD: M-O-A-T-S-E

MR JUBBER: Chairperson, it doesn't occur to me.

MR RICHARD: If there had been any other disruptive incidents that particular night, the night of Mr Brown's event, besides the two before us today, would you have known about them?

MR JUBBER: I did not receive any feedback regarding which actions had been executed, therefore I would not have known about it.

MR RICHARD: Does the name Mr Hunter mean anything in your memory?

MR JUBBER: The only Hunter that I know is W/O Hunter who at that stage was working with me at the branch. He was one of the members along with Mr Pretorius who served under my command. Is it Hunter?

MR RICHARD: Correct, it is Hunter. Now is it not correct that Mr Hunter would have interrogated Mr Brown if there was a need in your area to interrogate Mr Brown?

MR JUBBER: Chairperson, I cannot answer that. It is too long ago and the tasks were various by nature. I would not be able to recall specifically.

MR RICHARD: No further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR RICHARD

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Richard. Ms Ngomane.

MS NGOMANE: Thank you Mr Chairperson. I will refer to the Modimeng case before I go to Mr Ramakope. I will ask the witness in regard to what he has said regarding what happened in the Modimeng case. Thank you.

Just a moment, Mr Chairperson.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS NGOMANE: Mr Jubber, how are you Sir?

MR JUBBER: Very well, thank you.

MS NGOMANE: Do you recognise this man who is sitting next to me, Mr Jubber?

MR JUBBER: Chairperson, he looks familiar. I think it's David Modimeng, if I'm correct. It is many years ago and I think we have all aged.

MS NGOMANE: Mr Jubber, I'm not going to waste the Committee's time, I just want to clarify a point here. You have met the victim sitting next to me before this incident took place?

MR JUBBER: Correct, Chairperson. I had dealings with Mr Modimeng when he was still a member of the Young Christian Workers.

MS NGOMANE: You know him very well, Mr Jubber.

MR JUBBER: I know him. I would only say that in the last few years when I was more in the office, I did not have any personal dealings with him as when he was younger.

MS NGOMANE: You were aware, Mr Jubber, that surveillances and the monitoring were done in his house, were you?

MR JUBBER: I am aware of it. I approved those actions.

MS NGOMANE: You were told this by your desk officer, the one who is very loyal to you and reliable, Mr Pretorius, that he's very active in the activities of the union, is that correct?

MR JUBBER: Yes, that is correct, Chairperson.

MS NGOMANE: Mr Jubber, prior to the incident in question, you have met Mr Modimeng, sitting next to me, and you stated to him that: "One day a snake..." Mr Chairperson, can we put that on record that he said to Mr Modimeng:

MR Modimeng: "One day the snake will bite you". That was in 1982. You came to me in the presence of TV, we used to call him TV and in a Cressida.

MR JUBBER: One moment please, Mr Chairperson.

MR ROUX: Chairperson, I am not familiar with the procedure with regard to the - but in so far as it is relevant in these proceedings, I shall advise my client to answer that question.

MS NGOMANE: Do you recall Mr Pretorius, what my client who is sitting next to me, do you recall saying that to him in 1982?

MR JUBBER: Please repeat that Chairperson, what did I say to him?

MR MALAN: You would have said to him, one day the snake will bite you at night, and that would have been in 1982.

MR JUBBER: ...(not translated) "Ek ontken dit ten sterkste. Ek maak beswaar daarteen dat ek dit gesê het."

CHAIRPERSON: You can deny it, you cannot object to it.

MS NGOMANE: Mr Jubber, you know Mr Modimeng, it's not the first time that you are seeing him today, is it? Is it the first time that you are seeing him today?

MR MALAN: Really with all due respect, you've asked him that question three times. He said he knows him, it's not the first time he sees him, he knew him well when he was younger, he saw him less often when he became desk bound in his administration functions, it's common cause he knows him.

MR JUBBER: Chairperson, in order to satisfy your client, I tried to recruit Mr Modimeng as an informer of the Security Branch when he was still attached to the Young Christian Workers, that is where we got to know each other quite well.

MS NGOMANE: Thank you Mr Jubber. Mr Jubber, you mentioned that there were meetings prior to this incident that you had with Brig Cronje, is that correct? The meetings which took place at the branch where you discuss ...

MR MALAN: At head office.

MS NGOMANE: Thank you.

MR JUBBER: Chairperson, may I answer the question? Chairperson every Friday I attended a meeting in Pretoria. Amongst others I also attended a joint management meeting there. This disruptive action was never discussed at any meeting and except that Brig Jack asked me to led assistance to Lieut Hechter if they requested something of me. The closest that it came to a need-to-know, is the closest I got to know of it on a need-to-know basis.

MS NGOMANE: Mr Jubber, by then you were the Commander of the sub-branch, you were aware of all the acts that were committed by your subordinates. Am I correct if I state that?

MR JUBBER: Chairperson, I had knowledge of the gathering of information, that is correct yes.

MS NGOMANE: And did your desk officer, the reliable Mr Pretorius, tell you, did he give you feedback about what transpired after the bombings, the loyal and reliable Mr Pretorius, did he inform you whether the mission was accomplished in respect of the bombings that were committed against Mr Modimeng and Mr Ramakope?

MR JUBBER: No, Chairperson.

ADV SANDI: Sorry. What could have been the reason for that? Would it be because this was an operation conducted on, what you've referred to as a need-to-know basis?

MR JUBBER; Yes, that is correct.

MS NGOMANE: The specific orders you gave to Pretorius that he should monitor the trade unions and you mentioned a black power organisation, meaning the liberation movement, was it your direct instruction that he should survey these organisations?

MR JUBBER: Yes, that is correct. All authorisations for such actions, I approved.

MS NGOMANE: Mr Jubber, were you aware at any stage that Mr Modimeng was transporting weapons for the ANC? Did it come to your knowledge?

MR JUBBER: The last that I had knowledge of was that such information was obtained from informants. That is all I can tell you about that, Chairperson. I cannot recall any specific detail with regard to the movements of the persons.

MS NGOMANE: So I will be correct if I say the information that you had was unreliable in so far as it was not confirmed? You didn't do a research on your part to confirm whether Mr Modimeng was transporting weapons, Sir?

MR JUBBER: No, I do not agree with that Chairperson. I stand by that it was information that came to my desk, or across my desk and attention had to be paid to it.

MR MALAN: But if I understand the question correctly, then you agree this was information, this was not necessarily confirmed? You have no knowledge that it was confirmed?

MR JUBBER: It was too long ago, Chairperson, I cannot go back on reports and what was said specifically in reports.

MR MALAN: The question is really, there is a denial that he was ever involved in any gun running, or smuggling with firearms or dealing in firearms. In the reports that came to your knowledge, was this confirmed and were you satisfied that he was indeed involved or would you accept that it could not be confirmed that this was true?

MR JUBBER: Chairperson, all that I can say is that it was information that came across my desk that he was involved in such activities.

MR MALAN: Did you regard it therefore as factually correct?

MR JUBBER: I regarded it that attention had to be paid to it and further research had to be done. I'm not certain whether I understand your answer correct.

MR MALAN: Was this that it had to be further investigated in order to find out whether it was true or was it to be investigated in order to catch him?

MR JUBBER: If it was confirmed Chairperson that at that specific moment he was indeed involved, he would have been arrested, but this information was follow-up information.

MR MALAN: Very well. In other words it was not confirmed?

MR JUBBER: I do not understand.

MR MALAN: You are telling me if it was confirmed information, he would have been arrested. The informants said that he was involved there, but according to me there was no information that says tonight he will drive off with a vehicle full of weapons. In other words you accepted that he was involved?

MR JUBBER: I accepted that he was involved and that it needed attention.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

MS NGOMANE: Mr Jubber, you just draw conclusions without concrete evidence to that effect that definitely Mr Modimeng was transporting weapons and you will have been arrested for unlawful possession of ammunition. You will have done that as a Commander. You could have given this instruction to your subordinates, Mr Pretorius, that they should arrest him. Would you do that, Sir, at that particular stage?

MR JUBBER: Chairperson ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: You misunderstood his answer I guess. He said that the information was that he was involved in the conveying of arms, but no specific information as to where and when and it was to be followed up and he would only have been arrested if they could have established that he could be arrested with the arms at a specific time and place, but he accepted that the information that your client was indeed involved with the transporting of arms was correct, that was his evidence.

MR JUBBER: Thank you, Chairperson.

ADV SANDI: Just on this issue. Would that particular piece of information have been sent to head office as well as part of the information that you would normally send to the head office, at that stage where he had not even confirmed the truthfulness of this information?

MR JUBBER: Chairperson that is correct. All information was sent through, but as I have explained initially, there was an evaluation system at head office. In order to give head office an indication as to at which level the information was dealt with because head office and Division C also had their own informants who specifically dealt with MK members and weapons, so every bit of information was sent through, but the reference was satisfactory for head office to understand at which level we investigated.

ADV SANDI: I know you were not part of the decision that his house, Mr Modimeng, that his house should be attacked, but would this information have played any role towards the taking of that decision that his house be attacked?

MR JUBBER: Chairperson I accept that as a member who has been involved in Security from 1973, that all information that came across the desks were evaluated and dealt with further, but at a higher level it was out of our control. We had no powers to take decisions, which were to be taken by division or head office.

ADV SANDI: Thank you Ms Ngomane.

MS NGOMANE: Mr Jubber, you mentioned that you had someone who you relied so much, you relied on the desk officer, Mr Pretorius who was here, regarding information, did he mention to you that, or did it come to your knowledge, Mr Jubber, that Mrs Modimeng was also active in the struggle?

MR JUBBER: Chairperson, may I just say that all these informant reports were written and not verbal. These informants were supplied with tape recorders, so I'm not ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: Mr Jubber, please listen to the question. The question is whether you had any knowledge, or whether any information to that effect did come to your knowledge that Mrs Modimeng was active in the town?

MR JUBBER: Chairperson, I would have gotten to the point. Yes, I did have knowledge that she was involved in the activities of Okasi.

MS NGOMANE: This information that you've mentioned Sir, is it only from the informants only? That is the only evidence you had about the movements of the Modimeng family? This evidence that you are telling me now, that you were aware, was it only the information from the informants only, or you had other people from your branch, just like you did Mr Pretorius, this one was very loyal to you, did he make follow-ups to confirm in fact that definitely Mrs Modimeng is part of the people who were against the anti-removal campaign?

MR JUBBER: I can only confirm Chairperson what Inspector Pretorius has said, that the other field workers also brought in information and these meetings were technically covered. This would have been where the information came from.

ADV SANDI: Just to ensure that I understand you. When you say these meetings were technically covered, are you referring to the mechanical devices that would have been placed in those venues where the meetings were being held?

MR JUBBER: Correct, Chairperson.

MS NGOMANE: Were, at any stage Mr Jubber, these people you sent to Hechter to commit these acts, were they ever reprimanded, or were they told whether they have to take precautions when they throw bombs at houses?

MR JUBBER: Chairperson, I did not know what happened there. I did not receive any feedback, I did not speak to anyone about this.

MS NGOMANE: I understand you to say that after the operations, no questions asked, it just happened, the chapter is closed and that's it, Mr Jubber, you don't get information that the mission was accomplished or not?

MR JUBBER: Correct, Chairperson.

MS NGOMANE: May I put it to you Mr Jubber that Mr Modimeng was not a member of the Liberation Movement. She was not interested in any activities in the union and she never was a member of the Okasi Women's League. You stated, your loyal and reliable desk officers stated that she was. Will you dispute it Mr Jubber, if I say she was not a member, she was never involved in any politics whatsoever? Will you dispute it?

MR JUBBER: I dispute that. I will say it again. She was involved in the removals and with the organisations as Mr Pretorius has stated it.

MS NGOMANE: Mr Pretorius stated earlier that he was uncertain, Mr Jubber. He said she was ...(intervention)

MR ROUX: Once again, Chairperson, I object. That is not what he said.

CHAIRPERSON: That is not what he said.

MS NGOMANE: Mr Chairperson, I will retaliate and say that Mr Pretorius never when I cross-examined him, he didn't elicit information and proof that Mrs Modimeng was part of the Liberation Movement. He said he heard from informers, Mr Chairperson, that she was a member and I asked him whether the information from the informers was accurate and he said that sometimes it was not accurate, it was unreliable.

CHAIRPERSON: What he said, he said they relied on informers and certain information would come to them and they would follow it up and indeed he did say some would have been, but they would follow that information up and now if you listen to Mr Jubber, he says no, they even used tapes and that was in response to the question posed by the Panel Member here, Adv Sandi.

MS NGOMANE: My instruction, Mr Jubber, is that if you say that she was a member of the union or she participated in any political organisation, then I think you should just hand up an exhibit or proof or anything to that effect. My instruction is that Mrs Modimeng was not active, she was a housewife, she never participated in any activities whatsoever. Thank you Mr Jubber.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ma'am.

MS NGOMANE: Mr Chairman, can I ...

CHAIRPERSON: Oh I though you were finished.

MS NGOMANE: No, I am not finished, I'm coming to the Celo Ramakope case. Thank you. Just a moment Mr Chairperson. Mr Jubber, may I proceed Mr Chairperson?

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct - no microphone)

MS NGOMANE: Okay. Mr Jubber, the information you had with the incidents regard the, I'm talking about the Celo Ramakope matter, do you, were you aware of the incident that took place? Were you aware Mr Jubber, that Mr Ramakope will be bombed on that particular day?

MR JUBBER: Chairperson, I was not aware of it.

MS NGOMANE: Did Pretorius report to you that they've bombed, - let me rephrase my question. Did Pretorius, your desk officer, the one you said he was so loyal and reliable to you, did he inform you that they've petrol bombed Mr Ramakope? Did he give you feedback?

M JUBBER: No, Chairperson.

MS NGOMANE: Mr Jubber, what I'm getting at is that you were saying that those activities, even in this case, Ramakope, when they were not reported to you, they were not reported to you and you didn't make a follow-u?

MR MALAN: Yes, that was clearly his evidence-in-chief. It's been confirmed, it was led now.

MS NGOMANE: Mr Jubber, did you associate yourself afterwards with the incident? Did you?

MR MALAN: He gave that evidence in chief, too. I mean, you can check your notes. I assume you are keeping notes?

MS NGOMANE: No further questions, thank you.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS NGOMANE

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ma'am. Any questions from the Panel? Mr Malan?

MR MALAN: I have no questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Adv Sandi?

ADV SANDI: I have no questions Chairperson, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you to both of you. Mr Roux, any re-examination?

MR ROUX: None, Chairperson, thank you.

NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR ROUX

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Jubber.

MR JUBBER: Thank you Chairperson.

WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: I see we don't have much time left.

MR ROUX: That's correct, Chairperson, I think it is now almost five to four. I am just concerned that if I start leading my following client and my following client would be Mr van Vuuren and there is opposition, that I would have to lead his evidence over two days and I do not think that is prudent.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct - no microphone)

MR ROUX: I think possibly that is the request that I would direct to you, that we start afresh with a new witness and that evidence does not stay overnight, upon which cross-examination would be done.

CHAIRPERSON: There is an incident which we discussed, that is the Panel, with our Evidence Leader that we would commence earlier than people had thought, but we are going to start with that incident and we hope to return to you at 9 in the morning.

MR ROUX: At 9 o'clock. Certainly.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Richard and Ms Ngomane, are you - have you heard what I said?

MS NGOMANE: Mr Chairperson, so we should make ourselves available at 9 o'clock tomorrow?

CHAIRPERSON: 9 o'clock in the morning.

MS NGOMANE: Okay. In order.

MR RICHARD: I shall be here at eight.

CHAIRPERSON: I hope you get a cup of warm coffee. Thank you everybody for your attendance this far. Due to other circumstances or other duties which are supposed to be performed by counsel in this matter, which they asked for time to adjourn early, we have allowed that and we say we'll commence tomorrow at 8. That is another incident, but this one will definitely go ahead at 9 in the morning. We appreciate your attendance and if you further want to see how far it goes, feel free. Thank you. We adjourn. I hope we have a very good night and not more rain tomorrow morning.

MR ROUX: Chairperson, I beg your pardon. I have just heard from my client that at 9 o'clock I will call Mr van Vuuren. I do not know how long Mr Van Vuuren's evidence is, but Jacques Hechter can only be here at 11 o'clock. He has important business that he has to attend to tomorrow morning. If we finish early with Mr van Vuuren then you have to please be patient with me, up to the time that Jacques Hechter appears, but we shall be ready to commence at 9 o'clock with Mr van Vuuren.

CHAIRPERSON: That is in order.

MR ROUX: I am indebted to you, thank you.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS