Amnesty Hearings

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I am running out of witnesses, except one, that is Gen van der Merwe. Mr van Wyngaard will be here tomorrow morning, I am told Mr Chairman, but he won't be available today. We are going a bit quicker than we anticipated, but we would ...

ADV DE JAGER: Full names please?

MR VAN DER MERWE: Johannes Velde van der Merwe.

JOHANNES VELDE VAN DER MERWE: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Gen van der Merwe, similarly you have given evidence on many previous occasions before the TRC and the Amnesty Committee, is that correct?

MR VAN DER MERWE: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: You request that your evidence from previous matters during which you testified, be considered in the consideration of your amnesty application, also with regard to this matter?

MR VAN DER MERWE: Yes, I do so.

MR VISSER: In your amnesty application, on page 61 we can find your application from page 61 to 69 and on page 61 when you compiled your amnesty application under paragraph 7(a) and (b) you responded with the words "not applicable", however you request of the Committee as you have requested before, that your amnesty application form be formally amended to reflect that 7(a) is "National Party" and 7(b), "supporter", is that correct?

MR VAN DER MERWE: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: We move for such amendment, Mr Chairman. You have studied Exhibit A which has been served before the Committee?

MR VAN DER MERWE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And you were also instrumental in the amendment of the chapter with regard to Swaziland and Mozambique as it currently appears on page 23 and following?

MR VAN DER MERWE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Do you also request that the information embodied therein and the evidence which is referred to in Exhibit A and H which is a summary of your evidence, be accepted as a part of your evidence before this Committee?

MR VAN DER MERWE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: In the year 1986, during the struggle of the past, how would you describe the appearance of violence in that period of time?

MR VAN DER MERWE: Chairperson, as I have already testified on previous occasions, violence, killing, car bomb explosions, limpet mine explosions, and various other forms of violence, were basically a daily occurrence and the Security Branch was involved in a daily struggle for life and death.

MR VISSER: Is it also correct that on the 12th of June 1986, a general state of emergency was announced, which was of application to the entire country?

MR VAN DER MERWE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And in the course of studying reports which came to Head Office, did you become aware of the so-called Transvaal Military Machinery which operated from Swaziland?

MR VAN DER MERWE: Yes, that is correct, I was familiar with their activities.

MR VISSER: Did you also come to hear of a group by the name of September Machinery?

MR VAN DER MERWE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: What was your position in 1986 in the Security Police?

MR VAN DER MERWE: I was the Security Head of the Security Branch of the SAP.

MR VISSER: Is it correct that you were informed during 1986 approximately November/December of a meeting that was held in Middelburg in the Transvaal during which a decision was taken for something to be done to attempt to curb the violence?

MR VAN DER MERWE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: You stated in paragraph 6 of Exhibit H that upon a certain Friday of which you cannot recall the precise date, but that you believe it to have been the 12th of December 1986, a meeting was held in your office at Security Head Office in Pretoria?

MR VAN DER MERWE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Can you tell us who you recall as having been present at this meeting?

MR VAN DER MERWE: Chairperson, my recollection about this is rather vague, but as far as I can recall, Gen Ig Coetzee, who was then a Brigadier, was present, as well as Brig Schoon, Col de Kock and some of the other members, who have been mentioned here, although I cannot remember their names.

MR VISSER: What was discussed during the meeting?

MR VAN DER MERWE: During the meeting, a planned action which had already been proposed regarding the group September Machinery, in Swaziland, was discussed and the group reported to me about a possible action against this group. We discussed the necessity and all factors which was significant in the whole matter as well as the practical viability of this operation and it was clear to me that it was necessary for the Security Branch to take urgent action against this particular group in an attempt to prevent any further commission of violence by them. And consequently I came to the conclusion that such an action, under those circumstances was necessary and advisable.

MR VISSER: You have heard the evidence of Colonels Coetzee and Pretorius and de Jager who gave evidence here this morning, before the Committee, is that correct?

MR VAN DER MERWE: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: Did you also listen to the events and the information leading up to this incident which gave rise to the planning and the execution of this operation?

MR VAN DER MERWE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Is it today your recollection that the information which was conveyed to this Committee was similar to the information which was conveyed to you in 1986?

MR VAN DER MERWE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: We know who the persons were as you have stipulated in paragraph 9 and you state that after the discussions and after thorough consideration, it became clear to you that action was necessary?

MR VAN DER MERWE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Did you then express such authority?

MR VAN DER MERWE: Yes, I expressed the authorisation for the action.

MR VISSER: Was this an easy decision or what was your position?

MR VAN DER MERWE: No Chairperson, under the circumstances of that time, and particularly with the fact that we were going to act in another country, it was quite a weighty decision, but if one considers that at that stage we were embroiled in a struggle for life or death, where acts of violence were committed on a daily basis, I had no other choice but to come to the conviction that such an action was necessary and so doing, expressed my authorisation for it.

MR VISSER: And was it also your opinion according to Col Coetzee's evidence here this morning, that there was a tremendous spate of attacks with explosives in 1986 and that the sentiment was that the probability was that these acts had found their origin in Swaziland?

MR VAN DER MERWE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Upon diverse occasions, you have set out your political motivations, some of them have been considered in certain decisions made by the Amnesty Committee, do you once again confirm these statements?

MR VAN DER MERWE: Yes.

MR VISSER: And do you request that the Amnesty Committee consider your application favourably with regard to any offence or delict that you may have committed before, during or after the incident in Swaziland during which persons were killed? Technically Mr Chairman, also at page 4, paragraphs 18(c) and (d) will not be applicable, and attempted murder will be conspiracy, Mr Chairman, for as far as that may be necessary. Thank you Mr Chairman, that is the evidence from this witness.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER

MR HATTINGH: Thank you Mr Chairman, Hattingh on record, I have no questions, thank you.

NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH

MR ROSSOUW: No questions, Mr Chairman.

NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR ROSSOUW

MR PRINSLOO: No questions, thank you, Chairperson.

NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO

MS VAN DER WALT: No questions, thank you Mr Chairman.

NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT

ADV STEENKAMP: No questions, thank you Mr Chairman.

NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV STEENKAMP

MR SIBANYONI: Just one question, Mr van der Merwe. On page 63 in your motivation, you say just in the middle there, you say "to fight for and to protect that which I knew to be a normal Westernised democratic way of life and to ensure its continued existence". I reckon that you were supporting the National Party because it was ensuring its continued existence, will you now say that because it is a new government, what you were protecting, is no longer in place?

MR VAN DER MERWE: I beg your pardon, could you repeat.

MR SIBANYONI: Would you say what you say here, you say here on page 63 you were protecting, now that there is a new government and the government which was protecting it, is no longer in place, that normal Westernised democratic way of life, is no longer the order of the day?

MR VAN DER MERWE: No Chairperson, but one must bear in mind that at that point in time, we were not aware of how the new government would appear and for all practical purposes, between the ANC and the SACP, there was a very close alliance, and it may have been that after such a violent take over which we from our side wanted to prevent, we may have sat with a communist government. It doesn't necessarily mean that that which we have today, was really what we wanted to prevent at that stage in time.

MR SIBANYONI: Some of the applicants have in other applications conceded that their motivations was influenced by what they regard today as the propaganda of the past, that there was this "Rooi Gevaar"?

MR VAN DER MERWE: Chairperson, I don't think it was only propaganda, it was a real danger. If one looks at the role that communism played in the entire process, it was definitely more than just propaganda.

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you, no further questions.

ADV DE JAGER: General, the command structure basically stopped at you, according to your evidence?

MR VAN DER MERWE: Yes, that is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: Did you believe that what you did, would enjoy approval from above?

MR VAN DER MERWE: Correct.

ADV DE JAGER: At that stage, what was the pressure which was exerted on the police by politicians and government officials, opposition members, economists and so forth?

MR VAN DER MERWE: Chairperson, as we have already testified upon various occasions, there was tremendous pressure from all these institutions which was exerted on the police and particularly on the Security Branch to curb the violence and to combat the mass action which the ANC had established to a certain point at that stage, and to ensure that the attempt to achieve the violent take over, be stopped. It was not only something which was expressed during political speeches, but at every possibility, it was emphasised that it was expected from the Security Forces, and particularly we in the police, to invest everything in the struggle, and that we would have to use everything in our power, to protect the dispensation of that time, and everything that went along with it.

ADV DE JAGER: In cases during which people were killed in landmine explosions or when infiltrations took place, were you blamed or were members of the police blamed for not doing their job and seeing to the safety of the people?

MR VAN DER MERWE: Very much so. Every time such an incident took place, over and beyond the pressure from the government which escalated in such a case, the media and the community would also throw stones and say that the police was incapable of providing the necessary support.

ADV DE JAGER: Why then did you not regard it as necessary to consult persons on more senior levels or even to consult the political leadership of the time?

MR VAN DER MERWE: Firstly I regarded it as part of my task, it was our task, the task of the Security Branch, to combat terrorism. Secondly, it Commissioner and the Minister had no legislative authority or capacity which I didn't possess and I did not regard it as necessary to consult them. It was part of our usual action, we were involved in operational actions on a daily basis, I did not regard the situation as unique. If one regards the situation with the former South-West Africa or the current Namibia, we were involved in a full-scale, full-time war where we dealt with insurgents and we regarded cross-border actions in the very same light. Under these circumstances, I did not regard this as anything different to my usual tasks.

ADV DE JAGER: Do you accept responsibility for what took place here?

MR VAN DER MERWE: Yes, I do accept full responsibility.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Any questions?

MR VISSER: No re-examination, thank you Mr Chairman.

NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER

WITNESS EXCUSED

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, that brings me to the end of my available witnesses.