CHAIRPERSON: Before the oath is administered, I realised that Mr Hechter walks with difficulty and for him to stand without the aid it would be difficult and I would make an exception and say he takes the oath whilst seated. Mr Malan, could you administer the oath?
JACQUES HECHTER: (sworn states)
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Malan. You may continue, Mr Roux.
EXAMINATION BY MR ROUX: Thank you, Chairperson.
Mr Hechter, before I commence with the confirmation of the facts with regard to this application, you were present all the time during the evidence given by Pretorius as well as Jubber and partially present during van Vuuren's evidence and you have heard what they have testified, is that correct?
MR HECHTER: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR ROUX: Do you associate yourself with their evidence insofar as it may in any manner be applicable to you with regard to these three instances?
MR HECHTER: That is so, Chairperson.
MR ROUX: Will you please have a look at page 190 of the bundle, and from page 192, next to the letter A, will you confirm the contents thereof up to page 194?
MR HECHTER: That's correct, Chairperson.
MR ROUX: And will you also look at page 196, next to the letter 10(a), this is with regard to the application regarding Celo Ramakope, and confirm this up to page 199?
MR HECHTER: That's correct, Chairperson.
MR ROUX: If you would grant me one moment please. I apologise, I have omitted one section. Page 184 is the incident David Modimeng, will you from page 186 mention whether you confirm the information next to the letters 10(a), up to page 189?
MR HECHTER: Correct, Chairperson.
MR ROUX: And then Chairperson, I ask leave - I do not know whether it would be necessary, to submit the medical report that was handed up on Monday of this week, with regard to the Masuku incident, with regard to the physical and psychological condition of Mr Hechter, to use as an exhibit in this matter. I am not certain whether copies have to made once again of this specific report of one, Robertse, which serves as an exhibit in the Masuku matter.
CHAIRPERSON: For sake of completeness I think it should once more be handed up because with the Masuku matter it was a completely different one, different incident, and for the satisfaction of those who are now before us in respect of Ramakope, Brown and Modimeng, it would serves the purpose.
MR ROUX: I then request leave to hand up copies of the report of Robertse to you, it is once again the complete bundle and apart from Hechter there are other people or apart from van Vuuren, it need not be mentioned and I will hand it up in terms of Hechter. I tender my apologies, there are no other copies except for the copies before me and before you which are made available to my learned friends.
CHAIRPERSON: I will again retain the same Exhibit FF because I'm informed that it is not the last occasion when this exhibit would be used, and we'll keep it safely. May I enquire from counsel for Brown, do you have a copy in your possession?
MR RICHARD: I do not have a copy yet.
ADV STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, sorry to interrupt. I've had a spare copy made available to my colleague here and I'll make sure that Mr Richard gets a copy immediately. We'll just make a copy quickly. The copy will be made available just now.
CHAIRPERSON: To save time ...
MR RICHARD: Chair, I'm quite happy to proceed now without delaying it while I have a look at it.
CHAIRPERSON: What I was going to say is that I've been privy to this copy and it is the second in my possession, I would make this one immediately available to you. I know legal representatives are good at speed reading, it won't take you a hell of a lot of time to do so. We shall in the interim proceed with Mr Hechter.
MR ROUX: Thank you, Chairperson. In order to facilitate everything for my learned friends, the specific discussion with regard to Hechter appears from page 16 and that is read together with the general part of the report along with the curriculum of Robertse from page 2, the specific tests that were carried out. I think the curriculum vitae is not necessary to be read, it's about 12 pages, but in order to facilitate it for them I shall then continue leading the evidence of Mr Jacques Hechter.
Mr Hechter, apart from what you have already confirmed, can you once again briefly for purposes of these applications state your position with regard to your memory, briefly.
MR HECHTER: Chairperson, I see on page 184 it is described extensively. The incidents in Okasi I can only recall vaguely and only after I had deliberations with Pretorius from Brits branch, the following came to light. With the first meeting that we had with the Commission, an unofficial meeting, I then mentioned to the Members who were present there that there are many incidents that I cannot recall at all, that I did know I worked in certain areas. I can recall that I did operate in those certain areas, but unfortunately I cannot recall the specific incidents, and that was before any of these Commission's hearings had taken place.
MR ROUX: One moment please, Chairperson.
MR HECHTER: That was the morning in Johannesburg when we met with Bishop Tutu and other Members, then as far as possible I and Mr van Vuuren next to me were there and we told them. We drew up a quick because Mr van Vuuren's memory is better than mine, and we made a quick list of what we could recall and there I mentioned to him that please, I know I have done more than I can recall, I am not trying to hide anything, as far as possible we shall disclose what we can. But at that stage I explained to them that I have trouble with my memory. Thank you, Chairperson.
MR ROUX: And without applying the psychological evaluation to you, is it correct that you suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder and this affects your memory?
MR HECHTER: According to the report that is so, Chairperson.
MR ROUX: This specific incident, Leonard Brown, Celo Ramakope and David Modimeng, can you recall this from your own personal memory?
MR HECHTER: I can recall that I acted in Brits, but the names - not in Brits, in Okasi, but the names and the places I cannot recall, not even the incidents.
MR ROUX: So in other words, you rely on the information that has been submitted by Mr Pretorius.
MR HECHTER: Purely Mr Pretorius, Chairperson.
MR ROUX: The information with regard to the involvement of these three persons with activism and the collection of such information, you also depend on Pretorius' submissions.
MR HECHTER: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR ROUX: Will you please explain? Pretorius testified with regard to files and sub-files which were opened and processed from information which was gained from informers, this was given to his Commander, Jubber at that stage, who processed it. He further testified that this would be sent through to Security Head Office in Northern Transvaal, or Division Northern Transvaal. What was the command structure of Northern Transvaal like?
MR HECHTER: Brig Jack Cronje was our direct Commander, he would have received this information from Brits and then he would have contacted me and told me that "Hechter, these people need attention, do something about it", and then we would have discussed what would be the most effective method to use against them.
MR ROUX: Did you and Brig Cronje discuss these prominent persons?
MR HECHTER: The files of these prominent persons would have been on his desk and he would have discussed it with me.
MR ROUX: Very well. Did files ever come to your desk from Cronje in the execution of your duties and instructions which you received from him with regard to specific persons?
MR HECHTER: Yes, Chairperson, I do not recall any specific Brits incidents, not the specific incidents but I can recall for example with regard to Dr Ribeiro and Mr Piet Ntuli, those incidents I personally dealt with that information. These specific incidents I cannot recall that I really had these files, it is possible, it's possible that he would have given these files to me, however I cannot recall at this stage whether I did receive them.
MR ROUX: And then when you had this information and a decision was taken as to which methods would be used against which persons, are you able to explain? You were of a higher rank than Mamasela and van Vuuren, is that correct?
MR HECHTER: That is correct, yes.
MR ROUX: Did you ever discuss the detail and the instructions that you received from Brig Cronje, with your two subordinates, the two persons who were part of your task force?
MR HECHTER: It was not necessary, Chairperson, they reported directly to me and if Brig Cronje discussed something with me, I would just tell them "listen here, I shall see you this evening, we have to execute an operation" or "meet me" at whatever time we decided to launch the operation.
MR ROUX: Those particular evenings, and I assume that you specifically refer to the incidents at Brits, the probabilities as you can recall them and in general, when you met those particular evenings, did you beforehand discuss the incident and the persons with Mamasela and van Vuuren?
MR HECHTER: It was not necessary, Chairperson, they only knew that - I would have told them that "make sure that you are here this evening, get into the car and we shall drive to Brits, we shall go to work". And that evening at twelve they would know that we had to go to work and we will not only question a person. So they would have known that it would have been a disruptive action and they would have prepared for this, but the particulars thereof was not discussed with them because it was not necessary.
MR ROUX: Is it possible that at any stage on those particular evenings if you did meet, you would have supplied the names and the activities of these activists?
MR HECHTER: The name have been mentioned, I cannot swear to that, but the particulars would not have been discussed because it was not necessary to share this with them.
MR ROUX: And a question which follows on this and which emanates from questions put by Mr Richard is, did you ever arrange meetings with van Vuuren and Mamasela with various operations and discuss all the detail with them? Not these evenings.
MR HECHTER: Not during these types of incidents, more when for example we had to abduct a person or we had to go and eliminate someone, then the incident would have been discussed in more detail, but this was purely - I had already made the arrangements with Brits, where we would go. They basically accompanied us as a sort of backup in order to render assistance. They accompanied us as assistance.
MR ROUX: Who identified the target for all the particular evening's activities?
MR HECHTER: Meaning target identification, the persons or the premises.
MR ROUX: The premises.
MR HECHTER: The persons were done by Brig Cronje and probably myself, we identified the persons and then Brits, the branch was contacted, meaning Mr Jubber, and it was said that someone had to be available to me in order to point out a particular address to us that evening and then he appointed Mr Pretorius. We would have discussed it with him. I cannot recall specifically, but one would not say that "listen here, I'm looking for someone to point out something to us", we would have to tell them "listen this is a disruptive action, we require one of your people who can be trusted and who shall stay silent."
MR ROUX: Purely on a need-to-to know basis.
MR HECHTER: A need-to-basis, that's correct. So every time it would be the same person.
MR ROUX: Did Mamasela and van Vuuren at any stage and in any manner have the capacity to question the orders which were put to them through you?
MR HECHTER: Chairperson, they might have had the right to do so, but no-one would have paid attention to them, they would have been admonished severely if they did question anything.
MR ROUX: I think in pure language, would they have dared to oppose you when you told them to execute a particular instruction?
MR HECHTER: I cannot think that it would and I don't think that they would have dared.
MR ROUX: In the case of Brown and Ramakope, we are all aware according to Pretorius' evidence, that a petrol bomb or bombs were thrown at Ramakope's home. Can you recall specifically the case of Ramakope?
MR HECHTER: Not at all.
MR ROUX: Who was responsible for the manufacturing of the petrol bombs and/or bombs which contained explosives?
MR HECHTER: I alone was responsible for the explosives, petrol bombs were simply bottles containing petrol or fuel, regular petrol with a piece of material or clothing or linen which was stuffed into the neck of the bottle and then tossed through a window, so anybody could have made that, but usually I myself would manufacture these items and load them into the boot of my car and when we disembarked there I would tell whoever was with me to come with and tell them what we were going to do, show them the house, we would take the bottles, walk there and ignite the petrol bomb or the bomb, the explosive bomb itself, throw it into the house and leave.
MR ROUX: When you refer to bombs?
MR HECHTER: I refer to explosives.
MR ROUX: What sort of bombs did you use?
MR HECHTER: I made use of pentolite, which was an explosive with a high charge. I would put that in a tin and then use a spring cap with a safety mechanism and attach this to the pentolite and when one wanted to detonate this, one would set it alight. So one could determine more-or-less how many seconds it would be before the bomb would explode.
MR ROUX: Very well. Can you recall what you used at the home of Leonard Brown, was it a petrol bomb or a bomb?
MR HECHTER: At this stage I can no longer recall, with the exception of what Mr Pretorius told me.
MR ROUX: And can you recall what was used at the home of David Modimeng and can you recall the incident independently?
MR HECHTER: Unfortunately not, I also heard about this from Mr Pretorius, that is why I applied for amnesty for these incidents at a later date. This is the reason why it was not incorporated in the initial bundle, it slipped my mind. I think in the first application various attacks are mentioned which took place in the location, but I could not recall specifically which incidents I was involved with.
MR ROUX: Let us go to the specific evening, before any active intimidation. If you had identified the home of someone as a target, how would you go to work with regard to the possible injury of innocent persons?
MR HECHTER: The closest that we could get to avoiding the injury of innocent persons was to attempt to determine in which room the subject or the activist would be sleeping and then to toss the bomb into that specific room. We had to foresee that innocent persons could be injured, but this was the only way in which we could reach these persons, by means of such violent intimidation, by injuring the family of such persons as well, or to place them there at the situation. It has been mentioned various times before this Commission that they knew that they would be bombed, that the possibility existed. They took special precautionary measures and placed burglar proofing on the windows. In other words they were well aware that they were potential targets.
MR ROUX: Did you ever return to the scene of a disruptive action subsequent to the incident?
MR HECHTER: Only once, and I had to go, I was called in, I was the demolitions officer, this was in Mamelodi. Otherwise I never returned to the scene, I never followed the incident up, it was the duty of the others at the branch to investigate these matters and to monitor these persons further.
MR ROUX: The information that you possessed, you cannot recall the incidents, Sgt Pretorius according to you and himself was the persons who would identify the persons and the homes which were targeted for those particular evenings.
MR HECHTER: Yes, that is correct, he worked in that area and he knew the people.
MR ROUX: You've already stated that you foresaw the possibility of injury to innocent persons and even the death of innocent persons and that you reconciled and associated yourself with this possibility.
MR HECHTER: That is correct.
MR ROUX: Without elaborating in detail about it, if you could describe the situation in the country at that time which would justify these actions in one sentence, what would your description be?
MR HECHTER: Violent. It was complete chaos in our country, particularly in the black residential areas, black on black violence was at the order of the day.
MR ROUX: I would use the English word "reliable", how reliable were the reports which came to your desk and to the desk of Jack Cronje, pertaining to specific activists?
MR HECHTER: Independent informers who were unaware of one another's presence were used over a period of time. With Masuku's application I explained that some people's files sometimes were very thick and filled with informer reports. The informers were not aware of one another, therefore one could always weigh up the information provided by one informer with the information provided by another, and from that one could garner a reasonably reliable and accurate picture of the situation. Therefore I would say that they were reasonably accurate.
MR ROUX: I think that that is the evidence-in-chief inasfar as it is possible, Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR ROUX
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Roux. Should I start with you or are we starting with Ms Ngomane? Who is able to start the cross-examination.
MS NGOMANE: I will start.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS NGOMANE: Mr Hechter, you mentioned in your examination-in-chief that there was a black on black violence, is that correct Sir?
MR HECHTER: That is correct.
MS NGOMANE: The reason for forming the disruptive action was to fight the black on black violence you've explained to us now.
MR HECHTER: No, not necessarily, it was not necessarily the objective of our actions. The government of the day at that time was under assault by these actions, the government wanted - let me use Brits as an example, they wanted to relocate the black population from Okasi to Letabile and the black population was opposed to this and they fought this, but not the whole of the black population in Brits were opposed to it, only some of them. I'm not aware of the precise numbers and I do not want to elaborate on that, but I know that black homes were burnt by other black persons, that factories were closed as a result of the actions by the activists. Black people mostly lost their jobs, white people as well. So it is correct, yes.
MS NGOMANE: Do I understand you correctly to say that the population were fighting each other because of the government wanting to move them to Letabile? Do I get you right, Sir? Can you explain?
MR HECHTER: In the case of Brits, the community were not fighting one another, the activists had certain objectives that they wanted to achieve. These were ANC/PAC oriented objectives, and they wanted to convey this to the community and in order to do so they motivated the youth and other sectors of the community to act violently because there were people who didn't want to go and those people suffered and those who did not concur with the objectives of the ANC, also suffered. But in Brits specifically at that time, inasfar as I can remember, it was about the removal. But this was during 1986/1987 when the entire country was in flames as a result of the black resistance.
MS NGOMANE: So in other words, what you are saying is that there was a law that was passed by the government, people in Okasi didn't want to adhere to that order, then the disruptive action started.
MR HECHTER: Yes, that is correct.
MS NGOMANE: Now Mr Hechter, you stated that you manufactured the bomb, will you call it a petrol bomb or a handmade grenade, Mr Hechter? Can you just explain what type of ...
MR HECHTER: Yes, I will explain to you, both were handmade. A petrol bomb was a regular bottle filled with fuel or petrol, normal petrol, with a rag which would be a scrap of cotton clothing which would be stuffed into the neck of the bottle with a piece hanging out.
Let me just explain. One would put the lid on, make a hole in the lid and then put the fabric through so that the petrol wouldn't leak out. Those bombs were usually driven around in a regular crate in the boot of one's car because it was perfectly safe.
And a self-made or self-manufactured explosive device is a bomb which is made of pentolite which is a type of explosive which is placed in a tin, a spring charge with a piece of safety cord is attached to this and this would then be covered with a lid so that it cannot fall out, and that would be set alight with a regular match.
MS NGOMANE: So you made them, this bomb, Sir, you made this particular one, the one with the pentolite?
MR HECHTER: Both, I manufactured both.
MS NGOMANE: Excuse me?
MR HECHTER: I manufactured both.
MS NGOMANE: Thank you. And pentolite Sir, is very highly flammable.
MR HECHTER: I beg your pardon?
MS NGOMANE: It's flammable, pentolite?
MR HECHTER: No, pentolite, no. No, it is not flammable, it is highly explosive.
MS NGOMANE: Highly explosive?
MR HECHTER: Yes.
MS NGOMANE: It can make a good impact.
MR HECHTER: A good impact.
MS NGOMANE: If it can be used in the house where the base furniture or ...(intervention)
MR HECHTER: It will break everything to pieces.
MS NGOMANE: ... you'd just break everything Sir, is that correct?
MR HECHTER: That's correct, Chairperson.
MS NGOMANE: And when you carried out these acts Sir, you wouldn't foresee, or would you make sure that there are people inside the house?
MR HECHTER: I knew that there were people in the house.
MS NGOMANE: And you put the bomb inside, it didn't matter whether there were children as well.
MR HECHTER: Please repeat, I cannot hear you.
MS NGOMANE: You were aware that there were people inside the house.
MR HECHTER: Yes, that is correct.
MS NGOMANE: And there were children as well in the house.
MR HECHTER: That is correct.
MS NGOMANE: Now Sir, this bomb if it could be used - I will just refer you to the Modimeng case where you threw this bomb and it killed Mrs Modimeng, will this bomb - as you have just described it, that it is very explosive, it will burn the whole house, wouldn't it Sir?
MR HECHTER: No, it wouldn't burn the house, it would blow the house to pieces. The chances of a fire would be minimal.
MS NGOMANE: It won't cause a fire then, Sir?
MR HECHTER: It could but generally not.
MS NGOMANE: This explosive, Sir, which you manufactured, as you've just stated in your examination-in-chief that you will secure and try to avoid killing innocent people in the process, you foresaw that this bomb can kill Mr Modimeng's children as well.
MR ROUX: I am not really certain what the question means, Chairperson, is this specifically with regard to the Modimeng matter, regarding which the witness cannot recall, but that he testified that there was the use of a bomb which in other words meant that he would foresee, understand, associate himself with and reconcile himself with the possible death of people?
CHAIRPERSON: I think in that respect you should rephrase your question, because we know who the target was and I suppose what you want to find out is that if there were children in that house, would he reconcile himself with the fact that they could also get injured. Am I understanding you correctly?
MS NGOMANE: Yes, but I ...(indistinct - no microphone)
CHAIRPERSON: Please if you could ...(indistinct - no microphone)
MS NGOMANE: Sir, my question is, this pentolite bomb that you manufactured is highly explosive, you said it does cause a fire but a minimal.
MR HECHTER: No, not a minimal, in minimal circumstances. Normally there is no fire when you use pentolite, when you use a petrol bomb there's always fire. As far as I can recollect, not once that I used pentolite was there a real fire, not once, because of the explosion, it takes up all the oxygen in the immediate area. So you normally don't get a fire afterwards.
MS NGOMANE: Sir, you said that you were with Pretorius, Pretorius was the one who was pointing the houses.
MR HECHTER: That is correct.
MS NGOMANE: He pointed David Modimeng's house where there were children inside the house, Sir.
MR HECHTER: Yes, that is correct.
MS NGOMANE: And this explosive - you just threw this bomb as you just described, the handmade bomb into the house.
MR HECHTER: That is correct.
MS NGOMANE: You threw the bomb knowing where Modimeng was sleeping, Sir.
MR HECHTER: Correct.
MS NGOMANE: You threw the bomb knowing that there were children as well inside the house.
MR HECHTER: That is correct.
MS NGOMANE: I think you have answered my question. Let me go back to Modimeng. You remember that Pretorius pointed this house to you.
MR HECHTER: I cannot recall it, I've already stated that I cannot recall this specifically, he says that he did so and I accept that as the truth.
MS NGOMANE: So you threw a bomb at Ramakope's house.
MR HECHTER: I will just have to consult the documents.
MS NGOMANE: But you just gave evidence now, Sir, it's here, it's on record, you said ...(intervention)
MR HECHTER: Yes, it was a petrol bomb, it wasn't a pentolite bomb.
MS NGOMANE: It was a petrol bomb?
MR HECHTER: Yes, that is what appears in my application.
MS NGOMANE: You threw a petrol bomb at Ramakope's house.
MR HECHTER: That's correct, yes.
MS NGOMANE: Do I understand you correct, a petrol bomb?
MR HECHTER: Yes, that is what appears here. If it appears here ...(intervention)
MS NGOMANE: ...(indistinct) petrol bomb, Sir.
CONTINUAL INTERVENTIONS AND CROSS TALKING - CANNOT TRANSCRIBE ACCURATELY
CHAIRPERSON: No, no, no, one person at a time, I can't follow. Please give him a chance to respond, so that we don't have a messy record.
MR HECHTER: I beg your pardon, Chairperson.
MS NGOMANE: My apologies, Mr Chairperson.
You can recall that you threw a petrol bomb at Ramakope's house, Mr Hechter?
MR MALAN: No, he said he has no recollection, he says what's in the application is what he got from Pretorius, if this is what is standing here, that's probably what was the situation. That's his answer.
MS NGOMANE: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.
You mentioned in your exam-in-chief that you'll try - you foresaw that people could be killed in the process, but you had to avoid this - you had to ensure that innocent people were not killed in the process, is that correct?
MR ROUX: That is not his evidence, Chairperson, he stated that he foresaw it and that he reconciled himself with the possibility thereof. That was his evidence.
MS NGOMANE: My learned friend didn't - I think he was not paying attention, Mr Chairperson, the witness - I asked him a question and he said to me he knew where Mr Modimeng was sleeping and he said in his exam-in-chief that there was a possibility of people being the house, so perhaps ...(indistinct) to avoid hurting innocent people in the process. I have it here, Mr Chairperson. My learned friend was not concentrating.
MR MALAN: Again with respect, he said "I can only go by what I got from Pretorius", and you led him through the evidence and he confirmed everything, but he didn't base it on his own personal recollection. He made it clear every time that what stands here and as you led it to him, that was correct, that's what Pretorius told him, that's what's in here. But he made it absolutely clear on a number or occasions that he has no personal recollection. And please let's just accept that as a background.
MS NGOMANE: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.
Mr Hechter, this bomb in this situation where - I'm talking about this one specifically in August, where you said it was possible that Pretorius did point a house and you throw a bomb at Modimeng and Ramakope's house. My question to you is, these specific bombs, were they thrown by yourself only Mr Hechter?
MR HECHTER: No, Chairperson, under normal circumstances I would not have done this alone, the modus operandi was ...(intervention)
MR MALAN: I beg your pardon, sorry.
Are you asking about this specific bomb, because the reply is now "in normal circumstances".
MS NGOMANE: Mr Hechter, can you ...(intervention)
MR HECHTER: I cannot recall, I am sorry.
MS NGOMANE: I am not going to allow this, Mr Chairperson.
MR MALAN: I want to make sure, your question "with regard to this specific bomb, did you throw it alone?" Was that the question?
MS NGOMANE: ...(indistinct - no microphone)
MR MALAN: Sorry, can you just put on ...
MS NGOMANE: Mr Chairperson, what I'm asking the witness is in regard to the Okasi incident where he says he doesn't recall everything. I understand that we took it as common cause that he has a bad memory, but what I'm asking in this situation where they say he was involved - Pretorius came and he said he remembers that Hechter was part of the people, so what I'm asking him, was he the only person who was throwing these bombs inside those persons' houses or was Mamasela as well throwing those bombs at those houses.
ADV SANDI: Yes, but I think the difficulty you have here there is - you know his evidence is "I do not recall this specific incident", now I don't know how you can ask him the question "were you the only one who threw the bomb at this particular house?", when he can't even recall that particular incident. He relies entirely on what Pretorius says, he says "I don't remember that incident, but if that is what Mr Pretorius says, it must be true, I accept it."
MR HECHTER: That is correct, Chairperson. Thank you, Chairperson.
MS NGOMANE: By saying that these activists - you mentioned that these people knew and they were aware that they would be bombed, what do you mean by that Mr Hechter, can you just elaborate on that?
MR HECHTER: Chairperson, from previous evidence that was given here, I do not know whether it was in the Masuku incident or whether it is in one of these documents, the people said that they had taken precautions by placing corrugated steel plates before their windows - or corrugated iron before their windows, by placing narrow burglar bars before their windows or by using special ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: If I might help you, Mr Hechter, it's what is contained in these documents when there was a Human Rights Violation Committee hearing these matters and this I think was said by Modimeng, that they had taken those precautions, that on the windows they had these corrugated irons because they suspected that they would be attacked.
MR HECHTER: Then that is where I read it. Chairperson, page 201 of Mr Modimeng's statement, approximately two-thirds to the bottom of it
"That's the way we used to live. As usual it was that way on the 28th, I put corrugated irons on the windows and from there upwards I put wood."
In other words he must have foreseen it, yes.
MS NGOMANE: So when you went to bomb the house at Modimeng, you knew it was barricaded Mr Hechter, is that correct?
MR HECHTER: No, I did not know.
MS NGOMANE: Did you throw the bomb immediately when it was barricaded?
MR HECHTER: I cannot recall.
MS NGOMANE: Were you alone when you threw that bomb, Mr Hechter?
MR HECHTER: I cannot recall, Chairperson.
MR ROUX: Chairperson with all respect, this is the umpteenth time that questions are just being repeated. During the pre-trial conference and after deliberations with the Panel, it was decided that points which are disputed, evidence would be led about these points and the cross-examination would be limited to this so that we might save time, and with respect, this is not being done. I do not see the relevancy of these questions.
CHAIRPERSON: Ms Ngomane, I recall that when we first met on Monday, I requested all counsel in all matters that would come before us, that they must just concentrate on the differences and points of dispute and that cross-examination, even extensively would allowed on those points, but with this type of witness repeating the same question, I don't think would be in anybody's interest and particularly us here because we want to have evidence that would assist us to reach a decision, but if we would repeat about somebody who doesn't recall anything, it places us also in a very difficult position that what decision would we take. Please, the purpose of counsel as well here is to assist the Panel, we have open minds and if we are persuaded one way or the other, our decision would probably also go the way we've been persuaded and part of that is not only argument, it's how questions have been asked and what emanated from those questions. That would assist us in our decision. Please let's just stick to the agreement.
MS NGOMANE: Mr Chairperson, may I just make this submission, that when we were at the pre-trial conference it was never canvassed that Mr Hechter would come and say that he doesn't "onthou" anything, Mr Chairperson. What we are here, we are acting in terms of an Act which says people who will come to this Commission have to make full disclosure. If an applicant is here, Mr Chairperson, I will make the submission that then they haven't met that requirement of making disclosure. We take into account that ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: No, let me cut you short there, that submission you are making I think would form part of your argument at the end of the day.
What I'm suggesting here is that on Tuesday we gave counsel before we commenced actually with the Masuku matter, but all legal representatives were there, we said the points of difference and points which are in dispute, we think that is what should be concentrated on. I think I said that and gave everybody an opportunity that they should speak amongst themselves and see where they don't agree and that would lead to how the witnesses in these incidents were led, because they were led in terms of that agreement, not on a broad spectrum of the incident.
MS NGOMANE: Mr Hechter, can you just peruse your bundle, page to 185, can you just look at that document for me. That is 9(a)(iv), the last paragraph, Mr Hechter. Can I just read this to you. You say here that
"Modimeng and his spouse were involved in various consumer boycotts and were also active with the trade unions at Brits."
Is that correct, Mr Hechter?
MR HECHTER: May I refer you to page 184 please, at the bottom of that page I say
"The incidents in Okasi I can only recall vaguely and only after I had had deliberations with Inspector Pretorius from Brits Security Branch, the following came to light -"
Meaning he told me about it, and then I decided alright, it might have been or it had been like that, otherwise it wouldn't have happened.
This piece that you have now read to me I infer from Mr Pretorius' evidence, he said this and I believe that he would not lie. I have not recollection of it whatsoever, not at all. I will meet Mr Modimeng in the street and I would not know who he is or was. I don't think I have ever seen him before this Commission commenced. I went to a town outside my town and I executed an operation without knowing him, without knowing his circumstances. I did not have a personal vendetta against him, I only executed an official instruction or a legal instruction in my eyes, in order to neutralise or intimidate an activist. So it serves no purpose that you ask me this question because I can honestly not answer you, I wish to answer you but I cannot. Thank you.
MS NGOMANE: Mr Hechter, my instructions are that Mrs Modimeng was never active in the union, she was never a member of the Okasi Women's League. People will be called, witnesses will be called to that effect, that she never participated, she died not as a result of her participation or her membership as a unionist. She was never part of the people who were campaigning for the anti-removal.
MR HECHTER: Just as you please.
MS NGOMANE: Mr Hechter, these bombs that you threw in those houses that were identified by Pretorius, they would be thrown - let me be specific, let me just rephrase my question, Mr Hechter. Bombs were thrown in those houses, whether they were with people or without people it didn't matter, you had to throw the bomb as you were instructed from above.
MR HECHTER: As you state it now, Chairperson.
MS NGOMANE: Life will - people will lose their lives when those bombs were thrown, is that correct, Mr Hechter?
MR HECHTER: Repeat the question please.
MS NGOMANE: Give me a moment, Mr Hechter. Bombs will thrown inside those houses regardless of whether there were children.
MR HECHTER: I think I have said this more than once, the same answer "Yes, Chairperson, it is so."
MS NGOMANE: You reconciled that there were people inside the house, Mr Hechter, and threw the bomb you knew they were inside the house, it didn't matter to you whether lives were lost or not, Mr Hechter.
MR HECHTER: That is so, Chairperson.
MS NGOMANE: And you reconcile yourself with it.
MR HECHTER: That is so, Chairperson.
MR ROUX: Chairperson, with all respect, yesterday you made the remark and I wish to emphasise it that everyone testifying here are people who came forward in order to assist the Committee with regard to this Act, and I personally as legal representative of Mr Hechter, can, and I recommend to the Committee that I cannot understand that my learned friend in this regard with my clients. My learned friend is getting emotional and she is getting excited, it is unnecessary and not in the spirit of the Act. This witness has answered the questions as honestly as he could, now she wants to intimidate the witness and become emotional and repeat questions. This is not acceptable, and please, I would request the Committee to limit this type of conduct by legal representatives as far as possible.
CHAIRPERSON: I would once more make a plea that the incidents we're dealing with are probably highly emotionally charged, but the decorum of counsel or legal representatives warrants that even if that be case they must be conducted in such manner that that emotion is not overtly displayed and that in the process whichever witness, and I re-emphasise what I said yesterday, shall be treated with all respect. And I will, if there is a reoccurrence of this, publicly show my displeasure in that happening. It is not by choice that this should happen, but they have been brought forward by an Act of parliament, that this sort of things that happened in the past should be known and if they are known, it would make a better society of the citizens of the Republic. So what would happen is that sordid stories would be told, innocent people would in the process have died, but that does not warrant that people who perpetrated these acts, when they come forward, should be treated with the utmost disdain.
It is unpalatable to me and I'm emphasising this, that we look at the applicants in these incidents, they came on their own accord to tell South Africa that whilst there was this strife within the country, what they did and we should be thankful but probe to get the truth in a very civil manner. And I will not allow this once more.
MS NGOMANE: If I may just come in here. My learned friend is, I think he's overreacting Mr Chairperson, I'm here to further my clients' interests ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Ms Ngomane, I would not entertain any further discussion on this matter, I've made my ruling. Whether that be the case of not, I would personally say when you were putting your questions to Mr Hechter and in the process, before he could even finish his answers, you were on top of him and top of your voice with another question, and that's not acceptable and that's not how we conduct ourselves in hearings.
MS NGOMANE: Mr Chairperson, I beg Mr Chairman's apology.
CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct - no microphone), Mr Ngomane.
MS NGOMANE: May I proceed, Mr Chairperson?
CHAIRPERSON: Certainly.
MS NGOMANE: Mr Hechter, this action of making bombs, it will fall out of the job description which you had at that time when you were with the Security Branch, this thing of making bombs, it wouldn't be part of the job description would it?
ADV SANDI: I think that presupposes that he said he had a job description. Perhaps the question that should be asked is, "did you have a job description, Mr Hechter?"
MR HECHTER: Chairperson, I do not know whether a policeman has a job description, he receives training over some time, which I would gather it was - I think the legal representative wanted to know it, it was an unlawful bomb that we made, we did not make these things every day and place in our office. It was something that was outside the ambit of the police work, that is correct yes.
MS NGOMANE: It was unlawful, Mr Hechter, to make those bombs outside of the scope of a policeman, it would be illegal to make those bombs, wouldn't it?
MR HECHTER: Yes, that's what I just said.
MS NGOMANE: Thank you, Mr Hechter.
CHAIRPERSON: And hence their actions too were illegal. I said when we started that if they were legal, they wouldn't be applying for amnesty because all their actions, they're supposed to be prosecuted criminally, but because of this Act which brought us here, everything we did and in respect of the incidents, if I may narrow it, of Okasi, all what they did there was illegal. And the purpose is that if we have full disclosure and if they have satisfied us, we shall indemnify them for such actions, but if we are not satisfied, we shall not indemnify them. That is the purpose. All they did in Okasi was illegal and we should bear that in mind in putting any questions to the witnesses or applicants.
MS NGOMANE: Thank you, Mr Chairperson, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS NGOMANE
CHAIRPERSON: I see you are waiting with abated breath, Mr Richard, you may ask questions.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR RICHARD: Thank you, Chairperson.
My first question is a minor point of detail. According to my memory "'n spring doppie" is a detonator, is that not correct?
MR HECHTER: That's correct, Chairperson.
MR RICHARD: Okay. The second point is, when we talk about the relationships between various applicants, if it is correct that you cannot remember who was where on what incident, it's quite correct that you can't help us at all as to whether Mr van Vuuren was part of any one of the two incidents that we're talking about.
MR HECHTER: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR RICHARD: Now I'm more than mindful that you can't remember what happened in Mr Leonard Brown's incident, and for that reason I'm going to describe the situation. On the night in question, Mr Leonard Brown who was then the co-ordinator of the Action Committee to do with the forced removal, was at his parents house. In other words he was a known activist. He had studied at the University of Western Cape and returned to his home area. At his parent's house that particular evening there was his mother and father, his father was a panel beater and certainly not politically active, his mother who was not active at all, and in total another six persons who were also not activists. I know you can't admit or deny what I'm saying, but now I put this proposition to you, if you had known that out of nine people inside a house, eight were non-activists and had nothing to do with the unrest and troubles of the day, would you have considered that a legitimate target?
MR HECHTER: It was never a legitimate target, it was an unlawful target right from the beginning.
MR RICHARD: So I will rephrase that. Would you have considered it permissible within the terms of your brief, to attack a house full of nine people for the sake of intimidating one activist?
MR HECHTER: Chairperson, at that stage when one stayed in a house and you were a known activist and the people around you are not trying to show you the right path, because at that stage you were on the wrong side of the law, then I would assume that if we had thrown the explosive devices through the window, then we would have judged it justified. Your parents could have admonished you or they could have chased you away from that home. In other words, they associated themselves with your unlawful conduct.
MR RICHARD: So that would mean that in fact if one of your pentolite bombs, as I've been instructed was the case, was let off at this particular address, you would have considered it quite ordinary to use the pentolite to intimidate the remaining eight people into not supporting the activist.
MR HECHTER: There was nothing ordinary about it, Chairperson, it was a very serious deed.
MR RICHARD: But one which you would have committed.
MR HECHTER: Correct.
MR RICHARD: And if I tell you these are the facts while I know you can remember the particular incident, you would consider that to be the set of facts for which you apply for amnesty?
MR HECHTER: That is correct, yes.
MR RICHARD: Now the next question which I've been requested to put is, you had two main devices which you utilise, petrol bombs and pentolite explosives, when did you think it appropriate to use a petrol bomb?
MR HECHTER: Chairperson, usually with the very active activists we would have use the pentolite and with the lesser active activists we would have used the petrol bomb.
MR RICHARD: Now what were the guidelines you had received from Mr Cronje or anyone above you as to what collateral or civilian casualties would be acceptable?
MR HECHTER: Chairperson, it's many, many years ago, we're referring to 14 or 15 years ago, if I recall correctly the criteria was that throw a petrol bomb and then one goes one step worse, the same or worse, if he throws handgrenades then you go all the way. So the criteria with us the day, the following day or before the time the matter was discussed and then a decision was taken. From time to time it may have differed, but unfortunately I am not able to tell you why at this stage or that stage we decided to throw a bomb there. I am not able to assist you.
CHAIRPERSON: May I just interpose here. I have allowed people leeway and never commented about the cellphones going off, I would earnestly request anybody right now before we proceed, that those cellphones should be off. We are dealing with highly emotional matters and highly serious evidence and if we were to be disturbed by such small things as cellphones, I don't think this is the place and I would say, should I hear a cellphone going off, that person will be literally thrown out of this room. It's very irritating. I give you two minutes so that everybody check his or her cellphone that it is off. Thank you, you may proceed, Mr Richards.
MR RICHARD: Thank you.
From your answer as to when you would use what type of device, I gained the impression that the type of device was more determined by the identity of your individual target than the circumstances of what civilian casualties might or might not be caused, am I correct?
MR HECHTER: Yes.
MR RICHARD: I'm sorry, I took it that you confirmed that I am correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Ja, he agrees with you.
MR RICHARD: Now in other words, whether it was you as the Commander of the particular action or your superiors who ordered you to carry it out, civilian casualties weren't a major concern. Collateral injuries as it's now termed.
MR HECHTER: Is that a question or is it a remark?
MR RICHARD: That's a question. ...(indistinct) concerned.
MR HECHTER: We were in a war situation, the ANC killed 21 innocent persons in Church Street, there were no people who were actively involved in the vicinity. So yes, we have to accept that innocent persons could be injured, that is correct yes.
MR RICHARD: However, I don't want to debate and it's not germane at this stage to debate it with you as a witness, but I will use the parallel. In Church Street there was a very specific military core component, being members of the South African Air Force who were leaving their headquarters for work.
MR HECHTER: And how many of them were hurt and how many innocent ladies were injured?
MR RICHARD: Now there were also a significant number of civilian collateral injuries in that incident. However, in the circumstances of Mr Brown's attack there was one activist as opposed to eight other innocents. My question again, which I think you've answered, it was permissible for you to attack nine people with a pentolite explosive for the sake of intimidating everyone, so as to make sure they ostracised the one.
MR HECHTER: That's correct, that is what I said, Chairperson.
MR RICHARD: And my next proposition is, if a pentolite device is exploded outside a comparatively small residence, is it not correct to state, and do you agree or disagree with my statement that it would in fact instil fear and terror into all the people inside that dwelling?
MR HECHTER: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR RICHARD: And it is for the purpose of instilling that fear and terror that that device would have been exploded by your team.
MR HECHTER: Correct, Chairperson.
MR RICHARD: No further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR RICHARD
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Richard. Mr Steenkamp.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV STEENKAMP: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson, just one questions.
I don't know whether you've answered this question already, but if I listen to Mr van Vuuren's evidence there were many such incidents. My question is, did you in any of these incidents report back to anyone or made any notes or wrote out any reports?
MR HECHTER: No written reports were handed up by me, Chairperson, the normal investigation by the SAP was followed, they would usually not be informed about these incidents. In this incident as for example in Okasi, Mr Jubber could infer that it was mine. He did not know, I did not report to him specifically and say that I had admonished that person, he would have deduced that this was done by my conduct. But usually these matters were investigated by other members of the SAP.
ADV STEENKAMP: Thank you, Honourable Chairman, no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV STEENKAMP
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Roux, as usual I'll allow the Panel to ask questions first. Mr Malan, do you have any questions?
MR MALAN: I don't have any questions, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Adv Sandi.
ADV SANDI: Yes, thank you, I do have a question related to the one Mr Steenkamp has just asked. What was the normal practice after such operations had been carried out, would you go back to Mr Cronje to say the operation was carried out last night?
MR HECHTER: Yes, Chairperson, the following day I reported back to him, he would then get the true story from me and then he has the police's normal investigation. You must bear in mind that the police then did not know of our existence. I refer to me and my task force's existence. This was limited knowledge. And that matter was investigated by the normal detectives, for example at Brits. Only the Brits Security Branch, only Mr Jubber and Mr Pretorius knew of my existence or the purpose of my existence and our task force. So if those incidents had been investigated by any other member of the South African Police, he would have investigated it on a bona fide basis to the best of his ability.
ADV SANDI: Would you as a matter of practice keep yourself informed of the progress that was being made by the SAD(?) section?
MR HECHTER: Not at all Chairperson, not at all. I never went to the scene, I did not make any enquiries about it. And earlier in the week I said that now we are sitting here under very beautiful circumstances, the stress to which we were exposed then, one did not want to know what was going on. I believe this would have driven anyone out of his mind. It's not easy to kill anyone, Chairperson.
ADV SANDI: I understand you to say that you took it that the people who were staying with political activists must have associated themselves with what they were involved in, would that statement apply to children who also stayed in the same house?
MR HECHTER: Chairperson, maybe that was put too strongly then, if my son is a thief and he see he is a thief and I let him be to continue his thievery, indirectly I agree with what he is doing. Should I not have, while it was illegal, should I not have admonished the child and said "stop, stop your things"?
ADV SANDI: ...(indistinct) talking about children, "kinders".
MR HECHTER: No, I accept what you are saying, Chairperson, no not at all, children are unfortunately innocent bystanders in totality and unfortunately they were part of the struggle and except for the physical injuries they encountered psychological stress as well, but this was not only from our side, it was already on-going in the black townships. So I myself am not solely responsible for this. I accept my part of it and I apologise for it, but the ANC and Leonard Brown and David Modimeng and Celo Ramakope should accept their own responsibilities as well.
ADV SANDI: If my son is involved in activities of which I do not approve, how do you know that at the time you come and attack my house, I'm busy trying to stop him from carrying on with these activities? There's no way you could know at that time.
MR HECHTER: I understand what you're saying, Chairperson, but at that stage we decided, I can recall that we discussed it, the people where he lived, in other words his parents, they have to stop him, they must - we will scare them as well, or in this case injure them. I can recall that it was a point of discussion at some point and we came to the conclusion that they would also be injured, they would be the innocent bystanders.
ADV SANDI: Just one last question on this. Before you carry out such an attack, the attitude of the parents or other people who stay in the same house, would that be a matter of interest to you before you attacked?
MR HECHTER: I never knew, Chairperson, never. I beg your pardon, as in the instance of Mr Modimeng, I never knew them, I never saw him.
ADV SANDI: Thank you. Thanks, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hechter, I heard you to say that Brig Cronje would give instructions and say, hey stop for instance in this instance Modimeng, Brown and Ramakope, would I be right then to say from what you have said, that you had discretion of what methods you had to stop them with?
MR HECHTER: Correct, Chairperson, sometimes the detail of it was discussed, at other times not.
CHAIRPERSON: So I know your recollection is vague in this instance, you could not - if you have any recollection, was details discussed about the three?
MR HECHTER: Unfortunately I cannot assist you here, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: From a question by Ms Ngomane, you said in Okasi at Brits, or in the district of Brits, there was violence that occurred black on black, apparently this was not expanded, what kind of violence - because the only thing we knew was that somewhere for the idea to move to Letabile and others were resisting to be removed, what kind of violence was there at Okasi?
MR HECHTER: Chairperson, during the discussions that I had with Mr Pretorius and - yes, with Mr Pretorius, it came to light that because of the moving that would take place there, there was tremendous much industrial unrest. For example, 22 factories were closed during that time, there were many school boycotts, there were many industry boycotts. And then if I recall correctly, houses were also set alight which were not set alight by us.
If I recall it correctly I discussed this with Mr Pretorius while we drew up our applications. We discussed these things and then he told me that we would not have acted if there was no serious unrest in Brits, otherwise we would not have gone there. Things had to be really bad at that time. I know this was not led in evidence, but it had to be quite bad there before we would go to such an area to act.
And it must had the desired effect, our actions, otherwise we would have later gone back there. I am certain of it because we would have received information that these actions were continuing. But I never again returned, so I have to assume that the persons involved there after these actions, either they had left Brits or it became more peaceful in Brits because I was never again contacted, as far as I can recall, to attack the place again.
CHAIRPERSON: Now this burning of houses, do you know what methods these other people, other than the petrol bombing, what methods they used to bomb each other?
MR HECHTER: Chairperson, usually they would use petrol bombs and then they would use handgrenades and in certain instances they would use manufactured explosive devices. That is why we decided to use this method, so that the finger could not be directly pointed to us by the general public, because these things were reported in the press, these incidents, so the general public believed that it was just black on black violence. That is why we went about it in this manner, otherwise I might have taken a handgrenade from the Army and thrown it through the window, but then it would have immediately been clear that the Army was involved.
CHAIRPERSON: Now on reflection, I know it's as you have said, it could 15 years hence, that when you were fanning fire with fire, how would this violence stop, that is the black on black violence, because you were utilising the same methods which you were trying to curb because you wanted to bring peace within Okasi?
MR HECHTER: Chairperson, the strong activist who was responsible for 20 activists, I neutralised him by committing one incident. I use one incident, serious intimidation and the other 20 incidents did not take place again.
CHAIRPERSON: Now wouldn't there - on reflection again, I know by then you could not, you had this problem at hand which you had to defuse the situation, but let's look at, on reflection, these Metal and Allied Workers Union, they were legal were they not?
MR HECHTER: That is correct, Chairperson, they were legal, but there was so much disruption caused by them in the industry with their strikes that it hurt the country's economy, it placed the country's government in a bad light, these people had to be stopped.
CHAIRPERSON: Wouldn't probably the normal procedures which did not bring us here, like incarcerating them, have stopped the industrial unrest and brought the economy within a healthy situation?
MR HECHTER: Chairperson yes, under normal circumstances, but during the time - the evidence has given before, if we detained some of these people and when they returned they would be heroes in the community, they were really heroes, and you could only detain them for a limited period and then he would go on much worse after he had been detained under security legislation. The security legislation was unfortunately not a deterrent because they were such strong and important persons in the community and the community was also afraid, they were so intimidated. You could detain him under security legislation but you could not prove a case against him.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Hechter. Mr Roux, any re-examination?
ADV SANDI: Sorry, Chair, just one question.
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, just before you do, Mr Roux, Adv Sandi has got a question which he wants to put.
ADV SANDI: Sorry, just one question which I thought I would ask. Now as I understand your evidence, now this concerns the selection of targets, yourself and Mr Cronje would sit and discuss who was to be attacked, is that correct?
MR HECHTER: Basically the two of us did not discuss it, Brig Cronje was the boss, he would have called me in and said "Lieut Hechter, information at hand indicates that Mr Modimeng was destabilising the whole Brits area, something has to be done", then we would decide let's burn him, let's throw a bomb. At that stage it would have been decided. And I do believe, as I have said I cannot recall the detail hereof, but since it was not in the Pretoria area, Brig Cronje and I would have discussed this case. He would not have told me "Jacques, just go there and do whatever needs to be done", we would have discussed what I would do. I cannot swear upon this but I think that this is how it would be done.
ADV SANDI: The question I actually want to ask is, if Mr Cronje was proposing to you that a particular target be attacked, would you have been in a position to say no, I do not agree?
MR HECHTER: No, no, Chairperson, I would not be able to tell him "no", because tomorrow I shall be working elsewhere.
ADV SANDI: If that is the position, if that was the position, then what would have been the purpose of those discussions before you finally ...(intervention)
MR HECHTER: He only called me in and identified the target to me, then he would tell me "you know what the area looks like" because I was also a field worker, I had also moved around Okasi as in the other places, so I had a better on the ground knowledge of what was going on there, and then he would say "Mr Modimeng is the target there, he is a serious activist, I think we need to bomb him or I think you must attack him with a petrol bomb."
ADV SANDI: I'm sorry, I must apologise, I didn't make my question clear enough. I'm talking about a situation where you are of the view that such a person should not be attacked, in terms of your understanding and analyses of the data available on such a person ...(intervention)
MR HECHTER: It had nothing to do with me, I did not have a view. The boss would decide and I would execute it.
ADV SANDI: Thank you, Mr Hechter. Thank you, Chairman.
MR RICHARD: Chairperson, may I request with your permission, to ask two more questions, maybe only one. The first question is to ask whether Mr Cronje shared the witness' intentions when giving an instruction to commit either a petrol bomb or a more powerful attack on a particular person, and that is to have the effect of terrorising the targets, be they civilians or activists? May I put those questions.
CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct)
MR RICHARD: No, I'm asking permission.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay you may.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR RICHARD: Thank you.
Sir, you have described your intentions and what you wanted to achieve by your attack using a pentolite bomb on Mr Brown, and that was to terrorise him and those that supported him, either directly or simply by association. Am I correct in saying that Mr Cronje shared exactly the same intentions which you told us of earlier?
MR HECHTER: I cannot answer you on that, it is possible that I received the instruction from him "go and bomb him or go and throw the petrol bomb", at this stage I cannot recall.
CHAIRPERSON: Just to interpose there. I suppose because he gave you a discretion if he said "attack so and so", that the methods you would utilise would go well with him.
MR HECHTER: I believe so, Chairperson, and I believe that we have concurred if discussed the detail and what would happen, and in any case he would have left it to me. These specific incidents I cannot recall unfortunately.
CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed with your second question, Mr Richard.
MR RICHARD: I'll leave the point, I'm satisfied with the reply.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR RICHARD
CHAIRPERSON: I have finally returned to you, Mr Roux, for your re-examination.
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR ROUX: Thank you, Chairperson, there is only one question.
Various questions were put to you, Mr Hechter, with regard to the black on black violence. You have heard that Pretorius gave evidence yesterday that there was a dispute according to his informants information, within the Brits Action Committee, which led to a power struggle. Amongst others the Chairpersons - he said at some point in time Mr Leonard Brown was a Chairperson of this Committee, did you hear that evidence, and may that be one of the reasons for the struggle, the black on black there?
MR HECHTER: That is correct Chairperson, we had it in Mamelodi amongst others, where we had the various street committees - it was just a general background, where these youths wanted to control certain areas where they started fighting each other later, not only politically but criminally as well, that fights broke out.
MR ROUX: Thank you, Chairperson, I have no further questions in re-examination.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR ROUX
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Roux.
Thank you, Mr Hechter, you are excused.
WITNESS EXCUSED
CHAIRPERSON: Gentlemen, I've looked at my watch, it's quarter past one and according to my culture you've go to recharge from time to time to be able to proceed with your work. So we shall do exactly that and come back at two. We adjourn until two.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Roux, you were still in the driving seat.
MR ROUX ADDRESSES: As it pleases you, Chairperson. There is just one aspect which is still outstanding, and that was that the applicant, Jan Hattingh Cronje, who is the fifth applicant in this matter, who is not here due to serious illness which I know that you are aware of at this stage, there is an affidavit which is unfortunately with the medical evidence which has been submitted to you, that was not my intention originally. Once again it is a fax copy of this specific affidavit, the original is under way through the postal system, to Strydom Britz, and upon a later occasion, perhaps Monday, I will request leave to submit the original document.
There is also a supplementary affidavit of which I will obtain a copy. My attorney has gone to ensure that we will have it this afternoon, which then supplements this affidavit and also deals with another aspect, and this will also be conveyed to my learned colleagues. I do not know whether or not you are in possession of the affidavit, it bears the letter B, there is a copy of this before you.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I do.
MR ROUX: You will note, Chairperson, that this preamble has to do with the application pertaining to David Modimeng, Leonard Brown and Oupa Masuku. Due to a bona fide oversight, the name of Celo Ramakope was omitted from the second sentence, that pertaining to Leonard Brown, seeing as this belongs there. That is what the second affidavit which will be available, has to do with.
And a second aspect is also addressed in the affidavit which has emanated from a conference during which Mr Visser SC, and Mr Wagener wanted an indication of whether or not Viktor, who is applicant 4, will be mentioned, and Mr Malan fixed our attention on the fact that Mr Viktor's name is mentioned specifically in the application of Cronje, on page 148, in the middle, where it says -
"Capt Viktor, Schedule Leonard Brown"
The nature of the compilation of these affidavits was once again a bona fide oversight or error and Hattingh's affidavit also deals with the idea that it should be omitted from the application which was submitted in May 1997, if I recall the date correctly. It was the 9th of May 1997. And he then requests an amendment of page 148, and if it is accepted as such, there is then no reference to Capt Viktor. In either case there was no evidence before you which would have implicated Capt Viktor in this incident, his name was not mentioned anywhere and I do not believe that there can be any prejudice in terms of this amendment. I will later request for that affidavit to be submitted to you. With regard to Cronje specifically, amnesty will also be requested in terms of the affidavit and his supplementary affidavit for the same offences for which amnesty is sought for the rest of the applicants, 1, 2 3 and 5. This is the evidence on behalf of all the applicants then.
CHAIRPERSON: Now when a later supplementary affidavit were to be given and you are undertaking that it would be done today, is it prudent at this stage - I'm thinking of counsel for the victims, that would they be in a position without the supplementary affidavit, to make up their minds what weight we should attach to this first affidavit and an affidavit that would be brought in later, wouldn't it be in their best position that they have the two with them and make up their minds?
MR ROUX: Chairperson, it may be the case, I do not wish to be unfair towards my learned opponents, save for the fact that there are only two amendments. Perhaps they would want to see those affidavits first. I cannot say that they should consider their positions right away after I have revealed what the two amendments are to be. I'm certain that they could consider their position when they obtain the affidavit. Unfortunately I cannot assist you in that regard and I offer my apologies.
CHAIRPERSON: I think rather than speaking for them, let me ask them whether they are in a position to weigh up their positions. Let me start with you, Mr Richard.
MR RICHARD: My answer to the Committee, Chairperson, goes this way. In view of a discussion I've had with my learned opponent, I don't need to call any witnesses and I am aware that it is important that a matter proceed this afternoon as well. I would be quite happy to consider the affidavit and to proceed to argue tomorrow morning if that would suit, alternatively to proceed right to argument this afternoon. I don't see any great prejudice by having 10 minutes to read the affidavit.
CHAIRPERSON: I would have loved that we also have the argument this afternoon.
MR RICHARD: I am ready.
CHAIRPERSON: I'll tell you why. If any, this would be the only matter outstanding if we don't hear argument and it doesn't cost us less that R50 000 a day for a hearing, and for us to come just for thirty minutes or so, the costs do not justify that we come back tomorrow.
MR RICHARD: I do not know what's happening with Mr van den Berg's matter, that's the only factor that needs to be taken into account, but I am ready to argue this afternoon.
CHAIRPERSON: Ms Ngomane, you heard what Mr Roux had said about a further supplementary affidavit, but you have one before you from Mr Cronje, and due to ill health, serious ill health, he couldn't be here and this affidavit was obtained wherever he was and faxed and in the process another one is being sent through the post. And when I heard the Masuku matter I accepted this affidavit because there was no opposition from counsel who were in that matter. What is your position as regards what has been said right now?
MS NGOMANE: Thank you, Mr Chairperson. In regard to this supplementary affidavit which is not before us today, I have no objection but it would be proper if my learned friend can later on give us a supplementary affidavit and see what the deponent has to say in regard to these applications. And I have a request, Mr Chairperson, from Mr David Modimeng, as I have stated earlier in your chambers that I will be calling him as well to lead him and Ms Anne Mogoshi. The other problem that I have with this application is that the applicants don't mention that they are asking amnesty in respect of the death of Joyce Modimeng. I have a problem, and I'm subject to correction, Mr Chairperson, ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct) I'm saying, if you look at the applications and what Mr Roux has put before us, is that murder suffices, but in any event, the Act does not say he must specifically what you seek amnesty for, it's that after we have heard evidence it is upon the Panel to say in respect of what, if we are satisfied, amnesty should be granted. What is simply happening is that we request counsel or legal representatives to assist us in what they are asking for, but that is entirely on the Panel. So to save on time we merely ask for that. But I say when you read the bundle you'll find that murder is referred to in some other instances and that means murder, and we only know that one person died in this instance, Mrs Joyce Modimeng.
MR ROUX: As it pleases, Mr Chairperson. That will be in order.
CHAIRPERSON: I have been requested in chambers, but that would - whilst we look at this affidavit, because even with my double lens it doesn't make it very easy to read and I was going to request Mr Roux to read it into the record. Subsequent to what you people said, there is a matter that is standing over and as I might believe in what counsel tells me, I thought it would give you an opportunity as well to speak to Mr Modimeng and the other witness, that after the reading of the affidavit we pause and just hear that matter and then we come back because the ball would now be in your court. Would that be in order?
MS NGOMANE: That will be in order, Mr Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: The undertaking from counsel is that it's not going to be a long matter, so you could rest assured that we are going to hear Mr Modimeng and the other witness today. And as I have said to Mr Richard, it does not make economic sense to come back tomorrow to listen to argument for an hour and go away at such a great cost. So I would say bear with the Panel today, that if needs by, and I don't think it would take us to that extent, we should finish today.
MR NGOMANE: Mr Chairperson, that will be in order. We as the victims as well want to close this case of the victims. It will be in the interest of justice if this matter could be argued today and be dealt with. That will be in order, we don't have a problem of finishing it today, we don't have to come back for it. So Mr Chairman, I would submit that we are ready for our closing argument at this stage. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: I'm indebted to you all. Mr Roux, I see you've got young eyes, you can do without glasses and the last time you were able to decipher what is written here and I would at this stage say for completeness that's there's no mistake when we adjudicate upon this matter, that you read this affidavit into the record.
MR ROUX READS MR CRONJE'S AFFIDAVIT INTO RECORD: As it pleases you, Chairperson.
This document is entitled Truth and Reconciliation Commission Cases and Applications with regard to Leonard Brown and David Modimeng. Affidavit:
"I, the understand, Jan Hattingh Cronje, state under oath as follows
I am an adult man residing in Swellendam. I have personal knowledge of the content of this statement, except where stated otherwise, and I confirm this as true and correct.
I have been informed by the respective applicants in the above-mentioned application who worked under my command during the occurrence of the events, precisely which actions were executed by them.
The subordinates to whom I refer are Capt Jacques Hechter, W/O Paul van Vuuren, Capt Jubber and F Pretorius. Jubber and Pretorius were employed at the Security Branch in Brits, but seeing as I was the Commander of the Security Branch Northern Transvaal at that stage, they fell under my command.
Inasfar as I was their Commander, I have already applied in my first and second amnesty applications for amnesty for all offences for which I may be found guilty with regard to aforementioned acts.
I confirm that I do not have any knowledge of the actions executed or committed by the aforementioned applicants, but that everything fell within the framework of the conduct of the Northern Transvaal Security Branch. It also fell within the scope of the duties which were given to me by Brig Viktor and fell within the regularly accepted and authorised conduct of the Security Police at that stage.
I accept full responsibility for what they did and confirm that it all fell within the scope of the political situation within the country at that time. I request humbly that the Committee grant amnesty to those applicants as well as to me with regard to these events."
The affidavit was signed at Swellendam on the 28th of March 2000, appropriately signed by the deponent and attested to by the Station Commander of the South African Police.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Roux. It's an affidavit, nothing can be done as you have accepted this affidavit. Mr Roux, I think that completes your applicants.
MR ROUX: Yes, Chairperson, that is all the evidence and those are all the witnesses who will be presented.
CHAIRPERSON: I have suggested to your opponents that we slightly catch our breath and as promised just hear he Bokaba matter. Do you have any objections to that?
MR ROUX: No objection.
CHAIRPERSON: This matter will stand down for an hour whilst we do the other matter of Bokaba. I think Mr Richard and Ms Ngomane, you are excused for an hour.
MR NGOMANE: I'm indebted to you, Mr Chairperson.
MATTER STANDS DOWN FOR THE HEARING OF MR BOKABA
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
