SABC News | Sport | TV | Radio | Education | TV Licenses | Contact Us

Amnesty Hearings


Starting Date 25 February 1997


Day 2


Back To Top
Click on the links below to view results for:
+Soweto +uprising

JUDGE MALL: ... video to be shown, I leave this in the hands of my learned friends who are lawyers as

well as technicians, thank you.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, first of all, we would like to apologise

for the fact that we are starting a little bit late. It is due to one specific problem and that is that we exactly

pin-pointed last night on a time counter on a video machine, exactly which excerpts we want to show.

However, the video machine that was provided to us this morning, does not seem to have a time counter

that is working.

That is why I tried to fix that and it seems that I can't get passed that. If you will excuse me, then

what I will do is we will try to show to you the excerpts that we decided last night to do, but I will in all

probability have to search backwards and forwards a little bit if you would allow me that opportunity.

JUDGE MALL: Yes, certainly, certainly.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, we intend to show just parts of the Prime Evil video which we deem

important and then I intend to, with your permission, call Captain Hechter, just to give very shortly, some

comments and some evidence on certain of the aspects that we intend to show. There are



two video's. The one video will deal with Prime Evil, or is

the Prime Evil video with some excerpts that we deem important and, the second video is a video which

deals with inter alia the actions of comrades and the actions of

activists. It shows necklaces and what is also very important, is it shows exactly what kind of violence the

South African Police was, and probably still is exposed to, today.

I have to point out to you, that in respect of the second video, there are certain parts of that video

that are very gruesome. We think that it is important that we should show that because of the fact that that

indicates visually what the applicants were exposed to from day to day at that time, but I have to warn you

that some of the excerpts are very gruesome.

JUDGE MALL: Shall we clear this room of all those under 25?

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, whoever is going to be offended, and I can say to you that it is

going to be bad, should not look then.

JUDGE WILSON: Where are we going to see this video?

JUDGE MALL: Here in this room?

ADV DU PLESSIS: In this room, yes, on the screen in front of you.

JUDGE WILSON: Well in that case, can you please ask them to turn out that bright light, Ms

Khampepe and I have to look straight at to see the video?

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, I'll see to that. Having looked at the light, Mr Chairman, I understand

that completely. May I proceed?

JUDGE MALL: It's made a vast difference thank you.



ADV DU PLESSIS: May I proceed? Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, before I go ahead, I

have to point out that I am not going to show certain parts. If the Committee feels I am going to fast

forward it on the basis that one can see it on the screen, if the Committee feels that they want to view

something specifically, please indicate to me or otherwise if the Committee wants to see the whole video,

we can show the whole video. I don't know what the Committee would prefer.

JUDGE MALL: Well, at this stage we don't have a clue as to what we are about to see.



EXCERPTS OF VIDEO: It was a time of growing Black resistance against the National Party's apartheid

policy. Most White people believed it was a communist onslaught against Christianity and civilization.

The Soviet must be stopped in Southern Africa. We need your help as a team to stand up against the evil

forces wishing to destroy our lovely country. There is too much to be protected to leave it in the hands of

irresponsible people.

(Excerpt) We were also taught, I mean we were literally taught to hate. If you look at the

Security course that I went on for five weeks we were subjected to and we swallowed all of this - the

ranting and raving of a person that I describe as a cross between Eugene Terreblanche and Adolf Hitler,

about the satanic godless communists, and their Black surrogates that were going to swamp us. I've got for

example, my Criminology and Ethnology training manual from when I joined the Police and I can read to

you a little piece here about the differences



between Whites and Non-Whites in respect of crime.

"The Bantu are less civilized, the more primitive the people is, the less they are able to

control their emotions. At the slightest provocation they resort to violence. They cannot

distinguish between serious and less serious matters, they are less self-controlled and

more impulsive."

This video was taken at the Police Training ....

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I am going to comment every now and then just to indicate the

relevance of certain parts of the video. You will recall that evidence was given in respect of this specific

issue by Brig. Cronje in respect of the propaganda that the Police was subjected to, and this is a further

indication of exactly what kind of propaganda they were subjected to at that stage.


SCREENING OF VIDEO CONTINUES: It shows White policemen undergoing anti-terrorist training,

a mock ambush is set up. Eugene de Kock's predecessor at Vlakplaas is Captain Dirk Coetzee, who

completed his Officer's training in 1975, one year before De Kock.

(DE KOCK SPEAKS): We had a special lecturer, Brigadier Neels du Plooy, who was the so-called

specialist, a big Christian too, and he came to lecture us junior officers on communism, terrorism and

worked us up into a frenzy with his knowledge and the viciousness and the cruelty of the enemy, of the

communist, of the terrorist.

These people they call human beings, how could they cut up nuns in East London during the riots

in those early years, and they deserved nothing else but the worst, no mercy at all.



After his training .....

No casualties were sustained by Security Forces and follow up operations are continuing. That is

the end of this communication.

COMMENTARY CONTINUES: It was a war in which 40,000 people died, fought between the White

dominated forces of Ian Smith and the liberation armies or Robert Mugabe and Joshua Nkomo. South

Africa refused to impose United Nations' sanctions

against Rhodesia.

Our orders, and ever since 1965 we refused to be a party to these boycotts and the policy of South

Africa will remain.

Including war supplies you will continue to allow them to go through ... (indistinct)

I am afraid the answer that I have just given you, is the answer that I want to give you at this

stage. Unofficially, however, the Government had to help its northern neighbour. South African

policemen were sent to fight alongside the Rhodesian counterparts. This film was shot in 1974 and shows

South African policemen on war duty in Rhodesia. (Indistinct) and De Kock were amongst them.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I show this because Brigadier Cronje has given evidence that his

started his career partly in the Rhodesian war and that the South African police were already at that stage

involved in a war situation and not simply involved in a situation pertaining to normal police duties.

SCREENING OF VIDEO CONTINUES: ... He was very, very loyal to the cause. A man

who was practically skilled in the skills and the arts of warfare. The man who was in hundreds of contacts,

who was in multiple landmine explosions, a man who PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG


for 20 years, for two decades ...(fast forward)

Policemen in battle dress, armed to the teeth, rising on top of armed vehicles, called caspers. In

front of the caspers, a group of trackers running on the spoor of SWAPO insurgents. These were the men

of Koevoet, the police counter-insurgency unit, during the Namibian Bush war.

The unit with the highest kill rate, but also implicated in committing atrocities against the local people.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I show this to indicate the police's involvement in the Namibian bush

war as well.

SCREENING OF VIDEO CONTINUES: ... wait in the base and send you out after - on a mission that

could get you killed, and he expected you to follow him on such a mission. People develop a hero worship

for such a man. (Indistinct) with his people inside the trucks.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman that was the evidence given about Brigadier Cronje by, as far as I

can recall Captain Hechter and of the other applicants. He was a similar kind of man and he was involved

also in operations, not just behind his desk, but he was involved as a leader.

SCREENING OF VIDEO CONTINUES: ... leave Koevoet and come back to South Africa because

"die vyand is nou hierso", the enemy is now in our backyard, not on the Angolan border. It is strange to me

that anybody should be surprised at what he then did and the way he would then react.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, you must just please bear with me, I am finding it a little bit

difficult in finding the right places. I've got the correct time slots where they should be, but as I told you I

can't find them so, please just bear with me.

SCREENING OF VIDEO CONTINUES: .... with Mozambique. The



bodies of two ANC activists were burnt to ashes. (Indistinct) worked with both men, they were the,

basically the armed wing of the National Party. It was from here that Death Squads hunted down and

killed anti-apartheid activists. Dirk Coetzee found Vlakplaas in 1980, Eugene De Kock went to Vlakplaas

in 1983 and became Commander two years later. Craig Williamson knew and worked with both men.

They were the basically, the armed wing of the National Party. They were the National Party's

equivalent of Umkhonto weSizwe. They were people who believed absolutely that they had a mission, that

they had a job that only they could do, not only for themselves, but for their country, for their people, for

their church and for their future and for their survival and for everybody else's survival. For their people

and their "Volk's" survival.

The formation of Vlakplaas signalled a new phase in the Government's campaign against the

ANC. Craig Williamson calls it the Secret War. Williamson is not only a former Security Policeman, but

he was also National Party member of the President's Council.

None of us who were doing that job in those years were policemen in the sense of upholding law

and order and walking the beat, we were soldiers and we were used to fight a secret war.

Statements by State President P.W. Botha during the 1980's left no doubt, South Africa was in a

state of war. "The terrorist games of SWAPO and the ANC are the primary enemy and

must be confronted and eliminated.

We will not talk to these people, we will fight



them for the simple reason that they are part and parcel of the terrorist curse besetting

the world of today."

The enemy at that time was blowing us up......

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I just want to draw your attention to exactly what President

Botha said here on this video. I am going to show it again.

SCREENING OF VIDEO CONTINUES: ... of P.W. Botha during the 1980's left no doubt, South

Africa was in a state of war. "The terrorist games of SWAPO and the ANC are the

primary enemy and must be confronted and eliminated".

ADV DU PLESSIS: I draw your attention to the fact that he uses the word "eliminated".


"... we will fight them for the simple reason that they are part and parcel of the terrorist

curse besetting the world of today".

(Comments) The enemy at that time was blowing us up and was killing us and we were blowing up the

enemy and we were killing them.

Dirk Coetzee started Vlakplaas with a handful of White policemen and so called ascaris. ANC

and PAC guerrillas that were captured and turned by the Security Police.

One of the first ascaris to arrive at Vlakplaas was Joe Mamasela.

MAMASELA: In my - in the years of school I became a member of SASM, South African student

movement. I was the Secretary General of SASM at Morris Isaacson and also the school campus, I was the

Deputy National Permanent Organiser of SASM.



COMMENTARY: Mamasela joined in the 1976 Soweto uprising. Inspired by the student

revolution, he joined the ANC and became the Organisation's courier in Botswana. But in 1979 the young

activist was arrested and interrogated by the Security Branch.

MAMASELA: They put some electrodes all over my body, in my testicles, private parts, my anus -

here, it was terrible. I was bleeding profusely, I don't know how many times I lost consciousness. I

lost consciousness for several times. The last time I fell into a deep, deep coma.

QUESTION: And why did you start working for them?

MAMASELA: There was no way I could salvage my life other than to work for them because this is what

they emphasised.

COMMENTARY: He became an ascari at Vlakplaas. He turned against his own people and became a

killing machine, first for Dirk Coetzee and in later years for Eugene de Kock.

MAMASELA: My first mission that I had to kill a human being, it was through Dirk Coetzee.

COETZEE: I was prepared to kill as many people as I was instructed to kill.

MAMASELA: And if you don't do this killing, they kill you.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I was requested to make the sound louder, it is impossible. The sound

is at its loudest. I believe that on the earphones, one can hear perhaps a little bit better.

JUDGE MALL: Thank you.

ADV DU PLESSIS: If there is a problem.


MAMASELA: More than six ascaris were killed.

COETZEE: We were untouchable, completely.

NEWS READER: "Goeie naand, agt swartmans is in



afsonderlike handgranaat and bomontploffings vanoggend in the swart woongebiede aan

die Oos-rand dood. Minstens sewe is ernstig beseer. Ten minste vier van die slagoffers

was op pad om terreurdade te pleeg toe hulle deur hulle eie plofstof gedood is. Die

polisie ondersoek die moontlikheid dat van die ander vier ook moontlik op pad was om

dade van terreur te pleeg."

COMMENTARY: The next morning violence erupted in the Duduza township. Residents believe the

police informant was behind the deaths of the students. At the first funeral Archbishop Desmond Tutu

saved a suspected informant from being necklaced. But at the second funeral the fury of Duduza was

unleashed on Martha Skosana, the girlfriend of one of the students. Soon after Martha's necklacing,

State President P.W. Botha, declared a state of emergency.

P W BOTHA: Every responsible South African has with growing concern taken note of conditions of

violence and lawlessness which in recent times has increased and have become more severe and more cruel

in certain parts of the Country, especially in Black townships.

COMMENTARY: More than 10 years later the memory of Martha Skosana's death has faded, but

now Vlakplaas assassin Joe Mamasela is talking.

The students didn't blow themselves up by accident - it was a Security Police dirty tricks

operation played by, amongst others, Vlakplaas commander Eugene de Kock.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, this part relates to the Zero handgrenade incident, just to make it 100%



MAMASELA: They were infiltrated by me for about two weeks



and in the ultimate analysis De Kock gave me some booby traps, you know what I mean, handgrenades and

one SPM limpet mine, the big one to give to them and this stuff we handed to them and they were told to

choose whatever target they want (indistinct), and they blew themselves up.

QUESTION: And what happened to the limpet mine you gave to one of the student leaders?

MAMASELA: It was terrible, you know, because once he started pulling off the safety-pin it went off.

There was a black smoke billowing in the air with a little tongue of red smoke, a red flash, flash-light and

one could see it was blood.

COMMENTARY: After the operation, Mamasela reported back to his Commander.

MAMASELA: He was ecstatic about it, he was ecstatic about it, he was extremely happy, he jumped like

a beheaded chicken.

COMMENTARY: Eugene de Kock became Commander at Vlakplaas in 1985, the time of growing Black

resistance against apartheid.

MAMASELA: The first impression that he created was that he was a brutal man, he was an aggressive



MAMASELA: (Indistinct), you know he wanted to make us dogs of war.

COMMENTARY: His job was to combat terrorism and terrorism was then defiant. His job was to combat

the onslaught against South Africa. The onslaught at that time, first of all was in Rhodesia then it was later

in South-West Africa Namibia and when the onslaught became hot behind our own alliance inside South

Africa, he was used to combat that



onslaught here.

Well anyone could see that this is a cookie you don't play with, you see. He was quiet, well-

spoken, but there was something that ...

They told you don't play with this guy.

QUESTION: Do you think the Generals knew what he was doing? ANSWER: It depends which

Generals, but I have no doubt there were certain Generals that knew what he was doing, because they

weren't that dumb as not to know what he was doing.

At least once a month the top structure of security headquarters, the Generals, would come for a

"potjiekos" or a "braai" and then Colonel De Kock used to foresee us with finance to go buy the meat and

the booze etc, and it started about twelve o'clock on a Friday afternoon and end whatever.

QUESTION: Did the Generals know what was going on at Vlakplaas?

ANSWER: There was a full time party there, three times a week all the Generals were there, celebrating

and as soon as the shit hit the fan, they disappeared and no one came, nobody.

The Generals did visit the farm frequently and I am sure that they had report-backs from Eugene,

actions that were taken, but to say that they knew in detail, I wouldn't agree with that.

They drew the parameters, they drew the counter-

evolutionary strategy, they gave us the budgets, they gave us the men, they gave us the means, the

equipment and they monitored our effectiveness and whether we were doing our job or not and they were

happy, they gave us the highest declarations that this Country can give and yes, many of



them turned round at the end of the day and said goodness, gracious, we didn't know that these band of

merry men of ours were doing such nasty things. If they were doing these nasty things, they must have

been doing it on their own initiative.


Because of the police, the top police ...(indistinct) was the family.

It is one of the dichotomies of man that in fact perhaps because you are a loving father and

because you love your people, and because you love your Country, you prefer to kill for it, (indistinct).

You may also have to be prepared to die for it. .... (tape ends)

MAMASELA?): How I don't know but you must suffer, and God is going to punish me, that's what I'm

sure about.

... beweerde apartheidmisdade. Die Kommissie het gesÍ as mnr Botha weier om te antwoord op

die beweerde ...

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, if you will just bear with me for a minute please. Mr Chairman,

I think it is nearly at the end of what I want to show, I just want to make hundred percent sure that I've

covered everything. This is the last part of the video that deals with Colonel de Kock, which was not

important for purposes of this hearing.


...."Spanbou" is usually four days, it is nice the Government expenses who doesn't do it, everyone

does it. One big party. ....(Indistinct) get intoxicated, wrestle and stuff like that.

COMMENTARY: In this instance the men were joined by General Krappies Engelbrecht. He was the

unit's so-called Sweeper. De Kock will have to cover up. He was implicated in Court



in some of the charges against De Kock.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I show that excerpt because I am also going to call Brigadier

Cronje very shortly on that. He already gave evidence that he distances himself from Colonel De Kock and

from Captain Dirk Coetzee and he will testify about things like that and if that happened during his period

at Vlakplaas.


COMMENTARY: ....bravery, outstanding service and combatting terrorism. In December 1985 he

received the Police Cross for Bravery for this raid into Lesotho. De Kock....

- the former police Commissioner, General Johan van der Merwe, to this day, the General denies any

knowledge of the existence of Police Death Squads.

Eugene de Kock was charged with only one murder.

Fast forward

COMMENTARY:... Hit Squad members as ascaris, according to General Coetzee former terrorists who

had joined the Security Police and assisted in the identification of infiltrating ANC and PAC members.

Praising their work, General Coetzee denied the Ascaris had ever been ordered to assassinate, adding and

we quote,

"Just the thought of such a squad would defeat all the Police stands for".

QUESTION: What did you tell you colleagues in the National Party, at that time?

ANSWER: I told them what the system wanted them to believe and that Dirk Coetzee was obviously an

agent of International Communism who was attempting to destabilise the psychological status of our

counter-revolutionary efforts.



QUESTION: Why didn't you tell them the truth?

ANSWER: (Laughs) That would have been an interesting occurrence if I had.

COMMENTARY: In meetings with policemen around the country Minster of Law and Order, Adriaan

Vlok, said Coetzee was part of the dirty tricks campaign against the Police.

VLOK: "Die polisie wat hulle lewens opoffer vir die land, wat hulle tyd, alles gee vir Suid-Afrika en sy

mense en al dank wat ons kry van 'n groot klomp mense, is dat ons word beswadder en

beskuldig van die lelikste dinge wat denkbaar is."

ANSWER: I can expect some naive people on the (indistinct) maybe can believe that story, but

people who were in the management structures of the State, didn't believe that story, they knew who was

killing the ANC.

COMMENTARY: Coetzee went into hiding in Zambia.....

(Fast forward)

QUESTION: Did you lie to the Harms Commission?

MAMASELA: Oh, I lied, I lied. We all lied from Cape to Cairo. It was a shambles.

ANSWER: It was totally the nonsense that was fed to them, I mean the whole Harms Commission was a

farce, it was fed manure and it was kept in the dark and it grew, the type of mushrooms that it was

supposed to grow.

MAMASELA: No, we were told to lie, it was instructions from the Generals that we should lie. There

was no way that we could compromise the police, no when we told - in all sections that we should lie.

ANSWER: I think one of the important things that we in this country are going to have to come to

terms with is the total lie that we all lived with. I find this now sometimes PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG


very difficult to believe the - that they'd lie. We often used to talk or you hear about people saying that as

long as you make the lie big enough, you can in fact fool all of the people all of the time.

COMMENTARY: While the men at Vlakplaas continued to lie to the Harms Commission, De Kock and

his Squad attacked a house in Botswana. They shot and killed a PAC activist, his wife and two children.

De Kock and his superiors would stop at nothing to hide

their crimes even if it meant another murder. This is the grave of Constable Brian Ngqulunga. For nine

years, one of the unit's most trusted members.

MAMASELA:(?) Brian, the whole thing shook him to the marrow, it disturbed him. He was a completely

devastated person, he was a pathetic sight. You know he was frail, he drank too much. The whole

exposure into the media went into his mind. He couldn't take it. He was on the verge of complete

breakdown. And as a result he shot his wife three times, his pregnant wife. Fortunately the poor

woman did not die.

COMMENT: Eugene never boasted or he never talked about that, but yes, I knew and he would mention

that he had to eliminate someone because of the fact that the person was posing a threat, and threatened to

go and talk about certain things.

MAMASELA: There was a meeting at General Engelbrecht's office. Nick van Rensburg was also there,

De Kock was there, a lot of guys was there and it was - concern was raised about Brian Ngqulunga's

behaviour and his drinking problem and that he is becoming progressively agitated and nervous and they

were afraid that this condition will



jeopardise the police case in the Harms Commission and De Kock suggested that Brian should be killed, he

should be eliminated.

COMMENTARY: On the 20th of July 1990 Brian Ngqulunga was shot dead in the township of

Soshanguve near Pretoria. His grave is on a hill overlooking Vlakplaas. He was given an official police


Nine months after his appointment, Mr Justice Louis Harms released his findings.

There were no police Death Squads, he said. Dirk Coetzee, had lied.

ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman, can I just make a request.

Seeing that we are watching something on Brian Ngqulunga and

the wife and the relatives are here, that it be re-shown and they be allowed to come and sit at a place where

they can see that for themselves. It is a request.

JUDGE MALL: When you say they are here, do you mean they are in this hall?

ADV MPSHE: They are in this hall, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE MALL: Then, should they not be able to see it now whilst it is being shown to us?

ADV MPSHE: That is the request I am making that they be allowed to come forward and see it.

JUDGE MALL: Oh, I thought you said they should be screened to them on another occasion. Certainly.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Chairman, while we are on this point, Captain Mentz will testify

about this specific incident and especially relating to the orders that they were given in respect of Brian

Ngqulunga. I am showing this video now before Captain Mentz' evidence.



I just want to indicate to you at this stage that the

evidence of Captain Mentz will be that he and the others that were instructed to eliminate Brian Ngqulunga

were never informed of the reason that is now alleged by Mr Mamasela to have been the reason for the

elimination. I am just making that point.


ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, and Mr Chairman furthermore I want to point out to you that Mamasela

was not involved in that operation at all. So the evidence that is shown on the video will, to a certain

extent, be contradicted by the evidence of Captain Mentz.


ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I am just making hundred percent sure that I've covered


Mr Chairman I would like with your permission, in respect of this video before we show the other

video, to call Brigadier Cronje very shortly just to give his comments on one or two of the aspects.I want to

make one other point.

After having, well showing the excerpt of Brian Ngqulunga, I realised that the excerpt itself and

what was said in the excerpt is obviously detrimental and perhaps prejudicial to Captain Mentz' application.

We, however, decided that because of the fact that we are speaking the truth from Captain Mentz' point of

view and what happened to him, that it would be in our interest to show this excerpt in respect of Brian

Ngqulunga even if what was said there, might and I am not saying that it does, but might contradict what

Captain Mentz' evidence is.

I want to make that point very clear Mr Chairman.

JUDGE MALL: You will obviously tell us who compiled that



particular video, would you not?

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, we will be able to give you the

information Mr Chairman, yes.

JUDGE MALL: The Committee will take a short adjournment at this stage.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman.



JUDGE MALL: In fairness to counsel I think it should be told that a member of the Committee felt that

as a result of what we had seen, a certain question may be cleared up amongst ourselves and it was in order

to discuss that point,

that this short adjournment was taken and I am hoping it hasn't inconvenienced anybody.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, may I allowed to call Brigadier

Cronje very shortly for five minutes?

JUDGE MALL: Yes, certainly.


EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: Brigadier, you have now seen the video. Parts of the

Rhodesian war and the Namibian Bush war. Do you confirm that you were also involved in a similar


BRIG CRONJE: Yes, that is correct.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Brigadier, you also heard what Craig Williamson said in the video with

regards to the fact that the Security Branch was the military wing of the National Party.


ADV DU PLESSIS: Do you agree with that?




ADV DU PLESSIS: You've also heard the ex-President Botha specifically speaking about the fact

that ANC activists, I think he said ANC activists and terrorists, would be eliminated?


ADV DU PLESSIS: Did you hear that?


ADV DU PLESSIS: Brigadier could you just give the Committee an indication of how you

regarded that in the light of Brigadier Victor's instruction?

BRIG CRONJE: Brigadier Victor probably received his instruction from higher up and I thus believed

that his

instructions came from higher up and that these were the correct instructions.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And Brigadier, do you regard it in the light of what has been said in the video by

President Botha that there was a possibility that the instruction came from him?

BRIG CRONJE: Yes, I saw it as such.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Brigadier, you also saw what was said with regard to the Zero hand grenade

incident, was there anything you would like to dispute with regards to that?

BRIG CRONJE: I would like to differ in the sense that De Kock was not in charge of the Operation, I was

in charge of the Operation.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Very well. Brigadier it appears as though the producers of the video, either out

of ignorance or for convenience sake, the period which you were in charge of Vlakplaas or otherwise

omitted to include that in the video would you care to give any explanation to that effect?

BRIG CRONJE: I cannot give any explanation. I would like to say to the Committee that I took over

from Coetzee and



not De Kock. And furthermore I would like to say that the people who worked with me, did not look

anything like the people on the video. I refer to Colonel Venter, he was the type of man who worked with


Furthermore, parties as the one on the beach, would not have been, never have been allowed in

my time. I would also like to say that De Kock was transferred to me from Koevoet, I did not want him

there, but I was given an instruction to take him.

Those type of things never happened under my command and it would never have happened

under my command, I kept my

foot on De Kock's throat and such things would never have happened under my command.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Brigadier, as far as Dirk Coetzee's evidence is concerned that he was like God

over there and he could do as he pleased, what is your comment on that?

BRIG CRONJE: It did not work like that Mr Chairman. Dirk Coetzee exaggerated as far as that is

concerned, that is not how we operated.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Very well then. Brigadier, what is said there by Craig Williamson with

regards to the involvement of the Generals in Vlakplaas, that what happened at Vlakplaas happened with

the knowledge of the Generals, do you identify with that?

BRIG CRONJE: Could you please repeat that?

ADV DU PLESSIS: What Craig Williamson said on the video with regards to the involvement of

the Generals in Vlakplaas and the fact that they knew and also the higher authorities, the fact that they

knew about the operations of Vlakplaas, do you identify with that?

BRIG CRONJE: Yes, I do, they all knew what was happening



at Vlakplaas.

JUDGE WILSON: When you say "all" do you mean every single General in the police force or are

you limiting yourself to a limited number?

BRIG CRONJE: I would limit it to the Generals in the Security Branch, the Commissioner of South

African Police, who were all members of the Security Branch before.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Brigadier, at some stage there were also photographs of the members posing

for photographs with corpses laying around as if they were very proud of what they had done, was that

your approach at the time, did you allow such things?

BRIG CRONJE: No, Mr Chairperson.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman I have no further questions.


JUDGE MALL: Whose decision was it to transfer De Kock from Koevoet to Vlakplaas?

BRIG CRONJE: As I understood it, De Kock had been such a cause of trouble in Oshakati by fighting

that they had no option, his Commanding Officer there requested that he be transferred and Brigadier

Schoon instructed me to take him in.

JUDGE MALL: Was there a time when you and Dirk Coetzee were together at Vlakplaas?

BRIG CRONJE: No, Chairperson.

JUDGE MALL: Precisely how would reports of what was happening at Vlakplaas be conveyed to


BRIG CRONJE: It would have been done orally, Chairperson and would very seldom have been done in


JUDGE MALL: How would instructions to Vlakplaas or to



you be conveyed from headquarters?

BRIG CRONJE: Also orally.

JUDGE MALL: Would there be an intermediary between the people that were going to give you

instructions and yourself or would the instructions be conveyed to you directly?

BRIG CRONJE: To me directly, Chairperson. To me directly, Chairperson.

JUDGE WILSON: You were asked about the video that we've looked at and in particular what I

want to ask you about is a speech made by Mr P.W. Botha. You remember that?


JUDGE WILSON: Is it correct that the video we have just been shown, consisted largely of

extracts from earlier news

reports, matters of that nature?

BRIG CRONJE: It appeared to me as such Chairperson.

JUDGE WILSON: That the speech that we heard from Mr P.W. Botha was a speech he made in

the 1980's, not something that was made for this video?

BRIG CRONJE: I do not know when he made it.

JUDGE WILSON: It was in the past, something you, all of us would have heard many years ago?

BRIG CRONJE: That is correct.

JUDGE WILSON: And ...(indistinct) at that time?


JUDGE WILSON: And the second matter which is not of the same relevance is these parties on

the beach we're showed, there had been frequent complaints in the Natal Parks Board about a certain

military place down on the coast there, is that where the parties were?

BRIG CRONJE: It seems to me that it was at a house on the north coast.



ADV DE JAGER: Brigadier Cronje, the reports you said were done verbally to head office, were these

done during regular meetings or were they done at any time when an incident took place or how often were

these reports submitted?

BRIG CRONJE: The way in which we operated was that I had four divisions which worked in different

regions. One for example in Natal, one in the Eastern Transvaal, the other in the Northern Transvaal and

so forth, and depending on what took place there at the end of the month those people would come back

and report to me and I would report to my head, Brigadier Schoon.

ADV DE JAGER: So it was not a report made at a formal meeting?

BRIG CRONJE: No, Chairperson.

ADV DE JAGER: Were there any agreements, standing

agreements where strategic reports would be made?

BRIG CRONJE: Every morning Brigadier Schoon would attend the San Hedrin and I would - what I

reported back to him, he would report back to this San Hedrin.

MR CURRIN: We have no questions at this stage, thank you.

ADV MPSHE: No questions Mr Chairman.

FURTHER EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I just want to ask two questions

pertaining to the questions that the Committee asked.

Brigadier, the parties which they showed here, I believed that they were held at Sodwana, was it

during Colonel De Kock's time, do you know during which period these parties took place?

BRIG CRONJE: I do not know during which period they took place, but they had to have been during his


ADV DU PLESSIS: Would Captain Mentz be able to give us a bit PRETORIA



more detail?

BRIG CRONJE: I believe so.

ADV DU PLESSIS: I would just like to put it to you for the Committee's benefit, that Captain

Mentz will say that those parties were held in the 1990's, so that was long after you had left Vlakplaas.

Brigadier Cronje, would you say that it is possible that the fact that you were not mentioned in this video is

simply because you were not involved in sensational incidents such as De Kock and them, could you just

comment on that?

BRIG CRONJE: I suspect that that is the reason why I am not mentioned as a Commanding Officer.


MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, may I be allowed to say

something? Can you see me, I am a bit far away?

JUDGE MALL: ...(indistinct)

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, first of all we must place ourselves on record before the Committee. Acting

for certain people who have applied for amnesty and we have some points which we wish to make in

regard to the evidence and particularly Section 19(4) notices. We don't want to interrupt at this stage, the

reason why I am addressing you right now is ...(intervention)

JUDGE MALL: I would rather you tell me who you are appearing for.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, for record purposes, my name is L.J.L. Visser, I am instructed by

Wagenaar, Muller & Du Plessis.

May I hand up to you a document, Mr Chairman, which will summarise what I wish to say to you

right now and part of the reason why I wish to hand it up to you is you will



find an annexure attached to the document which I present to you right now, that contains the names of

those people whom we represent in their amnesty applications.

May I by way of short introduction Mr Chairman say that we act if you look at the annexure

containing the names if they were numbered, you would have seen that they number 81 on the list as they

stand at present. So presently we act for 81 applicants, Mr Chairman.

Mr Chairman, what this really is about is the issue of how the Committee is going to deal in future

with evidence of applicants before you which implicate other individuals. more in particular, those for

whom I appear. It appears to us Mr Chairman, and we have stated that at page 2, that in regard to the

Section 19(4) notices, there appears to us to be two permutations mainly and that is that our clients might

deny their involvement or alternatively they might

admit their involvement. Now ...(intervention)

JUDGE MALL: Or there is another alternative - might ignore it.

MR VISSER: Well, we can assure you we are not going to ignore it. So as far as we are concerned that

is not a permutation. What we wish to say just at this stage very shortly Mr Chairman, is that insofar as our

clients either admit or deny being implied by other applicants, we, as we stated to you yesterday in your

chambers, if we know of an incident which is going to be brought before you on a particular date, we will

see to it that we are here and that we inform you of the exact position of that particular implicated client of


Broadly speaking ins far as, we don't want to go through this every time for 81 people, and that is



handed in this little document, simply to say that where we admit being involved, it does not necessarily

mean that we agree with the evidence tendered by an applicant before you or with his particular motivation,

it goes without saying, Mr Chairman.

The reason why we make this point right now is that it does not occur to us to be the time or the

place to place in issue all the evidence placed before you by the present applicants, where we should

disagree with them. We would be in your hands as to how you want to deal with those disputes, all that we

will do at this stage, and we undertake to do, is to draw your attention to any disputes which may exist.

What we want to make absolutely clear is that we are not objecting on behalf of any of our clients

to any of the applications now before you. If it should happen Mr

Chairman, that on the evidence as disputed perhaps by any of our clients in future, it becomes necessary for

you to make credibility findings, well then we will have to be led by you at that stage, presently we are

assuming that there may not be such material disputes as will disenable you to make a finding on their

application. We are hoping that that is going to be the situation that prevails.

I will finish Mr Chairman, this is really a build up to the question of the Section 19(4) notices.

We are in this position for example, this morning we heard evidence which affect Victor and Schoon for

whom we appear and we had no notice that this was going to happen.

Now quite clearly from an administrative point of view, it occurs to us that the Committee is in an

invidious position. My attorney and myself discussed yesterday the



practical situation that acting for these people, we know in which incidents they are involved, but Mr

Mpshe does not, for the simple reason that an applicant may not have mentioned the name and he informs

us that he hasn't read through all the amnesty applications, so he is completely in the dark.

What we wish to suggest by way of assisting if we can, is that my attorney should draw up a list

of incidents of all the incidents in which our applicants are involved, for example the Nietverdiend incident

and the Zero incident and whatever and then give a list of names of our clients who are involved in those

incidents to Mr Mpshe, so as to make it possible for him to give us 19(4) notices.

May I just, while we are on the issue of 19(4) issues, make our position clear. We have in fact,

my attorney has in fact told Mr Mpshe it is not necessary to give us the

notices and then we reconsidered. The problem with that Mr Chairman, is that it is one thing to know that

you are implicated, but it is another thing to know on what evidence. We had to retract that offer and

you will see that in the letter which we've handed up to you which you ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: Wasn't it perhaps accepted before you retracted it?

MR VISSER: Well, my learned friend Mr Mpshe did not take that point against us, Mr Chairman and I'm

hoping that we don't have to go into the law of contract on that issue. But the point is that it does seem

necessary to know beforehand Mr Chairman what the other person who implicates our clients, is going to

say. I think it is a matter of logic, so it is not as if we wish to make more work for Mr Mpshe,



but it occurs to us to be necessary and I just wanted to explain that.

So Mr Chairman, thank you for listening to me for so long, but what we suggest then is that we

should give you that list and that that would enable Mr Mpshe to give us due notice of when a particular

incident will be heard and at that stage we will then come and if we may, by way of a short affidavit on

behalf of that client of ours, simply state very briefly what is in dispute and what is not in dispute. That

is the best we can think of offering our assistance at this point in time, but we will obviously be led by

whatever you decide, how you wish to do it.

JUDGE MALL: Speaking for myself, I think that it will be very very helpful to carry out the suggestion

which you have made about giving us a list of your clients setting out how,

briefly or rather in respect of which matters, they were implicated.

I am glad that you appreciate the difficulty we have in carrying out Section 19(4) notices, simply

because as evidence unfolds names are mentioned, we hear them for the first time and it seems that the

only way in which that can be done, would be at the end of each day to draw up a list of people whose

names are mentioned, who may be implicated. Not people whose names are merely mentioned, but who

may be implicated and at the end of each day take steps to notify people.

But I see that all your clients whose names appear here have themselves applied for amnesty and,

it may very well be that they will have ample opportunity at that stage to give their version as fully as they

would like to and the Committee, I can assure you, will give full consideration to PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG


the evidence of their account and the extent of their participation in whatever they are applying amnesty


It may be that if we can avoid a repetition of hearing evidence, in other words if we can avoid

calling a man simply because his name is mentioned and he is given notice in terms of Section 19(4), for

him to come here and respond to what was said yesterday about him, and then find out that he has made an

application for amnesty and he will be repeating what he said then, one certainly wants to avoid that.

You understand the time constraints within which this Committee is functioning. We are always

looking for ways of streamlining procedures and it would seem that if you furnish this document with what

your clients have to comment on and in what matters they are implicated in, it will facilitate matters and

that document should be handed to counsel for the applicants.

Now we understand you are telling us that your clients do not object to the applications for

amnesty by the applicants. That is a matter of some importance. It is a question of hearing their version of

what is being said and we will have an open mind in that regard and I can assure you on behalf of the

Committee, that we will do so.

JUDGE WILSON; Can I add something Mr Visser that I think may be of assistance. I don't know

how many of your clients are policemen or army officers, but ...(intervention)

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I can answer the question immediately, 80 of them are policemen and one is

an ex-Minister of Police.

JUDGE WILSON: It would be much easier to identify them if you could also give ranks, so when

somebody talks about



Captain Coetzee, because you've got about five different Coetzee's, if you could put the ranks onto the list,

I think it would make it easier for Mr Mpshe and others to identify.

MR VISSER: We hear what you say Mr Chairman, but there is a problem with that and that is the

changing of the ranks, but we will do it anyway as near as possible. We can identify them.

May we accept then that for as far as our clients have been implicated here today, you will

appreciate that obviously we have no instructions on that, we will not forego any rights by asking you to

allow whatever our reaction is going to be to stand down to a later date?

JUDGE MALL: Quite right.

MR VISSER: May I also add Mr Chairman, you've suggested it and we have already done that, we

have also circulated these affidavits which we spoke about earlier in which we

say what is admitted and what is denied to the applicants' legal representatives. The reason for that is

that they might, with that knowledge, be able even from their side to shorten proceedings by perhaps

avoiding disputes or cutting out disputes where it is possible.

May it please you, thank you Mr Chairman.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Visser, as far as the affidavits that you've given to the other people, if you intend that

they should be part of our material to be considered, we will be glad to receive it ourselves so if you could

hand it into the Commission, if you consider that to be necessary?

As far as the evidence given this morning, could I say that insofar as the video's have been

confirmed under oath, as far as I am concerned that would be considered as evidence, the mere showing of

the video with a lot of faces



appearing thereon, wouldn't as far as we are concerned, implicate those persons except as far as they've in

fact implicated by this person giving evidence now.

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman. Dealing with the last point that certainly accords with our view

of the law and we are thankful for that direction which you have given.

As far as handing up the affidavits to you, we didn't mention it because we thought it spoke for

itself, the whole intention of the affidavits would be for your information, for your consumption, but we

will also make it available to the legal representatives of the applicants.

ADV DE JAGER: Thank you.

MR VISSER: Yes, of course we will.


MR VISSER: May I say one last thing. General Johan van

der Merwe, the issue which we spoke about yesterday, I am hoping that I won't have to speak again today,

so while it is my turn, while I've been given a turn, I wish to put it all in - he will be available on Thursday

the 27th for Mr Currin to put his questions to him.

JUDGE MALL: Thank you.

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman.

MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Visser, would you have any objection in making those affidavits available to legal

representatives of victims or the relatives of the deceased in respect of which the applicants are applying for


MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, may we respond this way. Obviously we would have a practical problem,

knowing who these people are, what we would say with respect Mr Chairman, and my attorney can stop

me if I am wrong, is that we would have no objection if Mr Mpshe imparted that



information to - may I just take an instruction on that? Yes, of course the practical problem is also that as

we are sitting here we still don't really know what is going to develop so that we can't tell you now that we

are going to give you affidavits of 81 people, we will have to see what is alleged against them and in fact

for Schoon we had an affidavit here this morning, which has now become irrelevant because of some of the

evidence that had been given here, so at the time when Mr Mpshe gets it, it will hopefully be in its semi or

final form and at that stage we would have no objection to him imparting that information.

JUDGE MALL: Thank you. We think that that is an imminently sensible way of doing it.

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman.


ADV DE JAGER: Mr Visser, only another practicality. We haven't been supplied with the ranks, but

would you say that you are representing all the Generals in the Security police?

MR VISSER: Not even close, Mr Chairman.

ADV DE JAGER: Because the trouble we've got is that there was a reference to the Generals in the

Security police would have known, and we can't give notices to people we don't know.

MR VISSER: I was listening to the evidence and that very problem struck me Mr Chairman. I was saying

to myself that if I had to cross-examine now I would have to ask who were these Generals, but I didn't want

to interfere, but we have that problem, but we certainly don't act for all the Generals, no. You will see from

the names, although the ranks are not there, from the list you will, I think Mr



Chairman with respect, you will be able to identify the Generals. We are talking about General Johan

Coetzee, General Johan van der Merwe - may I just take instructions?

My attorney suggests in order to attempt to assist, if you feel that there are Generals which you

would like to send Section 19(4) notices to, perhaps to send him a copy of that notice and he might be able,

or he would probably be able to locate that person and deliver that notice on behalf of the Committee to

them, which may circumvent that problem Mr Chairman.


MR VISSER; Other than that, I am not sure whether we can be of much assistance in that regard.

Alright, thank you very much.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, may I perhaps comment just on two aspects.

The first aspect is that the evidence pertaining to Brigadiers Victor and Schoon which was given

this morning, was actually in the light of the previous evidence that was given, no more than probably a

repetition of what was given already.

So that evidence was in any event available to Mr Visser and there is nothing new in terms of

which his clients have been implicated.

In respect of the affidavits that they want to hand up Mr Chairman, clearly we do not have a

problem with that, except for one aspect thereof, and that is that I would like to be in a position to be able to

consider the contents of such an affidavit before evidence is led pertaining to a specific incident, so that I

can take it up with my clients, so that I can lead evidence pertaining to any contradictions PRETORIA



between my client's evidence and whatever is contained in such an affidavit.

We do not have any objection that the contents of our amnesty applications be made available to

Mr Visser for that purpose so that they can go through that and so that they will then obviously be able to

provide us with copies of such affidavits beforehand. Obviously it would have an effect on our client's

applications, because of the fact that the contradictions might cause us certain difficulties which we do not

know at this stage what facts will be contradicted, otherwise Mr Chairman I will have to ask the Committee

to recall my clients after giving evidence and after having received the affidavits in specific incidents,

which I would not want to do.

JUDGE MALL: Yes, I think nobody wants to have these proceedings carry on indefinitely. There must be


finality in the submissions that you wish to make on behalf of your clients, and if the time comes when Mr

Visser's clients make their application for amnesty, the Committee will bear in mind whatever differences

there are, between the evidence they give and the evidence you give.

Some of these differences may be faulty recollections, because of passage of time, they may be on

side issues and not on material issues, those are factors which we will take into account, but I think that in

fairness to your clients, if there is anything material you client's attention will be drawn to those.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, do I understand then that the Committee will draw our attention to

any contradictions which the Committee deem important and which will then be taken up?



JUDGE MALL: That is in addition to the fact that you will be given the affidavits by Mr Visser?


JUDGE MALL: You will have an opportunity of deciding yourself as to whether the differences between

your clients' version and his clients' is on a material issue or on a side issue and so on.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Chairman, I understand.

JUDGE MALL: And we rely on your good judgement.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, the only point that I am trying to make is that I would prefer having those

affidavits before my clients give evidence, that is the only request that I have.

JUDGE MALL: If that is possible, we must do so. Mr Visser?

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, we have offered to make these available to my learned friend. He hasn't

been listening to

what I've been saying. We are under no obligation to him to give it to him, I am not going to undertake to

give it to him any period of time beforehand because it depends on when they are going to become

available, we've got the right to place before you evidence where we are implicated Mr Chairman, so I

don't need his objection or his admission either. We've offered it Mr Chairman, we certainly don't want to

get involved in an argument about it with my learned friend.

JUDGE MALL: No, I think it is a question of not merely making a verbal offer, I am talking about

making them available.

MR VISSER: Yes, yes, we will make it available.

JUDGE MALL: Thank you.



ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I still don't understand my learned friend.

JUDGE MALL: I think if you have a chat with him during the adjournment you might be able to


ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, alright, then I would like to do that Mr Chairman, because I don't understand

my learned friend to say that he will give it before we give evidence, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE MALL; Alright, would you clear it up with him during the adjournment, please. I'd like us to

proceed with the evidence.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes. Mr Chairman, I just want to make this clear, if we are not going to be provided

the opportunity of having sight of whatever they are going to place before the Committee ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: Mr du Plessis how can he reply to an allegation before you've given evidence? He

obviously has to hear the evidence and then reply thereto.

ADV DU PLESSIS: But Mr Chairman because the evidence is contained in the applications and we

offered to make the applications available.

ADV DE JAGER: Ja, he hasn't had the applications up to now.

ADV DU PLESSIS: But we are offering to make it available now, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE MALL: I appeal to the good sense of the parties in this matter, not to engage in this kind of

debate. I am sure that commonsense will prevail if you come together and sort this matter out as best as you


ADV DU PLESSIS: We will endeavour to do so, Mr Chairman.


JUDGE WILSON: But I think you must bear in mind is that



what Mr Visser, as I understand him is trying to do, is to comply with the provisions of the Act which

entitle his clients to be heard, but to avoid having days and days of oral evidence by giving affidavits which

if we accept, we need not hear his clients and obviously if those affidavits conflict with what your clients

have said, then that witness will have to be heard, they cannot conflict merely by affidavit.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Well, Mr Chairman, that is one of the problems that I have got.

JUDGE WILSON: Yes you will get the affidavit, if it conflicts you can ask for the witness to be

called. If it agrees with what your clients have said, we waste no further time.

MR VISSER: That is precisely correct, Mr Chairman, we are trying to help streamline the procedure.

JUDGE MALL: Thank you.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman.

JUDGE MALL: Yes, thank you. You may proceed.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman, I would like to proceed with the second video. Mr

Chairman, I don't know when the tea break would be. If it is quarter past eleven we will not be finished

with the video I think.

JUDGE MALL: Alright. We will then take the adjournment now and resume at a quarter past eleven.



ADV DU PLESSIS: We have had discussions with the legal representatives of the 81 other policemen.

We have received certain affidavits, I am not hundred percent sure that they are all the affidavits. We have

not yet as far as I am



concerned, come to a hundred percent final arrangement in that regard. I still need to clear up one or two

points. I must say that in principle in a discussion between my attorney and Mr Wagenaar, there was

agreement in principal and both parties intend to work together so it is just a question of clearing up one or

two points, I just want to make that clear.

JUDGE MALL: Thank you.

JUDGE WILSON: Can I ask something Mr Visser, which you will have to ask your attorney I

think, that is how quickly would he be able to give us a list of persons implicated in your applications and

would he be able to give a list, this would be for our assistance and not binding, of the incidents in which

persons are involved in your applications?

MR VISSER: Yes, that was the suggestion Mr Chairman, that we make a list of the incidents and then

we will add to the incidents or under the incidents the names of those of our clients who are involved in

them. I think that is probably the way to go - or would you want us to make a list

of names and add the incidents to each name, because then it is going to be far too difficult?

JUDGE WILSON: No, your suggestion, but not only the names of your clients who are involved,

but the names of the persons your clients allege were implicated.

MR VISSER: Yes, that is a second aspect which I think could be done, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: If it could be done.

MR VISSER: Yes, of course that list is for the eyes of the Committee only, clearly.

JUDGE MALL: To facilitate the work of the Committee.

MR VISSER: Oh, and His Lordship Mr Justice Wilson asked



me when this can be done, my attorney suggests that he can probably be ready with it by Thursday

morning when we have to be here anyway.

JUDGE WILSON: Well, if he can, I will be very pleased. And the list of names of persons

involved, will be for our eyes, but we may make use of it in notifying people?

MR VISSER: Yes, that is the idea, as long as it is not for publication purposes, it is clearly just to assist

you, yes.

JUDGE MALL: It is to facilitate the work of this Committee.

MR VISSER: Absolutely Mr Chairman.

JUDGE MALL: Thank you. May we proceed with the video?

ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, before I show this video I just want to

indicate to you the specific aspects that will be dealt with in the video itself.

The first incident that will be shown is the Church Street bomb, and the bomb in the Hallmark

building in Pretoria.

The second part of the video which shows the

murder on the Niemand family in Pretoria. Now that part of the video Mr Chairman, relates to normal

violence that policemen are exposed to and that would be important for purposes of the evidence of the

psychiatrist later on as well as to give the Committee a visual general background of what policemen in the

normal course of their duties are exposed to.

The third part of the video would entail pictures of murders etc, which were not politically


The fourth part of the video shows the actions of crowds, necklaces, violences on innocent people

and the



involvement of youths and activists in crowd behaviour. This will have a political connotation.

The fifth part will show provocation during crowd control, which will also be of political


The sixth part of it relates to attacks on policemen in Mamelodi and Westonaria, and that is also

important for purposes of the Zero hand grenade incident as the whole planning of that incident was borne

out of specifically attacks on policemen.

Then the next part would relate to attacks on civilians and deaths of civilians in political related


And the last part would show riots and burning of vehicles.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Du Plessis ...

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

ADV DE JAGER: I don't want to interrupt you, but we are dealing with political related offences, we are

not dealing with extenuating circumstances. That is what the court would deal with. As I've already

indicated, what we see there, I don't regard it as evidence. Once it's confirmed by a witness under oath that

may be a different position. So really what the police are doing in the ordinary prevention of crime, I don't

think that is very relevant to our task here and we don't want to be engaged in long hearings about

irrelevant things here.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Chairman, the video is quite short. I think it is approximately in total

15 minutes.

JUDGE MALL: Well, let's proceed.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Chairman, I just want to make clear I intend to call Captain Hechter

thereafter to give evidence in general about what was shown and the fact that



he was exposed to similar kinds of incidents. Obviously we don't have video footage of incidents where

our clients were involved in to a large extent, but I will make the video relevant in evidence by way of

calling Captain Hechter to testify about what was seen.

JUDGE MGOEPE: The Chairman said you could proceed.

ADV DU PLESSIS: May I proceed, thank you?

JUDGE MGOEPE: Sorry, just a moment before you do that, I am not sure why you should proceed

to show us pictures which deal with incidents which have nothing to do with political issues.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, the reason for that is the following. The psychiatric evidence which

we will present to this Committee will deal specifically with the fact that policemen in the general course of

their work became exposed and that is the case today as well, become exposed to extreme violence and

extreme violent situations.

That causes an acceptance by such policemen of violence to the extent that serious violence

becomes something that is not so important to such a policemen as a normal person

in the street, it is a psychological process which at the end of the day makes such a person somebody who

is prone to much easier or prone to acts of violence much easier because of the psychological situation he is

subjected to.

JUDGE MALL: I don't want to interrupt you, but please understand at the end of the evidence I have no

doubt you will be addressing us and you will be making the points that you are making now. You are

going to call psychiatric evidence and at the end of the that evidence you will tell us what the relevance of

the evidence was at that stage.

So I don't think that there is any need for you to address PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG


us on that aspect.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, I just want to make this point as well

and that is that this video was used at all educational facilities of the South African Police in courses that

policemen underwent for training.


CONTENTS OF THE SECOND VIDEO: (No audible communication)

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, this part I am going to skip, that contains just further pictures of

murder which are very gruesome.

SCREENING OF SECOND VIDEO CONTINUES: (No audible communication) ..."Dit is 22H40 op 4

Desember 1990, te (onduidelik) waar daar vermoedelik vroeŽr vannaand 'n aanval op lede van die polisie

was. Om ongeveer 21h15 het mev Darron van oorkant die straat, 'n geweer vanaf die kragsentrale skote

gehoor en onmiddellik Randfontein polisiestasie laat weet. Op hulle beurt het hulle na bewering 'n voertuig

uitgestuur hiernatoe en die toneel gevind soos dan nou ook op band vasgelÍ. Op die toneel vind

ons ook 'n (onduidelik) doppie wat reeds afgevuur is ..."

COMMMENTARY: The streets of the Coloured townships have been the scene of rioting. This lorry was

hijacked and set on fire across one of the main access roads into Athlone township. Similar attacks

occurred elsewhere while the police and the army have again been in action opening fire on demonstrators.

Not only with shotguns but rifles, too. Some Athlone residents have now started using guns themselves, a

worrying development for the Security Forces. This evening a substantial force of police and

troops poured into the Coloured townships around Cape Town.



Operation Clean up it is called aimed at restoring law and order.

This is Graham Leach for the nine o'clock news in South Africa.

COMMENTARY: ... bring down the Government by violent means if sanctions imposed against

South Africa. This was one of the most dramatic sabotage attacks they have carried out, the bombing of

the Sasolburg Oil Refinery near Johannesburg five years ago. There has been a whole series of attacks on

police stations and military targets over the years, but the Government has always insisted they don't

amount to much more than flea bites. Even so President Botha would have to force President Machel into

agreeing to shut down ANC bases in Mozambique next door to South Africa.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman, that is the end of the video. If I could call Captain Hechter

very shortly on this, if you would allow me to.

JUDGE MALL: Yes, all right.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman.


EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Hechter, can you please state very briefly to the

Committee the background to the video recording and what it was used for?

CAPT HECHTER: Mr Chairman, the video and similar material was shown to various members of

the police force. This video and similar video's were shown on a number of courses to the persons

attending the course. Some contained worse violence, some less violence, all the members of the Security

Forces were exposed to video's containing crowd violence and crowd control and then Black on Black

violence in the Black townships.



ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Hechter were these video's used in training of policemen?

CAPT HECHTER: Yes, that is correct.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And Captain Hechter, were the video's which were shown during video's of the same

nature and if you were to look back on them today, would you regard them as propaganda or what would

you regard them to be?

CAPT HECHTER: They were definitely propaganda, but I also have to add that most of that which

we have seen on the video's were also experienced by us, these incidents in the Black townships while

working there.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Hechter, can you tell the Committee from your own personal experience are

there incidents similar to what you have seen on this video that you experienced yourself and to what

extent and how regularly?

CAPT HECHTER: It is correct. Mr Chairman as members of the Security Branch, myself and

colleagues experienced these things first hand and we also found that many of these violent incidents and

this violence, also affected Black

colleagues of ours and affected their lives and their houses.

On a daily basis we also found some of these people next to the road. You would find a Black

man lying next to the road who had been murdered, either by necklacing or by stabbing. Many of these

acts were committed by very young comrades who - these things were later determined in investigations

and we were informed of whom had been involved in the previous night's attack on a house or necklacing.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain, these incidents and similar ones



to what we've seen here, for example the crowd rioting, the necklacing etc, did these take place against the

political background? Could you give us a bit more information on this?

CAPTAIN HECHTER: Yes, it was purely politics by the comrades, so-called comrades, which was

used by the ANC as cannon fodder, these people were used as cannon fodder by the ANC.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Okay, Captain so the effect that exposure to this kind of violence had on you and

your colleagues, could you sketch to the Committee in more detail what it was like?

CAPT HECHTER: Well, after a while you grew cold and distant when you saw this kind of action

and you encountered it. It no longer really involved people, it was just another body. In the beginning you

were shocked and shaking, but later on it just became just another corpse. It left you cold.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Hechter, are you aware of any instances of your colleagues who

sustained psychological damage because of this?

CAPT HECHTER: Yes, that is correct. There are a number of

my colleagues who are at present receiving psychological treatment, many who have been under such

treatment, many who have left the police service because of psychological problems, who were medically

boarded from the service. There are numerous of them. I would say that most of the Security Police who

took medical packages did so because of trauma and stress levels which were brought about by this kind of


ADV DU PLESSIS: Are you personally aware of such instances?



CAPT HECHTER: Yes, that is correct, Mr Chairman. One of our colleagues who are sitting here

with us, Captain Mentz, is presently undergoing treatment. The well-known Snor Vermeulen and Lionel

Snyman were both boarded because of stress related incidents or because of stress.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Okay, you don't have to continue with more examples. Captain, and can you inform

the Committee whether in the period relating to these incidents for which you are applying for amnesty,

when they took place in the middle 80's, could you give us a broad estimate of the regularity of exposure to

this kind of incident of violence?

CAPT HECHTER: It was really on a daily basis and as at the time, the Press was totally banned

from entering the Black townships, so this kind of incident, or these incidents which kept occurring, were

never broadcast to the broad public in South Africa. The public didn't really know what was going on, they

were kept under the impression that things were under control, whereas violence was escalating on a daily

basis at a tremendous rate.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain, are you aware of any similar kind of video of the South African Police

action which are still in existence, any of these video's?

CAPT HECHTER: As I told you they were training video's which I later got to understand when I

was trying to obtain more of them, had been destroyed together with the documentation because the

instruction had been given that all video's containing this kind of violent activity had to be destroyed in

order to obtain better cooperation among the population groups, to bring this about and then also to show

less violence to the members who were in training.

ADV DU PLESSIS: I don't have any other questions, Mr



Chairman, thank you.



MR CURRIN: I just have one question. During the training sessions that you referred to when these

videos were shown, I assume that it was never part of your training that you, the police should commit acts

of violence?

CAPT HECHTER: Not at all.




ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, may we then proceed with Captain Mentz'

evidence? Thank you. Mr Chairman you will find that on page 53.


EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: Very well, Captain Mentz, your application with regards to

this incident has been set out in the compilation of applications and there are further aspects which you

would like to inform the Committee about. Could you just tell the Committee about them?

CAPT MENTZ: As I gave evidence yesterday in the incident of Brian Ngqulunga, the date which I gave

was 1987 and 1988, in the meantime I have found out it was the 19th of July 1990.

An instruction was issued by General Van Rensburg from Security Headquarters who at that stage

was in charge of

unit C at Vlakplaas. His instruction, I was not present when he issued the instruction, but it was passed on

by Colonel Eugene de Kock to Colonel Baker to say that Brian Ngqulunga was transferred from Vlakplaas

to Unit C2 at Security Headquarters in Pretoria.

The instruction was that Brian Ngqulunga was to be eliminated. Colonel de Kock gave Colonel

Dave Baker instruction to execute the instruction. He then took myself, Colonel Bellingham, Colonel Piet

Botha and Simon Dubele instructions to execute the instruction.

The instruction which was given to me was the Ngqulunga was working at Unit C2 at Security

Headquarters as I have already said and that from there he had secret documents and secret information

about the Security Police which he was passing onto the ANC.

The impression was thus that he was a double agent.



The information which he was to have been leaking, was that the SAP members and their families were

being subjected to intimidation. Especially the Black members, their houses were attacked and they were

sometimes stoned and in some instances they were killed.

Reporters were identified who were intimidated and some of them were killed by being necklaced

as we saw on the video footage and the community was intimidated not to cooperate with the Security

Police anymore and not to give them information any longer.

The identification of ascaris was also done and the exposure of covert operations. Ascaris were

afraid that if they were identified they and their families would be murdered. That is the information which

I received from Colonel Baker and Bellingham and that is the information

which Brian Ngqulunga was alleged to have been leaking.

I do not have any specific knowledge of any specific incidents about which Brian Ngqulunga was

to have leaked information, it was conveyed to me in a general manner.

The instructions which we received from Colonel De Kock, as I said yesterday in my evidence,

were to put a spade in covert defence and defence activities. Colonel De Kock received direct instructions

from the Commanding Structure at Security Headquarters.

I never participated in any planning of any couvert operations, I was merely a foot soldier who

executed instructions as though they had been approved by Head Office.

I am now on page 55. The operations were planned after we had agreed that Simon Radebe

would point Ngqulunga out to us at a point where we would pick him up. I never



personally knew Brian Ngqulunga. He had already been transferred to Unit C2 from Vlakplaas before I

started at Vlakplaas.

A kombi was hired from Avis and balaclavas and gloves were issued to us. Radebe was waiting

on a gravel road near Vlakplaas in a red Golf and that was the road which headed to Vlakplaas, and we

would pass Vlakplaas, reach a T-junction and turn right. This gravel road then led back to Attridgeville

where you met up with Church Street and then proceeded into town.

We approached the Golf from behind in this kombi, Colonel Baker was driving, Botha and I were

sitting in the middle and Bellingham was sitting in front on the left.

We put on the balaclavas and ran to the car, we went to where Ngqulunga was sitting on the left of the


dragged him out of the vehicle. We wrestled with him a bit and in the wrestling I remember very well that

he screamed and said, no comrades, no comrades, I am one of you, I am one of you.

At that stage and because we were disguised he must have thought that we were ANC members.

That is the conclusion which I reached. And the conclusion was that he was still an ANC supporter

although he was an ascari with us.

We brought him under control by manhandling him and in the process we assaulted him. In the

vehicle, when we put him in the kombi we closed his mouth, we tied up his hands and feet and we went -

we drove in the direction of Brits.

The exact place is not as shown in the footage, it is not in Soshanguve. If you drive from Brits in the

Lehabele area and head towards Bophutatswana, that - somewhere along that



road, I do not know the name of that road, but it is somewhere in the Lehabele area.

We stopped, Bellingham opened the kombi door for us and Piet Botha and I dragged him out of

the kombi and threw him in the field. Bellingham fired several shots, I cannot remember how many. To me

it sounded as though he had emptied the whole magazine on Brian Ngqulunga and killed him. I cannot

remember, but I later heard that Piet Botha had also fired several shots at him with a pistol. I looked away,

because I could not handle it.

When we got back into the kombi I became nauseous. We went to a place near Pretoria North

among the plots where we cleaned the kombi inside, because Ngqulunga had urinated and so forth and we

then cleaned up. And from there we went to the Wonderpark Shopping Centre where we met up with

Johnny (Chet)(?) who had a vehicle with secret compartments.

We handed the firearms that we had used to Johnny Chet who concealed them in his vehicle and

from there we went to the Pretoria Holiday Inn in Beatrix Street. We met Colonel De Kock and other

members there.

In the process when we were driving from the scene, I know that Colonel Baker was in radio

contact with De Kock and he had informed him that the operation had gone off well.

I cannot remember specifically who was there, but once again it was De Kock's confidantes and

others. We met him at the Holiday Inn where he ordered drinks for us. We drank up and I cannot

remember exactly, but we went to a restaurant somewhere near there, I think it was at the Sterland

complex. I also had something to eat.

Thereafter he informed us that we were booked in at a



hotel in Johannesburg, if I remember correctly it was the Braamfontein Hotel and the reason for this was

that we would be at this hotel and if anyone was to have enquired they should have seen that we were at

this hotel and not elsewhere.

This was a very shocking experience for me and it has left emotional scars on my life. I never

ever want to become involved in anything like this again.

Since receiving the instruction from De Kock and the others that Ngqulunga was an informant

and was leaking secret information from Headquarters, I accepted it, but in 1995 I read in press reports as

result of allegations made by Dirk Coetzee, Joe Mamasela who we saw in video footage, that Ngqulunga

was involved in the murder of Griffiths Mxenge and that he was a potential witness who could have given

evidence against Dirk Coetzee, Almond Nofomela, Brigadier van der Hoven and Colonel Andy Taylor.

I also read in the press reports that Ngqulunga was one of the persons who had killed Griffiths

Mxenge - these after allegations that had been made.

I then got the impression that because he had been killed and, according to what we had been told,

he had leaked information, one reason was possibly that it could have been used as evidence that he was

indeed a witness and that he had to have been eliminated so that he could not testify against Coetzee and

van der Hoven and Nofomela and Company.

The conclusion which I made, although it has never been proven to me, was if Colonel Taylor or

any of the other people involved should come and admit to it, I would say that it is also one of the reasons,



assumptions which I made and I think his brother who was

also in a programme sometime ago, also said that he had said so, but it has never been proven to me in a

court of law. I never enquired about this, I left the unit, I did not want to be there any longer, and that was

merely an assumption which I made.

I have since distanced myself from Vlakplaas and the persons who were there with me, I don't

even want to be associated with them any more. The instruction which I received, as I said, came from

Colonel De Kock who instructed Baker and I assumed that it came from Colonel Van Rensburg because at

that stage he was in charge of Unit C1.

Although I just saw that Joe Mamasela alleged that he was involved where General Engelbrecht,

Nick van Rensburg and I cannot remember who the other person was, were

allegedly involved in the discussions. I heard about that for the first time when I saw this. I did not watch

the whole of Prime Evil because it disturbed me.

As I said I was under the impression that these operations had been sanctioned by Head Office at

all times and that the objective was to eliminate anyone who was leaking secret information to the ANC. It

was also part of the strategy to combat the ANC and others and it was at a time when the country was in


Ngqulunga, I cannot remember exactly how it happened, but it was arranged that he be buried at

Vlakplaas and his entire family was there. It is not like where it is being said on the video footage that it

was an official police burial, it was more of a private burial at Vlakplaas on the mountain, the hill there as

shown on the footage.

I can remember Ngqulunga's family and friends were all



present there and De Kock gave instruction that everyone was to attend the funeral. I simply couldn't bring

myself to attend the funeral. It was too much for me and I just couldn't be involved in somebody's funeral

whom I had assisted in murdering.

While the funeral was taking place, I sat in the pub at Vlakplaas and while I was there De Kock

and Nortje came there and De Kock asked me why I was not at the cemetery and I told him that it is just

not acceptable to me, I assisted in killing this man and I just couldn't bring myself to attend.

I feel very bitter about this and I am every sorry that I got involved in this, but I believed at the

time that what I was doing was in the best interests of the country and I do not believe that any longer.

I would now like to mention in the video footage parties were shown and it was mentioned that

thrice a month parties would be held at Vlakplaas - that was not the case. We worked for a period of two

to three weeks and thereafter we'd leave and we would come back with our group of ascaris, we would

submit our forms and our reports and then because we as colleagues had not seen each other for a while,

we'd have a braai and drink. That is so. And occasionally there were functions where the Generals were

involved, but it was not thrice a month or every month, although there were functions that were held at


Vlakplaas was a unit under the command of De Kock. There were certain logistic problems

amongst the staff and the Generals at Head Office then decided that unit C had to be divided into three

divisions. Initially it was two divisions, Colonel Baker remained behind at Vlakplaas with



his group of people and De Kock remained with his group of people including myself, and in Pretoria we

had our security offices.

At the time there were problems between De Kock, myself and Colonel Van Dyk and De Kock.

Colonel Engelbrecht then launched a third unit and we worked from a safe house in Midrand. There we

were joined by other members, including John Tait(?).

There was one incident where I was present where we were in the team at Sodwana on the North

coast at the holiday resort there. We lived in tents and Colonel Engelbrecht was there, we were on the

beach, but we are not the persons who drove over the tortoise eggs.

We then went back to unit C1, Baker and - Colonel

Baker's unit, De Kock's unit and Paul van Dyk's unit. Thereafter, however, I heard that - while I was there

there were no naked women with us. Thereafter I heard that De Kock and his group of people from his unit

were busy with team building again and I do not know if Colonel Engelbrecht was part of that.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. I have a few questions which I want to ask the witness

just to clear up certain things.

Captain Mentz, the instructions which you received was there any reason for you when you

received the instruction at that stage, to doubt the command in any way whatsoever?

CAMP MENTZ: No Mr Chairman. As I had testified, I said that we had accepted De Kock, he had access

to many Generals' offices. Every day that he was working at Head Office he had access to the Generals.

At that stage I wouldn't have thought that he would have taken a decision



like this on his own. I am sure that higher authority was involved. I cannot say exactly who the Generals

were, I've mentioned - some of them had been mentioned before. The only reason why I imply General

Nick van Rensburg was because he was in command of C1 at that stage and I believed that it came from


ADV DU PLESSIS; Captain Mentz, now what I would like you to explain to the Committee, is

what you had thought at the stage when you received the command and when you carried it out, what you

had thought the purpose of the command had been, the instruction, was it politically motivated or what did

you think?

CAPT MENTZ: Yes, Mr Chairman it was absolutely political in the sense that a security policeman who

was an ascari and then a security policeman at the same time, was in a

confidential unit, C2, which had all the information on the country, they evaluated information and if any

information which had passed through C2 had been leaked it could affect the police, the security branches,

and be to the advantage of the liberation movements. Then it was political to me and it was important to

me at that stage that should there be somebody who was a traitor, he had to be eliminated.

I didn't know at that stage how much information he had given out, but as I said many policemen's

houses had been burnt down, etc and it was important for me to do this. The man had to be eliminated. He

was passing on information and it endangered his fellow policemen's lives, so he had to be eliminated.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain, during the period after the incident until you read in 1995 in the press about

the allegations that he had been murdered in order to protect



other members, besides the fact that he was an informant of the ANC, did anybody ever tell you anything

that could have led you to think that he had been murdered for any other reason than being an informer?

CAPT MENTZ: No, not at all Mr Chairman. The first time I heard about this was in the newspaper and I

later saw it on TV, it's only Ngqulunga's brother and Mamasela mentioned this, but from the time that it

happened until 1995 when I had left Vlakplaas long before, I hadn't discussed it with anybody, I was no

longer a security policeman. But in the period after leaving Vlakplaas when I was still a security

policeman I never heard anything about this again. I vaguely remember that Baker long after that said that

De Kock had told him that the Generals had said that the operation had been carried out successfully, I

don't know which Generals were involved, but I deduced that it was General van Rensburg.

At Vlakplaas, when something happened, you were forbidden to discuss it with anybody because

everybody drank there and you never knew what somebody would say if he were to be under the influence,

these things were never discussed again, definitely not from my side, it was something which I wanted to

forget about.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Okay, Captain Mentz, did you regard your activity or your actions as

something against liberation movements?

CAPT MENTZ: Yes, Mr Chairman.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And to whose advantage did you regard your action to be at that stage?

CAPT MENTZ: Well, the Government of the day Mr Chairman. I as a policeman had to serve the

Government of the day.



ADV DU PLESSIS: Okay, Captain Mentz, did you have any discussions with the other persons who were

involved in the incident, the people whom you've mentioned, Colonel Baker, Captain Bellingham and I

think it is Captain Botha? Did you have discussions with them?

CAPT MENTZ: I had Mr Chairman, but only at the end of last year when they had indicated that they

were also submitting amnesty applications. I can't remember the exact date.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Could you briefly indicate to the Committee what their point of view was with

regard to the reason for this operation? Did it agree, did it disagree?

CAPT MENTZ; It was exactly the same Mr Chairman, that the man leaked information from Security

Headquarters and it

was Baker and Bellingham's instruction to me at the time as well.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Okay. Captain Mentz the allegations made that Ngqulunga was a potential witness,

where did you hear these allegations?

CAPT MENTZ: As I've already stated Mr Chairman, in the newspapers and Mamasela, but not that

which he had said here in the Prime Evil video, it was on another programme, as well as Ngqulunga's

brother which I saw on TV one evening. The rest of it was in the newspapers.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Are you aware that these allegations went any further as far as your knowledge goes

today than mere allegations?

CAPT MENTZ: No, Mr Chairman. As I've already stated Brigadier van der Hoven or Taylor, if they

were to come and state it here that that was the reason, then I will agree and say no, I believe it, but until

now I don't believe it



Mr Chairman, because in my opinion it was a matter that he gave out information, no other facts had been


ADV DU PLESSIS: Okay. Captain Mentz then could I take you to page 55 paragraph 3, you testified

there that Ngqulunga had said "no comrades, no comrades, I'm one of you", can you remember those words

specifically being stated?

CAPT MENTZ: Yes, Mr Chairman, I can remember that. Not in Afrikaans, he stated it in English, he

didn't say it, he shouted it out. The man knew that he was possibly going to be murdered. He was a small,

slender man and he struggled and he shouted these words.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Could you then just state very clearly to us why you thought he would have stated

these words, or shouted these words?

CAPT MENTZ: Mr Chairman, I would have imagined he was an ascari who was working for the

Security Police, he was passing on information to the ANC or to whichever liberation movement, but I

mean he would have realised that it would have been totally impossible for everybody in the liberation

movement to know about him, because then he would have been smoked out and at the stage when he was

shouting out, I thought he wanted an opportunity to explain to the members of the ANC as he suspected, to

explain to them that he was still working with them. So it was my impression that he was still involved

with the ANC.

JUDGE MGOEPE: If he had realised he was going to be killed, surely a man under those

circumstances would have said anything to save his life? If he had been under the impression or if he had

realised that you were the police, he still would have said the same thing and said people, I am working

with you?



CAPT MENTZ: I have to grant that Mr Chairman, yes.

JUDGE WILSON: Who were grabbing him at the time?

CAPT MENTZ: It was I myself, Piet Botha, Riaan Bellingham. Baker was standing at the vehicle - no I

can't remember whether he was standing outside or whether he was sitting in the vehicle, but Bellingham

and I and Piet Botha opened the left-hand door, hit him, grabbed him and dragged him over to the kombi, it

was a struggle from the Golf to the kombi.

JUDGE WILSON: You were all white men wearing balaclavas which would have left your face


CAPT MENTZ; Mr Chairman, it was quite strong dusk and the balaclavas were not the balaclavas where

you have an open face, you could only see the eyes, we were wearing dark clothes and long dark gloves.

You wouldn't really be able to see our skin colour. Mr Chairman, I can't really

remember the exact time, but it was late afternoon when it was going onto dusk. I can't remember, I can't

tell you exactly what the time was. After five, probably six o'clock, but I can't remember the exact time,

but it was dusk.

JUDGE MALL: The instructions to eliminate this man, came to you not from De Kock himself but

through somebody else?

CAPT MENTZ: Yes, Mr Chairman if I remember correctly I was on the farm and Baker and Bellingham

came and told me. It didn't come from De Kock directly to me as far as I can remember.

JUDGE MALL: Have you finished Mr du Plessis?

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, I am finished, Mr Chairman.


QUESTIONS BY ADV DE JAGER: Mr Mentz, could you clarify. You said you arrested

Nofomela at some stage or were you



involved in the arrest?

CAPT MENTZ: Almond Nofomela, yes, that is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: Is that when you were working at the murder division?

CAPT MENTZ: Yes, that is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: And you were then recruited to go over to Vlakplaas?

CAPT MENTZ: That is correct Mr Chairman.

ADV DE JAGER: During his arrest, did you receive information regarding the functioning of Vlakplaas?

CAPT MENTZ: No Mr Chairman, as a matter of fact I didn't even know of the existence of Vlakplaas

when I was working at the murder division. It was after I had first arrested Nofomela's co-accused Johnny

Mohane if I remember correctly, it was only after that when he had been arrested that

evening, that he made an admission to me that he had implied Almond Nofomela ...(tape ends) I made

enquiries then and said that we were looking for the man and then Almond Nofomela was sent from

Headquarters to my office and when he arrived there, I arrested him.

ADV DE JAGER: Was there at any stage an effort made to cover up Nofomela's deed at that stage?

CAPT MENTZ: No Mr Chairman. If I remember correctly during the investigation the deduction was

made and it came out in the hearing as well, the trial, that there had not been adequate evidence against

Nofomela, but I remember on the last day of the trial when the finding was given, some of the ascaris were

sitting in court. I have since heard at that stage of Vlakplaas that they tracked terrorists etc, and on the day

some of his fellow colleagues were sitting there in court.



ADV DE JAGER: Was that the first time during those episodes that you met Eugene De Kock himself?

CAPT MENTZ: No sir. De Kock was at the murder division offices long before and that was when I met

him, he was still a Captain at this stage, not a Major.

ADV DE JAGER: So your arrest of Nofomela had nothing to do with the fact that you were going to work

at Vlakplaas?

CAPT MENTZ: No, Mr Chairman, I would say that at that stage I got to know Vlakplaas members and

they got to know me. We often met at the police canteen in Pretoria and there I got to know them better,

and they approached me to find out whether I would be interested in coming to work with them.

ADV DE JAGER: Thank you.


QUESTIONS BY MS KHAMPEPE: Didn't you testify

yesterday that before you were attached to Vlakplaas Mr Hechter occasionally extended an invitation to

you to join them on some of the operations?

CAPT MENTZ: That's correct Chairperson.

MS KHAMPEPE: So you must have known at that stage what kind of operations Vlakplaas was involved


CAPT MENTZ: When I was contacted by Captain Hechter, he was not attached to Vlakplaas, he was

with Brigadier Cronje at Pretoria, they had nothing to do with Vlakplaas at the stage. He was just working

with the Pretoria branch.

MS KHAMPEPE: Thanks for the explanation. You've also led evidence today that the experience that you

had when Mr Ngqulunga was brutally killed, was very shocking to you and it has left emotional scars?

CAPT MENTZ: That's correct Chairperson.



MS KHAMPEPE: Now, before you went on to execute the instructions to eliminate Mr Ngqulunga, had

you discussed as members who had been picked up by, is it Colonel Dave Baker on how those instructions

to eliminate Mr Ngqulunga were to be executed, did you discuss the mode of execution?

CAPT MENTZ: No Chairman, we did not discuss it with Colonel Van Dyk. As I say it was an

instruction and I assumed it was an instruction from Head Office and it was something that had to be done.

I did not ask why they did not arrest him instead or anything like that. I just did it at that stage, because it

was something that had to have been done. It is a good few years ago and these things started affecting me

very seriously in the last four to five years. Nobody said he had to be kidnapped along the way and

killed with an AK47, I did not, I mean those were the instructions, I did not ask why it had to be done.

MS KHAMPEPE: My question was to merely ascertain whether you knew what kind of method would be

used in eliminating Mr Ngqulunga?

CAPT MENTZ: Yes, we did know. As I said it was said that Botha and I had to overpower him with the

assistance of Bellingham, we had to take him away and then Bellingham was to have shot him.

As I also said I cannot remember specifically about Piet Botha shooting him, but it is something

that surfaced recently.

MS KHAMPEPE: You did expect some measure of violence?

CAPT MENTZ: That is correct.

MS KHAMPEPE: Which would be a precursor to any elimination?

CAPT MENTZ: Yes, that is correct.



MS KHAMPEPE: I have therefore some profound difficulties in comprehending how you could have, how

you could not have known that Ngqulunga would be eliminated in the manner that he was. I mean what

was so shocking?

CAPT MENTZ: Mr Chairman, it is easy when it is said to you go and do a certain gruesome deed, but if I

may use the expression, at the stage, at 99th stage, at the last minute when it is to happen, it is too late, you

are at a point of no return, you function like a machine and when the deed has been done you start to think

about what actually happened and as I say I did not physically vomit, but I was extremely nauseous in the

kombi and my nerves were shattered.

It is easy to say we are going to do this, but when you get there and while it is happening, while

the deed is taking place or after it has happened the full impact of what you had done, strikes you and at

that stage I thought I could deal with it, but I mean if I had to go out and do something like that at this

stage, I wouldn't be able to.

MS KHAMPEPE; Can you explain to us the nature and the extent of your participation in the whole

operation? I mean you've explained that when he was dragged out of the car, you assaulted him.

CAPE MENTZ: As I said the operation was not planned by me, it was just said that Piet Botha

and I had to drag him and Baker had to drag him out of the vehicle, overpower him and then put him in the

back of the kombi on the floor. We were to bring him under control so that he was unable to scream or

resist in any way and then we were to drive away with him, because there was a long distance between

there and Lehabele so we were to silence him basically by keeping his mouth closed and fastening his

hands and feet so that he PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG


did not offer any resistance.

MS KHAMPEPE: Did any of you cut his tongue?

CAPT MENTZ: No Chairperson, not at all, not one of us.


QUESTIONS BY JUDGE WILSON: If I can add to questions you've just asked. You'd

participated in numerous attacks and murders before then, hadn't you?

CAPT MENTZ: That is correct, Chairperson.

JUDGE WILSON: Why did you suddenly get shocked by a murder? You took part in the murder

of eight people at KwaNdebele, nine people was it, yes? You took part in that murder, didn't you? Capt

Hechter, Joe Mamasela, Deon Gouws, Andre Oosthuizen.

CAPT MENTZ: Yes, Chairperson, I will give evidence about that later. You will hear from my evidence

that I was not physically involved in the shooting of people. I cannot explain why one agrees - I cannot

explain why one incident

affects you differently to others, but I was badly affected by this. Perhaps my state of mind at the time was

different to other times.

I am not a psychologist or a medical doctor, so I cannot give an explanation for it.

JUDGE WILSON: No, but you were now doing something officially, properly, ordered to by your

senior officers, where as previous occasions you had just gone off and joined Captain Hechter in these

murderous attacks, hadn't you?

CAPT MENTZ: That is correct Chairperson.


CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV MPSHE: Captain you testified in your application on page

55, that "we brought him under control by handling him roughly".



CAPT MENTZ: Mr Chairperson, when we opened the door, I cannot say exactly who did what, we

grabbed him around his neck, around his body, we shut his mouth, we hit him. In the process trying to get

him unconscious so that he did not put up as much of a fight, so he was physically assaulted, we had him

around the neck, we dragged him, somebody had his feet and in the kombi, one person was to have stuffed

something in his mouth and then sealed it and also tied his hands. He was assaulted.

ADV MPSHE: How many of you took part in this assault that led to him losing consciousness?

CAPT MENTZ: Three of us, myself, Bellingham and Piet Botha.

ADV MPSHE: And for how long did the assault take place?

CAPT MENTZ: Mr Chairperson, I cannot attach a time to it, I think it was, everything happened so

quickly, it could

have been a matter of a minute getting him from the car to the kombi, it was seven to ten metres, we took

him from the - grabbed him out of the vehicle and first he was on the ground so that we could bring him

under control by assaulting him and then we picked him up and ran to the kombi. The door was open, the

seat was down, we put him at the back and then we were able to tie his hands. Everything happened

so fast.

ADV MPSHE: ....if it took such a short time and the man was rendered unconscious, it would mean that

he was delivered quite a number of blows, and very hard blows that made him be unconscious very



ADV MPSHE: Now an AK47, how many bullets does it have?

CAPT MENTZ: 25 to 30, I am not sure.



ADV MPSHE: 25 or 30?

CAPT MENTZ: 25 to 30, that is correct.

ADV MPSHE: If we assume that it had 25 at the time, would it mean that he was pumped with 25

bullets of an AK47?

CAPT MENTZ: Mr Chairperson, Bellingham was firing this firearm automatically so it was impossible

to count and to me it sounded as if the entire magazine had been emptied. It happened too fast, I was

unable to count.

ADV MPSHE: Two shots, even one from an AK47 have rendered this man dead?

CAPT MENTZ: Yes, Sir it would have.

ADV MPSHE: You were part of this operation, do you think it was necessary for 25 bullets to be

pumped into his body? Was this not an extreme?

CAPT MENTZ: Yes, Chairperson, it was.

ADV MPSHE: After shooting him, you wrote in your

application that "we left him there and drove back", where exactly did you leave him?

CAPT MENTZ: Where we threw him out of the kombi, where he was shot dead, that is where we left

him and we then left.

ADV MPSHE: How did it come about that he landed at Vlakplaas for the funeral?

CAPT MENTZ: Mr Chairperson, the local police of Lehabele or someone in the area was - apparently

encountered the corpse and informed the police who came in a hearse and picked up the corpse, identified

it. His family and next of kin were then informed that this was a policeman, an ascari and the funeral was

conducted at Vlakplaas.

ADV MPSHE: So when he was identified by the local police and the family, you then came around and

shed crocodile tears and claimed his body to bury?



CAPT MENTZ: No Mr Chairman, I cannot remember exactly, but I think there were riots. I think he

stayed somewhere in Winterveld, which was on the other side of Pretoria, somewhere near Soshanguve

and Mabopane. If I can remember correctly there were riots and unrest and I think it would have been

problematic to bury the man there at the time, so the police offered and then De Kock said he had no

objection to him being buried at Vlakplaas.

ADV MPSHE: Do you want this Committee to accept that you acted on instruction, agreed to partake in

the killing of a human being for reasons given to you without yourself verifying whether it was necessary

to do that?

CAPT MENTZ: As I already testified I believed that the instruction came from Head Office, I believed

that the gentleman who was leaking information was a traitor and as I already said we were not, I believed

that, we didn't question anything, I believed that the instructions came

from Head Office, I was merely a Warrant Officer at the time and I was in no position to go to a General's

office at Head Office and say give me proof that this man has been leaking information before I do

anything. It just didn't work like that in the police system.

ADV MPSHE: So if you were given any information and instruction by your seniors to kill, you just go

about killing? Is that what was happening there?

CAPT MENTZ: That is correct, Chairperson.

ADV MPSHE: And was the family informed as to what caused Brian Ngqulunga's death when they

attended his funeral?

CAPT MENTZ: No Mr Chairperson, the impression was to have been created that the ANC, I

think he was an ANC or PAC member, I am not too familiar with that, that the liberation PRETORIA



movement because he was an ascari, had killed him. The impression was to have been created that the

ANC or PAC had killed this man because he was an ascari in the Security Police. It was never said that

he was killed for any other reason, it wouldn't have made sense. The police never said that we killed an

ascari because he was leaking information.

ADV MPSHE: You stated, when led by your counsel, that the purpose of instruction was politically

motivated, but was the death of this man politically motivated?

CAPT MENTZ: Yes Mr Chairman. As I've already testified he was a freedom fighter who had been

arrested, who had been turned into an ascari, who had decided to work with the police which he had indeed

then done. He had been transferred from Vlakplaas to Headquarters at C2. The reasons for this

and the period when this happened, I don't know, but then he worked for a unit where there were

very sensitive information and documentation and if he had been leaking this information to ANC, PAC

whichever liberation organisation, this turned him into a political problem. He was affecting the National

Party by working for these other parties and for the police on the one hand and for example, the ANC on

the other hand.

He had sensitive information, policemen's houses were burnt down, we've heard much testimony

to this effect, people were attacked when people found out that somebody was an informant. When

informers were exposed, they were necklaced, they were burnt, their throats were cut, they were shot, their

families were attacked, so he was - he just had to be eliminated. You couldn't charge the man and take him

to court because what proof was there, I was not in a position to question this. The thing to eliminate him,




the quickest solution and the easiest one, but I was not in a position to go and question General why did

you say that this had to be done, it was not my position to do this. I was a foot soldier, I had to carry out

my task, I believed it. It was part of the political struggle of keeping the National Party in control. As a

policeman I had to support the Government of the day, that was my job.

ADV MPSHE: Are you in a position to tell this Committee that very sensitive "inligting" which Brian

Ngqulunga gave to the ANC that led to the incidents that you've just mentioned, the specifics thereof?

CAPT MENTZ: No Mr Chairman, I testified to this effect earlier, I said I didn't know of specific

incidents where he had given out "x" information and this person, informer had been killed or that person

had been necklaced, I don't know

about specific incidents, but I accepted that the seniors had ascertained this, had obtained the necessary

information and had given us the instruction. I couldn't go and determine that myself, I don't know of

specific incidents of leaked information.

ADV MPSHE: So you acted on general information, and perhaps even better weight on hearsay about

this man?

CAPT MENTZ: Mr Chairman, I didn't regard it as general information. I saw it and I believed that it was

an instruction that came from my seniors who wouldn't have said this man had bothered me, he needs to be

killed. They would have probably got the right information, well let's call it then hearsay, but it is not

hearsay, it is an instruction, command that came from above, from De Kock, Baker, Bellingham, through

to me. I couldn't go back up the line of command and ask for evidence, I believed that was not a



general thing, it was a specific thing and the command was valid.

ADV MPSHE: What is your comment to what Joe Mamasela said on the video this morning that this

man had to be eliminated because he was now posing a threat to the position of the police inasfar as the

Harms Commission was concerned, how do you comment on that?

CAPT MENTZ: Mr Chairman, that which Joe Mamasela said here, he said in a certain office with certain

Generals, I don't know anything about it, it hasn't been proven, I am not in a position to tell whether it is the

truth or not.

I cannot comment on this, I don't believe at any rate everything that Joe Mamasela says, because it hasn't

been proven.

ADV MPSHE: But is that what Joe Mamasela said this morning on video not in accord with your

application page 57, the contents of page 57 of your application? The first paragraph, somewhere in the

middle where you start your sentence, it is right in the middle of the first paragraph Mr Chairman and

members of the Committee.

"I read in press articles about Dirk Coetzee and others and discovered that Ngqulunga

had probably been murdered because he wanted to testify against Coetzee and

Nofomela, Van der Hoven, etc.",

Mamasela said this morning?

CAPT MENTZ: Yes, it is in agreement with what Mamasela said, but as I said it is untested evidence, it

has not been proven and as I've also testified if one of these people came and testified here to this effect,

then I would believe them that it was one more reason why he had been killed.

Griffiths Mxenge's background, I don't know at all, it is



only the bits that I hear about in the press, so the deduction that I had to make, or if I were to make the

deduction that he was a political activist who had to be murdered, I wouldn't know, it is things that I hear

about afterwards, now.

There is agreement between what Mamasela said and what I say here and what is said on TV and

in the press articles, but it is a deduction that I make, but I am still convinced that the main reason was that

he had been leaking information and this was just something that had become an additional factor, I didn't

know about this beforehand at all.

ADV MPSHE: But what I am trying to make out to you, is that Brian Ngqulunga did not die because of

his being an informer for the ANC, but he died because the police force was afraid that he was going to

break down and spill the beans at the Harms Commission, that's all?

CAPT MENTZ: Mr Chairman, I don't know anything about it, I don't have any knowledge about it.

These are things that I've heard about afterwards, after the fact and which I had testified about before the

Committee. I can't say that this is the case, these things have to be proven, the specific facts haven't

been proven, the fact that he is a witness before the Harms Commission, I don't in my application, I don't

think the Harms Commission was even mentioned.

ADV MPSHE: The family would like to know as to who erected a tombstone on Ngqulunga's grave,

because they did not do that?

CAPT MENTZ: It came from police funds. I don't know specifically which fund, it was probably the

secret fund.



ADV DE JAGER: Did you have anything to do with the erection of the tombstone ...(intervention)

ADV MPSHE: But the money came from the police fund to buy a tombstone.

CAPT MENTZ: No, I didn't. Yes, I had heard that the tombstone was to be erected, I don't know

specifically from whom and when, but I don't have first hand knowledge of this.


ADV DE JAGER: Could you inform us if a firearm is set on automatic, an AK47, how many shots are

fired during a second or how many seconds does it take to empty a magazine, or don't you have any

knowledge of it?

CAPT MENTZ: I don't have knowledge.

ADV DE JAGER: Can you distinguish the shots if it is fired on automatic?

CAPT MENTZ: If you have a very finely tuned ear and if you are used to shooting a lot with the firearm,

you could probably distinguish, but I can't tell you.

ADV DE JAGER: In the post-mortem and at the inquest it was

found that his tongue was missing, do you have any explanation how this could have happened?

CAPT MENTZ: No, I don't have any knowledge of this fact.

JUDGE WILSON: Could you tell me when the attack was on Khan House in Botswana?

CAPT MENTZ: Yes, Mr Chairman, I can.

JUDGE WILSON: When was this?

CAPT MENTZ: Mr Chairman, I can't remember the exact date.

JUDGE WILSON: It is page 68 in your application.

CAPT MENTZ: Mr Chairman, I wrote it in in pencil afterwards, I can't remember exactly, it was in that




1989 to 1991, I can't remember an exact date.

JUDGE MALL: Any re-examination?

RE-EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Captain Mentz, there

were various events for which you applied for amnesty. I think purely, briefly for the sake of the questions

put to you, we have to refer to this, the event with regard to the KwaNdebele Nine, were you physically

present when the people were shot?

CAPT MENTZ: No, Mr Chairman.

ADV DU PLESSIS: So you didn't participate or see this yourself?

CAPT MENTZ: No Mr Chairman.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And the events at Khan House?

CAPT MENTZ: No, I did surround protection, I wasn't at the premises, I wasn't present in the house

myself, I was not near the building. I was told to go and look out from a certain point that people from the

houses say in the area would approach the place when we were busy there.

ADV DU PLESSIS: You were not involved in the physical death of the people, you were not

present there?


ADV DU PLESSIS: And with regard to the Komatipoort Four, were you present when those people

were shot?

CAPT MENTZ: No Mr Chairman.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Okay. Now Captain Mentz, the only two events with regard to which you ask

for amnesty contained in your application where you were present when the people were killed, were Brian

Ngqulunga and the event at Pentz Mine?

CAPT MENTZ: That is correct Mr Chairman.

ADV DU PLESSIS: May I take you to page 108 of this compilation of documents. 108, second

paragraph, this is



the application regarding Pentz Mine, I don't want to go into this in detail, I just wish you to read to the

Committee the second paragraph on page 108 about how you felt after the person had been shot at the

Pentz Mine event.

CAPT MENTZ: I became nauseous again Mr Chairman.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Could you read to us this.

CAPT MENTZ: "While we were walking back, I became nauseous, I was walking at the back.

Everything that had happened there, was totally unacceptable to me and I

couldn't identify with it at all".

ADV DU PLESSIS: That is page 108. Now Captain Mentz, in the case of this Pentz Mine incident,

were you physically at all involved in the person's death?

CAPT MENTZ: No Mr Chairman I was in the background.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Did you see his death?

CAPT MENTZ: When I saw he was going to be shot, I looked away and you can see that in the rest of

my testimony.

ADV DU PLESSIS: So you didn't see his actual death?

CAPT MENTZ: No, I didn't see anything about the explosion, I didn't touch the man, I didn't handle him

physically. At that stage I was just De Kock's motor car

driver, the person wasn't even in the same car with us or anything.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Okay, Captain Mentz, so the only event for which you apply for amnesty

where you were physically involved in the death of a person, the case of Brian Ngqulunga?

CAPT MENTZ: Yes, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: How was he physically involved - he stood there and looked, he took no part in

the death, did he?



ADV DU PLESSIS: Mnr die Voorsitter, ek sal die vrae vrae. Captain Mentz were those the only

events where you were in physical contact with the person by way of the assault before he was killed?

CAPT MENTZ: Yes, Mr Chairman.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And was that the only event where you really saw that the person was shot

before your eyes?


ADV DU PLESSIS: Okay. Now against that background, Captain Mentz, would you possibly from

these facts be able to give an explanation to the Committee as to why you reacted in such an emotional

manner to the death of Brian Ngqulunga?

Captain, okay let me restate the question. Would the fact that you were so closely involved in the

death of Brian Ngqulunga not perhaps have caused you to be more emotional with regard to that event than

in the case of others where you were involved?

CAPT MENTZ: That is possible Mr Chairman, but as I've already stated psychiatrists etc can be called in.

I can't explain why I feel like this or like that from time to time, we don't feel the same every morning we

get up. These are terrible things that happened and it affects one in different manners.

JUDGE MGOEPE: Mr du Plessis really, why are you putting this man through such a lot of trouble, I

mean what is the weighty point that you are making here? I mean you kill somebody, somebody is killed

in front of you in a very barbarous way, I mean it must just trouble him.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, clearly Mr Chairman, but certain questions were asked to the witness, the

reasons whereof I



am not hundred percent sure, but what I would want to address the Committee on during argument, and

that is why I am asking this question is the fact that Captain Mentz, and it all simply go to probabilities, that

Captain Mentz did not react differently in the case of Brian Ngqulunga because of the possible fact that he

knew he was killing in innocent man, not for political motives, but simply to exterminate him as a witness.

It all goes towards probabilities. Mr Chairman, I see it is past one o'clock already, I have a few

other questions.

JUDGE MALL: Shouldn't we finish it if you have those?

ADV DU PLESSIS: If you will allow me?

JUDGE MALL: Yes, I think we should get done with it.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Mentz, I just wish to clarify one matter. It was asked when you were

contacted by Captain Hechter, whether you hadn't been involved in Vlakplaas, can you explain to the

Committee briefly the stage when you were contacted in the case of the KwaNdebele Nine for example by

Captain Hechter, was Colonel De Kock at that stage still there, in 1988 and was Captain Hechter involved

at that stage?

CAPT MENTZ: No Sir, both cases, no.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Very well Captain Mentz, was there any

incident where an instruction such as this, where you just assumed it was a normal instruction like this

would you have questioned it in the past?


ADV DU PLESSIS: Are you aware of instances where policemen, especially at the time, questioned

these type of instructions?

CAPT MENTZ: No, not as far as I know, not at Vlakplaas. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG


It was never done.

ADV DU PLESSIS: What would have happened to you if you were to started questioning

instructions or questioning people senior to Eugene de Kock?

CAPT MENTZ: We all know about Eugene de Kock, I would have been seen as a traitor at that stage and

anything could have happened. I would definitely have been transferred to a place not of my choice.

ADV DU PLESSIS: If you had questioned such an instruction in the South African police context

and in the Security Police context, would they have taken steps against you?


ADV DU PLESSIS: Very well Captain Mentz, I will present this evidence through one of the other

witnesses, but I am going to put it to you would you be able to dispute it if I put to you that an AK47 can

fire approximately 75 rounds per minute?

CAPT MENTZ: I cannot dispute that.

MR MPSHE: Mr Chairman, Sir, may I be allowed just to put one question which I omitted, to the


JUDGE MALL: Yes, please do.

ADV MPSHE: Thank you Mr Chairman. Captain, you testified that as you were manhandling the


somebody stuffed something into his mouth, do you remember that?

CAPT MENTZ: Yes, that is possible. Yes, I know that his mouth was also closed at some stage.

ADV MPSHE: Was the mouth stuck closed with something or was it stuffed with something, there is a

difference between the two please.



CAPT MENTZ: Mr Chairman, I have already answered, I did not do anything to his mouth. I saw that it

had been closed with something, I do not know if anything was stuffed into his mouth, I know that his

mouth had been closed with something, something had been placed over his mouth. I had more to do with

his arms, bringing his arms under control.

ADV MPSHE: With what was the mouth taped closed?

CAPT MENTZ: With sellotape, coloured sellotape, I cannot remember what colour the sellotape was, but

it was this very strong type of sellotape.

ADV MPSHE: Is it possible that before his mouth had been taped closed that something had been

stuffed into his mouth?

CAPT MENTZ: It is possible Mr Chairman, but I did not do that, I do not know.


JUDGE MALL: Yes, you are excused, thank you.


JUDGE MALL: We will take an adjournment at this stage.





JUDGE MALL: Are we ready to proceed?

ADV MPSHE: Thank you Mr Chairman, Mr Chairman the next of kin to the deceased, Brian

Ngqulunga are present. I have

consulted with them Mr Chairman, in particular the wife. Mr Chairman she wants to give evidence, to take

the witness stand, Mr Chairman if the Committee permits, I will call her to the witness stand.

JUDGE MALL: Yes, please do.

MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Mpshe, what are her full names?

MS NGQULUNGA: Tholakele Catherine.


ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman, I just want to mention to the Committee that part of the evidence that she

is going to give Mr Chairman is going to relate to what was said before lunch and that I did not have the

privilege of having knowledge thereof up till during lunch time, Mr Chairman and we decided with herself

that she must testify on all those other things that she wants to dispute Mr Chairperson.

JUDGE MALL: Thank you.

EXAMINATION BY ADV MPSHE: Mrs Ngqulunga, you are the wife to Brian Ngqulunga?


ADV MPSHE: If you could just speak up please. You were here present today when evidence was

given about your deceased husband and you understood everything?

MS NGQULUNGA: That is correct.

ADV MPSHE: During lunch you indicated to me that there are certain aspects or parts of evidence

given so far that you would like to dispute and you want to do that yourself under oath, is that correct?



MS NGQULUNGA: That is correct.

ADV MPSHE: Can you then tell the Committee what you want the Committee to know, starting first

with the issue of the


MS NGQULUNGA: When we went to the funeral, it was a Saturday afternoon, when we were

approaching the graveside, we met the comrades, the comrade group and the group said we won't bury the

corpse there and suddenly there were attacks and they started shooting and we took one of the injured ones

to the mortuary.

On Monday Captain Van Dyk came. ...(intervention)

ADV MPSHE: Where did this fighting take place? The first incident you mentioned?

MS NGQULUNGA: It took place just when we were taking - gaining entrance to the graveside


ADV MPSHE: Which graveyard.

MS NGQULUNGA: Soshanguve graveyard.

ADV MPSHE: Thank you. Continue.

MS NGQULUNGA: We went back, was taken back to the mortuary Saturday afternoon.

On Monday Captain Van Dyk came and said Eugene de Kock had said there is a conducive place

in Vlakplaas where Brian could be buried, so he might as well be taken there. Although we did not even

know the causes of his killing, but we agreed to the fact that he should be buried in Vlakplaas.

And on Wednesday we were four of us headed to Vlakplaas and some others from Vlakplaas

were present. We buried him on Wednesday. When we got there, I found that there was no conducive

place whatsoever, it was just a forest where we were going to bury him. I did not even have an

opportunity to ask him where is the conducive place that you were



talking about because what I am seeing here is a hill and it is just a forest.

And we finished the whole service and we went back home, though we did not know who the

perpetrators were. I was just told that he was killed by ANC when I tried to enquire next to Brits.

The second thing I think when they killed Brian, he was naked, they had taken off his clothes, the

way he was brutally injured, because the clothes he had on, he had a suit, a black suit on. Brian's body was

brutally injured and his clothes were just intact, they were in perfect condition. The shirt and the suit were

clean as ever, no blood whatsoever. I think they had taken off his clothes and they put the clothes back

after they had injured him.

ADV MPSHE: You did hear the evidence that he was buried, or he had to be buried at Vlakplaas

because there was rioting going on in the Soshanguve township, did you hear that?

MS NGQULUNGA: Yes, we had heard that.

ADV MPSHE: Was there any violence going on at the time?

MS NGQULUNGA: There was no riot.

ADV MPSHE: Were you ever informed about the tombstone that was laid on his grave?

MS NGQULUNGA: I was not informed, I was just told that they had already erected a tombstone

and I was taken to see it.

ADV MPSHE: Were you given any information as to who laid the tombstone?

MS NGQULUNGA: No one gave me any information regarding this, I was just fetched to Brian's

grave to see the tombstone.

ADV MPSHE: If you do have knowledge was Brian involved



with the ANC Party?

MS NGQULUNGA: No, I don't have any knowledge in that regard. He never made mention of that.

All I knew is that he was a police, working with the police. The only thing he said to me was that he was

no longer happy at work, because he had received threatening calls, that he should tell his White employers

to put everything in place, his records so

that when he dies, the families were taken care of. And when he had tried to ask who are you talking to me

in this fashion, they refused to tell him the names. The following day he moved from one office to another

and the same phone rang and he was told that - the same message that, tell your employers to give you all

your monies because you will die very soon and you will see us soon to kill you. That means he saw them,

he met the people on Friday when he was killed, the very people that threatened him.

ADV MPSHE: Did he perhaps tell you why there were these death threats?

MS NGQULUNGA: He did not tell me anything, he only told me that he was no longer happy at his


ADV MPSHE: Evidence was led, sorry Mr Chairman, I withdraw that, no evidence was led to it in fact,

but it was shown on the TV today which video you saw, that Mamasela stated that your husband was

drinking a lot, that he was broken down and at one stage he even shot at you, do you remember hearing



ADV MPSHE: Did you know as to why he had to shoot you?

MS NGQULUNGA: That is a family matter, all that I know is that because Joe Mamasela had said

he drank very heavily, I repudiate that, he will only drink Saturdays and Sundays and PRETORIA



still he was not a heavy drinker and he was also registered with Unisa, he had no time to drink as Joe

Mamasela alleged

What he did to me was just a mistake and it has nothing to do with this, it is all a family matter.

ADV MPSHE: What was he studying with Unisa?

MS NGQULUNGA: He was studying law with Unisa.

ADV MPSHE: Studying towards a law degree?


ADV MPSHE: Now the applicant is before this Committee, seeking amnesty, what is your response to


MS NGQULUNGA: It is hard, it is difficult.

ADV MPSHE: He is basically, amongst others, asking for forgiveness, how do you react to that?

MS NGQULUNGA: (No audible reply)

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Mpshe if she doesn't want to answer that it....

ADV MPSHE: Thank you Mr Chairman, that will be all the evidence.

JUDGE MALL: Has it been explained to her Mr Mpshe, as to what is meant by amnesty and so on?

ADV MPSHE: Yes, Mr Chairman, that has been done, yes.

JUDGE MALL: Yes. Is the position that she hasn't answered what her attitude is towards the granting of


ADV MPSHE: Yes, Mr Chairman this has been explained, but perhaps I am not speaking for her Mr

Chairman, as I look at her she is becoming emotional, perhaps it is because of that that she cannot say how

she feels about it Mr Chairman.

JUDGE MALL: Let her calm down and afford her an opportunity.

ADV MPSHE: Are you ready to come and comment on the



forgiveness being asked?

MS NGQULUNGA: I don't have any forgiveness, I have no forgiveness for him.

ADV MPSHE: Thank you Mr Chairman that will be all.


JUDGE MALL: Mr Mpshe has it been explained to her that if she is in need of assistance which might

become available through the Reparation and Rehabilitation Commission, that she should approach them?

ADV MPSHE: Yes, Mr Chairman, that was done to her and her two sisters by myself, yesterday and

which discussion went down to the question of exhuming the body and burying him where they want to

bury him and I referred - connected her with the gentlemen next to him who is from the R&R Committee,

that has been taken care of by him, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE MALL: Thank you. Are there any questions to be asked under cross-examination?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Can you indicate to us

when you saw the clothes of your husband was that just before the burial?

MS NGQULUNGA: We saw the clothes after the funeral, the clothes were sent to us on Monday.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Was it the clothes that he had on for the burial or ...?


ADV DU PLESSIS: So ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: Mr du Plessis, I am sure you don't intend asking that question.

ADV DU PLESSIS: I am just trying to determine whether the clothing was the clothing he was


ADV DE JAGER: So you are asking the question whether he had PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG


dressed for his burial?

ADV DU PLESSIS: No, what I mean is had he dressed for the burial in different clothes than those

which he had been wearing? Okay, let me rephrase the question.

The clothing which you are testifying about, was that the clothing he was dressed in for the burial

or was it clothing that was sent to you in a different manner, which clothes are you talking about?

MS NGQULUNGA: I am talking about the suit that he had on on Friday when he was going to


ADV DU PLESSIS: Was he dressed in that particular suit of clothes when he was buried?

MS NGQULUNGA: We burnt the other suit and we put on a different suit altogether.

ADV DU PLESSIS: The suit which you burnt, were these the clothes which he had on when he was


MS NGQULUNGA: That was the suit that he had on when he was shot.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you very much. I have one more question. Do you know who made the

threatening calls to him?

MS NGQULUNGA: I don't know, because he also did not know, he also wanted to know.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.



JUDGE WILSON: You've told us that your husband went to work on the Friday, wearing these


MS NGQULUNGA: Yes, that is correct.

JUDGE WILSON: And I take it he did not come home that




MS NGQULUNGA: Yes, that is correct.

JUDGE WILSON: When did you discover that he had been killed?

MS NGQULUNGA: I discovered the following - on Saturday around 9 pm, when Captain van Dyk

came and Engelbrecht to tell me that Brian was killed and he is in the mortuary. When I asked as to what

happened to him, they told me ANC attacked him.

On Monday they came to fetch me and we went to the

mortuary where I located him and no one could stand firmly and look at him because he was brutally


JUDGE WILSON: Did he have no clothes on then, on the Monday?

MS NGQULUNGA: He was covered with a sheet and we only saw his head because it was not


JUDGE WILSON; When did you next see him, his body dressed in these clothes that you've told

us about?

MS NGQULUNGA: We clothed him on Friday evening, he was naked and that was after the post-

mortem when we saw him in the mortuary. That is where we saw him, he was naked.

JUDGE WILSON: Would you know what had happened to his clothes, they were given back to

you later, were they?

MS NGQULUNGA: Yes, I was given the clothes after the funeral.

JUDGE WILSON: Those are the clothes he had been wearing, not the clothes he was buried in?

MS NGQULUNGA: That is correct.

JUDGE WILSON: These clothes you were given were undamaged, perfectly clean, is that what

you are saying?

MS NGQULUNGA: The suit was completely perfect, except the



pair of trousers, just in front right next to the zip, that's where there was a bullet hole, otherwise the whole

suit was intact.

JUDGE WILSON: Thank you.

JUDGE MALL: Mr Mpshe, any re-examination?

ADV MPSHE: No re-examination, Mr Chairman, thank you.


JUDGE MALL: Thank you very much, you are excused.

ADV DE JAGER: Did they also give you a shirt?

MS NGQULUNGA: Yes, they also gave me the shirt, everything,

even the shoes.

JUDGE WILSON: Who is "they" who gave you these things?

MS NGQULUNGA: The Garankua policemen.

JUDGE MALL: Yes, you are excused.


ADV MPSHE: That will be all Mr Chairman in the Ngqulunga incident.

The next incident is as per schedule, the interrogation of Scheepers Morudi. Mr Brian Currin is

appearing for the victim in this incident. Thank you Mr Chairman.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, could you just afford me a short opportunity please?


ADV DE JAGER: Mr Mpshe, in this post-mortem report there is a reference to annexure A - I haven't got a

copy of annexure A with the report, have you perhaps got it? In the last instance of Mr Ngqulunga?

ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman I will check for the annexure and I think to save time, I will look for it and

give it to members in chambers. Thank you Sir.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, thank you, thank you for



the opportunity. There is something that I would wish to clear up in the evidence of Captain Mentz, just to

make hundred percent sure about that. Would it be possible for me to recall Captain Mentz just to testify

about one aspect that flows from the evidence of this witness?

JUDGE MALL: Is it in connection with the Scheepers Morudi?

ADV DU PLESSIS: No, Mr Chairman in connection with the previous matter, in connection with

Brian Ngqulunga. I beg your pardon Mr Chairman, it is something that I just want to make hundred

percent clear that that evidence I cannot

recall that the witness gave that specific piece of evidence

and I deem it important after the questions which have been asked now.

JUDGE MALL: Well, you may call him.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman.


FURTHER RE-EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Mentz, there is only one specific

aspect which I would like to clarify with you, did you specifically see when Mr Ngqulunga was shot, did

you see that yourself specifically, when Captain Bellingham shot him?

CAPT MENTZ: Mr Chairman, yes, if I remember correctly he was shot in the head. I can remember

vaguely there was something said that they wouldn't have to recognise him by his face because they could

look at his fingerprints, but his identification had to be delayed. I think the magazine was emptied on his

head, I am not sure whether Piet Botha also shot him with a pistol, but that could be so.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman, that is the only question that I had.




JUDGE MALL: Any questions Mr Mpshe?

ADV MPSHE: No questions Mr Chairman, thank you.


JUDGE MALL: Very well, you are excused thank you.


JUDGE WILSON: I notice from the post-mortem report that he had fractured first to third ribs on

both sides of the body and of both clavicles, could this have been caused by the assault you and the others

launched onto him?

CAPT MENTZ: It could be so Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: And he had a collapsed lung and a

lacerated upper lobe of the left lung, a ruptured heart, could this all have been a result of your assault?

CAPT MENTZ: Mr Chairman, when he was lying in the back of the vehicle, we sat on top of him. I am

not a medical officer, but I, it is quite possible.

JUDGE WILSON: Ruptured small intestines, ruptured bladder, is this also all possible as a result

of your assault?

CAPT MENTZ: It is possible Mr Chairman. As I told you we sat on him.

JUDGE WILSON: From my experience of post mortems there was considerably more done to the

body than sitting on it to have caused all these injuries. You can't comment?

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman the witness wanted to answer the question.

JUDGE MALL: Yes please allow him to do so.

CAPT MENTZ: Mr Chairman, as I've already testified from the time that he was taken out of the car, he

fell on the ground, we were on top of him, it was not a pretty sight, he

was overcome, he was attacked and assaulted to make him lose PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG


consciousness as quickly as possible. We came down on him with our knees, we had no mercy, he was

subjected as quickly as possible, so that we could get him into the kombi and get away. It was a public

road, we didn't want to be spotted there, it happened very quickly and it was very serious. So these things

could all have happened. It is so, I can't say that it wouldn't have happened.

JUDGE MALL: Yes. Have you seen the document which is supposed to be Annexure A to the post-


ADV DU PLESSIS: I have seen the post-mortem.

JUDGE MALL: No, the Annexure A.

ADV DU PLESSIS: It doesn't seem that - can you just refer me a little bit closer Mr Chairman.

JUDGE MALL: I am told that the Annexure A to the post


ADV DU PLESSIS: I haven't got an Annexure A.

JUDGE MALL: If you look at the second page, in answer to question 4, paragraph 4, it says," body of a

Black male", then it says,

"Big laceration on the right side of the face with fractured mandible. Right facial bones

on right side of the skull anterially with protruding bones. Multiple wounds as

numbered on Annexure A".

ADV DU PLESSIS: I don't have Annexure A.

JUDGE MALL: You don't have it.

ADV DU PLESSIS: I don't know, it seems that you also don't have it?

JUDGE MALL: No, we don't.

JUDGE WILSON: If you look at the first page - we've got the typed copy where it says,



"Due to brain injuries and hyper-volemic shock from multiple injuries. From gunshot


So it may well be that the post-mortem indicates that all the injuries are from gunshot wounds.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, it is possible, obviously the evidence creates certain questions,

that is why I asked Captain Mentz when the victim's wife testified, exactly - if he can remember exactly

where he was shot. He told me and that is why I have decided to volunteer that evidence. It is possible that

that evidence might contradict this, it is possible that it might not contradict this unless we have some sort

of expert evidence to explain to us that some of the injuries could not at all have been caused by any

assault. Or that the injuries could have been caused by gunshot wounds.

The only point I am trying to make Mr Chairman is that it doesn't appear from the post-mortem in

the light of Captain Mentz's evidence, it doesn't appear from the post-

mortem exactly that there were gunshot wounds anywhere else,

than possibly in the face.

JUDGE WILSON: Well that depends on the reading, if it says brain injuries and hyper-volemic

shocks, multiple injuries from gunshot wounds, then that falls away completely, so we must get a proper

copy of the post-mortem report and the annexure.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Obviously Mr Chairman. All I am trying to point out is that it is not clear and

that one cannot come to a specific conclusion regarding this and, the point I am trying to make is that it is

possible that the clothes that the witness testified about, could have been the clothes that he had on during

the incident.



I also want to point out to you that the photographs, whatever that might be worth in evidence,

photographs on the video that was shown this morning, as far as I can recall, indicated that the clothes had

some damage to it. As far as that may be important and as far as the Committee may take any note of that.

I have not further questions for the witness Mr Chairman.


JUDGE MALL: Mr Mpshe, you will endeavour to get hold of this Annexure A?

ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman, I will endeavour to do that.

JUDGE MALL: It may be possible that we might have to recall this witness, depending upon the contents

of that document.

ADV MPSHE: Yes, Mr Chairman, just to inform the Committee, there is a three page post-mortem

report which was given to me by the Investigative Unit, so they did not give me all the annexures, but I will

get in touch with them to check as to where Annexure A is, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: Did they give you a typed copy of the port-mortem report or was it


ADV MPSHE: It is typed, also mine is typed. Thank you Mr Chairman.

JUDGE MALL: Thank you. You are excused for the time being.


ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I just want to place on record, there are other witnesses that I can

call in respect of this incident, they are not here at the moment and I would simply want, in the light of the

fact that we still



have to get further information, want to reserve my rights in that regard to be allowed later on, to call other

witnesses in respect of this incident.

JUDGE MALL: Yes, we are really concerned with the nature of his injuries.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, I can understand that.

JUDGE MALL: May we then proceed with the next matter?

ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman, yes. I call Warrant Officer Paul van Vuuren.


EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Van Vuuren can you remember exactly when this

incident took place?

W/O VAN VUUREN: Approximately 1986 or 1987.

ADV DU PLESSIS: You set out the nature of the offence.

W/O VAN VUUREN: Myself, Captain Hechter, Sergeant Van der Westhuizen and Slang, his name

was Danny (indistinct) questioned him. We used a gas mask, assaulted him and executed electrical shocks

on him to gain information.

He was a great ANC activist, he had thrown several petrol bombs in Mamelodi and he was

involved in arson and

the petrol attacks on policemen's houses.

The South African Defence Force could not trace him and at the request of Captain Van Jaarsveld

to trace him, at that stage Captain Jaap van Jaarsveld was our temporary Commanding Officer because if I

remember correctly, Flip Loots was on a special investigation. Myself and Sergeant van der Westhuizen

went to look for him on the instruction of Captain Hechter. We traced him within three days. The way in

which we traced him was out of informant reports, we started monitoring his movements very closely and

within three days we traced him. That just showed how effective



the Security Police was at that stage. The questioning took approximately two hours and in that time, his

oxygen supply was limited. He was assaulted by Slang and Hendrik with handcuffs and electrical shocks

were also executed on him and it was necessary to gain information from him about his activities and

strategies and thereafter he became a source of the police and gave us very important information.

ADV DU PLESSIS; Could I ask you about the methods which were used in his interrogation, were

these the normal methods which were used?

W/O VAN VUUREN: Yes, these were the normal methods which we used.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Did you obtain any relevant information from him?

W/O VAN VUUREN: Yes, we did.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Do you remember which injuries he sustained?

W/O VAN VUUREN: At this stage it is difficult for me to remember, I can't remember exactly, but we

assaulted him quite seriously.


JUDGE MALL: Mr Currin?

MR CURRIN: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CURRIN: WO van Vuuren, you've said that he threw petrol bombs and

was involved in many activities, did you see him throwing petrol bombs, on what basis are you making

those allegations?

W/O VAN VUUREN: I never saw him personally, but out of the informant reports which we received

it was quite clear that he was involved and he was a leader in Mamelodi who was involved in petrol bomb




MR CURRIN: Was he ever charged with any offence ever sentenced?

W/O VAN VUUREN: I cannot remember, I cannot say.

MR CURRIN: So it is all hearsay? It is hearsay, what you've repeated here with regard to his activities,

is hearsay, you don't know it as a matter of fact?

W/O VAN VUUREN: No, I know it for a fact out of the various informant reports, we did not only

have one informant who was supplying us with information, there were several informants who were

bringing us information on Scheepers Morudi and his name came up quite often, so it was not just hearsay

evidence, it was fact because the informants did not know about each other and did not work together.

MR CURRIN: I will not argue with you as to what constitutes hearsay, I will leave it there. Could you

give a little bit more information with regard to the torture?

W/O VAN VUUREN: It is a long time ago, but if I remember correctly we used a gas mask, we put it over

his head and we left the plug in and we denied him oxygen. His hands and feet were tied and we assaulted

him several times. We assaulted him with our bare hands and some of the Constables involved, we kicked

him too. Some of the Constables involved assaulted him with the handcuffs.

MR CURRIN: Would you say that he was severely assaulted?

W/O VAN VUUREN: That is correct.

MR CURRIN: He has asked me to put to you that he was never a member of the ANC, he was a student

activist, he was not an ANC activist. Do you have proof that he was a member of the ANC?

W/O VAN VUUREN: No, I have no proof that he was a member of PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG


the ANC because all those documents have been destroyed as

it has been said time and again in the evidence.

MR CURRIN: You assumed, I would imagine that if one was an activist, whether it was a student

activist that one was an ANC activist?

W/O VAN VUUREN: That is possible.

MR CURRIN: Have you spoken to him at all since he has been here the last couple of days, have you

spoken to him at all?

W/O VAN VUUREN: No, I haven't spoken to him at all.

MR CURRIN: Have you possibly approached him about your application and the way you feel and

your remorse and asked him for forgiveness?

W/O VAN VUUREN: No, I did not do that.

MR CURRIN: Were you involved in the bombing of his house before that, a couple of months before he

was assaulted?

W/O VAN VUUREN: It is possible, I was involved in several bomb attacks on several houses.

MR CURRIN: Have you applied for amnesty in respect of all these bomb attacks on all the houses?

W/O VAN VUUREN: Yes, I have.

MR CURRIN: And you can't recall the details?

W/O VAN VUUREN: No, there were too many, I can't remember.

ADV DU PLESSIS: I really don't have a problem that the witness testifies, but I would ask Mr Currin to

keep to this specific amnesty application in respect of this specific incident. As you are aware, WO

van Vuuren has made various applications pertaining to various incidents, as well as one global application

pertaining to certain incidents which he cannot remember a lot about. I object against further interrogation

about other amnesty applications.

MR CURRIN: Mr Chairman, it just relates to the question PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG


of full disclosure and I am just ensuring that there has

been full disclosure.

JUDGE MALL: Well, as you know he has applied, made application for amnesty for various offences.

Among them is the bombing of houses.

MR CURRIN: Would you just bear with me for a moment?

JUDGE MALL; Certainly.

MR CURRIN: You personally participated in the physical assault?

W/O VAN VUUREN: Yes, it is correct, I did.


JUDGE MALL: Mr Mpshe, are there any questions you wish to put to this witness?

ADV MPSHE: Yes, Mr Chairman.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV MPSHE: Can you explain as per your application page 156,

the last paragraph - "the telephone method was used on him", exactly what does that entail?

W/O VAN VUUREN: Mr Chairman, it is an old fashioned telephone where you had the crank that you

turned, there were two wires coming from the telephone, you took that and you connected it to the person

to his feet or hand or whatever, it all depended on what you felt like on the particular day towards the

activists, and then you turned the crank and you put electrical shocks through him.

ADV MPSHE: Now in this incident, to which part of his body did you tie the wires?

W/O VAN VUUREN: I cannot remember, I really cannot remember but we did use the instrument.

ADV MPSHE: Why can't you remember?

W/O VAN VUUREN: It is 10 years ago.



ADV MPSHE: But you were present when these things were done?

W/O VAN VUUREN: But that was not the only time that I was present, there were many other times in

the same manner.

JUDGE WILSON: This was in fact one of the most common of the machinery used by the police

for this shock treatment wasn't it?

W/O VAN VUUREN: That is correct, Your Honour.

ADV MPSHE: Can you recall how long was this execution done on him?

W/O VAN VUUREN: Normally about ten seconds, five to ten seconds per shock, per shock treatment.


JUDGE MGOEPE: What exactly did you want from him?

W/O VAN VUUREN: We questioned him to obtain information from him regarding the fellow persons

who worked with them, to control whether the information that we had, which we thought was correct, we

wanted to verify those and to get general information regarding the unrest situation in Mamelodi.

JUDGE MGOEPE: What was the ultimate objective?

W/O VAN VUUREN: The purpose was to find people who were working with them, to arrest them or to

eliminate them and to find out exactly where they were hiding from the Security

Police and the Defence Force at that stage, where firearms or weapons might have been concealed or

hidden away, in the general state of emergency which was prevalent exactly where they were hiding.

Where we could get hold of them.

JUDGE MGOEPE: The aspect of weapons seems to be something that you did not allude to earlier

on. You mentioned that he was involved in "brandstigting", intimidation, "petrolbom PRETORIA



aanvalle op polisiemanne se huise" and that is a distinct criminal character.

W/O VAN VUUREN: I can only mention that Scheepers at that stage, I could say was the leader in

Mamelodi. The Defence Force looked for him for months, and they couldn't trace him and Captain van

Jaarsveld requested us and there were many activities for which they were looking for him, but as I have

stated to you my information was that it was only concerning schools' boycotts, arson, petrol bomb attacks,

but while we interrogated him, we asked him whether he knew about any weapons which had been hidden

which he knew about.

JUDGE MGOEPE: To the extent that you wanted information for the purpose of effecting some

arrest, the impression I get is that this was a criminal investigation after all. It was nothing else but a

criminal investigation which was going on here, criminal investigations by yourselves?

W/O VAN VUUREN: I don't clearly understand the question.

JUDGE MGOEPE: I asked you to tell us what the ultimate objective of your exercises were, and

you mentioned also that you wanted information from him so that you could effect some arrests and I am

saying to you therefore it would seem that you were busy with nothing else but a criminal investigation

here for purposes of arrest and prosecution?

W/O VAN VUUREN: At that stage it was so, we wished to arrest people and prosecute people who

worked with Scheepers, that is correct, yes.

JUDGE MGOEPE: And I am saying to you the torture, the interrogation and the torture that

accompanied it, was not any different to the torture and interrogation you would have done on somebody

who had committed a robbery? It was



trying to extract information purely for criminal purposes, not politically?

W/O VAN VUUREN: No, Mr Chairman, Scheepers was involved in petrol bomb attacks on policemen's

houses, he was an activist in the townships, it was not just criminal affairs, criminal matters if I understand

you correctly.

JUDGE MGOEPE: And you say that he made mention of firearms only during the interrogation?

W/O VAN VUUREN: I can't remember whether he referred to firearms. We asked him whether he knew

about any firearms that had been hidden in Mamelodi, ANC, we referred to DLB's, we asked him, he didn't

ask us, Your Honour.

JUDGE MGOEPE: Well you don't remember whether you got any answer from him in that regard?

W/O VAN VUUREN: I cannot remember, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE MGOEPE: For all you know he might have said he didn't know anything about those


W/O VAN VUUREN: That is quite possible.

JUDGE MGOEPE: Did you get any information out of him that eventually led to the arrest of


W/O VAN VUUREN: Mr Chairman I cannot remember today. This all happened 10 years ago, I really

cannot remember, it is possible, but I cannot remember.

JUDGE MGOEPE: You mentioned that some people were looking for him, I don't know whether

you said SANDF and or the

police, I don't know, but your help was eventually called in.

W/O VAN VUUREN: That is correct, it was the Defence Force, the Defence Force was stationed in

Mamelodi, they had an office there.

JUDGE MGOEPE: Your group felt that they could help, they



could trace him and thereafter beat the information out of him?

W/O VAN VUUREN: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE MGOEPE: And then take that information and then pass it over to the other branches of

law enforcement agencies that had been looking for him?

W/O VAN VUUREN: That is correct, we would have passed it on, but we would have kept most of it for

ourselves and used that. We also didn't hand him over to the Defence Force, he became an informant of the

Security Police after that.

JUDGE MGOEPE: But that was after the assault, possibly as a result of the assault?

W/O VAN VUUREN: That is correct. That is correct, that is possible, that it was as a consequence

thereof Mr Chairman.

ADV DE JAGER: I think what my learned colleague wishes to determine is what the political motive was

when you questioned the man, was it not just a matter of trying to trace a criminal offences?

W/O VAN VUUREN; That is correct, it was to trace criminal deeds and to trace the people who were

working with him.

ADV DE JAGER: But what has this got to do with politics?

W/O VAN VUUREN: Mr Chairman, he was at that stage an ANC activist, in other words he was

involved with the ANC activists who were causing great trouble in Mamelodi and that was why we

questioned him. He was an ANC activist and

after all that had to do with politics in my books.

ADV DE JAGER: I think you have to draw a distinction, there can be nationalists or any other party whose

members may commit housebreaking and burglary and have nothing to do with politics?

W/O VAN VUUREN: That is correct, Your Honour, but if ANC



activists attack policemen's houses with petrol bombs and arrange boycotts, it is a political motive in my


ADV DE JAGER: The question is simply whether in this particular instance the purpose of the

investigation was of a criminal nature or what exactly it was?

W/O VAN VUUREN: It was a criminal investigation, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: And you have no idea if you got information from him that resulted in any

arrests, prosecutions or matters of that nature?

W/O VAN VUUREN: Mr Chairman, I cannot remember today, it is too long ago. It is possible that it

was so, I cannot remember, there were many instances of this nature.

JUDGE WILSON; Can you remember that about 10 minutes ago when Mr Currin was

questioning you, you said it might be possible that he wasn't a member of the ANC?

W/O VAN VUUREN: I doubt that.

JUDGE WILSON: My recollection is that Mr Currin specifically put to you that he wasn't and

you said you couldn't challenge that, you had no proof.

W/O VAN VUUREN: I cannot prove it because I don't have proof, all the proof that existed was

destroyed after my time in terms of a national command from Security Headquarters, all documentation

was burnt, I don't have anything to prove what I am saying today.

MS KHAMPEPE: Sir was it not true from the evidence which

has been given by Mr Cronje, that the general practice of the Security Police was to eliminate people who

would have committed acts such as these committed by Mr Scheepers Morudi?

W/O VAN VUUREN: That is correct that people like him had PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG


to be eliminated, or were eliminated in certain instances.

MS KHAMPEPE: Can you just explain what would be the criteria which would be used to determine

whether a person was capable of immediate elimination or would be rehabilitated as in the instance of Mr


W/O VAN VUUREN: It is very difficult today to sit and explain here which people were eliminated and

which people were not eliminated. We played it by ear, depending on how things went at that stage,

whether the person seemed prepared to work with the Security Police at that stage or whether he was not

prepared to cooperate with us. I think to a large extent if Scheepers had not agreed to become an informer,

we would quite possibly have eliminated him.

MS KHAMPEPE: So after this incident Mr Morudi became an informer?

W/O VAN VUUREN: That is correct.

MS KHAMPEPE: Thank you.

RE-EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr van Vuuren, in the

Security Branch where you were working at that stage, what did you activities involve? Did your activities

involve actions against the liberation movements, deeds of activists, or did your activities involve normal

police docket investigation of burglaries etc?

W/O VAN VUUREN: No, it involved actions against activists, no normal investigations.

ADV DU PLESSIS: So in other words your activity as a member of the Security Branch at that stage

Warrant Officer, was primarily aimed at what - normal thieves, robbers or were your activities aimed at

people who were involved in destabilising the Country?

W/O VAN VUUREN: It was people who were politically PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG


involved in destabilising the country.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Okay, now WO van Vuuren, people like these activists or terrorists, as we have often

testified before the Committee, were these people also involved in criminal activities?

W/O VAN VUUREN: That is correct, they were.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Did such people also make themselves guilty of normal common law or criminal

transgressions in an effort to destabilise the country?

W/O VAN VUUREN: Yes, they did make themselves - they were guilty of crimes to destabilise the

country and to create chaos.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Okay, as you can remember, was Mr Morudi a person who was involved in this

political destabilisation attempt or was he an ordinary criminal?

W/O VAN VUUREN: He was a person who was involved in the destabilisation efforts of the country and

the campaign for destabilisation.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And the methods used by activists to destabilise the country at that stage, which

methods did they use?

W/O VAN VUUREN: It was arson, petrol bomb attacks, intimidation and in certain cases murder,

boycotts, consumer boycotts.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And is that the sort of action in which Mr Morudi was involved in and made himself

guilty of as you can remember?

W/O VAN VUUREN: Yes, it is correct.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And when you interrogated him, did you obtain information from him or attempt to

obtain information in order to accuse him and to have him found guilty in a PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG


criminal court of criminal transgressions or was the purpose to get other information?

W/O VAN VUUREN: The purpose was to obtain information from him in order to accuse him - no, to

accuse him wouldn't have helped at that stage because we wouldn't have had a witness to testify against

him because the witness would be dead the next day were he to testify, so the idea was not to interrogate

him, to take him to court, the idea was to interrogate him to obtain more information regarding the

activities of the activists in Mamelodi. Criminal activities as well as other activities, meetings which they

were holding, when they were having meetings, who would address them, whether they had any contact

with ANC infiltrators, etc.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Okay, Warrant Officer van Vuuren, in your application you give in great detail

the purpose of the interrogations, that which was set out in the application has been stated on numerous

occasions with the same motivation as in all other interrogations for which amnesty applications are made

with regard to all the applicants before the Committee and for that reason I am not offering this testimony

verbally, verbatim before the Committee on every occasion, but on this regard questions had been asked

regarding things which are stated very clearly in your statement.

Will you turn to page 158 please of your application and there the general motivation which we

have in all the

applicants' applications with regard to your actions, will you please read that to the Committee. From the

purpose of the investigation.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr du Plessis, I don't think this what is PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG


being disputed, the specific question was whether it was

political or criminal and I think that is the difference between a general motivation and the motivation

which had already been given.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, but Mr Chairman, with respect, in the motivation in the application, it comes

out very clearly that the whole purpose of the interrogation and the investigation was absolutely of a

political nature and that is also clearly apparent further on, where the specific motive is set out on page 161

to 162.

I don't attempt to prefer the evidence every time with regard to every case, but if I could just with

regard to the questions which had been asked, if I could just be afforded the opportunity to read into the

record, the testimony and I also wish to make the point and I will argue to it at the end, that I was under the

impression that he did not quite clearly understand the full scope of the questions and therefore I think it is

very important to get this stated in the record.

Will you just continue please.

W/O VAN VUUREN: "The purpose of interrogations were dual,

Intimidation and obtaining information: Intimidation - When activists were interrogated

they were intimidated to stop their activities and also to inform other activists that they

would be interrogated and fought with tooth and nail, they had to understand that we

were serious in our actions against them.

During interrogation and after certain information had been obtained, attempts were

made to turn activists and informants to become informants for



the Security Police. These activists and/or terrorists who were turned, were the most

effective means to combat the liberation movements, because they were trustees of the

other terrorists and activists.

The most striking example was Joe Mamasela as is apparent from this application.

Ascaris who were former terrorists, were very effective in the suppression of political


ADV DU PLESSIS: Were you successful in this attempt, if we can just pause a moment with that?

W/O VAN VUUREN: Yes, that is correct.

"For the purpose of insurgents and counter-insurgents' activities, it was important to

obtain information in this regard, it was of cardinal importance to get channels exposed

etc, and without interrogation techniques a network of information would never have

been determined to combat the total onslaught.

Interrogation which was effective with regard to obtaining information was essential. It

was essential to trace deeds of terror and to plan counter strategies and take measures on

the basis of the information obtained. Information was also obtained with regard to


ADV DU PLESSIS: Can I stop you, you can't remember exactly which information you obtained, is

it possible that your information during that interrogation was that you gained information which could be

used against the liberation movements?

W/O VAN VUUREN: That is correct, that is possible.



ADV DU PLESSIS: And was he after that of assistance to you as an informant?

W/O VAN VUUREN: That is correct.

INTERPRETER: The interpreters would just like the witness to read slowly.


"The motive was to combat terrorism and to protect the country. A further motive was

to obtain information regarding his actions and strategies".

ADV DU PLESSIS: Okay. Mr Chairman the rest of the aspects therein can that be regarded as

being incorporated? Thank you.

Okay, Warrant Officer van Vuuren, lastly, did you regard a person as Scheepers Morudi as an

activist and a criminal seen in broad terms?

W/O VAN VUUREN: We as Security Police did not work with criminals, we worked with activists, but

many of the activists also made themselves guilty of criminal deeds.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Okay, one last aspect which I forgot to ask you about. Exactly where did your

command come from, you state that on page 163, where the instructions originated?

W/O VAN VUUREN: It came from Captain van Jaarsveld and from Captain Hechter.


W/O VAN VUUREN: I could just mention that Captain van Jaarsveld did not tell me to assault

Scheepers Morudi. That we did of our own accord.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Okay. So he didn't repudiate you after that, he didn't tell you what you had

done was wrong?

W/O VAN VUUREN: No, he didn't.



ADV DU PLESSIS: Now, Warrant Officer van Vuuren just to return to the matter of elimination,

much testimony has been

put before the Committee regarding eliminations in particular circumstances. Could you just make your

testimony clear. The type of person whose elimination was decided upon, could you tell us?

W/O VAN VUUREN: It was normally a high profile activist or terrorist who was concerned with the

deaths of other people.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And then a last question. Mr Morudi is present here today, are you prepared in your

application - I would like to refer you to your application - in your application on page 224, could you

please page to page 224.

W/O VAN VUUREN: Which page?

ADV DU PLESSIS: Page 224, could you please read that to the Committee?

INTERPRETER: Could the speaker please be asked to slow down while reading.

W/O VAN VUUREN: "Reconciliation: I have believed seriously that what I was doing was in the interest


JUDGE MGOEPE: Captain, the Interpreters are having a problem, you read too fast for them, there

are difficulties in keeping up with you in their interpretation.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Chairman, it is marked with pen on the right=hand side, page 224 of

the bundle of applications. Mr Chairman it was attached as an annexure and it is entitled "versoening".

JUDGE MALL: I definitely ...

ADV DU PLESSIS: I beg your pardon Mr Chairman, may I enquire from the other members of the

Committee if they have (...indistinct). Thank you Mr Chairman, may the witness PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG



W/O VAN VUUREN: "Reconciliation. - I believed that what

I was doing was in the interest of the Republic of South Africa, its people, my religion

and christian convictions. Today I am uncertain as to where I stand and how I ended up

in the position which I currently find myself in.

I am sorry about the loss which family members of the victims suffered and also the loss

of lives. I hope that this revelation of mine will lead to greater understanding,

reconciliation and unity among the people of South Africa.

It is not my decision who was right or wrong, but I am also a committed citizen of the

new South Africa. The truth of the past must be exposed, that goes for all Security

Forces and also freedom fighters of the liberation movements".

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, as we recall, previously Warrant Officer van Vuuren was the one

witness in respect of which we didn't confirm his general background as set out on pages 4 to 16, may I just

ask the witness his confirmation of that. Warrant Officer van Vuuren, on pages 4 - 16 your background has

been set out, do you confirm that as correct?

W/O VAN VUUREN: Yes, it is correct.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman I have no further questions.


JUDGE MGOEPE: Mr Currin can I ask you in the meantime just to help refresh our memories - by

the way have you put it to the witness that your client will deny that he was a political activist?



MR CURRIN: I put it to the witness that my - I challenged that my client was not an ANC activist and

put it to the witness that my client was a student activist, that I put to him. That is what he will testify, that

he was a student activist, but he was never a member of the ANC. I put that to him.

JUDGE MGOEPE: What does that mean "student activist"?

MR CURRIN: Well he was as a student at school, he was involved in student activist politics. I think

that we know what sort of politics the students were involved in. He was never a member of the African

National Congress or any political organisation. He will testify ...(intervention)

JUDGE MGOEPE: Yes, but I just want to have this clarified because at some stage I personally

put questions to the witness which would have tended to tax him severely on whether or not the victim

could have been a legitimate political target, a legitimate political target and if there is no severe

disagreement on the question as to whether or not he was in fact in politics at whatever level, that may

actually, I mean I am speaking for myself, that may clarify or make certain issues a little bit easier.

MR CURRIN: Certainly.

JUDGE MGOEPE: So I understand you to concede that the victim was engaged in politics.

MR CURRIN: Absolutely.

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CURRIN: Mr Chairman while I have the microphone I

do have one question that I would like to clarify in re-examination which arose during some of the

subsequent questioning if I may put something to the witness.

JUDGE MALL: Yes, you may ask your question, sure.



MR CURRIN: It is one question. My learned friend put it to you that we have heard a lot about

eliminations and assassinations and when an activist qualifies to be eliminated and you said something a

moment ago which, in my recollection, has been said for the first time and I just want to hear whether what

I heard, is correct and you mean what you said.

You said that high profile activists were targets for elimination. Now that we've heard often

before, but you've added something to that. I think you added that high profile activists who were involved

in killing or in murders qualified for elimination, is that correct?

W/O VAN VUUREN: That was usually the case. That is correct, that was usually the case but if a person

threw a petrol bomb at another's house, then it was an attempt at their lives, he wasn't playing with them,

then that would also have qualified the person to have been eliminated, yes ....(intervention)

MR CURRIN: Even if no one died as a result of the petrol bomb?


MR CURRIN: So it is not correct to add the rider "if that person was involved in a murder"?

W/O VAN VUUREN: That is correct.

MR CURRIN: Thank you Sir.


ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman, may I beg leave to call Captain Hechter on this

incident? You will find his application on page 127 of the bundle.

CAPTAIN HECHTER: (still under oath)

EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Hechter in your



application on page 128, the first paragraph under "Nature and details", you say that you cannot remember

the circumstances in this incident, is that correct?

CAPT HECHTER: That is correct.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Do you accept the evidence with regards to the facts of this incident as said by

Warrant Officer van Vuuren?

CAPT HECHTER: That is correct.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Now Captain Hechter, the political motivation has been set out in your application

from page 130 to page 134. Do you confirm it as being correct?

CAPT HECHTER: Yes, that is correct, Chairperson.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Hechter, with regards to one or two aspects about which Warrant Officer

van Vuuren was questioned. Could you perhaps just give the Committee an indication of the type of

persons who were involved in petrol bomb attacks and so forth, were they normal criminals or were these

people politically active?

CAPT HECHTER: Chairperson, the youth activists as Mr Currin called them, were furthering all

the aims and objectives of the ANC at the time. In Tshaba it was often announced, even on Radio

Freedom, that the youth - the so-called informants had to be attacked, they had to attack the police, they

had to be involved in the struggle which included the burning of buses, the boycotting of buses, consumer

boycotts. So that when we were out looking for activists it was purely a political activist. We were not

involved in normal criminal activities and that is why the police detectives who were at the stations in the

areas, they were deployed to do that type of work, we did not do those cases, we did political matters and

we investigated political cases.



ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Hechter, what was your general experience with such activists, were some

of them members of the ANC were others not members of the ANC, could you comment on that?

CAPT HECHTER: It is very difficult when you start monitoring an activist to know if it is a card

carrying member of the ANC, what they did do was through the person's actions by furthering the

objectives of the ANC at the time, by the methods that they applied, you were able to identify an activist.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Just to include there, this attack was in 1986 and 1987?

CAPT HECHTER: That is correct.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Was it permissible at the time to be a card carrying member of the ANC?

CAPT HECHTER: That is correct, so they would not have had their cards with them either, they

would have been members of the ANC but would not have carried any cards.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Hechter, the type of interrogations you were involved in at the time, what

was the aim of the interrogation with regards to obtaining information, could you just elaborate to the


CAPT HECHTER: Firstly it was to obtain information, further information which could assist us in

combatting further acts of terrorism, greater acts of terrorism, lesser acts of terrorism, such as consumer -

the launching of consumer boycotts to identify the involved instigators and prevent them proceeding.

The interrogations were fairly violent. In order to intimidate the youths to such an extent that - it

was an attempt to prevent them from participating in this type of



action any further.

ADV DU PLESSIS: After having heard what Warrant Officer van Vuuren testified here, would you say

that the objective at the time would have been to obtain information, charge the person and have them

convicted in a court of law or was the objective to obtain information with regards to the liberation

movement's struggle?

CAPT HECHTER: It is very difficult for me to answer that question at this point. What I heard

from Warrant Officer van Vuuren was that thereafter he was made a member of the

Branch, so he would have given us his cooperation, which is why we would have decided to use him as a

source, but I doubt whether we would have wanted to arrest him and have him charged and so forth,

because at the time we did not try to arrest activists.

The information which we confronted them with could not be aligned to any witnesses due to the

intimidation factor which existed at the time. I would not say that it did not happen at all, there might have

been cases where persons were arrested and detained in terms of the law, but it was very minimal.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Hechter could you please page to page 339 of your application. Captain

Hechter, can you page to the next page entitled "Reconciliation", that is part of your application. Could

you please just read it to the Committee.

Yes, I beg your pardon Mr Chairman, it appears twice in my volume, I beg your pardon, it is 338.

Could you please proceed?

CAPT HECHTER: "I had steadfastly believed that what I was doing at that time, was in the

interests of



the Republic of South Africa, its people, my religion and religious convictions.

Today I am uncertain as to where I stand and how I ended up in the position I currently

find myself in. I am very unhappy and I am sorry about the loss which the family

members of victims suffered and also the loss of life.

I hope that this revelation of mine will lead to greater understanding and reconciliation".


JUDGE WILSON: This is word for word what the previous witness said, can't he just confirm it?

What is your purpose of getting it on the record twice?

ADV DU PLESSIS: As it pleases you. Will you confirm it please?

CAPT HECHTER: I will confirm that.


JUDGE MALL: Would you rather Mr Currin put his questions first?

ADV MPSHE: I will prefer to do it that way, thank you Mr Chairman.

JUDGE MALL: There you are, Mr Currin.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CURRIN: Thank you Mr Chairman. You stated something which has

been said before, namely that detentions at that time were an exception, that one normally did not

prosecute, arrest and prosecute and one did not normally detain, that was an absolute exception?

CAPT HECHTER: Not really, what I meant by it, there was a lot of detentions, but it had such little

impact on the general anarchism that was at that stage rampant in the Black townships, that in certain cases

and a lot of the



people working with us, still did arrest some of these people and kept them under the Security regulations,

but me, as a person, in our department or in our section, we felt in certain circumstances, we could by

intimidation, we could get a better reaction out of the people, because when those people were left out of

jail after a while, they came back.

They were the real "rammetjies" around there, so we battled with them. My department, the Black Power


MR CURRIN: What you are saying relates generally to what you refer to as the Black activists?

CAPT HECHTER: The Black activists, that is correct.

MR CURRIN: So there wasn't a tendency to detain, as far as you were concerned and in your division, the


CAPT HECHTER: There were many, if we just could have kept records, you would have seen that

many of them were detained, but in certain instances the decision was taken by me as the Officer that a

certain person should not be

arrested, but be picked up, interrogated, intimidated and then released.

MR CURRIN: But the reality Captain Hechter is that the vast, vast, vast majority of people were in fact

detained, of the activists.

CAPT HECHTER: You say so I do not know, that may be so, I cannot argue with you.

MR CURRIN: I put to you that also, we will lead evidence on behalf of the victims that the tendency

was in fact to detain and not to eliminate which is ...(intervention)

CAPT HECHTER: We are not talking about elimination, we are talking about intimidation.

MR CURRIN: You heard also what the previous witness said with regard to elimination, as to when a

person would



qualify for elimination, do you agree with his answer?

CAPT HECHTER: Could you please tell me ...(intervention)

MR CURRIN: He said a prominent activist who was involved in an act which would result in the death of

a person and he changed that to say for example, if there was a petrol bombing and a prominent activist

was involved, then that person would then qualify for elimination.

CAPT HECHTER: The English have a saying that "there is no rule if there is no exception", those

decisions were taken by us on the basis of information obtained from sources and the decision was taken by

me quite often and in many instances by Head Office, when one should be eliminated and when not.

There was no set rule that if this was the third house that person would be eliminated, it went

according to the circumstances at the time, the amount of violent acts which the person had committed and

how you, as a leadership figure, had blossomed in the community. If you remember correctly we tried to

eliminate Father Mkatshwa which was a good example. Look at the leadership figure that he

turned out to be. He was a prominent leader.

MR CURRIN: If I understand you correctly there were no fixed criteria, it was an ad hoc decision taken

depending on the circumstances at the time?

CAPT HECHTER: That is correct, that is correct.

MR CURRIN: That is very different from what the previous witness said.

CAPT HECHTER: He was a Sergeant at the time and he worked under my command, so it could

have been his perception.

MR CURRIN: I have no further questions to this witness.





JUDGE MGOEPE: Go ahead, maybe you will cover the point which I wanted to cover.

ADV MPSHE: Captain, in your application page 127 thereof, you're asking for amnesty on "opsetlike

saakbeskadiging asook brandstigting", but you haven't told this Committee anything about those two


CAPT HECHTER: I think it was rectified. I think Adv du Plessis submitted a rectified schedule in

which those errors had been rectified. The rectification had been made, there was no damage to property, I

hope it is contained in that schedule. Thank you.

JUDGE MGOEPE: I just want to clear this because earlier on, by reason of the fact that the name of

Captain van Jaarsveld was mentioned, immediately after a sentence which made reference to the South

African Defence Force, I was under the impression that he was attached to the South African Defence

Force. He was in fact in the Security Branch?

CAPT HECHTER: He was my second in command, Captain van Jaarsveld was our acting

Commander, yes, acting Commander. JUDGE MGOEPE: But is he not the person who asked you to

come and trace the victim?

CAPT HECHTER: According to what I can deduce from Warrant Officer van Vuuren, I think that was

the case. I can't remember this specific incident, but if he says so, it is so because he was in control. Then

he would have addressed the request to me and I would have sent out the people to go and pick up the


JUDGE MGOEPE: Yes in fact I think this is what Mr van Vuuren says, that you were asked by, he

was not at Vlakplaas?



CAPT HECHTER: No, no, we were never. Captain van Jaarsveld, Warrant Officer van Vuuren

and myself were never stationed at Vlakplaas, we were just in the Security Branch of Pretoria or the

Northern Transvaal, we had no ties with Vlakplaas, we never liaised with them.

JUDGE MGOEPE: If in fact the instruction to, or the request to trace the victim did come from

Captain van Jaarsveld, it would have meant that it was a request that came from the Security Branch


CAPT HECHTER: It is possible. You see in the mornings, and we touched on that last year, we

had the joint management centre which consisted of the various sections or departments including Civil

Defence, the Defence Force, National Intelligence and ourselves, we met and problem cases were

discussed with reference not only to problem persons, but also to problem cases where for example there

was bad sewerage systems, these were all discussed at these meetings and I suspect that it was on this

occasion that the request was addressed to Captain van Jaarsveld, whether we couldn't trace this man for

them, because they were unable

to trace him. They were situated on top of the hill in Mamelodi and they also had their problems

finding people.

ADV DE JAGER: Could we just have clarity in this regard, did you ever operate under the orders of

Brigadier Cronje?

CAPT HECHTER: Yes, but at that stage he was the Head of the Security Branch, not at Vlakplaas.

ADV DE JAGER: So when he was at Vlakplaas, you were not under his command?

CAPT HECHTER: No, I only got to know him when he took over as Commanding Officer of the

Security Branch.

ADV DE JAGER: You yourself were never stationed at



Vlakplaas or under that command?

CAPT HECHTER: No, not at all Mr Chairman.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Hechter, when exactly did Brigadier Cronje come over from Vlakplaas

to the Security Branch?

CAPT HECHTER: I am not sure, I suspect it was about 1986, late 1985, it must have been then

late 1985.

JUDGE MALL: We've already had (...indistinct)

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Chairman the evidence was led right at the beginning. It makes it very

difficult the time period inbetween, because a lot of the issues and the aspects which seem to create certain

problems, have already long ago been dealt with in evidence, but obviously nobody's recollection is so

good that one can remember everything, but that was dealt with specifically in the evidence previously.

JUDGE MALL: No further questions?

ADV DU PLESSIS: No further questions, thank you Mr Chairman.



JUDGE MALL: I think at this stage we will take an adjournment if it's convenient. We will resume at

nine o'clock tomorrow morning.

MR CURRIN: Mr Chairman, Scheepers Morudi is here, will we not hear him today?

JUDGE MALL: Unfortunately not, I've indicated that for

certain reasons we are going to adjourn at quarter to four today and if he can be available tomorrow

morning at nine o'clock ...



MR CURRIN: I see. I will advise him, thank you.

JUDGE MALL: We will adjourn.


Broadcasting for Total Citizen Empowerment
SABC © 2019