MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman, I call Brigadier Cronje.
JACK CRONJE: (sworn states)
EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, before I start with the evidence perhaps I should just direct your attention to the new bundle of documents which I've provided you with this morning. The second set of applications of Brigadier Cronje and according to my numbering I started at page 83, it seems to be on page 101 where this incident is referred to. That would be now in the new bundle which should have been included in bundle 1. It's typed page 19, you will see where Brigadier Cronje applies for actions of people under his command and it refers to Captain Hechter's application in this regard, Schedule 8. May I proceed Mr Chairman? Thank you.
Brigadier Cronje, you have no independent recollection or memory of this incident that has been testified to now?
MR CRONJE: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR DU PLESSIS: You were the commander in chief of Captain Hechter, Van Jaarsveld, Mr Momberg and Mr Goosen during this occurrence, is that correct?
MR CRONJE: That is correct.
MR DU PLESSIS: And what is your attitude with regard to your responsibility as their commanding officer?
MR CRONJE: It is my responsibility to accept responsibility for what they did. They must have gotten my permission.
MR DU PLESSIS: And Brigadier, as you also testified in previous applications you were aware of the order that Brigadier Viktor gave to Captain Hechter and Captain van Jaarsveld and Viktor?
MR CRONJE: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR DU PLESSIS: And you were aware that there were such let's call it unlawful operations carried out by people under your command?
MR CRONJE: Definitely, yes.
MR DU PLESSIS: And there were also previous cases where you were aware and gave approval to operations of this nature, is that correct?
MR CRONJE: Yes Chairperson.
MR DU PLESSIS: And although you cannot remember would you say it is possible that Captain van Jaarsveld could have approached you with regard to this specific operation?
Would you say it's possible?
MR CRONJE: It is possible that he approached me, I don't know if he was involved Chairperson but it would have been the policy that he is the senior member and he would have approached me and made a submission.
MR DU PLESSIS: And would you then have given an order from such a submission?
MR CRONJE: I would have given an instruction of what members he should take with him.
MR DU PLESSIS: Right Brigadier, it didn't happen in all cases like that, is that correct?
MR CRONJE: Yes Chairperson but I can just mention that all my members their primary task was the combating of terrorism.
As they said they did things under A, B and C and as Hechter said ...(intervention)
MR DU PLESSIS: Right, let's just stop there Brigadier, we're going to go through this slowly but surely. Let me just ask you a last question. If you had been approached for approval with regard to this operation and information was given to you that the security guard might have information with regard to his brother who was a trained MK member, would you have given approval for the operation?
MR CRONJE: Yes I would Chairperson.
MR DU PLESSIS: Now Brigadier we heard questions from the Committee this morning with regard to the working of the security branch, I just want you to explain certain aspects for the Committee. Let's start at Unit C. Captain Hechter made it a bit clearer about what Unit C - what it's aim was, what they were involved in. Can you explain to the Committee what Unit C's purposes was?
MR CRONJE: C's work was actually as soon as a terrorist was arrested then it was handed over to them and they would see the case through court, they would do the investigation and see it through court but that does not mean that they didn't have informers of their own, they also had informers. Each unit section had informers which informed them about terrorism.
MR DU PLESSIS: Right and Unit B?
MR CRONJE: B the same therefore each ...(intervention)
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes but what was the purpose of Unit B?
MR CRONJE: Unit B worked only with Black matters and Black people.
MR DU PLESSIS: Right, would that include investigation of organisations like the UDF?
MR CRONJE: Yes it would Chairperson.
MR DU PLESSIS: And Unit A?
MR CRONJE: Unit A was mainly concerned with Whites, Coloured and Indians.
MR DU PLESSIS: In other words the investigations or the gathering of information by Unit A was done with regard to the actions of Coloureds, Indians and Whites, is that correct?
MR CRONJE: That is correct but their primary task as I said was the combating of terrorism. Each of them knew how to work with terrorism.
MR DU PLESSIS: Right Brigadier, if one of these units, let's say Unit A, say got information through an informer with regard to the action of a Coloured person, how would the person at Unit A handle this information, how would he go to work?
MR CRONJE: He would first have come to me and made a submission to me with the information at his disposal, it's a senior member. Afterwards I would have given that senior member instructions on what members he should take with him.
MR DU PLESSIS: That is now for an operation?
MR CRONJE: For an operation.
MR DU PLESSIS: Right but let's say there's only ordinary information coming in and this has to be processed in a workable way. Is such an informant's information filed?
MR CRONJE: It was filed in a file and those files were kept in a central place in my building.
MR DU PLESSIS: Now let's take the MK member in this case and let us suppose that there was already a file on him and information was acquired about this MK member through McKenzie. Would that information have been filed on the MK members file?
MR CRONJE: Yes it would.
MR DU PLESSIS: And would his file also - could it have been drawn before the operation?
MR CRONJE: Yes.
MR DU PLESSIS: And would you expect that Captain van Jaarsveld would have done this if there had been such a file on him?
MR CRONJE: Yes definitely.
MR DU PLESSIS: And the file system, the filing system, all the units at security branch would have had access to this filing system is that correct?
MR CRONJE: Yes that is correct.
MR DU PLESSIS: In other words - Mr Chairman, I'm leading the witness now but this evidence has been presented to the Committee lots of times before.
Brigadier, information with regard to a specific persons activities is filed in one file with regard to that person on that person's personal file?
MR CRONJE: Yes.
MR DU PLESSIS: And information of informers for example from Unit C and Unit A could all find it's way to this one file of this one person, potentially?
MR CRONJE: The information that is acquired, yes.
MR DU PLESSIS: And did it happen that some of the different units assisted each other with particular activities?
MR CRONJE: Yes Chairperson.
MR DU PLESSIS: In other words a member of Unit B could have asked for the assistance of Unit C to help with this specific operation?
MR CRONJE: Yes he would have been able to do that especially if I told him "go and get those persons and let them go with you." If Van Jaarsveld was involved and came to me I would definitely not have let him and Mamasela go alone on such an operation because I knew if they got information that they wanted then they would have had to act immediately, they would have had to act immediately.
MR DU PLESSIS: So you don't find it strange that more people were involved in this operation?
MR CRONJE: No, not at all Chairperson.
MR DU PLESSIS: And you also don't find it strange that different people from different units were involved in the operation?
MR CRONJE: No Chairperson.
MR MALAN: But don't you want to explain that a bit because I think that should have been the first question. Why would they not have taken the additional people from your own unit, isn't that the obvious place to get your additional people?
MR CRONJE: Well it would depend on that person's experience as well and in my own opinion of how that person would act. So I would for example have asked Hechter and Mr Goosen and Mr Momberg. I knew what they could do and therefore I would have said "look, take them, let them help you" because I would not have asked someone who could not stand up in the field work and fight, I would never have sent them with my people to do such an operation.
MR MALAN: You are now talking about an interrogation operation with a possible grasping action. Aren't there such people in each of the units?
MR DU PLESSIS: With respect Mr Malan, if I can just explain, I think Brigadier Cronje's evidence also includes a possible follow up operation against the trained MK members, is that correct?
MR CRONJE: That is correct and each person in that unit didn't have the same potential. I knew who to choose for such an operation.
CHAIRPERSON: How many people were there in each unit?
MR CRONJE: Chairperson I don't know I can't remember now. It wasn't very much, not too many on one unit, a few Whites and then a few Blacks.
CHAIRPERSON: Ten, twenty, fifty?
MR CRONJE: Much less than that.
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman we have presented at the first hearings the evidence of who were involved and I think I gave you a telephone list at that stage, I handed it in as an exhibit indicating how many people were involved according to my recollection and I think that evidence was also presented in the Ngo matter in Bloemfontein if you can recall. I think it would have been about four or five people in each unit Mr Chairman.
MR CRONJE: I think so Chairperson.
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I may just mention that Captain Hechter informs me in Unit B they were more, they were about ten, he says White members and then there were a few Black members as well, so Unit B was apparently the largest unit.
MR MALAN: The question remains but perhaps I should have asked Mr Hechter. Why would Unit B have asked for two people from Unit A to be involved in this operation?
MR CRONJE: Chairperson he wouldn't have drawn them, I would have told him which men to take.
MR MALAN: Yes but you don't have any knowledge of this operation, he doesn't have any knowledge of the operation.
MR CRONJE: No I don't but that is what I would have done.
MR MALAN: And Mr van Jaarsveld denies that there was any such operation.
MR CRONJE: Yes but Chairperson that is what I would have done.
MR MALAN: Are you saying in all such operations he would have given instruction that these two people ...(intervention)
MR CRONJE: No, not these two specific ones but people that I could trust.
MR MALAN: But the question is weren't there people in Unit B that you could ask?
MR CRONJE: Yes there were but I knew which people to take who wouldn't run away tonight if they were shot at.
MR MALAN: So in Unit B they would all have run away?
MR CRONJE: I'm not saying all of them.
MR MALAN: But there weren't some that you could find in Unit B that would not have run away? Therefore - no just a moment please General Cronje because you are leading evidence on hypothesis which actually in the nature of the case strengthens applications which makes certain factual allegations which are denied by the person implicated. Now let us come to the factual circumstances of what you worked with. On the evidence here Mr Goosen and Mr Momberg were drawn by Van Jaarsveld. They think with your approval at least but you or Captain Hechter have no information about that or no recollection of that. The question is simply this, in that time when the operation was carried weren't there in Unit B which had at least 10 Whites, weren't there at least two people who could have gone with Van Jaarsveld and with Hechter to carry out this operation?
MR CRONJE: I believe there were Chairperson.
MR MALAN: Right, the second is you say you would have appointed them based on their ability to fight and not run away if they had to fight? That's the basis on which you would have chosen them?
MR CRONJE: Yes that is correct.
MR MALAN: They allege in their application that they were drawn owing to their expertise in respect of their knowledge of this infiltration process and methods and the compiling of DLBs and so on etc etc. That was their evidence.
MR CRONJE: Chairperson, I've already said that all of them were trained men who could fight terrorism.
MR MALAN: Is there any reason why they would have had more knowledge of MK infiltration than people in Unit B?
MR CRONJE: No, I cannot see any reason for that, according to me everybody knew about terrorism.
MR MALAN: Right, thank you General.
CHAIRPERSON: I take it that the units were busy doing other things as well?
MR CRONJE: That is correct, Mr Chairman.
MR DU PLESSIS: May I just correct one thing? It's Brigadier, Mr Malan.
MR CRONJE: Thank you, Sir.
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes I can't remember where we were Mr Chairman, I think I was still leading evidence. I think so but, yes I was.
Brigadier and then to conclude, the evidence that you've given in the previous hearing regarding informers, the filing system, it's contained in detail in the previous documents?
MR CRONJE: That is correct.
MR DU PLESSIS: I have no further questions Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS
MR MALAN: I just want to ask one follow up question. You can't remember that there was any reporting back regarding this incident?
MR CRONJE: No I can't remember.
MR MALAN: If there was reporting back would you have made any notes?
MR CRONJE: No, the commanding officer of that division would have made the notes.
MR MALAN: Now which person would have made the notes on this incident?
MR CRONJE: If Van Jaarsveld was with them then he would have made the notes.
MR MALAN: And he would have written it in B's records?
MR CRONJE: In their files yes.
MR MALAN: In other words the applicants would not have done any entries in Unit A's records?
MR CRONJE: No Chairperson.
MR MALAN: So it wouldn't have been expected of them to do so?
MR CRONJE: No Chairperson.
JUDGE PILLAY: Even if the operation was clandestine or supposed to be clandestine would it still be entered in the files?
MR CRONJE: Yes, all our files were confidential, nobody from the outside had access to them.
MR MALAN: Was their any attempt to establish whether any entries were made in the records regarding this operation?
MR CRONJE: Not by me, if Van Jaarsveld had reported back to me it would have been orally and he would have made the entries in the records.
MR DU PLESSIS: I'm not sure whether Brigadier Cronje understood the question. Do you mean during that time or now in the meanwhile.
MR MALAN: Now since that time.
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Malan - Brigadier, don't you want to expand on the situation regarding the files?
CHAIRPERSON: I think we have had evidence haven't we that there are no files in existence, they've all been destroyed? They were all destroyed.
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR ALBERTS: Brigadier, we already know that Captain van Jaarsveld denies all involvement and information regarding this incident about which Momberg and Goosen had testified. Momberg and Goosen were your subordinates for many years and surely they were junior members, not only in Unit A but in the whole security branch in Northern Transvaal.
MR CRONJE: If I remember correctly Goosen was a Sergeant and Momberg was a Lieutenant. They were both then junior members.
MR ALBERTS: Also regarding experience, working experience, years of experience, relatively junior members of that unit, is that correct?
MR CRONJE: That is correct in that unit.
MR ALBERTS: And of the branch generally?
MR CRONJE: When I was transferred to that branch I found them there, I don't know how long they had been there before.
MR ALBERTS: Let's put it in this way, you were in command for quite a while, while they were members there?
MR CRONJE: I think it was more than two years, yes.
MR ALBERTS: That is more or less the time frame during which all these incidents happened. Those incidents which led to these amnesty applications. Now relevant to these applications you were most of the time the commanding officer of that branch, is that correct?
MR CRONJE: During that time?
MR ALBERTS: Yes.
MR CRONJE: Yes Chairperson.
MR ALBERTS: Are you aware of any incident during the course of this time while you were the commanding officer of that branch where Goosen and Momberg without any instruction and without having proper authorisation to execute any illegal operation on their own?
MR CRONJE: They would not have dared to do that.
MR ALBERTS: You wouldn't have put up with it?
MR CRONJE: No, not at all.
MR ALBERTS: What are the chances that in this specific incident something like that could have taken place and that all information was withheld from you? Is that not a probability that you, you had your finger on the pulse as the commanding officer, that you would become aware of illegal or rather unauthorised activities?
MR MALAN: I beg your pardon Mr Alberts, the evidence, he did not know about the authorised activities let alone the unauthorised activities.
MR ALBERTS: As I've understood his evidence he can't remember whether he was aware of it or not. I beg your pardon, I've understood you incorrectly.
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, may I perhaps just come in here? You will recall that there has been evidence and I don't think my learned friend was present when that evidence was led before the previous Committee about the fact that there were certain circumstances and certain incidents which happened of which Brigadier Cronje was not informed by Captain Hechter inter alia and Warrant Officer van Vuuren, so to be fair to my learned friend I just want to point it out to him that there was evidence to that effect in respect of Captain Hechter and Warrant Officer van Vuuren previously.
MR ALBERTS: Thank you Mr Chairman, I've taken note of that evidence of which I was unaware.
Brigadier, in this specific instance, let's just make sure about this, are you at this moment, is the situation at this stage that you cannot remember this specific incident or is the situation that you are telling the Committee that you've never known about it up until these applications were made? What now is the truth.
MR CRONJE: There are many instances which I have forgotten but about this incident I only heard about while talking to these two people.
MR ALBERTS: So in other words don't you remember it or did you not know about it at all?
MR CRONJE: I can't remember it.
MR ALBERTS: So is it possible that at that stage you knew about it but now because of memory loss you forgot about it and now having refreshed your memory you can't remember it independently?
MR CRONJE: That is a possibility yes.
JUDGE PILLAY: What about the other possibility that you did not know about it at all?
MR CRONJE: I can't say because I can't remember.
JUDGE PILLAY: You give the one version but not the other, you consider the one option but not the other?
MR ALBERTS: So you don't know which of these two possibilities is the truth from your independent recollection or rather as somebody as said, a loss of recollection.
MR CRONJE: Can I please say something? During this time they worked with me I never realised that they were lying to me. If they say then I knew about it, I cannot deny it but they did not say it. I said it's possible.
MR ALBERTS: So you are not able to say whether at that stage you were informed about this matter or not?
MR CRONJE: That is correct.
MR ALBERTS: Now today you sat here, you listened to testimony, listened to the evidence of Momberg and Goosen. I'm going to ask you a difficult question but it is very important for you to try and answer that. If you at that stage by Lieutenant Hechter or Van Jaarsveld or if anybody approached you with such information, if at that stage they approached you and said here is information obtained by one of the members, Mamasela, which indicated that a certain identified person was an MK member, is there any doubt that in general you would have authorised an ordinary interrogation, an ordinary interrogation.
MR CRONJE: Nobody would have approached me to tell me that they would kidnap somebody for an ordinary interrogation. If it happened like that and if it happened that they had kidnapped the person I knew that violence would take place.
MR MALAN: With respect Mr Alberts, are we not busy going outside the framework, is the information not that both applicants said that they were instructed, that they knew Brigadier Cronje knew about it, that Hechter was part of it and Hechter and Cronje's evidence we have now and they said that did not have any reason to doubt any of your clients' evidence but they have no independent recollection of this incident. Can they really take this matter further now. Are they not now telling you that there is nothing which is out of the ordinary regarding their evidence but we can't add any value to this testimony? Is this not the end of adding value to the testimony of these two gentlemen?
MR ALBERTS: It may be so Mr Chairman but all I'm trying to do is to this ipso facto matter is to test the probability regarding that possibility and that is that the two applicants who are my clients, that they were on a frolic of their own and that is not probable and it's only that probability I'm testing but if you are satisfied ...(intervention)
MR MALAN: Mr Alberts, the dilemma is that there is no evidence except the evidence by your two clients that this incident took place. We can't judge whether they were on a frolic on their own or not, by Cronje or Hechter, they have no knowledge of this incident. They can pass no judgement on that incident and I think the evidence is that they were reliable people in general and they should accept their word or what they are saying and I think we are really wasting time but if you still feel serious about this you can continue.
MR ALBERTS: Thank you Mr Chairman, I take note of what you're saying and I leave that there. In any case there is enough evidence to leave it in the area for argument. On that basis Mr Chairman, thank you very much, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR ALBERTS
JUDGE PILLAY: Brigadier, if they had kidnapped this person
they had to approach you first?
MR CRONJE: That is correct, yes.
JUDGE PILLAY: And they had to explain or they had to discuss this plan with you?
JUDGE PILLAY: And that was how you were in a position to choose certain people based on the fact that they could execute this operation. As I've gathered from their information is that all they wanted from this person who was to be kidnapped was where his brother was. I can't understand all the preparation for interrogation and that they wanted other information. All they wanted to know was where his brother was, who was a supposed or suspected terrorist? Can you explain that?
MR CRONJE: If they had that information they would have acted immediately, they would have not returned back to office.
JUDGE PILLAY: For me it does not make sense, is that all they wanted to know was where the brother was. They kidnapped him, they assaulted him, he was almost killed, this does not fit and the only thing they wanted from him was to know where his brother was?
MR CRONJE: That was the only information we wanted, to know where the brother was so that we could arrest him.
JUDGE PILLAY: Why do you go through all that rigmarole, how many people just to kidnap one person? You did not even attempt to ask him at his work where his brother was.
MR CRONJE: They went with not to cooperate with the kidnapping but should they find the MK member to arrest him.
There was no time to return back to office and to find more people to go back to arrest this person.
JUDGE PILLAY: Then they took him a hundred kilometres from there, I don't understand that?
MR CRONJE: I've learned that his family lived in that environment and it's possible that he could have been with his family then they were on the scene.
JUDGE PILLAY: That was not what was told to us.
MR CRONJE: That is what I think what I would have done.
JUDGE PILLAY: The reason why they went there was to test whether he would go back the next day?
MR CRONJE: As I understood what Mr Momberg said was why they left him there was to test him whether he would come back the next morning, what his reaction would be.
JUDGE PILLAY: It was not to leave him behind to stay with his family?
MR CRONJE: No, this was after the interrogation.
JUDGE PILLAY: Right.
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: I still have one or more question to ask.
Brigadier the members under your command including Momberg and Goosen, as you knew them as you've trained them, they were under your command and would they do that for their own gain?
MR CRONJE: No Mr Chairman.
MR DU PLESSIS: And would you ever expect from them or thought or today perhaps think that they would assault somebody during an interrogation when there was no purpose to it?
MR CRONJE: No Mr Chairman.
MR DU PLESSIS: And then lastly regarding ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: But we've heard evidence from them that that was the security police procedure?
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes I'm ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: All interrogations were accompanied by assaults, you say they would never have done it.
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, let me rephrase the question.
Brigadier what I mean is would you think that they would assault a person during interrogation just for the hell of it?
MR CRONJE: No.
MR DU PLESSIS: I should have phrased the question properly, Mr Chairman.
And then Brigadier you don't know what the availability of people at the other units were but at that stage were other people involved at the other units. Could it be possible that they were not available on a certain day at a certain stage, not all members were in their offices available all day long, were available for operations?
MR CRONJE: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS
WITNESS EXCUSED
CHAIRPERSON: I think we should just take a short adjournment at this stage in the light of the fact that we were told someone would be here at 20 to 4 and his counsel has just left the room and to see - oh, he hasn't he's here.
MR MEINTJIES: Excuse me Mr Chairman, but I'd like a short break please?
CHAIRPERSON: Very well.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION
CHAIRPERSON: It appears that the traffic is performing as well this afternoon as it was this morning and I understand that this gentleman will not be available for some considerable time, he's sitting enjoying the view along the road. Then there's no other witness we can call this afternoon, is there?
MR DU PLESSIS: No Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: I propose then that we will adjourn the present application till Wednesday morning when the witness will be available and we adjourn today's proceedings. Will o’clock tomorrow suit you gentlemen?
MR ALBERTS: It will suit me Mr Chairman.
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes Mr Chairman, I would have requested half past but I will go for ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Early mornings are good for you.
MR DU PLESSIS: It is in order with me Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Right, that appears to suit everyone, we will now adjourn till 9 o'clock tomorrow morning.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
