TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION COMMISSION

______________________________________________________CHAIRPERSON: We are here today to hear what has been called the Cronje Cluster, the second of them. The Committee consists of myself, Judge Andrew Wilson, Judge Pillay and Mr Wynand Malan. Would the legal advisors please announce themselves?

MR ALBERTS: As it pleases you Mr Chairman. My name is George Alberts. I am counsel acting for Momberg and Goosen on instructions of Attorneys Weavind and Weavind.

MR DU PLESSIS: May it please you Mr Chairman. Roelof du Plessis of the Pretoria Bar. I act on instructions of Strydom Britz Attorneys. I act on behalf of Brigadier Jack Cronje, Captain Jacques Hechter, Colonel Venter, Warrant Officer van Vuuren and Sergeant Pekaba.

MR ROSSOUW: Thank you Mr Chairman. My surname is Rossouw, I'm from the firm Rooth and Wessels on behalf of applicants Gouws, Oosthuizen and on behalf of implicated party Tiny Coetzer.

CHAIRPERSON: I assume Mr Rossouw that the implicated party Coetzer would not be implicated by Gouws and Oosthuizen?

MR ROSSOUW: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR MEINTJIES: Thank you Mr Chairman, I'm Roelof Meintjies, I'm from the firm Meintjies Waugh Attorneys. I represent implicated person J J H van Jaarsveld.

MR STEENKAMP: As it pleases you Mr Chairman, I'm Andre Steenkamp, I'm the evidence leader in this matter. Thank you Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: What matter will we be dealing with today or what matter will we be commencing with now?

MR STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, the matter we will be commencing with today is the matter of the kidnapping and assault of an unknown person and the first applicant will be Mr Momberg, W J, his application appears in bundle number 3 on page 551 to page 650 and he will be represented by Mr George Alberts. Bundle number 3, Mr Chairman, Mr Momberg, kidnapping and assault of unknown person. Thank you sir.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, may I perhaps just before we commence just for clarity sake deal with some of the applications which are on your roll which should not have been on your roll?

CHAIRPERSON: Certainly.

MR DU PLESSIS: The first incident is the Vryburg incident in which Colonel Roelf Venter is mentioned. The original Committee already gave amnesty to Colonel Venter in that matter.

CHAIRPERSON: Would you refer us to where it is set out?

MR DU PLESSIS: It is the - I beg your pardon - it is bundle 3 page 668 to 842. Then secondly, if I may refer you to bundle 4, the application of Warrant Officer Paul van Vuuren, the last one in bundle 4 which relates to the torture and turning of Scheepers Morudi. Warrant Officer van Vuuren already has an amnesty for that incident. You will recall that Van Vuuren and Hechter applied for that incident. Both received amnesty so the only person left in that incident is Bokaba who will give evidence before you. Thank you Mr Chairman.

JUDGE PILLAY: Mr du Plessis, the murder that occurred at Vryburg, Bokaba is not involved in that.

MR DU PLESSIS: It covers only Venter, yes. Yes, only Venter applied and he was the only one who received amnesty. May I perhaps for the Committee deal with something else which may be the correct place to deal with before we start? I have noticed that in the bundles the evidence of Brigadier Cronje in respect of the Pienaarsrivier matter which is on your roll tomorrow was not included in the bundle, the evidence of Brigadier Cronje in any of your bundles during his application. You will recall, Judge Wilson, that he did receive amnesty and he applied for that matter during the previous hearings and he received amnesty. So for that purpose in bundle 1, the second last incident referred to in bundle 1, the second last application should also be removed because Brigadier Cronje has already received amnesty for this matter and then the fourth one from the top, the same incident refers to Captain Hechter. Captain Hechter has not applied for this incident. He was not involved. He is however implicated by certain parties but I believe in the evidence that will be tendered to you it will be shown that he was not involved.

And then lastly, I made copies of Brigadier Cronje's evidence in the Pienaarsrivier application for you and perhaps I should hand it up. So if you want to read it before tomorrow then it is available. Attached thereto, Mr Chairman, attached thereto are copies of the incidents I referred you to now in respect of - or copies of the amnesty judgements relating to the incidents that I've referred you to now. So you have copies of Venter's Vryburg judgement, the Scheepers Morudi judgement, they are all attached to that bundle together with the Pienaarsrivier evidence. As it pleases you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, you've also given us earlier an application form?

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, perhaps I should just deal with that for purposes of the record, thank you Mr Chairman. In the bundle, in bundle 1, from page 83 to 291 it refers to an application of Brigadier Cronje and now the pages referred to there, Mr Chairman, are the pages of Brigadier Cronje's first set of applications. Brigadier Cronje has presented the Commission with a second set of applications consisting of three schedules which should have been the applications which should have been contained in bundle 1. I have handed his whole second set of applications to you which should have been the pages contained in bundle 1 from page 83.

CHAIRPERSON: So does that mean we should ignore pages 83 to 291 and instead have regard to the pages of the new bundle?

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, as it pleases you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: It was suggested we might give it an exhibit number but I think we rather replace it in the bundle.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes I actually should have numbered those pages Mr Chairman. I apologise for that.

CHAIRPERSON: Well the pages are numbered.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes but as if they form part of the bundle.

CHAIRPERSON: We number the first page, page 291.

MR DU PLESSIS: Page 83.

CHAIRPERSON: Page 83.

MR DU PLESSIS: As it pleases you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: It will go on to 111.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Now does that conclude the technical matters which have to be dealt with?

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman, from my side yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Right, shall we then proceed with the first application?

MR ALBERTS: As the Committee pleases Mr Chairman, I beg leave to call Mr Momberg to give evidence. It's Willem Johannes Momberg.

CHAIRPERSON: And what page of his application deals with this?

MR ALBERTS: Mr Chairman, his application is contained in bundle 3 from page as it's paginated 553 onwards.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes but I was asking what specific passage deals with the kidnapping that we're going to hear today?

MR ALBERTS: This specific incident is dealt with at pages 637 to 645.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR ALBERTS: Mr Chairman, Mr Momberg prefers to testify in Afrikaans.

CHAIRPERSON: Is he sitting?

MR ALBERTS: He is sitting on my right hand side.

WILLEM JOHANNES MOMBERG: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR ALBERTS: Mr Momberg, you are applying for amnesty regarding amongst others a specific incident which is mentioned, the kidnapping of an unknown security guard. This you find in bundle 3, page 637 to 638, is that correct?

MR MOMBERG: Yes.

MR ALBERTS: Regarding general background, your application regarding the present relevance is from page 553 of the same bundle to 573 of the same bundle - I beg your pardon, to pages 581?

MR MOMBERG: That is correct.

MR ALBERTS: And there you give the general background to the various deeds for which you are applying for amnesty?

MR MOMBERG: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR ALBERTS: Do you confirm the correctness of pages 553 to pages 581?

MR MOMBERG: I confirm that it is correct.

MR ALBERTS: You were in the police force at that time?

MR MOMBERG: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR ALBERTS: Where were you stationed when that incident happened?

MR MOMBERG: Mr Chairman, I was a member of the security branch, Northern Transvaal, situated in Pretoria.

MR ALBERTS: What was your rank?

MR MOMBERG: During that incident I was a Lieutenant.

MR ALBERTS: In which unit did you serve in that security branch?

MR MOMBERG: I was a member of Unit A and I had to investigate Whites, Coloured and Indian affairs.

MR ALBERTS: Are you still a member of the South African Police Force?

MR MOMBERG: Mr Chairman no, my service was terminated in 1995.

MR ALBERTS: Regarding the application itself, can you give the Committee an indication when this kidnapping happened?

MR MOMBERG: Mr Chairman, this incident happened during July to December 1987.

MR ALBERTS: And this appears on page 637 of the application?

MR MOMBERG: That is correct.

MR ALBERTS: Will you then with reference to that page and further then shortly explain to the Committee what this whole incident entails?

MR MOMBERG: Mr Chairman, during that period mentioned here Captain Jaap van Jaarsveld at that stage was a member of Unit B, asked me and Sergeant Goosen who were members of Unit A, requested us to assist him with the interrogation of a security guard in service of the United Building Society on the corner of Andries and Pretorius Street in Pretoria. Van Jaarsveld during this discussion mentioned that Mamasela had information, indicated that that specific guard's brother was an MK terrorist and he had already infiltrated the country.

MR ALBERTS: Can I just interrupt you? This Sergeant Joe Mamasela, in which unit did he serve?

MR MOMBERG: Mr Chairman, Mamasela was also a member of Unit B.

MR ALBERTS: And Van Jaarsveld also?

MR MOMBERG: That is correct. Mr Chairman, Van Jaarsveld requested our assistance in this interrogation because we had knowledge of MK members and the way they infiltrated.

MR ALBERTS: Can I interrupt you? Will you just explain to the Committee and give more information regarding this specific knowledge you've just mentioned here?

MR MOMBERG: Mr Chairman, during the same period I and Sergeant Goosen were the handlers of a certain informer who was well placed in the special operations structure of MK in Boputhatswana. As such we were on a daily basis involved with finding information, obtaining information, handling information from this informer regarding infiltration routes and the establishment of safe houses etc.

MR ALBERTS: Were you also well aware of the identity of MK members?

MR MOMBERG: Mr Chairman, to a large degree yes.

MR ALBERTS: And all these factors enabled you to assist Lieutenant van Jaarsveld?

MR MOMBERG: That is correct, yes.

MR ALBERTS: Will you please continue on page 638?

MR MOMBERG: Between four and five o'clock that afternoon Lieutenant Hechter, Van Jaarsveld, Mamasela, Goosen and myself were driving in a bus to Andries Street and we stopped a little way from the United Building Society's offices. While the other members waited in the bus Mamasela walked through the United place to go and fetch the security guard. I did not know his name. When that guard came off service Mamasela enticed him to get into the bus with us. Lieutenant Hechter then drove in the direction of Warmbad where the member's family was living.

MR ALBERTS: Can I interrupt you here? Just general information please, Lieutenant Hechter, in which unit was he at that stage?

MR MOMBERG: Mr Chairman, Lieutenant Hechter was also a member of Unit B.

MR ALBERTS: Thank you will you please continue?

MR MOMBERG: And then in the vicinity of Warmbad we went to a Black township. I was not aware what the name of that township was, I've never been there again. It was a totally foreign environment and we went and stopped in a quiet area in this township and then the security guard was confronted with the information that his brother was a MK member. He denied that. Mamasela slapped the security guard and continued with the interrogation in English. During this interrogation the security guard was assaulted by Mamasela, Van Jaarsveld and myself. We slapped him through the face with an open hand and hit him with our fists against his chest. This interrogation lasted for a whole hour. Van Jaarsveld became despondent and told us to kill the security guard.

MR ALBERTS: Now why would Van Jaarsveld do that?

MR MOMBERG: Mr Chairman, I must speculate and say that because Van Jaarsveld became tired and despondent and because we had assaulted the security guard he did not want to leave him.

MR ALBERTS: That was his only way out then, as I understand it? To avoid personal involvement or incrimination?

MR MOMBERG: That will be my deduction too, yes.

MR ALBERTS: Thank you. Will you continue on page 640?

MR MOMBERG: At that stage I realised that this action was not sanctioned by any senior officer and I said that I first wanted to speak to the security guard and I requested all the other people to leave the bus so that I could have a discussion with him. I talked to him for twenty minutes and he said that he would become an informer of our office.

MR ALBERTS: Can I interrupt you again? You said that you realised that this action was not sanctioned. Which activity are you referring to here, which action?

MR MOMBERG: I'm referring here to kill the security guard.

MR ALBERTS: What made you realise this?

MR MOMBERG: Mr Chairman, from the nature of the security guard's suspected involvement he was not suspected of being an MK member but his brother was an MK member and I thought this would only be interrogation and not necessarily elimination.

MR ALBERTS: Thank you, will you continue with the next paragraph on page 641?

MR MOMBERG: And then I called all the other members back and said that the security guard agreed that he would become an informer and would cooperate with us. I also mentioned that I had decided to meet with him the following morning to finalise all the matters. I told the security guard that he was free to go. He got out of the bus and he walked away. Our group returned to Pretoria.

The next morning I waited at the place where we decided to meet but the security guard never came back. I was directly involved in this assault and I would say that this assault was minimal. He had no external injuries but it is possible that his face could have been swollen the next day and that there were certain marks on his chest.

MR ALBERTS: Could you say at what time this interrogation took place?

MR MOMBERG: I can't remember the specific time but it was already dark so I would say it was after 7 o'clock.

MR ALBERTS: Would you please continue?

MR MOMBERG: As I've said in the first paragraph the initial instruction was to be of assistance to the interrogation. This interrogation was justified in the light of Mamasela's information. Brigadier Cronje was not involved directly with this incident but I would not suspect that he would agree to this but I doubt whether Cronje would have been willing to taking the above information into consideration that this person had to be killed. The interrogation of the security guard was aimed at obtaining information to identify an MK operator. All other relevant information regarding this MK operator would then be obtained and we also wanted to intimidate this person. This experience would be a deterrent to him and other people should they get to know about it. In the milieu in which the security branch operated this message to the liberation fighters was clear, you would get resistance if you work with the enemy.

MR ALBERTS: Would you just mention to the Committee where Brigadier Cronje fitted into this whole picture?

MR MOMBERG: Brigadier Cronje at that stage was the commanding officer of the security branch, Northern Transvaal.

MR ALBERTS: And was he then your direct commanding officer, he was the head of the whole branch?

MR MOMBERG: That is correct.

MR ALBERTS: Do you know whether Brigadier Cronje knew about this incident or not?

MR MOMBERG: Mr Chairman, I assume that Brigadier Cronje was aware that this person would be taken to be interrogated, in the light of the fact that people like Mamasela and Hechter were involved.

MR ALBERTS: After this incident, after you have already described it, what is your attitude regarding an instruction of this kind? Did you act on instruction and from whom did this instruction come?

MR MOMBERG: Yes I was acting under instruction and the direct instruction to me was from Lieutenant van Jaarsveld.

MR ALBERTS: Brigadier Cronje, would he also approve this interrogation should he get to know about it at any other instance?

MR MOMBERG: I would assume so yes.

MR ALBERTS: From your evidence it's clear that the only victim was the unknown security guard?

MR MOMBERG: That is correct.

MR ALBERTS: From your application it is clear that his details are unknown and you do not know his identity or any of his next-of-kin?

MR MOMBERG: No Mr Chairman.

MR ALBERTS: On page 645 of the application you mention that the political which had to be achieved in this case, it's under paragraph 10a, can you please read that into the record?

MR MOMBERG: Chairperson, the maintenance of the then political status quo in the R.S.A. together with the accompanying government dispensation.

MR ALBERTS: What was the political status quo at that stage? What was the reigning political party in respect of the government of the day?

MR MOMBERG: Chairperson, the government of the day consisted of the National Party and the nature of our activities as members of the South African Police, it was our task to support the government and to maintain it. With that in mind and with the ANC MK on the opposite pole we regarded this whole situation as a low intensity guerrilla warfare and as such we fought for the maintenance of the National Party.

MR ALBERTS: Further, on page 643 of the application, you deal with amongst other things the motive that you had in committing this deed. Can you repeat that? That's sub-paragraph B, (i).

MR MOMBERG: The motive in committing the above deeds was to protect the safety of the country and to overcome the political opposition to the government.

MR ALBERTS: And further, under the next sub-paragraph, can you put on record what was the political situation in the country at that stage?

MR MOMBERG: Chairperson, these deeds or offences took place in the face of political opposition and it was a direct counter-action to that.

MR ALBERTS: On page 644 your application continues. You also mention that the aim or the objective of the deeds was -or rather that deeds were aimed at political opponents of the government and or their property, is that correct?

MR MOMBERG: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: We have already dealt with the instruction under which you acted. Can I just refer you then to page 646 and further of the application up to page 649 of the application. Are you aware of the contents of those pages?

MR MOMBERG: I am up to date with the contents.

MR ALBERTS: Do you confirm the correctness thereof?

MR MOMBERG: Yes Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: Something that is not in the application as it is in this bundle are certain annexures amongst others the submission that General van der Merwe made to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission which included a study of four former commanders of the South African Police Commissioners. Are you aware of the contents of that?

MR MOMBERG: Yes Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: In broad lines, what is your attitude to the facts in that document?

MR MOMBERG: I agree with them Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: I may perhaps refer to bundle 2 which is currently before the Committee, that is the application of your co-applicant, Mr Goosen, amongst others the documents that I've just referred to, the annexures are contained in that from page 493 and further. Is that the document that you have just agreed with?

MR MOMBERG: That is correct, Chairperson

MR ALBERTS: That is to the end of that bundle. You can perhaps just look at that and familiarise yourself with that?

MR MOMBERG: I am satisfied that that is what I referred to.

MR ALBERTS: And lastly, the deeds for which you are applying here for amnesty appear on page 637 of the application, is that correct?

MR MOMBERG: Yes that is correct.

MR ALBERTS: Is that kidnapping, assault and other offences or delicts which are exposed by the facts that you've just given evidence?

MR MOMBERG: That is correct.

MR ALBERTS: Thank you Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: I should perhaps indicate that where there is an application in those sort of terms that we expect the applicant's legal advisor to give us a precise statement of what he is asking for amnesty for, not leave it to us to decide if there are any additional matters that fall under them, to set out precisely what offences.

MR ALBERTS: As the Committee pleases Mr Chairman, I've taken note thereof. I will consider the matter and if necessary I will amend the papers. Might I be given leave to deal with that aspect at the end of the ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, there's no hurry about that, it's just that where there's general things like "alle andere misdruiwe".

MR ALBERTS: I'm with you, Mr Chairman, I'll address that aspect later. As you please.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman, yes please.

Mr Momberg, Brigadier Cronje was your commanding officer at that stage?

MR MOMBERG: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: And Brigadier Cronje in the previous hearings in which he was involved he gave detailed evidence with regard to a order that he received. Mr Hechter also gave such evidence, an order that they received from Brigadier Viktor, do you know anything about that?

MR MOMBERG: Chairperson, I did see it in the evidence of Brigadier Cronje but that is all I know of it.

MR DU PLESSIS: And this order was given at a stage during 1985 by Brigadier Viktor after he had informed Captain Hechter and Van Jaarsveld and his son and called them in and told them that Pretoria was burning and fire should be fought with fire and if someone threw a stone then a stone should be shown back, if someone burnt down a house another house should be burnt down in return and detailed evidence exists on that, that it was part of the counter-revolutionary strategy of the government and the National Party at that stage, do you have any knowledge of that?

MR MOMBERG: Yes Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: You do not deny that this action of yourself under this broad instruction took place under this broad instruction?

MR MOMBERG: In no way Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: And if the evidence of Brigadier Cronje is that all these actions were sanctioned by him or would have been sanctioned by him insofar as he cannot remember the incidents or was not told of them because the instruction of Brigadier Victor, then you would not deny that?

MR MOMBERG: No Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: And Mr Momberg for the sake of completeness I want to put it to you that Captain Hechter could remember nothing of this incident when he submitted his first application and that he only became aware of this incident again after he had discussions with you and Mr Goosen when you drew up your applications. Do you have any comment on that?

MR MOMBERG: Chairperson no, I accept that. Mr Hechter has no reason to deny anything or to acknowledge it. If he says he can't remember it then I accept that.

MR DU PLESSIS: And lastly, I just want to ask you, do you agree that the action that was directed against the security guard because you wanted information about his brother was in general directed in your struggle against the liberation movements?

MR MOMBERG: Definitely Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: And although the action was directed against the security guard because of his connection with his brother or possible knowledge of his brother, the action was not necessarily directed against the security guard as a person but against the liberation movement, is that correct?

MR MOMBERG: I agree Chairperson.

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

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MEINTJIES: May it please you Mr Chair, I'm Roelf Meintjies appearing on behalf of Mr van Jaarsveld.

Mr Momberg, after your application came to my knowledge I consulted fully with Mr van Jaarsveld. Although Mr van Jaarsveld has applied for amnesty for certain incidents it is my duty to put the following to you, that Captain van Jaarsveld in my affidavit which will be handed up tomorrow will deny that he was in any way involved in this incident and that he will also deny that he has any knowledge of this incident. What is your comment to that?

MR MOMBERG: Chairperson, it is surely Captain van Jaarsveld's right to deny that he was involved in anything like that. However, I can remember that he was involved in this incident.

MR MEINTJIES: I have no further questions Mr Chair.

MR MALAN: Mr Momberg, did I understand your evidence right that Captain van Jaarsveld was with the other unit not the same as yours?

MR MOMBERG: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: On what basis was he entitled to give you orders?

MR MOMBERG: Chairperson, purely on the basis that he was my senior and that although units were divided it wasn't structured in such a way that it was completely unsuitable for a person to approach me and give me an instruction.

MR MALAN: Would you have had to obey orders from people that did not fall in your unit's hierarchy?

MR MOMBERG: In most respects yes unless it seemed that it was a completely unlawful order or completely opposite to what my commanding officer would have given.

MR MALAN: In your written application you said that they asked for your assistance, you didn't say that they gave you an instruction.

MR MOMBERG: Chairperson, that is correct, it is a request but a request from an officer who is your senior is after all regarded as a polite instruction.

MR MALAN: You say you, after the assault you would have been the handler of the security guard?

MR MOMBERG: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: And you said that you made an appointment to meet him?

MR MOMBERG: That is correct.

MR MALAN: Where would you have met him?

MR MOMBERG: Chairperson, I would have met him in Schoeman Street between Paul Kruger and the one to the east, I'm not quite sure what the street name is.

MR MALAN: Andries?

MR MOMBERG: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: In other words at his work?

MR MOMBERG: No Chairperson, it's close to his work but it is also a distance away.

MR MALAN: Yes, it's just on the block behind?

MR MOMBERG: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: What time would you have met him, can you remember?

MR MOMBERG: Chairperson, if I remember correctly I set a time of 8 o'clock?

MR MALAN: And you left him at Warmbaths and it was night?

MR MOMBERG: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: How would he have been 8 o'clock, how could he have been back in Pretoria at 8 o'clock from Warmbaths?

MR MOMBERG: Chairperson, this action was done with a specific purpose, purely for the fact that it was a forced recruitment, if one could call it that. The fact that the guard had already been assaulted and that we then tried to recruit him to try and save the situation and I did it in fact so that I could test the guard, point one, to see if he would arrive, if he would take trouble to arrive for his appointment. So I basically made a test for him to see what he would do.

MR MALAN: Did you ever follow it up after he did not arrive?

MR MOMBERG: Chairperson no, after he didn't come to the first appointment I regarded it as too risky to do any follow up work.

MR MALAN: Thank you Chair.

JUDGE PILLAY: Mr Momberg, I get the impression that you feel justified in not doing what Van Jaarsveld asked you to do?

MR MOMBERG: Chairperson yes, as far as the killing of a person is concerned I would definitely insist on a bit more than just Van Jaarsveld's instruction.

JUDGE PILLAY: What was different with the order to commit kidnapping.

MR MOMBERG: In my opinion the fact that we enticed the applicant under false pretences and then interrogated him with the accompanying assault, that was a totally different situation than eliminating a person.

JUDGE PILLAY: This was not as bad then?

MR MOMBERG: Chairperson yes, seen as a whole. Now if you look back it is equally bad to take a person's freedom away, it is probably just as bad but at that stage I had to weigh up am I going to just interrogate a person and assault him or am I going to kill him and there was a definite shift in emphasis to me.

JUDGE PILLAY: You see, why I'm asking that question, what concerns me you didn't use the normal course, legal course, to interrogate this man and it concerns me why not?

MR MOMBERG: Chairperson, it is so and it is a question that many people would probably ask that the fact of the matter is that the normal channels at that stage of the struggle between the government and the ANC alliance on the other side, it was at such a stage that it was not practical always to follow the channels of the law.

JUDGE PILLAY: In 1987?

MR MOMBERG: That is correct, Chairperson.

JUDGE PILLAY: Many people were arrested without hearing and so on at that stage?

MR MOMBERG: Yes Chairperson, I'm not saying that no people were arrested and no people were held. All that I'm trying to say is that outside of the normal legal action there were also these clandestine actions if I may call it that.

JUDGE PILLAY: I can understand that. I found out now that it happened but here is a brother of a person who was suspected, now why an operation so no one would know?

MR MOMBERG: Chairperson, it's partly as an intimidating effect on the guard, the realisation that no one knew where he was. It would have made it easier for us to get information from this man. In the situation which was there at that stage it was so that the largest part of the population, the Black population of this country would not willingly, voluntarily have given a member of the South African Police information.

JUDGE PILLAY: Wouldn't you have gone to tell the people what happened to him?

MR MOMBERG: Chairperson yes, he probably would have if there wasn't an attempt at recruitment, he would afterwards have told people that he was taken by the police and assaulted.

JUDGE PILLAY: But in effect it wouldn't have stayed there because he would not have been able to identify us in the first place and secondly there would not have been any record of this person on any official register so he could have spread his story in a living area but he could never have come close to us to really create a problem for us.

JUDGE PILLAY: Because it wasn't in the incidents book?

MR MOMBERG: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: But carrying on from there, as I understand it, this man had done nothing wrong, all you wanted was information that would enable you to make contact with his brother?

MR MOMBERG: Chairperson, not really contact with his brother but to find out where his brother was and then to make an investigation from there into his MK activities and then eventually to take him out of the community.

CHAIRPERSON: But wasn't it obvious that once you had interrogated him like this and beaten him up, that as soon as he was let go he would cause his brother to be informed "look out, the police are after you"?

MR MOMBERG: Chairperson yes, that is always a possibility that you have to look at surrounding circumstances. Distrust was the order of the day and the first question that this guard would probably have had to answer if he had told his brother that he was interrogated by the police would have been "well what did you do to draw attention to yourself?" So this would immediately have created distrust between brother and brother. And once again I get back to the recruitment attempt, had I succeeded in recruiting this man, if he had arrived for the next morning's appointment then this man would have been in a situation by mentioning something to someone, he would have put his own life in danger.

JUDGE PILLAY: What would have happened to him if he had said he did not want to be an informer?

MR MOMBERG: Chairperson, without sounding cold blooded we would have had to take our chances. I would definitely have not gone along with the man being killed.

MR MALAN: Mr Momberg, the unknown person, the security guard, did he ever acknowledge that his brother was an MK member?

MR MOMBERG: No Chairperson, he was evasive in that regard but his first reaction was denial.

MR MALAN: Mr Momberg, I assume his last reaction was also denial, is that what you are saying or are you saying that he acknowledged it after that. Please listen to my question. Did the security guard at any stage say that his brother was in fact a member of MK?

MR MOMBERG: Not in so many words Chairperson.

MR MALAN: In how many words did he then?

MR MOMBERG: Chairperson, during the interrogation you investigate various avenues, if I may say that, and at a stage when it appeared to us that this man had nothing to say to us about his brother that was important we started looking at other things, other political structures, other possible involvement and we aimed at what he knew of what was happening in the struggle. Even if he or his brother wasn't involved in the MK structures he could still have been worth something to me as an informer.

MR MALAN: Can you say anything about that information that you got from him that he could have given you or about which he could have given information?

MR MOMBERG: Chairperson, if I remember correctly, this man could give me information although not detailed at this stage, owing to the time limits, but he could give me information on structures in his township. If I refer to structures I'm referring to this F structures and so on in his own township. Now that was naturally also part of our activities.

MR MALAN: The group that went out with the mini-bus, did they all return that evening?

MR MOMBERG: That is correct, Chairperson, apart from the security guard himself.

MR MALAN: And there was no attempt ever again to approach the guard and to find out what happened to him? Do you know if there were any attempts to monitor him?

MR MOMBERG: Not as far as my knowledge goes, Chairperson, no. When he didn't arrive for his appointment when I wanted to finalise the recruitment with him I left the matter there because as I've already said I regarded it as risky because it could have gone either way, he could have made a case at the police or he could have reported the matter to other people and we could have been drawn into a trap, not an armed trap as such but we could have been identified by people.

MR MALAN: You answered to a question of Mr Rossouw I think, or was it Mr Meintjies that as far as you remember Mr van Jaarsveld was involved in this action?

MR MOMBERG: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: Can you remember him specifically at all these occasions where you say that he was and the actions and the words that you ascribe to him, can you specifically remember that?

MR MOMBERG: Chairperson yes, I remember when he approached us, me and Sergeant Goosen in the office and told us that he would need us that night. He asked us to help with the interrogation. I also remember that he was in the mini-bus while we waited for Mamasela to bring the guard to the mini-bus and I also remembered that he actively took part in the interrogation, yes.

MR MALAN: Anything else that you remember of him?

MR MOMBERG: Chairperson, what stands out in this incident is the fact that Van Jaarsveld took the leadership and that is one of the reasons that made me decide to counter him with regard to the killing of the guard, the fact that Hechter played a very minimal role and at that stage I knew that Hechter and Brigadier Cronje and them were busy with operations and the fact that Hechter stood back made alarm bells go off for me.

MR MALAN: Can you explain that to me? Was their bad blood between Hechter and Van Jaarsveld?

MR MOMBERG: No, not at all, that's not what I want to say. All that I'm trying to say is the fact that should be an order from Brigadier Cronje to got further than merely interrogation, then at that stage my understanding was that that instruction would have gone to Hechter and not Van Jaarsveld.

MR MALAN: Would it then also be logical that when he gave the instruction that the guard should be murdered that Hechter would counter him and not you?

MR MOMBERG: That's possible Chairperson but it didn't happen. I can speculate of what Mr Hechter's attitude at that stage was, I can't speak on his behalf.

MR MALAN: But you are saying that Hechter was your senior? If I understand your evidence correctly you're saying you would have actually taken guidance from Hechter and when he stood back you were suspicious?

MR MOMBERG: Can I just explain. Van Jaarsveld was a senior in our group. After him it was Hechter and then myself, Goosen and Mamasela. What I'm trying to say is, I was approached from the start to do an interrogation, there was no question right from the start that this man would be eliminated.

MR MALAN: In what unit did you say that Hechter was, A or B?

MR MOMBERG: Unit B, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: So was Hechter directly under the command of Van Jaarsveld?

MR MOMBERG: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: Were there other people from Unit A with you?

MR MOMBERG: No Chairperson, it was only myself and Sergeant Goosen.

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR ALBERTS: Mr Momberg, would it have served any purpose at all after this interrogation to have killed this particular guard?

MR MOMBERG: No Chairperson, apart from the fact that it would have hidden our deeds, it would not have served any other purpose.

MR ALBERTS: No incident took place in 1987. Was this within the security police customary modus operandi if I can put it in that way to gather information amongst other ways in a violent manner?

MR MOMBERG: Yes Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: Now the choice that you had ex post facto at that time was to keep the person in detention and in that way to interrogate him with the purpose of acquiring information. Would you have been able to use the same violence within interrogation where he was kept in detention legally?

MR MOMBERG: No not at all, Chairperson.

JUDGE PILLAY: But it has happened before that people were unlawfully assaulted when they were in detention?

MR MOMBERG: That is correct, Chairperson and it created unending problems so we avoided it at all costs.

MR ALBERTS: Just a few other questions. From your evidence it is quite clear that you put a difference in emphasis on murder on the one hand and kidnapping on the other hand and assault on the other hand. What was the reason for this differentiation that you made. Why did you do that?

MR MOMBERG: Chairperson at that stage when the incident occurred although the definition probably reads kidnapping, I didn't see it at that stage as kidnapping, I saw it as we are removing a person in a clandestine manner for interrogation and to take a person away for interrogation where violence would be involved to what extent whatever and then to kill a person are to me to clearly different things.

MR ALBERTS: You were involved in Unit A and from your evidence it is clear that this interrogation was actually for the sake of the work of Unit B, is that correct?

MR MOMBERG: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: So would it in any case not have been Lieutenant van Jaarsveld, would it not have been his duty to decide precisely what should be done to this person or not and in what way any information would be acquired of him?

MR MOMBERG: Chairperson yes, as far as it concerns the interrogation and the application of the information, yes it would have been Van Jaarsveld's duty and then also the final decision on what would be done to the man with this information that we had should he be detained, what should be done with him. The final decision would have been with Van Jaarsveld.

MR ALBERTS: And would that not also have been the case with regard to the aftermath of the incident and here I'm referring specifically to the meeting which was arranged for the next day. After that wasn't realised, whose work was that actually to follow it up or not?

MR MOMBERG: That would have been Unit B's work, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: Excuse, can I just ask further? Did Unit B ever come and ask you what happened after you were to have met the security guard at 8 o'clock?

MR MOMBERG: Yes Chairperson, there was an enquiry from Van Jaarsveld. Yes Van Jaarsveld did ask me if the man arrived and I answered negatively and we left it there. I didn't ask him to do anything else from his unit's side and as I said, I regarded it as risky, I didn't do anything else.

MR MALAN: Did he never speak to you about the order of killing, that you countered it?

MR MOMBERG: No Chairperson. I'm struggling a bit to find the right words but even after that there was not bad blood between us about the fact that I countered him. I think in his heart he was also glad that we could find another way out.

MR MALAN: On the way back in the mini-bus did you have any discussion about that instruction to kill and the decision not to do it?

MR MOMBERG: No Chairperson, not so far as I can remember. Had it come into discussion and this is pure speculation, then we would have kept it very neutral because it was so shortly after the incident. We would not then have discussed it in detail.

MR MALAN: But you are saying if I can just sum up, Van Jaarsveld was your senior, you would have been obliged to take instructions from him, a request is actually an instruction. He gives a certain instruction which you decide is unlawful, you do not carry it out, you actively go against him, the direction that you choose never has results because the security guard does not arrive and he never says anything else about it except to hear if the guard arrived?

MR MOMBERG: That is summarised correctly, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: Yes thank you.

MR ALBERTS: Thank you Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: So that concludes the applicant's evidence?

MR ALBERTS: Indeed Mr Chairman.

______________________________________________________CHAIRPERSON: But I am aware of the fact that we started late this morning, that's why we have not taken an adjournment at the normal time and I am also aware of the fact that certain people may have been here for some time awaiting our arrival and if they would desire us to have a short adjournment at this stage we'll take one. It seems that it's not necessary. Carry on.

MR ALBERTS: As it pleases you, I ask permission to lead the evidence of Mr Goosen, Mr Eric Goosen.

ERIC GOOSEN: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR ALBERTS: Are you still in the police force or not?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, yes.

MR ALBERTS: So you are still a serving member of the South African Police Service?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, yes.

MR ALBERTS: What is your rank?

MR GOOSEN: Superintendent.

MR ALBERTS: Where are you stationed at the moment?

MR GOOSEN: I'm stationed at the Johannesburg area, I'm the Deputy Head of Crime and Intelligence.

MR ALBERTS: Your application for amnesty is found in this whole bundle 2, is that correct?

MR GOOSEN: Yes.

MR ALBERTS: For the present purposes you are applying for amnesty regarding specific incidents which appear in this bundle from 451, is that correct?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, yes.

MR ALBERTS: And then also relevant to this specific incident is the introduction to your whole application and this application appears on page 295 up to page 366, is that correct?

MR GOOSEN: Yes.

MR ALBERTS: And in that you describe the general background, amongst others you give the Committee an indication of what your career in the police to what it entailed up to this report. Do you confirm that these facts are correct?

MR GOOSEN: I confirm the correctness of these facts.

MR ALBERTS: This incident took place during 1987 according to your application?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, yes.

MR ALBERTS: At that stage you were a member of the security police?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct.

MR ALBERTS: Where were you stationed?

MR GOOSEN: I was stationed at the security branch, Northern Transvaal in Unit A in that specific branch.

MR ALBERTS: The same unit which Mr Momberg gave evidence of. Who was the commanding officer of the security branch in Pretoria?

MR GOOSEN: Brigadier Jack Cronje.

MR ALBERTS: Just for the record this specific incident encompasses pages 451 to 459 and after that there are certain other incidents which are irrelevant now and then again from page 489 is your closing comments. This is up to page 492. Are you aware of the contents of those pages?

MR GOOSEN: I am aware of the contents.

MR ALBERTS: Do you confirm the correctness?

MR GOOSEN: I confirm the correctness.

MR ALBERTS: And then in your application other than Mr Momberg, all the annexures are also part of this bundle, this is from page 493 to 550 of this bundle?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: For the present interest your submission to the Committee was made by General van der Merwe and the relevant documents and those appear from page 534. Are you aware of the contents of that?

MR GOOSEN: I am aware of the contents.

MR ALBERTS: And do you agree with the contents?

MR GOOSEN: I agree with those contents.

MR ALBERTS: Against that background can we come back to page 451 of your application and the facts regarding the kidnapping of a security guard are given. From page 451 will you just give certain highlights of this incident?

MR GOOSEN: Mr Chairman, in July - December 1987 Captain van Jaarsveld, he was a member of Unit B, one afternoon he asked Momberg and myself who were members of Unit A, he approached us and asked us to assist him with the interrogation of a security guard who was in service of the United Building Society on the corners of Andries and Pretorius Streets in Pretoria.

MR ALBERTS: Can I interrupt you? This Lieutenant van Jaarsveld, he was not attached to your unit but he approached you with a request. How did you interpret that?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, he was a commanding officer or the acting commanding officer of Unit B and it was usual that I would receive instruction from the Colonel to assist Hechter with certain operations so the instruction which I received or the request from Van Jaarsveld was not unnatural.

MR ALBERTS: You regarded that as an instruction?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct.

MR ALBERTS: Because of the general nature of the previous instruction from Cronje?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, yes.

MR ALBERTS: This request of this instruction from Van Jaarsveld, what did that entail?

MR GOOSEN: Mr Chairman, as I understood that request or that instruction was that I should assist in the interrogation of that person, the planning of where it should happen and I and Momberg were not involved in the planning but our supporting role would be specifically to use our knowledge regarding the infiltration and the logistics of the infiltration of MK members.

MR ALBERTS: And Lieutenant van Jaarsveld, did he give you any background regarding this interrogation? What was the purpose of that?

MR GOOSEN: Mr Chairman, during this discussion all I could gather was that a colleague of Van Jaarsveld, Mamasela, made contact with the security guard and he determined that this security guard had a brother who was a suspected MK member, had already infiltrated the country and our interrogation would be geared to gather further information regarding this brother.

MR ALBERTS: Will you go further then with page 452?

MR GOOSEN: He said and that is Lieutenant van Jaarsveld, that ...(intervention)

MR ALBERTS: I want to interrupt you, you've already mentioned that, go onto the next paragraph.

MR GOOSEN: Between 4 and 5 o'clock that specific afternoon Lieutenant Hechter, Van Jaarsveld, Momberg, Sergeant Mamasela and myself drove in a kombi to Andries Street where we stopped a little way from United Building Society's offices. While we were waiting in the bus Mamasela walked to the United to go and fetch the security guard, I still do not know what his name is. When this person came of service, Mamasela enticed him and persuaded him to get into the bus with us. Lieutenant Hechter then drove in the direction of Warmbaths where the security guard's family was living permanently. We went into a Black township in that vicinity, I don't know what the name of the township is and I've never been there before or never been there afterwards. It was a totally strange area to me.

We stopped in that township and Van Jaarsveld and Hechter confronted this specific person with an allegation that his brother was an MK cadre. He denied that.

MR ALBERTS: Can I interrupt you there? At what time did this confrontation take place?

MR GOOSEN: The precise time is not known to me but I would gather it was round about 7 o'clock that evening because it was dark already.

MR ALBERTS: Will you continue please?

CHAIRPERSON: Can I interrupt you here? I assume from what I can see from here that you have proper copies of page 453, 454 and 455?

MR ALBERTS: Indeed Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mine is - my colleagues has the overlapping printing of 453, 454, 455, 456 so if perhaps during the adjournment we could get copies made?

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE: Mr Chairman, I'll be very happy to give you my copy now, it will help you immediately.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on.

MR GOOSEN: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mamasela hit him in the face and further interrogated him. During this interrogation ...(intervention)

JUDGE PILLAY: After how long was this, after the interrogation had started?

MR GOOSEN: I would assume about after 15 minutes he was hit in his face the first time after his first denials.

During this interrogation with certain intervals by Mamasela and Van Jaarsveld and Momberg he was assaulted by them and they hit with an open hand in his face and they hit with their fists on his upper body. With this situation, this continued for about an hour. Lieutenant van Jaarsveld became despondent and asked me and Momberg who were his juniors and he instructed us to kill the security guard. Lieutenant Momberg said that he would first want to discuss things with this person and asked us to leave him alone with the security guard.

The two of them stayed behind in the bus and the rest of us walked away. After about twenty minutes Lieutenant Momberg asked us to get into the Kombi again and told us that he had persuaded the security guard to work as an informer. Momberg also said that the next morning he had made an appointment with the security guard to make further arrangements regarding his involvement as an informer.

We left the person there and returned to Pretoria. I have never seen that person again afterwards and have no further information regarding him. As far as I know this person did not become part of our informer network, I don't know why. Based on my experience and according to my judgement, this assault was minimal. His face would have been swollen the next day and he would also have had bruises on his upper body. As already mentioned, the initial instruction I had received from Van Jaarsveld was only to assist him during an interrogation which was legitimate in the light of the information which Mamasela had obtained. I don't know if

Brigadier Cronje had information regarding this interrogation but I have no reason to suspect that that would be approved by him. I doubt however whether Brigadier Cronje would have been willing to under these circumstances allow that this person be killed. The purpose of the interrogation and the removal of the security guard was to obtain information from him in order to identify an MK operator and to get further information which could be relevant to obtain that information and that this activity including the assault had to have an intimidating effect on the person. This would serve as a deterrent to him and to any other person who came to hear about it. The message at that stage to be conveyed by the security police to the liberation fighters if you could get resistance.

MR ALBERTS: And on pages 457 to 459 you deal with certain other aspects of the application. Are you aware of that, do you confirm the correctness of the allegations on these pages?

MR GOOSEN: I confirm that as correct.

JUDGE PILLAY: Was there any reason which you knew about that this person should be deterred or should be frightened?

MR GOOSEN: The initial planning to kidnap this person to bring him in for interrogation and the accompanying interrogation, I was not part of that planning. The fact of intimidation because of the assault and the kidnapping, I was aware of that, that was a necessary consequence of this action.

JUDGE PILLAY: But why? What did you know that forced you to intimidate him? Why was he not an ordinary person in the street?

MR GOOSEN: He was regarded as an ordinary man on the street but the information showed that his brother was an infiltrator and trained MK cadre, he was already in the country and it was very important for us to obtain that information and in the process ...(intervention)

JUDGE PILLAY: Which information?

MR GOOSEN: Information regarding where the brother was at that stage and with the details we could obtain then we could evaluate it with terrorist photo albums, with certain dockets at the security police and we could do certain evaluation and other actions could have been taken accordingly.

MR ALBERTS: Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MEINTJIES: Thank you Mr Chairman.

I put it to you that Captain van Jaarsveld denies any involvement in this activity and he denies that he has any knowledge of this incident. What is your comment?

MR GOOSEN: Mr Chairman, as far as I can remember this incident, I personally together with Lieutenant Momberg received instruction from Van Jaarsveld in our office. Van Jaarsveld was present in the bus while we were waiting for Mamasela to lure this security guard to the bus. This whole operation and the interrogation in the Warmbad environment was under instruction of Van Jaarsveld and also he participated in the assault and he was during all relevant times present during this incident.

MR MALAN: Mr Goosen, you've also referred to everything like Mr Momberg, like you've never referred to the instruction to kill the security guard. Mr Momberg also did not do that.

MR GOOSEN: I don't understand the question.

MR MALAN: You said that at all times during the assault he was present in the bus but when you answered to Van Jaarsveld denying, you did not say again that you do remember that he gave instructions to kill the security guard.

MR GOOSEN: It's perhaps a fault on my side but I thought the Commission had already the information.

MR MALAN: But the other information is also available for the Committee, you're repeating everything like Momberg but you do not refer to the instruction to kill. Can you explain that?

MR GOOSEN: That is a mistake from my side not to include Van Jaarsveld's instruction in my answer.

MR MALAN: And you think Momberg also made a bona fide error in this regard?

MR GOOSEN: I can't speak on his behalf, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

MR MEINTJIES: I have no further questions Mr Chairman.

MR MALAN: Mr Meintjies, are you going to call your client to give evidence?

MR MEINTJIES: Mr Chair, I will hand in a sworn affidavit as discussed in Chambers.

MR MALAN: Should the Committee like to put questions to him would he be available?

MR MEINTJIES: That can be arranged yes that he can be available.

MR STEENKAMP: I have no questions, thank you Mr Chairman.

JUDGE PILLAY: Mr Goosen did you have a suspicion that this person would deny that he had any knowledge about his brother being an MK member?

MR GOOSEN: During the interrogation you could foresee that he would be evasive that his brother was a trained MK terrorist.

JUDGE PILLAY: But before this whole operation started, kidnapping took place, did you think that you would deny in any case?

MR GOOSEN: Mr Chairman, I'll answer in this way. With the initial report we obtained, the initial report from Mamasela to Van Jaarsveld regarding the circumstances, the brother who was an MK cadre, we were not involved in that planning to have been able to foresee those things at that stage. We were instructed to assist them after Mamasela had made this information available. We were just asked to assist during the interrogation.

JUDGE PILLAY: Did you never think of suggesting that the person should be arrested and then interrogated? Perhaps he would give acceptable answers within a minute?

MR GOOSEN: I don't know whether that option was not considered I can only speculate. Perhaps that would not have been the necessary effect to detain him legally to interrogate him violently, I can only speculate but I'm not aware why that decision was not taken and why it was decided to kidnap this person.

JUDGE PILLAY: Did you realise that kidnapping would take place and therefore illegal actions would be committed?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, yes. Interrogation from the point of view of the security branch also entailed violence so this was an option beforehand that we would handle this person violently so I reconciled myself with the fact that kidnapping would take place and then violence would follow to obtain the necessary information.

JUDGE PILLAY: Why do you think that Van Jaarsveld would instruct you to kill the person?

MR GOOSEN: Mr Chairman I have to speculate. I can't testify about something which went on his head at that stage. Perhaps he panicked during this situation when the interrogation did not have positive results, we had already assaulted the person and he foresaw that it could have caused problems for us in future.

JUDGE PILLAY: At that house where you found this man were there no other people?

MR GOOSEN: At the office Mr Chairman?

JUDGE PILLAY: As I've understood your evidence you fetched him?

MR GOOSEN: We fetched him from his office between 4 and 5 that afternoon. We sent Mamasela to the Building Society. There were many people in the streets and that's why we came to the conclusion that the only way Mamasela could lure this person to the bus was to give the wrong impression.

JUDGE PILLAY: Was it never considered to go to his house? Perhaps you would find his mother or family members there to find out whether the brother was a terrorist?

MR GOOSEN: That decision was not made by me or Momberg. Van Jaarsveld from Unit B made that decision and he decided on that modus operandi.

JUDGE PILLAY: What then was your role in the interrogation?

MR GOOSEN: I was a co-handler of well placed infiltrators in this group, I had the necessary knowledge regarding the logistics of the infiltrated MK terrorists, the creation of safe houses and I had a very good knowledge of certain MK terrorists who would infiltrate and because of that knowledge I and Momberg were asked to be involved in the interrogation.

JUDGE PILLAY: All that knowledge, how did that assist you during the interrogation.

MR GOOSEN: I would assume that should he make certain admissions and should his brother be at a certain house we could be able to make an evaluation based on this information obtained.

JUDGE PILLAY: Can I deduct then that because he denied and that he gave no information that you played no part in the interrogation?

MR GOOSEN: It could be the case yes but in many instances during interrogation and the accompanying assault that these people who had information answered evasively and denied certain things so I can only think that it could be that this person really does not know anything or he is hiding some information.

JUDGE PILLAY: Can you tell us what you did during this incident?

MR GOOSEN: I was not involved in the assault. I played a secondary role during the interrogation, this interrogation was done initially by Hechter and Van Jaarsveld and then followed by Mamasela, Van Jaarsveld and Momberg.

JUDGE PILLAY: Thank you.

MR MALAN: Mr Goosen can you tell us what was the difference in activities of Unit A and B?

MR GOOSEN: Yes, Unit A was responsible for the monitoring of all White, Coloured and Indian matters with all related structures, church organisations, youth organisations, student movements and B on the other hand was known as the Black Power organisation which investigated all Black Power organisations like Azapo, Azayo etc.

MR MALAN: You say Unit A, White, Coloured and Indian structures, what about Black structures.

MR GOOSEN: That was under Unit B.

MR MALAN: But you said Unit B only Black Power units? Is the ANC a Black structure? Is AZAPO a Black structure?

MR GOOSEN: It concentrated on the internal structures of the ANC like the UDF and there was a separate unit called unit C was directly involved in terrorist investigations where MK, Apla and those were investigated.

MR MALAN: But that is what is strange to me. If all your responsibilities centred round information regarding White, Coloured, Indian affairs, why would you have information regarding Black infiltrating MK members?

MR GOOSEN: That is simple, we had an informer who was a Coloured person and we were recruiters of that specific informer and when you gather information the colour of a person is not important. The information channelled by the informer was geared to Black MK members.

MR MALAN: I'm not sure that I understand how those structures differed from A, B and C? Were they divided on a racial basis?

MR GOOSEN: What I'm trying to tell you is that our informer was a Coloured person and therefore his handling resorted under A but it led to various working activities regarding A and B activities from A, B and C. So he reported over the broad spectrum and therefore we had information regarding MK in it's broader aspects.

MR MALAN: Let me just make sure. You say you handled a Coloured man based on the fact that the Coloured was the informer therefore he fell under Unit A?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct in that aspect and secondly we handled the initial recruitment.

MR MALAN: So if a Coloured was an informer does he fall under Unit A, not under B or C?

MR GOOSEN: No I don't think you can make the differentiation so definitely. If Unit B for instance recruited an informer who for example was an Indian they would still handle that informer.

MR MALAN: So it had to do with the organisations that are investigated? Unit A investigated UDF structures?

MR GOOSEN: No, not UDF, UDF fell under Unit B which handled Black Power activities.

MR MALAN: Yes but wait a minute, UDF cannot surely be called Black Power? It is a democratic organisation.

MR GOOSEN: For the purposes of the allocation of the investigation and the monitoring of the UDF that was the primary function of Unit B. For example we looked at the Transvaal Indian Congress, that type of organisation, if I can mention an example.

MR MALAN: Unit A looked at the Transvaal Indian Congress?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct.

MR MALAN: Unit B looked at the UDF?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct.

MR MALAN: What did Unit A also look at?

MR GOOSEN: Youth organisations, the End Conscription Campaign, Nusas at that stage, those sorts of structures.

MR MALAN: Unit B then looked at UDF, call it Black structures if you have to go according to the racial differentiation, that would be AZAPO and probably Cosas and so on?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct.

MR MALAN: And Unit C worked specifically with MK?

MR GOOSEN: Terrorist investigations, whether MK or APLA yes.

MR MALAN: Why would Van Jaarsveld not have gone to Unit C if he wanted information about MK? Where does the special expertise come from, from MK and the End Conscription Campaign and those things are investigated?

MR GOOSEN: At that stage the informer was a deeply penetrated informer in the special operations group of MK. Previous evidence involved even that the commanding officer of Western Transvaal said that they struggled to get such an informer and we had a legion of valuable information in that way.

MR MALAN: Who had this information?

MR GOOSEN: Via the informer who reported to us and we were responsible for setting up safety reports which were in many cases distributed nationally.

MR MALAN: So the MK special operations, Unit C didn't handle that, you dealt with it?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson, Unit A did all these things by means of the informer that we had.

MR MALAN: One informer was responsible for all the all the information surrounding MK?

MR GOOSEN: No Chairperson, I cannot say what the informer status of Unit C was at that stage, they must have had informers I wont deny that but I know in this specific case I and Lieutenant Momberg were specifically asked, involved by Lieutenant van Jaarsveld because of our knowledge.

MR MALAN: This security guard, I don't know if his race came into question, was it a Black man?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: And your informer was he ever informed about this security guard or asked questions about his brother?

MR GOOSEN: No I doubt if we discussed it with the informer because at a previous incident we gave evidence that was an infiltration of an informer in Botswana in April 1987. He was identified as an informer and he was taken through to Quatro so it was never discussed with the informer.

MR MALAN: So from April 1987 you had no contact with this star informer of yours?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct but we still had the required information reports and relevant matters.

MR MALAN: And the meeting with this security guard and the incident took place a minimum of two months and probably even eight months later but you had up to date information to assist Unit B with investigation, is that what you are saying?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: Nobody else had more recent information?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, I can't respond to why Unit C's people weren't involved in the story by Lieutenant van Jaarsveld. I can merely speculate that I know there were personal differences amongst officers of Unit B and C if you can categorise in that way, they never sat around the same fire. That to me would be an induction of why we at Unit A were rather involved.

MR MALAN: What officers were those, was Van Jaarsveld one of the officers who had personality clashes or whatever with officers in C?

MR GOOSEN: I think the personality of people like Captain van Jaarsveld was in conflict with other personalities for example at Unit B's offices.

MR MALAN: But Van Jaarsveld was at Unit B.

MR GOOSEN: That is correct.

MR MALAN: Are you talking about conflict within B?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, I said I can merely speculate why Van Jaarsveld decided not to use staff from Unit C and my speculation is based merely on the fact that perhaps there were personality conflicts between offices of Units B and C and therefore we were approached in Unit A. That is pure speculation that the actual motive of Lieutenant van Jaarsveld to approach me in Unit A, I cannot say why he didn't rather ask someone from Unit C.

MR MALAN: Mr Momberg, I heard you say that you can only speculate. I heard you in the beginning that you said you have knowledge of such tensions between offices in Units B and C?

MR GOOSEN: If I said I had knowledge of that then it was a bona fide fault. I can say I can speculate that there may have been personality conflicts between individuals.

MR MALAN: But you don't have knowledge of conflict?

MR GOOSEN: Not as far as my knowledge goes. As I said I have to speculate why we were approached in Unit A and why staff of Unit B weren't approached. I think Lieutenant van Jaarsveld can perhaps give us the answers why he approached us and not staff of the terrorist unit.

MR MALAN: I have one question in follow up, Judge Pillay put to you and that is it seems to me that the custom of acquiring information with violence, it was asked why couldn't you just approach the person at his work or at his house and ask him the question but it seems to me it would have been more or less practice if you had information for arguments sake that my brother was an MK terrorist and you want information from me, you wouldn't have come to me and ask me you would have taken it from me with violence?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, in most cases that would have been the method of work.

MR MALAN: So you wouldn't have given me a chance without doing violence to me to make information available to you, you wouldn't have tried that?

MR GOOSEN: No Chairperson.

MR MALAN: Was that part of an order or was it your practice?

MR GOOSEN: I think it was practice within the security branch that interrogation is accompanied by violence.

MR MALAN: But then my question is you see because there are many - or let me rather not preface it with my own statement but if you say everything was accompanied by violence and it seems to me that violence wasn't necessary but it was part of the loosening of adrenaline or whatever, it was custom, it was nice to use violence, it wasn't necessary. You didn't ever consider that?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, I can't give you a concrete answer to that, that it was just policy or under what circumstances it would have been different but in this instance the decision was taken beforehand the person would be kidnapped and interrogated and I in my personal capacity who became involved in this was aware before the time that the interrogation would be accompanied by violence because how else would the information be acquired because we would not acquire it in a voluntary basis.

MR MALAN: What did Mamasela tell the guard to get him into the mini-bus?

MR GOOSEN: I do not know.

MR MALAN: And he willingly got into the bus?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct.

MR MALAN: Together with a number of White members of the security forces?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct.

MR MALAN: He wasn't forced into the bus?

MR GOOSEN: No violence was used to get him inside the mini-bus.

MR MALAN: And you do not know his name?

MR GOOSEN: No because he was a subject of discussion between Sergeant Mamasela and Lieutenant van Jaarsveld. All that we were told was that it was a security guard and then the subject was his brother who was an infiltrated MK member. His details were never disclosed to us.

MR MALAN: Van Jaarsveld never asked you, Mr Goosen, with all the knowledge that you have about MK and knowledge of who they are and where they infiltrated and so on, I think that was more or less the evidence of Mr Momberg, he never asked you, Mr Goosen, or Mr Momberg "do you know such a person with such a name, do you have information that such a person has infiltrated and that he is an MK terrorist?"

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, that was not the case at the time of our initial discussion with Lieutenant van Jaarsveld that that question was put to us.

MR MALAN: You never asked him "look man, from who do you want to know something, perhaps you have his name on record somewhere because we have a lot of information, we have a top informant, he's a Coloured who has gone off to Durban, but we have all the information, we have a specialist, give me a name and I can tell you what I know about him."

MR GOOSEN: That was never done Chairperson.

MR MALAN: Why not Mr Goosen?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, I cannot say why it wasn't done, it was simply not done and they waited for the meeting that afternoon as Mamasela said it was an arranged thing that he would get the man after work when he came off duty. So the whole operation and planning was aimed at when the person was in the vehicle and the interrogation would be done from there.

MR MALAN: Can you remember if the security guard's name was mentioned at any time to you?

MR GOOSEN: Not in my presence.

MR MALAN: But you did question him, you did interrogate him about his brother?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, I didn't directly interrogate him, I stipulated that in my initial evidence.

MR MALAN: I saw you weren't involved in the assault.

MR GOOSEN: I also put no questions to the man. The initial interrogation was done by Lieutenant Hechter.

MR MALAN: You said mainly that's I wondered you did not partake in anything, you were merely going along?

MR GOOSEN: I was merely present, yes, while the person was interrogated.

MR MALAN: Right, you can't remember if his name or the brother's name or surname was ever mentioned in your presence?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, it may have been the case but I really cannot remember that.

MR MALAN: Isn't such information not central, the code name or so on if you want to find out about people? Don't you ask what's his code name or what's his real name, where does he come from?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, the debate would still be whether the brother who was interrogated would acknowledge that his brother was an MK member.

MR MALAN: No, that I understand but if you had information that his brother is an MK then surely you also have information on who his brother is?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, there Lieutenant van Jaarsveld and Sergeant Mamasela can perhaps throw clearer light on the subject because the initial information was based on feedback that Sergeant Mamasela gave to Van Jaarsveld and based on that we were involved in the interrogation of this person.

MR MALAN: Mr Goosen, it doesn't seem as if Sergeant van Jaarsveld is going to give us any other information. From his side he says that he doesn't have any knowledge of it, he wasn't involved, he wasn't there, he had no part of it. Sergeant Mamasela is not here. All that I'm asking and it's a serious question, would one not expect that the security guard's surname and his brother's surname and possibly his code name would have come into question if you wanted information of such an individual?

MR GOOSEN: One would expect it Chairperson but in this situation I cannot remember that it was in fact done or that we were told.

MR MALAN: Right, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: It seems clear or at least does to me that Mamasela must have known the names of these people?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct because he came with an initial report round the allegation that this man's brother was an infiltrated MK member.

CHAIRPERSON: But no follow up was done?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, the details were not taken up with us for any verification by Lieutenant van Jaarsveld.

CHAIRPERSON: How long before this questioning did he come and see you and say he wanted you to help?

MR GOOSEN: I can merely speculate Chairperson, I don't know if it was that same day or two or three days before the time and the report was made by Sergeant Mamasela. I can just remember that it was an afternoon that Van Jaarsveld asked us into the office. Whether the report of Sergeant Mamasela was submitted the same day or just before that. I cannot comment on that.

CHAIRPERSON: Because I have the same problem as my colleague does that you were getting extremely important information coming in from Botswana about uMkhonto infiltrators, that if you knew you were going to be involved in interrogation about one you would have wanted to check your records, see if you had any information available as to when he'd come in, when he'd left the country, things of that nature?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson and the only way - what we could do was an existing photo album which we called the Terrorist Photo Album which only had photos and then there was a separate index album in which the names were cross-referenced to the photographs so that would have been the method to carry out the verification.

CHAIRPERSON: But there was nothing done, you tell us?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson. At that stage he denied that his brother was an MK infiltrator and obviously he would not have been in the album.

JUDGE PILLAY: Why wasn't that pointed out to him before he was assaulted, that's the point?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, I cannot comment on that.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you have the album there?

MR GOOSEN: I cannot remember that. I cannot remember if the photo album was in the bus.

MR MALAN: No what knowledge would you have that you could add value to the interrogation of the security guard?

MR GOOSEN: The mere fact that if the brother perhaps found himself in Mamelodi in particular premises the necessary identification could have been done if he could identify the premises to us then one could make deductions about the infiltration from discussions with the brother. He would have spoken to his brother, heard when he returned, for what period he was out, then you could ascertain did he receive training or intensive training three months, six months, twelve months or longer overseas, whether he was out of the country, so there were a lot of factors that one could take into account with background information that could be acquired.

MR MALAN: Yes, but the information that you're mentioning now, the examples, that is evaluation information or evaluation yardsticks. That would not help with interrogation of an individual. That information, whether he told that to you or Van Jaarsveld, that is information that you'd have to check up afterwards, it's not going to help to make him talk or not talk?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson, put Lieutenant van Jaarsveld's specific request was why he wanted our presence there was owing to our knowledge of this infiltration.

MR MALAN: And can you also tell us when did Van Jaarsveld tell you that he expected you to with, that he wanted you to go with and help them?

MR GOOSEN: I would estimate it was in the afternoon, I would estimate 2 or 3 o'clock in the afternoon and 4 o'clock, 5 o'clock we had already moved to the point so it was a short period.

MR MALAN: And in that period did you refer at any time to your records to refresh your memory?

MR GOOSEN: No Chairperson.

MR MALAN: You can't remember that you looked at names, you spoke about the cross-reference where there were names of the photographs, did you go and check that?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, it's highly improbable because the name of the security guard was never told to us so I would never have done that exercise if I didn't have the name to go and look for it in the index to link it possibly to a photograph.

MR MALAN: If you'd said "man, we are looking for information" - I'm deducing this is what he said, "we are looking for your assistance, Mr Goosen and Momberg, with interrogation of a person who is a security guard whose brother is a trained MK terrorist of whom we have information that he recently infiltrated the country and that we would like to determine his whereabouts, we want to know where he is or to trace him, we want to get hold of him, probably with aim of eliminating him" I understand that is the evidence that is more or less coming from your side? He gives you all this information but it is never said who is the terrorist, the MK member and you never ask?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, from my own personal circumstances I can answer I was a sergeant and it was a Lieutenant who made this request. I wasn't in a position to question it or to make any suggestions to him on how he should carry out his operations and evaluate his information, I don't think that would have been appropriate for my rank to do that and therefore I didn't do it.

MR MALAN: And did you and Mr Momberg work in the same office?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct.

MR MALAN: You shared one office?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Just the two of you or were there other people also in the office?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, other people also shared the office with us but at the time of Lieutenant van Jaarsveld's request only he and I were present in the office.

MR MALAN: Right, thank you Mr Goosen.

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR ALBERTS: As the Committee pleases.

The information that was available to you either by way of photo albums or by way of the index indices and so on, was this merely information that was available to you or was it generally available for any member of the security police at that stage?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, each unit at the security branch had a photo index with an index. Unit A had it's own photo album system, B and C, each component had it's own photo album system and it was quite readily available for each member of such a unit to be able to study such albums.

MR ALBERTS: So that preparation work that must have preceded your interrogation or that you would expect would precede the interrogation, that was also available to members of Unit B, Sergeant Mamasela, Lieutenant van Jaarsveld and the other members who were involved?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Had they got access to your? You said each unit had it's own records?

MR GOOSEN: It's the same album, it's the duplication of an original set of albums.

CHAIRPERSON: And the other indexes that you had, that you had got from your informant?

MR GOOSEN: It's a general filing system at the security branch, it was on the second floor and each member had access to the file and the card system where suspects details appeared.

MR MALAN: And what is your knowledge, your expertise that the others did not have access to?

MR GOOSEN: Merely the fact that we knew about the methods that were followed with infiltration, the creation of safe houses and how they operated from safe houses and of course the establishment of weapons, gathering points, which we characterised as DLB's and the method that we follow when a courier comes in, how you deal with the arms, the methods that they use to bury it, the maps that are drawn up which was sent, who is sent out for the next infiltration group to come and fetch the weapons.

MR MALAN: Unit C did not have that expertise and knowledge?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, they could have had that expertise. I was aware of an informer that they had who acted as a courier so they weren't quite in the dark with regard to this type of work methods.

MR MALAN: Unit B, they would also have had it?

MR GOOSEN: Unit B I know and we did assist with the training of a specific informer of theirs with a view to the fact that when he was still in the process of infiltrating overseas.

MR ALBERTS: As I understand it, the knowledge that you had at that stage, would it have been justified to describe it that it was really at the tips of your fingers?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct.

MR ALBERTS: Because you were constantly involved with it owing to your involvement with your own informer?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: And therefore is it correct or not to say that it may have been a short cut that Lieutenant van Jaarsveld chose by asking you immediately he could have saved himself a lot of homework by making use of you and Momberg?

MR GOOSEN: The possibility exists, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: But whatever the case may be, as I understand you, you were simply tasked by your senior and you were instructed to become involved in this incident, is that correct?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct.

MR ALBERTS: And you had a direct instruction from Lieutenant van Jaarsveld?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct.

MR ALBERTS: Thank you Chairperson, I don't have further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: I think this would be a convenient stage to take the adjournment. Would 2 o'clock be convenient gentlemen? We'll now adjourn till 2 o'clock.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Can I call Captain Hechter?

JACQUES HECHTER: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, you will find this schedule on page 45 of bundle 1. Mr Chairman, as a result of some of the questions which were asked this morning I have thought it prudent unless you stop me to lead some evidence pertaining to assaults and some of the background evidence which has already been led and which has been placed before the Committee in previous hearings but with the specific view to some of the questions which have been asked this morning, just to deal with those issues and not further than that. If however you feel that I'm going to wide please stop me.

CHAIRPERSON: Let's see how far you go.

MR DU PLESSIS: Captain Hechter, just to start with this application, you were involved in a previous trial hearing which took about five weeks where you submitted various applications during which provided evidence, you gave evidence and according to which you've already received amnesty. During those hearings you testified regarding your memory and the effect of post-traumatic stress on your memory. Can you just for the sake of those two members who were not part of that previous Committee what the effect is on your memory?

MR HECHTER: Many of these incidents I can't remember. For two years I was involved full time in these types of operations while I was involved in the security police. Instances like where Momberg and Goosen mention my name and I accept their version of the incident as the truth because they have no reason to lie and they will not try to cause problems for me in this regard.

MR DU PLESSIS: Can I just ask you then, the evidence which had been presented previously was that the effect on your memory is that certain incidents you can remember vividly, others you cannot remember at all, is that correct?

MR HECHTER: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: And you will also remember that regarding previous applications for example you just took the evidence of Van Vuuren into consideration and that first bundle of applications, your first set of applications at that stage there was little time to talk to anybody else about those applications and you tried and can I ask you rather, did you try at that stage to provide as full detail as possible in that first set of applications?

MR HECHTER: Yes, we tried to provide full details but there were time limits.

MR DU PLESSIS: This new set of applications, how was that brought about, how did you learn about those incidents and how did you learn about the fact that you have to provide new applications

MR HECHTER: During that time when we testified before the Commission other people for example Mr Momberg, Mr Goosen and Mr Pretorius and other members of the security forces, they contacted me and asked me "can you remember about this incident and about that incident?" and I could not remember that at all and then we put our heads together, we discussed these matters and one or two instances I can remember that I was involved there and I remember I was involved in Okasi in Britz in operations but I can't remember any details. This incident which we are addressing today I cannot remember at all. They told me I was there, I will accept that but I cannot remember anything at all.

MR DU PLESSIS: After you had discussions with Mr Goosen and Mr Momberg, it's not necessary to go into detail, I think there are about 11 applications, did you continue to on the basis of their applications to provide a new set of applications? In other words, Captain Hechter, what is on page 45 and 46 regarding the nature and the details of the incident. Is that based on Mr Goosen's application?

MR HECHTER: Yes it's based on Goosen and Momberg's evidence.

MR DU PLESSIS: Do you have any independent recall of this incident?

MR HECHTER: No, nothing at all.

MR DU PLESSIS: Captain Hechter, can you remember that during the previous hearing a report was submitted by Dr Roberster, a world known authority regarding post-traumatic stress which addressed your memory problem?

MR HECHTER: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: And that evidence was submitted during the previous hearing.

I have a copy, not available here but if you would require one then I can make it available to you.

Captain Hechter, regarding certain of the background details, I want to ask you a few questions. You were there during the previous hearing when we listened to the evidence of Cronje and Van der Merwe in detail regarding the activities of the security branch especially in the Northern Transvaal by Cronje, the obtaining of information, the file system, etc?

MR HECHTER: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: And you did not have problems with any of that evidence which was submitted?

MR HECHTER: Nothing at all.

MR DU PLESSIS: That was correct according to you?

MR HECHTER: That was correct yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: Some of the aspects mentioned here this morning by Commissioner Malan regarding units A, B and C, the functioning of the security branch, the filing system, the informers and how they operated, that was covered in that evidence?

MR HECHTER: That is correct, yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: You can also remember that you testified regarding a broader command or instruction given by Viktor to you and you, Van Jaarsveld and Viktor's son, Captain Viktor, was there when that instruction was given?

MR HECHTER: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Can you remember that the evidence was led that this was conveyed from Viktor to Cronje?

MR HECHTER: At a later stage, yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: And the operations or the application we have in front of us and the other applications or the aspects for which you are applying for amnesty this week, does this all fall under the broad command of Colonel Viktor?

MR HECHTER: Yes they all happened during that time period as the dates will indicate.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman I may just point out that I have decided to lead some evidence on the different units, Unit A, B and C and the filing system via Brigadier Cronje so I'm not going to ask Captain Hechter those questions, I thought that Brigadier Cronje is the person who should explain that if there are questions to be asked.

Captain I want to ask you more detailed questions regarding interrogations because a few questions were posed this morning regarding that matter. There is a general political justification provided in your previous application. It's not contained in detail in this application because evidence was already led in this regard regarding the purpose of interrogation?

MR HECHTER: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: And you have a copy, a written copy from your previous application?

MR HECHTER: That is correct, yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I can make that available to you if you need that, I think Judge Wilson has seen that so many times that he doesn't want to see it any more but to the other Commissioners I will make it available.

Will you just read it to the Committee please in order to give the Committee a more detailed idea of the purpose of the interrogation and the reason why it was handled in a certain way?

MR HECHTER: The purpose of the interrogations was twofold. Mr Malan asked a question here previously or Judge Pillay asked a question. Mr Chairman, we did not assault the people right from the start. You picked up a person, that was on your mind that you were going or could assault him. You interrogated a person and if he did not answer these questions satisfactorily then that person was assaulted as hard and as harsh as you could to obtain your information. We did not start right from the beginning to assault a person.

We had a reasonable idea that this person was supposed to have access to some information and if you were sure about your case and this person denied it then you applied violence whether it was justifiable or not. It was never justified but in from our opinion if he did not want to talk then we took recourse to violence. We did not blindly assault people. Sometimes we picked them up, we talked to them and then if he co-operated we left them alone and in this case if that person co-operated nobody saw that he was picked up, he could have become an informer very easily. I'm generalising. Should he then say he would become an informer he would be turned but if he was arrested and if he was detained it would have been very difficult to use him as an informer. Should any other arrests be made afterwards they would know that that person was an informer and his life would have been in danger.

It's general knowledge the necklacing of informers of collaborators. So it was twofold, it would have been twofold. I can't remember this specific incident but I assume that was how it happened, that was how I operated. I picked up somebody, I stole the person, we interrogated him, if he gave his co-operation we used him as an informer, otherwise he was eliminated or we left him alone.

MR DU PLESSIS: Can I just stop you there? One aspect you've mentioned here regarding that, there was detailed evidence by you and Brigadier Cronje that only high profile activists under certain circumstances were eliminated?

MR HECHTER: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: What you are going to put here from your previous application, that means the justification for these interrogations, this is general evidence and does not pertain specifically to this incident?

MR HECHTER: That is correct, yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: Will you then read it to us?

MR HECHTER: "The purpose of the interrogation was twofold. Firstly interrogation and secondly obtaining information. Intimidation first of all. When an activist was interrogated they were intimidated to stop their activities and to inform other activists that they would be acted against, they had to understand the message that we were serious in our activities or actions against them."

MR DU PLESSIS: From Mr Goosen and Mr Momberg's actions from what you've heard here this morning, can you tell the Committee about the possible motive of intimidation which existed in the interrogation of this security guard with reference to what you've just said?

MR HECHTER: I assumed that they wanted to intimidate him in such a way that if he did not want to talk that if he in any way thought about or was part of this liberation struggle that he would rather think of leaving that alone, that he would be frightened that the police would get hold of him, that was the first factor and secondly, you frightened him so much that if he returned to his so-called comrades with a broken body they would not believe him that he did not tell the police everything he knew. The intimidation at that stage thought would work successfully by in the first place so that they could keep quiet in the fear of actions from their own people and secondly we intimidated him in such a way that he would rather work for us and then secondly prevent him then also from activities in future.

MR DU PLESSIS: And then also it could have the effect that he would not be able to assist his brother if he had done it before, it's just speculation?

MR HECHTER: For what it's worth, yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: Can you continue with the second paragraph?

MR HECHTER: During interrogation after certain information had been obtained we tried to convince activists or terrorists rather to become informers for the security police. These activists or terrorists which had been turned, that means they started working for us, were the most effective way of preventing the achievement of the purposes of the liberation struggle because the other activist still trusted them. The most obvious example is Joe Mamasela. As it appears from his applications Askaris became informers and they were important in the prevention of terrorist activities.

MR DU PLESSIS: There's a second main purpose of interrogation, that is to obtain information. Can you tell the Committee what was the broad purpose of interrogation regarding the acquisition of information?

MR HECHTER: Activists insurgents and activists needed information regarding command structures, command channels were of cardinal importance. Without an effective means of interrogation an intelligence network could never be established. To prevent the total onslaught interrogation and effective interrogation regarding the acquisition of information was absolutely necessary. Information was obtained regarding potential terror acts and also the execution of those successful counter-strategies and counter-measures could be done based on this information. Information regarding activists could also be obtained through interrogation. Interrogations were a way of obtaining information. Any method which proved effective was efficient in the context of the war and total onslaught.

MR DU PLESSIS: Can you please stop there? A question was asked this morning by one of the previous witnesses regarding the detention without trial of certain activists during which they could have been interrogated. Can you explain to the Committee why that channel or route, how does that compare with a more informal way of interrogation like you've just explained now?

MR HECHTER: When a person was arrested and detained in the cells you could not interrogate him in this way because he was regularly visited by a magistrate and then problems could have been caused for us. When he was arrested you could not interrogate him like that. When you picked him up it was already at the back of your head that you were going to force him to talk. You had that way of acquiring information, to arrest a person, to detain him, there was a huge time lag. If he talked you could act immediately, if you arrested him you took him to the police cells. The bush telegraph told all the other people that that person had been arrested. Like in this case, for example, that is this person had been involved, I can't say yes or no, his brother would have known immediately that he had been arrested and then the possibility would have been that he kind of sold him out.

MR DU PLESSIS: Can I just stop you there? In contrast with this, let's assume information was obtained about where his brother was at that stage.

MR HECHTER: Action would have been taken immediately. Immediately we could have gone to where this MK member was supposed to be and consequently we could have taken the necessary steps, not necessarily elimination and if such an important trained terrorist was arrested, the law would have taken it's course.

MR DU PLESSIS: Detention on the one hand, arrest on the other hand and that then this type of interrogation with immediate action, which was the most effective?

MR HECHTER: This one was the most effective, you steal this person, you take him away and this is most effective. He is frightened, nobody knows where he is and you if speak to him at such a stage the chances are better to obtain valuable information. It is much better than taking him through the usual channels.

MR DU PLESSIS: And which procedures were the most effective to turn such a person to become an informer, the formal way or the informal way?

MR HECHTER: The formal way of arresting and detention was seldom very effective in turning a person. When you steal a person he knew that nobody knew that he was kind of stolen and the chances were good that he could be turned. It was much better than when he was arrested, put in the cell where his colleagues or his comrades saw him.

MR DU PLESSIS: I want to ask you another question regarding detention without trial. Records were kept?

MR HECHTER: That is correct, yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: What was the effect of a person who was detained and was released eventually? How did the other activists regard it, the other people from the liberation struggle, what influence did it have on his status.

MR HECHTER: He immediately became a hero, became a martyr and he obtained a high status in the community because therefore just to detain him for a certain time caused more damage than any good because this person obtained a higher status in the community.

MR DU PLESSIS: And then there were also the questions regarding what intelligence there was or which intelligence Van Jaarsveld had regarding the brother of the security guard, this MK person. You can't remember that independently but what would you say from your experience of operations, what information did Van Jaarsveld have?

MR HECHTER: If Captain van Jaarsveld and he denies it now but Mamasela would have provided him with the information. Mamasela was actively involved in obtaining such information. He would have given him reasonably good information before Van Jaarsveld took such a step. He had to convince him that that person was the brother of a well known MK and that the MK was back in the country otherwise this operation would never have been executed.

MR DU PLESSIS: Captain Hechter, to return to your application itself. You testified that the facts on pages 45 to 47 in bundle 1 are facts which you can't remember independently but you've obtained this from Goosen and Momberg's applications and therefore I'm not going to ask you to testify because you can't remember these things independently. Do you confirm however and you don't deny that you were involved in this operation?

MR HECHTER: Not at all Mr Chairman.

MR DU PLESSIS: Do you confirm the broad political motive as explained in this application from page 47 to 49?

MR HECHTER: That is correct, yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: And then lastly, do you agree with the evidence that this activity was under the command of Brigadier Cronje and that it carried his approval?

MR HECHTER: That is correct, yes.

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

MR STEENKAMP: Thank you Mr Chairman, I have no questions.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MEINTJIES: May it please you, Mr Chairman, may I inform the Committee that Mr van Jaarsveld told me that he would be here by not later than 20

minutes to 4 this afternoon?

I just want to ask one question from Mr Hechter. Mr Hechter, if it is put to you Mr van Jaarsveld denies that he was involved in the incident or had any knowledge of it, what would your answer to that be?

MR HECHTER: Chairperson, I unfortunately can't say yes or no. I must accept what he said, if he said he wasn't there then I must accept that. He and I and Mr Goosen and Mr Momberg drove together so many times, not necessarily operated together, that these things create a confusion in one's mind so I can't argue with him, if he says he wasn't there then I have to accept his word for that.

MR MALAN: Mr Hechter, I take it that you know Mr van Jaarsveld well?

MR HECHTER: Yes that is correct.

MR MALAN: I heard you say that he would not have authorised the operation if Mamasela had not given him good information?

MR HECHTER: I must accept that, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: That is how you know him?

MR HECHTER: That is how I knew him, he's responsible he would not simply himself had said "let's do that" the information must have been good.

MR MALAN: Do you know if he applied for amnesty?

MR HECHTER: Chairperson I heard here that he apparently did not apply but I only heard that today.

MR MALAN: Do you know if he applied in other cases for amnesty?

MR HECHTER: Here and there in general we lost contact with each other after we left the force because we have both left the force. We lost contact so we hear he did this or that or he said something about this or that but I don't really know what he applied for or what he didn't apply for.

MR MALAN: All the evidence was based on assumptions and generalisations or possible application on the case before us. I deduct that I think you regard the evidence of both Mr Goosen and Mr Momberg, you also consider them to be responsible people?

MR HECHTER: Yes that is correct, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: Now why would there be a difference, why should there be two stories from people that you regard as equally responsible.

MR HECHTER: I'm not going to say anything about that, I know there wasn't antagonism while we worked together.

MR MALAN: You don't have any knowledge of antagonism later on?

MR HECHTER: No not later, I don't know why Mr van Jaarsveld doesn't agree with us or why they say it did happen, I don't know. I would like to put light on the matter but unfortunately I can't.

MR MALAN: You said follow up actions, when you get information in such cases it takes place immediately?

MR HECHTER: Yes immediately.

MR MALAN: You cannot afford the news spreading?

MR HECHTER: As far as possible not, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: Can you try to explain to us in the same way as you testified why an arrangement was made to meet the involved person the next morning?

MR HECHTER: Chairperson, according to what Mr Momberg testified, he could agree with this person that he would become an informant. It was after all our purpose as far as possible to recruit informers because that was our weapon against the armed struggle. Without these informants we could not have operated at all so in all cases we tried, no not in all cases but in many cases, we tried to turn a person so that he could rather work for us. I can say that on the one hand and on the other hand this person had been beaten up so now don't you want to win his good will, to say come, become an informant for us because then at least after that you have control over him, you do have your hand on him.

MR MALAN: Mr Hechter, isn't it also so and I'm referring to other applications and other evidence that certain tests are put before you, recruit a man for an informant, to test his trustworthiness and his commitment in the turning process itself, if I can use the expression, in other words you check his information?

MR HECHTER: That would have been done the next day, that's the normal procedure. The next day you're going to talk to this man, the first thing you do is you get his signature on a piece of paper because then you are tying him down because on that piece of paper you can you take to his comrades and say "this person has informed" if he turns and it is appropriate for you so you could blackmail him constantly with this, you could oblige him to work for you. That would have been the next step the next day.

MR MALAN: Now who would you recruit as an informant?

MR HECHTER: You recruit people as informers who have information. At that stage we must assume we didn't know if this person was just keeping information back or whether he actually didn't have information.

MR MALAN: I'm not talking to them now, I'm speaking to you, who recruits an informant?

MR HECHTER: It's those people who are involved or whose family members are very involved. "Your brother is an AWB, you don't agree with that, I'm going to try and recruit you." Excuse me Chairperson, by manner of speaking. I would have tried to recruit you to give information about him because I know that you are an opponent of the AWB so I will see if I can't turn you to give me information about him. At a stage we compromised a person, that's the type of person that we want to turn. We find him where he shouldn't be, those are the types of people that we turn. We set him up and we bring him in for interrogation. We bring ten with for interrogation but we actually just want him, we don't want the other nine, we just want him but the other nine come with, then we concentrate on him. All ten are interrogated, all ten are seriously interrogated all night long, perhaps they aren't all assaulted, they weren't always beaten but we pick him up 9 or 10 o'clock or 2 o'clock at night and you question him right through until the next night and in that time you try to turn him, you speak to him nicely, harshly, you tell him stories, you promise him money, you try to convince him.

MR MALAN: Mr Hechter, Mr du Plessis led you to say or he led your evidence to say your application is based on the information that you obtained from Messrs Goosen and Momberg?

MR HECHTER: That is correct.

MR MALAN: That you discussed the matter with them, you can't remember that at all? You still can't remember it?

MR HECHTER: At this stage no, it sounds as if I can remember it but we discussed it back then, that was shortly after our applications were in and we started giving evidence. These applications were already I think May last year and even before that it had been discussed so I have heard it so many times now, if I suddenly have to go and say now yes I can remember it, then I would have to be telling lies.

MR MALAN: No I don't expect you to remember about the original incident, what I want you to do now is to remember from the discussions that you had with them concerning the incident, can you remember a name?

MR HECHTER: A name was never mentioned.

MR MALAN: Did you ever ask them about a name? I assume you must have discussed it?

MR HECHTER: I assume it must have been broached but I cannot swear to that. At that time it was surely logical that we would have had to have a name, you are not simply going to pick up a man even if his name was just Ben and Ben's brother, Ben Zwane and Ben Zwane's brother that's a possible MK, there must have been names mentioned. You know we're talking about thirteen, fourteen, twelve, thirteen years ago and it is just one incident of many. That is why I listen to what they said, it never even came to me to ask them about that during our discussions but I cannot see that we would have gone to pick up a man if we didn't have a little bit of background as well, we wouldn't just have said there is a guy whose brother might be a terrorist and we would have responded to that. I cannot think that we were so naive.

MR MALAN: Then the process, I'm talking in general, if you had a possible link because it's not at this stage really an informant, it's a link through which you want to obtain the address of a trained terrorist who has infiltrated an MK soldier, that is now the purpose, what would you do if such a request had come to you. Here is a man, he's the brother of a person who has just infiltrated?

MR HECHTER: I understand where you're going to. A little bit of homework would have been done. We would first have tried to ascertain, you must remember they were youngsters, they were really youngsters, little boys, you saw on their ages. Japie came from head office security to the branch so he was my senior lieutenant or he was a captain at that stage already, he was quite a senior person, he'd gone through head office so if they came to him they would have assumed he'd done their homework, I would also have assumed Japie had done his homework. He might have checked the names just a bit, it wouldn't have helped to go through the photo album because we didn't know about photos, but he would have gone through the register to look for names to see if the alleged MK member if his name was in the register. But that's not to say that because his name did not appear there that he wasn't out. There were many people out that we didn't know about, many people went out that we knew nothing about. Joe Mamasela came with the story according to information that he knew about this guard whose brother was an MK, so you talk to Joe, you debrief him properly to hear what he has to say, he'll look at our register or at our map. We had a card system, an alphabetical name system, you go and look there, see if there's any information there. If these peoples names are on there. If it's not there you still carry on. The fact that it is not on file does not mean that the person was not out, that he did not receive training.

MR MALAN: Can you tell me, why would Jaap van Jaarsveld in your judgement have gone to these two to accompany him?

MR HECHTER: I listened to the evidence Chairperson and I must probably go along with that.

MR MALAN: No you don't have to.

MR HECHTER: Yes, I know the agent that they had was one McKenzie and he was a reasonably strong source so they were reasonably up to date with operations. Unit C which is the so called terrorist unit, they basically just did the investigations. When we arrested the terrorists, he is arrested, he is caught. What would have happened that night, if we had arrested him the next day he would have been handed over too, if we had decided to do so, he would have been handed over to Unit C for further follow up. They would have interrogated him, they would have brought that photo album to him a thousand times to see who can he identify to see if he has the same story every time. He would have written out his statement for the next six months, every day he would have written out his little statement about something else to see if he wasn't busy with disinformation. That was the procedure of Unit C. The arrest of such a terrorist was quite a plum if you could arrest a terrorist so if any further information had come to light we would have acted immediately to arrest this man, we wouldn't have called for assistance or anything else, we would have gone to catch him at his house that morning early while he was still in bed.

MR MALAN: Now no information comes forth, the individual is not an activist, he's a security guard, the reason why he was fetched was simply to get information about his brother. On what basis would you make him an informant and turn him so called turn him? Don't you turn someone who is already involved in the struggle?

MR HECHTER: We still don't know if his brother is an active or was an ANC member. He denied it, that's not to say that he was not an ANC member, it's not to say that his brother was not involved.

MR MALAN: No, I'm talking about him.

MR HECHTER: Yes, we still don't know this, he said he wasn't but it is possible, it's still possible.

JUDGE PILLAY: Did you have reason to think that he was?

MR HECHTER: As a result of Joe Mamasela's information we had to. I'm trying to deduce now my modus operandi how I would have acted. If Joe had come to me and said Jacques or Lieutenant, this guy, this guy is a terrorist or this guy's brother is a terrorist, I picked up information in Mamelodi, this guy's brother is a terrorist and he's now back from Botswana, then we would have gone to speak to the brother whether nicely or not nicely, preferably not nicely because we understand the people, those people did not speak to us in those days, they were so antagonist towards us which of course was good right, but they were so antagonistic you got very few voluntary information from these people. Now you go and you talk to this guy, you get all the information that he has, he doesn't want to share it with you and you go, you follow the other way, "come and see me tomorrow, come and become an informant". Obviously he agreed because he was afraid he was going to get another beating. He said "don't worry, I'll see you guys tomorrow morning in town" with never the intention of doing so, I don't think he came back to Pretoria. He probably just disappeared in that country, found himself work there and kept away from his work. That's what I would have done if I was in his shoes.

MR MALAN: We're talking about a distance of a hundred kilometres. When you leave someone in a township in Warmbaths at night and you have to meet him the next morning 8 o'clock a hundred kilometres further on in Pretoria, is that practice?

MR HECHTER: Trains, taxis, we are now talking about a particular circumstance Chairperson, I cannot say that is really logical now today, here. You also give the guy a chance to cool off because we don't know, he might still go to the police and open a case, he might not be able to identify us but you keep him away a bit. I am speculating, I'm speculating. I can think that it wasn't a bad idea, leave him there, let him come back by himself, let him come back himself to Pretoria because you're not going to drop him off here, he's still full of bruises and bumps. I hear they say it was close to his house, I don't know if it was close to his house, his family's house.

JUDGE PILLAY: Tell me, did you expect that this guy who came back full of bruises and bumps back to the people who caused those bumps?

MR HECHTER: Chairperson, unfortunately I can't honestly give you an answer of what we expected. I can't really remember this incident. I am thinking, I'm busy thinking about what would have happened, how we would have reasoned at that stage. If you sit here nice in comfort it sounds a bit foolish but at that stage, in the heat of the struggle ...(intervention)

JUDGE PILLAY: Was it also foolish at that time?

MR HECHTER: But that's what I mean, at that time it was nice and foolish but in the heat of the struggle you didn't think like that, you didn't think like that. Things were very hot then, things were quite rough and many things, if you think about it now in retrospect and you look at it, you would never have done it like that. You know we're sitting in comfortable circumstances, talking about things that happened 14 years ago when there was a tremendous amount of tension and hate and aggression in the air.

JUDGE PILLAY: For who?

MR HECHTER: For my enemy, at that time he was my enemy. I hunted him, that man, his brother was a terrorist according to me.

JUDGE PILLAY: So why is he the enemy?

MR HECHTER: His brother was the terrorist according to my information.

JUDGE PILLAY: Okay let's accept that, what is his status?

MR HECHTER: His status? That's why we tried to turn him, well we would have tried to turn him. His status is, that's why I'm saying it's very difficult now to describe the feeling that was then.

JUDGE PILLAY: Why then hate for him?

MR HECHTER: No, perhaps I didn't express myself right, my enemy the hated, there wasn't really hate towards him as such because we tried to turn him. I understand how you feel about that, it's difficult to explain to someone precisely at this stage to say precisely how we felt at that time and how we didn't feel about a specific person.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm afraid I must have missed something in the evidence, perhaps you could help me. You said a short while ago that they said this was near his family?

MR HECHTER: The evidence was read as such. Apparently we went out with him to Warmbaths district, it says so in the evidence which apparently was close to his family environment. I assume that must be because his family, his brother, if it is, then he's already in the vicinity. I cannot say that was a motivation but I suspect that would be the logical conclusion.

CHAIRPERSON: So you picked him up in Pretoria, drove him out to a township in Warmbaths where you beat him up and then left him there?

MR HECHTER: I doubt if it would have been a township Chairperson, I think it would have been somewhere in the veld, I believe so. Can I please just look at the application?

The story goes Chairperson to a place close to Warmbaths, page 46 at the top in bundle 3. We took him to a place near Warmbaths, excuse me bundle 1, my legal representative says bundle 1. Page 46, top.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I know you said that but what worries me is that Mr Momberg in his evidence said "we went to a Black township in the vicinity of Warmbaths, I am not aware of what the name of this township is and I was never there before or since then".

MR HECHTER: Chairperson, I cannot help you there. I spoke to Mr Goosen most of the time and this is the information I got from him. I don't know if we were in the township or whether we were in the veld but I'm not going to take someone to a township and question him or interrogate him in a township, there are other people there.

CHAIRPERSON: That's what Mr Momberg said. He goes on to say: "After we went into a quiet area in this township Lieutenant van Jaarsveld and Hechter confronted the security guard with the fact that his brother was an MK member."

MR HECHTER: That may be Chairperson, unfortunately I can't help you with that. Just from logic I can just think we would not have done that.

CHAIRPERSON: I agree with you, it seemed to me to be totally illogical that you take someone into a township and start assaulting him. Goosen apparently also talks of a "woongebied".

MR HECHTER: They allege it was an open veld in the township.

CHAIRPERSON: Because once he had been left there, if it was where his family lived, he could immediately go home to his brother to tell him that the police had been after him, had beaten him up?

MR HECHTER: That is so Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: It wasn't very clever, was it?

MR HECHTER: I can quite believe it.

MR MALAN: Do you still believe everything that they've said?

MR HECHTER: Chairperson I must actually agree with them, if they say it did happen like that I cannot argue with them.

MR MALAN: So you accept you are so stupid?

MR HECHTER: I was so stupid yes, I will accept that. It wasn't my operation, I just went with.

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, may I if everybody else has had an opportunity just for purposes of re-examination just ask one question?

Captain Hechter, from the testimony that you have just heard with regard to the action against the security guard, would you label this as a specific activity aimed at the security guard or would you describe it as an act in general against the liberation movement?

MR HECHTER: The liberation movement, the ANC specifically, specifically against the ANC as concerned the identification and possible tracing of an MK member, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Chairperson, I have no further questions.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.