ON RESUMPTION
MS LOCKHAT: The next amnesty applicant is Mr Theron.
FLIP KOENRAAD THERON: (sworn states)
MR MALAN: Thank you, you may be seated. Your full names, is it Flip Koenraad?
MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Ms Van der Walt?
EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you Chairperson. Mr Theron, your amnesty application appears in Volume 1, on page 94 to 96 and the application which you bring before this Committee is from page 97 to 101, Annexure A and then the political background and motivation, is Annexure B, on pages 102 to page 109, is that correct?
MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson.
MS VAN DER WALT: We have also heard the evidence of Mr De Kock, Mr Pienaar with regard to the two incidents for which you apply for amnesty?
MR THERON: I have heard, yes Chairperson.
MS VAN DER WALT: And do you confirm their evidence where it is concerned to you?
MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson.
MS VAN DER WALT: There was evidence that the information which was obtained with regard to these two shooting incidents, this information came from a source which you handled, is that correct?
MR THERON: That is correct.
MS VAN DER WALT: And before we continue any further, you approached me after an application was brought in that the source's name be made known and what was your instruction to me?
MR THERON: I requested you not to make the name known. My feeling was that I did not want to endanger the person's life and that is the only reason.
MS VAN DER WALT: And are you convinced that that would be so that the person's life would be endangered?
MR THERON: Yes, that is my feeling Chairperson.
MS VAN DER WALT: This source who gave you this information, did you have, have you dealt with this source a long time before these two incidents?
MR THERON: Yes, I have Chairperson.
MS VAN DER WALT: For how long?
MR THERON: I speak under correction, but I would say it would be approximately a year, it may have been less, but approximately one year.
MS VAN DER WALT: Before this incident?
MR THERON: Yes Chairperson.
MS VAN DER WALT: And the information which you received through this source, did you confirm it?
MR THERON: Yes Chairperson, I received several pieces of information from this source with regard to the activities of ANC members and I obtained this information and processed it and I sent it through, through the usual channels to the Regional Head Office and then to Head Office.
MS VAN DER WALT: And then you apply for amnesty for the first event, the event where the Toyota Corolla was involved?
MR THERON: That is correct.
MS VAN DER WALT: And in that incident, did you also fire shots?
MR THERON: Yes, that is correct Chairperson.
MS VAN DER WALT: And four persons were killed?
MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson.
MS VAN DER WALT: Do you know of any weapons which were found on these persons or not?
MR THERON: Chairperson, later I realised that weapons were planted, during the incident there were no weapons.
MS VAN DER WALT: And with regard to the second event, did you also receive information from your source that once again, after the first incident, persons would infiltrate the country?
MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson.
MS VAN DER WALT: What was the information that you had?
MR THERON: That armed members of the ANC, trained members and who would be armed, would come into the country Chairperson.
MS VAN DER WALT: Did you know that it would take place on this specific day, the 12th of June?
MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson.
MS VAN DER WALT: And did you convey this information to Mr Pienaar?
MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson.
MS VAN DER WALT: And you were also involved in this incident?
MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson, I was there.
MS VAN DER WALT: What were your duties there?
MR THERON: My duty during the second incident was to handle the light during the incident, that I supply the lighting Chairperson.
MS VAN DER WALT: When did you have to switch on the light?
MR THERON: After the vehicle had come to a stop and to switch on the light as quickly as possible.
MS VAN DER WALT: You also did not fire shots during the second incident?
MR THERON: No, I did not shoot Chairperson.
MS VAN DER WALT: You knew that in both instances, the people would be lured into an ambush?
MR THERON: That was my deduction Chairperson.
MS VAN DER WALT: Why do you say that that was a deduction?
MR THERON: During the planning it became clear that it would be an ambush and not a roadblock.
MS VAN DER WALT: You have also made statements for the post mortem inquest?
MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson.
MS VAN DER WALT: And you also gave evidence there?
MR THERON: Yes. For the first incident I testified, and for the second one, I did not Chairperson.
MS VAN DER WALT: I refer the Honourable Committee to Volume 3(a), that is a statement which you made, is that correct?
CHAIRPERSON: Which page Ms Van der Walt?
MS VAN DER WALT: Page 1 and 2, excuse me Chairperson. It was to Brigadier Van Wyk, is that correct?
MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson.
MS VAN DER WALT: On page 1, paragraph 4, you mention - that is the fourth line Chairperson - you would arrest the persons, is that correct?
MR THERON: That is not correct Chairperson.
MS VAN DER WALT: Because you knew they would be shot?
MR THERON: Yes, I knew they would be shot.
MS VAN DER WALT: In the last paragraph you mention that there was a blue flashlight that was switched on, is that correct?
MR THERON: That was not correct Chairperson, there was no other vehicle and no light there at that stage.
MS VAN DER WALT: On page 2 you mentioned that Colonel De Kock had shouted that it was the police, is that correct?
MR THERON: No, that is not correct Chairperson.
MS VAN DER WALT: And in the fourth paragraph from the top Chairperson, you said that you were aware that a Makarov pistol as well as handgrenades were found in the possession of the deceased, that is also not correct?
MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson, that is not correct, there were no weapons.
MS VAN DER WALT: And did you testify as such during the death inquest?
MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson.
MS VAN DER WALT: And then in Volume 5 Chairperson, on page 110 and 111 and 112 you also made a statement?
MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson.
MS VAN DER WALT: Can you recall whom you made the statement to?
MR THERON: I cannot see who did this, but I imagine that it was Brigadier Van Wyk.
MS VAN DER WALT: That was Daantjie van Dyk, it looks like a D?
MR THERON: Yes.
MS VAN DER WALT: And this was in regard to the second incident?
MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson.
MS VAN DER WALT: And in the second paragraph Chairperson, at page 110 you mention that you received certain instructions from Major Deetlefs and Warrant Officer Pienaar, you didn't mention Mr De Kock there?
MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson.
MS VAN DER WALT: Was that correct?
MR THERON: Colonel De Kock was there Chairperson, we received the instructions from Colonel De Kock amongst others.
MS VAN DER WALT: On the same page, page 110, paragraph 5...
MR MALAN: Excuse me, what Bundle are we dealing with?
CHAIRPERSON: It is page 47. It is the big number that we are looking at.
MS VAN DER WALT: It is Bundle 5, Mr Malan.
CHAIRPERSON: Volume 5, page 47.
MS VAN DER WALT: I am sorry, it is on page 47.
CHAIRPERSON: If you could go back, Ms Van der Walt, because I was looking at page 110 and it was obviously the wrong statement.
MS VAN DER WALT: I am very sorry.
CHAIRPERSON: If you could just ask Mr Theron again the questions concerning this page please.
MS VAN DER WALT: I see it is page 47 of Volume 5, page 48 and 49 that the statement is on?
MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson.
MS VAN DER WALT: And then on page 47, the second paragraph, that is where you mention Major Deetlefs and Pienaar and not De Kock, is that correct?
MR THERON: That is correct, Colonel De Kock was also there.
MS VAN DER WALT: And then on page 47, paragraph 5, you mention that "I switched on a blue light as well as my flashlight to draw the driver's attention to stop", is that correct?
MR THERON: That is not correct, there was no blue flickering light as well as no other vehicle.
MS VAN DER WALT: You only had a light, what light did you have?
MR THERON: It was the same light that was earlier discussed, it is a very bright light, a search light that one could handle with your hand Chairperson.
MS VAN DER WALT: And you say that you did not testify during the second inquest?
MR THERON: I did not testify during the second investigation, Chairperson.
MS VAN DER WALT: You apply in these two incidents for the murders of these people?
MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson.
MS VAN DER WALT: You knew that in both instances that the persons would be killed?
MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson.
MS VAN DER WALT: And you also apply for any other offence which might emanate from this offence?
MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson.
MS VAN DER WALT: As well as for defeating the ends of justice and perjury?
MR THERON: That is correct.
MS VAN DER WALT: And any other deed?
MR THERON: That is correct.
MS VAN DER WALT: No further questions, thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS VAN DER WALT
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Prinsloo, any questions?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr
Chairman. Mr Theron, during your involvement with the Piet Retief Security Branch were you tasked with several investigations of terror where MK and ANC were involved?
MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson.
MR PRINSLOO: There were incidents at Sasol II, are you aware there of?
MR THERON: I am aware of that Chairperson.
MR PRINSLOO: There were the attacks which I have already put in the Eastern Transvaal, to the previous witness?
MR THERON: Yes, the landmine attacks and the bomb explosions, I am aware of that Chairperson.
MR PRINSLOO: Was there a high incident of insurgents coming into the country?
MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson, as far as I can recall from 1985, there was an increase Chairperson.
MR PRINSLOO: According to your experience, persons who came into the country in this manner, who came through the fence, and did not come through the border post, were they armed?
MR THERON: Yes, they were armed Chairperson.
MR PRINSLOO: And according to your information, members of the ANC were well-trained soldiers?
MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson.
MR PRINSLOO: Did you in the circumstances which reigned in the country, did you see them as the same as a person who was embroiled in a war, part of the Security Forces against the ANC?
MR THERON: I believe so Chairperson.
MR PRINSLOO: And is it so that usually no conventional methods were used to combat the situation?
MR THERON: That is so Chairperson.
MR PRINSLOO: Did you see this instruction as the execution of your general duties?
MR THERON: I did Chairperson.
MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRINSLOO
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Cornelius, do you have any questions?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CORNELIUS: Thank you Mr Chair. Mr Theron, were you the handler of the informer or the source?
MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson.
MR CORNELIUS: And had you for several years worked with this source?
MR THERON: Chairperson, approximately a year, I cannot say exactly how, but approximately one year.
MR CORNELIUS: You have tested the quality of the source's information, you were satisfied?
MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson. Previous information that I received, was also tested with other sources and the source was regarded as a reliable source.
MR CORNELIUS: When you received this information, did you process it and submit it to your immediate superior?
MR THERON: Yes, I did Chairperson.
MR CORNELIUS: And on each turn, was it sent through to Security Head Office in Pretoria?
MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson.
MR CORNELIUS: The specific information with regard to the Piet Retief incidents, was this promoted to Pretoria?
MR THERON: Chairperson, I cannot really recall whether the specific infiltration was sent through in writing, I doubt it actually.
MR CORNELIUS: You say you had no doubt that the persons would be armed?
MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson.
MR CORNELIUS: And your information that they would be armed, were conveyed to De Kock and C-Section?
MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CORNELIUS
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Cornelius. Mr Hattingh?
MR HATTINGH: No questions, thank you Mr Chairman.
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Booyens?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BOOYENS: Thank you Mr Chairman. My Attorney has just been requested, I am referring to page 99 of the Volume 1, paragraph 8 thereon, just to put something to the witness. You make the statement here that Colonel De Kock had given Roelf Venter to place arms in the vehicle, this must be a fault because we have heard that Martiens Ras said that he did it and in any case, according to the Attorneys who represent Mr Roelf, he was not even there? Is that reference to Venter's name a mistake?
MR THERON: Chairperson, yes, after I had heard the evidence, it is quite acceptable to me, the evidence of Mr Ras that it might have been different. Why it was mentioned was because at a stage it was mentioned that Mr Roelf Venter was there, and I assumed, but I accept the evidence of Mr Ras.
MR BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, then I have just been asked to place on record that the Attorneys appearing for Mr Venter said that they will consider filing an affidavit just to confirm that their client wasn't present.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BOOYENS
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Booyens. Mr Knight, do you have any questions?
MR KNIGHT: No questions, thank you Mr Chairman.
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR KNIGHT
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Thank you Chairperson, just one or two. With regard to the statement, that is the false statement which you made in Bundle 5, on page 47 to 49, I see it was done on the 26th of May 1989, it was signed on that date. Is it also your recollection that it was during that time?
MR THERON: Chairperson, it seems as if it is the 26th of May 1989.
MR LAMEY: Is it that also your recollection that it was in 1989?
MR THERON: Yes Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: The person before whom you attested to it, do you remember who it was?
MR THERON: It was Brigadier Van Wyk. It seems like that from the statement and as far as I could recall, it was Brigadier Van Wyk.
MR LAMEY: If you page to page 52, we will see with regard to Mr Rorich. His was signed on the 8th of June, it seems as if it was Brigadier Van Wyk?
MR THERON: It seems so Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: Can you independently recall, was the statement that you signed here, was it typed and prepared beforehand before you signed it, or do you recall how it happened?
MR THERON: As far as I can recall Chairperson, Brigadier Van Wyk met with us one by one in an office. I cannot recall whether the statement was prepared later and I signed it, but it could be so, but I cannot recall it.
MR LAMEY: You cannot recall whether a typed version was prepared beforehand, you cannot recall?
MR THERON: No, I cannot exactly recall what the course of events was, but I recall that he called us into his office and took the statements from us, but the typed version, I cannot recall how it was signed exactly, whether it was directly thereafter.
MR LAMEY: I also see that your statement was signed in Piet Retief?
MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: Did Brigadier Van Wyk come there?
MR THERON: Yes, he stayed quite a while in Piet Retief during the investigation, Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: Can you recall whether you saw him once or more than once?
MR THERON: I saw him more than once, he was there for quite some time.
MR LAMEY: Thank you Chairperson, no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Moerane, any questions?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MOERANE: Thank you Mr Chairperson. With regard to what my learned friend has been asking you, is it correct that the reason why further statements had to be obtained from you and others by Brigadier Van Wyk, was that Warrant Officer Pienaar had been removed as Investigating Officer by then, as a result of objections from the representative of the families?
MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson.
MR MOERANE: That objection appears in Bundle 3(b), Chairperson, it was started in April, on the 24th of April 1989.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Moerane, Volume 3(b)?
MR MOERANE: From the first page, yes. The basis is laid in the cross-examination of Warrant Officer Pienaar, which covers a number of pages and his argument and finally a decision that he be removed. Then of course, there were further things that happened, the car was examined by Captain Young, not so?
CHAIRPERSON: Captain, could you just repeat the name? Young?
MR MOERANE: Young, Basil Young.
MR THERON: Yes, I recall Captain Basil Young was there with the ballistic investigation Chairperson.
MR MOERANE: And you had to go and reconstruct this scene, do you recall that?
MR THERON: Yes Chairperson, in both instances there was a reconstruction.
MR MOERANE: Yes. Even at that stage, you did not disclose the presence of Colonel De Kock as far as the second incident is concerned?
MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson.
MR MOERANE: Let's look at your first statement in Bundle 3(a), page 1. You mention in the second paragraph that you had certain information and you received certain instructions, and the information and the instructions are the following
"... that insurgents or the crossing of two trained ANC terrorists would take place during the evening."
Do you see that?
MR THERON: I see that Chairperson, yes.
MR MOERANE: Now was that information that was obtained from your source?
MR THERON: Chairperson, I cannot recall exactly how the information went about the two members, I have thought about this much and it could be that, I am not saying it is so, but it could be that I can recall there was information from the same source which would have said that the previous day or - people would have infiltrated there but it was cancelled later to another day, and it may be so that this confusion caused the two specific trained members, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Theron, you would agree that the information that you received, couldn't have involved many infiltrators coming in because it was decided to send a Toyota Corolla which would have a driver?
MR THERON: Yes Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: So why should you make a mistake about two and confusing it with other information that might have been given at another time?
MR THERON: I cannot recall exactly during this incident Chairperson, but what I do know is that there was more than one occasion which was reported to me that infiltrations would take place which did not happen and it was cancelled. The issue with regard to the vehicle, it was a bit small, it was on short notice that we had to arrange the transport. We in any case did not foresee that there would be more than four people infiltrating.
MR MOERANE: But you see Mr Theron, that is the information that Mr Pienaar sent to his superiors, remember?
MR THERON: Yes, I see that in the statement. I must just state that the information came from my informer, from me.
MR MOERANE: That is right. So the information which formed the basis of this operation, was that two trained ANC cadres were going to infiltrate that evening?
MR THERON: That is how it appears in the report Chairperson. I have just explained how I view the matter, that it may also be from one of the previous incidents where specific figures were mentioned, but I cannot recall the precise detail.
MR MOERANE: Well, you see everybody who was involved in that operation and who gives a number, for instance Barnard on page 3, he also talks about "two trained ANC terrorists during that night".
MR THERON: I did not see Mr Barnard's statement.
MR MOERANE: No, there it is, you can look at it now if you don't believe you.
MR THERON: Yes, I believe you.
CHAIRPERSON: I can't understand Mr Theron, why you should think that this might be confused information? I mean it is contained in your statement, it is contained in other people's statements, what is the problem with receiving information that two people were coming in, in your mind, what do you see as a problem in this hearing about saying that your information was that two people would infiltrate rather than four?
MR THERON: Chairperson, there were four persons who came. I cannot imagine what came in on that day with the information, whether it was two persons or whether this was something that came through on a previous occasion. It is not really a problem to me, I just want to put it clearly that I obtained information on more than these two occasions that there would be infiltrations from the same source.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Moerane?
MR MOERANE: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Ras is to the same effect on page 5 of the same Volume. The statement taken from him on the 4th of July 1989 by Brigadier Van Wyk. But you see the significant thing about all the statements is that there is no mention that these people would be armed, is there?
MR THERON: I see in the statement Chairperson, that there would be two armed ANC terrorists, I didn't have time to read the rest of the statements.
MR MALAN: Mr Moerane, I am sorry, the fourth paragraph the last sentence refers to the usually well-armed terrorists.
MR MOERANE: Mr Chairman, could my attention be directed at it.
MR MALAN: It is on this first page of Mr Theron's statement, paragraph 4, the last sentence reads
"... orders that we had to be well armed because trained terrorists were usually well armed during crossings,"
not information but indeed the probability of being armed.
MR MOERANE: That is right. At this stage, I was just dealing with information, particular, specific information that had been received. You had not received information that the people, the two people would be armed?
MR THERON: I did not receive information that said that they would be armed specifically.
MR MOERANE: But from your past experience you believed that they might well be armed?
MR THERON: That is correct.
MR MOERANE: I think you have already admitted that you took part in this massive collective perjury?
MR THERON: That is correct.
MR MOERANE: With regard to the further investigation of this matter and the sequel to the first incident, did you receive further information, in other words after the 8th, from your source?
MR THERON: That is correct. Once again, I received information after the 8th, that there would be another infiltration.
MR MOERANE: Wasn't certain information given to you by Lieutenant Mose as to the intentions of the people who sent these people who came on the first occasion?
MR THERON: Yes Chairperson, as far as I can recall Mr Mose informed us that one of these persons who had assisted the insurgents, once again wanted to make use of his services because there would be another infiltration. I cannot recall whether he mentioned a specific date.
MR MOERANE: Did he not say that if the first infiltration was a success, then others would follow on the Sunday?
MR THERON: No Chairperson, I cannot recall anything like that. All that I can recall is that he said that they wanted to make use of him again for further infiltrations. He did not mention any specific dates.
MR MOERANE: It was important to keep information about the events of the 8th, particularly the fact that the infiltration was not a success from the point of view of the ANC, secret from them, they shouldn't have known, they mustn't know that it was not successful?
MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson, for further infiltrations, it was essential to keep this story quiet, the incident.
MR MOERANE: Not only that, but positive steps should have been taken to put them at risk and assure them that the infiltration had been a success?
MR THERON: Chairperson, it wasn't necessary for the informer to state completely positively that the group had reached its destination, the informer were only responsible for arranging transport, so it wasn't really necessary for the informer to report back, that is how I understood it.
MR MOERANE: But you know that he did report?
MR THERON: Yes, I believe so.
MR MOERANE: And she misled the ANC, which caused them to send another four people to their death?
MR THERON: That is correct, it wasn't the full truth.
MR MALAN: Excuse me Mr Moerane, on what grounds do you know that she reported back to the ANC that the first infiltration had been successful?
MR THERON: Chairperson, I did not say that I knew, but ...
MR MALAN: No, but it was put to you that you knew that she reported back to the ANC that the first operation was a success and you answered to that positively.
MR THERON: Let me just state Chairperson what the informer's function was, I believe that she reported it back, because all indications were there that if she had not done so, they would not have made use of the informer's services for the second time.
MR MALAN: Sorry Mr Moerane, but I think we need to, in the absence of this implicated person, ask a few questions about this and in her interest I think, or his interest. This informer was an informer within Swaziland?
MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson.
MR MALAN: Whom from time to time came across the border and provided information to you?
MR THERON: Yes, that is correct.
MR MALAN: At the stage when the first infiltration took place, would this informer certainly have been in Swaziland or do you have any knowledge that she was in the Republic? We are speaking this in female form.
MR THERON: Could you repeat please.
MR MALAN: Do you have any knowledge whether during the first infiltration on the 8th, where the informer found herself?
MR THERON: During the day of the 8th, she was in the Republic, or he was in the Republic to convey certain information to me Chairperson.
MR MALAN: That was the information regarding the infiltration?
MR THERON: That is correct.
MR MALAN: In other words the same person would have had to report that transport had been arranged?
MR THERON: That is correct.
MR MALAN: You don't know whether this person returned to Swaziland or not?
MR THERON: This person did return to Swaziland.
MR MALAN: In order to make those arrangements, to confirm them?
MR THERON: Yes, to make the arrangements, I believe so.
MR MALAN: Did you at any stage tell this source of yours that these persons had come through, that you had picked them up and eliminated them?
MR THERON: No Chairperson. At a later stage, I informed the informer after the first incident that we had found the people, but I did not sketch the circumstances surrounding the incident and where it took place.
MR MALAN: What story or what version did you want to leave with this informer, what was the informer supposed to think regarding what had taken place if you did not tell her, that you had arrested the persons in a roadblock and that you had them in detention?
MR THERON: I did not say anything about this incident to the informer, I simply said that the information which the informer had given to me, was positive and that we had also obtained positive results. I also requested the informer to try again, that if there were going to be more infiltrations, to give me the information so that we could have a greater level of success. I didn't say anything else.
MR MALAN: I am just going to take up your time for a short while longer, but with regard to the background, this informer is referred to constantly, but it has never been explained as to how this informer became an informer. I want to ask you was any pressure put on the informer to be an informer, did she have a choice or was it under some form of coercion? Did she provide voluntary information to you?
MR THERON: Yes.
MR MALAN: Did you initially approach the informer to assist you, how did the informer arrive at you, were you the first contact?
MR THERON: Yes, I was the first contact.
MR MALAN: You approached the informer?
MR THERON: Yes, that is correct.
MR MALAN: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Did you pay for information?
MR THERON: Yes, money was handed over for services rendered.
MR MALAN: And this source was appropriately registered as an informer?
MR THERON: Yes, that is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Moerane?
MR MOERANE: Thank you. Haven't you read a statement from the source?
MR THERON: Repeat that please.
MR MOERANE: Haven't you read a statement from the source?
MR THERON: Chairperson, I don't understand the question.
CHAIRPERSON: We said, Mr Moerane, that we don't want the source identified, I don't want to stop you, but as long as we don't identify it until we have had the opportunity to receive representations from ...
MR MOERANE: No, I don't intend mentioning the source's name. May I proceed? Thank you. You knew that the source was intimately involved with the people who sent the infiltrators into the country from Swaziland?
MR THERON: That is correct.
MR MOERANE: She knew of the arrangements?
MR THERON: Repeat please.
MR MOERANE: She knew of the arrangements and took part in the arrangements, the identification of routes for instance?
MR THERON: That is correct.
MR MOERANE: You know that she was arrested by the ANC?
MR THERON: That is correct.
MR MOERANE: Do you know how long after the second incident?
MR THERON: I was aware of it shortly after she was arrested, if the members of the ANC could arrest her in Swaziland, a short while after that, approximately two weeks later, she was abducted.
MR MOERANE: Yes, that is right, because somebody survived? Because somebody survived the second incident, the people who were shot at on the Swaziland side, of the two, one survived and lived to tell the tale?
MR THERON: No, I don't believe that had any influence on the matter Mr Chairperson.
MR MOERANE: But you have heard the evidence?
MR THERON: Yes Chairperson, but I don't believe that the person who survived, would have exerted any influences under these circumstances.
MR MOERANE: In any event, between the two incidents, you must have had contact with the source?
MR THERON: That is correct, yes.
MR MOERANE: To arrange the second infiltration?
MR THERON: Correct.
MR MOERANE: When did you meet her?
MR THERON: Chairperson, I cannot really recall any precise dates, but what I do recall is that the informer contacted me telephonically on the 12th, I think it was a Sunday and conveyed certain information to me, on the same day of the second incident.
MR MOERANE: Did you report back to her about the first incident?
MR THERON: Chairperson, I have already stated here that I mentioned to her that the information that she had conveyed to me, had resulted in a successful infiltration, in the sense of the word that it was successful for our side. But I did not tell her the circumstances surrounding the infiltration, or that the persons had been killed, or where the incident had taken place.
MR MOERANE: You see, you reported back to her either that the people were arrested or they escaped or they were eliminated, now which of the three did you report back to her?
MR THERON: Chairperson, once again I simply mentioned that it had been successful, I did not say anything else.
MR MOERANE: What was she to understand by that?
MR THERON: I don't know Chairperson.
MR MOERANE: What did you intend her to understand?
MR THERON: I had no intentions for her to understand anything.
MR MOERANE: You had an intention, you must have understood what you are conveying to her in a particular sense. What did you intend her to understand?
MR THERON: Chairperson, I must just state I worked with an informer, I would not have conveyed any unnecessary information to this informer, unless it was absolutely necessary.
MR MOERANE: Yes, but you have still not answered my question, you have not told this Honourable Committee what you intended her to understand by those words.
MR THERON: Chairperson, I have already stated it clearly, I told my informer that the information that she had conveyed to me, had resulted in a successful plan. I also requested the informer to communicate the next infiltration as speedily as possible to me, because it was important to me and the rest of our members, nothing else.
MR MOERANE: Is it possible that she understood that to mean that the people had been killed?
MR THERON: Chairperson, to speculate about the thoughts of the informer, is something that I will not make any statements about, I really don't know.
MR MALAN: Really I don't think that that is acceptable, you had contact over a long period of time with this person, you recruited her for a certain action during which trained and probably armed persons would be entering the country. This informer co-operated with you and gave you full information. This informer would have had some idea and you would have known what that idea was, regarding your planning, whether you wanted to capture these persons, charge them and detain them or whether you wanted to kill them. I think that it is important in particular for the informer, what your opinion is about her expectations because if she was under the impression or may have been under the impression that these persons were lured or going to be lured by you into an ambush and that they were going to be killed, and if she knew that she was going to continue with this pattern, she would be sending people to their death, otherwise she would knowingly be sending people into a situation of detention and possible torture and prosecution, you must have some idea regarding what you thought the informer was doing when she was co-operating with you? You had known the informer for almost a year, do you have an answer for us or do you stand by your statement that you have no idea what may have been going through her mind?
MR THERON: Really Mr Chairperson with all respect, I cannot speculate about what she was thinking. I gave as little as possible information to her. This informer really did not know what was going to happen to the persons, she may have drawn inferences but I will stand by that.
MR MOERANE: Well, I will argue at the end of these proceedings that you are not making a full disclosure, I just want to be fair to you.
MR THERON: Chairperson, I am telling the absolute truth, I can give you the fullest assurance of that.
MR MOERANE: In other words you are telling this Honourable Committee that you conveyed information to her and you do not know what you intended to convey to her, in effect that is what you are saying?
MR THERON: No Chairperson.
MR MALAN: May I ask another question and follow up on this? Why didn't you tell her thank you very much for your information, we have killed all these persons?
MR THERON: Chairperson, it may have occurred to me that this person would not be willing to assist again, I conveyed as little as possible information to her.
MR MALAN: Are you not saying by that that you didn't think that the informer would have co-operated if she knew that you were shooting people dead?
MR THERON: That possibility existed.
MR MALAN: But you had no impression regarding what you thought the informer thought you were busy with?
MR THERON: The informer knew what we were busy with.
MR MALAN: She knew that she was sending people to their death and that you were going to shoot them?
MR THERON: At that stage I doubt whether he or she had that information.
MR MALAN: I cannot understand sir that you would say "thank you very much for your information, it was successful", but you have no idea in your mind as to what you wanted the informer to make of that information that you had communicated to her.
MR THERON: Please repeat that.
MR MALAN: I find it tremendously strange that you would tell anybody thank you very much for the information that you gave me, it was successful. You know if you tell somebody something like that, then you would understand that that person knew where the success lay or at the very least, had some notion of what you were saying about where the success lay.
MR THERON: Chairperson, I can only say that when one worked with informers, one had to be very careful, it also operated on a need to know basis. From our side in the police or Security Branch, we needed to obtain as much information as possible to combat the ANC in their activities and we had to obtain as much information from an informer as possible.
MR MALAN: Was this informer responsible for the transport arrangements with the insurgents?
MR THERON: Yes, that is correct, on the South African side.
MR MALAN: And both infiltrations took place at the same place, the transport was taken to the same place?
MR THERON: That is correct, yes.
MR MALAN: Thank you Mr Moerane.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, would this be a convenient time Mr Moerane, to take the lunch adjournment?
MR MOERANE: It would.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, we will now take the lunch adjournment until quarter to two.
MS LOCKHAT: Please stand.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
FLIP KOENRAAD THERON: (s.u.o.)
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Moerane?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MOERANE: (continued) Thank you Mr Chairperson. I was still asking you Mr Theron about the period between the 8th and the 12th of June 1988, about the contact you had with your source. You have told the Honourable Committee that you reported to the source about the success of the mission.
MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson.
MR MOERANE: Did you discuss a further infiltration, the one that was to take place on the 12th?
MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson.
MR MOERANE: What was the nature of the discussion, what did you say to her and what did she say to you?
MR THERON: Chairperson, as far as I can recall, she only conveyed certain information to me, to the extent that there would be another infiltration and the date on which the infiltration would take place, that members will once again infiltrate and that was what the discussion was about.
MR MOERANE: Is it correct that she was involved, at least she was to be involved as far as the ANC knew, with the transportation of these people?
MR THERON: Yes Chairperson, the arrangements of the transport on the South African side.
MR MOERANE: Yes, and they relied on her for transport?
MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson.
MR MOERANE: That is in both incidents, the first one and the second?
MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson.
MR MOERANE: And the contact was supposed to be a person by the name of Amos?
MR THERON: With the first incident, yes Chairperson.
MR MOERANE: The Amos whom we know was Lieutenant Mose?
MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson.
MR MOERANE: And on the second occasion she reported to the ANC that the person who had transported these people, was Amos' brother, Johannes?
MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson, I can recall that.
MR MOERANE: And we all know that in fact that was a lie, it was Sergeant Manzini?
MR THERON: It was Manzini, yes Chairperson.
MR MOERANE: After the second incident, did you speak to your source?
MR THERON: Yes Chairperson, we had contact again. I cannot recall exactly at which stage, but after the second incident it became general knowledge that there were shooting incidents. I imagine that during that time, I had contacted her again Chairperson.
MR MOERANE: What report did you give to her after the second infiltration, attempted infiltration?
MR THERON: Chairperson, I cannot specifically what I mentioned to the source, but it was clear, everybody knew what had happened.
MR MOERANE: No Mr Theron, you must remember that very clearly for several reasons, firstly, she must have been told by the person who survived that there was a shooting incident, secondly, it had been reported in the press particularly in Swaziland, that nine people had been killed, not so?
MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson.
MR MOERANE: Yes, so please tell this Honourable Committee the nature of your conversation and what you reported to her, and what her attitude was?
MR THERON: Chairperson, I really cannot recall what was discussed there, but I understand the informer must have heard what the circumstances with regard to the infiltration was, but I can really not specifically recall what I mentioned to the source. Maybe I should just mention that a handler who handles a source, wants information, not conveying information. It has to be kept in mind the handling of sources has to be handled very sensitively. A handler does not always know whether the source might be a double agent and as little as possible information would be conveyed to the informer, except in the case where certain information has to be obtained by the source.
MR MOERANE: Are you telling us that you also do not know how she responded, how she reacted to these events?
MR THERON: Chairperson, I cannot really recall what the source's feeling was with regard to that.
MR MOERANE: Well ...
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Moerane, did you get the feeling that everything was all right with her, or did you get the feeling that she was nervous or worried or didn't you get any sense of feeling at all as to how she was thinking?
MR THERON: Chairperson, as far as I can recall there was a stage when some of the members of the ANC had approached her and requested her to go to another destination, it was outside Swaziland, I suspect it must be Zambia or Mozambique and that she refused to go, so I believe that she must have been nervous.
MR MOERANE: Didn't she tell you that she was now suspected of being an agent or an informer?
MR THERON: The source did mention that Chairperson.
MR MOERANE: Didn't she ask for protection from you?
MR THERON: No Chairperson.
MR MOERANE: She just asked for her money?
MR THERON: That is probably so Chairperson.
MR MOERANE: She was paid, not so?
MR THERON: Yes, she was paid.
MR MOERANE: On what basis, was she paid a regular salary or was she paid on the basis of the information, on the basis of the number of scalps she delivered?
MR THERON: Chairperson, usually our sources were paid their travelling costs and then claims were laid for services rendered. An active source would get more money than an inactive source.
MR MOERANE: How much was she paid for these two incidents?
MR THERON: Chairperson, I cannot remember specific amounts.
CHAIRPERSON: Can you give us a ball park figure?
MR THERON: Chairperson, I imagine there was a claim for something like R10 000 or R11 000 at some stage and then another amount was claimed at another stage, at a later stage but I cannot recall the exact amounts, I cannot recall all of it. There was much - payment was made for travelling costs and other expenses.
MR MOERANE: Well, you were the handler so you knew about particulars of her payment, not so?
MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson.
MR MOERANE: I am instructed that she was removed from Swaziland towards the end of July 1988 or thereabouts? Do you confirm that?
MR THERON: Yes Chairperson. I received information that during that time period, at approximately that time, she was abducted by members of the ANC and taken to a camp in Zambia.
MR MOERANE: Yes, I think it is common cause that that was one called Sun City?
MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson.
MR MOERANE: Did you have contact with her after her release?
MR THERON: Yes Chairperson.
MR MOERANE: Did you give her any further compensation?
MR THERON: Yes Chairperson, she returned and reported what had happened to her. She mentioned to me that she had lost everything and I once again applied that she be compensated.
MR MOERANE: Was she compensated?
MR THERON: Yes.
MR MOERANE: How much?
MR THERON: I cannot recall the exact amount, but it was much money Chairperson.
MR MOERANE: Well, give the learned Committee some idea what you mean by that?
MR THERON: R50 000, R60 000 somewhere roundabout there Chairperson.
MR MOERANE: And for purposes of that further interview or contact with you, did she have to give the impression that she was being detained by the Piet Retief police?
MR THERON: No Chairperson, there was no mention of detentions.
MR MOERANE: And to your knowledge she was not detained by the Piet Retief police?
MR THERON: No Chairperson, not at all.
MR MOERANE: If that had happened, you would have known about that?
MR THERON: Definitely Chairperson.
MR MOERANE: You were a member of the Security Branch station at Piet Retief?
MR THERON: I was a member of that Branch Chairperson.
MR MOERANE: And you fell under the command of Warrant Officer Pienaar?
MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson.
MR MOERANE: For how many years were you so stationed?
MR THERON: Chairperson, I imagine that in 1985 or 1986 I arrived there up to approximately 1991 whereafter I was transferred to Ermelo.
MR MOERANE: Are you still a member of the South African Police Services?
MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson.
MR MOERANE: What is your present rank?
MR THERON: I am Superintendent Chairperson.
MR MOERANE: Stationed at?
MR THERON: Provincial Head Office Middelburg.
MR MOERANE: Yes, can you explain to this Honourable Committee why you decided to involve yourself in, let's take the first incident, in murder?
MR THERON: Chairperson, it was in the nature of our work, the combating of terrorism and that is how I became involved.
MR MOERANE: Yes, but the prevention of terrorism is done by ordinary police methods, not so?
MR THERON: Chairperson, it was our primary function.
MR MOERANE: It is done by arresting the so-called terrorists, not so?
MR THERON: Arrests are part, form part of that.
MR MOERANE: Yes?
MR THERON: And shooting incidents, interrogation and then the gathering of information and putting it to use.
MR MOERANE: Yes, but not murder?
MR THERON: No, not murder.
MR MOERANE: Why did you do it?
MR THERON: That was, if we look at these two incidents Chairperson, if one has a look at the circumstances, it was part of our work basically.
MR MOERANE: No, but you could have planned an arrest, not so? You could have planned an arrest, not so?
MR THERON: In these specific instances?
MR MOERANE: Yes.
MR THERON: I believe that one could have arranged the circumstances so that we could make an arrest.
MR MOERANE: Yes, but instead you planned an ambush?
MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson.
MR MOERANE: And of course that started a whole train of illegal and unlawful deeds?
MR THERON: That is correct so.
MR MOERANE: Including as I have put to one of your predecessors, the corruption of the criminal justice system?
MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson.
MR MOERANE: Yes. I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MOERANE
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Moerane. Ms Lockhat?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS LOCKHAT: Thank you Mr Chairperson, I have just one question. Mr Theron, you said in your, in cross-examination by Adv Moerane you said that the
source contacted you on the 12th of June, that very same day when the second incident was planned, is that correct?
MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson.
MS LOCKHAT: I just want to refer you to Bundle 6, on page 6, that is the evidence of Mr Manzini in a Section 29 hearing in Johannesburg, Bundle 6, page 6, just the last paragraph there where Mr Manzini states, he says
"... I was given instructions by my Branch Commander to cooperate with them and as I have testified already, Warrant Officer Pienaar then gave further instructions to Warrant Officer Theron that he point out places to me."
Is that correct, did you point out places to him?
MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson. I cannot specifically recall who did what, but I imagine that I went and identified the places with Warrant Officer Pienaar.
MS LOCKHAT: Then he goes further and he says
"... the first evening I went, the people did not arrive and the second evening, when I went there, I found the people there."
My impression, it leaves with me that this happened over two days and it couldn't have been on the 12th?
MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson. There was an occasion where there would have been an infiltration where the people did not arrive.
MS LOCKHAT: But wasn't Mr Manzini used in this very same operation, is he referring to another operation or is he referring to the operation on the 12?
MR THERON: He refers to an evening or two before the second incident took place, I received information that there would be an infiltration. We made the necessary arrangements and Mr Manzini drove to the border, but he did not find anybody there, nobody was in the vehicle with him.
MS LOCKHAT: And then just one last question. You received all this information from your source, you took it to Mr Pienaar who then took it to Mr De Kock, was it your intention, or did you foresee that they were going to be eliminated because of the information that you had given to your Commander?
MR THERON: At that stage I did not foresee what would exactly happen, I could have foreseen that there may have been a shooting incident, but I could not foresee exactly how the planning would go about.
MS LOCKHAT: But you do realise that after receiving this information from you, these people were killed?
MR THERON: Yes, there was a strong possibility that it would happen, I did foresee it.
MS LOCKHAT: Thank you Chairperson, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS LOCKHAT
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Van der Walt, do you have any re-examination?
MS VAN DER WALT: No questions, thank you.
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT
CHAIRPERSON: Adv Gcabashe, do you have any questions? Sorry, I heard somebody?
FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Sorry Mr Chairman, during cross-examination by Mr Moerane, Mr Theron testified about the information that they had surrounding the infiltration of the MK soldiers, when he gave evidence in chief, I did not understand his evidence to be, he talked of armed MK soldiers, during cross-examination of Mr Moerane he said something to the effect of MK soldiers and they assumed that they would be armed. Could I be permitted Mr Chairperson, just to ask questions on this line?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, yes.
MR LAMEY: Mr Theron, I speak of the second incident and the information that you had with regard to the second incident, can you specifically recall what the information was from the source? Would they be armed, the insurgents?
MR THERON: Chairperson, as far as I can recall, there was no specific mention made of weapons, but I assumed that there would be weapons. It was not specifically mentioned to me that the persons would have weapons and what type of weapons they would have.
MR LAMEY: Could it have been mentioned and that you could have forgotten it by now?
MR THERON: It could be, but as I say, I don't know.
MR LAMEY: You see the reason why I ask you, there must have been a good reason why Vlakplaas was involved, because if the people were not armed, or if you never thought that the people would be armed, you could have done it yourself, is that not so?
MR THERON: Chairperson, with regard to infiltrations at the border fence, other than a border post, all the members' experience with regard to that would be that the people come in armed, that was the general feeling that the people would be armed. There was no specific information with regard to the arming of the people.
MR LAMEY: Very well, but could that have been communicated to the Vlakplaas members that the people would be armed?
MR THERON: I did not do the reporting myself, Mr Pienaar did that and I don't know what he said.
MR LAMEY: The reason why I ask you is because Mr De Kock says in his application that
"... I took the decision to eliminate them because they were armed."
So in other words there had to be that communication?
MR THERON: That is the inference that I draw Chairperson
MR LAMEY: And then Mr Pienaar says in his evidence with regard to the second incident, that Manzini would pick up armed MK members.
CHAIRPERSON: But where is this getting us Mr Lamey, because it is all supposition, there was no, he said there is no direct, he cannot remember any specific mention of arms, there was also the arrangement that if they were armed, he would put on the indicator now, I mean why make that arrangement if you were so hundred percent sure that they were going to be armed? That arrangement is there obviously because there is some doubt that there may or may not be armed and they all believed that there was a strong chance of them being armed. I mean the witness has said he cannot recall any specific mention of arms, it is all just a question for argument really, I think, it is not taking us any further, this line of cross-examination.
MR LAMEY: Yes Chairperson, but I just want to place on record then, just to put this to the witness that Mr Nortje whom I represent here, understood that from the information that the information was that the persons would be armed.
MR THERON: Chairperson, I stand by it that it was not specifically mentioned that there would be arms and what type of arms there would be.
MR LAMEY: Thank you Chairperson, no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Adv Gcabashe, do you have any questions?
ADV GCABASHE: No, no questions.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Malan?
MR MALAN: Yes, my attention was now drawn to the Section 29 hearing where Sergeant Manzini gave evidence, once again I am addressing you in English, the evidence that he gave was that there was a previous attempt where the people did not arrive?
MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson.
MR MALAN: And he refers to the second incident?
MR THERON: That is correct Chairperson.
MR MALAN: In other words if the people had arrived the first time, according to the evidence of De Kock and the others, the Vlakplaas people would not have been there and Mr Deetlefs would not have been there? Was preparations made to involve any of them?
MR THERON: Yes Chairperson, there were some of the people, I do not recall specifically Vlakplaas but Mr Deetlefs was there, there were other members of the Ermelo Branch, but I cannot recall specifically whether there were any of the Vlakplaas members, but arrangements were made that if these people would come in, that the incident that took place the second time, would have happened earlier.
MR MALAN: But we have not heard from any of the other witnesses evidence to that effect, we heard that Deetlefs had come earlier and left, and it was not said or any of the other Ermelo members?
MR THERON: That is so Chairperson.
MR MALAN: They had not given evidence with regard to the first aborted incident.
MR THERON: That is correct.
MR MALAN: But you say some of the Ermelo people were there?
MR THERON: That is correct.
MR MALAN: And some of the Vlakplaas people?
MR THERON: I cannot recall specifically Chairperson, I cannot recall whether some of them were there.
MR MALAN: Thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON: Are there any questions arising out of questions that had been put?
FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MOERANE: Yes
Mr Chairman, thank you. You see my instructions are that there was an earlier attempt to infiltrate two persons on the 5th of June 1988, what is your comment?
MR THERON: Chairperson, I cannot specifically recall but there were instances where there was a possible infiltration which never took place, but I cannot recall whether it was definitely that case. I don't know whether the arrangements were made. I have forgotten whether that had taken place, I cannot recall, but there was more than one occasion where there were possible infiltrations and that the persons had not arrived.
MR MOERANE: And one of the persons that were supposed to be infiltrated on that first occasion, was a deceased, Mr Lanny Naidoo, any comment?
MR THERON: It could be so Chairperson. The information that I obtained was not with regard to names, I did not have any names.
MR MOERANE: And that is probably the occasion to which Mr Manzini is referring?
MR THERON: No Chairperson. Mr Manzini would not have been used, it would have been Captain Mose, so in this instance which Mr Manzini refers to, was before the second incident, after the first incident.
MR MOERANE: Well, I suggest to you that Vlakplaas was not involved in that one, the one of the 5th of June, that is why it would have involved Mr Manzini and not Lieutenant Mose?
MR THERON: No Chairperson, definitely not. It could be that there was some planning for the 5th, that you mention but I don't have dates, and I imagine that there we did make some arrangements and as far as I can recall the Vlakplaas members were there. I cannot say specifically.
MR MOERANE: Well, I put it to you that between the 8th and the 12th, there was no aborted infiltration?
MR THERON: I think there was.
MR MOERANE: When, the 9th, 10th, 11th, when?
MR THERON: Between the 8th and the 12th, I don't remember exactly.
MR MOERANE: Well, I suggest to you that after the 8th you received information from Lieutenant Mose that if that infiltration was successful, the one of the 8th, then people would be sent through on Sunday, the 12th?
MR THERON: As I have said earlier Chairperson, the information that I received from Mr Manzini or from Captain Mose rather, was that they told him that they would use him again, but I cannot recall a date. The information from the 12th, the infiltration, I received from the source.
MR MOERANE: Mr Theron, aren't you giving this evidence now in an attempt to protect Mr Manzini who has not made an application for amnesty?
MR THERON: Not at all Chairperson, I am only speaking the truth.
MR MOERANE: Thank you Mr Chairman, no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MOERANE
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Theron, that concludes your evidence, you may stand down.
WITNESS EXCUSED
