CHAIRPERSON: Good morning everybody. My name is Motata, from the TPD and on my left, Mr Malan from Jo'burg, and on my right, Adv Sandi from East London. This week we will hear the following incidents: Masuku, Modimeng, Brown, Ramakope, Maake, Mokape and Sefolo, and lastly, Motasi incidents. We will commence with the incident of Maskuku, and the applicants in that respect would be Messrs Hechter, Viktor and Coetser. Would counsel place their names on record. Should we start on my left.
MR ROUX: As it pleases you, Chairperson. My name is Jaco Roux, from the Pretoria Bar, under instruction from the firm, Strydom Britz. I am appearing in the first application, on behalf of Jacques Hechter, as well as Jack Cronje, who at the time of the pre-trial conference was incorporated as an applicant. As it pleases you.
MR VISSER: May it please you, Chairperson. My name is Louis Visser, I'm instructed by Wagener Muller of Pretoria, and we act for J J Viktor.
MR LAMEY: May it please you, Mr Chairman. My surname is Lamey, I'm from the firm Rooth and Wessels from Pretoria, and I represent the applicant J D L Coetser, also known as Tiny Coetser. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Lamey.
MR TOEFY: If it pleases the Chairperson, thank you. My name is Agmat Toefy, I'm from the firm Cheadle Thompson and Haysom in Johannesburg and I represent the victims in this matter, the Masuku family.
ADV STEENKAMP: As it pleases you Honourable Chairperson, I'm Andre Steenkamp, I will be the Evidence Leader. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: By waving your hand you say you are a spectator and observe, I suppose.
MR RICHARD: In this matter I'm not involved yet.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Which applicant are we hearing first?
MR ROUX: Hechter. As it pleases you. Before I commence with Hechter's application, during the pre-trial conference a decision was taken that an affidavit by Jack Cronje would be submitted during these proceedings. The position is unfortunate that the original thereof is still under way here via the post. I am in possession of a copy of the original, as well as an original of which the second page has been waylaid. I request to submit conditionally the submission of Jan Hattingh Cronje, and to have it read in with the record.
CHAIRPERSON: Do I understand you to say that the copy you have is not complete?
MR ROUX: The copy in my possession is complete, however I also have an original in my possession, of which page 2 was waylaid in the post. The only complete set that I have is unfortunately a copy.
CHAIRPERSON: We shall accept the copy.
MR ROUX: It has been attested to. Will it be necessary for me to read it into the record, Chairperson?
CHAIRPERSON: Let's see first.
MR ROUX: As it pleases you.
MR HECHTER: Do other interested parties in this matter have the Cronje affidavit?
MR TOEFY: Yes, we do, Mr Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Just at the mere sight of this affidavit, it would appear the copy is a bad one. I suppose you will agree with me. For those reasons that we don't logistical problems, I would suggest that this affidavit be read into the record.
MR ROUX: As it pleases you.
CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed.
MR ROUX READS AFFIDAVIT OF J H CRONJE INTO RECORD: I'm indebted to you. This document is entitled "Truth and Reconciliation Commission in connection with Oupa Masuku, in connection with Brown."
"I, the undersigned, J H Cronje, declare under oath as follows
I reside in Swellendam. I have personal knowledge of this affidavit, except where stated otherwise elsewhere, and I confirm it as true and correct.
I was informed by the respective applicants in aforementioned applications, who worked under my command at the time of the incident, exactly which actions were taken by them. The subordinates to whom I refer are Capt Jacques Hechter, W/O Paul van Vuuren, Capt Jubber and F Pretorius.
Jubber and Pretorius were employed by the Security Branch in Britz, but because I was the Commander of the Security Branch in the Northern Transvaal at that stage, they resorted under my command.
Inasfar as I was their Commander, I have already applied in my first and second applications, for any offences for which I may be found guilty with regard to the above-mentioned acts. I confirm that I do not have any knowledge of the actions taken by the aforementioned applicants, but that all of this fell within the framework of the actions of the Security Branch, Northern Transvaal. It also fell within the command given to me by Brig Viktor, and fell within the usual authorised action of the Security Branch at that stage.
I accept full responsibility for what they did and I also confirm that it fell within the ambit of the political situation within the country at that stage.
I therefore request humbly that the Amnesty Committee grant amnesty to those applicants as well as to me, with regard to these events."
This affidavit was signed at Swellendam on the 18th of March 2000 and was attested to by Jan Hattingh Cronje on the 18th of March 2000. As it pleases you.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Roux.
MR ROUX: Chairperson, I must just add that everyone is well familiar with Jack Cronje's situation, he is a condition of illness and underwent a quadruple bypass operation last year and that is why he is unable to attend these proceedings.
CHAIRPERSON: I am personally aware thereof, I do not know of the other Members of the Committee. Are you aware?
MR MALAN: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Adv Sandi, are you aware of the condition of Mr Cronje?
ADV SANDI: No Chair, I was not aware thereof.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, is there anything that you wish to add?
If we could begin by saying that we note that this document will be marked as A.
MR ROUX: Chairperson, I request for it to be marked as B. My learned friend Mr Visser SC, has informed me that he will be handing up a bundle that we have already agreed to be marked as A, therefore I request that this document be marked Exhibit B. As it pleases you.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, you wanted to add something.
MR VISSER: Chairperson, after what my learned friend has just told you, I have nothing to ask or to say. I have no objection to this affidavit at all. I've noticed though that in the affidavit, in paragraph 4, certain names are mentioned which names do not include J J Viktor. You will hear evidence from him that he also acted under the command of Brig Jack Cronje, but I don't have to take up your time with that now.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Visser. Mr Lamey.
MR LAMEY: Chairperson, what my learned friend, Mr Visser said, also applies to the applicant Coetser, who also served under the command of Brig Cronje, who was the Commanding Officer of the Security Branch at that stage. I have also got no problem with this affidavit being handed in.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Toefy.
MR TOEFY: Mr Chairperson, there's just two issues I'd like to raise. Number one, in principle we have no objection to the affidavit being handed in as part of an application by Mr Cronje, however as far as opposition to the application is concerned, seeing that Mr Cronje is not here, to what extent should I at this stage reveal to the Committee on what basis we are opposing such application? I seek the guidance by the Chairperson, please.
CHAIRPERSON: The tenor of the affidavit is that he is aware of those incidents and that they got his blessing. I don't know from that point of view whether you would say or ask the applicants how they obtained those instructions or whatever, but it would appear he was not present there, but he gave his blessings.
MR TOEFY: Mr Chairperson, then to the extent that this affidavit by Mr Cronje alleges that he has absolutely no knowledge of these acts which were committed by for instance, Mr Hechter etcetera, we would have liked to have been in the position to challenge that contention and in that from the bundle that we have in our possession, there's at least some indication that he would have had knowledge of this particular incident. We're talking about this particular incident of the Masuku incident, and we really would have liked to have challenged his contention that he has absolutely no knowledge thereof.
CHAIRPERSON: Now could I understand you clearly. Firstly I somewhat heard you that you had no objection to this affidavit being admitted and unfortunately I am personally aware of his health condition, that he would not be present here. Are you saying under those circumstances these hearings would not proceed normally until we hear Mr Cronje, or what is your attitude thereto?
MR TOEFY: Mr Chairperson, our attitude is that we will accept the document that has been handed up as his application, but we will oppose his ...(indistinct)
INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.
MR TOEFY: ... on the basis that he's not making sufficient disclosure.
CHAIRPERSON: Let me just finish with Mr Steenkamp.
ADV STEENKAMP: Honourable Chairman, if I'm not mistaken I think previously there was by Adv du Plessis, actually testimony led about the medical condition of Mr Cronje. That's all I can add. I remember clearly there was definitely evidence led at one stage about his condition. I don't know if my learned colleague is aware of that, but that is how I remember it. That's all I can add. Thank you, Honourable Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: In this instance I had had personal knowledge when previously Mr Cronje appeared before a Panel where I was a Member, and we heard medical evidence as well of his health condition, and on those basis we accepted that he is not a man who could appear before us and be heard because he wouldn't even sit for 10 minutes in this place. So along those lines we said it would not be prudent for the Committee to subject a man of such ill health to these proceedings. And over and above that, his evidence would have centred around that some incidents he knew beforehand and some he was told thereafter and he gave his blessings because he was the Head of the Security Branch.
I don't know if that takes you any further before I hear his counsel, what he's got to say in that respect, but speaking for myself and looking at the process we are dealing with, is that we are not here to persecute but to listen to people who come and apply, but if your condition is of a nature that you cannot be present and be subjected to examination and cross-examination, we would not be encompassing the spirit of the Act which brought us here. And that in the true sense or the stricter sense thereof, that he was not a perpetrator per se but a head, wouldn't the evidence of the other applicants probably throw light and let's come back to Mr Cronje after we have heard the applicants, if we may so wish or so rule. And on those basis you can reposition yourself, what your attitude is towards Mr Cronje, and that we provisionally at this juncture accept this affidavit.
MR TOEFY: Mr Chairperson, we do accept the affidavit as being his application and thank you for the suggestion, we will take it - we will heed to it.
MR VISSER: Mr Chairperson, I don't act for Brig Cronje, but just in an attempt to be of some assistance to you, if you look at the Modimeng bundle, I don't know whether you have it before you ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: I left it in chambers, Mr Visser, but you may proceed, I have an idea about that application.
MR VISSER: At page 140 of that bundle, 140, the judgment of the original Amnesty Committee, in the case of Brig Cronje, was delivered and they deal there at the foot of that page, with a schedule 11. And I will read it, it's very brief, because it seems to me Chairperson that this might solve the impasse that we have with Brig Cronje not being here. It says
"Offences committed by members under his command and his general instructions"
... as the heading. And then it goes on to say -
"The applicant, in conclusion, asks for amnesty in respect of his involvement as Commander in the offences committed by members under his command. He stated that he was not personally involved in any of those offences and it may even be that he is still ignorant of some offences which might have been committed because of his general instructions."
And over the page, the Committee finds -
"The Committee refers to the decisions reached in the applications of Venter, Mentz, Hechter and van Vuuren. In every instance where they acted under orders of the applicant and received amnesty, a similar decision for amnesty is made in respect of the above applicant."
So it would seem an open-ended type of decision, depending on the evidence which the underlings gave at that stage and presumably will still give in future, upon which his amnesty is dependant. I just thought I'd draw your attention to that fact.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, I'm indebted to you and the adage is somewhat true, that you'll find ...(indistinct) grey hair. Thank you very much.
MR MALAN: Sorry Chair, if I understood the representative for the victim for Masuku correctly, the argument is that on the basis of some of the information contained in the documents before us, there is an indication that Cronje indeed had more knowledge than he discloses. I didn't pick that up but I think that was the basis of the opposition. But that would then remain for argument, Mr Chairman, if I understand it correctly. May we just heard from ...
MR TOEFY: Yes it would, and that is why I initially asked the Chair for some direction as to whether I should address those problems right now, because in principle we don't have a problem with the affidavit being handed up as his application, but it's simply as to the merits of our opposition that I was wondering if we should deal with it now seeing that - well I'm not sure how the matter will be taken further now, whether this will be considered closed and only afterwards we deal with the closing arguments.
CHAIRPERSON: No hence I said we will accept this affidavit provisionally and we hear the evidence of the three applicants and your cross-examination and what you get out of it, and in argument that can be addressed, whether under these circumstances where Cronje is involved, would he also get amnesty. Does that satisfy your ...
MR TOEFY: Yes, it does, thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Who is due to begin, Hechter I believe.
MR ROUX: That is correct, Chairperson. Just one aspect. I have listened to my learned friend and it is indeed possible to clarify the problem of my learned friend via this evidence, especially when it comes to instructions and orders. And furthermore, I understand that this is a question for argument because it is the only evidence that will be presented on behalf of Jack Cronje.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, I think that's how I ruled that we should be proceed. Would we proceed with Hechter now?
MR ROUX: As you it pleases you.
JACQUES HECHTER: (sworn states)
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Malan. You may proceed.
EXAMINATION BY MR ROUX: As it pleases you, Chairperson.
Mr Hechter, if you will look at the bundle in which your application is contained, in order to save time and not reiterate evidence which has been given by you on previous occasions during previous applications and also by other previous colleagues, will you please look at the content of page 1 to 4. With regard to your personal particulars, your work record and the capacities in which you served, as well as the historical political objectives, would you confirm the content of pages 1 to 4.
MR HECHTER: I agree with you, Chairperson.
MR ROUX: Will you then look at pages 5 to 19 and the information embodied therein. Without elaborating on it, does it include among others, the structures of command, the actions and handling thereof, the use of violence, informers, identifications and weapons, the content and context of these events as well as the files and destruction of such files?
Mr Chairperson, I have just been told that page 4, which is also the paginated page 4 in the bundle, there is the number 2 and the letter C18, it would appear that a page is missing because apparently the page is back to front. The marked page 2 has the heading "page 3", which begins with "quartermaster". It would appear that this page has been switched and it will make better sense if the paginated page 3 is read first, followed by 2, and then 4. I offer my apologies for that.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I wanted to bring your attention to that because it you look at the paginated 3, it's supposed to be 2 and the paginated 2 is supposed to be 3.
MR ROUX: That is indeed correct, Chairperson, and I apologise for that.
CHAIRPERSON: Your apology is accepted, you may proceed on the basis that the same has been superimposed.
MR ROUX: As it pleases you.
Mr Hechter, would you then study the information embodied from page 5, under the various sub-headings, up to and including page 19 and confirm this information.
MR HECHTER: I concur with it, Chairperson.
MR ROUX: Would you then page to pages 23 and 24, which once again contain personal particulars and so forth, and then also confirm this information, as well as page 25.
MR HECHTER: I concur with that, Chairperson.
MR ROUX: The information embodied on page 25, could you give the Chairperson an indication whether the facts that you recall as contained from page 26 and onwards, with regard to the Masuku incident, indicates personal knowledge that you possess or not.
MR HECHTER: Chairperson, no, after I heard the - or saw the application of Mr Coetser, I associated myself with it. I know that I was involved in various incidents in Atteridgeville, the name Masuku is also familiar to me, but the specific particulars pertaining to this incident I can unfortunately not recall. I will however abide by what Mr Coetser states regarding the incident and I know that I was involved with these incidents and that I was in command of these incidents. Therefore, I abide by what he knows and states about it insofar as it affects this application.
CHAIRPERSON: Just to interpose here, is that the family would want to know your involvement and if you say you will abide by another applicant, what weight should be attach to that because you appear as an applicant and you apply specifically for this incident and for you to be granted amnesty you must make a full disclosure. Let's just look at one leg about this incident, and if I understand you correctly, sitting there you remember nothing but other co-applicants remember about this incident. Would you be able to furnish in that respect, full disclosure of what occurred at the Masuku house?
MR HECHTER: Chairperson, unfortunately I cannot recall this incident at all, I was involved with various bomb explosions. I cannot recall the particulars thereof or the specific persons. After I read Mr Coetser's statement I knew that this was the normal modus operandi of my actions at that time, at that time I followed a specific modus operandi.
I associate myself with the modus operandi and I also associate myself with what Mr Coetser has stated in his affidavit, that I was indeed there, that I was in command or in control of this action. I cannot even recall who the other persons were that were there with us. Unfortunately I cannot recall this at all. I am not trying to hide anything from the Committee, I am prepared to accept the responsibility and anything that accompanies that responsibility, but unfortunately I cannot do anything more than that.
CHAIRPERSON: I do follow that. Previously I've been involved in hearings where the Security Forces were involved and a particular modus operandi was the order of the day, but the question revolves here, even though there is that thread that runs through, the question is that the family must be satisfied that you know about this incident, not that your other co-applicants know about this incident and that you were present, but what your participation was, you personally, not other people. Because you must bear in mind that it is not the other applicants who are applying on your behalf, as it stands you are an applicant by yourself.
MR HECHTER: I understand, Chairperson. Unfortunately I cannot add to that. I would have been physically in control, I would have been physically on the scene. The modus operandi was that I personally would have had that bomb in my hands physically and a person with me would have accompanied me, we would have placed the bomb, I would have placed it myself, and then I would have run away after I had set the bomb. That was the modus operandi.
If it was different in this regard, I am not able to tell you, but I do believe that it would have been. I myself would have gone, I would have been there myself, I would not have sent any other persons. I was there physically myself, and I do accept the responsibility thereof, that I was there and I placed the bomb there.
I am not saying other people did it, but I physically myself did it. Someone was with me, but I cannot recall who it was. I cannot even recall that we were at a specific house. For example, I would never be able to find that same house again if I had to go there, I do not know where it is at all.
At that stage I was familiar, all the source reports came through me, it came to my desk, I saw who the activists were, I saw where they lived and as the reports came through I formed an image of who these persons were and then I went out and during the day I went and had a look where this particular residence was. Two days or the evening or whatever the case may be, later, I would go to this residence during the night, usually after twelve I would go to this residence, and whatever the case may be, I set it alight or placed the bomb, depending on how active the member was or the person was, or the person who was tasked. If it was a smaller activist and if it was a greater activist like Masuku - I have to refer to the normal operation, I cannot recall the detail there of it. I can see in Oupa's statement itself, where he says how great an activist he was. I cannot recall him at all. I might bump into him and I do not know who he is, although I knew what he looked like back then. That is my problem now. But as I have said, I myself would have been there, if the other applicants place me there, then I accept it because that type of conduct was done by myself. I was in command of the branch, that was my conduct and I did it myself then.
CHAIRPERSON: Let me not suffocate this hearing by what I put before you, rather let me let your counsel - but he knows the difficulty I'm encountering, that your counsel would lead you to the satisfaction of this Committee.
MR ROUX: Chairperson, at this stage, in the bundle of Modimeng - I know you do not have it before you, but may I just refer to it. On page 178 thereof, in the judgment reference is made to the application of Jacques Hechter, that is attached to this bundle
"Petrol bombs and explosives in Okasi, Britz"
And previous schedules on page 167, schedule 8, 17, 19 and 23, I wish to read this extract to you. My thanks to my learned friend.
CHAIRPERSON: Page?
MR ROUX: 167. At the bottom of that page the Committee did refer to the applicant's physical and mental condition at the beginning of this decision.
"The Committee accepts that due to his present mental condition he cannot remember details and particulars of certain incidents. It transpired however ..."
...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Could I stop you there. It is quite clear from what you have just read to me, and with the assistance of Adv Steenkamp, I've got it in my possession, that his mental condition was led and before us there is nothing of that nature. And if we read the decision, I don't know what it contains, I'm seeing it for the first time, is the decision not based on what you heard, not necessarily what other people decided? Wouldn't it be decided by the evidence before us?
MR ROUX: It may be so, Chairperson, but where with regard to the opposition in this case particularly, I deduce from my learned friend, where it is about full disclosure in this judgment it says on page 168, the Committee says the following
"The Committee is at present of the opinion that the applicant attempted to make a disclosure of involvement in the incidents under the above schedules, and if it transpires that it was bona fide and falls within the ambit of the Act, after the hearing of further evidence, the matters will be decided on with reference to all the evidence."
Therefore, what I wish to propose to you is that yes, the specific evidence will be offered insofar as it is possible and insofar as Mr Hechter's recollection enables him to do so. Therefore I support this part of the judgment with regard to the full disclosure insofar as it is possible bona fide.
"within the ambit of the Act"
And then with regard to the rest of the evidence with regard to the incident.
CHAIRPERSON: I think when Mr Hechter was talking, I stopped him and said I'll leave it your hands rather than suffocate this, that you lead the evidence that would be sufficient for this Committee to probably grant amnesty, or to decide on the evidence you have led thusfar and cross-examination thereupon, I think I had a good start to it.
MR ROUX: As it pleases you, Chairperson. I will then proceed to lead the evidence of Mr Hechter.
With regard to this specific incident, Mr Hechter, are you in a position to recall with what Oupa Masuku and the person who was killed during this incident, Joyce Masuku, had involved themselves with, with regards to activist conduct?
MR HECHTER: Chairperson yes, I have gone through the documents and relying on my own memory, I cannot recall, I cannot place Oupa Masuku at all, but I have looked at his statements and that is in line with the action against him. The fact that he was a prominent activist in the so-called freedom struggle of the past and the action that would followed would have led to the fact that he was arrested for terrorism. And he was involved in violence, public violence, he belonged to SAYO(?), he belonged to several of these banned organisations, the ANC and so forth, so he was a tremendously active person according to these documents and because of that action my action followed.
MR ROUX: Can you have a look to page 98, it is an extract from the Sowetan, can you make any further inferences from this, what the involvement of Oupa Masuku was?
MR HECHTER: It was clear from that that the whole family was involved in mass action that was propagated then in Atteridgeville and Saulsville. Not a day went past where houses were not set alight, where the police were not stoned, where the other civilians were killed in these areas. By whom we do not know. At this stage I am not able to say, but at that stage that was normal practice in the townships and the Masuku family were involved in this. There would have been files at the Security Branch.
MR ROUX: And what type of information would these documents have held?
MR HECHTER: This information would have been received from source reports, complete source reports, the sources or informers would have been members of these movements, who would have worked for the Security Police. Certain prominent persons within the struggle would have been tasked and one would have tried to have as many, or recruit as many informers as possible around this person to monitor his movements and to report.
MR ROUX: The organisation SAWU, Saulsville/Atteridgeville Women Organisation and amongst others, does this ring a bell with you when you read this newspaper extract?
MR HECHTER: I believe that they do ring a bell. I have read the article. Whether it came about then or not, they were well-know organisations with the township at that stage, where the people were involved against the government. These organisations, specifically at that stage, tried to oppose everything that the government had tried to do.
MR ROUX: Very well. This information that you had gained with regard to the activists, amongst others Oupa Masuku and Esther Masuku, how is this information collected physically?
MR HECHTER: Chairperson, the who informants were tasked around them would submit a written report weekly that would have been processed by the subordinates and those processed documents would come to my desk. I could read exactly what the Masukus and other persons were busying themselves with in the townships, and those reports would be promoted to head office, with copies which would be kept at the branch. So the information came from several sources, not only from one or two informants. It came from several sources. I am unfortunately not able to tell you how many sources, but it would have been various sources.
MR ROUX: I do not want to go through aspects which you have already confirmed, but if you study page 17 of your application, in order to give an idea to all those present, what would have happened with that information that was embodied in these statements and documents?
MR HECHTER: At a later stage - I only found this out during our discussions with the Commission, because in 1988 after a motor vehicle accident, I unofficially left the force and in 1991 I officially left the force, but from 1988 I worked on an informal basis. I was on sick leave and then I worked and then I was on sick leave and then I worked and then I found out that all documents at a later stage on instruction of unknown persons in head office, all documents with regard to the black force activities and ANC and source reports and so forth, everything was destroyed.
MR ROUX: And none of this information exists today that you would studied back then when information was collected and when actions were planned?
MR HECHTER: According to the information that I have, that is correct Chairperson.
MR ROUX: Very well. Which types of actions would be necessary against the Masuku family? Seen in general.
MR HECHTER: Because they were so active and Oupa had on various occasions been detained and this not curtail his activism, according to the information here what I can see here it did not help to curtail him and I would have then decided that this was a tremendously active young man, he had to be taught a lesson, he had to be intimidated in such a fashion that he would cease his activities and then I would have decided whether it would be a bomb in order to frighten him ...(end of side A of tape) ... be afraid to continue with his activism.
MR ROUX: Can you possibly tell the persons present here, can you indicate what types of bombs were used?
MR HECHTER: The one was a petrol bomb and this was set alight and thrown a window of a residence, the damage was limited because only one room would be burnt. The activists knew - or may I just finish, and then in more serious cases I used a bomb because of the effect of such a bomb explosion would have on you and your family, we used a bomb. The petrol bomb would burn the house and people would be able to extinguish the fire early to prevent any serious injuries. When I decided to build such a bomb which was built with pentolite in a can, the flash and the accompanied shrapnel had a more and serious type of intimidation effect and it could have led to a death, but at that stage I felt that this was the way in order to intimidate these people so that they would cease their activism.
MR ROUX: What actions took place against Masuku? Inasfar as you have knowledge of what factually had taken place, are you able to tell us?
MR HECHTER: Not at all, I can imagine how it would have happened. My colleagues and I who would have participated in the operation would have met that evening at the office of the Security Branch, I would have already built the explosive device and then we would have gone to the address which had been previously confirmed, we would have placed the bomb and then we would have run away. I never returned to any of these scenes again, I placed the bomb and then I stayed away.
MR ROUX: Who were the members who in all probability would have accompanied you, were there specific persons?
MR HECHTER: I saw in Mr Coetser's statement, I think he said it was he and I. At this moment I am not certain, I did not read his application in detail. I know that it was he and I. If I recall correctly at that stage Joe Mamasela had already been working with me.
I have also heard of Mr Viktor, Brig Viktor, that he had been with me that evening, therefore I shall accept that these were the persons who were with me. I cannot recall myself at all who were with me. I know that Mr Viktor and I worked together and I know that Tiny and I worked together initially, I don't know how many times, maybe once or twice. And then, Joe Mamasela had been working with me for quite some time, I don't recall how long and I do not know whether he was always with me during all these incidents.
MR ROUX: Very well. When you decided to place a bomb as you put it, what information did you have with regard to the residence of such an activist?
MR HECHTER: We more-or-less had an idea of where the activist spent the evening, more-or-less, and we usually would place the bomb as close to his room as possible or in front on the lounge.
MR ROUX: This information you also obtained from informants and sources?
MR HECHTER: That's correct, or from my members. If it was practically possible some of my members would visit the residence a week before and try to surmise where the activist spent the night.
MR ROUX: You as you have testified now, cannot recall anything further of this specific incident. Chairperson, we then apply on behalf of Mr Hechter for the acts as set out on page 26, under the heading 9(a)(i), bomb explosion, possession of explosives, Act 26/56, murder or attempted murder and any other delictual accountability.
To conclude, Chairperson - Mr Hechter, the date under (ii), 5th of March 1986 and the place under (iii), 44 Mashifane Street, Atteridgeville, can you recall that?
MR HECHTER: Not at all, Chairperson.
MR ROUX: That is the evidence, Mr Chairperson, on behalf of Mr Jacques Hechter.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR ROUX
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Gentlemen, I see we started late and we are past teatime, would you want to wet your throats or should be proceed to lunchtime? Mr Visser?
MR VISSER: Chairperson, thank you for asking but I'm fine to go on, if it's okay with the others. And of course, if it's okay with the Panel.
CHAIRPERSON: It is okay with the Panel, I just want to find out from you gentlemen. Mr Lamey?
MR LAMEY: I'm also okay, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct - no microphone) are you okay.
ADV STEENKAMP: We can proceed, Mr Chairman. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: But in all honestness, we have people who are working very hard, let me find out from the interpreters whether they can just bear with us and continue. What is your feeling, are you able to continue? Shaking of heads does not record, I want to hear you speak.
INTERPRETER: We would appreciate a break, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Gentlemen, let's accommodate them and have a 10 minutes break. We shall adjourn for 10 minutes.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION
JACQUES HECHTER: (s.u.o.)
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, I hope the interpreters are fresh now. And Mr Roux, I believe you are finished with your evidence-in-chief.
MR ROUX: Yes, Chairperson, there is just something that I wish to add at this stage, and it is that the psychological and physical report with regard to the memory and condition of Jacques Hechter, I am attempting to obtain this for submission, possibly not today because it is somewhat problematic to obtain it, but with your leave I will attempt to once again submit the report regarding which evidence has been given previously.
CHAIRPERSON: Let me find out from Mr Toefy. Have you heard Mr Roux? Have you heard what Mr Roux said?
MR TOEFY: Unfortunately not, I do apologise.
CHAIRPERSON: He wants to present evidence of Mr Hechter's psychological condition, but is not able to do so today, so he says he will give us a report on that regard. Not necessarily to lead evidence, it was given in previous hearings but he wants for the purposes of probably arriving at the decision by this Panel, to give us those reports, that we should take then into consideration when we deliberate.
MR TOEFY: We have no objection thereto.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Toefy. We are satisfied, Mr Toefy is satisfied.
MR ROUX: I'm indebted to you, Chairperson, that then concludes the evidence of Jacques Hechter.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, you surely don't have questions, do you?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Chairperson, unfortunately I do have a few, with your permission.
Mr Hechter, there are just a number of aspects that I want to put to you for your comment. Mr Viktor tells me that during the period of February to May 1986 he was the Commander of the Mamelodi Unrest Investigation Unit, can you recall this or can you comment on that?
MR HECHTER: I would not be able to say what period of time it was, but I know that in that stage he was working in Mamelodi.
MR VISSER: Yes. And if I put it to you that due to the nature of the investigations which he conducted into unrest related matters, he as well as you at the Northern Transvaal Security Branch, were basically occupied with the same task.
MR HECHTER: Yes, we were narrowly involved with one another, we saw one another on a daily basis.
MR VISSER: Yes, that was actually the following point that I wanted to put to you. He states that due to the fact that you did the same work for that period of time, for those few months, he worked very closely with the members of the Northern Transvaal Security Branch and he also became involved in the bomb attacks of which we now have an example before us. Is that correct?
MR HECHTER: Yes, that is correct.
MR VISSER: His recollection of that period of 1986 was that Pretoria was burning so to speak and that there were numerous incidents of petrol bomb explosions, murder, intimidation and damage to property, which were all at the order of the day. Is that also your recollection?
MR HECHTER: Yes, that is correct.
MR VISSER: And he will give evidence here that the experience taught that for the South African Police, and particularly the Security Branch, it became impossible to control matters by means of the usual legislation and powers at their disposal and that action had to be taken beyond the parameters of the law, in order to control the situation.
MR HECHTER: Yes, that is correct.
MR VISSER: And that the purpose thereof was a sort of counter intimidation. If you were certain of somebody's status as an activist who had been involved in intimidation and damage to property and petrol bomb explosions, you then counter-intimidated such a person so that he would be aware that he could not simply continue with such activities and that at some or other point he would also be reckoned with.
MR HECHTER: Yes, that is correct.
MR VISSER: He also tells me that the purpose inasfar as it concerns his involvement, was not to kill anybody. How do you recall it? In this case - I am referring to the Masuku case, he will testify specifically that it was not the objective to kill somebody although the possibility was foreseen that somebody could be injured or killed during an attack on a house.
MR HECHTER: Yes, that is correct, Chairperson. Previous evidence has indicated clearly that when we tasked somebody to eliminate someone, then he would be specifically hijacked or a bomb would be placed under his vehicle but then he specifically would be killed. In these cases there was serious intimidation and we foresaw that people could die, but it was not the specific objective, it was more to create a psychosis
of fear among these people, so that they would cease their intimidation.
MR VISSER: And just to conclude that aspect, in the cases where you for example, personally targeted persons for intimidation, you have applied for amnesty and you have stated it as such.
MR HECHTER: Yes, and I did explain to the Committee or the Commission at that stage, and I also received amnesty for those cases.
MR VISSER: The reason why I have put this question to you is because Mr Coetser stated in his amnesty application on page 55 of the bundle that he recalls - and we are referring to paragraph 9(a)(i) on page 55, Chairperson, in the middle of that paragraph he states that Oupa Masuku was the target of the attack, but in all fairness towards him, on the previous page, page 54, in paragraph 2, at the top of the page he states that the objective of the action would be to launch an attack on a black political activist's home. So it is somewhat contradictory, but inasfar as it concerns you he was not the target, the house was the target.
MR HECHTER: Yes, that is correct, but we knew that he was in the house.
MR VISSER: Very well.
MR HECHTER: So that is how it was.
MR VISSER: And part of the reason why you acted as such - or perhaps I shouldn't lead you too extensively regarding this, I will just ask you the following. Your experience during that time, when it came to taking activists to Court and taking successful criminal action against them, did this have a high degree of success or what was the position?
MR HECHTER: No, Chairperson, as a result of the tremendous intimidation which the activists maintained among their own people, the legislation at that stage had a very minor effect on the activists. On the contrary, if an activist was detained and when he returned to his area he would be viewed as a hero and this then incited the other youths to join him.
MR VISSER: Is it correct that Viktor, during the time when he worked with you, if I may put it as such "worked with you", that he was also actually under the command of Brig Jack Cronje, who was the Commander of the Northern Transvaal Security Branch?
MR HECHTER: Yes, that is correct.
MR VISSER: So your omission of his name in your application on page 26, is by accident? At the bottom of the page.
MR HECHTER: Yes, the fact that his name does not appear is due to the fact that I couldn't remember that he was present and I assume that - I didn't see this affidavit of Brig Cronje, but as far as I can recall, Mr Viktor was present with me at all times during the period of these attacks and we received the orders directly from Brig Cronje. I think it may just be an oversight on Brig Cronje's behalf.
MR VISSER: And if he states that the orders for such illegal actions were sometimes conveyed to him by Brig Cronje himself and sometimes by means of you, it would be correct?
MR HECHTER: Yes, that is correct.
MR VISSER: Just an aspect which the Committee might find of interest. You refer to information which the Security Branch received from sources and informers, was any action taken based upon the information received from informers, or was this information controlled or evaluated before you took any action?
MR HECHTER: As I have already testified to before the Committee, there were various independent sources on the basis of which information we would take action, and this information was collected over a period of time, it would not only be based upon one report that arrived at the desk on one particular day. If we looks at Oupa's history, it stretched over a long period of time during which he had been active and the detentions which had preceded, would have occurred as a result of informer reports.
MR VISSER: So at the time of taking action against somebody, the Committee can then accept that thorough research would have been conducted regarding this particular person.
MR HECHTER: Yes, that is correct.
MR VISSER: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Visser. Before I give you an opportunity, Mr Lamey - Mr Hechter, did I hear you correctly that when Oupa's house was attacked, Oupa Masuku, you knew that he was present, not that you wanted to attack the house per se, but that he was in the house? Do you possess personal knowledge of that? From the evidence you have given thusfar.
MR HECHTER: Chairperson, it is difficult for me to say yes, he was there, we would have assumed that he was there because it was very difficult, one couldn't just send somebody to his house an hour or two before the time and know that Oupa was there, we would have assumed that he was there and he would have known then that this attack was aimed at him. If we look at the statement - I beg your pardon, on page 58 or perhaps just somewhat further ahead, he states, paragraph 5 on page 59, where he states
"Most of my life I have been an activist. During that year I was a civic leader and a youth leader. Activists houses were bombed in the townships."
Now whether it was us or the other activists among one another I cannot tell you at this stage, but the activists were aware that they were targets of ours. But the Committee must also consider that there was conflict among these street committees, certain leaders were envious of one another and then attacked one another and then we also saw that their homes were targeted and that we were not involved in such targeting.
I cannot tell you whether Morotoba(?), Ledwaba, whether or not we targeted their houses, but this was the sort of action that would have taken place. As a result of the actions taken by the activists we would have targeted them, then the house would be attacked so that the activist would be aware, but normally we assumed that he would be there. You wanted to teach him a lesson, not his parents, you were not angry at his parents, you were angry with him as a person and the easiest would be to show him that his house is a target. Because he was attacking the residences of others, so you would attack his residence. If he was there, it would be acceptable because you would then accept that he was there. If he was in jail you wouldn't attack his house because that would be futile, you would wait until he was at home and then attack. And then it would usually be late at night when there weren't many other people on the streets and he in all probability would already have been in bed.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Hechter. Mr Lamey?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chairperson.
Mr Hechter, I suppose that you are suffering from the so-called post-traumatic stress disorder and that this impacts on your recollection.
MR HECHTER: It is according to the psychological report pertaining to my lack of recollection of these incidents.
MR LAMEY: I would just like to ask you - please assist me when your recollection fails you, because I'm not certain of what precisely you can recall of that time, what you can recall and what you can't recall, and the reason why I'm going to ask you - well let me begin as such. Is it correct that Mr Coetser was a Sergeant at the stage of this incident?
MR HECHTER: Yes, he worked with me.
MR LAMEY: And he worked with you in the same section, in the section of the Northern Transvaal Security Branch, of which Mr Jack Cronje was the Commander?
MR HECHTER: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: Where in the line of command did you reside? You were an officer?
MR HECHTER: Yes, I was an officer.
MR LAMEY: And you had the rank of Captain?
MR HECHTER: No, at that stage I was a Lieutenant.
MR LAMEY: And just above you was Capt van Jaarsveld.
MR HECHTER: No, he was a Lieutenant at that stage.
MR LAMEY: Very well. In terms of rank and also within the structure of the section you were the senior to Sgt Coetser and you had direct liaison to the upper levels with Brig Cronje.
MR HECHTER: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: Is it correct that with regard - or let me put it as such, is it correct, can you recall that this case during which Esther Masuku passed away, was it the last case in which Sgt Coetser was involved? According to my instructions he was involved in a total of four incidents in the former portion of 1986, February to March 1986, which then includes two petrol bomb attacks at Mamelodi and Soshanguve and then this bomb attack at Atteridgeville and then there was one in Ekangala.
MR HECHTER: Chairperson, if Sgt Coetser maintains that I will accept it. I can recall that he spent a very brief time with me. I cannot tell you specifically what he was involved with.
MR LAMEY: Furthermore my instructions are that there was a relatively uniform modus operandi with regard to his involvement and as far as he knows, that during the course of the day, and specifically with this case in Atteridgeville, he was given orders by you to report at the office that evening and from that point onwards he would receive his instructions from you. He drove the minibus and he would follow your instructions to the place, stop the bus and so forth. That was his role every time.
MR HECHTER: Yes, it would be so. I cannot recall precisely, but I assume that that would have been his role.
MR LAMEY: And I also want to ask you, if I may use the word "the target determination", did you conduct the target determination yourself or in consultation with anybody else? If you did this in consultation with anybody else, who was this person?
MR HECHTER: It is difficult, some of the orders came from above and some of the targets were identified by me and then some of the targets were also identified by head office or from the upper levels, from the Commanders, and in such cases I would simply receive instructions to execute the operation.
MR LAMEY: Can you recall whether or not you identified the target yourself with regard to this case?
MR HECHTER: I cannot recall, but I assume that I would have identified it myself because that information would have reached my desk.
MR LAMEY: But my instructions are that Sgt Coetser did not have any information regarding to the target determination from his position, this information came to him.
MR HECHTER: He would have had insight into that source of documents, but it would not have been his decision, not at all.
MR LAMEY: And with regard to this case, he stated in his application which role and which activities Oupa Masuku participated in and why the plan to eliminate him was not known to him, but he accepted that Cronje and Viktor and Hechter would have more information regarding this. Mr Coetser is uncertain today and cannot pinpoint Mr Masuku's role and activities and link this to the identification of a determined organisation. What he does know and what he definitely understood was that he was a well-known political activist who was active in the area.
MR MALAN: Mr Lamey, how do you expect of Mr Hechter to assist you with such a statement? Didn't he testify that he has no recollection whatsoever, not even regarding the name Masuku?
MR LAMEY: As it pleases you.
I then understand that you cannot recall specifically with connection to this incident, who determined the target.
MR HECHTER: Unfortunately not, but what we can do is refer to the newspaper cuttings and then Mr Masuku's statement itself. Unfortunately I cannot assist you any further.
MR LAMEY: What you have seen from the newspaper extracts and the information contained therein, I want to refer you specifically to page 99, the report from a newspaper, I'm not certain which newspaper it was exactly, but on page 99 of bundle 1 there is mention that
"Oupa as he's popularly known, is youth organiser of the South African Council of Churches and an active member of the Saulsville/Atteridgeville Youth Organisation."
MR HECHTER: The so-called SAYO, yes.
MR LAMEY: You knew of this.
MR HECHTER: Yes, it was very active in the power struggle within the black residential areas.
MR LAMEY: This SAYO that you refer to, was this according to your knowledge of that time, a so-called organisation which associated itself with the struggle which was waged by the ANC?
MR HECHTER: Yes, as far as I know.
MR LAMEY: And was regarded by the Security Branch as a front organisation.
MR HECHTER: Yes.
MR LAMEY: Of which the members according to the information that you had at that stage, were closely involved with the violence and the unrest in that area.
MR HECHTER: Yes.
MR LAMEY: And then so also with regard to the connection of the South African Council of Churches, it was also the South African Council of Churches which was regarded as an organisation which gave assistance to the struggle.
MR HECHTER: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: My learned friend has asked you questions which confirmed that the residential areas surrounding Pretoria during this time in 1986, were burning as a result of this violence. I don't know if you can recall, but is it correct that a State of Emergency was announced later during that year in 1986?
MR HECHTER: I cannot recall this, but it will have been placed on the record elsewhere.
MR LAMEY: Gen van der Merwe in his submission to the Truth Commission, on page 18 and 19 thereof, I don't know if you have this before you, it is a document which is relatively well-known to the TRC, on these pages he has drawn up a table of necklace murders, the statistics pertaining to necklace murders and then also on page 19, setting alight of persons. I just want to mention to you what Gen van der Merwe has given statistically and determine what your comment is, whether you would accept it as such in the light of ...(intervention)
MR MALAN: Please Mr Lamey, the relevance of necklace murders to this application against the background of the urban unrest, it really isn't relevant, please don't waste our time, please just ask the questions that you need to ask.
MR LAMEY: Chairperson, the reason why I have referred to this is because we are referring to 1986 and unlawful actions and the question pertains to the political context of that time.
MR MALAN: But Mr Lamey, isn't the political context something which has been sketched by Hechter and Cronje before us? Doesn't your client's application rely on the facts which have been confirmed by Mr Hechter in terms of the orders, and that your client just received orders to go along and carry out the operation?
MR LAMEY: As it pleases you. I will argue it later.
Mr Hechter, you have stated in your application that you were present during a meeting in the office of Brig Viktor, is that correct?
MR HECHTER: Yes, that is correct.
MR LAMEY: May I just ask you, was that meeting a significant change with regard to the action which would then be taken by the Security Branch in 1986? I am referring to the petrol bomb and the bomb attacks.
MR HECHTER: Yes, that is correct.
MR LAMEY: My instructions from Sgt Coetser are that he was also present during that meeting. You cannot place or recall him?
MR HECHTER: I cannot even recall him, all I know is that Mr Viktor was with me and I think also Mr van Jaarsveld, I know that we were involved. I do not recall that Mr Coetser was involved or present.
MR LAMEY: And you then refer on page 6 of the bundle, to that meeting where Brig Viktor spoke to the Security Police members and pressurised you to do something about the situation in order to bring it under control.
MR HECHTER: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: My instruction from Mr Coetser are that he was definitely under the impression during that meeting, that activists who caused problems also had to be eliminated. I am not saying that this would be done in all cases, I'm just saying that the order was not a licence to kill every activist, but that if somebody were to be killed during the process, it wouldn't have been a problem.
MR HECHTER: Chairperson, if he says so it may be so, I cannot recall the specific details, it is possible, if he interpreted it or understood it as such. I cannot comment on that.
ADV SANDI: Sorry, that's not very clear to me. Did you personally also fall under the same impression that regarding the steps that were to be taken by the Security Police, killing or murder was not excluded? What was your impression of tone of the meeting?
MR HECHTER: Chairperson, to tell you the honest truth, if I think back to it, possibly not at the beginning or possibly at the beginning, if one looks at the actions from the first time, it started with petrol bombs and then as we began to task the more serious activists it went over to bomb attacks and then there were specific activists who were removed and eliminated from society. It is possible that that may have been his impression at that stage, but I cannot swear that that was the intention, that the intention was to tell them to take these people out. It is possible that he implied it but whether he really said it is something that I do not know.
MR LAMEY: I'm not referring specifically to the case of Masuku as such, I'm speaking in general terms.
MR HECHTER: He was a serious activists, that I planted a bomb, his deceased mother was also very involved in these activities and unfortunately she died during the incident, and this is something that we are all very sorry about. With the planting of a bomb one has to foresee that people could be injured or killed. So yes, somebody was killed, but whether at that stage it was the intention, I would have to answer no but it was foreseen, it was foreseen, otherwise - let us suppose that we could have attempted to abduct him, do you understand what I'm saying, the objective was to intimidate him seriously, that was the basic objective. Somebody was killed during the incident and more serious intimidation took place.
MR LAMEY: Let me just put it to you otherwise. If somebody was in a house and was killed during the process of a bomb attack which was conducted with the purposes of intimidation, wouldn't this have been in contradiction to what Brig Viktor told you during the meeting?
MR HECHTER: No, it would not have been contradictory.
MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, please allow me to come in here. Visser on record. Mr Chairman, this whole issue what Brig Viktor had said or had not said on this occasion when his son, Mr Viktor, who is now before you, and Mr Hechter and van Jaarsveld, visited him at police headquarters in Pretoria, Security Headquarters, was the subject of a separate investigation by the original Amnesty Committee under the chairmanship of Justice Mall. There was evidence presented by Brig Cronje as to what his discussions were and the evidence was already on record of what van Jaarsveld - I'm not sure about van Jaarsveld, but what Mr Hechter had said, and the Amnesty Committee has brought out a decision, Chairperson, and we before this hearing had said to ourselves we will studiously avoid getting entangled in that issue again and as far as the applicants are concerned, and we've discussed it with the applicants' representatives, they accept as we do, what the Amnesty Committee has found. Now I just want to warn my learned friend, Mr Lamey, if he's now going to go beyond the Amnesty Committee has found, this may give rise to a rehash of that whole hearing and I'd really hate to see that happening.
Now I want to tell you, Chairperson, that it was accepted by the Amnesty Committee, that Viktor never gave instructions to anyone to eliminate people. That has what has been found. And I can refer you to page 124 of the Modimeng bundle, where you have the decision of the original Amnesty Committee, and I would seriously suggest to my learned friend, through you, Mr Chairman, that we leave it be. This is not a forum for the persecution of Gen Viktor, and in fact our instructions are that Coetser wasn't even at that meeting.
But be that as it may, whether Viktor did or didn't give an instruction, makes hardly any difference to the amnesty applications which you have to decide upon, which are before you now. And I just want to sound a word of warning that we don't get involved in a side issue because it is a side issue, which took us two or three days to sort out before the original Amnesty Committee, and about which you have at page 124, the judgment.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey, I think Mr Malan was trying to bring you back but I did not interfere, thinking that you want to make a point, but as it is brought out it actually reads
"It is clear that Gen Viktor had no authority to give orders to the applicant, he might have had a higher rank, but he was second in command."
So I say let's stay within the parameters of this incident because you will recall when I saw you outside chambers, all counsel or legal representatives involved here, I asked Mr Toefy what his objection was all about and he placed on full disclosure. So if we were to say what was the situation like during 1986, it would give us the impression that all of us in this room were worse than Rip van Winkel. So let's just narrow ourselves to the issues, Mr Malan.
MR MALAN: With your permission, Chairperson, I would like to confirm what Mr Visser has stated here, that we should recall that discussed this during the pre-hearing conference and that this should not be revisited, that is not of the essence pertaining to these applications. And Mr Lamey, once again I would like to bring you back to the application of your client. He does not allege anywhere in his application that the objective was to eliminate Oupa Masuku, in fact on the contrary, the intention was to launch an attack on his house. So really, I cannot understand why you persist in investigating things which are not relevant to Mr Coetser's application.
Please, I implore you, if you have any further questions for Mr Hechter, regarding which he has information to assist you, please do not reiterate matters that he has already testified about unless you want to place it into dispute. Put these things to him, but do not put unnecessary questions to him, do not take this investigation beyond the parameters of what is relevant.
CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct - no microphone) Mr Lamey, that it has come to my attention that you were not present at the pre-trial hearing.
MR LAMEY: Chairperson, may I just come in here. I don't want to go unnecessarily into aspects that concerns other applicants whose amnesty applications have been heard, who have made submissions.
Firstly I just want to place on record that I don't represent any applicant in the Modimeng matter, I have not been provided with the bundle of those applicants, I haven't seen up to today what my learned friend, Mr Visser, has referred to. None of the applicants I have represented in any applications thusfar, and that includes Mr Coetser, have been given notice of that hearing which Mr Visser refers to, where that issue was canvassed.
What my learned friend has just stated to you is a bit of a surprise. I'm working before this Committee from a vantage point of a person who was a lower-ranking officer at that stage, who did receive an order to accompany Hechter on a particular evening to, what from the circumstances appeared to be an attack on a house. He wasn't privy to the instruction that came from above, he received his instructions to accompany Mr Hechter, ultimately somebody was killed.
And then further as is stated on page 52 of his amnesty application, he was indeed present at, according to him, at an initial meeting in the beginning of 1986, in a meeting in the office of Brig Viktor, where he understood from the contents of that discussion, that political activists should be eliminated. Whether ...(intervention)
MR MALAN: But Mr Lamey, that is not in dispute and it was also not disputed during the first finding that he could understand it as such, that is not what Mr Visser has stated. The decision during the pre-hearing conference where you were not present, where Mr Paulse from your office was present, was that we would not revisit this and that the decision as it stands could be accepted as a reasonable inference, as well as the inference that your client drew from that first meeting with regard to the elimination of activists.
But with all due respect, Mr Lamey, this does not form the basis for his application with regard to Masuku, because Masuku who was the activist, was not killed, somebody else was killed and as a result of the death of an innocent citizen, he has requested to be excluded from such activities. So I reiterate, Mr Lamey, and I am sure that I will be speaking on behalf of the whole Panel, that we will not regard this as relevant to the application of Mr Coetser with regard to the bomb which was placed at Mr Masuku's home, during which Mr Masuku would be the target of counter-intimidation.
CHAIRPERSON: If it be so listening to your line of cross-examination and saying you want to know what obtained when they met that morning, who said what, I don't think it's a question that can be put to Mr Hechter, but to Mr Viktor, because if there was a discussion, reading what Mr Coetser's application says, he says it is Mr Viktor who said "now these blacks are giving problems, it's about time that they should be eliminated", but not Mr Hechter. Or are you saying - because you must also bear in mind that he does not, and he was upfront with this and not pretending in any way, that he cannot recall precisely about this incident. Now if he does not recall this incident per se, can we say he even recalls conversations that took place before this operation was executed?
MR LAMEY: No, Chairperson, but as I understood my client's version, it was - that meeting was in the beginning of January was the beginning of his involvement in subsequent events for which he applied for amnesty. Now all I'm saying is, if he wasn't privy to the direct instruction, whether Oupa Masuku was to be eliminated, certainly ...(intervention)
MR MALAN: Mr Lamey, he does not allege such an instruction in his application.
MR LAMEY: No, indeed, because he wasn't privy to that but everybody ...(intervention)
MR MALAN: But there was no such instruction, there's no evidence that there was any instruction to eliminate Oupa Masuku. What are you referring to?
MR LAMEY: Chairperson, but if I can just put it in this way. Everybody including the - well let me speak about the applicant and as Mr Hechter has also testified, he foresaw that in the process somebody may be killed and that Mr Coetser will also testify that. And therefore I submit it is important if you had a particular instruction, whether it was just to attack a house, but you foresaw somebody would be killed, whether that ...(intervention)
MR MALAN: Could be killed was your argument. Not would be but might be killed.
MR LAMEY: Yes, or might be killed. That for such an event that might have taken place there was some prior authority either explicit or by implication or tacitly. And that was why in his background he referred to that meeting with Brig Viktor, and he understood from the context of that meeting, that - and we're not saying that in each and every incident in which he participated, there was a direct instruction to eliminate, that specific aspect, but there was this general discussion. And I will argue at the end of the day that from his point of view the fact that somebody was killed, was not out of line with what his superiors, or what he reasonably believed the instruction was from his superiors. And that's why I asked Mr Hechter about this because he was present at that meeting.
MR MALAN: Mr Lamey, Mr Hechter has given that exact evidence, he said that they accepted that people may be injured and killed in these explosions. I don't understand why you are continuing to cross-examine him on matters that he says he doesn't remember, if he says he doesn't even remember your client's presence. So it's not at issue. He's confirmed that to be part of the practice of all the bombings.
MR LAMEY: The purpose of my cross-examination is not only to put an issue, the purpose is also - and that's why I was very careful because I know of the difficulty of Mr Hechter, of his problem with post-traumatic stress syndrome, that he might not recall certain things, but it is also I think, important from the vantage point of a lower-ranking officer to, where possibly - and another applicant who was a higher ranking officer and who was privy to more information and higher up in the structure, could confirm that. And it's just a question if he can confirm it, so be it and if he cannot, also so be it, but I just wanted to investigate that aspect. It's not that that is ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: No, but when we look at - when we now look at his evidence closer and that emanated from cross-examination by yourself, Mr Hechter says at the beginning we wanted merely to intimidate these people and we did that by placing bombs at their houses, but subsequently - and he's not sure when, is when the actual elimination came in. In other words, now these people have to be dealt with severely, so the intimidation falls off. But he cannot remember that. But in this specific incident he says no, quite certainly we foresaw that if you place a bomb somebody might be killed in the process, and I don't think we really can debate about that because if you can remember he says he cannot even recall who everybody was there. Unless you want to put something specific that says he will come here and say you were present and we had a discussion prior to leaving for the Masuku residence, probably. Because we must understand that in the process, whatever we want to place to him is that we must bear in mind that he doesn't recall ...(indistinct). He says "bona fide I had forgotten about this incident and I cannot recall this incident, but other applicants would assist me."
MR LAMEY: Chairperson, I won't take that matter further, I have put to him what Mr Coetser's understanding was of that meeting and I'll leave it there.
Mr Hechter, just another aspect, it is not of so much import but Mr Coetser's recollection is that Mr Mamasela - you refer to Mr Mamasela's presence with regard to this incident, that Mr Mamasela did not accompany you on this specific incident. On the contrary my instructions are that in the four instances which are limited instances in totality of the bomb explosions and petrol bomb attacks, Mr Mamasela did not accompany him once.
MR HECHTER: That is quite possible, Chairperson. I do know that Mr Mamasela in most of the incidents worked with me. I shall not argue with him if he says that Mr Mamasela was not present.
MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chairperson, I just want to make sure whether I've covered everything.
CHAIRPERSON: We'll grant you that opportunity.
MR LAMEY: Chairperson, I've got no further questions for the applicant.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Lamey. Mr Toefy.
MR TOEFY: Thank you very much, Mr Chairperson. There's just one issue I just want to raise that's arising from what the Chairperson said earlier. If I understand correctly I think it was Mr Roux that said earlier that our clients, the victims' objection to the application is that of non-disclosure. That is one of it. The other one is also the proportionality of the action that was taken was not warranted by the political objective and aims that was being sought by this act. Just a point of clarification.
CHAIRPERSON: No, no, it's your opportunity now that - you are going to attack this on two legs, proportionality and full disclosure?
MR TOEFY: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, you may proceed.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR TOEFY: I hope not to be too long.
Mr Hechter, I have to bring you back to the question of orders. From your application, tell me if I'm correct, it appears if there were two kinds of orders that were received, the first one was the general order that was received from Brig Viktor, that has been the topic of discussion recently, and the other kind of order - if I can refer you to page 8 on your application, where you say in the second paragraph, the third sentence you say -
"Specific instructions which I received from time to time, like instructions from Gen Ras and Brig Cronje, were specific instructions with regard to specific operations."
Mr Hechter, the order or the decision to bomb the house of Oupa Masuku, was that based on the general order or was that a specific order that you received from Gen Ras or Brig Cronje?
MR HECHTER: Chairperson, if one looks at Brig Cronje's application he says that he cannot recall whether he gave an instruction here. I accept that entirely, that I had undertaken this operation on my own, based on information that I had obtained, in execution of the general order where activists had to be opposed. Do you understand my meaning?
MR TOEFY: So it was really your decision then to bomb the house?
MR HECHTER: It was my decision insofar as I can recall.
MR TOEFY: Mr Hechter, you said earlier in evidence that typically what would happen is that the day before it would happen or on the day, if you were going to attack during the night, then you would in fact make the bomb.
MR HECHTER: Correct, Chairperson.
MR TOEFY: Is it most likely that you probably made the bomb in this instance as well?
MR HECHTER: In all probability that would have been the case, Chairperson. Insofar as I can recall I manufactured all the bombs myself.
MR TOEFY: Now if I can very briefly refer you to the application of Mr Viktor on page 7, paragraph 26 ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Firstly, prior to this had you seen Mr Viktor's application? Prior to ...(indistinct) asked now.
MR HECHTER: Yes, Chairperson, I have it in my bundle.
MR TOEFY: Thank you.
MR HECHTER: Please repeat what page it was.
MR TOEFY: On page 7, paragraph 26.
CHAIRPERSON: The incident of Masuku would start on page 26.
MR HECHTER: 36? In my bundle it is 36, his statement. If you would lead me, then we shall find it.
MR TOEFY: I do apologise, the copy that I got was not marked according to ...(indistinct)
MR HECHTER: I see that they are different.
MR TOEFY: It's paragraph 26 and it deals, it's under the heading
"Complete disclosure of relevant facts"
MR HECHTER: No, unfortunately I do not have this.
CHAIRPERSON: I'm also at a loss, Mr Toefy, ...(indistinct - no microphone)
MR TOEFY: Yes, it is.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Roux, can you be of assistance? ...(indistinct) to the bundles per se, but the statement handed in.
MR ROUX: Chairperson, I am also surprised myself, we do not have such an extra affidavit.
MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, Visser on record, may I explain. At the pre-hearing we understood, Chairperson, to make available during the course of last week, a full statement of the evidence of Mr Viktor, which we did. I'm distressed to hear that some of the people haven't received it yet. I understand that you also haven't received it until this morning.
CHAIRPERSON: That's correct, it was made available to me this morning.
MR VISSER: Well I'm absolutely surprised that my learned friend hasn't got one. Can we offer him a copy now, with your permission?
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, I'm saying in proceedings of this nature it would only be advisable that counsel, Mr Roux for Mr Hechter, must have seen this document beforehand and looked at it, that his being under cross-examination and the document is just made available - I'm not placing the blame on you, that I would say under the circumstances they should be given an opportunity to look at the document and I would say - my watch says it's quarter to one, could we come back at one thirty? Have lunch right now and come back at one thirty, a forty five minutes break. Are we all agreeable?
MR TOEFY: As it pleases the Chairperson.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION
JACQUES HECHTER: (s.u.o.)
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, gentlemen. Would you remind me that at three we should adjourn for a short while, I've been requested by the interpreters that they want to catch their breath by then. Mr Toefy?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR TOEFY: (Cont)
Thank you very much, Mr Chairperson. It's really quite a simple point I was wanting to make, Sir, I was taken by surprise that it caused an early lunch. If I can just repeat the question.
Mr Hechter, if I can just draw your attention to page 7 of the supplementary affidavit, which I hope you have in your possession and you have read, paragraph 26, do you have it before you? Of Mr Viktor. If I can read the last two or three sentences, it says -
"In this regard I must add that it was consistently my primary objective to intimidate by means of explosions, not to kill or to injure. I have now heard that shrapnel was placed in the explosive device which exploded at the residence of the Masukus. I do not believe that I was aware of this beforehand."
On reading that statement by Mr Viktor, would it be correct then in assuming that some bombs that were "die geprakseerde ploftoestelle", some of them had shrapnel and some of them did not have shrapnel? Is that a fair assumption to make?
MR HECHTER: Negative, Chairperson, a bomb is a charge of explosives which is set off, that is the basic description of a bomb. How those bombs were manufactured is that they were placed in a tin and then pentolite, which is a tremendously charged explosive with a detonator and a length of cord which was approximately the width of a thumb, that tin would then be placed in a window or tossed through a window into or in front of the room.
During an explosion, everything in the vicinity would be shrapnel. The glass would be shrapnel, the window frames would be shrapnel, the roof plates as well, because with an explosion everything in the vicinity would be drawn closer and then blown away and the pentolite would explode at approximately 7 000 metres per second. So it would be a tremendous blow.
MR TOEFY: So this statement by Mr Viktor then is not completely accurate in saying that there was no shrapnel put in - that there was shrapnel put into the bomb?
MR HECHTER: No, the shrapnel would be caused by the explosion itself, it wasn't necessary to place items in the tin itself.
MR TOEFY: Sir, so then can you confirm that you never put anything in the bomb?
MR HECHTER: No, we never did.
MR TOEFY: Thanks. You say in your application and now as well in evidence, that you would have a vast number of informants that would inform you and monitor various activists and that it would be based on this information that you would in fact target a particular activist.
MR HECHTER: That is correct.
MR TOEFY: If I could ask you - I have to ask you this because the family is sitting here, they want to know, on what basis did you decide - on whatever information that you received, on what basis did you decide that the house of Oupa Masuku or that Oupa Masuku must be targeted and intimidated?
MR HECHTER: Chairperson, at this stage it is not possible for me to highlight specific incidents I can no longer recall, however, he would not have been targeted if he was not narrowly involved. I can refer you to his own statement where he explains how active he was, and from that we can deduce that he was a tremendously busy activist. And the statements or the reports which were sent through by the informers, at that stage, on a weekly basis, if it was a case where for example we heard Saturday there would be a mass meeting, on the basis of those reports the informer would have contacted one and said "listen be careful, there's going to be a big meeting in Atteridgeville on Saturday." Then we wouldn't wait for a written report for example, we would act immediately, we would submit written affidavits and obtain authorisation from the Magistrate, to prohibit that meeting. Those reports from the informers, and there were various informers, it was not a question of two people who didn't like him, there were twelve to sixteen informers, different informers and ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hechter ...
MR HECHTER: I beg your pardon, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hechter, is your answer that you do not recall?
MR HECHTER: I do not recall.
CHAIRPERSON: Then because what you are saying to us now is merely speculation of what obtained.
MR HECHTER: Yes, that is correct, it is speculation.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. You may proceed, Mr Toefy.
MR HECHTER: Thank you, Chair.
MR TOEFY: Mr Hechter, you also said earlier in evidence that based on reading the bundle, and particularly the newspaper clippings that are in the bundle, that it appeared as if the entire family, the Masuku family were active in the struggle.
MR HECHTER: Chairperson, I cannot recall, I simply looked at what was in the newspapers. I just relied on what was in the newspapers, I can no longer actually recall.
MR TOEFY: So could you - so can you also not remember whether the mother of Oupa Masuku, Mrs Esther Masuku, whether you viewed her as an activist or not?
MR HECHTER: Unfortunately I cannot give you a positive response to that, I can no longer recall.
MR TOEFY: But what is clear to you is that the target was Oupa Masuku.
MR HECHTER: That is correct.
MR TOEFY: So your intention was never to intimidate Esther Masuku, but only Oupa Masuku.
MR HECHTER: I cannot tell you, perhaps it was. I cannot tell you at this stage yes, it was only Oupa or it was Oupa and his mother or it was Oupa and his entire family. The effect of the intimidation was that his parents would tell him, "listen stop your nonsense", because it is known that the parents of the activists would leave them, but I am speculating once again, I cannot give you a positive response unfortunately.
MR TOEFY: Well Mr Hechter, surely there are various manners in which you can get the message across. If you want to intimidate someone to stop doing something, surely you can tell X, you can take him in, smack him around a couple of times and tell him to stop it. You can blow up his car while he's not there, you can slash his tyres, what made you decided to bomb his house?
MR HECHTER: I don't know whether or not you have studied page 58, or if you could at least study Ezekial Oupa Masuku's statement ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: And he mentioned in his evidence-in-chief that according to what he has referred you to, that Oupa Masuku was detained at various times and when he was released he became a martyr and all the youth would take after him, and that was not how to stop it, and they decided to intimidate him in the manner in which brought us here today.
MR HECHTER: Thank you, Chairperson, that is what paragraph 1 will tell you in essence, paragraph 1 will tell you that he began in 1977 and with none of those actions was he ever hindered and then we had to go to extreme measures.
MR TOEFY: I hear you - and thank you Mr Chairperson, for reminding me. However in paragraph 1 he speaks of actions which the State took against him in the normal course of the law, but according to your background information that you've given and so on, it was accepted that you must now act outside of the normal course and the normal system.
MR HECHTER: That is correct.
MR TOEFY: Why then go to that extreme? Why go to the extreme of bombing his house, running the risk knowing full well, as you have said earlier, knowing full well that people may be injured or hurt? Your aim is to intimidate, your aim is not to kill, if the law cannot help you out - if the law didn't help you out back then, why make the jump from a number of other steps that fall outside of the framework of the law to an act which caused the death of another person?
MR HECHTER: Have I not answered this sufficiently? He had already been detained, he had already been intimidated via the regular ambit of the law. All of these things had already been applied to him and he still didn't want to listen, so the next step would be to treat him as he treated those around him, give him full intimidation.
MR TOEFY: I'm accepting that - let's assume that everything within the ambit of the law was attempted, he was held without - he was detained without any trial, he was interrogated and he was held under various acts, that we accept and that is all that you are saying, that he was interrogated in terms of the law and he was held in terms of the law and then you take an act which is outside the normal course of the law. Now there's various categories of acts which you could have perpetrated outside of the course of the law, you've chosen to take an act which resulted in the death of someone and you knew it could have resulted in that, why did you not choose ...(intervention)
MR HECHTER: No, we didn't it, we foresaw it, there's a difference.
MR TOEFY: I didn't say it would.
MR HECHTER: Ja, you said I knew it would have resulted.
MR TOEFY: You knew that it could have resulted in the death of someone.
MR HECHTER: I foresaw it, I foresaw that it could happen, I didn't know that it was going to happen.
MR TOEFY: So all I'm asking you is, you have a wide range of acts that you could have done outside of the framework of the law, why did you choose the act that could have had such a huge and such a grave result? - which it did. That's the simple question.
MR HECHTER: According to my opinion it was the only way in which to stop him, that is all that I can tell you at this moment. I can no longer recall the precise motivations of that time. You must remember that we were involved in a situation of warfare, we were fighting the enemy, at that stage he was my enemy. I'm assuming that it is Mr Masuku who is seated next to you.
MR TOEFY: Yes, it is.
MR HECHTER: He was my enemy at that stage, I fought him tooth and nail because he was trying the existing system and he tried this via the means of intimidation and all other methods which we also used and they used. So that is what is was about. The precise motivation I can longer tell you at this stage, I cannot recall anymore, I do not have the files before me, I no longer possess the precise information.
MR TOEFY: So you can't say whether you've in fact tried any other action against him or not?
MR HECHTER: Yes, we did, here it is ...(intervention)
MR TOEFY: No, no, outside the ...
MR HECHTER: ... there were seven methods, or seven incidents during which we tried other manner, not I ...(intervention)
MR MALAN: Sorry to interrupt you Mr Hechter, but the question is, why didn't you take other steps which fell beyond the framework of the law, which were not as drastic? That is the question.
MR HECHTER: I beg your pardon. Thank you, Chairperson. He was a serious activist and - I don't know what the correct word is, he was an activist who was very closely involved and we had on many previous occasions then attempted to prevent him and none of these attempts had worked. We had to try this option, otherwise the only other option would be to eliminate him directly.
I do not know exactly why we did this. At this stage I cannot explain to you beyond any reasonable doubt or tell you one hundred percent that this is why we did it, I'm assuming that that was the decision that I took at that stage and I believe that I took it alone. I do not know if I discussed this at a table with anybody else, I can no longer recall. But we accept that ...(intervention)
MR MALAN: I beg your pardon Toefy, for interrupting once again.
The question actually indicates that in this case it is on record with us that various actions were taken within the framework of the law. You told us that there were various methods of intimidation, sort of the first step being a minor attempt like a burn wound, but here you would go over directly to a bomb attack which caused serious damage and it wasn't a petrol.
MR HECHTER: That is correct.
MR MALAN: The question is, why didn't you do anything intermediary?
MR HECHTER: Due to the fact that we had already attempted to detain him via the regular methods and seen that this did not decrease his activism, that his activism was still as intense as what it had been. I am inferring that that is why I decided that it wouldn't help to burn his house only, that we should plant a bomb which would cause a dramatic event in anybody's life and this would deter him seriously. I have to infer that this was my motivation.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hechter, did I not understand you in your evidence-in-chief, that you said all the legal methods within the framework of the law did not work and it was a decision of the Security Forces that you should go a step further and go outside the ambit of the law as well? But I hear you now to say in respect of Masuku, Oupa, you know decided that you would rather bomb his house to scare him off.
MR HECHTER: That is correct, but it was part of a general instruction that we received, I received an instruction to intimidate the activists to control their activist activities, that was the instruction to me, and it was left over to me as an officer to decided after I had received and studied the necessary informer reports, to determine who the offenders were, who the activists were against whom action had to be taken. I assume that this information would have been in the file because we had the entire history of a person in his file, all his previous arrests, all his previous actions. Some people's files were this thick, some of them became bundles due to all their actions, and on the basis thereof along with the instruction that I had already received, I decided to commit this act.
CHAIRPERSON: So would I understand you correctly to say the general instruction gave you a discretion in the process of what other methods beyond?
MR HECHTER: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, you may proceed. I'm sorry Mr Toefy.
MR TOEFY: Mr Hechter, I want to put the following proposition to you and I would like your comment. It is - the evidence before us and as you have - before us on paper and from what you have said now, indicates that no other act was taken against Mr Masuku outside of the framework of the law other than bombing his house. And I put it to you that your decision to bomb his house in order to stop him from intimidation, was an act that was not warranted by the circumstances and it was out of proportion to your aims of wanting to stop him or to intimidate him to stop his activities. What do you say to that?
MR HECHTER: I cannot answer the first half of your question, could you please repeat the first section of the question because it's a double statement or a double question that you have put to me. Could you repeat the first half of your statement.
MR TOEFY: I said that on the evidence before us, on papers and from what you have said, that the only act that you took against Mr Masuku outside of the framework of the law, was to bomb his house.
MR HECHTER: I cannot answer you there because I cannot remember, I cannot recall. Perhaps I brought him into the police station or to the Security Branch, perhaps I interrogated him, perhaps I assaulted him, I cannot recall, it is possible. Mr Masuku will be able to tell us. If you tell me that we didn't do it, then we will just automatically return to this section. We tried everything and when we saw that nothing was being effective with this man - if someone spent that much time in jail, it was proof that he really didn't want to listen and we had to take serious action against him.
MR TOEFY: So you're saying you simply can't remember if you did anything else to him?
MR HECHTER: I cannot recall because I cannot even recall this incident in detail. It is probable that I bombed his house and I'm sure it is so, especially in the light of the evidence put by the others, but I cannot recall precisely that I went to the police station that evening, went to his house, bombed it and so forth. I know that I bombed house.
MR TOEFY: Let's go to the second part of the proposition. Mr Hechter, your aim was to intimidate him to stop his actions, your decision to bomb his house which had the possibility - which you have admitted, the possibility was there that people would be killed as a result of that bomb, your decision to effect and to detonate that bomb at a house where people could reasonably be at that hour of the night, that that decision was an unreasonable one in the circumstances and that you could ...(intervention)
MR HECHTER: You were not there, I was there, at that stage it was a war. We are seated here in a very relaxed and calm atmosphere and it sounds implausible to hear that you would go to someone's house and bomb it, but at that stage it wasn't unreasonable, the man didn't want to listen and we were trying everything in our power, we had detained him, he knew we were watching him, he knew that informer reports were being sent through to us, he knew how these things operated, but despite everything he continued with his activities, how were we to stop him? What do you do then?
CHAIRPERSON: Grant me an opportunity. Mr Hechter, I would appreciate it if you could just answer the question put to you by the legal representatives of the victims. But I would strongly discourage you to say to him "you were not there, no we were there" - I mean, we were all not there but we've got to even adjudicate on this, and please bear with the legal representatives because he's simply just doing his job.
MR HECHTER: I'm sorry, I didn't mean to antagonise him, that was not my intention, I'm just referring to that period in time, during which you would have been one of the victims, you knew how things were in the black residential areas, it was ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: No, I'm happy if it's not your intention, I'm merely happy if it's not your intention.
MR HECHTER: I apologise, Chairperson, it was really not my intention to patronise him, it was purely a situation of warfare during which we dealt with these people on a daily basis and it really didn't help to intimidate them in the normal fashion because if we did so, this bomb would never have exploded. Once again I am busy with a supposition that if he had listened, this bomb would never have gone off because there would never have been a reason to do so.
However, quite obviously, he must have continued with his activities to give me a reason to place the bomb. Once again I say to you, from our position today it sounds awful but at that stage it wasn't awful, it was a daily occurrence. If I didn't do it, he would have done it in all probability. And that is how it was in the black residential areas, the black non-activists were attacked by the black activists, who also intimidated them by means of tossing handgrenades into their houses, by setting their houses alight, by tossing manufactured explosive devices into their houses, that was the practice of the day, and now you ask me whether or not I think that I could have done something else. Possibly, it is very possible.
If I have to observe this in retrospect, I would not have taken this decision if I didn't believe firmly at that stage that this was the only way in which to stop his intimidation or his actions, his activist activities.
MR TOEFY: Just one question on this issue, or at least from what you were saying. Are you saying that is was an "oorlog situasie" and the situation was so bad that you would in fact indulge in actions which would cause for ...(intervention)
MR HECHTER: I beg your pardon, could you speak up, I cannot really hear you.
MR TOEFY: Are you saying that times were so bad back then that you indulged in actions that could have, and in these circumstances did, cause the death of an innocent person?
MR HECHTER: Chairperson, it is clear from what has occurred that innocent - which was a relative concept because from took place later, it was clear that Mrs Masuku was also involved in this activism and in these movements, but yes innocent people could have died and we acted with the full knowledge of this possibility, that is correct.
MR TOEFY: You also say in your application that Esther Masuku is Oupa Masuku's sister.
MR HECHTER: I inferred that, I never re-examined the details ...(intervention)
MR TOEFY: I just wanted to know if you are still of that view or not.
MR HECHTER: If you look at these reports they mention that she is 39 and that he is 28, and that is how the confusion may have originated, that one would have thought that she was his sister. At that stage I never returned to any of these scenes, so I wouldn't know in detail.
"Black woman, Esther Masuku, 39. Black man, Oupa Masuku, 28."
That is on my "Top Secret". So on the basis of this information, I cannot recall, it may have been that I knew that she was his mother at that stage, but I submitted my application on the basis of this information.
MR TOEFY: You also said earlier in evidence, Mr Hechter, that - and you alluded to it now as well, that the entire Masuku family was probably involved in the struggle, and you took it further, and you said that there would have been files on each person in the family, is that right?
MR HECHTER: Not necessarily every person, but once again this is a supposition, I am not able to tell you yes or no, it was a general observation that I had made. I see that the mother was involved, Oupa was an activists of format, he was not just a common activist, the mother was involved with AZRO and SAWU, so therefore that was an inference I had drawn here. I do not know what had happened that time, possibly I had a file for every one of them, it is possible, I am not able to tell you yes or no. It's possible that they were all innocent, that is also possible, except for Mr Masuku. I would never have attacked him if I did not have a file on him, that would never have happened. Because in all my applications thusfar, I have never launched an attack on anyone who was not involved in the freedom struggle.
MR TOEFY: So you don't know if you had a file on Esther Masuku?
MR HECHTER: No, I cannot tell you, no I don't know.
MR TOEFY: This "Top Secret" document that you referred to earlier ...
MR HECHTER: This was from a file, it was taken from a file.
MR TOEFY: That summarises the incident?
MR HECHTER: Yes, but it could have been a dossier as well, I do not - it was also not sent to my desk, it was sent to C1. This comes from the terrorist file, in other words from the investigative unit, this document comes from the investigative unit, C1, who did investigations. So it would have been an independent document. I've never seen this before on my desk.
MR TOEFY: You'll see there that when they refer to - under paragraph 2(a) and (b), at (b) they say that the person that was injured was a black man, Ezekial Oupa Masuku and in then in paragraphs ...(intervention)
MR HECHTER: NT(?). That is not black force, that entry is the C1 division, you'll see on page 58 that he was detained for terrorism, C1 worked with terrorism, we worked with black power. So C1 would not know whether I had a file on those persons.
MR TOEFY: And S4 file?
MR HECHTER: I beg your pardon, let me have a look - where is that?
MR TOEFY: Is that one file?
MR HECHTER: I do not understand your question.
MR TOEFY: You say here
"Subject of file NT ..."
... and then there is S4.
MR HECHTER: That would be the same file. I don't know, I cannot tell you what the NT and the S4 are, I do not know what the S4 is.
MR TOEFY: So would you then deduce from paragraphs (a) and (b) that they actually didn't have a file on ...(indistinct)
MR HECHTER: I cannot draw that inference, not from this.
MR TOEFY: You did not have a file on Esther Masuku?
MR HECHTER: No, I cannot draw this inference. It's possible that there was a file, but it's possible that there was no file.
MR TOEFY: And it's possible that you may have had a file.
MR HECHTER: It's a possibility, it's a possibility that I cannot ignore.
MR TOEFY: Further questions that I have to ask you, Mr Hechter, the family is here. Can you remember who your informants were that informed you about the Masuku family?
MR HECHTER: Chairperson, first of all I cannot recall and secondly at previous occasions I was taken for hearing, a Section 28 Hearing in Cape Town, where there Mr Denzil Potgieter - we spent a day with Mr Denzil Potgieter there and we said that for South Africa's peace in future, no informants will be disclosed. That was a decision that was taken there and it was left there. Informants names will not be disclosed.
MR TOEFY: Mr Chairperson, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR TOEFY
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Toefy. Mr Steenkamp, any questions?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV STEENKAMP: Thank you Mr Chairman, if you'll allow me a few questions.
Mr Hechter, you were also a member of the Security Branch of Northern Transvaal, is that correct?
MR HECHTER: That is correct, Chairperson.
ADV STEENKAMP: W/O Dos Santos, was he also a member of your branch?
MR HECHTER: Yes, he was also a member of the branch, but he had no knowledge of my actions. We worked on a need-to-know basis. He was not attached to my unit, he was attached to another unit. He was a member of the branch, but with another unit, he was with Unit C1.
ADV STEENKAMP: If you have regard for pages 61 and 62 of bundle 1, do you have that? You will see page 61 is the covering page of a dossier and page 62 is an affidavit of W/O Dos Santos, where he says that he was a member of the Security Branch of Northern Transvaal.
MR HECHTER: That is correct, Chairperson.
ADV STEENKAMP: What I'd like to ask you is, what I do not understand is, it appears that a member of the same branch, of the same unit had undertaken this investigation.
MR HECHTER: That's correct, because it was an act of terror. Acts of terror were investigated by the Security Branch, bomb explosions specifically, petrol bombs would be investigated by the local police, but W/O Dos Santos was an explosives expert and all explosive related incidents were investigated by the Security Branch.
ADV STEENKAMP: I understand that, but according to page 61 you will see that the investigative officer was W/O Dos Santos.
MR HECHTER: That is correct, he investigated the matter.
ADV STEENKAMP: But a member of your own unit investigates something that you were involved with?
MR HECHTER: That's correct, no-one at the branch was aware of what I had done. There were persons who did know, my boss knew and some of the members who worked with me. My boss, Brig Cronje, he knew. His Commander, W/O Dos Santos' Commander was a Capt Prinsloo, he didn't know what happened.
That matter, just for your information, the bomb explosion, the incident, the following day all the officers met in the Brigadier's office and the incident was mentioned there and then Capt Prinsloo would come in and he would say there was a bomb explosion in Atteridgeville last night, someone died. Briefly we discussed and later the dossier would be handed over to Brig Cronje. Neither he nor Mr Dos Santos were informed.
ADV STEENKAMP: But my question is, would W/O Dos Santos not have access to information from sources?
MR HECHTER: Not our source, because he was in another division, he was with C1, who monitored acts of terrorism and terrorists, the bomb division, there were several of us who underwent bomb or explosives training. He would have known that we might have had a file of Mr Masuku, but he would not have known the particulars of it. He could have drawn it to study it, but it was not information that was withheld from him, he could have studied it if he wanted to.
ADV STEENKAMP: Do I understand you correctly, he could have had access to source reports?
MR HECHTER: Not specifically the source reports, but the processed report, my sources or my unit's sources belonged to the unit, it was not general knowledge for the other members of the branch. The report would have gone to my Commanding Officer and he would have said that "Capt Loots, I want Oupa Masuku's file, do you mind if I have a look at the file", and then the reports would be given to him, but the processed reports. Sgt Coetser received reports from his sources and he obtained four/five reports, Mr Joubert or Sgt Pieterse and Sgt Joubert would receive five reports each and all of them would write one report of the total information that they gained and that would be filed.
ADV STEENKAMP: I would like to mention to you that I find it strange that if one looks at the cover page of this dossier, it would appear that this was never submitted for any investigation.
MR HECHTER: I don't know if it was. Firstly, my copy is poor and secondly I do not know, I cannot answer you.
ADV STEENKAMP: It appears that according to this document no Prosecutor ever studied it.
MR HECHTER: It says GDO, I don't know if that's the Prosecutor who wrote that that I can see.
ADV STEENKAMP: There's no signature of a Prosecutor.
MR HECHTER: I do not know, Sir.
ADV STEENKAMP: Was it not used in order to file such dossiers?
MR HECHTER: This one would have walked that road, but I cannot answer to that.
ADV STEENKAMP: The actual point which I would like to ask you in conclusion is, it would appear that this investigation was purely academic. If one looks at the type of investigation, the person and the documents which appear and the fact that the dossier was not placed before a Prosecutor, it was just purely academic.
MR HECHTER: I do not know whether there was a complete investigation or if this is the complete dossier, I believe that this docket would have gone to the Prosecutor, but I am not able to answer you.
ADV STEENKAMP: So much more, where according to your evidence Mr Dos Santos had access to further information?
MR HECHTER: No, not further information, my information was never put in writing anywhere, my information was in writing, but the action that I had launched was never supported in documents.
ADV STEENKAMP: A final question. Were you aware that Mr Dos Santos handled the investigation?
MR HECHTER: Yes, I would have been aware of it. I would known the particulars of it but I would have known that one of the explosive experts in the branch, I do not know which one because you had on standby more than one, but one of those explosive experts would have gone to the scene.
ADV STEENKAMP: And you - I would just like to ask you, you should have known that this investigation would lead nowhere.
MR HECHTER: I did not know that, that we did not know because these people did not know, but I knew at the scene there would be no evidence to be found because I knew what had happened there.
ADV STEENKAMP: Thank you, Mr Chairman, no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV STEENKAMP
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Steenkamp. Mr Roux, before you re-examine I will give the Panel an opportunity to put questions, so that when you re-examine, in the interest of time, you have probably a picture of what you should re-examine on.
MR ROUX: I am indebted to you, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Adv Sandi?
MR HECHTER: Thank you, Chair, just on one or two things.
You have referred to a Section 28 Hearing, which you attended in Cape Town, I understood you to say a decision was taken there that names of informers should not be disclosed, can I ask you whose decision was this?
MR HECHTER: Chairperson, I was subpoenaed in accordance with Section 29 and I can recall Mr Chaskelson, Mr Denzil Potgieter and then there was an Advocate from the TRC, I cannot recall his surname, and I think there was another person, it was my legal representative, Mr du Plessis, Mr Britz, myself and some of the other members who were not present in the hall at that stage if I recall correctly, because it was an in camera hearing. Let's call it a hearing, I don't know what you call it.
In then the morning Mr du Plessis submitted his legal points where he set out as to why according to the law, the informants could not be exposed, and then the other Advocate, I cannot recall his name, he then put forward his legal points for the Committee present, and then in the afternoon it went back and forth, no answers were forthcoming and then during the afternoon at some stage we put off the tape recorders and we met around the table and we said for peace and the future of South Africa, it would better if the identities of the informants would not be disclosed because of prosecutions, because the families would want to take revenge and then the person who were tasked by us would have their revenge. And people from society, they are still living in society and today they have important positions in society and those positions would have been jeopardised, they personally would have been attacked, and in order to promote this reconciliation it was left there. That was the plea, it was discussed and I was never again subpoenaed and there was no mention of it that anybody else would be subpoenaed in order to disclose this information or to disclose the identities of informants.
CHAIRPERSON: Just before you do, Mr Sandi - Mr Hechter, am I understanding you that there was no decision per se, but what you have just said to us is a gentleman's agreement around the table?
MR HECHTER: That is what it boiled down to, Chairperson, there was no judgment passed, it just remained there, I was never again subpoenaed, everything remained there and it was never mentioned again anywhere.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
MR HECHTER: Thank you, Chairperson.
ADV SANDI: Thank you. The next question again around the issue of informers, these informers were getting paid for supplying all the information to you.
MR HECHTER: That's correct, Chairperson.
ADV SANDI: How reliable - in your experience, how reliable would you find the information that would supplied to you from time to time?
MR HECHTER: Chairperson, because we had various informants one did not rely or react to one or two informants' reports, one tried to recruit as many informants in the community as possible in order to gain information. Back then we referred to a subject, one would have ten or twenty informants who would give information with regard to Mr Masuku as well as other activists, then it becomes quite clear that this man is prejudice, he just speak about Mr Masuku, he doesn't speak about Mr Joubert or anybody else, and he makes up the most tremendous stories. It is easy to determine then that this man's information because we refer to intelligence confirmation. So if five informants give the same information, then one can accept that the information is correct.
ADV SANDI: Thank you. Just one last question. You have said as far as you were concerned you were fighting a war, now I want to know, how far were you prepared to go in waging this war? The notion or the concept of innocent civilians was not part of your vocabulary?
MR HECHTER: Chairperson no, we never tasked innocent civilians. Unfortunately in such a situation where one uses explosives, it does happen, and we limited it, we tried to limit it to as little as possible and as we progressed, later at a stage we started tasking individuals and abducted them and eliminated them as time went by. As we began more experienced we realised that there were better methods, eliminate the activist right there and then, because in blowing up the house there is that danger of innocent bystanders being injured, that is so. When one uses explosives that is the case unfortunately. Although we were embroiled in a war situation, we did not task or target innocent civilians.
ADV SANDI: Would you take any steps to - if you wanted to attack a particular political activist who was staying in a particular house with other people, it could be parents, sisters, brothers or anything of that sort, what steps would you take, if any steps at all, what steps would you take to ensure that the people who are staying with him who were not even involved in the rough and tumble of the struggle, how would you ensure that they don't get affected once you throw a bomb there?
MR HECHTER: Unfortunately none, Chairperson, we foresaw it and there was unfortunately nothing we could do about it.
ADV SANDI: Yes, but in those cases where you wanted to eliminate or to attack a certain activist because his profile in the struggle, would it not perhaps be better if you attack this person in the street whilst he's walking alone at night?
MR HECHTER: That was not so easy, it sounds easy in theory and it sounds easy when we speak about it, but to isolate one person in Atteridgeville during that time, when you as a white person could not even enter into the residential area, it would be very difficult to do that, Chairperson, it was actually impossible to follow such a person and to eliminate him.
The thought has taken formation with me now, I don't know whether it was part of our objective, when one hits such a house you know - once again it's a supposition, it might have been part of our reasoning, I do not know - you know your child is an activist, you do not do anything about it, now my house is attacked because my child is an activist and I did not do anything, would I not tell him "stop your actions"? I do not know, Chairperson, it's a supposition. I think might it not have been part of my argument then? I do not know.
ADV SANDI: Finally, do I understand you to say that you took no steps whatsoever to ensure that so-called innocent civilians who were staying in the same house with a targeted person, you took no steps to ensure that those people would not be affected? That's what you are saying.
MR HECHTER: Chairperson, to a very limited extent, yes, because one knows more-or-less where this person sleeps, but one does not know who shares his bed. One would not go and place the bomb in the mother's room, one would place the bomb in his room or where it is the easiest for you. If there are houses on the sides, one would not go to the side to throw the bomb, one would throw it through a front window. We had an idea more-or-less.
ADV SANDI: Thank you. Thank you, Mr Chairman.
MR HECHTER: Thank you, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Adv Sandi. Mr Malan?
MR MALAN: I have no questions thank you, Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Roux, have you any re-examination?
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR ROUX: Chairperson, there are two minor aspects, I would not like to spend too much time on them.
In your own mind, Mr Hechter, with reference to the Masuku incident and the information which was in all probability available to you with regard to the informants information and files that you had and the circumstances as it had reigned then, let us be specific, in Atteridgeville and the circumstances in general in the country, in the execution of your duty, in your own mind were your actions in retrospect, justified? This specific action.
MR HECHTER: Yes, Chairperson, otherwise I would not have gone through with it.
MR ROUX: You upon a question posed by the legal representative on behalf of Mr Masuku, answered that you could not recall whether it was possible that previous steps had been taken against Oupa Masuku before this attack, is that correct?
MR HECHTER: I think the question was "outside the law", I cannot recall Chairperson.
MR ROUX: In other words, is it quite possible that there may have been verbal admonishments, a few slaps, a hiding or two?
MR HECHTER: I think Mr Masuku may be able to answer that, I cannot recall it at all.
MR ROUX: Very well then, but were such actions possible before this bomb was exploded?
MR HECHTER: It is possible.
MR ROUX: Thank you, Chairperson, those are the questions in re-examination.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR ROUX
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Hechter, you are excused.
MR HECHTER: Thank you very much, Chairperson.
MR ROUX: Thank you, Chairperson.
WITNESS EXCUSED
CHAIRPERSON: I take it the next applicant, Mr Visser, would be Mr Viktor.
MR VISSER: As it pleases you, Mr Chairperson.
