MR VISSER: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, as we have mentioned before, we act for Mr Viktor. He's available and ready to take the oath, he has no objection to taking the oath.
JOHANNES JACOBUS VIKTOR: (sworn states)
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Malan. Mr Visser, you may proceed.
MR VISSER ADDRESSES: Chairperson, it has been some time since I've had the pleasure of appearing before you and this calls for some explanations to be given as to what had happened in-between. Chairperson, Mr Malan, with apologies to Mr Malan, he's heard this introduction so many times, I think he knows it by heart, but I'll go as quickly as I can. Chairperson, in February last years, on the 5th of February, a meeting was held by Mr Malan and Justice Wilson on behalf of the Amnesty Committee, with legal representatives who appear for applicants and some implicated persons etcetera, in order to attempt to find ways and means of expediting the process because the process appeared to be getting bogged down and a lot of time was taken on issues which it was felt, could be dealt with greater dispatch.
At the time, Chairperson, various suggestions were made, most of them good ones, and what has happened since then is that with reference to the decision of the original Amnesty Committee in the Jack Cronje matter, you will recall - and I'm not going to refer you to it, but it simply boiled down to the fact hat the issue of background and personal experiences of policemen and the issue of the war that waged etcetera, etcetera, as you referred to Rip van Winkel, but at that stage Chairperson, amnesty applicants could not take the chance of not fully explaining their views and their position, and in the Jack Cronje decision the Amnesty Committee suggested - first of all, it dealt with a lot of that background and then it suggested that in future it may be helpful if applicants, Security Force amnesty applicants could simply refer to that decision and without ado, continue with the facts of the matter and thereby save a lot of time.
What was raised at that meeting, Chairperson, was that - of course unfortunately no decision can always cater for all circumstances and we raised the problem which we had, that there were certain issues which fell outside the decision of the Jack Cronje amnesty applications and it was decided that we should draw a document which covered most issues which will be applicable in any circumstances, concerning a member of a Security Force. And that explains, Chairperson, a document which we have called "General Background to Amnesty Applications", of which I sincerely hope that you do have a copy, because we have made that available. Which we would ask, Chairperson, you will accept as Exhibit A. And the basis on which this is handed to you is that each applicant for whom we appear is asked at the beginning of his evidence, whether he agrees with portions of that document and if so, with what portions. Some would agree from their personal knowledge and experience, with everything, the particular applicant before you now will only agree to part of it. We will draw your attention to it.
The idea is then thereby to lay that before you as has been done for the past year, and to invite Members of the Committee that if they read it and they have a problem with any part thereof, that we will then address that particular aspect, but for the rest accept it as read and accept it as part of the evidence.
CHAIRPERSON: We have been furnished with that document and we shall mark it Exhibit A. My reading - personally I don't have any questions as regards that, but as you have alluded to the fact that you might just highlight us to certain portions which do not generally apply to each and every applicant who was engaged with the Security Forces, we would gladly accept that.
MR VISSER: Thank you, Chairperson. There isn't much, it really is just putting on a little bit of flesh, if I may put it that way, to the decision of the Cronje matter. For example, on the issue which my learned friend has raised on whether there was a war and to what extremes people would go in the war, we've addressed that issue and we have given you quotes from various players, role-players like AZAPO and the ANC and the Security Forces, so as to create a balanced picture or to attempt to create a balanced picture of what the war was about for us who didn't know what was really going on, Chairperson. As Mr Hechter says we weren't there.
Chairperson, with that brief introduction, may I also add that what we also undertook to do and what we have stuck to, was an undertaking before each of the hearings, to present all interested parties with a document of the full evidence which the applicant will give in order to save time of writing it down and in order to study it beforehand, so that everybody could know exactly what the evidence is going to be.
Now in the present case, Chairperson, we have done that again and you will find before you a document that says -
"Amnesty Application in terms of the Act"
Could we ask that you mark that Exhibit C, Chairperson, you've already got an Exhibit B. And then, Chairperson, attached to your Exhibit C you will see that there's another affidavit. May I immediately explain that to you.
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry about that, Mr Visser, may you continue.
MR VISSER: Have you found that document, Chairperson, it's headed
"Before the Committee for Amnesty of the TRC, I the undersigned, Johannes Jacobus Viktor ..."
Now Chairperson, I'm not sure whether you want to mark that separately or whether it should just be considered to be part of Exhibit C, but it may be preferable to mark it Exhibit D. And then the very last page, Chairperson, there's a letter by Lindy Burger, that could perhaps be Exhibit E. And Chairperson, ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Why don't we mark this one D1?
MR VISSER: D1. ...(indistinct - no microphone) and we will deal with these documents very briefly during the evidence, it's not necessary for you to read Exhibit D, but we will explain to you as we go along, what those two documents are about.
Chairperson, if I may then be permitted to refer you to Exhibit C. This is an application, Chairperson, for amnesty for those acts and delicts set out at page 2. Chairperson, I've often tried to translate this from the Afrikaans and every time I've succeeded in not succeeding, but it's malicious injury to property, by way a home-made bomb, as it was referred to; the murder of one, Madiposo Esther Masuku; attempted murder or any lesser offence regarding those people who were injured in the attack, Chairperson, and that includes Oupa Masuku, his brothers, Chris Masuku and Mdumazi Masuku, or any other person that we're not aware of, Chairperson. And then also 1.4, the unlawful possession, transportation and use of explosives contrary to existing laws at the time. Conspiracy, Chairperson, assisting before or after the act and defeating the ends of justice, Chairperson, insofar as the true facts were not made available. For example, to Mr Dos Santos, who was the investigating officer, or any other offence or delict arising from the facts, Chairperson.
Chairperson, on page 1 we refer to the evidence that has been given before Amnesty Committees, this is more a summary for the benefit of the various Committees before whom we appear, in order to be able at one glance to know where all references to relevant type of evidence may be found, Chairperson. One of them is Exhibit A, to which we'll come now, but the others are basically the evidence of a witness who appears before you. This particular witness has given evidence, for example as you will see in B1 in an amnesty application of Gregory Tulare and Godfrey Kwabe. And then basically we refer to the amnesty decisions which had been given by various Amnesty Committees, Chairperson, it's the Cronje 5, the Khotso House, London Bomb and Cosatu House applications, to which we might not refer you at the time we address you in argument.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Visser, you may proceed.
EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Mr Viktor, you are an applicant in this matter and you have listened to the introduction that I have rendered previously. Is it correct that you are applying for amnesty for the offences and delicts that I have explained to the Committee?
MR VIKTOR: That is correct.
MR VISSER: You have studied Exhibit A.
MR VIKTOR: Yes, that is correct.
MR VISSER: That is the general background. Could you then tell the Committee whether or not there are portions of that exhibit regarding which you would not be able to testify.
MR VIKTOR: Paragraphs 47 to 62 are not of application to me.
MR VISSER: And particularly the issue pertaining to the role of the neighbouring States and what went on in Swaziland, Botswana, Lesotho and so forth.
MR VIKTOR: Yes, that is correct.
MR VISSER: In other words, you confirm from page 1 to page 12 at the top.
MR VIKTOR: Yes, that is correct.
MR VISSER: Did you say 47 or 57?
MR VIKTOR: I beg your pardon, it would appear that the paragraphing differs - yes, to page 63.
MR VISSER: So from 64 onwards you cannot confirm. Your amnesty application can be found from page 108 to 119 before this Committee - no, that cannot be correct. Oh, in this bundle before you now, it's at page ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: 36.
MR VISSER: Yes, Chairman, I was referring to the other bundle which was the first bundle we got. I do beg your pardon.
Do you confirm as far as you know and as far as you can recall, the information which is embodied from page 36 before this Committee, to page 44?
MR VIKTOR: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR VISSER: Could you turn to Exhibit C and address the Committee regarding that which you can recall pertaining to the incident at hand.
MR VIKTOR
"Chairperson, with regard to this specific incident, in my amnesty application I referred to the fact that during 1986, between February and May, I was involved in an extensive number of attacks on the residences of activists. This included approximately 30 petrol bomb attacks and approximately 10 bomb attacks with manufactured bomb devices.
During the period of February to May 1986, I was the Commander of the Mamelodi Unrest Investigating Unit. In that capacity I co-operated closely with the Northern Transvaal Security Branch under the command of Brig Jack Cronje. This co-operation included the exchange of information and co-operation in investigations and arrests.
The work of my unit could virtually have been regarded as an extension of the activities of the Security Branch, because they and we investigated basically the same unrest related incidents and individuals who were responsible for this."
...(intervention)
MR MALAN: I beg your pardon for interrupting. Mr Visser, I don't think that you expediting the process if you give us a twenty minute long introduction and reiterate everything on the record, by means of a further body of information. There must be a way in which to shorted this.
MR VISSER: Chairperson yes, the difficulty that one always has is of course what to leave out and what to lead the evidence on, but I can attempt to do as requested, Chairperson, in the hope that I won't do it in a way which might be to the disadvantage of ...(intervention)
MR MALAN: But I think it would be a good start to get him to confirm the statement that he has prepared at the very least.
MR VISSER: Mr Viktor, his statement that you just began reading, Exhibit C, could you tell the Committee how it came to be that this statement came to light.
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, it was compiled after consultation with my legal representation.
MR VISSER: And from what you could recall and what you told to your advocate and your attorney, a document was compiled and you were asked to study it and to see whether everything was correct. And are you the of the opinion that everything that appears here is your evidence and everything is true and correct?
MR VIKTOR: Yes, that is correct.
MR VISSER: Do you then confirm the complete content of Exhibit C?
MR VIKTOR: Yes, I confirm it.
MR VISSER: From the cross-examination by myself of Mr Hechter, you will recall that he confirmed that you co-operated closely with the Northern Transvaal Security Branch, and that this took place under the command of Brig Cronje and that eventually you also went over to unconventional or unlawful actions against activists. Do you confirm this?
MR VIKTOR: Yes.
MR VISSER: You referred in your statement, to the violence and intimidation which reigned at that stage and the problems that you experienced in having cases brought successfully to Court.
MR VIKTOR: That is correct.
MR VISSER: And do you concur with what Mr Hechter has said, that detention and imprisonment of activists usually had the opposite effect to that which was actually desired?
MR VIKTOR: That is correct.
MR VISSER: Questions were put by Mr Lamey regarding a meeting in the office of your father, the then Brig J J Viktor - we will call him Viktor senior, during which there was a discussion of the unrest situation, is that correct?
MR VIKTOR: Yes, that is correct.
MR VISSER: And do you agree with what Mr Hechter has said in this regard pertaining to suggestions of counter-intimidation operations which had to be launched?
MR VIKTOR: Yes, that is correct.
MR VISSER: Did you have the impression that an order had been given to kill people on that day?
MR VIKTOR: No, Chairperson.
MR VISSER: Can you recall whether Mr Coetser was present on that day or can you not recall?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, as far as I know he was not present.
MR VISSER: Now with regard to the orders for these unlawful actions, who would have issued these orders according to what you knew or what you accepted?
MR VIKTOR: The orders for specific actions came from Brig Jack Cronje personally, that was when I was present, or it was frequently relayed via Mr Hechter.
MR VISSER: Mr Hechter testified here that in the case of Oupa Masuku, he possibly could have taken the decision himself, according to his recollection. Do you recall this or what is the position?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, I wouldn't have known about it, I would have assumed that it came from Brig Cronje.
MR VISSER: You stated in paragraph 14 on page 4 that you never doubted or questioned the orders or the necessity for these orders and that you accepted in good faith that the members of the Security Branch with their extensive network of informers, possessed the necessary confirmed and reliable information which would serve as the basis for all unlawful actions in which you participated.
MR VIKTOR: That is correct.
MR VISSER: And then also in paragraph 15 you have pointed out that you wish to emphasise that at no stage was there any impulsive action, but that action was taken only on the basis of what was regarded as confirmed and reliable information.
MR VIKTOR: That is correct.
MR VISSER: On page 5 you refer to incidents during which you say that in this period from March to May, you were responsible for a number of incidents which you have referred to and then you refer to the persons that acted with you, according to your recollection, Capt van Jaarsveld, Tiny Coetser and Capt Hechter, and then there was also Joe Mamasela, but you cannot recall at this very moment in time who acted with you where and when.
MR VIKTOR: That is correct, with the exception that Capt van Jaarsveld was not involved with us in this operation.
MR VISSER: Then on page 5, with regard to the full disclosure of relevant facts, in your statement you have dealt with this, could you tell the Committee whether or not you have a good recollection.
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, at this stage I do not have a good recollection.
MR VISSER: What do you ascribe this to?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, I'm suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder for which I am still receiving therapy.
MR VISSER: And what was your experience with regard to the acts of violence that you participated in and the acts of violence that you witnessed during your police career?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, it was an attempt to suppress all these incidents so that I would not remember them.
MR VISSER: Now on two prior occasions you were requested by the Amnesty Committee to provide particulars in terms of the stipulations of the Act, with regard to your reasons for applying for amnesty, is that correct?
MR VIKTOR: That is correct.
MR VISSER: And shortly before this hearing you were requested by means of a letter, to answer certain questions with regard to that which you can recall of certain incidents.
MR VIKTOR: That is correct.
MR VISSER: And on page 6 in paragraph 22, you have stated that your recollection is very weak and try as you might you cannot recall the particulars of approximately forty incidents in which you were involved, but since you submitted your amnesty applications your memory has been refreshed.
MR VIKTOR: That is correct.
MR VISSER: What led to this?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, it is the applications of other members from which one could determine what one had been involved in and then also discussions with some of these members.
MR VISSER: Did you also make enquiries at a certain stage at a certain place?
MR VIKTOR: Yes, I enquired with the investigative team of the then Attorney-General, in order to determine which matters they were investigating against me, and certain facts were made known to me.
MR VISSER: And then in paragraph 22, in the light of your refreshed memory you have stipulated these incidents that you can remember to a greater or a lesser extent, from (a) to (e).
MR VIKTOR: That is correct.
MR VISSER: And you have also recalled that with regard to the current incident pertaining to the attack on the home of Oupa Masuku in Atteridgeville, you were also involved in this operation.
MR VIKTOR: That is correct.
MR VISSER: In paragraph 23 you have stated that you would have wanted to consult Capt Jacques Hechter because the orders sometimes came through him, but his memory is just as bad as yours.
MR VIKTOR: That is correct.
MR VISSER: And by means of your attorney you made enquiries regarding applications in which your name may have been mentioned and Mr Steenkamp who is acting as the Evidence Leader here today on behalf of the Committee, has also assisted you in this regard.
MR VIKTOR: That is correct.
MR VISSER: And just to take you through, among others you have also studied Mr Tiny Coetser's statement.
MR VIKTOR: Yes, that is correct.
MR VISSER: If I may refer you, Mr Viktor, to page 7, paragraph 26 in the second-last sentence there you have stated
"I have now been informed that shrapnel was placed in the explosive device which was exploded at the Masuku's residence ..."
...(inaudible) your attention to where that comes from, it's at page 96. If you look at page 96 you will see in paragraph - that is marked "Top Secret" in your bundle -Chairperson, I did ask whether the bundles were going to be identified separately, I heard somebody referred to this as bundle 1, should we refer to it as bundle 1?
CHAIRPERSON: Bundle 1, yes.
MR VISSER: Bundle 1, page 96, you will see under paragraph 2(a)
"Black woman Esther Masuku, 39, is fatally wounded by shrapnel to the head. Shrapnel wounds to left side and chest. Shrapnel wounds to right arm and right back."
Now we took that to imply Chairperson, rightly or wrongly, that it was something that was built into the bomb and with the explosion went flying out. Now that was before we heard the explanation from Mr Hechter, and I want the Committee please to consider what has been stated there in the light thereof - this witness, well perhaps I should ask him.
Do you have any personal knowledge of how these bombs were manufactured, these home-made explosive devices?
MR VIKTOR: No, I wasn't present.
MR VISSER: And would you personally have had any knowledge as to whether or not there was any shrapnel within these devices?
MR VIKTOR: No.
MR MALAN: Mr Visser, just for the record, isn't shrapnel the result of the explosion due to the explosion of the cover and everything else in the vicinity? Isn't that the generally accepted meaning?
MR VISSER: Chairperson, yes or no, you will see that the medical doctor that performed the autopsy here, thought it came from the bomb itself, he actually referred to it as "handgranaat skrapnel", which are those little pieces of tortoiseshell on a handgrenade that fly up. But nothing turns on it really, we just wanted to explain that, Chairperson.
Mr Viktor, I'm now on page 7 of your affidavit, Exhibit C, paragraph 27. You have already stated that you knew about the content of the amnesty application of Sgt Coetser, do you have any independent recollection regarding the details of this particular action?
MR VIKTOR: No, Chairperson.
MR VISSER: Can you confirm the correctness of Mr Coetser's version regarding the facts and the circumstances of the incident?
MR VIKTOR: No.
MR VISSER: You have already referred to the meeting which was held with your father, Brig Viktor, and there is the other aspect which pertained to what according to you was the purpose behind the action of that day.
MR VIKTOR: Our objective was to intimidate revolutionaries and activists.
MR VISSER: Wasn't the objective to eliminate Oupa Masuku?
MR VIKTOR: No, it was not.
MR VISSER: If that had been the objective, would there have been other methods that you could have applied?
MR VIKTOR: Yes, I believe so.
MR VISSER: And you say that this was not the objective.
MR VIKTOR: No, not at all.
MR VISSER: You also gave evidence and you state once again in your statement, Exhibit C, that although with regard to any particular actions that you took with the Security Branch, it was not your intention to kill anybody, you accept that there was the probability or the possibility that people could be killed or injured.
MR VIKTOR: That is correct.
MR VISSER: And is that still your evidence today?
MR VIKTOR: Yes, that is correct.
MR VISSER: And would this also be of application to this night of the attack on the house of the Masukus?
MR VIKTOR: That is correct.
MR VISSER: After the attack on the house were you aware that somebody had indeed been injured or killed?
MR VIKTOR: No, Chairperson, the first that I came to hear of that was with the application of Mr Coetser which I read.
MR VISSER: And did you read this before or after you had completed your amnesty application?
MR VIKTOR: It was a number of years subsequent to the completion of my amnesty application.
MR VISSER: Could you remember what the names of the persons were and the addresses which you have stipulated in your statement, of the victims of the action of that evening?
MR VIKTOR: No, I do not have an independent recollection thereof, I accept that what Sgt Coetser states with regard to the identity and the address, is indeed the identity and the address pertaining to the incident.
MR VISSER: And then there is also information which was obtained by the administrative personnel of the Amnesty Committee, which has been put in the bundle, which will shed further light on such matters.
MR VIKTOR: That is correct.
MR VISSER: I just want to discuss the issue of whether or not the actions to which you have referred were indeed actions which led to the desired results. What is your opinion on that? I think it is on page 8 that you deal with this.
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, I believe that our actions succeeded in decreasing the situation of violence and intimidation. Some of the information also indicated that these persons were planning certain actions and after counter-intimidation operations such as this it usually did not take place.
MR VISSER: It will be argued on your behalf towards the end that in the light of the statement made by Mr Masuku, this is precisely what happened in this case.
MR VIKTOR: Yes, it would appear so.
MR VISSER: I just want to pause with you with regard to your recollection. We have already heard from you that you were previously requested to provide information and you then tried to recall at the hand of the information which you had already received, what your personal recollections were regarding incidents in which you participated.
MR VIKTOR: Yes, that is correct.
MR ROUX: Chairperson, I do not wish to interfere but I have noticed that the interpreters have indicated something to do with time, I assume that they must be somewhat tired at this stage and I do not wish to interrupt them just like that ...(intervention)
MR VISSER: If the interpreters would give me three and a quarter minutes, I'll be finished, but if you want to take the ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: No, from my - when I'm following what you are doing it would appear we won't take long before we finish with his evidence-in-chief. I don't know if I'm mistaken.
MR VISSER: I'm just about finished.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Could you please bear with us for the last three minutes.
MR VISSER: In order to attempt to answer these questions according to the best of your knowledge did you decide to do so by means of an affidavit which would then embody as much of the incident in which you were involved so that the administration of the Amnesty Committee could then understand what precisely you are applying for amnesty for?
MR VIKTOR: Yes, that is correct.
MR VISSER: And if one examines Exhibit D, then that is exactly what you have done, and if we look at page 3, reference is made to incidents that you can recall having taken place in Pietersburg.
MR VIKTOR: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR VISSER: Then page 4 there is a residence in Ekangala.
MR VIKTOR: Yes, that is correct.
MR VISSER: And then also on page 4, the attack on the residence of Dr Ribeiro in Mamelodi.
MR VIKTOR: Correct.
MR VISSER: Then we have other incidents in Mamelodi, which is on page 5.
MR VIKTOR: That is correct.
MR VISSER: And also on page 5 we have Britz, Okasi.
MR VIKTOR: Correct.
MR VISSER: Soshanguve.
MR VIKTOR: That is correct.
MR VISSER: And then at the bottom of that page we come to Atteridgeville, and it would appear as if there are two cases, the case of Oupa Masuku which we are now dealing with and then another incident.
MR VIKTOR: Yes, that is correct.
MR VISSER: Could you just tell the Committee what you can recall prominently with regard to your action against Oupa Masuku.
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, the thing that comes to mind is that dogs were barking, dogs were barking tremendously while we moved toward the house and after we withdrew from the house, and I also have a recollection, I do not know whether it was at this place, but I recall that I saw a person who was watching us from the window of another house.
MR VISSER: After the compilation of this statement it was also noted - Mr Chairman, at page 79 of bundle 1 - after you gave the instructions it was noted in the affidavit of Oupa Masuku, on page 79 paragraph 3, where he indeed also mentions
"I heard my neighbour's dogs barking and then I heard footsteps on the veranda."
Do you then recall at the hand of this that you were involved in this particular incident?
MR VIKTOR: Yes, that is correct.
MR VISSER: Is there anything else which could be of assistance that you can recall from your own memory?
MR VIKTOR: With regard to this incident, no, Chairperson.
MR VISSER: Would you then have to depend upon what Mr Coetser states, seeing as he can remember much more than you and Mr Hechter put together?
MR VIKTOR: Yes, that is correct.
MR VISSER: If I may then just deal with Exhibit D1, Chairperson, it is a letter sent by Lindy Burger. Who is Lindy Burger?
MR VIKTOR: She is the psychologist who I am in therapy with.
MR VISSER: And upon our request she wrote a letter in which she has given a brief summary of her connection with you, is that correct?
MR VIKTOR: Yes, that is correct.
MR VISSER: And in this letter she has referred to the fact that you suffered a serious trauma a few years ago when your second child passed away.
MR VIKTOR: That is correct.
MR VISSER: Mr Chairperson, perhaps to save time I may just read it. She says in the third sentence in the second paragraph
"This trauma, coupled with the nature of his work in terms of the management of serious violence, death and trauma, went over into a form of post-traumatic stress reaction. This results that he represses most negative experiences and sometimes has little or no recollection of any traumatic or violent events."
And then she says that she is treating him.
Is that what she told you as well?
MR VIKTOR: Yes, that is correct.
MR VISSER: I'm taking longer than my three minutes, Chairperson, I'm at the last issue.
Would you then look at Exhibit C, your affidavit, page 8 thereof. There you have stated that your actions were not for personal gain and that all your actions which were unlawful while you were in service as a policeman, were committed in the heat of the struggle of the past and were aimed against supporters of liberation movements.
MR VIKTOR: That is correct.
MR VISSER: And your objective with the actions were to protect lives and property and to maintain the National Party government and to protect the government and also to attempt to divert the revolutionary onslaught.
MR VIKTOR: That is correct.
MR VISSER: Did you regard what you did as the execution of your duties as a policeman although they were unlawful?
MR MALAN: Mr Visser, I think you can save time, he has already confirmed this, it is all before us.
MR VISSER: As it pleases you, Chairperson. That is the evidence-in-chief, thank you Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Visser. We will take a fifteen minutes break. I apologise that it would have been better to take a break after we've heard all the evidence rather than have a break before then. Thank you, we shall take a fifteen minutes adjournment.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION
JOHANNES JACOBUS VIKTOR: (s.u.o.)
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, have you finished leading Mr Viktor?
MR VISSER: Chairperson, there's just one further issue I wish to clarify, but not with the witness, rather with the Chair and that is this question, Chairperson. I was wondering, Chairperson, whether irreparable harm would come to the decorum of the proceedings if we removed such articles of clothing as are incompatible with the weather conditions.
CHAIRPERSON: I think we can remove sufficient articles, but not to the extent that it would be offensive.
MR VISSER: Thank you, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Roux, may I start with you? Any cross-examination?
MR ROUX: Chairperson, I have no questions that I would like to put to this witness.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR ROUX
MR ROUX: There is only aspect and that is, earlier I promised that the reports with regard to Jacques Hechter be made available, it has become available and I would before I forget about it, hand it up. I see that my learned friend, Mr Steenkamp, has marked it as Exhibit F, and I ask permission to hand it up to you.
CHAIRPERSON: It is actually the old numbering, would you suggest that we stick to this numbering because this document is going to be used again subsequently, in other hearings.
MR ROUX: I would propose that it remains FF then.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Roux. Do you have the document FF, Mr Toefy? Jan Robertse. Thank you. We will now come to you, Mr Lamey. Any cross-examination of Mr Viktor?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chairperson, just a couple of aspects.
Mr Viktor, in paragraph 27 of your application you mention in the last sentence -
"I have already with the meeting above dealt with regard to the meeting at the office of Brig Viktor, where upon my recollection Sgt Coetser was not present."
Do you dispute that Sgt Coetser has attended a meeting at Security Head Office during which you and he and Brig Viktor as well as Jacques Hechter were present? Early in 1986.
MR VIKTOR: ...(inaudible)
MR LAMEY: I beg your pardon, may I put it to you that his recollection is clear that he was present there along with you, Brig Viktor and Hechter, although he cannot recall Capt van Jaarsveld.
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, that is how I recall it, but I think I have to state it clearly that if that is how Mr Coetser recalls the incident I cannot dispute it.
MR LAMEY: So when he says that he attended such a meeting - I don't know whether he refers to the same meeting, but he did attend a meeting where Brig Viktor, yourself and Hechter were present you would not dispute it, do I understand you correctly?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, I cannot dispute that he attended this meeting which I deal with here in my evidence.
MR LAMEY: The meeting that you do refer to, according to your recollection was this early in 1986?
MR VIKTOR: That is indeed so, Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: The other incidents of attacks - or may I ask you as follows, were you also involved in attacks with regard to petrol bombs being thrown at houses in residential areas?
MR VIKTOR: That is so, Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: Did this happen after this meeting at Brig Viktor's office?
MR VIKTOR: That is indeed so, Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: What you can recall from that discussion as I understand your evidence, is that you had to go over to action with regard to intimidation of the activists. That's more-or-less what I can recall of your evidence, is that correct?
MR VIKTOR: That is so, Chairperson, that such a suggestion was made that counter-intimidation action could take place.
MR LAMEY: Would that have been outside the ambit of the law?
MR VIKTOR: That is so, Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: Can you recall whether it was said during the discussion as to how such intimidation would take place?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, as far as my memory allows me it was a case of if these persons set houses alight and bombed houses, then their houses should also be set alight by the police in order to counter-intimidate them.
MR LAMEY: And the use of explosive devices, would this also be in line with that discussion?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson yes, it could be in line with the suggestion that was made.
MR LAMEY: In your statement - I would just like to get to the particular paragraph, in paragraph 11 you say that
"It was definitely not a licence to kill although we realised that persons could be injured in such a process if such operations would be realised."
Did you at that stage at that meeting realise that such operations would indeed realise that?
MR VIKTOR: No, Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: Not at all?
MR VIKTOR: This meeting that had taken place there, instructions were not given there that these things had to take place now, these were suggestions that such action could be taken.
MR LAMEY: No, I am not saying that you had to go over to specific targets but what had taken place afterwards, was this emanating from, and to use your words, the suggestions which were made during those meetings?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, I received my instructions from Brig Jack Cronje, but this suggestion did place some pressure on us or on me, that we came to the realisation that here is pressure upon us that results have to be shown and that is a possibility that had to take place.
MR LAMEY: Because you are saying now that you realise that persons would be injured during the process if these operations were realised. Did you realise this during that meeting, that persons could be injured during this process if operations were realised?
MR VIKTOR: That is correct, Chairperson. When one works with petrol bombs there is a possibility that persons could be injured.
MR LAMEY: And explosive devices?
MR VIKTOR: If one uses explosive devices, then the possibility also exists.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey, not to just interrupt you, I do not follow your line of cross-examination. I suppose if I follow it the way I do, that your client who is a co-applicant, would also come with a version which is not consistent with what was discussed in that meeting, that for instance since these bombings of houses by the activists should be countered by intimidation of bombing their houses as well, that they must realise there's no a full-scale war? I hope that would be the line you are taking if I understand you correctly.
MR LAMEY: Yes Chairperson, I will get to that, Mr Coetser has a version of his recollection of that meeting, what he understood from that meeting. I just want to have an opportunity to establish from Mr Viktor, as far as he can recall.
MR MALAN: Mr Lamey, won't you go short and state that version to Mr Viktor for his comment please.
MR LAMEY: Very well. I shall not cross-examine on this aspect, I shall just put it to you that it was definitely Mr Coetser's impression during that meeting at Brig Viktor's office - as he states on page 52, paragraph 1.8 of the background to his amnesty application, that steps had to be taken to eliminate activists who caused problems, and Mr Coetser says what he recalls of the discussion and the import of it - he cannot recall everything that was said about it there, it was quite far back according to him, but that is what he recalls and that is the impression he left that office with.
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, I cannot dispute what his impression was afterwards, but it was definitely not instructions to eliminate.
MR LAMEY: May this is an issue of comprehension and interpretation of the discussion, but what I would like to ask you is, if it was foreseen that explosive devices would be used, you mention persons being injured, would this have been unreasonable or farfetched that it was foreseeable during that discussion that persons during this process could be killed?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, I foresaw that when one foresees injuries one must foresee death also, so if he gained that impression then I cannot dispute Mr Coetser's impression.
MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chairperson, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Lamey. Mr Toefy?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR TOEFY: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.
Mr Coetser, the - I want to start off ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: No, no, he's Mr Viktor.
MR TOEFY: My apologies, Mr Viktor. Firstly, we take note that as you put in your statement - I'm not sure which addendum it is at this stage, but you made it clear that it's a painful experience for you to remember these things and we appreciate that you're here today in trying to assist us to uncover what had happened on that night. You also say in your statement that you've been privy to the application of Mr Coetser, that you've seen Mr Coetser's application and that except for the fact that he was not at the meeting at Wachthuis, I think it was, other than that you accept his version of what happened and of the incident, is that correct?
MR VISSER: Other qualifications were made, Chairperson, it's unfair to put the question in that way. There was also the qualification that he didn't think that they went there to eliminate Oupa Masuku. It's unfair to put the question that way.
CHAIRPERSON: Ja, I think you could hone on the question, it's too wide, if you had listened to the qualifications he made, Mr Toefy, in all fairness to him. Just try and hone your question a bit narrower so that he can follow what you're asking him.
MR TOEFY: Okay, then let me rephrase it. Are there any - or at least, what issues raised in Mr - how many firstly, how many issues raised in Mr Coetser's application do you not agree with?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, the fact that there was instruction at Wachthuis to eliminate, I do not agree with that, there was a suggestion to go over to counter-intimidation and to launch such actions, but with regard to the facts of that evening and the identity of the victim, I have to accept what Mr Coetser says.
MR TOEFY: So do I understand you correctly that there are two issues that you do not agree with, number one, that he was not at the meeting at Wachthuis and number two, that at Wachthuis the order was not given to eliminate people?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, with regard to the first one I've already conceded that it is possible that Mr Coetser was there, I cannot say absolutely no, he was not there. I have made that concession. My interpretation of what had happened that day was that here was a suggestion. If we have a look at why we did not regard it as an instruction, Brig Viktor was part of the Counter-Insurgency Unit and I was a Detective, at that stage I was a Detective, Mr Hechter and Mr Coetser were Security Police officers, there was no direct line of command from Counter-Insurgency to our people on the ground.
MR TOEFY: We'll accept that you say he may or may not have been there, is that what you're saying? And the second issue that you are not agreeing with is that the order was given that people should be eliminated, at Wachthuis. Is that point - are you contesting that point that the order was given at Wachthuis that people should be eliminated?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, no such instruction was given, but under cross-examination I have already said that if Mr Coetser understood it as an instruction to eliminate, I cannot argue with him as to what went on in his mind, but I did not regard it as an instruction to eliminate.
MR TOEFY: And you say you accept that what he says about the incident at the Masuku residence, you accept that as correct?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, I have no independent recollection thereof, that is why I have to depend on what Mr Coetser says of what happened that evening.
MR TOEFY: Mr Viktor, do you at least know who the target was that night?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, I believe that we would have known that evening, but that is only speculation. I cannot recall this specific incident with regard to what had happened there but because of confirmation we would have known which house we would have gone to and what target there would be there.
MR TOEFY: So you're saying you cannot confirm that Oupa Masuku was the victim, or at least the target?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, at this stage I cannot recall whether he was the target, I assume from Mr Coetser's statement that Mr Masuku was the target.
MR TOEFY: Mr Coetser also says something else about that incident that night, he says on what is page 56 of my bundle, he says in paragraph 10(b)(i)
"As already mentioned above, I was aware that the objective of the operation was to eliminate Masuku, a prominent activist."
Now if I can take you back to your affidavit, paragraph 26, paragraph 26 where you say -
"In this regard I have to add that it was my primary objective to intimidate by these explosions, not to injure or to kill."
You accept that his version of what happened that night was correct, now his version was that Mr Masuku was to be eliminated and yet you say here now that it was actually to intimidate, how do you explain this seeming inconsistency?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, my ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: How can it be an inconsistency? I suppose he would refer to his own evidence, but you are referring to somebody else's evidence and on paper which we haven't have viva voce evidence on, I don't regard that as an inconsistency. Unless it arises from what he has said this far, then we can have inconsistencies.
MR TOEFY: Mr Chair, it's just that I've understood that he's accepted in evidence now that the - in cross-examination, that the incidents, or at least that Mr Coetser's version of what happened that night and the way that it happened that night is correct. And that includes Mr Coetser's allegation that the aim was to eliminate, not to intimidate.
CHAIRPERSON: But the evidence he's given in regard to the elimination is that whilst they foresaw that people would be injured and even death resulting, but that was not the primary objective of placing the bomb at the Masuku residence. Even though they foresaw, but that was not their primary objective if I understood him correctly.
MR MALAN: Mr Toefy, if I may also ...(indistinct) come to your assistance, on page 54 in paragraph 2 of the bundle, that's that same statement just earlier on, Mr Coetser also states or he firstly states that the purpose of the action that evening would be to attack a black political activist's house in Atteridgeville. So I really think we should try and get to the bottom of it when we have the viva voce evidence on that side.
MR TOEFY: Certainly, I ...(intervention)
MR LAMEY: Chairperson, I don't know whether it will be appropriate for me to just come in here, I must just say that as far as the cross-examination might be taken from the affidavit of Mr Coetser in this regard, and as you've pointed out there is that paragraph 2 and then further on also that other aspect, I just want to say I've taken further instructions in this regard, Mr Coetser will in his evidence viva voce explain what he meant by that, as to what he understood. I did say earlier that it is not as if Mr Coetser was regarding to this specific target privy to the decision making and everything, it is a conglomerate of circumstantial aspects here that he deduced. Perhaps the wording, and that also I've discussed during the adjournment with him, the question of "bewus", that word "bewus" might have been an unfortunate word selection in this context, but he will explain that further in his evidence.
CHAIRPERSON: And if you read the application in its totality "he acted on instruction", and that does not say he was given those instructions personally by the one above, he had to act on what his immediate Commander was instructing him to do.
MR LAMEY: Yes, and it boils down to the foreseeability of somebody might be killed and knowledge somehow along the line that Oupa Masuku was the target. So as I say he will explain further in his viva voce evidence, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Ja, but if you follow what Mr Toefy is saying, he says Mr Viktor agreed that during the discussion actually elimination was mentioned and what Mr Viktor actually said, he said that was not done but if he formed those kind of impressions in his own mind, I cannot disagree with that because those are impressions related by him in his own mind, and then I say but if he says ...(no sound) it's not correct in respect of the evidence of Mr Viktor. That's what I'm saying merely. Not what you are going to come up with and the impressions he formulated, but you must look at the cross-examination, it's around that meeting, what was said in that meeting. So I'm merely correcting him that Mr Viktor doesn't say he agrees that the instruction was elimination, he says but if Mr Coetser formulated that in his own mind, he cannot dispute what happened in his mind. That's basically what he was saying. Do you follow me? And you, Mr Toefy?
MR TOEFY: Yes, I do, Mr Chairperson.
MR MALAN: I wonder Mr Toefy, just before you proceed. Mr Lamey, you must please assist me, we now have two contradictory impressions as to what Mr Coetser's evidence will be. You have undertaken cross-examination amongst others about the meeting but you did not put his version. It would make it easier for everyone else and in particular for Mr Toefy, if he knows what it is.
It does not assist us in any way if he says that later he shall explain what he meant, you have consulted with him and the specific question is, according to your client's version they went out that evening to Oupa Masuku's house with the purpose of eliminating him. Is that the version or did they just go there to place a bomb because he was busying himself with certain activities which they wanted to stop? Or is there another version? But you can put it to him.
MR LAMEY: Chairperson, it is not that easy. I shall explain to you. With regard to paragraph 1.8 on page 52, I have put it to the applicant with regard to the discussion ...(intervention)
MR MALAN: No, we are not speaking of that, we are referring to going out that evening to Atteridgeville, that is the only thing. What was the purpose, because there are two versions, the one version is that the purpose was in order to launch an attack on his house and then he continues under political objective
"As I have already explained above ..."
... which he did not.
"... the purpose was to eliminate him."
But one of the two cannot be correct.
MR LAMEY: Chairperson, Mr Hechter testified that they foresaw the possibility that someone could be killed during the process - may I just explain. That aspect was not disputed with Mr Hechter because my instructions in the more broader context in this regard, is that the possibility was foreseen by my client that someone could be killed during this process. And then during the drawing up of his amnesty application he kept the discussion in mind ...(intervention)
MR MALAN: I'm sorry that I am interrupting you again. But then your version according to what you have said now is that they went that evening in order to kill Masuku, that was the objective.
MR LAMEY: That is what I'm trying to say, that in his viva voce evidence he shall give further explanation with regard to the situation. And as I have said, initially he was not privy to a discussion that what specifically the purpose of the explosion would be that evening. In other words, in essence what is stated here, and these are my instructions following on further instructions, this is based on an inference that he drew from the totality.
MR MALAN: Mr Toefy, then I think it's clear that the version also of Mr Coetser is that they went for a bombing and that they did foresee the possibility of someone being injured or killed, but that the purpose was not specifically go out there an eliminate Mr Masuku. You may proceed. I think that clears up a lot of ...(indistinct)
MR TOEFY: Yes, it does. Just for the record, it's Toefy, T-o-e-f-y.
Mr Viktor, you said earlier now in cross-examination that you accept that the target was Oupa Masuku ...(intervention)
MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I don't know where my learned friend gets this from, really, that's the last thing he said.
MR MALAN: Sorry no, with respect Mr Visser, the suggestion is not that the target was Oupa Masuku to be ...(end of side A of tape)
MR TOEFY: And then therefore you also accept, is the question, do you accept that Esther Masuku was not the target that night? Let me rephrase it to make it more clear. The aim was to intimidate Oupa Masuku, was the aim also to intimidate Esther Masuku?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, I would have to depend on what Mr Coetser says as to who the target was that evening, I have no personal recollection of who was the primary target and who was the secondary target and so forth.
MR TOEFY: Did you have any personal information at that stage on Esther Masuku?
CHAIRPERSON: Before you do, he said
"I do not have an independent recollection of this incident, I shall agree with what Coetser says."
Am I getting - is that what you said to me?
MR VIKTOR: Yes, Chairperson.
MR TOEFY: Ordinarily then, would - the aim was to intimidate but you foresaw that people may be killed, was it part of the forethought at least or what was within the purview of your actions, that an innocent person may also be killed in these actions as a result thereof?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, in war there are always innocent persons who are struck by the crossfire, and if I say that I foresaw that persons would be injured or killed, then it has to include persons who today would be regarded as innocent.
MR TOEFY: Mr Viktor, I'm going to pose the same question to you as I did to Mr Hechter, despite you being of the view that it was "'n oorlog situasie", was the situation so bad that you would embark upon actions that would result in the death of innocent people?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, I am of the opinion that the circumstances were indeed of such a nature as is being proposed now.
MR TOEFY: So therefore the death of Esther Masuku, not being the target of the intimidation, was completely in line with what you understood your duty to be.
MR VIKTOR: That's correct, Chairperson.
MR TOEFY: And you say it was completely reasonable.
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, it was reasonable to take these actions, whether it be petrol bombs in this regard or a manufactured explosive device. And as I have already said, when one works with these things there is a possibility that persons could injured and/or killed.
MR TOEFY: Now as you've heard earlier by Mr Hechter, he was in fact the one that decided to go ahead and do the bombing, it wasn't a specific order as you allege in your papers. However it was explained that at the time you did think there was a specific order.
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, I have already given evidence about this. The instructions came personally from Brig Jack Cronje or from him via Capt Hechter. I accepted that this instruction had been approved in this light, and once again, the circumstances which reigned before this as to who gave what instructions, I am not able to say here with conviction. But that is how the structure worked.
MR MALAN: May I just ask you, in the command structure during these attacks, were you under the command of Hechter, could he give you instructions that you had to follow?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, because I was under the impression and of the ...(intervention)
MR MALAN: Would you not like to answer the question, we did hear. I just want to know from you, in terms of the hierarchy, were you under the command of Hechter?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, no.
MR MALAN: Thank you.
MR TOEFY: However you still acted on his instructions on this particular night.
MR MALAN: Mr Toefy, with respect, I asked this question specifically in line of his previous answer, against the background of his previous answer where he said that he was under the impression that the order, or he is of the impression that the order would either have been directly from Cronje or relayed by Hechter, originating from Cronje. That was the reason for my question, to make sure whether Hechter could give him any instructions because he's never claimed that he operated under what he perceived to be the instructions of Hechter.
MR TOEFY: Thank you, Mr Malan.
You have mentioned in your evidence-in-chief that there are specifically two incidents or two happenings that night that you remember and that is the barking of dogs and also that someone was watching you through a window. Now the barking of the dogs, can you remember -you said that the dogs barked while you were going to, or are you saying that the dogs were barking when you were coming back from placing the bomb on the stoep?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, in both instances.
MR TOEFY: So you remember both before - on your way to the stoep you remember the dogs barking and then on your way from the stoep you remember the dogs barking, but you don't remember what happened on the stoep?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, I can recall an incident in Atteridgeville where the dogs were barking. Following on what I have seen in the documents that were made available by the research team, I assumed that there is a reasonable possibility that this was the place to which we referred to because Mr Masuku also referred to dogs. My evidence is that I do not have an independent recollection of this specific incident, it is an inference that I have drawn that the dogs barked, or the dogs barked that is a fact. It is an inference that I drew that this was during this incident.
MR TOEFY: So you don't know for sure whether this memory of dogs barking is the memory of that particular night and that incident, you don't know that?
MR VIKTOR: No, Chairperson.
MR TOEFY: Mr Viktor, I want to put a proposition to you that you took part in an act which resulted in the death of an innocent bystander that night, the death of someone who wasn't the target of whatever action you took, with the intimidation action, and that the gravity and extent of the act that you partook in heavily outweighs the aim of wanting to intimidate Mr Oupa Masuku into ceasing his activities as an activist. What do you say to that proposition?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, the purpose was to attack the house in order to intimidate persons and I am of the opinion that the action was not out of proportion.
MR TOEFY: Mr Viktor, if I can move on to what your views are on the success of your - in achieving the aim, you say in your application that you feel it was successful, that the actions that you took were successful, is that so in this instance as well?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, I cannot recall this incident specifically, I am of the opinion that our actions in general did have an effect, it was successful, I believe that we protected lives and we prevented serious injury to persons and we prevented damage to property. So I believe we were successful.
MR TOEFY: So in this particular incident, even though you say you can't really remember, you are just accepting that this was successful in the broader scheme of things? That in other words, Mr Oupa Masuku probably stopped his actions or his activities in the struggle.
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, that is an inference I can draw. His place was not attacked again and he was not killed, so I can assume that he stopped his conduct after this incident.
MR TOEFY: Do you know if there was any attempt at eliminating him?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson no, I do not know.
MR TOEFY: So there may have been an attempt to eliminate him but it was unsuccessful?
CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible)
MR VIKTOR: I'll withdraw that question.
At this stage I have no further questions for Mr Viktor.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR TOEFY
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Toefy. Mr Steenkamp, any questions for Mr Viktor?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV STEENKAMP: Thank you, Honourable Chairman.
Mr Viktor, I have just one or two questions for you. The post-mortem inquest speaks of an explosion and Mr Dos Santos refers to a manufactured explosive device, do you know what type of device was used at the explosion at the house?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, the explosive devices that we used were the standard ones which were manufactured by Mr Hechter. So I assume that it would be the same in this instance.
ADV STEENKAMP: I would just like to ask you, during 1986, did you have broader powers under the State of Emergency during 1986? You were able to detain persons and detain them for 90 days and thereafter again for 90 days if this person was a threat to the society there. Do you agree with me?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, I was not part of security per se where we applied this legislation, I cannot answer Mr Steenkamp's question in that regard.
ADV STEENKAMP: The only thing I would like to ask of you which I find it a bit difficult to understand, did you - according to Mr Hechter's evidence there was complete information with regard to the Masukus, there was a file about Mr Masuku.
MR MALAN: Mr Steenkamp, he made a construction, he's has no ...
ADV STEENKAMP: If one at least looks at the information which has been collected and newspaper reports, and I also think that Mr Hechter said that he could not recall anymore, but he was of the opinion that Mr Masuku, there was an application to remove him because nothing worked.
CHAIRPERSON: No, no, no, nothing like that is before us, Mr Steenkamp.
ADV STEENKAMP: Maybe I should rephrase the question. The question is, was there no other option open to you to arrest the Masukus or Mr Masuku or any of the Masukus, in order to prosecute them?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, it was not my decision, Brig Jack Cronje told us to intimidate him. My personal recollection of the circumstances which reigned was that normal criminal procedures did not help, but one had many accused and there were no witnesses because the witnesses were intimidated or killed. We have to bear in mind that there was no witness protection programme during those years, so every witness was left to his own devices, he was on his own.
ADV STEENKAMP: Was that the reason why the Masuku house was attacked, because you thought there could not be any successful prosecution?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, in general the houses were attacked, for various reasons, because no successful prosecution could result and of fresh information which we had obtained that this person gave instruction that certain other houses be attacked or set alight. Court directed dockets would have had no effect at all.
ADV STEENKAMP: We do see that a Court directed dossier was followed, but ...(intervention)
MR MALAN: What do you refer to, Mr Steenkamp?
ADV STEENKAMP: Chairperson, I refer to the docket with regard to the explosion.
MR MALAN: But that was not a Court directed dossier, but at the explosion at his house.
ADV STEENKAMP: Yes, I refer to that dossier, but I withdrew the question.
MR MALAN: But then must chose your words properly.
ADV STEENKAMP: The last question which I'd like to put is that after the incident did you report anything that happened to any person that evening?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, we never had any meeting in retrospect of these things, but I think the following morning we did report to Brig Jack Cronje that the operation had been completed successfully.
ADV STEENKAMP: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV STEENKAMP
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Steenkamp. Mr Visser, we'll adopt the procedure we adopted with Mr Roux, do you have any objection to that?
MR VISSER: No objection, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Adv Sandi, any questions?
ADV SANDI: Yes, thank you, Chair, just one thing not to the witness. Mr Toefy, just help me here, at page 98 of the record where there's a newspaper cutting, the Sowetan of the 6th of March 1986, the second paragraph of the article where it says - it gives the names of the people who were affected by this bomb attack and it says they were all political activists, is that a fact or what? What is the position?
MR TOEFY: My instructions Mr Sandi, are that Oupa Masuku was in fact the only activist in the house.
ADV SANDI: Thank you. Thank you, Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Malan.
MR MALAN: I have no questions thank you, Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Any re-examination, Mr Visser?
MR VISSER: None thank you, Mr Chairperson.
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER
MR VISSER: May the witness be excused?
CHAIRPERSON: Certainly. Thank you very much, Mr Viktor, you are excused.
WITNESS EXCUSED
CHAIRPERSON: I suppose Mr Lamey, you are next with your applicant.
MR LAMEY: Yes, Chairperson. Are we going to start now?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, immediately.
MR LAMEY: Chairperson, I was requested just to move over to that table there by one of the logistics people.
CHAIRPERSON: Ja, you may move, certainly.
MR TOEFY: Mr Chair, I'm apologise for cutting in, but is there - I know we are really running late, but is there a possibility - I'm from Johannesburg, I need to make arrangements with my wife, she'll be waiting for me at work. If we can have a five minute pit-stop I'd really appreciate that and then we can continue.
CHAIRPERSON: We'll accommodate Mr Toefy to communicate with his wife. We'll have a five minutes adjournment.
MR TOEFY: Thank you very much.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION
CHAIRPERSON: Are you comfortably placed now, Mr Lamey?
MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Have you tested if both mikes would work at the same time?
MR LAMEY: Yes, thank you.
