Amnesty Hearings

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Roux, who's your next witness?

MR ROUX: The next witness, Chairperson, will be Robert Lesley Jubber and that is also the pronunciation of his surname, Jubber. He sounded like Jubber at a certain point, that is why I just want to make certain of this.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for that.

ROBERT LESLEY JUBBER: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed Mr Roux.

MR ROUX: Thank you Chairperson.

EXAMINATION BY MR ROUX: Mr Jubber, in order to expedite matters, before we begin with the relevant matter, I would like to ask you to confirm the following aspects. In the first place, do you associate yourself with the evidence that you have listened to and that you have been involved with in as far as it may be of application to you, the evidence then of Mr Pretorius?

MR JUBBER: Yes, I confirm this.

MR ROUX: Furthermore do you confirm, if you consult the bundle page 50, the heading is Robert Lesley Jubber, Schedule 1, Disruptive Action Okasi, Brits, will you confirm that page, up to and including - I beg your pardon, you will be testifying about the specific action from page 53 to 75, if you could just study that briefly.

MR JUBBER: Yes, I confirm this.

MR ROUX: Will you then page back to page 26 and more specifically then page 28 up to and including page 49 and also confirm the content thereof?

MR JUBBER: Yes, I have studied this and I confirm it as such.

MR ROUX: Very well. Will you state at the time of these incidents during May 1986, is it correct that you were the Commander of the sub-branch of the Northern Transvaal Security Branch which was situated at Brits?

MR JUBBER: That is correct.

MR ROUX: To whom did you report, in other words who were the command structures above you?

MR JUBBER: Chairperson, I reported directly to division Northern Transvaal, the Commander of which was Brig Jack Cronje.

MR ROUX: Were you familiar with Jacques Hechter?

MR JUBBER: Yes, I was familiar with Jacques Hechter.

MR ROUX: Who, at that stage, was a Lieutenant at the Security Branch Northern Transvaal, at the head office?

MR JUBBER: Yes, that is correct.

MR ROUX: Will you explain when disruptive actions were executed, who was the selected person or persons who were deployed for that task?

MR JUBBER: To make it easier Chairperson, I would say that I was tasked by Jack Cronje that if disruptive actions were to be executed in my division, that would then be the Brits environment, that we would provide the necessary support. This was put to me clearly according to the need-to-know principle and it was accepted as such. We had much experience over many years at the Security Branch and we were well aware of the need-to-know principle.

MR ROUX: Did Brig Cronje tell you at that stage who the persons would be who would be operating in your vicinity?

MR JUBBER: Yes, that is correct, it would be Lieut Jacques Hechter.

MR ROUX: Regarding the gathering of information and the application of informers and the processing by Pretorius of such information, do you confirm and associate yourself with the evidence that he has already presented, the evidence that you have heard?

MR JUBBER: Yes, I confirm this.

MR ROUX: When this information reached you, what did you do with it?

MR ROUX: Chairperson, I might elaborate somewhat on this. I conducted the evaluation, a report was divided as such that a specific code was allocated to such an informer report, so if there was more than one informer it would be indicated as such that it is confirmed by various informers who the informer was, the code name or number of such an informer and then in order to inform head office it would be indicated that it would be supported by WL11, that would be telephonically by means of tapping or the interception of the post of individuals and this would then also be indicated on the report and according to this the report would also receive a code as to whether it was A, information or whether it was still to be confirmed, or whether it had to be studied further.

MR ROUX: Very well. And when these reports reached your desk, did you process these reports, and then what did you do with the reports?

MR JUBBER: Chairperson I processed the reports and promoted these reports then to Division Northern Transvaal.

MR ROUX: In other words it would have gone to Brig Jack Cronje or the then Lieut Hechter?

MR JUBBER: Correct, it would have been conveyed to the relevant desk or officer who was dealing with that specific case.

MR ROUX: Very well. Do you confirm, if one could begin with Celo Ramakope, Leonard Brown and then David Modimeng, the information which was at the disposal of the Security Branch with regard to all their activities, which had already been testified to by Pretorius?

MR JUBBER: As far as I can recall, I confirm this.

MR ROUX: Can you recall the specific date during which the Ramakope and Leonard Brown incident took place?

MR JUBBER: Chairperson no, I have verified it and informed myself of the specific dates by means of Mr Pretorius, subsequently, because I could not recall these dates.

MR ROUX: Very well. Can you recall that it was approximately during the month of May in 1986, when Leonard Brown and Celo Ramakope's homes were attacked? I recall that it was in the former part of the year but I cannot recall the specific month or date, therefore you would depend upon that which was said by Mr Pretorius with regard to this?

MR JUBBER: That is correct.

MR ROUX: Could you then explain to the Committee how Mr Pretorius became involved with Jacques Hechter's task force which conducted the disruptive actions?

MR JUBBER: Chairperson, I received telephonic calls from Lieut Hechter, in which I was informed that they would be entering my area in order to execute actions and that I was to make a person available to them.

MR ROUX: Lieut Hechter, at that stage, you have already testified that you knew that he was a member of this task force under the command of Brig Jack Cronje, is that correct?

MR JUBBER: Yes, that is correct.

MR ROUX: Because he was a Lieutenant and you, at that stage, were a Colonel?

MR JUBBER: No, I was a Captain.

MR ROUX: Captain. In other words he occupied a lower rank to you.

MR JUBBER: Just to say, Chairperson, that if the order came from a commanding officer, then regardless of the rank of the person who was involved, he would act under the auspices of the head office authorisation and I would be subordinate to that.

MR ROUX: In other words you say that if Hechter telephoned you and needed someone to be made available to him, you would assume that he was acting under the order of Cronje and you accepted it as such?

MR JUBBER: Yes, that is correct, it would then be a legal order from the Northern Transvaal Division or Jack Cronje as the Commander.

MR ROUX: Although Jack Cronje had not contacted you personally but instead Hechter had contacted you?

MR JUBBER: That is correct.

MR ROUX: Did you then receive an order from Jacques Hechter to render a person available? That is the last point where you were, pertaining to the relevant facts. Could you proceed from there?

MR JUBBER: Chairperson, I stated that upon a previous occasion, I had visited Pretoria regularly as a Branch Commander, where I had attended meetings and on this occasion, I received a specific order from Jack Cronje to support them, should they make any such request. No time was attached to it, there wasn't a where or a when. In other words, when the call came from Jacques Hechter, I knew that it was a legal order from Brig Jack Cronje.

MR ROUX: And when you sent Pretorius to meet Jacques Hechter at the Head Office of the Northern Transvaal's parking area, did you tell him specifically why he would be meeting Jacques Hechter, or what did the order involve?

MR JUBBER: Chairperson, I simply gave the order to go to a specific place. There was no further information regarding what was to take place, because I myself had not been informed about this.

MR ROUX: Did you, at that stage, know that if Jacques Hechter contacted you, there would be disruptive actions to be executed in the Brits area by them?

MR JUBBER: Chairperson, it is difficult to say because I was never specifically informed about Brits. They could have done this in any area, including Bophuthatswana, but I assumed that the disruptive actions of that time, would take place in the vicinity of the Division.

MR ROUX: And is that how Pretorius became involved, based upon an order given by you?

MR JUBBER: That is correct. I specifically gave him the order.

MR MALAN: Just before you continue, I just want to take you back. Why did you select Pretorius?

MR JUBBER: Chairperson, at that stage he was my best desk officer, even though he didn't bear a commission rank, he was the most experienced member in his area. He was very loyal and reliable and that is why I gave him this order.

MR MALAN: Thank you, you may proceed.

MR ROUX: Just to avoid any confusion, what does the term "desk officer" entail?

MR JUBBER: Chairperson, this would be somebody who would specifically deal with trade unions, for example, or deal with black power organisations such as PAC or ANC, but with us, because we were such a small branch, it was very difficult. Some of my staff member who served under my command at that time, had various tasks, they covered a very wide field. In other words, whether it was weapons smuggling, or trade unions or churches, he could have been involved with it. At head office a desk dealt specifically with an aspect such as organisations or trade unions and the like, that is why all our members had more experience and involvement with a much wider range of activities than the regular person working at head office.

MR ROUX: Very well. The day after the Brown and Ramakope incident took place, were you aware that it had been Hechter and Pretorius and the others, or was it merely your inference that it was them, or did they discuss the matter with you? How did it happen?

MR JUBBER: Chairperson, at that stage, I was the trained demolitions officer or bomb disposal expert and I visited these scenes and upon my visit and investigation of these scenes, I accepted that it was them.

MR ROUX: Did you also associate yourself with their action and the consequences thereof? Let us begin specifically with the Ramakope and Brown incident.

MR JUBBER: Yes, I associated myself with it and at that stage I regarded these actions as legal.

MR ROUX: Regarding the Modimeng matter, do you also associate yourself with the action and the consequences which it held for, among others, Mrs Joyce Modimeng who was killed during the incident?

MR JUBBER: Yes, Chairperson, I associated myself with it.

MR ROUX: Did you reconcile yourself with the resultant effects?

MR JUBBER: Yes, I associated and reconciled myself with it and I assumed moral responsibility.

MR ROUX: Did Pretorius or Hechter ever report to you subsequent to such an action and tell you what they had done and explain to you whether or not it had been successful?

MR JUBBER: No, if they had it would have been a tremendous transgression and they would not have been with Security any longer.

MR ROUX: In other words, your reference a few moments ago to a legal action, in your own mind would that be a legal action within the parameters of the law or within your own opinion? For example, the right type of action?

MR JUBBER: That is correct, legally it was not legal, but I associated myself that under the circumstances it was correct.

MR ROUX: After the fact, did you make any reports with regard to these unlawful actions to any persons?

MR JUBBER: No Chairperson, no reports were compiled. It was not discussed during meetings, it was left at that. It was accepted as such and left at that.

MR ROUX: Did you realise at this particular stage after the attacks and after you became aware, that it had been Hechter and Pretorius and the other members of the task force, so to speak, that you were guilty of defeating the ends of justice in that you had not reported it?

MR JUBBER: That is correct.

MR ROUX: And did you also associate yourself with this?

MR JUBBER: Yes, I did.

MR ROUX: Thank you Chairperson, that is the evidence of this applicant.

MR MALAN: May I just follow up something? When you visited these scenes as demolitions expert, you went out as an investigating officer, what did you do, did you open any files?

MR JUBBER: Yes, that is correct. I conducted the necessary investigation as the demolitions expert and handed everything over to the Detective Unit of Brits as if it were a normal investigation.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: What about the last incident? Are we not dealing with it right away so that cross-examination could be complete?

MR ROUX: I beg your pardon, I'm not certain whether or not I have led his evidence with regard to this.

MR MALAN: I thought that you had dealt with everything collectively, but you did not deal with the date of Modimeng specifically.

MR ROUX: As it pleases you. Perhaps I have not dealt with the exact date, but I have sketched the broader picture. Can you recall when the David Modimeng incident took place, or is this information that you procured from Pretorius?

MR JUBBER: That is correct. I also obtained this from Insp Pretorius because I cannot recall the specific dates or times.

MR ROUX: Will you please consult page 51, it must be a spelling error in paragraph 5. Do you associate yourself with the date 27 May 1986? The 9 ought to be an 8.

MR JUBBER: Yes, that is correct because this incident took place during the 80s.

MR ROUX: And once again, with regard to this matter, did you give Pretorius the order to meet Hechter? I'm not certain whether I discussed this with you.

MR JUBBER: With regard to all the orders, they were issued during the 80s, I cannot recall anything that took place prior to this or during the 90s because in 1989 I was transferred from Brits so it had to have been during those years.

MR ROUX: Perhaps you have misunderstood me. With the second occasion, the Modimeng occasion, did you once again give Pretorius the order to meet Hechter as he testified with regard to the Brits/Thabazimbi rendezvous point?

MR JUBBER: That is correct.

MR ROUX: And did you also know, upon the second occasion, what was aimed at by Hechter and the rest of his team?

MR JUBBER: Yes, that is correct.

MR ROUX: Did you also visit the scene subsequent to the incident? I beg your pardon, with regard to the Modimeng matter?

MR JUBBER: Yes, that is correct. I also visited that scene.

MR ROUX: And if you also associate yourself, as you stated earlier, with everything that you had associated yourself in the case of Brown and Ramakope, that the same was of application to the Modimeng incident?

MR JUBBER: That is correct.

MR ROUX: Very well. Chairperson, I do believe that that will be all the evidence.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR ROUX

CHAIRPERSON: I suppose we assume the same order.

MR RICHARD: A slight change. I will go first this time around.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Oh because you've got one incident, it's much better.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR RICHARD: Sir, you were in Commander of the Brits area and in your capacity as such, did you originate any, what have been described as disruptive actions during the time period of these incidents, or was it originated from above you?

MR JUBBER: Chairperson, as the Branch Commander, I never gave such orders or initiated such actions. This came completely from head office.

MR RICHARD: Now, on what information would head office make a decision to give such an instruction? What information would they have at their disposal?

MR JUBBER: All information which came from the sub-branch, the reports that we sent through.

MR RICHARD: Now, is it not correct to say that as the Commander of the area, all those reports would be scrutinised by you before being sent to Pretoria?

MR MALAN: That was his evidence Mr Richard and he sent them, forwarded them to Pretoria, his own reports.

MR RICHARD: Now, do you know why Mr Brown's parents' residence was targeted for the action?

MR JUBBER: No, Chairperson, except that the information which Insp Pretorius gave, indicating that he was an activist and a suspect who was under our attention and that reports were sent through to head office. I do not have any further knowledge of the operation itself.

MR RICHARD: Now, did you go to the Brown's residence after the explosion? You said you did, but do you recall what you saw?

MR JUBBER: Chairperson, I know that I visited the scenes, but I really cannot recall precisely what took place there, or what I did there, in the sense that I accept that it was a normal investigation at the scene.

MR RICHARD: Do you remember the house to be badly damaged, or lightly damaged?

MR JUBBER: No, I cannot recall.

MR RICHARD: Now, with regard to the decision-making process above you, do you know whether it was Mr Cronje, or Mr Cronje and others who made decisions as to what actions were to be taken in your area?

MR JUBBER: Chairperson, I liaised with Brig Cronje as the Divisional commander. I did not liaise on head office level itself, that was up to Jack Cronje. I received orders from him only.

MR RICHARD: But you have no idea who made the decisions as to what orders would be given and who, for instance, would have decided to attack Mr Brown's home, or his parent's home?

MR JUBBER: Chairperson, I accept that it was on Divisional level, via Lieut Hechter's desk, through Brig Jack Cronje and whether or not it was taken any further I cannot tell you, I only know that it would have gone as far as Brig Cronje at least.

MR RICHARD: Were you ever present when Mr Brown sitting next to me, was interrogated?

MR JUBBER: Yes, Chairperson, I have been present when Mr Brown was at our offices, perhaps only for a brief while, but I myself was not completely involved with interrogation or the gathering of information such as the field workers, this was due to my administrative capacity.

MR RICHARD: Now my last question is, when you received the order that Mr Pretorius would go and meet Mr Hechter at the parking grounds in Pretoria, did you have any idea that damage to property and injury to persons might ensue?

MR JUBBER: I didn't know precisely what the disruptive action itself, at this specific time, would involve, but I associated myself with what was going to happen, or what could happen. That is all that I can say and I can state it clearly as Mr Pretorius has stated it, I cannot tell you any further regarding what took place, I didn't have any further information at my disposal, suffice to say that I accept responsibility for what took place.

MR RICHARD: Before Mr Brown's incident, how many other disruptive incidents had happened in your area?

MR JUBBER: Chairperson, I would not be able to answer that.

MR RICHARD: Had some happened?

MR JUBBER: Chairperson, I would not be able to tell you in the sense that I only know about the disruptive actions for which amnesty has been applied for. However, I do not know of any other disruptive actions which were executed by the Brits Security Branch.

CHAIRPERSON: May I just interpose Mr Richard? Other than these three incidents which brought us together, were there any other for instance, I don't want a number, other than these three, were there any other disruptive actions within your jurisdiction?

MR JUBBER: There were normal legal actions which were executed, that would be for example propaganda pamphlets. I can confirm such actions, but I do not know of any other.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Jubber.

MR RICHARD: Thank you. Do you know anything about the name Jacob Moatse?

CHAIRPERSON: Come again with the surname Mr Richard.

MR RICHARD: M-O-A-T-S-E

MR JUBBER: Chairperson, it doesn't occur to me.

MR RICHARD: If there had been any other disruptive incidents that particular night, the night of Mr Brown's event, besides the two before us today, would you have known about them?

MR JUBBER: I did not receive any feedback regarding which actions had been executed, therefore I would not have known about it.

MR RICHARD: Does the name Mr Hunter mean anything in your memory?

MR JUBBER: The only Hunter that I know is W/O Hunter who at that stage was working with me at the branch. He was one of the members along with Mr Pretorius who served under my command. Is it Hunter?

MR RICHARD: Correct, it is Hunter. Now is it not correct that Mr Hunter would have interrogated Mr Brown if there was a need in your area to interrogate Mr Brown?

MR JUBBER: Chairperson, I cannot answer that. It is too long ago and the tasks were various by nature. I would not be able to recall specifically.

MR RICHARD: No further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR RICHARD

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Richard. Ms Ngomane.

MS NGOMANE: Thank you Mr Chairperson. I will refer to the Modimeng case before I go to Mr Ramakope. I will ask the witness in regard to what he has said regarding what happened in the Modimeng case. Thank you.

Just a moment, Mr Chairperson.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS NGOMANE: Mr Jubber, how are you Sir?

MR JUBBER: Very well, thank you.

MS NGOMANE: Do you recognise this man who is sitting next to me, Mr Jubber?

MR JUBBER: Chairperson, he looks familiar. I think it's David Modimeng, if I'm correct. It is many years ago and I think we have all aged.

MS NGOMANE: Mr Jubber, I'm not going to waste the Committee's time, I just want to clarify a point here. You have met the victim sitting next to me before this incident took place?

MR JUBBER: Correct, Chairperson. I had dealings with Mr Modimeng when he was still a member of the Young Christian Workers.

MS NGOMANE: You know him very well, Mr Jubber.

MR JUBBER: I know him. I would only say that in the last few years when I was more in the office, I did not have any personal dealings with him as when he was younger.

MS NGOMANE: You were aware, Mr Jubber, that surveillances and the monitoring were done in his house, were you?

MR JUBBER: I am aware of it. I approved those actions.

MS NGOMANE: You were told this by your desk officer, the one who is very loyal to you and reliable, Mr Pretorius, that he's very active in the activities of the union, is that correct?

MR JUBBER: Yes, that is correct, Chairperson.

MS NGOMANE: Mr Jubber, prior to the incident in question, you have met Mr Modimeng, sitting next to me, and you stated to him that: "One day a snake..." Mr Chairperson, can we put that on record that he said to Mr Modimeng

MR Modimeng: "One day the snake will bite you". That was in 1982. You came to me in the presence of TV, we used to call him TV and in a Cressida.

MR JUBBER: One moment please, Mr Chairperson.

MR ROUX: Chairperson, I am not familiar with the procedure with regard to the - but in so far as it is relevant in these proceedings, I shall advise my client to answer that question.

MS NGOMANE: Do you recall Mr Pretorius, what my client who is sitting next to me, do you recall saying that to him in 1982?

MR JUBBER: Please repeat that Chairperson, what did I say to him?

MR MALAN: You would have said to him, one day the snake will bite you at night, and that would have been in 1982.

MR JUBBER: ...(not translated) "Ek ontken dit ten sterkste. Ek maak beswaar daarteen dat ek dit gesê het."

CHAIRPERSON: You can deny it, you cannot object to it.

MS NGOMANE: Mr Jubber, you know Mr Modimeng, it's not the first time that you are seeing him today, is it? Is it the first time that you are seeing him today?

MR MALAN: Really with all due respect, you've asked him that question three times. He said he knows him, it's not the first time he sees him, he knew him well when he was younger, he saw him less often when he became desk bound in his administration functions, it's common cause he knows him.

MR JUBBER: Chairperson, in order to satisfy your client, I tried to recruit Mr Modimeng as an informer of the Security Branch when he was still attached to the Young Christian Workers, that is where we got to know each other quite well.

MS NGOMANE: Thank you Mr Jubber. Mr Jubber, you mentioned that there were meetings prior to this incident that you had with Brig Cronje, is that correct? The meetings which took place at the branch where you discuss ...

MR MALAN: At head office.

MS NGOMANE: Thank you.

MR JUBBER: Chairperson, may I answer the question? Chairperson every Friday I attended a meeting in Pretoria. Amongst others I also attended a joint management meeting there. This disruptive action was never discussed at any meeting and except that Brig Jack asked me to led assistance to Lieut Hechter if they requested something of me. The closest that it came to a need-to-know, is the closest I got to know of it on a need-to-know basis.

MS NGOMANE: Mr Jubber, by then you were the Commander of the sub-branch, you were aware of all the acts that were committed by your subordinates. Am I correct if I state that?

MR JUBBER: Chairperson, I had knowledge of the gathering of information, that is correct yes.

MS NGOMANE: And did your desk officer, the reliable Mr Pretorius, tell you, did he give you feedback about what transpired after the bombings, the loyal and reliable Mr Pretorius, did he inform you whether the mission was accomplished in respect of the bombings that were committed against Mr Modimeng and Mr Ramakope?

MR JUBBER: No, Chairperson.

ADV SANDI: Sorry. What could have been the reason for that? Would it be because this was an operation conducted on, what you've referred to as a need-to-know basis?

MR JUBBER: ; Yes, that is correct.

MS NGOMANE: The specific orders you gave to Pretorius that he should monitor the trade unions and you mentioned a black power organisation, meaning the liberation movement, was it your direct instruction that he should survey these organisations?

MR JUBBER: Yes, that is correct. All authorisations for such actions, I approved.

MS NGOMANE: Mr Jubber, were you aware at any stage that Mr Modimeng was transporting weapons for the ANC? Did it come to your knowledge?

MR JUBBER: The last that I had knowledge of was that such information was obtained from informants. That is all I can tell you about that, Chairperson. I cannot recall any specific detail with regard to the movements of the persons.

MS NGOMANE: So I will be correct if I say the information that you had was unreliable in so far as it was not confirmed? You didn't do a research on your part to confirm whether Mr Modimeng was transporting weapons, Sir?

MR JUBBER: No, I do not agree with that Chairperson. I stand by that it was information that came to my desk, or across my desk and attention had to be paid to it.

MR MALAN: But if I understand the question correctly, then you agree this was information, this was not necessarily confirmed? You have no knowledge that it was confirmed?

MR JUBBER: It was too long ago, Chairperson, I cannot go back on reports and what was said specifically in reports.

MR MALAN: The question is really, there is a denial that he was ever involved in any gun running, or smuggling with firearms or dealing in firearms. In the reports that came to your knowledge, was this confirmed and were you satisfied that he was indeed involved or would you accept that it could not be confirmed that this was true?

MR JUBBER: Chairperson, all that I can say is that it was information that came across my desk that he was involved in such activities.

MR MALAN: Did you regard it therefore as factually correct?

MR JUBBER: I regarded it that attention had to be paid to it and further research had to be done. I'm not certain whether I understand your answer correct.

MR MALAN: Was this that it had to be further investigated in order to find out whether it was true or was it to be investigated in order to catch him?

MR JUBBER: If it was confirmed Chairperson that at that specific moment he was indeed involved, he would have been arrested, but this information was follow-up information.

MR MALAN: Very well. In other words it was not confirmed?

MR JUBBER: I do not understand.

MR MALAN: You are telling me if it was confirmed information, he would have been arrested. The informants said that he was involved there, but according to me there was no information that says tonight he will drive off with a vehicle full of weapons. In other words you accepted that he was involved?

MR JUBBER: I accepted that he was involved and that it needed attention.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

MS NGOMANE: Mr Jubber, you just draw conclusions without concrete evidence to that effect that definitely Mr Modimeng was transporting weapons and you will have been arrested for unlawful possession of ammunition. You will have done that as a Commander. You could have given this instruction to your subordinates, Mr Pretorius, that they should arrest him. Would you do that, Sir, at that particular stage?

MR JUBBER: Chairperson ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: You misunderstood his answer I guess. He said that the information was that he was involved in the conveying of arms, but no specific information as to where and when and it was to be followed up and he would only have been arrested if they could have established that he could be arrested with the arms at a specific time and place, but he accepted that the information that your client was indeed involved with the transporting of arms was correct, that was his evidence.

MR JUBBER: Thank you, Chairperson.

ADV SANDI: Just on this issue. Would that particular piece of information have been sent to head office as well as part of the information that you would normally send to the head office, at that stage where he had not even confirmed the truthfulness of this information?

MR JUBBER: Chairperson that is correct. All information was sent through, but as I have explained initially, there was an evaluation system at head office. In order to give head office an indication as to at which level the information was dealt with because head office and Division C also had their own informants who specifically dealt with MK members and weapons, so every bit of information was sent through, but the reference was satisfactory for head office to understand at which level we investigated.

ADV SANDI: I know you were not part of the decision that his house, Mr Modimeng, that his house should be attacked, but would this information have played any role towards the taking of that decision that his house be attacked?

MR JUBBER: Chairperson I accept that as a member who has been involved in Security from 1973, that all information that came across the desks were evaluated and dealt with further, but at a higher level it was out of our control. We had no powers to take decisions, which were to be taken by division or head office.

ADV SANDI: Thank you Ms Ngomane.

MS NGOMANE: Mr Jubber, you mentioned that you had someone who you relied so much, you relied on the desk officer, Mr Pretorius who was here, regarding information, did he mention to you that, or did it come to your knowledge, Mr Jubber, that Mrs Modimeng was also active in the struggle?

MR JUBBER: Chairperson, may I just say that all these informant reports were written and not verbal. These informants were supplied with tape recorders, so I'm not ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: Mr Jubber, please listen to the question. The question is whether you had any knowledge, or whether any information to that effect did come to your knowledge that Mrs Modimeng was active in the town?

MR JUBBER: Chairperson, I would have gotten to the point. Yes, I did have knowledge that she was involved in the activities of Okasi.

MS NGOMANE: This information that you've mentioned Sir, is it only from the informants only? That is the only evidence you had about the movements of the Modimeng family? This evidence that you are telling me now, that you were aware, was it only the information from the informants only, or you had other people from your branch, just like you did Mr Pretorius, this one was very loyal to you, did he make follow-ups to confirm in fact that definitely Mrs Modimeng is part of the people who were against the anti-removal campaign?

MR JUBBER: I can only confirm Chairperson what Inspector Pretorius has said, that the other field workers also brought in information and these meetings were technically covered. This would have been where the information came from.

ADV SANDI: Just to ensure that I understand you. When you say these meetings were technically covered, are you referring to the mechanical devices that would have been placed in those venues where the meetings were being held?

MR JUBBER: Correct, Chairperson.

MS NGOMANE: Were, at any stage Mr Jubber, these people you sent to Hechter to commit these acts, were they ever reprimanded, or were they told whether they have to take precautions when they throw bombs at houses?

MR JUBBER: Chairperson, I did not know what happened there. I did not receive any feedback, I did not speak to anyone about this.

MS NGOMANE: I understand you to say that after the operations, no questions asked, it just happened, the chapter is closed and that's it, Mr Jubber, you don't get information that the mission was accomplished or not?

MR JUBBER: Correct, Chairperson.

MS NGOMANE: May I put it to you Mr Jubber that Mr Modimeng was not a member of the Liberation Movement. She was not interested in any activities in the union and she never was a member of the Okasi Women's League. You stated, your loyal and reliable desk officers stated that she was. Will you dispute it Mr Jubber, if I say she was not a member, she was never involved in any politics whatsoever? Will you dispute it?

MR JUBBER: I dispute that. I will say it again. She was involved in the removals and with the organisations as Mr Pretorius has stated it.

MS NGOMANE: Mr Pretorius stated earlier that he was uncertain, Mr Jubber. He said she was ...(intervention)

MR ROUX: Once again, Chairperson, I object. That is not what he said.

CHAIRPERSON: That is not what he said.

MS NGOMANE: Mr Chairperson, I will retaliate and say that Mr Pretorius never when I cross-examined him, he didn't elicit information and proof that Mrs Modimeng was part of the Liberation Movement. He said he heard from informers, Mr Chairperson, that she was a member and I asked him whether the information from the informers was accurate and he said that sometimes it was not accurate, it was unreliable.

CHAIRPERSON: What he said, he said they relied on informers and certain information would come to them and they would follow it up and indeed he did say some would have been, but they would follow that information up and now if you listen to Mr Jubber, he says no, they even used tapes and that was in response to the question posed by the Panel Member here, Adv Sandi.

MS NGOMANE: My instruction, Mr Jubber, is that if you say that she was a member of the union or she participated in any political organisation, then I think you should just hand up an exhibit or proof or anything to that effect. My instruction is that Mrs Modimeng was not active, she was a housewife, she never participated in any activities whatsoever. Thank you Mr Jubber.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ma'am.

MS NGOMANE: Mr Chairman, can I ...

CHAIRPERSON: Oh I though you were finished.

MS NGOMANE: No, I am not finished, I'm coming to the Celo Ramakope case. Thank you. Just a moment Mr Chairperson. Mr Jubber, may I proceed Mr Chairperson?

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct - no microphone)

MS NGOMANE: Okay. Mr Jubber, the information you had with the incidents regard the, I'm talking about the Celo Ramakope matter, do you, were you aware of the incident that took place? Were you aware Mr Jubber, that Mr Ramakope will be bombed on that particular day?

MR JUBBER: Chairperson, I was not aware of it.

MS NGOMANE: Did Pretorius report to you that they've bombed, - let me rephrase my question. Did Pretorius, your desk officer, the one you said he was so loyal and reliable to you, did he inform you that they've petrol bombed Mr Ramakope? Did he give you feedback?

M JUBBER: No, Chairperson.

MS NGOMANE: Mr Jubber, what I'm getting at is that you were saying that those activities, even in this case, Ramakope, when they were not reported to you, they were not reported to you and you didn't make a follow-u?

MR MALAN: Yes, that was clearly his evidence-in-chief. It's been confirmed, it was led now.

MS NGOMANE: Mr Jubber, did you associate yourself afterwards with the incident? Did you?

MR MALAN: He gave that evidence in chief, too. I mean, you can check your notes. I assume you are keeping notes?

MS NGOMANE: No further questions, thank you.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS NGOMANE

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ma'am. Any questions from the Panel? Mr Malan?

MR MALAN: I have no questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Adv Sandi?

ADV SANDI: I have no questions Chairperson, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you to both of you. Mr Roux, any re-examination?

MR ROUX: None, Chairperson, thank you.

NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR ROUX

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Jubber.

MR JUBBER: Thank you Chairperson.

WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: I see we don't have much time left.

MR ROUX: That's correct, Chairperson, I think it is now almost five to four. I am just concerned that if I start leading my following client and my following client would be Mr van Vuuren and there is opposition, that I would have to lead his evidence over two days and I do not think that is prudent.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct - no microphone)

MR ROUX: I think possibly that is the request that I would direct to you, that we start afresh with a new witness and that evidence does not stay overnight, upon which cross-examination would be done.

CHAIRPERSON: There is an incident which we discussed, that is the Panel, with our Evidence Leader that we would commence earlier than people had thought, but we are going to start with that incident and we hope to return to you at 9 in the morning.

MR ROUX: At 9 o'clock. Certainly.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Richard and Ms Ngomane, are you - have you heard what I said?

MS NGOMANE: Mr Chairperson, so we should make ourselves available at 9 o'clock tomorrow?

CHAIRPERSON: 9 o'clock in the morning.

MS NGOMANE: Okay. In order.

MR RICHARD: I shall be here at eight.

CHAIRPERSON: I hope you get a cup of warm coffee. Thank you everybody for your attendance this far. Due to other circumstances or other duties which are supposed to be performed by counsel in this matter, which they asked for time to adjourn early, we have allowed that and we say we'll commence tomorrow at 8. That is another incident, but this one will definitely go ahead at 9 in the morning. We appreciate your attendance and if you further want to see how far it goes, feel free. Thank you. We adjourn. I hope we have a very good night and not more rain tomorrow morning.

MR ROUX: Chairperson, I beg your pardon. I have just heard from my client that at 9 o'clock I will call Mr van Vuuren. I do not know how long Mr Van Vuuren's evidence is, but Jacques Hechter can only be here at 11 o'clock. He has important business that he has to attend to tomorrow morning. If we finish early with Mr van Vuuren then you have to please be patient with me, up to the time that Jacques Hechter appears, but we shall be ready to commence at 9 o'clock with Mr van Vuuren.

CHAIRPERSON: That is in order.

MR ROUX: I am indebted to you, thank you.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS