CHAIRPERSON: Morning everybody. Just before we proceed I'd like to introduce the Panel to you. On my right is Acting-Judge Chris de Jager, he's a Member of the Amnesty Committee, he comes from Pretoria. On my left is Adv Sibongile Sigodi, also a Member of the Amnesty Committee, she comes from Port Elizabeth. I'm Selwyn Miller, I'm a Judge and I come from Umtata.
We'll be proceeding with the application of E Goosen and others today. At this stage I'd just request the legal representatives please to place themselves on record.
MR VISSER: Chairperson, may it please you. My name is Louis Visser, I act on instructions of Wagener Muller. I act in this particular matter for J J Viktor.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
MR ALBERTS: May it please you, Mr Chairman. My name is George Alberts, I act for Mr Eric Goosen, on instructions of attorneys Weavind and Weavind Incorporated.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Alberts.
MR LAMEY: Thank you, Mr Chairman. The surname is Lamey, from the firm Rooth and Wessels and I represent the applicants, Gouws, Deon Gouws, Stefanus Oosthuizen and J D L Coetser.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Lamey.
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, may I perhaps just place myself on record as well? It's Roelof du Plessis, I act on behalf of Hechter, Van Vuuren, Mentz and Cronje, insofar as it may be necessary, on instructions of Strydom Britz Attorneys.
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, that's for Messrs Hechter ...
MR DU PLESSIS: Hechter, Van Vuuren, Mentz and Cronje. CHAIRPERSON: Insofar as it may be necessary?
MR DU PLESSIS: I haven't determined yet in what sense I will have to safeguard the interests of Van Vuuren, Mentz and Cronje, but for Hechter specifically, I will act for him in this matter as an applicant.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr du Plessis.
MS COLERIDGE: Thank you, Chairperson. Lyn Coleridge, Evidence Leader for the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
Chairperson, I'd like to place on record that the following implicated persons have been notified: Flip Loots, Jaap van Jaarsveld, Joe Mamasela, Calla Botha, Bennie Knoetze and Momberg. Chairperson, as Mr du Plessis has stated, Cronje, Hechter, Mentz and Van Vuuren have also been notified as implicated persons.
And then we've placed an advert in the Sowetan in relation to the incidents that are on the roll, Chairperson, and we've had two responses from two victims, Chairperson. I will give you their names. It's a William Mampoer and he referred to the Mamelodi West incident Chairperson, occurring between January and April 1986. He responded to that advert. And then Albert Bhele as well also responded to the advert in relation to that incident, Chairperson. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Coleridge. Will you be looking after the interests of the victims in this matter?
MS COLERIDGE: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR ALBERTS: Mr Chairperson, might I be permitted to make one comment in regard to Momberg, who I understand was notified as an implicated person? I acted for Momberg in previous applications. As far as Momberg is concerned, he isn't implicated in anything, any of the applications which will serve before you now and therefore he's not present. In respect of him there are however, two incidents which are still outstanding, but which I submit can be dealt with without a hearing being ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Will those be chamber matters?
MR ALBERTS: Chamber matters.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Alberts. But if he happens to be implicated during the course of the evidence, will you be representing his interests, although you probably haven't been specifically briefed for that?
MR ALBERTS: No, I haven't. I'm sure I'll be able to take care of that, whatever it might be.
CHAIRPERSON: And then perhaps, Mr Alberts, if you could also just give us the incidents, if you know them, which can be dealt with in chambers, so that we can follow it up when we are in Cape Town.
MR ALBERTS: I will do so.
CHAIRPERSON: Because sometimes these things, it's possible to be overlooked, but if we have a note, or if you can just tell us we can write it down, you don't have to have it typed out or anything.
MR ALBERTS: I will do so, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Who will be testifying first?
MR VISSER: Chairperson, we are ready to begin. Visser on record. We call J J Viktor (Jnr), to give evidence. He wishes to give his evidence in Afrikaans and he has no objection to taking the oath.
CHAIRPERSON EXPLAINS TRANSLATION CHANNELS
JOHANNES JACOBUS VIKTOR: (sworn states)
EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER:: Mr Viktor, you are an applicant in various petrol bomb attacks on houses in various areas in Pretoria, Ekangala and in Pietersburg, is that correct?
MR VIKTOR: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR VISSER: You have handed in a proper application to the Amnesty Committee of the TRC, dated 28th November 1996, and this appears in bundle 2 from page 78 to page 88, is that correct?
MR VIKTOR: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR VISSER: Do you confirm the contents of that document, according to your knowledge and recollection, true and correct?
MR VIKTOR: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR VISSER: You have previously studied a document with the title: "General Background to Amnesty Applications" that has served in many hearings, usually as Exhibit A before the Committees. Is that correct?
MR VIKTOR: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR VISSER: Are there parts of that document that you are not able to confirm?
MR VIKTOR: Yes, Chairperson, that is the part about outside the country, as well as informers.
MR VISSER: That deals with Botswana, Lesotho, Swaziland and so forth and that is not within your knowledge.
MR VIKTOR: No.
MR VISSER: And with regard to the rest you ask that the Committee reads that along with your application.
MR VIKTOR: That's correct, Chairperson.
MR VISSER: Chairperson, this document has been handed up on so many occasions ...
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we don't actually need another copy, we've got various copies.
MR VISSER: Thank you, Chairperson.
Mr Viktor, except for your statement, on page 89 in bundle 2 there has been a further statement of yours bound in and this goes up to page 97.
MR VIKTOR: That's correct, Chairperson.
MR VISSER: Is it correct that this statement formed the foundation of your application in an application for amnesty with regard to murder on one, Madiposo Esther Masuku and attempted murder of Ezekial Oupa Masuku, Thabo Masuku and Ndumazi Masuku, as it would appear from page 90 of bundle 2?
MR VIKTOR: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR VISSER: Has that application been completed?
MR VIKTOR: Yes Chairperson, during the beginning of 2000.
MR VISSER: And you are still waiting for the decision?
MR VIKTOR: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR VISSER: if I may refer back to your amnesty application - I beg your pardon Chairperson, you have in any case in your amnesty application said that you were not aware of any persons who were killed or injured during attacks in which you participated.
MR VIKTOR: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR VISSER: And it later appeared to be incorrect in that Esther Masuku had indeed been killed in the attack.
MR VIKTOR: That is so, Chairperson.
MR VISSER: And you explained it as such to the Sub-Committee who heard your application and it was accepted as such.
MR VIKTOR: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR VISSER: If we may then move once again to page 81. In your amnesty application you asked for amnesty for various attacks on houses and you said that as far as you can recall, on page 82 at the bottom you say you were involved in approximately 40 such incidents, of which 10 were bomb explosions and 30 were petrol bomb attacks, is that correct?
MR VIKTOR: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR VISSER: You specified further that these attacks had all taken place during the time period of February to May 1986, is that correct?
MR VIKTOR: That is correct.
MR VISSER: Why did you specify that particular period of time?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, that is the period of time that I was attached to Mamelodi Unrest Unit, as well as the Security Branch Pretoria.
MR VISSER: And just to briefly summarise, on page 81 you say - and other places which we will also refer to, that you were the Commander indeed of the Mamelodi Unrest Unit, is that correct?
MR VIKTOR: That is correct, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, what is that second word, Mamelodi ... what unit?
MR VISSER: "Onluste Ondersoekeenheid". That you'll find at page 81, the last paragraph, the second line. The translation would be, I suppose, Mamelodi Riot Investigation Unit, yes Chairperson.
MR VIKTOR: That is so Chairperson, I was the Commander of that unit.
MR VISSER: From the nature of your work, did you come into contact with the Northern Transvaal Security Branch?
MR VIKTOR: That is correct.
MR VISSER: How did that take place?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, the incidents which we investigated and the persons, were the same persons who fell within the ambit of their work.
MR VISSER: So you were busy with the same work?
MR VIKTOR: That is correct.
MR VISSER: Just by the way, did you have a network of informers and did you handle informers, you yourself?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, at Mamelodi yes, but not at the Security Branch.
MR VISSER: And was it your knowledge that the Security Branch had an extensive network of informers who supplied information to them with regard to the unrests during that time?
MR VIKTOR: That is so, Chairperson.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Mr Visser, I do not understand his answer, because he says at Mamelodi he had contact with informers, but not at the Security Branch. Would you like to explain that pleases?
MR VIKTOR: At Mamelodi, with the Detectives, we had our own informers and sources from which we gained information, but Security Branch worked on an entirely different system with informers and I did not have any contact with any of those informers.
JUDGE DE JAGER: But you did not have contact with informers ...(intervention)
INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone.
JUDGE DE JAGER: You did not have contact with informers who worked for the Security Branch, but in the Detective Branch you had your own informers?
MR VIKTOR: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR VISSER: And in the Detective Branch, to enlighten it further, was this the same type of information that you received from your informers, or was it on another level from the Security Branch?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, to an extent it was about the same incidents and the same persons, but our informers were definitely not as well infiltrated as the Security Branch informers.
MR VISSER: The time period of February to May 1986, in and around Pretoria, and to tell the truth, throughout the country, what was the situation like Mr Viktor?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, there was war, a civil war. There were serious incidents of violence, people were murdered, alternative structures were established by the activists and in Mamelodi, for example, police officer's houses were attack, as well as in the rest of the country, a landmine exploded in Mamelodi.
MR VISSER: Did the police find that they had free access to the black townships?
MR VIKTOR: No, Chairperson, there were areas that were known as no-go areas and it was difficult for the police, especially at night, to do normal policing in the area.
MR VISSER: Did it happen at some date, on occasion - or perhaps I should ask you this first, who is Mr Johannes Jacobus Viktor senior?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, he's my father and at that stage he was second-in-command of the Counter-Insurgency Unit of the Police, on national level.
MR VISSER: Did it happen that you visited him at his office, along with some others?
MR VIKTOR: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR VISSER: On page 82, in the second paragraph you refer to this incident and as you can recall, who visited your father along with you?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, it was Mr Jacques Hechter and Mr van Vuuren. They were both Lieutenants.
MR VISSER: Do you say Van Vuuren?
MR VIKTOR: I beg your pardon, Van Jaarsveld.
MR VISSER: What was the conversation about between you persons?
MR VIKTOR: The conversation was about the unrest situation in the greater Pretoria, problems we were experiencing with executing successful prosecutions, or successful investigations and prosecutions and also that this did not have an effect on the violence and unrest in the area.
MR VISSER: Was there then a discussion as to what could be done?
MR VIKTOR: That is so, Chairperson. My father made a suggestion that these people have to be attacked, if he attacks a police officer's house, then his house should be attacked.
MR VISSER: That is of course if you know who it was?
MR VIKTOR: That is correct.
MR VISSER: Was reference made to so-called counter-intimidation operations?
MR VIKTOR: Yes, that was counter-intimidation.
MR VISSER: What was your father's rank at that stage?
MR VIKTOR: He was a Brigadier in the Police.
MR VISSER: Later he became a General?
MR VIKTOR: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR VISSER: In your application you say that at the conclusion of the conversation, Brig Viktor, your father, told you that he thinks that you should on a limited basis launch such attacks as you have referred to here now.
MR VIKTOR: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR VISSER: Did you regard this as an instruction from him to the Security Branch and to yourself?
MR VIKTOR: No.
MR VISSER: Did you regard this as an instruction to kill people?
MR VIKTOR: No, Chairperson, although the possibility did exist that persons could be injured and/or killed if these operations were realised.
MR VISSER: And you are saying this because when you throw a petrol bomb into a house, or a bomb, it is possible that someone could be inside the house that could be killed or injured?
MR VIKTOR: That is correct.
MR VISSER: Chairperson, would you allow me to digress for a moment, just to give you a little bit of background. In the Jack Cronje applications there were allegations that Brig Jack Cronje and the other applicants for whom my learned friend, Mr du Plessis, appeared before the original Committee on Amnesty, acted the way they did as a result of a so-called general instruction from Brig Viktor. In that sense, Brig Viktor became an implicated person. This led to him giving evidence in Benoni before the original Amnesty Committee, Chairperson, and the original Amnesty Committee made a finding in that regard. I will refer you to the finding, it is in Cronje and it is at page 5, Cronje Decision, Chairperson, and it is at page 5, the bottom of that paragraph. It is stated that
"It is clear that Gen Viktor (now he was a General at the time), had no authority to give orders to the applicant (who was Brigadier Cronje). He might have had a higher rank, but he was second-in-command of the Riot Control Branch in Pretoria. Although he had been in command of the Security Branch of the East Rand in 1973, certain Security Branches (etcetera, etcetera). This unit obviously also dealt with the security situation (and the Judgment is referring to the Counter-Insurgency and Riot Control Unit. It says:) This unit obviously also dealt with the security situation and it is common cause that he had discussions with the applicant. (that is with Cronje) During such discussions he might have made suggestions to the applicant like, should a police officer's home be attacked with a petrol bomb, then that person's home should also be attacked with a petrol bomb.
General Viktor testified that he believed that the applicant accepted this as a suggestion. In whatever way this may be interpreted, the fact remains that it was a suggestion by a senior General, (which is not entirely correct, he was a senior Brigadier) to counter an attack in an illegal manner. A petrol bomb could be countered by a petrol bomb. But didn't this concept, in the mind of the footsoldier, grow to a perception that a killing could countered by a killing?
The Committee is of the opinion after hearing all the evidence about the total onslaught, the words used to convey instructions or suggestions to counter it, the tacit condonation of certain illegal methods and the subsequent praise and decorations extended, that the ordinary lower ranked policeman bona fide believed that any act, even illegal ones, could be carried out if the purpose was to frustrate the revolution and to keep the government in power."
And it then refers to the evidence of Gen van der Merwe, who conceded that ...(intervention)
JUDGE DE JAGER: Are you reading from bundle 2?
CHAIRPERSON: From the Cronje decision.
JUDGE DE JAGER: From the Judgment itself, not from those extracts in the bundle here?
CHAIRPERSON: It's page 5 of the Cronje decision, at the bottom of the page.
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, it is on page 112 of the bundle.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
MR VISSER: My thanks to my learned friend. Chairperson, the reason why I mention this background is that we certainly don't intend going through that whole exercise again in regard to Gen Viktor, and we mention this simply because we say we accept the Committee's decision on this matter and we go from there.
Mr Viktor, just to make it quite clear, did any attacks take place in which you participated, on houses that fell outside the period February to May 1986?
MR VIKTOR: No, Chairperson.
MR VISSER: Where were you from the end of May 1986?
MR VIKTOR: From the end of May 1986 I was transferred to Wierabrug and later in the same year I did border service for four months at Josini.
MR VISSER: And you are certain that during that period at the end of May, you did not participate in any attacks on houses?
MR VIKTOR: No, Chairperson.
MR VISSER: And before January 1986, where were you then?
MR VIKTOR: Before that I was with the Murder and Robbery Branch.
MR VISSER: I beg your pardon, I said January, I meant February. That was at the Murder and Robbery Unit. And before you became the Commander of Mamelodi Unrest Investigative Unit, were you involved in any other attacks on houses?
MR VIKTOR: No, Chairperson.
MR VISSER: Mr Viktor, if I may then refer you to your statement in the Masuku incident, page 89 and following. Do you confirm the evidence that you gave there?
MR VIKTOR: I do, Chairperson.
MR VISSER: And in that statement you once again dealt with Brig Viktor, on page 91, the same evidence that you gave now.
MR VIKTOR: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR VISSER: And the other evidence that you had also given.
MR VIKTOR: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR VISSER: If I may then refer you to page 98, this is an affidavit that was drawn up by you after you were requested by the Amnesty Committee to provide particulars with regard to incidents that you can recall being involved in.
MR VIKTOR: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR VISSER: And in that affidavit in paragraph 5, you mention - on page 98 of bundle 2, paragraph 5, you mention that you have a poor memory.
MR VIKTOR: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR VISSER: Will you please inform the Committee with regard to the situation with your memory.
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, I suffer from post-traumatic stress syndrome and for the last two or three years I have been receiving psychological treatment for it.
MR VISSER: And on page 106, with your application in the Masuku incident, you attached a statement from a certain Lindi Burger, a Psychologist, where there is reference made to your problem.
MR VIKTOR: That is correct, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Mr Visser ...
This treatment you've been receiving Mr Viktor, has it had any beneficial effects at all?
MR VIKTOR: That is correct, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Has it had any effect on your memory? Do you find that you can recall matters perhaps better now than three years ago, before you started your treatment?
MR VIKTOR: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR VISSER: Are you today able to recall all the incidents in which you participated?
MR VIKTOR: I still am not able to do that, Chairperson, but there are some of the incidents that I can recall certain parts of.
MR VISSER: So it is so, like the Englishman would say, you have flashes of recollection with regard to incidents, but not the total picture?
MR VIKTOR: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR VISSER: Chairperson, I'm going to ask Mr Viktor to confirm the contents of the affidavit. I don't know whether you wish me to read it into the record.
CHAIRPERSON: I don't think it will be necessary to read the whole affidavit into the record, but if you wish to read any particular part, please feel free to do so.
MR VISSER: We will refer to certain portions of it.
Do you confirm the truth and correctness of your affidavit, Mr Viktor?
MR VIKTOR: I confirm it, Chairperson.
MR VISSER: And do you ask that this be incorporated into your evidence today?
MR VIKTOR: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR VISSER: In paragraph 6 on page 98, you say
"I cannot recall the detail of the approximately 40 incidents where I was involved"
And you say that your memory has been refreshed since you had handed in your application, through the evidence of other applicants and you continue by saying on page 99, by means of refreshing your memory you can recall that you were involved in the incidents from A to F on page 99, in paragraph 5, is that correct?
MR VIKTOR: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR VISSER: And there you refer to an attack on the house of one, Gregory Tulari at Tembisa, the house of one, Godfrey Kwabe at Tembisa, is that correct?
MR VIKTOR: That is correct.
MR VISSER: Is that also an application in which you have already given evidence?
MR VIKTOR: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR VISSER: And you are still awaiting the decision on your application, is that correct?
MR VIKTOR: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR VISSER: In C you refer to Ekangala, in D you refer to the house of the later Ribeiro in Mamelodi, and in E, houses in black townships close to Pietersburg, and the ho use in Mashifani Street in Atteridgeville. And then in paragraph 6 ...(intervention)
JUDGE DE JAGER: Mr Visser, will you please assist us? The first two incidents, are they not included here?
MR VISSER: Not with the present application of today.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Can you possibly give us an indication as to when, where and by whom it was heard? Well if you cannot do it now, can you do it later?
MR VISSER: I can tell you that the Chairperson was Judge Motata and Mr Wynand Malan was one of the Panel Members. We cannot recall who the third person was. It was heard last year at this venue, but in the other hall. We'll get the information for you, it will be available somewhere.
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Visser, before you proceed, just while we're dealing with these itemised incidents, so the other four, C to F, we'll be dealing with in this application? Is that correct?
MR VISSER: Indeed, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Viktor, you said that certain of the bombings were bombs, as opposed to others that were petrol bombs, can you remember of these four, that is the Ekangala, Dr Ribeiro "woonbuurt naby Pietersburg" and Mashifani Street, whether they were ordinary bombs or petrol bombs?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, I would just like to assist you. Point F, the house in Atteridgeville, it's not part of this application, it's the one that we have already given evidence about. Chairperson, with regard to point C, this was a manufactured explosive device. With regard to point D, the house of Dr Ribeiro, is petrol bombs and point E, the houses in the black townships were manufactured explosive devices.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser.
MR VISSER: Thank you, Chairperson.
You continue in your affidavit and from page 100, to the best of your knowledge you attempted to provide as much information of the individual incidents as you could, is that correct?
MR VIKTOR: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR VISSER: On page 100, paragraph 15, you refer to Pietersburg, is that correct?
MR VIKTOR: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR VISSER: Who can you recall was involved in that incident?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, it was myself, Capt Hechter and Sgt Joe Mamasela.
MR VISSER: And it is not a secret now, what you briefly tell us there is that you went there under the instruction of Mr Hechter and there you met a member of Security Branch Pietersburg and two houses were attacked there.
MR VIKTOR: That is correct, Chairperson, we were tasked by Brig Cronje.
MR VISSER: While we are on this point, elsewhere you have also said in your application and in your affidavit and in previous evidence, that every time you acted under instructions, is that correct?
MR VIKTOR: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR VISSER: Where did those instructions come from?
MR VIKTOR: Those instructions came from Brig Cronje, who was the Commander of the Security Branch in Pretoria.
MR VISSER: And how were these instructions conveyed to you?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, the instructions either came directly from him where we personally spoke, or it came via Capt Hechter.
MR VISSER: And was this the only manner in which you received instructions?
MR VIKTOR: Yes, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Mr Visser, sorry to interrupt.
Mr Viktor, what was your rank at that particular time, February to May 1986?
MR VIKTOR: I was a Captain, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: And would you consider yourself at that stage to have been senior to Hechter or Hechter senior to you?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, I was the senior, that is why he acted as a messenger when the instructions came. The instructions did not come from him personally.
CHAIRPERSON: So on every occasion when Hechter gave an instruction, he was merely relaying it from his Commander, Brig Cronje?
MR VIKTOR: That is correct, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: He wasn't initiating the instruction himself.
MR VIKTOR: That is correct, Chairperson.
MS COLERIDGE: Chairperson, if I can just come in here, I don't want to disturb Adv Visser's examination-in-chief, but I just want to clarify. The incidents that are placed on the roll for today is the Ekangala, the Soshanguve, the Mamelodi incidents, and now we are going into Pietersburg incidents which are not on the roll and this affidavit, Chairperson, was submitted at the previous hearing and it's for purposes to assist us in his evidence at that hearing, relating to the Soshanguve, Ekangala incidents. So now we are going into Pietersburg and other incidents that we've never decided on and no-one's been notified in relation to these incidents. So I'm a bit confused here, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: So what then is the intention regarding Pietersburg and Dr Ribeiro, for instance?
MS COLERIDGE: Chairperson, my discussions was that I thought, I was under the impression that these were dealt with at that previous hearing and because of the affidavit and so forth, but we'll have to crystallise Mr Viktor's application, Chairperson, and I think we should leave it at this stage and not go into these incidents and set it down for a later date. We have informed Mr Jan Wagener regarding the incidents that we're only doing today, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Can you just reiterate those incidents.
MS COLERIDGE: It's the Soshanguve and the Ekangala incidents and the attacks in Mamelodi. Because for instance, the Ribeiro incident, it's easy to notify these people and so forth, but it's not set down on this roll, Chairperson, so it's unfair for us to go into these.
JUDGE DE JAGER: That was the Mamelodi incident.
MS COLERIDGE: Chairperson, the purpose of these incidents was to get the attacks on the unknown persons and it was very difficult with Mr Viktor's application. His initial application was that he couldn't remember anything and therefore you'll note that I made an asterisk next to his name, because I was trying to rope him into incidents where he was mentioned by other applicants. So I just want to place on record that the intention is to deal with all the incidents and then just the request for the legal representatives just to send us a note as to all those incidents that haven't been dealt with yet. I know I'm going beyond, but ...
CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps we could just quickly do that. So you say there's been no notification regarding Pietersburg?
MS COLERIDGE: It's the ...(inaudible - no microphone)
CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible - no microphone) 100 now. Right. And then Ekangala, that's fine. Dr Ribeiro, no notification?
MS COLERIDGE: No, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Mamelodi, paragraph 32, that's alright? Page 102.
MS COLERIDGE: That's right, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: And Brits, no notification?
MS COLERIDGE: No, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Soshanguve is okay?
MS COLERIDGE: That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Atteridgeville?
MS COLERIDGE: That's fine, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Is Atteridgeville fine? That's Masuku?
MS COLERIDGE: That's been dealt with.
CHAIRPERSON: So that one's been dealt with, so that one's not ...
MR VISSER: Chairperson, there's another incident in paragraph 38, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: 38, a house ...
MR VISSER: It talks about another incident of an attack on a house.
CHAIRPERSON: And that one, can we deal with that one now or?
MS COLERIDGE: That's fine, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, it looks as though we're hamstrung in regard to Pietersburg and the Ribeiro incidents and Brits, because the procedure is we've got to give, or at least ...(inaudible) a bona fide attempt to get victims ...(inaudible)
MR VISSER: ...(inaudible) appreciation for that, Chairperson. We were hoping that we might be able to complete all of this, but I must say that I wasn't thinking about the victims and I should have been.
CHAIRPERSON: I think it's just come about because of a bit of confusion and misunderstanding, because obviously we could quite easily, if there had been notification, have dealt with it together. There's no reason why it's been separated, other than a miss-communication or misunderstanding.
MR VISSER: Yes. Thank you, Chairperson. You wouldn't stop us if we refer to the attack on Dr Ribeiro, in passing, as we will do.
CHAIRPERSON: No.
MR VISSER: Can we then go to page 101, Chairperson.
Here you refer to an attack in Ekangala and you say that you received the order from Brig Cronje, is that correct?
MR VIKTOR: Yes, that is correct.
MR VISSER: Could you tell the Committee what you recall of this.
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, during the night we drove to Ekangala. I have also heard from Sgt Coetser in his amnesty application, that he was also there and that he drove the vehicle.
MR VISSER: But you cannot recall him?
MR VIKTOR: No, I cannot recall him at the scene. We were already aware of the location of the house, due to prior information. We always acted against activists, Chairperson.
MR VISSER: And did this house also belong to an activist?
MR VIKTOR: According to the information and the instructions which came from Brig Cronje, yes.
MR VISSER: And do you recall the location of the house?
MR VIKTOR: I recall that this house was situated next to a broad tar road which was an important access route to the residential area. It was next to that road.
MR VISSER: And earlier you said to the Chairperson that you recall that an explosive device was used in this incident.
MR VIKTOR: That is correct.
MR VISSER: Did you handle the explosive device yourself?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, during this operation it would be between me and Mr Hechter, as to the one who handled the device. I cannot recall with regard to this specific incident, who particularly handled the device.
MR VISSER: Very well. How was the device placed, can you recall?
MR VIKTOR: No, I cannot recall at all where at this house we placed the device.
MR VISSER: How would such a device usually be manufactured, who conducted the manufacturing of the device?
MR VIKTOR: Mr Hechter manufactured the device. I was not present.
MR VISSER: And generally when petrol bombs were used, who would prepare the petrol bombs?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, I and the other persons who where included by Mr Hechter.
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Visser, if we could just get some more - if you can recall, more information about the device. What was it, sort of like a limpet mine, did you throw it or place it, did it have a timer, can you remember?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, generally I can state that such devices were usually in a tin, it could be a paint tin or a liquor tin.
MR VISSER: And did it work with a fuse? How would it be set off?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, it operated with a fuse which had to be lit with a match.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Can you recall the name of the activist that you were targeting?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, not at all, but upon a later occasion I was in the A-G's office to find out which charges were being investigated against me and they informed me that one of the charges pertained to a bomb explosion at Ekangala, which took place on 28 February 1986. And I accept that this is the incident which we are testifying about today.
MR VISSER: Were you informed regarding who the Complainant was in that regard?
MR VIKTOR: No.
MR VISSER: And you referred to the matter that you have just testified about, on page 101, paragraph 26.
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Visser.
We don't come from this part of the world, Mr Viktor, whereabouts is Ekangala, more-or-less whereabouts it is?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, it is east of Pretoria, east of the greater Pretoria area.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Bronkhorstspruit?
MR VIKTOR: Yes, that is correct.
ADV SIGODI: Sorry Mr Visser.
When did you go to the A-G's office?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, it was also during 1996, approximately, during the time surrounding the amnesty applications that we submitted.
ADV SIGODI: Do you think it's possible for us to get the information so we can be able at least to locate the victim, or if there was a Complainant in respect of this? Or didn't they know who the Complainant was?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, I believe that they knew who the Complainant was in this incident because there was a dossier regarding this incident.
CHAIRPERSON: And did you receive any information whether anybody received any physical injuries in the incident, or is it just malicious damage to property and unlawful handling of explosives?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, the specific charges were never put to me, therefore I cannot say what precisely the dossier involved, whether it was pertaining only to a bomb explosion or whether the charge may have been attempted murder. I don't know.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Could one of the legal representatives perhaps get in touch with the Attorney-General's office during the tea adjournment and find out whether you can get details? Mr Lamey, or somebody?
MR LAMEY: Chairperson yes, well one of the applicants that I represent, Mr Coetser, is also an applicant in this incident. The details that you're looking for, is that concerning whether there was in fact somebody killed?
CHAIRPERSON: On the 28th of February, this Ekangala charge and whether there ...(end of side A of tape) ... they know the name of the Complainant and whether there was any physical injury.
As far as you know, you don't know whether there was physical injury or not, there may have been, there may not have been, you can't remember?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, no, I do not have any personal knowledge.
CHAIRPERSON: And these explosive devices that were put in tins, what was their capability? Could they blow down a brick wall? Have you got any idea as to the strength of these things? And was it a brick house or was it a tin house, or what?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, my recollection of the houses in Ekangala, are that they were brick houses. But I'm not certain of the size of the charge in the tin, so I cannot really testify regarding the capacity of the explosive devices.
MR VISSER: Didn't you ever visit the scene of an explosion at any stage, subsequent to the explosion, to examine the scene?
INTERPRETER IS VIRTUALLY INAUDIBLE FROM THIS POINT
MR VIKTOR: Not at all, that would have been the last place where one would have wanted to be.
MR VISSER: So would you light the fuse and then leave the scene, or would you sit in your car and watch the explosion?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, we ran. One would place the device and then immediately start running away, back to the vehicle.
MR VISSER: I don't know whether you heard the other question which I asked of the witness, Chairperson, I saw that you were conversing with Mr de Jager. He says that he never went back afterwards to go and inspect any of the scenes where explosions took place.
Mr Viktor, on page 101 you refer to an attack on the residence of Dr Ribeiro. This was before his murder, is that correct?
MR VIKTOR: Yes.
MR VISSER: And all that you can recall there is that you and Hechter and Gouws went there and that there was an explosion which caused large-scale damage.
MR VIKTOR: Yes, I suspect that Joe Mamasela was also there and we attacked this house with petrol bombs.
MR VISSER: You also state in your statement that large-scale damage was caused, and I want to know whether or not you visited that house subsequent to the explosion, because how do you know about the damage that was incurred?
MR VIKTOR: It was situated along one of the major access routes in Mamelodi, so subsequently, in passing we viewed the premises and saw the extent of the damage which had been incurred.
JUDGE DE JAGER: If the people would read about the testimony about the Ribeiro house in the papers today, I can assure you there would be an objection, so let's not carry on with that, because they won't be pleased that they haven't been notified and evidence has been led about it.
MR VISSER: Chairperson, I understand that. The only reason was that I wanted the witness to explain that he says that he didn't go back to scenes of explosions, but here he knew of the damage and I wanted him just to explain that to you, Chairperson.
If we could come to page 102, there you deal with Mamelodi, and as I've understood your affidavit there are two incidents which you can recall of all the incidents in which you were involved, in which you have managed to have these so-called flashes of memory, is that correct?
MR VIKTOR: Yes, that is correct.
MR VISSER: The first case in paragraph 32, refers to a situation where your car broke down and you went to get help, is that correct?
MR VIKTOR: Yes, that is correct.
MR VISSER: And upon your return to the vehicle you found that the spare wheel and other accessories had been stolen.
MR VIKTOR: That is correct.
MR VISSER: What I want to ask you is whether in that case you later went to bomb a house or not.
MR VIKTOR: I cannot recall whether we continued with the bombardment on that evening.
MR VISSER: Chairperson, you will notice - perhaps I should do that now, I've drafted, Chairperson, from the point of view of Mr Viktor's evidence, a list. I don't know whether it's been handed to you.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Is this the list? Has everybody got a copy of this list? Thank you.
MR VISSER: I'm not sure of what assistance it will be to you, Chairperson, there are some cross-references and you will, for example, see in Mamelodi, that's the first page, at the name Oosthuizen there's a reference to bundle 1, page 66. Mamelodi and Atteridgeville he calls it, but it's clear that Atteridgeville is incorrect, it's Mamelodi, because he also refers to an incident where there was a transport problem and we thought it might be the same incident and therefore we gave a cross-reference to Viktor's evidence, which we've just read to you in paragraph 32. We're hoping that this exercise might be of some assistance to you. As we go along, it might become of more assistance to the cross-references of people implicating each other, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: But Mr Viktor at this stage can't recall who he was with on that occasion when the spare wheel was stolen.
MR VISSER: Can you recall who you were with there on that particular evening?
MR VIKTOR: No, Chairperson.
MR VISSER: And you cannot recall whether or not you continued with the bombing?
MR VIKTOR: No.
MR VISSER: But it was your intention to attack a house when your car broke down?
MR VIKTOR: That is correct.
MR VISSER: In the further incidents to which you refer in Mamelodi, it is in paragraph 34, is that correct?
MR VIKTOR: Yes.
MR VISSER: And what can you recall of that incident?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, I can recall that we struggled at this particular house to light the fuse, although the address of this house is unknown to me. We had to try a number of times before the fuse took flame.
MR VISSER: And is it only the fuse aspect that you can recall of this incident and nothing further?
MR VIKTOR: That is correct.
MR VISSER: There you refer to Brits Okkasie, which we will not deal with now. And then in paragraph 36 on page 102 you refer to Soshanguve. Can you recall anything regarding this incident in order to try to identify it more?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, I cannot recall the address of the residence which we attacked during this incident, but what I can recall is that we threw petrol bombs at this house, but that the petrol burnt out only on the outside of the house. To me it appeared as if the windows were covered with some form of object.
MR VISSER: Chairperson, just for your information, on page 1 - perhaps this could be an exhibit, Exhibit A perhaps, Chairperson, for easier reference.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think so, we could mark this table consisting of various pages, 6 pages compiled by Messrs Wagener and Visser, as Exhibit A.
MR VISSER: Thank you, Chairperson. And at page 1 ...
CHAIRPERSON: Go ahead, Mr Visser.
MR VISSER: Thank you, Chairperson. You will notice, just as a cross-reference point for you, for what it's worth, on the first page next to the name Van Vuuren, you will see a reference to bundle 2, page 152 to 153, where Mr van Vuuren seems to recall that there was a place where burglar proofing was attached to a house, but he places in Mamelodi and if there's a possible connection, that's the reason why we mentioned that. Because this witness remembers it to be in Soshanguve. It might the same incident, it might be of some assistance to my learned friend who acts for Mr Oosthuizen.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Visser.
MR VISSER: You also do not know - or at least, which damage would have incurred due to the burglar proofing which was in the front?
MR VIKTOR: My recollection of this incident is that there was little or no damage brought to the house, because all the petrol burnt out on the outside of the walls.
MR VISSER: Not inside the house?
MR VIKTOR: Not at all.
MR VISSER: Could you then proceed ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, I'm told Adv Sigodi's got a problem with ... if you could just wait a minute.
PROBLEMS EXPERIENCED WITH SOUND EQUIPMENT
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we'll take an early tea break while they're sorting out the sound system there. We'll take a 20 minute tea break, thank you.
MS COLERIDGE: All rise.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION
JOHANNES JACOBUS VIKTOR: (s.u.o.)
MR LAMEY: Chairperson, before we start ...(intervention)
EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: (cont)
Chairperson, can't we just finish with the evidence, then my learned friend can tell you what the A-G has told him? With respect. I hope the sound problem has been sorted out, Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, we have reached page 103, paragraph 38.
Mr Viktor you refer to a second attack on a house in Atteridgeville, what can you recall regarding that incident which remains in your memory?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, after I threw the petrol bomb and it burst, some of the burning petrol splashed onto my clothing and caught alight, but fortunately I managed to extinguish it and I did not incur any injuries in the process.
MR VISSER: Can you recall anything more regarding where it was, apart from the fact that it was in Atteridgeville?
MR VIKTOR: Not at all.
MR VISSER: And today as far as your recollection goes, have you told the Committee everything that you can recall regarding the incidents that you were involved in?
MR VIKTOR: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR VISSER: Then I would like to refer you to Exhibit A regarding Mamelodi, in the fourth column there is a summary of your reference to the cases regarding which you testified pertaining to Mamelodi, everything is in bundle 2 and in the pages which have been indicated. In volume 1, Mr Gouws, on page 66 implicated you on a very broad level, namely, he refers on page 65 of volume 1, to the black suburbs in and surrounding Pretoria and Bronkhorstspruit, the former KwaNdebele, Brits, Pietermartizburg and Tembisa and other places. Did you ever act with Mr Gouws during attacks?
MR VIKTOR: There was a stage during which he and I were involved in attacks with Mr Hechter.
MR VISSER: Did you act with him in Pietermaritzburg?
MR VIKTOR: No.
MR VISSER: In your affidavit, paragraph 9, you stated that you tried by means of your attorney, to gather as much information as possible, as well as the amnesty applications of the other persons and you state in paragraph 9 that as soon as you are in possession of information which could implicate you, you would consider it and if you are correctly implicated, you would accept it as such.
MR VIKTOR: Yes, that is correct.
MR VISSER: And is it in terms of the fact that you could not recall it yourself and that you would be prepared to accept if some of your fellow members were to implicate you?
MR VIKTOR: That is correct.
MR VISSER: Mr Oosthuizen states in bundle 1 - we have dealt with that, then Mr Coetser states in bundle 2, on page 57 and 70, that he was involved in various petrol bomb attacks in Mamelodi and Soshanguve and on page 70 he refers to an attack in Mamelodi and two in Soshanguve. He implicates you on page 57 and 70. Did you ever act with Mr Coetser?
MR VIKTOR: Yes, that is correct.
MR VISSER: And would you accept it if he stated that you were involved in the incidents to which he refers?
MR VIKTOR: I accept it Chairperson, yes.
MR VISSER: And then Mr Hechter, in bundle 2 page 166 and 168, implicated you. The one of page 168 has to do with the home of Dr Ribeiro. You have a recollection of this and you have summarised it in your affidavit.
MR VIKTOR: That is correct.
MR VISSER: And then the one on page 166 has not been specified. And then, Chairperson, in the last column we have made a note for your convenience, where the Amnesty Committee has granted or refused amnesty applications in regard to the matters mentioned in the previous columns, and this particular case is at volume 2, page 118, where amnesty was granted on a general basis for various attacks.
That is with regard to Mamelodi. And then with regard to Soshanguve, Mr Gouws has involved you on a broader basis. Mr Gouws on page 57 and 70 once again and then once again Mr Hechter on page 166, and your evidence regarding this is the same, is that correct?
MR VIKTOR: That is correct.
MR VISSER: And then with regard to Atteridgeville, Mr Gouws has once again broadly implicated you and you have dealt with this in the evidence which is contained in the fourth column.
MR VIKTOR: That is correct.
MR VISSER: And to which Mr Coetser refers is the application which has already been heard and you have already testified about this.
MR VIKTOR: That is correct.
MR VISSER: Then with Ekangala it is once again Mr Gouws and Mr Coetser who implicate you, and your evidence regarding this is then the same.
MR VIKTOR: That is correct.
MR VISSER: We cannot continue with Brits or with Pietersburg and these are then the matters regarding which you are able to comment. Just one further aspect, when you were the Commander at Mamelodi Investigation Unit and you co-operated with the Western Transvaal Security Branch, were you indeed deployed to the Northern Transvaal Security Branch?
MR VIKTOR: That is correct.
MR VISSER: Who was your Commander in the Investigation Unit for Unrest?
MR VIKTOR: With the Unrest Investigation Unit I reported to the District Officer of that region.
MR VISSER: Who was that?
MR VIKTOR: At that stage he was a Col van Niekerk.
MR VISSER: Van Niekerk, very well. Did you ever inform him regarding the matters that you were involved with, with the members of the Security Branch, the attacks on homes and so forth?
MR VIKTOR: No.
MR VISSER: Did you involve any of the members serving below you in the Unrest Unit, in these matters?
MR VIKTOR: No.
MR VISSER: I think I've already put everything to you, we will leave it at that. Thank you, Mr Chairman, thank you for your ...
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Lamey, you wanted to say something just after the tea adjournment.
MR LAMEY: Chairperson, during the tea adjournment I managed to make contact with Adv Regal du Toit of the Attorney-General's office, who was with investigators, I gather involved with investigations. He says that he doesn't have the docket immediately available, if it really needs be he would need a day to get the docket. But what he did say is that it doesn't ring a prominent bell, the Ekangala incident, of any particular person injured or deceased, but he's also not sure. What he does say is that the investigations of the attacks commenced with, they knew about the death of Esther Masuku in the Oupa Masuku incident. That incident was already dealt with, and then statements were taken from witnesses inter alia, the applicant Coetser, relating to also the other incidents of which Ekangala was also mentioned. That is as far as I can assist the Committee at this stage.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, I appreciate your efforts, Mr Lamey. Thank you very much. Mr du Plessis, do you have any questions you'd like to put to the applicant, Mr Viktor?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you, Mr Chairman, just one or two.
Mr Viktor, with regard to the Ekangala incident, my client Mr Hechter applied for a similar incident in Ekangala, of which the fact sound more-or-less the same to me, and he has already been granted amnesty for this. As I understood your evidence you could not recall precisely who was involved in this particular incident.
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, I can recall that it was he and I.
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, what I mean is that you cannot recall who else was involved in this particular incident.
MR VIKTOR: No, Chairperson.
MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. Then in other words, or let me put it to you as such, you were not involved in any other incidents in Ekangala, that you can recall?
MR VIKTOR: No, Chairperson.
MR DU PLESSIS: And therefore I accept that you do not have any other information regarding any incident that Mr Hechter was involved with in Ekangala?
MR VIKTOR: No, not personal knowledge.
MR DU PLESSIS: So as far as you are concerned the incident for which Mr Hechter has already received amnesty and the incident to which you refer, for all practical purposes could be one and the same?
MR VIKTOR: Yes, it is a possibility.
MR DU PLESSIS: Because you see - and Mr Chairman, just for your benefit I may refer you to page 119 of bundle 2, there you will find the Judgment in terms of which Capt Hechter was granted amnesty in an Ekangala incident. He didn't remember very much and it seems to accord very much with the evidence presented by Capt Viktor, the only difference is that Capt Hechter testified that as far as he recalled, it was himself and Sgt Gouws who bombed the house at Ekangala. Now it may be that it is a different incident, or it may be that Capt Hechter's memory in respect of who was present, was not correct. I'm therefore in a bit of a quandary in this situation, in that I don't know if it's the same incident or not, and that is why I asked these questions to Capt Viktor, to determine if it's the same incident or not. I'm at this point in time not certain if my client is going to be an applicant in this incident as a separate incident or not, I will inform you in due course what position I will take in this regard.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr du Plessis. Mr Lamey, do you have any questions you'd like to put to Mr Viktor?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Yes thank you, Chairperson.
Mr Viktor, I just want to specifically put Mr Coetser's version to you, that he recalls that he was involved in two incidents in Soshanguve and that with both those incidents you and Mr Hechter were also involved with him. You have already indicated that it may possibly be so.
MR VIKTOR: Yes, it is so.
MR LAMEY: And then with regard to the aspect pertaining to the presence of persons in Mr Hechter's office, with regard to the general background and instructions before the commencement of the incident, I put it to you that Mr Coetser will also testify that this aspect was already dealt with, if you recall correctly, in terms of the Atteridgeville incident before another Committee, and this case has already been heard. I just want to put it to you that if necessary, Mr Coetser's version will be that he was present there.
MR VIKTOR: I cannot recall that he was present, but I can also not dispute it if he says that he was present.
MR LAMEY: Very well. And then Mr Coetser's comprehension of that discussion was that it was foreseen that persons could be killed in the process.
MR VIKTOR: Yes, Chairperson, it is correct.
MR LAMEY: Your recollection is that you were only involved in one Ekangala incident.
MR VIKTOR: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: Mr Coetser will also testify that he was involved only in one incident and that you and Lieut Hechter accompanied him on that incident.
MR VIKTOR: Yes, I accept it as such.
MR LAMEY: Then one final aspect, I don't know if you are capable of commenting on this, Mr Coetser himself does not have direct evidence regarding this but has mentioned it in his affidavit, that regarding the incident in Mamelodi he was informed by Lieut Hechter that subsequently it was discovered that someone had been killed. Do you have any knowledge of this?
MR VIKTOR: I also saw it for the first time in his amnesty application.
MR LAMEY: Is it correct that Mr Coetser's role was that he was involved in fewer of the incidents and that he withdrew himself eventually and you have knowledge of this?
MR VIKTOR: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: And during every incident in which you were involved his role was to drive the vehicle and then to wait for you and Hechter, who would then handle the explosive device or the petrol bomb?
MR VIKTOR: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chairperson, nothing further.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Alberts, do you have any questions you'd like to put to the applicant?
NO QUESTIONS BY MR ALBERTS
CHAIRPERSON: Ms Coleridge, do you have any questions you'd like to put?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS COLERIDGE: Yes, thank you Chairperson.
So you were the Commander of the Mamelodi Riot Investigation Unit, is that correct?
MR VIKTOR: That's correct, Chairperson.
MS COLERIDGE: And was Mr van Niekerk your Commander for that specific unit?
MR VIKTOR: Yes, he was the overhead Commander in the district, he had various other units working under him.
MS COLERIDGE: And I want to know from you as to how many incidents - because you were there from January to May '86, is that right?
MR VIKTOR: That's correct, Chairperson.
MS COLERIDGE: How many incidents of violence was reported to your unit that occurred in Mamelodi as a result of the violence in that area? Can you tell us, do you have any idea?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, this has to be a guestimate, it must be hundreds of incidents of violence, because we are not only referring to matters where dossiers were opened and investigated, but incidents of stone throwing could only be investigated if it was reported, without there being a dossier for it.
MS COLERIDGE: And you were involved in about 40 attacks in Mamelodi, is that right?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, no, not only in Mamelodi but in totality, in the whole area that I had acted.
MS COLERIDGE: Oh, because I just got confused in your application when you referred to it separately. Chairperson, I can't find my reference now, but I misunderstood the position that 30 petrol bomb attacks, I thought you specified between Mamelodi and Soshanguve. Can you comment on that?
JUDGE DE JAGER: May it be paragraph 6 on page 98?
MR VISSER: Page 82, at the bottom.
CHAIRPERSON: And my notes of the evidence given is that he said he was involved in plus-minus 40 incidents, 10 bombs and 30 petrol bombs, but he didn't restrict it to any particular area.
MS COLERIDGE: Thank you, Chairperson, I just assumed, because in that same paragraph he spoke about his time being in ... from January to May, and I just associated that because he was in that unit in Mamelodi, that it occurred there and therefore I just asked in relation to that.
CHAIRPERSON: Just on that point, the Mamelodi Riot Investigation Unit of which you were the Commander, did that also have jurisdiction in Soshanguve and Atteridgeville and Ekangala?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, we were specifically tasked only for Mamelodi, but the other townships had their own investigative units and at a later stage these units were all combined and I was once again the Commander of all the units that had investigated unrest incidents in the whole Pretoria area.
MS COLERIDGE: And then just my question, in relation to - how many persons were involved in your unit, besides yourself?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, if you could specify in which unit. Are we referring to the Mamelodi Unrest Unit? If recall roughly, about 8 to 10 people were involved in that unit.
CHAIRPERSON: And when all the units were combined and you became the Commander for the Pretoria area?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, I cannot even guess, it may have been 30-plus, maybe more people who were involved.
MS COLERIDGE: And were any members, part of your unit at that time, involved in any of these incidents with you?
MR VIKTOR: No, Chairperson.
MS COLERIDGE: And why not?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, when we started with these incidents we did it under the banner of the Security Branch and we used Security Branch persons, we didn't use those people.
MS COLERIDGE: And so the Commander of that Security Branch was who?
MR VIKTOR: It was Brig Cronje, Chairperson.
MS COLERIDGE: So would you say that you would actually fall under his - would he then be your Commander, so to speak?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, that is correct, I was basically devolved to the Security Branch. That means that one does not have responsibility at your previous base but at the new base.
MS COLERIDGE: And you never informed Van Niekerk of any of these incidents?
MR VIKTOR: Not at all, Chairperson.
MS COLERIDGE: And why not?
MR VIKTOR: He did not have to know, Chairperson, the information about these incidents was kept among the people of the Security Branch, Brig Cronje, myself, Mr Hechter, Mr Coetser. The other members of the Security Branch didn't know this. This was done for security reasons.
MS COLERIDGE: But surely, Mr Viktor, if you were placed in command at Mamelodi area for instance, and you were involved in attacks of this nature, surely Van Niekerk as your Commander, you should have informed him about it, don't you think?
MR VIKTOR: No, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: So what would have happened just on the ground, Mr Viktor, let's just say for example, you said there were about 40 incidents, let's say there's 10 bombings of private residences in Mamelodi over a period of two weeks, how do you explain that to your boss, Van Niekerk, and they get into the newspapers and stuff like that, I mean do you just ignore them? Would you go to him and say, do you tell a lie to him and say well, look we're investigating these bombings, or do you just not mention it to him at all? What did you think he thought about these unexplained bombings going on and nobody's telling him about it?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, I cannot try to tell you here what I thought he thought, but many of these incidents of the houses that we attacked were not reported to the police by the people. For whatever reasons I would not know.
MS COLERIDGE: And then who chose the targets?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, as I've already testified, the instructions came from Brig Cronje, which houses had to be attacked and we executed these orders.
MS COLERIDGE: And how regularly would you meet with Brig Cronje?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, it is difficult to attach a time to it, we never held any meetings after these attacks and the way these orders came to me, it was also not necessary to personally contact him because the instructions came via Mr Hechter many times.
MS COLERIDGE: And then Mr Coetser mentions that in one of the Mamelodi incidents one person was killed.
MR VIKTOR: That is correct that he mentions it, although I do not have any personal knowledge of the death there.
MS COLERIDGE: But surely Mr Viktor, that is your area, don't you think you should have showed a bit of sign of interest as to the people that were being killed in that community?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, as I have already said, I was devolved to the Security Branch, so I did not work on a daily basis in Mamelodi when I worked at the Security Branch.
MS COLERIDGE: So how many days would you be at the Security Branch and how many days would you be based in Mamelodi?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, it is difficult to give a direct answer to that question, I will just guess.
MS COLERIDGE: I then just want to refer you to your psychological report.
CHAIRPERSON: Which page?
MS COLERIDGE: Page 106, Chairperson, in bundle 2. I just want to check.
At paragraph 2, were you referred to ... because of the trauma as a result of the loss of your child, or how were you referred? Was that the sole reason for your referral?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, that was one of the aspects which came out after the discussions or after I started consultation and I was referred there because of certain symptoms that I had shown because of this traumatic aspects. So it's not an issue of I was referred because of the death of my second child, it is one of the aspects along with all the other violence which I was exposed to which led to certain characteristics.
MS COLERIDGE: And then I just want to - one other question in relation to the psychological report. Did you - were there tests done, did you fill out the tests or was it done through consultation?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, this was done through consultation.
ADV SIGODI: Just on that point, how long have you had this post-traumatic stress disorder? When did you realise you had it?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, the last two or three years I have received treatment, psychotherapy, but I believe some of these symptoms may have manifested to a greater or lesser extent in the past, although I wasn't aware of it.
MS COLERIDGE: And then just in relation to the Ekangala incident, Coetser mentions that the Technical Unit was probably responsible for making the bombs and so forth, who at the Technical Unit was responsible for that?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, no I do not know whether Technical Unit was responsible for it. As far as I know about explosive devices was that Mr Hechter manufactured them.
MS COLERIDGE: So for all the incidents that you were involved in, did you have any ties with the persons manufacturing the bombs, generally, or did you just have no involvement whatsoever with any unit?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, I was not involved in the manufacturing thereof. Whether it was directly manufactured by the unit or by Mr Hechter, I was not present when it was manufactured.
MS COLERIDGE: So what would you say in these incidents were your involvements really?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, after I received the instructions planning was obviously made and I've already testified at many of these incidents I manufactured petrol bombs myself. In this incident I threw the petrol bomb myself. I also placed manufactured explosive devices. That was my involvement in these incidents.
MS COLERIDGE: And for none of these incidents did you do any follow-ups as to how many people were killed, if anybody was injured, etcetera, is that correct?
MR VIKTOR: That is correct, Chairperson.
ADV SIGODI: Why did you do so?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, for security reasons, what you don't know of you can't talk about.
ADV SIGODI: But tell me, if you had received an instruction that you must go and attack a particular target, who would go and check where this house is and so on? Like if you'd be given an address that look, this person stays at such and such a place, who would - or if you are told that go and attack so and so, who would check where does this person stay, how do you get there and so on?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, any one of us who was involved in this team did some reconnaissance and that is how we knew how to get to the particular houses.
ADV SIGODI: Did you personally do any reconnaissance in respect of some of the victims?
MR VIKTOR: Yes, for sure.
ADV SIGODI: Now after having done the reconnaissance, I mean you would know exactly where the person, or which house you had bombed, then why was it not of interest to you to find out how successful your mission was?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, for security reasons. One of the greatest mistakes that one could make was to after an offence go back to the scene.
ADV SIGODI: What security? I mean, how could the security be affected, you were the security?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, we mostly acted, or we acted in black residential areas and if we later went back there, then they would see that there was a white man sticking out like a sore thumb in a black area.
ADV SIGODI: And then? I mean there were Riot Units, there were white people always going out in the black areas, it wasn't something unusual? What security were you scared of, or how would it affect you?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, I've already testified that for security reasons we did not go back there, unfortunately I cannot add anything to that.
ADV SIGODI: And did you report back to anybody after having done your mission?
MR VIKTOR: Yes, Chairperson, we gave feedback to Brig Cronje, that the place had indeed been attacked.
ADV SIGODI: Thank you.
MS COLERIDGE: Just a follow-up in relation to the victims of the houses that were blown up. Did you ever just verify whether a whole family was in the house, whether only the activist was there, or anything like that, or it was just carte blanche?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson no, we did not always have information with regard to who was present in the house when we acted there.
ADV SIGODI: Did you not take any extra precautionary measures to make sure that when you bombed the house at least you'd be able to attack your required target? It didn't matter if there were innocent people to you?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, we often knew in which room the activist would sleep and then we would attack that specific room. In other incidents we, for example, caused an explosion at the lounge where no-one would be sleeping.
ADV SIGODI: Roughly at what time would you place these bombs?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, that would be very late at night when there is as little as possible movement in the residential area.
MS COLERIDGE: And the vehicles that were used, which vehicles were used for these operations?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, I heard from Mr Coetser that we drove with a minibus and then there were also other vehicles that were used. As far as I know it could not be traced back to the police.
MS COLERIDGE: Thank you, Chairperson, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS COLERIDGE
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, do you have any re-examination?
MR VISSER: With your leave Chairperson, may I just first rectify on Exhibit A a mistake which has just been pointed out to me. On the first page next to the name Oosthuizen, in the second column there's a reference to volume 1, page 65 to 66.
CHAIRPERSON: You say the first page next to the name Oosthuizen? ...(inaudible) 1, page 66, yes.
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Could you just strike that reference out. The reference itself in the second column, Chairperson. If there's any reference that is applicable, it's page 77, but even that's not applicable, because he doesn't implicate Mr Viktor. Chairperson, with your leave, just two issues.
One may think that during the time period February to May 1986, when you were involved in the bomb attacks in Mamelodi, that those were the only explosions that had taken place, namely those that the Security Police caused there. Was that the position or were there others?
MR VIKTOR: Not at all, Chairperson, the activists amongst each other also attacked each other in order to extend their power bases and there were also other police officers who were seen as part of the State structure and they were also targets of these activists who were trying to undermine the loyalty of these police officers. And there were also various other attacks on innocent people in the townships, because of the reason that they did not agree with the activists' political ideas.
MR VISSER: And council members, black council members and persons who worked in State structures and who were seen as collaborating with the former government?
MR VIKTOR: Yes Chairperson, specifically the black council members, that was part of the liberation movement's strategy to render the country ungovernable. These structures that had been put in place had to be destroyed so that alternative structures could be put in place.
MR VISSER: Another aspect, you tried to explain it but I don't think it came through quite clearly. You were asked why did you not go back to the scenes where the previous evening you had thrown a bomb, would you please explain why you did not do that? You said something about standing out like a sore thumb.
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, these are black residential areas where we acted, Mr Hechter, Mr Coetser and I are white men, if a white man moves around the area during the day you will immediately stand out and people look at you and they want to know: "Who is this guy, what is he doing here".
JUDGE DE JAGER: But the white police officers, did they not visit such scenes to investigate what explosives were used, how did the explosion take place? Were there no white police officers who went out to do those investigations?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, yes, if it was reported to the police they would have gone out, but as I have said earlier many of these incidents were not reported to the police at all.
JUDGE DE JAGER: But then the police had a reason to be at the scene, why would that raise suspicion if a white police officer was there?
MR VIKTOR: That is so, the police had a reason to be there Chairperson, if it was reported. We thought because of - as I've already said, for security reasons we felt that we should not go back to these scenes.
MR VISSER: But I am referring to these security reasons. If at night you went into Mamelodi, would you not stand out like a sore thumb if you were white?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, at night it's dark and we are not easily visible at night, Chairperson.
MR VISSER: Thank you, Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Advocate Sigodi, do you have any questions you would like to put to the applicant?
ADV SIGODI: Chairperson, the matter which I would have loved to get more clarity on, I think the applicant has, I think we've exhausted that, as to why they wouldn't go back to the scene to check if their target had really been attacked, the target that they sought to attack. I think we've exhausted this matter, so I will not take it any further.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Judge de Jager, any questions you'd like to ask?
Mr Viktor, I just want to get this straight, you were with Murder and Robbery before January '86, and that's the ordinary police, it's not the Security Branch, just ordinary Murder and Robbery Squad?
MR VIKTOR: That's correct, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Then you came across to this Mamelodi Unrest Unit, was that also just ordinary police? I mean the eight men that worked under you, were they just ... or were they also all Security Branch members?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson no, we were all Detectives.
CHAIRPERSON: So why were you deployed to the Northern Transvaal Security Branch, for what reason?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, I believe one of the greater reasons was so that I and Mr Hechter could launch these attacks.
CHAIRPERSON: This is what I'm getting at. Why did the Security Branch have to use you, why couldn't they just use Mr Hechter and Mr Coetser and Mr Gouws and Mr Oosthuizen, whoever, they had many people at their disposal, why bring in an outsider, as such, or was it because you were the son of the Brigadier?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, that may be a possibility, I do not know.
CHAIRPERSON: So you don't know of any specific reason why you were brought in?
MR VIKTOR: No, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: So your people who worked under you in the Unrest Unit, they didn't know about your activities with the Security Branch, your active participation in the business of the Security Branch?
MR VIKTOR: No, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: And also another thing that just comes to mind, it just seems that if you become a Commander of the Mamelodi Unrest Unit and then that's expanded to include Soshanguve, Atteridgeville, why were you only the Commander for four months and then you get transferred to Wierda Bridge? What's Wierda Bridge, is that a police station or? You know, why only a Commander in a unit like that for four months, was there a problem?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson no, the reasons advanced then was that at Wierdaburg, I should have started at the beginning of the year at Wierdabrug and because there was no officer there and an officer had to perform certain functions at the Detective Branch and because they had problems there I was placed back. That is the reasons that were given to me.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you.
JUDGE DE JAGER: When you went to see Brig Viktor, your father, were you still attached to the Murder and Robbery Unit?
MR VIKTOR: No, Chairperson, that was when I was already at Mamelodi with the Unrest Investigative Unit.
JUDGE DE JAGER: What was the reason, why did you go and see him?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, I cannot recall whether he called for us or whether we went there to go and discuss our problems with him, the problems we experienced in the black residential areas, the unsuccessful prosecutions and investigations. That is the reason why we went to see him.
JUDGE DE JAGER: But Hechter had nothing to do with these investigations, he was with the Security Police.
MR VIKTOR: That is correct, Chairperson, but they investigated some of these incidents and they worked with the information situation and their task was to oppose the whole war situation.
JUDGE DE JAGER: I have a problem with him calling to see Hechter, because Hechter does not fall under him.
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson no, I cannot answer as to why Mr Hechter was also called or what happened.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Did you not go to him to get advice and to hear what how he would feel as to the actions you would follow?
MR VIKTOR: Chairperson, part of the visit was to obtain advice but we did not go to him to get the yes word for these types of attacks, no.
JUDGE DE JAGER: But he did give you advice?
MR VIKTOR: That is correct, Chairperson.
JUDGE DE JAGER: And amongst others he did say that if there was an attack on a police house, why don't you attack an activists house?
MR VIKTOR: That is correct, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: And when you had that meeting, was the Head of the Soshanguve Unrest Unit present at the meeting and the Atteridgeville, your colleagues in the other units?
MR VIKTOR: No, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Any questions arising, Mr Visser?
MR VISSER: None, thank you Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr du Plessis, Lamey, Alberts, Ms Coleridge, any questions arising?
NO QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS
NO QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY
NO QUESTIONS BY MR ALBERTS
NO QUESTIONS BY MS COLERIDGE
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Mr Viktor.
WITNESS EXCUSED
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, are you calling any other witnesses?
MR VISSER: Chairperson, we have no further evidence to produce, thank you. That is the application for Mr J J Viktor (Jnr). May I be allowed to address later on the form of the amnesty for which we apply?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Who is going to be the next applicant to testify?
MR ALBERTS: As it pleases, Chairperson. I think Mr Goosen is next.
