DEON GOUWS: (sworn states)
EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Chairperson, before I lead the evidence, I understand that we only, as indicated previously you will not from Gouws' application on page 65 that he refers to incidents that happened in Pretoria, Bronkhorstspruit, KwaNdebele, Brits, Pietermaritzburg and Tembisa. In view of the previous ruling we will only then focus on those incidents in the areas around Pretoria and then Bronkhorstspruit, which is Ekangala. Thank you.
Mr Gouws, is it correct that you completed or handed in an application for amnesty in which you apply for amnesty for various incidents which you were involved in as a member of the South African Police?
MR GOUWS: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: In the bundle before the Committee on page 58, there is an initial application that was handed in, is that correct?
MR GOUWS: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: And signed by you and then after you obtained legal representation, a supplementary application was prepared in which, amongst others, you deal with incidents of arson, petrol bombs, as well as home manufactured bombs, as you mention there. Is that correct?
MR GOUWS: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: With regard to the dates, you say
"The period '84 to '86, I am not sure of the dates."
Mr Gouws, may I then ask you, most of the applicants whose applications deal with the period '86, and I think Hechter ... could your reference to '84 be incorrect in this regard?
MR GOUWS: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: At the stage when you supplied these particulars did you have the opportunity to have insight to other applicants' applications?
MR GOUWS: No, Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: Will you please tell the Committee, during the time period, the areas to which you refer to on page 65, how many incidents in total were you involved with? If you should guess.
MR GOUWS: Chairperson, I have to guess, I would say between 40/50, maybe 60 incidents.
MR LAMEY: Was it possible for you when you drew up your application to individually and independently recall all those incidents with regard to the specific time and place and the specific residential area, who was with you on every occasion, or what is the position?
MR GOUWS: Chairperson, it is impossible to recall everything, who was present, which incident and when, I cannot recall it.
MR LAMEY: If we study page 66, or let us commence with page 65, the areas to which you refer to in Pretoria, which areas does that include?
MR GOUWS: That would be Soshanguve, Atteridgeville, as well as Mamelodi.
MR LAMEY: And then Bronkhorstspruit?
MR GOUWS: That would be Ekangala.
MR LAMEY: I would just like to ask you, according to your recollection how many incidents were you involved in in Ekangala?
MR GOUWS: Only one, Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: I shall get back to that. Can you possibly, with regard to Mamelodi, Atteridgeville and Soshanguve, can you recall how many incidents there?
MR GOUWS: No, Chairperson, I cannot recall.
MR LAMEY: You have also had the opportunity of looking at the bundle, insofar as particulars are supplied there by other applicants where it has regard to you, is that correct?
MR GOUWS: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: We will have a look at each and every one of them shortly. Where you say houses were attacked by petrol bombs, when you refer to Julius Schultz, Joe Mamasela and Jacques Hechter and yourself, do you refer there in general?
MR GOUWS: Yes, Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: You could not connect them to each and every incident?
MR GOUWS: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: Now in this bundle - you have heard here at this hearing that Mr Eric Goosen had also applied for amnesty.
MR GOUWS: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: And then you say in each of the incidents the attacks were carried out on identified houses, and according to what you understood they were all the homes of activists, is that correct?
MR GOUWS: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: And a standard modus operandi was followed, the vehicle was parked far away from the house and then you moved to the house on foot, where a petrol bomb would be thrown through the window of the house, is that correct?
MR GOUWS: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: And does that include manufactured explosive devices?
MR GOUWS: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: At a stage when you were involved in these incidents, where were you stationed?
MR GOUWS: I was doing devolved service at the Security Branch.
MR LAMEY: Where was your permanent base at that stage?
MR GOUWS: I was with the Special Investigative Unit at Head Office.
MR LAMEY: If you were devolved down to the Security Branch, under whose command did you serve there?
MR GOUWS: Brig Cronje, but directly under Capt Hechter.
MR LAMEY: And in each of these incidents you received instructions from Capt Hechter?
MR GOUWS: That's correct.
MR LAMEY: On page 163 up to page 167, Mr Gouws, of bundle 2 before this Committee, is an extract from the amnesty application of Capt Hechter and in there he also mentions your involvement in Mamelodi and Atteridgeville and Soshanguve, is that correct?
MR LAMEY: You have had the opportunity of studying the contents thereof.
MR GOUWS: I went through it briefly, Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: And would you concur in general with the contents therein?
MR GOUWS: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: May I then ask you, were you involved in any incident where you and Sgt Tiny Coetser were both present?
MR GOUWS: Not at all.
MR LAMEY: And then on page 186, I beg your pardon, on page 171 of the application of Hechter, up to page 179, reference is made to your involvement in an incident at Ekangala, is that correct?
MR GOUWS: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: That is the earlier incident to which you referred.
MR GOUWS: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: And do you concur with the version of Capt Hechter there?
MR GOUWS: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: That particulars supplied by him should be considered in the decision of your application?
MR GOUWS: That is correct, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Can you just briefly tell us what happened, taking into account the fact that Capt Hechter says he can't remember very well.
INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.
MR GOUWS: I see in his application he says that we reconnoitred the house during the day. I cannot recall that. I doubt whether I would have moved into a black residential area during the day, but the rest I can recall vaguely, the window that I broke and the bomb that was thrown into the house. It was a general modus operandi anyway.
JUDGE DE JAGER: But what did you do?
MR GOUWS: ...(no audible reply and no interpretation)
MR LAMEY: And then on page 186 reference is made to bomb explosions, not petrol bombs, where he refers to your involvement at Atteridgeville, Mamelodi, Soshanguve. Do you agree that you were involved in such incidents?
MR GOUWS: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: And you role, can you recall was your role more active, in the sense that every time you climbed out physically, walked to the premises, or were there occasions when you remained behind in the vehicle and so forth? What is your recollection?
MR GOUWS: Chairperson, it is difficult to state it, but I would say I was fit at that time and I could easily climb over walls, so the possibility that I would have remained with the car would be very remote. So I would think I was present when the bombs were thrown.
MR LAMEY: But with regard to target identification and the house that was identified, you depended on whom?
MR GOUWS: That was Capt Hechter.
MR LAMEY: And then if I may refer you to the application of Mr Goosen, that is in bundle 2 page 26, there he also refers to your particulars with regard to an incident at Mamelodi West. This is a bomb attack on some house and there he refers to a mellow-yellow explosive device.
MR GOUWS: Chairperson, I cannot specifically recall it, but I shall not dispute it.
MR LAMEY: You do not dispute his version?
MR GOUWS: No, I do not.
MR LAMEY: As well as page 32 where he refers to a petrol bomb attack where he also refers to you, similarly to the previous one, do you agree, or do you have any reason to dispute the correctness of that version?
MR GOUWS: I agree with him, Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: Then there is an application of Mr Mentz that has already been heard ...(intervention)
JUDGE DE JAGER: What page?
MR LAMEY: Bundle 2, page 214 Chairperson.
... where Mr Mentz refers to Mamelodi and then in the Judgment, or he refers to a Ford Station Wagon which they drove in and which broke down and the operation was then cancelled. Can you recall such an incident?
MR GOUWS: I recall that, yes Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: Can you recall at which stage the operation - where did you get to before the operation was cancelled?
MR GOUWS: Chairperson, I recall correctly we were just outside the black residential area, we had not entered it yet and the car broke down, and from there we went to seek assistance.
MR LAMEY: Do you know or can you recall whether Mr Oosthuizen was present on this occasion?
MR GOUWS: Chairperson, because he was with me under other circumstances most of the time, I cannot say with certainty whether he was with me or not.
MR LAMEY: The question is actually whether you can recall today whether he was at the scene?
MR GOUWS: No, I cannot.
CHAIRPERSON: And Mr Viktor junior? Or whether Mr Viktor was with you when the vehicle broke down?
MR GOUWS: ...(no audible reply and no interpretation)
MR LAMEY: And then Mr Oosthuizen also gave evidence before this Committee, and initially he referred in his application to an incident that had been cancelled and he referred to it as Mamelodi or Atteridgeville, and he also refers to you there. I would just like to get to the particular passage, it's on page 77. Can you recall whether you were involved in an incident in Atteridgeville where a mission was abandoned? He also refers to you there.
MR GOUWS: I cannot recall that from the top of my head, Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: Or can you recall another incident where because of a vehicle problem, the operation was cancelled?
MR GOUWS: No.
MR LAMEY: So you recall the one in Mamelodi?
MR GOUWS: That's correct, yes.
MR LAMEY: And then with regard to the political motive as supplied by the other applicants and by yourself, this appears from page 67 and 68, do you concur?
MR GOUWS: Yes, I do.
MR LAMEY: You also foresaw here when each and every time an attack was launched that would be someone in the ho use that could be killed or injured?
MR GOUWS: Yes, Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: Did it come to your knowledge that in any of the attacks that you were involved with any persons were killed or injured?
MR GOUWS: Chairperson, I did not have any knowledge about anything like that up until about six months ago when Mr Eric Goosen came forward with the information that there was an incident in Atteridgeville. I've already given evidence about that.
MR LAMEY: Was that at another hearing where you had already given evidence?
MR GOUWS: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: But except for that incident there is no other incident where persons were killed or injured that you know of?
MR GOUWS: No, Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chairperson, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, at that time Mr Gouws, what was your rank, what rank did you hold?
MR GOUWS: ...(no audible reply and no interpretation)
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Alberts, any questions?
NO QUESTIONS BY MR ALBERTS
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, any questions?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Yes, thank you Chairperson.
May I just refer to page 56 of volume 1 and ask you, at the bottom of the page you refer to Pietermaritzburg, is the intention to refer to Pietermartizburg, or possibly to Pietersburg?
INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.
MR GOUWS: ...(no audible reply - no interpretation)
MR VISSER: I would just like to put it to you that insofar as you mention on page 66, Johan Viktor in general as a person with whom you had acted, I would just like to tell you that he says he never acted with you in Pietermaritzburg.
MR GOUWS: That is true.
MR VISSER: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, the question, was that reference to Pietermaritzburg? Did you operate in Pietermaritzburg area?
MR GOUWS: ...(no audible reply and no interpretation)
CHAIRPERSON: Ms Coleridge, any questions?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS COLERIDGE: Just a few questions, Chairperson.
Where were you originally stationed, with these incidents? Were you at the Special Investigations Unit?
MR GOUWS: I was stationed at Police Head Office.
MR COLERIDGE: And were you formally seconded or whatever, to the Security Force Unit? Just explain that to me, I just need some clarity on that.
MR GOUWS: Chairperson, at the Special Investigative Unit at Head Office we worked right throughout the country, if there were any problem areas we would go there and during this specific term we went to Northern Transvaal Security Branch.
MR COLERIDGE: And then who was your Commander at the Special Investigations Unit?
MR GOUWS: Brig van Wyk.
MR COLERIDGE: And was Brig van Wyk aware of these activities, these operations you were involved in?
MR GOUWS: I'm not sure, I'm not sure.
MR COLERIDGE: Did you give any feedback or report-backs to Brig van Wyk?
MR GOUWS: No, he and Brig Cronje from the Security Branch did liaise with each other.
MR COLERIDGE: So you expected that Brig Cronje would actually inform him of these operations that you were involved in?
MR GOUWS: That is correct, yes Chairperson.
MR COLERIDGE: But was it expected of you to report back to Brig van Wyk?
MR GOUWS: No, Chairperson, not at all.
MR COLERIDGE: Thank you, Chairperson, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS COLERIDGE
CHAIRPERSON: Any re-examination Mr Lamey?
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY
CHAIRPERSON: Judge de Jager, any questions?
JUDGE DE JAGER: I just have a little problem. You were involved in approximately 60 incidents and you cannot give us any particulars of a particular incident, not from one of the 60, is there not something that you might recall, like at this house somebody was screaming, at that house they ran out and at that house there were many cars, or something like that?
INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone.
MR GOUWS: Chairperson, my problem is it was at night and we were also nervous, so we didn't take all that much note.
CHAIRPERSON: Were you at any stage informed of the identity of the target, the activist whose house you were going to attack? Did you know his name or her name?
MR GOUWS: Not at all, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: You were never told that by Hechter?
MR GOUWS: ...(no audible reply and no interpretation)
ADV SIGODI: Just on that, you mean you went to attack or bomb houses without knowing who it was that you actually sought?
MR GOUWS: Chairperson, I had knowledge that it was identified houses of persons who threatened the State, so I concurred with it.
ADV SIGODI: And the people that you sought, I mean the targeted people, you had no knowledge who they were, you only knew the houses?
MR GOUWS: That is correct, Chairperson.
ADV SIGODI: You were never shown the photos in the albums that the Security Branch had?
MR GOUWS: No, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Did you do operations singly, or would you on a night go and hit five houses or three or four, or would you just do one at a time?
MR GOUWS: Chairperson, it could be that we did more than one house per evening, but it would then be that the areas would be somewhat separate from one another, one would not strike the same number of houses in the same area in the same evening.
CHAIRPERSON: And were you an explosives expert in any way? Did you know about the bombs, be they petrol bombs or mellow-yellows that you were handling?
MR GOUWS: Chairperson, I only knew how to light it, that's all.
CHAIRPERSON: Did you know who made those bombs?
MR GOUWS: Chairperson, I made some of the petrol bombs myself. It is very simple, but those which operated with explosives I would not know, it came from Capt Hechter, and before him I don't know from whence they came.
CHAIRPERSON: Any questions arising, Mr Lamey?
NO QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY
CHAIRPERSON: Ms Coleridge?
NO QUESTIONS BY MS COLERIDGE
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Gouws, that concludes your testimony.
WITNESS EXCUSED
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey, are you calling any other witnesses?
MR LAMEY: ; I've got no further witnesses, thank you Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Ms Coleridge.
MR COLERIDGE ADDRESSES: Chairperson, I'd just like to place a few facts on record. We traced Mr William Mampoer and I've consulted with him, Chairperson. It appears that the application of Mr Goosen relates to Mr Mampoer and his family. That is the incident in Mamelodi West, between January and April 1986. That's north of Tasemajaas(?) Street. Thank you.
Chairperson, in relation to the facts Mr Mampoer states that a bomb, he's not sure whether it was a petrol bomb or what kind of bomb it was, was thrown through the bedroom window. There were eight people in the house at the time, Chairperson. Their names are Dingaan Mampoer, it's his brother, Archie Mampoer, Kenneth Mampoer, Regina Mampoer, Jeanette Mampoer, Lydia Mampoer and Jacob Mampoer. These are all his brothers and sisters, Chairperson. His mother and father were also in the house at the time, but they are deceased, Chairperson.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Sorry, the first name you mentioned?
MR COLERIDGE: Dingaan Mampoer.
CHAIRPERSON: And was the victim, Mr Willie Mampoer, himself in the house?
MR COLERIDGE: Chairperson, I believe he was not in the house, he was moving from place to place at that point in time, Chairperson. And also, the facts relate to him being the organiser of the Mamelodi Youth Organisation, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: It was referred to by Mr Goosen?
MR COLERIDGE: That is correct, Chairperson. And the other fact, that it did also occur during the early hours of the morning, it was between two and four o'clock.
CHAIRPERSON: It seems very probable that it's the same incident. And what about any personal injuries, or was it damage to property?
MR COLERIDGE: Chairperson, just damage to property, fortunately no-one was injured.
MACHINE SWITCHED OFF
ON RESUMPTION
CHAIRPERSON: ... notwithstanding that, the persons in the house would be referred to the Reparations Committee as victims, there might be a shock element or they might have lost property, but that would be for the Reparations Committee to sort out, but we will mention the names to that Committee. Thank you. Anything else?
MR COLERIDGE: No thank you, Chairperson, that concludes ...
CHAIRPERSON: Thanks. That then seems to be all the evidence in the hearing, can we hear submissions now? Who is going to start?
MR VISSER: Chairperson, I have no problem starting, but my learned friend Mr Alberts seems to be under pressure for time, perhaps he wants to address you as to what his situation is.
MR ALBERTS IN ARGUMENT: Chairperson, if I'm allowed to, I'll be very brief.
In my submission it's not necessary to deal any further with Mr Mampoer's situation, as you've point out that will be taken care of in due course and any other victims in that regard. On the assumption of course, that it pertains to this ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: It seems highly likely, same area, youth organiser, bomb at two to four in the morning, I'm sure it's probably the same, we'd be quite safe to accept that.
MR ALBERTS: It could be, yes. But I don't believe that's either here nor there at this stage. And I'm not being callous about it.
CHAIRPERSON: No, no, it's just that we have a duty insofar as possible in making our decisions, to give opinions as to who victims are. So from our point of view it's relevant, but it doesn't have any real effect on the merits of the application in this particular instance.
MR ALBERTS: As it pleases you.
Insofar as the four incidents are concerned relating to Mr Goosen, in my submission, in respect of each incident he made a particularly detailed and full disclosure. There is nothing suspicious or inherently unreliable in his evidence. In fact, everyone else who had anything to say about this incident, although they didn't positively confirm it, certainly couldn't detract from the truthfulness of that ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: It would seem that of all the applicants, perhaps Mr Goosen's recollection is probably the most detailed.
MR ALBERTS: I agree fully with you Mr Chair, on that. But that has been a feature of Mr Goosen's application in its entirety. In all the incidents we've heard he's made an absolutely full disclosure, he has good memory about this. Possibly it's because Mr Goosen at that stage was young and particularly impressionable and was involved in this type of activity to a very limited extent. But nevertheless, he has a good recollection and thus he's put everything forward frankly. If his application is taken in its whole, I submit that he is speaking the truth and he is speaking the full truth. And under those circumstances it merely remains for me to submit that Mr Goosen has complied with all the requirements set by the Act, and that amnesty should be granted to him in respect of these four incidents, and particularly in respect of each incident for all offences and delicts evidenced by his evidence, or shown by his evidence, including the particular acts which are enumerated in each instance. Unless there is anything further that you would like to hear me on, those are the submissions I have to make at this stage.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Alberts. If you are in a hurry, you may be excused if you wish.
MR ALBERTS: Thank you ever so much, Mr Chairperson, and thank you to the Committee Members as well.
JUDGE DE JAGER: ...(indistinct - no microphone)
MR ALBERTS: Sorry, I thought I'd dealt with that.
JUDGE DE JAGER: ...(indistinct - no microphone)
MR ALBERTS: No, no, I have been implicated. It really hasn't been necessary to take it further than that.
CHAIRPERSON: I don't know if you want to wait, if there's any response you might want.
MR ALBERTS: Mr Goosen has just indicated to me that finally he would like to say something, may he be granted that opportunity?
CHAIRPERSON: Certainly, Mr Goosen.
MR GOOSEN ADDRESSES COMMITTEE: Thank you, Chairperson.
Today I heard that a victim had been identified in one of these incidents in which I was involved. I wish one could turn back the hands of time, and in hindsight, it appears that our actions were very wrong. I would like to ask the witness or the victim and his family for forgiveness for any pain or discomfort that was caused by any of my actions. Thank you, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Goosen, I must say we appreciate the attitude shown by yourself. Thank you.
MR VISSER IN ARGUMENT: Chairperson, I shall attempt to beat my learned in brevity, but I don't think I'll succeed.
Chairperson, the hearings before you have been marked and characterised by applicants who cannot remember the details and lest it become something that concerns you Chairperson, I've attempted to find an explanation for that.
Mr Viktor said in his affidavit that perhaps the reason, well apart from his bad memory because of his post-traumatic stress syndrome, perhaps one of the reasons why he cannot remember is the fact that they were not really always told, they were not told beforehand, given full information, nor were they told afterwards what had happened. One must perhaps bear in mind Chairperson, that where they operated were in black areas, which are not known for their well lit and well marked streets and often there is a situation of a shanty town pathways, etcetera, and where under normal circumstances, it would be difficult to find a place which you visited at night.
Chairperson, perhaps, as it was stated by one of the other witnesses, I think it was the last witness, perhaps what he said is of great significance, and that is that there was a modus operandi, and come to think of it Chairperson, one doesn't suppose that there are a great many ways in which you would bomb a house, and it sounds logical that there would have been a modus operandi by which they lit whatever they threw into the house, threw it through the window and ran away. And if that is so, and that happened on 30 or 40 occasions ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Nothing spectacular about any particular incident, nothing unique about any particular incident.
MR VISSER: Correct, Chairperson. Unless of course, as Viktor has done, to remember in the case of Masuku, the dogs that were barking and in the case of the one Mamelodi incident where they threw the petrol bomb and it burst against the wall and it burnt outside and his clothes got caught.
Chairperson, I wish to make the submission to you not to put too much ...(indistinct) in the fact that the applicants could not remember details. It's not a question, in my submission, of a failure to make a full disclosure. In fact, in the case of Viktor he certainly, if one looks at his affidavit and his statements which he made, attempted as best he could to give as much information as he could.
But Chairperson, this very same problem was experienced, quite evidently, by the original Committee on Amnesty, and I wish to refer you to page 118 of volume 2, where the original Amnesty Committee dealt with the application of Mr Hechter. You have seen his application Chairperson, he couldn't really remember anything. And the Committee, in its decision, deals with his loss of memory at page 117 and then over the page at 118, please allow me to read this to you, because it does appear to be on all fours with the applications now before you. I start under the heading:
"Schedule 4: Various Incidents of Arsons"
I can possibly go quicker, because it doesn't have to be interpreted, I don't believe, Mr Chairman.
"Various incidents of arson relating to the burning of houses in Mamelodi, Soshanguve and Atteridgeville during the period 1985 to '87. The applicant and Paul Jacobus Janse van Vuuren applied for amnesty relating to the aforementioned offences.
The two applicants, both of whom were at the time members of the Security Branch of the South African Police, identified and targeted the houses of several people who, according to information by the applicants, were responsible for a number of political incidents in Mamelodi, Soshanguve and Atteridgeville.
The applicants' intended victims were people who had allegedly been responsible (and the word "for" has fallen out) the planting of bombs and incidents of petrol bombing. This was during the period 1985 to 1987, during which time there was a lot of political unrest.
The applicants, together with some of their colleagues, set the targeted houses on fire by using petrol bombs. The applicants do not know whether any people were injured or killed as a result of their attacks. They also ask for amnesty for a host of related offences, such as murder and attempted murder.
In their applications both applicants say the following: 'Ons het wel voorsien dat mense in die huise kan wees, maar dit was nooit die bedoeling om die mense in die huise to dood nie. Ons het aanvaar dat mense sou kon sterf in die proses.'
The Committee says:
"We are satisfied that they were acting as they did because they considered it their duty as policemen in the course of the struggle, referred to in Gen van der Merwe's evidence. The attacks were associated with a political objective and so too was the possession of the petrol bombs used."
and one might add the mellow-yellows.
Amnesty is therefore GRANTED to the applicant and the said Van Vuuren, as will be seen from the decision in his application, in respect of
(a) Various incidents of arson relating to the burning of houses in Mamelodi, Soshanguve and Atteridgeville, during the period 1985 to 1987, and any offences including any death or injuries that may have resulted from the burning of these houses and certain contraventions."
Chairperson, it is evident, in my submission, that the original Committee on Amnesty were faced with the same problem of a lack of specifics and peculiarity on the part of Cronje, Hechter and Van Vuuren. We don't know about the others, but certainly from those. Which gave to rise to this, I might almost say, extraordinarily widely worded amnesty. It is wide, Chairperson, it does not specify any incident, which one would normally expect, it does not give any dates, it does not hook any of the amnesties to any particular timeframe, person, and only to areas in the vaguest of terms.
Chairperson, in my submission, if you added to (a) at page 119: 'Ekangala' and after "offences", the word 'delicts', we would submit that that is all that we could ask for before you. And in my submission that would cover, certainly, the amnesty asked for by Viktor, and I don't want to speak on behalf of the others, but probably all the applicants before you.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Except that he limits his participation to February to May.
MR VISSER: Correct, yes.
CHAIRPERSON: ... that is he's a hundred percent sure of, because of his posting, I mean he couldn't have done it before February and he couldn't have done it after May, because he wasn't around.
MR VISSER: Absolutely Chairperson, he couldn't possibly qualify for any amnesty outside those periods and that is why that evidence had been led with great precision, in order to perhaps in a way, narrow it down in order for you to relate your Order to a more specific period, yes.
Chairperson, you heard the evidence, I'm not going to repeat it. I'm hoping Chairperson, as I said before, that Exhibit A might be of some use to you. If one runs through it, it actually is of this assistance that if you look at Goosen, he does not implicate Viktor. Gouws implicates Viktor, and I'm referring to Mamelodi, page 1, at page 65 to 66, but only in the broadest terms, without specifics. Oosthuizen we can strike out, because according to Oosthuizen's evidence the issue of the transport problem referred to Soshanguve and not Mamelodi, so we're talking about two incidents, therefore Viktor is not implicated there ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, on that, if somebody's going - okay, we're going to the house of Mr X to throw a petrol bomb, car breaks down, what is that? A conspiracy? It's not even - where does an attempt start? I suppose when you pack the bombs in the boot and you set off. Or does the attempt start when you get out the car with the bomb in your hand? You know it's that sort of ... I think it might be a little bit remote for an attempt, I don't know.
MR VISSER: Yes, but again Chairperson, if you were to consider granting amnesty simply for all offences and delicts, it would cover it. And that's the beauty of that approach.
CHAIRPERSON: That's more Mr Oosthuizen's case, whether it's an attempt or a conspiracy, because that's the only one we're concerned with, with him.
MR VISSER: Viktor is the same, he was also ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: No, no, but I mean Mr Viktor's got 40 incidents he says that he was involved in, whereas Mr Oosthuizen, for us at this hearing, it's only the one and that one is one of these dud operations. So we'll hear from Mr Lamey what he says about it.
MR VISSER: Yes, you're quite correct Chairperson, in your view of the legal principles.
Chairperson, Hechter was granted amnesty, as I've read to you, and we could only ask you to consider granting amnesty to Viktor in the same terms. As far as Viktor is concerned and as far as his memory goes, we have in the fourth column given you the references and in parenthesis the three incidents that he remembers. The one is the abandoned one which we've just spoken about, the other is the Ribeiro one, which is not heard now, and the one is the one that he can recall having had to strike a whole lot of matches and that seems to have stuck in his memory.
Chairperson, as far as Mamelodi is concerned, that we can't take any further, except that we would ask you to add the incident mentioned by Coetser at pages 56 to 58 and 70, in bundle 2. He specifically implicates Viktor. Viktor has given evidence to say that if he's implicated, he's not able to deny it, and therefore Chairperson, we would ask you to include that particular incident in his amnesty application.
As far as Soshanguve is concerned Chairperson, again Gouws in the broadest of terms, as well as Coetser and Hechter, we can't take the matter any further. You've heard the evidence of Viktor, there were two incidents here that he can remember about. We've given you the references, bundle 2 page 102, paragraph 36, Chairperson, in that fourth column.
Atteridgeville. Again Gouws, but again in the widest of terms Chairperson, Coetser refers to the Masuku incident, that's the application that has been heard, and Van Vuuren, Chairperson, he doesn't specify any particular incident. So we can't gather too much assistance from any of the evidence or the applications of those applicants.
If I may refer you to page 4, Ekangala, it would appear Chairperson, that on Coetser's evidence Viktor was present in the incident referred to by him in volume 2, page 56 to 58, regarding Ekangala, and we would ask you then to add as it were, that incident to the other incident at Ekangala which Viktor gave evidence about. It's not an extension of his application, with respect Chairperson, it falls square within what he had stated in his affidavit.
Chairperson, other than that, Brits, Okasie and Pietersburg are left for another day and we would therefore ask you, Chairperson, to consider favourably granting amnesty to Viktor for any offence or delict committed by him, regarding petrol bombing or other bombing of houses in the areas mentioned by him, Chairperson, being Mamelodi, Soshanguve, Atteridgeville and Ekangala, including conspiracy and any other possible offence flowing directly from those attacks, during that period of February to May 1986. Thank you, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Visser. Mr Lamey.
MR LAMEY IN ARGUMENT: Thank you, Chairperson. I'll start with the application of Mr Coetser.
Chairperson, as far as the offences are concerned I submit that subject to the opinion of the Committee, that it will be in order to grant him similarly amnesty for any offence, as also submitted by my learned friend, Mr Visser.
Chairperson, I do however see that in the previous decisions specific mention was made of contraventions of, for instance, the Dangerous Weapons Act and the Explosives Act ...(intervention)
JUDGE DE JAGER: I think at that stage we were not sure of what the exact Order ... and that was asked for and in those terms the decisions were framed, but if you have this general one of offences and delicts related to this, it would include that.
MR LAMEY: Yes. I would then also ask that Mr Coetser was in a position, probably in view of the fact that he could count the incidents that he was ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: He can remember each one, yes, unlike Gouws.
MR LAMEY: Yes, yes. I would then submit that it would be proper to grant him amnesty in respect of the period February to March 1986, in respect of one incident in Mamelodi, two incidents in Soshanguve and then the petrol bomb explosion at Ekangala.
CHAIRPERSON: What was his period again?
MR LAMEY: February 1986 to March 1986.
JUDGE DE JAGER: What do you say about the incident in Ekangala?
MR LAMEY: Similar, in the same way the broad Order, any offence in relation to that incident.
Chairperson, then if I could refer to Mr Oosthuizen. I submit, Chairperson, that at the most it was attempt here, to commit the act of arson or malicious damage to property or murder, so to speak, as the applicant did testify that it was foreseeable that, in the planning that somebody could be injured or killed. And I think that is applicable to all the applicants that have testified before you. But I think the offence in relation to the Explosives Act or the Dangerous Weapons Act, could have been completed.
JUDGE DE JAGER: If we would grant him amnesty in respect of any offence or delict committed on ... he was only involved on one occasion. ...(inaudible - no microphone) terms, but only limit it to one incident in Ekangala?
MR LAMEY: No, no, he said in his application, Mamelodi or Atteridgeville and during his evidence he says he was more certain it was actually Atteridgeville.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Ja, sorry.
MR LAMEY: But to be safe here, his memory is also not clear, I would say either Mamelodi or Atteridgeville.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, because I suppose one could start theorising, because you take a bomb, you go into a house to throw a bomb at a house, you put it in the boot of your car, you drive, car breaks down, now that might be an attempt in relation to arson, but not necessarily more than a conspiracy in relation to murder, because you don't even know whether there was anyone in the house or ... The attempt is closer to arson, because you put the bomb there, you're going to throw the bomb, you just haven't got there, but it's little bit further removed from murder. So it might be an attempt and/or conspiracy to arson and/or murder, or something like that.
MR LAMEY: Yes no, I agree with that, Chairperson. And as I've said, the offence relating to the Explosives Act or the Dangerous Weapons Act, could ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: In that particular incident where the car broke down, as you say that one was complete.
MR LAMEY: It was a completed offence, yes.
Chairperson, then as far as Mr Gouws is concerned, I must support the submission of my learned friend Mr Visser in this regard. You don't have any evidence of Mr Gouws relating to a specific stress disorder which impacted on his condition. Chairperson, the - and I submit that the most logical explanation for his inability to define each and every incident and to pinpoint a specific number of incidents, bar the Ekangala incident which he recalls was only incident where Coetser was not involved, Chairperson I submit that because the modus operandi has been almost the same in each and every instance and bearing in mind that he was involved in so many incidents in that period, Chairperson, that it would be proper also to give him amnesty in relation to incidents of arson or malicious damage to property, or in the order that you have suggested in the wide sense in relation to areas, Mamelodi, Atteridgeville, Soshanguve and Ekangala, which is then the specific incidents which are the subject matter of this hearing.
CHAIRPERSON: What is his period of operation, can you recall?
MR LAMEY: Chairperson, he said '84 to '86, but in his evidence he said he would rather go along with the other applicants, which suggests it was round about 1986/1987. I think in the application of Hechter he refer also to '86/'87. I think it would be safe to rather use that period, Chairperson, and he went along with that in his evidence.
CHAIRPERSON: But seeing that it started in - if we accept the evidence that the kick-off of these operations was that meeting with Brig Viktor, that is according to the applicant Viktor it was after February, or during February '86, when he was deployed to the units in Mamelodi.
MR LAMEY: Yes, yes. And it's also most probably the time, because the other evidence which we have heard before as to the incidents of violence was during that '86 period in the Pretoria area, Chairperson.
Chairperson, I don't know whether there's anything else that you wish to know from me regarding this specific incident. The other incidents like KwaNdebele, Brits, Pietermaritzburg and Tembisa is then for another day. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Ms Coleridge.
MS COLERIDGE IN ARGUMENT: Yes, thank you Chairperson, I just have a few submissions to make in relation to Mr Viktor's amnesty application and the incidents that he's involved in.
We know that he was attached and he was the Commander of the Riot Investigative Unit in Mamelodi. His Commander at the time was Van Niekerk, who, as he had submitted and presented to us, had not known of any of the incidents that he was involved in, Chairperson, and he was just an ordinary policeman, he was not attached to the Security Branch, and I just have a problem in relation to his submissions relating to the orders he had received. We can't really say that he specifically received any instructions or orders from his Commander, but that he attended a general meeting which included his father, Mr Viktor. And Chairperson my submission is that he was in charge of the Mamelodi Riot Unit and he also had many people working below him, who he was the Commander of, but he'd never used anybody in any of these incidents and my submission is, Chairperson, that it's an extraordinary kind of a situation, where someone who is so detached from another unit and is totally involved in the workings of the Security Branch activities, and his submission was that he received the orders from Cronje. Whether Cronje could give him orders Chairperson, is another contentious issue, because shouldn't he take orders from his own Commander? And he'd never ever informed his own Commander of his activities which involved numerous incidents.
That is my submission in relation to his application, Chairperson, that there was a duty on him to inform his Commander and not get involved as he did, without anybody in his unit knowing of his activities and taking on tasks of other units and being involved in all these incidents, Chairperson. He just singled himself out in a sense. Those are the only issues that I'd like to highlight, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Does anybody wish to say anything?
MR VISSER IN REPLY: I suppose I have to, Chairperson.
I don't know what Mr Viktor does or did to single out a distinction of being singled out for criticism by Ms Coleridge. I also don't know what the authority of Ms Coleridge is, because there's no victim here who was affected by, on the evidence that we have, by what Mr Viktor did. His evidence was very simple and very clear, "hy was afgedeel", he fell under the orders and under the command of Brig Cronje, Chairperson. I don't know what the mystery is, with great respect.
MACHINE SWITCHED OFF
ON RESUMPTION
CHAIRPERSON: Well that then concludes the hearing. We will reserve our decision, a written decision will be handed down.
I'd like to thank the legal representatives, all of them, for their assistance in this matter. I would also like - is this the end of the roll now, Ms Coleridge?
MS COLERIDGE: That is correct, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: I'd also like to thank everybody who made this hearing possible, caterers, security, sound engineers, etcetera, members of the TRC staff and also to the church for providing us with this very beautiful and convenient venue. It's the first time I've been here and I must say it's very pleasant. Thank you very much. We'll then adjourn now.
MS COLERIDGE: All rise.
HEARING ADJOURNS
