MS LOCKHAT: We call on Mr Joubert.
MR GROBLER: Mr Chairman, I am sorry, I misunderstood which Joubert it would be, is it Gen Joubert?
MS LOCKHAT: That is correct, he is the other applicant, the last applicant.
MR GROBLER: Mr Chairman, I appear for Gen Joubert in this application as well. You will find his application in Bundle 7, pages 1 - 10 and 10.1 - 10.28.
ABRAHAM JOHANNES MOUTON JOUBERT: (sworn states)
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, please proceed.
EXAMINATION BY MR GROBLER: Gen Joubert, I wish to ask of you to have regard for your amnesty application, and with special reference to 4.4.2, that is just so that we can pick up the thread of the story.
MR GROBLER: It would be the hand-written page number, sub-page 22, Mr Chairperson, 10,21.
Gen Joubert, I would just like to return to some point in your evidence, just to pick up the thread again. You have made this statement repeatedly. There was this meeting when you started implementing the Joubert plan, whereby the Ribeiro's, Ntuli and the so-called persons for instant training, had to be identified as targets. Do you recall that?
MR JOUBERT: I confirm Chairperson.
MR GROBLER: And then would you please page further on in your application, and go to paragraph 4.4.1, which you will find on page 10.23, where you start dealing with the Ntuli and Ribeiro's.
Before you start reading General, in the extent of your application before the Committee, you had dealt with the Ntuli's and the Ribeiro's in the same breath and you saw Ntuli as part of the Mamelodi problem?
MR JOUBERT: That is correct Chairperson.
MR GROBLER: If one analyses the evidence now, and read sections of the evidence of Hechter and Cronje, then it is clear that Ntuli was a problem in KwaNdebele and not in Mamelodi, as you have said previously?
ADV DE JAGER: Just for clarity, if persons do not know the area, KwaNdebele is adjacent to Mamelodi.
MR GROBLER: Thank you Chairperson. But with this in mind, do you accept that your impression of him was specifically in Mamelodi, would have been wrong then?
MR JOUBERT: That is positive Mr Chairperson.
MR GROBLER: Gen Joubert, the question regarding the identification was completed, but you had the impression of Ntuli as a member of the ANC and as an activist in the ANC, is that correct?
MR JOUBERT: That is positive Chairperson.
MR GROBLER: Then General, you have heard the evidence here this morning, with regard to what Ntuli had done in KwaNdebele. You have also seen extracts from Brigadier Cronje and Captain Hechter's evidence which serves as Exhibit D before this Committee.
Previously such extracts were read to you, would this information in Exhibit D and as it was placed here this morning, would this be in line with the picture that you had of Mr Ntuli when he was identified as an activist or as a person who was a target?
MR JOUBERT: Chairperson, I worked only with the information that I received from the Commandment and the Security Police. I did not have it in the detail that was put forward here this morning, I accepted that he was an activist and that he was working for the ANC.
MR GROBLER: The point being that what you have heard here this morning, is not different from the image that you had had at that stage from Mr Piet Ntuli?
MR JOUBERT: No, it does not Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: What was there to suggest that he was an ANC activist?
MR GROBLER: Mr Chairman, I am sorry, I did not quite hear you full question.
CHAIRPERSON: What was there to suggest that he was an ANC activist?
MR GROBLER: Mr Chairman, the picture that Gen Joubert had was that he was an ANC activist, that picture from the evidence as we have it now, appears to have been not entirely correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Right, I understand now.
MR GROBLER: But the evidence is in the nature of what Gen Joubert, what his picture was.
JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Mr Grobler, we already have had evidence with regard to the meeting that Gen Joubert attended with Brigadier Moller and Brigadier Cronje, wherein amongst others Ntuli was targeted for elimination.
His impression must have been informed by the discussion that took place at that meeting?
MR GROBLER: That is indeed so Mr Chairman, and that is also his evidence, but may I perhaps refer you to a part of Gen Cronje's evidence.
Mr Chairman, perhaps I should not read all of this back into the record.
CHAIRPERSON: No, don't do that, just refer us to that.
MR GROBLER: On Exhibit D, pages 558 and 559 and again on 569, you will find the evidence of Brigadier Cronje where he said very clearly that Ntuli was in effect doing everything which the ANC wanted to be done. I will at a later stage, the moment that part has not been flagged, show you where he says he believed Ntuli was working for the ANC.
The reason why this evidence is presented at this stage, it is just simply to show you that when Gen Joubert says my impression was that he was a member of the ANC, that he was an activist, there is a basis for me coming to that conclusion, although it may have been wrong.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, in other words, he is not saying that the evidence he had was that this man was an activist, he is saying the impression he had was he was an ANC activist?
MR GROBLER: Yes indeed Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: That is an important difference. Carry on.
MR GROBLER: Gen Joubert, Piet Ntuli was identified as a target at that meeting already, but he was not acted against immediately, to take him out, it took some time?
MR JOUBERT: That is correct Chairperson.
MR GROBLER: And then would you please go to your affidavit, paragraph 4.4.5 and from there you deal in your application with how it happened that Mr Ntuli was eliminated.
MR JOUBERT: Mr Chairperson, right from the start of my application, the operation started flowing. I took note of the Nietverdiendt 10, but besides the incidents here, we were also tasked with other operations, mainly abroad so my attention, I could not focus all of my attention on these operations. I had other operations which I had to co-ordinate and already at this stage, we were busy with a large planning operation.
At some stage of which I cannot recall the date, I was approached by a person whose name I cannot remember, with a request that Special Forces supplies an explosive device to blow up Mr Ntuli.
The request was put to me as a SAP request and because I was under the impression that I had to support the Police, I felt satisfied that the Police, that it would be a South African Police operation and I knew that Ntuli was a key figure in the ANC struggle, and I was satisfied that this would disrupt the ANC and I gave permission that an explosive device would be given to the SAP. I did not want any person of Special Forces involved in this operation, because I was of the opinion that this would be a simple operation that did not need any special abilities. It was not necessary to involve or expose any members of Special Forces.
I did not want any of my persons be involved with the execution of the operation, I did indeed give permission that a member of the South African Police be trained in the use of the device and you did indeed hear during previous evidence about this. I later read in the paper that Ntuli died because of a car bomb. I even heard that Brigadier Cronje had the bomb explode which I heard this morning, was not correct.
Until recently I thought that Ntuli was killed by the explosive device which I gave to the Police, but my attention was drawn to the report of the Harms Commission and it was just by the way that we received this information on page 65, where it would seem that Mr Chris Hani was held responsible for Mr Ntuli's death. I don't know where this comes from.
ADV DE JAGER: But it would seem that this information was wrong, it was wrongly accepted that they had killed him?
MR JOUBERT: And it is clear from this morning as to who killed him.
MR GROBLER: Could I draw your attention to paragraph 4.4.5 if you would page back. The first sentence that you say that somebody approached you with a request that Special Forces had to supply the explosive device, did anything emanate from the evidence this morning to juggle your memory as to who was the person who approached you?
MR JOUBERT: It could have only been one of two persons, it could have been Colonel Verster or Floyd.
MR GROBLER: The long and short thereof is that you cannot recall today exactly who it was?
MR JOUBERT: I cannot be certain if I said who it was.
MR GROBLER: The request at that stage, would this have been a request that was in line with what we could identify as the Joubert plan?
MR GROBLER: Very well, so the request was not strange at that stage?
MR GROBLER: The following that you would have wanted to know was that does the Police have authorisation for this?
MR JOUBERT: I would have been much more satisfied if I knew that the Police had permission and I accepted that they did.
MR GROBLER: Mr Floyd has given evidence here that you made a statement to the effect that you were not sure if the Police had permission or authorisation to carry out this operation, do you recall saying anything to this nature?
MR JOUBERT: Right up until now, before the operation was carried out, the person who was involved had to come to me and give me the assurance that the Police did indeed have permission to continue with their operation. I have said here previously it had come to light that the authorisation or permission for operation by the Police, was not necessarily done at the highest level.
So at which level that permission was given, if such permission was indeed given, that I do not know, but it would seem this morning, that Brigadier Cronje and Brigadier Van Wyk were aware of the situation.
MR GROBLER: And then my question was, do you specifically recall that you had made such a statement to Sergeant Major Floyd?
MR JOUBERT: No, I cannot recall something to that nature.
MR GROBLER: And at this stage you cannot speculate as to why you would have made such a statement?
MR GROBLER: Mr Chairman, may I again have some directions from you. At this stage, this concludes Gen Joubert's evidence regarding the Ntuli matter.
MR GROBLER: I do have some further evidence which I would like him to deal with, which would then really conclude his application in total. Do you wish me now to continue with that, or do you wish me to stop at this stage?
CHAIRPERSON: What does it deal with?
MR GROBLER: This is general information Mr Chairman, it deals with all three the applications before you.
CHAIRPERSON: Is it not covered in the papers before us?
MR GROBLER: To a large extent it is Mr Chairman, and I can deal with it very briefly.
CHAIRPERSON: Just refer us to the relevant pages, refer him to it.
MR GROBLER: General, just to refer to the general aspects of your amnesty application. You have Annexure B, paragraph 1, that would be sub-number page 10, Mr Chairman.
MR GROBLER: Gen Joubert, the entire Annexure B is actually a summary until page 12, of those things which motivated you and the factors, I will repeat myself, the whole paragraph 1, with heading Introduction, deals with these things which motivated you and which reflected your ideas when you devised this plan and when you had to give permission from time to time, for the various things that were done, is that correct?
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Grobler, this is a part of his application, he has confirmed Annexure B under oath. If you could just indicate to us which paragraphs are of relevance, because it has already been confirmed under oath and it won't be any better if he has to confirm it once again.
MR GROBLER: I wasn't certain whether you have it like that.
ADV DE JAGER: Is there anything that he does not want to confirm?
MR GROBLER: No. The rest thereof can be dealt with in argument because then it is evidence before you.
I would just like to refer to one further aspect. In Brigadier Cronje's evidence, one gained the very strong impression that he always fed the identification of targets back to Trevits, are you aware of that?
MR JOUBERT: Yes, I knew of that.
MR GROBLER: You know what Trevits was?
MR JOUBERT: I knew what Trevits was.
MR GROBLER: Chairperson, may I refer you to Bundle 2(I), page 156 - 163. General, I am showing you the documents with the heading The Counter Revolutionary, have you seen that document?
MR GROBLER: Would that be a reasonable version of how Trevits operated?
MR GROBLER: General, in your identification of targets, did you in any way rely on Trevits?
MR JOUBERT: To a certain extent the information from Trevits was used because Trevits had all the information from all the Departments, they sent their information to Trevits where it was consolidated and then with regard to the usual distribution of information, Trevits distributed the information, according to the system to all Departments and then we, on our level, once again evaluated it and it was reconfirmed.
MR GROBLER: Can I put it to you like this, did you see any information from Trevits as an order regarding what was supposed to be done with that information?
MR JOUBERT: No, not at all. Trevits was in no position to issue orders regarding operations to be executed.
MR GROBLER: So, it was always the appropriate or applicable unit's decision as to what to do with this information?
MR JOUBERT: Yes. It was their responsibility to determine what would be done about this information.
MR GROBLER: I have no further questions, thank you Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR GROBLER
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Are there any questions to be put to Gen Joubert?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR COETZEE: If I may pose one or two questions?
MR COETZEE: If I may refer the Committee to Bundle 2(K), it is the evidence that was given during the Armed Forces Hearing on the 8th of October 1997.
Gen Joubert, your evidence appears in this Bundle, on page 67 - 147. Your legal representative submitted a document regarding certain aspects of the Interpretation, which you did not agree with?
MR JOUBERT: Yes, that is correct.
MR COETZEE: With the exception of the singular extracts, do you accept the content of your evidence as represented on these pages, as a correct translation and reflection of what you have said?
MR JOUBERT: Yes, that is correct.
MR COETZEE: I have no further questions at this stage, I just wish to put the following on record. I have arranged with the Evidence Leader that the record of the evidence given during these hearings, is not complete. There are two affidavits that were handed up as an Exhibit during these hearings and I understand that she will make it available to the Committee at a later stage.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.
MR COETZEE: Furthermore I would just like to put on record that I have advised my client for purposes of these proceedings, that any further cross-examination is not relevant and I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR COETZEE
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CILLIERS: I am not formally on record, my name is Cilliers. I am appearing on behalf of Gen Hans Moller, whose name has appeared quite frequently on record. I have a brief examination with your permission.
MR CILLIERS: You have confirmed the record of the proceedings which took place in Cape Town, that is Bundle 2(K) before the Commission, is that correct?
MR JOUBERT: Yes, that is correct.
MR CILLIERS: During those proceedings, it was specifically put to you that Gen Moller denied any knowledge of this identification of targets, and you confirmed that you could at least say that it was somebody from his Commandment and that you could not say specifically that it was Gen Moller specifically who identified these targets, is that correct?
MR JOUBERT: Yes, that is correct.
MR CILLIERS: Do you still confirm that as the truth today?
MR JOUBERT: I cannot say that I will confirm this as the truth. It could just as well be that Gen Moller and members of his staff may have been there, or it can be that members of his staff was there.
MR CILLIERS: Yes, that is correct but the point is that you cannot say that the General had any knowledge of your plan or the identification of targets, you can at least say that you spoke with someone from the Commandment as you said in Cape Town, probably with the Intelligence component of the Commandment.
MR JOUBERT: The point that I would just like to make Honourable Chair, is that Gen Moller was the Commanding General of the Commandment, so he would necessarily have known. What I mean is on a daily basis, he worked with the Security Police.
They held joint information or intelligence meetings. I will not be told that a man like Gen Moller did not know about what was going on.
MR CILLIERS: With all respect General, if you say that he would have known, you can then not say that he did know, you are simply drawing the inference that he should have known?
MR JOUBERT: Yes, that is correct.
MR CILLIERS: In Cape Town, and I can refer you Honourable Chairperson, for your convenience, to page 142 and 143 of his evidence, it was put explicitly to you that Gen Moller denied any knowledge of this, and you confirmed that it could be so and I could read your answer to you if you wished, it appears on page 143.
You give a very long answer, but in the third paragraph you say in other words, we had to obtain this information for the people who possessed that information, and whether it was from Gen Moller or whether it was from his Intelligence Staff, I can't confirm one hundred percent. But the Intelligence did come from his Commandment and from the SAP, that is the short and the long of his story.
That is at least what you could say.
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Cilliers, could I just have some clarity regarding that. I can understand that you are putting to him that Moller didn't know about certain things or whatsoever. Does Moller deny that he ever held a meeting along with Cronje and Joubert?
MR CILLIERS: Gen Moller denies that he ever attended any meeting with anybody during which this so-called plan of elimination of people was discussed.
With special significance for the Ribeiro's, the Ntuli's and the Nietverdiendt 10.
ADV DE JAGER: Does he also deny that he attended meetings during which co-operation between the Police and the Defence Force was discussed, and during which Cronje was present?
MR CILLIERS: Honourable Chair, the incident took place quite some time ago. Gen Moller can by nature of the situation then not remember specifically which meetings he attended and which not.
There were various meetings during which the Security Police was involved, but what he denies specifically is that he had any knowledge of any nature of any planning to murder Dr and Mrs Ribeiro, or the Nietverdiendt 10 or the matter of Ntuli.
He did not attend such a meeting and it is that statement which was made in Cape Town, which was confirmed, which indicates to that possibility.
General, you have heard the discussion between me and the Honourable Adv De Jager, is that correct?
MR JOUBERT: Yes, that is correct.
MR CILLIERS: Do you confirm that in Cape Town you did indeed concede that you could not be able to say that Moller had knowledge of this plan or the identification for that matter?
MR JOUBERT: In Cape Town I stated it expressly that I was not entirely certain.
CHAIRPERSON: I think he has answered the question.
MR CILLIERS: As it pleases you, I don't have any further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CILLIERS
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, may I be afforded the opportunity just to ask one or two questions on the Trevits issue?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: You would have remembered that two of my clients, Brigadier Cronje and Colonel Venter testified about Trevits and there was specific testimony about the identification of targets.
Gen Joubert, do you know the date of the document in Bundle 2(I), page 156? I don't see the date of the document?
ADV DE JAGER: That is the document which according to both sides, is not a complete version and the correctness of which cannot be confirmed?
MR DU PLESSIS: No, I am referring to the document relating to the Counter Revolutionary Intelligence Task Force, that is in Bundle 2(I), do you know the date of this document? It does not appear here?
MR JOUBERT: It simply says Annexure A, relevant information.
MR DU PLESSIS: No, I am simply asking whether or not you know the date of this document?
MR GROBLER: Chairperson, I apologise, perhaps I was the source of this confusion. This document is an extract from a very long set of minutes from a meeting. When I requested it to be included, the rest appeared to be irrelevant to me.
ADV DE JAGER: I think you will have the opportunity over the weekend, to clear this up with Mr Du Plessis and then return to us and tell us what you want from it and what evidence you wish to lead regarding this document. We don't have the time to sort it out right away, if you don't know what you want from the document.
MR GROBLER: It is simply about the date, Chairperson, the content of the document is not really disputable between the two of us.
MR DU PLESSIS: I would just like to know what the source of this document is and at what meeting it emanated.
CHAIRPERSON: We are not concerned really, this is an amnesty application in which we are not concerned with that document really.
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes Mr Chairman, if I can perhaps just explain to you what the problem is what I have and if you feel that this is not the correct forum to address it, then please stop me, then I won't ask further questions.
MR DU PLESSIS: The evidence of Brigadier Cronje in respect of various incidents and of Colonel Venter, was that at Trevits, certain targets were identified as part of the counter revolutionary strategy. That was not the evidence of Gen Joubert, and I wanted to ask Gen Joubert about that and about the functioning of Trevits because it seems that his evidence is directly, contradicts Colonel Venter and Brigadier Cronje's evidence, but that goes much wider than this amnesty applications, I am in your hands.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it does. It does, you know. Is there not a possibility that what we have called the Joubert plan, was a loosely conceived plan which was in operation more or less at that time, among other plans and that it may not have supplemented Trevits or replaced Trevits, but that is hardly an issue that I have to decide here in considering the question whether amnesty should be granted or not.
MR DU PLESSIS: I am in your hands Mr Chairman. The only point I am trying to make is that should this issue perhaps, and I have other applicants who will appear before Amnesty Committees in future, should this issue arise in future, I don't want to be heard to not have said something.
CHAIRPERSON: Then you are on record here, now.
MR DU PLESSIS: As it pleases you Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Are there any other relevant questions that may be put to this witness? Is there any re-examination of this witness?
MR GROBLER: None, thank you Mr Chairman.
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR GROBLER
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Thanks very much. Very well, I think this might be a convenient stage to bring to a close the sittings of this week.
The Committee will adjourn now and resume on Monday morning. Sisi, what time on Monday morning? May we resume on half past nine on Monday morning. Very well, we adjourn now and resume at half past nine on Monday morning.
There was the question of your wishing to address us. Who was it that wanted to address us?
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Wessels, the position is that we cannot allow you to address us now and argue before Mr Van Jaarsveld's evidence has been heard, because his evidence may also be relevant for your clients.
We are prepared to make an exception with regard to you, but this is not an exception for anybody else, that you may submit written argument please, before the end of next week.
MR WESSELS: I am indebted to you.
ADV DE JAGER: But it must be submitted before the end of next week.
MR WESSELS: Yes, we will endeavour to do so over the weekend. Perhaps even before Monday.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, we will now adjourn and resume on Monday morning, at half past nine.