CHAIRPERSON: We are going to hear the evidence with regards to the application for amnesty in connection with the attack on the house of Scheepers Morudi. The Committee remains the same. I would ask the legal representatives to place themselves on record.
MR ALBERTS: As it pleases you Mr Chairman, George Alberts Counsel on behalf of two applicants, Momberg and Goosen, instructed by Attorneys Weavind & Weavind.
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, Roelof du Plessis. I act on behalf of Jacques Hechter and Brigadier Jack Cronje in this matter, on instructions of Strydom Britz Attorneys.
ADV STEENKAMP: Thank you Mr Chairman, I am Andre Steenkamp, I am the Evidence Leader only at this moment.
MR ALBERTS: The first applicant is Mr Momberg.
JOHANNES MOMBERG: (sworn states)
CHAIRPERSON: There are apparently no victims in this matter, there is certainly none present here today.
ADV STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, there are victims indeed, but they are not present today at all.
CHAIRPERSON: They have been notified?
ADV STEENKAMP: Correct Mr Chairman.
EXAMINATION BY MR ALBERTS: Thank you Mr Chairman. The relevant application is contained in Bundle 3, Mr Chairman. Mr Momberg, your application for amnesty is contained in Bundle 3 before the Committee, is that correct?
MR ALBERTS: This first introductory part is contained from page 553 up to page 581, is that correct?
MR ALBERTS: At this time we know that you are well aware of its content, do you confirm the correctness of the contents?
MR MOMBERG: I confirm the correctness of the contents.
MR ALBERTS: And then your application regarding this specific incident is from page 637 to 645, is that correct?
I beg your pardon, I am sorry, I have the wrong page? Excuse me Mr Chairman, I had a marker here and it seems that I am guilty of having moved that myself. Thank you Mr Momberg, it is from page 605 to 612?
MR MOMBERG: That is correct Mr Chairman.
MR ALBERTS: Broadly spoken, do you confirm the correctness of the contents?
MR ALBERTS: And then lastly also for formality sake, the last part of your application on page 646 up to page 650?
MR MOMBERG: That is correct Mr Chairman.
MR ALBERTS: Do you confirm the correctness of that?
MR MOMBERG: That is correct Mr Chairman.
MR ALBERTS: Can we turn back to page 605 of your application. In your application it is indicated that this incident took place during the period January to April 1986?
MR MOMBERG: Mr Chairman, yes, that is contained in my application but it was brought under my attention that it happened early in 1987 and not in 1986.
MR ALBERTS: When did you realise that?
MR MOMBERG: Today Mr Chairman.
MR ALBERTS: And on the basis of what?
MR MOMBERG: My legal representative told me that he saw documentation regarding the application of Brigadier Van der Walt in which the correct and precise dates were mentioned.
MR ALBERTS: I just want to put it straight Mr Momberg, this documentation you are referring to regarding Brigadier Van der Walt's application, is not the application itself, because in his application he indicates the date as being the end of 1987, but how it may be, we will clear that up later. And you say this incident took place in Mamelodi East and more specifically south of Samaya Street, is that correct?
MR ALBERTS: From your account of this relevant incident, you received instruction from Lieutenant Hechter to assist him on a specific day with an operation, is that correct?
MR MOMBERG: That is correct, yes.
MR ALBERTS: And at that stage, it became clear that Goosen would also be involved?
MR MOMBERG: That is correct yes.
MR ALBERTS: Can you remember what time of the day more or less, did Hechter approach you?
MR MOMBERG: Mr Chairman, according to my recollection, it was just after lunch. I assume it was round about half past one, two o'clock.
MR ALBERTS: So it was early in the afternoon?
MR ALBERTS: And then you say later that same afternoon, is that correct, Hechter approached you again?
MR MOMBERG: Just before four o'clock that afternoon Hechter discussed this with me again.
MR ALBERTS: This was just before you official service expired, the times of service and that evening all the people involved met and as it seemed to me, you met at the Compol building is that correct?
MR MOMBERG: In the parking area we met.
MR ALBERTS: It was Hechter, Goosen, Sergeant Joe Mamasela and another person?
MR MOMBERG: That is correct, yes.
MR ALBERTS: Can you remember at all who this other person was?
MR MOMBERG: Mr Chairman, no. During my application, when I made my application, I thought about this matter, I discussed it with Mr Goosen but it was one of those things that I can't explain, I cannot remember who was there that evening, who else was there.
MR ALBERTS: And from there you went to Mamelodi, is that correct?
MR ALBERTS: And on your way according to your affidavit, it seems that you were given some background information regarding the nature of the operation and who the target was, is that correct?
MR ALBERTS: And it seems that the target was the house of Scheepers Morudi?
MR MOMBERG: That is correct Mr Chairman. We knew him, we knew him as Scheepers Morudi and in the meanwhile it was brought under my attention from his own evidence before the Commission that his surname is actually Morudi.
MR ALBERTS: At the bottom of page 606 and in the first paragraph on page 607, you indicate the political involvement of Morudi. Do you confirm the correctness of this statement?
MR MOMBERG: Yes, this was what was conveyed to me by Hechter at that stage.
MR ALBERTS: In the following paragraph on page 607, you say that Mamasela was up to date with Morudi's situation and it was conveyed to you that Morudi was not expected to be at home that evening?
MR MOMBERG: That is correct Mr Chairman.
MR ALBERTS: Who conveyed this information to you?
MR MOMBERG: Mr Chairman, according to me, this information came from Mamasela. It was reported to Lieutenant Hechter.
MR ALBERTS: To which Unit was Mamasela attached in the Security Branch Northern Transvaal?
MR MOMBERG: Unit B, Mr Chairman.
MR ALBERTS: And in which area did Mamasela operate with reference to the greater Pretoria?
MR MOMBERG: His main target area was Mamelodi. Sometimes he worked in other areas, but his main target area was Mamelodi.
MR ALBERTS: And then you also say that based on this information conveyed to you, you drew the inference that this attack was aimed to achieve the intimidation of Morudi and his hangers on, is that correct?
MR MOMBERG: That is correct Mr Chairman.
MR ALBERTS: Let us continue from there. When you arrived there, you stopped a little way from the house and you, Goosen, Hechter and Mamasela were carrying petrol bombs and you approached the house?
MR ALBERTS: You and Goosen stood in front of the kitchen window and Hechter and Mamasela was standing in front of the lounge window, is that correct?
MR ALBERTS: And then these two so-called teams hurled the bombs into the house?
MR ALBERTS: As you explain on page 608 and further on?
MR ALBERTS: And you returned then to the Compol building?
MR ALBERTS: And your instructions regarding the execution of this operation, came from Lieutenant Hechter?
MR MOMBERG: That is correct yes.
MR ALBERTS: He was the senior Officer there?
MR ALBERTS: You also mention that you have no doubt at all that Brigadier Cronje approved this operation?
MR MOMBERG: That is correct Mr Chairman. According to what I know, Lieutenant Hechter executed or discussed rather all his operations with Cronje. Sometimes it could not have been so, but at that stage I was under the impression that all the operations were cleared out with Cronje.
MR ALBERTS: Lastly a certain part on 609 you say that no lives were lost or no injuries were sustained during this incident. Is this factually still the position, what is your attitude in this regard?
MR MOMBERG: Unfortunately this is not the position any more. After my legal representative received these documents regarding our appearance here, it was brought under my attention that during that attack, a child was killed.
MR ALBERTS: Do you know who that child is?
MR MOMBERG: According to what I know, it was a cousin of Scheepers Morudi or rather a niece of Morudi.
MR ALBERTS: Can you explain to the Committee why this fact was not brought under your attention at that stage?
MR MOMBERG: As already testified during previous applications, we were members of Unit A, we were not involved with the daily monitoring of activists in the black townships and as such, after these type of operations, we did not receive full feedback and we did not try or attempt to find out this information, it was Hechter's responsibility. According to what I have heard, this target Scheepers Morudi became an informer for Unit B later on, but that was only brought under my attention later on.
MR ALBERTS: And after he had become an informer at Unit B, could that not have perhaps conveyed this information that there had been this terrible result of your operation?
MR MOMBERG: No, based on the fact that informants are not so-called advertised. The informer's personal circumstances will not be discussed with anybody.
MR MALAN: How did you know that he had become an informer?
MR MOMBERG: It was brought under my attention later on.
MR MOMBERG: That happened when I made this application, when I initially handed in my application, then I only heard that he had become an informer.
MR MALAN: If I have read your application, you said you remembered his name because he was known as an informer?
MR ALBERTS: You are referred to page 606 of your application, that is the last paragraph.
MR MOMBERG: Mr Chairman, I say I remember him because he became an informer later on. I remember the name Scheepers Morudi. It is not a usual, a common name. And I have added here, perhaps I should have said and he became an informer later on. What I actually meant was what I remember well is the name Scheepers Morudi because that was sometimes a point of discussion of where these people's names came from.
MR MALAN: You only heard about this when you compiled your application?
MR MOMBERG: Yes Mr Chairman. Can I just qualify, the fact that he had become an informer, that I only learned when I made my application, the name I had known all the time.
MR ALBERTS: So at that stage the fact that there had been such an informer with a specific name, did you not attack to this specific incident, is that so or am I wrong?
MR MOMBERG: Mr Chairman, no. This attack and the person I knew those two were attached or were linked and that I indicated during my application. But I am experiencing a problem that should not be linked to the fact that during my application only, I found out that he was an informer.
MR ALBERTS: When did you become an Inspector of explosives?
MR ALBERTS: Now during this incident you were one of the people who acted in that capacity at the Security Branch?
MR ALBERTS: You had an above average knowledge regarding bombs and other explosive devices?
MR MOMBERG: That is correct Mr Chairman.
MR ALBERTS: In this case you threw home made petrol bombs. Can you give an indication to the committee of what you foresaw would happen based on this attack?
MR MOMBERG: Mr Chairman, seen in the light of the information to our disposal, we expected the house to be burnt down.
MR ALBERTS: And if I understand you correctly, that was the purpose and the purpose was to intimidate Morudi and also those people or his hangers on?
MR ALBERTS: Did you foresee the possibility like we know today that there would be people in that house who could be injured?
MR MOMBERG: Yes Mr Chairman, one should foresee such a possibility during such an attack, but at that stage I thought it was in order for Mamasela to report that the house was empty at four o'clock during the afternoon and our operation was executed at eleven o'clock. But it crossed my mind that somebody could have come home in the meanwhile, but that was not Mamasela's information.
MR ALBERTS: If you have this at the back of your mind that this could happen, then you have the choice that you can withhold this type of action or you can agree with that. Did you as a Policeman have that type of choice at that stage?
MR MOMBERG: No, I acted under instructions.
MR ALBERTS: So whether you wanted to or not, you did reconcile yourself with the realisation of the possibility you foresaw?
MR ALBERTS: A last question Mr Momberg - we know now that somebody, possibly a child, I can't say what the age was, was a victim of this attack. This child lost his or her life because of this operation. What is your honest feeling today with hindsight regarding that consequence of your actions?
MR MOMBERG: Mr Chairman, a lot has been said about an unofficial war and all kinds of terminology was used, but no normal person would wage war against a child, and it is not easy for anybody to say that you have killed a child. Many of us have our own children and had I known that evening that there were children in the house, I would have rather taken the anger of the Police than be involved in something like that.
JUDGE PILLAY: (Microphone not on)
MR MOMBERG: Mr Chairman, that happened after eleven o'clock that evening.
JUDGE PILLAY: Did you expect that there would be children inside the house?
MR MOMBERG: Hechter told us that that evening and that target was chosen so that nobody would be present, I assume Hechter based his decision on Mamasela's information.
JUDGE PILLAY: Were there no lights on in the house?
MR ALBERTS: Thank you Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR ALBERTS
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: May I proceed, thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Momberg, just one or two questions. I just want to get clarity.
JUDGE PILLAY: Mr Du Plessis, I just want to interrupt, sorry. Mr Momberg, do you know what the name of that child was?
MR MOMBERG: No Chairperson. My information is that it was Scheepers Morudi's niece.
JUDGE PILLAY: Is that the best that we can do at this stage, that it was just a niece? Is that the best we can do till now?
JUDGE PILLAY: Sorry Mr Du Plessis.
MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Momberg, I just want to have clarity on your evidence. As you understood it, that night and the time that you would be there, no one would be at home?
MR DU PLESSIS: That was your information that Captain Hechter conveyed to you?
MR DU PLESSIS: So your attitude at that stage was that you accepted that the information might have been wrong, but the chance of that was very slim, you accepted that the information was correct and there was no one at home?
MR MOMBERG: That is correct Mr Chairman.
MR DU PLESSIS: Was there any sign at the house that might have indicated that someone could have been present in the house?
MR MOMBERG: No Chairperson, I can remember well because the window where I and Sergeant Goosen was, was half in the drive way to the house, there weren't vehicles, there were no lights in the house, there was no sign of life.
MR DU PLESSIS: That is what I actually wanted to ask, wasn't there a vehicle parked next to the house?
MR DU PLESSIS: Did Captain Hechter tell you what Morudi was involved in?
MR MOMBERG: Yes Chairperson, he gave me a general explanation but he did say that that man was a hardened UDF activist in Mamelodi, that he was involved in various actions, boycott actions and those types of things, where he organised people to take part in these types of things, and enforced it. And then also that Morudi previously had been involved in petrol bomb attacks.
MR DU PLESSIS: And you testified that you specifically used a petrol bomb and not an explosive bomb?
MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS
MR NIEMAN: Chairperson, with your permission I would just like to put it on record as the representative of Brigadier Van de Wall, the other applicant in this matter. For the record, I am P.J. Nieman of Nieman and Swart Attorneys in Pretoria. My telephone number is 322 2057, thank you Chairperson. I have no questions to this witness.
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR NIEMAN
ADV STEENKAMP: I've got no questions, thank you Mr Chairman.
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV STEENKAMP
MR ALBERTS: I have no re-examination, thank you Mr Chairman.