amntrans AMNESTY HEARING 1988-07-30 PRETORIA 9 C S HEYNEKE AM4144/96 https://sabctrc.saha.org.za/hearing.php?id=52769&t=&tab=hearings https://sabctrc.saha.org.za/originals/amntrans/1998/98072031_pre_cosatu9.htm MR VISSER Mr Chairman, Visser on record, there are two witnesses in the same vein. I intend calling Mr Heyneke first, with your permission. You will find his application in volume 2 at page 79, volume 2. C S HEYNEKE (sworn states) Mr Heyneke, you are applying for amnesty for any unlawful deeds or omissions committed by you in relation to a bomb threat at the Highgate Shopping Centre in Roodepoort on the 29th of July 1988? That's correct. MR VISSER That is correct. You say that paragraph 7(a) and (b) on page 79 are not the correct facts and that you indeed were a supporter of the National Party for the greater part of your life? Mr Chairman, on the same basis could we ask for that amendment please in paragraph 7(a) and 7(b), "Nasionale Party" and 7(b) "ondersteun het" and to strike out the words "not applicable", of "nie van toepassing nie"? Thank you, Mr Chairman. You were informed regarding the content of certain documents which have been submitted to the Amnesty Committee, Exhibits P45, 46 and 47, and you request that the content thereof also be incorporated in your application, is that correct? That's correct. You have also been notified regarding the nature and extent of the evidence of ex-Minister Vlok and General Johan van der Merwe which was delivered during this hearing before the Committee, and you also request that that evidence be incorporated with your evidence? That is correct. Your personal particulars have been set out, you were born on the 4th of December 1955 in Johannesburg, you grew up in a conservative family where tasks had to be performed very definitely, your father was a teacher, a school principal and later an inspector of education, and not surprisingly discipline in your household where you grew up was of the utmost importance, is that correct? Yes. Your police career appears on page 79 and goes on till page 85, and it has been briefly summarised. Is it correct that in September 1996, you were put on sick leave for post-traumatic stress disorder? That is correct. And on the 31st of March 1997, with the rank of superintendent, you were declared permanently medically unfit for service in the South African Police Force? That is correct. During the relevant incident, you were stationed at the Security Branch in Krugersdorp? That is correct. Would you briefly tell the Committee what your involvement was? We are aware that General Le Roux has in essence referred to this incident and also described it in essence, but will you proceed to explain your share in the incident? Chairperson, this incident is fully described in the application of J H le Roux and I request that the Committee incorporate that with my application. On the 29th of July 1988, I received an order from General Le Roux, at that stage he was a colonel. At that stage he was the divisional commander of the Security Branch on Krugersdorp. His order to me and Lieutenant Louw, as demolition experts, was to create an explosive device and place it at the Highgate Shopping Centre, or at least to allow for it to be placed there. The action, he told us, was aimed at preventing the screening of a film by the name of Cry Freedom. General Le Roux explained that the order had come from the security head office and that security head office was of the opinion that the screening of the film would influence the climate of unrest and the revolutionary climate at that stage. General Le Roux made it very clear to us in the order that there should be no injury to any person or that no person should be killed and that no damage should be done to property. Your political ideas and opinions appear on page 79 to 85 in volume 2. Briefly, is it your evidence that because of your knowledge of the revolutionary climate which existed during 1988, also on the West Rand, that you had the opinion that anything which would aggravate the revolutionary climate had to be avoided at all costs? Yes, that's correct. And it wouldn't matter what the film was actually about, as long as there was the opinion that it could influence the revolutionary climate, it was your feeling that steps had to be taken to prevent this? That is entirely correct. Was that also the reason why you agreed to execute the order? That's correct. And what did you do then? At that stage we prepared a harmless device, which was obtained from an information sign, it was fake explosives which were completely harmless. This particular explosive, what was it, was it a landmine, was it a mini limpet mine, was it sticks of dynamite? Chairperson, I can't remember exactly what it was, but it certainly wasn't a limpet mine or a landmine, it was definitely some sort of commercial explosive, it could have been dynagel or pethalide(?), it was definitely harmless. We fabricated the device and placed it at the Highgate Shopping Centre, at the cinema, in the toilet. Lieutenant Louw later contacted me via radio and told me that everything was ready, that he had completed his task. From a public telephone box I made a call to the cinema and made a bomb threat. After that, the police called me by radio to the cinema with a message that there was an explosive device in the theatre, that it had been found in the theatre. Upon my arrival at the theatre, this so-called explosive device was pointed out to me by uniformed policemen. So the situation here, if one had to speculate, was the following: you make a bomb threat phone call and the theatre management contacts the police, and the police in uniform go to the scene and you were also called. Upon your arrival there, a person from the police uniform branch points out the bomb to you? That's correct. What happened subsequently? I dragged the so-called explosive device outside with a piece of rope, the area had been cordoned off. Why did you go through the action of dragging the device out with a piece of rope? That was the usual procedure and because there may possibly have been people who could see me from a distance and I wanted to ensure that there be no idea that the device may have been harmless. So you were trying to create the impression that this was a real device. What happened then? I took it to the parking area, which had been cordoned off, there were no vehicles parked there. However, there was a lot of construction materials and a large heap of sand. And you then planted the device along with something else in the heap of sand? That's correct, I took the device and buried it very low in the sand, as well as a thunder flash along with it. Would you explain to the Committee and other members what exactly a thunder flash is? It is a type of explosive device. However, it's not the sort of instrument which could hurt somebody unless it would be restricted. We used it to simulate explosions. You said that there was no risk of injury or death or any damage to any property? Absolutely not. That's correct. If a docket had been opened later and you made statements which were false or in any other way resulted in covering up the involvement of the police, you are simultaneously also asking for amnesty? That is correct. Ja, it's stating the obvious, I suppose, this thunder flash, did you allow it to simulate an explosion in the sand? That's correct. I simply did that by means of electrical control. Thank you, Mr Chairman. ADV MPSHE I'm sorry, Mr Chairman, no questions. NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV MPSHE