amntrans AMNESTY HEARINGS 1997-02-27 PRETORIA 4 GENERAL VAN DER MERWE https://sabctrc.saha.org.za/hearing.php?id=54893&t=&tab=hearings https://sabctrc.saha.org.za/originals/amntrans/pta/pta.htm JUDGE MALL: Are we ready, gentlemen? ADV MPSHE: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, it is 27th February 1997, continuation in the matter, Mr Chairman, as agreed yesterday that we will first start with the evidence or questioning of General van der Merwe, he is herein present Mr Chairman. GENERAL JOHAN VAN DER MERWE: (sworn states) JUDGE MALL: You gave evidence in this matter on a previous occasion and at the request of counsel, further questioning of you was reserved and, you are here this morning to make yourself available to deal with such questions as are relevant that are going to be put to you. GEN V/D MERWE: I am at your disposal Mr Chairman. JUDGE MALL: Mr Currin. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CURRIN: Thank you, Mr Chairman. General van der Merwe, you will recall that during your evidence-in-chief a lot was said about so-called preemptive attacks, and these I am referring particularly to the unlawful preemptive attacks that have been referred to by the applicants in this particular matter. Would you please clarify for us what the SAP policy was in regard to preemptive attacks by the security forces and if you are in a position to do so, whether you can tell us what the government policy was with regard to preemptive attacks? GEN V/D MERWE: I would just like to differentiate, Mr Chairman, between the internal and external activities. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR CURRIN 233 GEN V/D MERWE Firstly, as far as internal activities are concerned there was no policy either from the side of the government or from the side of the police as far as preemptive attacks are concerned. Incidents which did occur, occurred on an ad hoc basis against the background which I attempted to sketch to you, honourable Chairman, taking into consideration all the facts which were relevant and all the considerations which members had to operate under the circumstances. As far as external activities were concerned there was also no policy. The government as far as external activities were considered did this in terms of the international law and with the determined circumstances at hand which had to be considered at that point. There was a general approach that we, as far as threats in neighbouring countries were concerned, would act in order to combat potential threats and where necessary persons who according to our information were ready to come into the country to come and kill anyone, to commit any form of terrorism to eliminate such persons. MR CURRIN: It would seem that from the evidence submitted by the applicants a perception existed in their minds that there was a policy and a general instruction and a general authorisation to undertake unlawful preemptive action. Do you have anything to say about that perception? GEN V/D MERWE: Yes, Honourable Chairman. If a person bears in mind that for all practical purposes we find ourselves in a war situation where members of particularly the South African Police, but the Defence Force in general, were exposed to attacks and organisations such as the ANC policies were that where they got the opportunity to shoot these persons or whichever other way they could, they could find to eliminate these people. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR CURRIN 234 GEN V/D MERWE Secondly, if you should look at certain ad hoc incidents where there was government permission granted, in other cases where with the permission of higher authorities certain acts were performed or not necessarily under the circumstances which prevailed at the time were not illegal, but at the time which is now the question of amnesty, but I think to the ordinary person who had the privilege to be involved in these discussions at a higher level and was exposed to political speeches and who had authority and who created the impression that the enemy should be eliminated at all costs, it is possible that such an impression could have been created. MR CURRIN: Would that include divisional commissioners, for example we have heard from the previous divisional commissioner of the Northern Transvaal that that was his perception, is he also a "gewone man"? GEN V/D MERWE: Yes, these are persons who were not necessarily directly involved in the State Security Council and the different committees of the State Security Council and who at that level always assumed how these things should be approached. MR CURRIN: Are you then saying that that perception which existed in the minds of very, very senior police officers, from your view was both understandable and justifiable? GEN V/D MERWE: In the extraordinary circumstances which prevailed your Honourable Chairman, I say yes. MR CURRIN: Would you agree that the government, certainly the cabinet, the relevant Ministers played a significant role in contributing towards that perception by not making strong statements against some of the things which were in fact happening, and by some of the speeches which were made PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR CURRIN 235 GEN V/D MERWE on television, radio etc. GEN. V/D MERWE: Honourable Chairman, it is very difficult to generalise. You know when one applies such a point of view to the whole government it is not necessarily applicable to all the members, but in certain instances, the way I saw the circumstances, I would say yes. MR CURRIN: If that is the case, and here we are talking about the perception to commit unlawful preemptive assaults, attacks, would you agree with me that in contributing towards that perception or that contribution towards that perception would be tantamount to implied authority? GEN V/D MERWE: Honourable Chairman, I think that would be taking it a bit too far. One has to bear in mind that persons who made these utterances and who occasionally were involved in certain incidents from the side of the government, also saw it in the light that these particular incidents and I do not think it would be appropriate or it would be fair to the previous government to generalise and to say that from their side there was an indifferent approach and in that manner there was permission granted for these type of acts. MR CURRIN: Are you therefore saying, do I understand you to be saying then, that in spite of the fact that the perception was there and was partially as result of omissions or actions by government, when such unlawful preemptive acts were committed by security force members, there was no authority to commit them, either express or implied? GEN V/D MERWE: What I mean by that is that the previous government chose to grant permission silently without saying anything but if you are looking at the members who were PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR CURRIN 236 GEN V/D MERWE involved and asking what their perception was, you would say that they obviously believed that they were acting in the interests of the previous government. I do not think that one could put the two on the exact same footing or have the same approach. MR CURRIN: The difficulty I am grappling with and ...(intervention) JUDGE MALL: When you say that the government gave permission silently, are you saying that after the event the government approved of what was done, is that what you are tying to convey? GEN. V/D MERWE: No, Mr Chairman. What I would like to concede here is that as a result of statements which were made by members of the previous regime as result of certain limited incidents, where members of the previous regime were involved, which are regarded as illegal under the present circumstances and which amnesty is being applied for, to the ordinary man and when I refer to the "ordinary man" I am referring to people who were not directly involved, a perception could have evolved that the act which he committed bore the approval of the government, but not necessarily that the government in some way or another came to know about it and silently approved of it or omitted, deliberately omitted, to take any steps and in that way identified with that. ADV DE JAGER: And if the government or a member of the government gives, awards a medal for an incident or involvement in an incident, would you consider that to be approval? GEN V/D MERWE: As far as I know, Honourable Chairman, it applies to external activities which I am aware of, that PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR CURRIN 236 GEN V/D MERWE goes without saying where, even where the previous government in some or other way was aware of the actual circumstances it was not necessarily true that they approved of it. MR CURRIN: I am still not absolutely sure of the answer to this question which I understand is a difficult one because there was no policy. JUDGE MALL: Well, are you merely dealing with perceptions, perceptions in whose mind? In the mind of the perpetrators or in the mind of the victims? MR CURRIN: Well, I am trying to establish whether or not there was authority, either implied or expressed in regard to some of the Acts which were committed and I am having specific reference to the provisions of the Act. One of the factors obviously which will be taken into consideration by your Committee, Mr Chairman, is the question of authority, and clearly on behalf of the victims we need to know whether the acts which were committed against the victims for whom we appear, did have the authority. JUDGE MALL: Now I understand that I am not clear in my mind whether your questions relate to perceptions that may be in the minds of victims that so and so had authority or did not have authority. Or perceptions in the minds of the perpetrators who believe that they may have had authority. If you clear that up maybe we will make progress. MR CURRIN: Yes, sure, okay. We are referring to the perceptions in the minds of the applicants, the perpetrators. What we are trying to gather here, what I am trying to get on behalf of the victims is - and I will deal specifically with the various cases in a short while, where a - let's take for example one particular case, Sergeant PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR CURRIN 237 GEN V/D MERWE Mutasi who was killed by security policemen as well as his wife, on information which was given to them that he was giving information to the ANC. They took it upon themselves to murder, to kill him and his wife. Can it be said in a situation like that, which is clearly a preemptive attack, preemptive unlawful killing that they had authorisation to do that, and that you as the - well at that stage I think you were the Commissioner at that stage, it was in 1989 or no, you were the Deputy Commissioner at that stage, whether you in fact at least by implication authorised an act of that nature? ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I am sorry, may I come in here. The question was phrased by Mr Currin from a specific point of view, evidence has not been lead in that matter. And I want to state here on record that the applicants' version of the facts of what happened there differs slightly from what Mr Currin stated to the General. JUDGE MALL: I think you may formulate a question differently. So the evidence relating to Mutasi has not yet been led and he may or may not be aware of that specific instance. Now you might be asking him questions on matters ...(intervention) MR CURRIN: I understand. Let's look for example then at the matter of the Nietverdiend attack on the vehicle in which there were a number of young ANC activists. They were led to believe that they were to be taken out for training. In a way, according to the evidence, one could say that a trap was set for them.They gathered at a house, they were enticed into a kombi, into a vehicle, and they were driven out towards the border and in Bophuthatswana they were killed preemptively, without having actually yet done anything, PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR CURRIN 238 GEN V/D MERWE committed any acts of violence. Could one say that they did that with the authorisation of the South African Police force and the government of the day? GEN V/D MERWE: Chairman, once again, and I have attempted to explain it as such, it depends on what their perceptions were, in the mind of the person who was involved. Against the background of all the circumstances which prevailed at the time certain Acts which did take place with the permission of the government and also certain utterances which may have been made by members of the previous regime. I would like to answer that by saying that if a person was to judge it objectively, then it definitely did not bear that approval. If one was to look at it subjectively from the point of view of the person who committed the act, my opinion would be that that person believed that in the light of other similar instances could be regarded in a similar light that he was still busy acting within the permission, so there was implied permission granted although there was not expressed permission granted. MR CURRIN: Surely the question of authority, even if it is implied authority or ...(indistinct) authority, doesn't depend on the mind of the perpetrator, doesn't it depend on the mind of the principle? GEN V/D MERWE: Yes under normal circumstances. Here we were in a combat situation. I do not think that one could consider dealings which happened under those circumstances as compared to what happened under normal circumstances and also the reaction of persons under normal circumstances. But you are correct, under normal circumstances it would obviously have been, it would have been like that, but here were dealing with abnormal circumstances. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR CURRIN 238 GEN V/D MERWE JUDGE WILSON: You talk about abnormal circumstances, are these what you have set out in your submissions in paragraph 18, page 22? You refer to the prevailing circumstances, the lowering of the morale of the community and the security forces and the belief that the enemy had to be destroyed no matter what, and that this was aggravated to a great extent by speeches and pronouncements made by certain people and the police who were emotionally involved, or the - sorry it's not - the security forces who were emotionally involved were just not able to distinguish between what was normally justifiable and what was not. That is the position you are talking about? GEN V/D MERWE: That is correct, Mr Chairman. Thank you very much. MR CURRIN: I understand your evidence then to be that to the extent that there may have been implied authority, depending on the circumstances, there was certainly no general authority giving the security police carte blanche to go out and to kill and to commit unlawful Acts according to a whim or a feeling at a particular time? GEN V/D MERWE: That is correct, Mr Chairman. ADV DE JAGER: General, if a member of the previous regime were to say make a public statement to the affect that the movements, let's say the - should eliminate the ANC or PAC, what did you understand by that and what do you think the perception would be of ordinary members of the police? GEN V/D MERWE: Mr Chairman, I myself was in a fortunate position where I had a liaison with the members of the previous regime in the structures which determined the various actions, so I would have had a better understanding, but I have no doubt in my mind that the ordinary person, and PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR CURRIN 239 GEN V/D MERWE by this I am referring to the lay-person who was not involved in this situation by that have understood that action should be taken at all costs to combat illegal or violent acts on the regime, on the government of the day. MR CURRIN: What I am trying to now understand and maybe you can help me General, is in a way you are saying that one has to take into consideration the subjective mind of the policemen at the time, the perpetrator, the circumstances that prevailed, what had been said by politicians at around about that time, and weigh up his actions in that context, there are many uncertainties around that as far as I am concerned. Were there any implied guidelines, any criteria that you can possibly refer to which would help us to understand when a security policeman in that situation is going beyond implied authority that there may have been. Is there anything that you can help us to identify those sorts of guidelines that you think would have been there by implication? GEN V/D MERWE: Mr Chairman, definitely not. Over and above saying to you that in all circumstances one was to consider what the exceptional approach would be of a certain member and what made him act like that because as I said to you there was no policy. There was never any form of permission granted. All I was trying to sketch to you was the factors which lead members to believe that certain things which they did were in the interests of the structure of which they were serving. MR CURRIN: I am going to move off that theme now and go onto another one. The unlawful attacks that I have been referring to, very often after having committed an attack of that nature, we have heard about bombings of - petrol PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR CURRIN 240 GEN V/D MERWE bombings of houses which were committed by the security police and then the impression was created that that attack was actually committed by the African National Congress or another liberation movement, was it government policy or police policy to do that? GEN V/D MERWE: Definitely not, Mr Chairman. As I have already explained there was no policy from the police or the government. MR CURRIN: Not in regard to the attack but in regard to creating the impression that in fact it was the ANC that committed that particular attack? GEN V/D MERWE: Definitely not, Mr Chairman, because in order to do that would have meant that necessarily that the government or the authority had to have had knowledge of how those acts were to have taken place and that was not the case. MR CURRIN: I assume there is no record or information anywhere which would help us to know how many of those attacks which were laid at the door of the liberation movement were actually committed by the security forces? GEN V/D MERWE: Mr Chairman, I think as the duties of this Committee proceed it would indeed be a very good version. There are also attempts being made on our part to assist this Committee in that regard and I think that as soon as it has been completed that there will be a very good indication to that affect. ADV DE JAGER: General, just to try and clear up this point. You say that there was no such policy but that you personally were involved in the Zero Handgrenade attacks. How do you explain your action if it was not with the permission or under which circumstances would you be able to PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR CURRIN 240 GEN V/D MERWE justify that? GEN V/D MERWE: Mr Chairman here we spoke generally about general policy. I initially said that there were certain acts which took place with the permission of the previous regime and that those very acts contributed to the perception which existed in the minds of the workers with regards to such acts, but in each case where there was such a doing we took all circumstances into consideration and we tried to explain it as fully as possible to you why we did it that way. MR CURRIN: Following up from that question, in your evidence, I think you referred to two incidents of which you are aware, one is the Zero Handgrenade attack and the other was the attack on Zozo house, which were both preemptive, unlawful attacks, as we are referring to them at the moment, are those the only two specific cases of which you have knowledge? GEN V/D MERWE: No, Mr Chairman, the only reason why I mentioned these two incidents to this Committee was to give you a background around the perceptions which existed and to shed more light on that, those are not the only two incidents there are more incidents in which I was involved. MR CURRIN: And those other matters in which you were involved, and I don't want to get into this because I know that you have yourself brought an amnesty application, and in fairness I appreciate that one would want to, you would want to deal with your own amnesty application in your own time, but having said that, may I assume that you will be referring to those other incidents when you bring your own amnesty application? GEN V/D MERWE: That is correct, Mr Chairman. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR CURRIN 241 GEN V/D MERWE MR CURRIN: If the Committee would - I am not going to ask any more questions about that. I would now like us to talk about the State Security Council and we would like as detailed information as possible from you, on the workings of the State Security council, how it featured politically and with regard to power and in regard to instructions and the whole question of instructions and line of command from, for example, if one were to go down from a Divisional Commissioner to the Commissioner to the Minister and then to the State Security Council, how that line of command actually functioned and possibly fill us in on that? Thank you. GEN V/D MERWE: Honourable Chairman, I am going to try my best but I would like to tell you from the word go that the State Security Council with all its structures formed the concept of M- dealings(?)(indelings)? and I am going to try and give it to you as briefly as possible where I was involved. I might say to you that it may not be complete and it may not be completely correct because from time to time there were many changes made to the structure, but to the best of my ability I will attempt to assist you. ADV DE JAGER: General, you refer to M-dealings (indelings)? to dissertations, could you just refer to an authority in this regard? ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, perhaps I can help you there, I am in possession of Prof van der Merwe's Doctorate thesis which is a document of approximately 300 pages when I was of the opinion that I together with - I would deal with it with Captain van Jaarsveld and I have already given it to him and if the Committee would like I would make it available to the Committee, Mr Chairman. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR CURRIN 242 GEN V/D MERWE JUDGE MALL: I think that when you are preparing that if it is possible to prepare what is called an "organogram" setting out the structures. ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Chairman, we have various organograms in respect of various phases of the period, so we are compiling that information, we will make it available to you. JUDGE MALL: Thank you very much and I say that because it might avoid the necessity of calling a host of other witnesses on that matter. ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, that is why it was important to call Captain van Jaarsveld, he will be able to give evidence about that whole issue. JUDGE MALL: Thank you. GEN V/D MERWE: Honourable Chairman, I am going to explain the dealings of the State Security Council before 1990 because after 1990 there were certain changes and if you are interested in that, those were merely technical changes, I might be able to inform you there as well. Before 1990 the State Security Council was self-existent out of these the State President, the Minister of Defence, the Minister previously of Police and thereafter of Law and Order, Minister of Justice, Minister of Foreign Affairs and occasionally the Minister of Finance and the Minister of State Expenditure would be there as the State President deemed necessary. ADV DE JAGER: That was a bit fast as my colleague indicated, were there five permanent members? GEN V/D MERWE: There was the State President, the Minister of Defence, Minister of Law and Order, previously the Minister of Police, the Minister of Justice and the Minister PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR CURRIN 242 GEN V/D MERWE of Foreign Affairs, they were permanent members and occasionally the Minister of Constitutional Development, I don't know if he became a permanent member but he and the Minister of Finance eventually were there and other members according to who the State President deemed necessary and also the heads of the different departments. The State Security Council in turn had a Secretariat. This Secretariat had various committees and I think the committees whose dealings would be of interest to you and in whose dealings I would go into at length would be the Strategic Committee which dealt with various incidents with regard to certain matters. Then the Security Council had another committee, a Management Committee at divisional level where the heads of the departments and heads of the Defence Force served. I would say the Divisional Heads and other persons and it was further divided into branches with management centres where other members served at a lower level. The State Security Council itself determined policy as far as defence was concerned, took decisions which were of National interest, which by way of the ministers involved and various departments would be executed via those departments. The Executive - the system was under a Minister who also reported directly to the Council from time to time and they served in a purely coordinational function. There were also various departments who contributed to the security situation and in that way brought them together and planned these things together and also would coordinate actions which were to take place. But all instructions were done via the departments in their own systems. As far as the joint management committee there was no authority to issue PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR CURRIN 243 GEN V/D MERWE instructions, so it was merely coordinational. And when it came to policy and the execution of policy the State Security Council, in the light of information which was received from all the other committees, would determine the instruction and the policy and the department heads in their turn would execute these instructions through the departments. There was also the Coordinating Information Committee. The chairperson was also a permanent member of the State Security Council. Previously it was Dr Neil Barnard and the coordinator was - the coordinators consisted of the various of the heads of the various information committees which in those days were the National Intelligence and Military Intelligence and Foreign Affairs who also had an informatory role, and in their turn they would also contribute to what was submitted to the State Security Council to consider and also determine policy and decide which steps should be taken in the interest of National Security. MR CURRIN: When you talk about taking a decision on policy and steps that need to be taken in the interests of State Security, are you referring to, for example, a decision as to whether the emergency regulations should be extended, is it that type of a policy decision? GEN V/D MERWE: Ja, that is correct, Mr Chairman. Inter alia it included other aspects such as when there was a specific area where there was unrest and it could overflow into other areas and cause a nationwide unrest situation, then it would be such a situation where there had to be decisions taken. MR CURRIN: Now, that's a general decision. What about specific issues? We have heard evidence, for example, that Trivets which has been referred to fairly extensively, would PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR CURRIN 244 GEN V/D MERWE have discussions they would identify targets, they would then implement action against a particular target, but that those decisions to implement were done with the knowledge of the State Security Council because there was a referral upwards through the Divisional Commissioner, through the Commissioner to the Minister and then to the State Security Council, could you tell us whether that is in fact how it operated? GEN V/D MERWE: Mr Chairman, I have already, in my evidence- in-chief testified about Trivets. It was a Committee which was under the control of the Coordinating Information Committee and Trivets duty, I would like to repeat that for your information, Trivets duty was, inter alia, to identify targets that were threatening in surrounding areas and also work out ways of combatting such threats, and also where necessary cross-border operations and necessary eliminations. And also within the country identify potential threatening targets. I never understood it otherwise and I never received any other information but thereafter within the law to combat such threat. Trivets did not report to the State Security Council directly but by way of the Coordinating Information Committee, and the only incidents which I am aware about where information was given by Trivets and where a decision was taken by the State Security Council was about cross-border operations. But there were no other incidents which I can just remember off-hand where the State Security Council, in the light of information which Trivets made available to the coordinating Information Committee, took a decision. MR CURRIN: And you are quite categorical when you say that any target identified within the borders of South Africa by PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR CURRIN 245 GEN V/D MERWE Trivets the only authority in regard to such a target would have been to act lawfully against such a target? GEN V/D MERWE: That is correct, Mr Chairman, but at previous occasion I emphasised that due to the fact that Trevits had to identify potential threats outside the country and by means of cross-border operations and act against persons who were potential threats, it led to the confused or the misperception that targets within the country were regarded in the same category as members outside the country and in the past few months we encountered such perceptions. But in being, it was never the intention of Trevits and indeed Trevits never operated in that manner. MR CURRIN: If one takes for example the Nyanda attack which you are aware of, it is one of the applications which has been submitted, the killing of Zwele Nyanda and Keith McFadden, an attack in Swaziland, would that attack have been discussed at the level of the State Security Council before it was implemented? GEN V/D MERWE: Mr Chairman, it was possible but I do not know about it. I, myself cannot comment on that. MR CURRIN: So not all attacks that were exercised outside of the borders of the country would necessarily have been discussed on the level of the State Security Council? GEN V/D MERWE: Definitely not. There were acts committed without the necessary involvement or without having approached the Security Council first, that was our approach to this matter. MR CURRIN: We also heard evidence and you have testified to this and I just would like to get clarity because I don't fully understand the evidence which you gave in-chief as to PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR CURRIN 245 GEN V/D MERWE your position regarding joint projects between the SAP and the South African Defence Force. Was there an official policy in regard to joint security projects, joint action to be taken by the SAP and the SADF or wasn't there? GEN V/D MERWE: Mr Chairman, It is actually a broad understanding. Let me say, our cooperation with the Defence Force firstly took place where the coordination at management level and where certain instances had to be decided upon where the Defence Force and the police were jointly going to work together. I think you are referring to specific project. There was no policy as far as specific projects were concerned but we operated on an ad hoc basis especially with other countries, but there was a policy in general that we would act jointly and the general policy was that each force acts of its own accord, but where it was on an ad hoc basis, they would act jointly. But there was no approach that that was the general practice. MR CURRIN: The last question which I would like to put to you for the victims, the victims want to know whether the top structures, the State President, the State Security Council, Ministers involved in police affairs in your instance, had knowledge and participated in giving instructions in matters where their loved ones were killed. Now, I haven't been able to get that answer from you because we have only been able to speak in general terms. JUDGE MALL: Is the question related to whether specific Cabinet Ministers gave instructions to take part in a specific act at a given time, is that what you are really saying? MR CURRIN: That is what I am trying to establish, we haven't been able to get because of the generality of the PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR CURRIN 246 GEN V/D MERWE evidence which has been given, which I appreciate due to the circumstances at the time. JUDGE MALL: I understand, but that is what you are really trying to get now? MR CURRIN: Yes. JUDGE MALL: The role of each, not each but Cabinet Ministers who were on the State Security Council for example? MR CURRIN: Precisely. JUDGE MALL: Yes. MR CURRIN: Was the Minister of Law and Order, for example, knowledgeable of acts that were being committed by the Security Police? Was the State President aware of acts of violence which were being committed, unlawful killings that were committed? JUDGE MALL: No, not just was aware, it is not a question of who was aware, you are really interested in whether he authorised? MR CURRIN: Well, yes, either expressly or by implication if he was aware and they took no action or they didn't reprimand, well then there would be at least implied authorisation. I understand that there was, from the evidence, that there couldn't have been expressed authorisation, that is my understanding of the evidence. Could we say that there was at least implied authorisation? GEN V/D MERWE: Mr Chairman, once again I would like to emphasise I said apart from specific incidents I have already testified about the Zero Handgrenade attack where I made a recommendation which was approved by Minister Le Grange and in other words he was aware of that. It is very difficult for me to speak about the other incidents because PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR CURRIN 247 GEN V/D MERWE I cannot testify that the Ministers were involved or were aware of that, but I, myself did not inform them and I am aware if they knew. MR CURRIN: I want to ask you then just in regard to the matters where I am appearing on behalf of victims whether you know as you do with the Zero Handgrenade as to whether or not there was such information. The Ribiero killing? GEN V/D MERWE: I do not have any knowledge. I also do not have any knowledge and I will tell you if I do, I do not have any knowledge whatsoever. MR CURRIN: There was, we have already heard the matter involving brutal torture, assault and then killing of three activists, Maake, Makupe and Sefolo? GEN V/D MERWE: I don't have no knowledge about that whatsoever, Mr Chairman. MR CURRIN: Geoffrey Sibaya ...(intervention) JUDGE MGOEPE: Sorry, Mr Currin I think the point which Mr Visser was trying to make is that, and I have that difficulty, you've mentioned the Ribiero incident, you've made another one and the witness again says "I have no knowledge", I don't know what it is that he doesn't know. I don't know whether the witness is saying he has no knowledge or whether he is saying in terms of the long introduction that you made before you came to specific incidents, whether the witness is saying "I don't know that the Minister or the President knew"? MR CURRIN: I think that is the question and I think that is what he is saying, that ...(intervention) GEN V/D MERWE: It applies to both Mr Chairman. I don't know and I don't know if any of the Ministers knew of it. Otherwise I would confirm it as such and I was not PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR CURRIN 247 GEN V/D MERWE personally involved. MR CURRIN: The focus of the question is whether there was the knowledge of the instruction going all the way up, whether he knows whether there was such knowledge, as for example, with the Zero Handgrenade case, where he knows that there was an instruction from the Commissioner and the Minister knew. I am trying to establish whether that knowledge existed in any of these case, in his mind. Is that clear? JUDGE WILSON: What was the second one you mentioned? MR CURRIN: The second one I mentioned was Maake, Makupe and Sefolo. JUDGE WILSON: There wasn't one between Ribiero and that? MR CURRIN: No. And then Geoffrey Sibiya? GEN V/D MERWE: I don't know about it Mr Chairman, I don't even know if the Ministers or anyone else knew about it. MR CURRIN: The Nietverdiend matter? GEN V/D MERWE: No knowledge, Mr Chairman. I don't have any information with regard to that. MR CURRIN: The KwaNdebele Nine? GEN V/D MERWE: No information, I don't know whether the Ministers know, I don't know. MR CURRIN: And the killing of Sergeant Mutasi and his wife? GEN V/D MERWE: No information, I don't know whether the Ministers know, knew anything about it. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CURRIN ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, before I go on with re-examination may I be afforded an opportunity and before Mr Visser goes on with his questions, may I be afforded an opportunity for a short adjournment if it would please you? JUDGE MALL: We will grant you that opportunity - do you PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG 248 GEN V/D MERWE want that just now? ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Chairman, there are a few things I want to discuss with Mr Visser which I haven't had the opportunity this morning. JUDGE MALL: Yes. ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I have only got one question which I wish to put to General van der Merwe. JUDGE MALL: Yes. MR VISSER: Perhaps it may be convenient for me to do so straight away? JUDGE MALL: Yes, please do so. MR VISSER: Thank you, Mr Chairman. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: General, you have been referred to public comments or speeches which would have been made by high officials in the government. My question to you with reference to that is simply this. You as Commissioner of Police was told at a political platform - what you were told at a political platform in a political speech was that how you understood your instructions or were your instructions relayed to you in a different manner? GEN V/D MERWE: Mr Chairman, obviously utterances made at a political platform as far as we, our duty arrangements were concerned, did not impact on that but I think it was merely important to the perceptions of the persons who heard that, but it had no influence in the course of our duties. MR VISSER: And in your mind it also created no policy? GEN V/D MERWE: No, not as far as we were concerned. As I said I was in the fortunate position where I was in direct liaison with the policy-makers. JUDGE MALL: We will take a short adjournment at this stage, PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG 249 GEN V/D MERWE you will call us as soon as you are ready. ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, it will be short, Mr Chairman. JUDGE MALL: Thank you. COMMISSION ADJOURNS ON RESUMPTION JUDGE MALL: Mr Mpshe, are there any questions you would like to put. NO EXAMINATION BY ADV MPSHE: No, Mr Chairman, there are no questions from me. JUDGE WILSON: You have been asked about what knowledge the Ministers or the State Security Council may have had of incidents that occurred, you said they wouldn't have had, as I understand, but there were certain incidents that I think we all knew of that occurred in Lesotho, in Botswana and Maputo, where it was accepted by everybody that the South African Armed Forces had been involved, now I take it those would have been discussed by the State Security Council? GEN V/D MERWE: Yes, that is correct, with cross-border attacks most of them were discussed by the State Security Council and approved. JUDGE MALL: Decisions taken by the State Security Council, you have described how they were implemented by a Committee, a sub-Committee would implement its decisions, instructions to members of the Security Force or to the Armed Force, who would give those instructions, Security Council decisions instructions? GEN V/D MERWE: It would have been by the departmental heads of each department after having being conveyed to the members of his department, there were no other channels which were followed. The decisions taken by the State Security Council were by the department head and the PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR CURRIN 250 GEN V/D MERWE Minister involved, would be dealt with by the department and executed and where it affected other departments and other Ministers, it would be conveyed by the State Security Council to the Minister involved. The Committees had no authority over and above the State Security Council itself to issue any instructions to any department or as far as it goes to act without or beyond the authorised guidelines. JUDGE MALL: What would the role of the State President be in conveying instructions to anybody? GEN V/D MERWE: Mr Chairman, the State President was the Chairman of the State Security Council, but it was obvious where there were cases where the State President, during a visit or during a discussions went beyond the ambient of the State Security Council, would issue certain instructions to persons present there. The State President himself had the authority to instruct any Minister and that Minister in turn would instruct the departments to execute such instruction. JUDGE MALL: While you were Commissioner what was the Cabinet position of Mr Roelf Meyer? GEN V/D MERWE: Mr Chairman, if I remember correctly he was first the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and then he became the Minister. Since 1990 of course he also served on the State Security Council. ADV DE JAGER: Did you say that he was also Minister of Defence at some stage? GEN V/D MERWE: He could have been Acting Minister, but I do not think that he was actually Minister. He was Chairman of the GVS system, but you could be right, but I cannot confirm that. JUDGE MALL: What system was it that you were talking about? GEN V/D MERWE: Please repeat the question? PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DE JAGER 251 GEN V/D MERWE JUDGE MALL: Of what system? GEN V/D MERWE: The General Management System. ADV DE JAGER: General, I would just like to clear up several aspects on the report about which you testified. You make mention of incidents where the police were victims and you also mention that in the years, in those years, for a period of six years from 1973 to 1979 there were 76 to 90, 270 cases and in the years 1991 and 1992, 385 cases. That was after negotiations had begun. In that year the ANC was unbanned. To what do you attribute this escalation of attacks on police? GEN V/D MERWE: Mr Chairman, we looked at several possibilities and one factor which played a very important role was that the unrest situation in the country deteriorated drastically due to the fact that different political parties had begun to form their power bases and this process led to clashes between political parties and their supporters and that was what gave rise to escalating violence countrywide and this process, in this process unfortunately, all the political parties and mainly the Black political parties took a stance at the time because the police tried to remain neutral at the time, that the police were still the other ones friend and the police became a target and because at the time we were from different political parties, that is why the death rate and the murders of policemen, as far as we could determine, escalated like that. The unrest situation also contributed to that because people moved around much easier under those circumstances and they killed much more. ADV DE JAGER: General, in that time you were also Commissioner of Police, if I remember correctly? PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DE JAGER 251 GEN V/D MERWE GEN V/D MERWE: That is correct, from January 1990. ADV DE JAGER: And there was also something you mentioned in your report, an incident where 505 persons were killed by the necklace method. Were the police - and once again in how many incidents were they successful in tracing the perpetrators in such cases and prosecuting them or what was the position? GEN V/D MERWE: There was a very limited amount of incidents due to the fact the intimidation factor played a great role. There simply wasn't anyone that was prepared to come forward under those circumstances and testify against persons who were involved in necklacing. We considered witness protection programmes, but at that stage it was utterly impossible to really protect witnesses due to the fact that they - the exceptional situation which existed at the time, so we did not achieve much success in tracing those offenders. ADV DE JAGER: In some of these cases it was testified that people were no longer brought to a Court of Law to be prosecuted, what was the reason for that? GEN V/D MERWE: Mr Chairman, because especially in Black townships the justice system for the persons living there it created problems. The fact that someone was arrested and shortly thereafter was set free on bail led to many of the persons around that regarding it as nothing, sending a message out to these persons that he was being exposed to the danger which existed yesterday and the day before and which he was hoping would have been eliminated by the arrest of this person. Also because the courts brought themselves to a standstill and it was very drastic and I think in many cases under those circumstances one could say that it was PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DE JAGER 252 GEN V/D MERWE more practical to act according to the opinion that justice should prevail and it also contributed to the fact that our justice system which is based as you very well know - all the requirements of the criminal procedure and what goes with that were not accepted very well. JUDGE MGOEPE: Of course the picture that you have been giving in answer to the questions by Advocate de Jager becomes even more complicated when one has to take into account the fact that the so- called third force also came into the picture, played a major role with regards to the - to all these problems that you have been describing. One cannot overlook that fact. GEN V/D MERWE: Yes, Mr Chairman, the third force activity is a general term which is used with regard to a specific incident which took place, although I would agree with you that it could also have played a role. JUDGE MALL: (...indistinct) re-examination, but I am not asking you to lead fresh evidence. RE-EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Chairman, I am not going to lead fresh evidence. ADV DE JAGER: Excuse me please, I would like to ask one more question which is bothering me. When you say, and I think in your response you said that you did not know about it the Minister did not know about it as far as you know. There were incidents, there was an incident let's take for example, the Nietverdiend incident, how many persons died there, was it nine due to a bomb explosion? Surely something like that was investigated by the police and it should have been reported back to the heads of department, and also what the results of such an investigation were and who committed the offence or whatever? Let us assume that they knew PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DE JAGER 253 GEN V/D MERWE nothing about it beforehand, but you, as Commissioner, surely came to know about it thereafter and surely you would have reported that to the Minister? What steps were taken in such cases where it was determined, I don't know if you were able to determine how it happened, but if facts came to light as we know was it repudiated in the Press or what was the position? GEN V/D MERWE: Mr Chairman, I am not aware of any of these cases where the investigation or the reports which were submitted thereafter reflected the circumstances as is coming to light now. But at the time what was investigated was the deed without the high authorities which received the reports knowing who was involved. In other words we would have dealt with it like any other incident of that nature and there were many incidents of that nature. As we know in our country, in one year 16 to 17 000 persons would be murdered, so violence in that regard was a common occurrence and it would have been dealt with as such. If you were asking me whether there were specific incidents where we came to know about the details of the circumstances, surely in the amnesty applications which would come before you there will be such incidents but these incidents which are under discussion here as far as I know are not, were not dealt with in that manner. JUDGE MALL: Is it fair to say that this particular incident, Nietverdiend, was never itself reported to the State Security Council? GEN V/D MERWE: Quite correct, your Worship. JUDGE MALL: And like that other single or specific incidents themselves would not reach the ears of the State Security Council, is that what happened? PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG JUDGE MALL 253 GEN V/D MERWE GEN V/D MERWE: That is quite correct, Your Worship, unless there were exceptional circumstances, but the normal type of cases wouldn't have been reported to them. JUDGE MALL: Now then, who is the highest authority to whom such a report would be made, for example, this Nietverdiend incident? GEN V/D MERWE: Mr Chairman, it would have depended on the circumstances. In most cases such information would have been reported to the head of a division that would depend on the kind of act that was reported, then that report would have become part of the general criminality reports and we have submitted that to the Minister from time to time for his attention. We have also from him onwards went to the Cabinet but we would never have individually reported these cases. ADV DE JAGER: Just one further question regarding the cross-border action, did this answer apply to Botswana actions as well, Transkei as well? GEN V/D MERWE: Yes, in the case of Transkei, you would recall the case where Mr de Klerk himself gave permission against APLA Forces, you recall their people being shot at that occasion, but not all cases were approved by the State Security Council, but in some cases cross-border raids were approved by the State Security Council. JUDGE MGOEPE: Just to clear this up, do I understand you to be saying that with regard to Transkei, Bophuthatswana or for that matter Venda for example or Ciskei, the approach was that they were treated as much foreign as Swaziland, Lesotho, Uganda etc. I just want to clear that? GEN V/D MERWE: Insofar as the State Security Council is concerned, yes Your Worship. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG JUDGE MGOEPE 254 GEN V/D MERWE JUDGE MGOEPE: Yes, and to that extent therefore the policy with regards to identification of targets, elimination etc. inside Bophuthatswana, Ciskei, Venda and the like ...(intervention) GEN V/D MERWE: Would have been the same. JUDGE MGOEPE: It would have been the same? GEN V/D MERWE: It would have been the same, yes. JUDGE MALL: Was there a permanent Coordinating Committee between the South African Police and the South African Defence Force? GEN V/D MERWE: Yes, Chairman, it was the intervention of the joint management system done at all levels countrywide but of course there was also the intervention of the Coordinating Information Committee. As far as information was concerned we liaised with each other and also with the various working committees of the State Security Council. So on a daily basis between the different, at different levels there were times when the police and the defence force liaised with each other and planned the workings were coordinated jointly. JUDGE MALL: Thank you. Yes, Mr du Plessis. RE-EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: (cont) Thank you, Mr Chairman. General you just gave evidence with regards to the Security Acts and Legislation and the effectiveness of it. The evidence of the applicants was that in certain instances they had to act against activists in the manner in which they did outside of the parameters of the normal justice system due to the fact that the system, the Security System itself, was not effective in combatting the liberation movement of the ANC and other movements. Would you say that that was a contributing factor to the perception of the PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 255 GEN V/D MERWE applicants and Brigadier Cronje who was the Commanding Officer and also other applicants in certain instances that due to the fact that the Act itself was not affective enough that it was justified to act beyond the parameters of the law? GEN V/D MERWE: I have no doubt, Mr Chairman, that our justice system and the circumstances in which we found ourselves which was a combat situation for all practical purposes was of such a nature that one could not deal with it effectively. In my opinion if it was not for political gain, the riot actions if I could put it that way, would be to declare a cross-justice system which would have been detrimental to our country. But if you look at the situation which we had dealt with, to a limited extent you could refer to it as a "civilian war" and the circumstances surrounding that were not enough to combat it effectively and that is one of the reasons why at the end of 1989, Mr de Klerk decided to head in a new direction because there was no other way to deal with the situation. ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you General. You testified with regard to reporting of certain incidents, as I understand your evidence you said that in most instances the - an incident would be reported to a head of department and then it would have become part of the normal criminal report which would be given to the State Security Council. GEN V/D MERWE: From time to time the Minister would be informed of the crime situation. What I would not like to pretend is that the State Security Council would have specifically paid attention to that report. ADV DU PLESSIS: What I am trying to determine is in how much detail the general crime report were compiled. Would PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 256 GEN V/D MERWE it for example in the Nietverdiend incident, I don't know if you know about it, it is the case where youths were recruited for military training, loaded into a minibus and then eliminated. In such an incident would the detail of such an operation be contained in that type of report or would a report be made with regards to X-amount of terrorists? GEN V/D MERWE: It would purely have been a report about X-amount of persons having been killed under the certain circumstances nothing more. ADV DU PLESSIS: General, just to add to that, where there were reports made by the applicants about actions where they were involved, to their commanding officers and, where there was never any form of repudiation, let us forget about the reports going higher up, would you say that it could have strengthened the perception of the applicants that what they were busy doing was the kind of action which was, I won't say it was approved, but which was implicitly accepted by the commanding officers and the authorities? GEN V/D MERWE: If I understand your correctly, do you mean that all the facts as set out in the Amnesty application now for the Commanding Officer? ADV DU PLESSIS: What I am saying is that if there was a short report given with regards to the core of what was happening? GEN V/D MERWE: Surely you also mean the involvement of the applicant in that saying I was not involved. Immediately that Commanding Officer would have become part of the act which had taken place. ADV DU PLESSIS: What I mean is, I am merely speaking about the perception of the applicant if no one went back to the PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 256 GEN V/D MERWE applicant with regard to this act would the applicants' perception then be deemed that the authorities approved. GEN V/D MERWE: Then it was no longer a perception, then it was a fact, if his Commanding Officer knew about this act and did nothing about it then implicity the Commanding Officer agreed and then he had all the reason in the world to believe that he bore the approval of his Commanding Officer, because the Commanding Officer then granted his implied approval. ADV DU PLESSIS: General, could you tell the Committee about your involvement at Vlakplaas. You were never a Commanding Officer at Vlakplaas but could you just tell the Committee about your involvement at Vlakplaas and how you were involved with Vlakplaas at Commanding Officer level. GEN V/D MERWE: I think I have already testified about Vlakplaas, if you remember correctly where I said that the Unit there was brought to a halt with the view to arresting persons there and rehabilitating them - persons who had been arrested had to be rehabilitated and then I did try and assist in tracing persons who were coming from the outside to commit acts of terrorism here and also use them as witnesses against such persons in a court of law and there was no objective for that Unit, and what happened in the course of time is that it developed due to the circumstances. I think I, myself was there twice at the most. I had no liaison with them, but that is as far as my knowledge of Vlakplaas goes. ADV DU PLESSIS: I was referring to the rank structure, were you ever Commanding Officer there? GEN V/D MERWE: No. ADV DU PLESSIS: I won't question you about that anymore. I PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 257 GEN V/D MERWE would now like to come to an aspect which came to the fore in the application of the applicants, that is the involvement of youths in the Liberation Movements. You knew about the ANC and the liberation movements' methods, their tactics and their ideologies, can you briefly comment to this Committee about your experience and your knowledge of the involvement of youths, and now I am referring to specifically school children in acts of terrorism and also instigating boycotts and stone-throwing incidents and so forth in areas where unrest was rife, especially in the '80's. GEN V/D MERWE: Mr Chairman after the 1976 riots, which of course focused on the youth mainly, there was a sharp increase in the involvement of youths in the struggle. Large amounts of youths went out to receive military training and these youths became much more militant and the ANC also realised, mainly the ANC, realised that this was an opportunity for a new approach because it was generally accepted that in 1976 it was the watershed as far as the liberation movement of the ANC was concerned. Thereafter, we experienced the situation increasingly where youths were becoming involved in violence to such an extent that during the State of Emergency in 1986 and 7 and thereafter we were obligated to detain large amounts of youths who, not only participated in actions, boycotts and such in the townships but were also involved in necklacing. And we had great problems with that because you can obliviously imagine how much opposition there was to the fact that there were even persons as young as 13 whom we would detain, due to the fact that their parents could not control them and they spiralled out of control under those circumstances. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 258 GEN V/D MERWE ADV DU PLESSIS: Very well General, I do not want to go into the commanding channels in too much detail, but I would like to ask a question, the Sanhedrin that we heard about here, is it possible that the Minister or Deputy Minister of Defence would occasionally attend meetings of the Sanhedrin and then would issue instructions there as well? GEN V/D MERWE: Did you say the Minister of Defence? ADV DU PLESSIS: No the Minister of Police. GEN V/D MERWE: Surely, it is possible that the Minister would attend from time to time by way of a courtesy gesture but not on a regular basis,. It was possible that he could have made the input from time to time, just shared ideas, but I cannot think of specific incidents but it could have happened during the course of events. ADV DU PLESSIS: General, in the South African Police itself with regards to training and normal day to day activities, the normal policemen who were busy with the work and specifically policemen in the Security Branch, were they aware of the revolutionary onslaught of the Liberation Movements, the ideologies behind that and the objectives of the organisations? Before you answer that I would like to show you a document. It is a document called "Die Strategy of the ANC" it is dated 15 March 1985. It was compiled by the ...(intervention) ADV DE JAGER: You put it very euphemistically by saying it is a "document"? MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I have not been provided with a copy of this document which is now put to my witness. I am just wondering whether there is a specific reason for that? ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, the specific reason is Mr Mpshe also hasn't got a copy, I apologise, I haven't made PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 258 GEN V/D MERWE enough copies, I had copies available. JUDGE MALL: I would like us to have some limit within which we must proceed. I don't like the idea of documents being handed in whenever it is convenient to counsel to do so. You are re-examining this witness and I do not think it fair that at this stage you hand in a voluminous document, none of us have a chance of knowing what it is all about and so on, with the result that this kind of questioning can just snowball for ever and ever. I would like you to conclude your re-examination of this witness then apply for permission to hand in documents and tell us why. ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Chairman, the only reason why I am handing in this document now, is because of the fact that I am not going to lead any evidence about this document except about where this document comes from and how this document was compiled. The reason for this ...(intervention) JUDGE MALL: Have you finished your re-examination? ADV DU PLESSIS: I have finished the re-examination, Mr Chairman. May I then ask permission to deal with the document? The only reason why I am doing this, Mr Chairman is I wanted to deal with this document in argument, but I thought it prudent that this document be handed into the Committee at this stage because it relates to a specific aspect that I want to ask the General about and that is the simple reason, I am trying to assist the Committee, Mr Chairman. JUDGE MALL: As experienced counsel you are aware of the limits of re-examination? ADV DU PLESSIS: Right, Mr Chairman. I will then deal with the document in argument and I will withdraw the document. JUDGE MALL: Yes. If you have no further questions under PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 259 GEN V/D MERWE re-examination ...(intervention) NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DU PLESSIS JUDGE MALL: I would like to thank the witness for having made himself available - you want to ask some questions, I am sorry. JUDGE WILSON: Yes. I am sorry, there are two points that I would like to deal with General. The first is Nietverdiend that you have been asked about and reports - as I understand this happened in Bophuthatswana and was investigated by the Bophuthatswana police and that didn't fall under you? GEN V/D MERWE: You are totally correct. JUDGE WILSON: The second point is Vlakplaas. This was a most unusual station, wasn't it? GEN V/D MERWE: That's correct. JUDGE WILSON: It was as I understand it, an old farmhouse far away from anywhere that was taken over for a specific Unit? GEN V/D MERWE: That is correct, Sir. JUDGE WILSON: They originally, I think you said, the purpose was to deal with persons who had returned to this country to try to rehabilitate them to use, they were called ascaris and thereafter they started being used to carry out more offensive activities. It seems to me that a policeman who was sent to Vlakplaas and stationed there, might well have got the impression that they were a specific Unit formed to carry out these specific anti-terrorist duties, that they were something out of the ordinary run of the police? GEN V/D MERWE: Yes, that is correct, but you must keep in mind that they had a specific task, it was an abnormal task. First of all people that were arrested were dealt with in PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 260 GEN V/D MERWE covert action and their actions were abnormal that they had taken, that is the correct impression. ADV DE JAGER: The Commissioner is asking, this Unit was used to exercise actions in Lesotho for instance, on command? GEN V/D MERWE: That is correct. ADV DE JAGER: So they were actually the military wing of the police, can I put it like that? GEN V/D MERWE: I wouldn't say the "War Wing" but they were used in an abnormal way. ADV DE JAGER: Was that abnormal way to kill people? GEN V/D MERWE: It was to do cross-border operations, it was never intended for them to act internally, but they had to act where it was required to cross-border. JUDGE WILSON: But we have heard evidence, as I recollect, of them being used internally, being summonsed to various parts of the country, usually, admittedly, close to the borders? GEN V/D MERWE: That is correct, but once again, not to eliminate people, they got specific tasks. There were specific threats sometimes that they had to deal with because they had information and they had special ways of doing that and dealing with it. JUDGE WILSON: It seems to me, from what we have heard and from what we have heard from you, is that it is easy to understand that persons stationed there might get a false impression of precisely what their duties were? GEN V/D MERWE: You are absolutely correct, Honourable member. JUDGE WILSON: That they, having been sent to this odd place might believe they were wrongly perhaps but they could PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG JUDGE WILSON 261 GEN V/D MERWE honestly believe they were there to carry out these functions? GEN. V/D MERWE: That is correct. JUDGE MALL: Who was the highest authority inasfar as Vlakplaas was concerned, who gave instructions at Vlakplaas? GEN V/D MERWE: Vlakplaas was under the command of the head of security police, not directly, they had their own commander, but in terms of the command line, they were under the head of the Security Branch and he was under the Commissioner so that was the normal command line in the case of Vlakplaas, but because of the abnormal circumstances which they have operated the normal command line might not have been, might not have applied like in normal cases - it would have been the case. JUDGE MALL: So it would be the head of the Security Police basically? GEN V/D MERWE: That is correct Your Worship. That is apart from their own Commander, they obviously in all the cases there was a Commander in charge of the Vlakplaas Unit but he in terms would have to report - he was under the command of the head of Security Police. JUDGE MALL: Thank you. JUDGE MGOEPE: General, with regard to the reports, the way the reports would be compiled from time to time relating to specific incidents, for example, the killing of, or the elimination of some targets, I get the impression that sometimes, if not always, the reports would not be detailed they would be in a crisp form, for example, simply saying that 10 terrorists were eliminated at such and such a place and that kind of report in that form, would be passed onto the next person etc. etc. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG JUDGE MGOEPE 261 GEN V/D MERWE GEN V/D MERWE: You are correct. JUDGE MGOEPE: If that was the case, it seems to me that when we consider whether or not higher authorities had given a tacit approval, we may have to bear in mind the fact that they might not have been furnished with all the facts and details of the facts and circumstances under which a particular incident occurred? GEN V/D MERWE: Mr Chairman, we must be clear on this. They would have been supplied by particulars on the specific incident. The information that you now have would not have been submitted to them, that we must realise. They would have been noted on the number of people that were shot, under certain circumstances, and what were the surrounding situations but details they would not have had before then. JUDGE MGOEPE: But the person who compiles the report decides what to put in and what not to put in? GEN V/D MERWE: You are correct, but please bear in mind that, a person who was shot, that case would have been reported in a normal fashion. The person now applying for Amnesty would not have personally reported it, some other people on the scene might have reported it and the report would have been based on what happened on the scene and what was investigated by police on the scene. So one must make a distinction between members applying for Amnesty, whether they have reported it themselves, what is the content thereof and whether on the other hand the person left the scene and the police then afterwards sent someone there to investigate and that the facts then reported depended on exactly what was found on the scene of the incident. JUDGE MGOEPE: Nevertheless the person who compiles the report is the person who in the first instance, PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG JUDGE MGOEPE 262 GEN V/D MERWE subjectively, as you said earlier on, believed that what he was doing was justified and he compiles the report from that premises GEN V/D MERWE: Not necessarily, I don't know whether that was the case at all, the reports that we have here before us, it might be the case that people that were involved left the scene and to now create the impression that there was an incident could be misleading. People that were killed, that case would have been reported and the contents of such a report would have reflected what were the tasks of the people at that point in time in terms of the law. Mention would not have been made of action out of the abnormal. JUDGE MGOEPE: I am just concerned that it is highly inconceivable that the person who has in the first instance subjectively believed that what he did was right would compile the report in such an objective manner that room could be left for somebody else to come and say that the action was not justified. GEN V/D MERWE: Yes, but we have to make a distinction. The person could have believed what he has done did it in terms of his objectives to prevent the country being overthrown. I cannot think he would have thought that what he was doing was justified, what I am saying he must have believed that what he was doing was to save the country. You must read it against that background and therefore that he might have felt that he was justified in his actions, although he exceeded his limits. JUDGE MGOEPE: Now the Minister comes, one of the previous Ministers and he comes and gives testimony here and he says "No, I deny giving permission, the reports I have, the reports submitted to me did not give the full details". PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG JUDGE MGOEPE 263 GEN V/D MERWE (AFRIKAANS NOT TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH) GEN V/D MERWE: Yes, you are correct, if that was the case that is the way he should have acted. There were never reports that indicated what you now know to the previous Minister, he never had that information. If the real information was available and we accepted then we would have been partially responsible for it. There could have then been more information that we based our actions on. ADV DE JAGER: In your case, the case of Swaziland there was some - a task given by Brigadier Schoon, go and kill this person, the report would have been "we have done our duty"? GEN V/D MERWE: That is correct. ADV DE JAGER: We have also heard the term in your evidence, also other cases that there was a policy of "need to know" you don't give more information that is than information required for the person that you have passed it on to, do you know about that? GEN V/D MERWE: Yes, that was policy in fact. That was general policy in terms of all information services. Information is dealt with in a very restricted manner, so you only give information that that person needs to know, that has always been the case. But remember there is another kind of information that is necessary to provide to all people. Now you must remember the person in this case would, that has given the command, would have received a report back and he would only have received information that he required. ADV DE JAGER: So the person who committed the murder he would not spread the word, he would only give facts back to the person that has given the command? GEN V/D MERWE: That is correct. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG JUDGE WILSON 264 GEN V/D MERWE JUDGE WILSON: As I understand from what you are saying, again this was completely different from ordinary policing. There was no question of opening a docket, setting out what was done, anything of that nature, it would usually be an oral instruction, they would carry out the operation and inform the person who had instructed them that they had completed what they had been told to do and there would be no written report made? GEN V/D MERWE: Mr Chairman, in those cases where there was authority granted by a higher authority, you are correct, no there would not have been a report. You are correct. ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, may I put two further questions to the witness? JUDGE MALL: Yes. ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you. It is really questions in elucidation about matters which I have forgotten about. General could you assist me, Commissioner De Jager asked me yesterday if in the police there was a special meaning to the word "eliminate" or if the normal meaning of the word applied, in other words to kill someone, could you assist us in that regard? If someone was to talk about "I received instruction to go and eliminate someone" is there a special meaning to that in the police or does the normal meaning apply? GEN V/D MERWE: No, the normal meaning applied, it would be to get rid of someone, to kill someone. ADV DU PLESSIS: If someone were to testify about what happened at Vlakplaas and what took place there was known to all the Generals in the police force, would that be a correct statement? GEN V/D MERWE: Definitely not, Your Worship. As I have PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 264 GEN V/D MERWE already testified with regards to certain incidents we would know, but as far as many other incidents are concerned, like which are being placed before this Committee, we did not know about. What you are saying is "all Generals" is a very broad statement, not all Generals would have known about it. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DU PLESSIS JUDGE MALL: Thank you very much, you are excused from further attendance. WITNESS EXCUSED JUDGE MALL: We will take a short adjournment at this stage. COMMISSION ADJOURNS