amntrans AMNESTY HEARING 1997-03-05 PRETORIA MRS HLABANGANE 7 JABULANI F. SIBULELA, JACQUES HECHTER https://sabctrc.saha.org.za/hearing.php?id=54897&t=&tab=hearings https://sabctrc.saha.org.za/originals/amntrans/pta/pta.htm JUDGE MALL: Mr Mpshe, are we ready to proceed? ADV MPSHE: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman we are ready to. We continue with the Richard Motasi matter. We are in the hands of Mr Brian Currin. JUDGE MALL: You are going to lead the evidence of certain witnesses this morning, Mr Currin? MR CURRIN: That is correct. Mr Chairman, we would like to call as a witness Colonel Sibulela, he is sitting here. I would like him to testify, thank you. JUDGE MALL: Are you prepared to take the oath, please stand. JABULANI FRANK SIBULELA: (sworn states) JUDGE MALL: Thank you. Mr Currin? EXAMINATION BY MR CURRIN: It is my microphone that seems to be making the noise. Thank you. Colonel Sibulela, will you be testifying in English? COL SIBULELA: Yes, Sir. MR CURRIN: When did you join the Police Force, Colonel? COL SIBULELA: That was in 1968. MR CURRIN: 1968. Did you know Richard Motasi? COL SIBULELA: Yes, I knew Richard Motasi, he was in fact my student, I trained him at Hammanskraal College in 1973, he was in my platoon. MR CURRIN: Would you please tell the Committee about your interaction with Richard Motasi, dealing with what PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR CURRIN 527 COL SIBULELA happened after an assault on him by Colonel Van Zyl, insofar as you were involved in that particular matter. COL SIBULELA: It was during 1984, at that time I was a lieutenant. There was a lot of uprisings and there was arrangements for duties. Unfortunately I was not at the College at that time, I was out also on duty and then there had been a problem with Sergeant Motasi with one of the senior officers at the College, namely Colonel Van Zyl who even assaulted Richard Motasi. And then a case of assault was opened against the Colonel and then in turn the Colonel opened a departmental case against Sergeant Motasi for having threatened a senior, a superior with violence. Then I was deputised to trial Richard Motasi at the departmental trial. It was a very difficult situation. I remember I was even interdicted to from trying him because Sergeant Motasi said I was part of the officers at the College and I was not going to give him a fair trial. Then I was removed from trying him. Then after the assault case, Sergeant Motasi instituted a civil case against Colonel Van Zyl and then the relationship between him and the entire College staff, especially the White employees, were so bad that he was even removed from the College. In fact he was supposed to have, he was transferred to somewhere in Soweto and then he refused to go to Soweto because he had a house in Temba and then he was removed from the College and transferred to Hammanskraal police station, which was very close, in fact it is in the same premises as the College. And then he used to come to the College to make some photocopies and then he was eventually banned from coming to the College. And we were warned in a meeting that we must see to it that Motasi does not enter the police college. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR CURRIN 528 COL SIBULELA MR CURRIN: How would you describe the relationship between Richard Motasi and the upper echelons of the police in Hammanskraal, both at the police station and the training college? COL SIBULELA: It was very strained. MR CURRIN: Very strained. COL SIBULELA: In fact it was a sort of a fight because the man was sick and then when he booked sick, they would either call him to come and work or send him to special duties while he was so sick. And the relationship was very strained. MR CURRIN: Yes. Now we heard that, we know that Sergeant Motasi instituted grievance procedures in relation to the assault and also instituted a civil claim against Colonel Van Zyl. As a result of that he was treated in a particular way by these senior officers. In your own view, what - do you think he was treated fairly given the circumstances and the events which gave rise to his suspension? Do you think that the way in which he was being treated, was fair? COL SIBULELA: No, I don't think he was treated fairly because in the first place this thing it started by him being unfairly treated by a very senior person. Now in that process, while he was sick, I still remember his transfer, when he was given his letter of transfer, he was laying in bed in a Garankua hospital. Then an officer was sent to go and serve him the transfer. I mean you don't treat a person like that, normally you wait for the person to recuperate and then from there. Now to show that there was a fight, the person is laying in hospital in pain, there a person is sent to go and serve you with a transfer letter. MR CURRIN: How well did you know Sergeant Motasi as a PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR CURRIN 529 COL SIBULELA person? COL SIBULELA: As I said I knew this boy very well. As I said I trained him in 1973, he passed out, he went to work somewhere in Joburg and then he later came back and stationed at the College and then we were staying together in the then Black residence. In fact he was my neighbour and to me he was sort of my son, because I trained him. I used to communicate with him and everything. MR CURRIN: Before this assault how would you have rated him as a policeman? COL SIBULELA: He was a very good young man, clean and tidy doing his job. The whole problem started immediately after this thing. All along there was nothing wrong with him, he was working right. In fact he was promoted to the rank of a sergeant, on merit, he didn't write examination to show that he was a good policeman. MR CURRIN: There was a question in my mind that I wanted to ask this witness as a follow up and it has slipped out of my mind for the moment. I just want to try and recall it if you would give me a moment, thank you. Did Sergeant Motasi ever speak to you about his predicament in the context of what was happening to him at the time? COL SIBULELA: Yes, he spoke to me. I remember just before his death, we were at Zeerust we went to bury a father of one of our colleagues and then he spoke to me and expressed his worry about the way that he is being treated by the Whites in the College as well as in the police station, because they were threatening his life. And they were requesting him to withdraw the case against Colonel Van Zyl, which he was never prepared to do. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR CURRIN 530 COL SIBULELA MR CURRIN: Not prepared to do that? COL SIBULELA: Ja. MR CURRIN: You've heard evidence that he was providing information to the Security Forces in Zimbabwe. Do you have any view on that? COL SIBULELA: No, I have no knowledge of that. MR CURRIN: Do you have any opinion on that? COL SIBULELA: I don't think, because I knew Motasi, I knew his type of intelligence, I don't think that he could have reached such a decision. Because he was not a man of very high intelligence to have thought of that, he was just a man who was hard working and dedicated to his work. MR CURRIN: Did he ever, at any stage, since you've known him, indicate any interest whatsoever in politics? COL SIBULELA: No. He was a photographer, most of the time you would find him at the College, taking photos for the students. MR CURRIN: He was a keen photographer? COL SIBULELA: A keen photographer, yes. I remember he also took me some photos, some photos for me. MR CURRIN: After he was killed, after he and his wife were killed, did you hear anything about the matter? Did the people say anything about what had happened to Sergeant Motasi within the Police Force, within your ranks? COL SIBULELA: No, there is nothing I heard. Besides that the rumours, most people believed that the death could have been the result of his strained relationship or because of his having instituted a civil case against a very high senior officer, at that time. MR CURRIN: And at that stage, did you ever hear from anyone at all that maybe he was working for the ANC? PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR CURRIN 531 COL SIBULELA COL SIBULELA: No. I never heard such things. MR CURRIN: I have no further questions. Oh, sorry, could I just ask one more question. No, I don't want to ask it, thank you. I don't need to ask him, thank you sir. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CURRIN CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. You say that you never heard anybody say that he gave information to the Zimbabwe Intelligence Services and you also testified that you don't know about that, is that correct? COL SIBULELA: Yes. ADV DU PLESSIS: So you have no personal knowledge of the fact did he or did he not give information to the Zimbabwe Intelligence Services? COL SIBULELA: Yes. ADV DU PLESSIS: Right. Now the threats that you testified about, can you hear me, is that better? COL SIBULELA: Yes. ADV DU PLESSIS: The threats which you testified about, that he - you testified that before his death he expressed his worry about the Whites and that they were threatening his life, did he say anything more about that to you? COL SIBULELA: Sorry? ADV DU PLESSIS: Did he say anything more about that to you? COL SIBULELA: No, no, no. ADV DU PLESSIS: Did he say who was threatening his life? COL SIBULELA: No, he spoke about the Colonel Van Zyl who was sort of after him all the time where he was going. ADV DU PLESSIS: But did he say specifically that anybody specific, did he name the people who threatened him? PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 531 COL SIBULELA COL SIBULELA: No, as I say he was concerned about the Colonel, as I was saying. ADV DU PLESSIS: Right, so is it fair to say, is it fair to say that he just mentioned to you in passing, that he was threatened, and he didn't say anything further about that? Is that correct, is that your evidence? COL SIBULELA: Yes. ADV DU PLESSIS; So you cannot enlighten the Committee about who, where, when and how he was threatened. You also cannot enlighten the Committee about what he said or he knew about that, is that correct? COL SIBULELA: Yes. ADV DU PLESSIS: Right, the only fact that you testified about is that he was worried because he was threatened with his life. Now, did you have more than one discussion with him where he mentioned this threat or was it only once? COL SIBULELA: It was once during the time we were at the Zeerust. ADV DU PLESSIS: How frequently did you see him at the time? COL SIBULELA: What do you mean, at Zeerust? ADV DU PLESSIS: How frequently did you see him at the time? At that time when he mentioned the threat? COL SIBULELA: You see he was already out of the College, I didn't see him frequently. ADV DU PLESSIS: Now, you say you've been in the Police Force for how long? COL SIBULELA: Quite a very long time, Sir, since the 80's. ADV DU PLESSIS: And do you have experience of any other policeman who worked with you who were threatened with their lives by senior policemen? PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 532 COL SIBULELA COL SIBULELA: No. ADV DU PLESSIS: Is this the only incident that you know about that senior policemen threatened a junior colleague? COL SIBULELA: Yes. JUDGE MGOEPE: How long before his death did he communicate this concern of his? COL SIBULELA: It could be early 1987 or late 1986, because we were at the funeral of one of our colleagues' father in Zeerust I am not sure of the time, the date. JUDGE MGOEPE: Thank you. ADV DU PLESSIS: Do I understand you correctly, you say in 1986 or early 1987? COL SIBULELA: Yes. ADV DU PLESSIS; Was that when he mentioned it to you? COL SIBULELA: Yes. ADV DU PLESSIS: Right. What was his position then, can you remember? Was he still suspended or did he leave the Police Force at that time? COL SIBULELA: As I say he was now working at police station Hammanskraal, while I was at the College. I can't say whether he was working or still off sick, I saw him there at that funeral. ADV DU PLESSIS: Can you remember how many times thereafter did you see him before he died? COL SIBULELA: No, I can't remember. ADV DU PLESSIS: But you did see him thereafter? COL SIBULELA: Yes. ADV DU PLESSIS: Now you say that he was banned from the College at some stage? COL SIBULELA: Yes. ADV DU PLESSIS: What was the reason for that? PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 533 COL SIBULELA COL SIBULELA: Oh, there was no reason. In my view the fight was such that the people that were fighting with him, they just got annoyed when they saw him coming there because he was just coming there to do photocopies and then they just said he must never put his foot in the college any more. And then we were given instruction in the meeting as officers, to make sure that he doesn't enter the College. ADV DU PLESSIS: Alright. And for what period was he treated this way by these other policemen that you testified about? COL SIBULELA: No, he never came to the College any longer. As I say the police station and the College are two separate premises. Immediately after that he never entered the College any longer because he was stopped not to come to the College any longer. ADV DU PLESSIS: Right, and did you discuss this whole conflict between himself and the other policemen, the White policemen that you testified about, did you discuss that with him? COL SIBULELA: No, we never discussed anything, in fact in those days, we couldn't discuss such things with the White Officers, because they were apart, we were apart ...(intervention) ADV DU PLESSIS: No, no, no, I am asking did you discuss that with Mr Motasi? COL SIBULELA: Oh, with Motasi? ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes. COL SIBULELA: No. ADV DU PLESSIS: Did you never have any discussions with him regarding his treatment by the White policemen? PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 534 COL SIBULELA COL SIBULELA; Yes, you see the only discussion I discussed, in fact I advised him that in view of this conflict, which seemed not to be - to be gaining momentum, how would it be that he gets transferred and go at least to a Black station, to go and work at Soshanguve which he objected. ADV DU PLESSIS: Did he tell you what they did to him, did he tell you what happened with Colonel Van Zyl? COL SIBULELA: When? I don't understand. ADV DU PLESSIS; At any time, at any time, I am asking you did he ever tell you what happened with him, what did Colonel Van Zyl do to him, did he tell you that? COL SIBULELA: Yes, he told me. ADV DU PLESSIS: And did he tell you what happened thereafter, how he was treated by the White officers? COL SIBULELA: No, no, he didn't tell me, I saw these things myself. ADV DU PLESSIS: And did you, when that disciplinary hearing was to take place, did you have any discussions with him at that time about that? COL SIBULELA: As I said I was a trial officer, so as a trial officer you don't discuss with a person you are going to trial. You have got a Prosecutor. The Prosecutor is the person that does everything and then I see him the first time on the trial. And then there when I call him, then he objected to me trying him. ADV DU PLESSIS: Right. Do you know how Mr Motasi, Sergeant Motasi felt about his treatment by the Whites? COL SIBULELA: How he felt? Yes, I think he felt very much, he felt very much unhappy about his treatment. As a young Sergeant having to have a conflict with very senior people in the department, he felt hopeless because he couldn't PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 535 COL SIBULELA defend himself against such people. ADV DU PLESSIS: And did this feeling of his about his treatment, did that persist, did that go on all the time until his death? COL SIBULELA: You see it is very difficult, it is a very difficult question as I say, this man when he was killed, he was already at Hammanskraal police station, working there. So I was not able to meet with him every now and then, he was - we were already separated by then. ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, but as far as you know? COL SIBULELA: Yes, as far as I know, yes. ADV DU PLESSIS: Do you know of the fact and Mr Chairman, I am referring to Exhibit U, page 86, it seems that in September, on 9 September 1987, a letter was written to his attorneys indicating that his suspension was withdrawn and further indicating that he refused to go for work and in fact the Afrikaans says, "Case docket, Hammanskraal, namely going absent without leave from the police or refusal to serve in the Force was then made at the instruction of Police Headquarters." Do you know anything about that? COL SIBULELA: When was that? ADV DU PLESSIS: That was in September 1987. COL SIBULELA: No, I know nothing, he was already out of the College, he was at the police station by that time. ADV DU PLESSIS: Would that be in accordance with the fact that he didn't want to go back to work after his suspension was uplifted, the fact that he was absent without leave, does that accord with the way you perceived him in respect of what he felt what the White officers did to him? PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 535 COL SIBULELA Was that in accordance with his feelings which you testified just now? COL SIBULELA: I would believe that because this man was sick. I am sure the man was supposed to have been sick all the time and then somebody said he deserted. That is why he responded in that way, he was sick. Because I still remember during the trial he was, when he was called for trial, he was in the hospital and then he couldn't attend trial. I believe all those periods, he was still off sick. That is why he responded in that way because he was off sick and then somebody said he deserted and then he decided not to come because he was still sick. ADV DU PLESSIS: When was that trial supposed to be, can you remember? COL SIBULELA: That was 1985. That was the time when I was still at the College, he couldn't attend because he was sick and he took a very long time before he could come to trial. ADV DU PLESSIS: And do I understand you correctly, was he sick from 1985 until September 1987? COL SIBULELA: I can't recall all the facts because this man was sick, I don't even know even when he was transferred. It would appear to me he was transferred whilst still on sick leave and then he could come and work for a short period and then go off sick again. He had a problem with his ears since his assault. ADV DU PLESSIS: Can you remember what was wrong with him, you said something about his ears, can you elaborate what was wrong with him? COL SIBULELA: Yes, he was assaulted and then his eardrum was damaged and then he got operations and his ear was giving problems. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 536 COL SIBULELA MS KHAMPEPE: Are you saying Mr Sibulela, that his sickness was as a result of the injuries he had sustained at the hands of the White officers? COL SIBULELA: Yes. ADV DE JAGER: You saw him shortly before his death or fairly recently before his death, what was his health at that stage? COL SIBULELA: Mr Chairman, I never saw him before his death because I was also transferred from the College by that time. ADV DE JAGER: Approximately how long before his death did you last see him when you were together when he complained? COL SIBULELA: It is quite a long time Mr Chairman, because it was either during the last time I saw him during 1986, late or early 1987 when we went for a funeral in Zeerust. ADV DE JAGER: And at that stage, did he work, what was the position with his health? COL SIBULELA: At that stage he was in good health because he drove himself from here to Zeerust for the funeral, by his car. MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Sibulela, am I wrong, I thought you said in your evidence that you stayed in the same neighbourhood? COL SIBULELA: Yes, that is before. MS KHAMPEPE: Before he was transferred to Hammanskraal? COL SIBULELA: Before he was transferred. JUDGE WILSON: They were at the College COL SIBULELA: We were at the College, all of us. MS KHAMPEPE: Oh, I see at the College. COL SIBULELA: He got transferred and then later on I also got transferred. MS KHAMPEPE: Okay, thank you. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 537 COL SIBULELA JUDGE WILSON: Tell me, this Hammanskraal College, what sort of place was it? COL SIBULELA: It was a Training College for the police. JUDGE WILSON: For who in the police? COL SIBULELA: For the Black policemen. JUDGE WILSON: Ordinary Constables? COL SIBULELA: Yes. JUDGE WILSON: Nothing to do with Security or anything of that nature? COL SIBULELA: No, no, no. JUDGE WILSON: So you did the ordinary marching or teaching the people what they had to do as Constables? COL SIBULELA: Ordinary training, marching, yes, yes. JUDGE WILSON: And he was with you there? COL SIBULELA: Yes. JUDGE WILSON: And you say he was a diligent, hard working man? COL SIBULELA: Yes. JUDGE WILSON: And was he promoted to Sergeant? COL SIBULELA: Yes. JUDGE WILSON; And he then went to the Hammanskraal police station, which occupied the same premises, sort of separate? COL SIBULELA: Yes. JUDGE WILSON: What sort of police station was Hammanskraal police station? COL SIBULELA: I don't understand, I don't hear ... JUDGE WILSON: Was it an ordinary police station? COL SIBULELA: An ordinary police station, yes. JUDGE WILSON: Did it have the Security Police Branch? COL SIBULELA: No. JUDGE WILSON: Did it just deal with ordinary crime? PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 538 COL SIBULELA COL SIBULELA: Ordinary crime. JUDGE WILSON: You see I am asking you these questions because the case made out for the applicants, is that he was killed because he was giving information to the Zimbabwe Intelligence Services, now he wouldn't have learnt anything at Hammanskraal police station that was of any interest to the Intelligence Service, would he? COL SIBULELA: No. JUDGE WILSON: And was he stationed anywhere else? COL SIBULELA: No, no. JUDGE WILSON: Was he in the uniform branch? COL SIBULELA: Uniform branch, yes. JUDGE WILSON: A Sergeant in the uniform branch, stationed at an ordinary police station? COL SIBULELA: Yes. JUDGE WILSON: He never went to the Security Police, anywhere? He never went to any other police station, just at Hammanskraal? COL SIBULELA: He was at Hammanskraal. JUDGE WILSON: And he was still there when he was killed? COL SIBULELA: Yes. JUDGE WILSON: Whether he was on duty or not is in dispute, but he had not been transferred, he had not been working anywhere else? COL SIBULELA: Yes. JUDGE WILSON: Thank you. ADV DE JAGER: Have you seen any of the photo's he used to take? COL SIBULELA: I've got photo's that he took, my own photo's. ADV DE JAGER: Did he take photo's of the buildings, the PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 539 COL SIBULELA Training College, and so on? COL SIBULELA: You know sometimes we would pause, I remember the photo's that he took we were swimming at the College swimming pool, but I don't know of any ... (tape ends) ADV DE JAGER: The Training College and the Hammanskraal police station, they are not on the same premises, are they? COL SIBULELA: They are not in the exact premises, but depending what we mean, because later on it was a big camp. There was a big fence around it, there was only one gate. If you enter that gate you get into the police station and then just very close, you get to the College. In fact the residents are in the same premises for both the police station and the College. ADV DE JAGER: Thank you. ADV DU PLESSIS: Now where were you, can you just give us an indication, where were you stationed in 1987? Where were you stationed? COL SIBULELA: When in 1987? ADV DU PLESSIS: Where, at what place were you stationed in 1987? COL SIBULELA: 1987, I was stationed at the College until the end of September, when I was transferred to Soshanguve. ADV DU PLESSIS: And when exactly was he banned from coming to the College? COL SIBULELA: That was before my transfer. Immediately after his transfer from the College to the police station. That could be somewhere 1986, early 1987. ADV DU PLESSIS: So when you were at the College and he was stationed at Hammanskraal, is it fair to say that you didn't really have any contact with him in working hours? COL SIBULELA: During working, yes. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 540 COL SIBULELA ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes. Because he was banned from the College? COL SIBULELA: Yes, he would never come to the College. ADV DU PLESSIS: So you would not be able to testify about what he was involved in when he worked at the police station, is that correct? COL SIBULELA: During working hours, yes. ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes. Is it also fair to say that you would not know exactly what cases he dealt with and what information he dealt with? COL SIBULELA: Yes, I couldn't know, but what I knew he was doing charge office work. ADV DU PLESSIS: Right. At the College at that time, can you remember if there were any problems with some of the people who were recruited and who were undergoing training in respect of the liberation movements? Did some of them support the liberation movements, can you remember? COL SIBULELA: We never had such a thing during my time at the College. ADV DU PLESSIS: Can you remember that there were problems with some of them listening to liberation speeches over tapes, speeches of ANC people? COL SIBULELA: No, no, we never had such problems at that College during my time. ADV DU PLESSIS: Alright. The Hammanskraal police station, that police station is stationed in Hammanskraal which is a Black township, is that correct? COL SIBULELA: No. ADV DU PLESSIS: Or where, can you give us an indication? COL SIBULELA: It is a White area just next to Hammanskraal, the railway station, if you come from this side, you cross PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 541 COL SIBULELA the bridge, it is not in Temba. That was not a Black police station. ADV DU PLESSIS: Alright. Were there lots of unrest incidents in 1986, 1987, can you remember in the Pretoria area? COL SIBULELA: Yes, in the Pretoria area, yes. ADV DU PLESSIS; And in that area? COL SIBULELA: No, there was nothing there, I was there during that time. ADV DU PLESSIS: Are you saying there were no unrest incidents at all in 1986 and 1987 in that area? COL SIBULELA: No, it was very quiet there in that place. ADV DU PLESSIS: Nothing. Would you have known if Mr Motasi ever came into possession, as part of his duties of sensitive information, or secret information, would you have known about it? COL SIBULELA: No. ADV DU PLESSIS: Would you have known if Mr Motasi had access to police information via the Security Branch for instance? COL SIBULELA: No. JUDGE WILSON: You did say there wasn't a Security Branch at Hammanskraal, didn't you? COL SIBULELA: Yes, at Hammanskraal per se there was no Security Branch. ADV DU PLESSIS: If I present evidence to this Committee of Warrant Officer Van Vuuren that he has knowledge that some of the trainees at the College picked up problems because they listened to ANC tapes, would you be able to dispute that? COL SIBULELA: Yes, I would be able to dispute that because PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 541 COL SIBULELA I don't have any knowledge of such happenings. ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, you don't have any knowledge of that, alright. JUDGE WILSON: And you were stationed at the College were you? COL SIBULELA: Yes. JUDGE WILSON: You were one of the officers there? COL SIBULELA: I was one of the officers. JUDGE WILSON: And was Warrant Officer Van Vuuren stationed there? ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I will present that evidence. JUDGE WILSON: I am asking this witness. He is the officer, he is giving evidence and he says he was an officer there. ADV DU PLESSIS: As it pleases you. COL SIBULELA: I have never seen him there, I am seeing him for the first time. He was never stationed at the Police College. ADV DU PLESSIS: Now there was also evidence that Mr Motasi was a courier for the ANC. Do you know anything about that? COL SIBULELA: First of all Mr Chairman, I don't know what is a courier. Perhaps if you can explain to me what kind of a person or a thing is a courier. ADV DU PLESSIS: It is a person who transfers information, or carries information from one place to another. COL SIBULELA: No, I have no knowledge of that. ADV DU PLESSIS: Let's say hypothetically that he was a courier, would you have known about that? COL SIBULELA: No. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 542 COL SIBULELA ADV DU PLESSIS: Can you remember during the time that Mr Motasi was suspended, did he work or did he stay at home? COL SIBULELA: You see, there I've got a problem because I don't know when he was suspended, because as I said the man was transferred from the College to the police station. If the suspension had taken place at the police station, I wouldn't have known as I could not even have known about his suspension. ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, because you see in the documents provided to us, Exhibit U and I refer specifically inter alia to page 68, there is reference in a letter to his suspension from duty and then more specifically I refer to a letter dated, it is not clear it seems like 7 August 1987, page 83, it seems that he was suspended until August 1987, the letter on page 83 says, "Sergeant Motasi will therefore be instructed to resume duties at Hammanskraal police station shortly". Now do I understand you correctly, you don't know if before August 1987, he was physically on duty every day at the Hammanskraal police station, you don't know? COL SIBULELA: Yes. ADV DU PLESSIS: You don't know? COL SIBULELA: I don't know. ADV DU PLESSIS: And there is also a letter, page 82 written by his attorneys, stating that he attended the Hammanskraal police station on 30 June 1987 in order to collect his monthly salary which the police refused to hand over to him. Now, I put it to you that from this I will argue that it is reasonable and probable to accept that he was not on duty at least until August 1987 because he was PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 543 COL SIBULELA suspended? COL SIBULELA: Yes. ADV DU PLESSIS: I see Mr Currin is shaking his head, he was the attorney at that time, he would probably be able to confirm that. Now that means that he, if we accept that, that means that he wasn't present from day to day at the police station, is that correct? COL SIBULELA: Yes. ADV DU PLESSIS: Would he have been able during that time, to have contact with other policemen stationed at other police stations and stationed at other places in say, Police Headquarters, would he have been able to have had contact with such people? COL SIBULELA: I don't know, because ... ADV DU PLESSIS: You can't say that? COL SIBULELA: Can't say. ADV DU PLESSIS: Alright, you can't testify about that. Now, you yourself ...(intervention) JUDGE MALL: Your question really relates to police at other stations, not at the Hammanskraal station? ADV DU PLESSIS; Yes, at other police stations and anywhere else in the South African Police Force and the witness testified that he can't say anything about that. Now, at that time, did you support the struggle? COL SIBULELA: Myself? ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes. COL SIBULELA: No. ADV DU PLESSIS: Not? COL SIBULELA: I didn't know anything about the struggle. ADV DU PLESSIS: And would you have known if Sergeant Motasi supported the struggle? PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 544 COL SIBULELA COL SIBULELA: No. ADV DU PLESSIS: You would not have known about it? COL SIBULELA: Yes. ADV DU PLESSIS: So, you agree with me that there might have been a possibility that he could have supported the struggle? COL SIBULELA: No, I don't agree with it. ADV DU PLESSIS: Why not? COL SIBULELA: No, because in the first place he would have been arrested. Why immediately after instituting the civil case and the fight and then he is connected to the struggle, he could have been arrested long before that. ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, you see you testified that you wouldn't have known if he had supported the struggle, and clearly a policeman at that time who supported the struggle, wouldn't have been public about it, isn't that so? COL SIBULELA: No, but he would have been arrested and this thing couldn't have waited until the conflict of assault. ADV DU PLESSIS: Did the liberation movements have agents in the police services? COL SIBULELA: That time, I don't know. ADV DU PLESSIS: Was it possible? COL SIBULELA: No. ADV DU PLESSIS: Now - yes Mr Chairman. JUDGE MALL: ... whether the liberation movement had persons in the College? ADV DU PLESSIS; I am asking in general Mr Chairman, in the Police Force. JUDGE MALL; Oh in the Police Force. ADV DU PLESSIS: In the Police Force. Do you say it is impossible? PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 545 COL SIBULELA JUDGE MGOEPE: In the Police Force of the Republic of South Africa? ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, in the South African Police Force, I am asking if he concedes that it is possible. JUDGE MGOEPE: Are you asking with regard to the police station at Hammanskraal or at the College or are you saying from the Limpopo to Cape Town? ADV DU PLESSIS: I am saying he was part of the Police Force, does he ...(intervention) JUDGE MGOEPE: No, I am asking you, are you asking him whether with regard to the members of the Police Force at Hammanskraal or at the College or as regards policemen throughout South Africa? ADV DU PLESSIS: Generally, generally. Do you say that that wasn't possible, that there could be? COL SIBULELA: It was not possible. ADV DU PLESSIS: Right, because I want to put to you that we heard the evidence of UDF activist, Mr Moss Chikane who said that the UDF and the ANC infiltrated the South African Police and that they had agents in the South African Police. Do you say that he is wrong? COL SIBULELA: No, I didn't know about that. ADV DU PLESSIS: Okay, you didn't know about that? COL SIBULELA: Yes. ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman, I have no further questions. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DU PLESSIS ADV MPSHE: Mr Sibulela, what happened to the departmental trial from which you had to recuse yourself? COL SIBULELA: It was transferred to Soshanguve and it was -the officer there continued with the trial. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV MPSHE 545 COL SIBULELA ADV MPSHE: Do you know the result thereof? COL SIBULELA: No. ADV MPSHE: At that time, when you were at the College, can I say you were part of Management at the Training College? COL SIBULELA: It is difficult to say so during that time, in a way yes. ADV MPSHE: Now why do you say it is difficult to know? COL SIBULELA: No, I mean it was the time of Apartheid, we were just there and most of the things could be decided by Whites and then we will just do it. ADV MPSHE: I see. You testified that Richard was at one stage your neighbour at the College? COL SIBULELA: Yes. ADV MPSHE: Did he visit you frequently at the time when he was your neighbour? COL SIBULELA: Yes. ADV MPSHE: And during the discussion, during his visitation at your place, did he ever discuss politics with you? COL SIBULELA: No. ADV MPSHE: Did you ever during the discussions decipher or deduce some form of political knowledge on his part? COL SIBULELA: No, there is no such a thing, you see the people that we were staying, they were so distant from the communities, these things of politics for us, it was just not there. ADV MPSHE: Thank you Mr Chairman, I have no further questions. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MPSHE ADV DE JAGER: The departmental trial that was transferred PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DE JAGER 546 COL SIBULELA to Soshanguve, that was while he was still at the College? COL SIBULELA: It would appear that he was already at the police station. ADV DE JAGER: At the police station, not at Hammanskraal anymore? COL SIBULELA: Not at the College anymore. ADV DE JAGER: When you would have conducted the trial, was he still there at the College then or was ...(intervention) COL SIBULELA: When I was to conduct the trial? ADV DE JAGER: Ja. COL SIBULELA: He was still at the College yes. ADV DE JAGER: Yes. And did he never mention to you what the result of this trial was and weren't you interested to know what happened in this trial because you were the one who should originally have conducted the trial? COL SIBULELA: No, you see at that time he was already at Hammanskraal police station, and it was not easy to see him frequently. ADV DE JAGER: Did he ever complain about this trial to you except that he asked you to recuse yourself later on? COL SIBULELA: No. ADV DE JAGER: Was he treated fairly at the trial, do you know or not? COL SIBULELA: At Soshanguve? ADV DE JAGER: Ja. COL SIBULELA: I think, because they did not complain then. ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman through you may I be allowed to ask just one question that I forgot to put to the witness? JUDGE MALL: Yes. ADV MPSHE: Thank you. Before the assault on Motasi, how long was Motasi in the Police Force? PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV MPSHE 547 COL SIBULELA COL SIBULELA: As I said, I trained him in 1973 as a student, so it could have been a very long time. ADV MPSHE: A very long time? COL SIBULELA: From 1973 to 1980, it is round about 10 years, to the assault in 1984. ADV MPSHE: Now before the assault on him, how was he treated at the College, were there any problems with him at the College? COL SIBULELA: There were no problems, he was treated fairly and hence he was promoted. ADV MPSHE: And during that period when he was treated fairly and there were no problems, was Colonel Van Zyl still at the Police College? COL SIBULELA: He was at the College, yes. ADV MPSHE: Would you then say the problems started after the assault on him? COL SIBULELA; Yes. ADV MPSHE: Thank you Mr Chairman, I am indebted to the Chair. JUDGE MGOEPE: Colonel, your statement which to me sounds quite broad, your statement that members of the South African Police Force throughout the Republic of South Africa, none of them supported the liberation movements in one way or another, to me it requires some explanation because it is very embrasive. What do you mean by that? Or rather, why do you say that? COL SIBULELA: You see, I mean, I say so because you see, those days the control and the supervision and the screening was such that it was very difficult for one to could have supported, I don't know in which manner, but for me it was very difficult. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG JUDGE MGOEPE 548 COL SIBULELA JUDGE MGOEPE: Is that why you come to that conclusion? COL SIBULELA: Yes, yes. JUDGE MGOEPE: Now did you say that you were present when Sergeant Motasi was assaulted by Colonel Van Zyl? COL SIBULELA: No. JUDGE MGOEPE: You were not present? COL SIBULELA: I was not present. JUDGE MGOEPE: And if I understand your evidence correctly, after that assault, the relationship between the deceased and White members of the Police Force became very bad. COL SIBULELA: Not the Police Force necessarily, it is the College. JUDGE MGOEPE: At the College? COL SIBULELA: At the College, yes. JUDGE MGOEPE: It deteriorated very badly? COL SIBULELA: It became strained. It was very much strained. JUDGE MGOEPE: Yes. Now, are you aware of any further assaults on the deceased by his White colleagues subsequent to that one? COL SIBULELA: No, no I am not aware. JUDGE MGOEPE: I read from one of the documents before us that apparently it is a letter which the deceased wrote that on Tuesday, 8 April 1986, that is page 54 for those who have the documents, "While off duty I was assaulted, insulted and threatened by Captain Kotze of the College personnel and reported a case...." then he gives the CR number. Were you aware of such a incident? COL SIBULELA: Ja, that incident could have - I remember it PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG JUDGE MGOEPE 549 COL SIBULELA was - they met somewhere at the shopping centre in Hammanskraal, I don't know what happened there, but I can recall such an incident, because that Captain even came back, but it was the time, Motasi, by that time, he was no longer at the College. If I remember well it seems he came back and related the story to us in a meeting of what transpired when they met at the shopping centre in Hammanskraal. JUDGE MGOEPE: Now if that is correct and the date given is correct, which is the 8th of April 1986, that would mean that it was - this was a further assault on him by one of his White colleagues? COL SIBULELA: Yes, because it was then after he was transferred from the College, as a result of that, to the Hammanskraal College and then he met him at the shopping centre, then I don't know what happened there. JUDGE MGOEPE: Yes. And then he goes on to say, "On Friday, 28 August 1986, while on sick leave, I was wake up sick (I suppose that would have been woken up) threatened with a firearm by Sergeant Raath, assaulted and arrested by Sergeant Raath and Constable Vredenburg and tortured by Sergeant Vredenburg, Constable Vredenburg". Now are you aware of this incident or are you not? COL SIBULELA: No, that is the time he was now at the police station I am sure, those are things that took place at the police station. JUDGE MGOEPE: At the police station. There was a Sergeant Raath at the police station, or you can't remember? COL SIBULELA: I didn't know the personnel of the police station as we were not connected. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG JUDGE MGOEPE 549 COL SIBULELA JUDGE MGOEPE: And then he mentioned yet a further incident of harassment on the face of it by a White police officer, I am just looking at the surname, tortured by Warrant Officer Le Grange and then Sergeant Raath again. Again that would have been when he was at ...(intervention) COL SIBULELA: At Hammanskraal, yes, there was a Le Grange at Hammanskraal police station, that one I know. JUDGE MGOEPE: Now, if one takes all these things into account and also the previous assault on him, if these allegations are correct, it seems to me that he was assaulted many times by his White colleagues? COL SIBULELA: Yes. JUDGE MGOEPE: Let me ask you, the assault on Black members of the Police Force at the time by White police officers, was it something common? COL SIBULELA: Very common, it was very common. That is why, just to add, that's why this thing it became such an issue because they were not used to a Black man assaulted, to be so resistant like this, like what Motasi did. Many of the Sergeants used to be assaulted at the College, but from there they would just brainwash him and say - for instance I remember one case a Sergeant was assaulted and then from there to please him and for him not to open a case, he was shifted to be made in charge of a certain section. These kind of things were very common in those days. JUDGE MGOEPE: So of all the people who were assaulted there from time to time by White colleagues, by their White colleagues, the one person that you recall who really put up a resistance is Sergeant Motasi? COL SIBULELA: Motasi, and this thing they just couldn't understand it. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG JUDGE MGOEPE 550 COL SIBULELA JUDGE MGOEPE: It was something that they were not used to? COL SIBULELA: Yes. JUDGE MGOEPE: And it is something that saw to the deterioration of the relationship between himself and his White colleagues? COL SIBULELA: Yes. JUDGE MGOEPE: Thank you. ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, may I be afforded the opportunity perhaps further information has come to my knowledge which I want to put to this witness if you would allow me to. I intend to call Warrant Officer Van Vuuren on this, whenever he testifies again just to put the evidence before the Committee, but I would like to put it to this witness if you would allow me to. JUDGE WILSON: He has in fact given evidence on this incident, hasn't he? ADV DU PLESSIS: He has given evidence on this incident, but what I want to put to him relates specifically to what this witness testified. JUDGE WILSON: Are you going to recall you clients every time some witness says something about them without asking the Committee's leave? ADV DU PLESSIS: Well, I am asking the Committee's leave now, Mr Chairman. JUDGE WILSON: You didn't, you said I am going to recall. ADV DU PLESSIS; Obviously with the Committee's permission, that is what I am trying ...(intervention) JUDGE WILSON: You should learn to express yourself more accurately, then. ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I ask the Committee's leave to put this to the witness and obviously if I have the PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 551 COL SIBULELA opportunity to put it to the witness, I would be able to lead Warrant Officer Van Vuuren in respect of it. JUDGE MGOEPE: Mr Du Plessis, while the Chairman is still thinking about your request, I just want to ask something as a follow up to questions that I am putting to the witness. With regard to the incidents of assault that occurred there, from what you said, would I be correct then to say that no steps were taken by those who should have taken steps? COL SIBULELA: Yes. ADV DE JAGER: And as a result of this question, there was good reason for Mr Motasi to feel aggrieved about what the police have done to him? COL SIBULELA: Yes. FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, I want to make it clear, I do this only because we are dealing with the Commission. In a normal civil case or a criminal case, obviously it would not be the correct procedure and that is why I asked the Committee's permission for that. What I want to put to you is that I have been informed by more than one, but I will, if the Committee allows me to, lead the evidence of Warrant Officer van Vuuren, that there will be evidence that in 1986 plans by the ANC were obtained by the Security Police which related to planned attacks on South African Police Training Colleges, which included the Pretoria West College, the Durban College, the Cape Town College and the Hammanskraal College. Do you know anything about it? COL SIBULELA: No, I don't know anything about it. ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG 552 COL SIBULELA NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DU PLESSIS JUDGE MALL: Any re-examination Mr Currin? MR CURRIN: I have no re-examination Mr Chairman. NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR CURRIN. JUDGE MALL: Thank you very much. COL SIBULELA: Thank you. WITNESS EXCUSED MR CURRIN: Mr Chairman, there is an issue of - there is so much speculation Mr Chairman about what was said and what was happening and whether Sergeant Motasi was assaulted on numerous occasions and what the history is, as his attorney on record since February 1986, I have all that information in my head. I saw him regularly, I advised him, I assisted him and it seems to me that if there is any doubt in the Commission's head or if the Commission needs information with regard to Richard Motasi, I am probably the best person to be able to give that information. I am very loathe to present myself as a witness, I am not keen to do that, but I just mention that and I possibly, I just mention to the Committee that if there is any doubt in the Committee's head in regard to any of these issues, and if the Committee would like further information, I am willing to make myself available as a witness. What I would obviously liked to have done, would be to hand up this entire bundle to say insofar as that bundle refers to my interactions with Sergeant Motasi as a client and insofar as it relates to correspondence between Savage, Jooste and Adams, the firm of attorneys of which I was a partner at the time and the Commissioner of Police, I would want to submit that it be accepted as evidence insofar as it can enlighten the Committee on the background, but I am not PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR CURRIN 553 ADDRESS sure whether my learned friend would be willing to agree to that. JUDGE MALL: Nobody has raised any questions about the contents of the documents that compile Exhibit U, in fact extracts from that and portions of that had been put to the witness under cross- examination, there's been no suggestion that these documents do not correctly reflect what happened. The evidential value of it all is something which the Committee will have to decide when the time comes. But as for your position as to whether you wish to give evidence or not, the Committee can't tell you what you should do. It is a decision which you will have to take yourself. MR CURRIN: Yes, Mr Chairman. JUDGE MALL: Thank you. ADV DE JAGER: Mr Currin, you wrote those letters yourself, you've handed it in as a bundle and you didn't experience yourself the assaults, but that was what your client told you at that stage. MR CURRIN: That is correct, on a regular basis he came into my office and consulted with me and I took instructions from him, we wrote letters and so on. I had meetings with the Commissioner's Office on a number of occasions to try and resolve the matter. It is reflected in the documentation. The documentation is before the Committee. All I am saying in the Committee's mind, you - if there is any further clarification or confirmation which the Committee would like, which my learned friend would like as counsel for the Commission, maybe it is a matter I should discuss with Mr Mpshe, then I would make myself available as a witness. And I think I will discuss it with him as counsel for the Committee and we will see what we can sort out at PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG 553 lunch time which is not far from here, thank you Sir. JUDGE MALL: Are you not calling any other witness? Yesterday you indicated you ...(intervention) MR CURRIN: I am, I want to call Mrs Hlabangane. She is the mother of Irene Motasi and she is also at the moment the guardian, and has been the guardian of their young son who was in the house at the time that his mother and father were killed. I would like to call her as a witness. JUDGE MALL: Very well, you may do so. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR CURRIN 554 MS HLABANGANE MR CURRIN: Mrs Hlabangane. MRS HLABANGANE: (sworn states) EXAMINATION BY MR CURRIN: Mrs Hlabangane, I am going to ask you questions. What was your relationship with Irene Motasi? MRS HLABANGANE: Irene Motasi is my daughter. MR CURRIN: Would you be comfortable to testify in English or would you rather testify in Zulu? MRS HLABANGANE: I would like to testify in Zulu. MR CURRIN: You can then answer the question in Zulu and the Interpreter can help us. MRS HLABANGANE: Oh, okay. MR CURRIN: How many children ... (intervention) MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Currin, it would appear that she has a problem, she is not having the right channel. Maybe we should ask the assistance of the translators, channel 3? MR CURRIN: When did your daughter Irene and Richard Motasi get married? MS HLABANGANE: In 1977. MR CURRIN: How many children did they have? MRS HLABANGANE: They only got - (no translation of Zulu) MR CURRIN: Are you getting any interpretation? I am not getting any interpretation. MRS HLABANGANE: You can continue in English, I will try. JUDGE MGOEPE: No, I think it is not a question of trying, we want to be sure that you express yourself accurately to avoid any possible confusion and we would encourage you, unless you so insist, we would encourage and advise you to speak in the language that you prefer. MR CURRIN: Could the interpreters indicate whether they are now ready? PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR CURRIN 555 MS HLABANGANE INTERPRETERS: Yes, we can hear now. She can hear now, she has just said that. MR CURRIN: What I would like to know is whether the interpreters are now ready? INTERPRETERS: She says she can hear us. We are talking, but nothing is coming out. Can anybody hear me? MR CURRIN: Can you hear us? INTERPRETERS: Yes, I can hear you. MR CURRIN: Can we proceed? INTERPRETERS: Yes, you may proceed. MR CURRIN: I think we will start from the beginning. How many children did they have? INTERPRETER: The Speaker's mike is not on, I can't hear the witness. There seems to be a confusion, we are not getting anything from the floor. JUDGE WILSON: Were you not getting Mr Currin either? INTERPRETER: No, I didn't get him. MR CURRIN: Can you get me now? Yes, could we try and resolve this, it is not really fair on the witness to be sitting in these circumstances. JUDGE MALL: Yes. We will just stop for a short while. Call us as soon as you are ready. MR CURRIN: Thank you. COMMITTEE ADJOURNS ON RESUMPTION MR CURRIN: If I understand your evidence correctly, you said they had one child, three children passed away, babies? JUDGE MALL: They had four children? MRS HLABANGANE: That is correct, they had three children and those children died so it's only the one that is left. MR CURRIN: What is the name of the child, the surviving PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR CURRIN 556 MS HLABANGANE child? MRS HLABANGANE: It is Sidiso Charles Motasi. MR CURRIN: I know that this is not going to be easy for you, but I would like you to tell the Committee how you were informed of the murder of Richard and your daughter, Irene and what you did when you heard that information. MRS HLABANGANE: I received a telephone call in the morning as I was just preparing myself to go to town and they said I should go to Hammanskraal. I got the telephone call from Jubilee Hospital, from Shadi, that is Irene's friend. And I asked as to what the matter was and she told me that she would talk to me as soon as I got to the hospital. And I started to panic because at the time I knew that something had happened. She was working at Jubilee Hospital in Hammanskraal. Then after she had told me I sat down and I begged her to tell me as to what had happened so that I may be able to gather enough courage to face the truth. Then she told me that my son-in-law had died as well as Irene had died. And I asked as to what had happened to the child and she said she didn't know. May I go on? MR CURRIN: Yes, please. MRS HLABANGANE: At that time I phoned my son, Vusi, he was working and I told him that I had got a message only to find that he had also got the message, so he rushed home and we went to Hammanskraal. We were travelling at a very high speed when we were getting to Hammanskraal and we got to the Hammanskraal hospital. When we got there, we saw quite a lot of people outside the hospital and we realised that something must have happened and we went inside the hospital building. When we got there, there was a Black Maria as well PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR CURRIN 557 MS HLABANGANE as policemen around the place. MR CURRIN: What is a Black Maria, just to - I know what it is but just to put on record. MRS HLABANGANE: It is a hearse. MR CURRIN: Right, thank you. Was this at the hospital? MRS HLABANGANE: Then I saw the hearse outside the hospital building, I ran into the kitchen and when I got into the kitchen I came across somebody pushing a stretcher and the stretcher was carrying my daughter's body, Irene and ...(intervention) MR CURRIN: You were not at the house and please, speak more slowly. JUDGE WILSON: Did you say the house or the hospital? MR CURRIN: She started off at the hospital, but she's now got to the house and I just want her to go more slowly. I understood it to be the kitchen of the house, but maybe she can just go back and tell us where she is. Where are you now, just - you went to the hospital? MRS HLABANGANE: I didn't get to the hospital, I went to Irene's home because the call that I got was from Irene's home. I was phoned by a certain person from the hospital, but she told me that I should go to Irene's home. We went to Irene's home and people were milling around the place, quite a lot, a large crowd and I saw that something had happened. I got out of the car and my son was following behind. When I got out of the car there was a hearse and when I went into the kitchen, I came across somebody pushing a stretcher and I had a look, I saw that it was my daughter, Irene, and I discovered that my daughter had died and she had one wound on the forehead. And I left her because I realised that she had died. I went into the dining room because their PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR CURRIN 558 MS HLABANGANE house, you entered the house through the kitchen and to the lounge. When I got there I discovered that Motasi was laying in a pool of blood. And he had also been shot. And the spent cartridges were on the floor, his brains were also splattered, as well as certain pieces of the scull were on the floor, scattered all of the place and I looked at his ear, something whitish was coming out of his ears. I don't know whether it was his brains and he was also dead. And from there I ran, I went into the bedroom. That is their son's bedroom, or their child's bedroom. I looked for the child, but I couldn't find the child. I looked in all the other rooms, without any success and I started getting very confused at this stage because I didn't know where the child was. And when I went outside, I heard - I could feel somebody grabbing me and it was the child. I took the child. MR CURRIN: How old was he at that time? MRS HLABANGANE: He was five years old. I took the child, I lifted her to my chest and the parents were taken in the hearse and as we were just trying to just go back into the house, we were chased out by the police because they wanted to gather some evidence. The police who was there was working with my son-in-law and his name was Mnisi, I was seeing him for the first time at that time and they were staying at the same street with my son-in-law. It is about three houses from my son-in-law's place and there were also other policemen at the scene and we asked as to what had happened. And they told me that my son-in-law was stubborn and that is why he had been killed. They said they had told him to drop or withdraw the charges against Van Zyl and I asked as to why he had been killed. They told me PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR CURRIN 558 MS HLABANGANE that it was the case of the eardrum. And up to such time that they allowed us to get into the house, when we got into the house, we were told that we should fix the house, we should wash whatever was splattered with blood and we should take all those things, we should also wash the pillows and when they came back, they asked us as to who had told us to wash the blood splattered things. We told them that we had been given permission by the police and they told us that we were not supposed to have washed these things without their permission. And we remained in the house and my other daughter-in-law, that is Vusi's wife, the child was having some things like panic attacks or he was terribly disturbed, so I decided that they should take the child to Soweto and the child should consult or get some medical attention, because he was exhibiting some peculiar behaviour immediately after the death of the parents. And they went to Soweto, I was left alone. MR CURRIN: Just stop there for a moment. Before he was taken to Soweto, did you try and establish where the child had been found, what had happened to the child during the night? The night that his parents were killed, did you ask any questions about the son? MRS HLABANGANE: When I asked my neighbours, they told me that the child was inside the house at that time, but nobody knows as to how he survived, because he escaped unscathed, but they heard the child screaming throughout the night asking for help, saying help me, help me. He realised that something was happening, probably he hid somewhere but people were woken up by the screams of the child inside the house. And my next-door neighbour came into the house in the PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR CURRIN 559 MS HLABANGANE morning to fetch the child and they stayed with the child. When I was looking for the child, the child was at my neighbours' place. MR CURRIN: So he spent the whole night in the house with his dead parents? MRS HLABANGANE: That is true, he stayed with the corpses of his parents and he was running from pillar to post trying to wake his parents up, but there was no help coming at that particular moment. MR CURRIN: How do you know that he was trying to wake up his parents? Did you ask him what happened? MRS HLABANGANE; Yes, he related the story to me because he still recalled very vividly what had happened and the people also told me that the child was screaming for the whole night asking for help and he was taken to the neighbours' place and they gave him food in the morning. MR CURRIN: He then went off to Soweto, what happened in the afternoon at their home in Hammanskraal? MRS HLABANGANE: The child was taken to Soweto and I was left in the house as it is my culture and my custom to remain. Then at about three in the afternoon, I still remember it was three o'clock, two men, Black men came to me as well as one White man who was very tall. They got into the bedroom, they approached me. When they came into the house, the other two men were standing at the door of the bedroom and the White person came into the bedroom and when he got to me, he said we are from Mafikeng, from the Head Office. And we have come to see what has happened. And I really believed that they had come to sympathise with me as they were officers. After quite a few moments, this White person changed, he said to me I must stand up. He said it PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR CURRIN 560 MS HLABANGANE with so much force and I said to him, I cannot stand because I am here and I am staying here because my daughter has died. They said they were looking for Motasi's uniform and I said I knew nothing about that because I do not stay in that place. He said he didn't care about that, he wanted me to give him the keys and I gave him the keys. I was in a state of shock at the way they were handling me. I was trying to open the wardrobes, but apparently I was using the wrong keys. Up until such time that I got the right keys and I opened up the wardrobes, he said he was looking for the uniform. I took the uniform out and I gave it to him and he took out the stars that were in the uniform and he further said to me, even if I don't know Afrikaans, but he spoke in Afrikaans, and he said I must give them to my old man. That is what he said to me. MR CURRIN: Give what, the uniform? MRS HLABANGANE: Ja. MR CURRIN: Right, and then? MRS HLABANGANE: Now, he was giving me the uniform, but he took the pins that were on the uniform, he said I should give them to my old man and he laughed at me and he took out his gun and he was busy brandishing the gun towards me, he said do I know what a gun is used for and he said to me, do you see what the gun has done to Motasi and his wife. He said if you talk too much, this is what you get and at that time, he was pointing the gun at my forehead. And he said my son-in-law was talking too much and at times he used English, at times he spoke Afrikaans. MR CURRIN: And you don't know who any of those policemen are, do you know who any of those policemen are? MRS HLABANGANE: The person that I saw very well was Joe PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR CURRIN 561 MS HLABANGANE Mamasela, who was standing at the door. I saw him. This other policeman was very tall, he had big eyes, but I cannot identify him. MR CURRIN: Okay. ...(intervention) MS HLABANGANE: I saw Mamasela and I can positively identify him, he was with another light complexioned Black policeman. The other one was looking like he wasn't really agreeing or seeing eye to eye with the other policemen, because according to our culture, they did not have to manhandle me in the manner that they did, especially under the circumstances. MR CURRIN: Mrs Hlabangane, then later that - when did you eventually Leave the home? How long did you stay at the house for, until the funeral? MRS HLABANGANE: I stayed for a whole two weeks. And on that particular day when they came, I had already sent my son-in-law's brother to go and fetch his parents and he went because he is also working at the Training College, and he was working at the Training College at that time. And he said he felt quite, very bad about what has happened. It looked like the police were very impressed with their work and it was a joke at the Training College that Mr Motasi had died. And my son went away, my son's friend went away. On Thursday the whole family came, that is the Motasi family, and we stayed together. MR CURRIN: At the time that your daughter and Richard were killed, we heard that Richard was a policeman and your daughter was a nursing sister, correct? MRS HLABANGANE: Yes, that is true. MR CURRIN: Since then, who has been taking care of your grandson? PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR CURRIN 561 MS HLABANGANE MRS HLABANGANE: I took their child. We were called at the police station and they asked me as to how many people I was staying with and all the nurses at Jubilee wanted the child to be with me, they wanted me to be her custodian. I have three children, two boys and one girl and all of them are married. Now I was staying with my husband at that time. MR CURRIN: Is your husband still alive? MRS HLABANGANE: Yes, he is, but he is on pension at the moment. MR CURRIN: Who is paying for the maintenance and schooling of the child? MRS HLABANGANE: They sent me to the Home Affairs office and I am getting some money for the child's maintenance. It was R200,00 and we were also getting his father's pension, that is where I get the money. And the child started school, at about standard, when he was doing standard four, I went to lodge a complaint that the money was not enough, but later on I was receiving R500,00, so I am able to pay for the schooling as well as the transportation and some groceries and school uniform and clothes. MR CURRIN: The total amount you are receiving is R700,00 a month, if I understand you correctly? R500,00 a month? MRS HLABANGANE: Now, it is R500,00. MR CURRIN: And that contributes towards his maintenance and schooling? MRS HLABANGANE: Yes, that is correct. And my husband was holding part-time jobs, because he had worked there for 40 years at Eskom and he got his retirement package and we do receive a salary at the end of the month, so we are coping. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR CURRIN 562 MS HLABANGANE MR CURRIN: How has your grandson dealt with this terrible incident? MRS HLABANGANE: My grandson didn't care throughout, he didn't show any signs of being disturbed, but when he grew up, there were certain signs, even when he gets a paper that, a newspaper where there is something about a person who has died, he always came with the newspaper clipping and showed it to me. At some stage he got a Tribute magazine that had his father's photo and he showed it to me and he said this is my father and look what they have done to him. And since then he has been very disturbed, I had to seek medical attention for him. MR CURRIN: Has he had fairly extensive medical treatment? MRS HLABANGANE: Yes, I do take him to the clinic, but now I am facing a difficulty because where he is attending, they want medical aid and I don't have a medical aid and that is the problem that I am facing at this juncture. So I am usually taking him to the clinic. MR CURRIN: Is he having psychological treatment? MRS HLABANGANE: When I got to this place, they wrote me a letter, that is the TRC, so that I should take this letter to the clinic because he was examined and they analysed him, they said he is disturbed psychologically. So now he is having an appointment on Monday to go to the clinic. MR CURRIN: I see. You knew your daughter and your son-in-law very well, I gather? MRS HLABANGANE: We were very close, we had a very close relationship. I did not regard him as a son-in-law, but as a son. And when I was still working at a factory, my son-in-law would phone from Hammanskraal and say please cook something very warm for me, and I would come and fetch you PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR CURRIN 563 MS HLABANGANE and take you to work and he used to pick me up from home, take me to work and at times he would fetch me from work and drop me off at home. We were very close. He was non-violent and it comes as a surprise to me that he ended up dying so violently and they were claiming that he was a violent person and he was doing all these sorts of things that he has been described to have been doing. He was very friendly as far as I know him. He was quite a good person and they were married for 11 years, not even during a single instant that we've had a problem. MR CURRIN: Did they ever, at any stage, either Richard or your daughter talk politics to you? MRS HLABANGANE: Not even on a single day, I've never heard them talking about politics. Even though I was not staying with them, I would see them from time to time and whenever they came to my place, they used to stay for about two days, maybe if my daughter was weekend off, they would sleep at my place, today and the following day they would go to her brother's place. They were very close. I have never seen Irene coming to my place without her husband, they were always together. At times they would come to my place and they would look as to whether I had any groceries and they would open up the cupboards and I would see them coming back with groceries and they would buy me some groceries. My son-in-law used to buy groceries for me as well as for his mother. MR CURRIN: Thank you for that Mrs Hlabangane, just one last question that I would like you to think about and give us an answer to. You know that at one stage he was assaulted by a senior police officer and this created problems in his relationships with some of his senior PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR CURRIN 563 MS HLABANGANE officers. Did he talk to you at all about that incident? MRS HLABANGANE: Yes, I am the one who went to Garankua to see him when he was admitted at the hospital. His ear was oozing some puss after he had been assaulted by that policeman and he told me that the person who assaulted him, was Van Zyl. He was always talking about Van Zyl to me and at some stage he said to me when I die, you must know that Van Zyl has killed me because he had this bad attitude towards me and he had some sort of a vendetta against me. MR CURRIN: I have no further questions to this witness Mr Chairman. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CURRIN JUDGE MALL: Perhaps it is an convenient stage to take the adjournment. We will resume at two o'clock. COMMISSION ADJOURNS ON RESUMPTION JUDGE MALL: Counsel made a request to us about the continued hearing of this matter. We will see you in Chambers after we have finished the hearing today, at the close of the hearing. Yes, Mr Mpshe? Mr Currin, were you busy with this witness? MR CURRIN: Mr Chairman, I have finished leading this witness. JUDGE MALL; Mr Du Plessis, any questions to put to this witness? CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mrs Hlabangane, when exactly did your son go to Zimbabwe? MRS HLABANGANE: I don't know when he went to Zimbabwe, because I was not staying with him. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 564 MS HLABANGANE ADV DU PLESSIS: Do you know if he went to Zimbabwe at some time before his death? MRS HLABANGANE: I have a cousin who is in Zimbabwe and they once went there, but not recently, not shortly before he died. JUDGE MALL: Are you talking about her son or her son-in-law? ADV DU PLESSIS: Oh, the son-in-law, I beg your pardon. I am referring to Mr Motasi, your son- in-law. What I want to put to you and I am going to put this because of a fact that we have knowledge of, I put to you that your son-in-law and your husband on a date unknown to me, went to Zimbabwe. Do you know anything about that? MRS HLABANGANE: Yes, they once visited. ADV DU PLESSIS: And was that at a time when your son was in the South African Police Force? JUDGE WILSON: Son-in-law. ADV DU PLESSIS: Oh, son-in-law, I beg your pardon. MRS HLABANGANE: Yes, he was still a police, but they were just visiting a relative in Zimbabwe. ADV DU PLESSIS: Can you at all remember when? MRS HLABANGANE: That much I am not sure, I don't know, I don't know if it was 1983, but I was just discharged from the hospital, I was admitted in hospital to have an operation. ADV DU PLESSIS: Was it one of the operations that followed the assault on him? MS KHAMPEPE: She is the one who had undergone an operation Mr Du Plessis. ADV DU PLESSIS: I beg your pardon. Alright. Can you remember if this visit happened before your son was PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 565 MS HLABANGANE assaulted or after your son was assaulted? Oh, son-in-law. MRS HLABANGANE: It was before the assault. JUDGE MGOEPE: Can you mention, just call him by name and just say Motasi, it solves a problem. ADV DU PLESSIS; Yes Mr Chairman, as it pleases you. I am referring to Mr Motasi, was it before he was assaulted? MRS HLABANGANE: He was not yet assaulted at the time. ADV DU PLESSIS: You see the reason why I put this to you is because of the fact that there was a book written about your son, isn't that so? Son-in-law, Mr Motasi, who died, there was a book written about him, is that correct? MRS HLABANGANE: A book that was written about him, John Miles, yes, there is a book like that. ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, yes, I am referring to the book that was written by John Miles, do you know about that book? MRS HLABANGANE: I saw that book and it was being sold at the CNA stores. ADV DU PLESSIS: Now you testified that when you arrived at the house on that day when you were informed that Mr Motasi and his wife were shot, that there were policemen at the house, is that correct? MRS HLABANGANE: The police were keeping guard at the house and they were outside when we were arriving. One of them was Mnisi. ADV DU PLESSIS: How many of them were there? MRS HLABANGANE: They were quite numerous in number, but the one that I remember quite well is Mnisi, for he was a neighbour. ADV DU PLESSIS: Was there any White policemen there? MRS HLABANGANE: No, they were not there, it was only Black policemen. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 566 MS HLABANGANE ADV DU PLESSIS: And did they speak to you? MRS HLABANGANE: No, they never, the only thing they said was that, when I asked what had happened, they said your son-in-law had died now and it has been some time now that we have been telling him to drop this case and he insisted, that was the only thing they said. They never even made mention of the fact that he was killed by the police, but people around were rumouring the fact that it was the police who killed him. ADV DU PLESSIS: So they never said he was killed by the police, is that correct? MRS HLABANGANE: They said he was killed by the terrorists for he had joined the terrorist group and all that, I don't know. ADV DU PLESSIS: Did they say he was killed by the terrorists, do I understand you correctly? MRS HLABANGANE: That is correct. JUDGE MGOEPE: When did they say that, on that very day? MRS HLABANGANE: When I was arriving, even before I went into the house, they had already told me that. MS KHAMPEPE: Mrs Hlabangane, was this a group of Black policemen whom you found around the house? MRS HLABANGANE: That is correct, a group of Black policemen. ADV DU PLESSIS: Did they give a reason why the terrorists killed him? MRS HLABANGANE: I don't know, I don't even know the term terrorists, at the time I did not even know what it meant. ADV DU PLESSIS: And can you, I am just a bit confused, can you explain to us what did they say about the court case? PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 567 MS HLABANGANE MRS HLABANGANE: They said it has been time, they have been telling him that he should drop the case and as a result the terrorists have killed him. ADV DU PLESSIS: Can you remember after the assault, did he speak to you about the assault by Colonel Van Zyl, did he discuss that with you in detail? MRS HLABANGANE: My son-in-law told me about his assault at Garankua when I went to see him at the hospital, that he was assaulted by Van Zyl and I shall know, if he dies, it is because of Van Zyl's work. ADV DU PLESSIS: Alright. And did he discuss the actions of White policemen against him thereafter with you? After that day at the hospital? MRS HLABANGANE: I don't quite understand your question. ADV DU PLESSIS: I want to know if he discussed the actions of White policemen against him, that is Mr Motasi, against him after that day at the hospital about which you testified now. MRS HLABANGANE: Yes, he talked to me because I wanted to know what hurt him, I asked him and he had to disclose. ADV DU PLESSIS: And what did he say to you? MRS HLABANGANE: He said he was assaulted by police at work and it is Van Zyl, he hit him on his eardrum and I asked what had happened, and he said he will tell me after all that at home, and because I come from Soweto and I didn't stay with them, we never had time after that. ADV DE JAGER: I think what the counsel wants to know is whether there were other assaults by other policemen with other names, not by Van Zyl? MRS HLABANGANE: I will not know that far whether he was assaulted by other policemen or not, because I come from PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 567 MS HLABANGANE Soweto and it is not everything that I knew of. ADV DU PLESSIS: Did you live at Soweto at that stage when he was assaulted by Colonel Van Zyl? MRS HLABANGANE: Yes, I have never been anywhere, I am still residing in Soweto. ADV DU PLESSIS: And Mr Motasi and your daughter, where were they living at that time? MRS HLABANGANE: They were living at the Training College first and they left in 1982, they bought a house and they were now residing in Temba D Section. ADV DU PLESSIS: Where exactly is that, is that close to Hammanskraal? MRS HLABANGANE: Yes, it is in Hammanskraal. ADV DU PLESSIS: And is that the house in which they were living in when they died? MRS HLABANGANE: Yes, that is correct. ADV DU PLESSIS; How frequently did they visit you? MRS HLABANGANE: They usually visited me month ends, so they could leave me with some groceries and go to "Vrystaat", they used to visit me around month end. ADV DU PLESSIS: Did you have any knowledge of the work that Mr Motasi was doing, what he was involved in, cases that he was involved in, did you have any knowledge of that? MRS HLABANGANE: All I knew is that he was a policeman and he was dedicated to his work. ADV DU PLESSIS: So, did he never discuss any details of the work that he was doing, with you? MRS HLABANGANE: No. According to our culture, as a mother-in-law, I will never sit down and discuss with the son-in-law, usually it will be my daughter who will have to tell my anything. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 568 MS HLABANGANE ADV DU PLESSIS: And what did your son-in-law, do you know how your son-in-law felt after the assault by Colonel Van Zyl, on him? MRS HLABANGANE: I know that his eardrum was severely and brutally injured and he could not hear properly. ADV DU PLESSIS: What I actually mean is how did he feel, did he feel offended, did he feel angry, how did he feel about the fact that he was assaulted by a White policeman? MRS HLABANGANE: I know that he was no longer as happy as before. He was always worrying about work and no longer happy. ADV DU PLESSIS: Did he ever say to you that - or do you know if he said to your daughter, that anybody threatened him with his life? MRS HLABANGANE: He used to say that and he used to mention this White man quite often, Van Zyl and he even said he will kill him, my son-in-law. And he even told me that should he die, I should know that it is because of Van Zyl. ADV DU PLESSIS: Alright. You testified about the next day when you were in the house, you testified that certain people came to the house, that there was a tall White policeman, is that correct? MRS HLABANGANE: That is correct. ADV DU PLESSIS: Have you seen that policeman since that day? MRS HLABANGANE: I have since seen the policeman since that day, I have never seen him after that. ADV DU PLESSIS: Alright. And ...(intervention) JUDGE WILSON: Sorry, could I clear up one point. Was it the next day or was it at three o'clock on the afternoon of the same day? PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 569 MS HLABANGANE MRS HLABANGANE: That very day, that is why I am surprised, because I know that it was that very day. ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, thank you Mr Chairman. Now, how many other people were with this one White policeman, can you remember, that afternoon? MRS HLABANGANE: Two. ADV DU PLESSIS: Right and you testified that you recognised the one man, is that correct? MRS HLABANGANE: That is correct, his name is Joe Mamasela. ADV DU PLESSIS: Now can you tell me or tell the Committee, how do you know that that was Joe Mamasela? MRS HLABANGANE: The person who assaults you, usually you will always know that this is the person, you will never forget a person who has assaulted you and I have always known him since that day. ADV DU PLESSIS: Did he assault you on that day? MRS HLABANGANE: I will be lying if I say the other Black policemen assaulted me, they were just standing looking at me. The only person who tortured me or harassed me was the White policeman. ADV DU PLESSIS: And Mamasela, where was he standing when the White policeman harassed you? MRS HLABANGANE: Mamasela was standing by the bedroom door where I was sitting in their main bedroom. ADV DU PLESSIS: And did you know Joe Mamasela at that time? MRS HLABANGANE: I didn't know him at the time. But the first time I saw him on TV, I recognised him, even now I can show you. ADV DU PLESSIS: Was his face open that day or was his PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 570 MS HLABANGANE face covered? MRS HLABANGANE: It was not covered, it was during the day around three. They came and they said they were coming from Mafikeng as I had already said. ADV DU PLESSIS: Did you understand that Joe Mamasela also came from Mafikeng on that day? MRS HLABANGANE: Joe Mamasela said nothing, it was only the White, tall policeman who said they were coming from Mafikeng police station and they were coming here to see what has happened. ADJ DE JAGER: In what language did he address you? MRS HLABANGANE: He was addressing me in English because he heard that I could not understand any Afrikaans. ADV DU PLESSIS: Alright. You further testified that it was a joke at the Training College that Mr Motasi had died. Is that right? MRS HLABANGANE: Yes, that is correct. ADV DU PLESSIS: How do you know about that? MRS HLABANGANE: His brother, who is here even now, he came back to tell me that this was turned into a joke as if a dog had died. ADV DU PLESSIS: You never heard any such joke yourself, did you? MRS HLABANGANE: No. JUDGE WILSON: Was his brother a policeman? MRS HLABANGANE: He is working in the kitchen. JUDGE WILSON: At the Training College? MRS HLABANGANE: That is correct. JUDGE WILSON: Thank you. ADV DU PLESSIS: Can you remember a time when your son-in-law, Mr Motasi, did not work? PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 571 MS HLABANGANE MRS HLABANGANE: Yes, I remember. ADV DU PLESSIS: Do you know what he was doing at that time during the day? MRS HLABANGANE: During the day he would be at home, or probably go to town. He will also tell me that occasionally when he was in town, he would go and see his attorneys and also taking his treatment from the hospital. ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, if you will just bear with me. Did he say, did he name at all any other policemen who threatened him at any time? MRS HLABANGANE: No, as I have said he always made mention of this one policeman. As I have said, in our culture in our Black culture, you can't discuss with a son-in-law, maybe my daughter would be in a position to answer that question, but according to our Black culture, I cannot have a conversation with your son-in-law. ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman, I have no further questions for this witness. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DU PLESSIS JUDGE MALL: Mr Mpshe? ADV MPSHE: I do not have questions, Mr Chairman, thank you. NO EXAMINATION BY ADV MPSHE ADV DE JAGER: How long did this visit to Zimbabwe last, your husband and son-in-law going to Zimbabwe? MRS HLABANGANE: They were there for three weeks and he came back because the wife had already given birth to a baby. ADV DE JAGER: So he went while his wife was expecting a baby and while she was in her last days? Sorry, I couldn't hear the answer? PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DE JAGER 571 MS HLABANGANE MRS HLABANGANE: His wife had already given birth and had a baby in 1982, and they went there in 1983. JUDGE WILSON: You've told us he was assaulted and his eardrum was injured. MRS HLABANGANE: Yes, that is correct. JUDGE WILSON: Did he have to have any hospital treatment as a result of the assault? MRS HLABANGANE: He was admitted in Garankua and operated in the same hospital. JUDGE WILSON: Was he operated on more than once? MRS HLABANGANE: More than once, because the other one, he was operated in Lesedi. JUDGE WILSON: Thank you. MS KHAMPEPE: Mrs Hlabangane, how many times, to your knowledge did your son visit Zimbabwe, was it only once in 1983? MRS HLABANGANE: I only know once that he visited Zimbabwe. MS KHAMPEPE: It was mentioned of a book which was written about him by John Miles, do you know what the book says about your son? MRS HLABANGANE: I saw that book, but it addressed them by Motali instead of Motasi, so it was a different surname altogether. MS KHAMPEPE: Do you know exactly what it says about them? Does it talk about both your son-in-law and your daughter? MRS HLABANGANE: It talks about my son-in-law, about his death, not about the wife. MS KHAMPEPE: Do you know the title of the book? MR CURRIN: Mr Chairman, sorry, Mr Chairman, maybe I could help with these questions. In an attempt to give PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR CURRIN 572 MS HLABANGANE publicity to this particular matter, I gave my entire file to John Miles many years ago and he wrote a novel which is based on these facts, but it is fiction. And he wrote it around this particular story, there are many gaps in the information that we had, there was lots of speculation and he filled in the gaps to make it a whole story and in that book, he talks inter alia about Zimbabwe, so the book in fact is written as fiction, although he does relate it very closely to the information he got out of my file. ADV DE JAGER: Was there any information in your file about the visit to Zimbabwe? MR CURRIN: There was no information at all in my file about the visit to Zimbabwe. JUDGE MALL: Any re-examination Mr Currin. MR CURRIN: No, can I just follow up the answer to that question, at that time he asked me, John Miles did ask me if I knew anything about Zimbabwe and I said no. I read the book and I saw what he wrote and as I say as far as I am concerned, it is fiction, I have no re-examination. NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR CURRIN. JUDGE MALL: Thank you very much, you may be excused. WITNESS EXCUSED PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV MPSHE 573 ADDRESS JUDGE MALL: Any other witnesses? MR CURRIN: I am calling no other witnesses in this matter, Mr Chairman. ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman, that is the Motasi incident Mr Chairman. May I move that we move over to the next matter, that is the KwaNdebele Nine, but before we do that Mr Chairman, I just want to report to the Committee about certain instructions given by the Committee to me. First it is about the Robeiro matter, the Chair and members of the Committee will recall that names of certain people, that is the Magistrate, the Prosecutor as well as the State Attorney were wanted, and the ...(tape ends) instead he gave me a Sowetan newspaper cutting dated 24 June 1987 wherein only the name of the magistrate who held the PE is mentioned, unfortunately and I apologise in advance for that, we do not have photocopying facilities. I would have made copies for the members, I only have one copy that he gave me yesterday. May I hand this up? Should I just mention the name there Mr Chairman, or hand over to the Chair the copy? JUDGE MALL: (Speaker's microphone not switched on) ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman the reporter makes mention of what the (indistinct) fight about, that he testified the same, gave the same evidence in the PE. JUDGE MALL: What is the date on that copy? ADV MPSHE: It is dated 24 June 1987, Sowetan newspaper. The name of the magistrate is mentioned here as Mr J M Pretorius. Mr Chairman I am willing to give this over to the Chair so that in the event of this is forgotten, it will be there. ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, we are in possession of the PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 574 ADDRESS record of the preliminary investigation and I think it is the last page thereof, gives all the names of the people who were present at the preliminary investigation and who were involved. You will find that on page 201. The name of the magistrate was J N Pretorius, the prosecutor was F E Roets. JUDGE MALL: Is it Roots? ADV DU PLESSIS: Roets, R-O-E-T-S. There is a name of the interpreter, I don't know if you are interested in that and then the defence was conducted by Adv Hattingh, it seems like it is Adv Flip Hattingh and Adv Wessels as his junior. ADV MPSHE: Furthermore Mr Chairman, I have a document here, may I refer to it as a report from the office of the Attorney General pertaining to the identification of the Nietverdiend victims. She has compiled a report including the KwaNdebele and the names are being identified and in some instances, age is being mentioned in the report. I repeat what I said about not having photostatting facilities and I would hand this up to the Chair. ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I want to state, while it is being handed up, our view in respect of this document. This document was apparently compiled by Adv De Jager of the Attorney General's office. It contains information that is really evidence that goes further than the simple identification of the people involved. We have considered the matter and as far as we are concerned, Mr Chairman, this can be placed before the Committee as long as it is accepted, and I want to place that on record, that we do not admit that the contents of this is correct. And we obviously have not had a chance to test the evidence, but for purposes of the fact that it was a report compiled by Adv De Jager, with this information PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 575 ADDRESS contained in it, it can be placed before the Committee. We don't admit the correctness necessarily thereof. ADV MPSHE: V, this will be Exhibit V. INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on. JUDGE MALL: This document will be Exhibit V, and it goes in on the understanding that the points mentioned by the counsel for the applicants that they have no objection to it going in insofar as it reflects the details of the names and ages of the individuals concerned. ADV MPSHE: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, may I then refer the Chair to page 2 of Exhibit V, that is under Item 6, all the names mentioned thereunder are names of people or of the deceased at Nietverdiend. I did have the opportunity of discussing this with the parents who are here in person and they confirmed that these are the names of their children who died at Nietverdiend. Save that paragraph 8 is an amendment, still on page 2 Mr Chairman, age should read Jeremia Zondi Ntuli and not Masilela. JUDGE MALL: That alteration as been made here. ADV MPSHE: Sorry Mr Chairman? JUDGE MALL; That alteration is reflected here. ADV MPSHE: Oh, it is reflected, thank you Mr Chairman. Then page 3 thereof, Mr Chairman, Item number 8, these are people who died in KwaNdebele. I have confirmed this with the parents as well, thank you Mr Chairman. JUDGE MGOEPE: Mr Du Plessis, if you care to take instructions from your client, Captain Hechter, I believe he is the applicant who said that certain questions were prepared for him in preparation for an inquiry, I would like you to take instructions from him as to whether the names which have been mentioned here, four names have been PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG JUDGE MGOEPE 575 mentioned, we would like to know whether these names do ring a bell in his mind and take instructions from him also as to where he places, if that is the case, anyone of those names in relation to the consultation that he told us he had had before the investigations, the inquiry. ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, my instructions are that Captain Hechter cannot recall exactly who were involved, although he mentioned to me that there is a possibility that it could have been Frans Roets, he cannot remember that a hundred percent in respect of the prosecutor. JUDGE MGOEPE: What about the person who prepared for him a list of questions and answers in anticipation of the provisional inquiry or preliminary inquiry? As also the person who said to him, if that was not the same person, as also the person who said to him that the magistrate would know what to do? ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, my instructions are that at the office when this was discussed the State attorney and the prosecutor was present, that they were both present when this was discussed and he cannot recall if either the State attorney or the prosecutor gave the information. We have heard, and I haven't been able to verify the information pertaining to who the State attorney was. ADV DE JAGER: Mr Du Plessis, you mention the name State Attorney, that is a specific person. Isn't it a member of his staff? ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, a member of the staff of the State Attorney, yes. ADV DE JAGER: Oh, that makes quite a difference. ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, as it pleases you. INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 576 ADDRESS ADV DE JAGER: ... then only a member of the staff? ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Chairman, but I clearly meant somebody from his office. I meant somebody from his office. JUDGE WILSON: You said prosecutor too, does that mean the person who prosecuted in court the next day? ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Chairman. JUDGE MGOEPE: Mr Du Plessis, I don't think this kind of dialogue is going to be helpful, it may create confusion. I think your client must come to the witness box so that we can deal with this thing properly. ADV DU PLESSIS; We don't have a problem with that Mr Chairman. JUDGE MGOEPE: Because otherwise there may be some confusion. ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes. Mr Chairman, I am informed by one of my clients, it is something that I didn't pick up when I went through this, was that on the covering sheet of the preparatory examination, a different prosecutor is mentioned, namely A van Tonder and it says there for the defence, P J Nieman, those are different names from the names that appear right at the back of the record. However, the first page of the record of the proceedings that was made by Lubbe Recordings, indicate that on behalf of the State was Adv F Roets and on behalf of the Defence Adv Hattingh assisted by Adv Wessels, and it also indicates on the first page of the typed record that the Magistrate was Mr J N Pretorius. And it says Mr Roets was from the Office of the Attorney General, Transvaal. If you will just bear with me I am going to see if there isn't any other information which I might be able to place before the Committee. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 577 CAPT HECHTER ADV DE JAGER: While we are busy with that, could we swear you in? JACQUES HECHTER: (sworn states) ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, that seems to be the information that I could, from a quick further glance, obtain. I may mention that it was mentioned to me during the discussions and I cannot remember who the State Attorney was, but I don't want to name that person, unless there is some sort of concrete evidence. I think it was mentioned to us by a journalist, I can't remember the guy's name. Yes, it was mentioned to us by a journalist, but I don't have any confirmation. JUDGE MGOEPE: Captain, you will recall that you told us that prior to the commencement of the preparatory examination proceedings, certain questions and answers had been prepared and were given to you in advance with the view that you should testify along those lines, the following day? CAPT HECHTER: That is correct, Chairperson. JUDGE MGOEPE: Now certain names have been mentioned to us here of people who were involved with these proceedings. You have heard these names, isn't it? CAPT HECHTER: I have heard the names, Mr Chairperson. JUDGE MGOEPE: Now, does any of these names ring a bell, do you recall any one of these names? CAPT HECHTER: Before I worked at the Security Branch, I was an Investigator at Brooklyn and I dealt with Mr Roets, whether or not he was there that day, is difficult for me to remember. Mr Pretorius was not there and I would not remember his face. I know Mr Roets' face as a result of having dealt with him at several occasions at court. I PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG JUDGE MGOEPE 578 CAPT HECHTER cannot say for sure whether he was there or not. The same with the Prosecutor. The fact that I can remember Mr Roets is due to the fact that I knew him personally due to my involvement in court cases in Pretoria. The State Attorney for example, I cannot remember at all. Excuse me please Mr Chairperson, I do not know if I remember Mr Roets, because I had seen him previously and because I am familiar with the name, if that is the only reason I can remember him, I cannot say for sure, I cannot say whether it was definitely him that day or not. ADV DE JAGER: Captain Hechter, you say you knew him before? CAPT HECHTER: That is why I say to you he is being mentioned as the Prosecutor, then it has to be him, that is why I am saying to you I cannot say with absolute certainty that it was him, but the record indicates that it was him, so we have to accept that. That is why I said to you at a previous occasion that I cannot remember who was there. I cannot remember off the top of my head who was there. But if you put it to me that he was there, I would say that it is possible, I cannot remember. I appeared in court in connection with cases so many times, that someone cannot always remember who the Presiding Officer or Prosecutor was. JUDGE MGOEPE: I don't know what more is required to enable you to remember whether a person you knew was there, we have gone into the records, you said you have forgotten the names, we have taken the trouble to look for the records, we come out with the name, we give you the name, what more is required to help you to remember that that person was there? CAPT HECHTER: I cannot remember, it is as easy as that Mr Chairperson, I really cannot remember if that man was there. If the record reflects it as such, I accept it as such, I PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG JUDGE MGOEPE 579 CAPT HECHTER will not dispute the record in any way. I accept that he was there. JUDGE WILSON: Your Advocate has told us a moment ago in an answer to a query by me, that the person who spoke to you the day before and told you what you must do in court, was the person who appeared as a Prosecutor the next day, do you confirm that? CAPT HECHTER: No, it would have been the State Attorney who acted on my behalf. Could I try and explain this once again. At some stage I was contacted by my State Attorney, he said to me that I should come and see him that day and I walked with him from his office. I know we walked quite a distance, I am not sure whether their offices were where the Advocates' Chambers are today, but we walked to the Square. We had to sign a register downstairs, I kept that piece of paper for a long time and I tried looking for it the other night, but I couldn't find it. We signed the register and we went up with a lift. And we went to the Prosecutor, that is why I say that it could be Mr Roets, I cannot swear to that, but if I remember correctly, Noel Robey was with me, or he probably was there already by the time I got there and the questions and answers were written on a piece of paper and he said to me go and sit there, read this and remember it. If you answer the questions the way the answers are written there, there shouldn't be any problems, the magistrate has already received instruction as to what the result should be or something to that effect. JUDGE MGOEPE: I think that evidence you have given it and we haven't forgotten it. But what I want to find out from you is now, do you remember whether or not it was only yourself and that State Attorney or was there apart from PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG JUDGE MGOEPE 579 CAPT HECHTER Robey ...(intervention) CAPT HECHTER: As far as I can recall it was Noel Robey, myself, my Prosecutor, the Prosecutor and my State Attorney. The four of us were present in his office, we went to his office. JUDGE MGOEPE: The Prosecutor whose name you cannot remember? CAPT HECHTER: The one who I accept could be Mr Roets. JUDGE MGOEPE: On which basis do you accept that? CAPT HECHTER: The court roll will definitely not make a mistake, Mr Chairperson. JUDGE MGOEPE: But I thought Mr Roets was someone whom you knew long before then? CAPT HECHTER: I knew him before then and I had seen him in court on several occasions before then, he had prosecuted in matters where I was the Investigating Officer, so I used to see him in court on a regular basis. JUDGE MGOEPE: So if he were to come here and say that he was not there, what would your attitude be? CAPT HECHTER: I would say that he was disputing the court roll, he cannot dispute the court roll, he can dispute my memory, but not the court roll. JUDGE MGOEPE: The court roll is with regards to what would have happened at court itself not at the consultation? CAPT HECHTER: I would have to accept that it is the same person, it would be very strange to me because as far as I can remember, the person at the consultation and the Prosecutor, were the same person because you wouldn't go to one Prosecutor the one day and then the following day it would be someone else. Certainly one Prosecutor would not come and speak to me the one day and then the next day PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG JUDGE MGOEPE 580 CAPT HECHTER another Prosecutor will be dealing with the matter. I understand what you are endeavouring to find out, but I cannot ...(intervention) JUDGE MGOEPE: Do you suspect that Mr Roets was there? CAPT HECHTER: I suspect that he was there. JUDGE MGOEPE: And if he says that he wasn't there, you would not be able to dispute that? CAPT HECHTER: No, I would not Mr Chairperson. JUDGE MGOEPE: Thank you Captain. The position that you don't remember who the State Attorney was? CAPT HECHTER: That is correct, I cannot remember at all because there isn't even a name on the court roll Mr Chairperson. JUDGE MGOEPE: I am not sure whether giving you a name would have helped Captain. CAPT HECHTER: I don't know if it would have helped. ADV DU PLESSIS: No Mr Chairman we looked, in the record that we have perused now twice, there is no name mentioned of the State Attorney. As I say to you a name was mentioned to me, but in all fairness to that person, I don't want to name that person unless there is some evidence. ADV DE JAGER: There is no letters included as exhibits in the .... ADV DU PLESSIS: Not as far as I can remember, but we can make sure again. JUDGE MGOEPE: Another reason why this had to be cleared is that the Captain had testified earlier on in public in the presence of the media and everyone else, about the fact that certain questions were prepared for him in advance and today certain names have been mentioned and we just wanted to clear it up so that wrong impressions should not be created PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG JUDGE MGOEPE 581 CAPT HECHTER that the names of the people who have been mentioned here were the people who were in fact involved in such improprieties. ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Chairman, we understand that. JUDGE WILSON: Has any effort been made to check who went there with the witness? He tells us you had to sign to get admission to that office and that he signed, presumably the other people would have. Has any effort been made to check on that to get the names? ADV MPSHE: No, Mr Chairman, no efforts has been made. ADV DE JAGER: The building you referred to was in fact the Prudential Building Society's building on the north-eastern corner of Church Square. ADV DU PLESSIS: South-east. Thank you Mr Chairman. JUDGE MALL: Yes, thank you very much. ADV DU PLESSIS: Chairperson, hereafter we are proceeding with my application. Mr Chairman the next incident I am going to call Captain Hechter, I don't want him to walk. If the Committee agrees. JUDGE MALL: Yes, certainly. MR CURRIN: Mr Chairman, before you do that, could I excuse myself. I am not going to be involved in the next matter, my colleague Mr Powe will be involved in the next matter and I am going to leave. I just would like to excuse myself. JUDGE MALL: Thank you, you are excused Mr Currin. Where do we go to from here? ADV MPSHE: Thank you Mr Chairman, we are starting the KwaNdebele Nine, Mr Chairman. We shall be in the hands of the counsel for the applicants, Mr Chairman per agreement with him and counsel for the victims, may I hand up upfront PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 582 CAPT HECHTER the post-mortem reports in the KwaNdebele Nine, Mr Chairman. That will be marked Exhibit W. JUDGE MALL: Yes. ADV MPSHE: Thank you Mr Chairman. We are in the hands of my colleague, thank you. JUDGE MALL: Mr Du Plessis? ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. May I proceed? JUDGE MALL: Yes, please. EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you. You will find this incident on page 75 of the bundle of applications of Captain Hechter. JUDGE MALL: Captain ...? ADV DU PLESSIS: Hechter. It is the thickest bundle Mr Chairman. And the particulars of the act appear from page 75. Captain Hechter, before you proceed with the explanation of this incident, could you very briefly sketch, for the benefit of the Committee, when this incident took place in 1986 or 1987, what the situation in the country was with specific reference to your own application and specifically pages 9 and 10. ...(intervention) JUDGE WILSON: It is 9 and 10 of what? ADV DU PLESSIS: Of his bundle of applications. I am referring to the general background Mr Chairman. Just briefly Captain Hechter, please. JUDGE WILSON: Just the 73, 74, 75 not 9's and 10's. ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Chairman, I am referring back to the beginning of the bundle, with the general background. JUDGE WILSON: Oh, fine. ADV DU PLESSIS: Can you proceed please. CAPT HECHTER: At that stage the intention of the ANC activists were to make the country totally ungovernable and PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 583 CAPT HECHTER in that way bring about a fall in Government. ADV DE JAGER: Could you please help us, on which page are you reading? CAPT HECHTER: Page 9 of the thick bundle which is the main application. With other terrorist movements or similar organisations whose aim it was to overthrow the State at that stage. Activists were particularly busy from 1984 to the end of 1989. Activists were normally busy with the following type of activities: consumer boycotts, large scale intimidation of Black citizens and to a lesser extent Whites, school boycotts, arson, assaults, assaults with the intent to do grievous bodily harm. ADV DU PLESSIS: You do not have to go into detail on that Captain Hechter. CAPT HECHTER: They were also involved in throwing bombs, the use of firearms and specifically SAP members and persons who had different political opinions to them, they wanted to intimidate them into identifying with the ANC's objectives. Because they were involved in such serious offences and illegal activities, it was necessary to address this and counter this by way of actions which fell outside of the framework of the law and out of the context of normal policing. On page 10, due to the combat situation sketched above, in some cases it was necessary to eliminate activists by killing them. It was the only way where, in the combat situation, we could effectively deal with activists. The detention law which was ineffective, normal court structures at that stage were ineffective due to intimidation because people, witnesses would be intimidated PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 583 CAPT HECHTER and killed if they did testify. The objective of eliminations were aimed at eliminating and discouraging other activists from proceeding with similar activities. It also had a positive result on the White voters and if the Security Police, it made the work of the Security Police effective if the activists fled the country and in this regard, it was regarded as necessary to eliminate activists. It was done for the protection of the State and also to combat the overthrowing of the State by ANC/PAC activists and other liberation movements. ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Hechter, you testified with regard to the Nietverdiend incident. With regard to the question to which extent could trained terrorists who went outside of the country for training, be stopped effectively from committing acts of terrorism, could you very briefly, I know we have heard the testimony, could you just very briefly explain to the Committee, what your opinion was at that stage with regards to the stopping such terrorists. CAPT HECHTER: I would just like to tell the Committee that while I was involved in the Branch, before these acts, it could have been in 1985 and 1986, as far as I can recall on two occasions some of these youths in Mamelodi were recruited. They would then be transported out of Mamelodi by combi and there was a road blockade a distance from Mamelodi and I know the first time I remember that these youths were scared off by the combi being attacked and just to shake them up a bit, because they were on their way out with whatever belongings they decided to take with them. They would be told how wrong what they were doing was and if PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 584 CAPT HECHTER they didn't know what would happen to them and these actions took place under officer's command and we would then speak to the people and I would assume that assaults would take place although the details aren't too clear to me anymore. Thereafter these, I know the first time that same evening these youths were taken back to Mamelodi and told to go home. Shortly thereafter we conducted such an operation once again, it could have been under the command of Captain Loots, I cannot recall the finer details, but what we discussed in the interim was that there is no point in shouting at these people and not knowing what is happening to them. We recruited another combi full of them, I cannot remember how many of them there were, took them to our Security Branch office that evening, took photo's of them, their fingerprints and a general background description of each of them, just to know what was going on thereafter so that if they left the country thereafter, at least we would know who they were. Over a period of time, although I cannot say how long, it came to our attention quite often that some of these youths had left the country at a later stage on their own. Perhaps Colonel Loots could shed some more light on this, I did not discuss it with him, I knew that he was involved and I suspect Warrant Officer Van Vuuren was also involved in the last operation. The youths were then ready to leave the country for training at that stage. To use a more appropriate word, they were very keen to leave the country for training. ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Hechter, would you have regarded that in any way as having been successful with reference to the two operations? PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 585 CAPT HECHTER CAPT HECHTER: Not at all, we did not monitor the first one, so I do not know what the success rate of the first action was. The second one we monitored afterwards and as I said, some of the youths, although I cannot say how many, did leave the country at a later stage. We received reports that they had left the country for further training. Training meaning training as terrorists outside the country. ADV DU PLESSIS: Can I just come back to my question. Could you just give the Committee an idea as to what your opinion was at that time when anyone was to receive training on the outside as a terrorist. Would you have been in a position with the normal legal system and the application of the justice system at the time, to be able to stop such a terrorist before committing an act of terrorism? CAPT HECHTER: It was not possible at all, we did not know when the person was returning or where the person was going to try and infiltrate the country, so it was impossible to stop the person from entering the country. You would just hear that he was outside the country and you would only be able to investigate the matter once the person had committed acts of terrorism. ADV DU PLESSIS: Which was the most effective way of combatting the coming back of trained terrorists? CAPT HECHTER: I felt that to eliminate them beforehand would be better than releasing them upon innocent citizens afterwards. ADV DU PLESSIS: In this particular operation, when your testimony was heard with regard to the Nietverdiend 10 incident, a whole hue and cry was made and I cannot remember exactly how, but an issue was made that there was a link between the Nietverdiend 10 and the KwaNdebele 9. Can you PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 585 CAPT HECHTER remember anything like that? CAPT HECHTER: If there was any link I do not know about it. I did not know about it, I do not know anything about it, and I do not know how the link is being made. ADV DU PLESSIS: Before we come to this incident, this specific incident did you take Captain Wouter Mentz and two other persons with you by the names of Gouws and Oosthuizen who were affiliated to the Murder and Robbery Unit of the South African Police at that stage? Could you just tell the Committee how this cooperation came to be? CAPT HECHTER: That is correct Chairperson. These three members were affiliated to Brooklyn. The one was a uniform branch member and the other two were Investigating Officers and we worked together very closely for several years in Brooklyn. At that stage I was fairly new to the Branch and I did not know the people very well. That afternoon when I received the information that the people were at the point of leaving the country if they did not receive our assistance, I decided that we should act immediately. At that time Sergeant Mentz, I got his home number and contacted him at home. I contacted Gouws and Oosthuizen and said that they should be prepared for an operation that evening against future terrorists, persons who wanted to leave the country for training. They agreed to assist me that evening. ADV DU PLESSIS: Was it strange to you that persons from the Murder and Robbery Unit worked with the Security Branch? CAPT HECHTER: No, I received instruction from Brigadier Cronje to work closely with Murder and Robbery in all cases where terrorist weapons were being used. Weapons such as AK47's, Makorov and Tokorov pistols and hand grenades. In PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 586 CAPT HECHTER cases where such murder cases were being investigated, I would accompany them to investigate the political side of the action. ADV DE JAGER: Sorry, Mr Mpshe, could you perhaps tell us, or could anybody tell us whether Gouws and Oosthuizen also applied for amnesty? ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman, I do not know, but may I just say that I do not think they have done so, since they are at this moment under the care of the Attorney General as Section 204 witnesses apparently, and the notices were served by me on the Attorney General. ADV DE JAGER: Oh, I see. The only reason why I am asking is because we don't want to repeat the same case later, there is a lot of applicants waiting to be heard, and it would duplicate work if they are involved, they should have applied - we should try and hear it at the same time. ADV MPSHE: That is very true and very correct. As I've indicated, I don't know, but I have served on them. What I can do is, it's just a telephone call to the office of the Attorney General, they will tell me whether they have applied or not, because they are under them. I will confirm that this afternoon, I will make a call, thank you, but they have been served. ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I may mention that I also have personal knowledge of the fact that Gouws, Oosthuizen and Mamasela are State witnesses, strangely enough in terms of the evidence you are going to hear now, the three people who did the shooting, are all State witnesses. Apart from that Mr Chairman, I am informed by my clients that they have knowledge that both Gouws and Oosthuizen did apply for amnesty. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 587 CAPT HECHTER I may also mention that they also, my clients have had contact with them on an informal basis and that they do know of the - Mr Mentz did have, and that they do know of this application, the evidence that is going to be given and the fact that we are here today. JUDGE MALL: Yes. ADV DU PLESSIS: Very well, Captain Hechter, could you describe this particular act to the Committee very briefly in terms of your application? CAPT HECHTER: This incident took place in 1986. I cannot remember the exact date and as far as my knowledge goes, Brigadier Cronje was not at the office at that stage, for some reason or another. Mamasela at that stage, operated under the MK acronym, he was known as Mike and he moved around Mamelodi known as Mike and on a particular day he came to me and said that some of the more militant youth had approached him and questioned him and asked him whether he could arrange for them to leave the country for training. I instructed him to proceed and to see if he could get together some of these people. According to him at that stage, there was already a group. He gave me a list of names which he had compiled. And he informed me that these persons due to the fact that we in our quest to eliminate and detain and harass activists, these people had moved to KwaNdebele and that they were somewhere in KwaNdebele. He could have given me an address, I cannot recall, but that they were all together in a house and that they were very keen to leave the country. ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Hechter, while we are dealing with this aspect, can you specifically recall what the position PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 588 CAPT HECHTER was, were these persons recruited by Mamasela or did they approach Mamasela? CAPT HECHTER: I know that he said that some of - he mentioned some of the people, I cannot say whether he recruited all of them, but that he said some of them had approached him, so one could draw the inference that these persons and their friends, wanted to leave the country for training. These so-called comrades who were extremely active in Mamelodi at that time, but who then moved out to KwaNdebele as a result of our intimidation pursuits. ADV DU PLESSIS: Can you recall any information whether there were any files or whether there was any information on these activists? CAPT HECHTER: They were so active that there would definitely have been files about them. ADV DU PLESSIS: Can you recall in which type of acts they were involved? CAPT HECHTER: Unfortunately not, Chairperson. I would by lying if I would say that John threw a stone and Koos burnt a place, but the persons who moved out were youngsters who were very active and who were known to us as being active, because we were looking for them and who then fled to KwaNdebele to get rid of us. ADV DU PLESSIS: What was the following step in the operation, could you explain that to the Committee? CAPT HECHTER: That is in the second paragraph, on page 75. I mentioned that Mamasela pretended to be a MK member and his specific instruction was not to lure any people. There was a fuss made in Brigadier Cronje's application with regard to the Nietverdiend 10, that these people were enticed, but there was no need to solicit them. The fact PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 588 CAPT HECHTER that Mamasela was a known terrorist who moved amongst their midst, they approached him for training and hence it was not necessary to recruit them. I provided Mamasela with the Tokorov pistol and the hand grenade to go - and sent him to show these people where the place was. A Makorov pistol. I also asked him to establish whether these people really wanted to go for training. ADV DU PLESSIS: Can you recall how long their training was? CAPT HECHTER: It was about two or three evenings, from the time Mamasela gave me the list up until we took action against them. I cannot remember exactly how long it was. JUDGE MALL: When you say how long the training was, training for what? ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, he testified that they would undergo - well let me just rephrase the question then. Captain Hechter, did the involved activists undergo training? CAPT HECHTER: They wanted to be trained as terrorists. ADV DU PLESSIS: Was that in the country? CAPT HECHTER: No, they specifically wanted to leave the country and while they were there, we gave them these Makorov pistols and the ammunition. ADV DU PLESSIS: Exactly who did that? CAPT HECHTER: Mamasela. I suspect that there was also a hand grenade, there should have been a hand grenade with the stuff. ADV DU PLESSIS: Did Mamasela provide any training? CAPT HECHTER: As far as I can recall, he reported back that he showed them how the AK47 worked and also how the Makorov pistol worked and also how a hand grenade was operated. I PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 589 CAPT HECHTER don't think he knew how a landmine worked, but I am merely speculating. ADV DU PLESSIS: Over what period did he show them this? CAPT HECHTER: It could have been two to three days. I think he could have been there with them for two days and the third day we executed the operation. ADV DE JAGER: I think we might as well try and get some clarity from the beginning. In your submission you say that you cannot recall receiving instruction from anyone. CAPT HECHTER: I issued the instruction, what I meant by that was that I did not think that the Brigadier was there at that stage. He says that he was not there and that would have meant that I would have issued the instruction of my own accord, that I decided on my own to do this. ADV DE JAGER: So you were the person in charge, you issued instructions and you did not receive instructions from your superiors? CAPT HECHTER: It was a general instruction because I had already received this instruction from Brigadier Victor where he said that we should contain the activists in whichever way possible, we should burn them, we should attack them with bombs, but I was not told Jacques Hechter, go and do this specifically. At that stage I took the decision. ADV DE JAGER: Let us just get to the next thing. The three days training and as to how the firearms could be operated, let us assume that these people were not going to leave the country, then you assisted in training them to operate these things within the country? CAPT HECHTER: That is correct Chairperson. At that stage - I cannot recall, perhaps the decision had already been PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 590 CAPT HECHTER taken at that stage to eliminate them. ADV DE JAGER: Then the decision to eliminate them had nothing to do with whether they were leaving the country or not? CAPT HECHTER: Originally they approached Mamasela for training outside the country. This stay at KwaNdebele and the training was an interim measure, I cannot explain to you what the exact motivation was any longer. JUDGE MALL: Where was the training? CAPT HECHTER: It was in an outside room in KwaNdebele Chairperson. In an outside room at a house. JUDGE WILSON: My recollection is that a moment ago you told us about how active these young men were and you said you couldn't say what sort of acts they had done, but we were looking for them and that is why they had run away to KwaNdebele. CAPT HECHTER: Chairperson, if we were not looking for them, they would not have run away. They were very active. You see we chased these young activists, but they were from Mamelodi and from KwaNdebele, there was a group which got together and they slept in KwaNdebele, but they were still active in Mamelodi, because we would chase them at night. And they would then flee Mamelodi and they never even slept at their homes anymore, none of them slept at their homes any longer. JUDGE WILSON: You see because what you say in your application is Mamasela took them to KwaNdebele, it's somewhat different from them running away to KwaNdebele, they were taken by Mamasela. CAPT HECHTER: I know that he did not take them there with a vehicle, whether he got them to go there during the day, PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 591 CAPT HECHTER I cannot say. JUDGE WILSON: You say in your application, I am reading your words. CAPT HECHTER: I understand what you ...(intervention) JUDGE WILSON: Mamasela took them to KwaNdebele. That has a clear meaning doesn't it? CAPT HECHTER: That is what I said, we accept it as such. That is correct Chairperson. JUDGE WILSON: At the bottom of page 75, you've now changed your version? MS KHAMPEPE: Were they not taken to KwaNdebele by Mr Mamasela specifically for the three day instant training inside the country? CAPT HECHTER: Mr Chairman, no, I cannot swear to that but Mamasela did not take them because he did not have a combi available to him. He drove a blue Volkswagen Golf, so he would not have been able to take nine persons there. As far as I know we did not transport them anywhere per combi. ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Hechter, could we just go to page 76 and could you read the first paragraph to us? CAPT HECHTER: After Mamasela informed me that the activists had received training and that at their own request, they wanted to receive intensive training on the outside of the country, I decided that it was the right time to eliminate them. ADV DU PLESSIS: Could you proceed please. CAPT HECHTER: One evening I cannot remember the date, Wouter Mentz, Gouws, Oosthuizen, Mamasela and I - I say here that we went to an unknown address. At that stage the place was unknown. I can drive to that address now, but at that stage it was unknown to me. Only Mamasela knew where it PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 592 CAPT HECHTER was. Mentz, Gouws, Oosthuizen and I who were all attached to the Murder and Robbery Unit at Pretoria accompanied me at my request to assist me with the elimination. I cannot recall exactly when I requested them to accompany me and provided them with the detail, but I know that Gouws and Oosthuizen and also Mamasela said that they would like to conduct the shooting since we only had three firearms available, they said that they would like to do the actual shooting. There was defence force staff and the area was such that if one moved in an easterly direction on your right side, there were two Defence Force vehicles moving up and down. If the one was on one side, the other one would be on the other side of the road. And there was also just one road in as far as I could determine and from what I could see, there was also only one road going in and one road going out. There weren't that many roads into the Black area and Mamasela showed us where the house was. I then had a can of fuel with me in the vehicle and I took it out and threw, emptied it on a tree which was on the side of this Black residential area and set it alight. When this tree started burning, both these Defence Force vehicles ceased their patrol and hastened to the tree to come and see what was happening. I would also like to mention that the Defence Force patrol was there due to the activities of these youths. When they were out of the way, we drove in on the other side and I might add that Warrant Officer Mentz was the driver of the vehicle. We drove into this residential area. Mamasela took us to the address. If I remember correctly he first got out, we stopped a distance from there, he got out and walked closer and went to speak to the people. He came PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 592 CAPT HECHTER back and said the guys are ready. Gouws, Oosthuizen and he then went in, Mentz was still in the vehicle and I stood on the corner monitoring, because you could still see the Defence Force vehicles lighting up the area. I stood outside, I cannot remember exactly where, whether it was in front of the door or at the gate or next to the house. Mamasela, Gouws and Oosthuizen went in and the next moment I just heard gunshots. That was at my instruction, I had instructed them to go and eliminate them. They then went and shot them dead, came out, got ... (tape ends) ... so that it should appear what the youth were doing to the enemies at the time. When they eliminated them, they would set them alight. So all possible clues were also destroyed. We then left again with this vehicle and whether or not the Defence Force came to the scene, I do not know. We left the scene and never returned. We went back to our offices at the Security Branch where we proceeded with our normal duties and if I remember correctly I had false number plates on my vehicle, since it was a very fast car and no one would be able to catch up with me. When I refer to my vehicle, I refer to my police vehicle, not my private vehicle. ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain, when the persons were set alight, at the stage when they were set alight, do you know whether they were deceased at that stage or not? CAPT HECHTER: There were three AK47 weapons that were emptied on them, that would be approximately 90 rounds in a small room, so there was no doubt that they were already dead. ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain, before the Nietverdiend 10 incident, an issue was made of the fact that the activists who were involved there, were youths. Since then various PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 593 CAPT HECHTER versions of testimony have been heard about the involvement of youths in the liberation movements at that stage. Is it possible for you to give the Committee any further testimony about the involvement of youths and I am referring to documents which may be in your possession? CAPT HECHTER: Perhaps I should mention to the Committee that I testified about incidents in the Transvaal where youths went out of the country for training and then came back and launched attacks and in the mean time I think, Adv De Jager mentioned, I think his grandfather was someone who fought for the Boer Forces for 13 years. He was a "penkop", a young soldier who fought for the Boer Forces for 13 years. ADV DU PLESSIS: Last time with regard to the Nietverdiend 10 issue, it was presented to the Committee as an example of how the youths were involved. CAPT HECHTER: Yes, the penkop soldiers were known for their armed attacks on the English forces. ADV DU PLESSIS: And a book has also been written on that? CAPT HECHTER: Yes, that is correct. ADV DU PLESSIS: Are you in possession of that? CAPT HECHTER: I am in possession of a few photostat copies, it was written by Piet Marais and he says that penkops of the Second World War which lasted up until 1902, from 1899 to 1902. ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, the book is available and I will, I am leading the evidence because I will address you in argument in respect of this. I have made copies of the first two pages of the book if the Committee is interested in that. It merely mentions youths were involved with the further document that Captain Hechter will testify about now. The next document? PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 594 CAPT HECHTER CAPT HECHTER: Is Children of the Storm by Keith Campbell. Perhaps I can just read the foreword. "Assault and vandalism at the behest of extra-parliamentary political groups, was revealed. It is this testimony of the comrades revealed in the Supreme Court which forms the core and to (indistinct) of this publication" There were statements from 11 year olds and 17 year olds who were involved in necklace murders, acts of arson and in all acts of violence. I am not going to read it to the Committee because I do not believe that it is necessary. ADV DU PLESSIS: Have you read it? CAPT HECHTER: Yes, and that was my experience of the youth at that stage. ADV DU PLESSIS: These extracts do they deal with youths who were involved in liberation movements and acts which were committed by liberation movements? CAPT HECHTER: Yes, all these acts were committed in Black residential areas and by persons whether youths or adults. ADV DU PLESSIS; What ages are referred to? CAPT HECHTER: As I said there was a 15 year-old boy, there was an 11 year-old girl, a 14 year- old boy, a 17 year-old boy. ADV DU PLESSIS; And according to that were they involved in deaths of people, Captain, according to the book? CAPT HECHTER; They were involved in burning of houses, necklacing, consumer boycotts, they also set people alight, not necessarily necklaced them, where people were held and set alight. ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I beg leave to hand in these two documents. That will be Annexures X and Y. I PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 595 CAPT HECHTER think that was Annexure W, Mr Chairman, yes. Mr Chairman, you will see the one is the book written by Keith Campbell, Children of the Storm and the other one is the book about the young boys who were involved in the Anglo Boer War. Of the second book of the Anglo Boer War, I just made a copy of the first two pages, Mr Chairman, the rest of the book is available if the Committee is interested in that. JUDGE MALL: (...indistinct) ADV DU PLESSIS: No, Mr Chairman, I think the first one will be Annexure X and the next one will be Annexure Y. JUDGE MALL; Yes. ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, thank you Mr Chairman. INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on. JUDGE MALL: The photocopies are marked Annexure X. ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, thank you Mr Chairman. JUDGE MALL: The other one by Campbell is marked Annexure Y. ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Captain Hechter, you testified about the political objectives which were sought to be achieved in the Nietverdiend case, correct? CAPT HECHTER: Yes. ADV DU PLESSIS: And Brigadier Cronje also testified about that. Now the evidence relating to the Nietverdiend 10 event, does that correspond, the political objectives, do they correspond to those in this particular case? CAPT HECHTER: Yes. ADV DU PLESSIS; Do you also confirm the correctness of what was set out on page 79 to page 86 of that bundle of the application? CAPT HECHTER: Yes, that is correct. ADV DU PLESSIS: And on page 88, the last paragraph - or PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 596 CAPT HECHTER the first paragraph on the top of that page, please read that to the Committee. CAPT HECHTER: It was therefore necessary to eliminate those activists to prevent future acts of terror and to in the war situation, to prevent the further recruitment of soldiers for MK, MK was Umkhonto we Sizwe. ADV DU PLESSIS: Do you also confirm the last paragraph on page 88 in respect of the order in terms of which you acted? CAPT HECHTER: It was in the execution of Brigadiers Victor and Cronje's orders relating to the State of emergency and general unrest and intimidation by terrorists and potential terrorists. ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman, I have no further questions to this witness. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DU PLESSIS. JUDGE MALL: When you say that these were under the general instructions of Brigadier Cronje and Victor, these two gentlemen together gave you these instructions? CAPT HECHTER: Chairperson, no, I was - I later heard that it was during February 1986 that I was summonsed to Head Office by Victor and there I received the order to act against these comrades in accordance with their actions. The comrades at that stage had controlled the Black townships of Pretoria totally and Brigadier Victor called me in and gave me the instruction to neutralise these people by eliminating them and by intimidating them. ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Hechter, could I take you to the specific portion of your application? Pages 5, 6 and 7, 7 and 8, you will remember that right at the beginning when we gave evidence about the general background, evidence was PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 596 CAPT HECHTER given to this Committee by Brigadier Cronje in respect of this general instruction. It would perhaps, for purposes of the Committee, be of importance for me to take Captain Hechter just through the main moments of this order. Captain Hechter on page 5, the general situation at that stage which reigned at that time as set out and there is reference to the fact that written orders were never issued, only oral orders and then on page 6, could you please read the first paragraph on page 6. CAPT HECHTER: The order given by General Victor to Brigadier Cronje and which was also conveyed to myself, was given the beginning of 1986. I was summoned by Brigadier Victor to the South African Police Head Office. Brigadier Victor was at that stage second in command of the counter- insurgency Unit of the South African Police. It was at about six o'clock in the morning that I saw him. I was present, Captain Jaap van Jaarsveld was present, as well as his son, Captain Johan Victor. ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, may I just mention in Captain Van Jaarsveld's evidence he will confirm, in his statement he will confirm that he was present at this meeting where this order was given. Could you continue? CAPT HECHTER: Early in 1986 Chairperson, I later heard that it was in February 1986 ...(intervention) ADV DU PLESSIS: The 12th of February, that is what Captain Van Jaarsveld says. That was the exact date. Captain Hechter, for the convenience of the Committee, would you please read the rest? CAPT HECHTER: Brigadier Victor was quite upset and excited during this conversation and told me that South Africa was burning and that Pretoria in particular was burning. He PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 597 CAPT HECHTER said that you security people, are not doing anything about this. I don't know whether it is mentioned here, Brigadier Victor had previously been a Commanding Officer of the Security Branch, Northern Transvaal region. Brigadier Victor then pointed out to me that I was in Unit B, the Black Power Unit and he said that we had files pertaining to the activists, Black activists. At that stage we had about 100 informers who had been tasked with, now something was left out here, to monitor specific activists. Reports came in on a daily basis and further reports were compiled from this information. Brigadier Victor also pointed out to me that from this information a profile could be built up of who the most important activists and troublemakers were. I was aware of the fact that Brigadier Victor, oh, here it is, had previously been with the Security Branch in Pretoria and knew exactly how things worked. He was the Commanding Officer of the Security Branch before my time, but I was aware of that fact. On page 7, Brigadier Victor's words were more-or-less to the following effect, namely "you do have the file and you know who these people are." He gave instructions that if an activist for instance used petrol bombs or handgrenades that we should act in exactly the same way and that if a house was set alight, petrol bombs or bombs had to be thrown. His house and to be targeted, namely the activist's home. We in other words had to constantly react in just slightly more serious way. The instruction clearly entailed that we should act outside of the normal confines of law and the administration of justice, in other words we could not go from the point of departure of policemen acting within the normal confines of PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 598 CAPT HECHTER the administration of justice. And the implication of this was that we had to act outside of the confines of the law to act as a counter measure to the instability in the country, and the reasons for this was obvious. Despite the security legislation existing at the time, the country was becoming totally ungovernable and it was impossible to restore stability by means of the normal channels and methods. In reality there was a situation of war reigning in the country and the situation cried out for answers which would be valid in a normal state of war. The possibility was also discussed that people could die in this process. Page 8, the instruction was a general blanket instruction to act and to counter-act the instability. It was essential in the circumstances prevailing and the instruction had to be carried out. It was not necessarily to constantly refer actions back to Brigadier Victor. He gave Brigadier Cronje the same order and also told him that he had to establish a Special Task Force to facilitate the implementation of this order. In this way I became involved in all the incidents set out in my amnesty application. Each one of these incidents mentioned in my amnesty application must therefore be seen in the light and in the context of this general instruction. Specific orders which I received from time to time, for instance instructions from General Ras and from Brigadier Cronje, were specific orders relating to specific operations. Instructions which I received from Brigadier Cronje were instructions which he had carried out in pursuance of the general, or blanket instruction from Brigadier Victor. And in this context and respect of the orders received by PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 598 CAPT HECHTER Cronje as well as the other orders which I received from inter alia Brigadiers Victor and General Ras, I refer to the amnesty application of Brigadier Cronje in which he makes specific mention of those particular orders. ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Captain. Captain, to just clarify one issue, the evidence has already been put before the Committee, but can you remember what the circumstances were when these applications were drafted? CAPT HECHTER: Chairperson, we had to draft the applications on very short notice so that we were ready for sitting during October in Johannesburg. I flew to Cape Town seven o'clock that morning, and the previous night, I worked throughout the night and got no sleep so it was very rushed. ADV DE JAGER: Mr Du Plessis, I have a lot of trouble with this kind of evidence. It was your choice as to when you were going to hand in those applications. INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on. ADV DE JAGER: I apologise I will repeat what I said. You were not instructed by the Committee or by anybody else when you should hand in the applications, it was your personal choice, so I simply can't see how you can try and hide behind that fact at this stage. ADV DU PLESSIS: Chairperson, I am simply submitting this evidence so that I will later be able to argue certain facts in the application and this information is contained in each and every application, you will notice that it's said that any extension of these facts or elaboration on these facts, will be done during testimony before the Commission and that aspects such as for instance motives, objectives, etc, will also be dealt with during evidence and will be more fully motivated. Due to time constraints I abide by what I have PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 599 CAPT HECHTER just said. I am just trying to place information before the Committee about the particular time constraints referred to on page 17. Thank you Captain Hechter. Mr Chairman, I see it is quarter past four. JUDGE MALL; Mr Mpshe? ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman, may I be preceded by Mr Powe who is representing the victims, thank you Mr Chairman. MR POWE: Thank you Chairperson. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR POWE: Captain on the last bit of evidence you gave just before you explained the pressure under which you prepared your applications and so forth, you testified at some length about some instructions you received from Brigadier Victor and Cronje, and I find as to the general import of the instructions you say you heard, but am I correct in saying that not even you would have understood those instruction to mean that you can go out and engage in that sort of elimination before having properly investigated matters and satisfied yourself as to the correctness or otherwise of whatever allegation you were bringing against a particular activist, and we will come to the term activist in a moment. Not even you could have understood it that way, am I correct? CAPT HECHTER: No, that is a mistake, that is exactly how I saw it. MR POWE: Are you saying to this Committee that when you received this instruction, you understood it to mean that you can kill, eliminate as you say, regardless of what the true facts are or may be, is that what you are saying to the Committee? CAPT HECHTER: The true facts were contained in source reports and in files which were at my disposal and the PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR POWE 600 CAPT HECHTER disposal of my office and it was only on the basis of that information, that we acted against people. MR POWE: Was that your understanding of the instruction, did you understand it to mean ...(intervention) CAPT HECHTER: That is correct. That is how I understood it. I am already involved in other incidents before this KwaNdebele 9 incident, I was for instance involved in the Nietverdiend 10 in which similar kinds of people had been eliminated and people who were actually activists who were involved in these acts. MR POWE: You have still not answered my question. Was it your understanding that before you engaged in an act of elimination you have to satisfy yourself as to the true facts, you personally if you execute such an order? CAPT HECHTER: That is right. MR POWE: Was it your understanding? CAPT HECHTER: That is correct, that was my understanding. MR POWE: If you did anything that does not accord with his instruction and with that understanding, then you did not carry that - whatever act you engaged upon, was not in pursuance of such an instruction, am I correct? CAPT HECHTER: That is correct, yes. MR POWE: I now come to the two documents that were handed in by your representative and - rather two books, Penkoppe and Children of the Storm. When did you first get to read these books if ever? CAPT HECHTER: I read those last week. MR POWE: At the time when you engaged on these two missions, you were not aware of the existence of this book? CAPT HECHTER: No, I wasn't aware of the books, but I was aware of the acts because I was constantly confronted with PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR POWE 601 CAPT HECHTER actions by youths which corresponded to the actions depicted in these books. MR POWE: It had no influence on your thinking at that time? CAPT HECHTER: Not at all. MR POWE: I will put another proposition to you, even if you had been aware of these books and the contents thereof, not even you would have understood these books to mean free licence to kill whatever youth moves around Mamelodi or KwaNdebele or whatever the case may be. CAPT HECHTER: You are talking about youth and free licence. Those are two different concepts. It wasn't a free licence and these youths weren't innocent. These were hardened activists who had no respect for the lives of others. If you didn't agree with their political objectives, your house was burnt down, your car was burnt down, you were set alight, so at that stage things were so bad that in respect of Black policemen staying in the Black townships, these people didn't even dare to come to the office, they simply had to stay at home and guard their homes. And we gave them special arms and ammunition for this purpose. So these people weren't all youths. MR POWE: That was a reply, but it was not a reply to my question. It could have never been your understanding that these books or the contents thereof advocate for the elimination of innocent youths and young men. CAPT HECHTER: That is not what I've said, no. MR POWE: Let us come to the incident and just examine it in totality. And before I do so I would like to take you back to what you said about Mamasela in your evidence concerning the Nietverdiend incident, and it is at page 646 of the record. I don't have the volume, I have an extract PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR POWE 602 CAPT HECHTER Chairperson. Volume 5 I am told. I am indebted to you. If I may proceed Chairperson. JUDGE MALL; Yes, do so. MR POWE: You say the following about Mamasela. "Mr Chair, what Joe told these children I would of course not be able to repeat to you, but as I had already gotten to know Joe Mamasela in 1986, he was a very intelligent and pleasant person". And I am taking extracts Chairperson, I am not reading the whole passage. "He was an excellent operative, his loyalty was complete...." and then further on in the same passage at 646, you say this, "As I have said Mamasela is highly intelligent and extremely well trained operative. He is an operative by nature". Do you stand by that description of Joe Mamasela? CAPT HECHTER: That is correct, Chairperson. MR POWE: I then come to your application. With that in mind let's come back to your application and in particular page 75 thereof. This is what you have to say in your application. "I can't remember where the instruction came from. The proposal for the operation came from Mamasela. Mamasela impersonated an MK member and his instructions were specifically not to solicit people. He recruited a group of young activists who would undergo training as MK soldiers. Mamasela gave an AK 47, handgrenades, Makorov pistols etc. made these available to them to train PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR POWE 602 CAPT HECHTER them". it is this part, "He recruited a group of young activists." CAPT HECHTER: That is correct. MR POWE: Now you take Mamasela, this highly trained operative, highly intelligent person and you placed him among these youths and on your own testimony, your application, he went out to recruit these youths. CAPT HECHTER: I understand what you are saying, he, however, was not instructed to recruit the people. MR POWE: That is what happened, this highly intelligent, trained operative goes out to recruit these youths, continues to train them. CAPT HECHTER: No, ... ADV DU PLESSIS: .....please be allowed to answer the question. JUDGE MALL; Please put the question to him. INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on. JUDGE MALL: ... question, give him a chance to answer. MR POWE: As you please Chairperson. What I am putting to you Captain Hechter, is that between you and Mamasela you devised the scheme in terms of which this highly trained, very intelligent operative, went out and lured these youngsters into agreeing or showing a willingness to undergo training. That is in a nutshell what I am putting to you. CAPT HECHTER: I deny that. MR POWE: Are you aware of the ages of the people who were involved? The people who ultimately perished, are you aware of their ages or must enlighten you about that? CAPT HECHTER: At that stage he would in all probability not have told us their ages, he would only ... (tape ends) PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR POWE 603 CAPT HECHTER ADV DU PLESSIS: I just have to point out for record purposes again, nothing in that regard has been proven and we cannot admit at this stage, the ages of any of the people involved. JUDGE MALL: (Indistinct) ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes. JUDGE WILSON: He said the ages may have been in his files, he may know, have known that. MR POWE: Mr Chairman, the comment is totally premature with respect. ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I am just making the point that the question cannot be phrased as if that fact is admitted. That is the point I am making. INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on. MR POWE: If I put to you that they were as young as 15, would you have any quarrel with that? CAPT HECHTER: I can't give you an answer. MR POWE: These were youngsters who at that time, as you sketched the events, and the situation and you testified at length about that, would have been highly impressionable. Would you agree with that sentiment? CAPT HECHTER: I unfortunately did not know how impressionable they were because I didn't speak to them myself. MR POWE: Was it not your experience at the time that virtually every youngster his or her desire would have been to undergo training, was that your experience? CAPT HECHTER: No, it was not. MR POWE: It wasn't? Young people are by their very nature impressionable, can you argue with that sentiment? CAPT HECHTER: I cannot dispute that. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR POWE 604 CAPT HECHTER MR POWE: A highly trained, someone who masquerades as an MK operative, who is highly trained and intelligent and you put him amongst youths, would you argue with the sentiment that he is likely to make a very high impression on them? CAPT HECHTER: It is possible. MR POWE: But to lure them into undergoing training, what would you say the likelihood of them saying no, would be? CAPT HECHTER: Could I give you a broad answer. I can't see that if I have 15 year olds and I start telling them about how we would kill people, I am speaking of normal circumstances, about today's 15 year olds, that they would agree to go abroad, away from their parents and away from their homes and their loved ones, to undergo training to come back in order to kill people. Those were unusual times and circumstances, those people went to MK, they were not obliged to do so. They weren't in chains, they did so of their own accord and went to him and asked him whether they could go for training. MR POWE: Captain, they went to him on their own accord? CAPT HECHTER: That is how it was told to me by Mamasela. MR POWE: You cannot tell us as a fact that they came to Mamasela? CAPT HECHTER: That is correct, but I also can't tell you for a fact that they were impressed by Mamasela. MR POWE: ... Mamasela would have said to them? CAPT HECHTER: No, that I can't tell you or what they told him. MR POWE: ....Mamasela used to threaten them? CAPT HECHTER: Not, at all. I can tell you what I told him to tell them. MR POWE: ... Committee, our sessions in very general terms PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR POWE 605 CAPT HECHTER of what the situation was and what they youths were involved in, but all these other things, whether these nine would have gone to Mamasela out of their own, that you do not know? CAPT HECHTER: No, that is correct, I cannot tell you that. MR POWE; Now, to come back to the first part of your answer and that is when you said that in this day and age a youth, if you say to a youth I am going to train you to kill, that youth would come with you, that is not what I am asking you. Let's go back to the time then, in 1986, which you yourself said it was abnormal circumstances. Mamasela, this intelligent operative, MK member, goes to 15 year olds, youngsters, says I Mamasela, will take you there, will take you for training, you cannot argue with anyone who says that he is in all probability going to succeed in getting them to agree to undergo training. CAPT HECHTER: That is pure speculation, we don't know that. His instructions were not to do that, so this is pure speculation whether he did so or not, we weren't there. ADV DE JAGER: ...you say they were 15 years - (Speakers microphone is not on) - some of them were 20 years, put the facts correctly, let's keep to the facts please. MR POWE: As it pleases you Sir. I started off by saying the youngest was 15, and of course one draws a distinction from age to age, but I didn't want to go into the ages at this stage. I will do that in due course. My proposition goes to if there were a number of 15 year olds, that they would have been impressionable. And Mamasela is likely to have made an impact on them and on their way of thinking. Given the time, surely there cannot be an argument about that? PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR POWE 606 CAPT HECHTER JUDGE MALL: But I think he has conceded that Mamasela must have made an impact on them. MR POWE: He said we can't say that because we don't know what Mamasela said. If he has conceded then I will drop the point Chairperson, it wasn't my understanding that he had. JUDGE MALL: You understand that Mamasela is likely to have made an impact on these people? CAPT HECHTER: That is very possible Chairperson, I unfortunately can't say yes or no. JUDGE MALL: Is it a matter on which you can't answer? CAPT HECHTER: That is speculation, but it is highly possible that he could have. JUDGE WILSON: ... clearly made an impact on all youths (microphone not on) CAPT HECHTER: True, but we were all trained people. MR POWE: Yes, even more so. You were trained people and he impressed you so much, what about a 15 year old in this one case? CAPT HECHTER: If you come to my 15 year old as a trained soldier and tell him to kill people, he will run away. He will simply not take that opportunity. MR POWE: Captain you told us about the 1986, 1987 time and the situation, consumer boycotts, intimidations, school boycotts, arson, assaults, firearms, etc., etc. That they have been the overall situation, but the incident we are dealing with now is about these people. This group of people that perished in KwaNdebele one winter evening. You personally, sitting here, and at the time when you and Mamasela started this, do not on what you have told this Committee and what is in your application, seem to have had any concrete proof of them ever been involved in any one of PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR POWE 606 CAPT HECHTER these acts? CAPT HECHTER: This act against them would not have been committed if we hadn't had files which connected them to this type of conduct and actions. There wouldn't have been a general state of emergency at the time if this problem hadn't already escalated to this extent, so I am saying we had files on these people and they were involved in these acts. Otherwise they wouldn't have jumped at the chance of being trained, this is how active they were. MR POWE: ... perished, are you saying to this Committee, do you want this Committee to honestly believe that on what you set out on your application and what you have testified, that you had concrete evidence, information about these people, that they had been involved in acts of consumer boycotts, intimidations, school boycotts, assault, are you honestly wanting the Committee to believe that? CAPT HECHTER: Chairperson, this gentleman wasn't there. We didn't have the concrete evidence, if we had, we would have prosecuted and charged the people, but we were reacting to source reports, and not just a single report, but numerous source reports which identified these people as the trouble makers in Mamelodi. JUDGE MALL: Are you saying that you knew which people were involved in this group that Mamasela was going to take with him? CAPT HECHTER: Chairperson, at this stage it is difficult for me to say. As I have already testified, I would never have, in respect of a person whose name was not on record with us, I would never have exposed such a person to this. Unfortunately we are in this unenviable position whereby I have to give you information without the necessary PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR POWE 607 CAPT HECHTER documentary backing, which I would have had if those documents hadn't been destroyed. JUDGE MALL: ... boils down to this, when Mamasela and you embarked on the scheme, do I understand that you had with you, before you, a list of names of eight or nine young people, you've checked their activities and you found out that they were people who had engaged in this kind of activity, and you then tell Mamasela, very well, go ahead and recruit these people, or is your evidence that there was general activity by youths between the ages of 15 and so on who were engaging in all kinds of activities, so you just instructed Mamasela to get hold of such youths? CAPT HECHTER: No, the way it worked was like this. Mamasela came to me and told me that he had been approached by some youths. Now we have already argued that point. He had been approached by these youths for purposes of training. Whether they all approached him or whether it was some of their friends who just accompanied them, that I can't testify on. At some stage he brought us a list and perhaps, no Mr Van Vuuren wasn't yet there at the time, but he brought a list to the office containing the names of these youths. And these names were checked, or would have been checked, I wouldn't have done it myself, I would have told him to do so. I would have told him to check the names and find out whether there were files on these people, and if so these files would have been perused, this is Mamasela. I would have told him to do that and he would then have drawn the files relating to these persons and those files would have been checked to ascertain whether these people were actively involved or not, and whether their names appeared in the index. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR POWE 608 CAPT HECHTER JUDGE WILSON: So the whole thing depended on Mamasela. Mamasela came and told you these people want to have training and he took them away somewhere. Later he came back with a list and said these are the people. And you said Mamasela, go and check your list? CAPT HECHTER: No, no, Mamasela go and draw the files. Bring the files. JUDGE WILSON: He comes back and says yes, they have all got files? CAPT HECHTER: That's right. JUDGE WILSON: And then you go and kill them, because Mamasela said so? CAPT HECHTER: Yes, I had no reason to doubt him. JUDGE WILSON: ...Ascari, and you take his word to kill how many people altogether? CAPT HECHTER: Files were available, if there were no files, we wouldn't have eliminated them and acted against them. He would have brought me those files, he wouldn't have done so by himself. JUDGE WILSON: You said didn't do it yourself, you said so a minute ago, you said I would have got Mamasela to check? CAPT HECHTER: No, I told him to draw the files. JUDGE WILSON: That is not what you said Captain. CAPT HECHTER: I told him to go and draw the files and bring them to me. JUDGE WILSON: Is it possible to have his words repeated, the Afrikaans version? ADV DE JAGER: My note here is that Mamasela bring the names, I said draw the files and then the files would be checked. He didn't say by whom it would be checked. CAPT HECHTER: I can't dispute that, that would be in line PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR POWE 609 CAPT HECHTER with what I wanted to say. MS KHAMPEPE: Would the checking have been the function of Captain Loots? CAPT HECHTER: Chairman, at that stage Captain Loots as you've heard, wasn't really involved in my operation. I was quite a small unit within his larger unit, so he wouldn't have been involved. He wasn't involved in that. MR POWE: Coming from the questions from the Committee, can you tell us here today, did these people die because they were involved in acts of boycotts, intimidation and so on or did they die because they had expressed their wish or desire to undergo training? Why did they die in your own mind? When you went out to eliminate them, why did you? CAPT HECHTER: I understand what you are asking me. Firstly they were activists, they were activists engaged in all these acts of terror and they furthermore also requested to go out and be trained as activists, so the elimination was a preemptive strike to prevent trained people returning to the country. Because then it is that much more difficult. Should we allow them to return, kill a large number of people and then act against them. Just remember they were never forced to go for training. MR POWE: You say that now. Have a look at your application, page 75. He recruited a group of young activists. CAPT HECHTER: Recruit does not mean I grab hold of and then force you to do something, or yes, coerce you. MR POWE: It still means you take an active step to go and get someone to be interested, you entice someone into becoming interested in a particular course? CAPT HECHTER: Correct. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR POWE 609 CAPT HECHTER MR POWE: Yes, now you come here and tell the Committee that these are people who wanted out of their own, to go and undergo training outside and they would come back as dangerous terrorists, that is what you are now telling the Committee. It doesn't follow from your application, with respect. It doesn't follow. CAPT HECHTER: That is your view, it is not my view. I don't agree with your view. MR POWE: Is it such an unreasonable (...indistinct)? Your words are there Captain, you recruited them. CAPT HECHTER: They went voluntarily, they went to him, he recruited them or told them that he could help them after they approached him. He told them that he could help them, that is what recruit means. And he even went so far, as far as I can infer, that he met them in Mamelodi, they went for training, they furnished the house in Mamelodi, not us ...(intervention) MR POWE: This document is in your language. CAPT HECHTER: In KwaNdebele, not Mamelodi, I beg your pardon. I apologise, in KwaNdebele, not Mamelodi. MR POWE: ...it means to recruit, and it would mean that you go out positively, unsolicited and you go and entice someone into a course. You cannot argue with that. CAPT HECHTER: That is a technical point and I will concede that. As it stands here, that is the case. JUDGE WILSON: I think in fairness to the witness, if you are going to make so much use of the word recruit, you should read the previous sentence: "His instructions were specifically not to solicit people." MR POWE: It may be so that there is that phrase, but then we have another difficulty and the witness must explain PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR POWE 610 CAPT HECHTER that. In that the two seem to be mutually contradictory, can you deal with that? JUDGE MALL: Can we move on? MR POWE: I had said that the witness must deal with these inherently contradictory statements. Are you saying I must pass on and leave it for argument, Chairperson? JUDGE MALL; I think he has already tried to explain to you that the word, these is a difference between him and you on the technical meaning of the word recruit. I don't think you can take him any further than that. MR POWE: Okay, we will leave it for argument, Mr Chairperson. JUDGE MALL; Yes. MR POWE: I think, that anyone can argue with it, is beyond us, we will argue it. Not only - I hear my learned friends find it extremely funny, I don't know why. Not only do you set this, or this man who is highly intelligent goes out and he recruits, but you Captain Hechter, you give him the resources to go and carry on this mission, this training, this "werwing", you give him an AK47, you give him a hand pistol, you give him handgrenades and a landmine. You make resources available to him to go and undertake this training. That we agreed about, I think that is common cause. CAPT HECHTER: That is correct. MR POWE: You don't find it morally questionable Captain, that you then thereafter having set Mamasela upon these youths or these young people, some of them as the Chair correctly says, may have not been so young, having given them no more than two days training on your own version of what happened, you go out and you eliminate them in the PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR POWE 611 CAPT HECHTER manner that you did. CAPT HECHTER: That is correct. MR POWE: It doesn't worry you at all? CAPT HECHTER: I beg your pardon? MR POWE: You don't find that morally questionable, to do that? CAPT HECHTER: I do not believe that we are here to test my morals. MR POWE: I will argue that the morality of your act is certainly startling, and that it makes your cause, your application for amnesty even more so difficult to grant, or should, that is what we will argue to the Commission. These young men were not trained terrorists until Mamasela got involved with them, is that correct? That we agreed upon? CAPT HECHTER: That is correct. They were very active activists, who in all probability had probably been involved in offences. MR POWE: That these people who died in KwaNdebele were not terrorists, trained terrorists, before Mamasela got involved with them? CAPT HECHTER: They were not trained yet, they were at the infancy stages. MR POWE: And the scheme was that once Mamasela has given them a taste of training, they would then be taken out, they would be eliminated, that was the ...(intervention) CAPT HECHTER: For them, the intention was for them to change their minds, say that I cannot go through with this. MR POWE: How long do you need in order to change your mind about killing a person? You don't know? CAPT HECHTER: I cannot tell you, I was not present. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR POWE 612 CAPT HECHTER MR POWE: You, yourself said that youths - to be trained at that stage in that year, you said so yourself. CAPT HECHTER: That's correct, to return to kill people. MR POWE: Let's come to the night in question. What was your involvement other than just driving to the scene and setting the tree of fire? CAPT HECHTER: I was in charge of the entire operation. MR POWE: Did you fire any? CAPT HECHTER: No. MR POWE: You didn't set anyone alight? CAPT HECHTER: No. MR POWE: You just gave the instructions? CAPT HECHTER: Yes, I issued the instructions, so everything that happened, happened under my command. (...indistinct) No, not at all, it was not necessary for me, I had subordinates who could do that. MR POWE: I see, so others could do the dirty work for you? CAPT HECHTER: That's correct. MR POWE: It was dirty work? CAPT HECHTER: Chairperson, do not let us dispute about such things, I am ...(intervention) JUDGE MALL: ...people to go around describing as dirty work, is a waste of words, isn't it? MR POWE: The killing of people in these circumstances is particularly dirty, Chairperson. JUDGE MALL: Yes, quite right, I don't think there is any doubt about that. MR POWE: I will leave it at that, Chairperson, maybe I was going overboard. JUDGE MALL: Yes. MR POWE: You don't know that any of these people for PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR POWE 613 CAPT HECHTER definite, because you weren't inside, you don't know that any of them would have been dead at the time that they were set alight? CAPT HECHTER: I stood in the doorway. I would have been able to see if any of them weren't dead yet. MR POWE: I thought earlier on you could not remember whether you stood at the gate ...(intervention) CAPT HECHTER: I was standing outside, I cannot remember during the shooting whether I was in front of the house or at the gate or at the corner of the outside room, because there was an outside room and there was a house and there was a gate. After they had shot, I instructed Gouws and went back with him as far as the room. He then poured with petrol and set them alight. It was probably not as clear in my testimony, but it was under my instruction, this whole operation was executed under my instruction. MR POWE: We understand it all too well. I didn't understand your evidence to say you knew for a fact, you said three AK47's were emptied on them, there is no chance that they would have still been alive? CAPT HECHTER: That is correct, that is correct. MR POWE: Okay, what you are saying now, is slightly different, but yet again, that is a matter maybe for argument Chairperson, for what it is worth. When you set out to put this scheme, this operation together, there had not been a specific instruction from anyone above you that there is a group in KwaNdebele, we want you to go and eliminate them. There wasn't such an instruction? CAPT HECHTER: That is correct. MR POWE: You said that these youths had fled Mamelodi PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR POWE 614 CAPT HECHTER because of your, and I believe the Security Forces of your operations of that time, you drove them out of Mamelodi? CAPT HECHTER: That is correct, we'd accept it as such. I cannot swear to that, but that is an inference which I made because for what other reason did they not stay at their homes in Mamelodi. Because all the activists which we had positively identified and whose names we had, we harassed on a regular basis, and intimidated as well. MR POWE: If you could bear with me one second, Chairperson. MS KHAMPEPE: Can I just interpose there Mr Powe. Captain Hechter, how long before the elimination took place, had these youngsters fled Mamelodi to KwaNdebele? CAPT HECHTER: That is very difficult to say. I would not be able to say, I can't tell you. It could have been a while, or they went directly to a house, but what I do know is that they had a place to stay there, I do not know if they got it three days before then or a month before then, I cannot answer you positively in that regard. MS KHAMPEPE: You can't even give us a rough estimate? CAPT HECHTER; Not at all Chairperson, I do not know if Mamasela found them by themselves in Mamelodi, because he was also moving around KwaNdebele at that time. He did not work in one area only, he also worked in KwaNdebele, he had his own vehicle, he reported for duty in the morning, and then he would come the following morning or two or three days later to report back. MR POWE: Chairperson, I just need to go back to one issue which I had raised and that is these files. You had these files, I assume like in other matters, we don't have files today, they had been destroyed? CAPT HECHTER: That is correct Chairman. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR POWE 614 CAPT HECHTER MR POWE: It seems very - no, don't let me not say that. You've come here to apply for amnesty. What you want is for this Committee to give you a pardon so to say, and amnesty for the deeds you did. The one thing that I have not heard and that the families of those who perished, have not heard, when you were being led by my learned friend, or at any stage during my questioning or the questioning of the Committee, is the word to them, I am sorry. You don't think that that is necessary? CAPT HECHTER: Chairperson, could I address this one. If you were here Sir, you would have heard on several occasions that we, not only this unfortunate family, but the people of South Africa, everyone who had been affected by my acts and those acts of my colleagues, we apologised to them. These people only came here now and I am sure they would have seen that on TV, I am sure that it has been broadcast on TV that we have apologised to them. I did not go to each and everyone individually, to apologise. INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on. JUDGE MALL: There was this evidence generally about remorse on their part for what they had done. MR POWE: My instructions certainly are that as far as this group is concerned, they were not aware of it? Chairperson, it is for you to decide whether the level of remorse that has been shown, is sufficient or not. Our argument will certainly be that it doesn't go far enough. JUDGE MALL: Yes. MR POWE: As it pleases you I have no further questions. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR POWE JUDGE MALL: Thank you very much. Mr Mpshe? CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV MPSHE: Thank you Mr Chairman. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV MPSHE 615 CAPT HECHTER Captain, you testified that the whole operation was suggested by Joe Mamasela. CAPT HECHTER: No, Chairperson, it may appear so now, you know, we did discuss it. It is difficult at this point to go back after 10 to 11 years and say this is precisely how things happened. We do not have any documents to refer to, this type of thing took place in the heat of the struggle and I am not trying to shift the blame onto Joe Mamasela in any way. He could not have executed instructions without me. It may be possible that it was discussed at a morning conference or that he came to me and said Lieutenant, I have been approached by these active youths in Mamelodi. As far as my memory allows, what happened is that he came to me at some stage and said to me that there are these youths who are asking to be taken for training. The formulation of the operation thereafter is very difficult to remember in precise detail at this stage. ADV MPSHE: I am referring to what you have said in your application, page 75. CAPT HECHTER: That is so. ADV MPSHE: Are you saying that which you said by yourself, isn't correct? CAPT HECHTER: Meaning that he came to me and said that these persons are there. He could have said let's do to them what we did with the Nietverdiend 10. I cannot say whether it was that way or not, I would by lying if I was to give a definite response. I agree with what is in here, but I would not be able to swear that what happened there is as set out here. ADV MPSHE: .... want to believe under cross-examination that these young activists, as you call them, may have PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV MPSHE 616 CAPT HECHTER approached Joe Mamasela to be trained? CAPT HECHTER: Not may, they did. ADV MPSHE: Now, I've got a problem with that because your application gives me something different. You say on page 75, I will read the third paragraph, "The aim or specific aim was to discourage potential MK soldiers from going for training." CAPT HECHTER: To stop them, to present them with other insight, to bring them into a new way of thinking, to change their train of thought. Discourage means to bring you to another way of thinking, to stop you, to stop you or to change your mind. ADV MPSHE: These young men were actually coerced, if I have to use that word to go for training. CAPT HECHTER: (Speaks Afrikaans - no English translation) ADV MPSHE: I'm not using the words "recruit" please, I say 'coerced'. CAPT HECHTER: It comes down to the same thing, once again it is a technical variation of the previous question, Chairperson. JUDGE WILSON: I read it very differently Mr Mpshe. JUDGE MALL: Were you thinking of the word enticed perhaps rather than coerced? ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman, that word would also be suitable. Enticed by Mamasela to be trained. CAPT HECHTER: Unfortunately I cannot answer you there, because I was not present at the time when Mamasela was busy with them ...(intervention) JUDGE WILSON: Can I interrupt. You see what you say here is that the suggestion for the operation came from Mamasela. CAPT HECHTER: I understand Chairperson. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV MPSHE 617 CAPT HECHTER JUDGE WILSON: Yes. And then you say after you have told us about the weapons he had, he was issued with to train people with, you then say, "Mamasela and I discussed that after the activists had received training, we would eliminate them". CAPT HECHTER: That is correct. JUDGE WILSON: They were going to be taken and given training and when they had had training, they were going to be eliminated? CAPT HECHTER: In all probability Chairperson. JUDGE WILSON: And then you said, "The specific objective was to discourage potential MK soldiers". that was to discourage others wasn't it? CAPT HECHTER; It is possible, it could have been at that stage. JUDGE WILSON: That after you had eliminated these people, others would be discouraged. CAPT HECHTER: It might have been so. JUDGE WILSON: You then go on to say, as I have already raised with you, "Mamasela then took them to KwaNdebele. It was decided that they would stay there for a time receiving training. And then when Mamasela told me that the activists had received training and that they, out on their own account, asked for intensive training in the outer world, they wanted to undergo intensive training outside the country, I decided that this was now the right time to eliminate them". The impression I get there is that Mamasela gathered PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV MPSHE 617 CAPT HECHTER together groups, gave them three days training with weapons supplied by you and that when it was finished and when he had got them enthusiastic, you would them decide to kill them. Is that what the plan was? It was all a deliberate plan that they got taken to KwaNdebele, given three days training, intensive training in weapons with a view to encouraging them to ask for more and then you could kill them? And you did kill them. CAPT HECHTER: Yes, we did kill them. JUDGE WILSON: Do you agree with what I put to you that this was the pattern? That Mamasela took them there, he trained them there ...(intervention) CAPT HECHTER: He did not take them there, he could have taken some of them there, but otherwise they would not have been in the house. At this point in time I cannot give you the exact version. It is stated here that - he could possibly have taken some of them, but it is probable that some of them could have had accommodation there, so one could then draw the inference that there were already people there from this group. JUDGE WILSON: I was just using your words. You said he took them there, I didn't. CAPT HECHTER: I agree with you Chairperson. JUDGE WILSON: And then having decided to eliminate them, you go and look for a couple of your friends in the Murder and Robbery Squad to come and do it. CAPT HECHTER: That is correct. ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman, I know that it is now five o'clock, it may not take me less than 15 minutes, to finish cross-examination, I am in your hands Mr Chairman. INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV MPSHE 618 CAPT HECHTER JUDGE MALL: Do I understand that the venue for tomorrow's proceedings is another venue? ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman, that is so. We are moving to another venue. It is a building belonging to a church. JUDGE MALL: As long as there is no doubt and no difficulty in the minds of interested parties as to where we will be. ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman, the place is well-known, it is on the corner of Visagie and Andries Street, it is very conspicuous. JUDGE MALL: Alright, we will meet tomorrow morning. Mr Mpshe, what time will you be ready to begin tomorrow morning? ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman, may I propose nine o'clock? JUDGE MALL; Yes, very well, I will adjourn and resume at nine o'clock at the other venue. I would like to see counsel in my Chambers. COMMISSION ADJOURNS