amntrans AMNESTY HEARINGS 1997-03-06 PRETORIA 8 CAPTAIN HECHTER https://sabctrc.saha.org.za/hearing.php?id=54898&t=&tab=hearings https://sabctrc.saha.org.za/originals/amntrans/pta/pta.htm JACQUES HECHTER: (s.u.o.) ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman before we go ahead with further evidence pertaining to Captain Hechter, there is just something that I want to correct on record in public. I was informed this morning about a press report that appeared in the Beeld about yesterday's evidence and more specifically what was said by myself to the Committee in respect of who was involved with the preliminary investigation in respect of the Robeiro matter. Now, the press report that appeared in the Beeld of this morning referred to the fact that evidence was given by Capt Hechter that there was a cover-up in respect of this preliminary investigation in terms of which the State Attorney or representatives of the State Attorney and the Prosecutor was involved. That was the effect of the evidence. Now, what was reported in this press report was the fact that, you will recall that Adv Flip Hattingh and Jurie Wessels were named yesterday as counsel for the defence. Now, it is reported in this press report, "Advocate Flip Hattingh assisted by Jurie Wessels were presumably the State Attorneys at the time". The effect of this report is that Flip Hattingh and Jurie Wessels are, if you read it properly, now being implicated as being the State Attorneys who were involved in the cover- up. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 620 ADDRESS I spoke this morning to Advocate Bertelsman of the Pretoria Bars and the Pretoria Bar Council who pointed this out to me. I know Advocate Hattingh very well. I phoned him personally at his home this morning. I explained to him that this report is absolutely factually wrong and I undertook that I will raise this this morning in public and set the record straight so that there is no implication whatsoever pertaining to Advocate Hattingh and Advocate Jurie Wessels. And I want also to request the press and I will speak to the representatives of the Beeld to rectify this so that there is no implication whatsoever pertaining to those two gentlemen. Thank you Mr Chairman. JUDGE MALL: Thank you. I trust that the press will take cognisance of the remarks that you have made. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV MPSHE: (cont) Thank you, Mr Chairman. Captain, on Page 8 of you application, no.five, Roman letter - V. "Elimination usually took place of high profile activists and very efficient activists whose detention .... (The interpreter could not hear the speaker.) Do the deceased fall in this category? CAPT HECHTER: In a certain sense, yes. They were very efficient activists. They were known activists. If they had not been they would not have been where they were, but this was an ad hoc opportunity or occasion. No operation ever undertaken can be described verbatim on each and every occasion, because the circumstances differ, but broadly speaking yes, they could be categorised as such. Perhaps they were not very well known or high profile activists at PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV MPSHE 621 CAPT HECHTER that stage, but they were activists who were very active in the Black townships. ADV MPSHE: Can you say they were efficient or ...(intervention) CAPT HECHTER: If they had not been efficient they would not have drawn attention to themselves by means of these source reports. JUDGE WILSON: Surely if they had been efficient they would not have drawn attention to themselves, Captain? CAPT HECHTER: I understand your question, but as agents they would not have focused attention on themselves but as activists they did draw attention to themselves. ADV MPSHE: Captain, I am going to refer you to a statement which is part of the record in the Section 29 Investigation by Mr Joe Mamasela. Mr Chairman and members of the Committee this was placed before the Committee members a week ago. I do not know whether the Committee members still have it with them. It is the Section 29 version. It was not an exhibit at that time. I just put it before the Committee members. It was never used at all. JUDGE MALL: Let's just see if we can find it in the papers first. ADV MPSHE: My learned friend tells me that he objected to it, but my memory, if it is a good servant of mine, is that this statement was allowed to be used in another matter by the statement made by the very same person. ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, as far as I can recall we have not agreed that any statements of any evidence of Joe Mamasela can be placed before the Committee as part of the evidence in these hearings. I find it extremely perturbing, I must say. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV MPSHE 622 CAPT HECHTER JUDGE MALL: Well, I think you can address us on that because Joe Mamasela has not given any evidence. You can put to him that if it is said by somebody that this, that or the other happened you can invite him to comment on that. ADV MPSHE: That is what I intended doing. JUDGE MALL: Yes. ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes. Mr Chairman, but I have to deal with this point. As I understand my learned friend correctly, he placed before the Committee excerpts of the evidence in the Section 29 hearings at some stage pertaining to this incident. I do not know if I understood him correctly or not. ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman, the ruling that was made pertaining to these sort of things is that it will not be accepted by the Committee as evidence, but it can be used if I refer a witness to it and say, this is what was said, what is your response to that? The witness will just respond and that is it and I do not hand it up as an exhibit. I hand it up for convenience to the Committee so that when I refer the witness to a page the Committee must know that actually stands on the ...(intervention) JUDGE MALL: It does not in any way suggest that what the document says is true. ADV MPSHE: It does not at all, Mr Chairman. JUDGE MALL: Yes, we do not accept that as evidence. ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I understood that my learned friend could put questions arising from the document to the witnesses. I did not understand that that document would be handed up, but if that is not going to be accepted as evidence at all and the Committee gives me assurance that whatever is in that document cannot be taken into account PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV MPSHE 622 CAPT HECHTER when the application is considered at all also pertaining to full disclosure then I do not have a problem that the document is before the Committee. JUDGE WILSON: As I understood the position the document was handed to us, but certainly I have not read it and it was not the intention that we should read it. It should merely be as a convenience if he wants to say well I am going to read from page eight, rather that listen to him read we can look at it then. ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I am just concerned of the fact that I did not know that the document was handed up to the Committee, but be that as it may, if I have the assurance from the Committee that the information contained in that document, even though the Committee members are in possession of the document, will not be taken into account as evidence pertaining to the political motive or full disclosure issues then I do not have a problem that the document is with the Committee. However, if the Committee intends to take the document in some way or another into account when considering these issues then I do have a problem. JUDGE MALL: Mr Mpshe, what is the heading of that document if one wants to identify it, what is it called? ADV MPSHE: I just send a copy so that the jurors can see what the first page looks like. JUDGE MALL: Very well. ADV DE JAGER: Mr Mpshe can't you ask the question without referring to the document? ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman, that will mean that I will have to memorise what is in the document. I do not have time to do that. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV MPSHE 623 CAPT HECHTER JUDGE WILSON: Mr Mpshe, I have just noticed, I do not know if it was your intention, that we have been given, not only pages headed, "Joe Mamasela's 29 version", we have also been given one, headed "Schoon's 29 version". ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, really I do not know anything about these documents. I do not know anything about this. JUDGE WILSON: Your attorney seems to, it was done last week. ADV MPSHE: If there is any document on Schoon's version it does not come from myself at all. ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, we have that document. That is so. My learned friend handed it to us, and I am not perturbed about that. What I am perturbed about is the fact that documents such as this finds its way to the Committee members without the fact that it has been addressed in a way that is satisfactory to the applicants. However, I want to say again, that if the document, if the Committee gives me the assurance that the document will not be taken into account at all in respect of full disclosure or political motive at all, as evidence or any other way, then it can remain there. Otherwise I have a problem Mr Chairman. JUDGE MALL: Yes. ( Aside to Judge Wilson - Andrew until Mamasela gives evidence that document is just another document). JUDGE WILSON: Yes, but my copy, you can see quite clearly that Schoon's version was originally stapled to Mamesela's. ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes. ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman, if that is the position I am not going to deal with Schoon at all. I am only concerned with the part that I am going to deal with and that is Mamasela's PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV MPSHE 624 CAPT HECHTER portion only. And as I have indicated the document handed up to Committee members is not intended to be an exhibit at all. It is for the convenience of the Committee members. I will restrict myself to matters pertaining to Mamasela only. JUDGE MALL: Very well, do carry on. JUDGE WILSON: Well, is Schoon's version the last four pages of your document? JUDGE MALL: Let us just ignore it. Do carry on. ADV MPSHE: Thank you. Captain Hechter, you have the document before you. I want you to have a look at page one thereof. I will read so that you follow with me. The second paragraph, starting with, "Thank you". CAPT HECHTER: I see that. ADV MPSHE: Thank you. Second sentence, "I think I will have to proceed from 1986, the death of nine so-called ANC members. I use the word, so-called, because they were never ANC members, and whoever said they were nine ANC members probably, in my opinion, was trying to make it sound like a political killing. These to me were very innocent young unarmed school children". What is your comment to that? CAPT HECHTER: I deny that. ADV MPSHE: Then we move to the fifth paragraph on the same page, starting with, "Sam". "So Sam was not a student, just a township tsotsi, having his own henchman, but always where the students were, they were there. When the students were staging marches they were there. When the PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV MPSHE 625 CAPT HECHTER students were disrupting traffic or whatever they were there. Just to loot, to help the students make as if they were having a - but they were actually looting". What is your comment to that? CAPT HECHTER: Could we continue? "So it was then decided by Brig Cronje, that I should infiltrate. He gave me specific instructions with the names and the addresses of a few students that I had to infiltrate in Mamelodi". We did not work political, we did not do any criminal investigations so we would not have investigated tsotsi's. We had no contact with tsotsi's. We did not know who these tsotsi's were. We concentrated on political crimes purely. So this statement from Mr Mamasela, I do not agree with. ADV MPSHE: Then the same page, the last sentence ...(intervention) JUDGE MALL: What page is that? ADV MPSHE: The same page one Mr Chairman and members of the Committee, starting with the last sentence, "And I made it in my submission SAP 5, that no I believed that the students are carrying innocently in their student activities but it is the tsotsi element that is burning the trucks that are coming to deliver in the township. It is not the students. That was my submission". Did you receive such a report from him? CAPT HECHTER: I see that. I also see that he made a submission on SAP 5 and I dispute that. He never put anything in writing. The previous page at the bottom, SAP PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV MPSHE 625 CAPT HECHTER 5, is a police diary which was used and that I would also deny. He would never have committed anything to writing. I do not think he knew how to write. ADV MPSHE: He could not write? CAPT HECHTER: He did not know how to write police documents. He could write, but he wouldn't have completed police documents. That Mamasela did not do. You see what we did, it is an investigation diary that we are talking of here, the SAP 5, that means he had to fetch a SAP 5 and complete it in an investigation diary. Write down all his findings. As far as I know, Mamasela never did that. He reported to me on a oral basis. He never put down anything in writing. ADV DE JAGER: Kindly, he said, it was not the students. The students were busy with student affairs, but what was the tsotsi element doing? ADV MPSHE: He says, the students were busy with student affairs, their marches and so on, but there was a person by the name of Sam who was organising this tsotsi element and they infiltrated the innocent student marches and they did the looting and the burning, and whatever. (...indistinct) ADV MPSHE: From the student..... ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I do not understand what my learned friend is doing now. As far as I understood it the questions could have been put pertaining to what is stated in the document Mr Chairman. ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman, I am responding to the question by a member of the Committee. That is what I was doing. JUDGE MALL: He is answering a question by me. ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, but Mr Chairman, he is really, he is, PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV MPSHE 626 CAPT HECHTER as I understood it he is close to giving evidence himself about what happened there. As the Court pleases. ADV MPSHE: We move to the second paragraph of the same page. JUDGE MALL: What page is that? ADV MPSHE: Page two, Mr Chairman. Second paragraph, starting with, "and they", and I will read, "And then I really thought that our objective was achieved because now the tsotsi elements were uprooted out of Mamelodi. They were now hiding in KwaNdebele, because they were afraid not of the police now, they were afraid of the students. So I thought every thing was fine, but I was shocked to the marrow at one stage when Brig Cronje himself called me into his office and gave me specific instructions to go to KwaNdebele to follow up the tsotsi's there". do you know about this? CAPT HECHTER: I would not know anything about that, but I would just like to focus the Committee's attention on line 8, "I did that so much so that even a student at one stage necklaced one of the tsotsi's". I do not know about that instruction from the Brigadier to Mamasela. I cannot imagine that. I might just have forgotten. I do not know. ADV MPSHE: Page four Mr Chairman ...(intervention) CAPT HECHTER: Could we on that page just look at something else. Page two, 12th line from the bottom, "The Security Police also visited tsotsi's homes with the purpose of arresting them". PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV MPSHE 627 CAPT HECHTER The Security Police never had anything to do with tsotsi's, that would be an ordinary criminal investigation. And the Security Police did not do that kind of work, only with political deeds. ADV MPSHE: What you've actually just said also appears on page four. CAPT HECHTER: It is on my page two, 12th line from the bottom. ADV MPSHE: Could I just explain to you what I am talking about on page four? On page four, at the top it says, "would go and pick up". Second paragraph, "Capt Hechter said", that actually entails what you have just said, regarding investigation of criminal matters. CAPT HECHTER: "Capt Hechter said that he had information regarding where the weapons were hidden. He was badly assaulted, and he kept to his story that ... " (The interpreter cannot hear the speaker.) "It was decided that Sam should be killed". To what case are we referring to here? What Sam is this? Which Sam is being referred to? ADV MPSHE: This is not evidence, but Sam according to the document is the person, well he was a leader of a gang, which had infiltrated the students, infiltrated their boycott actions, etc. CAPT HECHTER: In other words it was a purely criminal action? ADV MPSHE: Correct. CAPT HECHTER: Well I suppose Joe can say what he likes. I deny that. I deny that. ADV MPSHE: Page five, last page, third paragraph, starting PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV MPSHE 628 CAPT HECHTER with the words, "the persons", but I am going down to the fourth paragraph, "at the door", can you see that? CAPT HECHTER: Yes. ADV MPSHE: " I left by the door and on the way I found Capt Hechter with a can of petrol in his possession". CAPT HECHTER: Yes, I see that. ADV MPSHE: "He entered the room once again and after a while Capt Hechter came out of the room which by this time was in flames". Now, what he is stating here is that you had the can of petrol. CAPT HECHTER: Yes, I see what he says here now. I would just like to point out, line eight from the top, he says that Goosen would have remained in the vehicle. Now, Goosen was never involved. Mentz and Goosen had done the shooting. Goosen was never involved. So I would also deny that statement. Goosen was not on the scene that night at all, so I deny the rest of what he says on that page. What he basically says here is that he was there. That is what we can infer from his evidence but that's about it. ADV MPSHE: Now, just a line below that, "I noticed that his trousers were on fire". CAPT HECHTER: Yes, I saw that. ADV MPSHE: Was that the case? CAPT HECHTER: No, definitely not. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV MPSHE CAPT HECHTER: Kan ek ook dan net verder, net ondertoe, ook net asseblief, dit lyk vir my so nege wis, het van Brig Cronje self PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV MPSHE 628 CAPT HECHTER te help. (Transcriber's translation: Further down, I think nine lines from the bottom, it is still on page five... that is where he mentions the command to eliminate the gang came from Brig Cronje himself. During the information session he arranged with the Murder and Robbery Squad to help us.) He contacted Murder and Robbery and asked to help us and I think that is in line with the evidence given yesterday and also the evidence given by Capt Mentz. That is untrue. JUDGE MALL: Do you wish to re-examine? RE-EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Capt Hechter, were you ever repudiated by any of your superior officers as regards to the operation? CAPT HECHTER: No, Chairperson. ADV DU PLESSIS: Yesterday you testified that you were not quite sure what Mamasela had told these people and whether they had approached him or whether he had approached them. CAPT HECHTER: Yes. ADV DU PLESSIS: But, there are certain facts which may be important here. And let me ask you about those facts, just to clarify the position. What was your instruction to Mamasela? CAPT HECHTER: He was not to recruit anybody pertinently. He came to me and said that he had been approached by the comrades element, the activists, to assist them with training abroad. ADV DU PLESSIS: What did Mamasela tell you, did they approach him or did he approach them? CAPT HECHTER: They approached him, that is what he told PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 629 CAPT HECHTER me, that he had been approached by an element, by the activists. Since as I have already testified, he was known as an MK member. ADV DU PLESSIS: Capt Hechter, a lot was said about the fact the Mamasela was such a good operator and that he could very easily influence young children, assuming that they were young children. Now the question which I am about to ask is based on Exhibit V, although it is not admitted as being correct, but as far as Exhibit V is concerned there the ages of the people are indicated and it ranges from 12 years to - it would seem to me... Pardon me, it ranges from 15 to 24. Now, you testify that you had a lot of experience about young comrades and their actions. What would your views be about the relationship between the older children and the younger children? CAPT HECHTER: Once again, we are making statements which are correct, because it is true that a younger child is more likely to influence a younger child. A younger child holds an older one in some awe. We do not know exactly what happened in this case. Once again we must surmise that that is what happened. ADV DU PLESSIS: Can you remember, based on your own experience, were the leaders mostly older children or can't you generalise? CAPT HECHTER: It is difficult to say. It is very difficult to say. JUDGE WILSON: Can I interrupt while we are on ages, have you got any idea what Mamasela's age was? CAPT HECHTER: Chairperson, I estimated him to be about 30 years old. That is just an estimate. JUDGE MALL: Isn't the difficulty really, that you did not PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 630 CAPT HECHTER know any of these individuals at all? They were just names to you. CAPT HECHTER: That is correct. They were just names to me and it might have been that we had some of them come and visit at the offices. JUDGE MALL: No, no, no, don't come and say 'it might have been' you see, because I mean this might been can extend and extend. You did not know any of these young people? CAPT HECHTER: No, not at all. ADV DU PLESSIS: Capt Hechter, you testified that Mamasela would have drawn the files and these files would have been checked. Who would have checked the files? Would you have done that? CAPT HECHTER: I believe so, but once again I cannot swear to that fact, but I believe that I would have looked at the files. He would have brought them to me. He would not have done this on his own. He would only have drawn the files. JUDGE MALL: Once again you are not saying that he did do it, you say he would have done it and he would have brought it to you. CAPT HECHTER: Yes. JUDGE MALL: You can't say that he did it and that you actually checked the file yourself? CAPT HECHTER: I might have asked one of the other members in the office, and told him here is the list, go and draw the files. JUDGE MALL: Yes, yes. Do carry on. ADV DU PLESSIS: Kapt Hechter, daar is ook vir u vrae gevra gister met betrekking tot die vraag of u alreeds aangedui het dat u jammer is oor die verlies van lewens en slagoffers aan beide kante. Ek gaan u dit nie weer laat voorlees nie. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 631 CAPT HECHTER Ek verwys u net na bladsy 340 van u aansoek. (Transcriber's interpretation: Capt Hechter, yesterday you were questioned whether you have already indicated that you regret the loss of lives and victims on both sides. I will not request you to read that again. I refer you to page 340 only of your Application.) Capt Hechter, do you confirm the evidence in this regard as well? CAPT HECHTER: I accept it as such, Chairperson. ADV DU PLESSIS: Page 340, Mr Chairman. It is that excerpt which he has read, I think twice already. Page 340, I think there was a bit of confusion about the correct page last time. 339, I beg your pardon. 339. It seems a little bit confusing, because I think there are two pages 339. But it is on page 339. JUDGE WILSON: It has confused me, because my page 339 is just a signature. ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes. Mr Chairman, that is the number 339. You will see the other pages which are annexures, were numbered in hand. And mine is not numbered, but the page I am referring to is the page before the hand numbered page 340. ...(tape ends) JUDGE MALL: ....question about that, could you put your question to him. JUDGE WILSON: He confirms the question. ADV DU PLESSIS: I just asked him to confirm that in the light of the cross-examination Mr Chairman. JUDGE MALL: Thank you. ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Hechter it was put to you during cross-examination that this is a planned operation to expose youth to firearms and so-called military training to make PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 631 CAPT HECHTER them more interested in that and also convince them or to try and persuade them to want to go abroad for military training and the way I understood it, it was to indoctrinate them, and as soon as they were ready to go abroad for training to eliminate them. Could you just comment on that, was that the case, or what was the intention with the operation? CAPT HECHTER: Any of those youths ...(intervention) JUDGE WILSON: It was not put to him, I read his application to him where that appears. ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes Mr Chairman he was cross-examined on that by Mr Powe as well Mr Chairman, so I didn't just refer to the question His Lordship Mr Justice Wilson asked, but in respect of questions asked by Mr Powe as well. Let us go back to your application Captain Hechter. On page 75, the third paragraph. The first line of the third paragraph, do you have that, it's on page 75? The sentence reads, "Mamasela and I discussed that after the activists have received training we would eliminate them". did the activists, before their training by Mamasela, express any desire to go abroad for military training? CAPT HECHTER: That was where the operation took root. They said to him, or they conceded to him that they would love to receive military training abroad. It is difficult to set out the motivations right now. I could possibly think of a 110 different motivations, but they had a chance, before leaving the country they had a chance to sit down and think about it while they were being exposed to war ammunition they had the opportunity to change their minds and go back to their residential areas. It was not necessary for them to go out. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 632 CAPT HECHTER ADV DU PLESSIS: Very well Captain. The question which I think still needs to be resolved, what would you have done with regard to an activist who during training by Mamasela decided to go back home, he was not going to proceed with this? CAPT HECHTER: In all probability we would have attempted to recruit that person as an informant and if that person had gone back to their home and continued with their activities and drew our attention to an extent that he was burning houses or attacking with handgrenades we would have eliminated him. But if he was only politically active without committing these other political acts and did not want to become an informant we would not have continued to keep a file on him. There were so many of them whom we did not eliminate that it is highly probable that only the most active activists were the ones who were targeted. ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Hechter if you look at page 76 where it says, "After Mamasela had informed me that the activists had received training and they had requested out of their own that they wanted to receive intensive training outside the country I decided that it was the right time to eliminate them". to which stage are you referring to, the stage before the training or after the training? CAPT HECHTER: This is after they had been trained. You see they had already approached him and said that they wanted further training so they were obviously people that wanted to go out of the country and if, within those two or three days, they had decided to withdraw nothing would have happened to them. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 633 CAPT HECHTER ADV DU PLESSIS: Did any of them withdraw? CAPT HECHTER: No, none of them withdrew. ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Hechter can you recall, generally speaking in that period, how many of these young activists and young students went abroad for military training? CAPT HECHTER: Chairperson I cannot remember off the top of my head but there were many of them that left the country. There could be some of my colleagues that can recall but I know that on a daily basis people left the country of their own accord. JUDGE MALL: Captain Hechter what was the purpose of the training that Mamasela gave them? CAPT HECHTER: Chairperson it's very difficult to say. We are now once again under normal circumstances so one can think up all sorts of explanations. JUDGE MALL: No at that time what was the purpose ...(intervention) CAPT HECHTER: That is the problem I have, I really do not know, I would be lying if I tried to explain why they were trained. Possibly it was just to show them. I do not know if it was my idea or Mamasela's idea Chairperson, I cannot remember, but the idea had to have emanated from one of us. JUDGE MALL: Yes, but if it was your idea you would know why you suggested that wouldn't you? CAPT HECHTER: Possibly, I cannot give a positive answer. It's a long time ago Chairperson. JUDGE MALL: Yes, but this is such a cunning plan, it's such a clever plan because from the very beginning it became abundantly clear that these people were going to be eliminated. CAPT HECHTER: Then I would have to say either Mamasela or PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 633 CAPT HECHTER I and I am not prepared to point a finger at a third person. I cannot recall whether I came up with the suggestion or whether Mamasela did. But I am not prepared to say he definitely came up with the suggestion when I am not 100% certain Chairperson. It is easy to shift the blame to him but that wouldn't be fair. JUDGE MALL: So what do you think Mamasela's purpose was in training them? CAPT HECHTER: If we were to look at his statement here I wouldn't know why he participated in the operation because he was completely free to withdraw from the operation. So it would be difficult for me to say what his intentions were. JUDGE WILSON: You say Mamasela was completely free to withdraw from the operation, would he not have been eliminated as you eliminated other ascaris? He knew far too much for you to let him go didn't he? CAPT HECHTER: I would not have eliminated him Chairperson, probably someone else, but at that stage there was no thing such as eliminating your own people. JUDGE MALL: Yes, but I mean it's important to know whether this wasn't all part of a cunning plan, because before you even gave the weapons to Mamasela this was all sham training to excite and induce youngsters to fall in with the suggestion of Mamasela that they should go overseas for training? CAPT HECHTER: I understand what you say Chairperson, that's possible Chairperson, but it could also have scared them off. Remember that 15 year old youth would generally be scared off by firearms or handgrenade. You know they moved about in groups, Chairperson, and when you are in a PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG JUDGE MALL 634 CAPT HECHTER group you are much more gutsy than you would be on your own. If you took 20 persons and had them fire at a group of 2,000 people, but to stand there on your own and do the same act takes much more courage out of you than when you are in a large group. JUDGE WILSON: But this was a group of nine people who were taken to a special house somewhere, we are not talking about people on their own Captain, you know that perfectly well. CAPT HECHTER: I understand what you are saying but if we look at Mamasela's own evidence he was there already. According to this annexure Mamasela says that they were there already. So they were prepared for what they wanted to do. JUDGE MALL: Yes well now they were prepared because they, according to Mamasela and according to you, the youth indicated to Mamasela that they would like to go overseas, they believed Mamasela to be an MK. CAPT HECHTER: That is correct. JUDGE MALL: He must have won their confidence over into believing that he was an MK. So that's the first deception in the step, is that right? CAPT HECHTER: That is correct, but he was very well known in Mamelodi as an MK member. He was a well known MK member in Mamelodi Chairperson. JUDGE MALL: At that very time when he was a well known MK member, he was in fact more well- known to you as one of your allies and associates. CAPT HECHTER: That's correct. JUDGE MALL: Right. So now let's not talk about him being an MK member. As far as the youths were concerned they did not know that he was associated with the security. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG JUDGE MALL 635 CAPT HECHTER CAPT HECHTER: No, they did not know. JUDGE MALL: They believed him to be an MK. CAPT HECHTER: That is right. JUDGE MALL: So now if they approached Mamasela that they would like to go overseas, it is because he held himself out to be an MK? CAPT HECHTER: That's correct. JUDGE MALL: They trusted him. So that's the first step in the deception process, is that right? CAPT HECHTER: That's correct. JUDGE MALL: Once that process was started it became abundantly clear very early on that these youngsters were going to be eliminated, is that correct? CAPT HECHTER: If they proceeded with the desire to go abroad. They had the option to change their minds anywhere along the way. That is correct. JUDGE MALL: Of course they all had options to change their minds, I can understand that, but I am saying that once the process is started and he holds himself out to be an MK he makes ammunition and firearms available to them, that strengthens their belief that this man is MK, that merely strengthens the deception of these youngsters they are being deceived further. At that stage the decision to eliminate them becomes all the stronger isn't it? CAPT HECHTER: That is possible Chairperson. JUDGE MALL: So it became quite clear that immediately you were informed by Mamasela that he has a group of youngsters who have either approached him or whom he has persuaded it became quite clear to you that this was going to be a well-planned execution of these youngsters, am I right? CAPT HECHTER: That may be so Chairperson. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MS KHAMPEPE 636 CAPT HECHTER JUDGE MALL: Thank you. MS KHAMPEPE: Captain Hechter on page 77 and in your evidence you testified that you instructed Gous to set these young activists on fire after they had been shot. CAPT HECHTER: That is correct. MS KHAMPEPE: Why did you do that? CAPT HECHTER: Chairperson at that stage it was a general action by activists when they killed someone to set that person alight. They were setting houses alight all over the show in Mamelodi, KwaNdebele and all the Black townships where they would set houses alight with people inside. It would have narrowed the chances down of fingers being pointed at the Security Branch. It would have been merely another activist operation. MS KHAMPEPE: So the whole intention was to make this operation look like that of another activist operation and you didn't want it to have a finger pointing at the Security Branch? CAPT HECHTER: That is correct Chairperson. MS KHAMPEPE: Now you have testified that the objective of the elimination of these young activists was to discourage any potential young activist who wanted to go for training? CAPT HECHTER: That is correct. Yes the activists knew what happened there. They would have known amongst each other that they did not burn them, but to the broader public and the police it would have seemed to be an ANC act. You see their friends knew that they were being trained, that they had volunteered to leave the country for training and if they were killed they would know, the activists themselves would know that the Security Police had a hand in it. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MS KHAMPEPE 636 CAPT HECHTER MS KHAMPEPE: How? I find it difficult to connect the two Captain Hechter. CAPT HECHTER: If the comrades killed each other, they did not kill each other they killed innocent civilians who did not support the ANC objectives, by killing them and burning them. Here we had a group of ANC activists who were killed. The other ANC activists would know that the other ANC activists were not responsible, why would they do that. You see it was a general action by the youth at the time. People who did not agree with them would be killed, so they knew that it had to have been the security forces. They would not know specifically who within the security forces but they would know that these guys prepared to leave the country and look what happened to them. So whenever a person came along recruiting people they would have to think twice as to whether this person is genuine or not. MS KHAMPEPE: This killing happened in KwaNdebele Captain Hechter and you are aware that in KwaNdebele at that time there was a vigilante group which was called "Imbogoto"(?) which also was launching ferocious attacks on people they called "comrades", who were young activists. So how would it have been so easy for young activists to have connected this action to the action of the Security Branch and not to a vigilante group action? CAPT HECHTER: The vigilante group supported the objectives of the "State", we cannot say whether it was really so or not Chairperson. JUDGE MALL: Yes. ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman may I ask one or two questions in response to the questions from the Bench? JUDGE MALL: Certainly. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 637 CAPT HECHTER FURTHER RE-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you. Captain Hechter these activists all came from Mamelodi, is that correct? CAPT HECHTER: Yes Chairperson. ADV DU PLESSIS: And the comrades with whom they were working and who knew them, would they have known that they would have left for training abroad? CAPT HECHTER: Yes definitely. ADV DU PLESSIS: Would they also have known that they died before leaving the country? CAPT HECHTER: Yes definitely. ADV DU PLESSIS: What would the result have been, or the conclusion have been? CAPT HECHTER: They would have known that the security forces were involved. They would have realised that the security forces were involved. ADV DU PLESSIS: I do not want to lead you ...(intervention) JUDGE WILSON: So they would have realised, undoubtedly, that Joe Mamasela, the prominent MK person who had recruited them or who had trained them was involved with the security police in killing. There can be no doubt in their minds about that, could there? CAPT HECHTER: We do not know how Mike was identified Chairperson. JUDGE WILSON: You've told us time and again how well-known he was, what a prominent MK person he was and they would have known, the friends who remained in Mamelodi, that they had gone to be trained by Mike. CAPT HECHTER: We do not know if they would have told their friends that Mike was taking them for training. They could PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 638 CAPT HECHTER just have told their friends that we are leaving the country for training. We cannot say whether Mike's name was ever mentioned amongst their friends. JUDGE WILSON: So you think (...indistinct)... we will get the credit of them believing it was the security police but they won't believe it was Mike, really Captain, I find it very hard to believe that you could have acted in that way. Either they were going to suspect it was a security police operation in which case Mike was at risk and would probably be killed the next time he went into the township or they wouldn't, isn't that so? CAPT HECHTER: I cannot answer you Chairperson. ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain let me put the question this way. If Mamasela operated in Mamelodi and these activists approached him with regard to military training would he have gone about announcing to everyone in the area that he was discussing military training with them? CAPT HECHTER: No the MK did not operate that way. Persons who approached him ...(intervention) JUDGE WILSON: Mr du Plessis your witness has said (...indistinct)(speaker's microphone is not on) ....the activists would have told their friends, it's your ...(intervention) ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes Mr Chairman ...(intervention) JUDGE WILSON: On that basis, if you are telling your friends something dangerous that you are in the process of going overseas for military training, a very serious offence, wouldn't you have told them that Mike is looking after us? ADV DU PLESSIS: Well Mr Chairman that doesn't mean that Mike was exposed to them, that he spoke to them or anything PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 639 CAPT HECHTER in that fashion. That is why I want to establish that fact. If Mike, if the activists would have told their friends, that would have created the effect later that they would have been scared to go out for military training, what is the possibility that Mike was also exposed to their friends, that is the point I am trying to establish Mr Chairman. ADV DE JAGER: Mr du Plessis but all these possibilities, should these not be left for argument? You and the witness are now putting arguments before us and not facts. ADV DU PLESSIS: With respect Mr Chairman there were questions with regard to speculation on large scale which were put to this witness, firstly. Secondly, this witness may be able to shed light on the possibility or probability that Mamasela would have exposed himself to a host of people or probably have maintained contact with this minimal group of people. It's possible that the other persons could have had contact with the broader community. If you don't want me to ask the question I will withdraw that Mr Chairman. JUDGE MALL: It's all in the realms of conjecture really. ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes that is so Mr Chairman. JUDGE MALL: Yes, yes. ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Hechter can you shed any light on that? CAPT HECHTER: No I cannot but once again I will just have to accept he would not openly have said to these young men go and tell everyone that, I, Mike, am going to take you out of the country. He would probably have sworn them to secrecy. What they may have said was that they were leaving the country but not whom they were going with. He would probably have sworn them to secrecy. Once again I am speculating, I was not there, and I cannot give you a PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 639 CAPT HECHTER definite answer. JUDGE MALL: I think that we must try and cut down speculation because this record is taking on immense proportions purely on speculative evidence. ADV DU PLESSIS: As it pleases you Mr Chairman. Captain Hechter do you know or can you remember cases where as you testified activists went abroad, do you recall any cases where ANC MK youth members recruited youth to go for training abroad? CAPT HECHTER: I personally did not have anything to do with it but it was well-known that it was an ANC strategy to use MK members to recruit youths for training abroad. Tsishaba wrote about that quite a bit and it was well-known articles. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DU PLESSIS JUDGE MALL: Yes, you are excused. CAPT HECHTER: Thank you Chairperson. WITNESS EXCUSED ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman may Captain Hechter please be excused, he has a doctor's appointment later on this morning. JUDGE MALL: Yes certainly he is excused. ADV DU PLESSIS: He will come back later. Thank you Mr Chairman. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 640 CAPT MENTZ ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. I will call Captain Mentz. WILLEM WOUTER MENTZ: (sworn states) EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Mentz, Mr Chairman that's on page 41 of the bundle of applications. Your application is on page 41 Captain Mentz. Your application is contained from page 42 to page 44, do you confirm the correctness thereof? CAPT MENTZ: I confirm it Chairperson. ADV DU PLESSIS: You've heard the testimony of Captain Hechter with regards to this incident as far as he testified about his and your involvement, do you confirm that? CAPT MENTZ: That's correct. ADV DU PLESSIS: The political motive is contained from page 45 to page 50 as the general motive and a more detailed motive from page 50 to page 52. CAPT MENTZ: That is correct, Chairperson. ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Mentz are there any aspects with regards this testimony by Captain Hechter which you would like to add before this Committee? CAPT MENTZ: Yes Chairperson. I was not involved with these activists at any stage. I did not know who they were or who came into contact with them. I was merely informed by Captain Hechter, requested to accompany him and I knew that these were people who wanted to leave the country for training and who would come back at a later stage and commit acts of terror. At that stage I was not attached to the Security Branch, I was attached to Murder and Robbery. ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Mentz did you work with the Security Branch on a regular basis? CAPT MENTZ: That's correct Chairperson. In the Black PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 641 CAPT MENTZ areas where there were murders and so forth Murder and Robbery would initially be involved in the investigation and then the Security Branch would come in if we would inform them that a Makorov or any similar ammunition was used. And if they were of the opinion that they could link these weapons to their suspects then they would become involved. So we were in regular contact. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DU PLESSIS JUDGE MALL: Yes, on behalf of the dependants and victims? MR POWE: Yes thank you Mr Chairman, a few questions. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR POWE: Captain if I understand you correctly you were attached to the Murder and Robbery Unit at that stage, what was your rank at that stage? CAPT MENTZ: That is correct Chairperson, my rank was that of Warrant Officer. MR POWE: The cooperation that you gave to the Security Police at that stage would have been, as I understand your evidence, to go to the scene and to investigate from the point of view of murder or robbery or some other crime, was that what the cooperation was supposed to be? CAPT MENTZ: That is correct Chairperson. MR POWE: Your duties, first and foremost and perhaps exclusively ought to have been confined to the investigation of crime, the arrest of suspects, booking them and bringing them before the courts, is that not correct? CAPT MENTZ: No Chairperson. I was a member of the South African Police at that stage. I was an investigating officer at Brooklyn. Before that, directly after my training I did counter-insurgency operations and while I was at Brooklyn Investigative Unit where I was a normal detective, I was sent to Ovambo where I did border duty, PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR POWE 642 CAPT MENTZ combatting terrorists as a police officer and the police policy was the combatting of terrorists. It was also part of my duties at Murder and Robbery. It was still part of my duties to combat terrorism but I had to specifically concentrate on murders, armed robberies and other offences, other crimes which I will not elaborate on now. As I have already testified I knew that some of the liberation movements...(tape ends) ...I got to a scene, a murder or robbery scene and I saw that terrorist weapons were used I would immediately inform the Security Branch and as I had already said where I deemed it necessary they would take over the investigation, or alternatively we would proceed with the investigation and I did not just - that where we were working I had many friends in the Security Branch then and our opinions were the same with regards to combatting terrorism. If that answers your question. MR POWE: Captain, you went some length - let's see whether you confirm how I see your duties. Out of all that that you sketched to me your duties came down to this and only this. You were to investigate as you yourself say. Are we correct? JUDGE MALL: ...try and speed up this. If this is controversial at all, because if it is not controversial I do not want to go all over this. MR POWE: As it pleases you, Chairperson. JUDGE MALL: Yes. Put your question pointedly. MR POWE: It could have never been part of our duties to be part of elimination squads, was it, Captain? CAPT MENTZ: That is correct, Chairperson. It was not on my duty sheet, but I personally felt that these people left for further training and they returned. They were going to PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR POWE 643 CAPT MENTZ commit more acts of terrorism, murder on policemen, bombings of places and I saw it as necessary to eliminate them. I knew that they were going to be eliminated and I went along with that. It was basically the same as what we did at the border, having to get rid of terrorists. MR POWE: Captain you yourself got, as I understand it a call from Captain Hechter to come and assist. You yourself had not been involved in any investigation involving any of the people who died that night in July of 1986. Is that correct? CAPT MENTZ: That is correct, Chairperson. MR POWE: You yourself sitting here today cannot say to this Committee that this or that member of this group would have been involved in this or that activity. Is that correct? You did not know it then, do not know it now. Is that correct? CAPT MENTZ: I did not have the facts but I believed that it was possible and foresaw that it could have happened. I participated pro-actively in a combat situation. MR POWE: You simply acted on what Captain Hechter told you without verifying the effects as it was supposed to be done, as it was required of you as a (...indistinct) You did not do any of that? CAPT MENTZ: That is correct Chairperson. MR POWE: I put it to you, therefore, Captain that you could have never had a reasonable belief at that time that what you went out to do that night was in the call of duty and was called for and appropriate. You could never have formed an opinion like that at that time, what do you say to that? CAPT MENTZ: That is not so. I did have such an opinion. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR POWE 643 CAPT MENTZ MR POWE: If you have that opinion that could never have never be a reasonable opinion Captain. You did not have the facts, you never verified. You never investigated. You just simply went out to kill. CAPT MENTZ: I believed, as I have already testified previously and today that this was pro-activity. These people were going for training. They were going to come back to commit further acts of terrorism, which included murder and so forth. So I decided to go along because I saw it as combatting the PAC and ANC. MR POWE: Yes Captain it may be what you believe but you never had the facts to support the belief that these people that you were going out to eliminate that night indeed were bent on performing the acts you are telling us about. CAPT MENTZ: I took Hechter's word and I believed they had a network of informers and they would have made sure of the facts that these people were involved in the struggle. That they were responsible for attacks on policemen and necklace murders and so forth and they could have been involved and even worse when they returned they would have committed further acts of terrorism. So, I just accepted that the Security Branch would have made sure. MR POWE: You never exercised any independent thoughts on this matter. You followed "soos 'n blinde CAPT MENTZ: No, Chairperson, I did not have insight into the Security Branch's files. Hechter was an officer at the time and I believed that he would have made sure. MR POWE: You never had any direct contact or any indirect contact with these people? CAPT MENTZ: I already testified, no, Chairperson. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR POWE 644 CAPT MENTZ MR POWE: They were never subjected to any investigations by you as part of the Murder and Robbery Squad, were they? CAPT MENTZ: No, Mr Chairperson. MR POWE: You had no business to be there that night in fact I put it to you. CAPT MENTZ: You may see it as such. I see it differently and I have already testified. JUDGE WILSON: Did you make an entry in your pocket book about this duty of yours? CAPT MENTZ: No, Mr Chairperson. MR POWE: Because it was not part of your duties, was it? CAPT MENTZ: I concede. MR POWE: You then used the word during your testimony, either in response to a question or in response to a question by Advocate Du Plessis and you said that you were involved in a war, oorlog, is the word you used. Captain you were not a soldier, were you? CAPT MENTZ: I was not a soldier ...(intervention) MR POWE: If there were wars to be fought they were to be fought elsewhere not by you. Is that not correct? CAPT MENTZ: War was probably the wrong word to use ...(intervention) MR POWE: You used it. ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, may the witness please be allowed to answer the question. MR POWE: Please answer. CAPT MENTZ: There were unrest, murders, intimidation in the country at the time. Houses were burnt, as you well know. We are merely repeating all these things. To me there was instability in the country. War, in you interpretation may be where canons were shot from another PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR POWE 645 CAPT MENTZ country, but to me it was a war situation. There was no peace in the country. There was unrest. And where people die I regarded it at the time as a war. MR POWE: Captain at that stage who was your immediate superior, who was your commander? CAPT MENTZ: Colonel Britz. MR POWE: What was Captain Hechter's rank at that time? CAPT MENTZ: He was either a lieutenant or a captain, I think he was a lieutenant. MR POWE: If you were to receive instructions with regards to the performance of your duties, those could have not and should not have come from Captain Hechter of Lieutenant Hechter at the time, is that not so? CAPT MENTZ: I do not understand you very well. Do you mean that if I received instructions from Murder and Robbery, from Hechter, from Lieutenant or Captain Hechter? MR POWE: Where did you receive your instructions from? CAPT MENTZ: From Hechter, from Captain Hechter. MR POWE: As a member of the Murder and Robbery Squad, where did you take the instructions from? CAPT MENTZ: From my Commanding Officer at Murder and Robbery. MR POWE: And not from Lieutenant Hechter at that time? CAPT MENTZ: No, Mr Chairperson. MR POWE: Did your superior give you any instruction to be involved in this elimination operation? CAPT MENTZ: Not in this specific operation, Chairperson. MR POWE: Did anyone else above him give you, Capt Mentz an instruction to be involved in this operation, this specific operation? CAPT MENTZ: No, Mr Chairman. I concluded, as I said in my PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR POWE 646 CAPT MENTZ previous testimony that I believed that it had the approval or bore the approval of the then Commissioner who was under the General and right up the ranks, up to the Government. MR POWE: Let's test that, where did you believe that from? CAPT MENTZ: That is how the system works, even today. MR POWE: The orders that were testified about, yesterday and other days, that emanated from Victor and Cronje, I believe, were those ever communicated to you in any way? CAPT MENTZ: No, Mr Chairperson. That is what I believed at the time. And we are now testifying about a few years ago. MR POWE: So these orders were not communicated to you, either by standing orders or by way of circular or in any other way. You were never given an instruction to be part of elimination squads. Is that not correct? CAPT MENTZ: Not in this specific instance. MR POWE: You went out and this was a frolic of your own. Is it not so? CAPT MENTZ: The first day I testified I conceded. Yes, Chairperson, that is correct. MR POWE: Captain, behind me are members of those who perished on that evening during an operation in which you were involved. Do you have anything to say to them? CAPT MENTZ: Yes, Mr Chairperson and it was my intention just before the Committee excused me, but if the Committee will give me an opportunity to do that now, I would like to do that. I am sorry for the loss, pain and suffering which I inflicted on parents, family and friends of the victims. I am really sorry about that and I would just like to say to you that there was a possibility that these people could have come back as trained MK soldiers, whether they were for PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR POWE 646 CAPT MENTZ the PAC, ANC, or whatever. And it had to be foreseen that these people could possibly have committed a second Church Street bomb, because their targets were not merely military people like us, but also other innocent people. I would just like to mention that to you, but I would like to ask you to forgive us. We are sorry for the persons who suffered and who lost loved ones. MR POWE: Captain, I think between you and members of the families will have to be lots of talking. But I am perturbed by your persistence, even having heard the testimony, your insistence that this group, this particular group of youngsters were such people as you've mentioned, who would have gone out and come back as trained terrorists, when in the first place it is questionable whether they ever wanted to go out until Mamasela got working on them. Do you insist on that even today, having heard what the evidence is? CAPT MENTZ: Mr Chairman, it was never proven that these persons did not intend leaving the country. I am testifying about what happened at the time. At the time I believed and I testified about it earlier that at that stage it did not matter to me who was a high profile activist or not, who was a political activist. At the time somebody who was furthering the objectives of the ANC of PAC I regarded them as a terrorist. These were terrorists who were going to receive further training and who were going to come back. I did not have the detail the way the Security Branch had it. I just knew that these people were going out for training and that I accepted it. MR POWE: Let me ask you one further question and that will be the last. At any stage during this operation, when these PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR POWE 647 CAPT MENTZ people were shot at, when their bodies or they themselves were set alight, did it ever occur to you to walk away from it, I'm not part of this, to put a stop to it? CAPT MENTZ: Mr Chairperson I would like to respond in this way. I did not testify further about what more took place that evening. So I would like to answer you. We spoke about my political motive. I'd like to proceed. Hechter, Mamasela and I as well as Deon Gous and Andre Oosthuizen went there this night. I was driving. And in the vehicle on the way there, Mamasela, Gous and Oosthuizen said that, volunteered that they were going to do the shooting. We approached this place and today I might not be able to tell you where the place is, I cannot remember any more. I remember that as we came along the gravel road the house was on the right-hand side. We stopped not too far from the house. Mamasela got out by himself. Went to the house and after a while he came back. I cannot tell you how many minutes it was, but he came and said that the people were there. Hechter, Oosthuizen and Gous got out and went to the house. They went ahead of me. I remained sitting in the vehicle. I very cautiously brought the vehicle closer to the house and I half reversed into the gateway. My task as was testified were that there were Defence Force troops patrolling, and my task was to keep an eye out for them. All this took place so rapidly. It was dark. I did not see who shot, but as I said Mamasela, Oosthuizen and Gous had their weapons and had volunteered to do the shooting. Hechter stood outside at the back, if I remember correctly. Shots rang. I waited and watched. And then everything went quiet and the next moment there were flames as the petrol was thrown on them and they ran to the vehicle, jumped in. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR POWE 648 CAPT MENTZ We did not speed off. We tried to drive off as normally as possible, because if were to speed off we would have attracted attention. We drove off, watched the troop carriers and we went out of the one exit, because there were two, and drove back to Pretoria. I would like to say, what I can remember too, is that remembering Gous and Oosthuizen having shot is that when they got back to the vehicle, one said to the other, I cannot remember who said what, the one had struck the other one's AK47 round, the covering, so that is why I was convinced that they had shot, but I did not see who had shot and I did not see who had doused the people with petrol. MR POWE: My question was really whether you did not think of stopping the whole thing, saying no this is bad or walking away from it. Do I understand ...(intervention) JUDGE MALL: He answered as far as he is concerned he drove off. He drove them there and he drove off. MR POWE: As it pleases you Chairperson. I have no further questions. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR POWE JUDGE MALL: Mr Mpshe any questions of this witness? NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV MPSHE ADV DE JAGER: To the question put by Mr Powe you said that they could have returned and attacked ordinary civilians as well as police targets. Why did you say military targets or policemen? Why did you make that distinction as between those targets and ordinary civilians? CAPT MENTZ: That is correct Chairperson, that is what I said. What I meant was that I knew that the struggle was waged against military targets, such as for instance the Police and the Defence Force, but in the process civilians PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DE JAGER 648 CAPT MENTZ were also injured, as for instance with the Church Street bomb. ADV DE JAGER: Was there a distinction made in the struggle between ordinary policemen and Security Police, or were they all a target? CAPT MENTZ: They were all targeted. JUDGE WILSON: You have just told us that flames broke out as petrol was thrown over them, but you do not know who had doused them with petrol. Is that so? CAPT MENTZ: Yes, that is my testimony, yes, but long afterwards, in discussions with Hechter, it became clear that he gave the fuel to Gous. What I am trying to say is that I didn't specifically see that taking place, because the place was behind me. JUDGE WILSON: Didn't you see Hechter carrying the petrol? CAPT MENTZ: Yes, Mr Chairman, I cannot really recall but it is possible. I do not think that Gous would have been carrying the petrol and the AK. It is possible that Hechter could have done so. JUDGE WILSON: But surely you must have known this because we have been told that on the way there you stopped, poured petrol over a tree and set that on fire. Hechter has told us. Do you remember that? CAPT MENTZ: That is so. JUDGE WILSON: Did you see him doing that? CAPT MENTZ: Yes Mr Chairman. JUDGE WILSON: So you knew he was the person with the petrol. CAPT MENTZ: Yes Chairperson. JUDGE WILSON: Because in your application you said there was a fire at the scene but I do not know how it had PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG JUDGE WILSON 649 CAPT MENTZ started. That's not correct is it, you knew there was petrol being used that night didn't you? CAPT MENTZ: Yes Mr Chairperson. After we had recovered these things I made a note which says, "During consultation and also after hearing evidence before the Commission I know now that it was Gous..." but you are right, I saw Hechter that evening, I see him pouring petrol onto the tree. MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Mentz, you have testified that when you participated in this incident you believed that you had the approval of the Commissioner of Police then. If you had such an approval did you report your participation to Col Britz? CAPT MENTZ: No, Chairperson. MS KHAMPEPE: Why not Mr Mentz? If you did not think you had done anything out of the ordinary? CAPT MENTZ: I do not think that the Commissioner of Police would ever have admitted that at that stage. So the reason why I did not mention this to my Commanding Officer is that it was a very sensitive matter and that the fewer people that knew about it the better. I did not tell anybody else about it. I also never discussed it with anybody other than the people directly involved. MS KHAMPEPE: Thank you. JUDGE WILSON: There is just one other matter I want you to give me some background please. Sergeant Gous, what unit was he with? CAPT MENTZ: Oosthuizen and Gous were at Murder and Robbery. JUDGE WILSON: The same unit as you? PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG JUDGE WILSON 650 CAPT MENTZ CAPT MENTZ: Correct. JUDGE WILSON: So apart from Hechter and Mamasela, the other three people who took part that night were Murder and Robbery? CAPT MENTZ: Correct. JUDGE WILSON: None of them instructed to do so by their own officers and none of them reported back, I take it? CAPT MENTZ: No. JUDGE WILSON: The other two were the ones who offered to do the shooting. As I understand you Gous and Oosthuizen offered to do the shooting? CAPT MENTZ: Yes, Chairperson along with Mamasela. MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Mentz had you participated in this kind of activity with Capt Hechter before? I cannot remember whether this incident comes earlier than the one you have already testified to? CAPT MENTZ: Before the Brian Ngqulunga case, long before and I also mentioned in my application that there was a further matter, I think it was - I cannot actually remember the date, I also applied for amnesty for the case involving a petrol bomb, that was a home-made petrol bomb, and we exploded that in Attridgeville, threw it into a house. I do not know whether anybody was injured but it is mentioned in my application. That is all. MS KHAMPEPE: Thank you. JUDGE MALL: Any re-examination? RE-EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS. Thank you Mr Chairperson. This Attridgeville bomb that you have just mentioned, did this happened before the KwaNdebele Nine case? Can you remember? CAPT MENTZ: I cannot remember. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 651 CAPT MENTZ ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Mentz, you have already made it quite clear, but I just want to make a hundred per cent clear, did you see how the fire actually started? CAPT MENTZ: No, Chairperson. ADV DU PLESSIS: You were not present? CAPT MENTZ: No, I was in the vehicle in front of the gate. ADV DU PLESSIS: You were asked a specific question by Mr Powe and I am concerned that it might have been misconstrued of misinterpreted. You were asked or told, that what you had done was a frolic of your own. Now I do not know how it was interpreted into Afrikaans but it has a very specific legal connotation and in all fairness, I would like to ask the witness, frolic of your own means something which you do without any authorisation, totally outside the course and scope of your duties. Do you regard this as having been a frolic of your own in that sense? CAPT MENTZ: No. ADV DU PLESSIS: What was your impression of the situation in the country at the time? CAPT MENTZ: As I have already testified, it was war, unrest, innocent people were being killed. There was an armed struggle in the country. And I saw it as war. We had terrorists active here. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DU PLESSIS. JUDGE MALL: Thank you very much. JUDGE WILSON: You mentioned a bomb attack in Attridgeville. That is not ... in the application, page 25. (The speaker's microphone is not on.) - it's not for the record...... ADV DU PLESSIS: That seems to be the case Mr Chairman, I PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG JUDGE WILSON 651 CAPT MENTZ just want to make one hundred per cent sure. Yes, that is the one, Mr Chairman. JUDGE MALL: This will be a convenient stage to take the adjournment. We will resume at 11H15. COMMITTEE ADJOURNS PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR POWE 652 M MALOBOLA ON RESUMPTION JUDGE MALL: Mr du Plessis? ADV DU PLESSIS: I have no further witnesses, Mr Chairman. JUDGE MALL: Mr Powe are you calling any witness? MR POWE: Mr Chairperson, it is a matter we have considered carefully. I am going to call one of them and not all of them, who will speak on behalf of the group and I believe the sentiment she echoes would go for all the group. I call Mrs Mabel Malobola. MABEL MALOBOLA: (sworn states) EXAMINATION BY MR POWE: Mrs Malobola, you are a resident of Mamelodi. MRS MALOBOLA: That is correct. MR POWE: I want to take you back to 1986, July of 1986. MRS MALOBOLA: I am listening sir. MR POWE: Part of your family - Or let me ask you directly, do you remember Mbuswo Malobola? MRS MALOBOLA: Yes. MR POWE: What is Mbuswo Malobola of you? MRS MALOBOLA: I am the grandmother. He was residing in Springs. MR POWE: During July 1986, what happened? MRS MALOBOLA: It was on a Wednesday, I was from work. I was working at a school. ...(tape ends)... grandma, don't you remember me and I said to him Mbuswo what brings you here and he said to me we are here to visit you. There is fighting in Springs so we want to come and cool off here. They spent the Wednesday evening at home, Thursday and Friday. Saturday, at about five o'clock they just disappeared, they just disappeared like that. I have a rockery outside my house and they were laughing, sharing PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR POWE 653 M MALOBOLA jokes together, and his grandfather said to him Mbuswo can you please make fire so that we can get into the house. He said okay grandfather I will do just that. He went to the back yard, he prepared the fire. Their clothes were still on the line because I washed them. We then went into the house because the fire was now ready and the grandfather said where are the children, I don't see them, they were outside. We went outside to look for them but we couldn't see them. I stood at the gate and I saw only the rear portion of a combi taking another turn. That was the street taking the left direction. I wasn't aware that this is the combi that picked up our children. When we were still puzzled, asking where the children were, we couldn't do anything, we went to bed. The next morning we woke up, the children were nowhere to be seen. On Monday we decided to send the grandfather to Hammanskraal to search for them because his grandfather was working at Hammanskraal and he said to us these children do not want ...(intervention) MR POWE: Thank you Ma'am, so they disappeared one Friday afternoon you say? MRS MALOBOLA: On Saturday, on Saturday five o'clock. MR POWE: When next did you hear or see, did you ever see him again, Mbuswo? MRS MALOBOLA: As we were asking everybody in the streets they said we saw Mbuswo and them getting into a combi. Where were they going to? The children said no, we do not know and that was the last of it. It was after a week when we heard that the children had died. It was a Tuesday morning. A person knocked at the door and I was still at home and I asked who are you? This person said please open I am Butiki Nkosi, I am here to tell you that those children PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR POWE 654 M MALOBOLA are dead, the children that visited your place. And he said they were at KwaNdebele. And I said how can we - how are we going to get there because I don't know where KwaNdebele is and he said don't worry I will take you there. I said to him Buti KwaNdebele is an unrest place, how are you going to get there? He said don't worry I will take you. He truly came and he took us to this area. We went into the room where the children died. Do you know a farm that has been burnt down? MR POWE: Carry on. MRS MALOBOLA: When we got into this house it was burnt to ashes. It burnt completely and nobody could help them. And they didn't have anybody to rescue them. They died in that house. And we asked Johanna, Johanna how did you know that these are our children, and Johanna's daughter said I wrote their names down and she pulled out a list and we said to her read their names out. She read them all. And we said where are they now and he said they are at Bronkhorstspruit. We went into this house then. We couldn't find their ashes. There was nothing we could get. When they were supposed to be buried we were running up and down. We couldn't get the funeral arrangements done because it was during that time of apartheid. They didn't want to see a group of people, I am referring to the White people now. They didn't want to see any group of people. We conducted the funeral under very heavy circumstances. Johanna then sent two bags full of parts and Johanna said these are the parts that you left behind. We said how did it come because we went into the house and we couldn't find anything. MR POWE: So Ma'am to sum up, Mbuswo, three of his friends disappeared one Friday or Saturday and the next that you PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR POWE 655 M MALOBOLA know ...(intervention) MRS MALOBOLA: They disappeared on Saturday, it was five o'clock. MR POWE: Yes. And the next that you know is that you were called to a place in KwaNdebele where you were told they had died. Is that what you are telling the Committee? MRS MALOBOLA: That's correct. MR POWE: And are you saying to the Committee that Mbuswo had been to your place in Mamelodi for three days at that time to visit you? MRS MALOBOLA: Yes, yes. MR POWE: Are you aware of what his political activities would have been at that time, if you are not aware say you are not, if you are say yes? MRS MALOBOLA: It is difficult to determine whether he was in politics or not because he was only three days at home. MR POWE: You have heard two applicants who have come before the Committee ...(intervention) MRS MALOBOLA: Yes. MR POWE: They have come to ask for amnesty from this Committee ...(intervention) MRS MALOBOLA: I don't have forgiveness at all. MR POWE: Have you got anything to say? MRS MALOBOLA: I don't have forgiveness. They will get their forgiveness in heaven, I am not God. MR POWE: Ma'am you have spoken to other people from Mamelodi whose relatives also perished in the same incident, do you know what their feeling is about this matter? MRS MALOBOLA: Please repeat? MR POWE: Other people from Mamelodi whose relatives died in this incident, do you know how they feel about this, do PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR POWE 655 M MALOBOLA you know how they feel about amnesty and reconciliation with the two applicants? MRS MALOBOLA: I do not know about how they feel but I am talking on my behalf, I don't have forgiveness. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR POWE JUDGE MALL: Did she know the names of the others who had accompanied her grandson? MR POWE: Would you like me to put that question Chairperson in which I ...(intervention) JUDGE MALL: Yes please. MR POWE: Ma'am do you know the names of the others who accompanied your grandson Mbuswo? MRS MALOBOLA: I only know Kenny Mahlangu of Vosloorus. I am sorry, he is not from Vosloorus he is from Benoni. MR POWE: Kenny Mahlangu from Benoni Chairperson, Mahlangu M-A-H-L-A-N-G-U, Kenny. The other one, there were two of them, the other one you do not know? MRS MALOBOLA: The one was China, he was visiting his family just around our area, but I forget his surname. That's Mrs Maifadi's family. MR POWE: Maifadi, M-A-I-F-A-D-I Chairperson. Ma'am we have amongst the documents that have been handed in some of the names and the name Maifadi comes up and you say this other child was a relative of the Maifadi's, let's just see whether you would know. ADV DE JAGER: Mr Powe you have consulted with the other relatives, can't you perhaps help us there and hand in or even state in a statement all the people involved? MR POWE: Chairperson I was only responding to the Chair's questions. Yes, we have consulted with the others. This witness may not be able to verify the names obviously, I can PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR POWE 656 M MALOBOLA place them on record once she is over with her testimony. That perhaps might be the most convenient thing to do. It is part of the inquest docket that was handed up as well as the report and I am mindful of my learned friend's views on it that was handed up yesterday. That then would dispose of the questions I wanted to put to this witness Chairperson and I have no further questions. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR POWE CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: How old was Mbuswo when he disappeared? MRS MALOBOLA: He was about 20, he was very small. ADV DU PLESSIS: About 20. MRS MALOBOLA: Yes. ADV DU PLESSIS: And can you - how often did you see him, every day? MRS MALOBOLA: Not. ADV DU PLESSIS: How often did you see him? MRS MALOBOLA: I last saw him as a small baby. I only saw him that day and I was surprised to see him. He was staying in Springs, not Pretoria. ADV DU PLESSIS: Do you know if he was a comrade at that time? MRS MALOBOLA: I am not sure. I won't give evidence on that. How would you know a person who has only visited you three times? NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DU PLESSIS JUDGE MALL: Where are his parents? MRS MALOBOLA: His mother passed away. His father is still alive. JUDGE MALL: Where? MRS MALOBOLA: His father is in Springs, at KwaThema. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MS KHAMPEPE 657 M MALOBOLA MS KHAMPEPE: Mrs Malobola what standard - do you know whether he was attending school or not, Mbuswo? MRS MALOBOLA: Yes. MS KHAMPEPE: What standard was he at school? MRS MALOBOLA: If I am not mistaken he was doing standard eight. MS KHAMPEPE: Do you know whether China was also attending school? MRS MALOBOLA: I do not know. MS KHAMPEPE: Kenny Mahlangu? MRS MALOBOLA: Kenny was 12 years old so he was supposed to be in school. I asked him how old he was and he told me that he was 12 years old. MS KHAMPEPE: Thank you. JUDGE MALL: Mr Mpshe are there any questions which you wish to put to this witness? NO EXAMINATION BY MR MPSHE JUDGE WILSON: You said, I think, that this boy was 20, are you sure of that age? MRS MALOBOLA: If I am not mistaken he was 20. JUDGE WILSON: (Aside - The inquest gives it as 26.) JUDGE MALL: (Aside - Well she doesn't know, as far as she knows, she saw him when she was a baby). Yes thank you very much. WITNESS EXCUSED JUDGE MALL: Mr Powe? MR POWE: Chairperson flowing from the question that was put to me I don't intend calling any other of the relatives Chairperson, but perhaps we could clear up the names of the persons we have consulted with. We have consulted with the family of - if one has a look at Exhibit W that was handed PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR POWE 658 ADDRESS in I believe yesterday. JUDGE MALL: Yes. MR POWE: The family of Jeremiah Magagula, who confirmed that his age was, as stated on the inquest report. The mother Catherine Magagula and the father Hendrik Magagula are before you and they have heard... JUDGE MALL: Yes do carry on. MR POWE: I need to place before you, however, that they believe that he might have well been part of the Nietverdiend group and not the KwaNdebele group, but those are just some of the uncertainties that I believe are going to be part of a case of this nature where identification was somewhat difficult. But he perished in that time, in 1986. Elizabeth Mabena is also here. She is the sister of Jimmy Mabena. ADV DE JAGER: These papers have not been paginated but I've got Mabena now. JUDGE MALL: Yes, he's given as 21 years old. MR POWE: According to the sister he was 18 years old at the time Chairperson. JUDGE MALL: Carry on. MR POWE: Maria Mothola is the sister of Obit Mukunwana(?). JUDGE MALL: Yes. His age? MR POWE: His age is confirmed as 20 years at that time. JUDGE WILSON: Can I go back for a moment, did you say it was Mabel Malobola? MR POWE: Mabel yes. JUDGE WILSON: And the name is Malobola? MR POWE: Malobola, that is the witness that has just been was Mabel Malobola. JUDGE MALL: But the sister of Jimmy Mabena is here. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR POWE 659 ADDRESS JUDGE WILSON: Sorry, well then in the form she appears to have - Mabel Malobola appears to have identified Jimmy Mabena. MR POWE: Chairperson I canvassed that issue and she says no she did not. It would seem that, to put it mildly, there must have been great confusion at that time and she says she did not identify that particular person. ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairperson in terms of Exhibit V Jimmy Mabena was identified by Mbuswo Malobola's father, that is on page three of V. JUDGE WILSON: You have only handed in one copy of the - you haven't given the rest of us copies. JUDGE MALL: Yes. Now on page three paragraph 8 yes, Mbuswo Malobola. MR POWE: (...indistinct)(not speaking into the microphone) Next and before you Chairperson is Sophie Maifadi. She is the mother of Benjamin Maifadi, and confirms his age as being 16 years at the time and a scholar. JUDGE MALL: Is she the mother? MR POWE: She is the mother Chairperson. JUDGE MALL: Yes. MR POWE: Those, as far as I am aware, are the people who are here before you. One of the other persons, the last in the bundle is Jeffrey Hlope but the mother was not present yesterday, I don't ..... Joyce Mabena Hlope is here, she is the mother of Jeffrey Hlope, 17 years old at the time. JUDGE MALL: Thank you. MR POWE: All of the parents and the relatives who are here, save for the Makabula family did have funerals after the event to bury the remains of some of the people, and one or other member of the family went out to identify. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR POWE 659 ADDRESS JUDGE MALL: Yes. MR POWE: That then concludes our part of what we want to say to you Chairperson. The rest I think we can deal with in submissions. Thank you. JUDGE MALL: Thank you. Are you involved, Mr Powe, are you involved in any of the other matters with us this morning? MR POWE: Chairperson, no, I am in fact going to ask to be excused. My colleague Van den Berg will be undertaking the next matter. JUDGE MALL: Yes. MR POWE: I am otherwise part of Mr Currin's team, so in that context I am involved in other matters. JUDGE MALL: Yes. May I suggest that on behalf of all the clients of Mr Currin's team that at the end of the evidence that they are interested in leading, or witnesses they propose questioning, that at the end of it all may submit written argument to us. Will that be convenient to them? MR POWE: Chairperson we obviously would prepare written submissions. JUDGE MALL: Yes. MR POWE: We, however, don't want the effects of oral submissions to you to be diluted. We would still want to present our arguments to you orally. We would, however, make available our written submissions, full written submissions. JUDGE MALL: Well now one wants to try and avoid repetition. One doesn't want to do this in instalments. At what stage were you thinking of making your submissions? MR POWE: Once all the evidence in the matters in which we are involved as a team has been finalised and has been led we will do a joint submission under different headings, PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR POWE 660 ADDRESS KwaNdebele 9, Duduza, Springs, whatever, and present that as one submission. JUDGE MALL: Yes. Well now it would be considerably valuable if that were done in writing rather than hearing oral evidence and then again having your written submissions. You will appreciate the volume of papers that are before us and the amount of oral evidence we have heard, and it would be better if we did get written submissions rather than hear oral argument. MR POWE: We are mindful and sensitive to the difficulties and to what is proper. We will do what is appropriate Chairperson. JUDGE MALL: We would appreciate that, thank you. MR POWE: Thank you. JUDGE MALL: You are excused if you do not wish to be hear for the rest of the morning. MR POWE: I wish I could be here Chairperson, but I have to go, thank you for excusing me. MR POWE EXCUSED JUDGE MALL: Mr Mpshe? ADV MPSHE: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman as I indicated the next matter will be the killing of Jeffrey Sibaya Mr Chairman, but I discussed this with my learned friend Advocate du Plessis, they have a bit of a problem in that Captain Hechter, who is involved in that matter, has not returned as yet from his medical attention. Now we have decided that if we be afforded a short adjournment perhaps we could do something whilst waiting for him inasfar as the confirmations are concerned. ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman an adjournment isn't even necessary. Captain Hechter will be back at two o'clock. We PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 661 ADDRESS believe that the matter of Jeffrey Sibaya is not a long matter, it's a matter that we can easily resolve this afternoon from two o'clock. I've enquired from Mr van den Berg, he intends leading one witness on behalf of the victims, perhaps two, but we believe that we can finish that this afternoon. There is a request that I would want to put to the Committee and that is that Colonel Venter is involved in two further incidents. Colonel Venter is the only applicant who has a little bit of a problem with the situation next week. The two matters that he is involved in are two matters which are not matters which we believe will take very long and we believe that we can finish that before one o'clock Mr Chairman. JUDGE MALL: I'd be pleased if we can proceed with that. I think it will be convenient for us to step down for a while to enable you to sort out things so that we can save time. COMMISSION ADJOURNS ON RESUMPTION ADV MPSHE: We are indebted to you Mr Chairman and members of the Committee. Mr Chairman we are going to deal with matters on page 2 of the schedule. I will just mention them. It will be the Silent Valley applications of Venter, application of Venter, both matters. Mr Venter's application is on page 67. I will leave that in the hands of my learned friend Mr Chairman. Thank you. ADV DU PLESSIS: May I proceed Mr Chairman? JUDGE MALL: Yes. ROELOF JACOBUS VENTER: (sworn states) EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman this is an incident where the victims could not be PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 662 COL VENTER identified, firstly, as far as I know, and secondly they are obviously then not represented. With your permission I am not going to lead Colonel Venter's evidence factually and I am going to ask him to confirm the facts contained in this schedule, if that is all right with the Committee, otherwise I will just ask him to read it. JUDGE MALL: Just give us an outline. ADV DU PLESSIS: As it pleases you Mr Chairman. It's very short. I am going to let him read it to you. Colonel Venter please, for the convenience of the Committee, they haven't yet read the papers, please read from pages 68 to 69. COL VENTER: Certainly. INTERPRETER: The Interpreters do not have a copy of the document now being read from. COL VENTER: "Nature and Particulars". An informer of the Security Branch broke off contact with us and was seen at Derdepoort border post by Crous and myself and we had positive information about this informer, namely that he was involved in bringing in of trained terrorists. He was clearly surprised and shocked to see us and when we asked him what he was doing in the area he told us that he would bring in trained terrorists that night. Captain Crous and myself, we were under the command of Colonel Steyn, the Commanding Officer of the Western Transvaal and currently General Steyn, we discussed the matter with Colonel Steyn and Brigadier Loots, then Colonel Loots who was also in the area. We discussed this matter. We decided that we would ambush them to intercept these trained terrorists. At Silent Valley we planned the operation and the following members were present, Brigadier Loots ...(tape ends) ... can't recall now. We were given arms to plant on PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 662 COL VENTER the terrorists should they not be armed. The decision was taken to eliminate these terrorists and informers. An ambush was laid for them and two terrorists, MK Karl Marx and Kruschev were shot dead. JUDGE MALL: What were their names? COL VENTER: MK Karl Marx - Chairperson those were their aliases, Karl Marx and Kruschev. They were shot dead. We then found that we had been armed with handgrenades, which we found on their laps after the incident. Should they not have been in possession of arms we had weapons available which we would have planted on their bodies. The informer we shot dead with them. The result was that that route of infiltration was cut off and let to disruption of the MK strategies. It also intimidated other activists and discouraged them from becoming members of MK and going for training. ADV DU PLESSIS: Right Colonel, from page 71 to page 75 you confirm the general background and motive relating to political conduct and then 76 to 77 the more specific motivation, do you confirm that? And on page 77, could your please read the first paragraph. COL VENTER: Trained ANC terrorists were to be eliminated whereby acts of terror and destabilising actions would have been prevented. That was seen as an essential step due to increasing acts of terror against inter alia civilians and the general situation in the country as appears from the background. ADV DU PLESSIS: Could you also read the following paragraph. COL VENTER: The act was also necessary to intimidate supporters of terrorists and activists which was also PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 663 COL VENTER necessitated by the current security situation in the country. As far as I could remember these actions were successful for the most part and the activists against whom we took action refrained from further action. Steps taken against the activists were, therefore, successful and the making ungovernable of the State was prevented by the liberation organisations obviously. ADV DU PLESSIS: Colonel, at that stage did you believe, or what did you believe relating to these actions? For whose benefit would these be undertaken? COL VENTER: These actions were not only to the benefit of civilians and society as a whole in this country, but also to the benefit of the Government of the day, to keep the Government in power. ADV DU PLESSIS: And against whom was this directed? What was your understanding? COL VENTER: These attacks were aimed and directed at the Government of the day, the National Party Government and also the general populace and the Police. ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes. Against whom was it directed? Against whom were you acting? COL VENTER: Pardon me, I misunderstood. We acted against trained members of the ANC, who were trained abroad and they were also known as Umkhonto weSizwe members and an informer. ADV DU PLESSIS: Was that common practice, that trained terrorists infiltrated the border in that particular spot? COL VENTER: Yes. Chairperson, there were many cases in that period and it increased as well, these infiltrations. I must just mention that they did not cross the border posts legally, but they infiltrated under cover of darkness. ADV DU PLESSIS: And generally speaking, did you know PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 664 COL VENTER whether these persons who would illegally infiltrate the country, did you know what their objectives would be? Just generally speaking. COL VENTER: Chairperson, in general they infiltrated to commit acts of intimidation, attacks on civilians, planting of landmines, attacks on military institutions and installations and just general acts of terror in the Republic. ADV DU PLESSIS: Could you turn to page 79. Before I ask you about the contents of that page, when was this Col Venter? COL VENTER: This was during May, 1984. ADV DU PLESSIS: And under whose command were you acting, on whose instructions were you acting? COL VENTER: I acted under command of Colonel Steyn. He was overall in charge of Security in Western Transvaal. ADV DU PLESSIS: When you refer to Colonel Loots do you refer to Flip or Wikus Loots? COL VENTER: I am referring to Wikus Loots and then I would rather refer to him by his rank, namely Brigadier Loots to avoid confusion. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DU PLESSIS JUDGE MALL: Your application gives the date as 4 May 1983. Was it 1983 or 1984 as you now say? This is at page 67. ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. COL VENTER: My apologies, my mistake. It was 4 May 1983. JUDGE MALL: What about this informer, did you know him by name? Can you identify the person in any other way? COL VENTER: No, I cannot remember his name. I spoke to other members after we submitted this application and it was one Mohatse who lived in Botswana. In other words he was PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV MPSHE 665 COL VENTER not a South African citizen. JUDGE MALL: Mr Mpshe, any questions. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV MPSHE: These people who you killed, Karl Marx and Kruschev, how did you know that they were terrorists? COL VENTER: Chairperson, the informer had previously been involved in bringing in of trained terrorists and he informed Captain Crous and myself he was bringing Kruschev and Karl Marx. Those were code names and the informer also did not know their real names. He was a well-known person who brought in trained terrorists. So we knew he was going to bring in well trained terrorists. ADV MPSHE: When did the informer tell you he was going to bring in particularly these two people? Your application says he just admitted that he brings in terrorists, and not these two people. COL VENTER: No, no that afternoon he told us that. He said that they were already prepared on the other side of the border and that he would bring them across the border that night. I can explain to you how it worked. The informer, well persons in general, not just the informer, see this was a method for bringing in terrorists, the one would legally cross the border in a vehicle and have a legal passport, a valid passport, and on the other side he would then wait somewhere in the bushes and the terrorists would then illegally cross the fence at night. The border fence between the RSA and Botswana border post is just an ordinary fence and for certain sections there was just a normal fence. So it was not impossible to scale this fence. So they would cross in that way and this person would then convey them further in the vehicle to where they were to PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV MPSHE 665 COL VENTER infiltrate, wherever that was. ADV MPSHE: Mr Venter, I am so specific with you. Lets go back. The fact that he told you that he was going to bring in these two particular persons that afternoon, that is not in you application. Is that correct? ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, with respect, on page 68, the second paragraph, first sentence. ADV MPSHE: At page 70 names are mentioned, but the point I am trying to take up with witness is that he has given us evidence now that the informer told them that he was going to bring these two people. Now what I am saying is this is not reflected in his application. Page 68, the first paragraph goes to say, "We had positive information about the informer that he was involved in bringing in trained terrorists". but there is nothing that he told you that he would bring in these two people as terrorists. That is not in the application. COL VENTER: If you read just a little bit further down, "He was clearly surprised and shocked to see us and when we asked him what he was doing in the vicinity he told us he would bring in trained terrorists that night". ADV MPSHE: Yes, but he did not mention their names. COL VENTER: He did. Perhaps I just forgot to mention it here, but that is how we found out who these people were, their names. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV MPSHE JUDGE WILSON: The names appear again on page 69. ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman, correct. The names appear on page PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV MPSHE 666 COL VENTER 69, but not in the form that he told him he would bring these people. The names appearing on page 69 when they had a discussion to make a trap for these people. Thank you. ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. May I be afforded to ask one question. Mr Chairman, it goes perhaps a little bit wider that re-examination. I ask the Committee's indulgence for this. This is a question I should have asked in the examination. Col Venter you were present in testifying, or listening to the other applicants testifying here and you were specifically present when Brig Cronje testified as well as Capt Hechter, in which they sketched the general background of the political situation at the time and the reasons why they committed certain acts, acted in certain ways. So they testified very broadly about their political motivation. Is there anything in their testimony which you would like to differ with or distance yourself from? COL VENTER: No, Chairperson. Perhaps I could just mention something to the Committee and that is that you must bear in mind that there were cases in which people who were politically active within the borders of the country, where they actually left the country, young people, and eventually found themselves in our neighbouring states and from there went for further training, not only military training, but also intensive political training. If I remember correctly, there were also incidents where the police had some contact and conflict with youths quite close to the border in Northern Transvaal for instance. With further research we would be able to find out more about these incidents. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DU PLESSIS PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG JUDGE MALL 667 COL VENTER JUDGE MALL: How did it come about that you and your colleagues found yourself at this place, Silent Valley on that day? COL VENTER: Silent Valley is a little distance away from Derdepoort. It was a well known infiltration route, especially the Derdepoort area and a little bit further down the Botswana border there were roads leading to bigger areas, centres, and it was clear that that would be the only road, if they crossed the border there, that would be the only road they could follow to places like Thabazimbi and other big cities. JUDGE MALL: How did it happen that you were there on that particular day? COL VENTER: In that period I was the Branch Commander of the Thabazimbi Security Branch and my area went from Derdepoort to Buffelsdrift and I was busy with doing security work in that area. At that time we not only had to deal with many infiltrations by terrorists but there was also a lot of insurgence of illegal immigrants, crossing the fence, people from Botswana, people from Zimbabwe and we went to Derdepoort on a daily basis and in that entire border area. ADV DE JAGER: You have taken about 15 minutes to answer a question which was very simple. The Chairperson asked you why were you there on that particular day? COL VENTER: I am sorry, my apologies. ADV DE JAGER: Could you please repeat, what is the answer to that question, what is the answer to the Chairperson's question? COL VENTER: Briefly, that I was simply performing my normal Security Branch duties at Derdepoort. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG JUDGE WILSON 667 COL VENTER JUDGE WILSON: This informant, where did you know him from? COL VENTER: The informer was known to me, because he had contact with Capt Crous, who was the Commanding Officer in Zeerust, which was our adjoining area. He was one of Crous's informers. JUDGE WILSON: What sort of information did he used to give? COL VENTER: He would usually pass on information relating to the movements of ANC activists and trained terrorists in Botswana as well as information about infiltrations which were to take place, infiltrations by terrorists. JUDGE WILSON: Precisely the sort of information he gave you this afternoon? The afternoon in question? COL VENTER: Correct, yes. JUDGE WILSON: Why did you kill him? COL VENTER: Chairperson, we actually had no choice. ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman I just want to, in all fairness to the witness, his testimony was on page 69, that only the two terrorists were killed, Marx and Kruschev. JUDGE WILSON: If you look at page 69, (transcriber's translation: the informer had been shot with them.) ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, as it pleases you. JUDGE WILSON: Why did you kill him? He was doing what he normally did as an informant. He had told members of the Police Force about an infiltration that night. COL VENTER: That is correct. He sat between these two terrorists and we simply had no other choice than to kill him in the process as well. JUDGE MALL: Why, when you say you had no other choice, why was there no choice, why did you have to kill him? COL VENTER: He sat in the front, in the middle. They were PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG JUDGE MALL 668 COL VENTER in a bakkie, they were driving a bakkie and the terrorists were shot dead at this road block and he simply was caught in the crossfire. He was sitting inbetween these two. JUDGE MALL: This is cruelty, is it not? Here is a man who gives you information, has been giving you information for some time, you are interested in killing terrorists and you do not think about this at all and you just shoot this man down because he happens to with them. Is that what happened? COL VENTER: Chairperson, it was a case of, if they had opened fire on us he would in any case would have been caught in the crossfire and I may mention that Capt Crous also told me that he on previous occasions had brought in people who had never given any information. JUDGE WILSON: But you did not think they were going to be armed, they were not in fact armed, except for handgrenades and you were taken weapons along to plant on them. Is that not so, is that not what you told in the evidence? COL VENTER: Not myself, I said that weapons were made available if they were unarmed. JUDGE WILSON: They did not open fire. They were stopped at a road block you told us. COL VENTER: Correct. JUDGE WILSON: And yet you fired, killing everybody in the vehicle, knowing one of them was the informer. COL VENTER: Correct. MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Venter, the informer was aware already that you knew that he would be bringing in the terrorists into the country. Why was there no effort made on your part to warn him of the ambush, in order to avoid the necessary killing? PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MS KHAMPEPE 669 COL VENTER COL VENTER: I cannot remember exactly what was said to him before he returned, before he crossed the border back to Botswana, but we were acting on instructions of Col Loots, who was on the scene, as I have said, and we decided there and then to set up an ambush and the chances were that they might be armed and we decided to shoot them dead in the road block. MS KHAMPEPE: It was quite a natural practice of the Security Branch to eliminate any terrorist who would be crossing the borders of the country. It was something that you knew as soon as you knew that he would be bringing in terrorists you knew that that would be the natural step to take to eliminate them. COL VENTER: That was not the practice in all cases. They were not always eliminated summarily. Sometimes we arrested them, but you must remember it was dark, it was night time. The people were infiltrating and there was the possibility that they were armed. Is was 99% sure that they would be armed. And at the scene, the decision was made by myself, Col Loots, Capt Crous and Capt Smit, we there and then decided that this was our only option to eliminate these terrorists. MS KHAMPEPE: What particular connection did this informer is his name Mohatse, is that the name of the informer, Mohatse? COL VENTER: His name was Moatse. MS KHAMPEPE: Yes. Now what particular connection did Moatse have with the ANC? COL VENTER: He was a member of the ANC, lived in Botswana and as I have already testified, he was involved in bringing in trained terrorists. And we also had other information PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MS KHAMPEPE 670 COL VENTER about the movements of trained MK terrorists, or he furnished us with this information. He himself was an ANC member. JUDGE WILSON: So we have now got the name of the informant? COL VENTER: Chairperson ...(intervention) JUDGE MALL: He mentioned that earlier. How did you know that he was an ANC member? COL VENTER: Chairperson, nobody who passed on information about the movements of MK members, or let me put it this way, about the total ANC set up in Botswana, he simply had to have been an ANC member to have had access to that kind of information and to pass it on. Otherwise you would not have that information at your disposal. JUDGE MALL: He might have been one of your spies in that part of the world, how did you know he was a member of the ANC? COL VENTER: When you recruit an informer who belongs to a specific organisation, you can ask this person to infiltrate the organisation, he then becomes a member of the organisation or he might already be a member and for that reason you recruit him to obtain information about the organisation. JUDGE MALL: Mr Mpshe are there any questions you wish to put to the witness? ADV MPSHE: There are no questions, Mr Chairman. Thank you. NO FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV MPSHE JUDGE MALL: On the face of things as they stand whilst there might be some justification for what you did, as far as two distinguished people, called Karl Marx and Kruschev PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG JUDGE MALL 670 COL VENTER are concerned, I can find no justification on what you say about why you killed this man. Can you give any justification at all? COL VENTER: Justification for this act is as I have already said, he had passed on information before, he had already brought people into the country and it was known that he had already in the past brought people into the country, people that he didn't mention to us. JUDGE MALL: So the reward he gets for telling you beforehand, he is bringing in these two, the reward he gets is that he is executed, is that it? COL VENTER: No, no that is not the way I see it. He was eliminated. He was caught in a crossfire. He was walking with these people and we had no option. JUDGE WILSON: Did you just say he was walking with these people? Did you just say walking? COL VENTER: Chairperson, I think that is just a way of expressing myself. What I meant is that he was part of that group. MS KHAMPEPE: But Mr Venter, you had made no attempt to try and warn your informer. What attempts did you make to try and warn him of this elimination in order to avoid him being killed? COL VENTER: Chairperson, he was not warned. He was simply in a situation where he was between these people and he was sacrificed. JUDGE WILSON: You repeatedly said he was caught in a crossfire. As I understand it that is when fire is coming from both sides. But you have not suggested that the two terrorists opened fire, have you? They did not. COL VENTER: No, that is not what I testified. What I PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG JUDGE WILSON 671 COL VENTER meant was that he was sitting in the middle, inbetween these two people. He was caught in our fire. ADV DE JAGER: Colonel, on page 68 of the application you say, "We had positive information about this informer, namely that he was involved in bringing in trained terrorists." You continue, "He was clearly surprised and shocked to see us and when we asked him what he was doing in the area he said, he was bringing in terrorists". Let me put to you what my problem is here. He's shocked and surprised to see you there, that implies that he was afraid to tell you what he was doing there because he was busy doing something wrong. Correct? COL VENTER: Yes. The idea which I had at the time was that he had entered the country illegally and if we had not found him there, we would never have found out about these terrorists. As I mentioned earlier... ADV DE JAGER: That is the first part of my problem. The second part is, he could have said well, I just happen to be here, maybe on business or whatever. But now he gives this information to you that he is bringing in two people. COL VENTER: Correct. ADV DE JAGER: You would expect that if he wanted to help them and ...(tape ends)... or on the other hand perhaps he would have called off the whole operation, but now that is speculative to some extent, but you then went and reported this information that you found him there and my inference is that at this meeting you had, and you must tell whether PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DE JAGER 672 COL VENTER I am correct or not, you decided to eliminate him along with the terrorists? COL VENTER: Yes that was my evidence, that myself, Captain Crous, Captain Smit and Colonel Loots who was in charge there at the roadblock, we just decided that we were to eliminate the terrorists and him as well. If I remember correctly Loots or Crous said that they could not sacrifice the lives of security people and therefore that all three had to be eliminated. ADV DE JAGER: No, I understand that, but as I understand the situation from your application you, already that afternoon, decided to kill him. COL VENTER: No, no, it was that evening at the road block, where we set up a road block, it was only then because Colonel Steyn, who was the overall commander, he was not at the road block but his express instructions were to arrest these people and we decided differently at the road block. ADV DE JAGER: But Colonel if that was the decision then it wouldn't have mattered whether he was sitting in the middle or in the back of the bakkie or wherever, you would have killed him. COL VENTER: Correct. JUDGE WILSON: So he wasn't killed in what you call crossfire because he was sitting in the middle, you decided at the road block that when they came you were going to kill all three, that is what you are now saying, is that so? COL VENTER: Yes that was my evidence. What I meant was that he was sitting in the middle. He had no chance, even if we had not decided to kill him he simply had no chance. JUDGE MALL: The question of he had no chance, you made sure he had no chance, you were not going to just kill Marx PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG JUDGE MALL 673 COL VENTER and Kruschev, you were going to kill him as well. COL VENTER: Yes, yes I have said so. JUDGE MALL: Who opened fire, did you open fire? COL VENTER: Yes. JUDGE MALL: And are you happy now that you killed a man who gave you valuable information and brought two terrorists in and the reward he gets is you sacrifice his life? COL VENTER: For the group of us there at the road block it was a case of eliminating the terrorists and this man to prevent future large-scale acts of terrorism in the country. JUDGE MALL: No that is not the explanation ...(intervention) JUDGE WILSON: That is not what you said in your evidence. This man had been an informer for some time, you have told us he gave you evidence about terrorists infiltrating the country, exactly what he did on the day in question. He acted once again as a police informant, but you decided to kill him for it this time. MS KHAMPEPE: But Mr Venter didn't I understand your evidence to say that obtained invaluable information from Mr Mohatse? COL VENTER: I said that he had passed on information in the past but I also said - you see initially I said that Captain Crous was his handler, he conveyed his information to Captain Crous and Crous also mentioned to me that in the past or that he was no longer trusted because he'd been bringing in terrorists and he failed to report that fact. JUDGE WILSON: So now you've a new version you're giving us ...(intervention) MS KHAMPEPE: Yes, you killed him ...(intervention) JUDGE WILSON: You never mentioned this before. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MS KHAMPEPE 674 COL VENTER MS KHAMPEPE: You killed him because you actually lost faith in the guy, that's the evidence you are now placing before us, is that so? Can we have your response to that remark Mr Venter? COL VENTER: Could you repeat that please? MS KHAMPEPE: You killed Mr Mohatse because you had lost faith in him. COL VENTER: That was part of the reason, yes. JUDGE MALL: Because you lost faith on him, the occasion on which you kill him is the occasion when he keeps his faith, he brings two people and he tells you he's bringing them, and on that occasion you kill him. I find that difficult to accept. Mr Mpshe are there any questions? CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV MPSHE: Just one question. Mr Venter what happened to these three corpses? COL VENTER: I don't know. A post mortem was held and I think they went to Botswana. I don't know whether the corpses were perhaps handed over to the families, but I could mention that the ANC later, about a month or so after the incident in the Mayaboyu or Tsishaba of those years, I don't know which one exactly, but it was after this incident, they had a report written by Mr Joe Modise in which it was said that there had been this big battle and had mentioned these courageous soldiers who had died in the process. But I don't know whether the corpses were given back to the families, but as far as I know the informer's body went back to Botswana. ADV MPSHE: He was dead, how did he go back to Botswana? COL VENTER: Well after the post mortem I don't know how they conveyed the body, I wasn't involved there. ADV MPSHE: Listen Mr Venter, you shoot these three men, PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV MPSHE 674 COL VENTER did you leave them there or do anything to them, that's what I am asking? COL VENTER: No, the bodies weren't left there. Photographers arrived, they took photographs of the corpses, they were taken to the mortuary, all the normal procedures took place. ADV MPSHE: Who took the photos? COL VENTER: It must have been one of the photographers. ADV MPSHE: Was he present there when the three people were shot? COL VENTER: No. ADV MPSHE: So that's what I want to know, after the shooting did you leave the bodies there, go away, and did the photographers then arrive later? COL VENTER: No. After they had been shot everything was left exactly as it was. Colonel Loots stayed at the scene, the uniformed branch was notified and they then came under the necessary investigation. ADV MPSHE: So Colonel Loots stayed behind? COL VENTER: Yes. ADV MPSHE: And yourself and the others, you left? COL VENTER: I think other people also stayed behind but I know Captain Crous and myself went off to do further investigation. I left. Colonel Loots or Brigadier Loots and some of the other people stayed behind on the scene until the police photographers arrived. ADV MPSHE: Why did Loots and the others stay behind? What was the purpose of their remaining on the scene? COL VENTER: Well an investigation had to be done into this incident in which people had been killed. The way it worked was - well that's the way it always happened where, for PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV MPSHE 675 COL VENTER instance, a terrorist had been shot photographers would arrive, take photographs etc because a post mortem had to be done and these photographs would then be submitted as part of their report. ADV MPSHE: I find it very strange you are talking about investigate here, if you investigate an offence or a crime that means you simply don't know what happened there, that's why you are investigating. Now you knew and Loots knew that you yourselves had shot these people, so what investigation was actually necessary? COL VENTER: But Chairperson it simply is done in all cases where there was contact with terrorists and in the next incident about which I testify exactly the same happened, the corpse was left there. The terrorist had blown himself up with a handgrenade and the uniform branch people came to investigate. ADV MPSHE: So you had to investigate whether they were in fact terrorists, is that what you are saying? COL VENTER: NO. ADV MPSHE: So what were you investigating? COL VENTER: I did no investigation, I left the scene, Colonel Loots and other people stayed behind with some other members and the photographers, and I think the fingerprint people came, those are the people who would normally arrive at the scene of a crime or incident. ADV MPSHE: It seems to me you don't want to answer my question. Thank you Mr Chairman. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV MPSHE JUDGE WILSON: Was an inquest held? COL VENTER: Yes, correct, that's why I am saying that's why the people had to come and take photographs etc, so that PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG JUDGE WILSON 676 COL VENTER it could form part of the docket of the inquest. JUDGE WILSON: It was evidence led that you policemen, Colonel Loots, Steyn yourselves killed these three men, was that the evidence led at the inquest? COL VENTER: I only handed in a statement, I didn't actually go and testify. JUDGE WILSON: Well did you in your statement say that you had planned the killing, you had participated in the planning of the killing of these three people? COL VENTER: In the statement we said that we shot dead terrorists and one of their hangers-on. JUDGE WILSON: One of their hangers-on, is that how you described him? Not very accurate was it? COL VENTER: Collaborator. INTERPRETER: The Interpreter is interpreting "meeloper" as hanger-on or perhaps collaborator. JUDGE MALL: Mr Mpshe have you finished? ADV MPSHE: I have finished Mr Chairman thank you. JUDGE MALL: Any re-examination? RE-EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: Colonel Venter the evidence with which you started in this application could you please just read it again, the very first sentence. COL VENTER: "An informer in the security branch who had broken off contact with us was seen by myself and Crous at Derdepoort Border Post". You say that he broke off contact? COL VENTER: Yes. ADV DU PLESSIS: Does that mean Colonel, that he was regarded by yourself as an informer or what exactly does that mean? COL VENTER: As I testified Captain Crous told me that this PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 677 COL VENTER man could no longer be trusted and when a man breaks off contact with you, as I said he appeared clearly to be shocked and surprised. ADV DU PLESSIS: You are referring to shocked and surprised in the first sentence of the second paragraph, is that correct? COL VENTER: Yes. ADV DU PLESSIS: Why would he have been shocked and surprised? COL VENTER: I don't think he expected to see us there, that is why he was shocked and surprised, because he was already on this side of the border and he was actually doing something illegal and that's why he was shocked and surprised. ADV DU PLESSIS: Colonel Venter you're own view of the matter was that the informer at that stage was regarded as one of your own people or did you regard him as an enemy of the government of the day? COL VENTER: I personally regarded him as a member of the enemy. ADV DU PLESSIS: And you also testified that he could no longer be trusted? COL VENTER: Yes correct and we were in a state of war where people who could no longer be trusted simply had to be regarded as your enemy. ADV DU PLESSIS: Right now Colonel Venter I just want to clarify a point in your evidence because I think the Committee misunderstood you. With regards to your evidence about the bringing in of terrorists by the informer, did the informer bring in terrorists at stages when he should have given you the information about it and when he failed to do PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 677 COL VENTER so? COL VENTER: That was my testimony, yes. He was involved in bringing in terrorists but he never brought in other terrorists whom we could arrest. The information was there, he was involved in bringing in terrorists and he passed on information but nothing ever materialised. JUDGE MALL: How can you verify that? How would you know who was brought in by this man and that he didn't inform you about it, how would you know that? COL VENTER: There were also other informers. He was not the only informer in Botswana, there were many others and by the arrest of some trained terrorists it appeared upon interrogation of these terrorists that they gave the names of the people who brought them in, and that's how we often identified the people responsible for bringing them in. JUDGE MALL: Some terrorists had the benefit of being interrogated before they were shot? COL VENTER: When he was arrested, yes. JUDGE MALL: Yes. Do carry on. ADV DU PLESSIS: Colonel at the stage when you shot this informer along with the two terrorists what was your belief in your own mind, what did you think you were busy doing, did you think that you were shooting one of your own people or did you believe that all those people that you had eliminated were enemies? COL VENTER: In my heart I was convinced that he was part of the enemy. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DU PLESSIS JUDGE MALL: Yes thank you very much. ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman may I take this opportunity of handing up affidavits from implicated persons Mr Chairman. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV MPSHE 678 ADDRESS These affidavits were given to me yesterday by Attorney Jan Wagner representing the implicated persons and he indicated that they do not have any intention of being present but that I hand up the affidavits on their behalf. It is the affidavits of the three implicated persons in this very matter we are busy with. I am going to hand them up. JUDGE MALL: What are their names? ADV MPSHE: Wickus Johannes Loots, Christoffel Johannes Du Preez Smit and Philip Crous. JUDGE WILSON: I take it all the others were also notified? ADV MPSHE: Not all the others, those that I could get their whereabouts like the three I am just handing up now. These were properly served. May I just mention that that of Philip Crous be marked P7, Exhibit P7. EXHIBIT P7 HANDED UP - AFFIDAVIT OF P CROUS And that of Du Preez Smit be marked P9. EXHIBIT P9 HANDED UP - AFFIDAVIT OF DU PREEZ SMIT And Brigadier W J Loots be marked P8. EXHIBIT P8 HANDED UP - AFFIDAVIT OF W J LOOTS May I continue? JUDGE MALL: Yes. ADV MPSHE: I just want to make mention that P7 and P9 will also refer to the next incident to be testified to by Colonel Venter the Vryburg Handgrenade. Thank you Mr Chairman. JUDGE MALL: Thank you. We will take the adjournment at this stage and resume at two o'clock. COMMITTEE ADJOURNS ON RESUMPTION JUDGE WILSON: Mr Mpshe what are P5 and 6? ADV MPSHE: P5 will be a letter from Attorney Wagner and Du PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 679 ADDRESS Plessis, or best I think I will make copies and give to the Committee members on Monday. It is typed here. JUDGE MALL: Where do we go from here? ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman at this stage I do not want to state emphatically that I am not going to call any other witnesses. If the Committee will allow me I will finalise this matter next week in Cape Town after I have made a decision pertaining to further witnesses in respect of this specific matter. Mr Chairman my suggestion would be that we deal this afternoon with the matter of Jeffrey Sibaya which we have intended to do with W/O van Vuuren who will give the primary evidence in that matter. Before I deal with that, however, Mr Chairman, I have been provided with the report of Captain van Jaarsveld which was compiled and finalised. He is present here. I beg leave to hand up copies to the Commission of this report. Mr Chairman I don't intend to read this into the record or deal with this in detail at this stage. What I wanted to do Mr Chairman is to provide this to the Committee and if at all possible if there are any aspects - there are aspects that I want to draw the Committee's attention to but I would suggest that I do that next week, and if the Committee members may have any questions or anything pertaining to this I could deal with that also next week. JUDGE MALL: It is important for Mr Currin to have this report available. He has raised this question of people whom he would want subpoenaed. He has given us a list of people, you have seen his application for subpoenaing people. ADV DU PLESSIS: Pardon Mr Chairman I am not with you? JUDGE MALL: Mr Currin or his attorneys wrote a letter to PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 680 ADDRESS us requiring us to subpoena a host of people. ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes. JUDGE MALL: And we've deferred our decision on that until we've heard evidence, more particularly at that stage, van der Merwe, General van der Merwe's evidence because we thought once we've heard that evidence it might avoid the need to call or subpoena some people. It was then hoped that this document here, this report of Van Jaarsveld, once that is made available to us and to Mr Currin and we go through it, this might also assist in making a decision on who, if anybody should be subpoenaed. ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, yes I understood that in that way Mr Chairman. JUDGE MALL: Yes. Now will this report be made available to Mr Currin? ADV DU PLESSIS: It has already now Mr Chairman. MR VAN DEN BERG: We have been given a copy of the report Mr Chairman. JUDGE MALL: Yes. MR VAN DEN BERG: We've obviously not had an opportunity to look at it. JUDGE MALL: I understand, quite right. MR VAN DEN BERG: And we will look at it and deal with it. Presumably if it's Mr du Plessis' intention that this be finalised next week then perhaps we should revert to you in writing. JUDGE MALL: Yes because ...(intervention) ADV DU PLESSIS: We could deal with that tomorrow as well Mr Chairman. JUDGE MALL: Alright. Let's then merely record at this stage that a report compiled by Mr van Jaarsveld has been PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 680 W/O VAN VUUREN handed in and let's give it a number before we run out of.... ADV DE JAGER: It will be "Z" Mr Mpshe? JUDGE MALL: I think it is Exhibit Z, yes. EXHIBIT Z HANDED UP - REPORT BY MR VAN JAARSVELD JUDGE WILSON: Mr du Plessis Annexure G at the back of your - is that also taken from this book? ADV DU PLESSIS: It's taken from the same book Mr Chairman. JUDGE MALL: Alright. ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman may I go ahead with the matter of Jeffrey Sibaya and I beg leave to call W/O van Vuuren. JUDGE MALL: Yes. ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman you will find that on page 116 of W/O van Vuuren's application. JUDGE MALL: Just let me get that. PAUL JACOBUS JANSEN VAN VUUREN: (sworn states) EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: Very well W/O van Vuuren before we begin hearing testimony in regard to this specific incident could you please give the Committee members information with regards to Jeffrey Sibaya, the information which you obtained on him at the time. W/O VAN VUUREN: The information obtained by informants' reports? ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes and the information which you had with regards to Sibaya, what was it all about, what did it say what type of activities was he involved in? W/O VAN VUUREN: He was involved in very militant activities. He was involved in the death of Constable Sinki Vuma. JUDGE MALL: Who, Constable? W/O VAN VUUREN: Sinki Vuma. At that stage Constable Vuma PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 681 W/O VAN VUUREN was attached to the Special Investigative Unit of the Riot Squad under the command of Captain Victor if I remember correctly. Constable Vuma was shot dead with an AK47 rifle. ADV DU PLESSIS: Page 170. Very well W/O van Vuuren, the information you received with regards to the death of Sinki Vuma what was Sibaya's involvement in that death? Could you just give us some more details on that. W/O VAN VUUREN: According to informant reports he received military training and his MK name was Jabu. He operated under that name at that stage. ADV DU PLESSIS: Can you just read to the Committee from the top paragraph on page 117. MS KHAMPEPE: Sorry Mr du Plessis, when did this incident take place? When was Constable..... W/O VAN VUUREN: In 1986 if I remember correctly. ADV DU PLESSIS: We say in the application 1986 or '87 but we think it's closer to 1986. Very well could you proceed. W/O VAN VUUREN: Should I start at the top. Sibaya was an activist and an ANC supporter in Mamelodi. He was involved in petrol bomb attacks, arson and intimidation in Mamelodi, inter alia attacking policemen's houses. The attacks were launched at the SAP and opponents of the ANC. According to informants Sibaya had undergone a crash course in military training which entailed the use of handgrenades, petrol bombs, the manufacture of petrol bombs, handling Makorov and Tokorov pistols and the use of AK47's and also setting up landmines. The general behaviour of Brigadier Victor and them was that we should neutralise the militant behaviour of Sibaya and other activists who were responsible for arson, petrol bomb attacks and the death of innocent civilians. It was done to protect other Black persons who were not PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 682 W/O VAN VUUREN necessarily supporters of the ANC in Mamelodi. I attempted to recruit him as an informant but was unsuccessful. I would also like to make mention here that I can recall him .. (tape ends)... and tried to recruit him at that stage to become an informer. Informer reports showed that Sibaya was planning to ambush Capt Hechter and I and eliminate us. I would just like to mention here that Capt Crafford also had informer reports which indicated the same. ADV DU PLESSIS: Could I just ask you, is that after you obtained information on him and tried to recruit him as an informer? W/O VAN VUUREN: That is correct. That was after I had attempted to recruit him as an informer. We decided that since he wanted to entice us into an ambush and he was one of the activists and there was no doubt in our minds that he was involved in Constable Sinki Vuma's death we were going to neutralise him and eliminate him in the same manner. Mamasela got it right to get Sibaya and another unidentified person, and another unknown person by the name of Mpho, under the pretext that he was going to take them across the border into another country. Capt Crafford, Capt Hechter and I, and I mentioned Hendrik Mokabo but I am not sure whether he was with us or not, and also Slang were outside Mamelodi where we waiting in a minibus for Mamasela. Mamasela brought Sibaya and other activists. Sibaya and the other activists did not realise that we were leading them into an ambush. Mamasela informed us that they were both very militant and they were eager to receive further military training out of the country. They offered that out of their own free will and there was no need to convince them. From there we went to a place north of Pienaar's PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 683 W/O VAN VUUREN River and thereafter we interrogated them by kicking them and assaulting them. I put an electrical cord around the one's neck and Capt Hechter put an electrical cord around the other's neck. They were choked with that in order to provide further information. Both died during the interrogation. We went to set them up with a landmine in Bophuthatswana in order to destroy evidence and for it to seem as if they had planted the landmine themselves. ADV DU PLESSIS: Why did you not simply shoot them? W/O VAN VUUREN: There were farmers' in the area. Shots would have rung out and let to the consequence that people would realise that shots were taking place. Cartridges would have been lying around and that was the reason why we did not shoot at them. ADV DU PLESSIS: And during the interrogation, did you obtain any information from them? W/O VAN VUUREN: Yes, we did. Sibaya acknowledged that he had received training at the Rand, but he did not want to say who his contacts were on the Rand, but he acknowledged that he was responsible for, one of the persons responsible for the death of Constable Sinki Vuma. ADV DU PLESSIS: W/O van Vuuren I nearly neglected to mention, the political objective which you set out on page 120 and 125, do you confirm it as correct? W/O VAN VUUREN: That is correct. ADV DU PLESSIS: And more specifically the setting out of the political objective on page 125 to 127, is that correct? W/O VAN VUUREN: Which pages? ADV DU PLESSIS: 125 to 127. W/O VAN VUUREN: That is correct. ADV DU PLESSIS: Paragraph 11, the instruction, could you PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 683 W/O VAN VUUREN just read that to the Committee, paragraph 11(a). W/O VAN VUUREN: May I proceed? It was the execution of Brig Cronje and Brig Victor's instruction with regards to the emergency situation and the general unrest. I acted under the instruction of Capt Hechter and I wrote here Capt Crafford because Capt Crafford was present with us. ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you, Mr Chairman. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DU PLESSIS JUDGE MALL: What about Capt Crafford, you say he was present? W/O VAN VUUREN: Yes, he was present, Mr Chairperson. ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman may I request that it be Mr van den Berg for the victims? Thank you Mr Chairman. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you Mr Chairman. The other person whom you killed together with Jeffrey Sibaya, can you describe him to us? W/O VAN VUUREN: I can recall how he was built very vaguely, but if I would see him I would not recognise him, but I would like to say that I suspected that he was between 18 and 20 years old. MR VAN DEN BERG: Was he big built or was he a tiny man? W/O VAN VUUREN: I would say he was of average build, like an average Black 18 year old man. MR VAN DEN BERG: And you have no idea what his name was or who he was? W/O VAN VUUREN: No, no idea at all. I cannot recall his name at all. I suspected that Mpho, I wrote that down because that was what I could recall. MR VAN DEN BERG: Did you anticipate that this person would accompany Sibaya? W/O VAN VUUREN: Originally not, but it could be that PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR VAN DEN BERG 684 W/O VAN VUUREN Sibaya had a few militant people who were working with him. And when Mamasela brought those people there and said that he was one of Sibaya's group and that he was involved in all Sibaya's acts I had no reason to mistrust Mamasela and I believed him. MR VAN DEN BERG: The information which you received with regards to Sibaya, you say came from informer reports, is that correct. W/O VAN VUUREN: That is correct. MR VAN DEN BERG: And you did not deal with the informers directly? W/O VAN VUUREN: I dealt with some of them directly. So that Capt Hechter and I could find about these so-called hit squads. We did work with informers directly, specifically the informers who provided this information with regards to Sibaya. MR VAN DEN BERG: Did you work with them directly? W/O VAN VUUREN: Yes, we did. MR VAN DEN BERG: Which proof did you have with regards to the death of Sinki Vuma? W/O VAN VUUREN: What do you mean, what proof? MR VAN DEN BERG: Besides what was contained in the informer reports, what proof did you have? Did you have any other proof that Sibaya was involved in the death of this person? W/O VAN VUUREN: No at that stage we merely had information from our informer reports. Not just one informer report, several informer reports. And I would just like to add that Capt Crafford at that stage was at Unit C, which was the ANC section, and he also had his own informers. And they testified that he also had informer reports which PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR VAN DEN BERG 685 W/O VAN VUUREN mentioned Sibaya's name, where he was involved in Sinki Vuma's death and he where operated with someone by the name of MK Jabu. JUDGE MALL: The death of the Constable, rather not the death of Sibaya. You say Sibaya was involved in the death of the Constable, that is the question is it not? You want to know what proof he had about that? MR VAN DEN BERG: That is correct, Mr Chairman. JUDGE MALL: What is you answer to that? W/O VAN VUUREN: Captain Crafford was involved at the ANC section and he also had informers in Mamelodi and they reported to him that Sibaya was involved in the death of Constable Sinki Vuma. MR VAN DEN BERG: The information you received about Sibaya and his activities, was this information received at a different time or at the same time you received information that Sibaya intended to eliminate you? W/O VAN VUUREN: Could you please repeat the question? MR VAN DEN BERG: The information which you received in respect of the activities of Sibaya, that information did you receive that at the same time that you received information that Sibaya intended to eliminate you? W/O VAN VUUREN: We received the information over a period of time. I cannot say exactly how long it was. I cannot recall whether we received it at the same time. This is not information which you received once off. It was information which you received on a regular basis. MR VAN DEN BERG: Can you tell the Committee how old Jeffrey Sibaya was at the time that he was killed? W/O VAN VUUREN: I have no idea but I would take a guess and say that he was between 18 and 20 years old. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR VAN DEN BERG 686 W/O VAN VUUREN MR VAN DEN BERG: My instructions are that he was born on the 11 December 1968, and that he disappeared during the first week of June 1987. So he would at that stage have been 18, going on 19. W/O VAN VUUREN: I would say that is correct, because I'd estimated him to be approximately 18. MR VAN DEN BERG: When did you first receive information that Sibaya intended to eliminate you? W/O VAN VUUREN: After we received the information of his involvement in Sinki Vuma's death and we assigned the informers to concentrate on Sibaya and it came to light after he had been involved in Sinki Vuma's death and been involved in several activities in Mamelodi, it came out in two or three informer reports that he wanted to ambush us as well. MR VAN DEN BERG: This information that he intended to eliminate you did you receive that prior to Sibaya's detention, at the time that you attempted to recruit him? W/O VAN VUUREN: I cannot recall. I would say that it was after I had gone to visit him either at Mamelodi Prison or wherever, but I would say it was after my visit to him. MR VAN DEN BERG: So you and Capt Hechter were known to him? W/O VAN VUUREN: No, not Capt Hechter. I went to visit him alone. I would not be able to say if Capt Hechter was known to him or not. MR VAN DEN BERG: Was the ambush them aimed at both of you or just at you? W/O VAN VUUREN: The ambush which you refer to, as far as I can recall it was aimed at both of us. At that stage Capt Hechter was the Commanding Officer of Mamelodi and as people PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR VAN DEN BERG 687 W/O VAN VUUREN testified here there were informers in the Police as well as in the ANC. ADV DE JAGER: Could I just receive clarity. Was there an ambush or was it a planned ambush or did it actually take place? W/O VAN VUUREN: It was a planned ambush. I would like to mention that the sources working with Crafford reported in regards to the same incident as far as I can recall, because he was working in a different section. MR VAN DEN BERG: The attempt to recruit Sibaya, can you recall when that took place? W/O VAN VUUREN: No, I cannot recall it at all. MR VAN DEN BERG: You say that he was detained for a period of time, was it during that period? W/O VAN VUUREN: He was detained for a while if I remember correctly and it was probably during that period. MR VAN DEN BERG: I am instructed that he was detained in the early part of 1987. Would it have been then? W/O VAN VUUREN: It is possible. MR VAN DEN BERG: You also said you could not recall where he was detained but you think it might have been in Mamelodi, in Mamelodi cells. W/O VAN VUUREN: I think so. MR VAN DEN BERG: What methods did you use to attempt to recruit him? W/O VAN VUUREN: The normal security methods, offering him money and talking to him about politics and so forth. MR VAN DEN BERG: You say the normal Security Police methods, were those methods different from the methods you used for interrogation? W/O VAN VUUREN: That is correct. If we interrogated him PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR VAN DEN BERG 687 W/O VAN VUUREN we would have made use of other methods, but I did not interrogate him. If I remember correctly, I cannot even recall if I took him out of the cell or if I stood at the cells with him and spoke to him. It was too long ago, I cannot remember. MR VAN DEN BERG: At that stage you were already in possession of what you say is a lot of information relating to his activities. Did you confront him with that information? W/O VAN VUUREN: Yes, I did. MR VAN DEN BERG: What was his attitude? W/O VAN VUUREN: He said that he was not involved as they all denied at that stage. They denied their involvement. MR VAN DEN BERG: On the basis of the information that you'd received from the informers' reports, together with the information that he intended to ambush you, you then sent Mamasela to recruit him, is that correct? W/O VAN VUUREN: Could you please repeat the question? MR VAN DEN BERG: Perhaps I am expressing myself poorly Mr Chairman. I asked if on the basis of the information that you had together with the report that Sibaya intended to ambush you, Mamasela was instructed to recruit Sibaya for foreign training, for military training. W/O VAN VUUREN: That is correct. MR VAN DEN BERG: Who gave the instruction to Mamasela? W/O VAN VUUREN: It would either have been Capt Hechter or myself. MR VAN DEN BERG: And the instruction was purely in respect of Sibaya? W/O VAN VUUREN: At that stage, yes. MR VAN DEN BERG: And at the time that the instruction was PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR VAN DEN BERG 688 W/O VAN VUUREN given to Mamasela you had already formed the intention to kill Sibaya? W/O VAN VUUREN: That is correct. MR VAN DEN BERG: What information did you extract from Sibaya and the other person before you killed them, can you recall? W/O VAN VUUREN: What I do recall is that during the interrogation Sibaya admitted to his military training and his involvement in Sinki Vuma's death, but I cannot recall the other person's admissions. It is too long ago. What I do know is that Sibaya mentioned to us, if I understood him correctly that night, this person was his second in charge of this type of cell or group which they had in their military movement with the bombings and the death of Sinki Vuma. May I also add that he also admitted to me that he was involved in the landmine explosion which took place in Mamelodi at that stage, where a Casper detonated a landmine in Mamelodi on the other side of the Kloof. MR VAN DEN BERG: You have described in you application the methods which you used to extract this information? W/O VAN VUUREN: That is correct. MR VAN DEN BERG: Did Sibaya implicate anybody else in the death of Vuma? W/O VAN VUUREN: He mentioned another name or two but I cannot recall those names here today. I imagine that he spoke about a certain gunman or someone, but I am not sure about that and I did not include it in my application. MR VAN DEN BERG: Did you follow that information up? W/O VAN VUUREN: I cannot recall. MR VAN DEN BERG: On behalf of the family we are going to call two witnesses. One is the mother of Jeffrey Sibaya. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR VAN DEN BERG 689 W/O VAN VUUREN She will confirm that he disappeared early in June 1987. The second person is Johanna Lerutla. She is the mother of Matthews Lerutla, who disappeared at the same time. Matthews and Jeffrey were frequently seen together and so there is a possibility that Matthews may be the other person. JUDGE MALL: Very well. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN DEN BERG JUDGE MALL: Mr Mpshe. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV MPSHE: When did Mr Sibaya undergo training as you stated? W/O VAN VUUREN: It is difficult for me to say, but it had to have been in 1986 or 1987. I cannot tell you at this stage. ADV MPSHE: You stated that the two were assaulted somewhere at Pienaar's Rivier by kicking and beating them. How did this assault really take place, what was used and so on? W/O VAN VUUREN: What do you mean what was used? ADV MPSHE: Page 119 of the application, "Thereafter we interrogated them by beating and kicking them" W/O VAN VUUREN: That is correct we beat them and kicked them. ADV MPSHE: Is that all that was done at the scene? W/O VAN VUUREN: I testified that electrical cord was used around each one's neck to strangle them. ADV MPSHE: I am coming to that. W/O VAN VUUREN: At that stage we just kicked and beat them in order to elicit further information from them. ADV MPSHE: How long did these assaults take place? PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV MPSHE 690 W/O VAN VUUREN W/O VAN VUUREN: It is a long time ago. I cannot give you the exact amount of time. But it was, if I were to estimate I would say approximately half an hour or a bit more or slightly less. ADV MPSHE: With regards to the assaults alone? W/O VAN VUUREN: Yes, with regards to the kicking and beating. ADV MPSHE: And the strangling, how long did that go on for? W/O VAN VUUREN: I would say, at this point it is difficult to say, it is ten to eleven years ago, perhaps another half an hour, perhaps ten minutes. I cannot tell you. I really cannot say. ADV MPSHE: Is it not the position that when you were throttling them you wanted to get information from them? That was the purpose of throttling and assault? W/O VAN VUUREN: It is correct. That was the intention. ADV MPSHE: Would it mean that if they had given you the information the throttling and the assault would have stopped? W/O VAN VUUREN: No, that was not the intention. We would have proceeded to assault and throttle them. ADV MPSHE: Yes, but the purpose of the assault and the throttling was to get information. They were strangled to obtain further information. W/O VAN VUUREN: That is correct. ADV MPSHE: Which would mean that if they had given you more information the throttling would have stopped, because you would have got what you wanted? W/O VAN VUUREN: No, I testified that we had already decided to kill them. The idea was to elicit information PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV MPSHE 691 W/O VAN VUUREN and thereafter to eliminate them. And whether or not they were going to die during interrogation was a possibility. ADV MPSHE: Seeing that these people, these two men, two young men were defenceless, they could not fight back, they could not do anything, was there really any need to throttle them further after having assaulted them? W/O VAN VUUREN: As I said we had already decided to kill them. ADV MPSHE: Yes. Couldn't you have killed them, if there is any better way of killing, in a much better way rather than let them go through the pain and the suffering before you decided to kill them? W/O VAN VUUREN: I do not know if there is an easier way of dying. ADV MPSHE: I am saying, was it necessary for them to be subjected to this torture for the period you have mentioned when you knew that you wanted to kill them, couldn't you have just killed them once, and not subject them to human torture of this nature? W/O VAN VUUREN: We wanted to obtain information from them, we wanted to elicit the information first and then we would have killed them. ADV MPSHE: Had you asked for information without doing what you did to them, would they have refused the information, in your hands, type of security men that you were? Would they have refused to tell you? W/O VAN VUUREN: No, they would not have done it out of there own free will. They were such militants that they would not have provided information out their own free will. ADV MPSHE: Thank you Mr Chairman, no further questions. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV MPSHE PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG JUDGE MALL 691 W/O VAN VUUREN JUDGE MALL: What did you do to him? W/O VAN VUUREN: Is that now to Mr Sibaya? JUDGE MALL: Yes. W/O VAN VUUREN: I kicked him, I beat him and I strangled him. I cannot remember if Capt Hechter or I, which one we each had. JUDGE MALL: When you strangled him was he standing up or sitting down or lying on the ground or what? W/O VAN VUUREN: He was standing. I had him in a half-upright position while the other person did the kicking and beating. JUDGE MALL: What did you use for beating him? How did you beat him apart from kicking him? W/O VAN VUUREN: With our hands. JUDGE MALL: Yes tell us about it, who died first? W/O VAN VUUREN: It is very difficult to say. They died more-or-less at the same time because it was myself, Capt Crafford, Capt Hechter, Joe Mamasela and Slang and possibly Hendrik and at that stage everyone was kicking and beating. Furthermore it was dark and there was no lighting. There was some moonlight on that particular night so we could see a bit. But it is difficult for me to say which person died first. MS KHAMPEPE: W/O van Vuuren you had obtained very detailed and extensive information about the litany of political activities that Sibaya had been involved in, what reliable information did you have about Mpho's political involvement, apart from Mr Mamasela's say-so? W/O VAN VUUREN: I may just mention that we worked with many different activists and as I said I cannot remember the person very well. All I know is that night Mamasela told us PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MS KHAMPEPE 692 W/O VAN VUUREN and he later admitted during interrogation that he was second in command to Jeffrey Sibaya in their cell, in their group. He would probably have had a file with us, but I just cannot remember the person anymore. It is very difficult for me to answer that question. MS KHAMPEPE: But at the time when you picked them up with Mamasela you didn't know anything about Mpho's political involvement, can you dispute that? That is what is standing in your own application on page 118. W/O VAN VUUREN: I cannot dispute that, but all I can say is that I cannot recall that, that is why the name Mpho is all I have, all I can remember about that specific incident. So I would not dispute that. MS KHAMPEPE: My other concern is why was it necessary to have this already dangerous man recruited for training abroad by Mamasela? He already qualified for elimination as a high profile activist. W/O VAN VUUREN: That is correct. That was just the way in which I could say we could "steal" them for lack of a better word, to get hold of him. MS KHAMPEPE: But why was it necessary for you to steal them? Could you not have eliminated them without having to steal them? W/O VAN VUUREN: It was very difficult, they moved around in the residential area. It's a large area and they were not always there. As I said sometimes they were on the Rand and we were aware of their activities. We were aware more-or-less as to where they were but we could not go to them physically and arrest them and take them away. We had to do it in a very devious manner and get them out of the residential area. That is why we used Mr Mamasela in this PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MS KHAMPEPE 693 W/O VAN VUUREN way, in this specific incident. MS KHAMPEPE: Warrant Officer if I understand you properly you did not ambush them because they had instead intended to ambush you and that is why you had to steal them to use your words, it was because they were difficult to get hold of in order to eliminate. W/O VAN VUUREN: They were difficult to get hold of but because we had decided to eliminate them we decided that Mr Mamasela would infiltrate them and then get them out of the residential area. MS KHAMPEPE: I will take the matter no further Warrant Officer, but I still have difficulties. JUDGE MALL: Re-examination? RE-EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: W/O van Vuuren just to clear up this last point, I am not sure if you understood exactly what was being meant. Would it have been possible for you - let me rephrase that, would it have been safe for you and Capt Hechter and Capt Crafford to trace Sibaya in the residential area where he stayed and interrogate him? W/O VAN VUUREN: It was never safe in the townships at that stage. It was not safe to go into the townships. Anyone could come from anywhere and attack you with an automatic rifle. We were in danger 24 hours a day and the intention was to eliminate Mr Sibaya. We wanted to do it in as clandestine fashion as possible, that is why we used Mr Mamasela to recruit him. ADV DU PLESSIS: When you refer to a clandestine manner could you just elaborate on that a bit? W/O VAN VUUREN: In other words we did not want people to know what was going to happen to Jeffrey Sibaya. It had to seem as if he had left the country for further training in PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 693 W/O VAN VUUREN order to protect our identity, that is why we did that. We could not just go in broad daylight and go and fetch the man and eliminate him, that was not the intention. ADV DU PLESSIS: Would it have been safer for you to eliminate him where you did at Pienaar's Rivier or where he normally moved around? W/O VAN VUUREN: It would have been much safer to do it at Pienaar's Rivier. The places where he moved around were usually - contained people who had the same way of thinking as he did and it would have been dangerous. ADV DU PLESSIS: What about the method which you used to get him there, was that the most effective manner or were there other manners available to you? W/O VAN VUUREN: To us at that stage it was the most effective way. ADV DU PLESSIS: W/O van Vuuren you testified that you cannot remember much about the other person apart from the fact that he acknowledged that he was second in command to Sibaya, would you have eliminated him if you were not sure of his involvement in the same type of acts as Sibaya? W/O VAN VUUREN: No we would not. JUDGE WILSON: Does that mean that you would have let Sibaya go? W/O VAN VUUREN: No we would have eliminated Sibaya. JUDGE WILSON: And the other man would have known your identity, would have been able to tell the whole world who you were, I thought that was what you wanted to avoid, that's why you set up this whole scheme? W/O VAN VUUREN: Could you please repeat the question? JUDGE WILSON: I understand from your evidence that you set up this whole scheme so that people would not be aware of PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 694 W/O VAN VUUREN your identities, it had to be done in a clandestine manner. You now say you would not have eliminated this other person you would have eliminated Sibaya, so the other person would have been in a position to identify you and to tell people that you were the people responsible for the kidnapping and elimination of Sibaya, which would have defeated the whole clandestine purpose wouldn't it? W/O VAN VUUREN: It would have upset the whole aim of the clandestine operation. ADV DU PLESSIS: Would it have been possible for you to recruit this person as an informer? W/O VAN VUUREN: Yes it could have. ADV DU PLESSIS: But that's merely speculation. W/O VAN VUUREN: Yes that's speculation. MS KHAMPEPE: Warrant Officer this person admitted to being second in command during interrogation, is it not so? W/O VAN VUUREN: That is correct. MS KHAMPEPE: Which interrogation you had just described to us. It wasn't something that was given to you of his own free will, it's information which you obtained under duress by torture and you can't expect a person - can you rely on information which you obtained under these circumstances? Can you rely on that kind of information? And then you say the basis on which that information was obtained was fair and you could have therefore concluded that he was a political activist who qualified for elimination. W/O VAN VUUREN: If I could just mention that before we started with the interrogation Mr Mamasela said to us that the person and Sibaya were both very militant and they both wanted to leave the country for training abroad, before the interrogation started. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 695 W/O VAN VUUREN MS KHAMPEPE: You only relied on the unverified information from Mr Mamasela, you made no attempt to verify Mr Mamasela's information with regard to the other unknown activist. I have no problem with regard to the information which you had about Sibaya. You had extensive reports from different informers, but you had nothing on which you could rely as far as the other activist was concerned. W/O VAN VUUREN: That is correct. I relied solely on the information from Mr Mamasela, that is correct. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DU PLESSIS JUDGE MALL: Yes thank you, you are excused. WITNESS EXCUSED ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman may I beg leave to call Capt Hechter on the same incident. MS KHAMPEPE: What page is it Mr du Plessis? ADV DU PLESSIS: I beg your pardon, 111 Mr Chairman. JACQUES HECHTER: (s.u.o.) ADV DE JAGER: You went to the doctor this morning, do you have any problems testifying this afternoon? CAPT HECHTER: No not at all Chairperson. EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: Capt Hechter the details of this incident are set out in your application from pages 113 to 115 is that correct? CAPT HECHTER: That is correct. ADV DU PLESSIS: And the political objective, do you confirm that as correct? CAPT HECHTER: That is correct. ADV DU PLESSIS: The political objective is set out from page 117 to 124 and the general political motive from page 124 to 125 is the specific motive. Do you confirm that? CAPT HECHTER: Yes. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 696 CAPT HECHTER ADV DU PLESSIS: And page 126, paragraph 11(a), you say you were under the command of General Victor and ...(intervention) CAPT HECHTER: That is correct. ADV DU PLESSIS: Capt Hechter you have heard the testimony of W/O van Vuuren, is there anything which you would like to comment on? CAPT HECHTER: Chairperson I cannot recall this incident at all, not in the least. What could possibly occur to me is the part that we could have - where we blew them up, I am not sure whether I am confusing this whole issue, I cannot remember the interrogation of these persons, I cannot recall Jeffrey Sibaya, I cannot recall this strangulation, but because I have trust in W/O van Vuuren I do not believe that he would involve me in something like this if I was not involved, and I accept full responsibility for this. ADV DU PLESSIS: Capt Hechter in your application, in the cases where you cannot recall, we put the written submissions before the Committee but it appears that there is something that hasn't been mentioned in the beginning that you have added in, in your own handwriting, that you cannot recall this, was it left out due to an oversight? CAPT HECHTER: Yes. After I read this document I discovered that. JUDGE WILSON: Where is this? ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman you would have noted in Captain Hechter's applications he previously we led evidence about his memory. He remembers certain instances very vividly and others not. JUDGE WILSON: No I am asking where is the bit in his handwriting. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 697 CAPT HECHTER ADV DU PLESSIS: Oh, no, it's not in your applications, he said - I think he meant that he wrote it in himself for his own purposes. But Mr Chairman it should have been in here as you will recall in other applications we said it right at the beginning that he doesn't remember anything about the incident. It should have been in here and it was an oversight. Is there anything which you would like to add to W/O van Vuuren's evidence? CAPT HECHTER: No. ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DU PLESSIS ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman I may mention on this question of the memory, we are nearly - the reports of the psychiatrist are nearly finalised. He is based in Stellenbosch and it would also make it very easy for us to present you with the reports when we go down to Cape Town, so we will do that next week. JUDGE MALL: Any cross-examination Mr van den Berg? CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DEN BERG: In the light of what the witness has said that he recalls nothing it's very difficult Mr Chairman. There are one or two aspects possibly that may assist. It may also be that during some of the times that I was absent from here I missed some of the evidence, so if you will indulge me for a short period. Thank you Mr Chairman. Capt Hechter can you recall the incident with regard to Scheepers Morudi? CAPT HECHTER: Yes there are certain parts of that incident which I can recall. MR VAN DEN BERG: And that took place more-or-less in May 1987. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR VAN DEN BERG 697 CAPT HECHTER CAPT HECHTER: If you say so. MR VAN DEN BERG: Secondly could you recall the incident with regards to Maake, Makupe and Sefolo? CAPT HECHTER: Unfortunately not. MR VAN DEN BERG: You cannot recall that one? CAPT HECHTER: No I cannot recall it. I did describe that to the Committee. MR VAN DEN BERG: The nature of your application is that you are relying quite heavily on the application of W/O van Vuuren? CAPT HECHTER: That is correct. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN DEN BERG NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV MPSHE JUDGE MALL: Yes, you are excused. CAPT HECHTER: Thank you Chairperson. WITNESS EXCUSED JUDGE MALL: Are you calling any other evidence Mr du Plessis? ADV DU PLESSIS: No Mr Chairman, thank you, that's the evidence. Thank you Mr Chairman. JUDGE MALL: Mr van den Berg? MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you Mr Chairman. We want to try and clarify the identity of the second person and I will present you with the evidence that we have. It's not a 100% conclusive Mr Chairman. JUDGE MALL: Yes, you may call your witness. MR VAN DEN BERG: Mr Chairman I beg leave to call Johanna Lerutla. JUDGE MALL: How do you spell that? MR VAN DEN BERG: It's L-E-R-U-T-L-A. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR VAN DEN BERG 698 J LERUTLA JOHANNA LERUTLA: (sworn states) EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you Mr Chairman. Are you the mother of Matthews Lerutla? MS LERUTLA: That's true. MR VAN DEN BERG: When was he born? MS LERUTLA: In 1970, 26th September 1976. MR VAN DEN BERG: 1976 or 1970? MS LERUTLA: 1970 Sir. MR VAN DEN BERG: What was he doing before he disappeared, was he at school, was he working, what was he doing? MS LERUTLA: He was at school Sir. MR VAN DEN BERG: And what standard was he in? MS LERUTLA: Standard seven. MR VAN DEN BERG: Do you know if he was politically active? MS LERUTLA: He was still a young boy, about politics I don't believe so. He was only interested when other youths were singing. MR VAN DEN BERG: Was he ever arrested or detained? MS LERUTLA: He was never detained or arrested. One day he was taken by the police then they said if he didn't do some problems we'll bring him back, so they did the same way. JUDGE MALL: I don't understand the Interpreter, will he just interpret that answer again please. MS LERUTLA: The police came and picked him up and then they said if he doesn't create problems they will bring him back, so they did the same. MR VAN DEN BERG: Can you remember when that happened? MS LERUTLA: It's a long time, I forget. MR VAN DEN BERG: And how long did the police keep him? MS LERUTLA: They took him in the evening, and then they said if he has not done something we will bring him back, so PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR VAN DEN BERG 699 J LERUTLA truly they did bring him back and then they said he didn't do anything. MS KHAMPEPE: Was he brought back the same evening? MS LERUTLA: He was brought back the same night because they said he didn't do anything. MR VAN DEN BERG: I am indebted Mr Chair. When did your son disappear? MS LERUTLA: It was in 1986, the second week of June 1986. MR VAN DEN BERG: Was it 1986 or 1987? MS LERUTLA: 1987 Sir. MR VAN DEN BERG: Did your son know Jeffrey Sibaya? MS LERUTLA: This Jeffrey Sibaya, I did reprimand him about their relationship because when my son was coming back from school they will talk together then I did reprimand him one day that when you come back from school you always stand on the streets and why. MR VAN DEN BERG: What happened when your son didn't come home? MS LERUTLA: I don't hear you Sir? MR VAN DEN BERG: You say that your son disappeared in the second week of June, when did you realise that he was gone? MS LERUTLA: Nothing happened Sir. MR VAN DEN BERG: Did you go and look for him? MS LERUTLA: Yes I did go to the school where he was attending, then I went to the police station to look for him and then I told them to help me look for him. MR VAN DEN BERG: Did you look anywhere else? MS LERUTLA: Yes Sir. All the relatives and my neighbours were helping in searching for him and they were not able to find him. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN DEN BERG PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG JUDGE MALL 700 J LERUTLA JUDGE MALL: Did you think of going to the family of Sibaya to find out where their son was? MS LERUTLA: After some time I did go to the Sibaya family to ask for the whereabouts of my son. JUDGE MALL: Yes, what did they say? MS LERUTLA: The mother to Jeffrey said they went together with Jeffrey. I knew that on that day he went to school and then he said he'll eat his lunch at school together with his friends, when I came back from my employment then he told me at the gate that he's hungry, then I said I've borrowed R3,00, then he'll take R1,00 and buy food, then he said prepare tea for me and that was the end. I only knew that he went to the cafe. NO EXAMINATION BY MR MPSHE CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: Did you see your son with Jeffrey Sibaya on the day he disappeared? MS LERUTLA: No Sir. I only know that he went to the shop. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DU PLESSIS MS KHAMPEPE: Mrs Lerutla, when the police came and picked up your son did they explain to you why they were picking him up? MS LERUTLA: I did ask why they were picking him up and then they said he's one of these activists, then they were asking me as to whether he was not destroying some other people's property outside. MS KHAMPEPE: Thank you. JUDGE WILSON: On the day that he disappeared he went to school, what clothes did he wear? ...(tape ends) MS LERUTLA: At three o'clock when I arrived I met him at the gate and then I gave him money he was still wearing a school uniform at that time. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 701 J LERUTLA JUDGE WILSON: So when he left your home he did so wearing a school uniform? MS LERUTLA: He told me that if he failed his exams he's not going back to school. JUDGE MALL: On that day, on the day he disappeared or was that some other time? MS LERUTLA: Whilst he was at school, seeing the suffering at the house he was telling all these things. JUDGE MALL: Yes. ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, because of the fact that the information or the evidence of this witness was not put to W/O Van Vuuren, obviously he could not answer to that. In respect of His Lordship Mr Justice Wilson's question about the school uniform I am informed by W/O Van Vuuren what the other person wore and I can put it to the witness if the Committee wishes to allow me to. I just want to put to you that the information of the applicants and of W/O van Vuuren was that the person who was with Mr Sibaya on that day, according to W/O van Vuuren did not wear a school uniform. Can you comment on that? MS LERUTLA: Maybe I forgot, because I am now old. JUDGE MALL: Was he ever called by any other name, besides Jeffrey? MRS LERUTLA: Yes, he was called Sprompana, Matthews Sprompana. MS KHAMPEPE: Mrs Lerutla, when you say he was wearing a school uniform can you just explain to us what kind of a shirt we are talking about and what kind of a colour trouser we are talking about, so that Mr Du Plessis can also reconcile whether in fact that was not a school uniform. MRS LERUTLA: It was a white shirt and grey trousers. I PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 702 J LERUTLA am not so sure whether he was wearing a jersey or not. ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman I am informed by W/O van Vuuren that he can remember that he did not have school clothes on, or similar kind of clothes, but he says he cannot say if they had jeans on or suits on or anything like that, but he can remember that the clothes they had on was not anything like school clothes or a school uniform. JUDGE MALL: Did anybody call your son by the name of Mpho? MS LERUTLA: No sir. His name is Sprompana. ADV DE JAGER: Do you know whether Jeffrey Sibaya was in the same school or whether he was at school with your son? MS LERUTLA: My child was at Mamelodi High School, but I know nothing about Jeffrey Sibaya. JUDGE MALL: Thank you. You are excused. WITNESS EXCUSED PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR VAN DEN BERG 703 M SIBAYA MR VAN DEN BERG: Chairman I beg leave to call Maria Sibaya. She is the mother of Jeffrey Sibaya. JUDGE MALL: Is it Sibaya or Sibaya? MR VAN DEN BERG: I am instructed that it's S-I-B-A-Y-A. MARIA SIBAYA: (sworn states) EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DEN BERG. When was Jeffrey Sibaya born? MRS SIBAYA: He was born in 1968. MR VAN DEN BERG: Do you remember the exact date? MRS SIBAYA: I do not remember. But I remember it was in December 1968. I do not remember the exact date. MR VAN DEN BERG: What was he doing at the time that he disappeared. Was he working? Was he at school? MRS SIBAYA: He was at school. MR VAN DEN BERG: In what standard? MRS SIBAYA: He was in standard eight. MR VAN DEN BERG: And at which school? MRS SIBAYA: He was at Ditabile School. MR VAN DEN BERG: Was he at school in Mamelodi. MRS SIBAYA: Yes, it was in Mamelodi. He was at Mamelodi East. MR VAN DEN BERG: Was he involved in politics? MRS SIBAYA: I would not say no, he would go but I would not know, as a parent I would not know where he was going. MR VAN DEN BERG: Did you know any of his friends? MRS SIBAYA: Yes, I knew his friends. MR VAN DEN BERG: Can you tell the Committee some of their names? MRS SIBAYA: I knew Scheepers, but I did not know his surname. I also knew Abraham Nama. As well as Snyman, but I do not remember Snyman's surname, but they were his PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR VAN DEN BERG 703 M SIBAYA friends. MR VAN DEN BERG: Do you know a person called Matthews Lerutla? MRS SIBAYA: Yes, I knew him, but I knew him as Prompana. MR VAN DEN BERG: Was he a friend of your son? MRS SIBAYA: That is correct. MR VAN DEN BERG: Can you remember when your son disappeared? MRS SIBAYA: Yes, he disappeared in 1978. MR VAN DEN BERG: '78 or '87? MS SIBAYA: 1987. I am getting old now, I think I am a bit forgetful. MR VAN DEN BERG: That's fine Mrs Sibaya. What happened after your son disappeared? MRS SIBAYA: When he disappeared he just went out. There was a white car that came to my place and that white car, there were people who called him from that car, but they did not address him with his name. They said Shadrack and he went to the car. They talked together and I thought they knew each other. MR VAN DEN BERG: And what happened then? MRS SIBAYA: Thereafter I never saw the car and I never saw him. The car went to the direction the north and it turned upwards and I waited and waited, thinking that my son would come back. And two sons said he did not come back. Then the following day I waited for him also. On the third day Mrs Ncusa came to me. We went to the police station to report his disappearance. And the police was looking for him. I know that he was bound to go to court at some stage. MR VAN DEN BERG: Do you know why he had to go to court? MRS SIBAYA: I did not know, because they came and told me PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR VAN DEN BERG 704 M SIBAYA that they had arrested him. When I went to court they remanded the case and he was given bail, together with Abraham Mlambo. And they were given R50,00 bail each and that was R100,00 collectively. Abraham's mother paid the bail and they came back. They stayed, that is thereafter the white car came that fetched them. MR VAN DEN BERG: When did you first meet Mrs Lerutla? MRS SIBAYA: I knew her during the disappearance of the children, because we have both suffered the same fate. She was also looking for her child and I told her I was also looking for mine. And I told her that he was taken by a white car that went towards the north and I did not know where it was heading to. And she suggested that we should go and report the matter to the Police. And we went and reported the matter to the Police, because Jeffrey was supposed to go to court that particular month. We went to the Police together with Mrs Lerutla, and we reported the disappearance. They told us they would get in touch with us at a later stage. And even till today they have not got in touch with us. MR VAN DEN BERG: Do you know who was in the car? MRS SIBAYA: I do not know his name but I saw a familiar face. The person had come before, but he did not get into the house for me to properly identify him. I never saw him again. Even Stoffas and Snyman was never to be seen again. ADV DE JAGER: Sorry, you said even Stoffas, is it Stoffas or what's the first name with Snyman? MRS SIBAYA: Scheepers and Snyman. ADV DE JAGER: Thank you. JUDGE MALL: What about Abraham Nana? MRS SIBAYA: Yes I do know him but I do not know where he PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG MR VAN DEN BERG 705 M SIBAYA stays. I know his place but not his number. MR VAN DEN BERG: Mrs Sibaya, you heard evidence of what happened to your son. MRS SIBAYA: Yes, I have heard the evidence, but I do not understand. Nothing seems to fall into place. The way they expressed themselves. The one who spoke first I do believe that I saw him. NoW that he has killed my son, why didn't he come and tell me that he had killed my son? MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you Mr Chairman. I have no further questions. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN DEN BERG CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. You testified about the person who testified first, did you mean W/O van Vuuren who testified here? MRS SIBAYA: I think I am getting a bit confused. What he's referring to I do not understand. Jeffrey - it was not the first time for Jeffrey to get arrested. He was shot first but he was shot by the first guy or the first man who testified when he was out on bail. Then he came into the house he said, Jeffrey, do you know that you caused us problems. Then he said to them that they should take him to the hospital, because they had shot him. That was in Mamelodi East. He said to them, they had already shot him and he was in prison. ADV DU PLESSIS: Have you ever seen any of the people here behind me in your life before, before today? MRS SIBAYA: The one I saw coming into my house is the one who is looking at me who has got black hair. ADV DU PLESSIS: Was he the one who testified just now? MRS SIBAYA: No, the one who came first before the last one. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 706 M SIBAYA ADV DU PLESSIS: Are you referring to the person who testified first, W/O van Vuuren? Is that the person you saw before? ADV DE JAGER: She will never realise van Vuuren with the surname, could you refer in some other manner to him? MRS SIBAYA: It's the fourth one. ADV DE JAGER: Could you stand up. MRS SIBAYA: The one who is standing up. ADV DU PLESSIS: When did you see him before? MRS SIBAYA: It quite some years back. I am not sure as to which year was it. And especially that I am not educated. I am not able to say which year. ADV DU PLESSIS: Where did you see him? MRS SIBAYA: I saw him at my place. They came, but they were quite a group and they got into the house. They said they wanted a gun. They wanted Jeffrey. They caught Jeffrey at that stage. They took him with. They brought him into the house from a neighbour's place and they said he must point the gun out and there was an altercation, Jeffrey denied any knowledge of the gun. And he said to them, you knew that you had shot me before. So why are you looking for me now? And they continued to assault him. They said he had killed a policeman. And he continually denied that. And he told them that at the time they had shot him he had gone to prison during the happening of that incident and he had gone to Pelindaba. And he was imprisoned in Central Prison. He said at the time he had spent a year in jail, because he had been shot and he did not know as to why he had been shot. There was an argument between that policeman and Jeffrey. ADV DU PLESSIS: Did they find the gun at your house? PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 707 M SIBAYA MRS SIBAYA: No, they did not get any gun. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DU PLESSIS NO EXAMINATION BY ADV MPSHE JUDGE MALL: Thank you, you are excused. WITNESS EXCUSED MR VAN DEN BERG: There is nothing further from our side Mr Chairman, thank you. ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman may I once more hand up affidavits by Johannes Jacobus Victor, who is one of the implicated persons in this very matter, Jeffrey Sibaya. These again were given to me yesterday by Attorney Jan Wagner. JUDGE WILSON: What will it be? What number? ADV MPSHE: They were sent to me with this schedule, already been numbered by the Attorney. I noted that it seems we are going back. That is how they numbered them on their schedule. ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, may I just enquire from Mr Mpshe if that is the affidavit, dated 20 February 1997, signed in Ladybrand? ADV MPSHE: It relates to the Jeffrey Sibaya incident. JUDGE MALL: I think the record will have to be put right. The surname should be reflected as Sibaya. ADV MPSHE: Yes, Mr Chairman. I believe they took it from the application, as they wrote it this way. It will read Sibaya, Mr Chairman. Thank you. ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman you will note from the affidavit of Brig Victor that it really relates to the general instruction which was testified to by Capt Hechter and by Brig Cronje. Now Mr Chairman there is something important which I want to draw your attention to in the affidavit of Capt Van Jaarsveld in this respect as well. PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 707 ADDRESS JUDGE WILSON: Just give us a minute to read it. ADV DU PLESSIS: I beg your pardon. Mr Chairman I am referring to this specifically because we are on the subject of what Brig Victor says about this. You will recall the evidence of Capt Hechter and Brig Cronje about the effect of his order. Now in Exhibit Z, Capt Van Jaarsveld's affidavit on page 10, I want to start with the fifth last paragraph, which says, "In terms of this Trivets, the anti-revolutionary Task Team was launched at the end of 1985. Trivets was to deal with the strategy of the Government and also combatting revolutionary onslaught. In 1986 the Security Forces were tasked to have their own anti- revolutionary structures. In that way the South African Police had their Counter- Insurgency Unit, which played a very important role in dealing with the unrest in the then Black areas of South Africa. In this light Gen Victor's instruction of the 12 February 1986 was issued to the Security Branch of Northern Transvaal. On the 12 February 1986 at about approximately 5:30 I was present at a meeting in Brig Johan Victor's office, at Compol, where he said to me, Jacques Hechter and Johan Victor Junior instructed us in the following way. Pretoria burns. You have to act. Those who intimidate have to be intimidated. If they are burning, they have to be burnt. If they are throwing bombs, they have to be bombed. If they are murdering, murder them. In the light of this I interpreted the instruction as follows: PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS ADDRESS Revolution goes with the winning of hearts and minds of the people. Anti-revolutionary strategy was also within this framework. This meant that whoever intimidated the hardest would succeed". And then he refers to (...indistinct). I am just pointing this out to you Mr Chairman because this confirms the evidence of both Brig Cronje and Capt Hechter about what happened in Brig Victor's office that morning, and it confirms it exactly the way they testified, or very substantially in the way they testified. To a certain extent Brig Victor says that he can remember a telephonic discussion and he says that there could possibly have been suggestions, but I want to point this out to you while we are busy dealing with Brig Victor's affidavit. JUDGE WILSON: Shouldn't the contents of this be made known to Brig Victor? JUDGE MALL: (...indistinct) ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes. JUDGE WILSON: It implicates him in a very different sense perhaps to what he has heard so far and I think it would be fair to let him know this, particularly in the light of the suggestion he has got towards the end of his affidavit, that he isn't thinking of applying for amnesty, but if he is advised to do so, he might well do so. ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman we will contact Mr Wagner. We will get touch with him. We will provide him with a copy hereof. JUDGE MALL: Thank you. JUDGE WILSON: While we are on it, has anybody else - I haven't had a chance to read this document yet, is there PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 709 ADDRESS anybody else mentioned in it that you think ought to be told of anything? ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I wanted to suggest that I take you through this in a very broad outline, just to give you an idea, without reading to you what is in it, just to give you an idea and then that will also answer your question. The first page is an affidavit confirming the correctness of that, the first two pages, and then it starts with the National Safety Security System of the militarisation of society. And it refers there to President Botha, it says, military men ...(tape ends)...conception of national security which penetrates into virtually every aspect of political, economic and cultural life and as the powers of the legislator have been eroded to the advantage of the office of Prime Minister and the State security network in the formation of national policy. Mr Chairman most of those excerpts come out of, or I think indeed all of them come out of the doctoral thesis which I have in my possession which is also available in (...indistinct) which I don't think you would want to read that is why I suggested that Capt van Jaarsveld makes a condensed version thereof. ADV DE JAGER: I have only got trouble with this, it's a quote and there is no mention of from where. ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes Mr Chairman that is why I want to go through this report in broad outline because if it is necessary to expand on this I will ask Capt van Jaarsveld to explain on that especially regarding this. I also noted that it doesn't specifically refer to exactly from where. And it would be possible to do that in more detail. He has PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 710 ADDRESS given an indication that that was a quotation from Hansard Mr Chairman, but I will ask him to make that a little bit more clear and provide us perhaps with a reference to the specific place where it was found. Mr Chairman then you will see paragraph two deals with the - maybe I should do this in Afrikaans because I am going to switch to and fro. It deals with the development of the so-called NVBS and then the structures of the NVBS. At national level was the State Security Council, the Core Committee, the State Security Council and the secretariat and then he goes further and he sets out exactly who was serving on the State Security Council. And then he deals with the - on page 4 it dealt with the core work of the State Security Council, the secretariat of the State Security Council and he also attached Annexure B which shows a diagrammatic version of that, which shows the structure of this secretariat. Then he refers to inter-departmental committees and their functions. The National Welfare Management System, the National Joint Management Centre and the reasons for its setting up and why. And on the top of page 7 he says that it existed to handle the national emergency situation and also to coordinate things. Then he refers to the NGBS committees. He says the NGBS management was responsible for the anti-revolutionary onslaught and also the counter- revolutionary plan. He refers to the National Joint Management Committee, the National Security Committee, the Strategic Communication Committee and the Joint Management Centres which have already been testified about. On page 8 the Internal Joint Management Councils, the External Joint Management Council. The role of the State PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 710 ADDRESS departments in the National Management System. And then the chief momentum and the workings of the NDMS. Mr Chairman this is quite important from page 9, here he refers to the ATO where it's said that there should be a year book on war set up and inter-departmental committees had to oversee that. In the last paragraph he says that the importance of that has to be seen in the light of the fact that there was no formal war declared in the Republic of South Africa but the revolutionary struggle was such that combatting this necessitated the setting-up of these structures in '84 and so forth. What is also important is the Simonstown Town Council. It was important that a meeting be held in Simonstown where certain decisions were taken. The second last paragraph refers to inter alia the fact that a visit was made to Taiwan by a senior group of officials at the beginning of 1981 and a later delegation for training, had to undergo training in Taiwan including political war and also psychological warfare. The importance of political warfare was important for the ends of revolutionary war and was also important with regards to these reactions as ..... He goes further and he discusses the development of the government's anti-revolutionary strategy at that stage and you will see on page 10, the fifth paragraph he says that a recommendation led to the result that the National Coordinating Committee was approved on the 31st of July 1985, and this was done to combat the revolutionary onslaught at regional level and also at national level. He says that the function of the NCC was to assist with combatting the regional onslaught at regional level by coordinating strategies and reporting back at Cabinet and PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 711 ADDRESS other levels. In the next paragraph he says in terms of this Trivets was launched at the end of 1985. The launching of Trivets and what went with that was the counter-revolutionary document and the strategy of the government brought about a new phase in combatting the onslaught. Then the part which I have already referred you to is Brigadier Victor's instruction at that stage. Then on page 11, the National Coordinating Committee is discussed there. And then the Joint Management Centres and their functions and a diagram has also been attached. And then Chairperson at the end he refers to and he says that the NVBS was part of a need, the reflection was this and it was to combat the revolutionary onslaught. The revolutionary war which was taking place in South Africa could be defined as follows, and then he says, "The forceable attempt by a politically organised group to gain control over or exchange the structure and/or politics of the government using unconventional warfare integrated by political and social mobilisation, resting on the premise that the people are both the targets and the actors". I would like to refer you on page 12, the third last paragraph, this direct stance of the ANC also led to the government and also the Cabinet and the SVR have an anti-revolutionary doctrine and also have a counter-revolutionary document so that those who were fighting against the revolution applied the same techniques as the revolutionaries and in that way became revolutionaries. Total onslaught and anti- revolutionary doctrines created the perception, especially in the minds of the Security Branch, PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV DU PLESSIS 712 ADDRESS that we were waging a war and that these people had to be combatted at all costs. And then you will note from the next page you will find all the annexures setting out the difficult structures of some of these committees etc. Mr Chairman this is really as condensed as one can get this and really a very simplification of the whole structure and the system. It is not intended to be an exhaustive document pertaining to these issues and it's really just intended to be a summary. JUDGE WILSON: And Victor is the only person mentioned, senior and junior, so there is no need for you to notify anyone else. ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman I have in my possession post mortem reports received from the office of the Attorney General pertaining to the Sibaya matter. I do not know whether I should hand them up Mr Chairman because all the reports say, "Unknown Black adult male", they do not mention names at all although the cover from the Attorney General's office indicates Jeffrey Sibaya and another person not mentioned here today. I don't know whether these ...(intervention) JUDGE MALL: There's no point in handing them in if they can't be of any assistance ...(intervention) ADV MPSHE: Indeed, indeed Mr Chairman, thank you. JUDGE WILSON: I take it from what you say that the post mortem report confirms what we have been told happened to the bodies? ADV MPSHE: It does confirm that the, if I may just say, it does confirm that the bodies were blown up, legs were found 50 kilometres away, the head somewhere and so on, in Bophuthatswana. Thank you. Mr Chairman then that closes the day for us, and tomorrow we will then proceed with the PRETORIA HEARING AMNESTY/GAUTENG ADV MPSHE 712 ADDRESS Zero Handgrenade matter at nine o'clock if the Committee permits. COMMITTEE ADJOURNS