Amnesty Hearings

CHAIRPERSON: We are now going, reversing to the case of the security guard, are we? Is everybody concerned, present?

MR MEINTJIES: Mr Chairman, Roelf Meintjies on record on behalf of Mr Van Jaarsveld. The Committee has requested Mr Van Jaarsveld to be present to answer certain questions. He is available to the Committee, he is Afrikaans speaking, for purposes of the oath.

JAAP VAN JAARSVELD: (sworn states)

MR MALAN: Thank you.

EXAMINATION BY MR MEINTJIES: Mr Van Jaarsveld, you were attached to the Security Police Headquarters in Pretoria during the 1980's?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: That is correct.

MR MALAN: From when to when?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: At the Pretoria Security Branch, or the Security Police from 1979 to 1988 and the Security Branch, 1985 to 1988.

MR MALAN: During this time, you were involved in certain counter revolutionary actions for which you asked amnesty. Can you put on record for which you have asked amnesty?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: The first incident was in 1984, Matthews Goniwe. The second incident 1986/1987 a bomb explosion at Saagkuilsdrif Road. The third incident on the 14th of July 1986, that was the KwaNdebele 9. The fourth incident on the 1st of December 1987, Dr Ribeiro. The fifth incident was in 1987, Mr Piet Ntuli and the sixth incident during 1986, the attack on a garage and the shopping complex in KwaNdebele.

MR MEINTJIES: I then want to take you back to an incident regarding which evidence has been given to this Committee. I want to call that incident the kidnapping of a security guard.

JUDGE PILLAY: Mr Meintjies, before you continue, I just want to know for which charges and on which basis, were those applications made regarding these incidents mentioned, was it for murder or whatever?

MR MEINTJIES: If I may have a moment Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, the matter regarding the Goniwe incident has not yet been heard and I will not try to give you an indication of exactly what ...

JUDGE PILLAY: What is he applying for, amnesty in respect of what offence?

MR MEINTJIES: Basically it will be amnesty in respect of conspiracy to murder. As far as the explosion is concerned, that he mentioned as incident number two, it will be accessory after the fact to murder.

JUDGE PILLAY: Where and when was that, I didn't get it?

MR MEINTJIES: The applicant is not exactly sure of the time or the date, but it was somewhere in 1986 or 1987 and it is near an area known as Saagkuilsdrif in the former Bophuthatswana. The third incident is the incident known as the KwaNdebele 9, where amnesty has been applied for for conspiracy to murder, accessory to murder and certain offences under the Explosions and Arms and Ammunitions Act. This incident happened around the 14th of July 1986. The fourth incident relates to the murder of the Ribeiro's, this happened somewhere in December 1986, where amnesty was applied for as accessory to murder after the fact. The fifth incident was the murder of Mr Piet Ntuli, where amnesty was applied for for murder and offences under the Arms and Ammunition Act, as well as the Explosives Act. This incident took place during 1987. The sixth incident that my client applies for amnesty for, is an attack on a filling station and house during 1986 in the former KwaNdebele. The offences would be under the Explosives Act and the Arms and Ammunitions Act.

Mr Van Jaarsveld, if we can return to this incident to which I am going to refer as the kidnapping and assault of a security guard incident. I have given you this morning the opportunity to read the applications of Messrs Momberg and Goosen?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: That is correct, yes.

MR MEINTJIES: I have also told you broadly which evidence was given in this regard?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: That is correct.

MR MEINTJIES: And that the basic allegation against you is that you were involved in this incident, and you were actually in command of this?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes, you informed in this respect. I was not involved and I have no knowledge of this incident.

MR MEINTJIES: Thank you Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MEINTJIES

CHAIRPERSON: I am open to suggestions as to whether the witness should now be questioned by Members of the Committee or whether representatives of the other parties have a desire to question him first.

MR MEINTJIES: If I may make a submission that I feel that the Committee members must go first, my client is here on the request of the Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: The problem is that something may be put to him, which then we want to investigate. One of the applicants may give some reason which we then want to investigate fully, so it is difficult to know which will be the better course.

MR MEINTJIES: I will have no problem if the Committee asks further questions after the applicants again.

MR MALAN: Mr Van Jaarsveld, you did not give evidence, but the evidence which was given was that you were attached to Unit B?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR MALAN: Were you in charge of Unit B?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: I was in charge. At certain stages, I was in charge of Unit B, but when I arrived there, Captain Loots was in charge. When he went out on investigations, I took over command of that unit, and at a certain stage, I was in command of that unit for a whole year. He came back again for one or two months as Commanding Officer and then he handled the administration of arrests and I took over the command of this unit again.

MR MALAN: Can you give us the periods when you were in charge of Unit B?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Chairperson, yes, I am going to try, attempt to do that. My first period of command was between February 1986, it lasted for about one year. After that, Captain Loots came back for two months and I took over command again roundabout April 1987 up to December 1987. Then I was seconded to the Security Council.

MR MALAN: The exact dates when this took place, is not available to us, but this took place in 1987 according to the recollection of the applicants. Do you have any explanation why the applicants are so sure that you were involved?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: No Mr Chairman.

MR MALAN: The Unit B, what was its responsibilities?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Unit B was a unit to investigate black power. If I can give you the structure of the Security Branch in Northern Transvaal, it was handed in by means of a telephone list attached to Cronje's application. There was Unit A, which was a white, coloured and Indian investigation, then there was Unit B, involved in black power investigation and then Unit C, involved in ANC or terrorist investigative unit, Unit D was to look after very important people, to safeguard them, Unit E was the job description units.

MR MALAN: Don't you want to explain to us in lay terms, what was the difference in activities between Units A and B, why were there two units, what was the practical implications, what was the practical method of operation?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: The practical difference was based on a racial basis. A handled whites, coloured and Asians, handled their investigations, and B concentrated on black power investigations.

MR MALAN: Why do you call it black power investigations, was it the term that you used?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: I think it was just a semantic term, the word black power was used.

MR MALAN: What does it mean practically?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: It meant that Unit B was responsible for the black townships round and about Pretoria.

MR MALAN: And Unit A's responsibilities?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Unit A's responsibility was Eersterust, not Lenasia but Laudium and then also all white matters round and about Pretoria.

MR MALAN: Were all the activities geared to towns?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Pretoria was in a unique situation, that was a certain division. It was a division of a larger city, it had two regional offices in Bronkhorstspruit and Britz and therefore the division was structured in the way I have just explained.

MR MALAN: So did it have to do with geographical areas and not with individuals?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: No, it was geared to geographical areas.

MR MALAN: Now if you speak about if a white person was found in Mamelodi, it was the responsibility of B?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Let us go back to a practical situation, there was a white minister in Mamelodi which was investigated by Unit A and not by B. I can't remember this white minister's name, Nico Smit.

MR MALAN: And if you found a black person in Laudium, who would investigate him?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Unit B would investigate him.

MR MALAN: And in Pretoria, in the centre of Pretoria, a black person would be investigated by B and a white person by A and then if there was an investigation into an MK infiltration, it would be a black person?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: It would be Unit C, not B. C was involved in terrorists investigation, it does not matter what the race of the person was, it concentrated on MK and terrorists.

MR MALAN: What black people would Unit B investigate?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: For example it is the activities of the Cosas, Mamelodi Youth Organisation, Mamelodi Students' Congress, Congress of South African Students.

MR MALAN: You refer to political activists?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: We did not have to do with criminals.

MR MALAN: Was Unit B not responsible for obtaining information regarding MK members?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: If the information was brought under our attention, it was handed over to Unit C.

MR MALAN: Would you not first do follow up investigations to gather further information?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: No, that was not the practice.

MR MALAN: In the case then of information that a certain person like you have read for example in broader terms, this evidence, that a certain person is suspected or you receive Intelligence via Mamasela that a certain person is a brother of a trained MK terrorist who had already infiltrated, this person had to be interrogated to obtain further information from him, who would launch that action?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: That would be Unit C. There was an anomaly in this whole situation. In Unit B, or in the Security Branch, Northern Transvaal, early in 1986 after a meeting with Brigadier Viktor an Operational Unit was established in the Security Branch. That meeting with Viktor took place on the 12th of February 1986 at half past five in the morning, in his office. Then this Operational Unit was established, and the Commanding Officer for the purposes of operations, was Captain Jacques Hechter, at that stage Lieutenant Hechter. The person who directly co-operated with him, was Mamasela. For administrative purposes, Captain Hechter and Mamasela reported to Unit B, but I wanted to state it clearly that only for administrative purposes, they reported to Unit B.

MR MALAN: So actually they were attached to Unit C?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: They were not attached to one of these units, but for administrative purposes, they were part of Unit B.

MR MALAN: So the Operational Unit was a separate unit?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: It was a unit on its own, without being identified in the structures of the Security Branch, but for formal reporting regarding information and operations?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: That would be sent directly to Brigadier Cronje.

MR MALAN: Were you at any stage informed before the closing date of the applications of Goosen and Momberg, you did not know about that?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: No.

MR MALAN: Did anybody talk to you about your possible involvement in these actions?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Not at all.

MR MALAN: Did you know about such possible operations by other people?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: What happened is that Captain and Hechter and Mamasela, because they were only two people, if you look at all these applications of all the applicants, they were always the golden threat through this whole thing, under the commanding structure of Brigadier Cronje. Sometimes they approached people to assist them or to help them to execute operations. In other words, I knew of what was going on, I did not know everything. There are a lot of things I really did not know about.

MR MALAN: Were you all operationally involved in the interrogation of people with the purpose of obtaining information where you co-operated with Unit A?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Unit A by the end of 1987, they brought in a few students from Tuks for interrogation and then I assisted with that interrogation.

MR MALAN: Were those white students?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes, they were white students.

MR MALAN: Were you at all involved in the interrogation of black activists where Unit A was involved during joint operations?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: It would be very strange if Unit A was involved in the interrogation of black people, except if it came from the operational structure of Captain Hechter.

MR MALAN: The question was whether you were involved in such interrogations?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: No, not with Unit A.

MR MALAN: Or members from Unit A?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: No, I can't recall that.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

JUDGE PILLAY: Mr Van Jaarsveld, as I have listened to your evidence, you were involved in a division which handled the so-called black people?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: That is correct, yes.

JUDGE PILLAY: Mamasela, if he received information regarding a black person, and they had reason that this person was involved or was family of another person who was an MK member, where would he mention this information?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: He reported formally to Captain Hechter and he would have conveyed this information to Hechter. Regarding MK activities, in all probabilities and if the structures were taken into consideration, these various structures - Captain Hechter, would handle that in Unit C, because that was MK involvement.

JUDGE PILLAY: And if they were not sure and it was only Intelligence which was only suspect and they had reason to follow that up?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Mr Chairman, I am going to try and answer your question as follows - where there was uncertainty, because of the way we operated, the question has been put before, the relationship between Officers was not to give orders, it was just based on requests. Captain Hechter, if he was not sure that it was an MK and he would take that Intelligence to B, because it was a black man, he had a route according which that could be channelled. Yes, he could have conveyed that to me or he could have taken that information to Unit C. If I was one hundred percent sure, I would have gone to C and then it could be decided whether it should go to B or A.

JUDGE PILLAY: Do I understand it correctly, there was a way in which you could have become involved in following up this specific information?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: If you say there is a certain way and you could become involved, referring to the previous answer, I would say yes.

JUDGE PILLAY: Isn't it then not possible and you have said definitely that you were not involved?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: During all the applications up to date, many of my old colleagues came to me because my recollection is very good about what happened during that period. I still remember exact dates and really this incident, I really can't recollect this or recall this incident.

JUDGE PILLAY: That might be the case and you really are not able to remember, but does that exclude that you were involved in this incident?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Mr Chairman, if we are talking about probabilities, I can say that the probability exists that I could have remembered this, but we are not talking about probabilities here.

JUDGE PILLAY: Is there a specific reason why you say that you were not involved, except that you cannot remember?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Well, I can't remember that incident in the first place, and then secondly because I have a very good recollection of what happened during that period and I can say in all honesty that I was not involved.

CHAIRPERSON: So what you are saying is not I can't remember, but I know I was not involved?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: That is correct Mr Chairman.

JUDGE PILLAY: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: From the evidence that we have heard, it wasn't just a casual incident that took place in the charge office, they drove a long way into the country with this man.

MR VAN JAARSVELD: That is what I have read, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Would you have remembered something like that?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Definitely Mr Chairman, because personally I have never been to a residential area near Warmbaths or in Warmbaths. If you ask me where are the townships in Warmbaths, I can't say whether it is north, south, west or east, I do not know the environment.

CHAIRPERSON: Any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR ALBERTS: Please Mr Chairman. Mr Van Jaarsveld, what are your formal qualifications?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Mr Chairman, BA, BA Honours, MA, MBA.

MR ALBERTS: Can you explain to the Committee when you obtained these degrees?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: The BA I achieved in 1978, the Honours in 1981 and the MA in 1984 and the MBA in - just recently, 1994.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, when was the first one, the BA?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: 1978 Mr Chairman.

MR ALBERTS: Before you joined the Security Branch Northern Transvaal, you were attached to the Security Headquarters and from there, you went to the Northern Transvaal and there also you completed your career in the Police for all practical purposes?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: No, in December 1987 I completed my service there and I went back to Headquarters, where I was seconded to the Secretariat of the Security Branch. I was attached in Headquarters and I was seconded as a Military Strategist to the Secretariat of the Security Branch.

MR ALBERTS: When did you resign from the Security Council?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: I was transferred, I did not resign, I was transferred from the Security Council on the 1st of March 1988, rather the 1st of April 1988 to the office of the Deputy-Minister Roelf Meyer who was then attached to the Department of Constitutional Development.

MR ALBERTS: But I mean for the present purposes in 1988 or even a bit earlier, you were not involved in Security Policing any more?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes.

MR ALBERTS: Your version to this Committee then is that Unit B of the Security Branch, Northern Transvaal was only involved in investigations?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: No, that is not what I said.

MR ALBERTS: You have emphasised that the investigative work of that unit?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes, it is the same responsibilities which A and C also had, but Unit B as I have already said, was attached to him an administrative responsibility, the Operational Unit of Hechter.

MR ALBERTS: And you were outside that unit, if I understand you correctly?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes, I was not involved in the Operational Unit.

MR ALBERTS: And you were not in command on the Operational Unit of Hechter? Did Hechter ever consult you regarding any operations?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: I have said yes, very often, we were both Officers, we consulted one another. We had daily meetings, all the Officers in the Security Branch and on a weekly basis, we had a divisional meeting where Bronkhorstspruit and other Branches also came in.

MR ALBERTS: But then certainly you were kept up to date not only about what was going on in your unit, but in all other units?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes, we knew what was going on in all other units.

MR ALBERTS: And you had information about all other operations?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: I just want to state quickly, operations like those who took place during that time, whether it was counter revolutionary or whether they were Police activities against terrorists, and also combating the UDF strategies and the Security Branch's role in that operational operations, were kept quiet, it was only on a need to know basis. Officers talked to one another, we heard about things, we talked about things, not that we necessarily knew exactly what happened, but in depth information was based on a need to know basis. I think this has been repeated by Cronje and other people in this regard.

MR ALBERTS: You were a senior Officer as far as Captain Hechter was concerned, you were his senior?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes, when I arrived at the Security Branch, I was a Lieutenant. He had - hang on a moment, he only became a Lieutenant in March 1985 and in that context, I was his senior yes, although we were of equal rank, I was his senior.

MR ALBERTS: So the answer is yes?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes.

MR ALBERTS: Did you not exercise any command whatsoever over him in respect of any operations in which he was involved, after this so-called Operational Unit was established?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: No, I did not exercise any command over him.

MR ALBERTS: And also not over Mamasela?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Not at all, on the contrary for all intents and purposes, all documentation, Hechter signed himself.

MR ALBERTS: What was the case with Warrant Officer Van Vuuren, did you exercise any command over him?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Van Vuuren fell under my command for a long time, and later when Captain Loots made a reappearance as a Commanding Officer, Paul van Vuuren fell under Jacques Hechter directly.

MR ALBERTS: You are aware of the contents of Messrs Goosen and Momberg's applications?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes, I am. Not a hundred percent, but I read it, yes.

MR ALBERTS: And it must have been fairly recently that you became aware of the fact that these applications actually exist and that in this particular case, you were incriminated?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: About ten days ago, yes.

MR ALBERTS: Before that you were completely unaware of that fact?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes.

MR ALBERTS: Mr Van Jaarsveld, can we assume that you had no male fides and malicious intent towards Goosen or Momberg as persons?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes, you may assume that. We played rugby for the Security Branch on certain occasions, we played cricket upon occasion and we often went to watch cricket as spectators at Centurion Park. I saw Mr Momberg for the first time in ten years this morning, we greeted each other very cordially.

MR ALBERTS: I can give you the assurance that their attitude towards you are the same.

MR VAN JAARSVELD: I believe that.

MR ALBERTS: Both of them assure me that they had no reason whatsoever to incriminate you falsely in anything?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: I believe that.

MR ALBERTS: You would agree with me that most Policemen and especially those who were involved during the 1980's in the activities of the Security Branch, were people who due to the nature of those activities, are today exposed to criminal as well as civil cases?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes.

MR ALBERTS: And that is a source of concern to all those involved?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes.

MR ALBERTS: Because - excuse the choice of words - but it could be that there could be very serious consequences for certain individuals as a result of their involvement?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes certainly.

MR ALBERTS: When did you as an individual realise that these potential consequences which are currently in issue, existed for individuals?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: I am not a hundred percent sure of what your question exactly is.

MR ALBERTS: Let us approach it in a different way.

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Just repeat the question.

MR ALBERTS: What I am asking you is this, today you are aware of the fact that you are all exposed to potentially serious and negative consequences as a result of the involvement in the past?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes, which is most unfortunate but we will leave it there.

MR ALBERTS: Yes, when did that realisation actually come to you that it was, when did it become a personal source of concern to you?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Chairperson, it was during 1996 when the former Attorney General of the Transvaal, Dr Jan D'Oliviera summoned me to his office. To give you the exact date, I think it was in August 1996.

MR ALBERTS: Was that your first meeting with the former Attorney General of Transvaal?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: No.

MR ALBERTS: As far as this issue is concerned?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes.

JUDGE PILLAY: To discuss this matter?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: No, what I mean is what my learned friend is referring to is regarding to the total amnesty issue.

MR ALBERTS: No, we are not talking about amnesty. I want to put it to you that long before amnesty became an issue, you were already having discussions with the Attorney General, is that not true?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: About what?

MR ALBERTS: About the involvement of Security Policemen and their activities?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: No, that is not true. My first discussion was in August 1996 with the Attorney General.

JUDGE PILLAY: And what was the discussion about?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: The Attorney General at that stage investigated these allegations, these allegations made by Joe Mamasela and he was preparing himself for a criminal case against Brigadier Cronje and Jacques Hechter. I was implicated and Van Vuuren and Oosthuizen, Gouws, and some others that I can't now recall were implicated, and he called me to his office, along with my Attorney, Mr Meintjies next to me, to try and find out what exactly my involvement was and also to make an offer to me to become a State witness in the Cronje matter.

JUDGE PILLAY: Was that the first time that you found out that investigations were being launched as far as this case is concerned?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: These were the cases surrounding Cronje and Hechter.

JUDGE PILLAY: Did the Policemen never come to you and say look, or just speak to you about these matters?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Long ago, just before the election in 1994, I can't remember the man's name, I think it was Andre - I can't recall his surname - at that stage the political figures tried to push through blanket amnesty and this man whose surname I can't remember but his name is Andre, he came to see me at home on a Sunday afternoon, and he said to me I should also sign this blanket amnesty form, and I refused to do that.

JUDGE PILLAY: This ... (tape ends) ... or his investigators?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Nobody.

JUDGE PILLAY: Something bothers me. What did the then Attorney General, what caused him to think that you could possibly become a State witness?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: It was as a result of his approach to the case surrounding Cronje and Hechter, and because I was familiar with the activities and what they had done. The first option was, he wanted to prosecute me as well as an accomplice with Cronje and Hechter, and I think that is why he originally called me in to find out what was going on.

JUDGE PILLAY: He wanted to prosecute you and he called you in?

MR MEINTJIES: If I may intervene here Mr Chairman. As I recollect the whole thing, the Attorney General told Mr Van Jaarsveld to report or be arrested. He was given that choice.

MR ALBERTS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Your wife is attached to the staff, the personnel of the Attorney General, is that correct?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes, and I would like to ask that my learned friend not continue with this line, I think it is not a fair line of questioning to try and involve my spouse in this issue.

MR ALBERTS: Mr Van Jaarsveld, it is a fact I am talking about, it is either true or not?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes, she works for the Attorney General.

MR ALBERTS: And since when has she worked for the Attorney General?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: She has been a member of his staff for the past 15 years, I cannot give you an exact date.

MR ALBERTS: What is her post?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: She is the Deputy Attorney General, I am not sure of the new term for that post.

MR ALBERTS: I would just like to concentrate on another aspect for a moment. You were involved in junior rugby at the Harlequins Rugby Club in Pretoria, is that correct?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes, and I still am.

MR ALBERTS: And specifically with pre-school and young children rugby?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: No, the age group was under 9's to the under 13 age group.

MR ALBERTS: I am not going to belabour this point much, but in all fairness I must say that my instructions from Mr Goosen specifically are that his little boy, during the rugby seasons of 1994 and 1995 was involved at the Club?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: That is right.

MR ALBERTS: And as result of his involvement, he met you from time to time there?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes.

MR ALBERTS: And you had certain discussions?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes, we chatted.

MR ALBERTS: And one of the topics which came up during the discussion with Mr Goosen, who at that stage was still a serving member of the Police Force and specifically in the Security Police, was that you asked him what the Policemen were going to do in connection with this potential or the potential problem facing them all and with specific reference to the Security Police?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Chairperson, yes, I can remember that Eric and I had such a discussion, but that was referring to the establishment of the Truth and the Amnesty Committee, that was in issue at that stage and especially in the press, in the media and the purpose of it was also spelt out in the press and it was as a result of those happenings, events, that we had this or that I had this discussion with Eric Goosen.

MR ALBERTS: You also specifically asked him what he was planning to do in this connection?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: If I have to say yes, I did it, I specifically asked him that, well, I can't remember that, but you know, you chat about a lot of things, so let me say yes.

MR ALBERTS: So are you prepared to accept the truth of that statement?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes.

MR ALBERTS: It is very clear in any event but perhaps we should just repeat it, you were aware of the fact that Goosen were involved in activities which exposed him, not so?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: I was aware that the majority of Policemen in the Security Branch, Pretoria had been involved in things which constituted grounds for an appearance before the Amnesty Committee and in that connection, specifically Goosen.

MR ALBERTS: And you as well?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes.

MR ALBERTS: And you knew that he knew of your involvement?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes of course, because we served together, that is how I explained it earlier.

MR ALBERTS: And especially relating to these clandestine operations which led to all these offences currently before the Commission?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes.

MR ALBERTS: At that stage you already foresaw that trouble was brewing, it wasn't a secret any more? You knew or foresaw that these things would be revealed and that there would be some kind of action, whether by means of an Amnesty Committee or whether there would be criminal prosecutions, it was no longer a secret?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: No, but it was spelt out in the press and the media that the Amnesty Committee had been or would be established in terms of the TRC legislature.

MR ALBERTS: And you say that in August of 1996, you became involved with the Attorney General, correct?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes.

MR ALBERTS: Because you already were under threat of prosecution at that stage?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes.

MR ALBERTS: You are probably aware of the fact, if I may put it bluntly and in general terms, that the then Attorney General showed particular interest in the people who had been involved at a high level and who had been in decision making posts and positions regarding these offences?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: I think that is an assumption which we could make after discussions with the Attorney General, it is a valid inference.

MR ALBERTS: Initially when the Attorney General of the Transvaal started investigating the activities of the Security Police in particular, the emphasis was on establishing what the higher structure of command had been, even as far as the political level was concerned. They wanted to find out who had given authorisation at the highest level?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: That is correct.

MR ALBERTS: For the commission of these offences?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: That is correct.

MR ALBERTS: So the accent or the emphasis at that stage, was not so much on this type of incident which we have before us today where relatively junior people were actually involved in the carrying out of interrogation. That was not the emphasis originally?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: That is correct.

MR ALBERTS: Could one then assume that what was of particular interest to the Attorney General at that stage, was to gather information and to gather evidence which would incriminate these people and especially to involve them in incidents which enjoyed wide publicity and well known?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes, I will concede that.

MR ALBERTS: Such as for instance the Goniwe incident, that incident enjoyed wide publicity over the years. And eventually this process got stuck to a certain extent at the middle management level if I can put it that way, and that would be the level where Brigadier Cronje and the Security Branch, Northern Transvaal, etc, were involved?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes, I had already testified that this situation had been a War of the Captains.

MR ALBERTS: And as far as the Attorney General was busy investigating this middle management structure, that was where he started involving people like yourself and your juniors?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes, that is not entirely correct Chairperson, because in the Attorney General's search for the structure of command and lines of authority, what was important was looking for Intelligence regarding the National Intelligence System and how that functioned and with specific reference to Trevits and other organs. And because I had been with the Secretariat for the State Security for a long period, I was important in that regard, and that is why he also approached me in that regard, to help with that.

MR ALBERTS: So your help was specifically required by the Attorney General, slightly under coercion, but it was at that level?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes.

MR ALBERTS: In other words it didn't concern the smaller operations on the ground?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: No.

MR ALBERTS: It is no secret that as a result of your negotiations if we could call it that, negotiations with the Attorney General, that you were given the assurance that in exchange for the evidence which you would place at his disposal, you would then receive an indemnity from prosecution?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Chairperson, I want to make it very clear that there was never such an agreement, there was never an indemnity against prosecution.

JUDGE PILLAY: So what did you mean when you said that you were supposed to be a State witness?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: We have also handed in the documents at a previous occasion and I have the document here on the table, this document was discussed at length in the Eastern Cape where you were also the Presiding Officer, it is a document entitled Top Secret and the name is Secretariat of the State Security Council - ANC Strategies.

MR MEINTJIES: Mr Chairman, if I can intervene here, I don't think my client understands the question, because he is busy with information regarding the "Staatsveiligheidsraad", if I may call it that for the moment. If I can just confer with him for a moment.

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Mr Meintjies has just explained to me that I was going in the direction of the State Security Council, but as far as the prosecution or potential prosecution of the Attorney General regarding Brigadier Cronje and Captain Hechter, I was given indemnity from prosecution, should I testify in that case, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Would that have been an indemnity in respect of the events you testified about?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: The normal indemnity given to State witnesses?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: That is correct.

JUDGE PILLAY: Is that promise still alive?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: I am not sure. I don't know. I don't think it is applicable any longer, because the cases in which I was supposed to testify, well, Hechter and Cronje have already received amnesty for those.

MR MALAN: In any of those cases, the Cronje and Hechter cases to which you referred, did you apply for amnesty in any of those cases in which you were supposed to testify?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes.

MR MALAN: In all of them?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: In all of them in which I had an involvement.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

MR ALBERTS: You are now referring to the prosecutions against Brigadier Cronje and Captain Hechter which took place in 1996 already?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes, I think it was at the end of 1996.

MR ALBERTS: My information is that those two people had already been in criminal courts before they ever showed their faces before the Amnesty Committee, would you agree with that?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes, that is correct. It was only in November 1996 that the amnesty application started, and I think Mr Du Plessis, next to me, can inform us as to what the exact date was.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, may I mentioned that during that time, in October 1996, while we were busy arranging with the Truth Commission to apply for amnesty and while we were drawing our amnesty applications, we tried to withhold the fact that we were going to apply for amnesty, from the Attorney General. He got to know of it in the week before the matters were placed on the role. He charged Brigadier Cronje and Captain Hechter on the Thursday before we would have started with the amnesty applications on the Monday, I think, and they appeared on the Friday morning before the Monday and then the matters were postponed thereafter. Thereafter I think they appeared as far as I can recall, twice during the amnesty process and I am not hundred percent sure, but I think all the matters have been either withdrawn, I am not sure if the charges had been withdrawn at this stage, but that is the impression that I have. In any event, as far as I can recall, they were removed from the role, and they never appeared again. I don't think they appeared in the last year and a half, two years again, on those ...

MR ALBERTS: Thank you Mr Chairman, I would just like to record my gratitude to my colleague for placing those facts on record. Mr Van Jaarsveld, the point is simply this the Attorney General had obviously progressed quite far in his investigations against these people before they applied for amnesty?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Against Hechter and Cronje?

MR ALBERTS: Yes.

MR VAN JAARSVELD: That would appear to be the case.

MR ALBERTS: Did you not become involved with the Attorney General at that very point, when he was busy with these investigations, to try and decide what evidence he had against these people?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: As I said it was in August 1996.

MR ALBERTS: Yes, and that is when you reached this understanding with him, that you would not be prosecuted if you would give evidence against them, for acts in which even yourself had been involved?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: That is correct.

MR MALAN: I am sorry, could we just get some clarification, acts in which he had been involved in respect of which prosecution was instituted against Cronje and Hechter, or are you making a wider statement, any acts? Could we just clarify that please?

MR ALBERTS: Any acts in which he could be prosecuted and in which he testified against others, such as for instance Cronje and Hechter?

CHAIRPERSON: Well, we come back to the same thing, are you limiting yourself now to acts which he was going to give evidence about, which we dealt with ten minutes ago that he was offered the amnesty that is given to State witnesses? Are you going back to the same point? Do you remember that some time ago he told us that what he was given was an understanding that he would not be prosecuted in connection with cases where he gave evidence, in which he had been involved?

MR ALBERTS: Yes Mr Chairman. Obviously that could only be limited to cases in which he was involved. I mean, otherwise there would be no ...

CHAIRPERSON: In cases in which he gave evidence, we cleared this up I thought, before, that he was not offered a general amnesty in respect of cases in which he was involved. He was offered amnesty in respect of cases which he had been involved in, which he gave evidence against Hechter and Cronje. Didn't he say that?

MR ALBERTS: That was his evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR ALBERTS: Obviously Mr Van Jaarsveld, the Attorney General would also have been interested in evidence which you could give against other people, other people in the Security Police or was it only limited to those two people?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Chairperson, it was limited to Hechter and Cronje. The Attorney General never approached me afterwards in connection with anything else. On the contrary, he made a request to me in the past couple of days, Dr Pretorius of the Special Investigation Team asked me to help them with an investigation into Trevits. Those were the only words or the only contact I had via my Attorney after our amnesty application had been lodged on the 13th of December 1996.

MR ALBERTS: Perhaps this is an unfair question, but I have to put it to you. In all the cases in which you applied for amnesty, were there charges in respect of those cases also brought against Cronje and Hechter, in which they had been involved obviously?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: No, there was one specific instance where it was not the case, and that was the Goniwe case.

MR ALBERTS: Yes, but they were not involved in the Goniwe matter?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: No, they weren't.

MR ALBERTS: The cases in which you are applying for amnesty and in which they were also involved, were they also charged by the Attorney General, in respect of those cases?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: I don't know.

MR ALBERTS: You don't know?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: No, I never saw the charge sheets and I never heard about it. I think once again, maybe Mr Du Plessis could help us here.

MR ALBERTS: When did you decide to apply for amnesty?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: This decision was taken in November, no before November, I think it was already in October of 1996. The Attorney General then offered to help us in compiling our applications.

JUDGE PILLAY: Please tell me, did you tell that to the Attorney General, namely that you were intending to apply for amnesty?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: It came from his side, he wanted all of us.

JUDGE PILLAY: But what guarantee would he have had that you would in any event testify, because he must have had some kind of a lever against you to keep you within that ambit?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes, that is correct, but at that stage, when the date for the final lodging of the amnesty applications approached, it was decided in consultation with the Attorney General that I would apply for amnesty. I was not the only State witness, I know of quite a few other State witnesses who also applied for amnesty at that stage.

MR MEINTJIES: Mr Chairman, if I may intervene here, at the time of the first meeting with the Attorney General, I submitted to the Attorney General that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission would stop him in his tracks. He did not agree with me, we came to the agreement with the Attorney General that he would give my client the protection in terms of the Criminal Procedure Act, but that we would continue with amnesty applications.

MR ALBERTS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Captain Van Jaarsveld, the simple fact which I want to determine from you is this, the indemnity or the undertaking which you got from the Attorney General relating to the indemnity, that preceded your decision to apply for amnesty, is that correct?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: It was part of the negotiation as my Attorney has just explained.

MR ALBERTS: Because if you could not reach some agreement with the Attorney General, then certainly it had nothing to do with him at that stage whether you were going to apply for amnesty or not?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes, no, it wouldn't, it wouldn't have had anything to do with him.

MR ALBERTS: You first confirmed your situation with him, and then as a result of this agreement which you reached with him, as a result of that, came the applications for amnesty? Is it not as simple as that?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes.

MR ALBERTS: So before you had applied for amnesty, you had already been given the assurance that you would not be prosecuted for acts which you had committed and in respect of which you were to testify against inter alia Cronje and Hechter?

MR MALAN: No Mr Alberts, that was not the evidence. It wasn't amongst others, it was specifically against Cronje and Hechter and he made that very clear that the agreement was not a wider agreement. It did not relate to other matters in which he had been involved. Please.

MR ALBERTS: I beg your pardon Chairperson. The Committee is entirely correct, it was only for acts in respect of which you testified against Hechter and Cronje, that was the express agreement with the Attorney General?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes, that is correct.

MR ALBERTS: Did you foresee that your involvement could be wider than that, as we already know that those things had been stopped in their tracks by the amnesty applications, and that is why the Attorney General's interest in Cronje and Hechter, did not progress any further, it was as a result of the amnesty procedure?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes.

MR ALBERTS: But the Attorney General also looked at other possible accused surely?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: It wasn't expressly discussed.

MR ALBERTS: But we would be very naive if we didn't assume that?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes. If one for instance looks at the Eastern Cape, they tried to bring prosecutions there and elsewhere in the country, it wasn't very successful.

MR ALBERTS: Yes, and would a person not be equally naive if you don't accept and assume that his existing sources of information and witnesses such as yourself, would also have been used in a wider context than just relating to Hechter and Cronje should further prosecutions follow?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: If you knew exactly in what kind of things the other people had been involved, yes, because you can't testify about things about which you don't know anything.

MR ALBERTS: No, obviously not, but that at least had been foreseen at that stage?

CHAIRPERSON: Is it any relevant to continue with this debate about the Attorney General's possible practices, he would not as I understand him, use State witnesses whom he had to give indemnity, where he had a cast iron case without them. It would depend entirely on what the Attorney General's investigations had shown to the Attorney General, wouldn't it as to whether he was going to use potential witnesses in other cases or whether he was in fact going to prosecute, because he had a better case against them? The Attorney General's job was to prosecute and obtain convictions, not to help people who had committed offences.

MR ALBERTS: No, most certainly Mr Chairman. I am almost at the point of leaving this line, might I with your permission, just complete the line in a short fashion, I don't want to belabour this point overly Mr Chairman. Mr Van Jaarsveld, you say that you compiled your application for amnesty with the help of the Attorney General's staff?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Myself and my Attorney, Mr Meintjies, prepared the application and it was then submitted to the Attorney General, I think in Cape Town, and they would then submit it in Cape Town.

MR ALBERTS: It would seem to me as if your application was lodged in December 1996?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: I think the cut off date was the 3rd or the 13th of December or something like that.

MR ALBERTS: I think it was the 14th, but it doesn't matter.

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Thank you.

MR ALBERTS: It was extended after that, and one can assume it was in December, just before that date?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes.

MR ALBERTS: And then relating to incidents in which you had been given indemnity, you actually had a sort of double guarantee in the sense that you could be granted amnesty on the one hand, and on the other hand, irrespective of whether you received amnesty or not, if you gave satisfactory testimony in court, you would then also be given indemnity for those same acts?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes, that is correct.

MR ALBERTS: And obviously you would not receive indemnity for things which you did not mention to the Attorney General?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: If I had been involved in it, yes.

MR ALBERTS: And that was in terms of your express agreement with the Attorney General?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes.

MR ALBERTS: So there was no mention of a blanket amnesty or blanket indemnity?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: No.

MR ALBERTS: And if you did not apply for amnesty for those things not covered by the indemnity, then you still run the risk of being exposed to prosecution, is that correct?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes.

MR ALBERTS: And that is the case in this incident, is that not so?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: If I had been involved in this, yes.

MR ALBERTS: Yes, but you are running the risk of being charged for this if the Attorney General sees fit to prosecute you for it?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes.

MR ALBERTS: And you say you can't recall this incident at all, and on that basis and as a result of your recollection, you can state that you were not involved, and you can state that as a fact?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes.

MR ALBERTS: You would agree with me that everybody's memory is fallible?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Of course, we are all just human.

MR ALBERTS: Correct. In fact, perhaps you contradicted yourself, I don't want to belabour the point, but at some point during your interrogation or questioning this morning, you said that that is probably what happened.

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes, I think one has to be very careful about this. I can't recall the question immediately, but the probability was expressed that a person being human and fallible, could forget things.

MR ALBERTS: And you would concede that you are as fallible as the next man?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: If you would look at me, you would see I am just a human being like yourself.

MR ALBERTS: Correct, so the possibility or the probability that you just forgot about this incident, or the possibility can be described as a probability?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Wait a bit, is that fair to say a possibility can be described as a probability that he forgot? Do you concede that it is probable that you forgot or do you think it is unlikely that you forgot?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Unlikely.

MR MALAN: Mr Alberts, I didn't react earlier when the issue of probability was first raised when you said that the witness had probably contradicted himself. I thought what had happened was that it was a mere slip of the tongue and that he used possibility instead of probability, but I left it there. I think that it was also conceded that he acknowledged the possibility.

MR ALBERTS: Yes, in all fairness to him, to the witness, I am not taking that point any further, I will accept that his evidence is that it is a possibility and that when he said probability, it is used incorrectly and I will just leave it at that. You were also involved in an operational sense of the word, in the activities of Unit B?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: That is correct. Not Unit B, the Operational Unit.

MR ALBERTS: Oh, were you also involved in the Operational Unit?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Unit B was never really operational as a unit, it was an Investigation Unit and there is a very big difference between an Investigation and an Operation.

MR ALBERTS: Are you saying that Unit B never performed any operations?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Unit B's staff also participated in the operations.

MR ALBERTS: But you, in whatever capacity you were acting in Unit B, never acted operationally?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Not in Unit B, but as part of the Operational Unit, yes.

MR ALBERTS: So you did act operationally?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes.

MR ALBERTS: Whilst you were a member and even the Commanding Officer of Unit B?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: That is correct.

MR ALBERTS: Does it really matter what complexion we place on your actions, whether you were a member of the Operational Unit or a member of Unit B, does it really matter?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: I don't think it really matters.

MR ALBERTS: Exactly. So it is not a read distinction, is it?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Does that matter?

MR ALBERTS: Yes.

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Why?

MR MALAN: No sorry, Mr Alberts, let's not degenerate into a debate. The evidence is that he as an individual also took part in operational activities. Your first question I understood as being, was referring to whether he as a member of Unit B, acted in an operational sense, and his answer was no, not in Unit B, but that he as an individual took part in operations but then as a member of the Operational Unit. Let us not start fighting about that. The answer is if I understand it correctly, that Unit B and Unit A were not Operational Units, but Investigating Units.

MR ALBERTS: Thank you Chairperson. Just a moment Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: If you were operating as part of the Operational Unit, would you have been in command?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: No Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Who would have?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: The Commanding Officer of the Operational Unit.

MR MALAN: And in this period that would have been Hechter?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes, that is correct.

MR ALBERTS: So what you are actually then saying is that for purposes of operations in which you had been involved, carried out by the Operational Unit, you were therefore subordinate to Captain Hechter?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: That is correct, I also testified earlier that that had been clarified at an earlier with the Committee that our ranks were similar, we were both Captains, but where it was his command unit, then I with a similar rank would have fallen under his command, as far as chronological status was concerned, my rank was older. But there was an Officer and gentleman relationship between us.

MR ALBERTS: Mr Chairman, might I just be permitted to take a brief instruction from my clients as this point? I don't ask for an adjournment. Mr Van Jaarsveld, just as a point of clarification in respect of the Operational Unit within Unit B of the Security Branch, Northern Transvaal, Messrs Goosen and Momberg says that they were not aware, to this day, of such an independent unit. All the members of Unit B were seen by them as members of Unit B, in other words as far as their knowledge was concerned, there was no such distinction between Unit B on the one hand and an Operational Unit within that unit.

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Chairperson, that could be correct that they were not aware of that distinction. As I said earlier Hechter and Mamasela fell administratively speaking within Unit B, but for operational purposes, command and reporting, they fell directly under Brigadier Cronje and they did not work through the Commanding Officer of Unit B, but they worked directly. So for people who were not involved in Unit B and not directly belong to the Operational Unit if you can call it a unit, they would not be aware of such a thing, yes.

MR ALBERTS: So they can be forgiven for their ignorance in this regard as far as you are concerned?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: I don't think it is a question of forgiveness for their ignorance, they simply weren't aware of that fact.

MR MALAN: It sounds as if your client is very grateful for forgiveness on one point at least.

MR ALBERTS: Mr Van Jaarsveld, I assume that it would then also be logical that all the logistical support, etc, which the Operational Unit so-called, which it needed, was that which was provided by Unit B?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: No, that is not one hundred percent correct. Once again, administratively speaking, yes, but logistically speaking they had their own structures. I know they had their own vehicles somewhere on a farm or smallholding outside Pretoria and things like that. So logistically speaking, they looked after themselves. Administratively speaking, you would be correct.

MR ALBERTS: Now what about minibuses and vans which they operated with, wasn't it just busses belonging to Unit B?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: No, there were more than one minibus van in the Branch and it simply was a case of which vehicle was available, Unit C and all the units had transport, busses.

MR ALBERTS: Are you saying Unit A did not have minibuses?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: I can't recall whether they ever had a minibus.

MR ALBERTS: Their testimony earlier was that Unit A did not have a bus?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes, I don't think they had any need for a bus.

MR ALBERTS: But Unit B?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Unit B had minibuses and they had the most minibuses.

MR ALBERTS: And then Unit C also had them, but they had fewer?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes, I really think there is not much in that difference.

MR ALBERTS: And I think the minibuses used, were Unit B's busses?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Not in all cases, Unit C's minibuses were also used by Hechter and Mamasela. If Unit B's minibuses were not available, then they simply used the other unit's bus where a bus was needed for a specific operation.

MR ALBERTS: And your personal vehicle was also used on occasion?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes.

MR ALBERTS: You had a vehicle with false Lesotho registration plates?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes.

MR ALBERTS: And that vehicle was also used for certain operations?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes. But the driver of the vehicle wasn't necessarily always in the vehicle, or the owner of the vehicle wasn't always in the vehicle.

MR ALBERTS: But if we could call you the owner of a car, as far as your vehicle was used, you would be aware of that?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes.

MR ALBERTS: You would be aware of the fact that it was used for an operation?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Where it was my personal car, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, just make this quite clear, you are talking about your personal car? Did you have a personal minibus?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: No.

MR ALBERTS: I may just mention to you for what it is worth, Mr Van Jaarsveld, that my clients, Mr Goosen and Mr Momberg incriminate you as far as three cases are concerned, three cases where they are applying for amnesty and today's session deals with the first of these cases. Yesterday there was another case in which you were also being incriminated by them, and there is also a third matter in this application. However, it seems as if that matter will not lead to a hearing, but will be dealt with in some other way by the Committee. Are you aware of that?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Chairperson, my Attorney is informing me that that is the Pienaarsriver case, that is this one, and then there is something about a house in Soshanguve.

MR ALBERTS: Yes, that is correct. For record purposes I may mention that the Soshanguve case can be found in this Bundle, I think it is Bundle 2 in which Goosen's application also appears, on page 410 of that Bundle. I assume that you haven't yet had the opportunity of reading what is said about you in that context, that is now relating to the Soshanguve incident?

MR MEINTJIES: Mr Chairman, if I may intervene here, I must object to us looking at another incident at this moment in time, before any evidence has been led in everything.

CHAIRPERSON: Why, he is questioning him as to his credibility?

MR ALBERTS: Am I correct Mr Van Jaarsveld, in my assumption that you haven't yet personally read that incident?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes, you are.

MR ALBERTS: Have you discussed the matter with your Attorney yet?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: He mentioned it to me, but I haven't yet really read it in any detail.

MR ALBERTS: In so far as he has mentioned it to you, what is your view on the matter?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: I can't have a point of view, because I haven't yet read the applications, I am not fully informed to what is said there.

MR ALBERTS: Well, then I will have to ask the Committee to ask you the opportunity to look at it briefly, but I will leave it there for the moment. Mr Goosen in his application, also refers to - and this is on page 322 of the application - in the same bundle, Bundle 2, paragraph 5.9.3, it is a fairly short paragraph, I may just read it to you and then you can tell me what your comment is. It is part of the general information which he gives in the preamble to his application regarding his personal experiences in the Police during the period, during the relevant period. He says inter alia in this paragraph and you must pardon me if you feel I am quoting this out of context, I think you have the Bundle in front of you. I just want to read it

"... I was in this process constantly exposed to life threatening riot situations which took place on a daily basis. I mention one incident which took place during this period, I accompanied by Lieutenant Jaap van Jaarsveld along with whom I was travelling on that particular day, was stoned in Mamelodi by youths. Some of these stones penetrated the car, whereupon Lieutenant Van Jaarsveld instructed me to shoot at these attackers. Since the attackers were apparently minor children, I refused to carry out this instruction. I was armed with a shotgun. This incident took place at a church in Mamelodi where adult persons were busy delivering inflammatory political speeches."

That is the end of that particular sub-paragraph. What is your comment in general on the allegations contained in this?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: I remember this specific incident Chairperson, but with all deference to my friend, Eric, I think his memory failed him a bit in this instance, but I remember this incident.

MR ALBERTS: What do you mean by that? Are you saying that it didn't take place as he says it took place?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: No, his facts aren't hundred percent correct and I can just mention it to you. The incident took place in a street, we were driving along the street, he was in the vehicle with me and there was also Sergeant Vani Coetzer, there were two vehicles driving along and petrol bombs were being exploded and we turned around, it was near the church, he is right as far as that is concerned, and it was then that the vehicle was stoned and petrol bombs were also hurled at us. We were in a life threatening situation and the instruction which I gave, was to shoot at the attackers. That is correct, those are the facts.

MR MALAN: Can you recall that, was there a shooting incident?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes, there was shooting, but whether Eric himself, shot, or fired any shots, that I cannot recall. If he says that he didn't fire any shots, I will accept that, but I know that shots were fired, because there was an Alfa motor car, a wreck alongside the road and at a later occasion, we went out there because the Unit 1, the Riot Unit, also fired shots in that area later that day and people were killed, and we just went to point out where we had fired our shots because the red Alfa had been damaged by our bullets.

MR ALBERTS: You say you gave the order to shoot at the attackers?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: That is correct.

MR ALBERTS: Who were these attackers?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: They were youths. I am not talking about children this high, the speaker is indicating, I am talking about 17, 18, 19 year old youths.

MR ALBERTS: So you say that Goosen has an incorrect recollection of the facts?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes. I am just actually giving you more facts about the story, about the event.

MR ALBERTS: Did you also fire shots?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes.

MR ALBERTS: And what were the results of that?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: There were no results, the children then dispersed. We never received any feedback or report back that anybody had been hit.

MR ALBERTS: Are you sure you are not getting confused with another incident in which you also personally fired shots?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: I am quite certain, fairly certain.

MR ALBERTS: Because Mr Goosen says that he is not so sure, but we can leave the matter there. You admit that there was such an incident and that you were involved, and that you gave this order and that Goosen did not carry it out?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: I can't recall or I can't say whether he carried it out or not, but shots were fired.

MR MALAN: Mr Alberts, is your client's version that there were no shots fired that day, is that your instruction?

MR ALBERTS: May I just take instructions? Mr Van Jaarsveld, my instructions in this regard is the following, to put it to you that in this particular incident, Mr Goosen says that Coetzer was not present, he was not in the car, it was just the two of you and that no shots were fired that day and that he was never involved in an incident in Mamelodi in which shots were fired from a vehicle and during which other vehicles were damaged, I think he is referring to the Alfa that you mentioned. Would you dispute that?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Chairperson, I wouldn't dispute it. I just can't say where we are heading because - never mind.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, is it true or not? You have said that he was involved in an incident in Mamelodi where shots were fired, he said he wasn't. Is that true?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Mr Chairperson, I said that and I stand by that.

MR ALBERTS: Just to get back to another incident, can we accept that your attitude towards the Pienaarsriver incident is that you also were not involved in that in any way and you have no knowledge of that?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Unequivocally I say not at all.

MR ALBERTS: So you have the same attitude?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes.

MR ALBERTS: So in as far as you are incriminated or implicated by Mr Goosen, Mr Momberg and as far as the Pienaarsriver incident is concerned, also by Captain Prinsloo, you deny all involvement?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Categorically yes.

MR ALBERTS: Although you concede the possibility that your memory might also be failing you?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Not in that case.

MR ALBERTS: But in the case of the security guard?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: As we discussed it, yes, the possibility.

MR ALBERTS: Just to get back to one general statement, Mr Van Jaarsveld, I am sure you would agree with me that in cases where - specifically in this one case with which we are currently dealing, cases where you are potentially at risk of prosecution if you had in fact been involved, that would give you a possible motive to deny your involvement?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Chairperson, if that was my idea, I would really be a very stupid person.

MR ALBERTS: May I lastly ask you another question. I suppose you know that Captain Hechter also says that he doesn't remember this incident at all, he can't remember it at all?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: I know that Captain Hechter does have a problem with his memory.

MR ALBERTS: Yes, and as a result of that problem, that he can't recall this incident. But he does not deny Goosen and Momberg's version? He doesn't deny it because ...

CHAIRPERSON: He's got a problem with his memory and he says I can't deny it, I just don't remember things. There is medical evidence that he is suffering from a defect.

MR ALBERTS: I am aware of that Mr Chairman. But that is his attitude about that matter.

CHAIRPERSON: As far as I am concerned, it certainly doesn't add any credibility whatsoever to their versions, a man saying I have a total memory lapse, so it might have happened, I can't deny it.

MR ALBERTS: That is not the point to the question, with respect, Mr Chairman, but I hear what you are saying.

CHAIRPERSON: I thought that was what you were putting to him, you were saying Hechter accepts what they said. But he didn't really accept anything, he says I can't deny, didn't he? I don't know.

MR ALBERTS: That is correct. I am merely putting what Hechter's attitude is, to the witness. So are you happy that you understand what Hechter's attitude is?

MR MALAN: Mr Alberts, with respect, he explained to you why he is happy. He says he is aware of the fact that Mr Hechter has a memory problem. Please, it really isn't necessary to repeat it over and over.

MR ALBERTS: Nevertheless, on that basis Hechter applied for amnesty in respect of this specific incident, are you aware of that?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes.

MR ALBERTS: And if you had known in 1996 that you were being implicated amongst others, in this incident, what would your attitude have been then?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: The same as it is today.

MR ALBERTS: Would you have gone to the trouble of contacting the two applicants and telling them that they are making a mistake or that they were lying?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: You are actually putting words in my mouth, you are mentioning the word lying, that is not my attitude towards the two applicants. I want to make it very, very clear, but if I was aware of it earlier, I probably - maybe I would have contacted them and we would have sat down and I would have said maybe you are confusing the issue here, maybe you are thinking of somebody else. I want to put it to you very clearly that I was often confused with two or three other people in the Security Police, where people used my name and it turned out to be somebody else. It was this Captain Hendrik Prinsloo, if you look at the profile, the dark features and also Paul van Vuuren. There was often confusion between us, people confused us. If the applicants had mentioned this earlier, we could have sat down and tried to find out who exactly had accompanied them on that day.

MR ALBERTS: So you would have tried to solve this whole thing if you had become of it earlier?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Of course, I am not angry with them or they with me, that was made clear right at the outset today. We made it clear that there was an amicable relationship between us.

MR ALBERTS: Yes, and they appreciate that Mr Van Jaarsveld. Thank you Mr Chairman, I have no further questions. Thank you Mr Van Jaarsveld.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR ALBERTS

CHAIRPERSON: We will take the adjournment at this stage.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

JAAP VAN JAARSVELD: (still under oath)

MR ALBERTS: Mr Chairman, please excuse me for being late. Might I just inform you that at this stage - during the adjournment I received certain information which might be relevant to the present inquiry, I should be in a position to finally determine whether that is relevant or not relevant and I will inform you accordingly by two o'clock this afternoon. Might I, in the circumstances, it might involve a further witness, might I in the circumstances request you to have my cross-examination of the witness, Mr Van Jaarsveld, stand down until then? Obviously I have no objection if any further cross-examination follows at this stage?

MR MEINTJIES: Mr Chairman, Mr Van Jaarsveld has got a definite problem with this afternoon.

CHAIRPERSON: Under these circumstances, I think that we should perhaps just continue now and then leave the matter and if you get information that you think justifies calling him again, you can make an application to do so. You said at the moment, you are waiting to receive instructions. If those instructions are such, because it may well be that evidence is, further evidence is led in the other hearing, the next one that we are proceeding with, which may necessitate Mr Van Jaarsveld coming back to give evidence in that, you have briefly mentioned it here, but it may well be, so I think we should just continue now and then see what happens and if necessary, we have been told Mr Van Jaarsveld has problems today, he was called today to suit our convenience, so he was not given very much notice, so I think we might have to meet his convenience, so we will go on with the evidence now unless information is suddenly coming, your clients have just come back, I wondered if they had come back with information.

MR ALBERTS: No Mr Chairman, they are not the source of that information at this stage. Obviously I have no objection whatsoever to as far as the convenience of Mr Van Jaarsveld is concerned, and I will do whatever is necessary to accommodate him in that regard.

CHAIRPERSON: Right, so let's continue then.

MR ALBERTS: As it pleases you, Mr Chairman.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR ROSSOUW: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I am not representing any clients that were involved in the first day incident, the security guard, but may I ask the Committee's indulgence to put just a couple of questions, it won't be longer than five minutes, relating to an aspect to which the witness testified which will become relevant in respect of a matter which will be heard later in the week in which one of my applicants are involved.

CHAIRPERSON: Is Mr Van Jaarsveld not involved in that matter?

MR ROSSOUW: No, he is not involved, but it deals with the workings inside the Security Branch and the need to know principle to which he testified.

CHAIRPERSON: So it is of general application to all the cases?

MR ROSSOUW: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, carry on.

MR ROSSOUW: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Van Jaarsveld, you have testified that as far as the operations of the Operational Unit, let's call it the consequences or the planning of such operations, were done on a need to know basis, is that correct?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR ROSSOUW: I want to ask you then if an operation is executed, would the consequences if somebody came to know about it during an Officers' meeting, would you discuss that there?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: What happened during an Officers' meeting, what we discussed there is that it was mentioned that an incident had taken place, if they knew our people were involved, they would not mention that members of the Security Branch executed this operation, but they had to report about that to Headquarters.

MR ROSSOUW: Junior Officers were not present there?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: No.

MR ROSSOUW: Then would you find it strange or would you find it not strange if in a situation where there is a petrol bomb attack on a house and later on it appeared from a Police report, that somebody had been killed, the people who executed that operation, did not know that somebody had been killed in such an operation?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: It would be difficult Mr Chairman, that the people could always know about what the consequences were. Were they junior Officers, it was the case especially. If it was mentioned during an Officers' meeting, it would not have been mentioned that the Police were involved, and if somebody had been killed, it would be discussed there, but on a need to know basis, those who were involved, would not be informed.

MR ROSSOUW: And in such a unit, they would know if it was discussed, but this need to know principle, am I correct in stating that it was strictly applied to prevent that any leakages occurred and that people should know that Police were involved in clandestine operations? That was a principle drilled into Security Police.

MR VAN JAARSVELD: That is correct Mr Chairman, but it was one of those anomalies in the Police, but need to know was sustained on an official level, but when people met informally like at a "braaivleis", they discussed these matters. So need to know was officially applied, but otherwise things were discussed.

MR ROSSOUW: Thank you Mr Van Jaarsveld. Mr Chairman, I thank you for your indulgence.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR ROSSOUW

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo, I take it you have no questions?

MR PRINSLOO: No Mr Chairman, I am not involved in the first application, thank you Mr Chairman.

NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I have just a few questions, Mr Alberts actually dealt with the issues, some of the issues that I wanted to deal with. Mr Van Jaarsveld, I want to ask you a few questions to clarify the issues regarding Unit A, B and C. You refer to an Operational Unit of which Hechter was the senior or Commanding Officer, is that correct?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: Right, you have also at previous occasions in the past, said that Brigadier Hechter and Cronje, you confirmed the evidence that Cronje said they should fire with fire, if they threw bombs, we had to throw bombs?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: That is correct yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: This is also applicable in this case and you also testified that that was part of the counter revolutionary strategy which was operational at that stage or was put into operation by the government?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: In other words, you, Captain Viktor, Brigadier Viktor's son and Captain Hechter received this instruction and you testified what the date was, it was the 12th of February 1986, and leading from that, Mr Van Jaarsveld, it happened that in practice there were certain people who started to put this operation, this instruction into operation. Will it be correct to say that Captain Hechter took the lead in this regard?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: He was the person, he is the person who from a motivational point of view, was the strongest person or the best equipped to do this kind of work, it was not you?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: No, certainly not.

MR DU PLESSIS: It was not Captain Viktor either?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: No.

MR DU PLESSIS: And he, like in the evidence in the Cronje/Hechter hearings, he had a few people who assisted him?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: That is correct yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: I think Paul van Vuuren's evidence was that if you put it in a journalistic manner, they were the hit-squads of the Security Branch in the Northern Transvaal.

MR VAN JAARSVELD: They were actually the Security Branch's MK's.

MR DU PLESSIS: And the core of this group of people was Hechter, Van Vuuren and Mamasela?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR DU PLESSIS: And they were also involved in most of these incidents?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: And this also appears from their evidence and their applications. And if you talk about this Operational Unit, these are the people you are actually referring to?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: But from the nature of this Operational Unit, it was not incorporated in the formal structures, is that correct?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Because they were involved in clandestine operations? Because they couldn't call them Unit D and give them separate offices and a separate administrative system, so they also formed part of Unit B for administrative purposes?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: That is what I meant, yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: And the work they were doing, was extra work on top of the other work they were doing in Unit B, but now and then cases occurred where other people were also involved or went on operations, is it correct to say that in the Security Branch, in the units in which you were involved, there were people who were more suited for these type of operations, more suited than other people?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: That is true, yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: They could handle it better?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes, physically as well as mentally.

MR DU PLESSIS: And Brigadier Cronje also testified to this regard. You were not here, rather, the day before yesterday, and his evidence was as I understand it, that Goosen and Momberg were suitable people for these type of operations, they could handle it?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Certainly yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: They would not run away if somebody shot at them, they would not get frightened, they wouldn't do wrong things, they would be cool-headed and Mr Chairman, I am doing this for purposes of giving you a broad overview because I know all the applications and what they involve and so on, so I know who was involved, and I am trying to give you a broad overview. In certain instances, other people were also used for certain operations, as we can gather from Goosen and Momberg's applications, they were involved in other operations. Now and then Hechter told them that he needed them for operations, do you agree that it could be that they were required because Hechter, Van Vuuren and Mamasela, the three of them, were not enough to execute a certain operation and they needed more members?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: That was the case, yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: Or that other people were not available and they were taken along? The question of whether they were members of Unit A, B or C, was not relevant?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Not at all.

MR DU PLESSIS: And the other people who went on these clandestine hit-squads operations, were among others Hendrik Bokaba?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: That is correct yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: In which unit was he, also Unit B?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: If I can remember correctly, Unit B.

MR DU PLESSIS: And Slang, that is Danny Hlehlali?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: I am not certain, I am not certain myself.

MR DU PLESSIS: And then there was Colonel Flip Loots?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: He was from Unit B.

MR DU PLESSIS: Also from Unit B? And there was Mamasela and Van Vuuren also from Unit B?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: And Captain Johan Viktor?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Johan Viktor was from the Detective Branch.

MR DU PLESSIS: Oh, he was not from the Security Branch. And then also Goosen and Momberg, they were the people who were mostly involved in these clandestine operations regarding the Security Branch, Northern Transvaal?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: That is correct, yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: Here and there other names appear, but these people were mostly used?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Can you remember then whether there was not a good relationship between Captains Hechter and Prinsloo?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: That is correct, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, does that mean there was a good relationship or not?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: No, there wasn't a good relationship.

MR DU PLESSIS: And they did not cooperate very well?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: No.

MR DU PLESSIS: Would you agree with the statement that Captain Hechter would not have approached Prinsloo or somebody working under Prinsloo to go on an operation?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: No the relationship between Hechter and Prinsloo was of such a nature, they did not even talk to one another.

MR DU PLESSIS: But for purposes of such an operation, it did not really matter whether if you refer to a clandestine operation, an illegal operation, it does not matter from which unit these people came, what was important was who could do this work and who was capable of doing this type of work?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: You would also agree with me that this type of operation, it was not talked about?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: As I have said, we did not talk about it a lot. The people in the field reported about something and said something happened, they did not know who were involved.

MR DU PLESSIS: Sometimes they did not know at all, but there was this core group of people where you can also be included, who knew about these type of operations and about what happened? In other words you would have heard afterwards of a specific incident in which you were not involved, but you heard what had happened. So it happened with the other people too? It was like a core group, an informal hit-squads and these people informally, they played rugby, they had a braai, they played cricket and naturally Brigadier Cronje was the Commanding Officer of all these three units and he was also aware of the activities of these internal group?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Definitely, yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: In other words it is not strange that Momberg and Goosen, forget about what you say about your involvement, that Momberg and Goosen accompanied Hechter and Mamasela on this operation?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: No, definitely not.

MR DU PLESSIS: Because they were from another unit, it is not strange?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: No, definitely not. The fact that they were under Hechter's command, is not strange.

MR DU PLESSIS: And naturally it is not strange that Hechter and Mamasela were involved?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: No.

MR DU PLESSIS: I have no further questions, Mr Chairman, thank you. Mr Chairman, I may just point out, I tried to find out from Captain Hechter in which unit Slang, Danny Hlehlali, was and I will present you with that information the moment I get it. I may mention that Bokaba made amnesty applications as you know, Loots did as well, Viktor did, but Hlehlali for some reason or other, has not applied for amnesty.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS

MR PRINSLOO: No questions Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRINSLOO

MR MALAN: I just want to understand this core group concept, Mr Van Jaarsveld. You have said this core group included the people who played rugby, cricket and who had braai's. If I understand you correctly, you said in the beginning that the two applicants opposite you, Momberg and Goosen played cricket and rugby with you and had braai's with you?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: That is correct yes.

MR MALAN: Do you include them then in this core group?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Definitely yes.

MR MALAN: So they knew everything about all these developments, you said the core group knew about these operations?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Let me put it this way, we did not discuss everything in detail, but we know that everybody was busy with something here and there.

JUDGE PILLAY: What is the purpose of having such discussions as they did not know what it was all about?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: If you have social gatherings, meet socially, I have often thought about this principle why there are leakages of information, when you are in a specific group, you talk about things, because it is a place where you can talk about these things.

JUDGE PILLAY: Why do you speak about it?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Sometimes details are given, sometimes you just mention that something had been done.

JUDGE PILLAY: But then are kept abreast about what had happened, if somebody had been killed, they know?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes. They knew what was going on.

MR MALAN: Was the core group then the source of the Operational Unit, Hechter's Operational Unit?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: No, not necessarily. The operational information worked on the principle that it came through the units and then it was carried forward to the Operational Unit, always under instruction of Brigadier Cronje and he said get Hechter.

MR MALAN: Was Hechter part of the core group?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes.

MR MALAN: Was Brigadier Cronje part of the core group or was he outside that group?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: He was often with us, he was a good Commanding Officer, he spent time with his men in the field.

JUDGE PILLAY: He also watched cricket with you?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Definitely yes.

MR MALAN: The decision to take certain actions, that is the implementation which you mentioned on reaction on Mr Du Plessis' questions, and this instruction that you have to fight fire with fire, that was used in Hechter's Operational Unit and this was extended to the core group as well?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: So many things were happening at the same time, and Hechter and them required assistance, they just had two or three people too little and other people were involved to cooperate and they formed the core group.

MR MALAN: Did Hechter decide all by himself what to do or did he act on instructions?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: No, I don't think there was a blanket instruction to do whatever you wanted to do.

MR MALAN: Who would then give him instructions?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: To kill somebody for example, his instructions he obtained from Brigadier Cronje.

MR MALAN: Would he clear that with him, would he get approval or would he get instructions? He would not go with suggestions or propositions himself?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Inn other cases where Mamasela conveyed some information, and it was conveyed directly to Hechter and Hechter would convey that information to Cronje with a certain proposal and then the instruction would come.

MR MALAN: And during these Officers' meetings, there were no reports about the execution of operations?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: No.

MR MALAN: In other words whether you were part of the core group, it was not reported to you what had been done because other Officers were there? To whom were these reports made?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: To Brigadier Cronje.

MR MALAN: Directly through Hechter?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes, regarding the success of the operation, what had happened there, and otherwise the information would have come through the usual sources, to tell them something had happened, who was responsible, who executed this. This information was not made available there.

MR MALAN: It was not put to you, but Mr Meintjies would have put it to you and I am following up, based on Mr Alberts' question. Mr Momberg and or Mr Goosen testified that you would have given an instruction to shoot this unknown person at that instance. Was that conveyed to you?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: I read that yes.

MR MALAN: And it was also testified that he refused to do that, Mr Goosen said he refused to do that and he did that because he knew, he saw that Hechter did not agree with that instruction?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: That is what I have read in the application.

MR MALAN: The impression I could gather from that evidence and I will look at the record again, is that Goosen was under the impression that Hechter was under your command. I am just putting it to you, that was my impression. If this was an operation, would you have been under the command of Hechter, or Hechter under command of you?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Operationally I would work under Hechter, always, that is how it worked.

MR MALAN: And if you gave instructions, would Hechter resist that if he didn't agree with that, he would not only keep quiet?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Definitely not.

MR MALAN: We have two pieces of evidence provided by Mr Goosen and we heard about the evidence regarding the Mamelodi incident where he was given instruction to shoot and he refused to shoot. Did you ever experience something like that?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Mr Chairman, I have also said that I have never heard, or let me put it in this way, there were shots fired. Mr Goosen never physically refused to shoot.

MR MALAN: Were you ever refused by anybody to shoot?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: No.

MR MALAN: You can't remember that any junior Officer refused to shoot when you gave the instruction?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: No, it didn't work like that.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I am sorry, just for purposes of the questions of Mr Malan, may I perhaps just ask Captain Van Jaarsveld one or two questions, just to put certain things into perspective, flowing from the previous evidence at the Cronje hearings? There is just one thing that concerns me, that I want to rectify. Captain Van Jaarsveld, evidence was led by Brigadier Cronje and Hechter that there were instances where Hechter made the decisions because decisions had to be taken quickly and then afterwards he only took that up with Cronje and got approval?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: It could happen like that. He did not report back to me, so I can't say a hundred percent.

MR DU PLESSIS: So it was not a question that Hechter always got Cronje's permission or approval?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: In this core group then, it was not a question that everybody knew everything at all stages, in other words Goosen and Momberg did not know about the Ribeiro incident for example, as an example?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Perhaps not, ten to one, not.

MR DU PLESSIS: There were certain operations where - Hechter, Mamasela and Van Vuuren which nobody knew about, except Brigadier Cronje?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: As I understand the position and please correct me if I am wrong, in these times, the instructions that would come from Cronje for example, might be in very general terms, he would tell Hechter, look, go out and sort this out and then Hechter would decide precisely what he was going to do about it?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR MALAN: Just for my information and please excuse me Mr Chairman, if a senior Officer tells you sort out this problem, we have problems, would you regard it as an instruction to go and do something?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Taken into consideration the circumstances of the time, and the counter revolutionary strategies which were put into operation, you could take such an instruction and view it in this regard.

MR MALAN: In other words the political comment like the Police must get the country into order, that could be taken as an instruction? Was that how you interpreted that?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes, you had to do things but you had to use your discretion.

MR MALAN: That is exactly the point, use your discretion. Was that where the instructions from the top came? I am still trying to decide where this political instruction from the President came right down the hierarchy?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: This is very interesting, if you look at how the media and the politicians played as well.

MR MALAN: I don't want to investigate this matter any further, I am just trying to determine whether that was the relationship between Cronje and Hechter or would Cronje make sure about the details with the reports to him, then based on the information contained in the report, he will make a decision and then approve a strategic plan?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: This example you are giving, is a military example. The Police was a quasi-Military Force, but the Police did not have all those skills to work like this.

MR MALAN: They assaulted a person, somebody, till he said he was a crocodile.

MR DU PLESSIS: I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, that concludes your evidence for the moment. We have been told that you will not be available this afternoon. I take it that if Mr Alberts decides that he does want to put certain further questions to you, clear up certain issues, arrangements can be made that you will come back, so we can do that through you, can we?

MR MEINTJIES: That is correct Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well. I am afraid that is the best we can do for you at the moment, Mr Alberts.

MR ALBERTS: Thank you Mr Chairman, that suffices and I just want to convey my personal appreciation for the willingness of Mr Van Jaarsveld and his legal representative, to cooperate in this regard.

CHAIRPERSON: I thank you. You may be excused.

WITNESS EXCUSED

MR MEINTJIES: Mr Chairman, may I just be excused for a moment myself, I just want to find out what my client's schedule is for the next few days in case - thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Right, we go back to Pienaarsriver. Had we completed Mr Momberg's evidence?

MR ALBERTS: I was under the impression yesterday, yes, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: My notes appear to confirm that, and that is my recollection. Who is the next person giving evidence in this regard?