CHAIRPERSON: Are we ready to commence?

MS LOCKHAT: Yes Chairperson. We will commence with the evidence of Mr Naude.

MR WESSELS: Mr Chairman, I was busy asking questions yesterday, I have finished asking whatever I wanted to know, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I have a few questions if you would permit me.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you may put them.

CHARL NAUDE: (s.u.o)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Naude, these events took place quite a while back?

MR NAUDE: Yes, that is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: And one can accept that your memory would be influenced by this long lapse of time?

MR NAUDE: Yes, that is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: The reason why I am asking is because my clients Brigadier Cronje and Captain Hechter have both given evidence and if you have read the record, you will see that with regard to certain aspects, they are not very certain or clear about these aspects because these events took place so long back?

MR NAUDE: Yes, that is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Then I would like to ask you a few questions with regard to the evidence of my clients. In Bundle 2(B) the evidence of Brigadier Cronje begins on page 499 onto page 500. There Brigadier Cronje testified that at a certain stage, he has been contacted by you and you asked him for a memorandum with regard to the Ribeiro's, and that is in line with your evidence of yesterday, do you agree with me?

MR NAUDE: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: And you testified that various meetings took place where you were present and he was present and targets were discussed, including the Ribeiro's. That was your evidence?

MR NAUDE: Yes, that is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: So at the stage that you asked him for the memorandum, it was the stage when the decision had been made to go ahead with the operation?

MR NAUDE: Chairperson, I am not precisely certain about when the request was lodged for that, but I do accept that it would have been roundabout then.

MR DU PLESSIS: He testified that after you had requested the memorandum, he gave Captain Hechter the order to keep an eye on a member of your staff who would then compile the memorandum and that the file would be made available to a member of your staff. Do you have any commentary regarding that, is that correct?

MR NAUDE: I cannot comment on what Hechter or what Cronje said to Hechter. All that I can say is that I received a file with certain information.

MR DU PLESSIS: Well, let me ask you the following, do you agree with the evidence that a member of your staff would have received certain information from the Security Police for you, do you know about that or can you not recall?

MR NAUDE: It is possible, I just can't recall it.

MR DU PLESSIS: But it is possible, because you see Captain Hechter also gave evidence regarding that and his evidence appears on page 461 of Bundle 2(e), actually page 462.

He says that the file was in his possession but that a certain person with a white moustache which looked like a Scot and he thinks this person's name was Paddy, and this person could have been a Major, frequently visited Hechter's office and collected information which ultimately would have been conveyed to you.

So it is possible that you can't recall it, but that it did take place like that?

MR NAUDE: I can tell you that I didn't have a person by the name of Paddy in my organisation. I can say that with surety.

MR DU PLESSIS: Captain Hechter also wasn't sure about the person's name, but let me ask you the following. It is possible, you do concede that it is possible that a member of your staff regularly communicated with Captain Hechter for information about the Ribeiro's and submitted a memorandum to you?

MR NAUDE: The reason why I say that, or the reason why I am going to make the following statement is that my people were supposed and they had to operate under cover and I would not have sent one of my staff members to police office to fetch information.

I personally went to the police, Northern Transvaal Headquarters, but I can't recall at this stage that I sent any of my staff members there, except for Mr Robey accompanying me to the Headquarters.

If it was him, then it is so, it is possible.

MR DU PLESSIS: And Captain Hechter also gave evidence on page 462 that he saw the preparations which were made with regard to the operation, so he also visited your offices?

You were probably not involved yourself when he was there, but he gave evidence that he was impressed with the operation which was being planned, that aerial photographs had been taken by Special Forces, that there were photographs which were taken and that a tremendous amount of money had been spent on the planning of the operation. Any commentary?

MR NAUDE: I cannot comment on that, I think that we will hear about the process of the operation, I don't know where Hechter was involved, I never saw him myself. He was involved on the day of the operation, that is when I met him at the Palm Hotel, or the Palm Inn Hotel and from there we travelled together, but with regards to the rest of his involvement, I have no comment.

MR DU PLESSIS: But you were not involved on a daily basis with the collection of information?

MR NAUDE: No.

MR DU PLESSIS: So then you would not necessarily know this?

MR NAUDE: Yes.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: May I interpose there Mr Du Plessis. Mr Naude, I got the impression yesterday that one of the reasons why you requested the file to be given to Mr Robey was to be able to study the aerial photographs which were in the file. If you now concede that it is possible that the photographs were taken after Mr Hechter had been approached, where would this put the aerial photographs that you had testified that were in the files, yesterday?

MR NAUDE: There were aerial photographs in the file, and there were photographs of the houses of the Ribeiro's, and there was a street map and there was a description, a street description in the file that we got.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: But I got the impression yesterday that the reason why you wanted to peruse the file was to get the photographs, the aerial photographs which were inside the file?

MR NAUDE: That is right, yes.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Why then go to the elaborate extent of spending so much money as testified to by Captain Hechter, in getting those photographs which were already in the file?

MR NAUDE: Chairperson, according to my knowledge, only R2 000 was spent on the operation. Furthermore, no money was spent.

Except the usual fuel costs and so forth which was involved with the day to day use of vehicles, but furthermore no funds were spent on the operation.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: But do I then understand you to concede that the aerial photographs were taken after you had had sight of the file?

MR NAUDE: According to my knowledge, the aerial photograph was within the file. We did not undertake any flights or take any aerial photo's after the time. No aeroplanes were tasked and no other aerial photographs were taken after the time.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: So you do not agree with the evidence of Mr Hechter?

MR NAUDE: Yes, I don't agree with it.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Thank you. You may proceed Mr Du Plessis.

ADV DE JAGER: So you say that no aerial photographs were taken after the time? When you became involved with the matter, the aerial photographs were already in existence?

MR NAUDE: When I received the file, there was an aerial photograph in the file with this black square which was drawn around the house, there was a street plan with a black square drawn around the house. There were also photo's which were taken from the street of the house, so that we could identify the house. There was a small description of the house number and street name which was recorded on the map, I think.

So that aerial photograph was already in the file, we had no other aerial photographs taken whatsoever. It would take a number of weeks to task an aeroplane and to process aerial photographs. Physically it was simply impossible and I know that there was no tasking for taking aerial photographs.

ADV DE JAGER: Not by your team?

MR NAUDE: Not at all, I don't know anything about that.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. Mr Naude, who from Special Forces were involved in this operation, it was you, Mr Robey and who else?

MR NAUDE: And Mr Vorster.

MR DU PLESSIS: And Mr Vorster, are those the only persons who were involved?

MR NAUDE: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: And the planning of the operation?

MR NAUDE: It was me and Robey who undertook 90 percent of the planning. Vorster was informed regarding his tasks during the operation.

MR DU PLESSIS: And Hechter was not involved?

MR NAUDE: I beg your pardon, it was Vlietstra.

MR DU PLESSIS: Hechter had not been involved in the planning?

MR NAUDE: No.

MR DU PLESSIS: So it was Special Forces who planned the operation and it was also Special Forces who arranged for the two Angolans to come to South Africa and to be used during the operation?

MR NAUDE: Yes, that is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: And according to your evidence, the only involvement of the Police was Hechter who travelled with you in the vehicle?

MR NAUDE: Yes, that is correct. Throughout the time we liaised and said well, we are this far, we have done this, we have done that and so forth. There was constant liaison with Captain Hechter, but he was not physically involved in say for example, now we are travelling together and so forth.

We simply informed him.

MR DU PLESSIS: That is in line with Captain Hechter's evidence. Very well, you say that you and Captain Hechter were in Mamelodi in a car on the day of the event?

MR NAUDE: As I have said, at the Palm Inn we co-ordinated that everybody would gather and so that we could make sure that everything was ready. After that, me and Captain Hechter drove and we reached an open piece of land on the south eastern side of Mamelodi where we stopped and waited under a tree.

Captain Hechter heard the shots, I didn't hear it and he said they are shooting now. We waited for a while and I objected very strongly that he drove into the house and examined the house. I told him that we should stay away from there. We had gone to all the trouble of not making the operation traceable and there he was driving in a police vehicle to the place. That is what happened.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, you see on page 468 of his evidence, he did not give evidence that you were with him in the vehicle and the question was never put to him, but he did not give evidence to the fact that you were with him in the vehicle.

MR NAUDE: Chairperson, might I just ask whether or not he testified that he drove?

MR DU PLESSIS: Well, let me read his evidence on page 468 to you. I drove passed the particular address and it seemed that I drove passed there just after the elimination had taken place.

There was a big crowd of people around the house and there was an ambulance at that stage. I drove up to the side of the ambulance and I saw that the people were very tense and excited and I then went directly to the police station.

It was about a kilometre or so from Dr Ribeiro's home. I drove there directly, went to the Branch Commander and I told him do you know that Dr Ribeiro has been shot, there are problems, you had better get out there.

I then made radio contact with the Reaction Unit and I also contacted Murder and Robbery, or I contacted my Radio Control and told them to get Reaction Unit and Murder and Robbery, the fingerprint people, all the necessary units to come and investigate the matter.

At that stage I made as if I knew nothing. I then went to the Commanding Officer and the Branch Commanding Officer to the scene. The Branch Commander got out of the car and they started investigating the scene. They started picking up cartridges and I said no stop, you are interfering with the evidence, put the cartridges back. I then contacted the Safety Service Officer, he was on duty at the time, and I then withdrew from the scene. I also withdrew from Mamelodi.

So if you were there, you would have driven with to the Branch Commander, you would have been there when he had these discussions and you would have driven back with him, to the scene?

MR NAUDE: Yes, that is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Is that how you recall it?

MR NAUDE: Yes, that is correct. And that is why I was completely upset because he was driving around on the scene. I didn't want to be there, I wanted to get away from the scene so that we couldn't be connected to the incident.

MR DU PLESSIS: So it may be possible that Captain Hechter cannot remember that you accompanied him?

MR NAUDE: It is possible.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Naude, Brigadier Cronje was questioned about where the order came from and he specifically gave evidence that he did not know precisely from where the order came. However on page 357 of Bundle 2(E) he said the following - that the command came from Trevits. Naude said that he had to report back to his General, who was Gen Joubert. Would you agree with that?

MR NAUDE: Repeatedly we have said that, but I don't know anything about TREVITS. I don't know about the existence thereof, I simply knew that I was to report back to the General.

MR DU PLESSIS: So you cannot argue that his impression that the order came from TREVITS, is incorrect?

MR NAUDE: I cannot dispute that.

MR DU PLESSIS: And we knew how TREVITS operated, and that meant that membership on TREVITS consisted of the Army and the Police?

MR NAUDE: At that stage I was in a unit which operated under a very deep cover. We were not involved with the State Security Council and TREVITS and other such organisations, so I don't know about the existence of these things.

MR DU PLESSIS: What I am trying to achieve is to tell you what the evidence of Brigadier Cronje was regarding how this order came from above.

But he said that his perception was that it came from TREVITS?

MR NAUDE: Well, I cannot dispute that because I don't know about the existence of TREVITS.

MR DU PLESSIS: And he also said that there was liaison with Gen Joubert and that that meant that Gen Joubert knew that the Ribeiro's were a target, and that is also in line with your evidence?

MR NAUDE: I cannot dispute that. Gen Joubert did tell me so, but I drew the inference that this emerged from a discussion or during a meeting which was held between him and Cronje and Moller, but where this came from, I cannot say at this stage.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Naude, one final aspect. There was evidence given by Colonel Flip Loots who handled the file on the Ribeiro's and handled it more frequently than Brigadier Cronje, as well as Captain Hechter, he gave evidence about the file.

Brigadier Cronje testified first and then he was questioned in detail regarding the contents of the file, and he couldn't remember it because his evidence was that he saw the file once a year as one out of 10 000 other files, but more detailed evidence was given by Captain Hechter and Colonel Loots.

The evidence was and I would like to put this to you, the evidence was that there was one file concerning Mr and Mrs Ribeiro and that there was information about their activities? There were informer reports and all sorts of other information about their activities. If this was the evidence, then you will have to agree with me that that which was given to you ultimately, ultimately that which you received and what you gave evidence about regarding plans and aerial photographs and so forth, could only have been the Security Police's file regarding the Ribeiro's, would you agree with me?

MR NAUDE: I agree completely. It is disputable that the Security Police would give their source reports and everything to me, they would have given me an extract from that file.

MR DU PLESSIS: So I am just trying to avoid confusion here because I think that the information that was created from your evidence was that you had the complete file from the Security Police and it does not appear from your evidence, read along with Loots and Hechter's evidence that this was the case?

I am putting to you that it was probably an extract and you have confirmed this?

MR NAUDE: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: How would he know whether the file he received was complete or not? He receives a file, he sees aerial photographs, street maps, photographs of the house and so on, now how would he know whether that file is complete or whether there are other documents that are supposed to be in it or not?

MR DU PLESSIS: No Mr Chairman, all I put to him is the evidence of the other witnesses that there were informant reports, etc, in the file, so the obvious deduction that one has to make out of that, and I just wanted his comment on that, is that what he received wasn't the full file.

That also accords with the evidence of Hechter.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Didn't he concede to that Mr Du Plessis? Didn't he concede to that yesterday, I mean he said he suspected that the file which was given to him, was not a full file, it was a very thin file, it had very little information.

In fact according to his evidence, it had no information at all, definitely not with regard to the activities of the Ribeiro's?

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, I just wanted to make it clear that it was obviously not the file of the Security Police, that is the only point.

CHAIRPERSON: Can we move on to material points of difference?

MR DU PLESSIS: As it pleases you Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Is there anything else anybody wishes to put forward to Mr Naude? Any re-examination of Mr Naude?

ADV DE JAGER: Ms Lockhat and the representatives of the victims?

MS LOCKHAT: That is correct, we've got some questions for Mr Naude.

CHAIRPERSON: You have?

MS LOCKHAT: Yes Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: I am sorry, please do put your questions.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS LOCKHAT: Mr Naude, you informed us that you briefed either the Staff Officer or Joubert regarding the operation, as to find the two persons in Angola, is that correct?

MR NAUDE: Yes, it was either the General or Staff Officer, to find the people in Namibia, not Angola.

MS LOCKHAT: Oh Namibia, sorry. Tell me, who was the Staff Officer at the time?

MR NAUDE: There were four Staff Officers operating at the time, the most likely one would have been Mr Verster.

MS LOCKHAT: So, do you think that Mr Verster could have organised the two operatives?

MR NAUDE: It could be possible, yes.

MS LOCKHAT: Would Gen Joubert be able to help us with that information?

MR NAUDE: I am not exactly sure. I don't know if he would ...

MS LOCKHAT: Tell me, for this operation to take place, the operatives surely had to be given weapons, etc, etc. Is this correct?

MR NAUDE: Yes, that is correct Mr Chairperson.

MS LOCKHAT: Who gave them, what was given to them and who gave it to them?

MR NAUDE: As far as I know, Robey gave them the weapons. I am sure that this would emerge very clearly from his evidence.

MS LOCKHAT: Do you know which weapons were given to them, was it 9mm's, was it 357 revolvers, what was it?

MR NAUDE: It was 45 Colt pistols Mr Chairperson.

MS LOCKHAT: Are you sure about that?

MR NAUDE: Yes, I am sure.

MS LOCKHAT: I just want to refer to the evidence of Van Jaarsveld, page 73 of Bundle 4, where he says I saw that there were 9mm shells on the scene. It was strange to me seeing as my information was that a 357 revolver would have been used?

MR NAUDE: Chairperson, we didn't use 9mm pistols, because usual Defence Force used 9mm's, we used the Colt pistol.

Both pistols had silencers and there is no way in which one could fit a silencer onto a 357 revolver, it couldn't be done.

MS LOCKHAT: So do you think that Van Jaarsveld's evidence is incorrect that he saw these?

MR NAUDE: Definitely so, yes.

MS LOCKHAT: Tell me, were these two operatives paid for this mission?

MR NAUDE: No, they were paid soldiers, they received a salary every month and they did it in the course of their duties.

MS LOCKHAT: Okay, you spoke about the Palm Hotel, is this where you met Hechter and others?

MR NAUDE: That is correct.

MS LOCKHAT: Can you remember where the two operatives were housed, in which hotel?

MR NAUDE: Later I heard that Robey and the others took them to a hotel near the station, I think it was the Manhattan Hotel, I am not quite certain about that.

MS LOCKHAT: So they did not reside at the Palm Hotel?

MR NAUDE: No, definitely not. That was just a point for us to get together.

CHAIRPERSON: It is quite clear from your evidence that the one who will know more definitely, will be Robey? Is that right?

MR NAUDE: Chairperson, could you please repeat that question.

CHAIRPERSON: The one who will know more definitely about where they were housed, would be Robey?

MR NAUDE: That is correct Chairperson.

MS LOCKHAT: Thank you Chairperson, no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR NAUDE: Chairperson, I would just like to address the problem surrounding the black operatives. Firstly, just like MK, we worked with code names, this has emerged from other evidence which was given here. Furthermore, we used these persons, we had them flown in from Ovamboland and we employed them to commit a murder in reality.

That is why we had to protect the identity of these persons as far as possible. I had a very high profile in Special Forces and I was very concerned for this reason, that these people would see me, because everybody, almost all the operatives, knew me.

That is the reason why I sent Robey to fetch these persons in order to make the operation as untraceable as possible. Should one of these operatives be caught on the scene or be injured on the scene, he could simply refer back to somebody who had taken him and booked him into the hotel and he would at least be able to use this person's code or false name.

That would indicate that this operation should not be traceable. We had to protect these people, we couldn't advertise that these people were driving around all over in military vehicles and so forth.

For that reason, we handled them with extreme caution, and that is why I would not allow that Hechter would point out the place to them because it would have defeated the object, to take these people so far and then contaminate them at the very last point.

I hope that the Commission will understand this somewhat better.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you get a chance to meet them yourself?

MR NAUDE: Due to the fact that I had a high profile, I never met the - I actually saw them driving passed, but I never met them face to face.

CHAIRPERSON: To your knowledge, besides Robey, who met them?

MR NAUDE: Of my Unit, nobody met them.

ADV DE JAGER: If they had seen you, would they have recognised you?

MR NAUDE: I didn't know exactly who would be coming, and I was very cautious that it may be someone who would recognise me, because I was the Commander of various of these units, the chances were extremely good that they would have recognised me and said that is not Jan Botha, that is Charl Naude.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes please, any further questions.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR POWE: Mr Naude, you state in your application which you will find at page 21 of Bundle 4 and in particular paragraph 11(b)(i) and (ii), you state as follows, my Commander in the South African Defence Force was Gen Joubert from Pretoria. His address is unknown to me, he was the Commanding General, Special Forces.

Then you take it up later on, consequently I was under the command of Brigadier Jack Cronje of the Security Police, with regard to the relevant operations. His address is unknown to me.

Am I correct, you may answer me in Afrikaans, Mr Naude, am I correct in saying that the involved operations which you refer to here, would be the ones in respect of which you are seeking amnesty?

MR NAUDE: I think that was an error in my affidavit, I was in support of and not in command of. Under command would have indicated that Brigadier Cronje would have paid my salary and handled my administration and so forth, and that was not true.

MR POWE: (ii) you go on to say and you must tell me whether you think that also was a mistake in your application, in both cases I received the orders for the deeds from Cronje, but I did clear it up with Joubert, who confirmed the order and expressed his approval for that.

MR NAUDE: Chairperson, I think the milieu within which that statement was made, is as follows, Brigadier Cronje was a Brigadier and I was a Commandant at that stage.

I think that I accepted that he would be the Senior Officer in company and for that reason, I felt that it was his order or that he was the initiator of this operation.

But after we had discussed it at length, I realise that it was actually a joint decision which had been made. This affidavit was made quite a while ago and now that I have been through the process, I realise that that was an incorrect statement.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Did I understand you correctly when you said you thought Brigadier Cronje was an initiator of the operation? The reason why I am posing this question is because it causes me problems.

It would not be in accord with your evidence in chief, which was to the effect that you were instructed by your Commander, Gen Joubert about this operation. How could you have thought that Brigadier Cronje was the initiator of this operation?

MR NAUDE: Chairperson, I think that we should just return to the very first day when this operation began, and by that I mean the co-operation with the SAP. The Generals gave me the order to cooperate with specific reference to two projects, the one was the Nietverdiendt 10, which led to the Nietverdiendt 10, which did not exist at that stage.

It was people who were defecting to receive training, that was the one problem, and the second was the mentioning of the name of the Ribeiro's.

The Generals did not give me an operation saying, go and shoot the Ribeiro's and kill them. He told me you must look at these two operations, these are the two greatest problems which we have at this stage. After a lengthy process of the exchange of information and discussions with Brigadier Cronje, we decided that the first operation which we would undertake, would be the Nietverdiendt 10 which has been handled.

The second one was the Ribeiro's, and I don't think that I ever said that the General gave the order to undertake the operation, it is something which emanated from various meetings which were held. I did clear it up with the General, but I never received an order from him.

Perhaps I have misinterpreted who gave the order, we sat around a table and after various sessions of discussion, we finally decided that the following target to be handled, would be the Ribeiro couple. And after that I requested whether or not I could receive the information regarding these peoples that I could find the place and so forth, and continue with the operation.

I am not entirely certain if one would then say that I initiated it, or whether the Brigadier initiated it. I can't remember the specific words which were used that day, but the fact is that is how the operation originated.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you draw a distinction in your mind between an agreement that this operation should be embarked upon jointly on the one hand, and who initiates or implements the agreement? Do you draw that distinction in your mind?

MR NAUDE: If the fact that I requested the file, would indicate that I initiated the operation, then it must be so.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, do carry on.

MR POWE: Thank you. Mr Naude, if you say that the statements in your applications, if the benefit of hindsight now, are mistakes, when did you first realise that you made these mistakes in your application?

MR NAUDE: Yesterday, during the testimony, Mr Chairperson.

MR POWE: You didn't mention that to this Committee that with regard to these specific paragraphs, where you give a very distinct impression that you were instructed by Brigadier Cronje to carry out these operations, you didn't take the opportunity out of your own, to correct what are clearly incorrect statements?

MR NAUDE: I think during the Nietverdiendt project or whatever one wants to call it, when we went into detail with regards to the command affiliation and how it worked and how I saw it, I accepted that the explanation that was given there, would be applicable here as well.

MR POWE: Mr Naude, with respect, that is the broad command structure that you would have alluded to in that context. These are very specific statements you make as to who in so far as these two operations are concerned, gave you instructions.

MR WESSELS: With respect Mr Chairperson, this was one of the statements that was dealt with and questions were put to him as to who was in charge and how this fitted in and he cannot make the statement as he is doing now.

We have already dealt with this incident yesterday.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, can we move on.

MR POWE: Thank you. The point I am making is that it was never stated that these two statements are mistakes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I understand, that is a point you can address us on.

MR POWE: Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR POWE: Mr Naude, you say that the Ribeiro operation was jointly decided upon and I take it, it is by yourself and who else?

MR NAUDE: It was jointly decided by myself, Brigadier Cronje and Captain Hechter. They were normally always there, every now and then, he would call somebody else in just for a piece of information that he didn't have, but normally it was those people sir.

MR POWE: Yes, you see, I just wanted you to confirm that Mr Naude, because if that is what you are saying, then it doesn't seem to accord with what Brigadier Cronje says at page 500.

On a proper reading of his evidence here, and it was put to you earlier on by Adv Du Plessis, the distinct impression is that this was your unit's operation, and he had absolutely nothing to do with it, and you can have a look at that evidence which is at, his evidence starts at 499 and he carries on at 500 of Bundle 2(B).

MR WESSELS: Chairperson, my learned colleague should make the statement to my client. I don't think it is required of him to make comments on pages.

What is the specific difference to which is being referred to? We have already dealt or covered this incident yesterday. My learned colleague, Mr Du Plessis, has referred to it this morning.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Wessels, he was not here yesterday, so let us not split hairs about this. He deals with the aspect which I put yesterday that according to Cronje, he was not the person who gave the instruction to kill the Ribeiro's.

His evidence, Cronje's evidence differs from his and the question that we dealt with yesterday was that if it was an Army operation, it was pointed out that before the Army came to launch the operation, Hechter had already launched two operations to kill the Ribeiro's, so where did that instruction come from.

Since he was not here yesterday, the first meeting, there was a first meeting between Gen Joubert, Cronje and Moller and it was said there that according to the evidence, there were three targets. The one was a class type of target, people who would go out for training, the one was Ntuli and the other one was Ribeiro.

This is not in line with Cronje's evidence and you were not here yesterday. That was what was said yesterday.

MR POWE: Chairperson, obviously to the best of my ability, I have familiarised myself with the evidence that was given. I don't think that the objection is justified.

The proposition which I am putting to Mr Naude is quite clear. He says that it was a joint decision between himself, Brigadier Cronje and I think it was Captain, Captain Hechter.

ADV DE JAGER: I think the objection was that you referred to pages 500 and you don't put the contents of what your question is, to the witness.

MR POWE: Mr Naude, on the basis of that objection then, at page 500, this is how Brigadier Cronje testified - I asked Charl Naude for what purposes he needed the memorandum and he answered that Special Forces targeted Ribeiro or had identified him as a possible target.

I told him that if they had identified him as a target, they surely had to have information of their own, and why did they need a memorandum from me, and he replied that he only wanted to verify the information to ascertain whether we had the same information as what they had.

Further on in the page, Mr Naude, if you care to look at it, if you have the bundle in front of you, I was therefore aware of the operation since it was, or since I suspected that it was a terrorist operation. I did not interfere with the preparations any further.

On the reading of that bit of information Mr Naude, Brigadier Cronje says he wasn't part of the decision. He says that it was your Unit's decision to do this, and you went to him, seeking information so you could carry out that particular operation, what do you say to that?

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, I think that it was a terrorist operation, was clearly a misinterpretation or - it should have been a Special Forces operation, not a terrorist operation.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, in all fairness, may I just point out, the evidence, it is again a question of taking the evidence at a specific place and page and putting that without putting the rest of the evidence.

I have pointed out this morning, in my questioning to Mr Naude, that Brigadier Cronje testified that he didn't know where the order came from in respect of the Ribeiro's, but that the decision may have been made at TREVITS.

Now, one should also take that evidence into account when you look at what Brigadier Cronje says here. It is not a question that Cronje testified that Special Forces made the decision.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Du Plessis, that could be a matter for argument for you, but Cronje used the words that has been put to the witness and the Counsel is entitled to put that to the witness and ask him to answer on it.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Mr Powe, page 355 which is Bundle 2(E) wherein this particular aspect is dealt with by Brigadier Cronje, where he was cross-examined by Mr Currin, there is cross-examination by Mr Currin, thank you Mr Chairman. Brigadier Cronje, you start your evidence by saying Special Forces requested the memorandum on Dr Ribeiro from me, did you know why they wanted the memorandum and Brigadier Cronje's response is, as far as I can recall, they told me that they, Special Forces, have identified Dr Ribeiro as a target.

Which clearly therefore, makes the identification of the target to have been made by Special Forces.

MR POWE: It is indeed so, Honourable Member. Mr Naude, do you have any comment on those obvious contradictions?

MR NAUDE: As I have said yesterday, this was the first time that I had heard of Ribeiro, was at the start of this operation.

I could have only heard the name at two places. I said that I heard it from the General once, and repeatedly from the Security Police. If I refer to the Security Police, I refer to Colonel Cronje and Captain Hechter.

I could not identify this target on my own, if I did not know of the existence of this person. I repeat, we were together, we discussed other targets as well to which I said it did not comply with the requirements which the General put to me for example, they would not have had any impact on the situation in Northern Transvaal, they were not high profile persons, but eventually the Ribeiro target stood out as the target to be targeted next. This was not decided on with the input of the Security Branch persons.

I cannot think of where else I could have received this information. Other evidence was led that we did not have an internal Intelligence Unit except for where it came to strategy or tactical units.

I would just like to put that it was impossible to target this person without the help of the Security Police.

MR POWE: Mr Naude, if what you say is correct, then someone is not, or has not told this Committee the truth.

MR NAUDE: I just think that one - I realise that there is a problem somewhere and I think that the following might be an explanation. I am not sure if the identification that the Brigadier mentions there, was the identification of the execution of the operation, not as the target, but it was identified as an operation that could be executed.

Let's say some of these operations could not be launched against them. I can just think that the Brigadier meant that this was an operation that could be executed, and it would seem, or from the evidence I said that I was looking for the file so that I could start with the preparations for the operation.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Mr Naude, Brigadier Cronje gave evidence to the effect that when you requested for the file, you advised him that you wanted the file because you were doing preparations for Gen Joubert. Would you agree with that, and that appears on page 502 of Bundle 2(B)?

MR NAUDE: At any time when I approach the General with such a target, he would have asked me you tell me, is this target worth it? Therefore I had to have the information and I was certain that if I went to him with this target and I said we want to continue with this target, he would have asked me three questions.

He would have asked is secrecy guaranteed, secondly, would it have an impact on the environment and will you do this in conjunction with the SAP? He would have asked that, I had to prepare myself for when I spoke to him. I had to have all my pigs in a straight line otherwise he would ask me, go back and find out what is happening and then you come back to me.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: I don't think you understood my question. My question is, did you at any stage during your discussion with Brigadier Cronje, advised Brigadier Cronje that you were doing preparations on the Ribeiro's at Gen Joubert's instance and request?

MR NAUDE: No. Gen Joubert never requested me to do that and I never instructed him that Gen Joubert asked for this target to be done, I never did that.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: So you would not agree with the evidence given by Brigadier Cronje with regard to that particular aspect?

MR NAUDE: Mr Chairman, I want to refer you to my first statement, I said in the end that there are certain things that I disagree with, and this is one of the points that I disagree with.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Yes, thank you. Proceed Mr Powe.

MR POWE: Mr Naude, from what I understand your evidence to be, you personally knew nothing about the activities of the Ribeiro's?

MR NAUDE: That is correct Mr Chairperson.

MR POWE: And you relied on the say so I think firstly of Gen Joubert, do I have his rank right?

MR NAUDE: I relied on the Intelligence from Brigadier Cronje.

MR POWE: From Brigadier Cronje?

MR NAUDE: That is right.

MR POWE: Yes. Now if that is the case, at the point when you had discussions with Brigadier Cronje, it seems like if one looks at the evidence again at page 500, and that is the instance when you go and ask for a memorandum, that there is no mention of Mrs Ribeiro there?

MR NAUDE: All the evidence that was given to me, was always both the Ribeiro's, the man and the wife. In all instances they were grouped together.

MR POWE: Well, I don't know whether that is necessarily so and again we have the difficulty of knowing who of you is reflecting what the true position was.

Brigadier Cronje says at the top of that page, I asked Charl Naude for what purpose he needed the memorandum and he answered that Special Forces, that is yourselves, had targeted Ribeiro or had identified him as a possible target.

MR NAUDE: I disagree with that statement. I say that Mrs Ribeiro was always within the target, she was never left out. As a matter of fact, when the General briefed me the first time, he also told me that they were both involved in certain activities.

MR POWE: Those that you get to deal with, seems to have had some definite doubts about Mrs Ribeiro, including Brigadier Cronje?

MR NAUDE: I can't stand in for what he thought, I can stand in for what the General told me and the general information that I got, Mr Chairperson.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Powe, and Hechter's evidence also included Mrs Ribeiro and Loots' evidence too? Yes Loots.

MR POWE: Not quite so in respect of Hechter Honourable Member. Hechter at a point in his evidence and I will find it if you give me a second, says that there was doubt in his mind at a point, whether Mrs Ribeiro ought to have been targeted.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: No, he states quite clearly Mr Powe that Mrs Ribeiro was targeted because she assisted the activists to the extent that Dr Ribeiro assisted the ANC activists. I think it is quite clear there should be no reason for you to argue about that one. Hechter was very positive about that aspect.

MR POWE: Honourable Member, if you have a look at page 461 of the transcript of Captain Hechter's evidence, in Bundle 2(E), if at the point that was clear as you say, certainly at a later stage he seems to have doubts. That is the very last paragraph.

I think that Charl Naude and I went to my office to continue with this conversation. At that stage I had already come to the conclusion that Dr Ribeiro and his wife had to be eliminated, and then a significant part, or perhaps just Dr Ribeiro.

MR WESSELS: Mr Chairman, with respect to my learned friend, he should read on page 477 what Captain Hechter said. He said there for instance if I had executed the operation, I would also have killed her.

He said I think as a result of her activities, she would have been targeted by the Defence Force, and then I am trying to find the paragraph that Judge Khampepe referred to because I read it this morning, was a specific paragraph, I think but it was the evidence of Loots, not Hechter, which said that when Dr Ribeiro was away from the house, he wasn't there, she was also involved in assisting people financially, etc. I will try to find that paragraph for you.

CHAIRPERSON: Let us assume that might very well have happened is that at times the Ribeiro's in plural, were mentioned, at times Mr and Mrs Ribeiro were mentioned, but the fact of the matter is that as it turned out, they were both targeted.

Can we move on from that point, onwards? Does it matter very much whether originally one name was mentioned and later both names were mentioned? Does it really matter?

MR POWE: It matters Chairperson and I will try to demonstrate that. I will not be much longer, I promise you. I will try to demonstrate it with my subsequent questions.

Mr Naude, the people on whose intelligence you relied, let me just give you, tell you, what it is they relied upon to make Mrs Ribeiro a legitimate target and this is in the evidence of Captain Hechter which starts at page 457 and this is the extent of the Intelligence they had at their disposal.

According to our sources at the time, Mrs Ribeiro was involved along with her husband in the recruitment of youths for sending them out for training. It was also known that they gave money to these people.

Dr Ribeiro and his wife, who obviously never distanced herself from this conduct, and was always involved with him in showing of the videos for instance, our information was that they were both involved in the showing of the videos.

Now would that in your mind, make Mrs Ribeiro a legitimate target for elimination?

MR NAUDE: I think in total we had about 25 meetings approximately, 25 meetings with the Security Police. During the time, and I am talking about the time when the General instructed me to cooperate with the Police, to the time when this operation stopped, and I don't think there was one meeting that the Ribeiro's were not mentioned.

Examples of this was that it was put to me that this weekend they did it again, they went to Swaziland and they did this, that and the following. I can't stand in for the truth of that, I believed that the Brigadier who is an officer and a gentleman, wouldn't give me information that is not true.

I never questioned the information. It came in regularly and eventually there was no doubt in my mind that these people were targets. That was not the only evidence that was ever put to me, there was lots and lots of evidence that was put to me during the course of those meetings.

MR POWE: Well, the difficulty with that statement you make now, Mr Naude, is that we have not heard such evidence. We heard you putting four broad categories namely that they train activists, namely that they give financial assistance to them and two other aspects in which they were involved, but the detail that you now seek to put before the Committee, you never up to now, put before this Committee, or did you?

MR NAUDE: Chairperson, we repeatedly said yesterday that we discussed this thing many times, Hechter, myself and Cronje. Several times we had meetings and we discussed this several times. I cannot put it any better, that is how it is.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Mr Naude, I would like to understand your evidence better, myself. I don't want to misunderstand you.

I thought in your evidence in chief, your evidence mainly was that there was a meeting that you had between yourself, Captain Hechter and Brigadier Cronje wherein a joint decision was taken to target the Ribeiro's. I was under the impression that that was the only meeting wherein Brigadier Cronje was involved, and that the subsequent meetings that took place, did not involve Brigadier Cronje, but took place between yourself, Mr Robey and Captain Hechter?

When you say there were 25, approximately 25 meetings that took place wherein the Ribeiro's were discussed and you include Brigadier Cronje in those meetings, then I fail to understand your earlier evidence.

MR NAUDE: Chairperson, what I mean with this is the following, at every such meeting many people were mentioned, amongst others the Ribeiro's. At one meeting we sat down and we said we think this is an operation we can execute, we can continue with the operation.

At that meeting I requested the information, where does he stay, the maps, the aerial photographs. But on a continual basis, we discussed these things. This was not at one instance, we discussed it many times.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Did those meetings include Brigadier Cronje?

MR NAUDE: Just about every time at that meeting, I saw Brigadier Cronje. I can recall once or twice when we did not see him. This was just when he was not available, but I called and I made an appointment with him and his Secretary told me such and such a time, and then I met with him.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: So you actually had several meetings with Brigadier Cronje where the activities of the Ribeiro's were discussed with him?

MR NAUDE: That is correct Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: We will take an adjournment at this stage, and resume in 15 minutes.

ON RESUMPTION:

CHARL NAUDE: (s.u.o)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Powe, have you finished with this witness?

MR POWE: I have finished, Chairperson, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Are there any other questions?

MR WESSELS: In re-examination, I would just like to ask a few questions, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Just hold it for a while. Anybody else? Yes, do carry on.

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR WESSELS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Naude, can you explain to us you told us that 25 meetings took place approximately, meetings that you can recall with Brigadier Cronje. Were these meetings which were generally about the security situation or were they about specific matters?

MR NAUDE: These meetings, we must remember, that I was deployed in support of the Security Branch at that stage, and I had no other tasks. Thus we co-operated and I held various of these meetings and various topics arose.

We followed certain clues and reported back every day regarding things that we had discussed, things that needed to be investigated, and among others the Ribeiro matter emerged quite a few times, but many other matters were also discussed during these meetings.

MR WESSELS: Is it correct that only at a later stage it was specifically decided that the Ribeiro's could now be identified as a target and that execution had to be given to an elimination plan?

MR NAUDE: That is correct.

MR WESSELS: And was that at the stage when the memorandum was requested by you?

MR NAUDE: Yes, that is correct.

MR WESSELS: You mentioned that secrecy was to be maintained with regard to these matters. When operatives were obtained such as in this matter, two operatives, did you use false names?

MR NAUDE: That is correct.

MR WESSELS: Did Robey use his correct name or which name would he have used when he dealt with these persons?

MR NAUDE: He had instructions to use his false name.

MR WESSELS: And do you know whether these two operatives used their true and correct names?

MR NAUDE: Chairperson, it is highly unlikely, but I cannot confirm this, because I did not have anything to do with them.

MR WESSELS: No further questions, thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Who did you make a request to for these operatives?

MR NAUDE: The request was directed to either the General or one of the Staff Officers. I cannot recall which one of the two.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you make a request for specific persons?

MR NAUDE: No Chairperson, I requested two operatives from Ovamboland who had drivers' licences. Those were my only specifications.

I also requested that they would be some of the best operatives, by the nature of the situation.

ADV DE JAGER: When you speak of an operative, and a good or a best operative, would that be one that could shoot?

MR NAUDE: Yes, that is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: Not a chef in the kitchen?

MR NAUDE: Certainly not.

CHAIRPERSON: Now was there a time when you knew the name of the person to whom you had made this request?

MR NAUDE: Chairperson, I cannot recall who it was. I could never recall it.

ADV DE JAGER: But the question is, you knew that you were speaking to somebody that day, so at that stage if I had asked you the next day, you would have known that you were speaking to X or Y?

MR NAUDE: Probably. The problem is, the reason why I am saying this is because I spoke to both persons frequently but I cannot remember during which discussion, this topic arose.

I spoke quite frequently to the General, gave him feedback about what was going on, and I often spoke to the Staff Officers. I simply cannot recall during which discussion I directed the request for the operatives.

ADV DE JAGER: But the General would have known if it had been directed at him, he would probably be able to tell us if he had anything to do with the arrangements?

MR NAUDE: He would probably know then.

I have reason to believe that the General himself would not have arranged it, he would have involved one of the Staff Officers and said get two people over here.

CHAIRPERSON: This becomes more and more difficult when one tries to trace the source and one finds that one can't pinpoint the person in authority who sends these people, because it is important from the point of view of your application, and you should know this, that you are required to make a full disclosure of all the relevant facts.

It is with that in mind, that I am asking you these questions.

MR NAUDE: Chairperson, I realise this fully. I cannot think that I would tell you everything and then something which was not under my influence, be kept from you. I just cannot recall. Perhaps one of the two gentlemen would be able to solve the problem.

I simply cannot distinguish which one of the two it was. It is impossible for me.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, do carry on with the re-examination.

MR WESSELS: I have no further questions, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Mr Naude, may I come back to the problem which I had yesterday with regard to the purpose for which the file was requested from Brigadier Cronje.

Yesterday you testified that the purpose of obtaining the file from Brigadier Cronje was only to enable yourself to obtain information pertinently with regard to the address of the Ribeiro's, do you remember that?

MR NAUDE: That is correct yes.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Yes. Now Brigadier Cronje has already testified. He has advanced a different reason from that advanced by you, with regard to the purpose for which the file was obtained by you, from him.

He says that you told him that you wanted the file because you wanted to verify the information which they had in their file, against that which you had in your files from Special Forces.

MR NAUDE: Chairperson, once again I want to make it explicitly clear that we didn't have any internal information and thus we didn't have a file on Dr Ribeiro. We didn't have a file on Mrs Ribeiro either.

The only information which we had, was from the Security Branch and the purpose behind obtaining the file, was primarily to obtain the photo's of the house and the aerial photo's. That was the purpose with the file.

We wanted more information so that should the General ask me, I would be armed with the correct information. But the fact remains the primary reason why I wanted it, was to be able to identify the house from ground level and to show the operatives this is what the house looks like.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Yes. I also have another difficulty with your evidence against that already given by Brigadier Cronje with regard to the activities of the Ribeiro's.

You will recall what you have already testified, that one of the reasons why they were targeted, was because they were involved in the actual training of the activists in their house.

MR NAUDE: That is correct Mr Chairman.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Brigadier Cronje and Captain Hechter have testified that the reasons why they were targeted was because they provided medical assistance as well as financial assistance. They have made no mention of the fact that they actually trained the terrorists in their house.

They would have had that information, they have the logistical necessities and the other resources which you have already alluded to.

MR NAUDE: I have repeatedly heard that the Ribeiro family travelled to Swaziland, took people there, had them receive retraining and would bring them back on a Sunday.

The reason why they were able to do so was because he had a high profile, he was Dr Ribeiro and it was easy for him to travel through border posts and roadblocks.

He had that cover and he used that cover to take people out for instant training. It was pertinently stated to me that he went as far as providing training within his home and that he treated wounded MK members in his consulting rooms. That was information that I gathered over time. That is what I received from the Security Branch, from nowhere else.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: And that would have been the information that you would have gleaned through from the files of the Security Police? Is that not so?

MR NAUDE: Could you just repeat that please?

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: That information with regard to them providing training within their house, would have been the information you obtained from the files of the Security Police?

MR NAUDE: That was verbal information that was given to me, that wasn't given in writing to me. It was given verbally on these meetings that we had, it came out.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Who gave that kind of information to you?

MR NAUDE: Hechter on many occasions, gave it to me. Cronje gave it to me and I know somebody else, he called somebody else, a person whom I do not know, and he also gave bits and pieces of information, but he left immediately afterwards.

It was clear to me that this person wasn't briefed exactly what was going on, so he was immediately dispersed and he wasn't allowed to listen to the rest of the conversation.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: But isn't it strange that the two persons that you are speaking of, that is Captain Hechter and Brigadier Cronje, gave detailed evidence with regard to the activities of the Ribeiro's, in fact they use a term, they gave us an explanation of who qualified to be a high profile activist and gave the activities that would qualify such a person to be a high profile activist.

They did not mention the fact that the Ribeiro's qualified as high profile activists, because they trained terrorists in their home. Why should they omit such an important fact?

MR NAUDE: Mr Chairperson, I really can't tell why they didn't put it in their application, but they definitely told me that on several occasions.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: To your knowledge, was Dr Ribeiro and Mrs Ribeiro trained in the military field, did they possess the necessary military skills?

MR NAUDE: Yes, definitely. They told me that they went for training themselves, and now they are taking people out to be trained.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: And were you informed that Mrs Ribeiro in particular, had gone for such training?

MR NAUDE: Yes, there were many women who went for such training.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: And this information came from Brigadier Cronje?

MR NAUDE: That is right, yes.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: You are aware that Brigadier Cronje has stated quite clearly before us that had he been aware that there was any intention of eliminating Mrs Ribeiro, he personally wouldn't have approved of that elimination?

MR NAUDE: That statement is definitely not - I can't agree with that, because there was never a separation of the two persons.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: That is quite strange, I just wanted to find out that, to be able to clear certain issues in my mind, because that last bit of evidence I cannot relate to. Your evidence and the one given by Brigadier Cronje in particular and to some extent, given by Captain Hechter, I cannot relate to what you are saying as opposed to what they have already stated to this Committee.

MR NAUDE: Mr Chairman, I can just say again that that was definitely given to me, both the people were always regarded as one target.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Were you ever told by Captain Hechter with whom you must have had several meetings, because he has already stated before this Committee that you came to him constantly for advice with regard to the planning of the elimination, were you ever told by him that he personally had made several attempts to eliminate Dr Ribeiro?

MR NAUDE: He never told me that.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Thank you Chairperson.

ADV DE JAGER: Was it ever told to you that videos had been displayed to young people by the Ribeiro's and by Mrs Ribeiro, in their garage?

MR NAUDE: I must say that I personally cannot remember that. I heard about the videos for the first time here, I had never heard about them before.

It may have been mentioned, and I may not have regarded it as important, but I can't remember.

ADV DE JAGER: But you did read that evidence was given by Loots and Hechter with regard to these videos?

MR NAUDE: That is correct, I did read that.

MR WESSELS: Mr Chairman, may I ask a question relating to the questions that Judge Khampepe asked?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes please do.

FURTHER EXAMINATION BY MR WESSELS: Mr Naude, would you have executed this operation if you only had information that the Ribeiro's were providing military treatment, medical treatment to MK cadres who had been injured and showed videos in their home?

MR NAUDE: Definitely not. I also don't think that the General would have given his permission for it, it would definitely not have happened.

MR WESSELS: Was it your task to do this operation or was there never any problem from the beginning?

MR NAUDE: Because this operation was very sensitive, I was reluctant to do so. It took me quite some time before we agreed to execute this operation. I spent much time deliberating before I answered yes.

MR WESSELS: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. You are excused.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

ON RESUMPTION:

MS LOCKHAT: The next applicant is Mr Robey.

MR WESSELS: Mr Chairman, Mr Robey's application appears on pages 1 - 6 of Bundle 4.

ADV DE JAGER: English or Afrikaans speaking?

MR ROBEY: English speaking.

N.J. ROBEY: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR WESSELS: Mr Robey, during 1986 you were working under the command of Commandant Naude at that time?

MR ROBEY: That is correct.

MR WESSELS: You have heard the evidence that he gave in regard to the Ribeiro incident, is that correct?

MR ROBEY: I heard that, yes.

MR WESSELS: And he mentioned that you were involved in this operation?

MR ROBEY: That is affirmative, yes.

MR WESSELS: Can you just tell the Commission to what extent you were involved and what you did?

MR ROBEY: Well, I was part of the planning and the execution of the operation.

MR WESSELS: Yes, to what extent? What exactly were your functions and what did you do?

MR ROBEY: Well, I had to pick up the operators, I had to brief them and then conduct the reconnaissance of the subject and the carrying out of the whole phase from the time that the operators went in to go and do the execution of the operation, until the time that they came back to me.

MR WESSELS: Yes. Now where did you pick them up?

MR ROBEY: At Special Forces HQ.

MR WESSELS: And what names were you given, under what names would they go under?

MR ROBEY: There was two chaps. The first one was John or Gao Pinta.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, can you spell those names for me please.

MR ROBEY: John Pinta or Gao, I wouldn't know the Portuguese spelling of Gao, but I knew him as John, Johnny.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and the surname was?

MR ROBEY: Pinta.

CHAIRPERSON: Pinta?

MR ROBEY: I would assume so Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And the other?

MR ROBEY: Louis da Silva.

MR WESSELS: Are these the names that they gave to you?

MR ROBEY: That is affirmative.

MR WESSELS: What name did you give them? Under what name did you go?

MR ROBEY: My name was Lionel Kirby.

MR WESSELS: Did you give them the name of Lionel Kirby?

MR ROBEY: Yes.

MR WESSELS: Why did you give them that name?

MR ROBEY: Because that was my operational name.

MR WESSELS: Did you operate under false names at that time?

MR ROBEY: That is affirmative, yes.

MR WESSELS: Do you know whether they were using their real names or whether they were using false names?

MR ROBEY: I assume that they were using their real names.

MR WESSELS: Very well, you picked them up and what did you then do with them?

MR ROBEY: From the pick up, I then took them to the rear of Special Forces HQ and I briefed them on the subject of the target, and explained exactly what was the procedure going to be for the next couple of days, however long this operation was going to take.

I then told them that we have identified two hotels where they can go and stay in, they must make a decision which one they want to go and stay in. I handed them over R2 000 and also my cell, not cell, my bleeper number.

MR WESSELS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: You gave each one of them R2 000 or ...

MR ROBEY: No, R2 000 between the two.

MR WESSELS: Yes?

MR ROBEY: I then took them and dropped them off at the Central Station here in Pretoria and I showed them the Victoria Hotel and down the road, the Manhattan Hotel.

I told them to book into one of the hotels and contact me on my bleeper and tell me which hotel they were staying in.

Thereafter I also said that they had to meet me the following morning, at eight o'clock, at the point where I dropped them off at the station.

CHAIRPERSON: Which hotel did they select?

MR ROBEY: They ended up staying at the Manhattan.

MR WESSELS: Yes?

MR ROBEY: The following morning, eight o'clock, I then picked them up. This was done in a blue Golf vehicle and I then showed them the route out to Mamelodi, along Church Street and to the turn off, which was there by the Silverton/Mamelodi Road, and then drove them to where the RV would be with me, once the operation was completed, which was just down the road.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Showed them what, the RV?

MR ROBEY: The rendezvous, sorry, the rendezvous.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Yes.

MR ROBEY: The rendezvous point.

MR WESSELS: Yes?

MR ROBEY: Thereafter the rendezvous point was known to them, and we rode the route backwards and forwards, six or more times, from the hotel to the rendezvous point that particular day.

CHAIRPERSON: May I just enquire, what language did they speak?

MR ROBEY: They spoke English with me, Mr Chairman, with an accent.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, carry on.

MR ROBEY: During, well prior, I omitted one thing, prior to that, on the morning of the second day, we had already propositioned a red Opel vehicle at the Palm Hotel which was going to be their vehicle, that there was done by Mr Vlietstra.

After this riding backwards and forwards the route, at late afternoon, I handed the vehicle to them and told them then to ride the route, back to town, back to the hotel.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes?

MR ROBEY: Which they did do, they drove it back, I was following them to make sure that there was no hiccups in the route, or the route that I had been driving with them the whole time.

MR WESSELS: Yes?

CHAIRPERSON: Who were you accompanied by?

MR ROBEY: Myself Mr Chairman.

MR WESSELS: So you were alone at that stage?

MR ROBEY: Affirmative.

MR WESSELS: Yes, and after that?

MR ROBEY: Well the morning of the third day, met them again at the station where we always met, rode the route and then from there, when we got to the meeting place, or the RV, they then proceeded to ride and get to know the Mamelodi, or the area that they were supposed to know, which was Dr Ribeiro's house and his surgery, familiarise themselves with the area there, which they did do.

That they did the whole day.

CHAIRPERSON: Dr Ribeiro's house and surgery, are they one complex?

MR ROBEY: No, they were two different complexes.

CHAIRPERSON: They were some distance apart, or were they close to each other?

MR ROBEY: They were some distance apart, yes, Mr Chairman.

ADV DE JAGER: But on the same erf or on different erfs?

MR ROBEY: No, different locations.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes?

MR WESSELS: Yes?

MR ROBEY: They then came back and they were quite happy with the area and the target areas, etc. Again I followed them back to the station area where they went back to the hotel.

I then got hold of Mr Naude and said that the chaps know the area, they have familiarised themselves with it, there is no hiccups to and fro, they know the route, etc, so everything is all right from our side.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes?

MR ROBEY: On the fourth day Mr Naude phoned me to say that it's - carry on with the operation. It was roundabout half past eleven in the morning, but we must wait until in the afternoon, from four o'clock onwards, because that is when Dr Ribeiro and his wife, would return home after hours, after work.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes?

MR ROBEY: From there I went and got the pistols that were to be used in the operation, two Colt 45's with silencers. I put them in a duffelbag with towels, etc over it.

I picked up Mr Vlietstra in my vehicle, which was a Landrover and then went to the Schoeman Street parking garage where I used to park the blue Golf the whole time, after every day's work, I used to go and park the blue Golf and go home in my own vehicle.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes?

MR ROBEY: We got there at about - I first phoned the chaps to meet me at the station. That I made arrangements for at half past three. I went and parked the car a distance away from the station because Mr Vlietstra was in the vehicle with me. I then walked up to the station area with the duffelbag with the weapons inside, handed it over to them and said that the operation, obviously, is on the go. They must carry on the route that we have chosen and watched them take off.

When I saw them disappear around the corner, I went back to my Landrover with Mr Vlietstra, and drove down to Schoeman Street, the parking garage where I parked my vehicle and at this time, it must have been quarter past four, I parked the Landrover and went to the Golf and unfortunately the Golf wouldn't start. After trying for 10, 15 minutes, I knew I was running out of time, so I got into the Landrover and proceeded to the Palm Hotel where the meeting place was with Mr Naude and the Security Police.

When I got there, I told them the problem with reference to the Golf, it wouldn't start, etc. It was critical ... (tape ends) ... cancelling, aborting the operation, so I was told to carry on with the Landrover to the RV point, which I did do.

I waited at the RV point or the meeting place until such time that the chaps had finished the operation, and came back. Later on, I can't exactly remember timings, their vehicle pulled in front of mine, which was the Landrover, so I kept on standing outside, knowing that these chaps wouldn't recognise the vehicle. They pulled in ahead of us and they got out of the vehicle, left the weapons, etc in their vehicle, they jumped into the Landrover. Mr Vlietstra climbed into the red vehicle, the Kadet or Opel vehicle and he drove off and I continued driving off, back into town, the route that we had always driven.

Except when we got into town, I drove around a bit, making sure that no one had followed us, etc. I dropped them off at the station, telling them that they must pay their hotel bills and be ready for a pick up from me in the morning, the following day, at five o'clock, so that I could drop them off, back at Special Forces HQ and their return to Ndangwa.

CHAIRPERSON: What time was it when they had returned from completing the operation?

MR ROBEY: Mr Chairman, it must have been quarter past six, six o'clock to quarter past six, somewhere around there.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, do carry on.

MR WESSELS: Did you then pick them up the following morning at five o'clock?

MR ROBEY: That is affirmative, I picked them up the next morning at five o'clock and drove them through to Special Forces HQ, dropped them off and I then proceeded back to the office.

MR WESSELS: Did you ever see them again or hear of them again?

MR ROBEY: No, never.

MR WESSELS: Did they report to you what had happened at the scene?

MR ROBEY: They said they had a bit of difficulty when the incident took place, when the shooting started. A lot of people tried to surround them, they then, when they were running back to the vehicle, they fired a couple of shots in the air because there was a group of people trying to surround them.

When they did that, everyone like got out of the way, they got in their vehicle and skedaddle out of there quite fast.

MR WESSELS: I have no further questions, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, cross-examination? Mr Powe?

MR VISSER: Visser, Mr Chairman, none by myself, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, I see, right.

FURTHER EXAMINATION BY MR WESSELS: Mr Chairman, may I be permitted one question which I should really have put to Commandant Naude and perhaps Mr Robey, you are not in a position to answer that, is there a specific reason why two operators were used instead of one?

MR ROBEY: Well, in Special Forces you do have small teams operating, and as they have in bush warfare, whatever warfare, you've always got to have a backup. Two is the minimum, one person going in alone, is total madness. Somebody could have come out, shot him, or kill a person, at least you've got a backup.

MR WESSELS: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes?

MR DU PLESSIS: I have no questions, Mr Chairman.

MR GROBLER: I have no questions, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: On behalf of the family?

MR POWE: The Evidence Leader has indicated she will go first, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: I am suggesting that you carry on first. The Evidence Leader is not as vitally concerned as you are about this matter.

MR POWE: Thank you Chairperson. I have no questions.

CHAIRPERSON: That is very neat footwork.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS LOCKHAT: Mr Robey, how come you knew the area so well? How come you knew the Mamelodi, and Ribeiro's house so well?

MR ROBEY: Well, prior to this whole operation going off, I went with Mr Naude to Brigadier Cronje's office, we received a folder. I then studied the folder and in that folder, was an aerial map of the area, a photograph of Mr and Mrs Ribeiro. There was a street plan, map and a foolscap page which was about three quarters written of a brief history of them, and their routine.

After studying the map and working on the ground with the map, and the aerial photograph, you get to know the area.

MS LOCKHAT: Okay. I believe you had a conversation ...

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: May I interpose Ms Lockhat before you proceed on this aspect of his evidence. You only knew the area from you studying the aerial photographs and what was contained in the file?

MR ROBEY: That is affirmative, yes.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: You were never taken there by Captain Hechter at any stage?

MR ROBEY: Never taken there. The only way that I did get to know that area, was by actually driving that route.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Yes. And had Mr Naude been taken to the Ribeiro's house by Mr Hechter to your knowledge?

MR ROBEY: No, not to my knowledge, not at all.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: As far as you are aware, he was also not familiar with where the Ribeiro's were staying?

MR ROBEY: Are you talking about Mr Naude?

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Yes?

MR ROBEY: I don't think that Mr Naude would have known that area, because we never worked there before.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: So you wouldn't agree with any evidence which suggested that you were taken either, either you or Mr Naude were taken to the Ribeiro's house by Mr Hechter?

MR ROBEY: Well, I was never taken there, never.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Do carry on.

MS LOCKHAT: When the operatives arrived, did you introduce them to Naude?

MR ROBEY: Negative Mr Chairman.

MS LOCKHAT: You said you contacted Naude and said that, he said that you should wait until four o'clock to actually start the operation, because the Ribeiro's would come home later, at that time. How come he knew that specific detail?

MR ROBEY: Well, obviously work in any instance, finishes at five o'clock, and also as I said earlier on, in that file that we got, was a routine prior to us even knowing the routine that we watched.

MS LOCKHAT: Was Mr Naude informed of this routine, did he receive that specific aspects relating to the file, regarding that?

MR ROBEY: No, because it didn't apply to him, the routine was monitored by us and their ways, they knew it.

MS LOCKHAT: So you are basically saying that it is just common knowledge that he knew that they would return from work after four o'clock?

MR ROBEY: He didn't say specifically four o'clock, he mentioned the fact after four o'clock, the operation must continue.

MS LOCKHAT: Tell me, were your instructions - what were your instructions, was it to kill Dr Ribeiro or both parties?

MR ROBEY: Both parties were to be killed.

MS LOCKHAT: Who gave you this instruction?

MR ROBEY: My instructions came from Mr Naude.

MS LOCKHAT: Tell me, was that the only weapons you had given them?

MR ROBEY: That is affirmative Mr Chairman.

MS LOCKHAT: And the two operatives, just confirm, that is not their false names, but that is actually their real names, their official names?

MR ROBEY: I would not know, I wouldn't question them on that. I introduced myself as Lionel Kirby and they introduced themselves.

MS LOCKHAT: Did you work with them previously?

MR ROBEY: Never. Never seen them before and never worked with them before.

MS LOCKHAT: Just seemed a bit familiar when you said you always referred to the one as Johnny and it just seemed like a familiar ...

MR ROBEY: No, it was Gao, the word Gao. It was not a familiar word or a name, around here, so I referred to him as John, Johnny.

MS LOCKHAT: No further questions, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Mr Robey, you were given a file by your immediate Commander, Mr Naude, to study in preparation of the execution of the elimination of the Ribeiro's?

MR ROBEY: We went to Brigadier Cronje's office with Mr Hechter also being there, we came out with a file. Mr Naude had a brief look at it, and then handed it over to me, which I then in depth studied.

It was not a file as such, it was a folder.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Yes. Can you recall what was contained in that file?

MR ROBEY: In the folder was an aerial map of Mamelodi, a road, street plan map of Mamelodi, the position of their house and also of the surgery and then also as I said, a foolscap page which was about three quarters written of their routine and a brief outline of what their activities were.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: And what was the brief outline of their activities?

MR ROBEY: That they had helped the ANC cadres to and fro, to and from Swaziland, that they helped them monetary wise, that they had helped them with medical wise.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Was there no mention of the fact that they had conducted training themselves?

MR ROBEY: I can't recall that, no Mr Chairman.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: You were not Mr Naude, had a careful study of that folder, is it not so?

MR ROBEY: I beg your pardon Mr Chairman?

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: You were instructed by Mr Naude to make a careful study of the folder?

MR ROBEY: Yes, I was told.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: And it was very important for you to ascertain the activities the Ribeiro's were engaged in, is it not so?

MR ROBEY: That is so, yes.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Would you not remember whether they were involved in the training of activists if you had made such a careful study?

MR ROBEY: Well, as I said the folder or this summary was a very, very brief summary. Who had written it, where it came from, I did not know, and in that was the fact that they were taking people to and from Swaziland for training, bringing back trained people, personnel, that they were giving medical aid to wounded people there in Mamelodi, that they were giving them monetary support, etc.

Reference that and the video story, I can't remember reading that.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Yes. From the time that you were instructed by Mr Naude to study the file, and the time that you picked up the two operatives from Namibia, how long would you estimate that took you in terms of days, in terms of weeks?

MR ROBEY: It was days, it wasn't weeks, no, not at all.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Yes, how long would you say?

MR ROBEY: Five, six days Mr Chairman.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: When the operatives gave you a report after executing the operation, what details did they give you? You have not in your evidence in chief given us sufficient details to enable us to be in the picture of what they told you had happened with regard to how the shooting was carried out, where the Ribeiro's were shot, how many times they were shot? Would you please give us those details?

MR ROBEY: As I said, they monitored the house, they went to the house and knocked on the door. They gained entrance and when they saw these chaps apparently pull their pistols, then they started screaming.

They then fired, how many shots were fired, I do not know, because as I said when they came back, and the vehicles were, they had changed vehicles and Mr Vlietstra took the vehicle, with their weapons in it, that was the last time I saw that vehicle and the weapons. I couldn't check how many shots had been fired, but they did shoot quite a number of shots and as I said, on their escape out, a lot of people tried to corner them, and they did shoot a couple of more shots in the air to make an escape.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: How are you able to know that quite a number of shots were fired if this information was not ...

MR ROBEY: That is what they told me, that is what they told me Mr Chairman.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: They did not indicate the number?

MR ROBEY: The number, the exact number, no they did not.

MR ROBEY: They just said quite a number of shots?

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Did they indicate whether they were sure at the time of their departure, if the Ribeiro's had died?

MR ROBEY: Well, they did mention that they saw them falling down and the fact that they were down, and with all the noise and that going on, they just got out as soon as possible. But with the weapons that they were using, 45, it is quite a high impact weapon.

I wouldn't say many shots would need to kill a person.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Yes, did they give an indication on which part of their bodies they were shot?

MR ROBEY: Chest area.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Is that what they told you?

MR ROBEY: Basically yes.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Are you in a position to recall whether you were present in a meeting wherein Brigadier Cronje approved of the elimination of Dr Ribeiro and Mrs Ribeiro?

MR ROBEY: No, Mr Chairman, I was never in such a meeting. The only meeting, or not meeting, the only time that I ever saw Brigadier Cronje was that day when I went up there with Mr Naude to go and get this folder.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Yes. And do you know what discussion went on at that meeting?

MR ROBEY: No, I do not know Mr Chairman.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Only a folder was given to you and Mr Naude, no discussion took place?

MR ROBEY: Not at that time, no.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: And definitely not with regard to the targeting or the elimination of the Ribeiro's?

MR ROBEY: No, not at that time.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Thank you.

MR WESSELS: Mr Chairman, may I ask a question with regard to the questions Judge Khampepe asked?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR WESSELS: Mr Robey, when you got the folder, were you required to check on the activist activities of the Ribeiro's, or were you only required to check on their movements?

MR ROBEY: Just the movement Mr Chairman.

MR WESSELS: And was that to be able to plan the operation?

MR ROBEY: That is affirmative.

MR WESSELS: Thank you Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, Visser on record, I am afraid there is an aspect which I neglected to put to the witness, may I ask your permission to deal with it?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, please do Mr Visser.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Mr Robey, were you ever accosted by the Police after this incident, arrested, charged or whatever?

MR ROBEY: Yes, I was.

MR VISSER: Can you just give us some information as to what happened?

MR ROBEY: I do not know the Officers that arrested me, but we went to the Mamelodi police station, where I was formally arrested and I had to put in a statement, which of course I did do, which was totally false.

MR VISSER: Yes. Yes, I assumed so. But was the arrest for murder or for what?

MR ROBEY: It was for the murder of Dr and Mrs Ribeiro .

MR VISSER: Were you ever told or did you ever discover how the Police came to realise that you might be involved?

MR ROBEY: Yes it was, it was due to the incident with the vehicles that I was talking about earlier on. As I said unfortunately I had to use my Landrover, and that was picked up and they then came around to my place.

MR VISSER: I was given to understand from the evidence of Brigadier Cronje, that the number plate, the registration number of the Landrover was traced back to Special Forces or the Defence Force?

MR ROBEY: No, back to me.

MR VISSER: Back to you personally?

MR ROBEY: Yes, because it was, yes, it was in my name.

MR VISSER: It was in your name and that is how they got to you?

MR ROBEY: The number plate was KYK4990.

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman. I am sorry Mr Chairman, I am sorry, what happened after your arrest? Was there any hearing held?

MR ROBEY: Yes, there was a court case.

MR VISSER: Was it an inquest or was it a criminal case against you?

MR ROBEY: I am sure it was an inquest.

MR VISSER: Yes. And you were absolved from all liability?

MR ROBEY: That is affirmative.

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I am in a similar position, may I put just one question to the witness please?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Robey, do you have any idea who compiled the folder that you were given?

MR ROBEY: Negative, not at all.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, you are excused, thank you very much.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

ON RESUMPTION:

MS LOCKHAT: We call on Mr Vlietstra.

MR WESSELS: Mr Chairman, the application of Mr Vlietstra, appears on page 185 of the Bundle.

ADV DE JAGER: That is Bundle 4?

MR WESSELS: Bundle 4, correct.

ADV DE JAGER: Afrikaans or English speaking?

MR VLIETSTRA: Afrikaans.

C. VLIETSTRA: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR WESSELS: Mr Vlietstra, is it correct that during 1986 you were a member of Special Forces?

MR VLIETSTRA: That is correct.

MR WESSELS: And you worked under Commandant Naude?

MR VLIETSTRA: That is correct.

MR WESSELS: Is it correct that you received instructions from Commandant Naude to assist in the operation where the Ribeiro's would be eliminated?

MR VLIETSTRA: That is correct Chairperson.

MR WESSELS: You have heard the evidence of Mr Robey?

MR VLIETSTRA: I did.

MR WESSELS: And you drove with him on the day of the incident and when the operatives returned from Mamelodi, they stopped and climbed into the Landrover and you drove away the vehicle that they were driving?

MR VLIETSTRA: That is correct Chairperson.

MR WESSELS: What did you do with this vehicle?

MR VLIETSTRA: I drove it to the Unit's office and parked it there.

MR WESSELS: Do you know what happened to this vehicle?

MR VLIETSTRA: I have no idea.

MR WESSELS: Did you see any weapons in the vehicle?

MR VLIETSTRA: Yes, the weapons were next to me in the vehicle. When I locked the vehicle, I gave the keys to Mr Naude and I departed.

MR WESSELS: Were you involved in any further way in this incident.

MR VLIETSTRA: Not at all.

MR WESSELS: I have no more questions, thank you Mr Chairperson.

MR VISSER: No questions from Visser, Mr Chairman.

MR GROBLER: No questions, thank you Mr Chairman.

MR WAGENER: No questions, Mr Chairman.

MR DU PLESSIS: I also have no questions, Mr Chairman.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS LOCKHAT: You said you received the instructions from Mr Naude, is that correct?

MR VLIETSTRA: That is correct.

MS LOCKHAT: What did he tell you, what did he inform you?

MR VLIETSTRA: He informed me - may I speak Afrikaans - he gave me instructions to assist Mr Robey with the moving of the vehicles. This was my only purpose in this operation.

MS LOCKHAT: Did you know who was going to be eliminated?

MR VLIETSTRA: I was told, yes.

MS LOCKHAT: Who told you this?

MR VLIETSTRA: Mr Naude.

MS LOCKHAT: So what exactly did he tell you?

MR VLIETSTRA: He said there was going to be an attack on Dr and Mrs Ribeiro.

MS LOCKHAT: Did he tell you why?

MR VLIETSTRA: He did not tell me in detail, but I was aware that they were part of the terrorist struggle.

MS LOCKHAT: Did you receive the file, did you have a look at the file as well?

MR VLIETSTRA: Not at all.

MS LOCKHAT: So your instructions were just to assist in driving the vehicles?

MR VLIETSTRA: That is correct.

MS LOCKHAT: Did you meet the operatives as well?

MR VLIETSTRA: No, except for the fact when we exchanged vehicles, when I jumped out of the vehicle, they ran passed me. I saw them for about ten seconds, maybe less, and I never saw them again. I don't think I would be able to recognise them if I saw them again today.

MS LOCKHAT: You said there were weapons in the car. What type of weapons were there?

MR VLIETSTRA: It was 45 Colts with long silencers.

MS LOCKHAT: Thank you Chairperson, no further questions.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR POWE: Chairperson, you skipped me over, I didn't mean to forever forego my privilege, if I may call it that, of putting questions. I've got two questions.

Mr Vlietstra, you are welcome to answer me in Afrikaans.

MR VLIETSTRA: Thank you.

MR POWE: In your application on page 196 and paragraph 10(a) thereof, you set out why you became involved in this operation and you say amongst others, Dr and Mrs Ribeiro, I was told that Dr and Mrs Ribeiro were responsible for the destabilisation of Mamelodi and that it was necessary for them to be eliminated.

Now you have just said in reply to the Evidence Leader that Mr Naude did not tell you why the Ribeiro's were to be eliminated. If that is so, if I understood you correctly, who told you as is set out in your application at page 196?

MR VLIETSTRA: Mr Chairperson, if I can remind you, I had said that Mr Naude told me that they were involved in the terrorist struggle.

MR POWE: Was that Mr Naude who told you that, then I misunderstood your answer and I apologise.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: You did Mr Powe.

MR POWE: On page 197 of your application, paragraph 11(a) you say I understood that Naude was under the command of Brigadier Jack Cronje of the Security Police with regard to the relevant operation.

Now where did you get this understanding from?

MR VLIETSTRA: I was aware and since I worked with Mr Naude, that we had to work closely with the SAP during that time. We might have expressed ourselves incorrectly by saying that we were under the command of Cronje, I understand now that it was in support, but I might have used the term under his command incorrectly.

MR POWE: So Mr Naude was not under the command of Brigadier Cronje you say, but rather supporting him, that is what you now say?

MR VLIETSTRA: That is correct Chairperson.

MR POWE: No further questions, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Any re-examination?

MR WESSELS: No questions, thank you Mr Chairman.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: I have no questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, thank you, you are excused.

WITNESS EXCUSED

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

ON RESUMPTION:

MS LOCKHAT: We call on Gen Joubert.

MR GROBLER: Mr Chairman, you will find Gen Joubert's applications, both of them, in Volume 4, page 7 - 16 and then pages 16.1 - 16.28.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

ABRAHAM JOHANNES MOUTON JOUBERT: (still under oath)

CHAIRPERSON: Please proceed.

EXAMINATION BY MR GROBLER: General, you will recall that the previous time, we dealt with what was identified as the Joubert plan, this was the plan which in terms of where Commandant Naude and Colonel Verster, were deployed to different Units, do you recall that?

MR JOUBERT: I do Chairperson.

MR GROBLER: You will also recall that you said that there was a meeting where you were present, Brigadier Cronje and Gen Moller were there as well, where targets were identified and that the Ribeiro's, Piet Ntuli and persons who wished to leave the country for instant training, were identified as targets, do you recall that?

MR JOUBERT: I do recall that Chairperson.

MR GROBLER: General, just to pick up the thread from here, at a stage when you deployed Charl Naude to the Northern Transvaal Commandment, did Charl have any information as to who and what had to be identified as targets?

MR JOUBERT: I don't believe that he knew at that stage. Let me say it in the following manner Chairperson, during that meeting with Gen Moller and with Brigadier Cronje and myself, of the Security Police, I cannot recall if anybody else was present, I am not entirely certain, I was told that Dr and Mrs Ribeiro were providing active assistance to the ANC activists by transferring activists between Mamelodi, Botswana and Swaziland, that they themselves were training activists, that they were providing financial assistance to activists and fighters and that they were causing situations of unrest in Mamelodi.

MR GROBLER: From who did you get that information, can you recall?

MR JOUBERT: This information was discussed during the meeting between me and Gen Moller and Brigadier Cronje.

CHAIRPERSON: You were not asked whether it was discussed, you were asked who told you about this.

MR JOUBERT: The people that told me, were Gen Moller and Brigadier Cronje from the Security Police.

MR GROBLER: At this stage, Mr Chairperson, if it is convenient for you, we are at paragraph 4.4.2, on the basis of what was told to you, did you formulate a perspective regarding what the role of the Ribeiro's was in the struggle?

MR JOUBERT: The perspective that I had was that which I obtained and that was that they were ANC activists, that they themselves trained activists, that they provided financial assistance to the activists and fighters and that incidents of unrest in Mamelodi were caused by them.

MR GROBLER: So if I were to ask you the question today, what purpose would it have served if they had been eliminated, you can refer to your statement. I am asking you to refresh your memory from paragraph 4.4.2.

MR JOUBERT: My perception of their role was that they played a very formidable role in the struggle and that it would it have largely disrupted the ANC should they be eliminated. According to what I was told, they and one Ntuli were largely responsible for the unrest and chaos which ruled in Mamelodi.

MR GROBLER: General, we will return to Ntuli at a later occasion, but I would also like to ask you, since then you have received more information and would it be correct to say that Ntuli was not associated or was not to be associated with Mamelodi but rather with KwaNdebele?

MR JOUBERT: That is correct.

MR GROBLER: Then I would like to ask you if you will continue with your affidavit on paragraph 4.4.4. There the statement is made that during that meeting, it was already decided that the Ribeiro's and we may include Ntuli in this, would be eliminated, is that correct, do you confirm this?

MR JOUBERT: That is correct.

MR GROBLER: Can we just achieve more clarity regarding that. When we speak about the Ribeiro's that were to be eliminated, would that have been only Dr Ribeiro or would that have included his wife as well?

MR JOUBERT: At no stage was it stated that only Dr Ribeiro would be eliminated, his wife was always included.

MR GROBLER: Then there is an aspect of your affidavit which deals with Ntuli and then in paragraph 4.4.8 you return to the Ribeiro's.

MR JOUBERT: That is correct Chairperson.

MR GROBLER: Then from paragraph 4.4.8 can you pick up the thread once again and inform the Committee how the matter took further course regarding yourself?

MR JOUBERT: Eventually Commandant Charl Naude submitted the plan according to which the Ribeiro's would be eliminated. He submitted this to me.

ADV DE JAGER: I beg your pardon for interrupting, but how did Charl Naude come to hear about anything? Who informed him about what was going on? We have just read that he informed you. Did somebody tell him anything, how did he fit into the picture?

MR JOUBERT: Chairperson, according to the plan which I had devised, Charl Naude was deployed to the Northern Transvaal area in support of the Security Police and during that appointment, I would definitely have informed him that a target which had already been identified, would be the Ribeiro's.

Further information which he obtained, he may have obtained from Brigadier Cronje and the others. That is where he would have obtained it.

ADV DE JAGER: Thank you.

MR GROBLER: Now General, would it be correct to say that if Charl Naude had received the information that the Ribeiro's had been identified as targets, the practical execution of the order, would have been his baby? He would have to devise a detailed plan which would explain how he would go about this, how he would execute it and ultimately, he would have to report back to you with regard to the results?

MR JOUBERT: The plan which he would devise, or would have devised, would have to be discussed with either Hechter or Brigadier Cronje at some stage.

After that, he would briefly inform me regarding what the plan was about. If I had not been satisfied, I would have told him, I don't agree, change this and that and that and if I had been satisfied, then he would have continued and further executed the plan.

However, I put it as a very clear requisite, with every operation to him, that the operation be approved by the Police and I would ask whether or not he was working with the support or for the support of the Police and every time, this was confirmed Mr Chairperson.

MR GROBLER: Then General, we can move over to the following page, paragraph 4.4.9 of your affidavit.

Did Commandant Naude then approach you at a certain stage and informed you that they were now going ahead with the elimination of the Ribeiro's, and did he provide you with a basic plan?

MR JOUBERT: That is correct. He informed me that they were in a state of readiness and that when the time was appropriate, they would go ahead with the operation.

MR GROBLER: And did you give him permission to go ahead with the operation?

MR JOUBERT: I gave him permission, however, once again, upon the precondition that it enjoy the approval of the Police and that this be in support of the Police.

On those grounds, I then granted him permission.

MR GROBLER: Very well. Now General, did you later receive feedback that the operation had indeed been executed?

MR JOUBERT: I did receive feedback that the operation had been executed, and it was told to me that the operation had been successful.

MR GROBLER: Other than granting permission, you yourself were not physically involved in the execution thereof?

MR JOUBERT: No, under no circumstances.

The reason for that being simple, I had much other work to do.

MR GROBLER: General, this is perhaps a question which others may also have asked, but if one thinks of persons like Charl Naude and Mr Robey and Mr Vlietstra as well as the others that have testified before them, would you say that that which they did was within the ambit of what your order to them was?

MR JOUBERT: Definitely.

MR GROBLER: From there on General, you have included pieces of information regarding how exactly and what exactly happened at the Ribeiro's, is that correct?

MR JOUBERT: Yes, that is correct.

MR GROBLER: Would it be correct to say that today would be the first day that you have heard a full version of what happened?

MR JOUBERT: Yes. Since Charl Naude began his evidence, until after Mr Vlietstra, was when I first heard the precise detail of exactly what took place.

MR GROBLER: Mr Chairman, as far as Gen Joubert's evidence is concerned, regarding the actual incident, that concludes it. There are some facts coming after the event, which are important and relevant to the whole application.

I would like at this stage, some direction from you as to whether I should now deal with those facts which are really part of the aftermath, or whether I should limit his evidence in chief, simply to his involvement in the operation itself.

CHAIRPERSON: Give me some idea as to what they deal with.

MR GROBLER: Mr Chairman, now after this, you will hear evidence about a meeting which took place with Gen Geldenhuys, what took place there, you will hear evidence about the existence of a certain Minute, but all of that came some time afterwards. Oh yes, you will also hear evidence about a discussion between Gen Joubert and Gen Coetzee of the Police.

As far as the direct members of the family and the direct victims are concerned, perhaps they are not all that interested in that part and you have indicated from time to time, that we should deal with the matters which concern those people first of all.

I am therefore in your hand Mr Chairman. If you wish me to complete all of this, I will do so, but otherwise, I don't want to overstep the bounds.

CHAIRPERSON: No, it is only necessary to the extent that it impinges on whether he gets amnesty or not, for this particular, for his part in this particular operation.

MR GROBLER: Mr Chairman, it certainly is relevant to the question which you ultimately have to answer, whether or not there should be amnesty.

CHAIRPERSON: For this particular operation?

MR GROBLER: Even for this operation Mr Chairman, it goes to all three operations. But it is a set of facts which can conveniently be dealt with separately, I will submit to you.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Grobler, is there not an aspect of that evidence to which you are referring, which specifically has to do with the Ribeiro's conduct? There was evidence during the Cronje matter, when it emerged about Robey's registration number on the vehicle, there were discussions among the Generals or the Brigadiers, regarding how this matter of the leakage of Robey's vehicle number, should be dealt with, and perhaps this is only relevant for this matter and not for the others.

Will there be evidence to that effect?

MR GROBLER: It is exactly that aspect of the evidence which I had in mind. I did not regard it as relevant only for the Ribeiro matter.

If it is your decision that I should handle that now, I will do so with the greatest of pleasure. However, I do not wish to overstep the boundaries of what we have decided it would be.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Mr Grobler, I think it does impinge on the incident that we are dealing with, then it will be convenient for you to deal with that aspect of his evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Strictly in so far as it is relevant.

MR GROBLER: I will endeavour to restrict it to relevance. General, can we continue then somewhat.

CHAIRPERSON: I think that we may adjourn now, it is one o'clock and we will resume at a quarter to two in the hope ...

ON RESUMPTION:

ABRAHAM JOHANNES MOUTON JOUBERT: (still under oath)

EXAMINATION BY MR GROBLER: (continued) Thank you Chairperson. General, would you please have a look at your application, paragraph 4.4.13.

MR JOUBERT: I have that.

MR GROBLER: From paragraph 4.4.13, you discuss once again the course of the Ribeiro incident and would you please proceed with that?

MR JOUBERT: From Intelligence reports which I received after the death of the Ribeiro's, it appeared that their death did indeed disrupt the ANC in Mamelodi. In fact after their death, Mamelodi destabilised or indeed, it stabilised and law and order could once again be maintained.

At a stage while the planning of a nation wide operation in co-operation with the SAP was under way in Wachthuis, it was a very big operation, Gen Coetzee of the SAP called me aside and asked why the South African Defence Force did not state that they were going to take out the Ribeiro's.

MR GROBLER: Might I just pause there for a moment General. Was this the first time that you and Gen Coetzee met or did you know each other already?

MR JOUBERT: I beg your pardon, no, we had met at previous occasions.

MR GROBLER: Now, I would like to ask you this, when you initially submitted the initial plan to Geldenhuys, you recall the function at which he told you that it sounded good, what did you think would Gen Geldenhuys do about that plan which you had submitted to him? Would he have discussed it with anybody?

MR JOUBERT: Well, I was under the impression that the idea for such a plan at that stage, would be discussed by the Head of the Army and the Head of the Police. And Gen Coetzee also knew about the matter.

MR GROBLER: However, you never received any feedback from Gen Geldenhuys that he had discussed this with the Police?

MR JOUBERT: No, I did not receive any feedback.

MR GROBLER: Then Gen Coetzee comes to you and says might I just ask you this, was he the Commissioner of Police at that stage?

MR JOUBERT: He was the Commissioner of Police, yes.

MR GROBLER: And he asked you this question, why didn't you tell me you were going to take out the Ribeiro's, and then you can continue.

MR JOUBERT: The question surprised me seeing as Brigadier Cronje was present when the Ribeiro's were identified as targets.

And Commandant Naude assured me that the operation was approved by the SAP. I also assumed that the approval would have taken place at the highest level in the SAP and that Gen Coetzee would have been aware of it. In retrospect I realise that the question was also posed as if he was under the impression that the murder of the Ribeiro's, was executed at the request of the South African Defence Force.

MR GROBLER: I am going to interrupt you once more, General. You alluded to the fact that Cronje was present when the Ribeiro's were identified as targets.

Did you think that Cronje and Coetzee would have had any liaison regarding that plan?

MR JOUBERT: I cannot confirm that. I cannot confirm that, but I believe as it functioned in all departments, that there would be chains of command and that there would be communication and it would have been very strange to me if he had not been informed.

MR GROBLER: So you had the expectation that Brigadier Cronje would have informed Gen Coetzee?

MR JOUBERT: I was under that impression.

MR GROBLER: Then you may proceed to paragraph 4.4.15 of your affidavit.

MR JOUBERT: I asked Gen Coetzee whether his people had not informed him. I also stated that I thought that Brigadier Jack Cronje had informed him or one of his seniors then, and mentioned that Captain Hechter was also part of the plan and that I had previously requested whether the plan had been approved by the SAP.

This morning we have it on record, that Captain Hechter indeed was part of the execution of the plan.

MR GROBLER: Very well.

MR JOUBERT: Gen Coetzee said after that that we should not be concerned, and that I should leave it to him.

MR GROBLER: General, I would just like to pause there once again. Although it does not appear in this application, he also said something else to you regarding an investigation?

MR JOUBERT: Yes. He said that he would lodge a formal enquiry into the Ribeiro incident.

MR GROBLER: General, the impression which you then received, was that this was news to Gen Coetzee or rather that he hadn't known about the Ribeiro plan beforehand?

MR JOUBERT: Chairperson, he definitely did not know about the plan beforehand.

MR GROBLER: And now he tells you that he is going to lodge an enquiry. What did you do? You may go to paragraph 4.4.17.

MR JOUBERT: That very same evening, I told Gen Gleeson who was acting as HSAW, and told him that Gen Coetzee had said that we should not be concerned.

Gen Gleeson must have taken it up with Gen Geldenhuys, although not at the same function, seeing as Gen Geldenhuys called a special meeting after that, wherein he once again set down the procedures for this sort of operation, with just one difference, he now demanded that every operation of this nature, be cleared with him first.

MR GROBLER: Then I would like to go to the special meeting with Gen Geldenhuys. Chairperson, if I might ask you to consult Bundle 2(I), the document marked M on pages 164 - 165.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we have it.

MR GROBLER: General, you have a copy of an extract of the minutes, because that is all that we had when we were preparing.

I would like for you to consult your copy of it - on page 164 Chairperson. General, this document, I have referred to it as a minute because it has been written in the form of minutes.

It is dated the 28th of April 1987 with the heading, Submission CCB to Chief of the South African Defence Force and Chief of South African Defence Force Commentary, is that correct? Do you see the heading?

MR JOUBERT: Yes, I do.

MR GROBLER: Chairperson, I think that we should just clear this up. This presentation which the CCB did to HSADF at that stage was Gen Geldenhuys.

MR GROBLER: Who was CCB?

MR JOUBERT: That was the Civil Co-operation Bureau.

MR GROBLER: Represented by who?

MR JOUBERT: We were a very small group of people, because this sort of thing, was very sensitive and one did not want to make too much of it.

MR GROBLER: My question is the following, were you involved in this presentation?

MR JOUBERT: Chairperson, it happened like this. Once a year I took the Head of the South African Defence Force to a special place, where I informed him about the activities and the planning around operations of the CCB.

Indeed, this cannot really be branded as a minute, it is more a confirmation of notes which were made during that meeting. As I have told you, it was a planning session as well as an information session which we had with the HSADF in order to keep him informed on a continual basis.

It did not mean that things were only discussed with him, when planning was under way, about operations in general. When a specific operation was to be undertaken, then I and I am speaking of external operations, I would have to obtain authorisation from him to go ahead with the operation, but this was only of application to external operations.

MR GROBLER: Now if one studies this document, and I am going to ask you to peruse this document, I am going to show you the following page which you allegedly have not yet seen because we have not had it yet, but this document if I have it correctly, is a document which was prepared by Corrie Meerholtz?

MR JOUBERT: Yes, that is correct.

MR GROBLER: Was it practice that documents were kept regarding these sessions which you held with the HSADF, regarding Special Forces activities?

In other words, was there always documentation regarding this or was this an exception?

MR JOUBERT: Chairperson, this specific document was used at various occasions, it was used in the Eastern Cape, they used it with the kwaMakutha hearing, so it was not an unknown document to those who participated in this sort of thing.

However, I was extremely surprised when I saw this document because the arrangement was that nothing should be recorded regarding these meetings.

MR GROBLER: General, this elimination or this murder of the Ribeiro's, was it discussed during these negotiations between you and the HSADF?

MR JOUBERT: No, not at all.

MR GROBLER: You will see that there is a paragraph 7 about methods to be applied. Can you please look at paragraph 7, I will read it out loud.

HSADF regards the actions not as murder and defines it as follows: An assault on an individual, enemy target with non-standard issue weapons on an unconventional manner in order not to reach innocents. There has been much debate about the meaning of that paragraph.

How do you see it, what did that paragraph mean?

MR JOUBERT: Chairperson, there has been much discussion about elimination and people who applied unconventional methods and whether it is murder or not, when a man is eliminated, you remove him permanently from society by murdering him, and everything that goes along with that.

I think that Gen Geldenhuys wanted to place perspective on the issue that it should not be seen as murder, but rather as people with unconventional weapons, people who are removed with unconventional weapons.

MR GROBLER: Then can we make the statement, or would it be correct to say that the general principle thereof ...

MR COETZEE: If I may interpose at this stage, I don't know what the relevance of this document is. During the Forces Hearing, Gen Joubert denied the contents of this document, denied that it is an authentic document, now his evidence is being led on a document that he denies. I do have a bit of a problem with that, specifically in light of the same witness' evidence in the Forces Hearing.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, perhaps it can be cleared up. What is the relevance of this document if he says, if he denies its existence?

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I didn't understand Gen Joubert ever to deny the existence of this document. Please, perhaps my learned friend can point me to the record where Gen Joubert denied the existence of this document.

CHAIRPERSON: All right, let's just talk about its relevance then. What is the relevance of this document?

MR GROBLER: I was leading to that Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Please carry on.

MR COETZEE: My objection is not on the basis that he denies the existence of a document, he denies the contents of the document and the contents of the document, is a true reflection of the meeting. In other words, he says that this does not reflect what transpired at the meeting, and he cannot confirm the contents on previous occasions, that that is what transpired at the meeting. I don't know what the relevance of this document is also to the Ribeiro incident. That is my objection, if you want me to refer to the witness' evidence, the applicant's evidence, I can quickly get it and show it to you during the Forces Hearing, where he testified in this regard.

ADV DE JAGER: If you cannot see the relevance thereof, can I tell you how I see it? We are speaking of murder and it is said that it should not be called murder when the Army or the Police takes out somebody. That is why there was never spoken about go and kill the guy, they said eliminate him.

Other words were used in order to disguise it. This was an example of how killing was defined in other terms, so that it would not appear to be a purposeful killing.

MR COETZEE: He has previously denied the content of this document and has done so during the so-called Armed Forces Hearings in Cape Town. On a previous occasion he has denied this document.

ADV DE JAGER: But your client also denied it?

MR COETZEE: Yes.

MR GROBLER: Chairperson, perhaps I have misread something. Might I ask for a moment, perhaps Mr Coetzee is correct and I could be leaving the track. I would just like to peruse it.

CHAIRPERSON: I see. I think that you should satisfy yourself as to the relevance of all this information in so far as these applications are concerned, and if you are satisfied that there is relevance, then please proceed.

MR GROBLER: Yes, if you could grant me a moment please Chairperson.

MR COETZEE: Mr Chairman, this is of utmost importance for both the applicant and Gen Geldenhuys, may I ask for a short adjournment of five minutes to find all the relevant sections and place them on record.

I don't need longer than five minutes.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well.

MR GROBLER: Mr Chairman, perhaps the, it seems that Mr Coetzee's objection is well founded, it seems that I was barking up a wrong tree. What I had in mind, Gen Joubert says it is not leading to that.

So, may I withdraw this for the moment?

CHAIRPERSON: Very well.

MR GROBLER: General, I would like to return to paragraph 4.4.17 of your affidavit in your amnesty application, 4.4.17.

You have mentioned that you told Gen Gleeson and that he had to convey this to Gen Geldenhuys and that Gen Geldenhuys after that, called a special meeting during which he redefined the procedures for this type of operation, are you with me?

MR JOUBERT: Yes.

MR GROBLER: General, can you tell the Committee more or less when this new procedure was stipulated by Gen Geldenhuys, in other words approximately when that special meeting took place? You do not have to provide the day and date?

Let us put it like this first, was it after the Ribeiro incident?

MR JOUBERT: It was after the Ribeiro incident. Chairperson, I must just make something clear here, at the time of the Ribeiro incident, Gen Geldenhuys was not available. He was abroad or he had taken leave, I am not sure.

After Gen Geldenhuys returned, Gen Gleeson directly informed him. I would accept that it would have been approximately during the middle of January 1987 or perhaps at the end of January 1987.

MR GROBLER: In what regard did a change in the procedures or the principles, take place which was different to what your original plan had been?

MR JOUBERT: According to the original plan, there was no definite stipulated, written procedure.

MR GROBLER: That would be a written procedure to identify and take out targets?

MR JOUBERT: Yes, that is correct.

MR GROBLER: And then?

MR JOUBERT: I began to doubt that as a result of the fact that Gen Coetzee had not known of the operations and what had been done, I became concerned, and in effect, I was the one who insisted that a new procedure be written so that there would be a mechanism which would force both parties to obtain authorisation for actions on the highest level. That was on the side of the Police as well as the Defence Force.

MR GROBLER: Is that for internal operations for which targets have been identified and people eliminated?

MR JOUBERT: Yes, for internal operations.

MR GROBLER: And was such a change of procedure stipulated?

MR JOUBERT: Yes.

MR GROBLER: And was that changed procedure that authorisation be obtained from the highest level?

MR JOUBERT: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: May I just interrupt, did it involve that the operations had to be approved in writing, or was it going to be quite all right if it was merely oral?

MR JOUBERT: Mr Chairman, that procedures was in writing.

MR GROBLER: My next question General, was there after the Ribeiro's as far as you know, any similar incidents which was executed while you were in command of Special Forces?

MR JOUBERT: As long as I was in Special Forces, there was never again this type of operation. But let us not misunderstand the thing, the Defence Force went ahead and I am not speaking of the broader Defence Force, I am not speaking about Special Forces per se.

The broader Defence Force continued to provide assistance to help protect townships, to do border patrols. What I am trying to say is that the assistance was not ceased entirely, it was simply about special operations internally.

MR GROBLER: General, do I understand you correctly, that there was a changed procedure that was established, but that such operations did not take place again under that new procedure regarding Special Forces?

MR JOUBERT: That is correct.

MR GROBLER: Very well. General, you spoke of the fact that certain aspects would be in writing, would that be the approvals or would the amended plan also be placed in writing?

MR JOUBERT: No, the procedure worked as follows, the target would be identified on the levels on which people had been deployed. Then targets would be identified, planning would be undertaken and it would then be submitted, I would approve it on my level. I think it was Gen Schutte from the Police who would approve it on his level, and then we had to clear it with the Head of the Defence Force and with the Commissioner of Police, and they would then have to approve it on their levels, and that is how the process worked.

MR GROBLER: But my question was which part of that would be in writing?

MR JOUBERT: I doubt whether anything would take place in writing.

MR GROBLER: The amended procedure itself, which enjoyed a very high measure of security, was that procedure ever put in writing?

MR JOUBERT: Yes, it was.

MR GROBLER: Do you know whether such documents are still in existence today?

MR JOUBERT: I don't know.

MR GROBLER: Thank you Mr Chairman, that is the evidence in chief.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, Visser on record. I certainly do have questions, but I must tell you at this stage, evidence that has now been led, portions of it, it is the first time that we have heard of it, and I have no instructions from Gen Coetzee on how to react to it. I find myself in a difficult position. I can do, I can ask some questions, but I cannot conclude my questioning, and I am just wondering whether it wouldn't be more convenient if my learned friend, acting for Gen Geldenhuys shouldn't kick off Mr Chairman, and it may be that I don't have to waste any of the time of the Commission, by asking for an adjournment.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, if we can do that, let us proceed.

MR COETZEE: Mr Chairman, I act on behalf of Gen Geldenhuys. Any questioning of Gen Joubert would be on a very limited basis, if at all, and I request that the limited questions that I am going to ask, I will with the Committee's permission, ask after he has led his evidence relating to the Ntuli incident.

At this stage, I would prefer not to ask questions.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, it is becoming a bit difficult with respect. I hear what my learned friend says, and he must have good reason for that, but we are breaking up the evidence of Gen Joubert now and I would have thought that the issues which have now been clarified by him, should now be dealt with before we go on to incidents.

I don't want to put pressure on my learned friend at all. It just makes it very difficult for us to understand where we slot in. We certainly don't want to make it more difficult for you.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: I think it will make it very difficult for me to understand the flow of evidence if questions in relation to the Ribeiro incident, in so far as Mr Coetzee is concerned on behalf of his clients, are not put to him at this stage. It certainly will do a little bit of havoc with our record if we were to jump, instead of dealing with the issues and wrapping them up whilst we can. I would really appreciate if we can proceed, if there are any questions to be put to you, Mr Coetzee.

MR COETZEE: My questions will be on a very limited basis, and will be on a more general basis if at all, relating to authorisation. Every time the witness testifies, he adds something about his plan or something about authorisation as which has happened from the previous incident to this incident.

My cross-examination of this witness is going to be severely limited, if at all. It is not appropriate for me at this stage to ask any questions. I don't wish to ask any questions at this stage. Any questions I ask at a later stage, I will ask the Committee's permission, and as I say, it is going to be on a very limited basis.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Will they be general questions and they will not specifically refer to this incident that we are currently dealing with?

MR COETZEE: That is what I am placing on record at this stage.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, so you have no questions at this stage that will throw any light on the Ribeiro incident?

MR COETZEE: Sorry, is that once again a question addressed to me, Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR COETZEE: At this stage, I don't have any questions relating to the Ribeiro incident, at this stage.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Visser?

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, may I suggest that I bat on, up to the point where the new evidence is, where I have to address the new evidence and I can tell you what it is, it is the very last portion of the evidence, about the procedures Mr Chairman.

Perhaps, let me bat on and see how far I get. If needs be, then I might have to ask you just to allow me to talk to Gen Coetzee, he is en route to Pretoria I understand, so I don't know whether I will be able to contact him, but then just talk to him and put a brief statement to the General about that.

MR GROBLER: Mr Chairman, may I interrupt at this stage. Both my learned friends, Mr Coetzee and Mr Visser, have in their addresses to you, made comments about the witness' evidence to the extent that he is adding on and that he is adding new evidence all the time. Those comments are improper to be made, while the witness is present. If they wish to make those comments, they should ask you to let the witness be excused, then tell you what it is.

I do not believe that it is proper whilst the witness is present, to make that sort of objection or put that argument to you. If they have questions relating to what he has said, then that is what they should put to him at this moment. If they have arguments about his evidence, that is to be dealt with at a later stage, with due respect.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes well certainly, we are not talking about argument at this stage at all.

MR COETZEE: Mr Chairman, sorry to interrupt, I managed not to say too much during these proceedings, and now I seem to be involved all the time.

The statement I made was not any attack on Gen Joubert's evidence, all I meant is the manner in which the evidence is being led, some new information is added during each incident. It was not a criticism of his evidence at all.

CHAIRPERSON: I understand.

MR GROBLER: I accept, thank you Mr Chairman.

ADV DE JAGER: Anybody else wants to ask questions?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR WESSELS: General, you have heard the evidence of Mr Naude, that he was asked or that he requested two operatives to come to the operational area. He does not know who he directed this request to, can you recall if he directed it at you?

MR JOUBERT: Chairperson, there are two possibilities, or not two possibilities, one possibility.

He would have asked a Senior Staff Officer of covert operations that he wants these two persons. The SSO covert operation would definitely not have sent for those two people if he did not consult with me.

MR WESSELS: Can you remember this, that he consulted with you or can you not recall?

MR JOUBERT: I cannot remember how many meetings and interviews have I had, but I would just like to say that that is what the procedure was.

MR WESSELS: Thank you Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: But I would imagine that a request such as this, that two people should be brought in from outside the country to carry out a particular operation, is not something that happened so frequently, this must be a rare occasion and if it did happen, you ought to know about it, is that no so?

MR JOUBERT: Yes Mr Chairman. I would have know of it, but one has to keep in mind that at that stage it was our operatives and it was our military aeroplanes, so we could clandestinely transport two persons into the country.

ADV DE JAGER: General, if I understand your answer correctly, you say that there was just possibility. Even if he went to the SSO, that SSO before he arranged it, he would have come to you?

MR JOUBERT: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: So you accept then, the question was directed at you and you gave the authorisation?

MR JOUBERT: Yes Chairperson.

ADV DE JAGER: It could not have happened in any other way, they could not have gone via any other person, but it had to come passed you?

MR JOUBERT: Yes Chairperson, because I had to authorise it. I cannot say that it was that guy or that guy or that guy.

ADV DE JAGER: But that is not what is asked of you if you could say who came in, but can you recall that you had said that I give authorisation that you fly two persons in?

MR JOUBERT: I would have given that authorisation Chairperson.

ADV DE JAGER: We accept that you would have given it or should have given it, but can you recall actually giving it?

MR JOUBERT: The two operatives did arrive yes, so I must have given it.

ADV DE JAGER: I understand that, and I understand that you...

CHAIRPERSON: That answer is not a satisfactory answer to say that because the two operatives arrived, therefore you must have given authority.

I have just said earlier that this is not a common occurrence, it isn't every day that you ask for special permission to get outsiders to come into the country, for an operation, this must be an unique operation, so you must remember this occasion before they came in?

MR JOUBERT: Yes Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: You agreed with the idea that these operatives be brought in from outside the country?

MR JOUBERT: Yes Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: All right. You did not know the identity of the operatives?

MR JOUBERT: No, I do not know the identity of the operatives.

CHAIRPERSON: And you don't know who the person was at the other end, who selected the operatives?

MR JOUBERT: No, at that point in time, it must have been the Officer Commanding of that unit in Namibia.

CHAIRPERSON: And you won't know his name?

MR JOUBERT: Mr Chairman, no, I won't know, I can't remember his name.

ADV DE JAGER: Can you find out who it was at that stage?

MR JOUBERT: We can probably find out, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, all right.

MR VISSER: Is it only myself that is left Mr Chairman?

MR DU PLESSIS: I have one or two questions as well, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Please do.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman, I won't be long.

General, you have said that your information was that the Ribeiro's trained other persons, the only thing that I would like to ask you is, is it possible that this perception of yours was wrong, and that you were under the wrong impression?

MR JOUBERT: I was not under the wrong impression, because the information indicated that they did indeed train persons and helped with instant training, whether it was at home or abroad.

MR DU PLESSIS: Can I just put it to you and I won't take it any further, the evidence of Brigadier Cronje was that he did not have the details of such information, but that persons who worked on a monthly basis with the file, namely Colonel Loots and Captain Hechter, did not say once that what the Ribeiro's did, was specifically training or that they were trained personnel themselves.

ADV DE JAGER: Can you tell us the reference to where they speak of the videos that were showing?

MR DU PLESSIS: I am talking of military training, is that what you understand under the term training?

MR JOUBERT: Yes, but I think it is clear, I cannot recall - it is on record, but I think it was Mr Naude who said that he knew that they had received proper military training.

MR DU PLESSIS: But Mr Naude said that he received his information from the Police, and the Police had not said that the Police trained anybody or that they had indeed received training themselves. I am just putting that to you. Would you like to comment?

MR JOUBERT: No, I stick to the comment that I made earlier, and the information that was given to me at that meeting where there was a General, a Brigadier and another General and it was decided that these are the activities with which they ...

MR DU PLESSIS: And then on page 469 of Bundle 2(E), Captain Hechter says that after the operation, he was contacted by Brigadier Cronje who told him that you wished to meet with them, that they went to you at Special Forces Headquarters, and where Mr Joe Verster was present. He was not sure that Mr Naude was there himself, but it would seem that Brigadier Cronje was there as well.

There was a meeting where the fact that Basie Smit investigated the Landrover and found out that it was, it belonged to the Defence Force.

MR JOUBERT: Chairperson, there was indeed a meeting afterwards. I know that Brigadier Cronje was there, I am not sure if Captain Hechter was there. About Basie Smit who identified the vehicle, I do not have any knowledge of that.

MR DU PLESSIS: Is it possible that you cannot remember it?

MR JOUBERT: It is possible, yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: And then General, then Captain Hechter also said that the decision was taken that the issue would not be discussed with Gen Coetzee, but apparently that evening you had contact with Gen Coetzee and you did indeed discuss the matter with him?

Do you remember this?

MR JOUBERT: I don't recall anything of this, the only discussion I had with regard to the Ribeiro's with Gen Coetzee, was the one where Gen Coetzee approached me and told me why did you take these people out.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.

ADV DE JAGER: I wanted to know if you could help me with the reference of Loots' evidence with regard to the video?

MR GROBLER: Mr Chairman, it seems nobody else is questioning at the moment, may I ask one question coming from what you, yourself, asked, at this stage?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairperson, Van Zyl on record, I have questions that I want to put to him, I think my learned colleague would allow me to ask my questions first before he puts his questions.

MR GROBLER: Indeed.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN ZYL: Thank you, I appear for Gen Gleeson Chairperson. Another aspect which I would like to put on record, my colleague, Mr Cilliers at the start of these proceedings, he was not here, he appears for Gen Moller, he is not present today, but indicated that he will be present tomorrow, had asked that I have to give an indication that in the light of the fact that his questions does not have regard to a specific incident, but more with the identification of targets which is more general, he requested that his cross-examination be held over till after the General had given his evidence with regard to the Piet Ntuli incident. I will continue with my questioning.

CHAIRPERSON: Your questions are on behalf of Gen Gleeson, is that it?

MR VAN ZYL: That is so, Mr Chairman. Gen Gleeson was Chief of Army Staff at that stage, and part of his responsibilities was he would act as the Head of the SADF?

MR JOUBERT: That is correct.

MR VAN ZYL: And that is the only reason why you reported to him with regard to this incident, because he was the Acting Head at that stage?

MR JOUBERT: That is correct.

MR VAN ZYL: ... given evidence today that when you met with Gen Coetzee, or this one meeting that you had, and you spoke to him, you had the impression that he did not know that the Police was involved with this operation?

MR JOUBERT: Chairperson, he told me. I did not tell him, he told me why did you do it. I was quite surprised.

MR VAN ZYL: But your impression was that he said or you understood that he did not know of it, he did not know of it and you were convinced that whatever investigation to be launched, would be done properly so that he would be safeguarded?

MR JOUBERT: That is correct.

MR VAN ZYL: And you probably conveyed it in these terms to Gen Gleeson, that Gen Coetzee was not aware thereof, and he would launch an investigation to the incident, can you recall if you visited Gen Coetzee with Gen Gleeson with regards to this incident?

MR JOUBERT: Chairperson, I could or I would like to say and I mentioned it in my application as well, at that stage we were involved with a major planning session at Wachthuis with regards to an operation that would be launched country wide and outside the borders of the country as well.

We met in the evenings at Wachthuis and that is when we did our planning and it was at one of these meetings when Gen Coetzee called me aside and told me. Many people attended these planning sessions, many of them. I know that Gen Gleeson, I know that Gen Gleeson also attended these meetings.

MR VAN ZYL: Excuse me for interrupting you, can I just reformulate my question. Can you recall if you were in the presence of Gen Gleeson and Gen Coetzee when they discussed the issue?

MR JOUBERT: I don't remember.

MR VAN ZYL: Do you have knowledge that Gen Gleeson discussed it with Gen Coetzee?

MR JOUBERT: I am convinced that he would.

CHAIRPERSON: How would he know that?

MR VAN ZYL: Well, he might have been told by Gen Gleeson or even by Gen Coetzee that they had a discussion in this regard, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: He doesn't even know whether there was any discussion at all?

MR VAN ZYL: As it pleases you Mr Chairman. My instruction is that he indeed did discuss this matter with Gen Coetzee after you told him that an Army members was involved with this incident. You probably cannot confirm it today but you can confirm it if you did tell him that an Army members was involved in this incident, this is now to Gen Gleeson?

MR JOUBERT: An Army member, in which sense?

MR VAN ZYL: Involved with the Ribeiro murder?

MR JOUBERT: Yes.

MR VAN ZYL: And my instructions furthermore was that one person's name was mentioned, the name of Mr Robey being the person who was involved, does this concur with your recollection of what you had said?

MR JOUBERT: I cannot recall that.

MR VAN ZYL: And with regards to the investigation that Gen Coetzee made to you with reference to the investigation, and informed you Suiker Britz handled the matter, was it conveyed to you as such?

MR JOUBERT: No, it was not conveyed to me as such, but I had knowledge thereof.

MR VAN ZYL: And a final aspect, I do not want to suggest that you have given such evidence, but already in the report of the TRC, such a finding was made that Gen Gleeson did not give the information that he had, to the relevant authorities. Did you have the impression at any stage that Gen Gleeson, that he at any stage wanted to undermine that investigation and to make sure that the truth was not uncovered or anything in that respect?

MR JOUBERT: Do you refer to Gen Gleeson? No, he would not have done any such thing.

MR VAN ZYL: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Can I just interrupt, I have been listening carefully to what has been carrying on now and I have been trying my best to try and find out what bearing all this has on the applicant's application in relation to the killing of the Ribeiro's.

All I am left with is a misunderstanding between the Armed Forces on the one hand, and the Police on the other, I was led to believe that none of these activities were carried out without the co-operation of the Police, as far as the Armed Forces were concerned and now it emerges that certain high ranking people in the Police Force, were not consulted.

Now, whether they were consulted or whether they were not consulted, is a matter that must be debated in some other venue. If any decisions have to be taken on who was right or who was wrong, that must be taken elsewhere, but it can hardly be a matter for this Committee to delve into and I want to know now, whether we can devote more time to a discussion of this issue.

MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, with due respect, I happen to agree substantially with what you are saying, there is however the question of full disclosure and unfortunately no incident can be labelled as one where full disclosure has taken place, unless one starts it at the beginning and takes it right through to the end.

Up to now, this evidence which largely has no bearing perhaps on political motive, or even on the exact manner in which the operation was carried out, is given in the end to argue to you and hopefully to convince you that a full disclosure has been made, not only of what we perceive to be absolutely relevant, but of everything which we know.

It is to that extent that much of this evidence is produced to you and hopefully you will receive it as such. But I do agree with you that there should not be a debate about the details at this stage, it doesn't take it anywhere.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, there is no doubt that high ranking Policemen and high ranking people in the Army worked together to achieve a particular objective. That evidence emerged quite clearly. We, my Committee has no doubt on that issue. As to whether certain top, high ranking officials were kept informed or not, strictly speaking, doesn't affect the issue here as to whether amnesty should be granted or not.

I appeal to you gentlemen, that in the name of full disclosure you don't have to traverse issues which are side issues, which are merely tangentially related to the real issues. By full disclosure, I mean full disclosure of all that is relevant for the purposes of this amnesty application.

In other words, precisely what was planned, precisely who planned it, precisely how it was carried out, who was instrumental in carrying it out. Now, we will make much more progress if we concentrate on the essentials.

The other issues may be very, very interesting, sometimes I think they may be of academic interest at this stage, considering so many years have elapsed since that time, and the dramatis personae have changed, so please gentlemen and ladies, if ladies are involved, let us try and see if we can confine ourselves not to the side issues, but to the main issues in this application.

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, Visser, may I be allowed to say something Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes please Mr Visser.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, we heartily agree with what you say about side issues being raised, but unfortunately the process of amnesty has brought along with it, the baggage of implicated persons.

CHAIRPERSON: Implicated on matters that are relevant for the purposes of the amnesty application?

MR VISSER: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Not on side issues.

MR VISSER: Well Mr Chairman, it is certainly relevant if there would have been evidence as there was suggested to have been in the past, that Gen Coetzee, being the Commissioner of Police, ought to have known about a plan to eliminate people, that Gen Coetzee when the Ribeiro's were murdered, knew about it and involved himself by replacing Officers investigating the matter, so that certain facts could be concealed.

For example the registration number of the Landrover which Mr Robey drove, all of those issues, Mr Chairman, most of them have now fortunately sorted themselves out. On behalf of Gen Coetzee, I am left only with one aspect basically, basically two.

The one is that he would have had a discussion with Gen Joubert and the last one is the new evidence, I repeat new evidence, of what the procedure was that was decided upon at the latest meeting.

CHAIRPERSON: The procedure relating to future action?

MR VISSER: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Now is that relevant?

MR VISSER: Well Mr Chairman, it may or may not be, I don't know, because I haven't discussed this with Gen Coetzee, and certainly I am not going to take up your time with anything that is irrelevant.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Visser, our problem is that we understand that an implicated person's name could be hurt, and I do not think that in any of the judgements that we have made, we gave judgement and said that this guy is definitely implicated or not.

If we say whether he is implicated or if we say he is guilty or not, would not bind any Court. If he was to be prosecuted, the Court will decide whether he is guilty or not. If we, here, today say that Gen Coetzee gave the instruction for this incident, he will not be guilty in a higher Court, but it has an influence on his name out there, that is why I understand your concern, to clean his name, to keep his name clean or to try to keep clean his name, but we wish to request that if you go as far as to say that he denies it, then whether he speaks the truth, shall have to be decided on later, in another forum. It is not going to help us deciding on that.

As far as it concerns an implicated person, it might be relevant for an applicant if he went on an experiment of his own, whether he acted within the capacity that he was allowed to, but we like to bring to you is that we are not a forum that has to decide that whoever's name is mentioned here, we have to decide whether that person is guilty or not, and if we make such a finding, it would be in the context of whether this person acted without authorisation or not, but not whether the person is guilty or not.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I appreciate Mr De Jager's observation and certainly we fully agree with it. If you were a fly on the wall in the London bomb hearings, this is exactly the point which we made probably 50 times during that hearing, so we absolutely agree.

There is just one other aspect Mr Chairman, and that is that if it comes to pass one day, that Gen Coetzee is charged in a criminal court, it may be held against him if no effort at all was made to cross-examine a witness and to place his position on record.

Now with the remarks having been made by Mr De Jager now ...

CHAIRPERSON: We are really not here to try that as a sub-issue.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, can I just finish my submission?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR VISSER: With the remarks having been made by Mr De Jager, it takes care of that problem as well, because we can then tell the Court this was the position of the Amnesty Committee, with which we incidentally agree, Mr Chairman.

So all that we need to do is to place before you references to the record for in case you may think that whatever the evidence is, that has implicated Gen Coetzee, is relevant to the amnesty applications, you can look at the evidence.

I am not going to go through it, but if you don't want the evidence Mr Chairman, then I don't have to do that either. All that I have to do, is to put to Gen Joubert, what the evidence of Gen Coetzee is.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you are entitled to that.

MR VISSER: That is all I am going to do, but can I ask you Mr Chairman, are you interested to be referred to the passages on the records of the papers before you, which are relevant to the issues that have been raised? If you are not, well, that saves a lot of time Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Passages relating to the issues about what, Mr Visser?

MR VISSER: About the issue of the implication of Gen Coetzee, because Mr Chairman, this has been dealt with before, before the Armed Forces hearing. I want to refer you to those passages and tell you there it has been, again we simply put to the witness at the time, we didn't cross-examine him at all.

In fact my cross-examination at the Armed Forces hearing of Gen Joubert, is one and a half pages. It really is not going to waste your time, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, carry on.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Gen Joubert, may I put it to you, you have already conceded this, but I would like to put to you what Gen Coetzee has said to me, and if it is necessary he will say this in any court of law, he said that nobody ever informed him of the so-called Joubert Plan, to involve Special Forces and Police activities, especially if it led to the elimination of people.

I want to be fair with you, you have already conceded this and you have said that you believe that he was never informed as a result of the conversation that you had with him at a later date, is that correct, do you agree?

MR JOUBERT: Yes, I agree.

MR VISSER: Furthermore, it is also clear from the evidence of Geldenhuys and well as Coetzee, that Geldenhuys never mentioned this to him, this is the evidence from the Armed Forces hearing. Do you accept that? That is Bundle 2(K) Mr Chairman, page 132.

I don't wish to waste any time, do you accept that Gen Geldenhuys did not discuss your plan with Gen Coetzee?

MR JOUBERT: I must accept that.

MR VISSER: Just one aspect which has created some confusion, at a stage you said that you would have expected that Gen Geldenhuys would have discussed this aspect with the Chief of Security, can you recall that?

MR JOUBERT: No, I stand corrected, but if I recall my words correctly, I said that the Head of the Security Police should at least on his level, have gone to Gen Coetzee.

ADV DE JAGER: You expected that the top guy from the Army and the top guy from the Police, would approve this matter from above, so that all of you to the bottom, would have the authorisation, is that what you thought was going to happen?

MR JOUBERT: Yes, that is correct Chairperson.

MR VISSER: General, I would like to continue by putting it to you and I have already put this at a previous occasion during this hearing, that there was a broad co-operation agreement between the Army and the Police, and that this continued?

MR JOUBERT: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: Indeed you have repeated this today?

MR JOUBERT: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Now where our roads diverge is that Gen Coetzee says to me, and I also put it to you at the Armed Forces hearing, Bundle 2(I), page - I beg your pardon Chairperson, I have two references here, just to join my learned friend who referred to Gen Gleeson's discussion that has been confirmed, Bundle 2(I), page 225 if you would like to consult that.

Chairperson in the evidence of my cross-examination of Gen Joubert, yes, that is page 133 of Bundle 2(K), you will recall that, I referred you to this discussion which occurred according to you, and I put it to you because there was an objection and then we continued, and that is on page 134, where I put it to you that what you said in paragraph 4.4.13 and 4.4.16, is according to Gen Joubert, something which did not happen, in other words, he did not have this discussion with you as you have given evidence about it here, so as to say why didn't you tell me that the Defence Force was involved in the murder of the Ribeiro's, he denies it. But that is not news to you, because you knew that from the Armed Forces hearing?

MR JOUBERT: Well Chairperson ...

MR VISSER: Well, this is evidence which I put to you, you would recall that. You said that that is how you remember it, and that would be your answer today, would it not? That is how you remember the situation. I don't wish to confuse you.

ADV DE JAGER: General, you differ from Gen Coetzee when he says that he did not ask you, or do you agree with him? He says he never put such questions to you and you testified that he did indeed.

MR JOUBERT: Chairperson, if we will just look at the situation. I said a few moments ago that we were busy with a tremendously major planning session for operations over South Africa and abroad.

First Gen Coetzee made submissions and after that, it was Gen Vlok. At one of those occasions, Gen Coetzee called me and the words which appear in this application are the words which he spoke to me.

ADV DE JAGER: (Microphone not on)

MR JOUBERT: That is correct, and upon certain occasions, the Minister of Defence, sorry the Minister of Law and Order, was present when this matter was discussed.

MR VISSER: You see General, that is what I mean, every time you give evidence, something new is added.

MR JOUBERT: That is correct Mr Visser, but I don't think that we realise the circumstances under which these things took place.

MR VISSER: Well, I can't understand why you didn't in the first place, put this evidence in your amnesty application when you had the opportunity. Where does this business with Minister Vlok come from?

MR JOUBERT: What you must understand Mr Visser, is that Gen Coetzee spoke to me.

MR VISSER: No, what I want to know is where does Mr Vlok come from?

MR JOUBERT: Well, that is what I am trying to tell you.

MR VISSER: Let me put this to you, Gen Coetzee according to you in 4.4.16 said don't worry and that you should leave it up to him, is that correct?

MR JOUBERT: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: What did that mean?

MR JOUBERT: That meant that he would call an investigation.

MR VISSER: But then you would have to be worried, because you knew that members of Special Forces were involved?

MR JOUBERT: No but it is not me that said that, he told me that. He told me not to worry, because he would lodge an investigation.

MR VISSER: Well Coetzee's evidence was that this was a normal, criminal investigation which would take place among the Investigators and he would not exercise any influence on any side and this ultimately led to a post-mortem inquest, the law took its course and he did not do anything to prevent it, he didn't do anything extraordinary or special in order to make any sort of difference to that enquiry, would you agree with that?

MR JOUBERT: Yes, I do agree with that.

MR VISSER: Thank you General. Thank you Mr Chairman. Sorry Mr Chairman, just one last question.

With this amended procedure, was Gen Johan Coetzee involved in the establishment of this procedure of which you have spoken towards the end of your evidence, or was it only Gen Geldenhuys and the Defence Force who was involved?

MR JOUBERT: No, I am convinced that members of the Police would also have been involved.

MR VISSER: But you don't recall that Gen Coetzee was present or involved in that?

MR JOUBERT: No.

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman, that takes care of the last problem I had.

ADV DE JAGER: (Microphone not on)

MR VISSER: (Microphone not on)

MS LOCKHAT: No questions Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Any re-examination?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR GROBLER: Just very briefly Mr Chairman. General, the Honourable Chairperson has taken up the point with you during which he stated that this situation where two operatives were brought in from abroad, was not the sort of thing that would happen on a daily basis and that ultimately you should remember it, and in the light thereof, you made certain concessions and said yes, that happened and that happened.

My question is simply, do you recall, do you really recall that it happened or have you simply made concessions because it is logical that such things would have taken place? In other words are you speaking out of recollection or speaking because this is what should have happened?

MR JOUBERT: I would ultimately have been the final person who had to say I give permission, they can go ahead.

MR GROBLER: But you have no specific recollection thereof?

MR JOUBERT: No. I remember it, but I don't remember the day or the date.

MR GROBLER: But apart from the permission which you granted, did you have any other information about those operatives, who they would be?

MR JOUBERT: No.

MR GROBLER: Thank you Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, Visser again, please allow me one last innings Mr Chairman. I forgot to refer you to the fact that Gen Coetzee made an affidavit which serves before you and I just want to refer you to volume 2(I), pages 123 - 126 where he deals with most of these issues, Mr Chairman. Pages 123 - 126 of Bundle 2(I). Thank you Mr Chairman.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Mr Joubert, I have one question, can you hear me? You have testified that it was an important requirement that any execution plan by Mr Naude, had to gather approval of the Security Police before being carried out. Do you recall saying that?

MR JOUBERT: Yes Mr Chairman.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Yes. We obviously know that it is your testimony that the Ribeiro's were identified at a meeting attended by you, Mr Moller and Brigadier Cronje.

MR JOUBERT: I recall that Chairperson.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: And that subsequent to that meeting, you then deployed Mr Naude to the Security Police as part of your plan?

MR JOUBERT: That is correct Chairperson.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Yes. Now if the Ribeiro's had been identified at a meeting attended by Brigadier Cronje on behalf of the Security Police, why would it still be necessary for his execution plan to get the approval of the Security Police before being carried out?

I have a problem with that, if you could just clear that issue for me.

MR JOUBERT: Chairperson, I don't know whether I understand the question completely. If you can ...

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: The question is, you, Brigadier Cronje, Mr Moller identified the Ribeiro's as targets for elimination, as a result of that, you deployed Mr Charl Naude to the Security Police as part of the Joubert Plan, after the Ribeiro's had been identified.

You have also testified that it was an important requirement that before any execution of the elimination could be carried out, it had to gather approval of the Security Police. In the instance of the Ribeiro's, the identification is made by you and Brigadier Cronje, yet you still required Mr Charl Naude to get the approval of Brigadier Cronje in order to execute his plan, why was it necessary to do that?

MR JOUBERT: Chairperson, the situation was as follows: I deployed Mr Naude to the Police in support of the Police. Thus in effect, Brigadier Cronje and I did not work out the finer detail of the operation, that was on Naude's level.

I simply told Naude from the side of Special Forces, that once they had completed the planning, he should discuss it with me, so that I could be satisfied that the plan would work, or could not work. After we had identified the targets, there was a next level and that is where the planning was undertaken.

Then there would be a certain procedure to be followed in order to obtain approval. That is how it functioned. I am not certain whether this answers your question.

ADV DE JAGER: I think what the problem is, is the fact that there has been approval for this target as a target and that these people could be killed. Why was it then necessary to obtain a second approval if the plan had been put into action?

MR JOUBERT: The targets were identified, however, they were not finally approved. In other words, let me put it this way, there was principle approval which was given, but the final approval still had to be granted.

ADV DE JAGER: Before they could be killed?

MR JOUBERT: Before they could be killed.

ADV DE JAGER: And did the plan also had to be approved before they were killed, and should the Police have known that they were to be known on that particular evening? Did those particulars also have to be made known to the Police?

MR JOUBERT: Well, the Police were indeed the chief role players when it came to the authorisation of the operation.

ADV DE JAGER: So, let's say the Police did not know, and the operatives went in that night, and they were apprehended by the Police, would it be to co-ordinate the matter, so that there would be enough planning to ensure that all relevant parties would know that an operation was to be executed that night?

MR JOUBERT: That is correct, and that is why Captain Hechter had been directly involved, so that should any problems arise, a policeman would be present to handle the matter on ground level.

CHAIRPERSON: Where do we go from here?

MS LOCKHAT: We call on the next amnesty applicant, Mr P.J. Verster.

WITNESS EXCUSED

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

ON RESUMPTION:

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Wessels, can you tell us with regard to this case, if this is the same, because nobody has said anything about Mr Verster being involved in any way in this case?

MR WESSELS: Mr Chairperson, the position is the same as the previous time that he gave evidence, that he became aware of this operation, although he had not been involved in the planning thereof. He did come to know of it, and because of that, according to common law, he can be regarded as an accomplice.

Once again, it is a case that it is my submission that it is not necessary for him to appear, that this can be handled on an administrative level. I don't know whether it is necessary for him to give evidence in chief.

CHAIRPERSON: He is here, we have all the documents before us, let's deal with it and get done with it.

MR WESSELS: Very well Mr Chairman. His application appears on page 24 of Bundle 4.

PIETER JOHAN VERSTER: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR WESSELS: Mr Verster, is it correct that you were not involved in the planning or the execution of this operation, as stated in your application, however, you did come to know of it after it had occurred?

MR VERSTER: Yes, that is correct.

MR WESSELS: Furthermore, at a later stage, you also attended a meeting with certain members of the Police?

MR VERSTER: That is correct.

MR WESSELS: And you did not spread this information any further, but kept it within the confines of Special Forces?

MR VERSTER: Yes, that is correct.

MR WESSELS: I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Precisely what it is that he is applying for amnesty?

MR WESSELS: That is for the being an accomplice in the murder of the Ribeiro's.

CHAIRPERSON: To what extent, when you say an accomplice, how is he?

MR WESSELS: He could be under common law, knowing about the matter, and not disclosing it and therefore concealing the identity of the perpetrators, might result in him being an accomplice in common law, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: He could not have disclosed the identity of the murders, because he did not witness it?

MR WESSELS: No, but he knew about the identity of at least Naude and Robey and Vlietstra in the Special Forces, and they were part of the murder operation.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but he merely heard about them, not seen them?

MR WESSELS: Yes, certainly no, definitely.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you suggesting that everybody who hears about a murder, can become an accomplice?

MR WESSELS: Mr Chairman, he could be technically charged for being an accessory after the fact. I am not saying that he was, but there may be someone who at some stage thought that he should be charged as such, and for that reason it was thought prudent for him to make an application for amnesty to cover that eventuality.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, thank you very much. Is there anybody here bold enough to cross-examine him?

MR VISSER: Not me, thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, you surprise me. Do you have any questions?

MS LOCKHAT: I just want to ask one question Chairperson, if Mr Verster was a Staff Officer at Special Forces because Mr Naude said that it was possible that he could have asked Mr Verster to actually organise the operatives. I just want to clarify that in my mind.

CHAIRPERSON: Put that to him.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS LOCKHAT: Were you the Staff Officer that Naude ...

MR VERSTER: That is correct Mr Chairperson.

MS LOCKHAT: So did you actually locate the operatives?

MR VERSTER: Chairperson, if I might put it as follows, we were Special Forces Headquarters with various operational bases in the Namibia environment and in South Africa. Some of the operatives lived in Phalaborwa, others in Zululand, others in Langebaan, some of them in Durban, and it was normal practice for me as a Staff Officer to use the radio or telephone communication from the Operational Room, and contact certain people's movements. It would have been one of my duties, but I cannot recall that I contacted these two specific persons, but it was my job to move certain people among the various operational areas on a weekly basis.

MS LOCKHAT: It just seems a bit unusual that you are in all the applications with these applicants, and it would seem probably a matter of course that they would approach you to provide them with these operatives?

MR VERSTER: Chairperson, I am the Staff Officer of the Commanding General, I was Staff Officer along with various other Staff Officers in a large structure which formed part of military functioning and that is how I executed my duties.

The specific handling of two persons who were involved in a certain operation, would not be done in an obvious manner, where names would be provided or exception be made. On the contrary, it is my opinion that it would have been on the normal scheduled flights as already testified to.

MS LOCKHAT: Thank you Chairperson, no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Does this bring us to the end of the Ribeiro matter?

MS LOCKHAT: No Chairperson, we have one other amnesty applicant, Mr J.J.H. van Jaarsveld. We call Mr Van Jaarsveld.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

ON RESUMPTION:

MR MEINTJIES: Mr Chairman, Roelf Meintjies on record. Mr Van Jaarsveld is Afrikaans speaking, and you will find his application on page 66 of Bundle 4, more specifically on the Ribeiro matter, on page 72 where it is identified as "Voorval 4".

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

JAKOB JAN HENDRIK VAN JAARSVELD: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR MEINTJIES: Mr Chairman, if you will bear with me for two minutes, so that I can just refer the applicant to the political background.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR MEINTJIES: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Van Jaarsveld, as part of your amnesty application in this and other matters, you have given a breakdown of the ANC's activities?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: That is correct.

MR MEINTJIES: That is Annexure B to your application.

MR VAN JAARSVELD: That is correct.

MR MEINTJIES: Furthermore you have given the strategy of the Northern Transvaal Joint Management System against the United Democratic Front as Annexure C to your amnesty application?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: That is correct.

MR MEINTJIES: You know about the evidence of Johan van der Merwe before the Amnesty Committee in the amnesty application of the Cronje 5?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes, that is correct.

MR MEINTJIES: Mr Chairman, that can be found in Bundle 2(A), pages 55 - 117.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR MEINTJIES: You have made yourself aware of Cronje's evidence before the Amnesty Committee in the amnesty application of the Cronje 5?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes, that is correct.

MR MEINTJIES: And with special regard to the general background against which police activity had to be considered?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: That is correct.

MR MEINTJIES: Mr Chairman, that can be found in Bundle 2(A), pages 123 - 180.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR MEINTJIES: The climate and background as sketched in the affidavits of Gen Van der Merwe and Brigadier Cronje, is contained in the decision of the Amnesty Committee which is on page 106 and you are aware of this?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes.

MR MEINTJIES: Would you agree with me that this is the background against which your actions in this incident and other incidents, with regard to which you are applying for amnesty, must be seen?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes, that is correct.

MR MEINTJIES: The next aspect which we must attend to Mr Van Jaarsveld, is your history with the South African Police. Could you explain that to us?

ADV DE JAGER: If you could just tell us that it appears on such and such a page and confirm it, then we would be satisfied, because I am not interested in where people were born or which schools they attended.

I want to know what they did in this matter.

MR MEINTJIES: Mr Van Jaarsveld, I will then take you to the afternoon of the day upon which the Ribeiro's.

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Mr Chairperson, on that particular phone I was on duty at the Pretoria Security Branch. During that afternoon, Jacques Hechter who worked with me, approached me and told me that I should switch on my radio and keep it switched on because an operation with regard to the Ribeiro's, would take place.

I asked him what my duties were, upon which he responded that I should see to it that I arrive at the scene quickly and see to it that everything at the scene is correct. I would thus have to act as a sweeper.

MR MEINTJIES: Could you just pause there for a moment please.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes?

MR MEINTJIES: How did you regard your duties as a sweeper?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: It was clear as Gen Joubert has just testified that my function was to ensure that should anything go wrong, I would be on the scene immediately and that I should take the necessary action to prevent that any evidence which would point directly at the Defence Force and the Police's involvement in the matter, be removed.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes?

MR MEINTJIES: Did Captain Hechter then contact you during the course of that day?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Later on that same day, late afternoon, I was at home. Jacques Hechter contacted me by radio and informed me that Dr Ribeiro and his wife had been shot. He told me that I should get to the house, that means Ribeiro's house.

He also said that I should get to the scene as quickly as possible and contact the Murder and Robbery Unit.

MR MEINTJIES: What did you then do Mr Van Jaarsveld?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Philip Coetzee and I, who at that stage was at my house, we had just cracked open a few beers and lit a fire, we were standing around the fire and chatting. I told him that he should go with me. We left immediately and went directly to the Ribeiro's' house.

When I arrived on the scene, I saw that I was the only policeman, or the first policeman that was present. I parked in front of the gates and left Mr Coetzee at the vehicle. I was afraid that the vehicle would be damaged.

I entered the premises through the courtyard where I saw pools of blood. The deceased had already been removed from the scene. I saw that there were 9mm bullet shells on the scene. It was strange to me because my information was that a 357 revolver would have been used.

I then thought that if the shells were left on the scene, it would be by mistake and I left it there.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, do proceed.

MR MEINTJIES: Was anybody else on the scene when you arrived there?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: No, not that I can recall.

ADV DE JAGER: Were there no other people there or were there no other Police Officers there?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: No, there were no other Police Officers there, however, there was a crowd of people at the gate and behind Dr Ribeiro's house.

MR MEINTJIES: What was your action thereafter?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: I immediately contacted Murder and Robbery, or I had them contacted. Later Boet du Bruyn and Piet Delport from Murder and Robbery arrived on the scene.

They took over the scene from me. After that, many other policemen arrived at the scene, as well as the local uniform police of the Mamelodi police station.

The crowd was in uproar, it was quite a big crowd and I left the scene.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes?

MR MEINTJIES: Mr Van Jaarsveld, did you execute any duties as a sweeper on the scene?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: No.

MR MEINTJIES: Later, during discussions with Captain Jacques Hechter, you came to know more about the incident?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: That is correct.

MR MEINTJIES: Would you refer us to that?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: That is correct. Captain Hechter later told me during discussions that one John Moore led the operation.

MR MEINTJIES: Could you please pause for a moment there. You used the name John Moore, as it appears in your affidavit, is that indeed the correct name?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: No Chairperson, the name which is correct is Charl Naude, but the name John Moore, is only known to me as somebody who was a Military Attaché in Taiwan in 1981. I met him there during a course.

MR MEINTJIES: So he was definitely not involved in this incident?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: No, not John Moore.

ADV DE JAGER: Are you sure he was still abroad at that stage?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Chairperson, no, I don't believe that he would have been abroad. I think that he was back in the country at that stage.

MR MEINTJIES: Thank you Chairperson. Could you tell me what further information you received surrounding the incident, from Captain Hechter?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Captain Hechter also mentioned that two black men, allegedly Mozambicans and this was said because they were Portuguese speaking, apparently Mozambicans, had committed the murders.

Jacques Hechter was very upset because Noel Robey used his Landrover vehicle to participate in the operation, and that he had apparently used the correct registration plates. He had also received the weapon and the vehicle back from the two blacks at Samcor, with the result that someone would have written down his registration number.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes?

MR MEINTJIES: And that would then be the entire incident as you experienced it?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes, that is correct.

MR MEINTJIES: Can I just clear up three specific matters in order to achieve clarity for the Committee.

In the evidence of Messrs Naude and Robey, they refer to the fact that Colt 45 pistols were used. In the light of your evidence that 9mm shells were found, would you reject their evidence?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: No, I would like to state it clearly that I am not an expert with regard to weaponry and I never have been, and that the difference between a 9mm shell and a 45 shell would not be easily noticeable. I did not pick up the things and examine them, so I would not be able to have an opinion about it.

MR MEINTJIES: Then I would like to refer you to the record of the amnesty application of the Cronje 5, and specifically page 465 of Bundle 2(E).

Right at the bottom of this page, Judge Wilson interrupted Captain Hechter and said the following - yes, you then go on and say, Captain Van Jaarsveld was also involved on one occasion when we went to Ribeiro's home in Mamelodi to eliminate him. Captain Hechter's answer was, that is correct Chairperson, I asked him to wait in the garden. I was unarmed. Mamasela didn't have a firearm, we only had the pickaxe handles and we left Van Jaarsveld in the front, in the garden to, if the youths saw us there, he had to act as a sort of cover for us.

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Mr Chairperson, I can't remember this incident whatsoever, but what I can tell you in relation to this is that I have read the affidavits of Van Vuuren and Van Vuuren says at a certain stage that he attempted along with Hechter, to eliminate the Ribeiro's upon which Hechter answered that he could not remember that.

I suppose that Hechter may have confused these two with each other and consequently confused the two of us.

MR MEINTJIES: The last question which I would like to address is that of Mr Philip Coetzee. Do you involve him in any manner with this incident by mentioning his name or would you be able to give an explanation to the Committee as to what his role was?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Chairperson, as I have said before, Mr Coetzee was at my house, we lit a fire and we had a beer. The call came that the operation did indeed take place and like any good friend, I told my friend, jump in the car and come with me, so I do not involve him in this operation at all. I did not tell him where I was on my way to or what the purpose was. I did not inform him any ...

MR MEINTJIES: I have no further questions, Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: No questions, thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Anybody else?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I have one or two please. Mr Chairman, may I just place on record that I have received instructions from my Attorney, Mr Britz, of Strydom Britz, to act in these proceedings on behalf of Mr Coetzee. An affidavit will be presented to you of Mr Coetzee, by Mr Coetzee in respect of this incident, in so far as it may be at all relevant. I will present that when that is available.

Captain Van Jaarsveld, can I just have surety, your evidence is that Mr Coetzee knew nothing of this beforehand or during the stage when he accompanied you to the scene?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: That is correct Mr Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: And then I would like to ask you, did you ever handle the file regarding the Ribeiro's?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Not at all Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: So you cannot comment on it?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: No, I cannot.

MR DU PLESSIS: I've got no further questions Mr Chairman, thank you.

Mr Chairman, may I perhaps just, I forgot to answer Adv De Jager just now about the question of Colonel Loots' evidence of the Ribeiro's and the movies, while I am speaking. May I perhaps just refer you to page 441 of Bundle 2(E), where you will find that evidence, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ms Lockhat, any questions?

MS LOCKHAT: No questions, Chairperson, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Anybody else that wishes to ask any questions? No?

Thank you very much, you are excused from further attendance.

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: This completes the Ribeiro matter, does it?

MS LOCKHAT: That is correct Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: All right, now I had been reminded by my Committee that tomorrow morning we start the Piet Ntuli matter.

MS LOCKHAT: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And may I inform Counsel that it is the wish of the Committee that at the end of the Piet Ntuli matter, we will hear the addresses to us, on the issues that were raised by these three matters, to the extent that they are related.

To the extent that the personae in these matters, are connected and so on. So gentlemen, please bear that in mind, as soon as we have finished the Piet Ntuli matter, we hope that you will be in a position to address us.

We will now adjourn and resume at half past nine tomorrow morning.

MS LOCKHAT: Please stand.