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

CHAIRPERSON: The first matter on our roll this morning, is the attack on the house of Scheepers Morudi, which was adjourned till today to enable there to be, if there were to be any cross-examination of the applicant Van de Wall by Mr Visser, I think it would have been - Wagener is it?

MR WAGENER: Good morning Mr Chairman, I appear on behalf of Gen Stemmet in this matter without the assistance of my learned friend, Mr Visser. Sorry we were under the impression that we were going to start with the other matter, so can I just put this on record, Gen Stemmet is not presently available here. I asked my colleague, Mr Nieman what was the evidence of Mr Van de Wall yesterday and he gave me the evidence in a broad sense. Amongst others he told me that the date of the incident has apparently now been changed or amended to the beginning of 1987. That was what I was told.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, the other witnesses testified to that date and Mr Van de Wall said well, he must accept it, he can't really remember.

MR WAGENER: And I was also told that his evidence regarding my client was simply that my client said to him Mr Van de Wall, words to the effect, "die man moet skrikgemaak word", more or less as it is in the application and nothing more. So, if that is common cause that that was his evidence, I have here in my possession an affidavit on behalf of Gen Stemmet which I would beg leave to hand up to you. I am not sure what the exhibit number would be.

CHAIRPERSON: A.

MR WAGENER: But whatever the number, the gist of the affidavit, I don't think it is necessary for me to read the affidavit into the record, I will merely hand it up but the gist of the affidavit is the following that he said that he was given notice in terms of Section 19(4), regarding the application of Mr Van de Wall, he denies that he was involved in this matter in any way whatsoever. He also states in the affidavit that he saw that other applicants referred to this incident as the beginning of 1986, he put on record that at that stage he was not even in Pretoria, but I assume that that part now falls away, because as far as I can remember, he was in fact, I think he came to Pretoria at the end of 1986, so that point then actually falls away, although it is in his affidavit. The other aspect that he raises in the affidavit, I think also falls away, he said that as far as he knows, Brigadier Cronje was not even in the Police any longer at the end of 1987 when he was supposedly involved in the matter. Those two aspects raised in the affidavit, I think has been dealt with in the sense ...

CHAIRPERSON: Well, Mr Wagener I think I can speak on behalf of all the members of the Committee, that we do not consider it in this matter necessary to make any findings in regard to your client.

MR WAGENER: Well, in that instance, Mr Chairman, then I have no questions for anyone of the other applicants, but I will ask to hand up the affidavit only, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Gentlemen, subject to anything that you may wish to say, we do not think it necessary to hear you in argument in this matter.

MR ALBERTS: Thank you Mr Chairman, might I just be permitted to hand up a brief set of Heads once again, which is almost customary by this stage. The schedule there specifies the offence Mr Chairman, and delicts in respect of which amnesty is sought. I then have nothing further to add, thank you Mr Chairman.

MR NIEMAN: Mr Chairman, may Brigadier Van de Wall be excused? Thank you.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------ON RESUMPTION:

CHAIRPERSON: Alright gentlemen, we now come to the next matter set down for today's hearing, that is the attack on the house of Gregory Thulare in Tembisa. The Committee remains the same. Would the legal advisors please put themselves on record?

MR ALBERTS: Mr Chairman, I think my role has come to an end in these proceedings. Speaking for myself, I wish to thank you for the cordial and extremely pleasant manner in which these proceedings were conducted, I think it made everyone's task so much easier and then lastly, might I ask you to excuse me from further attendance.

CHAIRPERSON: I am not sure that one of your client's will agree it is quite so cordial as it might have been, but thank you for that. (Microphone not on)

MR NIEMAN: Chairperson, may I just come in here. I think my task is also completed now that Brigadier Van de Wall is finished. I also tried to give you shortened Heads of argument, I ask leave to hand it up if you will excuse me after that. Thank you.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, may I perhaps just for purposes of the record point out that Brigadier Cronje and Captain Hechter wishes to piggy-back on Mr Alberts' Heads of argument, Mr Chairman, in respect of the offences set out in the last paragraph, just for purposes of the record. Thank you Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: Chairperson, complying with your request, my name is Louis Visser, I am instructed by Wagener Muller and I appear in the matter of the attack on the houses of Gregory Thulare and Godfrey Qwabe. We appear Chairperson, for two applicants before you, the first is Roos and the second is Viktor junior. Mr Chairman, while there is a moment of quiet, I may just inform you that we did not receive all the documentation which has been serving before you, we have merely been given extracts, so I don't know what your Bundles look like. I am sorry, I am sorry, my Attorney says he's got them. I will ask him for the reference pages, Chairperson.

JUDGE PILLAY: Mr Visser, that was one of the instances of a need to know basis.

CHAIRPERSON: The rest of you are on record?

MR DU PLESSIS: I am sorry Mr Chairman, I didn't follow, I beg your pardon. Mr Chairman, I act on behalf of Captain Hechter in this incident, as well as Brigadier Cronje in so far as he was the Commander of the applicants, on instructions of Strydom Britz Attorneys. I beg your pardon, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Brigadier Cronje in this, is just a general?

MR DU PLESSIS: It is the same kind of application as previously.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, he hasn't set out any details in the application before us?

MR DU PLESSIS: No.

CHAIRPERSON: We haven't got detailed papers?

MR DU PLESSIS: No Mr Chairman, I can refer you to the specific page, page 101, and as far as I am aware it relates to Schedule 7 of Captain Hechter's application. It is Schedule 7 Mr Chairman, yes, of Captain Hechter's application, you will find that on page 101 of Bundle 1.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, 101, that was I thought Cronje's reference?

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, that is Cronje's reference Mr Chairman. Captain Hechter's reference in this matter you will find in Bundle 1, his application you will find in Bundle 1, on page 39.

JUDGE PILLAY: Mr Du Plessis, have you informed the newcomers to this venue, about what the position of Mr Cronje is?

MR DU PLESSIS: No, I was going to place that on record now Mr Chairman. May I just place on record for purposes of Mr Visser and Mr Wagener, that Brigadier Cronje's application which was bound into the Bundles, was his first set of applications, which were already heard during the previous hearings. I handed up at the beginning of these hearings, a second set of applications of Brigadier Cronje, which includes applications for amnesty in respect of all the incidents where he was the Commander of people who worked under him. I think I have an extra copy of that available, I will make it available to Mr Visser.

MR VISSER: As long as it is not expected of me to deal with that, Mr Chairperson, because I know nothing about that, but perhaps on this topic, I might be permitted to refer you to the decision, the amnesty decision handed down by the original Amnesty Committee, where you will find on page 21 of that decision and perhaps I should just read it to you. We are talking about Cronje Chairperson, page 21 of his amnesty decision, handed down by the original Amnesty Committee and at that page, under Schedule 11 there is a heading that says "Offences committed by members under his command and his general instructions" and the Committee says -

he stated that he was not personally involved in any of those offences and it may even be that he is still ignorant of some offences which might have been committed because of his general offences and over the page the relevant portion is this, Mr Chairperson -

and then the Committee said -

and then Mr Chairperson, if one might have regard to the amnesty decision in the case of Mr Hechter, page 4 thereof, under Schedule 4, you will note that he applied for amnesty in the following words -

and if you turn to page, the following page, page 5, you will see that the decision of the Amnesty Committee was that amnesty was therefore granted to the applicant and the said Van Vuuren as will be seen, etc, etc, in respect of and it says -

during that period of time which I have just mentioned and any offences, including any deaths or injuries that may have resulted from the burning of these houses. The only point here that appears here Chairperson, it does appear that because of the fact that the applicants and you will hear Viktor telling you the same today, being unsure of the facts of every incident, that there seems to be some sort of overlapping. There has been a general amnesty in the case of both Brigadier Cronje as well as Mr Hechter, but it now seems that where incidents have been able to be identified, they have been placed on your role in the present case, in addition to what they already have amnesty for, this is the only way I can look at it.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. This incident for example, took place in Tembisa, a different area?

MR VISSER: Yes, it is a different area, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And one they could remember and they put details, but it is exactly similar or appears to be, subject to (indistinct), to the other ones?

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I am sorry Mr Visser, maybe I could just deal with this issue because we dealt with it right at the beginning of these hearings and Mr Visser wasn't present. In Captain Hechter's, let me start with Captain Hechter, in his first application there were two applications pertaining to bombings of a general nature. The one concerned petrol bombings and the other one concerned other kinds of bomb attacks. That was contained in Schedule 17, you will recall we dealt with that right at the beginning. In respect of Schedule 17, you will see that the judgement was there weren't enough facts before the Committee, therefore the Committee would deal with that at a different stage when facts became available, Mr Chairman. You will recall that I approached you in chambers about that situation and requested from you an indication if that doesn't mean that the original Committee should hear those new applications. In so far as this application refers to a bomb attack not just by way of petrol bombing, it would fall under Schedule 17 of Captain Hechter's original application, which means that the Committee then gave an indication in respect of that, that they will consider it when new facts became available, and the Committee made a finding that in the previous application, he made a full disclosure of everything that he knew at that stage. I am sorry I don't have that Bundle with me, Mr Chairman. But it is where the judgement refers to Schedule, I think 17, 23 - there were four Schedules referred to.

JUDGE PILLAY: What you are referring to Mr Du Plessis, for Mr Visser's benefit is that he wasn't granted a blanket amnesty, but he would be granted amnesty in respect of the position he held, when and if identifiable incident is testified?

MR DU PLESSIS: Correct, such as this incident. And then may I just point out that in respect of Brigadier Cronje's application, the original applications, you should with respect keep in mind that when those applications were made, those were the incidents which they recalled. All these incidents are incidents which they didn't recall then and can't recall now. At that stage Brigadier Cronje applied as the Commander in respect of the incidents which Captain Hechter applied for, Colonel Venter applied for, Mr Mentz applied for. Subsequently these incidents such as we are dealing with now, came to light and Brigadier Cronje compiled a new set of applications, in which he said I know nothing of this, but I was the Commander, so similarly I take responsibility. He hasn't received amnesty for these new applications in respect of that general amnesty, he still has to apply.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: I just point that out for Mr Visser's purpose.

MR VISSER: I am indebted to my learned friend and particularly for drawing my attention to page 9 of Mr Hechter's amnesty decision, which deals with Schedules 8, 17, 19 and 23. I have a complete understanding of the situation now. Chairperson, if we can then directly continue. If you will allow me a word of introduction Chairman. On the 5th of February this year a meeting was held, Chaired by yourself at which Commissioner Malan was also present inter alia, during which meeting we were told that there was going to be an accelerated process in order to attempt to finish the amnesty applications during this year if possible. Chairperson, at that meeting, we were asked the way I understood it, whether we would contribute from our side, as best we can, in order to accelerate the process. Mr Chairman, one of the points which was very pertinently made, was the reality that in most amnesty applications, up to that point, we at least, and I am sure my learned friend, Mr Du Plessis, had prepared copious documentation and copious argument was also presented on matters which have since become common cause. We talk about issues referring to the struggle of the past, the conflict of the past, the position of Policemen, how they saw the pressures, how they experienced the pressured brought to bear upon them, how grey areas evolved in which they thought they might be acting lawfully, whereas they were in fact acting unlawfully and such matters, including Chairperson ...

CHAIRPERSON: (Microphone not on)

MR VISSER: I should have put it that way, thank you Mr Chairman, but the point I am trying to make is that it was sought by that meeting and agreed and we understood it, that we would be able in future merely to refer by way of cross-reference, to other evidence instead of repeating all of that each time we arrive before an Amnesty Committee with our future applications. Chairperson, we sat down and thought, my Attorney and myself, how we could contribute towards this end, and the one thing which we have done and which has been accepted by the Amnesty Committee before which we are appearing in Johannesburg at this time, is to have made a very brief synopsis of the issues which normally, which are normally relevant to most amnesty applications. We have been able to draw a very brief summary of the general background, because of the amnesty decision which the original Amnesty Committee handed down in the case of Jan Hattingh Cronje. We also referred to that. Chairperson, the idea was that at the beginning of a series of amnesty applications before a particular Amnesty Committee, we would simply hand that up, we would give the Amnesty Committee time to look through it and if there is anything which they wanted to raise with us, any of the Commissioners, we would then deal with it. As it turned out, nothing was raised during the last hearing. You will not even have to read through this, none of the Commissioners now on the bench as it were, would have to read this Chairperson, because you must have read this so often in the previous applications in which we appeared, that I really wouldn't inflict upon you a demand that you should read it, but may we hand it up to you with the request that that should serve as a basis for our applications so that we can go directly to the facts and there by save time?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, are you going to be at this meeting tonight?

MR VISSER: I understand there is a meeting in Johannesburg, we have a problem as to what we may or may not do, from moment to moment, I don't know whether I am appearing in the matter or not, Chairperson, but is something fundamental bound to happen at the meeting tonight, Chairperson?

CHAIRPERSON: I don't know what is going to happen, I am trying to find out, but my recollection and my notes is the same as yours, but I think that we went a little bit further, that the idea as I understood it was in the De Kock hearings, that at the commencement of the first hearing, we were to put up and I say we - all the applicants were to be given the opportunity at that one hearing, to put up documents such as you have now prepared, that they would then form part of the record of the De Kock hearing and it would not be necessary to do it again at other hearings. This is the background information and I hope to discuss it this evening and find out if anybody has done anything about it, except yourselves.

MR VISSER: Chairperson, if I am not authorised to go to this meeting, you will be able to place on the table what we are handing in to you now.

MR VISSER: What I propose to do tonight, one of the things that I propose to do, is that I will make myself available next week, here, in Pretoria, in this building for further consultations with persons appearing in the De Kock hearings, where we can get, I hope, documents such as this made available and it can be distributed before the hearings, so that we don't have to adjourn to read them, and I will tell the Leader of Evidence to keep and make contact with your Attorney and give him details of where and what. But if you wish to have any further discussions with me, I will give you a cellphone number and next week we can try to get this, because my recollection I may be optimistic, was that in fact we agreed to do slightly more than merely do the background, that there was to be a summary of witnesses to be called or affidavits of the evidence which would be circulated, they would be given to the victims, they would in turn give theirs back, so all the parties had sight of what amounts to the pleadings before the hearing, and I don't think this has been done.

MR VISSER: No, it hasn't Chairperson, my Attorney has just told me he has received nothing.

CHAIRPERSON: No, well, that I regret. I will see what we can do tonight, to sort it out. In the meantime you can hand that up if you want to.

MR VISSER: Yes thank you Chairperson. As I say Chairperson, it is a very brief summary and it is a very brief summary Chairperson, and it is intended to be an omnibus document for the very purposes which you have just mentioned. Chairperson, obviously not all applicants will find that everything applies to him, so that because of that, at the beginning of the evidence of each of the applicants, I will briefly ask him what portions of that is not applicable to him.

CHAIRPERSON: The practice we have followed here during these hearings where we have four Bundles of applications, is that in connection with each hearing, the applicant has been referred to the general averments in his application, pages 20 to 57 and then to the specific incident, and that is all each time. He has been taken through if there were points that they want to develop or deal, but we do not consider it necessary that he should have to go word by word through matters that he has already confirmed under oath.

MR VISSER: Chairperson, that is obviously the way to go. The only request which we would make or comment, would be that such an agreement would have to be binding on all other Amnesty Committees Chairman, because the moment you have one Amnesty Committee who does not follow these views which you have expressed and I have tried to place on record here this morning, the whole system is going to go by the wayside. We would like to think that in future, what we have been discussing here this morning, will be accepted by all Amnesty Committees, because it will place us in an invidious situation should we arrive before an Amnesty Committee who says well, I can't accept that, I want to know what Van der Merwe said, I want to know what Vlok said, that portion of his evidence are you relying on, and you can't just cross-refers to it. Allow me just to make that point. Chairperson, may I refer you to this ...

JUDGE PILLAY: Mr Visser, is it intended that that document would be excluded, disabled from being cross-examined upon?

MR VISSER: Not at all. Not at all, the rule as I understand it, is if anyone who has an interest wishes to cross-examine on any point, in fact the witness will have to be called. yes, no, quite clearly Judge Pillay is quite correct. Chairman, may I very briefly refer you to this document, could it be given an exhibit number Mr Chairperson, it will be B I suppose, oh A, yes, Exhibit A Chairperson. At page 1 of A, we have set out the cross-references in line with the new accelerates process, we have set out the cross-references to which we wish to refer to be incorporated in the evidence of the applicants. You will recall Chairperson, in February 1997 we handed up these documents to you and they were given exhibit numbers P45, P46 and P47 and the intention was that they would then serve once and for all, as background documents for all amnesty applications to come.

CHAIRPERSON: One of the problems that I see, is that is all very well for the original Committee who got all these, but there are now other Committees, different Committees and I am not sure if arrangements have been made to supply the members of those Committees with these documents which some of us heard them when they were mentioned for the first time, and had copies and I think it might be a matter that should be taken up by your Attorney with the office in Cape Town as to the making available to Committees or to the Chairman of the Committees these documents. I don't think you need make for example (indistinct), complete to everyone, if the Chairman has a copy, they can photostat the relevant pages if somebody wants to refer to it, matters of that nature, but I think I haven't appreciated this problem before that Mr Du Plessis has throughout the hearings, been proceeding on the basis of well, Judge Wilson will remember we had this evidence and Judge Wilson will remember we did this. But when one's got other people in who had not had that benefit, I think one should try to take some steps to ensure that they get the documentation.

MR VISSER: Yes Chairperson, point taken. It is true that originally it was only circulated among the original members of the - point taken, Chairperson. And then we refer to the evidence which we specified here of Gen Van der Merwe before the original Amnesty Committee on the 21st of October and on the 27th of February and in the amnesty hearing of Stanza Bopape and then that of Gen Van der Merwe and Adriaan Vlok, to which also the Amnesty Committee has referred in the Cronje decision, in the amnesty hearings of the Cosatu House, Khotso House and Cry Freedom. Then obviously we rely Chairperson, on page 2, paragraph 6, on the amnesty decisions for purposes of reliance in terms of trying to abbreviate the proceedings before you. Mr Chairman, very briefly to give you a feel of the document, we deal with the document ...

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry for interrupting you again, there is a Bundle of that before us now. Your Attorney's got a copy, he could, if it is going to be used elsewhere also, if he contacts our Cape Town office, draw their attention to this Bundle which you want to have made available to the other Committees?

MR VISSER: Yes, thank you Chairperson, yes, I believe that might already have been done, but - thank you Chairperson, again point taken Chairperson. We deal Chairperson, I am not going to go through it in detail with the background and experiences of Policemen, we refer you to the Brigadier Cronje judgement, page 2 thereof. This continues, we make various extracts from that in order to make the points, Chairperson, also at pages 5 and 6, we deal with the pressures. We deal with the Rooi Gevaar at page 7 and the evidence of Mr Vlok, we deal with the, very briefly indeed, with the conflict of the past and we again at page 11 refer you to your own judgement, upon which we heavily rely Chairperson. At page 13 we deal with the position of various applicants during the conflict, the political background and motivation. It speaks for itself Chairperson. Then at the bottom of page 15, we deal because in many instances it becomes relevant, we deal with the role which the neighbouring States played during the course of the conflict of the past, and we deal in turn with Botswana at page 16, Swaziland at page 18 and Lesotho at page 19. They will not be relevant before you in the present hearing Chairperson, and we briefly deal at page 20 with the importance of information and with the position of informants in general. And that is the sum total of what we place before you which will cover most instances, Chairperson, and which we would ask you to bear in mind in considering the amnesty applications. Chairperson, if I then may go directly to the present instance, the first witness which we wish to call is Mr Andre Roos, and we have prepared - yes my Attorney has just reminded me Chairperson, we have decided during the course of this week, when we used Exhibit A before Commissioner Denzil and other Commissioners in Johannesburg, that it might be appropriate to translate this document into English which we will do in due course for whatever it is worth.

JUDGE PILLAY: I was forced to do a course in Afrikaans, I understand.

MR VISSER: Thank you Chairperson, that would save you some work. Mr Chairman, we would beg leave to call Mr Andre Roos and in his case, as we want to do, we have prepared a brief statement which is very similar to his amnesty application, but for the possible assistance of the Committee in not having to take down notes of what he is going to say, we beg leave to hand that up as Exhibit B Chairperson. The amnesty application of Mr Roos, I am told, is to be found in Bundle 1, from page 72 onwards Chairperson and the actual incident is reflected at page 78 of that Bundle. If Mr Roos could be sworn in Chairperson.

ANDRE ROOS: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Mr Roos, you are an applicant for amnesty and your application is contained in Bundle 1, from page 72, is that correct?

MR ROOS: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VISSER: With reference to page 2, or rather page 73 where you deal with your service in the South African Police, you say Warrant, currently Deputy Head Director Head Office, Pretoria, what is your situation at present?

MR ROOS: The component has been restructured recently and I am currently in the post of Information Security.

MR VISSER: Apart from that, did you look recently at your application, and go through it?

MR ROOS: I did study my application Chairperson and the contents thereof is still correct to the best of my knowledge.

MR VISSER: There is also a statement compiled for you which serves before the Committee as Exhibit B, did you go through the statement?

MR ROOS: I did look at it Chairperson.

MR VISSER: And the information in there, is that also true and correct?

MR ROOS: I confirm that.

MR VISSER: Mr Roos on page 1 of Exhibit B, you say that you have to take certain relevant evidence in to account and you refer to Exhibit A a general background document, is that correct?

MR ROOS: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Did you have an opportunity to study this document before the time?

MR ROOS: I did indeed Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Are there parts of that document that do not apply to you?

MR ROOS: Certain parts are not relevant per se to my application, although because of my knowledge as a member of the Security Branch, I can associate myself with the contents thereof.

MR VISSER: Can you associate yourself with the contents of the entire document?

MR ROOS: Yes, indeed Chairperson.

MR VISSER: You asked me to indicate that there are certain paragraphs that affect you personally that you want to emphasise, are those paragraphs 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 24, 41, 44 and 45?

MR ROOS: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Can you then Mr Roos, refer directly to page 1. This matter took place, this incident took place in 1986, is that correct?

MR ROOS: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VISSER: And it was in Tembisa?

MR ROOS: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Is that near Vereeniging?

MR ROOS: No, it is close to Kempton Park.

MR VISSER: We will argue at the end, that this was damage to property, possible attempted murder or a lesser judgement and perjury or any other crime or unlawful act that may appear from the facts, is that correct?

MR ROOS: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Can you go to page 2 and tell the Committee what your knowledge and recollection of this incident is?

MR ROOS: Thank you Chairperson. From March 1986 I was transferred to Tembisa where I served in the rank of Branch Manager of the Security Branch. In that time, the township ...

MR VISSER: Can I interrupt for a moment, two aspects, the aim of the statement that we compiled was to avoid notes being taken, so can you please stay with the words of the statement? The second thing is would you please go a bit slower because everything that you are saying in Afrikaans, is being translated to certain other languages, so if you could just keep in mind that while you are speaking, please give the Interpreters the opportunity to stay with you. Continue with paragraph 2.

MR ROOS: In that time, Tembisa was under the burden of large scale unrest and violence. This was manifested amongst other things, in boycotts, school boycotts, consumer boycotts and wide spread unrest.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, we would be satisfied if he merely confirmed the contents, paragraph 1 to 16 and deal with anything that he wishes to amplify, where there may be some slight difference of opinion.

MR VISSER: Chairperson, that is indeed his evidence, he has already confirmed it, perhaps I should just deal with what is stated at page 3, paragraph 14. After the incidents took place, you say there was a considerable decrease in unrest in Tembisa?

MR ROOS: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Do you believe that these incidents were contributory factors?

MR ROOS: That is my objective opinion.

MR VISSER: And you say that you did not act for personal profit or revenge, but what you did, you did in order to combat the unrest and thereby tried to keep the National Party, the previous government, in power?

MR ROOS: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Is it also your conviction that you acted not as an individual, but that you acted as a Policeman in the execution of your duties and which you believed fell within the scope of your capacities?

MR ROOS: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VISSER: You are therefore asking the Committee to consider your amnesty application favourably, as already mentioned in page 1, paragraphs 1.1 to 1.4.

MR ROOS: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Thank you Chairperson.

JUDGE PILLAY: Is there any person who was killed?

MR ROOS: Not to my knowledge Chairperson. I know there was a person injured in the Qwabe incident, but I don't know ...

JUDGE PILLAY: I am talking about this specific incident?

MR ROOS: To the best of my knowledge, no one was killed Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Chairperson, yes, just by way of explanation, we haven't gone through the evidence now, this witness wasn't present during the attack, point one, but secondly he sets out in paragraph 11 at page 3, that he later determined or established that a lady was injured in the explosion in regard to Godfrey Qwabe's home.

JUDGE PILLAY: I understand that, but that is not the incident we are dealing with.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, the two we are dealing with. We are dealing with two attacks.

MR VISSER: Yes Chairperson, on the same night, two incidents took place.

CHAIRPERSON: An attack on Thulare and an attack on Qwabe?

MR ROOS: Yes.

MR VISSER: Yes Chairperson, and it was all part and parcel of basically the same operation. Chairperson, the other two witnesses who will follow Mr Roos, have a very vague recollection of this. The facts will show that there was an attack with a bomb on the house of Qwabe and that there was not a bomb attack, but a firearm attack whereby they shot with Russian firearms at the house of Mr Thulare, so I just wanted to give that background as well. Thank you Mr Chairman.

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

ADV STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, I have no questions either, thank you Mr Chairman.

JUDGE PILLAY: Mr Visser, can you help me, possibly it won't be necessary to ask the question, but the incident, the second incident of that night, is that mentioned at all in the original application? I cannot find it.

MR VISSER: Of Roos?

JUDGE PILLAY: The incident at the house of Godfrey Qwabe?

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, yes, indeed. I may refer you to page 79 of Bundle 1, where you will find at the bottom of that page, he says there was a meeting between him and two operatives from Pretoria, the one was Hechter and we now know the other was Viktor, although Roos couldn't remember, and he says that that meeting took place at Olifantsfontein Police station...

JUDGE PILLAY: That answers my question.

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman. I may just add Chairman, that in line with his evidence, that took place after he had gone and spoken to Brigadier Cronje about his problems and Brigadier Cronje had undertaken to help him solve his problems. This was the way in which that was attempted to be done.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

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

ON RESUMPTION:

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, the next witness is Johannes Jakobus Viktor, similarly we have prepared a document of his evidence for you and we have also prepared Chairperson, an affidavit. It will be come clear in a moment why the affidavit was necessary. Perhaps in Mr Viktor's case, we should ask your indulgence to lead him a little bit more courteously. The statement we propose should perhaps be marked Exhibit C Chairperson, and the affidavit, Exhibit D. May I say immediately that what is in the affidavit is also literally in a statement, so you don't have to read both. Can Mr Viktor be sworn in?

JOHANNES JAKOBUS VIKTOR: (sworn states)

MR MALAN: You may be seated, thank you.

EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Mr Viktor, you are also an applicant for amnesty in this matter, and you are requesting the same amnesty as we are requesting in the case of Mr Roos, is that correct?

MR VIKTOR: Yes.

MR VISSER: You have lodged an amnesty application which is currently before the Committee in Bundle 1(b), page 1. Chairperson, I hope I am right. 1(b), page 1 and it runs Chairperson, to page 9 I believe. Do you confirm the correctness and the truth of the contents of this application, this original amnesty application of yours?

MR VIKTOR: That is correct yes.

MR VISSER: Now, if we could go back to Exhibit C, that is the statement which was drawn up for you, there you also ask that the relevant evidence in Exhibit A be incorporated into your application?

MR VIKTOR: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Are there any portions of Exhibit A which should be excluded as far as you are concerned?

MR VIKTOR: Paragraphs 47 to 62, Chairperson, that relates to operations in foreign countries.

MR VISSER: Now if we go to page 2 of your statement, Exhibit C, there you indicated that in 1996 you decided to take part in the amnesty process and to make a full disclosure of all the incidents in which you were involved in the course of the struggle of the past?

MR VIKTOR: That is correct.

MR VISSER: You then also say that you suffer from a bad memory?

MR VIKTOR: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: What do you ascribe that to?

MR VIKTOR: In the first place to the lapse of time, and also to post traumatic stress.

MR VISSER: Are you being treated, do you get any psychological treatment for post traumatic stress?

MR VIKTOR: Yes.

MR VISSER: Are you still continuing with the treatment?

MR VIKTOR: Yes.

MR VISSER: You say that you can't recall the detail of the approximately 40 incidents in which you were involved, you can't remember that?

MR VIKTOR: That is correct.

MR VISSER: In those cases, were you mostly with members serving under Brigadier Cronje?

MR VIKTOR: Correct.

MR VISSER: Since the application has been lodged, were you able to refresh your memory regarding certain incidents?

MR VIKTOR: Yes.

MR VISSER: How did you do that?

MR VIKTOR: We had discussions with some of the members and I also read some of the members' amnesty applications.

MR VISSER: Are you certain that in these more than 40 applications or cases, you were also involved in the case where there was an attack on the homes of Gregory Thulare and Godfrey Qwabe in Tembisa?

MR VIKTOR: Yes.

MR VISSER: In your amnesty application, on page 2, you referred in paragraph 9(a)(i) to the fact that you are asking for amnesty for malicious damage to property, bomb explosions and you are asking for amnesty for any other offence or delict based on your involvement in that regard, and you then said from February to May 1986, could you please say why you restricted it to February to May 1986?

MR VIKTOR: It was at that stage that I joined the Security Branch permanently in Pretoria.

MR VISSER: And you also referred to certain places, Mamelodi, Atteridgeville, Pietersburg and Britz?

MR VIKTOR: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Now there is no specific reference to Tembisa, is that correct?

MR VIKTOR: Yes.

MR VISSER: But you were reminded that portion of those 40 incidents or that the 40 incidents included these two?

MR VIKTOR: Correct.

MR VISSER: How did you refresh your memory so that you were able to know that it included the attacks on the homes of Gregory Thulare and Godfrey Qwabe?

MR VIKTOR: By the amnesty application of Mr Roos.

MR VISSER: This you say on paragraph 4 on page 5. Now since your amnesty application in that respect is as vague as it is, there was a request made by Adv Andre Steenkamp for further particulars, you are aware of that?

MR VIKTOR: Yes, I am.

MR VISSER: You have tried and you are still trying to try and identify the incidents, correct?

MR VIKTOR: Yes.

MR VISSER: And you have also requested that certain applications namely of Jaap van Jaarsveld and Sergeant Tiny Coetzer be made available to you?

MR VIKTOR: Yes.

MR VISSER: And you have now received Sergeant Tiny Coetzer's amnesty application and you will go through it to find out whether there are other incidents which will resort under your amnesty application?

MR VIKTOR: Yes.

MR VISSER: As far as the incident of Gregory Thulare and Godfrey Qwabe are concerned, you have tried to place on record that which you can remember by means of an affidavit?

MR VIKTOR: Yes.

MR VISSER: And that has been placed before the Amnesty Committee, that is now Exhibit D is that correct?

MR VIKTOR: Yes.

MR VISSER: If we can now turn to the incident itself, you say that it had to take place in February to May because you said that that is when you were working for the Security Branch in Pretoria?

MR VIKTOR: That is correct.

MR VISSER: I suppose you mean the Security Branch Northern Transvaal?

MR VIKTOR: Yes.

MR VISSER: Brigadier Cronje was the Commanding Officer at that stage of the Northern Transvaal Security Branch?

MR VIKTOR: Correct.

MR VISSER: Were you a member of the Security Branch or what was the position?

MR VIKTOR: I was a Detective working in Mamelodi attached to the Riot, investigation of riots.

MR VISSER: That is referred to as the Special Investigation Unit?

MR VIKTOR: Yes.

MR VISSER: And what Branch were you attached to?

MR VIKTOR: I fell under the division of the District Detective Officer of the area.

MR VISSER: What was your rank?

MR VIKTOR: Captain.

MR VISSER: Are you still in the Police?

MR VIKTOR: Yes, I am now a Director.

MR VISSER: You said that you worked under the Security Branch, what does that mean? Were you bound by instructions from Cronje?

MR VIKTOR: Yes. I was transferred or seconded to the Security Branch and that was then my new office and I reported for duty there every morning.

MR VISSER: Did you indeed receive instructions from Brigadier Cronje and did you carry them out?

MR VIKTOR: Yes.

MR VISSER: Please refer to paragraph 10, in your affidavit as well as in your current evidence, you say that you were aware of the contents of the amnesty application of Andre Roos and that you have no independent recollection of certain aspects of his evidence, is that correct?

MR VIKTOR: Yes.

MR VISSER: That included that he came to Pretoria on a particular day to speak to Brigadier Cronje and that he was introduced to two people, one he couldn't remember the other one was Captain Hechter and thirdly that you were present at a meeting where Roos discussed the problems relating to activists in Tembisa and that you and Captain Hechter met Roos at the Olifantsfontein Police station and that he identified certain homes to you. You have no independent recollection of that?

MR VIKTOR: No, I don't.

MR VISSER: But you can't deny the correctness of his evidence?

MR VIKTOR: No.

MR VISSER: What you can recall appears in paragraph 11, or rather what you also cannot remember, you refer to that in paragraph 11, was whether Brigadier Cronje or Captain Roos informed you and Hechter in connection with the activities of the two victims?

MR VIKTOR: That is correct.

MR VISSER: What did you think against whom were you about to act?

MR VIKTOR: Well I knew we were going to act against the enemy.

MR VISSER: Who are you referring to?

MR VIKTOR: That would be the ANC/SACP alliance and any other people trying to overthrow the government.

MR VISSER: Now, did you and Captain Hechter then receive an instruction or order from Cronje?

MR VIKTOR: Yes.

MR VISSER: What did that entail?

MR VIKTOR: That we should attack the homes of people in Tembisa.

MR VISSER: When you compiled your application, you also didn't now what the identity was of these two people, but will you accept that the identities are as set out by Roos?

MR VIKTOR: Yes.

MR VISSER: I am going to page 4 Chairperson. What can you remember about what happened?

MR VIKTOR: Chair, what I can remember is that we operated at two homes in Tembisa. In one case we used an explosive device to attack the home and at the second home, we used AK47's to shoot at the house.

MR VISSER: Why did you use different methods to attack the two different homes?

MR VIKTOR: Our normal modus operandi was to use petrol bombs and explosive devices to attack the homes. If I have to speculate, there could be one of two reasons, either because we only had one explosive device with us that night, or because we couldn't get close enough to the house and I think the second alternative was probably the most probable one.

MR VISSER: What you can recall is that at the house where you used the explosive device, or bomb, that was the first house?

MR VIKTOR: Yes.

MR VISSER: You can remember that by virtue of what fact?

MR VIKTOR: What stands out in my memory about this incident is that when we ran out of the yard and into the road, after having used the explosive device, it exploded and we were very close and some of the shrapnel from the house actually landed in the road in front of us.

MR VISSER: You also say that you did not act for personal gain or out of personal malice or having a grudge, but simply because you were a Policeman and you acted in the cause and scope of your duty and it fell within your tacit or express authorisation or powers?

MR VIKTOR: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And that that was done with the objective of protecting the government and protecting the National Party who at that stage, was the governing party and to avert the revolutionary onslaught, is that correct?

MR VIKTOR: Yes.

MR VISSER: You are then requesting the Committee in the first place on the basis of your evidence, to accept that your intention was to mention all cases in which you were involved and where houses were attacked, to include all of that in your amnesty application, and on the basis of the affidavit, Exhibit D you are requesting the Committee to accept it as such and although on page 2, you did not refer to Tembisa, you are asking the Committee to deem it as if you had done so, to grant you amnesty?

MR VIKTOR: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman, just one thing perhaps. You also later learnt from the amnesty application of Mr Roos, that a person was possibly injured in the attack, the attack in which you used the home made explosive device?

MR VIKTOR: Yes.

MR VISSER: And we know now that that would have been the house of Godfrey Qwabe?

MR VIKTOR: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Viktor, am I understanding you correctly that the specific incidents which you are now requesting amnesty for, specifically those appearing on page 2 of the affidavit, referring to the attack on two homes, the home at Ekangala and the Ribeiro homes and homes in Pietersburg, that those incidents are the incidents which you are applying for specifically because you became aware of those incidents in which you were involved, after having read amnesty applications of other people?

MR VIKTOR: Yes, that is correct. The only difference is for the purposes of this Committee, it is only paragraphs 2(a) and (b).

MR DU PLESSIS: And those applications are based on what you say you can recall, and your memory as it was refreshed by Mr Roos' application in this case? Is that correct?

MR VIKTOR: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: When you lodged your amnesty application, there was no specific reference to any individual incident?

MR VIKTOR: Yes, that is true.

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

ADV STEENKAMP: No questions, Mr Chairman, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR VISSER: That takes care of my applicants, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: I think we might continue and ...

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, we can easily do that Mr Chairman. I call the next witness, Captain Hechter, Mr Chairman.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------ON RESUMPTION:

JACQUES HECHTER: (sworn states)

MR MALAN: Thank you, you may sit down.

EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Captain Hechter, this is the last application of a series of applications in the so-called Cronje Cluster 2, and in confirmation as also in all the other applications, as far as the background evidence is concerned, do you stand by the general background evidence of Brigadier Cronje, who during the Cronje hearings was submitted by Brigadier Cronje in October 1996 and March 1997, is that correct?

MR HECHTER: That is correct Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: And that applies also to this specific application?

MR HECHTER: That is also correct Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: Captain Hechter, as in the previous applications this is also an application of which you don't have any independent recollection, is that correct?

MR HECHTER: Chairperson, only after I read Mr Roos' application, only then did I become aware of this case. Mr Viktor and I spoke about it afterwards and that is so, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: Your application is based on the contents of the application of Mr Roos?

MR HECHTER: That is correct Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: You have no reason to dispute Mr Roos and the parts that Mr Viktor gave evidence about and you stand by that for the purposes of your application?

MR HECHTER: Fully Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: Captain Hechter, your applications are in two sets, there was a first series of applications which were heard in October 1996 and in March 1997, is that correct?

MR HECHTER: That is correct Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: And of those applications there were specific incidents about which you had a very clear memory?

MR HECHTER: That is correct Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: If I can mention a few of them briefly, the application about the Nietverdiendt 10 where 10 youths were killed, you have a good memory of that?

MR HECHTER: That is correct Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: The KwaNdebele 9 where nine youths were killed?

MR HECHTER: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: The Ribeiro incident?

MR HECHTER: Correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Where Dr Ribeiro and his wife were killed. The Ntuli incident where Mr Piet Ntuli was killed?

MR HECHTER: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: And the Mutasi incident where a Policeman who gave information to the ANC, he and his wife were killed?

MR HECHTER: That is correct Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: And then also the case of the attack on Bishop Makatchwa?

MR HECHTER: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: So there are various cases about which you have a very clear memory and you gave detailed evidence?

MR HECHTER: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: And then there was also the series of incidents where you based on Van Vuuren's evidence because you could not remember anything of that?

MR HECHTER: That is correct Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: And after that, you read applications of various other applicants such as this series of applications, Goosen, Momberg and other persons as applicants and you became aware of cases in which you were involved, but of which you cannot remember anything?

MR HECHTER: That is correct Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: And that led to a second series of amnesty applications for such cases?

MR HECHTER: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: And this application is specifically one of those cases?

MR HECHTER: That is correct Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: Captain Hechter, and do you accept that you were in command of this operation?

MR HECHTER: That is positively so, yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: And although we know that Brigadier Cronje can remember nothing about this case, do you accept that it was under instruction of Brigadier Cronje?

MR HECHTER: That is so Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: And in terms of the broader guidelines and instructions about which you have already given evidence?

MR HECHTER: That is correct Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: And you have no doubt that Brigadier Cronje would have approved this whether before or after time, had he been informed of that?

MR HECHTER: Not at all, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: You cannot remember that you informed him?

MR HECHTER: Unfortunately I cannot, unfortunately I can't remember anything like that.

MR DU PLESSIS: You do however, accept Captain Roos' evidence with regard to the discussion that he had with Brigadier Cronje?

MR HECHTER: That is correct Chairperson.

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

MR VISSER: I have no questions, thank you Chairperson.

ADV STEENKAMP: No questions, thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, the next applicant is then Brigadier Cronje who would have been able to testify before you, if it wasn't for his heart attack. May I approach this application in exactly the similar way than the previous ones, to refer you to page 101, which I have actually already done, of Bundle 1, where he applies for this incident on the basis of the fact that he was the Commanding Officer. Where he refers to Captain Hechter's application in this incident, Schedule 7, he accepts responsibility for this incident and also for the fact that he was the Commanding Officer and that he would have authorised this. I am placing that on record. That is part of his new application, the new set of applications which I handed to you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: What page of the new?

MR DU PLESSIS: 101, the paginated 101, typed page 19.

CHAIRPERSON: I haven't got a paginated page.

MR DU PLESSIS: I am sorry, it is typed page 19, Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, may I then also for purposes of this application, I have hand-written, just made a list of incidents which Captain Hechter and Brigadier Cronje applies for as it differs a little bit from those my learned friend, Mr Visser, listed. May I just hand the hand-written list up to you. I beg your pardon that it is hand-written Mr Chairman, I didn't think it would have been necessary to do so. Thank you Mr Chairman. That is the end of my applications, thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Unless there is something that you wish to say, we do not need to hear argument in this matter. The matter is now concluded.

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman. That I think concludes the whole of this hearing.

ADV STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, indeed, that will be the roll for this session, thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Right.

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