--------------------------------------------------------------------------CHAIRPERSON: Good morning everybody. Today we are hearing the matter of the abduction of Mr Chris Mosiane. My name for the record is Motata, from the TPD. On my left I have Mr Malan from Johannesburg and on my right I have Adv Sandi from East London. I would request the legal representatives who are involved in this matter, to place their names on record. I'll start from my left.

MR PRINSLOO: As it pleases, Mr Chairman. Harry Prinsloo on behalf of the applicants, Pienaar and Deetlefs.

MS VAN DER WALT: Louis van DER Walt, Chairperson, for Mr S J Visser and Mr H W van Zweel.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Richard.

MR RICHARD: I apologise, Chairperson. My name is Tony Richard, Johannesburg, I represent Chris Mosiane.

ADV STEENKAMP: Thank you Honourable Chairperson. My name is Steenkamp, I will be the Evidence Leader. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Are we ready to commence?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, I'm calling the first applicant, Mr Pienaar. He is Afrikaans-speaking, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I'll ask Mr Malan to administer the oath.

FREDERICK JOHANNES PIENAAR: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Malan. Mr Prinsloo.

EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Mr Pienaar, you are an applicant in this applicant in the matter of the abduction of Mr Mosiane.

MR PIENAAR: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And within the prescribed time you handed up an application to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, as it appears in the bundle from page 30, is that correct?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And the facts are explained in your application, do you confirm the contents thereof?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, I do.

MR PRINSLOO: As well as the political background which is given?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And previously with other applications, Annexure A which explains the background of the South African Police.

MR PIENAAR: That's correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And do you ask that this be incorporated into your application?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, I do.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Pienaar, you on instruction of Brig Visser, following up on information from your fellow applicant, Mr Deetlefs, went to Swaziland and there you abducted the victim, Mr Mosiane and three others.

MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, I actually went on instruction of Mr Deetlefs and he and Colonel - I met Colonel Visser and Mr Deetlefs at the border post and then we went to Swaziland.

MR PRINSLOO: And from there you went to this specific police station?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct, that is the Bunja Police Station.

MR PRINSLOO: And there these four persons were detained.

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And with the breaking out of these persons, was any violence used against the Swazi Police?

MR PIENAAR: No, no force was used.

MR PRINSLOO: And after you had removed these four persons from the police station, did you place Mr Mosiane in your vehicle along with another person?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct, Chairperson. I think the other person was James, I'm not entirely certain. Mr Mosiane was with someone else in our vehicle, with me and Mr Deetlefs. We did find Mr Mosiane with leg-irons at the police station and we took him away with the leg-irons. We also attached a rope to his neck and attached it to the vehicle's handbrake, in order to prevent him from escaping because we were driving through a forest. We crossed into the RSA, crossing over a fence, the border fence.

MR PRINSLOO: So you left Swaziland illegally without going through the border post?

MR PIENAAR: We went into Swaziland through the border post and we came out not using the border post, that's correct Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And while Mr Mosiane was in the vehicle and the other person, was he told that he would be shot if he did not cooperate, or anything to that effect?

MR PIENAAR: That is entirely possible, yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And Mr Deetlefs said that he would kill him and drop him right there next to the road.

MR PIENAAR: That is possible, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And was Mr Mosiane then taken to Piet Retief Police Station?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, he was taken to Piet Retief Station, where later he was detained under Section 29.

MR PRINSLOO: As well as the other person?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: What happened to Mr Mosiane afterwards?

MR PIENAAR: After his detention in Piet Retief he was taken away by head office. I don't know where else he was detained, but he later ended up at Vlakplaas, where he worked in C1, under Col de Kock.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you at any stage take him to a place in the East Rand?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, Chairperson. I think it was the following day after we broke them out of Swaziland, Mr Mosiane took myself and Mr Deetlefs to Springs, where he allegedly would have pointed out a weapons cache point. The first afternoon he could not find the place, but the following morning he pointed out the place to us, where the dead letter box had been established, allegedly by Mr Klaas de Jongh and someone by the name of Pastoors. We took the weapons, it included components for two vehicle bombs which were meant for a military operation in Boksburg and another one in Springs itself.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Pienaar, under these circumstances you apply for amnesty for abduction, that you had removed Mr Mosiane against his will and detained him against his will, is that correct?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: For unlawful detention.

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And that you had also intimidated him, which might form part of the assault.

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you do this for any personal gain?

MR PIENAAR: No, not at all.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you do this out of malice?

MR PIENAAR: No, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you do this in the interest of the South African Police and the government, who you served at that stage?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, I did.

MR PRINSLOO: And it has slipped my mind now, you also apply that you had entered the Republic unlawfully and had left Swaziland unlawfully.

MR PIENAAR: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Prinsloo. Ms van DER Walt, any cross-examination?

MS VAN DER WALT: No cross-examination.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Richard.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR RICHARD: Thank you, Chair.

Sir, would you be able to describe Mr Mosiane's physical condition when you found him in the police cell in Swaziland. Was he injured or uninjured.

MR PIENAAR: As far as I can recall he was not injured, Chairperson.

MR RICHARD: And if he were to say that he had already been assaulted by the Royal Swazi Police, would you dispute his allegation?

MR PIENAAR: I cannot dispute that.

MR RICHARD: The second point is, is it not correct that the method by which he was restrained in the car was that a rope was tied round his neck and the other end to the handbrake of the car.

MR MALAN: That was his evidence, Mr Richard.

MR RICHARD: Now my last question. You used the word "possible", you do not dispute that in Mr Mosiane's mind he formed the belief and conviction that if he did not cooperate with you and do what was wished of him, he would, as he says in his statement, disappear.

MR PIENAAR: That is possible yes, Chairperson.

MR RICHARD: No further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Richard. Mr Prinsloo, before you have any re-examination, I propose that the Panel should also put question, that your re-examination should be fully encompassed in that respect.

MR PRINSLOO: As you please, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Adv Sandi, any questions?

ADV SANDI: No questions Mr Chairman, thank you.

MR MALAN: Just a brief follow-up on the last question. I think it is not only that you will not dispute it that he would form the impression that he would disappear, but that you had the intention to create that impression with him.

MR PIENAAR: With the words that were possible said that "we will shoot you if you do not sit still".

MR MALAN: Yes.

MR PIENAAR: Yes, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: And further that if he didn't want to cooperate with the Security Forces of South Africa, that he would have been also probably charged, if not removed entirely.

MR PIENAAR: Correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Any re-examination, Mr Prinsloo?

MR PRINSLOO: No re-examination, thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Pienaar, you are excused.

MR PIENAAR: Thank you, Chairperson.

VOORSITTER: "Is u nou aan die woord, mnr Prinsloo."

MNR PRINSLOO: Ja, Edelagbare.

VOORSITTER: Dankie.

MR PRINSLOO: The next applicant Mr Chairman, is Mr Deetlefs.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------CHRISTO PETRO DEETLEFS: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Deetlefs, you are the applicant in this matter, during which Mr Mosiane and three others were abducted from Swaziland.

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And within the prescribed time you have submitted an application to the TRC, which appears in the bundle. Your application is from page 15 to 17, and the facts pertaining to the matter can be found from 18 to 21, and then the political background from page 22 onwards.

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Do you confirm this as correct as it appears before you?

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: At that stage you were the Branch Commander of Ermelo, when this incident took place.

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And as a result of your activities in Swaziland, you had informers within Swaziland itself.

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you also have an informer who was linked to the Swaziland Police?

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And did this informer provide information to you regarding the victim, Mr Mosiane, and three others who were to be detained at this specific police station?

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you convey this information to Brig Visser?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes, at a later stage I conveyed it to him.

MR PRINSLOO: And was a decision taken to take action and did you receive an order from Brig Visser to take these persons from that place?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And what was the purpose with this?

MR DEETLEFS: To obtain information, because at that stage we were aware that these four persons were members of the so-called Special Operations group of MK. They had come together on a large-scale in Swaziland. To my opinion there was a large-scale offence which was being planned, which would include acts of terrorism and bomb attacks within the RSA, and I believed that it was vital for us to apprehend these persons in order to obtain information so that we could determine what exactly they were planning on doing within the RSA.

MR PRINSLOO: Do you confirm the evidence given by the previous applicant, Mr Pienaar?

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And with this abduction so to speak, from Swaziland, did you create the impression with the applicant that he would be killed should he not cooperate?

MR DEETLEFS: Chairperson, it was my intention in the vehicle. I threatened to shoot him because the intention was to intimidate him so that he would be quiet and not offer any resistance.

MR PRINSLOO: And he was tied by Mr Pienaar.

MR DEETLEFS: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And after that he was detained.

MR DEETLEFS: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And you left Swaziland without a passport.

MR DEETLEFS: Yes, we crossed the border fence without a passport.

MR PRINSLOO: Into the Republic of South Africa?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And you then apply for amnesty for abduction.

MR DEETLEFS: Correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Incorporated with that would be assault.

MR DEETLEFS: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And then you also apply for the fact that you left the Republic of Swaziland illegally and that you entered the Republic of South Africa illegally.

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And you also then apply for the illegal detention of the applicant in South Africa.

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Therefore you apply for any offence which may emanate from the facts as set out within your application.

MR DEETLEFS: Correct.

MR PRINSLOO: As well as for any delictual accountability which may emanate from this.

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you do this out of malice, this abduction?

MR DEETLEFS: No, I did not draw any personal advantage from this incident.

MR PRINSLOO: And this was for the benefit of the South African Police and the government of that time.

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Prinsloo. Ms van DER Walt, any cross-examination?

MS VAN DER WALT: No questions, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Richard.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR RICHARD: Thank you.

Sir, Mr Mosiane informs me that when he was arrested by the Swazi Police, he found that he was one of 12 MK operatives in the Manzini cells. Would your informers have let you know that bit of information as well?

MR DEETLEFS: No Chairperson, I know that at a stage a large group of them was detained throughout Swaziland, so it is possible that he may have originally also have been detained at Manzini, but I don't know about it directly.

MR RICHARD: Now he and the three others were removed from Manzini and moved to this particular police station near the South African border, was that also within the information conveyed to you by your informers?

MR DEETLEFS: No, I simply the information that they were being detained in Bunja, I did not know that they had been detained at another police station.

MR RICHARD: But it is common cause that when you arrived at the police station approximate to the South African border, the Swazi Police man, the single one, offered no resistance at all in handing the four cadres to you.

MR DEETLEFS: No resistance was given by the Swaziland Police whatsoever.

MR RICHARD: Indeed there was co-operation.

MR DEETLEFS: Chairperson, I wouldn't be able to say because I did not liaise with this person at all, this police officer, so I wouldn't say that there was co-operation, I just believed that he was intimidated and due to this, did not resist at all.

MR RICHARD: Now do you recall Mr Mosiane's physical condition when you took him from the Swazi Police?

MR DEETLEFS: I cannot recall it that specifically, I cannot say whether he was assaulted prior to the time, I would not be able to tell you. It is possible, but I cannot tell you definitely.

MR RICHARD: Wouldn't it have been a matter of concern that if he had been injured, that it was documented so that in due course you and the men working with you couldn't be blamed for it?

MR DEETLEFS: I beg your pardon, due to the noise outside I couldn't hear the question quite properly, could you repeat it please.

MR RICHARD: Isn't it so that if a person is taken into your care who is injured, it's prudent and wise and good practice to document his physical condition, so as to prevent the implication that he suffered the injuries while in your care?

MR DEETLEFS: Yes, in terms of Section 29 he would have to be examined by a physician and any injuries that he had incurred would have to be documented.

MR RICHARD: Do you know when you was examined by a physician?

MR DEETLEFS: Most probably due to the fact that this incident took place on the Saturday night, if I recall correctly they were detained in terms of Section 29 on the subsequent Monday, so it would have been on the same day that they were examined by the physician.

MR RICHARD: However, there is no dispute from your evidence as I understand it, that you and your colleagues behaved and said things to Mr Mosiane that were intended to make him believe that if he did not cooperate and do as you wished, he would, as he says in his affidavit, vanish, disappear.

MR DEETLEFS: That was the intention with the threat.

MR RICHARD: And there's also no dispute about the fact that the rope was tied round Mr Mosiane's neck and tied to the handbrake of the car.

MR DEETLEFS: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR RICHARD: No further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Richard. Mr Steenkamp, any questions?

ADV STEENKAMP: No questions, thank you Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Adv Sandi?

ADV SANDI: No questions, thank you Chairperson.

MR MALAN: No questions, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Deetlefs, you are excused.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, I omitted to apply amnesty on behalf of Mr Pienaar, as far as any delictual liability is concerned. Would that - I move this ...

CHAIRPERSON: Well it flows from the actions taken. If he gets amnesty on the others, then obviously any other offence and delictual actions would flow from that.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Mr Chairman. That concludes the evidence of the two applicants I intend calling, Mr Chairman. CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Prinsloo.

MS VAN DER WALT: Chairperson, I call Mr Visser.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------SCHALK JAN VISSER: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Malan. Ms van DER Walt.

EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you, Chairperson.

Mr Visser, you are the applicant in this matter and your amnesty application has been embodied in the bundle, from page 1 to page 14, do you confirm the application as such?

MR VISSER: Yes, I do.

MS VAN DER WALT: You have heard the evidence given by Messrs Pienaar and Deetlefs, do you confirm their evidence as correct?

MR VISSER: Yes, I confirm it as correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Is it also correct that you gave the order for Mr Mosiane and the three other persons to be abducted?

MR VISSER: That is correct, I gave the order.

MS VAN DER WALT: After the abduction took place, did you inform Head Office Police about the abduction?

MR VISSER: Yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: And what was the reaction by the Police Headquarters?

MR VISSER: While the persons were being detained in the Piet Retief cells, Gen Steenkamp and Brig Willem Schoon arrived there the following morning and informed themselves regarding the circumstances.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did they approve of it?

MR VISSER: Yes

MS VAN DER WALT: And did you feel that the abduction was necessary during that time, in order to combat the acts of terrorism which were being committed at that stage?

MR VISSER: Yes, it was necessary.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you draw any personal advantage from this abduction?

MR VISSER: Absolutely not.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you have any feelings of personal vengeance towards Mr Mosiane or the other three?

MR VISSER: No.

MS VAN DER WALT: Do you also then apply for amnesty for abduction? And did you also cross the border fence illegally?

MR VISSER: Yes, I did.

MS VAN DER WALT: Do you then also apply for the fact that you crossed a national border illegally?

MR VISSER: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: As well as the illegal detention of Mr Mosiane until his detention in terms of Section 29?

MR VISSER: Yes, I apply for all these things.

MS VAN DER WALT: Along with any other offence or delictual accountability which may emanate from the facts of this case.

MR VISSER: Yes, I apply therefore.

MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you, Chairperson, nothing further.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms van DER Walt.

MR PRINSLOO: No cross-examination, thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Prinsloo. Mr Richard?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR RICHARD: Thank you.

Simply one point. Was there any other information that you had at your disposal, other than what Mr Deetlefs and his informers had conveyed through Mr Deetlefs to you?

MR VISSER: The action was exclusively arranged as a result of the information which was conveyed by Mr Deetlefs, but over and beyond this I was aware of other planning regarding terrorist activities within the RSA during that period of time.

MR RICHARD: Now Mr Mosiane is still surprised that no force or over-show of force was required to show the Swazi Police to hand him and his colleagues to you, was there a reason for that the fact that no threat or force was required?

MR VISSER: I was under the impression with our action there, that the Swazi policeman was completely overwhelmed or surprised and that due to this he did not offer any physical resistance.

MR RICHARD: Now you've heard the evidence of the previous two applicants, and as I understand it you did not travel in the same car as Mr Mosiane.

MR VISSER: No, I travelled in another vehicle, me and the next applicant.

MR RICHARD: However, you would not dispute that they behaved and made utterances designed and intended to persuade Mr Mosiane to believe that if he didn't cooperate and do as the police wanted, he would disappear or vanish.

MR VISSER: I cannot dispute it, I wasn't present.

MR RICHARD: Do you recall anything about Mr Mosiane's physical condition?

MR VISSER: Not in particular, he was indeed within a position to enter the vehicle himself, but I cannot recall any particular details pertaining to his physical condition.

MR RICHARD: No further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR RICHARD

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Richard. Mr Steenkamp.

ADV STEENKAMP: No questions, thank you Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Malan.

MR MALAN: Chairperson, just to follow up on the question put by Mr Richard.

You have heard that Mr Richard states that Mr Mosiane was completely surprised that the Swazi Police did not offer any resistance. Perhaps we should have put this question to Mr Pienaar or to Mr Deetlefs, do you have any knowledge of who the informer among the Swazi Police was? Was it perhaps somebody who occupied a high rank, who could make such an arrangement after he or she had received the information to transfer Mr Mosiane to the cells near the border post and also then to ensure that there would be only one policeman there, so that this person would cooperate?

MR VISSER: I do not have any specific knowledge of any particular person who may have conveyed information. I did not handle such a person and I'm also not aware that any special arrangements were made. My impression was that our action would hold the elements of surprise and that is why no Swazi resistance was offered.

MR MALAN: Did you identify yourselves to the Swazi policeman?

MR VISSER: No, we walked in there as four white men and made certain demands and the persons were released. I did not identify myself.

MR MALAN: You state that you put certain demands.

MR VISSER: We were under the impression that he was simply removed from the cells.

MR MALAN: Yes, well I just want to know whether or not you said anything to the policeman.

MR VISSER: I do not recall whether I said anything to him personally.

MR MALAN: Can you recall whether anything was said to him?

MR VISSER: I cannot recall specifically whether anything was said to him, most possibly I accept that we could have asked that the persons who coincidentally were held in the cells, be removed.

MR MALAN: I don't think that you will be able to assist us regarding Mr Mosiane's concerns. Thank you, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: I want to point out that Mr Deetlefs has just informed me that he's prepared to write the name of the informer on a piece of paper and make it available to the Committee, and also that the person concerned was a relatively senior person in the police, the hierarchy of that particular Police Station.

MR MALAN: Chairperson, with your permission.

I don't know whether or not we should obtain it on the record from you, but is it also your instruction that this person, according to his rank, would be capable of arranging for such a transfer? Could you determine this because I think that will assist Mr Mosiane and will not have to recall the witness.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, as far as the applicant can take it is that this particular person was relatively senior in the Swazi Police and he's prepared to make his name available and it's possible that that person could have made some arrangement to move them to that particular place. He doesn't have that information, he can't give that evidence. That's how far I can take it.

MR MALAN: Thank you very much, Mr Prinsloo.

CHAIRPERSON: We are indebted to you, Mr Prinsloo, for that. Adv Sandi?

ADV SANDI: Thank you Chair, I don't have any questions to ask.

MR RICHARD: Chairperson, may I with your leave, ask one last question which didn't occur to me because it didn't appear relevant?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, certainly Mr Richard.

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR RICHARD: The question is, were firearms exhibited when you went into the police station?

MR VISSER: We were armed and I believe that the firearms were visible, that our firearms were indeed visible.

MR RICHARD: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Other than the firearms Mr Visser, being visible, did you physically take them out or you just showed that "we are armed"?

MR VISSER: We took out the firearms and displayed them on a visible level.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms van DER Walt, any re-examination?

MS VAN DER WALT: No re-examination, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much Mr Visser, you are excused.

MR VISSER: Thank you, Sir.

MS VAN DER WALT: The following applicant, Chairperson, is Mr van Zweel.

JAMES EMIEL WILHELM VAN ZWEEL: (sworn states) CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Malan. Ms van DER Walt, you may continue.

EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you, Chairperson.

You have applied for amnesty Mr van Zweel, your application is embodied from page 45 to 59 in the bundle.

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Do you confirm the content of your statement?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: What was your rank in 1985?

MR VAN ZWEEL: I was a Warrant Officer.

MS VAN DER WALT: And the previous applicant was your senior in the police.

MR VAN ZWEEL: Yes, that is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: And what was his rank during that stage?

MR VAN ZWEEL: A Brigadier.

MS VAN DER WALT: You have heard the evidence which has been rendered by the three previous applicants, do you confirm their evidence?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: And you were with Brig Visser in a vehicle.

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Then the last question which was put a few moments ago with regard to the firearms, what do you have to say about that?

MR VAN ZWEEL: I had a firearm in my hands.

MS VAN DER WALT: Therefore you took out the firearm?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Do you then apply for amnesty for abduction and the fact that you crossed the border illegally?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: You have also then applied for the illegal crossing of a national border.

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: As well as the illegal detention of the four persons.

MR VAN ZWEEL: Correct, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: And any other offence or delict which may emanate from the relevant facts to this matter or your participation in the incident.

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you, nothing further.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms van DER Walt.

MR PRINSLOO: No cross-examination, thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Richard?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR RICHARD: Sir, do you have any recollection of Mr Mosiane's physical condition when you took him from the hands of the Swazi Police?

MR VAN ZWEEL: I saw him, but I cannot recall whether or not he had incurred any injuries.

MR RICHARD: And it's also correct that you were not in the same car as Mr Mosiane when you travelled back to South Africa.

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR RICHARD: But nonetheless, there is no dispute and you do not challenge the statement that the behaviour of you and your colleagues was designed to make Mr Mosiane believe and have the impression that is he didn't do exactly what was wanted of him, he might well disappear?

MR VAN ZWEEL: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR RICHARD: By way of information, how many people entered into this particular police station?

MR VAN ZWEEL: We walked into the Charge Office, Chairperson.

MR RICHARD: How many?

MR MALAN: Mr Richard, I don't know where this is leading, Chairperson, but isn't the evidence that there were four of them.

MR RICHARD: Four. I beg your pardon. Chairperson, I leave it, it really doesn't take the matter any further. No further questions.

ADV STEENKAMP: No questions, Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Adv Sandi.

ADV SANDI: Thank you, no questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Malan.

MR MALAN: No questions.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think you have any re-examination.

MS VAN DER WALT: No re-examination, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr van Zweel, you are excused.

MR VAN ZWEEL: Thank you, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: That would then be the applicants on behalf of whom I have appeared, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Richard, could I swing the ball into your court?

MR RICHARD: There is no further opposition, the victim is satisfied with the disclosure made.

CHAIRPERSON: And I take it you close your cases on those basis.

MR RICHARD: I do, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: After listening to the evidence before us, personally, but I will put this to Mr Richard as well, is that it would appear to me there's no need for actual argument in this matter. I wonder if all of you agree with me in this respect, but if you don't you are at liberty to prosecute your case the way you see it.

MR RICHARD: I have no argument.

CHAIRPERSON: We'll start with the lady first.

MS VAN DER WALT ADDRESSES: Chairperson, I agree with you. I would just like to argue to the Committee that the applicants for whom I appear, meet the requirements of the Act and that they have made a full disclosure, and that we see from the case of Mr Mosiane. I shall argue that they should receive amnesty. Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible)

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

MS VAN DER WALT: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO ADDRESSES: Chairperson, I associate myself with what my colleague, Ms van DER Walt has said, as well as my colleague, Mr Richard, and I agree with the Honourable Chairperson that they have met the requirements of the Act and that they have made a full disclosure and that amnesty be granted to them. As it pleases the Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Prinsloo. I don't if there is anything which you want to shed light on still, Mr Richard, you are at liberty to do so if there is anything to shed light on.

MR RICHARD: Chairperson, I believe my case is closed, nothing further.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, I'm indebted to the legal representatives.

I'm indebted to Mr Mosiane to have come forward and again relive the events of the early '80s, when he believed he was going to contribute to the now dispensation we have in South Africa, and that he was unfortunately taken away and found himself on the side which he had not intended to be his side. We thank you very much for that, Mr Mosiane. And we think now you can continue with your life, at least you know the reasons, and you should have known the reasons because for some time you also were a participant, even though it was not to your liking, from the other side. We thank you very much for your attendance here.

I must thank the applicants for the manner in which they gave their evidence, it was quite frank and open to the Committee. Thank you very much. We shall reserve our decision, but it will be given shortly. And Mr Mosiane, a copy will be provided to your legal representative, or if you could make arrangements, Mr Steenkamp will also make one available to you directly. Thank you very much, this brings us to the conclusion of the hearing of the Abduction of Chris Mosiane.

I have a note in my hand here, which is apparently not very clear, but we welcome the students who came in whilst evidence was given and the matter proceeding from ...(indistinct) compass. You are very welcome.

We will adjourn to rearrange for the hearing of the next matter. Thank you very much.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you everybody. Yesterday the applications of van Vuuren, Jaba(?), Pretorius, Cronje and Hechter stood over to today because we could not finish our business yesterday, but my recollection is that we finished with Jaba. Would I be correct, Mr Roux?

MR ROUX: That's correct, Chairperson, Mr Jubber's application was completed yesterday. As it pleases you.

CHAIRPERSON: I suppose you've got to play the ball now.

MR ROUX: The next applicant is Paul van Vuuren, with regard to the Leonard Brown, Celo Ramakope and David Modimeng incident.

P J VAN VUUREN: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Malan. Mr Roux, you may proceed to lead the applicant.

EXAMINATION BY MR ROUX: As it pleases you.

Mr van Vuuren, before we commence with the leading of the factual evidence, I wish to ask you the following. You were involved and present with the evidence of Mr Pretorius as well as Mr Jubber. You have heard their evidence, is that correct?

MR VAN VUUREN: That's correct, yes.

MR ROUX: Do you associate yourself with the evidence that was offered by them insofar as it is applicable to you?

MR VAN VUUREN: That is correct, yes.

MR ROUX: Will you please study the bundle and confirm your application which starts on page 5, and the information on page 7, opposite the number 10(a), will you confirm that up to page 10?

MR VAN VUUREN: Yes I do, I confirm it.

MR ROUX: And then from page 13 up to page 17.

MR VAN VUUREN: I do yes, that's correct.

MR ROUX: And furthermore from page 20 up to page 22.

MR VAN VUUREN: I do yes, that's correct.

MR ROUX: You have already studied this bundle and the information embodied in here you have studied.

MR VAN VUUREN: That is correct, yes.

MR ROUX: Will you please look at page 28 with regard to the general background, whether you have studied these sections up to page 49, and you confirm this as well.

MR VAN VUUREN: Yes, I do confirm this. - or no, this not me this, in my bundle is 28, I think this Jubber's application. I did not go to school in Natal.

MR ROUX: My apologies.

MR VAN VUUREN: The first part of page 28, my page 28 is not applicable to me, it is only applicable to Jubber, the factual background.

MR ROUX: I apologise, it would appear that ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Jubber's application would start from page 26, so his goes up to page 23.

MR ROUX: I apologise, Chairperson, the reference that I have noted down here is incorrect.

Mr van Vuuren, the information - I will lead you with regard to all three incidents, firstly with regard to the incident of Leonard Brown and Celo Ramakope and the first reference to that you will find on page 5 at the bottom and at the top of page 6, along with the incident of Ramakope, about which Pretorius had given evidence that this had taken place in one evening, and that is why I ask leave to deal with it as one incident.

Firstly, would you tell the Committee the information that is factually mentioned here, where did you receive this information?

MR VAN VUUREN: I received it with my amnesty application when it was already handed in, when Sgt Pretorius went to the attorneys, Strydom Britz and asked whether we could recall these incidents and I think he suspected that Capt Hechter and I were involved in these incidents.

MR ROUX: In other words, did you receive your information from him with regard to these incidents?

MR VAN VUUREN: Yes, from him and from Hechter. That's correct, yes.

MR ROUX: Can you recall bits and pieces of this incident from your own memory?

MR VAN VUUREN: I can recall some of it vaguely. If I can just say that Mr Hechter and I for three years worked in covert operations, as we referred to them then, we must have met about 300 times during these three years, so it is basically impossible to say which incident is which incident. Everything that I can recall I put in my first application which I could pertinently recall from my own memory. I set this out clearly in my first application and I received amnesty for this. These incidents I can only recall bits and pieces of it vaguely and I am the only one who worked with Mr Hechter after Mr Viktor worked with him. So the logical inference we can draw is that I was the only person who was there with him along with Mr Mamasela.

MR ROUX: Can you specifically recall the incident of Ramakope and Brown? If you go over to page 5 and 6, as well as page 11 which goes over to page 12. Let us commence with page 5.

MR VAN VUUREN: I can only recall this incident vaguely. As I've said I can only recall parts of it, that we had met and that we had thrown a bomb. I can recall correctly, but if you tell me to tell you what it looks like there, I can recall it only in vague terms. My recollection has been refreshed after Sgt Pretorius and Capt Hechter had given their evidence.

MR ROUX: In other words, from your own knowledge, can you recall the incidents of Brown and Ramakope?

MR VAN VUUREN: No.

MR ROUX: All the information with regard to the activities of the persons, to which extent they were involved, is this all information which you received from Pretorius?

MR VAN VUUREN: That's correct. I did not know them before the incident, today is the first day that I see them.

MR ROUX: And the same applies to Cyril Ramakope.

MR VAN VUUREN: Yes, that is correct, actually yesterday was the first day that I saw them.

MR ROUX: Because you cannot recall all the facts exactly, if you cast your mind back, would you have associated yourself with the action and would you have associated yourself with the consequences which emanated from those given circumstances at that specific time?

MR VAN VUUREN: That is correct, I associate myself with the action and the consequences thereof.

MR ROUX: Where did you fit in in the command structure, what was your rank?

MR VAN VUUREN: I think at that stage I was a Sergeant.

MR ROUX: Who was your direct Commander?

MR VAN VUUREN: My direct Commander was Lieut Hechter and he and I and Mr Mamasela worked as a team together, and we received our instructions directly from Brig Cronje, who at that stage was the Divisional Commander of Security Branch Northern Transvaal.

CHAIRPERSON: Wouldn't the true position be that since you were under Hechter, that he would receive the command and filter it down to you guys?

MR VAN VUUREN: Usually he will receive the instruction from Brig Cronje. He and I were in one office at that stage and he came to me and he and Mamasela and I would execute the instruction.

ADV SANDI: ...(indistinct) something flowing directly from this. Would it also have been part of the normal way of doing things, that if Mr Hechter gives you an order, assuming that the order comes from Mr Cronje, you would simply carry out the instruction without asking questions?

MR VAN VUUREN: That's correct, yes, everything was dealt with on a need-to-know basis and especially us, Mr Hechter and I and Mr Mamasela who basically were used for covert operations, we accepted our instructions without asking any questions. One does not ask a Brigadier from a the Divisional Branch Northern Transvaal, why and how, you do not speak to him, you only speak to him when he speaks to you.

MR ROUX: And the instructions which came through Hechter, were you in any position to question Hechter's authority and the rank structure above you?

MR VAN VUUREN: No, I did not have the authority to question him.

MR ROUX: Will you please have a look at page 18, this is the incident of David Modimeng. The spelling is apparently incorrect there. This was during the month of May 1986, and Pretorius gave evidence that it was the 27th of May, will you associate yourself with that date?

MR VAN VUUREN: Yes, I can associate myself with that date, but I cannot recall it.

MR ROUX: Can you recall this incident where Joyce Modimeng was killed in the attack?

MR VAN VUUREN: As I have already said in my application, I can only recall the incident vaguely. I filled in my application following on Capt Hechter and Pretorius' applications.

MR ROUX: You did not have any information with regard to Modimeng's activities and his involvement in active movements?

MR VAN VUUREN: No, that was not my work, at that stage I was only used in covert operations along with Capt Hechter and Sgt Mamasela.

MR ROUX: And in the last paragraph on page 19, before the letter B, the words appear -

Where did you receive this information?

MR VAN VUUREN: I heard at Strydom Britz' offices. I heard this from Pretorius and Hechter.

MR ROUX: So in other words, this does not fall within the ambit of your own personal knowledge?

MR VAN VUUREN: No, not at all.

MR ROUX: You do not have any knowledge of the manner and the handling of information which was gathered by Pretorius and Hechter?

MR VAN VUUREN: Not at all, Chairperson, I was stationed at head office under Brig Cronje's command and Capt Hechter at that stage was at a sub-branch of the Division Northern Transvaal, and that was at Brits under the command of Capt Jubber.

MR ROUX: The filing system that was used by Capt Jubber, which you have heard Pretorius and Jubber give evidence about, did these files and the information with regard to activists, did you ever see this at head office or did Jacques Hechter handle this?

MR VAN VUUREN: No, neither Hechter not I dealt with the documents that came from Brits, it was directly sent to the Divisional Commander, namely Brig Cronje.

MR ROUX: Do you I understand you correctly that the command structure at head office works in a line, if one should look down that line from Jack Cronje to Lieut Jacques Hechter at that stage and that you and Mamasela were the two Sergeants who were the executive officers of this task force?

MR VAN VUUREN: I would not say that Lieut Hechter as well as Mamasela along with myself, all three of us were the executive officers of the branch because Lieut Hechter would receive the instruction from Brig Cronje and come and tell us that we had to this and we had to go out and do it.

I may also just mention that the information that came from Brits Branch, these things went to Brig Cronje at head office and from there it went to Security Head Office. We were a division within head office. May I just mention to facilitate, we were above the old police museum, that's where our offices were, and the Security Head Office was a building entirely apart from us, next to uniform head office.

MR ROUX: Will you please look at the information contained on page 19, with regard to the Modimeng incident. You did not know these persons, David Modimeng?

MR VAN VUUREN: No, not at all. I may have heard their names that evening with the operation, but I cannot recall. I never knew them, I saw them for the first time yesterday.

MR ROUX: Was part of the covert operation the intimidation of activists?

MR VAN VUUREN: Yes, that is correct.

MR ROUX: If you would just grant me one moment please. Thank you, Chairperson, that is the evidence, there is nothing that I have omitted.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Roux. Should I start with you, Mr Richard?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR RICHARD: Thank you, Chairperson.

Mr van Vuuren, as I know understand the picture that's painted, it was you and Mr Hechter who in fact were there to carry out the operation of carrying out the attacks against Mr Modimeng and Mr Brown's homes and persons, not Mr Jubber and the previous witnesses.

MR VAN VUUREN: That is correct, Chairperson, and Sgt Mamasela.

MR RICHARD: Now what role did Sgt Mamasela play in these two particular incidents?

MR VAN VUUREN: He was part of the team. When one throws a bomb into the house, the one protects our backs and two would go and throw the bomb into the house. We always worked in a team over a matter of three years, so it's difficult ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: I apologise for interrupting you, the question is, what did Mamasela do there that evening, not how it worked in general. If it is not within your knowledge, then you must say so.

MR VAN VUUREN: I am not able to say who said what that evening or who did what that evening.

MR RICHARD: Was Mr Mamasela with you that night?

MR VAN VUUREN: He must have been with me because we always worked together.

CHAIRPERSON: Could I ask for a moment, there is a problem with the mikes. Could we give him an opportunity just to attend to the mikes.

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed, Mr Richard.

MR RICHARD: Thank you, Chairperson.

Now when you left Pretoria to go to Brits, did you know what you were going to do that evening?

MR VAN VUUREN: As I have said Chairperson, I cannot recall this specific incident, but if we went to Brits, as I have said I can recall bits of it, then I would have known what we would have done.

MR RICHARD: You would have known that you were going to throw bombs at particular houses, throw petrol bombs, and you would have known the identity of your targets.

MR VAN VUUREN: No, I would have known that we would throw bombs at house, I would have known the exact attack but I would not have known the people. It's impossible for me to have known the people. I did not work with their files, not at all, I was not used for that purpose at all.

MR RICHARD: Now when you went out on such an operation, is it not true to say that you knew full well that intrinsic in what you were going to do, there was a danger that innocent civilians, bystanders, would be affected by what you were doing?

MR VAN VUUREN: The targets were innocent bystanders, the targets were political activists.

MR MALAN: That is not the question, Mr van Vuuren, the question is whether you had known in such instances - and this is a general question, that when you would target activists and plant bombs, that innocent civilians could be killed or injured?

MR VAN VUUREN: That is correct, we did foresee that it could happen.

MR MALAN: Mr Richard.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Richard, before you do.

If we look at the operation, the evidence before is that it was going to be a disruptive action, in other words that people were to be intimidated, and if people would intimidated, would we use such methods as throwing bombs where innocent bystanders could be caught in the cross-fire?

MR VAN VUUREN: Will you repeat the question please.

CHAIRPERSON: The evidence before us is that this was going to be a disruptive action, that the victims in this instance were merely going to be intimidated and if people were to be intimidated and such legal weaponry is used, like bombs, is that a form of intimidation where people would be caught, innocent people would be caught in the crossfire? I'm asking this because we know that a lady in the Modimeng incident, that is Mrs Modimeng, died in the process and under cross-examination of the previous witnesses it was put to them that she was not even interested in politics, it was probably the husband who was interested.

MR VAN VUUREN: Chairperson, I did not know these persons at all, we conducted a disruptive action under the command of Brig Cronje and we must have foreseen that innocent persons could be killed or injured if we used bombs.

CHAIRPERSON: In the Security Forces we know that now during the '80s that in the words of some of the witnesses, there was a full-scale war in South Africa, where there was insurgence by the so-called terrorists into the country and they were causing harm to the country, would we say when we for instance get a person like Modimeng, where the evidence is that he was a courier of arms for the ANC, a person who would be disrupted and just intimidated when in the background we know that there was a full-scale war?

MR VAN VUUREN: I could not decide on these things, I was only a person who had to execute orders. But according to my knowledge, if he transported firearms according to the information, then he would have been a target, depending on high a profile activist he was.

CHAIRPERSON: I understand that probably a footsoldier you would carry out orders, but I take it the person to be attacked or intimidated, would be identified and his profile briefly given to you why he's got to be attacked. Wouldn't that be the case?

MR VAN VUUREN: No Chairperson, that would not be the case. The information, where it came from would come from Brits Security Branch and persons who would deal with that is Brig Cronje and then he would convey it to Lieut Hechter. The name might have been given to me and the address, but before the time I did not even know of his existence.

CHAIRPERSON: Other than the orders that emanate from the Commanders, people who are giving instructions, I just want to find out from you, don't within the Security Branch, individuals discuss - and obviously the state of the war and the individuals who are executing that war, wouldn't that be discussed within the meetings if you do hold meetings in this instance?

MR VAN VUUREN: Chairperson, if I may make it clear to you, Lieut Hechter, I and Mamasela were used for special covert operations, I never sat in on any meetings, no names were submitted to me that we had to investigate it ourselves. I never personally investigate Mr Modimeng and I never sat in on any meeting and no mention was made of acts that had taken place or that would take place, Lieut Hechter and I only shared things on a need-to-know basis.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. I'm sorry, Mr Richard, to have interrupted your cross-examination.

MR RICHARD: I have no objection, Chairperson.

Now let me put this proposition to you. An order is given, it's communicated to your Commander, for the purposes of discussion, that's Lieut Hechter, wouldn't Lieut Hechter call an order group or some sort of meeting to convey what you're going to do, tell each other, plan it, how you're going to do it.

MR VAN VUUREN: Everything would have depended upon the sort of operation that it was. This sort of operation was conducted over a period of three years. He would simply have told me that "tonight you have to meet at the office at 12 o'clock or 1 o'clock", but it was never discussed prior to the time. I'm sure that he was afraid of leakages, that is why it was never discussed prior to the time.

MR RICHARD: But nonetheless, you knew that you were going to proceed and throw a bomb of some sort at what was ostensibly a civilian resident, and by all appearances from the outside to a casual observer, was a civilian residence.

MR VAN VUUREN: When we met that evening at for example, 12 o'clock a night, we would have proceeded from that point onwards. I cannot tell you whether it was a civil house or not, the house was identified to us by Sgt Pretorius.

MR RICHARD: Mr van Vuuren, you've said that for a number of years you conducted hundreds of similar operations, so you've seen, I must assume, many hundreds of building, houses, places where people lived, if you looked at your normal target it would look like an ordinary civilian establishment, is that not correct? I'm not talking specifically about those targets that night, but if you went to a house in a township, my proposition is very simply, it would look like an ordinary civilian establishment, would it not?

MR VAN VUUREN: Chairperson, all the houses looked more-or-less the same, I couldn't distinguish between which was civil and which were the homes of activists.

MR MALAN: Mr Richard, I'm not sure that I follow the question.

MR RICHARD: Now my next question Chairperson, makes what my line is about, apparent.

When you went to a particular house, how did you personally directly know who was inside that house?

MR VAN VUUREN: I didn't know. It wasn't my job to know who was inside the house, it was my job to intimidate people.

MR RICHARD: So that means you're telling us that you did not make any effort whatsoever to find out who was in a particular house before you threw a bomb or a petrol bomb ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Flowing from his previous answer, it would impossible for him to know that as well.

MR RICHARD: I will rephrase my question.

Did you ever make any effort whatsoever to discover who was inside a particular domestic residence?

MR MALAN: Mr Richard, he's answered that question, he said "I didn't do it, it wasn't my job".

MR RICHARD: Well whose job was it then?

MR VAN VUUREN: As I have already stated, Sgt Pretorius identified the houses, it wasn't my job to identify the houses, I cannot assist you any further on that point.

MR RICHARD: Now isn't it standard orders that when an operation is launched, that those launching the operation make sure that their targets are legitimate targets? In other words, the enemy and not mere civilians.

CHAIRPERSON: In this instance, wouldn't the target identified be that of the enemy by Pretorius?

MR RICHARD: Pretorius has given evidence, Chairperson, that he was passive in the sense that he would direct them to the particular house. He had got the instruction from above that that was his function, on the information that had been fed up through him and others. He made it very plain that he wasn't the only source of information. The command structure above then sends Messrs van Vuuren, Mamasela and Hechter to do an operation, the local unit simply points out the target. Now what my thesis is, is that it is incumbent on those who have come to do the job so to speak, to take responsibility for what they're going to. And I'm going to say that there's a direct and immediate obligation on them to take every reasonable precaution appropriate to make sure that they do not attack civilian targets. And my thesis continues in this case, that no such precautions of efforts were ever made, in fact they behaved in a reckless, contemptuous manner, disregardful of their obligations not to cause civilian injuries.

CHAIRPERSON: I think that question would probably be a question to be asked of Hechter, because he was merely executing orders and it is Hechter who wanted to know those targets, his job was merely to execute the orders of Hechter in this instance.

MR RICHARD: I'll leave the point by asking this question, if I may Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Certainly.

MR RICHARD: When you approached a particular target, did you ever make any effort to check that you were not throwing your bomb or other device at a civilian or an innocent bystander? Or the wrong target.

MR VAN VUUREN: Chairperson, the house was identified to us, it was night and Lieut Hechter decided that the house should be petrol-bombed, and if that was the decision, then that is what would have been done. It was not my job to determine who was inside the house, my job was to throw the petrol bomb and to intimidate the occupants of the house. As I have stated, I did not know these persons, I did not know where they were, I have seen them for the first time yesterday. And if they decided that these persons were to receive an explosive device, then the house would be attacked by means of an explosive device.

I simply followed orders, I did not possess any further capacity, I was a Sergeant, I was merely 24 years of age at that stage and one would not ask of a Brigadier why one house would receive a petrol bomb, why the other would receive an explosive device of a different nature.

MR RICHARD: And it follows from that that if in a particular situation there was one activist and eight innocent bystanders, civilians who did not participate in political activism, it was legitimate to intimidate and terrorise all nine.

MR MALAN: Mr Richard please, be fair to the witness, he told you what he saw his work to be, if you want to argue that he had a different duty, you can argue that, but he's given you unequivocally his position, is exactly that he threw the bombs with total disregard for life or limb, simply on the instructions of his superior. You have that before you.

MR RICHARD: Thank you, Chairperson. If I have established that much, I've established my purpose.

Now as a matter of factuality on that particular night vis-à-vis, Mr Brown, if I understood the general import of your evidence you have no specific recollection of Mr Brown's house or an attack on it or any other house associated with him.

MR VAN VUUREN: Sir, my recollection about that is very poor, I can only say that over a period of three years many such incidents took place. I really cannot remember it at all.

MR RICHARD: So it is possible that you were part of the attack on Mr Brown's parents' home and by the same token, possible that you weren't?

MR VAN VUUREN: I must have been a member of the team because it was always the three of us who worked together. I have no doubt in my mind that I could not have been there, I simply cannot remember every particular incident.

ADV SANDI: Sorry Mr Richard, just one bit of information here.

Would you be able to estimate the number of similar operations that you may have been involved in during that period of three years?

MR VAN VUUREN: It is very problematic to estimate but I would say approximately between 200 and 300.

ADV SANDI: Thank you.

MR RICHARD: Very well, so you cannot give us any particular information beyond conjectural reconstruction about the particular incidents.

Now when it came to decision making during the course of an operation, the inference that I'm drawing is that between Mr Mamasela and Mr Hechter, the decisions were made.

MR MALAN: No Mr Richard, he said Mr Hechter and Mr Cronje, Mamasela and himself simply followed orders.

MR RICHARD: With respect, Chairperson, my question is they had orders and there were decisions to make in the execution. Now if there was a decision during the course of the execution ...(intervention)

MR ROUX: Chairperson, I object, my learned friend is misleading Mr van Vuuren, that is not what he stated, not at all.

CHAIRPERSON: I would rather have you rephrase your question, Mr Richard, because he says the decisions, as Mr Malan has pointed out, they would be made above and he and Mamasela would merely follow those orders, in other words execute those orders.

MR RICHARD: Thank you, Chair, for granting me the opportunity to rephrase the question.

If after you had received your orders from Pretoria, Cronje, a decision had to be made during the course of the execution of the order. Who made the decision, was it Lieut Hechter alone or a combination of Lieut Hechter and Sgt Mamasela?

MR VAN VUUREN: Lieut Hechter received the order from Cronje, Sgt Mamasela was a Sergeant like me, he never took decisions in co-operation with Hechter, in terms of what would happen where and when. He and I were Sergeants and Hechter was at that stage our Unit Commander, we co-operated as a team. That is all that I can tell you. He received the orders from Brig Cronje and from that point onwards it was up to Lieut Hechter, and he would tell us that we were working at a certain time, he would tell us when to report at the office, we accepted it as such, and we would then meet at a certain time and once we had gathered he would inform us of what we were going to do and how we were going to do it, and so we operated as a unit. That was the case with such operations.

When it came to more extensive operations, it was something which would be discussed with us prior to the time, but that would be with an operation which was completely different by nature.

MR RICHARD: Who had the authority to abort an operation, for instance because there were too many civilians about to be affected?

MR MALAN: Please Mr Richard, really, can you explain to us the relevance of this question to this witness?

MR RICHARD: We know ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: If there is any such authority, shouldn't that be asked of Hechter?

MR RICHARD: We know from what has been said at the beginning, that Mr Hechter will probably answer he can't remember ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: No, no, Mr Hechter may probably answer that - he may answer that he can't remember the incidents, which is exactly the answer you're getting from this person. You're now interested in questions about general procedures within structures, Hechter will be better in a position to answer those questions in the same general terms. Please let us not unnecessarily waste time with questions to witnesses who are not able to answer those questions.

MR RICHARD: My last question in the circumstances is, when it came to standard orders, did you know what the position was as to how and who could make decisions?

MR VAN VUUREN: I don't understand the question very well, can you please explain.

MR RICHARD: My question is simple, three of you for example, that's you, Mr Mamasela and Mr Hechter are out on an operation, when could you personally make a decision as to whether to carry on or stop? In what circumstances could you use a discretion?

MR VAN VUUREN: It would depend on the type of operation, but on an operation such as this one could not exercise one's own discretion in ceasing the operation, one had an order and one had to carry it out.

MR RICHARD: Thank you, no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Just before you do, Mr Ngomane.

Do I understand you correctly that you do not recall this incident? And if that is so, when you make mention of Mamasela, are you merely assuming that he was in most instances part of your team, or you have independent recollection that when you went to Okasi? in Brits, Mamasela was definitely present?

MR VAN VUUREN: Chairperson, I'm assuming that he would have been there. I do not have a specific recollection because there were so many different cases.

ADV SANDI: Just one question related to this.

But do you know of any other instances where he was not there?

MR VAN VUUREN: Yes, there were cases when he was not present, but these are specific cases, do you want me to mention specifically for you?

CHAIRPERSON: Now I understand perfectly that once you've been involved in so many instances, it's not easy to have an independent recollection of each and every incident in which you were involved, but let's just bring this one of Okasi in Brits, how many times have you executed incidents of this nature in Brits, or was this the only three incidents within a space of six months?

MR VAN VUUREN: I would not be able to recall, Chairperson, I was not the field officer, Mr Pretorius would be in a better position to respond. I cannot recall precisely the number of incidents which took place.

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, not incidents, that you been involved in. Like look the evidence before us is that the field worker was Sgt Pretorius in Okasi in Brits and he gave all the information to his Commander Jubber, and Jubber would then transmit that information to head office here in Pretoria and Pretoria, Cronje would take decisions that certain people were to be dealt with. Now being under Hechter, other than these two nights when there was an invasion or visitation of Okasi township to intimidate these people, other than these two occasions, had you been to Okasi in Brits, to execute other incidents?

MR VAN VUUREN: Not as far as I can recall, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. You must be anxious to ask questions, Ms Ngomane, I'm sorry to have taken much of your time.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR NGOMANE: It's not problem, Mr Chairperson. Thank you.

Mr van Vuuren, I take it your legal rep has explained to you that in terms of the proceedings you have to make full disclosure. I take it that he has enlightened you about why you are here today. Would you bind yourself, Mr van Vuuren, in matters where you don't have any personal knowledge?

MR ROUX: Chairperson, I do not know what my learned friend means, because she is not specific at all, she asks whether or not the witness would bind himself to a matter that he does not have any knowledge about. What does this pertain to, it is non-specific. Could she rephrase this in a more suitable manner for the witness.

CHAIRPERSON: I would request you to rephrase your question, Mr Ngomane.

MS NGOMANE: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

Mr van Vuuren, just explain to me whether you would associate yourself and say your memory is so vague you cannot recall all the incidents in Okasi, would you then come to this Commission then to be subject to cross-examination? Because I'm instructed, Mr van Vuuren, to ask questions. Will you have knowledge of the incidents relating to Mrs Modimeng, who died in the bombing in 1986?

MR VAN VUUREN: I have knowledge of this incident, which I have obtained in the offices of Strydom Britz. After my amnesty applications had been completed, Sgt Pretorius arrived there and we began to discuss the matter and the logical conclusion was that I was definitely involved in these acts because I was the only other person who worked with Lieut Hechter. Because it was a covert operation, I was the only other person who could have been there.

MS NGOMANE: I take it you were here yesterday, you heard what Sgt Pretorius said, that you were part of the operation that ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: No, Mr Pretorius said the only person he remembered was Lieut Hechter, the other people who accompanied Lieut Hechter are not known or he cannot recall those persons, but they were definitely in the region of four to five.

MS NGOMANE: My apologies, Mr Chairperson.

Mr van Vuuren, were you part of the operation that targeted activists, namely Celo Makope and David Modimeng in 1986, were you part of that operation?

MR ROUX: With all due respect, Chairperson, this question has already been answered by him, in all probability he would have been involved, unfortunately he cannot recall. The same questions are being asked over and over again and all this does is reaffirm his evidence. I do not understand the purpose behind this, with all due respect.

CHAIRPERSON: I think you should tread cautiously. The import of Mr van Vuuren's evidence is that he does not recall these incidents, his memory was refreshed when he made his application when he visited the offices of his attorneys and mention was made that he was part of it, but he doesn't have any independent recollection, but because he worked with Lieut Hechter for over three years in these covert operations, then if he's name is mentioned, he must have been there but that he's got independent recollection, he does not.

MS NGOMANE: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

Mr van Vuuren, you said you don't know who the persons were in those particular houses that were targeted, it wasn't your job to know this. Do you recall that, Sir?

MR VAN VUUREN: That is correct, Chairperson, I cannot recall who the persons were.

MS NGOMANE: You say in your declaration that -

...(inaudible)

MR VAN VUUREN: Yes, that is correct.

MS NGOMANE: By intimidation, Mr van Vuuren, would it mean that a person has to die in the process?

MR VAN VUUREN: If you toss a bomb through somebody's window, the possibility does exists that he or she may be killed, that is correct.

MS NGOMANE: So you reconciled yourself that people and especially Mrs Modimeng, an innocent bystander, will be killed in the process and children in the house? You foresaw that and you reconciled yourself, Mr van Vuuren.

MR VAN VUUREN: I cannot say whether or not Mr Modimeng was innocent, you are asking me about innocent persons and whether I associated myself with their deaths. If there were other persons in the house and if they died as a result of the actions, yes, then I did associate myself with this.

MS NGOMANE: Thank you, Mr van Vuuren. Mr van Vuuren, just like you confirmed that you associated yourself, you also associated yourself that it might be possible that children would be in the house, is that not so Mr van Vuuren?

MR VAN VUUREN: Yes, that is correct, there may have been children inside the house.

MS NGOMANE: Let's got back to this question Mr van Vuuren, you said that your job was to intimidate people, did you take precautions when you and Hechter and Mamasela - to protect children or innocent people who were not members of the so-called liberation movement. Will you take precautions to see that it only kills the person who you targeted?

CHAIRPERSON: But - before you do, but the answer was that "I would ..." - like he says, ..."throw a bomb, it was not my task to know who is there, I was merely to follow orders". And now he says if people or children in a house were to be injured in the process, he then reconciles himself with that, but that was not what was uppermost in his mind, what was uppermost in his mind was to execute orders which were given.

MS NGOMANE: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

Mr van Vuuren, was it the only way so to speak, intimidation, was there any other method besides throwing bombs, that could have been ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: His job did not task him to find out, his job was to execute orders which emanated from above. I think that is the evidence. He had not reason to assess anything and he further unequivocally said that you would not question an officer who was above you, what you had to do is to execute the instructions given, that is what he was tasked to do and nothing else.

MS NGOMANE: Mr van Vuuren, let me take you back to page 19(?). To you have the bundle in front of you? Just peruse page 19 for us please.

MR VAN VUUREN: 19 or 90?

MS NGOMANE: The last paragraph, your declaration that you made to your attorneys that -

Do you recall making this statement to your attorney, Mr van Vuuren? Do you confirm it?

MR VAN VUUREN: Chairperson, I have already stated that I obtained this information from the offices of my attorneys, Strydom and Britz, and I have stated that this is according to Sgt Pretorius and Capt Hechter. I obtained this information from Strydom Britz after I completed my amnesty application. I did not know Buis or Molekwane.

MS NGOMANE: You wouldn't say that they were killed as a result of the anti-removal campaign, would you Sir?

ADV SANDI: I don't know, I have a different understanding of this, I think the witness also has somehow mentioned it. I think it says that -

This is not information coming from him, he was assisted remember. He says he cannot remember the precise details of the incident, but he does remember that they went to Brits one night but he does not remember the details, the details come from Pretorius and Hechter. He does not claim personal knowledge.

MS NGOMANE: That's my point, Mr Chairperson, I wanted to put to this witness that he doesn't have any personal knowledge.

CHAIRPERSON: I think it would serve no purpose because he has admitted that up front. It won't serve any purpose to say to him again "you have no personal knowledge', when he himself says "I know nothing, I can't recollect other than what my colleagues have said to my attorneys, that's where I picked up all the information". And again that "I worked in covert operations with Hechter, whatever he says I was involved in, I would take it because I worked with him." So to say to him that "you have no personal knowledge", won't serve any purpose.

MS NGOMANE: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

Mr van Vuuren, the intimidation you mention here, was it the only method or way, to only throw bombs, was there not any other method that you can use to stop those people who were causing unrest in the townships?

MR VAN VUUREN: As I have explained, Chairperson, Capt Hechter and I and Mr Mamasela were a covert unit and that was the only two methods used to intimidate the people, by means of a bomb or a petrol bomb into their houses.

CHAIRPERSON: So in other words that you had no discretion, your job description was merely to intimidate by throwing bombs into those suspected to be members of the African National Congress or those who are involved in terrorist activities?

MR VAN VUUREN: That is correct yes, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: May I just - I think the question as I understood it asked of you, whether any other methods were every used to intimidate. Your answer was that these were basically the two methods used.

MR VAN VUUREN: That were used by myself and Capt Hechter. There were other operations, but those were not intimidation operations, they were more the elimination of persons.

MR MALAN: So in other words when an instruction came to you for a disruptive action or for intimidation, it was continually one of these two types of actions?

MR VAN VUUREN: Yes, it was continually one of these two types of actions.

MS NGOMANE: Since you mention Mr van Vuuren that you were in the covert operations, your job description was to intimidate by throwing bombs to the targeted persons, it wouldn't matter whether there were children in the house, would it Mr van Vuuren?

MR ROUX: With respect, Chairperson, this question has been posed repeatedly.

CHAIRPERSON: And we have five answers to it.

MS NGOMANE: Mr Chairperson, I'll withdraw that question. Just a moment, Mr Chairperson.

Mr van Vuuren, my last question to you is, did you succeed in this operation in intimidating those victims? Would you say yes you did succeed?

MR VAN VUUREN: It was not my work to find out whether it was successful or not, so I am not able to answer that question.

ADV SANDI: I thought you said you don't even remember those victims, you don't know who those people were.

MR VAN VUUREN: That's correct, I didn't know.

MS NGOMANE: Thank you, Mr Chairperson. Lastly - just a moment, Mr Chair.

Mr van Vuuren, it was you and Hechter and Mamasela who threw bombs in Okasi ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: With all due respect, he said he only accepts that because of the information put to him, he cannot give that on any personal recollection.

CHAIRPERSON: And hence a response from a question I posed to him about the presence of Mamasela, he also assumes Mamasela could have been there because he was part of this unit, but he doesn't have a recollection that Mamasela was there, he merely assumes that he was there.

ADV SANDI: Ja in fact even if he was there, as I understand it, he does not recall what specific role Mamasela could have played.

MS NGOMANE: Thank you, Mr Chairperson, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Ngomane. Mr Steenkamp.

ADV STEENKAMP: No questions thank you, Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Steenkamp. Adv Sandi?

ADV SANDI: Thank you, no questions Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Malan.

MR MALAN: I have no questions, thank you Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Roux, do you have any re-examination?

MR ROUX: None Chairperson, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr van Vuuren, you are excused.

CHAIRPERSON: We will have a 10 minute adjournment, then I suppose we'll have to start with Mr Hechter.

MS NGOMANE: Mr Chairperson, just a moment. There's a request by Mr Modimeng, he has questions for Mr van Vuuren. Will that be allowed, Mr Chairperson?

CHAIRPERSON: I would put it this way. Mr van Vuuren, after 10 minutes could you make yourself available again? We shall do that after the adjournment and we'll consider that. I would implore you to speak to client and probably approach us in chambers and tell us the import. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, we're in a position to proceed, but I must apologise for having taken more than 10 minutes. The reason therefor was that we had to perform certain administrative functions. I apologise to everybody for the delay.

MR ROUX: Yes, Chairperson. I do not know what happened to my learned friend's request. My instructions are in any case that you have already excused the witness and that she had concluded her questioning, and in any case I object if her clients wants to put any questions to my client. Even if he was entitled to put questions, my instructions are that he does not have to answer any questions from the victim himself.

CHAIRPERSON: Partly some of the administrative duties was to do that function as well and we have cleared that up and I want to

say now finally, Mr van Vuuren, you are excused.

MR ROUX: Chairperson, the final applicant in this application is Jacques Hechter.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------CHAIRPERSON: Before the oath is administered, I realised that Mr Hechter walks with difficulty and for him to stand without the aid it would be difficult and I would make an exception and say he takes the oath whilst seated. Mr Malan, could you administer the oath?

JACQUES HECHTER: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Malan. You may continue, Mr Roux.

EXAMINATION BY MR ROUX: Thank you, Chairperson.

Mr Hechter, before I commence with the confirmation of the facts with regard to this application, you were present all the time during the evidence given by Pretorius as well as Jubber and partially present during van Vuuren's evidence and you have heard what they have testified, is that correct?

MR HECHTER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR ROUX: Do you associate yourself with their evidence insofar as it may in any manner be applicable to you with regard to these three instances?

MR HECHTER: That is so, Chairperson.

MR ROUX: Will you please have a look at page 190 of the bundle, and from page 192, next to the letter A, will you confirm the contents thereof up to page 194?

MR HECHTER: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR ROUX: And will you also look at page 196, next to the letter 10(a), this is with regard to the application regarding Celo Ramakope, and confirm this up to page 199?

MR HECHTER: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR ROUX: If you would grant me one moment please. I apologise, I have omitted one section. Page 184 is the incident David Modimeng, will you from page 186 mention whether you confirm the information next to the letters 10(a), up to page 189?

MR HECHTER: Correct, Chairperson.

MR ROUX: And then Chairperson, I ask leave - I do not know whether it would be necessary, to submit the medical report that was handed up on Monday of this week, with regard to the Masuku incident, with regard to the physical and psychological condition of Mr Hechter, to use as an exhibit in this matter. I am not certain whether copies have to made once again of this specific report of one, Robertse, which serves as an exhibit in the Masuku matter.

CHAIRPERSON: For sake of completeness I think it should once more be handed up because with the Masuku matter it was a completely different one, different incident, and for the satisfaction of those who are now before us in respect of Ramakope, Brown and Modimeng, it would serves the purpose.

MR ROUX: I then request leave to hand up copies of the report of Robertse to you, it is once again the complete bundle and apart from Hechter there are other people or apart from van Vuuren, it need not be mentioned and I will hand it up in terms of Hechter. I tender my apologies, there are no other copies except for the copies before me and before you which are made available to my learned friends.

CHAIRPERSON: I will again retain the same Exhibit FF because I'm informed that it is not the last occasion when this exhibit would be used, and we'll keep it safely. May I enquire from counsel for Brown, do you have a copy in your possession?

MR RICHARD: I do not have a copy yet.

ADV STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, sorry to interrupt. I've had a spare copy made available to my colleague here and I'll make sure that Mr Richard gets a copy immediately. We'll just make a copy quickly. The copy will be made available just now.

CHAIRPERSON: To save time ...

MR RICHARD: Chair, I'm quite happy to proceed now without delaying it while I have a look at it.

CHAIRPERSON: What I was going to say is that I've been privy to this copy and it is the second in my possession, I would make this one immediately available to you. I know legal representatives are good at speed reading, it won't take you a hell of a lot of time to do so. We shall in the interim proceed with Mr Hechter.

MR ROUX: Thank you, Chairperson. In order to facilitate everything for my learned friends, the specific discussion with regard to Hechter appears from page 16 and that is read together with the general part of the report along with the curriculum of Robertse from page 2, the specific tests that were carried out. I think the curriculum vitae is not necessary to be read, it's about 12 pages, but in order to facilitate it for them I shall then continue leading the evidence of Mr Jacques Hechter.

Mr Hechter, apart from what you have already confirmed, can you once again briefly for purposes of these applications state your position with regard to your memory, briefly.

MR HECHTER: Chairperson, I see on page 184 it is described extensively. The incidents in Okasi I can only recall vaguely and only after I had deliberations with Pretorius from Brits branch, the following came to light. With the first meeting that we had with the Commission, an unofficial meeting, I then mentioned to the Members who were present there that there are many incidents that I cannot recall at all, that I did know I worked in certain areas. I can recall that I did operate in those certain areas, but unfortunately I cannot recall the specific incidents, and that was before any of these Commission's hearings had taken place.

MR ROUX: One moment please, Chairperson.

MR HECHTER: That was the morning in Johannesburg when we met with Bishop Tutu and other Members, then as far as possible I and Mr van Vuuren next to me were there and we told them. We drew up a quick because Mr van Vuuren's memory is better than mine, and we made a quick list of what we could recall and there I mentioned to him that please, I know I have done more than I can recall, I am not trying to hide anything, as far as possible we shall disclose what we can. But at that stage I explained to them that I have trouble with my memory. Thank you, Chairperson.

MR ROUX: And without applying the psychological evaluation to you, is it correct that you suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder and this affects your memory?

MR HECHTER: According to the report that is so, Chairperson.

MR ROUX: This specific incident, Leonard Brown, Celo Ramakope and David Modimeng, can you recall this from your own personal memory?

MR HECHTER: I can recall that I acted in Brits, but the names - not in Brits, in Okasi, but the names and the places I cannot recall, not even the incidents.

MR ROUX: So in other words, you rely on the information that has been submitted by Mr Pretorius.

MR HECHTER: Purely Mr Pretorius, Chairperson.

MR ROUX: The information with regard to the involvement of these three persons with activism and the collection of such information, you also depend on Pretorius' submissions.

MR HECHTER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR ROUX: Will you please explain? Pretorius testified with regard to files and sub-files which were opened and processed from information which was gained from informers, this was given to his Commander, Jubber at that stage, who processed it. He further testified that this would be sent through to Security Head Office in Northern Transvaal, or Division Northern Transvaal. What was the command structure of Northern Transvaal like?

MR HECHTER: Brig Jack Cronje was our direct Commander, he would have received this information from Brits and then he would have contacted me and told me that "Hechter, these people need attention, do something about it", and then we would have discussed what would be the most effective method to use against them.

MR ROUX: Did you and Brig Cronje discuss these prominent persons?

MR HECHTER: The files of these prominent persons would have been on his desk and he would have discussed it with me.

MR ROUX: Very well. Did files ever come to your desk from Cronje in the execution of your duties and instructions which you received from him with regard to specific persons?

MR HECHTER: Yes, Chairperson, I do not recall any specific Brits incidents, not the specific incidents but I can recall for example with regard to Dr Ribeiro and Mr Piet Ntuli, those incidents I personally dealt with that information. These specific incidents I cannot recall that I really had these files, it is possible, it's possible that he would have given these files to me, however I cannot recall at this stage whether I did receive them.

MR ROUX: And then when you had this information and a decision was taken as to which methods would be used against which persons, are you able to explain? You were of a higher rank than Mamasela and van Vuuren, is that correct?

MR HECHTER: That is correct, yes.

MR ROUX: Did you ever discuss the detail and the instructions that you received from Brig Cronje, with your two subordinates, the two persons who were part of your task force?

MR HECHTER: It was not necessary, Chairperson, they reported directly to me and if Brig Cronje discussed something with me, I would just tell them "listen here, I shall see you this evening, we have to execute an operation" or "meet me" at whatever time we decided to launch the operation.

MR ROUX: Those particular evenings, and I assume that you specifically refer to the incidents at Brits, the probabilities as you can recall them and in general, when you met those particular evenings, did you beforehand discuss the incident and the persons with Mamasela and van Vuuren?

MR HECHTER: It was not necessary, Chairperson, they only knew that - I would have told them that "make sure that you are here this evening, get into the car and we shall drive to Brits, we shall go to work". And that evening at twelve they would know that we had to go to work and we will not only question a person. So they would have known that it would have been a disruptive action and they would have prepared for this, but the particulars thereof was not discussed with them because it was not necessary.

MR ROUX: Is it possible that at any stage on those particular evenings if you did meet, you would have supplied the names and the activities of these activists?

MR HECHTER: The name have been mentioned, I cannot swear to that, but the particulars would not have been discussed because it was not necessary to share this with them.

MR ROUX: And a question which follows on this and which emanates from questions put by Mr Richard is, did you ever arrange meetings with van Vuuren and Mamasela with various operations and discuss all the detail with them? Not these evenings.

MR HECHTER: Not during these types of incidents, more when for example we had to abduct a person or we had to go and eliminate someone, then the incident would have been discussed in more detail, but this was purely - I had already made the arrangements with Brits, where we would go. They basically accompanied us as a sort of backup in order to render assistance. They accompanied us as assistance.

MR ROUX: Who identified the target for all the particular evening's activities?

MR HECHTER: Meaning target identification, the persons or the premises.

MR ROUX: The premises.

MR HECHTER: The persons were done by Brig Cronje and probably myself, we identified the persons and then Brits, the branch was contacted, meaning Mr Jubber, and it was said that someone had to be available to me in order to point out a particular address to us that evening and then he appointed Mr Pretorius. We would have discussed it with him. I cannot recall specifically, but one would not say that "listen here, I'm looking for someone to point out something to us", we would have to tell them "listen this is a disruptive action, we require one of your people who can be trusted and who shall stay silent."

MR ROUX: Purely on a need-to-to know basis.

MR HECHTER: A need-to-basis, that's correct. So every time it would be the same person.

MR ROUX: Did Mamasela and van Vuuren at any stage and in any manner have the capacity to question the orders which were put to them through you?

MR HECHTER: Chairperson, they might have had the right to do so, but no-one would have paid attention to them, they would have been admonished severely if they did question anything.

MR ROUX: I think in pure language, would they have dared to oppose you when you told them to execute a particular instruction?

MR HECHTER: I cannot think that it would and I don't think that they would have dared.

MR ROUX: In the case of Brown and Ramakope, we are all aware according to Pretorius' evidence, that a petrol bomb or bombs were thrown at Ramakope's home. Can you recall specifically the case of Ramakope?

MR HECHTER: Not at all.

MR ROUX: Who was responsible for the manufacturing of the petrol bombs and/or bombs which contained explosives?

MR HECHTER: I alone was responsible for the explosives, petrol bombs were simply bottles containing petrol or fuel, regular petrol with a piece of material or clothing or linen which was stuffed into the neck of the bottle and then tossed through a window, so anybody could have made that, but usually I myself would manufacture these items and load them into the boot of my car and when we disembarked there I would tell whoever was with me to come with and tell them what we were going to do, show them the house, we would take the bottles, walk there and ignite the petrol bomb or the bomb, the explosive bomb itself, throw it into the house and leave.

MR ROUX: When you refer to bombs?

MR HECHTER: I refer to explosives.

MR ROUX: What sort of bombs did you use?

MR HECHTER: I made use of pentolite, which was an explosive with a high charge. I would put that in a tin and then use a spring cap with a safety mechanism and attach this to the pentolite and when one wanted to detonate this, one would set it alight. So one could determine more-or-less how many seconds it would be before the bomb would explode.

MR ROUX: Very well. Can you recall what you used at the home of Leonard Brown, was it a petrol bomb or a bomb?

MR HECHTER: At this stage I can no longer recall, with the exception of what Mr Pretorius told me.

MR ROUX: And can you recall what was used at the home of David Modimeng and can you recall the incident independently?

MR HECHTER: Unfortunately not, I also heard about this from Mr Pretorius, that is why I applied for amnesty for these incidents at a later date. This is the reason why it was not incorporated in the initial bundle, it slipped my mind. I think in the first application various attacks are mentioned which took place in the location, but I could not recall specifically which incidents I was involved with.

MR ROUX: Let us go to the specific evening, before any active intimidation. If you had identified the home of someone as a target, how would you go to work with regard to the possible injury of innocent persons?

MR HECHTER: The closest that we could get to avoiding the injury of innocent persons was to attempt to determine in which room the subject or the activist would be sleeping and then to toss the bomb into that specific room. We had to foresee that innocent persons could be injured, but this was the only way in which we could reach these persons, by means of such violent intimidation, by injuring the family of such persons as well, or to place them there at the situation. It has been mentioned various times before this Commission that they knew that they would be bombed, that the possibility existed. They took special precautionary measures and placed burglar proofing on the windows. In other words they were well aware that they were potential targets.

MR ROUX: Did you ever return to the scene of a disruptive action subsequent to the incident?

MR HECHTER: Only once, and I had to go, I was called in, I was the demolitions officer, this was in Mamelodi. Otherwise I never returned to the scene, I never followed the incident up, it was the duty of the others at the branch to investigate these matters and to monitor these persons further.

MR ROUX: The information that you possessed, you cannot recall the incidents, Sgt Pretorius according to you and himself was the persons who would identify the persons and the homes which were targeted for those particular evenings.

MR HECHTER: Yes, that is correct, he worked in that area and he knew the people.

MR ROUX: You've already stated that you foresaw the possibility of injury to innocent persons and even the death of innocent persons and that you reconciled and associated yourself with this possibility.

MR HECHTER: That is correct.

MR ROUX: Without elaborating in detail about it, if you could describe the situation in the country at that time which would justify these actions in one sentence, what would your description be?

MR HECHTER: Violent. It was complete chaos in our country, particularly in the black residential areas, black on black violence was at the order of the day.

MR ROUX: I would use the English word "reliable", how reliable were the reports which came to your desk and to the desk of Jack Cronje, pertaining to specific activists?

MR HECHTER: Independent informers who were unaware of one another's presence were used over a period of time. With Masuku's application I explained that some people's files sometimes were very thick and filled with informer reports. The informers were not aware of one another, therefore one could always weigh up the information provided by one informer with the information provided by another, and from that one could garner a reasonably reliable and accurate picture of the situation. Therefore I would say that they were reasonably accurate.

MR ROUX: I think that that is the evidence-in-chief inasfar as it is possible, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Roux. Should I start with you or are we starting with Ms Ngomane? Who is able to start the cross-examination.

MS NGOMANE: I will start.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS NGOMANE: Mr Hechter, you mentioned in your examination-in-chief that there was a black on black violence, is that correct Sir?

MR HECHTER: That is correct.

MS NGOMANE: The reason for forming the disruptive action was to fight the black on black violence you've explained to us now.

MR HECHTER: No, not necessarily, it was not necessarily the objective of our actions. The government of the day at that time was under assault by these actions, the government wanted - let me use Brits as an example, they wanted to relocate the black population from Okasi to Letabile and the black population was opposed to this and they fought this, but not the whole of the black population in Brits were opposed to it, only some of them. I'm not aware of the precise numbers and I do not want to elaborate on that, but I know that black homes were burnt by other black persons, that factories were closed as a result of the actions by the activists. Black people mostly lost their jobs, white people as well. So it is correct, yes.

MS NGOMANE: Do I understand you correctly to say that the population were fighting each other because of the government wanting to move them to Letabile? Do I get you right, Sir? Can you explain?

MR HECHTER: In the case of Brits, the community were not fighting one another, the activists had certain objectives that they wanted to achieve. These were ANC/PAC oriented objectives, and they wanted to convey this to the community and in order to do so they motivated the youth and other sectors of the community to act violently because there were people who didn't want to go and those people suffered and those who did not concur with the objectives of the ANC, also suffered. But in Brits specifically at that time, inasfar as I can remember, it was about the removal. But this was during 1986/1987 when the entire country was in flames as a result of the black resistance.

MS NGOMANE: So in other words, what you are saying is that there was a law that was passed by the government, people in Okasi didn't want to adhere to that order, then the disruptive action started.

MR HECHTER: Yes, that is correct.

MS NGOMANE: Now Mr Hechter, you stated that you manufactured the bomb, will you call it a petrol bomb or a handmade grenade, Mr Hechter? Can you just explain what type of ...

MR HECHTER: Yes, I will explain to you, both were handmade. A petrol bomb was a regular bottle filled with fuel or petrol, normal petrol, with a rag which would be a scrap of cotton clothing which would be stuffed into the neck of the bottle with a piece hanging out.

Let me just explain. One would put the lid on, make a hole in the lid and then put the fabric through so that the petrol wouldn't leak out. Those bombs were usually driven around in a regular crate in the boot of one's car because it was perfectly safe.

And a self-made or self-manufactured explosive device is a bomb which is made of pentolite which is a type of explosive which is placed in a tin, a spring charge with a piece of safety cord is attached to this and this would then be covered with a lid so that it cannot fall out, and that would be set alight with a regular match.

MS NGOMANE: So you made them, this bomb, Sir, you made this particular one, the one with the pentolite?

MR HECHTER: Both, I manufactured both.

MS NGOMANE: Excuse me?

MR HECHTER: I manufactured both.

MS NGOMANE: Thank you. And pentolite Sir, is very highly flammable.

MR HECHTER: I beg your pardon?

MS NGOMANE: It's flammable, pentolite?

MR HECHTER: No, pentolite, no. No, it is not flammable, it is highly explosive.

MS NGOMANE: Highly explosive?

MR HECHTER: Yes.

MS NGOMANE: It can make a good impact.

MR HECHTER: A good impact.

MS NGOMANE: If it can be used in the house where the base furniture or ...(intervention)

MR HECHTER: It will break everything to pieces.

MS NGOMANE: ... you'd just break everything Sir, is that correct?

MR HECHTER: That's correct, Chairperson.

MS NGOMANE: And when you carried out these acts Sir, you wouldn't foresee, or would you make sure that there are people inside the house?

MR HECHTER: I knew that there were people in the house.

MS NGOMANE: And you put the bomb inside, it didn't matter whether there were children as well.

MR HECHTER: Please repeat, I cannot hear you.

MS NGOMANE: You were aware that there were people inside the house.

MR HECHTER: Yes, that is correct.

MS NGOMANE: And there were children as well in the house.

MR HECHTER: That is correct.

MS NGOMANE: Now Sir, this bomb if it could be used - I will just refer you to the Modimeng case where you threw this bomb and it killed Mrs Modimeng, will this bomb - as you have just described it, that it is very explosive, it will burn the whole house, wouldn't it Sir?

MR HECHTER: No, it wouldn't burn the house, it would blow the house to pieces. The chances of a fire would be minimal.

MS NGOMANE: It won't cause a fire then, Sir?

MR HECHTER: It could but generally not.

MS NGOMANE: This explosive, Sir, which you manufactured, as you've just stated in your examination-in-chief that you will secure and try to avoid killing innocent people in the process, you foresaw that this bomb can kill Mr Modimeng's children as well.

MR ROUX: I am not really certain what the question means, Chairperson, is this specifically with regard to the Modimeng matter, regarding which the witness cannot recall, but that he testified that there was the use of a bomb which in other words meant that he would foresee, understand, associate himself with and reconcile himself with the possible death of people?

CHAIRPERSON: I think in that respect you should rephrase your question, because we know who the target was and I suppose what you want to find out is that if there were children in that house, would he reconcile himself with the fact that they could also get injured. Am I understanding you correctly?

MS NGOMANE: Yes, but I ...(indistinct - no microphone)

CHAIRPERSON: Please if you could ...(indistinct - no microphone)

MS NGOMANE: Sir, my question is, this pentolite bomb that you manufactured is highly explosive, you said it does cause a fire but a minimal.

MR HECHTER: No, not a minimal, in minimal circumstances. Normally there is no fire when you use pentolite, when you use a petrol bomb there's always fire. As far as I can recollect, not once that I used pentolite was there a real fire, not once, because of the explosion, it takes up all the oxygen in the immediate area. So you normally don't get a fire afterwards.

MS NGOMANE: Sir, you said that you were with Pretorius, Pretorius was the one who was pointing the houses.

MR HECHTER: That is correct.

MS NGOMANE: He pointed David Modimeng's house where there were children inside the house, Sir.

MR HECHTER: Yes, that is correct.

MS NGOMANE: And this explosive - you just threw this bomb as you just described, the handmade bomb into the house.

MR HECHTER: That is correct.

MS NGOMANE: You threw the bomb knowing where Modimeng was sleeping, Sir.

MR HECHTER: Correct.

MS NGOMANE: You threw the bomb knowing that there were children as well inside the house.

MR HECHTER: That is correct.

MS NGOMANE: I think you have answered my question. Let me go back to Modimeng. You remember that Pretorius pointed this house to you.

MR HECHTER: I cannot recall it, I've already stated that I cannot recall this specifically, he says that he did so and I accept that as the truth.

MS NGOMANE: So you threw a bomb at Ramakope's house.

MR HECHTER: I will just have to consult the documents.

MS NGOMANE: But you just gave evidence now, Sir, it's here, it's on record, you said ...(intervention)

MR HECHTER: Yes, it was a petrol bomb, it wasn't a pentolite bomb.

MS NGOMANE: It was a petrol bomb?

MR HECHTER: Yes, that is what appears in my application.

MS NGOMANE: You threw a petrol bomb at Ramakope's house.

MR HECHTER: That's correct, yes.

MS NGOMANE: Do I understand you correct, a petrol bomb?

MR HECHTER: Yes, that is what appears here. If it appears here ...(intervention)

MS NGOMANE: ...(indistinct) petrol bomb, Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, no, one person at a time, I can't follow. Please give him a chance to respond, so that we don't have a messy record.

MR HECHTER: I beg your pardon, Chairperson.

MS NGOMANE: My apologies, Mr Chairperson.

You can recall that you threw a petrol bomb at Ramakope's house, Mr Hechter?

MR MALAN: No, he said he has no recollection, he says what's in the application is what he got from Pretorius, if this is what is standing here, that's probably what was the situation. That's his answer.

MS NGOMANE: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

You mentioned in your exam-in-chief that you'll try - you foresaw that people could be killed in the process, but you had to avoid this - you had to ensure that innocent people were not killed in the process, is that correct?

MR ROUX: That is not his evidence, Chairperson, he stated that he foresaw it and that he reconciled himself with the possibility thereof. That was his evidence.

MS NGOMANE: My learned friend didn't - I think he was not paying attention, Mr Chairperson, the witness - I asked him a question and he said to me he knew where Mr Modimeng was sleeping and he said in his exam-in-chief that there was a possibility of people being the house, so perhaps ...(indistinct) to avoid hurting innocent people in the process. I have it here, Mr Chairperson. My learned friend was not concentrating.

MR MALAN: Again with respect, he said "I can only go by what I got from Pretorius", and you led him through the evidence and he confirmed everything, but he didn't base it on his own personal recollection. He made it clear every time that what stands here and as you led it to him, that was correct, that's what Pretorius told him, that's what's in here. But he made it absolutely clear on a number or occasions that he has no personal recollection. And please let's just accept that as a background.

MS NGOMANE: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

Mr Hechter, this bomb in this situation where - I'm talking about this one specifically in August, where you said it was possible that Pretorius did point a house and you throw a bomb at Modimeng and Ramakope's house. My question to you is, these specific bombs, were they thrown by yourself only Mr Hechter?

MR HECHTER: No, Chairperson, under normal circumstances I would not have done this alone, the modus operandi was ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon, sorry.

Are you asking about this specific bomb, because the reply is now "in normal circumstances".

MS NGOMANE: Mr Hechter, can you ...(intervention)

MR HECHTER: I cannot recall, I am sorry.

MS NGOMANE: I am not going to allow this, Mr Chairperson.

MR MALAN: I want to make sure, your question "with regard to this specific bomb, did you throw it alone?" Was that the question?

MS NGOMANE: ...(indistinct - no microphone)

MR MALAN: Sorry, can you just put on ...

MS NGOMANE: Mr Chairperson, what I'm asking the witness is in regard to the Okasi incident where he says he doesn't recall everything. I understand that we took it as common cause that he has a bad memory, but what I'm asking in this situation where they say he was involved - Pretorius came and he said he remembers that Hechter was part of the people, so what I'm asking him, was he the only person who was throwing these bombs inside those persons' houses or was Mamasela as well throwing those bombs at those houses.

ADV SANDI: Yes, but I think the difficulty you have here there is - you know his evidence is "I do not recall this specific incident", now I don't know how you can ask him the question "were you the only one who threw the bomb at this particular house?", when he can't even recall that particular incident. He relies entirely on what Pretorius says, he says "I don't remember that incident, but if that is what Mr Pretorius says, it must be true, I accept it."

MR HECHTER: That is correct, Chairperson. Thank you, Chairperson.

MS NGOMANE: By saying that these activists - you mentioned that these people knew and they were aware that they would be bombed, what do you mean by that Mr Hechter, can you just elaborate on that?

MR HECHTER: Chairperson, from previous evidence that was given here, I do not know whether it was in the Masuku incident or whether it is in one of these documents, the people said that they had taken precautions by placing corrugated steel plates before their windows - or corrugated iron before their windows, by placing narrow burglar bars before their windows or by using special ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: If I might help you, Mr Hechter, it's what is contained in these documents when there was a Human Rights Violation Committee hearing these matters and this I think was said by Modimeng, that they had taken those precautions, that on the windows they had these corrugated irons because they suspected that they would be attacked.

MR HECHTER: Then that is where I read it. Chairperson, page 201 of Mr Modimeng's statement, approximately two-thirds to the bottom of it -

In other words he must have foreseen it, yes.

MS NGOMANE: So when you went to bomb the house at Modimeng, you knew it was barricaded Mr Hechter, is that correct?

MR HECHTER: No, I did not know.

MS NGOMANE: Did you throw the bomb immediately when it was barricaded?

MR HECHTER: I cannot recall.

MS NGOMANE: Were you alone when you threw that bomb, Mr Hechter?

MR HECHTER: I cannot recall, Chairperson.

MR ROUX: Chairperson with all respect, this is the umpteenth time that questions are just being repeated. During the pre-trial conference and after deliberations with the Panel, it was decided that points which are disputed, evidence would be led about these points and the cross-examination would be limited to this so that we might save time, and with respect, this is not being done. I do not see the relevancy of these questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Ngomane, I recall that when we first met on Monday, I requested all counsel in all matters that would come before us, that they must just concentrate on the differences and points of dispute and that cross-examination, even extensively would allowed on those points, but with this type of witness repeating the same question, I don't think would be in anybody's interest and particularly us here because we want to have evidence that would assist us to reach a decision, but if we would repeat about somebody who doesn't recall anything, it places us also in a very difficult position that what decision would we take. Please, the purpose of counsel as well here is to assist the Panel, we have open minds and if we are persuaded one way or the other, our decision would probably also go the way we've been persuaded and part of that is not only argument, it's how questions have been asked and what emanated from those questions. That would assist us in our decision. Please let's just stick to the agreement.

MS NGOMANE: Mr Chairperson, may I just make this submission, that when we were at the pre-trial conference it was never canvassed that Mr Hechter would come and say that he doesn't "onthou" anything, Mr Chairperson. What we are here, we are acting in terms of an Act which says people who will come to this Commission have to make full disclosure. If an applicant is here, Mr Chairperson, I will make the submission that then they haven't met that requirement of making disclosure. We take into account that ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: No, let me cut you short there, that submission you are making I think would form part of your argument at the end of the day.

What I'm suggesting here is that on Tuesday we gave counsel before we commenced actually with the Masuku matter, but all legal representatives were there, we said the points of difference and points which are in dispute, we think that is what should be concentrated on. I think I said that and gave everybody an opportunity that they should speak amongst themselves and see where they don't agree and that would lead to how the witnesses in these incidents were led, because they were led in terms of that agreement, not on a broad spectrum of the incident.

MS NGOMANE: Mr Hechter, can you just peruse your bundle, page to 185, can you just look at that document for me. That is 9(a)(iv), the last paragraph, Mr Hechter. Can I just read this to you. You say here that -

Is that correct, Mr Hechter?

MR HECHTER: May I refer you to page 184 please, at the bottom of that page I say -

Meaning he told me about it, and then I decided alright, it might have been or it had been like that, otherwise it wouldn't have happened.

This piece that you have now read to me I infer from Mr Pretorius' evidence, he said this and I believe that he would not lie. I have not recollection of it whatsoever, not at all. I will meet Mr Modimeng in the street and I would not know who he is or was. I don't think I have ever seen him before this Commission commenced. I went to a town outside my town and I executed an operation without knowing him, without knowing his circumstances. I did not have a personal vendetta against him, I only executed an official instruction or a legal instruction in my eyes, in order to neutralise or intimidate an activist. So it serves no purpose that you ask me this question because I can honestly not answer you, I wish to answer you but I cannot. Thank you.

MS NGOMANE: Mr Hechter, my instructions are that Mrs Modimeng was never active in the union, she was never a member of the Okasi Women's League. People will be called, witnesses will be called to that effect, that she never participated, she died not as a result of her participation or her membership as a unionist. She was never part of the people who were campaigning for the anti-removal.

MR HECHTER: Just as you please.

MS NGOMANE: Mr Hechter, these bombs that you threw in those houses that were identified by Pretorius, they would be thrown - let me be specific, let me just rephrase my question, Mr Hechter. Bombs were thrown in those houses, whether they were with people or without people it didn't matter, you had to throw the bomb as you were instructed from above.

MR HECHTER: As you state it now, Chairperson.

MS NGOMANE: Life will - people will lose their lives when those bombs were thrown, is that correct, Mr Hechter?

MR HECHTER: Repeat the question please.

MS NGOMANE: Give me a moment, Mr Hechter. Bombs will thrown inside those houses regardless of whether there were children.

MR HECHTER: I think I have said this more than once, the same answer "Yes, Chairperson, it is so."

MS NGOMANE: You reconciled that there were people inside the house, Mr Hechter, and threw the bomb you knew they were inside the house, it didn't matter to you whether lives were lost or not, Mr Hechter.

MR HECHTER: That is so, Chairperson.

MS NGOMANE: And you reconcile yourself with it.

MR HECHTER: That is so, Chairperson.

MR ROUX: Chairperson, with all respect, yesterday you made the remark and I wish to emphasise it that everyone testifying here are people who came forward in order to assist the Committee with regard to this Act, and I personally as legal representative of Mr Hechter, can, and I recommend to the Committee that I cannot understand that my learned friend in this regard with my clients. My learned friend is getting emotional and she is getting excited, it is unnecessary and not in the spirit of the Act. This witness has answered the questions as honestly as he could, now she wants to intimidate the witness and become emotional and repeat questions. This is not acceptable, and please, I would request the Committee to limit this type of conduct by legal representatives as far as possible.

CHAIRPERSON: I would once more make a plea that the incidents we're dealing with are probably highly emotionally charged, but the decorum of counsel or legal representatives warrants that even if that be case they must be conducted in such manner that that emotion is not overtly displayed and that in the process whichever witness, and I re-emphasise what I said yesterday, shall be treated with all respect. And I will, if there is a reoccurrence of this, publicly show my displeasure in that happening. It is not by choice that this should happen, but they have been brought forward by an Act of parliament, that this sort of things that happened in the past should be known and if they are known, it would make a better society of the citizens of the Republic. So what would happen is that sordid stories would be told, innocent people would in the process have died, but that does not warrant that people who perpetrated these acts, when they come forward, should be treated with the utmost disdain.

It is unpalatable to me and I'm emphasising this, that we look at the applicants in these incidents, they came on their own accord to tell South Africa that whilst there was this strife within the country, what they did and we should be thankful but probe to get the truth in a very civil manner. And I will not allow this once more.

MS NGOMANE: If I may just come in here. My learned friend is, I think he's overreacting Mr Chairperson, I'm here to further my clients' interests ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Ngomane, I would not entertain any further discussion on this matter, I've made my ruling. Whether that be the case of not, I would personally say when you were putting your questions to Mr Hechter and in the process, before he could even finish his answers, you were on top of him and top of your voice with another question, and that's not acceptable and that's not how we conduct ourselves in hearings.

MS NGOMANE: Mr Chairperson, I beg Mr Chairman's apology.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct - no microphone), Mr Ngomane.

MS NGOMANE: May I proceed, Mr Chairperson?

CHAIRPERSON: Certainly.

MS NGOMANE: Mr Hechter, this action of making bombs, it will fall out of the job description which you had at that time when you were with the Security Branch, this thing of making bombs, it wouldn't be part of the job description would it?

ADV SANDI: I think that presupposes that he said he had a job description. Perhaps the question that should be asked is, "did you have a job description, Mr Hechter?"

MR HECHTER: Chairperson, I do not know whether a policeman has a job description, he receives training over some time, which I would gather it was - I think the legal representative wanted to know it, it was an unlawful bomb that we made, we did not make these things every day and place in our office. It was something that was outside the ambit of the police work, that is correct yes.

MS NGOMANE: It was unlawful, Mr Hechter, to make those bombs outside of the scope of a policeman, it would be illegal to make those bombs, wouldn't it?

MR HECHTER: Yes, that's what I just said.

MS NGOMANE: Thank you, Mr Hechter.

CHAIRPERSON: And hence their actions too were illegal. I said when we started that if they were legal, they wouldn't be applying for amnesty because all their actions, they're supposed to be prosecuted criminally, but because of this Act which brought us here, everything we did and in respect of the incidents, if I may narrow it, of Okasi, all what they did there was illegal. And the purpose is that if we have full disclosure and if they have satisfied us, we shall indemnify them for such actions, but if we are not satisfied, we shall not indemnify them. That is the purpose. All they did in Okasi was illegal and we should bear that in mind in putting any questions to the witnesses or applicants.

MS NGOMANE: Thank you, Mr Chairperson, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: I see you are waiting with abated breath, Mr Richard, you may ask questions.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR RICHARD: Thank you, Chairperson.

My first question is a minor point of detail. According to my memory "'n spring doppie" is a detonator, is that not correct?

MR HECHTER: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR RICHARD: Okay. The second point is, when we talk about the relationships between various applicants, if it is correct that you cannot remember who was where on what incident, it's quite correct that you can't help us at all as to whether Mr van Vuuren was part of any one of the two incidents that we're talking about.

MR HECHTER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR RICHARD: Now I'm more than mindful that you can't remember what happened in Mr Leonard Brown's incident, and for that reason I'm going to describe the situation. On the night in question, Mr Leonard Brown who was then the co-ordinator of the Action Committee to do with the forced removal, was at his parents house. In other words he was a known activist. He had studied at the University of Western Cape and returned to his home area. At his parent's house that particular evening there was his mother and father, his father was a panel beater and certainly not politically active, his mother who was not active at all, and in total another six persons who were also not activists. I know you can't admit or deny what I'm saying, but now I put this proposition to you, if you had known that out of nine people inside a house, eight were non-activists and had nothing to do with the unrest and troubles of the day, would you have considered that a legitimate target?

MR HECHTER: It was never a legitimate target, it was an unlawful target right from the beginning.

MR RICHARD: So I will rephrase that. Would you have considered it permissible within the terms of your brief, to attack a house full of nine people for the sake of intimidating one activist?

MR HECHTER: Chairperson, at that stage when one stayed in a house and you were a known activist and the people around you are not trying to show you the right path, because at that stage you were on the wrong side of the law, then I would assume that if we had thrown the explosive devices through the window, then we would have judged it justified. Your parents could have admonished you or they could have chased you away from that home. In other words, they associated themselves with your unlawful conduct.

MR RICHARD: So that would mean that in fact if one of your pentolite bombs, as I've been instructed was the case, was let off at this particular address, you would have considered it quite ordinary to use the pentolite to intimidate the remaining eight people into not supporting the activist.

MR HECHTER: There was nothing ordinary about it, Chairperson, it was a very serious deed.

MR RICHARD: But one which you would have committed.

MR HECHTER: Correct.

MR RICHARD: And if I tell you these are the facts while I know you can remember the particular incident, you would consider that to be the set of facts for which you apply for amnesty?

MR HECHTER: That is correct, yes.

MR RICHARD: Now the next question which I've been requested to put is, you had two main devices which you utilise, petrol bombs and pentolite explosives, when did you think it appropriate to use a petrol bomb?

MR HECHTER: Chairperson, usually with the very active activists we would have use the pentolite and with the lesser active activists we would have used the petrol bomb.

MR RICHARD: Now what were the guidelines you had received from Mr Cronje or anyone above you as to what collateral or civilian casualties would be acceptable?

MR HECHTER: Chairperson, it's many, many years ago, we're referring to 14 or 15 years ago, if I recall correctly the criteria was that throw a petrol bomb and then one goes one step worse, the same or worse, if he throws handgrenades then you go all the way. So the criteria with us the day, the following day or before the time the matter was discussed and then a decision was taken. From time to time it may have differed, but unfortunately I am not able to tell you why at this stage or that stage we decided to throw a bomb there. I am not able to assist you.

CHAIRPERSON: May I just interpose here. I have allowed people leeway and never commented about the cellphones going off, I would earnestly request anybody right now before we proceed, that those cellphones should be off. We are dealing with highly emotional matters and highly serious evidence and if we were to be disturbed by such small things as cellphones, I don't think this is the place and I would say, should I hear a cellphone going off, that person will be literally thrown out of this room. It's very irritating. I give you two minutes so that everybody check his or her cellphone that it is off. Thank you, you may proceed, Mr Richards.

MR RICHARD: Thank you.

From your answer as to when you would use what type of device, I gained the impression that the type of device was more determined by the identity of your individual target than the circumstances of what civilian casualties might or might not be caused, am I correct?

MR HECHTER: Yes.

MR RICHARD: I'm sorry, I took it that you confirmed that I am correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Ja, he agrees with you.

MR RICHARD: Now in other words, whether it was you as the Commander of the particular action or your superiors who ordered you to carry it out, civilian casualties weren't a major concern. Collateral injuries as it's now termed.

MR HECHTER: Is that a question or is it a remark?

MR RICHARD: That's a question. ...(indistinct) concerned.

MR HECHTER: We were in a war situation, the ANC killed 21 innocent persons in Church Street, there were no people who were actively involved in the vicinity. So yes, we have to accept that innocent persons could be injured, that is correct yes.

MR RICHARD: However, I don't want to debate and it's not germane at this stage to debate it with you as a witness, but I will use the parallel. In Church Street there was a very specific military core component, being members of the South African Air Force who were leaving their headquarters for work.

MR HECHTER: And how many of them were hurt and how many innocent ladies were injured?

MR RICHARD: Now there were also a significant number of civilian collateral injuries in that incident. However, in the circumstances of Mr Brown's attack there was one activist as opposed to eight other innocents. My question again, which I think you've answered, it was permissible for you to attack nine people with a pentolite explosive for the sake of intimidating everyone, so as to make sure they ostracised the one.

MR HECHTER: That's correct, that is what I said, Chairperson.

MR RICHARD: And my next proposition is, if a pentolite device is exploded outside a comparatively small residence, is it not correct to state, and do you agree or disagree with my statement that it would in fact instil fear and terror into all the people inside that dwelling?

MR HECHTER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR RICHARD: And it is for the purpose of instilling that fear and terror that that device would have been exploded by your team.

MR HECHTER: Correct, Chairperson.

MR RICHARD: No further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Richard. Mr Steenkamp.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV STEENKAMP: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson, just one questions.

I don't know whether you've answered this question already, but if I listen to Mr van Vuuren's evidence there were many such incidents. My question is, did you in any of these incidents report back to anyone or made any notes or wrote out any reports?

MR HECHTER: No written reports were handed up by me, Chairperson, the normal investigation by the SAP was followed, they would usually not be informed about these incidents. In this incident as for example in Okasi, Mr Jubber could infer that it was mine. He did not know, I did not report to him specifically and say that I had admonished that person, he would have deduced that this was done by my conduct. But usually these matters were investigated by other members of the SAP.

ADV STEENKAMP: Thank you, Honourable Chairman, no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Roux, as usual I'll allow the Panel to ask questions first. Mr Malan, do you have any questions?

MR MALAN: I don't have any questions, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Adv Sandi.

ADV SANDI: Yes, thank you, I do have a question related to the one Mr Steenkamp has just asked. What was the normal practice after such operations had been carried out, would you go back to Mr Cronje to say the operation was carried out last night?

MR HECHTER: Yes, Chairperson, the following day I reported back to him, he would then get the true story from me and then he has the police's normal investigation. You must bear in mind that the police then did not know of our existence. I refer to me and my task force's existence. This was limited knowledge. And that matter was investigated by the normal detectives, for example at Brits. Only the Brits Security Branch, only Mr Jubber and Mr Pretorius knew of my existence or the purpose of my existence and our task force. So if those incidents had been investigated by any other member of the South African Police, he would have investigated it on a bona fide basis to the best of his ability.

ADV SANDI: Would you as a matter of practice keep yourself informed of the progress that was being made by the SAD(?) section?

MR HECHTER: Not at all Chairperson, not at all. I never went to the scene, I did not make any enquiries about it. And earlier in the week I said that now we are sitting here under very beautiful circumstances, the stress to which we were exposed then, one did not want to know what was going on. I believe this would have driven anyone out of his mind. It's not easy to kill anyone, Chairperson.

ADV SANDI: I understand you to say that you took it that the people who were staying with political activists must have associated themselves with what they were involved in, would that statement apply to children who also stayed in the same house?

MR HECHTER: Chairperson, maybe that was put too strongly then, if my son is a thief and he see he is a thief and I let him be to continue his thievery, indirectly I agree with what he is doing. Should I not have, while it was illegal, should I not have admonished the child and said "stop, stop your things"?

ADV SANDI: ...(indistinct) talking about children, "kinders".

MR HECHTER: No, I accept what you are saying, Chairperson, no not at all, children are unfortunately innocent bystanders in totality and unfortunately they were part of the struggle and except for the physical injuries they encountered psychological stress as well, but this was not only from our side, it was already on-going in the black townships. So I myself am not solely responsible for this. I accept my part of it and I apologise for it, but the ANC and Leonard Brown and David Modimeng and Celo Ramakope should accept their own responsibilities as well.

ADV SANDI: If my son is involved in activities of which I do not approve, how do you know that at the time you come and attack my house, I'm busy trying to stop him from carrying on with these activities? There's no way you could know at that time.

MR HECHTER: I understand what you're saying, Chairperson, but at that stage we decided, I can recall that we discussed it, the people where he lived, in other words his parents, they have to stop him, they must - we will scare them as well, or in this case injure them. I can recall that it was a point of discussion at some point and we came to the conclusion that they would also be injured, they would be the innocent bystanders.

ADV SANDI: Just one last question on this. Before you carry out such an attack, the attitude of the parents or other people who stay in the same house, would that be a matter of interest to you before you attacked?

MR HECHTER: I never knew, Chairperson, never. I beg your pardon, as in the instance of Mr Modimeng, I never knew them, I never saw him.

ADV SANDI: Thank you. Thanks, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hechter, I heard you to say that Brig Cronje would give instructions and say, hey stop for instance in this instance Modimeng, Brown and Ramakope, would I be right then to say from what you have said, that you had discretion of what methods you had to stop them with?

MR HECHTER: Correct, Chairperson, sometimes the detail of it was discussed, at other times not.

CHAIRPERSON: So I know your recollection is vague in this instance, you could not - if you have any recollection, was details discussed about the three?

MR HECHTER: Unfortunately I cannot assist you here, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: From a question by Ms Ngomane, you said in Okasi at Brits, or in the district of Brits, there was violence that occurred black on black, apparently this was not expanded, what kind of violence - because the only thing we knew was that somewhere for the idea to move to Letabile and others were resisting to be removed, what kind of violence was there at Okasi?

MR HECHTER: Chairperson, during the discussions that I had with Mr Pretorius and - yes, with Mr Pretorius, it came to light that because of the moving that would take place there, there was tremendous much industrial unrest. For example, 22 factories were closed during that time, there were many school boycotts, there were many industry boycotts. And then if I recall correctly, houses were also set alight which were not set alight by us.

If I recall it correctly I discussed this with Mr Pretorius while we drew up our applications. We discussed these things and then he told me that we would not have acted if there was no serious unrest in Brits, otherwise we would not have gone there. Things had to be really bad at that time. I know this was not led in evidence, but it had to be quite bad there before we would go to such an area to act.

And it must had the desired effect, our actions, otherwise we would have later gone back there. I am certain of it because we would have received information that these actions were continuing. But I never again returned, so I have to assume that the persons involved there after these actions, either they had left Brits or it became more peaceful in Brits because I was never again contacted, as far as I can recall, to attack the place again.

CHAIRPERSON: Now this burning of houses, do you know what methods these other people, other than the petrol bombing, what methods they used to bomb each other?

MR HECHTER: Chairperson, usually they would use petrol bombs and then they would use handgrenades and in certain instances they would use manufactured explosive devices. That is why we decided to use this method, so that the finger could not be directly pointed to us by the general public, because these things were reported in the press, these incidents, so the general public believed that it was just black on black violence. That is why we went about it in this manner, otherwise I might have taken a handgrenade from the Army and thrown it through the window, but then it would have immediately been clear that the Army was involved.

CHAIRPERSON: Now on reflection, I know it's as you have said, it could 15 years hence, that when you were fanning fire with fire, how would this violence stop, that is the black on black violence, because you were utilising the same methods which you were trying to curb because you wanted to bring peace within Okasi?

MR HECHTER: Chairperson, the strong activist who was responsible for 20 activists, I neutralised him by committing one incident. I use one incident, serious intimidation and the other 20 incidents did not take place again.

CHAIRPERSON: Now wouldn't there - on reflection again, I know by then you could not, you had this problem at hand which you had to defuse the situation, but let's look at, on reflection, these Metal and Allied Workers Union, they were legal were they not?

MR HECHTER: That is correct, Chairperson, they were legal, but there was so much disruption caused by them in the industry with their strikes that it hurt the country's economy, it placed the country's government in a bad light, these people had to be stopped.

CHAIRPERSON: Wouldn't probably the normal procedures which did not bring us here, like incarcerating them, have stopped the industrial unrest and brought the economy within a healthy situation?

MR HECHTER: Chairperson yes, under normal circumstances, but during the time - the evidence has given before, if we detained some of these people and when they returned they would be heroes in the community, they were really heroes, and you could only detain them for a limited period and then he would go on much worse after he had been detained under security legislation. The security legislation was unfortunately not a deterrent because they were such strong and important persons in the community and the community was also afraid, they were so intimidated. You could detain him under security legislation but you could not prove a case against him.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Hechter. Mr Roux, any re-examination?

ADV SANDI: Sorry, Chair, just one question.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, just before you do, Mr Roux, Adv Sandi has got a question which he wants to put.

ADV SANDI: Sorry, just one question which I thought I would ask. Now as I understand your evidence, now this concerns the selection of targets, yourself and Mr Cronje would sit and discuss who was to be attacked, is that correct?

MR HECHTER: Basically the two of us did not discuss it, Brig Cronje was the boss, he would have called me in and said "Lieut Hechter, information at hand indicates that Mr Modimeng was destabilising the whole Brits area, something has to be done", then we would decide let's burn him, let's throw a bomb. At that stage it would have been decided. And I do believe, as I have said I cannot recall the detail hereof, but since it was not in the Pretoria area, Brig Cronje and I would have discussed this case. He would not have told me "Jacques, just go there and do whatever needs to be done", we would have discussed what I would do. I cannot swear upon this but I think that this is how it would be done.

ADV SANDI: The question I actually want to ask is, if Mr Cronje was proposing to you that a particular target be attacked, would you have been in a position to say no, I do not agree?

MR HECHTER: No, no, Chairperson, I would not be able to tell him "no", because tomorrow I shall be working elsewhere.

ADV SANDI: If that is the position, if that was the position, then what would have been the purpose of those discussions before you finally ...(intervention)

MR HECHTER: He only called me in and identified the target to me, then he would tell me "you know what the area looks like" because I was also a field worker, I had also moved around Okasi as in the other places, so I had a better on the ground knowledge of what was going on there, and then he would say "Mr Modimeng is the target there, he is a serious activist, I think we need to bomb him or I think you must attack him with a petrol bomb."

ADV SANDI: I'm sorry, I must apologise, I didn't make my question clear enough. I'm talking about a situation where you are of the view that such a person should not be attacked, in terms of your understanding and analyses of the data available on such a person ...(intervention)

MR HECHTER: It had nothing to do with me, I did not have a view. The boss would decide and I would execute it.

ADV SANDI: Thank you, Mr Hechter. Thank you, Chairman.

MR RICHARD: Chairperson, may I request with your permission, to ask two more questions, maybe only one. The first question is to ask whether Mr Cronje shared the witness' intentions when giving an instruction to commit either a petrol bomb or a more powerful attack on a particular person, and that is to have the effect of terrorising the targets, be they civilians or activists? May I put those questions.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct)

MR RICHARD: No, I'm asking permission.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay you may.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR RICHARD: Thank you.

Sir, you have described your intentions and what you wanted to achieve by your attack using a pentolite bomb on Mr Brown, and that was to terrorise him and those that supported him, either directly or simply by association. Am I correct in saying that Mr Cronje shared exactly the same intentions which you told us of earlier?

MR HECHTER: I cannot answer you on that, it is possible that I received the instruction from him "go and bomb him or go and throw the petrol bomb", at this stage I cannot recall.

CHAIRPERSON: Just to interpose there. I suppose because he gave you a discretion if he said "attack so and so", that the methods you would utilise would go well with him.

MR HECHTER: I believe so, Chairperson, and I believe that we have concurred if discussed the detail and what would happen, and in any case he would have left it to me. These specific incidents I cannot recall unfortunately.

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed with your second question, Mr Richard.

MR RICHARD: I'll leave the point, I'm satisfied with the reply.

CHAIRPERSON: I have finally returned to you, Mr Roux, for your re-examination.

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR ROUX: Thank you, Chairperson, there is only one question.

Various questions were put to you, Mr Hechter, with regard to the black on black violence. You have heard that Pretorius gave evidence yesterday that there was a dispute according to his informants information, within the Brits Action Committee, which led to a power struggle. Amongst others the Chairpersons - he said at some point in time Mr Leonard Brown was a Chairperson of this Committee, did you hear that evidence, and may that be one of the reasons for the struggle, the black on black there?

MR HECHTER: That is correct Chairperson, we had it in Mamelodi amongst others, where we had the various street committees - it was just a general background, where these youths wanted to control certain areas where they started fighting each other later, not only politically but criminally as well, that fights broke out.

MR ROUX: Thank you, Chairperson, I have no further questions in re-examination.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Roux.

Thank you, Mr Hechter, you are excused.

CHAIRPERSON: Gentlemen, I've looked at my watch, it's quarter past one and according to my culture you've go to recharge from time to time to be able to proceed with your work. So we shall do exactly that and come back at two. We adjourn until two.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Roux, you were still in the driving seat.

MR ROUX ADDRESSES: As it pleases you, Chairperson. There is just one aspect which is still outstanding, and that was that the applicant, Jan Hattingh Cronje, who is the fifth applicant in this matter, who is not here due to serious illness which I know that you are aware of at this stage, there is an affidavit which is unfortunately with the medical evidence which has been submitted to you, that was not my intention originally. Once again it is a fax copy of this specific affidavit, the original is under way through the postal system, to Strydom Britz, and upon a later occasion, perhaps Monday, I will request leave to submit the original document.

There is also a supplementary affidavit of which I will obtain a copy. My attorney has gone to ensure that we will have it this afternoon, which then supplements this affidavit and also deals with another aspect, and this will also be conveyed to my learned colleagues. I do not know whether or not you are in possession of the affidavit, it bears the letter B, there is a copy of this before you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I do.

MR ROUX: You will note, Chairperson, that this preamble has to do with the application pertaining to David Modimeng, Leonard Brown and Oupa Masuku. Due to a bona fide oversight, the name of Celo Ramakope was omitted from the second sentence, that pertaining to Leonard Brown, seeing as this belongs there. That is what the second affidavit which will be available, has to do with.

And a second aspect is also addressed in the affidavit which has emanated from a conference during which Mr Visser SC, and Mr Wagener wanted an indication of whether or not Viktor, who is applicant 4, will be mentioned, and Mr Malan fixed our attention on the fact that Mr Viktor's name is mentioned specifically in the application of Cronje, on page 148, in the middle, where it says -

The nature of the compilation of these affidavits was once again a bona fide oversight or error and Hattingh's affidavit also deals with the idea that it should be omitted from the application which was submitted in May 1997, if I recall the date correctly. It was the 9th of May 1997. And he then requests an amendment of page 148, and if it is accepted as such, there is then no reference to Capt Viktor. In either case there was no evidence before you which would have implicated Capt Viktor in this incident, his name was not mentioned anywhere and I do not believe that there can be any prejudice in terms of this amendment. I will later request for that affidavit to be submitted to you. With regard to Cronje specifically, amnesty will also be requested in terms of the affidavit and his supplementary affidavit for the same offences for which amnesty is sought for the rest of the applicants, 1, 2 3 and 5. This is the evidence on behalf of all the applicants then.

CHAIRPERSON: Now when a later supplementary affidavit were to be given and you are undertaking that it would be done today, is it prudent at this stage - I'm thinking of counsel for the victims, that would they be in a position without the supplementary affidavit, to make up their minds what weight we should attach to this first affidavit and an affidavit that would be brought in later, wouldn't it be in their best position that they have the two with them and make up their minds?

MR ROUX: Chairperson, it may be the case, I do not wish to be unfair towards my learned opponents, save for the fact that there are only two amendments. Perhaps they would want to see those affidavits first. I cannot say that they should consider their positions right away after I have revealed what the two amendments are to be. I'm certain that they could consider their position when they obtain the affidavit. Unfortunately I cannot assist you in that regard and I offer my apologies.

CHAIRPERSON: I think rather than speaking for them, let me ask them whether they are in a position to weigh up their positions. Let me start with you, Mr Richard.

MR RICHARD: My answer to the Committee, Chairperson, goes this way. In view of a discussion I've had with my learned opponent, I don't need to call any witnesses and I am aware that it is important that a matter proceed this afternoon as well. I would be quite happy to consider the affidavit and to proceed to argue tomorrow morning if that would suit, alternatively to proceed right to argument this afternoon. I don't see any great prejudice by having 10 minutes to read the affidavit.

CHAIRPERSON: I would have loved that we also have the argument this afternoon.

MR RICHARD: I am ready.

CHAIRPERSON: I'll tell you why. If any, this would be the only matter outstanding if we don't hear argument and it doesn't cost us less that R50 000 a day for a hearing, and for us to come just for thirty minutes or so, the costs do not justify that we come back tomorrow.

MR RICHARD: I do not know what's happening with Mr van den Berg's matter, that's the only factor that needs to be taken into account, but I am ready to argue this afternoon.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Ngomane, you heard what Mr Roux had said about a further supplementary affidavit, but you have one before you from Mr Cronje, and due to ill health, serious ill health, he couldn't be here and this affidavit was obtained wherever he was and faxed and in the process another one is being sent through the post. And when I heard the Masuku matter I accepted this affidavit because there was no opposition from counsel who were in that matter. What is your position as regards what has been said right now?

MS NGOMANE: Thank you, Mr Chairperson. In regard to this supplementary affidavit which is not before us today, I have no objection but it would be proper if my learned friend can later on give us a supplementary affidavit and see what the deponent has to say in regard to these applications. And I have a request, Mr Chairperson, from Mr David Modimeng, as I have stated earlier in your chambers that I will be calling him as well to lead him and Ms Anne Mogoshi. The other problem that I have with this application is that the applicants don't mention that they are asking amnesty in respect of the death of Joyce Modimeng. I have a problem, and I'm subject to correction, Mr Chairperson, ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct) I'm saying, if you look at the applications and what Mr Roux has put before us, is that murder suffices, but in any event, the Act does not say he must specifically what you seek amnesty for, it's that after we have heard evidence it is upon the Panel to say in respect of what, if we are satisfied, amnesty should be granted. What is simply happening is that we request counsel or legal representatives to assist us in what they are asking for, but that is entirely on the Panel. So to save on time we merely ask for that. But I say when you read the bundle you'll find that murder is referred to in some other instances and that means murder, and we only know that one person died in this instance, Mrs Joyce Modimeng.

MR ROUX: As it pleases, Mr Chairperson. That will be in order.

CHAIRPERSON: I have been requested in chambers, but that would - whilst we look at this affidavit, because even with my double lens it doesn't make it very easy to read and I was going to request Mr Roux to read it into the record. Subsequent to what you people said, there is a matter that is standing over and as I might believe in what counsel tells me, I thought it would give you an opportunity as well to speak to Mr Modimeng and the other witness, that after the reading of the affidavit we pause and just hear that matter and then we come back because the ball would now be in your court. Would that be in order?

MS NGOMANE: That will be in order, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: The undertaking from counsel is that it's not going to be a long matter, so you could rest assured that we are going to hear Mr Modimeng and the other witness today. And as I have said to Mr Richard, it does not make economic sense to come back tomorrow to listen to argument for an hour and go away at such a great cost. So I would say bear with the Panel today, that if needs by, and I don't think it would take us to that extent, we should finish today.

MR NGOMANE: Mr Chairperson, that will be in order. We as the victims as well want to close this case of the victims. It will be in the interest of justice if this matter could be argued today and be dealt with. That will be in order, we don't have a problem of finishing it today, we don't have to come back for it. So Mr Chairman, I would submit that we are ready for our closing argument at this stage. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm indebted to you all. Mr Roux, I see you've got young eyes, you can do without glasses and the last time you were able to decipher what is written here and I would at this stage say for completeness that's there's no mistake when we adjudicate upon this matter, that you read this affidavit into the record.

MR ROUX READS MR CRONJE'S AFFIDAVIT INTO RECORD: As it pleases you, Chairperson.

This document is entitled Truth and Reconciliation Commission Cases and Applications with regard to Leonard Brown and David Modimeng. Affidavit:

The affidavit was signed at Swellendam on the 28th of March 2000, appropriately signed by the deponent and attested to by the Station Commander of the South African Police.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Roux. It's an affidavit, nothing can be done as you have accepted this affidavit. Mr Roux, I think that completes your applicants.

MR ROUX: Yes, Chairperson, that is all the evidence and those are all the witnesses who will be presented.

CHAIRPERSON: I have suggested to your opponents that we slightly catch our breath and as promised just hear he Bokaba matter. Do you have any objections to that?

MR ROUX: No objection.

CHAIRPERSON: This matter will stand down for an hour whilst we do the other matter of Bokaba. I think Mr Richard and Ms Ngomane, you are excused for an hour.

MR NGOMANE: I'm indebted to you, Mr Chairperson.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------ON RESUMPTION

MR ROUX: Chairperson, in the matter of Bokaba, I request for the technicians to set the Tswana for my client. I do not know where it is and he will be testifying in Tswana.

INTERPRETER: Everything is set and we can start.

CHAIRPERSON: For the record, we are hearing the matter, the applicant being Sampina Hendrick Bokaba, and he's applying for amnesty for the killing of Andrew Makupe, Jackson Maake and Harold Sefolo. And further for the record and the completeness thereof, my name is Motata from the Transvaal Provincial Division. On my left I have Mr Malan from Johannesburg, and on my right I have Adv Sandi from East London, who constitute this Panel. I would request legal representatives in this matter as well to place their names on record.

MR ROUX: As it pleases you, Chairperson. I am Jaco Roux and I am appearing on behalf of Mr Bokaba in this matter, from the Pretoria Bar under instruction of Strydom Britz Attorneys in Pretoria.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you, Mr Chairperson. Eric van den Berg from attorneys Bell Dewar and Hall, on behalf of Mrs Maake, Mrs Makope and Mrs Sefolo, the widows and mother respectively of the deceased.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr van den Berg.

ADV STEENKAMP: Honourable Chairperson, my surname is Steenkamp, I'll be the Evidence Leader.

MR ROUX: Mr Bokaba, which language do you prefer to speak?

MR BOKABA: I'm going to use Tswana, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: May you please stand.

SAMPINA HENDRIK BOKABA: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed, Mr Roux.

EXAMINATION BY MR ROUX: Thank you, Chairperson.

Mr Bokaba, will you please look at the bundle before you, have you had the opportunity to study this bundle and to examine it?

MR BOKABA: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR ROUX: Will you please look at page 3, that is the beginning of your application, up to page 9. Can you confirm the content thereof?

MR BOKABA: I do, Chairperson.

MR ROUX: Will you look further at page 15 up to and including page 20, and confirm the contents thereof.

MR BOKABA: I do, Chairperson.

MR ROUX: It is your signature which appears at the bottom of page 20?

MR BOKABA: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR ROUX: Will you then look at page 45. Have you had the opportunity also to study this section of the bundle?

MR BOKABA: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR ROUX: Up to and including page 183, which includes among others, the evidence of Mr van Vuuren.

MR BOKABA: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR ROUX: Will you then also look at page 11 of the bundle which pertains to the factual summary of events. Will you explain to the Committee with regard to the incident Makupe, Makope(sic) and Sefolo in 1986, what was your knowledge of this and in what were you involved.

MR BOKABA: Chairperson, if I remember correctly it was in 1986, I was working at the Security Branch in Pretoria, before it was known as Northern Transvaal. I was assigned to work in Mamelodi under the command of Lieut Hechter. He was our Commander in Mamelodi, Paul van Vuuren was the Warrant Officer, Joe Mamasela was the Sergeant, Dennis Selahle was the Constable, I was also a Constable and all of us were working in Mamelodi, together with W/O van Wyk.

Together with W/O van Wyk in 1986, we recruited Jackson Maake to be our informer so that he will be able to supply us with information as he was a member of the Youth League in Mamelodi, and then again he was participating in various meeting of the ANC Youth League.

MR ROUX: This informer, Jackson Maake, you say that you and W/O van Wyk recruited him, was he paid for his services and what was he supposed to do?

MR BOKABA: He was paid to work for - to bring us the information in regard to some activists in Mamelodi, those who were involved in consumer boycotts, intimidation and to cause instability in Mamelodi.

MR ROUX: Very well, you may continue.

MR BOKABA: He agreed to work with us to be as an informer. He used to give us information. I don't remember which year W/O van Wyk was transferred to KwaZulu Natal, after he left to KwaZulu Natal he stated that Jackson Maake should be handled by Lieut Hechter and Paul van Vuuren. They handled him like their informer and therefore I did not continue with my handling.

On a particular year ...(intervention)

MR ROUX: Mr Bokaba, please slow down, I can hear that the interpreters are falling behind here and there. After you had handed over Jackson Maake to Hechter and van Vuuren under the order of van Wyk, you never again handled him as an informer.

MR BOKABA: That is correct, Chairperson.

ADV SANDI: Sorry, Mr Roux.

Did you see him at all after he was handed over to Hechter?

MR BOKABA: No, Chairperson, I saw him a particular point which I will come to it later.

MR ROUX: Very well, you may continue.

MR BOKABA: In a particular year, Lieut Hechter, Adjutant, W/O van Vuuren, Joe Mamasela, Dennis Selahle, they took Jackson, they said they were going to take him to Botswana to infiltrate the ANC there. They took him with the kombi. They were four. Then they left to Botswana side. Then I was not present in that group.

MR ROUX: This information that Jackson Maake was taken to Botswana, do you know this personally or was it told to you, and if so, by whom?

MR BOKABA: I was informed by Lieut Hechter and Paul van Vuuren.

MR ROUX: Very well, you may continue.

MR BOKABA: On a particular day whilst I was still in Mamelodi, Paul van Vuuren contacted me through a radio, then informed that Jackson Maake has returned from Botswana and that I should come to the office at Compol building to see him and greet him. It is true that I went to that particular office. When I arrived there they were together with him in the office, in Hechter's office. I greeted him, then after that I left that place.

Later, or on a particular day while I was still in Mamelodi, Lieut Hechter contacted me again through a radio, he informed me that I should come and meet them. I was driving a white Toyota Corolla, they were driving a minibus. He contacted me to come to them. They were outside Mamelodi.

I went to them and when I arrived there I found Lieut Hechter, W/O van Vuuren, Sgt Mamasela, Dennis Selahle and they were together with Jackson Maake in the car. Lieut Hechter gave me the instruction to keep an observation at Andrew's Mortuary, to observe as to whether Andrew is there or his car is present in that vicinity.

The reason for that observation was not given to me. As it was an instruction I went there and parked alongside the mortuary and did some observations. His car was not there and he was not seen in that area, then I contacted them that his car is not present there. He was driving a white Ford Tredia. Then I was instructed to stay there and observe as to whether he would arrive. Whilst I was still there, van Vuuren contacted me again that I should leave that premises and then again he has been found on a particular area in Mamelodi East. I was instructed to meet them at Pienaarsrivier, towards Warmbaths.

I left with my car, I drove through N1 towards Pienaarsrivier. I found them on the way and they were driving a minibus. Jackson Maake's car was driven by Joe Mamasela and the rest were in a minibus.

When we arrived at Pienaarsrivier, Lieut Hechter and Paul van Vuuren instructed me to follow them and that Joe Mamasela should follow us again. We followed them. We entered a certain bushveld, it looked like a farm. Paul van Vuuren arrived, then he opened the gate, then all cars went through that gate. We entered right in the bush.

We arrived at a certain place where there was a small zozo(?), it shows that there were water pipes there, or water taps there. The instruction was given that Jackson and Andrew should be taken out of the car and be put in that hut. Thereafter W/O van Vuuren handcuffed them inside and they were put in that zozo house.

I received an instruction together with Dennis Selahle that we should remain behind, the whole night there together with the two detainees, that we should not discuss anything with them. We took the kombi and parked it alongside the zozo house whilst the two detainees were inside the zozo house. They were not given blankets and then we were in the kombi without blankets. We stayed the whole night guarding them there.

Early in the morning, Lieut Hechter arrived together with Paul van Vuuren and Joe Mamasela. Andrew's car was parked there, it was left the whole night there and they used a white Skyline to go back and to return the following day.

When they arrived in the morning, Lieut Hechter informed us that we may leave to go home, to wash and change our clothes, then later in the afternoon we should come back. We left that area and then we went to our respective homes, we washed and changed clothes and returned.

It was around 4 o'clock when we returned. What I observed is that Andrew's hands were swollen, they were heavily swollen, that he was injured. What I observed on Andrew is that - I don't remember what happened to the other one. We were given instructions when we arrived by Lieut Hechter, that there is a certain information which they have received. It was induced through interrogation from Andrew. We were given the instruction that we should take Andrew to the public phones.

I together with Mamasela and Dennis Selahle, we drove to the public phones. I don't remember as to whether we found the public phones. We went to Pienaarsrivier and the telephones were not working there. The instruction which was given to Andrew was that when he phones Sefolo, he should tell Sefolo that two comrades will be coming from the ANC, they'll be coming to fetch him.

When we arrived at the telephone booth - and the person who was close to him and listening to the telephonic conversation, we were at the back and were able to listen to what Andrew was saying. When we arrived at the telephone booth - but Andrew was panicking at that time and we were able to observe that Mr Sefolo was worried on the other side, that he even asked Andrew as to whether why you seem to be panicking, but Andrew told him that "two comrades will coming to your place to fetch you with my car", but Sefolo told him that he's worried, but Andrew told him not to worry, that those two comrades would be using his car.

We returned, then we entered that bush again. Hechter was given the feedback that Sefolo was found and he was given the message. Dennis Selahle and Joe Mamasela were instructed to use Andrew's car. Dennis Selahle was the driver of the white Tredia. The instruction was that they should go and kidnap Mr Sefolo in Witbank, but they were followed by Paul van Vuuren and Jacques Hechter. I was left behind so that I will be able to guard Andrew and Jackson whilst they were still in that zozo house.

Later in the middle of the night the cars arrived. They brought Mr Sefolo, then he was taken again in that zozo house and he was handcuffed. We were given the instruction again that we should leave(?) behind, I and Dennis Selahle were instructed to remain and they came the following day.

They went to their various places and the following day they returned. Then immediately Mr Sefolo was interrogated because the two, that is Maake and Andrew, were interrogated the previous day. They began by interrogating Mr Sefolo. At that time we were in the kombi.

Whilst they were interrogating Mr Sefolo, Paul van Vuuren started by saying - Mr Sefolo was hefty and he was brave enough to deny what he was told, but they told him that they were going to use a particular method. That is, Paul van Vuuren was talking to him. There was a generator somewhere near that zozo house, Paul van Vuuren - it was connected with a cable, then when - at the end it had two cables. They started with Jackson, they were in the zozo house, all of them were handcuffed.

They started with Jackson. They put those Y(?) cables on Andrew and then the machine was ignited and therefore Sefolo ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Not Mr Sefolo, Jackson.

MR BOKABA: After they finished with Andrew - I beg your pardon, that's Jackson, van Vuuren explained to Mr Sefolo that "did you see what happened to that one if you're not telling us the truth?" But Mr Sefolo kept on denying. Then they tied Andrew the same way, then Paul van Vuuren told him that "we're going to do the same thing with your friend, if you're not telling us the truth you're going to follow him." Then he tied him with those electric cables, then he started the machine, then Andrew died the same way as Jackson.

Then thereafter they told Mr Sefolo that "did you see how your two friends have died?" Then he responded by saying "yes, I did, but is left is that the truth one day would come out and before you kill me, I'm going to request that I should sing Nkosi Sikelele." Then they acceded to the request, then after he finished he was tied with the cables and then they killed him. Then we had three corpses on the scene. Paul van Vuuren and Hechter ...(intervention)

MR ROUX: At this stage would you please mention, I do not recall whether you have - I am having a little bit of trouble with the interpretation simultaneously. Did Mr Sefolo supply any information because of the shocks that were administered to the other persons? I beg your pardon, Chairperson, I'm having trouble with the interpretation. It is a bit difficult with my client next to me who speaks loudly, I did not hear something quite properly.

Mr Bokaba, during the administering of these shocks to Mr Maake and Makupe, did Mr Makupe supply any information and consequently, Mr Sefolo, with the shocks that were administered to them?

MR BOKABA: Are you say Mr Makupe or Mr Sefolo? Are you referring to them both? Are you referring to them both as to whether they gave information or not?

MR ROUX: Yes, both of them, Mr Makupe and consequently, Mr Sefolo.

MR BOKABA: Let me start with Mr Makupe. Mr Makupe was interrogated the previous day and we were not present then. During the interrogation of Mr Sefolo we were present. If I remember well he agreed yes, that he was a member of the ANC. He agreed to that, that he was a member of the ANC. But because I was moving in and out during the interrogation, because it was not easy to experience that kind of interrogation if you see it for the first time. I don't remember as to whether he gave further information, Chairperson, but I remember that he agreed that he was a member of the ANC, that is why he requested that he should sing Nkosi Sikelele.

MR ROUX: At that stage Mr Bokaba, when you saw these incidents taking place around you - could you just go one step back, you were a Constable at that stage at Security Branch, is that correct?

MR BOKABA: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR ROUX: Did you have any capacity to question van Vuuren as a Warrant Officer and then Hechter?

MR BOKABA: I have no power, Chairperson.

MR ROUX: ... keeping in mind of what you saw happening ...(intervention)

TSWANA INTERPRETER: Just a moment, Chairperson.

MR ROUX: ... did you associate yourself with the actions that had taken place there and the death of these three persons?

TSWANA INTERPRETER: May you restart the question, Chairperson, because we had a disturbance.

MR ROUX: I apologise.

CHAIRPERSON: Apparently they had a disturbance, now it has been sorted out. You may restate the - they did not hear your question to Mr Bokaba.

MR ROUX: Thank you, Chairperson.

Did you, Mr Bokaba, seen in the light of what was happening there, the death of three persons in the manner in which they died, did you associate yourself with it and reconcile yourself with the conduct of those three persons and your involvement therewith?

MR BOKABA: Yes, that is correct, Chairperson.

ADV SANDI: Can I ask you why, why did you associate yourself with the killing of those people in the scene you've described?

MR BOKABA: During that time we would say we were involved in a war situation. Inside the townships there were situations of war, people were killing one another.

ADV SANDI: Thank you, Mr Roux.

MR ROUX: Thank you, Chairperson.

Can you explain what was done with the corpses, the second part of this story.

MR BOKABA: Lieut Hechter and Paul van Vuuren went inside the car and left. Hechter told us that he's going to the office to fetch a landmine. It is true, they left and they returned. When they came back we were instructed that we should take the corpses inside the kombi. That is a Mitsubishi Husky kombi and the windows were tinted.

We put them between the two seats. They were put on top of one another. There was a flag which came from Joe Mamasela's car, it was an ANC flag, and the corpses were covered with that flag inside the kombi. W/O van Vuuren drove the kombi, Hechter, myself and Dennis Selahle and Joe Mamasela, all of us we went inside the kombi. We left to a particular place which I would not be able to explain, but it was somewhere in Bophuthatswana.

On our way we arrived at a certain place which was a forest. It was at night because I'm not able to explain the direction towards that place. Along the way on the gravel road, Hechter instructed van Vuuren to stop. After that Hechter took a landmine and put it alongside the - in the middle of the road. We were instructed that we should take those corpses and put them on top of the landmine and we should put them on top of each other. From there we were instructed to go inside the kombi. The kombi was idling all the time. Then from there the landmine was detonated, then he ran inside the kombi, then instructed van Vuuren to drive and leave the scene. We returned to fetch our cars where we left them in that forest.

MR ROUX: Did you - with this conduct of your colleagues, their destruction of the corpses by use of a landmine, did you associate yourself with this conduct, Mr Bokaba?

MR BOKABA: Yes, I associated myself with that conduct, Chairperson.

MR ROUX: Mr Bokaba, what would have been the purpose of destroying these three corpses by means of a landmine?

MR BOKABA: The objective was to destroy the evidence, so that there will be no trace as to their whereabouts.

MR ROUX: Thank you, Chairperson, that would be the evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Roux. Mr van den Berg, any cross-examination?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you, Mr Chairperson, I have a couple of questions.

Mr Bokaba, I want to ask you some questions relating particularly to the aspect of Mr Maake as an informer. As background to that, did you handle many informers?

MR BOKABA: I was not handling many informers. As I was a Constable, I was put with a senior officer like W/O van Wyk, who was a senior to me. The person who was handling informers was him and I was a co-handler of them and him.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And are you able to estimate how many informers there were that you and Mr van Wyk handled?

MR BOKABA: If I remember well there may be five to six informers.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Now we know from the evidence led previously before the Amnesty Committee, that there were essentially two types of informers, there were those who were registered informers and who were paid a monthly allowance, is that correct?

MR BOKABA: Yes, that is correct, they were called NTs. They would give you NT, that is Northern Transvaal, then they would give you a number, that is 300. Those who were registered were given the NT and the number.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And then secondly, there were informers who you made use of on the occasion and they were paid on the occasion when you used them. They were kind of ad hoc informers, not registered. Is that correct?

MR BOKABA: I did not handle any ad hoc informer, but I know that there were such informers.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Can I then assume from that question that Mr Maake was a registered informer?

MR BOKABA: Yes, he was a registered informer.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Do you recall his registration number?

MR BOKABA: That's a difficult question, Chairperson, I don't remember the registration number.

MR VAN DEN BERG: For how long did you handle Mr Maake as an informer? That is the period that you and Mr van Wyk were his handlers until he was transferred from yourselves to Hechter and van Vuuren? Can you guess how long that was?

MR BOKABA: I don't remember well, Chairperson, but if I may estimate it would be two to three years, but I don't remember well.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Can I take an instruction, Mr Chairperson?

CHAIRPERSON: Certainly.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you, I just wanted to check that I had my facts correct. I'm indebted, Mr Chairperson.

At the time that Mr Maake disappeared, the time that his mother last saw him he was 18 years old, do you agree with that?

MR BOKABA: It is possible, Chairperson, he was still a young person.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And so when you recruited him he would have been about 14/15?

MR BOKABA: I would say he was around 14 to 15 years, but I don't remember very well.

MR VAN DEN BERG: He was a schoolboy.

MR BOKABA: I don't remember well, but it seems he was a student then.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Under what circumstances did you come to recruit him?

MR BOKABA: Jackson was detained by members of the South African Defence Force. There was a joint operational room where members of the SADF and the Police used to work in, then they used to patrol Mamelodi together. They were assigned to patrol Mamelodi and control the violence in that particular area. If I remember well, there was a time when he was detained by the South African Defence Force on the road. It was a group of them.

Then thereafter W/O van Wyk was called to talk to them, then he took me with to Mamelodi and when we arrived there we took him to a particular outside room, then thereafter we talked to him. Whilst we were discussing with him we recruited him to give us information in regard to political activities like consumer boycotts, any information he would give us in that regard. He agreed that he will do that, that he will work with us. Then he was recruited at that particular time under those circumstances.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Now the period after he was handed over to Hechter and van Vuuren to the next time you saw him, which was when you'd gong to greet him, according to your evidence, after he returned from Botswana, how long would you say that period was?

MR BOKABA: It's a long time, but I don't remember the duration.

MR VAN DEN BERG: A long time? A year, eighteen months, two years?

MR BOKABA: I would estimate to six months. I just estimate, but that is not the exact duration.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And then the period between that meeting when he allegedly returned from Botswana, to the time when you saw him, which was the time which led to his death, what was the time period there?

MR BOKABA: I don't remember, Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Can you estimate, can you guess?

MR BOKABA: May you please rephrase your question so that I will be able to understand it.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Would you say that the period between when you saw him to greet him after he came back from Botswana, and the time when he died, would you say that that was a month, two months, six months, a year, two years?

MR BOKABA: It's a short period, it would be a period of a week or two weeks.

MR VAN DEN BERG: That meeting that you had with him when allegedly he returned from Botswana, did you discuss what he had gone to do in Botswana?

MR BOKABA: No, Chairperson, we did not discuss about anything in that regard, I just greeted him and left the office.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Do I understand your evidence then correctly that you were summonsed, I think you said by Mr van Vuuren, to come and greet Mr Maake, that you came all the way from Mamelodi into Pretoria, walked into the office, said "hello Jackson" and then left, is that correct?

MR BOKABA: Let me explain it well. I was contacted in Mamelodi that Jackson arrived, then I was on my way to the office because usually when we knock off at 4 o'clock we'd go to that office for a parade, and when I arrived there I greeted him and went to the office, I didn't go back to Mamelodi immediately, but I was on my way to the office.

MR VAN DEN BERG: So it just happened to be that you were at the office at the same time that Mr Maake was there, that's the only reason that you greeted him, it wasn't as if you made a special trip?

MR BOKABA: I was not in the office at that particular time, I was contacted by W/O van Vuuren that Jackson had returned from Botswana and then he's in the office, I should come and greet him. And then again because I was still going to be on my way to the office, therefore I went to the office and greeted him in Hechter's office and then I greeted him together with van Vuuren.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Now did you discuss Mr Maake with Hechter or with van Vuuren, as to the fact that he had been to Botswana and what had happened to him there?

MR BOKABA: No, Chairperson, I did not.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Did you enquire from Hechter and van Vuuren as to whether Maake was still providing useful information?

CHAIRPERSON: Could we just wait for a second, let the technicians deal with this irritating noise.

INTERPRETER: We may try now.

CHAIRPERSON: It's okay now, you may proceed.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

Mr Bokaba, I was asking you whether you had discussed with Hechter and van Vuuren after the time that Mr Maake returned from Botswana, whether Mr Maake was still providing useful information or not.

MR BOKABA: I did not discuss with them about Mr Maake.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Did you gain from them the impression that he was still a useful informer?

MR BOKABA: May you please repeat the question.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Was anything said to you by Hechter and van Vuuren which suggested that Mr Maake was still of use to them? Either by what they said or by their conduct in respect of him.

MR BOKABA: They did not - I was not informed either for or against. At the time when I greeted him, I did not discuss anything with them and then again I did not enquire about Mr Maake, about anything, and they did not inform me in that regard. I just went in, I greeted him, then I left Maake and then in the office.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Now when you were led in your evidence-in-chief, you confirmed that you had read the bundle and that you confirmed that you had read portions of the evidence which was led previously in the applications of Mr Hechter and Mr van Vuuren. Do you recall giving that evidence?

MR BOKABA: I would say I read part of van Vuuren's evidence and a part of Hechter's evidence.

MR VAN DEN BERG: So you are aware - and this is really just for the record, you are aware that Mrs Maake denies that her son ever left the country.

MR BOKABA: I saw all the evidence that she denies that her child left the country to Botswana.

ADV SANDI: Just on that. Do you have any comment to make on that, that the mother of the deceased is denying that he ever left the country? What have you got to say on that?

MR BOKABA: I would say to the dear mother that when Hechter and company took him, Paul van Vuuren informed me that they were taking him to Botswana, they were taking him through Ramatlabana border gate. That is the information I received from Hechter and van Vuuren. If it's true that he did not go through to Botswana, I don't know, but the last information I had from them is that he was taken to Botswana.

ADV SANDI: Just on this issue. Before van Vuuren told you that they were taking him to Botswana, how regularly did you see him around that area? Did you see him frequently or did you seldom see him around?

MR BOKABA: I was not seeing him because he was under the control of van Vuuren and Hechter at that time, so those were the ones who used to meet him.

ADV SANDI: Thank you, Mr van den Berg.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

Now the occasion on which you met Mr Maake, and then he was in the presence of Hechter and van Vuuren in the minibus, you recall that, and you were given an instruction to go and watch the funeral parlour of Mr Makupe, what was the instruction?

MR BOKABA: I stated that I was not only given, the instruction was that I should go there to the funeral parlour and then keep an observation, if I may see Andrew's car or Andrew "contact us through the radio." I was not given the reason why I should do those observations there. It came from Lieut Hechter.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Was Mr Makupe somebody that you had come across in your investigations previously?

MR BOKABA: I myself never received any information in regard to Andrew Makupe, but there was knowledge that Andrew's brother was in exile as a member of the ANC.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Had you met Mr Makupe prior to that particular day?

MR BOKABA: Do you mean the father, Sir?

MR VAN DEN BERG: Andrew Makupe.

MR BOKABA: I knew Andrew before as I was familiar with Mamelodi and I used to pass through the funeral parlour, but we never introduced one another.

ADV SANDI: Sorry, Mr van den Berg, maybe you'll be asking a question on a different aspect.

Tell us what did you know about Andrew Makupe.

MR BOKABA: I knew Andrew as he was staying at that funeral parlour, but furthermore I did not know anything, I did not know as to whether he was involved in any political activities or not.

ADV SANDI: Thank you

MR VAN DEN BERG: Once you had gone to the place where the zozo hut was and you were then left to guard Mr Makupe and Mr Maake, you said that you were given instruction not to discuss anything with them, did you in fact discuss anything with them?

MR BOKABA: No, Chairperson, not at all. Andrew knew Dennis Selahle and I believed that Dennis Selahle grew up in Mamelodi and then they knew each other very well. Andrew tried to request for a favour, but because we were instructed that we should not discuss anything with them, it is true that we did not have any communication with him at all.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Was the fact that Mr Selahle was employed by the Security Police, a common known factor in Mamelodi?

MR BOKABA: Andrew or Dennis?

MR VAN DEN BERG: Sorry, Selahle.

MR BOKABA: Yes, it was known that he was a member of the Security Branch.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Were you at all surprised about the position which Jackson Maake now found himself in?

MR BOKABA: I don't understand your question, may you rephrase it.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Were you surprised that Mr Maake was no in police detention?

MR BOKABA: I was not surprised because I knew that Jackson Maake was Hechter and van Vuuren's informer. I was not surprised when he was with them.

MR VAN DEN BERG: But were you surprised that he was now being kept overnight in the zozo hut, handcuffed, in the presence of somebody who you knew was related to the ANC?

MR BOKABA: Yes, I was surprised that he was handcuffed and knowing that he was an informer I didn't know what is the source of the problem that he should be handcuffed. I don't know how to put it, but I knew that he was an informer, then I was surprised that he was detained.

ADV SANDI: Did Selahle know that he was an informer?

MR BOKABA: Yes, Mr Selahle knew. I've already explained Chairperson, that Hechter and Paul van Vuuren and Joe Mamasela, Dennis Selahle, the four of them were the ones who took Jackson to Botswana, so therefore he knew.

ADV SANDI: But in the light of him knowing that he was an informer, what did he - did he make any comment about what was happening there?

MR BOKABA: Selahle did not comment.

ADV SANDI: I'm talking about the stage when it was yourself and Selahle, you were taking guard over these people, did you have any conversation, yourself and Selahle?

MR BOKABA: Yes, we had a discussion, we were discussing on our own and that we were surprised that why did they detain, why they handcuffed Jackson in that way. But whilst we were discussing, Selahle came to a point that Jackson he did not skip the country as it was stated before. The way I was explained by Mr Selahle, he lied to them that he crossed the border to the Botswana, but he was lying. Maybe he was murdered because he lied to them because he was close to Hechter.

ADV SANDI: Thank you, Mr van den Berg.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Did I understand that last answer to be to the effect that from Selahle you learnt that Mr Maake had in fact never left the country, or had not left the country for Botswana at the time that he was alleged to have done so, by van Vuuren?

MR BOKABA: Do you mean Andrew or Jackson?

MR VAN DEN BERG: Jackson.

MR BOKABA: Yes, in terms of Selahle's understanding it is like that. As it was stated that he went to Botswana, he lied to Hechter that he crossed the border, but he did not.

MR VAN DEN BERG: These questions which you now had about Jackson Maake, did you take those up with either Hechter or van Vuuren? The situation that you now had an informer who was handcuffed?

MR BOKABA: I had no authority to question them or to ask them anything in that regard, Chairperson, the instruction from the senior officer remained an instruction, you would just obey that instruction and that would be the end of it.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And you didn't try and satisfy your curiosity as to Jackson Maake's changed circumstances?

MR BOKABA: You'd only be surprised but there would be nothing you would do.

MR VAN DEN BERG: The place at which the bodies were disposed of, would I be correct if I said to you that the closest police station to that place was Jericho?

MR BOKABA: It is possible, but I don't know that area, it was at night, I knew only that it was somewhere in Bophuthatswana.

MR VAN DEN BERG: You see the wives and the mother have been with Mr Mamasela, to the place at which the bodies were disposed of and that is apparently what Mr Mamasela says, is that it was close to a place called Jericho. That was the one aspect. You can't comment on that?

MR BOKABA: It is possible, but I don't know Jericho. It is true that it is near Jericho, as Mamasela stated.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And then the second aspect ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: Sorry, just before you proceed.

Can you remember which road you took that night when you took the bodies away?

MR BOKABA: I don't remember the road, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: Can you recall whether you travelled through Brits?

MR BOKABA: I don't remember, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: Thank you, Mr van den Berg.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you.

Before the bodies were destroyed, were they mutilated in any other way?

MR BOKABA: As I've already stated, the bodies were affected by electric shocks, Andrew's hands were swollen. Those were the injuries they have sustained, if I remember well.

MR VAN DEN BERG: I'm sorry to take this further, but were the bodies still intact, all the limbs attached to the bodies, the heads still attached to the bodies before they were destroyed?

MR BOKABA: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: You see, Mamasela made the allegation to the wives and to the mother concerned, that the arms had been amputated and that the hands were not with the bodies when they were destroyed, can you comment on that?

MR BOKABA: I dispute that, Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Then there are two last aspects, Mr Bokaba. Firstly, according to Mr Mamasela the three people, Mr Maake, Mr Makupe and Mr Sefolo, were not killed near Pienaarsrivier but they were killed at a place called Donkerhoek, can you comment on that?

MR BOKABA: He's lying, Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And then the final aspect pertains to Mr Makupe's motor vehicle, the Tredia. Do you know what became of that?

MR BOKABA: I don't know what happened to that car later, Chairperson, I would be lying, I don't know what happened.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Where was the last place that you saw it?

MR BOKABA: I saw it for the last time when we collected our cars. Joe Mamasela went into that car together with Paul van Vuuren and Hechter and they followed each other. I and Selahle were staying in Mamelodi, I was staying at Mamelodi Police barracks, and he was staying at his place, so we drove together. I don't know what is the end, what happened to that car, but the car was driven by Mr Mamasela.

MR VAN DEN BERG: You can't comment on whether that motor vehicle was in turn handed over to a person called de Kock, not Eugene de Kock, but another policeman called de Kock?

MR BOKABA: I have no comment in that regard, Chairperson, because I don't know what happened to it.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Might I take an instruction, Mr Chairperson?

CHAIRPERSON: Certainly, Mr van den Berg.

MR ROUX: Chairperson, while Mr van den Berg has been taken instructions I have seen that the interpreters have been signalling and I would also appreciate a short adjournment.

CHAIRPERSON: It would appear Mr van den Berg is not going to be long, but let's find out from Mr van den Berg. How long more are you going to be with the witness?

MR VAN DEN BERG: There are two aspects which I've been asked to canvass, the one relates to personal items which the deceased had on them prior to their disappearance and I don't think that that would take terribly long.

CHAIRPERSON: You don't think that it would take terribly long, or long? I want to make a decision whether we should give them the five minutes now, depending on how long you are going to take. It's within your province because you are the cross-examiner.

TSWANA INTERPRETER: You may finish, Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: I think it will take no more than two or three minutes. I think it might be preferable if we finished that up and then took a break before Mr Steenkamp has an opportunity.

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed, they have conceded that we can.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Mr Bokaba, both Mrs Sefolo and Mrs Makupe say that their husbands had on them various personal possession, wristwatches, in the case of Mr Sefolo, a bank book with some money in it, a considerable sum of money, Mr Makupe had with him all of his business documents including a business cheque book. Do you know what became of those possessions?

MR BOKABA: I don't know what happened to those properties, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you see such items, that is the cheque books, the cash and business documents? Did you see them on them?

MR BOKABA: I did not see them, Chairperson.

ADV SANDI: Yes, but did you see any items at all in the possession of these people?

MR BOKABA: I did not see anything, any item on them, Chairperson.

ADV SANDI: No wristwatch, no ring, nothing?

MR BOKABA: I did not see them, Chairperson. I did not see them. I did not see them myself, I would be lying if I said I saw them.

ADV SANDI: Not even money in their pockets?

MR BOKABA: Chairperson, I did not see them. I don't know what happened to them because I was guard and other members used to come closer to them. Maybe they saw them, but I did not.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Then do I understand your evidence correctly that - let me put it to you as an open-ended question. What in your mind was the reason that these three people were killed?

MR BOKABA: It is because they were destroying the evidence, because the way they were so injured maybe Hechter was afraid to release them with those injuries, that if they were released with those injuries they will go to the media or to the police to report, maybe they were trying to destroy the evidence because of the injuries.

CHAIRPERSON: Allow me a moment, Mr van den Berg.

Other than the injuries caused by the electrocution, did you see physical injuries on the three gentlemen? Other than the electrocution that caused their death. Because if I followed what you said it's that thereafter when you loaded them into the kombi, their hands were swollen, but other than that, that is prior to them being electrocuted, did they have any other injuries, visible injuries?

MR BOKABA: No, Chairperson, they were not injured. My explanation is that the injuries I was able to observe, particularly on Andrew, was when we returned from Mamelodi to that particular area, when we came back from home.

CHAIRPERSON: What injuries did you see on Andrew?

MR BOKABA: His hands were swollen, Chairperson. When we returned from Mamelodi after we changed our clothes, we observed his hands that they were severely swollen. His hands were severely swollen.

CHAIRPERSON: Were they swollen to an extent that they would raise eyebrows if you were released back into the community?

MR BOKABA: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr van den Berg, I'm sorry for interrupting you.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Mr Chairperson, there is one other aspect, now looking at the papers, that I wanted to go on to and it's completely unrelated to what we've done, so perhaps this would be an appropriate time to take a short adjournment.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. We'll take a short adjournment, not more than 10 minutes for the interpreters to catch their breath. We are adjourned.

SAMPINA HENDRIK BOKABA: (s.u.o.)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DEN BERG: (Cont)

Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

Mr Bokaba, in your presence, were either Jackson Maake or Andrew Makupe assaulted or cut with a knife? Particularly in their faces.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bokaba firstly, ...(no English interpretation)

MR BOKABA: I will state it this way, I've already explained that when Jackson and Andrew were interrogated, I and Dennis Selahle were not present, we were in Mamelodi to change our clothes. When we returned, the injuries which I remember and I observed, were those which were on Andrew's hands.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And now that I've put this aspect to you, does that jog your memory at all?

MR BOKABA: I did not observe injuries on the face.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you, Mr Chairperson, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr van den Berg. Mr Steenkamp.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV STEENKAMP: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson. Flowing from a question from my colleague, Mr Bokaba, according to the testimony of Mr van Vuuren on page 103 of the bundle - if you can just have a look at that - there is a question by the then Chairperson, Honourable Judge Ngoepe, asking the question -

Then his answer -

Do you agree with that testimony of Mr van Vuuren?

MR BOKABA: That has been stated by Mr van Vuuren, but I agree with, I concur with that reason because maybe it could have been their intention to do that.

ADV STEENKAMP: Then my last question. When the deceased were interrogated, was some interpreter used or in what language did they speak, and who was the interpreter?

MR BOKABA: At the time when Andrew and Jackson were interrogated we were not present. At the time when Mr Sefolo was interrogated, Joe Mamasela was present and he was speaking Afrikaans to - in Setstwana to interpret for him and Hechter and van Vuuren were using English, and they understood.

ADV STEENKAMP: Thank you, Chairperson, those are my questions. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bokaba, just from the question asked by Adv Steenkamp, you at a stage said you think the reason why they were killed was to - rather I'll put it this way, that they had these injuries and particularly Andrew, that he should not be seen by the community. That is your reason, and the reason by van Vuuren is that they wanted to exterminate the cell in which they belonged. You concur with van Vuuren, but are you saying that's his reason or the main reason is that Andrew for instance, was so badly swollen on his hands that it would have raised eyebrows in the community?

MR BOKABA: Chairperson, if I understand you well, van Vuuren and Hechter did not give us the reason why they murdered these people, that is why I said maybe that was their intention to do that. But I, Chairperson, my understanding to state it, when I speculated about the intention for them to be killed, it's that they were trying to erase evidence by killing them. But this is their understanding. Because they did not share their intentions with us, I would say I would concur with the decision, though they did not share them with us as it has been stated by van Vuuren.

CHAIRPERSON: Adv Sandi, do you have any questions to put to the witness?

ADV SANDI: Yes, I do, Mr Chairman, thank you.

Mr Bokaba, would it be a fair statement to say that Jackson Maake was quite known to you?

MR BOKABA: Yes, I knew him.

ADV SANDI: Had you been monitoring him before he was recruited to become an informer?

MR BOKABA: Let me put it this way, Chairperson, I knew him when we were called to the police station by members of the South African Defence Force, from then I started to know him, but before I did not know him, and then I did not have any information or contact with him or about him.

ADV SANDI: In the course of his functions as an informer, did he supply information to you, to you personally?

MR BOKABA: I used to go with W/O van Dyk, with him to meet him, but I would not - I don't remember well as to whether he gave us a particular information, but he used to give us some information when we met him.

ADV SANDI: Did it ever happen that he would meet just yourself, without van Dyk or Hechter, and supply you with information?

MR BOKABA: At all times - let me explain to the Chairperson about the culture of our work. We as black members who were working at Security Branch, there was a tendency that we were not handling informers per se, you would be paired with a white officer to handle informers. When it comes to briefing and debriefing about informers, they would do that themselves but you'd be there as an observer, that maybe if they don't understand you'd be able to interpret for them, but the briefing and the debriefing was done by white officers.

ADV SANDI: In your day-to-day interaction with van Wyk initially and later Hechter, who were handling Jackson as their informers, did they ever say to you what sort of an informer he was?

MR BOKABA: They did not say anything to me. Let me put it this way, there was a culture that you should not know what the right hand is doing, it was - they used to protect the information from us, so were not exposed to that information or to the handling of informers.

ADV SANDI: Do you know if Jackson could drive a car?

MR BOKABA: I don't know, Chairperson.

ADV SANDI: Do you know if a vehicle had ever been made available to him by your colleagues, so that he could function as an informer?

MR BOKABA: I don't know that, Chairperson, I'd be lying if I said I knew.

ADV SANDI: Did you know Mr Sefolo before this incident occurred?

MR BOKABA: I did not know him before, Chairperson. He was taken from Witbank, I saw him on that particular night for the first time, when he came with Joe Mamasela. That was the first time I saw him.

ADV SANDI: If one of your colleagues who allege that they were working with Jackson Maake, says they arranged a car for him, they even secured a driver's licence for him, would that come as a surprise to you?

MR BOKABA: It is possible, Chairperson, but I did not have the information that he was issued with a driver's licence or a car. There were those who were given cars, but I would be lying if I said I saw him driving a car or as to whether he was issued with a driver's licence.

ADV SANDI: Have you ever heard anyone saying he had seen him driving a car somewhere?

MR BOKABA: I saw on Paul van Vuuren's evidence, that was for the first time I saw that, but I know nothing about that.

ADV SANDI: Concerning payment arrangements to informers, would that have been known to you, how these people would get paid?

MR BOKABA: They were paid according to their production. You were forced that when the informer's paid you would go together with two policemen. The handler used to sign as a handler that he has paid and then the informer used to sign to confirm that he has been paid, then the other one used to sign that he was present when the informer was paid and then there was a period when the informers were paid. I don't know as to whether it was after a month or maybe after some weeks.

ADV SANDI: If one of your colleagues who had testified before this Committee - it appears somewhere in this bundle, but I cannot locate the exact place where it is, Jackson Maake one of the problems, started coming to the Security Police without any advice, he would just come in without giving any notice. Would that come as a surprise to you as well?

MR BOKABA: Chairperson, it is possible that he used to come to our offices without me seeing him. Where we used to go to the offices in the morning, then we would go to a parade, then each and every one of us would submit any information on his possession and thereafter we would go to our cars and go to the - our field to do our field work. As to whether he'd come to the offices whatever time, I would not know that because I'd be on the field on that particular time.

ADV SANDI: In other words, you are not aware that one of the problems your colleagues who testified before this Committee had about Jackson Maake, was that he would just come to the office without any notice? You are not aware of that problem about him.

MR BOKABA: I would not know that, Chairperson, I saw that on Paul van Vuuren's evidence, but I did not know that. But I personally, I did not see him unannounced at our offices because in many times we used to be on field work.

ADV SANDI: You also didn't know that - what is the position, are you aware that there was a suspicion that he was a double-agent, he was coming to those offices unannounced because he was working for the other side? Are you aware of that?

MR BOKABA: I don't know that, Chairperson.

ADV SANDI: Tell me, what was the common practice, if there was a suspicion that a particular informer had actually infiltrated the police, would members of the Security Police in that office be informed to be on the alert, to watch this person? What was the practice, would you not have been informed that look this person is behaving in a suspicious way, you have to be careful here?

MR BOKABA: As I've already stated, Chairperson, that we were restricted to many things, I don't want to hide that we did have access to some other things. If the handler observed that the person created suspicion, whatever decision he'd take he would not share that with us, but they would discuss that amongst themselves, then they would carry on with the particular decision without us being informed.

ADV SANDI: And finally, do you know if he was attending school at the time of the occurrence of this incident? Do you know if he was a scholar?

MR BOKABA: If I remember well, at that time he was not attending school, in terms of the information given to me that he was in Botswana.

ADV SANDI: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Malan.

MR MALAN: I have no questions, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Any re-examination, Mr Roux.

MR ROUX: Thank you, nothing Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: That is your case.

MR ROUX: That is indeed my case, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you going to lead any evidence?

MR VAN DEN BERG: Mr Chairperson, I've just been handed a note which I haven't had a chance to have a look at, it wasn't my intention to, but I understand Mr Steenkamp has something he wishes to raise with you.

ADV STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, the quote that Adv Sandi was looking for is on page 71, starting at the bottom of page 70 till l71. Thank you, Honourable Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Bokaba, you are excused.

MR BOKABA: Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: What's your position, Mr van den Berg.

MR VAN DEN BERG: There'll be no evidence from the families, that evidence is before you in the bundle and it would simply be a repeat thereof. I've put the new information to this particular witness but without Mamasela, that's the kind of weight we can attach to it.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. So gentlemen, are we ready to argue shortly?

MR ROUX: Yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you ready, Mr van den Berg?

MR VAN DEN BERG: I am.

CHAIRPERSON: Then we shall do so and start with you, Mr Roux, as would be the practice.

MR ROUX IN ARGUMENT: Thank you, Chairperson. If you would just grant me one moment.

Chairperson, in the bundle before you on page 196 thereof, you will note that the specific offences which emanate from these facts have been granted amnesty for -and this the decision regarding Jacques Hechter, I do not wish to fix your attention upon which offences must specifically be granted amnesty for, but I would submit that it ought to be the same as (a) to (e) on 196 and possibly with the insertion once again of the general any other offence which may emanate from the facts, offence, criminal action or delict.

CHAIRPERSON: In other words, you are saying this decision you've referred us to is not in order to persuade us, we should weigh the facts here and if we are satisfied and we are inclined to give amnesty, we should look at what was given?

MR ROUX: That is correct.

Then Chairperson I submit with respect, that all the prerequisites of the Act have been appropriately fulfilled as it appears from the evidence given by Mr Bokaba. Mr Bokaba's position was that he was a Constable, his unequivocal evidence - and I do believe that in many instances during the past and during previous hearings it has been clearly testified on, he was a Constable, and furthermore he was a black Constable, his duties involved the execution of orders, no questions were asked.

And with regard to the action in this particular case, his role was somewhat different to the roles of Hechter, van Vuuren and Mamasela, when it comes to this particular set of facts. The first section of his role merely involved the observation of Makupe and his active role actually commenced when he was ordered to guard Andrew Maake and Jackson and Makupe.

He was not involved on the following day with the interrogation of Makupe and Maake, because he was instructed to return to his home. Upon his return he once again assumed the role of a guard and a manager so to speak, who had to take Makupe to a telephone. That particular evening after the abduction of Sefolo had taken place, he once again assumed the role of a guard. It is understandable that his evidence regarding the order given by Hechter not to discuss anything with these detainees, is reasonable given the circumstances in the light of his specific obligations.

With regard to the electric death of these three persons, it is his evidence that he reconciled himself with this. I do not wish to repeat unnecessarily what the general conditions in the country were at that stage along with the subjective factors within the state of mind of Mr Bokaba, he mentioned for example, that the country was steeped in a situation of warfare. Without elaborating unnecessarily about this, if we take these facts into consideration, he reconciled himself with this. He also reconciled himself with the fact that these three bodies were to be exploded by means of a landmine.

His reconciliation with van Vuuren's evidence can only be viewed on the basis that if it was the intention of van Vuuren and the others to destroy the entire cell, because he himself didn't have any knowledge specifically pertaining to the activities of Maake, Makupe and Sefolo, it is understandable then in the sense that he was merely obeying orders given by a senior officer at that stage. He was not involved with the death by electrocution itself, according to his evidence and the facts presented in the bundle. His subjective opinion that evidence was destroyed is also reasonable considering the circumstances, explaining why he reconciles himself the death of these three persons and then also the desecration of the bodies.

Therefore I request with respect, that he be granted amnesty, not as a result of the decision pertaining to Cronje, but similarly - I beg your pardon, not the decision pertaining to Cronje but the decision pertaining to Hechter's application, as we can find on page 196 in the bundle, because despite the fact that he was not directly involved in the murder or the assault, he reconciled himself with these actions, given the circumstances. Therefore I submit with respect, that he be granted amnesty for those specific offences. As it pleases you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Roux.

MR VAN DEN BERG IN ARGUMENT: Thank you, Mr Chairperson. I don't have a great deal on which to address you. The presence of the two wives and the mother today is really in a continued quest to put finality to this episode or this chapter in their lives.

It is, I am sure you are fully aware Mr Chairperson, inherent in their culture and of absolute necessity to them to find the bodies. They've heard the story, they've heard the story through Mr Hechter and through Mr van Vuuren, they know what happened to their loved ones, but they are unable to put finality until such time as they are able to locate the bodies. Their presence today was in pursuit of that aspect.

They accept that Mr Bokaba was a Security Policeman and that he acted within the context which he did. The answers which he has given today have facilitated the process of getting greater clarity in respect of the deceased' bodies. That whole aspect I think, commenced during the short adjournment when there were discussions between the family and Mr Bokaba, and I would implore Mr Bokaba to see that process through and to make himself available to the members of the families and to facilitate them in coming to terms with what has transpired.

Mr Chairperson, I don't have any formal submissions in terms of the criteria set out in the Act, it's clear that the application fulfils the formal requirements in terms of being on the prescribed form etcetera, etcetera, and there is no basis on which I can submit to you that he does not fulfil the requirements, the substantive requirements as set out by the Act. I can't really take it any further than that, Mr Chairperson. As it pleases you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr van den Berg. What I would narrow it down to is that there's no opposition that amnesty should be granted?

MR VAN DEN BERG: As I understand my instructions they wanted to close this chapter in their lives, they're unable to do so until such time as they have at least located the bodies. We're one step closer to that with what we've heard, what the families have heard from Mamasela and to a certain extent confirmed by Mr Bokaba. There are other aspects which we will follow up in due course, but ja, I can't take it further than that.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm indebted to you, Mr van den Berg. Mr Roux, obviously you don't have any reply to what Mr van den Berg has said.

MR ROUX: No, Chairperson, none.

CHAIRPERSON: This brings us to the conclusion of the application of Mr Bokaba. We reserve the decision in that respect, it would however be delivered in writing shortly, and when I say shortly, not beyond April, because other than what was said here we are duty-bound to deliberate on it and not merely to say others have been granted amnesty, therefore it follows, it is not that kind of process, we've got to weigh the evidence presented to us to be able to come to a decision. However, I wish to thank the legal representatives for their assistance, this was really ably done, this is very much appreciated.

To you, Mr Bokaba, thank you for having had the courage to appear before us, we assume the audience is largely an extract of the Mamelodi community, that you had the courage to do that for the furtherance of reconciliation. We are indebted to you.

MR BOKABA: I thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: To the families of Maake, Makupe, Sefolo, as your legal representative ably put it, that your further attendance today is a continued quest to know precisely what happened to the remains of your beloved ones. I'm conscious that this is not less than five times that you have appeared and this question being investigated. I'm encouraged, and I speak this on behalf of my colleagues who are seated next to me, that you find courage because when you speak of your culture you are not speaking of a culture different from mine. I know that the matter would not go to rest until we have performed rituals which are in accordance with our culture. But the courage you have shown in this process is tremendous and if we would have all people coming before us showing the courage you have, we shall definitely reconcile in this country.

I thank you for coming, but I am still saying personally, when you appeared before me I could not do more than satisfy the culture in that you would go out today and perform those rituals. I say because Mr Bokaba, as I am informed, is prepared to interact with you further, I hope and I shall keep you in my prayers, that you find those bodies or at least the remains of the bodies of your loved ones. I think you very much.

This concludes the incident of Maake, Makupe and Sefolo. We shall reconvene and complete the matter that stood down. Thank you very much.

Mr Roux, I don't see your colleagues. Is there somebody who is advising them that they may? We will proceed with the matter which stood down earlier to accommodate the Bokaba application.

MATTER: LEONARD BROWN, CELO RAMAKOPE AND DAVID MODIMENG INCIDENT - ARGUMENT

--------------------------------------------------------------------------CHAIRPERSON: Ms Ngomane for the record, you approached us in chambers and said you no longer wish to lead evidence, but would go directly to argument, do you confirm that just for the completeness of our record?

MS NGOMANE: Indeed, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, we are indebted to you. Mr Roux.

MR RICHARD: Chairperson, I do not intend to call any witnesses, but there are certain facts that I believe I would seek to put into the record by agreement, without calling Mr Brown, and I'm prepared to recite them right now. It's essentially the facts of that proposition that I put to Mr Hechter. In other words we discussed the matter and there are certain things that I believe the applicants admit.

CHAIRPERSON: With whom did you discuss that?

MR RICHARD: With Mr Roux.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Roux, can you confirm this?

MR ROUX: Yes, indeed I can confirm it. I do not have all the specific facts, but I assume that my learned friend will not go beyond the parameters of our discussion, therefore I accept that what we have discussed he will indeed place on record, and this is in terms of our agreement.

CHAIRPERSON: Procedurally, how do we do this? Oh, you are doing it on behalf of the families, then we'd assume that you do that first.

MR RICHARD: I would assume that I would read out the list of the matters where I think there is agreement, and they would be put into the record. I haven't got the facilities of a typewriter here in Pretoria, otherwise I would have prepared a statement.

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed to do so, Mr Richard.

MR RICHARD READS STATEMENT: Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Chairperson, I am indebted.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Richard. Listening to you, I don't think Mr Roux would say you have exceeded the parameters of the agreement reached. Would I be correct in so surmising?

MR ROUX IN REPLY TO STATEMENT: Chairperson, yes and no. It went a little fast, I just want to go through these aspects briefly with regard to point 1, his school and university education. By nature of the situation no witnesses could have any knowledge about that, it is not a problem.

That he was a co-ordinator of the Brits Action Committee, or the Anti-Removal Campaign, that was the evidence in either event.

That he was detained twice for four months at a time, there is no problem with that.

That his home was approximately 500 to 600 metres away from his parental home, was in either event Pretorius' evidence if I recall correctly, and his personal home, the one that he owned was 500 to 600 metres away from his parental home.

That he was sleeping at his parent's home the evening of the incident along with seven to eight other persons, is something that nobody can really give any evidence about, so there isn't a problem with that.

That he was not politically active, I didn't hear the next point properly, we don't know whether or not he was truly politically active ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: No he was, but no other person in the house was, other than him, the others were - if I may say they were "apolitical".

MR MALAN: Chair, with your permission, may I just understand this, is this by consent that you put this in on behalf of the family or is this facts agreed between the parties? What is it supposed to be?

MR RICHARD: Subject to my learned colleague confirming that he accepts that they are facts as agreed, they are facts as agreed.

MR MALAN: What he does not accept simply remains the position of your client.

MR RICHARD: The position of my client.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct - no microphone)

MR ROUX: Suffice to add to point six, my learned friend and I have discussed that nobody else in the house was politically active, with the exception of Mr Brown himself, and what can be added to this is that this was a fact that everybody in the house was thoroughly aware of. That is the section that I missed, and therefore I have no problem with that and in either event it was the evidence that it was a pentolite bomb and not, as in the case of the Ramakope incident, a petrol or fire bomb as such. That was indeed the evidence. Then I have no problems with these facts, in terms of the position of the family.

CHAIRPERSON: I think you have captured that succinctly.

Now I suppose in the order of things you have to start your argument.

MR ROUX: Thank you, Chairperson, just one moment please. I have requested earlier to submit a supplementary affidavit by Jan Hattingh Cronje. I believe that my attorney has already made that affidavit available to you. And then I also request leave to read this document into the record.

MR MALAN: I don't know if it is necessary, you have put this to us and discussed precisely what the two amendments are, we have the affidavit and it reaffirms what you have put to us already.

MR ROUX: Thank you, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: I think we can just allocate this exhibit a number. What would be the next number?

MR ROUX: I think, Chairperson, that it ought to be C.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that is correct, the previous exhibit was B. And why we made you read the first one into the record was because it was illegible.

MR ROUX: Yes, indeed.

CHAIRPERSON: And over and above, you had given us a background of what it would contain in any event. So it is on record.

MR ROUX IN ARGUMENT: Then I can confirm that that which is contained within the affidavit is indeed the broader general background to what it would contain, which I have already related to you.

Chairperson in brief, these applicants have been expected to make a full disclosure of relevant facts among others. Without referring to the Act, I submit that you can accept that all the prerequisites of this Act have been fulfilled, both the formal prerequisites and the prerequisites which have been stated in Section 20.

The opposition in this case, and I will restrict myself to that, were in agreement that there was no full disclosure of relevant facts. Pretorius disclosed all facts, I do not believe that there could be any other submission before you which would carry as much weight. Jubber has disclosed the facts within his knowledge thoroughly and so also the affidavits submitted by Cronje, which have been submitted by agreement. With regard to Hechter and van Vuuren, both of them as you will see in terms of the medical reports, among others, cannot recall the incident specifically. Van Vuuren recalls it on the basis of admissions made to him by Pretorius and can only recall snatches of it. It has already been argued on Tuesday during the Masuku matter by my learned friend, Mr Visser, whom I wish to depend upon in this regard, that the mere fact that somebody cannot recall, would certainly in the terms of the spirit of this legislation, not deprive him of the privilege of acquiring amnesty for that which he has come forward for and inasfar as it is possible for him, he has disclosed all relevant facts.

I also think that if we consult Section 20(1)(c), that all relevant facts have been disclosed. The emphasis here is on relevant facts and I think we can read in with this, as my learned friend Mr Visser has, and I associate myself with this, inasfar as it is within their knowledge and recollection, because logic dictates that this incident took place almost 15 years ago and these persons acted bona fide on the basis of information given by persons who were involved in a minor number of matters and have taken this information inasfar as it could be of application to them, and because the modus operandi operated in a certain fashion and there were only specific persons who were members of this task force, it follows then that it could be nobody other than them. And this is with respect, with regard to van Vuuren and Hechter specifically.

Therefore I submit that there has been a full disclosure of all relevant facts within the possibility and the knowledge of the applicants, especially when taking into account that the memory does not function that well 15 years after the fact. I myself cannot even recall what I did 15 years ago in standard six, and as one ages one's medical history proves that one forgets so much easier.

This brings me to one other aspect and that is the so-called innocent bystander, the death of Joyce Modimeng. The evidence indicated, particularly that of Hechter, and the others also expressed themselves partially regarding this, that there was a situation of warfare and that there was never any action within the normal parameters of the law. On the contrary, action was taken unlawfully and there were serious actions which were required for activists who were gravely involved in these activities.

The specific targets were strangely enough persons who were asleep in their homes or in the home of their parents, such as Brown. In other words the information provided by the informers was very accurate. One of the intimidation techniques was stated by the witnesses, and this was to intimidate the parents along with the subject, to terrorise the community, so that they would know that such actions executed by these subjects, would not be tolerated. And unfortunately in a situation of warfare, innocent people die. I can accept that the possibility exists that the information given by informers could not have been correct and that Joyce Modimeng possibly did not belong to the women's movements. However, all four witnesses were in agreement, or at least all the persons who worked directly with it, van Vuuren and Jubber for example, agreed that various informers stated that she was politically active, as it is reflected in the files, but she was not the target. If she then died as an innocent bystander, then it was due to the situation of warfare. And in this regard ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon, would you concede that it is not relevant whether or not she was politically active, given the background of who the target was?

MR ROUX: Precisely. That is why if it is argued that she was an innocent person, I would concede this because she wasn't the target and that was not the evidence.

With regard to the specific reference to the innocent bystander - if you will just grant me one moment, without the Committee being to the decisions made by other Amnesty Committees during other hearings, I would like to quote this English extract to you, and I think this is something which encapsulates the definition of an innocent bystander in all other interpretations -

All of you are aware to the facts pertaining to these matters, and without using the English saying "tit-for-tat", where the ANC did this it ought to be admissible in another case, the specific circumstances which fell subjectively within the state of mind of these members of the task force and the persons who carried out the instructions, for example Constable Pretorius at that stage, should be considered that a specific target was identified, that a specific attack was launched by means of pentolite or otherwise by means of petrol bombs and that with one of these three cases an innocent person was killed. It is clear that with regard to this task force there was not a general action which led to the deaths of various innocent persons. And there was evidence to the effect that with all three occasions the actions led to success because these persons' homes were never again attacked, they were not again arrested, at least not that we are aware of, and as Hechter testified, he never again went to Brits to intimidate these same persons or for example, more seriously, to eliminate them.

In other words, I submit that all four the applicants be granted amnesty for the offences. And furthermore I submit with respect - I think that in the case of Pretorius I have already listed the offences and I will submit that this ought to be the list. If I can be of assistance to you in terms of your discretion - allow me to trace it momentarily, that the list of offences ought to include murder, attempted murder, defeating the ends of justice, actions in contravention with the Explosives Act, Act 26/56, arson, purposeful damage to property, and any other criminal or delictual accountability which may emanate from the facts.

Unless there is anything else specifically that you would like to hear me on, this is my argument. As it pleases you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Roux. Mr Richard, will you start.

MR RICHARD IN ARGUMENT: As the Committee pleases.

When considering the application and who should certainly and who may be not so certainly not get amnesty, I start with the first applicant, Mr van Vuuren. His imposition is curious, he can't remember what he did or did not do and the third applicant, Mr Pretorius, on whom he depends to prompt his memory, as was conceded during the course of evidence, also did not put him at the scene of the crime.

Now my first submission on him, Mr van Vuuren, is that his evidence can be put no higher than speculative. We really and truly have no idea for a fact, what he did not or did do. He claims that because he was reminded he was associated as a matter of probability. I don't know where that leaves any tribunal or body required to make a decision on fact, there are no facts, and from my perception of the matter I don't see how any finding can be made about anything that he says. In fact, to me it would be offensive to logic to say that anything has been established regarding his involvement in the matter, and I argue that his application should simply be dismissed for want of any evidence of any cogent value at all.

MR MALAN: Just before you proceed, if you're moving onto any of the others, is your argument that whatever evidence is put before the Committee, has to come from the applicant in person? Or if you look at the Act, would it not be possible to put whatever evidence is available before the Committee, through other sources.

CHAIRPERSON: And before you respond, we're looking at this though there is viva voce evidence in this respect, that even in ordinary applications or matters brought before Court, that another person can give evidence that he knows about that more than the litigant himself, could that be dismissed and say he bears no knowledge of what he seeks?

MR RICHARD: Chairperson, it's perfectly competent to prove a matter through evidence through other sources than the applicant or litigant, him or herself. However in van Vuuren's case, that's applicant number 1, he depends on Mr Pretorius' evidence and at the point when Mr Pretorius was asked what he knew about van Vuuren's cross-involvement my note was clear, he could not confirm. So then the next question is Hechter, what does he say? Hechter ...(intervention)

ADV SANDI: Sorry Mr Richard, just before you go on to Hechter. Whilst you're talking about van Vuuren, should we not perhaps try here and take a closer look at his evidence, where he says he was involved in incidents of this nature which he estimates were about 200 to 300, and the pattern is generally the same in all these incidents? Shouldn't we try and put the emphasis here on the context? There are many other incidents which are similar to the ones that we are now considering, evidence in respect of - similar, very similar. Wouldn't that be a bit of an artificial approach to say he has not put himself in the scene? He says "I must have been there if Pretorius says that I must have been there, I must have been involved in many of those operations which are similar to what Pretorius says"?

MR RICHARD: Chairperson, his evidence was to use the legal evidential tag, that he had committed many acts constituting similar facts.

MR MALAN: Including similar acts in the Brits/Okasi area.

MR RICHARD: Quite correct.

MR MALAN: And we have no evidence of any other such acts ever performed in Okasi/Brits area except the three.

MR RICHARD: However, he then concedes that he has no knowledge of the particular incident. The question about similar fact evidence is whether its import is such that its relevance should be considered that it's, as with circumstantial evidence, so overwhelming so as to persuade one that it does have a persuasive value. His statement if one analyses it "I did many such things, but I don't remember this one, others might have done it without me", it's certainly not direct to the point that he was involved. In fact, we're left with a completely open question as to whether he was or was not involved.

The evidence of his co-applicants doesn't prove or disprove that he was or wasn't, and his assumption must be left as a mere assumption in my submission. And as an evidential test, I don't believe it's competent for a fact-finding body to take that evidence into account in support of substantive relief of the nature that he applies for.

Then one turns to the second applicant ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: May I just ask this last question. Is the contention that he's lying about his non-remembrance? Because that was never put to him.

MR RICHARD: I have not said that he's lying or not lying, I'm simply saying that he's non-remembrance is such as to leave the Committee in the position that it has not direct evidence except his admission as to similar facts upon which to associate him with the act, and I submit that it is insufficient.

ADV SANDI: Once again attempting to take a closer examination of the evidence, is there any evidence before us that those people who say "if so and so says I was involved, so that must be true", is there any evidence to the contrary?

MR RICHARD: There's no evidence one way or the other, that is the argument.

ADV SANDI: Do you agree that no person can implicate himself or allow himself to be implicated unless he's inside?

MR RICHARD: If a person implicates himself he's got to do it coherently and cogently, and in this particular situation we're left with an implication which is conjectural.

ADV SANDI: We're not to examine the context, the factual context in respect of which this person is implicating himself? What is the context?

MR RICHARD: The context here today is very, very simple. There was certainly in my learned colleague's matter, a reasonable fear of a murder charge and in the particular matter here, of attempted murder. The Act entitles him to amnesty which pre-empts that. So the motive to implicate himself and pre-empt an argument in the future, is quite plain, so there's every reason to implicate himself and claim the benefit of the amnesty if possible. And that is the context in which he gives evidence today.

MR MALAN: I don't want to really take this to extremes, but if that is your contention that he could be prosecuted and convicted, why take the point on the basis that we can't be satisfied that he was indeed present? Because he cannot be convicted if not found to have been present.

MR RICHARD: There may be other evidence at some other point in time, far more coherent than what is here, that may implicate him. If there is such evidence, my submission is that the amnesty is not a right, it's a relief which an applicant has to claim and prove and the onus is on the applicant to claim it and to establish ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: No, that's not correct, there is no onus on anyone, we simply have to satisfy ourselves. - one way or another.

MR RICHARD: The Committee indeed has to satisfy itself on evidence and my argument in the case of Mr van Vuuren is that we are left with nothing on which to satisfy ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: You may proceed, thank you.

MR RICHARD: The next applicant, Mr Robert Leslie Jubber, it's difficult to identify precisely what he is applying for amnesty for, on the facts outlined by him. The facts which might or might not constitute an offence or a delict, are that he knew that an act had taken place in his jurisdiction and did not properly investigate and report it. That leaves him exposed on a crime of defeating the ends of justice. Beyond that I don't believe that he has established facts or circumstances establishing any other potential prejudice to himself, and provided his application is for an amnesty which extends only to defeating the ends of justice, there is no opposition to his application for amnesty.

Then the next particular applicant that I propose to deal with is Mr Jan Hattingh Cronje, the fifth applicant. The facts that we have before us is that he gave an order. We have his untested affidavits corroborating this fact. However, due to his ill health, there has been no examination as to what circumstances, information, information of the context of the time that he acted on in making his decisions to give these orders.

Now it leaves us in a situation that we know precious little about what he did or didn't do or what he knew at the time or did not know, and I believe that while it might be unfortunate that it's ill health that prevents him from being cross-examined, the fact that he is not cross-examined also means that there's no evidence upon which a Committee could be satisfied that he's entitled to the relief that he begs so carefully in his affidavits and supplementary papers thereto. Ultimately, Mr Cronje is the responsible person and the person who had the particular duty of being aware and making decisions on coherent facts with which he was seized at the time. We know from him nothing at all. And I believe that if the test is that there should be information and evidence upon which the Committee should be satisfied, I don't believe that there is anything which could satisfy Mr Cronje's application.

That leaves the next category and that's Mr Hechter. Now in relation to Mr Hechter's application and in relation to Mr Pretorius' application, the aspect that needs to be concentrated on, as is it is the essence of the objection to the amnesty in their cases, is proportionality.

Now I have searched carefully through the various amnesty decisions, to see whether the applicability of what are called the Norgard Principles, has ever been properly argued and despite many hours of searching I can find no evidence that they have. Now while I'm mindful of the need for the Committees to be consistent in their decisions, it is also relevant to point out that the stare decisis rule does not apply from Committee to Committee and no one Committee is bound by a decision of another Committee. How the Norgard Principles came to be incorporated as a matter of law into the Act, if the Committee wishes I can submit a written document before Monday, it would be no difficulty to me ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: That would certainly not be necessary, we really have extensive research and information on this and if you need to access our library archives, you're welcome to do so.

MR RICHARD: Thank you, I will not proceed on that narrative, through the Pretoria Minutes and ... However, what I will refer to is a 1996 article written by Prof Jeremy Sarkin(?) of the University of Western Cape, and at a footnote he encapsulates what they say, quite shortly. And I think since his words are probably better than mine, I will use his -

Now as in a matter decided by Prof C A Norgard in the Namibian situation, I don't think one need to particularly argue that the acts in this particular matter were political or made pursuant to an order and so forth, but one brings to mind what I call the Namibian Car Park case.

The facts of that case were that a car bomb which caused a number of million rands worth of damage to the car park, was exploded somewhere between nine and ten o'clock at night. The car park was a civilian installation. There Prof Norgard decided that as there was still the contingent possibility of civilians - and that's where it becomes relevant, being injured, the particular operative who exploded that car park should not be given the benefit of the indemnity provided for in the Namibian situation.

In this situation we have the unabashed admission that a bomb was exploded in front of Mr Leonard Brown's parents' house, with the intention of intimidating, and if I used the words put in my cross-examination, "terrorising" persons who were not activists, into not supporting activists who so happened to be in the particular situation, their son, Mr Brown.

Now there is no test outside South Africa which justifies attacks on civilians, particularly attacks which are intended to terrorise - and that is the admission under cross-examination, civilians into compliance with either party's wishes in a conflict. That indeed would be a serious and fundamental breach of the Geneva Convention. And again if written argument on the interpretations are needed, I'm quite happy to supply it.

Now we then ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: But shouldn't we look at this, and I'm particularly here looking at the Act and Section 20(3)(d) -

Taking the submission you made on behalf of the Brown family, that Mr Brown himself, Leonard Brown, was an activist politically, that if we look at (d), that it was directed at him, and quite rightly you say there is no other source where we can suck some information as regards innocent bystanders, but wouldn't this, when you look at (d) that "directed at a political opponent", and the evidence before us is that the target was Mr Leonard Brown ...

MR RICHARD: I start with what my learned colleague described as semantics. In this regard I believe that Mr Pretorius was patently dishonest and untruthful. There is a huge difference between an activist, his own home and his parents' home where there are innocent people residing. That evidence cannot be accepted as bona fide or honest. Indeed while under cross-examination, Mr Pretorius' counsel had to rescue to him by beginning argument at that juncture, and from that I think a most sinister inference must be drawn against Mr Pretorius and the evidence given by Mr Pretorius. It was indeed patent that at the time he was giving evidence he was taken by surprise by the distinction, and I don't think it can be conveniently dismissed as semantic.

The second point is that yes, it might be legitimate to attack an opponent, but is it legitimate to attack an opponent in such a manner whereby private property, unconnected with the opponent except by blood relationships, as is normally the case in most conflicts, and other people may as a matter of probability be injured. I believe in a conventional conflict any aggressor who behaved in such a manner, would be guilty of a serious breach of the ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: The sub-section goes further - if I may just interrupt you there, I stop when it comes to a political opponent, and it goes further and says -

MR RICHARD: I have the section before me Chairperson, but in this particular matter, the attack was not against Mr Brown's property, it was against his parents' property.

MR MALAN: Is it not common cause, also from your part, that the attack was against Mr Brown, that he was the first target, that he was the activist? That's all the evidence before us. It's also read into the record again by your last contribution, and if you weigh proportionality, that would certainly not apply - I mean that's not been your argument, because you're arguing about his family. It seems that you're quite happy that the proportionality argument does not come into play where it concerns a potential conviction on attempted murder on Mr Brown. Is that how we are to read you?

MR RICHARD: Chairperson, we've all been party to many arguments where whether it was the freedom movements or the Security Forces, and it can be accepted that if there was an attack on a local police constable or a particular cell of MK, that is legitimate within the words of the Act. However, where I am distinguishing it is where that attack involves an attack which has, as I used the words earlier today, collateral consequences, when does that reach the line? I believe, and my submission is that an attack on a house which is not the residence of the activist, which will involve putting jeopardy to, - to use the word that I'm certain my learned colleague for the other victims will use, innocent bystanders, cannot be regarded as proportional, it transgresses. It is consistent with Prof C A Norgard's ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: I'm sorry, I'm not sure whether you understand me or not understand me. Amnesty is not a blanket amnesty on all the facts, amnesty can be granted with relation to some offences and refused on others, on the same set of facts, as we've had in the case in point here this week where amnesty was refused, where the woman was killed, this Mamasela incident which we dealt with just before this and where that's not pursued, but it's the same incident. So why could - and again with all respect, you've said that on the obstruction of justice that Jubber could be found guilty of, you guess there wouldn't be an objection in terms of amnesty granted for that. So why not partial grants and therefore - but it's really a question, you are arguing proportionality but it can't be an open proportionality, certainly it must be relating the offence to the objective sought, then when it concerns Mr Brown - and this is the question, are you still arguing that a bomb used to scare off or intimidate Mr Brown, would be disproportional - the method of using the bomb would be disproportional to the objective of intimidating Mr Brown? I'll leave it at that.

MR RICHARD: I'm going to give in reply, a number of alternatives. The quick one is it depends where Mr Brown is. I will put ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: Well if he's where, exactly where they're seeking him and find him. And that's established.

MR RICHARD: For the purposes of the argument, if hypothetically Mr Brown had been in a crowded night-club, would it have been legitimate to blow up the crowded night-club and kill a number of patrons, so as to get him and terrorise him? And if I swing he pendulum to the facts of this case, Mr Brown now is in his parental home with other people who far outnumber him in number, is it legitimate to bomb him in that particular situation? The next alternative flowing from the point made - however I have to hear what application is being made in the light of the argument by the applicants, there is the attempted murder of the inhabitants of Mr Brown's residence, there clearly amnesty is opposed, there is the damage to the property which did not belong to Mr Brown, there clearly amnesty is opposed, that is the differential test, but I still go to the point that it depends on where Mr Brown so happens to be, as to whether the attack can be justified in terms of the proportionality.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

ADV SANDI: Just for my own clarity. Should I understand you to say that amnesty is not really being opposed in respect of the attempted murder of Leonard Brown, the activist, but the contrary prevails in respect of those people who are not politically involved? On the point of proportionality as you've argued?

MR RICHARD: What is being argued in the first alternative is that the attempted murder of Mr Brown while in those particular circumstances that particular night, where he was surrounded by others who were not involved, was not permissible and therefore disproportionate. However, the facts of the matter aren't that he was a lone target or associated with other activists and therefore if that had been the situation, the argument might be different.

The second alternative is that in any case, on the facts outlined here, the bombing was of his parents' house and that's opposed, that act should be opposed. If facts establishing an offence or delict, I don't believe amnesty may be granted for the fact of placing a pentolite bomb outside Mr Brown senior's house.

MR MALAN: May I not try to go short, it's just crossing my mind for the moment, we've been arguing in terms of specific offences, if we go back to the evidence, the evidence is that there was an attempt to intimidate, scare off Mr Brown, which would also have an effect on the community and those surrounding him, where a bomb was placed, where there was no death flowing from that activity and the mission accomplished. Arguing on the basis of specific offences, we're now arguing on murder and attempted murder on the basis of dolus eventualis, aren't we perhaps missing the point? Shouldn't we simply be looking at the facts and weighing the objective against what really happened?

MR RICHARD: What really happened, to put it in that context, was a pentolite bomb which we hear is a powerful contraption, was exploded outside Mr Brown senior's house. That is the act. Inside that house there was at the time, Mr Brown and his parents and other members of his family who were not political. Now the objective and motive behind that was, per Mr Hechter, to terrorise both Mr Brown and those who might be giving him sanctuary, from continuing to do either.

MR MALAN: The objective was not to kill or injure, but to terrorise, accepting the possibility of injury or death, in other words the dolus eventualis approach. But the objective was never to kill or injure, in terms of the evidence before us, except on the basis of dolus eventualis.

MR RICHARD: To put it in the words of the witnesses, it was an acceptable consequence of what was happening and foreseen as a ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: ...(indistinct - no microphone)

MR RICHARD: Now in this particular incident, as ...(indistinct) my learned colleagues, there were no deaths or injury, however the attempt which would be with the criminal charge, if it were formulated in those terms, would still stand. My argument remains then that that act, because of the accepted and therefore foreseen potential consequences, even though it did not have those results, as in the car park case in Namibia, falls outside the tests of proportionality, it falls foul.

ADV SANDI: Sorry, Mr Richard. The fact that no person was killed or injured, isn't that an important consideration in this matter in view of Section 20(3) of the Act, where it talks about the gravity of the act committed by the perpetrator?

MR RICHARD: At the time the fuse to the bomb was lit, a powerful explosive device was put outside a residential dwelling, to me that must be considered a serious act in the extreme. The applicants openly admit that they foresaw events of deaths and injury, to ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: No, they foresaw the possibility thereof, they did not foresee the reality thereof.

MR RICHARD: We have two cases before the Committee this evening, one where death ensued from a lesser device and one where it didn't ensue from a more serious device, which was reserved ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: No, I'm only correcting you in terms of the evidence. The evidence was never that they foresaw specific injuries indeed occurring, but they foresaw the possibilities and they carried on regardless. That was the evidence. There's a major difference, because the one is a specific direct objective, you see certain realities following and that's what you're pursuing now, as opposed to you have another objective, you do foresee certain potential eventuations, but nevertheless you carry on regardless at aiming at your first objective.

MR RICHARD: And I would submit, I don't dispute anything that has been said but I add on to it in a cavalier and reckless manner as to ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: And that was the evidence.

MR RICHARD: And I did not - I don't recall, but unfortunately when talking I don't necessarily remember the exact words that I used two minutes ago.

Now the question then before the Committee, is whether what constitutes an act of terror, is proportionate within the phraseology of the Act. I leave my argument rest at that point. I will not argue down the line of what is terror and what isn't in accordance with international law, I'm sure we're all familiar with that.

Now Mr Pretorius, ex his answers to cross-examination, while again he did not have direct knowledge of what was intended, it was patently obvious that he could infer that various most unpleasant events were going to happen, which were directed at people within the residential area of Okasi. For him to separate himself on the basis of legitimate orders, he conceded as far as I recall, that he knew the operation was not legal, despite it being done under orders. He foresaw what, as a matter of probability, was going to happen and therefore on the doctrines of common purpose, had joined in the act which was being perpetrated by Mr Hechter and those who had come with him from Pretoria.

MR MALAN: Isn't that common cause and isn't that the basis of the application?

MR RICHARD: My argument then extends, that if the Committee holds that my argument on proportionality are good and that Mr Hechter should fail, so should Mr Pretorius' application fail with it. He can never be stronger or weaker than what he as a matter of probability foresaw.

ADV SANDI: What about the hierarchy of authority, when you look at Hechter and Pretorius? Pretorius I think said it a number of times, that he was just carrying out orders, he was not part of the process of deciding which target is to be attacked.

MR RICHARD: As I recall the evidence, the effect of the request for support ex-Cronje, through number 2, that's Jubber, was to place Pretorius under the command of Hechter on that particular night. He was told by his Commander, that's Jubber, to go to Pretoria to meet with Hechter and then to give Hechter the support and assistance that Hechter wanted. As a Constable dealing with a Lieutenant, there are a number of ranks in-between, certainly the Constable would be expected to comply with lawful orders.

ADV SANDI: Even unlawful orders in many of these cases.

MR RICHARD: I used the word "lawful orders" with specific consequences in mind to my argument.

MR MALAN: I think you can leave this where it is, we all know that is not about lawful orders, so - sorry, to bring you back to your line of argument before I interrupted you, when you talked about the basis of the application you said your argument was about proportionality, if you would come back to the proportionality argument, but have you not dealt on proportionality with both Hechter and Pretorius?

MR RICHARD: Chair, I believe I have, I've exhausted the point.

MR MALAN: Is there anything else that you want to argue with us?

MR RICHARD: Nothing further, subject to my client's instructions. My client confirms that I may conclude.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Richards. Ms Ngomane.

MS NGOMANE IN ARGUMENT: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

I'll start with the matter of Celo Ramakope. Since it's common cause in this amnesty that he's not opposing amnesty being granted, you have a declaration in those bundles which he made, subject to the submission that there was no disclosure in relation to Section 20(1)(c), where full disclosure was not made, Mr Chairperson. I will just start with the last applicant, that is Jacques Hechter. His evidence was not sufficient or enough, Mr Chairperson, the only basis why Mr Hechter came to this Commission or to this Committee was that his name was also mentioned by the other applicant, which is Pretorius, he only came here to this Committee to say that "just because my name is mentioned, then I must have been there", which is not enough if you look at the requirements of Section 20(1)(c). The Act doesn't say that amnesty should be granted because an applicant made an application to such, it doesn't say that. If you look at the preamble - I'm sure you are acquainted with it by now, Mr Chairperson, ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct - no microphone)

MS NGOMANE: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct - no microphone)

MS NGOMANE: Mr Chairperson, what I'm getting at is that this Act which was made by parliament, if amnesty will be granted in relation to the matters of Celo Ramakope and David Modimeng, then it's questionable, it should be taken for review or appeal. But before I come to that, Mr Chairperson, the ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct) a prelude to your argument by that.

MS NGOMANE: I'm coming to that, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Because you immediately give me the jitters that you are putting a gun onto my head and I don't have time to think about this.

MS NGOMANE: Not yet, Mr Chairperson. Let me come back to the evidence. I was relying on the last applicant, that is Jacques Hechter, he came here because his name was mentioned - Pretorius went to his attorneys to recall what had happened in Okasi during 1986, Mr Chairperson, just because his name was mentioned, he and the other applicants deem it fit to come to this Committee to say "please grant us amnesty because our names have been mentioned there", they don't have personal knowledge, Mr Chairperson, as far as I am concerned. It would be ridiculous for a person who doesn't even have a knowledge of what had happened in a particular year, to come here and say "yes, they have mentioned my name, I could have been there." That is the evidence that is before this Committee.

ADV SANDI: Sorry, is there anything suggesting that he was not there, any indication to that effect?

MS NGOMANE: Mr Chairperson, if you look at the other applications which Mr Hechter made, he was granted amnesty but in this particular case he doesn't recall, he doesn't have knowledge. In those other cases, if you look at that decision, he didn't have - he said his memory was weak, he couldn't remember, he cannot recall because he's suffering from post-traumatic stress. What about the victim, what do you say to the victim? Should the victim suffer because the applicant cannot recall, and should the victim suffer because the Committee feels that he has disclosed ...(intervention)

ADV SANDI: What is it - if I can ask, what is it that he has not disclosed? Is there any specific thing he has withheld from the Committee, save to say that "if that is what Pretorius says, I accept it, it must be true, I must have been there because I was involved in so many of these things that I cannot remember each and every individual specific incident"?

MS NGOMANE: Mr Chairperson, the applicant was here today, he gave testimony, I cross-examined him on points, he's saying he's suffering from post-traumatic stress and I think that is a factor that has to be taken into account, Mr Chairperson. His evidence cannot be relied on by this Committee, due to the fact that he doesn't have personal knowledge. The fact that he's here today is because his name was mentioned by Pretorius. He wouldn't have come here if it wasn't that case.

He goes on to say that he targeted those activities, like Mr Celo Ramakope - I'm still dealing with the Celo Ramakope case, Mr Chairperson - he said he used petrol bombs in those cases where he felt that this activist was not a threat or a so-called threat to the ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct - no microphone)

MS NGOMANE: Thank you for that, Mr Chairperson. He would use a petrol bomb in those cases. He goes on to say that "I can't recall". And we should not forget that he is suffering from a post-traumatic stress and he came to this Commission to bind himself and say "yes, I might have been there". He's been involved, we should not forget this fact that he has been involved in many incidents, in many incidents, Mr Chairperson, his evidence could not be relied on by this Committee. If this Committee could find that indeed he was involved in this particular act, the Celo Ramakope and the David Modimeng, then amnesty should not be granted.

MR MALAN: May I just ask you, what is the contention of the opposition, that he was involved or that he was not involved?

MS NGOMANE: The victims - the women have been here. If they knew whether he was involved, the victims came to this Commission to find the truth. We want the truth, nothing else, Mr Chairperson, it's up to the Committee to decide whether he was there. We came here to cross-examine Mr Hechter, to find out whether he was there, but we should not forget that he is suffering from a post-traumatic stress and he said he cannot recall. We should not forget that, Mr Chairperson.

MR MALAN: We have the evidence of Pretorius before us, where he gave evidence that he was indeed involved, is that evidence to be accepted as far as your client is concerned, or should we not accept that evidence of Pretorius?

MS NGOMANE: Mr Chairperson, I'm still coming to Pretorius, I'm still ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: Oh no, I'm talking about Pretorius, I'm talking about Hechter being there or not being there. That's your question, you're saying he hasn't convinced us that he had been there because he has no knowledge. I'm just asking you, we have other evidence that he indeed was involved.

MS NGOMANE: But that evidence, Mr Chairperson, could not be relied on because Pretorius cannot be believed, his evidence should not be accepted by this Committee.

MR MALAN: So the contention is that Pretorius is lying when he says Hechter was also present.

ADV SANDI: And van Vuuren also, I thought he said Hechter was present, he must have been present. If he van Vuuren was there, Hechter must have been present as well and even Mamasela.

MS NGOMANE: I think that I will leave this argument to the Committee to decide whether he - if Pretorius says, we will accept that Pretorius said he remembers Hechter more than van Vuuren, van Vuuren should not be - his evidence should not be relied on from this point because van Vuuren said he just intimidated people, he doesn't even know these people, Pretorius is the one who was pointing out the houses. He said -

His job was to intimidate people and that included throwing petrol bombs at their houses just like he said in the Ramakope case, that it was the only method.

As far as the Ramakope matter is concerned, it's common cause that it's not opposed, Mr Chairperson, subject to the fact Mr Chairperson, that ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, let me understand you. You say you do not per se oppose, but subject to Section 20(1)(c), we should when we deliberate on that, look at Section 20(1)(c) and say "has he satisfied that requirement?".

MS NGOMANE: Indeed, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MS NGOMANE: I will come now Mr Chairperson - let me just refer you to the David Modimeng matter, where we stated clearly in the pre-trial conference that this - all these applications will be opposed solely on the fact that Mrs Modimeng was not a political target for the Security Branch of Northern Transvaal in Brits.

Mr Chairperson, I will just start with the last applicant as well. The last applicant was cross-examined, he said it didn't matter to him, he had to go and bomb those houses with pentolite, and under cross-examination he said that he thinks it was an explosive, pentolite is an explosive and it could kill. Questions were put to him whether he realised in that particular residence there were children, women and children. He said it was not his duty, his duty was to throw bombs, Pretorius was the person who has to point houses to him, his work was just to just throw the bomb regardless of whether there were people in the house or not, women and children, it didn't matter to Mr Hechter, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: But he qualified the question of children when he said look if there is a naughty person in a house, it is the duty of the family to admonish that person and if the family does not do that, he would do it irrespective, but when it comes to children they are very innocent and he is remorseful if he were to injure children in the process.

MS NGOMANE: I don't fully agree with Mr Chairperson, Mr Hechter didn't seem as if he remorseful today, he said the reason why they've put the ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, I did not look at the face of - but I'm saying the evidence that he gave - I must be honest, I listened to that, but you see at the same time one is sometimes writing, you're not looking at the person always, but I say the evidence he gave, the qualification he gave in respect of children, that's all I'm saying.

MS NGOMANE: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

If we look back at the evidence which was presented today, Mr Chairperson, surely Mr Hechter knew that those people that were targeted on that specific night, had barricaded their windows and he says that "they knew we were coming for them". Even if he didn't put it in the words that I'm saying to the Committee, it's that "they were aware, they knew that we were coming." Surely Mrs Modimeng was not the person which Mr Hechter wanted that particular day. He said those people, just like Mr Modimeng who is sitting next to me, he was the one because that's why they've used the pentolite. It was a different explosive that they used in his case. Surely he didn't have regard to the lives of those people who were in the house and surely Pretorius, who said he knew, he used to go to the vicinity of Okasi, he knew who stays and he said he knew at what particular room that person would sleeping, they didn't ensure. Then comes dolus eventualis in respect of Mrs Modimeng, that there was an intention. Mr Mrs Modimeng in respect of this act was not a targeted - she was not politically active. I did put to Mr Pretorius whether he will dispute that and he only said the only thing that he had is that - surely the informants told them she was a political figure, but Pretorius' evidence, Mr Chairperson, should not be relied on because Mr Pretorius is not a reliable witness in the sense that Pretorius failed to give this Committee a file. Yes, he said they had a file, but in the case of Mrs Modimeng there was no file. He said he came to Brits in 1985, already there was a file of Mr Modimeng, but Mrs Modimeng, there was nothing. I asked him under cross-examination, he said he relied on the evidence of the informers. I asked him whether - it was put to him whether those informants could lie and he said it was possible.

His boss Mr Jubber came here, Mr Jubber only said that he was his desk officer and then he relied on what he was telling him because he was loyal and reliable, but he didn't inform his boss that, that is Pretorius, he didn't inform Mr Jubber that Mrs Modimeng - or he didn't foresee or he should have foresaw that Mrs Modimeng will be killed in the process. Mrs Modimeng was not the target on that particular night, Mr Chairperson, the person who was targeted that evening was Mr Modimeng. And we accept that he was a political target for the Security Branch, we accept that.

CHAIRPERSON: They also accept that the target was Mr Modimeng, not Mrs Modimeng. They also accept that. The only thing they said is she was caught in the crossfire and according to them it's unfortunate.

MS NGOMANE: It's not what this Act says, that you should grant amnesty, Mr Chairperson, because a person says "unfortunately I didn't know" or "I didn't foresee", then this Committee should grant amnesty. This Act doesn't say that, it says - from what I'm reading the Act is silent about whether people who were caught in the crossfire, like Mrs Modimeng in this particular case, should those people who committed those acts, those unlawful acts, should indeed be granted. It doesn't say that, it doesn't say that they should be granted amnesty.

CHAIRPERSON: No, but what would your interpretation be if you look at Section 20(3)(d), when it says -

What would you interpret that to mean?

MS NGOMANE: There I will agree, but like Mr Chairperson, if you look at the sub-section to which you referred, it talks about individuals, it doesn't say - surely Mrs Modimeng was an innocent bystander who ...(indistinct) should be - like the person who did commit this act, should be granted amnesty. It doesn't state that, it said individuals and it's not clear, the Act is silent about it. But the Act doesn't say innocent victims like Mrs Modimeng, who was not politically active, who didn't participate in any of those anti-removal campaigns, should be killed - not killed Mr Chairperson, should those people apply for amnesty, then they should be granted amnesty because they say individuals, State property or private property. It doesn't state that. Then this Committee must exercise a discretion and it should not grant amnesty in respect of Mrs Modimeng and those applicants, Mr Pretorius, who is saying to us today that she was a political - he didn't canvass that Mr Chairperson, so to speak. I asked him whether he did make the research, he couldn't answer it and I point to him that - in my last argument, that she was not a member of the Okasi Women's League. He didn't challenge that, Mr Chairperson, he didn't challenge that fact and he couldn't take the matter any further. So his evidence should not be relied on because I stated to him that he was speculating that Mrs Modimeng ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Ja, whilst I follow your argument, I've noted here that you say in respect of Mrs Modimeng, we should not grant amnesty. Their property was damaged, and if that argument flows to this extent that Mr Modimeng was married to his wife, whether in community or out of community, then the property does not belong to Mr Modimeng only, then we should partially refuse, and how do I do that when I look at proportionality?

MS NGOMANE: I think Mr Chairperson is not following my line of argument, I haven't addressed the issue of property. Surely there was malicious damage to property, which is an offence in terms of our statutes in this land. What I'm getting at, I'm talking about individuals, because the Act talks about individuals ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, I said I followed all that, that's why I said I even made a note of it. Then I say I want you to address me on the question I've just posed to you.

MS NGOMANE: I will surely do that, Mr Chairperson.

The evidence of - I'm still dealing with the third applicant, I will come back to that question, Mr Chairperson, you just posed now.

ADV SANDI: Just for my own benefit, I'm totally confused now. You say you're still dealing with the third application, namely who?

MS NGOMANE: I'm dealing with Pretorius, Mr Chairperson, because you say the only thing that you have before you is the evidence of Pretorius, to the effect that he said that Hechter was there. It was in line with my argument that Mr Hechter doesn't have personal knowledge, he only had personal knowledge when he consulted with Pretorius and these issues came into light that he was also involved.

Mr Pretorius' evidence before this Committee is not reliable, to the effect that he failed to state - he failed to challenge my questions when I asked him about the women's league which he referred to. He referred to a member of the community who was staying in Okasi, who died, but he didn't canvass and bring evidence before this Committee to say definitely Mrs Modimeng was part of the people who were in favour, who were supporting this anti-removal campaign though she was a member of the Okasi Women's League, he just stated that in the air and he didn't have concrete evidence before this Committee, to state definitely we have it. He stated that she didn't have a file. Mr Chairperson, I asked Mr Pretorius whether a file was kept for Mrs Modimeng and the answer was no, so the evidence cannot be relied on. And the evidence of those people who he didn't want to mention, the informants, it's hearsay evidence, Chairperson, it cannot be admitted in this Committee. It's hearsay evidence because the informants if they wanted this amnesty to be granted, they should have come before this Committee to say "yes, we knew the Modimeng family, they were active, Mrs Modimeng in particular was a member of the women's league." They didn't want to disclose any informants, then that is hearsay and it should not be taken by this Committee, as far as they didn't come here to state and support the application of Pretorius and the rest of the other applicants. It's hearsay evidence, Mr Chairperson, and the Act it's silent about where evidence should be taken in relation to applications that are brought before you.

ADV SANDI: Sorry, is the Act ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct) normal rules of evidence if the Act is silent, would apply. I can assure you of that.

ADV SANDI: Was the Act supposed to say something about every conceivable subject in the world? You can't expect the Act to say something about everything. Some of the things will be given, otherwise the Act would be a very bulky, it would be a huge document if it were to say something about every conceivable issue in the world.

MS NGOMANE: Then my argument before this Committee will be that - and I will make the submission that that evidence of the informants which was heard by this Committee, should not be accepted. Those are inadmissible insofar as they didn't come here to put a different version about the position of Mrs Modimeng in this particular instance.

I don't want to repeat myself Mr Chairperson, I will just move and address you in the matter - in the question that you just posed, that indeed there was malicious damage to property in respect of Mrs Modimeng as well, and the fact that surely Mr Hechter today did testify that he threw a bomb at a house, there was malicious damage to property, there was an offence of attempted murder on the life of Mr Modimeng and there was murder in the process. He said that he did reconcile himself, then he missed the requirements of dolus eventualis. He foresaw and then reconciled himself.

Mr Chairperson, I will move to the next applicant which is van Vuuren. He was not much of an assistance to this Committee, only to say that he just intimidated people and that's it.

The other applicant, Mr Cronje, didn't even make himself - we did accept that we will accept his founding affidavit as it stands before us, but much cannot be put on - not too much weight should be put on what he's saying here, in the light of the fact that this Committee - this Act says that people - that this preamble Mr Chairperson, if I may read, that that's the object of this Act, the preamble that as far as this Committee's investigating matters which led to the conflict of the past, Mr Chairperson -

And then it should afford also the victims as well to put their version. I've put my client's version to the applicants which were before you and I said to them Mrs Modimeng was not a member of the Okasi Women's League, they didn't challenge it. I put to them ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: It's not incumbent on a witness to challenge a statement, except to deny that and that was done on several occasions. They said they were relying on the informants but they believe on the cross checks and balances, that to be true. However, I don't think it's here or there whether she was a member or not, in terms of our duty to find, because she was not the target. Whether she was an innocent or guilty bystander, she was a bystander on all the evidence before us. So that's not really the issue. But the evidence before us is that they had information that she was indeed a member, and this only concerns the potential credibility of Pretorius, which you have argued. You have denied that on behalf of your clients, but there's no duty on the witness to challenge that in any sense, the duty is on your client to come with alternative evidence if so needs be, and if he thinks that to be that important. But really, I don't think it's important for the sake of the argument, whether Mrs Modimeng was an innocent or a guilty bystander.

MS NGOMANE: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

Mr Chairperson, I will just go back to the sentiments which you've just indicated. I made a submission to this Committee that that evidence of those informants who didn't come to this Committee to disclose whether Mrs Modimeng was a member of the women's league, then that evidence is inadmissible insofar as this Act goes. This Act talks about full disclosure and it's silent, it doesn't state that fine, because these people they have to be protected because they are members of a particular organisation or whatever.

MR MALAN: There's no evidence tendered that she - in that sense, that she indeed was, the evidence tendered is that they had reports which alleged that she was a member. That's the only evidence before us.

CHAIRPERSON: And that she had not received their attention, because if you remember the card system which I asked for a broadening explanation of how that card system worked, she had not received the attention of either Jubber or Pretorius on the file basis.

ADV SANDI: Unless you are saying they were stupid to believe that she was involved as she was alleged to be by those informers and sources. Is that your contention, that they were stupid to believe that?

MS NGOMANE: My argument is as follows, Mr Chairperson. That evidence of those informants who failed to come to make full disclosure to this Committee, that evidence should be disregarded, it's inadmissible in the face that they failed to make a full disclosure and to come and say "we had evidence, we have this file before you, she was a member, she was monitored." Mr Pretorius failed, he monitored Mr Modimeng, he surveyed him since he was a schoolboy, but he failed to survey Mrs Modimeng and say definitely she was a member of the Okasi Women's League.

Surely Mr Chairperson, those informants, the so-called informants who are in - they are not visible to us, that evidence I will make my submission that that evidence should be taken - not too much weight must be put on that, it should be disregarded, it's inadmissible insofar as this Act is concerned.

Mr Chairperson, I know you - I will like to summarise my whole argument. I will just address you, because I did touch on Mr Cronje, we accept from our learned friend that he's sick, he cannot make himself available, but if you go back now to these orders, he failed as a superior person - he omitted, there was an omission on his part, Mr Chairperson, to see that innocent people are not killed in the process.

All these applicants who were here before you today, they say they acted under his orders and instructions, it's there in the bundle.

CHAIRPERSON: Wouldn't it perhaps be better to level that criticism on Hechter, because on a question I asked, is that -

He said -

Would I be correct if I ...

CHAIRPERSON: I say, if we listen to the evidence of Mr Hechter, is that not what he said? That in this particular instance he received the order from Cronje, yes, but Mr Cronje did not tell him what to do, he had to use his discretion. Hence at Ramakope he used the petrol bomb and at Modimeng he used the pentolite explosive.

MS NGOMANE: Indeed, Mr Chairperson, I'm indebted to your submissions.

Mr Chairperson, then I will make the submission that even if we heard what Hechter said today, that he had a discretion to decide whatever methods must be used, he had as a senior person in charge of this branch, he had a duty, he had a duty and he didn't exercise it, to see that people like Mrs Modimeng in this instance, if I may mention ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Wouldn't you say he had a duty if he utilised lawful means, but would you say where they resorted to illegal acts, that that duty rests as when he has a legal duty? Would we equate it to that?

MS NGOMANE: Mr Chairperson, I know you will come and you'll say to me the reasons why we are here is that there were illegal or unlawful acts that were performed by these particular applicants. Surely the instruction from Brig Cronje were unlawful, were illegal, but if this Committee accepts that this Act allows it to allow evidence to the effect that it was a political war, then we should look objectively and then go back to Okasi and see whether there was objectively speaking, a war as Mr Hechter indicated that there was a black on black war, then Mr Chairperson, I think that we should go back to those and ask ourselves whether this Act which was made by parliament, does allow situations where - then surely Mrs Modimeng should not be sacrificed in this particular instance and say because it was an illegal order, then the Committee is here to grant amnesty to people who come here and disclose relevant facts.

CHAIRPERSON: You know what is my biggest argument when you come with that angle, is that we would accept that murder is murder if we were in a formal Court, but any act of the day we look at extenuating circumstances, but we're clothed with that discretion here that no, no, no, you go further with this murder. He cannot get amnesty if he hasn't provided certain extenuating factors, because it says no, if it was within a political situation and we are satisfied, then we should, because we are not even going to look at that. If it is murder and committed during the conflict of the past and if we are satisfied, I don't think we can do any other thing. Because I want to say to you I hear you, that Mrs Modimeng was not active politically, that again you say we should in our deliberations, take into account that these informers were faceless and their evidence is inadmissible and we should look at it as such. Can you go beyond that?

MS NGOMANE: Mr Chairperson, I cannot take the point any further. I will just summarise my argument and say that we should go back and look at the Act, what was the intention of the legislature, was it to sacrifice people like Mrs Modimeng, who was not a political target for the Security Branch of the Northern Transvaal, and grant the applicants amnesty to evidence which was not sufficient? And especially I would emphasise on the applicant, namely Hechter, who says that "okay, because my name is mentioned, then I could have been there." Then we should just weight the applicants' interest and the victims, then this Committee is bound to exercise a discretion and should take those factors into account and take into account that Mrs Modimeng was not a political target. There was no evidence to contradict that, nothing at all, Mr Chairperson.

Damage to property was caused in respect of Mr Celo Ramakope and Mr Modimeng. Surely Mr Chairperson, it wasn't the intention of the legislature to sacrifice victims, especially Mrs Modimeng in this particular instance, because this Committee feels that there was a political objective, the requirements, the procedural requirements were met, these applications were brought before time and that a full disclosure was made. I will submit there was no full disclosure before this Committee, insofar as those informants who are invisible, couldn't come here to state to the contrary that indeed Mrs Modimeng was politically active in this, in the anti-removal campaign. Then I will make the submission to this Committee that this Committee should exercise a discretion and refuse amnesty in respect of van Vuuren, who failed to disclosure much, except to say his work was to intimidate.

Refuse amnesty in respect of Pretorius. Pretorius, he's unreliable, his evidence should not be taken into account by this Committee. And insofar as Pretorius, who failed to come with a different version in respect of the victim, Mrs Modimeng, to say indeed she was a politically active person.

And in regard to Hechter, the person who was perpetrating all these acts, that there was no full disclosure before this Committee, he doesn't have personal knowledge, he's not bona fide before this Committee, he said "just because my name was mentioned, then I could have been there." Then this Committee then should look at those factors and exercise a discretion.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct - no microphone) refusing?

MS NGOMANE: In refusing the application of Pretorius, Hechter, Jubber and van Vuuren. As it would please Mr Chairperson, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct - no microphone) whom we should refuse? Really, I'm in your hands because I've been looking at the applicants and you omitted Cronje.

MS NGOMANE: Insofar as my learned friend has indicated, he was not much of an assistance to this Committee, he failed to - okay, as a result of the ill-health, we take that into account, we accept it, Mr Chairperson, like he failed to come here and explain and give his version, a full disclosure which he had to comply with in terms of this Act. And except for this affidavit, which is not much, the families want to know more about these orders which he ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Supposing I have some knowledge and I want to say to you, October last year Mr Cronje appeared before me when I was with another Panel, or probably Mr Malan was with me, he was a very sick man and I know that for a fact, what should I do with the information that I know and when I have an affidavit that it has been worse now, that he can't even lift his foot?

MS NGOMANE: Mr Chairperson, if you look back to the bundle, he ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct - no microphone) argument in respect of Brig Cronje, is that we should attach less weight to this affidavit because it does not take the matter any further. I suppose if I heard such an argument, I would consider it very closely.

MS NGOMANE: Thank you, Mr Chairperson. If I may come to the Act, Mr Chairperson, and look at Section 20(1)(c), where it states that the applicant has made a full disclosure of all relevant facts, then if the Committee is satisfied, then it could grant amnesty. What is a full disclosure? The Act is tacit, it doesn't provide - it doesn't say it's sufficient for an applicant to bring an affidavit, it's tacit, the Act is silent on that point. Then I would say this is not full disclosure insofar as this Act says that the applicant has to make full disclosure. Full disclosure would be to come before this Committee, we accept he's sick, and to help this Committee to come to a proper decision. Taking the interests of justice into account, this affidavit doesn't say anything, it just says okay, I ask for - let me put it like this, Mr Chairperson, he just says ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct - no microphone)

MS NGOMANE: It doesn't say much, just to say that if those acts - if he was involved in those acts, then he should be granted amnesty and then insofar as those subordinates were concerned which were under, they were under his command, then he accepts full responsibility for it. And I will still make a submission that full disclose hasn't been made. I will close my case on that argument, Mr Chairperson. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Ngomane. Mr Roux, unfortunately we've got to come back to you to hear if there is any reply.

ADV SANDI: I would be very surprised. Do you want to take us through another hour?

MR ROUX IN REPLY: I may need half and hour. There are only two aspects, Chairperson.

The first one is with regard to Pretorius. My learned friend, Mr Richard, referred to this that - actually in essence he referred to it that he was a liar. The unfortunate choice of words which he used when he referred to the house or the person, it was quite clear that his intention at all relevant times, despite the use of the words, were to intimidate this person wherever he may be sleeping and it just shows how good his information was. The fact that he is being called a liar, because it was about property, Leonard Brown's property but he did not point out Leonard Brown's house, I think that is irrelevant, this is just a semantic nuance.

And then one more thing with regard to van Vuuren. Mr Richard also said that it would appear that the reason why van Vuuren applies, is that it is possible to avoid later possible action. If that is so, then this planning beforehand was in order to misuse this law in order to avoid any accountability at a later stage. This was never put to him, that is why it cannot be accepted, with respect. And that is my rebuttal.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Mr Roux. I must say I'm placed in a favourable position that it is not incumbent upon me to make an extemporaneous judgment or decision, that I'm going to have the benefit of sitting with my learned colleagues on the Panel, to discuss this.

I must say I am indebted to counsel that this matter was argued, that it has left us with so many things to think of to come with our decision. But that does not mean that we have to delay unduly, we shall do it as expeditiously as possible. And with those few words we are reserving our judgment in this matter. What is left is to thank everybody for their participation, that on our reading some of the things appeared to be simple, but after listening to the legal representatives we've got to look at everything closer together with the arguments presented here.

We must also thank Modimeng, Ramakope, Mr Brown, to have come before us to relive what happened 15 years ago. We hope we have come to the end of it, you can close that chapter and now lead your lives because even though you may say to yourself not much has come forward, but at least you know even the reasons why you people were attacked. But if you were to hang around on things that happened in the past, you will make life difficult. But I say now you know, whether it is sufficient or not, but at least you know and you know the people who came because this was in the middle of the night when you were asleep, you could not see these people, at least you have seen their faces.

And to those who are closest family, I don't know if they are present here, we say to you too thank you very much for having come, at least you know what happened to your beloved ones, and reconcile yourselves to that fact that the previous South Africa had a lot of problems and it would appear that we have just scratched the surface, but we are thankful to those applicants who came forward and gave us also a bit of what happened. But that does not necessarily suggest that automatically amnesty is granted because we've got to look at it, and we shall in due course do that.

To the interpreters, I'm sorry to have given you such a hard time, I've never done it before but the circumstances forced me to do that. Bear with me, I will give you a holiday for tomorrow, don't come to the hearing. We shall adjourn.