--------------------------------------------------------------------------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.