Amnesty Hearings — Benoni — 1997-06-23

JOHANNES JACOBUS VIKTOR: Chair I have made my statement with regard to this, I have no further comment.

UNKNOWN: General Brigadier Cronje gave further testimony, Mr Chairman you will find that from page 141 in the record until approximately page 144, Brigadier Cronje gave testimony that his actions had to be reported to his immediate superiors and that this was in fact done on a daily basis. Would you concur that this was the normal practice?

JOHANNES JACOBUS VIKTOR: This was the normal practice in the Security Branch.

UNKNOWN: In other words he would then not have reported back to you with regard to further actions with regard to counter-revolutionary activities, is that the case?

JOHANNES JACOBUS VIKTOR: In fact he would not have reported to me because I was not his commanding officer.  He would have reported to the Security Branch head office in Pretoria.

UNKNOWN: One would then not be able to make any conclusion from the fact that he did not have any further discussions with you as a consequence of your conversation?

JOHANNES JACOBUS VIKTOR: Chair I want to say that had he accepted that this was an instruction, and an instruction with very serious consequences, then he would have come back to the person who had given him this instruction to determine on a daily basis whether his actions were in line with the original instruction.

UNKNOWN: General, Brigadier Cronje did not give testimony only with regard to your instruction and he did not indicate that only your instruction caused him to understand that he was allowed to act in the manner, and the people serving under him, were allowed to act in a manner in which they did.  He gave further testimony that he received an instruction from Brigadier Schoon, I believe at that time Brigadier Willem Schoon of the South African Defence Force ...(intervention)

JOHANNES JACOBUS VIKTOR: No ...(intervention)

UNKNOWN: My apologies, of the South African Police, in terms of which he was given instructions to work more closely with the South African Defence Force, would you be aware of this instruction?

JOHANNES JACOBUS VIKTOR: I bear no knowledge of this.  Brigadier Schoon served in the Security Branch.

UNKNOWN: You would then not be able to disagree with this testimony?

JOHANNES JACOBUS VIKTOR: No.

UNKNOWN: Brigadier Cronje's testimony was this gave him a further indication that there had to be, particularly with regard to special forces, close cooperation which would have been an additional indication that it was allowed to act beyond the legal limits.

JOHANNES JACOBUS VIKTOR: I would not be able to comment or speculate on his actions.

UNKNOWN: I want to state to you in addition that he gave further testimony that cross-border actions in which he was involved, as well as the aspects with regard to which we have previously mentioned, the Khotso House incident, the handgrenade incident, the fact that he received medals for certain actions, that all of these caused him to accept that pro-active action, and under serious circumstances the elimination of terrorists, that these had in fact been the policy of the government of the day.

JOHANNES JACOBUS VIKTOR: Chair this is Brigadier Cronje's point of view.  These are his conclusions.  I would not be able to argue with him on these conclusions.

CHAIRPERSON: I think the purpose of cross-examination goes you really want test whether he gave instructions or not and I think that allied matters ought not to be put to him just for the sake of putting them to him, because what you are saying now may very well be an important part of your argument.  As I understand it that is what it really boils down to, is argument.

UNKNOWN: Yes Mr Chairman.  Part of the cross-examination obviously is to elicit some form of support for some of the evidence of the applicants.

CHAIRPERSON: Well now you've put the relevant questions to him to which he's given you answers, now you've gone beyond that and you are trying to submit points which are really argument.

UNKNOWN: Yes Mr Chairman, well I've finished with this point Mr Chairman, may I move on to the next point please?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

UNKNOWN: General, the circumstances in the country at that time, Brigadier Cronje, General van der Merwe, Captain Hechter, the other applicants all gave testimony to the effect that in fact it was a situation of war, whether you want to call this a guerilla war or whatever the country was in a state of war, what would your opinion be?

JOHANNES JACOBUS VIKTOR: Chair no war had been called, the situation, however, had been chaotic and in police circles there were conversations, people said to one another this is a state of war.

UNKNOWN: Good.  In other words there was the general acceptance that this was a state of war?

JOHANNES JACOBUS VIKTOR: It was not a general acceptance but the situation was such that people referred to it as a state of war.  I would not be able to comment whether it was commonly accepted, but in those circles where I moved this is what the situation was.

UNKNOWN: In your view had the state of emergency been sufficient to address the situation?

JOHANNES JACOBUS VIKTOR: Chair I have previously given testimony that I cannot say anything about what the circumstances were subsequent to the calling of the state of emergency, but I must say that things did not necessarily quieten down entirely otherwise the state of emergency would have been rescinded.

UNKNOWN: I want to make a comment with regard to what Captain van Jaarsveld said on page 10 of the evidence marked Z that,
"On a particular date at 5:30 I was present at a meeting with Brigadier Johan Viktor where he said to me, Hechter and Viktor Jnr, that he gave the following instruction
		'Pretoria is burning and you must act.  Those who intimidate must be intimidated;  those who burn must be burned; those who murder must be murdered', and in view of this I interpreted the instruction to have been that revolution involves the winning of hearts and minds of people and that counter-revolutionaries would also act in this manner".

JOHANNES JACOBUS VIKTOR: Chair I think I very clearly expressed myself already with regard to what was said in my conversation with these members.  I want to say this with the greatest clarity possible that in no part of our conversation there would have been any mention whatsoever of murdering people.

UNKNOWN: General, in summary then as a final point, what you are saying to the Committee today is that Captain van Jaarsveld who had not at all been involved in the application of the applicants, except in regard to these comments, who is in fact a State witness against Brigadier Cronje and Captain Hechter, that in addition Captain Hechter, Brigadier Cronje, that all of their versions, versions which agree, that these versions are in fact not true, is that what you are saying to the Committee?

JOHANNES JACOBUS VIKTOR: The statements which I have made to this Committee are the truth and I have no further comment with regard to this.

UNKNOWN: I want to state it to you General, and I will also argue this, that I find it rather strange that three persons, one of which is an independent party if I may call him thus, all have exactly the same version of what occurred in your office, almost to the letter the same version, but you would argue that this is in fact not correct.  I will argue that I find this strange particularly in view of the fact that none of these three persons were lacking in credibility in their testimony.

JOHANNES JACOBUS VIKTOR: From my experience I might perhaps draw that I indeed find it strange that these three witnesses almost in fact give word-for-word the same testimony.  One finds often that witnesses to the same scene often differ with regard to their views.