Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1999-07-27

CHRISTO PETRO DEETLEFS: Not from my side.

MR MALAN: Or from anybody's side because you did not inform your immediate superiors and as far as we know, nobody else did either.

CHRISTO PETRO DEETLEFS: The incident had to be reported, but the actual facts that the persons were unarmed, was not necessary to report because we had solved the problem ourselves.

MR MALAN: Mr Deetlefs I don't wish to generalise this, but if I understand Mr de Kock correctly, he said that he had a certain impression regarding his work and his capacities and according to that he acted and that included illegal actions to him.  But according to your evidence, and this is also my impression in general, it may be a prejudiced opinion, illegal actions were not reported but it was simply accepted, this is the ends which justifies the means.  Is that a correct summary?

CHRISTO PETRO DEETLEFS: Chairperson, the incidents were reported, and this is only my personal perception, that where there had been an illegality such as with this case, I would for example not have wanted to implicate more senior people, I would simply have confined it to our group on ground level, but one would have had to report the incident itself.  However, I would not have reported to the higher levels that there had not been any weapons and that weapons had been planted.

MR MALAN: You would have changed the facts of the matter in order to present a legal incident to the others when it came to reporting the matter itself?

CHRISTO PETRO DEETLEFS: Yes.

MR MALAN: And an illegal actions would not have been reported by you to any person?

CHRISTO PETRO DEETLEFS: Depending upon whether you required help from above, one didn't want to unnecessarily involve other persons.

MR MALAN: And you would not have asked permission to commit illegal acts?

CHRISTO PETRO DEETLEFS: Well, no-one would be able to give permission for such illegal acts.

ADV GCABASHE: And yet you are saying that the reason that you committed these illegal acts was because you were protecting the State, you were protecting the police, the State as it was then and yet you would not account to the same State you were protecting?

CHRISTO PETRO DEETLEFS: We were accountable to the State.  As I have said, we reported the incidents because you could not cover up the incidents.  However one would simply withhold certain information sometimes in order to make the incident legally acceptable, but this was about the best interests of the country and the police and the former government.

MR MALAN: That definition of State interest was your own definition, it wasn't a definition that you had received from above to commit illegalities and to cover these illegalities up?

CHRISTO PETRO DEETLEFS: No, there weren't any such orders.

MR MALAN: And there weren't any such prescriptions either according to your knowledge, so this is simply what took place on ground level.  People would have a certain task, that being to combat the ANC SACP Alliance and all the other heathens and you would do anything within the execution of this broader more general order and you believed that you were doing what was necessary to combat the struggle, but you didn't think that it was sanctioned by the State or that such guidelines or orders existed in order to promote illegalities or the reporting of such illegalities?

CHRISTO PETRO DEETLEFS: No.

ADV GCABASHE: I understand you answer in relation to direct instructions from above.  Indirectly in terms of the environment you operated in, is this what you believe that your superiors would condone, should they find out about it, especially with you being in such a senior position?

CHRISTO PETRO DEETLEFS: Certain incidents may have been that way, I cannot say, but no-one would issue a specifically illegal order, that was our perception, we believed it, or at least I believed it, or let me put it like this, at that stage I was tired of terrorism, I was tired of the pressure from above to prevent people from infiltrating and committing acts of terror.  Eventually one to began to believe that any method was justifiable, just to combat the enemy.

ADV GCABASHE: And to keep the pressure off your backs?

CHRISTO PETRO DEETLEFS: That is correct.

MS LOCKHAT: So Mr Deetlefs, let me just get this straight.  Do you disassociate yourself as the Commander of Piet Retief Security Branch, from the first incident, the 8th June, because it is - well do you disassociate yourself with that?  You didn't give instructions for that?

CHRISTO PETRO DEETLEFS: In so far as it affects the facts, I was aware that there would be an infiltration and later I was informed that it had taken place, but I didn't know about any weapons that were planted or the facts as they have appeared now.  In that regard, I do not associate myself with it.

MS LOCKHAT: But you were quite comfortable with the idea that they could have the ambush in a sense, whether the persons had - let's exclude the fact - let's say they had weapons, so you would then associate yourself with that, if you had known it was the ambush?

CHRISTO PETRO DEETLEFS: Yes, I probably would have gone along with it because in the second case I went along with it, so I probably would have done the same in the first incident.

MS LOCKHAT: Regarding the second incident, the 12th June, who was your Commander at that time?

CHRISTO PETRO DEETLEFS: It was Brig Visser, he was the Provincial Commander of the Eastern Transvaal.

MS LOCKHAT: Did you inform him of this operation?

CHRISTO PETRO DEETLEFS: I contacted him before the time and told him that there was the possibility of an infiltration.

MS LOCKHAT: Did you report back to him after the persons were eliminated?

CHRISTO PETRO DEETLEFS: Yes I did.

CHAIRPERSON: That same evening, he reported that.

MS LOCKHAT: Just one other aspect.  Regarding the jurisdiction of this incident, if an incident happens in Piet Retief and you were the Commander there, would you say that you have jurisdiction over that incident and that you have the final say as Commander in that area?

CHRISTO PETRO DEETLEFS: Yes, to a certain extent.

MS LOCKHAT: So in essence you were the Commander for this operation and not really de Kock, because it fell into your jurisdiction?

CHRISTO PETRO DEETLEFS: Yes, if one wants to approach it from that perspective, but in the police it was based upon your date of promotion, whether - this was the thing that determined you seniority, not a certain area.  He and I shared the same rank, so I wouldn't want to say that I was in command, maybe we shared command, but he had more specialist knowledge of what we were going to do there.

MS LOCKHAT: But if an incident occurs in your area, people would obviously come to you because you're the Commander in that area, isn't that so?

CHRISTO PETRO DEETLEFS: Yes, that is correct.

MS LOCKHAT: Just in relation to de Kock's Commander.  Did you inform Brig Schoon  regarding this incident?

CHRISTO PETRO DEETLEFS: No, Chairperson, I would assume that Col de Kock did.  I simply reported to my Commander.

MS LOCKHAT: Thank you Chairperson, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS LOCKHAT

CHAIRPERSON: Any re-examination Mr Prinsloo?

MR PRINSLOO: No re-examination thank you Mr Chairman.
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO

CHAIRPERSON: Adv Gcabashe, any questions?

ADV GCABASHE: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Malan?

MR MALAN: No thanks.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, may I just ask a question, in-between questions from the Committee?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR LAMEY: Just one question Mr Deetlefs, with the second incident, the fact that it was your information that these persons would be armed, did that add another dimension with regard to the planning and the decision-making for the elimination as opposed to an arrest?