Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — UNKNOWN

JUDGE WILSON: : Mr Currin referred to paragraph (c) andsaid none of that was relevant and you referred to paragraph (iv)on page 95, which is in paragraph (c).

MR DU PLESSIS: : That was the point I made Mr Chairman,thank you very much.
MR CURRIN (contd)

<UNKNOWN>: I put it to you that as far as paragraph (iv)is concerned, that what you did was totally excessive as a formof retaliation.   It was totally disproportionate with regardto what they had done.   95, that's where we are,
4. paragraph /...
MR CURRIN 619 J H CRONJE
paragraph (iv).

ANSWER: I do believe that this would be applicable.

<UNKNOWN>: The action you took in the circumstances wastotally excessive, it was disproportionate in relation to whatthey had done prior to their elimination.

ANSWER: I disagree, where they to return as well-trainedterrorists, then they could have struck anywhere in the Republicand I wouldn't have known how to prevent them from doing so.

CHAIRPERSON: ...your prospect of them returning was nilso that hardly is an issue for debate.   They were being sentto their death.

MR CURRIN: : Precisely, I'm speechless.

ANSWER: This was preventative, we had to eliminate themto prevent that they would come back as trained terrorists.

JUDGE WILSON: : But you could have prevented them going,couldn't you?

ANSWER: Maybe once but they would have tried again togo.

JUDGE WILSON: : ...because they might have tried againto go, is that the reason you are now advancing Brigadier?

ANSWER: If these persons' purpose was to go for trainingI would never again have been able to prevent them going had theyso intended.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CURRIN

JUDGE NGCOBE: Brigadier did I understand you correctly,paragraph (iv) on page 95, isn't what you are saying that becausethe were going out to be trained, had they been allowed to goout and be trained and if they were to come back, they might haveperhaps killed 1 000 people on their return and therefore it wouldbe better as a preventing measure to eliminate them to preventthat possibility.
4. Isn't /...
MR MPSHE 620 J H CRONJE
Isn't that what you are saying?

ANSWER: That is indeed what I am saying.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MPSHE

<UNKNOWN>: What criterion did you use in determining ahigh profile activist?

ANSWER: A high profile activist would have been someonewho had made himself guilty with regard to murder, with regardto the recruiting of activists, with regard to intimidation andschool boycotts, who arranged school boycotts as well as consumerboycotts, who organised these, as well as someone who involvedthemselves in necklacings etc.

<UNKNOWN>: Brigadier, of all these youngsters, 10 of them,none of them was ever mentioned by yourself to have taken partin any murder, necklacing, intimidation?

ANSWER: I will agree that I did not refer to them inthat way, I did however say that the reason for eliminating wasthat they intended to leave the country to receive training asterrorists.

<UNKNOWN>: Brigadier I find it a little bit funny, ifI may use the word, because sometime during the proceedings whenyou were asked about the question of elimination then you saidthose that were eliminated were those activists who were of highprofile and this question was put to you by one of the Committeemembers, Ms Khampepe before the lunch adjournment.   Do you rememberthat?

ANSWER: Could you just repeat your question now?

<UNKNOWN>: You told this Committee that elimination orthe killing of persons would take place when an activist is identifiedas a high profile activist.   Do you remember that?
4. ANSWER: /...
MR MPSHE 621 J H CRONJE

ANSWER: I completely agree to having said so, howeverI want to repeat again that in this case it was different.  Thesepeople were on their way to military training.   We believed thatthey would return as well-trained terrorists.

<UNKNOWN>: I don't want to repeat what has been said,really for you to say they were "on their way" it isnot correct, you stated clearly that Mamasela invited them orinduced them to go for training...

JUDGE WILSON: : No he didn't say that.

ANSWER: I never said that he invited them.
MR MPSHE (contd)

<UNKNOWN>: That they were made to go for training by Mamasela,not so?

UNKNOWN: He also didn't say that.

JUDGE WILSON: : He said Mamasela was approached by them.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: : Mr Chairman may I be allowed to put the questionand hear what the witness will say as to whether Mamasela approachedthem?

JUDGE WILSON: : But you are putting it as if that is whathe has said Mr Mpshe, that is what I object to.

CHAIRPERSON: He put the question along the lines he doesnot know what Mamasela said to them in any case, all he has isa report from Mamasela.   Whether Mamasela induced them or whetherthey begged Mamasela to go is a matter on which we don't haveany evidence at all.
MR MPSHE (contd)

<UNKNOWN>: Thank you Mr Chairman.   Brigadier would youhave regarded these youngsters as high profile activists?

ANSWER: Not as high profile activists Chair, no.

<UNKNOWN>: The Kombi that Mamasela used, do you know it'sregistration numbers?
4. ANSWER: /...
MR MPSHE 622 J H CRONJE

ANSWER: I cannot remember.

<UNKNOWN>: What colour Kombi was that?

ANSWER: I think it was a blue and white Kombi.

<UNKNOWN>: After these youngsters were injected and killed,were there any weapons left in the Kombi or in the neighbourhoodof the Kombi by yourselves?

ANSWER: No I left no weapons there.

<UNKNOWN>: Brigadier I know you have said you don't knowwhat this injection contained, but I want to know from you didyou know what the purpose of this injection was?

ANSWER: I also do not know this, this was a militaryoperation from that point.   I do not know what they used or whatthe effect of the injections would have been.

<UNKNOWN>: ...is it not that you were assisting the militarywing in doing their operations, you were with them?

ANSWER: Yes I was there with them.   At the same timeI did not know what they used for these injections.

JUDGE NGCOBE: Sorry Mr Mpshe, was the injection, eventhough you don't know what it was made of and what it containedand so on and so forth, but was it meant to be lethal?   In otherwords...

ANSWER: This is a possibility Chair.

JUDGE NGCOBE: What was the purpose of injecting themwith that particular substance, was it to kill them?

ANSWER: I cannot give a definite answer because I donot know what they used, this I believe might have been a possibility.
MR MPSHE (contd)

<UNKNOWN>: (Inaudible).

ANSWER: That I also do not know, the army will have totell you.
4.

<UNKNOWN>: /...
MR MPSHE 623 J H CRONJE

<UNKNOWN>: ...supposed to be killed through an injection,you don't know that they are supposed to be killed through animpact of the Kombi, you don't know whether they are to be killedby a bomb?

ANSWER: I would rather suspect that they were killedwith the injections.

<UNKNOWN>: ...choose that particular method?

ANSWER: I don't think that they would have taken therisk of putting them in a Kombi and blow them up with the possibilitythat someone might have survived and not died.

<UNKNOWN>: The idea that the purpose of the injectionwas to kill them never came to your mind at that time?

ANSWER: No I never reflected on it, I thought that theintention was possibly to put them back in the Kombi so that theywould be unable from escaping from the Kombi while this was beingblown up.

<UNKNOWN>: ...injury to them?

ANSWER: The purpose was to kill them, and that's whathappened.

<UNKNOWN>: At what stage were they supposed to be killed?

ANSWER: I suspected that this would have been as theKombi was blown up, that was what came to my mind first but Ido realise that it might have been the injection.

<UNKNOWN>: ...supposed to be lethal, by the time theywere blown to pieces they would have died, isn't it?   I'm notsure whether really...

ANSWER: That would have been the case.