Amnesty Hearings — Pretoria — 1997-02-25

UNKNOWN: That is correct, we would have passed it on, but we would have kept most of it for 
ourselves and used that.  We also didn't hand him over to the Defence Force, he became an informant of the 
Security Police after that.

JUDGE MGOEPE: But that was after the assault, possibly as a result of the assault?
W/

UNKNOWN: That is correct.  That is correct, that is possible, that it was as a consequence 
thereof Mr Chairman.

ADV DE JAGER: I think what my learned colleague wishes to determine is what the political motive was 
when you questioned the man, was it not just a matter of trying to trace a criminal offences?
W/

UNKNOWN: ;   That is correct, it was to trace criminal deeds and to trace the people who were 
working with him.

ADV DE JAGER: But what has this got to do with politics?
W/

UNKNOWN: Mr Chairman, he was at that stage an ANC activist, in other words he was 
involved with the ANC activists who were causing great trouble in Mamelodi and that was why we 
questioned him.  He was an ANC activist and
after all that had to do with politics in my books.

ADV DE JAGER: I think you have to draw a distinction, there can be nationalists or any other party whose 
members may commit housebreaking and burglary and have nothing to do with politics?
W/

UNKNOWN: That is correct, Your Honour, but if ANC 
PRETORIA HEARING	AMNESTY/

ADV DE JAGER: 150	W/

UNKNOWN: activists attack policemen's houses with petrol bombs and arrange boycotts, it is a political motive in my 
books.

ADV DE JAGER: The question is simply whether in this particular instance the purpose of the 
investigation was of a criminal nature or what exactly it was?
W/

UNKNOWN: It was a criminal investigation, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: And you have no idea if you got information from him that resulted in any 
arrests, prosecutions or matters of that nature?
W/

UNKNOWN: Mr Chairman, I cannot remember today, it is too long ago.  It is possible that it 
was so, I cannot remember, there were many instances of this nature.

JUDGE WILSON: ;	 Can you remember that about 10 minutes ago when Mr Currin was 
questioning you, you said it might be possible that he wasn't a member of the ANC?
W/

UNKNOWN: I doubt that.

JUDGE WILSON: My recollection is that Mr Currin specifically put to you that he wasn't and 
you said you couldn't challenge that, you had no proof.
W/

UNKNOWN: I cannot prove it because I don't have proof, all the proof that existed was 
destroyed after my time in terms of a national command from Security Headquarters, all documentation 
was burnt, I don't have anything to prove what I am saying today.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Sir was it not true from the evidence which
has been given by Mr Cronje, that the general practice of the Security Police was to eliminate people who 
would have committed acts such as these committed by Mr Scheepers Morudi?
W/

UNKNOWN: That is correct that people like him had PRETORIA HEARING	AMNESTY/

SISI KHAMPEPE: 151	W/

UNKNOWN: to be eliminated, or were eliminated in certain instances.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Can you just explain what would be the criteria which would be used to determine 
whether a person was capable of immediate elimination or would be rehabilitated as in the instance of Mr 
Morudi?
W/

UNKNOWN: It is very difficult today to sit and explain here which people were eliminated and 
which people were not eliminated.  We played it by ear, depending on how things went at that stage, 
whether the person seemed prepared to work with the Security Police at that stage or whether he was not 
prepared to cooperate with us.  I think to a large extent if Scheepers had not agreed to become an informer, 
we would quite possibly have eliminated him.

SISI KHAMPEPE: So after this incident Mr Morudi became an informer?
W/

UNKNOWN: That is correct.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Thank you.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman.  Mr van Vuuren, in the 
Security Branch where you were working at that stage, what did you activities involve?  Did your activities 
involve actions against the liberation movements, deeds of activists, or did your activities involve normal 
police docket investigation of burglaries etc?
W/

UNKNOWN: No, it involved actions against activists, no normal investigations.

ADV DU PLESSIS: So in other words your activity as a member of the Security Branch at that stage 
Warrant Officer, was primarily aimed at what - normal thieves, robbers or were your activities aimed at 
people who were involved in destabilising the Country?
W/

UNKNOWN: It was people who were politically PRETORIA HEARING	AMNESTY/

ADV DU PLESSIS: 152	W/

UNKNOWN: involved in destabilising the country.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Okay, now WO van Vuuren, people like these activists or terrorists, as we have often 
testified before the Committee, were these people also involved in criminal activities?
W/

UNKNOWN: That is correct, they were.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Did such people also make themselves guilty of normal common law or criminal 
transgressions in an effort to destabilise the country?
W/

UNKNOWN: Yes, they did make themselves - they were guilty of crimes to destabilise the 
country and to create chaos.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Okay, as you can remember, was Mr Morudi a person who was involved in this 
political destabilisation attempt or was he an ordinary criminal?
W/

UNKNOWN: He was a person who was involved in the destabilisation efforts of the country and 
the campaign for destabilisation.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And the methods used by activists to destabilise the country at that stage, which 
methods did they use?
W/

UNKNOWN: It was arson, petrol bomb attacks, intimidation and in certain cases murder, 
boycotts, consumer boycotts.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And is that the sort of action in which Mr Morudi was involved in and made himself 
guilty of as you can remember?
W/

UNKNOWN: Yes, it is correct.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And when you interrogated him, did you obtain information from him or attempt to 
obtain information in order to accuse him and to have him found guilty in a PRETORIA HEARING	AMNESTY/

ADV DU PLESSIS: 152	W/

UNKNOWN: criminal court of criminal transgressions or was the purpose to get other information?
W/

UNKNOWN: The purpose was to obtain information from him in order to accuse him - no, to 
accuse him wouldn't have helped at that stage because we wouldn't have had a witness to testify against 
him because the witness would be dead the next day were he to testify, so the idea was not to interrogate 
him, to take him to court, the idea was to interrogate him to obtain more information regarding the 
activities of the activists in Mamelodi.  Criminal activities as well as other activities, meetings which they 
were holding, when they were having meetings, who would address them, whether they had any contact 
with ANC infiltrators, etc.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Okay, Warrant Officer van Vuuren, in your application you give in great detail 
the purpose of the interrogations, that which was set out in the application has been stated on numerous 
occasions with the same motivation as in all other interrogations for which amnesty applications are made 
with regard to all the applicants before the Committee and for that reason I am not offering this testimony 
verbally, verbatim before the Committee on every occasion, but on this regard questions had been asked 
regarding things which are stated very clearly in your statement.  
	Will you turn to page 158 please of your application and there the general motivation which we 
have in all the
applicants' applications with regard to your actions, will you please read that to the Committee.  From the 
purpose of the investigation.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr du Plessis, I don't think this what is PRETORIA HEARING	AMNESTY/

ADV DU PLESSIS: 153	W/