Amnesty Hearings — Pretoria — 1997-02-24

ADV DE JAGER: Captain Crafford did accompany you?

JACQUES HECHTER: That is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: Do you know where he is at this time?

JACQUES HECHTER: He is sitting in this hall, Mr Chairman.

ADV DE JAGER: And Bafana?

JACQUES HECHTER: As far as my information goes, he has since deceased.

ADV DE JAGER: Thank you.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I have one further question.  Captain 
Hechter, would it have been normal procedure, let's forget about Bophuthatswana for the time being, but if 
you acted in other places, say in the Northern Transvaal or in kwaNdebele, a couple of places with regard 
to which you have given testimony, would you normally have informed or contacted the South African 
police to verify your information?

JACQUES HECHTER: No, not at all.  We verified the information by means of our informants and 
evaluated it and acted in response.
PRETORIA HEARING	AMNESTY/

ADV DU PLESSIS: 30

ADV DU PLESSIS: So you did not act in cooperation with any of the other security structures 
except when you worked with the South African Defence Force, the Army?

JACQUES HECHTER: No, that is the case.

ADV DU PLESSIS: It would then not have been normal for you, in this particular case, to have worked 
with the Bophuthatswana police or security police?

JACQUES HECHTER: No, not at all.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY

ADV DU PLESSIS: .

JUDGE WILSON: So you realised that what you were doing was 
in no sense of the word ordinary police work?

JACQUES HECHTER: I realised this entirely, Mr Chairman.

HASSAN MALL: You are excused.

JACQUES HECHTER: Thank you Mr Chairman.
WITNESS EXCUSED.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I believe the representative of the Attorney General's office is 
here.  I would really like to take the matter which I did discuss with you in chambers up with him, if at all 
possible and if you would afford me the opportunity to do that now, I would be grateful.

HASSAN MALL: Yes. I understand your request to mean that you would like a short adjournment?

ADV DU PLESSIS: As it pleases you.

HASSAN MALL: I trust that it is not something that is going to take five minutes, is it?

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I foresee that it is going to take a bit longer than five minutes.

HASSAN MALL: It might be convenient at this stage then to take the adjournment.

ADV DU PLESSIS: That is what I wanted to suggest Mr 
PRETORIA HEARING	AMNESTY/

GAUTENG: S	30
Chairman.

HASSAN MALL: Mr Mpshe, will it inconvenience you if we took an adjournment at this stage?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: It would not inconvenience me Mr Chairman, as long as we can indicate what time we 
are coming back.

HASSAN MALL: We will resume at a quarter to two, will that be convenient?

ADV DU PLESSIS: That would be convenient Mr Chairman, thank you very much.

HASSAN MALL: Alright, we now adjourn until quarter to two.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Thank you Mr Chairman.
COMMISSION ADJOURNS.
PRETORIA HEARING	AMNESTY/

HASSAN MALL: Are we ready to proceed?

ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman.  Mr Chairman, we have had a discussion with Dr 
Pretorius of the Attorney General's office pertaining to the issue of Captain Van Jaarsveld and the question 
if we can call him as a witness.
	Now I want to place on record that the applicant's request was that Captain Van Jaarsveld should 
be called to give evidence to this Committee in respect of the State Security Council, the structure of the 
State Security Council, how the State Security Council operated, especially in the middle 1980's, the way in 
which orders were given and something that is very important for the applicants, pertaining to their 
applications and that is evidence about the Government of the time of their counter-revolutionary strategy 
that was developed during the early 1980's and which was put into practice in the middle 1980's.
	As you will recall Mr Chairman, we have given evidence in a lot of instances where the applicants 
testified that they had to take pro-active action against activists and terrorists, that they were given orders to 
eliminate terrorists and activists and, that this was part of the Government's counter-revolutionary strategy.
	Captain Van Jaarsveld was involved in the State Security system.  He was involved with the 
development of the counter-revolutionary strategy of the Government of the time; the drawing of a specific 
document setting out the whole strategy which we have not been able to get hold of. He was also involved 
with the implementation of the counter- revolutionary strategy.	He has intricate knowledge thereof, and 
furthermore he was also present when Brigadier Victor 
PRETORIA HEARING	AMNESTY/

ADV DU PLESSIS: 32

<UNKNOWN>: gave the order that the applicants have testified to, to Brigadier Cronje.  
	Now Mr Chairman this evidence would obviously be of a general nature. It will be important to 
further sketch the background against which the applicants and all Security Policemen acted during that 
time.  It will therefore be of great importance to the applicants' applications and I would want to submit Mr 
Chairman, that it will also be of great importance to the Committee in respect of all future applications by 
Security Policemen before this Committee - applications for amnesty.
	The evidence will not relate to any specific incidents for which Captain Van Jaarsveld might want 
to ask amnesty for, it will furthermore not relate to his involvement, his personal involvement, in any 
incidents which the applicants refer to in their applications.  And as I have stated will be of a general 
nature.
	Now Mr Chairman it is so that Captain Van Jaarsveld is a State witness in respect of certain 
incidents which the applicants have testified about and for which they in certain instances have been 
charged already.
	It is also true that we did launch an application in October, right at the beginning of the hearings, 
for State witnesses to be called as witnesses in support of the applicants' applications which application was 
refused.
	I went through my notes of that time pertaining to that application, and as I can recall the main 
reason was that the applicants could not advance to the Committee the specific facts and evidence which 
would be contained in dockets of the Attorney General and what the witnesses would come and testify 
about.
PRETORIA HEARING	AMNESTY/

ADV DU PLESSIS: 33

<UNKNOWN>: I want to draw a distinction between that application
and this application, and the distinction is simple Mr Chairman and that is that this application pertains to 
evidence of a general nature.
	We cannot understand why the Attorney General at this stage of the proceedings would wish to 
keep important information, especially pertaining to the counter-revolutionary strategy of the Government 
of the time and the working of the State Security Council from this Committee.
	We furthermore cannot see why the Attorney General would want to keep such evidence from the 
general public at large.  We wish to state that we have tried to get hold of possible other witnesses to come 
and give this evidence, and that we have not succeeded in getting any cooperation.
	We want to place on record specifically that nobody has offered us any help in this regard or any 
assistance,  especially our superiors, the applicants' superiors at that time.
	We find ourselves, therefore, in the predicament that the applicants' superiors who would be in a 
position to give this information to the Committee, do not seem to want to voluntarily participate in the 
proceedings and assist the applicants.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr du Plessis, would General van der Merwe be in a position to assist you?