Amnesty Hearings — Benoni — 1997-06-23

MR VISSER: You told the members that you were attached to the Security Branch at times, how would you expect orders to come through to you?  Would you expect such orders to be directed to the Security Branch through Counter-Insurgency Division or through Riot Control?

JOHANNES JACOBUS VIKTOR: I would like to make sure exactly what Mr Visser's question would be.  Is your intention to ask my instructions as Riot Control and Counter-Insurgence or instructions when one works for the Security Branch?

MR VISSER: No I am referring to when you were in the Security Branch, where would your orders have come from as a member of the Security Branch?

JOHANNES JACOBUS VIKTOR: They would have come from the Security Branch Head Office in Pretoria.

MR VISSER: Now you see General, Brigadier Cronje in his evidence has stated that you were his senior and that he was obliged to follow your instructions or orders.  Mr Chairman I refer to page 141 of your record at line 22 to 23.  What is your reaction to that evidence?

JOHANNES JACOBUS VIKTOR: As a person who had been in command of the sections in the Security Branch on three separate occasions I know that as a commanding officer I would never receive an instruction from the uniform branch or any other branch of the force, I would only receive instructions from Security Branch head office.

MR VISSER: Were you authorised to give any instructions or orders to members of the Security Branch while you were second in command of Counter-Insurgency?

JOHANNES JACOBUS VIKTOR: Not at all.  Perhaps we must remember where there might be an instruction where you arrive at a police station or at an office and you see that maybe it's dirty or something like that, but with regard to the actual work of the Security Branch a Security Branch man would not accept instructions from any other person.

MR VISSER: And how would you react to the suggestion that Brigadier Cronje says that he was compelled to accept your instructions?

MR VISSER: No, Brigadier Cronje must be mistaken in his summary of the situation.

MR VISSER: Now, again at page 141, Mr Chairman, it follows from there, the evidence that was given before this Committee was to the effect that you made a telephone call to Brigadier Cronje during March 1986, first of all, can you recall that event?

JOHANNES JACOBUS VIKTOR: I can, but I will not be able to say that it was exactly in March 1986, but it would have been at the beginning of 1986.

MR VISSER: Just before we go into the evidence we have referred to an affidavit which you signed dated the 20th of February 1997, do you recall signing an affidavit?

JOHANNES JACOBUS VIKTOR: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And the purpose of this affidavit was that in reaction to being notified of certain evidence which had been given in which your name had been mentioned.

JOHANNES JACOBUS VIKTOR: That is correct Chairman.

MR VISSER: Have you recently had the opportunity of reading that affidavit again?

JOHANNES JACOBUS VIKTOR: That is the case, Chair.

MR VISSER: And do you confirm that the evidence contained in that affidavit is still correct apart from paragraph E at page 2 to which we will come in a moment?

JOHANNES JACOBUS VIKTOR: That is correct Chair.

MR VISSER: Now Mr Chairman may I direct your attention to paragraph E.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Visser this statement had been handed in already, the affidavit, what is the reference number of this particular affidavit?  Otherwise you must provide us with additional copies at this point.

MR VISSER: P6 Mr Chairman, P6.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Mr Visser I think I can confirm that this affidavit was never handed up to members of the Committee.
I just wanted to indicate that this affidavit was never handed up to members of the Committee at any given stage, so we would request you to make copies available to us.

MR VISSER: Well Mr Chairman may I inform you of what had happened, I don't want to waste time about it, but we forwarded the affidavit under a covering letter from Messrs Wagner Muller and du Plessis to Mr Mpshe in reaction to being notified of the evidence of Brigadier Cronje.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.  The members of the Amnesty Committee may not have, I have seen the letter and I think that Ms Khampepe has not seen it.

MR VISSER: We will certainly make copies.  We were just not aware that we would have the position where you won't have copies in front of you, we do apologise.  Mr Chairman in that event may I read out into the record what this particular paragraph says Mr Chairman.  It is at page 2 and it is a paragraph numbered 3.3E.  It says this - perhaps I should start with D to place it in context.
"3D.	In my opinion this would not be a command or instruction but merely a suggestion.  Were it to have been accepted it would also not have implied that there should have been a full-scale military warfare as a consequence.  I do, however, understand Brigadier Cronje's position that in consequence of this conversation he decided to act in future in the manner indicated by his amnesty application, and the applications of the other relevant applicants".
	Now General we discussed this in consultation and you made certain remarks about the wording as it appears from paragraph E of your affidavit.  Would you please just inform the members of the Committee what your views are about that paragraph?

JOHANNES JACOBUS VIKTOR: Chair, I am convinced that the particular paragraph has not been worded entirely correctly.  In consultation between myself and the lawyer I don't want to claim that the lawyers made any mistake, but I don't think that this is exactly what was intended or how I felt with regard to the matter.  I think that the word "begryp" or understanding should be replaced by "sympathy", "sympatie".  I had rather indicated that I had sympathy with the applicant.  Insofar as the situation in the Division Northern Transvaal had been I expressed my sympathy.

MR VISSER: Let's just shorten the proceedings by me asking you this question.  Are you saying or did you intend to say in the affidavit that you accept that whatever the members of the Security Branch Northern Transvaal did in eliminating people etc could, according to your view, be related to your instruction or to the conversation which you have had with Brigadier Cronje, is that what you intended to say?

JOHANNES JACOBUS VIKTOR: No Chair, I do not want to say that because of this conversation the applicants should have gone into the particular actions which it is claimed they then performed.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman we will make copies available to you as soon as we possibly can.
	But with regard to the remainder, the balance of the affidavit is concerned do you confirm the correctness of that?

JOHANNES JACOBUS VIKTOR: Yes, it is correct Chair.

MR VISSER: Can you then straightaway tell the Committee what transpired in March 1986, first of all which gave rise to a telephone conversation between you and Brigadier Cronje and secondly, tell the Committee what was said and what you intended with what was said during that telephone conversation?   Would you please go slowly so that it can be translated and give us the full picture of what actually happened.

JOHANNES JACOBUS VIKTOR: Chair, as it has already been said at that time I was attached to the Counter-Insurgence and Riot Unit.  My own son, who at that time was a lieutenant, was for a number of months stationed at Mamelodi ...(intervention)

MR VISSER: Please permit me to interrupt, he has the same names as you have?

JOHANNES JACOBUS VIKTOR: That's correct.

MR VISSER: Johannes Jacobus ...(intervention)