Human Rights Violation Hearings — Pietermaritzburg — 1996-11-20

<UNKNOWN>: 19.  The SA Police dispute that the persons named were not questioned about their knowledge or role in the attacks.  However, the same problems relating to witnesses who were willing to identify the persons referred to, and describe their role in the attacks, was encountered by the investigation unit.  If witnesses had come forward and given this information to the police it is quite possible that prosecutions could have been instituted.  It needs to be pointed out fear of reprisal and fear of intimidation probably played a significant role in the reluctance of witnesses to come forward.  The SA Police can hardly be blamed for this, however.

<UNKNOWN>: 20.  The SA Police are not in a position to comment on the alleged role of Major General Buchner in regard to the Seven Day War.  It is not known which senior officers Professor Aitchison is referring to, nor exactly what

<UNKNOWN>: /"actions

<UNKNOWN>: "actions or inactions he is referring to.  If he is prepared to provide details the SAPS undertakes to look into these allegations."

<UNKNOWN>: Mr Chairman and Commission, I would like to ask permission to continue in Afrikaans please.

<UNKNOWN>:  Thank you, Director Meyer.  I've already said that any questions that will be put to you, and which you may answer, will certainly be in Afrikaans, but we have decided that, because it's already 5.30, everyone's had a long and stressful day, we're going to ask you to come back in the morning to answer the questions which we will put to you then.  So we will adjourn now and meet tomorrow morning at 9.00 am.

WITNESS:   Thank you very much.

<UNKNOWN>: Thank you very much.  Could you let us have copies of that document tomorrow morning?

<UNKNOWN>: PROCEEDINGS  ADJOURNED  TO  1996/11/21

<UNKNOWN>: /PROCEEDINGS

<UNKNOWN>: PROCEEDINGS   HELD AT

<UNKNOWN>: PIETERMARITZBURG

<UNKNOWN>: ON 21 NOVEMBER 1996

<UNKNOWN>: [VOLUME  2  :  PAGES 92 - 176]

<UNKNOWN>: PROCEEDINGS  RESUMED  ON  1996/11/21

<UNKNOWN>: (Incomplete) ... last day of the public hearings of the Truth Commission.  We left off yesterday with Director Meyer of the South African Police Services, and we will resume with his testimony this morning, if he can please come up onto the stage.

DANIEL JOHANNES MEYER: (Through interpreter)

DANIEL JOHANNES MEYER:  (Inaudible) ... questions, and you have the right to reply in Afrikaans.

WITNESS:   Thank you, Chair.

DANIEL JOHANNES MEYER:  Director, I want to take you back to what you described as JOC yesterday.  That is the planning body that - what did JOC stand for, just for the record?

WITNESS:  JOC is Joint Operations Centre.

DANIEL JOHANNES MEYER:  Who sat on that operation centre?

WITNESS:   Chairperson, the normal people on this panel, the chairperson was the commanding officer of the unit.

DANIEL JOHANNES MEYER:  Sorry, just for the record, who was that person?

WITNESS:   I am not sure who it was.  What I do know is that the commanding officer of Group Nine wasn't always the Chairperson.  He mostly sent an operational officer involved in planning.  The Security Branch was also represented there, the Detective Branch also represented, sometimes the NPA Traffic were there as well, and other members, co-opted members for these meetings.

DANIEL JOHANNES MEYER:  Who would - just give us examples of what sort of people would be co-opted, by which departments and so on.

WITNESS:   These would have been people such as Civil Defence people, Ambulance Services.  I think in brief that's about it.

DANIEL JOHANNES MEYER: Now, at that time the head of Civil Defence was

DANIEL JOHANNES MEYER: /Mr Kock,

DANIEL JOHANNES MEYER: Mr Kock, is that right?

WITNESS:   I can't remember.

DANIEL JOHANNES MEYER:  On the video footage we saw about two days ago he was the person interviewed as being in charge of video - being in charge of the Civil Defence and the subsequent so-called relief programme.

WITNESS:   Chairperson, all these things happened a long time ago.  I think that the person in charge of Civil Defence in Pietermaritzburg was Mr Shaw.

DANIEL JOHANNES MEYER:  Which Mr Shaw would that have been?

WITNESS:   I can't remember his first name, but I know he was a former policeman - he was a policeman.

DANIEL JOHANNES MEYER:  Now, you've said that the chairperson was usually the unit commanding officer, or some other delegated officer.

WITNESS:   The chairperson was usually the commanding officer of the unit, and ... (intervention)

DANIEL JOHANNES MEYER:  Which unit are we talking about?  Sorry, just so we can be clear, which unit are we talking about?

WITNESS:   (Inaudible) ... riot unit.

DANIEL JOHANNES MEYER:  And that was Riot Unit Eight at that time.

WITNESS:   That is correct, Mr Chairman.

DANIEL JOHANNES MEYER:  And the vice-chair would have been the commanding officer or his designate of Group Nine.

WITNESS:   Of Group Nine, the Defence Force.

DANIEL JOHANNES MEYER:  Now, I want to just - you can see how crucial it's been in the whole process, this question of planning.

WITNESS:   I can see that, Mr Chairman.

DANIEL JOHANNES MEYER:  And so I'd like you to try and help us understand how the planning worked and what you guys actually did in that regard.

WITNESS:   I understand that.

DANIEL JOHANNES MEYER:  So let's try and take you back to round about the 23rd of March, say, which is two days before the rally in Durban.

WITNESS:   Yes.

DANIEL JOHANNES MEYER:  And by then you knew the rally was going to happen, and you would have known there were arrangements, and buses, and - it was a public rally, it was well announced.

WITNESS:   The normal route which we would have followed in our planning is the following.  During these JOC meetings there would have been discussions regarding the availability of manpower for the occasion, information regarding the rally, and also what kind of problems there might possibly be.  After such a meeting the operational officers involved in that kind of planning would have then sat down and worked out all the finer detail of the plan, and they would also commit the planning to writing.  The parties involved would then be consulted.

DANIEL JOHANNES MEYER:  Now, just for the record, where are the minutes of those planning meetings and where are the written plans, the records and so on, at the moment?  Do you have any idea where they are?

WITNESS:   No.  I believe most of these documents were destroyed, but I am not sure.

DANIEL JOHANNES MEYER:  In the submission you say that quite a number of documents were destroyed in the normal course of regulatory getting rid of records that are not required to be kept.

WITNESS:   I think I should just correct something there.  The Archives Act provides for the period of time that documentation must be kept for, and during that period we didn't have computerised systems to keep our records.  Everything was done by hand and filed, and certain documentation was destroyed after about a year, others after three years, and others after five years.  I am not familiar with the provisions of the Act regarding periods of time. That's fine, I really understand that.  What sort of intelligence reports would you have relied on in your planning?   ---   I think the circumstances surrounding the rally.  In the specific instance we would have looked at previous meetings and rallies, the problems which we experienced during those meetings, whether there was any information available regarding attacks on buses, the areas involved, and also the number of buses to be used.  Because during that time we experienced a lot of problems with attacks on buses, and also attacks launched from the buses on the communities.