Amnesty Hearings — Pretoria — 1997-02-25

MR CURRIN: Well he was as a student at school, he was involved in student activist politics.  I think 
that we know what sort of politics the students were involved in.  He was never a member of the African 
National Congress or any political organisation.  He will testify ...(intervention)

JUDGE MGOEPE: Yes, but I just want to have this clarified because at some stage I personally 
put questions to the witness which would have tended to tax him severely on whether or not the victim 
could have been a legitimate political target, a legitimate political target and if there is no severe 
disagreement on the question as to whether or not he was in fact in politics at whatever level, that may 
actually, I mean I am speaking for myself, that may clarify or make certain issues a little bit easier.

MR CURRIN: Certainly.

JUDGE MGOEPE: So I understand you to concede that the victim was engaged in politics.

MR CURRIN: Absolutely.

MR CURRIN: Mr Chairman while I have the microphone I 
do have one question that I would like to clarify in re-examination which arose during some of the 
subsequent questioning if I may put something to the witness.

HASSAN MALL: Yes, you may ask your question, sure.
PRETORIA HEARING	AMNESTY/

MR CURRIN: 157	W/

MR CURRIN: It is one question.  My learned friend put it to you that we have heard a lot about 
eliminations and assassinations and when an activist qualifies to be eliminated and you said something a 
moment ago which, in my recollection, has been said for the first time and I just want to hear whether what 
I heard, is correct and you mean what you said.
	You said that high profile activists were targets for elimination.  Now that we've heard often 
before, but you've added something to that.  I think you added that high profile activists who were involved 
in killing or in murders qualified for elimination, is that correct?
W/

UNKNOWN: That was usually the case.  That is correct, that was usually the case but if a person 
threw a petrol bomb at another's house, then it was an attempt at their lives, he wasn't playing with them, 
then that would also have qualified the person to have been eliminated, yes ....(intervention)

MR CURRIN: Even if no one died as a result of the petrol bomb?
W/

UNKNOWN: Ja.

MR CURRIN: So it is not correct to add the rider "if that person was involved in a murder"?
W/

UNKNOWN: That is correct.

MR CURRIN: Thank you Sir.
NO FURTHER

<UNKNOWN>: S BY

MR CURRIN: .

ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman, may I beg leave to call Captain Hechter on this 
incident?	You will find his application on page 127 of the bundle.

UNKNOWN: (still under oath)

ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Hechter in your 
PRETORIA HEARING	AMNESTY/

ADV DU PLESSIS: 158

UNKNOWN: application on page 128, the first paragraph under "Nature and details", you say that you cannot remember 
the circumstances in this incident, is that correct?

UNKNOWN: That is correct.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Do you accept the evidence with regards to the facts of this incident as said by 
Warrant Officer van Vuuren?

UNKNOWN: That is correct.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Now Captain Hechter, the political motivation has been set out in your application 
from page 130 to page 134.  Do you confirm it as being correct?

UNKNOWN: Yes, that is correct, Chairperson.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Hechter, with regards to one or two aspects about which Warrant Officer 
van Vuuren was questioned.  Could you perhaps just give the Committee an indication of the type of 
persons who were involved in petrol bomb attacks and so forth, were they normal criminals or were these 
people politically active?

UNKNOWN: Chairperson, the youth activists as Mr Currin called them, were furthering all 
the aims and objectives of the ANC at the time.  In Tshaba it was often announced, even on Radio 
Freedom, that the youth - the so-called informants had to be attacked, they had to attack the police, they 
had to be involved in the struggle which included the burning of buses, the boycotting of buses, consumer 
boycotts.  So that when we were out looking for activists it was purely a political activist.  We were not 
involved in normal criminal activities and that is why the police detectives who were at the stations in the 
areas, they were deployed to do that type of work, we did not do those cases, we did political matters and 
we investigated political cases.
PRETORIA HEARING	AMNESTY/

ADV DU PLESSIS: 159

ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Hechter, what was your general experience with such activists, were some 
of them members of the ANC were others not members of the ANC, could you comment on that?

UNKNOWN: It is very difficult when you start monitoring an activist to know if it is a card 
carrying member of the ANC, what they did do was through the person's actions by furthering the 
objectives of the ANC at the time, by the methods that they applied, you were able to identify an activist.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Just to include there, this attack was in 1986 and 1987?

UNKNOWN: That is correct.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Was it permissible at the time to be a card carrying member of the ANC?

UNKNOWN: That is correct, so they would not have had their cards with them either, they 
would have been members of the ANC but would not have carried any cards.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Hechter, the type of interrogations you were involved in at the time, what 
was the aim of the interrogation with regards to obtaining information, could you just elaborate to the 
Committee?

UNKNOWN: Firstly it was to obtain information, further information which could assist us in 
combatting further acts of terrorism, greater acts of terrorism, lesser acts of terrorism, such as consumer - 
the launching of consumer boycotts to identify the involved instigators and prevent them proceeding.
	The interrogations were fairly violent.  In order to intimidate the youths to such an extent that - it 
was an attempt to prevent them from participating in this type of 
PRETORIA HEARING	AMNESTY/

ADV DU PLESSIS: 160

UNKNOWN: action any further.

ADV DU PLESSIS: After having heard what Warrant Officer van Vuuren testified here, would you say 
that the objective at the time would have been to obtain information, charge the person and have them 
convicted in a court of law or was the objective to obtain information with regards to the liberation 
movement's struggle?

UNKNOWN: It is very difficult for me to answer that question at this point.  What I heard 
from Warrant Officer van Vuuren was that thereafter he was made a member of the
Branch, so he would have given us his cooperation, which is why we would have decided to use him as a 
source, but I doubt whether we would have wanted to arrest him and have him charged and so forth, 
because at the time we did not try to arrest activists.
	The information which we confronted them with could not be aligned to any witnesses due to the 
intimidation factor which existed at the time.  I would not say that it did not happen at all, there might have 
been cases where persons were arrested and detained in terms of the law, but it was very minimal.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Captain Hechter could you please page to page 339 of your application.  Captain 
Hechter, can you page to the next page entitled "Reconciliation", that is part of your application.  Could 
you please just read it to the Committee.
	Yes, I beg your pardon Mr Chairman, it appears twice in my volume, I beg your pardon, it is 338.  
Could you please proceed?

UNKNOWN: "I had steadfastly believed that what I was doing at that time, was in the 
interests of 
PRETORIA HEARING	AMNESTY/

ADV DU PLESSIS: 160