Amnesty Hearings — Benoni — 1997-06-23

JOHANNES JACOBUS VIKTOR: No that's also not correct.  According to them they knew who the people would have been.  I have never referred to his files, I never told him to look in his files who the responsible persons were.  They said they knew who these persons were, but because of intimidation they were not able to actually get cases into court.

UNKNOWN: He then continues.
"He gave us instructions that should an activist throw petrol bombs or handgrenades then handgrenades and petrol bombs should be thrown back.  If a house was burnt down then petrol bombs or bombs should be thrown.  There, in every instance, should be slightly stronger return action than the original action.
		The instruction was that these activities would have been outside the system, we would then not have been able to work from the normal position that Police officers had to arrest criminals and act towards them in terms of the normal judicial system.  The implication was that we had to act beyond the judicial system, beyond the normal legal system to counter the instability".
	He further testifies,
"The possibility was discussed that people might die in this process.  This instruction was a general open instruction to act against the instability.  It was necessary under these circumstances and this command had to be carried out.  It was not necessary in every case to refer these actions back to Brigadier Viktor.  He gave the same instruction to Brigadier Cronje who was given the instruction by Viktor to create a special team to carry out this instruction".

JOHANNES JACOBUS VIKTOR: Again Chair, I did not give an instruction.  I did not have the power to give an instruction.  The detail mentioned there by Captain Hechter is definitely not the case with regard to what actually occurred in the conversation.  I have already given testimony Chair that I said if a police officer's house is attacked with a petrol bomb - it was in this conversation that they've mentioned that they know who the responsible persons were, that the same actions should be replied with in retaliation.

UNKNOWN: Brigadier do you accept the possibility that Captain Hechter and Brigadier Cronje might have accepted your so-called suggestion as an instruction?  Or might have thought this was an instruction?

JOHANNES JACOBUS VIKTOR: Chair these were officers in the Security Branch.  Their knowledge of the way in which the Security Branch actually works must have been such that they must have realised that I would not have been able to give such an instruction as an outsider.  No outsider can give this kind of instruction.  If you want me to speculate I cannot speculate what was happening in their brains.

UNKNOWN: I understand that General, I am asking the question whether you think that there might have been a possibility that they might have misunderstood you and might have imagined that you had given them an instruction?

JOHANNES JACOBUS VIKTOR: Chair that would be outrageous, particularly with regard to Brigadier Cronje, to think that he might have considered me to have given him an instruction.  This is a senior man in the Security Branch, who had served for years in the Security Branch.  And I want to say again I cannot speculate with regard to what he might have thought.

UNKNOWN: And if he should give testimony and Captain Hechter should give testimony that they in fact thought that you had given them an instruction which they had to carry out?

JOHANNES JACOBUS VIKTOR: I cannot make any argument against what they might have thought.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: The question is you know yourself what you said to them, the question is what you said to them was such that it was capable of being understood by them in the way that they say they did understand it.

JOHANNES JACOBUS VIKTOR: Chair no, that is why I said both of these people were officers in the Security Branch who were knowledgeable with regard to the way in which the Security Branch worked.  I cannot believe that they might have considered this an instruction that I had given to them.

UNKNOWN: You see General van der Merwe had given testimony on page 96 that he knows both you and Brigadier Cronje well and that he thinks, knowing both of you, that Brigadier Cronje might have accepted what you said to him as an instruction.

JOHANNES JACOBUS VIKTOR: That is General van der Merwe's opinion.

MR VISSER: While there is a pause Mr Chairman, may we submit, with respect, that to be reasonable the rest of that paragraph should also be read to the witness where the gist of Van der Merwe's evidence becomes quite clear.

UNKNOWN: Well Mr Chairman I refer to the record in general, General van der Merwe was asked over a space of three, four pages, I don't know, my learned friend probably refers to page 96, but I just asked it in general.

CHAIRPERSON: You put the questions that you wish to and if you're finished then I'd be pleased to hear that.

UNKNOWN: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I think Mr Visser it would be for you to clear up if you do wish to at some stage.

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman, it's not important.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.  As long as you just make references to the relevant pages so that we ourselves know what to look at and what to look for.

UNKNOWN: Yes Mr Chairman.  General in your affidavit to which we have referred, you said that you have sympathy with the position of Brigadier Cronje, that he decided as a consequence of the conversation to act in the manner in which he did subsequently.

JOHANNES JACOBUS VIKTOR: Chair I have made the statement that I have sympathy with regards to the circumstances at that time; that I have sympathy towards Cronje and them in the way in which they thought they should act.  I never made the suggestion that people should be killed.

UNKNOWN: General I will argue this, you have already in cross-examination granted that the suggestions you did make did in fact have such implications, but let's leave that matter.
	In your affidavit you have stated, 
"I understand the position of Cronje that as a consequence of the conversation he decided to act in a manner in which he did in fact act in terms of his application for amnesty".
and this concurs with what General van der Merwe said with regard to this matter.  Are you no longer willing to stand by your statement that you have an understanding for Cronje's actions?

JOHANNES JACOBUS VIKTOR: Chair I've already said in my testimony that I don't want to point a finger at my attorney but that paragraph was not stated in the way in which I truly wanted to state it to this Committee.  I do have sympathy for Brigadier Cronje and the other applicants with regard to the circumstances under which they worked at that time.

UNKNOWN: You see General I must say that I find it strange that you want to change your affidavit in this manner but I don't want to say anything further with regard to this.
	All that I want to state to you, and I will argue thus, that this paragraph as it in fact read, that is paragraph (E) on page 2 of the affidavit, which said that you understand Brigadier Cronje's point of view and that he decided to act in a particular manner, that you wanted to say with that statement that you understood that he might have understood you to have given him an instruction.  This would concur with the testimony of General van der Merwe and that is what you in fact said under oath in your original statement or affidavit.  Do you want to comment?

JOHANNES JACOBUS VIKTOR: I have already given my point of view with regard to this paragraph Chair.

UNKNOWN: I want to state to you in addition that I fail to understand General how you could want to change your testimony from "begryp", that is "understanding" to "sympathy", "sympatie", particularly when your previous testimony, before it was changed, concurred with that of General van der Merwe.