Amnesty Hearings — Pretoria — 1997-02-27

UNKNOWN: You are correct, but please bear in mind that, a person who was shot, that case would 
have been reported in a normal fashion. The person now applying for Amnesty would not have personally 
reported it, some other people on the scene might have reported it and the report would have been based on 
what happened on the scene and what was investigated by police on the scene.  So one must make a 
distinction between members applying for Amnesty, whether they have reported it themselves, what is the 
content thereof and whether on the other hand the person left the scene and the police then afterwards sent 
someone there to investigate and that the facts then reported depended on exactly what was found on the 
scene of the incident.

JUDGE MGOEPE: Nevertheless the person who compiles the report is the person who in the first 
instance, 
PRETORIA HEARING	AMNESTY/

JUDGE MGOEPE: 262	GEN V/

UNKNOWN: subjectively, as you said earlier on, believed that what he was doing was justified and he compiles the 
report from that premises
GEN V/

UNKNOWN: Not necessarily, I don't know whether that was the case at all, the reports that we 
have here before us, it might be the case that people that were involved left the scene and to now create the 
impression that there was an incident could be misleading. People that were killed, that case would have 
been reported and the contents of such a report would have reflected what were the tasks of the people at 
that point in time in terms of the law. Mention would not have been made of action out of the abnormal.

JUDGE MGOEPE: I am just concerned that it is highly inconceivable that the person who has in the first 
instance subjectively believed that what he did was right would compile the report in such an objective 
manner that room could be left for somebody else to come and say that the action was not justified.
GEN V/

UNKNOWN: Yes, but we have to make a distinction.  The person could have believed what he has 
done did it in terms of his objectives to prevent the country being overthrown. I cannot think he would have 
thought that what he was doing was justified, what I am saying he must have believed that what he was 
doing was to save the country. You must read it against that background and therefore that he might have 
felt that he was justified in his actions, although he exceeded his limits.

JUDGE MGOEPE: Now the Minister comes, one of the previous Ministers and he comes and gives 
testimony here and he says "No, I deny giving permission, the reports I have, the reports submitted to me 
did not give the full details". PRETORIA HEARING	AMNESTY/

JUDGE MGOEPE: 263	GEN V/

UNKNOWN: (AFRIKAANS NOT TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH)
GEN V/

UNKNOWN: Yes, you are correct, if that was the case that is the way he should have acted. There 
were never reports that indicated what you now know to the previous Minister, he never had that 
information. If the real information was available and we accepted then we would have been partially 
responsible for it.  There could have then been more information that we based our actions on.

ADV DE JAGER: In your case, the case of Swaziland there was some - a task given by Brigadier Schoon, 
go and kill this person, the report would have been "we have done our duty"?
GEN V/

UNKNOWN: That is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: We have also heard the term in your evidence, also other cases that there was a policy 
of "need to know" you don't give more information that is than information required for the person that you 
have passed it on to, do you know about that?
GEN V/

UNKNOWN: Yes, that was policy in fact. That was general policy in terms of all information 
services. Information is dealt with in a very restricted manner, so you only give information that that person 
needs to know, that has always been the case.  But remember there is another kind of information that is 
necessary to provide to all people. Now you must remember the person in this case would, that has given 
the command, would have received a report back and he would only have received information that he 
required.

ADV DE JAGER: So the person who committed the murder he would not spread the word, he would only 
give facts back to the person that has given the command?
GEN V/

UNKNOWN: That is correct.
PRETORIA HEARING	AMNESTY/

JUDGE WILSON: 264	GEN V/

JUDGE WILSON: As I understand from what you are saying, again this was completely different from 
ordinary policing. There was no question of opening a docket, setting out what was done, anything of that 
nature, it would usually be an oral instruction, they would carry out the operation and inform the person 
who had instructed them that they had completed what they had been told to do and there would be no 
written report made?
GEN V/

UNKNOWN: Mr Chairman, in those cases where there was authority granted by a higher authority, 
you are correct, no there would not have been a report. You are correct.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, may I put two further questions to the witness?

HASSAN MALL: Yes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you.  It is really questions in elucidation about matters which I have forgotten 
about. 
General could you assist me, Commissioner De Jager asked me yesterday if in the police there was a 
special meaning to the word "eliminate" or if the normal meaning of the word applied, in other words to 
kill someone, could you assist us in that regard?  If someone was to talk about "I received instruction to go 
and eliminate someone" is there a special meaning to that in the police or does the normal meaning apply?
GEN V/

UNKNOWN: No, the normal meaning applied, it would be to get rid of someone, to kill someone.

ADV DU PLESSIS: If someone were to testify about what happened at Vlakplaas and what took place 
there was known to all the Generals in the police force, would that be a correct statement?
GEN V/

UNKNOWN: Definitely not, Your Worship. As I have 
PRETORIA HEARING	AMNESTY/

ADV DU PLESSIS: 264	GEN V/

UNKNOWN: already testified with regards to certain incidents we would know, but as far as many other incidents are 
concerned, like which are being placed before this Committee, we did not know about. What you are 
saying is "all Generals" is a very broad statement, not all Generals would have known about it.

HASSAN MALL: Thank you very much, you are excused from further attendance.

HASSAN MALL: We will take a short adjournment at this stage.