Amnesty Hearings — Pretoria — 1997-02-27

HASSAN MALL: I would like us to have some limit within which we must proceed. I don't like the idea of 
documents being handed in whenever it is convenient to counsel to do so. You are re-examining this 
witness and I do not think it fair that at this stage you hand in a voluminous document, none of us have a 
chance of knowing what it is all about and so on, with the result that this kind of questioning can just 
snowball for ever and ever. I would like you to conclude your re-examination of this witness then apply for 
permission to hand in documents and tell us why.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Chairman, the only reason why I am handing in this document now, is 
because of the fact that I am not going to lead any evidence about this document except about where this 
document comes from and how this document was compiled. The reason for this ...(intervention)

HASSAN MALL: Have you finished your re-examination?

ADV DU PLESSIS: I have finished the re-examination, Mr Chairman. May I then ask permission to deal 
with the document?  The only reason why I am doing this, Mr Chairman is I wanted to deal with this 
document in argument, but I thought it prudent that this document be handed into the Committee at this 
stage because it relates to a specific aspect that I want to ask the General about and that is the simple 
reason, I am trying to assist the Committee, Mr Chairman.

HASSAN MALL: As experienced counsel you are aware of the limits of re-examination?

ADV DU PLESSIS: Right, Mr Chairman. I will then deal with the document in argument and I will 
withdraw the document.

HASSAN MALL: Yes. If you have no further questions under 
PRETORIA HEARING	AMNESTY/

ADV DU PLESSIS: 259	GEN V/

UNKNOWN: re-examination ...(intervention)

HASSAN MALL: I would like to thank the witness for having made himself available - you want to ask 
some questions, I am sorry.

JUDGE WILSON: Yes.  I am sorry, there are two points that I would like to deal with General. The first is 
Nietverdiend that you have been asked about and reports - as I understand this happened in 
Bophuthatswana and was investigated by the Bophuthatswana police and that didn't fall under you?
GEN V/

UNKNOWN: You are totally correct.

JUDGE WILSON: The second point is Vlakplaas.  This was a most unusual station, wasn't it?
GEN V/

UNKNOWN: That's correct.

JUDGE WILSON: It was as I understand it, an old farmhouse far away from anywhere that was taken 
over for a specific Unit?
GEN V/

UNKNOWN: That is correct, Sir.

JUDGE WILSON: They originally, I think you said, the purpose was to deal with persons who had 
returned to this country to try to rehabilitate them to use, they were called ascaris and thereafter they started 
being used to carry out more offensive activities. It seems to me that a policeman who was sent to 
Vlakplaas and stationed there, might well have got the impression that they were a specific Unit formed to 
carry out these specific anti-terrorist duties, that they were something out of the ordinary run of the police?
GEN V/

UNKNOWN: Yes, that is correct, but you must keep in mind that they had a specific task, it was an 
abnormal task. First of all people that were arrested were dealt with in 
PRETORIA HEARING	AMNESTY/

ADV DU PLESSIS: 260	GEN V/

UNKNOWN: covert action and their actions were abnormal that they had taken, that is the correct impression.

ADV DE JAGER: The Commissioner is asking, this Unit was used to exercise actions in Lesotho for 
instance, on command?
GEN V/

UNKNOWN: That is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: So they were actually the military wing of the police, can I put it like that?
GEN V/

UNKNOWN: I wouldn't say the "War Wing" but they were used in an abnormal way.

ADV DE JAGER: Was that abnormal way to kill people?
GEN V/

UNKNOWN: It was to do cross-border operations, it was never intended for them to act internally, 
but they had to act where it was required to cross-border.

JUDGE WILSON: But we have heard evidence, as I recollect, of them being used internally, being 
summonsed to various parts of the country, usually, admittedly, close to the borders?
GEN V/

UNKNOWN: That is correct, but once again, not to eliminate people, they got specific tasks. There 
were specific threats sometimes that they had to deal with because they had information and they had 
special ways of doing that and dealing with it.

JUDGE WILSON: It seems to me, from what we have heard and from what we have heard from you, is 
that it is easy to understand that persons stationed there might get a false impression of precisely what their 
duties were?
GEN V/

UNKNOWN: You are absolutely correct, Honourable member.

JUDGE WILSON: That they, having been sent to this odd place might believe they were wrongly perhaps 
but they could 
PRETORIA HEARING	AMNESTY/

JUDGE WILSON: 261	GEN V/

UNKNOWN: honestly believe they were there to carry out these functions?
GEN. V/

UNKNOWN: That is correct.

HASSAN MALL: Who was the highest authority inasfar as Vlakplaas was concerned, who gave instructions 
at Vlakplaas?
GEN V/

UNKNOWN: Vlakplaas was under the command of the head of security police, not directly, they 
had their own commander, but in terms of the command line, they were under the head of the Security 
Branch and he was under the Commissioner so that was the normal command line in the case of Vlakplaas, 
but because of the abnormal circumstances which they have operated the normal command line might not 
have been, might not have applied like in normal cases - it would have been the case.

HASSAN MALL: So it would be the head of the Security Police basically?
GEN V/

UNKNOWN: That is correct Your Worship. That is apart from their own Commander, they 
obviously in all the cases there was a Commander in charge of the Vlakplaas Unit but he in terms would 
have to report - he was under the command of the head of Security Police.

HASSAN MALL: Thank you.

JUDGE MGOEPE: General, with regard to the reports, the way the reports would be compiled from time 
to time relating to specific incidents, for example, the killing of, or the elimination of some targets, I get the 
impression that sometimes, if not always, the reports would not be detailed they would be in a crisp form, 
for example, simply saying that 10 terrorists were eliminated at such and such a place and that kind of 
report in that form, would be passed onto the next person etc. etc.
PRETORIA HEARING	AMNESTY/

JUDGE MGOEPE: 261	GEN V/

UNKNOWN: GEN V/

UNKNOWN: You are correct.

JUDGE MGOEPE: If that was the case, it seems to me that when we consider whether or not higher 
authorities had given a tacit approval, we may have to bear in mind the fact that they might not have been 
furnished with all the facts and details of the facts and circumstances under which a particular incident 
occurred?
GEN V/

UNKNOWN: Mr Chairman, we must be clear on this. They would have been supplied by 
particulars on the specific incident. The information that you now have would not have been submitted to 
them, that we must realise.  They would have been noted on the number of people that were shot, under 
certain circumstances, and what were the surrounding situations but details they would not have had before 
then.

JUDGE MGOEPE: But the person who compiles the report decides what to put in and what not to put in?
GEN V/