Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — UNKNOWN

ANSWER: Sergeant Mamasela told us that this was his vehicleand that this was the vehicle in which he drove.
1b

<UNKNOWN>: /...
MR MPSHE 252 J J VAN VUUREN

<UNKNOWN>: So you didn't know, you were merely told?

ANSWER: That is correct.

<UNKNOWN>: Did you say that you were told that this wasThibedi's so-called "safe-house"?

ANSWER: That was in the reports of the informants andit appeared that this was Mr Thibedi's safe-house from these reports.

<UNKNOWN>: ...to where he otherwise lived?

ANSWER: No.

<UNKNOWN>: ...bombing that house on the basis that itwas a safe-house?

ANSWER: That is correct.

<UNKNOWN>: What did you understand a safe-house to be?

ANSWER: It would be a place where activists or terroristswould gather, would meet or hide.

<UNKNOWN>: ...terrorists coming together or hiding inthat house?

ANSWER: No I did not think that any terrorists wouldmeet there, I knew that this was Mr Thibedi's safe-house.   Idid not think that this was a place where terrorists would hide,I knew that this was the safe-house of the high profile activistssuch as Mr Thibedi.

<UNKNOWN>: ...car, obviously it was outside the garageotherwise you couldn't have seen it?

ANSWER: Yes we saw the vehicle outside the building,outside the house.

<UNKNOWN>: ...for anybody to see it?

ANSWER: Yes it was quite obviously visible.

<UNKNOWN>: ...was staying in that house on the basis ofit being a so-called safe-house would have parked his car so conspicuouslyoutside there?
1b ANSWER: /...
MR MPSHE 253 J J VAN VUUREN

ANSWER: I can only explain this to you in this way thatit
was difficult to track down these people, I cannot explain whetherthis was Mr Thibedi's vehicle, but it was the vehicle in whichhe drove around, Mr Mamasela identified the vehicle as being thevehicle in which Mr Thibedi drove around.   I do not know whetherthis was his property this vehicle.

<UNKNOWN>: ...information on which you acted, you actedon the basis of a number of some information, firstly that hewas in that house and secondly that that house was to be a safe-houseand furthermore that that vehicle was his?

ANSWER: This is correct.

<UNKNOWN>: ...reconcile the description of the house,of that house as a safe-house with the fact that Mr Thibedi conspicuouslyparked his car outside, outside that particular house, which carhe obviously used publicly?

ANSWER: It was nighttime, I cannot say whether it wasobvious during the nighttime, one would at least have been about20 steps from the house to see the vehicle clearly.

CHAIRPERSON: Was this man Thibedi known to you personally?

ANSWER: Not at all.

CHAIRPERSON: You never had any dealings with him personally?

ANSWER: Not at all.

CHAIRPERSON: ...description of his as a terrorist and atrouble-maker and so on, is that derived from some other source?

ANSWER: It was from informants reports, telephone listeningas well as postal information.

CHAIRPERSON: Was that information gathered by you or conveyedto you by your superiors?

ANSWER: It was my colleagues who made this availableto
1b me /...
MR MPSHE 254 J J VAN VUUREN
me, I did not personally listen to Mr Thibedi, it was gained bymy colleagues.

CHAIRPERSON: From whom did you receive information aboutthe activities of this man Thibedi?

ANSWER: I received this information from Colonel Loots,directly from Colonel Loots.

SISI KHAMPEPE: : Warrant Officer Van Vuuren why did you decideon the explosive device in order to eliminate the activist?

ANSWER: The bomb which we used had to, it's difficultto explain to you but it would, it had to appear as if it wasa consequence of the struggle, it was necessary that they couldnot indicate us as the responsibles, it had to appear as if MrThibedi was working with explosives and had explosives in hishouse.

SISI KHAMPEPE: : Who determined what methods were to be usedin the execution of orders received from your superiors?

ANSWER: This was largely our own decision which modusoperandi we were to follow and what we wanted to do.

SISI KHAMPEPE: : Were these modus operandi not clearedwith the person who would have given you instructions to executea particular order?

ANSWER: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Any re-examination?
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS

<UNKNOWN>: Mr Van Vuuren, did Colonel Loots know whatyour normal procedure would have been with regard to an instructionsuch as this?

ANSWER: Yes he knew what modus operandi CaptainHechter and myself would have followed.

<UNKNOWN>: So Col Loots would he have been aware of thefact that you would have used a bombing attack rather than
1b simply /...
MR DU PLESSIS 255 J J VAN VUUREN
simply to shoot Thibedi?

ANSWER: Yes he was aware of this.

<UNKNOWN>: With regard to the particular information whichyou received regarding Thibedi and his actions, you've given testimonythat this came from Col Loots, is that correct?

ANSWER: That is correct.

<UNKNOWN>: Mr Van Vuuren would there ever have been anydoubt in your mind with regard to the reasons given by Col Lootsfor this instruction?

ANSWER: Not ever, the security branch information alwayshad been very accurate and before any decision was made, thisinformation would have been verified against at least two or threeother informants' information.

<UNKNOWN>: Would Col Loots have given you an instructionto eliminate an activist who was not involved in serious actsof terror?

ANSWER: No, never.

<UNKNOWN>: Mr Van Vuuren was it ever necessary for you,with regard to information provided to you by Col Loots, to confirmit?

ANSWER: No I was a subordinate, we never checked thisinformation or confirmed it, it would already have been verifiedand given to Col Loots in such a form.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS

JUDGE WILSON: : You were asked whether Col Loots knew whatmodus operandi you would employ, he was in fact at thescene on the night wasn't he?

ANSWER: That is correct.
MR DE JAGER(?):: In your testimony you said that he alsoplanned this with you?

ANSWER: Yes he did plan it with us.
1b

CHAIRPERSON: /...
MR DU PLESSIS 256 J HECHTER

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.
WITNESS IS EXCUSED

MR DU PLESSIS: : Thank you Mr Chairman, may I beg leaveto call Captain Hechter on the same incident.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes please do call him.
JACQUES HECHTER (ss)
EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS

<UNKNOWN>: Captain Hechter before we continue with yourtestimony could you tell the Committee briefly what the problemswere which you are experiencing at this moment with your memory?

ANSWER: Mr Chair I have a large memory problem, a seriousmemory problem.   I have received psychological evaluation, Ihave been informed that this is a voluntary loss of memory whichI am enforcing myself, they cannot find anything wrong with me.  This particular incident with regard to Gerry Thibedi I cannotremember at all.   I am, however, willing with regard to my colleaguesand to take responsibility for this act because they will nottell me lies.   I fully believe what my colleagues have told meand I take responsibility for these acts.

<UNKNOWN>: Captain Hechter the contents of your application,where did you receive this information which is in your applicationwith regard to this particular incident?

ANSWER: To which page are you referring Mr Du Plessis?

<UNKNOWN>: Page 170 of the Hechter application, the informationin your application, from whom or how did you obtain this?

ANSWER: Chair this information as a whole was informedto me or was given to me by W/O Van Vuuren, I can only say whatis on paper here.   If I were to expand on this I would lie]
1b so /...
MR DU PLESSIS 257 J HECHTER
so what is on the paper here is what I can remember after I hadbeen informed by W/O Van Vuuren.   I have no
recollection of this incident.

<UNKNOWN>: Captain Hechter with regard to the politicalmotivation, with regard to these actions, you have heard the testimonyof Mr Van Vuuren in this regard.   Would you agree with it?

ANSWER: That is correct Mr Chair.