Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — UNKNOWN

COL VENTER: The most active people were right at thetop of the list.  I could perhaps just mention if a person for
3B instance/...
184 COL VENTER
instance was in Botswana and he was planning to go to Angola ina month's time then the name would change to a different placein the order because he wouldn't be as easily accessible if youknow what I mean.  So it was indeed a priority list of the mostimportant people.

SISI KHAMPEPE: And that would be for purposes of launchingan attack against that particular person?

COL VENTER: Correct.

UNKNOWN: Thank you Mr Chairman.  Colonel you don'thave to sit so close to the microphone.  As far as these objectiveswere concerned was a distinction made between people who had tobe intimidated by for instance a bomb attack at his house or peoplewho had to be eliminated?

COL VENTER: I am not understanding this question becausethe way I understand a bomb attack that is also a process of eliminationat the same time.

ADV DE JAGER: If I may put it this way was there a listof persons who were to be intimidated by means of damaging theirproperty just to frighten them, and a different list where thepriority was to actually eliminate those people by killing them?

COL VENTER: No there was only one list.  There weren'tvarious lists of people.

SISI KHAMPEPE: In that case Colonel who decided on howattacks were to be executed against the people who were in thepriority list?

COL VENTER: All I can tell you is that that is why thespecial forces attended our meetings as well as people from militaryintelligence if these targets were outside the borders of thecountry then it would have been referred to them, and if it wasinternal then a particular region where
3B that/...
185 COL VENTER
that person was located would be responsible for action.

SISI KHAMPEPE: And who in that particular region in termsof rank would determine the manner?

COL VENTER: An attack on a person would be planned bythe regional commander because these regional commanders alsoattended the monthly meetings.

UNKNOWN: Colonel Venter if the objective was determinedby TREVETS and an attack was launched but there was nobody insidethe home, would the person still have remained on the list orwould he have been taken off the list?

COL VENTER: He would have stayed on the list.

UNKNOWN: Could we turn to page 20, the destructionof documents, could you just add anything to Brigadier Cronje'sevidence perhaps?

COL VENTER: Documents were destroyed on a regular basisby the security branch.  Shortly before the new government cameto power Head Office gave a telephonic order, I can't rememberwho issued the order, but I suspect that it was via the intelligencesection.  I might just add that in that period General Le Rouxwas the commanding officer of the security branch and the instructionwas that all documents which could implicate and hurt the securitybranch and informer's files in which people's identities couldbe revealed should be destroyed.

UNKNOWN: You are personally aware of this order?

COL VENTER: Yes.

UNKNOWN: I don't want you to deal with the restof the contents of page 20.  You heard what Brigadier Cronje saidrelating to his memory, are you in a similar situation as faras your memory and powers of recall are concerned and 3B the/...
186 COL VENTER
the facts which you can remember?

COL VENTER: Correct.

UNKNOWN: Have you disclosed all the facts whichyou could remember?

COL VENTER: Yes.

UNKNOWN: Would you turn to page 21, the last paragraph.

COL VENTER: I was raised in a home where Christian principlesand norms applied.  It was for me quite a bridge to cross to becomepart of the security police when I became involved in them becausetheir actions often flew in the face of the education which Ireceived and were not in line with my Christian principles, butit was necessary due to the circumstances which prevailed at thetime.

UNKNOWN: Colonel Venter then lastly before we cometo the specific events you heard Brigadier Cronje's evidence regardingthe general orders which were given especially during the periodof unrest and riots, do you agree with that?

COL VENTER: Yes I do.

UNKNOWN: Would you turn to page 105.  Mr Chairmanthere is just one point I want to raise here, no application wasmade for murder.  We don't believe that there is a case for murderbut we would wish to include, on page 105 with a list of deeds,we would wish to make application to include murder there.

CHAIRPERSON: Will there be any details about who the victimwould be?

UNKNOWN: No there won't be, that is why it wasn'tincluded, I just want to make 100% sure please Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct)
3B

UNKNOWN: /...
187 COL VENTER

UNKNOWN: Thank you very much.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr du Plessis possibly at this stage Ishould indicate to you that you want to include amnesty for murder,we cannot in general give amnesty for murder.  It might be thathe had murdered a person X who had nothing to do whatsoever withpolitics, it might have been one of his family members or whatever. We cannot offer a general amnesty, only if we know exactly whothe victim was, where the event occurred, the incident occurred,etc.  It is not possible to give amnesty in a sort of broad sensethat he might have murdered his wife or his child, I am not talkingabout your particular case here Colonel Venter but just for exampleand that a person would therefore gain amnesty for murder.

UNKNOWN: I understand that Chair.  Of course thatis one of the problems of the Act, it creates problems that'swhy our approach had been with the drafting of the applicationsthat we would rather put in too much rather than too little. So for instance if we ask for amnesty with regard to murder relatingto a particular case and the Committee believes that the factsdon't justify it and we do not gain amnesty on that case, thenthat is that.  We simply tried to make the applications as wideand as detailed as possible.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Mr Chairman may I just interrupt on what mylearned friend has just requested to do.  If matter is includedin this application and the Committee allows it, then I am goingto have a problem in that on the facts outlined by the applicantno mention is made of murder whatsoever.  Now that is going toimpact itself on the full disclosure.  If it was left out by mistakethen at least the 3B evidence/...
188 COL VENTER
evidence of the applicant from the application itself should revealthat there was murder, but so far there isn't.  Now if it is allowedit will boil down to what the learned Committee member has saidthat it cannot be murder on a global basis without specifics,we don't have specifics of murder in his application.  I've gota problem with that.

CHAIRPERSON: I am going to allow him to include the term"murder".  Should the evidence develop and events unfoldand there might be evidence that might emerge, not from him butfrom others, that might implicate him in murder he would havean opportunity of giving evidence and at that stage we will reviewthe proceedings as to who the victims were and whether we shouldbe able to get hold of the victims and so on but I don't thinkat this stage that it is visualised that they are in a positionto say that in fact he has committed murder and therefore thisapplication is made on that basis.  So I think we will just allowit for the time being.  We will see how the evidence unfolds.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: As it pleases the Chair, thank you.

UNKNOWN: Thank you very much Mr Chairman.  ColonelVenter your version of the events referred to as the Pepco 3 incidenthas been detailed in your application, could you read this tothe Commission starting from page 6.