Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — UNKNOWN

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Van Vuuren, it is necessary for us togo into this with greater detail.  The death caused with the power generator, I know you are not a medical doctor, but what,according to you, would have been the experience, how  quicklywould these persons have died when you shocked them  to death?

MR VAN VUUREN: It is difficult to say, but it would havebeen between five and eight seconds.
1B

MR DU PLESSIS: /...
MR DU PLESSIS 355 J J VAN VUUREN

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Van Vuuren, could you page to page 113,could you read the second last paragraph with regard to your motivation, starting from the second last paragraph?

MR VAN VUUREN: The purpose of this action was to counter the ANC and other liberation movements who were involved in arevolutionary onslaught against the apartheid government.  Themotive of the act was to counter terrorism, advance security anddefend the country.  A further motive was to eliminate activistsand terrorists so that additional information which would havebeen to the disadvantage of the State and security forces notto have become available beyond them.  The context within whichthis occurred was against the background of a state of emergencyas well as unrest, violence and intimidation on a daily basis. The ANC and other liberation movements attempted to make thecountry  ungovernable at that time as part of the political resistance.  The purpose and goal was to eliminate ANC supporter/activistsor terrorists.  After information was  gained by means of interrogationit was necessary to eliminate these three terrorists in orderto destroy the entire cell and with regard to trained terroristsinvolved  in the death and assault on innocent people to causethem to stop from their actions.

MR DU PLESSIS: Would it have at that time been possibleto act in a different way with regard to these terrorists?  Couldyou have arrested them in terms of security legislation?  Whatwould your view be in this regard?

MR VAN VUUREN: It was not possible to detain them.  Theevidence available to us was such that you could not bring peopleto court to testify against these persons.  At that time the blackSecurity Police officers were no longer
1B willing/...
MR DU PLESSIS 356 J J VAN VUUREN
willing to come into offices.  Because of the nature of the strugglethey stayed at home to defend their homes.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Van Vuuren,  would the security  forceshave been able for instance, after having released Sefola, werehe to have been involved in the planting of landmines, would thesecurity forces have been able to prevent him from doing suchactions?

MR VAN VUUREN: We would not have been able to inhibithim;  we had to eliminate him to prevent him from doing theseacts.

MR DU PLESSIS: Turn to page 109 please.  At the bottom.   Your motivation.  I just  want to highlight it specificallyin this incident, what was said there.  Could you read that, itis part of the general motivation.  Just draw the attention ofthe Committee to the last paragraph on page 109 and beginning110.

MR VAN VUUREN: It was necessary to eliminate activistssince the information gained from them during interrogation hadto be protected.  The identity of the informants and sources ofthe Security Police had to be protected.  If activists and terroristsafter providing information would have been arrested, then theinformation,  routes of the freedom fighters and activists wouldhave changed so that the Security Police would not have been ableto use the information.  When activists intended going outsidethe country for training they had to be eliminated to preventthat they would destabilise the land and its people at a laterstage by means of acts of terrorism, such as bombing attacks againstboth the security forces and soft targets.  As soon as an activisthad been trained, he was in a different class to other activists. His knowledge and
1B skills/...
MR DU PLESSIS 357 J J VAN VUUREN
skills became similar to that of the Security Police and he wouldhave been much more effective in military operations.
All of this maintained the Government of the National Party andcombatted communism effectively and maintained apartheid.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Van Vuuren, was the use of electricity generally one of the accepted means of interrogation by the securityforces?

MR VAN VUUREN: This is the case, it was an accepted method.NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS

MR CURRIN: (Translator:  MR CURRIN IS NOT USING HIS MICROPHONE)  I need a bit more space.  I want to move to this seat and putmy one file on that desk and use the other one, if that wouldbe suitable.  Thank you.

MR CURRIN: Warrant Officer Van Vuuren,Mr Maake's mother is here today.   We have consulted with  herand she is adamant that her son, who is the victim in this case,never ever left the country.  He was an 18 year old schoolboy. She has no  knowledge of him being absent from home for threemonths.

MR VAN VUUREN: That is untrue.  He was an informant ofthe Security Branch.  We took him to the border ourselves where we dropped him the first time when he went into Botswana alongthe powerlines.

MR CURRIN: This was the same person as the Maake thatyou sent abroad for training?

MR VAN VUUREN: Yes, 100%.  If somebody has a photo ofhim I will be able to recognise him again.

MR CURRIN: And the fact that his mother says that he neverleft the country.

MR VAN VUUREN: I cannot explain that.   I can just tell
1B you/...
MR CURRIN 358 J J VAN VUUREN
you that the Maake I was involved with we organised a car forhim, driver's licence.  In other words, I can tell you that Icannot explain that what she says that he was not away from homefor three months.

MR CURRIN: (Question inaudible)

MR VAN VUUREN: Yes, we did have a file for him.

MR CURRIN: A paper file as well as a computer file?

MR VAN VUUREN: At the Security Branch we only have a paper file.

MR CURRIN: Where is that file now?

MR VAN VUUREN: It was destroyed along with all the otherfiles as was testified earlier on.

MR CURRIN: Was he a person who had been identified asa prime target by trivets?

MR VAN VUUREN: I cannot testify about that, I do not know.
No, I can just explain how it worked at the Security Branch. Me, Captain Hechter and Mamasela, if I may say the word, werebasically the hit squad of the Security Police in that area. And we also had our own normal activities with which we went on. Amongst others, Maake was our informant,  in other words, inour normal security network, he was involved  with us.

MR CURRIN: ... with you and since you were involved intaking him across the border, I assume you know what he  lookedlike?

MR VAN VUUREN: Yes, I know what  he looked like.

MR CURRIN: Could you describe his features and/or physicalother characteristics?

MR VAN VUUREN: It is very difficult to describe him now. If I saw a photograph of him I can describe him.  He was approximately5ft 10, well-built.  He had an open face,
1B intelligent/...
MR CURRIN 359 J J VAN VUUREN
intelligent, very intelligent appearance.

MR CURRIN: (Question inaudible)

MR VAN VUUREN: It was light.

MR CURRIN: You must have known his age?

MR VAN VUUREN: I never asked his age, but I thought hewas between 20 and 25 years old.

MR CURRIN: He was born in 1968, which means that in 1986he was 18.

MR VAN VUUREN: I cannot deny that.

MR CURRIN: (Question inaudible)

MR VAN VUUREN: We went to Minetoria.  I can just explainwhat happened there.  Captain Hechter and I after we made a caravailable to him and after he came back from training, and thetechnical department of Security, built a false compartment intothe car.