Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — UNKNOWN

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: ... this idea of killing them come to mind?

MR VAN VUUREN: This was during the course of interrogation
2B of/...
390 J J VAN VUUREN
of Mr Sefola that we decided to kill them.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: In your evidence you said that the firsttwo people - you must tell me if I misheard your evidence - yousaid Maake and Mr Makope were killed in order to make Sefola speak.  You said so.

MR VAN VUUREN: That is correct.   (BEGINNING OF RECORDINGON TAPE 3A)

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: ... Mr Sefola to speak?

MR VAN VUUREN: When we decided we were going to kill them,we decided that we would first kill Maake to gain more informationfrom Sefola.  That is the case.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: I am saying that if Mr Sefola had givenyou the information you wanted, you would not have killed thefirst two people.

MR VAN VUUREN: Not so.  By that time we had already decided that we were going to kill all of them.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: ... you could realise whether or not Sefolawas willing to give information?

MR VAN VUUREN: No, as I explained, we interrogated Sefola. After we interrogated him, we interrogated Maake and then  wekilled Maake.

JUDGE WILSON: ... interrogated Maake after Sefola?  Becauseyou've never mentioned that before.

MR VAN VUUREN: No, that is not what I am saying.  WhatI am saying is that while interrogating Sefola, while Maake wassitting there, we decided to kill Maake.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: I just want to clear this with you.  Ifthe purpose of killing the first two people was to cause Mr Sefolato speak, then I assume that the decision to kill them arose afteryou realised that Mr Sefola was not cooperative.
3A

MR VAN VUUREN: /...
391 J J VAN VUUREN

MR VAN VUUREN: No, Mr Sefola did cooperate.  This wassimply a part of our interrogation.  I can't tell you exactlywhy we did it in that way.  After we began interrogating him,after we've shocked him  with the generator, he began to cooperate. Because they were part of Mr Sefola's cell we did not want anyother persons, other innocent persons to be hurt by them, that'swe decided to kill them.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: ... to reconcile that answer you've justgiven me, with what you said earlier on in chief and also to whatI've asked so many times, namely that the person of killing thefirst two people was to cause Mr Sefola to speak.

CHAIRPERSON: That was also a purpose, though the intentionto kill the other two had already been - he had already arrivedat that intention, simply because they were part of a cell andyou had made up your mind you were going to destroy the cell. But you wanted Sefola to see first how his colleagues were killedso that he might answer your questions more readily.

MR VAN VUUREN: That is in fact the case.  Just that whichhas been stated to me just now, that Sefola had to see how wekilled them.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: ... was that the reason for killing wasthat  you wanted to exterminate the cell.  Are you agreeing tothat?

MR VAN VUUREN: This was indeed the main reason.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Did you in the end exterminate the cell?

MR VAN VUUREN: We killed these three persons and an additionalperson at a later stage, so we eliminated four persons of thiscell, but I cannot remember the size of
3A the/...
392 J J VAN VUUREN
the cell or the number of persons in the cell.   At this stageI simply cannot remember.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: ... got further information about the extentand activities of the cell, if you killed these three people?

MR VAN VUUREN: Do you mean at this point in time?

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: You killed three people whom you say comefrom the same cell and you decided to kill ...   What would beyour other source of information about that cell, if you exterminatethe people that you've now got into your hands coming from thatcell?

MR VAN VUUREN: Mr Sefola was the leader of the cell andhe  gave the  information of the cell available to us so we knewwhere the other persons were.  As  I've explained, we knew wherethese other persons were, we knew what their names were, not necessarilyparticular addresses, but we had their names.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: You told or it was put to you by Mr Mpshe  that, I believe it was Mr Makope, when he was picked up therewas a lady in the car, and your answer was that you could notrecall that.

MR VAN VUUREN: I can't remember this woman.  It is quitepossible, but I cannot remember it.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Did you identify yourself as the policeto him when you took him out of your car?

MR VAN VUUREN: I did not remove him from his vehicle. That was Sergeant Mamasela.  As I've already explained, we whiteSecurity Police persons stayed in the kombi, and the black SecurityPolice officers made the arrest and that was particularly SergeantMamasela.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: As far as you know - or let me put it toyou
3A this/...
393 J J VAN VUUREN
this way.  After he was brought to you, did you identify yourselfas a policeman to him?

MR VAN VUUREN: As Security Police officers, yes.   Thedriver's licence that was arranged for the deceased, Maake,  wasit supposed to convince traffic officers, for example, on theroad that he was a genuinely licensed driver?

MR VAN VUUREN: Indeed.  At that time he was an informantof the Security Branch.  We could not afford him being arrestedfor a traffic offence without a licence.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: ... vehicle, I did not follow.

MR VAN VUUREN: We obtained a vehicle for him.  Whetherwe purchased it or not is a different question, but it was a Regulation86 vehicle which was then a stolen vehicle that no one claimedat the police and the Security Police then used these vehiclesin its operations.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: ... given to him to use.

MR VAN VUUREN: Yes, we gave it to Mr Maake to use.  Indeedhe used it.  We built a hidden compartment into the vehicle tomove arms from Botswana.

UNKNOWN: Did he take this vehicle home, did he drivearound in it?

MR VAN VUUREN: Indeed he drove around with this vehicle. He went home with the vehicle.  He used it for personal use also,as if it was his own vehicle indeed.

UNKNOWN: So his neighbours and his parents would have known of this vehicle?

MR VAN VUUREN: They would have known of this vehicle. It was a Ford Cortina Station Wagon.

UNKNOWN: This hidden compartment which you built intothe vehicle beforehand, was this with the intent that he couldsmuggle arms into the country?
3A

MR VAN VUUREN: /...
394 J J VAN VUUREN

MR VAN VUUREN: Indeed.

UNKNOWN: So he was supposed to smuggle arms into the country under your instructions.

MR VAN VUUREN: Not so.  He was going to bring the armsinto the country, then the arms would have come to us and thenwe would have used these arms one way or another.   We would havebooby-trapped them and then we would have given it back to him,he would not have known of the booby-trap and he would then haveburied the arms to be picked up by ANC terrorists and then whenthey used the weapons it would have blown up in their faces.

UNKNOWN: ... post-mortem report, have you got otherstoo in connection with this case, or not?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Mr Chairman, members of the Committee, thatis the only post-mortem report that I have in the documents thatI was given.

UNKNOWN: Because the body couldn't be identified butit is the body of a male whose reputed age was 30 to 35 years.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: That is so, that is the only one that I have.

JUDGE WILSON: There is reference in the post-mortem reportto two other corpses.  The last paragraph, "Additional observations".

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Mr Chairman and members of the Committee,  Ihave just been made aware that the other post-mortem reports areattached.  I took the first one as being the only one that wasavailable.  As I looked at the other documents that were in Ithought these were only the inquest reports, but they are alsoattached.