Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — UNKNOWN

<UNKNOWN>: You went on to say but in most cases he woulddiscuss it with you unless there was no time to do so, is thatcorrect?

ANSWER: Would you mean with regard to Hechter if theydid not have time to talk to me, is that what you mean?

<UNKNOWN>: Yes, but if they had time you expected themto discuss it with you?

ANSWER: If there was sufficient time, indeed.

<UNKNOWN>: Because you have told us it was only in verylimited incidents, only in one incident that you and the NorthernTransvaal targeted anyone?

ANSWER: (No audible reply).

<UNKNOWN>: Did you hear the question?

ANSWER: No.

<UNKNOWN>: You would expect them to discuss it with youbecause it was only in very limited cases that you targeted anyonein the Northern Transvaal.   You said you only did so in one case,one incident.   Is that correct?

ANSWER: That's with regard to Trevits, Chair.

<UNKNOWN>: ...sub-committee which you were on for theNorthern Transvaal only targeted one person.

ANSWER: Indeed, but everyone was interrogated and waseliminated were not targeted by Trevits.

<UNKNOWN>: Did you eliminate everybody you questioned,you interrogated?

ANSWER: No I don't believe so.

<UNKNOWN>: Because you also said that underlings, which
1. would /...
JUDGE WILSON 545 J H CRONJE
would have been Hechter, would have to discuss with you the questionof targeting people, eliminating people, once again subject totime restraints.   That is so isn't it?

ANSWER: That was normally the case.

<UNKNOWN>: You also told us that guidelines were laiddown which were adhered to, that children and innocent peoplewere not to be targets?

ANSWER: That is correct.

<UNKNOWN>: So does that mean that you would not throwa bomb into a house where you knew a man was with his wife andyoung children?

ANSWER: If we knew this, we would not have done so.

<UNKNOWN>: Yes, and you would not kill someone merelybecause they happen to be a relation of a target?

ANSWER: No.

<UNKNOWN>: One other point I wish to raise, it was donethrough you so I'll come back through you, this long documentyou read from yesterday, Exhibit M, have you still got a copyof it?

ANSWER: No.

<UNKNOWN>: Could he be given a copy?   I take it thatwhat you read yesterday was what Chris Hani is supposed to havesaid on behalf of the South African Communist Party, the ANC andUmkhonto we Sizwe?

ANSWER: That is the case.

<UNKNOWN>: If you look at page 58, in the third paragraphhe said
  "In Kwandabele where there was a militant mass movementagainst independents, the intervention of Umkhonto led to theelimination of the most notorious of the collaboration elements,Pete
1. Ntuli /...
JUDGE WILSON 546 J H CRONJE
   Ntuli.   The elimination of Pete Ntuli by an MK unit galvanisedthe population in Kwandabele."
Do you read that there?

ANSWER: I did read it there.

<UNKNOWN>: Is that true?

ANSWER: No, what is written here cannot be the truth.
(Long silence with high-pitched wail coming from microphone)

CHAIRPERSON: In respect of your participation, just yourparticipation, certain names have been mentioned of people whomight be involved directly or indirectly in some of the offencesfor which you are seeking amnesty.   If it is possible, I wouldlike to take down the names of those individuals who are not appearingat this hearing who, in your opinion and in your evidence, werepeople who would be directly or indirectly involved.   Would itbe possible for you to give me those names please?

ANSWER: It would be.

CHAIRPERSON: May I have them please?

ANSWER: Is this with regard to the Pete Ntuli case?

CHAIRPERSON: ...which he himself is involved.

ANSWER: Mr Chairman what I would volunteer to do is tocompile a list for you if that would be convenient.   We can provideyou with a list of names.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.   I have no further questions,thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY JUDGE WILSON AND CHAIRMAN

MR DU PLESSIS: : Mr Chairman, may I in respect of the questionsasked by His Lordship Mr Justice Wilson perhaps re-examinethe witness if I'm allowed to?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, certainly do.
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS
1.

<UNKNOWN>: /...
MR DU PLESSIS 547 J H CRONJE

<UNKNOWN>: Thank you Mr Chairman.   Brigadier Cronje,did you, with regard to every meeting with regard to Trevits inthe Northern Transvaal, in every meeting of those, did you havesitting?

ANSWER: No Chair.

<UNKNOWN>: Could you briefly make more clear your involvementin that particular committee of Trevits?

ANSWER: Would this be with regard to my sitting?

ANSWER: Yes, your sitting in Trevits when were you involvedand how were you involved in Trevits?

ANSWER: If we had identified a target we would have discussedthis at Trevits, we would have made representations to Trevits.

<UNKNOWN>: Then would it have been possible that othertargets might have been identified at Trevits meetings where youwere not present?

ANSWER: That is possible.

<UNKNOWN>: So where you gave testimony that the only targetidentified, who would have been Pete Ntuli, would that imply thatthat was the only target ever identified by that Trevits committeethat you knew of?

ANSWER: That is the case.

<UNKNOWN>: And where you were involved?

ANSWER: That is the case.

JUDGE WILSON: : Does that mean if your group wanted totarget, they would do it through you to Trevits?

ANSWER: No Your Honour, the other incidents were donebecause of the instruction I received from Brigadier Victor.
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS (contd)

<UNKNOWN>: The intention was that targets where you wereinvolved with, where you made a presentation to Trevits with
1. regard /...
MR DU PLESSIS 548 J H CRONJE
regard to a particular person, that was the extent of your participationin Trevits?

ANSWER: That is the case.

<UNKNOWN>: Would you have been involved in Trevits ifother Commanding Officers for instance, or some other person fromsome other unit or section made presentations to Trevits, wouldyou have been involved in that discussion and identification ofthat target?

ANSWER: No Chair.

<UNKNOWN>: Could I get some further clarity in this regard,the elimination of Mr Sefola for instance would that have beenidentified by yourself or by your unit and then presented to Trevitsand confirmed by them or how did it work?

ANSWER: No, that did not happen, that happened becauseof the general instruction we received from Brigadier Victor tobecome actively engaged in the war.

<UNKNOWN>: Brigadier then that would not have been consideredor rather would it have been considered as a rule that all eliminationshad to go through Trevits?

ANSWER: No.

<UNKNOWN>: In instances where there were eliminationsby your staff, under which instructions would those eliminationshave occurred?

ANSWER: The eliminations would have been due to Victor'sinstructions.

SISI KHAMPEPE: : Can we therefore understand your evidenceto state that apart from Trevits, there was also a parallel structurethrough which you identified targets on the instructions of, thegeneral instructions received from Brigadier Victor?
1. ANSWER: /...
MR DU PLESSIS 549 J H CRONJE

ANSWER: That is the case.
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS (contd)

<UNKNOWN>: Brigadier Cronje to what extent would you havedealt only with high profile activists at Trevits?

ANSWER: We would only have dealt with high profile activistsat Trevits not with other activists.

<UNKNOWN>: If your subordinates were to be involved inelimination actions such as in the case of Makope and Sefola,which instructions would have been relevant to their actions?

ANSWER: Those would have been the instructions receivedfrom Victor.

JUDGE WILSON: : Would you expect them to discuss them withyou if there was time?   You would expect them to discuss thematter with you if there was time?

ANSWER: If there was sufficient time.

JUDGE WILSON: : We know the first person disappeared on15 July, the second on 16 July and the third on 17 July, therewould seem to have been time wouldn't there?