Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — UNKNOWN

<UNKNOWN>: I want to put it to you that the family membersof victims, as well as victims who survived, were not aware ofthe fact that you were waging a war against them because it wasa (inaudible) exercise, wasn't it?
3. ANSWER: /...
MR CURRIN 492 J H CRONJE

ANSWER: It was correct.

<UNKNOWN>: But there were activists, political activistsand so-called "trouble-makers", I put it to you thatthey were not aware of the fact that there was an undeclared waragainst them where those who waged that war saw themselves notaccountable to any laws of the land.

ANSWER: Chair if they did not know this then they wouldhave been extremely uninformed, certainly our actions in the blacktownships was of such a nature that they must have realised thatthe police were waging war against the activists or at least withthe ANC and the other liberation movements.

<UNKNOWN>: They were under the impression that the governmentof the day had passed draconian laws, the Internal Security Act,Emergency Regulations, and that it was through those instrumentsof law which the security forces were attempting to challengeoff the struggle.

ANSWER: I can only say that under all circumstances we,along with the military or acted along with the military, andhow this decision was made I would not know.

<UNKNOWN>: ...that political activists in the townshipsknew that they could at any stage be unlawfully killed pro-activelyby the security forces?

ANSWER: I did not say that.

<UNKNOWN>: The implication of your answer.

ANSWER: No, the implication of my answer is that we hadwaged war along with the military and that I do not see how anyonecould have come to the conclusion that we were not doing so.

<UNKNOWN>: I'm not really understanding the answer itseems rather ambiguous to me.   Just let's think of a practical
3. example /...
MR CURRIN 493 J H CRONJE
example, there's an activist out there, he's a political activist,he's involved in the activities that you have referred to, whetherit's school boycotts, sabotage, whether it's bombings whatever,that is what he is involved in as an activist.   Are you sayingthat he knew that his activities would be pre-empted and thathe would be killed and that he did not expect rather that he wouldbe detained in terms of the Emergency Regulations or that he wouldbe charged with sabotage and sent to jail?

MR DU PLESSIS: : Mr Chairman with respect, I don't wantto object unnecessarily but my learned friend Mr Currin is askinga question of the witness of what he supposes people in the blacktownships thought or were thinking at that time.   We perceiveit as a bit of an unfair question he wasn't part of the blackcommunity at that time and perhaps Mr Currin should have led theevidence when he called people who lived in the black townshipsat that time, as witnesses.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Currin.

MR CURRIN: : What is the view of the Chairperson, is thisquestion a valid question or is it not a valid question?

CHAIRPERSON: You've asked this question in separate forms,in different ways - the same question - and the answer you'vegot is more or less the same.   I am of the view that I don'tthink you can take it any further.   Whether political activistsexpected that the price they will have to pay would be to be takenbefore the courts of law, tried and imprisoned, or whether theysuspected that they may one day be eliminated and so on, that'san issue which I do not think we can take very much further atthis stage.

MR CURRIN: : As it pleases you Sir.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CURRIN (contd)
3.

<UNKNOWN>: /...
MR CURRIN 494 J H CRONJE

<UNKNOWN>: If I understand your evidence correctly, I'vemoved away from trevits with the previous question I asked, Iwent back to the war situation.   If I understand your evidencein your founding document correctly, your understanding of warfrom a security police perspective is that you got a licence tokill pro-actively, is that correct?

ANSWER: After the instructions of Brigadier Victor andBrigadier Schoon I came to the conclusion that we had to engagein a military manner against the onslaught.

<UNKNOWN>: Pro-actively.

ANSWER: Yes that is the case.

<UNKNOWN>: Why did you make no provisions for prisoners?

ANSWER: Detaining an activist would only have been atemporary solution, after a time the person would have been releasedthen he would have continued in his activities.  We thereforealso acted pre-emptively or preventitively to see to it that furtheracts of terror would not be engaged in.

<UNKNOWN>: Detentions were extended month after monthafter month and people were detained indefinitely.

ANSWER: At some stage people would have to be released,it would have been demoralising in addition for the ANC when thesepersons were eliminated.

<UNKNOWN>: Did you ever consider with the knowledge thatyou had of making a recommendation to the government of the daythat they declare Marshall Law and that they make provision forprisoners of war and comply with the Geneva Convention and otherrelevant conventions?

ANSWER: No I never considered this.

<UNKNOWN>: I am now going to move on to the next, sorrybefore I do that I need to also in the context of the war
3. situation /...
MR CURRIN 495 J H CRONJE
situation, just get a bit more clarity with regard to what constitutedan activist.   You've told us that activists were people who committedmurder, bombings, assault, robbery, arson, damage to property,intimidation, school boycotts, consumer boycotts and throwingstones.

ANSWER: That is the case.

<UNKNOWN>: What is your definition of...(end of side one)...tocommit for example be involved in a school boycott and stone throwing,that's an activist.   Was such an activist fair game for yourhit squad?

ANSWER: Certainly not.

<UNKNOWN>: When did an activist become fair game for assassination?

ANSWER: It would only have been if it was an activistwith  a very high profile who engaged in several crimes and severalevents of intimidation, several instances of recruiting MK members,providing homes for terrorists or housing for terrorists, sucha person.

<UNKNOWN>: ...the number of those actions?

ANSWER: Yes the person was judged in that sense.

<UNKNOWN>: (Inaudible).

ANSWER: Not on my own in every instance.

<UNKNOWN>: If I understand your evidence correctly andthe evidence of other applicants who have testified, the securitypolice themselves got involved with murders, arson, damage toproperty, bombings and in fact whenever they did that they wentout of their way to make sure that it looked as if those actionswere committed by activists, is that correct?

ANSWER: That is the case.

<UNKNOWN>: Was your motivation for that, inter aliato
3b create /...
MR CURRIN 496 J H CRONJE
create the impression that the country was burning and that thecountry was ungovernable by blaming all those actions on the activists?

ANSWER: It was done with the purpose partly for propagandapurposes, but also so that the broad white public would believethat these people were poorly trained, that they were blowingthemselves up and so that the white public would be under theimpression that the security forces were winning the war withease and that the ANC was incapable.  The true state of affairswas never revealed to them, they had to be under the impressionthat we were winning because in the next election they would haveto vote for the government of the day again.

<UNKNOWN>: The intention was to fan the flames of warand of violence and to promote the whole feeling of a war psychosis,is that correct?

ANSWER: The disinformation which was given to the whitepublic yes, that was the case.

<UNKNOWN>: The objective?

ANSWER: Yes it was.