Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — UNKNOWN

MR DU PLESSIS: If I can just interrupt here.  The questionasked to Warrant Officer Van Vuuren relates to an incident whichwe regard as an incident which has got nothing to do with theamnesty applications and his evidence  pertaining to this mightincriminate him in respect of a certain action which doesn't formpart of this amnesty application.  So I would request the Committeeat this stage that he doesn't give evidence pertaining to thisspecific question about the licence.

JUDGE WILSON: Is he now concealing information from this Committee?  Is that what his intention is, not  to be frank withus?   I am just asking you.

MR DU PLESSIS: No, Mr Chairman, I don't have a problem ....(intervention).

JUDGE WILSON: Are there other offences that he doesn'twant to talk about, is that what you are saying?
1B

MR DU PLESSIS: /...
MR CURRIN 360 J J VAN VUUREN

MR DU PLESSIS: No, the only point I am making, Mr Chairman,is that he is going to incriminate himself in respect of an  offencewhich he hasn't asked amnesty for which we don't regard as anoffence that he can ask amnesty for, and I believe the Act insection 30 makes provision for this situation.

CHAIRPERSON: What is the offence?

MR DU PLESSIS: The evidence relates to the method in whichthey obtained the licence.  He didn't go through a test, Mr Chairman,they obtained the licence by way of a procedure and an arrangement.

CHAIRPERSON: In the light of horrendous evidence that we have heard, do you think we should apply our mind really aboutthe validity of the licence?

MR DU PLESSIS: As it pleases you.

MR VAN VUUREN: Can I go on?  Yes, I can just explain thatthe technical branch of Security was a Ford Cortina, a stationwagon, if I remember correctly, it was dark grey. Captain Hechterand I went to Moratoria in Pretoria.  I  cannot remember the nameof the person.  I remember he was in a very senior position. We explained to him what we wanted and he told us that it wasno problem and that we only needed two passport photos of himand that we could  pick up the licence the next day.  The nextday we picked up the licence.

MR CURRIN: ... the licence?

MR VAN VUUREN: That is probable.

MR CURRIN: Was this licence on Maake's own name?

MR VAN VUUREN: Yes, it was on his own name.

SISI KHAMPEPE: When was the licence organised on behalfof Mr Maake at Moratoria?
1B

MR VAN VUUREN: /...
MR CURRIN 361 J J VAN VUUREN

MR VAN VUUREN: It was just after his return from training outside the country.

SISI KHAMPEPE: In 1986?

MR VAN VUUREN: I cannot remember the exact date.  It mighthave been 1986 or 1987, I cannot remember exactly.

MR CURRIN: ... to put into motion steps to try and investigatewhether there is a licence in the name of this particular victim. Could you describe the circumstances that gave rise to Maakebecoming an informant?

MR VAN VUUREN: I can no longer exactly remember how he had become an informant.  I would imagine that I took him overfrom someone else, that he had been an informant for someone elseand that he was then transferred to me.  That originally he wasone of Warrant Officer Van Wyk's informants.

MR CURRIN: ... before you suspected that he was a double agent.

MR VAN VUUREN: It is again difficult  to say, but I wouldimagine it was about six or seven,  maybe eight months.  I wouldnot be able to say exactly.

MR CURRIN: ... three months.

MR VAN VUUREN: That is correct.

MR CURRIN: When did you become suspicious?

MR VAN VUUREN: As I have already explained, Maake cameto  our offices on his own, out of his own volition.  The onlyway in which he was able to enter our offices was that there weretwo guards of the Special Guard Unit at the entrance and thenyou had to use a lift up to our offices.  There were activistsof other sections who were taken in and out  of our offices allthe time from gaol, up and down, in and out of the offices.  Youcould only use this life.  On many
1B occasions/...
MR CURRIN 362 J J VAN VUUREN
occasions it happened that the guard would phone us from the bottomthat Mr Maake was standing there waiting for us, and on one occasionhe simply came up in the lift,  claiming that he was a policeofficer, and he came up in the lift and  that made us concerned,something was going wrong.

MR CURRIN: Did you never allow informants into your offices? Or was it against the policy?  Was it against policy, practice,what was ....(intervention).

MR VAN VUUREN: The informants would be in our officeson  the day of their recruiting and possibly very late at nightwhen we in one way or another made them impossible to recognise. If they left our offices in broad daylight they would be deadthe next day.

MR CURRIN: ... I assume you are talking about Wagthuisnow, when you talk about your offices?

MR VAN VUUREN: No, I am talking about Compol.

MR CURRIN: Was the purpose to protect information withinCompol or was the purpose to protect the informant's identity,to protect him from ....(intervention).

MR VAN VUUREN: It was in two parts.  In the  first placeto protect the identity of the informant, to maintain its clandestinenature and secondly to keep all the information in our officesclandestine.

MR CURRIN: ... to torture him after you suspected thathe  was a double agent?

MR VAN VUUREN: That is correct.

MR CURRIN: (COMMENCEMENT OF TAPE 2 SIDE A) ... fairlyquickly admitted that he was a double agent.

MR VAN VUUREN: That is correct.

MR CURRIN: That one is a double agent when one is beingtortured and asked to admit.  Surely it places one in an
2A invidious/...
MR CURRIN 363 J J VAN VUUREN
invidious situation.  You are being tortured and you are
being asked to admit something.  You know that you are facingdeath, do you deny it?

MR VAN VUUREN: No, he did not know that he was going tobe killed, nor did we know that we were going to kill him.

MR CURRIN: (Question inaudible)

MR VAN VUUREN: The fact that he made available the nameof Makope and that we went to the offices from there, that madeclear to us that he was in fact a double agent.

MR CURRIN: ... after you began to torture him.

MR VAN VUUREN: That is correct.  He only mentioned thisname after we proceeded with the interrogation using the generator.

MR CURRIN: Not as a double agent, but as an informant he would know  who the activists are in the greater Pretoriaregion.

MR VAN VUUREN: He had never before made Makope's nameknown to us in any report that he had  written to us.  The nameof Makope was never mentioned to us.  This was the first occasionon which this happened.  That's why we went back to the officesto check the truth of what he said.  We drew Makope's file inour offices.

MR CURRIN: ... in the past as an informant?

MR VAN VUUREN: I can no longer remember.  It might havebeen 10 or 50 names.  There were many reports written.  I canno longer remember.

MR CURRIN: Why do you say so categorically that he hadn'tmentioned his name before, Makope?

MR VAN VUUREN: That is correct.  He mentioned Makope'sname at that time.

MR CURRIN: You already had a file.

MR VAN VUUREN: That is correct.
2A

MR CURRIN: /...
MR CURRIN 364 J J VAN VUUREN

MR CURRIN: You already had a file.

MR VAN VUUREN: That is correct.  Makope did have a  file.

MR CURRIN: ... file been opened?

MR VAN VUUREN: I am not understanding this question.

CHAIRPERSON: ... somebody else may have done it, Mr Currin.

MR CURRIN: I accept that.  I just question the fact thatyou say categorically that he never mentioned Makope's name before,but yet there was a file.

CHAIRPERSON: It is not inconsistent.

MR CURRIN: Not necessarily.  During your testimony youdidn't repeat at all your evidence which is in writing on pages111 and 112 and 113.  That evidence relates to the purpose oftorture, of interrogation and torture.  Correct?

MR VAN VUUREN: I don't understand  the question.

MR CURRIN: In your application on pages 111 to 113 youdeal with the purpose of interrogation and torture.

MR VAN VUUREN: That is correct.