Amnesty Hearings — Pretoria — 1997-02-27

HASSAN MALL: Are we ready, gentlemen?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Thank you Mr Chairman.
	Mr Chairman, it is 27th February 1997, continuation in the matter, Mr Chairman, as agreed 
yesterday that we will first start with the evidence or questioning of General van der Merwe, he is herein 
present Mr Chairman.

UNKNOWN: (sworn states)

HASSAN MALL: You gave evidence in this matter on a previous occasion and at the request of counsel, 
further questioning of you was reserved and, you are here this morning to make yourself available to deal 
with such questions as are relevant that are going to be put to you.
GEN V/

UNKNOWN: I am at your disposal Mr Chairman.

HASSAN MALL: Mr Currin.

MR CURRIN: Thank you, Mr Chairman.	General van der Merwe, you 
will recall that during your evidence-in-chief a lot was said about so-called preemptive attacks, and these I 
am referring particularly to the unlawful preemptive attacks that have been referred to by the applicants in 
this particular matter. Would you please clarify for us what the SAP policy was in regard to preemptive 
attacks by the security forces and if you are in a position to do so, whether you can tell us what the 
government policy was with regard to preemptive attacks?
GEN V/

UNKNOWN: I would just like to differentiate, Mr Chairman, between the internal and external 
activities. 
PRETORIA HEARING	AMNESTY/

MR CURRIN: 233	GEN V/

UNKNOWN: Firstly, as far as internal activities are concerned there was no policy either from the side of the government 
or from the side of the police as far as preemptive attacks are concerned. Incidents which did occur, 
occurred on an ad hoc basis against the background which I attempted to sketch to you, honourable 
Chairman, taking into consideration all the facts which were relevant and all the considerations which 
members had to operate under the circumstances. 
	As far as external activities were concerned there was also no policy. The government as far as 
external activities were considered did this in terms of the international law and with the determined 
circumstances at hand which had to be considered at that point. There was a general approach that we, as 
far as threats in neighbouring countries were concerned, would act in order to combat potential threats and 
where necessary persons who according to our information were ready to come into the country to come 
and kill anyone, to commit any form of terrorism to eliminate such persons.

MR CURRIN: It would seem that from the evidence submitted by the applicants a perception existed in 
their minds that there was a policy and a general instruction and a general authorisation to undertake 
unlawful preemptive action. Do you have anything to say about that perception?  
GEN V/

UNKNOWN: Yes, Honourable Chairman.  If a person bears in mind that for all practical purposes 
we find ourselves in a war situation where members of particularly the South African Police, but the 
Defence Force in general, were exposed to attacks and organisations such as the ANC policies were that 
where they got the opportunity to shoot these persons or whichever other way they could, they could find to 
eliminate these people. 
PRETORIA HEARING	AMNESTY/

MR CURRIN: 234	GEN V/

UNKNOWN: Secondly, if you should look at certain ad hoc incidents where there was government permission 
granted, in other cases where with the permission of higher authorities certain acts were performed or not 
necessarily under the circumstances which prevailed at the time were not illegal, but at the time which is 
now the question of amnesty, but I think to the ordinary person who had the privilege to be involved in 
these discussions at a higher level and was exposed to political speeches and who had authority and who 
created the impression that the enemy should be eliminated at all costs, it is possible that such an 
impression could have been created.

MR CURRIN: Would that include divisional commissioners, for example we have heard from the 
previous divisional commissioner of the Northern Transvaal that that was his perception, is he also a 
"gewone man"?
GEN V/

UNKNOWN: Yes, these are persons who were not necessarily directly involved in the State 
Security Council and the different committees of the State Security Council and who at that level always 
assumed how these things should be approached.

MR CURRIN: Are you then saying that that perception which existed in the minds of very, very senior 
police officers, from your view was both understandable and justifiable?
GEN V/

UNKNOWN: In the extraordinary circumstances which prevailed your Honourable Chairman, I say 
yes.

MR CURRIN: Would you agree that the government, certainly the cabinet, the relevant Ministers played a 
significant role in contributing towards that perception by not making strong statements against some of the 
things which were in fact happening, and by some of the speeches which were made 
PRETORIA HEARING	AMNESTY/

MR CURRIN: 235	GEN V/

UNKNOWN: on television, radio etc.
GEN. V/

UNKNOWN: Honourable Chairman, it is very difficult to generalise.  You know when one applies 
such a point of view to the whole government it is not necessarily applicable to all the members, but in 
certain instances, the way I saw the circumstances, I would say yes.

MR CURRIN: If that is the case, and here we are talking about the perception to commit unlawful 
preemptive assaults, attacks, would you agree with me that in contributing towards that perception or that 
contribution towards that perception would be tantamount to implied authority?
GEN V/

UNKNOWN: Honourable Chairman, I think that would be taking it a bit too far. One has to bear in 
mind that persons who made these utterances and who occasionally were involved in certain incidents from 
the side of the government, also saw it in the light that these particular incidents and I do not think it would 
be appropriate or it would be fair to the previous government to generalise and to say that from their side 
there was an indifferent approach and in that manner there was permission granted for these type of acts.

MR CURRIN: Are you therefore saying, do I understand you to be saying then, that in spite of the fact that 
the perception was there and was partially as result of omissions or actions by government, when such 
unlawful preemptive acts were committed by security force members, there was no authority to commit 
them, either express or implied?
GEN V/

UNKNOWN: What I mean by that is that the previous government chose to grant permission 
silently without saying anything but if you are looking at the members who were 
PRETORIA HEARING	AMNESTY/

MR CURRIN: 236	GEN V/

UNKNOWN: involved and asking what their perception was, you would say that they obviously believed that they were 
acting in the interests of the previous government. I do not think that one could put the two on the exact 
same footing or have the same approach.

MR CURRIN: The difficulty I am grappling with and ...(intervention)

HASSAN MALL: When you say that the government gave permission silently, are you saying that after the 
event the government approved of what was done, is that what you are tying to convey?
GEN. V/