Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — UNKNOWN

CHAIRPERSON: In this case who would it be to whom he madethis report?

ANSWER: These would have been the B Section who dealtwith the Black Power matters.

CHAIRPERSON: ...obviously before the plan was implemented?

ANSWER: Not necessarily, he might have given reportsprior to this on their activities.   His report that they wantedto receive military training, that would have been an oral orverbal report.

JUDGE WILSON: : You made no attempt to prosecute them either,did you.

ANSWER: At that time I had no testimony which I coulduse in a case against them.

JUDGE WILSON: : With the facilities available to you, youcould have quite easily installed tape recorders into the Kombi,you could have recorded their conversations with Mamasela, couldyou not?

ANSWER: Again I would have to use Mamasela as a witness,
3b which /...
COMMITTEE 609 J H CRONJE
which I could not do.

JUDGE WILSON: : We come back to the position that we'vehad in previous cases, that once you used Mamasela, the peoplehe dealt with were sentenced to death.   Is that the position?

ANSWER: Not in every case Chair.

JUDGE WILSON: : I thought that everyone you've told usso far where Mamasela dealt with people, they had to be killedto cover for Mamasela.   Is that not the position?

ANSWER: No, Mamasela did many other investigations.

JUDGE WILSON: : Well why didn't (indistinct) people tocover for Mamasela?

ANSWER: The purpose was not to protect his identity orto cover for him, but to prevent them from leaving the countryand from receiving military training because then they would havereturned as trained terrorists.

JUDGE WILSON: : ...arresting them and sending them to prisonfor a number of years, you would achieve that would you not? Many people were prosecuted, many people were sent to prison,but you choose not to take that route.   Is that not so?

ANSWER: I did so because I had insufficient testimonyfor a court case.

JUDGE WILSON: : You made no attempt to get any, did you?

ANSWER: Not at that time, no.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CURRIN

<UNKNOWN>: Thank you Mr Chairman.   When were the SpecialForces linked to this matter, where was this planned, the planningof the link with Special Forces?

ANSWER: Is this the provisional planning.   Yes, theplanning which involved Special Forces made them available,
3b made /...
MR CURRIN 610 J H CRONJE
made the various bombs available and so forth.   This was
planned by Charl Naude.

<UNKNOWN>: Brigadier you know that in the 80's there wereliterally thousands of comrades in the townships around Pretoria?

ANSWER: That is the case.

<UNKNOWN>: You worked very closely with the Riot Squad,did you not?

ANSWER: Yes we did work closely with them.

<UNKNOWN>: You know that the modus operandi duringthe 80's with regard to the comrades was generally to call inthe Riot Squad, to break up public riots that were occurring inthe townships, to involve the Riot Squad in arresting literallyscores and scores of activists, of prosecuting them.   That wasthe modus operandi, it happened daily, you know that.

ANSWER: It did happen in this way yes.

<UNKNOWN>: That was the way in which the vast, vast majorityof comrades in the townships were dealt with.

ANSWER: That was the case.

<UNKNOWN>: You've told us that to qualify as an activist,in your terms to qualify for elimination, the particular activistneeded to have been involved in serious activities.  You saidthat it wasn't just one or two or three of the lesser significantactivities, is that correct?

ANSWER: That is the case.

<UNKNOWN>: For instance your evidence is that they wereinvolved in school boycotts, consumer boycotts and arson?

ANSWER: That is correct.

<UNKNOWN>: Were those activities sufficient to justifyelimination?
3b ANSWER: /...
MR CURRIN 611 J H CRONJE

ANSWER: No, the fact that they were on their way to
military training was, to my view, just cause for eliminatingthem.

CHAIRPERSON: Actually they were taken on their way to whatthey believed was military training, they were not on their waythey were being taken by you, isn't that so?

ANSWER: This is the case but it was their request Chair.
MR CURRIN (contd)

<UNKNOWN>: You don't know that for a fact.

ANSWER: This was Mamasela's report to me and I had noreason to distrust Mamasela or to doubt his word.

<UNKNOWN>: Mamasela had never gone to those particularcomrades, the likelihood is that those particular individualswould never on their own have made their way overseas.   The probabilityis that they would never ever on their own have made their wayoverseas for training as MK soldiers.

ANSWER: My instructions to Mamasela were never to enticeanyone, that people had to voluntarily decide to go for training.

<UNKNOWN>: Mamasela was a very, very professional operator.

ANSWER: I knew this and that is why I believed that whichhe told me.

<UNKNOWN>: A very professional operator in the townships.

ANSWER: This is in fact the case that is why I believedwhat he told me.

<UNKNOWN>: ...know that he was a man in his late 30's,I think probably late 30's at that stage, he made out to be asenior MK soldier, he goes into Mamelodi.   I put it to you thathe probably could have persuaded virtually any of the comradesto go into training across the border, if he tried.
3b ANSWER: /...
MR CURRIN 612 J H CRONJE

ANSWER: If he wanted to do yes he would have been ableto
but again my instruction to him was that he should not have doneso.   No I wouldn't know whether that was the case.

SISI KHAMPEPE: : May I interpose here?   Brigadier therewas no urgency to execute this operation, there was no great urgencyto eliminate the young activists, was there?

ANSWER: They wanted urgently to leave the country andtherefore I had no choice.

SISI KHAMPEPE: : But you could have made attempts to verifythe information that you had received from Mamasela that theywanted to train.   Why didn't you do that?

ANSWER: The fact that they were in fact on their waywith Mamasela convinced me that it was with the intent of receivingtraining.

JUDGE WILSON: : These men died on Mamasela's word, withno check from you, is that what you are now telling us?   Youaccepted what Mamasela told you.

ANSWER: Yes I did Chair.
MR CURRIN (contd)

<UNKNOWN>: Brigadier in your written statement at page89, the second paragraph, you say
  "The purpose of the operation was, however, to eliminateprospective activists..."
So in your own mind these were not really even qualified activists,they were only prospective activists?

ANSWER: That's an error, there should be "prospectiveMK soldiers".

<UNKNOWN>: ...must have read this on many occasions.

ANSWER: I did but this was a mistake.

MR DU PLESSIS: : Five sentences further he refers to "theelimination of prospective MK soldiers".   (Discussion asto 3b wording/...
MR CURRIN 613 J H CRONJE
wording of Brigadier Cronje's affidavit).

CHAIRPERSON: I don't want this argument to revolve aroundgrammatical construction or words and meanings.   Just the ideabehind it is what we should discuss and debate.
MR CURRIN (contd)

<UNKNOWN>: May it please the Court.   In your own...as"potential activists"?

ANSWER: I saw them as prospective MK soldiers Chair.

<UNKNOWN>: I think you should know a little bit aboutthe people that were involved in this incident.   In your applicationyou make no mention of their names, their ages or anything ofthat nature and I would like to use this opportunity to tell youwho they were.   Just for the record as well I think it mightbe helpful.   Mr Chairman I should just mention there is a certainamount of confusion with regard to the people who were killedin this particular incident.   There were two incidents whichhave been investigated by the office of the Attorney-General andsome of the parents are not sure whether their children were killedin this incident or the other incident.   So we actually have11 names and not 9.

CHAIRPERSON: Are these incidents separated in point of time?