Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — UNKNOWN

MR CURRIN: That's the purpose, we don't know, becausethere seem to be a number of contradictions.  The fact that MrsMaake says her son never ever left the country, he was in Std8 at school at the time, we want to check to make sure it is thesame person.  We have five copies.  I will hand one to my colleagueand three to you and one to the witness.
You said in evidence that if you saw him in a photograph you wouldbe able to identify him.  I have two questions.  The
3A The/...
400 J J VAN VUUREN
The first one is, is he in that photograph?

MR VAN VUUREN: Yes, he is on the photo.

MR CURRIN: Which one is he?   Point to the photographand indicate.

MR VAN VUUREN: It is that one.  (Witness indicates) Yes, the one who is sitting like this.  (Indicates)

JUDGE WILSON: Mr Currin, could you perhaps tell us ifthat's the information that you have as well.

MR CURRIN: That is the information that we have;  I haveconfirmed that.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: When was this photograph taken?

MR CURRIN: It was actually taken, according to our instructions,six months before he disappeared, not two years.

CHAIRPERSON: ... be handed in as EXHIBIT G.   Thiswill be handed in as EXHIBIT H.

MR CURRIN: A general statement was made during cross-examinationwhich I think I may have misunderstood but I would like to justget clarity on what the witness said.  If I may ask one more question.  The witness spoke about a modus operandi as to what theydid with the arms and ammunition that in general terms were returnedto your office, and you said that you booby-trapped weapons andhid them away, planted them somewhere so that if an activist pickedthem up and used those weapons they would blow themselves up. Did I understand you correctly?  Is that what you did with armsthat came into your possession?

CHAIRPERSON: I think he was talking about the arms that werebrought in by Maake from Swaziland.

MR CURRIN: I just want clarity.  Is that what they did? They just booby-trapped them and hid them away and if they
3A were/...
401 J J VAN VUUREN
were found the person who found them could use them and be blownup, an unidentified target, is that the extent of your evidence?

MR VAN VUUREN: No.  I never received weapons from Mr Maake. It was the modus operandi if an informant did bring weaponsin they were first brought to the offices of the Security Police,they were then booby-trapped, then they were given back to theinformant without his knowledge and he then went and buried it.

MR CURRIN: They were buried for some unidentified targetto pick up and use and blow him or herself up, without knowingwho the potential target would be, is that what you are saying?

MR VAN VUUREN: No.  If those weapons were buried, thepersons who later came in and used them they would know exactlywhere to find the weapons.  That is how the ANC worked at thatstage.

MR CURRIN: If my son were to be playing in the field andhe were to find arms that have been hidden and he were to pickup something and see whether it worked, would he blow himselfup?  That is what I am trying to establish.  They were booby-trapped,hid in the field somewhere.  Anybody could find them, that iswhat I am trying to establish.

MR VAN VUUREN: As I said, it was not the case that anybodycould find it.  Persons who later came in to find it, would knowexactly where to find it, but if the boy would have been to findit in the veld he could have been injured, that is correct.

JUDGE WILSON: I have some problem with this though.  AsI understand your evidence, this was part of the normal delivery. Maake brought weapons in, he would have
3A instructions/...
402 J J VAN VUUREN
instructions to leave them at a certain place where the next activistwould come and fetch them, and that is what you mean when - heleft them at a specified place so they could be passed on to thepeople who were going to use them.  Is that your evidence?

MR VAN VUUREN: That's what I am saying.

JUDGE WILSON: Surely, once they get a batch of booby-trappedweapons, they are immediately going to blame your informant forthis?

MR VAN VUUREN: It is possible that they could blame him. That is possible.

JUDGE WILSON: ... using your informant to possibly killsome people and possibly to get killed himself.

MR VAN VUUREN: That is correct.  That is the kind of warwe were fighting and that was also the war they were fighting. There were no rules in this war. (COMMENCEMENT OF RECORDING TAPE3B)

UNKNOWN: ... the young man disappeared according tohis mother ...

MR CURRIN: On the 13th July 1987.  Mr Van Vuuren, couldyou just describe to the Committee and everybody here how weaponswere normally hidden away in a case.  Would it be possible fora schoolboy to pick it up in the veld?

MR VAN VUUREN: No, it is highly unlikely.  Weapons wereusually wrapped in tin foil, they were wrapped in plastic andthen they were put in a hole approximately a metre and a halfdeep.  They were buried in the earth.

MR CURRIN: Was it completely covered with earth?

MR VAN VUUREN: Yes, the hole was covered with earth andusually they had cross-references to find the place.  If you didnot know about the place there is no way you could ever
3B find/...
403 J J VAN VUUREN
find it.

MR CURRIN: In other words a schoolboy could not easilyfind them in the veld.

MR VAN VUUREN: No, the chances were zero for that.

MR CURRIN: Mr Van Vuuren, the persons who were informantsof the Security Branch, to whom was it known that they were informantsof the Security Branch?

MR VAN VUUREN: It was known to his handler and to thesection head and also to Security Headquarters.

MR CURRIN: Would such an informant for example have toldhis family that he was an informant?

MR VAN VUUREN: It was highly unlikely because he wouldhave been killed.

MR CURRIN: And if an informant like Maake, as heard, wasa schoolboy, if he was driving around with a car, would he havedisclosed the place where he found the car to his family?

MR VAN VUUREN: Yes, I believe so, but I do not believethat he would have received the car from us.

MR CURRIN: Would he have told his family where he gotthe car?

MR VAN VUUREN: No, he would not.

MR CURRIN: Mr Van Vuuren, I ask you because you are theperson with the experience, you know how informants worked.  Ionly ask your opinion for what it is worth and I would later argueabout it.  Would you see it as a possibility under the circumstancesif we accept that Maake received the vehicle from you, somebodywho did not usually have a vehicle, would you say that it is apossibility that he would have disclosed where he got the carto his family?

MR VAN VUUREN: Yes, I believe he would disclose it tohis
3A family/...
404 J J VAN VUUREN
family.  If Mr Maake was indeed a schoolboy he was very seldomin school.  He often saw us in the mornings.

MR CURRIN: Where did you usually see Mr Maake?

MR VAN VUUREN: Usually in the Holiday Inn in Pretoria. There was a postbox at the post office where he could leave amessage for us.  He could just put the letter in the letterbox. The box was opened every morning to see if there was any informationin it and then after he received the car we met him at variousplaces.  I cannot remember exactly where.

MR CURRIN: Did he give you information regarding peoplewho were in schools or were involved with schools or was the informationmuch wider than that?

MR VAN VUUREN: No, we did not work with that section. Our section was busy with ANC and black power activities.

MR CURRIN: Was that the information he gave to you?

MR VAN VUUREN: Yes, that was the information he startedwith.

MR CURRIN: Did he ever on your request come to the officesof the Security Branch?

MR VAN VUUREN: No, I never asked him to come there becausewe were afraid for his identity.

MR CURRIN: Mr Van Vuuren, did Mr Sefola, when you questionedhim, when you interrogated him and when you were shocking him,did he disclose some information to you?  Mr Sefola.

MR VAN VUUREN: (Answer not recorded)