Amnesty Hearings — Benoni — 1997-06-23

UNKNOWN: General let me refresh your memory with regard to your own testimony.   You've said that you spoke to your son at Mamelodi, you said that Hechter and him should come and see you for a little informal discussion in your office ...(intervention)

JOHANNES JACOBUS VIKTOR: No I never said he and Hechter should come and visit me.

UNKNOWN: But you did say he should come and see you, Hechter and van Jaarsveld just happened to come along.

JOHANNES JACOBUS VIKTOR: That is correct.

UNKNOWN: You then said that the conversation involved the considerable intimidation during that time, particularly in the Black living areas; that there was intimidation which made it impossible for the police and the Investigative Unit to achieve their purposes; they were not able to bring people before court, no one wanted to bring testimony; these people were well-known; the police officers were attacked with petrol bombs and the situation was unbearable.  If I understand you correctly what you are now saying to us is that you were worried about the situation but all that you could really say to these policemen is that they had to do their job, they just had to continue arresting these people, do I understand you correctly?

JOHANNES JACOBUS VIKTOR: That is correct.  I cannot make it any clearer, chase these people, keep them moving.

UNKNOWN: You never went so far even as to give an instruction or to make it stronger, you only made the suggestion to them, they must chase these people, they must just do their job well and arrest these people, is that correct?

JOHANNES JACOBUS VIKTOR: I have mentioned already that this was a suggestion.  I was not in a position, since we are working here with Security Branch staff I could not give them instructions.

UNKNOWN: I hear what you are saying with regard to this General and we will get to that in a moment.  The question I am asking you, and which the Committee has asked you, we are asking you to help us.  We were not involved in the system at that time.  We are trying to understand the system.  What we are asking you is, you were concerned about this entire situation.  The situation was unbearable.  But you are saying to these people, in an informal suggestion, folks just do your job, go and arrest these people, why would you say this to them, in view of your concerns?

JUDGE WILSON: He gave his evidence originally, I do not recollect him saying anything about "arrest people", he said chase them, hunt them, intimidate them - arrest them.

UNKNOWN: Yes, thank you, thank you Mr Chairman you are absolutely 100% correct.  In the context of that question he didn't say that.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Mr du Plessis, but didn't he go on to say something further, he stated that the suggestion he gave them was if a fellow policeman's house had been bombed then they should do the same thing - and eye for an eye!

UNKNOWN: Yes Mr Chairman I was building up to that one.

CHAIRPERSON: It's now been built up already.  (General laughter)

JOHANNES JACOBUS VIKTOR: Chair I did not use the term or the phrase "an eye for an eye".

SISI KHAMPEPE: That's correct.

UNKNOWN: General let me state your own testimony to you.  You said - your testimony was
"Chase these people day and night.  They must have no opportunity to continue with their intimidation.  They must know that they are being hunted down.  The instruction was not to eliminate these people, our people were under pressure.  When a police officer's home was attacked with a petrol bomb then that person's house also had to be attacked with a petrol bomb.  I did not, however, say that they should act pro-actively".
That was your testimony.
	Now I want to ask you, explain to us in the context of your previous comments this statement with regard to throwing petrol bombs, thrown by police officers in the exercise of their duty, could you explain to us how this fits into this context.

JOHANNES JACOBUS VIKTOR: I want to state again that I never used the word "pro-actively".  My testimony is furthermore that where a police officer's home was attacked with a petrol bomb and if you know who the persons were who were responsible then that person's home should also be attacked with a petrol bomb.  I did not say who should do this.

UNKNOWN: Oh so you did not say who should do this?

JUDGE WILSON: Who do you suggest should do it?

JOHANNES JACOBUS VIKTOR: Chair I believe the members involved with the matter could have done it.  On the other hand Chair, you would have people on your side who might well do this.  I am referring for instance to persons who were supportive of the security forces, members of the public, members of the Black public who might have done this.

JUDGE WILSON: Members of gangs who were called in to help the Police.

JOHANNES JACOBUS VIKTOR: No Chair, I bear no knowledge of gangs who were called in to assist the Police.

UNKNOWN: Are you saying that action should have been taken by the Police to arrange that someone should throw petrol bombs, to organise that someone should throw petrol bombs at these people, why else would you say this?

JOHANNES JACOBUS VIKTOR: I have already explained that the members who were responsible for this matter, or persons who were supportive of the security forces, who did work with the security forces, should have done so.

UNKNOWN: General ...(intervention)

SISI KHAMPEPE: Can I interpose Mr du Plessis.  General you proceeded to speak to Brigadier Cronje regarding the suggestions that you had discussed with his underlings.

JOHANNES JACOBUS VIKTOR: That was my testimony, Chair.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Couldn't one presume that the whole thing was again to engender a suggestion that you should also proceed to act in accordance with your suggestion?

JOHANNES JACOBUS VIKTOR: Chair I have mentioned that this was merely a suggestion.  It was the responsibility of Brigadier Cronje to accept the suggestion or not.  I could not give him instructions.  It was not within the ambit of my powers to give him instructions.

UNKNOWN: General but if you accepted it then it would have meant that you would have followed up on your suggestion to act illegally, is that correct?

JOHANNES JACOBUS VIKTOR: Had he accepted it that was his own decision whether he wanted to carry it out or not.

UNKNOWN: General, just to return to the throwing of petrol bombs, would you agree with me that to throw a petrol bomb at someone's house, whether a police officer does this, whether anyone else does this, that this would be an illegal, criminal act?

JOHANNES JACOBUS VIKTOR: I would agree with you and I would take responsibility for it.

UNKNOWN: What are you taking responsibility for General?

JOHANNES JACOBUS VIKTOR: You are saying it is illegal for someone to have done so and if I had made such a suggestion, the suggestion, had it been carried out.

UNKNOWN: Would you take responsibility for the suggestion having been carried out?

JOHANNES JACOBUS VIKTOR: What I am saying is that, yes, I would bear responsibility for the suggestion.

UNKNOWN: And for its execution?

JOHANNES JACOBUS VIKTOR: Yes and for the action in terms of the suggestion.

UNKNOWN: You would then accept, General, that to throw a petrol bomb might well lead to the death of a person?

JOHANNES JACOBUS VIKTOR: That is possible but very unlikely.

JUDGE WILSON: How can you say that?  There have been numerous cases before our courts where women and children who are in houses that have been petrol-bombed have died in the fire, how can you say it's very unlikely?

JOHANNES JACOBUS VIKTOR: Chair, no, perhaps I have said this too euphemistically, this might occur depending on where you throw the petrol bomb, if people are at home, if you throw the petrol bomb inside the house, through a window, then there would be problems.