Amnesty Hearings — Bloemfontein — 1998-08-17

MR STEENKAMP: It's a Security Branch information piece, would you agree with me?

JACOBUS JOHANNES DE RU: Yes I do.

MR STEENKAMP: A Security Branch information memorandum.  Can you see it's marked "Top Secret"?

JACOBUS JOHANNES DE RU: Yes.

MR STEENKAMP: If you go to page 116, paragraph 15, do you see that?

JACOBUS JOHANNES DE RU: Yes.

MR STEENKAMP: Please correct me if I'm wrong but it seems to me that this is a report from the information as it was existing at that time, do you agree with me?

JACOBUS JOHANNES DE RU: Yes, information which was available to Harley.

MR STEENKAMP: And then in paragraph 15 it reads as follows, it's "Comment by Captain de Ru".  Do you see that?

JACOBUS JOHANNES DE RU: Yes.

MR STEENKAMP: You don't see anywhere there in no word whatsoever, no word indicates the fact that you had information which indicated to the fact that these people were trained MK terrorists and this is the Security Branches own report with comments by you.

JACOBUS JOHANNES DE RU: Here it was only with regard to the actions which took place, only to deal with the action itself which happened on Wednesday the 1st.

MR STEENKAMP: The point I'm trying to make is, if you told Security Branch, one would have expected it to appear in here?

JACOBUS JOHANNES DE RU: That was information which went from Fouche to them.  That was information that went from Fouche to Harley.  I'm talking specifically of Harley now.  This information about the Chinese person who was involved, I do not know where that information came from.  I also testified that around this report it was necessary for me to write this letter to Eikenhof with regards to the allegation in paragraph 14.

MR STEENKAMP: So you're saying this report is not correct?

JACOBUS JOHANNES DE RU: A lot of it is not correct.

MR STEENKAMP: Did you have an opportunity before today to read through this bundle and to read the statements of the people who I have quoted to you and to go through all these documents?  Did you have the opportunity?

JACOBUS JOHANNES DE RU: Chairperson, I provided these documents, the statements in the back I do not carry any knowledge of them.

MR STEENKAMP: Did you read the statements of Fouche and De Lange in this bundle, did you read through this information before today?

JACOBUS JOHANNES DE RU: Are you referring to the two statements right in the back?

MR STEENKAMP: Yes, the ones I referred you to.

JACOBUS JOHANNES DE RU: No.

MR STEENKAMP: You didn't have an opportunity to read them?

JACOBUS JOHANNES DE RU: No I did not.  The first time I became aware of this was when my advocate came to see me on Saturday, Saturday now past, two days ago.

MR STEENKAMP: And then in conclusion I would just like to summarise by asking you this question.  You say that both De Lange and Fouche and the family members of the deceased - maybe I've just left something out, let me just give you the last quote.  I beg your indulgence for the last question.  Can we look at page 256, do you have it in front of you?

JACOBUS JOHANNES DE RU: I do.

MR STEENKAMP: And correct me if I'm wrong, this is a statement of Deon Arons Sevenster, is that correct?

JACOBUS JOHANNES DE RU: Yes I see that.

MR STEENKAMP: Is it correct if I say that Mr Sevenster at that stage was appointed to deal with certain cases in which you were involved, is that correct?

JACOBUS JOHANNES DE RU: Yes he had to investigate it.

MR STEENKAMP: He was part of the Special Investigation Team to investigate certain cases in which you were involved, is that correct?

JACOBUS JOHANNES DE RU: That is correct.

MR STEENKAMP: If you look at the last paragraph of this statement then he refers to this specific incident, this is on page 256, right at the bottom.  There he refers specifically to this incident, can you see that?

JACOBUS JOHANNES DE RU: Yes I do.

MR STEENKAMP: Now if you turn the page, paragraph 6, then I'd like to read it for you.
"At the investigation where I was involved, I came to the conclusion that the crimes were not political of nature but they were criminal acts."
Paragraph 7:
"If all these incidents were politically inspired it would have been investigated by the security police, that would have been the normal procedure."

JACOBUS JOHANNES DE RU: With regards to paragraph 6 Mr Chairperson, that's his opinion.  Here where I'm sitting here today, Mr Sevenster did not talk to me about the shooting at Vaalpark, nothing at all.  With regards to paragraph 7 it's also not true.  I did the investigations, I visited and did a lot of cases in the townships, I did the Noxi Gang cases in Parys and today realise it's political and it was not investigated by the security branch, it was investigated by the detective branch.  The security branch investigations, I cannot tell you what they would have or would not have done.  I cannot comment on that but with regards to paragraph 6 and 7, I do not agree with that.

MR STEENKAMP: Regarding the facts as I've put it to you, my last question to you is then - and once again please help me if I'm wrong, it would seem to me that all the people who are involved in this gang, Fouche, De Lange and the deceased families, at least five groups of people who knew the deceased very well, they all say that they were not politically active, you are the only person who says otherwise.  Can you give us an explanation why all these people would say that?

JACOBUS JOHANNES DE RU: I cannot explain why they say that, Chairperson.

MR STEENKAMP: Thank you Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR STEENKAMP

MR COETZEE: Mr Chairman, if I can proceed on behalf of Mr Fouche?
	Mr de Ru, in the bundle in front of you, you read the statements of Mr Christian Jacobus Andries Fouche as it is contained in the bundle on page 152.  Further as well as page 252 and onwards, did you read the two statements of his? Have you read all these statements?

JACOBUS JOHANNES DE RU: Yes I have.

MR COETZEE: Now I want to put it to you and it's also my instruction on behalf of Mr Fouche, that the incidents as is put in the statements with regards to this specific incident and the run up to that incident, it's all described here, is not correct and what is contained there is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, that it's not correct and I specifically refer to the statement on page 152.
	Mr Chairman, I'm not going to waste the Commission's time with lengthy cross-examination, I'm going to leave it there.  Thank you very much.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you going to subsequently ask us to accept Mr Fouche's version?

MR COETZEE: Mr Chairman you will note that Mr Fouche is not here as an applicant and my submission is that his evidence, as I am instructed, is in fact the truth and that he has given his version as to the best of his ability in the papers which are before the Commission, Chairperson, and he's not here Mr Chairman, to come and prove or disprove anything.

CHAIRPERSON: No, I'm just asking you.  You don't have to go and cross-examine, it's not a trial or anything but I feel that it should be put to Mr de Ru that it appears on Mr Fouche's evidence that: "This was a planned killing by you, what is your comment?"

CHAIRPERSON: It's right the way you said it, Chairperson.  From his statement it would seem the case, but it's not true.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR COETZEE

MR JOUBERT: I haven't got any questions, Mr Chairman.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR JOUBERT

CHAIRPERSON: Re-examination?

MR MADASA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, I don't know whether Mr Steenkamp has any other questions in his other capacity, till now they appear to have been on behalf of the victims.

MR STEENKAMP: Thank you Mr Chairman, I don't have any other questions.  Thank you, Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well.  Re-examination.