Amnesty Hearings — Benoni — 1997-06-23

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chair.  Perhaps with your leave Mr Chairman I intend to give a little bit of background to pick up the strings, as it were.
	Mr Chairman, the first document which I wish to refer to is the notification in terms of Section 19(4) for General Viktor to appear before you and in particular Annexure A which is attached thereto, you will observe Mr Chairman that there are really three points made, if you have that document before you, it is Annexure A attached to a letter by your Committee dated the 23rd of April 1997.  
	The three issues involve the following:
1.	It is quoted both Cronje and Hechter testified that the former Brigadier, i.e. Viktor, instructed them to act pro-actively.
	2.	At page 92 of the record,
		"General van der Merwe advises the Committee that former Brigadier Viktor has a different recollection of his instruction, the instruction is crucial to and understanding of the applicant's general motivation".
And that would take up most of our time obviously Mr Chairman.  And then point three is -
3.	In respect of the Nietverdiend, that is incorrectly spelt, Nietverdiend incident, Cronje testifies that Viktor phoned him and congratulated him on the execution of the operation.  This response by Viktor forms part of the general motivation of the applicants.
	Mr Chairman why we referred to this document is that there is one other crucial incident which the officer of your Committee seems to have left out, and that concerns the evidence of Cronje in regard to a certain person that was assassinated. I am referring to this a little bit out of context if you will bear with me for a moment I will attempt to find the reference on the record where actually Brigadier Viktor is directly implicated. Perhaps my learned friend Mr Mpshe could assist me, it's either Thabedi or Sibiya, the assassination or elimination of that gentleman.  
	If you will allow Mr Chairman I will find it in due course, but I just wished at this point in time to draw your attention to that incident and just in the event of your wishing to obtain clarity as far as that is concerned as well.  While the General is here he may as well answer questions on that score as well.
	Mr Chairman, prior to today - well first of all may I refresh your memory that General Viktor has filed an application for amnesty before you.  We are not going to refer to any of the details thereof, save for saying one thing, you will observe that he does not apply for amnesty insofar as he is implicated by the present applicants in incidents.
	Then Mr Chairman, prior to today, an affidavit by General Viktor was filed.  May I assume that you have that before you?  Yes.  We will confirm that in evidence and there is one issue that we will have to clarify as far as that is concerned.
	Mr Chairman before General Viktor gives his evidence may I refer you to certain portions of your record.  May I first of all say that we did not obtain the full record.  What was provided to us are quite apparently extracts from the record so that if there are other references which we are unaware of we apologise that we don't know about them.  	But in regard to General Viktor's evidence, as we understand the evidence of Cronje and Van Vuuren, we haven't got Hechter's evidence, was that General Viktor would have given a general instruction as a result of which certain actions were taken by the Security Branch of the South African Police Northern Transvaal.  
	What is perhaps of interest to you is to be reminded, Mr Chairman, that General van der Merwe, who gave evidence, was asked about the instructions in general in Police circles and he was cross-examined as well.  
	Very shortly, Mr Chairman, and we are in your hands here, I could read the evidence to refresh your memory or I could simply give you the references. General van der Merwe, at page 82 of the record, on cross-examination by Mr du Plessis gave evidence.  The question by Mr du Plessis starts at line 5 more-or-less and it deals with instructions and commands.  And General van der Merwe, at the bottom of that page refers you to the system of how commands and regulations pertained in the Police, including in the Security Branch of the Police, it goes over the page Mr Chairman.  
	It's a long passage, I'm not going to read it, but may I summarise that the gist of that evidence appears to be that these were done formally, it was a formal structure in which commands were given.  Why we mention this specifically, Mr Chairman, as we will remind you and we will come to that, that Mr Cronje's evidence was that the whole Police strategy changed, as far as he was concerned, because of one telephone call he received from then Brigadier Viktor, as a result of which there was a full-scale war set afoot.   And it's against the background of that evidence that we refer you to this particular piece of evidence.
	Mr Chairman the other issue which you might wish to consider in the evidence of General Viktor is that the evidence of Brigadier Cronje was,  that because of this general instruction a licence, as it were, was given to members of the Security Branch to act illegally.  
	Now General van der Merwe also gave evidence on that score at page 84 around line 26, or starting at line 22 Mr Chairman and it goes over the page.  And he continues at page 85, at line 22 referring to how the Police were supposed to act, i.e. in terms of the Police Act and regulations.	Instructions from the Security Council etc you will find that at page 85 Mr Chairman.  The gist of which again, if I may be allowed to summarise, is that the Police at all times were required to act within the law.  That is the evidence of General van der Merwe.
	And he says at page 87, perhaps I should just read this by way of summary Mr Chairman, 87 line 28.  Mr du Plessis says,
"Was a decision ever taken?  Do you know of any decision policy which provided that the South African Police would not act in a reactionary way against terrorist but also pro-actively to prevent these acts?"
And General van der Merwe answers;
"Are you speaking generally now?"
Mr du Plessis says,
"Yes".
And van der Merwe says,
"Apart from action abroad...."
and you will recall Mr Chairman that General van der Merwe drew a distinction between the conduct of the Police internally and actions abroad, and he again refers to that distinction, he says.
"Apart from actions abroad where the general view was that because we didn't have the various rights and competencies which we had internally, other  actions were considered legitimate in order to level the playing field in combatting the enemy.  In many cases operations undertaken outside the borders of the country were authorised by the former government, but there were also cases where, especially as far as our neighbouring states, actions were taken without them being authorised explicitly.  But where actions were taken at a local level, that is internally, as a result of the fact that the opportunity presented itself to act against somebody identified as a member of the enemy......"
and then Mr du Plessis refers to page 10 of the Commissioner's submission where a reference is made in the second last line at page 88 to conventional warfare.  
	Mr Chairman he goes on further on in his evidence, may I just be allowed to summarise.  At the end of the day van der Merwe's evidence can be summarised to say that internally the Police were called upon to act and were expected to act legally.
	As far as instructions further are concerned Mr Chairman may I refer you to page 89 line 21 ...(intervention)