Amnesty Hearings — Pretoria — 1997-02-24

UNKNOWN: That was the case.  Had there been terrorists, then one person would not have been able 
to engage in combat with them.  We needed more men, we would not have been able to get people there 
quickly from a distance and that is why we all drove out there.

JUDGE WILSON: But you've just told us that terrorists usually stayed there for a day, you could 
have kept someone watching the house, now you say oh, you couldn't have got there, you couldn't have 
done the 50 kilometres in time, what do you want us to accept?

UNKNOWN: Mr Chairman, if the terrorists had been there, then the five of us would have gone in and 
shot them.  Then I would not have driven back to Pretoria.

JUDGE WILSON: And if someone had gone there, Mamasela had gone there alone and phoned 
you up, how long would it have taken you to do the 50 kilometres from Pretoria?

UNKNOWN: Maybe three quarters of an hour.

JUDGE WILSON: Now it has just been put to you, not knowing whether there was a target there 
or not, five policemen, including two comparatively senior policemen set off on this journey, is that what 
you are saying?

UNKNOWN: That is in fact the case.

HASSAN MALL: Any re-examination?

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, thank you Mr Chairman.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Brigadier, I just want to clarify the operation 
somewhat.  The information which you received from Mamasela with regard to the particular address, 
when did you receive this information?  Was it on
PRETORIA HEARING	AMNESTY/

ADV DU PLESSIS: 15

UNKNOWN: that same day?

UNKNOWN: On the same day of the operation, yes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Okay, so the information which you received on that day from Mamasela, what was 
this information?  Did it simply confirm the particular address?

UNKNOWN: It confirmed that the house was used as a safe house for terrorists and he also said to me 
that it was possible for terrorists to have been there the coming evening.

ADV DU PLESSIS: When did you drive out?  In the evening?

UNKNOWN: Yes, it was that evening that we drove out.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Brigadier, let's just go through this again.  Your intention with regard to your action, 
if Mr Tsele had been there on his own, what would you action have been?

UNKNOWN: We then would have done nothing and would have returned to Pretoria.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And had there been, say, 10 armed terrorists with him in the house?

UNKNOWN: We would then have gone in and shot.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Would you have acted against armed terrorists and unarmed persons or against 
whom would you have acted?

UNKNOWN: Normally if there are terrorists in the house they would have had firearms.

ADV DU PLESSIS: In addition Brigadier, when you sent Mamasela and Bafana to scout the situation, 
what was the particular intention of this?

UNKNOWN: The intention was to determine whether there were terrorists in the house.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Brigadier would it have been normal in
PRETORIA HEARING	AMNESTY/

ADV DU PLESSIS: 16

UNKNOWN: an operation like this to have sent Mamasela out on his own to determine whether there were persons and 
then to have phoned back and you would then have had to come out?

UNKNOWN: No, that would not have been the case.  I could not send Mamasela on his own with the 
knowledge, or
the possibility that there might have been terrorists in the house.  He would not have been able to act 
against them on his own.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Brigadier, you are saying that you would not have eliminated Mr Tsele if Mr Mamasela 
had come back to report that Mr Tsele was in the house if there were no other people in the house whom 
you would have classified as terrorists?  Is that what you are saying?

UNKNOWN: That is the case, yes.

SISI KHAMPEPE: On page 110 Mr Cronje, the purpose which you state is that you had to eliminate ANC 
supporters, activists who were involved in acts of terrorism and there had been information, and reliable 
information for that matter, that Mr Tsele was a high profile activist.  So why would you not have 
eliminated him if Mr Mamasela had advised you of his presence there?

UNKNOWN: For this reason Mr Chairman, I wanted to kill - to reach two objectives at the same time, 
I would very much have wanted to have also caught other terrorists with Tsele and for that reason we 
would have preferred to have waited until there were other terrorists present in the house.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Brigadier, let's clarify this.  If we look at this hypothetically, had Mamasela not shot 
Tsele and had come back to you and said Tsele was here on his own, then you would not have shot Tsele, 
is that correct?
PRETORIA HEARING	AMNESTY/

ADV DU PLESSIS: 17

UNKNOWN: That is correct.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Would you then on a further occasion have gone out to see whether Tsele and other 
terrorists were to 
be found in the house?

UNKNOWN: I would have placed informants there to observe until there were terrorists in the house 
and then to
have informed us.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Would you then have acted against the terrorists?

UNKNOWN: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Cronje, now I don't understand you very clearly.  Why do you accept responsibility 
with regard to the death of Mr Tsele?  Your instruction to Mamasela and Bafana was not that they were to 
have shot this man?

UNKNOWN: These people were under my command, I was present and I believe that I was in fact an 
accessory to this act. 
	I did not do anything thereafter to charge Mr Mamasela, so I was definitely, I regard myself as an 
accessory.

ADV DE JAGER: Is that the basis on which you accept responsibility?

UNKNOWN: Yes, sir.

SISI KHAMPEPE: ...that the additional factor, Mr Cronje, that you allowed Mr Mamasela to go and 
investigate and you did nothing to prevent him to go there without an AK47, which you probably could 
have foreseen that he might have used on Mr Tsele?

UNKNOWN: I could probably have foreseen, but I could not have allowed him to go there unarmed 
with the knowledge that there were possibly terrorists there.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Brigadier, at that stage was there a 
PRETORIA HEARING	AMNESTY/

ADV DU PLESSIS: 17

UNKNOWN: decision taken that Tsele, if other terrorists were to have been found in the house there, that he should be 
eliminated alongside with them?

UNKNOWN: Yes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And Mamasela knew that?

UNKNOWN: Yes, he did.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Brigadier, you were asked with regard to Mamasela, did you do anything with 
regards to the fact that Mamasela was not acting with regard to your instructions?

UNKNOWN: Of course I gave him a warning.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And Brigadier, would Mamasela's actions at that stage, would they have enabled you 
to form an opinion that he was unreliable or not trustworthy?

UNKNOWN: No, I did not see it as such.  I trusted him.

ADV DU PLESSIS: What was your experience at a later stage with him with regard to his reliability and 
trust?

UNKNOWN: I had no reason to doubt him.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, would you just give me a moment please.  Thank you Mr Chairman, I 
have no further questions.

HASSAN MALL: You are excused.

<UNKNOWN>: PRETORIA HEARING	AMNESTY/

ADV DU PLESSIS: 18

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, may I proceed?

HASSAN MALL: Yes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: I beg leave to call Captain Hechter on the same incident.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Mpshe, are any of the victims present in this case?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: They are present.

ADV DE JAGER: Have they got any representatives?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: They do not have any representatives.

ADV DE JAGER: And did you see them and what is their position?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Yes, I've seen them even in the previous
hearings, I was always in contact with them.  And they had indicated that they don't need any 
representatives.

JACQUES HECHTER: (sworn states)