Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — UNKNOWN

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: : I was just inviting you in fact Mr Du Plessisto tell us on the merits whether you argue that we could validlyproceed with the application given the fact that the notices havenot been given.   You seem to consider that we cannot do that?

MR DU PLESSIS: : Yes.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: : You seem to have gone to quite some lengthin expressing your dissatisfactions, but perhaps you should alsobear in mind the fact that you submitted voluminous
2b applications /...
MR DU PLESSIS 472 ADDRESS
applications just a week before and you should also concede that....

MR DU PLESSIS: : I concede that.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: : The magnitude of the application.

MR DU PLESSIS: : Yes.   Mr Chairman I just want to makethe point however absolutely clear that the concession that wemake that the hearings cannot go on on this basis that peopleare not notified is based upon the fact that we perceive thatthere might be problems later with somebody who might feel thathe might be prejudiced because he wasn't given notice.   WhatI don't and what I'm not doing is I'm not conceding that thisis something that the applicants have to comply with as a requirementfor amnesty.   I just want to make that clear.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: : Nobody has said that Mr Du Plessis.

MR DU PLESSIS: : Thank you Mr Chairman.

MR CURRIN: : Mr Chairman, members of the Committee I'llbe very brief.   I think it would be risky to proceed withoutthat compliance, that is our position.   Obviously on behalf ofvictims, application going on and then not going on, hot and coldis really very, very difficult for the victims but our feelingis that it would be risky to proceed without giving proper notice.  Just to make the final point, we are ready to cross-examineon the general representation that was made regarding politicalmotive and political objective, which doesn't really involve thenames of the people that were mentioned during the evidence inchief.   I will leave it in the hands of the Committee to decidewhether or not one should even take that chance.   Thank you.

JUDGE NGCOBE: Mr Mpshe I'm not so sure whether you needto reply you seem to be feeling strongly about saying
2b something /...
MR MPSHE 473 ADDRESS
something?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: : Mr Chairman, if the Chair allows me it mightnot be apposite to do it now because some response has been doneto what my learned friend Mr Du Plessis has said.   I wanted torespond to what is said that even if he pretends not to be layingthe blame at my doorstep, he has actually done that by sayingthat the people were not timeously informed.   Mr Chairman, membersof the Committee it was not only a matter or receiving the applicationin the original hearing, this is a voluminous application, itinvolved my reading everything which they have submitted - withinfour days - and deciding who is to be notified within four daysand issuing out instructions to the investigating officer withinfour days and do all sorts of other things.   I don't want thisto be taken as if I am inefficient, but I want this to be takenthat if I am inefficient this was, they also contributed to itbecause this volume was given to me four days before the hearing.

UNKNOWN: Mr Mpshe we don't blame you but we thinkthe blame should rest, this application should never have beenput down for hearing during this, with a week's notice.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: : I cannot respond to that.

CHAIRPERSON: I may mention that my brother George Ngcobehas been talking on behalf of the Committee and expressing theCommittee's views.   In the last few minutes of the evidence ofBrigadier Cronje, certain names were mentioned, and this is nowevidence, what appears on the papers is not evidence.  In theevidence it appears that those who were ultimately responsiblefor the identifying of the targets and determining that actionshould be taken against the Ribiero family, people whose namesare mentioned in that regard, and
2b bearing /...
474
bearing in mind that this particular incident - that is the deathof Dr Ribiero and his wife has become news throughout the countryand has been news for a long time.   We feel it is a matter ofsuch great importance that people whose names are mentioned ashaving identified the targets, who initiated steps to be takenand then of course the persons who implemented the action, whohas been given notice, we feel that the matter is of such magnitudethat we might be doing gross injustice to a number of people whoare very heavily implicated if the evidence of this witness isto be accepted, and the consequences may be serious for all, thisCommittee does not want to face urgent applications or interdictstomorrow morning as a result of individuals hearing on the radiothis evening or on TV that their names were mentioned, they weren'tgiven notice and they want to stop these proceedings.   One wantsto try and avoid that kind of thing happening now in this applicationand in any other application which we are going to consider.  
 How to salvage the situation involves two things.   We may beable to do things immediately or we may be able to allow Mr Currinto proceed with the questioning of Brigadier Cronje, which wouldbe a good thing that we should dispose of if we can.   Mr Mpshe,whatever other matter you propose dealing with after that, isa matter in which you will have to satisfy before you and Mr DuPlessis begin, that people's names that may be mentioned are peoplewho have been given notice, otherwise you're going to find thatevery hour we're going to ask for an adjournment and an explanationas to whether notices have been given or not.   I think sufficienthas been said in that regard and it is the view that we shouldnow proceed.   I am sorry to interrupt your evidence
2b at /...
MR CURRIN 475 H J CRONJE
at this stage, it does seem that it can't be avoided.   We willnot then proceed with the evidence which you gave on the generalbackground to enable Mr Currin and any other counsel who is involvedin the matter to cross-examine you on that aspect of your evidence.
JAN HATTINGH CRONJE (suo)
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CURRIN
 Thank you Mr Chairman, members of the Committee.   BrigadierCronje, I'm going to question you on the document which is entitled"The development of the struggle of the South African Governmentand the ANC, SACP and PAC", page 27-29.   I am going to followthe following themes in this order; political motive, that's thefirst theme; the second one is the question of war and counter-warwhich was engaged upon by the security forces, security policespecifically; three the question of instructions and accountability;

CHAIRPERSON: Could you repeat three please?

MR CURRIN: : Instructions and accountability; (5) the roleof the security legislation, the Internal Security Act, the EmergencyRegulations; (5) informants; and (6) the question of propaganda.

<UNKNOWN>: Brigadier, if we understand your politicalmotive, and I want you to confirm if I am correct or correct meif I am wrong, if we understand your political motive, in broadterms you seem to be saying that it was to maintain the Stateby keeping the National Party in power, in order to keep apartheidin place and to sustain the fight against the liberation movements.  Is that an accurate summary of your political motive?

ANSWER: The motive was, as Mr Currin is saying, to maintainthe National Party, to support the apartheid
2b government /...
MR CURRIN 476 J H CRONJE
government and maintain it and to combat communism.

<UNKNOWN>: If the emphasis is on the National Party, mustwe assume that the actions, the deeds that you committed werebeing done on behalf of the National Party?

ANSWER: It was done to combat communism and to maintainapartheid, as such then to maintain the National Party in government.

<UNKNOWN>: Were you doing it on behalf of the NationalParty?

ANSWER: On behalf of the government of the day.