Amnesty Hearings — Pretoria — 1997-02-27

JUDGE MGOEPE: Of course the picture that you have been giving in answer to the questions by 
Advocate de Jager becomes even more complicated when one has to take into account the fact that the so-
called third force also came into the picture, played a major role with regards to the - to all these problems 
that you have been describing.  One cannot overlook that fact.
GEN V/

UNKNOWN: Yes, Mr Chairman, the third force activity is a general term which is used with 
regard to a specific incident which took place, although I would agree with you that it could also have 
played a role.

HASSAN MALL: (...indistinct) re-examination, but I am not asking you to lead fresh evidence.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Chairman, I am not going to lead fresh evidence.

ADV DE JAGER: Excuse me please, I would like to ask one more question which is bothering me.   
When you say, and I think in your response you said that you did not know about it the Minister did not 
know about it as far as you know. There were incidents, there was an incident let's take for example, the 
Nietverdiend incident, how many persons died there, was it nine due to a bomb explosion? Surely 
something like that was investigated by the police and it should have been reported back to the heads of 
department, and also what the results of such an investigation were and who committed the offence or 
whatever? Let us assume that they knew 
PRETORIA HEARING	AMNESTY/

ADV DE JAGER: 253	GEN V/

UNKNOWN: nothing about it beforehand, but you, as Commissioner, surely came to know about it thereafter and surely 
you would have reported that to the Minister?  What steps were taken in such cases where it was 
determined, I don't know if you were able to determine how it happened, but if facts came to light as we 
know was it repudiated in the Press or what was the position?
GEN V/

UNKNOWN: Mr Chairman, I am not aware of any of these cases where the investigation or the 
reports which were submitted thereafter reflected the circumstances as is coming to light now.  But at the 
time what was investigated was the deed without the high authorities which received the reports knowing 
who was involved.  In other words we would have dealt with it like any other incident of that nature and 
there were many incidents of that nature. As we know in our country, in one year 16 to 17 000 persons 
would be murdered, so violence in that regard was a common occurrence and it would have been dealt with 
as such. If you were asking me whether there were specific incidents where we came to know about the 
details of the circumstances, surely in the amnesty applications which would come before you there will be 
such incidents but these incidents which are under discussion here as far as I know are not, were not dealt 
with in that manner.

HASSAN MALL: Is it fair to say that this particular incident, Nietverdiend, was never itself reported to the 
State Security Council?
GEN V/

UNKNOWN: Quite correct, your Worship.

HASSAN MALL: And like that other single or specific incidents themselves would not reach the ears of the 
State Security Council, is that what happened?
PRETORIA HEARING	AMNESTY/

HASSAN MALL: 253	GEN V/

UNKNOWN: GEN V/

UNKNOWN: That is quite correct, Your Worship, unless there were exceptional circumstances, but 
the normal type of cases wouldn't have been reported to them.

HASSAN MALL: Now then, who is the highest authority to whom such a report would be made, for 
example, this Nietverdiend incident? 
GEN V/

UNKNOWN: Mr Chairman, it would have depended on the circumstances.  In most cases such 
information would have been reported to the head of a division that would depend on the kind of act that 
was reported, then that report would have become part of the general criminality reports and we have 
submitted that to the Minister from time to time for his attention. We have also from him onwards went to 
the Cabinet but we would never have individually reported these cases.

ADV DE JAGER: Just one further question regarding the cross-border action, did this answer apply to 
Botswana actions as well, Transkei as well?
GEN V/

UNKNOWN: Yes, in the case of Transkei, you would recall the case where Mr de Klerk himself 
gave permission against APLA Forces, you recall their people being shot at that occasion, but not all cases 
were approved by the State Security Council, but in some cases cross-border raids were approved by the 
State Security Council.

JUDGE MGOEPE: Just to clear this up, do I understand you to be saying that with regard to Transkei, 
Bophuthatswana or for that matter Venda for example or Ciskei, the approach was that they were treated as 
much foreign as Swaziland, Lesotho, Uganda etc. I just want to clear that?
GEN V/

UNKNOWN: Insofar as the State Security Council is concerned, yes Your Worship.
PRETORIA HEARING	AMNESTY/

JUDGE MGOEPE: 254	GEN V/

JUDGE MGOEPE: Yes, and to that extent therefore the policy with regards to identification of targets, 
elimination etc. inside Bophuthatswana, Ciskei, Venda and the like ...(intervention)
GEN V/

UNKNOWN: Would have been the same.

JUDGE MGOEPE: It would have been the same?
GEN V/

UNKNOWN: It would have been the same, yes.

HASSAN MALL: Was there a permanent Coordinating Committee between the South African Police and 
the South African Defence Force?
GEN V/

UNKNOWN: Yes, Chairman, it was the intervention of the joint management system done at all 
levels countrywide but of course there was also the intervention of the Coordinating Information 
Committee.  As far as information was concerned we liaised with each other and also with the various 
working committees of the State Security Council.  So on a daily basis between the different, at different 
levels there were times when the police and the defence force liaised with each other and planned the 
workings were coordinated jointly.

HASSAN MALL: Thank you.  Yes, Mr du Plessis.

ADV DU PLESSIS: (cont) Thank you, Mr Chairman.	General you just gave 
evidence with regards to the Security Acts and Legislation and the effectiveness of it. The evidence of the 
applicants was that in certain instances they had to act against activists in the manner in which they did 
outside of the parameters of the normal justice system due to the fact that the system, the Security System 
itself, was not effective in combatting the liberation movement of the ANC and other movements. Would 
you say that that was a contributing factor to the perception of the 
PRETORIA HEARING	AMNESTY/

ADV DU PLESSIS: 255	GEN V/

UNKNOWN: applicants and Brigadier Cronje who was the Commanding Officer and also other applicants in certain 
instances that due to the fact that the Act itself was not affective enough that it was justified to act beyond 
the parameters of the law?
GEN V/

UNKNOWN: I have no doubt, Mr Chairman, that our justice system and the circumstances in 
which we found ourselves which was a combat situation for all practical purposes was of such a nature that 
one could not deal with it effectively.  In my opinion if it was not for political gain, the riot actions if I 
could put it that way, would be to declare a cross-justice system which would have been detrimental to our 
country.  But if you look at the situation which we had dealt with, to a limited extent you could refer to it as 
a "civilian war" and the circumstances surrounding that were not enough to combat it effectively and that is 
one of the reasons why at the end of 1989, Mr de Klerk decided to head in a new direction because there 
was no other way to deal with the situation.