Amnesty Hearings — Bloemfontein — 1997-09-04

MR DU PLESSIS: But Mr Chairman, for that purpose you have heard evidence in numerous applications of Cronje, Hechter, van Vuuren etc., where certain incidents took place in Mamelodi, including arson, murder etc., bomb attacks, petrol bomb attacks etc., in Mamelodi, you've even heard evidence of the killing of Doctor Ribero and his wife in Mamelodi, so I think that's a given fact that such incidents took place and were committed by the security police in Mamelodi.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible]

MR DU PLESSIS: Well, on the basis of the evidence that's been before you in other ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: The evidence that has been given and has not been contested.

ADV MEMANI: Well you see Mr Chairman, my learned friend mustn't forget that I do not follow the TRC and that's not the evidence in this application.  So, should we accept it then that the answer was going to be that the attempted murder took place in Mamelodi?

CHAIRPERSON: No.

ADV MEMANI: So then, what is the point ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: What you can accept is, we are satisfied that there are numerous instances where the security branch - members of the security branch committed criminal acts of violence in Mamelodi, including arson, murder, attempted murder.

ADV MEMANI: And including Loots?

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible]

ADV MEMANI: And including Loots?

MR DU PLESSIS: Well Mr Chairman, then we're going to go into the detail of Colonel Loots's applications.  Colonel Loots ...[intervention]

ADV DE JAGER: Mr du Plessis, we're arguing now for about ten minutes about this, is there really any objection of saying where this attempted murder or whatever it might have been on Advocate Moseleki took place?

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, ...[intervention]

ADV DE JAGER: We can shorten the proceedings ...[inaudible]

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not activated.

ADV DE JAGER: I wouldn't say you should but if it's irrelevant, why can't it be disclosed?

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, the nature of that application means that if he has to disclose it, he has to disclose the whole evidence surrounding that application.

CHAIRPERSON: Why can't he just say where?

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, would you then afford me the opportunity to go through the application, the contents of that application?

ADV DE JAGER: Couldn't we perhaps call Mr Visser and he could tell us where - what he knows about it?

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, but ...[intervention]

MR VISSER: Unfortunately, I know nothing about it.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, that's exactly the whole incident that's referred to and that's applied for.

ADV MEMANI: Mr Chairman, once I get the place of where the incident took place, I will proceed to the next point.  I'm not going to be asking him about the details of the attack and so on.  And I do not see how this prejudices him differently from telling us that he killed a policeman at Hammanskraal, he bombed at a church at Mamelodi, what's the difference?

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, while I'm looking at the application of Advocate Moseleki, I see that Colonel Loots was wrong in saying that it was attempted murder.  The application was made for conspiracy, lessor charges under the above and all other offences that might occur from the ...[intervention]

MR VISSER: The place referred to in the application under paragraph 9(a) III, is Pretoria.

CHAIRPERSON: Was this to be carried out in Mamelodi?

PHILLIPUS JOHANNES CORNELIUS LOOTS: No, at no stage your Honour.

ADV MEMANI: Where was it carried out?

CHAIRPERSON: Is it relevant if it wasn't Mamelodi?  You told us the point of the questioning was to see if these offences were being committed in Mamelodi.

ADV MEMANI: And I said surrounding areas?
	Was it ...[intervention]

MR DU PLESSIS: Well Mr Chairman, for that purpose one has to go into the details of the "sameswering" and exactly what took place, what was discussed, what was planned, what happened, where it was planned etc., etc.

ADV MEMANI: Look Mr Chairman, this is a waste of time, I proceed to the next set of questions.
	Now, do you in your application, implicate Bokaba and Selahla?

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, if you'll just afford me an opportunity.  Mr Chairman, I haven't perused Colonel Loots's amnesty applications recently and I personally do not know what the answer to question is, so if that question is going to be allowed, I - or before I make an objection, I want an opportunity to peruse the applications ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Surely it is relevant without you perusing the application.  If he used them in other things to commit this type of offence, it is surely relevant as to whether they did so in the sensitives.

MR DU PLESSIS: Well Mr Chairman, then the question must be in relating to the one incident of arson that Colonel Loots has applied for amnesty for - if Bokaba and Selahla was involved in that but that wasn't the question Mr Chairman.
	Colonel - Mr Chairman, may Colonel Loots be afforded the opportunity to answer that question because I don't have any objection against that?

CHAIRPERSON: I cannot see that it should be restricted to the arson, the question that - the case that the applicant is seeking to make out is that this was a squad that was used by Colonel Loots to commit acts of violence.  If it transpires that in his own amnesty application, he sets out details of similar types of acts of violence by the same squad, surely it is relevant.

MR DU PLESSIS: Well Mr Chairman, I then have no objection if Colonel Loots gives us an indication if "Slang" and Bokaba was involved in any of the applications that he has applied for.

CHAIRPERSON: That was the questions, wasn't it?

ADV MEMANI: That is correct Mr Chair.

PHILLIPUS JOHANNES CORNELIUS LOOTS: Mr Chair, I do mention their names.

ADV MEMANI: And I want you to use the word "implicate" and not just "mention".

PHILLIPUS JOHANNES CORNELIUS LOOTS: All right, I imply them in my amnesty application, I implicate them.

ADV MEMANI: Mr Loots, what was the scope of your responsibilities?  Maybe I should - you've already told us - I withdraw that questions because you've already told us that you were the person in the command in the area of Mamelodi, Attridgeville and Shweshanguwe.  Is it correct that Hechter would have been a person reporting to you?

PHILLIPUS JOHANNES CORNELIUS LOOTS: That is correct, that is what I testified.

ADV MEMANI: And Hechter was the person directly responsible for Mamelodi?

PHILLIPUS JOHANNES CORNELIUS LOOTS: That is correct.

ADV MEMANI: That officers of a rank that was junior than Hechter's would have reported directly to him?

PHILLIPUS JOHANNES CORNELIUS LOOTS: That's correct, but there were instances where Hechter was not available and then the responsibility would be transferred to the next senior person.  It could have been Warrant Officer du Toit or Hlongwane.

ADV MEMANI: Is it Hlongwane?

PHILLIPUS JOHANNES CORNELIUS LOOTS: Johannes Hlongwane.

ADV MEMANI: H-l-o-n-g-w-a-n-e?

PHILLIPUS JOHANNES CORNELIUS LOOTS: w-a-n-e, that's quite right.

ADV MEMANI: If there was a shortage of personnel in Mamelodi, the person directly affected by that shortage would be Jacques Hechter, is that correct?

PHILLIPUS JOHANNES CORNELIUS LOOTS: And myself as well.

ADV MEMANI: But the person directly affected would be Jacques Hechter?

PHILLIPUS JOHANNES CORNELIUS LOOTS: If you want to put it that way, yes but exactly to the same extent it would affect me as well.

ADV MEMANI: And Jacques Hechter would be the person that Bokaba would have told about a potential candidate?

PHILLIPUS JOHANNES CORNELIUS LOOTS: Not necessarily, it depended whether or not Hechter had been available or not, if he had been available he could have told him that.

ADV MEMANI: But a shortage of personnel is not a single day event, it's a continuous thing?

PHILLIPUS JOHANNES CORNELIUS LOOTS: That's correct.