Amnesty Hearings — Port Elizabeth — 1997-09-22

MR PHOSA: Sorry, maybe I should make myself clear to you.  I'm not referring to a public disclosure of elimination, of the elimination of these two persons.  If the information were to reach the politicians, including the then President - State President, that you in your camp, your division of the police, have decided to eliminate these two persons, you would not have expected them - from the point of view of necessity, to have objected to that.

GERRIT NICHOLAS ERASMUS: I would have expected that if the matter was revealed there, that there would have been some reaction from the politicians right the way down to myself and I said that there was no such reaction.

MR PHOSA: I don't understand you, perhaps because you don't understand me.  Let me just be fair to you and hope you don't understand me.  Was the constant reference to the need to eliminate people like Mr Mthimkhulu and Mr Madaka, was that a political decision?

GERRIT NICHOLAS ERASMUS: I said that the constant pressure and statements created the perception in my mind that that was the intention.

MR PHOSA: Please, I deliberately choose the word political and do you know what I mean by political, when I say political decision - do you understand that?  Do you know the meaning of political decision?

GERRIT NICHOLAS ERASMUS: Yes, I understand it very well.

ADV DE JAGER: Wasn't his reply to say: "I was under the impression, I had the perception that it was in fact a political decision".

MR PHOSA: Sorry, I missed the preamble to that ...[intervention]

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, I - looking at the answer as I've written it down, he said: "It was my perception that it was in fact a political decision".  He's sort of agreeing with you as far as his own perception was concerned, that he was under the impression that it was a political decision to eliminate these people.

MR PHOSA: I can't remember now why I had a doubt about that but it's clear, let's come back to that.  On the understanding ...[intervention]

ADV DE JAGER: Sorry, if I'm wrong you must please say so.

GERRIT NICHOLAS ERASMUS: That's how I understand it and that is why I gave the answer that I did, as you've now explained it.

MR PHOSA: Let's cut this thing, it can be shorter.  All I'm saying is this, if it was a political decision to eliminate people like Mr Mthimkhulu, is your answer that you did not expect any rebuff or disapproval from the top politicians if you said: "Look, that's the only answer now, we are getting rid of them"?  There ought not to have been a rebuff or let's say, a rebuke from them.

GERRIT NICHOLAS ERASMUS: I have stated that this was a covert operation and given the circumstances under which we were living in those days, I also said that there was no such reaction as far as I was aware.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, if I may interrupt.  It is beginning to occur to me that my learned friend Mr Phosa and the witness may be on two different wavelengths.  Now I don't want to say too much because I don't want to lay words in the mouths of witnesses but is there problem here not perhaps that he is assimilating a political decision with a political objective as far as the commission of the offence is concerned, or the incident is concerned?
	I'm just trying to help Mr Chairman, I don't want to say more because I don't want to put any words in the mouth of the witness but it appears to me that this may be the problem of misunderstanding between the witness and my learned friend Mr PHOSA.

MR PHOSA: Mr Erasmus, you see, that these were covert decisions seems to have been obvious right through your evidence.  Can I just to clear that, say that - ask you whether when the word eliminating or to eliminate, those phrases were used at the provincial level, were those words or phrases used at a covert level in other words, where there was extreme secrecy or were they just being made publicly at the lower level?

GERRIT NICHOLAS ERASMUS: Chairperson, I think the questions was put to me as to the fact that politicians spoke about eliminating in public and later they denied this.  And the question was also asked of me what does it mean and I told the Committee what I thought it means, so I said that it was mentioned during discussions.

MR PHOSA: I'm sure it may be easier if we answer them bit by bit.  Is it a fact or is it not that when elimination was made at the provincial level, it was made publicly or was it made secretly at the meetings you attended?

CHAIRPERSON: I think the witness must understand that as I understand what you mean - he doesn't publicly from shouting it off from the rooftops, the question is: "did they speak openly about this at the meeting"?

GERRIT NICHOLAS ERASMUS: That is correct.  The term "elimination" as I said, was used - the word.

MR PHOSA: And those meetings themselves were not a secret?  And I'm not talking now the ...[inaudible] you said, but the meetings themselves were there for everyone to read about.

GERRIT NICHOLAS ERASMUS: All documents pertaining to the Security Management System and for instance reports which we sent, all these things were marked "secret, top secret or confidential", so they weren't public documents for everybody and members of the public to read.

MR PHOSA: Therefore, if you as the Eastern Cape branch of the security police decided to act in terms of what was said at these meetings, you would normally expect that what you convey to the politicians would also be kept a secret, isn't it?  If you decided you were going to kill Mthimkhulu and you decide to tell the President, you'd expect him to keep it a secret in the nature of the general conduct of his meetings, isn't it?  Do you understand the question though?

GERRIT NICHOLAS ERASMUS: Mr Chairperson, I must ask that Mr Phosa perhaps just make it a little bit clearer - he made a lot of statements, perhaps he must repeat the question so that we can understand each other properly.

MR PHOSA: Right.  You see, we have now established that whenever at any meeting, the word "eliminate" or the phrase "to eliminate" was mentioned - although it was said openly at the meeting, it remained a secret conversation.  Am I correct?  The meeting was secret.

GERRIT NICHOLAS ERASMUS: Yes, that is so, secret in the sense that that what was said there had to be dealt with in that way.

MR PHOSA: So, there was an understanding amongst all those who attended such meetings including politicians, that these were sensitive issues to be dealt with in a secret manner.

GERRIT NICHOLAS ERASMUS: That is correct and we're talking here about small committee meetings and not very big public meetings.

MR PHOSA: Yes.  I am therefore suggesting to you and you just correct me, that if when the decision came to kill - use the nice phrase "eliminate these two gentlemen", if at that stage you had passed word to the politicians on top, you would have expected them to keep it a secret, isn't it?

GERRIT NICHOLAS ERASMUS: Yes, I would most certainly have expected them to keep it a secret.

MR PHOSA: Moreover, it being something that they had been talking about all along, you would not expect it to shock them, isn't it?  Do you follow the question?  Okay, let me repeat it to save time.  Seeing that they themselves the politicians and you and all others concerned, had already been talking about elimination as a solution, if you had told them being the Eastern Province branch that: "We want to eliminate these two", it would have given them no shock as far as you're concerned, no surprise?