Amnesty Hearings — Port Elizabeth — 1997-09-22

MR PHOSA: Yes, now why I referred to - to make it - to shorten this now, why I referred to medical experts is because in the records - in the information provided for me to ask here, there is a portion where some medical experts say something.  Now in brief, one of the things they say is this and I want your comment on that, they say this kind of poison is very, very rare, officially it was continued in South Africa, did you see that?

CHAIRPERSON: Where is this?

MR PHOSA: May the Commission just bear with me please, Chairperson?  Tall order.  Whilst I'm looking Mr Chairperson, could it be that we are the only ones who have this information?  Does the Commission not have anything from Doctor Ames?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I just want the reference - page number.

MR PHOSA: I'm one of those who can't give page numbers, I only arrived on the case, page numbers are a problem to me.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, there are various references, the first is page 42, that is where Doctor Marais, Doctor Abe Marais gives a statement in regard to Mr Siphiwe Mthimkhulu and the second paragraph where he says
"This opinion is held for several reasons firstly,"
and then he continues to refer to the rarity of it.

MR PHOSA: That is precisely the one I'm referring to.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR VISSER: Except the ...[inaudible]

MR PHOSA: Now it says firstly, well he puts it this way
"We the undersigned Francis Rix Ames and Adrian David Marais declare under oath that the deliberate administration of thallium to anybody indicates a sophisticated knowledge of chemistry and/or toxicology or access to such knowledge by the perpetrator of such a poisoning".
Then he says: 
"This opinion is held for several reasons firstly, thallium poisoning has been extremely rare in the past few decades since it's use is a - as a rodenticide was discontinued.
	In 1974, Cavana et Al" - then he mentions a "...[inaudible] reported three cases of deliberate poisoning.  He noted that it was extremely rare in Britain".  
That really is the jest of my cross-examination really, it's based on that.  What is suggested here is that, it's a rare poison, difficult to come by and that people who administer it must be people who know very well.  I now your story, you know nothing about it, you can't dispute - you won't dispute this suggestion here, you don't dispute this?

GERRIT NICHOLAS ERASMUS: I do not deny this, I'm not a chemist either.

MR PHOSA: I appears - now you are free to disagree with me or answer in any other form, it appears or it has appeared in the past - I'm going to refer to personal experience without giving evidence and you can disagree, that the security police have means, financial means as the police, to acquire most items that they think are necessary for their use, including - say for, chemicals, explosives, ammunition.  They can acquire these things even if in law they are forbidden- possession in law is forbidden, isn't that so?

GERRIT NICHOLAS ERASMUS: It is correct, you could obtain that.  Explosives were available in this dispensation.

MR PHOSA: Lately you must have read about or heard about Doctor Neethling, you must have lately heard about him, haven't you?

GERRIT NICHOLAS ERASMUS: I know Doctor Neethling.

MR PHOSA: How do you know him as, what is he?

GERRIT NICHOLAS ERASMUS: If reference is made at General Neethling or the former General Neethling, I know him.

MR PHOSA: I have no personal knowledge but he's accredited with being an expert when it comes to science and chemistry, isn't he?

GERRIT NICHOLAS ERASMUS: I think he was a well known chemist.

MR PHOSA: And he is associated with the police, in other words he was practising his chemistry in his capacity as a member of the police force?

GERRIT NICHOLAS ERASMUS: That is correct, he was a policeman.

CHAIRPERSON: He was in charge of the laboratories in Pretoria, wasn't he?

GERRIT NICHOLAS ERASMUS: That is correct.

MR PHOSA: Just finally on that aspect, you have learnt that he's being accused of having utilised his knowledge of science and chemistry improperly in his capacity as a policeman, you are aware of that?  I said accused.

GERRIT NICHOLAS ERASMUS: I am aware of that, yes.

MR PHOSA: Did I understand you to say the security police do not assault people - now please don't fight me if I'm wrong just correct me, did I understand you to say that?  That they not assault people they interrogate?

GERRIT NICHOLAS ERASMUS: I said that I did not assault these deceased people and that they were not assaulted in my presence, I think that is what I said.

MR PHOSA: Right, let's think about it now, let's think about it very carefully.  I work on the basis that to kill is worse than to assault generally, what do you say?

GERRIT NICHOLAS ERASMUS: Yes.

MR PHOSA: If it was - if it could be necessary in order to solve a problem, political or otherwise, assaulting would also naturally be legitimate, isn't it?  Do you understand my question?  Let me just repeat that.  If it was decided that this x, y, z, is a problem, say for instance he never admits it and yet he does it - he never admits his involvement and meanwhile he's causing more problems, then you feel no, let him eliminated.  Assaulting him would just be a natural part of it, isn't it?

GERRIT NICHOLAS ERASMUS: If you're referring to this case, I want to repeat that I don't have any personal knowledge of an assault on Mr Madaka or Mr Mthimkhulu.  It was not committed in my presence if there are such allegations.

MR PHOSA: Sir, what is your - I'm not intending to be hard on you, what is your standard of education?

GERRIT NICHOLAS ERASMUS: I did matric and then I wrote all the further exams.

MR PHOSA: And with we have heard, what we could call considerable experience as a policeman?

GERRIT NICHOLAS ERASMUS: Yes, I was in the police force for many years.

MR PHOSA: You're bilingual?

GERRIT NICHOLAS ERASMUS: Yes, I am.

MR PHOSA: My question was simply if it were - now meaning a hypothetical situation where the police were to say: "Now we should do it", if it had to be decided that someone must be eliminated for reasons given - good reasons as far as police are concerned, surely assaulting him is but a minor portion of that exercise, in other words it will be quite natural that he should be assaulted?

GERRIT NICHOLAS ERASMUS: I suppose it could be like that.

MR PHOSA: Consequently, if any of the members of your team of the Port Elizabeth branch who had been at these meetings where there was talk of elimination, had decided: "Maybe before we eliminate this man, let us beat him up", that wouldn't surprise you would it?  I don't say your instructions, if they decided so - that wouldn't surprise you would it?

GERRIT NICHOLAS ERASMUS: That was never discussed, assault was never discussed and you're asking whether it would have surprised me, I can't see in this context why somebody would make such a remark.

MR PHOSA: Maybe I didn't make myself clear then to you.  For purposes of this discussion - don't think about yourself and any of your members but - any of these four and there only were four of you, let's just say a member of your team who was aware that there is a problem in the Eastern Cape coming from COSAS and the lives of Mthimkhulu and Madaka, who was equally aware that elimination was discussed as one of the solutions, then he's given Mthimkhulu who goes on denying.  If he thought to himself: "Perhaps before this man gets killed let me just rough him up", that would be an understandable attitude of a member of the police force in that situation, do you understand me?

GERRIT NICHOLAS ERASMUS: No, it would not be acceptable and I ...[intervention]