Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1992-05-12

GARY JOHN KRUSER: That's correct, you're taking us there.

MR DORFLING: Let me try and get some clarity in my own mind.  Your decision was amongst others or your decision to give the order for the guards to repel was amongst others based on your impression that the surging crowd as you put it, were firing at the guards?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: I said the decision for me to give the order was because of the combination of all the facts I mentioned earlier.  I'm not prepared to testify to separate any of those facts in isolation from each other. I had to make a decision based on all those facts, I cannot - if you want to give me a different scenario with different facts, I'll maybe come to a different decision.  At that given time those were the factors which gave me the impression that I had to give the order in order to ensure our lives and the lives of others were saved.

MR DORFLING: Mr Kruser, that's why I specifically said those were one of the factors you took into account to give the order to repel?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: It's one of the factors, ja.

MR DORFLING: And a very vital one, the fact that you were being under attack?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: As I say I think they were all vital.

MR DORFLING: Why didn't you disclose that fact in your Amnesty Application?

CHAIRPERSON: He's disclosed it in his oral evidence, he doesn't have to give us a ball by ball account you know in his application.

MR DORFLING: Granted, Mr Chairman.  The question I'm posing is why if it was such a relevant factor, why wasn't it disclosed at the time of him making the application?

CHAIRPERSON: If that is covered by oral evidence which satisfies this Committee you know, we don't expect volumes to be submitted by each applicant disclosing all of the details, you understand?  These affidavits and the information is supposed to give us some idea of what the application is about.  Oral evidence then is what we really look at.

MR DORFLING: I accept the proposition posed by the - the question simply relates to this.  At the conclusion of these proceedings it will be argued that certain relevant factors which the witness knew to be relevant was not included in his statement for the simple reason that at the time of the Shell House inquest this was found to be fabrications and that's the basis on which I put these - to put me in a position to later argue it at the conclusion of these proceedings, Mr Chair.
	Mr Kruser, you yesterday testified that certain enquiries were made to try and determine who of the guards used a makarov pistol and you said your investigation was fruitless, is that correctly?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: What happened, I was informed by the lawyers that there was a photograph produced with someone with a makarov pistol.  We then together with other members and the members who were on the corner, we first determined who the person was with a makarov, we then amongst ourselves, those people on the corner in terms of whether of that person was present at the time of the shooting.  None of us saw the person present at the shooting, he also made a statement to us to the effect or informed us that he was not there and he did not shoot.

MR DORFLING: Why didn't you give this evidence yesterday when specifically asked what the result was of your enquiries?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: I don't understand the question.

MR DORFLING: One of the Honourable Committee Members specifically asked you whether enquiries were made into guards with makarov pistols in their possession that day and your response was that certain enquiries were made and it all turned out to be negative, you couldn't determine who had makarovs on that day.

GARY JOHN KRUSER: I think the question was around the corner itself, if anyone had a makarov at the corner itself, that was the question if I remember it.  I think I admitted that there were many members who had their own personal makarovs registered in their own names.

MR DORFLING: If I remember correctly, the question was aimed at whether you from your own side tried to determine which of the ANC guards on the said day had their own personal licensed or unlicensed makarovs?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: That's not how I understood it, I understood it if anyone fired from the corner with a makarov, that's how I understood it.  That's my recollection of what the question was yesterday.

MR LAX: Mr Dorfling, I stand to be corrected, obviously it will be on the record, but my question was as far as I recall - it was whether they made enquiries as to who had used that makarov on that day, that was really the thrust in my own mind of the question but I may not have put it quite that way and I may not recall it very well now but go ahead anyway.

MR DORFLING: I'll leave it at that, I don't think there's much to be derived from that in any event.
	Now Mr Kruser, one of the decisions to be taken by this Committee is whether in your application or be it your written application as amplified in your oral evidence in front of this Committee, you are being truthful and disclosing - making full disclosure - giving the full facts.  Can I at the outset determine from you whether you at this point in time - it was asked by the Honourable Chairman at a stage, I don't think you properly answered the question.  Do you stand by your evidence you gave at the Shell House inquest?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: I stand by my recollection of the events which I presented to this Committee today.

MR DORFLING: Are you saying that today in your own mind your recollection of what happened at Shell House remains the same as reflected in your evidence at the Shell House inquest?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: If I go on what I recollect, that's all I recollect although there's as I say objective evidence to dispute that recollection of mine.

MR DORFLING: Are you in agreement with me that at the time of the inquest proceedings you indicated to the Honourable Justice Nugent that the submissions made by Mr Justice Goldstone was based on yourself and Mr Radu compiling a report for that purpose, is that correct?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: I don't think that's a correct interpretation of my evidence.

MR DORFLING: What is the correct interpretation?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: I said I played a role in the compilation of that evidence I was not central in that.

MR DORFLING: Were you in this regard assisted by the late Commissioner Radu?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: Amongst other people.

MR DORFLING: I would like to refer you paragraph 31 of the Goldstone submissions.  Mr Chairman, it's in the bundle I've prepared and have placed in front of you, it's the very next page, the one from - I'm not sure, it doesn't actually start from paragraph 31 but it gives the sequence and the context of it.  Page 19 of the actual - in the - if we might just, looking at the preceding pages, Mr Kruser, at page 18 paragraph 29 actually gives the heading "The Attacks on Lancet Hall" and it goes on to describe the events that took place at Lancet Hall.  You yesterday testified that you attended Lancet Hall and you determined there that two people were shot apparently in an attempt to enter Lancet Hall?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: That is correct.

MR DORFLING: Now can you look at paragraph 31 of the submissions made to Mr Justice Goldstone?  It reads "it is not known whether anyone was killed or injured in this incident."  How did that come into the report, that's obviously an untruth?