Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — UNKNOWN

MR DREYER: : But you said this in terms of an Affidavit which you made on the 6th of January 1994, when Nick Fourie was still alive.  Now you are saying that you wanted to protect him, but I don't understand where the protection of Nick Fourie comes in if, in fact, Nick Fourie was never involved in the incident and that Oelofse was the one who gave you the pipe shotguns.   Why did you want to protect Nick Fourie if he didn't require protection, because he did not give you the pipe shotguns?

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: : That is correct.   I would like to state it clearly, once again, that the pipe shotguns were given to me by General Japie Oelofse.

MR DREYER: : But then you were supposed to protect him.

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: : I had to protect him that is why I used Nick Fourie's name and not Oelofse's name.   I obtained permission from him to use Nick Fourie's name.   I had to account for where I had received the pipe shotguns.   I could not have manufactured them myself because I did not have the equipment at home to do so.

MR DREYER: : My question remains.   If Nick Fourie did not require protection because he did not give you the firearms, why then did you protect him in any way, because he had not done anything.   He did not give you the firearms or the pipe shotguns.   Why were you protecting him and against what?

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: : Through that, I would have protected General Oelofse by the mere fact that I was implicating Fourie and not Oelofse.

MR DREYER: : And during 1994, in June, you knew already and this is the force of your statements and denials;   in June 1994 you already knew that you would appear at these proceedings and in 1994, you knew already that you should use Nick Fourie, who had passed away already, to help out with a problem of a statement that you had made during January 1994, for the purposes of proceedings which had not yet occurred and those proceedings are these proceedings which we are present at today.

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: : I did not know about it then, yet.

MR DREYER: : How did you know that you would appear at these proceedings and say that you had to protect Oelofse.   Why did you then implicate Fourie?

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: : It appears in my statements.

MR DREYER: : You then say openly that during the Criminal Proceedings, I involved Nick Fourie and I want to protect him.  Why did you not realise during those procedures, after the elections, there was no revolution on the 12th.  Apart from your actions, there was no war on the 16th.  That was clear, during these procedures.   Why then did you not disclose everything, because there was no revolution that you could protect.

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: : I was still... why did I not involve General Oelofse.   I could not because I was protecting him.

MR DREYER: : Why?

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: : So that he would not be sentenced to prison or be held accountable.

MR DREYER: : But you are involving him today.

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: : I did not choose to involve him.

MR DREYER: : Because you are trying to ...

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: : Excuse me.

MR DREYER: : Because you are trying to indemnify yourself.  Mr Chairperson, may I finish before the Advocate asks me?

ADV BOSMAN: : Mr Dreyer can I just come in here.  I am a little bit confused here as well and I think it's because we do not have a copy of the Court Procedure there.  Is it correct then that Mr Klopper, during the Court Procedures, said that he wanted to protect General Nick Fourie?   Can you read that portion to us please?

MR DREYER: : It reads as follows:  I am going to read it again.  `I had a .38 Special revolver and a pipe shotgun that I manufactured myself, in my possession.'   And then the Advocate asks him:  its still his evidence in chief.   Is that correct?   No that is not correct.   Afterwards I understood that there were two pipes at the scene and the manufacturing in my statement, I said that I manufactured them to protect General Nick Fourie.   That is the crux of my matter.   He does not say that I said that I had it in my possession, because I was protecting Oelofse.   He also does not say that I did it in the manner in which I did it, was to protect the deceased Nick Fourie.  Therefore, I say it's impossible that he could foresee this.

ADV BOSMAN: : I don't want to debate this with you.  I just want to mention how I understand the witness, and the witness says that at that stage in Court, Nick Fourie was already dead.   And then to explain his lie, he said that I made the statement that it was Nick Fourie, at a stage, when Nick Fourie was still alive.  And during the Court proceedings when he died... Wait you have got me confused here totally.  You have totally confused me.   And then he said it is not necessary to protect Nick Fourie.   He is deceased now.  It was Nick Fourie, but he still wanted to protect Oelofse, and today he says: `Today I am not protecting Oelofse, today I speak the truth.'   Then I lied about Nick Fourie. That is how I understand this, as he is putting it.  My fellow panel members could differ from me but I don't know if we found each other.

MR DREYER: : That is so.   That is my problem.  I seek the answers from the witness, because the problem with this witness is that he makes a statement before the police;  that he later amends during the Criminal Procedures, and at the third opportunity here, now we are busy with the third truth now, and my problem is Mr Chairperson, I have to protect my client's interest, within three sets of truths, and I have to look at all the alternatives, otherwise I cannot do that.   My problem is then that I have to find out from this witness what is the truth, because during these procedures there are conflicting testimonies.

ADV BOSMAN: : I'm not worried about the truth now.   I am concerned with the explanation that the witness has given to you, and he has given you this explanation over which one of the three... that is not of concern here.   We'll decide about that.   But he cannot explain further than that he has done already, and that is what I am trying to put to you, as I understand it.

MR DREYER: : And the following question that I have for you Mr Kloppers, why did you at least then, during this Criminal Procedure, say that there would be... because you spoke about many things;  you mentioned of many things and you were asked many things, and you were given the opportunity to rectify things that you have said in the past;  but why, apart from this one single incident where you said that I said this, that and the other, to protect Nick Fourie;  wherein during these procedures is there a point for your submission today, where then you said that you did things then to protect Oelofse.   Where?   What do you have that you know of, during this Criminal Procedures, said or did to protect Oelofse?

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: : The fact, Mr Chairperson, that Mr Nick Fourie at that time, I implicated him and not General Oelofse.

MR DREYER: : Very well, I hear you.   I have listened to your explanations or the explanation that the Chairperson has given, but I ask you again.  If you wanted to protect Oelofse, for some other reason, you wanted to keep Oelofse away from the two pipe shotguns.   Is that correct?

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: : That's correct.

MR DREYER: : But why did you not keep Oelofse totally apart from this instruction that you had to go and collect illegal weapons and put up a road-block;  why you did not protect him from that.