Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1998-06-12

MR PRINSLOO: But earlier on you said that you knew that there would be a shooting?

MARTHINUS LODEWICKES VAN DER SCHYFF: No Mr Chairperson.

MR MALAN: I think it is common cause that he suspected that there would be a shooting, he never said that he knew that there would be a shooting.

MR PRINSLOO: I accept it like that Chairperson.  Mr Van der Schyff, maybe you could help the Committee, why did Mr Kloppers and Mr Martin decide, or Mr Kloppers rather, decide to come together at the road side cafe just to say one thing, tonight we are going to work and then to hand out weapons, which he changed later and he takes a weapon from someone and gives it someone else at the smallholding.
	He could as well have said tonight we are going to have a road block there?

MARTHINUS LODEWICKES VAN DER SCHYFF: Yes, he could have done that.

MR PRINSLOO: Because it doesn't mean anything to say tonight we are going to work, it doesn't make any sense.

MARTHINUS LODEWICKES VAN DER SCHYFF: Well, that is what he said.

ADV BOSMAN: May I just interfere here Adv Prinsloo.  Could you tell me Mr Van der Schyff, at this road house, is that a public place?

MARTHINUS LODEWICKES VAN DER SCHYFF: Yes, it is.

ADV BOSMAN: What was the set up that evening, were there other people, other vehicles?

MARTHINUS LODEWICKES VAN DER SCHYFF: Yes, there were a lot of other people.

ADV BOSMAN: Where were you with regards to the other people and the vehicles?

MARTHINUS LODEWICKES VAN DER SCHYFF: There was a garage on the premises, and we stood there and waited for Mr Kloppers.

ADV BOSMAN: At the garage?

MARTHINUS LODEWICKES VAN DER SCHYFF: Yes, but the public could clearly see you where we stood.

ADV BOSMAN: And these weapons, were they handed out in public?

MARTHINUS LODEWICKES VAN DER SCHYFF: Yes, that is correct.

ADV BOSMAN: You did not find that strange, because I would say for me it is strange?  Could you maybe just explain?

MARTHINUS LODEWICKES VAN DER SCHYFF: It was strange that Mr Kloppers took out two pipe shotguns.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Van der Schyff, according to your evidence, there in public where everybody could see you, Policemen could have been there in civilian clothes, you received a home made shotgun where you could have been arrested?

MARTHINUS LODEWICKES VAN DER SCHYFF: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: You say it was done openly?

MARTHINUS LODEWICKES VAN DER SCHYFF: Yes.

MR KNOETZE: Mr Chairman, I don't understand the question.  Is it my learned friend's case that the pipe shotgun was not handed over to him, and is it his case that it wasn't in public, otherwise the cross-examination is senseless?

MR PRINSLOO: With respect Mr Chairman, if my learned friend listened to my cross-examination, he would have derived from that, that I asked this witness what was the purpose of going to the road house, I am merely being told tonight we are going to work and merely being given guns, and then he went on to say it was in public, the handing over of the guns, and I am merely testing his credibility.
	I have not put any question that will justify my learned friend to draw the inference that I am putting it to him otherwise than what was testified already.

CHAIRPERSON: I think the problem is, quite frankly, I thought I mean you lashed onto the question of the arms being given publicly, and I would have thought that you would have taken instructions from your clients, whether or not it is true that the weapons, these people met publicly and the weapons were given to them in public.
	You didn't do that, I assumed possibly you knew the precise situation.  What as I understand the objection now, which have been unless you disillusion me, I think it is well founded, because we would like to know whether you are saying it was not in public, or that the weapon was not given to the witness.
	If you agree with both, if you agree that it wasn't public and the weapon was given to the witness, then that is what Mr Knoetze, that is the point he is making.  We don't know what the purpose of the question is.  If both two aspects are correct.

MR PRINSLOO: With respect Mr Chairman, the Honourable Member, Adv Bosman before that put the question with regard to being handed over in public and I followed that one Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but if it is true, don't query it.  You are saying to the witness, are you saying that this person gave you this weapon in public, isn't that what you are asking him?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, I followed up with what the Honourable Member asked before.

CHAIRPERSON: I know, but what is your question?  Are you not asking this witness whether Kloppers gave him that weapon in public?  Are you not challenging him on that or do you agree with that?

MR PRINSLOO: Well, I asked him Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you challenge him?

MR PRINSLOO: I merely asked to get his answer with regard to that, in view of the question being asked by Adv Bosman.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, he said yes, he said yes.  He gave me that weapon in public.  Do you have a problem with that, do you disagree with that?

MR PRINSLOO: I don't have a problem Mr Chairman that the weapon was handed over at the road house.

CHAIRPERSON: What problem do you have?

MR PRINSLOO: I am merely wanting to find out from him as to what he is saying now, was it just openly handed over where everyone can see.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that is what he said.  He said yes.

MR PRINSLOO: I will take instruction on that point, Mr Chairman, from my clients.

CHAIRPERSON: All I want to know is do you dispute that the weapon was given to this witness in public, or don't you dispute that?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, my instructions are that the weapons were handed over at the road house, the question of being in public in everybody's view, that I will have to take instructions for.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, then don't tax the witness until you get instructions.

MR PRINSLOO: I merely want to ask him, but I will leave it at this stage.

MR MALAN: Mr Chairperson, can I just see if I can find clarity in the line of the questioning now, because this is a question that is, or right through all the applicants' evidence, I remembered why first go to the road house, why not directly to Martin's house, but does it really make a difference and this is in terms of the cross-examination if the instructions, or the so-called instructions that we are going to work, nowhere do I find an instruction that we are going to work, or if that we are going to work, that bodies will be seen, that a revolution will begin.  Is the cross-examination about what happened there, really relevant other than in opposition to what was said regarding Kloppers' evidence?

MR PRINSLOO: It is relevant, because his evidence differs from the others and it would be unlikely that they would be called together just to be told we are going to work tonight.

MR MALAN: But Mr Prinsloo, what makes it different that if they were called together and it was said to them that we are going to work, the revolution is going to begin, corpses must be seen, does it make a difference if they went to the road house first?

MR PRINSLOO: It does make a difference, to just go there and tell someone that we are going to work, does make a difference, it doesn't mean anything.

MR MALAN: I think you are misunderstanding me.  The question is why to the road house, the dispute about what was said could have happened at any place, there is no reason.
	I do not know why Mr Kloppers brought them together at the road house and organised that other than a public display, the reason then would be a public display and that would be the only reason and the talk about revolution did not occur at the smallholding.