Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — UNKNOWN

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: Yes, the elections were done by then and during that time Gen Oelofse was in Diepkloof prison along with me and he still told me, stick to what you said, protect the AWB.

MR DREYER: Mr Kloppers, I don't understand.  The revolution did not come about, war did not come about, there was a democratic election in April 1994 and this is June now, this is after that.  How could you still have believed that by telling lies about where you received the instruction from to kill people, how could you still protect the AWB's plans for the revolution, how, explain this to me.

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: These are all long questions again.  You refer to two or three things simultaneously, let's keep it short so that I can understand what you are saying.

MR DREYER: I will repeat myself.  I am telling you it is quite simple, you say that you lied during this criminal procedure where you tried to protect people, is that correct?

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: That is correct.

MR DREYER: And you say that you told those lies because you wished to protect the plans of the AWB, because you did not want to be the cause of the revolution that could not continue, is that correct?

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: That is correct.

MR DREYER: Now, at the stage when you told these lies, the election was done and that was in June now.

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: In prison Gen Oelofse still told us that the revolution would continue and we would still wage war.

MR DREYER: I would just like to ask you then, how would you have protected anyone by saying I received an instruction to gather weapons and ammunition for the war, you are prepared to state that and this instruction according to you, and you put up the road block, is that correct?

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: No, it is not correct.

MR DREYER: There is just one incident where you apply for amnesty before this Commission, and this incident was the road block and the murders there, and you were charged during this criminal procedures not for other deeds, but for that specific deed?

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: That is correct.

MR DREYER: And now during these procedures when the advocate asked you in your evidence in chief, what instruction did you receive sir because this is where the whole matter starts, then you say on the 12th of December I received an instruction to gather weapons and ammunition for us to stop the elections of the 27th of April, is that correct?

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: That is correct.  As I say again, I could not implicate Gen Oelofse at that time because he put it to me that it would place the whole situation at a disadvantage.

MR DREYER: I want to put it to you because now you protest to the question, the first thing that would come to me is the instruction.  The instruction is limited gather ammunition and weapons for the war ... (tape ends) ... of this incident, the road block and the murders.

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: This matter comes about by the instruction that we received and we did not make this public in court and this had to stay secret until the war.  That is what this was all about, it was not about anything else.  I carried out the instruction of Gen Oelofse and that is what I said in court and that is what I told my legal representative because I had seven different legal representatives during that time, and that is what I said.
	I said that we went out to gather weapons and ammunition only to protect the movement and Gen Oelofse.

MR DREYER: But you did not protect Gen Oelofse because now you said that he is the one who said you must go out and get weapons and ammunition.  You have implicated him.

CHAIRPERSON: With regard to going to steal or get weapons, he would not be protecting him if he were to mention  him, which is a less serious offence.  With regard to killing four people, he would like to protect Oelofse.
	What is your problem, unless I miss your point, I don't understand?

MR DREYER: Mr Chairman, I am not referring to a portion of the proceedings in the criminal matter where this witness was cross-examined, where he was beyond the ability of being protected by his own legal representative, this is the very starting off point, the point of embarkment of his evidence in chief.
	That is where his evidence starts off, that is obviously on his own version the reason why he went forth together with some other people to hold this road block and do certain things.

CHAIRPERSON: But they are asking the question and what is his answer, what was his answer?

MR DREYER: He says that he did not mention the matter of the deaths ...

CHAIRPERSON: No, the answer to counsel's question in chief?

MR DREYER: His answer was the order was that we collect ammunition and weapons for the coming time, there won't be any 27th of April, we will wage war.

CHAIRPERSON: ... how do you propose he should have answered that question?

MR DREYER: Mr Chairman, that answer must obviously be borne in mind as the point of departure if any kind of adjudication is made upon what eventually happened, that is the road block together with the killings there.
	I mean if someone puts me on trial for doing something, and the starting point is now you must have had some reason to do so, I say yes, I have.  I received an instruction to do so, then I am asked what was the instruction, and now the instructed is relayed.  There is a portion of the instruction which does obviously not accord which eventually happened, and that is the point I am getting at.

CHAIRPERSON: That was in June when he was asked that question?

MR DREYER: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: In the meantime he had already made a statement on the 6th of January 1994?

MR DREYER: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Would you expect an accused person standing trial, in his evidence in chief, to depart from a statement which he had already made, would he not try to keep close to that statement as far as possible.

MR DREYER: Mr Chairman, in fact during the course of the criminal proceedings, that very same statement was put to him by his own legal representative which was obviously not involved when that statement was drafted, and he had the full opportunity, he took him paragraph for paragraph through it, and that is evident from the proceedings, he took him through that very same statement, and he was afforded the opportunity ...

CHAIRPERSON: Including the passage you are reading?

MR DREYER: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: As to what the instructions were?

MR DREYER: Yes, and he didn't indicate in the slightest bit that he wanted to defer from that, whereas in other instances he said yes, I agree with that particular paragraph to some extent, but I want to add this and I want to qualify this and I want to say this.
	It is not as though he just tried to keep as close as possible to the lines contained in that statement.  He did in fact get the opportunity and he was afforded the opportunity by his very own legal representative in these proceedings My Lord.

CHAIRPERSON: I need, well in this case he chose on this particular aspect, he chose to stay in line with his statement in order to protect Oelofse and that is what he is saying.

MR DREYER: As the Committee pleases, but then at least I still have some questions on that because there is a second ...

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, all right proceed, let's hear what the questions are.

MR DREYER: Mr Kloppers, there is a second element that comes about from here, because you said why did you have to collect weapons and ammunition and you say you had to gather it for the war because there would not be any 27th of April, is that correct?

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: That is correct.

MR DREYER: And then there was a 27th of April sir, and there was an election.  Which was are you testifying about during June 1994 when you went to collect this ammunition and weapons?