Amnesty Hearings — Pietersburg — 1997-07-03

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, let's see how far we can go.  Maybe before I allow other people to put questions to him, I am not sure I understand why you would have allowed the false information in paragraph 4 to stand.
	I am trying to say to you, what harm could have been done if paragraph 4 had, because I assume that it is probably contains the untruth or unless I am wrong, paragraph 4 of Mr Swarts' affidavit, what harm could have been done if for example paragraph 4 had said that the person who transported the bodies, was Gerber?

PIETER ANDRIES DREYER: I don't think any harm could have been done.  The fact of the matter is that Blackie Swart made a statement to keep the evidence as short as possible, otherwise a whole chain of statements would have had to be taken from all the different people who dealt with the bodies.

CHAIRPERSON: So one must read of course in conjunction with 5, is that the idea?  Do you have a copy of this document I am talking about?

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Visser, can you give me an indication, what is false in paragraph 4?

ADV VISSER: Chairperson, this is a sworn statement which indicates that in the chain of events from where the people were injured until the point where they landed at the District Surgeon and that they didn't sustain any other injuries.  Swarts is saying that he transported them.

ADV DE JAGER: No Swarts is not saying he transported them.  Nowhere in that statement is he saying that.

ADV VISSER: I am sorry, I must have read it incorrectly, I apologise for wasting time, you are correct, he doesn't say so.  My mistake.
	I see that what you are saying is correct and I apologise.

ADV DE JAGER: The corpses were conveyed under his Command and Supervision to Alldays.

SISI KHAMPEPE: But in fact it was not so Mr Visser, it was Mr Erwee who instructed that the corpses should be taken to Alldays.  So in a way you are correct, that is not a true statement?

ADV VISSER: I do appreciate the attempts to come to my assistance, but I still remain wrong and I will tell you why Mr Chairman.  Erwee in fact gave the instruction, but Swarts was appointed to take control of the matter as Investigating Officer and in that capacity, he may be correct when he says here that under his control.

SISI KHAMPEPE: I beg to differ with you Mr Visser, I know it is your case, but wasn't Swarts instructed when all the police were at Alldays, so that would be incorrect what in standing here, would therefore be incorrect?

ADV VISSER: Mr Chairman, I am very pleased to hear that once again I was correct and not incorrect.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well, let's take it a little bit further.  With all due respect to my colleague who is Afrikaans speaking and I am not, the man says I took the corpses to the police station at Alldays.

ADV VISSER: Mr Chairman, we must really start.  We don't think much turns on this, but let's analyze it.  The second sentence of paragraph 4 as I read it, says this, I loaded the corpses into two government vehicles and under my command and supervision, they were taken to Alldays.
	It could be correct as you've pointed out, as Mr De Jager has pointed out, that could be correct, because he could have been in a car, from where it was taken to the mortuary in Louis Trichardt.
	And then we come to what you are now putting to me Mr Chairman.   During the transport of the corpses to Alldays police station, none of these corpses sustained any further injuries.  Well, that depends on whether he was the one that was present at all stages and as I understood the evidence, it was Mr Gerber who was the person in charge.
	But for as far as he may not have set out the correct facts, this witness says that he attested to it and he knew it was watered down and ...

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Visser, I am sorry it has not been fully canvassed.  But I can't imagine Mr Gerber being the only person in a bakkie, when they haven't got vehicles to transport them, that he would be the only living person in that bakkie and all the corpses at the back and nobody sitting next to him.

ADV VISSER: You are correct Mr Chairman, but we will call Swarts and he can come and tell you himself.  It is not important Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you want to put questions Mr Rossouw?

MR ROSSOUW: I've got no questions Mr Chairman.

MR ROSSOUW: .

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Black?

MR BLACK: I just want to clear one thing up.  By the time Mr Swarts signed this affidavit, you were aware of the true facts that Gerber was in fact the person who had been the driver of the vehicle, is that so?

PIETER ANDRIES DREYER: That is correct.

MR BLACK: I am putting it, it has been put to you and you've said it, that you knew for reasons which may or may not emerge if Mr Swarts come and testify, that this wasn't entirely a correct version and that it was a watered down version.  Is that so?

PIETER ANDRIES DREYER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR BLACK: Okay, thank you.  And you agreed to go along with this, you colluded in this misleading statement?

PIETER ANDRIES DREYER: Yes, it is correct Chairperson.

MR BLACK: Okay.  I have no further questions.

MR BLACK: .

CHAIRPERSON: Well, I assume you don't have to re-examine Mr Visser?

ADV VISSER: No questions in re-examination, Mr Chairman.

ADV VISSER: .

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Dreyer, you are excused.
MR DREYER EXCUSED

ADV VISSER: May I respectfully suggest that we do take a lunch adjournment now Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, indeed and we will start at two o'clock.

ADV VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman.
COMMISSION ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION

ADV VISSER: ... formalities.  It has occurred to us that in the application form of Mr Dreyer, his application does not formally cover everything which he is asking amnesty for.  As you know, his application form was handed in timeously and we are not aware of any regulations issued by this Committee in regard to what the position might be if he wishes to amend the application form.
	We are quite happy to present you with a written application regarding a formal amendment if that is what you would require, the alternative Mr Chairman, it would seem to us to be that we would simply ask for amnesty for Mr Dreyer in terms of his application form as expounded and amplified by his evidence before you.
	It is probably one of those two.  I would imagine that you would rather have a proper application or a written note as to which paragraph has to be amended in which way before you, in order to consider the application.  We would like you to give us some indication of how you wish us to go about it, or whether it is in order as it stands?
	But we didn't specifically make mention.

CHAIRPERSON: It depends on the nature of the amendment that you want.

ADV VISSER: May I explain it this way Mr Chairman?  All that Dreyer said in his affidavit is that ...

CHAIRPERSON: Where, ...

ADV VISSER: Mr Chairman, it is at page 123 of your Section B and I refer you to paragraph 9(a)(iv), the second paragraph, the last sentence says "I was the Branch Commander of Louis Trichardt, where the investigation was finalized under my command."  That is all he says in his application form.
	Technically it is not wide enough to cover his application for amnesty for whatever he may have done wrong in regard to attesting to the affidavit of Mr Swarts and as far as his knowledge goes of watering down the application in terms of the order given by Mr Erwee.
	It has occurred to us Mr Chairman, that we would probably need to put something in writing to either ...

CHAIRPERSON: He covered that in his evidence?

ADV VISSER: He did that Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: And the only, let's look at - where does he describe the nature of the incident for which he wants amnesty, probably the first page?

ADV VISSER: It is at page 123, paragraph 9(1), he only speaks of elimination of six terrorists, it is the same as the others, Mr Chairman and there is no specific reference to this part of evidence.