Human Rights Violation Hearings — Worcester — 1996-06-25

GRAEME FALCK: I'll attempt to briefly just point these out.  Dorothy de Villiers affirms that the persons entered the shop while Mrs Steyn was trying to keep the door closed.  She saw that an object approximately 6 inches long was in Mr de Bruin's hands.  She also stated that she was aware of petrol bomb attacks on houses and shops in the area.  
 The 2 Daniels women also affirmed that Mrs Steyn attempted to close the shop doors.  They were peeping through the dressing room doors or entrances, change room doors.  They also thought that the people outside would enter the shop and indicated that they were fearful because of the threatening approach of the group of people outside who slammed open the front doors.  She heard Mrs Steyn shout that she was frightened and she heard her scream, leave the shop or I will shoot you twice.  That's the substance of this affidavit.   The same is said by the sister who, this is a Mrs Daniels who also went to school with Mr de Bruin and she also affirms or confirms that it was indeed Jacques de Bruin who entered the property and she also said this to her sister.  This is corroborating evidence.  
 Johan Conradie was a police officer and he claims to have heard a shot and also affirms that a group of roughly 12 Coloured young people entered the shop or were in the region of the shop.  He then heard the shot in the direction of the shop and he ran in the direction of the shot and saw one of the Coloured men falling towards the floor.  He saw him being picked up as he was stumbling by 2 other men who carried him about 80 metres away from the shop entrance.  They then dropped him and ran away.  He also says that he was the first person to reach Mrs Steyn after this incident and she stated to him that people entered her shop and in a threatening way approached her.  
 There were also some reactions of Mr Dirk de Bruyn's brief version of his affidavit which was received by Mrs Steyn.  I heard this morning that his evidence is not entirely the same as in the summary testimony received and she wants to just say that some of the claims of the summary statement of Dirk de Bruin.  
 I want to respond to this understanding that Mr de Bruin must not at the incident, he was not present at the incident and that the shortened statement indicates that the police shot at the people who were marching but I understand that Mr de Bruin did not say this in  his testimony today.  
 As far as she understands there was no shooting incidents on the part of the police on this particular day at the marching of the youths.  She says that she shot the person inside her shop as he and others entered her shop and threatened her.  She denies that either herself or Mr de Bruin was outside the shop when the shot was fired.  
 The post-mortem also indicated that the shot entered the body underneath the left arm in the armpit and that she did not shoot him in the chest.  The post-mortem shows that the shot entered the body in the armpit.

ADV POTGIETER: You may then just conclude with the statement of Mrs Steyn, also refer to the statement  Mr Graeme Falck which must also be presented to this Commission.

GRAEME FALCK: The statement which I made was only from the information which I received from the police dossier, simply to see what actually happened, whether the case was properly investigated.  I understand that it's the aims of this Commission and I might just be able to help the Commission in this regard.  May I present this information?

ADV POTGIETER: Maybe in a summary way you could refer us to the documentation.

GRAEME FALCK: I'm not going to read this statement I'm just going to mention to you briefly.  The South African Police according to the police dossier, attempted to obtain 35 different statements.  During this period there was unrest in the area, there is a sworn statement supporting this.  Shops and private residences were damaged during this time.  The unrest official apparently also had difficulty in obtaining affidavits from the people who took part in the march.  He approached the school principal a Mr Anthony, a teacher at the Langeberg School in Robertson as well as the father of the deceased, Mr de Bruin whether they would assist him to gain testimony and I quote, Mrs de Bruin and Anthony said that the young people present were not going to be willing to make statements to the police.  According to affidavits in the dossier it appears that the deceased was involved occurrences of public violence.

ADV POTGIETER: Was this on the day of this incident?

GRAEME FALCK: I'm not entirely sure what the sworn statements or affidavits indicate.

ADV POTGIETER: Apologies Mr Falck, it's very difficult to deal with evidence of this nature if there is this sort of distraction.  Please, will you just respect the occasion and allow us to just work through the evidence.  I'll appreciate your co-operation, thank you.

GRAEME FALCK: The sworn statement used by the police indicates that, I saw Jacques de Bruin and his mother throwing rocks at passing vehicles.  It appears to me that this was close to the mobile shop on the 21st of November.

ADV POTGIETER: It doesn't appear as if it has to be with the particular incident does it, the shooting incident?

GRAEME FALCK: He just says that in a detailed manner that Jacques was involved in events, he was toyi-toying in the street, he was actively involved in throwing rocks at vehicles.  There's also a quote, the deceased Jacques de Bruin and Pieter Ruiters was prominently visible in the group. (end of quote)  The person also indicated, I was concerned about making a testimony in court because I felt my life to be threatened if I was a state witness.  That was then the police station.   
 Ruben Jacobs to whom Mr de Bruin has referred this morning claimed in his statement that he has no idea who might have shot Jacques de Bruin according to his affidavit.  If I understand correctly, Mr de Bruin said that he was an eye witness and it would appear that he was an eye witness but he does not know who actually fired the shot in terms of his affidavit.  
 There was also an affidavit on file which indicates that the witness made a false statement.  Mr Ruben Jacobs and I quote from my sworn statement which was made out of information in the dossier, I quote, Mr Ruben Jacobs took people to Cape Town to make affidavits at an attorney and a witness was told (in quotes) how he should have lied about the events in his affidavit.  This witness asked that the affidavit be kept secret (in quotes) because if it's made known then her or his life and property would be under threat.  
 In conclusion a legal inquest was held, a number of statements were obtained in this regard and the Magistrate said that the death was not due to a crime.  This was the finding of the Magistrate in terms of the inquest.  On initiative of the deceased's father and by means of his attorneys, there was an independent inquest.  A team from Worcester  again investigated the entire matter thoroughly and it was again presented to the Attorney General and the Attorney General in view of the contents of the dossier, decided not to continue with prosecution so the Magistrate decided that this was not a criminal offence and the Attorney General also believed the successful conviction would not be the consequence of any courtcase.  The contents of the dossier indicates that the detective made great efforts to in detail determine what occurred and the eventual finding on the part of the state, on the part of the Magistrate was that the person acted under the understanding of a very real threat to life and property.