Amnesty Hearings — Port Elizabeth — 1997-09-22

GERRIT NICHOLAS ERASMUS: Yes, it wouldn't have been a shock to them if such an incident such as this had arisen.  I think the matter would have been dealt with in very small committees or perhaps a person to person discussion, that's probably how it would have been conveyed.  And I agree with you, I don't think it would have caused a sense of shock.  Many people died on a daily basis, so death within this war context wasn't actually a shock to anybody anymore.

MR PHOSA: Even death at the hands of the Government, was no shock anymore according to you?  At the ...[inaudible] of the Government?

GERRIT NICHOLAS ERASMUS: Shock as I understand it no, but I qualify that by saying that I did not convey this information to them so if they had heard this information, I don't know what their reaction would have been but what was relayed back to me - the feedback which I got, did not indicate that.

MR PHOSA: I ask you one question and then you go onto others.  Let's just come back to the one I dealt with.  Are you saying that  - and if you've answered it yes, are you saying that even the idea of a Government eliminating it's citizens was no shock in those days?  Is that your answer, is that your evidence?

GERRIT NICHOLAS ERASMUS: Shock is a normal reaction and I think yes, there would have been a sense of shock amongst the people but I have to qualify it by saying, I don't know what happened afterwards.

MR PHOSA: You see, you ought to realise by now that I'm raising these question simply because it appears you didn't report, so that is why I'm raising these questions but to go back to the question itself.

GERRIT NICHOLAS ERASMUS: I can sate unequivocally that in this particular instance, I did not report it in the normal way and along the normal channels because I said it was a covert operation.

MR PHOSA: I want you to go back - I have reasons why I ask you these questions, I tried to have as clear the question of secrecy to understand each other on the basis that as between you - your team in the Eastern Cape and the politicians, there was general understanding that there would secrecy on issues like this, isn't that so?

MR VISSER: No, with great respect Mr Chairman, not with any stretch of the imagination did he say that.  He said that it was his impression that the politicians must have known what was going on on ground and he based that belief inter-alias on the fact that he said that from the GSB's there must have been reporting upwards to the politicians but he never said that there was an understanding between the politicians and the police themselves on the ground, in the line of the questioning which my learned friend has just put.  That has not been the evidence.

MR PHOSA: I'll go ahead, I'll repeat my question.  ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Phosa, is there any misunderstanding here?
	Did you in certain instances report back in the normal along normal channels?

GERRIT NICHOLAS ERASMUS: On a daily basis.

CHAIRPERSON: To whom did you report?

GERRIT NICHOLAS ERASMUS: I reported firstly, along the channels to head office and that happened on a daily basis.  Then these systems - management systems were in place and I attended meetings there and these systems had sub-structures and sub-committees.  And at that committee it was my task as divisional commissioner here locally, to give an overview of the security situation of the area within my jurisdiction, that was the reporting.  So firstly, it was a direct channel to my head office and secondly, at these meetings I had to give an overview or a survey of the security situation.

CHAIRPERSON: But because you classed this operation as a covert operation, you did not report it in the normal way, is that what you've told us?

GERRIT NICHOLAS ERASMUS: That is my evidence.  This specific instance was never documented and was never reported in such a way.

MR PHOSA: Just to make sure that you and I understand each other in the light of everything having been said so far.  Regardless of how you'd report it, my point is this, if you had - if information had reached the politicians, the State President and others that you have decided to eliminate - not that you've eliminated, you've decided that you have to eliminate these two, that information you would expect to be treated by them in confidence otherwise they would not - you wouldn't expect them to tell the world about that, isn't it?

GERRIT NICHOLAS ERASMUS: That is what I assume, that's how I understand it.  I'm assuming that is how they would have dealt with the information if such information ever reached their ears or they would then have to take the necessary steps about it.

MR PHOSA: To go back to your evidence in chief, after all this decision of yours - you personally, that these two must be eliminated was not Gerrit Erasmus's decision, it was that of Erasmus the policeman, isn't it - according to you?

GERRIT NICHOLAS ERASMUS: That is so, that is what I testified.

MR PHOSA: You believed that you were making a decision in the interest of even Mr Botha, the President.

GERRIT NICHOLAS ERASMUS: I took this decision in order to protect the National Party Government of the day and to keep the Government in power, that was one of the legs on which I based my decision.  One can them by implication say that the person who was in control of the State was the State President, Mr P W Botha.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Erasmus, I when Mr Phosa refers to Mr P W Botha, he does not refer to the fact that it was in his personal interest, he's not referring to him in his personal capacity but in his political capacity.  That is what we mean when we talk about the Government and the person.

GERRIT NICHOLAS ERASMUS: That is correct and that's how I understood it, we're talking about the Government of the day, the National Party Government and everything surrounding that.

MR PHOSA: I think we shall again ...[inaudible]  In the light of that impression of yours that you were acting on behalf of the Nationalist Party Government amongst others, you would have had no reason to fear in telling them the politicians, what your conclusions were.  Do you understand the question?

GERRIT NICHOLAS ERASMUS: I say once again, it was a covert operation and I don't know how better to explain this other than by saying it was a covert operation.  I did not have a face to face discussion with any politician at which I conveyed this information or decision and the fear that the operation could go wry or miscarry or be revealed, well I believe there would have been a major investigation in such a case.

MR PHOSA: Talking for myself, I've heard you but I don't understand you  but it will be surprising perhaps, let me start afresh.  If the politicians had accepted that people like Mr Mthimkhulu must be eliminated then such a decision would be in keeping with what they expected, isn't it?

GERRIT NICHOLAS ERASMUS: I can't speak on behalf of the politicians, I can't testify on their behalf.  What I told you was that statements were made which influenced my decision making and that caused me to make up my mind.  I can't sit here today and speak on any politician's behalf, or any other person.

MR PHOSA: Maybe it's the way I phrase the question, I don't want you to talk on their behalf.  I'm trying to understand your reasoning, whether to report or not to report.  Would you with the understanding you've given us, have thought - the word is thought, have thought that they would be against the elimination of these two?  Do you understand the question now?  Would you have thought so,  or did you think so?