Amnesty Hearings — Potchefstroom — UNKNOWN

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Were you perhaps a member for two or three years?

MR VAN STRAATEN: Yes, yes that's right.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Were you an active member of the CP?

MR VAN STRAATEN: Yes, I was an active member.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: The offence which you committed, is that perhaps one of the ways in which these political objectives could have been achieved by the CP?

MR VAN STRAATEN: Yes, as I said, our objective with this offence was to create more job opportunities for white people.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: But, am I correct in saying that this particular offence, that you committed this not as a result of an order or instruction?

MR VAN STRAATEN: No, not at all.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: I refer you to the supplementary statement, apologies, chairperson, my notes have not been indexed or
2/	numbered,/...
252	W VAN STRAATEN
numbered, but that is the witness' statement, I am referring to paragraph 9 thereof, paragraph 9 of the statement, and the paragraph reads as follows:-
"The reason why we grabbed hold of them was to tie them up and then to remove the truck."

MR VAN STRAATEN: That's correct.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Is it correct that the purpose and the reasons mentioned in your statement was to actually rob or to steal the vehicle?

MR VAN STRAATEN: Are you saying what was the purpose?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Yes, the purpose, you say "the reason why we tied them up was to remove the truck", so the purpose or reason was to actually rob the truck?

MR VAN STRAATEN: To remove it, yes.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: And that had nothing to do with any political objectives, am I correct?

MR VAN STRAATEN: As I said, it was to show the government and other private institutions, to show them that their black night watchmen were not competent for the job.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Yes, but according to your statement, you actually put it very nicely, the reason why you tied them up, and that was to remove the truck.   Was that perhaps a mistake?

MR VAN STRAATEN: No, no, that's correct.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: And that was repeated in paragraph 16 of your statement, which reads as follows
"The reason why we took the truck..."
that's the second reason:-
"...was to demonstrate that blacks were not competent to do the work."
Do you understand that?   In other words, the second reason
2/	was,/...
253	W VAN STRAATEN
was, also had nothing to do with political objectives and the achievement of any political ideals?

MR VAN STRAATEN: No, I am not quite with you, I don't understand?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Must I repeat that?

MR VAN STRAATEN: Yes please.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: The paragraph reads as follows, it's paragraph 16
"The purpose and reason why we took the truck was to demonstrate that the blacks were not competent to do the work."
Do you understand that?

MR VAN STRAATEN: Yes, that's correct.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Now, my statement is that this reason shows that the act which you committed had nothing whatsoever to do with political objectives.  Do you understand me now?

MR VAN STRAATEN: Yes.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: And this also links up with paragraph 9, which I read to you earlier, do you agree?

MR VAN STRAATEN: Yes, I'm with you, but it actually amounts to the same thing.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: How so?

MR VAN STRAATEN: That is why we removed the truck, to prove that the people weren't competent to do this work.   Now you're saying that we didn't mention anything about tying up, to me that's all one and the same thing.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: No, no, I agree with you, I agree with the reason which you've now mentioned, but what I would like to put to you is that the reasons which you mentioned in your statement is proof that what you did had nothing to do with political objectives, do you understand me?
2/

<UNKNOWN>: /...
253	W VAN STRAATEN

<UNKNOWN>: Chairperson, pardon me, I just want to point out that these two paragraphs are now being used out of context.  In the context of the statement as a whole, it is part of a story which was told and it is actually taken out of context.

CHAIRPERSON: You say it's not political, but isn't this very similar to (indistinct) action, that what they were saying was that these jobs should not be given to black people, they should be reserved for whites, isn't that what he's saying?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: That can be drawn, but that is what I'm trying, that is why I'm putting these questions to him, is for him to come out with that.   I don't want to draw inferences or conclusions for him.   No further questions.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Were you accused No 1 during the trial?

MR VAN STRAATEN: That's correct.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: From the judgment that you had a number of previous convictions?

MR VAN STRAATEN: That's correct.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: And one of them was, you were convicted of, in 1987, of the theft of a caravan?

MR VAN STRAATEN: No, that's not correct.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: What was the nature of your previous convictions, maybe, I mean, I'm planting wrong convictions on you, what were your previous convictions?

MR VAN STRAATEN: Theft of a trailer, a motor bike trailer.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: A motor bike trailer?

MR VAN STRAATEN: In about '89, maybe '87, and also a previous conviction for driving under the influence.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: You were sentenced to two years imprisonment, am I right?
2/

MR VAN STRAATEN: /...
254	W VAN STRAATEN

MR VAN STRAATEN: That's correct.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: And you were released on the 9th of June 1989?

MR VAN STRAATEN: That's correct.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: You committed this offence after you were released from prison?

MR VAN STRAATEN: That's correct.

MR DE JAGER: Mr Van Straaten, is it correct that you had a drinking problem?

MR VAN STRAATEN: No, no chairperson.

MR DE JAGER: Were you not also convicted of driving under the influence of drink?

MR VAN STRAATEN: Yes, that's true.

MR DE JAGER: On more than one occasion?

MR VAN STRAATEN: Yes, on about three different occasions, but each one of us at social occasions would have a drink and perhaps we encounter a road blockade, our alcohol percentage is too high.

MR DE JAGER: Yes.   On that Saturday, what time did you start drinking on that Saturday?

MR VAN STRAATEN: Approximately ten o'clock in the morning, when those bars open.

MR DE JAGER: Ten o'clock in the morning?

MR VAN STRAATEN: Yes.

MR DE JAGER: Did you continue drinking throughout the day?

MR VAN STRAATEN: If I had continued drinking throughout the day, then I should have been asleep by 12 o'clock that night, I wouldn't have been able to commit an offence, so I don't want to blame the alcohol, I don't want to say that it's because of alcohol that I committed the offence.
2/

MR DE JAGER: /...
255	W VAN STRAATEN

MR DE JAGER: No, I appreciate that, that you say it was, you don't want to hide behind the drink, but you were very strongly under the influence at that stage?

MR VAN STRAATEN: Yes, I wouldn't say strongly under the influence.

MR DE JAGER: Well, you must either have been strongly under the influence, or you must have been very resistant to alcohol?

MR VAN STRAATEN: Yes, maybe, if that's the way you put it.

MR DE JAGER: Mr Van Straaten, I would like to tell you I have real problems to see how the stealing of this vehicle could have had anything to do with the pursuing of political convictions or an attempt to try and influence the government to make any changes in the political situation?

MR VAN STRAATEN: As I already said, what I wanted to try and prove by committing this act, well if it was our view to, if we wanted to steal the vehicle, we would, in the first place, have obtained a competent driver to drive the truck, because I didn't have that experience.   You are alleging that alcohol played a role in the commission of the offence.   Now if I was under the influence, got into a truck, which I didn't know how to operate, and then to try and drive this truck on a busy road, well it just doesn't make sense.