Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1992-05-12

MR DORFLING: No Mr Chair, Honourable Members, it's actually a request that was forthcoming from the Attorney General's office requesting the witness to clarify certain aspects in his first statement and it particularly referred to the first statement I've referred to, it referred to paragraph 6 of the first statement in which the witness said as a result of the
...[inaudible]

SISI KHAMPEPE: ...[inaudible] it can't be ...[inaudible] this refers to a request which was made with regard to paragraph 5 of Mr Kruser's application.

MR DORFLING: No it refers to paragraph 5 of the Attorney General's request.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Do we have a copy of that request, do we know what actually was requested by the A.G. and to which Mr Kruser responded.

MR DORFLING: I would have to look but it is certainly available - I would be in a position to make that available.  I would perhaps after the lunch adjournment, which be an opportune time, I will make that available.
	May I just refer to the third statement at page 26 just a response and I'll then place it in context by also supplying the Honourable Committee with the question.  Page 26, again paragraph 6 thereof.  This is your third statement, Mr Kruser.
Do you see that?  Sorry it's recorded here "to the best of my knowledge two registers have been furnished to the offices of the Attorney General.  They are the only registers of which I am aware and to which I have referred.  I was the person who kept these registers, I do not believe that the registers can assist me in adding anything to my statement."  All the questions posed to you was aimed at trying to obtain information pertaining to which security guards were issued with which weapons and who actually or which security guards were actually utilised on the day, do you agree?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: The gist is they wanted names of people who shot and as I said earlier I was not prepared to divulge the names to the Attorney General.

MR DORFLING: Why didn't you disclose it for purposes of your amnesty application?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: I think if the Amnesty Committee wanted it and requested it, I would have given it to them.

MR DORFLING: But sir, up to now you haven't disclosed it.

GARY JOHN KRUSER: Up to now I've not been asked.

MR DORFLING: But didn't you see that as a relevant factor for the Committee to consider?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: I think if the Committee wants the names of people who shot, who I saw shot, I'll give it to them, I don't have a problem with that, I never ever had a problem with that.

GEORGE BIZOS: Mr Chairman, there's an implied suggestion in this line of questioning that the witness kept back from the Amnesty Committee the names of the people to whom arms were issued and which were fired.  If there's a manifest the unfair line of cross-examination, because our learned friend knows that with this application of this witness, twelve other applications were filed at the same time disclosing the names of the persons who shot and the firearm that they used.  I had  a note previously, I thought I would leave it until re-examination but I submit that the line of cross-examination is manifestly unfair to the witness and time consuming to the proceedings before you.

MR DORFLING: If I may respond?

CHAIRPERSON: Which firearm they were issued and which firearm they used - at the end of the day we'll have that full picture, won't we?

MR DORFLING: Indeed, the question being posed to this witness is why it wasn't disclosed in his particular application because it's relevant.  With the greatest respect, Mr Chairman, the fact of the existence of the firearm register that would disclose the identity of the specific individual guards is not disclosed in any of the 13 applications and that's why this line of questioning is being put to the witness.
	Mr Kruser, after the conclusion of the Shell House inquest proceedings, you were well aware of this problem, you were well of the two facts - that there was indeed a firearm register that would reflect the names?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: I was.

MR DORFLING: Why then didn't you at that point in time in way of a supplementary affidavit disclose it to the Amnesty Committee?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: I didn't think it was necessary, neither was I advised that it was necessary.

MR DORFLING: If you have regard to your application in total that the actual roneo form that was completed as well as the three affidavits attached thereto and do you agree you do not mention that any of the guards were issued with AK47 rifles on that day?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: If I check, I think it's correct but I'm not sure.

MR DORFLING: Please take the time and see whether that proposition I put to you is correct?
	Mr Kruser, maybe if I may just assist you, I think there's some reference to - in one of the supplementary affidavits - of an AK47.  It does not reflect to whom it was issued and whether it was utilised.  Why was the fact of - the fact that some of the security guards used AK47 rifles not disclosed in your Amnesty Application?  To fire at the crowd -why was that not disclosed?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: I think the people who shot with the AK's, I think they put it in their applications.

MR DORFLING: You as a commander of those members, why didn't you disclose that to the Amnesty Committee?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: I didn't think it was necessary, neither was the advice that it was necessary.

MR DORFLING: You were aware of the fact prior to these proceedings starting that at least one of the deceased killed outside Shell House was killed by way of an AK47 is that correct?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: That is correct, I'm also aware that it's not - it doesn't match the AK's we used.  The ballistics didn't match any of the AK's that we used.

MR DORFLING: Why did you consider that information then not to be relevant?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: I'm saying that I didn't think it was necessary for me to say that they used AKs, neither was I advised by my legal advisors.

MR DORFLING: So you explained that one of the facts that triggered your decision to give the order to reply was the fact that a glass window in your immediate vicinity was struck by a bullet which you perceived to have been coming from the marchers direction, is that correct?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: That with a list of other factors I mentioned earlier.

MR DORFLING: Would you mind to indicate where you refer to that fact in your Amnesty Application?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: I don't think I mentioned it but when I was in court and if I had - if you look at my statement and you look at my evidence, my evidence of 350 pages - if I had to make a statement outlying every single fact that I mentioned in court, I think we would spend I don't know how long compiling a statement to the Attorney General and it's impossible for me to put every single fact in a statement.  Besides that, when we met the legal advisors of the police at some stage, we were told by them together with my legal advisors - all they requested was the gist of what happened on that day and that's the nature of how we made our statements.

MR DORFLING: Mr Kruser, the final trigger to make you decide to give the order to repel was the fact that bullets were coming from the direction of the crowd and that at least one of these bullets in your mind hit the glass window just to the right of you, is that not true?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: That's not true, I said the reason why I gave the order to repel because of the combination of all the factors that I mentioned earlier.  The one without the other doesn't make up my mind and I stick to that evidence, that's all those factors together, I don't think I mentioned all those factors in my statements either, but when I'm asked in court to explain, I think I explained to the judge what are the factors that drove me to that decision to open fire.  None of those factors operate in isolation to each other.

MR DORFLING: I think we're back at the same debate you had with Mr Pretorius?