Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1992-05-12

GARY JOHN KRUSER: I accept - I've been advised and I went through the evidence, I maybe don't recall it completely, but I clearly remember when going through it with my legal that one person was shot from the front, maybe the AK was wrong, maybe I've got it wrong in that sense but I remember that one of the people who died was shot from the front.  I clearly remember that as part of the medical evidence.  Maybe I got it a bit wrong the type of weapon but I remember after going through with my lawyers that was pointed out to me.

MR DORFLING: I want to put it to you that there was no evidence of anybody of the eight deceased having been shot from the front.

MR TIPP: Mr Chairman, we don't believe that my learned friend is correct in that proposition.  I referred earlier to the relevant pages, I remember distinctly the cross-examination of the relevant medical experts where is was accepted that it was quite possible that the track - the entry had been at the front and the track through to the back of that particular deceased.  Mr Chairman, there's only one such person in question.  The majority position is quite clear.

MR DORFLING: May I make the position clear, Mr Chairman, with regard to the person shot with the AK47, the evidence was quite clear that he had two bullet wounds, one in the upper leg coming from behind with an exit wound in the front and the other one from his right hand side with the bullet being lodged on the left side of his neck.  Do you accept that Mr Kruser.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Kruser says as far as his recollection is concerned one person was shot in the front, that's as far as he can take it.  Now how does this impact on this entire application?

MR DORFLING: Mr Chairman, it is my submission with respect that on the evidence at least seven of the eight deceased were shot from behind.

GARY JOHN KRUSER: There is a dispute in my mind.

CHAIRPERSON: Is this disputable, that?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: He was stabbed.

MR DORFLING: As far as the people shot with firearms are concerned, I'm specifically dealing with the people shot with firearms at Shell House.

CHAIRPERSON: There's a dispute about that.  ...[inaudible] the evidence, Mr Kruser says his recollection is that of the people that were shot and who died outside Shell House, one of them was shot in the front and you've dealt with that.  Now I don't know whether there's been any dispute about the fact that the others were shot in the back?

MR DORFLING: Yes, I think the evidence of the witness initially was that this person was shot with an AK47, I'm putting the proposition that the person shot with an AK47 was not shot from the front.

MR LAX: Sorry, Mr Dorfling, he's already conceded to you that he might have been wrong about the AK47 - he said as much.  Do we need to pursue it any further?

MR DORFLING: No it was indeed conceded in the last question and in that regards that there was initially a dispute and the witness has just in the last question conceded that and that's why this question was put.
	Mr Kruser would you please have regard to the roneo form attached to your Application for Amnesty that is contained in Exhibit C at pages 1 - 7, Mr Chairman.

GARY JOHN KRUSER: That is correct.

MR DORFLING: May I refer you to paragraph 10a, sir?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: I have it.

MR DORFLING: That's on page 3, just for the record.
	You are requested to set out the political objective which you sought to achieve by committing the act, in other words by giving the order for the security guards to shoot.  Is that the way you understood the question?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: Our political objective, yes.

MR DORFLING: Does the response to question 10a reflect your position correctly sir?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: It's correct as I explained yesterday.  My political objective was as a cadre of the movement, deployed in the ANC, I had the responsibility to protect the leadership and the people of the ANC.

MR DORFLING: Your objective therefore was to prevent physical harm or injury to the leadership and members of the ANC, is that correct?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: That's correct.

MR DORFLING: Would you like to add anything to that?

CHAIRPERSON: He already said that damage to the ANC property, Shell House, as well in the evidence.

MR LAX: And on the form, with all due respect, if you look at it:  "I was protecting the leadership and property of the ANC against the IFP" that's what it says.

MR DORFLING: I'm asking the witness, Mr Chairman, if there's anything he would like to add as far as his political objective is concerned, to add that now, I want to give him the opportunity.

GARY JOHN KRUSER: I think what I've said, I'm happy with my reasons laid down.

MR DORFLING: I beg your pardon?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: I'm happy with the reasons I've given, I don't want to add anything more.

MR DORFLING: Mr Kruser, I would like you to have the opportunity to respond to certain of the finding made at the time of the inquest by Mr Justice Nugent.  This is not a re-hearing of the inquest, we're not reviewing the decisions, I just want you to make your own position clear with regard to the findings by Mr Justice Nugent.  If you disagree with those findings, I would like you to state so and then once all the evidence has been placed before the Committee, the Committee has to decide whether those findings can be supported or whether your version should be accepted.
Mr Chairman, the findings is also contained in Exhibit C I'm going to be referring to the specific pages.  Page 181 of the Application - sorry, that is incorrect -page 184 - page 30 of the typed record.  
	I would on behalf of the objectors at the conclusion of these proceedings make certain submissions and I would like you to say whether, or give you the opportunity to respond to that at this point in time.  At page 184 at the top paragraph, Mr Justice Nugent deals with the so called information that was received by the ANC and which formed the background against which you gave your order for the guards to first fire warning shots and then to repel.  He deals specifically with this so called information and he makes the finding on a prima facie basis.  I read the last sentence of the first paragraph:
"Prima facie, in our view, the evidence to that effect has been no more than make weight which was fabricated after the event so as to bolster the explanations which have been put forward for the shooting which occurred at Lancet Hall and Shell House."
	I'm going to argue in front of this Committee that having regard to all the evidence, the ANC and your version that you had information that there would be an attack is nothing more but a make weight which you designed afterwards to make it fit in with your version of what transpired.  Would you care to respond to that, sir?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: All I can say that I'm aware that I did receive information and we acted with the information we got.

CHAIRPERSON: As I understand it too, the information which the ANC had got, not the actual events of the gangs and marching, these groups marching, some of them armed and so on - doesn't relate to that.

MR DORFLING: It relates specifically to the information of the so called planned attack on Lancet Hall and or Shell House, Mr Chairman, yes specifically that.
	Mr Kruser I want you to have clarity in your mind, in other words, I'll be submitting in front of this Committee that you had no such information beforehand that Shell House would be attacked?