Human Rights Violation Hearings — Cape Town — 1997-06-11

MR NTSEBEZA: Yes.  Now you would find that there would be those that for instance would be considered to be pro-ANC.

ULRICH SCHELHASE: Yes.

MR NTSEBEZA: And in the context of those times pro-ANC leaders would be defined as enemy leaders.

ULRICH SCHELHASE: Yes, most definitely.

MR NTSEBEZA: Now was there a view taken at those presentations as to what should be done about enemy leaders?  For instance was there a view taken that they should be neutralised?  Without giving any connotation to ...(intervention)

ULRICH SCHELHASE: Ja, as a matter of strategic principal yes I would agree with that, that enemy leaders had to be neutralised, if they cannot be converted, neutralise, yes.

MR NTSEBEZA: Would the view be taken that if they cannot be neutralised they should in fact be eliminated?

ULRICH SCHELHASE: One could assume so.

MR NTSEBEZA: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Dumisa.  Mapule.

MAPULE RAMASHALA: I just have a few questions and I will round up.  Sir would you say that the Oil Spot Strategy was divided into two components?  One component targeted individuals to bring them on board through your reward and incentive system?

ULRICH SCHELHASE: Yes.

MAPULE RAMASHALA: And the other strategy was to bring on board communities, for example Crossroads was considered an Oil Spot Strategy?

ULRICH SCHELHASE: Yes, you're right.

MAPULE RAMASHALA: And that in fact by engaging both individuals and communities you would succeed in preventing pro-ANC factions into coming into that community?

ULRICH SCHELHASE: Yes.

MAPULE RAMASHALA: Well I think there is enough evidence now to show that the police and the security forces, not only supported, philosophically and otherwise, supported the Witdoeke, but in fact actively engaged in the conflict.  For example the security forces alleged to have helped in the burning of houses, of shooting down comrades who were trying to protect their properties, particularly in KTC.  What were your observations during the conflict about what I have just said?

ULRICH SCHELHASE: Madam what you have now related is also what I want to relate to you.  You haven't seen it but you have heard of it.  The same with me.  I was never actively inside Crossroads while fighting was taking place and when KTC was involved I was - it was out of my area of jurisdiction in any case.  It was of no concern of mine.
 But I must state it categorically Madam and to the Commission, that I have never ever seen a policeman actively involved in supporting Witdoeke by burning houses and shacks and shooting people, I have never seen it and I would be a blatant liar if I had to say yes.

MAPULE RAMASHALA: Sir, in fact yesterday Sam Ndima mentioned in his testimony that you not only supplied the Witdoeke with guns, particularly during the period 1981 to 1986 but that in fact you provided training for ...(intervention)

ULRICH SCHELHASE: Where must I get the guns Madam to supply people?

MAPULE RAMASHALA: I have no idea?

ULRICH SCHELHASE: Neither do I.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Schelhase.  I just see some contradictions here.  The witness before yourself came up here and one of the things that was said was that I thought he was behaving in a way that suggests that he's being evasive.
 You say yourself, you stated on the record that your strategy encouraged the war against people who were opposed to the government, you did not use those words but it is clear, clearly implied, that the people you were supporting, you being from yourself right up to the Minister and government, were fighting those who were opposed to the government.  And then you go on to tell us now that you never saw police supporting the Witdoeke.  Now what is the value of that statement that you are putting on record?  
 You never saw the police support, actively supporting the Witdoeke and yet we have heard numerous accounts, people who are respectable citizens in this country, and not only that we've got video footage clearly demonstrating the support and backing of Witdoeke by police.  And then you come to tell us now in your testimony that you never saw police - what is the value of that statement?

ULRICH SCHELHASE: No,  I will tell you what the value of the statement is Ma'am.  I have never said, on no record in no interview, nowhere have I said that the police did not support the Witdoeke.  I have not said that.  And if they did support them we all make that conclusion in the end.
 What I have said here is I have never seen a policeman shoot somebody in that '86 war, in a conflict or burn - I have seen many houses burnt, of course it was right next to me, but I have never seen a policeman actively putting a shack alight ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I do not deny that ...(intervention)

ULRICH SCHELHASE: Well that's what I said.

CHAIRPERSON: But I merely - my question is, what is the value, because obviously when you say things in a hearing such as this one you are planting seeds either of doubt or of whatever view that you are holding, so what is the - I am just asking what is the value of that statement?

ULRICH SCHELHASE: Well the value of the statement is also what I experienced Ma'am.  I mean I think it is for the Commission to make - take the value of the system in the way that they interpret it, the statement.

CHAIRPERSON: I guess really I was making a point more than asking a question.

ULRICH SCHELHASE: I see.

CHAIRPERSON: Because you have stated that you do not deny that they were.

ULRICH SCHELHASE: Absolutely.

CHAIRPERSON: I will just ask Dr Ramashala to ask you the question.

MAPULE RAMASHALA: Sir, you do say that you did not observe the police helping the Witdoeke, but you suspect, I mean your conclusion ...(intervention)

ULRICH SCHELHASE: Sure, sure.

MAPULE RAMASHALA: ...is that you suspect.  Right, thank you.  Incidentally this document authorises travel to King Williamstown and not to East London.

ULRICH SCHELHASE: Sorry Ma'am then we probably took a car to East London.

MAPULE RAMASHALA: Sir I am going to ask you my last question. It is alleged that the police, the security forces and maybe some of the people involved in development administration practised their own brand of rape, and I'm calling it a brand of rape because it's not rape in the true sense.  It is alleged throughout the country and in this case in this area that is subject to our discussion, that these people took advantage of the fears experienced by women, took advantage by establishing some liaison, sexual liaison where they regularly had, I don't want to call them girlfriends, but regular points of sexual satisfaction, that people had nowhere to go, targeting women who were too afraid to say no because they knew what would happen to them.  That in fact some of these men fathered children.  And I assume since it was not made public that these men walked away from these children.
 Do you say no, remember you are under oath, do you know of any such situation either personally or through hearsay?

ULRICH SCHELHASE: No Ma'am.

MAPULE RAMASHALA: What about the police?

ULRICH SCHELHASE: I wouldn't know.

MAPULE RAMASHALA: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Dr Ramashala.  Just one last issue.  Mr Ngxobongwana seems to have brushed shoulders with very senior people.  You mentioned earlier that Mr Roelf Meyer visited quite frequently, in fact it was Josette (...indistinct) showed me a picture of Mr Ngxobongwana standing with Mr Roelf Meyer, and I think I saw a picture of Ngxobongwana with - or someone mentioned that he even brushed shoulders with the State President, if it's right.

ULRICH SCHELHASE: That's right, yes Ma'am.

CHAIRPERSON: So he was known personally by the State President?