Human Rights Violation Hearings — Pollsmoor — 1996-11-28

INTERPRETER: There were people who were with these so called terrorism.  You were - the police were on the other hand.

ADV POTGIETER: So in daai - onder daai omstandighede ek dink u stem met my saam, u het al klaar so gese.

INTERPRETER: There was no danger for the police involved.

ADV POTGIETER: Onder daai omstandighede, waarom gaan skiet u die mense dood?  Waarom arresteer u hulle nie?

INTERPRETER: Under those circumstances - why did you kill those people?

UNKNOWN: Mnr die Voorsitter ek maak ten sterkste beswaar teen hierdie tipe van vrae, die getuie het nou al herhaaldelik  gese dat die voorval was klaar gewees, daarna was 'n optrede gewees.  In alle billikheid teenoor die getuie, daar moet nie woorde in sy mond gele word nie, oor wat hy gese het nie.

INTERPRETER: Mr Chairman, I object to these type of questions.    This - the witness have said repeatedly that the planning have been done and this is what have happened.  Please don't place words into his mouth.

UNKNOWN: Dankie.

ADV NTSEBEZA: Advocate Potgieter.

ADV POTGIETER: I don't - I don't follow the objection Chairperson.  There is an allegation that words are placed in the mouth of the witness.  I think that is probably explicable on the basis that the questioning wasn't followed.  I never put any words in anybody's mouth.

ADV NTSEBEZA: Mr Brand, what questions do you feel are being asked in such a way that words are put into the mouth of the witness.

UNKNOWN: Chairman, the witness already testified and you can read it in his statement.  He explained what happened and that when they were called to retreat that there was - there was an assault - plans on the - on the police.  That is what the witness testified.  And he explained it now over and over again.  Now certain things is put to him by way of questioning and telling - you said this and you said this - isn't it true?  That is not what he said.

ADV NTSEBEZA: Advocate Potgieter, perhaps you want to rephrase your questioning in such a way it does not reflect these sort of insinuations that Mr Brand says it does.  I haven't got this - I have not  reading through his statement now.  Maybe you just want to rephrase your questions in such a way, but I think the questions are quite permissible for purpose of clarifying some of the issues - you want to clarify.

ADV POTGIETER: Thank you Chairperson.
Mnr Odendal kom ons kom nou weer terug voor die onderbreking.

INTERPRETER: Mr Odendal let's go back to where we stopped before the interruption.

ADV POTGIETER: U het alreeds toegegee nou in ons gesprek dat u dit so beplan dat die polisie in beheer was van die - van die toneel.

INTERPRETER: You have already admitted now, during our conversation, that you have planned that the police should be in control of this whole incident.

MNR ODENDAL: Dit is korrek, die polisie was in beheer van die toneel.

INTERPRETER: Yes, that is correct.

MNR ODENDAL: Ons was besig om te onttrek, as die persoon nie die handgranaat gegooi het nie, sou daar geen skietery plaasgevind het nie.

ADV POTGIETER: Ja.

INTERPRETER: The police was in control.  We were busy withdrawing and if this person had not thrown a hand-grenade, there would have been no shooting.

ADV POTGIETER: Ja, maar u sien dit is die punt wat ek maak, waarom was daar geskiet gewees.

INTERPRETER: That is exactly my point.  Why did that shooting take place?

ADV POTGIETER: En u was - u het verskeie polisiebeamptes gehad op die toneel, u het die moontlik gehad om te verhoed dat hierdie mense wegkom as hulle wil wegkom.  U kon die mense konfrontreer met die feit  dat u in beheer is van die toneel.  U sien want julle is - julle is omsingel van die polisie  staan stil.

INTERPRETER: There were several police officers there.  There was a possibility that you could prevent that these people could get away.  You could confront them with the fact that you were in control of the situation.  There were police surrounding you and they couldn't get away.

MNR ODENDAL: Nee meneer  ons het die  [onduidelik] gesoek want as 'n man met 'n AK47 gewees weghardloop  [onduidelik]  - polisiemanne skiet, om nou te se staan stil hier dat hulle jou in die kop kan skiet.

INTERPRETER: No, if a person had an AK47 gun and they ran to and fro  and they could shoot you, it doesn't work like that.

ADV POTGIETER: Wel - wel...[tussenbeide]

ADV NTSEBEZA: I think what I would personally also want to be  clarified about and I think this is what Mr Potgieter is wanting to get at.  If I understood your evidence well, and you'll correct me if I am wrong, in - when you read your statement and when you were being asked questions by other members of the panel - it seems to me at one stage, when once your police bus had gone past the place where it was expected to be attacked and had reached it's destination.  You then - in all the areas in which you had been placed, in other words the police - began to take the view that the attack is not going to take place on that day.  And it was at that stage that you, you as a person, began to see people walking on foot at about the intersection.  
And I think what advocate Potgieter is trying to establish from you, is whether an effort was made at all by the police to arrest these people.  For instance, was there any endeavour made through a loud hailer  - seeing that you had surrounded these people from the description of how the police were placed.  
Was there for instance a loud hailer that was used to say - we have reason to believe that you are the people who were planning to commit a crime - that you are so and so and so and so.  But that we must warn you that you are completely surrounded - that you must surrender and if you don't we will have to defend ourselves?
Was there anything of that nature that was attempted - when they were walking there.  Walking, as I understand the evidence in a suspicious manner?

MNR ODENDAL: Dit - ons het nie dit nie gedoen om die mense deur 'n luidspreker te waarsku nie mnr die Voorsitter.  Ek glo Kaptein Kleyn toe hy daar stilgehou het by die drie persone wat aangekom het, wil hy hulle ondervra en deursoek het.

INTERPRETER: We did not warn them through a loud speaker, because Captain Kleyn, when he stopped, he wanted to question these people and search them.

ADV NTSEBEZA: Now I don't know whether I understand you well, are you saying that you did not want to indicate to them, through a loud hailer that they were surrounded?  But why not?

MNR ODENDAL: Ons het nie 'n luid -  ons het nie 'n luidspreker by ons gehad nie.

INTERPRETER: No, we didn't have a loud speaker with us.

ADV NTSEBEZA: Precisely - is it not therefore, and I think this is what we would like to know - how were you hoping to effect an arrest on people who were as armed as had being described by you?  To your knowledge this thing had been planned.  Now, why were you hoping to affect an arrest on people who might resist by approaching them in the manner in which you say they were being approached by one of the police? ... End of Tape 3, Side A ...    [indistinct] to make sure that  from a distance you are able to indicate to them that they are completely surrounded.  That they dare not  move, that they should  surrender.

MNR ODENDAL: Mnr die Voorsitter, dit het alles het binne of baie vinnig gebeur.  Ons het nie eers geweet die persone wat daar verby staan is die aanvallers nie.

INTERPRETER: Mr Chairman, all that happened within a few seconds.  We did not even know that the people who were standing there, were the attackers.

MNR ODENDAL: Eers toe hulle die handgranaat gooi, en op daardie stadium was die meeste voertuig al besig om te onttrek en die polisiebussie wat deurgestuur is, was alreeds by Guguletu polisiestasie.

INTERPRETER: Only when they threw this hand-grenade, we realized that at that stage the police were withdrawing and the bus had also - had also left for Guguletu  at that stage.