Amnesty Hearings — Bloemfontein — 1997-03-27

MR DE RU: It was his own identification of the scene, he pointed to the house, the kitchen, the blood stains on the floor, the bedroom.  So, I had no doubt that that was the right person.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr de Ru, I think an important question, it might have been the correct person, it might have been the true murderer, but did you have any information, what was your view, what did he have to do with the politics?

MR DE RU: It was just only what Colonel Voigt conveyed to me.

ADV DE JAGER: I beg your pardon.

MR DE RU: Only that what Colonel Voigt conveyed to me.  That these people were responsible for the murders and that they were politically motivated and that they were members of either the ANC or the PAC and I believed him that that was the truth.

MR MADASA: So when you, when you shot at this person, you were not merely shooting a criminal, you were shooting a terrorist, so to speak, is that correct?

MR DE RU: Your Honours, I would not put it as a terrorist, but perhaps a political activist.

MR MADASA: Carry on.

MR DE RU: Your Honours on the 18th of the sixth, that was three days after the incident, Colonel Voigt called me back to Kroonstad and it was through his information this whole scene was reconstructed where you will now see, and it is
photos that I will hand in, that the points are placed 
differently, that the "escape" or, then in inverted commas, where it makes it "more real".  
	You will see on photograph 1 where Mojafe is practically in the position between the rondavel and the reed bush and it is indicated on the sketch point as the point where the deceased allegedly started running.  Point B, the point where de Ru fired a shot, a warning shot and point C, the point where de Ru shot at the deceased and point D, the point where de Ru allegedly shot a second shot to the deceased and the next point where the deceased is then seen.  This photo album was not the correct, a true reflection of what really happened.  
	I want to point your attention to photo 2 where you see my back pointed to the camera, that is point D, and then in the bush, point E and just behind me point C, that is Colonel Voigt himself.  I hand this album into you as EXHIBIT C.
EXHIBIT C HANDED IN

MR MADASA: Mr de Ru, whose idea was it to reconstruct the scene?

MR DE RU: It was Colonel Voigt's and I believed that it was done in such a way so that I would be protected with regard to the act I committed, and that this protection also had the approval of the senior officers.

MR MADASA: Were you in fact protected after he had reconstructed the scene?  Were you ever investigated, in other words, was that case investigated by the police?

MR DE RU: Yes, there was an investigation.  Colonel Voigt instructed Colonel Weyers Marks to do the investigation and Captain Weyers Marks was also a confidante of Colonel Voigt.  Captain Marks was at that stage at the Detective Branch in Virginia.
	I also want to mention to you that there was an 
inquest after the incident in the Magistrate's Court of 
Kroonstad and the inquest was finalised and there was never any indication or judgment that I was, in fact, guilty so I was, in fact, protected by or from them the true facts of what really transpired.  
	Your Honour, I also would like to submit the photo album that was made for the trial in the Supreme Court and the points, as indicated on this, are the correct points and you will also see that it correlates with Exhibit A.  I did not point these points out, but it was indicated by Constable Mojafe.  
	You will also see on photo 11 and 12 in this album as well as photo 13, you will see air-photos of the situation on the farm.  That will be EXHIBIT D.
EXHIBIT D HANDED IN

MR MADASA: In this case you are testifying about now, was later re-opened and you were charged, is that correct?

MR DE RU: Yes, that is correct, your Honour.

MR MADASA: Do you know why it was re-opened?

MR DE RU: Yes, I know.  It was because of an investigation after a shooting incident in Valpark.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr de Ru, the case was re-opened, you were charged and you were convicted?

MR DE RU: Yes, that is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: And who was the deceased in this instance?

MR DE RU: It was Jonas Rampalile.

ADV DE JAGER: This was the count of culpable homicide where you were convicted?

MR DE RU: Yes.

JUDGE WILSON: What were you charged with?

MR DE RU: Murder.

JUDGE WILSON: And you were found not guilty of murder, but
guilty of culpable homicide, is that so?  You were not 
found guilty on the charge of murder, you were found guilty of culpable homicide?

MR DE RU: Yes, that is correct, your Honour.

MR MADASA: Let us move now to the second case.

MR DE RU: There is still a piece remaining on the page where we are busy with and I would really want to present that to you.  I am now revealing the true facts for the first time because I have true remorse and I believe that what I did was wrong and at that stage I believed that my actions were justified and I saw it as part of my duties.  I now realise that I was abused and that my actions were protected by senior officials and I believe that the criminals were all politically motivated to kill farmers. Then we continue to page 17, and to attack them, and I also want to mention to you that during my trial there was no legislation for amnesty.  There is now an Act to promote reconciliation and unity and I am now revealing all the facts to you.
	Your Honour, I just want to mention to you that in the court records of the trial it was never asked to me to explain with regard to this case, there was no statement taken from me when, the first time I realised that I was being charged was when the State Attorney then charged me and then I saw that I was being charged for this particular case.  It was never informed by anyone before I appeared in court to give an explanation surrounding this case.  
	Also during the trial I used Article 49(2) that I was unjustified in shooting a person escaping because I still believed that the system was going to protect me and also on a Senior Advocate during the trial, I said that I believe that the policemen would support me and that they would protect me.
	And then I also want to mention to you that in November '92 I received an award for the best detective in the region from Colonel Voigt and Brigadier Geldenhuys, and this confirmed to me that they thought that my actions and my work was correct and that it is expected from me to do so. And I also want to mention to you that it was the first time that this award was given to an officer.  It was always awarded to a subordinate officer.

ADV DE JAGER: The testimony that you gave during the trial was false evidence?

MR DE RU: Yes, my evidence.  The evidence I gave was similar to what was given in my statement in the inquest.  It was already completed by the Magistrate's Court.

MR MADASA: Carry on.

MR DE RU: As it pleases you and there was also another incident, murder on Mr Woest in the Koppies district.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Mr Chairman, may I interfere here a little bit, Mr Chairman, if allowed?  Mr Chairman, if the applicant is
going to start reading from that paragraph as he is doing, Mr Chairman, and he is going to continue, then that breaches the agreement reached by myself and my learned friend and conveyed to the Committee members in chambers that the other incidents will not be heard today.  He is going to concentrate on the, on the one incident.  Now, from that paragraph down it is another incident involving various policemen who are not present, Mr Chairman.  I regard that it is going to be a breaching, this evidence is being heard.