Human Rights Violation Hearings — Pollsmoor — 1997-02-18

ADV POTGIETER: Would you have added anything new to what you are giving to us today.

MR KNIPE: Well I believe if the - if there was expertise on the part of the investigator, I might have been able to give information dealing with other matters which is being investigated by the Commission and I place myself at the availability of your investigators to hold a proper interview with me.

ADV POTGIETER: All right we - we note that - we and we are grateful for every bit of help that we can get and we really note that, we know that you - as I've said earlier and I was quite serious, you - you are a police officer with a long-long years of experience, so we appreciate that.
 Now that was the first issue, I am just trying to understand what the grounds of your dissatisfaction is and then you also seemed to say that you see this as a form of compulsion.  If I read paragraph 3.2 of your statement correctly you conclude that paragraph with the following sentence.
 What I am about to say I would say to anyone at anytime 
without any form of compulsion being exercised  upon me
so to do.

MR KNIPE: I believe that the subpoena is a form of compulsion.

ADV POTGIETER: So you feel you - you are here under some duress under some - some compulsion as you put it.

MR KNIPE: I would have been here out of my own free will, without the need of a subpoena being issued against me.

ADV POTGIETER: So what is the difference I mean you - you don't have any objection to being here, what is the difficulty I mean with or without the subpoena you've said you want to help this process so I can't understand perhaps you can help  us.

MR KNIPE: To be subpoenaed - to make a public statement that the man is being subpoenaed to appear before a human rights commission, creates obviously the impression that he has committed some or other human rights abuse.

ADV POTGIETER: Why I don't understand that, why - why can't you just be a witness, why can't you just come and help the process - and it's important you see Director Knipe it's important for us to flesh out these things, so that there is not this sort of misunderstanding you know there is a lot of misunderstanding around the process of this commission and we being accused of all sorts of things you know some people suggest that we are you know the hunters of witches and I don't know what ever else you know.
 But it's good for us to - to debate these things so that people can understand what this process is all about.

MR KNIPE: I can only reiterate that I would have appeared before this Commission willingly - I found it in affront  for somebody to come to my office and drop of a subpoena without the courtesy of a phone call without the courtesy of a hello, that a subpoena is dropped, just dropped with my secretary to appear before this body.
 I have never treated anyone like that in my life.

ADV POTGIETER: So - so I guess what you are saying is that also in a way it's the manner in which the subpoena was served on you.

MR KNIPE: Completely.

ADV POTGIETER: All right there we can learn I mean we can talk about that.

MR KNIPE: Thank you.

ADV POTGIETER: That's no problem.

MR KNIPE: Thank you.

ADV POTGIETER: But I can't leave the impression unchallenged that the mere fact of being given a subpoena to come to proceedings is an indictment is a suggestion that you've committed a gross human rights violation.  And I mean if that is the attitude then we are going to have great difficulty in achieving what we really setting out to achieve in this process by reconciliation - understanding and so on.

MR KNIPE: Commissioner Potgieter then I suggest that we make available to you copies of the newspaper reports that appeared and then I think the Commission itself can see what sort of rubbish was written.

ADV POTGIETER: Ja, that seems to be a debate that is between yourself and the media.

MR KNIPE: But that is as a result of the serving of the subpoena Mr Chairman.

ADV POTGIETER: Ja, I think we've dealt with your third ground where you say that
At no time have I committed any act or omitted to do anything which could remote to be construed as a an abusive power of violation or human rights.
 I trust that you do accept that, that is not the suggestion here, we certainly have never suggested that you have committed anything.  We are here to look into this incident.

MR KNIPE: Mr Chairman I think one of the major problems to reiterate is that when one drafts a subpoena - sorry - an affidavit one is doing so blind, one receives a subpoena to appear before this body, one is not afforded even a telephone call to explain what the nature - what is required of you.
 If you remember I entered into correspondence trying to determine what was required of me.  I do believe that I should have been afforded a visitation from an investigator to determine whether I was prepared to make a statement - whatever the case may be.
 It's a matter of principal.

ADV POTGIETER: And its - its never crossed your mind to approach the Commission yourself.

MR KNIPE: I have  - I [intervention]

ADV POTGIETER: And deal - and deal with this and say well I've got this information for you, here it is.

MR KNIPE: I have on two occasions corresponded with the Commission.

ADV POTGIETER: Have you - have you volunteered information?

MR KNIPE: No in so much words no, I - affidavit was before the Commission now for several months already.  I would have expected somebody to have approached me.

ADV POTGIETER: No - no I am just talking about the period between receiving the notice to appear and the first appearance because I think that's where your affidavits were handed in by your legal representative.

MR KNIPE: I - I corresponded with yourselves on the 14th of the 11th.

ADV POTGIETER: But did you - did you tender information - did you tender assistance?

MR KNIPE: Should I read to you what I said?

ADV POTGIETER: Well if it will answer - if it will help us, if it will answer the question.
Did you tender information there in that - in those correspondence?

MR KNIPE: No in so many words no.

ADV POTGIETER: Okay now perhaps just to round this off, in paragraph 3.4 I have some difficulty in understanding what you are actually conveying.  Your - the very last sentence reads as follows
I respectfully believe that this action taken while senior members of the Commission were out of the country, has in itself violated my human rights.
 What does that mean?

MR KNIPE: The Archbishop was out of the country when the subpoena was served on me.

ADV POTGIETER: So - so well I am just trying to understand what you are suggesting so are you suggesting there are senior members first of all - there are senior members of the Commission.

MR KNIPE: Just say that again.

ADV POTGIETER: Are you suggesting first of all that one finds such animals as senior members  of the Commission.

MR KNIPE: The Archbishop is the Chairman of the Commission.

ADV POTGIETER: Chairperson yes

MR KNIPE: Chairperson.

ADV POTGIETER: Yes.

MR KNIPE: And he was out of the country at the time.

ADV POTGIETER: So - so you actually saying here that this was done whilst the Chairperson was out of the country - Archbishop Tutu was out of the country.

MR KNIPE: The subpoena was issued to me while the Chairman was out of the country.

ADV POTGIETER: What is the difficulty around that?

MR KNIPE: In other words I do not include the Archbishop in any way in the preceding paragraphs.

ADV POTGIETER: So are you suggesting that some other members of the Commission acted irregularly or what?

MR KNIPE: Not - I am suggesting that the Archbishop did not issue the subpoena against me, he was out of the country.

ADV POTGIETER: But I mean what difference does it make to the subpoena and the process whether the Chairperson is here or there or where ever.

MR KNIPE: It makes a difference to me.