Special Hearings — Trojan Horse Hearings — 1997-05-21

DOUW VERMEULEN: Yes I could describe it as such, as I testified.

MR NTSEBEZA: You would say that, I am talking about you now, when the order was being given by the previous witness that your route must go into those two roads, you knew immediately that you were being sent into an area which was the flash-point of the unrest, is that correct?

DOUW VERMEULEN: Let me answer the question like this.  Various roads were mentioned, Old Klipfontein, Thornton, Belgravia, Lansdowne, Old Crossroads, if you look at it from the top you will see that it covers a vast area if I remember correctly.
No I didn't immediately realise that Thornton or Belgravia Road - earlier that day I was working in another area, I think it was in Guguletu where I had been working and the closest contact which I could have had with the areas where the incidents took place was by means of radio contact and if you had to ask me today I would say, yes, if we are talking about the Western Cape the flash-point areas were those.

MR NTSEBEZA: You know I am not speculating I am just confirming your statement.  Your commander did indicate that your route was going to take you to Klipfontein Road, what-have-you and then back to Manenberg after you have even gone to Crossroads or - but your evidence under oath, in paragraph 4 singles out these two streets as being the flash-points, do you agree with that?  Do you agree that your evidence in paragraph 4 singles out, you do go on to explain the route in paragraph 5, but you single out these two streets as being the flash-points of unrest, do you agree with that?

DOUW VERMEULEN: Yes, those two roads are singled out as some of the flash-points.

MR NTSEBEZA: No, no, you don't say they were some of the flash-points, you say they were the flash-points, is that right?

DOUW VERMEULEN: As I read it the flash-points were in Thornton Road and in Belgravia Road, Athlone ...(intervention)

MR NTSEBEZA: Yes.

DOUW VERMEULEN: But that doesn't mean these were the only flash-points.  These two were flash-points.

MR NTSEBEZA: And in particular in those two places, it is places where vehicles were being stoned, is that correct?

DOUW VERMEULEN: That is correct, yes.

MR NTSEBEZA: It is a place where there were burning objects were placed in the roads, is that right?

DOUW VERMEULEN: I did not hear the interpretation

MR NTSEBEZA: It was a place where burning objects were placed in the roads, is that correct?  It's what you say here.  I am just trying to verify your evidence, that in those streets that is where those things were taking place ...(intervention)

DOUW VERMEULEN: I did not hear the question, I only heard is that correct.

CHAIRPERSON: I think we need to explain that our Interpreters are struggling, partly at the end of a very long day, to catch up with everything that is being said.  So perhaps Mr Ntsebeza if you would read again from the statement.

MR NTSEBEZA: Do you confirm that it is your evidence that those two streets, well known by you to be places where in Afrikaans - "burning objects were placed in the road......"

DOUW VERMEULEN: That is correct, yes.

MR NTSEBEZA: And is it your evidence that in fact this sort of unrest had taken place for a few days already, that form of unrest in these particular two streets?

DOUW VERMEULEN: I will concede and say a couple of days, actually it was longer than just a couple of days.

MR NTSEBEZA: What I am trying to get at is that when you were sent out by Major Loedolff, as he was then, in your mind when once he mentioned those two streets as one of the areas you have to traverse in your route, you must have realised that you are going, in terms of your own experience, into a danger zone, am I correct?

DOUW VERMEULEN: Chairperson I want to make something clear.  Those two streets weren't singled out.  They formed part of a route, the two roads formed part of a route, five street names were mentioned, so it wasn't as if these two roads were singled out.  Yes, I realised that we were entering an unrest area.

MR NTSEBEZA: No, I am going to insist that you have singled them out, you, not Loedolff, in your own sworn statement you have singled out the two places.  And all I am asking is, in view of your own testimony is it an indication that as soon as they were mentioned, in your mind,  you realised that if that is one of the areas we are going to go into, we are going to go into an area, a danger zone?

DOUW VERMEULEN: These roads were just as dangerous as Old Klipfontein or Old Crossroads would have been.

MR NTSEBEZA: I see, but you don't find it necessary to mention the other streets as "brand punte van die ......", is that right?

DOUW VERMEULEN: Although I didn't mention them I never excluded them as non-flash-points.  I never said that they were less important in the route, and the fact that these two were included in my statement I made on Monday that does not mean that it must be singled out now from the rest of the area.  They were just as important as any of the other roads or areas.

MR NTSEBEZA: I would have expected that you would have said so, but it is your statement, it is not my statement Mr Vermeulen.  Anyway - now in view of the fact that it is quite clear that you were going into a danger zone, may I ask did you have, as part of your equipment, loud hailers in your vehicle in terms of which you could have warned those who were attacking you, that what appears to be an ordinary Railway truck is in fact a Trojan Horse, a Police van with armed people in it, did you have a loud hailer?

DOUW VERMEULEN: No I didn't have a loud hailer.

MR NTSEBEZA: And no policemen in that truck had a loud-hailer?

DOUW VERMEULEN: Not as far as I know.

MR NTSEBEZA: Do I gather from that that it was not your intention to warn anyone who might attack you that they shouldn't do that because it's an unlawful act and that they were going to be arrested if they did so?

DOUW VERMEULEN: You are correct.  Were you saying that our purpose was not to warn people, our purpose was to arrest people.

MR NTSEBEZA: Yes.  I understood that part of an arrest process, especially when people are committing a crime is to warn them, do you disagree?  Do you disagree that when you are a policeman you are charged with the duty of preventing a crime from happening rather than allowing a crime to happen so that you can effect an arrest or am I living in a dream world?

DOUW VERMEULEN: No I don't think you are living in a dream world but I think the type of crime we are referring to here would be crimes which had already been committed so there was no way of preventing it by warning people and saying to them look, you've already committed a crime.  I would have had to arrest them for crimes already committed and for that I didn't need a loud hailer.

MR NTSEBEZA: Ja no I understand that but this particular crime you provoked by the manner in which, I am not criticising that, but you went there intending to provoke an attack on the truck but I am not dealing with that.  We are at a situation where people are committing a crime, they are throwing stones at you, now wouldn't it have been proper for you at that stage to have warned the people not to do so?

DOUW VERMEULEN: ......such as for instance warning people and so forth were often performed on many occasions before this afternoon and this method was decided upon because the other methods weren't successful.

MR NTSEBEZA: I see, that's why you didn't bring a loud-hailer for instance, is that the reason?

DOUW VERMEULEN: Correct.

MR NTSEBEZA: So that you shouldn't warn people and you should rather shoot at them, is that it?

DOUW VERMEULEN: I didn't shoot at the people to arrest them, I shot at them because we were being attacked.