Amnesty Hearings — Pretoria — UNKNOWN

EMILY FOURIE: That was never, it was never heard, and in fact that was one of our great problems that we had with the company, because the chairman kept on postponing it, weak excuses were handed down to us, and in fact, in about May of 1990, I was so frustrated that I in fact phoned Mr McFarlane and I invited to take him for lunch, which we then - we had a very private discussion that day, and I told him of our concerns related to this investigation department.  He gave me certain assurances that day, amongst others that he would look at finding another person to head up that department, which subsequently happened when he employed Mr Daantjie van Wyk, and in fact, Mr Gerber was then demoted and Mr Daantjie van Wyk became the senior person of that investigation department.

UNKNOWN: Thank you.  Mrs Fourie, in your understanding as well as other people's understanding of paragraph 2, it would mean that Mr Gerber was not to take part in any investigation of any sort, until the holding of an inquiry which has not been held to date.

EMILY FOURIE: That's correct.

UNKNOWN: Thank you, Mr Chairman, that is the evidence.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MPSHE

HASSAN MALL: Thank you.  Any questions?

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, we were totally surprised about the evidence now presented, the contents of this evidence. In the face of it, Mr Chairman, we will ask for an adjournment in order to take instructions.

HASSAN MALL: Yes.

ADV PRINSLOO: Before I proceed with this request, Mr Chairman, is the Commission relying on this evidence, as it doesn't form part of the inquiry, which is presently being conducted, with regard to the death of Samuel Kanaga.  Maybe Mr Mpshe can address the Commission in that regard.

HASSAN MALL: I think whether Mr Mpshe addresses us at this stage or not, is a matter which we will decide later. For the time being I am going to give you an opportunity to take instructions so you can decide whether you are going to ask questions on that or not.

ADV PRINSLOO: As it pleases you, Mr Chairman.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: It seems to me that there are a lot of mutual surprises.

HASSAN MALL: We will take a short adjournment.
COMMISSION ADJOURNS

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, with regard to the evidence of this witness and we will only confine ourselves to deal with what we have been told in chambers, Mr Chairman, to this particular aspect.

HASSAN MALL: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Mrs Fourie,  I put it to you that Mr Gerber, that when he - and Van Eyck, when they were informed of the suspension, that particular afternoon, when Mr Gerber in particular, arrived home an hour later, he was telephoned by Mr McFarlane and he was informed by Mr McFarlane that his suspension was lifted.  He was no longer subject to any suspension without any conditions.

EMILY FOURIE: May I just ask before I answer that. What date are we talking about? That's at the initial date in September or are we talking about November?

ADV PRINSLOO: We are making reference to the date in November.  If that is the date you are referring to.  The date when they were informed by Mr McFarlane, if that is the date, because Mr Gerber didn't have sight of this letter, Exhibit I on that particular day, but my instructions are when he was informed by Mr McFarlane and Fourie, with regard to this suspension, McFarlane informed him an hour later at his home, that he was no longer under suspension.  Any comments about that?

EMILY FOURIE: I, I ...

JUDGE WILSON: Sorry, can I ask you - can I interrupt you on that.  From what you, the way you put that question, do you say this suspension was only imposed on that day and lifted two hours later?

ADV PRINSLOO: Well, within an hour, Mr Chairperson.

JUDGE WILSON: Within an hour.  So as far as your client is concerned, he first new of the suspension on the 7th of November and you are putting it that an hour later he was phoned and told this suspension was lifted.

ADV PRINSLOO: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

EMILY FOURIE: In fact, that is not correct.  The suspension took place earlier, and that was during the inquest into the Jantjies torture and that was, it must have been towards the end of September, early October, and in fact, as I said in my earlier evidence, that I was then requested and summonsed to head office, and asked by Mr Fourie and the difficulties were explained to me, that Mr Gerber and Mr Van Eyck, Spies and Niemand being out of the system, was creating great difficulties and would we be in agreement that the suspension be lifted and as I explained earlier on, we said yes, on condition and then this was the letter that was put forward.

HASSAN MALL: Anyway, the difference between the two of you is that as far as you are concerned, it didn't happen that very day.

EMILY FOURIE: No, there was a period. That is why the company then requested that.

ADV DE JAGER: Sorry, Mr Chairperson. Mrs Fourie, on page 2, paragraph 6
"... that the suspension of Messrs Gerber and Van Eyck be lifted immediately."

EMILY FOURIE: Yes.  Yes, that's right.

ADV DE JAGER: Subject to the following conditions.

EMILY FOURIE: That's right.

ADV DE JAGER: So as I understand it, the suspension was
lifted immediately.

EMILY FOURIE: Yes, on that day.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes.

EMILY FOURIE: On the 7th.

ADV DE JAGER: Ja.

EMILY FOURIE: But you must now remember that they had been suspended for some time, during the month of October/November it was - I can't recall, but I think it was somewhere in the region of about three weeks, that these persons were suspended.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, I understand that. They have been suspended, but on that, the day that the letter was written, their suspension was lifted immediately.

EMILY FOURIE: That's right.

ADV DE JAGER: Subject to, that they shouldn't investigate any further on certain conditions.

EMILY FOURIE: Yes. In other words, that they could come back to work and that Mr Gerber and Mr Van Eyck would only, they would be confined to administrative duties.  But that Mr Spies and Niemand could continue as normal. I think because there was a lack of evidence against the two earlier persons mentioned.

HASSAN MALL: Mr Prinsloo?

ADV PRINSLOO: As it pleases you, Mr Chairman.  Mrs Fourie, I put it to you that Gerber was informed to his recollection, it was a Friday, when this suspension was imposed, and an hour later it was lifted, and the Monday they performed their normal duties, there were no restrictions placed as noted in paragraph 6 of this letter, Exhibit I.  They performed their duties as normal.

HASSAN MALL: You have got your answer to that.

EMILY FOURIE: No.

HASSAN MALL: She has denied that.

EMILY FOURIE: I deny that, emphatically.

ADV PRINSLOO: Are you in a position to dispute that Mr McFarlane communicated with Mr Gerber and informed him of the lifting of the suspension?

EMILY FOURIE: No, I would imagine that maybe that is perhaps what he would have done, because he had written the letter and the letter confirms that the suspension is lifted with immediate effect.  So I can't comment, I don't know, but it would make sense that perhaps he phoned Gerber and said you may return to work now.

ADV PRINSLOO: And they continued their work on the particular Monday, what followed?

EMILY FOURIE: Well, it says immediate. I don't know whether this was a Friday, unfortunately I don't have a diary with me, but if you say that was the Friday, then they continued on the Monday, I would imagine that that could be so, yes. I cannot confirm or deny that.

ADV PRINSLOO: No further questions, thank you, Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV PRINSLOO

HASSAN MALL: Have you any questions to put to this witness?

ADV VAN DER WALT: I don't know whether your ear-phones are in working order?

EMILY FOURIE: I can speak Afrikaans.