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

MAPULE RAMASHALA: So you planned ahead of time, before October 15 that you would use this unmarked vehicle, am I correct, you planned it ahead of time?

UNKNOWN: No, no, we planned it on the 15th.  It was a Railway Police vehicle so it was always available.

MAPULE RAMASHALA: So who is Lt Vermeulen?

UNKNOWN: He is one of the members sitting behind me.

MAPULE RAMASHALA: And you called him on the radio and gave him the responsibility for this operation?

UNKNOWN: That's correct.

MAPULE RAMASHALA: So he was the commanding officer for the operation?

UNKNOWN: Yes he was placed in command of this specific operation.

MAPULE RAMASHALA: What was the nature of Lt Vermeulen's experience for you to make the decision to assign him this task?

UNKNOWN: In the first place the vehicle to be used was a Railway Police vehicle and the system worked as follows.  Every force was responsible for its own vehicles and every force was also responsible for its own command.  In other words I could not use a South African Police vehicle and drive it.  If I was to use members of the Railway Police I would have to give them a Railway Police truck or vehicle.  And because the vehicle which we had to use was a Railway truck, for that reason the command decided that Lt Vermeulen would have to execute this particular operation.

MAPULE RAMASHALA: Did you base that decision on the basis that Lt Vermeulen had experience in handling large crowds?  Did you in fact know that Lt Vermeulen could handle large crowds?

UNKNOWN: Well Lt Vermeulen was at that stage, I had been active in the area for two months and if you look at the logs available then you will see that there were daily attacks on Police vehicles and several actions launched by Vermeulen and his people, so I thought he was competent.

MAPULE RAMASHALA: Okay.  You thought he was competent.  Sir did you ask him if he was familiar with working with that size crowd, and we will come back to the issue of size, I mean did you ask him the question?

UNKNOWN: Nobody knew how many people to expect, we weren't aware of a crowd of people, on the contrary we didn't know that the vehicles would be attacked in such a violent manner.

MAPULE RAMASHALA: What exactly were your instructions to Lt Vermeulen?

UNKNOWN: What were my instructions to Lt Vermeulen, is that the question?

MAPULE RAMASHALA: Yes, with respect to this operation.

UNKNOWN: I called him in and I told him what the planning was.  I told him which route he should follows, if you want that I can repeat that for you.  I told him what kind of ammunition to use and what type of firearms that they should have.  I told him exactly why we were using the crates.  I told him that we wanted to try for maximum arrests so that these attacks would stop.

MAPULE RAMASHALA: In your statement, I refer to paragraph 3, taken after the incident, you referred to, and I quote "belhammels", "culprits", what exactly did you mean by that?

UNKNOWN: The "belhammel" usually refers to a person or persons who were responsible for the planning of this type of activity or operation.  To just elaborate on that a bit, you would normally find a group of people throwing stones and you will always find an element or people who would encourage, incite others to attack cars.  Many people who throw stones, and in many cases children who throw stones, that we also found, but in many cases people are also incited or encouraged to throw stones, and these people we call the "belhammels" or ringleaders perhaps.

MAPULE RAMASHALA: By your own admission you told Lt Vermeulen what route to take, what ammunition to use, what vehicle to use, suggesting that since you had not been in that area that morning this suggests that you had a plan before the 15th of October?   You were not at the scene that morning.  You had a route, the type of ammunition, the type of dress which was to be used, the kind of vehicle and what was to be put in the vehicle and who was to be in the back of the vehicle in crates.  This suggests to me, Sir, that this operation was planned before the 15th.

UNKNOWN: No that's not true.  What you must remember is that we had vehicles in the areas and these vehicles would report certain incidents to the radio control room in Manenberg.  So we were totally familiar with what was happening in a particular area.  It wasn't necessary for me to actually physically drive to an area to go and see what was happening there because in any case the moment I arrived there in a police vehicle nothing was happening.  So our planning was based on what was reported to us.  In other words when we did our planning and laid down this particular route it was as a result of certain facts given to us usually by means of radio reports and people who had been attacked who reported it to police stations, and all this information was then sent through to the Manenberg Operational Centre.

MAPULE RAMASHALA: And that formed the basis for the plan that you say you did that morning?

UNKNOWN: That's correct.

MAPULE RAMASHALA: Sir I put it to you that having designed the route and having given instructions on the ammunition, what ammunition to use, that in fact the primary purpose of that operation was not to arrest?

UNKNOWN: No, the chief objective was in fact that, to perform arrests.

MAPULE RAMASHALA: Well if your chief objective was to arrest why the AAA and no.1 birdshot?  And why the concealment of officers in the back of the truck?  Why were they not open in the crowd?

UNKNOWN: I've already told you, if we placed these men openly on the back of a truck nothing would have happened, we wouldn't have been able to perform any arrests because then we would be in the exact same situation as if we were driving in a marked police vehicle.  The police vehicle would not be attacked and the very next vehicle, an unmarked vehicle would be attacked, that is why we tried to conceal the officers.

MAPULE RAMASHALA: Okay, you wanted people to attack, you've just said that, that a police vehicle would not be attacked, so you wanted the concealed vehicle to be attacked?

UNKNOWN: We wanted to apprehend the stone-throwers, yes, so if we'd sent a vehicle in there and no stones had been thrown then there would be no crime and no - but if a second vehicle came in, an unmarked vehicle it would.

MAPULE RAMASHALA: Sir, you deliberately instigated the crowd by making sure that they attacked, by your own admission. By your own admission you are saying a police vehicle would not be attacked and therefore your decision to use an unmarked vehicle so that it would be attacked, that's your statement.

UNKNOWN: Chairperson I object to the statement made to this witness that they instigated a crime.  If I park my motor vehicle in the street with a radio in it and it gets stolen by a thief who happens to walk in that street, do I instigate the crime by parking my vehicle there?  Surely not.  And this is in effect what is being put to this witness, that by sending a private vehicle out in a public road they instigated a crime.  I am sorry I don't follow that.

MAPULE RAMASHALA: Sir, you know, Chairperson, you know yourself that the example you just gave is absurd.  The situation ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Order please, order, I must ask the audience please to observe the decorum that is appropriate to this hearing.

MAPULE RAMASHALA: Sir let's move on.  Are you aware ...(intervention)

UNKNOWN: Chairperson may I just be allowed.  I have objected against the word "instigate", that has a specific connection in law, and I think that was the way it was used, and I repeat my objection to that word in this context.  Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.