Amnesty Hearings — Bloemfontein — 1998-08-17

JACOBUS JOHANNES DE RU: Chairperson, I learnt from De Lange that they were MK members, I did not learn anything about their training.  Now I know that De Lange was a trained MK but at that stage I did not know but I only heard afterwards that she herself was a trained MK member or probably still is, but at that stage I did not know that.

MR MADASA: And now how do you feel about the fact that you killed those people?

JACOBUS JOHANNES DE RU: Chairperson, if I think back today, I really, really do regret it.  I'm very sorry about the fact that those people died that morning.  I realise completely that it was my shot that led to all these people being killed, my first shot and today it's easy because you can think back about it and say it's easy to say you acted wrongly and I'm asking you to see it in the light of what happened that morning and that's also why I came to you and ask you for amnesty.  I regret about those people who got killed and as I explained to Mr Malan, in my heart I believe that if those three people were not killed, if they were only arrested, I could have stopped a lot or murders.
	I stopped the murders at Kroonstad once I started that investigation once I started that investigation and I arrested the people there.  One hundred and two people died there for nothing and today, honestly, I would like to say to the family of the deceased that I regret it and the fact that I gave the opening shot.  I also want to say to Elsa de Lange that I'm really sorry.  The person who died was her friend and at that stage she was a very good friend to her.  I would also like to tell her today that according to information I got from Fouche, she also had to be in the car that morning and then today she would also have been dead with regards to this.

MR MADASA: If you wanted to kill these members could you have done so before that day, if you wanted to kill them?

JACOBUS JOHANNES DE RU: That is correct, Chairperson.  It was never my intention that these people had to die, everything happened that morning with the suspicion of an attack.  I really have remorse in my heart about all of this.

MR MADASA: I have no further questions.

MR MALAN: I just want to ask you a follow up question.  Mr Madasa you should maybe help us.  Your client is asking us to grant him amnesty on four charges which he lists again in paragraph 2 on page 1 of the bundle that you made available to us.  He applies specifically for amnesty on three charges of murder.  In order to achieve, to get amnesty, he needs to acknowledge specifically murder.  Are you happy that the evidence before us is a confession of murder?  All the evidence as I understand it, he's saying "I did my job, I did my duty, I did it as best I could, I'm not guilty of murder  There were certain mistakes made but I'm not accepting that I wilfully murdered three individuals"?

MR MADASA: Mr de Ru how do you involve yourself in the killing of these people?

JACOBUS JOHANNES DE RU: As I've already explained, the two people in the vehicle died definitely because of the first shot that I fired and they died because of this action and the action of the members on the roof who then fired on them.

CHAIRPERSON: But has your evidence, Mr de Ru, been that you fired in self defence, that they opened fire on you and you fired to save the lives of the ten policemen you were responsible for, is that not your case?

JACOBUS JOHANNES DE RU: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: Are you saying to us that if you were the judge in your case, would you have convicted yourself on three cases of murder?

JACOBUS JOHANNES DE RU: It's very difficult to answer that, I gave a whole police dossier to you.  I know today that amongst others, Fouche is making other allegations concerning this and what his version of what happened.  I'm here to tell you exactly what happened there that morning, exactly what my instructions were.  If you look at the circumstances as it now seemed from the police investigation or from Fouche's allegations concerning this, I believe that in a criminal court it would be difficult for me to say now how a judge would feel about this matter.

MR MALAN: Sorry, I may be unfair against your client but just to explain to him why I put the question.
	Mr de Ru, if a person is in jail he has been convicted of robbery and he applies for amnesty and he says that he did not commit this robbery, he cannot get amnesty?

JACOBUS JOHANNES DE RU: Yes I do understand that.

MR MALAN: So you understand my question?

JACOBUS JOHANNES DE RU: I understand it.

MR MALAN: Maybe this is a question for argument on the evidence before us at some later stage.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MADASA

CHAIRPERSON: Right, cross-examination?

MR STEENKAMP: Thank you Mr Chairman.  Just a few questions to Mr de Ru.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you going to ask questions before counsel appearing for the implicated parties?

MR STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, I'm here to represent the victims interests.  I'm in the hands of the Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Before I go on to that could I ask whether any evidence has been led on count 4?

MR MALAN: Mr de Ru, what is your explanation on the possible charge of defeating the ends of justice that you spoke to colleagues with a view to hide what happened?

JACOBUS JOHANNES DE RU: That did not happen.

MR MALAN: The question is that you apply for amnesty for amongst others the defeating the ends of justice.

JACOBUS JOHANNES DE RU: Yes I do understand that and I also understand that and I also understand what you asked me concerning the three murders.  Possibly it is a mistake to put all four charges here and it came from the state Attorney to me.

MR MALAN: But Mr de Ru, with respect, the Attorney general could have charged with ten of which you were guilty of four and you can apply for four of that.  You could go to court and say that you are not guilty, so you have to decide and maybe you have to consult with your legal representative.  If the fourth charge - if you do not confirm or admit that, then you must take that out, then we cannot consider that or we will not look at that because you say that you are not guilty.

JACOBUS JOHANNES DE RU: I understand.

MR MALAN: I understand the difficulty in your position but you have to trust us if you apply for amnesty.

JACOBUS JOHANNES DE RU: Yes I do understand that.

CHAIRPERSON: Would you like to talk to your counsel at this stage?

JACOBUS JOHANNES DE RU: Yes please.

CHAIRPERSON: We'll take a short adjournment.  It seems unlikely that anything much can be done before one o'clock.  It's now eight minutes to one, I propose to take the adjournment now till quarter to two.  Does quarter to two suit people?  I don't know what the arrangements are here?

MR STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, I think certain arrangements were made, I think it will suit us all if we can start at quarter to two.  Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: We'll adjourn till quarter to two.
HEARING ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION

JACOBUS JOHANNES DE RU: (s.u.o.)

MR MADASA: Thank you Mr Chairman.  Yes, Mr Chair, I would like to make the following remarks.  Firstly I'm indebted to the Committee for allowing the adjournment. We've taken note of the questions that were raised by the Committee with regards to whether the applicant has admitted to murder or not and that those would be addressed in argument and secondly, on the fourth charge that appears in his affidavit, the applicant does not apply for amnesty for that.

CHAIRPERSON: Well I don't know if it officially part of his application.  If it is he withdraws it.

MR MADASA: It's not part of his application in any case but he's not applying for amnesty.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for clarifying that for us.  Right you can carry on.

MR MALAN: Thank you, Mr Madasa.  You will argue later whether your client admits to murder or not?