Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1999-08-19

MR WEBSTER: Again paragraph 11(a) and 11(b).  The same question.  This time it was Maj Gen Steyn who gave you the order.

CHAIRPERSON: Put your question.

MR WEBSTER: Is it not so?

MR VISSER: The order to do what Mr Chairman, with respect.  The order to do what?

CHAIRPERSON: Is that what paragraph 11(a) and (b) says?

MR WEBSTER: Mr Chairman, paragraph 11(a) and 11(b) as I think Mr Visser well understands, relates to the incidents or the occurrences of the unlawful conduct in respect of which amnesty is sought.  It does not distinguish one from the other.

CHAIRPERSON: And you say we're talking about the Quarry Road Incident?

MR WEBSTER: Correct, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Wasserman, have you read paragraph 11(a) and (b) or page 29.

MR WEBSTER: And Mr Chairman, may I just add, with your kind permission, or the three mentioned, expressly mentioned crimes that amnesty is being sought, I think the latter two can be regarded as subordinate and of not particular relevance and at least importance as the murder of 4 human beings.

CHAIRPERSON: Well now let's just - I think that he's really saying, you know, nobody gave me the order to fire.  You are now putting questions to him on this basis to suggest that in fact he was given an order to fire.

MR WEBSTER: And this is the implication and the answer that, the interpretation that one can attach to the answer.

CHAIRPERSON: Is there any other interpretation you can place on that?

MR WEBSTER: Unless it becomes selective to say that if it is in my interest to say it related only to planting the firearms and being in unlawful possession of firearms then that answer makes, will be acceptable but it will not make sense in so far as it relates to the most important issue and that is the killing of four human beings.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright now, Mr Webster.  Mr Webster are you saying in paragraph 11(a) and (b) that you were given an order to fire?

LAWRENCE GERALD WASSERMAN: No, no Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: What are you saying there?

LAWRENCE GERALD WASSERMAN: That Gen Steyn condoned my actions and was the senior officer.

CHAIRPERSON: He condoned what?

LAWRENCE GERALD WASSERMAN: My shooting action.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright.  Is that what you're saying?

LAWRENCE GERALD WASSERMAN: Yes, Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, can you take it any further?

MR WEBSTER: We'll proceed Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, please.

MR WEBSTER: You then must have deposed an affidavit regarding this incident, did you not?

LAWRENCE GERALD WASSERMAN: Sorry, Mr Webster, say again, Sir.

MR WEBSTER: I then repeat the question.

CHAIRPERSON: You must have ...

MR WEBSTER: You must have deposed to an affidavit afterwards, regarding this incident, is that not so?

LAWRENCE GERALD WASSERMAN: I made an affidavit to my lawyer, yes.

MR WEBSTER: I'm talking of many years ago.  On the 7th or the 8th or as was reasonably possible, or was expected of a  police officer who had shot 4 unarmed people, to make a report regarding the incident, is that not so?

LAWRENCE GERALD WASSERMAN: No, Sir, I made no affidavit.

MR WEBSTER: You made no report?

LAWRENCE GERALD WASSERMAN: Col Des Botha informed me he would make the necessary affidavit.

MR WEBSTER: Who informed you?

LAWRENCE GERALD WASSERMAN: Col Botha.

MR WEBSTER: So you made no affidavit regarding this incident?

LAWRENCE GERALD WASSERMAN: I made no affidavit, Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: To whom Mr Webster are you suggesting?

MR WEBSTER: An affidavit, regardless of who to, regarding the incident, after the incident had occurred and as distinguished from the amnesty applications.  Is that correct?

LAWRENCE GERALD WASSERMAN: That's correct, Sir.

MR WEBSTER: Your amnesty application is dated I think December 11, 1996.  Is that correct?

LAWRENCE GERALD WASSERMAN: That's correct, Sir.

MR WEBSTER: And when was the cut-off date for amnesty applications?

LAWRENCE GERALD WASSERMAN: I think it was the 12th Mr Chairman.

MR WEBSTER: Of?

LAWRENCE GERALD WASSERMAN: Of December.

MR LAX: It was the 14th, just for the record.

MR WEBSTER: The 14th of December.

LAWRENCE GERALD WASSERMAN: Thanks Mr Chairman.

MR WEBSTER: And how long before - sorry, and when was the amnesty procedure adopted, or became part of law, do you know?

LAWRENCE GERALD WASSERMAN: I don't understand you, Sir.

MR WEBSTER: Was it March 1995?  I think it's 1995.
The point that I'm trying to make is, you had ample opportunity to have made an application, but you left it till almost, or two days before, or three days before the deadline, is that correct?

LAWRENCE GERALD WASSERMAN: That is so, Sir.

MR WEBSTER: And when you made this application, you must have been in a position to remember what had happened, is that not so?

LAWRENCE GERALD WASSERMAN: I remembered some facts Sir, but not enough.

MR WEBSTER: Why were they not enough?

LAWRENCE GERALD WASSERMAN: Not enough to commit to paper.

MR WEBSTER: And as was pointed out previously, it's only when all three of you got together and all three of you came up with a common story, that it was committed to paper, is that correct?

LAWRENCE GERALD WASSERMAN: Yes, correct, Mr Chairman.

MR WEBSTER: And that is even how you've testified.  You've sat here and listened to the other applicants and your evidence is tailored to suit what has been said by the others, is that correct?

LAWRENCE GERALD WASSERMAN: Not correct, Sir.

MR WEBSTER: In short, what I'm suggesting to you is that even your applications are nothing but a conspiracy.  Do you agree?

LAWRENCE GERALD WASSERMAN: I don't agree Sir.

MR WEBSTER: That for some inexplicable reason three senior police officers cannot remember the incident, they get together, they then remember the incident and from then onwards, each of them is clear about the facts of this incident.  You don't find that strange?

MR VISSER: That is not the evidence, Mr Chairman.  I just want to place it on record.  The question is ill-based.

CHAIRPERSON: Where are we getting?  I understand the purpose of your cross-examination, but let's be direct, that this is a concoction, if you are saying ...(intervention)

MR WEBSTER: That this in fact is a concoction and that you are still trying to defend your actions and you're still trying to minimise your culpability, is that not so?

LAWRENCE GERALD WASSERMAN: Mr Chairman, that's certainly not so.  I'm here before the Committee, I have actually admitted to shooting at the four persons and shooting and hitting the four persons, that is my evidence.  There is no reason to concoct anything that is less than that.  What purpose would there be in that?

MR WEBSTER: You admit to shooting the four persons and you admit to hitting the four persons.

LAWRENCE GERALD WASSERMAN: Correct.

MR WEBSTER: Where in your application do you admit to hitting the four persons?

LAWRENCE GERALD WASSERMAN: I might have hit one or more of the applicants.

MR WEBSTER: Mr Chairman, I might be mistaken.  Can the witness be afforded the opportunity o locate that, with your kind permission.

LAWRENCE GERALD WASSERMAN: I beg your pardon, Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: You've told us earlier that you fired at the people in the car.  Now, you've told us now that you hit some of those people and the question now is, this is the first time I hear you say that you actually hit the people in the car as distinct from shooting at them.

MR VISSER: Paragraph 11 at page 3 of the exhibit, Mr Chairman

CHAIRPERSON: Is it Exhibit D?

MR VISSER: Indeed, Mr Chairman.   Page 3, paragraph 11 the last sentence.

CHAIRPERSON: The last sentence reads as follows
"I was unable to get a steady aim.  I shot in the direction of the vehicle and I might have hit one or more of the occupants.  I fired 15 rounds."
Yes, can we proceed?

MR WEBSTER: Mr Wasserman, the statement that you hit four of them is new, do you agree with me?

MR VISSER: He didn't say he hit four of them, Mr Chairman.  Where does my learned friend get this from?