Amnesty Hearings — Pretoria — 1996-06-01

MR GERBER: I have already mentioned in my evidence that I took all precautionary measures possible as a result of the pressure from the Trade Union.  I notified his manager to come and see me that morning.  I notified Mr Fernandez, the shop steward, I told him to be present.  When he heard  the facts and the merits of the matter he was clearly, how could I  put it, he was clearly excited that there had been a break through in the solving of this crime, especially when he learnt of the circumstances and he also said carry on, investigate and solve this crime and he also testified in court in the criminal case.

JUDGE WILSON: Did you tell him that you would take this man to the bushes and interrogate him there?  You spoke to Fernandez in the office?

MR GERBER: Yes,  I spoke to  Fernandez in the office  and I told him that we would take this man out for investigation because Samuel was clearly excited and scared in the office.  He was afraid to talk to us in the office.

JUDGE WILSON: Was he not scared when he was suspended from the tree?

MR GERBER: Yes, he was.

UNKNOWN: Were you not bound by the contents of this letter from your director to comply therewith seeing  that it  deals actually with the Trade Union of the deceased?

MR GERBER: I agree completely, but the gravity of the crime with which we were dealing spurred me on to investigate the matter further, even after all the precautionary measures.  I contacted Brixton, I spoke to the officer, they couldn't assist me and as a result of that I decided to proceed on my own.

UNKNOWN: So you proceeded on your own.

MR GERBER: Yes.

UNKNOWN: ... for purposes of this armed robbery, did it have to take place on an old mine heap in the veld?

MR GERBER: That was the most appropriate place at that  particular stage,  especially since other employees were  also involved and I knew that these people were afraid to give information because they were murdered, they were threatened and intimidated.   And at that stage I thought the mind dumps would be the safest place to speak to him.

UNKNOWN: Is the police station not a safe place to take him there and interrogate him there?

MR GERBER: A police station is often, especially if you are on the wrong side of the fence, a greater deterrent to interrogating somebody.

UNKNOWN: ... to another branch of Fidelity Guards?  Seeing that you have got them all over the country.

MR GERBER: I suppose I could have done that.

UNKNOWN: You testified that you applied shock by means of the apparatus that you had.  Where particularly on his body did you apply this shock?

MR GERBER: To his private parts and to his finger.

UNKNOWN: Now how did you succeed to do that on the private  parts, because he was hanging upside down and apparently he was in his clothes?

MR GERBER: We pulled down his trousers, I pulled down his trousers.

UNKNOWN: And you further testified there was no actual flames from the fire which you made except smoke.  If I put it to you that there will be evidence to the effect that his head was actually burnt up to the skin would you dispute that?

MR GERBER: Yes, I certainly would dispute that.  In the criminal case this matter also arose.  Oosthuizen, who drove to police headquarters to disclose and reveal the whole case found no mark on the deceased's head.  Julius Xhosa found no burn wounds to his head, the post-mortem revealed no marks, fire wounds, injuries to his head.  Only jack Mgwana apparently saw a mark on his head.  There were  no marks on his head, there were no flames.

UNKNOWN: How many times  was the deceased shot by yourself?

MR GERBER: I can't say, several times.

UNKNOWN: Three, four, five times?

MR GERBER: No, many more than that.

UNKNOWN: Where exactly on his body did the bullets hit him?

MR GERBER: Where exactly on his body?  I shot him in the
back.  May I just mention something about the shooting?  After Samuel was buried and the case was revealed, the body was exhumed and a further post-mortem was performed by pathologist in Diepkloof and Soweto and a point of a bullet was removed from his body.  Our firearms were confiscated for ballistic tests and could not be connected with this bullet point.  So it is clear that Samuel had been involved  in a shooting incident at a previous occasion and that he was walking around with this bullet, piece of a bullet in his body.

UNKNOWN: According to the post-mortem report the deceased's right arm had been shot off, or had been cut off, the right arm, we are talking about, had it been cut off?

MR GERBER: Yes, that is correct.

UNKNOWN: What caused that?

MR GERBER: My colleague, Johan van Eck will testify on that issue.  I was not involved in that.

UNKNOWN: You were present?

MR GERBER: Not when the arm was chopped off.   No, I was  not present then.  That happened later that evening.  That was the information I received the next day.

UNKNOWN: Was the deceased armed in any way?

MR GERBER: (Reply not translated)

UNKNOWN: Did that provoke this attack on him?

MR GERBER: No.  That afternoon in the bush he was not armed.

UNKNOWN: Was it then necessary to deal with him in this manner?

MR GERBER: The investigation throughout the day was necessary to reveal his colleagues and cohorts in the crime so that I could arrest them.  I needed their names.  They had intended and planned to kill Samuel Ranaka.   But after Oosthuizen had shot him everything just deteriorated and eventually he was shot dead.

UNKNOWN: You shot him dead because you did not want to go to the police.

MR GERBER: Yes, that is correct.

UNKNOWN: You testified that on the next day Samuel's fellow employees, Jack and Julius, they told you that they would make a statement that the deceased had been dropped off at his home.

MR GERBER: Jack and Julius was part of my investigating team.  They were not members of the branch where Samuel worked.  That is correct.   After I told them that we  had killed Samuel they said that they would make a statement to the effect that they had dropped him off in Berea at his home.

UNKNOWN: Were these two not told by you to make such a statement?

MR GERBER: I've already said in my previous testimony that I had not exerted any pressure on them, I had not influenced them at any stage.

UNKNOWN: If testimony should be heard that you had suggested to the two colleagues that they should make a statement saying that the deceased had taken you to Hammanskraal, Daveyton and  other places, how would you react to that?

MR GERBER: That was another suggestion of Jack Mgwana's that they had driven around with the deceased during the   day, but the statement was taken by Brig Van Wyk.  He had absolutely no knowledge of this incident.  He took a sworn statement from them and they took the  statements to the enquiries personnel at the Hillbrow Police Station.  If I had threatened them or tried to influence them they could have told Brig Van Wyk about it or they could have told the police that, the police at Hillbrow Station.  They could have told them that I was influencing them to conceal a murder.

UNKNOWN: But perhaps they couldn't do that because they knew what had happened in the past.   Maybe they were afraid to do that.

MR GERBER: Honourable Commissioners, I agree they could have been afraid, but they had no reason to be scared.  I was on good terms with them, we worked together as friends, we worked together under very difficult circumstances.  They had no reason to be afraid of me.

UNKNOWN: Mr Gerber, to take it a little bit further.  These two co-workers were present at the scene where Samuel  was assaulted by yourself and others.  They saw how you  applied shocks to Samuel's private parts and they saw how  you or your colleague shot at Samuel or they also saw how you reacted to Samuel.   This was quite sufficient  to make them very afraid.