Amnesty Hearings — Port Elizabeth — 1997-09-22

CHAIRPERSON: Do you know there was one summons against the police for assault during his detention?  You've told us you were aware of that.

GERRIT NICHOLAS ERASMUS: That is correct.  Maybe I can explain to the Committee how the issuing of the summons works, it is sent to the Divisional Commissioner who deals with that kind of administrative detail.  It wouldn't have been served on me directly, so I can't actually help you with dates.

CHAIRPERSON: I take it that once a summons of that nature had been served, they would have made enquiries as to whether they should defend the action in matters of that nature?

GERRIT NICHOLAS ERASMUS: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And they would have made enquiries of you and people in your department?

GERRIT NICHOLAS ERASMUS: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And do you know that there was a second summons for damages for poisoning which was issued on the 2nd of April?  I don't ask you if you knew the contents but did you know that he'd issued another summons?

GERRIT NICHOLAS ERASMUS: That's correct.

MR BRINK: Thank you Mr Chairman.  Yes, that date appears at page 97 of bundle B on the third item from the Pretoria News, 20th of June 1990.
	You see, there must have been discussion between you and your co-applicants about the second summons which related to the poisoning which was a very serious allegation indeed, do you agree with me?

GERRIT NICHOLAS ERASMUS: May I please ask that - was this concerning the decision to kill the two people or was this concerning the civil matter?  I don't quite understand the question.

MR BRINK: Let me try and be more clear.  You see, a summons was issued by Mthimkhulu on the 2nd of April 1982, in terms of which he was claiming damages for alleged poisoning - poisoning by members of the security police, do you remember that?

GERRIT NICHOLAS ERASMUS: I remember that.

MR BRINK: And that must have caused you some considerable concern Mr Erasmus.

GERRIT NICHOLAS ERASMUS: It was a difficult situation, it was uncomfortable, it was an embarrassment for the South African police.

MR BRINK: Yes, highly embarrassing and highly dangerous, would you agree?

GERRIT NICHOLAS ERASMUS: That's correct.

MR BRINK: And it was two days after that summons was issued that discussions commenced between you and your co-applicants about murdering this person who'd instituted action against the police.

GERRIT NICHOLAS ERASMUS: Correct, yes.

MR BRINK: A somewhat unfortunate coincidence, was it not?

GERRIT NICHOLAS ERASMUS: I agree, yes.

MR BRINK: Because it tends to - it may tend to create the impression in some people's minds that the reason that it was decided to kill Mthimkhulu was because he had issued that summons.

GERRIT NICHOLAS ERASMUS: I don't agree.

MR BRINK: You don't agree that it might create that impression?

GERRIT NICHOLAS ERASMUS: It could create such an impression.

MR BRINK: Yes, thank you very much.

CHAIRPERSON: While we're on that - are you going onto something else now Mr Brink?  Do you know the Colonel that - please bear with me - an enquiry was being held for the Magistrate on the 5th of May 1982 into allegations that members of the security police had committed grievous bodily harm on Mr Mthimkhulu?

GERRIT NICHOLAS ERASMUS: I didn't take part in the proceedings but I can recall that.

CHAIRPERSON: So you were aware that there was going to be a public enquiry at which witness were being subpoenaed on the 5th May into serious allegations of assault?  Do you recall that?

GERRIT NICHOLAS ERASMUS: Correct.

MR BRINK: Thank you Mr Chairman, I have finished.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BRINK

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Erasmus, when you were having these discussions over a period of approximately 10 days and eventually came to the conclusion that you would eliminate these people, I want to put it to you that at that stage you were aware of the subpoena relating to the poisoning case.

GERRIT NICHOLAS ERASMUS: I don't know exactly when it was served but I'm assuming that I must have been aware of it.  I must have been aware of it, if it had been served before that time.

ADV DE JAGER: And as you've correctly said it would have been grave embarrassment for you?

GERRIT NICHOLAS ERASMUS: That is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: Now, I can't imagine that that point would not have been discussed and that that would not have been a factor influencing your decision.

GERRIT NICHOLAS ERASMUS: I would like to state unequivocally that that was not discussed.

ADV DE JAGER: But you had discussed the kind of problems that these people were causing you?

GERRIT NICHOLAS ERASMUS: Yes, we had made a decision as to the kind of problems they were causing.

ADV DE JAGER: And you came to the decision which you did as a result of the problems they were creating for you?

GERRIT NICHOLAS ERASMUS: Yes, it was based on the situation of unrest.

ADV DE JAGER: For me as an outsider, it seems to me that that would have been one of the biggest problems that they would have created for you.

GERRIT NICHOLAS ERASMUS: No, I do not agree.  The discussion here turned on the overthrow of the Government and the revolutionary climate and
attempts to destabilise the Government.

ADV DE JAGER: But would it not have been a major embarrassment for the Government that you were trying to protect if this case - this poisoning case came to court?

GERRIT NICHOLAS ERASMUS: I think the issue was so thoroughly discussed and dealt with in the media that the embarrassment had already been created.

CHAIRPERSON: As I understood, one of the reasons why you felt you couldn't detain him again was because of his physical state and because you couldn't afford to have another death in detention?

GERRIT NICHOLAS ERASMUS: That is correct and I also said that his detention would, as a result of his martyr's status as a result of the poison incident, would just have caused further unrest and riots.

CHAIRPERSON: And if he'd gone into court and given evidence about the poison incident, what would that have done to you?

GERRIT NICHOLAS ERASMUS: As I've said, the issue had been so exhaustively dealt with in the press that the issue  - the case had already created  embarrassment, whether it went to court or not I don't think it would have made a difference.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you serious in that, are you suggesting that it would not have made a difference if a court of this country had found that he had been deliberately poisoned by members of the security police?

GERRIT NICHOLAS ERASMUS: No, that's not what I'm saying, what I'm saying is, the fact that the case could have gone to court - well I can't comment on the finding.

CHAIRPERSON: I'd like to ask you - you've told us if we can go back to the - as I understand you, the first killing was the Kondile one and that was also one between you and your team?

GERRIT NICHOLAS ERASMUS: Between myself and my members, yes.  I don't know whether we actually constituted a team.

CHAIRPERSON: No, but you took the decision, it was not taken by anyone else and as I understand the evidence you've given and I'm subject to correction, you did not communicate with anyone else about it?

GERRIT NICHOLAS ERASMUS: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Because we have been given an affidavit by Mr Dirk Coetzee - or when I say we, those members hearing that application, in which he says he played a prominent part in this killing.  Have you seen the affidavit?

GERRIT NICHOLAS ERASMUS: I haven't seen the affidavit, are we talking about the murder of Mthimkhulu and Madaka or the Kondile murder?

CHAIRPERSON: Kondile.

GERRIT NICHOLAS ERASMUS: Once again I made that decision and that's were it remained, I didn't take the matter further so I don't know whether Dirk Coetzee was involved, I wasn't present.