Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — UNKNOWN

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: There was one bottle of whisky, it was First Watch whisky, Andre Visser would be able to answer you regarding that, but there was only one bottle of whisky.

MR DREYER: However, he says that there was whisky and brandy and he also says, this is Mr Martin who says, that when you finally arrived at his home, another bottle of brandy or whisky was obtained.
	Now we are talking about three bottles of alcohol, what do you say about that?

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: I label that as untrue.  I don't know where Mr Martin stated this, but I state it very clearly to you that we took out one bottle of whisky, the seal had already been broken on the bottle, that we took out that bottle.  We used the alcohol that was available there.

MR DREYER: Is this Badenhorst's home?

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: This was at Mr Andre Visser's home, at Mr Badenhorst's home there was no available alcohol.

MR DREYER: Very well, when you testified yesterday, you said that the rest of the men stood to one side, and chatted amongst each other, because you gave them options of home penetration and road blocks?

MS VAN DER WALT: That is incorrect, he gave them no option between a road block or home penetration.

MR DREYER: I will retract that.  But what I am saying is that at one point you testified that you spoke to the men and you said that while they were considering or talking about it, you said and your words were because I pertinently wrote them down, you made yourself at home in the home of Mr Martin, I went to the drinks cabinet, I took out a bottle which you said was already open, I divided the bottle of drink in two and gave it to the group.

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: That is not correct, that is not what I said.

MR DREYER: What did you say?

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: If I remember correctly, I stated it clearly that I gave the order at Mr Martin's home that there would be a road block while the men were discussing the matter, I made myself at home in his home, because I was very good friends with Mr Martin.
	I opened his drinks cabinet, there was half a bottle of brandy, indeed if it was half a bottle, but I don't want to lie about that, I divided the brandy between two bottles and between two vehicles, when we arrived outside.  Those were my words.

MR DREYER: But how does that differ from the version which I have just provided?  I have stated it exactly?

MS VAN DER WALT: I am very sorry, you said that he took out a bottle of alcohol, there is a very big difference between a bottle and a half a bottle of alcohol.

MR DREYER: I would really request my learned friend not to unnecessary curb my cross-examination, because I distinctly said that he made himself comfortable, he went to the liquor cabinet, he took out a bottle and I distinctly said which was already open and in his own words now, he said he can't lie, he doesn't want to say it was half or how much of it was already consumed.  I think it is a play of words, all I am saying is it is the matter of him, when they have already had something to drink, get to this house and on his own version, went to the liquor cabinet, took out a bottle of liquor and he divided it and he provided it to the two groups, that is the point I am making.

CHAIRPERSON: The whole problem arises as a result of the question you asked.  You asked him what is the difference between what I have just ask you and what you have said.  What was the purpose of this question of yours, why didn't you just proceed to put questions?
	What is the purpose of asking this witness but what is the difference between what I have asked and what you are saying?  If you didn't see any purpose, why didn't you just proceed with your cross-examination?

MR DREYER: I will do so Mr Chairman.  Mr Kloppers, I put it to you according to your own version which we must accept here as the truth, alcohol had already been used by yourself at your own home and after you had been at the road house, where you met and then you went to Mr Martin's home where you divided the bottle as you have explained, is that correct?

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: No, that is incorrect.  I could not have gone to the road block first ...

MR DREYER: I beg your pardon, I was referring to the road house.

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: I had a drink at my home with my meal and then at Andre Visser's home I consumed whisky and then at Deon Martin's home, I consumed brandy, that is correct.

MR DREYER: What I don't understand is that while the men were discussing the matter according to you, whatever they were discussing, you walked away.  You said that you went to make yourself at home, but you didn't make yourself at home with a drink for yourself, you made yourself at home by taking the bottle of alcohol, however empty or full it may have been, the bottle which you found there, you divided it into two in order to divide it amongst the group, what was the purpose behind that?
	Why did you want to make sure that alcohol would be available for the groups participating in this mission?

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: I did not make sure that alcohol had to be handed out.  I would just like to bring you back to the bottle which according to you, was either full or half full, I told you that the bottle was either half or less than half, full.
	I put it that you are playing with the meaning of full or half full or less than half, full.  I simply divided the amount of alcohol between the two groups, whoever wanted to have some of it, was free to accept or not to accept it.  Mr Martin van der Schyff does not drink whisky at all, the major reason for that was that he wanted brandy, he doesn't drink whisky and water and I found this bottle in the drinks cabinet, and divided it.

MR DREYER: But why would Mr Martin during the criminal proceedings, have testified that at the previous house, brandy and whisky was available?

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: I think you would have to ask him yourself.

MR DREYER: However full or empty the bottle was, my problem remains in that you wanted to ensure that alcohol was available at all times,  was that in order to ensure that the men would have the courage to carry out the order which you wanted to give to them?

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: No, my men were prepared at all times.  It was not necessary to give them alcohol in order to give them courage.

MR DREYER: My problem is and I will present it to you in the following construct, in your version, these men were told to go to work that night, without being told what work was?

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: That is correct.

MR DREYER: And then you met at the road house and still they had not been told what the work would be?

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: The only idea that I allowed to filter through at the road house, was that we were going to work, that it was the real McCoy and that there had to be corpses.  This had already been conveyed to the men at the road house.

MR DREYER: But sir, you have consistently said that only when you were travelling in the vehicle, you and Mr Martin discussed the possibility of the road block?

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: No, that is not the case.  In the vehicle Mr Martin put it to me that we should do home penetration and I neutralised that because I had received an order from Gen Oelofse.

MR DREYER: No you said we are not going to do that, we are going to hold a road block.

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: As I had already received the order from Gen Oelofse, that is correct.

MR DREYER: And then you drove from home to another and on the way, you were drinking and only when you eventually arrived on the scene of the road block, you called the so-called group to one side and said to them, look, these are ANC people and we are going to shoot them now and the signal will be Martin's first shot.