Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — UNKNOWN

MR DREYER: Mr Chairman, if I may just in the correct perspective state the version of Mr Oelofse in respect of the ear.  That appears on page 662 which unfortunately is not part of the documents that I've prepared because I haven't cross-examined or used that but it's a short portion and I should like to just read it into the record.  That is also evident from the statement by the applicant which is also part of the documents before this Committee.  It is stated as such
" At home I went to sleep and early the next morning I went to General Oelofse's home.  I handed over the ear to him.  He said that he didn't want anything to do with the thing and that he didn't want to know anything"  then his advocate asks him "Could you please explain that a bit more?"  "Your honour, the big problem was that people had been shot and I was concerned regarding what I had to do.  I am not an operational person and then I said to the General 'here is the ear which was cut off at the scene - people were shot dead' and he said 'but your objective was to obtain arms and ammunition, what have you done now?' and I regarded myself as being scolded."
That is according to Oelofse, the correct facts, facts and it's also in accordance with this very witness's version of what the original order was and that was to get hold of weapons, ammunition for the purposes of the revolution that would follow.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Kloppers, what is your comment?  Why did you testify like that in the Supreme Court?

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: In the Supreme court I testified that I regarded myself as reprimanded.  Mr Oelofse said to me that that is not what he expected and in the court they asked me what I had done with the ear and I said that I had left the ear on his smallholding on top of his braai grill.

CHAIRPERSON: That's not the question, the question was why did you testify as such in the Supreme Court?

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: I testified as such to protect Mr Oelofse.

CHAIRPERSON: But if you wanted to protect Mr Oelofse why did you say in the first instance that you'd taken the ear to him?

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: I had to deliver an explanation of what I did with the ear and the fact was that two weeks before the order we had already been given a knife, as I testified, I didn't know what to do with the ear itself - I took it to Mr Oelofse directly as he had asked.  He wanted proof of my tasks which had been carried out.  Whether or not it was too much for him I'll never know but I performed the task as he'd asked.

CHAIRPERSON: Why didn't you say that you had taken the ear to the deceased Mr Fourie?

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: Mr Fourie was the area commander of Natal, he was not my area chief, Mr Oelofse was the area chief of area 9.

MR MALAN: Mr Kloppers why didn't you just tell the court that you had thrown the ear away?

MR MALAN: That would have been futile as to why Mr Martin cut off the ear.

MR MALAN: But you wanted to protect Mr Oelofse.

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: I could not have taken it to anybody else, it wouldn't have made any sense.  I had to stick to my statement.

MR MALAN: Why did you say that you took the ear to anyone.

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: I received the order to cut off the ear.  It was carried out, for whichever reason, the court wanted to know why I cut off the ear.  I did it in order to prove to Mr Oelofse that people were killed during the roadblock.

MR MALAN: But that's very difficult to understand because you said in court that there was no order to shoot.  Your story in court was that the others had shot, that you had not given such an order, that you yourself had not fired any shots?

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: That's what I said in court, that is correct.

MR MALAN: But in the same court you said that you had taken the ear to Mr Oelofse in order to show him that people had been shot dead?

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: That's correct.

MR MALAN: I'm not sure I understand that, but thank you.

MR DREYER: Mr Chairman, may I just elect one question to the witness on what was put to him by the Committee Member?
	Mr Kloppers, if during the criminal proceedings you were compelled to say that you had taken the ear to Mr Oelofse in order to create some kind of sense, can you give us any reason if you say now that you gave the order to cut off the ear firstly and secondly, you testified here that it wasn't unusual that it had happened quite a few times during the border situation?

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: That's correct.

MR DREYER: So therefore it was not strange that such an order be issued?

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: That's correct.

MR DREYER: So it was part of a typical military conduct of that type of situation?

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: Yes.

MR DREYER: Very well, if you say that during the criminal proceedings for some or other reason, which I don't understand either, some of the Members of the Panel have indicated that they don't understand and I myself don't understand it either, but you have said that for some or other reason you had to lie regarding this ear.  I want to know from you then why, during the criminal proceedings, it was testified that when Mr Martin gave the ear to you in the car, you said to him "are you crazy?" and he said to you "but here's the ear" and you said "but I didn't tell you to cut off the ear, where did you get that idea?" and he said "but you told me to cut off the ear" and you said "but are you crazy?"  Is that correct, was that your testimony?

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: That's correct.

MR DREYER: Very well that has been sorted out.  Now I want you to explain how this method of yours works that on the one hand you want the Committee to believe that you tried to protect Mr Oelofse but on the other hand you have testified openly in a court of law that he is the man that gave you the order to obtain arms and ammunition, that he is the man who gave you a knife and said "go and cut off an ear" and then strangely enough, during the same trial you said that when you had done exactly what the man had told you to do, "here's the knife, go and cut off the ear" you say during the exact same proceedings that when you arrived with the ear he chased you away.  How does that make sense, could you please explain it?

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: Chairperson, once again you have created a long discussion and I have to give such a more involved answer.  We gave him the ear, it had been cut off at the scene where the ANC people had been shot.  I had to hand over the ear as proof that we had in fact carried out the order.  This ear was handed over to Japie Oelofse.  He did not chase me away from the smallholding as I had said in the court.  I was lying then as I have said before and I think that I have also stated that in the statement in which I have submitted to the proceedings, I was lying.  There was an ear, it was handed over.  What Mr Oelofse did with it I don't know.

MRS VAN DER WALT: I beg your pardon, before you proceed before the adjournment I heard where Mr Kloppers had said that Mr Oelofse had told him to go and obtain arms and ammunition.  Reference was made to page 637 and once again it has been put to Mr Kloppers that he said during the criminal proceedings that Mr Oelofse issued the instruction to him to steal arms and ammunition.  This is his testimony.  I can't find this on page 637, perhaps I'm in possession of the wrong papers?  If Mr Dreyer could please refer us to the correct page.