Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — UNKNOWN

MR DREYER: I'm not asking you, I'm making a statement upon which I would like you to answer.  I have said that at more than one opportunity you have given us reasons why at various occasions you had a reason to lie and it differs regarding the motivation thereof.  I'm asking you, if you present to us consistently that during the criminal proceedings you wanted to protect Japie Oelofse, what did you achieve by saying at the beginning of those proceedings "I received an order from him to obtain arms and ammunition" and then at the end of the proceedings to say "but I didn't issue the order to shoot."  Well then on whose order did things take place?

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: My apologies I do not understand the exact meaning of your question.  You are harping on one issue and the only way that I can explain it is as follows.
	During the court proceedings I said that I took the blame upon myself that we did not act under orders to shoot those people.  I said that I don't know why I shot the people but it was not only to indemnify myself but also to indemnify the generals and staff of the AWB as well as General Japie Oelofse.

MR DREYER: But who did you want the court to believe?

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: I cannot give you an answer, it is an issue which should have been cleared up in court.

MR DREYER: The fact of the matter is as follows.  During that case you said "I do not accept the responsibility because I did not issue the order to shoot."  Now all that I'm asking of you is that you answer that you don't know what I want from you and that is because you don't have an answer.  I want your commentary.

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: My commentary is that I tried to indemnify myself.

MR DREYER: But in the process of indemnification it does not fit in as to why you should want to protect these people because if you say....[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Will you please proceed to another aspect of the matter and you must wind up your cross-examination.  I need to remind you Mr Dreyer, perhaps you don't know, a full Committee of the Amnesty ruled last year that a person representing an implicated person has no automatic right of cross-examination.  It is for that person representing an implicated person, it's for that person to make application for leave to cross-examine witnesses.  We saw the matter as an appropriate one where you would have the right to cross-examine but you also ruled further as a full Committee that if we happen to grant that person the right to cross-examine witnesses, which is not an automatic right, that right is subject to reasonable limitations.  I think you've been cross-examining this witness since yesterday, today and I think that you are coming very close now to really exceeding the reasonable limits.  You must now wind up your cross-examination.

MR DREYER: I take note Mr Chairman.
	Mr Kloppers, against the entire backdrop of your testimony and ultimately towards the end of your testimony where you reached the point that you say "the reason why I believed that I acted appropriately and I received such an order and this is the order that I executed because" and your reason is you say, that while you were in prison you were praised in some or other manner.  I would like to come to that point.  However, to ask you this I must ask you a number of basic questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Before you do that, tell us what your client's version is with regard to this question of the orders and instructions.  You can't go on putting questions to the witness in the abstract.  Tell us what your client's version is, put it to the witness, let us hear it.  Tell us what Mr Oelofse's version as to what the situation is like.

MR DREYER: Mr Chairman, I have in fact in the course of my cross-examination at more than one instance indicated that at no stage whatever was such an order given by Japie Oelofse that this witness should go along, hold such a roadblock and in fact act the way that they did.  That's the clear indication from my cross-examination, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that sufficient?

MR DREYER: Mr Chairman I'm not quite sure what is expected of me.

CHAIRPERSON: Well the applicants tell us that there was a meeting, that evening on the 12th of that day, the 12th December 1993 - a meeting of whatever they call it and that Oelofse attended that meeting.  Is it true that there was such a meeting and that Oelofse attended that meeting?

MR DREYER: Yes that is in fact so, I've also stated that in my cross-examination.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it true that in that meeting apart from finances and the like is it also Mr Oelofse's version that it was discussed that there will be revolution?

MR DREYER: That is not true.

CHAIRPERSON: Well these are the things that we want to
know.  We're in the dark.  Is it true that after the meeting Mr Oelofse called this witness and stood aside with him?

MR DREYER: Mr Chairman, I emphatically during the course of my cross-examination stated that there was never such an instance that he was called apart - I stated that in my evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: If you are satisfied that you have put across all the version of Mr Oelofse then I have even a better reason  to tell you that you have come now really close to the end of your cross-examination.

MR DREYER: I, in fact I...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: What are we waiting for then?

MR DREYER: Mr Chairman, the very last part of the evidence which was not dealt with is the question of the alleged confirmation of the earlier order that was given which was supposedly have taken place was this applicant was still in detention.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright, Mr Dreyer I think for our own good we will put questions to the witness.  We will interrupt you for a while.  No, I must ask you.
	Is it true that the witness or somebody else took an ear and showed it to Mr Oelofse?

MR DREYER: Mr Chairman, may I just get instruction from my attorney first?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes but these are the things that we want to hear about, what Mr Oelofse's version is.

MR DREYER: Mr Chairman, the version as I've already put it so far is the basis upon which the cross-examination was put but at some stage I also indicated to the Committee that if according to the way the proceedings transpire, there might be a change of my initial instruction in calling Mr Oelofse.  I also indicated that there's a possibility of an affidavit or a statement or a Memorandum of Facts being put into possession of the Committee of part of the basis of cross-examination that was done but all I would like to do at this stage is just get an instruction on the very last question before I answer that.

CHAIRPERSON: Well I'm going to put another question ...[inaudible]
	Is it true that they reported back to Mr Oelofse - is it true that at some point Oelofse said to them they should remove the beard or something?  Is it true that Mr Oelofse suggested at some stage that somebody must get rid of his Mercedes Benz?

MR DREYER: Mr Chairman, obviously I am not in a position to give evidence on behalf of Mr Oelofse.  I can merely put forward his instruction because I'm not in a position to give evidence under oath on behalf of someone else, I cannot be legal representative and witness at the same time.  What I can do is I can put his version in cross-examination in as far as it seems to incriminate my client which I did and which I intend to do for the purposes of the basis upon which I appear before the Committee - not to oppose the applications but to see to it that the best interests of my client is served but I cannot give evidence on the part of Mr Oelofse and the problem is at this stage, I am the creature of his instruction and at this stage my instruction is that he do not intend giving evidence so obviously I cannot prejudice him by giving evidence or making concessions as though it's under oath merely because I'm acting on his behalf.