Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — UNKNOWN

MR DREYER: Mr Kloppers, my problem with this entire construct and the chain of authority and command and the issuing of orders is the following:  you spontaneously testified in Afrikaans here yesterday and it is your mother tongue when you were asked for the first time what your attitude was regarding the allegation of the involvement of Hartzenberg and Viljoen, you used the Afrikaans words and you were pertinently asked by the Chairperson, do you think so or do you know so and your answer in Afrikaans was, and you can consult the record if you wish, your words were and this was the first time when you were confronted about it clearly I know it for a fact.
	That was an Afrikaans expression with a determined meaning.  It is when someone is an eyewitness to an accident and he sees something as an objective fact, and he observes it and you ask him after the time, do you know it, do you think it, are you reconstructing the facts, and he would say no, I know it for a fact, because I stood right next to the road and saw it.
	Then, later on in the day when you were once again cross-examined and once again confronted and peppered with questions regarding the possible involvement of Hartzenberg and Viljoen and the Chairperson put it to you sir, if you state these objective facts it means that you are incriminating other individuals and the potential exists that those individuals would have to answer regarding those incrimination and they have not been notified regarding that, then you came back and you said, no you think so, because joint meetings were held and so forth.
	All that I am asking you now is that I have sketched two phases in your answer to you, tell me are they correct?  Is it correct that you testified as such here yesterday?

MS VAN DER WALT: With respect Chairperson, one cannot call that a question.  I think that Mr Dreyer should reformulate the question.

MR DREYER: I will do so.  I sketched a background for you.  If you don't understand, then you should please indicate to me when you don't understand, because before you receive the opportunity to say whether or not you understand the question or ask what is expected of you, there is an intervention by your legal representative, so please during my cross-examination if I were to ask you anything which you were not to understand, please feel free to indicate to me that you do not understand or what is expected of you, is that clear?

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: What I am saying directly is that you are trying to extend the question as much as possible and use very large and complicated words in order to confuse me, so please limit yourself in time and length so that I can understand you.

MR DREYER: It is not my attempt to confuse you at all and in all fairness, I will rephrase the question and it is a very simple question.
	When you were confronted for the first time regarding the involvement of Viljoen and Hartzenberg you said you knew it for a fact.  And when you were confronted for a second time regarding that and pointed out the risks and complications, you said that you thought so because they held joint meetings and it all formed part of the right wing umbrella organisations.	 Is that correct?

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: That is correct that I regarded it as a fact that they held joint meetings.

MR DREYER: Then I put it as follows, also regarding the alleged order which you would have received upon the 12th to go over into revolution, which included the death of people.  This was a fabrication of your thoughts.

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: That is untrue.

CHAIRPERSON: ... you said you were stating the involvement of Viljoen and Hartzenberg, you were stating that as a fact and then later you said well, that is just what you thought.
	The question was is that how in fact you testified yesterday?

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: What I can conclude from the cross-examination, the question is whether Viljoen and Hartzenberg attended meetings of the Generals in staff and upon that I would answer yes, that is a fact.

MR DREYER: No the Honourable Chairperson has now just attempted to bring you to an answer and I will once again attempt, my question remains and you have not answered me, is this what you testified to yesterday, yes or no?

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: Yes.

MR DREYER: Thank you.  Let us return to the issue of the order which you would have received on the 12th.  You made it strongly clear that during certain phases of your detention and interrogation by the Police, you were seriously tortured.

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: That is correct.

MR DREYER: Thus there was an interrogative phase before you eventually attended the criminal proceedings in the Supreme Court, is that correct?  Therefore you were first interrogated by the Police and you made certain statements and after that, the criminal proceedings followed?

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: Yes, that is correct.

MR DREYER: And today we enter a completely different phase, you are here during an amnesty application?

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: That is correct.

MR DREYER: Very well, let us take the portion where you were being interrogated by the Police before you appeared in the Supreme Court during the criminal proceeding.
	Let us limit ourselves to that, you made certain statements.

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: That is correct.

MR DREYER: At that stage, if I understand your testimony correctly, you were deprived of all your support structures, you were not with your people, you were in detention, difficult circumstances, you were being assaulted, and surely you would have attempted to escape it in some or other way?

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: That is correct.

MR DREYER: When the criminal proceedings finally commenced, during your testimony you were granted a second opportunity within the atmosphere of a court case and without the apparent threatening presence of the Police, you could tell the Court the true facts, is that correct?

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: Yes.

MR DREYER: And during that I saw that you and Mr Martin, during those proceedings said that it was easier to testify in court because the Advocates treat one as a person and that fear element does not exist as it was when I was interrogated by the Police.

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: That is correct.

MR DREYER: I am going to offer a comparison to you and I am going to ask you to give us explanations regarding why there were such large differences between the three phases.
	Firstly the affidavit which was according to the nature of that confession which you made before the Police in cooperation with the Advocate, which appeared for you during the criminal proceedings, and was submitted during the criminal case, and that which you have testified to here, in other words, the three phases, do you understand?

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: Yes, I understand.

MR DREYER: Let us begin with the criminal proceedings and I would like to refer you to volume 8, page 637, that is right at the beginning of your testimony.
	It begins on page 636 and I am referring to 637.

CHAIRPERSON: ... of whatever you are referring to.

MR DREYER: Mr Chairman, that is the criminal proceedings in the High Court before the Honourable Judge Steggman against this witness as accused in that matter.  Unfortunately I only received this proceedings myself Wednesday afternoon very late and in fact I received it from the legal representative that at that stage represented Mr Kloppers.
	I didn't have any opportunity to reproduce it in any way in order to make it available to the Committee.

MR BRINK: Mr Chairman, may I make a suggestion?  If possibly Mr Dreyer could arrange to have photocopies made of the pages to which he refers and those could be handed at a later stage.