Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1998-06-12

MR DREYER: Then in the last instance, even if we can accept that Oelofse was in charge of certain specific like you called it, a task force, and the first statement I would like to make regarding this is the first word, that I have heard about this, that this group of people was seen as a specialised task force and acted in that manner.  What is your comment regarding this?
	It was said that they acted on behalf of the AWB, but it is the first time now that I hear or an indication, that they could have acted as a specialised task force, what is your comment on that?

ANDRIES STEPHANUS KRIEL: Yes, I believe that that evening they acted as a task force, that is my opinion, I wasn't there, but that is how I see it.

MR DREYER: Then the second statement regarding this, let us accept that like I said, Oelofse was in charge of task forces, whatever the word may mean, but the fact that he was in charge of it does that mean that for every action that took place, by any task force or force member, that resorted in that task force, that it necessarily coincided with an instruction from Oelofse, just because he is the General who was in charge of these forces?

ANDRIES STEPHANUS KRIEL: Yes, I hear what you are saying, I was not there and I cannot comment on that.

MR DREYER: I don't think we are understanding each other correctly.  Let me put it this way.

MR MALAN: Mr Dreyer, isn't that for argument.

MR DREYER: As the Court pleases.  Can I just ask, you were in charge of the so-called bomb planting cells, is that correct?

ANDRIES STEPHANUS KRIEL: Yes.

MR DREYER: The fact that you were in charge, does that mean that every time where a bomb explodes, it exploded because you gave the instruction that it did?

ANDRIES STEPHANUS KRIEL: In the area where I worked, I always knew exactly who did it, but I do see what you are saying, it could happen.  It did not happen with me, but it could possibly happen.

MR DREYER: Thank you Mr Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DREYER

MR KNOETZE: Mr Chairman, may I just make one statement please, on behalf of my client.  Mr Kriel, you know that I represent Mr Van der Schyff.  The statement that I would like to make on behalf of him is, he denies that the group of which he was a member that evening, when they held the road block, was a task force in the sense that you are referring to, in the sense of a hit squad.   Could you react on that
please?

ANDRIES STEPHANUS KRIEL: It is difficult for me to say, some people would call it a task force and others would call it a hit squad or some - it is difficult.  I think everyone is going to have a different perception.

MR KNOETZE: Thank you Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR KNOETZE

ADV SIGODI: Mr Kriel, I just want to get some clarity.  What is the state of the AWB today?

ANDRIES STEPHANUS KRIEL: I've got no regard for the leader of the AWB.

ADV SIGODI: No, that is not the question.  I am asking what is the state, is it still a popular movement, does it still have a lot of following?

ANDRIES STEPHANUS KRIEL: No Mr Chairperson, a small group of people may still be, but there is a complete change occurred, the expectation that the people had that if the ANC governs, that they will kill the white people, that did not take place and as a result of that, the AWB's structures just dispersed and fell flat.  The last structure in the Free State now collapsed.
	People now live their own lives and the fears that they had, did not realise and I think that people see it in a different way now.  There is not much left of the AWB as it was in the past.

ADV SIGODI: Suppose for the record, Eugene Terreblanche is still the leader of the AWB.  What I find of concern is why would he deny, I mean I can understand about the farms and being prosecuted, but if you are a leader of a particular movement, and you really believe in what you are doing, I don't think that should be of any concern of such a serious concern, but what I find disturbing is the fact that he has now denounced and distanced himself from the applicants.
	How do you reconcile that with his position as a leader and as the person who actually started the movement?

ANDRIES STEPHANUS KRIEL: I think it is very difficult for someone who do not know Mr Terreblanche very well, to understand this.
	It is unfortunately so that Mr Terreblanche has got a history over a lot of years, where he distanced himself of things, where he's got a very good ability to talk.  He is a very good speaker, but the moment when there is any tension or - he would distance himself from that situation.  I hoped that he would keep himself on the long term with what he planned, but my last hope was shattered because of his actions that he doesn't want to be here.
	I do not understand it, there is a problem, a psychological problem somewhere.  He hasn't got the ability to have empathy with his people, if he himself is threatened like in Potchefstroom in the court, he would cry, but he is not capable to have empathy for somebody else, and that is unfortunately the case.
	I would like to conclude regarding Mr Terreblanche, I feel towards him as certainly how the Italians felt about Mussolini, I am in the same situation, it was just on a greater scale, but I think I know how those people felt at the end of the day.
	We listened to every single word, we admired him, he took us on this road and on the end of the day we must find out that he's got feet of clay.

MR MALAN: May I put a last statement to you and you can tell me if it is right or wrong, the way in which you say you saw or summarised him as a person who distances himself, do you yourself, feel empathy like what you heard today?

ANDRIES STEPHANUS KRIEL: Yes, Mr Chairperson.  As a person I have got empathy with any other person, but especially these people and the reason why I have got this empathy, because I have walked the same road, because I know how these people were incited, I was at the speeches, etc and I can understand the misleading situation to which they were exposed to.
	That is why I have got empathy.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo?

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman.  Mr Kriel,  you referred to a task group or task force, is that correct?

ANDRIES STEPHANUS KRIEL: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: I did not listen to the English interpretation, but never did you use the word hit squad?

ANDRIES STEPHANUS KRIEL: No, it is not hit squads, but task forces.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRINSLOO

CHAIRPERSON: You did though say that a task force to kill people?

ANDRIES STEPHANUS KRIEL: Yes, I did say that.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo, let me just go back to the statement that you wanted to hand over, let's just get some clarity about that.
	At some stage I thought it was the statement which you took from the witness during consultation, then later just at the end of the discussion of that problem, I got the impression that the witness was saying that he prepared that statement himself and then gave it to you?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct Mr Chairman, he brought, he gave the statement to me.  It is not a statement I took from him.  This statement according to the date of it, as he indicated, was something in April, which he read out to the Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: So it is the statement that he made on his own?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, then maybe that could change the situation a bit, because I thought it was the notes or the statement which you took as you consulted with him.

MR PRINSLOO: No Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I am more comfortable with a statement which he, himself had made and then given to you.  We will discuss with my colleagues and then we, at an appropriate stage, then I think we will decide whether to take it or not.
	I suppose the witness should not be excused because we may have to ask of him, if need be, to swear to it.