Special Hearings — Trojan Horse Hearings — 1997-05-21

UNKNOWN: I am prepared to answer your questions but you must please give me a chance to answer when you've asked a question.  There is no point in constantly interrupting each other.

MR NTSEBEZA: Okay.  Did your informers not tell you who the ringleaders were?

UNKNOWN: No, the ringleaders involved in stone-throwing we weren't aware of their identities.

MR NTSEBEZA: Are you saying your informers didn't tell you who was behind the stone-throwing incidents, is that your evidence?

UNKNOWN: We didn't have that information.

MR NTSEBEZA: Was it clear that you would never have that information?  Had you assessed the situation to be that you'd never now have that information?

UNKNOWN: If we had that information at our disposal then it would have been easy to just pick up the relevant individuals, but we didn't have that information.  An informer could tell you who is responsible for planning certain things but he wouldn't be able to point out the person who was actually doing it, throwing stones etc.

MR NTSEBEZA: Now let's just look at what you did on that day.  Did you equip those people in that truck with teargas equipment?

UNKNOWN: No.

MR NTSEBEZA: Why not?

UNKNOWN: It was not meant to be a crowd control operation.

MR NTSEBEZA: What was it?  Didn't you anticipate that there might be crowds?  You all testified that all the other things, that there were up to 200 people, didn't you anticipate that there would be a crowd?

UNKNOWN: No, I am talking about the information which we received after the attack on this vehicle and according to that information mention was made of 150 to 200 people.

MR NTSEBEZA: Okay, yes, but didn't you anticipate that there might be a crowd, and that therefore there might be a much more effective way of dealing with that crowd by those people in the truck by throwing teargas?

UNKNOWN: When arrests have to be made it's counter-productive to use teargas.

MR NTSEBEZA: Well I would assume that it's counter-productive to kill people who you want to arrest, wouldn't you?

UNKNOWN: Yes I suppose so, but that was not the idea.  The purpose and the idea was to arrest the people.  What would teargas help in the case of a stone-throwing incident?   Once again I must say that the intensity of the attack surprised us all.

MR NTSEBEZA: Educate me, I don't know, but I would have assumed that if you throw sufficient teargas canisters into a crowd or into those people who were throwing stones that it would incapacitate them, it would cause them to sneeze, it would cause them - I don't know what it does but I've seen what it does, it causes people to be disorientated, to run away and that gives the police the opportunity they have been looking for to run to arrest them, wouldn't you say that's one of the things that teargas does?  That it causes the victim to be disorientated?   It causes the victim to be somewhat incapacitated and it causes an opportunity which the police, armed with an equipment that is protecting them against teargas to be able to arrest those who are incapacitated to that extent, doesn't it do that?

UNKNOWN: No, teargas doesn't have that specific effect that you've just mentioned.  If it was so simple that you just fire teargas and the person then becomes incapacitated and could be arrested at will it will be a different matter but I've mentioned to you this morning that we used all methods at our disposal to try and stop these attacks.  We did use teargas ...(intervention)

MR NTSEBEZA: But you didn't use it on the 15th.

UNKNOWN: No not in that specific operation ...(intervention)

MR NTSEBEZA: In fact you didn't even prepare for it?

UNKNOWN: No.

MR NTSEBEZA: Ja, and the question is why not?

UNKNOWN: Because it would not serve any purpose to carry teargas with us.

MR NTSEBEZA: Do you think you would have killed that 15 year-old child that day if you had used teargas instead?  Do you think your people would have been forced to go into a shooting situation in the first place if when so soon they realised that they were being attacked with stones they throw teargas, do you think that the attack would have continued?  Isn't it a reasonable possibility, let alone a probability that when the teargas was thrown into those people who were throwing stones at you you even would have had the time to retreat and to re-group, call for reinforcements, effect arrests, why did you leave only the possibility or the option for the police to have to use their firearms, the lethal weapons?

UNKNOWN: Teargas is simply not used in circumstances such as those.  We didn't deem it necessary to use it.

MR NTSEBEZA: I see, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Ntsebeza.  Are there any further questions?

MS GOBODO-MADIKIZELA: Thank you Mr Loedolff, just one question, actually two questions, did you operate on the assumption that all people found on that spot or wherever the truck was stoned, would be stone-throwers?

UNKNOWN: No, nobody could assume that everybody there present would be stone-throwers, but I come back to what I said, if there's an attack then the policemen would surely not fire at people who were not involved at all.

MS GOBODO-MADIKIZELA: The last question is, the mastermind of this plan how could you ascertain that the people on the right or left or back of the truck would be the ones who were throwing stones, how could you ascertain that given that your men were in boxes?

UNKNOWN: Well it's very clear that the persons would first have to ascertain who it was that was throwing stones before they acted.

MS GOBODO-MADIKIZELA: That's exactly the point I want to make.  How could they ascertain, make this deduction if they were in boxes?  Right, they had to ascertain first where the rocks or bricks came from, but how could they do this if they are in boxes?

UNKNOWN: Well he can't shoot, he can't fire before actually standing up, so he would not be able to ascertain where these stones were coming from before he was actually in an upright position, standing up.

MS GOBODO-MADIKIZELA: So as the mastermind of the plan your expectation is that the commander of the team would have looked first to see where the stone-throwing came from before making the shooting?

UNKNOWN: Look, the commanding officer has to make his own observations ...(intervention)

MS GOBODO-MADIKIZELA: Thank you.

UNKNOWN: And that's very clear.  A person first has to observe what's going on.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Loedolff I would just like to ask you one question.  We try very hard to understand the thinking and the preparation that went into this event.  When you responded to Dr Ramashala's question in which you used the word sharp-shooters you responded that if sharp-shooters were used then a tragedy would have occurred.  You did also say in your other answers to questions that you regret very much the deaths that occurred that day, I would think that we all agree that a tragedy did occur on that day.  But perhaps on that day and in those circumstances it would not have been able to participate the tremendous national and international response that there was to this event, and I just wonder, in the light of your objective which was to combat the unrest, to effect arrests, whether at the end of that day you felt that the operation had been a success or a failure?