Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1998-06-10

MR KLOPPERS: Mr Terreblanche and General Jape Oelofse visited the prison last week, that's the Leeukop Prison.  I myself did not see him, some of my men can testify as to what was said there, but I myself did not go to see him.  I refused.

MS VAN DER WALT: No further questions, thank you Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS VAN DER WALT

CHAIRPERSON: Why did you not want to see him?

MR KLOPPERS: I had nothing to say to him Chairperson.  At the time when we were supposed to negotiate regarding the amnesty hearing he was never available, he never made himself available and that's why I have nothing to say to him.

CHAIRPERSON: Didn't you want to say to him:  listen, during the hearing there was one advocate who claimed that he was acting for you and he put to me all sorts of visions which I did not agree with and take him to task for that?

MR KLOPPERS: I am sure that he already had knowledge of that.  I wasn't concerned about it.

CHAIRPERSON: You didn't want to confront him with that?

MR KLOPPERS: No I didn't want to.

MR MALAN: Mr Kloppers you testified that you refused to see him.  Does that mean that he requested to see you?

MR KLOPPERS: According to the Correctional Services Authority it was said that there was a visitor for me, but I said that I wouldn't see him.

MR MALAN: Did they say that there was a visitor for you or did they say that General Oelofse asked to see you?

MR KLOPPERS: They told me that Mr Terreblanche and General Oelofse and I think Mr Van der Lange, were there.

MR MALAN: And that they'd asked to see you?

MR KLOPPERS: Yes, they'd asked to see us AWB members, they didn't name us by our names.

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon, just on this point, didn't you testify that you had resigned from the AWB?

MR KLOPPERS: That is correct.

MR MALAN: So if he wanted to see the AWBs, would he have wanted to see you?

MR KLOPPERS: Normally yes.

MR DREYER: Mr Chairman may I just enquire procedurally.  There's just one matter that concerns me and that is the fact that during this phase of re-examination by my learned friend on behalf of Mr Kloppers, there was reference to certain documentation which was in fact handed up as exhibits, more particularly EXHIBIT 2.  None of these material, to the best of my knowledge, was before the commission at the stage when I was busy with my cross examination so they contain new aspects so I do not want to jump ahead procedurally when I would just like to enquire whether we will be having the opportunity to at least, if new material like this is put before the commission, to put some statements or questions to the particular witness because I'm of the respectful submission that there are new facets which transpire from these documents.

CHAIRPERSON: They were in rebuttal to what you had put, not only you but everyone else, had put to the witness and I've difficulties at once with regards to EXHIBIT 2.  I don't know how that could be the premise of your request to ask to put questions to the witness, unless you're referring to EXHIBIT 3?

MR DREYER: Judge I, first of all there are certain statements made in EXHIBIT 2, unless I understood it wrongly, that this was in fact proof of the fact that there was such an intended revolution or strike so I then take it that what is stated in this article that was published in the Rapport is supposed to be in accordance with the evidence of the witness and my submission is that it is not and it is also not in accordance of my version of my client and then secondly, the certificate or so-called "Certificate of Duty" that was handed up as EXHIBIT 4 is dated the 4th of December 1993, which is prior to this particular incident, so obviously the relevance of that should be taken into account, with respect.

CHAIRPERSON: Well that shouldn't be a problem to your client.  EXHIBIT 2, as far as I'm concerned, is general evidence with regard to a particular situation but I don't see EXHIBIT 2 as suggesting that as purporting to say that it proves that your client gave orders to the applicant.  As far as I'm concerned you - I mean you're concerned about the fact that an allegation is made against your client that he gave orders to these people that particular evening.

MR DREYER: That is so Mr Chairman.  The submission that I have is simply the following that if cognisance is taken of the contents of that particular article in the Rapport, it is clearly stated in there that it was something that was supposed to take place, but in fact never took place and that in itself is contrary to the evidence of this witness that he in fact received a command that such a, as he called it "gewapende stryd" or "revolusie" was supposed to start off by the 13th of December and that is directly contrary to the contents of this article because it stated in more than one place in the article that it was supposed to take place but it in fact never took place, for certain reasons.  That is the point that I'm making Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it the same thing?  You say this newspaper says something did not take place which was supposed to have taken place.

MR DREYER: Mr Chairman if I could just - if I can phrase it like this:  I started off by saying that I understood that when this particular exhibit was placed before the committee it was placed before the committee, I understood, as sort of contributory evidence that in fact there was a planning of such an operation.  That's the first statement that I want to make, but if cognisance is taken of the cognisance is taken of the contents, it is clear from the contents, stated by General Viljoen, that it was in a planned stage, but nothing transpired from that and that is contrary to the evidence of this witness that in fact at some stage he did get the command to ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Well do you want to put questions about this?

MR DREYER: I would put one statement ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Because as I read this paper, it does not purport to say on the evening of that which we are concerned with, let's say it's March whatever - what date was it when this thing was (indistinct) taken place?

COUNSEL: 12th of December.

CHAIRPERSON: As far as I'm concerned this newspaper does not say or purport to say on the 12th of December there was a plan put forward on revolution.  This doesn't say this, but if you read it as saying so well I don't know maybe you can put question to the witness, but I don't read it the same way.  Does the document say that on the 12th of December there was to be a revolution?

MR DREYER: Judge with respect, the entrance to it says:  "The armed resistance which military leaders had planned before the elections of 1994 ...", so it clearly refers to the latter part of 1994.  That is the relevance ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: It's in general.

MR DREYER: Yes as it pleases, but I'm saying that at least there's some contrary statements between the ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Alright, well let's hear what you say, put it to the witness let's ... (intervention)

MS VAN DER WALT: Might I just interrupt.  The entire purpose of the submission of the exhibit was to clarify how the applicant explained the actions during that time, based upon an order, how that order came from the Volksfront, from General Viljoen along with all the other parties who were involved.  That is the only reason why this exhibit was submitted, only to explain and his evidence corresponds with the setup of this diagram.

CHAIRPERSON: But that is what he thought, that is what the applicant thought, as a result of the prevailing circumstances, ... (intervention)

MS VAN DER WALT: Yes, such as the meeting which he attended.