Human Rights Violation Hearings — Cape Town — 1997-06-11

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Dumisa.  Mr Odendal first I want to express my regret that you did not pick - you missed the joke about my plea that you not call me Mr Chairman, I am sorry that you missed the joke there.
 Anyway you are describing a situation which suggests that one thing, as in the Witdoeke action, was a consequence of the Comrades action, I think it is common knowledge that the UDF at the time was involved in a power struggle to win political support from its membership and there was a lot of fighting, indeed, but I am not sure that you are contextualising what you are telling us, putting it in proper context.  I think that one of the things that was striking about the Witdoeke attack was the apparent, because it was still apparent at the time, the apparent support by the State, or by organs of the State, people, police officers and the State's policies that seemed at the time to be supportive of the Witdoeke.
 Now you have heard evidence today by Mr Schelhase, how would you describe as the reasons of the conflicts if you were to look at them in full context?

CORNELIUS ADOLF JANSE ODENDAL: The conflict arose from the older people, the so-called Fathers or Witdoeke who were tired of the actions of the Comrades.

CHAIRPERSON: You see Mr Odendal one of the principles of the strategy that Mr Schelhase described to us is the para-militarisation of communities by government to create that conflict.  We have seen, in this case and in other cases, that there were individuals who were activists or who were known to be MK, Umkhonto weSizwe, ANC cadres, who were planted by the security department in a number of communities in the Western Cape precisely to mobilise the young activists in the communities into action and into violent action.  In other words the State had appropriated these forms of violence for itself by planting these askaris in these communities.  There has been evidence led to that effect.
 So when you tell us that the Witdoeke were tired of being burnt out I am not sure that this is the full picture and I am a little concerned because this was the evidence you led during the trial in those years but you still seem  to be holding on to that stance in spite of what we have heard was actually happening which was something more sinister than any of us could prove at that time.

ADV LOUW: Sorry Madam, that is a very long statement could  you perhaps clarify the  question please.

CHAIRPERSON: It's  really a puzzlement, I am just puzzled that Mr Odendal, even in the light of evidence that has been led in this hearing by Mr Schelhase and by other witnesses, by people who observed, who meticulously observed and recorded what was happening,  okay they were not official people, but Mr Schelhase was very well placed as a person who knew and understood what was happening, now my puzzlement is that Mr Odendal is holding on to the testimony, to what he said during the case at the time regarding the squatter camp area.  Now you seem to be holding on to that even though there has been evidence to the contrary.  Now what is your comment?   I mean the involvement of the State you don't seem to be recognising that at all.  You are just telling us that this was simply a reaction by Witdoeke to Comrades' killings.

CORNELIUS ADOLF JANSE ODENDAL: That is correct.  Madam Chair, and I can read from the Burger, Natal violence, there the IFP and the ANC are still fighting, that was the day before yesterday.

CHAIRPERSON: You see that is exactly the point about State involvement in violence.  This is exactly the point.  There has been evidence, even in Natal, that the State was involved in fomenting violence.  This Commission's investigating officers have been told that the State was involved.  There has been evidence, conclusive evidence that there was involvement by the State, the State using its organs to create a situation of violence to militarise the communities, and I think that that is exactly at the heart of our problem in this case.  And in the case that you are mentioning, yes, they are still in conflict, but what does it mean that they are still in conflict if we do not see that in the total context of how the State got involved in the first instance.
 Now we must remember the strategy that Mr Schelhase described requires precisely that there is opposition between two groups.  So it is not surprising in fact that there was a conflict and violence did continue, was seen to be happening, because this fits in with the description of the strategy by Mr Schelhase.  So your quoting the issue in Durban does not enlighten us in any way except to confirm, at least for me, that the strategy did work.

CORNELIUS ADOLF JANSE ODENDAL: Please speak a bit slower I can't follow everything.

CHAIRPERSON: That's fine, I have made my point, thank you.  Dr Ramashala.

MAPULE RAMASHALA: Mr Odendal, during the months of May, June 1986 were you frequently in the company of Barnard and Hendrik Cornelius Johannes as members of the riot squad?

CORNELIUS ADOLF JANSE ODENDAL: That is correct.

MAPULE RAMASHALA: In fact you frequently, at that time, patrolled Nyanga East?

CORNELIUS ADOLF JANSE ODENDAL: Nyanga East, yes that is correct, KTC, Nyanga, Crossroads, I patrolled New Crossroads, I patrolled all those areas.

MAPULE RAMASHALA: If in fact there are reports that there were killings clearly identifying Barnard, Hendrik Cornelius Johannes and a third unknown member of the riot squad, would you say that that might have been you?  Remember the question I asked you before and you said yes.
 There are quite a number of reports where Mr Barnard, Mr Hendrik Cornelius Johannes were clearly identified but people couldn't identify the third person, going on that logic would you say that that third person might have been you?

CORNELIUS ADOLF JANSE ODENDAL: It depends on where it happened, where it took place, whether we were on patrol on foot, whether it happened in a vehicle.

MAPULE RAMASHALA: Sir my last question.  Yesterday Mr Sam Ndima, who was one of the chief organisers of the Witdoeke, and in the thick of it, testified that after the 24th April 1986 meeting in Pretoria that he was promised by Barnard and Captain Loocke some assistance, assistance which included ammunition, did you know anything about that?

CORNELIUS ADOLF JANSE ODENDAL: No, I do not know about that.

MAPULE RAMASHALA: Sir don't you find it rather unusual that you were always in the company of Barnard but you don't know, you never discussed, I mean you don't know about these promises - don't you find it rather unusual?  I am asking you to speculate if that is possible.

CORNELIUS ADOLF JANSE ODENDAL: I don't find it unusual.  I do not say Barnard supplied the people with ammunition or weapons but I did go home sometimes like in the evenings.

MAPULE RAMASHALA: Thank you Sir.  Do you know what a Rambo is, Rambo?

CORNELIUS ADOLF JANSE ODENDAL: Yes, a Rambo is the name given to us by Jan van Eck and he said Odendal and Barnard are the Rambos because in the unrest areas we had to prevent the people from causing unrest, and he accused us of causing problems.  But Rambo, as understood by me, are people who want to shoot wildly, this is how I understand it.  And I can tell you I was, since 1976, in the unrest areas, I have never shot a person.

MAPULE RAMASHALA: Sir, one of the definitions of a Rambo is somebody who is trigger-happy and that is not the only person who identifies you as a Rambo.  Mr Schelhase also identifies you and Barnard as Rambo.  So it's not somebody who goes around patrolling and preventing, a Rambo is somebody who is trigger-happy, a killer, that is what a Rambo is.

CORNELIUS ADOLF JANSE ODENDAL: No, I don't agree with you.  Those people did not say how many lives and properties we protected, that they do not say when they call us Rambos.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ntsebeza.