Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1992-05-12

MR PRETORIUS: Mr Kruser, I find it strange that - my lord I refer to the questions posed by the ANC to the objectors, it is in bundle A, it is on page 10, it's paragraph 22 thereof - the question that your legal advisors put to us and asked us to admit is the following, Mr Kruser - that the marchers ignored the attempt by the two uniformed members of the South African Police to stop and or divert them and that as they charged forward one of these policemen was struck and injured with a sharp instrument.  That is not your evidence, is that correct?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: I'm not aware that anyone was struck and injured, I think that's other evidence.  I never gave that evidence.

MR PRETORIUS: And according to you evidence could not happen that way because the marchers did not charge forward while these policemen were still up there - it is only after they had returned back to you and addressed you, that they charged forward?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: That's how I recollect it - we're talking about seconds now.

MR PRETORIUS: Are you aware of an ANC guard on that specific day who had a makarov pistol in his possession?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: I don't remember anyone specifically.

MR PRETORIUS: Is it possible?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: It's possible there were members who owned makarovs.

MR PRETORIUS: Mr Chairman, during the inquest there was a number of photos taken from the various video material that was available and placed into an album.  After this witness testified it was pointed out by the ballistic experts that one of the ANC guards that was in front of Shell House was in possession of an makarov pistol.  It was clearly invisible on the particular photos that were taken.  We could never ask this witness if he could identify that particular guard because at that stage he had already given his evidence.  If I could just ask Mr Chairman to give me the opportunity to show the photograph of that particular ANC guard to the witness and ask him to identify him for us?

MR TIPP: Mr Chairman, again for the assistance of the Committee, an affidavit was in fact submitted by Mr Ndlovu who confirms that he is the person seen on that photograph which was taken after the incident and stating that he did not at any time fire with that makarov.  If necessary we can produce that affidavit for assistance.

MR PRETORIUS: If this witness can just point to us if it is Mr Ndlovu on the photograph, that's all.

MR PRETORIUS: Mr Kruser, on the page in front of you there are six photographs - the three on the bottom and the second photograph the middle photograph that is on the bottom photographs - do you recognise that person?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: Which person?  There are many people on that photograph.

MR PRETORIUS: It's a person in a white shirt on the foreground of the photograph.

GARY JOHN KRUSER: I do recognise him.

MR PRETORIUS: Who is he?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: I know him as Madoda.  Madoda - I don't know his full names.

MR PRETORIUS: Can you just inform us where he is employed at now?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: I'm not sure but possibly in one of the intelligence agencies - I'm not sure.

MR PRETORIUS: Mr Chairman, I've got no further questions to this particular witness.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRETORIUS

CHAIRPERSON: I understand that you've done your work on behalf of your colleagues as a whole, is that correct?

MR PRETORIUS: No Mr Chairman.  I've done my work in so far as it was agreed that I would proceed on examining the witness first.  It was also our understanding that it is not the idea of the legal representatives of the objectors that they will repeat every single question that I have asked, in other words it's not for repetitiveness sake but some of my colleagues will have questions which I have not asked and if they would like the opportunity to do so.

MR DORFLING: Mr Chair, Honourable Members of the Committee, may I be permitted to ask some questions to the witness?
	Mr Kruser, I would just like us to at the outset put a time frame to this date on which you made application for amnesty.  Looking at the documents contained in bundle C which is the actual application it would appear that your documents was drafted or the pro forma or roneo form was completed on the 9th May and was submitted to the Honourable Committee for it's consideration on the 10th May 1997, do you agree with that?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: I completed it on the 9th, when it was submitted I don't know.

MR DORFLING: If I may be of some assistance, if you could turn in bundle C to the very first page to number 1 it bears the stamp of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the Investigative Unit, dated 10 May 1997.

GARY JOHN KRUSER: I don't have a bundle, but I'll accept that.

MR DORFLING: Am I correct in saying that at the time of your giving evidence at the Shell House inquest you had already completed these documents?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: At the time of giving evidence?  This was before I gave evidence.

MR DORFLING: So these documents were completed and submitted for consideration prior to you giving evidence at Shell House?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: That is correct.

MR DORFLING: Attached to the application the pro-forma or roneo form are three statements.

GARY JOHN KRUSER: That is correct.

MR DORFLING: That were the three statements that was also submitted for purposes of consideration by the inquest court, is that correct?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: That is correct.

MR DORFLING: Did you at the time of making application for amnesty understand the position to be that you had to disclose all relevant facts pertaining to the specific acts for which you apply for amnesty?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: That is correct.

MR DORFLING: Am I therefore correct in saying that at the time when these affidavits as attached to the roneo form was submitted to the Amnesty Committee for consideration, you were of the view that those documents reflect accurately all relevant facts pertaining to your Amnesty Application?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: I was advised to by my lawyers, ja.

MR DORFLING: Were you satisfied in your own mind that they reflect or reflected all the relevant information, Mr Kruser?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: That's why I employed lawyers to advise me what is the correct way to follow.

MR DORFLING: I'm going to repeat the question the third time - were you satisfied in your own mind that they accurately reflected all relevant facts?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: My lawyers gave me the guarantee that's what I needed to apply for amnesty.

MR DORFLING: Your lawyers may have advised you but were you satisfied that what was set out there was correct in as far as you were concerned?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: Those were the documents I presented at the inquest, my recollection of events.

MR DORFLING: I'm not sure I understand your last answer?
Are you agreeing that in your mind it accurately reflected all relevant facts?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: That's correct.

MR DORFLING: At the time of you making your application for amnesty on the 10th May 1997 did you in your own mind or were you in your own mind justified in acting in the way you did on the 28th March 1994?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: Mr Chairman, I would just like to explain what happened around this time when I made my application.
	We had a meeting with our legal representatives about the inquest itself and our actions as we explained it to them.  They advised us that the issue of self defence it's a very difficult thing because the objective factors might not be as how we saw it and that there might be a possibility that the inquest or another court both criminal or civil might find differently and on that basis and with that advice, I as an individual and my colleagues, chose to also apply for amnesty in light of the fact that our recollection might be different to the finding of the court.