Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1998-06-12

ANDRIES STEPHANUS KRIEL: Mr Terreblanche himself told me.  He said to me in November when I was, or visited him, that a week before the Day of the Vow, the task force of Gen Japie Oelofse will then be sent in.
	He hopes or expects that there will be a chain reaction that will build up to the Day of the Vow on the 16th of December, where the volk will then be swept up into the struggle.  That is what he hoped for and that is what he expected.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Kriel, just a while ago you said that Mr Terreblanche told you and that is exactly the evidence that you gave earlier on, you did not mention that that group of people will kill people that evening, you only said that that group of people will do certain things that will lead to a chain reaction.
	What is particularly missing in your evidence, what we missed in your evidence in chief, you did not say that they would go and kill people that night?  What is also particularly missing in your evidence in chief, you know, you did not tell us that Mr Oelofse was in charge of a hit squad, a killing machine?

ANDRIES STEPHANUS KRIEL: Yes, that is very true, but if you talk about a task force, we are talking about a group of people who is trained to physically go and kill people.

CHAIRPERSON: And then another thing is, you stated it as a fact to us that Mr Oelofse was in charge of a hit squad.

ANDRIES STEPHANUS KRIEL: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And then it turns out that you were told, it was something you were told by Mr Terreblanche?

ANDRIES STEPHANUS KRIEL: Yes, Mr Terreblanche did tell me but Mr Oelofse and I also were in certain discussions.

MR MALAN: You said that you did discuss, or had discussions with him very often.  Did you discuss it with him?

ANDRIES STEPHANUS KRIEL: Yes, it was general knowledge within the AWB, amongst Officers that Gen Oelofse was the Fighting Commander, that the task forces resorted under him.  It was not just me who knew it, but other people also knew it.

MR MALAN: I am not asking this to you, I am asking that the killing of individuals, was that ever discussed, did you discuss his success?  You said you discussed many matters with him?

ANDRIES STEPHANUS KRIEL: No, I never talked about how many people he killed, that he never told me.

MR MALAN: Can I also ask you, I do consider that the applicants went to you to ask to give evidence.

ANDRIES STEPHANUS KRIEL: No, that is not correct.  I myself, in July last year, I went to Mr Terreblanche and that was just before I visited them, and I said to him that we must make a plan.  Either we must continue with the struggle, or we have to make a plan - so it was not their request.  I said I would do it, myself.

MR MALAN: I will put my question again, the statement that was given to Adv Prinsloo, did you do that out of your own, or was that asked that you give it to him?

ANDRIES STEPHANUS KRIEL: No, I did it out of my own.  The day before yesterday when Mr Terreblanche and Mr Oelofse finally did not appear to give evidence, I went to them and gave it to them and finally said that I would make this public.

MR MALAN: So you set it up after you heard the evidence of the applicants?

ANDRIES STEPHANUS KRIEL: No, this document I had already wrote quite a while ago, the date is - in expectation that if Mr Eugene Terreblanche do not appear, I would do it - the date on the computer is the 20th of April.

MR MALAN: Thank you, that is all that I wanted to know, thank you very much.

MR KNOETZE: Mr Chairman, obviously in the course of questions and in the latter part of the evidence of this witness, a lot of matters came to light as was stated, was not part of his evidence in chief.  I would not want to labour the matter, but I think I would at least want to make two statements, or put two questions to him, and I would ...

CHAIRPERSON: I think you are entitled to put questions.

MR DREYER: As the Court pleases.  Thank you Mr Chairman.  It was already put to you that the greatest extent of what you have testified here and what came to light in the cross-questioning was not part of your evidence in chief.  But I didn't understand if you said to us that you were a Brigadier in the AWB, and you realised the importance of command for the basis of certain acts, can you think of a single reason why did you not as spontaneously, as you spoke about it in cross-questioning, despite the fact that there were not questions asked to you when you gave your evidence in chief, why did you not in your evidence in chief, spontaneously, from looking at your military experience and position in the AWB, why did you not spontaneously testify then in your evidence in chief?

ANDRIES STEPHANUS KRIEL: Chairperson, I tried to testify as properly as possible with the time I had to my availability.  I am telling you now that there is nothing that I am trying to hide.
	The fact that I am here and I am taking part in this process, I assure you that I am co-operating completely and I would give you anything which I consider important.  If I in my evidence in chief, did not see something as important, I am really sorry, but you are welcome to ask me any question or to cross-question me.  I am completely open, there is nothing that I want to hide.

MR DREYER: Let me ask you this, at one stage in your evidence you said you did not know how the instruction was conveyed from Oelofse to Kloppers.  That was a statement you made?

ANDRIES STEPHANUS KRIEL: Yes.

MR DREYER: Now, I am putting it to you, just as you cannot tell this Court how that instruction was given, I can also put it to you that you cannot tell this Commission that there was an instruction given to Kloppers from Oelofse and you what the contents thereof would have been?

ANDRIES STEPHANUS KRIEL: Because let me just elaborate on that question, the instruction giving was of such a nature that we were at least two or three and there was no way that I could have been present.

MR DREYER: Let's keep your answer simple, we have a problem of time, so my question is simple, I am going to put it directly.  I do not want you to elaborate on things which is not in the scope of my question.
	If you cannot say how the instruction was conveyed, you can also not say if an instruction was conveyed and you cannot tell us what the contents of that was, is that correct?

ANDRIES STEPHANUS KRIEL: That is correct.

MR DREYER: Now, the second question is on a question from the Honourable Chairperson, if there were instructions given with the purpose to kill people, you are quite adamant, you said yes, there were definitely instructions given to the effect that people had to be killed, but what is strange to me is, when Malan asked you sir, the death, the killing of people was not the central or the primary purpose of the behaviour or the actions of the AWB, because you also spoke about bomb explosions.  You said no, it was something which was accessory to that, it was a side issue, a side effect and you said it was by the grace of God that no one died.
	I am asking you how can you reconcile these two things, how can you say on the one side that it was not the AWB's policy that people had to be killed, when they planted bombs or in the squatter camps or wherever, but also at the same time, it was definitely the policy of the AWB that certain people had to be killed at road blocks, how do you reconcile these two?

ANDRIES STEPHANUS KRIEL: If you can remember correctly Chairperson, I said that the killing of people was a side issue, meaning it is a side issue to kill people, it is another task force.  That is what I meant by that.
	It was not, I was not involved with that, I was only involved with the planting of bombs, that is what I meant to say but I can assure you and I want to put it quite clearly, that they did plan to kill people, and we had consensus on that.  It was not a picnic.
	Now we are going to go and play with people, it is definitely not the case.