Human Rights Violation Hearings — Pollsmoor — 1997-02-18

ADV NTSEBEZA: That's exactly what I am saying we went beyond that, we said you have admitted to us that you felt that prosecuting Weaver was an abuse of power.  And I went beyond that and I said as you testified there, didn't you feel it was [indistinct] upon you to voice that view in view of the attitude that you took and your reply that well I was a Captain in those days - if I had indicated those views, I would still be a captain.
 My subsequent questions have been a clarification of that reply and I am asking whether therefore you felt that in the interest of your own career, you would rather keep your views to yourself than hazard them at that sort of  inquiry.

MR KNIPE: I don't - I don't think the way you putting it, is quite correct, if the question had been asked of me I would have given it, I would not have volunteered it out of my own.

ADV NTSEBEZA: Advocate Potgieter.

ADV POTGIETER: Thank you Chairperson - did you - did you raise your difficulties with the investigation at the Weaver trial.

MR KNIPE: No.

ADV POTGIETER: Why not?

MR KNIPE: I was not asked end of Tape 11, side B ...  be the washing of the street or the blood off the street, and that was the principal reason that I was called for.

ADV POTGIETER: Yes.

MR KNIPE: And I gave evidence on that.

ADV POTGIETER: Yes, now apart from that - apart from you - you've - you've indicated to us that your attitude as a witness is to assist the Court to get to the truth and that's ideally that is really what it's all about - right.
 Now wouldn't it have been to the assistance or to the benefit of the Court to have heard your views on the investigation of the particular case?

MR KNIPE: I believe that it would have been more appropriate if I had been called to the Inquest Court to give that sort of evidence.

ADV POTGIETER: I [intervention]

MR KNIPE: Surely - surely that was the forum where that evidence should have been given.

ADV POTGIETER: I don't - I don't - I really can't understand the distinction - isn't - isn't the criminal trial even worst because somebody is now facing a criminal charge - a person might loose his freedom - his liberty as a result of that - the consequences can be most serious - isn't it - isn't it an appropriate stage to tell the Court everything.

MR KNIPE: No I - I think we have a difference of opinion Mr Weaver was charged on a separate case to the Inquest - there were two separate cases - in entirety - Mr Weaver was alleged to have made statements about the Police Force which were untrue - as I understood it.  And I was called to give evidence pertaining to the washing the blood off the street.

ADV POTGIETER: Yes well - I must confess to the same difficulty that the Chairperson has but let's move on.  You - you say it would have been appropriate to have done it in the Inquest proceedings correct?

MR KNIPE: I would have thought so yes.

ADV POTGIETER: Now you have made a statement for the purposes of the Inquest not so.

MR KNIPE: It was made pertaining to what I did on the scene.

ADV POTGIETER: Yes for the purposes of the Inquest.

MR KNIPE: Correct.

ADV POTGIETER: Why didn't you mention it there.

MR KNIPE: I was not called to give evidence - when that statement was made advocate Potgieter, it was made before all the who and cry took place.
When - when the - shall we call the bubble burst - and the original inquest failed, because of very substandard investigation it was re-assigned to different people and I was perfectly satisfied that, that investigation was done competently.

ADV POTGIETER: Ja - that's fine - that's the one thing but you made a statement - and in that you statement you dealt with investigation issues - because you spoke about what you've done on the scene in the line of investigations.

MR KNIPE: That's right.

ADV POTGIETER: But you don't mention your reservations in that statement.

MR KNIPE: But the reservations came afterwards Mr Potgieter.

ADV POTGIETER: Was there any reason you've made a statement already is there any reason why as part of the Inquest proceedings, you can't make a subsequent statement dealing with your difficulties and your reservations.

MR KNIPE: None whatsoever, I was satisfied than when the Inquest Magistrate made his findings and that the Attorney General instructed a new investigation to be held - that fairness was being perpetrated.

ADV POTGIETER: Ja but that was - those are subsequent things Director Knipe - I am talking about incidents happens - now you are making statements for the purposes of an inquest.

MR KNIPE: Yes.

ADV POTGIETER: Right, now you develop these reservations that you've shared with us around the investigations.

MR KNIPE: Which took place over a period of time.

ADV POTGIETER: Good - good now I am asking you, for what reason have you not submitted a statement reflecting your reservations for the purposes of the first - let's take the first Inquest, why didn't you do that.

MR KNIPE: The first inquest was held after I had been transferred from Murder and Robbery - I had no idea what was going on, I left Murder and Robbery.

ADV POTGIETER: At [intervention]

ADV POTGIETER: At sorry - I am sorry.

MR KNIPE: If I may finish - then I heard that the thing had gone wrong - and I think I was in Durban when that took place, I was in contact with Colonel Segal who was then entrusted to the investigation.   And I satisfied  myself in conversations with him that the investigation was being done properly.

ADV POTGIETER: Yes - yes no we will come to that, but wasn't it the more reasons, you've now left this Unit, you've left this Murder and Robbery Unit and you are now in fact we assume freer to speak, wasn't that even a more appropriate stage for you to have submitted your supplementary statement setting out your reservations.

MR KNIPE: With hind sight possibly.

ADV POTGIETER: It has never occurred to you to do that.

MR KNIPE: No - no you see that's a wrong premise - I said with hind sight I'd agree with you - but I did satisfy myself subsequently that the investigation was being conducted properly.  So yes perhaps I take your point.  The first nine months or so I should have possibly have expressed my reservations in writing.
 But when things went wrong, it was clear to me that the authorities have taken sufficient actions to correct the inadequacies that were there.

ADV POTGIETER: Now it's even worst because you know that the result of the first inquest based on that inadequate investigation was that nobody was found to be responsible and that was really the end of the story at that stage.
 Now did that bother you?

MR KNIPE: No I  - that - the second inquest fell - made the same finding.  I don't think the quality of investigation was thorough that is the point that I am raising.  I am not - I am not questioning the so-called objective facts that might have occurred that day.  I am saying that the investigation was not thorough enough and when Segal and then conducted the investigation,  I think it was a very thorough investigation.  And that is the point, I don't think and the thorough investigation - the inquest finding was identical to the first finding.
 And also my reservations that I had that a Unit was investigating himself, had been removed by the "independent investigation" by Segal and Lottering.

ADV POTGIETER: Now the subsequent investigation was purely by chance - purely for [indistinct] not so, there was never - there was never any prospect of a second inquest not so.

MR KNIPE: I don't know if one could - I don't know, I don't have enough knowledge of that.

ADV POTGIETER: No but after - after the first inquest - after the Magistrate made his findings in respect of that, that was really the end of the matter, the docket was closed then - in respect of that matter - no so.

MR KNIPE: I was - possibly I wasn't aware of that - I was no longer at the Unit.