Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — UNKNOWN

MR MALAN: Please explain to me if you believed in June 1994 that the revolution would continue and therefore you must not tell the Court about the plans of the AWB, the only thing that you should not tell the Court that the part of plans was to kill people, not just to collect weapons and ammunition, how are you protecting the planning and the plans of the revolution?

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: I did not protect the revolution itself, but the planning thereof whereby Constand Viljoen,  Ferdi Hartzenberg, other right wing parties and the AWB were involved.   There would be darkness in South Africa and a take over by the military.

MR MALAN: Okay, that I can understand.  If you did not say that in court, that is the plans that you are referring to but what is difficult to understand is that you protect the revolution by just telling us about the collection of weapons and not the murders.

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: I was putting it so softly.

MR MALAN: It is indeed so, I just cannot see how this relates to the revolution, that is why I asked the question.  Can you comment on that or are you just referring to Viljoen and Hartzenberg?

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: I refer to the war that would have started then.

MR DREYER: Mr Kloppers, you say you wanted to put it softly that is why you limited it to the weapons  and ammunition, how many revolutions and wars have you heard about where people weren't killed?  I see you don't answer.

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: I am trying to understand the question.

MR DREYER: The question is simple, how many wars and revolutions have you heard of where people were not killed, isn't that what happens in a revolution and a war?

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: Yes, people are killed in war and revolutions.

MR DREYER: Just to go along with the question I have just put to you, this is what I am getting to, but you are just trying not to answer my question.  The question is quite simple, during June 1994 there was already an election, how did you think by omitting that portion of the instruction, how did you think you are going to protect the whole plan of the revolution and the AWB and the Generals in staff, how would you protect them, how?

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: I would like to mention it, as Mr Dreyer has said, I omitted this in court because if I was labelled a liar then, that I turned on my testimony, they wouldn't have believed me further in court.  In the Supreme Court I was pointed out as an honourable witness, therefore I stick to my testimony, and I stick to it.

MR DREYER: Sir, you say that you were pointed out as an honourable witness.

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: That is correct.

MR DREYER: Must we then accept that what you said during those proceedings, were  true and honourable?

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: As I have said during some instances, I lied.  It is not me that said that I was honourable, I was merely presented as an honourable witness.

MR DREYER: Fine, let me ask you then.  If we look at the portion which I have read to you, you said that you attended the meeting and on the 12th you received the order to gather arms and ammunition and then you also compiled the group of nine, yourself and others, eight others?

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: Yes, that is correct.

MR DREYER: I would like to refer you once again to what you said on page 637, you have now received the order, you must go and seek out arms and ammunition.  What did you do then was the question?  Your Honour, I went to my second in command's home, I didn't speak to him directly, he was very busy and I merely left a message that he should gather the men so that we could meet and discuss it.
	Who is the person whose home you phoned?

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: I phoned the home of accused 1, that is Mr Martin.

MR DREYER: After you did that, what did you do?

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: I phoned accused 1's home from our office and then I went to my own home where I first had something to eat and a drink and waited for the time upon which I should go back to the road house where we would meet.

MR DREYER: At approximately what time was that?

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: The call that I made was at approximately 18h30 and then shortly after nine o'clock, I arrived at the road house.

MR DREYER: And then your advocate begins with the following, very well, you made a statement to a Police Officer, it was submitted to this Court as Exhibit H1, and then he begins to read the statement to you paragraph by paragraph.
	Let us firstly begin with what I have just read to you, was that the truth when you testified that after you had attended the Order Group meeting on the 12th, you first went to have something to eat and to drink, is that still the truth or is that no longer the truth?

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: That is absolutely the truth.  That I did phone from the Head Office, what I didn't add I think I must have forgotten to add it, was that I personally went to the home of one of the applicants before the Committee, Andre Visser, to tell him that he should be at the road house, because I didn't have his phone number.

MR DREYER: I am simply asking you about the use of alcohol, is that correct?

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: But then why did you begin at the Head Office?

MR DREYER: No, I am asking did you have a drink, is that correct?

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: Yes, I had one drink at my home.

MR DREYER: And then I listened to the last portion of Mr Matthews' evidence before the Committee and it would appear that he wanted to scale down the consumption of alcohol and the prominence of alcohol, but I would like to know from you, what role did alcohol play during that evening?

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: Chairperson, it played a very minimal role because all of us were very strong drinkers, it wasn't a problem to me.  I would just like to mention clearly that we believed that by including the aspect of alcohol in our statements, it would mitigate the circumstances of this case.

MR DREYER: You believed that it would be mitigating, however when you testified here yesterday, and now you are testifying this here, you are saying that you have come here to speak the truth once and for all, so can we accept what you testified yesterday?

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: Yes, I am here to apply for amnesty in order to go home.

MR DREYER: Yesterday you testified that at a stage, after you had fetched the men at the road house, you went to one home first and then you ended up at the home of Mr Martin, is that correct?

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: Yes, that is correct.

MR DREYER: Had any alcohol been consumed at the first home to which you went, I think that is Visser's home?

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: No, that was my own home.

MR DREYER: No, after the road house?

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: The first place where we stopped after the road house, was at Mr Badenhorst's parents' home.

MR DREYER: Did you have a drink there?

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: No, we didn't.

MR DREYER: Very well, then you went to the home of Mr Martin?

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: No, we went to Mr Andre Visser's apartment.

MR DREYER: Did you have a drink there?

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: Yes, we did.

MR DREYER: What did you have to drink there and how much, according to you now?

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: I myself had whisky, there was only whisky available.

MR DREYER: Very well, let me say to you then whether you wish to scale down the amount of drink or not, in Mr Martin's evidence during the criminal proceedings, he says that at Mr Badenhorst's home a bottle of whisky and brandy was obtained and consumed.

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: That is what Mr Martin said at that point and you will have to ask him about that yourself.

MR DREYER: I do intend to do so, but I would like to know what you think of that?