Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1999-07-27

MS LOCKHAT: Mr Deetlefs, you say you were the Commander of Mr Pienaar.  Were you also the Commander of Barnard, Theron and Hayes?

CHRISTO PETRO DEETLEFS: That is correct.

MS LOCKHAT: You said that you had spoken to Pienaar regarding that first incident, that was the 8th June incident, and he informed you regarding the infiltration of the MKs and he also said that he had enough people to handle the matter, is that correct?

CHRISTO PETRO DEETLEFS: That is correct.

MS LOCKHAT: So you did not know of any plan or ambush for the 8th June?

CHRISTO PETRO DEETLEFS: No, I didn't know what method he was going to follow.

MS LOCKHAT: Did you ask him?

CHRISTO PETRO DEETLEFS: No, I simply trusted him and he told me at that stage that he had approached Col de Kock or that he would approach him for his assistance and I believed that Col de Kock would be able to carry out the operation thoroughly.

MS LOCKHAT: Before the second incident, the 12th June, did Mr Pienaar report that incident to you and all the facts relating to the 8th June incident?

CHRISTO PETRO DEETLEFS: He did report the incident of the 8th June, but he did not report the full facts as they have emanated from this hearing.  I was not aware of the fact that no weapons were found on the persons.

MS LOCKHAT: Mr Cornelius,...(intervention)

ADV GCABASHE: When did you find that out, that no weapons were found on the persons?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Deetlefs.

CHRISTO PETRO DEETLEFS: I only came to hear of that with the amnesty applications.

ADV GCABASHE: And that would have been in December of 96?

CHRISTO PETRO DEETLEFS: Yes, that is correct.

MS LOCKHAT: Would you have participated in the 2nd incident, the 12th June, if you had known that the MKs were not armed on that instance on the 8th June?

CHRISTO PETRO DEETLEFS: Chairperson, I cannot speculate how we would have acted if they had not been armed because one had to be led by circumstances.  The information was that they would be armed and we prepared ourselves for that.  I really cannot say whether we would have shot them or not, it would probably have happened that way.

MR MALAN: Yes but Mr Deetlefs the question is something else.  The questions is, had you known before the 12th that on the 8th there would have been the shooting of 8 unarmed people, would you still have participated in the incident?

CHRISTO PETRO DEETLEFS: Yes, I probably would have because it was in my area, but then I may have formulated other plans to ensure that something like that would not take place again.

ADV GCABASHE: But could you influence that decision?  I thought that really decisions had been made, you just came in at the tail end, endorsed all of it and really you were not going to change anything?

CHRISTO PETRO DEETLEFS: Probably not, but one could have said "if the people are unarmed, try not to shoot left and right because it may have criminal consequences" so possibly we may have planned things different but I can only speculate about that because the information or the facts that we had at out disposal indicated that they would be armed and we had to prepare ourselves for that.

ADV GCABASHE: I still don't understand that because as I understand the evidence, this was going to be an elimination.  Ambush equals elimination.  There was no intention to arrest them and interrogate or whatever else.

CHRISTO PETRO DEETLEFS: Yes, that is correct.

ADV GCABASHE: The only thing you could have changed was change that decision to eliminate to one of lawfully dealing with people once they had entered the country legally.

CHRISTO PETRO DEETLEFS: Yes.

ADV GCABASHE: And you say you would have done that had you known what the circumstances of the first incident were?

CHRISTO PETRO DEETLEFS: I cannot say.  Possibly, because one would have been led by the consequences.  If it had emerged earlier there may have been suspensions among the members
there may have been action from Head Office, so the entire process may have been influenced differently and we may have acted differently, but it's very difficult to say what would have happened if this was known.  But based upon the information that we had at that stage, the planning was simply to eliminate the people.

MS LOCKHAT: When Mr Cornelius in cross-examination asked you specifically about the details, you said that Pienaar reported the details to you regarding the incident because it was on a need-to-know basis and he didn't give you the complete picture of that incident.  Can you explain the need to know basis?

CHRISTO PETRO DEETLEFS: What I meant by that Chairperson was that he gave me the facts as he presented it to Head Office that the people had indeed been armed and that there had been a shoot-out.  He did not report that the people were not armed because he must have operated on the need to know basis and he did not want to involve me or any other person in the incident.

ADV GCABASHE: Mr Deetlefs, the need to know basis worked upwards in terms of hierarchy and downwards and sideways.  So a superior officer would not be told the true facts of a situation because of the need to know principle.  Is this what you are saying?

CHRISTO PETRO DEETLEFS: Yes, certain facts were withheld, as it has been in this case.

ADV GCABASHE: Who would determine that?  I would have thought that the need to know basis might operate laterally, sideways, going down, but in terms of accountability you must tell your superior officer what the basic facts were, the essence of what you had done and the why.  You are accountable to somebody surely?

CHRISTO PETRO DEETLEFS: Not necessarily, if you had committed an illegality then usually it was only the group that was involved and of that group certain members would be informed and other members would not be informed and a certain selection of facts would be put through as the true version of the story.

ADV GCABASHE: No, I've understood it to be important particularly where you had committed an illegality.  I'll give you a quick example.  We sat in the Bopape matter,.  He was interrogated and killed.  The officers who interrogated him talked to their superior officer about it, who in turn talked to Erasmus who was Divisional Head, who in turn talked to van der Merwe who was again the Head, who then assisted in the cover-up and the idea around what to do with this because it had been an unlawful, illegal killing, but you're saying to me that those officers were just doing something because they though they might as well inform, not that it is the correct thing to co as you understand your duties, that you must inform your superior officers, that we have a real problem here, this is what we did.

CHRISTO PETRO DEETLEFS: No not necessarily.  My understanding was that if you required assistance from above, you would have to tell them "listen I've got big problems, I need help", but if that senior officer couldn't do anything for you in any case you didn't inform him, otherwise you would give him knowledge which could create problems for him later.  In this case there was no necessity to inform anybody else, because the scene was solved by the members who were present at that scene and it wasn't necessary to obtain sanction from anybody else because I think it depended from case to case.  In the other cases they may have required assistance from above to cover up an incident and that is why they handled the matter as such.

ADV GCABASHE: So really there was no real accountability in the police force, this is what you're saying, not really.  It depended, if it was convenient yes, if it was not convenient you kept quiet.

CHRISTO PETRO DEETLEFS: Yes, you would have the real facts, but in a case like this where it wasn't necessary to implicate senior persons and involve them in an illegality, you simply didn't do that.

ADV GCABASHE: Thank you, I'll digest that.

MR MALAN: So therefore it wasn't necessary to make any excuses either?