Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1998-06-12

MARTHINUS LODEWICKES VAN DER SCHYFF: Yes, I can remember that.

ADV SIGODI: Now, how did you know that these people were ANC if they didn't reply that they were ANC?

MARTHINUS LODEWICKES VAN DER SCHYFF: Because those were the questions put to them by Mr Martin.

ADV SIGODI: But you have just said that you didn't hear the answer, you didn't hear them answering?

MARTHINUS LODEWICKES VAN DER SCHYFF: That is correct, I did not hear the answers.

ADV SIGODI: But then you say you shot them because you saw the ANC as an enemy, so if you saw the ANC as an enemy, how did you know that those people that you were shooting, were ANC people?  Why did you shoot them, if you were not sure that they were ANC people?

MARTHINUS LODEWICKES VAN DER SCHYFF: I only followed the instruction which was coming to me.

ADV SIGODI: What was the instruction?

MARTHINUS LODEWICKES VAN DER SCHYFF: That within the next few seconds we were going to shoot.

ADV SIGODI: Shoot what?

MARTHINUS LODEWICKES VAN DER SCHYFF: The people who were sitting in front of us, that is what it came down to, that within the next few seconds, we were going to shoot at the people sitting in front of us.

ADV SIGODI: I just want to know what was going on in your mind, you shot them because they were ANC people, is that it, or did you shoot because you were told to shoot?

MARTHINUS LODEWICKES VAN DER SCHYFF: I assumed that these were people of the ANC.

CHAIRPERSON: Because of the apparent importance of this aspect, which was raised by Mr Brink, I would like to find out from either Mr Prinsloo or Ms Van der Walt, whether they would like to put questions to the witness.
	Mr Brink went back to one aspect of the matter, that is where the witness was asked whether he did hear the answer from the victims, where the witness said that he did hear the questions and he did not hear the answers, and had there been answers, he would have heard the answers and so on.
	I just want to find out whether you have questions to put in relation thereto?  Do you see the point I am raising, it is not clear.

MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you Chairperson, I would like to.  Mr Van der Schyff, I want to put it to you because I put the same question to you as Mr Brink put to you, what did you hear when the questions were asked and you initially testified, and I am putting it to you that you are changing your version according to who is asking the question, because you initially testified that there were questions asked with regard to their political commitments.

MARTHINUS LODEWICKES VAN DER SCHYFF: It was only the last two vehicles.

MS VAN DER WALT: But that is all that we are referring to now.  But when I asked you if you could hear the answers, because you said Kloppers and Martin asked the questions, and asked them whether they belonged to a political party?

MARTHINUS LODEWICKES VAN DER SCHYFF: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Now hear what you say.

MARTHINUS LODEWICKES VAN DER SCHYFF: Yes, but Mr Martin did ask them did they belong to a political party.

MS VAN DER WALT: You see, this is what I would like to put to you, because then I asked you did you hear that they answered and you said they did not answer, and then later you said you couldn't hear.

MARTHINUS LODEWICKES VAN DER SCHYFF: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: But then Mr Brink asked you and he put it to you and said but were the people not told that you are ANC members, and you said yes, they were told you are ANC members, and I am putting it to you Mr Van der Schyff, that is exactly the opposite of what you said in your evidence in chief.

MARTHINUS LODEWICKES VAN DER SCHYFF: No Chairperson, it is not contradictory.  The one is concerned with questions and the other one is statements.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS VAN DER WALT

CHAIRPERSON: Let me try to clear this up myself.   Mr Van der Schyff, when Ms Van der Walt asked you questions about whether or not the victims did answer, initially you said they did not answer, but later as she pressed the issue, I got the impression that you were making a concession that they might have answered, it is possible that they might have answered, but that you did not hear.  I got the impression that you made that concession.
	What I want to find out, well, you know, I suppose maybe that is why Mr Brink also put questions, what I want to find out from you is does that concession still stand?
	Firstly let me find out from you first whether you did make such a concession, whether I understood you correctly?

MARTHINUS LODEWICKES VAN DER SCHYFF: Mr Chairperson, I did say that Martin asked them the questions and that I did not hear the answers.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it possible that - or rather do you concede that it is possible they might have answered and you did not hear?

MARTHINUS LODEWICKES VAN DER SCHYFF: That is correct, they could have answered, but me personally, I did not hear anything.

CHAIRPERSON: How far were you from them, can you indicate?

MARTHINUS LODEWICKES VAN DER SCHYFF: At that time I was busy with the Toyota Cressida, busy searching it.

CHAIRPERSON: I see, but how far were you from them, can you tell us?

MARTHINUS LODEWICKES VAN DER SCHYFF: About from here where I am sitting up to where the guard over there is sitting.

CHAIRPERSON: To where?

MARTHINUS LODEWICKES VAN DER SCHYFF: To where that Warder is sitting.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, that gentleman there?  Mr Knoetze, Counsel for the witness, how do you estimate the distance?

MR KNOETZE: Between 12 and 15 metres.

CHAIRPERSON: Between 12 and 15 metres, is that acceptable to everybody.

MR PRINSLOO: At least 15 metres Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you pace it for us sir?  12 metres, all right.  Very well, yes, 12 paces, correct yes, 12 paces.
	I realise what time it is, but I thought we should finish with this witness, because we are going to, after him, we are going to start with a completely new set of witnesses.
	It may necessitate rearranging the seating arrangements and so on, which would cause an adjournment, so we may just as well go on now and finish with this witness and then we adjourn and during the adjournment ...

MR PRINSLOO: (Microphone not on)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, let's hear about that.  Oh, I promised that you would have it after, can I change my mind or will that inconvenience you?  Are you still in the dark about that?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, I will just put the version to the witness which I haven't put as yet as regards that.
	Mr Van der Schyff, you have heard the evidence of Etienne Visser.

MARTHINUS LODEWICKES VAN DER SCHYFF: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And that of Diedericks, and I put it to you that that is what happened at the road cafe.

MARTHINUS LODEWICKES VAN DER SCHYFF: That is not what happened at the road cafe.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: It did not happen, they were not given the weapons in public?

MR PRINSLOO: The microphone is not on Mr Chairman.  I put it to you that at the road cafe, the pipe shotguns were handed to Diedericks and Etienne Visser and that you received the weapon from Diedericks on instruction from Kloppers.

MARTHINUS LODEWICKES VAN DER SCHYFF: That is not true.  Mr Visser's weapon, the weapon that Mr Diedericks had, he handed it over to Mr Visser.  Mr Kloppers gave me at the road cafe, he gave me a shotgun.  He went to go and fetch it himself.

MR MALAN: Mr Prinsloo, will you please give the reason why you consulted because the question was if it was done in public and not necessarily by whom, it was about the in public.

MR PRINSLOO: With respect, I talked with certain people and the Judge Ngoepe asked me if I could continue and I just wanted to make the statement that I would have regarding this aspect and I will say that those with whom I have just consulted said that it was not in public, but it was on one side.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRINSLOO

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  Mr Knoetze, any re-examination?