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

MR KNIPE: I - my investigation was confined to the action which I took on the scene as deflected in my statement.  I had personal problems and that's also deflected in my statement - that's why I left Murder and Robbery.  I thought it was a huge error for Murder and Robbery to have investigated the case.  I don't think it's ever proper that people investigate against themselves.  That was a mistake.
 I also think that the investigation was of sub standard I was alarmed that the day after the shooting that the firearms were still lying around the offices.  The investigation was not of the standard expected of Murder and Robbery and I took a conscious decision and I left the Unit.

ADV POTGIETER: Now these reservations that you - that you express have you mentioned that when you were testifying about this incident in court.

MR KNIPE: No I was not asked about it.

ADV POTGIETER: No but isn't it relevant - didn't you think it was relevant to raise all these reservations.

MR KNIPE: No - no - I left because of a personal reservation - I did not agree that Murder and Robbery should be investigate  themselves.

ADV POTGIETER: But you were - you had these reservations - you saw - you came across Bellingham - you didn't click with him.  You had all these difficulties around this - this question.  Have you ever raised it before today?

MR KNIPE: Yes.

ADV POTGIETER: Where did you do that?

MR KNIPE: When I left Murder and Robbery.

ADV POTGIETER: You didn't think it appropriate when Mr Tony Weaver was facing criminal charges to raise because look those criminal charges somehow involved this whole - the basis of this incident - irregularities that were then alleged to have occurred and so forth - didn't you raise your reservations there - isn't that a proper thing to have done.

MR KNIPE: I don't - I don't believe so no - I was questioned - I was - I was - my evidence was led pertaining to a particular sub incident within an incident.

ADV POTGIETER: And you - and you thought you'll confine what you say to that - to what you [intervention]

MR KNIPE: I was giving evidence under oath and I answered all the questions put to me honestly.

ADV POTGIETER: Although you thought that the charge against Mr Weaver was an abuse of power.

MR KNIPE: Ja it was a mistake.

ADV POTGIETER: Well you - not a mistake - you put it much - much stronger here.

MR KNIPE: Yes it was an abusive power, it was a mistake.

ADV POTGIETER: You say it's an abusive power - now - now one other thing who did you - who did you testify for in that criminal prosecution.

MR KNIPE: I was called by the State.

ADV POTGIETER: So you were a State witness - you're a witness against Mr Weaver not so.

MR KNIPE: Mr Weaver was acquitted.

ADV POTGIETER: Yes well apart from that, that's not the question - you were a State witness so you were - your testimony was used against Mr Weaver in that trial not so?

MR KNIPE: Again I think it's a question of perception.  I believe a witness is not necessary typed cast in one way or the other.  A witness goes to court to answer all the questions which are put to him honestly and I do believe that is what I did during that trial.

ADV POTGIETER: Why - why did you not offer to act as a witness for the defence for example.

MR KNIPE: If - if I had been asked the questions which you are asking now, I would have answered them in exactly the same manner.

ADV POTGIETER: Let's leave that for the moment, let's just go back a bit.

ADV NTSEBEZA: Now Director Knipe I hear you when you say a witness is a witness that comes to Court to assist the Court to come to a balanced verdict.  Now but it is so as a State witness that you are being called to support a case brought by the State against Mr Weaver, is that right.

MR KNIPE: Correct.

ADV NTSEBEZA: That the aim was certainly for the prosecution to obtain a conviction is that right?

MR KNIPE: That is correct.

ADV NTSEBEZA: And that as you would like us to understand now, you were giving evidence in a manner that would expose the truth without necessarily wishing to proceed against Mr Weaver - you had no interest in him being convicted - you only wanted to expose the truth by your testimony is that right.

MR KNIPE: I was - I was questioned if I remember correctly about the cleaning of the road and one or other points and I answered those questions honestly, that was the limited of the evidence which I was called upon to give.

ADV NTSEBEZA: Yes no - no I appreciate that, but what I understand you to be saying to us, is that your intention in giving evidence was not necessarily to cause Mr Weaver to be convicted - it was to assist the Court to come to a balanced verdict.

MR KNIPE: That is correct.

ADV NTSEBEZA: And I think what advocate Potgieter is trying to get at, if that was your frame of mind, and you had these concerns lurking, which you have expressed today in very weighted terms - wasn't it [indistinct] upon you at that trial to find an opportunity to say I believe that the trial - the charges brought upon or against this particular accused person, is an abuse of power.
 If your interest was merely [intervention]

MR KNIPE: I take - I take your point Mr Chairman - I take your point and it's a very good point.  And I think - I think we must also look at the realities of life.

ADV NTSEBEZA: Exactly that's why [intervention]

MR KNIPE: I was a Captain - South Africa was then the South Africa of old - I would have been a Captain today if I had made that statement.

ADV NTSEBEZA: Are you saying therefore  that in the interest of your own career advancement you are prepared to sacrifice what was agonising you on the alter of that experience.

MR KNIPE: No - that's not what I've said.  I have said it is easier to make a statement today than it would have been ten years ago, if I had been asked the question I would have answered it, I gave my evidence in accordance to the way the questions were put to me, they were answered honestly and truthfully.

ADV NTSEBEZA: I am going a step further because this is where we are now, are you saying you were afraid to volunteer your views about how the prosecution of [indistinct] was an abuse of power, because it might have jeopardised your career.

MR KNIPE: No I am not saying that, I am saying that, that is a possibility.  If I had been asked directly I would have given the evidence.

ADV NTSEBEZA: Then put it the other way, are you saying that you deliberately refrained from expressing your views because to have volunteered your views about how it was an abuse to charge Weaver would have jeopardised your career.

MR KNIPE: Just repeat that, I didn't quite understand.
Are you saying to us that even though you felt at the end that it was an abuse to charge Weaver, you none the less decided not to volunteer that opinion because it might have jeopardised your career.

MR KNIPE: I was asked to give evidence on fact - not opinion.

ADV NTSEBEZA: No we have gone beyond that, you have just said to us here - you would have been a Captain even today if you had volunteered that sort of information.  I just want to clarify that reply.

MR KNIPE: You are quite [intervention]

ADV NTSEBEZA: Are you then saying  because you knew what would have befallen you in those days, if you had volunteered opinions, you deliberately refrained from doing so even though you felt so at the time.

MR KNIPE: No that's not what I am saying, I never used the word [intervention]

ADV NTSEBEZA: Well I don't know what you are saying.

MR KNIPE: Well perhaps Mr Chairman I should try to explain it more fully to you.  What I am saying is that if I had been asked I would have answered it, I asked all questions put to me to the best of my ability - I did not give opinions.