Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1998-06-09

MR KNOETZE: Ja.   Mr Chairman, with respect, whether he grabbed it or whether he took it, the crux of the matter is, according to the evidence, that he, on his own initiative, saw to it that he got it in his hand, but even that isn't so important, what is important is that which he allegedly said, namely, "I will show you how to shoot", and that is what I'm about to try and indicate to be a falsehood.   The point, Mr Visser, is that for the first time yesterday this information was provided, or allegations was made, although these allegations are in opposition with evidence that was given in this court under oath and it is in opposition to what you said in your application as well as the other applicants.   I put it to you that it is a lie and that the clear difference is now made clear again between my client's application and yours?

ANDRE FRANCOIS VISSER: That is your opinion, Mr Chairperson.

MR KNOETZE: No, it is not my opinion.   You, under oath, said something else.   Why did you, under oath, lied in your application?

MR PRINSLOO: This is a misleading question.   It is general knowledge that he had a pipe, or Diedericks had a pipe shotgun at the scene.   What is under discussion now is a technical point, how he got this weapon, and that was at the road cafe, and the words that was used in getting this weapon.   It is not this applicant's evidence, Klopper said he grabbed the weapon.

ADV SIGODI: No, Mr Prinsloo, with respect, it was this witness that said it wouldn't have come out, Van der Schyff took this weapon by Diedericks and said, "I will show you", I can read you the note, "I will show you how kaffirs will be shot", and that is the verbatim I wrote down.   Now the question is very clear, how did Van der Schyff get the weapon, did he take initiative or did he get instruction, that is two different answers, if it was handed to him with an instruction or did he take his own initiative, and that is two different sets of evidence, and I think Mr Knoetze may ask questions or cross-examine the witness regarding this matter.

MR KNOETZE: Will you answer please?

ANDRE FRANCOIS VISSER: Please repeat the question.

MR KNOETZE: The statement that I made to you was that the accusation against my client that he took the weapon and said, "I will show you how to shoot kaffirs" is a lie?

ANDRE FRANCOIS VISSER: That is his word, Mr Chairperson.

MR KNOETZE: He also answered that the previous time.  I refer you again to paragraph 6, page 93, you've read it, it says there, or you don't mention there that he took the weapon.   You say there that Phil Klopper gave the weapons to you and Martin van der Schyff, and that same evidence I read to you from Phil Kloppers' evidence in front of this committee and as well as Deon Martins and Meiring's, every time it was said it was given to him, not to someone else, and then by mistake or by other means he got hold of it.   Can you see that?

ANDRE FRANCOIS VISSER: Yes I do.

MR KNOETZE: I repeat my statement for the last time, the accusation that he would have said that, "I will show you how kaffirs will be shot", it is a lie, he never said that.   What is your answer on that?

ANDRE FRANCOIS VISSER: Mr Chairperson, what can I answer?   If he says that, he is saying it.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm sorry, Mr Knoetze, can I just try to help?   In your statement you said that Mr Klopper gave him the weapon, in your evidence, you said that he took this weapon from Diedericks.   Can you tell me what the correct version is?

ANDRE FRANCOIS VISSER: Mr Chairperson, all that we were trying to do was, we tried to shorten the story.

CHAIRPERSON: No, I'm asking you, what is the correct position, was it handed over to him by Mr Klopper or did he take it from Mr Diedericks?

ANDRE FRANCOIS VISSER: Mr Chairperson, he took it from Mr Diedericks.

CHAIRPERSON: And he said?

ANDRE FRANCOIS VISSER: "I will show you how a kaffir will be shot"?

CHAIRPERSON: Can you just explain that to me, because this is strange to me, if I can just handle it now, why did he say that it wouldn't have come out?

ANDRE FRANCOIS VISSER: Like I said, Mr Chairperson, we wanted to shorten this story.   I thought that it wouldn't have been relevant.

CHAIRPERSON: Why is it important to say it now?

ANDRE FRANCOIS VISSER: Because the witness now, or the applicant now change his evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: And you will be incriminated by his amendments?

ANDRE FRANCOIS VISSER: No, he did not insult me and I don't want to insult him.

MR KNOETZE: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.   Mr Van der Schyff will say that the weapons was indeed given to him and Diedericks, and not like you just gave evidence or testified that it was given to you and him, what do you say about this?

ANDRE FRANCOIS VISSER: I would say that that is a lie.

MR KNOETZE: He will furthermore say that at your and Martin's smallholding, Diedericks' weapon was handed over to you.   Then only did you get the weapon?

ANDRE FRANCOIS VISSER: That is a lie, Mr Chairperson.

MR KNOETZE: Furthermore, Mr Van der Schyff would deny that at the roadside cafe that's where they talked about the revolution that would start that evening and that this is the real McCoy, he will state that it was not said?

ANDRE FRANCOIS VISSER: Then he is the only person who did not hear that, Mr Chairperson.

MR KNOETZE: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR KNOETZE

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Dreyer, have you questions to put to the witness?

MR DREYER: Just a very few questions.

CHAIRPERSON: They will have to be very few, because he has not incriminated your client, because normally we call upon implicated people to come and answer, to respond to incriminating evidence made against them by witnesses.   So this witness, as far as I recall, he has not at all incriminated your client.   But there may be, albeit a tenuous link between his evidence and that of Mr Kloppers, that is very tenuous.    You may just have to ask a very few questions indeed.   Yes.

MR DREYER: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

MR DREYER: Mr Visser, can I just start at the same point where my learned friend started with Mr Van der Schyff?   I'd like to refer you to page 12 of the applications, paragraph 17, and also paragraph 5 on page 93.
Yesterday when you gave evidence, you were pertinently asked by the legal representative which instructions were given at the roadside cafe by Mr Kloppers to you as part of a group, and your answers were as follows... (intervention).

ANDRE FRANCOIS VISSER: Chairperson, if I can just say I broadly told what happened there, I did not refer to specific points.

CHAIRPERSON: (Inaudible).

MR DREYER: I would refer to his evidence as opposed to the two applications, just in connection with the... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: (Inaudible)?

MR DREYER: Yes, I did, but I also said that as opposed to his evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: (Inaudible).

MR DREYER: Page 93, paragraph 5.

CHAIRPERSON: (Inaudible).

MR DREYER: If I may just repeat my question.   Yesterday, when you were asked by your advocate, "What was the instruction at the roadside cafe?", then you started and said that you were told that this is the real McCoy and the general said that he wanted to see bodies or corpses, and that hard options should be practised?

ANDRE FRANCOIS VISSER: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR DREYER: And just after that the follow-up question was, "Anything else?", and you said, "No, that was all that I can recall", is that correct?

ANDRE FRANCOIS VISSER: That is correct, Chairperson.