Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1992-05-12

MR PRETORIUS: Mr Chairman, I unfortunately only have one copy of that I would ask my learned friends of the ANC if they could perhaps assist us by placing a copy of the document in front of the witness.

GARY JOHN KRUSER: I have a copy now.

MR PRETORIUS: Mr Kruser, have you read this particular document?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: I haven't read it before.

MR PRETORIUS: Mr Chairman, would it be in order if I give the witness an opportunity to read it?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: I've read it Mr Chairman.

MR PRETORIUS: Mr Kruser, I put it to you that Mr Radu in this particular conversation or during this particular conversation did not express the specific fear that Shell House would come under attack, do you agree with that?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: He doesn't mention it here, that's correct.

MR PRETORIUS: Furthermore, what Mr Radu said in so many words in this particular or during this particular conversation is that they would take the law into their own hands?

CHAIRPERSON: Refer him to where you are looking at please.

MR PRETORIUS: As it pleases, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: He's not familiar with the documents, he's just had a chance to reading it now.

MR PRETORIUS: Can you please look at the very first page, you'll find rather big paragraph with L next to it, do you see it?  It starts with the word Brigadier Gouws, it is Leonard Radu, do you see it?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: I see it.

MR PRETORIUS: About five lines downwards, it says, maybe a little bit more - let me begin:  "Twice we've had these big groups of people, IFP people passing this place and one other time when they were passing here, they tore posters in front of our office and did all those funny things and I said to Van Dyk this morning if there is no one here we will take law in our own hands and we don't want to do that."  Do you read it?

CHAIRPERSON: First paragraph, page 105 about one third of the way down, the paragraph - "Twice we've had these big groups" - you see that?  Line 7 page 5.

GARY JOHN KRUSER: I see that.

MR PRETORIUS: Just then to conclude, there was nothing in that particular, during that particular conversation to express the specific fear of an attack on Shell House and in addition that the threat is mentioned that they will take the law - and that is now the ANC guards - will take the law into their own hands.  Do you accept that?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: Mr Chairman, I think if you look at the time of this conversation, for me my ...[inaudible] is very clear, the late Commissioner Radu was raising his concern about what was happening out at Shell House at that stage.  I'm also aware that in my presence he had conversations with other police officers early that morning just after 8 o'clock when I was in his office.  So he might have conveyed that at an earlier stage, I don't know.  What I'm saying is this, it's a clear indication to me that he's raising concern of what was happening out at Shell House and nothing is being done about it by the police.  I think that's his concern he's raising - that's my interpretation what I read in this document.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you present when this conversation took place?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: I was not but what he speaks about I know what was happening outside Shell House - I can see what he's talking about.

MR PRETORIUS: Mr Kruser, I've referred you to this specific conversation and I ask you with reference to this specific conversation.  Do you accept that it does not express a fear of Shell House being attacked and secondly that he threatened to take the law in his own hands?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: I think it's correct - in this specific conversation he doesn't state that Shell House might be under attack but he raises his concern about the threat around Shell House.

MR PRETORIUS: Mr Kruser, you testified yesterday that you were charged and prosecuted during the previous regimes in South Africa, you were inter alia charged with being a member of the ANC.  Is that correct?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: Ja, I was charged in the apartheid era, that is correct.

MR PRETORIUS: You also testified that during that period you were acquitted because you denied that you were a member of the ANC?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: I think you should listen to my evidence, I said I was acquitted, I never said I denied I was a member of the ANC.

MR PRETORIUS: Did you then admit that you were a member of the ANC?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: I never went in at the box, I was acquitted before trial was concluded.

MR PRETORIUS: During the inquest proceedings you on several occasions admitted that you wilfully told untruthful things whilst you were under oath, do you recall that?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: What I recall is and I think we should put a context over this cross-examination - into context to it - what I told the learned Judge is that I deliberately withheld information to ensure the safety of my colleagues and comrades.

MR PRETORIUS: We're not speaking now about the motive why you did it, but you admitted that you under oath stated things that were not true or be it now with your motive now we've said you want to protect people, is that correct?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: I think as I said in the court, although I was not given much time to explain, the type of cross-examination wasn't conducive for me to try to explain anything in that court in actual fact.  What I do want to say here is that I was faced with a decision in terms of morality of whether the lives of my comrades and my colleagues are more important than divulging their names to the police and the Attorney General with the chances of them being assassinated and I chose the option of withholding their names from the Attorney General until such time that I was satisfied either that they consent to giving me their names or that I get to a court of law.  That was the decision I had to take and that is the decision I took.

MR PRETORIUS: Mr Kruser, I refer to passages where you were examined by his Honourable Judge Nugent.  Do you now take the view that Judge Nugent did not give you the opportunity to answer questions properly?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: I think I was treated very unfairly in that court, yes that's true.

MR PRETORIUS: It is now also clear that what you told as facts or what you expressed as facts were later proved to be not true by ballistic evidence and otherwise, is that correct?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: What I stated as my recollection of events is now - the ballistic evidence does not corroborate with what I recollect on that day.

MR PRETORIUS: The fact remains Mr Kruser as we stand here now, we now see that what you testified under oath was not true.  What you now offer is an explanation in the fact to the extent that you say that "my recollection appears to be incorrect."  Is that correct?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: No I don't think it's correct - without the ballistic evidence, I would have still been of the opinion of the version which I gave the inquest court and the version which I'll give this Committee.  However, as I stated earlier, objective evidence from medical and ballistic shows that what I recollect is not the truth - I don't think I went there to lie, I gave my honest opinion of what I recollected on that day.  I think there's a difference.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think we should quarrel about that, you realise what is the difference between a lie and what is incorrect, isn't it?  You're not suggesting that he lied, what you're suggesting that the evidence he gave at that trial which he says were his impressions and his recollection of events as he saw them.  There was other evidence to show that his impressions were not correct.  Now are you saying that he lied because of that?

MR PRETORIUS: Mr Chairman, I'm going to put it to the witness now that he in fact lied with reference to the previous occasions where it appears that he is willing to lie under oath if it serves his purpose and he conceded it and I'm going to quote it now from the record.  Can I proceed Mr Chairman?