Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1992-05-12

CHAIRPERSON: Yes please do.

MR PRETORIUS: I'm quoting for you from page 2710 of the previous record, Mr Kruser.  You are being examined by Judge Nugent at this stage.  You were asked:  "So what you said in these statements, these three statements, is the following
1.  No record was kept in the firearm register.
2. In your second statement, I have no recollection of details concerning to whom firearms were issued.
3. If I look at the firearm register, they will not assist me to find out to whom I issued weapons."
	Your reply was:  "That is correct."
	So you were referred to three different statements you made under three different occasions under oath.
	It then proceeds:  "And all of that is untrue?"
	Your reply was:  "Yes."
	Now just to place the Chairman and Honourable Committee Members in the picture, at that stage the firearm register was presented and from the firearm register it in fact appeared that this witness did write in the names of certain people who he issued firearms to and what firearms he issued to them.  In all three the previous statements that Judge Nugent referred to here - he referred to untruthful statements made by this witness concerning that particular firearm register and this witness then replied when he was referred to the three statements that he made "and all of that is untrue?" and his reply was "Yes."  Is that correct Mr Kruser?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: That's correct but I would like to say that I think the evidence you're reading from, I think it's important that - it's a pity we can't hear the evidence on tape to show - I think the contempt with which I was treated with by that Judge - that's my personal opinion.
	Secondly, I've gone through that process and I even told the Judge on the next morning - if you look for it in my evidence - that I don't completely agree to him when I went there one night - I did not completely agree - I just want to explain the issue of the register itself.  When I did the statement with my lawyers, which I tried to explain to the Judge, I then stated that the names were not recorded in the firearm register.  That was the essence of my statement.  When the books were brought to court it was recorded on another page in the firearm register but not under the normal circumstances which we normally record it because it was a rush morning, I took a page and wrote it.  When I was with my lawyers doing a statement, my recollection at that stage was it was not in the firearm register but I knew I wrote it down somewhere.  The facts when the book was brought, it was in the firearm register but not the normal procedure which we used and that was the debate with me and the Judge at that stage.  After lot's of pressure from the Judge I conceded and I think if that - even if the Committee feels that my interpretation when I was with my lawyers and what happened when the book was brought is wrong or a lie then I concede but I was honestly of the opinion when I made this statement when I sat with my lawyers that I recorded it in a book or on a page at some stage because of the rush of the morning.  It was not written in the normal fashion which we do guns as normal, you could see in the book how we normally would issue guns, there were just names and the gun number, no signatures, all those things that was the rush of the morning and when I did the statement itself my recollection at that stage was, you know sometime and I was busy with other things in my new job in government. We used to come to the lawyers in the evening, we never had the books with us, I recollected that I wrote it down somewhere.  I knew we never followed the proper procedures we normally had to follow and that was my recollection.  The Judge refused to even give me a chance, I mean to explain some of the things, I was just shouted down, but what I'm saying is I concede that is the truth, I wrote it in the firearm register, not in the normal fashion, in some other page, not with all the necessary requirements which is required for me when I hand out guns and that is the facts of the matter.
	The other point is - I deliberately withheld names from the police and attorney and there were very good reasons for that.  I was not prepared to expose my comrades and my colleagues to the mercy of assassination and that's a decision I had to make.  I decided and we decided as a collective, that at some stage in this process when we come to court that we will tell what we know happened and I told the Judge that.  I think my reason under the circumstances of the times when I know other colleagues and comrades of mine were killed in Natal when they testified as witnesses, I was not prepared to expose my colleagues to that.

MR PRETORIUS: Mr Kruser are you now saying that you actually did not lie, it was just your recollection that was incorrect at that stage?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: On the firearm register, yes and that's what I tried to explain but I never got a decent chance to explain it in that court.

MR PRETORIUS: I think we'll then just proceed with the page.  I read from approximately line 9 that is after you were confronted and I continue with where we read previously
	"And all of that is untrue?"
	And your reply: "Yes."
	"And all of that was made under oath in statements in the course of these investigations, correct?"
	 Your reply:  "It was made to protect the names of people."
	The next question:  "Now you say to me that the purpose of this was to protect people from being exposed?"
	"That is correct." is your reply.
	"Why did you not just decline to make statements, why do you give untruthful statements?"
	"I thought it was important to us to inform the attorney what happened that day and to inform them untruthfully."
	"Is that correct?"
	"I think the idea was to conceal people's names."
What you said it was done deliberately to conceal the identity of people, do you accept that?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: I think that is what I'm saying, I had to choose between the lives of my comrades or give them all the information.  Whether - if the Committee thinks that's a lie, I'll accede, but I thought that's withholding information, I thought there's a difference between the two but if the Committee thinks it's a lie, I'm prepared to accede but I was not prepared to subject my comrades to that possibility of assassination.

MR PRETORIUS: Mr Kruser, I put it to you that it was proved previously that if it serves your purpose or the purpose of your comrades or the ANC you're prepared to lie under oath?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: That's not true.

MR PRETORIUS: I put it to you that it's exactly what you did which I've read out to you now and I put it to you that at this stage after you've been proved that it was -  your evidence is incorrect - you are merely trying to give a motive why it's incorrect in the sense that it's your recollection and sorry if you're mistaken but that the other is actually the fact that you are again lying to protect the ANC and your comrades.

GARY JOHN KRUSER: I cannot confer with that.

MR PRETORIUS: If Mr Chairman could bear with me one moment please.
	Mr Kruser, your evidence during the inquest was that the two policemen immediately prior to the shooting - that's Van Reenen and his colleague - went up to the marchers, addressed them in some form, then returned from the marchers, came back to you and then requested you to withdraw within Shell House.  Is that correct?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: That's correct.

MR PRETORIUS: It was only after the policemen returned to you that the marcher actually moved forward or charged forward?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: That's more or less correct.

MR PRETORIUS: Is it more or less or is it correct?

GARY JOHN KRUSER: That's how I recollect it, ja.