Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1998-06-09

MR DREYER: That was your evidence.    Now I'd just like to refer you to your own application, your own application in paragraph 5 on page 93, it starts on page 92, where you say
"Phil Kloppers told us that he just came from a meeting and that the waiting is over and the revolution is going to start on that day, the 12th of December 1993.   Two weeks before the time we were already told that we should be on standby 24 hours because the revolution's going to start.   Phil Klopper put it clearly to us that General Oelofse wanted to see bodies and that we should fulfil hard options, and later Phil Klopper told us that General Oelofse gave instruction that we had to have a roadblock and during this roadblock we must also intercept weapons which would be taken into our towns in order to kill our people, farmers and children, and then we would use these weapons against the ANC, SACP alliance, as well as the PAC, and the leader of the AWB, Terreblanche, also told us at several meetings that we must cause chaos and make sure that the election on the 24th of April do not take place."
	Now I find a few things strange.   The first thing is, yesterday you found the opportunity to reply to the answer to the advocate, "What was the instruction, was there anything else?", and you said, "No, I can't recall anything", but in your own application under oath you deal with all these instructions, and now this morning it was amended by saying that, "Later Phil Klopper told us that General Oelofse gave instructions concerning the roadblock".   Now I'd just like to know, the amendment which was made this morning, this "later", does this refer to later or by the roadside cafe, or later referring to when you left the roadside cafe?

ANDRE FRANCOIS VISSER: Later refers to Deon Martin's plot, and that's where it was said that we would set up a roadblock.

MR DREYER: That's how I understood it, and this is where I have my problem, because if I look at Phil Kloppers' application concerning the same aspect and then I refer you to paragraph 17 on page 12 of the applications, I would like to read to you what Phil Kloppers said under oath in his application
"I arrived at 21:00 at the roadside cafe and Deon Martins brought the men to attention, and I told them that the waiting was finished and that the revolution was going to start landwide.   We were still at the roadblock.   I gave them the instructions General Oelofse gave me."
	Why do the man who's in command of this group, according to his own evidence, why does he say under oath in his application that there at the blockade he conveyed the instruction of Oelofse, and this morning your advocate amended your application by saying later he gave instructions with regard to the roadblock?

MR PRINSLOO: With all respect, Chairperson, my learned friend asked the question whether it was at the roadblock, he's not talking about the roadside cafe, he's talking about a roadblock, and with all respect my applicant testified yesterday that this instruction was given at Deon Martin's place and that's why the amendment was brought.   With all respect, it's all the evidence of Phil Klopper, but at Martin's house the instruction concerning the roadblock was given, and afterwards Deon Martin also testified and he amended his application in the same manner, so maybe my learned friend is not aware of that.

MR DREYER: Mr Chairman, we are talking about the order that was supposedly given by Oelofse to hold a so-called "padblokade", I'm referring to that order, but according to the application of Kloppers, that order to hold such a roadblock was given at the roadhouse, whereas this applicant's application was amended this morning to read that later on, and he now indicated that that only happened at the house of Martin.   So my question is simply why would the person who had purportedly been in charge of this group state in his application that at the roadhouse already the orders of Oelofse were given through to the people under his command, whereas his application, the witness' application, has been amended this morning to state that later the order as to the holding of the roadblock was conveyed to them?  That's the simple question I'm asking, because that is also relevant in view of the application of Mr Van der Schyff which has been amended, because according to him, no such orders were given at the roadhouse, that is what I'm trying to get at.

CHAIRPERSON: Can I just ask you, according to you how do you understand the latest version as to where the order was given... (intervention).

MR DREYER: As it pleases, Mr Chairman, first... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: ...at Martin's house or where?   Certainly not at the roadhouse, not at the cafe?

MR DREYER: Mr Chairman, if we read paragraph 17, page 12, the application of Kloppers, it clearly reads
"I conveyed to them the instructions General Oelofse gave me, and they knew that Oelofse wanted to see corpses, and I also..."
and then he carries on.   So, in Kloppers' version, he's clearly still at the roadhouse... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR DREYER: ...and he conveys, but the application of this witness has been amended this morning to read that only later on they were informed, and he then explained that was at the house of Martin.   So all I would like to know is... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Well when you put to the witness, you conveyed to him that according to his latest version the order was given only later at the roadblock?

MR DREYER: No, no, no, I mean... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: You should have said at Martin's house.

MR DREYER: ...concerning the roadblock, that what I meant.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry?

MR DREYER: I meant concerning the roadblock, the order.

CHAIRPERSON: Concerning the roadblock.

MR DREYER: The roadblock.

CHAIRPERSON: At Martin's house?

MR DREYER: Yes.   That is so, Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, with respect, the evidence of Mr Kloppers, it's his evidence that arose here before the commission, was clear that the order was given at Martin's plot.   So my learned friend ought to put both versions then, what's in his application and what Kloppers testified here before the commission, in fairness to the witness.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, I don't know whether we should really stop and check our notes, because we don't have the record, I told you yesterday that we are always the last people to receive the transcribed record, but Mr Prinsloo, I don't understand, are you saying that in his papers Kloppers says the order was given, he conveyed the order at the roadhouse, but in his evidence he says it was conveyed at Martin's house, is that what you're saying?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, according to the application, Kloppers say that he gave the order at the roadhouse... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: ...but in his evidence here, when he gave evidence, he clearly stated that he gave the order to the people at Martin's plot, his house, Martin's house with regard to the roadblock.

CHAIRPERSON: Well I'm not sure about that, I can't remember that.

MR DREYER: That is indeed so, I will confirm that on my recollection, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Well how does that affect your question, Mr Dreyer?

MR DREYER: It does affect my question, Mr Chairman, because I can even take it further.   On page 249 of the record, in the evidence of Mr Klopper, of Kloppers, it's stated as follows, and that is on the leading of his evidence by his advocate, I read from page 249
"