Amnesty Hearings — Bloemfontein — 1997-03-27

MR DE RU: I heard that last night.

ADV DE JAGER: What was the perception, the general perception at, back then when a murder took place on a farmer?  What did people say in general?

MR DE RU: That it was politically motivated.  They felt that it was politically motivated.

ADV DE JAGER: Do you know what the policy of, for example, the PAC was at that time with regard to property and farms?

MR DE RU: Yes, your Worship, I am aware that they wanted
the land back because they felt that the land did not belong to the White owners thereof.  I am aware of that.

ADV DE JAGER: Were you aware of it back then?

MR DE RU: Yes, I was.

ADV DE JAGER: What did they say should be done about that?

MR DE RU: Are you asking me what they would have said in the past?

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, what would they have said in the past, how should they get the land back?

MR DE RU: Out of the slogans which they shouted, "kill a farmer, kill a boer, kill a farmer", "one settler, one bullet" meant that they were going to murder us to get, to reclaim their land.  There was no other way in which they intended to reclaim their land.  They had to murder people in order to reclaim their land.

JUDGE WILSON: We have been given one letter that is from the Free State Agricultural Union dated the 24th of March 1997 which I propose to mark EXHIBIT F.
EXHIBIT F HANDED IN

JUDGE WILSON: I thought you said there were two letters.

MR DE RU: Your Lordship, there is another petition which is in front of my legal representative.  If I could just attract his attention and indicate to him that the pile that is lying in front of him is the other part that was supposed to be annexed to the letter.

JUDGE WILSON: We have been handed a, what appears to be a petition, signed by many people.  No doubt somebody will staple it together and, perhaps, tell us how many pages it is and if anybody wishes to do so, they can count up and tell us how many people have signed it.  It will be marked EXHIBIT G.
EXHIBIT G HANDED IN

ADV DE JAGER: Now we do not have the letter from the psychiatrist.

MR MADASA: I am sorry, Mr Chair, I was going to, I had my own format which I had, but I can hand it now.  I was going to follow my own format and hand in these documents.

ADV DE JAGER: Well, your format should be to hand in your exhibits while leading evidence in-chief so that we could finish our questioning before you re-examine him.

JUDGE WILSON: This report will be marked H.
EXHIBIT H HANDED IN

JUDGE MGOEPE: Mr de Ru, the letter which you have given us signed by Mr Els, page two thereof, the third paragraph, the sentence reads,
"In this execution of his assigned task he was, he was to eliminate people who wanted to overthrow the system".
I, I understand them to say that, and you must tell me if I am wrong,  I would understand that sentence to mean that they would approve or support of what you did, but then it should have been in respect of people who did what they did for the purpose of overthrowing the apartheid regime.

MR DE RU: I am not sure whether I understand the question correctly.  Could you please rephrase it for me?

JUDGE MGOEPE: Sorry, the sentence, as I understand it, means that your victims should have been people who did what they would have done for the purpose of overthrowing the apartheid regime.  It is an important qualification of the support that they are giving to you, is it not?

MR DE RU: That is correct, your Lordship.

JUDGE MGOEPE: With which, the first matter, the first matter where you were convicted of culpable homicide, you
were told that the deceased had committed murder and robbery.  Am I right?

MR DE RU: That is correct.

JUDGE MGOEPE: Did you know what he had taken from the deceased?

MR DE RU: No, not at that stage.

JUDGE MGOEPE: Well, why did you not ask, because that could have been the sole motive and purpose for killing the deceased and not to try to overthrow the apartheid regime.

MR DE RU: I understand your point, your Worship.  In the pre-requisite for or the criteria for the point identification is that I, as the Investigating Officer, should be there to observe, not to ask him what he did and what he did not do.  He was to make revelations on his own.

JUDGE MGOEPE: Well, that is my difficulty, he could have, he, the deceased could simply have stolen things which would clearly show that his motive was not to overthrow the apartheid regime, but to enrich himself.

MR DE RU: Your Lordship, what the deceased intended to do and what he actually did do, I cannot explain.  I can merely explain what I believed in at the time and that is what I am doing here today, to explain to you what I believed in.

JUDGE MGOEPE: But the objective of the victim, your victim, surely must have been relevant and important?

MR DE RU: I believe that, just as well as I can believe that it was his objective to have as a political motive saying that I am murdering farmers to reclaim their land.

JUDGE MGOEPE: The second incident, was robbery also involved?

MR DE RU: That is correct.

JUDGE MGOEPE: Do you have any reason to think that this
robbery was committed solely for the purpose of enriching 
the, the deceased himself, Mr Mofokeng, and not to try to overthrow apartheid regime?

MR DE RU: Your Worship, I would believe that it was to overthrow the Government.  The reason why I say that is what self-enrichment is there in stealing a firearm which he did.? The theft of, I think it is all got to do with the history.  The theft of a firearm is to go and assist him in committing another offence.  As I said, it could be robbery as well.

JUDGE MGOEPE: When, when you, did you approach these people for, to write this letter for you.

MR DE RU: No, no your Lordship.  Before Mr Els, Danie Klaasen was the Security Committee Chairperson.  Mr Danie Klaasen assisted me during my trial, he also assisted me thereafter and in the interim has been replaced by Mr Els who took over from him.  They compiled this letter out of their own and it was not at my request, but it was their decision to draft this letter and forward it to the Committee.

JUDGE MGOEPE: Sorry, did you say that the Major who investigated your case told you that had Colonel Voigt still been alive, he would have arrested him as well?

MR DE RU: Your Worship, I did not hear part of your question.  I just heard them say something about a Major and then Colonel Voigt.

JUDGE MGOEPE: Yes.  Did you say in your evidence, and this is something different from what I have been asking you, did you say in your evidence that the Investigating Officer who charged you ...

JUDGE WILSON: One of the investigators.  I do not think it should be Investigating Officer.  I think he said one of the Investigators.

JUDGE MGOEPE: Did you say one of the Investigating Officers said that had Colonel Voigt been alive, he would also have charged him as well?

MR DE RU: That is correct.

JUDGE MGOEPE: Thank you.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Mr Chairman, with your permission, I have just been given the exhibits that have been handed up, Mr Chairman.  I am seeing them for the first time.  May I be ...(intervention)

JUDGE WILSON: (Indistinct).

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Sorry.

JUDGE WILSON: (Indistinct).

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Okay.  Mr Chairman, I was saying that I am seeing these documents for the first time now, as were handed up to the Committee.  May I be afforded an opportunity to ask a question or two on one of the documents, Mr Chairman?

JUDGE WILSON: You may.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Thank you.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Mr Chairman, I am going to refer to Exhibit H, that is the psychological report.  Mr de Ru, I do not know whether the question I am going to put to you, you will be able to answer or my learned friend will assist the Committee.  This Exhibit H, what does it seek to prove?