Human Rights Violation Hearings — Pollsmoor — 1997-02-17

UNKNOWN: The next witness is Senior Superintendent John Martin Sterrenberg.   I will now ask advocate Potgieter to swear the witness in.

ADV POTGIETER: Good morning Mr Sterrenberg.

MR STERRENBERG: Good morning sir.

ADV POTGIETER: Welcome.

MR STERRENBERG: Thank you.

ADV POTGIETER: Thank you for having made yourself available - I am going to ask you to take the oath, for that purpose to stand please.  
JOHN MARTIN STERRENBERG Duly sworn states

ADV POTGIETER: Thank you very much you may be seated.

UNKNOWN: Ladies and gentleman from the press thank you - thank you.

ADV VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman we proceed with the questioning of this witness as I've indicated earlier I am representing Mr Sterrenberg on instructions from Mr Adri Brand at De Klerk en Van Gend.  May I use this opportunity to thank you for your opening remarks this morning concerning the perceptions created in the media.  It was a matter of great concern to all five my clients to read in the newspaper if I may translate freely from an Afrikaans newspaper that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission after the sitting in November said that according to the evidence the incident was a Vlakplaas operation and therefore the seven were executed by implication.  I think you've cleared the air this morning that no such finding was made and that, that wasn't in fact said by the Commission it is appreciated.
 If I may raise one further point - I had the opportunity to read through the evidence of the three gentleman who testified last time, Kleyn, Liebenberg and Odendal.  I am not sure whether this Committee is in possession of the evidence given at the inquest, I say this because it was put to some of the witnesses in particular Liebenberg that a witness and I presume  that is Mr Zibaka has told this Commission that he saw a man with his hands in the air being shot twice and that this evidence is actually corroborated by the objective evidence being the post-mortem examination which indicates only two wounds on that particular body.
 Now at the inquest and also in his affidavit, the evidence that he gave there, was that he saw this person being shot three times after he had been thrown onto the ground and if one checks the trajectory of those bullets through the body, it simply does not corroborate - two shots - it said - he testified as to three shots to the chest which leads me and my instructing attorney to infer that this Commission may not be in possession of that evidence.
 And if that is so, we would very much like to assist the Commission to get hold of that evidence because we feel that where a person like Mr Zibaka who testified as to very important part of the evidence where evidence of his is available of an earlier statement or evidence under oath where related the same version, which conflicts what he told this Commission of course this Commission should take notice in it's final decision whether to believe him or not, of what he had said at a previous hearing.
 And we also see on the record that Captain or he was then a Captain Kleyn was confronted with a question that there was expert evidence led at the Weaver trial that these shots were fired at point blank range, which of course is significant important evidence.  But that very same expert at the inquest, not only qualified - he quite dramatically changed that evidence and there was also other evidence of other experts then led at the inquest which showed exactly the opposite.  It is important we feel that, that evidence should be placed before the Commission.  If the Commission is not in possession of it, we would very much like to be a prize of that fact so that we can assist in obtaining that evidence if at all possible.

UNKNOWN: Thank you advocate Van Zyl - the Commission and the Committee quite clearly appreciate the remarks that you have made.  I do not know as I sit here whether we are in possession of the inquest record - the investigators would advise me but I would have assumed that we do have some.  But if we don't we will look into it, but I see the investigators nodding very vigorously there is a clear indication that we have that evidence.
 But I think your remarks served to indicate the extend the extend to which it is very important not to appear to have preconceived notions about the correctness of this or that other evidence and I think your remarks are well placed to the extend that they remind us what our duties are and of course what the Commission's duty is when it comes to findings stage.
 Thank you very much for your remarks.

ADV VAN ZYL: Mr Commissioner there is one - just one further aspect, I wasn't sure whether I should raise this but in the evidence of Mr Odendal when he was introduced at page 9 of the record, and I hope and I think this may only be a typing error I don't know.  But the record reads as follows - if you will allow me just to read this
Are you still referred to as Colonel or are you now called Mr Odendal - and it's Ms Wildschut speaking - it is I am speaking.  Mr Odendal said - ja nee ek sien wie hier praat - u kan maar sommer se meneer. - that is interpret by the interpreter - I can see you speaking ja - you can call me sir or mister - then an unknown commissioner or a dog - I can't for the life of me believe that a Commissioner would actually this [indistinct] would have said well you can call me a  dog - that is the deception it - I presume it is a typing error on the record, I don't know.

UNKNOWN: I would assume that there is an error somewhere - I - in the light of the way in which we conduct it ourselves and we conduct ourselves - I cannot believe that a remark of that nature could have been made.

ADV VAN ZYL: May that be the [indistinct] Mr Commissioner.

UNKNOWN: Yes, thank you.

ADV VAN ZYL: Thank you.

UNKNOWN: Thank you Mr Van Zyl.   I don't know whether you have a prepared statement.

MR STERRENBERG: I do have a prepared statement - it's been prepared in Afrikaans sir.

UNKNOWN: Yes no very well - do you - would you like to read the statement into the record.

MR STERRENBERG: I will sir.

UNKNOWN: Very well then.