Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — UNKNOWN

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: : If you go further than that Mr Chairperson, you would see that I tried to do so afterwards, after I implicated him, that he did give the instruction to me to put up this road-block, but that he was dissatisfied when he came to his house and gave the ear to him.   If you read further in that statement.  I said that he was dissatisfied and that is not what he sent me for;  and I did everything and attempted to indemnify him from this... any following action.

MR DREYER: : No Mr Kloppers, you are now at the murder and the cutting off of the ear.   I have nothing to do with that.  I say on the one side, you want us to accept that you protected him from the two shotguns and then you come here and say he is the source of the instruction;  he is the man that said go out and look for illegal weapons, confiscate them for the purposes of the revolution.   Would that be a problem for him if he gave you two shotguns, but there is no problem for him if you come and say openly in Court, that he was the person who told you to go and get weapons for the revolution.   I don't understand.

MS VAN DER WALT: : Mr Chairperson, can we just get the page number where the instruction is, because I don't have it.  I don't know if I've missed it, with the instruction during the Trial, where the witness said ...

MR DREYER: : It's page 639.  Just to refresh everybody's memory, it is on page 7.   The question is:  `Very well, can you tell us what the instruction was?'   The instruction was that we need to find weapons and ammunition, because there was not going to be any 27th of April.   We will wage war.   That is what you said during the Criminal Procedures.  This was the instruction that you received from Oelofse.

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: : That's correct.

MR DREYER: : And now I put it to you Sir, those facts, if its the truth, that that was the instruction that you received from Oelofse, and it's already enough in the direction of treason and sedition, and this was to get weapons and to usurp the Government.   You are prepared to say this under Oath, to the Court but for some or other macabre reason, you want to protect Oelofse from two shotguns.   I don't understand this.  Please explain this to me.

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: : What I also don't understand that the fact that Mr Oelofse was not arrested for sedition.   The point was for me to protect him from the knowledge that persons were shot, and he just gave the instruction that we need to collect weapons.   That is what I wanted to say during my whole statement.   I wanted to protect Oelofse and the whole Generals and staff.

MR DREYER: : Yes, yes, you want to protect him from one half of the gruesome incident.

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: : The murder, yes that's correct.

MR DREYER: : And for murder at that time, one could receive death sentence for murder.

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: : I did not know of the treason and sedition.

CHAIRPERSON: : You have covered that area, and besides he is a lay person.   I am not so sure they understand the elements of sedition.

MR DREYER: : And on page 709 of the procedures, page 709, this is during the cross-examination.   This concerns the part of the incident or during the procedures where the two men were assaulted.   I just want to place this into perspective.  Indeed we have to go back to 708, so I can put it to more perspective.   But only later, you heard from Gert Diedericks.  You already gave instruction to accused 1 to hoot, honk his horn, so that people could come back.

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: : That's correct.

MR DREYER: : Why did you do that, because they did not react to the instruction.   They jumped out of the vehicle.   Who knows what they are doing;  until the moment when I heard that from Diedericks what happened there, but the horn was honked for the people to come back.   You were not aware of the fact that these people were assaulted at that time.   I did not see anything.   I had to go on what Gert Diedericks told me.   Page 709.   At this stage, when you gave the instruction, namely to ..., you were not aware of what was happening.  What are you talking about.   The assault.   You were not aware of it.   There was no instruction.   You gave an instruction to accused, accusation 1, to press the horn.   That's correct.  At that stage, you were not aware of the fact that these people were being assaulted.   That is correct.   Why then did you give the instruction.   Your Honour, because there were two black people noticed along the road, and I suspected that they were interfering with these two black persons;  and then the State Prosecutor asked:  what do you mean by interfere.  Whatever they were doing, and then he asks you again;  what do you mean with interfering;  and then you say, assault, search.   And then the Prosecutor asks again:  now what made you think that they were being assaulted?   And then a whole surprising answer comes to light.   Do you know the AWB, your Honour?   What do you say about that?   What are you asking me, Mr Chairperson.   I'm asking you:  what do you mean by do you know the AWB, your Honour.   Did you not trust the discipline of the people who were under your command?   This is what you testified, that your men were disciplined.   They were well trained.   They just reacted to instructions.   If a man did not want to comply with the instruction, then he had to leave the AWB.   He had to take his things and leave.   Isn't that so?   That's correct.   And I ask you again, is this now the discipline you wish to show.  Is this the... They were ill-disciplined and that is why I reprimanded them.   That is exactly what I did.   And in the light of this ill-discipline and under the state of influence, you take these 8 other persons, who are under your command;  you take them on a paramilitary operation where you had to identify ANC, SACP Alliance persons.

CHAIRPERSON: : Mr Dreyer, the problem is that when you ask questions, you add a lot of things which in themselves, are contentious.   Now you put to the witness, you are talking of intoxication, and all we heard was that they did take some liquor.   Where do you get the intoxication part of it from?

MR DREYER: : Mr Chairman, I said intoxication whatever the level thereof;  whether it was slight ...

CHAIRPERSON: : But intoxication anyway.   Where do you get it from?

MR DREYER: : On his own version, they partook of liquor, Mr Chairman.   On his own version, he said and apart from stating that they took liquor that evening, and they partook of liquor that evening, his evidence here before this Committee, and I'm not referring to ...

CHAIRPERSON: : Alright, will you please cut out controversial insertions in your questions.   They waste a lot of time;  you end up arguing with the witness, instead of just stating your question.   You are putting too many qualifications and remarks in the course of your question, which are highly argumentative;   and we waste a lot of time, you arguing with the witness, over and over again.

MR DREYER: : As the Court pleases, Mr Chairman.   I will repeat it again.   Ill-discipline of your members that alcohol was used;  this is the group of persons that you had under your command.   According to your version, it will start a revolution.   This is how a revolution will start, according to you.

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: : That's correct, except for the fact that we were not under the influence of liquor.   These people were in control, and after I reprimanded them, and then we moved to the road-block.

MR DREYER: : And after this incident, when you went to the Voortrekker Monument and you said nothing else was happening, there were no similar incidents from other regions.

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: : Excuse me Mr Chairperson, I just want to correct you.   There were other incidents.