Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — UNKNOWN

CHAIRPERSON: I thought you would do it yesterday evening after we adjourned?  I don't know whether you are aware of that, we have got as it were rules in that lines, which we may, which govern the proceedings, this proceedings, the amnesty proceedings.  The guide lines which were made in terms of the Act and the Reconciliation Act and one of the rules is that any party wanting to make use of documents, would provide copies of that document to all other participating people in the proceedings.

MR DREYER: Mr Chairman, I am aware of that but as I have explained at the outset yesterday, I had the logistical problem that I took the instruction over from a colleague of mine, at a very late stage, and at that stage even I was not placed in possession of any documentation.
	I received the criminal proceedings only late the afternoon before the next day's appearance, I had to work through the night in order to get through that.
	Similarly the application of Mr Kloppers was only made available to me at the same stage, even later than that.  My Attorney of record came through from Heidelberg to Pretoria and presented me with that, that was Tuesday evening.  I am aware of the fact that the copies could have been made My Lord, but ...

CHAIRPERSON: But yesterday afternoon, I distinctly recall that I told you, I said to you Mr Dreyer, we don't have copies of what you are reading to us.  I think I said it, well I am not sure I said it twice, but I am quite certain I told you.  I assumed that you, when I told you that we didn't have a copy thereof, I thought I was telling you that we didn't have a copy thereof and nothing more and nothing less.  And that you would make sure that we would have it.

MR DREYER: The only thing that I can say is that at that stage it was suggested that we read that particular portion into the record and in the course of yesterday afternoon and further, we proceeded with our preparation for today.
	If I may then suggest similar to my learned friend, that we at the stage of lunch time or whatever it is, make copies of that, I would make it available, but in the meantime if I would be permitted, I would read it.  It is a very short portion ...

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, just make a note of the pages that you are cross-examining the witness on, we would like to have copies thereof.

MR DREYER: As the Court pleases, thank you Mr Chairman.  Mr Kloppers, on page 637 of volume 8 of those proceedings, your testimony is led by your own Advocate, this is not cross-examination, so it is spontaneous testimony on  your behalf, and you were asked by your own Advocate, very well, on 12th December 1993, you received an order, is that correct and your answer is, that is correct.
	And the Advocate continues by saying very well, can you perhaps tell us what the order was and your answer is, the order was that we had to obtain firearms and ammunition for the time which was coming.  There would not be a 27th of April, we would wage war.
	Very well, it came from a higher authority than yourself, that is correct.  Do you agree that that was your testimony?

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: Yes, I agree that that was my testimony and I would like to expand on that.

MR DREYER: Might I just ask you before you do that, the higher authority to which you are referring, who is that?

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: Generals in staff.

MR DREYER: And are you referring specifically to Gen Japie Oelofse, he was a member of Generals in staff?

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: Yes.

MR DREYER: I would like to return to what I asked you.  Previously you were interrogated by the Police and according to yourself, you were tortured and you made a certain statement and during your testimony here, that statement was submitted voluntarily as part of your testimony.
	During your testimony in chief, you were asked to comment there on.

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: I beg your pardon voluntarily and you also said tortured.  You cannot voluntarily hand in a statement within a tortured position, so I did not submit it voluntarily.

MR DREYER: I beg your pardon.  This statement has been submitted to the Committee by the Committee's Advocate, Mr Brink.  I am saying that the statement which you made is before the Committee, is that correct?

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: Which statement are you referring to?

MR DREYER: The statement made to the South African Police.

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: That was not voluntarily.

MR MALAN: Mr Dreyer, might I just get some clarity regarding this, was your statement for commentary that the statement which he made to the Police, was voluntarily handed in by his legal representative during the criminal procedures.  Did I understand your question?

MR DREYER: I am referring to the affidavit which was submitted during the criminal proceedings as Exhibit H1.  It was an affidavit which the applicant made to the Police.  I am not certain whether it is the exact same affidavit, because I don't have it before me.
	I am not referring to the affidavit which was submitted here, it could very well be the same affidavit.

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: The affidavit which appears before the Committee on page 160 is not an affidavit, it is a statement which was made to a Police Officer.

MR DREYER: Is that not an affidavit?

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: No, it is not an affidavit.

MR DREYER: It is the same statement that I am referring to.

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: Then it is not an affidavit.

MR DREYER: That statement that is here before the Committee, the same statement was handed in as Exhibit H by your Advocate in the Supreme Court?

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: That is correct.

MR DREYER: And during your evidence in chief, your own Advocate took you through that statement and read you paragraphs from that statement and you were given the opportunity if you did agree with it, whether it was correct or not, is that so?

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: Yes, that is so.

MR DREYER: On page 637 you say according to your own testimony in chief of these procedures the order that you received that came from a higher authority was that we had to get weapons and ammunition for the time coming.  There won't be any 27th of April, we will wage war.  That you said was the instruction that you received from higher authority?

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: That is what I said at that stage, that is correct.

MR DREYER: Very well, I would wish to ask you then the time when you were tortured and questioned by the Police, you were now before a higher Court during criminal procedures and you are represented by an Advocate, you are not there alone, you have the freedom to tell the Court people, I am here charged with murder, but I would just like to explain that it is not murder, because it was a military instruction that I received from a General or from the Generals in staff from the AWB.
	Why then did you not say it at that stage?

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: Mr Chairperson, I could not do it for the fact that Gen Oelofse told me what to say right from the start, that we were to create chaos and disorder and number two, the Generals in staff including Gen Oelofse, was being protected by me in that I wanted not to tell the truth.
	It is not because nine of the men were arrested that the revolution had to stop and the planning that was done there, could not be given to the Court, that is why I believed it did not matter what sentence I would receive, and that is why I believed as well that it did not matter what sentence I would receive, but I would still not tell the absolute truth, as I was to protect Gen Oelofse and the revolution.

MR DREYER: The problem is when you testified during these criminal procedures, this was during June 1994, is that correct?

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: That is correct.

MR DREYER: And the elections were done by then?