Special Hearings — Trojan Horse Hearings — 1997-05-21

MAPULE RAMASHALA: Sir may I respond to you for the last time.  Using the laws of logic, when he says we did not want to send police vehicles because they would not be stoned, we deliberately sent an unmarked vehicle, use logic Sir, the unmarked vehicle would be stoned.  He admitted himself in his speech.  Let's move on.
 Sir, are you aware of a standing order from Major General Wandrag specific to the use of AAA and no.1 birdshot in unrest situations?   I think it's Annexure no.24.

UNKNOWN: Yes I am aware of that.

MAPULE RAMASHALA: Okay.  I have an English translation since I can't speak Afrikaans, but let me paraphrase it.
"1. All unrest units have been issued with sneeze and smoke machines and should have sufficient teargas and fluids to operate the machine effectively.
 2. There is no reason why the machines cannot be used during unrest situations to their maximum capacity.
 3. During unrest situations the maximum use of teargas, rubber sjamboks and the (...indistinct) shot ammunition must firstly be made use of.  Firm action is essential.
 4. In the event of a situation arising where your judgement is such that the use of firearms becomes essential buckshot ammunition must first be made use of.  Sharp point ammunition may only be used in instances where there is no other alternative to protect lives or property.  Attempts must be made to effect maximum arrests during actions".
Is that a correct translation or correct - of that memorandum?

UNKNOWN: Yes it is.

MAPULE RAMASHALA: But you went ahead and made sure that the machinery were loaded with AAA and no.1 birdshot for that operation, am I correct?

UNKNOWN: That's correct.

MAPULE RAMASHALA: Are you aware that you were in fact in violation of Major General Wandrag's order?

UNKNOWN: No I was not acting in contravention of his orders.

MAPULE RAMASHALA: Sir I don't know what to make of this.  You've got the document in front of you with specific instructions about the use of ammunition and you issued instructions to use AAA and no.1 birdshot and you say you don't think you were in contravention of instructions?

UNKNOWN: If you look at what was happening in those areas we had used all the equipment available to us at that stage to try and stop the attacks.  The riots had been going on for weeks and we had used all the equipment issued to us.  You must remember that the equipment mentioned in paragraph 3, paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 we are talking about damage control.  Mention isn't made of attacks on police, it's merely damage control.
 In other words you will remember that in those years, according to certain legislation it was illegal for large groups of people to meet and to have meetings and to disperse such a crowd, that was what this kind of equipment was used for, the equipment mentioned in paragraphs 1 to 3. But if you've tried everything at your disposal and nothing helps or works then paragraph 4 becomes applicable. 
 Now when we decided to use sharp point ammunition, AAA and no.1 it's the lowest form of sharp point ammunition that one can use.  I specifically told Lt Vermeulen that the heavier shot should not be used.

MAPULE RAMASHALA: Sir, help me understand this contradiction.  You gave instruction to achieve maximum arrest and yet you have the equipment loaded with lethal ammunition, let me understand this contradiction.

UNKNOWN: You must remember that you have to provide for your police officers to be able to defend themselves.  We can't get away from the fact that if for instance you look at what was happening in those areas at that time, the nature of the attacks etc, that an attack on an unprotected vehicle, especially where there were policemen present, that that could become very ugly in the end and that some of the policemen could be killed.  In other words what we did was to give the policemen a reasonable means of defending themselves should an attack be launched and then perform the arrests.

MAPULE RAMASHALA: Did you tell the policemen that were assigned to this operation about the standing order from Major General Wandrag?

UNKNOWN: No, no I didn't.  This order was issued in 1984 already.  It was a standing order which had been circulated more than a year previously.

MAPULE RAMASHALA: Exactly when was this team, which was supposed to carry out this operation, exactly when were they briefed?

UNKNOWN: I think I said in my statement, I just want to check it, it was at about 4 o'clock the afternoon of the 15th after I had called in Vermeulen and I had given him the instructions.

MAPULE RAMASHALA: Sir, since you had a plan I am assuming that you knew that the majority of that crowd were school children?

UNKNOWN: No, no, there was no.....

MAPULE RAMASHALA: Did you or any other member of the command place take into account the fact that innocent people could be killed or injured with AAA and no.1 birdshot as a result of this "highly irregular operation"?

UNKNOWN: I don't know about that "highly irregular operation".  It was the first time that something like that had been done. It was not unique in the sense that this operation was being used or seen as something which had never happened before.

MAPULE RAMASHALA: Did you make any contingency plans to prevent deaths or injury of innocent people?

UNKNOWN: It's very difficult.  Normally in cases of stone-throwing there are very few, if any, people - the innocent person is usually not involved in a stone-throwing, but in this case and in this particular area or place stone-throwing incidents had happened on many times before, so it's not as if the bystanders wouldn't have known that this was an area where stones were thrown.

MAPULE RAMASHALA: So by your own admission you do regular evaluations of the effect of operations, for example you said arrests didn't work, am I correct?

UNKNOWN: We couldn't perform mass arrests.  Here and there we were able to make an arrest but it had very little effect.

MAPULE RAMASHALA: Did you do an evaluation, an assessment of this operation and its outcome with your commanding officer, in this case Lt Vermeulen?

UNKNOWN: What consequences are you talking about?

MAPULE RAMASHALA: The death of three children and the injury of many others.

UNKNOWN: You mean after the operation took place?

MAPULE RAMASHALA: Yes.

UNKNOWN: I can't remember that I specifically discussed it with Vermeulen on that evening or the next day, but I am sure we did mention it or discuss it afterwards.

MAPULE RAMASHALA: Sir, when the truck went up the road through the crowd there was no stone-throwing, did Lt Vermeulen tell you that?  There was no stone-throwing when the truck went up the first time.  It came back and it came up again, what was the purpose of doing that?  If there was no stone-throwing at the time, what was the purpose of coming back up the road again?

UNKNOWN: You are asking me a question I can't answer.  I wasn't present on that truck and I wasn't party to the decision to turn it around and go back again, so that's a question I can't answer.  I will have to guess.

MAPULE RAMASHALA: Lt Vermeulen was acting on your instructions by your own admission, he was following your own instructions, what exactly did you expect Lt Vermeulen to accomplish?  He was acting on your instructions.