Amnesty Hearings — Bloemfontein — 1997-05-12

ADV MADASA: My recollection of the applicant's evidence at the prior hearing is that he received information from Colonel Voigt.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, let us ask him.  Why did you believe that the deceased were affiliated to any political organisation?  You can repeat the answer you gave last time, if you did give an answer last time.

JAKOBUS JOHANNES DE RU: Your Honour, as I have mentioned at the previous occasion, the persons who were responsible for these crimes were politically inspired by the statements of their political leaders, the statement of "Kill a farmer, kill a boer."  The nature of the crime committed and the cruelty of the crime, I have already explained on the previous occasion at the previous sitting of this Committee.

ADV MADASA: I have no further questions.

JUDGE WILSON: Did Colonel Voigt identify the people or did he merely tell you that there were people who had this policy and you believed that the deceased was one of them?

JAKOBUS JOHANNES DE RU: Your Honour, I believed this myself.

JUDGE WILSON: Yes, the Colonel wasn't there, he didn't know who the man was, did he till after you had killed him?

JAKOBUS JOHANNES DE RU: Your Honour, I did not hear the entire question.   The interpreter did not hear it entirely.

JUDGE WILSON: The Colonel wasn't at the scene and didn't know who the man was that you had killed till after you had killed him, did he?

JAKOBUS JOHANNES DE RU: No Your Honour, not with regard to the first incident.  There was information with regard to the first incident.

JUDGE WILSON: Thank you.

ADV MADASA: Sorry Mr Chairman, with your permission may I ask a last question following up on the  question that was just asked?

JUDGE WILSON: Certainly.

ADV MADASA: Mr De Ru, can you again tell the Committee as to how you, under what circumstances did you receive these two suspects?  Under what circumstances did you receive the two suspects, from whom and what were you told about them, that is the question.

JAKOBUS JOHANNES DE RU: With regard to the first one Your Honour, I received the information from Colonel Voigt.

ADV DE JAGER: Could you refer to their names if you could remember this?

JAKOBUS JOHANNES DE RU: I will Your Honour.  With regard to Jonas Rampalile, the Kroonstad incident, I received him from Colonel Voigt after he called me up to do the identifications.

ADV DE JAGER: Could you repeat that?

JAKOBUS JOHANNES DE RU: After he called me in to assist with the identifications, Colonel Voigt also identified the deceased Mr Bezuidenhoudt, to me in the mortuary.  As I've already given testimony before you, he said to me that people like this should not live, should not remain alive.  The second suspect I received from Warrant Officer Herbst, that was a Mr Sacharia Mofokeng.  This incident took place at Kragbron in the district of Sasolburg.  The deceased was involved in the attack on a White male of 70 years of age, who lived in the area of Kragbron.

JUDGE WILSON: Have you got Exhibit A in front of you?  The annexure to your application?  Not Exhibit A, Annexure A to your application for amnesty.   What pages do these appear on?

JAKOBUS JOHANNES DE RU: Your Honour, I will provide this information to you.  It starts on page 136.

JUDGE WILSON: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: The attached memorandum.

JUDGE WILSON: Annexure A.

JAKOBUS JOHANNES DE RU: Your Honour that the pieces before you are marked 129.  I don't think it is exactly the same numbering as mine.  I believed that it is marked as page 129 at the top.

ADV DE JAGER: Annexure A is 11, 12, 13, marked up in the top right corner.  Annexure A
starts on page 10.

JAKOBUS JOHANNES DE RU: Your Honour, I don't think we've got the same documents before us.  My page 9 and 10 is a list of witnesses.

JUDGE WILSON: Is this page 15, page 6 of Annexure A?

JAKOBUS JOHANNES DE RU: Yes, Your Honour.  My pages are marked differently from the pages before you but it begins on page 15, the last paragraph.

JUDGE WILSON: That is the first piece and the second incident is on page 17, is that correct?

JAKOBUS JOHANNES DE RU: That is correct.

JUDGE WILSON: These are the two matters to which you are referring

JAKOBUS JOHANNES DE RU: That is correct, thank you Your Honour.

CHAIRPERSON: The victim in Sasolburg, was he also a farmer?

JAKOBUS JOHANNES DE RU: The victim in Kragbron.  It was a older person, I can describe to you.  Kragbron is a small place that mainly was constituted of an electrical  power station and the houses there were rented by aged person at a very low rate.  90% of the people who live there are very old people.

ADV MADASA: Yes, but he was not killed on his farm?

JAKOBUS JOHANNES DE RU: That is correct, he was not killed on a farm.

ADV DE JAGER: On what grounds did you believe that the murder at Kragbron was a political murder or did you not consider this a politically related murder?

JAKOBUS JOHANNES DE RU: It was because of the statement "Kill a farmer, kill a boer, one settler, one bullet".  The attacks were against aged persons and farmers.

ADV DE JAGER: The Kragbron incident, however, was not a farmer.  In that case the slogan of "Kill a farmer, kill a boer", would be not apparently applicable in this case?

JAKOBUS JOHANNES DE RU: Not as such in that particular case, but the slogan of "One settler, one bullet" - this was the same claim and this was an aged person who was killed.  The intention was to murder aged persons and farmers.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr De Ru, the problem which I am experiencing is how would one distinguish between these, let's call them politically motivated murders and a mere criminal act?  Let us say for a moment that your argument is I can act against persons who are politically motivated murderers and where the murder has something to do with politics and that is why that would resort under an amnesty matter, however if there is a common criminal who breaks into a house, he wants to steal some money, maybe he wants to rape people, or whatever, then this would be a mere criminal act, merely criminal act.  Under those circumstances then this would not resort under the Amnesty Committee because then there would not be any political association or motive of any political nature - on that grounds was it possible for you to believe that the Kragbron murder or killing, what was the name of the person killed there?

JAKOBUS JOHANNES DE RU: Sacharia Mofokeng.

ADV DE JAGER: No, the deceased.

JAKOBUS JOHANNES DE RU: Mr Meiring.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Meiring, on what grounds did you believe that the murder on Mr Meiring or the killing of Mr Meiring was a politically motivated act?

JAKOBUS JOHANNES DE RU: As I presented to you, the fact that this was the killing of an old person, an aged person and that the person was attacked with a knife, there was a firearm taken.  It is part of my information that these people were particularly looking for firearms to be able to continue with further acts of political acts.  Why I would differentiate between this act and a common criminal act - to commit a merely criminal act one would look for a younger victim, this was an old person.  A person of considerable age, a weak person in relation to any person who might attack him.  The selection of victims of people who were attacked, were politically motivated.  Just as the attack on the farmers, these were people who were far away from the people immediately in their environment.

JUDGE WILSON: Who said that these had to be older persons?

JAKOBUS JOHANNES DE RU: This was their own statement that they had to kill farmers and older persons.  These were people who were easily killed.

JUDGE WILSON: This is as it is happening in Natal at this moment, they are killing farmers, the old farmers.

JAKOBUS JOHANNES DE RU: That is a fact Your Honour.

JUDGE WILSON: But this is not APLA, these are mere criminals?