Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — UNKNOWN

MS VAN DER WALT: But if you consider the portion about Viljoen, if you omit that, then you will see that the deeds were committed in order to establish political revolt and prevent the government of the time, it has to do with the motive, not the deed itself.
	If one were to omit that entire section regarding the order, he then tells the Honourable Committee in his application about the motive.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't understand what you are telling me, but can I ask you this, the comma after the word "my", after that we have a long sentence which is actually a description of a specific deed or deeds, what is that sentence describing, why are you saying that because the motive for the deeds committed by me, the last noun is deed, and the word referring to the previous noun is "namens" and the noun is "dade".

MS VAN DER WALT: The section between the two commas could be very well omitted and one would still arrive at the motive, because this paragraph deals with the motive.
	I did commit an error with this paragraph, but nonetheless, if one were to read it as amended now, one would see that this is about the motive and the motive for the deeds which he committed.

MR MALAN: Chairperson, I do not wish to enter into a lengthy debate, but my mother tongue is Afrikaans and I do agree this is about the motive, but it is the underlying motive to the deed which was the road block and the shooting.  The motive for the shooting and the road block which I did under the orders, was to spread terror and chaos.
	The question here is the intermediary sentence, the deeds, the road block, the shooting, the motive for the shooting which I committed under the orders of Oelofse in cooperation with Hartzenberg and Viljoen was to cause chaos.
	Let us please not argue the language construction here.  It is about the motives, but the fourth construct to which Mr Dreyer has referred or be it the third construct, is this clause which appears here and this is why we are questioning Mr Kloppers.
	Perhaps we should just get his view points on this once more so we can have clarity regarding this.  Were these deeds committed under the orders of Gen Oelofse and did Gen Oelofse in some or other way clear up this order with Gen Constand Viljoen and Dr Ferdi Hartzenberg, and you answer was yes, you believed it.  Do you stand by that?

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: I stand by the fact that Gen Oelofse gave me the order and that this was in cooperation with the other political parties.  I stand by this because of the fact that they met regularly and they held meetings regularly, and this is why I believed that, not on that specific day he would have said, set up a road block, but that he did agree that the war would begin on that day, the 12th of December.

CHAIRPERSON: To the extent that this sentence creates the impression that Gen Oelofse would have cleared the order with Gen Viljoen, it is therefore incorrect?  Regarding this specific aspect?

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: Gen Oelofse would never have cleared anything with Gen Viljoen, he would have worked through Generals and staff and Eugene Terreblanche.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Kloppers it seems to me as if maybe my colleague might not agree with me, but it is a contraction of sentence here, that the ideas here were put together to give in to us, would you tell us that there was a broadened instruction that the war must start and this was cleared up with the Generals and staff and within this broad instruction, the war should start and that there was a detailed instruction, is that what you are trying to say or am I not correct?

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: That is basically what I am saying.

ADV BOSMAN: Do you not want to simplify this for us because you have confused us now.  Let me not tell you what to say, but it is the principle that I am trying to class, but I would like to hear it from yourself.

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: What I say is that Gen Oelofse gave me instruction that he would have cleared with the Generals in staff in cooperation with Gen Constand Viljoen and Ferdi Hartzenberg, and whoever was involved.
	I go along with Gen Oelofse's word, I cannot say with conviction that he did do it, that was what his answer was to me, his statement.

CHAIRPERSON: The other page, 6 to 7 - no we can leave that, it doesn't cause any problems.   Let's look at paragraph 4 of the same page 6, sorry.  That does not cause me any difficulties.  I am sorry I interrupted you Mr Dreyer.

MR DREYER: Mr Kloppers, I do not want to enter into discourse over syntaxes and semantics.  All I want to ask you is I understand simple Afrikaans terms, but specific questions were put to you by the Committee and you would remember that after the first part of your cross-examination was concluded, the Chairman stopped proceedings with specific reference to cross-examination and when it was put to you that when you talk about Generals in staff then you speak about the Generals in staff of the AWB and you exclude specifically Gen Constand Viljoen is that correct?

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: I think from April 1993 when he became involved in the struggle.

MR DREYER: Mr Kloppers, it was placed on record, that is all that I am asking.  I am not asking what you are now saying.  At that stage when you said when I speak about the Generals in staff, I speak about the Generals in staff with regard to the AWB excluding Constand Viljoen.  That is what you said at that stage and it is placed on record as such.

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: That is correct.

MR DREYER: Now I put it to you that when you answered the question of the Chairman, when you were asked specifically that now you say Gen Constand Viljoen and Ferdi Hartzenberg were part of the Generals in staff, you said yes.
	I now put it to you that that is a contradiction, can you explain that?

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: I cannot explain that, because it is surprising to me that these people met in secrecy and that I personally transported them, and I accompanied Gen Oelofse to Ferdi Hartzenberg's office.  It was clear to me that he was part of the then Generals in staff.

MR DREYER: We all know that Gen Constand Viljoen, besides the fact that he is a politician, he also had a military career and that you come from a military background, but it bothers me still what is put in paragraph 6, on paginated page 7.  After this order from Gen Constand Viljoen to have terror in the country, there was an order for terror, we do not talk about a call up to political action.  We are talking about an order for terror.
	Do you agree?

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: Yes, I agree but Gen Oelofse's name should come in front of Gen Viljoen.

MR DREYER: That is not what I am asking you, listen to my question.  I asked you if we speak in political terms, would we use the word call up and if we speak about military action, then we use the word order, do you agree?

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: Call up for terror is the same as an order.  A call up was to get yourself ready, but an order is to go over to action.

MR DREYER: Should I then add another construction that you meant to speak of the order in the sense of a military sentence?  We don't have to go much further than that, that is how I read it unless you want to give me another interpretation but that is the normal meaning attached to those words?

PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: The only problem that I have with this sentence is that the name of Gen Oelofse was not placed in there and I wish to put it now ...