Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1998-06-10

CHAIRPERSON: I think Mr Dreyer wants to say that he never thought so.  Why would you say he never thought so?  I would understand if you say he never got instructions from Mr Oelofse, but I have difficulties in trying to understand why you say that this applicant never thought so, never thought that the situation was so ripe for revolution and so on and so forth.

MR DREYER: Mr Chairman that is not my statement.

CHAIRPERSON: Well maybe put it - let's just hear.  Ms Van der Walt let's hear what Mr Dreyer is saying, we are wasting more time.

MR DREYER: As the court pleases Mr Chairman.  Mr Kloppers all I want to know is whether you say that your general evidence corresponds with the content of this newspaper article?

MR KLOPPERS: That's correct.

MR DREYER: And then a further question, you say that you received an order that the revolution would begin upon that day and that it was not only a revolution or a revolt, in small terms, but that it would be a national revolution, it would have been country wide.

MR KLOPPERS: It would have been country wide.

MR DREYER: Very well, all I want to know then is that you say that the leadership figures at that point in your eyes was Constand Viljoen.  Is that correct?

MR KLOPPERS: That's correct.

MR DREYER: Is that the same armed revolt aimed at the 1994 elections which is mentioned in this newspaper article?

MR KLOPPERS: This article was published in 1997.

MR DREYER: I will repeat my question.  This armed revolt to which you referred in your evidence which was supposed to have begun in 1993 in December, is that the same armed revolt to which this newspaper article refers?

MR KLOPPERS: Yes, when I read the document it appears to be so.

MR DREYER: My only problem with that is that you testified that you received an order that it should begin?

MR KLOPPERS: That's correct.

MR DREYER: Then I would like to read you 4 sections of this article and await your commentary on that.  The first section is in the second paragraph:  Military leaders under Constand Viljoen, former Chief of Defence, were ready with an army which incorporated the entire command power and the soldiers of the Defence Force.  The army with it's entire army structure would participate in the struggle.  Did you take note of that?

MR KLOPPERS: Yes I did.

MR DREYER: In the first instance it is clear according to this article that it was a true and actual military struggle with military powers.

MR KLOPPERS: I think you should just read further on in the article where the AWB is mentioned.

MR DREYER: And then it says in that section that it will occur with army weapons arsenals.  Why would it be necessary for you to obtain weapons when the weapons arsenals of the army would be used?

MR KLOPPERS: Once again I ask that you read the entire article, one cannot simply use one section of a document to prove the entire document itself.  Our duty was to sow chaos in the urban areas, that was our problem and the rest was the problem of Constand Viljoen and his people.

MR DREYER: Furthermore I'll refer to the section which reads:  The frightening magnitude of the struggle which never occurred only came to light this week.  Why would military leaders such as Constand Viljoen say that it was a struggle which had never occurred if you say that you received an order that it should begin on the 13th of December 1993?

MR KLOPPERS: Is it fair to ask this question of me Chairperson?

MR DREYER: Well I'm asking you because it is contradictory with your evidence.

MR KLOPPERS: Well then you should ask Constand Viljoen.  You can't ask me this question.

MR DREYER: I'm simply asking for your commentary.  Do you have anything else to say?

MR KLOPPERS: Nothing.

MR DREYER: The next section:  It must be emphasised that the objective of this plan of resistance was not to take over the government but to occupy a piece of land and maintain it.  Would you say that that is the same in evidence as the objective which you presented to the committee?

MR KLOPPERS: That is the objective which we had in mind.

MR MALAN: I'm sorry I didn't hear the answer.

MR KLOPPERS: That is the objective which we had in mind Chairperson.

MR DREYER: I put it to you that this is contradictory to your version because your version was about a plan of resistance and specific objectives in terms of specific political organisations.  It says here that it wasn't about taking over the government but occupying land.

MR KLOPPERS: The government of that time was the National Party.  It was not about the National Party but about the ANC.

MR DREYER: Then the section which reads:  Resistance plan thwarted by internal opposition.  It would appear that factors such as weak planning by right wing political leaders and internal fighting within right wing structures has led to right wing leaders abandoning the plan.  I would like to ask you if you had seen Constand Viljoen and other prominent right wing leaders as the central figures and they said that they had abandoned this plan, from where would you have received this order?

MR KLOPPERS: This plan was abandoned in the beginning of 1994.  I cannot respond to that, I was already in prison by that stage.

MR DREYER: Thank you Mr Chairman I have no further statements to the witness.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DREYER

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Koetze you presented to us a document in chambers.  We thought that maybe you could start putting the contents thereof to this witness and then we will see how we develop from there.  We have not as yet, I have discussed with - I don't remember whether all the members of the committee were there, but we all (indistinct) that we could proceed with the remaining applicants who have not as yet testified and then the contents of your client's new version could be put to them as they proceed and then if we have to recall anybody, then it will be done at the end after the remaining applicants shall have testified.  So we will start with this witness, Mr Kloppers.  Mr Kloppers a further Affidavit has been presented to us, made by one of the applicants, Mr Van der Schyff, and counsel is going to put some of the contents of that Affidavit or that statement to you for your comments.

MR KLOPPERS: That will be fine, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: We are told that the applicant, Mr Van der Schyff, now sees things a little bit differently than apparently he saw them at the time when he initially filed his papers.  I don't want to express myself on the nature and reasons for this, for
obvious reasons, but I think in all fairness to the witness it must be explained to him what this is all about and I suggest you do it yourself Mr Koetze.

MR KNOETZE: I agree Mr Chairman.  Mr Kloppers a copy of a revised application for amnesty of Mr Van der Schyff was handed to your legal team at a previous opportunity.  Did you also get a copy?

MR KLOPPERS: Yes that is correct.

MR KNOETZE: If we can begin by referring you to page 248 of the minutes of a meeting, not the revised application, but page 248.

CHAIRPERSON: Have this handed in as EXHIBIT 5, that is the amended version of Mr Van der Schyff's version.

MR KNOETZE: As you please Mr Chairman.  Mr Chairman may page 248 of the record be made available to this witness please?

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, which record are you referring to?

MR KNOETZE: The minutes of the previous sitting of this committee.

CHAIRPERSON: Maybe you didn't know Mr Koetze that the last people who ever get copies of the record of such proceedings are members of the Amnesty Committee.  In fact in some cases the Chairman is the very last person to get such a copy, so we don't have such copies.