Amnesty Hearings — Pietersburg — 1997-07-03

CHAIRPERSON: It is the 3rd of July, 1997.  We are proceeding with the same matter of 
Sehlwana, Erwee and others.
	I notice Mr Black is not here.  Although we agreed yesterday that we would 
start at nine o'clock, it is past nine o'clock, it is nearly ten o'clock and I think we should 
proceed.
	Colonel, you are still under oath.

ANDRIES JOHANNES GERHARDUS ERWEE: (still under oath)

ADV VISSER: Mr Chairman, before we commence with the continuation of Mr 
Erwee's evidence, you will allow me to make a statement.  Those of the members who 
had the misfortune of watching the news on television news last night, concerning the 
report of the evidence of Mr Erwee yesterday, would have been struck by the 
inaccuracy of that report.
	Mr Chairman, we feel that it is necessary in view of what we are trying to do 
here, we are trying to establish a complete a picture as possible of gross violations of 
human rights, during the conflicts of the past and it has struck us very forcefully that 
this type of journalism which we saw on TV last night, is not conducive to you being 
able to render your task sufficiently.
	If you hadn't seen that news report Mr Chairman, may I just tell you that ...

CHAIRPERSON: I personally didn't, but I assume my colleagues did not.  Do you mean 
the eight o'clock news?

ADV VISSER: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: No, I didn't watch it.

ADV VISSER: May I just tell you what was stated?  The sum total of what was stated 
Mr Chairman was that Mr Erwee admitted "to firing 30 shots into a combi which was 
carrying six cadres, MK - well six cadres and that this was done during an ambush by 
the Security Forces of these people."  
	Not a word was breathed Mr Chairman about the background, about the fact 
that Mr Erwee stated that it was a question of returning fire after the SADF officer 
was wounded.  Mr Chairman, apart from the fact that Mr Erwee was made out quite 
clearly as the villain of the situation, it goes much wider than that.
	Your efforts here to establish the truth Mr Chairman, is seriously jeopardised 
because if witnesses feel that they are going to be allowed to be misquoted this way, it 
may very well jeopardise them coming forward, their willingness to come forward.
	I will take it no further, I just want to place it on record and I want to invite the 
SABC to rectify their poor and inaccurate reporting tonight with the same prominence 
as they did last night and apart from that, I don't want to say anything more about it 
Mr Chairman.
	Mr Erwee, is still under cross-examination.  Mr Chairman, there is just one 
issue which we feel we should draw to your attention.  Ms Khampepe, yesterday 
afternoon just at the close of the proceedings, put a question ...

CHAIRPERSON: I remember it, yes.

ADV VISSER: And my Attorney tells me, he was listening to the Afrikaans 
translation, I didn't have my earphones on, so I don't know, but in so far as there might 
be some confusion as to what  was translated, without reflection on the interpreter at 
all.
	We wondered whether we could impose on Ms Khampepe to put those 
questions again, so that we can get absolute clarity about what was asked and how the 
question was answered.  I may inform you Mr Chairman, that I didn't discuss this with 
Mr Erwee at all, because I thought it would be improper for me to talk to him while he 
is under cross-examination, so whatever his answers were, Mr Chairman, I didn't 
discuss with him.
	But if Ms Khampepe wouldn't mind, just putting those questions again and I 
can remind you if you don't remember what it was, it had to do with the question of 
reasonable force and it had to do with the question of whether it fell within the ambit 
of the instructions, I think that was the point.  If you don't mind, Ms Khampepe.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Thank you Mr Visser.  I may not be able to ...

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, let me just interrupt.  Mr Visser, you are saying that because 
you didn't quite follow the answers, I suppose, though if I were the applicant I would 
have been happy with the answers that I had given, but any way, let he continue with 
the questions.

ADV VISSER: Again Mr Chairman, we are here to discover what actually happened, 
what the truth is.  Whether it was in his favour or if they were the correct replies, we 
are confused as to what the answers were.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Thank you Mr Visser.  I think my questions that I will put to 
Mr Erwee, will not be the same word for word, that is as yesterday, because I didn't 
have them written out, but I think your problem is with regard to the two last 
questions which were put to him with regard to the kind of force, reasonable force 
which he applied in the incident.
	I will proceed then to put that question to Mr Erwee.  Mr Erwee, I think what 
I asked you yesterday was whether in your planning, since you had anticipated some 
kind of resistance from the six cadres, in an endeavour to arrest them, my question was 
whether you had taken any measures to ensure that minimum force was used by you 
and your members in defending yourselves against the attack by the six cadres in that 
minibus, that was my first question.  At least the first of the last two.

ANDRIES JOHANNES GERHARDUS ERWEE: Chairperson, I think I have understood the question correctly.  When it 
was said to me that the insurgents are busy crossing the border and that they were 
carrying bags with them, the observation post didn't notify me whether the people had 
their firearms outside and that reassured me that the planning would fall within the 
framework of our planning, because it would have been an unheard of thing for 
insurgents to drive around, showing their firearms openly.
	It would have been very risky.  For that reason, I believed that when we 
stopped the vehicle and threw the hand grenade to cause shock and confusion, that by 
the time the insurgents have taken out their firearms, cocked them, etc, that they at 
that stage already would have realised that here is an armed vehicle and weapons are 
aimed at us, uniformed people surrounding us etc.
	That is why I believed that we will be able to arrest the insurgents without 
them really offering any resistance and then when I saw through the window how the 
passenger in the left front shot through the window and that Captain Born collapsed, 
and I then also heard a short volley of shots, it is true we are trained, I myself am 
trained in the case of contact with insurgents, you deliver maximum fire power to 
protect your own life and not as in the normal situation.  You are trained in that 
situation, to give the maximum fire until there is no resistance left.
	I must also mention it to the Chairperson, that when I started firing, I fired at 
the combi and at the passengers.
	There was teargas so I couldn't see very clearly, I couldn't see very clearly 
where each person, each passenger was sitting, I just fired.

SISI KHAMPEPE: And in your opinion, do you think that you then were able to 
carry out the instructions which were given to you by Mr Van der Merwe or by Mr 
Coetzee, who both were your superiors at the time?

ANDRIES JOHANNES GERHARDUS ERWEE: If I understood the question correctly, I believed when I started 
shooting, that I had exceeded the bounds of my instruction, namely that I should arrest 
first and then should we encounter fire, only then fire back and that we shouldn't 
endanger our lives.
	Then that is correct, when I started shooting, I shot to protect our own lives.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Mr Visser, I think in short that would be the context of some 
of the questions which were put to Mr Erwee, but your concern was mainly with 
regard to the two last questions, which were put to him and I hope that really satisfies 
your concerns.  Do they meet your concerns?

ADV VISSER: We do appreciate it Mr Chairman.  I was clearly wrong, and my 
Attorney was correct in his recollection of what the evidence was, thank you Mr 
Chairman.