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

MR NTSEBEZA: Okay let's test that, did you fire any warning shots?  Did you fire in the air for instance in the hope that people, however brave they are, and once they realise that firearms are involved, they would run away, or has it not been your experience that people will come even if you fire shots, did you fire in the air for instance?

DOUW VERMEULEN: I said I fired seven shots whilst people were throwing stones and for the entire duration of the seven shots people were throwing stones.  I didn't fire any warning shots into the air.

MR NTSEBEZA: Did any of your colleagues fire any warning shots?

DOUW VERMEULEN: Not as far as I know.

MR NTSEBEZA: Could they have fired warning shots?  Well let me ask the question, could you have fired warning shots?  It appears that you were using rifles from what I saw, I don't know, I'm not experienced in firearms, whatever it is could your people have fired any warning shots?

DOUW VERMEULEN: At that stage I felt that we were already under attack, I wanted to avert the attack and I saw no purpose in firing warning shots at that time, I wanted to avert the attack so that I could then proceed to make arrests.

MR NTSEBEZA: In other words rather than fire warning shots you decided that you should shoot even if the result was that you would kill somebody, is that what you are saying?

DOUW VERMEULEN: Yes I shot at those people who were attacking us and we were undefended and unprotected.

MR NTSEBEZA: You were undefended, unprotected.  Where they having any firearms except that they were throwing stones?  Were they armed in any way the people you were shooting at?

DOUW VERMEULEN: I didn't see any firearms.  I didn't say they were unarmed, I said we were unprotected.

MR NTSEBEZA: With AAA ...(intervention)

DOUW VERMEULEN: Yes I was armed.

MR NTSEBEZA: Yes.

DOUW VERMEULEN: We didn't use heavier calibers, AAA and birdshot, that's what we used.

MR NTSEBEZA: Okay.  Now did you not have rubber bullets?

DOUW VERMEULEN: Not as far as I can recall.

MR NTSEBEZA: If you had had rubber bullets would they not have been as effective in terms of crowd control?

DOUW VERMEULEN: To me it wasn't a matter of crowd control, to me it was an attack that had to be averted.

MR NTSEBEZA: Yes, now I am trying to picture the planning of people who wanted to effect an arrest and if an arrest couldn't be effected to defend themselves in such a way that harm doesn't happen to them but they shouldn't inflict death, I am asking your opinion as a lieutenant at the time, couldn't rubber bullets have been the thing to have used on the day?  I am asking you Mr Vermeulen as a person who was troubled by this event and who now reflects on it on what could have been done.  It's not my function to prosecute you because that's not the function of the Commission.  I want you to reflect.  Do you still think that if you had been given rubber bullets you would not have escaped with your live?

DOUW VERMEULEN: If you want my personal opinion as I sit here today, in other words if you are not asking the opinion of the person in that situation at that time, if you ask me today, Douw would you have shot rubber bullets, no I wouldn't have done that.  It's a single object about as long as this little microphone or if I give you a one and a half torchlight battery, if you use that at close range where you can actually aim at a person, I wouldn't have done that, not today and not then.

MR NTSEBEZA: If you look back on things would you not have felt the better way to handle that situation was to use teargas and then try and follow the people and arrest them?

DOUW VERMEULEN: I averted an attack which had already commenced.  Teargas would not have helped me in any way in that situation.

MR NTSEBEZA: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  Are there no further questions?  Miss Wildschut.

GLENDA WILDSCHUT: Lt Vermeulen you and I were talking about the statement you made which you agreed about the contents.  I believe you have it before you, the statement that you signed in Bellville, can we just have a look at that statement.

DOUW VERMEULEN: Yes I am looking at it.

GLENDA WILDSCHUT: Yes and then if could go down the page, probably the second last paragraph, it states,
"On the right side of the truck, that is the side of the truck where I was an adult Coloured man who had been throwing stones at the vehicle ran away in the direction of a house and he was fired at.  I do know that some of my members found this person dead, this person who had run away and was found in the house".
Do you agree that you were "firing on a Coloured man who was running away"?

DOUW VERMEULEN: I've already said, and that is why I mentioned it just now when the statement was referred to, that the placing of the words in the sentence, it should have read, "stones being thrown, he was fired at and he ran away".  That is how it should have read.  I can't explain today why it is written as it is written there.  Yes, I signed the statement as it stands there but that is not what I meant that day when I made the statement to Sgt Steyn.

GLENDA WILDSCHUT: Madam Chair, we've been through this before.  You will remember before Mr Ntsebeza questioned Mr Vermeulen, we agreed that he will stand by the contents that are in this statement.  I would really not like us to go through that again because it is on record, he agreed that he put his signature to this statement and that he agrees with the content.  I am merely reading what is written here.  Can I please ask the question again, do you ...(intervention)

ADV VAN ZYL: Madam Chair may I just understand, is that supposed to mean that the witness is not allowed to explain himself?

CHAIRPERSON: My understanding is Miss Wildschut is following up with a question arising out of what she has read, is that correct?

GLENDA WILDSCHUT: Madam Chair the question is quite simple. I read what Mr Vermeulen had given a statement under oath which he agrees about the contents, I am asking whether he agrees that a man who was running away was fired at.

DOUW VERMEULEN: That is why I told you, well let me be quite blunt.  The wording as it appears there is incorrect and that is not what I had meant to say that day although I signed the statement.  I had nothing to measure the statement against on the day of the 19th of October, I don't even know whether I was in a hurry on that day, I can't even remember when and where and in what circumstances the statement was taken down.  That is why I qualified myself by saying that it should read, "stones were thrown, he was fired at and he ran away", that is the correct order, and that is why I qualified it.

GLENDA WILDSCHUT: Maybe we should seek qualification for another paragraph which is on the second page Mr Vermeulen, it's the paragraph before you put in the statement that you are conversant with the content of this document and I will read it in Afrikaans.  It says,
"I am aware of the contents of this statement and I am aware I have no objections to the taking of the prescribed oath and I consider the prescribed oath as binding on my conscience".
Now just before that paragraph it is written,
"We only fired at those people who were throwing stones at the truck and therefore the people who were killed were definitely people who had taken part in the stone-throwing".
Are you standing by that statement?