Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1998-06-09

ADV BOSMAN: At this roadhouse did you tell them anything further about the order that you received?
		MR KLOPPERS:  No, I did not tell them what the purpose of the work was.   When we left from there, it was clear that we had too many vehicles and I knew that, I knew I what our objectives was, we had to go and set up a roadblock as General Oelofse instructed me."
But what I'm saying is, that is clearly already a contradiction to Kloppers' own application, as set out in paragraph 17 on page 12, because there he clearly states in Afrikaans:-
"I conveyed to them the instruction of General Oelofse."
Which clearly conveys that there at the roadhouse already I told them exactly what the orders of Oelofse was.   I can't see any other explanation.   But the problem that I have is that there's a constant changing around of the stage at which certain orders were given.

CHAIRPERSON: But that's a different thing.   What Mr Prinsloo is objecting against is the premise on which your question is based.   You asked the witness the question on the premises that Kloppers said that he conveyed all these at the roadhouse in his evidence.   Mr Prinsloo says no, that's not the case.

MR DREYER: As it pleases you, Mr Chairman, (indistinct).

CHAIRPERSON: What point you want to deal with these contradictions is of course up to you, but what I'm saying to you is that your question must be correctly premised.

MR DREYER: I will rephrase it, Mr Chairman.   Let's start at the start, because we don't want there to be any doubt.  Do you accept now, for the purposes of my question, I've read you a bit from the record which was testified by Kloppers and what he said in his application, do you agree with me that there's a difference?

ANDRE FRANCOIS VISSER: Chairperson, if I can just say something, on page 12, Mr Kloppers there gave us certain instructions at the roadblock, he didn't give us all the instructions, he only said that there had to be bodies and that's what Oelofse told him, that the revolution is about to begin and that he gave us the weapons.

CHAIRPERSON: (Inaudible)?

ANDRE FRANCOIS VISSER: That is correct, Chairperson, at the plot at Mr Martin we were told that we have to have a roadblock.  So, Chairperson, all the instructions were not given at the roadside cafe, one was held back until we got to the plot of Mr Martin, and there that instruction was given to us.

MR DREYER: I understand and I hear your explanation, but let's look at the logic behind your explanation, firstly referring to Kloppers' application, and once again I'm going to read this to you, it's paragraph 17
"At nine o'clock I arrived at the roadside cafe and Deon Martin brought the men to attention.   I told them that the waiting was over and that the revolution would start all over the country on that specific day.   I also conveyed to them the instructions of General Oelofse."
And you are saying it's not the complete instruction, but let's go further:-
"They were told that General Oelofse wanted to see corpses and the pipeshot guns were also given to Martin, sir, and Visser, and I gave them instruction that we have to set up a roadblock."
Now where in this application does it say that "we left there and then we went to Deon Martin's house and there I gave them instruction regarding the roadblock"?

ANDRE FRANCOIS VISSER: Chairperson, there where he says
"I gave them instruction to set up a roadblock where people would be questioned",
and that we'd also take the weapons and ammunition, this was said later to us.   Maybe it isn't put correctly here.

MR DREYER: But, sir, my problem here is, he goes further and he says, he gives the instruction regarding the roadblock, but according to his application you still haven't left the roadside cafe, because in the next paragraph, paragraph 18 starts with
"We had too many vehicles for the operation and we left some of the vehicles at Jaco Borden's house."
Now it's quite obvious that you are moving away from the roadside cafe, and if I can refer or compare it once again with page 249 of the records, then once again it seems that they drove with the vehicles, because there were too many vehicles and this is not coherence with the evidence.   The application and the evidence of Klopper does not agree with each other, do you agree with that?

ANDRE FRANCOIS VISSER: Yes, I do agree with that.

CHAIRPERSON: But that, because that's my problem, why are you taxing this witness about contradictions in Kloppers' case, why didn't you tax Kloppers himself?

MR DREYER: Because, Mr Chairman, first of all, I didn't have Mr Kloppers' version on record before, because I only received the record yesterday, that is my first problem, so I couldn't go along and... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Now what do you want him to do about Kloppers' contradictions in Kloppers' own evidence?

MR DREYER: Judge, all I would like to know is whether he, he also understand, or take it, that there's a difference between Kloppers' evidence on that point and his... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Whether he accepts it or not, is immaterial to us.   We see it, even if he says it's not there, it doesn't matter, we see it, we don't need his evidence to confirm to us that there is such a contradiction.

MR DREYER: Mr Chairman, all I would like to do is, obviously from the evidence it transpires that this witness and the other witnesses got their so-called command from Kloppers, which purportedly got that from Oelofse, so I just want to draw the line through, if I may.

CHAIRPERSON: Maybe you should make the point you wanted to make, if your argument is that all this supposed shifting of ground and the like, well let me put to this witness, because we need to get somewhere, these contradictions, Mr Visser, is it not an indication of the fact that, firstly, Kloppers never mentioned the name of Oelofse as the person who had given the orders?

ANDRE FRANCOIS VISSER: Chairperson, Mr Kloppers did tell us it was coming from a group and that he received instructions and gave us instructions concerning what we had to do that night, he put it to us and he told us what to do, and that he received those instructions from Oelofse.

CHAIRPERSON: Now if that is what he said, why, at one time the name of Oelofse is supposed to have been mentioned at the cafe and the next minute he was not mentioned at the cafe as to the person giving the orders, but rather at Martin's place?

ANDRE FRANCOIS VISSER: Chairperson, Kloppers could have held back some of that until we got to Martin's house and then he would have given the instruction to set up a roadblock, so I don't know why he didn't tell us everything at the roadblock.

CHAIRPERSON: The mentioning of Mr Oelofse is it not just a mere fabrication?

ANDRE FRANCOIS VISSER: I'm not, I don't understand?

CHAIRPERSON: Well, you tell us in your affidavit that Kloppers said that he had received orders from Oelofse, General Oelofse.   Isn't this not just a fabrication?   It's up to you to agree or disagree with me, but I'm asking you, because we need to make progress in this case.

ANDRE FRANCOIS VISSER: Chairperson, I accepted and assumed that Kloppers received these instructions from Oelofse.

CHAIRPERSON: Maybe Kloppers never even mentioned the name of Oelofse that evening?

ANDRE FRANCOIS VISSER: Chairperson, he did mention Oelofse's name.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR DREYER: Referring to your answer to the Chairperson now, you said that you assumed he received these instructions, you have no other confirmation that he did indeed receive these instructions?

ANDRE FRANCOIS VISSER: If he came from a group where orders were given, and this was at General Oelofse's house, then it must be obvious and logical that he had received these instructions from General Oelofse.

MR DREYER: But you believe so because he said so and he was head commander of that division and it's on that basis that you accept it?