Amnesty Hearings — Port Elizabeth — 1997-09-22

GERRIT NICHOLAS ERASMUS: During this discussion Mr Chairman, all options were considered, it was not only a once off discussion as I've told you previously, this went on for a few days.  Finally when the decision was taken - I think it was shortly before that time, what happened was that the people informed me that the situation was going in a direction where these people were swearing revenge against the security police and they believed that these people - because weapons were involved there was intelligence about weapons, about weapon caches and trained people, that these people could enforce this threat.

MR PHOSA: Well all that's said - so just deal with the final decision.  I want to hear what was said and who said what so as to say: "now they must be killed".

GERRIT NICHOLAS ERASMUS: At this stage I'm unable to say the du Plessis for example, has said this.  They reported certain information which they had gathered by means of informers and this cumulated in this presentation or submission to me.  I could not remember specifically what du Plessis said but this whole discussion centred around this specific incident.

MR PHOSA: I was trying to be perhaps fair to you, on your story it would seem that they were suggesting to you that: "Man, nothing else can be done now, we want these two persons killed", they were making that suggestion to you, isn't that so?

GERRIT NICHOLAS ERASMUS: It is like that, they made certain suggestions to me.

MR PHOSA: So, in fairness to you insofar as one can be fair to you, you were reacting ...[intervention]

MR VISSER: Well with what - with respect Mr Chairman, what does that mean?  Can't we be civil to each other, with great respect.

MR PHOSA: You can hardly expect that I, speaking on behalf of the parents of children who were eliminated in this fashion, can possibly have questions that are fair to him.  I don't imagine that they are fair ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: They should certainly be fair, they may not be friendly but we are not going to have unfair questions Mr PHOSA.

MR PHOSA: Mr Chairman, all I asked was the question being asked: "What do I mean", I'm putting questions that are technically fair but I don't think they are fair to ...[inaudible] can view them as being fair.  I meant it only in that sense.  In any event, let me go on with the question I was asking, it will clear up.
	As between you and these other persons, when you made the decision you were saying only what you felt was the logical conclusion of what they'd come for?

GERRIT NICHOLAS ERASMUS: In the final stage when this final report - after these people went back and discussed to determine whether there were any other channels or options which could be followed, we discussed this incident for a whole morning to decide or to try and determine what to do in this regard.  This - after 15 years, this is what I can remember and I can say we just did not decide quickly to eliminate these people, it was after long consideration considering all these options, to think about court actions, detention and other things, we considered all those.  It took a long time to come to this decision and in the end it was an extremely difficult decision we all made at that stage.

MR PHOSA: That's what I've been trying to get at, it was a joint decision.

GERRIT NICHOLAS ERASMUS: We took the decision jointly but I was the commanding officer and I have to accept responsibility for the decision.

ADV SANDI: Can I interrupt Mr Phosa, just for clarity.
	Mr Erasmus, are you in other words saying you as the senior person to these gentlemen - these security officers who came to you, you were being asked to give a permission that the plan of action be proceeded with, is that what you're saying?  They were asking for permission from you to eliminate these two gentlemen?

GERRIT NICHOLAS ERASMUS: You could put it that way.  I as the senior officer in the organisation at that stage and locally, had to accept responsibility for it.

ADV SANDI: You accordingly gave the permission that they should be killed or eliminated, in your jargon.

GERRIT NICHOLAS ERASMUS: In my evidence in chief I said that I did give the permission.

MR PHOSA: Did you perchance say to them in the course of these deliberations - in all these days, "But you know gentlemen I've got a problem, I am worried by what I did to Kondile man, it worries me, I have difficulty, that thing keeps worrying me".  Did you say that to them?

GERRIT NICHOLAS ERASMUS: I would not be able to tell you at this stage that we discussed Kondile at all in this particular instance and you must realise - I'm assuming that you've never been in such a position, that you don't talk about those things, you never ever want to repeat it again, you don't want to refer to it, you want to forget it.

MR PHOSA: There's an extent to which I can say, I understand you.   I have represented people who have been charged with murder and I know they behave and how they think but I personally have not been.  However, to get back to your position, at one stage I understood - it may not be your fault, that the decision was made 10 days before the actual incident - event, but it appears that the first discussion was 10 days before but the ultimate decision was much later, isn't it?  The ultimate decision was much later than 10 days before?

GERRIT NICHOLAS ERASMUS: That is so.  The decision was taken at a later stage and the reporting took place about  or started about 10 days before the time but I was not satisfied with the information obtained at that stage and I said: "Look, bring me everything, all the information that you have regarding these people" and that's how matters continued for a while.  And I can't say what happened on day 7 or day 8 or what specifically happened on each day but the final decision was taken closer to this date of the 14th.

MR VISSER: The interpretation missed out on the phrase that it - with respect Mr Chairman, that it lasted for a period of 10 days.  That phrase was not interpreted, I think it needs to be on record.

ADV SANDI: Did the witness say the discussions went on for a period of 10 days?

MR VISSER: It stretched over a period of 10 days, he said in Afrikaans but that was not translated.

ADV SANDI: Can we perhaps ask the witness to repeat what he has just said, so that we can get proper and accurate interpretation.

GERRIT NICHOLAS ERASMUS: Chairperson, what I said was: "The discussion of this matter took place over a period of about 10 days, over that period.  I can't say what happened on day 1 and what happened on day 2 or 3 of whatever, but it lasted for a period of about 10 days.

MR PHOSA: I can therefore correctly say to the Committee that Mr Erasmus had ample time to reflect upon whether or not to eliminate these two young people, isn't that so?

GERRIT NICHOLAS ERASMUS: That is correct.

MR PHOSA: Now, who decided that the 14th was going to be the date?

GERRIT NICHOLAS ERASMUS: I can't think as to why the 14th specifically was decided about or on, the specific handling of this case was left to my colleagues and I didn't take part in this operation any further so I can't really tell you how the date of the 14th was determined, I can only make certain assumptions.

MR PHOSA: Let's just go through the following steps quickly.  Did you know before the 14th, that is was going to be the 14th?  Did you personally know that, that this is going to happen on the 14th? - before the 14th?

GERRIT NICHOLAS ERASMUS: I didn't know.

GERRIT NICHOLAS ERASMUS: Were you told on the 14th that on the 14th that: "We are going to do it today"?

GERRIT NICHOLAS ERASMUS: Chairperson, I was told when these people had been picked up or abducted, then I was informed.