Human Rights Violation Hearings — Pollsmoor — 1997-02-17

ADV POTGIETER: Were you given any background to this operation - were you ever told during this briefing in the morning before the incident what this was all about?

MR STERRENBERG: No sir the only thing we were told was that an ambush was planned on - an ambush had been planned on a  vehicle that was to transport members of the police to the Guguletu police station.

ADV POTGIETER: You were not told how this information was obtained by the police.

MR STERRENBERG: From informers that were available to the Security Branch.

ADV POTGIETER: You didn't know that Sergeant Bellingham which I assume you knew at that stage.

MR STERRENBERG: No I didn't know him sir, that was the first time I had ever seen him.

ADV POTGIETER: You didn't know that he was from Vlakplaas.

MR STERRENBERG: No sir I assumed he was from Security Head Office.

ADV POTGIETER: Did you know that there were Askari's - so-called rehabilitated freedom fighters who were deployed as part of this operation, the built up  to this operation?

MR STERRENBERG: At that stage sir I wasn't a fey with the term Askari, I assumed they were informers.

ADV POTGIETER: You didn't know at that stage in 1986 that there were these so-called rehabilitated captured freedom fighters who were used by the police in combating terrorism as they put it then.

MR STERRENBERG: As informers ja - I knew they were used as informers.

ADV POTGIETER: So you knew that there were these rehabilitated freedom fighters.

MR STERRENBERG: I knew it on the basis of what they told me yes.

ADV POTGIETER: And did you know that it was this type of informer that was involved in this operation.

MR STERRENBERG: That is correct sir.

ADV POTGIETER: you were not told that there was an infiltration of a group of persons who were believed to have been involved in the unrest and the trouble that was happening in the Western Cape at that stage.

MR STERRENBERG: Sir at time we were told that informers had been in contact with a group of people who were going to launch this attack on the police vehicle.

ADV POTGIETER: Now  you see there has been this perspective on this case which - which has arisen from some of the testimony and the circumstances surrounding this case, and it was another issue that was raised on your behalf that this was a Vlakplaas operation and that these people were executed as part of the Vlakplaas modus operandi which we have come to learn such a lot about in recent times.
 You follow that you do - you do follow that there was that sort of perspective which has been put onto this case.

MR STERRENBERG: I am aware of that perspective sir.

ADV POTGIETER: What is your comment on that?

MR STERRENBERG: Sir if there was any connection of this nature - I would surely hope that this Commission would find out who was behind it, because then I feel that as a police officer I had been used by these people.

ADV POTGIETER: So you - your view is that if there is any truth in that - that you had been abused by some of your colleagues.

MR STERRENBERG: That is correct Your Worship.

ADV POTGIETER: Now you were issued with a shotgun it seems.

MR STERRENBERG: That is correct Your Worship.

ADV POTGIETER: What sort of shotgun were you issued with.

MR STERRENBERG: I think it was SSG.

ADV POTGIETER: SSG.

MR STERRENBERG: That's correct ja.

ADV POTGIETER: And you had said to my colleague Ms Gobodo-Madikizela that your brief was to arrest.

MR STERRENBERG: That is correct ja.

ADV POTGIETER: SSG can you explain to us a bit more about SSG - how lethal is it - how - how normal is it to use SSG in an urban situation and so on, just tell us  more about SSG.

MR STERRENBERG: It is an extremely lethal cartridge sir which can cause death as any other firearm can.

ADV POTGIETER: But in the range of shot that one can use in a shotgun, where does one place that in terms of how lethal it is.

MR STERRENBERG: I should say up to about 50 - 70 meters it could be lethal - depending on how much further the projector [indistinct] can travel.

ADV POTGIETER: Is it - perhaps I must put it more clearly to you to respond is SSG the most lethal type of shot that one can use in a shotgun.

MR STERRENBERG: I think there are more lethal types of shot available than SSG.

ADV POTGIETER: But in terms of the normal shot that [intervention]

MR STERRENBERG: It is a heavier type of shot than normal birdshot for example.

ADV POTGIETER: So it is more heavy -  more dangerous more lethal.

MR STERRENBERG: That is correct yes.

ADV POTGIETER: Than the ordinary kind of shot that is used in say a situation of riot.

MR STERRENBERG: That is correct sir.

ADV POTGIETER: And the likelihood if one fires SSG at somebody - would you agree I mean there is a high - a very high likelihood of killing that person.

MR STERRENBERG: That is correct Your Worship if you should hit that person.

ADV POTGIETER: Now assume you want to arrest somebody and you have a choice of shot that you using, what kind of shot would you use - would you use the lighter shot that would incapacitate the person or would you use this lethal SSG that - as a high likelihood of killing.

MR STERRENBERG: It would depend on the situation and what resistance or force was being offered in order to avoid the arrest or to protect people from being attacked by another with a firearm.

ADV POTGIETER: Were you issued with any other kind of shot?

MR STERRENBERG: No sir.

ADV POTGIETER: So you were only issued with this heavy shot.

MR STERRENBERG: That is correct sir.

ADV POTGIETER: You could have been issued with lighter shot.

MR STERRENBERG: We could have been but in the situation there was a possibility that an attack could have been carried out on us.

ADV POTGIETER: Yes and how does that - how does that prevent you from being issued with lighter shot?

MR STERRENBERG: Well if you are being subjected to an attack and there was information that indicated an attack would be carried out with firearms - then that would have been the best option in the situation.

ADV POTGIETER: But you see if I understand your evidence correctly you were part of a stopper group - you were never going to be part of the conflict - you were never going to be part of the actual fighting you were on the preferable in the bushes.

MR STERRENBERG: That is correct sir.

ADV POTGIETER: Waiting for anybody that might run away.

MR STERRENBERG: That is correct.

ADV POTGIETER: So that you can arrest a person.

MR STERRENBERG: Then I would do it on foot by actually physically containing or confounding the body of the person fleeing.  Unless that person offered resistance in the form of a firearm.

ADV POTGIETER: No but you see that's my difficulty - that was your role to arrest people who might flee after an attack - why are you issued with a more lethal shot SSG.

MR STERRENBERG: To be prepared in the event that an attack was carried out against us.

ADV POTGIETER: No but I think you agree with me you were not in the direct line of that attack you were sort of a backup.

MR STERRENBERG: I was a backup but also subjected to the same possibility of attack in the event somebody did escape yes.

ADV POTGIETER: Ja - no-no that's fine I can understand that.  But what I can't understand  is why you were not issued with lighter shot - particularly in fact why you wouldn't have been issued with both - perhaps if there was going to be a situation where you might be drawn into some conflict that you were given some SSG but because your primary role was to backup and to arrest that you would be issued with lighter sort of first time around - I have got difficulty perhaps you can help us.

MR STERRENBERG: Ja if no - if no resistance was offered sir then it wouldn't have been necessary to have recourse to firearms in other words I would physically have arrested the person without having recourse to firearm or the use of a firearm.