AMNESTY HEARING

DATE: 03-07-1997

ADV VISSER: Can we call Mr Dreyer, Mr Chairman?

PIETER ANDRIES DREYER: (sworn states)

CHAIRMAN: Mr Visser?

EXAMINATION BY ADV VISSER: Mr Dreyer, you are one of the applicants for amnesty before this Commission and your application is found on B122 of the bundle of documents.

Your application is set out in your amnesty application and do you confirm the correctness of your application? Do you also confirm that it is the truth?

MR DREYER: That is correct yes.

ADV VISSER: Your experience and career in the police was set out on pages 122 to 123, did you read that again?

MR DREYER: Yes.

ADV VISSER: And is that correct?

MR DREYER: With one amendment, yes.

ADV VISSER: Which is that?

MR DREYER: Paragraph 8(b).

ADV VISSER: Paragraph 8(b), yes?

MR DREYER: Number 4.

ADV VISSER: Number 4?

MR DREYER: That must be Mooirivier.

ADV VISSER: Not Witrivier, but Mooirivier.

MR DREYER: And number 5 must be Ingwavuma and not Inkswavuma.

ADV VISSER: Ingwavuma, yes.

MR DREYER: That is correct.

ADV VISSER: Apart from that, the rest is all correct?

MR DREYER: Yes.

ADV VISSER: Mr Dreyer you have referred to the Foundation for Equality before the Law of Submission and also to General Van der Merwe's submission and you ask that we incorporate it in your application as well as Mr Erwee's affidavit where he refers to the facts of the events, is that correct?

You've listened to his evidence, do you confirm his evidence in broad terms?

MR DREYER: Yes, I do.

ADV VISSER: You are requesting amnesty for the incident which took place on the 10th of July 1986 and for any offence of delict associated with it.

Could you tell the Committee were you at that stage stationed at Louis Trichardt?

MR DREYER: I was the Branch Commander.

ADV VISSER: And the judicial inquest was apparently finalised in Louis Trichardt?

MR DREYER: Yes.

ADV VISSER: And the documentation which was provided for purposes of the inquest fell under your command?

MR DREYER: Correct.

ADV VISSER: And we have heard from Mr Erwee that it was intentionally a watered down submission, the full facts were not revealed?

MR DREYER: That is correct.

ADV VISSER: Although the fact that were given, were mainly correct, the full facts and the full causal sequence and names of participants were not revealed?

MR DREYER: Correct.

ADV VISSER: And you were Mr Swarts' immediate superior?

MR DREYER: Correct.

ADV VISSER: And what he did, you knew about?

MR DREYER: Correct.

ADV VISSER: And you thought it fit to accept it like that and let it go like that?

MR DREYER: Yes.

ADV VISSER: Could you tell the Committee why you acted in that way?

MR DREYER: Chairperson, I didn't think that the omission of these facts would cause the court to come to a different conclusion. I also did it because I believed that the incorporation of these facts would protect the lives of the members who took part in the operation, that is now Sehlwana and the informer.

ADV VISSER: And within the ambit of that which became known as the struggle in that time, you felt that you were acting in a justifiable manner?

MR DREYER: Yes.

ADV VISSER: And if Swarts acted, he acted according to your instructions and also those of Erwee?

MR DREYER: Correct.

ADV VISSER: According to the evidence we know that there were five identity books found on the bodies of the insurgents. Can you from your personal knowledge of the inquiry made to Home Affairs, were these identity books of any value for identification purposes?

MR DREYER: Apart from the photographs in the ID books, it had no value as identification tools.

ADV VISSER: So you couldn't identify anybody on the basis of an ID book?

MR DREYER: That is so, they were all false books, ID books.

ADV VISSER: And the identification of the three people which could eventually be done, how was that done?

MR DREYER: The finger prints were taken of all six corpses, sent to the Department of Home Affairs and the identification of three could be made afterwards on that basis, but three could not be identified.

ADV VISSER: You were present at the scene when the shooting took place?

MR DREYER: Yes.

ADV VISSER: Where were you placed?

MR DREYER: I was in the little dry river bed next to Johan van Dyk.

ADV VISSER: Where he has already indicated where he was?

MR DREYER: Yes.

ADV VISSER: Did you fire any shots?

MR DREYER: No.

ADV VISSER: Did you think that what you did there, you did in terms of general instructions of the police and according to the general instructions of Colonel Van der Merwe in respect of what happened there that day?

MR DREYER: I believed that yes.

ADV VISSER: Do you believe that you did anything wrong there?

MR DREYER: No.

ADV VISSER: Why are you applying for amnesty?

MR DREYER: After Colonel Erwee and I had spoken to the Investigating Officer, Mr Ivor Human and Mr Neels de Lange and they told us that a case of murder was being investigated against us, and possibly also a case of perjury and defeating the ends of justice, and also as a result of the various calls for reconciliation which had been made from such as for instance Archbishop Tutu's call that people should come and testify before the Truth Commission, I decided to apply.

ADV VISSER: One last aspect which I have been reminded of. Mr Swarts' sworn statement and which he filed during the inquest, you administered the oath there?

MR DREYER: That is correct.

ADV VISSER: Were you aware at that stage that there was wrong information contained in that statement?

MR DREYER: Yes.

ADV VISSER: And that he was therefore not the person who removed the bodies of the deceased from the scene to Alldays and that where he stated that in paragraph 4, excuse me in paragraph - it is on page - C/17, paragraph 4.

I put the two bodies in the government vehicles and under my command and supervision took them to the Alldays police station, that is not true?

MR DREYER: Chairperson, afterwards he told me that. I wasn't at the scene when the bodies were taken away. I left earlier, I was sent back to Alldays.

ADV VISSER: Yes, because as we understand it, Theuns Gerber who has since died, he was the person who received instructions from Erwee to take the bodies away?

MR DREYER: Yes.

ADV VISSER: Thank you Chairperson.

ADV VISSER: Please just a moment's indulgence. Mr Dreyer, one aspect. Thus far we haven't heard direct evidence from any of the applicants who could testify to this on the basis of their own observations.

Do you perhaps know whether any of the Defence Force members fired at the combi? Firstly did you see it and secondly, do you have any reason to accept on the basis of inference that they did or didn't shoot?

MR DREYER: I couldn't see the combi, but afterwards I saw that the shots had been fired in the side of the combi, so my assumption was that the Defence Force members must also have fired.

ADV VISSER: In other words, not from the direction where the casspir was, but from another direction?

MR DREYER: Yes.

ADV VISSER: And you simply deduced that?

MR DREYER: Yes.

ADV VISSER: But you couldn't see it yourself?

MR DREYER: No.

ADV VISSER: Were you present when a wounded person was wounded?

MR DREYER: No.

ADV VISSER: Mr Chairman, thank you very much.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV VISSER.

ADV VISSER: It is now one o'clock, Chairperson.

CHAIRMAN: Yes, let's see how far we can go. Maybe before I allow other people to put questions to him, I am not sure I understand why you would have allowed the false information in paragraph 4 to stand.

I am trying to say to you, what harm could have been done if paragraph 4 had, because I assume that it is probably contains the untruth or unless I am wrong, paragraph 4 of Mr Swarts' affidavit, what harm could have been done if for example paragraph 4 had said that the person who transported the bodies, was Gerber?

MR DREYER: I don't think any harm could have been done. The fact of the matter is that Blackie Swart made a statement to keep the evidence as short as possible, otherwise a whole chain of statements would have had to be taken from all the different people who dealt with the bodies.

CHAIRMAN: So one must read of course in conjunction with 5, is that the idea? Do you have a copy of this document I am talking about?

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Visser, can you give me an indication, what is false in paragraph 4?

ADV VISSER: Chairperson, this is a sworn statement which indicates that in the chain of events from where the people were injured until the point where they landed at the District Surgeon and that they didn't sustain any other injuries. Swarts is saying that he transported them.

ADV DE JAGER: No Swarts is not saying he transported them. Nowhere in that statement is he saying that.

ADV VISSER: I am sorry, I must have read it incorrectly, I apologise for wasting time, you are correct, he doesn't say so. My mistake.

I see that what you are saying is correct and I apologise.

ADV DE JAGER: The corpses were conveyed under his Command and Supervision to Alldays.

MS KHAMPEPE: But in fact it was not so Mr Visser, it was Mr Erwee who instructed that the corpses should be taken to Alldays. So in a way you are correct, that is not a true statement?

ADV VISSER: I do appreciate the attempts to come to my assistance, but I still remain wrong and I will tell you why Mr Chairman. Erwee in fact gave the instruction, but Swarts was appointed to take control of the matter as Investigating Officer and in that capacity, he may be correct when he says here that under his control.

MS KHAMPEPE: I beg to differ with you Mr Visser, I know it is your case, but wasn't Swarts instructed when all the police were at Alldays, so that would be incorrect what in standing here, would therefore be incorrect?

ADV VISSER: Mr Chairman, I am very pleased to hear that once again I was correct and not incorrect.

CHAIRMAN: Yes, well, let's take it a little bit further. With all due respect to my colleague who is Afrikaans speaking and I am not, the man says I took the corpses to the police station at Alldays.

ADV VISSER: Mr Chairman, we must really start. We don't think much turns on this, but let's analyze it. The second sentence of paragraph 4 as I read it, says this, I loaded the corpses into two government vehicles and under my command and supervision, they were taken to Alldays.

It could be correct as you've pointed out, as Mr De Jager has pointed out, that could be correct, because he could have been in a car, from where it was taken to the mortuary in Louis Trichardt.

And then we come to what you are now putting to me Mr Chairman. During the transport of the corpses to Alldays police station, none of these corpses sustained any further injuries. Well, that depends on whether he was the one that was present at all stages and as I understood the evidence, it was Mr Gerber who was the person in charge.

But for as far as he may not have set out the correct facts, this witness says that he attested to it and he knew it was watered down and ...

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Visser, I am sorry it has not been fully canvassed. But I can't imagine Mr Gerber being the only person in a bakkie, when they haven't got vehicles to transport them, that he would be the only living person in that bakkie and all the corpses at the back and nobody sitting next to him.

ADV VISSER: You are correct Mr Chairman, but we will call Swarts and he can come and tell you himself. It is not important Mr Chairman.

CHAIRMAN: Did you want to put questions Mr Rossouw?

MR ROSSOUW: I've got no questions Mr Chairman.

NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR ROSSOUW.

CHAIRMAN: Mr Black?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BLACK: I just want to clear one thing up. By the time Mr Swarts signed this affidavit, you were aware of the true facts that Gerber was in fact the person who had been the driver of the vehicle, is that so?

MR DREYER: That is correct.

MR BLACK: I am putting it, it has been put to you and you've said it, that you knew for reasons which may or may not emerge if Mr Swarts come and testify, that this wasn't entirely a correct version and that it was a watered down version. Is that so?

MR DREYER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR BLACK: Okay, thank you. And you agreed to go along with this, you colluded in this misleading statement?

MR DREYER: Yes, it is correct Chairperson.

MR BLACK: Okay. I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BLACK.

CHAIRMAN: Well, I assume you don't have to re-examine Mr Visser?

ADV VISSER: No questions in re-examination, Mr Chairman.

NO RE-EXAMINATION BY ADV VISSER.

CHAIRMAN: Thank you Mr Dreyer, you are excused.

ADV VISSER: May I respectfully suggest that we do take a lunch adjournment now Mr Chairman?

CHAIRMAN: Yes, indeed and we will start at two o'clock.

ADV VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman.

ADV VISSER: ... formalities. It has occurred to us that in the application form of Mr Dreyer, his application does not formally cover everything which he is asking amnesty for. As you know, his application form was handed in timeously and we are not aware of any regulations issued by this Committee in regard to what the position might be if he wishes to amend the application form.

We are quite happy to present you with a written application regarding a formal amendment if that is what you would require, the alternative Mr Chairman, it would seem to us to be that we would simply ask for amnesty for Mr Dreyer in terms of his application form as expounded and amplified by his evidence before you.

It is probably one of those two. I would imagine that you would rather have a proper application or a written note as to which paragraph has to be amended in which way before you, in order to consider the application. We would like you to give us some indication of how you wish us to go about it, or whether it is in order as it stands?

But we didn't specifically make mention.

CHAIRMAN: It depends on the nature of the amendment that you want.

ADV VISSER: May I explain it this way Mr Chairman? All that Dreyer said in his affidavit is that ...

CHAIRMAN: Where, ...

ADV VISSER: Mr Chairman, it is at page 123 of your Section B and I refer you to paragraph 9(a)(iv), the second paragraph, the last sentence says "I was the Branch Commander of Louis Trichardt, where the investigation was finalized under my command." That is all he says in his application form.

Technically it is not wide enough to cover his application for amnesty for whatever he may have done wrong in regard to attesting to the affidavit of Mr Swarts and as far as his knowledge goes of watering down the application in terms of the order given by Mr Erwee.

It has occurred to us Mr Chairman, that we would probably need to put something in writing to either ...

CHAIRMAN: He covered that in his evidence?

ADV VISSER: He did that Mr Chairman.

CHAIRMAN: And the only, let's look at - where does he describe the nature of the incident for which he wants amnesty, probably the first page?

ADV VISSER: It is at page 123, paragraph 9(1), he only speaks of elimination of six terrorists, it is the same as the others, Mr Chairman and there is no specific reference to this part of evidence.

CHAIRMAN: Well, that is where the amendments should come and we have in the past granted amendments asked for orally without any formalities.

ADV VISSER: Well, we would be very ...

CHAIRMAN: To include any other you know, offences for which amnesty is being sought. So you want to amend 9(a)(1)?

ADV VISSER: 9(a)(1) Mr Chairman, just by including I specifically apply for amnesty for any offence or delict as far as my participation and role as Branch Commander.

CHAIRMAN: May I suggest something?

ADV VISSER: Yes, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRMAN: Involvement and you know, don't delete that because it may cause him problems later.

ADV VISSER: Yes, no I don't want to delete anything, I am adding at the bottom. I just want to add my involvement in the investigation for the inquest. Those words or words to that effect is all that I am wishing to add.

CHAIRMAN: Yes, just give us the words as you want them to be.

ADV VISSER: I specifically also apply for amnesty by virtue of my involvement in the investigation and preparation for the inquest file.

It is probably not a fortunate choice of words, but I think it will convey what we want to say.

CHAIRMAN: Yes, will it be able to identify the nature of the crime?

ADV VISSER: Yes, Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, for the same technical reasons, could we ask for the same amendment in the same paragraph on behalf of Erwee and Van Dyk and Swarts of course.

Erwee being at page 4.

CHAIRMAN: Just give us the names, we will find them later.

ADV VISSER: Yes, Mr Chairman. It is Erwee, Swarts and Van Dyk. We are indebted to you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRMAN: Well, the amendments are granted.

ADV VISSER: May it please you Mr Chairman.

--------------------------