CHAIRPERSON: We are resuming with the matter of Andre Visser and others and I think when we last stopped Mr Kloppers was about to be re-examined by Mrs Van der Walt.
ADV BOSMAN: Mr Kloppers if I understand correctly you confirmed that you would speak the truth and that you didn't want to take the oath?
MR KLOPPERS: That's correct.
ADV BOSMAN: Do you confirm that the evidence which you will deliver will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
MR KLOPPERS: Yes I confirm that.
CHAIRPERSON: Mrs Van der Walt.
EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you Chairperson. Firstly regarding the video tape which we looked at involving a speech by Mr Eugene Terreblanche, you requested me to transcribe the portion which I in fact did. I attempted and I'm still attempting, the SABC only has that portion of the speech if I might submit it? I don't know what the last exhibit number was. Mr Brink what is the last number?
CHAIRPERSON: Could it have been anything beyond C? The last one I think was C, I'm not sure, I think so. Well let us follow the usual procedures just in case there's a D and an E and an F somewhere, which I'm not sure there is. We will just say this one is EXHIBIT 1.
MS VAN DER WALT: Exhibit 1, thank you Chairperson. Mr Kloppers when you were under cross examination and in terms of questions which were asked by the Honourable Panel, you mentioned and also referred to your amnesty application where you would have received an order from General Constand Viljoen to perform certain deeds. I would like to know from you exactly what you meant by that.
MR KLOPPERS: I would just like to rectify that in this light that although it filtered through as such, that was not my intention. I did not receive any orders from General Constand Viljoen at any time. Constand Viljoen was the chief figure in 1993 in the whole right wing organisation by which the leader, Eugene Terreblanche said he would be his Corporal, I assumed that he was also the head and through the order which I received from General Oelofse, I associated it with Constand Viljoen.
MS VAN DER WALT: Let us just take this step by step. You say that Eugene Terreblanche said that he would be General Constand Viljoen's Corporal. Where was this said, do you know?
MR KLOPPERS: It was said during a meeting in Potchefstroom when Constand Viljoen entered the world of politics. He said that he would be prepared to be his Corporal and we accepted this that Constand Viljoen at that stage would take the lead with all his experience and his former position as a General in the South African Defence Force, that he would take the lead.
MS VAN DER WALT: In what would the leadership be?
MR KLOPPERS: In the revolution which we were preparing ourselves for.
MS VAN DER WALT: At that stage in what organisation did Constand Viljoen act?
MR KLOPPERS: At that stage it was the Volksfront from which he broke away ultimately and established the Vryheidsfront.
MS VAN DER WALT: The Volksfront did not only consist of members of the AWB?
MR KLOPPERS: I was a member of the Volksfront.
MS VAN DER WALT: You testified that after that meeting in Potchefstroom there were various meetings which were held in secret by Constand Viljoen, Ferdie Hartzenberg and the AWB Generals and staff?
MR KLOPPERS: That is correct.
MS VAN DER WALT: With your patience Chairperson I have here a report from the Rapport of the 2nd of March 1997 which I would like to submit, but we still have the problem of the exhibit numbers. Could I make this EXHIBIT 2 then? Thank you. I have the original newspaper report here with me. Mr Kloppers you know about the report which appeared in the Rapport which was entitled "Armed Revolution in 1994 Could Leave South Africa in Chaos".
MR KLOPPERS: I am aware of that.
MS VAN DER WALT: Furthermore it states Constand and them have the power of more than 100 000 men.
MR KLOPPERS: That is correct.
MS VAN DER WALT: There are just certain aspects which I'm going to refer to for which I want you commentary. The armed revolt which military leaders planned before the '94 elections only required the pushing of a button to begin and it had the potential to plunge South Africa into chaos and then it continues in the 4th paragraph: General Viljoen toured the country in 1993 and held many secret discussions with commanders from various units where the war plans were worked out in precise detail. Furthermore a graph or a sketch of the planning stages of this strategy is provided as well as Phase 3 which is mentioned, involving strategy, armed action. Do you know about this setup?
MR KLOPPERS: That's correct.
MS VAN DER WALT: The setup which is provided here, is that how you understood it at the meeting at Potchefstroom that General Constand Viljoen was the General who would plan the strategy?
MR KLOPPERS: Although this newspaper report only made the facts known 4 years after the fact, that is exactly what filtered through at this meeting in Potchefstroom in 1993.
MS VAN DER WALT: And that also corresponds with your evidence where you mention the secret meetings which occurred?
MR KLOPPERS: That's correct.
MS VAN DER WALT: And then it says the resistance plan was countered by internal attacks and failed as a result of internal fighting amongst the right wing groups?
MR KLOPPERS: That's correct. These problems occurred when we had already been arrested
MS VAN DER WALT: And you mentioned that Eugene Terreblanche in Potchefstroom also attended the conference and said that he would be the Corporal of Constand Viljoen?
MR KLOPPERS: That is correct.
MS VAN DER WALT: During cross examination it was put to you that Japie Oelofse didn't have the power to promote you in any way or to award you within your rank as an AWB member. Is that correct?
MR KLOPPERS: Yes, I was opposed. It was told to me that he didn't have the might or the power and he didn't do it. I have submitted the necessary proof to you which will be placed before the committee today surely.
MS VAN DER WALT: The first one which you refer to is the Witwatersrand Aerial Power where the Chief Commandant, Pierre Kloppers, received promotion to the rank of Brigadier and this was undertaken by the Commanding General, Japie Oelofse. Is that correct?
MR KLOPPERS: Yes that's correct.
MS VAN DER WALT: And the date of this document is 1/9/96?
MR KLOPPERS: That's correct.
MS VAN DER WALT: When did you receive this document and where were you?
MR KLOPPERS: This was done during 1995, during December in Johannesburg in Diepkloof Prison and I received the document later during 1996.
MS VAN DER WALT: And that was after the incident for which you are applying for amnesty?
MR KLOPPERS: That is correct. I had already been arrested and I had already served approximately two and a half years of my present sentence.
MS VAN DER WALT: I beg the patience of the committee to submit this as an exhibit. Furthermore there's a certificate which was issued to you, Chief Commandant Pierre Kloppers, for reliability and loyalty to the movement. It was issued on the 4th of December 1993. Is that correct?
MR KLOPPERS: That's correct.
MS VAN DER WALT: And it was also signed by Eugene Terreblanche and the General of the Witwatersrand Regional Power, Japie Oelofse?
MR KLOPPERS: That is correct.
MS VAN DER WALT: I also beg the indulgence of the committee to submit this as EXHIBIT 4. Furthermore you heard during cross examination that it was put to you that the order which you received from Japie Oelofse that you misinterpreted the order. What do you say about that?
MR KLOPPERS: I still maintain that I did not misinterpret it, I tried to undertake it in as far as it was possible for me to undertake it as it was explained to me.
MS VAN DER WALT: Did Mr Japie Oelofse or Eugene Terreblanche, during the last couple of weeks after the first session of the committee, visit you in prison?
MR KLOPPERS: Mr Terreblanche and General Jape Oelofse visited the prison last week, that's the Leeukop Prison. I myself did not see him, some of my men can testify as to what was said there, but I myself did not go to see him. I refused.
MS VAN DER WALT: No further questions, thank you Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS VAN DER WALT
CHAIRPERSON: Why did you not want to see him?
MR KLOPPERS: I had nothing to say to him Chairperson. At the time when we were supposed to negotiate regarding the amnesty hearing he was never available, he never made himself available and that's why I have nothing to say to him.
CHAIRPERSON: Didn't you want to say to him: listen, during the hearing there was one advocate who claimed that he was acting for you and he put to me all sorts of visions which I did not agree with and take him to task for that?
MR KLOPPERS: I am sure that he already had knowledge of that. I wasn't concerned about it.
CHAIRPERSON: You didn't want to confront him with that?
MR KLOPPERS: No I didn't want to.
MR MALAN: Mr Kloppers you testified that you refused to see him. Does that mean that he requested to see you?
MR KLOPPERS: According to the Correctional Services Authority it was said that there was a visitor for me, but I said that I wouldn't see him.
MR MALAN: Did they say that there was a visitor for you or did they say that General Oelofse asked to see you?
MR KLOPPERS: They told me that Mr Terreblanche and General Oelofse and I think Mr Van der Lange, were there.
MR MALAN: And that they'd asked to see you?
MR KLOPPERS: Yes, they'd asked to see us AWB members, they didn't name us by our names.
MR MALAN: I beg your pardon, just on this point, didn't you testify that you had resigned from the AWB?
MR KLOPPERS: That is correct.
MR MALAN: So if he wanted to see the AWBs, would he have wanted to see you?
MR KLOPPERS: Normally yes.
MR DREYER: Mr Chairman may I just enquire procedurally. There's just one matter that concerns me and that is the fact that during this phase of re-examination by my learned friend on behalf of Mr Kloppers, there was reference to certain documentation which was in fact handed up as exhibits, more particularly EXHIBIT 2. None of these material, to the best of my knowledge, was before the commission at the stage when I was busy with my cross examination so they contain new aspects so I do not want to jump ahead procedurally when I would just like to enquire whether we will be having the opportunity to at least, if new material like this is put before the commission, to put some statements or questions to the particular witness because I'm of the respectful submission that there are new facets which transpire from these documents.
CHAIRPERSON: They were in rebuttal to what you had put, not only you but everyone else, had put to the witness and I've difficulties at once with regards to EXHIBIT 2. I don't know how that could be the premise of your request to ask to put questions to the witness, unless you're referring to EXHIBIT 3?
MR DREYER: Judge I, first of all there are certain statements made in EXHIBIT 2, unless I understood it wrongly, that this was in fact proof of the fact that there was such an intended revolution or strike so I then take it that what is stated in this article that was published in the Rapport is supposed to be in accordance with the evidence of the witness and my submission is that it is not and it is also not in accordance of my version of my client and then secondly, the certificate or so-called "Certificate of Duty" that was handed up as EXHIBIT 4 is dated the 4th of December 1993, which is prior to this particular incident, so obviously the relevance of that should be taken into account, with respect.
CHAIRPERSON: Well that shouldn't be a problem to your client. EXHIBIT 2, as far as I'm concerned, is general evidence with regard to a particular situation but I don't see EXHIBIT 2 as suggesting that as purporting to say that it proves that your client gave orders to the applicant. As far as I'm concerned you - I mean you're concerned about the fact that an allegation is made against your client that he gave orders to these people that particular evening.
MR DREYER: That is so Mr Chairman. The submission that I have is simply the following that if cognisance is taken of the contents of that particular article in the Rapport, it is clearly stated in there that it was something that was supposed to take place, but in fact never took place and that in itself is contrary to the evidence of this witness that he in fact received a command that such a, as he called it "gewapende stryd" or "revolusie" was supposed to start off by the 13th of December and that is directly contrary to the contents of this article because it stated in more than one place in the article that it was supposed to take place but it in fact never took place, for certain reasons. That is the point that I'm making Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Is it the same thing? You say this newspaper says something did not take place which was supposed to have taken place.
MR DREYER: Mr Chairman if I could just - if I can phrase it like this: I started off by saying that I understood that when this particular exhibit was placed before the committee it was placed before the committee, I understood, as sort of contributory evidence that in fact there was a planning of such an operation. That's the first statement that I want to make, but if cognisance is taken of the cognisance is taken of the contents, it is clear from the contents, stated by General Viljoen, that it was in a planned stage, but nothing transpired from that and that is contrary to the evidence of this witness that in fact at some stage he did get the command to ... (intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Well do you want to put questions about this?
MR DREYER: I would put one statement ... (intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Because as I read this paper, it does not purport to say on the evening of that which we are concerned with, let's say it's March whatever - what date was it when this thing was (indistinct) taken place?
COUNSEL: 12th of December.
CHAIRPERSON: As far as I'm concerned this newspaper does not say or purport to say on the 12th of December there was a plan put forward on revolution. This doesn't say this, but if you read it as saying so well I don't know maybe you can put question to the witness, but I don't read it the same way. Does the document say that on the 12th of December there was to be a revolution?
MR DREYER: Judge with respect, the entrance to it says: "The armed resistance which military leaders had planned before the elections of 1994 ...", so it clearly refers to the latter part of 1994. That is the relevance ... (intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: It's in general.
MR DREYER: Yes as it pleases, but I'm saying that at least there's some contrary statements between the ... (intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Alright, well let's hear what you say, put it to the witness let's ... (intervention)
MS VAN DER WALT: Might I just interrupt. The entire purpose of the submission of the exhibit was to clarify how the applicant explained the actions during that time, based upon an order, how that order came from the Volksfront, from General Viljoen along with all the other parties who were involved. That is the only reason why this exhibit was submitted, only to explain and his evidence corresponds with the setup of this diagram.
CHAIRPERSON: But that is what he thought, that is what the applicant thought, as a result of the prevailing circumstances, ... (intervention)
MS VAN DER WALT: Yes, such as the meeting which he attended.
CHAIRPERSON: I think Mr Dreyer wants to say that he never thought so. Why would you say he never thought so? I would understand if you say he never got instructions from Mr Oelofse, but I have difficulties in trying to understand why you say that this applicant never thought so, never thought that the situation was so ripe for revolution and so on and so forth.
MR DREYER: Mr Chairman that is not my statement.
CHAIRPERSON: Well maybe put it - let's just hear. Ms Van der Walt let's hear what Mr Dreyer is saying, we are wasting more time.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR DREYER: As the court pleases Mr Chairman. Mr Kloppers all I want to know is whether you say that your general evidence corresponds with the content of this newspaper article?
MR KLOPPERS: That's correct.
MR DREYER: And then a further question, you say that you received an order that the revolution would begin upon that day and that it was not only a revolution or a revolt, in small terms, but that it would be a national revolution, it would have been country wide.
MR KLOPPERS: It would have been country wide.
MR DREYER: Very well, all I want to know then is that you say that the leadership figures at that point in your eyes was Constand Viljoen. Is that correct?
MR KLOPPERS: That's correct.
MR DREYER: Is that the same armed revolt aimed at the 1994 elections which is mentioned in this newspaper article?
MR KLOPPERS: This article was published in 1997.
MR DREYER: I will repeat my question. This armed revolt to which you referred in your evidence which was supposed to have begun in 1993 in December, is that the same armed revolt to which this newspaper article refers?
MR KLOPPERS: Yes, when I read the document it appears to be so.
MR DREYER: My only problem with that is that you testified that you received an order that it should begin?
MR KLOPPERS: That's correct.
MR DREYER: Then I would like to read you 4 sections of this article and await your commentary on that. The first section is in the second paragraph: Military leaders under Constand Viljoen, former Chief of Defence, were ready with an army which incorporated the entire command power and the soldiers of the Defence Force. The army with it's entire army structure would participate in the struggle. Did you take note of that?
MR KLOPPERS: Yes I did.
MR DREYER: In the first instance it is clear according to this article that it was a true and actual military struggle with military powers.
MR KLOPPERS: I think you should just read further on in the article where the AWB is mentioned.
MR DREYER: And then it says in that section that it will occur with army weapons arsenals. Why would it be necessary for you to obtain weapons when the weapons arsenals of the army would be used?
MR KLOPPERS: Once again I ask that you read the entire article, one cannot simply use one section of a document to prove the entire document itself. Our duty was to sow chaos in the urban areas, that was our problem and the rest was the problem of Constand Viljoen and his people.
MR DREYER: Furthermore I'll refer to the section which reads: The frightening magnitude of the struggle which never occurred only came to light this week. Why would military leaders such as Constand Viljoen say that it was a struggle which had never occurred if you say that you received an order that it should begin on the 13th of December 1993?
MR KLOPPERS: Is it fair to ask this question of me Chairperson?
MR DREYER: Well I'm asking you because it is contradictory with your evidence.
MR KLOPPERS: Well then you should ask Constand Viljoen. You can't ask me this question.
MR DREYER: I'm simply asking for your commentary. Do you have anything else to say?
MR KLOPPERS: Nothing.
MR DREYER: The next section: It must be emphasised that the objective of this plan of resistance was not to take over the government but to occupy a piece of land and maintain it. Would you say that that is the same in evidence as the objective which you presented to the committee?
MR KLOPPERS: That is the objective which we had in mind.
MR MALAN: I'm sorry I didn't hear the answer.
MR KLOPPERS: That is the objective which we had in mind Chairperson.
MR DREYER: I put it to you that this is contradictory to your version because your version was about a plan of resistance and specific objectives in terms of specific political organisations. It says here that it wasn't about taking over the government but occupying land.
MR KLOPPERS: The government of that time was the National Party. It was not about the National Party but about the ANC.
MR DREYER: Then the section which reads: Resistance plan thwarted by internal opposition. It would appear that factors such as weak planning by right wing political leaders and internal fighting within right wing structures has led to right wing leaders abandoning the plan. I would like to ask you if you had seen Constand Viljoen and other prominent right wing leaders as the central figures and they said that they had abandoned this plan, from where would you have received this order?
MR KLOPPERS: This plan was abandoned in the beginning of 1994. I cannot respond to that, I was already in prison by that stage.
MR DREYER: Thank you Mr Chairman I have no further statements to the witness.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DREYER
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Koetze you presented to us a document in chambers. We thought that maybe you could start putting the contents thereof to this witness and then we will see how we develop from there. We have not as yet, I have discussed with - I don't remember whether all the members of the committee were there, but we all (indistinct) that we could proceed with the remaining applicants who have not as yet testified and then the contents of your client's new version could be put to them as they proceed and then if we have to recall anybody, then it will be done at the end after the remaining applicants shall have testified. So we will start with this witness, Mr Kloppers. Mr Kloppers a further Affidavit has been presented to us, made by one of the applicants, Mr Van der Schyff, and counsel is going to put some of the contents of that Affidavit or that statement to you for your comments.
MR KLOPPERS: That will be fine, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: We are told that the applicant, Mr Van der Schyff, now sees things a little bit differently than apparently he saw them at the time when he initially filed his papers. I don't want to express myself on the nature and reasons for this, for
obvious reasons, but I think in all fairness to the witness it must be explained to him what this is all about and I suggest you do it yourself Mr Koetze.
MR KNOETZE: I agree Mr Chairman. Mr Kloppers a copy of a revised application for amnesty of Mr Van der Schyff was handed to your legal team at a previous opportunity. Did you also get a copy?
MR KLOPPERS: Yes that is correct.
MR KNOETZE: If we can begin by referring you to page 248 of the minutes of a meeting, not the revised application, but page 248.
CHAIRPERSON: Have this handed in as EXHIBIT 5, that is the amended version of Mr Van der Schyff's version.
MR KNOETZE: As you please Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman may page 248 of the record be made available to this witness please?
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, which record are you referring to?
MR KNOETZE: The minutes of the previous sitting of this committee.
CHAIRPERSON: Maybe you didn't know Mr Koetze that the last people who ever get copies of the record of such proceedings are members of the Amnesty Committee. In fact in some cases the Chairman is the very last person to get such a copy, so we don't have such copies.
MR KNOETZE: I'll speak to the naughty people Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, short pieces, I intended to read those pieces. The evidence was given in Afrikaans, the record is now in English. I take it the witness will understand. Mr Kloppers on page 248 at the bottom the record says: Kloppers", it is you who is speaking and it refers to the Road Cafe
"Commander Martin called them to attention and he saluted me. Our salute is not a normal salute, it is a boere greeting and I told the men that tonight is the real McCoy, we are going to work". Now it is my instruction that Mr Van der Schyff said that he did not hear you say at that opportunity that tonight is will be the real McCoy. What is your comment?
MR KLOPPERS: I think he will have a problem then because if I can remember correctly, all the men on that evening confirmed that they do understand what I mean so then he will have to explain why it is possible that he would be the only person who did not hear.
MR KNOETZE: What he will confirm is that you said that work will be done that evening. Can I then refer you to page 253 of the record. Approximately in the middle of the page the record says: "Mr Kloppers: every vehicle that was pulled over was searched thoroughly by my men and I tried to do most of the questioning because I used to be an Intelligence Officer along with Deon Martin, we did the questioning, namely where do they come from, where are they going and most important, to which political party were they affiliated. It was important for me to find this target group". Now regarding these statements of your Mr Van der Schyff will then say that he did not hear any of the occupants of the vehicles that evening that were stopped, except the Honda and the Cressida, were asked what their political affiliation was. What is your comment on that?
MR KLOPPERS: It could have been like that. They were supposed to or Mr Van der Schyff himself were supposed to search the vehicles so I do not know if he heard what was said.
MR KNOETZE: He furthermore says that he was aware that they were looking for a target group in order to shoot at this target group. What is your comment on that?
MR KLOPPERS: At the Road Cafe it was put clearly that it would be the real McCoy, that work would be done. At that stage I had two shotguns, or I took them from my vehicle because there were not enough weapons. The one was handed over. I did not mention this in this matter because I did not think it was important, but I will mention it now. The shotgun was handed over to Gert Diedericks and Etienne Visser. Mr Van der Schyff took the shotgun from Mr Diedericks and said: "You do not know how to shoot this thing and I will show you how to shoot Kaffirs".
MR KNOETZE: He will deny that.
MR KLOPPERS: Okay.
MR KNOETZE: The following aspect is that he will say that the first word that he heard about a plan to shoot was when Etienne Visser, second before the shooting occurred, said to him: "Prepare yourself, we are going to shoot".
MR KLOPPERS: I do not know, Mr Visser will have to clarify that Mr Chairperson.
MR KNOETZE: I do not know if you understand the implication of this. It means that it was not said beforehand to my client that there will be a shooting, but only seconds before the shooting occurred.
MR KLOPPERS: Mr Chairperson I put it clearly to all applicants that this is the real McCoy, that we are going out to work, that there will be corpses, that the target group is our ANC alliance. If he did not hear that I can say again that he's got a problem then because the other soldiers, my other soldiers definitely heard what I said.
MR KNOETZE: Can I then refer you to page 258. From line 7 you gave the following evidence: "It is what I alone said. I said that these are ANC people, this is our target group, these are the people who we are going to shoot", Mrs Van der Walt: "Very well, proceed". Mr Kloppers: "We formed a line where upon I told my second in command to remember that he was the one who had to fire the first shot". Mrs Van der Walt: "Who was that?". Mr Kloppers: "Deon Martin, he had a pump action shotgun with which he fired the first shot". Mrs Van der Walt: "How would the other persons have know when the first shot was fired that they were also supposed to fire?". Mr Kloppers: "When we stood in the group I told them clearly when the first shot is fired you must commence shooting". Now concerning this part of your evidence, Mr Van der Schyff will say that he was not part of this call group where this discussion could possibly have taken place so he did not hear of that.
MR KLOPPERS: In that case I would agree with Mr Van der Schyff that he was not part of the group.
MR KNOETZE: Furthermore he says that he was unaware of the arrangements that Deon Martins would be the sign for the others to also shoot.
MR KLOPPERS: That will be a problem because the instruction would then have been done by Etienne Visser and would then have been incorrect and that was the instruction that was given to all applicants.
MR KNOETZE: If I can then refer you to page 288 of the record, from line 11. There you say: "In my mind that Mr Van der Schyff, that he would not follow the order precisely. The order was that there had to be bodies and our target group was the ANC, SACP alliance persons. Therefore I had not doubt that he would comply with the order". Mr Koetze: "You say that despite the fact that he had to kill people, which according to the law of our country was an offence?". Mr Kloppers: "According to the laws of the country it was illegal to kill people, but according to me it was a guerrilla war". Mr Koetze: "About what you said at the Roadside Cafe and what you said that the revolution would start that day". Mr Kloppers: "That is correct, I made them understand that the revolution was not starting in Randfontein area, but country wide and that us as a group, at Randfontein, we would act in Randfontein area". Concerning this part of your evidence he will say that he never heard you say that the General wanted to see corpses.
MR KLOPPERS: I made it very clear at the Roadside Cafe that every person that was involved would have the opportunity to oppose this, to turn away, walk away and not execute this instruction. All I want to say I gave the instruction there and once again it would only have been him who did not hear that.
MR KNOETZE: He will also add that he was unaware of the fact that you were looking for an ANC, SACP target.
MR KLOPPERS: It could be that he said that Mr Chairperson.
MR KNOETZE: He will furthermore say that the revolution would start that specific evening. What is you comment on that?
MR KLOPPERS: Once again I have to say to you Mr Chairperson that it depends on what the other applicants say who must still appear, but so far as I know everybody heard me very clearly who our target group was, that the revolution started that evening and that there will be corpses.
MR KNOETZE: The same for the section in page 289 where Mr Van der Schyff said to you: "When you told this to your fellow applicants, when you referred to the start of the revolution: this was the real McCoy, there had to be corpses, did you convey this in your capacity as commander in this region?". I retract that statement of Mr Van der Schyff, he does not support that anymore. If I can refer you to EXHIBIT 5, that is the amended application for amnesty by Marthinus Lodewickes van der Schyff. The manner in which it was complied was that the passages underlined must be inserted into the original and that the parts in-between in brackets must be taken out. If we for example look at page 3, the third paragraph, then you will see that he's evidence will be that the instruction to work entailed that there must be a roadblock and - page 3, paragraph 3 Milord of the amended application of amnesty. That is EXHIBIT 5. May I proceed Mr Chairman? I refer you once again to paragraph 3 on page 3. The content of that paragraph is as follows: that Mr Van der Schyff at the Road Cafe did not know what the work for the evening would be. Could you comment on that please? That is was only said later what the work would be.
MR KLOPPERS: That is correct, Mr Van der Schyff ... (inaudible - end of tape)
MR KNOETZE: ... (inaudible) to look on Black motorists for illegal weapons?
MR KLOPPERS: That was part of the instruction Mr Chairperson.
MR KNOETZE: I have already put it to you that he will deny that and by implication, denies this paragraph that the instruction was to look for a target group consisting of ANC, SACP alliance and he did not know anything about that.
MR KLOPPERS: Then it will only be him Mr Chairperson who did not understand it correctly.
MR KNOETZE: Then if I could refer you to page 5, the third paragraph where he says: "I moved away from the scene and on the roadside of the Honda, I stood there. Mr Visser came to me and said to me: "Prepare yourself we are going to shoot", and that was the first time that I heard that we are going to shoot at people. The next moment shooting started and it was chaos. Then a paragraph is deleted. "I went to the front part of the Honda and fired two shots with the homemade shotgun in the direction of the Black people. I do not know if I hit someone, but it is possible that it could have been the case. The shooting carried on for a few seconds and then ceased". The implication, once again as I put it to you, is that he then heard for the first time, seconds before the shooting, that he will have to shoot.
MR KLOPPERS: He will be the only one of the applicants who heard the instruction then. Like I said, the instruction was given earlier on that it will be the real McCoy.
MR KNOETZE: And then regarding the application, page 9. If I can refer you to the top paragraph. It reads as follows: "Regarding the roadblocks and the shootings, I received my instruction from Kloppers and Deon Martins, although the first mention played the leading role. If I can make it clear regarding the shooting, it is actually Etienne Visser as the messenger and through him I received the instruction".
MR KLOPPERS: I agree with that.
MR KNOETZE: So you confirm then that under instruction of you and Deon Martins, he acted on the instruction?
MR KLOPPERS: That is correct yes.
MR KNOETZE: You see another aspect of the applications is that Mr Van der Schyff told me and my legal team, or gave us instruction that he was not detained with the rest of the applications, he was in another jail.
MR KLOPPERS: That is correct Mr Chairperson.
MR KNOETZE: And he also mentioned that at certain stages there was tension between you and the rest of the group.
MR KLOPPERS: That is correct.
MR KNOETZE: Mr Chairman I beg leave to hand up a copy of a letter which has already been made available to legal representatives of this applicant. Mr Chairman I beg leave to hand up the original to yourself. May this be marked EXHIBIT 6 Mr Chairman. Mr Kloppers have you had time to look through the document?
MR KLOPPERS: That is correct yes.
MR KNOETZE: Do you confirm that it is a letter written by yourself?
MR KLOPPERS: That is correct.
MR KNOETZE: Written to Mr Van der Schyff?
MR KLOPPERS: That is correct Mr Chairman.
MR KNOETZE: Could you just please read it aloud for the record? Read it please.
MR KLOPPERS: Would you like me to read it out loud?
MR KNOETZE: Yes please.
MR KLOPPERS: I find it difficult to speak constantly. Would it be in order if my legal representative reads it for me.
MR KLOPPERS: I will read it then.
CHAIRPERSON: Read it onto the record Mr Koetze.
MR KNOETZE: I beg your pardon.
CHAIRPERSON: You don't mind reading it?
MR KNOETZE: No I don't mind reading it. Will you please correct me if I make a reading mistake. Is that your handwriting?
MR KLOPPERS: That is correct yes.
MR KNOETZE: On the right hand corner: PC Kloppers, 943251. Is that correct?
MR KLOPPERS: Yes.
MR KNOETZE: Pretoria Maximum Prison Service, it's 20 June 1995. Is it the date when this document was written?
MR KLOPPERS: Yes.
MR KNOETZE: Referred to Mr Van Der Schyff, 94271489. Is that my client?
MR KLOPPERS: That's your client.
MR KNOETZE: Pretoria Maximum Correctional Service. Regarding irregularities in the AWB Rank. It came under my attention that apart from the certain instructions from the leader of the AWB, through the General Staff Group, that none of the AWB members in detention or their respective family members, must become involved in negotiations with the government as it is contrary to instructions and a selfish action which was initiated by you individually. (Transcriber’s translation). This was discussed with Oelofse on 16 June 1995 on which he gave the following instruction: Firstly that you, as soon as possible, must explain this in writing, for consideration and secondly that the Generals will consider retracting all financial assistance. It is even possible that the names of the AWB negotiation list for amnesty will be deleted. Before the beginning of your own negotiations you were asked to act very carefully and to put everything else in the background. You were disloyal and in the disloyal action you showed that you do no carry the interest of the rest of the group and it could be that the complete negotiation development can be undermined. PJ Kloppers. And did you sign there?
MR KLOPPERS: Yes I did.
MR KNOETZE: The intention of this letter was written to the AWB headquarters.
MR KLOPPERS: That is correct, yes.
MR KNOETZE: I put it to you that the tension between you and Van der Schyff led to him making his own application, individually, and through his own lawyers, prepared by them as well while the rest of you had the opportunity to work together making use of the same legal team.
MR KLOPPERS: Mr Chairman he enjoyed the same privileges. He explained the negotiations to me and it was approved. Nothing was refused. This letter was to warn him in order for him to stop with these actions.
MR KNOETZE: It was a very serious threat?
MR KLOPPERS: That is correct yes.
MR KNOETZE: And if I come back to the second part of my question, are you prepared to admit that he did not discuss certain matters with you and the other applicants in the submission of his application?
MR KLOPPERS: He was not present with us, he was in Johannesburg and we were in a different jail.
MR KNOETZE: So you do agree that it was done separately?
MR KLOPPERS: Yes that is correct.
MR KNOETZE: Thank you Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR KNOETZE
CHAIRPERSON: Mrs Van der Walt do you have any questions flowing from what has been ...?
MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you. Mr Kloppers the question that was asked to you regarding EXHIBIT 6 was that you had the opportunity or the privilege that you and the other applicants had the same legal team and that Mr Van der Schyff made his application alone. Is that correct, that was the question?
MR KLOPPERS: That was the question yes Mr Chairperson.
MS VAN DER WALT: Then when Mr Van der Schyff made his application in Johannesburg, were you in Leeukop then?
MR KLOPPERS: I think during that time I was in Pretoria Maximum, hospitals and Leeukop. I cannot say with precision where I was.
MS VAN DER WALT: Did you have any contact with him when he made his first amnesty application that he amended today, did
you have any contact from them?
MR KLOPPERS: That is correct yes. In the beginning we did have contact with each other.
MS VAN DER WALT: Now did you say to him what he had to write or did he fill in his own amnesty application?
MR KLOPPERS: All the applicants filled in his own application form and wanted to decide for themselves what they wanted to say.
MS VAN DER WALT: This warning, EXHIBIT 6, this is about negotiations. Did this warning about the negotiations have anything to do with your amnesty application. Did it have anything to do with that?
MR KLOPPERS: No nothing, except for the fact that it confirms that the Generals in Staff admitted him for what he was, as leader of the group and for what he stood and that is why the copies also went to headquarters.
MS VAN DER WALT: Do I understand you correctly that in this letter at that stage, there was negotiations by the AWB and other organisations regarding your amnesty?
MR KLOPPERS: It was said to us that there were negotiations, definitely not from the AWB side but from Constand Viljoen's side that is why the amnesty or the date for application was moved.
MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you Mr Chairperson no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MRS VAN DER WALT
MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Chairperson. I would just like to ask a question about the negotiations with your permission Chairperson. Mr Kloppers, what negotiations are you referring to in this letter. Who undertook negotiations and what for?
MR KLOPPERS: These negotiations were aimed at moving the amnesty dates, the date was 5th of December 1993 and our attack took place on the 12th of December 1993 and that's why we fell outside the ambit of the cutoff date. We were waiting for the negotiations which occurred and we asked that the amnesty date be shifted to May 1994 so that we could also be included. We didn't want to upset the negotiations. Various people led the negotiations such as a number of right wing organisations, Constand Viljoen as well as the Conservative Party. All of these organisations put their positions to Minister Dullah Omar and President Mandela, I can't say exactly who was involved with these negotiations.
MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: But by amnesty is he referring to that other thing? That thing that used to be there before amnesty, Indemnity, because I suppose he is talking about Indemnity because this letter was written in June 1995 before the whole question of amnesty came into existence, before the Act.
MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman with respect, at that stage there was already a amnesty date, a cutoff date and that date was not relevant to these applicants. So he (indistinct). Mr Chairman the initial cutoff date, these applicants were outside that date at that stage and what I understand the applicant to say at this stage, they were in negotiations in order to shift the date so that they would also fall inside the amnesty legislation which was subsequently done. At that stage they didn't qualify for amnesty. Thank you Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: I don't think - well I thought in June 1995 nobody could have negotiated about shifting the date, the expiry date or the closing date for amnesty. I thought they would only have been talking about the closing date for Indemnity.
MR PRINSLOO: As I understood it Mr Chairman initially there was a cutoff date for amnesty, there was indeed an amnesty legislation and subsequent to that the date was shifted to the 10th of May.
CHAIRPERSON: We are at cross (indistinct). It doesn't matter. But I thought when the witness speaks of making negotiations in here, it would have been because the letter was written in June 1995, I don't know, I may be wrong, it doesn't matter.
MR MALAN: Chair it may be important to the witness to consider his answer because the date that this letter was written, the legislation was not yet adopted and at that stage there was no discussion about a specific extension and negotiations about an extension, to the best of my knowledge, relating to legislation on the table as Harry has just said.
MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson the cutoff date for amnesty was amended on the 6th of December 1996 and moved ahead to the 10th of May 1994 and that is why I'm referring to negotiations in that letter, but the point which I wanted to make to you was that at that stage in June, legislation did not exist about the process, let alone the extension of the cutoff date. I would just like you to be very clear about that matter.
MR KNOETZE: I have a copy of the Act in front of me, that is Act 34 of 95, Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act. That act is actually dated the 26th of July 1995, so that is when it went through Parliament which means there must have been some discussion prior to that.
MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman I may also place on record that at some stage we accompanied General Viljoen and we had discussion with President Nelson Mandela with regard to shifting the date to the 10th of May. And it may be that date, I'm not sure when that visit took place. We can ascertain that Mr Chairman.
MR DREYER: Mr Chairman may I just put the following on record. This last letter EXHIBIT 6 was not made available to me earlier and it's clear from that there's reference in that letter to certain discussions having taken place apparently with General J.L. Oelofse. I haven't had the opportunity to obtain instructions on that, whether that was in fact so and I do not want to delay the proceedings unnecessarily, I just want to place it on record that at this stage I'm not in a position to make any comment to this witness or to the committee in that respect and I just reserve the right when I have taken such instruction, to do so. As the court pleases.
CHAIRPERSON: When next you feel that you need to be given the opportunity to put questions to this witness in relation to this letter, you'll make an application.
MR DREYER: As it pleases Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Because once more I'm not sure that your client is here. It seems your client is not here?
MR DREYER: No Mr Chairman, he's not here today.
CHAIRPERSON: And if he had been here he would be in a position to give you instructions straight away and I'm not so sure whether we should keep on putting things away because your client is not here to give you instructions, but that is by the way. You'll make your application when next you feel that you want
questions to be put to the witness.
MR DREYER: I take note Mr Chairman.
MR MALAN: Chairman just before you move on, may I just ask Mr Kloppers. A question was put to him about Mr Van der Schyff's application having been prepared independently of the others. I heard your answer to that being that: No, each of the applicants could by themselves or for themselves decide - I beg your pardon I guess I could speak Afrikaans - you said that every person could decide for himself what he wanted to say?
MR KLOPPERS: That's correct.
MR MALAN: But isn't it true that all the other applications are verbally true, apart from those who were speaking or not speaking. You've studied each one of them?
MR KLOPPERS: That's correct.
MR MALAN: But weren't they collectively compiled by the legal teams after a collective briefing?
MR KLOPPERS: If we look at Mr Van der Schyff's application it's basically the same as ours until he decided to amend it and I find it quite strange that he amended it during the period of time that General Oelofse and the leader, Eugene Terreblanche and Van der Ronger, visited the prisons in order to enquire or request that we look at certain aspects of our applications.
MR MALAN: That makes much more sense to me, thank you very much.
ADV BOSMAN: Mr Kloppers you mentioned an explanation which Mr Van der Schyff gave to you. Can you indicate very briefly what that explanation involved?
MR KLOPPERS: I must say that it happened quite a long time ago as you will see from the date on the letter, but the explanation was in relation to certain aspects of arrest and detention about him, about which was speculated. As I remember correctly he had a girlfriend who worked at certain government institutions and that the had communicated with her which made it very clear to me that it wasn't about our amnesty or the shifting of the date or any extenuating circumstances.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Kloppers - Oh I'm sorry, Mr Brink did you want to put questions.
MR BRINK: No thank you Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, you can stand down.
WITNESS EXCUSED
