ON RESUMPTION
C KLOPPER: (still under oath)
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: (continued) Thank you Mr Chairman. Right, Mr Klopper, may I please refer you to page 21 of the Bundle, paragraph 2 thereof. It says
"... during one evening one of the Ovambo members reported to Vlakplaas that there they were in a shooting incident and that four people had been shot."
Is that correct, do you still stand by that?
MR KLOPPER: As I have testified earlier, I had no other statements to assist me with this statement itself, there were two members that came to the base.
MR DU PLESSIS: Do you now say that there were two?
MR KLOPPER: That is correct yes.
MR DU PLESSIS: And can you at all dispute that those two were Lukas Culino and Simon Hiranbawasha?
MR KLOPPER: It was Lukas and Simon, that is correct, yes.
MR DU PLESSIS: Now in respect of the decision to do the cover up at the scene which we are in agreement, my client was responsible for the cover up at the scene, can you just explain to us again how that decision was taken and who was involved in the discussion?
MR KLOPPER: As far as I recall many people were present. I cannot recall precisely who said it, it is possible that I may have said it or one of the other members, but it was ultimately a collective decision as far as I can recall.
MR DU PLESSIS: A collective decision between who and - who were involved in this decision?
MR KLOPPER: I cannot recall precisely who said it, but everybody who was present there, agreed with it as far as I can recall.
MR DU PLESSIS: And those people, if we can just identify them, they were you, yourself, Willie Nortje and who else and Mr Tait?
MR KLOPPER: As far as I recall, most of the members who were involved there, were present during that discussion.
MR DU PLESSIS: All right, now who gave ...
CHAIRPERSON: Who were the members?
MR KLOPPER: According to what I can recall it was me, Willie Nortje, John Tait was there, Boesman, all the members whose names appear in the statements, along with members from the Task Force.
MR DU PLESSIS: Right, but who - what was Wouter Mentz' - what was he, was he a Warrant Officer or what was he?
MR KLOPPER: Yes, he was a Warrant Officer.
MR DU PLESSIS: So he was - you were his superior, is that correct?
MR KLOPPER: Yes, in terms of rank.
MR DU PLESSIS: Tait was his superior, is that correct?
MR KLOPPER: That is correct.
MR DU PLESSIS: And Nortje was also his superior?
MR KLOPPER: I don't know about that.
MR DU PLESSIS: Well, would you dispute that because Nortje was at that stage also a Warrant Officer but he had been a Warrant Officer for a long time longer than Mentz?
MR KLOPPER: No, I don't know about that.
MR DU PLESSIS: Now somebody must have given Mentz an order to do this, do you agree with me?
MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, I cannot say that it is not so but I can say that Wouter Mentz' task was to investigate the nature of these incidents.
MR DU PLESSIS: You see, can we turn to page 39 of the Bundle, actually it is page 40, please, the second paragraph, the last sentence. He says
"... it was then discussed among us where among others Lieutenant Chappies Klopper, Warrant Officer Willie Nortje and other members were present. During the discussion the decision was made that it would create a problem should it be made public that the Ovambo members had shot the smugglers."
Then turn over to page 41, then seven lines from the top -
"... a decision was then taken among others by Lieutenant Chappies Klopper and Warrant Officer Willie Nortje who was in command of the entire operation, that the operation was to be reconstructed so that it would appear that the weapon smugglers had been shot by the Task Force members."
MR KLOPPER: Yes, that is correct.
MR DU PLESSIS: Do you agree with that?
MR KLOPPER: I cannot recall that such a pertinent order was actually given as I have said.
MR DU PLESSIS: All right, let's read everything. Page 41, the final paragraph Mentz says
"... I was then given the order by Lieutenant Chappies Klopper to give assistance with the reconstruction of the events."
Would you just give your comments on that?
MR KLOPPER: As I said yesterday, I cannot recall that it was that way. As I have explained, Wouter Mentz' work was of this nature.
MR DU PLESSIS: Do you concede that there is a possibility that you could have given this order as Mentz testifies?
MR KLOPPER: Yes, it is possible but somebody else could also have made a similar proposition.
MR DU PLESSIS: And you concede that it could have been possible that Nortje may have given the order?
MR KLOPPER: Yes, it is possible.
MR DU PLESSIS: And do you concede that those were the two most likely people who could have given the order?
MR KLOPPER: Anyone of the person who were present there, may have given the order. It could have been me, John Tait, Willie Nortje, Wouter Mentz, anyone of us.
CHAIRPERSON: Can I interrupt for a moment. What I understood you to be saying a little earlier, I may have misunderstood it, was that it wasn't really anything in the nature of an order, there was a discussion, you all agreed on what ought to have been done and then someone was just told to carry on?
MR KLOPPER: That is correct, yes.
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, thank you Mr Chairman. Maybe the way I phrased the questions ...
CHAIRPERSON: I don't understand that it was a deliberate order that I am now ordering you to do this and that, there was a talk and somebody said well, we'd better get cracking, you go ahead and do it.
MR KLOPPER: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: That could have been you, it could have been Nortje, it could have been - but somebody told him to go and do it and he went?
MR KLOPPER: There was a discussion, yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Because the rest of you all saw that he was going and you must have realised that he was going to do it? None of you tried to stop him?
MR KLOPPER: That is correct.
MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. And you all accepted that he was going to do the reconstruction, is that correct?
MR KLOPPER: Yes, it was accepted that he would.
MR DU PLESSIS: All right. Mr Chairman, if you will just bear with me please. You testified Mr Klopper that the day afterwards there was some commotion at Vlakplaas because of Mentz' action and I understood you that you testified that with those actions you referred to the fact that he removed the bodies, is that correct?
MR KLOPPER: Yes, due to the fact that there was no scene from my opinion when I arrived there with the photographers.
MR DU PLESSIS: Do you have or can I take you to page 22 please, paragraph 7, the third sentence
"... afterwards there was a great upset among the members of Vlakplaas ..."
does this refer to your evidence which you gave, referring to the upset at Vlakplaas?
MR KLOPPER: That is correct.
MR DU PLESSIS: All right, and then you were asked yesterday about the question if you knew that the reconstruction of the place where the shooting took place, that it would be reconstructed in such a way so as to give an indication that the Task Force was responsible for the shooting?
MR KLOPPER: That is correct, yes.
MR DU PLESSIS: You can't remember that that was the case?
MR KLOPPER: No, I can't recall that it was exactly that.
MR DU PLESSIS: But you cannot dispute that that could have been the decision which was taken?
MR KLOPPER: No, I can't.
MR DU PLESSIS: And it seems to be correct that that was the decision that was taken because from the affidavits of the Task Force members, De Jonge, Crooks and Laas in their first affidavits they all say that they were responsible for the shooting?
MR KLOPPER: Yes, if I study it today, it is correct, it is how it took place.
MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, the first affidavits - sorry, I withdraw that.
CHAIRPERSON: While we are on the subject of the affidavits, do you know this Mr F.D. Holtzhauzen?
MR KLOPPER: Yes, he worked with us.
CHAIRPERSON: He was with you?
MR KLOPPER: I can't recall whether or not Holtzhauzen was there on that specific evening, but my recollection is that he managed the post mortem inquest.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. He prepared all the affidavits allegedly and then got people just to sign them? You don't know anything about that?
MR KLOPPER: I see his name here.
MR DU PLESSIS: Holtzhauzen was also a fellow member of Vlakplaas, is that correct?
MR KLOPPER: That is correct yes.
MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS
CHAIRPERSON: Was he stationed at Vlakplaas?
MR KLOPPER: Yes, he worked with us at Vlakplaas, he was a member of the Unit.
CHAIRPERSON: Because he gives his address as being Schoeman Street, Pretoria?
MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, if I recall correctly, we had an office at Schoeman Street at that stage, I am not entirely certain but that could be an explanation for that.
CHAIRPERSON: If you look at page 90, what is MID Head Office?
MR KLOPPER: Sorry, that is the Head Office of the Security Police in Schoeman Street, and that is why he gave that address.
CHAIRPERSON: Not to create the impression that that was where he was working?
MR KLOPPER: No, Vlakplaas was simply a base from where we worked, but the Head Office of the Security Police was at Wachthuis just opposite the Uniformed Branch, that is between Schoeman and Pretoria Streets.
CHAIRPERSON: I take it the IFP have no questions?
MS FIVAZ: No questions, Your Honour.
NO QUESTIONS BY MS FIVAZ
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PATEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson. Mr Klopper, just to get a bit of the background to this incident, can you tell us were you involved in the planning beforehand?
MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, I cannot recall that I was involved in the planning phase, as I have said the operation was under the leadership of Boesman Pretorius and Tait, so I cannot recall that I was a member of the planning phase as such.
MS PATEL: Can you then explain how it came about that you were present when this incident took place, how did you become involved in the matter if you were not involved in the planning?
MR KLOPPER: If I could explain it as follows - I handled most of the paper work and the information notes and the report backs which were sent back to the higher command structure such as De Kock and Engelbrecht and that is why I was involved.
MS PATEL: Are you saying that your function generally was to do the report backs after the incidents had taken place?
MR KLOPPER: Yes, it was mostly the compilation of information notes and the administrative side of things.
MS PATEL: What information notes are you referring to in this specific incident?
MR KLOPPER: After every action that we launched, there would be information notes for Head Office which would inform all the Section Heads of the Security Branch with regards to the operations that Vlakplaas was busy with.
MS PATEL: Would you generally then, given that your function was to report back at the end of an incident, be involved in the prior arrangements to the incident, the planning to the incident, would you generally get involved from that stage through to the end or would you just come in at the end of an incident and get different people who were involved in that specific operation, to report to you? Can we just get clarity?
MR KLOPPER: Where I participated in chief was to compile information notes and to do the paper work if I might put it that way, the paper work of actions which were executed. In some of the cases, I was part of the planning and in other cases, I only came after the time to assist with the paper work.
CHAIRPERSON: In this case, did you report back?
MR KLOPPER: I can't recall specifically, but I am certain that I did.
CHAIRPERSON: And that would have been a report that a decision was taken to change the scenario, to make it clear that this had been done by the Task Force?
MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, the facts around the reconstruction would not have been about that, it would have been evident from the shooting report that these are the true facts.
CHAIRPERSON: I am afraid I am not with you. The shooting report, what shooting report? The report by Major Combrink?
MR KLOPPER: Yes, the same sort of report, but for Security Head Office.
CHAIRPERSON: But that was not true?
MR KLOPPER: That is what I am saying, I would have compiled a report for Head Office and this would be distributed among the Generals and staff and the leaders of all the Sections of A, B, C, D, whatever the case may be. We would then give them the facts as we wanted the facts to appear, and by that, I mean the false facts as true facts.
CHAIRPERSON: You in fact did not tell the various Heads of the Security Branch as to incidents Vlakplaas was involved in, you told them what you wanted them to know and believe?
MR KLOPPER: From my side, that is how I understood it. I don't know how it worked after that.
CHAIRPERSON: So you understood that you were merely to do what you were told and put up any report that fell in line with the Vlakplaas planning?
MR KLOPPER: That is correct, yes.
CHAIRPERSON: And disregard the providing information for the Heads of the Security Police, they weren't given the true facts?
MR KLOPPER: Not from my side, no.
MS PATEL: Sorry Mr Klopper, and given that, almost on or very shortly after this incident had taken place, steps were already taken in order to put forward the reconstructed version of what had taken place, you would then have been apprised of that because that is your function, not so?
MR KLOPPER: With this specific matter, I had nothing further to do with it.
MS PATEL: But why not sir?
CHAIRPERSON: You put up a report? You might have put up the wrong report?
MR KLOPPER: That is what I am saying. I can't recall specifically that I compiled information notes in this case, but this was a long operation which included this aspect and I compiled an overall report. I can't recall this incident specifically. Wouter and Dougie had more to do with this case, I didn't have anything further to do with this case.
MS PATEL: With respect sir, that makes no sense. If your specific function there was to get ...
MR LAMEY: Sorry Mr Chairman, it makes perfectly sense to me, with all due respect. Perhaps if my learned friend could just phrase it in another way, but I understand perfectly what Mr Klopper is trying to say.
CHAIRPERSON: Well, I am afraid I don't. This was a matter where four people were killed publicly, the bodies were taken to the Police mortuary, it would have been public knowledge and how can it then have just been, he doesn't know if it was in his report or not? He has told us that he was the gentleman responsible for filing reports.
MR LAMEY: I will come back then in re-examination, thank you Mr Chairman.
MS PATEL: All right, thank you Honourable Chairperson. Do you know Willem de Jonge, he was one of the gentlemen from the Task Force who was present?
MR KLOPPER: Yes, I knew most of these persons, that is correct.
MS PATEL: He states in his statement, that is part of the Bundle, Honourable Chairperson, I refer you to page 91 of the Bundle, he says that a planning for this operation took place a few days beforehand and that you were present when that planning had taken place? What is your comment on that?
MR KLOPPER: It is possible that I was present, I can't recall specifically that I was present regarding this specific planning, but it is possible that I was present.
MS PATEL: Can you perhaps just generally, to move on ...
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, can I come back on this, it caused me some confusion. As I understand it, the operation, the general operation was to prevent gun smuggling into the country?
MR KLOPPER: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: And as part of this operation, you used these people from Koevoet - well, they were called something else?
MR KLOPPER: Ovambo's, Ovambo members.
CHAIRPERSON: Ovambo members who spoke Portuguese and could therefore communicate more readily with the gun smugglers?
MR KLOPPER: That is correct, yes.
CHAIRPERSON: And the operation that was being planned, was to set up traps to catch the gun smugglers?
MR KLOPPER: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Is that what Mr De Jonge is talking of in his thing, when he is talking about a planning a few days before? As I understand it and here is where I am very shaky, on the night, on the day in question, there was an ambush planned and that things went wrong, the gun runners wouldn't go with, into the ambush, they took the Koevoet people off on a side road and the shooting happened?
MR KLOPPER: As I understand it after having perused the statements, that is correct. I can explain to you how it started, how they planned the actions and how all actions were to work more or less the same.
CHAIRPERSON: Could you tell us how they were going to do it?
MR KLOPPER: According to my understanding of the statements, the smugglers would be lured to a certain point and as soon as the arms were observed, the Police members would overpower them and arrest them. That is how the planning ought to have worked. Perhaps Tait would be able to explain it better.
CHAIRPERSON: But that is, as I understand it from one of the affidavits, their communications broke down on this day? Carry on.
MS PATEL: Thank you Honourable Chairperson, it is in fact Lukas Culino who states that in his statement that there were no walkie-talkies at the time and there was a breakdown in communication. Mr Klopper, can you tell us, if the intention was to arrest the smugglers, why would the specific Ovambo members that you had now referred to, be used for the operation?
MR KLOPPER: I have already explained that it is very problematic, especially when one is working with Mozambicans who cannot speak Afrikaans or English but only Portuguese, these Ovambo members were proficient in Portuguese and could communicate with these people, they also knew about arms. It was simply easier to convince the arms smugglers to give arms to the Ovambo people.
MS PATEL: Are you saying that they would never have been used to testify at the subsequent prosecution, was that not the intention, otherwise it makes - I mean, we don't understand?
MR KLOPPER: I don't know about that. As I have explained Mentz and Holtzhauzen were more involved with the investigation, we never made it to the court as far as I can recall. It was very seldom that we would appear in court, we would usually appear in court when it had to do with a post mortem inquest.
CHAIRPERSON: As I understand it, what would have happened in court, is the Task Unit would say we saw a car driving along the road, we stopped them, we found these prohibited weapons in it.
MR KLOPPER: I understand it similarly. Should the case go to court, that would have been the evidence of the Task Force members, that is correct.
MS PATEL: But certainly then the risk was there that the smugglers would have testified that they were in fact led into a trap by members other than the Task Force?
MR KLOPPER: If one - all the evidence about the Third Force, there is much such evidence and nothing could be seen except for when the De Kock matter came about and that is the first time when the dam wall broke. I don't think it was a concern at that stage.
CHAIRPERSON: Ms Patel, are you seriously suggesting that the smugglers were likely to have pleaded guilty and said yes, we were taking the weapons there for the purpose of supplying them to somebody?
MS PATEL: No, not really Honourable Chairperson. Anyway, can I just get clarity, perhaps you can assist, the intention was to set the smugglers up that weapons would be purchased. In order to get some kind of credibility with the smugglers, Culino and company would have at least had to show them some money, can you tell us generally what the procedure was at Vlakplaas, where would the money come from, who would it be authorised by?
MR KLOPPER: Flash money is drawn from Head Office, let's say R100 000 or whatever the case may be and a member would sign for the money, the member who is in charge of the operation, Tait or Pretorius or whoever and Lukas Culino and Simon would take the money and would show it to these persons and tell them "we have money to buy arms" and the persons would hand over the arms, maybe at the same time or at some other stage.
MS PATEL: You are saying they would have to sign for the money?
MR KLOPPER: Yes.
MS PATEL: Who would have to authorise it though, were they at their rank in a position to authorise?
MR KLOPPER: No, a request or an application is filed to get some flash money and motivation has to be given why the money is needed and that you will undertake to bring the money back and to protect the money. I don't know how to put it, but the normal procedure, and then the money is handed over. I think Gen Krappies Engelbrecht or one of those persons, gave the authorisation to make the money available.
MS PATEL: Just to get clarity, you are assuming that Mr Engelbrecht would have authorised it or would that have been the normal procedure?
MR KLOPPER: Yes, that is the normal procedure. I would assume that it would have been one of those persons.
MS PATEL: Then the Task Force was brought in as a supportive role?
MR KLOPPER: That is correct.
MS PATEL: Can you explain to us just from what you had heard from the report from Culino when he came back, what was the meeting point, how was that arranged before hand or did you not know?
MR KLOPPER: I don't know, I don't have any knowledge.
MS PATEL: Somebody has mentioned, I am not sure exactly, I can look it up later, somebody has mentioned that, I think it was Mentz, that they were meant to wait at a specific point, Lukas and company didn't come back and they then, Nortje then gave the decision, gave the order to go back and they then went to Skomaans. Were you present at that meeting point before they had gone, everybody had retreated back to Skomaans?
MR KLOPPER: I cannot pertinently remember if I was involved, but the procedure was that we had to wait at some point and that is my assumption how most of these operations worked, but I cannot specifically recall that I was there in this instance.
MS PATEL: Surely there must have been some concern that they hadn't returned at the time - that Lukas hadn't returned at the time when he was meant to return and yet, all the members went off and from what I understand, some of them, if not all of them, had started drinking. Can you explain, if this was a serious operation, why weren't other steps taken in order to check perhaps what had gone wrong or what had happened?
MR KLOPPER: Most of the actions in a criminal line, for example with drugs and weapon smuggling, takes a lot of time, they waste a lot of time, I cannot specifically say what the circumstances around this was, I would assume that Lieutenant Tait could give you some better background with regard to that.
MS PATEL: Can you just confirm, was Lieutenant Tait, Lukas Culino's handler at the time?
MR KLOPPER: Yes, he was the Overhead Commander of the Koevoet or the former Koevoet members. They were in his group.
CHAIRPERSON: You put that they all went back, but in fact as I read the affidavits of De Jonge, they were sitting waiting, they were the trap. Crooks says the same thing in his and I think the other members did. It was a specific Unit of four or five people who were forming the trap that night and they sat and waited and waited until the people came and said there had been a shooting?
MS PATEL: Honourable Chairperson, if I may, I think there seems to be contradictions between the different statements in terms of that, I think Laas, De Jonge and Crooks say that they waited, whereas I think Mentz, I must just double check, I think Mentz ...
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well they don't say Mentz was part of their Unit.
MS PATEL: No, I am saying Mentz in his statement, I am sorry, I think it was Nortje who said in his statement that they all retreated. I will just double check that. The difficulty with that is also that there is no indication that anybody after the two had returned to report at Skomaans as to what had happened, had then gone back to De Jonge and company to tell them what had happened.
CHAIRPERSON: But they were told on the way, De Jonge and company. If you look at De Jonge's affidavit.
MS PATEL: Which affidavit, are you referring to ...
CHAIRPERSON: Page 92, paragraph 9
"... (microphone not on) ... we have to help, people had been shot in a vehicle."
MS PATEL: Sorry Judge, not to take issue with you, but it is not clear from that paragraph whether the Ovambo members had come straight from where the incident had taken place or whether they had in fact first reported and then come back.
CHAIRPERSON: Well, you can't say there wasn't a report made to them?
MS PATEL: You can't say.
CHAIRPERSON: They did come and report to them and asked them to come and help and took them to the scene?
MS PATEL: I don't have a problem with that Judge, all I am saying, Honourable Chairperson, all I am saying is that it is not clear that the Task Force members who were present at Skomaans, had then together come back or they had asked De Jonge and company to come and assist or at what stage this had in fact taken place, whether they had gone, whether the Ovambo members went to them first and then reported to Skomaans or whether it was the other way around. There is no clarity on that Honourable Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: No.
MR KLOPPER: As far as I remember, all the people were within the basis at Skomaans at the same time. I cannot recall if people had waited outside for them.
MS PATEL: Is it possible though that they would have waited? You can't say?
MR KLOPPER: I can't tell you, unfortunately.
MS PATEL: Okay.
ADV SANDI: Can I just find out something from Mr Klopper? Mr Klopper, yesterday you said that you were drinking that evening?
MR KLOPPER: Yes, we were drinking continuously.
ADV SANDI: What time did you start drinking?
MR KLOPPER: That is difficult to say, I cannot tell you honestly, because during that time, we drank a lot. I cannot tell you whether we started six o'clock or seven o'clock, I cannot give you a specific time.
ADV SANDI: When Lukas came to give the report that a shoot-out had occurred, were you already under the influence of liquor?
MR KLOPPER: I cannot pertinently tell you, as I said, throughout the time we drank a lot, I cannot say if the people were under the influence or not, I cannot recall.
ADV SANDI: I am asking this question because I noticed that since you started testifying yesterday, all answers are possibilities. You keep on saying that is possible, I cannot remember.
MR KLOPPER: It is a long time back, I cannot recall the pertinent circumstances precisely.
ADV SANDI: Thank you, thank you Ms Patel.
MS PATEL: Thank you Honourable Chairperson, if I may just refer you sir, to page 39 of the Bundle, the second paragraph. Mentz in fact says that
"... instructions were given by Willie Nortje that we had to withdraw and we went to Skomaans."
From that Honourable Chairperson, I inferred that nobody had stayed behind, rightly or wrongly, but that was my inference drawn from that paragraph.
MR LAMEY: Is that now out of Mr Mentz' statement and that is assumed to be correct?
MS PATEL: He also testified at the previous hearing, if you want me to ...
MR LAMEY: But he hasn't been cross-examined by any of the other legal representatives.
MS PATEL: You can argue the weight to be attached, if I may finish sir.
MR LAMEY: No, no.
MS PATEL: You may argue the weight to be attached to that at the appropriate time, I am saying that this is what I am basing my cross-examination on.
CHAIRPERSON: Most of the other affidavits that you put up had indicated that there was a group sitting and waiting and if you look at page 104, it appears that Mentz came with the two black men. Mentz was there rather, when the two black men came and talked to them and Mentz told them there was a shooting. One is left with more confusion because that seems to contradict everybody else.
MR LAMEY: Yes Mr Chairman, may I just say, I just want to place on record, I don't have an objection if phrases are put from other statements for the applicant to comment upon, but the moment it goes so far as to assume that what is stated there, is factually correct and accurately reliable and it is in that way put to the applicant, then it goes in my respectful submission, too far.
MS PATEL: With respect Honourable Chairperson, if one looks at the detail in all the statements that are put up in the Bundle, that could never be my position, there are so many contradictions between what all the parties who were present there, say. I am merely putting different aspects of the statements to the applicant, for his comment. It is as simple as that.
MR LAMEY: If it is purely for ...
CHAIRPERSON: Can we just continue. Carry on.
MS PATEL: Thank you Honourable Chairperson, I am just checking my notes if you would grant me a moment please. Sorry sir, can I take you to your own statement on page 79 of the Bundle, paragraph 32.8. You mentioned that there were powder marks, all right, you stated that your information regarding that had come from Dougie - Holtzhauzen I would imagine - and Willie Nortje. Can you just elaborate on that specific aspect for us please?
MR KLOPPER: It is possible that I heard this discussion from Dougie and Willie, but the facts that I give there is hearsay, this is what I heard, I didn't see it myself. I heard of these powder marks and this is all that I heard. This is not factual, this is just hearsay.
MS PATEL: Okay. Sorry Honourable Chairperson, just grant me a moment. All right, if I can just take you back, it is something I had omitted to get clarity on. Just the arm smugglers, were you involved in any investigations prior to this incident taking place on the smugglers and the smuggle route and the background information to that?
MR KLOPPER: As far as I know, this was a very long operation. I cannot recall which date it started. If I recall correctly, it was under Warrant Officer Pretorius' command and Tait later joined, this was a very long process. I think that there had been similar operations before this incident took place.
MS PATEL: Okay. And you don't have any personal knowledge of the nature of the investigations and what information might have come out from it?
MR KLOPPER: What I recall is for example at the border post a vehicle was stopped and there were weapons in the petrol tank of the vehicle. I suspect it was before this incident, I think this is how the whole investigation came about that this vehicle was found which was smuggling the weapons through to South Africa.
MS PATEL: Okay, sorry I may have missed that, you confirmed that Mr Tait was more directly involved in that?
MR KLOPPER: That is correct.
MS PATEL: Okay, we will leave that over for him then. Can I just ask, this has been put to Mr Mentz as well and I am not sure if the Honourable Chairperson has put it to you already, is that this was a legitimate operation from the start, the inception, the intention was that it would be a legitimate operation, not so?
MR KLOPPER: As far as I know, yes.
MS PATEL: All right, and the shooting incident, I am not talking about the allegations of Mr Mentz' involvement afterwards or whether he did or didn't kill anybody on the scene, but the shooting incident between the Ovambo members and the smugglers, that they had acted in self defence and that was legitimate?
MR KLOPPER: Yes.
MS PATEL: Okay. Can I then, it is something that I find curious, if your argument is, if your motivation in restructuring, reconstructing the event or the scene is so that the involvement of the Ovambo members does not come to light, would it not in the alternative, from the other point of view, be more advantageous to the State or to the State who was involved in the negotiations with the liberation movements at the time, for it to actually come out that during the time of the negotiations, that the ANC or the PAC or whoever were still purchasing weapons at a time when they should have been in bona fide negotiations? Would it not have supported Mr De Klerk at that stage, rather than go against the grain?
CHAIRPERSON: I don't understand the question at all, because they merely changed the people who had been involved with the smugglers, the fact of arms smuggling would be made public. The people who were in the process of attempting to smuggle arms into the country, had been shot? They weren't trying to cover up that fact? What they were trying to cover up was who they were shot by, because of the Third Force rumours about Vlakplaas, the using Ovambo ex-terrorists on the Swaziland border, we can imagine what the press would have made of it.
MS PATEL: Okay, no, you are right, Honourable Chairperson, I withdraw the question then. I think I am through then, thank you Honourable Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS PATEL
CHAIRPERSON: Before you come to re-examination, can I ask another question about Mr Holtzhauzen, you said you knew him?
MR KLOPPER: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Did he have a beard?
MR KLOPPER: Yes, he wore a beard, but several of the members had beards at Vlakplaas.
CHAIRPERSON: I ask you this because Mr Laas in his affidavit at page 105 says that a man with a beard came to see them?
MR KLOPPER: That is correct, yes. I specifically recall I read this, it was Dougie Holtzhauzen, he wore a beard all the time that I knew him. Lieutenant Tait, Pretorius so I don't know who it could be. It is possible that it could be Dougie Holtzhauzen, but it could be any of the other persons.
MR HUGO: Mr Chairman, if I may be of some assistance, if you look at page 102, these are the false statements. You would notice that they were in fact taken by Holtzhauzen.
CHAIRPERSON: They were all taken by Holtzhauzen and the other people said he came to see them with an affidavit and merely said "sign here."
MR KLOPPER: I would accept that as correct, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Re-examination?
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Klopper, I did not handle this matter in your evidence in chief, but in re-examination I would like to return to this matter. As part of your general amnesty application, you have applied for various incidents in which you as a member of Vlakplaas were involved, is that correct?
MR KLOPPER: Yes, that is correct.
MR LAMEY: And which according to your judgement stand in political relation and for which there is a political motivation?
MR KLOPPER: Yes, that is correct.
MR LAMEY: On page 25 of the Bundle, we find the last page of your supplementary amnesty application, is that correct?
MR KLOPPER: Yes, that is correct.
MR LAMEY: That would then be page 35 of the supplementary amnesty application, but paginated page 25 of the Bundle?
MR KLOPPER: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: At the top it doesn't begin thoroughly, but what you do say there is something which you have touched upon in your evidence in chief, you testified during the De Kock trial and could you tell us how long you testified for?
MR KLOPPER: I spent about three months approximately under cross-examination.
MR LAMEY: During that trial, during your evidence in chief and cross-examination, you spent a long time testifying?
MR KLOPPER: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: With the compilation of your amnesty application, you had no vehicle for the refreshment of your memory, that trial and the record of that trial was not used to supplement your amnesty application because of the fact that it was quite a large body of information and it was not available to you during consultation?
MR KLOPPER: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: And what you say there is that it is not your intention to contest the facts of the Amnesty Committee, your evidence today appears not to have a very clear recollection of facts and you say that it is not your intention to withhold facts from the Amnesty Committee n terms of the information that you can recall on the day of the signing of this affidavit and that the refreshment of your memory by means of former statements which you have made or evidence which you have given, would possibly be necessary?
MR KLOPPER: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: I would also like to put to you whether there is any other reason why your recollection with regard to this incident according to your evidence of yesterday and today, may not be very clear?
MR KLOPPER: Yes, I am blocking it. I have basically developed a mental block towards this information.
MR LAMEY: I would just like to ask you, you have a manner of speaking very quickly and your answer appears to be unclear, I would like for you to tell us what you have to say very slowly and clearly.
MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, I have discussed it so many times during the De Kock trial and I don't think about it any more, it is something which happened a long time ago and I am not interested in thinking about it any longer.
MR LAMEY: You used the word "block", you said that you were blocking it. Please explain to us what you mean by that.
MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, it is something that bothers one, it is not pleasant to return to it and to think about it again. I don't know how else to explain to you that I don't want to think about it any more, it is not something that I want to return to. I am just trying to live a different life from this point onwards.
MR LAMEY: Very well. To return to this operation, you spoke of Operation Excalibur?
MR KLOPPER: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: Would that be the name that was given to the total general operation in combating the arms smuggling networks and the consequent problems, the operation that Vlakplaas was involved in?
MR KLOPPER: Yes, that was the activities that Vlakplaas was involved in.
MR LAMEY: Can you recall whether Lieutenant Tait was in command and in control in general, of Operation Excalibur or whether it was only this specific incident with regard to the shooting incident that he was in control of?
MR KLOPPER: If I recall correctly, C10 was divided into three sections. De Kock had one team and Baker had another. If I recall correctly, all the authorisations for funding was obtained under the name Excalibur, so I cannot tell you pertinently that Lieutenant Tait was in command of it or whether De Kock was the Overall Commander or whether Baker was the Overall Commander, I cannot remember that specifically.
MR LAMEY: Let's accept that with regard to this operation, before Lukas and Simon went out to make contact with the arms smugglers, what is your recollection, who was in command of the operation?
MR KLOPPER: As far as I can recall, it was Tait.
CHAIRPERSON: The whole of this operation, was connected with arms smuggling, wasn't it? That is why you had gone to this place on the border and Tait was in charge of the whole of the operation, not just this incident?
MR KLOPPER: That is correct, yes.
MR LAMEY: Where Mr Mentz states that you and Warrant Officer Willie Nortje were in command of the entire operation, what would your commentary be about that?
MR KLOPPER: That is not correct.
MR LAMEY: Then you gave evidence and this is another aspect which you managed too swiftly in your evidence, usually you say that you would have compiled information notes. Is this in general or specifically with regard to this operation?
MR KLOPPER: Yes, in general and with regard to the Excalibur Operation. I am not saying that I compiled all the information notes, but I did compile a great deal thereof.
MR LAMEY: Can you recall whether you were ever in command during the entire Excalibur Operation of any specific actions which may have taken place during or after the operation.
MR KLOPPER: Because most of the actions were arranged by the Ovambo members because they were proficient in Portuguese, they never worked below me. I can't recall that I was ever in command of any one of those sort of operations.
MR LAMEY: If I understand your evidence correctly in summary, when the shooting incident was reported, you will not deny that there was a discussion that it could have presented a problem because of the fact that former Koevoet members were involved?
MR KLOPPER: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: And in the light of your recollection, there was a collective discussion?
MR KLOPPER: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: And then people were sent from there to the scene?
MR KLOPPER: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: Let's take it a step further. Mentz goes further in his application by stating that
"... Lieutenant Klopper and Warrant Officer Willie Nortje were in command and I received my orders from them."
And he also says this specifically in his answer on page 51, paragraph 11(d) -
"... I acted under the direct orders of Lieutenant Chappies Klopper and Warrant Officer Willie Nortje."
MR KLOPPER: That is what he says, but it is not the truth.
MR LAMEY: Is that correct?
MR KLOPPER: No, it is not true.
MR LAMEY: Do you know who in general with regard to Operation Excalibur, who would have placed Tait and Pretorius in command?
MR KLOPPER: It would have been De Kock.
MR LAMEY: In the Bundle, if I may refer you to this, on page 108, or page 118 to page 121, there is a document which has been compiled?
MR KLOPPER: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: Were you the compiler of that document?
MR KLOPPER: No, I had nothing to do with this.
MR LAMEY: Your recollection is that you reported the shooting incident to De Kock?
MR KLOPPER: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: Can you recall whether you provided any further information notes thereafter?
MR KLOPPER: No, with regard to this specific case, I cannot recall that I provided any further information notes.
MR LAMEY: But in general, you are aware that you did this with regard to Operation Excalibur?
MR KLOPPER: Yes, that is correct.
MR LAMEY: What information would have been contained within this information notes in general?
MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, that there was information that there were smugglers who wanted to make weapons available to us as members of C10, that an action had been launched, that during the action, some of the members had been shot at and that fire was returned and that four persons had been killed and that x-amount of weapons had been taken into possession.
MR LAMEY: Perhaps you misunderstand my question, I am not talking about shooting incidents, I am talking about generally with regard to Excalibur.
MR KLOPPER: We would report about actions, how many weapons had been obtained, that sort of information.
MR LAMEY: If there had been a shooting incident, then that would have gone through in an information note?
MR KLOPPER: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: But you cannot recall whether that was done in this specific case?
MR KLOPPER: No.
MR LAMEY: Was there at any stage a moment which withdrew you from the events?
MR KLOPPER: I recall at a certain stage, I withdrew completely. I had nothing further to do with this incident.
MR LAMEY: Can you recall the reason for that?
MR KLOPPER: I will tell you from my side that I was upset regarding the actions that were taken, I did not agree with them. I had nothing further to do with the matter.
MR LAMEY: When you speak of Investigating Officers, who do you refer to?
MR KLOPPER: Holtzhauzen and Mentz who were from Vlakplaas.
MR LAMEY: Thank you Mr Chairman, I have got no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY
MR SIBANYONI: Thank you Mr Chairperson. Mr Klopper, these smugglers were Portuguese speaking, were they South Africans?
MR KLOPPER: The most cases that we encountered were Mozambican citizens, they were not South African citizens.
MR SIBANYONI: And one will say they were not members of any political party in South Africa?
MR KLOPPER: No, as far as I know they were not a member of any political organisation within South Africa.
MR SIBANYONI: So also in this document it is said that they would sell these weapons to any willing buyer, be it from the left or the right?
MR KLOPPER: That is correct, yes.
MR SIBANYONI: And you said the operation was aimed at arresting them and the shooting was as a result of these Koevoet members acting in self defence?
MR KLOPPER: That is correct, that is my knowledge.
MR SIBANYONI: My question is, what makes this incident a political incident? What political objective was intended to be achieved? Is it not so it was just an ordinary Police duty trying to combat crime by arresting the smugglers?
MR KLOPPER: The presence of askaris and the former Koevoet members and the Ovambo members, was an embarrassment to the former government and the other political parties would have drawn advantage from that around the negotiating table because these people were under the command of the South African government and acted as murder or death squads and that was what the embarrassment was.
MR SIBANYONI: Also in your application you speak about the fact that you attended courses where you were made to believe that the ANC, PAC were a danger to South Africa. Are you saying you were brainwashed because you also say at that stage you were also at a very young age?
MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, that is correct. If one grew up as the regular Afrikaner boy of that time, from childhood you were told about the black or red danger, today I think it is absolute nonsense, but the cadets that you had to endure at school, you were taught military discipline, you had to keep short hair, after school you would go for military service or join the Police and the enemy was always held up as the PAC or the ANC.
MR SIBANYONI: Thank you Mr Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Any questions?
ADV SANDI: No questions Chairman, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: I have one or two questions, one I think for your lawyer rather than for yourself. I heard on the radio this morning and you made mention earlier in your evidence of Section 204 indemnities, the radio this morning said you had been given such indemnities in two trials, do you have knowledge of them?
MR LAMEY: Sorry, are you directing the question to me?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. All I want to know, they don't apply to this incident, do they?
MR LAMEY: No, we are not exactly certain but as far as I could gather, this ...
CHAIRPERSON: Well, Mr Hugo who is intimately connected with the De Kock trial, is shaking his head.
MR HUGO: Mr Chairman, sorry, maybe I can just come in here, he certainly did not get indemnity for this. It was specifically aimed at specific incidents.
CHAIRPERSON: That is all I want, I don't want to know of the incidents. It doesn't apply to this? The second more general question, we have heard from you about the drinking that went on and set out some detail in Mentz' evidence and affidavit, was this a common practice of people from Vlakplaas when they were away from the station?
MR KLOPPER: That is correct, yes, they drank a lot. All of us drank a lot.
CHAIRPERSON: It was sort of a great festive holiday to be away and ...
MR KLOPPER: One could see it like that, that is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: It is nothing unusual about everybody being drunk that night?
MR KLOPPER: There was nothing unusual about people drinking irresponsibly.
CHAIRPERSON: There was one other point, but I can't find the reference, so I will leave it, thank you.
FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HUGO: Mr Chairman, may I just ask a couple of questions, it pertains to a question that you have asked earlier, it should just clarify some aspects here. Mr Klopper, these reports which were compiled after incidents, is it correct if I put it to you that you were probably the most productive compiler of these reports at Vlakplaas?
MR KLOPPER: Yes, that is correct, I managed most of the administrative matters.
MR HUGO: And you compiled lengthy reports with regard to operations in which you were involved and even operations that you were not involved with?
MR KLOPPER: That is correct.
MR HUGO: Then the reports would be submitted to Mr De Kock for his approval?
MR KLOPPER: That is correct.
MR HUGO: And then from Mr De Kock, it would then be sent up to Brigadier Schoon?
MR KLOPPER: Yes, well from De Kock on it would have been sent to higher levels.
MR HUGO: And also to Gen Engelbrecht?
MR KLOPPER: That is correct.
MR HUGO: And just to place the scope of your administrative duties and your reports into perspective, can you recall that during the trial Mr De Kock's legal team asked for the trial to be postponed so that we could have insight into all these documents which were generated by Vlakplaas and that we spent two days studying thousands of documents which were compiled by you?
MR KLOPPER: Yes, I compiled many documents, I cannot recall whether there were thousands of them, but I know that I compiled many documents.
MR HUGO: And you will agree with me that in the greater proportion of these cases, these documents were false documents which presented false cover ups?
MR KLOPPER: That is correct.
MR HUGO: And these false cover ups were compiled in a very ingenious fashion by you along with other members from Vlakplaas from time to time?
MR KLOPPER: Yes, that is correct.
MR HUGO: And some of this were done in order to generate financing for operations in which Vlakplaas would be involved and would be launching and apparently they could not request funding for such operations in a legitimate fashion?
MR KLOPPER: That is correct.
MR HUGO: But this did not mean that the higher Officers and the persons to whom these proposals were submitted, knew exactly what that money was going to be used for actually?
MR KLOPPER: Yes, that is correct.
MR HUGO: Because one could not exactly portray the real story to the Auditor General and then hope and pray that he would provide the financing for this?
MR KLOPPER: That is correct.
MR HUGO: I've got no further questions, thank you Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HUGO
MR LAMEY: My learned friend, Mr Booyens, apparently indicated something but I want to indicate Mr Booyens can go first, but I just wanted an opportunity to perhaps just come back.
CHAIRPERSON: You've had lots of opportunities, haven't you?
MR LAMEY: I haven't asked a question following the question from Mr Sibanyoni, as it pleases you Mr Chairman.
FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, I would like permission from the Commission just to cover one aspect and that is in light of the question asked by you about the drinking. That basically just relates to Mr Tait's condition that evening. With the Commission's permission because he didn't say something about it, but he has now made a more general statement about the drinking habits and so on. May I?
CHAIRPERSON: If you think the answer will be of any value.
MR BOOYENS: Well, let me ask the question. Mr Klopper, Mr Tait tells me that although he does not deny in general that he did also partake of liquor, it was his usual pattern that when his teams were out, still out, he would not drink and this specific evening, he certainly at the stage when the discussion took place, hadn't had anything to drink. Are you in a position to dispute that?
MR KLOPPER: No, I cannot dispute that.
MR BOOYENS: Thank you Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BOOYENS
FURTHER RE-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Mr Klopper, just with regard to the question regarding the operation pertaining to the arms smuggling network, did you also have specific information or let me put it this way, did you have knowledge of information that the smuggling networks for arms such as AK47's and other arms from Mozambique found their way to the liberation movements of that time and that this was also in the combating of the unrest related incidents of that stage?
MR KLOPPER: Yes, at that stage weapons could be sold to anybody and some of these weapons did end up with the liberation movements.
MR LAMEY: So basically the smugglers were prepared to sell these weapons to anybody, so they were criminals?
MR KLOPPER: No, they were business people, if anybody had the money, they could buy the arms.
MR LAMEY: But from those smuggling transactions, those weapons could find their way to anybody who was prepared to purchase them, but also specifically to the ANC, PAC and other political organisations at that stage?
MR KLOPPER: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: We are talking of some years ago when AK47's weren't common place, aren't we?
MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, Lieutenant Tait would be able to inform you much better regarding that, but there were many AK47's coming through that border post.
MR LAMEY: Thank you Mr Chairman, I've got no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY
CHAIRPERSON: Are you leading any other evidence?
MR LAMEY: I've got no further evidence in this regard. I am considering my position regarding Mr Nortje still, but I am not certain yet.
CHAIRPERSON: At the moment you are not?
MR LAMEY: Yes.
MR BOOYENS: Can we just move Mr Chairman? May it not be an appropriate time, may I suggest that we take the short adjournment now?
CHAIRPERSON: We will adjourn now, then you can rearrange.
MR BOOYENS: Then we can rearrange, thank you Mr Chairman.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
CHAIRPERSON: Klopper can be excused. There appears to me to be no need for him to remain here, he apparently wishes to return to the Cape, but if any of you have any views on the subject, will you let me know.
MR DU PLESSIS: I have no objection, Mr Chairman, sorry.
MS PATEL: Neither do I.
CHAIRPERSON: Very well, Mr Klopper, if you keep in touch with your lawyers in case they want to get any more information or you are needed, subject to that, you may go back.
WITNESS EXCUSED
