would not have been able to see whether or not some one had been dropped off. Therefore we could not determine what happened there ...(tape ends)
... before you went over to the deed, that they should go and look whether something had been discarded?
MR KLOPPERS: Yes, that is correct. We were concerned regarding the situation when the vehicles had stopped before. I think I myself asked Kallie Meiring and Andre Visser to take one of the accused and take them to the place where they had stopped, and determine what had been dropped of or whether they had simply climbed out.
When they came back, they reported negatively. They spoke about a bag with melted ice, but the problem was that it was open plains and that it was dark and one would not have been able to see whether or not someone had been dropped off, therefore we could not determine what had happened there.
MS VAN DER WALT: You have testified that you regarded this as the appropriate target, what did you do then?
MR KLOPPERS: After that, and I want to state it clearly that Kallie Meiring, Gert Diedericks and another person took the view that if anybody attempted to run away, they should apprehend them.
They stood behind the chevron board in order to determine whether or not there were other vehicles approaching. Those men who I could reach were told that these were ANC people, Jaco Badenhorst was still busy on the one side, searching a vehicle.
The others entered into the group and I am sure that the message was conveyed to them, we formed a line.
MS VAN DER WALT: What did you say when you were in the small group?
MR KLOPPERS: It is not what they said, 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.
MS VAN DER WALT: Very well, proceed.
MR KLOPPERS: We formed a line, whereupon I told my second in command to remember that he was the one who had to fire the first shot.
MS VAN DER WALT: Who was that?
MR KLOPPERS: Deon Martin. He had a pump action shotgun with which he fired the first shot.
MS VAN DER WALT: How would the other persons have known 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.
MS VAN DER WALT: You may proceed.
MR KLOPPERS: We all shot, I believed that everyone who was supposed to shoot, did. It was a very short span of cross-fire, approximately 10 to 15 seconds in duration.
After the shooting Kallie Meiring shouted that a vehicle or vehicles were approaching, upon which they climbed into the Sentra and sped away. Before they could get away, I told them to meet as at the Town Hall.
While they were driving away Gert Diedericks who was behind one of the vehicles, came along and I told him to put the flash light over the victims, they all appeared to be dead. I did not try to determine this by feeling their pulse, they all lay very still.
I told them to pack up all the shells, all the shells were removed from the scene. If you would like to know the shells were removed in order to ensure that we would not be identified until we had caused enough chaos in the Randfontein area.
After we had removed the shells and while we were removing the shells, I gave the instruction to Deon Martin to cut off one of the dead black men's ears. It was a specific order from General Oelofse. He wanted an ear to show to the other areas that work had in fact been done.
I did not ignore his orders, they were not funny. It had been done several times on the border. Deon Martin carried out the order and handed over the ear to me, which he had placed in a plastic bag.
We drove and first stopped at Deon Martin's home where we dropped off Gert Diedericks because he had to fetch his vehicle and his children. He was excused from the small group meeting which we would have held after that. We went to the Town Hall and couldn't find the men who had been with us.
After that we went to Mr Badenhorst's home and there we got the group together. I was in a very uncomfortable mood. I felt that they had left us there alone without sufficient lighting or manpower. I asked whether any of them had shot or had not shot. Everyone answered in the affirmative.
I asked whether or not they were aware that everyone had been killed, and they answered in the affirmative. I sent someone to the Mercedes to go and fetch the ear. I showed them the ear, upon which I also told them that this ear would be handed over to General Oelofse the following day, in order to prove to him that we had done work that night, and that we had completely carried out his orders.
MS VAN DER WALT: You picked up the shells on the scene, what happened to the vehicles?
MR KLOPPERS: Deon Martin and I set the vehicles alight in order to ensure that all forms of evidence would be destroyed, and that no fingers could be pointed at us.
MS VAN DER WALT: You have testified regarding the meeting there. Do you know anything about audio cassettes?
MR KLOPPERS: Yes, the cassettes were inside one of the vehicles. It was removed and shown to me along with car keys. I would say tool keys. I told the men to take them. The tool keys had to be handed over to Gert Diedericks, who was our Mechanics Officer. He would take that and then Pieter Matthews would ensure that someone with a decent system would listen to all the cassettes in order to determine whether or not there were any propaganda on the cassettes.
We discovered that the first part of the cassettes had pop music and then a couple of other items, and after that, propaganda would be on the cassettes, so therefore if you found cassettes and you only listen to the beginning and the end, you would only hear music. That is why I asked that the cassettes be taken and listened to.
MS VAN DER WALT: What did you do on the following day?
MR KLOPPERS: At 6.30 I was at General Oelofse's smallholding, which also served as the Headquarters. I placed the ear in a blue cardboard box, knocked on his door, no one answered.
I stood back and I saw him approaching from his cement dam. I saluted him or gave him the "boere groet" and then related to him what had happened the previous evening. I then handed over the ear to him. He was very impressed and praised me quite much.
I could clearly see that he was very impressed with this. I suggested that we would visit him later that day for further instructions. He said that from now on things would start happening. I went back to work.
There I had a video machine and a television in my office because of the nature of my work. I switched on the television and on the morning news I saw that not all of the people who had been shot at (indistinct), had passed away but only four had passed away.
Three had passed away and one was so seriously injured, that he passed away later in hospital. Others had been injured. I phoned Deon Martin from my office. Later on that afternoon, I don't recall exactly what time, we went back to General Oelofse. Upon his suggestion he was uncomfortable with the fact that we had left evidence behind.
He told us to shave our hair and to cut off our moustaches. At that point I wore a moustache and a goaty beard. We cut our hair at that very instant. His wife, Stephanie, cut our hair. He also advised us to lay very low, and not gather again as the same group that had been involved.
I found this quite strange because we were involved in a revolution. I reported back to the men. Deon communicated it to the soldiers that he could contact, that we should lay low at first. We understood that there were problems with the revolution but that it would take place the following day because this entire revolution would coincide with the day of the covenant on the 16th of December of that year, 1993.
MS VAN DER WALT: You have testified that at the Order Group meeting every individual area was given instructions?
MS VAN DER WALT: What did you understand, did the other areas have to do anything?
MR KLOPPERS: Well, my type of instruction which I've received was that they wanted to see corpses, that it was the real McCoy and from that I understood that the other groups also had to exercise the same option to leave corpses behind.
But they had to do something absolutely, there were two Commanders from various areas.
MS VAN DER WALT: When on the following day you arrived at General Oelofse's, did you ask if any of the other areas had undertaken anything?
MR KLOPPERS: I asked him whether or not he had heard anything from the other areas, he said that at that point, it was still quiet, but that he was fully convinced that the other areas had in fact done work.
MS VAN DER WALT: You said that you then cut off your hair and shaved off your beard.
MR KLOPPERS: That was during the afternoon Mr Chairman. He said that nothing else had happened in the other areas, that we had to lay low and among others, he also told Deon Martin to get rid of his Mercedes which to me would have been futile.
MS VAN DER WALT: On the 14th of December, this is in 1993, you went to the Voortrekker Monument?
MR KLOPPERS: That is correct Chairperson. Deon Martin and I went there in a caravan and later on the following day other members joined us as well as our wives.
MS VAN DER WALT: What did you go and do there?
MR KLOPPERS: The chief objective was the protection of General Japie Oelofse and we were also asked to form a guard of honour with the generals of staff, for praise by the generals of staff, and the AWB for our attempts at bringing about the revolution.
MS VAN DER WALT: Do you know of any bomb explosions which took place during that time period in Pretoria?
MR KLOPPERS: Not only during that time period, but shortly before bombs had exploded in Krugersdorp during the time of the celebrations of the Day of the Covenant, four bombs exploded with which General Oelofse and other members were involved.
MS VAN DER WALT: Do you know that a sub-power station was near the monument which had also been destroyed by a bomb explosion?
MR KLOPPERS: Yes, the sub-station was not destroyed, it was not in working operation. It was a futile exercise.
MS VAN DER WALT: But there was an attempted explosion?
MS VAN DER WALT: Who was responsible for that?
MS VAN DER WALT: Did you form a guard of honour then for the leader of the AWB?
MR KLOPPERS: I and some of my men who were present, along with the generals, formed a guard of honour.
MS VAN DER WALT: On the 31st of December you left your place of residence, is that correct?
MR KLOPPERS: Yes, I wanted to see if there was any problems. General Oelofse had been arrested for the bomb explosions and I did not know whether or not they were arresting all the Regional Commanders, and that is why I left on the 31st of December for a place very near Margate.
I stayed there for three days, I lay low and then from there, I contacted my wife. She didn't know the number, but I just wanted to know how things were. She relayed an instruction to me that everything was perfectly safe and that I could return home.
Everything was normal, that I could continue with the planning as conveyed to me by General Oelofse.
MS VAN DER WALT: How did you return home?
MR KLOPPERS: I returned home. Martin van der Schyff came to fetch me personally and took me back to Randfontein.
MS VAN DER WALT: And then on the 6th of January 1994, you were arrested?
MR KLOPPERS: I would like to state it clearly that I had not been arrested up until this very day. I was abducted.
MS VAN DER WALT: What happened?
MR KLOPPERS: That morning I was on my way to work, approximately three kilometres away from my home, there was a stop street. There were people in civilian clothes with boxes or caps, it seemed that they were going somewhere.
I was busy adjusting my airconditioning, when my door was opened and a 9 mm pistol was held against my head. They told me to get out, I was under the impression that my vehicle was being stolen.
I was forced into one of the busses and I saw that one of the men who had pulled me over, was climbing into my vehicle. He drove ahead and the bus in which I was, followed.
The other vehicles also followed. We moved towards a field where they stopped, and asked me whether or not I would cooperate. I said that if I could help, they should just say the word, but I didn't know what I could help them with.
They told me, or Mr Andrew Leask told me that I couldn't help them, that I could only help myself. He said tell us what you have done. Seeing as I had been involved in other situations, such as meetings, patrolling and the manufacturing of firearms and I had been in possession of instructions on how to manufacture home made firearms, I did not say anything, I remained quiet.
He told the man on my left side take him away, and give him the hard option, make him talk. The man on my left side was a man by the name of Prinsloo, Joggie Prinsloo.
How I came to know his surname, was during the first trial, we can get to that later. They took me to a place which I did not know, because he immediately took off his jersey and wrapped it around my head so that I could not see anything. I was placed on the floor of the minibus, and was kept there. We arrived at a specific place. If I could estimate, we drove approximately eight kilometres.
I was left in the vehicle for a while and after that, I was removed and made to lay on my stomach. Around my hands I could feel that I was laying on a certain type of blanket.
My feet were first tied with a certain type of material after which they were tied with a certain kind of material, it could be wire or something like that, and the same was done with my hands.
After that, I was rolled into the blanket. They were clearly not satisfied with my position or the position of the blanket, they moved me, opened, repositioned me and rolled the blanket closed again.
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Mrs Van der Walt, there must be a limit with regard to details about which he is telling us, to which we can go, unless you tell us the relevance of that details.
MS VAN DER WALT: I will do my best. You were then tortured by the Police. Did you sustain any injuries?
MR KLOPPERS: Yes, I was so severely injured that from the time that I was tortured by the SAP, I had undergone four operations.
My left side has been partially paralysed, I have no balance towards the left side.
MS VAN DER WALT: And today you are in a wheelchair as a result of that?
MR KLOPPERS: Yes, I am in a wheelchair and I have lost 90 percent of the use of my neck.
MS VAN DER WALT: You were detained in terms of Section 29 and when you were released, you were placed in the Johannesburg prison?
MR KLOPPERS: Yes, that is correct.
MS VAN DER WALT: Did you meet General Japie Oelofse there or not?
MR KLOPPERS: I did not personally see General Japie Oelofse at Protea in Soweto where we were held under Section 29. He shouted to me several times, to have courage, that the Boere would come and fetch us.
MS VAN DER WALT: Was he also held under Section 29?
MR KLOPPERS: Yes, at that point he was held under Section 29 and he shouted at me that he was impressed and that we shouldn't be worried, that we were heroes.
After we were released under Section 29, we were sent to Diepkloof where we were held with him and some of his Krugersdorp activists.
MS VAN DER WALT: The people who were arrested for the bomb explosion?
MR KLOPPERS: That is correct. I would just like to reiterate that these are not the bomb explosions which occurred shortly before the elections, but those which occurred during December.
These men had a very high regard for us, along with General Oelofse. General Oelofse was there with Colonel Basson and they all congratulated us. They stated it very clearly that what we had done, was an act of heroism.
MS VAN DER WALT: Were any of the generals in staff, did any of them visit you during your detention in Johannesburg?
MR KLOPPERS: Gen Nick Fourie, the Chaplain of the AWB whose surname I cannot recall, all of them visited us and praised us and congratulated us. At a point Gen Etsebeth asked us to come to attention and he personally sang to us "Boere gryp jou roere", and so forth.
MS VAN DER WALT: What impression did you get from the Generals in staff, did they know about the operation which had been carried?
MR KLOPPERS: While I was awaiting trial, I believed that each and every one of the Generals in staff had been aware of the act which we had committed. Those who had been involved, were clearly in approval thereof. Later, after we had been found guilty in court, and had not received any visits by the AWB or the leader Eugene Terreblanche, I suspected that something was amiss.
MS VAN DER WALT: Did Eugene Terreblanche after your guilty conviction, visit you in prison?
MR KLOPPERS: Eugene Terreblanche, Mr Randall and others along with the supreme leader of Inkatha, here in the Johannesburg area, visited us upon which they congratulated us with our deed and said that we would get amnesty and that we would be released, that we should not worry.
MS VAN DER WALT: And then later, you specifically asked Eugene Terreblanche what he would do regarding the situation, is that correct?
MR KLOPPERS: That was in 1995 in December, in Johannesburg in Diepkloof. We had a visit from the Generals in staff, not everyone was present, but he was there.
Gen Oelofse along with Eugene Terreblanche, Gen Etsebeth, the rest I cannot remember. For me it was a point of concern which arrived via Deon Martin that on the outside it was said that we had behaved like naughty children and for me that was taboo, because I acted absolutely according to the way in which it was expected of me by Gen Oelofse, and I put it to him as such.
MR KLOPPERS: To Eugene Terreblanche, he said to me - at that point I was still a Commandant, he said Commandant, I am telling you now, that if every regional power had acted in the way that they should have, you would not be in prison today.
It was then also decided to promote me. I myself was promoted to the rank of Brigadier. Deon Martin, the Commandant was promoted to the rank of Colonel. I had to devolve the promotions to the lower levels for their loyalty and for the execution of their duties.
Jaco Badenhorst was personally promoted to the rank of Lieutenant in the Ystergarde by Eugene Terreblanche.
MS VAN DER WALT: Are you aware of any posters, one has been submitted, posters which were printed with each and every one of your faces on them?
MR KLOPPERS: At several occasions from the platform donations were requested for the printing of posters, and for the management of our legal fees in order to achieve our release.
These funds would be used for such purposes and they were used for these purposes to a certain degree. My own poster is available.
MS VAN DER WALT: I would just like to show to the Committee that this is in fact his face. I think one has been handed in.
MR KLOPPERS: I would like to mention that these posters were printed upon the initiative of Gen Oelofse. He suggested that this would be one of the methods by which the "volk" outside would know what we had done, and for whom we had done it, that we did it for God, for volk and for father land. That we had not performed these actions upon our own initiative.
MS VAN DER WALT: Why did you commit this act? You said that you did it for God, volk and father land. Did you draw any personal benefits from that?
CHAIRPERSON: Mrs Van der Walt, he doesn't say he did it for volk and father land, he says he did it for God and father land.
MR KLOPPERS: God, volk and father land Mr Chairman.
MS VAN DER WALT: Did you draw any benefit there from?
MR KLOPPERS: Not I or any of my cohorts ever received any profit from the AWB for that. We spent more for the AWB than anything else.
MS VAN DER WALT: Did you watch the television programme last night, during which Eugene Terreblanche spoke?
MR KLOPPERS: Yes, I also saw his picture on television and I heard his voice, and to me it is ludicrous that the actual coward remains out there and speaks his mind, while those people whom he swept up and worked through the Generals in staff, to me and to my men, should be sitting here and confessing while they are lying.
MS VAN DER WALT: How did you think after you received the instruction, to set up the road block and to do what you did, how would this have assisted the revolution?
MR KLOPPERS: In terms of Gen Oelofse's order to establish a road block, it was very clear to me that this was the real McCoy and that is why I knew that absolute chaos would break out if every Commander irrespective of what their instructions were, would have acted in the way that we did. If they had attended to their work the way we did, we would have caused chaos in South Africa.
But you must remember that we acted completely as guerilla fighters in small groups. The big job was to be done by Gen Viljoen and Ferdi Hartzenberg.
MS VAN DER WALT: What was this big job to which you are referring?
MR KLOPPERS: Constant Viljoen along with some of his Generals, approximately 35, would have entered the struggle by taking over certain military stock piling locations, as well as the SABC, as well as certain radio stations, and along with the Iron and Steel and Mineworkers Union, Ferdi Hartzenberg would have seen to the creation of total darkness in South Africa.
MS VAN DER WALT: Yesterday Mr Martin read a paragraph in Exhibit A, page 11 at the bottom, which reads "means to our objective (Volkstaat), after that heading.
Mr Martin did in fact read the paragraph regarding how a guerilla fighter would fight within small groups, attack and then withdraw.
MS VAN DER WALT: I would like to read to you the last sentence of that paragraph and ask you whether or not that is how you understood it.
The victory of a guerilla lies within the successful application of the revolution or the independence or as an entire team?
MR KLOPPERS: That is absolutely correct.
MS VAN DER WALT: Is that how you regarded it?
MR KLOPPERS: That is not only how I regarded it, that is how we followed through with it.
What I would like to mention however, and this must be understood very clearly, is that the AWB is not a political organisation, but a para-military organisation.
Regarding the negotiations for the Volkstaat, this did not lay in our hands, we were soldiers and we were trained as such.
MS VAN DER WALT: Just a moment Chairperson. Chairperson, I have no further questions.
CHAIRPERSON: Mrs Van der Walt, where, if you can help us, where in the papers is reference made to Dr Hartzenberg and Gen Viljoen, especially in the way that the witness or rather in the context in which the witness has just mentioned their names?
MS VAN DER WALT: If you would look at page 6, he mentions secret meeting with Constand Viljoen and Ferdi Hartzenberg. Also on page 7, paragraph 6 ...
CHAIRPERSON: Page 6 first, what paragraph?
MS VAN DER WALT: Paragraph 4 at the bottom of the page. This is paragraph 4 as well as paragraph 5 wherein Constand Viljoen and Ferdi Hartzenberg were present.
I beg your pardon, paragraph 5 and then at the top of page 7, that is still paragraph 5. Furthermore in paragraph 6, I think that paragraph 6 applies to Mr Kloppers' testimony regarding Constand Viljoen who was compelled to sow terror.
Mr Prinsloo is just pointing out, page 22, paragraph 44 says the motives for the acts committed by myself which I committed on behalf of the AWB under instruction of Gen Constand Viljoen in cooperation with Dr Ferdi Hartzenberg.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, maybe you can pick up other areas if there are any, during lunch time.
It is just about one o'clock, maybe we should adjourn until two o'clock.
PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: (still under oath)
EXAMINATION BY ADV VAN DER WALT: (continued) If the Chairman would permit me, there is a video which I wish to show, it is about two minutes long.
It is about the witness as well as the applicant Mr Martin mentioned a speech that Eugene Terreblanche made in relation to the stealing of weapons. If the Chairman would permit me.
CHAIRPERSON: I should direct an appeal to the audience, to members of the public, we know that in cases such as this, emotion, quite understandably often run very high, but we would appeal to you to try to refrain from making remarks or passing some comments while the witnesses are busy giving evidence, because it makes a difficult case even more difficult.
Sometimes we are not able to hear certain things which are of vital importance and therefore would you please try to restrain yourselves. We will appreciate that very much. Yes, Mrs Van der Walt.
MS VAN DER WALT SUBMITS A VIDEO RECORDING REGARDING A SPEECH BY EUGENE TERREBLANCHE: .
CHAIRPERSON: We didn't hear everything, but what was the substance of the message?
MS VAN DER WALT: This is where the AWB leader as it was testified, we took the one that was official, where he fired people on, told them to go and steal weapons.
CHAIRPERSON: When was this meeting?
MS VAN DER WALT: On the 24th of November 1993, in Port Elizabeth. I think Mr Martin also mentioned this.
I would like to hand this in as Exhibit 1.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it is the video, isn't it? The video as Exhibit 1?
THE VIDEO CASSETTE IS HANDED IN AS EXHIBIT 1: .
MS VAN DER WALT: And a further aspect, Mr Kloppers you testified that you were aware of the fact that Gen Japie Oelofse was arrested for bomb explosions and that he was detained along with you. You also know that he was charged for those explosions?
MS VAN DER WALT: Do you know that the accused who is also detained, his surname is Van der Merwe, do you know him?
MR KLOPPERS: Yes, it is Allan van der Merwe, he was operating under Blackie Swart, under the name Blackie Swart, there was the two Visser brothers and Vermaak.
MS VAN DER WALT: I have the charge sheet here. It was in court in Pretoria, I would like to hand it in as Exhibit C. That concludes the evidence of the applicant.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS VAN DER WALT: .
CHAIRPERSON: Mrs Van der Walt, won't you try to get for us a transcript of what Mr Terreblanche is supposed to be saying on that video?
MS VAN DER WALT: I will do that.
CHAIRPERSON: And then send it to us.
MS VAN DER WALT: I will do that in the period ...
CHAIRPERSON: The next Mr Prinsloo, yes?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Prinsloo. Mr Kloppers, according to my instruction, you heard the testimony of Meiring as well as Matthews, it was at the road cafe when you said this was the real McCoy and you had to use the hard option. And Gen Oelofse wanted to see corpses?
MR PRINSLOO: You also conveyed to them at this road cafe that recently you attended an Order Group meeting, and this is the meeting where Gen Oelofse was?
MR KLOPPERS: That is correct. When I got to the road cafe I conveyed to them that Gen Oelofse, I came from a meeting where Gen Oelofse was and Gen Oelofse said that this is the real McCoy and that he wants to see corpses.
MR PRINSLOO: And you have also testified that in accordance with instructions by Gen Oelofse that you had to find cyanide to put into the drinking water for the people of Soweto. Did you find the cyanide?
MR KLOPPERS: I had some cyanide in the boot of my vehicle when I was arrested, and it wasn't an Exhibit in the charge in court.
MR PRINSLOO: Did the Police give a report?
CHAIRPERSON: I haven't said anything about this noise, because I simply assumed that somebody is aware of it as well, and that they are doing something about it.
MR PRINSLOO: Hopefully Mr Chairman.
MS VAN DER WALT: I did ask, but nothing is happening.
CHAIRPERSON: I think it makes it a little bit difficult to hear what the witness is saying. Maybe we should adjourn for a few minutes until it is eliminated.
PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: (still under oath)
CHAIRPERSON: We will reconstitute. Let's start with the story of the cyanide.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: (continued) Mr Kloppers you testified that Mr Oelofse requested from you to find cyanide?
MR KLOPPERS: Yes, that is correct. This would be part of the chemical war that we were to undergo and the cyanide would have been put into reservoirs, the drinking water for Soweto people.
I had some of the cyanide in a small quantity in the back of my vehicle the day I was arrested. It was not handed in at court as evidence, so I don't know what the Police did with it and if they ever found it.
MR PRINSLOO: Mr Kloppers you also testified that one of the applicants, Mr Badenhorst, there at the road block, he would ... (tape ends) ... the name of Meiring was mentioned. He was standing at the chevron board.
MR KLOPPERS: To tell the truth, at this stage, I cannot remember names, but if I said Badenhorst, then I was wrong, because Badenhorst was with Meiring behind the chevron board.
MR PRINSLOO: Mr Andre Visser, he manned the blue light, is that correct?
MR PRINSLOO: I would put it to you that he did not fire a single shot.
MR KLOPPERS: I have to put it to you Mr Chairperson, I have to go along with his word. On the night when we met, he said that he did shoot.
MR PRINSLOO: He would testify that he did not shoot. Mr Kloppers, during your membership at the AWB you attended many meetings.
MR PRINSLOO: At these meetings, was there any talk of violence, inciting or incitement?
MR KLOPPERS: As I have said previously from 1993, these meetings the purpose of this was to incite members. Myself and my men attended these meetings and we felt that the war had already started.
MR PRINSLOO: Since the ANC was unbanned in 1990 and Mr Mandela was already out of prison and other ANC members were allowed back into the country, what was the AWB's attitude?
MR KLOPPERS: The leadership was opposed to this. If we refer back to phase 1 of the training document, and as I said, we opposed it.
Mr Eugene Terreblanche, there was no negotiations because we were a para-military movement and we supported all right wing groups involved in negotiations.
MR PRINSLOO: At several meetings Mr Terreblanche made some political statements and the movement itself, the organisation the AWB, did it have a political part as well as a military part?
MR PRINSLOO: And in that sense it was also a political organisation?
MR KLOPPERS: It was a political organisation, but not a political party.
MR PRINSLOO: Mr Kloppers, since you have applied for amnesty and recently it seems that your amnesty application would be heard, what was the top structure of the AWB's attitude towards that?
MR KLOPPERS: It was positive and in the initial stages when they visited us, and when the amnesty date was moved, just before the date was moved, I resigned from the AWB and Mr Eugene Terreblanche contacted me and said if I should apply for amnesty I should say I did it upon religious convictions, the whole deed.
Then we had the problem that the person who had been arrested, Mr Jan de Wet, while he was in hiding at Gen Oelofse's property, it was told to Gen Oelofse that he must see myself and my second in command, must be removed with the understanding that we should be killed.
MR PRINSLOO: Why did you have to be killed?
MR KLOPPERS: The problem was that we knew too much at that stage and that they knew we were going to make public some of these facts at the amnesty hearings.
MR PRINSLOO: Mr Jan de Wet, is he also one of the persons who were arrested because of bomb explosions on the day of the elections and afterwards in Johannesburg?
MR KLOPPERS: Yes, Mr Jan de Wet was involved there, he was part of the Iron Guard. I only got to know him in prison though.
MR PRINSLOO: Mr Badenhorst, the other applicant, according to your testimony, he was promoted to the rank of Lieutenant in the Iron Guard, is that correct?
MR PRINSLOO: What is the difference between the Iron Guard and the normal AWB members?
MR KLOPPERS: The Iron Guard perform directly with the leadership and they are used for special options as it is planned and determined by the Generals in staff and the leader and the normal AWB members, would act as guerilla groups and would stand with the General of an area.
MR PRINSLOO: If we begin with Mr Badenhorst, he was within this area and at any stage, did he not follow your orders or that of your colleague, Mr Martin?
MR KLOPPERS: No, as I said in my statement, my men were quite ready, they were well trained soldiers, they were ready for war.
MR PRINSLOO: And the other two members, the two Visser's, Matthews and Mr Diedericks and Meiring?
MR KLOPPERS: I had no problems with them at all, I felt that they were prepared. Mr Meiring offered the training as I said, none of the applicants at that stage gave me any problems, or that I should think that they would be a problem in future.
MR PRINSLOO: And you have already testified that on this particular evening, while you were on your way to the place where you would put up the road block, you admonished some of the members?
MR PRINSLOO: Did you participate in marches?
MR KLOPPERS: Every possible march that I could attend, that it would not mean that I could not go to work, that would be a problem for me, but those meetings I attended and I did some security for Gen Oelofse and for Colonel Stephanie, who is now Brigadier.
MR PRINSLOO: These marches, were they of a military type?
MR KLOPPERS: Most of the marches, it was always in uniform and with weapons. At that time, we always had weapons and I had to have the weapon where I did protection for the leaders, specifically in Potchefstroom, no I think it is Klerksdorp, when he appeared there, where I stood in my uniform with my weapon.
MR PRINSLOO: The military act, was this with military precision?
MR KLOPPERS: Absolutely and only on orders.
MR PRINSLOO: And with discipline?
MR KLOPPERS: This was one hundred percent.
MR PRINSLOO: You also testified that there was a meeting at the Assembly Hotel in Pretoria where it was said that you handled security for Gen Oelofse?
MR PRINSLOO: And you also testified that the meeting there was held in secrecy?
MR KLOPPERS: There was great secrecy to the extent that a General was reprimanded because he came there in his uniform.
The General was Terreblanche, the leader's brother.
MR PRINSLOO: Any of the members who attended there?
MR KLOPPERS: No members attended the meeting. It was only the top structure of the AWB, the Generals in staff and foreign faces that I found out from Gen Oelofse who were members of the SA Defence Force.
MR PRINSLOO: Did the people stay the night at the Hotel?
MR KLOPPERS: Yes, they did. I was relieved and later I returned to pick up Gen Oelofse again.
MR PRINSLOO: No further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRINSLOO: .
CHAIRPERSON: Whenever you speak of a General and or Generals, and or General of staff, with the exception of Gen Viljoen that you have mentioned, you are referring to titles within the AWB?
MR KLOPPERS: Mr Chairman, I just have one problem. We are too close to each other, I can hear you speak in English and I can hear somebody speak in Afrikaans, who do I listen to.
CHAIRPERSON: You listen to the Afrikaans, because they interpret what I am saying.
MR KLOPPERS: I hear you in English and Afrikaans at the same time.
CHAIRPERSON: All right, I will try to repeat the question. Whenever you refer to somebody as a General, and also when you speak of the General of staff, with the exception of Gen Viljoen, you are referring to titles within the AWB?
CHAIRPERSON: I just wanted that clarification so that everybody should be clear that we are not talking about Generals within the South African Police and or the Defence Force?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR KNOETZE: May it please you Mr Chairman. Mr Kloppers, could you comment on my client Mr Van der Schyff?
MR KLOPPERS: If you want commentary on what, Martin van der Schyff's commitment was total, he was my personal guard, he was also my driver.
MR KNOETZE: Why did you choose him, or can we deduce that you trusted him because he was your personal body guard?
MR KLOPPERS: I trusted him totally and in such a manner that he was the only person who knew where to pick me up.
MR KNOETZE: Would this be the same reason why he was the accompaniment for Gen Oelofse at the time when he went to the march in Vereeniging?
MR KLOPPERS: We are talking about two different incidents here. My incident was at a much later stage, but yes, why he was chosen to go to Vereeniging to accompany the General, this was because of his trustworthiness and his impeccable behaviour as a soldier.
MR KNOETZE: Can you comment on his discipline?
MR KLOPPERS: He followed instructions to the point.
MR KNOETZE: On the evening of the 12th, what was your expectation of him when you gave the instruction about which you have told the Commission?
MR KLOPPERS: I had no doubt 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 no doubt that he would comply with the order.
MR KNOETZE: You say that despite the fact that he had to kill people, which according to the law of the 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 guerilla war.
MR KNOETZE: About what you said at the road side cafe and that 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 the Randfontein area, but country wide, and that us as a group, at Randfontein, we would act in Randfontein area.
MR KNOETZE: You have already mentioned the Order Group that you attended and the instruction that you received from Gen Oelofse. Can you explain why you would accept that the order that he gave, was an order from the AWB and not a personal order that he gave in his personal capacity?
MR KLOPPERS: I could not see how this was in his personal capacity, because as I have said the top structures within the AWB in all the towns, all their Commanding Officers attended that meeting. For example Krugersdorp, Johannesburg, so for me it was not a matter of he gave the order in his personal capacity.
I believed that this came from the Generals in staff.
MR KNOETZE: 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?
MR KLOPPERS: Yes, I acted as Chief Commander, I was the leader of Randfontein. I should have been promoted a long time ago, but opportunity was never there, but in my capacity as Chief Commander I acted, and gave this order.
MR KNOETZE: Thank you Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR KNOETZE: .
MR BRINK: I don't know whether you would prefer Mr Dreyer to question first.
CHAIRPERSON: We can do it that way.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DREYER: Mr Kloppers, from the content of the different applications that is here in front of the Commission, it looks like the acts of the group of those people, acted because they believed that you as the Chief Commander, the order that you conveyed to them, you received through the channels from the top structure of the AWB?
MR DREYER: For a moment I would like to present the following construction to you, would you agree with me that within any armed struggle, whether it be conventional or unconventional, freedom movements or an actual conventional onslaught, that there would always be the official and planned action of the larger group, the military power but when one in retrospect examines the situation again, that there are many examples in history that a smaller, splinter faction or individual group, would be found to have acted on their own. Do you know of anything like this and what is your comment?
MR KLOPPERS: It might have happend, but not in our case.
MR DREYER: I accept that in your position as the Chief Commandant of area 9, Randfontein and from within your background as a Training and Intelligence Officer, as well as your background in the military, you understood clearly the implications of an order in the execution of a specific task?
MR KLOPPERS: Yes, you are correct.
MR DREYER: Am I also correct in saying that the basis of each and every application which is submitted to the Committee today, is closely related to an order from which none of the applicants can actually say that that is the order upon which I acted, is that the core of it?
MR KLOPPERS: That is correct. That is a question which was put, and which has been answered.
MR DREYER: If it were to be found that there were no such order, which has been said to the mass media by Eugene Terreblanche, then it would imply that you and the rest of your group acted as individuals and not within the mandate of the AWB as an organisation?
MR KLOPPERS: If you are putting it that I acted beyond my powers, and beyond the orders which were given to me, then you are not correct, that is not what happened.
MR DREYER: What is unsettling to me, and I do not wish to refer to previous proceedings, especially not criminal proceedings in which you were involved, I am referring to your written application, in the documents which have been made available to me, within that application and I wish to refer you to specific sections thereof.
The first being on the paginated page 7, or the typed page 4 of your application, and that would be paragraph 6. There you arrived at the large meeting in Potchefstroom where the AWB was also present and you mentioned Gen Constand Viljoen who was the chief speaker at the meeting. Let me first ask you, it was therefore clearly not an AWB meeting, but a meeting of a conglomerate of right wing organisations, am I correct? It was not exclusively an AWB meeting, am I correct?
MR KLOPPERS: No, it was not exclusively an AWB meeting, it was AWB, Constand Viljoen, Ferdi Hartzenberg and so forth.
MR DREYER: Then approximately in the middle of that paragraph you say that the tensions mounted after the meeting, and we realised that after the order of Gen Constand Viljoen to us to sow terror, the war would break out soon.
What I want to know from you is, that order to sow terror, in terms of the time period, how long before or after the meeting of the 12th of December, the Order Group meeting, how long after that, was that?
MR KLOPPERS: It was not specifically mentioned. As in all our cases, when an order was specifically given to us, the revolution would begin on the 12th of December 1993.
MR DREYER: I don't think that you are answering my question. What is the difference in time between the Potchefstroom meeting and the Order Group meeting to which you have referred?
MR KLOPPERS: It maybe three to four months.
MR DREYER: Therefore in other words, it would be correct of me to accept that three to four months before the Order Group meeting an order was issued by a prominent figure according to you, Constand Viljoen, that terror had to be sowed, is that correct?
MR KLOPPERS: It was not so much an order as it was a call.
MR DREYER: In your application you clearly refer to an order, you must understand the difference between an order and a call?
MR KLOPPERS: That is why I am indicating it to you.
MR DREYER: Then within the same application, you mention and I am moving towards the end of your application, I think it is page 22, paginated 22, 19 typed, paragraph 44. You state there and this is at the end of your application, you have told us the whole story, and now you are constructing the basis as to why you acted lawfully and why your conduct could be classified as military conduct, you state the motive for the acts which I committed on behalf of the AWB and under the command of Gen Constand Viljoen in cooperation with Dr Ferdi Hartzenberg, was to establish a political revolt.
There is something strange here to me because I think that we can generally accept that it is general knowledge that neither Gen Viljoen nor Ferdi Hartzenberg were leaders of the AWB, am I correct?
MR KLOPPERS: Yes, you are correct.
MR DREYER: This Mr Kloppers is the second construct from which your order would have emanated. We now have Dr Hartzenberg in cooperation with Gen Viljoen, in opposition to what you said earlier that it was an order from Constand Viljoen at a meeting in Potchefstroom. We now have two constructs, do you agree?
MR DREYER: And then there is a third construct if one considers your application and your testimony in their entirety that you directly received an order from Gen Japie Oelofse?
MR KLOPPERS: That is correct. This entire paragraph should have read the motive for the deeds which I committed on behalf of the AWB and under the order of Gen Japie Oelofse in cooperation with Gen Constand Viljoen and Dr Hartzenberg.
MR DREYER: Why then was that omitted, because what I find strange is that in the total testimony which you have delivered here today, when you were occupied with orders, you came back to Gen Oelofse many a time, but when you are busy with your amnesty application, which is the most important thing before you here today, you omit the name of Gen Oelofse.
MR KLOPPERS: I do not omit the name of Gen Oelofse, he is my alibi, he is the person who specifically issued the order to me to move out that night.
MR DREYER: And then you also say that you received an order from him that evening, but I don't understand how many orders do you have to receive in order to go over to revolution or acts of terror before you decided that this is the real thing?
MR KLOPPERS: Constand Viljoen or Ferdi Hartzenberg did not have the authority to give me orders. The person who gave me orders was Gen Japie Oelofse.
MR DREYER: And the video material that we have watched, if we add that to your application which has been submitted to the Committee, we then have a fourth construct, because there the leader of the AWB is speaking and he is calling people and telling them, this is the time to shoot, shoot, shoot, and if you cannot get firearms or buy firearms, or if you cannot require a licence, then steal the firearms.
How much of an order was that, especially coming from the leader of the AWB?
MR KLOPPERS: As a trained soldier and as Chief Commandant of area 9, I waited for instructions from my General, my General was Gen Japie Oelofse and I did receive such orders, that I should go on a 24 hour assistance.
MR DREYER: If the leader of the AWB say now is the time to shoot, shoot, shoot, why would you wait for a further or secondary order? What other interpretation would you lend to now is the time?
MR KLOPPERS: Eugene Terreblanche has been shooting since 1973.
MR DREYER: Mr Kloppers, why then was this not happening since 1973, why was there not a revolution since 1973? Would you say that the calls from the AWB leader was not the real thing?
MR KLOPPERS: I cannot speak or answer for the leader. I believe that the leader will answer that himself, but as far as it concerns me, my instructions came from Gen Japie Oelofse, he is the person from whom I accepted them, from no one else.
If one works according to a structure or a hierarchy, one will see that one never goes above your immediate superior.
MR DREYER: Now, we come to the Order Group meeting which you attended, and you returned to your group of people ...
CHAIRPERSON: Before you proceed to that meeting. I think we must go back to page 22, paragraph 44. You see Mr Kloppers, can you give him a copy of that page if you don't mind, you are saying the motive for the deeds committed by me on behalf of the AWB under command of Gen Constand Viljoen and in cooperation with Dr Ferdi Hartzenberg, was to establish a political revolt. In so doing to prevent the government of the time from going forth, and so on and so on.
Now, from your answers that you have given to Mr Dreyer, it seems to me that you personally did not receive any orders from Gen Constand Viljoen or from Dr Hartzenberg?
CHAIRPERSON: Well, your evidence gives the impression that you are saying that you did get such orders.
MR KLOPPERS: That is not what I said. What should have stood here is the motive for the deeds committed by me which I committed on behalf of the AWB under orders of Gen Oelofse in cooperation with Gen Constand Viljoen and Dr Ferdi Hartzenberg.
As I have explained the guerilla war fare before, I would like to say that Gen Constand Viljoen along with 35 other Generals had certain duties, and Ferdi Hartzenberg together with Iron and Steel and Mineworkers Union, also had certain duties.
That is why I implicated them in this.
CHAIRPERSON: My question to you was, looking at the sentence as it stands, the impression you give is that you got that orders from Gen Viljoen?
MR KLOPPERS: It looks like it, but that is not what I mean.
CHAIRPERSON: Now, why didn't you say what you wanted to mean in your statement?
MR KLOPPERS: I cannot respond to that.
MR KLOPPERS: As I said it should not read as such.
CHAIRPERSON: Where did the mistake appear? You see Mr Kloppers, I am asking you this question because we must be careful and guard against saying things about people which are not correct.
What you are saying here, you are saying something, the impression that is being conveyed here, you are conveying a certain impression about Gen Viljoen and now you are saying it is not so.
MR KLOPPERS: It is not like that. I never received any direct orders from Constand Viljoen or any other person. The only person from whom I received orders, was Gen Oelofse.
MS VAN DER WALT: When I read this and according to my instructions which I received from Mr Kloppers, this is definitely a mistake because it doesn't read correctly.
The order did not come from them, it was in cooperation with Constand Viljoen and Ferdi Hartzenberg. It is not the correct order.
CHAIRPERSON: Then it must now be stated properly that what is being said here, is not correct.
MS VAN DER WALT: That which is written here is incorrect, but his testimony has consistently been correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but that is what I mean.
MS VAN DER WALT: Therefore what appears here is my error and it can only have occurred when I compiled the document.
CHAIRPERSON: But he did not correct this in his evidence in chief? No, before we stopped for lunch, I asked you to give me references, pages and references and paragraphs where this witness incriminates Gen Viljoen and Dr Hartzenberg, and you gave me those pages, and this is one of the areas that you gave me.
No mention was made that this was incorrect.
MS VAN DER WALT: I must apologise, I did not check it with him again. I only looked for where the names appeared, because that is what you asked me to do.
But I did not look at the sentences here, it was not his testimony, it is an error.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Kloppers, the reason why I am unhappy and uncomfortable about this as to why it was not corrected, is because sometimes we are accused of not informing people that they are being incriminated.
Now, one may get the impression here that we failed to inform Gen Viljoen that you were saying certain things about him, which could be incriminating and which now turns out are not correct. That is why we are unhappy if people, we want people to be careful before they begin to incriminate others, because it can cause problems.
That is why I am uncomfortable about this, do you understand?
MR KLOPPERS: Chairperson, I understand you completely. My entire testimony has not once incriminated anyone. This section which has appeared on paper, is faulty, I do not agree with it and that is why I stated it. I discussed it with my Advocate because this is not what I said.
I have never received any orders from Gen Constand Viljoen or anyone else.
CHAIRPERSON: Let us look at page 6 ...
MR MALAN: Chair, will you allow me just to ask a question?
MR MALAN: Mr Kloppers, after this was indicated to you, you had the documents in front of you and you said you wished to correct it that it should read and I quote you "the motive for the deeds committed by me on behalf of the AWB on the order of Gen Oelofse and in cooperation with Gen Constand Viljoen and Dr Ferdi Hartzenberg", is that how it should read?
MR KLOPPERS: Yes, that is correct.
MR MALAN: Do you say therefore through this that the order which Gen Oelofse gave to you, was cleared with Constand Viljoen or Ferdi Hartzenberg, what kind of construct does one place upon this?
MR KLOPPERS: The construct which I place upon this is that Oelofse was a member of the Generals in staff and would have discussed it before he had given me an order as such.
It would have been preferable if Japie Oelofse could have been here, because he would have been able to answer your questions better.
MR MALAN: Dr Hartzenberg and Gen Viljoen are not members of the AWB?
MR KLOPPERS: Dr Ferdi Hartzenberg, at the time of that incident and that meeting, were in close liaison with the AWB and Generals in staff, they sat together on the platform, they planned it together and they set certain objectives together.
MR MALAN: This order was received by you immediately after the Order Group meeting, is that the meeting to which you are referring?
MR MALAN: What meeting are you referring to?
MR KLOPPERS: The deed which emanated from this order, was the road block.
MR MALAN: Correct, and you have said that that order came from Gen Oelofse in cooperation between him, Hartzenberg and Viljoen.
MR KLOPPERS: Yes, that is correct if I understand it correctly in terms the way of which you are leading the question.
This order came from Gen Oelofse. Gen Oelofse stated it very clearly to us that a general meeting was called in terms of what was decided at Generals and staff and the Generals involved at that instant, were Ferdi Hartzenberg and Constand Viljoen.
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Malan, I am going to - let me see if we cannot just stop this before it gets out of hand.
Are you saying that you know as a fact that Oelofse collaborated with Gen Viljoen in coming to this order which Oelofse gave you, or do you just think that probably he must have discussed that with Gen Viljoen?
MR KLOPPERS: Not Oelofse, the General staff.
CHAIRPERSON: What about the General staff?
MR KLOPPERS: The General staff would have discussed it Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Do you think they did that, or do you know as a fact that they did?
MR KLOPPERS: I know as a fact they did.
CHAIRPERSON: Did what, I do not want to put words in your mouth, I want to hear it come from you, did what?
MR KLOPPERS: I know for a fact that the Generals in staff, Constand Viljoen and Ferdi Hartzenberg entered into negotiations.
CHAIRPERSON: No, no, no that is not what I am asking. They might have had several meetings before that. I am talking about this incident of the road block, because you say this order in paragraph 44, you say you are referring to the question of the road block and the identification of ANC people and killing them.
That is what you are saying in paragraph 4 isn't it, now I want to know from you are you saying that Oelofse or the Order, whatever you call it, that group which came to that decision, are you saying that they came to that decision in collaboration or in consultation with Gen Viljoen?
MR KLOPPERS: There have been meetings with Constand Viljoen and the Generals in staff. At those meetings or after those meetings, it was conveyed to me personally in the presence of some of my officers, by Gen Oelofse that the war was about to break out.
MR KLOPPERS: I am trying to get to the point.
CHAIRPERSON: Well, I am helping you now to come to the point, I don't want to listen to that history, I have heard it before, you have said it many times. I want to know from you Mr Kloppers, are you saying as a fact that the order to go and put up a road block on the 12th of December 1993 to identify and kill ANC people, was an order which came after consultation or in collaboration with Gen Viljoen?
MR KLOPPERS: It came directly from Gen Japie Oelofse.
CHAIRPERSON: I know you have said that. I want to know about Viljoen.
MR KLOPPERS: I think it could have been.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you think, go on.
MR KLOPPERS: I think that it might have occurred in cooperation with Constand Viljoen and others.
CHAIRPERSON: Is it possible you may be wrong in so thinking?
MR KLOPPERS: While Gen Oelofse was a soldier and a leadership figure, I would never have believed that he would have made an error regarding something like that.
CHAIRPERSON: Why do you think so, why do you think this was done in cooperation with Gen Viljoen?
MR KLOPPERS: Because he personally said to me before the time that he would enter into cooperation with Constand Viljoen and the Generals in staff and what happened was that they decided that we should be on a 24 hour assistance.
CHAIRPERSON: So, the premises on which you bring in Gen Viljoen is that, is as a result of what you were told by Gen Oelofse?
MR DREYER: I would just like to come back to paragraph 44. The deeds which are referred to are the shooting and the road block and there you still implicate Gen Oelofse with Gen Viljoen and Dr Hartzenberg?
MR DREYER: Did Gen Oelofse tell you to set up the road block, that he wanted to see corpses that he had cleared it with Hartzenberg and Viljoen?
MR KLOPPERS: He did not say that he had cleared it with Viljoen or Hartzenberg.
MS VAN DER WALT: I realise the problem which Mr Kloppers has, because this paragraph should be read in a certain way and I know that he has answered but I would like to point out to the Committee that this paragraph has to do with the motive for the deeds, and then the amendment which he has brought it.
In cooperation with Gen Constand Viljoen and Dr Ferdi Hartzenberg, was to establish a political revolt and in so doing prevent the government of the time, from proceeding with the general election.
This paragraph does not have anything to do with the order to commit the deeds, this paragraph has to do with the motive and if you then consult page 7, page 6, where there was a meeting during which Constand Viljoen said that there would be war now, one can see that this is what this paragraph is about.
CHAIRPERSON: Mrs Van der Walt, that is what he should have said. I asked him and he wanted to go back into some history, I drew him and I restricted him specifically to the incident.
He didn't say what you are telling us. He said he believed in fact he said, I think that this order to kill this people on this day, was cleared with Gen Viljoen. He said I think so and I asked him is that what you think, and he said yes, I think so.
He didn't say the cooperation with Gen Viljoen and Hartzenberg had nothing to do with this particular incident, he actually said he thought so. He actually said I think that the order to kill these people on the 12th of December 1993, was cleared with Gen Viljoen.
MS VAN DER WALT: Yes, I understand that and I am not attempting to argue that point. But the content of paragraph 44 does not have specifically to do with the deeds, but it deals with the motives. Then it turns to the reason why they committed such deeds.
It is not specifically about that deed, but the core issue of this paragraph is the motive for the act.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Van der Walt, sorry I am not Afrikaans speaking, look at the sentence.
The motive for the acts committed by me - what is he describing there?
CHAIRPERSON: What is the last noun in the first portion of that sentence? No Mrs Van der Walt, the last noun is deeds and then after the comma, he proceeds to describe the deeds.
MS VAN DER WALT: But if you consider the portion about Viljoen, if you omit that, then you will see that the deeds were committed in order to establish political revolt and prevent the government of the time, it has to do with the motive, not the deed itself.
If one were to omit that entire section regarding the order, he then tells the Honourable Committee in his application about the motive.
CHAIRPERSON: I don't understand what you are telling me, but can I ask you this, the comma after the word "my", after that we have a long sentence which is actually a description of a specific deed or deeds, what is that sentence describing, why are you saying that because the motive for the deeds committed by me, the last noun is deed, and the word referring to the previous noun is "namens" and the noun is "dade".
MS VAN DER WALT: The section between the two commas could be very well omitted and one would still arrive at the motive, because this paragraph deals with the motive.
I did commit an error with this paragraph, but nonetheless, if one were to read it as amended now, one would see that this is about the motive and the motive for the deeds which he committed.
MR MALAN: Chairperson, I do not wish to enter into a lengthy debate, but my mother tongue is Afrikaans and I do agree this is about the motive, but it is the underlying motive to the deed which was the road block and the shooting. The motive for the shooting and the road block which I did under the orders, was to spread terror and chaos.
The question here is the intermediary sentence, the deeds, the road block, the shooting, the motive for the shooting which I committed under the orders of Oelofse in cooperation with Hartzenberg and Viljoen was to cause chaos.
Let us please not argue the language construction here. It is about the motives, but the fourth construct to which Mr Dreyer has referred or be it the third construct, is this clause which appears here and this is why we are questioning Mr Kloppers.
Perhaps we should just get his view points on this once more so we can have clarity regarding this. Were these deeds committed under the orders of Gen Oelofse and did Gen Oelofse in some or other way clear up this order with Gen Constand Viljoen and Dr Ferdi Hartzenberg, and you answer was yes, you believed it. Do you stand by that?
MR KLOPPERS: I stand by the fact that Gen Oelofse gave me the order and that this was in cooperation with the other political parties. I stand by this because of the fact that they met regularly and they held meetings regularly, and this is why I believed that, not on that specific day he would have said, set up a road block, but that he did agree that the war would begin on that day, the 12th of December.
CHAIRPERSON: To the extent that this sentence creates the impression that Gen Oelofse would have cleared the order with Gen Viljoen, it is therefore incorrect? Regarding this specific aspect?
MR KLOPPERS: Gen Oelofse would never have cleared anything with Gen Viljoen, he would have worked through Generals and staff and Eugene Terreblanche.
ADV BOSMAN: Mr Kloppers it seems to me as if maybe my colleague might not agree with me, but it is a contraction of sentence here, that the ideas here were put together to give in to us, would you tell us that there was a broadened instruction that the war must start and this was cleared up with the Generals and staff and within this broad instruction, the war should start and that there was a detailed instruction, is that what you are trying to say or am I not correct?
MR KLOPPERS: That is basically what I am saying.
ADV BOSMAN: Do you not want to simplify this for us because you have confused us now. Let me not tell you what to say, but it is the principle that I am trying to class, but I would like to hear it from yourself.
MR KLOPPERS: What I say is that Gen Oelofse gave me instruction that he would have cleared with the Generals in staff in cooperation with Gen Constand Viljoen and Ferdi Hartzenberg, and whoever was involved.
I go along with Gen Oelofse's word, I cannot say with conviction that he did do it, that was what his answer was to me, his statement.
CHAIRPERSON: The other page, 6 to 7 - no we can leave that, it doesn't cause any problems. Let's look at paragraph 4 of the same page 6, sorry. That does not cause me any difficulties. I am sorry I interrupted you Mr Dreyer.
MR DREYER: Mr Kloppers, I do not want to enter into discourse over syntaxes and semantics. All I want to ask you is I understand simple Afrikaans terms, but specific questions were put to you by the Committee and you would remember that after the first part of your cross-examination was concluded, the Chairman stopped proceedings with specific reference to cross-examination and when it was put to you that when you talk about Generals in staff then you speak about the Generals in staff of the AWB and you exclude specifically Gen Constand Viljoen is that correct?
MR KLOPPERS: I think from April 1993 when he became involved in the struggle.
MR DREYER: Mr Kloppers, it was placed on record, that is all that I am asking. I am not asking what you are now saying. At that stage when you said when I speak about the Generals in staff, I speak about the Generals in staff with regard to the AWB excluding Constand Viljoen. That is what you said at that stage and it is placed on record as such.
MR DREYER: Now I put it to you that when you answered the question of the Chairman, when you were asked specifically that now you say Gen Constand Viljoen and Ferdi Hartzenberg were part of the Generals in staff, you said yes.
I now put it to you that that is a contradiction, can you explain that?
MR KLOPPERS: I cannot explain that, because it is surprising to me that these people met in secrecy and that I personally transported them, and I accompanied Gen Oelofse to Ferdi Hartzenberg's office. It was clear to me that he was part of the then Generals in staff.
MR DREYER: We all know that Gen Constand Viljoen, besides the fact that he is a politician, he also had a military career and that you come from a military background, but it bothers me still what is put in paragraph 6, on paginated page 7. After this order from Gen Constand Viljoen to have terror in the country, there was an order for terror, we do not talk about a call up to political action. We are talking about an order for terror.
MR KLOPPERS: Yes, I agree but Gen Oelofse's name should come in front of Gen Viljoen.
MR DREYER: That is not what I am asking you, listen to my question. I asked you if we speak in political terms, would we use the word call up and if we speak about military action, then we use the word order, do you agree?
MR KLOPPERS: Call up for terror is the same as an order. A call up was to get yourself ready, but an order is to go over to action.
MR DREYER: Should I then add another construction that you meant to speak of the order in the sense of a military sentence? We don't have to go much further than that, that is how I read it unless you want to give me another interpretation but that is the normal meaning attached to those words?
MR KLOPPERS: The only problem that I have with this sentence is that the name of Gen Oelofse was not placed in there and I wish to put it now ...
MR DREYER: I take note of your answer, let me take you away from this. I am not going to try to catch you with words.
Let me ask you the following. You say there was a specific order that you received at some point from Gen Oelofse and eventually we will come back to this. What I want to clear up with you now, you stand here in front of this Commission with an application for amnesty, when you were exposed to criminal procedures, the death sentence was still part of the criminal procedure in South Africa and you looked the death sentence in the eye and you were sentenced to death, is that correct?
MR DREYER: The whole objective of this Commission is the opposite, even if you in terms of the new legislation this was turned into prison sentence, but you are here today because you have the opportunity to be indemnified and receive amnesty and go home, is that correct?
MR KLOPPERS: Mr Chairperson, I received the death sentence four times and now I sit here with an application for amnesty, that is why I am speaking the truth and that is why at that time, to protect Gen Oelofse and others, I had to keep my mouth shut and speak for myself, and that is why I am conveying what I am saying here today.
MR DREYER: Mr Kloppers, it is a simple construction. If it was important for you then to lie, because you tried to indemnify yourself while you were about to receive the death sentence, then it is if you agree with me, it is more important that you speak the truth today, because you have the chance of being totally indemnified?
MR KLOPPERS: That is correct. There is just one thing that you lost sight of even if I do receive the death sentence, I would have gone home, I wouldn't have cared.
MR DREYER: The point that I wish to convey is simply, do you agree with me it is of utmost importance that you put the correct facts here, put it on writing for this Commission when they consider your application.
Why would you then when you are confronted with the interpretation with simple sentence constructions, why would you tell the Commission that they must now attach a different meaning to what they read there. That is not what I meant, and at this stage that would be the most important thing in your life to place the correct facts in front of this Commission in order to receive amnesty?
MR KLOPPERS: Mr Chairperson, I made one mistake and the mistake was that I did not put Gen Oelofse's name in front of Gen Constand Viljoen's. That is where the fault is.
MR DREYER: Mr Kloppers, if it was a small mistake we would ignore it, but that is the problem, this is the total basis of your application, that you received the order from Gen Oelofse but yet you omit that, the core principle of your defence, this you conveniently omits?
MR KLOPPERS: I stand by the fact that I received instructions from Gen Oelofse and this is stated throughout my application. This is where the problem is, where Gen Oelofse's name is not in this paragraph.
MR DREYER: I cannot ask you questions about what the instruction was that you put to the rest of your group, what you precisely told them, we will never know. We would have to listen to what your fellow applicants say and I do not doubt that what you say here today, what you told them, is quite what you told them then. We have to accept that that is correct because there are many people testifying here and in different applications they say that this is what you told them, and on the strength thereof, they acted, do you agree?
MR DREYER: The problem is unfortunately that we only have your word from all the applicants, that that was the instruction that you received from Gen Oelofse and that you believed it was an instruction from the top structure. You interpreted it correctly and that you conveyed it correctly, is that correct?
MR DREYER: Then would you agree with me then that if any, in any factual construction, in any paradigm if the point of departure is wrong, then everything that follows, is also incorrect? Is that correct?
MR DREYER: And if you for some or other reason out of personal conviction was - because you made a mistake with relation to the conversation that you had, or whatever reason it might be, if you made a mistake with the interpretation of what was put to you, and you incorrectly conveyed to the rest of your group, then their actions are not actions that were carried out in terms of a legal instruction? They acted upon an instruction that they believed that you received from a higher authority, am I correct?
CHAIRPERSON: I will not allow that question the way it is framed, because it is incorrect.
CHAIRPERSON: Because the other applicants, their version is that they acted on the basis of the order as put to them by this particular witness.
CHAIRPERSON: He can't answer that question, it is for us as the Amnesty Committee to decide whether if he had interpreted the order from Oelofse but that the other applicants understood him correctly, whether or not they are entitled to amnesty, or whether or not they acted properly, is for us to decide, it is not for him.
MR DREYER: As it pleases the Court Mr Chairman, that is not the impression I wished to convey. I accept that whatever Mr Kloppers told the rest of them, they accepted it as the correct order that he received from a higher authority.
They had no reason not to believe him. My statement that I make is that the instruction that he conveyed to them, is not the order that he believed that he received.
CHAIRPERSON: As long as you restrict yourself to his own case, not the case of the other applicants.
MR DREYER: As it pleases the Court. Mr Kloppers, you were asked what was the instruction. If I can just get my notes in front of me, I would like to read to you what you said.
You started to say that with the 1993 meeting in the Assembly Hotel in Pretoria, Oelofse told you that the meeting took place. You were just there for security reasons, you did not participate in this meeting, it was only for top structure members. Is that correct?
MR DREYER: And then you say you used the following words, you said he let certain things shine through and in Afrikaans ideologically speaking this means that if I don't, if I have it correct, he did not tell you directly and in detail what was decided, you said he had certain things shine through, is that correct?
MR DREYER: And that would mean that from your own version, these things that you heard from him, according to your own interpretation, because he just let it shine through, it was no - nothing was told to you in detail.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Chairperson, I don't think you understand correctly. You asked me what happened at the Assembly Hotel and now you come back to the happenings of the evening of the 12th of December. These are two different incidents.
MR DREYER: I am not with the two different incidents, I am involved with whatever you had shone through. This is the departure point, and you say at that meeting certain things were, Gen Oelofse had it creep through, shine through and I would say that "shine through" would mean that you did not receive detailed orders, but according to your own version, it was left up to you to interpret it in whichever manner you wanted to.
MR KLOPPERS: At that stage I did not say that any instructions had been given, that is what I am trying to say to you Mr Chairperson. At that stage I said shine through that the war was at hand, if I am correct, according to my statement.
I never mentioned that there was any instruction afterwards. The instruction that came was that we should be ready on a 24 hour basis, but never for any other instruction.
MR DREYER: That is the point of departure, am I correct?
This was the departure point of this chain of instruction, this chain of information that was given to the men below that things were getting to a point now, am I correct?
MR DREYER: And this was followed later by a summit ...
MR KLOPPERS: No, excuse me. You are missing the point completely. The summit and the time of the Assembly Hotel is far apart from each other. The summit was held first.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Kloppers are you sure the meeting at the Assembly Hotel was the point of departure?
MR KLOPPERS: Yes, it shone through from that point, it started earlier actually but the intensity increased after the meeting at the Assembly Hotel.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I just wish to tell you you need to be cautious when you say it is the point of departure there because Mr Dreyer put it to you that it was the beginning point, but I don't think it was your version that that was actually the point of departure.
That couldn't have been the point of departure.
MR KLOPPERS: No, long before the time we already started with the beginning of this.
MR DREYER: From there, if I understand you correctly, there was an escalation of the inciting remarks that happened at meetings and so forth, is that correct? Did it increase in frequency and intensity from there onwards?
MR KLOPPERS: As you have seen on the video it was total incitement.
MR DREYER: To be truthful in your own version you have told us that the meeting was so inciteful in 1993 that when one person leaves there, that he would probably murder your own family? Would you then agree with me that it would cost very little to give someone a false interpretation into an instruction that he believed that he received, because he was so incited that there would in fact be mass hysteria?
MR KLOPPERS: I would just like to put it to you that Mr Japie Oelofse was not someone to give speeches. I attended some of his meetings and I listened to what he said and the instruction that he gave to me, he was not a speaker of the same calibre as Eugene Terreblanche.
MR DREYER: That is not what I put to you. I was referring to your own testimony. You say the meetings was so inciteful that when you leave there, you would kill your own house family, your own family. According to your own version, this inciteful attitude that was there amongst the supporters of the AWB at that stage then, it would take very little to convey a faulty interpretation of something that you would believe was an instruction, it is that easy?
MR KLOPPERS: No, it is not that easy, you don't understand it correctly. I am trying to tell you you would have acted as such if you were in Eugene Terreblanche's meeting, but if you were in Oelofse's meeting, you had to be very careful.
MR DREYER: But despite that fact, you testify here it was an open meeting on the 12th of December and in general simple things are first reported, such as year end financial statements, fund raising, is that correct?
MR DREYER: But apart from that, according to you this is not the core of the meeting, this was not what the meeting was about although there were these patrolling guards and the people at the gate, it looks like a normal annual general meeting? Is that correct?
MR KLOPPERS: No, that is not correct. According to the group that attended there and the guards that were there, this was not a general meeting or a year end meeting as is normally held.
MR DREYER: But at your own version you said that this was what was discussed there. This is what was started with and towards the end, something else was added.
MR KLOPPERS: I did not say that at any instance.
MR DREYER: I put it to you if that was the last meeting for the year, this would have been the last occasion where the structuring and the functioning of the AWB, could have been attended to, is that correct, until the next year?
MS VAN DER WALT: I object, he never said that was the year end meeting, he also did not say that it was a general meeting. He said general aspects were discussed and then he continued to say what happened there.
MR DREYER: Mr Chairperson, I will formulate it in another manner. Just tell me Mr Kloppers, except for this meeting on the 12th of December, do you have knowledge of any other meetings of this nature for the rest of that year, because I wish to put it to you that was indeed the year end meeting?
MR KLOPPERS: There were other meetings that I attended personally, but not with the top structure that was present there at that meeting on that day.
MR DREYER: Would you then accept that that was the year end meeting of the top structure?
MR DREYER: Then I ask you, this is a meeting and there was good security there ...
MR KLOPPERS: Excuse me, it was not an open meeting. I do not know if you know the name of the Order Group.
MR DREYER: There was good security there and it is told to you in general that this is, you used the words, the real McCoy.
MR KLOPPERS: Could you just repeat that.
MR DREYER: You say at this meeting after the financial statements and so forth was concluded, you say at this meeting it was said that this was the real McCoy, now is the time, is that correct?
MR DREYER: Is this in the open meeting or was this afterwards according to your version when you were called in by Oelofse?
MR KLOPPERS: This was in the open meeting. The same words were not used there, the words were used 12 December 1993 when Chris van der Heever stood up and asked that the date should be extended because his men were at Skanskop in Pretoria and they were waiting for the 16th of December.
This was when Willem Rutter also took up position in Skanskop, he asked for an extension. Gen Oelofse then said nothing is to be extended, remove your men from Skanskop, now was the time for the revolution to start.
MR DREYER: These men, did they leave Skanskop?
MR DREYER: What I don't understand is that this is an open meeting and you say all the earlier Commanders were there.
MS VAN DER WALT: I object, it was never said that it was an open meeting, it was testified that it was an Order Meeting.
MR DREYER: As it pleases the Court. Mr Chairperson would then ask the question in this manner. You said it was an Order Group meeting.
When I use the word open meeting, I just want to distinguish between the two phases in the meeting, in the fist stage when the meeting is a general meeting, and that was what I was referring to and the other part, when persons were called in individually.
MR KLOPPERS: Chairperson, it wasn't a meeting of the second phase, it was an Order. While the meeting was addressed and or the members were addressed in their entirety, it was said that now was the time that the revolution would begin on the 12th of December.
MR DREYER: That is absolutely correct. And you said that an extension was requested because of the deployment of certain people?
MR DREYER: And you said that those people were withdrawn?
MR DREYER: Do you know when they were withdrawn?
MR DREYER: What I find strange is this ...
CHAIRPERSON: Do you know when they would have been withdrawn?
MR KLOPPERS: No, I don't have any idea, it was completely outside my area. Brigadier Chris was involved with training of Special Forces, therefore I did not have any knowledge thereof, I simply listened to what he had said that the Forces had to be withdrawn.
He was ordered to do that and he had agreed.
CHAIRPERSON: Do you know for how long those people had to remain there?
MR DREYER: Mr Kloppers, are you telling the committee that this was the very first direct order which you in conjunction with all other Area Commanders had received that there would be a national revolution launched by the AWB?
MR KLOPPERS: If you are indicating revolution, then that is correct.
MR DREYER: I would like you to listen properly, are you telling the Committee that that call and order which you received that day was the first official call or order to a national level revolution by the AWB?
MR DREYER: And sir, are you telling us that with the exception with the bomb explosions to which you have referred where Gen Oelofse was arrested along with others, are you telling the Committee that this national call to a revolution, all that came of that was this single incident at the Radora road. Is that all which the AWB could muster with a national call for revolution, one incident on the Radora road?
MR KLOPPERS: I do not believe that you can ask me that question because I simply did that which I had been ordered to do.
If any others had received orders, I would not be able to say because I was not present.
MR DREYER: You are now answering the question. If you believe that Gen Oelofse in his capacity as a representatives of the AWB Generals in staff, had given a call on that day to a revolution by the AWB, are you telling us that all that came of that if that is what you are saying, if you did receive such an order, because that is the core of all of this, are you telling us that the AWB with its apparent strong support basis country wide, could muster only that?
MR KLOPPERS: Once again, I cannot answer that question. I performed my task for the evening, went back, reported back and waited for further orders.
MR DREYER: Very well. We now return, is it correct that during the criminal procedures which resulted from this matter, that you testified in court ...
MR KLOPPERS: Repeat the question.
MR DREYER: Is it correct that you testified during the criminal case which emanated from this incident?
MR DREYER: Before Judge Steggman?
MR KLOPPERS: Yes, that is correct.
MR DREYER: I wish to refer you to those proceedings and specifically the point which we are dealing with now, and that is whether the revolution would begin on the 12th of December? Just grant me one moment.
I would like to read to you that you are testifying here that you received an order that evening, that the revolution would begin on the 12th. There was a request to postpone it to the 16th because people were deployed at Skanskop by one of the leaders, is that correct?
MR DREYER: I would like to read your testimony in the court regarding that, on page 670 of volume 8, approximately line 28. Your testimony reads as follows: with the Day of the Covenant the armed struggle would commence. That is the statement which is made to you and you then answer, that was my opinion.
Do you have any comment regarding that?
MR KLOPPERS: As I have already stated, the revolution would have begun on the 12th of December. If you look at the definition of revolution, unconventional war fare with planning as guerilla fighters would do it in small groups, the revolution may have begun on the 16th of December, but I performed my tasks in Randfontein as a guerilla fighter.
MR DREYER: Can you please be of assistance to us then. According to your testimony because here you personally testified during these proceedings, what is the difference between an armed struggle and a revolution, could you indicate that to us?
MR KLOPPERS: An armed struggle does differ from a revolution. A revolution originates as it is set out in phase 1 if we can consult phase 1, page 11.
MR DREYER: Is a revolution a struggle without weapons?
MR KLOPPERS: No, not necessarily.
MR DREYER: How does it differ from an armed struggle?
MR KLOPPERS: An armed struggle is similar to what happened in Israel for six days on end, where a revolution originated if we did not achieve what we wanted to, we sit back and wait for the next day.
MR DREYER: I am sorry, I do not understand the difference which you are trying to draw between the two, but we will leave it at that.
Do you agree that this was your testimony during the criminal procedures, that the armed struggle according to your opinion, would commence on the 16th of December, do you agree?
MR DREYER: Then I would like to refer you to page 683 ...
MR MALAN: I beg your pardon, I would just like to ensure that I understand Mr Dreyer's question and your answer.
You understood that the revolution would begin on the 12th and that the armed struggle would begin on the 16th?
MR KLOPPERS: Even if it had begun on the 16th and had been going on on the 16th, I wouldn't have known, but all I knew was that the revolution would begin on the 12th of December 1993.
MR MALAN: But the question which Mr Dreyer asked you is that you testified during the criminal proceedings, that you expected the armed struggle or the war to begin on the 16th and he asked you whether or not that was correct, and you said yes?
MR KLOPPERS: I understand what you are saying. I would like to say that during the criminal procedures that you should not refer to it, that you should refer only to what had been submitted, because I had been told by Mr Oelofse to answer only certain things during those proceedings to protect him and to protect the movement.
So you could refer me to the home made shotguns which I received from Mr Fourie, which I did not receive from Mr Fourie. And that is why I request that you do not refer back to the criminal proceedings.
MR MALAN: Mr Kloppers, I am afraid that we all have to live with our past, Mr Dreyer, please proceed.
MR DREYER: Mr Kloppers, can you please tell us in which way in terms of the last answer, would you have protected any member of the top structure of the AWB if it had been said that the war would have begun on the 16th of December, how would that have helped to protect anybody?
MR KLOPPERS: I would like to mention to the Chairperson, that while you have that explanation in front of you, you must understand that I was experiencing a great deal of pain during that time, that I had been tortured and that I had made that statement while undergoing torture.
The entire justice system had been overbridged, and therefore I do not understand what happened during those statements. I stood there like a fool, and that was how I felt.
MR DREYER: I will proceed Mr Kloppers, I refer you to page 680 of those proceedings, approximately line 20. The question was the following, what sort of weapons and ammunition were you looking for? Any weapons would have been fine Your Honour, because they were necessary, it was only a few days before, and this is according to your impression, the war would begin. And then you answer, that was my opinion because I believed that there would be so many AWB people together that from there on they would be able to move out, and therefore it confirms once again that you believed that the war or the armed struggle as you described it, would commence a few days later, and that would be on the 16th of December. Do you concur?
MR DREYER: Then I would like to refer you to the following page. This is still about the 12th of December because the incident occurred on the 12th of December, it is put to you a third time, according to your own impression the war, and this time it is not the armed struggle, it is now the war, would have begun in a matter of four days, four days from the 12th, and that again points to the 16th, and your answer, that was my opinion.
MR KLOPPERS: That was my opinion that it would commence on that day.
MR DREYER: Then I would like to refer you to page 780 in the next volume, I beg your pardon page 722. It reads as follows, this is about what the idea behind this conduct was and I will read a section of this to you.
You did not have anything against organising such illegal conduct and your answer is, at that stage, and this is the 12th, I felt that we could improve our image in public, if we could get weapons by means of this road block. Even though it would be illegal, we felt that we could achieve greater exposure in the public, is that publicity for the AWB and your answer was, I think it would have been good publicity for us to see that the AWB was handing illegal weapons to the Police.
MR DREYER: Then the concluding aspect, with the aim on the war which would begin four days later, on the 16th? Your Honour, I did not say that the war would begin on the 16th, but what I did say was that I thought to myself that this would be a very good opportunity because then all the AWB people would be together at Voortrekkerhoogte.
I don't care who alleges this, but if I interpret this concluding aspect of your testimony, it appears that you were actually of the opinion that the war would in fact begin on the 16th. You really thought that that would be a good opportunity because then a whole bunch of AWB people would be together. How else must we interpret this?
MR KLOPPERS: You must remember Chairperson, that I had spent a great deal of time in prison at that point, and absolutely nothing had happened, and it was very clear to me that I had to rely on my own opinion there, because that which happened or should have happened, never happened.
That which Gen Oelofse propagated and which he gave us orders in regard to, never happened.
MR DREYER: But that was my question, you have said it in your own words. You took this on your own opinion, and that is the core aspect of my question and my statements.
I am not saying that you did not convey to the rest of the group that which they believed to be an order from the higher authority, I am saying that what you conveyed, was never an order in itself to initiate a revolution as you have testified, there was no such order.
You based your opinion on a faulty interpretation.
MR KLOPPERS: If it was a faulty interpretation, then I shall take you back to 1995 in December, when the Generals in staff were all present with Gen Oelofse at Diepkloof and they thanked me for my loyalty in the AWB and the execution of my duties which were given to me on that evening, and that was why I was promoted to the rank of Brigadier.
I say it clearly that it was said on that day by the leaders themselves, that if every other person had acted in the same way that they should have, we would not be in prison. That is why we did not misinterpret that order.
MR DREYER: Do you expect us to accept that one moment you would use that which was said to you by the AWB leaders in prison in order to lend credibility to your actions, but when you concluded your chief evidence, you severely criticised him and called him a liar and said that you had to sit in this predicament today, which horse are you going to ride?
Do you want the Committee to believe the first version or do you want the Committee to believe that he has let you down?
MR KLOPPERS: I am taking up the issue of absolute lies, because it could only have been a lie which he said to me that day.
MR DREYER: In the light of the facts that you have said a little while ago that you behaved according to your own opinion, that this contradicts that you acted according to what Gen Oelofse told you, so therefore you acted according to your own opinion.
MR DREYER: I am referring specifically to the road block and the loss of life which transpired there?
MR KLOPPERS: Under no circumstances did I say that I acted according to my own opinion with the road block, I acted absolutely according to the orders of Gen Oelofse.
MR DREYER: Mr Kloppers, the record will speak for itself.
Let us examine further aspects regarding the testimony given during the criminal proceedings.
CHAIRPERSON: That was not according to his own version, but his version during the criminal proceedings.
CHAIRPERSON: You shouldn't put it to him that it is his version, because then you are giving a wrong impression. It is not his version to us. What you are putting to him it is his version in the criminal court.
MR DREYER: In the criminal court, yes, My Lord.
CHAIRPERSON: You must be clear and specific and put it to him that according to your version during the criminal trial, it was purely your personal opinion that there would be war or revolution or whatever on the 16th of December 1993.
MR DREYER: As it pleases you Mr Chairman. If I had not qualified it as such, I now do qualify it as such.
Mr Kloppers, may I just rephrase this. While you spoke during the criminal proceeding and I have presented four examples to you from which it is clear that the so-called revolution, armed struggle or war or whatever we would like to call it, would not occur or begin on the 12th of December but on the 16th of December, you then ... (tape ends)
TAPE 8 : ENGLISH ONLY : NO AUDIO ON TAPE 8 ENG/FLOOR - BECAUSE OF THE INTERPRETATION, I CANNOT DISTINGUISH WHO IS WHO ON HERE
MR KLOPPERS: ... war that starts on the 12th of December, then it is surprising that on the 12th of December we were called to an Order Group meeting whereas other people would have been available therefore.
MR DREYER: It is very strange if one looks at the criminal proceedings at page 670, approximately line 10, the question is posed to you and it refers to the order group meeting.
Was the war discussed that afternoon, and you then say the following in your own words, it was never directly referred to that we would wage war on that day, but there will not be a 27th of April.
MR DREYER: Where does the 12th of December come from then?
MR KLOPPERS: The day of the 12th, was the day of the Order Group meeting where all the area leaders met. I have answered this question already, this is the day upon which the revolution was supposed to begin.
MR DREYER: Strangely enough on the 12th, it was only your group and the people under your command, who acted that day, because you told them to? You told them that it was said to you that this was the real McCoy, D-Day, but during the criminal proceedings, you said that a D-Day wasn't discussed. Where does this come from, where do you get the 12th of December?
MR KLOPPERS: D-Day would be the date of war, and the 12th of December was the date of the revolution.
CHAIRPERSON: What the Advocate has just read to you, does it contain the truth? Does it represent the truth?
MR KLOPPERS: No, it does not. I don't understand what you are trying to say.
CHAIRPERSON: He read to you what you said before the court.
MR KLOPPERS: Yes, I think there might just be a misinterpretation of the date when we speak of D-Day we speak of the days of war. The 12th of December was the date of the commencement of the revolution, when we are speaking of the revolution itself, the D-Day for the war was never discussed, but the 12th of December was in fact discussed.
CHAIRPERSON: ... was not the truth?
MR KLOPPERS: I don't think that you understand the distinction between D-Day and the 12th of December.
CHAIRPERSON: To read it again?
MR KLOPPERS: Yes, I would like him to read it again.
CHAIRPERSON: You see, you might have to read it again because you see Mr Dreyer, we don't have a copy of that record, neither has the witness.
MR DREYER: I will read it again. It is on page 670, volume 8 and I will once again read it to you. Was the war discussed that afternoon and you said it was never directly referred to that we would wage war on D-Day but it was said to us that there would not be a 27th of April.
The day of the 27th of April would not break, is that correct?
MR KLOPPERS: Yes, that is correct.
MR DREYER: Then my question was very simple, where did you get the date of the 12th of December?
MR KLOPPERS: That is why I am saying that people don't understand that question. The D-Day indicates the day of war and on that day, the day of war was not discussed, but what was in fact discussed was the revolution which would take place on the 12th of December 1993.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Dreyer what are you suggesting? Is he saying that it is correct that as he testified or that is the truth?
MR DREYER: If I understand him correctly, he is saying that he testified as such and that it is the truth. Is that correct, is that what you testified and according to you is that also the truth?
MR KLOPPERS: On that specific day only the revolution was discussed and not D-Day or a date of war, and there is a difference between a revolution and a war and that is what I am trying to convey to the Honourable Advocate.
MR DREYER: Well, then I would appreciate it if you would, because otherwise I am still at a complete loss for words, because I still don't understand the difference between the war and the revolution, but I will leave it there for the time being.
Are you telling the Committee that a revolution was planned from the 12th to the 15th of December, a three day revolution and then on the 16th of December, the revolution would come to an end, it would not continue because this revolution has absolutely nothing to do with the war, it is a different issue, it is a war, we don't know what it is, but it is not a war, and then on the 16th of December, the war would begin, whatever that may be?
MR KLOPPERS: You have the facts basically correct. The 12th of December was the beginning of the revolution which would involve assassinations, mass actions, small group attacks, home penetrations, road blocks and so forth and that would have gone on to the 15th or the 16th of December which I believed would be the date when the war itself would begin.
MR DREYER: Are you saying that this would have occurred in forms of guerilla warfare?
MR KLOPPERS: Yes, it would have started as guerilla war far with small groups and then it would have gone over to a mass scale war.
MR DREYER: Our problem is just that from all these road blocks, assassinations, bomb explosions and I don't know what else you have just mentioned, the long list that you have mentioned, the only thing that occurred during this revolution of the 12th of December, was this incident of the road block and the murder of the people there?
That is the total, national revolution of the AWB?
MR KLOPPERS: I can only answer to that feedback which I have received from Gen Oelofse, he was very unhappy and very dissatisfied with the other areas. He said that we were the only are who had gone out and who had worked, so in his own words I must say to you yes, we were the only ones who began the revolution that night.
MR DREYER: But then it was not the AWB's revolution, it was your revolution?
MR KLOPPERS: No, it was Gen Oelofse's.
CHAIRPERSON: You should stop. I think we should, it is past four now, I think we should adjourn until tomorrow morning.
MR DREYER: Mr Chairman, may I just for the purposes of continuity ask one more question. I promise it will be only one question.
Mr Kloppers, just tell me, can you think of any reason whatsoever what happened to the failure of a revolution which would have gone from the 12th to the 15th of December, can you think of any reason whatsoever what happened to the failure of a revolution which would have gone from the 12th to the 15th of December, why didn't the war take place on the 16th of December?
MR KLOPPERS: Must I answer according to the revolution from the 12th of December, or the war?
MR DREYER: My question is, forget the revolution from the 12th to the 15th of December, irrespective of what you did, and irrespective of whether according to your allegation it was Gen Oelofse's revolution, can you think of one single reason why the war which you have described, and that is the war which is different to the revolution, why this war did not commence on the 16th of December if this was part of the decisions of the Generals in staff, why did it not begin?
MR KLOPPERS: I cannot answer you regarding that.
MR DREYER: Did it ever begin after that?
MS VAN DER WALT: I would just like to make an objection, the applicant has said on various occasions that the D-Day or date of the war was never discussed. It was his opinion that it would in fact be the 16th of December. But here he has testified that D-Day was never discussed, only the revolution.
CHAIRPERSON: The question is still legitimate. As you say he confirmed that he told the trial court that in his opinion, the war would start on the 16th and he still says that is what he thought. And it is a legitimate question to ask him why the war didn't start on the 16th as he thought.
MS VAN DER WALT: Yes, the final remark was that D-Day was never discussed and never took place.
CHAIRPERSON: Is this the convenient point where we can stop until tomorrow morning?
CHAIRPERSON: We will adjourn until half past nine.
ON RESUMPTION ON 24-04-1998 - DAY 5
PHILLIPUS CORNELIUS KLOPPERS: ; (s.u.o.)
MS VAN DER WALT: Before Mr Dreyer proceeds Mr Chairperson, yesterday I was notified by the medical staff that Mr Kloppers apparently at one point, was not feeling too well. His blood pressure was 180 over 130, and unfortunately I did not know about that. He didn't have all his medication with him either. However, they today they will give me an indication as to whether or not he will be able to continue, but at this point he is prepared and he is quite peaceful and his blood pressure is not too high, I thought that I should mention it, because they requested that I do.
CHAIRPERSON: You are on the floor, the video cassette we saw yesterday, I assume there were a few things before the portion we saw, immediately before the portion we listened to and also subsequent thereto. Is there no danger that we may be listening to that just specific portion and then listen to it out of context?
MS VAN DER WALT: The portion which you viewed, was the only portion which was broadcast during a news bulletin on the SABC, wherein the news reader said that a case was being investigated regarding a crime that was committed. That is all that appears on that cassette.
I am listening to certain cassettes which were made at meetings. If I could manage to trace that specific cassette from that specific meeting, then I will submit it, but that portion is the only portion which exists on that cassette, there wasn't anything further. It was part of a news bulletin.
CHAIRPERSON: ... you know, sometimes it may be dangerous to listen to only a portion of a whole speech, you may misinterpret the whole thing?
MS VAN DER WALT: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: And maybe before that, the speaker had laid down a lot of conditions and said well, you know what I mean, before he came to say you can shoot and the like, he might have said when the time comes, and only when the time comes, we don't know. You know that kind of thing.
MS VAN DER WALT: Yes, I understand.
CHAIRPERSON: It would be preferable to have as far as possible, the whole speech so that we can understand that portion properly.
MS VAN DER WALT: I was only notified yesterday afternoon regarding the cassettes from all the meetings.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DREYER: (continued) Mr Kloppers, there was the interruption between yesterday and today and in order to be fair towards you, I would like to maintain the continuity of the cross-examination which I began yesterday.
If I understand your testimony and answers in cross-examination correctly, you said yesterday that according to your opinion, there would have been a revolution on the 12th of December to the 15th of December of that year. The war as you expressed it, would then commence on the 16th of December, is that correct?
MR KLOPPERS: That is not entirely correct Chairperson.
MR DREYER: Could you just explain it once again?
MR KLOPPERS: As I explained it, it was not my opinion that the revolution would begin on the 12th of December, it was an order from my Commander, Gen Oelofse that the 12th of December 1993 would be the day upon which the revolution would begin. Whether the revolution would have lasted until the 16th of December or longer until the war began, I do not know. Those were my own speculations that the war would begin on the 16th of December.
MR DREYER: Who would have taken the decision to go from revolution to war? Where would that decision come from, which factors would determine that decision?
MR KLOPPERS: These were my own speculations and opinions, I reckoned that it would be a good time if you look at my documents, which were thrown out of the Supreme Court in Bloemfontein as fabrications and lies, you will see that these were my own thoughts regarding the beginning of the war at that time.
MR DREYER: You are convinced that it was your own idea that the revolution would begin on the 12th of December and not that it was an order as such?
MR KLOPPERS: That is not correct, I received an order that this would in fact happen and in accordance with the incidents which occurred after the 12th, not only within our area, but within other areas and regions, it appeared to me that the revolution had in fact begun.
MR DREYER: I asked you yesterday could you give us one single reason why the war as you believed, did not break out on the 16th of December and you said that you couldn't tell us why.
MR KLOPPERS: I can still not tell you why the war did not begin. My area was prepared for war, whether the other areas were not prepared, there must be reasons for that. I was arrested before the war could begin, or before anybody could make an attempt at starting the war.
MR DREYER: You were arrested on the 6th of January and that is quite some time after the 16th of December, therefore I don't understand what you mean when you say that you were arrested before the war could begin because I told you yesterday and you testified here, I indicated it to you during the criminal proceedings, that at at least four separate occasions you indicated very clearly that the war would commence on the 16th of December, so wherefore, where do you have the idea that you were arrested before the war could begin, if you were arrested on the 6th of January?
MR KLOPPERS: I would like to state it clearly that these were my own thoughts and that is what I thought by myself that it would be a good time for the war to begin. I did not convey this to anybody else, I did not express it to anybody else that the war should begin at that time.
I did not have the authority for that.
MR DREYER: But I put it to you that this is a fabrication of your imagination that the war had to begin on the 12th of December and many people who believed irrevocably in you and served under your command and just as you were, were swept about by the political speeches of political leaders and other speakers, committed an act for which you did not receive an order from anybody else?
MR KLOPPERS: Mr Japie Oelofse, ex-General, who has resigned ...
MR DREYER: And for that we only have your word what you would have said? An ear which was handed over to Gen Japie Oelofse.
Could I just take you back for a moment, there was a whole discourse yesterday regarding which words were contained within your amnesty application in paragraph 44 thereof, where it was about the order which you received to do something on behalf of the AWB and that this was in cooperation with Constand Viljoen, as well as Ferdi Hartzenberg, do you recall that?
You then, with the assistance of your legal representative said that actually another name had to be inserted there, and that was the name of Gen Oelofse, but now I find it strange why Gen Oelofse would give you an order and then clear it not with the leader of your organisation, not in cooperation with the leader of the organisation, the AWB, he did not do it in cooperation or under order of Eugene Terreblanche, he according to you, did this in cooperation with Constand Viljoen and Ferdi Hartzenberg who had absolutely nothing to do with the AWB and this still bothers me, why would a member of the Generals in staff of the AWB find it necessary to clear the order or the legitimacy of the order with persons external to his organisation, when there was a higher cadre of command within his own organisation?
Why didn't he clear it in cooperation?
MS VAN DER WALT: I would like to object, the witness has stated that Japie Oelofse cleared it with the Generals in staff and he later said that he accepted that the Generals in staff had cleared it with Gen Constand Viljoen.
MR DREYER: Can I then still ask you Mr Kloppers, why in your application, in the sections where you mention the order, why there is no reference to Eugene Terreblanche who was part of the upper command structure of the AWB, why?
MR KLOPPERS: The leader Eugene Terreblanche himself, never issued an order. It came directly from Generals in staff to the Generals and that is why use was made of Gen Japie Oelofse and I received my orders from him and under no circumstances did I attempt to imply that Gen Constand Viljoen had given orders. I am simply trying to provide the facts that Gen Oelofse via the Generals in staff conveyed the order to us.
MR DREYER: Mr Kloppers, my problem with this entire construct and the chain of authority and command and the issuing of orders is the following: you spontaneously testified in Afrikaans here yesterday and it is your mother tongue when you were asked for the first time what your attitude was regarding the allegation of the involvement of Hartzenberg and Viljoen, you used the Afrikaans words and you were pertinently asked by the Chairperson, do you think so or do you know so and your answer in Afrikaans was, and you can consult the record if you wish, your words were and this was the first time when you were confronted about it clearly I know it for a fact.
That was an Afrikaans expression with a determined meaning. It is when someone is an eyewitness to an accident and he sees something as an objective fact, and he observes it and you ask him after the time, do you know it, do you think it, are you reconstructing the facts, and he would say no, I know it for a fact, because I stood right next to the road and saw it.
Then, later on in the day when you were once again cross-examined and once again confronted and peppered with questions regarding the possible involvement of Hartzenberg and Viljoen and the Chairperson put it to you sir, if you state these objective facts it means that you are incriminating other individuals and the potential exists that those individuals would have to answer regarding those incrimination and they have not been notified regarding that, then you came back and you said, no you think so, because joint meetings were held and so forth.
All that I am asking you now is that I have sketched two phases in your answer to you, tell me are they correct? Is it correct that you testified as such here yesterday?
MS VAN DER WALT: With respect Chairperson, one cannot call that a question. I think that Mr Dreyer should reformulate the question.
MR DREYER: I will do so. I sketched a background for you. If you don't understand, then you should please indicate to me when you don't understand, because before you receive the opportunity to say whether or not you understand the question or ask what is expected of you, there is an intervention by your legal representative, so please during my cross-examination if I were to ask you anything which you were not to understand, please feel free to indicate to me that you do not understand or what is expected of you, is that clear?
MR KLOPPERS: What I am saying directly is that you are trying to extend the question as much as possible and use very large and complicated words in order to confuse me, so please limit yourself in time and length so that I can understand you.
MR DREYER: It is not my attempt to confuse you at all and in all fairness, I will rephrase the question and it is a very simple question.
When you were confronted for the first time regarding the involvement of Viljoen and Hartzenberg you said you knew it for a fact. And when you were confronted for a second time regarding that and pointed out the risks and complications, you said that you thought so because they held joint meetings and it all formed part of the right wing umbrella organisations. Is that correct?
MR KLOPPERS: That is correct that I regarded it as a fact that they held joint meetings.
MR DREYER: Then I put it as follows, also regarding the alleged order which you would have received upon the 12th to go over into revolution, which included the death of people. This was a fabrication of your thoughts.
CHAIRPERSON: ... you said you were stating the involvement of Viljoen and Hartzenberg, you were stating that as a fact and then later you said well, that is just what you thought.
The question was is that how in fact you testified yesterday?
MR KLOPPERS: What I can conclude from the cross-examination, the question is whether Viljoen and Hartzenberg attended meetings of the Generals in staff and upon that I would answer yes, that is a fact.
MR DREYER: No the Honourable Chairperson has now just attempted to bring you to an answer and I will once again attempt, my question remains and you have not answered me, is this what you testified to yesterday, yes or no?
MR DREYER: Thank you. Let us return to the issue of the order which you would have received on the 12th. You made it strongly clear that during certain phases of your detention and interrogation by the Police, you were seriously tortured.
MR DREYER: Thus there was an interrogative phase before you eventually attended the criminal proceedings in the Supreme Court, is that correct? Therefore you were first interrogated by the Police and you made certain statements and after that, the criminal proceedings followed?
MR KLOPPERS: Yes, that is correct.
MR DREYER: And today we enter a completely different phase, you are here during an amnesty application?
MR DREYER: Very well, let us take the portion where you were being interrogated by the Police before you appeared in the Supreme Court during the criminal proceeding.
Let us limit ourselves to that, you made certain statements.
MR DREYER: At that stage, if I understand your testimony correctly, you were deprived of all your support structures, you were not with your people, you were in detention, difficult circumstances, you were being assaulted, and surely you would have attempted to escape it in some or other way?
MR DREYER: When the criminal proceedings finally commenced, during your testimony you were granted a second opportunity within the atmosphere of a court case and without the apparent threatening presence of the Police, you could tell the Court the true facts, is that correct?
MR DREYER: And during that I saw that you and Mr Martin, during those proceedings said that it was easier to testify in court because the Advocates treat one as a person and that fear element does not exist as it was when I was interrogated by the Police.
MR DREYER: I am going to offer a comparison to you and I am going to ask you to give us explanations regarding why there were such large differences between the three phases.
Firstly the affidavit which was according to the nature of that confession which you made before the Police in cooperation with the Advocate, which appeared for you during the criminal proceedings, and was submitted during the criminal case, and that which you have testified to here, in other words, the three phases, do you understand?
MR KLOPPERS: Yes, I understand.
MR DREYER: Let us begin with the criminal proceedings and I would like to refer you to volume 8, page 637, that is right at the beginning of your testimony.
It begins on page 636 and I am referring to 637.
CHAIRPERSON: ... of whatever you are referring to.
MR DREYER: Mr Chairman, that is the criminal proceedings in the High Court before the Honourable Judge Steggman against this witness as accused in that matter. Unfortunately I only received this proceedings myself Wednesday afternoon very late and in fact I received it from the legal representative that at that stage represented Mr Kloppers.
I didn't have any opportunity to reproduce it in any way in order to make it available to the Committee.
MR BRINK: Mr Chairman, may I make a suggestion? If possibly Mr Dreyer could arrange to have photocopies made of the pages to which he refers and those could be handed at a later stage.
CHAIRPERSON: I thought you would do it yesterday evening after we adjourned? I don't know whether you are aware of that, we have got as it were rules in that lines, which we may, which govern the proceedings, this proceedings, the amnesty proceedings. The guide lines which were made in terms of the Act and the Reconciliation Act and one of the rules is that any party wanting to make use of documents, would provide copies of that document to all other participating people in the proceedings.
MR DREYER: Mr Chairman, I am aware of that but as I have explained at the outset yesterday, I had the logistical problem that I took the instruction over from a colleague of mine, at a very late stage, and at that stage even I was not placed in possession of any documentation.
I received the criminal proceedings only late the afternoon before the next day's appearance, I had to work through the night in order to get through that.
Similarly the application of Mr Kloppers was only made available to me at the same stage, even later than that. My Attorney of record came through from Heidelberg to Pretoria and presented me with that, that was Tuesday evening. I am aware of the fact that the copies could have been made My Lord, but ...
CHAIRPERSON: But yesterday afternoon, I distinctly recall that I told you, I said to you Mr Dreyer, we don't have copies of what you are reading to us. I think I said it, well I am not sure I said it twice, but I am quite certain I told you. I assumed that you, when I told you that we didn't have a copy thereof, I thought I was telling you that we didn't have a copy thereof and nothing more and nothing less. And that you would make sure that we would have it.
MR DREYER: The only thing that I can say is that at that stage it was suggested that we read that particular portion into the record and in the course of yesterday afternoon and further, we proceeded with our preparation for today.
If I may then suggest similar to my learned friend, that we at the stage of lunch time or whatever it is, make copies of that, I would make it available, but in the meantime if I would be permitted, I would read it. It is a very short portion ...
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, just make a note of the pages that you are cross-examining the witness on, we would like to have copies thereof.
MR DREYER: As the Court pleases, thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Kloppers, on page 637 of volume 8 of those proceedings, your testimony is led by your own Advocate, this is not cross-examination, so it is spontaneous testimony on your behalf, and you were asked by your own Advocate, very well, on 12th December 1993, you received an order, is that correct and your answer is, that is correct.
And the Advocate continues by saying very well, can you perhaps tell us what the order was and your answer is, the order was that we had to obtain firearms and ammunition for the time which was coming. There would not be a 27th of April, we would wage war.
Very well, it came from a higher authority than yourself, that is correct. Do you agree that that was your testimony?
MR KLOPPERS: Yes, I agree that that was my testimony and I would like to expand on that.
MR DREYER: Might I just ask you before you do that, the higher authority to which you are referring, who is that?
MR KLOPPERS: Generals in staff.
MR DREYER: And are you referring specifically to Gen Japie Oelofse, he was a member of Generals in staff?
MR DREYER: I would like to return to what I asked you. Previously you were interrogated by the Police and according to yourself, you were tortured and you made a certain statement and during your testimony here, that statement was submitted voluntarily as part of your testimony.
During your testimony in chief, you were asked to comment there on.
MR KLOPPERS: I beg your pardon voluntarily and you also said tortured. You cannot voluntarily hand in a statement within a tortured position, so I did not submit it voluntarily.
MR DREYER: I beg your pardon. This statement has been submitted to the Committee by the Committee's Advocate, Mr Brink. I am saying that the statement which you made is before the Committee, is that correct?
MR KLOPPERS: Which statement are you referring to?
MR DREYER: The statement made to the South African Police.
MR KLOPPERS: That was not voluntarily.
MR MALAN: Mr Dreyer, might I just get some clarity regarding this, was your statement for commentary that the statement which he made to the Police, was voluntarily handed in by his legal representative during the criminal procedures. Did I understand your question?
MR DREYER: I am referring to the affidavit which was submitted during the criminal proceedings as Exhibit H1. It was an affidavit which the applicant made to the Police. I am not certain whether it is the exact same affidavit, because I don't have it before me.
I am not referring to the affidavit which was submitted here, it could very well be the same affidavit.
MR KLOPPERS: The affidavit which appears before the Committee on page 160 is not an affidavit, it is a statement which was made to a Police Officer.
MR DREYER: Is that not an affidavit?
MR KLOPPERS: No, it is not an affidavit.
MR DREYER: It is the same statement that I am referring to.
MR KLOPPERS: Then it is not an affidavit.
MR DREYER: That statement that is here before the Committee, the same statement was handed in as Exhibit H by your Advocate in the Supreme Court?
MR DREYER: And during your evidence in chief, your own Advocate took you through that statement and read you paragraphs from that statement and you were given the opportunity if you did agree with it, whether it was correct or not, is that so?
MR DREYER: On page 637 you say according to your own testimony in chief of these procedures the order that you received that came from a higher authority was that we had to get weapons and ammunition for the time coming. There won't be any 27th of April, we will wage war. That you said was the instruction that you received from higher authority?
MR KLOPPERS: That is what I said at that stage, that is correct.
MR DREYER: Very well, I would wish to ask you then the time when you were tortured and questioned by the Police, you were now before a higher Court during criminal procedures and you are represented by an Advocate, you are not there alone, you have the freedom to tell the Court people, I am here charged with murder, but I would just like to explain that it is not murder, because it was a military instruction that I received from a General or from the Generals in staff from the AWB.
Why then did you not say it at that stage?
MR KLOPPERS: Mr Chairperson, I could not do it for the fact that Gen Oelofse told me what to say right from the start, that we were to create chaos and disorder and number two, the Generals in staff including Gen Oelofse, was being protected by me in that I wanted not to tell the truth.
It is not because nine of the men were arrested that the revolution had to stop and the planning that was done there, could not be given to the Court, that is why I believed it did not matter what sentence I would receive, and that is why I believed as well that it did not matter what sentence I would receive, but I would still not tell the absolute truth, as I was to protect Gen Oelofse and the revolution.
MR DREYER: The problem is when you testified during these criminal procedures, this was during June 1994, is that correct?
MR DREYER: And the elections were done by then?
MR KLOPPERS: Yes, the elections were done by then and during that time Gen Oelofse was in Diepkloof prison along with me and he still told me, stick to what you said, protect the AWB.
MR DREYER: Mr Kloppers, I don't understand. The revolution did not come about, war did not come about, there was a democratic election in April 1994 and this is June now, this is after that. How could you still have believed that by telling lies about where you received the instruction from to kill people, how could you still protect the AWB's plans for the revolution, how, explain this to me.
MR KLOPPERS: These are all long questions again. You refer to two or three things simultaneously, let's keep it short so that I can understand what you are saying.
MR DREYER: I will repeat myself. I am telling you it is quite simple, you say that you lied during this criminal procedure where you tried to protect people, is that correct?
MR DREYER: And you say that you told those lies because you wished to protect the plans of the AWB, because you did not want to be the cause of the revolution that could not continue, is that correct?
MR DREYER: Now, at the stage when you told these lies, the election was done and that was in June now.
MR KLOPPERS: In prison Gen Oelofse still told us that the revolution would continue and we would still wage war.
MR DREYER: I would just like to ask you then, how would you have protected anyone by saying I received an instruction to gather weapons and ammunition for the war, you are prepared to state that and this instruction according to you, and you put up the road block, is that correct?
MR KLOPPERS: No, it is not correct.
MR DREYER: There is just one incident where you apply for amnesty before this Commission, and this incident was the road block and the murders there, and you were charged during this criminal procedures not for other deeds, but for that specific deed?
MR DREYER: And now during these procedures when the advocate asked you in your evidence in chief, what instruction did you receive sir because this is where the whole matter starts, then you say on the 12th of December I received an instruction to gather weapons and ammunition for us to stop the elections of the 27th of April, is that correct?
MR KLOPPERS: That is correct. As I say again, I could not implicate Gen Oelofse at that time because he put it to me that it would place the whole situation at a disadvantage.
MR DREYER: I want to put it to you because now you protest to the question, the first thing that would come to me is the instruction. The instruction is limited gather ammunition and weapons for the war ... (tape ends) ... of this incident, the road block and the murders.
MR KLOPPERS: This matter comes about by the instruction that we received and we did not make this public in court and this had to stay secret until the war. That is what this was all about, it was not about anything else. I carried out the instruction of Gen Oelofse and that is what I said in court and that is what I told my legal representative because I had seven different legal representatives during that time, and that is what I said.
I said that we went out to gather weapons and ammunition only to protect the movement and Gen Oelofse.
MR DREYER: But you did not protect Gen Oelofse because now you said that he is the one who said you must go out and get weapons and ammunition. You have implicated him.
CHAIRPERSON: With regard to going to steal or get weapons, he would not be protecting him if he were to mention him, which is a less serious offence. With regard to killing four people, he would like to protect Oelofse.
What is your problem, unless I miss your point, I don't understand?
MR DREYER: Mr Chairman, I am not referring to a portion of the proceedings in the criminal matter where this witness was cross-examined, where he was beyond the ability of being protected by his own legal representative, this is the very starting off point, the point of embarkment of his evidence in chief.
That is where his evidence starts off, that is obviously on his own version the reason why he went forth together with some other people to hold this road block and do certain things.
CHAIRPERSON: But they are asking the question and what is his answer, what was his answer?
MR DREYER: He says that he did not mention the matter of the deaths ...
CHAIRPERSON: No, the answer to counsel's question in chief?
MR DREYER: His answer was the order was that we collect ammunition and weapons for the coming time, there won't be any 27th of April, we will wage war.
CHAIRPERSON: ... how do you propose he should have answered that question?
MR DREYER: Mr Chairman, that answer must obviously be borne in mind as the point of departure if any kind of adjudication is made upon what eventually happened, that is the road block together with the killings there.
I mean if someone puts me on trial for doing something, and the starting point is now you must have had some reason to do so, I say yes, I have. I received an instruction to do so, then I am asked what was the instruction, and now the instructed is relayed. There is a portion of the instruction which does obviously not accord which eventually happened, and that is the point I am getting at.
CHAIRPERSON: That was in June when he was asked that question?
CHAIRPERSON: In the meantime he had already made a statement on the 6th of January 1994?
CHAIRPERSON: Would you expect an accused person standing trial, in his evidence in chief, to depart from a statement which he had already made, would he not try to keep close to that statement as far as possible.
MR DREYER: Mr Chairman, in fact during the course of the criminal proceedings, that very same statement was put to him by his own legal representative which was obviously not involved when that statement was drafted, and he had the full opportunity, he took him paragraph for paragraph through it, and that is evident from the proceedings, he took him through that very same statement, and he was afforded the opportunity ...
CHAIRPERSON: Including the passage you are reading?
CHAIRPERSON: As to what the instructions were?
MR DREYER: Yes, and he didn't indicate in the slightest bit that he wanted to defer from that, whereas in other instances he said yes, I agree with that particular paragraph to some extent, but I want to add this and I want to qualify this and I want to say this.
It is not as though he just tried to keep as close as possible to the lines contained in that statement. He did in fact get the opportunity and he was afforded the opportunity by his very own legal representative in these proceedings My Lord.
CHAIRPERSON: I need, well in this case he chose on this particular aspect, he chose to stay in line with his statement in order to protect Oelofse and that is what he is saying.
MR DREYER: As the Committee pleases, but then at least I still have some questions on that because there is a second ...
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, all right proceed, let's hear what the questions are.
MR DREYER: Mr Kloppers, there is a second element that comes about from here, because you said why did you have to collect weapons and ammunition and you say you had to gather it for the war because there would not be any 27th of April, is that correct?
MR DREYER: And then there was a 27th of April sir, and there was an election. Which was are you testifying about during June 1994 when you went to collect this ammunition and weapons?
MR KLOPPERS: At that time I was already in prison, I can't answer you to that question, you are very vague.
MR DREYER: Mr Chairman, as I said, if the applicant in the criminal proceedings would have chosen to simply stick to his statement which was also placed before this Committee, that would have been a totally different thing, but he had the opportunity to qualify that statement, not in cross-examination, but in evidence in chief.
The crux of the matter is that this applicant on his own version, was the only person in this whole operation who presumably received a certain direct instruction to kill people, from a higher level of decision making in the AWB and that he relayed that to some other people who was under his direct control and instruction.
None of them were present when that was allegedly done, so now he is being given in this proceedings, the proper opportunity to explain exactly what the instruction was, which led to this whole affair and he chooses not to do so.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Dreyer, proceed to put questions, but just remember one thing, we all know and I think many applicants for amnesty admit that much, that during the trial, all of them, they lied during the trial. They did not tell the truth, they did not make a full disclosure, they did not tell everything that they had to tell, they all lied.
The purpose of this proceeding now is for them now to come and tell the truth and make a full disclosure and then tell the truth. You must always bear in mind that they say, they admit that they lied. He also admitted that he lied to the trial court, for whatever reasons. That he lied is not in dispute, so when you look into that record, you must expect to find a lot of lies.
Those lies should not surprise you. Mr Dreyer, I am not inhibiting you in any way in your questions, I just said that you should bear that in mind and proceed to ask precisely the questions that you wanted to ask.
MR DREYER: Mr Kloppers, the basis of my question, the basis of the circumstances and the opportunity under which you said something?
MR DREYER: I said at some stage you were questioned by the Police and according to your version you were tortured, and I am not disputing that, I was not there, I have no reason to dispute that. Do you understand?
I want you to understand, I do not dispute that you were under pressure or the assault from the Police, I am not in the position to dispute this and I am not doing so, but during that time you made this statement that is before this Commission as well and you were under pressure, is that correct?
MR KLOPPERS: Mr Chairman, this statement does not serve before this Commission. There is one thing that I would like to put clearly, in question when I was tortured, when I did not keep quiet to expose this people, why would I have done it in the Supreme Court, I want to put it to you I protected them, Gen Oelofse and the Generals in staff and the AWB, I protected them.
The reason why I am in a wheelchair today is because I protected them.
MR DREYER: The problem is then when you received the opportunity and that is my point, when you received the opportunity during the criminal procedures to say exactly what the instruction was you received and you limit it to the collection of ammunition and weapons for the war and the purpose of that war was to stop the election.
MR KLOPPERS: You are correct, I did not go beyond that for the mere fact that I protected these people.
MR DREYER: You stay at this point, we are not going anywhere. From there, the following facet is in page 638, it is still the evidence in chief.
Now it is read to you from the same statement that is before the Commission. The paragraph that reads the evening of the 12th of December, myself and eight of my mates met. Myself, Deon Martin, Martin van der Schyff, Jaco Badenhorst, Gert Diedericks, Kallie Meiring, Pieter Matthews, Andre Visser and I think the other one was Ettiene Visser.
Then your Advocate asks you do you agree with that and you say yes, I confirm it. And then you say or he reads to you the following paragraph and he continues, we wanted the public to note how we felt about the fact that our people were getting killed on the roads and the farms, what do you say about that, and you received an opportunity to qualify yourself and then you say on page 639, I do not agree with this, but he should be read with paragraph 3. Then the Advocate says let's read paragraph 3, and paragraph 3 reads, we noted or we agreed that we did not have the necessary weapons for such a thing and then your Advocate says, what do you mean. What do you mean by this and you say, it was put to us clearly that on the 27th of April, there would be no election and us, the AWB would originally or we would have started the war and we needed the necessary weapons and ammunition to stop this election.
Are you satisfied with that, that that is what happened during the criminal procedures?
MR KLOPPERS: Yes, I am satisfied.
MR DREYER: Very well, but what concerns me is the logic here. You say during those procedures sir, I received an instruction and the instruction was to collect weapons and ammunition for a war.
And the purpose of this war was to stop the elections, am I correct?
MR DREYER: Now, what do you do now with that instruction? You go ahead and put it to your men to kill people that evening, the war hasn't started yet, the instruction was to collect weapons and ammunition to fight in this war, when this war comes, or if this war comes.
MR KLOPPERS: Mr Chairperson, apparently you wish to hammer on the point that I did not receive instructions from Gen Oelofse, I would like to tell it to you, it was told to us to put up this road block, confiscate weapons and ammunition and he wanted to see corpses.
I understood from this instruction of the corpses, that we had to kill. Our target group was identified to us as ANC/SACP alliance persons.
MR DREYER: I stay with my statement that all these procedures you did out of your own accord. The instruction was not to kill people, but to collect weapons and ammunition.
MR KLOPPERS: That is your version.
MR MALAN: Excuse me Mr Kloppers, if I could just ask you, if I have heard correctly you said during June, during the court procedure you testified and you gave this version that was put to you, because Oelofse told you what to say?
MR KLOPPERS: That is what I said, I had to stick to my statement as I had it there. I cannot remember what I said precisely there, so I stuck with the planning what Gen Oelofse put to me there.
MR MALAN: But you have just testified now that Oelofse told you you had to protect the AWB and the revolution would continue, we would still wage war, that was in June 1994, that was your testimony.
MR MALAN: And all this information you put it to the Court, that the reason for this was that the revolution would start, that the 27th of April would not come about, there will be no election?
MR KLOPPERS: That is correct, there would be war.
MR MALAN: And you put it to the Court that these were the plans of the AWB?
MR MALAN: How are you protecting the AWB when you tell all this to the Court?
MR KLOPPERS: I felt that I had put it softly in comparison with murder, and that is what we did there, we went and killed people. This happened on orders, I felt that if I put these things as such, it would be put softly.
I was surprised that Gen Oelofse was not called to testify in court.
MR MALAN: Please explain to me if you believed in June 1994 that the revolution would continue and therefore you must not tell the Court about the plans of the AWB, the only thing that you should not tell the Court that the part of plans was to kill people, not just to collect weapons and ammunition, how are you protecting the planning and the plans of the revolution?
MR KLOPPERS: I did not protect the revolution itself, but the planning thereof whereby Constand Viljoen, Ferdi Hartzenberg, other right wing parties and the AWB were involved. There would be darkness in South Africa and a take over by the military.
MR MALAN: Okay, that I can understand. If you did not say that in court, that is the plans that you are referring to but what is difficult to understand is that you protect the revolution by just telling us about the collection of weapons and not the murders.
MR KLOPPERS: I was putting it so softly.
MR MALAN: It is indeed so, I just cannot see how this relates to the revolution, that is why I asked the question. Can you comment on that or are you just referring to Viljoen and Hartzenberg?
MR KLOPPERS: I refer to the war that would have started then.
MR DREYER: Mr Kloppers, you say you wanted to put it softly that is why you limited it to the weapons and ammunition, how many revolutions and wars have you heard about where people weren't killed? I see you don't answer.
MR KLOPPERS: I am trying to understand the question.
MR DREYER: The question is simple, how many wars and revolutions have you heard of where people were not killed, isn't that what happens in a revolution and a war?
MR KLOPPERS: Yes, people are killed in war and revolutions.
MR DREYER: Just to go along with the question I have just put to you, this is what I am getting to, but you are just trying not to answer my question. The question is quite simple, during June 1994 there was already an election, how did you think by omitting that portion of the instruction, how did you think you are going to protect the whole plan of the revolution and the AWB and the Generals in staff, how would you protect them, how?
MR KLOPPERS: I would like to mention it, as Mr Dreyer has said, I omitted this in court because if I was labelled a liar then, that I turned on my testimony, they wouldn't have believed me further in court. In the Supreme Court I was pointed out as an honourable witness, therefore I stick to my testimony, and I stick to it.
MR DREYER: Sir, you say that you were pointed out as an honourable witness.
MR DREYER: Must we then accept that what you said during those proceedings, were true and honourable?
MR KLOPPERS: As I have said during some instances, I lied. It is not me that said that I was honourable, I was merely presented as an honourable witness.
MR DREYER: Fine, let me ask you then. If we look at the portion which I have read to you, you said that you attended the meeting and on the 12th you received the order to gather arms and ammunition and then you also compiled the group of nine, yourself and others, eight others?
MR KLOPPERS: Yes, that is correct.
MR DREYER: I would like to refer you once again to what you said on page 637, you have now received the order, you must go and seek out arms and ammunition. What did you do then was the question? Your Honour, I went to my second in command's home, I didn't speak to him directly, he was very busy and I merely left a message that he should gather the men so that we could meet and discuss it.
Who is the person whose home you phoned?
MR KLOPPERS: I phoned the home of accused 1, that is Mr Martin.
MR DREYER: After you did that, what did you do?
MR KLOPPERS: I phoned accused 1's home from our office and then I went to my own home where I first had something to eat and a drink and waited for the time upon which I should go back to the road house where we would meet.
MR DREYER: At approximately what time was that?
MR KLOPPERS: The call that I made was at approximately 18h30 and then shortly after nine o'clock, I arrived at the road house.
MR DREYER: And then your advocate begins with the following, very well, you made a statement to a Police Officer, it was submitted to this Court as Exhibit H1, and then he begins to read the statement to you paragraph by paragraph.
Let us firstly begin with what I have just read to you, was that the truth when you testified that after you had attended the Order Group meeting on the 12th, you first went to have something to eat and to drink, is that still the truth or is that no longer the truth?
MR KLOPPERS: That is absolutely the truth. That I did phone from the Head Office, what I didn't add I think I must have forgotten to add it, was that I personally went to the home of one of the applicants before the Committee, Andre Visser, to tell him that he should be at the road house, because I didn't have his phone number.
MR DREYER: I am simply asking you about the use of alcohol, is that correct?
MR KLOPPERS: But then why did you begin at the Head Office?
MR DREYER: No, I am asking did you have a drink, is that correct?
MR KLOPPERS: Yes, I had one drink at my home.
MR DREYER: And then I listened to the last portion of Mr Matthews' evidence before the Committee and it would appear that he wanted to scale down the consumption of alcohol and the prominence of alcohol, but I would like to know from you, what role did alcohol play during that evening?
MR KLOPPERS: Chairperson, it played a very minimal role because all of us were very strong drinkers, it wasn't a problem to me. I would just like to mention clearly that we believed that by including the aspect of alcohol in our statements, it would mitigate the circumstances of this case.
MR DREYER: You believed that it would be mitigating, however when you testified here yesterday, and now you are testifying this here, you are saying that you have come here to speak the truth once and for all, so can we accept what you testified yesterday?
MR KLOPPERS: Yes, I am here to apply for amnesty in order to go home.
MR DREYER: Yesterday you testified that at a stage, after you had fetched the men at the road house, you went to one home first and then you ended up at the home of Mr Martin, is that correct?
MR KLOPPERS: Yes, that is correct.
MR DREYER: Had any alcohol been consumed at the first home to which you went, I think that is Visser's home?
MR KLOPPERS: No, that was my own home.
MR DREYER: No, after the road house?
MR KLOPPERS: The first place where we stopped after the road house, was at Mr Badenhorst's parents' home.
MR DREYER: Did you have a drink there?
MR DREYER: Very well, then you went to the home of Mr Martin?
MR KLOPPERS: No, we went to Mr Andre Visser's apartment.
MR DREYER: Did you have a drink there?
MR DREYER: What did you have to drink there and how much, according to you now?
MR KLOPPERS: I myself had whisky, there was only whisky available.
MR DREYER: Very well, let me say to you then whether you wish to scale down the amount of drink or not, in Mr Martin's evidence during the criminal proceedings, he says that at Mr Badenhorst's home a bottle of whisky and brandy was obtained and consumed.
MR KLOPPERS: That is what Mr Martin said at that point and you will have to ask him about that yourself.
MR DREYER: I do intend to do so, but I would like to know what you think of that?
MR KLOPPERS: There was one bottle of whisky, it was First Watch whisky, Andre Visser would be able to answer you regarding that, but there was only one bottle of whisky.
MR DREYER: However, he says that there was whisky and brandy and he also says, this is Mr Martin who says, that when you finally arrived at his home, another bottle of brandy or whisky was obtained.
Now we are talking about three bottles of alcohol, what do you say about that?
MR KLOPPERS: I label that as untrue. I don't know where Mr Martin stated this, but I state it very clearly to you that we took out one bottle of whisky, the seal had already been broken on the bottle, that we took out that bottle. We used the alcohol that was available there.
MR DREYER: Is this Badenhorst's home?
MR KLOPPERS: This was at Mr Andre Visser's home, at Mr Badenhorst's home there was no available alcohol.
MR DREYER: Very well, when you testified yesterday, you said that the rest of the men stood to one side, and chatted amongst each other, because you gave them options of home penetration and road blocks?
MS VAN DER WALT: That is incorrect, he gave them no option between a road block or home penetration.
MR DREYER: I will retract that. But what I am saying is that at one point you testified that you spoke to the men and you said that while they were considering or talking about it, you said and your words were because I pertinently wrote them down, you made yourself at home in the home of Mr Martin, I went to the drinks cabinet, I took out a bottle which you said was already open, I divided the bottle of drink in two and gave it to the group.
MR KLOPPERS: That is not correct, that is not what I said.
MR KLOPPERS: If I remember correctly, I stated it clearly that I gave the order at Mr Martin's home that there would be a road block while the men were discussing the matter, I made myself at home in his home, because I was very good friends with Mr Martin.
I opened his drinks cabinet, there was half a bottle of brandy, indeed if it was half a bottle, but I don't want to lie about that, I divided the brandy between two bottles and between two vehicles, when we arrived outside. Those were my words.
MR DREYER: But how does that differ from the version which I have just provided? I have stated it exactly?
MS VAN DER WALT: I am very sorry, you said that he took out a bottle of alcohol, there is a very big difference between a bottle and a half a bottle of alcohol.
MR DREYER: I would really request my learned friend not to unnecessary curb my cross-examination, because I distinctly said that he made himself comfortable, he went to the liquor cabinet, he took out a bottle and I distinctly said which was already open and in his own words now, he said he can't lie, he doesn't want to say it was half or how much of it was already consumed. I think it is a play of words, all I am saying is it is the matter of him, when they have already had something to drink, get to this house and on his own version, went to the liquor cabinet, took out a bottle of liquor and he divided it and he provided it to the two groups, that is the point I am making.
CHAIRPERSON: The whole problem arises as a result of the question you asked. You asked him what is the difference between what I have just ask you and what you have said. What was the purpose of this question of yours, why didn't you just proceed to put questions?
What is the purpose of asking this witness but what is the difference between what I have asked and what you are saying? If you didn't see any purpose, why didn't you just proceed with your cross-examination?
MR DREYER: I will do so Mr Chairman. Mr Kloppers, I put it to you according to your own version which we must accept here as the truth, alcohol had already been used by yourself at your own home and after you had been at the road house, where you met and then you went to Mr Martin's home where you divided the bottle as you have explained, is that correct?
MR KLOPPERS: No, that is incorrect. I could not have gone to the road block first ...
MR DREYER: I beg your pardon, I was referring to the road house.
MR KLOPPERS: I had a drink at my home with my meal and then at Andre Visser's home I consumed whisky and then at Deon Martin's home, I consumed brandy, that is correct.
MR DREYER: What I don't understand is that while the men were discussing the matter according to you, whatever they were discussing, you walked away. You said that you went to make yourself at home, but you didn't make yourself at home with a drink for yourself, you made yourself at home by taking the bottle of alcohol, however empty or full it may have been, the bottle which you found there, you divided it into two in order to divide it amongst the group, what was the purpose behind that?
Why did you want to make sure that alcohol would be available for the groups participating in this mission?
MR KLOPPERS: I did not make sure that alcohol had to be handed out. I would just like to bring you back to the bottle which according to you, was either full or half full, I told you that the bottle was either half or less than half, full.
I put it that you are playing with the meaning of full or half full or less than half, full. I simply divided the amount of alcohol between the two groups, whoever wanted to have some of it, was free to accept or not to accept it. Mr Martin van der Schyff does not drink whisky at all, the major reason for that was that he wanted brandy, he doesn't drink whisky and water and I found this bottle in the drinks cabinet, and divided it.
MR DREYER: But why would Mr Martin during the criminal proceedings, have testified that at the previous house, brandy and whisky was available?
MR KLOPPERS: I think you would have to ask him yourself.
MR DREYER: However full or empty the bottle was, my problem remains in that you wanted to ensure that alcohol was available at all times, was that in order to ensure that the men would have the courage to carry out the order which you wanted to give to them?
MR KLOPPERS: No, my men were prepared at all times. It was not necessary to give them alcohol in order to give them courage.
MR DREYER: My problem is and I will present it to you in the following construct, in your version, these men were told to go to work that night, without being told what work was?
MR DREYER: And then you met at the road house and still they had not been told what the work would be?
MR KLOPPERS: The only idea that I allowed to filter through at the road house, was that we were going to work, that it was the real McCoy and that there had to be corpses. This had already been conveyed to the men at the road house.
MR DREYER: But sir, you have consistently said that only when you were travelling in the vehicle, you and Mr Martin discussed the possibility of the road block?
MR KLOPPERS: No, that is not the case. In the vehicle Mr Martin put it to me that we should do home penetration and I neutralised that because I had received an order from Gen Oelofse.
MR DREYER: No you said we are not going to do that, we are going to hold a road block.
MR KLOPPERS: As I had already received the order from Gen Oelofse, that is correct.
MR DREYER: And then you drove from home to another and on the way, you were drinking and only when you eventually arrived on the scene of the road block, you called the so-called group to one side and said to them, look, these are ANC people and we are going to shoot them now and the signal will be Martin's first shot.
MR KLOPPERS: I don't know where you received that information, that is not my version of the entire situation. At Mr Martin's home, the men were told that we would be holding a road block, our target group was the ANC/SACP alliance and that is how I have submitted it to this Committee.
MR DREYER: And then you said to them there and then that this is our target group, if we go out tonight and hold a road block wherever, if we find ANC people, we will shoot them immediately, is that what you said to them?
MR KLOPPERS: Already at the road house I told them that tonight is the real McCoy, our target group is ANC/SACP members. If we find them, we will shoot them.
MR DREYER: When did you testify that you stated it in so many words and so explicitly at the road house, when did you testify that? You will have to be of assistance to me because I don't know when you testified that.
MR KLOPPERS: Before this Committee, it is within my statement which have been submitted to the Committee.
MR DREYER: You stated it as such, that there had to be corpses, that we were going to have a road block?
MR KLOPPERS: Yes, that is correct.
MR DREYER: May I ask you, when you testified here during the criminal proceedings, you said that you thought that you should emphasise the alcohol aspect more because it would be mitigating for you, is that correct?
MR KLOPPERS: Yes, that is correct.
MR DREYER: Did you then also during the criminal proceedings, for the purpose of mitigation say that this entire incident was tragic and that it shouldn't have happened?
MR KLOPPERS: That is correct, I absolutely said it. I stated that this incident should have been only for arms and ammunition, it had been a freak accident, I think those are the words that I used in court. Once again it was to protect Gen Oelofse as well as the Generals in staff.
MR DREYER: But sir, how could you protect Gen Oelofse and the AWB through this, I don't understand?
MR KLOPPERS: I don't know if you are the only person who doesn't understand, at this point it is the umpteenth time that we are discussing the same point.
I will say it again. I absolutely attempted to protect Gen Oelofse and the AWB. I did not want to connect any corpses or shooting of people to the AWB or Gen Oelofse.
MR DREYER: And when you went out to establish the road block, you stopped a great deal of vehicles, before you arrived at these two specific vehicles?
MR DREYER: And you are trying to tell this Committee that you questioned these people in the previous vehicles individually and not one of them said that they were members of the ANC?
MR DREYER: And why didn't you use some kind of violence to bring them to a point to admit that they were members of the ANC, as you did with the two last vehicles?
MR KLOPPERS: Later I did use violence for which I was charged and convicted.
MR DREYER: Can you just tell us then, what difference did it make, why with the first number of vehicles which you stopped and you used a certain level of violence, why did the passengers of those vehicles remain steadfast and say that they were not members of the ANC, but when you came to the last two vehicles and you hit them lightly with your baton, they admitted that they were members of the ANC, why?
MR KLOPPERS: I have said that I did not hit them softly, that is what my co-accused have said.
MR DREYER: And did each and everyone of these people who were passengers in these two vehicles, did each and everyone of them ultimately admit to you that they were members of the ANC?
MR KLOPPERS: Each and everyone of them remained steadfast that they were members of the ANC.
MR DREYER: Even the nine year old and the 13 year old?
MR KLOPPERS: I cannot tell you anything about the nine year old and the 13 year old who appeared to me to be like any other person, a mature person, because I was moving behind them.
MR DREYER: And he also said that he was a member of the ANC.
MR KLOPPERS: Might I just have the opportunity?
MR KLOPPERS: I did not say that I saw this 13 year old child, to me he appeared like any other person, a large man. His profile was the same size as any of the others who were seated there.
The same question was put to everyone, and everyone said yes, we are ANC. Some of them answered in English, some in Afrikaans.
MR DREYER: But none of us were there, we weren't involved. Can you offer any explanation to us as to what brought these people so far in making this admission that they were ANC members because they knew that this was not an official Police road block? The previous group of people were not moved by your behaviour, to make such admissions?
MR KLOPPERS: I would propose that you ask that question to the victims themselves, but from my position I regarded it that they were blatantly convinced that they were going to win the election and that is why they answered our question as to what their party affiliation was, with ANC membership.
MS VAN DER WALT: The witness has testified that the others said that they did not belong to any political party or that they were members of the IFP or Tswana's.
CHAIRPERSON: ... from the Honda and the Cressida, he was referring to people that had earlier on stopped in other vehicles.
MS VAN DER WALT: The previous passengers before the last two vehicles, yes, but regarding the questions that were just put, the others were merely stopped and searched.
It doesn't appear as if the Advocate is aware of the testimony that the others did in fact answer.
CHAIRPERSON: What about the nine year old Mr Kloppers, the Advocate asked you about the nine year old and the 13 year old, and you said the so-called 13 year old, to you, really did not appear to be that young. What about the nine year old?
MR KLOPPERS: The nine year old child, I did not see. As I have said before, I was walking behind them, they were seated with their backs to me, if they looked at me, I hit them with the baton, told them to look in front of them, and Deon Martin questioned them.
He stood in front of them, I did not see or notice any nine year old child.
CHAIRPERSON: ... interrogated these people?
MR KLOPPERS: Some of them I hit with a (indistinct) from behind and said answer the question.
CHAIRPERSON: You spoke to them?
CHAIRPERSON: And at some point they were made to stand in a straight line?
MR KLOPPERS: My own people? Are you referring to my men?
MR KLOPPERS: No, under no circumstances. They sat all the time on a small embankment at the side of the road. They were sitting on the side line, that is right.
CHAIRPERSON: Did you speak to them, they were sitting there in a straight line?
MR KLOPPERS: That is correct yes, I was behind them and when I spoke to them, it was to achieve answers.
CHAIRPERSON: ... which could have been nine year old.
MR KLOPPERS: Under no circumstances did I notice this child.
MR DREYER: Did you notice the child on the mother's lap?
MR KLOPPERS: I did not notice any child on any mother's lap.
MR DREYER: How long did this interrogation last?
MR KLOPPERS: Approximately eight to ten minutes.
MR DREYER: Is that not a very long enough time to take in the entire scene?
CHAIRPERSON: ... women there, amongst them?
MR KLOPPERS: I image that there would have been women.
CHAIRPERSON: ... about the brandy that was divided into two bottles, it was taken along? You took it along when you left for the road block?
CHAIRPERSON: For what reason? May I ask you, obviously you are going to drink it, was it - did you people then drink it?
MR KLOPPERS: I don't know if those in the vehicle behind the Mercedes, drank any of it, I don't know who of them had anything to drink, but I, myself in the Mercedes did have some of it to drink.
CHAIRPERSON: You gave it to them for the purpose of drinking it?
CHAIRPERSON: And when did you drink yours, before you arrived at the road block?
MR KLOPPERS: On the way to the road block, I consumed some of the brandy. As far as I know, it was only myself.
MR DREYER: Did you drink everything?
MR KLOPPERS: I did not drink everything.
MR DREYER: Can you remember how many of you, how much there was?
MR KLOPPERS: If I had to measure it in glasses and include the factor that there was Coca Cola, I would say that it would easily have been two and a half to three drinks.
MR MALAN:: Can you remember how full the bottle was after you had your drinks?
MR KLOPPERS:: I cannot tell you because this happened in transit, and I drank directly out of the bottle. So I can't tell you exactly.
MR MALAN:: Can you remember what happened to the bottle after that?
MR KLOPPERS:: No it must have been in the car. Perhaps Mr Martin can remember whether or not he found it there the following day, but I left it in the vehicle.
ADV BOSMAN:: Mr Kloppers, can we just look at your alcohol habit? In the course of the day, how much did you consume. Did you consume any alcohol before you went to the Order Group meeting?
MR KLOPPERS:: No I did not have anything to drink before I went to the Order Group meeting. It was an ordinary Sunday and usually on a Sunday, I would have had a drink before a meal and perhaps afterwards.
ADV BOSMAN:: But on that day, did you have a drink?
MR KLOPPERS:: As I have testified before the Committee, when I came from the head office, I had a drink with my meal.
ADV BOSMAN:: Was that your dinner?
ADV BOSMAN:: With lunch did you have a drink?
ADV BOSMAN:: And at the Order Meeting, did you have any drinks?
MR KLOPPERS:: No, no drinks were available at the Order Meeting.
CHAIRPERSON:: When these people took some liquor, or at least some of them took some liquor at Andre Visser's flat, at that stage they did not know exactly what they were going to do; they did not know that they were going to put up a road-block?
MR KLOPPERS:: That's correct Chairperson. They did not know what the order would be.
CHAIRPERSON:: But they knew that something serious was going to happen because you had told them that it was going to be a real McCoy?
MR KLOPPERS:: That's correct Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON:: And you were going on an AWB Military Operation?
CHAIRPERSON:: Did AWB military policy allow that? If people were to go on important Military operations, they were free to drink?
MR KLOPPERS:: This was the first serious Military Operation which was undertaken by the AWB. In previous instances when we had participated in protest marches, there had not been a problem with alcohol and that is why it was not considered a problem to use alcohol on that evening.
CHAIRPERSON:: Irrespective of whether you regarded it is a problem or not, would you say it was that it would have been the policy of the AWB - it would have been in accordance, or it would have been approved by the ... directly in the AWB, that people could drink if they were to go on an official Military operation? Did you see that as being in line with AWB military policy?
MR KLOPPERS:: I would like to refer back to the period when we undertook security for General Oelofse at the Assembly Hotel. On the way to the hotel, when we took him there, we had drinks while we were in transit and this was in the presence of General Oelofse. He did not disapprove of it. At the Assembly Hotel, while we were on duty, I myself had a couple of drinks and we were never told that it was a problem. So on that evening, it was also not a problem to me.
CHAIRPERSON:: I'm not talking about the evening when you accompanied General Oelofse to a meeting. I am talking about the day on which you were going to start a revolution - a very important operation, a military operation.
MR KLOPPERS:: I never regarded it as a problem because not one of the members who worked under me drank so much, that they would have been in a condition which would have rendered them utterly useless.
CHAIRPERSON:: To sum up, tell me taking liquor before going to mount a revolution - would that have been in line with the policy of the AWB? Let us sum that up.
MR KLOPPERS:: I suppose it depends upon each and everyone's personal opinion. It was not a problem for me.
CHAIRPERSON:: I am asking you Mr Kloppers. Are you saying that as far as you are concerned, it was in line with the policy of the AWB, or are you saying it was not in line with the policy?
MR KLOPPERS:: I would say that it was in line with AWB policy.
CHAIRPERSON:: Well whether or not you saw it as it being in line with the policy, you were not concerned that it might prejudice the fact that your men take some liquor. It might prejudice the operation. Wrong decisions may be taken; irresponsible things be done. Didn't that worry you?
MR KLOPPERS:: I did not see it as a problem and that's why I allowed it.
ADV. PRINSLOO:: Excuse me Mr Kloppers, did you allow them or did you initiate it?
MR KLOPPERS:: If you see the offering of a drink as an initiation, then it would be but I just offered the drink to them.
CHAIRPERSON:: Were you in the South African Police?
MR KLOPPERS:: No, South African Defence Force.
CHAIRPERSON:: Defence Force. As far as I know, well I may be wrong. As far as I know, taking liquor within the South African National Defence Force, before going on an operation, would have been viewed in very, very serious light.
MR KLOPPERS:: At the stage of my training and when I served duty in the South African Defence Force, I was not using alcohol at that stage. I started using alcohol at a later stage. I did not use alcohol then. When I was in military training, I was not involved whether they were drinking or not drinking. So I do not know what their attitude towards it was.
CHAIRPERSON:: Now what I am saying to you is that it occurs to me that certain provisions of the Military Discipline Code would not allow that kind of thing, that people who take liquor when they go on official duty.
MR KLOPPERS:: That is totally correct. We need to take recognizance of the fact that the AWB was a paramilitary organisation and not a military instance. There is a difference whereby certain things were allowed. For example, you cannot force a person to do something. If he did not want to be under your command, you could not force him. Therefore, as I put it in the meeting, that it was not a problem to drink.
CHAIRPERSON:: But you said that it's quite a disciplined organisation?
CHAIRPERSON:: You said it was a disciplined organisation? Members are disciplined?
MR KLOPPERS:: That's correct. When I speak about a disciplined organisation, I speak of my own area. My area was absolutely disciplined and very, very ...(indistinct).
CHAIRPERSON:: And it is good discipline to take liquor before going on a military operation? Can I just finish my question unless you know the balance of it? It is good discipline to ... It is still good discipline to take liquor before going on a military operation; before staging a revolution?
MR KLOPPERS:: That's not good discipline to go out on a military mission. But in a paramilitary operation, it would be a different matter altogether.
CHAIRPERSON:: I'm talking solely about the AWB on this question. That night it was good discipline to take liquor before going on an AWB military operation that day?
MR KLOPPERS:: I do not agree that it was such good discipline.
CHAIRPERSON:: Why did you ... If you were going on an AWB military operation and you knew that it would not have been good discipline, then why was that done?
MR KLOPPERS:: At previous occasions, at meetings and during marches that we held, we did use alcohol and for the higher officers, it was not a problem. Therefore, it was not for me a problem, that evening to have a few drinks.
CHAIRPERSON:: Thank you. Mr Dreyer.
MR MALAN:: Just before Mr Dreyer continues. I am not sure if I heard you correctly. When the Chairperson asked you if it was good discipline to drink before an operation, but you said not at a military instance, but at a paramilitary operation.
MR KLOPPERS:: I did not say good. I said there was a difference at a paramilitary organisation.
ADV.PRINSLOO:: In other words, it could be good.
MR KLOPPERS:: If you look at the discipline thereof, it would not be good.
MR MALAN:: But the question was, was this good discipline when you go out on a mission and you said that at a military operation, no, but at a paramilitary operation, it would be possible.
MR KLOPPERS:: I do not think that it would be well to go under the influence of alcohol.
MR MALAN:: And then do you say you should not have drank alcohol that evening before you went on the operation?
MR MALAN:: Thank you. Mr Chairman, I notice it's already 11h15.
CHAIRPERSON:: Thank you. We will adjourn until 11h30.
CHAIRPERSON:: Mr Dreyer, it may be that the witness's complaint is justified against long questions, which he finds difficult to follow. Please try to make your questions... try to make them as short and direct to the point as possible. You must also bear in mind that the witness is not in the best of health.
MR DREYER:: Mr Chairman, I missed the last part. I'm sorry.
CHAIRPERSON:: No, no, no. I am not trying to say you must finish your cross-examining. I'm just saying... I am talking about the way you frame your questions. I am trying to say that make them as short as possible. I am not saying shorten your cross-examination.
MR DREYER:: I take note, Mr Chairman. Mr Kloppers after I asked you questions, there were questions by the Committee Members, and we diverted from the line of questioning I was busy with. Do you remember that I put it to you here that at the flat, Brandy and Whisky was consumed, and you said, no you only drank First Watch Whisky. Is that correct?
MR KLOPPERS:: That is correct.
MR DREYER:: What I don't understand then is during the Criminal Procedures, when you were asked about it and I would refer you to page 640 and 641, and your representative refers you again to the statement; and he reads from the statement -he says look at the statement, the following paragraph, and then you say: `The vehicle that we were driving in was a Mercedes and a White Sentra. At Andre's flat, all of us drank from the First Watch Whisky,' and then you say: `That is correct.' And then your Advocate asks something else, and then you say: `There's an addition to that. We had consumed or we had a bottle of Brandy. We didn't drink it there. We drank it while we were driving, and then now and then we stopped and divided it.' You see that is my problem, and I confront you with the diversions and then you are unhappy. It is as if you do not know where I get this from. Would you please tell me then? When, once again, during the Criminal Procedures, when you were given the opportunity in relation to this statement that you made under pressure, to correct this and you spontaneously say: `No, no, no, no - we did not just have a bottle of First Watch Whisky at the flat, we had a bottle of Brandy as well, and that's apart from the bottle of Brandy at Martin's house.' Can you comment on this?
MR KLOPPERS:: My comment was such that we wanted to mitigate the circumstances if there was a bottle of Brandy.
MR DREYER:: But do you agree then when you were given the opportunity to correct this statement, you added that there was a bottle of Brandy at that point.
MR DREYER:: And Martin as well. He testified to the same during the Criminal Procedures. Is that correct?
MR KLOPPERS:: I cannot answer to that.
MR DREYER:: But could I just ask you why were you unhappy when I asked you about this, and you said: `Ask Mr Martin because I don't agree.'
MR KLOPPERS:: I don't agree to what he said that he received alcohol there. I did not get any alcohol there. I only had Whisky. I stick with that statement, and that is why I mentioned it during Criminal Procedures.
MR DREYER:: Let's continue Mr Kloppers. You said you had a long military career before you joined the AWB? Ten years in the Commandos?
MR KLOPPERS:: That is correct.
MR DREYER:: And you saw yourself as a committed military person?
MR DREYER:: And at that stage, according to you this morning, you did not use alcohol at that time? During your involvement at the S A Defence Force, you were involved in a military instruction to do something and it was planned well, and there was specific instructions, and it is as you put it yesterday, it was done with military precision. Is that correct?
MR DREYER:: That is how a military or a force operates. Now you want to tell us that a paramilitary organisation does not operate with military precision? Well we will put it in the positive then. Would you then say a paramilitary organisation operates with military precision?
MR DREYER:: Let's look at your actions that evening, and I will put it to you on the background that you say that it was an instruction from ... it was an official order from the Generals and Staff of the AWB; it would then be a paramilitary operation. Is that correct?
MR DREYER:: Then lets look at the military precision that this was done. Firstly, alcohol is consumed. Is this in line with military precision?
MR DREYER:: Is this in line with military precision that between yourself and Mr Martin there was discussion. Would we penetrate homes or would it be a road-block? Is this in line with well planned operations?
MR KLOPPERS:: Mr Martin at that stage did not know precisely that I would tell all the members that we would put up a road-block, and if we would find any ANC, SACP Alliance persons, we would leave corpses behind.
MR DREYER:: The fact that Mr Martin, who was a relatively senior person in the higher rank of the AWB at that stage, doesn't it seem to you a little bit suspicious that he himself did not know where you were going to and what you were going to do. He speaks about home penetration and he was not yet informed that there would be a road-block. How does this happen?
MR KLOPPERS:: That is how I did my military operation. As just before we took action, that's when the persons found out what we were to do. That is why at Mr Martins home, we discussed the issue.
MR DREYER:: Mr Kloppers when I put it to you this morning, that this was the first time that I hear that at the road-block you explicitly told the people: `We will put up a road-block. This is the real McCoy. There will be corpses.' And then you said that you testified to that. So what is happening now?
MR KLOPPERS:: That is not what I said.
CHAIRPERSON:: It's not what he said.
MR DREYER:: Mr Chairman, I remember very distinctly that at a point, I put it to Mr Kloppers. I was putting it to him that the whole idea of the decision about having a road-block was postponed to a very late stage, and I also referred to that eventually only at the scene of the road-block, a small group of people were called aside and said: `This is now the thing. We are going to kill these people.' And he denied that he said that he testified that already at the road house. He informed them that it's the real McCoy, and this is what -there is going to be a road-block. Now he turns around and said it was ...(indistinct).
CHAIRPERSON:: I don't recall him particularly this morning, telling us that already at the road house, he told them that there was going to be a road-block. I do recall him saying that he told them at the road house that it was going to be a real McCoy - that I recall.
MR DREYER:: And that there is going to be corpses?
CHAIRPERSON:: Yes. But he did not say that it was going to be a road-block. He never said... he added that portion at the road house, Mr Dreyer.
MR DREYER:: I might have got the wrong impression and for that purposes ...
CHAIRPERSON:: I understood him to say that that was only mentioned at Martin's house.
MR DREYER:: I accept that, Mr Chairman. Okay, let's accept that. You say already at the road-block, you told the persons this is the real McCoy; there would be corpses. You just don't tell them there would be a road-block?
MR KLOPPERS:: Mr Chairperson, you are struggling with your own words. It was not at the road-block. It was at the road house cafe.
MR DREYER:: I want to give the second alternative to you. ADV BOSMAN: But you are talking of a road-block, instead of a road-house cafe.
CHAIRPERSON:: Mr Chairman, I would please request my learned friend not to interrupt me. If she doesn't know where I'm going with my question. I said I accept now that I might have misinterpreted his evidence, so I'm putting it at a totally different stage now. If only at the road-block he said - and I am not referring to the road house now. I am referring to the road-block now. If I might proceed, Mr Chairman.
MR KLOPPERS:: Repeat the question please.
MR DREYER:: Sir, let's put it to you or let's ask you. According to what you said a little while earlier, this is how you planned operations. You keep the information secret until the last moment. Is that what you testified?
MR KLOPPERS:: Yes that is what I did.
MR DREYER:: I asked if that is what you testified?
MR DREYER:: You need to draw our attention to one of these two sides. At the road-block did you call aside a group of people and told them this is what is going to be done. These are the ANC persons. We are going to shoot them right now. Is that your version now, or are you saying - at the road house cafe you told the persons there would be corpses, because it's the real McCoy. What is the truth now?
MR KLOPPERS:: You asked me a dual question but to answer the first question - at the road-block, I did call them aside and told them this is our target group - we will shoot them now from the line, and we shot them. At the road cafe, I put it to them clearly that this was the real McCoy and there had to be corpses, and our target group is the ANC, SACP Alliance people.
MR DREYER:: Very well. Let's get back to the line of my questioning. Your military position - you say that the use of alcohol is not in line with military precision. Is that correct?
MR DREYER:: Now I wish to know from you the fact that while you are driving around with a person that, in comparison with you, would be at the same level of rank with Mr Martin, that between the two of you, there is still discussion as to whether it would be home penetration or whether it would be a road-block? Does this testify to planned military precision?
MR KLOPPERS:: The planned military precision was done at Mr Martin's plot. He suggested that we do home penetration, that was not discussed. I told him that this was not under discussion. General Oelofse wanted a road-block with corpses.
MR DREYER:: Then why did the two of you, during the Criminal Procedures, testify that the reason as to why there was no home penetration was not because there was an instruction for a road-block, but both of you during the Criminal Procedures testified that the reason for this was there were not enough people in the group that had experience to this, and it would be a dangerous thing to do this without experienced personnel.
MR KLOPPERS:: My team were trained soldiers. I had no problem with their ability. What I was trying to do there was I was trying to protect them and I was trying to take them under the wing, by saying that they could not do home penetration. But the level of my answer during this Criminal Procedure was not true. As I said it was thrown out in the Supreme Court.
MR DREYER:: I do not understand. Now you are saying the whole version was thrown out and then earlier you said you were a trustworthy witness.
CHAIRPERSON:: Let's proceed to the next question. Proceed to the next question.
MR DREYER:: You did not answer my previous question. I asked you why you and Mr Martin during the Criminal Procedures, said that the reason why there was no home penetration was because there was a lack of military experience in this and not because there was an instruction to put up a road-block. Why not?
MR KLOPPERS:: That was not the truth.
MR DREYER:: Good. That was not the truth?
MR MALAN:: Excuse me, I am interested in the answer to this question. We will accept that it was not the truth. But why did you say so?
MR KLOPPERS:: I was still trying to protect General Oelofse by not saying that he gave us direct instruction to put up a road-block.
MR DREYER:: Now if you were trying to protect General Oelofse by not saying this, then I don't understand because you never received an instruction from General Oelofse to do home penetration. How are you protecting him by omitting this, or how are you protecting him by saying that this was not the truth. He did not give any instruction to any home penetration.
MR KLOPPERS:: He did not give any instructions to any home penetration. He did not give an instruction for home penetration. He said we should put up a road-block.
MR DREYER:: Let's just continue with the military precision. Now we are at the scene of the road-block, according to the testimony of Mr Matthews, it was put by the Chairman to him that some of the persons who were shot there; that they them-selves - the bakkie that could not start, they had to push it to start it. Do you remember that?
MR DREYER:: And Mr Matthews testimony to that was quite adamant. He said: `No Mr Chairperson, we were ordered. Ourselves helped to push that vehicle.' Do you remember that?
MR DREYER:: Now I wish to know from you, is that military precision when members of the AWB, with official AWB emblems so that everybody could see they are members of the AWB, would push vehicles with their bare hands so that their finger-prints would be all over the vehicle. Is that military precision?
MR KLOPPERS:: It was military precision to me because they complied with the instruction that I gave to them. I wanted them to start the vehicle.
MR DREYER:: And such military precision that they leave evidence all over the place? They pick up the shells, not all of them.
MS VAN DER WALT:: The testimony was that all the shells were picked up, and the application of Mr Martin was amended.
MR MALAN:: Ms Van der Walt, you have not given any notice to us that you amended Mr Kloppers application.
MS VAN DER WALT:: I wish to draw the Committee's attention that his testimony is corrected.
MR MALAN: And you did not need to amend this. I wish to point out that you should do it.
MS VAN DER WALT:: Mr Chairperson, the instruction that Mr Dreyer has of Mr Oelofse, is that he does not oppose the application, but he puts Mr Kloppers under cross-examination with reference to his client then. His cross-examination would go beyond the instruction then. It seems to me that he is opposing the application. I'm not sure where he is leading us.
MR DREYER:: Mr Chairperson, if my learned friend would think about it, I stated categorically that I had no interest in the opposed opposition of the application and I would put it clearly that I ask questions that had relevance to the question whether there was an instruction inside the higher ...(indistinct) of the AWB. This applicant has testified many times that the AWB are a militant and paramilitary institution, and that we would expect that the instructions from such a structure would be given as such, and that is why I am cross-examining the witness to find out whether it was a military instruction or not. I do not wish to ask him about the merits or not, or what happened at the scene.
CHAIRPERSON:: I don't think he is one of his instructions, not to oppose the application in his question. I think that he is entitled, because your client is really saying that he received a military order which emanated from proper high structures within the AWB, which has been described by the applicant as a paramilitary institution, and I don't think he has exceeded the limits of his entitlement.
MR DREYER:: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Kloppers I am still on the subject of military precision. What was your impression of Mr Japie Oelofse as a military person. How did you get to know him?
MR KLOPPERS:: I looked upwards to him. I looked ...
MR DREYER:: How did you experience him as a military person. Did you see him as a committed soldier?
MR KLOPPERS:: I saw him as a true military person.
MR DREYER:: Are you... do you know his military breakdown?
MR DREYER:: Did you recognise him as a person who would give you just any instruction without giving any detail of what he wanted?
MR DREYER:: Are you telling the Court then that he left it to you to interpret the instructions.
MR KLOPPERS:: He respected me as an officer because I was responsible for his security.
MR KLOPPERS:: He respected me so much that I knew what to do and I was personally responsible for his security, as when I received instructions from him, we complied with it.
MR DREYER:: Please listen to me. I am asking if you got to know him as someone who gave you vaguely outlined orders and then expected of you to colour in the order according to your own discretion. Is that how you knew him?
MR KLOPPERS:: No, that's not so.
MR DREYER:: Well then, what else happened here? Isn't that exactly what happened here?
MR KLOPPERS:: No, that's not correct.
MR DREYER:: Well then I will put it to you as follows. You say and we are now dealing with your version. You say that you heard from a man, whom you regarded as a senior commander within the authority structure of the AWB, the following orders: that you should obtain weapons and ammunition; that you should establish a road-block. I want to see corpses. Is that correct?
MR DREYER:: That's the only order which you received?
MR DREYER:: I will ask you once more. That is the only order that you received?
MR KLOPPERS:: The order which was given to me was that the revolution would begin on the night of the 12th of December 1993, and I expect of you seeing as you have held a road-block before and executed it with precision, that nothing had gone wrong, that I would expect the same of you again, but I was not only looking for arms and ammunition, I want corpses. This is the real McCoy. That was his order.
MR DREYER:: Let's just accept and I want it stated clearly. Let's accept that this is what you heard. Did you ask General Oelofse if it is the way that you said it: `General please explain to me what you mean by when you say - I want to see corpses. When do you want to see these corpses? In which manner do you want to see these corpses. These corpses which you are talking about, are these corpses which we will see during the course of the revolution or when the war breaks out'. Did you ever ask him that?
MR KLOPPERS:: No I did not ask him that. I understood clearly what he meant by a road-block and the ANC, SACP as our target which we would shoot.
MR DREYER:: And what you are saying to me therefore is that according to your version, you heard from him: `I want to see corpses.' There and then you decided that you would hold a road-block; that you would identify people and if they were totally inactive military persons and merely said to you: `I have a political affiliation as a member of the ANC', you would shoot them there and then. Is that what you are saying?
MR KLOPPERS:: No, not according to my discretion but according to his order.
MR DREYER:: Very well. Let's then accept your answer as you saw it. Let me ask you a follow-up question. What does this have to do, in any way, with the original and chief order that you should obtain arms and ammunition.
MR KLOPPERS:: Arms and ammunition was not the chief order.
MR DREYER:: But I don't understand. How can you say that that was not the chief order. Was the chief order merely to go out and simply shoot members of the ANC on a random basis?
MR KLOPPERS:: I don't know. All I know is that our order was to establish a road-block, to identify ANC, SACP members, and to shoot them.
CHAIRPERSON:: Mr Kloppers, if what you were told by General Oelofse was the revolution is going to start or is beginning, I want to see the bodies, go and mount a road-block; how do you, on that basis do you come to a thing that you must kill ANC people?
MR KLOPPERS:: By the fact that he highlighted it to me and that he stated it clearly that if we had the road-block, we should remember that our target group was the ANC, SACP Alliance. They were our enemies. We had to destroy them and those were the corpses that he wanted to see.
CHAIRPERSON:: Oh, he did not only say the revolution is starting, I want to see the bodies, go and mount a road-block? He in fact went on to say that you should tidy up ANC people and then kill them?
MR KLOPPERS:: He directly said ANC, SACP Alliance is our target group, our group, who acted as guerrilla fighters on that evening.
CHAIRPERSON:: It may be that, you see you have testified about this point many times. It may be that one of the occasions you gave details to that extent and it may be that occasionally you live up some of the details of that nature, but not always did you go so far as to say that he said: `The revolution is starting, I want to see the bodies. Go and put up a road-block. Identify members of the ANC, SACP Alliance and kill them.'
MR KLOPPERS:: The Application which I have submitted to this Committee has been written but I will reiterate that on the 12th of December 1993 after the Order Group Meeting, we were assured that the revolution was about to begin and it was discussed in secrecy that we hold a road-block, that we should have the necessary equipment. He knew that we had done it before and that it had been effectively executed. He knew that I had the necessary manpower therefore, and the target to be identified would be the ANC SACP Alliance members, that he wanted to see corpses. He asked whether or not we had enough arms and ammunition, upon which I answered negatively, and he supplied two home-made pipe-guns/shot-guns.
CHAIRPERSON:: If you come across a vehicle full of members of the PAC, you know what PAC is, you know what I am talking about or you don't know? If one of the vehicles arrive there and let's say all the members, all the passengers came out and told you: `look we are members of the PAC', what would you have done?
MR KLOPPERS:: I would not have had a problem with them, because they were not part of my target group. My target group was the ANC, SACP Alliance members.
MR MALAN:: Mr Kloppers, may I just ask you - did General Oelofse really tell you that evening: `Remember the ANC, SACP Alliance is our enemy?'
MR KLOPPERS:: He stated it clearly that the SACP and the ANC was our target.
MR MALAN:: Why would he have told you once again who the enemy was and reminded you who the enemy was if you knew what to do?
MR KLOPPERS:: I wouldn't say that he tried to remind me of it, but he wanted to remind me that that was my target for the evening. That I was not to do anything else, that is why I reprimanded the others when they assaulted the two black men on the side of the road because we were supposed to identify ANC, SACP members by means of a road-block.
MR MALAN:: How long were you alone with General Oelofse after the Order Group Meeting?
MR KLOPPERS:: After the Order Group it was approximately 10 minutes and there were a great number of people who I had to see. I still had to see to the acquisition of the ammunition and the arms. It would have been approximately 10 minutes.
MR MALAN:: So you spent 10 minutes in his company and he did not give any other details regarding the order as to, for example, where the road-block should be or where you suggested you would be establishing the road-block.
MR KLOPPERS:: After he had given the order, I suggested to him where the best place would be for the road-block because I had done it before and I had prior knowledge of how to do this.
MR MALAN:: Therefore while you were still with him, you told him it would be at the Radora Crossing?
MR MALAN:: What else did you discuss with him. Are there any other details because I think that's the actual question here. Did he simply say well go ahead, and you said yes because he trusted you. You discussed the place with him. What else did you discuss?
MR KLOPPERS:: He, or I informed him of where the place would be, the place that I believe would be the best place for a road-block. When he said road-block did you think to yourself `Radora Crossing'?
MR KLOPPERS:: Absolutely, because myself, Deon Martin and Anderson had previously held a road-block there.
MR MALAN:: At the Radora Crossing?
MR MALAN:: And you said nothing else to him about what you planned to do and how you were going to do it?
MR KLOPPERS:: I said nothing else apart from the fact that I did not have enough arms, upon which he gave me two pipe/shot guns.
CHAIRPERSON:: For what reason did you previously hold the road... mount road-blocks?
MR KLOPPERS:: This road-block was held in order to obtain certain equipment; a blue light, jackets and so forth. We wanted to test the equipment in order to see whether or not we would be able to pull vehicles off the road and if they would obey our commands. It appeared to be so. We pulled over a number of vehicles, packed up our equipment and returned to our homes.
MR DREYER:: Before you arrived at the road-block while you were still on your way there and you driving among the small holdings, the back vehicle stopped, the men jumped out and they assaulted two black men. You say that you reprimanded them immediately. Is that correct?
MR KLOPPERS:: No that's not what I said.
MR DREYER:: The first concept that you had with them, you reprimanded them immediately because that was not the objective of the operation.
MR KLOPPERS:: That is correct.
MR DREYER:: But why didn't you ask them then? Did you ask those two men that you assaulted, whether they were ANC, SACP Alliance members because if they had been, they would have been part of our target group and we may have assaulted them then.
MR KLOPPERS:: No our order was to establish the road-blocks, then undertake the interrogation and then identify our target group.
MR DREYER:: Let us return to this detailed or undetailed order which you would have received from Japie Oelofse. You have told us that he told you: `From now on I want to see corpses.' Is that correct?
MR DREYER:: And then you gathered a bunch of people together, you used alcohol, you fetched reflector jackets and a blue light and you drove to a point and you established a road-block, which ultimately resulted in a tragic loss of life because you heard from him, and the only part of his order which was connected to loss of life, was the words: `I want to see corpses.'
MR DREYER:: Nowhere else, not prior to the Criminal Proceedings and your statement to the police, during the Criminal Proceedings and during these proceedings, did you say that he explicitly stated to you: `Sir tonight you will go to the Radora Crossing, you will gather your men, you will establish a road-block. If you find people from the ANC, SACP Alliance there, if you have identified them as such, your objective is not to obtain arms and ammunition from them, but simply to identify and shoot them dead.' You did not hear anything else?
MR DREYER:: So what you are telling us is that the only aspect of this order which you allegedly received, was: `I want to see corpses.'
MR KLOPPERS:: The order which I received was to establish a road-block and that he wanted to see corpses; that the target group was the ANC, SACP Alliance members.
MR DREYER:: What I'm saying is that the only aspect of your order which was connected to loss of life was: `I want to see corpses.'
MR DREYER:: And that followed you through the entire operation until that point?
MR DREYER:: And this Sir, you did upon the conviction of a man who ...(indistinct). ...(indistinct) everything. I want you to repeat this. You followed through what you thought he had said and what he received from Generals and staff.
MR DREYER:: Therefore, you did not act according to a direct order from General Oelofse but according to your interpretation of what you thought he said.
MR KLOPPERS:: No that's not what I'm saying.
MR DREYER:: Would you like us to rewind that for you?
MR KLOPPERS:: You can rewind it if you want to but what I want to say is that General Oelofse issued a direct order to me, in which he said: `Go and establish a road-block, identify ANC, SACP Alliance members and I want to see corpses.' That is what I have consistently said throughout my statements.
MR DREYER:: And he didn't tell you to establish the road-block tonight; he didn't tell you to hold it tonight at the Radora Crossing?
MR KLOPPERS:: No, he said the revolution begins today.
MR DREYER:: I want to read paragraph 14 of your Application to you. General Oelofse gave the order to me and he said `This is the real McCoy or that now is the real McCoy,' and he said that we in area 9 had to initiate the revolution. Am I correct, is that how your application reads?
MR DREYER:: I beg your pardon Chairperson. This is on page 10 of the paginated papers of I think its volume 1, and it's paragraph 14 of his Application. I will read it to you once more. General Oelofse gave the order to me and said that now is the real McCoy and that we in area 9 must initiate the revolution. Is that correct?
MR DREYER:: Well how does that form a line with your evidence before the Committee that this was not a revolution that had to begin in area 9, Randfontein, but that in fact it was a national country-wide revolution of the AWB, which was aimed at the ANC, SACP Alliance, and that that evening of the 12th, all the area commanders were called together in order to co-ordinate this country-wide revolution.
MR KLOPPERS:: If you will read the paragraph further, you will find it there.
MR DREYER:: Sir, please, I am not asking you to read the paragraph any further, I am merely contrasting your versions.
CHAIRPERSON:: How can you say that, if what stands further on is going to throw light on what you are reading, why shouldn't you refer to it? If there is anything further on which can throw light on what the Advocate has read to you, please bring our attention to it, so that we can read that sentence in its proper context. Is there any further sentence you wanted to refer to Mr Kloppers?
MR KLOPPERS:: If I read the entire paragraph 14...
CHAIRPERSON:: You must just remember that the question was, in your evidence you are saying that the revolution was to start all over the country, but the sentence which the Advocate has read to you suggests that it was only you, in area 9, who had to start with the revolution.
MS VAN DER WALT:: Mr Kloppers, I understand that you have paragraph 12 in mind, in order to see to the context of the paragraph which you are studying.
MR KLOPPERS:: That's correct. Let us look at paragraph 12 on page 9. The meeting was addressed by General Oelofse and he told us that the revolution must begin on the day, the 12th of December 1994. The Generals and staff gave orders that the revolution should begin on that day, country-wide.
MR BRINK:: Mr Chairman, I think there is a typing error in that - 12th December 1993.
CHAIRPERSON:: Well Mr Dreyer, we have paragraph 12 which clearly states that the revolution was to start all over the country, and we then have the opening sentence being paragraph 14, which says what it says. I don't know what you want to make out of that.
MR DREYER:: Mr Chairman, the point is that in paragraph 12 it is in fact stated that it should start national, on a national basis, but I cannot really then see how that is to be interpreted in terms of what is stated in section 14, and it is my submission that there's a contradiction. So it is for the witness and the applicant to point out that there is a contradiction and if he can explain that, then gladly I would afford him the opportunity to do so. This is not my version with the greatest of respect, Mr Chairperson; this is his application before this Committee and every time he is brought to a corner, and every time he is confronted with something which does not keep in line and detracts from his evidence, he is either assisted by his legal representative who takes the blame for that for stating something wrong, or he tries to give a circumventing answer to that. That is my point.
CHAIRPERSON:: Well, I am not sure whether ... I don't to debate the validity of your statement, which is too broad and too ... (indistinct). All we can do now is to deal with what... with the question with which we are concerned. Mr Kloppers, I am sorry. It is being put to you that well and good, paragraph 12 speaks of revolution throughout the country, but paragraph 14, the first sentence, seems to suggest that this revolution was only going to take place within area 9?
MR KLOPPERS:: That's correct. I do not always have my words correct. In this case I presented certain documents to the Amnesty Committee, in which it would appear that the country-wide revolution was supposed to begin on the 12th of December.
CHAIRPERSON:: Mr Dreyer, the first sentence... No I don't think it can necessarily be interpreted to suggest that the revolution was only to take place in area 9. I don't think you can read it that way only.
MR DREYER:: Mr Chairman, I have never indicated that it was only to start there. I was merely working towards the contradiction and if I would have been afforded the opportunity to proceed at that stage, I would have obviously confronted him with paragraph 12, to point out the contradiction but before that, obviously, the proceedings took another direction. But my question is still valid to him. I said his evidence in this Committee was throughout, that it was to be a once well planned and a simultaneous action to have been started all over the country. Now in paragraph 14, and I would like to stress the word `begin' in the third line. It states: General Oelofse gave the task to me and said that now this is the real McCoy and that we in area 9 must begin the revolution.' Now his evidence before this Committee throughout was that it would have been a national coordinated and simultaneous revolution by the AWB, not that it would have been started in the Randfontein area and then sort of ...
CHAIRPERSON:: I don't see any contradiction in that because the interpretation you are placing, or what difference the first sentence in paragraph 14 says; is not... is quite capable of being reconciled with paragraph 12. I don't see any contradiction there.
MR DREYER:: I will leave it at that Mr Chairman. Mr Kloppers, we have been speaking about the military precision in this exercise and you have said you had a very easy answer for the Committee, why you lied during various phases of the proceedings wherein you were involved. You said that you wanted to protect the AWB, as well as your leaders. Is that correct?
MR DREYER:: Well, let us consider the motive which you are providing for the lies because to me, it is about the truth and the untruth of your order. I do not occupy myself with what happened at the road-block because that is the Committee's decision and, according to my client, your application is not being opposed, that is the Committee's issue; but I am arguing that you did not receive such an order from my client, and that is the crux of my cross-examination. Let us consider your motive and why you said that you lied at various phases. You said that you wanted to protect the AWB and your leadership figures.
MR DREYER:: In the first place, if you wanted to protect the AWB, why did you act on that evening openly, with AWB symbols, because that emerges in paragraph 33 of your application. This is on page 18 of volume 1. On that evening, 12th December 1993, we acted openly as AWB members. Before our arrest reports appeared in the media which said that the right-wingers were responsible for this conduct. So in no way did you disguise that you were acting as AWB members. Is that correct?
MR KLOPPERS:: That's absolutely correct. That is the message that we wanted to convey to the public.
MR DREYER:: How did you want to protect the AWB then?
MR KLOPPERS:: By not disclosing the names of my immediate commanders.
MR DREYER:: If that appears to be a logical answer but it is not in line with what you were doing because you, during the Criminal Proceedings and your statements to the police, did you not say that I acted as an AWB member with my group, but I did not act in the orders of the AWB. I acted according to my own conviction. You are therefore contradicting the AWB structure because you are implicating them.
MR DREYER:: But then I don't understand your motive.
MR KLOPPERS:: There is a difference once again between corpses and looking for arms and ammunition. I tried to mitigate the circumstances.
MR DREYER:: Well let me ask it to you this way. When you were charged for these deeds, the death penalty was a possible punishment which could be imposed, and it indeed was.
MR DREYER:: And while these Criminal Proceedings were under way, you incriminated Japie Oelofse and the AWB top structure, as the person who gave you the order to seek out arms and ammunition for the purposes of the revolution. There were crimes in the South African statute such as treason. Is that correct?
MR DREYER:: And at the same time, when the death penalty could be given for murder, as in your case, the death penalty could be given for treason and such crimes. Is that correct?
MR KLOPPERS:: Well I am putting it to you that that is the case.
MR DREYER:: And I am asking if that is the case, why did you think that you could protect the leaders of the AWB if you presented enough evidence, during the Criminal Proceedings, which stated that these people told us that we should collect illegal ammunition and arms, in order to co-ordinate a revolution and to break up the process of peaceful Governments in the country.
MR KLOPPERS:: If that could be treason as you put it, but I did not state it explicitly in Court that we received an order to leave corpses behind.
MR DREYER:: The gathering of illegal arms for a revolution in opposition to the orderly process of Government was enough. How did you think you were going to protect the AWB leaders.
MR KLOPPERS:: As I have answered you, it was a fact that I attempted to protect them by not disclosing that there had to be corpses.
MR DREYER:: You don't understand what I am saying. I am saying that the mere fact that you did not insert or add the corpse aspect, did not protect them.
MR KLOPPERS:: According to me, it did appear to protect them because they did not appear in Court.
MR DREYER:: Now let us proceed regarding this protection theory. On page 646 of the proceedings. 646 volume 8, Mr Chairman. It deals with the fact that you said that you lied in your statement, regarding the issue of the two pipe/shot guns. On page 646, once again, your statement is read out aloud by your Advocate and he says: `The phone rang, I answered,' and so forth, and we proceeded to the next paragraph. `I had a .38 Special pistol and a home-made rifle in my possession.' Is that correct Sir. And you were once again granted the opportunity to comment and to rectify it, if you had said something which you didn't want to say under pressure, during your statement. Is that correct?
MR KLOPPERS:: No that's not correct.
MR DREYER:: Just a moment. Is it correct that you were once again granted the opportunity by the Advocate to rectify your statement if indeed you had said something under pressure from the police, something which you did not want to say. You had the opportunity?
MR KLOPPERS:: Yes, that's correct.
MR DREYER:: Well what did you do with this opportunity? You said: this is not correct. I understood afterwards that two pipes were on the scene. I said in my statement that I had manufactured it in order to protect General Nick Fourie. Is that correct?
MR KLOPPERS:: Yes, that's correct.
MR DREYER:: These proceedings took place in June 1994. Am I correct?
MR DREYER:: But General Nick Fourie had passed away by that time, because he had passed away during the Bophuthatswana incident. I would have thought that his absence would have protected him. Why did you want to protect him in his absence?
MR KLOPPERS:: I did not want to protect him. When I made the statement he was still alive, because the Bophuthatswana incident much later while I was already under arrest.
MR DREYER:: No the Bophuthatswana incident took place shortly before the election.
MR KLOPPERS:: But I was already under arrest.
MR DREYER:: You were arrested on the 6th of January 1994. When did you make this statement?
MR KLOPPERS:: On the 6th of January.
MR DREYER:: At that point, Nick Fourie was still alive?
MR DREYER:: And you say in your statement that this is why you did it, because you wanted to protect him. Am I correct?
MR KLOPPERS:: Yes, I made an amendment that I had first manufactured the pipes myself, but later during the Court, if I remember correctly, I amended it and said that the pipes had not been manufactured by me, and that I had obtained them from General Nick Fourie. I did this because Nick Fourie was deceased by that point. I said that I did it to protect him, that was not the case. I was told by General Japie Oelofse who was in detention with us, that I should use Nick Fourie's name.
MR DREYER:: I am going to point out what I am saying to you because you are struggling here. Listen carefully. You said that during the Criminal Proceedings, when I in my statement of the 6th of January 1994, said that I had manufactured the pipe shotguns, I was lying because I did not manufacture the pipe shotguns. I had obtained them from Nick Fourie.
MR DREYER:: But you said this in terms of an Affidavit which you made on the 6th of January 1994, when Nick Fourie was still alive. Now you are saying that you wanted to protect him, but I don't understand where the protection of Nick Fourie comes in if, in fact, Nick Fourie was never involved in the incident and that Oelofse was the one who gave you the pipe shotguns. Why did you want to protect Nick Fourie if he didn't require protection, because he did not give you the pipe shotguns?
MR KLOPPERS:: That is correct. I would like to state it clearly, once again, that the pipe shotguns were given to me by General Japie Oelofse.
MR DREYER:: But then you were supposed to protect him.
MR KLOPPERS:: I had to protect him that is why I used Nick Fourie's name and not Oelofse's name. I obtained permission from him to use Nick Fourie's name. I had to account for where I had received the pipe shotguns. I could not have manufactured them myself because I did not have the equipment at home to do so.
MR DREYER:: My question remains. If Nick Fourie did not require protection because he did not give you the firearms, why then did you protect him in any way, because he had not done anything. He did not give you the firearms or the pipe shotguns. Why were you protecting him and against what?
MR KLOPPERS:: Through that, I would have protected General Oelofse by the mere fact that I was implicating Fourie and not Oelofse.
MR DREYER:: And during 1994, in June, you knew already and this is the force of your statements and denials; in June 1994 you already knew that you would appear at these proceedings and in 1994, you knew already that you should use Nick Fourie, who had passed away already, to help out with a problem of a statement that you had made during January 1994, for the purposes of proceedings which had not yet occurred and those proceedings are these proceedings which we are present at today.
MR KLOPPERS:: I did not know about it then, yet.
MR DREYER:: How did you know that you would appear at these proceedings and say that you had to protect Oelofse. Why did you then implicate Fourie?
MR KLOPPERS:: It appears in my statements.
MR DREYER:: You then say openly that during the Criminal Proceedings, I involved Nick Fourie and I want to protect him. Why did you not realise during those procedures, after the elections, there was no revolution on the 12th. Apart from your actions, there was no war on the 16th. That was clear, during these procedures. Why then did you not disclose everything, because there was no revolution that you could protect.
MR KLOPPERS:: I was still... why did I not involve General Oelofse. I could not because I was protecting him.
MR KLOPPERS:: So that he would not be sentenced to prison or be held accountable.
MR DREYER:: But you are involving him today.
MR KLOPPERS:: I did not choose to involve him.
MR DREYER:: Because you are trying to ...
MR DREYER:: Because you are trying to indemnify yourself. Mr Chairperson, may I finish before the Advocate asks me?
ADV BOSMAN:: Mr Dreyer can I just come in here. I am a little bit confused here as well and I think it's because we do not have a copy of the Court Procedure there. Is it correct then that Mr Klopper, during the Court Procedures, said that he wanted to protect General Nick Fourie? Can you read that portion to us please?
MR DREYER:: It reads as follows: I am going to read it again. `I had a .38 Special revolver and a pipe shotgun that I manufactured myself, in my possession.' And then the Advocate asks him: its still his evidence in chief. Is that correct? No that is not correct. Afterwards I understood that there were two pipes at the scene and the manufacturing in my statement, I said that I manufactured them to protect General Nick Fourie. That is the crux of my matter. He does not say that I said that I had it in my possession, because I was protecting Oelofse. He also does not say that I did it in the manner in which I did it, was to protect the deceased Nick Fourie. Therefore, I say it's impossible that he could foresee this.
ADV BOSMAN:: I don't want to debate this with you. I just want to mention how I understand the witness, and the witness says that at that stage in Court, Nick Fourie was already dead. And then to explain his lie, he said that I made the statement that it was Nick Fourie, at a stage, when Nick Fourie was still alive. And during the Court proceedings when he died... Wait you have got me confused here totally. You have totally confused me. And then he said it is not necessary to protect Nick Fourie. He is deceased now. It was Nick Fourie, but he still wanted to protect Oelofse, and today he says: `Today I am not protecting Oelofse, today I speak the truth.' Then I lied about Nick Fourie. That is how I understand this, as he is putting it. My fellow panel members could differ from me but I don't know if we found each other.
MR DREYER:: That is so. That is my problem. I seek the answers from the witness, because the problem with this witness is that he makes a statement before the police; that he later amends during the Criminal Procedures, and at the third opportunity here, now we are busy with the third truth now, and my problem is Mr Chairperson, I have to protect my client's interest, within three sets of truths, and I have to look at all the alternatives, otherwise I cannot do that. My problem is then that I have to find out from this witness what is the truth, because during these procedures there are conflicting testimonies.
ADV BOSMAN:: I'm not worried about the truth now. I am concerned with the explanation that the witness has given to you, and he has given you this explanation over which one of the three... that is not of concern here. We'll decide about that. But he cannot explain further than that he has done already, and that is what I am trying to put to you, as I understand it.
MR DREYER:: And the following question that I have for you Mr Kloppers, why did you at least then, during this Criminal Procedure, say that there would be... because you spoke about many things; you mentioned of many things and you were asked many things, and you were given the opportunity to rectify things that you have said in the past; but why, apart from this one single incident where you said that I said this, that and the other, to protect Nick Fourie; wherein during these procedures is there a point for your submission today, where then you said that you did things then to protect Oelofse. Where? What do you have that you know of, during this Criminal Procedures, said or did to protect Oelofse?
MR KLOPPERS:: The fact, Mr Chairperson, that Mr Nick Fourie at that time, I implicated him and not General Oelofse.
MR DREYER:: Very well, I hear you. I have listened to your explanations or the explanation that the Chairperson has given, but I ask you again. If you wanted to protect Oelofse, for some other reason, you wanted to keep Oelofse away from the two pipe shotguns. Is that correct?
MR DREYER:: But why did you not keep Oelofse totally apart from this instruction that you had to go and collect illegal weapons and put up a road-block; why you did not protect him from that.
MR KLOPPERS:: If you go further than that Mr Chairperson, you would see that I tried to do so afterwards, after I implicated him, that he did give the instruction to me to put up this road-block, but that he was dissatisfied when he came to his house and gave the ear to him. If you read further in that statement. I said that he was dissatisfied and that is not what he sent me for; and I did everything and attempted to indemnify him from this... any following action.
MR DREYER:: No Mr Kloppers, you are now at the murder and the cutting off of the ear. I have nothing to do with that. I say on the one side, you want us to accept that you protected him from the two shotguns and then you come here and say he is the source of the instruction; he is the man that said go out and look for illegal weapons, confiscate them for the purposes of the revolution. Would that be a problem for him if he gave you two shotguns, but there is no problem for him if you come and say openly in Court, that he was the person who told you to go and get weapons for the revolution. I don't understand.
MS VAN DER WALT:: Mr Chairperson, can we just get the page number where the instruction is, because I don't have it. I don't know if I've missed it, with the instruction during the Trial, where the witness said ...
MR DREYER:: It's page 639. Just to refresh everybody's memory, it is on page 7. The question is: `Very well, can you tell us what the instruction was?' The instruction was that we need to find weapons and ammunition, because there was not going to be any 27th of April. We will wage war. That is what you said during the Criminal Procedures. This was the instruction that you received from Oelofse.
MR DREYER:: And now I put it to you Sir, those facts, if its the truth, that that was the instruction that you received from Oelofse, and it's already enough in the direction of treason and sedition, and this was to get weapons and to usurp the Government. You are prepared to say this under Oath, to the Court but for some or other macabre reason, you want to protect Oelofse from two shotguns. I don't understand this. Please explain this to me.
MR KLOPPERS:: What I also don't understand that the fact that Mr Oelofse was not arrested for sedition. The point was for me to protect him from the knowledge that persons were shot, and he just gave the instruction that we need to collect weapons. That is what I wanted to say during my whole statement. I wanted to protect Oelofse and the whole Generals and staff.
MR DREYER:: Yes, yes, you want to protect him from one half of the gruesome incident.
MR KLOPPERS:: The murder, yes that's correct.
MR DREYER:: And for murder at that time, one could receive death sentence for murder.
MR KLOPPERS:: I did not know of the treason and sedition.
CHAIRPERSON:: You have covered that area, and besides he is a lay person. I am not so sure they understand the elements of sedition.
MR DREYER:: And on page 709 of the procedures, page 709, this is during the cross-examination. This concerns the part of the incident or during the procedures where the two men were assaulted. I just want to place this into perspective. Indeed we have to go back to 708, so I can put it to more perspective. But only later, you heard from Gert Diedericks. You already gave instruction to accused 1 to hoot, honk his horn, so that people could come back.
MR DREYER:: Why did you do that, because they did not react to the instruction. They jumped out of the vehicle. Who knows what they are doing; until the moment when I heard that from Diedericks what happened there, but the horn was honked for the people to come back. You were not aware of the fact that these people were assaulted at that time. I did not see anything. I had to go on what Gert Diedericks told me. Page 709. At this stage, when you gave the instruction, namely to ..., you were not aware of what was happening. What are you talking about. The assault. You were not aware of it. There was no instruction. You gave an instruction to accused, accusation 1, to press the horn. That's correct. At that stage, you were not aware of the fact that these people were being assaulted. That is correct. Why then did you give the instruction. Your Honour, because there were two black people noticed along the road, and I suspected that they were interfering with these two black persons; and then the State Prosecutor asked: what do you mean by interfere. Whatever they were doing, and then he asks you again; what do you mean with interfering; and then you say, assault, search. And then the Prosecutor asks again: now what made you think that they were being assaulted? And then a whole surprising answer comes to light. Do you know the AWB, your Honour? What do you say about that? What are you asking me, Mr Chairperson. I'm asking you: what do you mean by do you know the AWB, your Honour. Did you not trust the discipline of the people who were under your command? This is what you testified, that your men were disciplined. They were well trained. They just reacted to instructions. If a man did not want to comply with the instruction, then he had to leave the AWB. He had to take his things and leave. Isn't that so? That's correct. And I ask you again, is this now the discipline you wish to show. Is this the... They were ill-disciplined and that is why I reprimanded them. That is exactly what I did. And in the light of this ill-discipline and under the state of influence, you take these 8 other persons, who are under your command; you take them on a paramilitary operation where you had to identify ANC, SACP Alliance persons.
CHAIRPERSON:: Mr Dreyer, the problem is that when you ask questions, you add a lot of things which in themselves, are contentious. Now you put to the witness, you are talking of intoxication, and all we heard was that they did take some liquor. Where do you get the intoxication part of it from?
MR DREYER:: Mr Chairman, I said intoxication whatever the level thereof; whether it was slight ...
CHAIRPERSON:: But intoxication anyway. Where do you get it from?
MR DREYER:: On his own version, they partook of liquor, Mr Chairman. On his own version, he said and apart from stating that they took liquor that evening, and they partook of liquor that evening, his evidence here before this Committee, and I'm not referring to ...
CHAIRPERSON:: Alright, will you please cut out controversial insertions in your questions. They waste a lot of time; you end up arguing with the witness, instead of just stating your question. You are putting too many qualifications and remarks in the course of your question, which are highly argumentative; and we waste a lot of time, you arguing with the witness, over and over again.
MR DREYER:: As the Court pleases, Mr Chairman. I will repeat it again. Ill-discipline of your members that alcohol was used; this is the group of persons that you had under your command. According to your version, it will start a revolution. This is how a revolution will start, according to you.
MR KLOPPERS:: That's correct, except for the fact that we were not under the influence of liquor. These people were in control, and after I reprimanded them, and then we moved to the road-block.
MR DREYER:: And after this incident, when you went to the Voortrekker Monument and you said nothing else was happening, there were no similar incidents from other regions.
MR KLOPPERS:: Excuse me Mr Chairperson, I just want to correct you. There were other incidents.
MR DREYER:: Let me put it in this manner then, that the 16th of December when you arrived at the Voortrekker Monument, and there was no war yet. Let's just accept that the revolution was not successful, as you viewed it, but you believed that the 16th of December would be a good date for war to start. When you got there, and the 16th came and went, and there was no war, did you believe then that you acted in instructions from the AWB, to start a revolution.
MR KLOPPERS:: That is correct.
MR DREYER:: Then I would put it to you Sir, that yourself, you never had any direct order to execute these deeds, that ended in the murder of the people on that particular evening?
MR KLOPPERS:: That is your statement Sir.
MR DREYER:: And I would further put it to you Sir, that you formulated your opinion according to your own conviction, according to your own feelings, of what was happening on the political terrain and according to your military background and your belief that you could do something about it.
MR KLOPPERS:: I would state again that those are the statements that you make. Those are not my statements.
MR DREYER:: And I would further put it to you that from the misinterpretation of whatever was said there at this meeting, you conveyed an order to the rest of your group, that you never received yourself.
MR KLOPPERS:: There was no misinterpretation of the whole order. The order was executed as it was put to me.
MR DREYER:: Specifically, I wish to put it to you that Japie Oelofse, at no stage at all, gave any order to you to kill people.
MR KLOPPERS:: He did give this order to me and that is what we did.
MR DREYER:: In spite of what General Oelofse would have told you, even in the papers it was common knowledge that, at that time, not only members of the AWB, but the general public were called up to collect supplies and get ready, if there was any problem with the election. Is that correct?
MR KLOPPERS:: That is correct.
MR DREYER:: So it would not be necessary for General Oelofse to give you a specific order, in terms of that.
MR KLOPPERS:: It was a direct order from the leader on stage, to the area commanders, it was given to them by the area commanders.
MR DREYER:: With the exception of military preparation for things that could go wrong, during the election, and the short time afterwards, and you say that the general public in South Africa and more specifically, the White section of the population, at some or other manner, did they not prepare themselves for that, that they did not know what could happen, but things could happen. Did you say that they did not prepare yourself.
MR KLOPPERS:: I cannot answer to that but I think they did prepare themselves.
MR DREYER:: This preparation is not something that was limited to the AWB. Is that correct? This was in a broader sense applicable to the general public then. Let me put it in the antithesis then. Do you not think that there was any doubt amongst the black people of what was to happen that time.
MR KLOPPERS:: That's possible.
MR DREYER:: So, if we look at both sides, emotions ran high. As it pleases the Court. All I wish to put to you then, that you want to tell us that there was no possibility that you had participated in discussion, or according to your leader's speech from the political podium, could have misinterpreted it, as a direct instruction to commit these offences that you did.
MR KLOPPERS:: This was not a speech from a podium. This was a man to man instruction that was given to me.
MR DREYER:: You have listened yesterday and you saw the video of the speech that Eugene Terreblanche made, and at some stage during your cross-examination, I asked you that why did people not in reaction to that speech, as you did on a large scale acted in a military style, and if I remember correctly, it is said that there was not strange to you because Eugene Terreblanche has made these statements for quite a long time. Is that not so?
MR DREYER:: Then I wish to ask from you: are you telling me that over the years you did not concern yourself with the call-up, and the charismatic speeches that the AWB leader made, but according to your own version, when you received a vague order to, in the line of I want to see corpses, that pointed to a specific action.
MR KLOPPERS:: The speeches that leader gave, increased from the years 1992, and then 1993, I entered the struggle again. I volunteered to help within the AWB structures.
CHAIRPERSON:: If an order is given, an order is given. Does it matter whether it comes from a charismatic leader or not?
MR DREYER:: Mr Chairman, what I wanted to put forth to the applicant is the following: Against his own version, and its not something that I stated, it must be borne in mind that at one stage, the applicant stated that the level of excitement manifested subsequent to such speeches by Eugene Terreblanche was on such a level, that people left the hall. He, himself, so enraged that he would contemplate the possibility of murdering his own domestic servant. It is against that background that I am putting it to him as follows, and that is the basis of my question.
If over the years, and even taking into account that the intensity and the frequency of those speeches, according to his own version, really got to motion during the latter part of 1993, that did not result in a large amount of people walking out there and physically getting involved in these type of things, as opposed to a sort of a broad, on his own version, because its denied that such an order was given. But, on his own version, he attends a single meeting and stated that: `nou wil ek lyke sien'. No detail, nothing, but that is the order which prompts him to gather 8 other people and go along, hold the road-block and kill people. That is the difficulty....
CHAIRPERSON:: A military order is a military order. It does not have to be said many times ...
...[inaudible] if he did give such an order, an order is an order.
MR DREYER: That is so Mr Chairman, if indeed what was given was a precise order to do something specific, but on his own version, there was no such order.
CHAIRPERSON: Well we've heard about that, that's another thing. I know - we know that it's in dispute.
MR DREYER: We'll go back to the execution of this order.
CHAIRPERSON: Why should we go back? What for? You said let's go back, why do we have to go back again Mr Dreyer? Is this something new?
CHAIRPERSON: Then let us adjourn, it's a convenient time you can proceed with it at two o'clock.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Dreyer for the Committee, the copies?
MR DREYER: Yes Mr Chairman I have provided each of the Members of the Committee with a copy of the relevant pages. I have one more matter which was the last one I referred to that refers to that proceedings and once I've dealt with that I will just recap in relation to the papers that I've handed up just to point out the relevant portions that I refer to in the course of my cross-examination.
Mr Kloppers, my last remark to you was that we would return to the core of my cross-examination and that was the order which you would have received and we have discussed the various matters which you have presented as "it wasn't the truth" and then you say "the reason why I did it was to protect the AWB and certain leadership figures. Is that correct?
MR DREYER: However, if I understand you correctly, it was never your version that you wanted to indemnify yourself. Your version was never that you had not done anything, your version was that you had done certain things under the orders of your commanders?
MR DREYER: Then I want to refer you to the criminal proceedings because it is something that sticks out like a sore thumb to me and I refer you to page 739, on the very last page of the documents that I've handed up at approximately line 21. During this cross-examination, the prosecutor asks you "Did you regard yourself as responsible for the death of these people?" and your answer is as follows
"I did not regard myself as responsible for their deaths because I did not issue any order for them to shoot at these people."
Now I don't understand that at all because regarding all these matters which I've cross-examined you about, I would like to place into context and I want to know whether or not you agree with me.
Firstly - and it was also pointed out to me as such by the Chairperson, you at various occasions for various reasons said certain things and I will qualify it for you as follows:
You said that you said certain things to the police, not necessarily because you wanted to, but because you were placed under pressure and assaulted and that is contained within a statement which has been submitted to the Committee, is that correct?
MR DREYER: Then there was the second occasion where you were placed in the position to place that statement within the correct context. Is that correct? That was during the criminal proceedings.
MR DREYER: You then told the Commission that even during those proceedings in the open court while you were not threatened by the police and while you said according to your own version that you were being treated in an humane way by your advocate and others, you said "still I had a reason to tell certain lies because I wanted to protect certain people"?
MR DREYER: Thus once again you are not speaking the truth but this is for a different reason because you wanted to protect certain people?
MR DREYER: And then with the third occasion you appeared during these proceedings and you have another opportunity to tell the Committee what the exact or true truth is and the reason for that is that everything is at risk for you now to obtain amnesty?
MR DREYER: Which reason would you have to not in the same fashion present untruths to this Committee and implicate people - because it's necessary and because it should fit in with your version that you acted in a military operation under the orders of the AWB? What hinders you from telling the truth to this Committee?
MR KLOPPERS: I don't think that there's anything preventing me from telling lies to this Committee but an absolute fact is that I, as a person, am seeking my freedom as those who are with me in prison are seeking their freedom and that is why I have appeared before the Committee to tell the truth and only the truth and that is what I confirmed before we started these proceedings.
MR DREYER: It is certainly so that your legal team explained the importance to you of pointing out that you did not only act out of crime but that you act out of a military order?
MR KLOPPERS: It was never pointed out to me that it was a crime, I was aware from the beginning that it was a political act.
MR DREYER: Perhaps there is a misunderstanding between you and me, I might not have phrased that correctly. I'm not saying that your legal representatives said or pointed it out to you or that during any proceedings it was ever said on behalf of you that this occurred as a crime. Just listen to what I'm saying - I'm sure that your legal representatives who are acting on your behalf before this Committee in some or other manner must have explained to you that it is important in your defence, a very important component of your defence that you, during a military or paramilitary operation, acted when these things took place.
MR KLOPPERS: They did not point it out to me, I pointed it out to them because they are acting as per my instructions.
MR DREYER: So therefore you knew it?
MR DREYER: That's a simple answer - you knew that it was important. Now I'm asking you, how does this final piece which I have pointed out to you namely "I did not regard myself as responsible for their deaths because I did not issue any order for them to shoot those people." All I'm asking is that when you said this during the criminal proceedings, upon which basis did you do so? To protect who, yourself?
MR KLOPPERS: Chairperson, I would like for you to listen carefully so that we do not return to this point once more. It has got to do with the comprehension of the situation - not only to protect myself and my cohorts but also to protect the generals and staff and General Japie Oelofse. I could not make a statement saying that he had issued an order saying that there should be corpses that night.
MR DREYER: Mr Kloppers, if you wanted to protect yourself then one would believe that you should say that namely "I did not give the order to shoot, the implication thereof is that these eight people who were with me decided themselves to shoot or something drove them to shoot but I did not issue the order for them to shoot." That was your testimony during the criminal proceedings and I'm asking you simply - when you said that during the criminal proceedings, what did you aim to achieve through that?
MR KLOPPERS: I wanted to indemnify myself as well as the others.
MR DREYER: Very well, I understand the first part of your answer - you wanted to indemnify yourself but if it is true that you wanted to indemnify yourself, how did you simultaneously with that denial wish to protect anybody within the AWB or the military structure of the AWB?
MR KLOPPERS: If I had given the order I would have to be able to say to them why I gave the order as to why there should be corpses or why these people had to be shot and I did not want to disclose that.
MR DREYER: Unfortunately, with that statement, you have precisely left the others to their own fate because through that you said to the court you should deal with these eight people because I am letting them down, they will have to tell you why they shot because I didn't give them the order to shoot.
MR KLOPPERS: Might I point out to the Chairperson that the court case had been finalised at that point and that seven of the applicants had received their sentences and that Deon Martins had already testified, therefore irrespective of what I had said, it would not have made any difference to their cases.
MR DREYER: That is correct but unfortunately it does not fit in with your entire story as to why at various occasions for various reasons you lied - that's my problem. It doesn't fit in with the story.
MR KLOPPERS: What are you asking me?
MR DREYER: I'm not asking you, I'm making a statement upon which I would like you to answer. I have said that at more than one opportunity you have given us reasons why at various occasions you had a reason to lie and it differs regarding the motivation thereof. I'm asking you, if you present to us consistently that during the criminal proceedings you wanted to protect Japie Oelofse, what did you achieve by saying at the beginning of those proceedings "I received an order from him to obtain arms and ammunition" and then at the end of the proceedings to say "but I didn't issue the order to shoot." Well then on whose order did things take place?
MR KLOPPERS: My apologies I do not understand the exact meaning of your question. You are harping on one issue and the only way that I can explain it is as follows.
During the court proceedings I said that I took the blame upon myself that we did not act under orders to shoot those people. I said that I don't know why I shot the people but it was not only to indemnify myself but also to indemnify the generals and staff of the AWB as well as General Japie Oelofse.
MR DREYER: But who did you want the court to believe?
MR KLOPPERS: I cannot give you an answer, it is an issue which should have been cleared up in court.
MR DREYER: The fact of the matter is as follows. During that case you said "I do not accept the responsibility because I did not issue the order to shoot." Now all that I'm asking of you is that you answer that you don't know what I want from you and that is because you don't have an answer. I want your commentary.
MR KLOPPERS: My commentary is that I tried to indemnify myself.
MR DREYER: But in the process of indemnification it does not fit in as to why you should want to protect these people because if you say....[intervention]
CHAIRPERSON: Will you please proceed to another aspect of the matter and you must wind up your cross-examination. I need to remind you Mr Dreyer, perhaps you don't know, a full Committee of the Amnesty ruled last year that a person representing an implicated person has no automatic right of cross-examination. It is for that person representing an implicated person, it's for that person to make application for leave to cross-examine witnesses. We saw the matter as an appropriate one where you would have the right to cross-examine but you also ruled further as a full Committee that if we happen to grant that person the right to cross-examine witnesses, which is not an automatic right, that right is subject to reasonable limitations. I think you've been cross-examining this witness since yesterday, today and I think that you are coming very close now to really exceeding the reasonable limits. You must now wind up your cross-examination.
MR DREYER: I take note Mr Chairman.
Mr Kloppers, against the entire backdrop of your testimony and ultimately towards the end of your testimony where you reached the point that you say "the reason why I believed that I acted appropriately and I received such an order and this is the order that I executed because" and your reason is you say, that while you were in prison you were praised in some or other manner. I would like to come to that point. However, to ask you this I must ask you a number of basic questions.
CHAIRPERSON: Before you do that, tell us what your client's version is with regard to this question of the orders and instructions. You can't go on putting questions to the witness in the abstract. Tell us what your client's version is, put it to the witness, let us hear it. Tell us what Mr Oelofse's version as to what the situation is like.
MR DREYER: Mr Chairman, I have in fact in the course of my cross-examination at more than one instance indicated that at no stage whatever was such an order given by Japie Oelofse that this witness should go along, hold such a roadblock and in fact act the way that they did. That's the clear indication from my cross-examination, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Is that sufficient?
MR DREYER: Mr Chairman I'm not quite sure what is expected of me.
CHAIRPERSON: Well the applicants tell us that there was a meeting, that evening on the 12th of that day, the 12th December 1993 - a meeting of whatever they call it and that Oelofse attended that meeting. Is it true that there was such a meeting and that Oelofse attended that meeting?
MR DREYER: Yes that is in fact so, I've also stated that in my cross-examination.
CHAIRPERSON: Is it true that in that meeting apart from finances and the like is it also Mr Oelofse's version that it was discussed that there will be revolution?
CHAIRPERSON: Well these are the things that we want to
know. We're in the dark. Is it true that after the meeting Mr Oelofse called this witness and stood aside with him?
MR DREYER: Mr Chairman, I emphatically during the course of my cross-examination stated that there was never such an instance that he was called apart - I stated that in my evidence.
CHAIRPERSON: If you are satisfied that you have put across all the version of Mr Oelofse then I have even a better reason to tell you that you have come now really close to the end of your cross-examination.
MR DREYER: I, in fact I...[intervention]
CHAIRPERSON: What are we waiting for then?
MR DREYER: Mr Chairman, the very last part of the evidence which was not dealt with is the question of the alleged confirmation of the earlier order that was given which was supposedly have taken place was this applicant was still in detention.
CHAIRPERSON: Alright, Mr Dreyer I think for our own good we will put questions to the witness. We will interrupt you for a while. No, I must ask you.
Is it true that the witness or somebody else took an ear and showed it to Mr Oelofse?
MR DREYER: Mr Chairman, may I just get instruction from my attorney first?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes but these are the things that we want to hear about, what Mr Oelofse's version is.
MR DREYER: Mr Chairman, the version as I've already put it so far is the basis upon which the cross-examination was put but at some stage I also indicated to the Committee that if according to the way the proceedings transpire, there might be a change of my initial instruction in calling Mr Oelofse. I also indicated that there's a possibility of an affidavit or a statement or a Memorandum of Facts being put into possession of the Committee of part of the basis of cross-examination that was done but all I would like to do at this stage is just get an instruction on the very last question before I answer that.
CHAIRPERSON: Well I'm going to put another question ...[inaudible]
Is it true that they reported back to Mr Oelofse - is it true that at some point Oelofse said to them they should remove the beard or something? Is it true that Mr Oelofse suggested at some stage that somebody must get rid of his Mercedes Benz?
MR DREYER: Mr Chairman, obviously I am not in a position to give evidence on behalf of Mr Oelofse. I can merely put forward his instruction because I'm not in a position to give evidence under oath on behalf of someone else, I cannot be legal representative and witness at the same time. What I can do is I can put his version in cross-examination in as far as it seems to incriminate my client which I did and which I intend to do for the purposes of the basis upon which I appear before the Committee - not to oppose the applications but to see to it that the best interests of my client is served but I cannot give evidence on the part of Mr Oelofse and the problem is at this stage, I am the creature of his instruction and at this stage my instruction is that he do not intend giving evidence so obviously I cannot prejudice him by giving evidence or making concessions as though it's under oath merely because I'm acting on his behalf.
CHAIRPERSON: But why do you keep on, nobody's asking you to give evidence - what do you mean you're giving evidence on behalf of your client? Don't you know that as counsel, when you cross-examine, you put it to a witness and say "Mr Oelofse will say that you never showed him the ear as you alleged. Mr Oelofse says that you never came back and told him that he had killed people. Mr Oelofse will deny that or denies that he told you to get rid of a Mercedes Benz" That's not giving evidence.
MR DREYER: Mr Chairman, with great respect...[intervention]
CHAIRPERSON: It seems to me you are taking every possible care not to tell us what Mr Oelofse's version is.
MR DREYER: Mr Chairman, may I just address the first portion of this statement by the Chair and that is that in cross-examination obviously it can be done on two bases. Certain statements can be made to a witness to check and to test his credibility without actually putting anything to him as an objective fact and obviously also by contradicting his statements in evidence by stating the version of the party whoever he represents. So it's not - not every statement I made to this applicant as a witness is based upon my client's version it can be based upon the fact that I would like to test his credibility.
So it's difficult for me to just draw a straight line to the one or the other side and then lastly as far as the last submission that I'm trying my level best not to state Mr Oelofse's version, Mr Chairman, it must be borne in mind, with respect, that he is not one of the applicants. He did in fact give notice of his own application so that is still sub judiciae and obviously I have to be careful to serve his interest to the best of my ability because I hold no instruction as far as his own application is concerned in this moment but I cannot put the cart before the horses. I can merely act within the bounds of my instructions.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Dreyer, he has not made any application in respect of this incident.
MR DREYER: Not in respect of this incident, that's quite true Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: So I don't understand when you speak of it still being under - being sub judiciae or something to that effect, I don't understand it.
MR DREYER: Mr Chairman, it is my instruction that he has in fact applied in general terms, not in respect of this particular incident but by putting the cart before the horses as I've stated, I might prejudice his position in terms of that.
CHAIRPERSON: Very well then, you came here to deny that these people acted on the strength of any orders from your client Mr Oelofse, you've dealt with that aspect. If you have got any other questions to ask, tell us what other aspect you still want to deal with and why you think we should give you more time to do so.
MR DREYER: I'll do so Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: What is that you still - what aspects of the matter?
MR DREYER: The very last aspect which is still linked to the whole question of whether or not there was an order to that effect is the matter of whether or not there was at the end of this whole operation the opportunity at which apparently General Oelofse or Japie Oelofse congratulated them on this very particular deed, an act that took place.
CHAIRPERSON: Well does he deny that?
CHAIRPERSON: Well we'll take note of that.
MR DREYER: As the Chair pleases. My Chairman, may I just receive an instruction before I conclude?
Mr Chairman I have in fact had the opportunity to just get the full instruction on the question that was put to me by the Committee in respect of the alleged occasion where this applicant went back to the plot, the agricultural holding where Oelofse was resident at that time and presented him with an ear. I was just not sure - I wanted to make sure about whether or not it took place the next day or whatever - that was why I wanted to take instruction and for the purposes of the answer to that question - it is not denied that this applicant did in fact - went back the next day with the ear but it is the version of Oelofse that in fact he did indicate to the applicant, as was also testified by this applicant in the criminal proceedings, that he was chased away literally by Oelofse stating that he doesn't want to have anything to do with that because that is not what the instruction was or that was not what was expected of them to do that evening. So that was the evidence that was given by this applicant during the criminal proceedings and that is the version of the truth on the part of Oelofse.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Kloppers, who was promoted according to your version, if you know, who was promoted while you were in prison by Mr Oelofse?
MR KLOPPERS: Myself, Deon Martin and then we had to undertake promotions to the lower levels ourselves.
CHAIRPERSON: Well Mr Dreyer, do you have instructions on that aspect as to whether or not in fact Oelofse, while these people were in prison, promoted them or you don't have instructions on that?
MR DREYER: Mr Chairman, it is my instruction that Oelofse alone cannot promote people it is a decision that must be taken, a joint decision that must be taken and it should also be borne in mind that's also in accordance with my instruction that in fact this applicant together with the rest of the group was visited in jail by not only Oelofse at a stage when Oelofse was released but also by Eugene Terre'blanche himself and that Eugene Terre'blanche at that stage did in fact in some way supported them or congratulated them or spoke to them in a manner to build their spirit, not to become despondent while they're still in detention.
MRS VAN DER WALT: I don't know if I understood you correctly but indeed promotions did take place?
MR DREYER: Chairperson, it is my instruction that while this group of persons was in detention and this is what I wanted to clear up with the witness, this group was in detention and not in a communal cell with Oelofse because you will recall that at a point he said that Oelofse shouted to them that they should remain courageous, that they were heroes. That was part of his testimony and he also testified regarding another occasion when Mr Terre'blanche was present and he asked Mr Terre'blanche to take up their status as prisoners of war and that Mr Terre'blanche said that he did not think the time was ripe - something to that effect so there was more than one opportunity but with regard to the specific promotion, it is my instruction that promotions did in fact take place but those promotions were not the correct decision or sole decision of Mr Oelofse and largely the motivation behind that was to increase the morale of those in prison and it was not promotions solely connected to this incident - there was no approval for that.
CHAIRPERSON: Do you have any comment to make in relation to that?
MR KLOPPERS: Yes Chairperson, I would like to mention that I am in possession of a document which is undersigned by General Oelofse where in which I have been promoted from Chief Commandant to Brigadier. I don't know if my advocate or my wife have the documents but I'm sure that we could submit these documents to the Committee. It was said to me that I was loyal towards the AWB, that I had remained courageous and that I had performed my tasks as it was expected of me, so also my men, that is why Deon Martin was promoted from Commandant to Colonel and all my men involved that day also received promotions.
MR DREYER: Mr Chairman, if I may just in the correct perspective state the version of Mr Oelofse in respect of the ear. That appears on page 662 which unfortunately is not part of the documents that I've prepared because I haven't cross-examined or used that but it's a short portion and I should like to just read it into the record. That is also evident from the statement by the applicant which is also part of the documents before this Committee. It is stated as such
" At home I went to sleep and early the next morning I went to General Oelofse's home. I handed over the ear to him. He said that he didn't want anything to do with the thing and that he didn't want to know anything" then his advocate asks him "Could you please explain that a bit more?" "Your honour, the big problem was that people had been shot and I was concerned regarding what I had to do. I am not an operational person and then I said to the General 'here is the ear which was cut off at the scene - people were shot dead' and he said 'but your objective was to obtain arms and ammunition, what have you done now?' and I regarded myself as being scolded."
That is according to Oelofse, the correct facts, facts and it's also in accordance with this very witness's version of what the original order was and that was to get hold of weapons, ammunition for the purposes of the revolution that would follow.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Kloppers, what is your comment? Why did you testify like that in the Supreme Court?
MR KLOPPERS: In the Supreme court I testified that I regarded myself as reprimanded. Mr Oelofse said to me that that is not what he expected and in the court they asked me what I had done with the ear and I said that I had left the ear on his smallholding on top of his braai grill.
CHAIRPERSON: That's not the question, the question was why did you testify as such in the Supreme Court?
MR KLOPPERS: I testified as such to protect Mr Oelofse.
CHAIRPERSON: But if you wanted to protect Mr Oelofse why did you say in the first instance that you'd taken the ear to him?
MR KLOPPERS: I had to deliver an explanation of what I did with the ear and the fact was that two weeks before the order we had already been given a knife, as I testified, I didn't know what to do with the ear itself - I took it to Mr Oelofse directly as he had asked. He wanted proof of my tasks which had been carried out. Whether or not it was too much for him I'll never know but I performed the task as he'd asked.
CHAIRPERSON: Why didn't you say that you had taken the ear to the deceased Mr Fourie?
MR KLOPPERS: Mr Fourie was the area commander of Natal, he was not my area chief, Mr Oelofse was the area chief of area 9.
MR MALAN: Mr Kloppers why didn't you just tell the court that you had thrown the ear away?
MR MALAN: That would have been futile as to why Mr Martin cut off the ear.
MR MALAN: But you wanted to protect Mr Oelofse.
MR KLOPPERS: I could not have taken it to anybody else, it wouldn't have made any sense. I had to stick to my statement.
MR MALAN: Why did you say that you took the ear to anyone.
MR KLOPPERS: I received the order to cut off the ear. It was carried out, for whichever reason, the court wanted to know why I cut off the ear. I did it in order to prove to Mr Oelofse that people were killed during the roadblock.
MR MALAN: But that's very difficult to understand because you said in court that there was no order to shoot. Your story in court was that the others had shot, that you had not given such an order, that you yourself had not fired any shots?
MR KLOPPERS: That's what I said in court, that is correct.
MR MALAN: But in the same court you said that you had taken the ear to Mr Oelofse in order to show him that people had been shot dead?
MR MALAN: I'm not sure I understand that, but thank you.
MR DREYER: Mr Chairman, may I just elect one question to the witness on what was put to him by the Committee Member?
Mr Kloppers, if during the criminal proceedings you were compelled to say that you had taken the ear to Mr Oelofse in order to create some kind of sense, can you give us any reason if you say now that you gave the order to cut off the ear firstly and secondly, you testified here that it wasn't unusual that it had happened quite a few times during the border situation?
MR DREYER: So therefore it was not strange that such an order be issued?
MR DREYER: So it was part of a typical military conduct of that type of situation?
MR DREYER: Very well, if you say that during the criminal proceedings for some or other reason, which I don't understand either, some of the Members of the Panel have indicated that they don't understand and I myself don't understand it either, but you have said that for some or other reason you had to lie regarding this ear. I want to know from you then why, during the criminal proceedings, it was testified that when Mr Martin gave the ear to you in the car, you said to him "are you crazy?" and he said to you "but here's the ear" and you said "but I didn't tell you to cut off the ear, where did you get that idea?" and he said "but you told me to cut off the ear" and you said "but are you crazy?" Is that correct, was that your testimony?
MR DREYER: Very well that has been sorted out. Now I want you to explain how this method of yours works that on the one hand you want the Committee to believe that you tried to protect Mr Oelofse but on the other hand you have testified openly in a court of law that he is the man that gave you the order to obtain arms and ammunition, that he is the man who gave you a knife and said "go and cut off an ear" and then strangely enough, during the same trial you said that when you had done exactly what the man had told you to do, "here's the knife, go and cut off the ear" you say during the exact same proceedings that when you arrived with the ear he chased you away. How does that make sense, could you please explain it?
MR KLOPPERS: Chairperson, once again you have created a long discussion and I have to give such a more involved answer. We gave him the ear, it had been cut off at the scene where the ANC people had been shot. I had to hand over the ear as proof that we had in fact carried out the order. This ear was handed over to Japie Oelofse. He did not chase me away from the smallholding as I had said in the court. I was lying then as I have said before and I think that I have also stated that in the statement in which I have submitted to the proceedings, I was lying. There was an ear, it was handed over. What Mr Oelofse did with it I don't know.
MRS VAN DER WALT: I beg your pardon, before you proceed before the adjournment I heard where Mr Kloppers had said that Mr Oelofse had told him to go and obtain arms and ammunition. Reference was made to page 637 and once again it has been put to Mr Kloppers that he said during the criminal proceedings that Mr Oelofse issued the instruction to him to steal arms and ammunition. This is his testimony. I can't find this on page 637, perhaps I'm in possession of the wrong papers? If Mr Dreyer could please refer us to the correct page.
MR DREYER: Mr Chairman, with the greatest of respect, I think my learned friend is confused between two different statements. The person who apparently spoke about the stealing of weapons and ammunition was Mr Eugene Terre'blanche. What I referred to on page 637 was this very own witness's evidence in the criminal proceedings that he received an instruction from Oelofse to obtain weapons as it is stated in Afrikaans "the order was for us to obtain arms and ammunition for the time ahead". That is obviously in connection with the video material.
MRS VAN DER WALT: This witness says during his criminal proceedings on page 637 that Mr Oelofse said that to him. That I can't find, perhaps I can't see it. If Mr Dreyer could just point it out, I don't know what he's talking about.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Dreyer, whatever you say it stands on the record. What page is it?
MR DREYER: Mr Chairman, it's still page 637 and when I cross-examine this witness on that very portion I read that just the following paragraph to him which states as follows in Afrikaans "Very well, it came from higher authority than yourself?" "That is correct" My learned friend recalls I then specifically here in cross-examination said "This higher authority to which you have referred in the criminal proceedings, who is the higher authority?" We can always listen to the record Mr Chairman, that is why I've ...[intervention]
CHAIRPERSON: Well this is the problem, this kind of problem, will always or very often arise when only one person reads from a document and start cross-examining witnesses when other people don't have that same document but what do you find on that page Mrs van der Walt, what do you find on that page?
MRS VAN DER WALT: My point is and this is what the witness is trying to convey is that he was trying to protect General Oelofse. The question was then put to him that during his criminal proceedings he testified that all Oelofse and the name was mentioned - Oelofse, gave him the order and I specifically asked what was being referred because my instructions were that he never mentioned Oelofse's name as the person who issued the order. Then I was referred to page 637 and Oelofse's name does not appear on page 637.
CHAIRPERSON: What do you say in answer to the query raised by Mrs van der Walt, Mr Dreyer?
MR DREYER: Mr Chairman, once again because it was not a matter that I dealt with, I will answer that with reference to page 723 of the record of proceedings in the criminal matter. It was specifically asked from this witness "Why did you go to the General, General Oelofse?" and then he answered as follows "A tragedy occurred and I did not really know how to handle it" "Did you tell him about this tragedy?"
"I spoke to him and he told me that 'I sent you out, I sent you out to obtain arms and ammunition, what have you done now?'"
"Then I wanted to show him, I showed him the ear and he said that he didn't want to know anything about it."
CHAIRPERSON: I think that settles the dispute then. Well it is on a different page then, the one we thought it was on.
Is it so though, Mr Kloppers, that when you gave evidence in court you said Mr Oelofse gave you instructions to cut an ear then bring it back to you? I just want to know that that is what you told the Trial Court?
MR KLOPPERS: If I have it correctly, I did not state it as that
CHAIRPERSON: Why did you regard it as necessary to tell the court that you took the ear to Mr Oelofse?
MR DREYER: Just a last statement, Mr Chairman, to the witness.
To conclude, the version of Mr Oelofse was down to the fact that he does not distance himself from the order which you allegedly said that he gave, not to indemnify himself but because he did not issue and order like you said that he did and that you acted alone? Your commentary regarding that?
MR KLOPPERS: I regard that as false and I regard that as cowardly of him not to appear before us today to discuss this matter.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DREYER
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BRINK: Thank you Mr Chairman, I won't be long because most of the questions I had anticipated asking have been dealt with, but one or two I like here.
If you would please switch off or put on the earphones? Can you hear me?
Mr Kloppers, did you receive instructions from anyone to steal money, clothing, shoes, cassettes, watches or anything of that sort?
MR BRINK: Now I just want to tell you, as you probably heard when I questioned Mr Martin that there will be evidence from the survivors' list - dreadful attack - that at no stage were admissions made by them that they were members of the ANC or supporters of the ANC. They were told they were ANC and they were then shot?
MR KLOPPERS: Upon our question.
MR BRINK: Now, you told the Committee there was to have been a nationwide revolution, correct?
MR BRINK: Now apart from what was then the Transvaal, how strong was the ANC in other provinces such as the Eastern Cape, Western Cape and Natal? AWB - sorry I said the ANC. I beg your pardon. How strong was the AWB in provinces such as the Eastern Cape, Western Cape and Natal?
MR KLOPPERS: We were reasonably well represented in all the regions. If I look at my 1993 membership card which I renewed with the AWB there was quite a number of people in the Wen Commando, 156 000 members of the Wen Commando and this was the three regions.
MR BRINK: And you understood that this revolution was to start on Sunday the 12th December 1993 with similar sorts of incidents, similar to that which took place as far as you were concerned?
MR KLOPPERS: That's correct, I understood that this revolution would originate on a nationwide level as it was conveyed to me at the meeting on the 12th December 1993.
MR BRINK: And it's a fact is it not that your operation was the only one in the whole country which was "successful".
MR KLOPPERS: No, it's not a fact - I heard afterwards that there had been other bomb explosions and incidents but I don't know much about them.
MR MALAN: I beg your pardon, Mr Brink.
Did you hear of other bomb explosions on that same Sunday evening?
MR KLOPPERS: Not the same Sunday evening - I don't know upon which dates these incidents occurred but in the words of General Oelofse to me personally in the presence of Commandant Deon Martin at that time we were the only area which did any work that night and he was very angry about that.
MR MALAN: So just for clarity sake, that was the only operation which took place on that night in the whole country of which you know?
MR KLOPPERS: I don't know about the whole country, I only know about our area.
MR MALAN: That which you know of? You don't know of any other operation which took place anywhere else in the country that night?
Incidently, as a matter of interest, did you claim damages against the state in respect of the assaults and torture to which you were subjected?
MR KLOPPERS: I gave a complete statement to my legal aid, they handed it over to the next legal team. At one point I had seven legal representatives. My last advocate, Advocate Gerhard Botes suggested that we not agitate the judge with other issues and that in due course he would submit this case and that is why nothing has emerged from it. However, I did report my injuries to the AWB's medical practitioner.
MR BRINK: Do I understand you then you have lodged no claim against the Ministry of Police in respect of the injuries you've suffered?
MR KLOPPERS: I did not make any claim towards the South African Police.
MR MALAN: I beg your pardon, could you just tell me whether you made any statement to the Human Rights Violations Committee?
MR KLOPPERS: Yes I made to the World International Red Cross...[intervention]
MR MALAN: You're misunderstanding me, you know the Human Rights Violations Committee of the TRC for those who experienced gross violations of human rights during this period and this is in reference to your condition and your injuries, you would qualify for compensation and for reparation as well as aid. Have you made any such statement to any office or person within the TRC?
MR KLOPPERS: A statement was issued to the TRC. It was approved, I do have a number but I'm not certain of what that exact number is that was allocated to me.
ADV BOSMAN: Mr Kloppers, it's not clear to me what happened at the Order meeting, who was in control of this meeting?
MR KLOPPERS: General Japie Oelofse.
ADV BOSMAN: At that stage you were Chief Commander, is that correct?
ADV BOSMAN: How many other Chief Commanders were at that meeting?
MR KLOPPERS: I was the only one there.
ADV BOSMAN: Who were the persons who received from General Oelofse instructions?
MR KLOPPERS: These were all Colonels and Brigadiers.
ADV BOSMAN: Could you indicate how many of them were there?
MR KLOPPERS: There were approximately twenty persons at this meeting.
ADV BOSMAN: And how many regions were represented at this meeting?
MR KLOPPERS: It's difficult to answer.
MR KLOPPERS: I would say approximately fifteen.
ADV BOSMAN: In other words you are telling us that General Oelofse was in control of 15 regions?
MR KLOPPERS: No, much more. There was the Witwatersrand area.
ADV BOSMAN: Why would he then have representatives of all the regions? It was such an important meeting that he would say here that there would be a country wide revolution? Wouldn't you think that there would be more?
MR KLOPPERS: If I speak of regions then I speak of area, persons from Krugersdorp, Roodepoort were there, Randfontein,
myself and on the East Rand, from the East Rand side there was one Mr J.J. Veldman and according to me all the areas were represented.
ADV BOSMAN: Mr Dreyer said in his cross-examination, spoke of military precision but wasn't there any strategic planning, how this revolution would occur?
MR KLOPPERS: That is just the crux of the matter, Mr Chairperson, every person there was individually seen by General Oelofse. He saw them individually, I do not know what the other person's instruction was or if they did indeed receive instructions?
ADV BOSMAN: But is this in line with military action that they could not trust each other with - in regard with the planning? Physically these areas were so close to each other?
MR KLOPPERS: Yes these areas were close to each other but we had the problem that secret instructions came about and we had this problem there and that is why we did it in total secrecy, it was not strange to me.
ADV BOSMAN: Mr Kloppers, just for arguments sake, let's say Randfontein at this Radora Crossing - acted there and you do not know what the other persons did and they also decided to act along the same line. Would it not have caused any confusion?
MR KLOPPERS: No, that is why I chose the Radora Crossing, the Radora Crossing was close to the Krugersdorp area and it did not include our area and Ventersdorp was far from there, it was a safe area to have a roadblock.
ADV BOSMAN: And afterwards did you speak or have contact with any of the other persons that were there?
ADV BOSMAN: And did you have discussions within regard with this incident? Did you share opinions as to what instruction was given?
MR KLOPPERS: Yes we discussed that it was strange that the revolution did not initially begin that evening.
ADV BOSMAN: Now did they not tell you why they did not do it?
MR KLOPPERS: There were just two persons who said that they did not have the necessary people to comply with the instruction. This was Mr Joe van Wyk.
MR KLOPPERS: From Johannesburg and I think Mr Falconer.
ADV BOSMAN: Did you not expect that in Johannesburg it was easier to get people?
MR KLOPPERS: Yes there were many people - it was strange to me as I thought that they were prepared to go to work.
ADV BOSMAN: So they could, these persons Mr Falconer and Mr van Wyk, could they be able to say in front of this Committee that the discussion was there to - as to the start of the revolution?
MR KLOPPERS: I'm sure they could.
ADV SIGODI: MR Kloppers, I'll just ask you the question which I asked one of the applicants yesterday.
If you had stopped a motor vehicle and there were ANC people and IFP people, what would you have done?
MR KLOPPERS: If I had stopped the vehicle where ANC persons and IFP persons were in, I would have divided the two groups and I would have shot the ANC persons.
ADV SIGODI: The reason why I'm asking this is because I'm concerned about the child who is nine years old and the child who was thirteen years old. Did they themselves say that they were ANC people?
MR KLOPPERS: I can just say what I've said previously that this thirteen year old person looked like to me like a grown up person and I did not see any nine year old person at the scene.
ADV SIGODI: Did the thirteen year old child say that he was an ANC member?
MR KLOPPERS: All the persons that sat in front of me confirmed that they were members of the ANC SACP Alliance.
ADV SIGODI: No, I'm being specific, I'm asking about the thirteen year old child. Or can you not remember?
MR KLOPPERS: Mr Chairperson I can remember correctly and as I have said specifically, if I have to be specific, I can say again I cannot remember how that there was a thirteen year old person. All of them were grown ups that were there.
ADV SIGODI: The other question...[intervention]
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, the real import of the question is - if your version throughout is that all the people who were there said that they were ANC members and amongst them it turns out there was a thirteen year old and a nine year old, the implication of what you're saying is that even the thirteen year old and the nine year said he was ANC?
MR KLOPPERS: That is not what I said Mr Chairperson, I said that the thirteen year old person that they said was there, he looked grown up to me, he looked exactly as the other grown up persons that were there, I did not see any nine year old child.
CHAIRPERSON: So your version is that every human being who was there said he was ANC?
MR KLOPPERS: All the persons who sat there and were questioned answered positively to the question that they were ANC members.
ADV. SIGODI: Did the thirteen year old or these people say that they were ANC before or after being hit with a baton?
MR KLOPPERS: I've said in two instances I prodded them with the baton, I did not assault all of the people and along the way they must have seen what had happened to the persons who did not want to answer or received the blow and when I stood behind them they answered directly to Mr Martin that they were ANC members.
ADV SIGODI: What worries me is the fact that you say that you had specific targets as the AWB. Your main target was the ANC, SACP Alliance.
ADV SIGODI: So this whole operation - it was not a racist attack, it was targeted specifically at ANC and SACP.
MR KLOPPERS: No it was not a racist attack otherwise all the other vehicles that were stopped, we had more opportunity to kill more of these people.
ADV SIGODI: Was that the policy of the AWB not to be racist but to target the ANC specifically?
MR KLOPPERS: No it's not the policy of the AWB to be racist but to be pure.
ADV SIGODI: Now what I want to know, you said you had this - what bothers me is the cyanide that was going to be put in the water that was going to be that was going to be the water that was meant for drinking by the people in Soweto, the one that was found in your possession as you were arrested. If you had had the chance to put the cyanide in the people in Soweto's drinking water - how would you have distinguished between ANC and other political parties.
MR KLOPPERS: At that stage we did not have the instruction to that but the instruction was to obtain cyanide. There was no instruction that we should indeed put cyanide in the water of Soweto, it was just a recommendation.
ADV SIGODI: It was a recommendation, but what was the policy of the AWB?
MR KLOPPERS: There was no policy to that at that stage, it was just an instruction that I should obtain cyanide.
CHAIRPERSON: Did you not tell us the purpose of the cyanide?
MR KLOPPERS: Yes I told you what happened to the cyanide, the quantity that I had was not enough, I had to find more and that is why there was no instruction to what to do with it.
CHAIRPERSON: What was the purpose of the cyanide?
MR KLOPPERS: General Oelofse suggested that I obtain the cyanide for reasons that we put it in the drinking water of the Soweto people so that it is distributed in the water and the people drink it.
CHAIRPERSON: That's what she was asking you that by contemplating putting it into water, drinking water for the people of Soweto is the suggestion that - isn't this an indication of racism?
MR KLOPPERS: No, we were not racist, this deed would have been an act of chaos, mass chaos, but as I said I did not receive the instruction from General Oelofse to do such I just received the instruction to obtain the cyanide.
CHAIRPERSON: Are you saying you don't know what sort of people lived in Soweto?
MR KLOPPERS: I believe all sorts of people, all races.
CHAIRPERSON: Well let's take it further. If you are not racist why did you then decide to stop only vehicles in which the passengers were black. Don't you know that many members of the ANC were white?
MR KLOPPERS: At that stage very few white persons were not prepared to say that they were members of the ANC. That was established at the meeting at Randfontein where there were many white persons and in the top structures of the City Council, I asked them how many of them were ANC members and all of the answered in the negative so that was clear to me that in our area there were no white ANC persons in our area and at the end we found out that that was a lie.
CHAIRPERSON: Why did you think that a white member of the ANC being stopped there, what made you think that he would shy away from admitting that he was a member of the ANC?
MR KLOPPERS: I don't understand the question clearly.
CHAIRPERSON: What made you think that a white member of the ANC, if he had come across the road, you had stopped him and at the roadblock, what made you think that he would not have admitted that he was a member of the ANC?
MR KLOPPERS: Nothing pointed this to me that is why I made a point of just pulling over black persons.
CHAIRPERSON: You were told, if that is the order you were given, you were told that your targets should be members of the ANC SACP Alliance?
CHAIRPERSON: But then what you then tell us is that once you reached the roadblock, you pointed the roadblock, you decided not just to stop the vehicles of members of the ANC SACP Alliance but black members of the ANC SACP Alliance?
MR KLOPPERS: That's correct Mr Chairperson, the fact that it was easier for us to identify or to pull over black people and to intimidate them and to use that method to find out which party they belonged to and white persons, there were not many of them and in the Ventersdorp area would not have belonged to the ANC.
CHAIRPERSON: You did not want to intimidate white members of the ANC?
MR KLOPPERS: To no other person, I would only intimidation to ANC SACP Alliance persons.
ADV SIGODI: The other thing that's of concern is why was it necessary to destroy all evidence, to take away the shells, burn the car, shave the head and remove the beard if you were so sure of what you were doing?
MR KLOPPERS: It was important that we were not known immediately because as I understood it the revolution would continue and we would be utilised in other operations and we could not be used if we were apprehended immediately. We wanted to convey the message that it was indeed AWB members but we did not want them to know that it was from our area.
ADV SIGODI: But you had already been seen by other cars at the roadblock. You made yourselves conspicuous at the roadblock, it was clear to any person that the roadblock was manned by AWB people?
MR KLOPPERS: Any person who passed there would not recognise us immediately as AWB persons because if you stand next to us then you would see the sign but if you were just passing we looked like ordinary police persons.
CHAIRPERSON: She's referring also to the vehicles which you had already stopped, questioning the people and you let them go, surely those people had already - before they left - they had already noticed that you were AWB members?
MR KLOPPERS: That was indeed so, it was an advantage to us that people had stopped there and continued on their way and so the message would be conveyed that there would be roadblocks by the AWB to ensure that no weapons and ammunition and ANC people passed through there.
CHAIRPERSON: But those very same people would be the people to tell the police the following day. Once they are told that four, six, eight bodies were found at the roadblock, those very same people would be the people to go to the police and say "well, listen we were there that same night, we were stopped by people, by AWB members."
MR KLOPPERS: That is what happened.
CHAIRPERSON: So she's asking you if - what's the purpose of picking up cartridges if you had already been seen anyway and noticed by those other people that you let go?
MR KLOPPERS: We were seen as the members of the AWB, we were not identified in our person, we could only be identified as - individually if we were apprehended.
CHAIRPERSON: If the police found the cartridges, would the cartridges have identified you as individuals?
MR KLOPPERS: Yes it could have identified us.
ADV SIGODI: My last question - I'm perturbed by the fact that there was this order to cut off an ear and you said that in your evidence you didn't find this funny because this had been done several times in the border. I would just like to understand why - I mean why would anybody want to cut off somebody's ear?
MR KLOPPERS: As it was at the border - if we left corpses behind, you could not take the corpses with you and you had to cut off one of the ears and show it to the Commanding Officer to say that in that direction there are so many corpses and these are the ears that I cut off. It was general action in border duty. I was not part of this, I had never done it before.
CHAIRPERSON: I don't understand how that can show that anybody had been killed. If you are telling us that you were to bring the heart I would understand but a piece of an ear? Don't you know that a famous boxer bit off the ear of another one and that person is still very much alive? It can't be proved that somebody has been killed?
MR KLOPPERS: I cannot answer for these other people, I go on hearsay, I know for a fact what we did there that night was to take the ear and we did not receive instruction to cut off any other parts of the body except for the ear.
CHAIRPERSON: I just have problems in understanding the motivation that is to say that it's some kind of proof that somebody has been killed, but anyway.
ADV BOSMAN: Mr Kloppers, if I refer back to the drinking story, the testimony was there that you drank most or more than the other people who was there?
MR KLOPPERS: I would think that I drank more than the other persons there.
ADV BOSMAN: Yet you say the whole group are hard drinkers and alcohol does not effect you, more or less, do you agree?
ADV BOSMAN: You can take your drink?
MR KLOPPERS: Yes we can take our drink.
ADV BOSMAN: And at this opportunity you received the instruction, according to Mr Dreyer, was of military precision. You questioned the group and you say that you were satisfied all of them individually said that or after you prodded them or by their own admission that they were members of the ANC and then you decided this is the target, continued on the signal of Mr Martin and then you shoot the persons, there are nine people in all. Only two of them died immediately, one a little later and another one a few days later in hospital, a few of them escaped without any injury. Explain to me if you were satisfied all these people are adults, they are all part of the enemy, the ANC SACP Alliance, but you shoot in such a manner that you just killed of them or three at the scene?
MR KLOPPERS: I think that is why General Oelofse was so dissatisfied with the situation that we did not kill everyone. That's why he was dissatisfied with me.
ADV BOSMAN: No, that was not my question, my question is - explain to me why I cannot understand you did not kill everyone there and then on your version General Oelofse could not understand it. Explain to me, you are standing there, you are nine grown up men, eight of you are armed, you shoot at people sitting down but just killed two immediately and three of them die at the scene. I don't want you to implicate Oelofse again in this, just explain to me how does this happen?
MR KLOPPERS: This happened when the planning was not carried out as I expected it. Mr Meiring was behind the chevron boards, he would have been able to tell me who was standing there with him but everybody there did not shoot there. Of the eight who was there three of them did not shoot. I know for a fact that I did shoot, I fired six shots and I shot to kill. It was dark I don't know how many people I killed but according to the ballistic tests they could not prove anything although they found a person with bullet in his head but I cannot tell you how the other persons shot there.
ADV BOSMAN: I'm trying to understand, if this was a planned operation, you say now you're going to ask these persons, you make sure that this is the enemy, the target is identified, you will eliminate it. You make sure and you tell us you are one hundred percent sure that all of them said that they were ANC members - they are all sitting there. Now you go out and you are going to execute them, that's part of the plan but in the execution six of the nine - but in the execution at the scene just three of them die? I ask you this because your original testimony in court - is that not more acceptable that all of a sudden somebody started firing and everybody got frightened? Wasn't that the more probable explanation for why so many people died there?
MR KLOPPERS: That is how you see it. My instruction to the men was to kill. I believed all of them were dead that is why I received a flashlight from Mr Diedericks and they all appeared dead to me that is why I was surprised to find out that not all of them were killed or everybody did not fire I cannot say but I did fire.
ADV BOSMAN: But if you were an outsider as the panel is here, what would you have thought? What version is more probable, the one in court or the one that you are giving here today? I trying to tell you that how do we formulate our own decisions according to your word or according to the circumstances?
MR KLOPPERS: I think you need to base it on the circumstances then and why I'm prepared to tell the truth here today.
ADV BOSMAN: Mr Kloppers a second issue, I only have three issues but the second one is the one to one discussion with General Oelofse. He didn't say much because he trusted you he said it was the real McCoy, he earlier said it was a revolution. Earlier he actually mentioned the real McCoy but later in the one on one discussion - or did he say that in the general meeting.
MR KLOPPERS: I have to think clearly if he mentioned it in the meeting but I'm sure he did mention it in the meeting that from now on yes, I can say with conviction that in the meeting itself he said that from now on the revolution would start.
ADV BOSMAN: And this was the general order because he trusted you?
MR KLOPPERS: Yes he trusted me completely but he asked me if I had all my equipment like the reflective jacket and the equipment for the roadblock and I answered in the affirmative and he gave me the order to set up the roadblock.
ADV BOSMAN: He didn't say anything else to you, he simply told you to establish a roadblock, that he wanted to see corpses which you had mentioned earlier, hard options which you had mentioned earlier during the Order group meeting and you said to him that you would establish the roadblock at Radora Crossing?
MR KLOPPERS: That's not all that he said, he said that our target group was the ANC SACP Alliance.
ADV BOSMAN: Did he say anything else?
MR KLOPPERS: He said that he wanted to see corpses.
ADV BOSMAN: No something which we have not discussed yet.
ADV BOSMAN: But you said you spent ten minutes with him?
MR KLOPPERS: I can't really go according to time because this was four and a half years ago but I would say that it was approximately ten minutes.
ADV BOSMAN: Well did it take ten minutes for him to tell you this?
MR KLOPPERS: Among others I asked him what about the other areas, what would be happening there, what sort of work would they be doing but he was not prepared to discuss this with me.
ADV BOSMAN: He didn't trust you that far?
ADV BOSMAN: You've also said if I heard correctly that two of the others were there before you, two of the other area leaders?
ADV BOSMAN: Before you went in?
ADV BOSMAN: And then there were others who saw him after the time, they also went in individually?
ADV BOSMAN: Were they also there for approximately ten minutes, did they leave quickly, did you know?
MR KLOPPERS: I think the first person spent a longer time than the second person.
ADV BOSMAN: Longer or shorter than yours?
MR KLOPPERS: I think the first person was much longer than me and the second person spent approximately the same time period as I did.
ADV BOSMAN: Under the cross-examination of Mr Dreyer you were asked whether this massacre at the Radora Crossing was the total result of the revolutionary attempt by the AWB of that evening and he wanted to know if that was all that they could muster and you said that you didn't know, that you didn't know whether the other areas had received orders because you were not present. Is that correct?
MR KLOPPERS: That's correct. I can definitely say that in other areas such as Natal and the Free State there were certain events or occurrences but I can't tell you exactly when and I wasn't there when they were issued with orders.
ADV BOSMAN: This issue involves the Order group meeting, the cross-examination involves the order that was given and General Oelofse who was responsible for all the area commanders, those who had the same responsibilities as you did in your area and you said that you didn't even know whether the others received orders because you weren't present - you went in one for one?
ADV BOSMAN: Then towards the end of our discussion here today you were asked regarding the fact that things had gone wrong and why and that you hadn't spoken to anybody and then you mention two names. Can you remember them?
MR KLOPPERS: Colonel Joe van Wyk and J. Falconer.
ADV BOSMAN: And you've said or what did you ask them when you spoke to them?
MR KLOPPERS: Why haven't I heard anything from you?
ADV BOSMAN: And what did they say?
MR KLOPPERS: Because they didn't do the work which they were supposed to.
ADV BOSMAN: You've never asked them what their orders were you simply asked them "why didn't I hear anything from your side" and what they said was "we couldn't get any people to do the work that we were supposed to do."
Thank you Chairperson, no further questions.
MR DREYER: Mr Chairman, may I perhaps just pose one question which pertains to a question that was put by the Committee Member, Advocate Bosman to the witness if I may?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well let's hear, what is the question?
MR DREYER: Mr Kloppers, Advocate Bosman as a Member of the Committee, asked you whether it was strange that during the meeting of the 12th December only certain areas or regions were represented because according to you it was such an important meeting because that was the meeting where it was decided to
begin the revolution. Can you remember that question?
MR KLOPPERS: Yes I can remember the question and the answer.
MR DREYER: And in terms of that I would like to ask you when you testified here you said that after the meeting you'd asked Stephanie Oelofse if you could phone from there?
MR DREYER: And you spoke to Mr Martin's wife because you couldn't speak to him alone and your evidence is here, I've written it down, please correct me if I'm wrong - what did you ask her or tell her and you said that he told her to tell Martin that he should gather some of the men because we were going to work and just as Advocate Bosman asked you, isn't it strange that only some of the area commanders attended this vitally important meeting where the beginning of the revolution was planned and an order was given therefore. I want to ask you isn't it strange that you would then tell Mr Martin's wife to tell him to gather some of the men, why didn't you tell Mr Martin to get all the men together at your disposal, why only some of the men and this to begin the revolution with?
ADV BOSMAN: I think the answer to that question was that all the areas were represented, not only some of them and I think secondly, it speaks for itself that not everybody was going to be holding a roadblock.
CHAIRPERSON: What did you plan to do by killing the people you wanted to kill, what did you plan to do with the bodies?
MR KLOPPERS: There was no planning for the disposal of the bodies of those who would have died, that is exactly what Oelofse wanted that people would be found under those circumstances and that those who found them would know that the AWB was in fact in operation and that they were serious.
CHAIRPERSON: And would the people then know that it was the work of the AWB?
MR KLOPPERS: The people would definitely have known that this was the work of the AWB especially with regard to the previous vehicles that we stopped, we expected it to be headline news that the papers would definitely mention that these people had been shot on the road and that people would come forward and say that they had also been pulled over by that roadblock.
CHAIRPERSON: After these people were shot a vehicle appeared and some of your men panicked and hurriedly left the scene. Doesn't that show lack of planning?
MR KLOPPERS: To me it was wrong of them to leave the scene so quickly and when we met again I was very angry regarding the incident and I clearly indicated this to them as well.
CHAIRPERSON: It shows, doesn't it, lack of planning on your side?
MR KLOPPERS: Perhaps I should have undergone better planning.
CHAIRPERSON: You had to shout to them to say well we'll meet at the City Hall, Randfontein City Hall?
MR KLOPPERS: It was a reasonably general meeting place in the centre of Randfontein and I believe that's where we could meet and then disband from there again and move in our various directions.
CHAIRPERSON: This had not been preplanned that after this operation you would meet at the City Hall?
MR KLOPPERS: No it was not planned beforehand, that's why I shouted it to them.
CHAIRPERSON: That's poor planning, isn't it?
CHAIRPERSON: How do you end up with such poor planning if you are launching a genuine military operation or do you want me to say paramilitary operation?
MR KLOPPERS: I believed that if we had shot and if everybody had died, we would have moved to our various places from there. I didn't anticipate that one of the vehicles would drive away.
CHAIRPERSON: Well doesn't this show that this thing was really not a planned military operation?
MR KLOPPERS: It was a planned operation, the men knew what to do, the entire situation was planned entirely, the post operation planning was not undertaken properly and that is where the problem came in.
CHAIRPERSON: The document that you referred us to I think it was EXHIBIT A ....inaudible]
MR KLOPPERS: ...[inaudible] Page 11, 12. Chairperson, if you can just tell me what you're looking for I might be of assistance.
CHAIRPERSON: The portion that refers us to revolution and the like.
MR KLOPPERS: That is at the bottom of page 11 that is War or Guerilla Warfare.
CHAIRPERSON: The one which tells us that you could succeed with the help of God and so on and so forth, in block letters.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you, that's what I was looking for.
MR KLOPPERS: Revolution at Hand.
CHAIRPERSON: If you read that whole area doesn't it suggest that the AWB was planning to act defensively and not pro-actively? Doesn't it say that if the revolution was forced on us, I think that was more or less?
MR KLOPPERS: It had already been enforced upon us as conveyed to me by General Oelofse at the Order Group meeting and that is why we went over into action.
CHAIRPERSON: Well doesn't that - when they say that if is forced on us - doesn't that suggest that they would act defensively and not pro-actively. In other words not to start revolution but to fight it off?
MR KLOPPERS: According to what I received from the Generals and staff that is not what I interpreted, it was not only a defensive act it was also meant to be offensive.
CHAIRPERSON: That's how you understand it?
CHAIRPERSON: Tell me, precisely when did you or at which stage did you tell your men that you're going to put up a roadblock for the first time? When did you tell them for the first time?
MR KLOPPERS: The first time at Deon Martin's house.
CHAIRPERSON: So while you were on the road or when you left Mr Martin's house they knew, including Mr Martin, knew that you're going to put up a roadblock?
MR KLOPPERS: That is correct, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: And to kill people?
CHAIRPERSON: Are you saying that you actually mounted the revolution that day?
MR KLOPPERS: I believed firmly that the revolution began on that day.
CHAIRPERSON: What did you have in mind by revolution?
MR KLOPPERS: In my opinion I thought that the instruction which I carried out would spread and that I would receive further instructions to carry out further tasks and that is why I was surprised when General Oelofse said that we should lie low.
CHAIRPERSON: Were you in radio contact with General Oelofse while you were at the roadblock?
MR KLOPPERS: No I was not in radio contact with him.
CHAIRPERSON: Were you in radio contact with any other person while you were at the roadblock?
MR KLOPPERS: I was not in radio contact with any person.
CHAIRPERSON: You would not have been able to contact anybody to co-ordinate operations?
CHAIRPERSON: Now the people admitted that - to Mr Martin - that they were members of the ANC SACP Alliance and when they did so, you were standing behind them?
CHAIRPERSON: Were you friendly - were you speaking with these people friendly?
MR KLOPPERS: No, I was not friendly with them. I spoke harshly and sharply and concisely with them.
CHAIRPERSON: So one would expect that they must have been frightened?
CHAIRPERSON: And indeed you found a need to hit two of them with a baton?
CHAIRPERSON: My recollection is that in evidence in Chief you said you did so because they did not give satisfactory answers?
MR KLOPPERS: Yes that's correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Tell me what you mean thereby?
MR KLOPPERS: The type of answers which they were providing were answers such as "who are you to ask me, what do you want to know?" They didn't get to the point.
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, repeat yourself?
MR KLOPPERS: They would answer me with a question such as "Who are you, what do you want, what do you want to know, why are you asking us these questions?" and not everybody's Afrikaans was that good and in English they would say "it doesn't matter to you, what does it matter to you?"
CHAIRPERSON: Well when they asked you why do you want this information for, why should we admit it to you, did you tell them that "I want that information so that I can kill you"?
MR KLOPPERS: No I didn't say that.
CHAIRPERSON: Why not, why didn't you tell them?
MR KLOPPERS: I was afraid that they would jump up and run away and that I would be caught in the crossfire seeing that I was standing behind them and my men were not prepared to shoot yet.
CHAIRPERSON: You were afraid they might run away?
MR KLOPPERS: That's correct and a further problem was that I was standing behind them therefore I would have been in the line of fire of my men.
CHAIRPERSON: So you didn't like to create any chance for them to - can run away?
CHAIRPERSON: They are supposed just to be killed?
CHAIRPERSON: No chance to run away?
CHAIRPERSON: Now you stand behind these people, you're not friendly you're hostile, you beat up one or two of them because you are not satisfied with their answers. Now in the end they say to you "we are ANC members" and on the basis of the fact that they are members of the ANC SACP Alliance you kill them. How liable did you think was their admission that they were ANC members when they are frightened, when you've beaten one or two of them when you're standing behind them, you're hostile? How liable did you think that information was?
MR KLOPPERS: At that point I wasn't thinking about how realistic their answers were.
CHAIRPERSON: Did it matter to you?
MR KLOPPERS: It mattered to me that they answered my questions. If they had said that they belonged to the IFP or any other party I would have singled them out.
CHAIRPERSON: No, my question to you is - it didn't matter to you or not whether their answers were reliable or did it matter to you?
MR KLOPPERS: It didn't matter to me, if he had said that he was a member of the ANC that would have been enough.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Kloppers, were you not worried that it might just be that one of them, through fright and intimidation, may just admit that he's an ANC member when in fact he isn't?
MR KLOPPERS: That wasn't of any concern to me.
CHAIRPERSON: So you took no steps whatsoever to make sure that their information that they are ANC members was correct, you took no steps?
MR KLOPPERS: I took no steps apart from interrogation.
CHAIRPERSON: And beating them and beating two of them?
CHAIRPERSON: How do we know - how sure are you Mr Kloppers today as you are sitting there that the people you killed were in fact members of the ANC, how sure are you?
MR KLOPPERS: Today if I look back to the entire situation I am absolutely certain that they were members of the ANC SACP Alliance because I saw the funerals of one of them on television, I saw the casket being carried by Umkhonto we Sizwe members.
CHAIRPERSON: What about the others?
MR KLOPPERS: I don't know about the others.
CHAIRPERSON: Well let's not talk about them let's leave them out. I'll rephrase my question.
How sure are you that those whose funerals you didn't see on television, how sure are you today as you are sitting there that they were in fact members of the ANC.
MR KLOPPERS: I can't say, you would have to ask the next of kin of the deceased.
CHAIRPERSON: So it is possible as you are sitting there you killed people who were not members of the ANC?
MR KLOPPERS: If he admitted to being a member of the ANC I would have shot him.
CHAIRPERSON: And that's enough?
CHAIRPERSON: And if they were to come here and say "well we never said that we were members of the ANC" what would you say?
MR KLOPPERS: If they had never been members of the ANC and they would stand before me today and say that they were not members of the ANC I would say that I am sorry because I am sorry for those who were caught in the crossfire in this unrealistic warfare because to me it is simply an empty refrain of the AWB.
CHAIRPERSON: But you see Mr Kloppers, if you have any - please tell me - it's seems to me you had no reasonable basis on which to believe that those people were in fact members of the ANC?
MR KLOPPERS: The only reason why I believed that they were members of the ANC was because they answered me and if AWB members were standing in front of you and asking you if you were a member of the ANC you would give the right answer and say that you are a member of the ANC. We stopped many vehicles and many of them...[intervention]
CHAIRPERSON: Did you hear my question? My question is - you are not saying you have no basis on which to believe that they were ANC because I know you say they told you - I'm saying you had no reasonable basis on which to believe that they were members of ANC because they said so at a time when they're being intimidated, assaulted?
MR KLOPPERS: I believe that that is when one would speak the truth. I spoke the truth and said that I had shot people.
CHAIRPERSON: No, that's why I asked you another question earlier on, I asked you - you say they did not know what was waiting for them.
CHAIRPERSON: They did not know that you were going to kill them or give them sweets?
MR KLOPPERS: They didn't know.
CHAIRPERSON: Why then would they lie if they're not members of the ANC, why then would they lie that time - why would they lie and say "we are members of the ANC" unless they are assaulted - they do it as a result of assault and intimidation?
MR KLOPPERS: I don't know, I only know that we asked everyone the same questions consistently and if they answered affirmatively that is how they would have been selected.
CHAIRPERSON: Or perhaps I should also put this across to you because Mr Brink is not here. What would you say they were to come and say that, at least some of them, come and say that in fact they never told you that they were members of the ANC?
MR KLOPPERS: The question was posed to me and I would not be able to answer that. On that evening everyone answered affirmatively to the question.
CHAIRPERSON: The one thing I also want to ask you in that you amended some papers to say to us that Oelofse's name must be put in, you had forgotten, you had made a mistake, it should have been put in - do you remember that?
CHAIRPERSON: How did you manage to forget somebody from whom you had obtained direct instructions? Or was the mistake by your counsel?
MR KLOPPERS: You'll have to put this question to my advocate because they received direct instructions, written instructions from us and they compiled the documentation on behalf of us.
CHAIRPERSON: Mrs van der Walt?
MR WAGENAAR: If I might follow up one question?
Mr Kloppers, you've said - I'm not sure if it was an answer to a question from Advocate Bosman - that it was about the fact that you were openly appearing in camouflage uniform with AWB symbols. You expected this incident would be headline news in the papers the following day, is that correct?
MR WAGENAAR: Mr Kloppers you also expected that throughout the country in all areas some or other action would take place which would start the revolution, is that correct?
MR WAGENAAR: Why did you expect that this incident would be headline news and not in every paper, the news that the revolution had begun because of five, six, seven hundred incidents the previous night?
MR KLOPPERS: The reason why I said that was because Randfontein is a very isolated town on the West Rand and that is why I thought it would be main news, if it had been headline news in another newspaper it would have been to our benefit.
MR WAGENAAR: Which newspaper are you referring to?
MR KLOPPERS: The Randfontein Herald.
MR WAGENAAR: But you said if it had been a headline article in any other newspapers it would have been to your benefit.
MR KLOPPERS: And it would have indicated that a revolution was under way.
MR WAGENAAR: You expected that every area would launch an operation that night from Johannesburg to Randfontein, to Ventersdorp, to Cathcart, to Newcastle, all the way through the Eastern Province, everywhere there would be actions. Why did you then expect your action would reach the front page of the newspapers?
MR KLOPPERS: Perhaps I misquoted when I said front page but I did expect that it would be part of the main news bulletin.
MR WAGENAAR: One of the four hundred occasions?
MR KLOPPERS: Yes it would have made part of the main news.
MR WAGENAAR: So you didn't think that this incident would be the front page news?
MR KLOPPERS: No not this incident in isolation but in all newspapers there would be some kind of news regarding these actions.
MR WAGENAAR: So you did not think that someone might have undertaken more spectacular action somewhere else in the country?
MR KLOPPERS: To me it wasn't about whether someone committed a greater deed than I deed, to me it was about the target group.
MR WAGENAAR: But you expected that your target group and the action in relation to that would fetch the front pages of the newspapers?
MR KLOPPERS: The local newspapers, yes.
MR WAGENAAR: Do you have more than one local newspaper?
MR WAGENAAR: Do they appear daily or weekly?
MR WAGENAAR: But the following day you expected to find it in the local newspaper?
MR KLOPPERS: It was Sunday, the newspaper would be printed on the Thursday so I could not expect it to appear the following day.
MR WAGENAAR: Thank you Mr Kloppers.
CHAIRPERSON: Mrs van der Walt I'm afraid that maybe you should commence your re-examination when next we sit, I see it's nearly four o'clock. It may be that you would like to take some bit of time to cover various aspects?
MRS VAN DER WALT: Thank you Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Shall we then - Mr Dreyer and Mr Knoetze, you will recall we thought that we could have this matter postponed to the 10th June. Will everybody still be available? Mr Prinsloo? Subject to what you explained to us in chambers that you'd be available for the 10th provided the matter that you would be - you would have commenced the previous week would be finalised before the term?
MR PRINSLOO: That's correct Mr Chairman.
MR WAGENAAR: Mr Chair may we also ask Mr Dreyer to secure that we have at least a statement from Oelofse before we proceed again?
MR DREYER: Mr Chairman, I have obviously not been in a position to re-examine or proceed with cross-examination on this particular witness on the very basis of questions that was put to him by Members of the Committee subsequent to the conclusion of my cross-examination so in the course of that at least certain things came to light on which I haven't had the opportunity to obtain instruction. I will endeavour to get full instruction from my client. I have also not been in a position due to the cross-examination of this witness only having really finished now to take any instruction as to the recalling of witnesses which have already testified. So at the best I can say that once that I have been in a position to obtain proper instruction on that as well as having an indication of what further incriminating evidence might come forth from other applicants, I will reconsider the position and I will act and relay my instructions to the Committee. I must however point out that I have to say this against the background that originally when my client got notification that there's a possibility of him being incriminated, it was merely a notification that he might have been incriminated by Mr Kloppers but at the time when I appeared here, I was informed by Mr Brink as well as from the side of my fellow legal brothers that in fact certain evidence was, at least by some of the other applicants which have given their testimony, that incriminated Mr Oelofse so against that background, it is difficult for me at this stage to give a final indication of what my instructions from my client will be but I will endeavour my best to do so.
MR PRINSLOO: If you could let us know in advance so that we can make a decision before the resumption of this case, we would appreciate it particularly.
MR DREYER: I'll take note of that.
MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, my apologies, my attorney of record has indicated something to me and I think that it would be important, especially in light of the request which has just been conveyed to me to convey to my attorney of record. My attorney of record requests that it be arranged that we receive a transcription of the proceedings because by nature it would facilitate our consideration to place certain matters on dispute and it might make our decision much easier if this would be possible, the record would be transcribed as soon as possible and will be available to all as soon as it is done. You may contact Mr Brink as well as our offices to find out when exactly it will be available. Thank you Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: And I think it should please be clarified that we do not really accept it as our responsibility to provide the record to the litigants or participants. I don't think it should be our responsibility, we don't accept that kind of responsibility. Sometimes we try to be as helpful as we can let it just be clarified that it is not our responsibility, we don't accept that responsibility.
MR PRINSLOO: I accept that Chairperson, I did not expect it to be the responsibility of the Committee, however I did make that request in the light of the fact that I must convey this to my attorney of record and the entire basis upon which my presence here was constituted, was not to oppose the application but to test the incriminating nature of testimony. I did indicate that if we could obtain a transcription of the proceedings it would make matters much easier for all of us involved.
CHAIRPERSON: I think I would suggest to make things easier for yourself I would suggest that you direct your request in writing to our office in Cape Town, give them the details of the case. We do succeed sometimes in getting the transcribed record within a few weeks but now there are so many hearings going on and everybody wants their transcript for their record and as a result there is some measure of delay, we sometimes don't succeed in getting the record. So we ourselves are really having a big problem in relation to a number of matters which were heard a long time ago, we don't have the record so don't be too hopeful but I think write a letter and perhaps you can write it the attention of Mr Brink who knows the matter better than everyone and he will pass it to the relevant office but give the details of the matter and ask for a copy of the record.
MR DREYER: Thank you Mr Chairman, my attorney of record just wants me to put on record that I must just state clearly that not being present when certain applicants gave their evidence of which we have not been given prior notice that there might be incriminating evidence forthcoming from their applications - we are in a difficulty to answer.
MR WAGENAAR: With respect Mr Dreyer, many of the applicants have not yet testified and it should not be a problem for your client to provide a summary of his knowledge of this incident or his lack of knowledge of this incident. Please.
MR DREYER: I take notes Chairperson, I have simply been requested to place this on record.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Dreyer your criteria has been very helpful to us to help us in facilitating the hearings, not to delay and the like, we really appreciate that but the reason why we cannot give an undertaking with regard to the record is that - I've already told you - so many people ask for that and they expect of us to do that, it's just impossible. If we could there would be no problem, we would give it to you but it's just that it's very difficult. It's so difficult these days that we really cannot give an undertaking but that doesn't mean that we don't appreciate the assistance of your attorney, he helped us a lot and we might have ended up with a postponement.