COMMISSION ON THE PREVENTION OF PUBLIC VIOLENCE & INTIMIDATION

TOKOZA COMMITTEE HELD AT PRETORIA

ON 4 AND 6 MAY 1992

CHAIRMAN ; ADV. M.N.S. SITHOLE

MEMBERS ; MISS L. BAQWAMR B. TUCKER

VOLUME 53 (BLADSYE 3959 - 4096)

VL O K RECORDINGS A N D TRANSCRfPTIONS CCREG. \0. CKS9/21241/33

THE COMMISSION RESUMES ON 4 MAY 1992.

MR_PRET.ORIUS: I think just one thing should be cleared up about tomorrow afternoon, I do not think all the parties are informed that we will sit tomorrow afternoon.CHAIRMAN: That does not have to be on the record.THE. MACHINE IS PUT OFF. THE MACHINE IS PUT nxr MARK HERMANSEN. v.o.e.

CHAIRMAN: Are there any people in the audience here from the International Pressco, who do not understand Afrikaans?

Anybody who does not understand Afrikaans could you show by way (10) of raising your hand please? Okay, nobody.

MR JOSEPH APOLOGISES TO MR TUCKER FOR NOT HAVING INTRODUCED HIMSELF.

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR .70KFPM. Captain, I do not wantto be longwinded and I am going to try and keep this cross-

examination as short as possible. But, before I commence the

cross-examination, just so that the cross-examination is in itscontext, let me just recapitulate perhaps some of the moreimportant evidence you tendered on the previous sitting. You

recall that you were at your base camp and you heard the shots (20)which emanated from Pholapark. At that time 25 of yourofficers had been previously deployed to Buthelezi Street. Youcommunicated with them over the radio and you ordered them toinvestigate the shooting at Pholapark. Would that be more orless correct? - Ek wil net weer die punt stres dat dit nieoffisiere is nie, 25 offisiere nie, maar dit wel troepe is endit was wel in die omgewing van Buthelezi Street, asook Dubestraat.

I am sorry, I take your point. The troops arrived

approximately, 25, transported by one Buffalo armed personnel [3 0)

(2 7 9 .0 0 3 0THOKOZA l o c o HERMANSEN

CZ79JH09THOKOZA

carrier and while one of the troops was alighting from the personnel carrier he sustained a bullet injury to his back.

This necessitated evacuating that particular soldier and he was transported back to the base camp in the Buffalo armed personnel carrier together with a number of other soldiers who were attending to his needs, is that correct? — That is correct.

You then send in approximately 60 other soldiers, would that be correct? -- Approximately 60, yes.

-And those soldiers joined the first group of soldiers who came under hostile fire and they returned the fire, is that correct? — Correct.

I have in front of me a map, actually a photograph of the area, an aerial photograph and you are familiar with that area, is that correct? — Correct.

Just as point of reference, the photograph shows on the eastern side, on the eastern side, in relation to the Pholapark settlement shows on the eastern side, what I think you have described as an abandoned brickworks that are no longer working, is that correct? — Correct.

Thokoza is to the east of Pholapark, is that correct? -- North-east.

North-east of Pholapark. when the troops, the 60 troops,when those troops entered Pholapark from your base camp theymoved in approximately south-westerly direction? -- Not correct.

In which direction did they move? — They moved in, sorry, yes, they moved in in a south-western direction.

If one looks at the photograph of the area on the eastern side of the photograph there is, what seems to be, a well (;

maintained/...

3960 HERMANSEK

(279.0191THOKOZA H061-3̂ °' HERMANSEN

maintained road which would be to the west of the Thokozatownship, is that correct? -- Mnr. die Voorsitter, mnr. Josephsit met daardie kaart voor hom, ek kan nie daar sien nie.

Apparently we have only one, I am going to try and toremember what I have seen over there and then you will be ina better position to correct me if I am wrong, if you look tothe east of that map, that is the right-hand side of the map,

that is east, is that correct, the right-hand side? -- No, it is west.

I beg your pardon. North is the top. d OCHAIRMAN: Is it a map or an aerial photo?

— JOSEPH: It is an aerial photograph, there is an arrow indicating north, which is indicated to the top of the map, do you see that? -- Yes.

It has N and a /R, capital N, capital R and the east then is on the right-hand side, precisely where you are putting the microphone, is that correct? -- Yes, that is right.

More or less where the base of that microphone is you will see the western outskirts of Thokoza towards the top of the

map? — No. Thokoza is aan die suidekant van Pholapark, (20) herstel, aan die noorde van Pholapark.

Let me rephrase it or let me ask you this question. Youindicate the route that the troops took when they enteredPholapark, did they come from the right of the photograph? --They came from, hulle het van Thokoza se rigting afgegaan, ons

het die klein kafeetjie of die ingang na Pholapark aan dienoordekant het ons die naam gedoop so de u r d i e tyd, Caf6 Corneren hulle het van Cafe Corner af ingery met die grootpad in

Pholapark in. Met ander woorde hulle het basies van noord na suid beweeg.

(30)

En dan hulle het in 'n westelike rigting beweeg? -- Tevoet.

is that correct? - Hulle het dan wes beweeg te voet dan met die vee-operasie.

They then entered Pholapark. Now let us deal with the first 25 and perhaps the answer is the same in regard to the following group of troops who entered. Did they all enter in the same way, the same direction? -- Yes, they did.

And they were all together more or less? - That is right.

Can you point out on the map from the information that was (10) given to you where the shooting took place? -- Eaar het nou verskeie skote in Pholapark, verskeie skote was gevuur in

Pholapark. Dit is vir my basies onmoontlik om presies te se <3aar en daar omdat hierdie kaart is redelik oud ook op hierdie

Stadium. Hierdie murasies byvoorbeeld van die hostelle bestaan nie meer nie. Hierdie kaart is vroeg in die tagtig jare miskien of toe Pholapark net gestig is. So dit is vir my baie moeilik om mnr. Joseph se vraag te antwoord.

Forgive me, perhaps the question was not as specific as

it should have been. I am concerned about where your troops (20) "ere when your troops started shooting? - Bit was in die

omgewing van die borne gewees aan die noordekant van Pholapark,

C279.C272THOKOZA - 3Q67 HERMANKF^

3a.

Could you just hold that up and show it to me if you do not mind? Perhaps you could indicate to the, over there. According to the information which you gathered did they fire their shots more or less in the same direction? -- Ek verstaan "ie sy antwoord nie, kan u net dit ...(tussenbei)

You have a number of troops, all of them are armed. Now there is 360 degrees around the group of troops, did they fire ,3 0)

C 279.0347THOKOZA gg^3

( 10)

HERHAKSEN

in 360 degrees or did they fire in one direction? -- Hulle het

m hulle skootsvakke gevuur op geidentifiseerde teikens. Metander woorde vandaar waar die skote gevuur was op my troepe,hulle het die flits gesien en op daardie flitse het hulle gevuur.

No* the gun fire that they saw, more or less where didthat gun fire come from? -- vra mnr. Joseph nou uit watter rigting spesifiek?

Yes? - It was on the western side, the south-western side of Pholapark, the concentrated fire.

In other words the larger portion of the settlement, thelargerportion of the structures would have been behind thepeople who were firing at your troops, if you look at the map?

-- Kan u dit asseblief net weer herhaal, ek verstaan dit nie mooi nie?

YOU indicated that your troops were in a particular position on that map? -- Correct.

And that particular position as I am able to recall is the western side of Pholapark, correct? — Correct.

And the way you indicated and I am not holding you to it, (20) I know it is a rough indication, the way you indicated it seems to me that your troops were on the western border of Pholapark,

they were not inside the settlement. -- Die voertuie het in die omgewing van hierdie borne het hulle my troepe afgelaai soos wat

aangedui het. Die troepe was toe gedwing om in te beweeg tussen die "schacks" en tussen die wonings in, want die vuur was op stadiums naby aan hulle, dan word die vuur verwissel van stelling en dan so het die troepe moes toe vorentoe beweeg. so hulle was tussenin die wonings op stadiums gewees.

AS the operation progressed, as they went towards the (30)

CZ79.M18

enemy. They moved in a westerly direction towards the enemy.

Ons het nou nie, die troepe het nie te diep ingegaan nie. Die vuur is gestop op 'n stadium. So daar is nie 'n kwessie van dat ons in die middel van Pholapark omtrent geeindig het nie. Die vuur is onder beheer gebring. So die troepe was wel 'n paar wonings diep gewees as u sal verstaan wat ek bedoel. So daar was wonings agter hulle ook gewees.

Now at a certain stage and as I recall your evidence after about half an hour of gun fire the gun fire ceased, correct? -- Correct.

That would be round about 20:30, 21:00 is that correct? -- No, it is not correct.

What time? — 21:30.

Without you giving a specific order the troops who were then under the command of Lieutenant Ras, those troops proceeded to search a number of, without meaning any disrespect, let us call it "huts", they then started to search a number of huts, is that correct? — No, it is not correct.

When did they search the huts? -- On my order.Only on your order? — Correct.

My memory might be failing me. I understood your evidence to be that they commenced the search of the huts and after they

commenced searching the huts Lieutenant Ras radiod you to tell you he had information about the fact that a resident had

advised him of the whereabouts of the specific firearms. — Ons het, Donderdag het ons ook of Woensdag het ons ook gesukkel met hierdie puntjie. Ek het die bevel gegee om die deursoeking te laat begin. Toe die vuur onder beheer gebring is, toe alles onder beheer was, het ek die bevel gegee begin nou te deursoek, vorm 'n lyn en begin met die deursoeking vir gewondes en (

vuurwapens/...

T " °K °Z A 3964 HERMANSEN

vuurwapens. Tydens hierdie deursoeking het ons die informasie ontvang aangaande die wapens. '

Now what concerns me, thank you for clarifying that point, what concerns me about your evidenc is the line. Is this line, does this mean soldiers standing shoulder to shoulder or one behind the other as they march? — Die term "lyn" wat ek

gebruik is: die troepe is langs mekaar. Met ander woorde regs van elke troep en links van elke troep staan 'n troep, plus- minus vier, vyf meter uitmekaar uit.

So then for people who have to decide it would be correct (10) for them to picture 60 soldiers standing alongside one another with a space between each soldier of maybe four or five metres?— Die vier of vyf meter kan in tye verskil. Dit gaan oor die

terrein, dit gaan oor die beskikbaarheid van dekking op daardie stadium. Dit gaan ook oor hoe hierdie wonings in Pholapark die troepe kanaliseer en dwing miskien om een meter of 'n halwe meter van die ander troep te staan.

I am sure we appreciate it. This is not a marching drillon a field, this is going through an area where'the terrain

changes and there are hut obstructions etcetera, etcetera. (20)Before they start their search these 60 soldiers standingshoulder to shoulder, what distance would you estimate thesoldier on the extreme left-hand side the distance he would befrom the soldier on the extreme right-hand side? — Plus-minus 30 metres.

And now I assume that what the soldiers wer^ about to do they had already been trained, they knew what they were about to do, is that correct? — Correct.

What they now do is they move forward or they move towards the squatter settlement and they search as they go along their (30)

___ way/...

€279.06053965 HERMAN5EN

*"'°"°^ 3966 HERMAKSEK

way, is that correct? — Correct.

And they would search every hut that they came across? -- Not correct.

Do you have difficulty with the word search? -- Correct.They would, now let me use it as wide as possible, they

would make inquiries in regard to who was present in a particular hut or what was present in a hut? — Daar was 'n hoes ek kon nie die woord hoor nie?

The word search is a little to strong, I am suggesting to you that when the 60 soldiers on foot moved forward, when each on of them or a group of them came across a hut, let me not suggest, would you tell the commission what they did or what

they were instructed to do? — Daar "aar die troepe op 'n woning gekom het wat gesluit was daar het hulle verby gehou. Sekere van die wonings was oop gewees, hulle kon daar inkyk en om my opdrag uit te voer kon hulle kyk vir gewondes, hulle kon

agter die woning kyk, hulle kon onder van die stukkende voertuie en goed wat daar gestaan het. kon hulle gekyk het, maar waar daar nie spesifieke informasie was aangaande gewondes of aangaande wapens en ammunisie nie, is hulle nie toegelaat om m te gaan nie. So hulle is nie toegelaat om enige deure oop te maak onder daardie omstandighede nie as daar nie die informasie was nie.

If there was an information that present in a particular hut was a gunman or a firearm, do I understand you that they could not or they were instructed not to go into that particular hut? -- They could go, hulle kon in die hut ingaan as die deur oop was, maar nie afbreek of 'n slot breek of die

meganiek waarmee die deur gesluit is beskadig om dan in te gaan

C279.0S76

Let us say that one of the solders happened upon a door that was open at 21:30 that night with all the shooting that it just preceded, but let us assume that that exist, that there was a hut with a door wide open what would that soldier do, he would go into the hut? -- Hy sou binne gekyk het.

He would go in and have a look? — Yes.

And he would make inquiries. He would say to the insittende do you have any firearms, is that correct? — Ek

kan nie daardie vraag beantwoord nie. Ek weet nie wat daardie troep spesifiek vir hom gaan vra nie. Hy gaan daar ingaan en (1 0 ) hy gaan kyk en dit is heelwaarskynlik nie eers 'n gebied wat hy van praat wat daar uit gevuur is presies of van daardie spesifieke woning af is daar nie gevuur nie. So h o e k o m s a l e e n van my troepe nou spesifiek dit vra. Hy sal vra is daar enige gewondes, hy sal kyk en kyk of daar gewondes is en dan sal hy, as daar niks is nie, sal hy na die volgende woning gaan.

Weren t the troops looking for firearms and injured civilians? — That is correct.

I want to ask you to try and reconcile this evidence you

have given today with your previous testimony and I do not want (20) to string out the question. But I have in my mindseye, I have what I have seen very, very often in pictures and in the cinema of soldiers searching an area, they spread out and they start searching the area and I do not want to get involved with how they protect themselves. I am sure of them stand in particular positions as well and as they moved through this settlement, they cut through the settlement a 60 metre or a 30 metre sauve(?) going right through, is this correct? -- Ek kan nie glo dat die man my vra oor dat hy dit in 'n fliek gesien het en hy vra my of dit reg is nie. No, it is not correct. Ek kan (30)

dit/ —

CX79.06503967 HERMANKFN

C2799.0736THOKOZA

dit nie met 'n bioskoop vergelyk nie. Dit is lelike dinge wat ons van praat op hierdie stadium.

I beg your pardon. Let us leave aside my personal experience. Your 60 soldiers standing shoulder to shoulder moved forward and whatever they came across they either searched or they did not searched, is that correct? — Correct.

If they found an open door they went in and searched or made inquiries. I know you do not like "search", made inquiries, is that correct? — Correct, yes.

Now what right does a soldier have to enter a hut even if (10) the door is open? -- Ek dink ek het 'n verantwoordelikheid teenoor die gemeenskap ook. Nie ek dink nie, ek het 'n verant­

woordelikheid teenoor die gemeenskap. Ek moet die gemeenskap help, ek moet die gemeenskap bystaan. Daar is mense in

Pholapark wat wetsgehoorsaam is. Ek moet daardie mense beskerm en hulle belange beskerm. As daar enigiemand is wat onder daardie omstandighede gwond is, dink ek enige redelike man sou die verstand gehad het en die opdrag gegee het om daardie

gewondes, na hulle om te sien of heelwaarskynlik vir-hulle

afvoer te reel sodat hulle mediese behandeling kan kry. Al is (20) dit deur ons eie mediese uitrusting. Ek dink ek het 'n reg daartoe om daardie mense te help en om in sy woning in te gaan en dan te kyk of hy nie seergekry het of gewond is nie.

The information we have is this is that after your troops had completed the operation there were approximately 100 injured people. Now the injuries that these people sustained are not consistent with the heavy handed behaviour that you described on the last occastion. The injuries these people sustained included broken arms and broken legs, severe bruising over the faces, a number of females were raped. Your soldiers (30)

never/...

-3^°° HERMANSEN

never did that, is that your evidence? — Yes.

Of ^11 the people and let me refer to you as a officer of the law, because I think first and foremost you are there to uphold the law. Of all the people you would be one of those people who would know whether or not in the search or in the operation or whatever word you want to use to describe it, you would know whether your soldiers came upon any injured people, am I correct? — Correct.

Did they come upon any injured people? — No.

Can you give an explanation to this commission how it is (10) that shortly after your operation so many people with such

severe injuries presented themselves at the nearby hospitals and clinics? — Ek kan dit nie verklaar nie.

I do not think that is good enough.

MR ROUX: If I may interrupt. I think my learned friend can be more specific on "shortly after", because we all know that there is a dispute timewise. What does he mean when he says "shortly after"?

— JOSEPH: Within the next 24 hours. 24 Hours after your

operation scores of people presented themselves at the local (20) clinics and hospital for assitance. Can you give an explanation for that? — Ek kan nie daarvan 'n verklaring gee nie, ek kan dit nie verklaar nie.

Who should we ask? — That is your problem.

That is a facetious answer. I am looking to you for a proper answer, who should we ask? You were the officer in command there. — Ek kan nie die man se vraag so beantwoord m e . Ek het reeds my antwoord gegee en ek voistaan daarby.

Do you agree, with me that your soldiers, and listen to my question carefully, had the opportunity and the wherewithal to (30)

inflict/__

C 279.0822T*'°K°z* 3969 HERMANSEN

inflict injuries on the residents? -- Tydens my vee-operasie of tydens die opstelling het ek reeds getuig dat daar wel in

daardie omstandighede mense aangerand is, soos wat ons Woensdag dit besluit het, maar daar was wel geleentheid gewees daarvoor. Die tyd kon miskien dit toegelaat het dat daar geleentheid was, maar ek het nie barbare, ek het opgeleide ntense, hoekom sal my mense so iets doen, ek se, nee.

Today you talk about "aanrandings", who assaulted whom?

Ek dink ons het Woensdag deur hierdie aanrandingoefeninkie gegaan.

I think I had invite you to answer the question. Today you talk about ...(intervenes)

MR^ROUX: I think he referred to "as decided on Wednesday." There were a certain problem with the concept assault and he at a stage asked you specifically to assist him to say what must I say, what word must I use now. Do I use "assault" or

I use "hardhandige optrede."

MR JOSEPH: Let us have a look at it. Where a soldier strikesa citizen with a clenched fist are we calling that today an

aanranaing" of is dit 'n "hardhandige optrede?" — Ek dink indaardie omstandighede wat my troepe was, onder daardie

spesifieke omstandighede Woensdagaand, was dit hardhandige optrede gewees.

VOORSITTER: Dit was nie aanranding gewees nie? — Nee, ek saldit nie so klassifiseer nie, ek wil dit nie so klassifiseer nie.

MR JOSEPH: Tell us then what assaults, what "aanrandings" you had in mind moments ago when you used that word? — Ek het daardie woord gebruik omdat ons dit nou uitgeklaar het Woensdag en u aan my verduidelik het van die vingerpunt teen iemand se (;

bors/—

C279.0921THOKOZA 3 9 7 0 HERMAHSEK

bors, dat dit ook aanranding is. So ek het dit in daardie konteks gebruik, daardie woord. Dit is al. Mnr. Joseph glo ek nie moet my nou uitbuit daaroor nie, maar ek volstaan nog steeds by die feit dat onder daardie omstandighede wat my troepe was dat dit hardhandige optredes was, dit was nie aanranding nie.

But I am reminded you still have not answered the question and it is just a yes or a no answer, nothing more than that.Did your troops have the opportunity and the wherewithal to assault the residents. _

mjROUX: If he can be specific, does he refer to the "assault" used in the legal terms or the "assault" used by the captain, because that would again cause confusion and we would spend 20 minutes on this subject again.

MR JOSEPH: Let me put it to you this way. If force is brought to bear by one individual on another individual which results in the victim sustaining a broken arm, that is an assault. If a soldier strikes a person in the face, that is an assault.

If a soldier uses the butt of his rifle and strikes a person,

that is an assault. If a soldier rapes a female, it is an (20) assault. If a soldier fires at a house and the bullet penetrates, I beg your pardon, if a soldier fires at a shack and the bullet penetrates the shack and strikes a person inside the shack that is an assault, do you understand? — No.

You do not understand. -- Ek stem nie met mnr. Joseph saam as hy vir my, soos die getuienis wat ek gelewer het, waar daardie persoon met die vuis in die gesig geslaan is onder omstandighede, onder omstandighede, dink . ek nie dit is aanranding nie.

Let us, I do not want to get involved in this. It seems (30)

to/...

3971 HERMANSEN

C279.10K3Tl!OKOZA 1Q*7739'2 HERMANSEN

to me quite remarkable that a captain in an army can have thedifficulty in understanding and using the word "assault", butI am not going to cross swords with you again on that, exceptmy definition of "assault", it might be wrong, that if asoldier strikes a person in the face with a fist that is anassault. If a soldier rapes a female, that is an assault. Ifa soldier takes the butt of his rifle and hit somebody that isan assault. I see my learned friend wants to ...(intervenes)MR _ROUX: I think it is causing confusion. With the greatestof respects, I always understood assault to consist out ofcertain elements, including mens rea. including the lack of

classification. For instance if I act.in self-defence and Ihit you in the face, that can never be assault in legal terms.Because what is lacking is one of the elements of the crime"assault". So that is confusing the witness. Can't we inorder to solve this problem use the word "caused injuries" orso and we all know what we talk about and he can then make

reference to rapes, he can make reference to whatever he wantsto do. He is free to do that in cross-examination. But, tosit now again on the same concept and to say to the witnessthat those examples used by him are equal to assault is notright, that is in law not right. That is not correct.

MR JOSEPH: I am greatly indebted to my learned friend. Areyou happy with my learned friend's formulation? Okay, let us go over it again.

— ORSITTER: "°^t nie net knik nie, maar vir die rekorddoel- eindes se ja of nee. Wat is u antwoord? -- Ja.

MR JOSEPH: Did your soldiers have the opportunity and the wherewithal to cause injuries to the residents in the form of broken bones, bruising to the face, rapes, bullet holes in (

people/—

CZ79.U69

people, did they have the wherewithal and the opportunity? —No, the did not.

That is not an honest answer you know. Let me say this to you as well, they manifestly had the opportunity, because they happen to be human beings, adult males, armed with rifles. So they have the wherewithal in the form of their fists and their

boots and their fire arms, correct to give an injury to a person? — Tydens so 'n vee-operasie is daar maar die strengste beheer. Ek het in my pelotons en organisatories is die pelotons uiteengesit in verskeie tipe leiergroepe en leier- (10) elemente, tot op seksievlak. Dit gaan baie moeilik wees om dit wat mnr. Joseph nou gese het van die verkragtings en die beenbreuke en al daardie om dit onder daardie omstandighede nog steeds te doen.

The question is not whether or not the soldiers injured the residents. The question is whether firstly they had the

opportunity. Now did they have the opportunity? — No, they did not.

You see this is the difficulty I have with your answer.

Opportunity - to have the "opportunity" to do something to (20) somebody means you must be there, present at a particular time and at a particular venue, that is the opportunity to do injury. So were your troups there? — Yes, they were.

Then they had the opportunity. — No, they did not.Why not? — Because there - dit is weer eens my

leierelemente is saam met hulle en by hulle en beheer daardie mense. So hulle het nie die geleentheid gehad om dit te doen nie.

I am sure you have no difficulty in understanding my question. (3 0,

MR ROUX:/...

THOKOZA 3973 HERMANSEN

MR ROUX: I have a difficulty, I am sorry to interrupt again, but do I have the opportunity to assault you right now. That is the type of thing that we are aiming at. I am here,

therefore I have the opportunity. I think they are crossing purposes.

CHAIRMAN: Mr Joseph, counsel for the South African Defence Force says the mere presence at a particular place does not constitute opportunity to commit an assault.

MR— JOSEPH: Well, I am not going to, subject of cours to a

direction from you and the other members of your panel, I do (10) not think it is very constructive for me to put to a witness ^ Proposition which is so manifestly correct for the witness to deny it on the basis that the soldiers are trained so well and their leaders are such good leaders for me to carry on on this basis. Mr Chairman, you and your colleagues will be able to draw the inferences from the answers that are given. Now leu me just tell you what I am going to suggest to the commission about your evidence is that where a person in a position like you denies the obvious, evades questions an

inference can be drawn about your credibility, namely that you (20) are not being perfectly frank. Now I say that to you to give you the opportunity and I put the question the last time: did your troops have the opportunity and the wherewithal, and I am not talking about whether they are well trained or they are not trained, whether they behave like gentlemen or they do not behave like gentlemen, did they have the opportunity and where­withal to cause injury to the residents of Pholapark? -- Mnr.Joseph het so pas gese hy moet nou weer die vraag aan my stel, maar dit is nie die vraag wat hy nou-nou aan my gestel het nie.Die vraag wat hy so 'n tydjie gelede aan my gestel het was: (30)

het/...

C 279.12S3THOKOZA 3 9 7 4 HERMANSF?*

het my troepe die geleentheid gehad om die vrouens te verkrag, mense se arms te breek, se bene te breek, te skop. Hulle het nie daardie geleentheid gehad om dit te doen nie. Wat wel gebeur het is onder omstandighede waarin my troepe die klap en die vuishou in die gesig toegedien het aan die inwoners van Pholapark, daar, dit was so gewees. Of hulle nou die geleentheid gehad het of nie, dit is wat gebeur het, dit is die getuienis wat ek afle en dit is my antwoord.

So according to you under no circumstances would your troops ever commit any wrong on a citizen or a civilian they HO) came across. They would never ever do anything wrong, your troops, is that correct? -- Die term "wrong" wat hy hier gebruik, ons gaan weer alles van voor af moet herhaal. Kan mnr. Joseph meer spesifiek wees.

Your evidence is that your troops would never ever injure people unjustified, without any justification? — That is right.

Is that correct? — That is correct.

And you say that because? -- Becaus there wasn't the -

daar was nie n geleentheid daarvoor nie, daar was beheer (20) gewees. My troepe is nie barbare nie.

You talk about there was control. You mentioned there -were 60 troops, how many officers were there? — Three.

Let us not go to the cinema, would you concede that it can happen that one or two or three or four troops, taking into account the cover of darkness, the nature of the shacks, could it happen that two or three or four troops were able to do something, whatever it was, without one of the three officers seeing what they were doing? -- Dit is hoogsonwaarskynlik, want ek het dan nog nege onder-offisiere wat ook nog daar is vir (30)

beheer/...

C279.1343THOKOZA 3975 HERMANSEN

beheer.

So what have we got, 60 troops, three officers and nine "onder-offisiere" is that what we have now? — Correct.

So it is 72 troops we have now, 72 soldiers, is that correct? — Ons gebruik hierdie terme "troepe" het ons Woensdag

_ ooreengekom. Hy het vir my gevra: "How must I refer to your people?" Toe se ek vir horn as "troops". So as ons praat van troepe praat ons in die globaal almal wat daar was in Pholapark.

So what is it, everybody who was there? Does a troop (10) include an officer? — Under the, onder hierdie omstandighed, ja. Ons gebruik maak van troepe, anders moet ons offisiere, onder-offisiere ...(intervenes)

Just give us a breakdown of the, it is the three officers,

nine other, how do you refer to them, "onder-offisiere"? —

NCO's.

NCO's, non-commissioned officers. — Correct.And how many troops? — And the rest are all troops.And the rest all troops. Your evidence then before the

commission is this, is that under the cover of darkness a (20) densely - let me rephrase it, you have the cover of darkness and you have shacks constructed in a haphazard manner, very close, one to the other. There was never a time that anyone of the troops was out of the sight of an officer or a non­commissioned officer, that is your evidence, is that it? —Nee, ek kan nie dit getuig nie, ek kan dit nie se nie.

That is what I thought you were saying all along. Now let us take into account that that could happen. What then would, stop one or more of these troops who was not being watched by an officer, what would stop them or what would prevent them (30)

from/...

C279.1446niOKOZA 3976 HERMANSEN

from assaulting a resident? — Omdat ek 'n geoefende mag het en my troepe gedissiplineerd is, dit sal hulle stop, hulle sal dit nie so doen nie.

Dit is self-dissipline? -- Korrek en "discipline, army discipline."

I mentioned it to you the last time we appeared before this commission. Why then does the army have its own military

police if the troops are so well disciplined that they do no wrong, why? — Militere polisie is daar om verskeie redes. Hulle is nie net daar vir dissiplinere redes nie. Hulle kan (10) ander take verrig in n oorlogsituasie. Hulle is daar vir verskeie ondersoeke. Hulle is nie daar om spesifiek misdaad te bekamp nie, anders sou hulle nou daar in Pholapark ingegaan het.

But, is it not true that the army itself has its own Court Marshalls where they deal with their own soldiers who have committed offences like assault, doesn't this happen in the army? — Yes, it does.

And has it never happened with the 32nd Battalion that one

of your men have put a foot out of line? — Nee, daar is wel (20) troepe wat al verhoor is daarvoor.

What type of misbehaviour, assaults? — Ek dink ons is van die punt af, regtig waar.

We are not leaving the point, because one of the first things I asked you when you came to give evidence was your attitude towards this commission, whether you are going to co­operate fully and I am going to submit to this commission that your evidence today has been particularly unfortunate in the sense that you are not co-operating. It is clear, it is human

experience that soldiers who are human beings are capable of (30)

doing/...

C279.154!n tO K O Z A 397 7 HERMANSEN

Collection Number: AK2702 Goldstone Commission of Enquiry into PHOLA PARK Records 1992-1993 PUBLISHER: Publisher:-Historical Papers, University of the Witwatersrand Location:-Johannesburg ©2012

LEGAL NOTICES:

Copyright Notice: All materials on the Historical Papers website are protected by South African copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, or otherwise published in any format, without the prior written permission of the copyright owner.

Disclaimer and Terms of Use: Provided that you maintain all copyright and other notices contained therein, you may download material (one machine readable copy and one print copy per page) for your personal and/or educational non-commercial use only.

People using these records relating to the archives of Historical Papers, The Library, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, are reminded that such records sometimes contain material which is uncorroborated, inaccurate, distorted or untrue. While these digital records are true facsimiles of the collection records and the information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be accurate and reliable, Historical Papers, University of the Witwatersrand has not independently verified their content. Consequently, the University is not responsible for any errors or omissions and excludes any and all liability for any errors in or omissions from the information on the website or any related information on third party websites accessible from this website.

This document is part of a private collection deposited with Historical Papers at The University of the Witwatersrand by the Church of the Province of South Africa.