probeer hierso om te hoor wat se die advokaat daar asseblief en as u besware het, dan moet u vir mnr. Roux se maak beswaar

Transcription

1 K276^ HERMANSON probeer hierso om te hoor wat se die advokaat daar asseblief en as u besware het, dan moet u vir mnr. Roux se maak beswaar oor daardie tipe vraag, maar moenie mompel daar en geraas maak, asseblief. Let us get clarity on that. What were you saying Mr Joseph? MR JOSEPH: I am asking the captain, we were on his previous evidence where he justifies the search of specific houses based on specific information that there might be presence of firearms. How does he now justify an order, authorising and directing his troops to search houses at random about specific (10) information with regard to the presence of a fire-arm. How do you justify that? Dit is vir my baie belangrik om die gemeenskap ook te beskerm. Ek is nie net daar om sulke optredes soos wat die insident in Phola Park was enekhelp ook die gemeenskap in sekere opsigte en om die gemeenskap te help is daar op sekere plekke, daar waar die vuur gekonsentreer was, is daar op sekere plekke wat ek gekonsentreer het om te gaan kyk, het my troepe gaan kyk binne-in daar wonings of daar nie beseerdes is nie. So ek het ook daardie verpligting teenoor die gemeenskap, as dit mnr. Joseph se vraag dan sal beantwoord. (20) You know that it is not an answer, now please attempt to answer the guestion? Dit is my antwoord. How do you justify, in view of your previous evidence relating to specific information in regard to specific huts, how do you know justify an order authorising your troops to search huts at ransom? Kan daardie vraag in Afrikaans gestel word asseblief? Op watter basis is u geregtig om 'n bevel te gee aan jou troepe om enige huis in die gebied te visenteer, as ons in ag neem dat u het geen inligting in verband met die (30) teenwoordigheid /...

2 K27&23 TOKOZA 3909 HERMANSON teenwoordigheid in 'n spesifieke hut van 'n vuurwapen? My antwoord is, alle huise is nie gevisenteer nie. Please answer the question and remember your own evidence. -- Dit is my antwoord, al die huise is nie... (tussenbei) Your evidence has been that you gave a general order at 21:30 to your troops to search houses at random. -- Dit was nie my antwoord gewees nie, dit is nie hoe ek geantwoord het nie. VOORSITTER: gewees nie. Ja, praat net hardop. -- Dit was nie my antwoord Ek het nie opdrag gegee om huise "at random" te deursoek nie enditwasooknie 'n algemene opdrag nie, dit was (10) 'n direkte opdrag om 'n deursoeking van stapel te stuur. Dit was die opdrag gewees. MNR^ JOSEPH: Deursoeking van wat? Deursoeking van die gebied. But we have been through all of this, that "die gebied", includes the huts and "die plekke" includes the huts and your order was to search "die gebied", which means search the huts. We have been through this already. Dit is so, wat hy se is waar, maar hy laat my opdrag, my volledige opdrag gerieflik- heidshalwe, ek weet nie, uit in sy stellings wat hy maak. My (20) opdrag was om die gebied te deursoek vir gewondes en vir die moontlike opsporing van ammunisie en vuurwapens. Which includes searching huts, is that correct? Omdie gebied te deursoek vir gewondes, moet hulle in die wonings ingaan, maar hulle gaan niedaar indie wonings in waar dit dan + gesluit is nie, as daar nie spesifieke informasie is aangaande wapens en ammunisie nie. Tell me captain, from your information, how many huts were entered into by your troops? Soos wat ek reeds gese het, die vraag is moeilik om te beantwoord, ek was nie daar nie. (30) Did /

3 K27& HERMANSON Did you not ask your troops? Dit was vir die troepe ook seker moeilik, sou ook moeilik gewees het om daardie vraag vir my te beantwoord. Hulle kan nie onthou of dit drie of vier, of dalk een of dalk geen, elke troep kan nie spesifiek onthou in hoeveel wonings hy in was nie. You see, the information we have is that your troops entered many, many huts and assaulted many, many people, raped and caused the death of people. What do you say about that? Ek het dit, daardie bewerings het ek in die koerant gelees. ^ Soos ek weer se, ek was nie op die grond om dit waar te neem (10) nie. Ek kon geen gewondes, of dooies, of verkragtes, of beseerdes tydens my deursoeking kon ek opspoor nie. You personally? Nee, my troepe. Hulle was op die grond en my leierelemente. And the doctors at the Natalspruit Hospital who treated these injured people, this never happened? Ek ontken dit glad nie. Ek het nie insae in die mediese verslae nie, ek % ontken dit glad nie. Well, I a& putting it to you, that will be the evidence. There will be medical reports relating to injuries sustained (20) by residents of Phola Park who allege that your troops caused the injuries. Now, what do you say about that? MR R O U X : I am sorry Mr Chairman, does he say that the medical evidence say that the members of 32 Battalion caused the injuries? MR J O S E P H : I certainly do not have to answer that guestion. MR R O U X : CHAIRMAN: MR R O U X : Well, that is the question, that is important. Is that the question? He can play it back on the tape and I think otherwise he must... (intervenes) MR /...

4 K27&29 TTOKOZA 3911 H E R M A N S O N MR JOSEPH: How can it possibly, the medical report say that the troops... (intervenes) MR ROUX: MR. JOSEPH: That is what he stated, that is why I am surprised What I am putting to you is that the medical evidence will be that many residents were injured and the evidence of the injured will be that they were injured by the troops. It certainly did not require clarification, even if there was a slip of the tongue on my part. Now what do you say about that? -- Repeat your question please? The evidence will be that many people were injured, some HO) severly and some less severely and their evidence will be that in the main, or as a general proposition, your troops committed the injuries by entering their shacks and perpetrating acts of violence there. What do you say about that? My antwoord is tweeledig. Dat daar hardhandig opgetree was teenoor sekere inwoners van Phola Park is seker so. Die getal wat ek lees in die koerante wat by die dokters aangemeld het, ek weet nie, daardie getal volgens my leierelemente was net nie daar op die grond in Phola Park tydens my deursoekoperasie nie. Daar was min mense daar gewees in daardie gebied van Phola Park. Ek (20) weet nie wat om op daardie vraag te antwoord nie. Dit is net vir my snaaks dat die mense ontruim is uit daardie gebied uit, of weggehardloop het, of gevra is om die gebied te verlaat. Daar was net nie so baie mense in Phola Park gewees soos wat hulle se is beseer nie, maar die feit dat my mense die inwoners hardhandig behandel het,, ontken ek nie. So you admit that your troops assaulted residents of Phola Park? Die woord "assaulted" wat hy gebruik het ontken ek. Dit is, my troepe het die inwoners van Phola Park hardhandig hanteer en ek dink daar is 'n duidelike verskil tussen die (30) twee. /...

5 K 2763) TO" ZA 3912 HERMANSOH twee. Yes, you are quite right. There is a big difference between heavy handed behaviour and assaulting. Now you describe what heavy handed behaviour is. Ek sien dit as volg. Die hardhandige hantering van 'n persoon, is as jy hom aan sy klere ruk, miskien 'n klap of twee teen sy kop gee, of teen sy lyf, of hom miskien met 'n gebalde vuis in die gesig slaan een keer of twee keer, hom uit die pad uit ruk. Ek beskou dit as hardhandige optrede en dit het so gebeur ook. Ek dink aanranding is meer waar jy die persoon slaan enhydalk HO) val en jy hom dalk skop, of miskien met 'n voorwerp teen sy lyf slaan, of teen sy kop slaan, sy bene slaan, ekdink dit is meer aanranding in 'n ernstige graad, om 'n ou ernstig te beseer, maar hardhandige optrede is nie die doel om ernstig te beseer nie. I just do not understand how you as a captain in the army can say that as a soldaat iemand met 'n gebalde vuis slaan in die gesig, dit is nie aanranding nie? VOORSITTER: Is dit wat u se kaptein? Ja. M R J O SEPH: Is dit nie aanranding nie? Ek glo nie een hou (20) met n gebalde vuis kan 'n mens so ernstig beseer nie. Why do you not answer the question? Dit ismy antwoord. That is not an answer. Every single day in the magistrate's court throughout this country, people are accused of assaulting and the method they assault, they used to * assault, is to hit somebody in the face with a fist. You went to school in South Africa and Afrikaans is your home language. Now -what are you hiding by not admitting that for a soldier to hit a person over the head with an open hand, for a soldier to hit a person in the face with a clenched fist is an assault and (30) the /...

6 K27& HERMANSON the Afrikaans word for "assault" is "aanranding". Now please be forthcoming with that admission. Ek het my antwoord gegee en ek bly by daardie beslissing en by daardie antwoord. VOORSITTER: Ja, kom ons net duidelikheid kry. Meen u dat in 'n situasie soos daardie, as u 'nklap kan toedien in my gesig is dit nie aanranding nie? Nee, ek glo nie dit is, nee, dit is nie aanranding nie. Dit is nie aanranding nie en as u my met 'n gebalde vuis op my ken kan slaan, dit is nie aanranding nie? -- Nee. En as u in u diensstewels my met daardie geskoende voet kan skop, is dit nie aanranding nie, se u so nie? -- Ek dink dit is aanranding. Ek sal dit klassifiseer as aanranding. 0, geskoende voet is aanranding? Ek dink so. Dit is as 'n ou, as 'n mens iemand anders skop, die kans dat jy sy ribbes gaan afskop of ernstig beseer is goed en ek beskou dit as ernstig. Uhet alreeds toegegee dat u is nie soau fait met die reg nie, nie waar nie? Korrek. Weet u dat volgens ons reg as ek u met my vt.nger kan so stoot is dit aanranding, weet u dit? Nee. Gaan voort asseblief. MR JOSEPH: That you sir. CHAIRMAN: Well, let us leave it just there. It is 13:00 and while we are talking about "aanranding" and its definition at Roman Dutch Law and for the ordinary man, we should go and something to eat for lunch. MR PRETORIUS: Perhaps if I could just at this point excuse myself. I am not available for the rest of the day and I would wish to reserve my cross-examination on behalf of the Minister of Defence. I have canvassed with you my availability this week /...

7 K276J5 TOKOZA 3914 HERM-.NSON week, it was quite fortuitous that I could be here this morning, but this afternoon I am not. I would just please place on record that I reserve my right to recall the witness if need be for cross-examination. CHAIRMAN: Yes, you will get your chance on Monday. We are going to sit at 12:00 on Monday. COMMISSION ADJOURNS FOR LUNCH. COMMISSION RESUMES. MARK HERMANSON (still under oath): VOORSITTER: u is nog steeds onder eed. Toe die Komitee verdaag het, het ons oor aanranding gepraat, is dit w a a r?_(10) Dit is reg. As ek mag verder net duidelikheid kry van u af, ek het u gevra van 'n klap en 'n gebalde vuis en 'n geskoende voet en sulke dinge ne. Se nou in daardie situasie u is in besit van 'n knuppel en u gee my 'n knop op my kop deur daardie knuppel, jy slaan my op my kop daarmee. Is dit aanranding of nie? Ek klassifiseer dit as aanranding. Nou se nou u vat 'n sambok en jy looi my daarmee, wat is dit? Aanranding. Aanranding, se nou jy vat nou die geweer wat jy het, jou (20) diensgeweer en jy slaan my daarmee met die "butt", wat noem jy die "butt" -- Kolf. Ja, die kolf, wat is dit? Aanranding. -Proceed please Mr Joseph. MR JOSEPH: ^Before I continue directing questions at the * captain, with regard to the future witnesses to be called, you will recall that we had a meeting on Monday after the sitting of the enquiry, after it was postponed and it was agreed that in so far as the specific incidents of assault were concerned, that my clients would restrict the evidence to the furnishing (30)

8 K276J HFRMANSON of formal evidence in the form of medical reports. Now, subject of course to your permission and your direction and your control of the proceedings, we would like to advise that it is our intention not to restrict the evidence to that type of formal evidence, but to bring before this Commission actual oral evidence, testimony of people who have been assaulted. We do not intend to call 101 people, but we intend, subject of course to your permission, to lead the oral testimony of witnesses who have been assaulted. That is the type of evidence we would like to tender, we would like to make that (10) note at this stage so as not to take anybody by surprise. Of course it is all subject to your direction and your approval. CHAIRMAN: MR JOSEPH: How many of these witnesses do you intend bringing? We have in mind about five witnesses. CHAIRMAN: Why five? It is a random sample? MR_JOSEPH: You see the difficulty with the mere presentation of medical legal reports, is that the medical report tells no more than the observation of the doctor. For a proper finding where there has been misconduct, the mere fact that a person has suffered an injury, that injury could be consistent with (20) a perfectly lawful conduct, for example resisting arrest, or attempting to assault a person and then acting within the bounds of self defence, the person in jeopardy resorts to some type of violence to protect themselves. Now if that is done in a situation which is lawful, in other words that the bounds of self defence have not been exceeded and no misconduct car], be found, so the mere fact that a person has suffered a particular injury in itself does not, in my respectful view, does not amount to evidence that is sufficient to make a finding. But I mention that now, as I do not want to, and I (30) think /...

9 K ^ * ^ 3916 HERMANSOr think I should, so you know w h a t (intervenes) CHAIRMAN: Yes, I see you are giving notification of that, that you are going to produce such witnesses. I would suggest to everyone present here that we take notice of Mr Joseph's notification and reserve it for let us say Monday, or whichever day next week and I shall hear submissions and argument on that whether it is really desirable to do that. We might find a way out where there is a meeting of the minds between the respective counsel and a lot of waffle(?) can be cut out and we remain with the pith of what we want to deal with here, so (10) for now let us leave it in abeyance, but we merely take note of your noticification. Proceed please. MR, JOSEPH: Captain, we dealt with the assault, or what consitutes and assault. Let me ask you this, why, why were these nine soldiers, to use your language, heavy handed? Did they give an explanation why were they heavy handed? Dit was soms nodig om so op te tree omdat daar van die inwoners probeer weghardloop het tydens ons deursoekpoging. Hy het probeer ontsnap, dit het kommer gewek en hy is dan teruggeroep en hy het nie aan ons opdragte, enigsins gehoorsaam nie en ons het (20) hom toe op daardie manier aan sy klere geruk en hom hardhandig hanteer om hom weer terug te kry by sy woning. I see, so not only did you invade the privacy of the humble home, but you also gave orders to arrest residents as well? The soldiers were instructed by you to arrest people as well^ Dit is nie waar nie. Ek het nie opdragte gegee om mense te arresteer nie. They did them themselves? Dit is die beslissing van die pelotonbevelvoerder op die grond as hy dink dat dit uiters noodsaaklik is, as dit nodig is om 'n persoon te arresteer, (30) sal / --

10 nie /... K27&43 TOKOZA TQ1*7-3^'' HERMANSON sal hy 'n persoon arresteer. When it was disclosed to you by, I take it these were the nine soldiers you have named previously, is those nine soldiers who were heavy handed? Dit is reg. And in what way were they heavy handed? Ek het al hierdie vraag beantwoord. Ek het gese hulle het die inwoners aan die klere gegryp, hulle het hulle 'n klap gegee, hulle het hulle met die vuis geslaan, hulle in plekke ingedwing deur middel van 'n bietjie geweld en dit is my antwoord. Now let us just try and picture it. Can you remember any HO) specific incidents where you can give details of the circumstances, specific circumstances, not a generalised statement that you made, a specific circumstance of any heavy handeaness? Soos ek ook alreeds gese het, ek was nie op die grond nie. Ek kan nie presies in detail hierdie Raad of Komitee voorlig wat presies gebeur het nie. VOORSITTER: Dit is die probleem wat ek het met daardie tipe stelling kaptein Hermanson. U sien in hierdie geval blykbaar u het twee hoedanighede gehad. Die een hoedanigheid is van die an wat nie ter plaatse gewees he& daar nie. U was nie in (20) daardie gebied nie. gegee het u weet. Die ander een is van 'n man wat bevele Nou dit klink vir my as dit u pas, u kan i n antwoord gee as dit u pas, soos jy se jy het opdrag gegee dat hulle moet die gebied fynkam, nie waar nie? Maar nou word jy gevra hoeveel hutte was deurgesoek, dan se u nie almal van * hulle was deursoek, nie waar nie? Nou hoe -weet jy dat nie almal van hulle was deursoek, indien jy nie daar gewees het m e? u sien hierdie twee dubbelsinnige hoedanighede pla my 'n* bietjie, want in sekere gevalle gee jy antwoorde asof jy ter plaatse was, maar in ander gevalle se jy nee, nee, nee, ek was (30)

11 miskien /... K TOKOZA *3[Q1R ^ - HERMANSON nie daar nie, ek weet nie. Dit pla my 'n bietjie en dit het my vroeer gepla ook voor middagete. As ek u mag vra byvoorbeeld, u het gese vroeer, u het gese nie al die hutte was deursoek nie. Nou hoe weet u dit indien u nie daar gewees het nie? Ek probeer hierdie vrae beantwoord na die beste van my vermoe en as daar 'n logiese afleiding gemaak kan word, dan wil ek dit graag so aan die komitee lig en onder u aandag bring. Daar is plus-minus 5 0 0, 600 huise ter sprake op hierdie stadium en dit is onmoontlik vir my en vir my troepe om daardie huise te deursoek in 'n uur se tyd, of in 'n uur-en-'n-half, die tyd (10) wat ek nou opgegee het. Ek wil graag eerlik wees omdat ek onder eed is en as daar logiese afleidings is, glo ek ek is geregtig om... (tussenbei) So dit is 'n afleiding? Korrek. Goed, jammer. Can you proceed please? MR JOSEPH: Now we know that you were not present and we know that you interrogated your soldiers under your command. Let us take one of them and when I mention his name you will appreciate why I remember, it is Corporal Joseph. Corporal Joseph told you that he was heavy handed. What were the (20) circumstances of his behaviour? Hardhandige optrede was ter sprake by korporaal Joseph. Die presiese aard van die hardhandige optredes en spesifiek by korporaal Joseph, is vir my moeilik om te se, omdat daar baie insidenteplaasgevind het. Die nege troepe het wel spesifieke insidente, hardhandige optredes het hulle wel verrig. Ek ontken dit onder geen omstandighede nie. Korporaal Joseph kon dalk 'n persoongeklap het. Korporaal Joseph is 'n leier, hy is 'n korporaal, hy het n radio by hom, so hy het 'n beheerfunksie ook en dat korporaal Joseph daar nou gestaan het en 'n persoon nou (30)

12 K276J1 TOKOZA HC-c) HERMANSON miskien aangerand het en met die doel om ernstig te beseer, betwyfel ek. Korporaal Joseph het erken dat hy mense hardhandig gehanteer het. Mense, a number of people? Wei, 'n persoon (tussenbei) You can take it back, you can change your evidence if you want, Corporal Joseph admitted to you that he was heavy handed with a number of people, is that your evidence? -- Kan ek dit wysig na 'n persoon asseblief, ek het nou myself verspreek. VOORSITTER. Ja, dit staan u vry om dit te wysig. Die advokaat (10) het alreeds gese jy kan verander as jy wil. -- Dankie, thank you Mr Joseph. MR JOSEPH: Yes, now the reason why you are changing it is not because Corporal Joseph did not tell you that he had assaulted a number of people, because you will not be able to give an explanation. Now did he tell you that he was heavy handed with one person, or he was heavy handed with a number of people? Forget about the fact that you have changed your evidence, recall what he said? Korporaal Joseph het gese hy was hardhandig met 'n persoon. (20) So did you say why and what were the circumstances? -- Hierdie spesifieke persoon wou weghardloop, hy wou ontsnap, hy het pogings aangewend om te ontsnap en hy het hom teruggeruk in die plek in waar hy hoort en vir hom gese moenie weghardloop m e, jy het nie nodig om weg te hardloop nie. So he was actually in a hut with this person and this person tried to run out of the hut, is that correct? -- That is correct. And Corporal would have gone into the hut as a corporal, a leader of a number of men, he would have gone in with three (30) or /...

13 K276J2 "ToxozA 2P2o HERMANSON or four other soldiers, correct? Dit is nie noodwendig die waarheid nie. Well, what was the truth, how did it happen? -- Weer eens, dit is vir my moeilik om te se hoeveel mense het in daardie spesifieke woning ingegaan. Regtigwaar, dit is 'n vraag wat moeilik is wat ek nie kan antwoord nie. But let me try and assist you and I have never been a soldier. The corporal was in charge of how many men when he went out on this patrol? He was in charge of ten men. And let us try and imagine the size of a sguatter hut, (10) what size would that be? Half the area of the space in between? I would say about three guarters of that. About three guarters and so corporal Joseph would lead at the door outside. How many men outside the hut, how many men 'would be outside the hut? -- Ons dril is, die gebruik is dat ons ten minste een wag by die hek los ter beskerming. VpORSITTER: By die hek of by die deur? By die deur van die... (tussenbei) MR JOSEPH: You see captain, you know the chairman put questions to you. He said to you that the difficulty he has (20) with your evidence is that you were not present and then you were quick to admit that and then to tell the chairman that you make logical inferences and one of the logical inferences is that you can not see how 60 men in a matter of an hour can search thousands of houses, correct? Correct. Now use those powers and tell the chairman what "die praktyk is, what the practice is of ten soldiers who go into a hut this size to search the hut? Close your eyes and tell the chairman the factors? Never forget we go in over there armed, healthy, strong men, armed into a hut. Now tell me (30) the /...

14 Dit /... K277J TOKOZA HERMANSON Tnnthe practice. -- Die vraag is vir my bietjie onduidelik. Wil hy weet wat is ons optrede in so 'n hut, of so 'n woning, of wil hy nou die hele militere doktrine nou graag he wat dit voorskryf om so 'n hut te deursoek? Give us the first hypothesis of the, the first set of circumstances? -- Ek wil net weer eens stres om my antwoord te begin dat dit, mnr. Joseph gaan nou aan asof al die huise deursoek is. Daar is slegs in die huise, tydens die deursoek m g is daar in huise gekyk vir gewondes om my opdrag uit te voer, slegs gekyk, nie deursoek nie. Aan die anderkant is daar (10) informasie ontvang en hierdie huise is deursoek. het netnou vir my gevra hoe waarsku ons die mense? aan hom verduidelik hoe ons die mense waarsku. Mnr. Joseph Ek het dit Ons het die huise deursoek waar ons informasie gekry het aangaande vuurwapens. Die gebruik is dan daar om orals, daardie hele huis, onder die matrasse, in die mieliemeel, in blikke, in die mure van die, as daar 'n muur is van 'n woning, die sinkmuur is dalk bedek met 'n tipe van 'n hout, dan het ons agter daardie hout gekyk, want ons uit vorige ondervinding het wapens al daar uitgehaal agter daardie hout en onder die matte, orals (20) waar 'n moontlike bergplek is of 'n versteekplek van 'n wapen, daar kyk ons. VOORSITTER: Ja, ek kry die indruk dat die advokaat wil weet wie staan waar tydens daardie tipe operasie soos u nou verduidelik het? -- Goed, in 'n oppervlakte driekwart van die grootte van die binnekant van hierdie tafels, is daar slegs twee mense binnekant nodig en een buitekant wat waghou en miskien die inwoners dophou en wat dan dien as 'n skildwag. Ja, met ander woorde heel moontlik korporaal Joseph was met twee ander manne gewees by 'n sekere hut, nie waar nie? (30)

15 K2773 T^KOZA 3922 HERMANSON Dit is heel moontlik. Proceed please. MR JOSEPH: And the person in that hut tried to run away and corporal Joseph put out his hand and caught the man by his clothing, is that correct? Is that what Corporal Joseph told you? Ja, dit is korrek. And you described that as being heavy handed? Correct. Now how can that possibly be heavy handed? How can that possibly be heavy handed, restraining a man who is under arrest from running out of the hut by grabbing hold of his clothing? (10) Om 'n persoon te arresteer wat weghardloop, om hom te vang as hy weghardloop, ons sit met swaar uitrusting. Ons uitrusting wat ons het is swaar, die staaldak op ons koppe is swaar, die uitrusting binne-in ons sakke, van die uitrusting is swaar uitrusting, dit is waterbottels, twee liter waterbottles en een van hulle weeg twee kilogram. 'n persoon te probeer inhardloop is onmoontlik. Nou om so Jy kan net eenvoudig nie met daardie swaar stewels en daardie swaar uitrusting die persoon inhardloop nie en om hom te gryp dan sodra jy sien hy wil hardloop, of in die proses is om te (20) hardloop, om hom te gryp en hom dan nader te bring, is die mees logiese ding om te doen op daardie stadium. VPORSITTER: Reg, as eknou mag vra, hoeveel mense was daardie aand in hegtenis geneem deur sekere metodes toe te pas, hardhandig te ruk en terugbring voor hy weghardloop. Hoeveel mense was daar? Ons het geen mense gearresteer nie. A 1 het julle hulle hardhandig hanteer? Korrek, ons het niemand gearresteer nie. * Wat was die doel om hierdie mense hardhandig te hanteer? Dit is die term wat ek dan gebruik, is seker volgens u in (30) die /...

16 K277.4 T^OZA 3923 HERMANSON die regstelsel seker maar verkeerd, maar dit is my term wat ek gebruik om daardie persoon te vat enhom dan so te hanteer teen sy wil om hom by sy plek uit te kry en sodat hy nie moet weghardloop en nie enigsins verdag moet optree nie. Dit is my persepsie van die hardhandige hantering. Ek het nie 'n probleem met hardhandig hanteer nie, ek het n probleem met die doel. Wat is die mikpunt? Waarom moet hierdie mense hardhandig geruk word en by 'n sekere plek gehou word, waarom? Dit is net om hom te kry dat hy by sy sinne kan kom en dat hy kan verstaan hy moet hier bly en nie nou HO) tydens hierdie operasie weghardloop nie, of probeer wegkom van ons af nie. MR JOSEPH: You see my difficulty is you give with the one hand and you take with the other hand. By that I mean you admit the behaviour on the part of your troops, which is subject to some type of criticism by referring to the behaviour as being heavy handed, yet when you describe the activities or the action which you classified as being heavy handed, the activities and the actions of perfectly lawful and reasonable and even delicate. A soldier is in a hut, his authority to be there, (20) he is given information that there might be a fire-arm. He has announced his presence, he has announced the purpose of his visit and one of the people inside the hut tries to run out or run away and the soldier restrains him in the most delicate manner. He puts out his hand and catches hold of him. This is the nature of your evidence and that is what you regard as being heavy handed? That is right. And at the same time and forgive me, I do not intend to be personal whatsoever, but a captain in the South African Army under oath can tell a Commission like this that where a soldier (30) strikes /...

17 geen /... K277.B TOKOZA 3924 HERMANSON strikes a man with a clenched fist in the face, that is not an assault, that is being heavy handed and when a soldier is in the process of lawfully searching a house and somebody tries to escape, the soldier puts out his hand and grabs hold of the man s clothing, that is heavy handed. this is your evidence? Dit is reg. Is that the evidence, Ek glo nie ek is, my troepe as soldate het enigsins uit die raamwerk van die Suia- Afrikaanse Weermag opgetree om dit te doen nie. You see I want to tell you this, how does this type of description meet with your approval, or does it meet with your (10) approval? I understand that this incident at Phola Park was regarded as matter of such great importance, that it resulted in the Minister of Defence going to Phola Park, that the Minister of Defence had a meeting in regard to Phola Park, is that correct? -- That is correct. And what did the Minister say, on the information that was given to you? What did the Minister say at this meeting? How did he describe being the person to whom one can assume a proper and full report was made? How did he describe the behaviour of your officers? Ek verstaan nie mooi mnr. Joseph (20) se vraag nie. Om dit net duidelik te maak, ek was nie saam met die Minister in Phola Park nie. VOORSITTER: Was die Minister ooit in Phola Park? Korrek, hy was daar. MR JOSEPH: At a meeting, not at Phola Park. I understand the meeting took place at the World Trade Centre where Codesa sits. Ek dra nie kennis nie. You have no idea? Well subject to correction, I have that the Minister stated that the troops had over reacted, is that correct? Do you have any information about that? -- Ek het (30)

18 K277J HERMANSON geen informasie nie. Give us now another example of the heavy handed behaviour of the troops? Corporal Joseph put out his hand and he restrained a person under arrest who was fleeing. Now give us another example of the heavy handed behaviour of the troops? Ek het geen ander voorbeelde om nog te noem nie. Well then how on earth are you able to say to this Commission under oath that the nine soldiers acted in a heavy handed manner? Ek het reeds my voorbeelde genoem van die hardhandige optrede deurmy troepe. Ekhet vir hulle gese daar (10) is van die inwoners wat aan hulle klerasie gegryp is, daar is van die inwoners wat met die vuis geslaan is en daar is van die inwoners wat met plat hande geslaan is. Give us the name of any of the soldiers in your command who admitted that they hit a person with a fist? Ek kan nie spesifiek so 'n naam nou uitwys nie. Why not? I cannot do it. Ek was nie daar nie en alhoewel ek nie kan onthou nie, dit nie so vars in my geheue is van die naam en die insident en die naam en die insident bymekaar uit te bring nie. (20) But the nine soldiers confessed to you what they had done and having listened to their story, you came to the view that they were heavy handed. Now please tell the Commission about the incident or incidents related to you by anyone of the nine ^ officers other than Corporal Joseph, which resulted in you drawing "die logiese afleiding" that they acted in a heavy handed manner? -- Ek verstaan nie, ek is miskien dom. Kan u asseblief net vir my daardie stelling wat hy probeer maak en dit wat ek ook aan u gese het in ag neem asseblief. Y QORSITTER: Wat wat die advokaat verlang is dat byvoorbeeld (30) van /

19 KZ77.H ToxozA 3926 HERMANSCr van die nege name wat u gegee het, jy kan ons se dat skutter Zacharia, hy het skuld beken dat hy een van die mense daar in Phola Park met 'nhou geslaan het, 'n gebalde vuis geslaan het, dan het die advokaat mos u weet die omstandighede waarin die gebeur het. Goed. U het nege name hier gegee en ons weet wat het korporaal Joseph gedoen. Hy het 'n man gegryp u weet wat wou ontsnap het, maar wat van die agt mense? U sien u moet onthou dat in die begin van hierdie sitting was u gevra of u enige aantekemnge gemaak het van die interne ondersoek wat u gemaak (10) het en u moet onthou wat u antwoord was. U het gese u het nie aantekeninge gemaak nie, maar jy weet, jy ken jou manne en jy weet wat het ieder een van hulle gese aan u. Nou is dit tyd om dit te se, se vir die advokaat. -- Goed, die presiese aard van die insident is vir my moeilikom te se. Die insidente wat plaasgevind het, dit wat die troepe gese het kan ek onthou, die spesifieke wat hulle gedoen het kan ek onthou, of 'n klap, of met die vuis, maar die persone kan ek nie aan elke insident koppel nie. As ons miskien Maandag terugkom kan ek hierdie getuienis lewer, maar onder hierdie omstandighede kan ek nie (20) n insident aan elke spesifieke troep koppel nie. Dit is vir my moeilik en ek wil nie onder eed dit se nie. Ek wil nie dit graag onder eed doen en myself dan in 'n swak lig stel nie. Dit is vir my baie moeilik. MR JOSEPH: We will make it a lot easier. You do not have to koppel" any incident to a particular name. Just tell us of the incidents of the eight other people? The incidents they were involved in with due regard of it being heavy handed? -- Ek het die Kommissie daarop attent gemaak dat daar was optredes soos aan die inwoners se klere te gryp, daar was klappe, daar (30) was /...

20 off /... K HERMANSON was met gebalde vuiste geslaan. In what circumstance will a soldier hit a citizen with a fist? Weer eens, as die lid probeer ontsnap vanuit ons formasie uit, of van dit waarmee ons besig is, as hy daar probeer ontsnap gaan hy dan 'nklap kry. Hy gaan onder daardie omstandighede gaan hy dan 'n klap kry en horn te dwing en horn te dissiplineer om te luister vir onsen te wag totdat ons ding klaar is voordat hy nou kan doen wat hy wil en vry is om te doen wat hy wil. It could not be that the policeman demands from a person (10) who is living in a hut, demands that that person show to the soldier where a gun is and that person says I do not know anything about guns and that person then gets a "klap" from the soldier? That could not be a situation, could it? -- Dit kan ook 'n situasie wees. That could be. Was that told to you? No, it was not. Well then how can you make a concession like that? Ek dink dit is weer eens 'n logiese afleiding. ondervinding het ek dit ook al gesien gebeur. Uit my vorige So ek antwoord die vraag eerlik en ek se dit kan wees. (20) VOORSITTER: Se u in die verlede het dit gebeur, dit was praktyk gewees dat indien julle 'n plek visenteer en vir vuurwapens soek en 'n ou wil nie uitwys waar die vuurwapen is, jy gee hom 'n klap en dan haal hy dit uit. Se u so? Dit is reg. MR JOSEPH: And that is heavy handed behaviour? Dit is reg. Hy het opgetree in 'n hardhandige manier, is that right? -- That is right. En my stelling dat hy het die man aangerand is foutief, I am not speaking, my language is incorrect? It is bad to (30)

21 Collection Number: AK2702 Goldstone Commission of Enquiry into PHOLA PARK Records 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.