=====================================================================
TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION COMMISSION
=====================================================================
TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION COMMISSION

DAY 2 - 18 FEBRUARY 1997

 

 

SUBMISSIONS, QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

LEONARD KNIPE

 

MS WILDSCHUT:

Good afternoon Director Knipe you are the last person to be a witness in this Guguletu 7 matter. I will now ask advocate Potgieter to do this oath please. 

&#9;We ask the photographers to wrap us taking photo’s now, thank you very much - thank you sir - okay - all right.

ADV POTGIETER:

Can you state your full names for the record please.

 

LEONARD KNIPE&#9;&#9;&#9;&#9;&#9;Duly sworn states

 

ADV POTGIETER:

You may be seated.

MR KNIPE

Thank you.

 

MS WILDSCHUT:

Thank you very much journalist - photographers - Mr Gool thank you - Mr Jason thank you.

ADV VAN ZYL

Chairperson you would have noticed that although Mr Knipe was represented by advocate Uijs unfortunately he has been here yesterday and today, and couldn’t make it this afternoon, I will be representing Mr Knipe on instructions from De Klerk and Van Gend, Mr Adri Brand who is sitting on my right hand side.

MS WILDSCHUT:

Director Knipe you have a prepared statement which you would like to read into the record.

MR KNIPE

Correct, correct lady Chairman.

MS WILDSCHUT:

Please proceed.

MR KNIPE READS OUT HIS STATEMENT 

I, the undersigned LEONARD KNIPE do hereby state.

1.&#9;I am a Director in the South African Police Service, I have 

been a policeman for 31 years during which period I rose through the rank to my present rank and during which time I have always striven to police objectively without bias and professionalism. During my period of service, I have always openly advocated equality and non-radicalism, particularly within the Police Force, as it was then known. My advocating of these principles often brought me into conflict with elements within the organisation, which prejudiced me and which one resulted in my being suspended.

&#9;2.&#9;I wish to place on record that I have the utmost respect 

for the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and especially the Chairman. I believe that it is imperative that the history of the country, no matter how hurtful it may be, be discovered and made known. I also believe that it is imperatively necessary that all peoples of our nation make peace with each other. Because of my beliefs, I will now and in the future strive to assist the Commission to achieve its goals and will answer any questions with openness and candour. It is for this reason that I am somewhat unhappy at the manner in which I have been summonsed to appear this august body, to provide evidence or to answer questions relating to the tragic death of seven men at Guguletu on the 3rd of March 1986. I deal with my feelings and unhappiness in paragraph 3 herein below.

&#9;3.1&#9;At no time was any contact made with me by any 

investigators attached to this Commission before a notification in terms of Section 29 to appear before the Human Right Violation Committee, was dropped off at my office on the 12th of November 1996. In fact the notification for me to appear here today was the very first contact made with me. No prior interview was accorded me by any investigators of the Commission.

&#9;3.2&#9;Had I been so contacted I would have related to any 

investigator the evidence which I am about to give. I have in fact related it before in open court, my evidence being subjected to cross-examination on that occasion. What I am about to say, I would say to anyone at any time without any form of compulsion being exercised upon me to do so.

&#9;3.3&#9;At no time have I committed any act or omitted to do 

anything which could be remotely constructed as an abuse of power or a violation of human rights. Indeed, as will appear from what I say, I have to a certain extend suffered because of my principles.

&#9;3.4&#9;The issuing of a notification on me, without prior 

approach to me, and the immediate thereafter issuing of a press statement, telling the world that I amongst others, was being summonsed to appear before the Human Rights Violation Committee has created the impression that I have in fact, in the past been guilty of human rights abuses. This has caused hurt to my loved ones, has prejudiced me and has led to false perceptions being created. I respectfully believe that this action taken while senior members of the Commission were out of the country, has in itself violated my human rights.

4.&#9;As far as the incident in question is concerned, I wish to

state unequivocally and without fear of contradiction that I was not part of any planning of any of the actions which led to the tragic deaths of the seven young men. I did not conspire in any way with any person to take such action, in fact, I had no prior knowledge of the action.

My sole involvement was that of an objective police investigator on the scene after the event, and was thus restricted to actions after the shooting on that day only.

5.&#9;In preparation for my appearance before this Commission, 

I have studied a copy of a statement that I submitted during the inquest investigation. I have read the Inquest Court judgement, although I wish to add that I did not give evidence before the Inquest Court, but only at the trial of Mr Tony Weaver. I have read a transcript of this evidence given by my during the trial of Mr Weaver.

I wish to add that it is my sincere opinion that the decision to investigate Weaver was an abuse of power and that such investigation and prosecution should never have taken place. This belief was one of the reasons which led to me leaving Murder and Robbery Unit and taking an alternative position, which itself resulted in sever financial and personal loss for me.

6.&#9;I arrived at the scene at approximately 7:45 - 8:00 on the 

3rd of March 1986. To the best of my recollection, I and other members of the Murder and Robbery Unit were mustering for parade when a police radio report of the shooting was broadcast. In consequence thereof, my colleagues and I hastened to the scene. I arrived to find members of the Security Police, the Riot Squat, the Guguletu Police, the Flying Squad and others on the scene. The area had already been cordoned off.

Major Brits who was the senior rank in Murder and Robbery Officer at the scene was assigned to the investigation and I assisted him to the best of my ability with the preservation of the scene and the collection of evidence. My colleague and I, detective Warrant Officer Welcome Mbele, performed these task together. To the best of my recall, the only action taken by my which was not directly related to the investigation was taken in collaboration with the explosive expert on the scene, the then detective Warrant Officer Schalk van der Merwe. There was a reasonable fear that there might be an unexploded device under one of the bodies on the scene and a rope was attached to the belt of this victim. The body was then pulled over onto its back from a distance, for the purpose of safety only.

Thereafter Warrant Officer Mbele and I went to each body, made notes of the positions in which the bodies lay, the clothing of the bodies, what weapons [if any] were in the deceased possession and what wound each deceased had sustained. I also searched each body and removed items of value such as jewelly, money and correspondence. Items removed from each body were placed in individual transparent plastic bags. As standard procedure, I wore gloves. Later that day I handed all the exhibits and the records of observations to Major Brits. I went about investigating the matter on the scene as I would investigate any other violent crime. I acted objectively, without preconceived notions and, I respectfully believed professionally.

7.&#9;Whilst I was at the scene more and more senior officers 

arrived the then Divisional Investigations Officer. The scene was photographed and videotaped. A helicopter hovered overhead. The traffic noise from the nearby freeway and the noise on the scene was excessive and disturbing.

8.&#9;At approximately 12:00 after all investigations had been 

completed and in full view of local bystanders, media representatives and colleagues, I instructed that blood be washed from the streets. My sole motivation for doing this was in the belief in the dignity of death. I had previously experienced dogs arriving on the scene of a violent crime, licking the blood. This I did not wish to happen. I acted out of this motive of respect for the dead and their loved ones only when giving this instruction and seeing that it was carried out, which it was, publicly and openly.

9.&#9;I left the scene about half an hour later and had no 

further involvement in the investigation. I am unable to comment on the investigation or the manner in which it was conducted.

10.&#9;In the spirit of reconciliation, I would like to add that I regard it as a tragedy that seven young men died as a result of the evil of a political system which caused so much pain and suffering to all the peoples of our country. In addition, I could so easily have lost colleagues on that day during the fire fight which I am given to understand took place between the security forces and the deceased. If I had been empowered and in a position to do so, I would have taken steps to avoid the tragedy. I personally regard it as unfortunate that I was not able to do so.

11.&#9;I have considerable experience of the pain and anguish 

which is suffered by the loved ones of victims of violence. I can therefore appreciate the suffering endured by the families of the seven young men in question and wish that could have been averted. I extend my sympathy to those who were affected by the occurrences of the day in question.

&#9;Thank you.

ADV VAN ZYL

Mr Chairperson I believe that copies of the statement that Mr Knipe made at the inquest as well as a copy of his evidence at the Weaver trial is available. I would also like to point out that the detective Warrant Officer Welcome Mbele that he refers to his statement that was his partner at the time, at Murder and Robbery and should not be confused with Mbelo who’s evidence the Commission heard in camera some while ago. Thank you.

MS WILDSCHUT:

I would just like to point out that I will now hand the chair over to Mr Dumisa Ntsebeza. 

ADV NTSEBEZA:

Thank you Commissioner Wildschut for holding the fort in my absence. I have taken note of your remarks advocate Van Zyl. Any questions that are going to be put to this witness oh! I am made to understand that advocate Potgieter is going to be leading the questioning of this witness - advocate Potgieter.

ADV POTGIETER:

Thank you Chairperson, Mr Knipe are you comfortable.

MR KNIPE

Pardon?

ADV POTGIETER:

Are you comfortable?

MR KNIPE

I don’t like the lights in one’s face no. I find it very disturbing.

ADV POTGIETER:

I see that you are sweating profusely.

MR KNIPE

Because of the lights.

ADV NTSEBEZA:

Order - order please.

ADV POTGIETER:

Well I am not - I got some colleagues with some medical background perhaps they can be of some assistance if it’s necessary. But are you able to proceed at this stage.

MR KNIPE

Perfectly.

 

ADV POTGIETER:

Good, could we just first of all try to perhaps understand and if possible meet your difficulties as it is pointed out in your evidence in chief about having to appear at these proceedings.

MR KNIPE

I have no problems in appearing before these proceedings. I have a problem in the manner in which I was subpoenaed to appear before the proceedings.

ADV POTGIETER:

Ja.

MR KNIPE

The connotation, the perceptions that have been created is that I committed murder that was what the [indistinct] articles that were written in our daily newspapers, was that I was one of the seven people who were into confess to the murders of seven young men, that is the unfortunate perceptions that went out because of the actions of the Committee.

ADV POTGIETER:

Well I am quite surprised speaking for myself, perhaps I haven’t read the media reports that you are referring to but I am quite surprised to hear that.

MR KNIPE

Well I can assure you they are there.

ADV POTGIETER:

There was an allegation that you are linked to the murder of these seven people.

MR KNIPE

Quite correct - it appeared in the Burger.

ADV POTGIETER:

And are you somehow linking the Commission to that - to those allegations.

MR KNIPE

No I am not linking the Commission to it, I am saying that the manner in which I was brought before the Commission created this perception within the press.

ADV POTGIETER:

Well Director you’ve been around for some time I mean you have been a law man in this part of the world for many-many years.

MR KNIPE

That you for the compliment of being a law man mnr Advocate.

ADV POTGIETER:

Or perhaps more correctly a law person. And I mean you know - you know subpoena’s I mean you know how it works.

MR KNIPE

I have never - I have never subpoenaed a witness without having an interview with him, never in all my 31 years as a policemen have I ever interviewed a witness or not interviewed a witness and subpoenaed him except in the case on occasions with the press when they will not answer questions that we have to resort in 205’s - but at least we’ve given them the decency of speaking to them beforehand.

ADV POTGIETER:

Do you - do you understand that there is this principal of transparency about the work of this Commission and that the concept of doing our work publicly - to share the information that we obtained and to try and give answers to people who are questing for some information, is really an underlying sort of bottom line in a way for the work of the Commission.

So whatever we do, I mean we got the public there, we are linked up to - and hopefully soon again to the radio broadcast which reaches millions of our people in the country, we got the television present at our proceedings. Unfortunately we’ve got these lights going with that and that’s - we must apologise to you for the discomfort that, that causes.

&#9;But that is - that is how it is - this is the - it’s quite a unique process, we’ve never seen it in this country before and it’s so important to have these things in public and to get you to a platform like this so that you can speak and your colleagues can speak and the families of the victims can hear and see - perhaps for the first time a lot of them have never had the privilege of being present at an inquest.

&#9;A lot of them have never understood what an inquest is all about and so on, so we are trying to create that sort of situation here and I guess what I am trying to convey to you is that - that is how this process works - we not accusing you of anything, we not suggesting that you - that you committed a gross human rights violation. We asking you to come and to share what you know about this incident and that’s really all that this is all about.

MR KNIPE

Commissioner Potgieter I believe that many other people have appeared before similar commissions without being subpoenaed. People that have committed gross human rights abuses, people that when their stories are told, makes one revolt with revoltion, that came before commissions without being subpoenaed. I am fully aware of that, I am fully aware of the importance of this Commission and I think that is being conveyed in my statement.

&#9;I however, do believe that an injustice was done to me, to summons me to appear without any investigating officer having the decency to approach me and say have you anything to say I would have given my full and utter co-operation to the investigating officer. I have no problem in being here, I support the Commission in it’s entirety, I just feel that I have been unfairly treated.

ADV POTGIETER:

But you see [intervention]

MR KNIPE

That is my perception and I am afraid that perception will always be there.

ADV POTGIETER:

Well it’s not that I am trying to change your mind, it’s just that I am testing what it is that you are really unhappy about.

MR KNIPE

That is being subpoenaed to appear here - not to be here, I would have come here at a telephone call I would have appeared.

ADV POTGIETER:

And you see we’ve heard the testimony of many other of your colleagues who were involved in the things that happened on the particular day and none of them seem to share your - your view, your difficulty.

 

MR KNIPE

I think with the greatest respect there is a huge difference between my colleagues that have appeared before this august body and myself. I was not involved in the shooting of seven young men.

&#9;I have been lumped by the media as being party of that group, the media have not the sense to realise that there is a difference. I have been branded in the media as part of the group of people that shot and killed seven people, that is my objection.

ADV POTGIETER:

And - and in fact what happens is that - you have the opportunity now and we’ve created an opportunity here to say whatever you know about this incident and to deal with the injustice that the press seem to have done to you.

MR KNIPE

That’s precisely what I am doing Mr Commissioner.

ADV POTGIETER:

Sure - so you should be happy to be here I assume.

MR KNIPE

I’ve got no problems being here Mr Commissioner, I’ve told you none whatsoever.

ADV POTGIETER:

Now I just want to - to just see whether I understand insofar as the Commission is concerned and the way in which this matter has been dealt with what your - the basis of your complaints are. I think if I look at your statement you seem to feel that there should have been a prior interview with you.

MR KNIPE

Quite so.

ADV POTGIETER:

Before today.

MR KNIPE

Quite so.

ADV POTGIETER:

Would you have added anything new to what you are giving to us today.

MR KNIPE

Well I believe if the - if there was expertise on the part of the investigator, I might have been able to give information dealing with other matters which is being investigated by the Commission and I place myself at the availability of your investigators to hold a proper interview with me.

ADV POTGIETER:

All right we - we note that - we and we are grateful for every bit of help that we can get and we really note that, we know that you - as I’ve said earlier and I was quite serious, you - you are a police officer with a long-long years of experience, so we appreciate that.

&#9;Now that was the first issue, I am just trying to understand what the grounds of your dissatisfaction is and then you also seemed to say that you see this as a form of compulsion. If I read paragraph 3.2 of your statement correctly you conclude that paragraph with the following sentence.

&#9;&#9;What I am about to say I would say to anyone at anytime 

without any form of compulsion being exercised upon me 

so to do.

 

MR KNIPE

I believe that the subpoena is a form of compulsion.

ADV POTGIETER:

So you feel you - you are here under some duress under some - some compulsion as you put it.

MR KNIPE

I would have been here out of my own free will, without the need of a subpoena being issued against me.

ADV POTGIETER:

So what is the difference I mean you - you don’t have any objection to being here, what is the difficulty I mean with or without the subpoena you’ve said you want to help this process so I can’t understand perhaps you can help us.

MR KNIPE

To be subpoenaed - to make a public statement that the man is being subpoenaed to appear before a human rights commission, creates obviously the impression that he has committed some or other human rights abuse.

ADV POTGIETER:

Why I don’t understand that, why - why can’t you just be a witness, why can’t you just come and help the process - and it’s important you see Director Knipe it’s important for us to flesh out these things, so that there is not this sort of misunderstanding you know there is a lot of misunderstanding around the process of this commission and we being accused of all sorts of things you know some people suggest that we are you know the hunters of witches and I don’t know what ever else you know.

&#9;But it’s good for us to - to debate these things so that people can understand what this process is all about.

MR KNIPE

I can only reiterate that I would have appeared before this Commission willingly - I found it in affront for somebody to come to my office and drop of a subpoena without the courtesy of a phone call without the courtesy of a hello, that a subpoena is dropped, just dropped with my secretary to appear before this body.

&#9;I have never treated anyone like that in my life.

ADV POTGIETER:

So - so I guess what you are saying is that also in a way it’s the manner in which the subpoena was served on you.

MR KNIPE

Completely.

ADV POTGIETER:

All right there we can learn I mean we can talk about that.

MR KNIPE

Thank you.

ADV POTGIETER:

That’s no problem.

 

MR KNIPE

Thank you.

ADV POTGIETER:

But I can’t leave the impression unchallenged that the mere fact of being given a subpoena to come to proceedings is an indictment is a suggestion that you’ve committed a gross human rights violation. And I mean if that is the attitude then we are going to have great difficulty in achieving what we really setting out to achieve in this process by reconciliation - understanding and so on.

MR KNIPE

Commissioner Potgieter then I suggest that we make available to you copies of the newspaper reports that appeared and then I think the Commission itself can see what sort of rubbish was written.

ADV POTGIETER:

Ja, that seems to be a debate that is between yourself and the media.

MR KNIPE

But that is as a result of the serving of the subpoena Mr Chairman.

ADV POTGIETER:

Ja, I think we’ve dealt with your third ground where you say that:

At no time have I committed any act or omitted to do anything which could remote to be construed as a an abusive power of violation or human rights.

&#9;I trust that you do accept that, that is not the suggestion here, we certainly have never suggested that you have committed anything. We are here to look into this incident.

MR KNIPE

Mr Chairman I think one of the major problems to reiterate is that when one drafts a subpoena - sorry - an affidavit one is doing so blind, one receives a subpoena to appear before this body, one is not afforded even a telephone call to explain what the nature - what is required of you.

&#9;If you remember I entered into correspondence trying to determine what was required of me. I do believe that I should have been afforded a visitation from an investigator to determine whether I was prepared to make a statement - whatever the case may be.

&#9;It’s a matter of principal.

ADV POTGIETER:

And its - its never crossed your mind to approach the Commission yourself.

MR KNIPE

I have - I [intervention]

ADV POTGIETER:

And deal - and deal with this and say well I’ve got this information for you, here it is.

 

MR KNIPE

I have on two occasions corresponded with the Commission.

ADV POTGIETER:

Have you - have you volunteered information?

MR KNIPE

No in so much words no, I - affidavit was before the Commission now for several months already. I would have expected somebody to have approached me.

ADV POTGIETER:

No - no I am just talking about the period between receiving the notice to appear and the first appearance because I think that’s where your affidavits were handed in by your legal representative.

MR KNIPE

I - I corresponded with yourselves on the 14th of the 11th.

ADV POTGIETER:

But did you - did you tender information - did you tender assistance?

MR KNIPE

Should I read to you what I said?

ADV POTGIETER:

Well if it will answer - if it will help us, if it will answer the question.

Did you tender information there in that - in those correspondence?

MR KNIPE

No in so many words no.

 

ADV POTGIETER:

Okay now perhaps just to round this off, in paragraph 3.4 I have some difficulty in understanding what you are actually conveying. Your - the very last sentence reads as follows:

I respectfully believe that this action taken while senior members of the Commission were out of the country, has in itself violated my human rights.

&#9;What does that mean?

MR KNIPE

The Archbishop was out of the country when the subpoena was served on me.

ADV POTGIETER:

So - so well I am just trying to understand what you are suggesting so are you suggesting there are senior members first of all - there are senior members of the Commission.

MR KNIPE

Just say that again.

ADV POTGIETER:

Are you suggesting first of all that one finds such animals as senior members of the Commission.

MR KNIPE

The Archbishop is the Chairman of the Commission.

 

ADV POTGIETER:

Chairperson yes

MR KNIPE

Chairperson.

ADV POTGIETER:

Yes.

MR KNIPE

And he was out of the country at the time.

ADV POTGIETER:

So - so you actually saying here that this was done whilst the Chairperson was out of the country - Archbishop Tutu was out of the country.

MR KNIPE

The subpoena was issued to me while the Chairman was out of the country.

ADV POTGIETER:

What is the difficulty around that?

MR KNIPE

In other words I do not include the Archbishop in any way in the preceding paragraphs.

ADV POTGIETER:

So are you suggesting that some other members of the Commission acted irregularly or what?

 

MR KNIPE

Not - I am suggesting that the Archbishop did not issue the subpoena against me, he was out of the country.

ADV POTGIETER:

But I mean what difference does it make to the subpoena and the process whether the Chairperson is here or there or where ever.

MR KNIPE

It makes a difference to me.

ADV POTGIETER:

I can’t understand - because that’s - I mean we talking - we talking about a - almost a sort of a legal process there is a - sorry [intervention]

ADV NTSEBEZA:

May I just again remind the people who are attending these proceedings that the proceedings must be accorded a measure of decorum that defeats this sort of proceedings that there are. I certainly would not wish that people should [indistinct] a witness even if the replies that the witness gives seemed to be of a nature that people may consider [indistinct] end of Tape 11, side A … [indistinct] as and when they like.

&#9;So I will please again plead with us all to observe strict decorum - Potgieter.

 

ADV POTGIETER:

Thank you Chairperson - Director Knipe we just want to round this off. Are you suggesting that the Chairperson should be involved in your subpoena or in generally in issuing subpoena’s or what - I am trying to understand.

MR KNIPE

No I am not suggesting that - I am just saying that the subpoena was issued when the Archbishop was out of the country.

ADV POTGIETER:

And does that in your view impact at all on the issuing of this subpoena?

MR KNIPE

No the issuing of the subpoena is obviously still a legal document.

ADV POTGIETER:

So do you - you agree that this ground doesn’t really take this matter any further - whether the Archbishop is in the country or outside the country.

MR KNIPE

There is a perception - it’s a perception.

ADV POTGIETER:

Is it - I am sorry I am trying to understand that, is it a perception that this subpoena was sneaked out of the Commission whilst the Archbishop was gone and served on you.

 

MR KNIPE

Not at all.

ADV POTGIETER:

What is - what is the perception?

MR KNIPE

My perception is that maybe if the Archbishop was here it may not have been done.

ADV POTGIETER:

It may not have been done - you may not have been subpoenaed at all?

MR KNIPE

Not in the manner in which I was no.

ADV POTGIETER:

In any case I - I have gathered that you got nothing to hide, you don’t - you don’t have any difficulties.

MR KNIPE

Absolutely nothing - nothing at all.

ADV POTGIETER:

And you happy to be here this afternoon.

MR KNIPE

Quite content - except for the lights.

ADV POTGIETER:

For the lights - I think we share that. Can I perhaps move from there - I think we’ve cleared the air around that and hopefully the media has also taken note of this discussion.

&#9;Now insofar as the planning of this incident was concerned, what was your knowledge about this?

MR KNIPE

None whatsoever.

ADV POTGIETER:

You didn’t know anything about this operation at all.

MR KNIPE

None whatsoever.

ADV POTGIETER:

As I’ve indicated you - you have been part of the command structure of the Murder and Robbery Unit in this part of the country for some years before - well in the old days, in the days of the South African Police not so?

MR KNIPE

I was at Murder and Robbery from ’79 to 1986 - I left shortly after this incident. Went to Sea Point for 18 months, took charge of Murder and Robbery in Durban, returned to Cape Town and assumed command of the Unit in 1990.

 

 

ADV POTGIETER:

Now during the period ’79 to ’86 - whilst you were at the Peninsula Murder and Robbery Unit, you’d been part of the command structure not so?

MR KNIPE

Yes.

ADV POTGIETER:

And you’ve been a well known face where ever Murder and Robbery was involved.

MR KNIPE

I hope I was a successful policeman.

ADV POTGIETER:

Now as such - I mean as part of the command structure of Murder and Robbery, were you senior to Captain Kleyn or what was the position?

MR KNIPE

We were identical in rank - equal in rank.

ADV POTGIETER:

Equal in rank. And was - who was in charge - who was in overall - in overall charge of the unit?

MR KNIPE

On the day that this occurred, the new commanding officer now General Visser, Commissioner Visser was to arrive I think from Potchefstroom - he was to assume command of the Unit. And at the time when the incident occurred, Visser had not yet stepped off the plane, Major Brits was in charge.

ADV POTGIETER:

Major Brits - now indications are that around the 27th of February - a few days before the actual incident, there were already plans being formulated in regard to this - to this incident and Murder and Robbery was - was part of the planning even at that stage. Are you suggesting that your colleagues in the command structure had sidelined you.

MR KNIPE

I am not suggesting anything I am telling the Commission that I had no prior knowledge.

ADV POTGIETER:

But isn’t that a bit unusual - you part of the command structure - your colleague who is on a equal - who is on par with you, Captain Kleyn, is involved on the scene and you also later involved on the scene, but are you suggesting that under those circumstances Kleyn was led in on this operation and you were not?

MR KNIPE

Yes.

ADV POTGIETER:

Was that [intervention]

MR KNIPE

I think - I think if I might just explain that.

ADV POTGIETER:

Sure.

MR KNIPE

I had fallen foul during my career with the Security Police there was a dossier on me held by the Security Police. The Security Police and I did not work in close relationship with each other, only subsequently those wounds were healed.

ADV POTGIETER:

So was there a close relation between the Security Police and Murder and Robbery?

MR KNIPE

Not really no - no. No - on occasions but I would not term it - term it close co-operation no - close co-operation would have been with Forensic - with Flying Squad, those were far closer co-operations much closer co-operations with the Riot Unit - there is obviously inter co-operation between all sections within the Police Force but there was no special nexus between Security Cape Town and Murder and Robbery Cape Town. The was a far closer nexus with other departments or other sections.

ADV POTGIETER:

Because in this incident as I’ve indicated to you earlier, Murder and Robbery has been involved right from the word go in the planning but you’ve explained why you would possibly have been not included in - in the planning because of your own situation with the Security Branch at that stage.

ADV VAN ZYL

Mr Chairman I am sorry to interrupt, but I do not believe that the evidence certainly that I’ve heard, was of the nature that Murder and Robbery was involved in the planning right from the word go, that would proceed the Sunday night meeting - I do not think that the evidence that I’ve heard, was that they were involved prior to the Sunday night meeting.

&#9;I haven’t seen all the evidence, but that is as I have it.

ADV POTGIETER:

Ja.

ADV NTSEBEZA:

Advocate Potgieter.

ADV POTGIETER:

Well that’s the evidence - well I think advocate Van Zyl has answered himself, that’s the evidence that he has had. He says according tot he evidence that he has heard which is the position. So he has answered himself - he has obviously not heard all the evidence.

ADV VAN ZYL

Mr Chairman I didn’t want to delay the proceedings unnecessarily but if there was such evidence, then certainly there was such evidence then at least put it to the witness and even to me for my reification. Then we - we understand where we are and where we working from.

ADV NTSEBEZA:

Advocate Potgieter.

ADV POTGIETER:

Can I proceed Chairperson - I don’t think that’s an objection.

ADV NTSEBEZA:

Yes.

ADV POTGIETER:

Thank you - so just to - just to sum it up - between at least 27 February and the morning of the incident 3rd of March, you haven’t heard a word about this coming operation.

MR KNIPE

That is correct.

ADV POTGIETER:

Perhaps let’s take it a bit - just slightly further back, what was the situation in the Western Cape at that stage? In terms of unrest - in terms of attacks on the police, in terms of those kinds of incidents?

MR KNIPE

Mr Chairman quite honestly I can’t recall - I think it was still pretty volatile in the Western Cape - I think that would be fair that the situation was volatile.

ADV POTGIETER:

Now would it be - would it be fair to suggest that the situation was such that it was felt that the police were not in control of the situation in the Western Cape as a result of the extend of this sort of incident etcetera.

MR KNIPE

Of what incident?

ADV POTGIETER:

Incidents - incidences of this nature that I have referred to - unrest - attacks on the police - attacks on structures that represent official power, that sort of thing - official authority.

MR KNIPE

Mr Potgieter without being flipped I think that most people would have precede we were in better control then than we are now.

ADV POTGIETER:

Ja well that’s a - that’s a relative - that’s a relative concept.

MR KNIPE

Well that’s an answer to your question.

ADV POTGIETER:

But I am asking you about that - about that stage and the - I am asking you to respond to what I am putting to you.

MR KNIPE

I am responding to what you are putting to me.

ADV POTGIETER:

Are you suggesting that the police were - there was no basis for a suggestion that the police were not in control of the situation in the Western Cape?

MR KNIPE

I do not believe that we didn’t have control over the situation - no. I don’t believe - its a relative concept - I think it depends where you live, there are many factors when one makes such a statement that should be taken into consideration. 

&#9;It is possible that in of the under privileged areas that our control was not as affective as what it was in say Claremont and Wynberg - it’s a relative concept.

ADV POTGIETER:

Now to be more specific on that on the townships particularly - so-called black areas.

MR KNIPE

I think - I think those were difficult years in the townships, as I said they were volatile years.

ADV POTGIETER:

And wasn’t it so that there was a view that there had to be outside assistance, outside of this particular part of the country.

MR KNIPE

If that was a view - it was not a view that was known to me. I do believe that at certain stages the assistance of the Military had been called in - I cannot recall if that had happened in ’86. But there were many occasions that the situations were so serious in the townships that the assistance of the Defence Force has been called in - however cannot be specific to ’86 - I simply cannot remember.

ADV NTSEBEZA:

If I can enter here - is it not so to your own recollection that as a consequence of the unrest situation - the Government of the day had even declared a State of Emergency.

MR KNIPE

Mr Chairman I have difficulty with remembering States of Emergency etcetera. I am a criminal investigator - I was not a fey with political investigations. It could have been - there could have been state of Emergency in ’86 I simply cannot recall. It didn’t make my work any easier or anymore difficult.

ADV NTSEBEZA:

I see - advocate Potgieter.

ADV POTGIETER:

Thank you Chairperson - let me ask you this, was there not concern amongst the higher echelons of the police about the situation in the Western Cape in the townships - in the black areas? And the view that something has to be done in order to put an end to what was regarded as an unacceptable unrest situation and so forth, particularly also with attacks on the police?

&#9;Was there no pressure from the Commissioners office for example - the Minister’s office.

MR KNIPE

That might be - I was a captain at that stage I would be able to answer that question more fully today with the seniority that I have now, but then I was a Captain - those were not sort of things that was discussed with Captains.

 

ADV POTGIETER:

Even - even if you are part of the command structure of Murder and Robbery which is a key unit.

MR KNIPE

It was a key unit dealing with criminality.

ADV POTGIETER:

Well were you not part of the sort of - the total plan to fight lawlessness in the Western Cape or did you leave that to other - other colleagues to do?

MR KNIPE

Murder and Robbery had a predetermined manifested and they investigated in accordance with that, unless instructed otherwise by top brass. We had a defined mandate and that was a pretty restrictive mandate, it was actually a mandate which was quite sickening in the old days - we would only investigate murders where the victims were white. Those were the sort of mandates we had at a stage.

&#9;So that was what you - you were doing you would - you would investigate where the victim was white.

MR KNIPE

At one stage yes.

ADV POTGIETER:

Did you do that yourself?

MR KNIPE

Yes and I agitated that, that instruction be changed.

ADV POTGIETER:

Let me be a bit more specific have you ever been present at a function at Robben Island.

MR KNIPE

I’ve never been to Robben Island.

ADV POTGIETER:

Where - you’ve never been.

MR KNIPE

Never been to Robben Island - no hang on I think when I was a boy scout - I think before Robben Island was a prison - many-many years ago.

ADV POTGIETER:

You’ve never been to Robben Island during your career as a police person.

MR KNIPE

Never.

ADV POTGIETER:

Were you aware of the involvement of colleagues from Vlakplaas in the Western Cape during the ‘80’s?

MR KNIPE

I cannot tell the Commission honestly when I became aware of Vlakplaas. If it was prior to ’86 - after ’86 I cannot recall. I honestly cannot recall.

 

ADV POTGIETER:

Can you recall how you became aware of Vlakplaas?

MR KNIPE

I also can’t recall - I don’t know if it arose during this investigation, or it arose in casual conversation. I have never to the best of my knowledge worked with anyone that’s been attached to Vlakplaas. But obviously in any organisation there is talk and I have heard of Vlakplaas and in the last few years one has heard much more of Vlakplaas.

ADV POTGIETER:

What was it that you heard about Vlakplaas?

MR KNIPE

That there was this farm where they had turned ANC terrorist which had now joined the Police Force and they were used for gathering of information and covert operations etcetera - etcetera.

ADV POTGIETER:

And you - you say you can’t recall whether that knowledge came to your - or that information came to you prior or subsequent to this incident.

MR KNIPE

I can’t remember when - when the story of Vlakplaas was first brought to my attention when I first heard of it no.

ADV POTGIETER:

Or - or in fact during this incident.

MR KNIPE

It might even have been during this incident it’s possible yes.

ADV POTGIETER:

Now you have done some investigations around this incident.

MR KNIPE

Limited.

ADV POTGIETER:

In the course of those investigations - would it have come to your knowledge that Vlakplaas was involved or there was a Vlakplaas involvement in this incident.

MR KNIPE

Again very difficult to answer that question. I can recall meeting a chap called Bellingham on the scene of the crime that day or the scene of the shooting correction - the scene of the shooting that day. I found the man a bit up noxious and I remember asking where does he fit into the picture, where does he come from.

&#9;Now whether he was told he is from Vlakplaas or C-10 or whatever it is, and Mr Chairman you must - you must please understand that I was never really interested in that part of policing. But whether he had come from Pretoria with Askari’s - and I think that’s the first time that I heard of so-called Askari’s too. I had very little knowledge of those things.

ADV POTGIETER:

But wouldn’t that have been something of note for you as a person who has done some limited investigations as you put it into this incident?

MR KNIPE

I - my investigation was confined to the action which I took on the scene as deflected in my statement. I had personal problems and that’s also deflected in my statement - that’s why I left Murder and Robbery. I thought it was a huge error for Murder and Robbery to have investigated the case. I don’t think it’s ever proper that people investigate against themselves. That was a mistake.

&#9;I also think that the investigation was of sub standard I was alarmed that the day after the shooting that the firearms were still lying around the offices. The investigation was not of the standard expected of Murder and Robbery and I took a conscious decision and I left the Unit.

ADV POTGIETER:

Now these reservations that you - that you express have you mentioned that when you were testifying about this incident in court.

MR KNIPE

No I was not asked about it.

ADV POTGIETER:

No but isn’t it relevant - didn’t you think it was relevant to raise all these reservations.

MR KNIPE

No - no - I left because of a personal reservation - I did not agree that Murder and Robbery should be investigate themselves.

ADV POTGIETER:

But you were - you had these reservations - you saw - you came across Bellingham - you didn’t click with him. You had all these difficulties around this - this question. Have you ever raised it before today?

MR KNIPE

Yes.

ADV POTGIETER:

Where did you do that?

MR KNIPE

When I left Murder and Robbery.

ADV POTGIETER:

You didn’t think it appropriate when Mr Tony Weaver was facing criminal charges to raise because look those criminal charges somehow involved this whole - the basis of this incident - irregularities that were then alleged to have occurred and so forth - didn’t you raise your reservations there - isn’t that a proper thing to have done.

MR KNIPE

I don’t - I don’t believe so no - I was questioned - I was - I was - my evidence was led pertaining to a particular sub incident within an incident.

ADV POTGIETER:

And you - and you thought you’ll confine what you say to that - to what you [intervention]

MR KNIPE

I was giving evidence under oath and I answered all the questions put to me honestly.

ADV POTGIETER:

Although you thought that the charge against Mr Weaver was an abuse of power.

MR KNIPE

Ja it was a mistake.

ADV POTGIETER:

Well you - not a mistake - you put it much - much stronger here.

MR KNIPE

Yes it was an abusive power, it was a mistake.

ADV POTGIETER:

You say it’s an abusive power - now - now one other thing who did you - who did you testify for in that criminal prosecution.

MR KNIPE

I was called by the State.

ADV POTGIETER:

So you were a State witness - you’re a witness against Mr Weaver not so.

 

MR KNIPE

Mr Weaver was acquitted.

ADV POTGIETER:

Yes well apart from that, that’s not the question - you were a State witness so you were - your testimony was used against Mr Weaver in that trial not so?

MR KNIPE

Again I think it’s a question of perception. I believe a witness is not necessary typed cast in one way or the other. A witness goes to court to answer all the questions which are put to him honestly and I do believe that is what I did during that trial.

ADV POTGIETER:

Why - why did you not offer to act as a witness for the defence for example.

MR KNIPE

If - if I had been asked the questions which you are asking now, I would have answered them in exactly the same manner.

ADV POTGIETER:

Let’s leave that for the moment, let’s just go back a bit. 

ADV NTSEBEZA:

Now Director Knipe I hear you when you say a witness is a witness that comes to Court to assist the Court to come to a balanced verdict. Now but it is so as a State witness that you are being called to support a case brought by the State against Mr Weaver, is that right.

MR KNIPE

Correct.

ADV NTSEBEZA:

That the aim was certainly for the prosecution to obtain a conviction is that right?

MR KNIPE

That is correct.

ADV NTSEBEZA:

And that as you would like us to understand now, you were giving evidence in a manner that would expose the truth without necessarily wishing to proceed against Mr Weaver - you had no interest in him being convicted - you only wanted to expose the truth by your testimony is that right.

MR KNIPE

I was - I was questioned if I remember correctly about the cleaning of the road and one or other points and I answered those questions honestly, that was the limited of the evidence which I was called upon to give.

ADV NTSEBEZA:

Yes no - no I appreciate that, but what I understand you to be saying to us, is that your intention in giving evidence was not necessarily to cause Mr Weaver to be convicted - it was to assist the Court to come to a balanced verdict.

MR KNIPE

That is correct.

ADV NTSEBEZA:

And I think what advocate Potgieter is trying to get at, if that was your frame of mind, and you had these concerns lurking, which you have expressed today in very weighted terms - wasn’t it [indistinct] upon you at that trial to find an opportunity to say I believe that the trial - the charges brought upon or against this particular accused person, is an abuse of power.

&#9;If your interest was merely [intervention]

MR KNIPE

I take - I take your point Mr Chairman - I take your point and it’s a very good point. And I think - I think we must also look at the realities of life.

ADV NTSEBEZA:

Exactly that’s why [intervention]

MR KNIPE

I was a Captain - South Africa was then the South Africa of old - I would have been a Captain today if I had made that statement.

ADV NTSEBEZA:

Are you saying therefore that in the interest of your own career advancement you are prepared to sacrifice what was agonising you on the alter of that experience.

MR KNIPE

No - that’s not what I’ve said. I have said it is easier to make a statement today than it would have been ten years ago, if I had been asked the question I would have answered it, I gave my evidence in accordance to the way the questions were put to me, they were answered honestly and truthfully.

ADV NTSEBEZA:

I am going a step further because this is where we are now, are you saying you were afraid to volunteer your views about how the prosecution of [indistinct] was an abuse of power, because it might have jeopardised your career.

MR KNIPE

No I am not saying that, I am saying that, that is a possibility. If I had been asked directly I would have given the evidence.

ADV NTSEBEZA:

Then put it the other way, are you saying that you deliberately refrained from expressing your views because to have volunteered your views about how it was an abuse to charge Weaver would have jeopardised your career.

MR KNIPE

Just repeat that, I didn’t quite understand.

Are you saying to us that even though you felt at the end that it was an abuse to charge Weaver, you none the less decided not to volunteer that opinion because it might have jeopardised your career.

MR KNIPE

I was asked to give evidence on fact - not opinion.

ADV NTSEBEZA:

No we have gone beyond that, you have just said to us here - you would have been a Captain even today if you had volunteered that sort of information. I just want to clarify that reply.

MR KNIPE

You are quite [intervention]

ADV NTSEBEZA:

Are you then saying because you knew what would have befallen you in those days, if you had volunteered opinions, you deliberately refrained from doing so even though you felt so at the time.

MR KNIPE

No that’s not what I am saying, I never used the word [intervention]

ADV NTSEBEZA:

Well I don’t know what you are saying.

MR KNIPE

Well perhaps Mr Chairman I should try to explain it more fully to you. What I am saying is that if I had been asked I would have answered it, I asked all questions put to me to the best of my ability - I did not give opinions.

ADV NTSEBEZA:

That’s exactly what I am saying we went beyond that, we said you have admitted to us that you felt that prosecuting Weaver was an abuse of power. And I went beyond that and I said as you testified there, didn’t you feel it was [indistinct] upon you to voice that view in view of the attitude that you took and your reply that well I was a Captain in those days - if I had indicated those views, I would still be a captain.

&#9;My subsequent questions have been a clarification of that reply and I am asking whether therefore you felt that in the interest of your own career, you would rather keep your views to yourself than hazard them at that sort of inquiry.

MR KNIPE

I don’t - I don’t think the way you putting it, is quite correct, if the question had been asked of me I would have given it, I would not have volunteered it out of my own.

ADV NTSEBEZA:

Advocate Potgieter.

ADV POTGIETER:

Thank you Chairperson - did you - did you raise your difficulties with the investigation at the Weaver trial.

MR KNIPE

No.

ADV POTGIETER:

Why not?

 

 

MR KNIPE

I was not asked end of Tape 11, side B … be the washing of the street or the blood off the street, and that was the principal reason that I was called for.

ADV POTGIETER:

Yes.

MR KNIPE

And I gave evidence on that.

ADV POTGIETER:

Yes, now apart from that - apart from you - you’ve - you’ve indicated to us that your attitude as a witness is to assist the Court to get to the truth and that’s ideally that is really what it’s all about - right.

&#9;Now wouldn’t it have been to the assistance or to the benefit of the Court to have heard your views on the investigation of the particular case?

MR KNIPE

I believe that it would have been more appropriate if I had been called to the Inquest Court to give that sort of evidence.

ADV POTGIETER:

I [intervention]

MR KNIPE

Surely - surely that was the forum where that evidence should have been given.

 

ADV POTGIETER:

I don’t - I don’t - I really can’t understand the distinction - isn’t - isn’t the criminal trial even worst because somebody is now facing a criminal charge - a person might loose his freedom - his liberty as a result of that - the consequences can be most serious - isn’t it - isn’t it an appropriate stage to tell the Court everything.

MR KNIPE

No I - I think we have a difference of opinion Mr Weaver was charged on a separate case to the Inquest - there were two separate cases - in entirety - Mr Weaver was alleged to have made statements about the Police Force which were untrue - as I understood it. And I was called to give evidence pertaining to the washing the blood off the street.

ADV POTGIETER:

Yes well - I must confess to the same difficulty that the Chairperson has but let’s move on. You - you say it would have been appropriate to have done it in the Inquest proceedings correct?

MR KNIPE

I would have thought so yes.

ADV POTGIETER:

Now you have made a statement for the purposes of the Inquest not so.

MR KNIPE

It was made pertaining to what I did on the scene.

ADV POTGIETER:

Yes for the purposes of the Inquest.

MR KNIPE

Correct.

ADV POTGIETER:

Why didn’t you mention it there.

MR KNIPE

I was not called to give evidence - when that statement was made advocate Potgieter, it was made before all the who and cry took place.

When - when the - shall we call the bubble burst - and the original inquest failed, because of very substandard investigation it was re-assigned to different people and I was perfectly satisfied that, that investigation was done competently.

ADV POTGIETER:

Ja - that’s fine - that’s the one thing but you made a statement - and in that you statement you dealt with investigation issues - because you spoke about what you’ve done on the scene in the line of investigations.

MR KNIPE

That’s right.

ADV POTGIETER:

But you don’t mention your reservations in that statement.

MR KNIPE

But the reservations came afterwards Mr Potgieter.

ADV POTGIETER:

Was there any reason you’ve made a statement already is there any reason why as part of the Inquest proceedings, you can’t make a subsequent statement dealing with your difficulties and your reservations.

MR KNIPE

None whatsoever, I was satisfied than when the Inquest Magistrate made his findings and that the Attorney General instructed a new investigation to be held - that fairness was being perpetrated.

ADV POTGIETER:

Ja but that was - those are subsequent things Director Knipe - I am talking about incidents happens - now you are making statements for the purposes of an inquest.

MR KNIPE

Yes.

ADV POTGIETER:

Right, now you develop these reservations that you’ve shared with us around the investigations.

MR KNIPE

Which took place over a period of time.

ADV POTGIETER:

Good - good now I am asking you, for what reason have you not submitted a statement reflecting your reservations for the purposes of the first - let’s take the first Inquest, why didn’t you do that.

MR KNIPE

The first inquest was held after I had been transferred from Murder and Robbery - I had no idea what was going on, I left Murder and Robbery.

ADV POTGIETER:

At [intervention]

ADV POTGIETER:

At sorry - I am sorry.

MR KNIPE

If I may finish - then I heard that the thing had gone wrong - and I think I was in Durban when that took place, I was in contact with Colonel Segal who was then entrusted to the investigation. And I satisfied myself in conversations with him that the investigation was being done properly.

ADV POTGIETER:

Yes - yes no we will come to that, but wasn’t it the more reasons, you’ve now left this Unit, you’ve left this Murder and Robbery Unit and you are now in fact we assume freer to speak, wasn’t that even a more appropriate stage for you to have submitted your supplementary statement setting out your reservations.

MR KNIPE

With hind sight possibly.

 

 

ADV POTGIETER:

It has never occurred to you to do that.

MR KNIPE

No - no you see that’s a wrong premise - I said with hind sight I’d agree with you - but I did satisfy myself subsequently that the investigation was being conducted properly. So yes perhaps I take your point. The first nine months or so I should have possibly have expressed my reservations in writing.

&#9;But when things went wrong, it was clear to me that the authorities have taken sufficient actions to correct the inadequacies that were there.

ADV POTGIETER:

Now it’s even worst because you know that the result of the first inquest based on that inadequate investigation was that nobody was found to be responsible and that was really the end of the story at that stage.

&#9;Now did that bother you?

MR KNIPE

No I - that - the second inquest fell - made the same finding. I don’t think the quality of investigation was thorough that is the point that I am raising. I am not - I am not questioning the so-called objective facts that might have occurred that day. I am saying that the investigation was not thorough enough and when Segal and then conducted the investigation, I think it was a very thorough investigation. And that is the point, I don’t think and the thorough investigation - the inquest finding was identical to the first finding.

&#9;And also my reservations that I had that a Unit was investigating himself, had been removed by the "independent investigation" by Segal and Lottering.

ADV POTGIETER:

Now the subsequent investigation was purely by chance - purely for [indistinct] not so, there was never - there was never any prospect of a second inquest not so.

MR KNIPE

I don’t know if one could - I don’t know, I don’t have enough knowledge of that.

ADV POTGIETER:

No but after - after the first inquest - after the Magistrate made his findings in respect of that, that was really the end of the matter, the docket was closed then - in respect of that matter - no so.

MR KNIPE

I was - possibly I wasn’t aware of that - I was no longer at the Unit.

ADV POTGIETER:

But what is - what is - what is the normal situation once an inquest has reached a conclusion - that’s - isn’t that the end of the matter especially when there is no indication of a finding that somebody is responsible.

MR KNIPE

Not necessarily - no necessarily.

ADV POTGIETER:

So did you think well in spite of that finding that nobody is responsible there is going to be a subsequent one and that is going to make up for the short comings of the first one.

MR KNIPE

I never said - no I never said that I was aware of the findings of the first inquest - I was unaware of when that one was completed.

ADV POTGIETER:

Or you were never aware of the [intervention]

MR KNIPE

I was not aware that it had been completed. I have been at pains to say that I left - I did not like certain things at Murder and Robbery which included aspects of this investigation - not the only reasons, and I decided to leave. I had no further contact with the investigation as far as I am concerned the investigation might also have improved after I left, I don’t know.

ADV POTGIETER:

Now let’s move on a bit - after the acquittal of Mr Weaver - the Attorney General - advocate Rossouw at that stage in fact instituted a further probe investigation not so.

MR KNIPE

Quite correct.

ADV POTGIETER:

Were you not part of that?

MR KNIPE

No.

ADV POTGIETER:

Are you sure about that?

MR KNIPE

I might have advised Segal I don’t know, as I said I did make contact with Segal.

ADV POTGIETER:

I am - I am advised that contact was made with advocate Rossouw as you know is now retired.

MR KNIPE

By whom?

ADV POTGIETER:

And - by this Commission and he seemed to recollect that you were part of that.

MR KNIPE

No that is mistaken - what year was that sir?

ADV POTGIETER:

Well that was - that was subsequent to the - it must have been very soon after Mr Weaver’s acquittal.

 

 

MR KNIPE

Ja I think - I went to Durban in early ’88 I think - I think the basic investigation started in ’88. It is very possible that as I said I know I had regular contact with Segal advising him - trying to advise him as to aspects which I thought needed clarification.

&#9;But I was not directly involved in the docket as such.

ADV POTGIETER:

All right I think we don’t need to take that further at this stage, you’ve already offered to be of further assistance to the Commission so Mr Rossouw is available we can always follow that up and deal with that.

&#9;In fact perhaps in the interim just to be of some assistance I am instructed - advised that the - that, that probe was started the very day after Mr Weavers acquittal so that if you could be of some assistance, perhaps you can apply your mind to it.

MR KNIPE

The date of Mr Weavers acquittal was?

ADV POTGIETER:

The day - the day after his acquittal.

MR KNIPE

And the date was?

ADV POTGIETER:

I’ll get - I’ll get that information to you as well it was somewhere in ’87 if I am not mistaken or even ’88 - early ’88.

&#9;Let’s just get to the scene quickly unfortunately the time seemed to be running out on us, it’s normally our biggest enemy. Let’s just first of all place you on the scene, this was - this came out of the blue as you have indicated to us, you were told at the parade that you must go to this intersection of these two streets.

MR KNIPE

Again it is very difficult to be adamant - and dogmatic about time frames I seem to have a recall that we were mustard for parade when a radio report had come through stating that Murder and Robbery chaps had been involved in a shooting, and my recall is that we all left our offices at Bishop Lavis and travelled through to Guguletu.

ADV POTGIETER:

And I know that you were - you were asked this before as well when you testified, but your initial indication in your statements was that you arrived at about 7:35.

MR KNIPE

Very difficult around about 7:45 - 8:00.

ADV POTGIETER:

But your - your very first statement we got it somewhere here - is soon after the incident, that placed it at approximately 7:35.

MR KNIPE

7?

 

ADV POTGIETER:

35.

MR KNIPE

It could also be I can’t recall.

ADV POTGIETER:

That - wouldn’t that be - wouldn’t that be more accurate it was deposed to on the 1st of April ’86 where you give your arrival time at approximately 7:35.

MR KNIPE

It’s possible Mr Chairman. As I say my recall is that we were mustering for parade - we muster for parade at about 7:30 - 7:30 to 8:00 now - I think the statement made then would probably be more accurate than I recall now.

ADV POTGIETER:

Ja I would have expected that as well to be the case. Now while you were on the scene was there any shooting that was going on.

MR KNIPE

I did not hear anything no.

ADV POTGIETER:

If there was shooting going on you - you must of heard it not so?

MR KNIPE

I would have expected to hear it but there was also a lot of noise on the scene and I don’t know if the shooting took place where exactly on the scene I was. I know I was - one of the first things that I did on the scene and concerned me was the danger that the one victim might have had a hand grenade under his stomach and that was concern and that’s why we tied a rope to him and I busied myself initially very much with that action.

ADV POTGIETER:

Now you don’t need to respond immediately you can think about it and as I say look this is not - this is not the end of the road - this is a process it will - we can discuss this as well but according to the objective evidence there was shooting happening still at 7:56 - four minutes to eight on the scene.

&#9;So if you had arrived at approximately 7:35 you would have been present on the scene when there were still shooting going on.

MR KNIPE

I did not hear any shooting.

ADV POTGIETER:

As I say you can take that on board and consider that. 

MR KNIPE

I have considered it because that questions has been put to me earlier and previously I cannot remember any shooting.

ADV POTGIETER:

One other thing and I’ll try and just cover some of the more important things for these purposes here, the Exhibits that you collected on the scene what did you actually do with them - how did dispose of them?

MR KNIPE

They were all placed in plastic bags labelled in other words - I can remember the one gentleman had muti around his neck and one had documents and the one had a firearm etcetera - etcetera. Everything collected from each corpse was placed into individual plastic bags - labelled and handed to Major Brits.

ADV POTGIETER:

And you handed it to Major Brits?

MR KNIPE

At the scene.

ADV POTGIETER:

At the scene.

MR KNIPE

At the scene.

ADV POTGIETER:

Now what normally happens with those Exhibits from there onwards?

MR KNIPE

Those Exhibits should have been handed into the SAP 13 at Guguletu.

ADV POTGIETER:

Now we have - we have had regard to all of these records and we don’t find any record of those kinds of Exhibits that you refer to. What would your comment be on that if we can’t find any record now of any of those Exhibits.

 

MR KNIPE

Well I think I have already been reasonably outspoken that I do not believe that the initial investigation was as thorough as it should have been and that would have been a mistake. 

ADV POTGIETER:

Was it as bad as all that, that an Exhibit that was collected from the person of - people who are alleged to have been involved in attempted murders and so on, on the police, was just - just disappeared somewhere.

MR KNIPE

Well I don’t know if all the Exhibits disappeared, I think hand guns were handed in, I was under the impression they were not handed in immediately.

ADV POTGIETER:

Ja no-no I am just talking about the personal, we did eventually find records of the arms but they were handed in some days later.

MR KNIPE

Yes.

ADV POTGIETER:

But of these we don’t find any trace.

MR KNIPE

Well then it is incorrect, it’s wrong.

ADV POTGIETER:

So it must have been an alarmingly poor investigation not so?

MR KNIPE

I think - I think that is - that is common knowledge, I think one only has to look at the lambasting that Major Brits received from Magistrate Hoffman to conceive that.

ADV POTGIETER:

But I mean he was - he was your commander, he was in charge, he was a senior experienced - seasoned policeman. Do you think it’s just negligence or an oversight or was it intentional.

MR KNIPE

Without being disrespectful surely that should be put to him.

ADV POTGIETER:

Now but what is - have you got a view on this? I mean you seemed to have been a policeman who was very concerned about the image of the police and you in fact [intervention]

MR KNIPE

It wasn’t professional conduct.

ADV POTGIETER:

And would you have expected it from an experienced person like Major Brits?

MR KNIPE

No.

ADV POTGIETER:

Now given the evidence that we got now that Vlakplaas [intervention]

 

MR KNIPE

I can’t hear.

ADV POTGIETER:

Given the evidence that we got at this stage that Vlakplaas was involved in this - this whole thing - and given the indications that we have - that people were shot when they should never have been shot, there was no threat to the police, some were shot - busy surrendering - an indication which you might have heard, I don’t think it was - it was - no it wasn’t put to you, but it was dealt with when some of the other people testified but you might very well have heard it, about an indication of an Tokarev what ever it’s called pistol was placed near to somebody’s body and so forth - I assume that you’ve heard that when it was put to one of the other witnesses.

&#9;Given that whole - this whole sort of scenario - bad investigation - Vlakplaas indication - it looks as if people have been shot almost in cold blood - evidence is planted - some disappear what is your reaction to all this, how does it sound to you, how does it strike you?

MR KNIPE

On the scene I did believe that a hand grenade had been thrown - from what I saw - my personal observations - I believed that a hand grenade had been thrown - of the corpses were armed. I believe that a very serious warning light flashed when a gentleman by the name of General apparently came forward, I have already expressed my opinion that I do not think the investigation was of suitable calibre.

&#9;I don’t think it’s my task to say whether people are guilty or not, that’s surely the function only of a Court. But I think the decision to investigate the matter further was fully justified and perhaps this Commission is fully justified too.

ADV POTGIETER:

So in your view there - there might be merit in - in really looking at this quite critically again - this entire incident.

MR KNIPE

I have no problem with that Mr Potgieter.

ADV POTGIETER:

Now given this sort of attitude that you have towards policing and fairness and so forth and quality of policing and how police should be doing their work and so on, assume that what we’ve got here is a Vlakplaas operation where people were infiltrated - trained and armed and set up to launch an attack and were ambushed - shot and killed and that on the morning of the operation, at the briefing to prepare for the operation, the message that was given there was not to take any prisoners - shoot to kill.

&#9;Now assume that is the scenario that we got here, what is your attitude in regard to the policeman who have been involved and responsible, I mean are those - I just want to complete - are those the type of policeman that we should see in the South African Police Services.

MR KNIPE

I would like to answer the question in the following manner if I may. I believe that if the scenario is sketched by you, it’s substantiated with evidence, there is more than sufficient grounds to open a charge of murder. Which should be investigated to the fullest.

&#9;And if the perpetrators are identified and a prima facie case is made out against them. That they should suffer the full consequences of their actions. And obviously if convicted such people have no place in the Police Service.

ADV POTGIETER:

Perhaps just to add I mean I think the Chairperson has also indicated already that we are not about prosecution in a way I mean we - we’ve got amnesty - we got the amnesty process it’s there for people who need - who need the process.

&#9;We - we must really recommend as part of our report at the end of the proceedings to the President, mechanisms to avoid this sort of abuse ever occurring again I mean if it’s possible.

MR KNIPE

H’m.

ADV POTGIETER:

And that is - and it’s in that sort of light that I ask you the question dare one see that sort of police officer in the South African Police Services.

MR KNIPE

I think Mr Potgieter you must appreciate that I am a criminal detective, working with criminality, and I see things in black and white. The scenario sketched to me I think that is the way I would answer it - if it is your brief to make recommendations, if there is evidence to substantiate what you say - then I think that would be a fair finding.

&#9;I also believe that if what you say should be true, then I would probably recommend that people afford themselves the opportunity to seek amnesty.

ADV POTGIETER:

I just - just one final thing as I say look there are so many things that can we actually discuss and so on, but we will more than likely pick up on it again, this - just this one thing that came up as well, where it appears as if this was an operation that was intentionally done by white officers, it seems as if - you know purposely white police officers were chosen to form part of the - of this operation.

&#9;I mean have you got any comments on that sort of thing?

MR KNIPE

Very difficult to comment when you weren’t party to a planning. I know there was a black detective on the scene a chap called Mbelo - I did speak to him and I thought - my impression was that day that he was part of the group that were at the scene. Now whether he was involved in the prior planning, that I cannot comment on, I cannot I wasn’t there.

&#9;I arrived at the scene with my partner who happened to be a black man. And we conducted our work together as a team as we normally did.

ADV POTGIETER:

But as you say I mean it’s after the - after the fact - after everything has happened.

MR KNIPE

I am just saying from the prospective where I am - I arrived at the scene, with my partner and we did our job.

ADV POTGIETER:

Director I think at this stage I should call a halt I know the time is going to run out on us, but for the moment those are the questions that I wanted to raise Chairperson.

ADV NTSEBEZA:

Thank you advocate Potgieter. Any other questions from the panel - Pumla.

MS GOBODO-MADIKIZELA:

Thank you Chairperson, and good afternoon to you Mr Knipe, you presented yourself earlier on in your - in your written statement as a man of principal - you also described the investigation into this matter as having been sub standards and unprofessional. 

&#9;Now when you look back, how would you have done things differently had you been in charge of the operation.

MR KNIPE

I would have ensured that statements were taken from all the persons, I would have ensured that residua tests were taken from the hands of all the participants. I would have ensured that firearms allegedly used were all seized and sent for ballistic examination. I would have ensured that when evidence contrary to the police evidence was made available, that perhaps objectivity should have been displayed and not subjectively.

MS GOBODO-MADIKIZELA:

My question - thank you - that’s helpful but my question also includes the actual operation - how would you have done it differently the actual killing of these men - the actual way - the way in which they were caught. How would you have planned the operation.

MR KNIPE

If it is so and again this is - this is not personal knowledge it’s going on what has been related to me and bits that I’ve heard before the Commission. If it is so that this Cell has been infiltrated - I would have endeavoured to make pro active arrests. 

&#9;In other words I would have been fearful of allowing the planned action to have taken place - I believe that the planned action was very high risk. If it is so that two Askari’s had become acquainted with the desperado’s that it should not have been impossible to affect pro active arrest. 

&#9;If I understand your question correctly.

MS GOBODO-MADIKIZELA:

Yes I understand perfectly in fact it is my view also and I think this is what the panel has been trying to say that if the Askari’s had been involved and the policemen who were responsible for planning the operation, there was a way of arresting the seven men without shooting - now shooting them in the way that they did.

MR KNIPE

But again you know it all - I don’t have those [indistinct] but if the - if the scenario is that Askari’s had infiltrated the Cell then I do believe that it should not have been impossible to affect pro active arrest.

MS GOBODO-MADIKIZELA:

Thank you I agree with you. One of the things you said to Mr Ntsebeza the Chairperson is that you couldn’t express your view in a court of law [intervention]

MR KNIPE

No.

MS GOBODO-MADIKIZELA:

Well can I - can you allow me to paraphrase because what you said is on record I will paraphrase the Chairperson was asking you questions about what you said and what you should have said in a court of law and your response was that it was something to do with the realities of the time.

&#9;And I think that you are saying a bit more than something that relates to your personal position and your personal career and I just want your comment, I am wondering if in fact you not also saying that you not making reference to the difficulties of policeman to - or police officers to express their views but to also go according to their conscience - in other words you - I am wondering if you are perhaps not suggesting that the realities of the time made it difficult for people in the Force to stand by their conscience and by their moral beliefs - I am wondering if that’s not what you saying.

MR KNIPE

Mr Chairman end of Tape 12, side A … with my statement. I have a clean departmental record, but I was suspended for expressing my opinion.

MS GOBODO-MADIKIZELA:

I understand that, what I am - you were expressing is you, I am not challenging your statement at all. I wish you to understand that, you were expressing an opinion and I am similarly wondering whether in fact you are not expressing a further opinion and saying that it was difficult for police officers to do something that was consistent with what their moral beliefs were or with what they believed in their conscience, is that what you suggesting?

MR KNIPE

I don’t - I don’t believe that it - there was any prevention upon a policeman seeing a colleague stealing money and arresting him - openly killing someone - I don’t think we were ever hampered in doing that. But in the Force of the past, it was very dangerous to criticise the Security Police.

MS GOBODO-MADIKIZELA:

Exactly - so that difficulty reflects in fact in the way in which it was then difficult for you in a court of law to go according to your beliefs you stated in your statements that you a man of believe of principal and you were concerned about some of the things that were happening within this investigation.

&#9;But it was difficult for you because the expectations that prevailed at the time, did you not encourage you to express your independent view. In other words did not encourage you to act according to your conscience.

MR KNIPE

Your statement is correct to a degree, it is not - it is not as strongly as what you put it - I understand what you say, I think there were limitations placed upon how far one could sometimes go within a certain ambit.

MS GOBODO-MADIKIZELA:

I suppose maybe I should just tell you where I am coming from, I often wonder about the general mind sets of law enforcers or people who were working for law enforcement. I just often sometimes wonder what their mind sets was. And I was driven to my question by some of the comments you made and wondered if perhaps this is what was happening with you every time that you were caught up in a system that expected you to behave in a particular way while in fact you had other views or believes.

MR KNIPE

I don’t know if I am answering your question correctly madam but I think - I think the realities of the situation were that we were involved in a low intensity war - people of South Africa inhabitants were seen as the enemy, we were not policing in a classical sense. People were perceived as being an enemy - not as being an criminal and there is a difference.

&#9;And - and there was strong indoctrination of course there was as on the other side there was indoctrination. The tragedy of South African society was basically that, surely and of course that affected people from all walks of life, we all had perceptions which might have been wrong. 

MS GOBODO-MADIKIZELA:

You have answered my question thank you - I will move on to another question. In your work was it the first time in your work as - in your unit - was it the first time, was the investigation you were doing with this case, the first time you involved in an investigation.

MR KNIPE

No sorry I don’t understand the question.

MS GOBODO-MADIKIZELA:

You - you were an investigator of this case after the shooting at Guguletu, you were one of the investigators.

MR KNIPE

No I think your interpretation and mine of an investigator might be different. I arrived on the scene and I have reasonable [indistinct] and experience from the scene and one of the things that I have tried to make it my duty to do is to have professional conduct on a scene of crime wearing gloves, putting Exhibits in plastic bags etcetera, etcetera. 

&#9;Those are things that I have tried to implement throughout my career in the Police Force and that is what I did there. But Fanie Brits was appointed on the scene by I think the divisional head of the CID who was then General Van der Westhuizen as the investigator, I merely helped him to do the task as described and then on own initiative washed the blood off the street.

MS GOBODO-MADIKIZELA:

So you were assisting the investigator.

MR KNIPE

That would be correct.

 

MS GOBODO-MADIKIZELA:

My question really was whether you had been involved in investigations in other cases other than the case of the Guguletu 7 - that was my question.

MR KNIPE

Sorry I misunderstood you - all my life.

MS GOBODO-MADIKIZELA:

All your life - during investigations do you also take - make sure that police officers and other people were involved - who are involved in a crime submits their statements, do you also - are you also responsible for that?

MR KNIPE

As the investigating officer?

MS GOBODO-MADIKIZELA:

As an investigator?

MR KNIPE

Yes.

MS GOBODO-MADIKIZELA:

So you would - you would make sure that people make statements.

MR KNIPE

Yes I - you know I think one is entitled to use a degree of common sense in that for example in the St James Church I think there were 1,500 people in the church the night of the atrocity we didn’t take statements from all 1,500 people. I think you tried to bring people that are directly involved so the question of statement taking is broad but also narrow at the same time, you know you can’t - you can’t take statements from everyone if you at a rugby game and something goes wrong you don’t take statements from all 40,000 people.

MS GOBODO-MADIKIZELA:

I just wanted to establish if you would take statements.

MR KNIPE

Yes but as I say within an ambit ma’am I must try to emphasise that,

it - you don’t just take statements from everyone, you establish whether that person is going to make a statement which is of evidential value.

MS GOBODO-MADIKIZELA:

And you would - you would feel somewhat responsible about the process of the case as the unfolding of the case of the case that you investigating, you would somehow feel responsible you want to know what happens at every stage of the case since you are the investigator - of a case - of a criminal ordinary case that you doing - you would feel connected to the case to make sure that all your investigation - the material that you bring to the court is in order, is there and you somewhat feel connected to the case because of the investigator.

MR KNIPE

That is the task of the investigator is to place all the material evidence before a court.

MS GOBODO-MADIKIZELA:

What sense of responsibility do you feel about the investigation of this case, [indistinct] you had a part in the investigation - what sense of responsibility do you feel about the outcome of the findings, the process of the investigation as it relates to the matter of the Guguletu 7.

MR KNIPE

I believe that when the investigation was entrusted to Lottering and Segal, that a proper investigation was conducted.

MS GOBODO-MADIKIZELA:

When you were involved - you are happy and you feel that as part of the team whatever it is that you are involved in you feel that as far as you are concerned, everything was done properly.

MR KNIPE

Again when Segal and Lottering were assigned to the investigation.

MS GOBODO-MADIKIZELA:

Now you were part of this investigation I know that you were a part - only a part so obviously you are a part of the total picture when findings are made. When statements are given, or are made - are taken - whatever within a particular defined parameter some police officers, some people at the scene whoever else was involved but you were also in a way aware that certain policeman made statements and you are part of that as well in the sense that you knew that there were certain police officers who made statements.

MR KNIPE

I - my involvement with this investigation seized the day I left the scene of crime until I subsequently had discussions with Segal.

MS GOBODO-MADIKIZELA:

I am not sure if [intervention]

MR KNIPE

And I think I might have affidavited one or two statements - the normal course of things one is at the office, and you affidavit a statement. And that is probably the sum total, I never saw the docket, I never read the docket it was entrusted to my senior.

MS GOBODO-MADIKIZELA:

But you were part of the investigation in a way it is something, I really just want to know if - if an outcome is made about a crime in which - which you were investigating or which you were part of - for which you were part of an investigation, surely you would want to know what the outcome is, wouldn’t you?

MR KNIPE

Not - I don’t know if I understand you fully.

MS GOBODO-MADIKIZELA:

I thought you was speaking English.

MR KNIPE

No - no I am not trying to be rude, I just - I can’t get to the - to the crux of your question.

MS GOBODO-MADIKIZELA:

Well just that when you see I am - one of the things I am wondering about you were part of this investigation, it was folded and finished and completed whatever, whenever it was. And you were there and you knew about the outcome and last year in November when we heard - we had a hearing at the Commission, Mr Lazaro gave public evidence - I mean gave his testimony in public and contradicted your colleagues - [indistinct] that he made a statement to him - and I am wondering as a person who was involved in that investigation, what - how did you feel how this was part of your - of your brief, you were involved in it, it was part of your investigation - what did you do, you heard it - you were sitting there and a man comes in, in public in and an official - in front of an official body and you were part of the investigation team.

&#9;What - what - how did you feel about that?

MR KNIPE

I don’t necessary think that I was shocked by that, I have a problem with certain and this opinion and perhaps it’s unfair to raise it, but I have a problem with the witness who claims that he saw photographs and he identified these people as people that he had consorted with in a shebeen.

&#9;Now as I can remember it those people were so badly shot up, I don’t know how anyone could have made any identification from those photographs and I have a problem when he comes along with such a story and I would have difficulty in believing that, because that just doesn’t ring true to me - it’s - I have difficulty - I have difficulty - it’s almost as if he has already making an alibi for himself with an identification.

&#9;Why identify two people that you were drinking with - I don’t know I have a personal problem with that and I would have liked to have interrogated and questioned him closer on that.

MS GOBODO-MADIKIZELA:

I think [intervention]

MR KNIPE

I think - I think to me if I might just say to me the - the most damming remark in this entire inquisition that has taken place was the admission by Liebenberg that when the Security Police could not deal with the problem in Cape Town, they called in other people.

&#9;Now that, that was news to me really that took me completely and utterly by surprise, that phased me. I had difficulty with that remark.

MS GOBODO-MADIKIZELA:

I just want to state also just for the record that in a conversation, well during the questioning of Mr Lazaro it appeared that he knew personally I don’t know whether it was as a result of him getting the names of the people who were shot or whether he burnt, because the part where he talks about knowing these men, from the shebeens, is hand written so it obviously seems that it something that was added after he knew their names.

&#9;He associated them with having met them in a shebeen - that part is hand written and that is how it is, my question really was about your role in the investigation and how you felt if a part of your investigation seemed to have been in question in that way.

MR KNIPE

If it is true that his hand writing has been - signature has been falsified then of course I am shocked. But I don’t believe that I have sufficient evidence to make such a finding. Also I do believe that he possibly hasn’t been subjected to cross-examination. I do believe that maybe a different interpretation could come out - I believe - I believe that the truth can only be surely determined in a two way street that he should be subjected to cross-examination too and that is why that is at the back of my mind but I don’t accept that at this point of time as necessary being the truth.

&#9;But if it is the truth, it’s disgusting. Because then it - then it is almost as if my colleagues tried to set up these people in involvement in criminality to justify the subsequent action. And if that is so - I am [indistinct] but I can’t express an opinion because really I believe that the facts as are known to me - I can’t express an opinion on that.

MS GOBODO-MADIKIZELA:

My question really was more in relation to your response in November when you first heard that Lazaro - when you first heard Lazaro’s claims - I was wondering what [intervention]

MR KNIPE

It would be the same ma’am again I have a difficulty in that the man was not subjected to cross-examination. It’s the basic tenancy surely of our law, I have had many a witness that has made statements and after cross-examination you cannot believe that it’s the same story that’s being told. And I am just applying that caution before I judge people.

MS GOBODO-MADIKIZELA:

I am equally appalled myself that you as a senior member of your division can come to this Commission and tell us that an investigation after an events in which seven men were killed was sub standard and unprofessional, I am equally appalled thank you.

ADV NTSEBEZA:

Ms Burton. 

MS BURTON

Thank you Chairperson, I’ll try not to be too long - I just have one or two factual questions and one has to do with the question of the timing, I know you said you were not absolutely clear about what time you arrived on the scene.

&#9;When you arrived Major Brits was already there, I think that’s what you said.

MR KNIPE

Correct.

 

MS BURTON

And he instructed you to take certain actions.

MR KNIPE

Correct.

MS BURTON

But he was in charge of the investigation is that correct.

MR KNIPE

Correct.

MS BURTON

He has said that he did not arrive on the scene until 8:03 I think, I speak under correction, could that tally with your account of the timing?

MR KNIPE

My time could be wrong.

MS BURTON

But it is correct that he was already on the scene and when you arrived you were told that he was in charge and [intervention]

MR KNIPE

My recall is when I arrived there, I remember seeing Brits - Brits from our Unit, Mbele and I arrived together - yes Brits was on the scene where I got there.

 

 

MS BURTON

Thank you, now you’ve told us about some of the steps you took putting individual items in individual bags and all that sort of thing - was recording the place where the various vehicles were part of that investigation?

MR KNIPE

Ma’am I never said I put it in black bags.

MS BURTON

No - no - no I said plastic bags.

MR KNIPE

Sorry I thought you said black bags.

MS BURTON

No.

MR KNIPE

No I didn’t - I can recall only two vehicles really that was the Kombi in the middle of the road.

MS BURTON

Have you got a sketch plan in front of you.

MR KNIPE

I believe that would have probably have been Vehicle H.

MS BURTON

Marked H right.

MR KNIPE

That was a Kombi where people had been in that were shocked, there was a body lying next to the vehicle and there was a tremendous amount of blood that is the blood that I washed from the street.

MS BURTON

Right that was Mr Konile.

MR KNIPE

And then I can remember the Vehicle A if that is the vehicle that were Brazelle was in.

MS BURTON

That’s right - those are the only two vehicles you remember.

MR KNIPE

Now those are the only two vehicles that I can recall.

MS BURTON

I wanted to ask you about the vehicle [intervention]

MR KNIPE

And then there was a - at a stage there was also a Casspir because when we - that’s right - remember correctly when we pulled the body over we placed the Casspir between us and the body.

MS BURTON

I wanted to ask you if you had noted the position of the Vehicle marked J but it seems that you don’t remember that.

MR KNIPE

Perhaps if you could enlighten me what type of vehicle that was, I might be able to assist you.

MS BURTON

I think that was also a Kombi - am I - can I just check with my fellow Commissioners - that was the Kombi which it is alleged that Mbelo was in.

MR KNIPE

I think there was a blue and white Kombi - I think H was a blue Kombi and I think there was a white Kombi but I couldn’t adamant on that madam.

MS BURTON

H is the Kombi I believe that was alleged to have been stolen and did you have to follow up any of that information?

MR KNIPE

No.

MS BURTON

No - thank you.

ADV NTSEBEZA:

Thank you Ms Burton, anymore questions from the panel - advocate Van Zyl.

ADV VAN ZYL

Thank you Chairperson - Inspector Knipe you told the Commission that you were mustered that morning at Murder and Robbery at about 7:30 is that correct?

MR KNIPE

That is correct.

ADV VAN ZYL

You know Sergeant Tommy Hendricks.

MR KNIPE

I know Tommy Hendricks well.

ADV VAN ZYL

Was he also a member of Murder and Robbery at the time?

MR KNIPE

He was.

ADV VAN ZYL

And do you know whether he was mustered with you that morning?

MR KNIPE

I cannot recall that - I presume he must have been.

ADV VAN ZYL

The mustering normally if you go on duty in the morning is everybody is suppose to be there.

MR KNIPE

That is - well expect for the members who are out on particular assignments.

ADV VAN ZYL

Thank you Mr Chairman I have no further questions for Director Knipe.

ADV NTSEBEZA:

Well I think for the moment Director Knipe you are excused and if there is any cause for you to be - to be needed in evidence we will call upon you. We have taken note of your concerns about subpoena’s and perceptions that there is.

MR KNIPE

Thank you.

ADV NTSEBEZA:

And without saying that we will not use a subpoena again, we - we might have to try another method in view of your remarks, thank you.

MR KNIPE

A phone call sir and I will be here.

ADV NTSEBEZA:

These proceedings are now adjourned. It then remains for me to do the necessary namely to express my sincerest gratitude to all those who have made these proceedings the success that they have been. In particular I must thank the general public for the controlled way in which they conducted themselves during the course of these proceedings. Although I have had occasion to [indistinct] one or two cell phones for users thereof , generally the conduct of the public was such as it should be expected from a public in the conditions of this nature.

&#9;I must also thank the - I don’t know how to pronounce this but the EON group who have made these facilities available for us - we are very thank full I am also reminded that we have had no power failure during the course of these proceedings it would have been a sorry sight if we had that, because I believe this is a theatre so we have to thank those that have made it possible.

&#9;I am also asked to thank Telkom and which I do, I am not particularly aware in what respect Telkom comes for special mention. But sometimes when you are the Chair you just do as you are told which is what I am doing.

&#9;But from me I must indicate that the families who have come here, and have in spite of the pain that this obviously evokes, been able to sit through and listen they are thanked for having come and in the true spirit and tradition of what the Truth and Reconciliation Commission stands for, one would hope that this process to the extend that it exposes some truths whichever way the truth exposes itself as - will ultimately lead to healing - will ultimately lead to reconciliation.

&#9;And I must in equal breath thank the witnesses who have come, I must thank the police who have braved it because this is a matter that has received public attention and it’s something that 10 years later seems to be as alive now as it then was when it went through public inquest - Tony Weaver trials and related public inquiries. And there is a sense in which it becomes an albatross around anybody’s neck to have something of this nature not going away.

&#9;So the presence of the police who came here and endeavoured to give their own perspective is very much appreciated. Because indeed without their own input the Commission’s work will fail because as advocate Potgieter has said and most of the panellist indicated in their questioning, ours is that difficulty of endeavouring to find where the truth lies. So that at the end of the day, we should be able to make recommendations that are commensurate with what we believe we have been able to get at inquiries of this nature.

&#9;And without the victims and survivors families and the witnesses in the form of the police who were involved on this day in question, we shall never know, it should never be forgotten that we were not there, and we can only know what happened when we weight the testimony of those who have been involved.

&#9;And lastly but not in the least - thank are due to the ministry of safety and security who have provided the necessary security and I would like to be able to think that much of the tranquillity with which this proceedings were held, and the utmost fear that could easily and potentially have been out of hand but which otherwise was a calm one and conducive for everybody to be able to speak their minds has been largely due to the fact that people came here in the fair secure knowledge that they would be safe in their bodies.

&#9;That is the long list that I have found and at the end of a weary day, let me thank everybody and let me declare these proceedings to be adjourned.

 

