ON RESUMPTION
CHAIRPERSON: The paper that we have been given, is that the rest of the cross-examination?
MR HATTINGH: That is indeed, yes Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, that will go on too.
MR VAN DER MERWE: Mr Chairman, may I with respect at this stage - I am here - may I with permission at this stage, briefly raise an objection.
CHAIRPERSON: Will you put yourself on record first?
MR VAN DER MERWE: Yes, my name is Van der Merwe, Koos van der Merwe, I am an Attorney representing the IFP. Mr Chairman, the objection concerns Section 39(2) of the Act which - and I only have the Afrikaans with me - says
"... if during any investigation or hearing by the Committee
(a) any person is involved in a manner which is disadvantageous to him or her, the Commission must grant him or her the opportunity to present a submission to the Committee within reasonable time."
The objection sir is, that I represent the IFP and it is not clear whether the IFP is in fact a person, whether this Section refers to a natural person, but the fact of the matter is that the IFP is a body consisting of thousands and hopefully next Wednesday, millions of persons and I object to the fact that we have not been notified that the IFP will be implicated here. I record our objection sir.
CHAIRPERSON: The implication is something that was done first three years ago, wasn't it, when the applicant gave similar evidence and named names?
MR VAN DER MERWE: That is true sir, but we may add nuances to this which may be new and I don't think the fact that it has been recorded previously takes away the duty of the Commission or the Committee to notify us.
CHAIRPERSON: We take note of your objection.
MR VAN DER MERWE: Thank you sir.
CHAIRPERSON: In so far as it is relevant, I didn't know that it was in issue that arms were supplied?
MR VAN DER MERWE: As far as I remember sir, the IFP as a body has never admitted that.
CHAIRPERSON: I understood recently that it was accepted that a certain member of the IFP acting in the course and scope of his duty, may well have received them but he hadn't told other members of the Party?
MR VAN DER MERWE: Negative sir, I think your information is incorrect, it was not in the scope of his duties or employment, he did that as a frolic of his own. The IFP as such is not involved in arms dealing and my leader, Dr ...
CHAIRPERSON: There is no suggestion of arms dealing here.
MR VAN DER MERWE: Whatever it is.
CHAIRPERSON: As I understood, it is strictly for protective purposes, on the evidence that it was not suggested that the arms were supplied for the purposes of dealing.
MR VAN DER MERWE: Yes, the point is sir that the IFP does not admit that at any stage, it had committed any crime.
CHAIRPERSON: ... what we have been supplied with is not the whole of the rest of the evidence, it is merely the portion that you consider to be relevant, is that so?
MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, I was under the impression that it was the whole.
CHAIRPERSON: The last page I have is 8247? The first page supplied this morning was 8266.
MR HATTINGH: Yes, Mr Chairman, when I cross-examined the witness, we did not have certain documents available at the time and I asked the Presiding Judge to stand the further cross-examination of the witness down to enable me to get hold of those documents and another witness was interposed in between, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: So there is nothing of his evidence ...
MR HATTINGH: No, no, that should be the whole of his evidence, Mr Chairman.
EUGENE A. DE KOCK: (still under oath)
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR JANSEN: (continued) Mr De Kock, yesterday I was dealing with various aspects of the nature and characteristics of Vlakplaas activities. Apart from the fact that there are no amnesty applications for incidents which would lead or imply reckless or large scale murder on civilians, and other violations such as rape, the fact that we do not have any other such applications, do you know of any such activities or omissions that were committed during your time at Vlakplaas?
MR DE KOCK: Yes, but it was not Vlakplaas or the Security Police as an organisation.
MR JANSEN: Regarding other aspects of the Vlakplaas operations, there are a number which involved attacks on so-called safe houses or transit houses. These attacks frequently involved the penetration of such houses by armed Vlakplaas members, is that correct?
MR DE KOCK: Yes.
MR JANSEN: The Chand incident is an example of such an activity?
MR DE KOCK: That is correct.
MR JANSEN: Could you tell the Committee in operational terms, what were the inherent risks once one decided to penetrate a house?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson the scenario's are legion, it may have been that there could have been an ambush, people who were supposed to have been in the house, would not be there, they may be seated 100 metres away from the house and they would detonate the house once you penetrated it; your own people could be shot, they could walk into a trap, there could be a mechanism which sets off an explosion; the implications were legion.
MR JANSEN: Do you think from an operational viewpoint, it is justifiable to say that once one had decided to penetrate a house, one of the necessary consequences would have been that all the occupants of the house would or could be regarded as potential victims?
MR DE KOCK: I would say that one could say that such individuals could be regarded as potential victims.
MR JANSEN: Just to go over to another aspect, and that would be the manner in which documentation was covered up at Vlakplaas. One of the reasons why documentation was covered up was to cover up the movements of the Vlakplaas members?
MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson.
MR JANSEN: In other words the work charts and the claim forms for travel and accommodation, were many times filled in incorrectly not to commit primary fraud, but for primary security reasons?
MR DE KOCK: Yes, primarily for security reasons. No fraud was committed with the claims for housing or accommodation and travel, I would just like to add to that that if for example we were working in the Western Transvaal and operating towards the Botswana side, we would submit petrol quotations from Nelspruit or from those parts, such as Piet Retief. We had an entire library of for example petrol quotes from all over the country, among others.
MR JANSEN: A further instruction which Mr Ras has given me is that it went so far that with some of the informers or sources which you handled at Vlakplaas, the correct names of those sources were not given to the persons who had to manage the Secret Fund and the Source Funds, as a result of the fact that the identity of those sources had to be protected against a possible security breech within the Police itself?
MR DE KOCK: That is entirely correct.
MR JANSEN: And that in itself, was actually against the regulations? The correct identity of the source had to be registered?
MR DE KOCK: That is correct, but the reason for that was that there was a penetration of the secret files of the sources at Head Office itself, I cannot recall the specific date, I think it took place during 1987 or 1988. During this incident, a woman from Botswana who worked for the Security Branch, had her identity exposed and she was arrested by the ANC and that led to the practice of people deciding upon their own initiative to disobey that regulation, because of the consideration of the safety of the source.
MR JANSEN: Once again one creates the impression if one studies some of the incidents before your time and during your time, during which askaris and other people were killed, sources and potential alleged double agents and so forth, it would appear that there was a very low tolerance for security risks at Vlakplaas?
MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct.
MR JANSEN: In fact, one would create the impression that this was a "zero tolerance policy" towards any suspected security risk?
MR DE KOCK: I would agree with that.
MR JANSEN: And this was a culture which you found there when you arrived there, just like any other person such as Mr Ras, have found it there when he arrived there?
MR DE KOCK: That is correct.
MR JANSEN: Then with regard to C-Section, I would like to put a few things on record. C-Section if I understand the history of that Section correctly, initially consisted only of C1 but later, during the mid-1980's, was joined by C2?
MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson. Gen Buchner and an identification group were only not known as C2, they were later added. There was however an identification group at Head Office itself.
MR JANSEN: And that was a few individuals, say four to five persons?
MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct.
MR JANSEN: C2 cannot be compared to C1 which consisted of numerous people and amounted to a membership of over 100?
MR DE KOCK: No.
MR JANSEN: What was the nature of C3?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, this was a group or a person who had a staff of two to three members and I think during 1988, roundabout there, it was established. He had to maintain terrorism statistics, in other words the number of attacks, who were attacked, were they Policemen, civilians, members of the military, keeping a register of weapons, the nature of weapons, the number of weapons, whether they were Eastern Block or South African weapons; statistics surrounding the entire security record of day to day activities and terrorism in South Africa.
MR JANSEN: During your time, let us take that entire period from 1984 to 1990, were you aware of the existence of some or other internal inspection division or any internal mechanisms which existed within the Police or the Security Police with the purpose of investigating allegations of corruption or illegitimate conduct and to control such allegations?
MR DE KOCK: No, I didn't know about this personally, however I was informed that with regard to sensitive matters, in other words where a finger had been pointed to the Security Branch or a Security Branch, a person or more persons would be appointed, usually from within the ranks of the Security Branch to investigate such matters. However, later on such a Unit after the Harms Commission, such a Unit was brought into existence, however it was not an identified Unit such as F3 or G4 or something like that.
MR JANSEN: Yes, one is under the impression that this was primarily an ad hoc investigation into allegations, at least before 1990?
MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is so.
MR JANSEN: One is also under the impression and please tell me if you agree with me that when letters arrived from the families of victims or the Attorneys of victims, it was sent through to the relevant Unit for some form of an answer. An answer would be provided and placed upon record and all the formalities would be observed, however there was never any real attempt on the side of the Police, to thoroughly investigate these allegations?
MR DE KOCK: There was such a division at the Security Head Office, however I had nothing to do with that side of matters. I would accept that it was like that, but I don't have any personal knowledge thereof.
MR JANSEN: Well, did they ever pay a visit to Vlakplaas in order to see what was going on there?
MR DE KOCK: No, no questions were asked.
MR JANSEN: Yesterday you gave evidence about a complaint which a Commander in the Eastern Transvaal had about how you acted in Swaziland without his knowledge, is that correct?
MR DE KOCK: Yes.
MR JANSEN: And this aspect was taken up with Brigadier Schoon?
MR DE KOCK: That is correct.
MR JANSEN: Do you have the Bundle of documents pertaining to the Chand incident in front of you?
MR DE KOCK: Yes, I do.
MR JANSEN: If you could just look at page 145 of that Bundle, the paginated 145 of that Bundle. Mr Chairman, unfortunately this document is almost illegible, there is just one passage that I will be referring to, I will make that a better copy of this document is prepared, a typed version before the Chand incident is heard and for purposes of - in any event Mr Chairman, I still need to take instructions to decipher as it were, most of what is stated here, but I just want to refer to numbered paragraph 2 there. In that document, paragraph 2, you will see the following
"... no covert operation is executed without the permission of Brigadier Schoon"?
MR DE KOCK: That is correct.
MR JANSEN: And that document was signed by Baker, Captain Baker?
MR DE KOCK: Yes, there was such a Captain.
MR JANSEN: And it was also signed on the left side by Brigadier Schoon?
MR DE KOCK: That is correct.
MR JANSEN: Someone in your position or someone at Vlakplaas, would have understood what is meant by covert operations in this document? Let us speak of the usual legal covert operation as well as the other activities that you were involved in.
MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson. If it was covert it meant that there was an element of dishonesty or disadvantage for somebody else.
MR JANSEN: Yes, but the fact remains that the impression is created that your Commander, Schoon, was anxious to know what was going on, in other words he did not want to be left in the dark with regard to your operations?
MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, because if there were complaints or problems it would come from above. That is why he wanted to be prepared.
MR JANSEN: Yes, he wanted to know what was going on in order to be able to deal with such potential problems?
MR DE KOCK: That is correct.
MR JANSEN: And to use this as an example, the complaints which was lodged by the Eastern Transvaal Commander, it wasn't really a complaint against what you did but a complaint against the fact that you operated in his area without his knowledge?
MR DE KOCK: Yes, we operated in the area, we had permission for that, but we didn't have permission to go over at that stage and launch an operation in Swaziland.
MR JANSEN: Yes, so then his complaint would have been that you went over without his knowledge, that he was not consulted in the matter?
MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct.
MR JANSEN: And one can then accept that a Regional Commander would have been rather anxious to know exactly which movements there were from the Security Forces if it was Army or Police in his area?
MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct because there were implications of an international nature, it could have led to an international incident if you crossed an international border.
MR JANSEN: In your history at Koevoet and later on at Vlakplaas, did the authorities ever monitor in a structured or organised manner, the number of combat situations or exposure which the individual members had to conflict situations?
MR DE KOCK: For every incident, there was an operational form which was a contact report, but I don't believe that they monitored every individual member's exposure to combat. You were there to fight and if you were still on your legs, then you were still good to fight.
MR JANSEN: Were any of the members or persons there monitored for war related stress or post-traumatic stress disorder?
MR DE KOCK: No, later one came to the conclusion that we didn't realise among ourselves that things were happening to us, because we had far progressed far beyond the borders of post-traumatic stress.
MR JANSEN: Thank you Mr De Kock.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR JANSEN
CHAIRPERSON: We can continue working our way round for the moment, any questions?
MR FOURIE: Thank you Mr Chairman, I have no questions at this stage.
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR FOURIE
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MOHLABA: Thank you Mr Chairman, I've got a few questions, on the question of askaris. Mr De Kock, there were two options for the askaris, it was to cooperate with the Security or to face prosecution. Would you be able to tell this Committee, what was your attitude when an askari decided to face prosecution?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I had no say in the recruitment of the askaris. Upon a few occasions and that won't be more than five or six, I was requested by Major Martin Naude at that stage, to visit the specific detainee and to say what I think of him, whether or not we would be able to use the detainee. However, in other cases, with regard to the recruitment of a person and the proposals that were about a person, I had no say in these matters. I had no say in determining who would become the next askari or what would happen next, I simply received the person and later I had to replace the person in his previous situation, in other words rehabilitate him and use him for operational purposes.
MR MOHLABA: And Mr De Kock, it is so that there was a problem of askaris' defection and I would like to know what were you doing actually to curb that problem of defection?
MR DE KOCK: I am afraid I don't understand completely, are you talking about defection or escape, running away?
MR MOHLABA: Mr De Kock, I am talking about - yesterday you made mention of the fact that there was no trust for the askaris because in most cases, they used to defect. Is that not so?
MR DE KOCK: There were cases during which some of these askaris defected back to the African National Congress, however from my side, wherever possible, in the first place and one could only achieve this after they had been appointed as members of the Force, I attempted to bind them by means of housing subsidies, by which they could obtain housing and stabilise their families. They could then send their children to schools for a permanent period. It happened sometimes that some of the askaris who were delivered to me because we had a very open relationship, indicated that they were more afraid of the Security Services within the opposition party than what they were afraid of us. I think that that may have been one of the determining factors as to why they would not go back so easily, although some of them did do this. In order to ensure that a man would stay here, I went to the extent in one case, to smuggling a man's wife and his children out of Swaziland back into the Republic and arranging South African citizenship for them, because I knew that without his family, one would not be able to keep that man in South Africa. For that reason, I smuggled his family out of Swaziland.
MR MOHLABA: Thank you Mr Chair, I've got no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MOHLABA
MR MARIBANA: Maybe Mr Chairperson, for the sake of the correctness of the transcript, legal representatives should place themselves on record before they ask questions, otherwise the transcript would be mixed up.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it may be said that we've got quite a few legal representatives here today and I think it will be very hard for a typist to identify them by listening to their questions and working out who they were. I think it would help if you could all, before you start questioning, put yourself on record. Can you do so somewhat belatedly?
MR FOURIE: Mr Chairman, Fourie for the Ncgqulunga family.
CHAIRPERSON: No questions?
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR FOURIE
MR MARIBANA: Mr Chairman, J.C. Maribana for the Mabotha incident.
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MARIBANA
CHAIRPERSON: All right, we now revert to those who asked to stand over till today. Before we come to Mr Visser, I would like to place on record that Mr Du Plessis who is appearing elsewhere has been to see me and indicated that he has no questions of this applicant at this stage.
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS
MR VAN DER MERWE: Mr Chairman, will I get an opportunity later on?
CHAIRPERSON: Oh, sorry, I didn't think, yes certainly, you can question now or ...
MR VAN DER MERWE: The time is now Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Right.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DER MERWE: Van der Merwe on behalf of the IFP. Colonel De Kock, unfortunately I was not present here yesterday but I read in Beeld that you are quoted as saying that the Security Police after the unbanning of the liberation movements in 1990, provided weapons, vehicles and explosives to the IFP which they used as a buffer against the ANC? Is that what you said?
MR DE KOCK: I don't know if that would be correct word for word, but that is the general implication of it, yes.
MR VAN DER MERWE: The purpose of using it against the ANC, was as a defence against potential ANC violence?
MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct.
MR VAN DER MERWE: I would just like to put four very brief quotations from the amnesty hearing of 24-11-1995 during which Gen Nyanda gave evidence. Just to ask you whether or not you agree that this was the nature of the ANC threat at that stage and I quote on page 8266 where it was put to Gen Nyanda that he would have said on page 21
"... yes, and would it be fair to say that the Vula project was intended to build up a national underground in the country"?
And he says "yes". The second quotation -
"... and would it be fair to say that that continued long after 2 February when the ANC was unbanned"?
In other words 2 February 1990, when the threat continued. Then the third quotation is on page 8268 -
"... after the entering into of the Groote Schuur Accord, further arms were introduced into the country, is that correct orders were placed for further arms to be brought into the country"?
Then the General replies that that is so. The last quotation-
"... and the military training of people inside the country continued"?
Then the General replies "it is so." The weapons which you provided were approximately in 1990, and this was against the ANC violence, this was the reason for providing these weapons?
MR DE KOCK: That is correct.
MR VAN DER MERWE: Then I have one further question and that is, are you aware of the fact that Dr Buthelezi has a personal policy of non-violence, that he rejects violence?
MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson, I have never heard him say that anybody should be attacked.
MR VAN DER MERWE: Chairperson, I have no further questions, thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN DER MERWE
CHAIRPERSON: To you now, Mr Visser?
MR VISSER: Chairperson, thank you, we did place our position on record, Mr Wagener and myself, yesterday Chairperson. May I just for the record purposes and to explain to you what has transpired, make a few notes. Chairperson, I am on record as appearing for Brigadier Willem Schoon, now yesterday you heard in evidence various other people being implicated in one way or another by Mr De Kock. These include Gen Johan van der Merwe, Gen Johan Coetzee, Brigadier Wikus Loots, General Bertus Steyn, either Colonel Rudi Crause or Captain Frik Crause, I am not sure which, Colonel Willem Coetzee, Colonel Jan Coetzee and Mr Adriaan Vlok. Chairperson, obviously we have not had sufficient time in order to traverse with these witnesses the way in which they were implicated, also we have another problem and that is that in implicating these people, Mr De Kock, referred to his amnesty application, which we don't have a copy of. We have required a copy from Ms Patel and I was informed this morning by my learned friend, Mr Hattingh, that there is no objection to a copy being given to us. Obviously also Chairperson, it would be helpful to have the record of the proceedings of yesterday and today.
CHAIRPERSON: I thought for a moment you were meaning the record of his trial?
MR VISSER: No, no. Chairperson, that being thus the case, we are not in a position to make any meaningful contribution at this stage, the only problem which remains is, we thought and I said yesterday Chairperson, that when we come to the incidents, we will deal with these matters, which is the appropriate time to deal with them but what has occurred to me later, which didn't occur to me at the time was that there may be instances of implication of implicated persons, where there is no specific incident that is going to follow. I took this up with my learned friend, Mr Hattingh, this morning Chairperson and he has certainly no objection to me placing their case on record at an appropriate time, whether it has something to do which is relevant with a particular incident or not, it seems that that must be the most practical and pragmatic way of dealing with it from a point of view that now is not the time and place in the first place, secondly we are not in a position to fully deal with the matter. If the panel would be aware that at some stage when we deal with a particular incident, we might ask your leave at that stage just to place on record what the implicated persons will say in regard to the evidence that is given here.
CHAIRPERSON: But I understood that was the position, that what we were trying to do here and now was to get a general background picture, we are not dealing with specific incidents?
MR VISSER: Yes Chairperson, the only reason why I mention this now is that while it is true that Mr De Kock is dealing with the general background, he has given examples in support of his contentions of the general background and those examples may or may not become disputed. It is only from that point of view, we don't believe it is any hardship Chairperson, because your decision on this background is only going to follow at the end of the hearings anyway.
CHAIRPERSON: But we want to get his evidence transcribed, you have no objection to that?
MR VISSER: Absolutely none.
CHAIRPERSON: The general picture, if you have specific incidents, you can deal with that later.
MR VISSER: Chairperson yes, we have no objection whatsoever and I think that is also clear from what we said yesterday, but as long as we will be allowed the opportunity in line with what Commissioner De Jager has said the other day which you will remember, where he said the Amnesty Committee, this is not an inquisition, it is not here to make findings against implicated persons and it hasn't done so yet, but it is in the interest of those people just to place on record what they say about it, and if we can be afforded that opportunity at some later stage, then Chairperson, I will have nothing further to say. Thank you.
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER
MR NEL: Thank you Mr Chairman, Christo Nel, I have no questions for Mr De Kock and my colleague Yvette Calitz has also indicated that she does not have any questions. Thank you.
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR NEL
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS CALITZ
CHAIRPERSON: That I think completes the questioning?
MS PATEL: No Honourable Chairperson, you have missed me.
CHAIRPERSON: Oh sorry.
MS PATEL: Mr De Kock, there is just one or two aspects that I require clarity on.
CHAIRPERSON: There is somebody else down there, I thought we had dealt with it passing down.
MR MOHLABA: Thank you Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Will you put yourself on record?
FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MOHLABA: Thank you Chairperson, Buka Mohlaba for the Nyanda family. Mr De Kock, I want to make a follow up on the cash payment scheme, whether I should call it bonus or incentive scheme, which was paid after an operation was considered to be successfully carried out, I want to find out from you whether ...
CHAIRPERSON: Did he give that evidence that this was paid after operations were successfully carried out, that is not my recollection. My recollection is that he made it clear in his evidence yesterday that these bonus payments were not linked to operations?
MR MOHLABA: Thank you, my apologies Mr Chairman. Let me follow up on this bonus scheme, how was this determined, was it paid after an operation or was it paid whether or not there is an operation having been carried out?
MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, it was not related to any operations or actions. When the money was available, it was divided amongst the members. It had no relation with operations and it had no relation to the death of any persons. It was not done with the idea to incite people to report for operations and just to kill people, this never happened. There was no expectations created with these people and none of my members ever expected that they would receive something.
MR MOHLABA: Were you the person deciding when such payments would be effective when the money becomes available, or was there somebody else who was telling you to effect such payments?
MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, in the case of the Vlakplaas members, I took those decisions and I was also the person who had access to the money although I could not get the money without the permission of my seniors because they checked those claims. Larger claims were also written out for askaris, Joe Mamasela, and this was decided upon by the Commander, Brigadier Schoon and afterwards Brigadier Nick van Rensburg and Gen Engelbrecht and on a weekly basis we wrote out money for Joe.
MR MOHLABA: Thank you Chairperson, I've got no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MOHLABA
CHAIRPERSON: Are there any questions from Ms Baloyi?
MS BALOYI: Mr Chairman, I don't have any questions. Thank you.
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS BALOYI
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PATEL: Thank you Honourable Chairperson, Ms Patel on record. Mr De Kock, there are just two aspects that I would like clarity on. Were the askaris ever used as witnesses at criminal trials?
MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson, they were used as witnesses against some of their former comrades. It was usually referred to them as Mr X with regard to the press but the Defence would know who Mr X is, because the client would tell them.
MS PATEL: What special arrangements were made in order to protect their identities, if any?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, when they gave evidence in court, it was a matter that their names were not mentioned, no photo's could be taken of them and some of the operational members who were askaris, also had false passports because they had to move across the border and sometimes we pulled in those passports and issued them with others and we tried to cover up where they lived and we did everything in our power to make sure that they did not give evidence where it was really not necessary. Despite the fact that they did give evidence, we tried in all aspects to keep them away from the courts.
ADV SANDI: Thank you, sorry Ms Patel, Colonel whilst we are talking about askaris, let us suppose a so-called terrorist has been captured, what would be the role of an askari? Would an askari be used to interrogate that person?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, yes it did happen, not necessarily always that he was involved with the torture of this person, but the advantage that we had of having a terrorist or let us say he could catch this person if this person was telling a lie. Your normal Security Policeman did not know what the activities were in the camps in Angola and Zambia and Tanzania, they did not know the people there, they did not know the structure of the camps there. They also did not know the camp language which was developed amongst the people there. In other words this former terrorist showed his value there and it was invaluable with the identification of persons, Commanders, targets and so forth.
ADV SANDI: And if it becomes necessary in that scenario to use force against that so-called terrorist who had been captured, would the askari be part of the use of force say in beating up or assaulting this person?
MR DE KOCK: Yes, it did happen Chairperson.
ADV SANDI: Thank you Colonel, thank you Ms Patel.
MS PATEL: Thank you Honourable Chairperson. Mr De Kock, from your experience explain to us what protection mechanisms were put in place for askaris who were to testify at criminal trials, can you tell us out of, from your experience persons who had testified, who were askaris, how many of them were exposed subsequent to them testifying?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I know of one instance in Benoni where one of the previous members gave evidence and his name was published in the newspapers and this caused us many problems. I don't know if we relocated him afterwards but I have some idea to that. I am not going to say it here and say that it was written in stone, but I think we did relocate him afterwards. It had some repercussions for their family afterwards and as far as I know, in the time that I was at Vlakplaas, none of these askaris who gave evidence, were exposed in the media and I think there was usually a court order and it was always referred to as Mr X in that case.
MS PATEL: Can you recollect more or less in how many trials the askaris would have testified, just to give us a general indication of you know how effective they were?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, regarding their effectiveness, their evidence was deadly because the person against whom he gave evidence, placed this person abroad, which was an offence if you go out for training. With effect to what training they had and if they operated within the borders of the country, that person could not deny that he had training and that he was sent in to commit acts of terror and with regard to - it was a question of two facets, I have just touched on the one facet. What was the other facet?
MS PATEL: The question was generally - let me rephrase perhaps, how many effective prosecutions took place as a result of the testimony or with the assistance of the testimony of the askaris, from your knowledge?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, at my time at Vlakplaas, when I was the Commander the askaris who gave evidence in all their cases, were successful witnesses. I personally do not know of anyone who was found not guilty.
MS PATEL: Can you give us an indication of how many trials they might have been involved in, just a general ball park figure?
MR DE KOCK: I cannot tell you, I can't help you because the Investigative Officials in this matter, we were not involved with the matters ourselves. The Investigative Officials right across the country, will direct a request for a specific askari to give evidence in a certain case, but in two of the cases which I can specifically remember, it was the incident in Delmas, a high treason matter in Delmas, there were 13 people charged there and amongst others, and the Ebrahim matter, some of them gave evidence, but they also gave evidence in Cape Town, in Natal, in Transvaal and they were usually effective witnesses in such cases, although I cannot give you a number here, but this was on a regular basis. On the contrary members from the Attorney General's office visited Vlakplaas to consult with askaris there. I can recall one instance, but they were regularly consulted with and the cases were built around their evidence.
MS PATEL: Okay, thank you, then just to move on to the final aspect. You mentioned during your testimony yesterday that you at some stage had become a card-carrying member of the IFP. If my memory serves me correctly this happened at some stage during 1993, is that correct?
MR DE KOCK: No, it was already in 1990/1991, that was when I became a member.
MS PATEL: Can you tell us whether this was a decision that was taken in conjunction with other persons at Vlakplaas or whether it was a personal decision?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, with regard to me, it was a personal decision and two other members also joined up. It was not a matter that they were forced, everybody can decide for themselves there, but in my instance, it was of my own conviction.
ADV SANDI: Sorry Ms Patel, can I ask just to follow on. Do you want to dispute his alleged membership to the IFP?
MS PATEL: No.
ADV SANDI: I see that the Counsel for the IFP did not put that in dispute?
MS PATEL: No, it is not my intention to dispute it, I just want to understand the reasoning behind it and whether it was a decision that was taken by more than just the applicant at Vlakplaas, or whether it was a general decision taken or a general request to Vlakplaas members, or whether the applicant had personally decided, it relates to his political motivation at the end of the day as well.
ADV SANDI: Thank you.
MS PATEL: Sorry, Colonel De Kock, at the time that you had become a member of the IFP, can you tell us whether at that stage, you were a supporter or you were a member of the National Party or neither?
MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, after the unbanning of the ANC, I did not want to have anything to do with the National Party.
MS PATEL: All right, thank you Colonel, you have been helpful. I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS PATEL
MR SIBANYONI: Colonel De Kock, yesterday the Chairperson asked you a question whether there were Ministers who visited Vlakplaas, and you confirmed, but for the sake of record, we are now compiling a transcript which would be used for all other Committees, you might have stated it in some Committee, can you say which Ministers visited Vlakplaas?
MR DE KOCK: Min Adriaan Vlok specifically I remember at two instances visited Vlakplaas there. Amongst others he was accompanied by some of the Generals and at one Christmas function, he joined the party, the Christmas party there.
MR SIBANYONI: Also for the sake of record, yesterday you said you wonder how can some Ministers say they were not aware of the activities of Vlakplaas and you said if they were here, you would put some questions to them. Can you explain to us this question of the need to know, because some of them said they were only a small group or individuals within a small group, who knew what was happening, but the government and other politicians were kept ignorant of what was taking place.
MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson, but now we have persons who are in parliament or who use those facilities, there is a cross-border operation, eight people or nine people had been killed. I refer to the Lesotho example - ANC members, the Lesotho government had a go-slow at the border post, in other words people cannot get through to Lesotho, the food cannot get into Lesotho, the people can't come out of Lesotho, trucks are turned around. No parliament member can say this passes him, so parliament member can say that he does not know that nine people fell in Lesotho. Somebody had to shoot these people, the attacks in Botswana for instance, whose helicopters were used, whose troops launched the attack there, it is not a foreign entity, it can only be us. It is an illegal act, this is an offence of every international law that exists, so these persons can never say that they had their chairs in parliament because of his own abilities to democracy, because the largest part of this country never voted, in other words the members who sat in parliament, did not sit there because the population decided that they would be there, that was undemocratic, it was the Police and the Army who effectively kept them in their chairs there.
MR SIBANYONI: Yesterday you referred in passing about an attack in 1993 in which you said F.W. de Klerk should have known about that, to what attack were you referring to?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I think it was after I retired from the Force, there was an attack in Umtata and if I recall correctly, a house was attacked and I think seven youths were killed and the reason therefore was given that information was received from the house which indicated to the attack on St James' Church and more information could be gotten around that, I think there was a reasonable, there was an uproar in the media and in the country itself, this attack as far as I know, was launched by a component from Special Forces and if I am correct F.W. de Klerk gave the permission for this. I am not sure if he was in the country but the irony that I found there was during or just after his reception of the Nobel Prize for Peace.
MR SIBANYONI: What may you react to a person who may say "Mr De Klerk, you are now bitter because you feel you have been left out and that is the reason you are implicating a lot of people who were in positions, and the like, what would your reaction be?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I would be wrong to say that there are no cases or no moments when I am bitter, because I feel that there could have been a better agreement, but I am here to say what I know. Some of these aspects can be investigated and I would be found correct. I do not have any hate and it is not because of revenge that I implicate people here, not at all. I am not here to buy any favours, I am not here to sell any lies and I am not prepared to implicate any people if it is not necessary.
MR SIBANYONI: Yesterday you also said that when a person who has been infiltrated into the country, is identified by the askaris and when during the interrogation he shows a willingness to cooperate with the Police and then he is allowed to come and stay at Vlakplaas to be an askari, my question is what form does such an interrogation take because you are talking about showing a willingness. Is it a friendly interrogation or are these people tortured?
MR DE KOCK: In some of the cases, it was for example that this member, during his interrogation no violence was used, he decided that it would be better for him to defect to the South African Forces and in one certain instance in the Cape, a certain askari was assaulted and after this assault which was quite violent, he decided that he will join up with the South African Forces. There were instances where you had the terminology, they call it a "walk in" when an askari who went to the Security Branch in Pietermaritzburg with his pistol and he asked to speak to the Chief of the Branch, he was sent through, he went to the office, he put his firearm on the table, he said this is who I am, I am a member of MK and I want to work for you and the same day, he gave away the rest of his comrades.
MR SIBANYONI: When the media was about to visit Vlakplaas, yesterday you said the arms were removed from Vlakplaas to Midrand, were you referring to Daisy Farm?
MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct, Daisy Farm.
MR SIBANYONI: Thereafter you said they were removed to Maleuskop, is it Maleuskop which is next to Groblersdal?
MR DE KOCK: That is correct Chairperson.
MR SIBANYONI: Is it possible for you to give a rough estimation of perhaps a number of people you were personally involved, people who were killed?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, no, not out of hand, but I think - I don't know, maybe 40 plus probably, I can try and get the numbers and give it to you. But for now, I will suffice with 40, 40 plus.
MR SIBANYONI: Towards the end of your evidence yesterday, you spoke some touching words about the lives which were lost both on the side of the Forces and also involving the people who were in the liberation army and the sense I got there was that behind all this gruesome activities, you value life. Now, this Act which empowers the TRC, the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act, has got two aspects - nation building on the one hand and reconciliation on the other hand. Do you see any role which you can play in this respect, nation building and reconciliation?
MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson, I do see such a role.
MR SIBANYONI: What is that?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I want to put it briefly, the youth that is there could be told what had happened and you can warn them against people who act and who are evil and people who want to recruit people for violence, one can teach people how to help themselves. There are instances where people need some guidance. One can try by means of those families who had lost some of their sons and daughters, to coopt them to form groups, right throughout the country. With regard to building the nation, one has to go and sit down and as difficult as it is, to get people together and instead of acting obstructively towards each other, pool their resources together and make a success of the life that still needs to be lived. Excuse me and from another vantage point, such incidents might take place as covert operations and I would probably be in a position to tell you at the scene, where can we start looking, in other words, such aspects after it had happened, one can kill it in the germ and I am not offering myself to any work in that line, I want to stay out of that line of work.
MR SIBANYONI: Just lastly, I remember you saying that you were once approached by the ANC who wanted you to join them and you declined the invitation, are you still regarding them as your opponent?
MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, we fought with each other and we have stopped it now, they are no longer my opponents, and the reason why I could not join up with them was that I was never given over with a white flag and secondly my opposition and enemy will have no respect for me if I defect because I cannot be a traitor. If you are a traitor once, then the chances will be greater that you can do it again. I respect my enemy for not walking over and I think they will have respect for me, and I have taken my hiding, it is not easy in prison, especially for me and under my circumstances, but I realise that members of the ANC and PAC who went through prison, they have been through that loneliness and then in particular your former colleagues and your leaders. So, I have no grief towards my previous enemies, on the contrary, and I said in my criminal trial in 1996 that they fought for what they wanted, and they won. I cannot take that away from them.
MR SIBANYONI: Thank you Mr De Kock, no further questions Mr Chairperson.
ADV SANDI: Thank you Chair. Colonel, can I start off by exposing my ignorance? This name Vlakplaas, where does it come from, this place was it Vlakplaas before it was taken over by the Security Police or was it named after it was taken over?
MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, I have often wondered about that but I made some enquiries, the name Vlakplaas was the entire area, it was the name for the entire area of Erasmia and after that, it was divided into various areas by means of sub-division and the region or premises from where we operated was actually Vlakplaas 19. That creates the impression that the entire farm was divided in an area of 99 hectare. There is a certain terminology for this, but it was a non-profitable territory and in the language of the nation it was accepted as Vlakplaas.
ADV SANDI: Thank you. Just on a different aspect, you have mentioned the names of people like Mr F.W. de Klerk, Cabinet Ministers, MP's, my understanding is that you are not implicating these people in the sense of suggesting that they had a knowledge of a specific operation before they were carried out, but they generally knew what was happening, am I correct?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, yes and also no, because in the case of the operation in Lesotho, where those decorations were issued, those decorations could only be issued by the State President. As far as I know the SOE decoration can only be issued by the State President, so there would be a request for why this decoration is to be awarded. Somebody would say this is for the bomb in London and somebody else could say there was an operation in Swaziland or in another case, there was an operation in Lesotho, so by nature of the situation, I had no doubt within myself that they did know about these operations.
CHAIRPERSON: The question to you was, you are not saying they knew in advance that they were part of the planning, you are saying that they must have known after the operations had happened?
MR DE KOCK: Yes, that would be the correct answer.
ADV SANDI: Now, on decorations and medals, yesterday you testified that medals and decorations would be awarded to you, has it ever been put to you by one of your superiors that a specific medal or decoration was being given to you because of your effective participation in a specific operation or mission?
MR DE KOCK: Yes, as I have just mentioned with regard to the Lesotho incident, after the Lesotho incident, this decoration was awarded to us. There was no request for it, it was simply awarded and similarly in the case of the operation in Swaziland where the Commander Nyanda was killed, and similarly in the London case which one can refer to as international terrorism, it was recognition for that service. It couldn't have been compensation, one could not attach any compensation to such services, but it was recognition for services.
CHAIRPERSON: You would be told what the decoration was for, would you?
MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson.
ADV SANDI: Thank you. Yesterday you mentioned a number of problems associated with enforcing discipline amongst the askaris. Would death and the killing of an askari be the ultimate sanction for an (indistinct) for an askari, someone who is refusing to tow the line, to work according to the rules of the game?
MR DE KOCK: No, askaris were not killed to serve as a warning for others and to say well, you will work with me and if you don't, then this is what will happen to you. The effect of such a situation would be that the entire group would defect. It was when it was about the safety of Vlakplaas and the protection of Vlakplaas and the protection of the Security Branch.
ADV SANDI: Maybe let me explain my question a little here, I am talking about a so-called terrorism who has already been recruited and is now in the ranks of the Security Police at the Vlakplaas camp, this person is being difficult, he is not playing the game according to the prescribed rules. You said yesterday one of the problems was that you could not take this person to court and charge him, because he would start spilling the beans. How would you deal with such a situation, to ensure that the person maintains discipline and adheres to the rules of the Vlakplaas camp?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I experienced that problem and to handle this on an equal basis, I appointed a group of the black members. For example I appointed two black Police members and two who had been ANC askaris and two PAC askaris and those individuals comprised a committee, there was a black Police Captain who was quite elderly already and I made him Head of this group and they then decided which punishment would be meted out to this person. They would recommend that he receive six lashes with a whip or that when this person puts in a claim for six days travel and accommodation, three days be deducted from those six days. I allowed them to create an internal system of discipline. From time to time, there would be an askari who came into open conflict with a white member, but that would usually stop right there and this would be referred to the committee. That is the reason why I established the committee so that it could not be said that there was any discrimination against the ANC or the PAC or that it was a white Policeman saying this or a black Policeman saying that.
ADV SANDI: Lastly, in your response to one of the questions that were posed by my colleague here on the left, Mr Sibanyoni, you mentioned something about the youth. Should I understand you to say that the youth should be careful of all forms of indoctrination, they should be careful not to be misused? Was that part of what you were saying?
MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson, I wouldn't have anything against teaching the youth to work hard, but the youth by nature of the situation, is the most impressionable section of society, they are responsible for the future of society and one will have to teach them and it is unfortunately so that one cannot prevent somebody from listening to something, but we will have to teach them to think and ask themselves the question is this person talking war or not, would this lead to sedition ultimately or not? Would this be a disadvantage for the State or another party? If we can establish such a foundation, it would be a good beginning.
ADV SANDI: I am sorry Chair, I have already indicated that the question I was asking, was the last question, I think I must ask the applicant this question. That was not the last question I wanted to ask but I must preface this question and say the following. You see our task in this process is not simply a matter of determining whether a particular applicant meets the requirements of the Act as laid down in the legislation, part of the task is we have to try and understand what was going on in the minds of the people who were involved in these things. We have to try and establish the motives and the perspectives of the various actors who were involved during the conflicts of the past. Just about public speeches, political statements by National Party leaders, are you aware of the statement which was made by one of the Cabinet Ministers that said "the death of Steve Biko leaves me cold"?
MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson, I think that that is one of those inextricable statements which Julius Caesar would have said when he said "well you too, Brutus", it will never be eradicated.
ADV SANDI: What was the effect of statements like that or that statement and similar statements to you?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, at that stage if I recall correctly, I was in the north of Namibia and those were my sentiments exactly. It also left me cold.
ADV SANDI: Thank you Colonel, thank you Chair.
MR SIBANYONI: I forgot to ask you this Mr De Kock, if you know say so, if you don't, also say so. Does Vlakplaas and Daisy Farm still exist almost as it was during your time?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I haven't seen the outside world for the last five years and I wouldn't really know. I hope not and I don't believe that it is so.
CHAIRPERSON: He is in prison.
MR SIBANYONI: Thank you Mr Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: We will take the short adjournment now.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
CHAIRPERSON: I am sorry to have kept you all here so long, because I understand that we could have adjourned for the day earlier, but I understood that some of you would be leading evidence on the question of the general background, but I am told that none of you wish to do so? Is that information that I have, correct? We leave the question of the background now and as arranged at the pre-trial hearing, the application, the first application, the Komatipoort one, will be heard tomorrow. We will now expect to see all of you here tomorrow, I take it we will only see those of you who are interested in the application. Those of you who have, I am addressing particularly Mr Visser now, some doubts as to whether they might want to raise anything else later, can do so when they are here at one of the other hearings, they needn't come back this week to do so. I understand Mr De Kock will be present at all the hearings.
MR HATTINGH: That is correct yes, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: If there is any matters arising, we can easily arrange to fit that in. I propose now, subject to anything anybody has to say, to adjourn this and we will sit tomorrow to hear the Komatipoort hearing, but I have been requested that we should commence at two o'clock. One of your colleagues and one of mine, is endeavouring to do what he can to keep the wheels rolling elsewhere and I understand he has spoken to the other people concerned in the Komatipoort matter and you are all quite satisfied that even if we only start at two o'clock tomorrow, we will complete that matter within the time allocated. In fact I gather we will probably have time to spare. You are all satisfied with that? Very well, we will now adjourn until two o'clock tomorrow and I thank you for your presence here and your assistance so far and hope that we can get things going now. If any of you have any ideas that we have spread too long and that we can hear two matters in a week, please let me know, but it seems to me at the moment that the programme that we arrived at the pre-trial meeting, is the most sensible one, it allows those of you in practice to, or perhaps allows you to have a day or two each week, to attend to other matters and not expect you to give your full time here for five weeks. Thank you gentlemen, thank you ladies and we will adjourn now.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
