Amnesty Hearings

CHAIRPERSON: Alright shall we continue.

EUGENE A DE KOCK: (s.u.o.)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PATEL: (cont)

Thank you Honourable Chairperson, it's Ramula Patel again.

Mr de Kock just, on page 53 of Klopper's application to us he states that regarding the interrogation at the farm, he says:

"At this farm Mabotha was interrogated and seriously assaulted".

The part of that sentence that I'm interested in is "seriously assaulted", would you go along with that, would you agree with that?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson.

MS PATEL: Okay. He also states on page 54, and you've stated to us yesterday in your evidence that the only information that you really got from him was that he was, at some stage, abducted by Winnie Mandela's Football Club members ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I think he said he - the report he got was he was abducted my Umkhonto weSiswe.

MS PATEL: Okay.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that's correct Chair.

MS PATEL: Yes that is correct Chairperson. However, Mr Kloppers states, in paragraph 5 on page 54 that certain information was given to them by Mabotha regarding, not only where weapons were hidden but also the identity of his so-called cohorts. Would you like to comment on that?

MR DE KOCK: I cannot because I cannot recall anything with regard to the names and the number of persons. I don't have an independent recollection of that information.

MS PATEL: But it's possible that the information would have been given?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson that would be possible.

MS PATEL: Right. Can you tell us who was Mr Mabotha's handler from Vlakplaas?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson I cannot give you a specific name. The handlers or the group leaders differed from time-to-time. For example, if I may use an example, I would have used Lieutenant Ras for this month in Johannesburg upon two occasions then in Western Transvaal, then I may have decided to shift him to the Zululand environment. So it's very difficult for me to indicate or determine a particular person to you.

MS PATEL: From your knowledge and information that you would have received during that period, prior to Mr Mabotha deserting, or allegedly deserting Vlakplaas, was he involved in any other unlawful activities prior to that, or not unlawful, unacceptable activities in terms of Vlakplaas modus operandi and Vlakplaas operations?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson no, he was not involved in covert operations and we also didn't offer any such roles to him.

MS PATEL: Did you have any problems with him before he deserted?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson.

MS PATEL: The reason I ask you this is because on page 4 of your application in paragraph 1, the second sentence you state here that

"Apparently he had once again become involved in illegalities regarding attacks on police".

The inference I draw from the word "weer" is that this wasn't the first time that this had in fact happened. Would you like to clarify perhaps why it was phrased in this manner?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson I believe within the context that I put it here he underwent training to spread terrorism and re-entered the country and he was also involved in such aspects. So I think that was in this context I have stated it as that.

CHAIRPERSON: When you say "weer" you mean that he had been engaged in such activities; he had subsequently become an askari and had stopped then and that when he left Vlakplaas he reverted to what he had been doing before.

MR DE KOCK: That's correct, he returned to terrorism.

MS PATEL: Thank you Honourable Chairperson.

Then just an aspect that you touched on yesterday regarding why Mr Mabotha would have been a risk and as part of your motivation for that you said that he would have been able to get information from other askaris present at Vlakplaas regarding your other covert operations that you might have undertaken. I find this curious in light of the strict "need to know" principle that was in fact adhered to by members at Vlakplaas. Surely the askaris would have adhered to this as well and would not have given Mr Mabotha any information about other operations that they would have been involved in?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson there are some of them who kept to that. As we have found with these units or groups there were members who would have spoken in a moment of confidence to a fellow member. I can give you an example. In 1983, after having been at Vlakplaas for a month, when Brian Ncqulunga came to me and told me about the Griffiths Mxenge situation. That is something that I didn't even know about. I didn't even know who these people were. Within the unit one could experience a situation during which a person would tell somebody else something in confidence or refer to something else in conversation.

MS PATEL: Alright. Can you tell me how long after the interrogation had taken place did Colonel Potgieter call you to say that Mr Mabotha would have to be released?

MR DE KOCK: I cannot give you a specific date but it was quite some time afterwards. My recollection is that it was quite a span of time after that event.

MS PATEL: Would it have been about a month more-or-less or less or more?

CHAIRPERSON: It must have been more than six months, mustn't it?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: If he'd done his six months in terms of Section 29.

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson, yes it was quite a great deal of time.

MS PATEL: You stated that there was an arrangement between yourself and Colonel Potgieter that Mabotha would be collected, not at the police station but at some distance away from there.

MR DE KOCK: Yes that is correct.

MS PATEL: Now just for clarity, Mr Flores states in his application at page 196, the fourth paragraph, the longish paragraph on that page, that Mabotha was to be picked up outside the police station after he had been released.

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson. I cannot give evidence on his behalf at the moment, but I would say that it was a question of not receiving Mr Mabotha in the police station, in other words him being signed out there and delivered to you. I think here it does not mean outside the police station, to say right outside the doors of the police station. Outside the police station would indicate some distance away from that place.

MS PATEL: Perhaps we will clarify that with Mr Flores at a later stage.

CHAIRPERSON: Didn't Mr Potgieter say that he was parked outside the police station?

MS PATEL: The handing-over didn't take place outside the police station, Chairperson, if my understanding is correct of the evidence. The handing over took place some distance away from the police station and the motivation for that was that so that other Security Branch members wouldn't see that he was being taken away by members of Vlakplaas.

CHAIRPERSON: Well at page 164 for example, paragraph 4.8.14 Potgieter said

"After that him and I sat in my car outside the police station while we waited for de Kock".

MS PATEL: That might be so Chairperson, but the evidence of this applicant ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: His evidence says that they weren't ...(intervention)

MS PATEL: Yes, ja, no that's what I am asking him to clarify given that Flores is saying something else.

CHAIRPERSON: Well if you're putting Flores' version which is it was outside the police station, shouldn't you put Potgieter's which was also outside the police station?

MS PATEL: Alright. Would you like to comment on that Sir?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson all that I can say is that Colonel Potgieter retracted that section in which he stated that he waited outside the police station, that it may have been a distance from there, if I am not mistaken.

MS PATEL: I am sorry Chairperson, perhaps my memory is faulty, but my recollection of the retraction is that Colonel Potgieter wasn't present at the point where - not Colonel Potgieter, that de Kock might not have been present at the point where he was handed over.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, yes.

MS PATEL: Okay, thanks. Can you just tell us what instructions had you given your members when they were to collect or when they were to receive Mabotha, what were they to tell him?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson there was no question of them telling him specifically that he was going to Penge Mine. It was a question of this being a normal delivery, a normal pick-up. I cannot recall whether we would have said to him we have come to fetch you from Vlakplaas or we are taking you somewhere. I don't have any specific recollection about that. I cannot tell you what specifically we planned to tell him at that point.

MS PATEL: Was the plan that after he was received that he would be taken directly to Penge Mine?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson.

MS PATEL: Because Mr Flores says on page 96 once again

"That after collecting him we told him that we were going to drop him off at his home and after driving for an hour de Kock and Mentz drove past, which was the signal to execute our plans".

Can you comment on that?

MR DE KOCK: No unfortunately not. I have no recollection of the fact that we drove past them. I know that I returned to Vlakplaas, but I cannot tell you whether we past them. I don't believe that the road or the route was the same in that regard.

MS PATEL: He says further that

"After the signal had been or you had passed them that van Niekerk, who sat in the back with the ANC member grabbed him and pushed him down. I was sitting in front..."

and he says the passenger seat. He jumped over to help and then handcuffed the member at that stage.

MR DE KOCK: I wouldn't know. That may possibly have happened.

MS PATEL: Alright. You state that at the time that Mabotha was received by your members he went over willingly and there was no questions from his side.

MR DE KOCK: Well I wasn't there to see whether or not there were any questions, but there was no resistance or altercation as such. The idea was that Colonel Potgieter would deliver him and that there would be a record or a witness that Mabotha was being handed to members of Vlakplaas. If I understood it correctly Mabotha and Potgieter had a very good understanding, or relationship of confidence between them.

MS PATEL: Are you saying then that, if I understand you correctly, that Mabotha would have thought that he was being handed over to Vlakplaas for safekeeping in a sense?

MR DE KOCK: I don't know what Mabotha thought. He may have accepted something like that, or at least hoped that that was what was going on, but I cannot tell you what he was thinking.

MS PATEL: No, my question is, the purpose of my question is to ascertain whether there was an agreement between yourself and Potgieter that this is what would be told to him, to Mabotha, prior to his handing over to you.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson we did undertake planning, not over the phone but next to the road where we gathered, a distance from De Deur just before we moved into position. I am not certain what the nature of our discussion was but I do believe that this would have been done for the sake of thoroughness because we had to prepare for the events of Mabotha saying, no, I am not going with these people.

What I am trying to say is that we may have foreseen something like that and we made arrangements for that.

CHAIRPERSON: But surely arrangements would have been made before you came to pick him up on the side of the road to make sure that he wasn't suddenly going to create. If this was a carefully planned operation between you and Potgieter, surely Potgieter would have already told him something that would have satisfied him that he should go in this car?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: But you said you had a discussion by the side of the road to work this out while you were waiting for him to get into the car. I don't find that that is very probable.

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, before we went to De Deur we convened, that would be me and Potgieter. Potgieter waited for us by the side of the road where we joined him, that was me and a second vehicle containing Britz and there we once again held a discussion about the whole course of the plan. In other words I would drive past, I would wait on the other side of the De Deur SAP, Potgieter would go and fetch him and I was in radio contact with my members, and once Potgieter had driven away from De Deur my members would have come from the front and made a U-turn. That entire plan had already been discussed. All those arrangements had been made.

MS PATEL: So were you present when Mabotha was handed over to your members at the side of the road?

MR DE KOCK: In the regard that I was approximately 6-700 paces away from that position, I was still on the other side of the De Deur police station, Wouter Mentz and I were waiting there in the vehicle and we watched the entire process from that position.

MS PATEL: So he would not have seen you? He would not have been in a position to see you when he was being handed over?

MR DE KOCK: No he didn't know that I was there.

MS PATEL: Can I just, for clarity's sake also, on page 196 Flores says further that after Mabotha was handcuffed in the vehicle that Britz signalled to you and both vehicles stopped, and you then walked to their vehicle and laughingly said to the ANC, "do you think you are clever?"

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson.

MS PATEL: You deny this or you have no recollection of this?

MR DE KOCK: No that did not take place.

MS PATEL: Whose idea was it to bomb Mr Mabotha?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson I asked one of my members, Mr Vermeulen - in the first place what I was looking for was a place where we could bury him. I didn't have my own cemetery or location where people could be dropped off, and as I said yesterday there was the danger that if we buried him he could be traced by shepherds or other people in that area, and I asked the others to tell me if they had a place in mind, and Penge Mine did come up as an alternative but there was a problem with that location.

Then Vermeulen suggested that we blow him up. This was a first to me because not even in an operational area would we blow people up. And he mentioned to me that it would work. And he referred to a previous occasion at Otavi where this had taken place. This was a place in the northern section of the former South West Africa. My usual procedure would have been to bury somebody if you want to hide them. That is where the idea emerged, to make use of a charge of explosives.

MS PATEL: So that the decision came from Vermeulen and the decision was taken prior to the members going out to Vlakplaas?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson ...(intervention)

MS PATEL: Not to Vlakplaas, to Penge Mine, sorry.

MR DE KOCK: No, the suggestion came from Vermeulen, but ultimately the decision was mine. I didn't know where to bury him or in what direction to proceed with him, so the decision, the ultimate order came from me. And then also similarly with Penge, because this had previously been used by us for the purposes of training and was still being used by us.

MS PATEL: And the decision was taken prior to everybody going out to Penge Mine and the decision was conveyed to Vermeulen, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson. The group that I convened was informed by me that an incident would take place, of this nature, an incident of this nature and that they were to prepare for such an incident.

MS PATEL: Chairperson if you would just grant me a moment please. I am sorry Chairperson, I seem to recollect that it was either Vermeulen or Snyman who stated that the decision to bomb only came at some stage afterwards but I can't seem to find the reference for it.

Was this decision conveyed to Snyman as well Sir?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson. The group which went knew that we were going to take Mabotha, in other words we were going to abduct him, that he was going to Penge Mine and that he would be killed there or blown up there. This would have meant that Colonel Potgieter would be giving him over - it would have appeared that Colonel Potgieter was giving him over to people from Vlakplaas and that they were going to Vlakplaas but we were actually going to Penge Mine.

MS PATEL: Okay, because Snyman's application, page 67, paragraph 3, he says the initial - the idea that they had initially was that Mabotha would be taken to Penge Mine to be interrogated and then he states further that, if during the interrogation it had come to light that there was a security risk posed to Vlakplaas that he would then be killed.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson that may be his recollection or his perception but it is not correct. I am not saying that what he thought is incorrect but when we departed for De Deur those arrangements had already been made and Vermeulen and Snyman were already on their way to Penge Mine with the explosives and all the other necessary equipment such as the Phosphor(?) and so forth. So when they left Vlakplaas they already knew that a man was going to be blown up.

MS PATEL: If you could refresh my memory Sir, did you state yesterday that during the investigation at Penge Mine the only thing you questioned Mabotha on was the location of the weapons and that he then was being obstructive in a sense and you then made the decision at that point?

MR DE KOCK: I did ask him about the weapons but the decision was not taken then to kill him. The decision to kill him had already been taken before we departed.

MS PATEL: But the only questioning was around the weapons at that stage, at Penge Mine?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, yes and it was very brief. It wasn't a long session, it wasn't even half an hour or an hour, it was a question of five to six minutes, if that long.

MS PATEL: Okay. Can you tell us, was he assaulted during that half hour or hour when he was interrogated?

MR DE KOCK: Between those five to six minutes ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: He said five minutes.

MS PATEL: Oh sorry Chairperson.

MR DE KOCK: No we didn't touch him. He sat on the other side of the fire. I sat on this side. I asked him, he laughed at me, he was obstructive and I said, "well it's that time now let's go".

MS PATEL: What was his reaction when you said "well it's that time now let's go"?

MR DE KOCK: He got up and we went. His hands were cuffed. That was the only thing that was cuffed and we went down to the mine shaft.

MS PATEL: And he went willingly with you?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, yes, I don't think that he knew that 25 kilograms of explosives were waiting for him in that stone quarry. He didn't expect that.

MS PATEL: So he'd had an experience a few months prior to this incident with you where he was severely assaulted and interrogated for an extended period by some nine people and now he's being taken down into a mine by you and you are saying that, given that experience with you, that he went willingly ...(intervention)

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MS PATEL: ...and that he didn't expect anything untoward to come from you?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson he probably thought that we were threatening him. I can't say what he thought, but there he was not anxious. The only time when I saw him being upset when he looked to the left and saw the explosives and turned around. It was as if he wanted to say something but I had fired on him already.

MS PATEL: Are you saying that the firing took place as soon as he realised that the explosives - that there wasn't a time lapse in-between?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson I cannot say, when he turned around it seemed like he wanted to say something but at that stage I already decided to shoot and I shot him. We couldn't turn around in that situation from there onwards.

MS PATEL: Can you describe the mine where you took him down, to us please?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson it's not a tunnel, it's an open area and that area is hilly. This section, if I recall correctly, it was a flat area about the size of two or three rugby grounds right to the other side of the hill. On the other side of the hill there were old buildings that were half destroyed, some ruins, and in that open mine area he was shot.

MS PATEL: Perhaps I am confusing this with another incident, but did you not say that you had to walk in single file down to the area?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson, the ground is very uneven there. From where the people had spent the evening it is quite overgrown. There are lots of stones and we had to walk in single file.

MS PATEL: Where were Vermeulen and Snyman at that stage, when you got to the bottom or to where the explosives were? Were they in the vicinity?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson yes, I cannot give you their precise position right now. I don't know whether they walked before us or behind us. If I have to draw some inference I would believe that they walked in front of us.

MS PATEL: Okay. And given that you walked in single file they would have been present when you shot Mr Mabotha?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson.

MS PATEL: Finally yes, regarding the question of whether there was a request from Colonel Potgieter or whether it was a question of consensus between the two of you, yesterday you said to us that Colonel Potgieter had said to you you can't allow Mabotha to be walking around, do you confirm that?

MR DE KOCK: Yes he said we cannot allow this person to walk around freely.

MS PATEL: Okay. Now if I can take you to page 4 of your application Sir, the third paragraph. You state that Colonel Potgieter told you that "a plan had to be made with him", that is very different, Sir, to what you have said to us in your evidence-in-chief and in your subsequent evidence to us. Would you care to clarify this contradiction?

MR DE KOCK: Well Chairperson the fact that I said that there was consensus that this guy "could not walk around freely" meant to me that we must make a plan with him. That is what it meant to me.

MS PATEL: But Sir the word "'n plan" is put in inverted commas here, which means it's a quote from Colonel Potgieter.

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson ...(intervention)

MS PATEL: It's not your words, it's his words that you are quoting here.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson that "a plan had to be made" in quotation marks is a matter of a euphemism being used that somebody had to be killed and that is how I understood Colonel Potgieter.

MS PATEL: There is just something that I wanted to clarify also regarding that. During your initial conversation you were informed that - when you were called to say that he was arrested you were told that he was involved in some shooting incident with the police ...(intervention)

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson I did not say that.

MS PATEL: You state - okay, in terms of your application you say that at the time that you received the call you were informed that "betrokke met onwettighede wat betref aanvalle op polisie", is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson yes, that is what is stated in my application.

MS PATEL: During your interrogation at the farm this information wasn't confirmed by Mabotha, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson I don't have a memory of that. I did not receive any information there from him that he had killed police officers, or had injured police officers.

MS PATEL: Given that Mr Mabotha was an askari under the control of Vlakplaas and that during your interrogation this information didn't come to light, why did you not go back to, is it Colonel Grobbelaar or is it Colonel Potgieter who made the initial call? Is it Colonel Grobbelaar you said who made the initial call to you?

MR DE KOCK: Yes that is my recollection thereof.

MS PATEL: Okay. Why did you not go back to him or to Colonel Potgieter at some stage to clarify this?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson he was in Colonel Grobbelaar's hands and the investigation was being done by Soweto. Vlakplaas did not do any investigations. Vlakplaas was a chasing unit and it was a combat unit.

MS PATEL: It's not a question of investigation, Sir, it's a question of clarifying the information that you had received, especially in the light that Mr Mabotha was an askari who was under the control of Vlakplaas at the time.

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson, the fact that he was indeed an askari at Vlakplaas does not give me the right to go and put my nose into anybody else's investigation. I believe that they would have informed me surrounding such investigations.

CHAIRPERSON: But you decided to kill this man.

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Why didn't you check up on the information?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson I had no problem with the information that Colonel Potgieter had given to me when he had called me. We have walked a long road together and I had no reason to doubt him.

CHAIRPERSON: That was that he had been arrested for attacking shebeens and killing policemen?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: A very serious criminal offence?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, very serious.

CHAIRPERSON: And you've no reason why he wasn't charged?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, I don't know.

CHAIRPERSON: You knew that that was why he had been arrested?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson he was arrested because he had joined up with the ANC again, in other words with Mrs Mandela, right in the heart of the ANC, into the heart of terror and he was again involved and this would also have been a determining factor in my acceptance of that information that Colonel Potgieter had given to me.

CHAIRPERSON: And that he had been involved in these attacks on policemen?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: You knew that. And now you knew that for six months he had been working with Potgieter, that there was a very close relationship between them, but you felt no need to make further enquiries.

MR DE KOCK: No well I didn't make any further enquiries.

MS PATEL: Did you have any idea what the source of that information was? Where did Colonel Potgieter get that information from?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson I did not enquire about it.

MS PATEL: Well I find this curious Sir, given that Mr Mabotha was put under a serious interrogation session for an extended period by many members, both from Vlakplaas and from the Security Branch, and during that session he didn't give you information about these attacks on the police, weren't you at least curious as to where this information had then come from?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson there were so many instances where people did not initially tell you anything; that in the first and second days where they didn't say anything; there were instances when people didn't tell you anything in a whole year. So this was nothing new if a person did not want to tell you anything you can only take him up to a point.

CHAIRPERSON: But this man became a state witness. He wasn't refusing to say anything. He was someone the state was going to call as a reliable witness. Isn't that the position?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: I said he became a state witness, I must correct that, he became a potential state witness. He did not in fact give evidence.

MR DE KOCK: Yes it is indeed so. Then the question with me is that why they did not want to charge him with any shootings on policemen.

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps because he hadn't done it.

MS PATEL: Sorry Chairperson, I am almost through. I am just double-checking whether there is anything else.

ADV SANDI: Sorry if I can just come in whilst you are trying to check out what you can ask, this gentleman, Mr Mabotha, before he disappeared how long was he there at Vlakplaas?

MR DE KOCK: If you can repeat please.

ADV SANDI: At the time of his disappearance how long had he been at Vlakplaas as an askari?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson I have tried to think about it, I am not sure about what period of time he spent there. I can't give you a definite time. Unfortunately those records have been destroyed. It could have been that he had been there for quite some time, four, five months, but I am speculating now.

ADV SANDI: Had he been involved in any operations where people had been abducted or killed or where people had been tortured or interrogated?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, no, nothing that I am aware of. There were no such reports from the handlers.

ADV SANDI: What was he doing during the time that he was there at Vlakplaas if he was not involved in any of those things?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson he went out with the groups when they were deployed and they are used for the identification of MK members or operational members who might find themselves in the area where he worked. Photos were shown to these people, names were given to these people, reports were given to them and then they had to find these people. They either moved on foot or in a vehicle and there was no determined time where he would only work at night or during the day.

ADV SANDI: What would you say was his profile? Would you say he was an effective askari who would identify so-called terrorists and they get arrested?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, he would have identified members of the ANC if he had seen them beforehand.

ADV SANDI: Yes, but if one were to classify askaris as you know those who are effective and those who are not effective, would you say he was an effective askari or what?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson in this instance I could not tell you because he was not there long enough. This is something that comes about over a period of years.

ADV SANDI: Thank you.

MS PATEL: Thank you Sir. There is just one final aspect. Mr Flores once again in his application on page 1926 at the last paragraph says that you all arrived at Penge Mine at half past six and you then started talking to the ANC member while they started braaiing for dinner, and he says that it was only after dinner that you all drove to the shooting range which was situated in a large type of quarry.

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson we didn't drive there, you couldn't drive there and we did not prepare dinner, definitely not.

MS PATEL: You didn't drive there?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson. After I left the people may have decided that they wanted to cook some food, but not when I was there, and we didn't eat there and nobody had anything to drink there. And we did not drive.

MS PATEL: But there was a fire going ...(intervention)

MR DE KOCK: Yes that's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Well Mentz apparently, in his evidence, said that you, Vermeulen and Snyman started drinking liquor there when you got there.

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: ...and that the deceased was handcuffed to a pole.

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, the deceased sat at the fire. He was not cuffed to a pole and we did not drink, definitely not. At the time when I was there, definitely not.

MS PATEL: Mr Flores also says that once you had moved down to the bottom of the hole, as he puts it, while you were talking to the member, which is Mabotha, you produced a pistol from behind your back and fired two shots into his heart.

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson I had that weapon with me.

MS PATEL: He says though it was during the time that you were still talking to him.

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson. When we were there with Mabotha, as I said, we didn't sit down there for longer than five or six minutes. I had already had the weapon with me and as I said I told them, this is it, let's go. There was not a long period of interrogation. There was no question of torturing or anything like that.

MS PATEL: How did you feel Sir when he laughed at you, when you tried to question him about the weapons?

MR DE KOCK: I was neutral. It was not something that was new to me. He was not the first and it probably still happens today. This did not make me angry or anything like that.

MS PATEL: Thank you Honourable Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS PATEL

CHAIRPERSON: Re-examination.

(Tape side A ends)

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: ...what the role of askaris was at Vlakplaas and exactly how they were used and exactly how they were controlled and disciplined, let's go through that again. Did all askaris live on Vlakplaas?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Did some of them live in houses in normal suburban areas?

MR DE KOCK: Yes they did.

MR HATTINGH: Those who lived there were they guarded to see that they did not leave the farm?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, not at all.

MR HATTINGH: Were they free whenever they weren't working to leave the farm to go on social visits whatever?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson, Vlakplaas was not a detention facility. It was not a camp, it was not a torture camp or a detention camp, it was a base.

MR HATTINGH: So they could leave the farm without any permission?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And there was no control in that regard over them?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, the many works for you. I cannot say that he had daily visitation rights where he could ever go, so we tried to arrange for a normal life as far as possible.

MR HATTINGH: And the police members, did they spend nights at Vlakplaas or did they live elsewhere?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson they had their own houses just like the askaris.

MR HATTINGH: So there were no police members as such at night to supervise the askaris who lived there?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson he could move around freely and he could leave Vlakplaas whenever. Except for two guards who guarded the premises, as it happens at any base, it was a base, it was a place where they could come and work.

MR HATTINGH: And with regard to the manner of work, we've heard now that they were divided up into groups and every group had a leader and besides the leader they had other two or three police members who were in the group.

MR DE KOCK: That's correct Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And when these askaris, specifically when they moved into the traditional black townships did they do it during the day or at night as well?

MR DE KOCK: No there was no predetermined time, it could happen at any time of the day, day or night.

MR HATTINGH: And when they went into these areas at night, the white members, did the white members accompany them?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson a white member could not accompany them.

MR HATTINGH: Did it happen that without the accompaniment of any police officer did they go into the traditional black townships?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson they could divide their group and then the black group member would wait at some point and he sent them out and they would report back to him.

MR HATTINGH: And when they divide up in these townships where did they spend the night?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson they did not spend the night. When they were done with their task or after their service period they reconvened and moved out of the area and then they would sleep at our safe houses or rest for a day or two and then they would go out again.

MR HATTINGH: So they were not always accommodated at Vlakplaas, they were also accommodated in these so-called safe premises that were in the areas where they worked?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Did you have many such premises?

MR DE KOCK: Yes we did Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: In your general evidence when we dealt with Vlakplaas, more specifically with the askaris in that regard you said that you never really totally trusted the askaris because they once betrayed their own people and you felt that they might do the same thing with regard to the police?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson there was always that risk.

MR HATTINGH: How would you have felt about a person who had betrayed his own people, joined up with you, and then betrayed you and went back to his own people, and worked with his own people again?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson you can really not trust that person again. There is no type of framework which you could place that person in with regard to any form of trust.

MR HATTINGH: In this regard there was reference made to Colonel Potgieter's affidavit and reference was made to a document, a letter that was written with regard to the recruitment, and the letter appears on page 171, and actually starts earlier. It seems that it starts on page 170, although the initial pages of the letter are not attached here, but the sections I want to refer you to are on page 171, paragraph 3. Actually we can read two.

"Also therefore you must endeavour to identify potential candidates and head of Section C2 has to be informed; his involvement with acts of terror; his willingness to cooperate; attitude and political history must be considerating factors".

And no. 3,

"Just about every division monthly makes use of this group whether to find any evidence or to help them trace any persons because of the limited numbers of people that these sections have at their use every member in the Security Branch must attempt to find and recruit any terrorists".

Is that correct that Vlakplaas het nie askaris gewerf nie, is dit korrek?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And by means of this the various branches of the Security Police had to identify potential askaris and attempt to recruit them?

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And then Section C2 would comprise the persons who ultimately determined whether these persons could be applied and would be suitable to work with Vlakplaas?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is exactly the point that I am trying to make.

MR HATTINGH: C1 or Vlakplaas didn't make that decision. Firstly the branches would deliberate about a potential candidate and he would then be referred to C2 which was seated at head office in the city, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And they would then have an interview with the person and investigate his background and circumstances and then decide whether he could be recruited or not?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And once he was recruited he would then be sent to you?

MR HATTINGH: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: Did you have a choice to accept or not accept him?

MR DE KOCK: No we had no choice, we had to accept them.

MR HATTINGH: Was there any meaning in what was said to you in his affidavit that even if they could not use Mabotha as a witness you could recruit him to serve as an askari?

MR DE KOCK: No, he would have to be referred to C2 in the first place.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. Let us deal with the information that you received, that he had been abducted. You say that you received such information and the question that I want to put to you is whether or not you believed it?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Let us look at the action or the conduct of the other policemen in this respect. He is arrested, firstly, and then he tells them I was abducted. In other words I was not taken away from Vlakplaas voluntarily, I was taken back to the ANC by means of violence. And now he is interrogated in a cruel fashion and he is also tortured.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: The impression is created that during that interrogation or shortly thereafter he would have admitted that he was sorry for leaving Vlakplaas and that he would like to return to Vlakplaas.

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, he did not express those sentiments during our interrogation of him and I also didn't hear at any stage thereafter that he wanted to return to Vlakplaas.

MR HATTINGH: And the impression was also created that from a very early stage, approximately that point in time, he was willing to give his complete cooperation.

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, by nature of the evidence here, if we look at Kloppers affidavit the askaris further assaulted him in Soweto, so I cannot see how he would have come back to Vlakplaas.

MR HATTINGH: Yes we know that he was arrested on the 22nd of February 1989. We also know from the documents which have been placed before the Committee, that it was only on the 4th of April 1989, that he was detained in terms of Section 29. You heard this yesterday.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Can you imagine why such a long span of time elapsed after his interrogation, before he was detained in terms of Section 29?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson I don't know where he was. If I can draw any inference by means of speculation it is possible that he may have been recovering from his injuries, but that is purely speculative.

MR HATTINGH: In terms of the stipulations of Section 29 such a detainee would have to be examined by a district physician?

MR DE KOCK: Yes that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And should he display any signs of assault this would have to be reported by the district surgeon?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: If a person had said to you, I am sorry, I want to come back, I am willing to give my complete cooperation would you have detained him from the 22nd of February to the 4th of April, and in terms of Klopper's evidence, further interrogated and further assaulted him?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: But furthermore would you, after the 22nd of February to the 4th of April have detained him for a further six months in terms of the stipulations of Section 29 having, after he had given his cooperation, or his willingness to cooperate?

MR DE KOCK: No because he would have to explain at some point that he was detained but that he was not detained in terms of Section 29. In other words he would have to tell the physician "I have been here for a month and this is the first time I have been examined by a physician", and that just wouldn't make any sense Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: This action that we have discussed with you, does this sound like the kind of action which would be undertaken by members who believed that this person felt truly remorseful over his conduct and wanted to give his full cooperation?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Mention was also made of the fact that Mr Mabotha, after he had arrived in Soweto, or had been brought to Soweto and handed over by Brigadier Oosthuizen to Mr du Toit, or Lieutenant du Toit, that an affidavit was to be taken from him. Do you recall that this was brought to light yesterday?

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Documents have been handed over to you and your legal representatives for the purposes of the Section 29 interrogation which had to do with Winnie Mandela. You saw those documents?

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And included in those documents there was also an affidavit from Johannes Mabotha, which was taken, according to the dates thereof, on the 4th of February 1990, and which according to the indication thereon was taken by Lieutenant Botha.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that's correct.

MR HATTINGH: I beg your pardon, du Toit.

I will read this affidavit briefly and I would like you to indicate whether or not you find any indication in there of the subject's remorse at having left Vlakplaas and a desire to return to Vlakplaas as well as a willingness to cooperate with Vlakplaas. He states:

"I reside at 574 Legoma Avenue, Pietersburg. On the 22nd of February 1989, at 12H20 I was arrested at Groblersdal. I stayed over with a lady friend. Before my arrest I had certain documents in my possession which have been written in my own handwriting. These documents were taken into possession by the police. The one document contains a message that I was supposed to convey to the media. The information is about a black boy, Stompie Moeketsi. I personally received the information from Winnie Mandela at her residence. I was to travel to Botswana and during this period of time 18-20th of February 1989 I was supposed to liaise with the media and tell them that Stompie was in Botswana in a refugee camp.

I was also to discredit the Security police by saying that Stompie was fleeing from the police. However, I did not undertake this operation.

I am aware of the information in this affidavit and understand it".

Is there any indication there that he was sorry, that he wanted to cooperate with you?

MR DE KOCK: No, but I can draw another inference from it, and that is that if he had to go through to Botswana there would have had to be liaison on the higher levels of the ANC or somewhere in Botswana because if Mabotha had already given evidence in matters before he had gone to Vlakplaas the ANC could have identified him in Botswana and intercepted him there. So it had to have been cleared somewhere that he had rejoined the ANC ranks.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, and while we are discussing that, just a further inference that can be drawn here, it would appear, according to this affidavit, that he was alone when he was arrested?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And this then indicates that after he had been so-called abducted by the ANC he had free movement on his own.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And if he had really been abducted and really desired to return to Vlakplaas there was sufficient opportunity for him to return without anybody preventing him from doing so.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And while we are discussing that point, he says that he did not execute the order and that he made a Section 29 affidavit as Potgieter has stated in his own affidavit which was also among the documents which were handed over to us and - paragraph 32 on page 8

"On the 16th of February 1989 Winnie Mandela gave me handwritten report. She instructed me to re-write it in my handwriting, to proceed to Botswana from where I was to contact Alf Khumalo, a reporter of the Star newspaper in Johannesburg. I was to tell him that Stompie was still alive and that he was in Botswana. She handed me R300,00 travelling expenses. I left Soweto not intending to go to Botswana. I went to Mamelodi, Pretoria, from Pretoria I went to Groblersdal. From Groblersdal I phoned the Star newspaper. I did as was instructed".

That is what appears here.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you handing this in?

MR HATTINGH: I would suggest that it should go in, both these statements, yes Mr Chairman.

Could the first one taken by Du Toit be Mabotha "C" I think and then the next one Mabotha "D" Mr Chairman.

EXHIBITS MABOTHA C AND D HANDED IN - STATEMENTS

I unfortunately do not have copies available, can we arrange that. I am going to deal with this some more, yes, Mr Chairman.

Once again from this it would appear that where he says in his first affidavit to du Toit that he did not undertake the operation, it is incorrect. He didn't go to Botswana but he did contact the newspaper and give them the false information as he states in his later affidavit.

MR DE KOCK: Yes that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And secondly, it appears more clearly from the Section 29 affidavit that he enjoyed free movement and that indeed he went to Pretoria first, after leaving Soweto and that he could very easily have gone to Vlakplaas.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MS PATEL: Chairperson if I may intervene, I don't want to be unnecessarily obstructive, but it was agreed at the pre-hearing that the Winnie Mandela record would not be relied on. We are now in re-examination, Chairperson, not at our evidence-in-chief. This is information that wasn't led prior to everybody being given an opportunity to cross-examine the applicant. Also the documents that are now being relied on we were not given notice that these documents would in fact be used, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: I understand the thing about notice, but this is not part, as I understand it, of the record. The objection to the Winnie Mandela record was simply that the interpretation had been so unreliable that nobody was prepared to agree the version of the record put up. That if you wanted to use it you had to go back to the original languages. But these are, as I understand it, exhibits at that hearing. They were not part of the record of the hearing.

MR HATTINGH: That is correct Mr Chairman, the objection was to the record of the oral evidence that was given at the time.

Mr Chairman as far as no notice having been given about us intending to use this documentation that is quite correct. The information is available to the Committee and furthermore we didn't foresee, at the time, that it would be necessary to rely on these documents. We now do find it necessary to rely on them for purposes of re-examination and I would submit that you should allow us to proceed.

CHAIRPERSON: I think you should carry on.

COUNSEL 1: Sorry Mr Chairman may I just - while there is an interruption, just indicate to the Committee that the Section 29 statement, which is now referred to as Exhibit Mabotha D is incomplete. It's not the whole of the Section 29 statement was provided, it's incomplete. I am just pointing that out as far as ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps we should take the adjournment now and allow you gentlemen to get together to find out who has got what; whether it's possible to get the complete document and things of that nature. We will take a short adjournment now.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Now we have been given two documents. One of an incomplete affidavit of about nine pages, which one would that be?

MR HATTINGH: That would be "D" Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: "D"?

MR HATTINGH: Yes Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: And the one page one will be "C".

MR HATTINGH: "C". Thank you Mr Chairman. We have tried to ascertain the position with regard to "D" and that it doesn't seem to be complete. As I have stated before these documents were handed to us in a file by a representative of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission at the hearing of the matter that was referred to as the Winnie Mandela Section 29 hearing. We all seem to have the typed version and it does seem to be incomplete. It stops at paragraph 34 in the middle of a page, there is no signature and so on, but that is what we have got Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Can enquiries be made as to whether the TRC has the whole document?

MS PATEL: I will check Honourable Chairperson. I do, however, have the original file of annexures from that hearing and it's not a part of that. So I am not sure what has happened to it. I believe Mr Vally, who has left the offices, was in charge of that hearing, so it might still be in his office. I wasn't aware that it wasn't, but I will make enquiries. Thank you.

EUGENE A DE KOCK: (s.u.o.)

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: (cont)

Mr de Kock I have already referred you to a paragraph in this affidavit, the Section 29 affidavit apparently from Mr Mabotha.

Before I proceed I would just like to return to singular aspects that I have already dealt with which pertain to the position of askaris on Vlakplaas.

Mr Potgieter in his affidavit states that he asked you to accommodate Mr Mabotha at Vlakplaas so that he would be readily available to give evidence should it be required.

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, that never took place.

MR HATTINGH: On page 139 he states, in paragraph 22.13

"In order to keep Mabotha available and with his agreement I telephonically contacted Eugene de Kock and arranged that he would receive Mabotha and keep him at Vlakplaas".

I would just like to pause there. Could you have held Mabotha against his will at Vlakplaas?

MR DE KOCK: No.

MR HATTINGH: He continues

"Seeing as Mabotha's period of detention in terms of security legislation had already elapsed he could no longer be detained at the police cells. It is not possible for me to recall the exact words of the conversation with Eugene de Kock, however it was important to me that Mabotha be safeguarded because he would be the key witness should there be a criminal prosecution against Mrs Winnie Mandela".

In this regard he also states, in a police statement which was taken from him and attached to this statement of his, this will be reflected on page 162, paragraph 4.8.11.

"The prescribed detention period of George came to an end, and if I could not convince the revision committee to extend his detention I could also not detain a witness in terms of Section 31 of the Internal Security Act because a warrant would be required from the Attorney General, and even though the complete dossier had already been handed over to Advocate von Lieres he had not reached any decision. It was, however, of extreme interest to me that George be available at all times as a witness should it occur that the Attorney General decide to institute a prosecution".

By taking Mabotha to the farm could you not ensure that he be available at all times?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: In your evidence in answer to certain questions that were put to you, you stated that the Security police possessed various safe houses.

MR DE KOCK: Yes that is correct?

MR HATTINGH: Did you ever visit such safe houses?

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Did you ever visit a safe house which was under the control of Potgieter?

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Where was this house?

MR DE KOCK: It was in the Johannesburg area, somewhere to the south of Johannesburg, if I have it correctly, or south-west or in the south-west area of Johannesburg.

MR HATTINGH: Can you give us a rough description? Was it an urban house, was it a farm or a smallholding, where was it situated?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson, it wasn't in a suburban area of Johannesburg, it was more on the outer reaches of Johannesburg. I would say that it was a smallish plot, but not a plot that appeared to be in a state of disarray. It was quite a big house and had all the amenities.

MR HATTINGH: Did it have many bedrooms?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, and there were also outside buildings which served as offices. It was quite a luxurious premises.

MR HATTINGH: And from your experiences as a Security policeman, if in such safe houses was any provision made for the accommodation of persons to stay over along with facilities to prepare food and so forth?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, all the houses were furnished with kitchens and bathrooms.

MR HATTINGH: And were they manned at all times?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, those which I visited usually also had a caretaker who resided there. This person would usually be a divorced male person who not only stayed there fulltime but also guarded the premises and maintained the premises.

MR HATTINGH: And these houses were kept by the police in secret. They were not generally known as police houses?

MR DE KOCK: No, not at all.

MR HATTINGH: And would Mr Mabotha have been able to be detained with safety in such a house?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: I want to refer you to your evidence during the criminal trial, the evidence that you gave in mitigation of your sentence. On page 152 you say, and I would like to refer you to one sentence in order to establish the relevance of the sentence I will read the whole paragraph.

I asked you "y who?" and you said -

"By the Soweto Security Branch. I think Colonel Grobbelaar and the others arrested him. His arrest took place because he was involved in his time and there with Winnie Mandela he was involved in attacks, I think, on two shebeens among others, and a total of three policemen were shot dead, among which he was one of the shooters who shot these policemen dead".

And then in particular the following sentence -

"And he later became a state witness".

According to what I heard, and this may be somewhat vague, he would have given evidence in the Stompie Sepei matter.

Now we heard here about two matters, the Stompie Sepei matter and we also heard of the high treason case which Colonel Potgieter instituted against Winnie Mandela, do you recall that?

MR DE KOCK: Yes that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Now in his affidavit, Mr Chairman once again this is a statement which Colonel Potgieter made in the proceedings that I referred to previously. I really submit that it is not necessary to make a copy. It's a thick statement and it runs into something like 56 pages, with a lot of annexures to it. I am going to refer to two short paragraphs in this statement only. The first one appears on page 4, paragraph 9, and there the following sentence appears

"The high treason investigation had nothing to do with, and did not overlap with the Stompie Sepei investigation. This investigation was handled by Murder and Robbery".

So what Potgieter is actually saying here is that the Stompie Sepei matter was something that he didn't have anything to do with, and that this was handled or investigated by Murder and Robbery. Did you read this statement of his at that stage?

MR DE KOCK: Yes I did.

MR HATTINGH: So where you gave evidence during your criminal trial that he would later have been a witness during the Stompie Sepei matter might I ask you firstly, did you only refer to the Stompie Sepei matter there?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson that is my recollection, and as I have mentioned it was a vague recollection but that was the information which I had.

MR HATTINGH: And yesterday you also spoke of the fact that this was information that you only obtained later?

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Do you mean before or after the death of Mr Mabotha?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson as far as I can recall it was after the death of Mr Mabotha. That is my recollection thereof.

MR HATTINGH: Now with regard to the high treason case, did Colonel Potgieter inform you that Mr Mabotha was an important witness in the high treason case which he had instituted against Winnie Mandela?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson I didn't have that information.

MR HATTINGH: We now know that Colonel Potgieter, in his affidavit, has stated that he requested or that he arranged for Mr Mabotha's detention in terms of Section 29.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: We also know that during his Section 29 detention he interrogated Mr Mabotha and also obtained an affidavit from him.

MR DE KOCK: Yes that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Once again I would like to refer to his affidavit which he made with regard to the Section 29 Mandela investigation, paragraph 5, or at least page 5 and paragraph 11. There he states

"The high treason dossier..."

that would be the one against Mrs Mandela,

"...was handed over to Advocate von Lieres and according to his register it took place on 3 April 1989. The file reference is 63/89. I made sure of this personally".

Might I put the following to you. As a policeman, when you investigated a matter when would you hand the matter over to the prosecutor or the Attorney General?

MR DE KOCK: Once the matter had been completely or thoroughly investigated and was ready for prosecution.

MR HATTINGH: And according to Colonel Potgieter this took place on the 3rd of April.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And on the 4th of April Mr Mabotha would be detained and apparently the interrogation of Mr Mabotha would commence in terms of the stipulations of Section 29.

MR DE KOCK: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: Once he had already handed over the dossier?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that's correct.

MR HATTINGH: Then I would just like to indicate with that, that he could not continue with his investigation and as you have said it appears that the investigation with regard to him had developed so far that the dossier could be handed over for investigation by the Attorney General?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, one would not hand over a dossier wherein an investigation was not possible on a further level.

MR HATTINGH: Yes. Furthermore in his affidavit Mr Potgieter maintains that Mr Mabotha was an important witness in the high treason case and that one of the important elements of the crime of high treason, which could be proved by him was that Mrs Mandela had a very malicious attitude towards the state.

MR DE KOCK: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: I am not going to examine you about that, but I will argue that if one looks at the Section 29 affidavit and if one studies the Stompie evidence and her possible involvements in the Stompie Sepei matter and if one extracts this evidence it will be very difficult for a prosecutor to charge Mrs Mandela with high treason if such evidence was not available.

Come and let us deal further with this aspect. What was your personal attitude and the attitude of the Vlakplaas police members and the Security police members in general with regard to Mrs Mandela during this time?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson she was seen as the opposition, as opposition against the National Party and the National Party's functionaries, in other words the South African Police. We all recall her notorious or famous, depending on how you look at it, about the matches and necklacing.

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And how did you feel personally towards her?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson on the one hand one had to - she was amazing and I marvelled at her, and on the other side one could see that you had to handle her with very thick gloves and I regarded her as a dangerous person, specifically in the physical sense.

MR HATTINGH: How would you have felt if there was a successful prosecution against her with regard to the high treason matter?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson this would have been a phenomenal political uproar, not only here, but as well as in Europe. I don't know whether she met the requirements for high treason.

MR HATTINGH: Let's forget about whether she met the requirements, let's just accept that the State could prove that she was guilty of high treason, would you have been joyful?

MR DE KOCK: I would have found it suitable Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Excuse me?

MR DE KOCK: I would have found it suitable if she was indeed charged.

MR HATTINGH: Did you regard her as friend or foe of the then government?

MR DE KOCK: No she was an enemy of the government.

MR HATTINGH: And it was your task to combat this enemy?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And if you were informed that there was a very important witness who might be able to give evidence in a high treason case would you then kill that same person on the very day that you received him?

MR DE KOCK: Definitely not, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Not only kill him on the same day but - or after you were allegedly told that you have to take him because he was such an important witness, before you accept him already make plans to kill him?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, nobody would have touched that man.

MR HATTINGH: May I ask you the following question. After you had dealings with Mr Mabotha at Marble Hall where you participated in the interrogation and his torture, did you ever see him again up until the day that he was handed over to you at De Deur?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson I did not see him and I did not have access to him.

MR HATTINGH: Did you in any way try to enquire as to where he was and what his fate was?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, he was out of our hands. There was no process established that could ensure that Vlakplaas had any further dealings with him.

MR HATTINGH: Did you have any interest in what had happened to him after the uniform police took him?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: There in Marble Hall did you tell them, listen when you are done with him I still have a matter to clear up with him, bring him back to me - or anything to that effect?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Did you lose all interest in him after the Marble Hall interrogation was concluded?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson, there was nothing else he could do for me.

MR HATTINGH: If Colonel Potgieter did not approach you would you have ever shown any interest in his well-being?

MR DE KOCK: Not at all Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Now I want to ask this question on a hypothetical basis. Let's accept Mr Potgieter's version that he told you that this is a very important witness in a high treason case against Mrs Mandela, keep him safe so that he is always readily available, would you have thought that he wanted to visit the person?

MR DE KOCK: Yes he might have visited him the very next day.

MR HATTINGH: And if it indeed did happen that you undertook to keep him safe and available would it have caused a problem for you?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson, because the whole case - because of the nature of his importance the whole case could be jeopardised and a request would have come from the Attorney General as to the whereabouts of Mr Mabotha.

MR HATTINGH: Let's just clarity here, did he in any way, after Mr Mabotha was handed over to you, did he try to enquire at Vlakplaas as to what the well-being of Mr Mabotha was?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, not verbally, not in writing, not personally.

MR HATTINGH: He didn't send some other person, the person who took over the investigation after he was transferred?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, no member of Soweto came and made enquiries from me.

MR HATTINGH: When did he come into question again?

MR DE KOCK: I can't place it right now. For me Mabotha's name came up again once again when it was said that he would be released and he cannot walk around freely.

MR HATTINGH: No, you misunderstand me, after you accepted him and killed him, when, with regard to you, was Mabotha's name again mentioned, after he was killed?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson I don't have the memory that his name was ever mentioned.

MR HATTINGH: Did you ever mention his name even.

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: I mean at your trial?

MR DE KOCK: Yes I gave evidence surrounding that. That's what I am talking about.

MR HATTINGH: Now before you spoke about him there, was there any talk about Mr Mabotha that you know of?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: You said that Mr Potgieter, at several instances, had visited askaris at Vlakplaas?

MR DE KOCK: That's correct Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: He was aware of the locality of Vlakplaas?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Did he ever visit there socially as far as you know?

MR DE KOCK: No, not that I can remember Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Now to return to the recruitment of askaris. We have already heard what the procedure was, once it was decided that a person met the requirements and that he had to go to Vlakplaas, did you fetch him or was he brought there?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, as far as I can recall they were continually brought to Vlakplaas.

MR HATTINGH: Is there any reason why Mr Potgieter, according to his version that he had a good relationship with Mr Mabotha that he would not have brought him there himself?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson there was no reason why he would not have brought him there himself.

MR HATTINGH: Is there any reason why, if the arrangement was that you had to fetch him to take him to Vlakplaas, that you had to take two individual vehicles?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Was he aware of the presence of two separate vehicles?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, he was, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Let us get to the handing over. You drive in a vehicle accompanied by Mr Mentz.

MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Was he the driver or you?

MR DE KOCK: No, Mentz was the driver.

MR HATTINGH: And in the other vehicle according to your recollection, it was Mr van Niekerk and Mr Britz?

MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: You don't remember Mr Flores, but you would not dispute that he was present?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Your version was that you met quite a way from the police station. Both the vehicles, the one which you drove and the other one which van Niekerk, Britz and Flores was using stopped at the vehicle where Potgieter was sitting?

MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And said how far was this approximately from the police station?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, it might have been - if I should make a judgement, about two kilometres, something to that effect. I cannot be specific.

MR HATTINGH: Initially in his statement, Mr Potgieter says that he has a clear recollection of yourself and van Niekerk together and he specifically remembers van Niekerk because he saw him the last time in Koevoet. Where were you and van Niekerk together in the presence of Colonel Potgieter?

MR DE KOCK: No, at no stage, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Where the three of you met, where the vehicles came together?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, there we were all together.

MR HATTINGH: You were all together there?

MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Did you all get out of the vehicles and talk there?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, we did.

MR HATTINGH: So he did see you and van Niekerk in each other's presence on that day?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And if it is put here on his behalf that he was mistaken when he handed Mabotha over to you and van Niekerk, then this creates the impression that he did not see you that day. Did he see you that day?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, he saw me that day when we were all together at the vehicles there, but he would not have had me in sight during the observation part, where I kept the others under observation.

MR HATTINGH: I'm talking about the first instance, the first occasion and when the Chairperson asked Mr Rossouw whether the allegation contained on page 164, paragraph 4.8.14, if that is wrong, it was said that it is mistake, the allegation was later

".. that de Kock and Louw van Niekerk arrived there and later I discussed the matter with de Kock and handed George over to him."

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson. it seems that that is also mistaken.

MR HATTINGH: It is now also said this is a mistake. There where the three vehicles came together there, did you have a discussion with regard to Mabotha there?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, because it entailed the process and how we would take Mabotha away from there and the handing over of him.

MR HATTINGH: And what was the arrangement, what would Colonel Potgieter do from there?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, after the handing over ...(intervention)

MR HATTINGH: Please listen carefully. Mr de Kock, the vehicles are there and now you arrange this handing over, what would Mr Potgieter do from there?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, he would have gone to the De Deur Police Station where he would release Mabotha.

MR HATTINGH: And can one deduce from that that where you convened there, the three vehicles, Mr Mabotha was not present, he was not with Colonel Potgieter?

MR DE KOCK: No, he wasn't.

MR HATTINGH: So you had to go and fetch him still?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And you say you cannot recall what was exactly arranged, but the arrangement and was said there was done there where the three vehicles were together there?

MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And then would Colonel Potgieter tell him or have the opportunity to tell Mr Mabotha - or let me ask in this way, after you had these deliberations and before he was handed over?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, he would have had the opportunity to give him whatever excuse he wanted to, for example: "You will go to Vlakplaas". But I cannot testify to that, that Mr Potgieter has to tell us.

MR HATTINGH: So you are saying Colonel Potgieter and yourself were in each other's company and you did discuss the matter on that day?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: But he's wrong when he says that he handed over Mabotha to you and van Niekerk, because you were not in the same vehicle?

MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: He says on page 140, paragraph 22.16

"At 5 o'clock I released Mabotha of the stipulations of Section 29 and we sat in my car outside the police station and chatted. De Kock and another Vlakplaas member one, Louw van Niekerk arrived and stopped opposite the place where we were parked. Mabotha and I climbed out, took his property and walked towards de Kock and van Niekerk."

That was also not correct?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH

"My attention was fixed on van Niekerk because I had seen him in 1983 last and I was not even aware of the fact that he was placed at Vlakplaas."

Then he states"

"De Kock greeted us, also Mabotha, because they knew each other. It wasn't necessary for me to give any further commentary with regard to Mabotha's accommodation seeing as it had been arranged with de Kock."

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, that did not take place.

MR HATTINGH: There was a discussion where the three vehicles had converged?

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Do you know that there was a discussion when the actual delivery took place?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, it was discussed that this would take place on the western side of the police station.

MR HATTINGH: No, Mr de Kock, you are at a point where you are observing how Mabotha is being handed over to van Niekerk and Britz.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that's correct.

MR HATTINGH: Do you know whether a discussion took place there regarding what would happen to him after he had been delivered? This was during the delivery where you were present.

MR DE KOCK: No, I would not be able to give evidence about that.

MR HATTINGH: Then we have the statement that while Mr Potgieter maintains that he thought that Vlakplaas was the place where Mr Mabotha would be safeguarded and easily available and you agreed with this suggestion, he nonetheless made an arrangement with Mr Mabotha that if he was not satisfied there, he could be taken to his house in Pietersburg or Potgietersrus and he could be liaised with from there. Were you informed regarding that?

MR DE KOCK: No, not at all.

MR HATTINGH: In fact he went even further, he said that he bought him a train ticket.

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, nothing to that effect was said to me or arranged with me.

MR HATTINGH: He doesn't say when he purchased the ticket or from which station the ticket was valid, or to which station the ticket would take him. He also didn't say for which period of time the ticket would be valid. It is all rather vague, but he maintains that he discussed this with you.

MR DE KOCK: But that would have meant, Chairperson, that Mabotha would once again disappear from Vlakplaas. He would be unhappy for some or other reason, he wouldn't contact Colonel Potgieter and simply disappear from Vlakplaas to Pietersburg.

MR HATTINGH: And that with the agreement and approval of Colonel Potgieter?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that's correct, but he doesn't tell anything to Vlakplaas. What would happen if Mabotha would arrested once again between Vlakplaas and Marble Hall, what would we do then?

MR HATTINGH: How do you feel about that, do you feel that he should have taken you into his confidence in this regard or not, if this was true?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, certainly. But the easiest way would have been for Mabotha simply to contact Colonel Potgieter and to tell him: "Look here, I don't feel safe here, I'm not satisfied, could you please accommodate me at another place".

MR HATTINGH: But now he says that he thinks that this may have been because he was transferred to another station or unit and that is why he thought that Mabotha may have contacted him, but then couldn't hold of him. And if one were to make a call to a station or a unit where a policeman had been involved and asked to speak to this person, would it be possible to obtain information about the place or the station or the unit where that policeman would find himself at that point in time?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, all one had to do was contact the Security Branch Commander and from that point you would be put through to the relevant person.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Potgieter also maintains that at a stage, and he does not give any particulars about where or when it happened, he simply says that at a stage he ran into you and enquired about Mabotha.

MR DE KOCK: I have no recollection of that. That may have taken place, but I don't recall that.

MR HATTINGH: And that you would then have told him that Mabotha ran away or was gone. Would you have said anything like that to him?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, I would probably have fully informed him about what happened to Mr Mabotha.

MR HATTINGH: And why would that have been necessary? He didn't know.

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, I don't know what Potgieter knew or whether he made enquiries and where he made these enquiries or whether he had additional information.

MR HATTINGH: Mr de Kock, your version is that it was your understanding that Mabotha had to be killed and that you agreed to do this?

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And if he asked you afterwards where Mabotha was, what would you have said to him?

MR DE KOCK: I would have said: "But you know where he is".

MR HATTINGH: In your evidence yesterday you mentioned that Colonel Potgieter, with regard to this application, is not a lifeline to you. That is how you expressed it.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And what do you mean by that, Mr de Kock?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, that I don't wish to use Colonel Potgieter as a reason for Mabotha's death, I have taken responsibility for that and I've also taken responsibility for my members. I would not wish to involve him in this matter unnecessarily. I would not implicate or involve him in anything.

MR HATTINGH: Did you take a decision about the death of Mabotha, as per his request?

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And this decision was based upon what?

MR DE KOCK: Upon the information that he gave me, which indicated that this man could not be at large and that he would once again become involved in the shooting of policemen.

MR HATTINGH: Only in the shooting of policemen?

MR DE KOCK: No, by nature of the situation he would once again become involved in terrorism, because what we have here is a trained MK member, a man with a capacity for assassinations, a man who had already been involved in such activities.

MR HATTINGH: Let us just study Mabotha D. You can study this document with me. Page 5 at the bottom or at least page 1, paragraph 5 under the heading: In Military Training, he says

"After having been accommodated in the ANC transit camp Vienna, from September to November 1985, I was sent Casolumak (Calculuma or KK Kaluma. I don't know how to pronounce that word) training camp where I, together with plus-minus 300 ANC members, underwent military training. The training lasted up to January 1987."

So from November 1985 until January 1987.

"... and consisted of the following

1. Weaponry - AK47s, Scorpions, Makarov, PKM ..."

What is that?

MR DE KOCK: That is heavy machine-gun which worked with band.

MR HATTINGH: R4?

MR DE KOCK: The R4 is a light machine-gun of Russian origin.

MR HATTINGH: And the R1?

MR DE KOCK: That is a South African gun.

MR HATTINGH: So he was also trained in the use of South African weaponry?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH

"2. Engineering - landmines, AP handgrenades ..."

What is AP handgrenades?

MR DE KOCK: That is an anti-personnel landmine.

MR HATTINGH

"... TNT sabotage techniques etc;

3. Topography, terrain study;

4. Tactics and guerilla warfare.

It says here "wherefore", but that should probably be warfare. Would you say that this was a highly trained person, on a military level?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, highly trained and notorious.

MR HATTINGH: In the use of explosives for the purposes of sabotage and so forth?

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And this is the person who had once again returned to the heartland of the ANC?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that's correct.

MR HATTINGH: Did that play a role with you in taking the decision to kill him?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, it was a very definite role.

MR HATTINGH: And you mention time and again the fact that policemen would once again be shot. How big a role did the fact that policemen were being shot play in opposition to the idea that he could once again become involved in terrorism?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I would say that they ran parallel to each other because a policeman would be a political target. It was the policy of the ANC and the PAC to shoot policemen. They attacked police stations. Policemen could for example not move into a residential area without being in an armed vehicle, like a Casspir. So it did play a significant role.

MR HATTINGH: And in fact at a certain stage the situation was so critical that the Goldstone Commission was requested to launch a separate inquiry into attacks on and murders of members of the South African Police Services?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And this was also done over a number of months, in fact it might have taken a year.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: When you received Mabotha and interrogate him at Penge, did he ever tell you or ask you: "Well what's going on here, I have an agreement with Colonel Potgieter that I am going to be used as a witness and that you are going to accommodate me at Vlakplaas. Where are you taking me now, what's going on"? Did he ever say anything like that to you?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, he didn't make any such enquiries.

MR HATTINGH: Did he protest in any manner towards the fact that he was not being taken to Vlakplaas?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: You were examined this morning about the fact that he was a so-called close relationship with Mr Potgieter, what was your knowledge of the exact extent of the relationship between him and Colonel Potgieter? I think that you mentioned something to that effect, but what was your specific knowledge with regard to this and where did this knowledge come from?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, when I studied the affidavits, I obtained that knowledge about Mr Potgieter. I was not aware from my own knowledge of this close feeling between the two members or persons. Do you know whether this really existed or not?

MR DE KOCK: I don't know, Chairperson, I cannot speak for that.

CHAIRPERSON: What you in fact said in your evidence was

"As I understand it, they had a very good relationship. There was an understanding between them."

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: During the Section 29 interrogations there was a thorough investigation into the history of the detainee, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And in particular he was questioned about who his parents and where they resided.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that's correct.

MR HATTINGH: And if Colonel Potgieter would have wanted to contact family members after the so-called admissions, do you know whether he would have known how to go about this?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, those facilities would have been available. If he did not do it himself directly, he could have done so by means of another Security Branch.

MR HATTINGH: You were also examined about ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: He did do that didn't he?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson. At a stage he did so, but later he didn't send any telexes to Vlakplaas or make any enquiries.

CHAIRPERSON: No, he asked another Security Police to enquire at his home. - page 164

"After that the Security Branch from Pietersburg was contacted by me and I requested about the welfare of George."

MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: You say that he did so, how do know that he did this?

MR DE KOCK: Well Chairperson, I learnt that from his affidavit and I think I may also have learnt about this in January 1998, when evidence was given in Johannesburg.

MR HATTINGH: So he maintains that he did this, but you don't know on a personal level, that he did this?

MR DE KOCK: No.

MR HATTINGH: And he says in his affidavit that at a stage he assumed that there would no longer be a prosecution, the political climate had changed and so forth. Would one then accept that Mabotha would no longer have been of interest to him as a witness?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, I could accept that, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And can you think of any reason why he would make enquiries about the welfare of Mr Mabotha?

MR DE KOCK: No, I cannot think of a single reason.

MR HATTINGH: And you heard that there was a search for this telex or this document and that it cannot be traced.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Would you bear with me one moment please, Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, my attention is drawn to the fact that a mother and a sister and a girlfriend also made statements, which also form part of the documents that were handed to us. I haven't read them carefully yet. I'm informed that they say things to the effect that they were never contacted by the police. Perhaps I should go into that and just make sure whether that is correct and then place that information before you, because it's relevant, Mr Chairman.

May I move into indirect language, Mr de Kock, or the use of innuendoes and such language. You said that he was not a member of the operational unit as you were. This sort of indirect language that you have spoken of, how widely known was it among the ranks of the police or the Security Police?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, it was well known if one made a reference to something such as "taking out". Taking out didn't mean you were going to recreate somebody, it would mean that you would kill them. If someone went tot he "long trees" for example, it meant that they had been killed and it also meant that they had been killed in an illegal manner.

MR HATTINGH: And did it ever happen that when such vague terms were used among the ranks of the police, that any of the policemen present during such a situation would say: "But I don't understand what you said now, what did you mean"?

MR DE KOCK: No, the term was very widely known.

MR HATTINGH: You were also examined about the role that everyone of these persons had played during the interrogation of Mabotha at Marble Hall.

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: When you were involved in this assault, did you think that you would later have to give evidence regarding exactly what every person did there and in which manner these actions were performed?

MR DE KOCK: No.

MR HATTINGH: Thus you cannot describe the role of each and every person. Except for the fact that you cannot describe the role of every person, could you tell us whether all those who were present during this interrogation also participated in the assault?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I would say that most of them were involved, but not all of them. Yesterday evening I tried to recall more details about this, but my recollection is too vague. I would have like to furnish you with these details.

MR HATTINGH: Was it at that stage important to you to observe precisely what every person was doing?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: What were you occupied with?

MR DE KOCK: Well Chairperson, my objective was to determine at that stage what the situation was for Vlakplaas and how far we had incurred damage.

MR HATTINGH: The impression was created yesterday by your evidence, that there were pauses or interruptions during the interrogation process and that you specifically during those pauses fulfilled your role, is that correct or not?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: However the upside down hanging of Mr Mabotha was not something that took place during a pause?

MR DE KOCK: No, that was part of the interrogation, and I would admit that. It was not something that I want to conceal.

MR HATTINGH: So were you only involved in his interrogation during pauses or not?

MR DE KOCK: No, I also mentioned that I helped to suffocate him at times.

MR HATTINGH: And while you were busy with that, what did the other members do, or some of the other members?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I wouldn't know because I was busy torturing the man at that stage, so I can't say what they were doing.

MR HATTINGH: Well were they also assaulting him or did they stand to one side?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, there was a limited number of person who could assault a person at one given time. Some of them may have been standing around there, others may have been in their vehicles. They may have been waiting there until the interrogation ceased, so that they could continue. In other words, there would be a takeover by the one group and then the following group would take over after them.

MR HATTINGH: And throughout the interrogation of Mr Mabotha, were you consistently in his presence?

MR DE KOCK: No.

MR HATTINGH: What took place? Did you leave the scene of the assault from time to time?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, I did.

MR HATTINGH: And while I'm speaking of the scene of the assault, was this out in the open or in a room?

MR DE KOCK: During his suffocation we were in a room, it was an asbestos or a wood structure, a smallish structure and when he was being hung upside down it took place outside. I don't know if this was by using a beam, a wooden beam. It wasn't something that we had erected, it was something that was there. And this was outside.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HATTINGH

MR SIBANYONI: Mr de Kock, in your previous applications I had an opportunity of sitting there and the impression I got about Vlakplaas was to the effect that it was a camp or facility established to house tamed terrorists. I remember words to that effect.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, we had rooms there, we had facilities there. Some of these Askaris for example, lived as far away as Durban or Oudtshoorn and when they had to report for duty again at Vlakplaas, they would arrive there a day or two before the time and they would then stay over there, they didn't go and stay at the homes of other members. This could have taken place.

Upon occasion we worked from Pretoria or in the Pretoria vicinity and then they would not stay at their homes and report for duty from there, they worked from Vlakplaas and then they would stay at Vlakplaas. So we had rooms there, however these were not permanent quarters, they were only quarters for the purposes of work.

MR SIBANYONI: Approximately how many rooms were there?

MR DE KOCK: In the one case that we had with built rooms or rooms that were built in concrete, there were eight or nine rooms and then we had prefabricated building which were used by the Defence Force and the police. They were fabricated out of some kind or carton or asbestos and in those rooms I would say that there would be enough space for another 30 to 40 persons.

MR SIBANYONI: Was Mr Potgieter aware of those rooms?

MR DE KOCK: I didn't hear you.

MR SIBANYONI: Was Colonel Potgieter aware of those rooms, those facilities?

MR DE KOCK: I don't know. They were situated to the back of Vlakplaas and when one arrived at Vlakplaas, one would arrive at the home or recreational section of Vlakplaas and these quarters were situated about 80 metres away from that place. So unless you walked there you wouldn't be able to surmise that these were living quarters, unless you saw that there were wardrobes and beds and showers as well as recreational facilities which served simultaneously as a lecture room with a television, a VCR, pool tables and so forth. But I don't know whether he was aware of these facilities.

CHAIRPERSON: Well he came there to speak to Askaris who were there, didn't he?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, but they sat in the recreational section which was approximately 80 meters away from there. Unless one walked to those rooms and walked into those rooms, one would not be able to determine that these were actually living quarters.

CHAIRPERSON: Unless one asked the man: "Where are you staying now?", and he said: "Down the rooms at the back".

MR DE KOCK: Yes, he may have done that.

MR SIBANYONI: Another aspect, Mr de Kock. When one looks at the version by Mr Potgieter and on the other hand looks at the version by you, it seems you were talking about two different things, in connection with the Mabotha incident. According to Mr Potgieter's version, it was that this is a potential witness who needs to be protected and who should be kept at Vlakplaas, but according to you it's totally different, there was a plan made that this person should be eliminated. Now my question is, was this a genuine misunderstanding? Should we take it as a genuine misunderstanding where two people were thinking they are of the same mind, yet they were talking about different things?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, my contention is that both he and I knew what we were talking about when he spoke about this man not being able to be at large again. And as I have maintained there was consensus regarding this matter, he never said to me that this man should come to Vlakplaas because he could be a witness and because he had to be protected. No such request was ever lodged.

MR SIBANYONI: He give an impression that he always thought that Mr Mabotha was alive. He even says he sent a telefax to Pietersburg. Do you believe him when he says that?

MR DE KOCK: No, I don't believe him.

MR SIBANYONI: Can you think of a reason why he should be telling a different version from yours?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I believe that he is protecting himself, which is entirely his right.

MR SIBANYONI: I learn he'd started giving this version when there was still time for him to make an application for amnesty. If really he wanted to protect himself, it was by way of making an application for amnesty for these incidents because he says he learnt about Mabotha's death during your trial in the High Court, and that was still some time for him to make an application for amnesty. What do you say about my statement?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, I cannot agree with Mr Potgieter on that matter.

MR SIBANYONI: When Mr Mabotha was taken from the De Deur Police Station to Penge Mine, you didn't accompany the people who were driving him in the car, is that right?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, from there I went back to Vlakplaas and I knew that it was something that I had to attend to which I could not longer postpone, and that is why we arrived at Penge so late, otherwise we would have arrived there with the others. Because I first went back to Vlakplaas and from there we went to Penge.

MR SIBANYONI: Was it something which had to do with the implementation of the plan?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, it was something completely different, however I cannot recall what it was, but it must have been urgent if I first went back to Vlakplaas and then went to Penge from there.

MR SIBANYONI: Where is De Deur Police Station?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I only visited the station once, so I cannot tell you exactly but if I might put it as follows, I might say that it would be in the Johannesburg/Vereeniging environment. That is all that I can recall.

MR SIBANYONI: And Penge Mine is next to Burgersfort?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, it is some distance from Burgersfort.

MR SIBANYONI: You joined the other group later on in Burgersfort, in Penge Mine?

MR DE KOCK: No, it was at the mine, at the scene of the incident.

MR SIBANYONI: At what time did you arrive there?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, my recollection is that it was already twilight, so there was light as we referred to as "false light". I cannot give you an exact time. I don't have a specific recollection of the time upon which I arrived there.

MR SIBANYONI: Flores says this person, Mabotha was handcuffed at De Deur, do you know or maybe you don't know whether he was transported to De Deur to Penge mine being handcuffed?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I don't know. I don't know whether they cuffed him later or whether he had already been cuffed at De Deur. I don't know. This was not something that I observed upon his delivery. I didn't see anybody climb out and cuff him.

MR SIBANYONI: But when you arrived at the mine you found that he was handcuffed?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, he wore handcuffs.

MR SIBANYONI: You are saying at the gate to the mine there was a security, was this a mine security?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, that's correct.

MR SIBANYONI: If he was handcuffed, this security would have noticed that.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, it depends upon whether the person was made to lie flat in the vehicle or whether he sat in the vehicle or whether he was covered with a blanket. I don't know how they did this. I cannot give evidence about it.

MR SIBANYONI: And if he was sitting normally in the car, the security officer would have noticed that when you left one person was shot ...(indistinct)

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, not necessarily.

MR SIBANYONI: On your arrival there at the mine, was the fire already made?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, it was already burning quite well.

MR SIBANYONI: Was this mission only to go and execute or kill Mr Mabotha?

MR DE KOCK: That's correct.

MR SIBANYONI: Why was the fire made?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, the only reason that I can think of is that a group of my members may have stayed over there for the night and upon the following day they would have gone ahead with their shooting exercises. They had a great deal of phosphorous grenades which they would detonate in order to destroy any further evidence that may have remained.

There would also have been further detonations of old landmines and explosives which we had. So this was part of the coverup process.

MR SIBANYONI: As the commander of Vlakplaas, was it within your powers to can take a decision to can eliminate Mr Mabotha, or were you supposed to get an order from somebody else?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I could certainly have made requests and I have no doubt that I would have obtained permission. However, it was expected of me to take independent decisions and I have taken such independent decisions at times. This has emanated from my other amnesty applications. I wouldn't say I had the powers, but that it was expected of me to take independent decisions, and I did so.

MR SIBANYONI: And finally, Mr de Kock, when one looks at your application one gets the impression that the version you are giving is that everything, or the killing of Mabotha was initiated by either Colonel Jan Potgieter or that you had some authority from someone above. And then when you started your evidence, you started by saying your memory was refreshed by discussions between you or your legal representative and other colleagues, but now at the end of your evidence, during re-examination, one gets the feeling that you are sort of toning down your version by saying, when you were being asked by your legal representative, Mr Hattingh, to say the order never came from Potgieter and then also, it is not because of the discussion between yourself and Potgieter but you are giving an impression that you took the initiative. What do you say about that?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I took the initiative in this regard, that with the telephone call it was made clear to me that Mabotha, as one could say, was not desired in Soweto anymore. This was not the kind of person that the Soweto Security Branch wanted there. And as I have stated I don't wish to put the blame for anything on anybody else, the innuendo and the tone and the nature of the discussion over the telephone made it clear to me that Mabotha had to be removed from that type of circulation.

And when I refer to the refreshment of my memory with regard to my legal representatives, I would just like to say that I could not recall whether he had his firearm with him when he deserted or when he was abducted, but that a witness was traced in that regard, who had knowledge of that. And this is just to inform you that I am giving evidence here independently and that I'm not enjoying the assistance of another.

MR SIBANYONI: To say a person is away "'n persoon is weg", is it not part of the indirect language to say he is dead?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson. For example, amongst others in Ovamboland I asked somebody one day with the disappearance of his SWAPO terrorist what happened to this person because I was one of the persons who was present or who was responsible for his arrest and the person who was there looked up to the sky and pointed above. In other words, he's gone to heaven "or whatever".

MR HATTINGH: Now should one not accept that Mr Potgieter is correct, that later on he asked you about Mabotha and you said: "Hy is weg", meaning that he is dead?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I believe that he might have taken it in that way. He could have taken it in another context as well.

MR HATTINGH: Hattingh on behalf of de Kock. Mr Chairman with respect, that is not the evidence of Colonel de Kock, that he understood that statement to mean that Mabotha was killed, that he was dead, otherwise he would not have gone to the trouble of making enquiries with his relatives in Pietersburg and sending telexes and things like that.

MR SIBANYONI: Yes, I was just asking about the possible interpretation of the term: "Hy is weg".

Thank you, Mr Chairperson, no further questions.

ADV SANDI: Mr de Kock, having listened to your evidence from yesterday when we commenced these proceedings, is it not the position here that even without the conversation you had with Mr Potgieter, you would still have taken the decision that Mr Mabotha be killed, am I correct?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, because he would not have come to Vlakplaas and as the Commander of Vlakplaas I would have resisted the fact of allowing Mabotha back at Vlakplaas. The nature of that discussion and the content thereof it was clear to me that this person was not wanted in the vicinity of Soweto anymore.

CHAIRPERSON: Was there a request that he be taken back to Vlakplaas?

MR DE KOCK: There was no request that he be taken back to Vlakplaas, Chairperson. Yesterday I mentioned that there was no such request.

CHAIRPERSON: Therefore your decision whether you wanted to kill him or not had nothing whatsoever to do with him being taken back to Vlakplaas.

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: The question was simply, did you not decide that this man was a danger, he had switched again and he could now cause problems for Vlakplaas, the Security Police, he'd kill policemen, so he should be eliminated.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, it was in any case my sentiments. The situation was that with the telephone call it was a confirmation that nobody else wanted him, they did not want him in that vicinity again.

ADV SANDI: Let us suppose Mr Potgieter had said to you: "Here is your man, take him, we don't need him anymore", would you not still have killed the man?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, I would have told him that I don't want the man and they can do with him whatever they please, but I would not have accommodated him at Vlakplaas.

ADV SANDI: Are you saying in your decision to kill Mr Mabotha, you were influenced by the conversation you had with Mr Potgieter? The interpretation you gave to that conversation, is that what you are saying?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, and that is what had happened indeed. Because for example, I did not enquire as where Mabotha is now, so that we can kill him. There was no need for me to find him somewhere and to go and kill him.

ADV SANDI: At that stage, how widely known if at all, was Vlakplaas to members of the general public?

MR DE KOCK: To the general public it was not well-known, except when there were aspects that I do not know of, but Vlakplaas members were not in the public eye. It was also arranged that they be kept out of the public eye wherever possible.

ADV SANDI: How soon after Mr Mabotha had been killed did you again see Mr Potgieter?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I cannot tell you because I don't have a date, I don't have a memory thereof. I don't know when I saw him again.

ADV SANDI: Would you say it was immediately after Mr Mabotha had been killed, that you saw him?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson.

ADV SANDI: He made no enquiries whatsoever about Mabotha, did you say that?

MR DE KOCK: No, not at all. He didn't do it in writing, verbally, telephonically or through any of his other members. No enquiries were made afterwards, Chairperson.

ADV SANDI: Did you see Mr Grobbelaar again immediately after Mabotha had been killed?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson.

ADV SANDI: When would you say approximately how long was it that you saw Mr Grobbelaar again, after the killing of Mabotha?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I don't know. At some occasion I went to Soweto. I might have seen him there but I don't have an independent recollection thereof, but I might have seen him.

ADV SANDI: He didn't ask any questions about Mabotha as well?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, not at all.

ADV SANDI: Are the Soweto Security Police members, did they engage in any conversation as to what could have happened to Mabotha after he was handed over to you?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson.

ADV SANDI: Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Did Mr Grobbelaar have anything to do with Mabotha after the original questioning, as far as you knew?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, no, not that I know of.

ADV SANDI: Sorry, Chair. There was also a mention of the name of Mr du Toit, was it Mr du Toit, the one who too the affidavit from Mr Mabotha.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

ADV SANDI: Did you know this Mr du Toit?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I might have seen him on one or two occasions in Soweto, but I never liaised with him or did anything, had anything to do with him and the first time I saw him again was in January of last year. Right up to that time I did not know that he was also at Marble Hall. I could not place him at the scene there.

ADV SANDI: He did not know that Mabotha had been handed over to your group, did he?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, not that I know of.

ADV SANDI: Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: There are a few points I'd like to try and clear up. What do you know about Mabotha giving evidence?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I did not insight into that.

CHAIRPERSON: I see in this Mabotha D, paragraph 15, he says on two occasions he was required to testify and then he lists three places and three sets of names. And the reason I find it interesting, it appears that the last trial it was whilst the trial was in progress in December 1988, that he was grabbed from behind by two ANC people. Now I would like inquiries to be made as to whether there was such a trial and whether Mabotha was there as a witness, because it appears to me that if that was the position there must have been immediate enquiries made as to his whereabouts if the witness disappeared during the course of his trial. Can we check on that please?

MS PATEL: I will, thank you, Honourable Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: You have no knowledge of that?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, it's the first time I hear of it now.

CHAIRPERSON: The first time you hear of it now?

MR DE KOCK: That he was grabbed by two other persons during a court trial.

CHAIRPERSON: But I understood from your counsel that you were given these documents during the Section 29 hearing, yet you say you've never heard of them.

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, this is the first time that I hear of it now.

CHAIRPERSON: When you had the opportunity to question him, did you ask him about he had met at Winnie Mandela's home, about what information he could give you about activities there?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, to me it concerned what he had said about Vlakplaas and what the situation was with regard to Vlakplaas and what was the compromise with regard to Vlakplaas. Soweto Security Branch was interested in what his activities were and his situation in Soweto itself because they were the ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Ja, but Vlakplaas Askaris were interested in identifying people.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, but that they would have done this in co-operation with the Soweto branch. They were subordinate to the Security Branch in the area where they worked.

CHAIRPERSON: The last matter. You've told us an awful lot about how you went to pick up Mabotha and spoke to Potgieter.

MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: When were you told that he was to be offered a lift to the nearest railway station taxi rank? Because you haven't told us a word about that today, have you?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: But that is the evidence you gave, isn't it, that that was what the arrangement was? That he was to be released and offered a lift to the nearest train station or taxi place, but that while in transit people from Vlakplaas would turn up and he would be handed over.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I cannot think of it now, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: It's page 152 of the record, page 12 884 of the record of the trial. Thank you.

MR ROSSOUW: Sorry, Mr Chairman, Rossouw on record. May I just at this point give an indication that I'm of the opinion that during re-examination certain new information came to light, not certain, I'm of the opinion that quite a lot. And as far as the position of my client is concerned, and it was not answered in cross-examination yesterday, my client's rights are reserved. And there are specific aspects which has come to light now and I'm just placing that on record for future reference, Mr Chairman, that should it come to the point where there's a prosecution, that it cannot be held against my client that he did not respond to the allegations that only came to light in re-examination.

CHAIRPERSON: As I understand you are not requesting an opportunity to re-open cross-examination, but you say it must not be said that this was never challenged because it was only mentioned in re-examination.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairman, at this point I do not have instructions on all of the new aspects that were raised, I only have one that I can place on record and I'm going to ask the Committee's indulgence to do that, not by way of cross-examination, but merely by stating that as far as the aspect of the safe-house that Mr Potgieter was allegedly in control of is concerned, that that only happened after he was transferred to the Intelligence Unit, at the end of 1989. And my instructions are that this Intelligence Unit operated from a safe-house, as described by the applicant. So this was not at the time when Mr Mabotha was released.

MS PATEL: Honourable Chairperson, may I just put a few questions leading on what was revealed during re-examination?

CHAIRPERSON: Well if it's something new that emerged, we can't just go on and on with questioning.

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PATEL: It is, Honourable Chairperson.

Mr de Kock, the information that is contained in the Annexure D that was handed to us, regarding the specifics of Mabotha's involvement with Winnie Mandela, were you in possession of that information at the time that the decision was made to kill Mr Mabotha?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, no, not as far as I can recall.

MS PATEL: Alright. And then to follow on, a question was put to you from the Committee regarding whether Mr du Toit, who had commissioned the Section 29, whether you had known of him. Honourable Chairperson, it's one of the statements that was also handed in at the Section 29 hearing of Winnie Mandela. He states - I just want to read to you briefly what he put down in his statement. He said that

"I cannot recall the particulars, but I think that Colonel de Kock joined us later."

And that is, he means after the arrest. And he says further that:

"My recollection is that we handed Mabotha over to Eugene de Kock."

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, that is not correct.

MS PATEL: And then just finally. You mentioned that at the time you were questioned during re-examination about how Askaris were in fact identified and then brought to Vlakplaas, and you said that during that procedure that the full details of their background would have been taken and that that information - I'm not sure what your evidence was, would that information then have gone to C2 or what was the position with that?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, that information was gathered by C2 during the interrogation and the photo identification of terrorists and this was placed on computer as well.

MS PATEL: Okay. And your unit would have had access to that information?

MR DE KOCK: If we needed it, yes, then we had access to it.

MS PATEL: Is this the section that Mr Naude was in charge of, the Mr Naude that you mentioned last week during the Chand incident?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that's correct, Chairperson.

MS PATEL: Okay. So if you wanted to check the background of any of your Askaris, you could go to C2 and get the information?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

MS PATEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson, I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS PATEL

CHAIRPERSON: Gentlemen, what have you decided?

MR CORNELIUS: Mr Chairman, I am to follow with Britz and there's another applicant, Flores, who has just arrived from Phalabora and who was brought down by the TRC staff. So I would if possible, like to adjourn now to consult with him shortly and then we can resume at two.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well.

WITNESS EXCUSED

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS