Amnesty Hearings

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, just before we start Mr Van der Walt, just before we started this morning, I had a discussion with the legal representatives of all the parties concerned and we all are in agreement that there are still a fair amount of evidence to be led in this matter, we have still got the evidence of Mr Van der Walt and three other applicants, Mr Mbelo, Mosiane, Sefadi and then there is applicants of witnesses as well. You will recall that last week, I postponed the Zero hearing to start tomorrow, Wednesday. It is quite clear that we will not finish this matter today, and we have decided that the best course to follow is to complete this matter, rather than stopping it today and picking up a part-heard and then starting Zero Zero tomorrow, which in all probability will also not be finished by Friday and so picking up two part-heards, so we will continue this matter until its conclusion, which will hopefully be during the course of this week. Then we go to Durban for next week, to do the so-called Piet Retief hearings which have been set down for two weeks there, but once again, those persons here who are involved in that hearing, as well as ourselves, are of the view that we will probably be able to finish the Piet Retief hearings within a week in Durban. The second week that we would have been in Durban, would then be available for us to come back here when we will start the Zero Zero hearings. I would like to at this stage just mention then that unfortunately due to the circumstances, the Zero Zero hearing will have to be further postponed to the 2nd of August, that is Monday the 2nd of August at this venue for hearing and hopefully we will be in a position to commence with that hearing that morning. Now, we will continue with the present hearing.

MR MALAN: Mr Van der Walt, do you have an objection against taking the oath?

MR VAN DER WALT: No.

DAVID VAN DER WALT: (sworn states)

MR MALAN: You may be seated.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey?

EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Thank you Chairperson. Mr Van der Walt, you are one of the applicants who is applying for amnesty for your involvement in the Japie Maponya incident and you have prepared an initial application which is dated in December, I cannot make out the specific date, that was in December 1996 in Pretoria, is that correct?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes.

MR LAMEY: And you have given a brief description there about your political objective and so forth and you have also referred specifically in your initial application with regard to the nature and particulars, you referred to an extract from the record of your evidence which you gave as a State witness during the De Kock trial, is that correct?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes.

MR LAMEY: You have also received Section 204 indemnity for your participation in this criminal trial after the evidence was given?

MR VAN DER WALT: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: The record of your evidence, a copy thereof we find on page 566 and this goes on to page 632 of Bundle 1(c), is that correct?

MR VAN DER WALT: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Subsequently you have obtained legal representation and your amnesty application has been supplemented in certain respects and we find this, the supplementary application, on page 633 to page 639?

MR VAN DER WALT: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Mr Van der Walt, according to your best knowledge and recollection, do you confirm still today that which is contained in your amnesty application?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes.

MR LAMEY: And you also confirm the evidence that we will be leading shortly?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes.

MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, once again, if the Committee, if it meets with the Committee's approval, I do not intend to lead Mr Van der Walt's evidence, he is open for cross-examination on any matter obviously. His version is as it appears from the record, I will just shortly refer to some other aspects. Mr Van der Walt, during consultation before the inception of these hearings, is it correct that you confirmed to me a statement that you made previous before the Attorney General, which is dated the 19th of February 1995 and you fixed my attention on the fact that you can recall with reference to what you said in that statement, that at a stage you had the impression that Japie Maponya had also obtained a so-called internal crash course. Can you still recall specifically or can you recall from where you gained this impression?

MR VAN DER WALT: I cannot say precisely, but it was stated at Krugersdorp or during the initial or original meetings that we held there before Maponya was abducted.

MR LAMEY: Could this possibly also have been said at Vlakplaas?

MR VAN DER WALT: No, I don't believe so.

MR LAMEY: You have also fixed my attention upon the fact that you recall that the Krugersdorp Security Branch would have said that they didn't want any problems and that Maponya had upon a previous occasion laid a charge of assault against them, can you recall that?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes.

MR LAMEY: Can you recall when this was said?

MR VAN DER WALT: It was said at the same stage at Krugersdorp, I cannot recall if Nortje told me about this, but there was a definite, if Japie Maponya had to be abducted and assaulted and if he said nothing, it would definitely have created a problem for the Krugersdorp Branch because there had been a previous occasion upon which a case of assault had been brought against them.

MR LAMEY: You can remember these two matters, that they were mentioned?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: I recall the evidence of Gen Le Roux on this aspect, and he stated that he was unaware of Japie Maponya having ever laid a charge against the police and he believed that if such a charge had been laid, he as the Commander, would have had knowledge of it. From his evidence it would seem that there is a lot of doubt whether Japie Maponya did ever lay a charge against the police prior to his abduction, would you dispute that evidence if Gen Le Roux?

MR VAN DER WALT: I would acknowledge that sir, but that was the original problem. Why, if we took him away, that was my understanding of the original problem. They never wanted to have problems with him again. It might have been my own understanding, it might have been the other members' understanding also.

MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, I do have available that statement which was made, it is - I don't want, it is obviously improper to prove - consistent statement, but as far as it may be suggested that what, on these two aspects, that it could be a recent sort of fabrication as far as the political objective is concerned, Mr Chairman, I do have available those statements, or copies of that statement and it can be handed up if necessary. I am in the hands of the Committee here.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, if you do have copies, then it may as well be handed up, thank you. That will be ...

MS LOCKHAT: Exhibit F, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Exhibit F, thank you. We will receive the statement as Exhibit F, Mr Lamey.

MR LAMEY: Thank you Chairperson. Mr Van der Walt, I just want to question you about another aspect. In August to November 1983 and I refer to page 643 of Bundle 1(c), you were at the Security Branch in Oshakati and after that you were transferred to Koevoet in South-west Africa where you were under the command of Mr Nortje, is that correct, in that group?

MR VAN DER WALT: I was under the command of Brigadier Dreyer and under the direct command of Willie Nortje.

MR LAMEY: Yes, so he was then Brigadier Dreyer and he was the Overall Commander?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes.

MR LAMEY: In May 1985 you were transferred to Security Head Office where you served in D-Section under Major Craig Williamson?

MR VAN DER WALT: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And then you were internally, that would be within the Security Head Office context, you were transferred to Vlakplaas in August/September 1985?

MR VAN DER WALT: By internal I mean that it was an internal regulation or arrangement with Craig Williamson and the then Major Eugene de Kock, I don't think that I requested a transfer in a written form at that stage.

MR LAMEY: In your evidence you stated that Nortje was your senior?

MR VAN DER WALT: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Was that before you joined Vlakplaas, was that when you went out with Vlakplaas for the first time?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes, it was my first deployment.

CHAIRPERSON: When you joined C1, what rank did you hold?

MR VAN DER WALT: Sergeant, sir.

MR LAMEY: Just another aspect, you say that you also understood with regard to and I refer you to page 636, paragraph 2(b) that this Oderele Maponya, an MK member was also active in the Krugersdorp environment?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: And Japie Maponya, was he also in that environment, his brother?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes.

MR LAMEY: You have also confirmed it in the evidence in chief, that this statement contained the political objectives from page 636 to 637 and you confirmed this as you understood it and that is how you believed it at that stage?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes.

MR LAMEY: Just another aspect which we did discuss, you dealt with this in the De Kock trial, that is that at a certain stage you were approached by an Investigating Officer after the Nofemela revelations?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: You denied any involvement at that stage?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes, I denied everything.

MR LAMEY: And later, were you approached again after the Nofemela revelations?

MR VAN DER WALT: I think that when the further revelations came to light in 1993, 1994, I am not sure exactly when, there was an investigating team from Judge Goldstone who visited me at my home, and I denied everything at that stage as well.

MR LAMEY: Initially?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes, initially.

MR LAMEY: But later you did make a statement to the AG?

MR VAN DER WALT: At that stage, I didn't say anything, but later I made a statement before the AG under certain conditions.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, why did you deny revelations, deny everything after the Nofemela revelations and during the Goldstone Investigation?

MR VAN DER WALT: Sir, at that stage, I was at University or I might just have started working. I think the Officer arranged to meet me at my parents' house, he almost, he came to the house and said my name was mentioned.

MR MALAN: You may speak Afrikaans.

MR VAN DER WALT: He said that my name had been mentioned during Nofemela's allegations and they simply wanted to know whether I had any involvement with that, I denied it and they said that my S&T forms which we had filled in at that stage, indicated that we had been at Josini on the dates which Nofemela provided them with.

MR LAMEY: And then it was left at that?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes.

MR LAMEY: You didn't do anything from your side to set the true facts straight?

MR VAN DER WALT: No, I didn't do anything.

MR LAMEY: What was your motivation at that time to deny it and to keep silent about it?

MR VAN DER WALT: Nobody notified me, at that stage I had contact at least once a year with Willie Nortje and if something drastic had happened, they would have notified me.

MR LAMEY: Yes, but if you had come forward with it, would it have had repercussions and if so what repercussions?

MR VAN DER WALT: It would definitely have been embarrassing revelations towards the then Security Police as well as the National Party government.

MR LAMEY: Would it then also have strengthened the hand of the liberation movements who at that stage, wanted to discredit the government?

MR VAN DER WALT: I believed that, yes.

MR LAMEY: May I just have a moment, Mr Chairman? Thank you Mr Chairman. Thank you Mr Chairman, I've got no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Van der Walt, you have sat here listening to the evidence of the other persons regarding this incident, so you have a relatively good idea of what the points of dispute as between Mr De Kock and Mr Nortje and to a certain extent, yourself as well?

MR VAN DER WALT: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: May I just begin with the return to Vlakplaas from Josini. You gave evidence about this during the criminal trial, if I may just refer you to that, I want to refer to Bundle 3(a), that is Bundle 3(a) and more specifically page 373. Do you have it?

MR VAN DER WALT: We have it, yes.

MR HATTINGH: Where page 5008 begins, somewhat lower down I say to you

"... who was your team leader, that is in Josini and you say, Willie Nortje was the team leader."

MR VAN DER WALT: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: I say

"... this was in September."

You say that you were there for approximately two and a half weeks and you answer -

"... yes, two and a half weeks."

I then asked you -

"... what happened then?"

And you say that you had to report and your answer is - "... we received an order to return and to report at Krugersdorp Security Branch."

Then you say something further, but I interrupted you and asked you -

"... did you know what it was about?"

And you say -

"... no, I did not know what it was about, we usually had to report to a Branch and they would the sketch the problem that they were experiencing to you or to the Commander."

Now, may I just put it like this, the point where you say that you had received an order to return and to report at Krugersdorp Security Branch, that creates the impression with me, that as far as it regards your knowledge, that that order came while you were still at Josini?

MR VAN DER WALT: As far as I know, yes.

MR HATTINGH: And is it also correct that Mr Nortje, before you departed for Josini, told you that you were only be there until the 25th and then you would have to be back because you would be going to Krugersdorp? Did he not tell you that before the time?

MR VAN DER WALT: No, not prior to the time, but definitely while we were in Josini.

MR HATTINGH: Well, when with regard to the order to return, would he have told you this?

MR VAN DER WALT: Just a moment please. I do not understand your question, will you repeat it please.

MR HATTINGH: I may have misunderstood you, let us see if we are not talking passed each other. You say that during the time that you were at Josini, Mr Nortje told you to return to Krugersdorp and to report at the Krugersdorp Security Branch?

MR VAN DER WALT: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Might that have been the occasion upon which he told you that he received an order to return?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And that was shortly before you returned?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you. Then did you return, did you depart for Krugersdorp, did you depart to Pretoria?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Your recollection of the events differ somewhat of Mr Nortje?

MR VAN DER WALT: My recollection of that is somewhat vague as it is reflected in the court case.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, but as you recall it, Mr Van der Walt, it was on a Sunday that you returned?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes, according to my evidence.

MR HATTINGH: Because you link this to a braai which you recall having at your parents' home?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And then you recall that on the following day, you went to Krugersdorp?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And then you have a recollection Mr Van der Walt, of askaris who were sent into Kagiso to pretend being trained MK's or terrorists towards the inhabitants of the area and to attempt to obtain information about Oderele Maponya's whereabouts in this fashion?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes, that is how I recall it.

MR HATTINGH: And your recollection was that those events, that would be sending the askaris into Kagiso, did not take place on the same day as the day upon which Mr Maponya was abducted?

MR VAN DER WALT: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: In fact, you stated in your evidence that as far as you can recall, the abduction possibly took place two, possibly three days after this Monday?

MR VAN DER WALT: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: So then there were actions on days which are different to the day upon which Mr Maponya was abducted according to your recollection?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Now we come to the discussions which were held when the decision was taken to abduct Mr Maponya. You have heard Mr Nortje's evidence that it was the askaris who suggested the abduction, can you recall or confirm this?

MR VAN DER WALT: Not at all.

MR HATTINGH: But at a stage there was mention that he should be abducted?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And you can recall that at a stage you were present in the office of Gen Le Roux, the former Colonel Le Roux, when the possible abduction of Mr Maponya was discussed?

MR VAN DER WALT: You ask whether I can recall whether I was present? Yes, I was present.

MR HATTINGH: And then it would have been upon this occasion I believe, if I am mistaken please correct me, it would have been upon this occasion when certain admissions were made to you about the fact that Mr Maponya had upon a previous occasion laid a charge of assault?

MR VAN DER WALT: It could have been upon that occasion or upon the previous occasion when a meeting was held, because I said in my statement that on the first day we arrived at Krugersdorp and Willie went up to the offices alone. It may have been upon that occasion when it was mentioned, it may also have been at the following meeting, but I cannot say with certainty.

MR HATTINGH: But if it was during the first one, you yourself wouldn't have heard it, Willie would have told you about it?

MR VAN DER WALT: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: But your clear impression as you have put it here in the evidence in chief, I will attempt to give you a thorough rendition of the notes that I took, but I don't think that my notes are all that thorough, I think that you started your answer in English

"... my understanding was that if we took him away, they never wanted problems with him again."

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes, I think that is what I said Mr Hattingh.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, meaning by take away, you meant abduct?

MR VAN DER WALT: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And the problems that you referred to, were that he should not lay a charge of assault again?

MR VAN DER WALT: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Before that, before you gave this small piece of evidence in English, you said words to the effect that it was said that if he, Mr Maponya had to be abducted and assaulted, it would create a problem and you recall that definitely?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes, I recall it definitely and I also put it in my original statement to the AG, that is on page 3 of Exhibit F, Krugersdorp Security Branch didn't want to have any problems with Maponya again.

MR HATTINGH: I beg your pardon, what are you reading from?

MR VAN DER WALT: That is page 3 from my original statement.

MR HATTINGH: The hand-written statement?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Is it paragraph 3 or paragraph 1.3?

MR VAN DER WALT: I said there Krugersdorp Security Branch didn't want to have problems again, because Maponya had upon a previous occasion laid a charge of assault against them.

MR HATTINGH: What was your understanding of how this problem would be able to be intercepted?

MR VAN DER WALT: Mr Hattingh, I really cannot say what my comprehension was. I would say that I was the most junior member of the Force at that stage in this whole matter, and I don't think that I had all the insight that the others had regarding Oderele Maponya and Japie Maponya.

MR HATTINGH: But it is your clear recollection as you have stated it here, that the fact that if Mr Maponya was to be abducted and assaulted, it could create a problem for Krugersdorp as he had previously laid a charge of assault against them?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And you say that you recall this clearly?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Mr Van der Walt, can you recall whether you got that information from Mr Nortje or directly from a member of the Krugersdorp Branch, probably Kleynhans or Dunkley?

MR VAN DER WALT: No sir, I would have to speculate about that.

MR HATTINGH: What did you think in your own mind what was going to happen if Mr Maponya was abducted and assaulted and if he didn't want to speak?

MR VAN DER WALT: Mr Hattingh, to tell you the truth, I didn't think at that stage that he wasn't going to talk.

MR HATTINGH: And at a later stage when you saw that he wasn't going to talk, what did you think then?

MR VAN DER WALT: At a later stage I also said that the accused specifically said to me, I beg your pardon, Mr De Kock said specifically to me and Willie Nortje that he was going to Head Office the following day to clear things up or to clear the problem up.

MR HATTINGH: But then you already realised that there was a problem, this man had been abducted and assaulted and he still didn't want to talk, and you realised that you couldn't release him?

MR VAN DER WALT: Mr Hattingh, I wouldn't say that I realised that he couldn't be released or that there was a chance that he could not be released, I am speculating, at least you are almost asking me to speculate, I am simply saying that if Brigadier Schoon had issues the order or if the order had come from Head Office, from C-Section Heads, if they had said "go and drop that man off in the veld outside Krugersdorp, don't let him see you," then such a plan may have been formulated. I cannot tell you, I am simply speculating.

MR HATTINGH: But you knew that he was abducted by the askaris?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And that this took place in the Central Business District of Krugersdorp?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And that this happened at peak hour when most people were leaving work?

MR VAN DER WALT: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And you also knew that the abductors, the askaris had not disguised themselves?

MR VAN DER WALT: Mr Hattingh, I don't think that he was abducted by askaris, but by policemen.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, but whoever had abducted him, I think there may have been one askari involved, let's leave it at that, the people who abducted him, had not disguised themselves?

MR VAN DER WALT: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: After the abduction, did you return to Vlakplaas?

MR VAN DER WALT: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Who did you drive with?

MR VAN DER WALT: I drove with Willie Nortje.

MR HATTINGH: And when you arrived there at the farm, what did you do?

MR VAN DER WALT: We drove directly to what I referred to in my statement as the shooting range, I think others had a different name for it, it was approximately 500 to 600 meters away from the buildings.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, there was a shooting range near the river, where there was also some form of a picnic area?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: You said that you went there directly when you arrived at the farm?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Are you convinced of that?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: You heard Mr Fourie's evidence that he and Mr Nortje spent three quarters of an hour having drinks in the canteen?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes, I heard him say that.

MR HATTINGH: You say that you went down there and that Mr Nortje according to your version, go there with you, so Mr Fourie could be making a mistake?

MR VAN DER WALT: That is his statement Mr Hattingh, I could not say whether he is wrong or not, because that is his recollection. My recollection is that I went directly to the river.

CHAIRPERSON: With Nortje?

MR VAN DER WALT: With Nortje, sir.

CHAIRPERSON: When you say you went directly to the river, with a motor vehicle?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes sir.

CHAIRPERSON: You drove there and parked at the shooting range?

MR VAN DER WALT: We drove there, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: You didn't park at the canteen and walked?

MR VAN DER WALT: No, no, we drove there.

MR HATTINGH: Very well, and that is where you observed the assault on Mr Maponya?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Without going into too much detail, where was Mr Maponya, was he inside a vehicle or outside a vehicle when you saw him?

MR VAN DER WALT: When I saw him, he was outside a vehicle.

MR HATTINGH: Was he laying on the ground?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Was he disguised or covered with a blanket as Mr Fourie said?

MR VAN DER WALT: I cannot recall the blanket, I think he wore a balaclava over his head.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, and did you see that Mr Nortje assaulted him?

MR VAN DER WALT: I don't think so Mr Hattingh.

MR HATTINGH: Are you saying that you didn't see it or are you saying that you don't think that he assaulted him?

MR VAN DER WALT: My recollection was also vague during the court case, I cannot tell you, I didn't see him assault him.

MR HATTINGH: Did you see Mr De Kock assault him?

MR VAN DER WALT: Also not, I also don't think that I saw him assaulting him, that is the same as my initial statement.

CHAIRPERSON: What time of the day was it at that stage, was it dark or was it still light?

MR VAN DER WALT: It was about quarter past five, half past five in the evening. It was still light, Mr Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Did any person give an order for the interrogation and the accompanying assault to be ceased?

MR VAN DER WALT: That is correct, Mr De Kock said that it had to stop.

MR HATTINGH: Did he say words to the effect that it wasn't serving any purpose, that it was clear that the man wasn't going to talk?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes, I could imagine that, I think he said that.

MR HATTINGH: What was your impression, did Mr Maponya create the impression that he was trying to cooperate or did you have the impression that he didn't want to talk?

MR VAN DER WALT: He did not offer any co-operation, I think that he said once or twice, I don't know, I don't know. I could give you some background about that, my recollection of Namibia was that if you caught a genuinely trained person, he would immediately surrender himself and start talking, almost with immediate effect. When it came to collaborators and sympathisers, these were the most difficult persons to get them to talk.

MR HATTINGH: The assault was ceased and you returned to the residential house or to the canteen, where did you go?

MR VAN DER WALT: I would say that we went back to the residence.

MR HATTINGH: Did you drive with Mr Nortje again?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes, I think so.

MR HATTINGH: When you arrived there, what did you do?

MR VAN DER WALT: I cannot recall specifically, I think that during the original court case, I also couldn't tell you what I did.

MR HATTINGH: I understand that you studied your evidence in court, rather thoroughly?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes, I did.

MR HATTINGH: According to your recollection, before you left the scene at the river, was there a discussion between Messrs Dunkley and Kleynhans?

MR VAN DER WALT: Do you want me to speculate or do you want me to give you a definite answer?

MR HATTINGH: No, I want you to tell me what you recall or what you know, with regard to all the questions that I am putting to you. If you don't know, then say so.

MR VAN DER WALT: I think that there was a discussion, and I think that during that discussion people from Krugersdorp said that they were leaving the problem to Mr De Kock.

MR HATTINGH: Did you hear this discussion?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes, I think that I was present.

MR HATTINGH: And do you know who these Krugersdorp people were?

MR VAN DER WALT: I did not know them, but later it emerged at a stage at the building, it was Dunkley and Kleynhans. I think I mentioned this in the original trial.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry before you proceed Mr Hattingh, there is just one point before you go on, I just want to go back a little bit, Mr Van der Walt. You said that from your Namibia experience it was often more difficult to get information from sympathisers and collaborators rather than from genuinely trained operatives.

MR VAN DER WALT: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: What was your feeling, your own view, from your past experience as to the interrogation of Japie Maponya? We have heard evidence that the questioning took place for about 30 to 45 minutes at the river, that there was assaults with feet and fists and with teargas, but I think it was Mr Nortje, described the assaults as not being too serious, there wasn't any blood around, etc. It wasn't a severe, horrendous assault, although it wasn't nice, but it wasn't too serious?

MR VAN DER WALT: No, it wasn't a horrendous assault.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you think that sufficient time had been devoted to the interrogation process to arrive at a conclusive decision that this man was not going to talk at all? Why I ask that is that we have heard evidence in other matters, etc, that one of the important factors in torture is the psychological side of it, that you beat somebody and then you let him think about it, and then some time later, you start it again, break him down in other words. What was your personal view, do you think that the decision that was arrived at after those 30 or 45 minutes, was a correct decision, or do you think that it was a bit hasty?

MR VAN DER WALT: In retrospect today, I think that it might have been a bit hasty, but if you take into consideration all the aspects, and I must add that this is in retrospect today. If you consider all the aspects that we have heard that Mr Nortje spoke of, the facts that Chris Mosiane had visited him with a handgrenade or a pistol or both, he did not even inform us about that. If he wanted to talk, he could simply have told us "listen, I don't know where my brother is, but earlier today or yesterday or the day before yesterday, there were people in the bank who approached me and they said that they were in the environment, perhaps I could compile an identikit or something for you", but he didn't even say anything about that. So it is clear to me today in retrospect, that he was definitely a sympathiser.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you Mr Hattingh.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you Mr Chairman. On that same note, Mr Van der Walt, can you recall that at one or other stage, it was said to you that there had been previous attempts to obtain information from Mr Japie Maponya regarding the whereabouts of his brother?

MR VAN DER WALT: No, I cannot tell you at all.

MR HATTINGH: Very well, now we are back at the farm, after you returned to the house, did Mr De Kock also go there?

MR VAN DER WALT: He also went back to the farm house after Kleynhans and Dunkley had departed.

MR HATTINGH: Did he give any instructions to you there?

MR VAN DER WALT: Mr Hattingh, my recollection about that is extremely vague, I cannot recall.

MR HATTINGH: Under normal circumstances, would you have reported for work the following day?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And you would have gone to work at the farm?

MR VAN DER WALT: I was deployed with Mr Nortje, so I would have reported to the farm.

MR HATTINGH: Unless you had received any instructions to the contrary, you would have reported the following morning at the usual hour for duty, at the farm?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Did you do so?

MR VAN DER WALT: I think I said so in my statement, that I did that.

MR HATTINGH: You did not live in the same apartment block where Mr Fourie, Nortje and De Kock lived?

MR VAN DER WALT: No.

MR HATTINGH: I think that Mr Nortje said at one point that he told you that you could only be there that afternoon, did you know about that?

MR VAN DER WALT: No.

MR HATTINGH: So you reported at the usual hour for duty the following day?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Did you see Mr Kleynhans at the farm the following day?

MR VAN DER WALT: No, not at all.

MR HATTINGH: Did you see Gen Le Roux at the farm the following day?

MR VAN DER WALT: Not at all.

MR HATTINGH: Did you go to work with a vehicle?

MR VAN DER WALT: My recollection is that I went to work in my own vehicle.

MR HATTINGH: So your vehicle had to be parked in that area?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Can you recall whether any other persons were there when you arrived at the farm?

MR VAN DER WALT: I think that Nortje was there, but I cannot tell you specifically.

MR HATTINGH: And if he had been there, he would also have had his vehicle there?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And this vehicle would also have been parked in that area?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you recall about what time in the morning you arrived for duty?

MR VAN DER WALT: Sir, from where I lived, the farm was on the other side of the city, so I had to depart from my house reasonably early, at about quarter past six, half past six.

CHAIRPERSON: So you were there quite early in the morning?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes, I think I was there about quarter past seven, I think.

CHAIRPERSON: And then, did you stay at the farm?

MR VAN DER WALT: I stayed ...

CHAIRPERSON: That day?

MR VAN DER WALT: We might have done something else, we might have been around, but my recollection is that we stayed on the farm that day.

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon Mr Hattingh, do you say that you stayed at the farm, is that you and Nortje?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes.

MR MALAN: Just the two of you?

MR VAN DER WALT: That is correct, yes.

MR MALAN: Nobody else?

MR VAN DER WALT: Mr Malan, during the court case I said that these events spanned over a number of days, perhaps three days, but I had it in my mind that this period of time was actually a week, and Nortje and I were in Krugersdorp in the first day and on the second day, we contacted Mr De Kock and the others and on the second or third day, Mr Maponya was abducted and that is how the events unfolded over the week, and I imagined that we were once again in Pretoria or Krugersdorp or the East Rand that afternoon, but I can't recall.

MR MALAN: But the evidence that you are giving, has to do with the morning after the assault on Maponya?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes.

MR MALAN: And you say that your recollection is that you were at the farm. Was it only you and Nortje at the farm, and nobody else?

MR VAN DER WALT: Nobody else, that is correct.

MR MALAN: And you cannot recall whether you went somewhere during the day, but you say that it may have been that you went somewhere, but you think that you spent the whole day at the farm?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: We heard of guards, were there guards on duty?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: So when you say that there was nobody else there, I assume that you are referring to white members?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes, there were other black members on the farm.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Mr Hattingh, I keep interrupting you, just on this point, if I were to have gone to the farm that day, just a civilian, could I have just driven in the gate and gone to park at the canteen and walked around?

MR VAN DER WALT: No, definitely not.

CHAIRPERSON: What would have stopped me from driving into the farm?

MR VAN DER WALT: There was a gate, I don't know if it was always locked, but there was also a guard there. Somebody would have stopped you at the gate, I think.

CHAIRPERSON: So if there was a visitor like Gen Le Roux said that he went there that morning, would he have been able to have just driven in unhindered to the buildings?

MR VAN DER WALT: No, I don't think so.

ADV GCABASHE : Sorry, can I just finish that off, if he drove up in full uniform and looked like a General or looked like a Colonel or whatever, would the guard let him in, assuming that he is a fairly senior person and senior people had been there before?

MR VAN DER WALT: Ma'am, if - nobody ever arrived there to my knowledge, in uniform, it was a covert farm, so I doubt if anybody of the Uniform Branch, would ever have found the farm.

CHAIRPERSON: But just to take up Adv Gcabashe's point, if he was in plain clothes, but had his appointment certificate, Commander Security Branch, that might have persuaded the fellow at the gate?

MR VAN DER WALT: Then they would have allowed him, I believe that he would have been allowed in.

MR HATTINGH: This farm, Mr Van der Walt, was never left without somebody there, in other words, nobody abandoned the farm all at the same time and left it there unattended without anybody there?

MR VAN DER WALT: Not according to my recollection, but you must recall that I had only been at the farm for three months.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, but in the three months that you had been there, you noticed that the place was guarded, that there were guards?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And that there were even security guards on duty at night?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And there were also guards who were walking about on the farm terrain to see that nobody obtained access to the premises?

MR VAN DER WALT: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Can you recall at what time Mr De Kock arrived at the farm the following day?

MR VAN DER WALT: My recollection is that it was during the afternoon.

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon Mr Hattingh, I just want to return to a question. You say that we must remember that you were at the farm for three months. Did you work during the first month, you were deployed during the first month. What happened in the other months?

MR VAN DER WALT: I was also deployed.

MR MALAN: So you had spent much time away from the farm?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: When you were transferred to Vlakplaas, what was said to you about the operation that was underway there, what was the set up? Were you in clear understanding that it was a covert operation?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And were you permitted for example to bring guests to the farm who were not members of Vlakplaas or the Security Branch?

MR VAN DER WALT: No, according to my recollection, people who went there were always invited to go there, or requested to go there.

MR HATTINGH: So only people who had invitations, were allowed there?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: So Mr Van der Walt, just to round it off in general, Vlakplaas was a covert set up and you realised that you would not speak out about Vlakplaas, that you had to maintain its covert nature?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Let us return to Mr De Kock's arrival there, were you and Mr Nortje still both there?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Can you recall if Mr Fourie was there when Mr De Kock arrived there?

MR VAN DER WALT: I don't know, I can't recall.

MR HATTINGH: Can you recall at what time Mr Fourie arrived at the farm?

MR VAN DER WALT: Not at all.

MR HATTINGH: Were you involved in any preparations which were undertaken before Mr De Kock's arrival at the farm?

MR VAN DER WALT: I cannot recall, but I also said that I went to fetch Japie from the room where he was detained.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, on page 377 you have put it as follows just after line 10, I am just trying to find the beginning of the sentence, just before line 10

"... I cannot recall precisely what took place the whole day, we may possibly have returned to Krugersdorp, but later that afternoon Colonel De Kock returned from Head Office and said that he had obtained a clearance from higher above, to get the man to disappear and at approximately half past six, seven o'clock, after everybody had left the farm, we removed Maponya from the house and loaded him into the vehicle."

Do you still stand by that version?

MR VAN DER WALT: I may have been mistaken when I said that everybody had left the farm, I may have been incorrect in that regard. But if anybody else had been at the farm, they would already have left the farm.

MR HATTINGH: I am more interested in the statement that "we removed Maponya from the house", who was this we?

MR VAN DER WALT: According to my statement I said that it had been me and Fourie who removed him from the house. During the court case I said that it had been me and Fourie.

MR HATTINGH: I beg your pardon, I didn't follow you properly. Did you say that you said this in the statement?

MR VAN DER WALT: No, I said that during the court case I said that it was me and Fourie.

MR HATTINGH: Was that correct?

MR VAN DER WALT: I don't know Mr Hattingh, that is my recollection.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. Was this long before your departure that you loaded Mr Maponya into the vehicle?

MR VAN DER WALT: No, it was probably five minutes.

MR HATTINGH: So then Mr Fourie had to have been there already because this was shortly before your departure?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes, he must have been there, I didn't deny that he was there.

MR HATTINGH: No, I am not saying that you denied it, but he says that when he arrived there, Maponya was already in the back of the vehicle and that he was covered with a blanket.

MR VAN DER WALT: Very well, that is his recollection.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, so you waited until the people had left the farm, and then you loaded Maponya into the vehicle?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: You also mentioned something about a spade?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: How clear is your recollection about that?

MR VAN DER WALT: Very clear.

MR HATTINGH: Who went to fetch the spade?

MR VAN DER WALT: Nortje.

MR HATTINGH: Did he load the spade into the vehicle?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Was it only a spade?

MR VAN DER WALT: I recall only the spade.

MR HATTINGH: Is it possible that there was something else such as a pick-axe?

MR VAN DER WALT: Do you want me to speculate?

MR HATTINGH: No, I want to know if you would concede to the possibility because he is uncertain whether it was only a spade or whether there was a pick-axe as well.

MR VAN DER WALT: There may have been a pick-axe as well.

MR HATTINGH: Did he also take the firearm with?

MR VAN DER WALT: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: You were then asked how and where you sat in the vehicle, can you recall this?

MR VAN DER WALT: That is correct, yes.

MR HATTINGH: Just before I get to that, this vehicle, is it correct that it had a bench type of seat in front?

MR VAN DER WALT: According to Fourie's evidence the other day, he said that it had a bench type of seat, I recall it having two seats in the front and a bench seat at the back.

MR HATTINGH: What is your recollection, was it a bench seat or two individual seats?

MR VAN DER WALT: Mr Hattingh, I have never again seen a Landcruiser station wagon after the incident, nor have I ever driven one.

MR HATTINGH: So you don't know?

MR VAN DER WALT: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: When you gave the evidence, at that time, did you have any impression of what the position was?

MR VAN DER WALT: I may have thought that it was so, that is how I imagined the vehicle at that stage.

MR HATTINGH: This vehicle, in the front it had either a bench seat or two seats and then there was a bench seat at the back, is that correct?

MR VAN DER WALT: According to my recollection and evidence, there were two seats in the front and then there was a passenger bench and then there was the back boot section.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, and in that boot section, were there also seats?

MR VAN DER WALT: I don't know.

MR HATTINGH: Two small benches which were placed along the length of the vehicle, one on either side?

MR VAN DER WALT: I cannot speculate about that, if one looks at today's 4 x 4 vehicles, there are collapsible benches at the back.

MR HATTINGH: The reason why I ask you that is because on page 377 you are asked where Eugene Fourie sat, do you have the place?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes, I think so.

MR HATTINGH: And you say

"... that he must have sat on one of the back benches, on one of the back benches."

MR VAN DER WALT: Mr Hattingh, ...

MR HATTINGH: You wanted to say something Mr Van der Walt?

MR VAN DER WALT: Just a moment please. Mr Hattingh, I have my own extract from my evidence in court, and that is where I said that Fourie and I sat on the back seat.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, but on page 377 of the record, I think that you may have a later stage in the evidence where you say it.

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes, I see that this is Adv Ackerman who is leading the evidence in chief, I cannot deny it. I can tell you that I think that I misunderstood Mr Ackerman, that it was not the same as the interior of a mini-bus or a kombi which had another seat at the back, do you understand what I am saying?

MR HATTINGH: I understand what you mean, yes, but I cannot understand how you may have misunderstood Mr Ackerman, because his question to you were simple, where did Eugene Fourie sit. What could you have misunderstood about that?

MR VAN DER WALT: I don't know what I said there, but I can tell you that Fourie and I sat on the back bench and I don't think that Fourie would have sat on the one back bench and that I would have sat on the other back bench or at least that we wouldn't have left the middle seat open and all of us sat at the back. I may have mis-expressed myself, I may be mistaken in that regard.

MR HATTINGH: Because if I recall Mr Fourie's evidence correctly, there were two benches at the back and here you mention one of the two back benches, in other words that there were more than one? That he is seated on the back bench, not on the back seat?

MR VAN DER WALT: I would tell you again that I may have expressed myself incorrectly.

MR HATTINGH: Didn't he perhaps sit there because it was difficult for both of you to sit on the back seat, because Mr Maponya lay on the floor at the back?

MR VAN DER WALT: There was ample seating, Mr Maponya laid on the floor of the vehicle and we placed our feet over him, there was ample space between the seats.

MR HATTINGH: So you drove to Piet Retief and then you arrived at Mr Pienaar's home. You didn't know him?

MR VAN DER WALT: That is correct. I think I may have met Mr Pienaar on one previous occasion, I am not certain, but during those three months that I spent at Vlakplaas, Willie and I drove through Piet Retief once and I definitely met him once before. I cannot recall whether it was before that incident or after the incident.

MR HATTINGH: When you arrived there at his house, did you drive into his premises with your vehicle?

MR VAN DER WALT: I cannot tell you.

MR HATTINGH: It was an official police residence in which he lived at that stage, is that so?

MR VAN DER WALT: I cannot tell you where he lived.

MR HATTINGH: So you don't know whether you parked outside in the street or on the pavement or whether you drove into the premises?

MR VAN DER WALT: I can recall that we arrived there and that Mr Pienaar climbed into the vehicle, that is all that I can recall.

MR HATTINGH: You cannot recall how he arrived there, whether somebody went to call him or anything like that?

MR VAN DER WALT: No.

MR HATTINGH: You cannot recall that anyone of you disembarked from the vehicle before he arrived at the vehicle?

MR VAN DER WALT: No, I cannot recall.

MR HATTINGH: If Mr Pienaar were to say that your vehicle had entered the premises and that it had moved around so that it could drive up to his back door where he always left his vehicle and that you had stopped there, would you be able to dispute it?

MR VAN DER WALT: No.

MR HATTINGH: And if he were to say that Mr De Kock climbed out of the vehicle and met him at the back door, would you be able to dispute it?

MR VAN DER WALT: No.

MR HATTINGH: If he were to say that there was garden equipment, even though he cannot recall everything, if he says that there was garden equipment such as a spade and perhaps a garden fork which he gave to Mr De Kock, would you be able to dispute that?

MR VAN DER WALT: I would have to say that we brought the spade from Vlakplaas, that is all that I can tell you.

MR HATTINGH: Can you dispute that at Piet Retief, more items may have been loaded into the car?

MR VAN DER WALT: I wouldn't be able to dispute it.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. Did Mr Pienaar accompany you according to your version?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Are you certain about that?

MR VAN DER WALT: One hundred percent certain.

MR HATTINGH: Where was he seated in the vehicle?

MR VAN DER WALT: I don't know.

MR HATTINGH: Do you have no recollection of this?

MR VAN DER WALT: Absolutely none.

MR HATTINGH: So you don't know whether Mr Nortje is correct when he says that Mr Pienaar sat in front between him and Mr De Kock or whether Mr Fourie is correct in saying that he, Mr Fourie climbed into back, into the dickey as he referred to it and that Mr Pienaar came and sat next to you?

MR VAN DER WALT: I wouldn't be able to say, but according to my evidence during the court case, he could not have sat in the middle between Nortje and Mr De Kock, because according to my recollection, there were two individual seats in the front, I don't know where he would have sat, and I don't know where he sat at all.

MR HATTINGH: Was there any discussion with him in the vehicle regarding what was about to take place?

MR VAN DER WALT: Not that I can recall.

MR HATTINGH: So you cannot recall whatsoever that anything was discussed regarding what you were about to do with Mr Maponya?

MR VAN DER WALT: No, I cannot tell you.

MR HATTINGH: Can you recall that he gave directions, he, that is Pienaar?

MR VAN DER WALT: He was going to point out the place to us that we were supposed to go to.

MR HATTINGH: I am talking about directions with regard to the direction in which you were supposed to drive, did he tell you to drive here or drive there?

MR VAN DER WALT: Mr Hattingh, that is my recollection.

MR HATTINGH: What can you recall if you have any recollection about the incident, what did he say?

MR VAN DER WALT: I can tell you the reason why Mr Pienaar went along, was because he was familiar with the area. Not one of the rest of us knew the area, least of all, I. So, it was as if you were dropping me off in a dark place in the middle of the night and telling me you don't really know where you are, just drive. I really didn't have an idea as to where we were, he gave us directions. According to my recollection, he pointed out the direction to us.

MR HATTINGH: Why are you saying that he was the only one who knew the area, if I understand your evidence correctly?

MR VAN DER WALT: Because that is the only reason according to me, why he would have accompanied us.

MR HATTINGH: But we heard from Fourie that he knew the area very well, that he had performed much work on that border area?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes, we heard that from Mr Fourie, but this is my recollection, which I will stand by.

MR HATTINGH: Are you saying that this is your recollection because you were under the impression that only Mr Pienaar knew the area?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Now that would appear to be objectively incorrect because we know that Mr Fourie also knew the area?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes, if I look at it now, 14 years down the line, Mr Fourie also knew the area. I might just add that he didn't know it as well as Mr Pienaar.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, but you also heard his version and Mr Pienaar would say if he were to give evidence here, that there were many other places closer to Piet Retief, which were far more suitable than the place at Nesden where they ultimately went?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes, but there were also many mine heaps in the East Rand.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, we know that Mr Van der Walt, but you went specifically to Swaziland because you thought that the Swazi government would not investigate the matter thoroughly?

MR VAN DER WALT: I cannot respond to that, but if we really wanted to do something, we could have done it near Pretoria as well.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, in either event, the place that you eventually went to, meant that you drove right passed the border post, is that correct?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes, that emanated from later evidence Mr Hattingh. I really don't know where I was, do you understand.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, but you were there, you must have seen, here is a border post, here is a fence with high poles?

MR VAN DER WALT: I cannot remember the border post.

MR HATTINGH: Not at all?

MR VAN DER WALT: Not at all.

MR HATTINGH: Even though there were high poles with bright lights which were shining?

MR VAN DER WALT: Well, I am telling you that I cannot recall this at all.

MR HATTINGH: And that this was a border post where there were various buildings and residences of staff members who worked there, you say that you cannot recall that either?

MR VAN DER WALT: No.

MR HATTINGH: Eventually you came to a point ...

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps this might be a convenient time to take the tea adjournment, I see it is eleven o'clock, we will take the short tea adjournment now, thank you.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

DAVID VAN DER WALT: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hattingh?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: (continued) Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Van der Walt, before we continue with what happened at the scene where Mr Maponya was killed, may we just return back to the morning, or the day before you departed, or excuse me, I am not expressing myself correctly, go back to the period of time during the day before you departed for Piet Retief with Mr Maponya, was there any discussion as to where you would go to?

MR VAN DER WALT: Not that I can recall Mr Hattingh. May I just, Chairperson, ask something if Mr Hattingh has concluded.

MR HATTINGH: Is this about something else?

MR VAN DER WALT: No, just to go back Mr Hattingh.

MR HATTINGH: Maybe you should do that before we forget it.

MR VAN DER WALT: I would just like to point out Chairperson, in my original statement to the Attorney General ...

CHAIRPERSON: Exhibit F?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes, I did not speak about Mr Pienaar. I just knew that it was somebody from Piet Retief and during the trial on page 577, I think, page 619 of my evidence, 619.

MR HATTINGH: Do you refer to the typed page?

MR LAMEY: He is referring to the extract from his evidence in Bundle 1(c).

MR VAN DER WALT: "... Eventually a decision was taken on Eastern Transvaal, and it was decided Piet Retief? Yes. Was there specifically decided that Pienaar (that was Mr Hattingh's question to me), was there specifically decided that Pienaar ..."

and that is where Pienaar, I did not mention him, Mr Hattingh mentioned Mr Pienaar there for the first time.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Van der Walt, "eventually it was decided on Eastern Transvaal", when was this decision taken?

MR VAN DER WALT: It may have possibly been during the day, at the farm, Chairperson, I cannot recall.

CHAIRPERSON: The same day?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes, the day that we left to take Mr Maponya to Piet Retief, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Hattingh?

MR HATTINGH: Thank you Mr Chairperson. You see, this was coincidentally the same passage to which I wanted to refer to, to ask you whether a discussion had taken place and here you clearly state that a decision was taken as to where he would be taken. On page 618, at the bottom of 618 you say, you were asked

"... what exactly did he say did Head Office decide?"

And you say -

"... That the man must disappear. Disappear? Not as in disappear, but amongst others be killed?

And you say -

"... that is correct, yes. What was decided then?

In other words, we speak of the occasion after Mr De Kock had returned from Head Office to the farm, is that clear to you?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes, that is clear Mr Hattingh.

MR HATTINGH: And you say, and

"... excuse me, what was decided?

And you say -

"... it was decided to take him to Eastern Transvaal to Swaziland, and there ..."

and you were interrupted -

"... were any options discussed?"

And you say -

"... I think options were discussed, but I cannot recall. You cannot recall whether there were any options? No, I cannot. Eventually it was decided on Eastern Transvaal? Yes. And decided Piet Retief? That is correct yes."

So you say it was there decided to take him to Piet Retief? The decision was taken there after Mr De Kock had returned from Head Office?

MR VAN DER WALT: That is my recollection, Mr Hattingh.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Hattingh, just to get this clear, you say a decision was taken. Did you discuss it amongst yourselves to determine what would be the best place or had that decision been taken somewhere else and you were merely conveyed of the decision?

MR VAN DER WALT: No, the decision where to take him, wasn't taken at Head Office. I think, if I have to speculate, then the decision was taken on the farm.

CHAIRPERSON: And who made that decision?

MR VAN DER WALT: If I have to speculate again, it must have been Mr De Kock, I cannot definitely say that he said "let's take this man to Eastern Transvaal."

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you Mr Hattingh.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you Mr Chairperson. Who was present during this discussion?

MR VAN DER WALT: Mr Hattingh, if I have to speculate again, I would say that I and Fourie and Willie Nortje were present, but according to Fourie's recollection, he only arrived at the farm later that afternoon.

MR HATTINGH: And Mr De Kock of course?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Do you have any knowledge of a telephone call that Mr Nortje made to Piet Retief, whereafter he called Mr De Kock to the telephone?

MR VAN DER WALT: I cannot recall Mr Hattingh.

MR HATTINGH: Can you recall whether Mr De Kock gave him any instructions to get somebody on the phone?

MR VAN DER WALT: I cannot recall.

MR HATTINGH: Now you arrived at the place where you stopped, did any of you have torches?

MR VAN DER WALT: Not that I can recall Mr Hattingh.

MR HATTINGH: What happened then, you all climbed out of the vehicle?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes, we all climbed out of the vehicle. Fourie, Nortje, Mr Pienaar, Mr De Kock and myself, we all climbed through the fence and according to my evidence, I walked in some distance, I cannot recall that I walked in all the way into the bush as Mr Fourie had said.

MR HATTINGH: Did you only walk up to the beginning of the plantation?

MR VAN DER WALT: I may have walked in one or two steps into the plantation, but then I turned around.

MR HATTINGH: What was the lighting like that evening?

MR VAN DER WALT: Mr Hattingh, the only thing that I can tell you is that it was dark, it was very dark.

MR HATTINGH: In your statement, Exhibit F on page 5, on the top you say it was pitch dark?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And further down you said "I could not see them, it was too dark", that is when the people walked into the bush?

MR VAN DER WALT: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Can you recall the sequence in which they moved into the bush, who was in front and who was behind?

MR VAN DER WALT: No, I cannot remember.

MR HATTINGH: I am having some trouble with my photocopy, I am still on page 5. Please read with me and tell me if I am correct.

MR VAN DER WALT: I could not see them.

MR HATTINGH: No, more to the top

"... it was pitch dark, we stopped next to a plantation, we climbed through a fence and it was said that we were in Swaziland. I did not continue because I was too scared."

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: "... Willie and Major De Kock went further on into the plantation with Maponya."

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes, that is how I put it down there.

MR HATTINGH: Is that how you recall the events?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: But you only refer to Mr Nortje and Mr De Kock who went into the bush with Maponya?

MR VAN DER WALT: I cannot place them all there and that is what I put down there.

MR HATTINGH: The next sentence

MR VAN DER WALT: "... I could not see them, it was too dark. I heard something that sounded like a blow with something heavy and then a few, some sound like digging with a spade and dogs started barking."

MR HATTINGH: May I just interrupt you, is that the sequence of events as you recall it?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes, that is my recollection.

MR HATTINGH: You have heard that it does not concur with Mr Nortje and Mr Fourie's versions?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes, I heard that.

MR HATTINGH: "... Dogs started barking and we left without Maponya."

Then the following sentence?

MR VAN DER WALT: "... I could not recall where Eugene Fourie and the man from Piet Retief was, we left there and we dropped off the man from Piet Retief, and went back to the farm."

MR HATTINGH: What did you mean with "I could not recall where Eugene Fourie and the man from Piet Retief was?"

MR VAN DER WALT: I cannot tell you that they had stood there or stood wherever, I don't know whether they went into the bush, deeper into the bush and that is as far as my recollection goes Mr Hattingh. I cannot tell you that they were 10 steps away from me.

MR HATTINGH: Is it possible that Mr De Kock had come back to the vehicle to see what was wrong with the Uzi and that you had forgotten it?

MR VAN DER WALT: No, it is not possible at all.

MR HATTINGH: You are uncertain about certain things and you are positive about other things?

MR VAN DER WALT: Mr Hattingh, if I have to place myself there, there is fault with the weapon, Mr De Kock passes me, I have heard his evidence, he passes me, he says he was there for about five or six minutes in the vehicle, working with the weapon, he came passed me without saying a word, he went back passed me without saying a word, he did not ask my assistance or anything, not that I am a weapons' expert, but it was not even said to me that the weapon won't fire or there is something wrong with the weapon, do you understand? That is my recollection.

MR HATTINGH: Did you see a torch in the bush?

MR VAN DER WALT: No, I did not.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Hattingh, when you say that you turned back, what did you do? Did you climb back through the fence?

MR VAN DER WALT: Sir, I think I went, just went out of the plantation and stood next to the fence, I wasn't exactly standing next to the vehicle, but I went in the direction of the vehicle. I wasn't standing next to the vehicle ...

CHAIRPERSON: About how far were you from the vehicle?

MR VAN DER WALT: I would say about five metres.

MR HATTINGH: Was there a reason why you went and stood there, why did you not go back to the vehicle?

MR VAN DER WALT: I have no reason.

CHAIRPERSON: Before you turned around, did you speak to anybody?

MR VAN DER WALT: Not that I know of, I think I just went back.

CHAIRPERSON: You didn't say "look, I am going to guard the car?"

MR VAN DER WALT: No, I don't think so.

CHAIRPERSON: And the reason you say that you went back is because you were afraid?

MR VAN DER WALT: I was afraid, I didn't know if we were doing the right thing. That is how I, if I have to think back, will put my feelings now.

MR HATTINGH: You knew that you were busy with a crime, is that not so?

MR VAN DER WALT: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: You had no doubt that you were acting outside the law?

MR VAN DER WALT: Mr Hattingh, I explained it during the trial. I think I said that we did have approval according to me, from Head Office, but the problem still existed that if anybody found us there, it would need a very good explanation to explain what we were doing in Swaziland and what we did with this man.

MR HATTINGH: You have heard Mr De Kock's evidence that he did not say that Head Office or Brigadier Schoon had given clearance that this man could disappear or words to that effect?

MR VAN DER WALT: I have heard that.

MR HATTINGH: You have also heard that Mr Nortje said that he didn't hear anything like that, he just accepted that it was said because Mr De Kock went to Head Office?

MR VAN DER WALT: I heard that Mr Hattingh, and I have thought about it, and in the trial I could have said that Mr De Kock said, but I think that I said by his actions, we deduced that because he definitely told us the previous evening, by his actions the following morning where instructions were given and things were prepared. That could have been my own inference, that is how I perceived it at that stage.

MR HATTINGH: So you concede that you drew the inference and that Mr De Kock did not say that?

MR VAN DER WALT: I concede Mr Hattingh, that it was an inference that I drew from his actions there at the farm.

CHAIRPERSON: You said that in retrospect now, you turned around because you felt that what you were not doing, was not correct. Were you in a position at any stage, prior to that, to have pulled out of this operation?

MR VAN DER WALT: Sir, I don't believe so, but I believed that Security Head Office with Major De Kock at that stage, together with Security Branch Krugersdorp had enough information to have thought the whole process over and given the go-ahead.

CHAIRPERSON: But you yourself, could you have said "look, I am not going?"

MR VAN DER WALT: It just wasn't done, sir.

MR HATTINGH: And in your statement, Exhibit F, on page 4 you say

"... according to what Major De Kock told us, he would get clearance from Head Office the following day."

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes, from Security Head Office.

MR HATTINGH: "... as to what to do with Maponya. He came back and said that approval was given by Brigadier Schoon who was his direct Commander and higher that the man had to disappear."

There you say that he pertinently mentioned Brigadier Schoon?

MR VAN DER WALT: That is what I said to the Chairperson, that is my recollection, and that those people had more information about the whole operation than what I had at that stage.

MR HATTINGH: But do you concede that Mr De Kock did not say?

MR VAN DER WALT: No, he did not say there, I concede that he did not say it there.

MR HATTINGH: When he returned back to the following day, that Brigadier Schoon had given authorisation?

MR VAN DER WALT: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: At the scene with regard to what happened there, your recollection is quite vague, is that correct Mr Van der Walt?

MR VAN DER WALT: That is correct Mr Hattingh.

MR HATTINGH: And this is probably attributable to the fact that you were under, you were tense?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes. You are correct there.

MR HATTINGH: And to return back to the previous aspect which you were questioned about, you said that you decided on your own to turn around, you do not have a recollection that Mr De Kock told you to turn around and to guard the vehicle?

MR VAN DER WALT: No Mr Hattingh, but I concede that Mr De Kock in that, could be correct, in that instance.

MR HATTINGH: He is not saying that.

MR VAN DER WALT: If you want me to speculate, I will start speculating.

MR HATTINGH: I may be incorrect, but I don't think Mr De Kock says that he gave you the instruction. I think Mr Nortje said, he himself or Mr De Kock gave you the instruction, but you don't have that recollection?

MR VAN DER WALT: No, I cannot recall it, but I cannot say that it is not true.

MR HATTINGH: So you just went and stood there in the position that you took up. Are you looking in the direction of where the people disappeared into?

MR VAN DER WALT: I believe that I would have been looking in that direction Mr Hattingh.

MR HATTINGH: I cannot understand why you in your statement stated that you saw, let me just find the place ...

MR VAN DER WALT: Willie and Major De Kock walked into the bush?

MR HATTINGH: Yes, page 5 Chairperson.

"... Willie and Major De Kock went into the plantation with Maponya."

That is what you say there?

MR VAN DER WALT: That is correct, yes.

MR HATTINGH: And thereafter

"... I cannot recall where Eugene Fourie and the man from Piet Retief, was."

MR VAN DER WALT: Mr Hattingh, from the statement, I had previously mentioned there names, so they had to be somewhere, I am saying in the statement that I cannot recall where they were.

MR HATTINGH: At the scene?

MR VAN DER WALT: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: So you don't have a recollection as to where they were?

MR VAN DER WALT: No, I don't.

MR HATTINGH: When they returned, or did you see the two of them returning?

MR VAN DER WALT: Mr Hattingh, the events are so vague in my mind, that I cannot say that I saw them returning, but I know that we were all in the car.

MR HATTINGH: Do you know who drove the vehicle?

MR VAN DER WALT: Back to Piet Retief? From there I don't know and I know at some stage I drove back home.

MR HATTINGH: From Nesden to Piet Retief, you don't know?

MR VAN DER WALT: I don't know.

MR HATTINGH: Do you know where you sat?

MR VAN DER WALT: I don't know.

MR HATTINGH: And you also don't know where the other gentlemen were seated?

MR VAN DER WALT: No.

MR HATTINGH: Do you know whether any instruments were brought back to the vehicle by the persons whom you saw coming out of the bush?

MR VAN DER WALT: I know that Willie had Japie Maponya's clothes with him.

MR HATTINGH: Was Mr Maponya undressed partially or completely before he had gone into the bush?

MR VAN DER WALT: I cannot remember.

MR HATTINGH: Can you recall what clothing items they were?

MR VAN DER WALT: Willie Nortje had with him? No, I cannot remember.

MR HATTINGH: Were you not present when it was burnt later?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes, I was present when it was burnt later, but I cannot say that there was trousers and underpants and socks and shirts that he brought from the bush. I know the following day or the day thereafter, we burnt some clothes, but I cannot say with certainty what we had burnt there.

MR HATTINGH: You say you cannot say with certainty?

MR VAN DER WALT: No, I cannot say with certainty.

MR HATTINGH: And then you cannot recall whether some of the gentlemen who had come out of the bush, had carried any other instruments with them, like a spade or a pick-axe or anything similar?

MR VAN DER WALT: No, I cannot say.

CHAIRPERSON: When you were going into the plantation, was Mr Maponya blindfolded?

MR VAN DER WALT: I think so, sir. I know that we helped him through the fence.

CHAIRPERSON: When the people came back after you heard the dogs barking and the sounds, when they came back, did they all come back in a group together or did they come back one at a time, two by two?

MR VAN DER WALT: I've got no recollection of that sir.

MR HATTINGH: I cannot recall whether I asked you this, but do you know what happened to the spade thereafter, after you had departed from there?

MR VAN DER WALT: No, I cannot remember. I have no idea what happened to the spade.

MR HATTINGH: When you went back to Mr Pienaar's house, can you recall where you stopped then, to let him off?

MR VAN DER WALT: No, I cannot.

MR HATTINGH: So you do not have any recollection about that?

MR VAN DER WALT: No, I don't.

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

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HATTINGH

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, do you have any questions that you would like to ask the witness?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Yes, thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Van der Walt, your evidence creates a clear impression that you are actually very vague about most of the events surrounding the picking up, up to the killing of Japie Maponya, am I correct when you say that?

MR VAN DER WALT: Mr Visser, I think you are entirely correct.

MR VISSER: And moreover, it seems to me that you as the junior of the white members, was not really drawn in into all the actions there at Krugersdorp, am I correct there?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes, you are correct Mr Visser.

MR VISSER: Because the impression that I have is that you and Nortje arrived there and that Nortje went up to the offices and that you went and did something first.

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes, I went and filled petrol in the car.

MR VISSER: And you did something to the vehicle and thereafter you went up and you had tea with the men there and put pieces together to create a picture as to what was going on, do I have that correct?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes.

MR VISSER: Would you agree with what Mr Nortje said on page 342 of Bundle 1(b), I believe it is, page 342 that the decision to abduct Japie Maponya was taken by De Kock with the approval of Kleynhans and Le Roux in Krugersdorp, would you agree with that?

MR VAN DER WALT: I would just like to define it.

MR VISSER: Do you not agree with that?

MR VAN DER WALT: Can I define it Mr Visser? I think the decision was taken before the time, and discussed, and that is why Mr De Kock was involved in that operation, to have his final approval with regard to the abduction.

MR VISSER: So are you saying is Nortje correct or is he wrong?

CHAIRPERSON: Have you taken a look at the statement Mr Van der Walt, it is there 11(b), the first sentence, the first two sentences.

MR VAN DER WALT: I would say that that statement is correct Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Yes, and the following statement

"... to kill Maponya after his interrogation, came from De Kock."

Is that your recollection of the circumstances?

MR VAN DER WALT: Mr Visser, if today I look back, then it seems from Mr De Kock's evidence that he took that decision himself, but ...

MR VISSER: I just want to know what you know, not what Mr De Kock said?

MR VAN DER WALT: Very well, but you are asking me to speculate now.

MR VISSER: No, what was your impression? You were there, we were not.

MR VAN DER WALT: My impression was that Major De Kock went to Security Head Office to get approval from Security Head Office, he would not have gone to the staff section, to get approval.

MR VISSER: Very well. When did the possibility that Maponya would be killed, come to your attention for the first time?

MR VAN DER WALT: The previous evening, after the interrogation with Kleynhans and Dunkley's discussion, if I am correct and then the final decision was taken the following day.

MR VISSER: And up to today your impression is that that following day, Mr De Kock came back and thereafter it was clear to you that it was decided that Japie would be killed?

MR VAN DER WALT: That is correct Mr Visser.

MR VISSER: I would just like to discuss this issue of whether Japie Maponya had previously lay a charge of assault against the Security Police of Krugersdorp. May I refer you to Exhibit F, page 3. You start by saying

"... I don't think I was present the whole time when methods were discussed as to how to find him (that is in reference to Japie Maponya)."

And then you say -

"... Willie later informed me."

MR VAN DER WALT: That is correct.

MR VISSER: "... The impression was that we were looking for his brother Oderele who had given Japie an internal crash-course as we had ...",

would you please assist me there?

MR VAN DER WALT: As we called it during those time.

MR VISSER: "... I heard from Willie that it was decided to abduct the man, but Krugersdorp Security Branch did not want to have any problems because Maponya had on a previous occasion, laid a charge of assault against them."

Would I be correct if I deduce from here that the words you used here, that this information, you received from Willie Nortje?

MR VAN DER WALT: That could be correct Mr Visser.

MR VISSER: You see, because as the Chairperson put it to you and you heard yourself, what Gen Le Roux had said that he does not know about that, this previous assault and he would have known of it if it had happened?

MR VAN DER WALT: That is correct, yes.

MR VISSER: So you see, we refer to the year 1985, we are talking of an intense internal undeclared war, would you agree with that?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes.

MR VISSER: One of the attacks which specifically was directed by the ANC/SACP alliance was to place the government in a bad light, specifically internationally?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes.

MR VISSER: And one of the methods which was applied with great success, was to lay claim to assaults of detainees?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: So much so, so important was this aspect that if it was alleged by somebody that a policeman had assaulted him during detention, the Attorney General had to decide whether there would be prosecution, do you agree with that?

MR VAN DER WALT: I cannot speculate about that Mr Visser.

MR VISSER: Yes, I am just pointed out, it was not people in detention only, but any assault charge against a policeman? What was your answer?

MR VAN DER WALT: I said that I could not speculate.

MR VISSER: Well, if we could speculate now, Oderele Maponya was an MK Commander of the Maponya group, would you now have expected that if Japie Maponya was assaulted, that this would be controversial news from the side of the ANC?

MR VAN DER WALT: I would not be able to say that Mr Visser.

MR VISSER: You see, I would like to put it to you that you are mistaken with this idea that Japie Maponya had previously laid a charge?

MR VAN DER WALT: That is what you say.

MR VISSER: What do you say?

MR VAN DER WALT: I stay, I stand by my statement.

MR VISSER: You stand by your statement, but your statement says nothing further than that you heard it from somebody and you cannot recall who, is that correct, you think it was from Willie Nortje?

MR VAN DER WALT: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And Willie Nortje did not mention anything of it?

MR VAN DER WALT: I have given you the complete version as I can recall the events from 14 years ago, so other people could differ from me.

ADV GCABASHE : Mr Van der Walt, would Willie have given you this information before Mr De Kock arrived or after he had arrived?

MR VAN DER WALT: I think he would have given that information to me before Mr De Kock arrived.

ADV GCABASHE : Thank you.

MR VISSER: So Mr De Kock arrived there and further discussions took place with the people from the West Rand, is that correct?

MR VAN DER WALT: I think that is what I said Mr Visser.

MR VISSER: Were you present during those discussions?

MR VAN DER WALT: I don't think so, I am not sure.

MR VISSER: Did De Kock afterwards give you instructions?

MR VAN DER WALT: I don't know Mr Visser.

MR VISSER: During the criminal trial you said that you were eating after Mr De Kock had arrived there, you and Fourie, Nortje and De Kock, is that right?

MR VAN DER WALT: I see to what you refer to, you refer to the place where I say that we went for something to eat and the abduction was further discussed there?

MR VISSER: Yes?

MR VAN DER WALT: That is correct, yes.

MR VISSER: This issue of the previous assault on Japie Maponya was not mentioned there?

MR VAN DER WALT: No, I don't believe it was mentioned there.

MR VISSER: Whatever was discussed there, murder was not discussed there?

MR VAN DER WALT: No, we would not have discussed murder at the table where we were eating.

MR VISSER: Well, you are not prim? Excuse me, may I just finish and then you can talk. The killing of Japie Maponya, was it discussed during the time when you sat down there, eating?

MR VAN DER WALT: No, definitely not.

MR VISSER: Thank you.

MR VAN DER WALT: And I will tell you again that in a public place where there are waiters and other tables, we will not openly sit and discuss a thing of murder Mr Visser.

MR VISSER: I did not suggest that.

MR VAN DER WALT: You did not want to give me the opportunity to finish, so maybe I can put my point forward.

MR VISSER: You must just give notice when you are done.

MR VAN DER WALT: You may jump up and down as you like.

MR VISSER: Are you done?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes, I am done, thank you Mr Visser.

MR VISSER: I thought that you had a language that the normal public would not understand, you would speak of let us lift him, let us take him away, is that not something that you could have used if you wanted to discuss it?

MR VAN DER WALT: Mr Visser ...

MR VISSER: You can answer to the Committee.

MR VAN DER WALT: Mr Chairperson, if that was my recollection, then the use of the different vehicles during that lunch hour, would have been discussed. That is the only thing I can say about that. What people would have been sent to fetch the vehicles from the farm and what vehicles to use, to say that "get radio's for all the vehicles", that type of planning, but the murder of the abductee would not have been discussed, because murder at that stage, was definitely not an option.

MR VISSER: In Namibia as you have said, did you there work under Mr De Kock?

MR VAN DER WALT: Never Mr Visser.

MR VISSER: What was your task in Namibia?

MR VAN DER WALT: At a stage I was a Combat Commander and before that, I went through the ranks to become a Commander.

MR VISSER: Would that be the same type of work that Mr De Kock did there?

MR VAN DER WALT: That is exactly the same, but he had a higher rank, so he had more authority than I did.

MR VISSER: If I understood your evidence correctly, you questioned people?

MR VAN DER WALT: Once or twice, people were questioned after combat situations and furthermore the practice was that with the local inhabitants, one would drive from kraal to kraal and question the people. When you have questioned them and you asked whether they had seen any trained terrorists, most of the times they answered no and then trackers from there, from the place where the people told you no, you will find tracks of five or six people, or the same people who had said no, they did not see anybody, will tell you that they have only heard on the radio of SWAPO and that is the only place where they heard from SWAPO.

MR VISSER: I just wanted to know whether you had questioned people.

MR VAN DER WALT: That was our type of questioning Mr Visser.

MR VISSER: Did you then experience there about methods of interrogation, how to interrogate, to use the best methods to obtain information?

MR VAN DER WALT: No, we never received training.

MR VISSER: I did not ask about training, I asked about experience?

MR VAN DER WALT: No, I did not gather much experience, because questioning were done in black language, Ovambo if I can recall that.

MR VISSER: Was it not interpreted to you?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes, it was told afterwards.

MR VISSER: Did you put any questions?

MR VAN DER WALT: The blacks would go to the Chief of the kraal and Mr De Kock trained that team so well, that they would go to the kraal, would speak to the people and they would be done talking and then they would return back to you.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Visser, could I just ask, were you ever involved in your experience in Namibia in interrogation, using torture?

MR VAN DER WALT: Never sir.

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman. Is your evidence that you never gained experience as to how to question people?

MR VAN DER WALT: No, I had no experience.

MR VISSER: When you arrived at Vlakplaas?

MR VAN DER WALT: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Did any of the people, any of the black people whom you worked with in South-west Africa, did they land up at Vlakplaas?

MR VAN DER WALT: Not during my time, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Just to place this issue of the assault on record, the lady who lived with Mr Japie Maponya, Maureen Zondi, she said on page 423 tot 432 of Bundle 3(a) and she said that she was his lover and they lived together from 1981. I would just like to put it to you that she never mentioned that Japie was assaulted by the police?

MR VAN DER WALT: Mr Chairperson, that may be correct.

MR VISSER: And Japie Maponya's brother, Daniel, also gave evidence in Bundle 2(a) from page 33 and he never mentioned anything about that. May I just arrive at this issue of the day when Japie Maponya was taken away. You cannot recall it seems to me, how many days it took after the assault, before Japie was taken to Swaziland, do I have that correct?

MR VAN DER WALT: No Chairperson, In my statement I said that he was taken to Swaziland the following day and he was assaulted that evening, or late afternoon and he was taken to Swaziland the following day. He was in detention for one day and I cannot place what happened the whole week there.

MR VISSER: Because I heard you say that it could have been that you were moving around the following day in Pretoria or Krugersdorp, did I hear you incorrectly?

MR VAN DER WALT: No, you heard me perfectly correctly, but it was during the day, not late in the afternoon.

MR VISSER: But that is precisely the point, how can you say with certainty today who was at Vlakplaas on that day, yes or no, if you yourself were not there?

MR VAN DER WALT: We would have been informed, if I may speculate, by the guards. In the period that I was there during the morning, there was nobody else there, except Mr Nortje perhaps.

MR VISSER: But you don't know whether you were there, because you may have been on the East Rand?

MR VAN DER WALT: No, you are speculating.

MR VISSER: No, I am putting it to you according to your evidence, I am not speculating.

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes, and I have also said that I cannot recall the events of the following day.

MR MALAN: At this point, may I just ask, you said that you would have been informed. If there were visitors, would the guards come to you and tell you that there had been people there?

MR VAN DER WALT: Chairperson, if anybody had been on the farm, I believe that Mr De Kock or Mr Nortje would have been informed.

MR MALAN: But that is not my question, the question is would you have been informed?

MR VAN DER WALT: No, not I.

MR MALAN: So, if somebody had been there, you wouldn't necessarily have known about it?

MR VAN DER WALT: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Thank you Chairperson. I want to put it to you that Gen Le Roux says, and he has said it to me again, that if there is one thing in his life that he will never forget, then it would be that meeting with Kleynhans at Vlakplaas, on the day after he had been abducted and all the tragedy that went along with that. He says that it is possible that there may have been a guard, he cannot really recall, but after that, upon one or two occasions, he had visited Vlakplaas. He knew that there were guards at a stage when he was there, he cannot say with certainty that there was a guard on the day that he visited Vlakplaas. He also says that he had no problem of obtaining access to the premises. Can you dispute that or can you comment on that?

MR VAN DER WALT: I cannot differ from that. I can also put a few statements of my own. According to my knowledge, at that stage when Gen Le Roux described the farm in the sense that he had parked at the top at the rondawel, there had not yet been a parking area which had been constructed there, so he must have gone through the bottom gate. I can put statements to you and you can put statements to me, but I cannot tell you that I saw Gen Le Roux there that day and I can also tell you that I may not have been on the farm all day long.

MR VISSER: What did you mean by the statement that if there had been anybody else on the farm, I am talking about the time when you went to fetch Japie Maponya, that they would have already left the farm, or departed? You have already said something to that effect?

MR VAN DER WALT: I said so Mr Visser. Mr Chairperson, I might also just add that there were people who worked there and maybe went home in the evening to the residences. Not everybody stayed on the farm according to my knowledge.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, did you hear the previous night after the interrogation, that an order was given to the members, the black members of Vlakplaas that they needn't come to the farm the next day?

MR VAN DER WALT: I can maybe just qualify that, I think the black members that were instructed not to, if they were instructed, that would have been the members that were with me and Nortje in Josini, so it might have been those eight guys, they hadn't seen their families for three weeks. Now, they were sent home, "guys, go home, and go and see your families".

CHAIRPERSON: That instruction, would that have affected the guarding of the farm?

MR VAN DER WALT: No, it would not have affected the guarding, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you.

MR VISSER: That would have been my next question, thank you Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Visser. Mr Williams?

MR WILLIAMS: Mr Chairman, I have no questions for Mr Van der Walt.

NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR WILLIAMS

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Wagener?

MR WAGENER: Mr Chairman, I have no questions, thank you.

NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR WAGENER

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ramowene?

MR RAMAWELE: I've got no questions, thank you.

NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR RAMAWELE

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Bridjlall?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS BRIDJLALL: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Van der Walt, you said that Nortje informed you when you were at Josini that you were to go to Krugersdorp, is that correct?

MR VAN DER WALT: That is my recollection, yes.

MS BRIDJLALL: Did he tell you why you had to go to Josini, sorry to Krugersdorp?

MR VAN DER WALT: No, he did not tell me why we had to go to Krugersdorp.

MS BRIDJLALL: Were you not curious as to why you were suddenly now called upon to go to Krugersdorp?

MR VAN DER WALT: I wouldn't say it wasn't a curiosity thing, I think we were given our orders as soon as we got to a certain area. We were told to report in that area, and the Commanding Officer there, would give you your orders in what they wanted you to do in that area.

MS BRIDJLALL: Did Mr Nortje tell you who gave him the instruction to go to Krugersdorp?

MR VAN DER WALT: He said it was Mr De Kock.

MS BRIDJLALL: Did he tell you when Mr De Kock gave him these instructions?

MR VAN DER WALT: No, he didn't say that.

MS BRIDJLALL: So, please clarify to me, did Nortje come to you and say "De Kock told me that we must be in Krugersdorp", how did it happen, how did Nortje approach you with this information?

MR VAN DER WALT: Willie Nortje was in contact with Mr De Kock on a daily basis, or on a bi-daily basis, regarding where he was in the country, it was basically a situational report. I cannot tell you that he did not receive it on the phone or that it may have been beforehand, before we left Vlakplaas to go to Josini, that he may perhaps have known that we would return to Krugersdorp, and he did not immediately submit this to me, but it may have been at a stage when we were driving in the car. I would have to speculate about that.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, sorry Ms Bridjlall, you were in Josini a couple of weeks, when Nortje told you that you've now got to relocate to Krugersdorp, did he say "well, we will go next week or today or tomorrow", what sort of notice from the time that Nortje told you that you had to go to Krugersdorp, did you leave, was it almost immediately or two days later?

MR VAN DER WALT: I cannot recall, however it would have been something to the effect of "remember, on the 25th, we have to be in Krugersdorp."

MS BRIDJLALL: Thank you. Mr Van der Walt, would you Unit have taken instructions from Nortje?

MR VAN DER WALT: We would have taken instructions from Naude, not, I must qualify that, I was there such a short time, so I assumed the proper command structure worked from Brigadier Schoon, De Kock and then down, but I heard in Mr Fourie's evidence that C1 and C2 was two parallel groups, so the one Unit couldn't take instructions from the other Unit. I don't think it was done that way.

CHAIRPERSON: If it was, it would have been unusual?

MR VAN DER WALT: It would have been unusual sir, but I think Mr Nortje would have clarified the fact with Mr De Kock, before he went.

MS BRIDJLALL: Mr Van der Walt, you said that at Krugersdorp police station, it was discussed inter alia, or Nortje told you that they had discussed that Mr Maponya, Mr Japie Maponya, had received a crash course from his brother. Did he tell you who exactly at Krugersdorp mentioned this to him, did he tell you where the information came from?

MR VAN DER WALT: I don't think it was ever discussed, I think it was mentioned, and I don't even know if Mr Nortje gave me that information. I am sorry, it could have been my own recollection also.

MS BRIDJLALL: If Mr Nortje didn't give you that information, where would you get this idea from?

MR VAN DER WALT: Perhaps from Mr Dunkley or perhaps from the other Security Branch members, I don't know.

MS BRIDJLALL: As far as you can remember, were other options discussed, except the abduction and removal of Japie Maponya, to Vlakplaas? Did they consider anything else that could be done, to get ...

MR VAN DER WALT: I cannot recall.

MS BRIDJLALL: Whose idea was it to remove Mr Maponya to Vlakplaas?

MR VAN DER WALT: I also cannot recall that.

MS BRIDJLALL: You say that there was, in your mind, it was a problem, it was also a problem that if Maponya was released after his abduction and interrogation, that he would lay charges of assault and that was a concern that you went along with, you agreed with that, that was a danger?

MR VAN DER WALT: I did agree with that, but I think it was put to us that Maponya was a problem previously, that is why I called it a problem.

MS BRIDJLALL: Did they discuss what they did previously when Maponya created the problem by laying the charges of assault?

MR VAN DER WALT: No, it was never discussed.

MS BRIDJLALL: Did they discuss if they, if the matter was investigated or if it was merely covered up?

MR VAN DER WALT: It was never discussed.

MS BRIDJLALL: Do you concede that if Maponya had laid charges after his assault, after his abduction and assault, that the Security Branch had enough clout to cover up that investigation and to actually have him released back into society after interrogation and assault of that nature, and cover up any charges?

MR VAN DER WALT: Are you referring to our abduction and assault or are you referring to a stage beforehand?

CHAIRPERSON: Just correct me if I am wrong, Ms Bridjlall, what Ms Bridjlall is asking is, if you had gone ahead with the abduction and the interrogation, unsuccessful as it was, did not the Security Branch, Vlakplaas, Krugersdorp, Head Office, have enough clout, enough authority or enough contacts to cover up the abduction and the assault and release Mr Maponya back into the community, is that more or less what you are asking?

MS BRIDJLALL: Yes, thank you Mr Chairman.

MR VAN DER WALT: I believe that the Security Police had sufficient power or possibilities to do this, however they would not be able to cover up the entire thing, because there would still have been aspects which would leak out. I cannot tell you exactly how it was going to be covered up, but I think that it could only have been partially covered up.

MS BRIDJLALL: Why do you say that, why only partially?

MR VAN DER WALT: If he was assaulted, he would perhaps have had a swollen eye, and how we were going to disguise that, I don't know. He would have gotten back to his family after two or three days, he would also have been going back to work, and have no explanation to offer which would clarify what had happened to him. That is why I said in certain aspects, unless he had been threatened with death, I don't know if you understand what I mean, if we had said to him "if you talk about this, we will come back and we will kill you, you know we can take you, but if you are going to talk about this, because I think that that would have been the attempt to keep the name of the police out of the whole issue."

MS BRIDJLALL: But it was an option, that he could have been released, do you concede to that?

MR VAN DER WALT: Well, if I have to think back now, today where I am sitting today, it was definitely an option.

ADV GCABASHE : May I just ask you, did he, Japie, see Dunkley and Kleynhans' faces at the time that they were down at the river?

MR VAN DER WALT: I don't know of that.

ADV GCABASHE : Were you there when those two were down at the river?

MR VAN DER WALT: I was at the river, I cannot recall whether he saw their faces, but as I recall, he wore a balaclava at all times, so he wouldn't have seen those faces.

ADV GCABASHE : So he would not have been able to recognise either Kleynhans or Dunkley, two, three days later?

MR VAN DER WALT: No, he would not have recognised them.

CHAIRPERSON: Was that balaclava back to front?

MR VAN DER WALT: He couldn't see, so I assume that it was put on back to front.

ADV GCABASHE : And just to round this off, when you had the discussion and you were told that this man had been a problem previously, this discussion had involved Kleynhans and Dunkley, they would have been part of that discussion?

MR VAN DER WALT: I don't know if they were involved in the discussion, or it was merely carried over to me, by Mr Nortje.

ADV GCABASHE : So you can't tell us whether Dunkley and Kleynhans would have known this particular Maponya, Japie, fairly well and vice versa?

MR VAN DER WALT: I presume they would have known him, I don't think he knew them.

ADV GCABASHE : But you are just speculating, you don't know?

MR VAN DER WALT: No, he was a subject of Krugersdorp Security Branch, his brother was a trained terrorist at that stage, so they would have known, they would have had a whole file on him. They surely would have had a file on the brother, maybe the whole family.

ADV GCABASHE : But you see, this is where my difficulty is, is this information you sourced from these particular people, the Security Branch chaps at Krugersdorp or are you just adding two and two together because of the general way the Security Branch operations worked?

MR VAN DER WALT: No, I am adding two and two together from the general way that the Security Branch worked.

ADV GCABASHE : Thank you.

MR VAN DER WALT: I did a lot of paper work in the beginning of 1993 at Major Williamson's ...

CHAIRPERSON: 1983?

MR VAN DER WALT: 1983, sorry, at Major Williamson's Section, so whenever we came across a name, we went into the computers and searched that name and we had files on most, at least reference of those people mentioned.

ADV GCABASHE : Thank you.

MR VAN DER WALT: So if I saw maybe somebody's name, maybe Mr Nortje's name on the computer, I could have gone to the file section and drawn a file and the file would have been a whole file on where Mr Nortje was born and whatever, maybe a picture, where, when he left the country maybe, what and when and where he was last seen.

ADV GCABASHE : Okay, that helps, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Bridjlall?

MS BRIDJLALL: Thank you. Mr Van der Walt, you said that when you arrived at Vlakplaas, you drove straight to the scene where Mr Maponya was being assaulted?

MR VAN DER WALT: That is correct.

MS BRIDJLALL: How did you know to go there?

MR VAN DER WALT: I think that was also maybe discussed, "we will get each other at the shooting range" and that was discussed maybe over the radio's, which the cars were linked when the action took place, or it might have been mentioned at the lunch.

MS BRIDJLALL: But you said that you wouldn't discuss these matters at lunch?

MR VAN DER WALT: No, I said ...

CHAIRPERSON: The murder.

MR VAN DER WALT: No, I said we wouldn't discuss the murder, yes Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Just the murder, not the abduction.

MS BRIDJLALL: Thank you. Mr Van der Walt, who assaulted Mr Maponya?

MR VAN DER WALT: I can't really say who assaulted Mr Maponya. I think some of the black members while interrogating Mr Maponya, assaulted him and Mr De Kock I think admitted he assaulted him, and Mr Nortje I think he also said he gave him a slap or two, I might be wrong there.

MS BRIDJLALL: Was teargas ever sprayed on Mr Maponya?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes, teargas was sprayed. I don't know if it was sprayed on him.

MS BRIDJLALL: What makes you say that teargas was sprayed, where was it sprayed, how do you know?

MR VAN DER WALT: I just don't know, I can't remember if it was sprayed in his direction or, you know, on his face, if I spray it from here, or maybe a metre back and then spray it, I can't, I recall it from a little bit of a distance.

MS BRIDJLALL: Who sprayed this teargas?

MR VAN DER WALT: I don't know.

MS BRIDJLALL: Where did the teargas come from?

MR VAN DER WALT: It was a canister that Mr Nortje had in his vehicle.

MS BRIDJLALL: So you remember that Mr Nortje went to get the teargas, do you remember that?

MR VAN DER WALT: No, I knew he had a canister in his vehicle and he admitted that he brought the canister.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you assault at all?

MR VAN DER WALT: No sir.

MS BRIDJLALL: Mr Van der Walt, you said that Mr Maponya would not cooperate, but that you remember him saying "I don't know", is that correct?

MR VAN DER WALT: I said that, yes.

MS BRIDJLALL: And then you took us through your impressions from being in Swaziland, of a person who knew and who is genuinely not co-operating?

MR VAN DER WALT: Namibia.

MS BRIDJLALL: Namibia, sorry. A person who had information and was not co-operating and somebody who is a sympathiser and you said a person who genuinely knew and was part of the struggle, would break down immediately and give the information and that it was more difficult to get through to a sympathiser? Mr Van der Walt, if Mr Maponya and it is my instructions that he genuinely was not interested in either side, he was not interested in a struggle.

MR VAN DER WALT: In any politics?

MS BRIDJLALL: Yes, he was not interested in politics, what then would be the reaction of that person, in these circumstances?

MR VAN DER WALT: He might have said that he doesn't know anything, but as I qualified earlier, he didn't even say that he was approached by somebody earlier in the week, unless he, I am speculating now, unless he knew that those guys were policemen, but Mr Nortje said, I couldn't remember that specific situation, Mr Nortje said that Mr Mosiane went to him, showed him a pistol ...

MS BRIDJLALL: I don't want to get into ...

MR VAN DER WALT: I am just trying to qualify, qualify that point, that is all. He could have said that.

MS BRIDJLALL: But didn't he say "I don't know?"

MR VAN DER WALT: He said, they might have asked him where his brother was, whatever, and then he said.

MS BRIDJLALL: On your evidence you said that when Mr Maponya was questioned, he said inter alia "I don't know."

MR VAN DER WALT: That is correct yes.

MS BRIDJLALL: Why then did you not accept that this is the truth?

MR VAN DER WALT: Because you know, he didn't even give us any information of the guys that were with him, who approached him previously, that could have been real trained terrorists, so he didn't even divulge that information.

MS BRIDJLALL: But he was not interested, he didn't want any part of anything that was going on, and when he said "I didn't know", he was being honest.

MR VAN DER WALT: Well, if somebody beats you up, and say "listen, what do you know, where is your brother", he might have said "I don't know where my brother is, but I can tell you that there were certain guys that approached me a week ago or two days ago", that information he could have given us.

MS BRIDJLALL: But Mr Van der Walt, Mr Maponya did not give you that information, because he was not interested either way, he was not interested in the struggle and neither was he interested in your view of the entire situation?

MR VAN DER WALT: Correct, that is how you put it.

MS BRIDJLALL: And when he said "I don't know", he was being honest?

MR VAN DER WALT: That might have been his honest situation, but I have a different recollection thereof.

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon, Mr Van der Walt, it is very strange to me this statement of yours that because he says he doesn't know, you simply assume that he is a sympathiser or a collaborator. Against the background, and this is your explanation thereof, that he did not tell you that he was approached by an armed terrorist who had a handgrenade and a strange pistol in the bank. Just put yourself in that person's position, you are abducted because there is a suspicion that you know something, would you tell your abductors that a trained terrorist had visited me this afternoon in the bank and had still showed you his grenade and all these other things and asked you some questions. Wouldn't your inference has been if I tell them that, they will beat me three times as hard, because then they would know that I clearly have contact with terrorists? Isn't it obvious that he wouldn't tell you this because he was more afraid and from within his perspective, it would jeopardise him even further?

MR VAN DER WALT: Mr Malan, I will concede to your point, but you can also see the opposite of that, that he could say "please stop beating me, there were people with me a short while ago." As I have said to the panel previously, he may have offered to compile an identikit of the persons who had approached him and then one could work more intensively in that area, one could have implicated more than one group to move into that area.

MR MALAN: Why didn't you put that to him, why didn't you put it to him that somebody had visited him in the bank?

MR VAN DER WALT: It may have been put to him, I don't know, because I cannot recall much of that interrogation procedure.

MR MALAN: So it may possibly have been put to him?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes, it is possible.

MR MALAN: But I thought that you said he didn't say anything about it?

MR VAN DER WALT: Not that I can recall.

MR MALAN: So you don't know what was put to him and what he answered, but one of the reasons why you regarded him as a collaborator or a sympathiser, was because he didn't say certain things, however, you didn't know what he said. It sounds as if I am cross-examining you here, but it is a very strange thing to say.

MR VAN DER WALT: I did not undertake the interrogation, I am sorry if I misunderstood your statements, but this was my impression from the entire interrogative procedure.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

MS BRIDJLALL: Thank you. Mr Van der Walt, on the evening of the assault, were Mr Kleynhans and Dunkley asked to come back the next day?

MR VAN DER WALT: Not that I was aware of, no.

MS BRIDJLALL: Was there any further contact between Mr De Kock or any of your members, was there any further contact between you and the people at Krugersdorp, Kleynhans, Dunkley, Le Roux?

MR VAN DER WALT: Not that I know of, not at all.

MS BRIDJLALL: In your evidence you mentioned that a spade was put into the vehicle, but you didn't talk about the containers with petrol in it?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes.

MS BRIDJLALL: When did this get into the vehicle, if you were with Mr Nortje at all times, or when did this get into the vehicle?

MR VAN DER WALT: It was in the vehicle, it was in my main evidence in the court case, I said petrol, I don't remember if I said one jerry can or maybe two, but I definitely said there was petrol and a spade put into the vehicle.

MS BRIDJLALL: Did you go with Mr Nortje to get the petrol?

MR VAN DER WALT: Not that I can remember.

MS BRIDJLALL: Mr Van der Walt, when you were standing on the other side of the fence and everybody else was in the plantation, you could hear what was going on?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes, I could hear, not clearly, but I could hear what was going on more or less.

MS BRIDJLALL: More or less?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes.

MS BRIDJLALL: You said that you heard the sound of somebody digging or clearing a place, is that correct?

MR VAN DER WALT: No, I can read to you what I said.

"... I heard a blow with a heavy object and then noises that sounded like the noises a spade would make."

I can't make a sound of a spade digging, but it could have been digging, I don't know what it was.

MS BRIDJLALL: Okay, we have heard evidence of other applicants that Mr De Kock struck Mr Maponya on the head, did you hear those blows?

MR VAN DER WALT: Not for sure those blows, no, I didn't hear those blows. If I must say, if those were the blows that I heard, I can't tell you that it was the blows that I heard.

CHAIRPERSON: You just heard one blow?

MR VAN DER WALT: No, I said I heard a blow of something heavy and then something that sounded like somebody using a spade.

CHAIRPERSON: Like scraping on the ground, or digging?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes, definite digging ...

CHAIRPERSON: But you don't know whether that was the blow with the Uzi or with the spade or whether it was the blow before the shooting, well, would you know was that before the shooting or after the shooting?

MR VAN DER WALT: That was before the shooting, I said that in my ...

CHAIRPERSON: So the heavy blow you heard, was before the shooting.

MS BRIDJLALL: Did you hear any other blows thereafter?

MR VAN DER WALT: Not that I can remember.

MS BRIDJLALL: Mr Nortje said that he drove around with Mr Maponya's clothes in his vehicle for a while before you went off and got rid of them by burning them and you said that it happened the next day?

MR VAN DER WALT: It might have happened the next day or as I said it to the Committee earlier, that my recollection is that it took place in more or less a week, maybe Monday to Thursday.

CHAIRPERSON: I think that the evidence was that it was the next day or the day after that?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes.

MS BRIDJLALL: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Van der Walt, do you think it was necessary to kill Mr Maponya?

MR VAN DER WALT: If I think back about it now, it was totally unnecessary and it was a wrong deed that we did.

MS BRIDJLALL: Thank you Mr Chairman, I have no further questions

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS BRIDJLALL

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Lockhat, do you have any questions that you would like to ask?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS LOCKHAT: Yes, thank you Chairperson. Mr Van der Walt, how old were you when this incident occurred?

MR VAN DER WALT: It was in 1985, I think I was 22 or 23.

MS LOCKHAT: So you were still a very young man at that stage?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes, maybe I think it was 22.

MS LOCKHAT: Tell me, how many covert operations were you involved in at that stage, if any?

MR VAN DER WALT: It was the first one.

MS LOCKHAT: Was that the first one?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes.

MS LOCKHAT: So this is your first real covert operation, how come your memory is really so bad, didn't this whole incident make an impact on you seeing that it was your first incident?

MR VAN DER WALT: If it was a proper covert operation, I would have participated, I think happily.

MS LOCKHAT: Why do you say proper covert operation, kindly explain.

MR VAN DER WALT: I didn't think that the killing of - if I must tell you now my recollection now, is that I didn't think that the killing of an unarmed man was a covert operation, a proper covert operation.

MS LOCKHAT: Did you think this then as well, at that point in time?

MR VAN DER WALT: No, I probably didn't think so.

MS LOCKHAT: Because it just seems so strange, the assault, you did not participate, but you were there. You witnessed everything and your evidence, even in the trial, is very vague and this was your first real death and killing, surely it should have left an impact with you?

MR VAN DER WALT: It wasn't my first death and it wasn't the first killing.

MS LOCKHAT: But it was your first covert operation?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes.

MS LOCKHAT: Were you and Mr Nortje good friends?

MR VAN DER WALT: We were fairly good friends, we weren't, I won't say that we were such good friends that we would visit each other, but we were good friends.

MS LOCKHAT: Why were you transferred to Vlakplaas?

MR VAN DER WALT: I just came back from Namibia at that stage. I was used to remain in the office and every now and then I would fetch petrol for Mr Williamson. I stood on the sidewalk for approximately six weeks, that was when he ran into the Dutch Embassy, it was very boring, you would get up for work in the morning and sit behind a desk. There was nothing to do, there was not even that much paper work, that is why I requested to go to Vlakplaas.

MS LOCKHAT: Did you yourself request it? Did you know that there were covert operations occurring at Vlakplaas?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes, I knew that.

MS LOCKHAT: So you would prefer to rather go and kill people than sit behind a desk and do administrative work?

MR VAN DER WALT: No, I don't think that you have put it correctly. Not everybody who joined Vlakplaas, joined so that they could go and kill people. There was work which was done with black people and I may have understood them somewhat better than your average man in the street. There was at least the possibility of action, and my form of action was perhaps not to kill an unarmed man as you have put it earlier, but there was the possibility that one could encounter armed MK soldiers. It was rather for that reason that I was transferred to Vlakplaas.

MS LOCKHAT: Why did Mr De Kock ask you to go along in the killing of Japie, not the assault, but why did he specifically tell you to go along with the other members?

MR VAN DER WALT: I think that it was initially my and Willie's operation if I may put it like this, we were the persons who were tasked to go to Krugersdorp. He was taken from Krugersdorp and on ground level, it would then have been his responsibility as Commander and then the responsibility of Krugersdorp Security Police. There were only four white members who were on the farm at that stage. I don't know why anyone of them would have been left out, and if they left you out, it meant that you could in either event, not be trusted. We were already part of the operation, it wasn't a group of ten which would all of a sudden be restricted to four. It was a question of four persons and four persons could easily fit into a car, that is my understanding.

MS LOCKHAT: Would you say that this operation was Willie Nortje's operation or Eugene de Kock's operation?

MR VAN DER WALT: I think it was a joint operation between Krugersdorp and C1.

MS LOCKHAT: Just to get back, would you say that the operation, the interrogation and the abduction of Japie Maponya, was that Le Roux' operation or Eugene de Kock's operation?

MR VAN DER WALT: Just say that again.

MS LOCKHAT: The interrogation and abduction, would you say that it was De Kock's operation or Le Roux' operation, in your mind?

MR VAN DER WALT: It was a joint operation.

MS LOCKHAT: Would you say that the killing of Japie Maponya, was it De Kock's operation or was it Le Roux' operation, in your mind?

MR VAN DER WALT: No, I would say that it was a C1 operation with the knowledge of Krugersdorp Security Police. C1 which was cleared by Head Office, however Security Branch Krugersdorp knew about it.

MS LOCKHAT: Would you say that the killing of Japie Maponya, was in the knowledge of the Krugersdorp Security Branch? Would you say they knew about it?

CHAIRPERSON: Prior or afterwards, at what stage?

MS LOCKHAT: The killing of him. Prior?

MR VAN DER WALT: I think that when Dunkley and Kleynhans left the farm the previous evening, and the problem was left over to Vlakplaas - just give your question again - sorry, I lost myself there.

MS LOCKHAT: Would you say that this was prior to the death of Japie Maponya, would you say the killing, prior to that, was it Le Roux' operation or De Kock's?

CHAIRPERSON: The question was, do you think that prior to the killing, Krugersdorp were aware that it would take place.

MS LOCKHAT: Thank you Chairperson, I am indebted to you.

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes, I think that they knew about it. After that evening, when they left the farm, it was a possibility that they knew what was going to happen.

MS LOCKHAT: When you say possibility, would that mean that you expected Kleynhans and Dunkley to report back to their Brigadier which was Le Roux at the time?

MR VAN DER WALT: I think that they would have reported back that Mr De Kock would obtain clearance from Security Head Office and when they never heard from Mr Maponya again, they assumed what had happened to him.

MS LOCKHAT: Who was your Commander at that time?

MR VAN DER WALT: I was working under Willie and under Major De Kock at that stage.

MS LOCKHAT: But you were transferred to them for about three months or what?

MR VAN DER WALT: Are you talking prior to this incident?

MS LOCKHAT: Yes, prior to the incident. During the incident?

MR VAN DER WALT: During the incident, it was Mr De Kock, he was the Commander which worked below, he was a Vlakplaas Commander below Brigadier Schoon, that was the Head of C-Section, then there was Mr De Kock and then you've got your Group Commanders, which Mr De Kock was the Group Commander, sorry, Mr Nortje, sorry.

MS LOCKHAT: So you were under the impression that De Kock had gotten the authority from Brigadier Schoon to actually carry out this operation to the end?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes, I was under that impression.

MS LOCKHAT: After the incident occurred, did you realise that Mr De Kock actually didn't have that authority?

MR VAN DER WALT: I never realised that he never had that authority.

MS LOCKHAT: When did you realise that, when did you realise that this was not authorised at a higher level than De Kock, at his stage?

MR LAMEY: Sorry, the witness said he never realised that he did not have authority.

MS LOCKHAT: Never, ever?

MR VAN DER WALT: Well, until the court cases came along or whatever.

MS LOCKHAT: So you were always under the impression that, even up until the court case, and the point of the Harms Commission, the Goldstone Commission?

MR VAN DER WALT: No, that was a normal investigation after Mr Nofemela made certain allegations, it would have been the same if there was a Commission of Enquiry in an assault case, but they were investigating. I never knew that Mr De Kock didn't have the proper go-ahead.

MS LOCKHAT: So were you saying you were acting on the course and scope of your duties as a Sergeant in that time?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes, I think so. I thought so.

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

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS LOCKHAT

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey, do you have any re-examination?

MR LOCKHAT: I've got re-examination Mr Chairman, but my client has just indicated that he just wants to excuse himself for a minute.

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps we can take the lunch adjournment, I see it is ten to one now, and we will take a three quarters of an hour lunch adjournment, now.

MR VAN DER WALT: Thank you Mr Chairman.

MR LOCKHAT: He says actually he will just be a minute.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay.

MR VISSER: It is a long minute?

CHAIRPERSON: It is a long minute. Yes, thank you, Mr Lamey, re-examination?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Thank you Mr Chairperson. Mr Van der Walt, do I understand you correctly that the image which was presented to you during and after the interrogation of Japie Maponya at Vlakplaas, in your evidence you referred back to your experience in Ovamboland, that here you had to do with a person who was not giving his co-operation, and who didn't want to give any information, is that the image that you formulated? I know that your recollection is not complete, but is that the basic image which was presented to you, which presented itself to you?

MR VAN DER WALT: That was my idea, yes.

MR LAMEY: I just want to put a question to you which presupposes certain facts. Mr Chris Mosiane, let us accept for the moment that he approached Mr Maponya at the bank and we will also accept for the moment that he did this by presenting himself as an MK member and that he had some nature of a weapon in order to present a convincing image to Mr Maponya and we can also assume that Mr Mosiane was a recent askari at Vlakplaas and let us suppose for the moment that the Security Police, also with regard to Mr Mosiane, may have had photo's of him and so forth. Given that Mr Maponya said during his interrogation, that all he knew although he didn't know where his brother was, the only thing that he could tell you is that the day before or the previous morning he was approached by somebody who said that he was an MK member and that he could possibly identify that person for you because he had seen him and perhaps that person might be able to assist you in finding my brother, according to your expectations, would this have been something that was up for discussion if he had said so?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes, I believe so. I don't really understand your question though.

MR LAMEY: Perhaps I did not formulate it clearly enough. Somebody who presented himself as Japie Maponya, and was - let us suppose that he had been abducted to become an askari, the Security Police would have had photo's and photo albums?

MR VAN DER WALT: I don't know.

MR LAMEY: You don't know?

MR MALAN: Is the question whether the Security Police would have had a photograph of Chris Mosiane or not, let us use that example.

MR LAMEY: That is just by means of an example, I don't know whether that was indeed the case.

MR MALAN: Yes, but with regard to the example, if he was a recently converted askari, there would have been a photo of him, is that the question?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes, then there would have been a photo of it.

MR LAMEY: Let me put it this way, did the Security Police have extensive photo albums with regard to MK members that you knew about at that stage?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes, they did, they had photo albums.

MR LAMEY: So if Mr Japie Maponya, during interrogation had said to his interrogators that "yesterday or this morning there was a man who approached me and he said that he was an MK member and he also had a weapon on him", if he had said that that was all he knew and the he could possibly identify that person, would you have expected that that aspect would have been communicated back to you, the fact that there is a man who appears to want to give his co-operation because at least he says that and he says something in that relation, that he doesn't know where his brother is, but that he is trying to put you on the trial of his brother, by reference to another MK who approached him?

MR VAN DER WALT: I think I understand Mr Lamey's question.

CHAIRPERSON: I think what Mr Lamey is doing, he is putting a segment of his argument to you for your corroboration. It seems a very long question and it is all just guessing.

MR VAN DER WALT: What I understand is that if Japie Maponya had been taken to look at the photo album, he would have been able to say "okay, that man visited me yesterday."

MR LAMEY: Let me reformulate it completely, I apologise. Perhaps I myself, have put it rather clumsily. Your impression was that he wasn't going to give his co-operation, that was the image that presented itself to you?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes.

MR LAMEY: If it had been communicated to you and this is just a supposition, if this man had said that somebody had visited him who said that he was an MK member and that he may know where his brother was, would you have expected under those circumstances, that that type of communication would have emerged during the interrogation, which would have given you the idea that this man wanted to cooperate?

MR VAN DER WALT: I believe so, but I am speculating.

MR MALAN: Just very briefly on this point, if he had said something like that, wouldn't you have told him that "you are lying, because we know that the man was with you and he asked you where your brother was", but I think that you can just continue Mr Lamey, this is a point for argument.

MR LAMEY: As it pleases you. There is just something that I have lost sight of for the moment, I will recall it later. Was there any one of these black members who were with you at Josini, that was at Vlakplaas the following morning when you reported there, that would be after the interrogation the previous evening, we are now referring to the following day?

MR VAN DER WALT: After the interrogation?

MR LAMEY: The day after the interrogation, when you arrived at the farm that morning, were there any black members there, I am just asking you if you yourself can recall this?

MR VAN DER WALT: No, the following day there were none of the black members that I can recall.

MR LAMEY: Who had been with you at Josini or present at the interrogation?

MR VAN DER WALT: No, I cannot recall.

MR LAMEY: Mr Van der Walt, it is so that there are certain aspects which you cannot clearly recall and you gave evidence to that effect during the De Kock trial, and during these proceedings, however there are aspects regarding which you gave evidence and according to you, form part of your recollection which you have given evidence about positively?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes.

MR LAMEY: The suggestion was left to you, the statement was put to you that your recollection about these events is so vague, that one could basically negate your evidence, what would your response to that be if that is the suggestion that is put to the Committee?

MR VAN DER WALT: I came here to give evidence according to the best of my ability, that is all that I have to say.

MR LAMEY: But that about which you have given positive evidence according to your recollection, is that what you recall to this very day?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes.

MR LAMEY: Thank you Chairperson, I have nothing further.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Lamey. Adv Gcabashe, do you have any questions?

ADV GCABASHE : Just one. Mr Van der Walt, you talked of a bottom gate in relation to Mr Le Roux' visit, are you saying that there were two separate gates, each gate had a guard and he could have used either gate to come onto the property?

MR VAN DER WALT: In the beginning there was only one gate at the bottom, close to the river.

CHAIRPERSON: In 1985, at this time, was there just the one gate?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes, that is my recollection sir. And then later on, there was a gate further along, closer towards I don't know what you call that township where the farm was, Erasmia, on the gravel road towards the farm, so you could turn off a little bit earlier and then come towards, on the farm, towards the buildings, but you would stop almost above the buildings.

ADV GCABASHE : The long and short of it is Mr Le Roux had a choice of two entrances at this particular time, that is what I need clarity on.

MR VAN DER WALT: No, I don't think Mr Le Roux had a choice of two entrances.

ADV GCABASHE : There was only one he could have used?

MR VAN DER WALT: There was only one gate, yes. That was my recollection.

ADV GCABASHE : Thank you. Then the route to Vlakplaas from Krugersdorp, is it a complicated route or fairly easy, can anybody who had been there once, give directions to that person as to how to get there?

MR VAN DER WALT: Well, I can't really recall the route from Krugersdorp to Vlakplaas, it is very vague. I think if you explain to somebody once, then you would have found it fairly easily.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it a fairly easy farm to find? I mean was it near the freeway?

MR VAN DER WALT: Sir, it was right next to the gravel road, if you took a certain turn off out of Erasmia turn off, you took the gravel road and I think you drove for about five kilometres and the farm was right next to the road.

ADV GCABASHE : Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Malan, any questions?

MR MALAN: I just want to discuss the access to the farm. If I recall correctly it was your evidence that it was presented to be a farm and that later on security guards were placed at the gate. Was that gate locked during the time?

MR VAN DER WALT: I cannot recall whether the gate was permanently locked, but there were people who were in the vicinity of the gate, near the building. I cannot tell you whether those persons would walk around with guns, I am not certain, perhaps at night, but the bottom gate was very close to the building, approximately 100 metres or perhaps even 50 metres away from the building.

MR MALAN: But you are referring to 1985 and then there was only one gate.

MR VAN DER WALT: That is correct.

MR MALAN: Which gate was that?

MR VAN DER WALT: It was the bottom gate.

MR MALAN: How far away from the building is that gate?

MR VAN DER WALT: Approximately 50 to 100 metres.

MR MALAN: So it is very close to the building?

MR VAN DER WALT: That is correct.

MR MALAN: The guards didn't need radio's to communicate with each other because they were so close to the building?

MR VAN DER WALT: I cannot recall that.

MR MALAN: What would their orders have been with regard to access or no access, if somebody wanted to enter the premises, what would the guards do?

MR VAN DER WALT: I don't believe that they would have allowed anybody in, but I cannot tell you what their orders were.

MR MALAN: Can you recall how you arrived at Vlakplaas the first time?

MR VAN DER WALT: The first time I got into Vlakplaas with somebody, I think it was in 1983, just when I had begun working for Major Williamson, and we were asked to go there. I cannot recall regarding what, but that is my recollection of how I visited Vlakplaas for the first time.

MR MALAN: You cannot recall what happened at the gate?

MR VAN DER WALT: No.

MR MALAN: And when you were transferred from D-Section to C1, can you recall how you arrived on the premises on that very first day?

MR VAN DER WALT: I think I got there with Willie, so I cannot recall whether there was a gate at that moment specifically at the gate.

MR MALAN: So you cannot say that the place was consistently guarded or locked, it is possible for someone to gain access if they wanted to?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, there is only one aspect ...

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I was just going to ask are there any questions.

FURTHER EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Not from, I omitted to ask this previously, during cross-examination I think it may have been the cross-examination of the Evidence Leader, there was a question with regard to the successful cover up. I just want to ask you, at that stage, and we are now referring back to 1985, can you yourself recall whether charges had previously been made by detainees with regard to assault and whether or not there had been investigations and whether the Commissions of Enquiry had created an embarrassment for the government because after that, there was a great level of success with the cover up?

MR VAN DER WALT: I cannot recall specifically Mr Lamey, but the only great incident that there had been until that stage, that I could see clearly was the Biko incident. One could see that there had been a cover up there, but the true facts never really emerged. That is my comprehension before I was even a member of the Police Services. That is all that I can say.

MR LAMEY: Yes, I also recall that incident, but there is another incident, do you recall the Aggett Inquiry before 1985?

MR VAN DER WALT: No.

MR LAMEY: Is it your recollection that these allegations of assault enjoyed wide news coverage, but ultimately the legal process could not succeed in obtaining proof or evidence with regard to these allegations?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes, they were covered quite widely but usually after a while, it was abandoned, because there was never any evidence or proof from any source, meaning that it would be a case of the assaulted person's word against five or ten policemen. That is my recollection.

MR LAMEY: For example later, during the Harms Commission of Inquiry, it had repercussions. The mere allegations, I am not asking whether or not there was any proof, but the allegations themselves, had repercussions.

MR VAN DER WALT: I think that the press specifically, something like Vrye Weekblad for example, kept hammering on that issue and they were always looking for people. That is my recollection when I was at University and those allegations were made for the first time. This was quite upsetting, these allegations. But the Vrye Weekblad kept on and kept on placing reports about the issue.

MR LAMEY: Very well, I will leave the rest for argument, thank you Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, are there any questions from anybody arising out of questions that were put by the panel?

MR HATTINGH: Not a question Mr Chairman, I would just like to inform you as far as access to Vlakplaas was concerned, there is a section in Bundle 1(d) which deals specifically with it. Mr De Kock confirmed that this was his evidence as well, he was never cross-examined about it. If that is going to become an issue, then I would submit that Mr De Kock should be recalled and be given an opportunity to deal with it.

CHAIRPERSON: 1(d)?

MR HATTINGH: 1(d), yes Mr Chairman, and more particularly starting on page 50, Vlakplaas as a covert institution.

CHAIRPERSON: We can see how much of an issue it becomes, Mr Hattingh, and if you are of the view that it is of sufficient importance and you wish to cover that with evidence, then certainly you can do so.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, we will now take the lunch adjournment. That concludes your testimony Mr Van der Walt, you may stand down.

MR VAN DER WALT: Thank you very much sir.

WITNESS EXCUSED

MS LOCKHAT: Please stand.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS