CHAIRPERSON: Good morning. For the record, it is Friday, the 20th of August 1999, we are continuing with the amnesty applications of E A de Kock and nine others, in regard to the Nelspruit and Tiso matters.
Mr Hattingh, just before we continue, I see that your client is present.
MR HATTINGH: Yes, Mr Chairman, he is and his condition has improved somewhat and the medical orderly will be in attendance today, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well that's good. I'm not sure how things would work out. We have gone some way with Gevers. I don't know how long that is going to last. I wanted to get your client through as quickly as we could. Mr Chairman, we thought about that, but we're told that we're only sitting until two and I don't see us finishing Mr de Kock today. Therefore it would serve no purpose to interrupt Mr Gevers' evidence.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we appreciate that. Yes, thank you. Then we will continue and hopefully finish Mr Gevers' testimony first. Yes, we do intend to continue this first session until about 11H30 and then to take a 30 minute break and then to carry on until 2 o'clock and then finish the proceedings for the day. We trust that that would be in order.
Mr Gevers, I remind you that you are still under oath.
ROLF DIETER GEVERS: (s.u.o.)
CHAIRPERSON: Ms Pillay, have you got any further questions?
MS PILLAY: I do, Mr Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, please proceed.
MS PILLAY: First let me first tender our apologies for being late, it was due to circumstances beyond our control.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that in fact has been communicated to us. That's in order.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PILLAY: (Cont)
Thank you, Mr Chairperson.
Mr Gevers, I just have a few more questions that I need to ask you. Firstly, you testified during your examination-in-chief that you interrogated Tiso prior to his death, is that correct?
MR GEVERS: That is correct.
MS PILLAY: And you interrogated him using your own discretion? Basically you were not acting on anyone's orders, is that correct?
MR GEVERS: That is correct.
MS PILLAY: What kind of information were you hoping to get out of Mr Tiso?
MR GEVERS: Chairperson, information with relation to arms smuggling as well as the Self Defence Units, the funding thereof and then also where they were obtaining their weaponry from.
MS PILLAY: And you consider yourself to be quite a skilled interrogator, is that correct?
MR GEVERS: That is not correct.
MS PILLAY: So - but can you describe to me what was the modus operandi for your interrogation?
MR GEVERS: Chairperson, the modus operandi was to ask the person questions and if he did not respond to our expectations, according to the knowledge that we had about what he ought to have known, then we would slap him and kick him.
MS PILLAY: You're saying that you slapped him and you kicked him. Can you describe in more detail what did that entail? What did you do to him?
MR GEVERS: I slapped with an open hand through the face and if he then collapsed on the ground, we kicked him with clothed feet.
MS PILLAY: How many times did you slap him?
MR GEVERS: I cannot recall precisely, it was a number of times at the beginning and a number of times towards the end of the interrogation, but I cannot recall precisely how many times it happened.
MS PILLAY: Maybe you can give us an idea of time. How long did the interrogation - how long did you slap him, was it for 10 minutes, for 5 minutes, 2 minutes?
MR GEVERS: Chairperson, if I recall, approximately the total time that I spent hitting and kicking would have been 10 to 15 minutes.
MS PILLAY: 15 minutes at the beginning and 15 minutes at the end?
MR GEVERS: No, Chairperson, altogether.
MS PILLAY: Altogether 15 minutes?
MR GEVERS: That's correct.
MS PILLAY: So you would assault him for about for about 7 minutes, is that correct? At the beginning, roughly?
MR GEVERS: That is possible.
MS PILLAY: Were you the only one assaulting him?
MR GEVERS: No, Chairperson, Const Swart also participated in the assault.
MS PILLAY: And what did Const Swart do?
MR GEVERS: He did the same as I, he also slapped with the open hand and also kicked.
MS PILLAY: Anyone else, just the two of you?
MR GEVERS: That is correct.
MS PILLAY: So the two of you were slapping him and kicking him for about 7 minutes at the beginning?
MR GEVERS: That is approximately correct, yes.
MS PILLAY: And what would you say to him while you were interrogating him?
MR GEVERS: Chairperson, we would have said to him that he wasn't telling the truth, that he was lying, because my knowledge was, or at least I had the perception at that stage that he must have known much more than what he was disclosing to us.
MS PILLAY: Did you threaten him?
MR GEVERS: Not that I can recall, no.
MS PILLAY: You didn't threaten him?
MR GEVERS: Not that I can recall.
MS PILLAY: You didn't tell him, if you don't speak I'm going to do x, y and z, I'm going to kill you, I'm going to hit you, I'm going to kick you? You didn't threaten him at all?
MR GEVERS: It is possible that I may have said that to him, but not that I can recall at this moment, no.
MS PILLAY: And while you were asking questions, who took notes of what was happening?
MR GEVERS: I cannot recall that any notes were taken of what was happening.
MS PILLAY: But your interrogation was obviously to achieve a particular aim, is that correct?
MR GEVERS: That is correct, Chairperson.
MS PILLAY: So who took notes of the information that you were getting from Mr Leballo?
MR GEVERS: Nobody took notes, because we basically could obtain no information that we wanted from him, Chairperson.
MS PILLAY: But you didn't know that did you?
MR GEVERS: No, I didn't know it.
MS PILLAY: When you started interrogating him you did not know that he would not give you information which you could use?
MR GEVERS: That is correct, Chairperson.
MS PILLAY: So if he had given you information, how would have recorded that information?
MR GEVERS: Then I would have written it down.
MS PILLAY: So who would have written it down?
MR GEVERS: Either me or Const Swart would have written it down.
MS PILLAY: While you were interrogating him?
MR GEVERS: That is correct.
MS PILLAY: So you had writing material ready?
MR GEVERS: That is correct.
MS PILLAY: And where was it?
MR GEVERS: It was with us at the ruins. We had a few pages which we had in the vehicle, as well as a pen or a pencil, I'm not certain. That is what we had with us.
MS PILLAY: So do you have records of whatever notes you did take that day?
MR GEVERS: No, Chairperson, I cannot recall that I personally took any notes on that day.
MS PILLAY: Is that because you got no useful information on that day?
MR GEVERS: That is correct, with the exception of the information regarding Mrs Mandela who was obtaining weapons by means of the DHL courier service from Zambia. That is what I recalled off the top of my head.
MS PILLAY: Did you question Tiso about this so-called bank robbery?
MR GEVERS: I am not certain, Chairperson. I believe that we would have interrogated him about previous bank robberies and then also this specific robbery and what the objective with it was.
MS PILLAY: Sorry, Mr Gevers, I wasn't clear on your answer. Did you question him about this particular bank robbery?
MR GEVERS: It is highly possible, yes.
MS PILLAY: Do you think it's possible you questioned him?
MR GEVERS: That is correct.
MS PILLAY: Why is it just possible? If that's the reason that you caught him, why is it just possible that you only questioned him about it?
MR GEVERS: Chairperson, I cannot recall that far back, so that I would be able to say precisely which questions we put to Mr Tiso.
MS PILLAY: Sorry, can you just repeat that, I just received a note in the meantime. I didn't get that.
MR GEVERS: Very well. I cannot recall precisely which questions we put to him at that stage, it is quite some time ago.
MS PILLAY: I understand Mr Gevers, it's a long time ago, but what I'm saying to you is obviously if you used your discretion to actually conduct an interrogation, that interrogation must have had a particular goal, a particular aim, is that correct?
MR GEVERS: That is correct, Chairperson.
MS PILLAY: So what information were you looking to get from Mr Tiso?
MR GEVERS: Chairperson, as I have already mentioned previously, in general we attempted to obtain information from him with regard to arms smuggling and the funding and arming of Self Defence Units, as well as generally speaking, whether he had any information regarding that they had been involved in.
MS PILLAY: And you've testified before that obviously those reasons were intricately tied to this bank robbery?
MR GEVERS: That is correct.
MS PILLAY: Yet you didn't question him about this bank robbery.
MR GEVERS: I cannot recall specifically that we interrogated him about this specific case. I cannot recall it.
MS PILLAY: So you don't recall questioning Tiso about the people who were with him on the day of the incident?
MR GEVERS: Chairperson, it may have been possible that we did so. However, unfortunately at this stage I cannot recall it.
MS PILLAY: So you're saying it's possible that you asked him about the others?
MR GEVERS: Yes, it is highly possible.
MS PILLAY: So the fact that you didn't remember whether or not you asked him, can we infer from that that he didn't give you any information about them?
MR GEVERS: That is highly possible, that is correct.
MS PILLAY: So you're saying that Tiso did not give you, on that day, did not give you any information about the other members?
MR GEVERS: Not that I can recall, no.
MS PILLAY: And this was after a lengthy interrogation?
MR GEVERS: Chairperson, the interrogation lasted for approximately one hour, so it wasn't really such a long span of time. We did not interrogate him all the time for a full hour, in-between we ceased and then we would proceed once more.
MS PILLAY: So you're saying during this interrogation, Mr Gevers, nobody took notes of what was happening at the interrogation?
MR GEVERS: Not that I can recall. I definitely didn't take any notes.
MS PILLAY: Well then can I refer you to the amnesty application of Mr Swart, page 59 of that application. That's the second paragraph, towards the end of the second paragraph.
"We entered the building and Tiso was in a corner of the building. Dawid Britz and Gevers interrogated him. I kept notes of the interrogation."
MR GEVERS: Chairperson, I cannot recall specifically that Mr Swart kept notes, no.
MS PILLAY: But Mr Gevers, you remembered that you kept a pen and pencil in the car and that you would go out to make notes. That was your testimony.
MR GEVERS: That is correct.
MS PILLAY: But you could not remember that there was another officer in the interrogation room and who actually took notes of the interrogation.
MR GEVERS: Chairperson, I cannot recall whatsoever that Mr Britz also participated in the interrogation, and it is highly possible that Const Swart may have kept notes, however I cannot recall it. I personally did not take any notes.
MS PILLAY: So Mr Gevers, the only information that you got from Mr Tiso was nothing relating specifically to himself?
MR GEVERS: No, Chairperson.
MS PILLAY: In fact the information you forced out of him was information relating to a third person, to Winnie Mandela?
MR GEVERS: That is correct, Chairperson.
MS PILLAY: I put it to you, Mr Gevers, that despite being assaulted by the two of you, despite fearing for his life and despite undergoing a lengthy interrogation, Mr Tiso did not give you any information, because he did not give any information - because he did not have any information to give. That in fact he was not an ANC operative as you put forward here in your testimony here yesterday, and that therefore the only information which you could manage to even get out of him was information with regard to a third person and not to himself. How do you respond to that?
MR GEVERS: Chairperson, may I please ask the lady just to mention one point at a time please, if it is at all possible.
CHAIRPERSON: Won't you comply with the request.
MS PILLAY: Let me try again, Mr Gevers. I said I put it to you that the only reason why Tiso did not give you any information with regard to all the things which you've mentioned, including his involvement with SDUs and with vigilante groups, was that he had no information to give. That in fact Mr Leballo had no political background as you have put forward here today and therefore the only ...(intervention)
ADV DE JAGER: Let him answer that.
MS PILLAY: Can you respond to that please, Mr Gevers?
MR GEVERS: Chairperson, at that stage it was my perception and my information that I had, which indicated that Mr Leballo was indeed a trained member of the ANC and that he was the personal motor vehicle driver for Mrs Mandela. So therefore my perception was that he indeed would have possessed information relating to these aspects.
MR LAMEY: Chairperson, I do not wish to interrupt my learned friend during her cross-examination, but when one puts something to a witness as she is putting, a positive fact that Tiso was not an ANC member or a trained ANC member, then that is based upon the supposition that she possesses facts which would speak to the contrary.
Now we have already heard, by means of Mr van den Berg, who represents the Leballo family, that Tiso was indeed an ANC member and that he had received training of a certain nature. I do not know upon what basis my learned friend makes that statement. And this leads to an element of unfairness, to put that as a fact to the witness.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey, I think that Ms Pillay is putting this as an inference, which is a result of her examination. I think that that is the context within which she is putting the point, almost in the form of an argument.
MR LAMEY: Yes, I understand that, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Gevers, the perception that you had, was that created by admissions which were made to you?
MR GEVERS: Yes, that is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: In other words, these are things that you heard from other people?
MR GEVERS: Yes, that is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ms Pillay?
MS PILLAY: Mr Gevers, can I just ask you, from which other people? Where did you get this impression that Tiso was involved with SDUs specifically?
MR GEVERS: Chairperson, the information which Mr Holtzhausen conveyed to us that Tiso was indeed the personal driver for Mrs Mandela, and my experience and perception of Mrs Mandela and her football club at that stage, brought me to the impression that they were definitely involved with SDU activities and also then with bank robberies in order to fund these SDUs and to arm the SDUs.
MS PILLAY: But Mr Gevers, your testimony yesterday was that you did not know that Tiso was Winnie Mandela's driver, at the time of the Coin Security incident, is that correct?
MR GEVERS: That is correct, Chairperson.
MS PILLAY: Mr Gevers, you had planned to kill Tiso at the Coin Security incident.
MR GEVERS: That is correct.
MS PILLAY: So at that time, at the Coin Security incident, what kind of information did you have on Tiso?
MR GEVERS: Chairperson, once again I was informed by Mr Holtzhausen that these were trained MK members who were planning the robbery.
MS PILLAY: So you're saying to us that at no time did Mr Holtzhausen indicate to you that Tiso was a member of the SDU?
MR GEVERS: No, Chairperson, it was my own inference which I drew at that stage.
MS PILLAY: That was your own conclusion, based on the fact that Tiso was Winnie Mandela's bodyguard?
MR GEVERS: No, with the ...(intervention)
MS PILLAY: Sorry, sorry, driver not bodyguard.
MR GEVERS: Not with the Coin incident, Chairperson.
MS PILLAY: And even though you didn't have the information that he was Winnie Mandela's driver, at the time of the Coin Security incident, you were still prepared to go ahead with an operation in terms of which he would have been killed.
MR GEVERS: Chairperson, my perception at that stage was that these persons had an objective for going to Nelspruit. In other words, that they were going to commit a robbery. Therefore it was my perception that they would have committed the robbery and that these members, according to the information which I had at my disposal, were trained ANC/PAC persons.
MS PILLAY: And two days after the Coin Security incident, Mr Gevers, when you received information that Ben van Zyl had actually set up the whole operation and that in fact the operation was planned by Ben van Zyl in collaboration with members of C10, what was your impression then?
MR GEVERS: Chairperson, my perception at that stage was that it was indeed still members of MK who attempted to execute a bank robbery if it hadn't been for the Springbok Patrol member who arrived there.
MS PILLAY: Mr Gevers, your testimony yesterday was that you received information afterwards that Ben van Zyl had actually planned the robbery, isn't that correct?
MR GEVERS: That is correct.
MS PILLAY: Now what I'm asking is, after you received that information that Ben van Zyl had planned the robbery, so you'd found that this was not actually a robbery planned by these MK operatives, as you refer to them.
MR GEVERS: Chairperson, I did not know precisely whether Mr Ben van Zyl himself was involved in any political party. I had absolutely no liaison with him. The information was simply conveyed to me by Mr Holtzhausen. So at that stage I still thought that it was highly possible that a robbery, even if it was planned, would have taken place, that it would have been a robbery in order to obtain funding.
CHAIRPERSON: And was van Zyl the source of Holtzhausen? So in other words, Holtzhausen heard this from van Zyl?
MR GEVERS: Yes, that is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Ms Pillay.
MS PILLAY: Mr Gevers, were you aware of the initial bank robbery that was planned?
MR GEVERS: No, Chairperson.
MS PILLAY: Did Mr Holtzhausen inform you about the incident at Lynnewood in Pretoria?
MR GEVERS: No, Chairperson.
MS PILLAY: So you were not aware that they were involved in the planning of an initial bank robbery in Pretoria?
MR GEVERS: No, Chairperson.
MS PILLAY: You said - your testimony yesterday was that the reason - I asked you explicitly, what was the reason that these people were killed? Do you recall that?
MR GEVERS: The reason why the people were killed?
MS PILLAY: I asked you the reason why the people were - the occupants of the minibus were killed. Do you recall that?
MR GEVERS: That is correct.
MS PILLAY: And do you recall your answer to me was because they were ANC/PAC members? Do you recall that?
MR GEVERS: That is correct.
MS PILLAY: Now was there ever any mention in your experience with this whole operation, that these people were killed in order to protect the identity of Ben van Zyl?
MR GEVERS: It was never mentioned to me.
MS PILLAY: Now I refer you to Mr de Kock's testimony yesterday, when he testified that they were killed first, mostly to cover up Vlakplaas or any knowledge of Vlakplaas.
MR GEVERS: That is correct.
MS PILLAY: But you had no knowledge of that?
MR GEVERS: No, I had knowledge about that.
MS PILLAY: And Mr Gevers, why was Tiso killed?
MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, may I just come in here please. Mr de Kock's evidence was that Tiso was killed in order to protect Vlakplaas, so that it would not be exposed.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that is correct.
MS PILLAY: No I realise that, sorry.
Why was Tiso killed?
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, sorry.
What was your answer a few moments ago upon the previous question? Was it that you knew what the purpose of the killing was and that it was to protect Vlakplaas?
MR GEVERS: Yes, that is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: You said you knew about it?
MR GEVERS: Yes, that was my impression at that stage, that is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: No, I just want to make certain, you knew or you didn't know.
MR GEVERS: No, it was my perception at that stage.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
MS PILLAY: Mr Gevers, why was Tiso killed?
MR GEVERS: Chairperson, it was also to protect Vlakplaas and to protect the operation.
MS PILLAY: And how many - was there no other way to dispose of Tiso's body?
MR GEVERS: Mr Chairperson, at that stage it was the first operation in which I had participated with Unit C10, so I didn't know of any other method in which to do this.
MS PILLAY: So you at that time thought that the only manner to dispose of the body was to blow it up, to come back, collect little pieces, blow it up again, to come back, collect the rest of the pieces and blow it up again?
MR GEVERS: That was the impression that I had, yes.
ADV DE JAGER: Was it your idea that the body be blown up?
MR GEVERS: No, Chairperson.
ADV DE JAGER: Then who brought the idea forward?
MR GEVERS: I was under the impression - after we had met Vermeulen and Britz at the Ultra City in Origstad, it emerged in me that that appeared to be the most suitable method to dispose of Tiso.
ADV DE JAGER: But you did not plant the idea that explosives should be obtained or that the body should be destroyed in that manner?
MR GEVERS: No, Chairperson, at that stage I had not yet heard of such a method.
CHAIRPERSON: How many beers did you have? The three of you, your group, how many bears did you have in total?
MR GEVERS: Mr Chairperson, when we arrived at Origstad we bought 12 beers and we ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: What sort of beer, bottles of beer or cans?
MR GEVERS: It was cans of Castle beer. And we also bought hamburgers to eat.
CHAIRPERSON: Were those the only beers that you had?
MR GEVERS: Chairperson, when W/O Britz and W/O Vermeulen joined us in Origstad we purchased two more cases of beer before we departed for Penge Mine.
CHAIRPERSON: Were these also cans?
MR GEVERS: Yes, that is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: And how many cans would you have in a case?
MR GEVERS: 24.
CHAIRPERSON: In other words, you had 48 beers?
MR GEVERS: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: And did you drink this while you were at the mine?
MR GEVERS: Mr Chairperson, the first 12 beers the three of us had while we waited for Mr Britz and Mr Vermeulen and then during the interrogation of Tiso, I cannot recall precisely, but I have a reasonable recollection that between me and Const Swart we had six of the beers.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
MS PILLAY: Mr Gevers, were you comfortable with the idea of blowing up Tiso's body?
MR GEVERS: I was not entirely comfortable with it, no.
MS PILLAY: Did you question them why it was necessary to go that far?
MR GEVERS: No, Chairperson, I did not question it.
MS PILLAY: So whose idea was it actually to blow Tiso up in that fashion?
MR GEVERS: I don't know where the idea originated, no.
MS PILLAY: Mr Gevers, at that time you were a Captain, is that correct?
MR GEVERS: That is correct.
MS PILLAY: Who was the senior person of the group that took Tiso to Penge Mine?
MR GEVERS: It was me, Chairperson.
MS PILLAY: And yet you didn't - although you were not comfortable with the manner in which they were going to blow him up, you didn't question that?
MR GEVERS: No, Chairperson. As I have already stated previously, I was a new member at Vlakplaas at that stage and I didn't know how they operated, therefore I did not question it, no.
MS PILLAY: Did you ask them how they usually disposed of bodies?
MR GEVERS: Not that I can recall specifically, no.
MS PILLAY: Mr Gevers, was Tiso alive at the time when his body was blown up?
MR GEVERS: Chairperson, to me it appeared that he had already died.
MS PILLAY: You're saying "vir my het dit gelyk", were you sure that he was dead?
MR GEVERS: I'm almost certain that he was dead, yes.
MS PILLAY: Mr Gevers, not "amper seker", were you sure that he was dead?
MR GEVERS: I am not certain whether he was dead.
MS PILLAY: Did you - you were the one that actually shot and killed him - well shot him, is that correct?
MR GEVERS: That's correct, Chairperson.
MS PILLAY: So before his body was blown up, did you bother to check that in fact he was dead?
MR GEVERS: No, Chairperson, these things happened too quickly at that stage.
MS PILLAY: So you shot him three times, you weren't hundred percent sure that he was dead, and you had the most senior rank there and yet you still allowed him to be blown up to bits.
MR GEVERS: That is correct.
MS PILLAY: Mr Gevers, what is your knowledge of the Quatro camps?
MR GEVERS: Chairperson, my knowledge relating to the Quatro camp is based mostly on that which I obtained during the former South West Africa/Namibia, where I worked with the South West African People's Organisation.
MS PILLAY: And what would the Quatro camps be?
MR GEVERS: Quatro camp was the punitive camp of the ANC in Angola, where persons were reasonably tortured and killed.
MS PILLAY: Do you have any knowledge, Mr Gevers, of which members of the ANC would be kept at Quatro camp?
MR GEVERS: I have no knowledge of that, Chairperson.
MS PILLAY: And you have no knowledge as to why they would be kept there?
MR GEVERS: Chairperson, I knew that it was general knowledge that members of the ANC were fighting in Angola for the MPLA Government, that they were fighting with them and if they had been captured as puppets or spies, they would have been sent to Quatro camp.
MS PILLAY: So just to summarise that, it would just be basically people who found disfavour with the ANC, who would be kept at these Quatro camps?
MR GEVERS: That is correct.
ADV DE JAGER: As well as those person who were guarding them, they would also be there?
MR GEVERS: The persons who were guarding the captives would also be there, yes.
ADV DE JAGER: As Mr Kassrils was also there at one stage, although he wasn't a prisoner.
MR GEVERS: That is correct.
ADV DE JAGER: He was more of a visitor.
MR GEVERS: That is correct.
MS PILLAY: Just a last question, or few questions, Mr Gevers. You testified, or did I read it in your affidavit or your application, that you were involved in an "enkel botsing", that's one car accident, prior to all of this happening.
MR GEVERS: That is correct, Chairperson.
MS PILLAY: Can you describe to us what happened?
MR GEVERS: Chairperson, Sgt Chait and I had had quite a few drinks at the Royal Hotel in Pilgrims Rest. From there we departed and we were on our way to Nelspruit. I was driving the vehicle at that stage and at a point I fell asleep in one of the mountain passes. I think it was near Hazy View. It was on the road between Hazy View and Bosbokrand. I fell asleep and I woke up, the vehicle ran off the road and I turned the steering wheel to the right and the vehicle rolled three times.
MS PILLAY: Mr Gevers, when you say "enkele paar drankies", what do you mean?
MR GEVERS: We had quite a bit to drink. I was under the influence of alcohol while I was driving.
MS PILLAY: Can you give us a better idea, what did you drink?
MR GEVERS: Chairperson, at that stage Sgt Chait and I had brandy and coke and I know that I also had quite a few beers.
MS PILLAY: So you were quite intoxicated after that?
MR GEVERS: That is correct.
MS PILLAY: And after you were taken to Nelspruit, did you drink there again?
MR GEVERS: We were at the police canteen from approximately 4 o'clock to the time when we returned to the Drumrock Hotel. Yes, that is correct.
MS PILLAY: So how many hours would that be?
MR GEVERS: It would be approximately two and a half hours.
MS PILLAY: And you were drinking throughout the two and a half hours?
MR GEVERS: That is correct, I only had beers at that stage, Chairperson.
MS PILLAY: And once you'd gotton to the Drumrock Hotel, did you drink again?
MR GEVERS: I believe that we would have had a drink or two, yes.
MS PILLAY: When you say "ons", who do you mean?
MR GEVERS: The group that was there, the group that had gathered there.
MS PILLAY: And who was there?
MR GEVERS: Chairperson, it was Sgt Holtzhausen, Nortje, Swart, Hanekom ...(intervention)
ADV DE JAGER: From which page are you reading?
MR GEVERS: My amnesty application ...
MR LAMEY: Page 74.
MR GEVERS: And then automatically also Sgt Chait would have been present, Chairperson.
MS PILLAY: Did you drink a lot on that day?
MR GEVERS: No, Chairperson.
MS PILLAY: So what did you all drink?
MR GEVERS: Chairperson, I cannot recall what all the members had to drink. I know specifically that at that stage I was drinking only beer.
MS PILLAY: And about how many beers did you drink?
MR GEVERS: Mr Chairperson, if I had to put together all the beers, basically from the point of us visiting the police canteen to when we departed from the hotel, I would estimate that it was approximately eight to ten beers.
MS PILLAY: So you were drinking right until the time that you left the hotel, is that correct?
MR GEVERS: That is highly possible. I'm not entirely certain, but it is possible, yes.
MS PILLAY: Was that standard practice, Mr Gevers, for members of C10 to drink before they embarked on an operation which you describe as being quite a serious operation?
MR GEVERS: Chairperson, it was the first operation in which I participated with Section C10, so I cannot say whether or not it was standard procedure, but we definitely had drinks that night.
MS PILLAY: So why were you transferred to C10, Mr Gevers?
MR GEVERS: Mr Chairperson, I applied to be transferred to Section C10.
MS PILLAY: And why did you want to go to C10?
MR GEVERS: Chairperson, I was accustomed to being in an operational unit. My first five years in Ovamboland I spent in an operational unit and my next two years in Windhoek in the Divisional Head Office I spent mostly working in the field and after that I was transferred to Security Head Office in Pretoria, where I did mostly office work. During August 1991, or during 1990 I went on an officer's course in the Paarl and after that I was transferred to the computer section at Security Head Office.
During August 1991, my unit was closed down, this was the unit at head office and they gave me the choice of finding myself a unit where I could go. And seeing as I'm an outdoor kind of person who does not really enjoy being boxed into an office, I decided to apply for Unit C10.
MS PILLAY: But why did you specifically choose C10?
MR GEVERS: Chairperson, I had many friends in C10. Col de Kock for example, I knew him from Ovamboland. I knew Mr Nortje from Ovamboland, as well as Mr Holtzhausen. Therefore I had quite a few friends there and that is why I applied to be transferred to that unit.
MS PILLAY: Did you know about the work besides all the personal reasons why you wanted to go to C10? Was there - none of your reasons related to the work that they were doing?
MR GEVERS: Mr Chairperson, up to and including the Harms Commission, I knew that they were working only on political activities and after the Harms Commission it was however general knowledge at Security Head Office that they had switched over to a crime investigation function and that is the reason why I applied for it.
MS PILLAY: So you were interested in this new focus onto crime orientated work?
MR GEVERS: That is correct, and then of course there was still the crime intelligence field in which I was interested.
MS PILLAY: So Mr Gevers, you're telling us that your main interest in C10 was that fact that they had now changed to a more crime orientated work and you were interested in the crime information that you would get there?
MR GEVERS: That was the primary reason, but at that stage I was still under the impression that they were investigating political crimes and assisting the Security Branch in that relation.
MS PILLAY: Yet without a qualm, you took part in an operation where particular individuals were killed, primarily because they were ANC/PAC people.
MR GEVERS: Mr Chairperson, it was my perception at that stage that these persons were indeed attempting to obtain funding for the armed struggle by means of armed robberies. That was crime intelligence as well. I saw that this fell under crime intelligence and the combatting of crime because robbery falls under crime.
MS PILLAY: Mr Gevers, you told this Commission yesterday that the primary reason why - in fact you started off with saying the only reason why these people were killed - and after your counsel interfered you moved onto the primary reason why they were killed, it was because they were ANC/PAC people.
MR GEVERS: That is correct, Chairperson.
MS PILLAY: And you participated in this operation without a qualm, even though you were more interested in the fact that C10 had now switched over to more crime orientated work.
MR GEVERS: Chairperson, as I've already stated, I still knew that they were still fulfilling a role within the Security Branch regarding political acts and acts of terrorism.
MS PILLAY: Mr Gevers, was Nelspruit police aware about the intended robbery in March 1992?
MR GEVERS: I don't know about that, no.
MS PILLAY: Did you question why they were not informed?
MR GEVERS: No, Chairperson.
ADV DE JAGER: I'm not certain what your answer is here. You were asked, "Did Nelspruit know?" and you say "I don't know". And then you were asked why they were not informed, and what was your answer to that?
MR GEVERS: I don't know why they were not notified, I did not participate in the planning of this operation.
ADV DE JAGER: But if you don't know whether or not they were informed, how is it possible for you to give a reason why they were not informed?
MR GEVERS: Chairperson, what I meant was that I didn't know whether they were notified or not. Therefore it is not possible for me to think of a reason why they would not have been informed.
MS PILLAY: Just to tie up one loose end.
CHAIRPERSON: Just one moment please.
I don't know whether you will know him, the officer Alberts to whom reference was made, who made enquiries at the scene of the incident. Do you know him?
MR GEVERS: No, I don't know him.
CHAIRPERSON: You don't know where he was stationed?
MR GEVERS: No.
CHAIRPERSON: You did not encounter Nelspruit police officers at the scene?
MR GEVERS: No, we had already departed from there. I simply saw the fire brigade and the person who arrived there, the white person wearing the shorts. We left before the police arrived there.
CHAIRPERSON: Very well. Please continue.
MS PILLAY: Just to tie up one loose end, Mr Gevers. I asked you whether or not you were sure that Mr Britz was taking - whether or not you knew that Mr Britz was taking notes during the interrogation and your answer was - sorry, Swart was taking notes of the interrogation, and what was your answer?
MR GEVERS: I did not know whether he made any notes, Chairperson.
MS PILLAY: And you would have no knowledge as to what happened to those notes subsequently?
MR GEVERS: No, I wouldn't know.
MS PILLAY: I put it to you, Mr Gevers, that in fact those notes were taken by Capt Swart - by Mr Swart, and in fact those notes were given to Mr Nortje after the interrogation.
MR GEVERS: I cannot recall that, Chairperson.
MS PILLAY: In that regard, Mr Gevers, I just refer you to the affidavit of Mr Dawid Jakobus Britz, page 23, paragraph 3.8. What is your response thereto, Mr Gevers?
MR GEVERS: I do not about these notes.
MS PILLAY: I have no further questions, Mr Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Pillay. Ms Patel?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PATEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson.
Mr Gevers, can you tell us, at the aborted Coin Security operation, which of the other applicants who have applied for the Nelspruit incident were present with you?
MR GEVERS: Chairperson, it was Mr Deon Gouws and I think it was also Mr Geldenhuys.
MS PATEL: Is that all?
MR GEVERS: Yes, that is correct.
MS PATEL: You've stated in your application on page 70, as part of your political motivation - I can just read it to you perhaps
"The political motivation to eliminate former opponents of the dispensation because they were involved in robberies for the achievement of funding for the ANC/PAC's armed struggle against the government."
What do you mean by "elimineer", is it to kill only?
MR GEVERS: That is correct, Chairperson.
MS PATEL: Is that a standard approach to this kind of situation for you?
MR GEVERS: Chairperson, as I felt at that stage, it was the only resort.
MS PATEL: You were given information at the planning meetings that Tiso at least was involved in 16 other robberies or he was wanted for 16 other robberies. Do you recollect that?
MR GEVERS: Yes.
MS PATEL: Why was he then not arrested and charged as an alternative to trapping him and murdering him?
MR GEVERS: Mr Chairperson, my perception at that stage was that the legal system was such an exhaustive process and in order to collect sufficient evidence which could stand up in Court was very difficult, especially on ground level because people were afraid of providing information regarding such activities and such persons as well, as a result of intimidation. And this would have been very difficult, it would have been difficult to prosecute these persons.
MS PATEL: Are you really serious, Mr Gevers, are you saying that out of 16 crimes that this person was suspected of, that the Murder and Robbery Unit with all their expertise, couldn't put together at least even a percentage, not even half of those matters together, so that it could be taken to Court?
MR GEVERS: I did not know about Murder and Robbery's activities. What I thought at that stage was that we were called in because it was the only resort. Therefore, I simply carried out an order, I did not think to question it at all at that stage.
MS PATEL: So then you're merely speculating on this status of those investigations?
MR GEVERS: That is correct, I was speculating.
MS PATEL: Alright. You've also mentioned that in one of those robberies a white woman was killed at Witbank.
MR GEVERS: That is correct.
MS PATEL: How did you feel about that?
MR GEVERS: I was angry, I was really very angry about it.
MS PATEL: Was that the general feeling amongst your group at the Nelspruit incident about that?
MR GEVERS: That is correct.
MS PATEL: Yes, because Mr Klopper in his application -well not in his application, but in his affidavit on page 243 also mentions the fact that they were angry - well not that they were angry, but he said - he states clearly that Mr de Kock, because of the white woman, wanted to teach them a lesson. And that was part of the motivation for this operation, not so?
MR GEVERS: That was not my perception at that stage. I did not know how Mr de Kock felt about it, he never expressed anything about it to me at all.
MS PATEL: Alright. But people were angry about this generally, at the planning meeting, not so?
MR GEVERS: That is correct.
MS PATEL: Alright. Can I - well Ms Pillay has dealt with this extensively, but just to tie it up I guess. At the time of the Coin Security operation, there was no information about Tiso's involvement with Mrs Mandela?
MR GEVERS: That is correct, there was no information.
MS PATEL: And he would have been killed then anyway, if the operation had been successful, not so?
MR GEVERS: That is correct, Chairperson.
MS PATEL: So the question of his involvement with Mrs Mandela, through to the Mandela United Football Club or with the SDUs, is really irrelevant not so? Because had that operation been successful, he and the same group would have been killed.
MR GEVERS: Mr Chairperson, the fact that it later came to light that Tiso was indeed involved with Mrs Mandela and the Mandela United Football Club, simply fortified the suspicion in my mind that this was truly a group of ANC/PAC members, who would then commit robbery in order to collect funds.
MS PATEL: Was there a file on Tiso at the Security Branch Headquarters?
MR GEVERS: Mr Chairperson, I did not hear the question.
MS PATEL: Was there a file on Tiso?
MR GEVERS: Not that I knew about.
MS PATEL: Okay. Your understanding though was that they were all properly trained MK/PAC members?
MR GEVERS: That is correct, Chairperson.
MS PATEL: And yet at the Coin Security operation they got cold feet simply because they saw a security guard present at the premises and they left?
MR GEVERS: That is how it appeared to me, yes.
MS PATEL: Did it not seem strange to you that a group of five properly trained, military trained persons would get cold feet as a result of seeing just one person and abort the operation?k Did that not make you think?
MR GEVERS: Mr Chairperson, it was not strange to me because the premises of Springbok Patrol were situated right opposite Coin Security in Nelspruit, therefore it wasn't strange to me that they may have thought that this person could raise an alarm and that Springbok Patrol would arrive at the scene.
MS PATEL: Was the information not though that it was one security guard that they had seen and not an entire patrol of people?
MR GEVERS: I cannot recall precisely what the information was regarding why the operation was not successful.
MS PATEL: Okay. Let's talk about the R6 000 that you received. That was over and above your usual salary, not so?
MR GEVERS: That is correct.
MS PATEL: And it was specifically for this operation that was carried out?
MR GEVERS: That is correct, Chairperson.
MS PATEL: So you gained financially from having carried out this operation.
MR GEVERS: That is correct, Chairperson.
MS PATEL: And you had no problem with taking the money?
MR GEVERS: No, I didn't.
MS PATEL: Honourable Chairperson, if you'll just grant me a moment.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, certainly.
MS PATEL: Tell me, after - just finally, or let me put Mr Nortje's - he stated at the trial that part of the reasons for the killing - I may refer you to page, well it's not part of the bundle, it's the judgment. I can refer you to page 12277, just for reference purposes. He stated there that the reasons for the killing was firstly ...(intervention)
MR LAMEY: Is that the judgment of Judge van der Merwe?
MS PATEL: That's right.
MR LAMEY: Are you quoting from the judgment?
MS PATEL: I'm referring to the judgment.
CHAIRPERSON: What is the problem?
MR LAMEY: No, no problem, I just want to get clarity, Mr Chairperson, what my learned friend is quoting from. CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR LAMEY: She's quoting from a document not in the bundle, apparently from the judgment of His Lordship Mr van der Merwe, in the de Kock trial.
CHAIRPERSON: Is it not part of these papers here?
MS PATEL: You have a copy of the judgment, Honourable Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you.
MS PATEL: Alright. He stated that the reasons for the killing was firstly, that's just the way they operated at the time. Secondly, it was to prevent further robberies and thirdly, it was to protect the source. What is your comment on that?
MR GEVERS: Mr Chairperson, that is Col de Kock's version, that is how he feels ...(intervention)
MS PATEL: No, no, it's Mr Nortje, sorry.
MR GEVERS: I beg your pardon, Chairperson. That is Mr Nortje's sentiment regarding why these persons had to be killed. And as I have already said previously, this was the first operation that I participated in with Section C10, and therefore I was not aware of their general conduct.
MS PATEL: Alright. And then just the incident itself. The alleged robbers never shot at you, did they?
MR GEVERS: No, Chairperson.
MS PATEL: And you saw no weapons there when you went to the vehicle itself, the minibus?
MR GEVERS: When we arrived for the first time at the vehicle I did not see any weapons.
MS PATEL: So they were unarmed?
MR GEVERS: That is correct, it would appear to have been like that.
MS PATEL: Alright. Thank you, Honourable Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS PATEL
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Patel. Has the Panel got any questions?
MR SIBANYONI: So it would appear that this was not an intended robbery because these people were not armed at all, it was a pure set-up to get to them.
MR GEVERS: Mr Chairperson, my perception at that stage was that these persons were indeed on their way to Nelspruit to commit a bank robbery.
MR SIBANYONI: And it would also appear that there was no intention of arresting them.
MR GEVERS: That is correct, there was no intention as such.
MR SIBANYONI: The reason I'm saying that, even when they were overpowered and some of them were groaning at the back of the, or the back seat of the kombi, no attempt was made to arrest them, they were just shot and finished?
MR GEVERS: That is correct.
MR SIBANYONI: And Tiso was also not armed?
MR GEVERS: I do not know whether he had a weapon on him. When he was handed over to me or to us, he had no firearm on him.
MR SIBANYONI: If I followed the evidence correctly, he was picked up outside Nelspruit, somewhere in the vicinity of Nelspruit.
MR GEVERS: He was received by us there from Radebe and Sefade. That is correct.
MR SIBANYONI: Did you drive with him to the Ultra City first, or directly to Origstad?
MR GEVERS: We first went to the Ultra City in Middelburg.
MR SIBANYONI: It's quite a long distance, what was the reason of coming to the Ultra City in Witbank?
MR GEVERS: It was to meet either Mr Snyman or Vermeulen or Britz, whoever would have been contacted by Mr Nortje to meet us there. The idea was to meet one of them there, that is why we went to the Ultra City.
MR SIBANYONI: And at what time did you arrive at the Ultra City?
MR GEVERS: It was at approximately 7 o'clock that morning.
MR SIBANYONI: And from there you drove to Origstad?
MR GEVERS: That is correct.
MR SIBANYONI: At what time did you arrive at Origstad?
MR GEVERS: Mr Chairperson, I'm not entirely certain, it may have been between 10 o'clock and 11 o'clock that morning.
MR SIBANYONI: And what was the reason of driving to Origstad, because it would appear it's also far away and you're driving to the North East from Witbank?
MR GEVERS: That is correct. Mr Vermeulen and Mr Britz gave us the instruction to drive there seeing as neither Const Swart nor Sgt Chait, nor I for that matter, had ever been to the Penge Mine, therefore we didn't know exactly how to get there. Origstad was the closest town to Penge Mine.
MS PATEL: And at what time did you arrive at the Penge Mine?
MR GEVERS: Mr Chairperson, I believe that it must have been at 4 o'clock or half past four that afternoon. I am not completely sure, but I think it must have been approximately that time.
MR SIBANYONI: At what time was Tiso killed?
MR GEVERS: I cannot recall the exact time, but it was almost dark. So it may have been approximately at 7 o'clock that evening.
MR SIBANYONI: Was he kept in the boot of the car all the - throughout the day?
MR GEVERS: That is correct.
MR SIBANYONI: And when he was taken out, didn't he try to resist, run away? Or was he still handcuffed?
MR GEVERS: He was still blindfolded and his hands were still bound behind his back. He did not attempt to escape, no.
MR SIBANYONI: When you and Britz were walking on foot with him in the mine shaft, didn't he suspect anything?
MR GEVERS: No, it did not appear to me that he suspected anything, because he did not try to escape and we didn't have to hold him back, he walked on his own between us.
MR SIBANYONI: Would you say liquor played any role in what you did on that day?
MR GEVERS: No, I wouldn't say that.
MR SIBANYONI: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Did you get the victim to climb out of the vehicle under false pretence?
MR GEVERS: Are you referring to the opencast mine?
CHAIRPERSON: I'm referring to the place where he was killed.
MR GEVERS: Yes, that is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Are you saying that one of you said that there was something interesting to be seen in the mine?
MR GEVERS: Yes, that is correct. If I recall correctly, it was W/O Vermeulen who said that he had seen something interesting at the bottom of the mine earlier on and that he wanted to show it us.
CHAIRPERSON: Did he say anything further about it?
MR GEVERS: No.
CHAIRPERSON: And then Tiso climbed out voluntarily?
MR GEVERS: W/O Britz and I asked him to go with us because we also wanted to show him what it was. At that stage we were very friendly to him, especially me.
CHAIRPERSON: Didn't he suspect anything?
MR GEVERS: No, not according to my opinion.
CHAIRPERSON: So up to the point that you produced the firearm and shot him, he had absolutely no idea what your intentions were?
MR GEVERS: No, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Did you also give him some of the beers during the interrogation?
MR GEVERS: Not that I can recall. I don't believe so, no.
CHAIRPERSON: Because apparently that is what one of the other members says. It might not be that important, but on one of the pages to which we have referred to earlier, it appears. Do you remember anything like that?
MR GEVERS: It is possible, but I cannot recall anything like that taking place.
CHAIRPERSON: Very well. Mr Lamey?
MR SIBANYONI: I'm sorry. Did he sustain any injuries from the assault, the clapping and the kicking?
MR GEVERS: Mr Chairperson, he had a few abrasions, but no serious wounds as such. I think that the abrasions were more due to the fact that he was kicked with a shoed foot.
MR SIBANYONI: Where were the abrasions?
MR GEVERS: Dit was meestal op sy bene gewees dan en op sy arms, soos hy probeer keer het, mnr Die Voorsitter. ...(no English interpretation)
MR SIBANYONI: Was he given food at any stage?
MR GEVERS: No, he did not receive any food, not that I can recall. It is possible that somebody may have given him something to eat, but I cannot recall that we gave him anything to eat.
MR SIBANYONI: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
ADV DE JAGER: When you departed from Nelspruit, did you already know that he was going to be killed?
MR GEVERS: Do you mean after we had received Tiso from Warrant Officer ...(intervention)
ADV DE JAGER: Yes, that is where you received him when you climbed into the car.
MR GEVERS: No, it was on the way to the Ultra City that we first entered the discussion with Sgt Chait and Const Swart, and that is where I found out that he was going to be killed.
ADV DE JAGER: Now who told you that he was going to be killed?
MR GEVERS: I cannot recall whether it was Const Swart or Sgt Chait.
ADV DE JAGER: But they already had the order that he was going to be killed?
MR GEVERS: Yes, it did appear to me to be like that.
ADV DE JAGER: Did they tell you that?
MR GEVERS: Yes, they ...(intervention)
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Gevers, don't tell me how things appeared, just tell me if they told you, yes or no?
MR GEVERS: It is correct, that is what they told me.
ADV DE JAGER: And you knew that that is why Vermeulen or whoever had to be met?
MR GEVERS: Yes, that is correct.
ADV DE JAGER: And did you know then already that you would go to Penge?
MR GEVERS: No, we did not know.
ADV DE JAGER: When did you find out for the first time, or receive an order for the first time that you were to go to Penge Mine?
MR GEVERS: When we met W/O Vermeulen and W/O Britz and held a discussion with them.
ADV DE JAGER: Did they then give you the instruction to wait at Origstad so that you could go to Penge?
MR GEVERS: That is correct.
ADV DE JAGER: And at that stage did you already know that he was going to be killed?
MR GEVERS: Yes, that is correct.
ADV DE JAGER: Now if you had taken notes, would you have mentioned in such notes from whom you received such information?
MR GEVERS: Not necessarily, because there would be only one person who had been interrogated, so quite frequently we did not record the name of the person.
ADV DE JAGER: Yes, but if you had to submit a report later on, for example to one of the heads regarding the information that you had obtained, would you then have had to say "I obtained this information during an interrogation of Mr Tiso"?
MR GEVERS: Yes, that is correct.
ADV DE JAGER: If you had received such information, to whom would you have conveyed it at head office?
MR GEVERS: At head office it would have been conveyed to Gen Engelbrecht.
ADV DE JAGER: So if you had any written report, would he have known that it contained information which came from Tiso?
MR GEVERS: Yes, that is correct, his name would have appeared on it.
ADV DE JAGER: And wouldn't he have asked you "But what happened to this man?"
MR GEVERS: Ten-to-one he probably would have wanted to know.
ADV DE JAGER: So if you had a written report you would have to disclose what happened to your information source?
MR GEVERS: Yes, that is correct.
ADV DE JAGER: Then what would you have said? It didn't happen, so you would have to speculate in saying what you would have done, so it may be an unfair question. Let's leave it at that, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey, do you have any re-examination?
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chairperson.
The fact that Tiso would be killed did not depend upon his cooperation during interrogation, is that correct?
MR GEVERS: No, Mr Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: And did I understand your evidence correctly that your inference for why he would have to be killed was that he could have known or may have known what happened to his other cohorts?
MR GEVERS: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: And for that reason the activities of Vlakplaas had to be protected?
MR GEVERS: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: After you had shot Tiso, did he show any signs of life whatsoever? You say that you were not certain whether he was dead or not, but were there any signs of life which you could observe.
MR GEVERS: No, none, Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: Did you also know from your arrival at Vlakplaas, that there were also arrests pertaining to robbers where there was no political connection?
MR GEVERS: Yes, that is correct.
MR LAMEY: Mention was made of a bank robbery. You were involved in the Coin action and you yourself stated that you cannot recall that at that stage Tiso's connection with Winnie Mandela had come to light. Could this have been information which somebody else may have had at that point?
MR GEVERS: Yes, it is possible.
MR LAMEY: The Coin where the initial trap was set, what sort of institution was this?
MR GEVERS: It was a security company which transported money or fixed assets for, among others, banks and large companies.
ADV DE JAGER: Not fixed assets I suppose?
MR GEVERS: I'm sorry, I was mistaken, I beg your pardon.
MR LAMEY: And with the Nelspruit action, did you know under what impression these robbers were brought? Do you know whether they were brought under the impression that they were on their way to Coin once more or that they were going to another place?
MR GEVERS: Chairperson, according to the information which Sgt Holtzhausen conveyed to us, all indications were that these persons were once again underway to the Coin Security company in Nelspruit, in order to commit a robbery.
MR LAMEY: I just want to ask you, it was put to you that the robbery was planned by Ben van Zyl and so forth, do you know whether he presented himself as a source who then again provided information to Mr Holtzhausen, that he basically presented himself as a figure of the underworld who was cooperating with persons who wanted to commit robberies?
MR GEVERS: I don't know about that, Chairperson, seeing as I was not personally in liaison with Mr van Zyl.
MR LAMEY: Very well. He will have to give evidence about that himself. Your knowledge regarding the second incident, that is the Nelspruit incident where the ambush was to be set up, when did this come to your knowledge for the first time?
MR GEVERS: At the Drumrock Hotel.
MR LAMEY: Was that before you departed?
MR GEVERS: Yes, before we departed to the scene of the incident.
MR LAMEY: So before that you didn't know where it was going to take place or what the situation would be or what the planned action was?
MR GEVERS: No, not at all.
MR LAMEY: Just with regard to the PAC connection, was it your idea, this PAC connection, or was it ever mentioned at any time before the incident? What is your recollection?
MR GEVERS: My recollection of that is that in terms of my knowledge which I had from intelligence reports and discussions from members of the Security Branch, the PAC and the ANC on grassroots level were cooperating in certain cases. So that is how I established the connection between the two. Because it was also clear to me that they had a mutual goal, which was to topped the government and to collect funds for their armed struggle. And they also wanted to arm and fund the SDUs.
MR LAMEY: Yes, but with specific reference to this group, is it your recollection that there was also a reference to the PAC and cooperation with the PAC, or anything in that regard?
MR GEVERS: No, it was my own idea, this perception that this was indeed the case.
MR LAMEY: In the beginning I did not examine you about it, but it may be relevant in re-examination, I had actually planned to examine Mr de Kock about it and before I got there ...(intervention)
MS PILLAY: Excuse me, Mr Chairperson. I don't see how my learned colleague can introduce fresh material now, which we would not have had - which we will not have a chance to cross-examine his client on.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we'll see what it is, what the material is and if it is something new and if it is relevant and if it's going to assist us to come to a decision in this matter, we're going to listen to it and we will allow the interested parties to ask questions. Bearing in mind of course that we're not retrying this case, we're sitting as an Administrative Tribunal. I think that should be clear.
MR LAMEY: Yes, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR LAMEY: Chairperson, I just want to explain further, I was coming to this aspect in my examination of Mr de Kock. The witness testified in his own evidence about, I think it was during cross-examination, also about the working together of PAC and ANC on grassroots level. For that reason I thought I would in re-examination then just also come back to a document which is in the bundle, which I would like to refer to. It is Exhibit E.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, no that's very much one of the issues. Ja, please do that.
MR LAMEY: Mr Gevers, the document that I'm about to show to you is a document that you have not seen before you gave evidence, is that correct?
MR GEVERS: Yes, that is correct.
MR LAMEY: Mr Chairperson, this is from page 39. I can only put it to you that I received this document from a person who was an officer who was involved with security investigations and intelligence collection in Johannesburg, and he informs me that this is a security report which was guarded by the Security Police at that stage. I just want to put it to you that in this document it basically boils down to the fact that the efforts were aimed at a united front between the ANC and the PAC. The cooperation to which you have referred, do also recall independently that that possibility was also put forward in security reports?
MR GEVERS: Yes, that is correct. I recall that it was mentioned in the daily security reports.
MR LAMEY: And then there is also a document which is dated and is the document containing resolutions of a PAC congress in 1992, in which among others, reference is made to the connection to the patriotic united front. On page 48, Mr Chairperson. There is a portion which has been deleted. I will have a look at the original version, but it is basically the crux thereof which I want to point out to the witness.
According to your knowledge, even though it appears to me never to have realised on the high organisation level of the front, the objective was still to establish this kind of front in 1992 still.
MR GEVERS: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: And then you gave evidence under cross-examination that you understood that C10 would have resorted under the Crime Investigations and Intelligence Section.
MR GEVERS: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: Now despite this, was it your impression that Vlakplaas was completely relinquished of its formally political focal point, or what was your impression?
MR GEVERS: Mr Chairperson, my impression was that they had already began to move away from their primary objective, but that they still performed work for the Security Branch, however that there was a shift in emphasis towards to crime front.
MR LAMEY: If one could summarise that it would mean that they stood on two legs?
MR GEVERS: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chairperson, I have nothing further.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Lamey. Mr Gevers, you are excused.
MR GEVERS: Thank you, Chairperson.
WITNESS EXCUSED
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think we will take the adjournment at this stage for 30 minutes and we will reconvene with the testimony of Mr de Kock. We're adjourned.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
