Amnesty Hearings

CHAIRPERSON: For the record, it is Monday the 23rd of August 1999, we are continuing with the amnesty applications of E.A. de Kock and nine others in respect of the Nelspruit and Tiso incidents. Mr De Kock was still under cross-examination.

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

CHAIRPERSON: Please be seated. Mr Francis?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR FRANCIS: (cont)

Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr De Kock, is it correct that a book was written on your behalf, called "A Long Night's Damage"?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: And if one turns to page, I think, 14 of this book, you are doped as Prime Evil, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson, it is a reference which was given to me by the press which was unknown to me and then it became some sort of a nickname.

MR FRANCIS: If one turns to page 14, I think it is the first paragraph, the following appears

"... Eugene Alexander de Kock, allegedly doped Prime Evil by his men and Scorch of God by his adversaries ...",

so you don't know how this name was given to you?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, the Prime Evil aspect I enquired about and somebody told me that it was a character in a cartoon story which was shown to children on TV. I don't know whether it had anything to do with some or other children's programme. In a certain children's programme, there was a character by that name. Scorch of God, that I don't know, I have never heard of that or at least nobody has called me that to my face or behind my back as far as I know.

MR FRANCIS: How many murders have you committed whilst you were a Commander of Vlakplaas and also I think during the time that you spent at Namibia?

MR DE KOCK: Personally or in group relation?

MR FRANCIS: Well, let's first deal with personally?

MR DE KOCK: In Ovamboland, man to man, I think I would say maybe eight to nine, person to person.

MR FRANCIS: And as a group?

MR DE KOCK: In our conflicts there were many people who died, maybe 150 or more. Not everybody died, there were also persons who were captured, but this is my estimation.

MR FRANCIS: Tell me, why was some men caught during or whilst you were busy in Ovamboland?

MR DE KOCK: Why were they captured?

MR FRANCIS: Yes, why were some of them caught?

MR DE KOCK: Well, they made it possible or at least the operational circumstances were of such a nature, that they could be captured.

MR FRANCIS: Are you saying to us that in some instances during your operations, you could in fact arrest some people?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, what sometimes happened is that the situation within the combat context, whether it was mobile or on foot, indicated that as one shot and drove by, one would drive through the entire combat area and you couldn't leave people behind. Whether a person stood up or was laying down, you would fire, the person behind you or the vehicle behind you, would also fire. It was usually those people at the end of the combat area, the last section of the combat area, after you had cleaned the area, that you would capture if they surrendered or if they made it possible.

MR FRANCIS: When you assumed the responsibilities of Vlakplaas, how many people did you personally kill?

MR DE KOCK: I would say that it could be approximately, with the inclusion of Swaziland, I would say five people approximately.

MR FRANCIS: Is that now excluding the Nelspruit 4?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, because I didn't personally kill every person, we acted in a group regard.

MR FRANCIS: How many people have you arrested whilst you were a Commander of Vlakplaas?

MR DE KOCK: We arrested quite a few. Among others we also broke persons out of jail in Swaziland and brought them back to this side.

MR FRANCIS: On Friday, I think if you recall, you confirmed that you told lied on several occasions, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR FRANCIS: You also said that Gen Engelbrecht himself has lied on several occasions, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR FRANCIS: If one was now to compare the lies that you have told with that of Engelbrecht, who would you say is a bigger liar?

MR DE KOCK: I would say Engelbrecht is the liar.

MR FRANCIS: You also said, I think, that Engelbrecht has not referred to some of the murders that he had committed in his affidavit, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: Could you repeat?

MR FRANCIS: I think you said also that Engelbrecht had committed some murders and he didn't refer to it in his affidavit?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, he arranged a murder, I had to allocate two of my persons to him to make arrangements for the operation and the execution thereof.

MR FRANCIS: What did you do about this fact that Engelbrecht arranged for a killing to take place, which you also - having made available two of your employers? Have you done something about it?

MR DE KOCK: What do you mean? Did I do something at that time?

MR FRANCIS: I think you are saying that this Engelbrecht is a liar, he was involved, I think made arrangements to have somebody killed, what did you do about it? I mean, did you inform the authorities that your superior has in fact arranged a murder, has arranged that somebody should be killed?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, it was not an unusual situation that we had to clean up after him, if I might put it that way, I am referring to the case of Brian Ngqulunga which will be heard later, I am referring to Goodwill Sekakani, whose case will also be heard.

MR FRANCIS: Can you explain why Engelbrecht says that you should not be believed?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I am sure that it is the way it worked at that stage in the Security Branch, within the Security Police itself, that it was all about denial, the question of disassociation. None of them would want to be associated very closely with any of these incidents. For example we did not see Gen Van der Merwe during the Harms Commission when evidence was given about those persons whose hands were blown off with handgrenades. We did not see that Mr Vlok came to the Harms Commission and say "we blew up Khotso House". It was all part of a policy I would say, a policy of deception.

MR FRANCIS: If you recall I think, I will ask you if any version was put to any of the witnesses during your criminal case, do you recall that?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, there was a version that was put.

MR FRANCIS: What was your answer to that?

MR DE KOCK: My version was incorrect.

MR FRANCIS: Mr Chairperson, I think I would like to hand one document in, I think I made copies for the Chair. The one starts, I think from page 595 to 596.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that is an extract of the testimony of Geldenhuys, witness Geldenhuys, according to the copies. Which Exhibit number would this be? Where did we end, with E?

MR FRANCIS: Yes, this should be F.

CHAIRPERSON: This should be F then?

MR FRANCIS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: So it is the extract from the evidence of Geldenhuys, page 595 and 596 which would be Exhibit F.

MR FRANCIS: We could probably also Mr Chairperson, mark the one that commences from page 218 to 224, probably then as G, Exhibit G.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, that is also Geldenhuys' testimony it seems. Yes?

MR FRANCIS: Mr De Kock, I think before I refer to this, before I refer to this, so you admit that you put a version through to your counsel, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR FRANCIS: The version that you put to him, was that a pack of lies?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, it was a lie. I misled my legal team in that regard.

MR FRANCIS: Can you tell us why you misled your legal counsel?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, it was out of self-defence and in order to correlate with the versions of the past.

MR FRANCIS: Could you expand on self-defence, your protecting of self, what do you mean by that?

MR DE KOCK: It is obvious that one would not place oneself in a situation which would be destructive to oneself, that would be self-defence.

MR FRANCIS: So it would obviously appear that you had a propensity to tell lies, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson. In this case, I tackled the situation myself, I misled my legal team and after this occasion, I was very sharply and strongly addressed by the legal team and I realised that the past could never be repeated and from that point on, I cleaned the slate entirely and I refer to my evidence during the Motherwell case in the Eastern Cape Supreme Court, as well as my evidence given during the case of President P.W. Botha. That was the change.

MR FRANCIS: I am still going to put this, you know the version, I am going to read it out and then we can deal with it. I think it commences on page 595, from lines 28 where you counsel said the following

"... if you could grant me a moment, Your Worship, I am going to put to you in general what the version of the accused would be, should he give evidence. The accused will deny that he participated in any planning with regard to this incident which took place in Nelspruit. That is planning here in Pretoria or in Nelspruit? You have already conceded that he was not party to such planning."

The response was the following -

"... with the exception of what I have said, referring to his presence under the bridge, yes. But I am referring to Pretoria and the Drum Rock Hotel. That is correct. He will deny that he was aware that this was anything other than a bona fide police action during which members of his Unit would assist. I believe that he knew exactly what would happen, I don't think that he can deny it. He will deny that he was present or involved on the scene or at any other stage in the planning of the incident, or that he participated in any way in the incident. That is not so."

Mr De Kock, can you tell us what was, what is wrong about the version that was put to Geldenhuys, where did you lie?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, the fact that I said that I was not on the scene and that I did not participate in the planning.

ADV DE JAGER: I beg your pardon, we don't have the entire record before us Mr Hattingh, could you assist us. In the evidence which he gave later, what was his viewpoint then or did he not give evidence at a later stage during the sentencing?

MR HATTINGH: Unfortunately I will have to explain somewhat with this aspect. When Mr De Kock was called to sentence, I led him and told him "you realise of course that the Court has already made findings based upon facts regarding the incidents" of which he was found guilty and if he were to put a version which would clash with the versions accepted by the Court, the Court could not do anything about it, because the original version had already been accepted and that is why we abstained from examining the merits of every charge that was laid against him. There was cross-examination about some of the charges. On that basis I cannot tell you according to my recollection, whether there was cross-examination regarding his involvement in the Nelspruit incident.

ADV DE JAGER: But he, himself, did not give evidence about it?

MR HATTINGH: Not, not evidence-in-chief.

ADV DE JAGER: Thank you.

MR FRANCIS: Mr De Kock, I was still asking you what was incorrect, what else was incorrect about the version that was put to Mr Geldenhuys? I think you mentioned that you were not at the scene, you did not take part in the incident, what else was incorrect about it?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I cannot say off the top of my head. I would say that the comprehensiveness thereof is also incorrect.

MR HATTINGH: Chairperson, may I just interpose here. In this portion of evidence, I do not find any denial on behalf of Mr De Kock, that he was at the scene. He simply states, or I said that

"... he will deny that he was aware of it or that it was anything other than a bona fide police action during which members of his Unit would assist"

and then he responds and then I say that -

"... he will deny that he was present or involved on the scene or at any other stage of the planning or that he participated in it."

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, so in other words it is an explanation of the denial that he was involved, whether it was during the planning or at the scene or at any other stage.

MR HATTINGH: But it was not a denial that he was present at the scene.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, because it would appear that Geldenhuys says somewhat higher in the page, 596, he says he was present under the bridge, so Geldenhuys places him at the scene and that is not disputed?

MR HATTINGH: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Francis, have you noted that?

MR FRANCIS: I have noted that and I am asking for De Kock to tell us what else was wrong about this version.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I cannot say immediately.

MR FRANCIS: You have the version in front of you Mr De Kock.

MR DE KOCK: I beg your pardon.

MR FRANCIS: You've got the version in front of you, you can read it?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct.

MR FRANCIS: Take your time and then tell us what else was wrong about that version.

MR DE KOCK: As far as I can surmise, it has to do with my active participation in the shooting.

MR FRANCIS: Is that the only thing?

MR DE KOCK: Well, that is what I can recall at the moment.

MR FRANCIS: I don't want you to think about it, it is in front of you. I don't want us later I think, to come up with an argument saying that you could not recall what else was wrong about it. You've got the version in front of you, if you need some time, I think we could ask the Commission I think, to maybe give you some time to look at the version and then tell us what the position is.

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson, I think that my examiner should put his questions.

MR FRANCIS: I am not going to allow you to dictate to me as to what I should do. I've got the version in front of you, I want you to tell us what is in fact wrong, what else is wrong about this version.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, a second aspect is that there is a denial that I participated in any aspect of the planning, so that would also be incorrect. I cannot continue on a superficial basis.

MR FRANCIS: Do you need some more time?

MR DE KOCK: No, you may proceed.

MR FRANCIS: So the only incorrect thing is your participation in the shooting and also the fact that you didn't take part in the planning of the operation?

MR DE KOCK: The total planning.

MR FRANCIS: The total planning?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR FRANCIS: That is the only incorrect thing that appears in the version?

MR DE KOCK: Well Chairperson, in that aspect, it is comprehensive.

MR FRANCIS: I want you to look at page 596 again, from lines 8 and I think I will read it to you.

"... He will deny that he was aware that this was anything other than a bona fide police action and that there would be members of his Unit that would assist."

So the impression I think, that one gets, that was put to Geldenhuys was that this was a bona fide police action that involved I think the assistance of the Murder and Robbery Unit? That is also wrong, isn't that so?

MR DE KOCK: Well Chairperson, I am sure that one could look at both sides of the issue, it was a bona fide police action, but there is a difference that the counter-insurgency aspect was also involved.

MR FRANCIS: So are you saying that the action against the Nelspruit 4 that includes also Tiso, was a bona fide police action, is that what you are saying?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson, if I look at our past during which we killed other persons, once again I refer to the Motherwell bomb incident during which members of the SAP or the Security Police were killed, for C1 it was not a strange situation.

MR FRANCIS: I take it obviously then, if this was a bona fide police action, you would have acted in terms of Section 5 of the old Police Act, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, would you read it to me?

MR FRANCIS: This incident happened in March 1992, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR FRANCIS: And at that time the old Police Act was still in force, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR FRANCIS: In terms of the old Police Act, what were the functions of police officers and what were their duties?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, the four principles of the Police were the maintenance of internal security, the prevention of crime, the investigation of crime and then there was also something which had to do with the security situation.

MR FRANCIS: So in terms of what Section of the Police Act, were you acting then?

MR DE KOCK: I am sure that it was a section thereof, the initial version that was put will be connected to Section 49, but it has been adjusted of course.

MR FRANCIS: Well, let me read to you - I didn't make a copy of this, but I think it is common knowledge, let me read to you what Section 5 of the Police Act stated. It says the functions of the South African Police shall be inter alia the preservation of the internal security of the Republic, the maintenance of law and order, the investigation of any offence or alleged offence and the prevention of crime.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR FRANCIS: Those were the functions of the police at that time. In terms of what Section, if this was a bona fide police operation, in terms of what Section did you act?

MR DE KOCK: Well Chairperson, we were focused on the mandate which C1 had to act internally and externally, people also died during such actions. It was not promulgated as a parliamental Act although the State presented it as such, that was not really what happened.

MR FRANCIS: I can probably understand what happened before 1990, you know, when there was a war situation in the country, but this was obviously after 1990 when there were talks about peace?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson, but then I refer to Vula and the situations in East London where people in a bar were shot, where elderly persons were shot dead at a Club House, people were shot on roads, people were shot in the back in a church, grenades were tossed in between them, if that was aimed at peace, then I must have missed something somewhere.

MR FRANCIS: I will obviously come back just now to Operation Vula and I think we will test your knowledge about it, but again, am I then correct in saying that you didn't act in terms of Section 5 of the Police Act?

MR DE KOCK: No, as in previous cases, we intercepted it.

MR SIBANYONI: Excuse me Mr Francis, I am sorry to interrupt, I am not trying to curtail your questioning, the problem is we do not have the benefit of the people defending the families' attitude, are you people opposing the application or not and then also, I am asking you this question at this point in time, you know, if he had acted within the law, he would not have contravened, he would not have committed any offence, crime, etc, in other words, he would not be before this Committee to ask for amnesty. If he has acted in terms of that Section 5, being a pure police action, then that would not have been an offence, they acted in contravention of the law, that is why they are applying for amnesty.

MR FRANCIS: Mr Chairperson, I think maybe I should have mentioned this earlier, but I thought the fact that we are present, I think, indicates that we are opposing the application of Eugene de Kock and the nine policemen, I think to put it maybe much more clearer, I think we do, my instructions are to oppose the application of all ten applicants. Secondly I think my question, I think around the question of the Police Act, I think is based on what Mr De Kock said that this was a bona fide police action and obviously I think he has also mentioned that authority had been sought, you know, for him to act in this and I think this is why I think, I wanted to point out that this obviously, if he says that it was a bona fide action, I think it would have to be in terms of Section 5 of the Police Act.

MR SIBANYONI: Is it possible maybe to indicate briefly on what grounds is the application opposed? Are you opposing them on the fact that it was not an act associated with a political objective? Are you maybe saying that they are not telling the truth?

MR FRANCIS: Well Chair, I think we are basically opposing I think, on the basis that the act performed was not done with a political objective and that - which I think is tied to the question of whether or not he had been given authority by his seniors to commit the offences, I think that he committed. Also too, Mr Chairperson, I think that it is so that there has not been full disclosure on the part of Mr De Kock.

MR SIBANYONI: Maybe lastly, are you asking the Committee not to believe him if during the criminal trial, he gave a version which is different from the version he is giving before the Committee today?

MR FRANCIS: No Mr Chairperson, that is not what I am saying, I am saying that when one deals with the evidence of Mr De Kock, and I think on Friday we dealt with this, it was quite clear that even his superiors I think, had said that he had a propensity to tell lies and I will obviously argue, I think later, once I have dealt fully with the cross-examination and when I will be referring him to some of the affidavits deposed to by his comrades, that there has not been any full disclosure. I think the only point that I am making is that we are told by his senior that you can't really believe him, he has a propensity to tell lies and I think I am just building on that.

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you Mr Francis.

MR FRANCIS: Mr De Kock, let's deal with Operation Vula. When did the ANC decide to launch Operation Vula, do you know?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson no, but if my memory serves me well, the foundation of Operation Vula had been laid before 1990 and it continued.

MR FRANCIS: Was this some time in 1988, whilst the ANC was in exile?

MR DE KOCK: I have a vague recollection thereof, yes.

MR FRANCIS: If you say you've got a vague knowledge, are you agreeing that it could have been in 1988?

MR DE KOCK: That is possible Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: And is it also not true that the rank and file of the ANC members were caught off-guard when the former President, De Klerk, announced the unbanning of the organisations on the 2nd of February 1990?

MR DE KOCK: No, I don't think that they were caught by surprise because at Vlakplaas there was a meeting during December 1989 or in January 1990 during which 60 officers were present, among others officers from Head Office and the various security regions, I think there were nine, during which Gen Smit informed us, this was Gen Basie Smit who was the Head of Security, he informed us that the prisoner, Mandela, would be released. This information was limited to this small group, so I assume that the senior structure of the ANC must have known about that.

MR FRANCIS: I was referring to rank and file, the rank and file, the members, the supporters, I think were caught off-guard when it was announced that the ANC and other organisations were going to be unbanned?

MR DE KOCK: That is possible.

MR FRANCIS: And is it also not true that there was a lot of - measure of distrust amongst the ANC when the unbanning was announced?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, it was mutual.

MR FRANCIS: Could you deny that the ANC suspended the armed struggle after the Pretoria Minute was signed in August 1990?

MR DE KOCK: No, that is perhaps what they presented, but that is not what took place on ground level. Those who were involved in Operation Vula, were not rank and file members.

MR FRANCIS: I am dealing with the announcement of the suspension of the armed struggle, not whether or not it took place still despite the announcement?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, they could sign treaties if they wanted to, but whether that actually meant that political groups still cherished their own expectations of what they wanted, or whether it meant that there were people who still did not agree with it, this appear to be the case if we examine the actions that took place. What was decided on the top level, might not have filtered through to the ground level.

MR FRANCIS: I am putting something quite simple to you, that the armed struggle was suspended after the Pretoria Minute was sealed in August 1990, yes or no?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, I cannot dispute the date.

MR FRANCIS: Is it also true that during the period, the ANC began to establish its legal presence in the country by recruiting members by issuing membership cards and by building a mass political movement, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson, they didn't really have much to build on, or at least they didn't need much to build on, because the structures were already in place. If we take the Trade Union systems, the systems which had already been created internally such as the UDF and other organisations.

MR FRANCIS: Am I correct to say that Operation Vula commenced before the unbanning of the ANC and other organisations?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, I have a vague recollection that there was more than one operation. I cannot put my thumb specifically on Vula, but it is possible.

MR FRANCIS: But Mr De Kock, you were asked by Mr Lamey and you testified about Operation Vula and now you say that you are not so sure about it?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, I said that I have a vague recollection that such an operation was indeed underway and that it never ceased.

MR FRANCIS: I think you must be aware that on the 6th of July 1990, the Durban Security Branch arrested Charles Ndaba and Vusi Tshabalala who were part of Vula Operation?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: The date again please Mr Francis?

MR FRANCIS: 6th of July 1990, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, I would not dispute the date.

MR FRANCIS: Is it also correct that one Capt Hentie Botha of the Security Branch said that this whole thing was a fiasco?

MR DE KOCK: It may have turned into a fiasco afterwards.

MR FRANCIS: And he said so for the following reason, I think he mentioned that Ndaba had been recruited as an informer already in 1988?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, I did not know about that. As far as I knew, Ndaba was not an informer, Ndaba was identified by an askari under the command of Col Taylor, that is how he was captured. After he was captured, he in turn pointed out Tshabalala. Furthermore this took place in secrecy, Hentie Botha was not at the arrest and certainly he would not have the information which was later obtained from Tshabalala or Ndaba.

MR FRANCIS: Is it also true that persons I think who were involved in Operation Vula, were later granted indemnity from prosecution?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I am not so sure whether there was another form of amnesty, I don't know whether De Klerk signed anything like that, it includes Maharaj and Kassrils who were still on the run, as well as various other persons.

MR FRANCIS: Is it also not true that the Security Police discovered information that were found on the disc in the Vula safehouses, that weapons were brought into the country from the 23rd of September 1989 to the 24th of June 1990?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, it is possible. All the information which was on computer, was withdrawn at Vlakplaas in a specially prepared room, I did not have access to everything. Weapons were found during Ndaba's arrest and the arrest of Tshabalala. Weapons were retrieved from houses.

MR FRANCIS: Obviously I think when Operation Vula was exposed, it caused a lot of embarrassment to the ANC, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson, the embarrassment was that they had been captured, not because they had done it and that led to a hardening in these persons, including myself, who realised that this situation would be revolutionised by these persons.

MR FRANCIS: I put it to you that there were nine trialists in the Operation Vula, that involved inter alia Mac Maharaj, Ronnie Kassrils and they received indemnity against prosecution on the 22nd of March 1991 and that basically was the end of Operation Vula.

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, I would not know, perhaps afterwards they continued and gave it another name. Mr Kassrils and Mr Maharaj were most probably some of the persons who knew very well after 1990, on the 2nd of February that there were peace negotiations and that enmities had been suspended and so forth.

MR FRANCIS: But you are now speculating whether or not it carried on under some other disguise, aren't you?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, I think one could readily accept it if one looks at what took place afterwards.

MR FRANCIS: Is it a fact that Operation Vula was commenced under some disguise?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, it was a clandestine operation, it was not openly publicised in the media. The ANC did not inform the former National Party, they were very sophisticated in their functions, they used satellite communication which the government and the military could not break.

MR FRANCIS: Mr De Kock, I am talking about after the people were exposed, you said I think, it then operated under some other guise. I am asking you if it is a fact that they did in fact operate under some other guise after they were exposed?

MR DE KOCK: I accepted that they did.

MR FRANCIS: It is not based on any factual evidence that you have?

MR DE KOCK: Well, all the terrorism that ensued.

MR FRANCIS: So, am I correct that the Nelspruit incident took place after Operation Vula was exposed?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: It also took place after the National Peace Accord was signed?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, I am not certain of the date, but I would accept it if you would put the date to me.

MR FRANCIS: Let's just deal with the National Peace Accord. Do you know who the signatories were to the National Peace Accord?

MR DE KOCK: I would accept that it was between two parties or more than two parties.

MR FRANCIS: Those parties would have involved the government and the political (indistinct), is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: That would be correct.

MR FRANCIS: The government comprises of different components, it would also have involved the Security Police and the police?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, yes, it would be like that.

MR FRANCIS: It was the commitment to peace on both parties, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR FRANCIS: And the police I think, had indicated that they would act in a certain manner, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson, there was some or other reference to that.

MR FRANCIS: And it basically I think, brought an end to armed conflict, it was hoping to bring an end to armed conflict, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: That was the expectation.

MR FRANCIS: You were also asked I think, and you testified about - or before I move away from Operation Vula, I have looked at Gen Nyanda's testimony that appears in Exhibit C and nowhere in it does he mention that one of the objects of Operation Vula was to rob banks for the liberation movements and in particular the ANC. He talks about yes, that there was - arms were being smuggled into the country, but nowhere does he in fact refer to it that one of the policies or one of the aims and objectives of this was to rob banks on behalf of the ANC.

MR DE KOCK: No, such things would never be put on paper. It was also not the policy of the National Party to do cross-border operations or to kill members of other countries if it was necessary.

MR FRANCIS: But I think, I am not talking about, I am talking about the evidence that was given by Gen Nyanda at your trial?

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR FRANCIS: Bear with me, he was cross-examined, he was led by Mr Ackerman about Operation Vula and he was also cross-examined by your own counsel, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson, he would not have given anything different to the official version.

MR FRANCIS: But even if one looks at the documentation that was available, there was nothing about robbing banks to fill the coffers of the ANC and that wasn't part of Operation Vula?

MR DE KOCK: It was not an officially written policy and I don't even know whether it was an official spoken policy.

MR FRANCIS: You were asked by Mr Lamey to deal with the question of Self Defence Units, do you recall that?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, I did speak about it.

MR FRANCIS: I think before I ask you about that, I had spoken to Mr Van den Berg's client, that is the mother of Tiso and she said that at no stage was Tiso a member of any Self Defence Unit.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, that may be her recollection.

MR FRANCIS: But have you got proof that he was a member of the Self Defence Units?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, I have no evidence, or written evidence, the information which I had is that which we received.

MR FRANCIS: We will come just now to the information that you received. Further, that he was at no stage a member of the Mandela Football Club?

MR DE KOCK: I would not be able to elaborate on that.

MR FRANCIS: You cannot deny that, can you?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, he may also have been.

MR FRANCIS: Well, it is put to you that he was not a member of the Mandela United Football Club. You can't dispute that, can you?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: And you can't dispute that he was - you can't dispute that he was not a member of the Self Defence Unit, can you?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, but I can also not confirm it.

MR FRANCIS: Evidence was led that he was wanted by the police for 16 robberies?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, that is possible.

MR FRANCIS: Now, let's not talk about what is possible, let's talk about facts. Did you have knowledge that he was a member - that he was wanted for 16 previous robbery counts?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, I do not have any independent recollection thereof.

MR FRANCIS: None of the five members or none of the five persons that were killed, had any previous criminal convictions, do you know of that?

MR DE KOCK: I cannot say.

MR FRANCIS: I put it to you as a fact that none of them had criminal, previous criminal convictions.

MR DE KOCK: I don't know Chairperson, somewhere in my recollection I know that one or two of them had a record. I am not certain, I will have to rely upon someone else's evidence if they can testify about that. Somewhere I am not sure, but I would rather that someone else give evidence about this.

MR FRANCIS: I put it to you as a fact that none of them do have criminal convictions.

MR DE KOCK: Very well.

MR FRANCIS: Do you know why Defence Units were established in the townships?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson, the idea was that this would work according to a block system, and that would be to protect the ordinary public who was living in the area.

MR FRANCIS: To protect them against what?

MR DE KOCK: There was armed conflict between the Inkatha Freedom Party, the UDF, there were factions of the UDF who were opposed in the West Rand and then the Self Defence Units which were affiliated to the ANC.

MR FRANCIS: So this was more a protective reaction on the part of the Self Defence Units?

MR DE KOCK: I think that it was interchangeable from protector to assailant. The one could lead to the other.

MR FRANCIS: Is it also true that at some stage the Inkatha Freedom Party had received support from the police, some elements from the police?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson, I cannot speak for others but I can only refer to my own unit and certain individuals.

MR FRANCIS: So there was a time when black on black violence was fermented by some elements of the State?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, black on black violence was something which occurred in 1976 already, when I became involved in it for the first time. It wasn't a new facet.

MR FRANCIS: We are talking about 1990 now, Mr De Kock, from 1990 onwards?

MR DE KOCK: I would just like to take you back in history so that we can understand the broader concept thereof. It already began during 1976, I was a personal witness to it in Katlehong, Vosloorus and Tembisa.

MR FRANCIS: What about Boipatong? Was it not a classical example where the State was involved?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson ...

MR HATTINGH: I beg your pardon Chairperson, if I may interpose at this point. I acted on behalf of the police during the Boipatong investigation and the position which is being adopted by my learned friend, I would like to know whether this is based upon the official report of the Goldstone Commission which indicates that the State in particularly the police, were involved in the incident or is he depending upon one-sided evidence with regard to the incident?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Francis, do you want to expand on that question?

MR FRANCIS: Mr Chairperson, I think let me rather move away from that and maybe rephrase the question differently.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, go ahead. Do you know what happened in Tokoza during the early 1990's?

MR DE KOCK: Well Chairperson, I cannot recall specific incidents, but we operated on a national basis, so the incidents and situations were various.

MR FRANCIS: Is it also true that there were some elements of the State that were involved on the side of the hostel dwellers?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I don't know. I could refer to the assistance which I and two or three other persons gave. I cannot say that ... (tape ends) ...

MR FRANCIS: ... do you have it in front of you? Sorry, Exhibit E, I made a mistake. Exhibit E?

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR FRANCIS: And you gave some testimony about, on page 2 thereof? You were asked about what the four pillars were, do you recall?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct.

MR FRANCIS: And you said, I think, that one of the pillars included the armed struggle, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR FRANCIS: I want you to look at this document, what is the date of this document? It is right on top?

MR DE KOCK: July 1991.

MR FRANCIS: It was before the Nelspruit 4 or 5 were killed?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR FRANCIS: I want you to read at page 2 of the said document where it appears "conference further resolves", it is one to three, please read it aloud please.

MR DE KOCK: Are you going to read it or do you want me to read it?

MR FRANCIS: I think I referred you to the wrong passage, it should be also on page 2, from paragraph 3.1 up to the end of 3.1. Let me read this aloud for you. It says

"... 3.1 Armed Struggle. Armed action has been suspended, the armed struggle remains a pillar of our struggle."

I think what you were not asked was the bottom of that page -

"... in a situation where the regime pursues or allows violence against us as part of its negotiations' strategy, it is essential for us to defend our People's Army, Umkhonto WeSizwe, contribute decisively to building the defensive capacity of communities who are victims or potential victims of the current reign of terror."

It doesn't say that the armed struggle will continue, is that correct, it explains why it remains a pillar, but states that it is for defensive, it is a defensive mechanism?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson, the struggle remains a pillar of our struggle and the difference between defensive and offensive is very, very narrow, a very thin line.

MR FRANCIS: But the word suspend or suspended is used? It is a simple question.

MR DE KOCK: That is what was officially said to people.

MR FRANCIS: The question, is the word suspended used?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, those words are used.

MR FRANCIS: Do you know what the political climate was at that time, that is now 1991?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, between the politicians one would never know, because what actually happened is not something that one would see in the media, but on ground level, there was confusion. From my perspective and my view, there was a reasonable level of intolerance.

MR FRANCIS: You were not asked to read what appears on page 2 where it is found on the right side of the document, and I will read it to you

"... Conference further resolves (1) to continue pursuing negotiations as a means towards achieving our strategic objective of transfer of power to the people; (2) to strengthen the ANC as a mass bass democratic organisation rooted amongst the people through systematic organisations and mobilisation; (3) to increase the capacity of the ANC to creatively lead the people in mass action and for the masses to participate actively and take initiatives at various levels."

It doesn't refer to whether or not the armed struggle will continue, and that was a resolution that was passed at the ANC National Conference in July 1991, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson, that may be so, but I just want to qualify that this meant that when diplomats and the necessary political structure fell, they would not go over into covert or armed action.

MR FRANCIS: I want you also to read at page 4 of the same document where it deals with the "On Violence", and I think I will read it to you.

MR DE KOCK: Could you just refer me to the paragraph please.

MR FRANCIS: It is the one where it is written in bold "On Violence", it is on your right hand side.

MR DE KOCK: Very well.

MR FRANCIS: Noting that (1) many thousands of our people have been attacked and killed and continue to be killed, especially in the recent period by apartheid sponsored violence carried out by Inkatha, askaris, (indistinct) Death Forces and others whose aim is to weaken and destroy the ANC and other democratic forces; (2) this violence is taking place in a counter-revolutionary context directed by agencies of the State and its surrogate Forces in the form of councillors, warlords, vigilantes, death squads and certain white right wing elements; (3) the ANC together with other democratic Forces, such as COSATU, UDF and churches has attempted to find peaceful solutions to violence by (and if you turn to the next page) entering in peace talks with Inkatha, making submissions, representations and demands to the South African government to end the violence and despite the peace initiatives with Inkatha, violence still persists and despite the machinery at the disposal of the regime, it is refusing to take the necessary steps to end the violence."

I think maybe (5) too -

"... the response of the democratic Forces in dealing with this counter-revolutionary violence has not been adequate and at the December 1990 National Consultive Conference took a resolution to build Defence Committees and that the organisation has made insufficient progress in setting up of Defence Committees."

Okay, let me ask you, you know you gave evidence about this, is it correct that there was counter-revolutionary violence taking place during that period?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson, I believe that it did take place.

MR FRANCIS: And that was, I think, one of the reasons why there was a scramble basically to set up Defence Units in the various townships?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I wouldn't say that it was a scramble, if one looks at the speed with which it was started, it was simply a question of arming people. I think that the infrastructure had already been established.

MR FRANCIS: Then I want also on the very same page, I think let's just see what the ANC resolved. Again at page 5, the right hand side of the document

"... we therefore resolve to support the current initiative of the church and business leaders in (a) developing a code of conduct for Security Forces, (b) developing a code of conduct for political organisations, (c) developing an enforcement mechanism to monitor the codes that will involve a white range of groupings; (d) developing a programme of reconstruction."

That was basically the ANC's way in which they wanted to address the problems that existed in the townships?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson, that is what the official version would have been.

MR FRANCIS: You don't know why you were not referred to portions of this document whilst you were being cross-examined, do you?

MR HATTINGH: No Chairperson, how would he know that Chairperson, that is ridiculous.

MR DE KOCK: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that is so Mr Francis.

MR FRANCIS: Let's look at page 9 of the said document where we've got further resolves

"... that the role of MK in the present period shall be to act in defence of peace and stability, to guarantee the people's political victories by imparting the necessary skills, to participate in rebuilding the organisation of the ANC, to act in defence of the personnel and property of the ANC, to encourage MK cadres to join and to channel their political concerns to the established branches."

Again, it doesn't refer to taking up the armed struggle?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, but one could read what one wants to into this, if we couldn't defend any more, we would have to attack?

MR FRANCIS: Yes, probably I think that you mentioned - let me not mention it.

MR DE KOCK: Well, let me put it like this, in order to render it comprehensive. We haven't discussed this yet, but that would be a word which was taken up by the country, Third Force, I think that every party to this situation had their own Third Force, I think there must have been about 18 to 20 Third Forces eventually.

MR FRANCIS: You also gave testimony about, you were asked to look at Exhibit 13 and 14.

MR DE KOCK: 13?

MR FRANCIS: 13 and 14, sorry page 13, sorry.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, I have that.

MR FRANCIS: What is the date appearing on this document?

MR DE KOCK: The 16th of June 1989.

MR FRANCIS: That was before the ANC was unbanned, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, the official unbanning.

MR FRANCIS: This was again before the Nelspruit killings, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: You were also referred to page 15 of the same document and I think you read at paragraph 17?

MR DE KOCK: I didn't read it, it must have been put to me.

MR FRANCIS: Yes, it was put to you, but let me read to you what appears on page 19 of the said document.

"... We must therefore treat the issue of negotiations as one that also involved struggle, a struggle by other means and a struggle that is a continuation of our defensive for the fundamental transformation of our country. Such positions as may emerge in the course of our discussions, should therefore be such that they strengthen our overall offensive (the copy that I have is not clear, I am not sure what the bottom...) and defeat (the one that I have here, is not clear, I am not sure if Mr Lamey has got a much more better copy)?

CHAIRPERSON: Is that page 19 Mr Francis?

MR FRANCIS: No sorry, it is page 15 paragraph 19.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, paragraph 19, oh, I see.

MR FRANCIS: Perhaps Mr Lamey could help us.

CHAIRPERSON: What is the word that you ...

MR FRANCIS: It is just attempts ...

MR HATTINGH: Defeat all efforts to disarm us.

ADV DE JAGER: All attempts?

MR HATTINGH: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: "Our overall offensive and defeat all attempts to disarm us and immobilise the people...",

it seems to be.

MR LAMEY: I am just trying to search for the other copy that I might, the copy from which the copies were made. I have it, I will place it on record.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, my colleague's rendition seems to be fairly accurate.

MR FRANCIS: In this passage nothing has referred to the armed struggle?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, but as I read the document at that time, I would have said a struggle by other means and then I would know what would other means indicate? To me, according to my perception, in terms of my service, it was armed struggle, a struggle by other means could only mean one thing and that would be armed struggle.

MR FRANCIS: Yes, and I think that we have seen that this happened in 1989, it was before the ANC was unbanned?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson, that is correct.

MR FRANCIS: So at that time there was an armed struggle?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, it was on the way all the time.

MR FRANCIS: You were also asked to read from Mayibua, the July/August 1990 edition.

MR DE KOCK: On what page is that?

MR FRANCIS: I think it is from page 22 onwards. Just for the record, what date is that document?

MR DE KOCK: August - no July/August 1990.

MR FRANCIS: And this again was before the Nelspruit killings?

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR FRANCIS: I have looked at this document and there is no reference to the fact that the ANC or the PAC would be involved in robbing of banks to fill the coffers of the said organisations?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, it would not have been the official policy as I have said, and also that it was a global trend for terrorist organisations to fill their coffers by means of organised crime, under which robbery resorted. It wasn't a new concept which had been discovered.

MR FRANCIS: Okay, and you were asked to look at page 28 of the said Exhibit? Was this a PAC document?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I wouldn't be able to say because I didn't compile the document, I would have to request assistance with this.

MR FRANCIS: Do you know who drew up these documents?

MR DE KOCK: Well, if I look at the emblem on page 30, I would say that it was an ANC document. The man with the assegai and the loincloth, would be the emblem of the ANC.

MR FRANCIS: I have again looked at this document, there is no reference to the fact that the ANC, the PAC will act jointly to act banks to fill its coffers.

MR DE KOCK: Well Chairperson, I don't believe that they had a Robbers' Forum, the organisations could think for themselves and if they required funds, they would obtain these funds as they thought fitting.

MR FRANCIS: I have also looked at this document, it refers more to defensive mechanism that could be used by the ANC in particular, to defend themselves against various things?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, it may be so, but what one could not to legitimately or overtly, would be done covertly as we have seen with the Vula situation.

MR FRANCIS: Again, I want you to turn to page 30 of the said document, it is on your right hand side, paragraph 1.5. I think you probably read that, it says

"... Self defence structures need by definition to be paramilitary, they differ from all the other forms or organisations referred to, including State Committees."

At the bottom of that page, it says -

"... the August 6 ceasefire does not neutralise MK",

that is on page 31, top of page 31 -

"... it has an important role to play. MK cadres, particularly ex-prisoners and those due to return from exile, must play a leading, an active role in the establishment of the defence structures."

Again I think you have already alluded to the fact that they were primarily used to defend the communities?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson, as it has been said defensive and offense if one may put it that way, is so close to each other that there is actually a grey area. There is a saying that goes in order to defend ourselves, we will have to attack. It is an accepted term in the military.

MR FRANCIS: If one turns to page 45 of the same document, I have read this document and nowhere again, does it refer to the PAC giving its members instructions to rob banks, to fill the coffers of the PAC?

MR DE KOCK: No, and we also don't see that it is stated that they should attack churches, Club Houses and elderly persons either, however, it did happen.

MR FRANCIS: Mr De Kock, is it quite true that when a lot of returnees came back from exile, the Defence Force could not employ many of them?

MR DE KOCK: Are these MK members who had returned or persons who had been in detention who had returned?

MR FRANCIS: No, I am referring to MK members and also PAC members.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I am not sure, I know that there was a great number of MK members, or newly recruited MK members who were sent out during the time, for training in Tanzania if I am not mistaken.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Francis, I am going to adjourn for 15 minutes. We are adjourned.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

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

MS PATEL: Sorry Honourable Chairperson, before we proceed, I failed to alert you to the fact that Adv Bam has now joined us, he is appearing on behalf of the implicated party, Holtzhausen, so if he could just place himself on record, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

For purposes of the record Mr Chairperson, my name is A.J. Bam from the Pretoria Bar and I have instructions to represent Mr Holtzhausen. I confirm so.

CHAIRPERSON: Certainly, welcome Mr Bam. Mr Francis?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR FRANCIS: (cont)

Mr De Kock, when did you assume or when did you become the Commander of Vlakplaas?

MR DE KOCK: The 1st of July 1985.

MR FRANCIS: What was the reporting structures like at Vlakplaas?

MR DE KOCK: From me as Commander, it was directly to Brigadier Schoon, who was the Chief of C-Section which consisted of three components and from Brigadier Schoon to the Chief of Security and from the Chief of Security, to the Commissioner.

MR FRANCIS: Let's assume that you wanted to take part in an operation, did you have to get permission from one of your seniors before you could launch the operation?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, not necessarily. It was left to our discretion in many instances. The work was against terrorism and I may just mention if we went over the border, we were the terrorists. You may use your own discretion and at that stage, I would have asked him at a regular basis, I was at the rank of Capt.

MR FRANCIS: What was the position like in 1991, the reporting structures in 1991?

MR DE KOCK: Brigadier Schoon had already retired with pension, Gen Van Rensburg had been transferred and I think Gen Engelbrecht was in command of C-Section and from there, to him.

MR FRANCIS: Tell us what the role of Holtzhausen was in this period.

MR DE KOCK: Holtzhausen was stationed at C-Section or C1 and his role would have been that of a counter-insurgent if needed and he was a highly qualified source analyst, he had handled sources with the Diamond Section and he was a person who had rendered service in Koevoet, he had good combat record which he built up in Ovamboland. We had a qualified person if I may put it, as such, he was an allrounder.

MR FRANCIS: Did he also act as a Detective at Vlakplaas?

MR DE KOCK: We were not in investigations, but from certain aspects and enquiries and from certain bases, it would be needed to take statements, but all of the members could do so.

MR FRANCIS: Mr De Kock, is it quite correct that from 1990 we started living in a new political, well, there were talks about negotiations, the ANC and other organisations were unbanned, a new political climate ensued?

MR DE KOCK: It may be for certain or some of us might have had that impression.

MR FRANCIS: How did the members of Vlakplaas feel when the President, former President, had announced the unbanning of the ANC?

MR DE KOCK: I can only speak for myself, and to this extent for some other persons, we thought that we were misused and that we had been misused and that because of that, our service had to be sacrificed.

MR FRANCIS: So there was a lot of bitterness amongst you and some other members?

MR DE KOCK: No, I would not say there was bitterness, but there was reason for concern.

MR FRANCIS: Why were you worried about the new era?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, we had just had, or four years before that, the Berlin wall had fallen and I had read up on it in international newspapers with regard to the East German police and their politicians and afterwards it was Russia and we saw that there was protest there and from the ranks of the police and the military, and how people had been betrayed overnight and so forth and this gave us an indication as to what our own fate would be.

MR FRANCIS: Were you, as members of Vlakplaas, told about negotiations that were taking place between the government and some leaders of the ANC?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, we were not only informed, but it was in the media everyday.

MR FRANCIS: So you were not really caught off-guard about the changes that were going to take place?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, the 2nd of April 1990's announcement, it caught everybody unawares. I had knowledge beforehand because of that meeting, where it was mentioned to us but no date was given. There was not firm policy at that stage.

ADV DE JAGER: Was it not the 2nd of February?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, it is the 2nd of February, with the proclamation of the unbanning of the liberation movements.

ADV DE JAGER: I think you said the second of April?

MR DE KOCK: No, no, it is the 2nd of February.

MR FRANCIS: Were there any, I think as you would call it, any terrorists or insurgents that entered the country illegally from 1990 to 1994?

MR DE KOCK: Illegal persons, or people did come into the country illegally. We were for example involved in such a situation in Johannesburg, where the guard of Alfred Nzo had handled an MK member, we caught an MK member, he was illegally here and he was gathering Intelligence and this ended up in a shooting incident between my members and the members of Alfred Nzo and two of them were in possession of handgrenades and a pistol. I know of occasions where weapons were found in Johannesburg, in the vicinity of the zoo and so forth.

MR FRANCIS: But you are also saying that some of these people got arrested by your Unit, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson. For example a Mr Nene was arrested, I did not catch him, the askaris caught him, I took him back to Shell House and I dropped him off there.

MR FRANCIS: Why wasn't he killed?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, he was not busy with anything illegal.

MR FRANCIS: How many people got arrested by your Unit from 1990 to 1993, before I think you went, before you took your package?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, it was not many, it was a few. I would say about six or seven. With some of them, there was a feeling of cooperation.

MR FRANCIS: Why were these six or seven not killed?

MR DE KOCK: They were not undertaking acts of terror.

MR FRANCIS: Is it correct for me to say that the role of Vlakplaas started changing since 1990?

MR DE KOCK: Could you repeat please.

MR FRANCIS: Is it not correct for me to say that the role of Vlakplaas started changing from 1990?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, other objectives were established, but the mandate with regard to counter-insurgency remained, although it was not published in the media.

MR FRANCIS: The Nelspruit 4 or 5 were not counter-insurgents, were they?

MR DE KOCK: Well, the information indicated that they were busying themselves with acts of terror in urban areas.

MR FRANCIS: But were they counter-insurgents?

MR DE KOCK: Were they counter-insurgents?

MR FRANCIS: Yes?

MR DE KOCK: No, we were the counter-insurgents.

MR FRANCIS: Insurgents, sorry?

MR DE KOCK: Not in terms that they had crossed the borders at some illegal place and had acted then.

MR FRANCIS: All of them had entered the country, well, some of them, maybe just one was from the Quatro Camp, but the rest I think were in the country legally so there was no talk of any insurgents that had entered the country?

MR DE KOCK: No, as I had said, it is not a question that they had crossed the borders illegally, I would not know.

MR FRANCIS: Glenet Masillo was born in the country and did not leave the country illegally, so he could not have been an insurgent, could he?

MR DE KOCK: No, but he could have been trained inside the country, Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: We are speculating?

MR DE KOCK: No, we have just read through these sections here and people had to be trained defensively, but they were not trained with knopkieries.

MR FRANCIS: But we are talking about Glenet Masillo who was one of the Nelspruit 4 who got killed?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, but he could have been trained inside the country.

MR FRANCIS: He could, you say he could, but that is mere speculation?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, I would concede.

MR FRANCIS: So let's not deal with speculations, let's deal with facts.

MR DE KOCK: Very well.

MR FRANCIS: Is it correct that you were addressed by your superiors about the new role of Vlakplaas?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson, they moved right throughout the country.

MR FRANCIS: One of them who happens to be Gen Engelbrecht?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: I think you must have seen his affidavit, that is I think, Exhibit A where he said he took over officially on the 1st of January 1991, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: I did not have a look at his statement Chairperson, not at all.

MR FRANCIS: You recall that Geldenhuys testified at your criminal trial, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: And he was asked questions about what the new role of Vlakplaas was going to be?

MR DE KOCK: I believe it was asked Chairperson, I did not read his statement.

MR FRANCIS: I am going to refer you to Exhibit G1, that is from page 220 and it is from line 20. He was asked the following

MR DE KOCK: I am not certain if I ...

CHAIRPERSON: It is G, the record, page 220?

MR FRANCIS: It is page 219, lines 20, you've got that? Page 219?

MR DE KOCK: I have that.

MR FRANCIS: He was asked the following question

"... can you briefly tell us what you know of Vlakplaas, what is Vlakplaas?"

And his answer was -

"... Vlakplaas was a base from where they identified and traced terrorists in the Republic. I was a secret Unit and I do not have much internal knowledge of their activities at that stage. Later, after I had been with Murder and Robbery in Pretoria, and the government had started changing, they acted more as a support basis for other branches."

Do you confirm that this basically was the role that Vlakplaas assumed after changes had taken place, namely to be a tracing unit for weapons and a supportive unit for other branches?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson, you can say it was the double role that we played.

MR FRANCIS: And then further on page 220, that is from the sixth line, he was asked

"... and later, it changed? That is correct. May you please repeat to us for what purpose, to what had it changed? It was for them, they had to assist us as Detective Branches and in a supportive capacity and they also assisted us in the tracing of weapons and the general prevention of crimes."

Do you confirm that that was the general role of Vlakplaas?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, it was one of our roles, Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: And then from lines 12, from that same page

"... how do you know that this description had changed? I attended a meeting at Vlakplaas which was led by Gen Engelbrecht, during which he informed us as the Commanders of the different Branches, of the changes and how the people would assist us. We can firstly start by saying, you say, where was this meeting held? It was at Vlakplaas, in one of their offices. And you say it was Gen Engelbrecht who called the different divisions together? That is correct. And who were these various divisions? It was branchings of Security and others of the Force, I cannot recall. It was too long ago. Who spoke? Who spoke there? It was done by Col De Kock and Gen Engelbrecht, chiefly Gen Engelbrecht. What was said there? We were informed that the members would assist us and under which circumstances and we were also informed (on the following page) that they were better able to recruit informers and they were divided into groups who would assist us at our different Branches with the gathering of information and the tracing of suspects and so forth. Do you know when this meeting was? Can you mention a year? I would say it was towards the end of 1991, the beginning of 1992. Where were you when you were asked to go to the meeting? I was attached to the Murder and Robbery Unit, Pretoria, and I was in command of the Field Team at that stage. What do you mean when you say you were part of a Field Team of the Murder and Robbery Unit? That is the team at Murder and Robbery who worked on information and the gathering of information and the tracing of suspects."

Would you disagree with what Geldenhuys said about what the new role of Vlakplaas was?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, that is what he would have been informed along with the others.

MR FRANCIS: Very well. Did you know a Johannes Jakobus Swart who was also a Constable at Vlakplaas?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: I think he also confirms on page 51 of the Bundle, and that is I think where it starts, I will read to you

"... at Vlakplaas I worked under the command of Lt-Col De Kock. The nature of my service entailed the tracing of terrorists and later during 1990, this was changed and our chief objective was the prevention of weapon smuggling, we also assisted other Units and Security Branches."

Would you confirm that this again was the role of Vlakplaas?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, it was one of the roles Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: And you obviously agree that the role of Vlakplaas changed?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, it was just a question that we had diversified. We were still kept ready for counter-terrorism and in certain instances, as I had said to the Ngqulunga and Sekakani matters, we still fulfilled those tasks like we had in the past.

MR FRANCIS: I am going to read to you what Engelbrecht said about the role of Vlakplaas and I think one should refer to Exhibit A. That would be Exhibit A, but it is found on Annexure E1, at page 2, paragraph 3.2. Have you got that, do you have it with you?

MR HATTINGH: Might I just ask my learned friend, E1, is that an Annexure to Exhibit A?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it looks like it. Exhibit A runs up to page, the main section, up to typed page 7 and then you find E1 and that is numbered again consecutively from 1 to whatever. It is the very first of the Annexures, Mr Francis seems to be referring to paragraph 3.2.

MR FRANCIS: On page 2.

CHAIRPERSON: On page 2, yes.

MR FRANCIS: Yes. At paragraph 3.2 he says the following

"... I want to place it on record again that on the 1st of January I officially took over command of C1 at Head Office Security and that before this date, I was attached to the Detective Branch of the South African Police."

And on the next page, that is page 3, paragraph 3.7 he says the following -

"... it is a well known fact that certain political organisations had been unbanned on the 2nd of February 1990 and that the role of the then Security Force had to be changed dramatically in the light thereof. I was not involved in the initial process in this regard, because on the 5th of November 1990, I commenced work at the Security Branch along with Brigadier Van Rensburg from whence I took over his post from the 1st of January 1991."

Paragraph 3.8 -

"... Lt-Gen Basie Smit had previously also been attached to the Detective Branch for many years, where we were colleagues and he was up to date with my abilities in that regard and consequently during 1990, he proposed that I be transferred to the Security Branch where I would take command of C1 with the specific instruction to see that the members attached to that Unit, be linked up to normal police functions and other crimes, where politics played no part."

Do you agree with this, this basically was now the new role that Vlakplaas assumed?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, because that is the official version which we would propose, we were still involved and I refer to my conversation with Gen Engelbrecht where I requested from him why we did not disband the Unit and he said that we had to be ready if the negotiations did not succeed. I must mention that Gen Engelbrecht is not correct when he says that as late as November 1990 he arrived, because already with the Harms Commission, he was the Investigative Officer and amongst others, he also flew to London in 1990 if I am correct, to hear the evidence of Dirk Coetzee. He gives an incorrect version.

MR FRANCIS: Mr De Kock are you saying that Engelbrecht said that in the event of negotiations faltering, falling apart, Vlakplaas should be on standby to deal with any eventuality?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, we were placed as such permanently, we kept our weapons and if I speak of weapons, the mortars and grenade throwers, that is not something that one would use in normal crime.

MR FRANCIS: But the question is sir, you were basically in a state of preparedness or readiness in the event of negotiations faltering?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson, it was foreseen the whole time Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: But Engelbrecht didn't tell you to still wage a campaign against some individual members of the political parties, he only said "look, in the event of the political discussions falling apart, you must be ready, basically be prepared to enter into any action if necessary?"

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, with regard to terrorism, we would have acted.

MR FRANCIS: As normal police officers?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson, as normal or usual police officers we were sent across the border.

MR FRANCIS: Again, I think if one looks at the Nelspruit incident, it wasn't a question of having to attack people outside the borders of the country, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, we also attacked people in the country, I refer to Khotso House, COSATU House, Khanya House. We refer for example to the people in kwaThema whose hands were blown off.

MR FRANCIS: And then I want to refer you again to Exhibit A, but this I think you would find on page - I think Engelbrecht refers to - and it is marked A, it starts by - it is written on top "Statement to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission by Gen-Maj E.J. Engelbrecht", and in particular to page 19 thereof.

CHAIRPERSON: That follows upon E1, does it?

MR FRANCIS: It follows upon E1.

CHAIRPERSON: And what particular section of that?

MR FRANCIS: It is at page 19.

CHAIRPERSON: 19, thank you.

MR FRANCIS: The bottom of page 19.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR FRANCIS: It says

"... members initially were used for identifications of MK and PAC members, specifically where information was known that members of the mentioned organisations were busy undermining the negotiation process and they were busy collecting arms. This threat vaguely decreased."

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, we still fulfilled the other function. I refer once again to Vula, Operation Vula and I don't think the persons of Operation Vula would have received amnesty if it was normal crime and that is how these different groups, during that time, in that context, but in expectation of each other, were placed opposite each other.

MR FRANCIS: What I find just strange is the following, I have referred you to what Swart said about the new role of Vlakplaas, what Engelbrecht said about it, who was attached to the Pretoria Murder and Robbery Unit, to what sorry Geldenhuys, to what Engelbrecht himself said ... (tape ends) ... talk about the other role of your Unit, it seems to be the only person, I think, who is talking about the other role of Vlakplaas?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, we still acted.

MR FRANCIS: Who else except for you, knew what the other role of Vlakplaas was?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, the members knew that we at all times had to be ready for counter-terrorism and their weapons speak of that, the appearance thereof and the fact that they still were in possession of their explosives and handgrenades.

MR FRANCIS: Who are those members?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, the members were all issued with sub-machine guns, R5's, handgrenades, M26 handgrenades.

MR FRANCIS: Mr De Kock, I am not asking about what weapons those members have, I am asking about who the other members were who knew about what the other role of Vlakplaas was.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I would say that Mr Nortje would definitely know, Holtzhausen would know, the senior members would know, the junior members' perception might have been that they were only busy with crime, although they knew that there was a counter-insurgency role for which they had initially arrived there.

MR FRANCIS: Let's just deal with it again, you said Nortje should know, Holtzhausen? Who else amongst the senior members should have known?

MR DE KOCK: Britz, all the persons, all the persons at C1.

MR FRANCIS: Klopper?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, he would have known.

MR FRANCIS: You obviously can't say why Geldenhuys, who I assume was a senior member to you, was he senior?

MR DE KOCK: He was a Capt, but he was a senior policeman in the Service, but he was not attached to my Unit.

MR FRANCIS: You won't know why Capt Geldenhuys does not refer to the other role of Vlakplaas?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, he did not even know of our cross-border operations, he did not know of the hands that had been blown off. He did not know of the buildings that we had blown up. Something like that would have been dangerous for him to know.

MR FRANCIS: I want you to tell us in your own words what the new role of Vlakplaas was.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, we had a double agenda. We at all times had a counter-terror capability, we were focused for that and amongst others, we started with the identification and tracing of weapons.

MR FRANCIS: What was your primary role?

MR DE KOCK: I would give both 50/50, Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: The members who were higher than yourself, did they know about the new role of Vlakplaas, that is like Engelbrecht and the senior police officers?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I believe that they would have discussed this policy, they would not have written on this policy document that we remain a counter-insurgency Unit.

MR FRANCIS: When was this conveyed to you?

MR DE KOCK: I beg your pardon?

MR FRANCIS: When was this conveyed to you that the other role would be counter-terrorism?

MR DE KOCK: No, it had never been replaced. It was just added to it, the tracing of weapons, and the tracing of weapons would lead to the prevention of terrorism.

MR FRANCIS: So when Engelbrecht says that

"... eventually this threat went away and members were used against crime ..."

he used the word full-time basis, he is telling a lie?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, we were on a contingency basis and my people were on that basis, and I think that the decreasing of the terror situation came with the other role.

MR FRANCIS: There is a difference of, when one talks about a "gereedsheidsbasis aan te hou" and also being involved in certain activities, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, if you are ready, you can act immediately Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: In the event of peace talks faltering?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson, if the things had gone wrong at Codessa and the ANC had said that we are in a state of war, or the National Party says, then within the next five people I can deploy people, I can deploy equipment, I can call in assistance.

MR FRANCIS: When was Codessa?

MR DE KOCK: I am not certain of the date.

MR FRANCIS: It was before the 22nd of March 1992, before the Nelspruit killings?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I am not certain Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: It could have been I think, in November/December 1991, but ...

ADV DE JAGER: But the first Codessa failed and then there was a second Codessa starting in 1993, I think?

MR FRANCIS: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Will you endeavour to, if it is possible, to ascertain those details and perhaps put it to the witness in more detail? It will assist us.

MR FRANCIS: I will endeavour to do so.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you.

MR FRANCIS: Mr De Kock, I see that one of the things that you had to do was to work through a network of informers, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, there were some of these sources.

MR FRANCIS: And that is also I think, in line with what Geldenhuys testified about, that there was, you would be able to have access to finances for informers?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson, the matter of finance for sources was not confined to the Security Branch. The Detective Branch had this and the Uniform Branch had this, all of them had money for the informers.

MR FRANCIS: How did you feel about this new role of Vlakplaas?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, it did not bring any additional tension with me, it was not a situation that we were being pushed aside, we were still on a contingency basis and at times there were some tension between the different parties and we foresaw that things could go wrong. I did not have a specific negative feeling with regard to my work.

MR FRANCIS: I think before I deal with the question of informers, I don't think you mentioned as to who among the senior officers told you about, that your role still was to counter-terrorism, can you just be more, tell us, you know, who told you about this?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, may I put it as follows, we were never taken off counter-terrorism, we were never told "now you will cease all counter-terrorism", the askaris were not taken away. As I have said, none of our equipment was handed back and we did not disband.

MR FRANCIS: But you were told about the new role or the other role of Vlakplaas?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson, another role was put to us.

MR FRANCIS: In other words Engelbrecht is lying about that you had to be full time, just dealing with crime alone?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I would say yes, he does not make a full disclosure, he is keeping some of the facts back.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr De Kock, was it your understanding that the original function of counter-insurgency will continue?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Nobody at a later stage confirmed it again?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, if I could say so, we were never taken off terrorism or counter-terrorism and for example, with the death of Sekakani and all these other people which followed, it was not a strange facet to us that we moved out of crime and we started with the cleaning system saying that the Security Branch could come to a fall.

CHAIRPERSON: So you understood that the initial situation continued, you were not told to cease and you were not expressively told to continue with it, practically your Unit was still in the same situation where you had equipment and so forth?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, we were a fully operational Unit, we could be deployed rurally or in an urban area and we were on a contingency basis all the time for any facet of the continuation of the struggle.

CHAIRPERSON: You understood that your role was to remain as it had been previously?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR FRANCIS: He is also saying that you were on alert to resume the armed struggle if necessary or the struggle if it was necessary?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson, as I have said we were ready at all times. I refer to the instance in December 1991 where we acted against the PAC at Sterkspruit.

MR FRANCIS: But wasn't Vlakplaas at the time given publicity in the papers about its activities after Nofemela and Dirk Coetzee had started spilling the beans about it?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, Vlakplaas was in the news before October 1989 and I will take it back as far as when Dirk Coetzee left or was removed from Vlakplaas and he spoke to persons like Van Zyl Slabbert and Rev Dennis Hurley and gave reports and then it was covered up. In that sense, all the reports were covered up and denied and so forth.

MR FRANCIS: Ben van Zyl was one of your informers?

MR DE KOCK: I beg your pardon?

MR FRANCIS: Ben van Zyl was one of your informers?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson, he did render service as an informer.

MR FRANCIS: I think he was, in his affidavit I think he mentions that he had met with you on one occasion?

MR DE KOCK: Could you repeat please.

MR FRANCIS: I think in his affidavit he mentions that he had met with you on one occasion?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson, that was after he had identified a person who were selling AK47's and a person was arrested, he walked in with a bag of AK's in the Johannesburg Sun Hotel and he was caught and with the payment of his claim, it was the first time that I met him, I did not know who he was.

MR FRANCIS: Is it also correct that Ben van Zyl had on a number of occasions given you false information, namely by planting weapons by people and then alerting the police about it?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, he didn't give us any false information.

MR FRANCIS: Do you know when Ben was recruited as an informer?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, was it for us or in general?

MR FRANCIS: For Vlakplaas?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, this was not a type of a specific recruitment, he gave the information with regard to the AK's. If he had that type of access to the information, then I would not be doing my duty if I was interested and tell him, "if you have more information or whatever the nature of it might be, please inform us."

MR FRANCIS: What steps did you take to verify the information that was given by Ben van Zyl to ascertain whether or not it was true or false?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, there were occasions when he gave information, besides the rifles, where there was a bank robbery in Johannesburg, we caught some of the people and we found some of the weapons and the car and there was the shooting at the Carousel and then I refer to an occasion where he identified a person who was smuggling with rhino horns. He had rendered successful service for the Unit of Endangered Species where he played a prominent role in combatting ...

MR FRANCIS: You are not answering my question, my question is what steps were taken to verify whether or not the information that Ben van Zyl gave, was correct or not?

MR DE KOCK: Was this in the Nelspruit incident?

MR FRANCIS: Generally, just what steps were taken to make sure that the information that Ben gave, was correct or not?

MR DE KOCK: The arrests indicated here clearly Chairperson, the information was of such a nature what he said would happen and it happened at the specific time.

MR FRANCIS: You are not answering my question Mr De Kock. What steps did you take to verify that the information that Ben van Zyl gave, was correct or not? I am not talking about what eventually, what the outcome of the information was, what steps did you take to verify that the information was correct or not?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, the results of the information is confirmation to us that this person was a source who knew what he was talking about, he had access to this type of information.

MR FRANCIS: I put it to you again that you are not answering my question, it is a simple question. Listen to the question. What steps did you take to verify the information that Ben van Zyl gave you, as correct or as true or false?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I read the reports which in the case of Holtzhausen, which he would give me with regard to the success of an operation and that would be confirmation.

MR FRANCIS: Did you not verify the information to see whether or not Ben van Zyl was telling ...

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, may we assist, did you before the action took place, take any steps to verify, for example the Carousel?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, no, I did not personally go but Sgt Holtzhausen who was his handler, the source's handler, went and gave the confirmation. I had no reason to doubt him.

MR FRANCIS: You obviously won't know how Holtzhausen went about verifying information?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, I don't believe that he would have had a problem in establishing the correctness or not thereof.

MR FRANCIS: Was Holtzhausen a trusted person?

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR FRANCIS: You had no reason to disbelieve his information?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: I assume that you must have kept notes of all the discussions that you had with Holtzhausen?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: I will later come to the information that Holtzhausen gave, but it would obviously seem to be different from what you are saying?

MR DE KOCK: I don't know Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: Holtzhausen was a Sergeant at the time of Nelspruit, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: Did you take instructions from him?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: Is it quite correct that you were a feared Commander at Vlakplaas?

MR DE KOCK: No.

MR FRANCIS: You were not feared?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, otherwise I would have not had any people under my command.

MR FRANCIS: How would you describe yourself as a Commander at Vlakplaas?

MR DE KOCK: I don't know Chairperson, I leave that to my friends and enemies.

MR FRANCIS: How did your enemies perceive you as?

MR DE KOCK: Ruthless.

MR FRANCIS: And, but your colleagues had a different view of you?

MR DE KOCK: I don't know Chairperson, they probably regarded me as loyal which they must have made use of in many instances.

MR FRANCIS: You were quite bitter when your colleagues testified against you at the criminal trial?

MR DE KOCK: Funnily enough, not Chairperson, for many of them I told them to give evidence and to make statements. I was not bitter.

MR FRANCIS: You don't know why the other applicants are applying for amnesty when they have been given Section 204 indemnity?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, the TRC has a broad scope, the definition might be too small for it, they might have a reason for it.

MR FRANCIS: I get a sense that they basically are testifying or applying for amnesty, to try and give you some support?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, despite their loyalties and friendships which have now crumbled, I cannot say that. We still have the ways, a way of greeting each other, it is not a time for bitterness, I will not accomplish anything by prejudicing these people. As difficult as it may be, and as sick as it makes me, it leads to involuntarily vomiting, I cannot go and hold it against a person who had given evidence against me, that is the course of life. Everybody has his reasons.

MR FRANCIS: Why do you say that they committed treason, what was so treasonable about testifying against you?

MR DE KOCK: Well, they walked over before the end of May 1994, that was treason. If it had happened at an earlier stage, and the NP was still in government, it would still have been regarded as treason.

MR FRANCIS: Let's talk about the Carousel incident. Is it correct that the Carousel incident was similar to the Nelspruit one in certain respects?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson, I received that detail when I was under trial.

MR FRANCIS: Who authorised the intended action that Vlakplaas had to take, on behalf of the Pretoria Murder and Robbery Unit?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, during that meeting, it was proposed by Gen Engelbrecht, that was the cooperative or access agreement between the parties.

MR FRANCIS: Mr De Kock tell us in what way or manner the Carousel incident is similar to Nelspruit.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I would say with regard to the issue that the information came from the same informer.

MR FRANCIS: That informer is Ben van Zyl?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct. Furthermore, I cannot say that the rest of the modus operandi is the same, with the exception that the element of surprise was also relied upon from our side and that Murder and Robbery was involved with us.

MR FRANCIS: Ben van Zyl's handler was Holtzhausen, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR FRANCIS: Which was the same position in the Nelspruit incident?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: The Carousel robbers were given a Toyota Cressida, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is what I understood.

MR FRANCIS: Which was also a vehicle that was used in the Nelspruit incident?

MR DE KOCK: That is what I understood.

MR FRANCIS: Weapons were planted with the deceased after they were shot and killed at the Carousel, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, this is the information which Gen Geldenhuys brought forward during my trial. I, myself, was not familiar with the planing of weapons.

MR FRANCIS: But you cannot dispute that?

MR DE KOCK: No, but I cannot confirm it either.

MR FRANCIS: I think if my memory serves me correctly, I think Holtzhausen also confirmed that weapons were planted there?

MR DE KOCK: Very well, then I will not dispute it.

MR FRANCIS: He also said that a handgrenade was planted next to one of the deceased person?

MR DE KOCK: I know that there was a handgrenade which was destroyed on the scene, if I recall the report back correctly.

MR FRANCIS: And I think he also mentioned that a, I think it was a 38 Special revolver was also planted with one of the deceased at the Carousel?

MR DE KOCK: If that is his evidence, then I will not dispute it.

MR FRANCIS: The information that Ben van Zyl gave was that these were members of the ANC, who were going to rob on behalf of the ANC, in Carousel?

MR DE KOCK: I think so.

MR FRANCIS: If one looks at the Nelspruit incident, there are a lot of similarities?

MR DE KOCK: I would concede that.

MR FRANCIS: Who authorised the action at Carousel?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, it would have been signed by me, the Intelligence notes. The transfer of information to Head Office would have gone via me.

MR FRANCIS: Didn't you find it quite strange that, in respect of the Carousel incident, that the robbers would ask for a police vehicle and be given the Toyota Cressida?

MR DE KOCK: I don't think that they would have requested a police vehicle.

MR FRANCIS: I beg your pardon?

MR DE KOCK: I say I don't believe that they would have requested a police vehicle.

MR FRANCIS: Well, they asked for a police vehicle because James who worked for Ben van Zyl, was the driver of that vehicle, one James, I don't know what his surname was.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I do not know that these persons requested a police vehicle.

MR FRANCIS: Well, the Toyota Cressida was going to be used the day before the Carousel incident, when I think the robbers or when Tiso and his companions I think, saw some guards at Coin Security and they then went back to Johannesburg and it was used the next day?

ADV DE JAGER: Aren't you perhaps at cross-purposes, the robbers asked for a vehicle, not for a police vehicle?

MR FRANCIS: Maybe I can be at cross-purposes. But the fact of the matter Mr De Kock is that a Toyota Cressida was given to the robbers?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson, that is what I understood.

MR FRANCIS: Which was going to be used in first Coin Security incident and Nelspruit?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I am not really up to date regarding the Coin Security company. The information that I had regarding that, emanated from my court trial.

MR FRANCIS: Well, Mr De Kock, you just now said that you were basically kept abreast of developments by Holtzhausen?

MR DE KOCK: I know that there was an attempt.

MR FRANCIS: First listen to my question. You were informed by Holtzhausen?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: I think in his affidavit he also mentions that he gave a Toyota Cressida to Ben van Zyl during the first Nelspruit incident?

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR FRANCIS: You confirm that?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson, I cannot dispute it.

MR FRANCIS: And do you also confirm that the same vehicle was used in Carousel?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson, I believe that it was the same vehicle.

MR FRANCIS: And again was used in Nelspruit?

MR DE KOCK: It may probably be the same vehicle.

MR FRANCIS: I assume that Ben van Zyl was paid an informer's fee for the information that he had given in Carousel?

MR DE KOCK: I believe that an amount was paid out to him, yes.

MR FRANCIS: And this obviously must have indicated to your superiors that the new Vlakplaas is quite an effective force?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, Vlakplaas was an effective force long before this incident, from the early 1980's.

MR FRANCIS: I am talking of the new Vlakplaas.

MR DE KOCK: There wasn't really a new Vlakplaas, it was more an expansion of our role as such.

MR FRANCIS: Well, I am talking about the enlarged role of Vlakplaas, that which had to be involved in investigation of crime?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, as I have said, we had a double role.

MR FRANCIS: So your superiors must have been happy that Ben van Zyl gave information, you were able to apprehend and kill three suspects who were going to rob a bank or who were going to take part in this robbery?

MR DE KOCK: I wouldn't say that they were happy, there was no applause. It was simply a question of the fact that there had been a robbery and that these people had been shot, those were the consequences of a robbery.

MR FRANCIS: Would you agree with me that the three robbers in Carousel, were set up by Ben van Zyl in conjunction with Holtzhausen?

MR DE KOCK: I cannot give evidence about that Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: Shortly after the police had opened fire on the robbers, James drove away in the Toyota Cressida.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I don't know, I wasn't there.

MR FRANCIS: I put it to you that you are quite bitter about the Carousel incident because you construed this as a cold-blooded murder, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: No, I am not bitter.

MR FRANCIS: You are happy about it?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, I am neutral about it.

MR FRANCIS: Let's read from page 9 of your application and that is the second or the first paragraph thereof. You said the following

"... eventually Gen Engelbrecht also arrived at the scene and I also informed him that something was wrong with the shooting. The shooting followed exactly the same pattern as the Carousel shooting, during which Holtzhausen and Ben van Zyl were also involved. During my trial in the Supreme Court, it appeared that the so-called armed robbers had blatantly been murdered by Holtzhausen and Geldenhuys in an operation and that absolutely no steps had yet been taken to prosecute those persons who had participated in the Carousel operation."

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, that was my impression. Geldenhuys' evidence in court is as I interpreted it.

MR FRANCIS: But I sense some bitterness appearing on page 9?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: You are basically unhappy that - you know, you said it was a blatant, these robbers were blatantly killed in an operation and no steps were taken to prosecute those who had taken part?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, that is how it sounded, the way that Geldenhuys expressed it during my trial when he gave evidence, at that time and even now still, I personally, perceived him as a person possessing double standards when it came to the Prosecutor as we saw from examples in the past.

MR FRANCIS: You believe that those people who had taken part in the Carousel, should also be prosecuted for murder?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, I simply expressed my understanding of the situation.

MR FRANCIS: Has your understanding changed?

MR DE KOCK: I cannot say that it has changed, because I wasn't involved in it. As I have said, my feelings are neutral about it.

MR FRANCIS: Mr De Kock, if I read this and the sense that I get was that Carousel was a purely criminal activity and not political?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I am not entirely certain, I cannot rely upon my memory regarding the full information of the incident.

MR FRANCIS: You had petty criminals who were not members of any organisation, they had followed the same modus operandi as the Nelspruit one?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: You disagree?

MR DE KOCK: With regard to petty criminals, many were captured and this was not political by nature, they were not shot or injured.

MR FRANCIS: I am putting to you that the Carousel incident was not politically motivated?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I cannot make any statements about that.

MR FRANCIS: Mr De Kock, on page 9 again, you refer to "very wrong", why if Carousel was not a political, it was not of a political nature, you referred to "very wrong" and it is basically in inverted commas, you say "very wrong"?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that was my perception at the scene. Among others I was not aware of the handgrenades which would be planted and that gave me the impression that there could be problems with this. We did not speak directly of persons who had been killed or murdered, we would use euphemisms to refer to situations throughout my entire existence in the Security Branch, this was the case, and this was the understanding of the shooting. That is why I said to him that among others, would it be advisable or inadvisable for the members to make statements.

MR FRANCIS: But why refer to "very wrong"?

MR DE KOCK: Well, that is the reference in order to convey the gravity of the matter to him.

MR FRANCIS: And then you draw a comparison between the two?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson, very wrong is a question of gravity.

MR FRANCIS: If Carousel was done with a political objective, I mean you won't even talk about "very wrong", you won't even draw that distinction between Carousel and Nelspruit?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I was not there during the Carousel incident and the Carousel incident was not handled by the SAP, but by the Botswana Police if I recall correctly.

MR FRANCIS: No, that is not correct.

MR DE KOCK: Well, then I would accept it as such.

MR FRANCIS: It was dealt with by Vlakplaas together with the police, the Murder and Robbery Unit and the Bophuthatswana Police, I think were notified afterwards.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I don't know, the Deputy Commissioner of the Botswana Police was there as I understood it. If I understand correctly, the incident took place within their territory?

MR FRANCIS: Yes, I think there is no dispute that Carousel used to be part of the former Bophuthatswana?

MR DE KOCK: No, I just want to mention this for the sake of completion.

MR FRANCIS: I think also, is it correct that you were later seen at some hotel after the Carousel incident had taken place?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson, I was there with the members.

MR FRANCIS: What were you doing there?

MR DE KOCK: I had a few drinks.

MR FRANCIS: So late at night?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson, I have seen many persons such as Directors of companies, drink until three o'clock or four o'clock in the morning.

MR FRANCIS: With your men who had taken part in a cold-blooded murder?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, whether you have a drink the same day or three days later, I cannot really see what the difference would be.

MR FRANCIS: Mr De Kock, I put it to you that the Carousel incident and also the Nelspruit incident was purely criminal and there was nothing about politics?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, that is incorrect.

MR FRANCIS: I think on Thursday you were asked by Mr Hattingh if Holtzhausen had reported the Carousel incident to you, do you recall that?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: What was your answer?

MR DE KOCK: I am not certain, I think he did. That evening when we gathered, he gave me a report already.

MR FRANCIS: Why was it necessary for him to give you a report?

MR DE KOCK: Well Chairperson, he handled the source and he was also a representative of Vlakplaas during this operation.

MR FRANCIS: Mr De Kock, let's deal now with the evidence or the information that was conveyed to you by Holtzhausen. Do you still recall that?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson, I have a very vague recollection thereof. I will attempt to assist you wherever I can.

MR FRANCIS: I am now dealing with the question of the Nelspruit incident, are you with me?

MR DE KOCK: No, I am not. Are you dealing with the Carousel?

MR FRANCIS: I am dealing with Nelspruit.

MR DE KOCK: Very well.

MR FRANCIS: Can you tell us when exactly in 1992 did Holtzhausen approach you about the information that he got from Ben van Zyl?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I am not certain of the time or the date.

MR FRANCIS: What did he tell you about this person?

MR DE KOCK: Which person?

MR FRANCIS: That is now Tiso?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, the information indicated that Tiso was a trained member of the ANC, that he was working for Winnie Mandela, that he was her driver and that they were planning a robbery in order to fortify the coffers of the ANC. That was the information which I had.

MR FRANCIS: And obviously I would assume that Holtzhausen will say the same thing about what information he had given to you?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I cannot say what Holtzhausen is going to say. I have not had any contact with any of these members during the last five and a half years, we haven't spoken, we haven't seen each other.

MR FRANCIS: And you say you didn't keep any notes about your discussion with Holtzhausen?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: Let's turn to page 3 of your application and I want to ask you about the last sentence on the first paragraph, where you've got the following

"... during 1992 Sgt Douglas Holtzhausen from my Unit, approached me and reported to me that a source of his, one Mr Ben van Zyl had informed him that a trained member of the ANC who was also the personal vehicle driver of Mrs Winnie Mandela, was in the process of smuggling arms."

When you talk about in the process of smuggling arms, what did you mean by that?

MR DE KOCK: That arms had already been smuggled and that this was a process which had already been put into motion.

MR FRANCIS: Isn't this subject to two different interpretations, Mr De Kock?

MR DE KOCK: Well Chairperson, that is how I understood it.

MR FRANCIS: Let me put you what the interpretations are. He could be in the process of smuggling firearms, it could either mean that he is busy preparing and busy on the lookout to smuggle firearms, or that he is smuggling firearms.

MR DE KOCK: Well, I have already given evidence to that effect, that is how I understood it.

MR FRANCIS: You didn't write that he was smuggling weapons, you referred to in the process of smuggling weapons.

MR DE KOCK: Well Chairperson, that is the process that he was occupied with.

MR FRANCIS: So what exactly did Holtzhausen say to you about Tiso? What exactly was he doing? Was he smuggling firearms or was he in the process of smuggling firearms?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, as I understood it, he was in the process, he was busy with the smuggling of arms.

MR FRANCIS: But you don't use the word busy?

MR DE KOCK: I beg your pardon?

MR FRANCIS: You did not use the word busy?

MR DE KOCK: Well, I guess that is just a question of language usage.

MR FRANCIS: No, it is not a question of the use of language, it is a question of what information you were given.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I don't have the benefit of notes or anything such as cassette recordings on which I can rely, it is the way I mentioned it here.

MR FRANCIS: Did Holtzhausen say to you that Tiso alone was busy or was in the process of smuggling firearms or was he doing it with other members or other friends of his?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I am not certain. I have a vague recollection that somewhere Mrs Mandela was involved, I think, but this is a very, very vague recollection. I cannot attach it specifically to this. There was information from the Intelligence Services in Soweto that arms were being smuggled from her house.

MR FRANCIS: Mr De Kock, I am not going to let you off the hook so easily, I am going to come back again to when in 1992 did you get the information from Sgt Douglas Holtzhausen, I think it is quite crucial for us to know when exactly you got that information from?

MR DE KOCK: As I have told you, I cannot give you a date or a specific time. I don't know if it was him or not.

MR FRANCIS: Well, was it in January, was it in February, was it in March?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I cannot say. I would be speculating.

MR FRANCIS: Was it before the first Coin incident?

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairperson, the witness has repeatedly stated that he cannot make any definite statements when he was asked what the date or the time was, he responded that he could not give a definite answer.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Francis, can you take it any further than that?

MR FRANCIS: Chairperson, maybe if you could allow me just one more question, then hopefully I will be able to take it further from there.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay.

MR FRANCIS: I think you must have heard when Mr Van den Berg had questioned I think it was Gevers and he put to him that Tiso was only employed by Winnie Mandela as a driver on the 1st of March 1992, I think you were not present, I think you must have been off sick, but that was the evidence that was given that he was employed as a driver for Winnie Mandela on the 1st of March 1992.

MR DE KOCK: I don't know Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: I think we also know that John, Ben van Zyl, alias John, had been talking to Tiso already in December 1991.

MR DE KOCK: I would accept that, I am not going to dispute it, but I cannot confirm it either.

MR FRANCIS: I think the evidence was led by Gevers that Tiso and his comrades were going to be killed during the first Coin Security incident.

MR DE KOCK: I am not certain Chairperson. I think that such evidence was given during my criminal trial.

MR FRANCIS: No, he led evidence here too.

MR DE KOCK: Very well then, I am not aware of it.

MR FRANCIS: So you don't know if you got information after the Coin Security incident or before?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I can really not say anything. Whatever I could say is something that I would not be able to confirm.

MR FRANCIS: Why then do you use the word during 1992, if you are not so sure about when exactly you were told?

MR DE KOCK: Because I don't know.

MR FRANCIS: It could also have been in 1991?

MR DE KOCK: I don't know.

MR FRANCIS: So what reliance can one place on this paragraph if you are not so sure when exactly you think it happened?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I cannot provide a date if I don't know the date. If one looks for example at all my other applications, one would see at times that initially dates were not inserted because I could not recall dates, not even years.

MR FRANCIS: But why then say during 1992?

MR DE KOCK: Well Chairperson, that is my recollection.

MR FRANCIS: Where exactly in Pretoria was the robbery going to take place?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, there was talk that it could take place in Lynwood or in Lynwood Road, I think there was a Volkskas Bank there, I am not certain.

MR FRANCIS: On page 3, the second paragraph you say the following

"... this ANC member by the name of Tiso would along with other MK members commit an armed robbery in either Pretoria or Nelspruit."

You've got that?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: Who were the other MK members?

MR DE KOCK: I don't know Chairperson, I don't know them.

MR FRANCIS: I think you were present, or you may have been absent, when Mr Van den Berg had put a version to Gevers?

MR DE KOCK: I was not here.

MR FRANCIS: I think he mentioned that the second person that he was acting for, I have just forgotten his name, Nalinda, was not a member of any, well, was not an MK member. He had in fact left the country and went to Zimbabwe where he took up his schooling and when he left, he left with a passport and left legally and came back, and was not a member of any political organisation?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson, I would not dispute that.

MR FRANCIS: But in your application you say that him and other MK members?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: And you obviously believed Holtzhausen?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson, I had no reason to doubt his information.

MR FRANCIS: And he won't tell any lies to you?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, we didn't know that we would be sitting here giving evidence, there was no reason for him to mislead me at that time.

MR FRANCIS: Glenet Masillo Mama was not a member of MK?

MR DE KOCK: I don't know.

MR FRANCIS: You won't dispute that?

MR DE KOCK: No, I cannot confirm or deny that.

MR FRANCIS: I think before I move on, let's talk about, I think Mr Van den Berg had put to Gevers or it could have been you too, I am not so sure, that Tiso was kept in Quatro Camp? You can't dispute that?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, I cannot dispute it.

MR FRANCIS: I think you must have some knowledge about Quatro Camp?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson, I do.

MR FRANCIS: Who were basically kept at Quatro Camp?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, as far as I know, it would be persons who were regarded as spies, persons about which there were suspicions of disloyalty, persons who were displaying behavioural problems, persons who had for example sold their weapons or disposed of their weapons, but most of all it was persons who had fallen out with the ANC and were being detained there. This is where many murders took place of persons who were members of the ANC who were South African citizens, women were raped and there were many incidents of abuse.

MR FRANCIS: And I think you must be aware of some of some of the returnees that came back, who wanted the atrocities that took place in Quatro Camp to be investigated?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson, with good reason. If one understands that women were raped and sodomised on a daily basis, that would be a crime which we would have to solve at some point, because this forum does not address it. It is ironic that we see that hearings for the women have been held and these issues have not been addressed. The victims have not had their chance to speak and the dead have not been returned.

MR FRANCIS: But there was also a lot of bitterness amongst people I think, who were kept in Quatro about what had happened to them?

MR DE KOCK: If you were sodomised four times a day, you would probably be very bitter.

MR FRANCIS: And obviously don't you find it then strange that if Tiso himself was kept in Quatro, he would still want to associate himself with the ANC?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, I know that among those who had returned, two factions originated, promises were made to them I think that with regard to an incident in Johannesburg, these persons were visited by Mrs Mandela and other members of the ANC, promises were made which promised maintenance for them if they didn't speak out about what had happened. Then there were other members who had returned, who were recruited by the Security Branches and so the information filtered out.

ADV DE JAGER: It is common cause that he was employed by Mrs Mandela from the 1st of March at least?

MR FRANCIS: I don't have a problem with that.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, but you said didn't think it would be strange for him to associate with the ANC?

MR FRANCIS: I think my difficulty is that Mr De Kock is not clear as to when exactly he was told that ANC members and other persons were going to rob.

ADV DE JAGER: No, but as I understood you, you said wouldn't you find it strange that a person in Quatro, coming back, will still associate with the ANC, but it is common cause that he did associate with the ANC and he was employed by Mrs Mandela?

MR FRANCIS: Well Mr Chairperson, I think I am not so sure if it is common cause that by being just Winnie Mandela's driver that you are associating yourself with the ANC. I don't think that is quite common cause.

ADV DE JAGER: Okay, well, I understand you then.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Francis, will this be convenient? We will adjourn and we will reconvene at two o'clock.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

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

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Francis?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR FRANCIS: (cont)

Thank you Mr Chair. Mr De Kock, who told you that Tiso's mother was living in Nelspruit?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, if I recall correctly then it was Sgt Holtzhausen.

MR FRANCIS: Well, I have looked at Holtzhausen's statement, affidavit, and he doesn't refer to the fact that Tiso's mother lived in Nelspruit?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, that is the information which I had, that is why I have also reflected it as such.

MR FRANCIS: In fact I was told by my learned colleague, Mr Van den Berg, that Tiso's mother has never lived in Nelspruit at all?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, that is the information which I had, if not, I would not have expressed it as such.

MR FRANCIS: Somebody must be lying here about the fact that the mother lived in Nelspruit, who is lying? Is it you or is it Holtzhausen?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, it is not a question of a lie. As I have said, that is my recollection, that is all that I can say.

MR FRANCIS: But your memory of course would have been based by information you acquired, is that not so?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: And one would expect Holtzhausen to confirm that?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, yes, that is why I stated it. This is not something that one can just make up.

MR FRANCIS: Van Zyl himself in his affidavit, does not even refer to this?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson, I cannot assume responsibility for that, I can only be responsible for what I have said.

MR FRANCIS: On Friday you testified about the fact that Tiso and them were going to get a vehicle from his uncle, do you recall that, in Nelspruit?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct.

MR FRANCIS: Where did you get that from?

MR DE KOCK: I also got that from Holtzhausen.

MR FRANCIS: It doesn't appear in your application for amnesty?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, it may be so. I believe that if one studies the entirety of my amnesty application, it is indeed very extensive, or at least not extensive, but broad in its application and upon various occasions we have had to submit supplementary statements in order to supplement it.

MR FRANCIS: I agree with you that you did a supplementary affidavit, but in that too, no reference is made about his mother living in Nelspruit or about the fact that he had asked for a vehicle, or that he was going to get a vehicle from his uncle in Nelspruit?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, that may be so, but this is my recollection.

MR FRANCIS: And you trusted Holtzhausen?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: You also trusted Van Zyl?

MR DE KOCK: By nature of the situation, yes.

MR FRANCIS: They won't have any reason to lie?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: If they don't have any reason to lie, who is lying now?

ADV DE JAGER: We don't know yet whether they will give evidence and say they told him this? They might have omitted it from their applications too, because they might have thought that it is not material? If you can tell us they will come and deny that they ever told him that, then we could start discussing this line.

MR FRANCIS: Well, of course I think I can't say what they will say, I am basically bound by what appears in their affidavits and obviously I am just putting it to the witness and he could probably deal with it, and I think later in argument, I think I can address the Honourable Chairperson.

ADV DE JAGER: But he told you this is his recollection, now you are asking him "who is lying", him or they and we don't know whether they would admit that they have told him this or not?

MR FRANCIS: Mr Chair, I won't take it further, I think I will leave it until they testify about their affidavits.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, very well Mr Francis.

MR FRANCIS: Mr De Kock, I put it to you that you are not being candid with this Commission about what appears in the second paragraph of page 3 when you said that Tiso's mother was living in the Nelspruit region, because she has never lived there?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I believe that I have fulfilled completely to the requirements for making a full disclosure as I have done here, this is the information that I can recall and I have expressed it. I suppose I could also have withheld it or left it out, but I gave the information according to my recollection.

MR FRANCIS: What planning was Holtzhausen supposed to have taken to keep the Pretoria Murder and Robbery Unit abreast of the developments?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, that would be the information that he received from Van Zyl and the nature of the development of this project and the robbery.

MR FRANCIS: And again, what planning are you referring to on page 3 of your affidavit, the third paragraph? You talk about with "his planning" - what planning are you referring to?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I have no specific recollection thereof, but basically it would be what the approach to the matter would be, how the operational aspect would be approached. It would be a comprehensive approach.

MR FRANCIS: What planning were the members of Vlakplaas going to do?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, that is difficult. The planning would have been conducted in terms of the information, the nature of the information, the persons who were involved, the methods involved.

MR FRANCIS: And what else?

MR DE KOCK: There may have been a variety of other aspects. It was about one's own safety and how this would take place. It would cover all aspects.

MR FRANCIS: Let's talk about the kombi that you referred to on page 4 of your application. Whose kombi was this?

MR DE KOCK: It was a vehicle which belonged to a Mr Aragio, a person that I had known for quite a few years.

MR FRANCIS: Did you know him from Springs?

MR DE KOCK: I beg your pardon?

MR FRANCIS: You knew him from Springs?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: How did you meet him?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I have known him for 20 years.

MR FRANCIS: Why did you decide to make use of his vehicle?

MR DE KOCK: It was the one vehicle which was very easily available, to which I had access in terms of the method of taking the vehicle.

MR FRANCIS: What else?

MR DE KOCK: That would be the basic reason.

MR FRANCIS: Are you saying to us that you made use of his vehicle because it was readily available?

MR DE KOCK: Well, it was more easily available. I could obtain this vehicle much easier in an illegal manner than what one would normally have been able to do.

MR FRANCIS: Is that the only reason that motivated you to make use of his vehicle?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: Because it was readily available, and you could get it at any time?

MR DE KOCK: Well, not at any time, the access was that one could take it with certainty, without ending up in trouble.

MR FRANCIS: Let me ask you again, was it the only reason why you made use of the kombi?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, originally my idea and objective was to use this vehicle at Sterkspruit or in that vicinity.

MR FRANCIS: What else made you make use of his vehicle?

MR DE KOCK: I don't understand.

MR FRANCIS: Let me - you say that a reason why you made use of his vehicle was that the vehicle was readily available?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson, I had better access to the vehicle and I could more easily obtain that vehicle without ending up in trouble.

MR FRANCIS: What do you mean without getting into any difficulties?

MR DE KOCK: Well, one would know the man and know what the habits of this person were. We knew where he kept his vehicle and whether or not this vehicle was appropriately seen to or not and that would make it easier and more accessible and that would include the taking of his vehicle.

MR FRANCIS: Did he agree that you could take his vehicle?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, he did not give permission at all.

MR FRANCIS: So why take your best friend's, or why take your friend's vehicle to use for this operation?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, it was more readily available as I have said, and I determined out of discussions whether the vehicle was insured and it was insured and upon that I decided that I would not render any serious damage to the vehicle, and upon that basis I took the vehicle.

MR FRANCIS: How did you ascertain that the vehicle was insured?

MR DE KOCK: I asked him.

MR FRANCIS: At what stage did you ask him if the vehicle was insured?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, any time before we took the vehicle and I think that it was some time before we took the vehicle, it may have been about two to three months.

MR FRANCIS: So this would have been roundabout December 1991?

MR DE KOCK: I don't know, I am just giving an estimate of the time.

MR FRANCIS: How did the discussion ensue about whether or not the vehicle was insured or not?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, there was no discussion. I can give you an example of what I said, for example "listen, aren't you scared that you vehicle is going to be stolen, there are many taxi's in the vicinity", and he could have said "well, you know, I am insured", or something in that line. It wasn't that I went to him specifically and said "listen, is your vehicle insured".

MR FRANCIS: This friend of yours, was he having some financial difficulties?

MR DE KOCK: Well, he had already been sequestrated.

MR FRANCIS: That means he must have had some financial difficulties?

MR DE KOCK: I think that if one is sequestrated, one is experiencing serious financial difficulties, yes.

MR FRANCIS: So what was the idea with using his vehicle, except that it was easily and readily available?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, as I have said the objective was for us to use it in the Transkei. I could have loaded that vehicle with certain things, a ton of dynamite if necessary as I have already given evidence. I was planning to wipe those facilities off the ground.

MR FRANCIS: He was obviously going to lodge a claim with his insurance company?

MR DE KOCK: I would accept that he would have done so.

ADV DE JAGER: Or perhaps his trustee would lodge a claim?

MR FRANCIS: But Mr De Kock, I think you mentioned in your affidavit that you first had to ensure that the vehicle was insured?

MR FRANCIS: Chairperson, he was a friend of mine and I didn't want to place him in any financial disadvantage, he was already experiencing financial problems. One could not replace such a vehicle at the same price. But it was just one of those situations where I felt he had to bring his part for the country.

MR FRANCIS: Either him or his trustee was going to lodge a claim and in fact did lodge a claim?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, yes, I am not familiar with the law, but I am sure that if one is sequestrated, only one's trustee could take the matter further.

MR FRANCIS: I put it to you that at the criminal court case, your case, I think evidence was led that in fact, IGI had paid out money for the kombi?

MR DE KOCK: I think that that evidence was led, yes. I have a recollection of that.

MR FRANCIS: And if I am not mistaken, I think an amount of R17 000 was paid out?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, I would accept that.

MR FRANCIS: And I think if I recall Roger testified and said that he only got a portion of that money?

MR DE KOCK: I don't know Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: And nobody knew what had happened to the balance thereof?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, well, I don't know. I cannot assist you in that matter.

MR FRANCIS: Mr De Kock, you said that you didn't tell Roger that you were going to use his vehicle?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, I did not tell him.

MR FRANCIS: I want you to explain to me what Mr Nortje deposed to on page 233 of his affidavit, 232, sorry, 232. I think it is the seventh line and I will read it to you

"... here De Kock suggested to use the vehicle of a friend of his, Fatman, who had a hotel in Springs, called The Riebeeck. The vehicle, a Toyota panel van, was then taken on the operation with the permission of the owner. Dougie then made the arrangements for Ben to bring the robbers down from Nelspruit."

Any comments on that?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, that maybe Mr Nortje's perception. I must just mention that the Fatman that is referred to here by Mr Nortje, is not the same person as Mr Aragio. They are family members, but they are two different people.

MR FRANCIS: Well, obviously I think I will ask Mr Nortje further about it, but the impression that he gives here is that the vehicle was taken, depending on who the owner is, with the permission of the owner.

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, no permission was extended.

MR FRANCIS: Do you recall Mr De Kock, that when Capt Alberts got to the scene, he made enquiries about the kombi?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: And I think it was put to him that the vehicle had been stolen?

MR DE KOCK: I think so, yes, I have a recollection of that.

MR FRANCIS: And he then discovered that the vehicle had not been reported as stolen as yet? Do you recall that?

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR FRANCIS: And that your brother, Vossie de Kock, then had to go and speak to Mr Aragio and told him to report the vehicle as stolen, do you recall that?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR FRANCIS: Let's talk about the other vehicle, you also referred to a BMW vehicle in your application?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR FRANCIS: And there too, you also mentioned that the, you also made sure that the vehicle was insured?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson, when I received the information, it was already stated to me that this vehicle was insured.

MR FRANCIS: Whose vehicle was the BMW?

MR DE KOCK: I am not certain. The information that was given to me indicated that it was former agents who wanted to leave the country.

MR FRANCIS: Mr De Kock, I want to put this to you, that you basically stole or you acted in cahoots with Mr Aragio so that his vehicle could be used, so that you could benefit him financially and later tell him to lodge a claim on the insurance company?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, I believe that I inherently placed him at a disadvantage, because as I have said, he could not replace the vehicle for the same value.

MR FRANCIS: I recall also reading Klopper's affidavit and I think he mentioned that you had some additional motives?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, there were not additional motives.

MR FRANCIS: Sorry, one second, let me just put this to you, I think he referred that you had certain additional motives when you made use of your friend's vehicle? If Mr Chairperson could bear with me - Mr De Kock, if you could turn to page 244, that is paragraph 35.4 and I will read it to you

"... on the way back in the car, De Kock told me that Manny was experiencing financial problems and that his hotel mini-bus had to be stolen so that he could claim the insurance money."

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, I believe that he may have spoken about this afterwards, but there was no situation to benefit Aragio financially, I think I may actually have prejudiced him.

MR FRANCIS: Mr De Kock, I know that - maybe I will come back later to that, but I think Klopper also testified or not testified, has got it in his affidavit that he realised that you had some other ulterior motives when you made use of your friend's vehicle? I just cannot lay my hands on it, but I think it appears somewhere. It is in fact on page 157. In fact I think it is my mistake, it is not De Kock, but I think it is Nortje, sorry Nortje not Klopper. I am going to read to you at page 157 where Nortje I think said the following, that is the third paragraph and I think it is towards the end

"... after the initial order I realised that De Kock also had included certain additional motives in the planning, namely to use the vehicle during the incident in favour of a Portuguese friend so that it would be replaced ultimately with another vehicle after the insurance claim had been paid out for the vehicle."

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: I put it to you that that obviously was your ulterior motive, your motive was to benefit a friend of yours?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, that may have been his perception, but that is not what happened, definitely not.

MR FRANCIS: Mr De Kock, you were an experienced police officer, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, in certain aspects.

MR FRANCIS: You had access to motor vehicles?

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR FRANCIS: You testified about Regulation 80 vehicles?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR FRANCIS: And I think the Toyota Cressida was a Regulation 80 vehicle?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR FRANCIS: I put it to you that you could easily have obtained any other Regulation 80 vehicle that would have been a kombi, but this was an instance where you wanted to benefit a friend of yours who was in financial difficulty?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, this was a question of denial. A Regulation 80 vehicle would have pointed at the police, whereas this vehicle wouldn't have and indeed, it did not.

MR FRANCIS: Mr De Kock, I think we have dealt with the, with what Engelbrecht basically was saying, but I want to refer to page 4 of your application. At the bottom of page 4, the second last line from the bottom of page 4, you refer to "gereedheidsgrondslag gehou moes word", is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR FRANCIS: Nowhere do you deal with the question that you were told that Vlakplaas should still be a counter-insurgent Unit.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairperson, may I interpose here. My learned friend has dealt with this extensively and now he returns to it. Mr De Kock's evidence was express, it was never said to him "you must go ahead", his evidence was that they were never told that this was no longer part of their task, that is why he assumed that it was still part of their task.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I understood he said in response to questions that I posed to him. Are you embroidering on that aspect taking into account that was his response?

MR FRANCIS: No Mr Chair, I am just now dealing with what appears in his application. Maybe if he is still sticking to his version, this is basically what was said to him.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well bearing in mind what he had testified already quite explicitly that there was no express fresh confirmation that they could continue with the original line of business of Vlakplaas, but there was also no express indication that they should not, so he had attached a certain interpretation to that in view of the fact that their weaponry wasn't taken away, etc. You heard what he said.

MR FRANCIS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: So in that context you want to deal with it?

MR FRANCIS: I think I will leave it at that.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well.

MR FRANCIS: Mr De Kock, I think you said that the BMW belonged to some people who had left the country?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I understood that these were persons who wanted to leave the country and that they were former agents.

MR FRANCIS: Did they also tell you that the vehicle was not insured?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, the person who contacted me informed me that this vehicle was indeed insured.

MR FRANCIS: Was this vehicle used in any ambush?

MR DE KOCK: No, among others we would also have used it most probably in the Transkei direction, however the vehicle was later borrowed from me for Organised Crime in Botswana. Afterwards the vehicle was left with them, and I understand that - from sources within the Organised Crime, the vehicle was retraced.

MR FRANCIS: Did Engelbrecht give you any authority to take part in illegal activities?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson. I can refer for example to the case of Chand where we crossed the border. I can also refer to the death of Goodwill Sekakani where he told me that I should contact Gen Steyn in Durban, that he had a task that we had to perform for him, and this led to the death of Goodwill Sekakani. I can once again refer to the man who died at Nelspruit, where he requested the assistance of some of my members. Yes, he did.

MR FRANCIS: Did he give specific authorisation for the killing of the four and Tiso?

MR DE KOCK: Which four?

MR FRANCIS: The Nelspruit 4 and Tiso?

MR DE KOCK: No. As I have said, I have also mentioned in my supplementary statement, that I took decisions myself.

MR FRANCIS: On page 5 of your affidavit you say that you were told by Holtzhausen that Tiso and his comrades were going to rob to fill the coffers of the ANC, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR FRANCIS: But again you don't know what the other four's political affiliations were?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, as I understood it, or as I had the information, they were MK members.

MR FRANCIS: Why was it necessary for Holtzhausen to include your name and that of Nortje in this planning or in this operation?

MR DE KOCK: It is a matter of completion Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: Can you expand on that?

MR DE KOCK: Well, you would add everybody's names in. May I qualify as follows, before we could depart for any town or any place for any operation, then we have to fill in a travelling form with all the persons who would work in that area. Together with the Intelligence notes, it is placed before the General for his approval, so in other words there is a record of who is in Pretoria and who is not.

MR FRANCIS: So you were going to take part in this operation?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson, as I have said where I had been deployed to the observation.

MR FRANCIS: At what stage was your name included in this list?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, as far as I know my name was there in all instances because I went to the meeting in the Game reserve and that is why my name would be on this list.

MR FRANCIS: When was this list drawn up?

MR DE KOCK: I beg your pardon?

MR FRANCIS: When was the list drawn up?

MR DE KOCK: Before we went down to Nelspruit Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: Is that now the 24th of March 1992?

MR DE KOCK: I am not certain Chairperson, I will not be able to give you the date.

MR FRANCIS: I think on Friday you testified and said that you were supposed to have gone to I think Bophuthatswana or some other operation?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson, there was a problem there and in that sense I asked Gen Engelbrecht if I could not send my second in command and then he said no, that I should go.

MR FRANCIS: I think you were asked then if it was just coincidental that you landed up in Nelspruit, do you recall that?

MR DE KOCK: Correct Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: What was your answer then?

MR DE KOCK: I believe that it was so.

MR FRANCIS: It was coincidental?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, yes, it is how it developed.

MR FRANCIS: If it was - I put it to you that it was not coincidental. You were going to be part of the group that was going to take part in the killing of the four or the killing of the five, there is nothing coincidental.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I would not say that that is so because I am still a member of the Force.

MR FRANCIS: I think in one of the affidavits, I think it is mentioned that the list was given to you, you deleted some names and added some other names?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, I cancelled about three or four persons and I added the others.

MR FRANCIS: Why did you cancel the names of the three?

MR DE KOCK: I cannot recall Chairperson, there would have been a reason, but I cannot say why I did so.

MR FRANCIS: Is the reason not that you feared that they would have told on you? They would have come up and have told the police about what had happened there, that you couldn't really trust them?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, those were indeed the persons who I could say were experienced policemen.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr De Kock, according to the original plan, would this operation have been able to be carried out without your cooperation?

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: So you would have just observed and kept surveillance?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Would you have done what Nortje would have done with the radio, where the other members said "here comes the BMW"?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, I would have been with him Chairperson, the two of us would have been there together. I had a set arrangement without exception, that any of the C1 members, black or white, do not move alone, because of the fact that they could be attacked and abducted, we had a standard procedure of moving in two's or in three's.

CHAIRPERSON: You also had other business?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson, the following morning I had to be at the Game reserve for a meeting.

CHAIRPERSON: But you also had a problem getting there?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct Chairperson, because some of my people had at a previous instance worked there for three weeks and the claims were incomplete and we had to rectify that.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it far from Nelspruit, the Lodge?

MR DE KOCK: I think Malelane is about 80 kilometres from there.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Francis?

MR FRANCIS: Thank you Mr Chair. Mr De Kock, I have looked at Van Zyl's affidavit and nowhere does he mention that Tiso and his friends wanted to rob to fill the coffers of the ANC? Where did you get that from?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, that was the information that was given to me on which we made our preparations.

MR FRANCIS: I am going to read to you what Holtzhausen says in his affidavit, that is on page 309 at paragraph 10, at the top of 309

... Ben informed me with regard to an ANC member, Tihetso Leballo, who was an employee of Winnie Mandela, apparently her vehicle driver. According to Ben, Tihetso had been trained abroad. His name was Tiso. I was informed that he was at the head of a gang for Mrs Mandela and that there had been a dispute between Tiso and Mandela with regard to money that had been stolen and the reason was they had independently robbed."

The point that I am putting to you is that this gives the impression that Tiso and his comrades wanted to rob banks for their own personal, you know, interest and not for Winnie Mandela or for the ANC?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I would not be able to say. The possibility existed that Tiso would have channelled the money into some other direction of the ANC.

MR FRANCIS: I agree with you, it is not even speculation, it is basically blatant lies that they wanted to rob on behalf of the ANC?

MR DE KOCK: No.

MR FRANCIS: And if one looks at 309 I think it is quite clear that what Van Zyl basically said, what Van Zyl allegedly said to Holtzhausen was that these guys wanted to rob not for Winnie Mandela but for themselves, because there was some dispute that had arisen about moneys that were robbed previously?

MR DE KOCK: Maybe all the money did not go to the ANC, maybe they wanted the money and I cannot testify to that.

MR FRANCIS: You are speculating?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR FRANCIS: I want to refer you to page 377, it seems to be a report that was drawn up by H. Ndimande. I think he was working for Ben van Zyl?

ADV DE JAGER: Before we leave, whose affidavit is this, Holtzhausen, perhaps in view of the previous questions, one should have a look at paragraph 15.2. Paragraph 15 on page 310, because it seems as though Holtzhausen had the impression that there was a change of mind or something, I don't know?

MR FRANCIS: That is correct, but I think if one looks at the last sentence there, where he says

"... whether she would assist in the planning or whether she would accompany them, I don't know and whether Ben spoke to her or not, I also don't know."

ADV DE JAGER: After all, De Kock would not know what was in Holtzhausen's mind or what information he had, he only told De Kock about it?

MR FRANCIS: I agree with you Chairperson. I think if one looks at page 377, it is a note by H. Ndimande. I think I put it to you that he was employed, he was working for Mr Van Zyl and the following appears, it says

"... as a follow up on this investigation, we managed to meet Mr Tiso at Carlton Centre on the 6th of December 1991. The main objective for the meeting was to test the sample that he had brought. Likewise Mr B.B. tested a sample and informed Tiso that the sample was not real and that it looks like it is baby powder. Mr Tiso then said that most of the people that had tested the sample had said the same all the time. He then enquired from Mr B.B. on how the Nelspruit issue was going and Mr B.B. informed him that he is still waiting for him and his people. Mr Tiso however said that he will need tools for the job as he does not have any tools at the moment. He then asked Mr Tiso whether he had pulled any job before, but he said that he had not. Neither of his men had done any job before. Mr B.B. informed him that he needs experienced people as this is a place that needs such people. Next meeting was not arranged, follow up is continuing."

From this note that was already drafted or that is dated the 9th of December 1991, it is quite clear that Tiso himself had not taken part in any armed robberies? What is your comment about that?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I cannot testify to this Chairperson. If Mr Tiso was cheating him with baby powder, he can cheat him about anything. It is open for speculation.

MR FRANCIS: This, I take it, and obviously I think I will ask Mr Van Zyl later, but it seems to have been drawn up by Ndimande when he was present during the discussion between Tiso and Ben van Zyl? It is quite clear that Tiso had not taken part in any armed robberies before?

MR DE KOCK: I cannot testify to that Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: And this that he had robbed 16 banks before, is a pack of lies?

MR DE KOCK: I don't know Chairperson, maybe it is so that evidence is not available, I don't know. It is speculation.

MR FRANCIS: Mr De Kock, why was it necessary for you to do observation at Nelspruit? You were such a senior police officer, why take instructions from a junior officer who tells you "look, I think you must do certain observations"?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, it would have been a matter that I had probably requested it myself, because the next morning we had to depart for the Game reserve, Nortje and I. What happened there was that we were much more tired and exhausted.

MR FRANCIS: Mr De Kock, you testified about Operation Vula, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: Who is that?

MR FRANCIS: You testified about Operation Vula?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, I mentioned it.

MR FRANCIS: If one looks again at 377, it is quite clear that Tiso and his comrades did not even have weapons to pull this job?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I cannot comment. I cannot comment to the deceased Tiso's credibility.

MR FRANCIS: No, but I am talking about the note, I am talking about the note that was compiled by Ndimande.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, I do not know this Mr Ndimande.

MR FRANCIS: The point that I am making Mr De Kock is that they themselves, did not even have enough jobs or weapons to do the job with?

MR DE KOCK: It seems from this note.

MR FRANCIS: Isn't it also strange that they didn't even have a weapon, I mean a motor vehicle to go to Nelspruit with?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I don't know. They might have had vehicles, they might not have wanted to use their own vehicles. I know in my criminal trial, a Peugeot vehicle was mentioned that they had, I am not certain how this issue came about. I think Mr Van Zyl would be able to shed some light here.

MR FRANCIS: I think the Peugeot 404 was basically used to travel from Soweto to the Carlton Centre, that is where they met Ben van Zyl, then they went back to Soweto, I think, that is when they travelled in the Toyota Cressida to Nelspruit?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, I just mention it to you. I cannot attach any value to Hamilton's report.

MR FRANCIS: But don't you find it strange that highly trained MK members, first of all don't have any weapons to rob the bank or the places with? And don't even have any vehicles to travel to Nelspruit?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, I cannot say that. If they had any weapons, they could have robbed a vehicle, anything is possible, I cannot speculate.

MR FRANCIS: I am not asking you to speculate.

MR DE KOCK: But the question leads me to speculation. I cannot give exception to Mr Ndimande's report.

MR FRANCIS: I think ...

CHAIRPERSON: Did you regard the sources as reliable?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson, because of previous information and for example a bank robbery in Doornfontein where we not only prevented the bank robbery, but we arrested persons as well.

MR FRANCIS: Mr De Kock, in your application I think you also referred to the fact that Holtzhausen asked you to make a vehicle - or let me just get the right passage.

MR DE KOCK: Can you please give the page number?

MR FRANCIS: Mr De Kock, if one turns to page 5, that is I think the second last paragraph where the following appears

"... Mr Holtzhausen did not want to use the Cressida vehicle in the Komatipoort vicinity because the Cressida had been previously used there."

Have you got that?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct.

MR FRANCIS: And then I think you go further, you say that

"... the supposition was that this mini-bus would only be used to fetch arms and not for the robbery itself."

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: I have again looked at the affidavit of Holtzhausen, nowhere does he refer to the fact that Tiso had asked that a vehicle be given to enable them to fetch weapons in Komatipoort?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, that is my recollection of what Mr Holtzhausen told me. Whether it had changed between the request to me and afterwards, it is possible.

MR FRANCIS: Nowhere does Ben van Zyl make any mention about Tiso and his comrades fetching weapons from Komatipoort?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, I would not be able to say, but that is my recollection and not to tell this, would not to be give the information.

MR FRANCIS: Hamilton Ndimande also deposed to an affidavit, it forms part of the documents, he doesn't refer to anything about Tiso and them having to go to Komatipoort to fetch weapons?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, that may be so. Whether things have changed since the discussion phase and the planning phase and afterwards, I would not be able to say, but that is my recollection and I have disclosed it as complete as possible, so that it could not be questioned later that I gave you what I knew.

MR FRANCIS: So again, you don't know why their versions are different from yours?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, I would say it differs because it is my recollection. Somebody may have a more vague or a better recollection, but that is not the argument. I told you what I know. What I have said here is what I remember.

MR FRANCIS: And you say that these two were trusted employees or trusted people, who you could trust?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: So they won't have any reason not to tell the truth in their affidavits?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson. I cannot point them out as liars, and that does not mean that I am not speaking the truth, because as I have told you, this is what I recall and this is how I convey it here.

MR FRANCIS: It seems to me that the truth in this instance, is much more strange than fiction?

MR DE KOCK: If we look at the past Chairperson, and what had been disclosed at the TRC, then this falls outside all of our imaginations and yet it did happen.

MR FRANCIS: Of course somebody must be lying?

MR DE KOCK: I don't know Chairperson. I will stick to what the Commission finds.

MR FRANCIS: It is either Ben van Zyl or Holtzhausen or you?

MR DE KOCK: I don't know Chairperson, I don't know whether it is a lie. I don't know whether it may be a vague recollection, it may be anything, but I will not speculate as to what it is.

MR FRANCIS: Where were the robbers going to get this vehicle from, this kombi from?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, they would have received it from Mr Nortje or rather Mr Holtzhausen. I am not sure, he asked for the vehicle and I believe it was a matter of keeping control.

MR FRANCIS: Mr De Kock, when he asked you for this vehicle, did you not ask him why he wanted this kombi?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I may have. I don't have an independent recollection thereof, but I might have.

MR FRANCIS: Mr De Kock, with all due respect, you are now being evasive. One moment I think you would use your lack of memory to answer questions and when it suits you, you recall certain incidents.

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, I can make up anything here, I am not doing that. I would be wrong in telling you that I am sure of something when I am not sure of something.

MR HATTINGH: Chairperson, may I just interpose, excuse me that I have to do it so often, Mr De Kock's evidence was never that Holtzhausen asked him for the mini-bus, Holtzhausen asked him for a vehicle and Mr De Kock decided to give him a mini-bus.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well, I don't have a very clear recollection about that, but if that is Mr Hattingh's recollection, what is your ...

MR FRANCIS: Well, Mr Chair, I think if one looks at page 5, it is as clear as daylight, the second paragraph

"... Sgt Holtzhausen asked for the bus which I found by stealing it from Mr Aragio."

MR HATTINGH: Perhaps my learned colleague should read the second paragraph

" ... Sgt Holtzhausen asked if I could borrow him or lend a vehicle to him with which he, Tiso and his cohorts in order to fetch their AK47's in Komatipoort."

Then it follows from afterwards that he asked for the mini-bus.

MR FRANCIS: Mr Chair, I think if one looks at what follows after steal, the following appears

"... Mr Holtzhausen did not want to use the Cressida vehicle in the Komatipoort vicinity because it had been used before."

I think that should basically answer the question that my learned friend raised.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. What I was saying was that I am not sure what Mr De Kock's version, if there is a version before us on that matter, I cannot recall what the record reflects. Is your question based on the application, the wording of the application?

MR FRANCIS: It is based on what appears on page 5 of the effidavit.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. There hasn't been a version yet on that in testimony here before us?

MR FRANCIS: If the Chairperson could give me an opportunity just to look at my notes, to see if there was.

CHAIRPERSON: No, it is not very important because what you are saying, seems to be borne out by what he said here. I am not quite sure whether there was not a version already on the record, that is all I am asking.

MR FRANCIS: I don't recall.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Very well then, I don't know if you still want to deal with the question, then you can do so.

MR FRANCIS: Yes. Mr De Kock, at what stage did you discover that - before I ask you that, you are saying that the information that you got was that they were going to fetch weapons from Komatipoort?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: How does one travel to Komatipoort?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, if one gets to Nelspruit, from there you drive directly in an easterly direction and you keep moving east, you will eventually get to the border post.

MR FRANCIS: Would that be away from the industrial area?

MR DE KOCK: At Komatipoort?

MR FRANCIS: No, Nelspruit? You get into Nelspruit, you get the Wit River turn off, would it be somewhere around there?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson, I think when one enters there, the Wit River turns away in a northerly direction, or north-easterly direction.

MR FRANCIS: And would one take that route to go to Komatipoort?

MR DE KOCK: One could if you wanted to Chairperson, I am not certain of Wit River, if you could move in that direction, but one could probably drive up to Hazyview and from there, I am not certain.

MR FRANCIS: The place where the ambush took place, was that on your way to Komatipoort or was it on your way to the industrial area?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, it was on the way to the industrial area.

MR FRANCIS: So if you believed that they were going to go to Komatipoort or coming from Komatipoort, then why set the ambush on the way to the Coin Security premises?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, that is how it was planned. I did not have that intimate knowledge of the handling of the situation. An operation is handled sometimes by the source itself and that is how it worked.

MR FRANCIS: You don't want us to believe that, do you?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I am just answering the question.

MR FRANCIS: You are now saying that you believed the vehicle, the kombi, was going to be used to fetch the weapons from Komatipoort?

MR DE KOCK: That was one of the points which was raised, yes Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: None of the other, Holtzhausen or Van Zyl refers to that?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, I am not certain whether they do so, but that is my recollection.

MR FRANCIS: You set up an ambush on your way to the industrial area?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, an ambush was set up, that is correct.

MR FRANCIS: At what stage were you then told that the robbers had basically changed their plans, Mr De Kock?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I don't think the collecting of the arms and place where they were to rob, was relevant because from Komatipoort, they could drive with their AK's to the industrial area.

MR FRANCIS: But that is not correct Mr De Kock, you don't want us to believe that, do you?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I am just answering. I don't know if there is any suspicion, but that is the answer.

ADV DE JAGER: But that evening, you awaited them where they were on their way to rob some place or did you wait for them where they collected the weapons?

MR DE KOCK: No, it was for the robbery.

ADV DE JAGER: And when would the weapon smuggling be an issue?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, it would be before we had departed for Nelspruit. Such a situation emanated, I think it was from the planning and the discussion and that is why I mentioned it here.

MR FRANCIS: Mr De Kock, what time did you leave Pretoria or what time did you leave Vlakplaas on the day of the incident?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I think it was approximately ten o'clock, I am not certain. It could have been between nine and ten o'clock.

MR FRANCIS: Did you travel straight to Nelspruit?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson, at one occasion we did pull off the road and afterwards we went straight to Nelspruit.

MR FRANCIS: And what time did you get to Nelspruit?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I am not certain, I think it was approximately one o'clock, in that vicinity.

MR FRANCIS: So when you left Vlakplaas at ten o'clock, you knew that these robbers were going to go to Komatipoort, make us of the bus to get weapons?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is the recollection that I have.

MR FRANCIS: When were you told that the robbers had changed their plans?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, that may have been at the scene where we set up the ambush.

MR FRANCIS: Don't you find it strange Mr De Kock, that you are the Commander of Vlakplaas, you are told that the robbers are going to go to Komatipoort, make use of a kombi to get weapons, and then take it through to Pretoria where they were going to rob a bank and now suddenly you are only told at the time of the incident, that things have changed?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, one cannot tell what to do, specifically if you are not dealing with experts. An operation like this, does not follow any set down plans.

MR FRANCIS: No, but this was a planned and staged operation, or the so-called robbery was planned from the beginning?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, yes but one cannot stand in for what the robbers would do. They could at any time change their minds or decide that they would want to do it the following day, anything could happen.

MR FRANCIS: No Mr De Kock, Mr Van Zyl had met with the robbers in Soweto, the so-called robbers in Soweto that evening, he must have been in contact with Holtzhausen to tell you what the plans of the robbers were?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I believe so. I believe he had contact with him.

MR FRANCIS: Again, they don't talk about a robbery or smuggling of arms that was going to take place in Komatipoort. I put it to you that you are telling this Commission a blatant lie.

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, if I wanted to lie, then I would have gone and amended my evidence at the trial. I could have omitted this, I mentioned this because I recall it and for the sake of completion, I would mention it.

MR FRANCIS: Well, I think you mention this question of the arms smuggling to give it a political flavour, this was a purely criminal deed and now you are using AK47's and that is why I think you talked about Operation Vula, to give the impression that it was a smuggling of firearms taking place.

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, I would also like to mention if one looks at it logically, you can commit an act of terror with any firearm. It could be a 9mm, it doesn't need to be an AK47 for it to be an act of terror.

MR FRANCIS: We will come just now to the question of whether or not the robbers had any firearms on them. But what I am just putting to you is that this whole question I think of smuggling of firearms, is just a figment of your imagination?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, I would not have mentioned it here. I do not deal with figments.

MR FRANCIS: I put it to you that you've got such a fertile imagination to tell lies.

MR DE KOCK: That is incorrect Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: Mr De Kock, what was the planning for the evening of the 25th of March?

MR DE KOCK: May you repeat please.

MR FRANCIS: What were you going to plan, or what was the planning that was going to take place around the events of the 25th of March 1992?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, as I have already said here that Nortje and I would do surveillance and it would seem to me we had a look at the place where they could set up the ambush and those arrangements and aspects were dealt with by Geldenhuys and Holtzhausen in my absence and those were the arrangements that were made.

MR FRANCIS: But didn't you say to them "look guys, you mentioned something about Komatipoort, why has this changed"? You didn't say anything about it?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, it may be that the planning or the discussion had changed when I saw Geldenhuys, when I arrived at the Drum Rock, he didn't mention this to me. I had experienced police officers there who knew how to handle the situation.

MR FRANCIS: I don't want there to be any confusion between me and you. You went down to Nelspruit because you believed that these robbers were going to smuggle weapons from Komatipoort and take it back to Pretoria, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: No, I never said that. That is a lie which is being put to me now.

MR FRANCIS: Let's test it Mr De Kock. Let's look at the information note, that is on page 375, Mr De Kock. If you turn to page 376 Mr De Kock, whose signature appears on it? Whose signature is that Mr De Kock?

MR DE KOCK: That is my signature.

MR FRANCIS: And by whom was it drawn up Mr De Kock?

MR DE KOCK: By Sgt Holtzhausen.

MR FRANCIS: What is the date appearing on it, Mr De Kock?

MR DE KOCK: It would appear to be the 24th.

MR FRANCIS: Of which month Mr De Kock?

MR DE KOCK: The third month.

MR FRANCIS: Who was it sent to, Mr De Kock?

MR DE KOCK: To the Head of Crime Investigations.

MR FRANCIS: Who else, Mr De Kock?

MR DE KOCK: The Crime Information Services, the Head thereof, the Head of the Crime Intelligence Services.

MR FRANCIS: And who else, Mr De Kock?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I believe that there would have been a copy that would have been sent to Murder and Robbery, I am not certain.

MR FRANCIS: Mr De Kock, please read this out for us, aloud please.

MR DE KOCK: What do you want me to read?

MR FRANCIS: From "Smuggling of Weapons of Terror - Komatipoort", you can start with Dear General.

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: Please read it aloud.

MR DE KOCK: "Dear General, smuggling of weapons of terror, Komatipoort to Mamelodi."

MR FRANCIS: Carry on please.

MR DE KOCK: "On the 24-03-1992 an unregistered source of Unit C10 reported that he had collected information that a consignment of AK47 guns will be transported between Komatipoort and Mamelodi, Pretoria. Source reports further more that the weapons will be fetched on the 23-03-1992 or the 26-03-1992 and that it will be used during a planned armed robbery of a bank in Pretoria. The source will report to his handler as soon as he has collected further information. Members of Pretoria Murder and Robbery will accompany members of Unit C10, seeing as there are indications that the suspects are wanted for other armed robberies. As soon as further particulars are known, liaison will be made with MID Nelspruit for a police action."

MR FRANCIS: So, am I correct that this makes it quite clear that this note was sent to your superiors?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson, that is correct.

MR FRANCIS: And it refers to smuggling of weapons to use by so-called terrorists?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR FRANCIS: From Komatipoort to Mamelodi?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR FRANCIS: And this was, and I think in it you mentioned that you received the information from your source, from a source?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, well, yes, that is correct.

MR FRANCIS: I would take it that the source was Ben van Zyl?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: And the incident, this robbery was or the smuggling was going to take place either on the night or the morning of the Nelspruit incident?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR FRANCIS: And in it I think you also mentioned that once you acquire further information, you will notify the authorities, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR FRANCIS: Did Engelbrecht see this?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: Did you return, did you go back to him to tell him what intended action you wanted to take?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I think that there is a follow up information note which followed this particular note, I have a vague recollection thereof, but this was not the only one.

MR FRANCIS: But again, the impression that you gave was that the robbery was going to take place on the 25th, 26th of March 1992?

MR DE KOCK: Well yes Chairperson, that would be the impression because the information indicated that.

MR FRANCIS: Was the contents hereof quite correct?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson, as I have said in my original amnesty applications, all indications were that such information existed, that is why I have a recollection thereof.

MR FRANCIS: I may be wrong, but I think you could have been asked either on Friday or Wednesday about this Intelligence note and I think that you said that the contents thereof was false? Again, I may be mistaken but that is my recollection, in fact I believe that you were asked and you said that the contents of this was false.

MR DE KOCK: No, I know that there were other information notes, there was more than one.

MR FRANCIS: Mr De Kock, I am asking you, I was asking you about 375 and 376.

MR DE KOCK: Very well.

MR FRANCIS: And you said that this information that is contained in 375 and 376, is correct? Is that what you said?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I think so, yes.

MR FRANCIS: And then I put it to you that you were asked either on Friday, well, I think on Friday, whether or not 375 and 376 was incorrect and you said yes, it was incorrect, it contained false information?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, yes. I will concede to that because it is not complete with regards to the robbery.

MR FRANCIS: I put it to you Mr De Kock, that you lied to this Commission about 375 and 376?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, I have given evidence according to my recollection. I want to state it that there was probably another information note which would have been sent to Nelspruit and that there may have been further information.

MR FRANCIS: Well, we are dealing with this where you sent it to your superiors? What I am putting to you is that you seem to have a selective memory, Mr De Kock?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, I am giving evidence to the best of my recollection. If I cannot recall something, then I cannot recall it.

MR FRANCIS: What is now correct, the answer that you gave to Mr Van den Berg or the one that you have given to me now?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, the answers that I have given, are correct?

MR FRANCIS: They can't both be correct? One of it must be correct?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, I gave evidence to my recollection, and that is correct.

MR FRANCIS: You see Mr De Kock, in your application for amnesty, you also referred to these weapons, that the kombi was going to be used to fetch the weapons from Komatipoort which seems to tie in with 375 and 376. If you give two different answers, then there must be a problem I think with your application, that it is not a full disclosure Mr De Kock?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson.

ADV DE JAGER: It was the answer on Mr Van den Berg's cross-examination.

MR FRANCIS: Yes sir.

ADV DE JAGER: You can't perhaps put the answer? Have you got a note of the answer?

CHAIRPERSON: Well, that is my recollection as well. I am not sure at what stage of the questioning, but that is the effect of the answer.

MR FRANCIS: In fact, I have found it.

CHAIRPERSON: You have?

MR FRANCIS: He was asked I mean, did he know about the Information note on page 375 and he said yes.

CHAIRPERSON: By whom?

MR FRANCIS: By Mr Van den Berg.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, okay.

MR FRANCIS: He said yes, it was about weapon smuggling. Correct. Not true version? No, not probably. Mr De Kock, you have basically now given two different versions on the issue about the smuggling of firearms?

MR DE KOCK: Well Chairperson, I have given evidence to the best of my recollection and I will stand by what I have said.

MR FRANCIS: You are saying that you remain to your version? Which version are you remaining to, are you sticking to? Which one now? The one that you have given to Mr Van den Berg or the one that you have given to me?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, I will stand by my statements and I will not change anything about them.

MR FRANCIS: Which statements Mr De Kock?

MR DE KOCK: Those which were put to me and upon which I responded.

MR FRANCIS: But with regard to one statement, you gave two different answers?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, that depends upon the question. I am not going to change anything.

MR FRANCIS: But you would agree with me that there are two different answers which have been provided?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: And only one of them can or must be true?

MR DE KOCK: Within that context, I have answered appropriately.

MR FRANCIS: I will come back just now to the information note when I deal with the question of cause and scope, in a short while. Mr De Kock, in your application for amnesty, you mention that you realised when you got to the scene that you were not supposed to have been at the scene at all? I think I must just find it to see where exactly you have mentioned this. That is on page 6 of your application, the second sentence and the following appears

"... in retrospect it is clear that I was not supposed to be at the scene whatsoever. At the scene I was informed by Holtzhausen that the mini-bus would be used in the incident and by nature of the situation, it was too late to make different arrangements."

You testified earlier and said that you were going to be on the scene, but you were going to do observation together with Nortje, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct.

MR FRANCIS: And here you say "look, if I really think about this, in retrospect, I was not supposed to have been at the scene"?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I have already testified that I arrived late, Klopper and I and when we arrived, some of the vehicles had already departed. I explained that we had to catch up with the last vehicle which departed. There was no point at which I could have been briefed, because the arrangements had already been made and that is the fact in terms of which I constructed the sentence.

MR FRANCIS: You said that you were going to do observation? That must have been discussed at the Drum Rock Hotel before you left with the two ladies to go to Malelane Lodge?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, no, I think that that was already with the allocation of the names in Pretoria.

MR FRANCIS: That you were going to do observations?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct.

MR FRANCIS: Mr Holtzhausen, you say - sorry, I am so sorry, Mr De Kock, sorry, you say that a meeting had taken place at Pretoria or at Vlakplaas at ten o'clock that morning, or before ten when you were divided into the different positions.

MR DE KOCK: At Vlakplaas?

MR FRANCIS: Vlakplaas or somewhere in Pretoria before you left?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, I never said anything like that. The other members had already departed a day before the time.

MR FRANCIS: No, but you said that you were divided into groups?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: Not into groups, this list, I think this list was drawn up and your name was put into, amongst one of those lists, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that was prior.

MR FRANCIS: I then asked you if you were told at Drum Rock Hotel that you were going to do observations and you said no. Is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, I cannot recall that such a question was put.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr De Kock, when you were questioned regarding whether you had been appointed at the Drum Rock Hotel, you said that it was your understanding that this had already been done in Pretoria and that you had been appointed to undertake observation, in Pretoria already.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: I think that that is the point that Mr Francis is dealing with.

MR FRANCIS: Is that correct Mr De Kock?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson, that is my recollection.

MR FRANCIS: So you were divided in Pretoria?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR FRANCIS: When was that?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I think it may have been a day or two before the situation.

MR FRANCIS: And you were told that you would have to do observations together with Nortje?

MR DE KOCK: I wasn't given an order to undertake observation, it would have been my choice because the following day, as I have already stated, I had to be in the Game reserve.

MR FRANCIS: So Mr De Kock, why then do you say on page 6, that is now paragraph 428 the following

"... in retrospect it is clear that I was not supposed to be at the scene at all and I was also informed on the scene, by Holtzhausen, that the mini-bus would be used during the robbery and by nature of the situation is was too late to make other arrangements"?

If you are saying that maybe two days or one day before the incident, you were already told what your position would be, why would you then say in retrospect, you know, I should not really have been there?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, that was the choice of words I used in the compilation of my statement. It is entirely correct, in retrospect I wasn't really supposed to be there. I have already given evidence a few minutes ago that changes must have taken place with regard to this robbery and there were certain things that one couldn't change.

MR FRANCIS: Mr De Kock, am I then correct to say that this operation was planned a day or two before you went to Nelspruit? You were already told that you and Nortje would wait at a certain place, you would be observing and that X, Y and Z will take place?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I am not certain about the exact time, it was definitely before this operation, that it was planned, that is logical, but I cannot give you a fixed time. I cannot tell you whether it was X amount of days or X amount of weeks.

MR FRANCIS: But it was before you went down to Nelspruit?

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR FRANCIS: So I think this where you say later in your affidavit that you and Klopper came late from Malelane Lodge, that you didn't know what was happening, can't then be correct because the planning had taken place in Pretoria?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, I specified it clearly that the divisions and allocations were undertaken in Pretoria. For example at that stage, I did not know when I arrived at the Drum Rock Hotel and saw Geldenhuys that afternoon, where exactly the ambush would be situated. I had no idea of what the situation would be, to the extent that if Klopper and I had arrived a few minutes later, we wouldn't even have had space.

MR FRANCIS: The fact of the matter is that you got there, you travelled with them?

MR DE KOCK: Well, we caught the last vehicle departing from the Drum Rock Hotel. I can recall that some of the members' guns were on the roof of the vehicle as they were packing.

MR FRANCIS: Mr De Kock, I think at page 6, paragraph 428 you say, second paragraph

"... at the scene itself, I was not divided into any position, and I did not offer any input"?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR FRANCIS: But you already knew that you had to observe the vehicle, the vehicles when they were coming?

MR DE KOCK: I already knew that the vehicle would be under observation because Nortje wasn't there.

MR FRANCIS: Well, I am putting to you that you were supposed to have done the observance, the observation?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, I would have been one of those who was undertaking observation.

MR FRANCIS: I recall that I think you also mentioned that you made no inputs at the scene, that is also on page 428, paragraph 6.

"... at the scene itself I was not divided into any position and I offered no input."

Is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: Geldenhuys at the criminal trial said that he got the distinct impression that you were in control and that the majority of the members were members of Vlakplaas, basically in other words that you were the senior police officer, you were in control of the operation and the majority of the members present, were Vlakplaas members, do you recall that?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson, the majority of them were Vlakplaas members and the arrangements had already been made. There was no further input to be offered.

MR FRANCIS: So the arrangements were made again in Pretoria?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, I did not say that. The handling of the source, in my opinion, functioned on hour to hour or two hour to two hour basis and the situation would change as the information changed. Those arrangements were made without my knowledge, I didn't even know where the ambush would be situated. It is not that I want to disassociate myself from the operation, I am just giving you the information that I had.

MR FRANCIS: I think before I forget this, you recall that Ben van Zyl was taken under heavy cross-examination by Mr Hattingh in the criminal trial? Do you recall that?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: And there was also I think put to him that he was an addict, do you recall that, a drug addict?

MR DE KOCK: I cannot recall that.

MR FRANCIS: You don't recall that?

MR DE KOCK: No.

MR HATTINGH: Chairperson, I would prefer that Mr Francis give us the reference in the record because neither my client nor I can recall that I put anything like that to Mr Van Zyl. I have no recollection of that.

CHAIRPERSON: You would obviously have that reference Mr Francis?

MR FRANCIS: Chairperson, I think I will bring that reference tomorrow.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, please do that.

MR ROSSOUW: My instructions from Mr Van Zyl are that he also cannot recall that this was ever put to him.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think that the record will probably be the most reliable source.

MR FRANCIS: Mr De Kock, in what state of sobriety were the members of Vlakplaas at the scene of the incident?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, according to what I could see, all of them were sober and they were suitable for service.

MR FRANCIS: Is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: You don't know if they had taken any drinks at the Drum Rock Hotel?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, they may have, but they knew what the rules were. These were standard rules which had been in use over a period of years and I believe that they stuck to these rules.

MR FRANCIS: If my memory doesn't fail me, I think Gevers I think, mentioned that he had drank at the Hotel?

MR DE KOCK: That may be so Chairperson, however that would be not in accordance with the rules.

MR FRANCIS: I think Gevers also mentioned, I think, on his way to Nelspruit, I think they had stopped at several places where he had taken some alcohol?

MR HATTINGH: That was the day before, Mr Chairman.

ADV DE JAGER: But on that morning Gevers went to the bottle store and then to the police canteen and that is where he had about three beers I think, and when they returned to Drum Rock, I think he also mentioned something of a possible drink?

MR FRANCIS: In fact, I think I was still getting there, he said, I think him and Chait had left the day before and had stopped at different places, do you know that Mr De Kock?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, yes, later I was informed regarding what had taken place.

MR FRANCIS: He said that he was quite drunk whilst travelling to Nelspruit?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson, that is when the accident happened.

MR FRANCIS: He said he was involved in a single motor vehicle collision?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR FRANCIS: Yes, and I think the Chairperson has already referred to what he said about that he went to the canteen, I think they had some drinks there and at the Drum Rock Hotel too.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I don't believe that that was the same night of the action.

MR FRANCIS: No, the next day? The day of the incident, the incident took place in the early hours of the morning, but the 25th?

MR DE KOCK: He didn't have the accident on the day of the incident.

MR FRANCIS: No, I agree with you, I said that it happened before, he was involved in this collision, he was taken to hospital for observations, Chait was kept there overnight and the day, that is the 25th of March, he went to the police canteen, he drank and at Drum Rock I think he drank and I think he mentioned that you and the other ladies, I think, were in the bar, ladies' bar?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: Or the ladies were in the ladies' bar?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, the ladies would also not have been in the ladies' bar. They would have been in the reception area and Geldenhuys and I that afternoon when we arrived, at about one or two o'clock, had a conversation.

MR FRANCIS: Mr De Kock, you say that you have never been involved in a frolic of your own?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: How do you regard Klopper?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, he is an intelligent person. As I have mentioned he has an ability which one can gauge later, he tends to get under one's skin. I would not say that he was a bad person, and I still cannot say so.

MR FRANCIS: He said that, I think that you mentioned, you travelled, you left at ten o'clock that morning?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR FRANCIS: You got to Nelspruit at about one-ish?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson, it could have been a bit later.

MR FRANCIS: You stopped at a place?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, at a waterfall, at the old hotel we stopped there.

MR FRANCIS: What did you have there?

MR DE KOCK: I had a beer, I don't know what the ladies had. I think Klopper also had a beer and then we left again.

MR FRANCIS: The impression, I think that I got from Klopper's application was that you stopped at various places where you took, you had some drinks?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, there were no other places where we had stopped and where we had drinks. It was at this hotel, I went there because of the historical value thereof, I usually did so and I had one beer and he had one beer.

MR FRANCIS: Mr De Kock, you said that the two witnesses were taken, or the two ladies were taken to sort out some claims, is that correct? Sort out some claims?

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR FRANCIS: How many claims were those?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, the total amount for the group who stayed at Malelane was R21 000 or R22 000 and it was at least waiting for a month and a half and it was because of double accounting, and that had to be sorted out.

MR FRANCIS: Why was it necessary to take two ladies to sort this out?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, they have to accompany each other in two's, so that there would be no gossiping stories.

MR FRANCIS: So were there any gossiping stories?

MR DE KOCK: No.

MR FRANCIS: Were there any stories afterwards?

MR DE KOCK: No, I prevented such stories.

MR FRANCIS: So you won't say, you won't know why Klopper I think, said the following on page 244 of his application, at paragraph 35.5, I quote

"... an action was arranged at Nelspruit where the gang of robbers would rob the gang of fidelity guards allegedly. De Kock and I only departed a day afterwards. The two girls, Jessie and Kobie also accompanied us under the cover that they had to rectify certain claims of us, at Malelane and later our wives heard that they were with us, and they were quite upset about this."

Klopper says that these two ladies were taken with under the pretext or under the cover that they were going to sort out claims?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, there was no pretext and I think W/O Jessie van Vuuren testified in the trial and they said they did sort out the claims there and I had the practice of informing my wife if we were to use any ladies to accompany us and there might be some possible confusion in the future or some suspicion and I did so.

MR FRANCIS: Why would Klopper you know, mention this?

MR DE KOCK: I don't believe Klopper was favourably inclined towards me when he made these statements because he had interfered with some of the ladies and I did not allow this in my office.

MR FRANCIS: How many rooms did you book in the Malelane Lodge?MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I don't recall. I had a room, Klopper had one and then the ladies shared one room.

MR FRANCIS: I don't have a record of the criminal evidence that was led, but Klopper was again taken under extensive cross-examination and I think was asked as to why they had booked in under false names, your name and Klopper's name wasn't given. Do you recall that he was asked about the fact that bookings were made under false names?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I am not certain. We moved covertly and I know the accounts of the claims that had to be rectified were under false names for the people there, who had worked there. Although there is nothing sinister about it, I have no guilt in that essence and I do not have a problem answering that question.

ADV DE JAGER: May I just have clarity here, I am a bit confused with the dates. You departed the morning at approximately one o'clock and you arrived at one o'clock at Nelspruit. Did you go through to Malelane the same afternoon?

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: And when did you return from Malelane?

MR DE KOCK: We departed the evening again, just before we had to go to the Drum Rock. We were asked at Malelane whether we were still coming through and we said yes, we will go, and we went.

ADV DE JAGER: So you did not spend the night at Malelane?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson. We stayed at the scene and the following morning, I can recall I had a shower at the Drum Rock and I put on my old clothes and went to the Game reserve, from there.

ADV DE JAGER: Thank you.

MR FRANCIS: Mr De Kock, what time did you leave Drum Rock to take the ladies to Malelane Lodge?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I am not sure, it would have been after I spoke to Geldenhuys.

MR FRANCIS: Late afternoon, early evening?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson. It may have been in the vicinity of two o'clock, I am not certain.

MR FRANCIS: If you say two o'clock, you are referring to 2 pm?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, afternoon.

MR FRANCIS: And how far is Malelane Lodge from Nelspruit?

MR DE KOCK: I think it is approximately 80 kilometres Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: What did you do when you got to Malelane Lodge?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I went to sleep. I went and had a shower and I went to sleep and I think Klopper did the same. The ladies continued with their work, and that was sorting the claim.

MR FRANCIS: You say there was nothing sinister about taking the women with you?

MR HATTINGH: Chairperson, I have been very patient and I have listened to this cross-examination, but what does this have to do with the five people killed at Nelspruit? The Act requires for there to be a disclosure of all relevant facts, but all kinds of innuendo's are being made here and insinuated with regard to the two ladies and everything accompanied with that. How is that relevant to the Nelspruit shooting and the killing there?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Francis, if indeed it is, if the objective is as Mr Hattingh has pointed out, of course, then it is very, very hard to see the relevance of that to the questions before us, unless there is some other relevance to this Malelane question?

MR FRANCIS: Mr Chair, I think I was not suggesting, I think one moment that Mr De Kock, I think, was having an affair with one of the ladies. I was basically just referring him to what a co-applicant I think, has mentioned here.

MR DE KOCK: I don't think I would have been that lucky Mr Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: Mr Hattingh himself, I think, had decided to, you know, to lead evidence about the two ladies that went there. Talking about relevance, I don't know why he brought this up during examination in chief, Mr Chairperson. But anyway, I think I would not dwell I think, on that point.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR DE KOCK: We can continue Chairperson, I sit here with a clear conscience here today, I don't believe that I would have been so lucky that they wanted to start a relationship with me.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we could have continued, but not here. We don't have enough time for that. Mr Francis?

MR FRANCIS: Mr De Kock, why - you know, initially when I looked at your affidavit, or your application, and I think you have also now confirmed that you were not going to take part in the shooting at all, except for observing the incident, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: Why was it necessary for you to have run down from where you stood and fire upon this kombi, if your role I think, was only to observe and also I think, bearing in mind that the information I think, that you sought from your Generals, was just about arms smuggling? Why was it necessary for you to run down and have fired upon the kombi?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, in all reality I believed that when I saw the vehicle accelerating, it seemed to me as if the driver would succeed in escaping and that is why I ran down. If the vehicle at that stage, where it had been hit, had overturned or had swerved left or right, then I would have accepted that the vehicle would come to a stop, but from my position, it was clear that there was some acceleration and that is why I ran down and fired shots.

MR FRANCIS: How many members of the Vlakplaas Unit except for yourself, had at that point in time, taken part in the shooting, before you became involved in the shooting?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, the signal from Gouws and Holtzhausen led to an immediate start of firing, I don't, I won't be able to say who shot at which stage and who started firing first, but my impression was clear that there was some acceleration and that is why I ran down.

MR FRANCIS: You have not answered my question, I think. My question is I mean, can you tell us how many of the Vlakplaas members, except for yourself, fired at this kombi?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I did not count them when they started firing, I was looking at the vehicle. I believe that most of them would have opened fire.

MR FRANCIS: And all of them could not bring this vehicle to a standstill?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, the bullets would not have brought the vehicle to a stop immediately. One might just wound them, but it would not mean that everybody was hit in the kombi.

MR FRANCIS: It says much about the firing capabilities of your members which either means that they must have been under the influence of alcohol, couldn't do a proper job and you had to intervene to stop it from getting away?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, if we look at the photo's of the kombi, it is quite clear that I believe the kombi had been hit most of the time, if not all the time.

MR FRANCIS: But I think your affidavit, you state that it is only after you had become personally involved in the firing of the kombi, that the vehicle eventually came to a standstill?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, it may be so that I indeed did impart my part there, it is not necessarily so that I may have hit or which parts of the vehicle I hit or which parts of the vehicle I had hit. I accept that I did play a part.

MR FRANCIS: But your evidence was quite clear, that you aimed, I think you said that you aimed in the direction of the driver and also the machine?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, in between the machine and the driver.

MR FRANCIS: So what I am just putting to you is that it would either appear to me that the other guys were just, couldn't fire properly and you basically brought this vehicle to a standstill?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, I would not say that was so.

MR FRANCIS: What weapons were all of these people carrying, your people?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, they had R5's, 5.56 calibre and then their service firearms.

MR FRANCIS: How many shots were fired?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I don't know, I cannot recall. I do know after the shooting had ceased, shells were picked up at the scene to have it seem that less shots were fired.

MR FRANCIS: I think we also heard that Mr Hattingh had mentioned that, or somebody had mentioned that one of the policemen I think had some bag that after firing shots, the shells just went into this whole thing? That I think, you can't really say how many shots exactly were fired?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, because the shooting report had been amended and the shooting report did not reflect the exact amount of shots fired.

MR FRANCIS: Mr De Kock, I think if one looks at your affidavit, I think you previously denied that you had taken part in the planning of the operation?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I did not partake in the planning as in right up to the finer detail thereof, as to where the ambush would take place and the situation there.

MR FRANCIS: But you took part in firing at the vehicle and stopping them?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson, yes.

MR FRANCIS: Why was it necessary to fire 48 rounds of ammunition, automatic fire with your weapon and then fire seven to eight shots thereafter?

MR DE KOCK: It was, if it was possible, to shoot the vehicle right off the road, not that the rounds would move the vehicle, but that the concentration thereof, might break the machine or parts thereof.

MR FRANCIS: Why was it necessary to get your members in a line and then tell them how to go about firing?

MR DE KOCK: Because they would have hit each other if there had been any disorder.

MR FRANCIS: What caused this chaos, is it because most of them were drunk?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, none of the members were drunk or inebriated. I think it was just a bad signal on the open fire signal from Capt Geldenhuys and the people probably concentrated too much on the mini-bus and did not look around them.

MR FRANCIS: There must have been excitement that took place when shots were fired at this kombi?

MR DE KOCK: There was no excitement.

MR FRANCIS: But you say in your affidavit that you have always acted fearlessly against members of the opposite camp?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: So there must have been excitement?

MR DE KOCK: No, there is no excitement, and there was no pleasure in the whole story.

MR FRANCIS: How far were you from the kombi when you fired the shots at it?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I think if I have to estimate, approximately 60 metres. The kombi proceeded for a little while after I had fired, I don't know how far.

MR FRANCIS: I am not so sure who the witness was, but I can recall that at the criminal trial, one of them said that you started swearing and said "f..., the kombi, it is getting away", and that is when you became involved in the shooting. Do you recall that?

MR DE KOCK: That is possible Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: So your concern was that this vehicle was going to get away?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is what I have said Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: And were they still going to proceed to carry out the robbery after you had fired at them?

MR DE KOCK: I don't believe that they would have proceeded.

MR FRANCIS: So why was it necessary to continue with the shooting?

MR DE KOCK: As I have said previously in my evidence-in-chief Chairperson, was that we would stop them in their tracks and we would kill them.

MR FRANCIS: But Mr De Kock, this morning you said that this was a bona fide police action. Remember I think when I put Geldenhuys' version to you, do you recall that evidence?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: Do you recall that I have asked you I think four or five times to tell us what was wrong with it?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson, and as I have said it did not comply with all the requirements of that Section 5.

MR FRANCIS: Yes, and I think you still insisted that you thought it was a bona fide police action?

MR DE KOCK: With regard to the mandate of my work, yes.

MR FRANCIS: And obviously if this was a bona fide police action, why after firing at the vehicle was it necessary still to keep on firing at it, if this was indeed a bona fide police action?

MR DE KOCK: To ensure that no survivors remained.

MR FRANCIS: It could not and I put it to you, I put it to you that it could not have been a bona fide police action.

MR DE KOCK: By the nature of my mandate for counter-terrorism, yes, because we were bona fide sent over the border and people were killed there, in just about all the neighbouring States as well as inside the country.

MR FRANCIS: Mr De Kock, I can probably understand, not that I condone, I can probably understand I think before 1990 when there was still a political war that took place, when there was a need, I think to go to the so-called terrorist camps and fight a war there, but this was two years after the event and you are saying that this was a bona fide police action? I can understand what had happened in the past, but I cannot understand I think, why if this was a bona fide police action, your actions are justified?

MR DE KOCK: According to my mandate of counter-terrorism Chairperson, it was. This concurs with the shooting incident at Piet Retief and Amsterdam.

MR FRANCIS: I have mentioned to you that we will just now come back to your mandate, we well just now come back to the information note. Mr De Kock, please tell me what your aim and intention was when you fired at this kombi, what objectives were you trying to achieve?

MR DE KOCK: To kill the persons Chairperson, and the combatting of further acts of terror by these persons.

MR FRANCIS: But we have ascertained Mr De Kock, that in the instance of Glenet Masillo Mama, you didn't know what his political affiliation was?

MR DE KOCK: That Chairperson, is not the information that I had then.

MR FRANCIS: Please tell us what the information was Mr De Kock?

MR HATTINGH: Excuse me Chairperson, please, he has repeated that many times.

MR FRANCIS: Mr Chair, maybe I should just move on from there.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you would recall that according to the applicant he had a general impression that these were trained MK members, etc, etc?

MR FRANCIS: What was your other objective Mr De Kock?

MR DE KOCK: The combatting of urban terrorism Chairperson, and this would also prevent that the ANC's coffers be filled more.

MR FRANCIS: Well, I think we have dealt with this whole question of whether or not they were robbing on behalf of the ANC, I don't have to put that to you, but I put it to you that Glenet Masillo Mama was not a member of the ANC, so there was no need for him to have filled the coffers of the ANC.

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson, we don't know whether he received training within the boundaries of the country, that is speculation and that is the information which I had.

MR FRANCIS: I think it was also put to you that Mealande was not a member of any political organisation, so there was no need for him to rob on behalf of the ANC?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, we would not know.

MR FRANCIS: I am putting to you this as a fact, not a speculation, that he was not.

ADV DE JAGER: He did not know, he had information from, according to him, from Holtzhausen who got the information from Van Zyl and according to him, the information was that they were or some of them were trained members of MK. He didn't know whether they were indeed or whether they weren't. He was acting on the information and that is what he told us all along.

MR FRANCIS: I agree with you Chairperson.

ADV DE JAGER: He cannot, he told you he cannot dispute whether they were members or not members.

MR FRANCIS: Mr De Kock, I put it to you that these five were killed because Van Zyl had asked that the five of them should be killed, and that was the only reason I think, why they were killed?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, that is not how I see it.

MR FRANCIS: In fact, your trusted I think police officer, Holtzhausen himself, I think in his affidavit said that he had mentioned to you specifically that there was a request from Ben van Zyl that these five should be killed? Maybe I think, in fairness I should probably refer you to the portion of his application.

CHAIRPERSON: While you are looking there Mr Francis, on which basis was Van Zyl paid, was he paid per head of the person that was killed or in general, was he paid a salary?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, he did not receive a salary, he was not a registered source. I think what they did, they were not paid per head but a global figure. But one could for instance lay a claim for R50 000 and then it is brought down to R20 000 or R15 000, depending on circumstances or items which were found at the scene and whatever accompanies that.

CHAIRPERSON: So Holtzhausen would have been directly involved with that reward aspect?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, he would have proposed reward and I would have recommended it, but then it would go to Gen Engelbrecht who would approve it and from there to the Chief of Security who gives a final approval and it goes through a process of four or five persons.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr De Kock. Mr Francis?

MR FRANCIS: Thank you. If one turns to page 309 of the affidavit and if one looks at paragraph 12 and 13, in fact in paragraph 12, it should be the last sentence, I quote as follows

"... at that stage, Ben told me that there was a great risk of handing these people over to the police and requested me that if these robbers went ahead with their robbery, they would be killed, in order to protect his identity and I kept Lt De Kock up to date with regard to the discussions and the information that Ben had given to me and on request of Ben, with regard to the shooting dead of these people that was carried over, I had the impression that Lt De Kock had to clear the information with somebody else, but it was not mentioned."

I put it to you Mr De Kock, that the only reason, the only reason why the four and Tiso were killed, was really to protect the identity of Ben van Zyl.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, no, that was not my perspective. It may have arisen during a discussion, but it would not have been a determining factor, not in any way, because Ben van Zyl was not known to these persons, except when he used his cover name.

MR FRANCIS: Let me rather qualify that by putting it as follows, I think I missed out something, that it was to protect the identity of Ben van Zyl and also to benefit your friend, Aragio, so that he could lodge a claim for the motor vehicle that was stolen? So those were the two reasons why these people were killed?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, no Chairperson, the statement is untrue.

MR FRANCIS: Mr Chairman, I am not so sure if this would be an appropriate time to take the adjournment?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Do you still have some ground to cover?

MR FRANCIS: I think I am still going to be another half a day tomorrow?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well, then I am going to adjourn.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, may I just inform you that there is a strike on tomorrow and it is not certain at all, in fact, quite the contrary might be the position, whether Mr De Kock is going to be here tomorrow.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Hattingh, we have been informed about this prospect which is not a very pleasing one. I suppose we will have to assess the situation tomorrow. We are very anxious not to lose any time in this matter. We trust first of all that Correctional Services will ensure that Mr De Kock is here. If he is not here, then we will have to find ways and means of continuing with the hearing in a sense which doesn't prejudice Mr De Kock, but I think you know, we will have to assess the situation in the morning and see. As I say, we are hoping that we can proceed, but if we can't, then we will have to find some other way. Yes, in fact, could the legal representatives just please take note that in so far as we are concerned, this doesn't affect us, we are not planning on the basis of this. If it materialises, well, then so be it, so that for your purposes of course, your clients would be required and yourself, would be required to be available tomorrow. We have come to the end of the proceedings, there is apparently still a bit of cross-examination that has to be done in respect of Mr De Kock's testimony, so we cannot conclude that at this stage. We will therefore adjourn the proceedings until tomorrow morning and we will reconvene here at half past nine. We are adjourned.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS