CHAIRPERSON: Good morning. For the record, it is Tuesday, the 24th of August 1999, we are continuing with the amnesty application of E A de Kock and nine others, in respect of the Nelspruit and Tiso matters. I note that Mr De Kock is not present this morning, so I assume Ms Patel, that we are able to make some contingency plans to keep us occupied?
MS PATEL: Yes, we have Honourable Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: At least you are not on strike.
MS PATEL: No, we don't have such luxuries, fortunately or unfortunately. My learned colleague, Mr Lamey, will be proceeding with his next client.
CHAIRPERSON: That is?
MS PATEL: Willie Nortje.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nortje, very well. Mr Lamey, are you calling Mr Nortje?
MR LAMEY: Yes Chairperson, the next applicant is Mr Nortje.
CHAIRPERSON: Very well, thank you. Mr Nortje, please give you full names for the record please.
MR NORTJE: Willem Albertus Nortje.
WILLEM ALBERTUS NORTJE: (sworn states)
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, please be seated. Mr Lamey?
EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Thank you Chairperson. Mr Nortje, you have applied for amnesty for various incidents where you as a member of Vlakplaas, had been involved, is that correct?
MR NORTJE: That is correct Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: Before this Committee the Nelspruit incident serves, the death of four persons in Nelspruit as well as the murder of Tiso for which you also apply amnesty because of your involvement in that incident?
MR NORTJE: That is correct Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: You have handed up an initial amnesty application form which appears on page 129 up to 138 from which extracts are taken from the papers, and your initial application was signed and dated the 19th of November 1996 in Pretoria?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: And in that initial application of yours, there is an extract of your statement which you have also made before the Goldstone Commission, is that correct?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: And this we will find on page 134 to 138. Furthermore in the Bundle, we shall find a statement of yours on page 225 to 240. You have studied that, is that correct?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: And is that also the statement which you made before the Goldstone Commission which just appears in another format?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: There is a part which does not appear in your initial statement and it seems to have been omitted by accident, let me just find the particular page. I apologise Chairperson, Mr Nortje would you please look at page 236. At the bottom of page 235 it is stated there
"... Dougie and I went back to the scene",
and that is where your statement ends with regard to your application and what we find further on, on page 236, paragraphs 86 and 87 up to page 89 and further particulars which you had made in a statement before the Goldstone Commission. Mr Nortje, would you have this incorporated into your evidence?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: Very well. Mr Nortje after you had obtained legal representation, there is an application form which appears on page 139 with regard to the Nelspruit incident and on page 158?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: And there you deal or you incorporate what you have said previously in your amnesty application with regard to the nature and particulars on page 155, the acts and omissions which emanated from this incident and you have also dealt with the political objective and the command structure?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: If we can turn back to the nature and particulars of the incident, we see that under the heading "Nelspruit Incident" on page 134 there is a section where you refer to Dougie Holtzhausen and Ben van Zyl and you also refer to one of his employees who moved in ANC circles and then further on you deal with what you know of the Carousel incident, is that correct?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: You were not involved yourself in the incident?
MR NORTJE: No, I was not there personally.
MR LAMEY: But before that incident had taken place you had been there at some stage and had gone to have a look and you were part of an inspection as to where the incident had taken place?
MR NORTJE: That is correct Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: Can we then proceed with the Nelspruit incident which actually proceeds on page 135, the second paragraph? Is it correct that Mr Van Zyl according to your knowledge, was the source in this incident?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: And then you mention that Mr Van Zyl had an agreement with the robbers who were allegedly ANC members?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: From whom did you obtain the information with regard to this planning and Ben van Zyl's involvement, from whom did you get this?
MR NORTJE: I got the information from Mr Holtzhausen.
MR LAMEY: Mr Holtzhausen was also a member of Unit C10?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: At that stage you were also a member of a group under the command of Col De Kock?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MS PILLAY: Excuse me Mr Chairperson, could I just ask my learned colleague, Mr Lamey, if he could allow Mr Nortje to answer, because he is asking such leading questions and Mr Nortje is answering yes or no.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I assume to get the background and the formal information on the record, it is perhaps the best and the way that takes the least time. I am quite sure that when it comes to the crux of this application, Mr Lamey will let Mr Nortje tell his story to us. If he does not, then we will obviously intervene, but I assume that for the formal stuff, it is easier to just lead him in stead of beating about the bush.
MR LAMEY: Yes Chairperson, I did not intend to lead Mr Nortje the whole way as I started, it is just by way of introduction and getting, let his evidence get going.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR LAMEY: I will let him.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that is fine.
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Lamey, just on the last thing, "I received information from Holtzhausen", did you speak directly to him or did he speak to you?
MR NORTJE: Chairperson, I was basically involved to assist Mr Holtzhausen with the original planning because there were many other incidents which had taken place at that stage and he took me along, and I know at some stage we were in Mr Van Zyl's office and we discussed this incident.
ADV DE JAGER: Yes, but the only clarity I want is that you received it from Holtzhausen, what role did Mr De Kock play with regard to this information? Did he give any information to you or was Mr Holtzhausen the person who conveyed everything to you?
MR NORTJE: No, Mr De Kock played a role, he was the Commander and we had to report to him right from the start.
ADV DE JAGER: Who reported to him?
MR NORTJE: Holtzhausen reported to him.
ADV DE JAGER: That is my problem. You say everything was reported to him, but you did not report it to him and you have been in the Police Force for a long time, you know what went on, tell us the things that you know, don't tell us things that you have heard. Tell us that Holtzhausen said that he told Mr De Kock.
MR NORTJE: I also spoke to Mr De Kock, but I did not receive the information directly from Mr Van Zyl to tell it to Mr De Kock, Holtzhausen was the person who conveyed information. Holtzhausen was the person who basically reported to Mr De Kock.
ADV DE JAGER: Very well, and just to get clarity over something else right from the start, who was the senior in rank, you or Holtzhausen?
MR NORTJE: At that stage, I was.
ADV DE JAGER: Yes, I assume that we shall deal with that later, I do not want to go in there. What was your rank?
MR NORTJE: I was a Warrant Officer.
ADV DE JAGER: And he was?
MR NORTJE: He was a Sergeant.
ADV DE JAGER: Thank you.
MR LAMEY: Very well, was Mr Holtzhausen the handler of the source, Mr Van Zyl?
MR NORTJE: Yes, he was appointed as the handler.
MR LAMEY: Do you know who appointed him in that capacity as the handler of Mr Van Zyl?
MR NORTJE: As far as I know, Mr De Kock appointed him.
MR LAMEY: How many times did you speak to Mr Ben van Zyl yourself, can you recall?
MR NORTJE: I cannot recall exactly, but there was a few times when I was present when we discussed the information which he had given to Holtzhausen.
MR LAMEY: Were you with Holtzhausen in contact with him, or only in certain instances?
MR NORTJE: No, I was not continually in contact with him, so if Holtzhausen went to see him, I was not always present.
MR LAMEY: Yes. What did you understand before the Nelspruit incident of these robbers of which Ben van Zyl was the source of the information, what they were going to do?
MR NORTJE: The information that I recall which we obtained from Mr Van Zyl was that he and some of the people who had worked with him, knew these people, they were ANC members according to the information. At some stage it was said that one of them, I cannot say that at that stage, that I knew the name specifically or that I knew Tiso's name, but that one of them had been the driver of Mrs Mandela and that they were basically trained ANC people who were looking for places to rob. That was the basic information.
MR LAMEY: In Pretoria, before then, was there already planning of an action which C10 would launch against these alleged or suspected robbers?
MR NORTJE: It was, or the information was that there were several groups as I understood because at some point in time we went down to Nelspruit after such a robbery had taken place.
MR LAMEY: Where would that be?
MR NORTJE: Coin Security Nelspruit.
MR LAMEY: Yes?
MR NORTJE: I was present at some stage, Holtzhausen and I did not work together directly, but at some stage he asked me to go along with him or I was in Nelspruit and he contacted me and we went and had a look at the place at the Coin Security and we went to have a look at the setup there. I realised that I have to familiarise myself with the situation there, what the setup was like, what the building was like and that is why we went there, but at that stage, Holtzhausen and I had not been at Coin before, so we went to familiarise ourselves with the place and this robbery, or it was just planning beforehand at this stage, and I was not present when they went again.
MR LAMEY: That is why I asked, when this robbery would take place at Coin Security, were you present there?
MR NORTJE: No, I was not present there.
MR LAMEY: You were only there at a previous instance to have a look at the premises?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: Along with Holtzhausen?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: After the planned robbery had not taken place in Nelspruit, what do you know furthermore what was planned in Pretoria?
MR NORTJE: Another robbery would take place at the Carousel.
MR LAMEY: Excuse me, you said at the Carousel?
MR NORTJE: Yes, that is how I recall the sequence, it was first the incident at Coin, then the Carousel and then the Nelspruit incident, that is how I remember it.
MR LAMEY: Very well, but when you refer to the Carousel and Coin Security, was it different groups?
MR NORTJE: As I can recall, I don't think it was the same group.
MR LAMEY: If we could stay with the Nelspruit group, when the Coin robberies did not take place, what was planned furthermore according to your knowledge, with regard to the group under the leadership of Tiso who wanted to commit that robbery at Coin Security?
MR NORTJE: I am not certain whether I knew at that stage that it would be the same group. The information was dealt with by Mr Holtzhausen, he may have mentioned it to me, but at that stage it was not of any interest to me, and I did not pay such attention to it.
MR LAMEY: Yes, and what was the further planning with regard to Tiso and the group with regard to Nelspruit?
MR NORTJE: As far as I can recall, the group which Ben had handled or had communicated with, were looking for a place or proposals were made to them that Nelspruit would be, or that Nelspruit would suffice and at that stage they were planning to do it, and certain arrangements were then made. Mr De Kock was informed and at some stage someone made some proposal and at some stage Mr De Kock said he would supply the mini-bus and he told me of the mini-bus which he would get from the persons in Springs, the Riebeeck Hotel, and as I understood it from him, he knew thereof or they knew about it, or the owner of the mini-bus knew of it.
MR LAMEY: Very well, may I just ask you, in the planning, did you have knowledge whether other members of the Murder and Robbery Unit would also be involved in the execution of this operation?
MR NORTJE: Yes, the Murder and Robbery Unit were kept up to date of these planned robberies because it was their area and they had to know about it.
MR LAMEY: If you talk about their area, do you speak of their field in terms of murder and robbery?
MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.
MR LAMEY: Who were the members of Murder and Robbery who would also participate in the operation?
MR NORTJE: It would have been Capt Geldenhuys and Gouws. Leon Boshoff was then, I don't know, he was in the process of being transferred to us, but I don't know, I think he was already with us at that time.
MR LAMEY: Very well. Did you at some stage depart for Nelspruit?
MR NORTJE: Yes. The mini-bus was a factor, we obtained the mini-bus the evening, before the following day when we departed. Somebody brought the mini-bus to my house. I could never recall how we got the mini-bus to Nelspruit, but during the course of time I couldn't recall it, when I made the statements, but later I was reminded that the previous evening, we had left the mini-bus at my house and the following evening Holtzhausen and I and somebody else, I think it was Hanekom, but I am not certain whether it was him, but we drove with the mini-bus down to Nelspruit. I drove with my car and Holtzhausen drove with his car and we left the mini-bus close to the Bambie Hotel there in the mountains just for the night.
MR LAMEY: The Bambie Hotel, is that in the vicinity of Schoemanskloof?
MR NORTJE: That is correct, it is Schoemanskloof.
MR LAMEY: In the Eastern Transvaal?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: And you left it there?
MR NORTJE: Yes, we left it there for the evening.
MR LAMEY: And from there?
MR NORTJE: We went through to the Hotel.
MR LAMEY: If you say us, who are us?
MR NORTJE: It is Holtzhausen and I, I don't think Boshoff was there, he remained at the farmhouse that evening.
ADV DE JAGER: Excuse me, you went down with your car, Holtzhausen went with his car, and you think Hanekom was the other person who would be involved?
MR NORTJE: That is correct yes.
ADV DE JAGER: And now you speak of Boshoff, where does he fit in?
MR NORTJE: I can explain that, Boshoff went down earlier that day to the farm and he waited along the road that evening because we did not know where the farm was, and at some stage he waited for us alongside the road and he took us to the house. Holtzhausen and Hanekom and I went down to the Drum Rock Hotel.
MR LAMEY: You were not present yourself when the mini-bus was fetched at Springs, you do mention that it was fetched, but you were not present?
MR NORTJE: No, I was not.
MR LAMEY: Did you have knowledge that Ben van Zyl would also go down and would he take the alleged robbers to Nelspruit?
MR NORTJE: That is correct, he would have come the following night.
MR LAMEY: And in Nelspruit, where did you overnight?
MR NORTJE: We stayed at the Drum Rock Hotel. I cannot recall who were there that evening, whether the Murder and Robbery guys came through the following day, but the reason was that we were supposed to meet at the Drum Rock Hotel.
MR LAMEY: Did you at some stage go and had a look at a place where you could set up the ambush?
MR NORTJE: Yes, that was later the following day, I guess it would have been during the earlier afternoon, twelve o'clock, one o'clock, it might have been earlier, we drove and Geldenhuys was present and there were about four or five persons and we drove and we collectively decided that we would set up the ambush under the road of the Nelspruit/kaNyamazane road.
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Nortje, "we went there, we decided, Geldenhuys was possibly present", but who took the leadership there, under whose command did all these things take place?
MR NORTJE: It was Capt Geldenhuys and Holtzhausen, they were the two leaders there.
MR LAMEY: May I just ask you, under whose instructions and command did you go to Nelspruit to launch this action there?
MR NORTJE: It was Mr De Kock.
MR LAMEY: And the place that you found, you spoke of the kaNyamazane Road, is this where the Wit River Road goes over that road and there is a bridge that crosses the kaNyamazane Road into the industrial area?
MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct, that is where we decided to set up the ambush.
MR LAMEY: Very well, were any further arrangements made between Sergeant Holtzhausen and the source, Ben van Zyl, as to what he should do?
MR NORTJE: Yes, it should have been after we identified the place for the ambush, Mr Holtzhausen had contact with Mr Van Zyl, I cannot recall the time specifically, but he said, he told him where we would be exactly and how he should drive.
MR LAMEY: Were any arrangements made with regard to the mini-bus?
MR NORTJE: Yes, arrangements were made, we told him where we would leave the mini-bus and were we would leave the keys.
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Nortje, once again, was it telephonically, how did it happen? Did you speak to him, you say "we spoke to him", were you present?
MR NORTJE: No, I was not present when Holtzhausen spoke to him, but Holtzhausen told me that he had given him the instructions as to how the plan should go.
ADV DE JAGER: Well, then you should say that, because I now assume that you were present, because you say "we", so I assume that you were present there.
MR LAMEY: Mr Nortje, just for the sake of clarity, if you speak, if you give evidence please point out to the Committee whether you were present or whether you had heard something, whether you had heard what would happen and how do you know of it, and who told you. If you know of something, please mention how you know of it. Where would the mini-bus have been left?
MR NORTJE: Mr Holtzhausen and I agreed that we would leave the mini-bus in front of the Promenade Hotel and we decided that we would leave the key under the right front wheel and that information was conveyed to Mr Van Zyl, by Mr Holtzhausen when he telephoned him.
MR LAMEY: Very well. I would just like to bring you back, or let me put it this way, can you recall at what time that night, the mini-bus was left at the Promenade Hotel?
MR NORTJE: Holtzhausen and I that afternoon at approximately four o'clock, we departed back to the mountains, to the farmhouse where we had fetched the mini-bus. Boshoff returned with us and at a certain point the mini-bus ran out of petrol and we poured petrol out of my car for the mini-bus. We left the mini-bus - it must have been later - it was already dark, approximately nine o'clock, but I am not completely certain. It was already dark when we left the mini-bus in Nelspruit. It was approximately an hour's drive or 45 minutes' drive from the farmhouse back to Nelspruit, but I am not completely certain of what time it was, but we left the vehicle there with the keys on the wheel and at that stage, or earlier that afternoon, we had been in Nelspruit. I know that that afternoon we were in the canteen, or at least I was in the canteen, there were some of our other members there and then we heard that Mr De Kock were on his way and that we were supposed to meet him at the Hotel. We then went to the Hotel.
MR LAMEY: Was that the Drum Rock Hotel?
MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct. Mr De Kock was there, they were in the foyer, the section of the hotel as you enter the hotel, that is where they were seated. Mr De Kock sat there and the two typists were also sitting there, Klopper was also present and then we decided, well, we didn't discuss anything there where they were seated, but as far as I can recall, we went back to the hotel room, either to my room or someone else's room, because we were two or three persons in a room and that is where the entire group converged, in that hotel room where the final decision making was undertaken, if I might put it that way. Mr De Kock was then briefed there regarding what we had planned. I would recall that he asked me there whether I had petrol or whether I had obtained the petrol, because the decision about the kombi which was going to burn, was already taken according to me, by him and I say this because he basically wanted to destroy the kombi in the process, well, that was his plan. The decision was also taken that he and I would not fire any shots and that I would deal with the two black members who were there.
MR LAMEY: Who were they?
MR NORTJE: Simon Radebe and Eric Sefadi. The two black members would observe with me and give the prior warning signal. Mr De Kock and Mr Klopper would first have driven back to Malelane to take the ladies back and he told us that we were supposed to wait for him. I am not certain whether we fetched the kombi at that point or whether the kombi was already in place, but it makes sense to me if I say that Holtzhausen and I must have departed then to go and fetch the kombi.
MR LAMEY: You cannot recall the precise sequence of events, whether the discussion first took place at Drum Rock and then the vehicle was fetched to be placed at the pre-arranged place or whether this took place beforehand, you are not certain of that?
MR NORTJE: No.
MR LAMEY: With the discussion at the Drum Rock Hotel during which you say the entire group was present, including Col De Kock and Mr Klopper, was the place of the ambush also discussed there?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR LAMEY: And also what basically the roles of all the members would be?
MR NORTJE: Yes, as I have stated as far as I can recall, the final planning was discussed there regarding who would be on the scene and who would take up which positions.
MR LAMEY: I just want to ask you whether you know personally whether there was a request from the alleged robbers with regard to weaponry and what was done about that?
MR NORTJE: As far as I know, Holtzhausen informed me at a certain stage that they had requested AK's, however this was when we were still in Pretoria.
MR LAMEY: Yes, do you know what the decision was ultimately, would these AK's be supplied to them, what was the decision regarding that?
MR NORTJE: As far as I can recall, the planning with regard to the AK's had already been undertaken in Pretoria because that is where we obtained AK's, we obtained AK's from Mr De Kock. They were two relatively new guns, they were not brand new, but they were in very good condition and we took these guns with. I am not certain whether we travelled with them in my car or in Mr Holtzhausen's car, there is a strong possibility that it may have been my car. At first we planned to place the weapons in the vehicle beforehand, but then it was decided against.
MR LAMEY: Which vehicle are you referring to?
MR NORTJE: The kombi.
MR LAMEY: Do you mean the mini-bus in which the robbers would have travelled?
MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct, but it was too risky for us and I think it was there at the scene or on that day, that the decision was taken not to place the arms in the vehicle.
MR LAMEY: That they decided not to leave the weapons for them?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: Very well. What happened after that, at the Drum Rock Hotel you have already said that Mr De Kock and the typists and Klopper departed from there to Malelane?
MR NORTJE: Yes, they departed to drop off the ladies and they would have returned and Mr De Kock stated expressly that we should wait for him.
MR LAMEY: Very well, did you then wait at the Drum Rock Hotel?
MR NORTJE: Yes, we sat there waiting in the hotel room. Well, at least I was in the hotel room, I don't know where all the other members were, but we waited. As I have stated, it may be that that was the time that we departed to go and fetch the kombi, I am not certain, but we decided at approximately eleven o'clock, or at least the planning was that at approximately twelve o'clock Ben would have arrived in Nelspruit.
MR LAMEY: Is that with the robbers?
MR NORTJE: Yes, with the robbers. We decided that from eleven o'clock onwards, we would be in position and as it approached eleven o'clock and Mr De Kock and the others did not arrive, we decided that we would just go to the scene and assume our positions. We had already informed him where we would be, so he would have been able to contact us. At approximately eleven o'clock we moved out. I went with the black members directly to the vicinity of the post office where I had parked the car.
MR LAMEY: What I would like to ask you is what is your recollection of Mr De Kock, did he join you at the Drum Rock Hotel before your departure or was he too late?
MR NORTJE: That is correct, at approximately the same time that we departed, he and Klopper arrived there. As far as I can recall, they were together, well they travelled together and they departed together in Klopper's white Jetta for the scene.
MR LAMEY: Where did you go then?
MR NORTJE: As I said, I went with the two black members to the vicinity of the kombi where we parked. It was actually near the post office, on the post office side, the section that would run through to the hotel, we sat there and had the kombi under observation, we had radio's with us.
MR LAMEY: The objective was that when Mr Van Zyl and the alleged robbers arrived there, you would then send the message through to the group who had assumed positions on the road?
MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.
MR LAMEY: Did you have radio contact with that group?
MR NORTJE: That is correct. I know that Geldenhuys had a radio, but I think that there were two or three radio's among them. I didn't speak specifically to any particular person, everybody listened to the radio and if anything had happened, they would have known about it.
MR LAMEY: Just before we continue with the facts, can you recall from your perspective whether there was a specific reason why you would not be one of the members at the scene who would participate in the shooting?
MR NORTJE: Well the final decision was taken there in the hotel, when we spoke to Mr De Kock and I recall that he said "Willie and I are not going to shoot" or we will not participate in the shooting. I am not certain whether he said that he would be on the scene or whether he would be at a point of observation.
MR LAMEY: But you can recall that the idea was for the two of you not to fire any shots?
MR NORTJE: Yes, at a certain stage, while we waited there, or just after we had assumed our positions, he and Klopper arrived there, he just wanted to inform himself regarding the place where the kombi was parked and he wanted to see the kombi as well.
MR LAMEY: That is before you departed for the place where the kombi was parked?
MR NORTJE: No, that is when we were at the place where the kombi was parked and we were at our point of observation.
MR LAMEY: So that is when Klopper and Mr De Kock arrived there?
MR NORTJE: That is correct. He returned to the scene, nothing further was said about it regarding his role or what it would be. I cannot say anything about that, that was his decision, he decided about what he wanted to do. We couldn't tell him what to do.
MR LAMEY: Very well. And then at that point, some distance from the mini-bus, you undertook the observation, you and Eric and Simon?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: What happened after that, what could you observe or how long did you wait there, let me put that to you first?
MR NORTJE: Well at approximately two o'clock, we began to become restless and at a certain stage I told them via the radio "listen, I don't think anything is going to happen tonight" and then at approximately three o'clock, I contacted them again and told them "listen, if they don't arrive within the following 15 minutes, we can abandon the plan". It was during that 15 minute period while we were waiting, that the BMW approached along with the Cressida.
MR LAMEY: Very well, you have not mentioned anything about the Cressida previously. Is that the vehicle in which they would have travelled to Nelspruit?
MR NORTJE: That is correct, it was the same vehicle that had been used during the Carousel incident and it was also the vehicle ...
MR LAMEY: Mr De Kock referred to it as a so-called Regulation 80 vehicle, a police vehicle?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: But did you know that the agreement was that they would not use that vehicle or that the robbers were under the impression that they were on their way to commit a robbery, but that they would not use that vehicle, that they would use the mini-bus?
MR NORTJE: Yes, they would have climbed over into the mini-bus, that was the arrangement as I understood it.
MR LAMEY: What else did you observe?
MR NORTJE: We did not really spend much time to see where they were going.
MR LAMEY: Did you see them arrive there, did you see them climb over into the mini-bus?
MR NORTJE: No, I just saw them stop there. I think the BMW drove out in front of the kombi and I saw the Cressida there, but we began to move out before the Cressida stopped, before anybody disembarked from the vehicle. That is when we began to move to the place near a garage, before the bridge which crossed the train tracks just before Witrivier.
MR LAMEY: What did you do while you were moving away to the other place where you were supposed to wait?
MR NORTJE: Well the arrangement was that they would use that road and the information was given to Holtzhausen, who gave it to Van Zyl, that they would use that specific road, that they had to follow that road.
MR LAMEY: Very well.
ADV DE JAGER: Just a moment please, from where you had observed them, the kombi and the BMW and the Cressida, did you send any message via radio?
MR NORTJE: Yes, I did inform them that they were there, I told them that over the radio that they had arrived.
MR LAMEY: Very well, what I want to ask you is about the impression under which the robbers would have been brought. Where would they be going according to your knowledge when they were travelling with the mini-bus?
MR NORTJE: Well, at that stage, I was under the impression that they were on their way to commit the robbery.
MR LAMEY: Do you know at which institution or place this would have taken place?
MR NORTJE: It would have been at the Coin Security company once again.
MR LAMEY: Very well, and where was that Coin Security company situated?
MR NORTJE: Well, as I recall, it was approximately 400 metres or somewhat less, from where the ambush position was, it was in the industrial area.
MR LAMEY: Is that from Nelspruit?
MR NORTJE: Yes, I think it was in Boshoff Street.
MR LAMEY: Very well. I accept that you arrived at the observation point, where was the observation point for which you departed?
MR NORTJE: As I have just stated, it was on the road which ran from Nelspruit to Witrivier, the first big intersection which one would encounter, had a petrol station and a Wimpy restaurant, I think it was a Caltex garage. We stopped there in a parking area and had the vehicle pointed in the direction of the oncoming traffic which was passing on the highway, approximately 30 to 40 metres from the road itself.
MR LAMEY: What happened after that?
MR NORTJE: Once again I told them that the vehicles would be on the road soon, I cannot recall my precise choice of words, but I warned them once again about the group.
MR LAMEY: Are you referring to the group that was waiting at the point of ambush?
MR NORTJE: Yes, I told them or I warned them when the vehicles passed. I gave them an opportunity to drive on, I did not drive after them immediately and before I arrived on the road, the shooting ensued. I held back because I was afraid of stray bullets, it is just an idea that I had in my mind. I then drove over the bridge, passed, approximately 400 metres I think, I drove on slowly and then I turned off from the middle man and took the off-ramp which would lead to the scene. At that stage, the mini-bus was on fire.
MR LAMEY: When you refer to the mini-bus what sort of vehicle was it actually, I think all of us have referred to a kombi or a mini-bus, but what type of vehicle was it exactly, could you describe it?
MR NORTJE: It was a Toyota Hi-Act, mini-bus, which looked like a panel van, it had been made into a panel van, it did not have any seating.
MR LAMEY: So it wasn't a taxi type of vehicle with seating, to transport people, it was a panel van of which the sides were closed?
MR NORTJE: Yes, I think that the sliding door had a window.
MR LAMEY: I beg your pardon, I interrupted you, could you continue with what you observed, or what happened?
MR NORTJE: The exact sequence of events, is not clear to me, but I know that the kombi was on fire. A person had fallen out onto the ground from the left front window. He was also on fire. Mr De Kock told me to shoot him and I said "no, I don't want to", I don't know whether somebody else shot him. But what happened after that, I think is that Ben van Zyl arrived there once more.
MR LAMEY: Is that at the scene?
MR NORTJE: Yes, that is at the scene and Mr Holtzhausen spoke to him. Then Holtzhausen returned and said that Tiso hadn't been in the bus. I assumed that he knew because he said something about him being at the petrol station. We told Mr De Kock and he said that we had to go and look for him. Holtzhausen and Sefadi and Radebe and I then departed in my car, I think it was my car. As I can recall, Holtzhausen didn't really listen to what Van Zyl had said and at first, we went to another petrol station in town because we didn't know exactly which petrol station it was. Then we realised that the information was incorrect, or that Holtzhausen had not heard him correctly and then we ran into Van Zyl again. I think it was on the road, at the crossing which returns back to the Witbank road. I think it was somewhere in that vicinity. Then we said "well, we can't find him", and he said "no, he is out on the Witbank road at the Hall's Gateway, he is waiting there, or his is in that area, or that direction." We then drove out and when we arrived there, he wasn't there and just as we wanted to turn back to Nelspruit, as we wanted to get back on the tar road, we saw the lights of a car approximately 500 metres away. We just saw a pair of headlights or at least the back lights of the vehicle. As we approached, we saw that it was the Cressida.
MR LAMEY: The Cressida vehicle which you had seen earlier?
MR NORTJE: Yes. I don't know whether he was driving slowly or whether he had already turned off onto the shoulder of the road, but we stopped next to him, Holtzhausen climbed out and confronted him. We then knew that this was Tiso because it was the vehicle that we had given him. Holtzhausen searched him and he found a 38 revolver under the driver's seat. I cannot recall the exact discussion at that stage, but it must have been about the fact that we had this man, what are we going to do with him now? We would have to go to Mr De Kock and inform him.
MR LAMEY: Did you say that you found a weapon?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR LAMEY: What did you do with the weapon?
MR NORTJE: I don't know whether Holtzhausen kept it with him or whether he gave it to Simon.
MR LAMEY: But the weapon was confiscated?
MR NORTJE: Yes. I think we also noticed that the weapon didn't have a serial number. We then told Simon and them to wait there for us. Holtzhausen and I returned to Mr De Kock.
ADV DE JAGER: Where was Tiso?
MR NORTJE: He was there.
ADV DE JAGER: I beg your pardon, I just wanted to know where Tiso was at that stage?
MR NORTJE: They kept them there with them, Simon and Eric kept him there with them.
MR LAMEY: Were any instructions given as to how they were to detain him or was he at that stage placed in the boot of a car or was he simple kept in the vehicle, what happened?
MR NORTJE: When we found them again, he was in the boot, but I didn't see them place him in the boot of the vehicle.
MR LAMEY: Very well.
MR NORTJE: Because I don't think we had handcuffs on us with which we found bind him. We didn't say anything basically, Holtzhausen simply asked who he was, but it wasn't really of the utmost importance, the problem was that we had a witness here.
MR LAMEY: Very well, did you and Holtzhausen then return to the scene, to Col De Kock?
MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct. It was only he and I who returned to Mr De Kock.
MR LAMEY: When you arrived on the scene, what did you find?
MR NORTJE: When we arrived there, the police were there along with the fire brigade and I think that the mini-bus was still burning. Well, what we were preoccupied with was what to do with Tiso, we went to Mr De Kock and said "listen, we found him, what are we supposed to do now", at that stage, he was rather confused. All of us stood there, we realised that we had quite a problem on our hands because if we left him - these are all the inferences that I think we drew, I cannot recall what precisely I thought at that stage, all I know is that it was a problem. He gave evidence here about the Swaziland matters and I can't recall that we ever discussed detaining him or anything else. I just know that the next thing that he said to me was "listen, you will have to get hold of Snor and take him to Penge". I immediately realised what that meant.
MR LAMEY: Might I just stop you there, when he told you to get hold of Snor and take him to Penge and you say that you knew immediately what that meant, how did you know what that meant?
MR NORTJE: As a result of the fact that there had been a previous incident regarding Mr Mabota during which he was also killed at Penge Mine and his body was blown up, he was shot and his body was blown up.
MR LAMEY: Very well. When he said that to you, you understood and knew exactly what was going to happen because you had quite a problem on your hands, because you had found Tiso?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: What was the danger and the problem with regard to Tiso at that stage?
MR NORTJE: Well, it was clear that we had a witness on our hands who would know exactly what had happened. The source was also now in jeopardy, he would definitely have been in a precarious position. This would have been a problem for us at C10, it would have created a tremendous media uproar and it would have exposed our existence at that stage.
MR LAMEY: At that stage there were already Commissions of Enquiry? Is that correct?
MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.
MR LAMEY: There was already suspicion regarding the covert activities of Vlakplaas?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: That would have created problems not only for Vlakplaas, but it would have had a ripple effect for the Security Police and the government at that stage, it would have been very embarrassing for them?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: Very well.
MS PILLAY: Sorry Mr Chairperson, I would just like clarification, is Mr Lamey still doing background information, because he seems to be leading the witness again?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Lamey?
MR LAMEY: The witness has himself testified, I just asked more clarity, questions to get more clarity as to what he further meant, because he says - he himself said that it would have been a problem for us and also further on and I just introduced the question to, I didn't intend really to ...
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it does border on leading and it doesn't help the case of your client.
MR LAMEY: As it pleases you Chair, I will then be more careful, as it pleases you. Very well, what else did you do? He has now given you instructions to contact Snor Vermeulen so that he could be taken to Penge Mine?
MR NORTJE: That is correct. At that stage I was not prepared to accompany, it was a difficult situation. I don't believe that he wanted to accompany either.
MR LAMEY: Who is that?
MR NORTJE: Mr De Kock. Mr De Kock then called Mr Chait and Blackie closer.
MR LAMEY: Was there any particular reason why you did not want to go along to Penge Mine?
MR NORTJE: Yes, my personal sentiment was that at that stage I didn't want to be involved any longer with the killing of persons, because at that point, I had already been involved in way too many matters in the first place, and in the second place, our planning was then that we would have to go to the Game Reserve the following day. It was an unforeseen event and we had to make decisions there on the spot.
MR LAMEY: Very well. What else happened, were any instructions issued to any persons?
MR NORTJE: Chait and Swart were then called by Mr De Kock and they were informed that they would have to go with. I don't know what his precise choice of words was, I don't know if he told them then that they would have to go to Penge Mine, I don't think either of them had been at Penge Mine at that stage, that is why the arrangements were made that they should meet Vermeulen on the road. They would then travel with Swart's vehicle, Gevers was also called in. We took all Swart's things which were in his vehicle, the Fox, and put them in my vehicle and the three of them went with me back to where Simon and the others were. I would recall that we were then travelling in three vehicles, it was my car, Eric Sefadi's car which was the Toyota and then there was also the Fox. We then went to the scene, or at least to the place where Simon and the others were waiting for us. What happened then is that - Holtzhausen was also present as far as I can recall - we then returned to where we found Simon and the others. I told Simon to drive along behind us, because we needed to find a place where we could load Tiso into the Fox. There at the petrol station at Hall's Gateway, we drove in behind, there was a road that went in behind the petrol station, we stopped there. Chait and Swart and Gevers then knew that they had to meet Vermeulen alongside the road, but I told them that I would still arrange with Vermeulen. We then stopped there in the dark, and we put Tiso into the back of the Fox, into the boot. Eric and Simon ...
ADV DE JAGER: Was he already in the boot or was he seated in the car?
MR NORTJE: No, when we arrived there where they were in the Cressida, they had already placed him in the boot, so they removed him from the boot and there was a piece of rope with which they bound Tiso, I think that I assisted with that, and he was placed in the boot of the Fox or the Jetta. They then departed and I just told them that I would contact Vermeulen.
MR LAMEY: Did you tell them where they were supposed to go?
MR NORTJE: I told them to go to the Ultra City in Middelburg, I thought that that would be a suitable place, we didn't have much communication at that stage.
MR LAMEY: Very well.
MR NORTJE: They then departed and we returned to the scene. No, Holtzhausen and I returned to the post office where I phoned Vermeulen, it was approximately between four o'clock and half past four, roundabout that time.
MR LAMEY: Then you contacted Vermeulen, who is also an applicant?
MR NORTJE: Yes, I contacted him, I assumed that he would know immediately what I was talking about, but I realised that he didn't really know what was going on. Let me put it this way, I told him "listen, we have a problem, you have to go to Penge but first meet Rolf and the others at the Ultra City in Middelburg." I cannot recall whether I gave them a specific time, but they then departed. I am sorry, I am somewhat confused. I spoke to him over the phone.
MR LAMEY: Did you then leave the place where Tiso had been loaded into the boot?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR LAMEY: And Swart and Gevers and Chait departed from there?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR LAMEY: Then you went to phone Vermeulen from the post office, you and Holtzhausen were together, but you did the talking, you contacted Vermeulen?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR LAMEY: And you told him "we have a problem", can you recall what else you said to him, you told him that he had to go to Penge Mine?
MR NORTJE: Yes, I told him that he had to go to Penge Mine, but he still sounded rather sleepy to me, and I am not sure whether he heard exactly what I had told him. I also contacted Britz.
MR LAMEY: Is that Dawid or Duiwel Britz?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR LAMEY: He is also an applicant in this matter?
MR NORTJE: That is correct. I also phoned him just to ensure that they had received the message and I basically told him the same thing which was basically that I had also notified Vermeulen and I did not give him any particulars over the phone. I basically gave him the same explanation that I had given Vermeulen and then I returned to the scene.
MR LAMEY: Did you have prior knowledge that Vermeulen and Britz were involved in the Mabota incident?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR LAMEY: Did you know that Vermeulen was a Demolitions' Expert?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR LAMEY: Very well. From that point, after you had contacted Vermeulen and Britz, what did you do then?
MR NORTJE: As far as I can recall, we must have returned to the scene, that is Holtzhausen and I. I then told Mr De Kock "listen, they have left, I have contacted Britz and Vermeulen and I told them." We were standing there on the scene, I recall that we picked up some shells, not openly though but it was already getting light.
MR LAMEY: Was the local police also on the scene?
MR NORTJE: Yes, there were quite a bit of police, there were Detectives, Mr Alberts was there, they were waiting for the Forensic Team from Pretoria. I know that they telephoned Gen Krappies, I don't know who it was that contacted him, but he was also informed. I don't know whether it was Klopper who did that or Mr De Kock himself, I am not certain, but at approximately eight o'clock that morning, or nine o'clock, Brigadier Engelbrecht arrived there, it was he and Paul van Dyk I think, they were driving a Volkswagen Jetta. I didn't speak to the Brigadier but Mr De Kock spoke to him, and I assume that he was briefing him regarding what had taken place. I was not present during the discussion. At a certain point, we returned to the Hotel to have a meal, and Mr De Kock, I think he went for a shower, that is possible, we then prepared to go to the Game Reserve. I know that there was a decision that we would not depose any statements there, I don't know who was the person who took that decision. At approximately eleven o'clock that morning, I think, De Kock and I drove through to the Game Reserve for a conference with the Defence Force and the people from the Game Reserve. Later Gen Engelbrecht also arrived there during the afternoon. The conference took approximately two hours, between three o'clock and five o'clock I think. Afterwards there was a function, the Defence Force people were there and everybody knew about the shooting and the Defence Force people knew about it, I don't know who told them. I suppose it must have been a telegram.
MR LAMEY: But with regards to the precise circumstances?
MR NORTJE: No, we didn't tell them. If anybody asked, we told them what we wanted them to know, we didn't tell them exactly what had happened. I know that Mr De Kock told me that he had informed Engelbrecht regarding what had taken place and I think it was there that he had told him about Tiso. The reason why I say this is because he told me at a certain point.
MR LAMEY: Mr De Kock?
MR NORTJE: Yes, so I assumed that Mr Engelbrecht was completely up to date regarding what had happened. Later that night, or later that evening, I think that it must have been about ten o'clock when we had finished supper, we drove back to Malelane in his car and we received permission from the Game Reserve to go. At approximately one or two o'clock, we arrived at Malelane at the Lodge. I then wanted to return to Nelspruit and he told me to stay the night. I slept on the floor in his room and the following morning early, I went to Nelspruit to the hotel. I don't know if any other people were there, I am not sure. I then returned to Pretoria.
MR LAMEY: Very well.
ADV DE JAGER: What did you drive with from Malelane to Nelspruit?
MR NORTJE: With my car, I had a Cressida, it was Mr De Kock's previous car.
ADV DE JAGER: So you went with your car to the Game Reserve and also with your car to Malelane?
MR NORTJE: Yes. When we arrived at Malelane, Klopper was there and that is why he returned the following day with Klopper and I drove by myself.
MR LAMEY: Very well, do you know whether there was any post-mortem inquest subsequently?
MR NORTJE: Yes. Quite some time afterwards the statements were compiled, I know that Mr Holtzhausen was very much involved in that and there was also a person from Nelspruit, I think he was a Lieutenant or a Captain from the Detective Branch who was also involved in the investigation. The statements were taken at a certain point or written at a certain point, but the version that we wanted to present of what had occurred there, was given. I know that at a certain point, there was a meeting at Grasdak, that was in Pretoria where our offices were where the guys rewrote the statements or made certain amendments to the statements so that they could coordinate. I know that Gen Engelbrecht was there at a certain point for this purpose, I cannot say precisely what his orders were because I did not pay much attention to that. I, myself, never wrote a statement. A statement was simply given to me at a certain point, which I undersigned and then later we were prepared for the post mortem inquest which was held in Nelspruit.
MR LAMEY: You knew that the statements were creating a false impression?
MR NORTJE: That is correct. It was simply about the facts that these persons had not shot at us ...
MR LAMEY: I beg your pardon, you say that these men did in fact not shoot at you, do I understand you correctly? You said that the statement would make it appear that the men had not shot at you?
MR NORTJE: Yes, I know that at a certain point the impression was created that they would have shot at us, or that the statements would have read that they had shot at members, but because I wasn't present at the scene, I didn't really pay much attention to it.
MR LAMEY: Well, it wasn't necessary for you to clarify it?
MR NORTJE: No.
MR LAMEY: You basically stated that you were at an observation point and that you made it appear that you didn't really know what was going to happen at the scene of the incident?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: While in truth, you knew what was going to happen?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: Very well. Do you yourself know that guns were planted at the scene?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR LAMEY: That was told to you later?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: You did not see this happen at the stage when you were on the scene?
MR NORTJE: No. I didn't see it, although I can mention that I would imagine that I had something to do with the handgrenades at a certain point.
MR LAMEY: Did you know that handgrenades would be planted?
MR NORTJE: Yes, I knew.
MR LAMEY: Were you at any stage present on the scene, when the explosion took place or what is your recollection?
MR NORTJE: I am not completely certain, I know that when I approached, there was an explosion. I heard the explosions, but I don't know whether this was when I stood there or as I approached.
MR LAMEY: I just want to ask you with regard to Tiso who was ultimately at another place, what was the expectation with regards to Tiso himself from your perspective?
MR NORTJE: Well, when Tiso was not found in the vehicle, the unexpected took place.
MR LAMEY: Very well, so what you are saying is that the expectation was that he would also have been in the vehicle with the other members of the gang?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: Then Mr Nortje, I would just like to return you to page 155. You are applying for amnesty for your involvement in conspiracy to commit murder, is that correct, and your entire involvement in the execution of that conspiracy, is that correct?
MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.
MR LAMEY: As it is set out on page 155 to 156, this is also with regard to the conspiracy to eliminate Tiso and the deeds that you committed in order to execute that conspiracy, is that correct?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: Furthermore with regard to the post mortem inquest, you also request amnesty for defeating the ends of justice and perjury is that correct, is that correct? Chairperson, I think that the practice is that at a certain point, a more particular list of offences is provided. At a later stage I will give further details than what is set out within the actual evidence. As it pleases you. You also request amnesty for any unlawful deed which may emanate from your involvement in the deaths of the four persons in the mini-bus and then also with regards to Tiso, is that correct?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR LAMEY: Then furthermore with regard to the political objective, you have summarised this from page 156 to 157. You have studied this once again, is that correct?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR LAMEY: And do you confirm that from your perspective this action does have a political motive as you have explained?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR LAMEY: Did you also regard it as such at that time?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: Then with regard to this, might I just ask you, you, yourself, in the time preceding the incident, did it ever come to your knowledge with regard to crime such as robbery specifically in which ANC members or MK members or PAC members were involved, what I want to ask you is was that information ever mentioned or made known in the circles that you moved in?
MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct, there was quite a great deal of information regarding MK's who had returned, who would have become involved in crime such as armed robberies. My opinion is that they had to fend for themselves, they didn't have any secure income. The information that we had was that these were indeed MK members.
MR LAMEY: In this incident?
MR NORTJE: Yes, in this incident. This is the information as I understood it from Mr Holtzhausen and I think that at a certain stage Mr Van Zyl himself, mentioned it. As I have said, there were also many other cases of such robberies. I am not saying that all of them were ANC people or MK's. The case in Braamfontein, I cannot recall specifically, I think that those were Zimbabweans, we also arrested some of those persons. It was general information that the PAC was also involved in armed robberies, so to me it was definitely the case that these persons were committing armed robberies.
MR LAMEY: And according to you and primarily Holtzhausen, was this also the information that you could apply to the group that you were going to lure into the ambush?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR LAMEY: Mr Nortje, to put this in words, before you arrived at Vlakplaas, in your amnesty application we also have a summary of your background and the course of events before you joined Vlakplaas.
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR LAMEY: In your career, you also had built up operational experience in the former Southwest Africa as part of Operation Koevoet?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: And after that, you also state this in your general background, it is there for the Committee and everyone to see, you state that you regarded your involvements with Vlakplaas as a continuation and an application of the experiences that you had gathered in your fight against terrorism?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: Mr De Kock has given evidence about it, he also state this in his initial submission, that Vlakplaas during the 1990's and I don't know from which specific date onwards, but during the 1990's Vlakplaas also became involved in crime investigation?
MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.
MR LAMEY: And you, yourself, were you also involved in investigations regarding arms smuggling into the country after 1990?
MR NORTJE: Yes, basically I was quite intensively involved in the infiltration of smuggling networks from Mozambique to the East Rand. We started Operation Excaliber to which Mr De Kock referred and at a certain stage with the assistance of a source which we recruited, we retrieved 200 AK's from vehicles. These arms had been smuggled in through the petrol tanks of these vehicles through Mozambique and at a stage it emerged that the smugglers were basically just smugglers, because they were prepared to sell these weapons to anybody.
MR LAMEY: The smugglers themselves?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR LAMEY: And from your personal experience of that time when you were involved in this, do you know into whose hands these smuggled arms would go?
MR NORTJE: Well, basically to anybody who wanted to buy the arms. They didn't really care to who they sold these weapons. Members of Inkatha bought these weapons, ANC members bought the weapons, we asked them specifically and they said that they didn't really care who bought the weapons.
MR LAMEY: The smugglers?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR LAMEY: So the buyers according to your information, were members of political organisations?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Or at least some of the buyers?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Among others? The smugglers were just in it for the business?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: They had no political objective or perspective?
MR NORTJE: No, we did not pick up anything like that at that point, because those persons that we had arrested across the border were simply in it for the money, that was the inference that we drew.
MR LAMEY: Apart from the fact that C10 became involved in crime investigation, what was your opinion? Did you go over to crime investigation exclusively? Was this any different to your preceding activities when you were involved in counter-insurgency and the tracing of terrorists, how would you describe the role of Vlakplaas after 1990, after the unbanning of the ANC in your own words?
MR NORTJE: Well, we were definitely not scaled down from politics, it was said in quotation marks "you are working with crime", but I knew what was going on, because we were still involved in covert activities.
MR LAMEY: After 1990?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR LAMEY: So apart from the Nelspruit incident, there were also other politically driven operations?
MR NORTJE: Yes, which were completely covert, they had nothing to do with crime.
MR LAMEY: Could you give us some examples?
MR NORTJE: There were two operations which we executed in Botswana during that time. I was sent on the Greytown operation. I cannot recall anything else specifically, but I know that there were other covert operations which were politically oriented which took place.
MR LAMEY: And the supply of weapons?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR LAMEY: You have also requested amnesty for that?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR LAMEY: Mr Nortje, I want to ask you about something which I have referred to earlier on, you had primarily operational experience, in the supplementary submission of Mr De Kock, we found what Mr Van der Merwe had given evidence about previously and that is that C10 - this is Exhibit C page 27, Chairperson - that the members of C10 were experienced and competent members who had received counter-insurgency training and were capable of working under the most difficult circumstances and that indeed they were the only operational unit of the Security Police, did you also regard it as such?
MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.
MR LAMEY: Now I want to ask you given that Mr De Kock himself served in Koevoet and had built up a wide level of operational experience as you had, was this also the experience with other members of C10?
MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.
MR LAMEY: After 1990 when you became in crime investigation, was there ever any reorientation or retraining or any such programmes which could create the impression that your focal point had shifted completely from the preceding era during which you were an exclusively operational unit?
MR NORTJE: No.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey, do you have any ground left to cover?
MR LAMEY: I think I am almost finished, I just want to make sure that there isn't anything that I left out. My idea was to lead Mr Nortje with regard to Gen Engelbrecht's affidavit which has been served before the Committee, but what I thought of as an alternative was to request the Committee because in paragraph 3.6 he makes certain inferences about Mr Nortje's evidence during the Maponya incident and I think that the best course of action would be to examine Mr Nortje's evidence itself.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, so that you don't have to lead it once more here?
MR LAMEY: Yes, that is correct. We have already obtained a transcript thereof. I would request Mr Chairperson, without leading Mr Nortje about it, that I simply hand it up to the Committee.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR LAMEY: And just argue further about it.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think that would be the best course of action.
MR LAMEY: Mr Nortje, furthermore with regard to the order and approval, you have referred to the fact that your order for your involvement in the Nelspruit incident as well as the incident with regard to Tiso, came from Col De Kock?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: Thank you Chairperson, I think that that would be the evidence in chief, I have nothing further.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY
CHAIRPERSON: Very well, thank you Mr Lamey. We will take a 15 minute adjournment.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
WILLEM ALBERTUS NORTJE: (s.u.o.)
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hattingh, any questions?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Thank you Mr Chairman. Upon various occasions before Committees, I have
examined you and I have already put the questions that I want to put to you previously, with the exception of Mr Sibanyoni I have not put these questions to you on an occasion during which the Chairperson and Mr De Jager formed part of the Committee, and I must put it to you once more. The statement which you made in Denmark, was made under great pressure?
MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.
MR HATTINGH: Let us just begin somewhat earlier, you were one of the persons who was mentioned as Q, Q1, Q2 and Q3, who testified before the Goldstone Commission regarding the activities of Vlakplaas, is that correct?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR HATTINGH: Mr Klopper was the first person and I think that he was known as Q1, is that correct?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR HATTINGH: And then other members of Vlakplaas were also brought before the Goldstone Commission in terms of the information which they received from Mr Klopper?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: And you also gave evidence there, is that correct?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR HATTINGH: And initially you denied all knowledge of such incidents?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: And afterwards you came to know about what Mr Klopper had given evidence, or at least it became known that he gave evidence about your activities?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR HATTINGH: And then you realised that the writing was on the wall?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: And you returned to the Goldstone Commission and submitted a statement regarding the incidents in which you had been involved?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: It was a very brief, yet concise statement regarding subjects about which you were specifically examined?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: You did not sit down and explain your entire history with Vlakplaas and all the incidents that you had been involved in respectively?
MR NORTJE: Well, by nature of the situation, I could not remember everything at that point, I could only tell them what I could remember.
MR HATTINGH: Yes, that is one of the aspects that I would like to clarify. At that stage, you were asked questioned about aspects which had taken place years before in certain cases?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR HATTINGH: And you did not have the opportunity to consult documents?
MR NORTJE: No.
MR HATTINGH: You also did not have the opportunity to discuss the matters with other members who had also been involved with you in such incidents?
MR NORTJE: No.
MR HATTINGH: You had to give evidence according to the best of your recollection, of these incidents, before the Goldstone Commission?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: Then you feared for your own safety and for the safety of your family?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: And you requested that arrangements be made to guarantee your safety?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR HATTINGH: In fact, you directed request to the Commission before you declared your willingness to give evidence openly regarding information that you possessed?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR HATTINGH: And certain assurances were given to you that your safety and the safety of your family would be seen to?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: And very shortly after you gave evidence in great haste, you were taken out of the country?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR HATTINGH: You weren't even given the opportunity to pack any clothes or make any other arrangements?
MR NORTJE: No, I took the minimum.
MR HATTINGH: Yes, you took the minimum and was that on the same day or the following day that you were taken out of the country?
MR NORTJE: We appeared before Judge Goldstone on the Thursday and it was only on the Tuesday evening that I flew out.
MR HATTINGH: And where did you find yourself in that intermediate period between your evidence and your departure, were you still living at your house?
MR NORTJE: That Thursday night I stayed at my house and the Friday evening as well as the Saturday evening. The Sunday evening I stayed with my brother-in-law, the Monday evening in a hotel.
MR HATTINGH: This was all out of fear?
MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.
MR HATTINGH: Then you went to Denmark where you were questioned by various persons. I assume that His Worship, Judge Goldstone was there?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR HATTINGH: As well as the Attorney General, Dr D'Oliviera?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: Two of his staff members, I think it was one or two, was Mr Ackerman there?
MR NORTJE: No.
MR HATTINGH: Was Dr Pretorius there?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR HATTINGH: And then there were also policemen who had assisted the Goldstone Commission with their investigation?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR HATTINGH: Judge Chaskalson was also there?
MR NORTJE: Yes, he was also there, that is correct.
MR HATTINGH: Very well. And once again, you were questioned and you made the statement which forms part of the documents which has been served before the Committee?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: And once again, with the deposition of your statements, you did not have the opportunity to consult any documents?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: And you also did not have the opportunity with the exception of Mr Klopper, to exchange any information and to attempt to refresh each other's memory?
MR NORTJE: No.
MR HATTINGH: And that is why the information which is contained within that statement which you made, rests purely upon your recollection of the events when you were there in Copenhagen?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: Is it possible that your recollection regarding some of these facts which you presented, may have been faulty?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR HATTINGH: You have also conceded to this upon previous occasions?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: Mr Nortje, before I proceed with this particular subject, I would just like to deal with another aspect which was put to Mr De Kock during cross-examination before this Committee. It was put to him that the impression was created that you and Mr Gevers and so forth, who had already received indemnity for your involvement in Nelspruit, that you were applying for amnesty for this incident simply because you wanted to assist Mr De Kock, did you hear that?
MR NORTJE: Yes, I heard that.
MR HATTINGH: Is that correct, is that the reason why you have applied for amnesty?
MR NORTJE: No, under no circumstances is that correct.
MR HATTINGH: In fact Mr Nortje, during the Maponya incident, you gave evidence that Mr Pienaar had been involved in the incident, is that correct?
MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.
MR HATTINGH: And Mr De Kock denied this emphatically?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: It was also argued before the Committee that if the Committee should find that Mr Pienaar was present, the Committee could then find that Mr De Kock has not made a full disclosure of relevant facts and that this could be detrimental to his application?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR HATTINGH: And the converse may also be true, should they find that Mr Pienaar was not present, it could be said that you have misled the Committee and that your application could fail?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: Now Mr Nortje, regarding this particular aspect, was it easy for you particularly within the light of the concessions that you have just made, to say that it was my recollection that Mr Pienaar was present, but it could be possible that I could be mistaken, however you did not do this?
MR NORTJE: If you were to ask me, I would say that I was dead certain that he was there.
MR HATTINGH: But if you wanted to assist Mr De Kock, you could say that it is possible that I am mistaken, isn't that true without it really doing anything to your credibility?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: And the same goes for him, he could easily have said it is still my clear recollection that Mr Pienaar was not present, but if you and Van der Walt and Fourie say that he was present, then I may be mistaken?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: But nonetheless both of you stood by your versions?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: Very well, let us proceed. In as far as it concerns the evidence given here once again today, as you have done during previous De Kock hearings, on various occasions you have said "I am not certain, I don't have a clear recollection" and other such expressions, which indicate that you are uncertain regarding various facts regarding this event?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: You have also sat here before the Committee while Mr De Kock gave evidence, is that correct Mr Nortje?
MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.
MR HATTINGH: Are you aware that with regard to this incident, there are differences between you and him?
MR NORTJE: Yes, it would appear so.
MR HATTINGH: Then let us deal with some of these differences, I am not going to say through that that these are essential differences, but in as far as anybody may differ from it, I want to deal with this with you briefly. If we deal with the question of petrol and the issue that the mini-bus would burn and so forth, you have heard Mr De Kock's evidence that he cannot recall that anything was said about petrol, but that if he had been asked, he would have agreed, however he does not have any independent recollection thereof, do you recall that?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR HATTINGH: Your evidence during the criminal trial about this was also relatively vague and I would say contradictory to a certain extent?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR HATTINGH: Is it possible that you may be mistaken when you say that he insisted upon burning the mini-bus?
MR NORTJE: I know that with regard to the mini-bus, he discussed this with me or at least that I was present in the company, he discussed it with me.
MR HATTINGH: Well, let us just make sure, was it in company or did he speak to you specifically this?
MR NORTJE: I don't know.
MR HATTINGH: So you are not certain of the circumstances under which this was discussed?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: What else do you recall, what do you recall about it?
MR NORTJE: As I have said, I cannot recall his precise words because I never took down notes or attempted to recall precisely what he had said to me. After the fact, I recall that he had said something to me about the bus that had to be destroyed because he wanted to put in an insurance claim.
MR HATTINGH: Did he put it in so many words to you?
MR NORTJE: No, I cannot recall his precise choice of words.
MR HATTINGH: But the gist of it was about an insurance claim?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR HATTINGH: Are you sure about that?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR HATTINGH: Did you testify as such during the criminal trial?
MR NORTJE: I am not sure.
MR HATTINGH: Well, then I want to put it to you that you didn't. During the criminal trial you said that the reason why the mini-bus had to burn was because he wanted to ensure that there would be no forensic evidence in terms of the experience that you had during the Piet Retief incident?
MR NORTJE: That is also true.
MR HATTINGH: Well, then I want to put it to you that that was the only reason which was presented during the criminal trial.
MR NORTJE: I may have thought about it at that stage.
MR HATTINGH: Yes, and in your statements you have not mentioned it and also not in your other affidavit for your amnesty application?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: So what leads you to believe that he said this?
MR NORTJE: I have thought about it in recent times, there are other aspects which I have forgotten about completely such as for example the fact that the petrol was a factor. I recall that evening at the hotel he asked me "do you have the petrol", because that afternoon I sent Simon to buy the petrol.
MR HATTINGH: How much petrol did he buy?
MR NORTJE: I think it was 15 litres.
MR HATTINGH: Do you recall what you said during the trial?
MR NORTJE: No.
MR HATTINGH: Was it one or two cans?
MR NORTJE: I am not certain.
MR HATTINGH: Can you recall what you said during the trial?
MR NORTJE: I imagine that I said there that it was 10 litres. Two ten litre cans.
MR HATTINGH: Yes, two ten litre cans, so why is your evidence here today and your recollection of what you said, different?
MR NORTJE: Well, the precise quantity of petrol is something that I cannot recall exactly. I know that there was a certain amount, the fact that it was two separate cans wasn't material to me. I just knew that there was petrol.
MR HATTINGH: You didn't know that you were going to give evidence about the petrol here today and it does not appear in your statements and that is why we do not want to submit your evidence during Mr De Kock's trial to the Committee, however if it is substantial, we will request to do so and I can refer you specifically to your evidence in this regard and once again as we did during the Maponya hearings, spend an entire day on cross-examination. We can do this again. Are you not prepared to concede that your recollection regarding the issue of the petrol, may be faulty?
MR NORTJE: I wouldn't say that I am entirely mistaken, but with regard to the quantity, I can say that I may have been mistaken.
MR HATTINGH: And the reason why the mini-bus had to burn, and this is the reason that we have heard for the first time from you, is that it was about an insurance claim? This is the first time that we have heard about it.
MR NORTJE: That was also a factor.
MR HATTINGH: Then why didn't you ever mention it previously?
MR NORTJE: I have said that I didn't think about it, I only thought about it later, it was also a reason.
MR HATTINGH: What made you think about it now?
MR NORTJE: I think it was during consultation when I remembered it.
MR HATTINGH: During consultation with your Attorney who is representing you here?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR HATTINGH: You sat in while he was cross-examining Mr De Kock, is that correct?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR HATTINGH: And you will recall that he didn't put anything in this regard to Mr De Kock?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR LAMEY: Mr Chairperson, my recollection is that I am not entirely certain that Mr De Kock after my cross-examination during cross-examination by other members, he elaborated on the petrol aspect, as it pleases you.
MR HATTINGH: It was never put to Mr De Kock that he told Mr Nortje that the mini-bus had to burn so that the owner of the mini-bus could put in an insurance claim. What made you think about that?
MR NORTJE: I cannot think about it now.
MR HATTINGH: You cannot think about it now? It is just something which emerged in your thoughts?
MR NORTJE: It was a factor.
MR HATTINGH: I want to put it to you that you are entirely mistaken in that regard. Furthermore you can also remember that there was further evidence during the criminal trial which exposed all sorts of aspects about the petrol, who purchased it, where it came from, whether it came from Pretoria and so forth?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR HATTINGH: There was no agreement among any of you about this petrol aspect?
MR NORTJE: Yes, I am not certain.
MR HATTINGH: The second aspect Mr Nortje, has to do with the events there at the Hotel, the Drum Rock Hotel. You stated that when you arrived there, you found Mr De Kock and the two ladies in the foyer or the lounge of the hotel?
MR NORTJE: Yes, as far as I can recall the bar was part of that room, it was basically a ladies' bar with the chairs running into the foyer.
MR HATTINGH: Yes, I have also visited that hotel many years ago. As I can recall it was a lounge which one would enter as one entered the hotel and then on the one side of this room, there was a bar counter with bar stools and so forth?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR HATTINGH: However the entire room was not really known as the ladies' bar, it was more the waiting room of the hotel?
MR NORTJE: Yes, I would say that.
MR HATTINGH: Who else was present when you found them seated there?
MR NORTJE: Well I was there, Klopper was there, Mr De Kock was there.
MR HATTINGH: Anybody else?
MR NORTJE: The other members who were with me, I think Douglas Holtzhausen was there, Britz was there. I recall that all of us arrived there together from the police canteen.
MR HATTINGH: Yes, and is it not correct that he there asked Capt Geldenhuys whether all the arrangements were in order?
MR NORTJE: Yes, I cannot recall that he asked or said that, but the next thing that happened was the meeting in the room. It definitely took place, and at that stage, it must have taken place because I think I said at a stage later that evening, but it couldn't have been later that evening as he gave evidence, later that evening he was actually late for the time of departure that we had arranged. This meeting must have taken place at a time when we all arrived at the hotel.
MR HATTINGH: Very well, let us just analyse what you have said. You have stated that you think that you said at a stage that it was later, are you referring to your evidence during the criminal trial of Mr De Kock?
MR NORTJE: I think so.
MR HATTINGH: Yes, in fact you did say that the further planning in your room, took place that evening before you departed for the scene?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: Well, then why have you changed it now?
MR NORTJE: No, it is not a question of amendment. I am simply saying that I could not recall at precisely what time this took place because I have worked it out for myself during this time, that it could not have been later, it had to have been earlier. They departed to drop off the ladies and returned, my evidence makes sense to me.
MR HATTINGH: So you are working out the evidence, you don't really have a recollection, you are making calculations. You are saying that because he departed, it could not have been that evening, it had to have been that afternoon, so you don't have an independent recollection of it, is that correct?
MR NORTJE: I know that it took place.
MR HATTINGH: But you don't know the time that it took place?
MR NORTJE: Well now I know that it was earlier, not later.
MR HATTINGH: How do you remember that? You have already told us that you calculated it?
MR NORTJE: Yes, I have thought about it during the time that we prepared for this hearing. I was mistaken when I said this during the criminal trial, because I was not certain.
MR HATTINGH: During the criminal trial you said that it was during the evening, I am speaking under correction but it was a while before you departed for the scene?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR HATTINGH: Well, then I want to put it to you that the final planning, if indeed it took place when it took place, meant that Mr De Kock was not present?
MR NORTJE: No.
MR HATTINGH: Mr De Kock was never in a hotel room where the planning was discussed. You heard his evidence here that he didn't even know where the ambush would take place?
MR NORTJE: I cannot agree with that, that is not the way that I recall it.
MR HATTINGH: It was never put to him by your Attorney that he was present during the meeting and that his evidence that he didn't know where the ambush was, is incorrect, that was never put to him?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR HATTINGH: Very well, is it possible then that your evidence during the criminal trial was the correct version and that this planning took place in the absence of Mr De Kock?
MR NORTJE: No, he was definitely present. I may have miscalculated the time, but he was definitely present.
MR HATTINGH: Why are you so certain that he was present?
MR NORTJE: Because the decision was taken there that he and I would not shoot.
MR HATTINGH: But wasn't that already decided in Pretoria?
MR NORTJE: It was already discussed.
MR HATTINGH: Then why did you have to discuss it again?
MR NORTJE: The final decision for that took place there regarding what I would do, that I would take the black members with me and that he would not shoot. I couldn't have told him or nobody told him "listen, you have to stand there or there". The decision was taken there that he and I would not shoot.
MR HATTINGH: And when I put it to you that this was decided at Pretoria you said that it had been decided in Pretoria?
MR NORTJE: I don't believe that it was finally decided in Pretoria, I think it may just have been discussed. As I have said the final decision was taken there.
MR HATTINGH: Why wasn't the final decision taken in Pretoria, why was it left uncertain, what was so difficult about taking that decision?
MR NORTJE: I don't think that it was as finely discussed in Pretoria. As I have said, we may have discussed it, but I would imagine that the final decision was taken in the hotel room, or at least it was definitely there.
MR HATTINGH: My Attorney has fixed my attention on Mr Gevers' statement in this regard, on page 74 where he states
"... having arrived back at the Drum Rock Hotel I found the following persons, including members, in the ladies' bar, Lt Col De Kock, Lt Klopper, Sergeant Female Van Vuuren, Sergeant Female Le Roux. The four did not spend much time there and departed. They would go and book in somewhere else for the evening. The Malelane Lodge was mentioned by them, and (he says) the entire group went to Nortje's room. At a stage W/O Boshoff and Sergeant Deon Gouws also joined us."
It sounds to me as if he says that after their departure, the entire group went to Nortje's room?
MR NORTJE: That is not the way that I recall it.
ADV DE JAGER: Were the ladies also in the room with you?
MR NORTJE: No.
MR HATTINGH: If he refers to the entire group, it could not have included the ladies?
MR NORTJE: I remember that the ladies remained in the ladies' bar or lounge or whatever it was. They waited there until we had finished the discussion and that is when they departed.
MR HATTINGH: Very well. I then want to put it to you, I will argue that Mr De Kock's version of these events be accepted and that indicates that he arrived there with the ladies, spent some time there and that they departed. He also has given evidence that they ate a meal in a restaurant before departing for Malelane and that that evening, shortly before your departure or while you were departing from the hotel, he arrived back at the hotel?
MR NORTJE: No, he would have known exactly what was going on.
MR HATTINGH: Isn't that because you thought that you knew him so well, that you are inferring that he would have known? As far as I understand and I speak under correction, you are the only person who said during the criminal trial that Mr De Kock was present in the room when the final planning was executed, can you recall anything else?
MR NORTJE: No, I will stand by what I have said.
MR HATTINGH: Very well. Then I am jumping ahead in my cross-examination to the scene itself and the question of what was discussed there when you realised that Tiso was not present and Mr De Kock mentioned the possibility of detaining him in Swaziland, is it possible that such a possibility was ever considered?
MR NORTJE: Yes, it is possible.
MR HATTINGH: And that all of you realised at that point that it was not a viable option?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR HATTINGH: And that you abandoned this option?
MR NORTJE: As I have said, I cannot recall exactly what the ideas were.
MR HATTINGH: You said that Mr De Kock appeared to be confused when you told him that Tiso was not in the vehicle, isn't it more correct that he was upset?
MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.
MR HATTINGH: Yes, because your plan had gone wrong?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR HATTINGH: He was upset and perhaps confused is more of a euphemism? In fact he was angry?
MR NORTJE: Yes, I would say that he was upset, I wouldn't say that he was confused, I may have just used the wrong word, he was upset because for all of us it was a critical situation.
MR HATTINGH: Was it said to him upon the first occasion and was it then that you departed to go and find Tiso and that you returned and told them that Tiso wasn't in the vehicle?
MR NORTJE: When Van Zyl arrived there and Holtzhausen spoke to him, he told us that Tiso was not in the vehicle?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR HATTINGH: You will recall that hours of cross-examination was put regarding this subject and that there were many contradictions with regard to this particular aspect?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: Very well, let us deal further with your evidence. The information that you received from Mr Holtzhausen, or let me rephrase my question, you did not receive all the information from Mr Holtzhausen, you were present when some of the information was conveyed by Mr Van Zyl, isn't that correct?
MR NORTJE: Yes, at certain stages I was present, but as I have said, there were many things which took place at that stage and the precise information that he discussed with us, I cannot recall, but I know that at a stage there was talk, I don't know whether it was on that day that we were in the office that he had already spoke about Tiso and the fact that he was a trained ANC member or whether this took place in the process. It is difficult for me to distinguish it to pertinently, but the information came from him, I knew that.
ADV DE JAGER: Could you possibly tell us how many times you attended discussions during which Mr Van Zyl was present?
MR NORTJE: It is very difficult for me to say, it may have been four or five times, but I am speculating, I am not certain. The reason why I say this is because there were other cases such as the Braamfontein incident and there were also other crimes which he had reported, but nothing came from this information. Often it happened that nothing happened as a result of the information. I wasn't always present.
ADV DE JAGER: All I want to know is how many times you met Van Zyl personally and spoke to him, just approximately?
MR NORTJE: Well, the first time that I met him was in Johannesburg, I think it was the same evening that Mr De Kock met him. From that point on, I was in his office once. I imagine that he also visited our offices once. It is difficult to say, but it was a number of times.
MR HATTINGH: I beg your pardon, Mr Nortje, I would just like to return to an aspect that I thought I had concluded, the question of whether Mr De Kock was present in the hotel room where the final planning took place, your evidence before this Committee was beginning with "as far as I can recall, the final planning was discussed there", can you recall that?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR HATTINGH: Now the expression "as far as I can recall" also indicates a measure of uncertainty in your recollection?
MR NORTJE: No, I must have misexpressed myself, I am convinced that it took place there.
MR HATTINGH: Very well, and there is another aspect which I omitted, the AK47 guns according to you were given by Mr De Kock?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR HATTINGH: How certain are you about that?
MR NORTJE: Well at that stage, these specific weapons were not in my vehicle, the weapons were discussed and the idea was to give the guns to Tiso and the others, this was discussed, but the fact that the weapons would be planted, was something which was definitely discussed. I recall that he asked Lionel Snyman or Snor Vermeulen to bring the weapons.
MR HATTINGH: Isn't it correct Mr Nortje, that most of Vlakplaas' members, if indeed not all of them, had their own personal arsenal of weapons?
MR NORTJE: Yes, but we didn't take our weapons with us, they were always locked up. I just had an R5. At that stage one couldn't drive around with weapons in cars like that.
MR HATTINGH: Just limit yourself to my question, isn't it true that you had your own private arsenal of weapons, that was the question?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR HATTINGH: And where did you keep your arsenal of weapons?
MR NORTJE: It was at Paardekraal or Daisy, one of the two.
MR HATTINGH: The weapons were kept in trunks?
MR NORTJE: Yes, in trunks.
MR HATTINGH: And did you also have AK's?
MR NORTJE: I cannot recall whether I had an AK at that stage.
MR HATTINGH: Did some of the other members have AK's?
MR NORTJE: Yes, it is possible.
MR HATTINGH: So it wasn't necessary for you to request AK's from Mr De Kock, because they were freely available among you?
MR NORTJE: Yes, but the weapons were not handed out randomly because that weapon had a specific purpose. I think they may have been prepared as well, the numbers may have been removed.
MR HATTINGH: But you are just speculating now, you don't know for sure?
MR NORTJE: Yes, but that could have happened.
MR HATTINGH: Where did he hand the weapons over to you?
MR NORTJE: I cannot remember, I don't know.
MR HATTINGH: So how do you know that he gave it to you?
MR NORTJE: The weapons did come from him, I cannot remember exactly where he gave it to me or Holtzhausen was present.
MR HATTINGH: You can't even remember whether he gave it to you?
MR NORTJE: It was Holtzhausen and I. The weapons at some stage were in my car and later it was in his car.
MR HATTINGH: We are digressing, can you recall whether the weapons were given to you or to Mr Holtzhausen?
MR NORTJE: I cannot pertinently distinguish now.
MR HATTINGH: So you cannot recall whether it was given to you?
MR NORTJE: I handled the weapons at some stage.
MR HATTINGH: Please just answer the questions. I did not ask you whether you handled the weapons at some stage, I am asking whether you can recall whether the weapons were given to you?
MR NORTJE: No.
MR HATTINGH: But still you testify positively that Mr De Kock gave the weapons, while you were not present when it was given to you?
MR NORTJE: I must have been present.
MR HATTINGH: Why do you say that?
MR NORTJE: Because I know I got the weapons at some stage.
MR HATTINGH: Couldn't you have gotten the weapons from Holtzhausen in the absence of Mr De Kock? Can you answer?
MR NORTJE: No.
MR HATTINGH: At the criminal trial, I want to mention to you that you also could not recall - a moment Mr Chairperson - you testified there that you
"... had no independent recollection of weapons handed over by the accused to me or to Holtzhausen"?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR HATTINGH: What about the handgrenades, where did that come from?
MR NORTJE: I am not certain, we had it. At some stage, I might have had it in my vehicle, but I cannot pertinently recall whether he gave it to me.
MR HATTINGH: Did you not now go and think about this and, to surmise where the handgrenades came from as you have done in other instances?
MR NORTJE: No, I cannot recall, it could have been in my possession.
MR HATTINGH: In the criminal trail you testified that the handgrenades had already been in the vehicle?
MR NORTJE: Yes, that must have been the case then.
MR HATTINGH: Who took the rifles down, the AK's down to Nelspruit?
MR NORTJE: It was either, it was in either mine or Holtzhausen's car.
MR HATTINGH: Who placed it there?
MR NORTJE: Holtzhausen and I or Holtzhausen or I.
MR HATTINGH: Can you recall?
MR NORTJE: No.
MR HATTINGH: So you cannot recall?
MR NORTJE: I cannot say exactly.
MR HATTINGH: So you cannot say at all?
MR NORTJE: No, we definitely had the weapons.
MR HATTINGH: Yes, but you cannot say who placed it in the vehicle?
MR NORTJE: It must have been he or I.
MR HATTINGH: But you do not have any independent recollection that it was you?
MR NORTJE: No.
MR HATTINGH: And you also have no recollection as to whose vehicle the firearms were in?
MR NORTJE: No.
MR HATTINGH: I am being pointed out at what Geldenhuys says on page 261 that at the hotel Mr De Kock departed, relatively soon after you arrived there, that is his recollection?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
ADV DE JAGER: Excuse me, if you could just give that reference again?
MR HATTINGH: It is page 261 of the Bundle, Chairperson, paragraph 45. Very well, with regard to the information that you received, is it correct that at the criminal trial, you also testified, that the information was that these robbers had been involved in other robberies upon instruction of Mrs Winnie Mandela?
MR NORTJE: Yes, that was the essence of the information.
MR HATTINGH: Do you recall that?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR HATTINGH: And that she had been linked to these robberies?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: And do you know that the loot from the robberies were discussed?
MR NORTJE: I cannot recall the discussion, but I think it was more inferences that everybody had drawn.
MR HATTINGH: Was it not told to you that the loot or part thereof would go to the ANC according to the information that you had?
MR NORTJE: I cannot recall. At that stage it was not that well known, it was all speculation.
MR HATTINGH: Why would it not be so well known if Tiso had been working for Mrs Mandela and he had been involved in these robberies?
MR NORTJE: The money had to go somewhere and the inference was that the money had gone to the people themselves and to the ANC, I don't know if we had any proof at that stage.
MR HATTINGH: We are not talking about proof, we are talking about information that you received.
MR NORTJE: The information indicated that.
MR HATTINGH: What was your recollection with regard to the issue, whether the robbers would be armed or not?
MR NORTJE: Originally ...
MR HATTINGH: They asked for AK's?
MR NORTJE: Yes, they asked for AK's and that is what gave us the certainty that these persons had to be trained, because not just anybody will come around and ask for an AK. And the information was that they had previously been involved in robberies.
MR HATTINGH: Are you saying, and if I am incorrect, you must please correct me, that a layman would not be able to handle an AK?
MR NORTJE: Well, one can probably train anybody to do it.
MR HATTINGH: But you need to receive training in the handling of it?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: And this strengthened the resolve with you that these persons had been trained?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: And you thought it would be risky to leave the firearms in the vehicle?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR HATTINGH: Do you know anything about whether the robbers were brought under the impression that they would visit a place on their way to Coin, where they would be provided with arms and that was the new excuse because you were not prepared to leave the firearms in the vehicle for them?
MR NORTJE: Yes, I do have such a recollection.
MR HATTINGH: But you cannot recall from whom you received this information?
MR NORTJE: No, I cannot say, no.
MR HATTINGH: I speak under correction, but I think this was an issue during the criminal trial?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR HATTINGH: I cannot recall who testified to that effect and you cannot either?
MR NORTJE: No.
MR HATTINGH: And eventually you went to the bus. Did you search the mini-bus after it had been set alight?
MR NORTJE: No, I only reached the mini-bus after it was burnt and at some point, some tarpaulin cloth was put over it.
MR HATTINGH: So you don't know about the AK's that were planted there?
MR NORTJE: No, I did not look at that.
MR HATTINGH: The planting of the weapons, when was this discussed and where was it discussed?
MR NORTJE: I recall it had already been discussed in Pretoria with the initial decision to ambush these people. MR HATTINGH: This was part of your modus operandi?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: To plant weapons where no weapons were found?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: With regard to the weapons, you said when you arrived at Tiso you said where he was in the vehicle at Gateway or close to Hall's Gateway, you searched his vehicle, the Cressida which he was driving and a weapon was found?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: You said it was a .38, was it a 38 Special?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR HATTINGH: Is this the weapon which he was eventually killed with?
MR NORTJE: Yes, that was the information that I have.
MR HATTINGH: And your recollection is that the serial number had been removed?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: Was it - did it have any rounds in it?
MR NORTJE: Yes, it did.
MR HATTINGH: Very well, I want to arrive at the occasion after the incident when you arranged for the removal of Tiso and you arrived once again at the scene, are you with me?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR HATTINGH: Then there were police members?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: You had seen Alberts there, I don't know what is his rank, he is a Director now or a Commissioner and my Attorney tells me he was a Colonel then, you found him there. Did you personally speak to him?
MR NORTJE: No.
MR HATTINGH: You say shells were picked up?
MR NORTJE: Yes, it was done during the course of the search there.
MR HATTINGH: But underhandedly?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR HATTINGH: Is that to create the impression that less shots were fired?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: Did you also pick up shells?
MR NORTJE: I may have, but I don't have a specific recollection thereof, it is possible.
MR HATTINGH: Did any of the members mention to you that he, the bag that one puts over the mechanism of the firearm to prevent shells falling on the ground, does it have a name?
MR NORTJE: It is just a little sack that is put over the ejection opening for the shells, that is correct.
MR HATTINGH: Did he say that he had such an artifact on his firearm to prevent the shells falling around?
MR NORTJE: No, Mr Boshoff had one.
MR HATTINGH: You mentioned that you decided not to make any statements?
MR NORTJE: No, statements were not taken at that stage.
MR HATTINGH: Were you specifically told not to make a statement?
MR NORTJE: No, not specifically not to myself because I was not part of the shooting.
MR HATTINGH: Let us then arrive at the later occasion when you signed a statement. You say you did not even depose that statement?
MR NORTJE: No.
MR HATTINGH: The facts that were there in that statement, were those deposed to by you?
MR NORTJE: No.
MR HATTINGH: So somebody else wrote the statement out for you and you just signed it?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR HATTINGH: And that was to create the impression that this was a lawful police action?
MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.
MR HATTINGH: And Gen Engelbrecht was involved there?
ADV DE JAGER: I beg your pardon, this statement was it handwritten or typed?
MR NORTJE: No, it was typed.
MR HATTINGH: You have much experience with regard to Gen Engelbrecht's actions during such similar incidents?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: Were you involved in other instances where he had assisted with the drawing up of statements?
MR NORTJE: Yes, the Maponya incident, during the post-mortem inquest which was held just after the Harms Commission, he also assisted me.
MR HATTINGH: To draw up a statement?
MR NORTJE: Yes, it was with regard to what we had to prepare for court and he told me to say as little as possible and it was a very short statement. Can you remind me because I am not certain of the others.
MR HATTINGH: I will try, but let us just deal with this one, the statement with regard to Maponya, did Gen Engelbrecht know the truth?
MR NORTJE: Yes, according to me he did know.
MR HATTINGH: Did you mention to him the petrol register or did he ask you about the petrol register?
MR NORTJE: Yes, if I recall correctly, he asked us "have you checked the petrol registers, where did you fill petrol", it was during a discussion and somebody spoke and I think it is the General that said "where did you fill petrol" and it became a problem.
MR HATTINGH: Because some of you had indeed on the day of Maponya's abduction at Krugersdorp police station, you had filled gas and this would be reflected in the official register with the registration numbers and the persons who were responsible for the vehicle and who filled the gas and the persons who did fill the gas, they had to give their Force numbers also, so it is clear that you were there?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: The official version which was put during the inquest and at the Harms Commission's investigation, was that during the time of his abduction, you were in Jozini? You filled in S&T claims to indicate that during that time, you had been in Jozini?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: And these petrol registers would have disclosed that lie of yours?
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Hattingh, is it Jozini in Natal?
MR NORTJE: Yes Chairperson.
ADV DE JAGER: How far was that from Krugersdorp?
MR NORTJE: Between 600 and 700 kilometres.
MR HATTINGH: So you then told Gen Engelbrecht that you did fill petrol at the petrol station, what was his instruction then?
MR NORTJE: He made some arrangement with some persons that he knew, it was some person who was a Warrant Officer and I assumed it must have been one of his colleagues at that time, he said he called someone there, I must drive, it wasn't specifically the same day but he made these arrangements and I went and met with this person and at the crossing at the freeway that goes to Krugersdorp from Pretoria, on the road that goes to Tarlton, I met him that morning.
MR HATTINGH: There is a garage there?
MR NORTJE: Yes. He brought three registers there, we went through the registers and I found the place where Nofemela's name was in there and I am not certain whether my name or Van der Walt's name was there, but one of the two of us, our names were there and I took that book and I went directly to the General and gave it to him.
MR HATTINGH: And told him that this information would indicate that you had been there?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: You had been cross-examined about this as well as Mr De Kock and there was some issue about standing orders about registers having to be destroyed after three or five years or whatever the case may be, you say there were three registers?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: You were not involved with Brian Ngqulunga?
MR NORTJE: No, I was.
MR HATTINGH: Oh, so you were? Do you know whether Gen Engelbrecht had played a role there with regard to statements which were deposed to afterwards?
MR NORTJE: Not with the statements but he was involved with the planning.
MR HATTINGH: Can you recall any other incident where he was involved, the Piet Retief incidents? There were two shooting incidents at Piet Retief which have been heard before a Committee of the Amnesty Committee previously in which another version had been put forward as to the true one.
MR NORTJE: Yes. I know the Piet Retief shooting incidents, the inquest, the post-mortem inquest was held in Piet Retief and we stayed at a holiday resort and the General was with us.
MR HATTINGH: Was Gen Engelbrecht with you?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR HATTINGH: He was not involved in the incident itself?
MR NORTJE: No, he was not.
MR HATTINGH: But he was present at the holiday resort?
MR NORTJE: Yes, during the post-mortem inquest.
MR HATTINGH: What happened there?
MR NORTJE: He just assisted us there with regard to the evidence that would be led.
MR HATTINGH: Because he knew what had really happened?
MR NORTJE: Yes, he knew what had really happened.
MR HATTINGH: Was he to assist you for purposes of the post-mortem inquest?
MR NORTJE: Yes, our statements had already been in place, but he was there in support.
MR HATTINGH: I get confused with who had been involved all over, were you involved with the Chand matter? For purposes of the Committee, this was a cross-border attack on a house in Botswana?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: During which four or six people were killed?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: Was Gen Engelbrecht involved there?
MR NORTJE: Yes, he was.
MR HATTINGH: In which sense, in which capacity?
MR NORTJE: With regard to the decision that was taken there to launch the attack. We would not have done a cross-border operation without him not knowing about it, because he, if I have the date correctly ...
MR HATTINGH: Chand was April 1990?
MR NORTJE: Yes, it happened as follows, Gen Van Rensburg was in command, but afterwards he was informed and according to me, he had knowledge of the incident, but we denied it, but he was up to date.
MR HATTINGH: And Goodwill Sekakane, you were also involved with his killing, you were the one who killed him?
MR NORTJE: Yes, I received instructions from Eugene de Kock and he on his part received instructions from Gen Engelbrecht because it had nothing to do with him.
MR HATTINGH: Goodwill was killed in January 1991?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: That was after the unbanning of the ANC, and it was there according to cross-examination to Mr De Kock, you were supposed to only be involved in criminal instances, criminal investigations and Sekakane was killed on the request of Col Andy Taylor who was Mr De Kock's equal in Durban because he knew what had happened to Mr Ndaba and Mr Tshabalala there?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: And that he had threatened to disclose that information if he was not appointed as a policeman because he was still an askari?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR HATTINGH: And there was a problem of appointing him as a police officer because he had shot his wife or he had pointed his firearm at his wife?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: So it had to be done and you were sent to do it?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: Did you meet any members of Andy Taylor's Unit when you were there?
MR NORTJE: I met Andy Taylor himself and Larry Handton.
MR HATTINGH: The instruction was then conveyed to you?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: And one of his members was indeed involved in the killing of Sekakane?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: And that was an extremely covert action?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR HATTINGH: Was it reported to Gen Engelbrecht?
MR NORTJE: Well, once again I reported to Col De Kock and Mr Engelbrecht never spoke to me directly about it, he must have had his reasons, but I never discussed it with the General.
MR HATTINGH: You have already in your evidence in chief, mentioned the provision of weapons to Inkatha, this was after the unbanning of the ANC, is that correct?
MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.
MR HATTINGH: It was amongst others the weapons which were provided to you, they were home made shotguns?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: Do you know whether any of the persons at Head Office were aware of this, Gen Engelbrecht, Gen Smit or any of them?
MR NORTJE: Once again, such things were not directly discussed with me but I know that they were aware of it. In one instance there was a story of handgrenades which were found on the West Rand, black handgrenades, and the investigation or Head Office heard of the investigation and Gen Engelbrecht handled the situation as far as I know to stop the investigation because apparently the handgrenades were provided by us.
MR HATTINGH: So Gen Engelbrecht was involved in many such instances where he contorted the truth and was of assistance in preventing the truth of coming out?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: And then singular other aspects, you have made mention of the success with regard to your investigation into weapon smuggling?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: And you also received commendations for this?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: In this time, after the unbanning of the liberation movements like the ANC and so forth, were there if any, an escalation in political violence?
MR NORTJE: Yes, that is true.
MR HATTINGH: So much so that it was necessary to appoint the Goldstone Commission and other investigative units to investigate these violent incidents?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: And there was also an increase of attacks on members of the South African Police?
MR NORTJE: Yes, that is true.
MR HATTINGH: So much so and once again after the unbanning of the ANC, former President F.W. de Klerk had requested the Goldstone Commission in accordance with authorisation that he had under that Act, to investigate by means of this Commission, investigate attacks on members of the South African Police, are you aware of that?
MR NORTJE: Yes, there were such requests.
MR HATTINGH: And that that Commission had gathered information on a country-wide basis with regard to attacks on police officers?
MR NORTJE: I don't know exactly what they were busy with, but I know there were such investigations.
MR HATTINGH: If it is necessary we will bring witnesses, but I represented the police in those instances, so I am aware of it. Are you aware of it that graphics indicated that there had been an increase of attacks on members of the police?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: Did you receive any information through your sources that members of liberation movements like the ANC and the PAC may have been involved with such attacks on police?
MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.
MR HATTINGH: Did you read in the media that evidence was offered to the Goldstone Commission which investigated these issues?
MR NORTJE: As I said, I did not follow their functions.
MR HATTINGH: You did not read in the media about it?
MR NORTJE: I must have read about it, because I knew of it.
MR HATTINGH: These events, the increase in violence which you have just mentioned now, during such conflicts between the various groups, it was mainly between ANC and IFP, is that correct?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: Did you use - were weapons used?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR HATTINGH: Especially AK47's?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR HATTINGH: And mention was made that weapons which were found by you in the smuggling trade, were sold to members of the ANC and IFP?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: And are you aware that those weapons were used in political violence?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: And part of your task was to endeavour to bring this to an end?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: And you had much success with this?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: Are you also aware that the attacks on police were usually accompanied by the theft of their weapons and this is how they had armed themselves?
MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct, there were many instances where they took the police's firearms from them.
MR HATTINGH: Mr Nortje, to return to this incident, political objective, you say that if Tiso had not been killed, then he would have exposed Vlakplaas' participation in this whole regard?
MR NORTJE: Yes, that was one of our concerns, one of our fears. I cannot say specifically that we thought of everything at that stage, but that was the problem, the consequences.
MR HATTINGH: And that was at a very sensitive stage of the negotiations between the former government and the ANC?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR HATTINGH: With regard to reconciliation?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: Do you recall the Boipatong incident?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR HATTINGH: Do you recall that that event had brought CODESA to a stop?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR HATTINGH: And that the ANC had withdrawn or threatened to withdraw from CODESA?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: This incident, if the involvement of the police had been exposed, would that have caused great embarrassment for the government?
MR NORTJE: Yes, for sure.
MR HATTINGH: Is that one of the reasons that you had in mind when Tiso was killed?
MR NORTJE: Yes, I cannot say that we immediately thought of it, but we knew that we had to do something about the situation because it will have repercussions.
MR HATTINGH: Which would be not to the advantage of the government or the police?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: Mr Gevers testified that it was told to him after the incident, that he could put in a monthly claim for a reward, did you put in a claim for any reward?
MR NORTJE: No.
MR HATTINGH: And the members who were not involved in the killing of Mr Tiso, did any of them receive any reward?
MR NORTJE: No.
MR HATTINGH: A further aspect, after the unbanning of the ANC when you were told to focus on everyday crime, you say that you did not receive any instruction that your previous objective had to change? Do I understand you correctly that you wanted to say there that you had to continue in the combatting of political terror?
MR NORTJE: Yes. If it appeared, then we would deal with it.
MR HATTINGH: Just like in the past?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR HATTINGH: As Mr De Kock had said, you had a very large arsenal. When I say you, I don't mean the individual members, but the unit had a large amount of arms at its disposal?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: And that included so-called silent firearms, firearms which had silencers attached?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: And did this include arms which were not used in combatting of crime, like missiles and so forth?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: And landmines and limpet mines and explosives?
MR NORTJE: Yes, there were many things.
MR HATTINGH: And you had much explosives which you had at your disposal and some of this was used to blow up Tiso's body?
MR NORTJE: That is correct, yes.
MR HATTINGH: And the fact that you had such arms at your disposal, was this known to Head Office?
MR NORTJE: I would not say everybody at Head Office.
MR HATTINGH: But your immediate Heads?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR HATTINGH: And I believe that the Head of Security would have know?
MR NORTJE: I cannot speak for him, but I believe that he would have.
MR HATTINGH: Were you told at any stage to hand over those arms after you had focused yourselves on normal crime?
MR NORTJE: No, we just moved the arms to a safe place.
MR HATTINGH: This was after the Harms Commission?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: It was never told to you to hand over whatever you had, so that you would not have access to it?
MR NORTJE: No.
MR HATTINGH: And the final aspect, your Attorney questioned you about this, during the course of your career with the South African Police, let us start in Namibia, Koevoet, did you act outside the scope of the law there, killed people where it was not absolutely necessary to do so?
MR NORTJE: No.
MR HATTINGH: So it was a war situation?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR HATTINGH: Here in the Republic you were involved at several occasions where you went outside the scope of the law?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: The killing of Ngqulunga, Sekakane?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: As well as cross-border operations?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: And you were also of assistance in covering expenses for example improvements at Vlakplaas and the like?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR HATTINGH: So you, as a member of Vlakplaas, were used to acting outside the scope of the law?
MR NORTJE: Yes, because we knew how to protect ourselves.
MR HATTINGH: So, not only were you protected, but your actions had the approval of your High Commanders?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: And when you were told "focus yourself on everyday crime", was it every told to you "let us orientate you and get all these bad habits out of you", were you subjected to any lesson or any psychological evaluation to change your attitude?
MR NORTJE: No, not at all.
MR HATTINGH: Chairperson, I don't foresee that it would happen, but in case it does happen because of the fact that Mr De Kock is not here, there are some aspects with regard to him, which I need to deal with the witness, but can I request that Mr Nortje be recalled if it should be necessary, but at this stage I do not have any further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HATTINGH
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Mr Cornelius?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CORNELIUS: Thank you Mr Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Excuse me Mr Cornelius, one moment. Mr Sibanyoni?
MR SIBANYONI: I am sorry Mr Cornelius, Mr Nortje, there is something that I want to get clarity, I don't know whether I misunderstood your response to the question of Adv Hattingh, he talked about the Boipatong incident and said it brought CODESA to a standstill if the involvement of the police were exposed, it would have embarrassed the government and your response was "yes", are you implying that the police were involved in the Boipatong massacre?
MR NORTJE: No, not at all. I know that there were - or Judge Goldstone thought that we were involved there, but I gave him the surety that we were not involved. Not us, I speak of ...
MR SIBANYONI: Not Vlakplaas?
MR NORTJE: No.
MR SIBANYONI: You are not aware of any other?
MR NORTJE: No.
MR SIBANYONI: The supply of weapons to Inkatha, were they ever used in the Boipatong incident?
MR NORTJE: We don't know, it may be possible. We didn't have such control over the weapons to be certain.
MR SIBANYONI: Thank you. Thank you Mr Cornelius.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Cornelius?
MR CORNELIUS: Thank you Mr Chair. Adv Hattingh had comprehensively put you under cross-examination, I just want to touch on a few issues. You had the fullest confidence in Ben van Zyl as a source?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR CORNELIUS: You had no reason to doubt the information which he conveyed to C-Section?
MR NORTJE: No.
MR CORNELIUS: Did you have complete trust in Holtzhausen as a handler?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR CORNELIUS: And you had the fullest confidence in his judgement?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR CORNELIUS: And if we have regard to the information which Van Zyl conveyed, did he seem a reliable source?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR CORNELIUS: In your mind, did you ever mistrust the fact that you may be acting against ANC members and MK members?
MR NORTJE: Please repeat.
MR CORNELIUS: Did you ever doubt that you were acting against trained MK members or ANC members?
MR NORTJE: No.
MR CORNELIUS: So before this incident in Nelspruit, you believed, did you politically believe that you acted against MK members or at least one MK member?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR CORNELIUS: According to Col Eugene de Kock, there was at least one MK member who had had training in that group?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR CORNELIUS: Did you expect that the victims would be equipped with Eastern Block arms?
MR NORTJE: No, that was the problem, they requested the arms which gave us the indication that they were indeed trained, but whether they had other arms with them, we did not have that information. We believed that they must be armed in some or other manner, because - I mean if they knew that they would rob some place, then they would have to be armed.
MR CORNELIUS: Yes, but it is possible that from your knowledge, that they could have obtained arms from anywhere else?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR CORNELIUS: So you did not expect unarmed persons?
MR NORTJE: No, I did not.
MR CORNELIUS: So if we have a look at the group of C-Section who was present, with the exception of Eugene de Kock, you were quite senior in C-Section?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR CORNELIUS: If you look at the group who was at the scene, for example Hanekom, Swart, you and the other persons, you were their senior so we can accept that information which was given to Col De Kock was also conveyed to you?
MR NORTJE: Yes, probably not all of it.
MR CORNELIUS: On page 135 of your amnesty application you say that the information notes which were drawn up by Dougie and had been passed through the channels for general approval, is that correct?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR CORNELIUS: And did you accept that approval would have been given by a higher authority for this operation?
MR NORTJE: Yes. I may just say that everything that was written down in documentation, it was not mentioned as such that we had, it was not pertinently stated that we had planned in the documentation, because there were other people who also had access to the information and it may have been stopped.
MR CORNELIUS: In your mind, were you convinced that this was a necessary action of C-Section?
MR NORTJE: Yes, under the circumstances.
MR CORNELIUS: Because of the political affiliation and the arms?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR CORNELIUS: And when Murder and Robbery, specifically Geldenhuys visited the scene to plan the ambush, did you in your mind think that they have come to the conclusion that these persons were also armed?
MR NORTJE: Yes, I believe it was about the information which we had obtained and the inferences which we drew during that time with the circumstances which reigned at that stage and we were definitely under that impression, yes.
MR CORNELIUS: And in your mind, it is really clear that Murder and Robbery Unit wanted to act there and was going to call in C-Section?
MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.
MR CORNELIUS: So we would expect that if you expected these persons not to be armed, then Murder and Robbery could have just set up a roadblock?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR CORNELIUS: So the fact that an ambush was set up by Murder and Robbery and C-Section, was an indication that you really did expect armed persons?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR CORNELIUS: Because the objective of the ambush is to kill people?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR CORNELIUS: With the death of Tiso, when you realised that you had a problem with Tiso and you discussed it with Col de Kock, I assume you also must have conveyed to him that you had a problem?
MR NORTJE: Well, it was, I immediately told him when Holtzhausen and I found the man, we realised that we have a problem and when I met with him, he realised what the consequences would be.
MR CORNELIUS: When you contacted Vermeulen and told him as he says in his amnesty application, "you must get the wires and everything ready", did you mean explosives?
MR NORTJE: I am not entirely certain what I told him, because I assumed that he would know what I am talking about. He may have asked me what I meant and I may have told him "get the wires ready", but I would not have said explosives and have given him any other specific details, but I assumed that he knew what I was talking about.
MR CORNELIUS: Yes, that is not what he says, but he says wires and rope and I assume you refer to cortex?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR CORNELIUS: Was there a question about him knowing that you wanted to kill somebody and to blow up the body?
MR NORTJE: No, no, he would have known by the end of the day?
MR CORNELIUS: Swart testifies that there was interrogation of Tiso and he took notes and he also found the key to a safe in the boot of his car?
MR NORTJE: Yes, he says that he gave it to me, I cannot recall the minutes, because I would not have done anything to these notes. We may have stopped somewhere, so there would have been no reason, or I did not ask for the minutes. The key, I recall, he gave to me, it was the key to, I have forgotten about the key, it was a key that you could unlock these trellis doors, but I can recall, he did give the key to me.
MR CORNELIUS: So it is possible that he could have given the notes to you?
MR NORTJE: No, but I cannot recall the notes, but I do recall the key.
MR CORNELIUS: So you do not know what the contents of the notes were?
MR NORTJE: No. I don't know about the information, but as I have said, I did not ask them to do it.
MR CORNELIUS: Very well.
ADV DE JAGER: Excuse me, can I just join up here. If notes were given to you, then this would have been damning evidence?
MR NORTJE: I believe so Chairperson. I may have destroyed it and I saw no reason why I had to keep those notes, because it was something that we wanted to cover up, nobody had to know at that stage.
ADV DE JAGER: But now my problem is that you cannot recall whether you received those notes, those notes could have been a rope around your neck, so how could you not recall such an important aspect?
MR NORTJE: At that stage I did not deem it necessary to do anything about it. I cannot explain it, I cannot recall that there was specific information in the note or I cannot think of anything that could remind me that I did receive the note. It is possible he might have given it to me, I don't know.
MR CORNELIUS: And to join up with that question, you would have destroyed it?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR CORNELIUS: And it would not have served any purpose because at that stage he had already been deceased?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR CORNELIUS: Thank you Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CORNELIUS
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Cornelius. We will take the lunch adjournment and reconvene at two o'clock.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
WILLEM ALBERTUS NORTJE: (s.u.o.)
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bam?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BAM: Thank you Chairperson. Mr Nortje, just singular aspects, the Carousel matter, if I can put it this way, has not been submitted officially to the Committee, I am not going to put anything to you in that regard although there may be certain differences between your version and that of Mr Holtzhausen. With regard to the AK47's and particularly with reference to the Nelspruit incident, would you agree that the initial consideration was that there was a request and that was the information, that the robbers or those persons who were involved, wanted these AK47's because it is somewhat of a heavier weapon than that which they had in their possession?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR BAM: You will also notice that I refer to AK47's, it wasn't one weapon, I emphasise the plurality of it?
MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.
MR BAM: Secondary with regard to the AK47's, later it was a consideration after the issue of the risk had been discussed that these weapons will then be so-called planted?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR BAM: With regard to the weapons which the robbers possessed, there is proof thereof in the possession of Tiso, a 38 revolver was found?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR BAM: And he was part of the group?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR BAM: Just two differences with regard to your evidence and that of Mr Holtzhausen, if necessary he will give evidence that he drove the mini-bus from here to the Lowveld? You were somewhat uncertain of who the driver of the bus was.
MR NORTJE: I would agree with that.
MR BAM: And then he will also say that after you had found Tiso - did not return with you to Tiso, instead he remained at the scene where he was undertaking clear up work?
MR NORTJE: It may be so, but I recall that he accompanied me.
MR BAM: You may be mistaken in that regard?
MR NORTJE: Yes, I may be mistaken, but that is what my recollection is.
ADV DE JAGER: So he did not return to Hall's Gateway?
MR BAM: That is correct. Thank you Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Bam.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BAM
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Van den Berg, any questions?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DEN BERG: Just a few Mr Chairperson. You were well acquainted with Mr Holtzhausen, is that correct?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR VAN DEN BERG: You were colleagues and you trusted each other?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR VAN DEN BERG: And from time to time you were present when he held discussions with Van Zyl, is that correct?
MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.
MR VAN DEN BERG: If we examine your evidence, you draw a narrow connection between the Nelspruit incident and the Carousel incident?
MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.
MR VAN DEN BERG: And it would appear to me as if the following aspects are mutual to the two incidents - I will take you through them one by one. In both incidents the information came from Van Zyl?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR VAN DEN BERG: In both incidents the handler was Holtzhausen?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR VAN DEN BERG: The modus operandi was more or less the same, we have to do with an ambush and or a trap?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR VAN DEN BERG: In both incidents the robbers were provided with transport?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR VAN DEN BERG: The Toyota Cressida and then the panel van?
MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.
MR VAN DEN BERG: In both incidents pistols and handgrenades were planted?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Or at least firearms and handgrenades were planted to be more correct?
MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.
MR VAN DEN BERG: And in both cases, the robbers were killed?
MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Is there anything that I have omitted from the picture?
MR NORTJE: No, that is basically what it was about.
MR VAN DEN BERG: It would appear to me as if the planning was undertaken in two phases, there was the planning in Pretoria and after that there was the planning at the Drum Rock Hotel, is that correct?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR VAN DEN BERG: What was your input to the planning?
MR NORTJE: Well basically I assisted Holtzhausen, I may have helped him in an advisory capacity. I cannot recall specifically because decisions were taken on a joint basis. I assisted him with taking the vehicle down, I was called in as a member of the group.
MR VAN DEN BERG: So if I understand you correctly, decisions were taken in a group regard, there was a measure of consensus?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Sorry, I interrupted you, what was your further input to the planning?
MR NORTJE: I cannot recall anything else specifically.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Well, then let me ask you specifically, the decision to plan the AK's, whose idea was that?
MR NORTJE: I think that originally it was a joint decision, there was a discussion about it, the fact that they had requested the weapons, that we wanted to create the impression, if we had shot them then, that there would be the impression that they had weapons with them. It was merely part of the planning as far as I can recall.
MR VAN DEN BERG: It was intentionally to create the impression that they were armed?
MR NORTJE: With AK's, yes.
MR VAN DEN BERG: You did not see when the Cressida and the BMW arrived in Nelspruit, you did not see the passengers of the BMW, I beg your pardon of the Cressida? You did not see them as they climbed into the panel van?
MR NORTJE: No.
MR VAN DEN BERG: And you did not see when they drove away from that point?
MR NORTJE: No.
MR VAN DEN BERG: According to you, the decision to kill Tiso was De Kock's decision?
MR NORTJE: Yes, it was his final decision.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Because as I have understood his evidence, it appeared as if you insisted upon it?
MR NORTJE: No, I did not insist upon it.
MR VAN DEN BERG: You must have realised when you got hold of Tiso, that he was going to be a problem?
MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Couldn't you just have left him without having to trace him? He didn't really see what took place on the scene?
MR NORTJE: No, it was important to us to get hold of him, because he knew.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Well, let us just test it, what did he know? He knew about the planned robbery?
MR NORTJE: Yes, he knew about the robbery, he knew about Ben, he would have known that they were set up.
MR VAN DEN BERG: I beg your pardon, he would have know that they were set up?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR VAN DEN BERG: I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN DEN BERG
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Van den Berg. Mr Francis or Ms Pillay?
MR FRANCIS: My colleague, Ms Pillay will conducting the cross-examination.
CHAIRPERSON: Very well, Mr Pillay?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PILLAY: Thank you Mr Chairperson. Before I begin Mr Chairperson, I just have extracts from Mr De Kock's criminal record which I have made copies for the Commission as well as each person here.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MS PILLAY: I will be referring to them.
CHAIRPERSON: Do you want to hand them up?
MS PILLAY: Thank you, yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Will somebody just assist us please. Where did we end, with G? Is it one extract, is it one document?
MS PILLAY: It is one document, but there are different pages from the criminal record which I will be referring to Mr Chairperson, it is just stapled in one bundle.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, so shall we give them one number, is it H? Very well, this will be Exhibit H. We are being given a single page?
MS PILLAY: That has been added on afterwards Mr Chairperson, the two single pages and you must get a bundle of documents.
CHAIRPERSON: Oh yes, here is a bundle.
MS PILLAY: And there are two single pages, page 5847 and 5848.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we don't have 5847.
ADV DE JAGER: I haven't got 5848.
CHAIRPERSON: I must be somewhere there, hopefully it will materialise somewhere. Not?
MS PILLAY: No, we have made enough copies.
CHAIRPERSON: Just check if you have 5847?
MS PILLAY: The two loose pages are 5847 and 5848.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we've got that.
ADV DE JAGER: I haven't got a 47 or 48 now.
CHAIRPERSON: It is somewhere. Right? In any event, this will be Exhibit H, it includes the loose pages 5847 and 5848. Yes, Ms Pillay?
MS PILLAY: Thank you Mr Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes?
MR LAMEY: Can I just get clarity, how are the documents now marked?
CHAIRPERSON: It is one set of documents Mr Lamey.
MR LAMEY: Also the loose leaflets?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, just add them to the bundle. Ms Pillay?
MR LAMEY: Thank you Chairperson.
MS PILLAY: Mr Nortje, I wasn't too clear from your testimony here today, would you say in the so-called Nelspruit incident were you a footsoldier or were you actually part of the planning of the operation?
MR NORTJE: As I have stated, I was part of the planning. I simply gave my input where it may have been necessary, but I did not take any final decisions. However I cannot say that I was not part of the planning.
MS PILLAY: The reason I ask Mr Nortje is that prior to your testimony today, this Commission has been informed that because Mr Holtzhausen was Mr Van Zyl's handler, that he did most of the planning, is that correct?
MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.
MS PILLAY: I put it to you Mr Nortje, that that is not a complete picture of how the planning of this incident took place.
MR NORTJE: I was not always present during all the planning phases. As I have said Mr Holtzhausen worked separately from me, I had other work to do as well, so every now and then I would go in and give advice, whatever the circumstances may have been, but I did have my part of the planning, or at least I was present when some of the planning was undertaken. But the final decisions were not taken by me, not that I can recall, there may have been some decisions.
MS PILLAY: Let's do a summary of your involvement in this matter, Mr Nortje. You attended a meeting of Holtzhausen and Ben van Zyl, is that correct?
MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.
MS PILLAY: I refer you here to page 5280 of Exhibit H, that is 5820. If you have a look at line 22, can you just read out your testimony there, it was during the time when you were being cross-examined by Mr De Kock's counsel. Could you just read out your testimony there Mr Nortje?
MR NORTJE: From line 20?
MS PILLAY: Yes, from line 20.
MR NORTJE: "... operation discussed in Pretoria, who was present, what was the planning in Pretoria? What was the planning that was undertaken in Pretoria? As far as I can recall Holtzhausen and I informed the accused about the plan that the persons would arrive, that we would go and perform the operation in Nelspruit and then he said that we should continue with the planning. Holtzhausen gave the necessary input and on that particular day we travelled there."
MS PILLAY: So there is two important things from that, Mr Nortje. The first is that when Mr De Kock was first informed of the Nelspruit incident, both you and Mr Holtzhausen informed him of that, is that correct?
MR NORTJE: It may be so, but just after - we may have informed him after we came back from Ben, it is entirely possible that we informed him then. It may also be that we informed him a day or two later. I cannot recall pertinently whether I was directly present with this discussion. I do know however, that he was informed.
MS PILLAY: And the second significant thing obviously is the thing that you fully informed Mr De Kock of the meeting with Ben van Zyl and the planning for the Nelspruit incident?
MR NORTJE: Yes, well, I wouldn't say that all the detail was provided at that stage, we didn't know yet exactly what the finer detail would be, however he was informed basically about what the plan would be.
MS PILLAY: So what was discussed at that meeting?
MR NORTJE: I would be speculating if I had to say precisely what we said during that meeting at that moment. I am referring to the general course of time, the discussions that we had, Mr De Kock was informed by Mr Holtzhausen.
MS PILLAY: Mr Nortje, this meeting that I am referring to resulted in firstly Mr De Kock giving you the go-ahead or giving Holtzhausen the go-ahead to go ahead with the planning and secondly resulted in Mr Holtzhausen putting together the information notes, is that correct?
MR NORTJE: That is correct, but I cannot say that it took place on that moment. The information notes were handed in, Mr De Kock was briefed, but as I have said I cannot say that it took place at exactly that moment, because we saw each other on a daily basis.
MS PILLAY: What I am asking you Mr Nortje, is just to give us an idea of what exactly transpired at this meeting.
MR NORTJE: If I have to deduce what was said there, I cannot say what was said specifically at that time, but with regard to the general discussion that we would have, I cannot recall whether Holtzhausen was present during the discussion about the kombi. There was a request for another vehicle.
MS PILLAY: Mr Nortje, I am sorry, let's be clear, I am talking about the meeting between yourself, Mr De Kock and Mr Holtzhausen on this particular day. What was discussed at that meeting?
MR NORTJE: I cannot remember.
MR LAMEY: Chairperson, this extract, I don't want to be obstructive, but it doesn't specifically refer to an exact date or a specific meeting, it refers to when the operation was discussed here in Pretoria, who was all present. It does not necessarily say one meeting in Pretoria or one instance at Pretoria.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think Ms Pillay is asking about this what he says here, so far as he remembers, he and Holtzhausen went to Mr De Kock and informed him about the plans, etc. She wants to know what exactly was said there, he says he does not remember, so really. Ms Pillay?
MS PILLAY: Thank you Mr Chairperson. It seems, Mr Nortje, that more came out of the meeting than just that? If you can just carry on reading further down on that page, the beginning of the last paragraph.
MR NORTJE: "... did you also tell the persons that the plan was to lure the persons into a trap and to shoot them? Was it his suggestion, what was his suggestion? It was for us to obtain the kombi and to write the kombi off along with the robbers. So it was his idea? Yes."
MS PILLAY: Thank you, that is fine now. Do you recall that this was said at that particular meeting?
MR NORTJE: No, I cannot recall whether it was said particularly in that meeting.
MS PILLAY: So when you and Mr Holtzhausen went to inform Mr De Kock of the plans, Mr Nortje, did the three of you then decide that they would be killed on the day, the so-called robbers would be killed on the day, the day of the Nelspruit incident?
MR NORTJE: I assume that it was discussed then, yes, or that it was decided.
MS PILLAY: When you say it was decided, who decided?
MR NORTJE: Well, we would have made some suggestions as well and Mr De Kock would have contributed to the discussion, but the final decision would have resided with him.
MS PILLAY: You say we would have made some suggestions, again you are using the word "us" and earlier the Chairperson picked up the use of the word "us". When you say "us" are you referring to yourself and Mr Holtzhausen?
MR NORTJE: Yes. I do not want to attach it specifically, but if I study the circumstances under which it was said, Holtzhausen would have taken the decision or at least have made the suggestion, I agreed with it, Mr De Kock agreed with it. It is difficult to say now that Mr De Kock said "yes, let's kill them", I cannot say that he said that.
MS PILLAY: What is your recollection, what did he say?
MR NORTJE: I don't know. It was his decision for it to happen, it was his final decision. I assume that our objective was also to destroy the kombi and that was part of the process. I also cannot say whether with the first meeting it was specifically decided or whether it was later decided, it is very difficult to say this now, because we saw each other on a daily basis, we spoke often and there were many other things that we had to do. I cannot say that it was decided at that particular moment, that that is how it happened.
MS PILLAY: But you and Mr Holtzhausen could not have continued with the plan to kill the Nelspruit 5 without Mr De Kock okaying that plan?
MR NORTJE: Definitely.
MS PILLAY: Let's just go back to your involvement in this whole operation, Mr Nortje. You were also primarily involved in ensuring that the weapons which were to be planted in the minibus, were brought to Nelspruit, isn't that correct?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MS PILLAY: You were involved in ensuring that the petrol which was to set the mini-bus alight, was actually made available on the scene?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MS PILLAY: Isn't that correct?
MR NORTJE: Well, not at the scene, but I got the members to obtain it earlier that day.
MS PILLAY: So by and large Mr Nortje, it seems that you actively played a large part in the planning and the execution of the Nelspruit incident?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MS PILLAY: Okay, let's just go back a bit to the Coin Security incident, Mr Nortje. You visited Ben van Zyl's offices with Mr Holtzhausen, isn't that correct?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MS PILLAY: Can you recollect what was discussed at that meeting?
MR NORTJE: It is very difficult to say at the moment. I would like to tell you, but I cannot say pertinently that this was discussed and that that was discussed. During the time that I was there with him, I can recall that this issue of Tiso and the others was discussed.
MS PILLAY: At the very least, Mr Nortje, can you tell us what Ben van Zyl said about Tiso and the others? How did he describe them?
MR NORTJE: No, I cannot remember, it is very problematic to say exactly what he said at that stage, and to say whether he said it then or whether he said it later, but the impression that I was under at a later stage was that there were MK members. I did not yet know Tiso, I simply knew that he was the driver of Mrs Winnie Mandela and that there were MK members who were looking for a place to rob. That is what the crux of the matter was about.
MS PILLAY: Mr Nortje, I am very concerned about your lack of recollection. This is a matter in which five people lost their lives, this is a very serious matter. I am asking you about details of a meeting in which it was decided, or which led to the killing of these five people. I am asking you what information did Ben van Zyl give you about these people. You have testified about this before and the reason I am asking you this, Mr Nortje, is that your testimony seems to be changing depending on the circumstances. I ask you again, what information did Ben van Zyl give you at that meeting, about Tiso and the others?
MR NORTJE: I would be speculating if I had to tell you exactly what was said there.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nortje, it is not going to help us if you speculate.
MR NORTJE: No, I don't want to speculate.
CHAIRPERSON: Very well. So you don't remember?
MR NORTJE: I don't remember precisely what was said there.
MS PILLAY: Would you stick by your testimony, by the testimony that you gave at the criminal trial since that was a good time before this? Would you think that you would have given the correct testimony in a court of law, at the criminal trial?
MR NORTJE: I gave my evidence according to the best of my ability and my recollection.
MS PILLAY: So you are saying that the testimony that you gave at the criminal trial, would be a better description of exactly what happened?
MR NORTJE: Well, it would depend upon what I said. I am not saying that I didn't tell the truth, it is simply how I recalled things and afterwards there was a long lapse of time, and I remembered other aspects. I may have forgotten certain things. I am not saying that I can say precisely, but under no circumstances did I attempt to lie or fabricate stories or whatever the case may be.
MS PILLAY: At the criminal trail, Mr Nortje, you were under oath, correct?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MS PILLAY: And to get a 204, you were asked to give as much information as you possibly had, is that correct?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MS PILLAY: Now I refer you to page 5803 of Exhibit H. That is page 5803. I refer you to line 14 thereof, this was again when you were being cross-examined by Mr De Kock's counsel, do you recall this Mr Nortje?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MS PILLAY: Can you read out line 14? Sorry can you start from "good", can you see the word "good"? It says
"... good, what was the information that Van Zyl gave about these robbers?"
Can you read your answer to us please Mr Nortje?
MR NORTJE: Yes
"... that they were actual robbers who actually wanted to commit a robbery, that is correct. And what was the intention with the Coin Security operation with reference to an attempt of theirs to rob the Coin Security company, I refer to the Nelspruit incident, yes."
MS PILLAY: Thank you, that is enough Mr Nortje. So at that time you testified that in fact these people were robbers?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MS PILLAY: There is no mention of the fact that they were ANC members, isn't that correct Mr Nortje?
MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.
MS PILLAY: There is no mention of the fact that they were trained MK members, isn't that correct?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MS PILLAY: There is no mention of the fact that they robbed to fill the coffers of the ANC, isn't that correct?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MS PILLAY: Thank you Mr Nortje. Mr Nortje, can you tell me why would these people have been killed at Coin Security?
MR NORTJE: Well, it was said to me that that was the plan, but the fact that they were robbers, I cannot recall specifically that they told me specifically why they had to be shot. I simply assumed that they would be shot due to the fact that they wanted to rob the place and they were robbers.
MS PILLAY: That is primarily the reason why they were going to be killed at Coin Security, because they were robbers, isn't that correct?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MS PILLAY: And that is the testimony that you are giving here today?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MS PILLAY: I refer you to page 5803 again Mr Nortje, from - at line 20. It says
"... what was the intention with that operation? Did you want to arrest these persons? No, these persons would also have been shot. It would have depended upon circumstances. Which circumstances? Well, there was talk of them being shot, but that would have depended upon the circumstances when we were on the scene. If there were other persons present, or whatever the case may be, one couldn't simply shoot, but as I have said, it was our plan to shoot them. So the intention from the very beginning was to shoot these persons? Yes. Why was that the plan? Well, in the first place because it was their intention to rob and because they didn't care who they shot and secondly, that there would be no witnesses. That is what we usually discussed."
Do you confirm that testimony Mr Nortje?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MS PILLAY: And Mr Hattingh continued
"... So because they were robbers, they had to be shot dead? (You confirmed again) that was the plan, yes."
Do you recall that testimony, Mr Nortje?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MS PILLAY: Do you confirm that testimony?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MS PILLAY: So let me just summarise just for our own benefit and the benefit of the Commission. Tiso and his acquaintances would have been killed at Coin Security, according to you for two reasons. The first reason was their intentions was to rob, they did not care who they shot, that was the first reason. The second reason, so that there would be no witnesses, is that correct?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MS PILLAY: Mr Hattingh then asked you "was that the only reasons", do you recall that?
MR NORTJE: Yes, well it appears here.
MS PILLAY: If you look at page 5805, around I think it is line 24, if you look at 5805 - it is actually 23, can I just read to you Mr Nortje.
"... now was it the only intention with the operation, simply to remove persons from society according to your judgement? No, there would have been claims for the source, we had to protect the source."
Do you recall that Mr Nortje?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MS PILLAY: So you gave the protection of Mr Van Zyl as a further reason as to why they would have been killed at Coin Security?
MR NORTJE: Yes, it was one of the reasons.
MS PILLAY: That is correct, it was one of the reasons. Can you read further Mr Nortje, my Afrikaans isn't as good as yours, maybe you can read the rest out to us please.
MR NORTJE: "... now what do you say about that, was the operation partially planned to protect the source?"
MS PILLAY: Just go slower please, so that we get the effect of what you are saying. Can you read that again please.
MR NORTJE: "... now what do you say with that, was the operation partially planned in order to obtain compensation for a source? No, not that."
MS PILLAY: No, it says not that only. That is what it says Mr Nortje, not only that, so in other words that was one of the reasons as well, won't you agree Mr Nortje?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MS PILLAY: Okay, carry on please.
MR NORTJE: "... because the source had placed himself in a position where he had met the robbers personally."
MS PILLAY: Okay, I don't have page 5806 annexed to this. Mr Nortje, according to your testimony at the criminal trial, further reasons why in fact these people were killed is to protect the identity of the source, that is Mr Van Zyl and to ensure that he got compensation, isn't that correct Mr Nortje?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MS PILLAY: And that is borne out by your words "not only that"?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MS PILLAY: So the Nelspruit 5, one of the reasons why they were killed, is to ensure that Mr Van Zyl got compensation, isn't that correct?
MR NORTJE: That was my opinion.
MS PILLAY: That was your opinion, that is correct. Mr Nortje, I was very interested when Mr Cornelius was cross-examining you about whether or not you thought that the robbers were armed, do you recall that?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MS PILLAY: Do you recall what your testimony was?
MR NORTJE: Yes, that we were under the impression that they were armed, but that we had not provided the arms that they had requested.
MS PILLAY: That is correct, your testimony was that you were under the impression that they were armed.
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MS PILLAY: Now can I refer you, let me just find my correct page here, to page 5823. I am just trying to find the line reference so that we don't read the whole thing, if you look at line 25. If you read from
"... and what was the intention with the planing of weapons in the mini-bus, what was the reason for that? It would have been planted in the mini-bus after the incident to create the impression that the persons had fired at us first. But didn't you think that these were actual robbers? Yes, but we had received information from Van Zyl, he would have told us whether these persons had weapons on them. Did he tell you? And he would have told them that they shouldn't take weapons with, that he would provide weapons to them? Did he say that, was that the plan? As far as I know, Holtzhausen contacted telephonically about that. From where? It was still here in Pretoria or he went through to him personally. But I know that he liaised with him, I wasn't present. Just explain to us, the plan doesn't sound very clear to me, what was the position with regard to weapons with regard to the robbers? Van Zyl would have notified us if they had weapons on them. But he would have told them that they shouldn't bring their weapons along. They apparently did not have weapons although we were to find one in the car, at the scene. But you would have provided weapons to them which they would have picked up at a certain point in Nelspruit?"
The impression that you are giving here Mr Nortje, is that you knew beforehand that in fact the robbers were not armed?
MR NORTJE: Well as far as I recall, the situation was very unclear. Perhaps if they give evidence, they could shed more light on it.
MS PILLAY: It is a bit difficult for them to give evidence, Mr Nortje, you ensured that they are dead, they are killed, they cannot tell us. I am talking about your testimony at this criminal trial.
MR LAMEY: The witness, when he refers to them, he refers obviously not to the deceased people, let him just explain what he refers to by that.
MR NORTJE: No, I am referring to Van Zyl and Holtzhausen, what their discussion over the phone was. Let me just add that there must definitely have been information that they were armed, which isn't to say that they didn't have weapons with them. They may have had weapons with them such as handguns, but we prepared ourselves for a situation during which these persons may have been armed, we expected them to be armed. With the exception of the information that we had, that was simply my opinion, that was how I understood it.
MS PILLAY: Mr Nortje, can you read the same page from the word "yes"? Sorry, that is line 22.
MR NORTJE: "... yes, what I mean is that that was the plan between Van Zyl and Holtzhausen and me that the persons would have been told not to take weapons with, that we would provide weapons for them. Is that what was said to you? Yes, as far as I know."
MS PILLAY: Further confirmation Mr Nortje, that you knew beforehand that these people were not armed? In fact, you, Mr Nortje ...
MR NORTJE: No, but I have said here as far as I know, I wasn't entirely certain of the facts. It is simply how I explained my comprehension of the situation.
MS PILLAY: Mr Nortje, as has been pointed out before, you use the words "as far as I know" for all your testimony. Does that mean that we cannot trust any of your testimony because all has been vague, nothing has been certain?
MR NORTJE: Well, I must have known something.
MS PILLAY: Yes, you knew something. You knew beforehand that these people were not going to be armed? In fact you go so far Mr Nortje, to say that that was part of the plan between yourself, Holtzhausen and Van Zyl, that these poor people were informed that they should not bring weapons with, that is your testimony here at the criminal trial?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MS PILLAY: You confirm that is your testimony?
MR NORTJE: Yes, but that isn't to say that that is what happened?
MS PILLAY: Can you just repeat that Mr Nortje, I lost that bit, what did you just say?
MR NORTJE: What I have said is this is not to say that that is what would have happened, they could have taken their own decisions as well.
MS PILLAY: Mr Nortje, I am asking you whether you knew beforehand that these people were unarmed?
MR NORTJE: I cannot say that.
MS PILLAY: And yet you told Mr Cornelius that you thought that they were armed?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MS PILLAY: Now you don't see the discrepancy in your testimony?
MR NORTJE: I just want to explain, the impression that we were under or at least the inferences that we drew, indicated to me that it was logical that they would be armed. The fact of the AK's which would have been given to them, wasn't definitely planned. Because I also asked myself what would they have said when they climbed into the kombi and they didn't see the weapons and they were still prepared to go with? What were they thinking, where were they going? I mean I didn't have that information.
MS PILLAY: Mr Nortje, let's not speculate on what Tiso and company thought, on what Tiso and company would have done. Let's talk the knowledge that you had. You were asked by Mr Hattingh in the criminal trial did you think that these people were armed or was it the plan, even further, was it the plan that they were not to be armed and your answer was yes. I asked you, and Mr Cornelius confirmed it here today when he asked you did you think that they were armed and here today, you said yes, they were armed.
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MS PILLAY: And that is why you had an ambush, that is why it was an ambush and not a roadblock because you thought they were armed. If you did not think they were armed, you would have then gotten Murder and Robbery just to do a normal roadblock and not an ambush where they were killed?
MR NORTJE: But the decision had already been taken in Pretoria that they were going to be shot.
MS PILLAY: I agree but when Mr Cornelius asked you the reason that there was an ambush was because you thought that they were armed, you confirmed that, otherwise there would have been no ambush and you confirmed that.
MR NORTJE: Yes, but I regarded this in a different context. You see the decision had been taken from the beginning that they would be shot? We prepared for them being armed because we did not have that information specifically. When I gave evidence during the trial, I had other ideas during that stage. Many things have become clearer to me in the meantime.
MS PILLAY: And yet when I asked you just now, Mr Nortje, about your recollection you said that you don't have a very good recollection and I asked you if you would have had a better recollection at the criminal trial and you said that you would have? What is the position?
MR LAMEY: That is not what he said, that he had a better recollection at the criminal trial, he said that he testified to the best of his recollection at the time.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well it seems to be what he was trying to say.
ADV DE JAGER: I think he added something of later I rethought things or discussed it, but in the main he said at that time, that was what he really thought, but he added something about thinking about it later. I will look at my note.
MS PILLAY: And yet Mr Chairperson, before I referred ...
ADV DE JAGER: He said that evidence was better, but I have also remembered other things. I attempted to tell the truth.
MS PILLAY: He did say that evidence was better? Yes.
ADV DE JAGER: But he added "I have remembered other things".
MS PILLAY: No, absolutely Mr Chairperson, and yet before I referred him to the criminal proceedings, I asked him for his recollection now and he could not give me one. Sorry Mr Chairperson, I just lost where I was. Mr De Kock, sorry, Mr Nortje, you mentioned that long before the incident it was decided that these people were to be killed?
MR NORTJE: Yes, if I say long before, I would not be able to recall the time or the number of days, but it was before the time, during the planning phases.
MS PILLAY: And why were they to be killed?
MR NORTJE: Well, my opinion was ...
MS PILLAY: I am not asking you for your opinion, Mr Nortje, I am asking you you decided to kill people, why were they to be killed?
MR NORTJE: Well in the first place because they were robbers.
MS PILLAY: In the first place because they were robbers?
MR NORTJE: Because they planned robberies. Secondly because our function also came in due to the fact that they were MK members.
MS PILLAY: When did you receive the information that they were MK members?
MR NORTJE: In the process during the planning and as a result of the information that we received.
MS PILLAY: So why was that not mentioned at the criminal trial, sorry at Mr De Kock's criminal trial when you were cross-examined?
MR NORTJE: It was not specifically discussed at that stage, it wasn't managed in such detail. If it had been discussed with regard to MK members, I would have said, because that is the idea that I had from the very beginning.
MS PILLAY: Mr Hattingh's question to you was quite clear -"what information did Ben van Zyl give you with regard to the robbers" and your answer was "that they were robbers".
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MS PILLAY: So does that mean that Ben van Zyl did not give you information that they were MK members?
MR NORTJE: No he did, he gave us that information.
MS PILLAY: So why didn't you mention it at the criminal trial?
MR NORTJE: It must be because we never discussed it, Mr Hattingh did not question me about that.
MS PILLAY: No, Mr Nortje, he asked you "what information did Ben van Zyl give you about the robbers".
MR NORTJE: Well, I didn't mention it.
MS PILLAY: You didn't mention it, that is correct. I put it to you Mr Nortje, that you didn't mention it because it didn't happen. I put it to you that Mr Van Zyl did not give you information that these people were ANC members or that they were trained MK members because in fact ...
ADV DE JAGER: Just put one thing at a time, sorry.
MS PILLAY: One at a time Chairperson.
ADV DE JAGER: Yes, I try to take down.
MS PILLAY: I am sorry, I apologise. Mr Nortje, I put it to you that you did not mention at the criminal trial, when you were asked by Mr Hattingh what information did Ben van Zyl give you, you did not say that they were ANC members because in fact that information was not given to you.
MR NORTJE: No, I cannot agree with that. It must have been given to me at that stage because we knew about it.
MS PILLAY: I put it to you further Mr Nortje, that you are saying now that Ben van Zyl gave you information that these people were ANC members to give the whole operation a political flavour so that you can fully comply with the requirements of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act, so that you can in fact qualify for amnesty?
MR NORTJE: No, I wouldn't say that that is the only reason.
MS PILLAY: So you are saying that it is one of the reasons?
MR NORTJE: I am not including it now, I knew it. I did not mention it then or not much attention was given to it at that stage, it is something that I knew. I mentioned it from the beginning to Judge Goldstone at that time, I mentioned it to him and that was the impression under which we were. I did not elaborate to a great extent on this fact, but it was one of the motives.
MS PILLAY: And when Mr Hattingh went further and asked you why were they killed, you gave five or four reasons and not one of those reasons included the fact that they were ANC members or that they were trained MK cadres? Shall I give you the reasons again, Mr Nortje? They are very interesting, the reasons that you gave that they were killed?
ADV DE JAGER: I think we have it, really you need not repeat it.
MS PILLAY: So your response to that Mr Nortje?
MR NORTJE: I have lost you now.
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Nortje, she says that you have given four reasons why you killed them and you never mentioned that you killed them because they were MK members or ANC members?
MR NORTJE: It was not mentioned.
ADV DE JAGER: Now she wants to know why was it not mentioned, you say it was a reason?
MR NORTJE: We did not discuss it, I did not think at that stage to say it. That is all, I don't know what else to say.
MS PILLAY: Mr Nortje, you were present here when I cross-examined Mr Gevers, isn't that correct?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MS PILLAY: Do you recall I asked Mr Gevers why were these people killed?
MR NORTJE: Yes, he did give some version.
MS PILLAY: Do you recall what his answer was?
MR NORTJE: No.
MS PILLAY: His answer was because they were ANC/PAC members, do you recall that?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MS PILLAY: What is your response to that Mr Nortje?
MR NORTJE: I don't know where he comes about with the PAC connectation with that incident. I know it was also a matter of the information that we had that PAC people were involved with a robbery, but we don't know, but I know in this case there was nothing such as that.
MS PILLAY: But the thrust of my question was he gave the reason that these people were killed as the fact that they were ANC/PAC members? You give the reason that they were killed four completely different reasons, not at all relating to their political persuasion?
MR NORTJE: That was probably the idea that he had, his version, it must have been the impression that he was under.
MS PILLAY: So, when you, when I say you, I mean plural, when you decided to actually kill these people, were all the members not ad idem as to why these people were to be killed? Did you all go in there with your own reasons for actually shooting and killing Tiso, Glenet and the rest of them?
MR NORTJE: I really don't know, they must have know. The information must have been known to them, I don't know if they cannot recall, I don't know what the situation is.
MS PILLAY: What information are you referring to, Mr Nortje?
MR NORTJE: I speak of information which must have been conveyed to them at some stage, that it was armed robbers, MK members, the fact that at some stage as I have said already, they wanted AK47's, this made us realise that these persons were trained in some or other manner and the information that we had, was that they had already been involved in previous robberies. I cannot recall specifically that it was said that they had been involved with a specific robbery. I know reference has been made to the Witbank issue, but I cannot say whether it was part thereof. As Mr De Kock has explained, it makes sense to me but I think it was everybody's impression that they were armed, would be armed MK members, robbers. We probably did not discuss the detail as much.
MS PILLAY: Mr Nortje, you set five men up to be killed, how could you not have discussed the specific detail?
MR NORTJE: We didn't know that there would be five?
MS PILLAY: How many did you think there were going to be?
MR NORTJE: No, we did not know, I am not sure. I did not ask about it.
MS PILLAY: You did not find out how many were going to be in the mini-bus?
MR NORTJE: No, it would have been more than two, that is why the mini-bus was used, that is the reason why the mini-bus were used, but I cannot say that I specifically knew that there would be five.
MS PILLAY: So you did not know how many you were going to kill that day? You were just out to kill?
MR NORTJE: No. Well, the group yes.
MS PILLAY: Mr Nortje, your evidence in chief, you referred to this bank robbery on the day of the Nelspruit incident, do you recall that?
MR NORTJE: The bank robbery?
MS PILLAY: Yes, on the day of the Nelspruit incident, you testified that they were on their way to rob, which place did you say again?
MR NORTJE: The Coin?
MS PILLAY: That is correct yes, so your testimony, let me just confirm, is that on the day of this incident, these people were on their way to rob Coin Security?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MS PILLAY: That is your testimony?
MR NORTJE: Yes, well, yes.
MS PILLAY: Please don't explain Mr Nortje, is that your testimony?
MR NORTJE: Yes. That is what happened, they were on their way to rob the Coin Security, that was the impression they were under.
MS PILLAY: No, no, I am not asking you the impression that they were under, I am asking you, you testified that they were on their way to rob Coin Security?
MR NORTJE: That is what we presented to them.
MS PILLAY: I am not asking you what you presented, I am asking you were they on their way to rob Coin Security because that was your testimony?
MR NORTJE: Yes, that is the impression that they were under.
MS PILLAY: No, that is not what I am asking you Mr Nortje.
MR NORTJE: They would not have robbed it.
ADV DE JAGER: He testified that they were on their way, that is his testimony. Do you want to confirm it again or what is the reason?
MS PILLAY: Mr Chairperson, if you are listening to what he says now, it is very significant, if you are listening to what he says now.
ADV DE JAGER: I am listening yes.
MS PILLAY: He says that they were under the impression that they were on their way to rob Coin Security.
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MS PILLAY: That is very different from the fact that they were actually on their way to rob Coin Security, there is a distinct difference between the two.
ADV DE JAGER: He had information that they were on their way, because of the information, he believed they were on their way.
MS PILLAY: That is all I wanted confirmation on and he is not giving me confirmation.
MR LAMEY: Chairperson, I do have some recollection that when I questioned him, it was on the basis of in the minds of these people that they were on their way to rob the Coin Security.
MS PILLAY: If that is the testimony Mr Lamey, then even the Chairperson was misinformed there because the impression I got was that he said that they were in fact on their way to rob Coin Security?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes well ...
MR LAMEY: In the minds, sorry, in the minds of the robbers.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey, I have heard you, thank you. He says now that they were under the impression. Don't you just want to take it further then?
MS PILLAY: Let me take it further then. So were they on their way to rob Coin Security?
MR NORTJE: Well, we would have stopped them before they could do so.
MS PILLAY: But were they on their way to rob Coin Security?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MS PILLAY: If you hadn't stopped them, a robbery would have happened?
MR NORTJE: Well, there was no way that they would be successful because it was all done and under control.
MS PILLAY: ... on their way to rob Coin Security?
MR NORTJE: That was the plan.
MS PILLAY: Can I refer you then Mr Nortje, sorry, can I just find my page here, to page 5809? If you look at line 12, can you please read it out to us Mr Nortje?
MR NORTJE: "... are you saying that the planning which took place at Van Zyl's office, that the robbery would be a robbery at Coin Security's premises?"
MS PILLAY: Please read that clearly, that is the important part.
MR NORTJE: "... no, that was just the excuse, that they would once again go down to Coin Security."
MS PILLAY: Okay, let's just look at that line again Mr Nortje, you are saying "no, that was just the excuse." The excuse for what, Mr Nortje?
MR NORTJE: They would definitely, this is what was told to them.
MS PILLAY: Mr Nortje, my question to you was, you testified "no, that was just the excuse", my question to you was the excuse for what?
MR NORTJE: I don't understand what I meant by that.
CHAIRPERSON: In other words Mr Nortje, what did you mean with that evidence?
MR NORTJE: I am trying to work it out Chairperson. I can't find the context of it.
CHAIRPERSON: Take your time, have a look at it.
MR NORTJE: The Coin Security premises were once again used as a proposal or a place which they would rob. I cannot understand why I would say "an excuse". I think it is more the explanation that was given to them.
MS PILLAY: Mr Nortje, you very clearly used the word "excuse" and not "explanation", help me understand this because my Afrikaans is not quite as good. "Verskoning" is excuse, isn't that correct? Mr Nortje, "verskoning" is excuse isn't that correct.
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MS PILLAY: So, this robbery was an excuse?
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Ms Pillay, please can I just ask the members of the public, we are trying to concentrate on what is being said here, we've got to be fair to everybody, so please you know, try to keep your response so that it doesn't interfere with the proceedings. Sorry Ms Pillay.
MS PILLAY: I put it to you Mr Nortje, sorry, can you just answer my question, you say it was an excuse, excuse for what, that was my question to you?
MR NORTJE: I assume that I meant here the excuse, the fact that Coin Security would be used, it would have been an excuse for the robbery. It is a version that was put to them, or a proposal that was made to them or a place which was given to them which they would rob and they would have been brought under that impression.
MS PILLAY: I put it to you Mr Nortje that your use of the word "excuse" was very accurate, in fact I was thinking of a way to describe the robbery and the word excuse describes it perfectly. I put it to you that the robbery was merely an excuse to get Tiso and company to that area so that you could ambush them and kill them, do you confirm that?
MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.
MS PILLAY: Thank you.
ADV DE JAGER: Can you just finish your answer there
"... no, it was just the excuse that they would once again go down to Coin Security. We would then have stopped them beforehand."
What do you mean by that in that context?
MR NORTJE: We would not have allowed them to rob the place. It would have been the excuse to have them go there because they were looking for a place to rob and this place would have been given. That is probably what I meant with the "excuse", that a reason was given to them, but that it did not take place, just to get them there, or to find a place for them.
CHAIRPERSON: So there was no real risk of any robbery?
MR NORTJE: No, they were under the impression because they were looking for a place to rob, and they were under the impression that there was a place in Nelspruit, but we would never have allowed it. Then we would have made arrangements with Coin to have the place locked up but we decided that they would be stopped beforehand, before it would take place.
CHAIRPERSON: So there was really no chance of a robbery ever taking place?
MR NORTJE: No.
CHAIRPERSON: The idea was to get them to the scene so that they could be shot?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MS PILLAY: So in other words Mr Nortje, they were set up?
MR NORTJE: Yes, but they were people who voluntarily went, yes they were set up.
MS PILLAY: So they were set up?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MS PILLAY: To be killed?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MS PILLAY: So what would have been the benefit of them being killed?
MR NORTJE: Well, as we thought at that stage, what I can recall, the circumstances which reigned there, these robberies continued in several places and we saw it as our duty to stop it or to prevent it.
MS PILLAY: To stop the robberies?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MS PILLAY: That is correct. And also like you mentioned in your testimony at the criminal proceedings, to reward the source?
MR NORTJE: That was a reason, but not the primary reason.
MS PILLAY: It was a reason?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MS PILLAY: The primary reason was because they were robbers?
MR NORTJE: That was one of the reasons. I would not say, it was a reason, these were all reasons which we had at that stage, but I cannot say that we specifically sat and thought of reasons, it was a decision that was taken that these people were involved in robberies and the fact that the information that we had was that they were ANC people or whatever the case may be, but all those reasons. I will not deny that when i say that one of the reasons according to my, was to reward.
MS PILLAY: Was the destruction of Mr De Kock's friend's kombi also another reason?
MR NORTJE: Yes, that was also a reason.
MS PILLAY: It was also one of the reasons?
MR NORTJE: Not - the kombi came in as, it was a side factor, the kombi was not the reason why we shot them, the kombi was just used as a side factor.
MS PILLAY: But it was, the destruction of the kombi was one of the reasons why this ambush was set up?
MR NORTJE: No, we could have done that in a car. The kombi just fitted in and it was decided that the kombi would also be destroyed.
MS PILLAY: Was the use of the petrol at the incident, was it used to destroy the kombi?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MS PILLAY: So that Mr De Kock's friend could claim his insurance?
MR NORTJE: Yes, not only that.
MS PILLAY: Not only that, you are saying again not only that.
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MS PILLAY: All right.
MR NORTJE: The kombi was set alight to destroy any forensic or to hamper any forensic investigation and to burn the weapons which were planted in there.
MS PILLAY: But also so that the kombi is destroyed?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MS PILLAY: So that Mr De Kock's friend could claim his insurance?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MS PILLAY: Can I refer you to page 5841 of Exhibit H please Mr Nortje, page 5841. If you look at line 11
"... can you think of a reason why they bought two? As far as I can recall, we told them 'get 20 litres of petrol'. Why 20 litres or 15 litres, why 20 litres? To make the fire as big as possible."
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MS PILLAY: So you confirm that Mr Nortje?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MS PILLAY: That so much petrol was used to make the fire as big as possible, is that correct?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MS PILLAY: So that the kombi would be completely destroyed?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MS PILLAY: And one of the reasons for that being so that Mr De Kock's friend could claim his insurance?
MR NORTJE: One of the reasons, yes.
ADV DE JAGER: May I just ask did you give them containers, where did they get the containers?
MR NORTJE: I sent the black members, I think I told Simon specifically to go and buy the petrol for me. I said here 20 litres, but I would recall that it was two 10 litre containers.
ADV DE JAGER: That is what I wanted to ask you, where do you get 10 litre containers?
MR NORTJE: You buy them at the garages, plastic containers.
ADV DE JAGER: Is it not the five litre containers, the old gallon container and now you get a 25 litre?
MR NORTJE: That is why this 20 litre sounds strange to me because you would have bought a large container and I do not recall them being large containers, they were small containers which I guess might have been 10 litres. I might be mistaken, I didn't look at that.
ADV DE JAGER: But it bothers me even more if you refer to 15 litres, because then it has to be two 7.5 litre containers and I have never seen those.
MR NORTJE: It must have been two five litre or two ten litre containers.
MS PILLAY: Mr Nortje, just to help you out, I think your recollection at the trial on that same page, line 26 is that there were two 10 litre containers?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MS PILLAY: Mr Nortje, your evidence is that Mr De Kock knew about the petrol?
MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.
MS PILLAY: And one of the reasons why he would have known about the petrol is because the kombi had to be destroyed so that his friend could claim insurance, is that your testimony?
MR NORTJE: That is correct, yes.
MS PILLAY: Mr De Kock also knew that these people were to be killed beforehand?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MS PILLAY: And how did he know that?
MR NORTJE: I have just explained to you about the discussion, the final decision came from him.
MS PILLAY: So the final decision to have these people eliminated, came from Mr De Kock himself?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MS PILLAY: The weapons that were supplied, did Mr De Kock know that weapons were to be planted at the scene?
MR NORTJE: Yes, he knew.
MS PILLAY: He knew beforehand?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MS PILLAY: Who informed him?
MR NORTJE: It was part of the planning.
MS PILLAY: Part of the planning, was it at Pretoria?
MR NORTJE: Yes, in Pretoria.
MS PILLAY: In Pretoria? And who was party to this planning?
MR NORTJE: I cannot say who exactly, but it was during the course of time, it was decided and it was done as such. Once again, I cannot say that it had taken place on that day or on that day.
MS PILLAY: But you are sure that Mr De Kock knew about the weapons?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MS PILLAY: And he knew that they were to be planted in the kombi?
MR NORTJE: Yes, he knew that as well.
MS PILLAY: Your testimony Mr Nortje, is that Mr De Kock was present at the Drum Rock Hotel?
MR NORTJE: Yes, he was.
MS PILLAY: In the room?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MS PILLAY: When the discussions with regard to the planning were being discussed?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MS PILLAY: Is your testimony also Mr Nortje, that Mr De Kock knew of the location of the ambush?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MS PILLAY: He knew where exactly it would happen?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MS PILLAY: Which is why, even if you had gone on without him, he would have known where to come?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MS PILLAY: And that is why you decided to leave without him?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
ADV DE JAGER: Did he also know where you would do your surveillance?
MR NORTJE: Yes Chairperson, he did know, because at some stage when - I want to recall that he drove with us or just after we had arrived there and we stopped behind the post office, he arrived there.
ADV DE JAGER: No, but before that, given you would have, suppose you would have driven, did he know where you would do your surveillance before he came back from Malelane?
MR NORTJE: Yes, we informed him.
ADV DE JAGER: So before he went to Malelane, he knew?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
ADV DE JAGER: He didn't hear it there when he returned from Malelane at the hotel?
MR NORTJE: No, my impression is that he had already known because it had been discussed beforehand and he would know where the kombi would be.
CHAIRPERSON: Ms Pillay?
MS PILLAY: Just give me a second please Mr Chairperson, I am just going through my notes.
ADV DE JAGER: While you are going through your notes, was it not planned that he would be with you?
MR NORTJE: No, I cannot say that, i cannot recall that he was there at the mini-bus with us, I know he arrived there at some stage and we associated ourselves with where the mini-bus would be, but he went back to the scene.
MS PILLAY: Mr Nortje, you testified to other covert operations with regard to other cover operations that happened post-1990, do you recall that?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MS PILLAY: One of them was the Chand operation?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MS PILLAY: Did you take any members of Murder and Robbery with you on that operation?
MR NORTJE: No, never, we wouldn't have done that.
MS PILLAY: You wouldn't take Murder and Robbery with?
MR NORTJE: No, that was a cross-border operation.
MS PILLAY: And the Piet Retief incident?
MR NORTJE: No.
MS PILLAY: You don't take Murder and Robbery with you?
MR NORTJE: No, they did not accompany us, it was a Security operation.
MS PILLAY: So for covert operations you don't take Murder and Robbery with you?
MR NORTJE: Well, we did not, but there may have been instances where it may have happened, but that is not how we went about it.
MS PILLAY: Was this operation a covert operation?
MR NORTJE: No.
MS PILLAY: It wasn't?
MR NORTJE: No.
MS PILLAY: It was a bona fide police operation?
MR NORTJE: Yes. Just the fact that we used Murder and Robbery, because it was their work, and we had pushed them in front as the planners and the persons who would deal with the investigation afterwards, that is why they went along.
MS PILLAY: But this was a bona fide police operation?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MS PILLAY: Is it police practice to set people up for no reason and then have them killed?
MR NORTJE: No.
MS PILLAY: So how do you still say that this was a bona fide police operation? You just testified ...
MR NORTJE: Superficially I would say, the information notes had been sent and I don't believe that all the detail would have been given, but it was not a covert operation. Then we would have handled it quite differently, I don't think - I can only speculate and I do not want to do that, but according to me it was not a covert operation as our previous covert operations.
MS PILLAY: Okay, but it wasn't a bona fide police operation either?
MR NORTJE: No, not really.
MS PILLAY: So what was it then?
MR NORTJE: It should have appeared to be a bona fide action which was launched, but there was a motive accompanied.
MS PILLAY: And the motive?
MR NORTJE: To shoot the people.
MS PILLAY: Mr De Kock, you were here when Mr De Kock testified yesterday, is that correct?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MS PILLAY: You heard him testify that it was a bona fide police operation yesterday?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MS PILLAY: How do you respond to the fact that he considers it to be a bona fide police operation?
MR NORTJE: Because the version which we pretended, were bona fide.
MS PILLAY: We are not talking about the versions that you put forward because it is common cause that that was false, the statements were false?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MS PILLAY: He said that he considered the operation to be a bona fide police operation?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MS PILLAY: You testified here today that it is not a bona fide police operation?
MR NORTJE: Yes, but as I have said it was presented as a bona fide operation, but there were other motives as well.
MS PILLAY: What were the other motives?
MR NORTJE: To shoot the people.
MR LAMEY: Chairperson, may I just - I don't want to raise an objection, there is just one thing that comes to my mind here. The question of bona fide here is sort of, it has a double meaning, depending from what vantage point you ask that question. From the vantage point of the Police Act, it would have a particular meaning, from the vantage point of the Amnesty Act, it could have another meaning, so you know, I think that is where the difficulty rises with, I wonder if my learned friend could just in all reasonableness to the witness, you know exactly refer to, as to, in what context she, from what vantage point she asks that question then it would be more clear.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I follow the point that Mr Lamey makes. It is, the term bona fide is a technical term and it depends in which context you are referring to it, so perhaps you should be more specific if you want to take this point any further.
MS PILLAY: Mr Chairperson, I was just putting Mr De Kock's testimony to this witness to get his response. The witness is more than welcome to explain what he believes is a bona fide police operation and we can leave then the technical definition for argument later.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but the point that Mr Lamey makes is a valid point that comes into it.
MS PILLAY: Mr Chairperson, I believe that we did get the witness' answer and I did put Mr De Kock's testimony, so I can leave it there for the time being.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Lamey says that he is not necessarily objecting, he is just raising what is obviously a very relevant question around this concept.
MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, may I just add, Mr De Kock did talk about a bona fide police operation but he did, but he also added that it did not comply with the provisions of the Police Act. I think, I am speculating, but I think that what he had in mind was exactly the provisions of the Amnesty Act.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think that that just emphasises the point that Mr Lamey has made. There is no real dispute at this stage, it is probably something that will be addressed eventually in this matter.
MS PILLAY: That is correct Mr Chairperson, we will save that for argument and I am prepared to leave it there for now.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, very well.
MS PILLAY: Mr Nortje, you were involved in the initial Coin Security incident, were you not, well not involved on the day, but you were involved in the planning thereof?
MR NORTJE: I was not part of the planning, just the one evening I went along in Nelspruit coincidentally, I found Holtzhausen, he wanted to involve me in the incident and he said I should accompany him and he wanted to go and have a look at a place in Nelspruit. I was at Nelspruit, in Nelspruit or in the vicinity and that evening I accompanied him but I was not part of the specific plan or anything.
MS PILLAY: What did Mr Holtzhausen tell you about Coin Security, the planning thereof?
MR NORTJE: The detail with regard to that, I for example did not know it was the same group which would die later. Later I heard this only. In detail, I did not, I was not very interested in the detail and as I said he wanted to involve me, but I just extracted myself from that.
MS PILLAY: But you were aware that these people were to be killed at Coin Security?
MR NORTJE: Yes, it was mentioned.
MS PILLAY: And what did Mr Holtzhausen give as the reasons that they were to be killed?
MR NORTJE: Because they were robbers.
MS PILLAY: Because they were robbers? That was why they were going to be killed at Coin Security?
MR NORTJE: I assume so, I did not ask him why did they have to be shot, I don't think we discussed it in that manner. As I have said, I did not know much about the planning, I know that that evening we went to look at the place and then approximately a week afterwards it would have taken place, but I could not accompany them because I had other obligations. It never happened.
MS PILLAY: Did you later know, I am talking about later before the Nelspruit incident, did you know that these people were the same lot who was set up for the first Coin Security?
MR NORTJE: No, I didn't know it there.
MS PILLAY: When did you know that they were the same group?
MR NORTJE: At a certain stage, it must have been later or just after the incident or it could have been that they told me that it was the same group that wanted to commit the robbery there, it is possible that they told me then, but I did come to hear about it later.
MS PILLAY: Later, do you mean after the Nelspruit incident?
MR NORTJE: I am not sure.
MS PILLAY: I refer you to Mr Holtzhausen's affidavit, page - it starts on page 306 and I am looking specifically at page, I am referring to the portion of Mr Holtzhausen's affidavit where he refers to the meeting in the room in Drum Rock Hotel, where he in fact informs the group that these were the same robbers who were involved in the Coin Security incident?
MR NORTJE: It is possible that he could have told us that then.
MS PILLAY: So you knew before the incident itself that these were the same group of people?
MR NORTJE: That is possible, I can agree with that.
MS PILLAY: But your testimony now was that you found out afterwards?
MR NORTJE: No, I said that I wasn't certain when I came to hear about it, whether it was before or after the time. I am not trying to be evasive, I am just not certain about when it was, before or after. If he says it was before, then we must have known.
MS PILLAY: So you accept that you could have known before that?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
ADV DE JAGER: Sorry, could you just refer me, you said the meeting in the room. Where, which paragraph does he refer to the meeting in the room? Perhaps paragraph 36 seems to start with the "Planning at Nelspruit".
MS PILLAY: I am just trying to find the portion of the affidavit, I remember reading it Mr Chairperson, I am just trying to find the portion for the benefit of the Commission.
ADV DE JAGER: I find a summary of what was discussed and what they decided, but I cannot - it says "at the bridge the following arrangements were made".
MS PILLAY: If you can just give me a second Mr Chairperson, I will find it. Chairperson, if you have a look at page 75 that is the amnesty application of Mr Gevers, he gives us a good summary of what they were informed by Mr Holtzhausen. If you look at the first paragraph. The first paragraph
"... we were informed by him regarding the following facts ...".
ADV DE JAGER: That was a meeting with Van Zyl, not with De Kock at all?
MS PILLAY: Sorry, page 76. I think it is the same lot. He says Holtzhausen was the handler and we were informed by him.
ADV DE JAGER: You put it to him that De Kock, in the room, and Holtzhausen in the room?
MS PILLAY: I put it to him that Holtzhausen informed them in the room that they were the same lot of people and that is confirmed by Gevers in this paragraph.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think you were under the impression that it was part of Mr Holtzhausen's statement?
MS PILLAY: That is correct, I was mistaken in that regard, yes.
CHAIRPERSON: It seems to be the statement of ...
MS PILLAY: Mr Gevers.
ADV DE JAGER: Yes, but that was also not in the room, this was at the scene, on page 76.
"... on the scene itself we were further informed by Holtzhausen."
MS PILLAY: I think Mr Chairperson, you have to read it from the end of page 74.
ADV DE JAGER: Oh, it starts at 74.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it seems to be describing what happened when the group met in the room.
MS PILLAY: In the room, that is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: And he says Holtzhausen was the main speaker and he gave them the following information, 1 - 7 and number one says it was the same people who were previously involved in the Coin Security company at Nelspruit.
MS PILLAY: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: So that is what you want to put?
MS PILLAY: That is what I want to put, yes. So you accept that you did know beforehand that it was the same group?
MR NORTJE: Yes, I would accept that.
MS PILLAY: Just the last thing Mr Nortje, you testified in your examination in chief that you didn't receive any training with regard to the new role of Vlakplaas?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MS PILLAY: I would like to refer you to Exhibit A, Annexure A, page 17. This is the affidavit of Gen Engelbrecht, look at Annexure A, page 17. If you look at the fifth paragraph. Can you just read that out for us please Mr Nortje?
MR NORTJE: "... my transfer from the Detective Branch to the Security Branch was done so that I could assist the members among others in motivating them, in presenting crime courses to them and in providing leadership on the crime terrain in order to move them from the political field to the field of crime."
MS PILLAY: Can I have your response on that please, Mr Nortje?
MR NORTJE: Well, I never experienced anything like that, or at least as far as I know, it never took place with us.
MS PILLAY: So you are saying that Gen Engelbrecht is actually lying?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MS PILLAY: Is that what you are saying?
MR NORTJE: Yes, that must have been his plan or it was part of his planning, but he certainly didn't do it.
MS PILLAY: Okay, would it have been necessary for you to undergo further training to switch from the covert to the more crime orientated approach?
MR NORTJE: I believe that it would have assisted us greatly because most of us, or at least I didn't and so also the black members, none of us undertook Detective courses or had enough relevant experience at that stage. I didn't know enough about that sort of work to be able to conduct investigations which were court orientated like a proper Detective.
MS PILLAY: But you would not have been able to do a policeman's, a normal policeman's job, that means?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MS PILLAY: You were unable to do so?
MR NORTJE: We could have done it, but then we would have had to undergo a process in order to steer our thoughts and ideas in a different direction.
MS PILLAY: A process to change your thought orientation?
MR NORTJE: Yes, that is what I would have expected of them to do.
MS PILLAY: But nothing relating to your skills as a policeman?
MR NORTJE: No.
MS PILLAY: You were adequately skilled at that stage?
MR NORTJE: No, for a policeman I was not adequately skilled, I would say.
MS PILLAY: You were not skilled?
MR NORTJE: I had spent 10 to 12 years not doing any form of uniform work, and during this period I didn't do any real police work in the sense that through my years of experience I had not become a qualified Detective.
MS PILLAY: But what was your rank?
MR NORTJE: I was a Warrant Officer.
MS PILLAY: A Lieutenant Officer?
MR NORTJE: A Warrant Officer.
MS PILLAY: What does that mean?
MR NORTJE: A Warrant Officer.
MS PILLAY: Warrant Officer, what does that mean, what do you do?
MR NORTJE: You are not an officer yet then. You are not an officer, you are a subordinate officer.
MS PILLAY: So you would, are you saying that you would have had no role in a normal police situation?
MR NORTJE: There may have been times I am sure where I would have been able to perform work, but it was never discussed. I can only say that at that stage after Vlakplaas had closed down, I did not see any further role for myself within the Police Force.
MS PILLAY: So you were not party to any undertakings by Gen Engelbrecht where he tried to reorientate you?
MR NORTJE: No.
MS PILLAY: He never tried to tell you that this is your new role, you should start preparing for it?
MR NORTJE: No. They simply told us as a certain stage that we would begin with crime work.
MS PILLAY: If you could just read the rest of the paragraph on page 17, the last paragraph.
MR NORTJE: "... after I began working at the Security Branch on the 5th of November 1990, I had already begun to motivate members and negotiations were held in order to be able to invest everything in the combatting of crime from the 1st of January 1991."
MS PILLAY: You can carry on.
MR NORTJE: "... in the light of the discussions between the Managerial level and the Division Crime Prevention and Investigation and members of Unit C10, there was a division in C10. Major De Kock selected a number of members and during February 1991 he performed his duties from another premises, that being Vlakplaas itself. Capt Baker, along with the remaining members, remained at Vlakplaas and became the Unit Commander of Vlakplaas."
MS PILLAY: Your response to that Mr Nortje? It seems that Major Engelbrecht was making himself available to ensure a smooth transition from the usual modus operandi to the more crime orientated?
MR NORTJE: Well, I don't have experience of that. I didn't see it happen.
MS PILLAY: Did you bring, you were aware that there was a change in focus, is that correct?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MS PILLAY: Did you bring it to anyone's attention that you felt inadequate?
MR NORTJE: No.
MS PILLAY: That you felt that you needed more training?
MR NORTJE: No.
MS PILLAY: Why didn't you do so?
MR NORTJE: Well, we still regarded ourselves as an Operational Unit. At that stage I wasn't thinking about all these things, please understand me. These questions were never put to us, we never thought about it, it is very difficult to discuss it now.
MS PILLAY: But you were aware of the dual purpose or the so-called dual purpose, your version a dual purpose of Vlakplaas?
MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.
MS PILLAY: Did you bring it to any of your superiors' attention that in fact you felt that you were inadequately trained to perform this other purpose?
MR NORTJE: No, we did not, I did not.
MS PILLAY: You didn't do it?
MR NORTJE: No.
MS PILLAY: So, it can safely be said that people presumed that you were equipped to do this other, the second role?
MR NORTJE: One could put it that way.
MS PILLAY: I have no further questions Mr Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS PILLAY
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Pillay. Ms Patel, any questions?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PATEL: Yes, thank you Honourable Chairperson. Just for clarity sir, you stated here that your impression was that the alleged robbers would be armed. Can I just take you back to what you, the judgement of the De Kock trial, it was stated there that you knew that, or you said that you knew, you in plural, knew that they wouldn't be armed because they were still on their way to go and get the weapons and also that that was one of the reasons why Tiso didn't get into the bus, because he was afraid that given that they were
unarmed, he decided rather that he would wait at Hall's Gateway, do you recall that testimony?
MR NORTJE: Yes, I recall it.
MS PATEL: Okay, you will agree that that is a contradiction to what you stated here today?
MR NORTJE: Yes, that is the impression that I was under regarding these things that had not gone according to plan.
MS PATEL: All right. The Coin Security incident, the incident that had been aborted, do you know whether at that stage De Kock had authorised that operation? Can you say or not from your discussions with Holtzhausen during that time?
MR NORTJE: I can only say that he definitely would have been informed, but I cannot say that I was present when Mr De Kock was informed or when he was precisely informed of what took place. I just knew that he knew when the action took place, when the robbery would have taken place, he must have known, but I wasn't present.
MS PATEL: I am talking about the first incident.
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MS PATEL: All right, that is fine. Can you tell us, you had some dealings with Mr Van Zyl, do you have any idea - let me phrase it differently, can you recall whether Mr Van Zyl would have said that Tiso was wanted for 16 other robberies?
MR NORTJE: No, I cannot recall that. I don't know how that story worked out, well, he didn't tell me. I cannot recall that he said anything like that. He may have said that they were involved in robberies, but regarding the 16 incidents, I don't know, I cannot say anything about it.
MS PATEL: Okay, and do you have any recollection of a discussion at the meeting at the hotel about robbery in Witbank where a woman would have been shot and killed?
MR NORTJE: Yes, that was discussed at a stage, but I cannot say that it was directly linked to this incident. My idea is that the information was confused at a certain point and I have heard Mr De Kock's explanation that it may have been during the same period of time and that some of the members may have heard it and simply linked it to this matter, that is the only inference that I can draw. But that they were involved in that incident, is something that I cannot confirm.
ADV DE JAGER: You say the information may have become somewhat confused. Isn't it you that is somewhat confused? How much did you have to drink that day?
MR NORTJE: I didn't drink a lot that day because I knew that we had a long night ahead and we would have to spend quite a long time on the road.
ADV DE JAGER: Then how did the information become somewhat confused?
MR NORTJE: No, I am just trying to infer how they managed to incorporate the aspect of the 16 robberies and the Witbank incident. It was mentioned, but I cannot recall specifically that Tiso and the others were involved in that. It was also mentioned during that time, during discussions.
MS PATEL: You recall, were you here when Mr Gevers testified?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MS PATEL: Okay, he said his recollection is that there was distinctly a discussion about this specific incident where the woman was shot and that all the members who were present there, were angry about it, do you recall that?
MR NORTJE: No, once again, I cannot recall that. It may have been discussed, but it didn't really make any impression on me, or let me rather say it didn't upset me. I cannot say that that would have been a reason for us to be angry, but if that is his recollection regarding exactly what took place there, then that is his recollection, but I cannot recall pertinently what took place.
MS PATEL: Okay. When the decision was made that Tiso would be killed, you were unhappy about it, you were uncomfortable with it, not so?
MR NORTJE: Yes, basically both of us, Mr De Kock and I were uncomfortable with the Swaziland idea because that was not part of the plan.
MS PATEL: With the Swaziland, sorry, what did you say about Swaziland, I did not get that?
MR NORTJE: No, I didn't say Swaziland, I know that he spoke about Swaziland, I cannot recall that he made such a suggestion or that I made such a suggestion, I cannot recall that.
MS PATEL: All right, but either way you weren't happy that Tiso was to be killed?
MR NORTJE: No, I wouldn't say that I was dissatisfied with it, it was just a very difficult situation that we found ourselves in. It was not part of the planning, we basically had a person about whom we realised that we would have to make a plan. I went along with his decision, I did not tell him no, we can't do that.
MS PATEL: Okay, are you saying that that wasn't part of the planning in terms of the fact that you hadn't foreseen that he would have been killed apart from the rest, or it was not part of the planning that he would be killed at all?
MR NORTJE: Well according to the plan, he would have to be in the vehicle.
MS PATEL: Okay, all right, so then we are at cross-purposes about that. Do you have any idea what knowledge Tiso had on Vlakplaas?
MR NORTJE: No, I don't know.
MS PATEL: Do you know if he ever visited Vlakplaas?
MR NORTJE: No, not as far as I know.
MS PATEL: So we know ...
MR NORTJE: Not as far as I know, no, I don't believe that he was ever there, we were not that close to him, or at least no one that I knew, knew him.
MS PATEL: How would he then know anything about Vlakplaas or Vlakplaas' involvement?
MR NORTJE: Well that would have emanated.
MS PATEL: How, how would it come out?
MR NORTJE: You see the shooting took place and we were involved, that came out in either event. They would have put two and two together and they would have known that we were involved, if we left him.
MS PATEL: I don't understand how they would have known that Vlakplaas was involved if he had no knowledge of Vlakplaas? Perhaps you can explain?
MR NORTJE: I don't believe it would have been so difficult to find out, not at that stage.
MS PATEL: But how would he have found out sir, I don't understand how he would have found out?
MR NORTJE: Well by means of the media.
MS PATEL: How would the media have known that Vlakplaas was involved, after all Murder and Robbery was involved in the matter?
MR NORTJE: Well, it was already in the news the following day, everybody knew ultimately. The shooting reports which would have come out in court, or the detail would have been put together.
MS PATEL: Is it not true that Tiso only knew Mr Van Zyl as a person from the underground and had dealt with him on that basis?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MS PATEL: So then there would have been no connection to Vlakplaas, given his understanding, or given his relationship with Mr Van Zyl, not so or the basis of that relationship with Mr Van Zyl?
MR NORTJE: Well, as I understand the matter, he would have known, he travelled down with Ben, he would have known that they had been shot dead in an ambush, he would have known who had been involved. It would all have been exposed, there was no way in which it would have been covered up.
ADV DE JAGER: Very well, but he would have known that Van Zyl was involved, would he have known of anybody else who was involved?
MR NORTJE: No, not at that stage.
ADV DE JAGER: So all that he would have thought was that Van Zyl lured him there or Van Zyl escaped or something, or he would have blamed Van Zyl, but how would Vlakplaas have been affected by that?
MR NORTJE: Well, we admitted that we had been involved in the shooting.
ADV DE JAGER: Yes, but that is much later? Or are you referring to the following day when it was known that you were there at the shooting?
MR NORTJE: Yes, it is correct, it was known and it was in the media.
MS PATEL: Can I just to follow on that, but at that time, was Vlakplaas' involvement not to an extent denied, was Mr De Kock's presence at the scene, not denied?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MS PATEL: So then the involvement of Vlakplaas was then a long shot at that stage, not so?
MR NORTJE: No, we did not deny that we were not there. If I recall correctly, on the following day it was already known that we were involved, but that we acted in a supporting capacity for Murder and Robbery.
MS PATEL: Do you recall or do you have any knowledge of a request by Mr Van Zyl to Mr Holtzhausen that the alleged robbers be killed in order to protect him? Were you involved in that at all?
MR NORTJE: No, I see that they have said that, but I wasn't present.
MS PATEL: And this wasn't mentioned at all at any of the planning meetings either at Pretoria or at the hotel?
MR NORTJE: It may have been mentioned, but I cannot recall it independently at the moment. It must also have been a factor but on the other hand again, there were other incidents during which we also reacted upon his information and arrested people, such as in the case of the Braamfontein incident. I don't know whether that would have been the actual reason to kill him. It wouldn't have been the only reason.
MS PATEL: Okay. Can you say whether all the information that Mr Van Zyl gave to you and I refer to you in the plural, was reliable, that it was always reliable, whatever information he gave?
MR NORTJE: Well, the information that we received from him, was reliable because as I have said there were also other things which took place, which was as a result of his information and had been successful, so one could approach his information as being reasonably reliable.
MS PATEL: Were there not instances prior to the Nelspruit incident, where I think it was the Carousel incident, where there were a few instances where his information didn't really pan out?
MR NORTJE: Yes, there were cases.
MS PATEL: So his information wasn't always reliable?
MR NORTJE: Yes, but it wasn't about his reliability with the information, it was about circumstances. One would work with other persons, one would work with criminals who would change their minds or change their plans, so he didn't try to mislead us or anything like that, it was more a question of things not working the way they had been planned.
MS PATEL: When you approached - when you and Mr Holtzhausen approached De Kock about the information on the Nelspruit incident, did he accept the validity of the information immediately, or was he sceptical about the information having come from Mr Van Zyl? Can you recall?
MR NORTJE: No, I cannot recall what his reaction was to that.
MS PATEL: All right. Do you have any idea how the compensation for Mr Van Zyl worked, who would have applied for him to be compensated and how would it have been determined, how much he would have gotten?
MR NORTJE: My knowledge is that an amount of R20 000 was requested. What I heard at a certain stage and I don't know from whom I heard it, was that he didn't receive everything and that he only received parts of it.
ADV DE JAGER: Let us begin again. You say that R20 000 was requested, by whom?
MR NORTJE: Mr Holtzhausen filled out the claim and Mr De Kock gave his approval. I know that there was an amount of R20 000 involved, but I never saw the claim, I am simply saying what I heard.
ADV DE JAGER: You were asked to describe the procedure to us and you have just stated that Holtzhausen requested it, that De Kock would extend the approval. Would a cheque be written out afterwards or what else would have to happen?
MR NORTJE: From that point onwards it went to the General, to Gen Engelbrecht at that stage I am sure, or it would go directly to the Head and then it would be approved, especially if it was such a large amount, he would have to approve it. After that it would go to the administrative staff or the financial staff and I would recall that at that stage, we received the funds from the Uniform Branch, so it was quite a process that this claim had to travel through before it was ultimately approved and paid out. Then a cheque would be written out at the end of the day, a State cheque which would then be transferred for cash and the source would be paid with a source receipt which he would then have to sign.
MS PATEL: Would the source have to sign the receipt?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MS PATEL: Okay. How do you decide how much a source is supposed to get, is there any guidelines in terms of that?
MR NORTJE: I never worked with anything like that, so I cannot tell you specifically.
MS PATEL: All right, that is fine. Do you have any idea how much Mr Van Zyl would have been paid for the first attempt, the aborted attempt at Coin Security, would he have been paid for that?
MR NORTJE: No, I don't know. I don't know if he was paid for that. I don't think that he would have been paid.
MS PATEL: Okay. And you yourself, did you get any money for this incident?
MR NORTJE: No, I didn't.
MS PATEL: I refer you to page 131 of your application. I am not sure whether this is just a general and that you specify later where you say "yes, financial remuneration and promotion in rank" to the question 10(d)?
MR NORTJE: In general, that was in general, this is not specific. What I mean is that during the period that I was there, I received financial remuneration for various things and that I also received rank promotion, but for this particular incident, it was not the case.
MS PATEL: Can I just ask generally, your rank promotion would be linked to your performances in this type of operations?
MR NORTJE: Yes, in 1991 I was promoted, but that was purely as a result of all the things that we had been involved in before the time.
ADV DE JAGER: Just give us an idea, you began as a Constable?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
ADV DE JAGER: And then you were promoted to?
MR NORTJE: A Sergeant.
ADV DE JAGER: And the next promotion was then?
MR NORTJE: Warrant Officer.
ADV DE JAGER: So you had only been promoted twice during your entire career from the beginning, which was in 1975?
MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.
MS PATEL: Okay, and the question of financial gain or the amounts that you would have received over and above your salary, would you say that this was an incentive to perform better generally?
MR NORTJE: No. I think that Mr De Kock's viewpoint was that we were working under very difficult circumstances, that we were never at home, that our families suffer as a result, although I didn't have a family at that stage. Those were the deprivations, we spent many nights sleeping out in the field, we could be away from home for up to 26 or 28 days. So, I think it was as a result of that, and also due to the fact that we did not undertake regular police work. It was his way of rewarding us.
MS PATEL: Can I just ask you, can we go back to the question of the mini-bus. Do you know when it was taken from or removed from the ...
MR NORTJE: Springs?
MS PATEL: Yes, when? Was it a day or two before the Nelspruit incident or was it a while before, can you recall?
MR NORTJE: That information was not given to me. I just know that or I would recall that it was Chait who brought the mini-bus to me the day before we departed. In other words, we left that evening, so he brought the mini-bus the previous evening. I know that he went to fetch the mini-bus, but I don't know at which particular stage.
MS PATEL: Okay. You stated in your application that that mini-bus was taken with the owner's consent, you confirm that?
MR NORTJE: Yes. Well, at least that was something which came from the discussion that I had with Mr De Kock, I inferred that. I wasn't present during the discussion and I simply inferred from what Mr De Kock had told me.
MS PATEL: All right, and then just to go back to the information on Tiso. Can you recall whether there was information that he was involved in weapon smuggling or arms smuggling at that time?
MR NORTJE: No, I cannot say that.
MS PATEL: So there was no information about that at the time that you know of?
MR NORTJE: No. Not that came to me.
MS PATEL: All right, and then finally just, you know, you have some extensive experience on weapon smugglers into the country, you were saying that those smugglers had no particular political affiliation and they would sell to anybody. From your knowledge and experience, would they sell to crime syndicates as well?
MR NORTJE: Yes, they would sell to anyone.
MS PATEL: So they wouldn't only sell to political parties?
MR NORTJE: No.
MS PATEL: All right. Okay, thank you Honourable Chairperson, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS PATEL
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Patel. Mr Lamey, I assume you would be a while?
MR LAMEY: Yes, I have still got re-examination to do.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. We are going to adjourn at this stage.
MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairperson, sorry may I just inform you that I am going to seek your indulgence to just put two further points to Mr Nortje which I have unfortunately omitted to do. I don't necessarily have to do it now, I can do it tomorrow, but I would just like you to know about it at this stage.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, perhaps it is a good that you do it before Mr Lamey re-examines.
MR HATTINGH: Yes, that is why I am mentioning it now.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. We will hear Mr Lamey's response tomorrow when we carry on.
MR HATTINGH: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Nortje - oh, I am sorry, I misunderstood you.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we will leave it till tomorrow Mr Hattingh, I think we have all had a very long day.
MR HATTINGH: Yes, thank you Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we will adjourn and we will reconvene tomorrow morning at half past nine.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
