CHAIRPERSON: Good morning. We are continuing with the amnesty application of E A de Kock and nine others in respect of the Nelspruit 4 and Tiso.
Just for the record, it is Wednesday the 25th of August 1999, and the Panel and the appearances are as have been indicated earlier on the record. We were still busy dealing with the evidence of Mr Nortje.
WILLEM A NORTJE: (s.u.o.)
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hattingh, you had a few things that you wanted to clarify and you also indicated that once your client is back you might want to deal with something else.
FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I won't be long.
Mr Nortje, just singular aspects. May I begin with a matter about which you were examined regarding knowledge that you had about those persons who intended to commit the robbery. Chairperson, before you we have placed another extract from the record of Mr Nortje's evidence during the Court trial of Mr de Kock. With your leave we ask that this form part of Exhibit H.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, very well, that is page 5902 to 35.
MR HATTINGH: That is correct.
Very well. You were asked about the information that you had regarding these robbers. Might I just refer you to page 5923 and there I ask you:
"With the exception of the fact that you were informed that these persons had been involved in other robberies, did you have any other information regarding them, the persons who would be robbers? Did you have more information about them except that which van Zyl told you, that they were involved in the Witbank robbery and the robbery at Coin?"
And your response:
"That was also information which we had. It indicated that they were ANC members. Later I only came to hear about the IFP member, but as far as I know they were ANC members."
Do you recall this evidence?
MR NORTJE: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: And then somewhat lower down I ask you
"Did you later gather more information about them?"
Your answer:
"No, I did not specifically gather information, but what I heard - okay, what we also knew is that Tiso was the driver of Mrs Winnie Mandela and the fact that they were robbers. That is all that we afterwards ..."
And then I interrupt you with a question which is not of importance here. Do you recall this evidence that you gave?
MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.
MR HATTINGH: Then with regard to another aspect, Mr Nortje. If you will turn to page 5933, this what I omitted to examine you about. And there mention is made of a file, a murder and robbery file or dossier from Soweto.
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: And just to save time, I can tell you that your evidence there was that you received this dossier from Murder and Robbery and that it was necessary for the purposes of the post-mortem inquest which was held after the Nelspruit incident.
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: And you omitted to return it to the Murder and Robbery Unit of Soweto.
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: And one of the suspects in that dossier was one of the deceased who was involved in the Nelspruit incident.
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: And according to your evidence in here, he was a fugitive from the law, they wanted him on a charge of murder.
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: But you cannot recall which one it was?
MR NORTJE: No, I cannot recall his name.
MR HATTINGH: I have now had the opportunity to ask Mr de Kock briefly this morning with regard to the evidence that he visited the scene and I would recall that during the criminal trial I extensively examined you about this under cross-examination.
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR HATTINGH: And although I put no statements to you then, your statements themselves were tested.
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: And now I can put it to you that it is Mr de Kock's version that he never visited the place where you understood the observation.
MR NORTJE: Well I would recall that he was there for a few minutes in order to inform himself about the vehicle. I cannot think that I was mistaken because I recall this pertinently.
MR HATTINGH: But you would recall that during the criminal trial you had a problem with that phrase that you used "to inform himself about the vehicle", why was it necessary for him to look at the vehicle? If the planning was for the vehicle to be there or for you to be there to observe the vehicle, why was it necessary for him to observe the vehicle? Do you recall that?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR HATTINGH: And you couldn't really provide a satisfactory explanation about this.
MR NORTJE: No.
MR HATTINGH: And you still cannot.
MR NORTJE: Well that is how I recall it.
MR HATTINGH: Very well. And Mr de Kock's version is also that he was supposed to undertake observation with you at that point, that he was not really supposed to be on the scene. The plan was for him to be with you undertaking observation of the minibus away from the scene and then later undertaking observation in order to warn the other persons on the scene about the imminent arrival of the group.
MR NORTJE: All I can is that I cannot recall that he was supposed to be with us specifically. As I've said, I did not tell him where he was supposed to be, or it was not said to him where he was supposed to be, it was his own choice.
MR HATTINGH: Because you had already departed from the hotel he could not join you and that is why he and Klopper went to the scene.
MR NORTJE: Yes, they went to the scene.
MR HATTINGH: And Mr Klopper, even though you gave evidence long after he did during the criminal trial when this aspect was not yet concluded, he never mentioned during his evidence that he and Mr de Kock had visited you there at the minibus.
MR NORTJE: That may be so.
MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HATTINGH
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Hattingh. Has the Panel got any questions?
MR SIBANYONI: No, Mr Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey, any re-examination?
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chairperson.
Mr Nortje, the suggestion is made or was made during cross-examination, especially from Ms Pillay on behalf of the victims, and the passages to which she referred of your evidence during the de Kock trial. As I understand the suggestion it is to indicate that what you have said in your amnesty application with regard to the political connotation between the robbers and the ANC and Mrs Mandela as well, is essentially a recent fabrication which you have created in order to incorporate a political objective in your amnesty application. Now I want to ask you just to return to that. The initial application which you submitted, we have referred to it, but just to put this clearly on the record, this is about the Nelspruit incident, an extract from your statement which you at that time made to the Goldstone Commission.
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: But those statements that you deposed to before the Goldstone Commission, were also submitted in Denmark when you gave evidence, which was under tremendous pressure, regarding various other incidents.
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: And with regard to this statement of yours which has been submitted to the Committee, herein you stated that these were ANC members.
MR NORTJE: Dit is die indruk wat ons gehad het, ja. ...(no English interpretation)
ADV DE JAGER: Which page is this?
MR LAMEY: Page 135, Chairperson.
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Lamey, could you assist me, was this statement put to the Goldstone Commission before the trial of applicant de Kock?
MR LAMEY: Yes, it was before the trial of Mr de Kock.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey, is that in the second paragraph?
MR LAMEY: Page 135, yes. In the second paragraph, yes.
On page 134, Mr Nortje, you also referred to the paragraph there, but with reference to the Carousel incident. You also indicated that the informer moved in ANC circles.
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: Now what I want to ask you specifically about the Nelspruit incident, do you know whether what you said before the Goldstone Commission, whether this statement was also used as a point of departure and a basis by the prosecution during the de Kock trial, in the leading of evidence?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: You did not make another statement about the Nelspruit incident before the commencement of the de Kock trial?
MR NORTJE: I'm not certain, but I don't think I did.
MR LAMEY: Very well. What I want to ask you is whether during the deposition of your statements regarding incidents before the Goldstone Commission, if you could just explain how it functioned. Were you asked simply to tell the story and was the focus aimed at aspects which were politically related, or was it simply a factual account of what took place?
MR NORTJE: No, it was simply a story which I told to a person and another person would sit there and use a laptop computer to record what I was saying, and that is also how it was attested to at the end of the day.
MR LAMEY: Very well. Now if you were to look at consultations with regard to your statement before the Goldstone Commission and your consultations and statements before the de Kock trial, as well as your statements and consultations for the purposes of your amnesty application and hearing, and you place these next to one another, in which case would you say was the focus more pertinently directed at obtaining more comprehensive information from you regarding the political connection regarding this incident?
MR NORTJE: It was during my consultation with my legal representative that we would go into more detail.
MR LAMEY: Chairperson, in the meantime I've also obtained a portion of Mr Nortje's evidence with the beginning of his evidence-in-chief regarding the Nelspruit incident, apart from that which Mr Hattingh has submitted here, and I beg your leave to hand it up. I wonder if you could assist me in handing it out.
Chairperson, you will receive an unnumbered page and a page 5621, the number on the unnumbered page has been cut off and it should be 5620.
CHAIRPERSON: So these are two pages?
MR LAMEY: Yes, it is two pages.
CHAIRPERSON: And that would then further form part of Exhibit H.
MR LAMEY: As it pleases you, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: We will ultimately then incorporate Exhibit A in terms of the numerical sequence of the page numbers.
MR LAMEY: Chairperson, you will note that the page actually begins with the conclusion of another incident and then somewhere in the middle of the page it begins to deal with the Nelspruit incident.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR LAMEY: Unfortunately the lines on this page are not numbered.
Mr Nortje, at the bottom of page 5620 you refer:
"Was he the source of Holtzhausen?"
That is the questioning by Adv Ackerman. It does not reflect on the record, but Chairperson, I can give you the assurance that this is the evidence-in-chief.
"He was Holtzhausen's source. Every now and then our information indicated that some of these robbers had been involved in other robberies."
And then the point that I wish to highlight is that you gave evidence indicating:
"He was Winnie Mandela's driver and all indicators were that she was sending them on these operations."
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR LAMEY: Is that the impression that you had at that time?
MR NORTJE: Yes, that was basically my impression.
MR LAMEY: In the passage on page 5823 in Exhibit H I would like to refer you to line 11, 12, 13, where Mr Hattingh asks you
"Very well. Now what was the information which van Zyl gave about these robbers?"
...(intervention)
ADV DE JAGER: Could you please assist us, Mr Lamey, which page?
MR LAMEY: I beg your pardon, it's page 5803, line 13 of Exhibit H.
Very well, Mr Nortje. The question is put:
"Now what was the information that van Zyl had regarding these robbers?"
Now is it correct here that Mr Hattingh put the question with reference to the robbers?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR LAMEY: And that is how you responded?
MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.
MR LAMEY: I would just like to put a hypothetical question to you. If Mr Hattingh had said to you "What was the information that Mr van Zyl had given you about these ANC members or ANC robbers?" Would you have answered in denial, would you have said that they were ANC members and that - or that they were criminal robbers?
MR NORTJE: No, I would have answered him if the opportunity presented itself.
MR LAMEY: Mr Nortje, I think that you referred to it. Do you know of certain cases during which you also had information regarding robbers who had no political connections and who had been arrested in such a case?
MR NORTJE: Yes, if I think back there was the Braamfontein incident. I cannot say that they were politically related, or at least we didn't have information indicating that they were politically related.
MR LAMEY: And then Ms Patel has put it to you - and I refer to your evidence regarding the fact that Tiso was not at the scene, your evidence regarding this during the de Kock trial, I just want to know whether you gave direct evidence why it was decided that he would wait somewhere else in the Cressida vehicle and would not accompany the group in the minibus vehicle. Was your evidence there based upon inference?
MR NORTJE: Yes, it was based upon inference.
MR LAMEY: Then regarding the issue that they were still under the impression that they were on their way to fetch weapons, was that evidence of yours also based upon retrospective inference, or was there any other basis for the evidence that you gave?
MR NORTJE: No, it was merely the inference which we drew, I didn't know precisely what Ben had said to them. This is simply an inference that I drew.
MR LAMEY: And was it your impression at that stage then that you didn't know yourself whether the robbers would be armed or not?
MR NORTJE: No, we weren't sure. We had the information that they - I wouldn't say that they were armed, but the suspicion existed that they could be armed because one wouldn't undertake a robbery without being armed.
MR LAMEY: Then the suggestion is also created in this regard that here you simply set up people to have them shot, that you set them up in a robbery merely to shoot them. If you were to think back, would you have continued with the operation if these persons had not indicated any intention to commit a robbery and if there had not been any information that they had committed previous robberies?
MR NORTJE: No, I don't believe that it would have taken place then, they wouldn't simply have been set up for no reason.
MR LAMEY: Now according to your understand at that stage, were those victims on that particular evening upon which the shooting incident took place, under the impression that they were going to Coin Security again to attempt a robbery?
MR NORTJE: Yes, it was logical to me that they knew precisely where they were going because they were going there completely voluntarily, they were not brought there against their will. So they knew exactly what they were going to do.
MR LAMEY: Very well. Just a moment, Mr Chairperson, I just want to make certain of how we will proceed.
Regarding the factor of the protection of the source, at which stage do you think did you come into the picture?
MR NORTJE: It was probably just an idea which we had to keep in mind from the very beginning, but it must have emerged when Tiso was arrested and a crisis ensued as I testified yesterday and it was then one of the factors.
MR LAMEY: Very well. It is common cause that you knew previously or beforehand that it would be an ambush and that because it was an ambush you would not want the finger to be pointed at an unlawful action by the police as well as Vlakplaas' involvement in an unlawful action and that this would have to be covered up?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR LAMEY: We have heard evidence that a firearm was fired, you did not see it yourself but you heard evidence that this firearm was fired from within the vehicle and that weapons were planted on the scene, that shells were picked up and that false statements were made afterwards.
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: Now all of this was done in order to cover up the unlawful action as well as specifically Vlakplaas' involvement, is that correct?
MR NORTJE: No, actually just the unlawful action because we could always deny that we had been there.
MR LAMEY: But let me put it to you this way. If it were to come to light that Vlakplaas members had initiated an ambush beyond the parameters of the law, what would the repercussions have been?
MR NORTJE: No, as I have explained, it would have placed us in a very problematic situation, police-wise, the circumstances at that time, all the media attention which was fixed on us.
MR LAMEY: In retrospect today, a person in the position of Tiso who was unexpectedly not in the kombi and who could to a certain extent be a potential witness, did you think that his potential evidence could create jeopardy for the entire coverup action?
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Lamey, I have a problem with what you are saying because if we have to look at what he thinks in retrospect today, it's not really going to assist us much.
MR LAMEY: I'm sorry, perhaps I have formulated my question incorrectly, I will reformulate.
The decision making to eliminate Tiso there at the scene, you gave evidence that you realised you had a problem.
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR LAMEY: And you also gave evidence that not everything was discussed in detail.
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: If you had to replace yourself in flashbacks to that time when that decision was made, in the light of the entire plan to cover up the entire matter, I would like to you ask you, if you think back, did it ever occur to you that you had on your hands a potential witness who could ruin your coverup action?
MR NORTJE: Yes, but we didn't think about all those things at that stage, it was a decision which was made in a very brief time. We didn't think of everything at that point.
MR LAMEY: Very well. But what was the motivation if you think back to that time ...(intervention)
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Lamey, if I heard correctly did he not provide his motivations during his evidence-in-chief? Are we recommencing with evidence-in-chief or are you busy clarifying something which he said in a response? And if you are doing this, please refer to what he said and let him comment on that.
MR LAMEY: Very well. It was put to you and it was suggested to you, that Tiso was not on the scene. What danger as a witness could he possibly have held? That is actually what I wanted to ask you. Could you elaborate on that please.
MR NORTJE: No, I cannot elaborate any further than what I already have. It is very difficult to think now about what I thought then.
MR LAMEY: Very well. But there were media reports the following day about the shooting incident.
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR LAMEY: And we accept that Tiso would have read about it.
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR LAMEY: And it would have come to his knowledge that these people had been shot dead.
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR LAMEY: There were also ballistic persons at the scene and one would have expected that there may have been reports that shots were fired from within the kombi to the outside.
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR LAMEY: AK47s were not given to the robbers and Tiso would have known that these persons had not had AK47s.
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: There was evidence which was found in the reports that grenade shrapnel was found inside the bus, can you recall this?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: Tiso would be able to testify that the robbers did not have handgrenades ...(intervention)
MS PILLAY: I'd really like to know whether Mr Lamey is in fact testifying now, because his client is merely answering yes or no and it's also speculation as well.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey?
MR LAMEY: Chairperson, I'll leave it for argument.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, because really a lot of that ground is really part of the objective set of facts, that there was a handgrenade, there were these AK47s, there were these shots fired. So it is really a matter of argument.
MR LAMEY: Yes, but apart from that I think Mr Nortje is in a position to know that the handgrenades and the AK47s would never have been given to the robbers and Tiso would have known that. But it ultimately ...(intervention)
ADV DE JAGER: Why should Tiso know that? His co-partner van Zyl could tell him "Listen I'll provide guns on the way", so why should he have known that guns wouldn't have been provided?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that is - Mr Lamey, that is why it's argument. I'm quite sure we're going to debate these things. I don't want you to debate it at this stage really.
MR LAMEY: As it please you, Mr Chairman. But I just want to say, just ...(indistinct) I just had the - understood Mr Nortje's evidence also previously that they would not have given the weapons to them.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, because they would have been a threat to their safety.
MR LAMEY: Ja. But I also understood further from that, that that would have also been explained somehow to the robbers why they could not provide the weapons. But I'll leave it there, Mr Chairperson, I need not go into that.
CHAIRPERSON: No, you can take your time when we argue to deal with all of those things.
Mr Nortje, just while Mr Lamey is perusing something else, you accepted that the involvement of Vlakplaas would have been publicised.
MR NORTJE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: It was not your objective to cover up the involvement of Vlakplaas.
MR NORTJE: No, we just didn't want to be on the foreground.
CHAIRPERSON: And that action on the scene, with the adjustment of evidence, it was basically to ensure that you could argue that the action of the police was justified under the circumstances because you had been attacked.
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Very well. Mr Lamey?
MR SIBANYONI: Maybe a follow-up, Mr Nortje. Did the media pick up that these people were in fact five and that only four were killed?
MR NORTJE: No, they didn't know about the fifth one.
MR SIBANYONI: How long did it take before Tiso's matter was known?
MR NORTJE: It was only after the Goldstone Commission, after I had mentioned that it was connected?
MR SIBANYONI: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey?
MR LAMEY: Chairperson, I don't have any further questions, thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Lamey. Mr Nortje, you are excused.
MR NORTJE: Thank you.
WITNESS EXCUSED
