Amnesty Hearings

CHAIRPERSON: Due to the situation regarding the public sector workers, Mr de Kock's testimony had to be interrupted yet again. He was in the course of being cross-examined by Mr Francis and in the meantime the situation seemed to have normalised and Mr de Kock is actually present at this time. So we are going to proceed and try to finish off the testimony of Mr de Kock.

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

CHAIRPERSON: Please be seated. Mr Francis, you still had some questions.

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR FRANCIS: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr de Kock, I think you've heard what Mr Nortje said when he was referred to Exhibit H.

ADV DE JAGER: I think - oh, this morning. Because we should bear in mind that for the whole of yesterday he wasn't here while Nortje was testifying.

MR FRANCIS: I think it was read to him at page 5932, that's now line 12. And the answer was at

"It was also information which he had, that some of them were ANC members. I only heard later about the IFP member, but as far as I knew they were ANC members."

Did you also know that a member, or one of the so-called robbers was a members of the IFP?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, later such an allegation was made, however nothing was said which indicated that an IFP member would be with these ANC members. And the operation was launched against ANC members. There was speculation about it.

MR FRANCIS: How did - who speculated about the fact that later a member - one person was a member of the IFP?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, if I recall correctly there was a newspaper report or a media report. It was one of the media reports.

MR FRANCIS: Now if you knew for a fact that a member was an IFP member, would you still have taken part in the killing of the five?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I would have to speculate, but if he as a singular person from the IFP had joined ANC members, he would associate himself with the objectives for which they were committing the robbery and he would also then be a party to the same terrorist situation.

MR FRANCIS: I would like you to answer you know, the questions without giving an explanation. It's a simple question. Would you still have killed him together with the others?

MR DE KOCK: Yes ...(intervention)

MR HATTINGH: No, Mr Chairperson, the witness was completely entitled to responding in the way in which he responded because he was speculating.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I don't know whether you want to improve on it Mr Francis.

MR FRANCIS: I think I will do so.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay.

MR FRANCIS: Mr de Kock, let's just find out about how did you - who told you that one of the robbers was a member of the IFP? Or could have been a ...(intervention)

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairperson, the witness has already answered the question, he said that there was speculation about it in the media.

CHAIRPERSON: Ja. So perhaps you should not phrase your question in the form of a fact that Mr de Kock knew that these were, or amongst these people was an IFP member. So will you bear that in mind?

MR FRANCIS: Yes.

Mr de Kock, you said that there was some - you gathered this in the press, that a member - a robber could have been a member of the IFP, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I think that after the bodies were identified there was a report in the newspaper or in more than one newspaper, that there was a member who could have been an IFP member. I think that his father was an IFP member and the press inferred from that. This was not our inference.

MR FRANCIS: If you say that his father was a member of the IFP, who of the robbers was now - or whose father was that?

MR DE KOCK: I don't know Chairperson, I did not know the names or I did not link any persons to the names. As I've said, it was a media report, this was not information that we gathered.

MR FRANCIS: What was the information that you got from your sources, was it anything about one of them being a member of the IFP?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, the reporter was the media, who had picked up this information.

MR FRANCIS: Mr de Kock, if one reads your application before this Amnesty Committee, the impression is created that you did not take part in the planning at all. It also gives the impression that you only knew, I think at the scene, or especially at the scene, that you only became involved I think, in this whole thing. That's a view that one can I think, you know, deduce from reading your application. And I think you've also mentioned previously that yes, I think you took part in some of the planning at a much earlier stage. Is that correct.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, with the collection of the information and the composition of the information notes one would take note of certain facts and information and give certain input.

MR FRANCIS: You will recall that Geldenhuys testified - I hope that you will recall, that he prevented you from shooting I think, a passenger on the basis I think that somebody could have seen you. Do you recall that evidence?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, there was a person who was burning, who lay outside and I wanted to shoot him.

MR FRANCIS: You wanted to shoot him.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, one couldn't just allow a man to lay there burning. This wasn't anything that one could do to anyone or anything.

MR FRANCIS: Mr de Kock, I want you to explain the following. When you testified during examination-in-chief, and I'll summarise to you what your evidence was when it came to the shooting incident. I think you said that you were notified that - the group was notified that the kombi was coming, or the two vehicles were coming, I think Holtzhausen and another person started shooting, then there was sudden gunshots that took place, the vehicle accelerated, you then became involved in the shooting. At some stage you realised that you known, the members I think were - the shooting that took place was somewhat chaotic, you got them into a line, the members got into line, they moved, you took a few steps forward, members pursued the kombi and you then went backwards and went back to wait at a distance. Do you recall that?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, I returned to the bridge.

MR FRANCIS: Now nowhere in your examination-in-chief did you mention that you wanted to shoot the one person and it's now coming out for the very first time. Can you explain that. Can you explain to us why that crucial evidence wasn't mentioned in your examination-in-chief, why it's not mentioned in your application today and also not mentioned in the supplementary affidavit that you did some time I think, in May. Please explain that.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I don't believe that it was a question of crucial, it's not that I deny it. This is something which was discussed as it is being discussed now. There wasn't any reason why it was withheld. I could have adjusted my statement after the evidence in Court and I did not do so. It is my version as I have put it here, as I recall it, and I have no problem with saying yes, I wanted to shoot a person who lay there burning.

MR FRANCIS: No but Mr de Kock, I think it's quite crucial, and I think you've appeared before several of the amnesty hearings and I think I know that you know that there has to be full disclosure. You were given an opportunity whilst you were led by Mr Hattingh, you were cross-examined I think, by both the counsel who is appearing for the police, you were cross-examined by Mr van den Berg, and at no stage did you mention that you also wanted to shoot another one person.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, Mr Francis may regard it as crucial, but to me it is not a question of crucial. I participated in the shooting from the very beginning. I've put it as such and I do not deny that I wanted to shoot a person who lay there burning and screaming. There is nothing sinister about that.

CHAIRPERSON: You didn't do it ultimately?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, I began to walk forward because I would not have been able to go right up to him as a result of the burning vehicle and the possibility of another explosion, but when I wanted to shoot, Mr Geldenhuys said to me - if I may use the words "you will fuck up the scene".

CHAIRPERSON: And you did not shoot?

MR DE KOCK: No, I didn't. And I think that this person lay there screaming for another two to three minutes.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well.

MR FRANCIS: Mr de Kock, did you instruct any of your members to shoot that person?

MR DE KOCK: I don't know, Chairperson, as far as I know I would have shot him.

MR FRANCIS: I want you to think back. I know it's difficult, but did you instruct any of your members to finish off that person?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, I don't recall that because no further shots were fired on this person.

MR FRANCIS: I'm not asking if the person was shot, I'm asking you whether or not you'd instructed a member to shoot this person.

MR DE KOCK: I don't know, Chairperson, perhaps, but I do not recall it. I know that I wanted to shoot him.

MR FRANCIS: Are you saying that you did not instruct a person to shoot him or are you saying ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: He said he can't remember it. That was his answer, he didn't say he didn't instruct, he says he can't remember it, he's got no memory about it. That was the answer.

MR HATTINGH: He went further, Mr Chairman, he says it's possible that he could have instructed somebody to do it, but he can't remember it.

MR FRANCIS: That's why Mr Chairman, I think we need to be quite clear whether or not he did instruct the person or doesn't recall that he instructed the person.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr de Kock, did you give anyone the order to shoot that person who lay there burning?

MR DE KOCK: I cannot recall and I don't believe so. I'll now tell you why. I wanted to shoot him and Geldenhuys warned me, he told me that there would be problems with the scene. So I cannot see how I would then have gone and said to somebody else "Shoot him", it defies logic.

CHAIRPERSON: So you would have done it yourself if you felt that earnestly that this person had to be shot?

MR DE KOCK: I will never tell anybody else to do something that I would do. I wasn't prepared to sit there listening to him scream like that.

CHAIRPERSON: And it would appear that you accepted Geldenhuys' warning that you would hamper the scene?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, because I didn't write the script for the situation and I accepted his words as such.

MR FRANCIS: Mr de Kock, I was quite fascinated by what you said, that you would not have done something that you - or you would not instruct a person to do something that you would not like to do. Is that what you said?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR FRANCIS: So why didn't you blow up Tiso yourself?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I was supposed to go to the game reserve for the meeting, but upon a previous occasion when we killed a man by the name of Johannes Mabotha in such a manner, I was present and I shot him. So that was the situation.

MR FRANCIS: So is it because of the fact that you had to go to the national park that prevented you from killing Tiso yourself?

MR DE KOCK: Well Chairperson, in this case yes, if it wasn't for that then there is a possibility that I would have been present.

MR FRANCIS: Mr Nortje testified yesterday in your absence, but your counsel was here, and I think we heard him saying that he discussed - he'd taken I think, some instructions from you this morning. You heard that?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: And Nortje said that after he got to the scene, because he did some observation, after he got to the scene you know, there'd been a lot of shooting that had taken place, he saw the one person I think, who had - was outside the vehicle, you then approached him and said "Look why don't you shoot him" and he said "No, I'm not going to do it". So I put it to you, Mr de Kock, that you are not candid with this Commission when you said that you did not instruct anybody and would not have instructed anybody to kill that person. But Nortje gave direct evidence. And I'll put it further to you that Nortje was not challenged by Mr Hattingh when he testified about that.

MR HATTINGH: Chairperson, may I please place it on record that Mr de Kock arrived here this morning at twenty five past nine and I had one or two points to clarify with him, I did not conduct a thorough consultation with him.

CHAIRPERSON: We have noted that, Mr Frances, in regard to the concluding section of the question. Perhaps Mr de Kock can respond to the testimony of Nortje that you had put to him.

Do you wish to respond to that, Mr de Kock?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, if I understand correctly this person was already dead when Mr Nortje ultimately arrived on the scene. For example, this person was dead when Mr Albels(?) and the fire brigade arrived there. As I've said, for approximately two to three minutes after that he was still screaming.

MR FRANCIS: The fact of the matter is - the point that I'm making, Mr de Kock, is that Nortje said that you told him to shoot that person and he refused. Whether or not it was maybe you know a few minutes thereafter, the point that I'm just making is that he said that you told him to shoot that person and he refused.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, that may be Mr Nortje's recollection, but this person was already dead. It doesn't help to go and shoot a dead man.

MR FRANCIS: Mr de Kock, you're saying it is his recollection, but you're not denying that you told him to shoot the person, that you instructed him to shoot that person?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I have absolutely no recollection that I gave Mr Nortje the order to shoot, but if he says so I will not dispute the matter with him. However, I would not give anyone an order to fire a shot which would ultimately create conflict with the scene or the planning, especially if it was aimed at a person who was already dead.

MR FRANCIS: Mr de Kock, did you ascertain - how did you know that the person was dead? Especially when you say that you'd just took a few steps when the policeman had formed this line, you then went back to where you stood initially. So how did you ascertain that the person was dead and how do you know if he was dead or alive?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, the person stopped screaming about three or four minutes afterwards, there was no further movement or sound, the person himself was burning, there was no visible sign of life or possible life, no sounds were made, there was not movement, there was no form of spasm. The person was not rolling around.

MR FRANCIS: How far were you from this person, Mr de Kock? - when you observed what you're now describing.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I may have been about 40 metres away, approximately.

MR FRANCIS: What was the visibility like that night, or that morning?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, it was a clear evening, but the person lay burning next to the minibus, so there was quite a lot of light on his body.

MR FRANCIS: Mr de Kock, I put it to you that you are lying when you're saying to this Commission that you did not instruct Mr Nortje to shoot that person.

MR DE KOCK: No, Mr Francis, it is you that is untrue now.

MR FRANCIS: Well I wasn't a witness, I don't know what happened there, Mr de Kock, so how can I be telling lies?

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairperson, could we please restrict ourselves to relevant matters.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Perhaps we have rounded off that point, Mr Francis, unless there's something that's really, really burning about that.

MR FRANCIS: We'll come to some other burning issues in a short while, Mr Chairman, but I think we've dealt with this.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, very well, thank you.

MR FRANCIS: Mr de Kock, in your affidavit you say that after the kombi was set alight you realised that everything was not in order, do you recall that?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, it was an unexpected ...(intervention)

MR FRANCIS: No, I'm not asking what was not in order, I'm just asking if you realised that everything was not in order.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: Did you do something about this fact that you realised that things were not in order?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, well there was nothing that we could put into reverse. And later that morning when Gen Engelbrecht arrived there I told him that there was something wrong, and that is why the members didn't make any statements.

MR FRANCIS: Mr de Kock, what was not in order?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I did not foresee the fire situation, I also didn't know about grenades which would explode and that was the indication to me ...(intervention)

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, I'm sorry to interrupt my learned friend again, but really, this issue has already been canvassed by him under cross-examination. On what basis can he come back to it and repeat his cross-examination on the same topic?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I must admit that there was such a lot that happened in-between, I don't have a very clear recollection. Has this in fact been covered, Mr Francis? I'm really in your hands now.

MR FRANCIS: I think it was covered, but I think I raised this because I'm going to move I think, to what I think Mr Cornelius had said about the foot-soldiers.

CHAIRPERSON: You're using it as an introduction to some point that flows from this one?

MR FRANCIS: Ja.

CHAIRPERSON: It's not that you are re-canvassing all the details.

MR FRANCIS: No, no, I don't want to ask him - I don't want to be repetitive, I think I want to move on.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, no we appreciate that, your cooperation on that. So Mr Hattingh, let's be a bit patient.

MR FRANCIS: Mr de Kock, you head the questions that were put to you by Mr Cornelius, about the foot-soldiers?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: And I think one of the questions that he'd asked you was whether or not these foot-soldiers were acting on your instructions. Do you recall that?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: And your answer was that they acted in terms of the instructions, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR FRANCIS: And now you're saying that - before I ask you this question, again just to summarise, what were your instructions to them? What instructions did you give to the foot-soldiers and the other members?

MR DE KOCK: Watter spesifieke voetsoldate is dit, Voorsitter?

MR FRANCIS: I didn't get you.

MR DE KOCK: Which specific foot-soldiers are you referring to?

MR FRANCIS: Well the clients, or the police, or the applicants that Mr Cornelius is acting for.

MR DE KOCK: Well Chairperson, I did not have a problem with the planning of the operation and the orders which had been given and the planning which had been undertaken had been monitored and the people were shot ...(intervention)

MR FRANCIS: What were the instructions to the foot-soldiers?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I did not attend the meetings at the Drumrock, so I did not issue any specific orders there. I did not attend the meetings in Pretoria between Mr Holtzhausen and Mr Geldenhuys, but the information which came back from that was not problematic to me, I did not resist it in any way and that would have meant a go-ahead to them.

MR FRANCIS: Go-ahead to do what, Mr de Kock?

MR DE KOCK: To continue with the operation.

MR FRANCIS: We know that it was a "operasie", operation, but I think you were asked whether or not you had given them instructions and the answer was

"Yes, I'd given them instructions."

I need to know from you, because you were their commander, Mr de Kock, as to what exact instructions did you give. Because they were acting on your instructions, that's what you said. What were the exact instructions that you'd given to them?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, no specific orders were given by me in terms of me telling a person stand here, stand there. I did not give any input on the scene of the incident, that had already been done. The orders which I directly issued on the scene was after Nortje and I had spoken, when I called Gevers, Swart and Hanekom or Chait at least and requested for them to accompany Nortje and the others to Tiso. And I think that I may have mentioned to Nortje that he should arrange with Vermeulen to prepare the necessary for Penge. So if any direct orders were given, it would be those orders which I issued ...(intervention)

MR DE KOCK: What about the kombi, Mr de Kock, what were those instructions?

MR DE KOCK: I don't understand. If you could just be more explanatory regarding your question ...(intervention)

MR FRANCIS: Well I don't understand you, Mr de Kock, but you were asked by Mr Cornelius as to whether or not these policemen or the - some of the applicants, the foot-soldiers were acting on your instructions and you said yes, they were acting on my instructions, you were their commander. So I need to know what those instructions were, Mr de Kock.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I have already given you the answer with regard to any orders that I may have issued directly or personally. As I understood at that stage the kombi would not have been used in the ambush, however I did not have a problem with the fact that it was ultimately used. I cannot tell you specifically which direct orders I issued. I had a brief discussion with Capt Geldenhuys when I arrived there at the Drumrock, and he told me that he was satisfied with the information and the planning and the situation.

MR FRANCIS: I will obviously I think, later argue that it's not quite clear what the instructions were that you'd given to the foot-soldiers, as far as the Nelspruit 4 are concerned.

MR DE KOCK: Well Chairperson, I have given you everything that I know that I gave directly and I have no reason to withhold any aspect of it.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Mr Francis.

So it was actually only on the scene that you gave any direct orders to your members?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: As you have just explained?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Not before that, not after the incident?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, except with the Tiso situation.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but that would be after the incident, regarding the four who had been shot.

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: It was only after that that you began to issue direct orders?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Francis?

ADV DE JAGER: Mr de Kock, just in conjunction with that. If one of your subordinates said "I suggest we do this" and you approved it, what would the situation then be?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, then that subordinate would have to continue with the task. If it was a proposal or a suggestion, I would assume the responsibility for it.

ADV DE JAGER: Now would that be an order if you approved it or would it not be an order?

MR DE KOCK: No, it would go through as an order.

MR FRANCIS: Mr de Kock, in terms of the Vlakplaas set-up, could you delegate your authority to junior officials?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, we worked on a basis of delegation if members were signed out for duty.

MR FRANCIS: Is that delegation contained in some document?

MR DE KOCK: No, that's general management. It functioned on the basis of delegation.

MR FRANCIS: Mr de Kock, you said that the burning of the kombi and the planting of handgrenades was not part of the whole planning, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, I cannot say that it was not part of the planning, it just appeared to me to be rather unexpected. As I've said, the burning of the kombi may have been discussed at a certain point, but the execution thereof was never manifested.

MR FRANCIS: The impression that I got was that you were quite upset that you were - this question I think, the fact that the kombi was burnt and some handgrenades were planted there wasn't part of the planning - that's the impression that I got, and that you later reconciled yourself with what would happen after the event.

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, I would say that it was unexpected. If it had been discussed with me from the very beginning, then I would not have opposed it, if it was part of the planning.

MR FRANCIS: Did you instruct your members to burn the kombi and to put handgrenades there?

MR DE KOCK: No, I did not issue any such instructions.

MR FRANCIS: When they burnt the kombi and when they placed handgrenades there, it was without your instruction.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, it would be without my direct order, but if it was part of the planning, as I've said I would not have opposed it. Then it could go through that I had complied with it and that they regarded it as justified.

MR FRANCIS: Well Mr Nortje I think, led evidence yesterday that you were part of the planning already in Pretoria, already in Pretoria I think you knew. And I think he took it one step further, I think he said that - yesterday when you were not here, he said that he met with you or you met with him in his room at the Drumrock Hotel, where things were planned further from there.

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, in Pretoria Mr Holtzhausen handled the information with me further. It may have emerged there at a point. As I've said, it was not manifested. At the Drumrock Hotel I did not go down to the living quarters where the people were staying, I called Mr Geldenhuys to the foyer area where he and I sat in the ladies bar and it was a very brief discussion, it wasn't a long exhaustive discussion, and even then the burning of the vehicle was not discussed. But I did not meet Mr Nortje or any of the other members down in the living quarters.

MR FRANCIS: I'm going to read to you what appears on page 93. That's an affidavit by van Gouws, or Deon Gouws. It's paragraph 3. It reads as follows

"I travelled with my State vehicle to Nelspruit. I cannot recall whether Capt Geldenhuys travelled with me. I met the other members who were involved in the operation at the Drumrock Hotel in Nelspruit. The members who were there were Kobus Klopper, Willie Nortje, Eugene de Kock, Dougie Holthazuen, W/O Boshoff, Blackie Swart, Rolf Gevers, Charlie Chait and Jannie Hanekom."

And on paragraph 4 it reads as follows:

"The operation was planned at the hotel. The planning session was led by W/O Holtzhausen. At the time of the information and planning session, Holtzhausen mentioned that the information had been provided from his informer, Ben van Zyl. At this point I realised and suspected that this would be the same persons who had planned the robbery and that the objective would be to collect money for the ANC or PAC."

This, Mr de Kock, I think indicates that - he mentioned that you were part of the group that he met down there and that the operation was planned at the hotel. What do you say to that? I know that you've said that you didn't go to Nortje's room, you didn't remain at that place for a long period, but Gouws says that you were there.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, if I was there I would have led the planning session because I was the most senior officer. Geldenhuys and I would have undertaken the primary planning. I was not in the rooms and I did not sit in on the planning session. If I was there I would have told you without any hesitation.

MR FRANCIS: Mr Nortje takes it further. I think he says that you and the other members went to the place I think where the ambush would have taken place, that's now before you went to Malelane with Klopper and the other two, and that the arrangement was that they were going to wait for you until you came back at about 23 hours. But he says ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: Sorry, I'm not sure, are you quite sure that Nortje said that de Kock accompanied them to scene?

Because my recollection was not that he said he accompanied, he and somebody else went to the scene, not the whole crowd.

MR FRANCIS: No, I'm quite definite about it, he said that Nortje - he said that de Kock went with him to the scene and I think and that's why Mr de Kock I think would have known where this was going to take place and that's in fact why they wanted to leave him before he got there.

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, that is untrue.

MR LAMEY: Mr Chairperson, I've just confirmed this with Mr Nortje. The crux of his evidence was that they were at the Drumrock, but that they would have departed for the Malelane Lodge and that they told him where the scene would be. They then departed for the Malelane Lodge, Mr de Kock would have said you have to wait for me, and they were on the point of departing for scene when Mr de Kock arrived there. And that is when they went to the scene, not after the first Drumrock meeting did they go to the scene as a group. That is not how I understand Mr Nortje's evidence and I have once again confirmed this aspect with him.

CHAIRPERSON: And according to your recollection, Mr de Kock was not on the scene before the shooting in order to inspect the scene or anything like that?

MR LAMEY: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Francis, what is your - really, we can look at this. I don't have a clear recollection, so please, let's see if we can reach consensus otherwise it's a simple matter to resolve this.

MR FRANCIS: My recollection I think is quite clear, that's I think why I've put this to him. Because I think he was quite evasive about at what time did Mr de Kock you know go to Malelane Lodge, but I think he was quite definite and said "Look you know before he went to Malelane, he basically went with him and some other members went to the place". And that's in fact why they decided not to wait for - because I think Mr de Kock was quite late and came after 23 hours and they were going to leave because he would in any event I think have found the place. But he was quite definite that de Kock was taken to the place I think, where the ambush was going to take place.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think the record will bear this to light eventually, but Mr de Kock has responded now. Let's assume that is the position.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, may I just enquire, did Mr Nortje say this in his evidence-in-chief or under cross-examination?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I'm really not sure. Mr Francis also seems to be ...(intervention)

MR HATTINGH: Because my notes in-chief on his evidence makes no reference to that. In fact he says that he was informed that Mr de Kock was on his way to the hotel, they returned, they discussed the matter there, there was planning there and the place of the ambush was mentioned during the planning.

CHAIRPERSON: But no visit to the scene?

MR HATTINGH: I have not note that Mr de Kock accompanied them. That accords with my learned attorney's notes as well, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Francis, I don't know how much turns on this point, but I think Mr de Kock has already - he started to indicate when Mr Lamey raised his recollection, that is not - if that is in fact the testimony, it's not true.

Mr de Kock, is that your evidence? That if there was an allegation that you would have visited the scene after the meeting at the Drumrock and before the shooting incident took place, is that not correct?

MR DE KOCK: No, it is not correct. And I would have told you, I have no problem with that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Perhaps Mr Francis, we'll have to take it on that basis. The record will eventually, if it's necessary, will resolve this question. So perhaps it will save us a bit of time if we can take it from there.

MR FRANCIS: Ja. Let me further put to you, Mr de Kock, what Mr Nortje also testified. He also said I think, that at the hotel - I'm not so sure if he said at the hotel or in Pretoria, but I think he mentioned that you told him to get petrol too.

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, I did not ask him to obtain petrol. At that stage I did not of the plan to burn the vehicle. As I've said, it may have been discussed between Holtzhausen and me, but it was never really manifested. I believe that later it would have been manifested, but not att hat point.

MR FRANCIS: I think he took it further, he said that one of the reasons why you asked him to get petrol was going to destroy the kombi so that it would be difficult I think, for forensics to get some evidence and the other reason was that you wanted to benefit your friend to allow him to get insurance.

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, there is nothing that one would have been able to burn right, if I can put it that way, there is nothing that one could have destroyed forensically, not the identification of the persons and not the identification of the vehicle. And I will refer back to all the other shooting incidents at Piet Retief, at Amsterdam and other incidents in which I was involved. And I do not know of one vehicle with passengers that we burnt in order to hamper the forensic evidence or to limit the forensic evidence. You cannot destroy a vehicle to such an extent that its number would be rendered unrecognisable, there are just too many points of identification.

MR FRANCIS: Well I will argue that I think, what Mr Nortje I think said was that one of the other reasons I think, maybe a primary reason, was that you wanted to benefit your friend ...(indistinct) to claim insurance money.

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, that is completely untrue.

MR FRANCIS: Maybe just on that point I think, I'm not so sure if I've referred you to what Klopper I think had said, when he had said that he realised that you some ulterior motives in the burning of this kombi.

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, I've already explained to you what the situation was with Kloppers and me, and ...(intervention)

MR FRANCIS: Why would Nortje lie about this?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, that may be his perception of things, but it was definitely not what took place.

MR FRANCIS: He was taken under severe cross-examination by Mr Hanekom - Hattingh, about this question of the petrol. But he was quite clear about one fact, that he could not recall how many litres it was, but he recalled that you told him specifically to get the petrol. He was unsure about whether or not it was 20 litres, 15 litres, 10 litres, but he was quite sure that you told him.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, if I told him to go and buy petrol I would have said so, because that would then form part of the planning and it would something that one would go along with, and I had no reason to withhold this. As I've said, to me it was an unexpected turn of events, but if it had been the decision, if it had been discussed with me and if I was asked would you go along with this, I would not have opposed it.

MR FRANCIS: I'll leave it at that. You, Mr de Kock, I think said that you were not supposed to have been at the scene of the ambush, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: But Nortje I think, when he testified said that you decided that you wanted to be there and they could not order you around. You were the senior and they couldn't tell you that you could not be there.

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, I know that my deployment was to undertake observation. Certainly at that stage I could have told somebody "Drive me into Natalspruit so that we can take you to Nortje", but I didn't do that because during that process the vehicles may arrive. So that was the reason why I didn't do that.

MR FRANCIS: Mr de Kock, I want to focus I think now about your version as to what happened after the kombi started burning. If recall I think you said that you were approached by Nortje and Holtzhausen, about Tiso, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, I think Nortje approached me.

MR FRANCIS: And you said that you were approached by Nortje they had found Tiso, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR FRANCIS: Are you still sticking by that?

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR FRANCIS: And obviously if somebody comes to this Commission and says that look they basically approached you before Tiso was found, that would be incorrect?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I have not recollection of such a situation because I didn't know that Tiso had left.

MR FRANCIS: Well Mr de Kock, would it be incorrect? Let's forget about what recollection you have, will it be incorrect if somebody comes here and says look we approached you before Tiso was found?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, I cannot say that it is incorrect, I simply have no recollection thereof.

MR FRANCIS: Mr de Kock, you're playing games now, Mr de Kock. You initially said it will be wrong, you stick by what you've said and now you're saying that you've got no recollection of that, Mr de Kock.

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, I know that Nortje and Holtzhausen departed from there and I don't recall being told why they had left. I know that when Nortje approached me he then said that Tiso had been found.

MR FRANCIS: So you know that you - you know that Nortje and Holtzhausen left but you're not so sure why they left?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, I have a recollection that they had left, but I don't recall why. I don't recall that anybody ever said to me Tiso had left. I don't have a recollection of that.

ADV DE JAGER: I think that the point here is whether you recall that Nortje and Holtzhausen were on the scene and then departed.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, I do recall that.

ADV DE JAGER: And the question was then, do you know where they went?

MR DE KOCK: No, I don't recall that. I wasn't certain. I know that there was some or other problem, but I didn't know what the nature of the problem was. I only realised what it was when Tiso's surname was mentioned to me by Nortje.

MR FRANCIS: Mr de Kock, let's turn to page 7 and that's the last paragraph of your affidavit. The following appears

"When the bus was set on fire I realised for the first time that not everything was in place and I went to stand on the embankment again. W/O Nortje pulled his vehicle next to the road and joined me. Shortly after this W/O Nortje spoke to Sgt Holtzhausen and not long thereafter both of them left the scene in the direction of Nelspruit. They were not gone for a long time until W/O Nortje came to me and said that they had captured Tiso and that he had not been in the minibus."

Let's see what Gevers says about this. That's to be found on page 78. That's the last paragraph on page 78.

"Shortly afterwards, Willie Nortje arrived from the Nelspruit direction and stopped under the bridge. He went to speak to Lt-Col de Kock and Holtzhausen, who were a distance from me. I could not hear what they were saying. Shortly afterwards, Nortje and Holtzhausen departed in Nortje's vehicle."

And then I want to refer you to page - before I refer you to another page, this obviously seems to be at odds with what you're saying, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, this may just be Gevers' recollection of it. I cannot say that it is correct, because it is not the way that I saw it.

MR FRANCIS: Mr Nortje's testimony yesterday was that he saw Tiso, not Tiso, he saw van Zyl talking with Holtzhausen and it was then that they were told that Tiso was no longer, or was not part of the kombi. They then approached you and told you that look, Tiso is not in the vehicle and you told them to go and look and find Tiso and he then went to look for Tiso and they found him. So Nortje confirms Gevers' version as to what happened there.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, as I've said that may be their perception, I don't have any recollection that they came to me and told me "Listen, Tiso is missing". I know that van Zyl arrived there, but I'm not sure of who he spoke to. But what I do know is that Nortje and Holtzhausen departed there together.

MR FRANCIS: I think Geldenhuys himself also confirms in his affidavit that there was a discussion I think, that had taken place between you, I think Holtzhausen and Nortje, but didn't - couldn't hear what the gist of the discussion was, and then left and they then came back.

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, Mr Geldenhuys was not in close proximity when I spoke to Mr Nortje, and as far as I know with regard to the Tiso situation, it was only Mr Nortje who approached me, Holtzhausen wasn't even present. And Mr Geldenhuys gave incorrect evidence with regard to that.

MR FRANCIS: Mr de Kock, did you - after Nortje came back to you and said "Look we have found Tiso", what exactly did he say to you about Tiso?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I cannot recall verbatim. The gist was that Tiso had been captured and what are we supposed to do now.

MR FRANCIS: When Nortje testified yesterday I think, I'm not so sure, I think he initially used the word "verward" and I think later during cross-examination I think, he said no, that you were a bit "verward" and later he said I think you were a bit confused, you - I'm not so sure what ...

CHAIRPERSON: No, he first used the term "verward", confused, but later he said "ontsteld".

MR FRANCIS: "Ontsteld", sorry.

CHAIRPERSON: Upset.

MR FRANCIS: Upset, sorry.

And said that you were upset. I think for one moment you didn't know what to do. And he also went further and said that he did not recall that you told him something about Swaziland or detention, and later said look you could probably have mentioned that, but he doesn't recall that.

MR DE KOCK: No, I definitely stated this. With regard to the question of being upset, it was an unexpected situation which fell into my hands, so also the request and the enormity of the decision and the consequence results and responsibilities. These were things which were not foreseen and ultimately became my responsibility.

MR FRANCIS: Mr de Kock, in your application you don't mention anything about giving - telling Nortje to phone Vermeulen to deal with Tiso, why is that omitted?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, if it is not there, then it is not because we attempted to cover it up, we all know what happened. Once again I could have adjusted my statement to suit the evidence which was given in Court. I could have requested their records and compiled my statement as such, but I have given you the facts as I recall them. Some persons were involved in one or two incidents, and I have been involved in so many incidents that I cannot recall how many.

MR FRANCIS: But the Nelspruit one was a one of its own kind, or has there been quite a few other Nelspruit incidents?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, there were incidents at Piet Retief and Amsterdam. In fact there were two incidents at Piet Retief. We launched a myriad of attacks on a cross-border basis. The nature and scope of our operations were all very serious and I attempted to reflect as far as possible the facts of these situations, so that it would be able to establish my amnesty application and bring it to a hearing.

MR FRANCIS: Mr de Kock, I think - I want you to look at page 8 of your affidavit and I'll read it to you, the first paragraph

"I then asked Nortje if they could not detain Tiso or send him to Swaziland. W/O Nortje responded that this could not be done, upon which I then told Nortje that if they wanted to kill Tiso, they would have to arrange it themselves. By means of implication indeed, I gave W/O Nortje permission to kill Tiso and in this regard I omitted to protect Tiso, as what was expected of me. I accept responsibility for my share in the death of Tiso."

Nowhere do you mention anything about you talking to, you know telling them to call Vermeulen, in this affidavit and I think it only comes afterwards, or is there mention somewhere here? Is it also mentioned in your supplementary affidavit, Mr de Kock?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I believe that I said that they would have to arrange it themselves.

MR FRANCIS: You're playing games now, Mr de Kock.

MR DE KOCK: "Nee, ek is nie besig met geen spel hierso nie ..." ...(intervention)

MR FRANCIS: It's the evidence - the direct evidence I think is that you told them to call Vermeulen and I think Nortje testified and said that at one stage I think he told you that he was not going to go with, he was tired of all the killings that had taken place and didn't want to go with. The only thing I think, part that he had, was that he called - he took them to where Tiso was found and later went to the hotel where he called I think, it's Britz. He first called Vermeulen, who was a bit sleepy and then decided to call Britz again to tell him what the instruction was because he suspected that Vermeulen could not have you know, could probably have not known what exactly ...(indistinct) told him. Such a crucial piece of evidence, or such a crucial portion I think of this is not mentioned here.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, Mr Nortje would not have gone. I don't recall him saying that he refused, I did not give him the order, he did not request anything like. He and I would have driven together to the game reserve. So by nature of that situation itself, he would not have gone along on the operation. And with regard to Vermeulen, I made the suggestion but I cannot see what is so critical about this.

MR FRANCIS: Mr de Kock, in your supplementary affidavit you mention that this application was drawn up in haste, you've now had a chance to think about certain things and you've now pondered about certain things and you gave some evidence about this or information about this, but you don't even refer to this specific incident - well you refer to the Nelspruit incident, but just in passing. And I'll come to that just now, about that version. But you don't even refer or deal with what instructions I think you'd given to the people.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, it wouldn't have been for the purposes of obstruction or vagueness ...(intervention)

MR HATTINGH: Chairperson, may I please interpose once again? The affidavit regarding Vlakplaas was compiled specifically with regard to the Committee who investigated the first cluster and the decision that they made as a result of that hearing, that a great deal of time would be spent examining Vlakplaas as an operational unit in subsequent hearings.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you referring to the supplementary bundle?

MR HATTINGH: Yes, Exhibit C. And it was with the eye on that, that Exhibit C was compiled. It was not supposed to be an affidavit regarding all the incidents in which Mr de Kock has been involved, and that is why there is no other supplementation of any other aspect to any other incident. That is why there is a cluster incorporating supplementary statements which have to do with one or more of the incidents and after that, with the exception of the submission of supplementary affidavits, that is all. But this Exhibit C was not intended to be a supplement to the incidents for which Mr de Kock is requesting amnesty.

CHAIRPERSON: You say that this is the result of the request put by one of the Committees?

MR HATTINGH: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, will you bear that in mind, Mr Francis?

MR FRANCIS: I thank you for that information because we're not privy to that information, but thank you, Mr Hattingh.

Mr de Kock, I'm going to refer you to what Gevers got on page 79 of his affidavit.

MR DE KOCK: Kan u net weer die nommer gee?

MR FRANCIS: Page 79.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Francis, before we go to that I'm going to adjourn, but before I do that - Mr de Kock, with regard to page 8 of your application, you say that you did not issue a direct order to kill Tiso.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, it could be regarded as a direct order.

CHAIRPERSON: In other words, did you leave the decision up to Nortje?

MR DE KOCK: No, after we had discussed the situation there I realised that we had no other option and I used this phrase which was known as a "field decision", it's a decision that has to be made at short notice, when one does not have the opportunity to think about it and to take time about this decision. That is why I accept responsibility.

CHAIRPERSON: Well I'm just referring to this particular phrase on page 8

"I said to Nortje that if they wanted to kill Tiso they would have to arrange it themselves."

Is that correct or not?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson yes, perhaps the context has not been clearly put, I may have put it more clearly. With regard to the arrangements, they would have to take care of the arrangements themselves, but ultimately I said "Yes, we will have to kill him".

CHAIRPERSON: In other words, let suppose that they did not go ahead with it, let's suppose that they decided not to kill Tiso, would that have been a problem to you, that your order was disregarded?

MR DE KOCK: I cannot say that. Usually in the past during operations, I would ask members whether or not they wanted to participate and sometimes members would not participate in operations and I would select other members, but this would have created problems with us, a definite problem.

CHAIRPERSON: So you say that you issued a definite order that he had to be killed?

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: It wasn't a question that Nortje could have decided whether he wanted to execute that order or not?

MR DE KOCK: No, ultimately not. I think that if he wanted to take that decision they would have to do that when they captured Tiso and said drive to Pretoria or drive to Johannesburg, we'll see you later.

CHAIRPERSON: So after they had spoken to you there was only one other resort which was open to them according to your order, and that was to kill him?

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well. Thank you.

We will adjourn and we will reconvene at eleven thirty.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

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

MACHINE SWITCHED OFF

CHAIRPERSON: ... continue. We are concerned in regard to the progress in this matter and we were considering ways and means of possibly speeding up the process. Now we were thinking whether it would be inconvenient to any of the parties if we were to make the luncheon break that we take a bit shorter than we have been taking up to now. We have looked at other possibilities too, but we have realised that particularly in the mornings we start a bit later than we normally would start, but we realise that it's very difficult to, especially in the mornings, for people to get to the venue, particularly where some of the parties are not resident in Pretoria, so we were not keen on looking at that, at that end of things.

We also realise that in the afternoons perhaps a few minutes either way makes quite a big difference in people's ability to move and so on. So what I wanted to raise with the parties is whether there would be any vehement objection if we were to cut the luncheon break to 30 minutes instead of an hour and we keep the rest of the times as they are. Yes, I might be springing a surprise on you, but if you could me an indication it would assist us in trying to plan how we need to proceed with the matter.

MR LAMEY: I have no objection, Chairperson, the only thing that I thought of is, even if we do sit extra hours and we don't get through this week, what is the planning with regard to next week. Because then I'll have - we'll have to discuss that. It's not entirely impossible, but I do have some difficulties, but also with regard to the Maponya incident where we have undertaken to submit heads by the end of August. We have received the record, a large bulk of the record only this week and it leaves one, myself actually, only this weekend and the remainder of next week before the end of the month to comply with that undertaking. But that is another - I've got no problem from my point of view, sitting with just half an hour break during lunch.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we tried to be optimistic, but we do realise that there might be some difficulties. We are hoping that if we got stuck this week, that we would possibly get a little bit of time next week. We're not very keen to have a part-heard matter if it's avoidable, but it's difficult to say at this stage. We could look at that. The immediate thing is, we would like to see how this - what difference this would make to the proceedings. So if you could assist us in that regard, perhaps it's a starting point. Hopefully by Friday things look much better.

ADV DE JAGER: The trouble is we're not trying to make up half an hour, we've lost 10 minutes this morning because we started late, we've lost 10 minutes now because we're starting late, and even if we would have a lunch break and we start 10 minutes later again, we would have gained nothing. So if everybody could try to be here at the - the Chairman, when he adjourned he said until half past and we're now at quarter to and half past nobody - well not nobody, but the bulk of the representatives weren't here.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that's one issue. Mr Hattingh - I'll go around the table, is it possible for us to try and squeeze in an extra half an hour?

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, I have no objection working in an extra half an hour over luncheon hour, provided we achieve something by doing that, Mr Chairman. And may I be permitted to mention something here, in February all the legal representatives of applicants - and there were some legal representatives of the victims, I don't know if all of them were informed, but some of them were present, I don't recall seeing Mr Francis there nor Mr van den Berg, but that meeting was scheduled with the purpose of informing us that the government had decided that the Amnesty Committee must conclude all it's hearings by not later than August of this year. That was the date that was given to us at that stage. Mr Justice Wilson presided, Mr Malan was also at that meeting. We were informed that we would no longer be afforded an opportunity to lead our clients extensively and that cross-examination would also be curtailed where necessary, that if we wished to elaborate on what we've said in our written applications, we should do so in writing. And we were informed that each incident was going to be set down for a week and that the purpose was to try and finish that incident within a week.

Mr Chairman, I do not criticise my learned friends for cross-examining too long, had it been litigation in a Court of law, then I would have had no criticism against their cross-examination, but we are under severe time constraints here.

This matter was set down for this week, there's another incident set down for next week and incidents for the rest of this year, all of which Mr de Kock and therefore myself and Mr Hugo are involved in and I think we should really try to endeavour to shorten our cross-examination as far as possible and to confine ourselves to issues that are really relevant to the issues. The Act says there must be full disclosure of relevant issues. From our side, Mr Chairman, we have no objection to sit longer provided we can achieve something by doing so.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Hattingh. Mr Cornelius - can I perhaps just ask, has anybody got any difficulty if we sit that extra half an hour? I've noted what Mr Hattingh said, that is the spirit of this process.

MR CORNELIUS: I agree with you, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: And we're trying to do justice to the victims and to your clients and so on, so ...

MR CORNELIUS: I agree with Mr Chair and Mr Hattingh.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Cornelius. Is there anybody who has got a difficulty? Let me put it that way, perhaps we can save even 10 minutes that way.

MR FRANCIS: Not a difficulty. Maybe we could even work half an hour later, say maybe until four thirty. We would then have an hour I think.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. No, we appreciate all the creative suggestions, but for the moment then we will - in this session we will continue until half past one and then we will take the break at that time. Mr Francis?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR FRANCIS: (cont)

Mr de Kock, I think - I want to refer you to what Mr Gevers I think said in his affidavit on page 79, and that's I think the 3rd paragraph. Oh no, it's in fact the 2nd paragraph:

"Nortje and Holtzhausen had approximately 15 minutes after their departure, returned and then met again with Lt de Kock outside earshot. De Kock called Chait and Swart and he spoke to them. I could not hear what was said. Nortje pulled his vehicle closer to Swart's vehicle and I saw that Swart had his loose equipment, which was in the boot, transferred it over to Nortje's vehicle."

Again I think he basically confirms what Nortje said about what had happened after Tiso was found, and you have a difference, you have a difference of opinion about this.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, as I saw it, what had happened it was - this situation took place after Nortje spoke to me and a decision was taken to kill Tiso, and that is when this situation came about.

MR FRANCIS: No, I agree with you, but you have not referred to this in your affidavit.

MR DE KOCK: No, I did not.

MR FRANCIS: Gevers I think further in his affidavit on page 83 - and I think I'm going to ask you just about that. 83, that's the second paragraph, he says

"On our return ..."

That's now after Tiso was killed.

"... we received a radio message to meet Lt-Col de Kock at the Grassdak house. I however returned to my house. On the 30th of March '92, the Monday, I was called by Lt-Col de Kock to his office and he informed me that I and four others who were with me would put in a claim for the next five months of R6 400 per month for our work and the money was claimed by false claims."

Do you confirm this?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, but I would not say it was work well done, or it was for work well done. I'm not sure about the radio message because we returned relatively late from the game reserve, I'm not certain of it. But that I told them to put in the false claims, yes, that's true.

MR FRANCIS: I think when you testified you said it was something unexpected, you didn't expect this, it was something extraordinary and you had to pay them the amount.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, it is extraordinary, Chairperson, it was unlawful and extreordinary.

MR FRANCIS: Mr de Kock, I put it to you that you are not being candid with this Commission when you say in your application that you'd asked whether Tiso could not be kept in custody or to be sent in Swaziland.

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, I would shed blood on that, it is exactly what I had asked. It was not just a matter of candid, it is the truth.

MR FRANCIS: Well let's test that, Mr de Kock. You knew that Tiso was Winnie Mandela's driver, didn't you?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: And obviously if he was kept in custody he would have - there would have had to be some date of release, is that not correct?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, not only a date of release but ...(intervention)

MR FRANCIS: Let's deal with the date of release. There would have been a date of release.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: You could not keep him there indefinitely.

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: And if he was taken to Swaziland, he would have had access to telephones and could have called Winnie Mandela, isn't that so?

MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: And she would have made enquiries about him, is that not so?

MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: And obviously he had to be destroyed - he had to be killed and his body had to be destroyed so that nobody could - so that he could not tell anybody about this, isn't that correct?

MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: So this whole thing about him having to be taken to Swaziland or to be ...(indistinct) I think is not correct, Mr de Kock.

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, it is correct, I did ask, I did discuss it. One looks if there is no other alternative. It was not a singular decision, one looks at other possibilities and if there are none, then one has to take the responsibility for one's actions.

MR FRANCIS: You were an experienced police officer and I think you were involved in covert operations, I think nobody would have expected Tiso to have gone to Swaziland or to be kept in detention.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, if the situation with the gathering of intelligence or the situation before or during planning was not of such a nature that Tiso could prove to be problematic for us. In other words, to speak out or lead the trail to us, then it could have been viable. ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR FRANCIS: Mr de Kock, tell me, was this a covert operation?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, it was an open situation in the sense of the shooting. What was indeed covert in nature or what was covered was the counter-terrorism component thereof and the decision to kill these people.

MR FRANCIS: Mr Gevers testified and said that this was a covert operation and I think Nortje himself said that was a covert operation.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, then we would have waited for them with AKs and shot them and left.

MR FRANCIS: So it would seem to me that the two of them are quite confused as to what the nature of this operation was.

MR DE KOCK: I don't know, Chairperson, they have to testify to that effect.

MR FRANCIS: Why was it necessary to take the Pretoria Murder and Robbery Unit?

MR DE KOCK: Those were the persons with which we liaised and they had been previously involved with such operations or actions and these are the persons with which we liaised then.

MR FRANCIS: Let's not talk about the individuals, let's talk about the Pretoria Murder and Robbery Unit. Were they also involved in counter-insurgent operations?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, not as far as I know.

MR FRANCIS: So you made sure that you'd taken I think people who had been involved in counter-insurgent operations, not as a unit, but just individuals from that unit. To give it some air of respectability.

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, I've already testified that there was also an element of robbery here. Despite the political or terrorism side of it, there was an element of robbery here and ...(intervention)

MR FRANCIS: Ag Mr de Kock, you don't want us to believe that.

MR DE KOCK: If I could just finish. Two of the three persons in any case had served with Koevoet in the former South West, so they were persons who were used to counter-terrorism and the nature thereof.

MR FRANCIS: But they came from Pretoria Murder and Robbery.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, there's nothing wrong with that.

MR FRANCIS: And obviously this false information you know, the "inligtings nota", I think you - well we're confused as to if it's now false or true because there's two versions, was also sent to Murder and Robbery, isn't that so?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I am not sure, but I think it would have been sent to them.

MR FRANCIS: Mr de Kock, I think - I've also looked at Klopper's affidavit on page 123, paragraph 4, where he says the following

"After the shooting it was determined that the fifth person was not in the minibus. De Kock then gave instruction to Rolf Gevers, Charlie Tait and Blackie Swart to take the ...(break in tape) Penge Mine. Dawid Britz and Snor Vermeulen would join them later. The person would then be killed and his body destroyed. With regard to the planning of the murder on the fifth person I was just a spectator and I never participated in the planning or execution."

And then I think just for completeness' sake I'm going to refer you to Nortje's affidavit on page 137, second paragraph. He says:

"De Kock at that stage did not know what to do with Tiso. The first that he said to me was to contact Snor from the telephone booth. At the stage I realised what was to happen now and I decided that I would not accompany them in a similar situation like the Maponya incident. De Kock realised that I was not happy with what would happen and gave Rolf, Blackie and Charlie instructions to take Tiso to Penge Mine. Snor and Duiwel would have to meet them somewhere along the road and I had to arrange this with Snor. Dougie and I went with my Cressida and Rolf, Blackie and Charlie went with Blackie's vehicle, a white fox."

Any comment? You know because you don't refer to this in your application.

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, Klopper was not present when Nortje and I spoke, not at all. Nortje and I stood to one side, there was nobody there. And with regard to Nortje's situation, Nortje would in any case have not gone along. As I have said he and I were on our way to the game reserve, so there was no idea with me to send him along.

MR FRANCIS: Who is Duiwel that you're referring to?

MR DE KOCK: It's W/O Britz, the word "Duiwel" is a nickname which he had from his childhood days.

MR FRANCIS: Not because of his evil deeds?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, persons get funny nicknames.

MR FRANCIS: So are you saying to this Commission that Kloppers is telling a lie and did no hear you give those instructions?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, in this case I would say that Klopper does not have his facts correctly, he was definitely not present when Nortje and I spoke. And if one looks at the information that he gives, it is probably afterwards that he knew about it.

MR FRANCIS: So Mr de Kock, you are saying that you gave instructions that Tiso should be killed - first be killed and then be blown up? Even though it's not clear from your application.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, }es, the blowing up part is something which ...(indistinct) beforehand with the case of Mabotha. It's not something that we had done beforehand, it was a new facet to me, the blowing up of bodies. And those that I had killed I either buried them or in the case of Maponya I just left them in the veld. I accepted that he would be blown up because it had happened before.

MR FRANCIS: Mr de Kock, if one looks at para 8 again of your affidavit - and I think the Honourable Chairperson had asked you about that, as to whether or not Nortje had a choice to decide whether or not to kill Tiso or not. Is it your - the impression that's given here is that he had a choice, that you didn't really take actively - you actively didn't take part in the killing of Tiso. He was left with a choice and he decided to act by himself.

MR DE KOCK: Is this Nortje?

MR FRANCIS: Nortje.

MR DE KOCK: No, that was never my evidence, Chairperson, I said that they to make the arrangements themselves. And by means of implication ...(intervention)

MR FRANCIS: Before you get there - excuse me for interposing, on the same page

"W/O Nortje answered that it could not be done, to which I told Nortje that if they wanted to kill Tiso they had to arrange it themselves."

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson ...(intervention)

MR FRANCIS: He had a choice in it.

MR DE KOCK: Actually not, Chairperson, because he was the one who approached me with the fact that the man had been caught and of the dangers attached to it and the disclosure, not only of us, but later for the police itself and the government itself, and I then gave the instruction.

MR FRANCIS: What I find fascinating is the following. The next line you've got this

"By means of implication I gave permission to W/O Nortje to kill Tiso and in this regard I omitted to protect Tiso, as it was expected of me."

Here you're acting like a guardian angel, that you know I admit that:

"By implication I gave Nortje permission to kill Tiso and this respect I omitted to protect Tiso, as is expected of me."

And then Mr de Kock, in the next paragraph you say the following:

"Tiso however was a trained member of the ANC and according to the information which I received from Holtzhausen, wanted to get money by robbing for the ANC. I accept that I might have been misled by Holtzhausen, but I wish to point out that during my career in the South African Police, I may have acted merciless against members of the ANC and affiliated organisations."

MR FRANCIS: So the one moment, Mr de Kock, you give the impression that you're this guardian angel and the next moment you say no, no, no, but I acted mercilessly against such people. Why have you got this? You were not concerned about Tiso.

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, I did not pretend to be a guardian angel here, by rights it is expected of a policeman to protect a person, it did not happen here. The omission led to his death. So I am not trying to create another image here, those images had already been created in Court. It is as I have put it here. If it is not stated contextually correct, then I will take responsibility for that.

MR FRANCIS: I will leave this at that, but I think you could not be bothered about the safety of Tiso.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I tried to detect the other two ways, but it was just not viable.

MR FRANCIS: Mr de Kock, if this was a normal robbery, a robbery attempt, how would you have acted?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I believe if it was just a normal robbery, then we would have given the information to the Nelspruit Security Branch and some of my members may have been there to handle the sources and the action would have been launched from there.

ADV DE JAGER: Nelspruit's Security Branch?

MR DE KOCK: No, Nelspruit's Murder and Robbery Unit at Nelspruit.

MR FRANCIS: During the first incident you notified the Nelspruit Police, isn't it correct?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, as far as I can recall we did.

MR FRANCIS: And they were present at Coin Security?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is what I heard during my trial. I didn't have a recollection of it, but I heard of it.

MR FRANCIS: I think it's common cause that some members of the Nelspruit Police were present.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, some of them gave evidence.

MR FRANCIS: I think one black person I think who was going to be a security guard was in fact a member of the Nelspruit Police.

MR DE KOCK: It's possible, Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: Why were they not present during this operation, especially when you knew that Tiso was going to be involved in the first incident and again in the second incident? You knew, according to I think what people were saying, that they consisted of trained members of a political organisation. At the first Nelspruit incident you got in touch with the Nelspruit Police, you got in touch also with the Pretoria Murder and Robbery, but at the second one you got your friends who were involved in Koevoet from Pretoria Murder and Robbery, but didn't tell - notify the Nelspruit Police about it, or they weren't involved in it, in the ambush.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, they were notified. They were just not involved, but they were notified.

MR FRANCIS: I know that Holtzhausen refers - I think he says that him and somebody went to speak to some Captain, but they were not - and the Captain I think had mentioned that there was a shortage of manpower, which I think is debateable and that's why they could not be there. But I mean, Mr de Kock, you sure you don't believe us to believe that such a trained armed robbers going to Nelspruit, you just in passing tell the person concerned that this is basically what's going to happen and they don't make the man available.

MR HATTINGH: It wasn't in passing, Mr Chairman, they were invited to participate and they declined.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Francis?

MR FRANCIS: I put it to you that obviously I think - and I think I will argue later that again I think this basically ties in with you wanting to benefit I think your friend. Because I also find it strange that the kombi was not going to be used during the first Nelspruit incident.

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, that is not correct.

MR FRANCIS: Mr de Kock, was Coin Security told during the second time, that these robbers were coming back either on the night of the 25th or the morning of the 26th?

MR DE KOCK: I don't know, Chairperson, I don't have a recollection whether they indeed were.

MR FRANCIS: But this robbery was going to take place at Coin Security, you were given information by a trusted and reliable informer source, you said you had no reason to doubt van Zyl, you had no reason to doubt the information given to you by Holtzhausen, but you don't know if Coin Security was told about this.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson no, I was not informed by Holtzhausen that Coin Security had been informed, and sensitive information of that nature would not be generally spread. I have no idea that Coin Security was informed.

MR FRANCIS: Ag Mr de Kock, there was no need for them to be notified because this was a set-up from the beginning.

ADV DE JAGER: But the first one was also a set-up. I say the first one was also a set-up. So in the one set-up they notify them, in the other set-up they don't notify them.

MR FRANCIS: ...(indistinct - no microphone) The first I think you know the arrangement I think was that they would just go to Coin Security and I think they were told that there was just one black person who'd be there, a security guard and I think van Zyl would have gotten rid of him and they would just have gone to the second floor where they would have taken the monies.

MR DE KOCK: As I have said, I don't have an independent recollection whether they had been informed at the second instance or whether additional guards were posted ...(intervention)

MR FRANCIS: No there was no need for them to be told because you decided beforehand to ambush them and kill them, so that's why they were not told.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I will not dispute that, it's possible.

MR FRANCIS: You remember I think I'd asked you about the Carousel and I indicated to you what the similarities were, do you recall that?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: Again with the Nelspruit one the first similarity is that Ben van Zyl was involved.

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR FRANCIS: Holtzhausen was involved.

MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: The Toyota Cressida was given to them.

MR DE KOCK: That's correct.

ADV DE JAGER: I thought we've covered that, Mr Francis.

MR FRANCIS: I'm dealing with the second - with the Nelspruit incident now.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, but you've put those questions already. You've pointed out the similarities, all the similarities, you've put it to him and he agreed.

MR FRANCIS: Mr Chairperson, I think - at that time I think I was just - I was dealing with the question I think of his concern about - he had some concerns about Carousel and I think it basically appeared I think on page 9 of his affidavit.

CHAIRPERSON: What is the point that you want to put to him?

MR FRANCIS: The point that I'm putting to him is that in the minds of the robbers they thought that they were going to rob a bank or rob Coin Security, but there was no chance in hell for them to rob it.

CHAIRPERSON: What is your response, Mr de Kock?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I'm not certain, I don't know what they knew, I think they believed that they would rob a bank and that they would be successful.

MR FRANCIS: I put it to you further that these robbers - so-called robbers, were enticed by the police to rob Coin Security.

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, we went on the information that we received, we did not go out and appoint one to recruit persons for a robbery.

MR FRANCIS: I put it further to you, Mr de Kock, that you wanted to show your superiors that this new unit of Vlakplaas was effective and I think you worked in cahoots with Ben van Zyl, to give the impression that you are busy. You basically are an able and effective body or unit and productive too.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, the unit had been established in 1979 and showed effectiveness there, otherwise it would not have been kept. There was never any doubt to the effectiveness, so it was not necessary to establish anything else.

MR FRANCIS: I think - I put it further to you that these robbers were under surveillance from the moment they left Johannesburg or Soweto up to the time when they met their death.

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, we did not do any surveillance.

MR FRANCIS: You did because Ben van Zyl had met with them and I think Nortje said that they'd expected the robbers to be in Nelspruit at 12 o'clock. I think if I'm not mistaken, I think he said at one stage I think people believed that this robbery was not going to take place. So Ben van Zyl I think, must have been in contact with Holtzhausen to have told him what the position was.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, that is possible, I cannot confirm it because I did not have contact.

MR FRANCIS: So from the time - I put it to you, from the time they left Soweto up to the time I think when they got into the kombi, the police basically knew their movements.

MR DE KOCK: I cannot dispute that, Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: I put it further to you that you knew, you must have known and you did in fact know that they were unarmed.

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, I've already testified to that effect. I believed that we were dealing with armed persons here and therefore the ambush and the initiation of the ambush and the execution of the ambush.

MR FRANCIS: Mr Nortje I think testified and said that at some stage there was a request, the robbers asked to be given AK47s, and the idea was that they were going - two AK47s were going to put into the kombi. But I think in retrospect you must have thought that this was going to be dangerous to arm robbers with AK47s and they may fire at the police and the idea - and it was decided against giving them AK47s.

MR DE KOCK: I cannot comment to that, Chairperson, I know that the information gave a clear indication that we were dealing with armed persons who were amongst others, trained to use these weapons.

MR FRANCIS: Maybe on that point I think Nortje also I think said that you gave him and I think another policeman two AK47s.

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, I did not give any rifles to any persons, I have not independent recollection thereof and I believe that if I could have helped with any input or if I have been part of the planning, then I would have given them five AKs.

MR FRANCIS: He also testified about the AK47s and said that they were in a fairly good condition.

MR DE KOCK: I don't know, Chairperson, I cannot tell you because I did not deliver any AKs.

MR FRANCIS: And it is so I think that a .38 revolver was found on Tiso's possession - or not, it was found in the vehicle that Tiso was driving.

MR DE KOCK: That's how I understood it, yes.

MR FRANCIS: And if I'm not mistaken I think in one of the affidavits I think, Ben van Zyl said that he gave this revolver to Tiso, and before they left for Nelspruit he hid the revolver in his vehicle or in the police vehicle.

MR DE KOCK: I am not certain, it's possible, Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: But you know about the .38 revolver.

MR DE KOCK: I know, Chairperson, I heard of it during my trial. I may have heard of it beforehand, but I did not recall it.

MR FRANCIS: I know van Zyl also I think in his affidavit talks about when the vehicle was - when the kombi was picked up at the promenade, he says I think he thinks that he saw one of the robbers having an AK47. You won't know about that?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, it also emanated from my trial, but I think Mr van Zyl might shed light.

MR FRANCIS: But the facts - or after the vehicle was examined at the scene, after it was blown up, only two AK47s were found that was put into the vehicle by Holtzhausen and another policeman. Those were the only AK47s that were found in the vehicle.

MR DE KOCK: I will accept it as such, yes.

MR FRANCIS: Mr de Kock, I think in - on page 8 of your affidavit, second paragraph you say the following. That's now I think it's the sixth line from the bottom of para 2

"At all times I was convinced that they were trained military and I or any other person could not take the risk to give them the advantage in a skirmish. If this was a common robbery we would have dealt with it otherwise and the incident would have been left in totality to Murder and Robbery Unit."

So are you saying to this Commission that what you've got there is that because you were not so sure whether or not these robbers were in possession of AK47s, you could not take that "risiko".

MR DE KOCK: No, the information indicated to that, that we were dealing with trained liberation fighters and that they had their own weapons. I believed it ...(intervention)

MR FRANCIS: Again Ben van Zyl is trusted.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: And Holtzhausen ...(indistinct)

MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: So somebody must be lying by saying that look there was a request for AK47s, but we decided not to give them.

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, if I had given them AKs and if we look at the Piet Retief shooting incident where weapons were planted, I've said so and I've explained why it was so, and I would not have done anything else if it had happened here.

MR FRANCIS: The point that I'm making, Mr de Kock, is that you knew for a fact that these guys were unarmed and it would have been suicidal to have given them AK47s, especially when they were trained robbers.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson no, I believe that they had their own weapons and if we wanted to give them weapons we would have done something to the weapons and rectified it afterwards, so that it would not point to us. And I had no doubt that these persons were indeed armed.

MR FRANCIS: Well obviously I think when van Zyl testifies, I think he said that he could no weapons on them and he will obviously have to give some explanation about the AK47 that he basically saw, but I won't ask you that. I think one of the police officers I think who took part in the killing of Tiso, said that a key was found in Tiso's possession. Do you know about that key?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, I don't recall it.

MR FRANCIS: I can only surmise that obviously Tiso and them must have been told that they can go to Coin Security, Tiso could use this key to open the premises, take monies and leave and that there was not going to be any shootout.

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, I think that's a bit far fetched.

MR FRANCIS: Well Mr de Kock, Ndimande(?) in his affidavit, who worked for Tiso - not for Tiso, for van Zyl, says that he recalled that a key was handed over to - Ben van Zyl handed the key over to Tiso.

MR DE KOCK: Well I cannot testify to that. I don't know why he would give a key to him, I don't know.

MR FRANCIS: Well it could be any key, it could have been a false key, it must have been a false key because he knew that these robbers had to be killed so that he could get money from the State.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I cannot speculate over that.

ADV DE JAGER: Did Ben van Zyl - somebody said Ben van Zyl gave the key to Tiso.

MR FRANCIS: ...(indistinct - no microphone) to work for him.

Mr de Kock, was an amount paid out to Ben van Zyl?

MR DE KOCK: As far as I know yes.

MR FRANCIS: How much was paid out, Mr de Kock?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I cannot recall, it may something in the vicinity of R20 000, it may be more, although I do not recall what the amount was.

MR FRANCIS: I think you're correct that an amount that was approved was R20 000.

MR DE KOCK: I think so, Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: And I think you must be aware what van Zyl testified at your hearing, Mr de Kock, about how much he received Mr de Kock.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: What did he say he got, Mr de Kock?

MR DE KOCK: I cannot recall, Chairperson, I think he spoke of a few thousand rand.

MR FRANCIS: It was between R6 500 or R7 000, but he wasn't so sure about it. Is that correct, Mr de Kock?

MR DE KOCK: I don't know, Chairperson, I'm not certain.

MR FRANCIS: Well Mr - he will come and testify, but it was between that amount. He was taken under cross-examination by Mr Hattingh about that amount.

MR DE KOCK: I don't dispute that.

MR FRANCIS: So let's assume that he's right that he's not so sure about the amount, that for argument's sake we say that the maximum that he got was R7 500, Mr de Kock. Who approved that claim, Mr de Kock?

MR DE KOCK: The recommendation would have come from me and the approval from Gen Engelbrecht and the award by the Chief of Security.

MR FRANCIS: So Mr de Kock, I assume that you would have made a recommendation that he be paid R20 000, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: The amount may be more and that it had been cut.

MR FRANCIS: No, it wasn't, it was R20 000. I think it was put to him by Mr Hattingh I think during cross-examination, that he got R20 000.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson yes, what I mean is a claim may be R30 000 or R35 000 and then the Commander of the Unit may cut it to 20 or 15 or whatever he thinks is the appropriate amount for this type of work.

MR FRANCIS: Mr de Kock, it's a fact - I think it's a fact that R20 000 was eventually authorised.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, I didn't dispute that.

MR FRANCIS: Now if Ben van Zyl says look, I'm not sure how much I got, but it could be between R6 000 or R7 000, what happened to the R13 000, Mr de Kock?

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

MR FRANCIS: I think you will recall, Mr de Kock, that at his criminal trial some receipts were produced, do you recall that?

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR FRANCIS: And they could not explain what had happened to the other R13 000 or the R13 500, Mr de Kock.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I would also not know.

MR FRANCIS: I think you've got to know, Mr de Kock, because you approved this.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, the person who recommends it and who approves it is not the person that pays it out.

MR FRANCIS: Well Mr Nortje testified yesterday and spoke about how claims were approved and he said that - I think he said that his commander would make - would authorise it, it would got to his senior, I think Mr Engelbrecht, from there I think it would either go to the admin side of the police or either to head office and eventually Finance would approve an amount. Is that how it worked?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, that is so.

MR FRANCIS: And then after I think a cheque would be given, the cheque would be cashed, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: That's correct.

MR FRANCIS: And the informer would then be paid.

MR DE KOCK: That's correct.

MR FRANCIS: And in this instance, would we pay cash? Is that so?

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR FRANCIS: And would then given a receipt, Mr de Kock.

MR DE KOCK: That's correct.

MR FRANCIS: And I assume too, Mr de Kock, that because you had made a recommendation that this be paid, the cheque must have come back to you, Mr de Kock.

MR DE KOCK: No, the cheque does not come to me, it is dealt with by head office. They will draw the cash and it is placed out under the claim number and placed into an envelope and comes to the admin division of my office and then ...(intervention)

MR FRANCIS: Yes, it will then come to your office, Mr de Kock.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, and then it is handed over to the handler and he will pay it out.

MR FRANCIS: So what are you saying, are you saying that in this instance of Nelspruit you would have received the cash and would then have given this over to Holtzhausen?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, the money would have gone to Mr Holtzhausen, who did the payout. I think the same situation would be in regard to the vehicles and the AKs, it's paid out to the handler.

MR FRANCIS: So when Holtzhausen testifies I think he should be able to tell us what happened to the R13 500 or R14 000, depending on how one looks at this.

MR DE KOCK: I believe we can get an answer from there.

MR FRANCIS: And you are saying that at no stage did you receive any money from the R20 000.

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

MR FRANCIS: You don't have a recollection, are you quite definite about it that you did not receive this, or is it something - you could have received this, but you have forgotten because of time?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: You're quite definite about that?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I did not receive any money for this operation.

MR FRANCIS: So - well obviously I think we will ask Mr Holtzhausen when he testifies about it.

MR DE KOCK: Very well, Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: But let me ask you this, Mr de Kock, Ben van Zyl was supposed to receive R20 000, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: That's correct.

MR FRANCIS: And you don't know why he only received between R6 500 and R7 000?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: Mr de Kock, I think I had cross-examined you about the information note and I think again just for - it was on page 375 and 376. Do you remember that?

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR FRANCIS: Mr de Kock, let's look at - before I ask you to look at Exhibit C, it wasn't quite clear to me - well I think maybe you could just refresh my memory, I thought that you'd said that you didn't get specific authorisation from Engelbrecht, Gen Engelbrecht and he later because of his involvement, I think later when he - I think you used the word "toegesmeer" - he must have given his consent or that could be construed as him having given his consent.

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR FRANCIS: That was the gist of your testimony, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: Okay. So am I then correct that at no stage did you approach - before the operation, did you approach Engelbrecht to say look General, this is basically what we intend to do?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, not in the regard to the ambush no, but that we would go down to Nelspruit and that there was an operation undergoing there, yes. He had to approve our movements for us and the movement would include the members names and the registration numbers ...(intervention)

MR FRANCIS: Did you tell him that there was going to be an ambush or did you tell him that there was going to be - you'd received information of arms smugglers?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, he already had information from the intelligence notes, I didn't tell him that there was to be an ambush.

MR FRANCIS: Well Mr de Kock, on - I think on Monday and Friday I think you gave different versions about the "inligtings nota". Again I think when Mr van den Berg I think had asked you - I don't want to deal with that again, you said I think it was - the information contained there was false, I think ...(indistinct) the information contained was correct. I don't want to deal with this because I think we've dealt with that.

MR DE KOCK: No, I would just like to add to it, Chairperson. I've thought about it and as my answer was then, Monday, I said that - that ...(indistinct) asked a question within a context as I understood it and I went and had a look at it again and I think with Mr van den Berg's situation it was - the information note was not complete, we did not say there was an ambush and we did not say that we would kill people. But if you do not want to take it any further, that's it.

MR FRANCIS: Well, Mr de Kock ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Let us leave it there.

MR FRANCIS: Mr de Kock, let's look at page 64 of Exhibit C and that's para 2.6.5, and you say the following.

MR DE KOCK: Page please.

MR FRANCIS: 64, paragraph 2.6.5. It reads as follows, Mr de Kock - have you got it?

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR FRANCIS

"Actions which were authorised by me without any expressive authorisation or orders from my commanding officer was then covered up with their assistance so that the Security Police' involvement would not come to light. Examples of this are the following."

Then if you turn to page 65, 2.6.5.1:

"The Nelspruit incident, incident 24, volume 2, page 445 to 451, I authorised the operation without the approval or permission from my commander to launch the operation. After the operation I reported to Gen Engelbrecht, after which he assisted us with drawing up the statements for the members who were involved and to ensure that the members of the Security Police would not be embarrassed because of it. No disciplinary steps were taken against me or any of the other Vlakplaas members who were involved in the operation. Not one of us were even admonished that we executed the operation."

Am I correct, Mr de Kock, that you're really saying to this Commission that because Engelbrecht covered up the incident and because no disciplinary steps were taken against me, therefore - it therefore follows that I was given authorisation for this?

MR HATTINGH: No, Mr Chairman, let him read that paragraph again, it says ...(intervention)

MR FRANCIS: Mr Chair, I think I must intervene. Obviously I think Mr Hattingh will get an opportunity to re-examine this.

MR HATTINGH: No, but I am entitled to object if you put something incorrectly to the witness, Mr Chairman, and what he's putting is not correct. What is clearly stated in there is that Engelbrecht ratified it subsequently, I'm being informed.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: That he didn't give consent or prior consent.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Ja, that seems to be the effect, Mr Francis.

MR FRANCIS: Mr Chair, I'm not so sure where the ratification bit comes in.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well it says

"After the operation ..."

This is all ex post facto.

MR FRANCIS: Mr Chair, I think one could probably leave this for argument.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR FRANCIS: But Mr de Kock, you've been a commander or you were a commander, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: Could you ratify, or could you give orders after an event had taken place?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: Give an example.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, we had an incident for example where members of the Security Branch of Komatiepoort during interrogation had killed a person at Skomaans base with regard to weapons, I was contacted that evening and I was telephoned by these persons to be of assistance to get rid of the body. I went to Gen Engelbrecht and he told me no, don't become involved and I then went on my own and assisted these people with the objective of problems which might emanate, because if a problem emanated for one Security Police officer, it would be for the whole Security Branch.

MR FRANCIS: Mr de Kock, let's got back to page 65, you've got the following

"I authorised the operation without permission from my commanding officer to launch the action."

What do you mean by that?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I did not tell him that we will set up an ambush. I don't know whether he would have said anything against it, he is not unfamiliar with these situations and set-ups of ambushes, but he had the information or intelligence notes, and I believe that he would not have opposed us ...(intervention)

MR FRANCIS: But did he say to you look I give you my blessings to take part in this operation?

MR DE KOCK: Well Chairperson, I didn't ask him ...(intervention)

MR FRANCIS: Yes, I know.

MR DE KOCK: I didn't ask him for his blessing, no.

MR FRANCIS: Well you had to get his authorisation, did he say I give my authorisation to carry out this operation?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, otherwise I could not move out of my area.

MR FRANCIS: I put it to you that you were not given any authorisation by Engelbrecht about this operation.

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson ...(intervention)

MR FRANCIS: And I will later argue that there was no such authorisation given to you.

MR DE KOCK: We had permission to launch this action. I did not tell him of the ambush itself, but as I have said he's not unfamiliar with such situations.

MR FRANCIS: I think you also then referred to the fact that no disciplinary steps were taken again you for your actions. I put it to you that obviously I think it would have been quite silly to have taken disciplinary actions against you because you would have exposed the activities of Vlakplaas.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, but we could work it back to the Harms Commission, we can work it back to as far as South West.

MR FRANCIS: I've looked at the affidavit of Holtzhausen, and I think it's again on page 309. 309. I'm not so sure if I've put this to you - I think it's at paragraph 10, no sorry I think I've put this to you. I think the only point that I want to make is that nowhere does Holtzhausen refer to a consignment of weapons that was going to be smuggled from Komatiepoort and that was going to be used in the robbery.

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, probably not here, but it would have been have been mentioned because it was taken up in the intelligence note.

MR FRANCIS: Mr de Kock, we've basically been given you know, notes of - there was these notes that were kept by Ndimande you know, I think the one appears at page 377, that deals with a cocaine matter between Tiso. If you then - I think 378 deals with a personal matter which I think is unrelated to this case. 379, 380 I think is not related to this case. 381 deals with some other thing, but nowhere does he refer to - that Tiso and them were going to be involved in smuggling of firearms to Nelspruit to - from Komatiepoort to Pretoria.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I would say that this is what Ndimande's version is, I don't know how correct it is. It is clear that in some or other manner weapons were available to them, he refers to an RPK machine-gun, it's a very dangerous firearm. So somewhere there is some truth in what Mr van Zyl had reported.

MR FRANCIS: I don't want to deal with what van Zyl says because I think I put it to you that he doesn't refer to smuggling of firearms. I think in the contrary I think he says that these robbers wanted AK47s and he was then - he wondered you know why if they are trained MK cadres, they wanted heavy calibre weapons. But I won't deal with that. I think that is what he basically will say.

MR DE KOCK: I don't how correct Mr Ndimande's version is.

MR FRANCIS: Mr de Kock, I think - I'm not so sure again, I think obviously if I put this to you I think there's going to be an objection, but I'm not so sure. But Holtzhausen I think had said that he made it quite clear to you that Tiso and his four companions had to be killed and that he got the impression I think that you were going to clear this up with some other person. Did you approach your superiors about this request - well let me first ask you this, I'm not so sure what your answers was, but did you approach your superiors to get permission to kill Tiso and the four others? Because it was a specific request from Ben van Zyl that was conveyed to you - well that was conveyed to Holtzhausen. Did you get permission from your superiors to do this?

MR DE KOCK: Firstly Chairperson, that may be Mr Holtzhausen's perception, that I wanted to clear it out further. At several instances I've testified that I did not tell them about the ambush, it was an operation like all our other operations and ambushes and that one could foresee the death.

MR FRANCIS: No but this one is different, this is a different ambush. There's a specific request from your informer who says look guys I want these guys not to be arrested, but I want them to be killed because my cover will exposed. It's not the typical I think ambush where you go down there and kill people, it's a specific request, it's different from the others. There's a request from a source that I want these people to be killed because I fear that if they are arrested, Tiso will know that I sold him out and I will then be killed, they will do x, y, z to me.

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, I've answered that question already, it was a counter-terrorism operation, we were dealing with MK terrorists. The information was clear and that is what it was about.

MR FRANCIS: No, Mr de Kock, it's not about that, Mr de Kock, it's about a request from Tiso - not - sorry, from ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: Well he didn't clear it out, let's find out why didn't you clear it out.

Mr de Kock, you have already answered that you did not clear it out.

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson.

ADV DE JAGER: I think what is required of you is to explain why you did not clear it out.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, there was no request directed to me that we would shoot these people to protect Ben van Zyl, and that I would clear it out with head office. This had already been a decided situation, there were people who were planning a robbery, it was for the purposes of filling the coffers of the ANC, we had ANC persons here. And like in many other operations I also took the initiative, but there was never any request to kill these persons in order to protect Ben van Zyl, and then I would require permission for it. It never happened.

MR FRANCIS: So Mr de Kock, are you saying that Holtzhausen at no stage approached you with this request?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I was not approached at any stage to kill people to protect Ben van Zyl.

MR FRANCIS: If you were approached you would not forget this because it's something serious.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, it is something serious, Chairperson, but then I would have had to shoot hundreds of people to protect sources. I mean, it did not happen. ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR FRANCIS: And obviously I think I will put this question to Mr Holtzhausen. Maybe you can answer it, I mean why would Holtzhausen who is trusted - who you trusted, and van Zyl who you trusted I think, say that they put this to you? Why would he lie then about this?

MR DE KOCK: I'm not saying that he's lying, but that may be his recollection, but I did not receive any such request and such a request would in any case not have borne any weight. It was with regard to counter-terrorism, not to protect a source.

MR FRANCIS: Mr de Kock, why did you write that book, or why did you have the book written? Your book.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I was approached by an author and my legal representative was of assistance. The book as such was to give a broader image or a complete image of what had happened in the country then, during a specific time and specific political dispensation and it was written from my amnesty application and it was drawn up as such.

MR FRANCIS: And I take it obviously that - I see in some portions of this book it's basically - it must have been statements that you'd given to them. It refers to I, like you know it's like you're telling the story, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, the author also had access to the report that I compiled. I think that what I compiled with Prof van der Hoven, the psychologist or psychiatrist and criminologist, it may be in reference to that as well.

MR FRANCIS: You heard Mr Gevers' testimony when he testified here.

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, I think that I was not present on that day.

MR FRANCIS: Oh I think - he mentioned I think, that he had shot Tiso and afterwards I think - that was after Tiso had been - I'm not so sure if he was stripped before they shot him, I think they stripped him afterwards, and he refers to his shoes, Tiso's shoes.

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, I wasn't here with the evidence-in-chief, I think that during the last 15 or 20 minutes of his evidence I was present.

MR FRANCIS: I think if I'm not mistaken I think he said that the shoes were taken by Britz - I may be wrong, but I think it was Britz.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I am not certain, but I would not dispute it.

MR FRANCIS: Now in your book, I think that's "A Long Night's Damage", I think on page 261 you've got the following and I'll read it for you

"Another one was former police Captain, Rolf Gevers, a former Namibian with the face of a choir boy. He was the man who stole Tiso Leballo's shoes after shooting him."

But you know we've heard Gevers saying that no, the shoes were taken by Britz I think. What's correct now?

MR DE KOCK: Pardon?

MR FRANCIS: What's now the correct version?

MR HATTINGH: Really Mr Chairman, is this a relevant fact, as to who got Tiso's shoes or who didn't get them? Is it relevant to the question who killed them, is it relevant to the inquiry that you are dealing with here?

CHAIRPERSON: Is it really, Mr Francis?

MR FRANCIS: It may not seem to be relevant, but I think it's about whether or not there's a full disclosure, Mr Chairperson.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, Mr Jeremy Gordon, the author also attended the criminal trial quite regularly and he may have obtained the facts at that time. I definitely have no reason to withhold anything. Mr Gordon attended the criminal trial on a daily basis I think.

MR FRANCIS: ...(indistinct - no microphone) the impression I get when reading this is that he's basically quoting you, it's like you telling the story. I'll leave it there.

MR DE KOCK: Would you repeat that, I didn't hear you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Francis says he will not take the point any further.

MR DE KOCK: Very well then.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Francis?

MR FRANCIS: You are aware that Sandra Mama brought an action against you and the Minister of Safety and Security.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that's correct, Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: For the Nelspruit killings.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: And she'd obtained default judgment against you.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR FRANCIS: You're also aware that the police was second defendant in the matter.

MR DE KOCK: I think so.

MR FRANCIS: And you are also aware that the police in their plea, or they raised first of all a special plea. A special plea basically would be that she was supposed to have brought the claim within six months and did so afterwards. And I think you also raised a special plea that an action should - well your attorney says no. I accept that. But a special plea was raised that she brought the action after six months.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I left everything to my legal representative because I didn't understand anything about those documents. In that regard I was completely illiterate in terms of the law.

MR FRANCIS: One of the grounds on which the Minister of Safety and Security opposed the, or was defending the action was on the basis that you and the other policemen were not acting in the cause and scope of their employment when her husband got killed.

MR DE KOCK: No, that is not correct, because if I refer to all the other internal situations in which we shot people's hands off or fetched people from police stations and shot them dead, all of those situations took place within the mandate of our task although it was not mandated according to police legislation.

ADV DE JAGER: Did the Minister in the end pay?

MR FRANCIS: Well there was - I think a few days before the amnesty hearing came up, there was a settlement that we've reached.

ADV DE JAGER: So he agreed that it was within the scope?

MR FRANCIS: I don't know, I don't know on what basis I think the Minister paid. I'm not so sure if there was some political pressure on him to pay, but he basically maintained at all times that - denied that he was acting in the cause and scope of his employment and we think we had to - we were going to bring a ...(indistinct) case before the High Court on that point.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, that is how we regarded it. At that time it was still a question of counter-terrorism, we were blowing up buildings in Johannesburg, we would sink 12 storeys. People would get the death penalty for such a thing previously because it was terrorism, and here the State instructed us against thwart and action to do the same thing, so there is no way that they can say that we acted beyond the scope of our duties.

MR FRANCIS: Well obviously I think I will leave that for argument because I think it's not clear whether or not Engelbrecht, in my mind, had given authorisation for this.

MR DE KOCK: Well then we'll have to leave that to argument, Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: Mr de Kock, I think in your book you mention that you'd want to use the proceeds of your book to benefit the victims that you've killed, or the victims, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: Is that relevant for amnesty?

MR FRANCIS: ...(indistinct - no microphone)

ADV DE JAGER: Now why do you ask it then? Please, we - try to finish the case with relevant evidence.

MR FRANCIS: I won't pursue that, I won't pursue that. But Mr Chair, it also I think - he testified I think about how sorry, how remorseful he was during examination-in-chief, how he pitied I think the victims, that you know the victims that is left behind. And obviously I think, Mr Chairperson, I think - I'm not so sure if that was relevant I think when he was led about it, led on that point. But I won't pursue this.

MR DE KOCK: I would say briefly that there is harmony and I would like to clarify that this is going to the victims of both sides, both white and black in this country, Indian and Coloured and Asian. All of these persons were at some or other point in some or other manner a victim. And even if I could just donate only R5,00 a year to organisations that will benefit from this fund, it will be satisfactory. It is not a question of payments of exorbitant amounts of money as happens internationally, I am just paying what is in my mind ethically and morally acceptable and what I can actually manage and I will stand by that.

MR FRANCIS: I think - at one stage I think I was - you'd said something about Codessa, and I think I was asked by the Chairperson to get the dates of Codessa 1. You recall that?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: I've looked at the race relations survey for 1991/1992 and from this it appears that Codessa 1 took place on the 20th and 21st of December 1991. You can't dispute that?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: And this again was before the Nelspruit 5 were killed.

ADV DE JAGER: But that was only the penury session, but the negotiations at Codessa was, I think, the first Codessa, 1992 up to June almost, then it broke down and then what used to be called Codessa 2, started in 1993 and continued up to December 1993.

MR FRANCIS: If one also looks at the race relations survey I think 1993/1994, I think it says that nine months after the breakdown of multi-party talks in the convention for a democratic South Africa, Codessa in June 1992. I think there were going to a further planning session on the 5th and 6th of March 1993.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, that carried on until December.

MR FRANCIS: I think the point that I'm just making, Mr de Kock, is that there were talks about peace, multi-national you know, meetings about peace before the Nelspruit 5 were killed.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, there was already talk of peace from 1990 onwards, but it was never really manifested if we look at all the previous incidents of terror, ANC and PAC, including IFP.

MR FRANCIS: Mr de Kock, Nortje testified yesterday - or let's just deal about - I don't want to go back into the role of Vlakplaas. Was there a period I think when the members of Vlakplaas were oriented or orientated about their new role?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, no member of Vlakplaas was ever reoriented by any of the officers from head office, what took place in fact - and let us just refer to the askaris, the former ANC and PAC members who worked for us, as well as the former Koevoet members from the former South West Africa, these persons were sent for a brief policing course to Hammanskraal in order to render them more acceptable for employment should a new government assume power, and that was more preparatory because they were already appointed as policemen. It was more of a preparation than what it was anything else in order for them to be accepted by the new government.

MR FRANCIS: I think I must have put to you what Engelbrecht had said in his affidavit, that he presented some courses I think for Vlakplaas, members of the police, over a period. I think if you recall I put that to you.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, the courses that existed were those that I arranged and Engelbrecht says that he presented these courses, but there's a big difference.

MR FRANCIS: The courses that you presented, was that for the Vlakplaas members?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, we had members of Gold and Diamonds Unit to present courses, we also had members of the Transport Branch to present courses, from the Forensic Division as well. We tried to be as comprehensive as possible. Usually the courses would last for a day or so. It would be a think-tank type of situation, so that people could know what they were looking for, including SANAB. Many of the people didn't even know what mandrax looked like.

MR FRANCIS: So Nortje then when he told this Commission yesterday that he didn't receive any training was not candid with this Commission.

MR DE KOCK: That he did not receive training?

MR FRANCIS: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: ...(indistinct - no microphone) orientation?

MR FRANCIS: ...(indistinct - no microphone)

ADV DE JAGER: Ja, wasn't the word used "orientation"?

MR FRANCIS: The word "orientation" was referred to, but I also referred him to what Engelbrecht I think said in his affidavit, which does - maybe I should just get the relevant portion thereof.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, no, it's clear, it's clear. You put to Nortje what appears in Engelbrecht's affidavit and he says "no". Mr de Kock says that is what Engelbrecht says, but in practice he, de Kock, was the driving force behind these things, he called in all these other units and so on to orientate his people.

MR FRANCIS: I see ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: To show them what mandrax looks like and so on.

MR FRANCIS: I'm almost done, Mr de Kock. You testified about Operation Ex-calibre.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR FRANCIS: What was that about?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, it was a high volume of weapons which had been smuggled in from Mozambique to South Africa, through that section which was known as Komatiepoort.

MR FRANCIS: How many of those - I think you mention that 28 were arrested, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: 24 as far as I know, were arrested, four were shot dead, two were wounded and captured and I think that others were captured and we recruited them as sources.

MR FRANCIS: Were any of those political people or were they just common criminals?

MR DE KOCK: No, these were Mozambican smugglers.

MR FRANCIS: I think Mr Nortje also testified that these smugglers were not really concerned about who were going to get the arms, it was more just a question of making money.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: I think I'm almost there. You said that -I'm not so sure if it was you, you said that Tiso had to be killed and one of the reasons was that you feared that he would expose Vlakplaas.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, he would have exposed Vlakplaas, and by nature of the situation then the Security Police, and this could have prejudiced the government and the peace negotiations.

MR FRANCIS: But Tiso didn't know that Ben van Zyl was linked to Vlakplaas, did he?

MR DE KOCK: No, no at that stage, Chairperson, but ...(intervention)

MR FRANCIS: At no stage, Mr de Kock.

MR DE KOCK: Well, Chairperson, if he was released and he once again identified someone like Ben van Zyl or Hamilton or Johnny Maben(?) ...(intervention)

MR FRANCIS: Please answer my question.

MR HATTINGH: Chairperson, may the witness please complete his answer because what he is saying is relevant.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR DE KOCK: ... then this could have led back to Vlakplaas.

MR FRANCIS: We're speculating as to what "kon gebeur het". "As dit sou gebeur het kon dit gebeur het".

MR DE KOCK: It was foreseen that something like that could happen and that is why I decided that Tiso should be killed.

MR FRANCIS: Mr de Kock, did Tiso know that van Zyl was linked to Vlakplaas, yes or no?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, not at that stage.

MR FRANCIS: Did Tiso know that the police had set up this whole robbery, yes, or no?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, not at that stage.

MR FRANCIS: Did Tiso know that members of the Vlakplaas unit were going to be involved in the ambush?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, not at that stage.

MR FRANCIS: So how on earth, Mr de Kock, would he have been able to expose Vlakplaas, if he didn't know about this, Mr de Kock?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, previously he had contacted Mr van Zyl, and as it would appear from this Mr Hamilton as well, so it wouldn't have been difficult for him to contact them again.

MR FRANCIS: But he knew Ben van Zyl as John, as somebody who was operating in the underworld.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, and now Tiso would take six members of Brixton Robbery with and they would realise that it wasn't John, but Ben van Zyl, and that would be the problem that was foreseen.

MR FRANCIS: Mr de Kock, I put it to you that you've not been candid with this Commission, you've lied, you've had a selective memory when it suited you and that the only reason I think why the Nelspruit people were killed was that you wanted Oragio(?) to be benefitted and he wasn't benefitted with the insurance claim, and also that you protected your source, Ben van Zyl, and that this whole political motivation is not a thought.

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, that is not true.

MR FRANCIS: I've got no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR FRANCIS

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Francis. Ms Patel, any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PATEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson.

Mr de Kock, were you aware of the first operation that was to take place at Coin Security? The aborted operation.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, I was notified that there would be an operation.

MS PATEL: And you authorised that operation.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, I gave the persons permission to go down.

MS PATEL: At that stage there wasn't any information that Tiso was in fact linked to Winnie Mandela, not so?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I don't know. It may be that it was as such, but I don't have a recollection of that.

MS PATEL: It's an important fact though, you would have recalled it if the information was given to you at that stage, not so?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, it may be so. I don't wish to confuse this with two incidents which took place so shortly after each other. It may be that it was brought to my attention.

MS PATEL: Had you not had the information regarding the connection between Tiso and Mrs Mandela, would you still have authorised the operation?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, it would still have taken place, but then we would have conveyed the information to the Murder and Robbery Unit for their own action.

MS PATEL: Are you saying then though, the fact that he was at that stage known to be an ANC person, was irrelevant then? And the simple fact that he may have been ANC, you would have handed it over to the Murder and Robbery Squad, but because there was a connection to Mrs Mandela, that your unit then handled the matter.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, as I have just said approximately three sentences ago, I am not certain about that aspect. I don't have a recollection that I knew at that stage whether he was working for Mrs Mandela or not.

MS PATEL: Okay. Why at that stage was the question of an arrest not considered?

MR DE KOCK: Was that with reference to Coin Security?

MS PATEL: Coin Security, yes.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I don't know, that would have been the course of the planning and the situation on the scene.

MS PATEL: Was it not discussed with you, the options of arrest?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, it is possible. However, this would be left to the operatives on ground level because information could change from hour to hour or minute to minute.

MS PATEL: Were you not kept up to speed with the information that they had and the planning that was to take place around that first incident?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, they could have kept me up to date, but I think I've also testified that I had more than one operation on the go, sometimes I would have seven to eight operations running simultaneously and the variety thereof was rather extensive.

MS PATEL: Sure, but they would have had to keep you up to speed if they were to plan an operation of that nature, not so?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, they would have updated me from time to time.

MS PATEL: Alright. And we know now that there wasn't any extra information that they had at the time, so the question of a possible arrest would have been discussed or should have been discussed at the very least. - before a decision was taken to kill.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, that is possible. I cannot give evidence about it because I don't have an independent recollection thereof.

MS PATEL: Alright. You never had any direct dealings with Tiso himself.

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson.

MS PATEL: Okay. Regarding Ben van Zyl as a source, did you have any dealings with him regarding any other operations, barr the Carousel and barr this incident?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson no, however I do know that upon one or two occasions he visited me at the Grassdak house and he was experiencing problems with his claims, which in some instances had been outstanding for a year and I took his documents and compiled a complete report and handed it in to head office, so that van Zyl could be rewarded for the tasks that he had performed.

MS PATEL: Which claims would that have been? They don't relate to the Carousel or the Nelspruit incident?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, these are situations it would appear, of which he was not paid or where they didn't want to pay him or where they may have turned their backs on him, but he did render a service and I took those matters up and from that point onwards it was taken to the head office of the Detective Branch and I think that the case was resolved.

CHAIRPERSON: This has nothing to do with Vlakplaas, you were just doing this man a favour?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, because basically it was about the correctness of what the man should get or what he shouldn't get.

CHAIRPERSON: So you were basically doing him a favour?

MR DE KOCK: Yes. It didn't have anything to do with our work.

MS PATEL: Okay. Did he give you any information on incidents that were not of a political nature?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, I was at a robbery where they attempted - a number of Zimbabwians and Lesothoans, they attempted this robbery in Braamfontein and we succeeded in capturing four of the eight or nine, along with their vehicles and weapons and knives and we handed them over to the Brixton Murder and Robbery Unit.

MS PATEL: For how long had Mr van Zyl been giving your unit information? Just generally, prior to the Nelspruit incident.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I'm not certain, I don't have a fixed date. I would think that it began with the arrest of the person who had the four AKs in a bag. I think it began there.

MS PATEL: Can you give us just a ball-park estimation, a year, two years, two months? Just an idea.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, perhaps we will have to consult his statement. The first time that I met him, that would have been the first time when he began performing services for us.

MS PATEL: Okay. According to your knowledge all the information that he would have given to your unit, was it reliable or were there instances where you couldn't rely on the information he was giving?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, the information was consistently correct. What one would find however, was that something would not take place on the day that the information indicated, because the robber or the smuggler would decide today that he would preferably go to Sun City, so then he wouldn't arrive on that particular day, perhaps the next day. But that did not diminish the correctness of his information.

MS PATEL: Okay. Given that Vlakplaas was involved, or had a twofold focus during this period, can I just ask you, when you - generally, if you would give instructions to what we term your foot-soldiers, to do a certain task, how would they be able to distinguish between what was related to a pure criminal activity that may be investigated - being investigated, and what relates to an activity that has a political motivation behind it? How would the foot-soldier be able to distinguish between the two when he's asked to follow instructions?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, this would occur when one had briefed the persons and told them look, we have to do with Zimbabwians here, they're just here to commit a robbery and then they will flee back, or we are dealing here with ANC trained MK members, and then it would be about the preparation, the nature of the weaponry, the environment and all other contributing factors.

MS PATEL: Okay. So they would always be informed as to the exact nature of the operations?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, by nature of the situation they would have to be briefed.

MS PATEL: Okay. I'm sorry that I'm moving around from point to point, but I mean if you've been taken under cross-examination by everyone for a very long time so it's just you know, small things that I need clarity on. You stated that the information note would have gone to Engelbrecht and to Nelspruit as well, the Nelspruit Murder and Robbery, who else would it have gone to?

MR DE KOCK: To the Security Branch in Nelspruit. Because we were also Security Branch, we had to inform them.

MS PATEL: Okay. Do you recall that a Col Johannes Petrus Botha testified at the trial. He was the Commander at the Nelspruit, on the Crime Information Services.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct.

MS PATEL: Okay. Do you recall that he said he had an argument with you at the scene, at the Nelspruit incident?

MR DE KOCK: No, he did not have an argument with me there, but he had had various arguments with me in the past.

MS PATEL: Okay. Well it's stated in the judgment that he had denied that anybody had liaised with him, that persons would be going to Komatiepoort to fetch weapons to commit a robbery, that as far as he was concerned there was no information in his unit at the very least that this operation would take place.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, he was informed, because the Security Head Office of the Eastern Transvaal was also informed, so that the overall commander would know about it. I couldn't only inform Botha because his commander would ask me why I had bypassed him.

MS PATEL: Okay. And then regarding the minibus, you've stated in your application that that minibus was in fact stolen, is it correct or was it taken with the knowledge and consent of the owner?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, that minibus was stolen in the real sense of the word.

MS PATEL: Okay. Mr Nortje in his papers - well in his affidavit at page 237, stated that immediately - well on the scene after the operation - well during the - after the persons had been shot and killed at the very least, that you called your brother Vossie to arrange the theft docket because there was a confusion at that stage as to whether in fact the theft of the vehicle had been reported or not. What is your comment on that?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson yes, when we took the vehicle - and I recall that this was on a Friday evening, and this was approximately five days later, by the time I gave the vehicle to Mr Holtzhausen I had absolutely no doubt that this vehicle had already been reported and circulated as stolen and this meant that at the scene there was some form of a crisis or not a crisis, but a problem because the information, due to the information upon which the operation had been based and the stolen nature of the vehicle, I have a recollection of that.

MS PATEL: I'm sorry, I don't understand. What was the crisis about the vehicle? Can you just clarify that?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, there was something about the information note and the planning at the scene and that the vehicle would already have been reported as stolen. I accepted that the vehicle had been reported as stolen and this created some or other problem in the planning situation on ground level there. I cannot put my finger on it specifically, but it did create problems.

MS PATEL: I don't understand why you had to get your brother to sort the docket out. What was that about?

MR DE KOCK: No, I contacted my brother and he spoke to Capt Koekemoer from Murder and Robbery from the East Rand, because I couldn't point my own finger in this situation, that I had stolen the vehicle.

MS PATEL: Were you not sure whether it was in fact reported or not that the vehicle would be stolen?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I was so certain that this vehicle had been reported as stolen that I didn't even make any enquiries. When I gave the vehicle to Holtzhausen, I was already convinced that this vehicle had been reported as stolen and that this information had been circulated.

MS PATEL: I put it to you, Mr de Kock, that these contingency plans about your brother and the arrangements with the docket were done purely because the vehicle in fact wasn't stolen, it was because the vehicle was taken with your friend Mr Oragio's consent and that related to the claim for the insurance.

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, because I would not give a borrowed vehicle to someone to destroy because how would I be able to explain that?

MS PATEL: Can I just take you to Mr Klopper's testimony ...(intervention)

MR SIBANYONI: I'm sorry, Ms Patel, maybe before you move from that area.

Mr de Kock, from the time it was taken from Springs until it reached Nelspruit, how many days expired?

MR DE KOCK: I think it was approximately five or six days, because we took the vehicle on the Friday and I'm not certain whether this operation took place on a Tuesday or a Thursday.

MR SIBANYONI: Was the registration numbers and letters of the vehicle changed?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you. Ms Patel, you may proceed.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr de Kock, why was it important that the robbery be reported?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, if Tiso or any of these other persons were captured, then they would be captured with a stolen vehicle in their possession and there would be no back-reference to Vlakplaas or any other party.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but the vehicle had to be a stolen vehicle.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct, and when I gave it to Holtzhausen, I had absolutely no doubt. On the contrary, to the extent that I didn't even contact the central vehicle unit to determine whether or not this vehicle had been reported as stolen.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but that's what I don't understand, it had to be a stolen vehicle and it was.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, but at the scene when they gave the number, they said that the vehicle hadn't been reported as stolen.

CHAIRPERSON: But what's the importance of that? Because in fact it was a stolen vehicle.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, but there was some or other problem, I don't know exactly what, but with the planning at the scene after the shooting it created a problem and it was a question of correcting that problem.

CHAIRPERSON: But you see that's my problem, I don't understand how reporting the robbery could have played any role or created any problem because the vehicle was practically stolen.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: So if they had managed to trace the details of the owner and contacted the owner, he would have said automatically that vehicle of mine has been stolen. Then what is the problem?

MR DE KOCK: But you see the way I understood it, we took the vehicle on the Friday, by the Monday he must have realised that his vehicle was missing or at the very least by Tuesday and this created some or other problem at the scene with the planning.

CHAIRPERSON: But I still don't understand why it wasn't possible to see that the vehicle was stolen immediately, especially if the vehicle had been parked in a garage and if the police asked him where his kombi was and he looked in his garage and saw that it was stolen.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, I can understand that, but that was how the situation developed and that is why it was addressed as such.

CHAIRPERSON: Because the owner would probably, according to the facts as we have them now, not know that his vehicle was stolen when the vehicle was taken, because he would have to take steps to report it.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, I understand that, but with regard to the situation on ground level there was a situation which necessitated it.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well. Ms Patel?

MS PATEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson.

The two AKs that were planted, would monies have been received in respect of that, given that they were now seen to be from the robbers? Would you have gotten some money for that?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I think that it was incorporated into the claim, but I don't know whether it played a role in the determination of the amount.

MS PATEL: Okay. How much would - well you've received countless other AK47s from other retrievals, what would you get for one AK47, what would the amount be?

MR DE KOCK: The scale usually changed, sometimes it was R1 000, later it was pushed up to R2 000 and then later it was brought down again.

MS PATEL: Okay. So on average R1 000 per AK, so that would make it R2 000 that you would have gotten extra.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, if it was approved, with the claim itself.

MS PATEL: But there wouldn't have been a problem with the approval of this because the arms were in fact found, not so?

MR DE KOCK: I beg your pardon?

MS PATEL: There wouldn't have been a problem with the approval for the claim in respect of these two weapons that were planted.

MR DE KOCK: No, what I mean is for example, if they say we'll pay R20 000, there were four armed robbers who were shot and we paid R20 000 and then they say very well, and there were two AK47s, that would make it R22 000, including the ammunition would make it an extra R500. The generals could say I will only approve R15 000 or only R20 000, so that might not have been brought into consideration. It was not compulsory that it was necessary to be paid out.

MS PATEL: Did you put in a claim for the two weapons?

MR DE KOCK: No, I think that it would have been incorporated in the total claim.

MS PATEL: The total claim of what? Besides Mr van Zyl's informer fees, what other claim are you referring to?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, that would have been the information or the situation on ground level, where the people were shot and where two AK47 guns were repossessed along with that and then one would make out the total claim and that would go up for approval and then the amount may or may not be cut.

MS PATEL: What would the total claim comprise of? What are the items you would claim for and what amounts would you then have claimed for?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, there wasn't a scale for robbers or anything of that nature, but in this case it would have been for example, for the prevention of the robbery, for the two weapons and the ammunition. But the totality of the claim would not necessarily be that which one had calculated according to the scale, that could be adjusted at head office itself, they could decrease it or increase it.

MS PATEL: Are you saying you would have been able to put in a claim for the prevention of the robbery as well? Did I hear that correctly?

MR DE KOCK: It is not that there was any financial value attached to it ...(intervention)

MS PATEL: No, we're talking about financial claims.

MR DE KOCK: One would have to take a holistic view of the incident and regard the circumstances surrounding it, one would have to examine what could possibly have happened if these persons had succeeded, what was the foreseen possibility of damage to property and death or injury of innocent persons. So one would have to take a holistic view in the compilation of such a claim. It would differ from other claims again, where one would for example, have found a stockpile.

MS PATEL: Okay. Are you saying the criteria that you've just mentioned would have been used to determine what, the amount of the informer's fees or what would it have been used to determine?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, in this case I think that the entirety of this operation would have been considered and according to that it would have been fixed.

MS PATEL: I'm sorry, I just don't get this, help me along here. You would have used those different criteria to put in a claim for what? What specifically would you claim for?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, here a claim was instituted for example, for the death of four MK members, the repossession of two guns - I'm not certain whether the handgrenades were mentioned, and along with guns there would usually be ammunition, it would be determined per lot and then the total amount thereof would be calculated. Let's say for example it's R25 000 with a description of the circumstances under which the information was obtained, the objectives of the criminals, the possible inherent dangers which were foreseen for the public and then that report would be conveyed to head office and they would decide.

MS PATEL: Okay. So they would take all this into account and then decide to what, give you a cheque?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, whether it was a cheque or cash ...(intervention)

MS PATEL: Well money. You would get money out of this operation.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, for the informer yes.

MS PATEL: Okay, that's what I'm trying to get at. Are you saying that all of this information would have been put in the motivation for the claim for the informer only?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct, the policemen were not taken into account.

MS PATEL: Okay. So then the question of the two AK47s would then be a separate issue, not so?

MR DE KOCK: No, I've already stated that it was incorporated into the entire situation.

MS PATEL: So are you saying out of the R20 000 perhaps we can say if Mr van Zyl only got R6 000 or R7 000 out of it, another R2 000 would have been for the AK47s, that makes it R9 000, we're still left with R11 000 outstanding.

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, what happened here is that the incident was addressed in totality and for example, let's say the death of four armed robbers or MK members, two AK47s, six AK47s or handgrenades, the totality of it all would be calculated along with the motivation of the report.

ADV DE JAGER: Do I understand you correctly, Mr de Kock, that when you requested for an informer to be compensated, you would provide all the information. If an informer had for example only told you that you could find or trace an AK47 in some place, then that would have been a very easy job, just to dig it up from where it was on a farm or somewhere and for that the source would receive perhaps R2 000?

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: If the source's information would have led to the prevention of a robbery and possibly a fight with the owner of a bank or something, then that would also be a consideration and he would have perhaps received R4 000.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, it would have been a motivating factor which one could have applied.

ADV DE JAGER: So all these matters played a role in the recommendation for the source to receive R20 000?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: But some of that R20 000 wasn't for example, for you R4 000 or R4 000 for Mr Holtzhausen because the AKs had been retrieved?

MR DE KOCK: No, the claim that was instituted would be for the source and only for the source.

CHAIRPERSON: The AK47 component would be false?

MR DE KOCK: The fact that the AKs were planted was false.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but the fact that it was used to motivate in order to escalate the amount somewhat, would also be a false aspect to the claim?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, if one reconstructed it, one could regard it as such.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well. We'll adjourn and reconvene at 2 o'clock.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

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

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Patel?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PATEL: (cont)

Thank you, Honourable Chairperson.

Mr de Kock, when we left off before lunch we were dealing with the question of the AK47s and you were explaining how this would be used as part of the motivation for the claim for the informer. Can I ask you, would it also be used to at least - or it could be used to show that the robbers were in fact, or given that it was AK47s, that at least they had some sort of political affiliation and that they were not just ordinary robbers?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, I testified that the information indicated clearly that we were dealing with trained persons here, ANC/MK people as well, that they were robbing with the purpose of filling the coffers of the ANC and that the information was that they had their own weapons.

MS PATEL: Yes alright. No that might be so, I don't have a problem with that, all I'm saying is that if one were to read a report and it stated that AK47s were found on the robbers, it's a link to political affiliation not so?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, the political affiliation I would say is the fact that the persons were trained and they were ANC members, because for example if there were two R1s or two R4s that were stolen, then it would have still been with a political motive, so an AK is not equal to a political motive.

ADV DE JAGER: But Mr de Kock, I think what is being put to you is that, if I as an outsider read the following day in the newspaper that there was a robbery and two AK47s were found in the vehicle, in that political milieu which reigned, would the inference not be drawn that there was a group of people who had access to AK47s and would be on that side of the political spectrum?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, it would create that impression.

ADV DE JAGER: And for example if it was an R5 they would say it was on the other side of the political spectrum?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that's possible.

ADV DE JAGER: So I think that is what's being put to you, the fact that AK47s were found would raise the impression with other people that well, there were people affiliated to a certain side of the political affiliation.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that would be so.

MS PATEL: Thank you for that assistance, Honourable Chairperson.

Then can we deal with the question of the claims that you authorised for those members who were involved in the murder of Tiso alone. Why would you have used this incident in order to compensate them? It was a gruesome incident, it was something that I'm sure you were uncomfortable with.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, at other occasions it also happened. I refer to for example, the Chand matter in Botswana. This is a decision that I had taken, it may have probably - it was definitely not appreciation, but it could have made things easier for them if they wanted to leave for a place or if they were looking for some assistance and there was no assistance, I know that. We could not go to anybody and speak about the past. And it was a decision that I had taken during that time in that context and I felt that it was correct.

MS PATEL: Are you saying that the parties who were responsible for the murders of Tiso were in some kind of financial difficulty or needed funds for something or the other and that motivated you to allow them to file the false claims?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson.

MS PATEL: I'm speaking about this incident only.

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, they didn't have the vaguest idea that some form of reward would be given to them, it was just something that came up with me later.

MS PATEL: But you'll confirm that it was a reward linked to this specific incident?

MR DE KOCK: It was not a reward ...(intervention)

MS PATEL: You used the words.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, I'm trying to place it in the correct context. Let us call it a reward of some sort, but something that they did not know or that they did not ask for.

MS PATEL: No, I accept that they may not have known about it, but it was a reward that was linked to this specific incident.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that's correct, Chairperson. It was something that was unexpected and to them in particular it was unexpected and they had to go through that whole gruesome procedure and everything accompanied with it.

MS PATEL: Okay, thanks. If I can just move on to your political motivation. You were a Counter-insurgency Unit, that was part of your focus, can I just get some clarity. If that was the case, why would you have supplied weapons to the IFP, which would have led to the fuelling of violence? How - I don't understand that.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, my affiliation with the IFP came about with me in another manner, it was not initiated by me, here it was a question of enabling the IFP to defend themselves before they were wiped out, because they were on their way to being wiped out and it was a matter of sympathising with a group. I had no doubt that we would have a black government, but I did not want a communist government.

MS PATEL: The supply of weapons took place during the period of this incident as well, not so?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I'm not sure. The weapons were not as such what we had provided to them, it was of a minimal factor, but the ammunition was something we supplied to them in large amounts.

MS PATEL: During this period?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, I'm not certain when we had contact for the first time with the IFP, whether it was somewhere in 1991 or where it was.

MS PATEL: Okay. And it was supplied to the IFP on the East Rand.

MR DE KOCK: No, it was on the West Rand. We liaised specifically with Minister Mtetwa and with the Chief of the IFP in Transvaal, Themba Khosa.

MS PATEL: And there was factional fighting at that time between the IFP and the SDUs, not so? The ANC linked SDUs.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I would not say it was a faction fight, I think it was two political parties opposing each other.

MS PATEL: Sorry Honourable Chairperson, grant me a ...

Thank you, Honourable Chairperson. Sorry, Mr de Kock. The Self Protection Units of the IFP were established during that time as well, not so?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, they were established in 1993 I think.

MS PATEL: Was it not before then?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, as far as I know the SDUs were established in 1993.

MS PATEL: No the SDUs were established long before then, Mr de Kock.

MR DE KOCK: That's the Self Defence Units.

MS PATEL: That's right.

MR DE KOCK: The Self Protection Units were IFP and the SDUs were ANC.

MS PATEL: That's right and the Self Protection Units were also established in the early '90s, not so?

MR DE KOCK: That of the IFP?

MS PATEL: That's right.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson no, I cannot differ, they may have had people, but at Umshlaba camp I was present when the first persons, the first intake was taken there to establish Self Protection Units. It may be that it was unofficial, but these were official units.

MS PATEL: Okay. Can you tell us what role your unit played in connection with possibly not only - not establishing the Self Protection Units of the IFP, but in maintaining and supporting them?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, it was myself, Nortje and Mr van Heerden, who is not in the Force, but we were basically the three persons who liaised with the IFP. And it was chiefly ammunition which we would assisted them with and then amongst others, we helped Mr Khosa with transport and one of his lieutenants and then we had also established a source system for them.

MS PATEL: Was this sanctioned by your superiors?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

MS PATEL: By Engelbrecht?

MR DE KOCK: He amongst others, Chairperson. General Nick van Rensburg at that stage was in control of C-Section, in other words C1 as well, so yes. Like the home-made shotguns. All those claims went through him to Gen Smit and then back again and then on the contrary one of these - Gen Engelbrecht asked me to bring one of these shotguns to him because the other General wanted to see what he was paying for, and we took the home-made shotguns to head office and we gave it to Gen Engelbrecht to show to Gen Smit.

CHAIRPERSON: What is a home-made shotgun?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, it was high pressure water pipe which can take a 12 bore round, which could open and close and then it had a ring that kept the two pieces together and then it had a spring-loaded firing mechanism which could be pulled back.

CHAIRPERSON: So it's something that you made yourself, on your own?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, it was home-made.

CHAIRPERSON: A zip-gun?

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry.

MS PATEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson.

So do I understand you correctly, the purpose of preventing weapon smuggling into the country and its final destination to political parties, was to prevent it to get - prevent it from coming to the ANC/PAC aligned organisations only.

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson.

MS PATEL: And not to the IFP as well because you were in fact supporting the IFP with supplying them with arms and ammunition.

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, these were two very different divisions, Chairperson. The weapons which were smuggled in were not only for ANC and PAC, it was to the IFP and we also had information with regard to the AWB, where whites came down to pick up a large amount of AKs and amongst others, they not be distributed to criminal elements.

MS PATEL: Alright, okay, I won't take that point any further then. And then just - ja, I think I was going to put, just in fairness to you, so that you can respond to it, Mr Klopper stated in his affidavit on page 243 - regarding your motivation for this operation, he says that because of the killing of the white woman at that robbery in Witbank, you wanted to teach them a lesson and that was part of your motivation for this operation. Would you like to comment on that?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, that is not true and I never dealt with it completely during cross-examination.

MS PATEL: Okay. Why would he say this though if it wasn't true?

MR DE KOCK: I don't know Chairperson. Klopper said many things that were incorrect, he made certain allegations which were not correct, but there is much bad blood between the two of us, which is not relevant here, but I think it may be in regard to - but that is my viewpoint of it.

MS PATEL: Okay. Can you recall that there might have been a discussion between the members who took part in this operation about this incident, the Witbank incident?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, the unit was not so large,$it would have been drawn to everybody's attention. It was in the media and as far as I know it was on the SABC, so it was not something that was secret. It was not something which was a hidden issue.

MS PATEL: Do you know whether there was a discussion amongst the members about this, immediately prior to the operation taking place?

MR DE KOCK: That this information was given?

MS PATEL: Yes.

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, I have no recollection thereof. As far as I know, it did not happen.

ADV DE JAGER: During the planning, whether it be in Nelspruit or wherever you were present, or here in Pretoria, was it mentioned and did you answer to it that because of it you want to teach them a lesson, or was it discussed in any way?

MR DE KOCK: No, it wasn't.

MS PATEL: Sorry, are you certain about that?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, because there's no relation between what happened in Witbank and this situation.

MS PATEL: Okay, alright. And then just finally, if I can go back to the information that Mr van Zyl would have carried over. Did he at any stage mention through Holtzhausen, that his initial contact with Tiso related to the question of perhaps cocaine dealing or drug smuggling?

MR DE KOCK: Not that I knew of, Chairperson. It may be so that it had happened, it is possible, but I cannot testify to that. I did not have the information.

MS PATEL: Sorry, do I understand you - are you saying that it's possible that the information was relayed to you or are you saying you don't know about it at all?

MR DE KOCK: No, it is possible, but I cannot testify to it because I don't have a recollection thereof. But it is possible that it was conveyed to me yes, but it would not have been of interest.

MS PATEL: It would not have been of interest, Sir, why would it not have been of interest to you?

MR DE KOCK: Cocaine was not our line, Chairperson, and in that instance I would have told Holtzhausen or someone, get the SANAB people and take it further.

MS PATEL: But would it not have placed some doubt in your mind about exactly what type of activities Tiso was involved in besides his political affiliation that might have come to light at some stage?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, he could have been busy with anything. This may have been one of his diverse actions.

MS PATEL: Does it not place his political affiliation into question though?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, it is not unknown that persons who were caught with amongst others mandrax in Johannesburg, and they were ANC members. I refer specifically to a house that was shaken down in Johannesburg and senior MK members were caught and they were busy smoking mandrax. So it was known.

MS PATEL: Are you saying mt's irrelevant that persons who are affiliated to a particular party are involved in various other nefarious activities, that that's unimportant?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, I would not say that it is not important. The fact that a person would possess a gram of white powder which we suppose was cocaine, would not have bothered us as such that we would take an action, it could have been one of his several businesses that he has.

CHAIRPERSON: So in other words, it is indicative thereof that he in some manner is involved with some illegalities?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And crime.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, we don't know for whom, whether it is for himself or for anybody else.

CHAIRPERSON: Then that ANC members and any other party's members can commit crimes for their own benefit?

MR DE KOCK: No, I would not say that one would allow it, but it did happen.

CHAIRPERSON: So in other words, what I mean is that the fact that some of the members were criminals and were involved in smuggling and so on, it is not necessarily to be put at the door of the party.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson no, I would not say that, but one would not know. It may be that he had a kilogram somewhere and then the money he gained from that could have gone to the parties. It's something that one had to investigate.

CHAIRPERSON: But I think the point that Ms Patel is making is, does it not create the suspicion if you later hear that this guy wants to rob a bank, that you then ask man it looks as if he is a common criminal, let us look closer at this matter? ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, it is a crime and it could be for his own benefit or for political benefit. It could have been any of the two.

CHAIRPERSON: So you are saying this did not alert you to be more critical, that this bank robbery would be to the benefit of the ANC?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, I think this thing with regard to the cocaine was something before this bank robbery. I don't have a recollection thereof, it could have been mentioned to me. And I speak with hindsight now, but they could have arrested him the day, the same day or the following day for the same thing.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Patel?

ADV DE JAGER: Mr de Kock, I think the point is, if I know that there walks a guy, he's a smuggler, he smuggles for his own pocket, he smuggles with cocaine, he is a guy who has broken into houses, he's stolen a TV, that's for his own benefit and now suddenly I hear but no, he's going to rob a bank now and I hear but no, he's doing it for the benefit of somebody else, why would I not think that he's busy with is own thing and he's stealing for himself?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson yes, one could look at it in that manner, but information would indicate to whom it would go or for whom it is and then one draws it further and one has a look, like in this instance, as to where is the source of this attempt, and then we arrive at Mrs Mandela. So that would lend more weight to it, that would indicate in which direction to move in.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, but let us suppose that before you worked for Mrs Mandela, on which grounds would you then surmise the direction of the scale, that he was doing it for politics and not for his own pocket?

MR DE KOCK: That would depend on the information you would receive and the interpretation thereof and the confirmation thereof.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr de Kock, especially if one takes a decision to kill, instead of apprehending him, which would be the normal police action and you decide that you would kill him because he robbed banks on behalf of the ANC, does this not prompt you to investigate? Would you not know of the man's criminal history? Is that not a reason why you would just not decide we kill them, we're not going to arrest them? That is the point.

MR DE KOCK: I had no reason to doubt the information that we had and the substation thereof, therefore the action to counter terrorism or a counter-terrorist action which led to the death of these people.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but that is the problem. Earlier a reference was made to page 8 of your application and you say there in the second paragraph on page 8

"I accept that I might have been misled by Holtzhausen."

Is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, I do say that there.

CHAIRPERSON: And you confirm that's correct?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I placed it in that context, that in hindsight and after the criminal, that such a possibility would have existed. I asked myself the question, is it not so? But that is not the information that we had at that time.

CHAIRPERSON: And then you say furthermore in that paragraph that if that had not been the case, that these robbers would act within the context of the political situation and a political affiliation and so forth, you would not have acted in this manner towards them.

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, because I could have given it over to the Murder and Robbery Unit.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and then the that would be the normal conduct?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: So you accept that there is a possibility that Holtzhausen had misled you?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, this is an inference I drew during my criminal trial, mistakenly or correctly. I could have surmised it from his evidence, but I did not, I have enough time to sit and think and I did wonder at a stage, but did it not happen? And we can sort it out here and that is why it is mentioned.

CHAIRPERSON: Because the first persons who were killed first, you did not know them?

MR DE KOCK: No.

CHAIRPERSON: And you cannot independently give an indication whether they were politically affiliated or anything in that regard?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, I would depend on the information which was given to us.

CHAIRPERSON: So you just went on the information that was provided to you?

MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And it is almost the same situation with regard to Tiso, this was what was told to you?

MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: You at no stage received any independent indication that this was indeed the situation, that the first four who had been killed and Tiso later, were the persons?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, as far as I know the persons who committed the robbery were the persons who were killed.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but at no later stage or at any stage at all did you receive any confirmation without the messages which were sent to you which substantiated the fact that these persons were the type of persons as to what you were brought under the impression of?

MR DE KOCK: Not documentary or otherwise, Chairperson. I did not have copies of membership cards or affiliation, I did not have that. But if one looks at it in the broader context of that time, and that there was information that it was known that robberies are committed by liberation movements, it was not a strange set-up.

CHAIRPERSON: So in other words, your situation was totally dependent on van Zyl?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: You went on what he told you?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Patel?

MS PATEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson.

Following on that and your reliance on Mr van Zyl, some of the other applicants have noted that there was information that Tiso was wanted for at least 16 other offences, were you aware of this information?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson no, I cannot say that I knew it then.

MS PATEL: But your foot-soldiers knew that, why would you as the commander not have been informed of such a crucial piece of information?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I cannot tell you. I cannot independently confirm it to you, I don't have a recollection of it. And I would not maliciously go and give evidence against six or seven persons when they are present, I will tell you what I know.

MS PATEL: If you had this information at your disposal at the time, would it have changed your approach to this operation? Would you have decided rather to consider the alternatives of investigation and then arrest and prosecution?

MR HATTINGH: Chairperson, the witness has already answered that question and he answered on a question that you put to him.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you want to embroider further on the answer, or do you want the answer to be repeated?

MS PATEL: No, I must have missed that when you put it to him or when you asked him about it, so if he can just for my benefit repeat it.

MR DE KOCK: May you repeat please.

MS PATEL: Would your approach have changed to the operation had you been informed that he was in fact involved in other acts of crime at the time that he was wanted?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson.

MS PATEL: Okay. I want to put it to you, Mr de Kock, that there was in fact no political motivation for this operation and that you and the rest of the members acted out of - purely out of financial gain.

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, ...(intervention)

MR HATTINGH: On which evidence is she putting that statement, where is the evidence that they did it for financial benefit? Does she have evidence to which we don't have access, is it a positive statement she puts?

CHAIRPERSON: There doesn't appear to be any indication that directly connects Mr de Kock to financial gain.

MS PATEL: It was a general proposition - well, what I put was put in the general, Honourable Chairperson, that if one looks at the evidence that we have before, you look at the question of claims that were put in by the subordinates of Mr de Kock, if one looks as the benefit in respect of the insurance claim to Mr de Kock's friend, if one looks at the question of the placing of the AK47s on the scene, all of that points to a measure of financial benefit being derived from this specific operation, Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you'll argue along those lines.

MS PATEL: Absolutely.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr de Kock, have you followed?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, no it's not ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: She wants to argue along those lines. You are justified to react thereon.

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, it is not true, that is the only thing I can say.

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

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS PATEL

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Patel. Has the Panel got any questions?

MS PATEL: Honourable Chairperson, I believe Adv Bam hasn't had an opportunity yet to cross-examine, he came in late.

CHAIRPERSON: Well I don't know if he has ...

MR BAM: I beg your pardon, I don't know if you will allow me to place two aspects on record.

CHAIRPERSON: Certainly. I don't know whether you were involved initially.

MR BAM: No, I was not and that is the reason why I have not had an opportunity.

CHAIRPERSON: Certainly, please continue.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BAM: Thank you.

Mr de Kock, just two aspects. My instructions are that at the scene of the shooting - my instructions from Mr Holtzhausen, the final decisions were only taken for example the placing of the handgrenades and the blowing up of the vehicle, and that it was taken by him.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, I would not dispute that, I did not know of that, but I would not have protested if he had the idea.

MR BAM: But he says you had nothing to do with it, you were not even aware of it.

MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR BAM: And then with regard to the evidence with regard to the detail of the events, the sequence of events, you are aware that there are certain differences on your version as well as that of Mr Holtzhausen. As it is placed in the document there are certain differences.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

MR BAM: And with respect to the Committee, I will not go into that, but I just want to place it on record that there are such differences.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, I think it is about memory and perceptions.

MR BAM: Thank you, Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BAM

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Bam. The Panel? Yes, Mr Lamey?

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, during the examination by Ms Patel, the issue of Mr Nortje's evidence was touched upon with regard to this reorientation and so forth.

CHAIRPERSON: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: May I please be permitted to achieve some clarity from Mr de Kock in this relation, because Mr Nortje was asked this question within a determined context?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we had the situation where Mr de Kock's evidence was interrupted, would you just like to clear up that aspect?

MR LAMEY: Yes, please.

CHAIRPERSON: Go ahead.

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Mr de Kock, this is about the stage when Vlakplaas also became involved in crime investigation and assistance to other detective branches in this regard and this was after 1990. I'm not certain whether the entire context of what was put to Mr Nortje and the sense in which it was put to him, was ever put to you when you

gave your answer. Do I understand your evidence correctly that there was no great definite programme or attempt from head office's side to deal with the members that had been involved with Vlakplaas and had had this operational experience and to retrain them in detective work and to reorient them so that they could go over to crime investigation, to assist them in moving away from the operational wing of Vlakplaas?

MR DE KOCK: No, there was no such attempt. And I must also state that this was an important factor at that stage, that being that there was no situation within which one could obtain psychiatric or psychological treatment in order to be able to discuss what took place in the past and so doing achieve a new understanding and a new value system, which had been destroyed with the course of time. One couldn't talk to anybody, to nobody.

MR LAMEY: And there was no political reorientation?

MR DE KOCK: No, none.

MR LAMEY: Mention has been made of course which were presented at Vlakplaas, you mentioned a course presented by the Gold and Diamonds Branch. It is not as if the members underwent a complete detective course for the purposes of assistance to the branches, all they received was these brief information sessions or courses?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chair.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Lamey. Has the Panel got anything else?

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Sibanyoni?

MR SIBANYONI: Mr de Kock, where exactly was this kombi parked, this minibus parked when you removed it?

MR DE KOCK: Is that after I removed it?

MR SIBANYONI: No, no, I'm referring to - let me say, where did you steal it?

MR DE KOCK: It was in Springs. Opposite the hotel there was an open parking area which was also used as some sort of a taxi rank.

MR SIBANYONI: How far was the owner's house from the place where the kombi was parked?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, he lived in the Springs suburbs, which was completely away from the central area of the town.

MR SIBANYONI: So he would notice or discover immediately that his kombi had been stolen?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, if he had perhaps returned to work on the Monday or the Tuesday, he would then have noticed that the vehicle was missing, because it was taken over a weekend, which gave us a safe window period.

MR SIBANYONI: Where was he working?

MR DE KOCK: At that stage he was the person who was in charge of the hotel, who was sequested. He was detained for the purposes of management.

MR SIBANYONI: So he was not present, or he was not able to notice immediately that the kombi was stolen?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chair. Well that is at least what I believe. That is also why we chose to do this over a weekend.

MR SIBANYONI: When you noticed that the kombi was now set on fire, did that surprise you?

MR DE KOCK: It was a surprise to me because I was not aware that this was going to take place.

MR SIBANYONI: You had expected that the - what would have happened with the kombi after the operation?

MR DE KOCK: Well Chairperson, it would have been handed in for the necessary registers.

MR SIBANYONI: If indeed it was as speculated in the media, that one person, one of the so-called robbers was an IFP member, that would have made a very strange combination.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, I found it rather strange that this was said, I did not receive any confirmation from any place at any time later that he was indeed an IFP member. This was not a situation that made any sense to me.

MR SIBANYONI: Is the ANC/PAC combination on this issue not also strange?

MR DE KOCK: I don't know whether any PAC members were involved.

MR SIBANYONI: According to your understanding there were only ANC people involved?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct.

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you, Mr Chairperson, no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: In terms of what my colleague put to you, if any of the robbers were IFP members, would this possibly have indicated that it was simply a criminal gang at work?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, I think that I mentioned that this would have been a person who then associated himself. It may have been a person who had defected, it might have been a person who had changed their ideas and identified with the objectives of the ANC. As I've said, this was only information that we obtained later by means of the media, we did not know this at the scene. It was entirely strange to me, this association.

CHAIRPERSON: It would have been a strange association with regard to the political element of this action.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, unless this person was associated at some or other stage, but I would concede that it would have been a chalk and cheese situation, something that you would not expect.

CHAIRPERSON: Would you have expected them just to be a group of regular bank robbers or criminals, that the one is politically affiliated to the ANC and that the other may be politically affiliated to the IFP?

MR DE KOCK: I cannot say that because the information indicated that we were dealing with MK members and that is what we worked with. In this case MK was first and the robber was second.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but the question is, would it still have been as strange a phenomenon if it had been a group of regular bank robbers?

MR DE KOCK: And there was an IFP member present?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, or PAC or whatever, ANC, MK.

MR DE KOCK: No, I don't believe so.

CHAIRPERSON: So it was only strange if one accepted that this robbery was on behalf of the ANC?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson. The thing about the IFP member never really made any sense to me, I never received any confirmation of that at all.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and naturally later on there were much better indications. But as you've said, this is something that just came to light by the way.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

ADV DE JAGER: Was it ever put to you that one of these members was an IFP member, by one of the representatives for the family?

MR DE KOCK: No, I think I mentioned it.

ADV DE JAGER: Exactly, and not one of them have ever mentioned to us that any one of the gang was an IFP member and the Committee is therefore confused about this.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well. Mr Hattigh, do you have any re-examination?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Chair.

Mr de Kock, let us begin with some general aspects. You were repeatedly examined about your supplementary affidavit, for which I've already provided an explanation, but during the course of that stated that we were requested that should we elaborate on our factual allegations within our applications, we do so in written form. And with regard to the first cluster, if I might refer to it as such, were any supplementary affidavits submitted?

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And after that we no longer did so.

MR DE KOCK: No.

MR HATTINGH: You are aware that I have offered an explanation for our omission to do so to another Committee which has presided over one of these matters.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Could you tell us briefly what access we have to you as a prisoner in a maximum security prison.

MR DE KOCK: It is very restricted, appointments have to be made and sometimes these appointments will be granted or not, depending upon the availability of members. And then it has already occurred ...(intervention)

MR HATTINGH: Wait before we get to that, could you please tell us what the hours are during which we are allowed to visit you.

MR DE KOCK: I think it is between nine and ten and then half past two, but usually at about 2 o'clock we have to pack up and finish.

MR HATTINGH: In other words, from 9 o'clock to 2 o'clock, half past two?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And there is only one consultation room within a maximum security prison?

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And because at a certain stage we had to consult with you on a daily basis, they did not want to make that room available to us.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And therefore we sit in a sort of courtyard which is open above and has certain structures to protect against the sun, but there are also sewerage pipes and drains from which there is an unpleasant odour.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that's correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And these drains have to be covered with blankets.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And tables and chairs have to be carried in for us every time we visit you there.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And it is a room where people are constantly moving through. In fact, let me put it this way, this is the room or the inner courtyard which is reserved for visits to certain of the maximum security inmates.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And there are tables, I think there are three tables, round tables, which have been planted into the ground.

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: With chairs which are also planted into the ground.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct.

MR FRANCIS: Mr Chair, I'm not so sure what the relevancy of this will be. I'm not ...(indistinct - no microphone) during re-examination - I mean, during cross-examination.

MR HATTINGH: It is an attempt to explain why no further supplementary affidavits were submitted in order to explain matters for the Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: I assume that this can't be in dispute.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Chair.

It is a thoroughfare, not only for other inmates to be visited while we consult with you there, but it is also a thoroughfare for others who are moving in and out of the facility, both wardens and inmates.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And it has occurred when we have visited you before to prepare supplementary affidavits, that you were not there and we were simply informed that you have been taken to Natal in order to point out weapons which you provided to Inkatha.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Without any notification for us.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And in such a manner you were taken away from us for about three days for the purpose of such identification.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And I assume that your attorney accompanied you on such occasions, but he could not consult with you about these affidavits?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Is it also correct that other institutions, and let us just call them by name, I think there is National Intelligence, what is their current name?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, it's the National Intelligence Agency.

MR HATTINGH: Members of this agency also visit you regularly and invade upon our consultation times in order to obtain information from you.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

ADV DE JAGER: Unless it is necessary, or if it is regarded as necessary by other Members of the Panel, we have not had the opportunity to decide about this, but it is not strange for me that during a hearing much more information is conveyed than what can be conveyed by means of an application. There have been applications which have contained just about no information, which we have heard, about which the details have been provided to us during hearings.

Of course a client is open to criticism because he may not have made a full disclosure initially and is only disclosing all information at a later date during the hearing, therefore the client is open to criticism and that criticism will be expressed to you, but that you are granted the opportunity to supplement what you have said on previous occasions, and I myself would not dispute that.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Chairperson, perhaps I could then cut this short by simply asking Mr de Kock out of how many volumes his amnesty application exists.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I think it is five or six volumes.

MR HATTINGH: Five to six thick volumes which are this high.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And was Mr Hugo, my instructing attorney the one who assisted you in the compilation of these statements?

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And this had to take place under the circumstances that I have just sketched?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And how long before the cutoff date was your application submitted?

MR DE KOCK: I think it was 10 to 15 minutes before the time.

MR HATTINGH: Before midnight of the date of cutoff?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And did you have the opportunity to deal thoroughly with every incident within the comprehensive number of incidents that you have participated in?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: If we take the Nelspruit incident for example, your entire statement regarding the Nelspruit incident consists of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5, 7 pages. Is that in any way a sufficient version of the incident according to you?

MR DE KOCK: No, as with other incidents, the statement is not sufficient.

MR HATTINGH: Very well, let us deal with singular other general aspects.

MR DE KOCK: I would just like to state something with regard to Correctional Services circumstances. All of you and the public know about the overpopulation within the prisons system, there is nothing that they can do about it. I would just like to place this in the correct light.

MR HATTINGH: No, I understand what you have said, and which we say is not intended as any form of criticism against Correctional Services. We understand the problems that they experience. Is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Perhaps I should just begin with the way the cross-examination commenced, we might have to jump around somewhat, but these are my notes. You were asked why it was necessary to blow up Mr Tiso Leballo's body with explosives, what was your reason for that?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, this was a situation which had originated previously, as I have said with ...(intervention)

MR HATTINGH: Yes, but what was the purpose, what did you want to achieve by that?

MR DE KOCK: So that this person could never again be traced anywhere.

MR HATTINGH: Yes. To prevent any connection between you and him.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Then with regard to the switch-over of Vlakplaas to crime investigation, did you have a large arsenal of weapons?

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Weapons which not ordinarily be used in the prevention of crime?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Such as?

MR HATTINGH: Chairperson, among others, mortars, grenade launchers, we also had rocket launchers, RPG7 launchers, gun-grenades, handgrenades, we had silent weapons, we had silencers.

MR HATTINGH: And this fact was well-known to head office?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And were you asked to distance yourself from these weapons because you were going to be involved in ordinary crime investigation, as it is alleged?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Were the commanders, such as Gen Engelbrecht and even other members of the Generals-in-staff, aware that you still continued with your task as it was before the unbanning of the ANC?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, they were thoroughly aware of this.

MR HATTINGH: For example, you were involved in the death of Goodwill Sikhakane.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: This is after the exposure of Operation Vula.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Did this have any connection with the exposure of Operation Vula?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, direct.

MR HATTINGH: And so also you were involved in the attacks on the Chand residence in Botswana.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And that was also after the unbanning of the ANC?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And who gave you the order to launch that attack?

MR DE KOCK: Gen Nick van Rensburg and Gen Engelbrecht.

MR HATTINGH: And it was a completely political operation.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And did you and your members still regard it as such, that you were still supposed to fulfil the role that you had played previously?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, all the way.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. As I have said, I will jump around somewhat. The reasons for your discharge from the South African Police, are extensively put on page 85 and further, am I correct?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: I'm not going to deal with that any further, it is on record and you have already confirmed it.

With regard to the remuneration or payment to members, is it correct that in other branches of the police, police members would sometimes receive monetary bonuses?

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Was any provision made for such bonuses for you, any official provision?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And the work which these men did, was it always work that was performed within the framework of the law?

MR DE KOCK: No, usually beyond the framework of the law.

MR HATTINGH: Were they exposed to any risk factors?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And with regard to the nature of the operations as such, were they ever exposed to any kind of danger?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, phenomenally.

MR HATTINGH: And you have already stated that it demanded long hours from them and also exposed them to certain depravations.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And is that the reason why you felt that sometimes they should be given extra money?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Now to come to the Nelspruit incident. You only authorised those members who were involved in the killing of Tiso, to institute extra claims.

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: But with regard to you and the other members who were involved only in the Nelspruit incident, you did not authorise any such claims.

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: The statements which were put to you about the Witbank incident and the robbery which took place there, along with the death of the woman who was shot dead during that incident, you will recall that there was cross-examination about this during the criminal trial by me.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And you will recall that - it is on record, that we managed to get hold of the investigating officer of that matter and that the suspects in that case were not the suspects who were involved in the Nelspruit incident?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Let us deal with Gen Engelbrecht. Your credibility has been doubted as a result of his cross-examination and statements and so forth. Did Gen Engelbrecht, with regard to any of these investigations, as a result of which he has been incriminated, ever give evidence?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Did he just submit an affidavit every time?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And we know that paper if patient.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Can you recall that when you gave evidence before the Goldstone Commission, that you were asked whether you had any tapping devices on you.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, I know that some of my members were fitted.

MR HATTINGH: Were you also searched for any such devices?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: But some of your members were searched by members of the Goldstone Commission, in order to determine whether or not they were fitted with tapping devices.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Did Gen Engelbrecht also give evidence before the Commission?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Do you know whether or not he was fitted with any tapping device?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, it came to my knowledge that he had a briefcase with a built-in concealed tape recorder, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Is that the type of briefcase which would have been developed or prepared by Wal du Toit's Technical Division?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: How does it look?

MR DE KOCK: Like a usual briefcase and it is activated - if I am correct, it is activated by means of a switch which is fitted on the inside of the handle of the case.

MR HATTINGH: And then a recording of the proceedings would be made without anybody else being aware of such a recording.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Do you know whether a transcript was ever made of such a recording?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, I heard something like that.

MR HATTINGH: And do you know that the Goldstone Commission refused to give us any access to the record of his proceedings?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And that there was also a refusal to make that record available to us for the purposes of your trial.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And that we had to apply to Judge van der Merwe on the basis of the Constitution and that this application was opposed, but that we finally succeeded in our application.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Much was put to you about the information note which was submitted in terms of this incident, can you recall the evidence of Mr van der Merwe when he gave evidence recently during the Zero Zero handgrenade incident hearing?

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Can you recall that I cross-examined him about which information would be contained within such an information note and which information would not be contained in such a note?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Can you recall what I said to him when I asked him whether or not it was the policy with criminal activities in which the police was involved with, such as the Khotso House incident, was it ever the practice to submit reports about this?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, I remember that you asked him and his answer was "Absolutely not".

MR HATTINGH: Would you in a written report regarding an incident that you had been involved in which was unlawful, in other words a criminal action which took place with our without their authorisation and permission, would you have compiled a thorough report about this for them?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: You have been referred to the affidavit of, among others Mr Swart, regarding the issue of the switch-over of Vlakplaas to crime investigation, in which he does not mention the fact that you would still be involved in that which you had been busy with previously.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Was Mr Swart involved in the killing of Mr Goodwill Sikhakane?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, he was.

MR HATTINGH: Who in turn threatened to expose the death of Mr Selas Ndaba Shabalala.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: What was his rank by the way? What was Mr Swart's rank at the time of this incident?

MR DE KOCK: I think he was either a Constable or a Sergeant, one of the two.

MR HATTINGH: Therefore he was one of the most junior members of Vlakplaas?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And when the ANC was unbanned, were there still askaris, in the sense that they were not appointed as members of the South African Police?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, there were.

MR HATTINGH: And were those askaris then removed from you?

MR DE KOCK: No, later they were appointed as policemen after the course was completed at Hammanskraal.

MR HATTINGH: Thus you were still working with people who were not policemen.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Upon various occasions you were examined about whether you verified the information which was provided to you by the source, was it always possible to verify such information from a source?

MR DE KOCK: No, it wasn't.

MR HATTINGH: If for example, you had to verify whether these members were indeed ANC members, what would you have been able to do in order to verify this information?

MR DE KOCK: I would have to do the impossible, and that would be to infiltrate another person with Mrs Mandela, who could then liaise with Tiso and develop a connection, and I don't think that that would have been possible.

MR HATTINGH: You have already given evidence that Mr van Zyl upon various occasions, provided information which led to action and successful action at that.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Was there any reason for you to doubt the information that he provided to you in this regard?

MR DE KOCK: No, not at all.

MR HATTINGH: For some or other reason you were questioned - I don't know if there will be any argument about this, but I will just put it to you, this is with regard to the members of Vlakplaas who testified against you during your criminal trial, how do you feel about this. I think that the innuendo was that there is a feeling of apathy towards them because they testified against you, do you remember something in this regard?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Did any of them approach you before they approached the State and offered to testify against you?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, some of them approached me and said that they would not testify, or asked wether they should testify and I said "Yes, go ahead, give evidence, don't find yourself in the same position that I am in." And among others, I also requested that all the black members who were also involved or may have been involved, accompany them to the A-G to make statements.

MR HATTINGH: Ironically enough, none of the black members who were involved with you gave evidence against you ultimately.

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Do you know that a tremendous amount of pressure was placed on Mr Radebe and Mr Sefade, who were also involved in this incident, to testify against you and that it was necessary for us to make an application against this?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR FRANCIS: Again I'm not so sure what the relevancy is about what pressure I think was brought to bear on the black members of the Force. It dmdn't clearly I think, come out during cross-examination, so I'm not so sure where we're heading to.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: I will not take it any further, Chairperson. As I have said, he was examined about it and I don't know what the relevance of it was and I don't know if there will be any argument about it, that is why I'm re-examining about it. But I won't take it any further.

Now with regard to the minibus, you stated that the hotel was sequested, and I assume that you are a lay person when it comes to the law, and ultimately it emerged that the minibus did not belong to Mr Oragio, that it actually belonged to the company which owned the hotel.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And that the company itself was liquidated and not sequested as you put it.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, very well.

MR HATTINGH: And there was a liquidator.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And any earning from an insurance claim had to go straight to the liquidator.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And if you wanted to assist Mr Oragio, if it was in any way possible for the money to reach him, I don't know how, but nonetheless if you wanted to help him to institute an insurance claim, was there any other way in which you could have made the minibus disappear or anything like that?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, I'm sure that 10 to 15 kilometres from there one could have left the minibus in a mine heap and left it to burn out.

MR HATTINGH: And that would have cause much less problems for you?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: You have already stated this, but just for the sake of clarity on the record, before you completed your amnesty applications you were aware what the amnesty applications of the other members involved.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Most of them, if not all of them, testified against you or made statements on the basis that they might testify against you if they were offered 205 indemnity.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And those statements were placed at our disposal for the purposes of your trial.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: It was put to you why false names were used, and I think that you mentioned the reason why. At the Malelane Lodge were you provided with false identities documents?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, a passport, a cheque book and everything else.

MR HATTINGH: Including a credit card.

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: With the full knowledge and authorisation of head office.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, written authorisation.

MR HATTINGH: And did you work under that cover quite often?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, especially when it came to weapons smugglers. One day - or at least you could not arrive there one day as Mr de Kock and the next day as Mr van Zyl, because one wouldn't know whether there were family or friends of these persons in the vicinity.

MR HATTINGH: I don't think that you have answered this question, let us just make sure. You said the operation at Nelspruit was a bona fide police action, what do you mean by that?

MR DE KOCK: Let me define it as such, it was not bona fide in the sense that it fulfilled to all the prerequisites of the law, it was bona fide in that we acted within our mandate as Vlakplaas with regard to our counter-terrorism actions, both internally and externally. In other words, Khotso House for example, was a bona fide police action in my opinion, the same as the attacks in Botswana and Lesotho. And that is the opinion of it.

MR HATTINGH: You were cross-examined, and this wasn't the first time, various times you were cross-examined according to this line, that upon various occasions during the past you committed perjury, that you are a liar and that you have succeeded in misleading commanders or chairpersons with the lies that you have told.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: In the course of your criminal trial with regard to the Motherwell case, did you give evidence against any of your former colleagues?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: That was at a stage when the evidence was closed on both sides and it was only necessary to do argument still.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And the general expectation was that there would be a discharge.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Is that why you were approached to give evidence?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Did you then give evidence?

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Were you examined by Mr de Bruin on behalf of the accused in the matters, in the same line as Mr Francis has examined you, saying that you have lied, you have told fabrications here and there and so forth?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, it was basically the same gist, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And was your evidence accepted?

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And your former colleagues were found guilty.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: You also gave evidence in the case against the former State President, P W Botha.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Were you also examined according to the same lines?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And was your evidence accepted during that matter?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: However, the appeal succeeded on a technical point later, not so?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: With regard to the issue of orders, you say that Holtzhausen provided the information to you, and I'm not certain or not whether there was a plan at that stage, but you gave him the order or told him or gave him the approval to go forth with the planning.

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Would that have been an order to him?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And there was also a list of names which was given to you.

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And you changed some of the names on the list.

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And those names which remained, if Holtzhausen were to approach them and say that you were supposed to do this, it would be in terms of your order.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: The Carousel incident and the Coin Security company incident, were you involved in the planning of these incidents?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Were you involved in any way in the execution of these operations?

MR DE KOCK: No.

MR HATTINGH: Therefore it wasn't strange for you to leave such operations to your subordinates?

MR DE KOCK: No, there were various operations under way at that stage.

MR HATTINGH: Not only with regard to planning, but also with regard to execution.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And it was put to you that it is strange that the Coin - that the minibus of Mr Oragio was not used during Coin Security company incident. Was it necessary to have a vehicle for the purposes of that planning?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, I did not receive any request.

MR HATTINGH: What was the plan, the men were apprehended in the building itself.

MR DE KOCK: As I've said, I was not involved in the planning itself, I never received such a request.

MR HATTINGH: You were cross-examined about the question of whether you possibly may have attempted to obtain authorisation for the killing of these persons at Nelspruit in order to protect Mr van Zyl, do you recall this cross-examination?

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: During the planning, insofar as you may have been involved in it, what was the intention, was it the intention to arrest or kill these persons?

MR DE KOCK: No, from the very beginning it was to kill them.

MR HATTINGH: And was it necessary to obtain the authorisation or approval to kill them in order to protect Mr van Zyl if he knew that they were going to be killed?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: You were also examined about the book and this book you say was compiled with regard to your amnesty application.

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Were you given the opportunity to study this in order to verify the correctness before it was published?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: The hand-made shotguns, as you have described them it would appear that it is a crude style of weapon, is that correct, or was it a properly manufactured weapon?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, the impression that it was supposed to create was that is was home-made crude, but the handiwork on it was very good, it was first-class.

MR HATTINGH: Who manufactured it, or what was the qualification of the person who did it?

MR DE KOCK: He was a qualified engineer and then two of my persons assisted.

MR HATTINGH: You were asked why Klopper would state fabrications about you which could prejudice you and you've already stated that there were problems between you and Klopper. These were serious problems, not so?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Upon two occasions you physically assaulted him.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: I will not elaborate on the reasons for that, but did this discord which existed between you and the last assault lead to his request to be transferred from Vlakplaas?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, there wasn't any room for him anymore.

MR HATTINGH: Did you tell him that?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: This was after the last time that you assaulted him?

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And without too much detail, the last assault, did that have to do with, with what?

MR DE KOCK: He was meddling with the female personnel.

MR HATTINGH: And you did not allow that.

MR DE KOCK: No.

MR HATTINGH: You know that during your trial, he was cross-examined on the basis that serious crimes against him were being investigated and that it was expected that he would be arrested and that this was one of the reasons why he went to the Goldstone Commission, in order to expose information, in order to protect himself basically.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: You also know that it emerged during his trial that he received R90 000, due to the fact that he gave evidence before the Goldstone Commission.

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And you still do not know to this day who gave him this money?

MR DE KOCK: No.

MR HATTINGH: You were examined about the information regarding drugs and that Tiso might have been involved in drugs. You said that it is possible that it was mentioned to you, but do you have any clear recollection that it was ever put to you or said to you?

MR DE KOCK: No, not that I can recall immediately.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you Chairperson, nothing further.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HATTINGH

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Hattingh.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I just have a request. Since 1997, when I gave evidence at Motherwell for the first time - and this was actually supposed to be part of my evidence-in-chief, I would like to say that I take responsibility for myself and my actions as well as my omissions, along with the actions of all my members from Vlakplaas who were under my command, as well as those members who were co-opted by us. I do this in every case. In this case it has just been something that I omitted to do.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that for you and your subordinates?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, for myself, my own omissions and offences, as well as those of my subordinates and the others who were co-opted to act with us.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr de Kock, you are excused.

MR FRANCIS: Mr Chairperson, sorry. I, I think during cross-examination had put something to Mr de Kock about the monies that were paid into Oragio's bank account and I think I'd also mentioned I think, that an amount was withdrawn. I didn't mention how much was in fact withdrawn. I've now found I think the passage in this book. I think it was quite important I think for me just to put it to him quite fully as to what appeared in this book.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you want to put the details of the banking transactions?

MR FRANCIS: Just as to how much the insurance company had paid out, how much was put into Oragio's bank account and how much was withdrawn thereafter.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR FRANCIS: I dealt with this I think in cross-examination, but not fully.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you did, you made a general reference to that.

Mr Hattingh, is this in dispute? ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR HATTINGH: Chairperson, to tell the truth I cannot recall whether or not there was any dispute about this. I can't recall the evidence. I haven't the opportunity to consult the record. I know that Mr Ackerman put such questions during the trial and that I objected to it, I objected to Mr Ackerman's questions because he cross-examined him and with all respect to the Judge, he perpetuated the cross-examination.

ADV DE JAGER: I beg your pardon, but I think that what he wants to put to you, if I understand correctly, is an extract from Mr de Kock's book, from which it appears that there is information and he wants to put the information that is contained within the book to Mr de Kock.

CHAIRPERSON: That is to supplement the general statement which was made.

MR HATTINGH: I don't know whether that is in dispute, perhaps he should just put it and then Mr de Kock can deal with it, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well. Mr de Kock, will you just listen to the aspects that Mr Francis wants to refer to, with regard to the transactions and the bank account of this friend of yours?

MR DE KOCK: Very well.

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR FRANCIS: Mr de Kock, I would like you to look at page 229 of your book, and that's the second-last paragraph appearing on 229. The following appears

"He said that the minibus ..."

That's now Oragio.

"... had been insured for R26 000 and IGI Insurance paid out R17 000 into the business account of the Riebeeck Hotel. He said he had not benefitted from the insurance pay-out."

The next paragraph:

"Bank records at Court showed that three days after the R17 000 had been deposited, a cheque of R14 000 had been drawn from the account. Oragio said he did not know who the cheque was made out to or who had received it."

Do you recall that evidence?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, I have a vague recollection that there was an explanation which was requested by the Judge.

MR FRANCIS: I think that's the only point that I wanted to put to him.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR FRANCIS

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, Mr Francis. Yes Mr Hattingh, I don't know if anything arises from that that you want to deal with.

MR HATTINGH: No thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr de Kock, you are now excused.

MR DE KOCK: Thank you, Chairperson.

WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: Very well. Ms Patel, who is next?

MS PATEL: I believe ...(intervention)

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, one of my clients, Mr Gouws, is the following witness. Before we arrive at his evidence, may I just place something on record. I have not been able to consult with Mr Klopper because of his position, not because of my unavailability. As such I could not verify certain things which appear in his statement, specifically his statements which were placed before Judge Goldstone and insofar as it involves Mr de Kock's position, but I accept it and I place it on record in case he would come and testify and it is put that it was not put.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR LAMEY: I think his evidence during the de Kock hearing was to the knowledge of Mr de Kock. I would just like to mention it.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that it was impossible for you to ...(intervention)

MR LAMEY: ...(indistinct) that that is his recollection with regard to that aspect.

ADV DE JAGER: Why can Klopper not be present at the hearing, thusfar?

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, I would have to receive clear instructions, and there are other reasons which are relevant. I will address the Committee - I would like to address the Committee in chambers.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we take not of what you've said, that it may be that of these aspects to which you do not have complete instructions.

MR LAMEY: As it pleases you.

CHAIRPERSON: Is this Mr Gouws?

MR LAMEY: This is Mr Gouws.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well.

MR LAMEY: Mr Chairperson, something else. During the examination of Mr Nortje, and the record was only placed during his cross-examination. Strictly speaking it is different with regard to the agreement with regard to representation. It leads to the unfortunate situation that as we had with Mr Nortje, that a witness is confronted with a part during cross-examination and then we have to go and look and see where it was taken from the context. I would like to place a request to the other representatives, through the Chair, as to where they - the potential exists to use documentation to put things to the witness, that they do it timeously so that we can receive instructions and the witness can have a look at it and that we not do it in such a fashion.

CHAIRPERSON: Indeed, that is the spirit that we would wish these proceedings to be conducted in. So you know, you've heard what Mr Lamey has said. It's a fair request, so if possible, please would you comply. But in the meantime we will listen to what Mr Gouws has to say.