CHAIRPERSON: Mr Cornelius?
MR CORNELIUS: Thank you Mr Chairman, I call Jannie Hanekom.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hanekom, please give your full names for the record please?
MR HANEKOM: Johannes Hendrik Petrus Hanekom.
JOHANNES HENDRIK PETRUS HANEKOM: (sworn states)
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, please be seated. Mr Cornelius?
EXAMINATION BY MR CORNELIUS: Thank you Mr Chairperson.
Mr Hanekom, you have prepared your application, it is properly filed at Cape Town and you have given your full co-operation with the Investigating Officer of the TRC?
MR HANEKOM: That is correct.
MR CORNELIUS: You worked for the South African Police during that time, as in Section 20(2)(a) and (f) of Act 34 of 1995?
MR HANEKOM: That is correct.
MR CORNELIUS: You were part of Section C1, that is Vlakplaas and the activities appear from the two additional Bundles provided to the Committee?
MR HANEKOM: That is correct yes.
MR CORNELIUS: You confirm the contents of your amnesty application as reflected on page 159 to page 167 of the Bundle before this Committee, is that correct?
MR HANEKOM: Yes.
MR CORNELIUS: At all times, you followed the instructions of Eugene de Kock and you operated on a need to know basis?
MR HANEKOM: That is correct.
MR CORNELIUS: According to you, you acted according to the conditions of your service in the execution of your service?
MR HANEKOM: Yes.
MR CORNELIUS: You were arrested at Nelspruit for this incident, you were detained and then released?
MR HANEKOM: That is correct.
MR CORNELIUS: Did you testify against de Kock at some or other stage?
MR HANEKOM: I never testified against him.
MR CORNELIUS: It is common cause, many of these facts, but you also received instructions to go to the Drum Rock Hotel and you then went to the scene under the bridge at the Khanyamazaan Road?
MR HANEKOM: That is correct.
MR CORNELIUS: Where did you take up your position?
MR HANEKOM: I was standing underneath the bridge with all the members, I was near Blackie Swart and Chappie Klopper.
MR CORNELIUS: Blackie Swart?
MR HANEKOM: That is correct.
MR CORNELIUS: Which weapon did you carry?
MR HANEKOM: I used an R5 rifle.
MR CORNELIUS: How many magazines did you have?
MR HANEKOM: I had one magazine.
MR CORNELIUS: What were your instructions?
MR HANEKOM: My instruction was that a BMW vehicle and a mini-bus would drive underneath the bridge, Dougie and Deon Gouws was against the ridge and they would fire certain shots and then we had to start firing.
MR CORNELIUS: Who were these people in the bus?
MR HANEKOM: According to me they were robbers who were involved in ANC activities.
MR CORNELIUS: I see. What happened then? Was a shot given and did you fire shots?
MR HANEKOM: I fired a few shots and then my R5 rifle jammed. The bus had not come to a standstill and I took my 9mm pistol and fired in the direction of the bus.
MR CORNELIUS: Did you participate in the planning of this action?
MR HANEKOM: Not at all.
MR CORNELIUS: You just followed instructions?
MR HANEKOM: Yes, I just followed instructions.
MR CORNELIUS: Did you believe that the people in the bus were armed?
MR HANEKOM: Yes, I believed they would be armed.
MR CORNELIUS: Did you think they were activists or not?
MR HANEKOM: Yes, I drew the inference that they were activists.
MR CORNELIUS: Who provided you with this information? Who was in charge of the operation?
MR HANEKOM: It was Dougie Holtzhausen. I knew that he co-operated closely with Ben van Zyl, the informer in this matter.
MR CORNELIUS: And Chris Geldenhuys?
MR HANEKOM: Chris Geldenhuys was the senior officer, the Captain, so he was responsible for this whole scene.
MR CORNELIUS: Very well, after the bus had come to a standstill, did you go to the bus?
MR HANEKOM: No, I did not move nearer to the bus.
MR CORNELIUS: Did you see the bus catch fire or did you hear the explosion?
MR HANEKOM: A while after it had come to a standstill, I heard explosions and I saw it burning.
MR CORNELIUS: Do you know who was responsible for the fire and for the explosions?
MR HANEKOM: No, I wasn't near there.
MR CORNELIUS: Were you there when Tiso was arrested or did you go near him at some or other stage?
MR HANEKOM: I had no contact with Tiso.
MR CORNELIUS: You mention on page 166
"... I did not know beforehand who the people in the bus would be and it was told to me that they were ANC members who were robbers to find money for the organisation."
MR HANEKOM: That is correct yes.
MR CORNELIUS: And later on you heard that somebody was murdered at Penge Mine?
MR HANEKOM: That is correct.
MR CORNELIUS: Did you receive compensation for your activities there?
MR HANEKOM: No, I received no compensation.
MR CORNELIUS: Did you commit these offences to receive compensation?
MR HANEKOM: No, not at all.
MR CORNELIUS: Did you feel revenge, did you hate the people in the bus?
MR HANEKOM: No Mr Chairman.
MR CORNELIUS: You request that this Amnesty Committee according to Section 20, grants you amnesty on four counts of murder?
MR HANEKOM: That is correct Mr Chairperson.
MR CORNELIUS: And also for statutory perjury?
MR HANEKOM: That is correct.
MR CORNELIUS: And for defeating the ends of justice?
MR HANEKOM: That is correct.
MR CORNELIUS: Did you make a statement to Engelbrecht or was a statement presented to you?
MR HANEKOM: A statement was presented to me which I had to sign.
MR CORNELIUS: Was it the truth in the statement?
MR HANEKOM: No, it was not the truth.
MR CORNELIUS: This statement wanted to create the impression that this was a police action and that shots were fired at you and you had to act in self-defence?
MR HANEKOM: That is correct.
MR CORNELIUS: And those were wrong facts?
MR HANEKOM: That is correct.
MR CORNELIUS: Thank you Mr Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CORNELIUS
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Cornelius. Mr Hattingh?
MR HATTINGH: No questions, thank you.
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Thank you Mr Chairperson. Were you a State witness in the de Kock trial?
MR HANEKOM: No.
MR LAMEY: Would you have been a State witness, did you make your statements for that purpose?
MR HANEKOM: I made no statements. And as it was told to me that there were enough witnesses in Mr de Kock's trial.
MR LAMEY: You possibly would have given evidence, but you did not or don't you know?
MR HANEKOM: I don't know if I would have given evidence.
MR LAMEY: Did you attend the trial?
MR HANEKOM: Now and then yes.
MR LAMEY: This appendix, was this taken by Mr Holmes?
MR HANEKOM: This was my handwriting, Captain Holmes prescribed what I had to say, Captain Holmes.
MR LAMEY: Addendum A, the typed version? It is on page 165 to 167?
MR HANEKOM: I see that.
MR LAMEY: Is that correct, this is the addendum incorporated in your amnesty application?
MR HANEKOM: I see that.
MR LAMEY: So you used this to hand in with your amnesty application?
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Lamey, the amnesty application is the same date. This is not a previous statement, this is a statement attached to the amnesty application.
MR LAMEY: The initial written part of the amnesty application forms part of the amnesty application and it was signed on the same date and it was part of the amnesty application?
MR HANEKOM: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: In paragraph 2.8 you say
"... they were people from the ANC robbing banks to obtain money for the ANC."
This was how it was conveyed to Holmes in 1996?
MR HANEKOM: Yes, he put it in that way.
MR LAMEY: Did you put it in this way or did he? Look at paragraph 2.8, 2.8 on page 166.
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Hanekom, who compiled your statement, who assisted you with your amnesty application? Forget about the statement, who assisted you with your amnesty application?
MR HANEKOM: It was Capt Holmes.
ADV DE JAGER: Who is Capt Holmes?
MR HANEKOM: He is one of the Attorney-General's Investigative Team from Pretoria.
MR LAMEY: Mr Hanekom, just look at paragraph 2.8.
MR HANEKOM: I see the paragraph.
MR LAMEY: Did you read that?
MR HANEKOM: Yes.
MR LAMEY: Did you tell Capt Holmes that?
MR HANEKOM: Yes, this was how I put it to Capt Holmes.
MR LAMEY: And this statement was also signed to be incorporated in your amnesty application?
MR HANEKOM: That is correct, yes.
MR LAMEY: Paragraph 10(a) you say
"... during de Kock's trial it was mentioned that Ben van Zyl gave false information."
What do you mean by that?
MR HANEKOM: It was one of the times that I appeared in the High Court in connection with de Kock's trial and the evidence which was given there, that Ben van Zyl tried to cover up some of the true facts he had.
MR LAMEY: To whose evidence were you listening at the trial?
MR HANEKOM: I can't remember specifically which evidence.
MR LAMEY: Were you listening to Mr van Zyl's evidence?
MR HANEKOM: It could possibly have been with the questioning of the witnesses or with Mr van Zyl, I don't know specifically which one.
MR LAMEY: Where did you get the impression that Mr Ben van Zyl gave false evidence?
MR HANEKOM: The fact that later on, the true facts came to the fore and that I was arrested and that I was accused of murder, and that indicated that the information was false.
MR LAMEY: I do not understand, what do you mean by that?
MR HANEKOM: This statement was made in 1996, and since 1992 I realised that somewhere in this line of events, something was not the truth.
MR LAMEY: In which respect?
MR HANEKOM: The fact that I was arrested.
MR LAMEY: When were you arrested?
MR HANEKOM: On the 4th of May 1994.
MR LAMEY: Before the de Kock trial?
MR HANEKOM: Yes, that is correct.
MR LAMEY: But what was not the truth, what was not the truth about you being arrested?
MR HANEKOM: The fact that two weapons were placed in the mini-bus and that the mini-bus was put on fire, and that it did not explode all by itself.
MR LAMEY: Are you under the impression that it exploded all by itself?
MR HANEKOM: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: So in other words that weapons were planted in the bus and the bus exploded by itself, did that bring you under the impression that it was false evidence?
MR HANEKOM: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: Is that why you are saying that?
MR HANEKOM: Yes, that is correct.
MR LAMEY: But you did not hear Mr van Zyl's evidence and you can't comment on that and the Court found him to be a reliable witness and awarded him Section 204, would you accept that?
MR HANEKOM: I accept that.
MR LAMEY: Thank you Mr Chairperson, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Lamey. Mr van den Berg?
MR VAN DEN BERG: Chairperson, I don't have any questions.
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DEN BERG
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr van den Berg. Mr Francis?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR FRANCIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. You are saying that later you discovered that Ben van
Zyl had given you incorrect information about the robbers, is that correct?
MR HANEKOM: No Mr Chairman, I received no information from Ben van Zyl at any stage.
MR FRANCIS: If one turns to page 161, paragraph 10(a) ...
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, he says that van Zyl gave wrong information to the police, the SAP, not to himself.
MR FRANCIS: Let me rather rephrase it, did you later discover that Ben van Zyl gave wrong information to the South African Police, is that correct?
MR HANEKOM: That is correct Mr Chairman.
MR FRANCIS: If you knew that the robbers were out to rob for themselves, would you have taken part in the operation?
MR HANEKOM: No, I would not have taken part.
MR FRANCIS: Am I then correct that you and the other junior officers were misled about the true nature of the operation?
MR HANEKOM: I would say so, yes.
MR FRANCIS: Am I also correct that the role of Vlakplaas did in fact change since 1990 after the ANC was unbanned? They had to become, they had to investigate I think crime, just general crime, is that correct?
MR HANEKOM: That is correct yes, we had to investigate serious crimes.
MR FRANCIS: And the role of Vlakplaas was not to shoot down or to ambush robbers who were out to rob for themselves? Is that correct?
MR HANEKOM: The role of Vlakplaas continued as previously Chairperson.
MR FRANCIS: Was that because someone in a much more senior position than Mr de Kock, had said that the role of Vlakplaas could go on or was it really because Mr de Kock and his comrades decided to continue with that role?
MR HANEKOM: No, nobody gave me any other explanation about the different role for Vlakplaas.
MR FRANCIS: We have seen affidavits from, that was given by Mr Geldenhuys, or I think it is not Geldenhuys, Engelbrecht, even Mr Geldenhuys I think deposed to an affidavit at the trial that the role of Vlakplaas did in fact change in 1990 and they had to assist I think other units of the police.
MR HANEKOM: Yes, that also happened.
MR FRANCIS: Did you know who the occupants of this mini-bus was?
MR HANEKOM: I did not know who they were.
MR FRANCIS: When you went down to Nelspruit, what did you know about the occupants of this kombi?
MR HANEKOM: I knew very well that an illegal action would take place in the form of a robbery.
MR FRANCIS: Am I correct that you only knew that there was a bunch of robbers who wanted to rob, is that the only information that you got?
MR HANEKOM: That was the information I got and that some of these people were ANC members.
MR FRANCIS: Were you told how many of them were members of the ANC?
MR HANEKOM: I am not able to say one or two, but I knew that three of these people, of the occupants, were ANC members.
MR FRANCIS: If you say would be, am I correct in saying that you were not so sure, that they could have been ANC members, but you were not so sure about that?
MR HANEKOM: I knew that one person definitely was an ANC member.
MR FRANCIS: Who was that person?
MR HANEKOM: I did not know his name at that stage, I knew it was the person who would be the leader of this group.
MR FRANCIS: Did you know whether or not Mama, that is one of the occupants who got killed, was also, were you told that he was a member of the ANC?
MR HANEKOM: I never heard these people's names beforehand, I did not know their names.
MR FRANCIS: What was your rank at that time?
MR HANEKOM: I was a Sergeant Mr Chairman.
MR FRANCIS: And how long had you been with Vlakplaas?
MR HANEKOM: At that stage I had been there for two years.
MR FRANCIS: I think on page 166 of your affidavit, that is paragraph 2.8 you say
"... I did not know beforehand who the occupants of this bus were. I was told that they were members of the ANC who committed robberies to obtain funds for the organisation."
Were you told this after you were arrested and after the incident, that these people concerned were members of the ANC who wanted to rob on behalf of the ANC?
MR HANEKOM: I knew this before the incident.
MR FRANCIS: Who gave you this information?
MR HANEKOM: Dougie Holtzhausen and Willie Nortje gave me this information.
MR FRANCIS: When did you know that there was going to be this operation?
MR HANEKOM: A few days before this incident, I knew about that. I shared an office with Dougie Holtzhausen and Nortje, that is why I knew about that.
MR FRANCIS: Who told you about this?
MR HANEKOM: They did not tell me directly, I could infer that from the telephone conversations they made, etc, Mr Chairman.
MR FRANCIS: When were you told that you were going to become involved in this operation?
MR HANEKOM: It was about one day before the time, Dougie told me that I had to get ready and take clothes with for three days.
MR FRANCIS: Who did you go down with to Nelspruit?
MR HANEKOM: I went with Dougie and Willie in their vehicle.
MR FRANCIS: What vehicle were you driving?
MR HANEKOM: We used Willie's Toyota Cressida.
MR FRANCIS: And Dougie?
MR HANEKOM: Dougie accompanied us.
MR FRANCIS: Are you quite sure about that?
MR HANEKOM: I am sure about that Mr Chairman.
MR FRANCIS: So all three of you were together in one vehicle, is that what you are saying to us?
MR HANEKOM: That is correct.
MR FRANCIS: Because my recollection of Mr Nortje's evidence was that, and Holtzhausen I think they mentioned that they had taken I think a kombi, they travelled, they went down with a kombi to Nelspruit, up to a certain point where they left the kombi. You don't know about that?
MR HANEKOM: I don't know anything about the kombi.
MR FRANCIS: I think this kombi I think was, evidence was led that this kombi was stolen from a Mr Aragio in Springs?
CHAIRPERSON: But he knows nothing Mr Francis, he just said so.
MR FRANCIS: I will leave this for argument.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR FRANCIS: There is a discrepancy between the versions about that. What happened when you got to Nelspruit? Let me ask you this, so you left from Pretoria, went straight to Nelspruit, is that correct?
MR HANEKOM: That is correct.
MR FRANCIS: You didn't stop along the way, at no stage?
MR HANEKOM: We never stopped.
MR FRANCIS: What time did you get to Nelspruit?
MR HANEKOM: I can't remember the exact time, but it was in the afternoon.
MR FRANCIS: Did you meet Mr de Kock there?
MR HANEKOM: No, never.
MR FRANCIS: Did you at some stage meet in Mr Nortje's room in the hotel where certain planning, certain discussions took place?
MR HANEKOM: We went directly to the police station when we arrived in Nelspruit and from there we left for the hotel. Any planning which was done there, I was just involved in that for a short time.
MR FRANCIS: Were you in Mr Nortje's room when some planning took place about the incident?
MR HANEKOM: Not at all.
MR FRANCIS: You don't know if Mr de Kock was in Mr Nortje's room when some discussion took place around the planning?
MR HANEKOM: No, not at all.
MR FRANCIS: Did you know that the kombi was going to be burnt out?
MR HANEKOM: No, I did not know.
MR FRANCIS: Nortje didn't mention this to you, that the kombi was going to be burnt out?
MR HANEKOM: He never mentioned it to me.
MR FRANCIS: You didn't know that handgrenades were going to be planted in the vehicle?
MR HANEKOM: I didn't know anything about the handgrenades.
MR FRANCIS: And that the two AK47s were going to be put into the vehicle?
MR HANEKOM: On the scene, I later heard about the two AK47s.
MR FRANCIS: You say you later heard about this, was this before the AK47s were placed in the vehicle?
MR HANEKOM: Yes, it was a little before that.
MR FRANCIS: Who decided that the AKs will have to be put into the vehicle?
MR HANEKOM: I don't know who was responsible for placing the AK47s in the vehicle.
MR FRANCIS: Was Mr de Kock present at the scene?
MR HANEKOM: I never saw him on the scene.
MR FRANCIS: Never at all?
MR HANEKOM: After the shooting and the fire brigade and police arrived on the scene, I saw him there for the first time.
MR FRANCIS: Did you see a person I think who was flung out of the kombi on the left hand side of the kombi?
MR HANEKOM: No, I did not see a person falling out of the kombi.
MR FRANCIS: This is an amnesty application I think and you are saying that you did not see Mr de Kock before the shooting at the scene?
MR HANEKOM: That is correct, I did not see Mr de Kock on the scene.
MR FRANCIS: He testified and said that at one stage the shooting was so chaotic that he in fact got the members in a line and that the members then went forward, firing at this kombi. You didn't see this also?
MR HANEKOM: No, that was the reason because it was so chaotic, that I moved back to where the vehicles were parked.
MR FRANCIS: How many shots did you fire?
MR HANEKOM: The rounds fired, I did not shoot more than nine rounds.
MR FRANCIS: Is it also so that you later discovered that Mr Geldenhuys had made use of your firearm or your rifle?
MR HANEKOM: Yes, but on the scene itself, I used my own weapon. It was when we went back and when we replaced the equipment, that these weapons got mixed up.
MR FRANCIS: But you were firing with your firearm?
MR HANEKOM: That is correct yes.
MR FRANCIS: And you also testified that you were given an affidavit to sign after the event, I am not sure, some time after the event?
MR HANEKOM: That is correct.
MR FRANCIS: Did this happen with all the other applicants, were all of them just given affidavits to sign?
MR HANEKOM: I am not sure Mr Chairman, some people were involved in the planning and the writing down of the statements and some people just signed.
CHAIRPERSON: Don't speculate. Just testify what you yourself know, don't speculate.
MR HANEKOM: I just had to sign my affidavit.
MR FRANCIS: I think finally again you are saying that if you knew that, or that you were basically misled about the true nature of the event, is that correct?
MR HANEKOM: Yes, that is correct. I just followed instructions.
MR FRANCIS: And you would not have acted if you knew the true facts?
MR HANEKOM: I would not have acted.
MR FRANCIS: I've got no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR FRANCIS
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Francis. Ms Patel?
MS PATEL: I have no questions, thank you Honourable Chairperson.
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PATEL
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Panel?
MR SIBANYONI: I have no questions Mr Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Cornelius, re-examination?
FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Thank you Mr Chairperson, may I just ask a moment. About, that he was misled about the operation, came out only during the examination, it was quite something that I did not anticipate him to say. May I ask him just around this question?
ADV DE JAGER: Didn't you cross-examine him about van Zyl misleading?
MR LAMEY: Chairperson, I cross-examined him about van Zyl and his answer to that sort of set me at ease, laying now basis for that statement, but then he was asked by Mr Francis about the, it was put to him "you were misled about this entire operation", and then he gave an answer as to the whole, that he was misled throughout by everybody. This is what I understand about the operation.
CHAIRPERSON: You would like to clarify the answer around that?
MR LAMEY: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, just go ahead.
MR LAMEY: Thank you. Mr Hanekom, if you say that you were misled about this operation, what do you mean by that?
MR HANEKOM: Just that I did not really know what the true facts were around this.
MR LAMEY: In other words you did not know everything that would happen?
MR HANEKOM: That is correct yes. I did not know everything.
MR LAMEY: If you talk about misleading, then you are once again referring to the planing of the AKs and then setting alight of the van?
MR HANEKOM: That is correct Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: The misleading in this case does not refer to that you really beforehand understood that these people are prevented from executing a robbery, to be able to get funds for the ANC? That was not part of the misleading?
MR HANEKOM: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: Because I would just like to comment that concerning this, if you could just look at page 161, is this your personal handwriting?
MR HANEKOM: Yes, that is my own handwriting.
MR LAMEY: Under 10(a) where you say
"... prevent people from executing a robbery to be able to gain funds for the ANC,",
is this your own handwriting and you had this information before your involvement with this incident?
MR HANEKOM: That is correct. I did have this information.
MR LAMEY: Thank you Mr Chairperson, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Lamey. Mr Cornelius, any re-examination?
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR CORNELIUS: Just one question Mr Chairperson. Mr Hanekom, you also worked on a need to know basis, you just executed your instructions, but you said that you had a political conviction, is that correct?
MR HANEKOM: That is correct, yes.
MR CORNELIUS: Thank you Mr Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CORNELIUS
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Cornelius.
CHAIRPERSON: We will take the tea adjournment and we will reconvene in 15 minutes' time, at 11H35.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Cornelius, who is next?
MR CORNELIUS: May Mr Hanekom be excused from further attendance, Mr Chairman?
CHAIRPERSON: Oh, we haven't excused him. You are excused, thank you.
WITNESS EXCUSED
