Amnesty Hearings

MR SIBANYONI: Your full names please.

WYBRAND ANDREAS LODEWIKUS DU TOIT: (sworn states)

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you, you may be seated.

EXAMINATION BY MR BOOYENS: Thank you, Chairperson.

Mr du Toit, you have bundle 1 before you, please proceed to page 129. Mr du Toit, just for the sake of background, you yourself compiled your amnesty application without the assistance of a legal representative.

MR DU TOIT: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: And did you simply do this as you thought they would like to have it done?

MR DU TOIT: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: There have been a number of occasions that you have testified before the Chairperson himself particularly, and this section from page 129 to page 158, is the basic background that you have incorporated in all your amnesty applications.

MR DU TOIT: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: And you confirm this as correct.

MR DU TOIT: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Then on page 159 up to and including page 164, you once again deal with your background in a more compact manner.

MR DU TOIT: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: And then on page 164, you deal with the Dirk Coetzee matter and the Bheki Mlangeni matter which forms the subject of this particular amnesty application.

MR DU TOIT: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: On page 165, you describe that during May 1990, Lt Col de Kock came to you to discuss a certain matter with you, is that correct?

MR DU TOIT: Yes.

MR BOOYENS: Basically speaking, what did he tell you?

MR DU TOIT: He informed me that he had received an order to manufacture a parcel bomb which would be addressed to Dirk Coetzee, with the intention of killing him.

Furthermore, he elaborated on the background and stated that given the position which Dirk occupied within the ANC at that stage and in the light of what he had already said, this could cause great damage, not only in the present but in the future, for the Security Branch and the members of the Security Branch in their personal capacity, as well as the informers.

MR BOOYENS: Dirk Coetzee at that stage was quite notorious in the Security Branch, because this was after he had made certain revelations.

MR DU TOIT: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: And I think it was generally known that he had defected to the ANC camp.

MR DU TOIT: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Mr du Toit, if we could just deal very briefly with the background of the Technical Division. You had a technical intelligence gathering capacity by means of the tapping of telephones and so forth, but your division was not really occupied with the evaluation of intelligence or any such matters, is that correct?

MR DU TOIT: Yes, that is correct. Generally we established an infrastructure and brought it into operational execution.

MR BOOYENS: So you were not involved in the ...(indistinct) selection of targets or anything of that nature?

MR DU TOIT: No, not at all.

MR BOOYENS: You were basically a support section?

MR DU TOIT: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Now a number of questions have been posed about this. If one of the senior officers at the Technical Division - perhaps we could just deal with this very briefly, if you were a senior officer at the Technical Division, how would you describe that unit which resorted below you?

MR DU TOIT: We were known as the Mechanical Division, which dealt with tasks of a mechanical nature primarily. MR BOOYENS: Then there was also a section which was occupied with the tapping of telephones and the interception of faxes and such sort or things, I would assume.

MR DU TOIT: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: And how was this section known?

MR DU TOIT: Electronic Surveillance.

MR BOOYENS: That did not resort under you?

MR DU TOIT: No, Chairperson.

MR BOOYENS: Mr Helberg was involved or in charge of that.

MR DU TOIT: I think he may have been involved with that personally as a Commander at that stage.

MR BOOYENS: And the statement has already been put by me during consultation that Mr Helberg was the type of man who basically stuck to the rules. Would you agree with that?

MR DU TOIT: Yes, I would agree with that.

MR BOOYENS: Now perhaps you could briefly explain to the Committee. If someone in the Security Branch wanted to tap the telephone of somebody else with the insistence of Mr Helberg, just summarise for the Committee how this would have been executed.

MR DU TOIT: Chairperson, firstly I must state that I do not regard myself as an expert in that area because I did not deal with these matters in my personal capacity and I will just have to rely on my recollection and the small amount of knowledge or expose that I gained during the years. To the best of my knowledge, an applicant would have to submit a written application form which would then be submitted to the Postmaster-General for authorisation, but what the delegation period or limit was at head office, I don't know. It has been mentioned during other evidence that it had to be with the Commissioner or the Minister. I myself would doubt that to some extent, but it would be delegated to someone in head office. I would agree with that.

MR BOOYENS: And if such a delegation would then be approved, what would the mechanics of that be on ground level?

MR DU TOIT: Firstly, the Postmaster-General would then extend this authorisation to his own personnel within the framework of the post office, then the line would be made available to us and it would be executed by means of a link on the mainframe at Pretoria central, or the Pretoria central telephone exchange, which would then be sent through to Rebecca Street and we could undertake the tapping.

MR BOOYENS: And it would then be connected to a cassette recording machine which would be voice activated.

MR DU TOIT: No, not necessarily voice activated, but it would be automatic.

MR BOOYENS: So within your knowledge, was there any way in which Mr de Kock for example, without the intervention of the senior on the higher levels, would have been able to get past Mr Helberg in order to tap the telephone line of Dirk Coetzee's wife?

MR DU TOIT: No.

CHAIRPERSON: It wouldn't only be past Helberg, would it, it would be past the Postmaster-General?

MR DU TOIT: That's correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Because this had to be something that was done in the post office, the connection was made.

MR DU TOIT: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: So were you then made aware during your discussion with Mr de Kock, that Dirk Coetzee's wife's telephone was indeed being tapped?

MR DU TOIT: I cannot say that I became aware of it at that stage necessarily, but during the course of time - we're referring here to a month/six weeks, I became aware of it. We had quite a bit of traffic to that particular room where the tapping was executed and it came to my knowledge eventually.

MR BOOYENS: And with regard to you, the statement which Mr de Kock made that it was authorised by head office, did this fortify your belief?

MR DU TOIT: Yes, it did.

MR BOOYENS: Now during your discussion with Mr de Kock, was any mention made as you have stated in your affidavit, that Dirk Coetzee's elimination would be conducted via the postal service?

MR DU TOIT: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: And the reason was that he was abroad and for some or other reason the decision was made that it would not be practical to use any other method?

MR DU TOIT: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Now after Mr de Kock had the discussion with you and you were brought up to speed regarding the background - you have heard the evidence that was given by Mr Bosch that upon occasion he visited Japie Kok, is that correct?

MR DU TOIT: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: And apparently the two of them entered your office and came to discuss the proposed explosive device.

MR DU TOIT: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Did you already know at that stage?

MR DU TOIT: I already knew the background. Mr de Kock had visited me in his personal capacity and informed me that this would be executed at a certain stage.

MR BOOYENS: Did you then tell Mr Japie Kok to continue with the exercise?

MR DU TOIT: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: We know that at a later stage the two Kok brothers always worked quite closely together, is that correct?

MR DU TOIT: Yes.

MR BOOYENS: And at a later stage apparently - they will testify to this, I just want to expedite matters, Japie Kok fell away due to other commitments and Kobus Kok continued manufacturing the device. In your capacity as commander, did you later visit Vlakplaas with Kobus Kok and Steve Bosch, where this explosive was tested?

MR DU TOIT: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: In as far as one could see anything into this, was there any reason why a pig's head was used to test the explosive device?

MR DU TOIT: No, not to the best of my knowledge.

MR BOOYENS: However, it was advisable to test the device on the aspect of a living organism or living tissue?

MR DU TOIT: That is correct. Perhaps I could add that I think the reason for that was that it was a very small charge which had to be highly effective, it had to produce the desired effect.

MR BOOYENS: Very well. Perhaps at this stage you could just explain to the Committee, although the man who built the device is actually Kobus Kok, but possibilities were mentioned, for example I know that he stated initially that later it was decided to use headphones. You were in charge of the situation, why would it have been more advisable to use the headphones for example, and not the actual device? Why was it advisable not to fill the device with explosives and fill the headphones instead, what was the reason for this?

MR DU TOIT: During the evidence here someone posed a question with regard to whether or not it was a parcel-bomb. I think that one should view this in the light of the fact that it was a refined parcel-bomb which would be more effectively target oriented, so that no other bystander would be injured or killed in the process. The principle was to be selective when it came to targets.

MR BOOYENS: So this device would be designed to injure only the person who had donned the headphones?

MR DU TOIT: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: As I understand what you've just told us, that was one of the reasons for the test, because the explosion was designed merely to go straight into the head, roughly from ear to ear, and not cause damage elsewhere.

MR DU TOIT: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: In either event, after the prototype was tested, the other device was completed and delivered and that was the last that you heard of it for quite some time.

MR DU TOIT: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Much time later, it would appear somewhere in February, you heard of an explosion in Johannesburg, during which Bheki Mlangeni died.

MR DU TOIT: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: And as far as you knew, was Mr Mlangeni ever a target?

MR DU TOIT: I never knew anything about Mr Mlangeni, therefore I don't believe him to have been a target.

MR BOOYENS: But you did not undertake the determination of the target, so based upon what you know, he wasn't a target?

MR DU TOIT: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: I think that we will ask Mr Kok about the security measures which were taken to render the device as secure as possible under the circumstances, but would it be correct to say that with any explosive device there is a measure of risk unfortunately?

MR DU TOIT: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Now Mr du Toit, is it correct that in as far as you were in a position to determine the value of Mr Coetzee as a target, did you feel that this was a correct target in the context of the situation of warfare?

MR DU TOIT: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: And is it further correct, as you have already testified, that the decision to eliminate such a person and the decision to continue whatsoever with the operation, was not within your control?

MR DU TOIT: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Thus you apply for amnesty for any offence which may emanate from the attempted murder of Mr Coetzee and the murder of Mr Mlangeni?

MR DU TOIT: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Do you confirm the balance of your amnesty application?

MR DU TOIT: Yes, I do.

MR BOOYENS: Thank you, Chairperson, that is the evidence-in-chief.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BOOYENS

MR SIBANYONI: What would be the affect of the delay on this device? It was posted in May and it only exploded in February the following year. Does the lapse of time have any affect on the explosive?

MR DU TOIT: No, Chairperson, it was very stable. Military explosives which were used which could lay dormant for years and not be affected by time at all.

CHAIRPERSON: But on that - it's a matter that's suddenly struck me, this went off when the machine was turned on.

MR DU TOIT: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And that would rely on some form of power, wouldn't it? - battery-operated.

MR DU TOIT: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: So isn't the question, what would happen to the batteries after a delay of nine months?

MR DU TOIT: Chairperson, that is correct, I don't know whether I may have misinterpreted the previous question, the explosives themselves were stable. I thought that that was the angle in which the question was posed. Actually it is surprising that the batteries may have lasted that long because nine months is a very long time, particularly in Africa.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we've heard that it was sent from here to Zambia and still around in Zambia for months and months, one would have imagined that that was sufficient to completely flatten the batteries.

MR DU TOIT: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: A very good advertisement for what ever make of batteries it was.

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

Mr du Toit, did Mr de Kock, when he directed the request to you to assist with the manufacturing of such a device, also inform you that the order came from above?

MR DU TOIT: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Did he mentioned any names that you can recall, Mr du Toit?

MR DU TOIT: If I had to be very honest I wouldn't be able to say that I remember that he mentioned any particular name.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. And from your perspective you did not regard it necessary under the circumstance, to obtain any authorisation from any higher level in order to manufacture this device?

MR DU TOIT: No, I think that on previous occasions during evidence given by the former Commissioner, evidence was also given that we had devolved authorisation to assist with covert operations led by Vlakplaas.

MR HATTINGH: And you had previously provided such assistance.

MR DU TOIT: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Had you ever manufactured any other explosive devices upon the request of Vlakplaas?

MR DU TOIT: I myself hadn't done that much. We can refer in this case to the zero-detonation handgrenades. There were also other cases.

MR HATTINGH: Can you recall off the top of your head when your division was involved in the manufacturing of devices which were sent via the postal service?

MR DU TOIT: Yes, I think the case that I can refer to is a pen set or something like that, which was posted.

MR HATTINGH: To Swaziland?

MR DU TOIT: Yes, I think so.

MR HATTINGH: Did it ever occur in your experience that an explosive device which was posted would find it's way back to the sender? In other words, arrive back at the person who had actually sent it.

MR DU TOIT: No.

MR HATTINGH: Did you determine from Mr de Kock, who was in charge of the tapping?

MR DU TOIT: No, at that stage I simply accepted that it was authorised and legal. There was no other way that it could have taken place in our division.

MR HATTINGH: So therefore it would have had to have been authorised from the very highest level?

MR DU TOIT: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And that is what you accepted?

MR DU TOIT: Yes, I accepted it as such.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.

MR LAX: Can I just clear up a question you asked, just so it's absolutely crystal clear in the answer. You said you never

experienced that such parcels ever found their way back to the sender and by that you meant the purported sender, obviously.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, yes, indeed.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HATTINGH

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chairperson.

Mr du Toit, the request from Mr de Kock, at that stage was there a specific request concerning the walkman, or was this revealed only later?

MR DU TOIT: I did not know that he specifically said walkman, it can be so. I cannot specifically remember that.

MR LAMEY: When you went to Vlakplaas to go and test this device, you said in your statement on page 167 - it's a small aspect, I'd just like to clear this up, Bosch got into your vehicle. Could it be that Bosch drove off to the river with his own vehicle?

MR DU TOIT: This is as far as I can recall, because at that stage he had a blue Husky bus with a lot of space inside. If it was something different, it could be so, but that is what I can remember.

MR LAMEY: That is because Mr Nortje and Mr Bosch drove down together and as far as they can remember they drove with Bosch's vehicle.

MR DU TOIT: It could be so, yes.

MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chairperson, I've got no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, can I ask something before I forget, it doesn't arise from anything. We heard previously, and I should have asked that question previously, that evidence was led that the device used, the wiring as I understand it, was of Eastern European origin.

MR DU TOIT: Chairperson, I am not the right person to give evidence concerning this, but I think my colleague, Mr Kok, will be able to give you a better picture about what material was used for this device. I do not have the details.

CHAIRPERSON: Well what I'm trying to find out is, did anybody enquire where the device came from? We know where it was bought, we've been told where it was bought, did anybody go and ask them what they were selling at the time?

MR DU TOIT: I cannot help you, no Mr Chairperson.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Chairman, the situation is this, that there was an attempt during the inquest by the investigating team - now if I say there was an attempt by the investigating team, it doesn't mean that, well very few of their attempts were in fact successful, but in trying to locate the dealership where it was bought from, I think the closest that they could come as I recall, was that it was either type 1 or it's one of the Eastern, Hong Kong or something like that. That was the device itself, but the evidence actually went further. As far as the all sorts of material that was used and electrical wiring, with that type of thing the investigation actually went at length to exclude them from being South African manufactured. But we will deal with that.

CHAIRPERSON: That's what was worrying me. It was no -it was accepted it was some foreign device and once one gets to try one in Hong Kong, where the bits come from is I don't think a matter you would ever investigate from here. But it wasn't - because I know there are certain South African makes, it wasn't ever suggested it was a South African make, it was a foreign ... Thank you.

MR LAX: Just on this issue, sorry. I'm just puzzled by this. Was the purpose of this whole innuendo to suggest that someone else was having a go at Mlangeni or at Coetzee and not the South Africans?

MR RAUTENBACH: In fact, Mr Chairman, the innuendo was quite clear. The suggestion was on behalf of the police as well as the Attorney-General's staff, that it was the ANC who wanted to get rid of Mr Coetzee because he became an embarrassment to them. That was the suggestion that was made.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Chairman, may I then proceed with the witness?

CHAIRPERSON: Certainly.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR RAUTENBACH: Mr du Toit, the first aspect in your evidence that is, I do not want to use "interesting", but it is the following. You said that it was mentioned to you by Mr de Kock that the target was Mr Coetzee, then you were asked what was said to you, if Coetzee was the target. It was - how can I put it, it was not a legitimate target but it was a planned target and you answered and said "Yes, Coetzee was the person who at that stage did the things that put the police in a bad light and could have been a danger personally to various members". This is a personal opinion maybe, but could you just comment on it.

I would expect that you would have said that we are a technical department, we receive, let's use the word "job card", if it is approved by the powers to be, people in the higher ranks and we know that there is approval, then according to this job card, I then have to complete this. I would not expect from you that you would be - it was known to you who the target was.

MNR DU TOIT: "Wel ons is nie noodwendig altyd al die teiken besonderhede toevertrou nie, dit moet ek dadelik sê. In hierdie geval is dit aan my toevertrou. Die regverdigingsgronde was nie by ons gesetel of dit ten uitvoer gebring moes word, al dan nie, maar ek het maar in my eie verwysingsraamwerk dit veroordeel en ek kon daarmee akkoord gaan." ...(no English interpretation)

MR RAUTENBACH: Would it be right if I say - because actually your own frame of reference or your own opinion, had to be irrelevant, you were basically in the position that if you received the instruction, you are the technical person - I mentioned the word "job card", I cannot thing of anything better, but you had to carry out that "job card"? ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR DU TOIT: The duty, yes, Chairperson.

MR RAUTENBACH: Then Sir, I would like to ask you on that same aspect, you referred to Helberg and there was also reference made to the Electronic Surveillance. The department that you were the head of, how can we describe it, as what? If we had to now give it a name.

MR DU TOIT: The Mechanical Division.

MR RAUTENBACH: The Mechanical Division. And then there was the Electronic Surveillance Department, how many departments or sections were there in this Technical Division?

MR DU TOIT: There was also an Electronic Workshop for maintenance and repairs and that was for the tapping of telephones, Electronic Surveillance and then Administrative Personnel as well as a Radio Department.

MR RAUTENBACH: Now if you look at these departments and concerning the Mechanical Department, you were the head?

MR DU TOIT: That is correct, yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: And your rank was at that stage? A Captain?

MR DU TOIT: No, I think I was Colonel.

MR RAUTENBACH: And then I want to ask you, you were talking about an overall head of this department, who was the overall head of the whole unit, the whole Technical Department?

MR DU TOIT: Col Helberg.

MR RAUTENBACH: Col Helberg. Now what I would like to ask you is, people come to you and say "We want things executed and they say in this case, or apparently said to you "Dirk Coetzee is a target and we want to eliminate him". What was your position concerning Helberg? If Helberg is the overall head of the department or section, what liaison did you have with him?

MR DU TOIT: I would like to repeat what I said earlier on. We did talk about this in the previous proceedings, I do not have all the details of covert operations. I had limited powers.

MR RAUTENBACH: You must remember, Mr du Toit, that although you were involved in other applications, for some of us it is well-known evidence, but for others it is not. I was not involved in any case where you gave evidence, so you have to be patient.

MR DU TOIT: I'm not impatient.

MR RAUTENBACH: My question in this regard is - and I would like to try and get to the core of it as soon as possible, in other words you say that you had the discretion in cases where you could inform Helberg or in which cases you wanted his support or in which cases you said you didn't need it.

MR DU TOIT: I wouldn't say that I had a discretion if I was to inform him or not. In most cases I did not inform him about covert operations.

MR RAUTENBACH: Did not inform him?

MR DU TOIT: Not inform him.

MR RAUTENBACH: Why was that?

MR DU TOIT: It is about the principle of compartmentalisation, people who do not have to know shouldn't know.

MR RAUTENBACH: What made you special, that in this section you could make decisions about must know and mustn't know? For example, you are not going to inform Helberg.

MR DU TOIT: I think, Mr Chairperson, I do not think I was special, I was just in a position where I had certain experts working under me and who were usable in this type of operation.

MR RAUTENBACH: When you say that you had certain experts that worked under you and they worked in a very professional way and could execute certain things in a professional way, I can understand that. But what I'm getting at is, you are in a Technical Department or section and one of them is the Mechanical Department, there Helberg is the overall head, what made you in your capacity, where did you get the authorisation to make your own decisions about what devices can be built or what kind of devices must be reported back to Helberg? Because it seems as if you had a special authority, something that had to be given to you, it could not have come from nowhere.

MR DU TOIT: Chairperson, I do not think that I had any special authority. I once again refer to the capacity that I do have that senior officers knew about. I was not called in and told that "You have the authority to do whatever you want to", all instructions and tasks and requests that came my way, instructions that were already agreed upon on a higher level, the time when it got to me there was a lot of support concerning them.

MR RAUTENBACH: But Mr du Toit, the only idea that you could have had that this specific project was agreed on at a higher level, was only Mr de Kock himself, no-one else.

MR DU TOIT: Yes, that's correct, for me it was enough.

MR RAUTENBACH: It was enough for you?

MR DU TOIT: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: And the fact that Mr de Kock told you this, was good enough that within your discretion you could decided to report or not to report and then decided not to report because it was approved on?

MR DU TOIT: Mr Chairperson, maybe I am confused with this question, but for me it was enough to execute the task and not to convey it Mr Helberg. For me it was enough. I did not need any other input to convince me that it comes from a higher level, we trusted each other, I trusted Mr de Kock, I did not believe that he would give me any instruction that was not authorised or approved by the higher authorities.

MR RAUTENBACH: But you did have the capacity, if I understand your evidence, to tell him "I'm not willing to continue unless this aspect is confirmed by the people higher up in the hierarchy of the system".

MR DU TOIT: Capacity yes, maybe I could have. I do not think in those days it would have been suited for a Security Branch person not to execute such a project.

MR RAUTENBACH: But if that is so, then it means the following, Mr du Toit, and that if it was not suited for a security person to execute it, it could possibly happen that you would execute instructions from individuals and which were not approved in the hierarchy.

MR DU TOIT: Chairperson, I know of no such possibility. There was a trust amongst the people from the Security Branch and I am not aware of such a situation.

MR RAUTENBACH: Your rank was a Colonel at that stage.

MR DU TOIT: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: What was Mr de Kock's rank?

MR DU TOIT: I think we had the same rank at that stage, maybe Lieutenant-Colonel.

MR RAUTENBACH: Just a question about Kritzinger. Did you have anything to do with him, the investigative officer?

MR DU TOIT: Yes, in the post-mortem investigation I was interrogated by them.

MR RAUTENBACH: Are you talking about the court proceedings?

MR DU TOIT: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: Can you remember that Kritzinger asked you to search the Technical Department?

MR DU TOIT: Yes, he did.

MR RAUTENBACH: When was this done? Did he notify you about this, or how did he do it?

MR DU TOIT: No, he did not notify me.

MR RAUTENBACH: Did he notify anybody? Do you know if he came to search the place?

MR DU TOIT: Yes, he did.

MR RAUTENBACH: Do you know where he did it?

MR DU TOIT: He did it in the Technical Department.

MR RAUTENBACH: Was it in the Technical Department or the Mechanical Department?

MR DU TOIT: He came to look at us, he went through our storerooms to compare electrical wiring. I was not present, I only accompanied him on my floor.

MR RAUTENBACH: May I just have a moment.

Just one last aspect, Mr du Toit. Did you have any information about when the package left the Technical Department, in what shape it was, did you see it, did you receive any report-back on that?

MR DU TOIT: No, not at all.

MR RAUTENBACH: I presume that you would have known what type of device it was and what it entailed as it left.

MR DU TOIT: Yes, that's correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: Who would have conveyed this to you?

MR DU TOIT: Well I attended the testing of the prototypes.

MR RAUTENBACH: So you knew exactly what was going on?

MR DU TOIT: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: Did you know that it was expected that the Technical Department had to wrap this up, that it will not be a walkman that was delivered but something that was packaged? Did you know that?

MR DU TOIT: No.

MR RAUTENBACH: I have no further questions, Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR RAUTENBACH

MS LOCKHAT: I have no questions, thank you, Chairperson.

NO QUESTIONS BY MS LOCKHAT

CHAIRPERSON: Re-examination?

MR BOOYENS: No thank you, Mr Chairman.

NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR BOOYENS

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR DU TOIT: Thank you, Chairperson.

WITNESS EXCUSED

MR BOOYENS: I call Jakob Francois Kok.