CHAIRPERSON: Mr Koopedi, you informed us that the attitude of the victims has changed, could you perhaps put that on record?
MR KOOPEDI: Thank you Judge, Honourable Committee Members. My instructions Chairperson are that there have been developments in this matter and the developments are that the grave of the late Valdez has been found and that being the case and I might wish to remind this Committee that it has been the attitude of the victim in this matter from the beginning not to oppose amnesty, therefore my instructions are that we would not put any questions to the applicant. We were supposed to commence with cross-examination. We will not put any questions to the applicant. We believe that there might also not be any need for re-examinations and we would suggest from the victim's side that all the other applicants may also be led as briefly as possible, to confirm their applications and that's it, Judge, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Is the widow of the deceased here?
MR KOOPEDI: She is here.
CHAIRPERSON: I would like on behalf of the Committee and I'm sure on behalf of all the representatives here to say how pleased we are that you have been able to recover your husband's body and to make the arrangements that you wish to do in connection with that and we'd like you to know that you have the deepest sympathy of all of us.
In the light of the attitude adopted on behalf of the victims and in the light of the evidence that we have already heard, it appears to us that it should be possible to proceed with the application as speedily as possible. Perhaps not quite as quickly as Mr Koopedi suggested, in view of the fact that there are apparent differences in the versions given by certain of the applicants, but if those could be dealt with by them, with the assistance of their legal advisers, it has been indicated that there is no objection to them being led, I think we should be able to get through this reasonably quickly.
Does anyone wish to say anything before we proceed?
Thank you.
As I recollect Mr de Kock had concluded his evidence in chief.
MR LAX: Everyone except Mr Koopedi and Lynne had asked questions.
CHAIRPERSON: The only persons left to question were Mr Koopedi and our Leader of Evidence.
MR LAMEY: Chairperson, none of the other applicants have ...
CHAIRPERSON: No, no. That's my recollection. I'm afraid I have been mislead. My note is that none of the other applicants have asked any questions, that Mr de Kock had merely completed his evidence in chief.
MR LAMEY: Yes, that's correct.
EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: (s.u.o.)
CHAIRPERSON: Do you wish to cross-examine?
MR VAN DER MERWE: Mr Chairman, Francois van der Merwe on record, I have no questions. Thank you.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR VAN DER MERWE
MR CORNELIUS: Thank you Mr Chairman, Cornelius on behalf of Flores. I have no questions, thank you.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR CORNELIUS
MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chairperson, Lamey on record.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Mr de Kock, a few aspects. You gave evidence that at one stage you were in the police van with some of the other members during the interrogation and that you wanted to follow up the information when you left there and according to your observation he was still alive, is that correct?
MR DE KOCK: Yes, he was still alive.
MR LAMEY: Mr Nortje recalled that and is it correct that the members who were with you in that van, were also members of the Witbank Security Police?
MR DE KOCK: One of the members was, but I cannot recall, he was about 5 feet 10, he had light hair and I would say he had a big build. I cannot remember his name. The other person was W/O Kallie van Dyk from the Germiston Security Branch.
MR LAMEY: Very well. Mr Nortje, when he submitted his amnesty application, he could not remember if you were involved in the interrogation in the van, but he heard your evidence, but you would recall it better than he would, if you were involved or not, but Mr Nortje can remember that after the person was attacked in this van and interrogated, he was in that area, that members of the Witbank Security Branch got out of the police van and he then realised that this person possibly died at that specific point, it could have been later, maybe after you had left. All that I want to say is that this person, according to Mr Nortje's impression, died there in the hands of the interrogators within that van.
MR DE KOCK: Mr Chairperson, I wasn't there at that stage but I wouldn't have been surprised. Out of my experience, the wound was not such a nature that he would have died from it. We did go to the houses, we did get the detonators and the weapons, so there was no reason to attack this person further. I do not know what the Witbank people did after I left. What Mr Nortje can remember concerning the specific members of the Witbank Security Branch, is that the victim, or Valdez, was then tied with a bomb attack in Witbank where a woman died and other people were injured.
MR DE KOCK: Yes, Mr Chairperson that information, we received that at the briefing in Germiston at the Security Branch and although I did not mention it, it does ring a bell. There was also information that they planned to attack a Wimpy in Melville and that is the reason why we went over to this inhuman way of dealing with it. But I'm glad that Mr Nortje informed me about this because I also wondered about what happened to this man after I had left.
MR LAMEY: Can you remember who was the senior officer at that stage when you had left?
MR DE KOCK: As far as I can remember from Witbank it was Lt Rury, or then Capt Rury and then there was also a Lt Lotz from the Germiston Security Branch, who represented the Germiston Department, who was in control.
MR LAMEY: Is it true that there were other members from other branches who actually had some interest in this case and who wanted to interrogate this person who was from a higher rank than the people from Vlakplaas?
MR DE KOCK: Yes, when I left the scene the members would then have been from the highest rank, amongst others Lt Lotz.
MR LAMEY: Then another aspect, according to my instructions, something that is not in doubt and that is the question about the medical aid that was provided. At this stage, or Mr Nortje said that he would testify that he did not have any insight in your statements or some of the other members and he would then concede that there were medical aid ...(indistinct), assistance was given, but at no stage up until the person died, there was no specialised medical aid that was called in for example a doctor, an ambulance, or paramedics. Would you agree with that?
MR DE KOCK: No, there was no ambulance. Something I can mention is that two of the Task Force members were trained paramedics. It was one of the Task Force duties to go through a crash course in medics.
CHAIRPERSON: Well not only were they trained, it was apparent that there was equipment available.
MR DE KOCK: That is correct, yes.
CHAIRPERSON: To give a drip and to stop the bleeding, to bandage the wounds.
MR DE KOCK: Yes, Mr Chairperson, all the members had a doctor's case that was provided by the Defence Force for operational purposes and it is the same as that which doctors use, for example it had morphine, intravenous drips, etc.
MR LAMEY: I would like to put this in short. Although the ex facie amnesty application of Mr Nortje may be in doubt, my instruction is that it is not in doubt.
MR DE KOCK: I agree with that.
MR LAMEY: Thank you Chairperson, I've got no further questions. Thank you. Maybe just a last aspect and my instruction from Mr Nortje was that Vlakplaas was not involved in the attack.
MR DE KOCK: That is correct, yes.
CHAIRPERSON: What attack?
MR DE KOCK: That is the attack in the van or in the back of the vehicle.
CHAIRPERSON: Weren't you involved?
MR DE KOCK: Yes Mr Chairperson, I think it was just to qualify that there were no other members of Vlakplaas involved.
MR LAMEY: Yes, that was the purpose of that question.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY
CHAIRPERSON: I take it you have no questions?
MR KOOPEDI: No, I do not, Chairperson, thanks.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR KOOPEDI
MS LOCKHAT: Just one question, thank you Chairperson. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS LOCKHAT: Mr de Kock was this whole exercise actually to, was it only to arrest MK Valdez?
MR DE KOCK: Yes, Mr Chairperson, the purpose was to catch these people and then to confiscate their weapons or weaponry, it was not only him, there was another group, we thought around 3 or 5 more, but the arrest was in the nature of the case, the purpose of it, although we expected shooting from trained leaders that were described as a hard core group.
CHAIRPERSON: The purpose was not only to arrest Valdez, it was to arrest the group and obtain their stock of weapons.
MR DE KOCK: That is correct, yes.
MS LOCKHAT: In your evidence in chief you said that he supplied you with the names and address as to where to go and find weapons and so forth, is that correct, while doing the interrogation?
MR DE KOCK: That is correct, yes.
MS LOCKHAT: And Mr van Dyk actually took notes of what he was telling you at that time, is that correct?
MR DE KOCK: Yes, Mr Chairperson, as I said, I sat on his chest and I covered his mouth with a wet cloth and a member of the Witbank branch closed his nose and in that interrogation he provided us with the addresses and Mr van Dyk, W/O van Dyk, then took notes.
MS LOCKHAT: Just one other question. Mr Flores, after he had given you this information, did the interrogation still continue?
MR DE KOCK: No, Mr Chairperson, myself and some of the other Task Force members immediately left to then go and search these houses and at the first address we then found these weapons. I cannot say if the interrogation continued after I'd left.
MS LOCKHAT: Mr Flores at page 81 of... (intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Who?
MS LOCKHAT: Flores, that's one of the applicants Chairperson, on page 81 says, we know he's not an expert or anything, but he says he believes that MK Valdez didn't die because of that bullet wound, so I can only lead and make an inference that he died because of the assault. What is your comment on that?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I can only give my own opinion in this case and that is that it could be that during that attack or assault, other physical aspects came into play, it could have been a blood clot or maybe heart attack, I do not know. It was also my opinion that the bullet wound could not have caused his death, but it's just my opinion.
CHAIRPERSON: Well, I find Mr Flores' statement a little confusing in that if you read the line before the end of the last paragraph before the one where he says it was not due to the bullet wound, he says he died an hour later due to the fact that the bullet snapped his main artery in his leg and he bled to death.
MR DE KOCK: We did not see that kind of bleeding and the intravenous treatment he received would have stopped the bleeding, but in that case I can only say that I do not know the facts.
CHAIRPERSON: So you don't agree that it looked as if his artery had been snapped it wasn't that sort of bleeding?
MR DE KOCK: No, Mr Chairperson, then there would have been three to five minutes depending on the weight and build of the person. You can close the wound wherever you want to, but the person will still bleed to death.
MS LOCKHAT: Thank you, Chairperson, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS LOCKHAT
MR LAX: Just while we're on this point, the post-mortem which is Annexure A, makes it clear that the cause of death was hyper volemic shock as a result of a shooting wound, now that is, put in lay man's terms as I understand it, that is blood loss plain and simple.
MR DE KOCK: Mr Chairperson, yes, I cannot say anything about that. It could have been over a period, I cannot say.
MR SIBANYONI: The vehicle is referred to by many names,
pick-up and lorry. How big was this vehicle in which he was put and interrogated?
MR DE KOCK: Let us refer to it as an unrest truck. I think it was a 5 ton truck that was closed or covered. It was at that stage used to transport several people.
MR SIBANYONI: Okay, thank you. No further questions Mr Chairperson.
MR LAX: Hyper volemic shock refers to blood loss.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but it's not the actual bleeding ...(indistinct) ...where you have no blood being pumped ...
MR LAX: The arteries were destroyed in the leg. ...(mike not on) Just one question, Mr de Kock. These affidavits and statements that form part of Exhibit B in essence talk about removing the man immediately from the scene after medical treatment was applied, that's not correct, is it?
MR DE KOCK: That's not correct, no, it's false.
MR LAX: And so clearly this chap Schoeman committed perjury?
MR DE KOCK: There's no doubt, Mr Chairperson.
MR LAX: And obviously the rest of them as well?
MR DE KOCK: Yes.
MR LAX: Thank you, Chairperson.
WITNESS EXCUSED
MS LOCKHAT: Chairperson, the next amnesty applicant is Izak Daniel Bosch.
MR LAMEY: Chairperson I just want to say that the applicants that I represent - as Mr Flores has not arrived yet, I call Mr Bosch.
