Amnesty Hearings

CHAIRPERSON: Mr de Kock, I assume you wish to speak Afrikaans.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, please.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you have any objection to taking the oath?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR HUGO: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr de Kock, you are the applicant in this matter which is known as the abduction of Glory Sedibe, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR HUGO: And you therefore apply for amnesty for amongst others the following offences: abduction, unlawful arrest and detention, assaults, perjury or defeating the ends of justice, illegal possession of firearms, the illegal crossing of an international border, forging of identity documents and so forth, possible theft of an R3 firearm, the illegal pointing of a firearm and any other offence and delict which might be covered by your evidence, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HUGO: Your application appears in bundle 1 from page 1 to 13, and there is a further supplementary bundle in which amongst others, there is a supplementary statement of yours with regard to your background and there is a statement with regard to Vlakplaas and you request that these statements be read in conjunction with your application.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HUGO: And in bundle 2 there is a reference, it is the record of the Nerston incident and you ask that that also be incorporated into your evidence.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

MR HUGO: Mr de Kock, I think we have to divide the incident into phases. Firstly, I wish you to tell the Honourable Committee how it came about that you were present in Piet Retief at that stage and exactly what happened during the planning phase before you went into Swaziland.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, if my memory serves me correctly in this instance, it was one of Vlakplaas' normal situations where we were deployed for a month, which was between two or three weeks at a time and we found ourselves there at Piet Retief during that time.

On a day I was approached - I am not certain of the name, I see in the statements it is W/O Pienaar, that we would have to execute an operation in Swaziland. I do have a memory that Brig Schalk Visser and Chris Deetlefs informed us and briefed us and I also add that Brig Schoon was there. This is a mistake on my side because there was a second incident that is very similar to this one and not very long before or after this one.

MR HUGO: Very well then. You were then contacted and you amongst others held a discussion with Mr Pienaar, what did Mr Pienaar tell you, what was the purpose of the operation and at who was it aimed?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, he said that a senior member of the ANC was detained in Swaziland and that we would be further informed by Mr Deetlefs who had gone through to Swaziland and that we would obtain further information because Swaziland was an operational area of Vlakplaas and my unit continually had arms with them as well as their passports for crossing of the border.

MR HUGO: May I just ask you, at this stage were you specifically told at whom this operation was aimed at? In other words, who would be affected by this.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, it was told to me that it was the chief of the intelligence of the ANC in Swaziland, it was one Gory Sedibe, with the MK name September.

MR HUGO: And were you also told that he was actively involved in the so-called struggle against the former government?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, he was active and he was also a committed member.

MR HUGO: And besides what Mr Pienaar told you did you have independent knowledge of Mr Sedibe's activities and his profile in the freedom struggle?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, there were continual reports concerning Mr Sedibe's activities, not only from the Transvaal side but also from the Northern Natal side. There were many sources that were activated in the Swazi vicinity and I also had my sources in Swaziland.

MR HUGO: Evidence was given in other amnesty applications and hearings, but from time to time these reports were coordinated and you had insight and access to all these reports.

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

MR HUGO: What type of planning was done after you liaised with Mr Pienaar, before you went into Swaziland? For example, which men did you task to accompany you?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I don't have an entire recollection of whom I took, but I know I took three of the black members with me, amongst others, Mr Koole, there was Aubrey Mngade and there was Nofomela and as far as I know there was no other black member along whom I can recall at this stage. Mr van Dyk was along, Mr Pienaar and I may have taken one or two others of my members, but I do not have any other independent recollection of who else was there.

MR HUGO: May I just ask you what arrangement were made with regard to taking along firearms?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, we had a variety of weapons and in this instance we took along close combat knives. There were three or four amongst us, they were short knives that we used for close combat, and there were also four or five hand firearms of various calibers but with silences. There were 9mm firearms with silencers, there were two Makarovs of Russian origin, also with silencers and I had a Baretta 9mm.

MR HUGO: And these arms, these were clandestinely issued to security members, they were not licensed.

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, and the silencers were manufactured by the technical division of the police.

MR HUGO: What were the arrangements with regard to passports and what was the idea with regard to access control to Swaziland?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, all my people had passports. The passports were legal and valid in this regard, it was printed by the State and it was issued by Internal Affairs, but the numbers and the - the identity numbers and the names were false. In other words it could not be traced back to a member of the police.

MR HUGO: Very well then. I accept that you took along a number of vehicles through the border after you used these false passports.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, I recall two vehicles which were used by my people, the one was a Safari cruiser and the other one a Toyota cruiser.

MR HUGO: And did you then meet with Mr Deetlefs in Swaziland?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, but I do have a problem as to I cannot recall where I met him, but we met somewhere where we discussed the matter further.

MR HUGO: Mr Deetlefs testified that you met at a hotel, is that true?

MR DE KOCK: It's possible, Chairperson.

MR HUGO: When you met him there, what discussion did you have and what further planning did you undertake?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, he informed me that Mr Sedibe was detained at a smallish police station and that only member of the Swazi Police would be there. He also informed me that these persons would not be armed, upon my enquiry, and that the police station at night was open for use to the public, in other words, we could just walk in. So we did not foresee any violence or the use of firearms and that we would detain the man in the police station, take the keys and then release Mr Sedibe.

MR HUGO: That was the prearranged plan and the discussion took place in Swaziland and you went to the police station. How far from the police station did you stop?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, we must have stopped approximately 80 or 90 metres from there. There was high ground on the Western side of the police station, we parked the vehicles there. From there myself, Mr Koole, Mr Nofomela and I think, Mngade, followed me and we moved down to the police station. The rear guard was brought up by Mr van Dyk and some of the other white members and thereafter it was Mr Pienaar and Mr Deetlefs.

MR HUGO: What happened then?

MR DE KOCK: When we wanted to enter the charge office, we found that the door was locked. There was a light burning, not in the charge office itself but down the corridor, which reflected a dim light. We looked through the window, there was an office where the one window - and I think it is because of the building work that the window could not seal properly, I then took the close combat knife, it had a very thin blade, and I wedged it into that space and I lifted the catch, I opened it. Behind me was Almond Nofomela. I am not certain who followed him, but when I walked into the corridor, I bumped into a man, a young police officer who had a G3 assault rifle and he pointed it to me and the barrel of the rifle was about a metre from me and I aimed the pistol with the silencer at him. I was ready to shoot and I think at that stage he was also ready to shoot.

I started speaking to him and asked him to put down the weapon and approximately two or three minutes later he put the weapon down. I believe his action brought about that both of us survived that situation there. I took the G3 and secured it. I saw that there was a round in the chamber and I think his firearm was on safety, I think that is what saved us both.

I walked down the corridor. I had the young police officer in front of me. I had his firearm and I shouted "September" and a voice answered from a cell. The senior member, the older member we found in the charge office and I asked him for the keys, took the keys from him and opened the cell and inside the cell there was a person. I asked him if he was September, he said yes. He also appeared similar to the physical description that we had, he was well-built, just over six feet, he was about my length. The other two persons who were in the cell with him, I asked the other one what they were doing there, they said they were there for stock theft and I chased both of them out and said "Go".

I did not want to put the two policemen who we were to lock up in the cell with these other two detainees because I did not know what would happen. We cut the telephone line in two or three places so that they could not connect it easily. There was a button on the telephone if you wanted to call the central telephone exchange ... so that they could not use it.

I fired a shot through the button and outside, Mr Glory Sedibe started fighting with the other police officers and it was quite a fight there and Mr Sedibe tried to run away but he did not succeed. One of the members who had a scarf had it around his neck and that is the only thing which forced him onto the ground. It was the scarf strangling him ...(intervention)

MR HUGO: Would you just pause here. Who were the members physically involved in the attempt in getting him under control and who had to use force?

MR DE KOCK: I can recall Joe Koole because he was the guy or the person who was the target of Mr Sedibe's attempt to escape. I believe if it was not for Joe Koole, he would have escaped because Joe Koole was a large and strong man. I'm not certain who the other members were. I do know that Mngade was there. I am not certain whether Mr van Dyk or Mr Mngade also participated, I do not have an independent recollection thereof.

MR HUGO: Did any of the members attempt to strangle him with the scarf at that stage before he was loaded into the vehicle?

MR DE KOCK: Not to put him out of actions, but to ensure that he did not escape. In other words, it was not the idea to strangle him until he was unconscious, that was the only thing they had to hold onto at that stage.

MR HUGO: Was he struck with fists or kicked?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, he was struck because Mr Sedibe did fight there, so we held nothing back.

MR HUGO: Could you see whether there was any blood flowing?

MR DE KOCK: Not at that stage but when we forced him into the vehicle, because we had to force him in into the back of the land-cruiser. There were three of us because we wanted to tie him up with restraining straps, plastic straps which were generally used during that time, and in that attempt he tried to get away again and he was hit and Mr Sedibe only became controlled when Mr Mngade struck him with the butt of the firearm across the nose, I think on the left side of his nose, which left a wound there and it bled profusely. He also had laceration marks on his arms and face as he was fighting, but afterwards he realised that we had the upperhand and then we tied his hands and legs.

MR HUGO: May I just ask you with regard to the bleeding, you said he was bleeding profusely, did any of the blood get onto his clothes?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, and some of the blood was on me as well. His face was bloody and his clothing on the collar, this also had blood on it.

MR HUGO: You then moved back to the South African border. Did he during the trip back to South Africa, still bleed or did the bleeding stop? Or did anyone try to stop the bleeding?

MR DE KOCK: I don't know whether anyone tried to stop the bleeding, but the bleeding did stop somewhere along the line. Mr van Dyk was the driver because he knew the area and we drove at a high speed towards the South African border.

MR HUGO: May I then ask you, when you moved across the border, can you recall whether there was swelling to his face which was observable?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, his face was swollen, specifically his nose where he was cut and one side of his cheek. He had laceration marks on his face. It was like he had a carpet burn on his face. His hands were also injured and there was also blood to his hands. And I will tell you later why I can recall that. He did not have any other external observable injuries, no broken bones or any bullet holes ...(intervention)

ADV BOSMAN: May I just ask you Mr de Kock, you say that Mr van Dyk was the driver, who was in front with Mr van Dyk?

MR DE KOCK: I cannot recall. But why I say that is that when we drove away after we had brought him under control there, Mr van Dyk drove over something or threw something and my neck hit the top of the roof and I felt like I lost my left arm, and that is why I asked him to drive a little bit slower.

ADV BOSMAN: I asked the question because I wanted to know who knew of the assault and who took part in the assault. Thank you. Thank you, Mr Hugo.

MR HUGO: With regard to the condition of his clothing, can you recall whether any of his clothing was torn during this assault?

MR DE KOCK: I cannot recall whether it was torn, but it was dirty and there was blood and he had a type of - I don't what colour it was, but it was a wind-breaker.

CHAIRPERSON: What colour was the wind-breaker.

MR DE KOCK: I said now I cannot recall what colour it was, but it was a neutral colour, it was not yellow or red.

CHAIRPERSON: That is what I want to arrive at. It was a colour upon which one could see the blood clearly.

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: So it must have been a light colour.

MR DE KOCK: As I have said, it's a neutral colour, it was not bright yellow or bright red or black.

CHAIRPERSON: So you could easily see the blood.

MR DE KOCK: Well my perception of a neutral colour is it had to white or beige or ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Upon which blood could easily been seen?

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: By the way, was there a lot of blood?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, because my experience in Ovamboland and Angola is that facial wounds, even if it is a small wound, especially caused by RPG7 shrapnel, that it would appear that this person would have a serious wound. In the face there are many more capillaries close to the skin.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I understand. And when you brought him to the RSA and handed him over, was he still clothed in those clothes - was he still wearing those clothes?

MR DE KOCK: Yes. As I proceed I will inform you later how some of these worked, but he arrived in those clothes. At the border we met Brig Visser and confirmed that we had him, that no Swazis had died and he still attacked me - I don't wish to prejudice him here, but he attacked me on the fact that I had shot the telephone to pieces, but ...(intervention)

MR HUGO: Before we get to further aspects, can you tell us whether or not you crossed the border lawfully or whether you climbed over the border fence.

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, approximately 80 to 100 metres away from the border post there is a place where you could just pull out the droppers and flatten the fence and drive over, it wasn't an official border post.

MR HUGO: I think what I'm actually interested in is the action and the attitude of Mr Sedibe at that stage, because initially he resisted quite vehemently and there was an altercation. Was any discussion held with him from the point that he was released from the prison cell to when you reached the RSA? Were any questions put to him?

MR DE KOCK: No, we just wanted to get out of Swaziland as soon as possible. That was also the description of our task. He was not assaulted after he was bound and after he lay back because I sat with him personally.

CHAIRPERSON: You were contacted and told that there was an operation which had to be executed in Swaziland, regarding you and your actions there with your colleagues, what was your instruction, was it simply to conduct the abduction or anything else?

MR DE KOCK: It was only to execute the abduction. I did not receive any other task description.

CHAIRPERSON: And after you had handed over the abductee your work would be finished.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, but I also addressed other issues such as his medical condition, his clothing and so forth. But I had no other tasks.

CHAIRPERSON: You definitely did not participate in the interview?

MR DE KOCK: No, and I never interrogated him, but other aspects will come to light eventually.

MR HUGO: Can you give us an indication, at which stage chronologically, did you cross the border?

MR DE KOCK: We didn't watch the time because we were constantly looking to see whether or not we were being followed. It was early morning, I would say that it was between twelve and one when we crossed the border and encountered Mr Visser. I may be mistaken in that regard, but that is the first thought that comes to mind. Mr Visser did indeed confirm that it was Mr Sedibe and briefly wanted to know from us how things had proceeded and that is when the whole matter of the telephone came out.

The G3 we gave to him in the Eastern Transvaal. I would say that it was given to Mr Visser, but I don't want to make a definite statement about that. Mr Sedibe at that stage was suffering from severe shock, his lips were parched and we didn't have any water with us. Our own lips were also quite parched, we were all quite stressed. He had the look of shock in his eyes, the same symptoms that I observed with my own people after a combat situation. These were also the same symptoms that I observed with SWAPO members after they had been in combat with us and we had captured them, disorientation, shock, fear, fright, fear for the future, pain and so forth.

MR HUGO: You then moved over the border post, you spoke to Brig Visser and what was the following step which was taken?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, from that point onwards my group and I, as well as the members from Piet Retief, went to Piet Retief to a safehouse which was approximately five kilometres from Piet Retief, on the Ermelo road.

On those premises, with the exception of the house, approximately 30 metres away there was some form of a pumphouse and on top of this pumphouse was the tank which provided water for the house among others and this pumphouse also served as some form of a cell. It had a steel door which could be locked from outside and in that pumphouse a steel bed had been placed, army issue style steel bed which had been carried out from the house along with a sponge mattress. I always had an extra army sleeping bag in my car with me in case I had to overnight somewhere and that this was unplanned. This I also gave to Sedibe.

Afterwards I went to fetch my medical case, the sort that doctors in the field would use and also the sort that we used with Koevoet in the field, which was fully equipped with intravenous equipment and so forth. I then attended to his injuries, I cleaned his facial wounds and also cleaned the abrasions. I would have liked to administer stitches to his nose, but I was not qualified to do so and I did not want to injure him any further, but I did treat those wounds.

After that we had him remove his shirt and his trousers. We observed bruise marks on his upper body, his arms and his legs, which we also treated ...(intervention)

MR HUGO: Pardon me for interrupting you. Would you say it was at this time that you saw the blood on his hands?

MR DE KOCK: Yes. We treated all the abrasions and injuries, and I can also recall that his pulse rate was something like 140, it was too fast to count. I took his pulse by means of taking it for ten seconds and multiplying that with six. I gave him four of my tablets which I used for panic attacks or if I felt that I was going to have a panic attack. The tablets went by the name of Lexotan(?). They were very strong tablets. I gave him four because I was afraid that he was going to have a heart attack. He was extremely tense, he was still suffering from shock and I would venture to say that he was wild.

We then obtained leg-irons - I don't know if these leg-irons came from Piet Retief, we attached the one leg-iron to his ankle and the other to the frame of the bed at the bottom.

MR HUGO: Very well. And I assume that this was also during the early morning hours of the following day.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, that is correct. Some of us went to bed. I had more members from C1 there, they did not have access to Mr Sedibe. If he were to call they had to call me. I had the keys to the lock and it wasn't possible for him to get out of that room through the steel door, being attached to the bed with the leg-irons.

MR HUGO: And as the early morning hours went by, how did you attend to Mr Sedibe?

MR DE KOCK: We fed him, I asked him how he was, he said that he was still in quite a lot of pain, that he had been hurt quite severely. I gave him painkillers and asked him whether or not he wanted any of the other tablets that I had given him the previous evening. He answered in the negative.

I went to Piet Retief that day because there was a source from Swaziland who had come there regarding a discussion of an attack on persons who would pass through via Amsterdam with weapons which they intended to use for acts of terrorism in the Transvaal section there.

MR HUGO: Yes, I think let us just attempt to abbreviate that. That then led to the attack which took place on that night which has formed part of one of the amnesty applications, the Amsterdam/Nerston matter, where ANC freedom fighters were killed during an ambush which was set for them by, among others, members of Vlakplaas.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct. But when I went to town I also went to buy him some clothes, from Pep Stores I still recall, and I also bought toiletries for Mr Sedibe and I later gave all these items to him.

MR HUGO: What was your perception of Mr Sedibe's attitude at that stage, was it cooperative by nature, neutral or antagonistic?

MR DE KOCK: He was afraid, he did not speak freely. I was under the impression that he was still investigating every possibility of escape, which was his job by nature of the situation. That is why I kept the leg-irons on unless he went for a shower. We would take him for a shower in the house but then I would accompany him and there would also be four or five members of my unit there as well. He considered his options and his first option was without a doubt to escape.

MR HUGO: Very well. And on that evening you participated in the Amsterdam/Nerston incident, and how often thereafter did you have anything to do with Mr Sedibe?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, for approximately two more days we stayed there where I liaised with Mr Sedibe and also took care of him and after that my members and I departed and he was left over to the Piet Retief Security Branch and all other members who had to deal with him thereafter.

MR HUGO: What was your perception of his attitude at that stage, that would be two days after his abduction? Did it come to your attention that he was being cooperative or was there still a state of neutrality?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, he answered a question was put to him, but how we were to determine what the truth of it was, would only be possible later by means by controlling this information with other sources. I was under the impression that he was only answering the questions which were put to him and that he wasn't elaborating on anything else.

MR HUGO: Very well. And during these two days that you were still at the scene, or at least that you arrived there from time to time, was there any further mention of any assault on Mr Sedibe?

MR DE KOCK: No, during the time that I was there there was no further assault on Mr Sedibe, very definitely not.

MR HUGO: Just to return to the Amsterdam/Nerston matter, it is so - and I am giving a small piece of evidence, but it has been rendered in previous amnesty applications, rumours were sent out indicating that Mr Sedibe was responsible for the information which led to the death of the ANC freedom fighters during the Amsterdam/Nerston incident. Those are the rumours which abounded.

MR DE KOCK: I have absolutely no doubt that this was all part of a Stratcom operation to discredit Glory Sedibe, so that he would not be able to return to the ANC. For example, some of the newspapers stated that he had provided the information, that he was the cause of the shooting at Amsterdam, but he did not provide that information.

Now that my memory has been peaked, on the contrary, on the night of the shooting, after we had returned, the bakkie with the bodies was also taken to the safehouse and Mr Sedibe was taking out of his holding cell that night to go and view the bodies and to see whether or not he could identify any of these deceased persons and he identified two.

MR HUGO: The fact of the matter remains that these rumours placed Mr Sedibe in a very unfavourable light.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, and furthermore there were also rumours in the press, both the English and the Afrikaans press, that he was operating in Swaziland with the Security Police, that he had been seen there. Then much was also made of his testimony in the Ebrahim matter and that he was the deciding factor when it came to Ebrahim's sentence.

MR HUGO: When did you re-establish contact with Mr Sedibe?

MR DE KOCK: Upon many occasions, or at least upon all the occasions that I visited Piet Retief and we had a permanent presence there. I went to visit Mr Sedibe, I would speak to him, sometimes I went to the cells where he was being detained, sometimes I found him in the office, but the discussions were not about intelligence or interrogation, they were about he himself. What I noticed initially when I saw him for the first time, approximately two or three weeks later, was his longing for his wife and his child and one could actually see that he was wasting away under those circumstances but that he was longing for them.

CHAIRPERSON: Could we return to the shooting during which you say that it was definitely not Sedibe who had identified them before the shooting. That incident, is there an aim or some form of identification indicating the name of the operation, that you can refer to? I would like to know the names of the persons who were killed.

MR DE KOCK: The persons who were killed? I would have to consult the previous application, but there were two well-known MK members, but they in turn ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I would imagine that one of the previous witnesses stated that this man cooperated so effectively that he led the police to homes or to people that they were looking for, is this one of those?

MR DE KOCK: No, I will explain to you later because you see, Sedibe and I went to Vienna ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I just want to know because the previous witness refers to an incident where it may well have occurred that Sedibe led the police there, or is he referring to the same incident where you say no, that didn't happen?

MR DE KOCK: When we abducted Sedibe that night, the shooting took place the following night at Amsterdam, but that has absolutely nothing to do with Sedibe. I have also testified to that and other witnesses have confirmed this with regard to the Amsterdam/Nerston incident. Sedibe had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with this.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you know anything about an incident known as the Ntuli matter, or something like that?

MR DE KOCK: No. Perhaps you could link it to something for me, then I would able to remember better.

VOORSITTER: "Nee ek dra geen verdere kennis nie".

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I'd be willing to stake my life on the fact that he had absolutely nothing to do with it.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, please continue.

MR HUGO: Thank you, Chairperson.

You stated that he was filled with longing and that he was missing his wife and child tremendously and that he was deteriorating as a result. Did you have a discussion with Mr Pienaar - we have heard about this in his evidence, and that during this discussion you discussed the possibility of bringing his wife and child out to him?

MR DE KOCK: Towards the fourth or the fifth month this took place, because Sedibe was held quite strictly under Section 29 legislation, and I asked Sedibe whether or not this would provide a reasonable solution to bring his wife and child out to South Africa and obtain permanent residence for them. He agreed and afterwards I allowed him to use the telephone. He called Maputo, he spoke to his wife and during the next week to two weeks arrangements were made that on her last day of work at her place of employment she would move to Swaziland and from Swaziland she would go to Oshoek border post and from there she would come through and then Sedibe and I would receive her at Oshoek border post.

Those arrangements worked out as such, Sedibe and I went through to the border post. I think that Bellingan may have been with us. We found the wife and the daughter at the border post and the family was reunited at that point.

ADV BOSMAN: Why were you so conciliatory towards Mr Sedibe? Did you want to recruit him as an askari, what was your motivation for being so accommodating?

MR DE KOCK: The approach of the interrogators and the investigators was to maintain his services, but he was also my contemporary. Mr Sedibe was not the sort of person who could be classified under the normal term of askari, he wasn't like those persons who had been made an offer instead of having to serve out a prison sentence and so forth. Mr Sedibe was a blue-blooded ANC member, he was a blue-blooded member of MK, he was a blue-blooded son of Africa and he was my equal on the other side. And from my sources on ground level there was no talk of defection in Mr Sedibe's mind. He would also not come to South Africa.

With regard to his drinking habits, everybody drank, the ANC drank, the South African Police drank, this had absolutely nothing to do with his thoughts of defecting.

ADV BOSMAN: There was evidence here, I think it was Mr Pienaar or Mr Deetlefs that stated that they wanted to retain Mr Sedibe in the Ermelo/Piet Retief area, but that head office wanted him, are you aware thereof?

MR DE KOCK: It is possible, but head office had the final say over where people would go such as members of the ANC and PAC.

ADV BOSMAN: Didn't you play a role in that?

MR DE KOCK: No, the recruitment was usually undertaken by Section C2, who would undertake the interviews and I had absolutely no say over that.

ADV BOSMAN: But you didn't take a role, you didn't report to head office and tell them that you had a good relationship with the man, that you could use him as an askari and so forth?

MR DE KOCK: No, that entire aspect would come from the divisional commander because he would have to decide whether or not they would charge the man, whether or not Section 29 would be applied. They would have to decide what they wanted to do with him.

ADV BOSMAN: Are you saying that this would have been Mr Visser?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, because I was under head office, I wouldn't have had a say in whether or not I wanted to take him or not, because we often received askaris that I didn't want.

ADV BOSMAN: You're misunderstanding me, I want to know whether or not you would have told head office "But I have a good relationship with Sedibe, I'm going to get his wife and child out here, we communicate very easily, I think that he should go to head office and I might be able to use him"? Did you do so?

MR DE KOCK: No, I think the thing about the wife and the child came from my side ...(intervention)

ADV BOSMAN: Was this a humane consideration?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, it was because I thought it right.

MR HUGO: I would just like to return to the arrangement for the documentation. Did you arrange legal documentation or did you use forged documents? This was for the wife of Mr Sedibe and his child.

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, I arranged it through Brig Schoon. If I recall correctly he signed the documents because there was legislature as to how long a person could stay in the country and I think I also arranged passports.

MR HUGO: But did this take place legally?

MR DE KOCK: Legally in the sense that head office approved it and Foreign Affairs approved, but it would not have fulfilled the requirements of the law.

MNR HUGO: "Ons het dit nou dat mnr Sedibe uiteindelik of Vlakplaas beland het, en hoe is hy toe aangewend"?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I did not send him out with the askaris, he was not treated as an askari because he was not an askari as far as I was concerned. He did not ever supply any information that led to the apprehension of any MK members or of any attacks to the neighbouring States. He did testify in a case and that was unfortunate.

MR HUGO: And upon a question from one of the Committee Members you mentioned a visit to Zurich with him, will you tell us what happened there?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, the Directorate of Covert Collections, which has been well traversed in these proceedings, they were recruiting an ANC member who was in Germany - they told me he was in Germany, it might not be true, Sedibe and I were part of this operation because Sedibe knew this member quite well and would be able to convince him to work for Military Intelligence Services.

The person recruited was - to him it was only about money, it was not about moral values. We went to Germany and from there we went to Vienna where we booked into a luxurious hotel where and I shared a room. This is Sedibe and I. They wanted to keep us together because we had to keep each other awake, as they could call us at any time and we had to be ready.

And then for approximately five to eight hours we were allowed to move around freely. We had to man the telephones up to the time when the DCC member would arrive in Vienna with this ANC member and where he would be able to speak with Mr Sedibe.

And during that time, Mr Sedibe and I learnt to know each other. We spent fourteen days in each other's company and because our positions were similar in rank on either side, we were quite open towards each other. On a day I asked Mr Sedibe as to how much information he really gave, he said he approximately gave 10% of the information. When I asked him why so little, he said that was enough to for them to keep him alive.

He also mentioned that the Security Branch already had much of the information, he only had to confirm it. And in my mind he never turned out to be an impimpie. He was an intelligent man, he gave them just enough to satisfy them and to keep them happy, but it was about his survival.

CHAIRPERSON: Please tell us, if that was the case he had the opportunity to run away.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson yes, I shall arrive there shortly. Part of this Stratcom operation prevented him from going back because of the time that had elapsed - and this is one of the things that I asked him, because of the time that had elapsed, because of the time he was detained under Section 29, there was no way he could go back. He also said so, and I realised that, that he could go back and that the ANC would never believe that we had just released him because there was no evidence. And this was confirmed later by that senior member of the ANC who we recruited after he spoke to Sedibe.

MR HUGO: May I just ask you, wasn't it practice in the Security Police that when such a person was arrested and he was to be turned, they only way to contaminate him was to get him to testify in one of the cases or to send rumours into the world that he was an agent and that he would be in a precarious position? That was often the case.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, it could have caused his death. I would just like to mention that this was confirmed later when I spoke to this senior ANC member in Vienna and we were in the hotel room, when we almost drank ourselves into a coma because the liquor was free. There was a group by the name of Umbekodo(?), they were from the Department of Intelligence and Security, who told me how they worked with Tami Zulu who was also known as Bonnyface, and they thought that he was a traitor. So there was no way that Sedibe could ever have returned.

And then amongst others, he never lost his feeling towards the ANC, he did not change his political viewpoints and when I asked him "What do you think of the armed struggle?", he said "If we cannot vote we have to keep on fighting". When he asked me the question, what I would have done if I was black, then I told him "Well I would have been on the other side as well, then I would have also been with the ANC". So we had a very open relationship, it was not - I believe that he was a hostage of circumstances and he did not have a choice.

MR HUGO: Eventually we have it now that Mr Sedibe left Vlakplaas and he went to Military Intelligence, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, he went to them and there he also rendered service, but I still liaised with him and on opportunities I still me with him and we remained friends right until the end.

MR HUGO: And later you heard he was deceased and that you have certain reservations about the manner in which he had died.

MR DE KOCK: I still have those reservations, I cannot support it, but 25 years of police service and of all those 25 years except for short periods in the uniform service, I had to deal with counter-insurgence and counter-terrorism and one develops an intuition in the more dark areas of our work and I say today still that Glory Sedibe did not die of natural causes. And if I ever walk out of here I will prove it, I am convinced of it.

MR HUGO: When you became involved in this operation, were you drive by any feelings of malice or hatred ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Excuse me, Mr Hugo.

What is the official version of his death?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I heard that somebody said that his liver failed, but there was never any post-mortem inquest held.

MNR HUGO: Mnr de Kock, toe u betrokke geraak het - ek praat nou by die aanvang van hierdie operasie", were you driven by any feelings of revenge or hatred, personal hatred towards Mr Sedibe?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson.

MR HUGO: And did you receive any payment or remuneration for your part in the operation?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson.

MR HUGO: And then in conclusion, your political motive, the reason why you became involved in this operation, what was that?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, it was the combatting of terrorism, the neutralising of an extremely effective leader, an effective operative, and this would have led to minimising attacks in the country and this would have led to confusion amongst ANC ranks in Swaziland and Mozambique and it would have led to the usurping of their lines of smuggling weapons into the country.

MR HUGO: That's the evidence, thank you Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HUGO

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

Mr de Kock, there are just singular aspects which I would like to take up with you. The term "askari", what do you understand by it?

MR DE KOCK: The translation of askari? As I understand it, it was here a person who decided or a person from one of the liberation movements who decided to go over to the police. In other words, one could call him a traitor.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible)

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, although in the case of Mr Sedibe there was no prize, he never ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: That is why you describe him as not being an askari?

MR DE KOCK: There were only three of them who fulfilled that category, the other two I will not mention.

MR LAMEY: But at Vlakplaas there were also people who were considered as askaris who were abducted and later worked with the police.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, but for them it was only about money, it was never because of moral principles.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr de Kock, may I ask you - excuse me, Mr Lamey, is this a subjective thing as to who is a "true blue" askari and who is not? Let us not debate about things are quite broad.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, that was my viewpoint of these people because I had to use these people, I had to send these people somewhere and I could trust this person to identify some of his friends.

ADV BOSMAN: May I tell you why I ask this question. If Mr Pienaar or Mr Deetlefs said that they regarded him as an askari, is it possible that they bona fide saw him as an askari or are you trying to say that if they say he is an askari, then he is not. ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR DE KOCK: No, I think this was a general term which was taken up, that this was a person of a previous liberation movement, who worked at Vlakplaas.

ADV BOSMAN: I think you have made it clear now.

MR DE KOCK: But the Oxford dictionary says - "It is white led black troops". The ANC today say it is black led white troops, but we have no problem with that.

ADV BOSMAN: So what you are telling us, in general it was a person who was a liberation fighter and worked on the other side, but in general was regarded as an askari? But it wasn't your view. ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR DE KOCK: No, no.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you,

MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chairperson.

I think the point addresses one of the points of departure of one of my applicants, Mr Koole, in his application says he saw Sedibe as a person who came to Vlakplaas and worked as an askari along with the other askaris, but I would also in the same breath like to say that Mr Koole agrees with you that Mr Sedibe was - we'll call it "askari", he was in another category, that you liked him very much and gave him much more freedom than the other askaris. He was a man who I would have wanted at my side if there was a fight.

MR LAMEY: Very well then, I will depart from that point. I am not clear with regard to the evidence. During the breaking out of Mr Sedibe there in Swaziland, what is your recollection, who strangled him with the scarf to bring him under control?

MR DE KOCK: As far as I can recall it was Koole, because I think Koole went down at that stage and in that specific moment that was the only thing that held Sedibe, this was the scarf around his neck. It was not tied around his neck, it was just put around him in order to hold onto him.

MR LAMEY: Might your memory be mistaken as to the person who did this?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, I would concede that because it was quite rough there and there was confusion.

MR LAMEY: Mr Koole says that he was one of the persons who was involved in bringing Mr Sedibe under control specifically, along with Mr van Dyk. And Mr Sedibe as you have said, was big and strong and it took a lot to bring him under control and you will see that Mr van Dyk is quite a large man himself and quite strong and it took quite a bit to bring him under control.

MR DE KOCK: That's correct.

MR LAMEY: And in that process, Mr Koole assaulted him, he will not deny that, but Mr Koole's version is that it was Mr van Dyk who - in Mr Koole's recollection, then strangled him with a tie. His statement says a tie or a scarf.

MR DE KOCK: I will not dispute that.

MR LAMEY: And then the other aspect is that he was the person who went behind you through the window when you bumped into the police officer in the station.

MR DE KOCK: It could have been who was with, but when I looked around right behind me I saw Almond Nofomela behind me, because he also had a firearm and I wanted to know who was to support me at that stage. I am not saying that he was not in the office.

MR LAMEY: The issues of the firearms, is it your clear recollection that everyone had firearms?

MR DE KOCK: No, not everyone had firearms, we had about five or six pistols fitted with silencers with us.

MR LAMEY: The weapons that you had with you, was it a firearm that was officially issued to you?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, these were firearms which were taken from firearms which were found at Silverton where they stored the firearms which had to be destroyed. We then took some firearms from there, we took them to technical and they manufactured silencers.

MR LAMEY: How did you get through the border post without anybody being suspicious at the border post?

MR DE KOCK: With the exception of a vehicle here and there, all our vehicles had secret compartments. For example, there was one vehicle that could hide 16 AK47s.

MR LAMEY: But you did not expect any resistance in the police station?

MR DE KOCK: That's correct, we knew that there would only be one member and there would be no resistance.

MR LAMEY: But you say there were firearms which were hidden in compartments of the vehicles.

MR DE KOCK: Those were our weapons, yes.

MR LAMEY: Which were hidden. You see why I ask this question is because, Mr Koole says he did not have a firearm and he cannot recall any other firearms and he cannot imagine seeing any weapons, but he will not argue that you in the dark, when you could have brought out a weapon and pointed it at the policeman to convince him to drop his weapon. He possibly could not have seen it.

MR DE KOCK: No, he would not have seen it because I stood right opposite the police officer, Nofomela was in the office just out of sight of the policeman and I took the G3 from the policeman, thanks to the young member who kept his head.

MR LAMEY: Very well. Mr Koole also furthermore says that at some stage he was along in Ermelo to meet with Sedibe's wife and child. Do you recall that he received that instruction from you?

MR DE KOCK: I know that we brought them back from Oshoek border post and it was quite a struggle to find, to rent them some rooms at the Moolman hotel - she might be able to assist me, and I booked them in there for two or three days and it took quite a lot of trouble, the owner did not like this because they had to take their meals in their rooms.

I had some guards there. I stayed in the hotel myself and I had two guards outside. Thereafter, I cannot recall where they stayed up to the time where they came to Pretoria and then I arranged accommodation for them. I did channel some money to Mr Pienaar and to Mr Sedibe for their accommodation.

MR LAMEY: Would you dispute Mr Koole's version that you sent him and Mngade to meet with Sedibe's wife and they met in Ermelo?

MR DE KOCK: I will not dispute that, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: I would just like to know whether we differ here. And then the other aspect is that he specifically after Sedibe was abducted and brought to this farm, he agrees with you that he was cuffed to the bed and he said that he had to guard him. He was in the room with him where he had to guard him.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, it could be that at times the door of that pumphouse was open. By nature of the situation the man cannot sit in the dark for 24 hours, but there were specific instructions that this man was not to be touched and he was to be taken care of.

MR LAMEY: And then I would just like to ask you, can you recall that Mr Fourie worked in that area and he was eventually involved in the Nerston incident and at that stage he was a member of C2?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, he was. I co-opted him for the shooting at Amsterdam, but I cannot recall whether he was at the safehouse at that stage.

MR LAMEY: But what I mean is that Mr Fourie will testify that he undertook questioning after Mr Sedibe was abducted and by means of photo albums and that Mr Sedibe did indeed cooperate.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, all the askaris did that, that was a standard procedure that all detainees went through.

MR LAMEY: To make other identifications with the assistance of this album?

MR DE KOCK: That's correct.

MR LAMEY: And then Mr Bosch in his amnesty application says - I do not know what your recollection is about his, but Mr Bosch says that it is his recollection - and he places it into context after Sedibe's abduction, but he says it could be that he might mistake it with another incident, he says that his recollection is that after Sedibe was questioned, he disclosed information with regard to certain safehouses in Swaziland and this information was followed up and some of the Vlakplaas members went to Swaziland where houses were searched for documents and firearms. Do you know anything about that?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, this is entirely another case which had taken place somewhere in 1985, when the houses of Paul Dikiledi and other persons were ransacked, but this was from information gleamed from sources and not from Sedibe. This was approximately two years before this.

MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chairperson, no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY

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

Mr de Kock, the members, Mngade, Nofomela and Koole, they were all police officers, they were not askaris.

MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And these incidents there in Mankanyane, did this take place very quickly?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, the only pause was the police officer with the firearm.

MR PRINSLOO: And the transport of Mr Sedibe from the police station in the land-cruiser as you call it, was he in the back or was he behind the seats or was he on the seats?

MR DE KOCK: It was a station-wagon where one has the seats and then one has seats which we can put down and create a bigger space.

MR PRINSLOO: Was he there?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, because I, Mngade and I think two other persons, I think Nofomela was also there because the man fought.

MR PRINSLOO: And there where you met with Brig Visser, was it dark?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, it was at the border post where we had crossed the border and then one drives in the direction of the border post and we found him where one arrives at the tarmac. It was well lit there, it had these halogen lights that were quite bright.

MR PRINSLOO: Was Mr Sedibe removed from the vehicle?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, as far as I can recall he was removed from the vehicle.

MR PRINSLOO: And then Mr de Kock, when you treated him medically, did you treat him alone or were there others present?

MR DE KOCK: There may have been others present, Chairperson, but I know that I treated him medically.

MR PRINSLOO: And after that he was clean? In other words, his wounds had been treated and his clothing had been replaced with new clothing?

MR DE KOCK: I went to buy new clothes for him the following day, but the wounds and the places that he showed to me as injured, were treated.

MR PRINSLOO: And with regard to Mr Pienaar, because you and Mr Pienaar worked together quite closely, especially with regard to Mr Sedibe's situation.

MR DE KOCK: I was interested in Mr Sedibe, but not necessarily in terms of the interrogation.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you ever have any indication that he was not very favourably treated by Mr Pienaar?

MR DE KOCK: He never gave me any complaints about Mr Pienaar, he just told me one day that he had a serious problem with Mr Nick Deetlefs from John Vorster Square and that he had problems with Mr Deetlefs. I don't know what happened there.

MR PRINSLOO: But I'm referring to Mr Pienaar, was this in Piet Retief?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, it was because Mr Deetlefs used to travel through Piet Retief.

MR PRINSLOO: Was this while still in detention?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, it was.

MR PRINSLOO: And with regard to Mr Pienaar and Mr Chris Deetlefs, the other applicants, did he ever have any problems with them?

MR DE KOCK: No.

MR PRINSLOO: And in as far as it has to do with Mrs Sedibe and the transportation of Mrs Sedibe and their child to South Africa, did Mr Pienaar also agree with this?

MR DE KOCK: Yes. Contrary to what others may say, he is a family man and he didn't have any problems with that idea.

MR PRINSLOO: And the treatment received by Mrs Sedibe and their child, you heard that Mr Pienaar even gave a tricycle to their child.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, they were very well cared for. I think Mr Pienaar would be able to give better details about this. I channelled funds from the Secret Fund through to Mr Sedibe and his family.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, nothing further.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRINSLOO

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: Mr de Kock, the gun, the G3, I just want to put it to you that - you said that you could not recall, but I want to put it to you that you did not give this gun to Mr Visser. Would you dispute this? Because you yourself stated that you couldn't recall pertinently.

MR DE KOCK: No, I would not dispute it, but I know that it went to the Eastern Transvaal and the way I recall it, Mr Visser received the gun because by nature of the situation he was quite sensitive about the telephone which had been destroyed for example, and that is my last idea, but I will not dispute this matter.

MS VAN DER WALT: I just want to understand your evidence correctly with regard to Mr Sedibe who according to you was a full-blood ANC member. It is not your evidence that he did not cooperate with the police with regard to investigations, do I understand you correctly?

MR DE KOCK: I cannot say that he did not assist them, he did make statements and he testified in Courts.

MS VAN DER WALT: Do you remember Miriam Williams?

MR DE KOCK: Miriam who?

MS VAN DER WALT: Miriam Williams.

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, I do not have a recollection of this person. If you could perhaps link the person to something, I might be able to refresh my memory.

MS VAN DER WALT: Miriam Pumla Williams. She was identified by Mr Sedibe at the Baragwanath Hospital where the nurses buses stopped and she was also charged later.

MR DE KOCK: I don't have any knowledge of this.

MS VAN DER WALT: Sedibe did not testify in that matter, but you know that he testified in the Ebrahim matter.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, I am aware of it. The reason why I say that I am not aware of the person that he identified is that I would have been the one to fill out the claim and to instate the claim and there was no claim for that identification.

MS VAN DER WALT: I want to put it to you further that during the Ebrahim matter he spent seven weeks in the witness box. Do you recall him spending so much time in the witness box?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, I knew that he was there for a long time.

MS VAN DER WALT: And it was for the first time that the structures of the ANC were testified about in any open Court and he was the one to give evidence about this.

MR DE KOCK: I will not dispute it. The other askaris also testified regarding structures, commanders and camps. In this regard they must have required a more expert person.

MS VAN DER WALT: Do you recall that Tami Zulu during the time that the case was tried, was killed abroad?

MR DE KOCK: I understood that he was taken away from Swaziland and the reasons were provided to me by the member in Vienna and he later died.

MS VAN DER WALT: Can you recall that it was - that there were documents which were taken from Lusaka, about which Glory Sedibe testified and that that was the reason why Tami Zulu was killed?

MR DE KOCK: No, that is not the case. The member who was recruited in Vienna, as well as other members of the ANC, wanted to shoot Mr Deetlefs, Mr Labuschagne and four other members dead at the Royal Swazi Hotel where they were playing golf. Tami Zulu was sent to fetch the weapons. When he returned he didn't have the weapons and he told the people that he couldn't find the weapons and this then, as per the explanation of the other person, is the reason why Tami Zulu was called back and later treated as a suspect, tortured and subsequently he died.

MS VAN DER WALT: These reports that you refer to pertaining to the Nerston incident, my instructions from Mr van Dyk are that it was much later that it appeared in the press, much later than the actual time of the incident.

MR DE KOCK: Could you repeat your question please.

MS VAN DER WALT: The newspaper reports appeared much longer after the incident had taken place, it was not immediately after the incident.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Just a moment please, Chairperson.

I would also like to put it to you that Mr van Dyk will testify that it was indeed him who strangled Mr Sedibe with the scarf in order to force him.

MR DE KOCK: I would not dispute this.

MS VAN DER WALT: No further questions, thank you.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS VAN DER WALT

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LEOPENG: Thank you, Chairman.

Mr de Kock, when you undertook to execute the abduction of Mr Sedibe, what objective did you seek to achieve?

MR DE KOCK: I think I will require a headpiece, Chairperson. Okay thank you, continue.

MR LEOPENG: May I rephrase my question?

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: You may repeat it.

MR LEOPENG: Mr de Kock, when you undertook to execute the abduction of Mr Sedibe, what objective did you seek to achieve?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, it was to take Mr Sedibe out of the cells and to return him to the RSA and that would be where my mandate would cease.

MR LEOPENG: What was the reason to take him in the country, what did you want to do with him whilst he now in the Republic of South Africa?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, by nature of his position he would be thoroughly interrogated, there would have been an attempt to obtain all information from him with regard to MK and all structures, the access routes and then most probably also persons who were already here in the country.

MR LEOPENG: Did you also intend to recruit him to work at Vlakplaas, or to work for the Security Police?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, at that stage my duties were completed, I didn't have any further say in whether or not they would charge him or whether they were going to leave him or recruit him, or whether he would disappear on some or other evening.

MR LEOPENG: Did you enquire from head office what was the intention to let him be brought in the country?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, at that stage I was under the command of Brig Visser because I was in his region and one of Vlakplaas' tasks was counter-terrorism and this fell within the mandate.

MR LEOPENG: Did you then ask Brig Visser what was their intention to bring Sedibe in the country?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, at that stage I wouldn't say that I was such an experienced security policeman, but I had been involved in many similar such incidents and by nature of the circumstances, I understood that now was the time for interrogation and that an attempt would be made to obtain all possible information from him.

MR LEOPENG: Had you succeeded supposed(sic) to enquire from him and he furnished that information to you, were you going to let him go free?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, I would not have been capable of making those decisions. I was also not involved in any interrogation of him.

MR LEOPENG: You said in your evidence-in-chief that you were befriended to Sedibe.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, I became his friend later, we were mutual friends.

MR LEOPENG: And further you said he was still sticking to his ideology of the ANC, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

MR LEOPENG: And you personally were opposed to the terrorism activities.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, that was my primary task.

MR LEOPENG: How is it possible to be a friend to someone who is a terrorist and you are opposing the terrorist activities?

MR DE KOCK: Well Chairperson, at that stage Mr Sedibe was not planting any more bombs and he wasn't allowing any more bombs to be planted. There was a reciprocal respect between me and him by nature of our services upon previous occasions.

CHAIRPERSON: Actually it would appear to me as if you had developed a sense of respect for each other.

MR DE KOCK: Yes indeed, that was what it was about.

MR LEOPENG: May you please turn to page 76 of the bundle, paragraph 5 thereof. Mr Fourie in his affidavit indicated that Mr Sedibe was then taken to Vlakplaas, where he was an askari. What do you say about this?

MR DE KOCK: Well Chairperson, he did work there and he would then work under that general description as an askari.

MR LEOPENG: What is the scope of activities of an askari if he worked at Vlakplaas as an askari?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, in his case I kept him at Vlakplaas primarily. The ANC desk at head office in Pretoria wanted to consult him on a regular basis and so also then Section C2, with regard to the identification of ANC members with whom they were experiencing problems.

MR LEOPENG: Will I be correct to say an askari also furnishes information to the police in respect of the activities of his former members?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, it is so. However, I wish to explain what was Sedibe's dilemma in this case and it was also the dilemma that others shared. There were so many sources and so much available information already with regard to other members of the ANC, that Mr Sedibe was most probably just tested regarding information which was already available, and I believe that he was intelligent enough to pick that up.

MR LEOPENG: Will I then be correct to say that the ANC believed Mr Sedibe to be an askari because he provided you with some information?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, for them it would have been an assumption which they could readily have made, which was then substantiated by newspaper reports which branded him.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr de Kock, as I understand your evidence, it would appear to me that after a certain period Mr Sedibe would actually have been safer in the hands of the police than anywhere else, due to the impression that was created by the police.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson. If he had returned to the ANC, he would probably have ended up in Quatro or one of the other camps. I had absolutely no doubt about that aspect and neither did he.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Mr Leopeng, without interfering with your cross-examination, where is this line of cross-examination heading us to in relation to the activities of Mr Sedibe whilst he was an askari?

MR LEOPENG: Chairman, I'm coming to the interrogation part of it, that's why he turned as an askari.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: I think it would be appreciated if you would hastily get to that point.

MR LEOPENG: Thank you, Chairman.

Now Mr de Kock, let's come to the issue where you testified that you had the information that the police station where Mr Sedibe was kept won't be guarded.

MR DE KOCK: No, I didn't say that it wouldn't be guarded, the information indicated that there was only one person on duty and that it was a very small police station, so it was an easy target and ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Leopeng, is that in any way disputed? That Mr Sedibe was abducted from that police station?

MR LEOPENG: No, no.

CHAIRPERSON: So what is the issue as to whether Mr de Kock had information about how many policemen there were, how many weapons there were at their disposal got to do with it? The fact of the matter is that he was - they were successful in abducting him.

MR LEOPENG: Chairman, I put this question to the first application in relation to the information by that the Commissioner of Police and the head of the police at that time knew about the abduction and whether that police station will be guarded.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: In that case, Mr Leopeng, I think you must try and put your question pointedly in order to elicit that kind of response. Maybe you've got to rephrase your question.

MR LEOPENG: Thank you, I will.

Were you aware that the Commissioner of Police and the head of the police knew that the police station will not be guarded?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I wouldn't be able to say how they arranged their services or how they arranged the nature of their services. I was informed of the liaison between the senior members of the Swazi Police and our people. And furthermore - this can only lead to speculation, there is the question why such a senior member of the ANC was kept in such an easy soft target location and not a maximum security facility. But I will leave that over to you for speculation.

MR LEOPENG: Further in your evidence you said when you arrived at the border - subject to a correction here, you met Brig Visser, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR LEOPENG: Did Brig Visser have the opportunity to observe or to see Mr Sedibe?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, it was his operation and it was his man.

MR LEOPENG: Was it possible for Mr Visser to have noticed or observed the cut that Mr Sedibe had on his nose?

MR DE KOCK: One would not have been able to miss it because even to the day of his death, there was a deep dark scar over his nose.

CHAIRPERSON: Would he have been able to see the blood, or was he supposed to have seen the blood?

MR DE KOCK: I beg your pardon?

CHAIRPERSON: Should Mr Visser have been able to see the blood, on the shirt for example?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, and also on the face ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Well let us speak about the blood on the clothing, would he have been able to see that?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, because it was clearly lighted with halogen lights.

MR LEOPENG: No further questions, Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LEOPENG

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible)

MS PATEL: No, thank you, Honourable Chairperson.

NO QUESTIONS BY MS PATEL

MR HUGO: No re-examination, thank you, Chair.

NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR HUGO

ADV BOSMAN: Just one question, Mr de Kock. At this stage shortly after Mr Sedibe had arrived there at the safehouse, where was Mr Deetlefs all this time? Can you assist us?

MR DE KOCK: As far as I know he was with us, but I cannot place him specifically. I can place my own actions because I was an integral part of this man's life, but I cannot place Mr Deetlefs independently.

ADV BOSMAN: And with regard to the Section 29 detention, was it ever discussed between you and Mr Deetlefs?

MR DE KOCK: No, because at that stage there wasn't any talk of detaining him in terms of Section 29, we didn't know what was going to happen.

ADV BOSMAN: So we could accept Mr Deetlefs' evidence that for at least the first few days there was no question of a Section 29 detention?

MR DE KOCK: He is entirely correct.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you.

MR DE KOCK: With your permission I would just like to mention something. I accept responsibility for the actions of all my members from Vlakplaas who served below me and also for my own actions. That is all.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Mr de Kock, I just have one question on clarity with regard to your evidence-in-chief. You've already testified that two or three weeks after Mr Sedibe's abduction you had a discussion with him and that's when he addressed his longing for his family.

MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR LEOPENG: Which you then conveyed to Mr Pienaar.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Now at that stage, what impression did you form of Mr Sedibe, did you get the impression that his attitude had changed, that he was beginning or had already begun to cooperate with the police? Now this is two or three weeks after his abduction.

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, what I noticed in him was loneliness, disorientation, he was afraid by nature of the situation, not only for his own life but for the life of his family. He had no friends. And this was all part of Section 29 and its effects. At that stage he was a completely lost person, a lost soul in that respect.

CHAIRPERSON: But Section 29 was aimed at making one feel this way.

MR DE KOCK: Yes. I have never been detained in terms of Section 29, but the circumstances are pretty much the same and I'm very much aware of that.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: So he still looked disorientated?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: We have already heard evidence that during his detention in terms of Section 29, he enjoyed all the latitude that a free man would, except that he was still held in incarceration. Did you get that impression?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I know that Mr Pienaar - there were usually two approaches to interrogation, the one was the velvet glove and the other was the iron fist and Mr Pienaar here used the velvet glove method. That may be so. Mr Pienaar is not the monster that people constantly make him out to be, although some things happened that were not good at all and I believe that he treated Mr Sedibe accordingly.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr de Kock, you and your colleagues delivered Mr Sedibe near Piet Retief.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: However, Mr Visser saw Mr Sedibe at the border already.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Did he travel with you to deliver Mr Sedibe at Piet Retief?

MR DE KOCK: No.

CHAIRPERSON: What happened to Mr Visser during that time?

MR DE KOCK: I don't know. He departed and I didn't see him again.

CHAIRPERSON: To whom was Mr Sedibe delivered at the Piet Retief office?

MR DE KOCK: He fell under the control of Mr Pienaar.

CHAIRPERSON: And once you were done with that, were you involved in the operation?

MR DE KOCK: With the exception of his care and treatment I was still involved with him, but two to three days later we continued with our duties.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you see him again?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, approximately two to three weeks later during another deployment.

CHAIRPERSON: Until he arrived at Vlakplaas?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, until he eventually arrived at Vlakplaas, which was approximately six months later, if not more.

CHAIRPERSON: And is that where you got to know him really well?

MR DE KOCK: No, we had already got to know each other at Piet Retief.

CHAIRPERSON: But that must have been the introduction of what was to come.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, I found him interesting and he was someone who had dignity.

CHAIRPERSON: Now how do you feel regarding what you did at that stage pertaining to Mr Sedibe?

MR DE KOCK: It is not only today, even at that stage at Vlakplaas also I hoped that it wouldn't happen to me and it almost did although not quite. Mr Sedibe would today have been either the Head of the army or Head of the Defence Force or the Minister of Defence. So in a sense we not only destroyed his life, we also left his family with a handful of ashes. Regarding his brothers, sisters and parents, we left him in a situation where they didn't know whether or not he was a traitor or whether he could be trusted. By interfering in his fate we destroyed a person who could today have acted for us in the same stature as some of the greater military leaders that we have known. That is the man that I knew. We interfered with one of the best persons available to us in the country and this is one of the things which still affects me today.

CHAIRPERSON: Should the opportunity arise, would you be prepared - I don't know whether the family of Mr Sedibe would be prepared to do so, but would you at least be prepared to make peace with them?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, I would actually ask whether they would be prepared to make peace with me.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that's actually what I meant. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: We will adjourn for lunch.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

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

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: Chairperson, there is one aspect which came about during cross-examination. If the Honourable Committee would allow me, I will not go on cross-examination, I would just like to make a certain statement to Mr de Kock before he is excused.

Mr de Kock, you during cross-examination said that you stopped below the large lights at the border post and you took Mr Sedibe from the car there and Brig Visser saw him there, is that correct?

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

MS VAN DER WALT: I would just like to put it to you that this was not put to Brig Visser on your behalf when he gave evidence and I would just like to put it to you that Brig Visser denies that he was at the border post and that he saw Sedibe there.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, that is where we went through the border and that is where we met with Mr Visser. It was prearranged that we would meet with him there and he was there alone waiting for us. There were no other people with him, he was there alone. I can assure you that Mr Visser was there, it was his operation in that regard and that is the man that he wanted to have.

MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr de Kock, on this aspect, when you returned to South Africa did you pass through the formal border post or how did you cross the border?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, approximately 80 to 100 metres from there, south from there along the border there was some level ground and we pulled up there to the fence and then one would remove the support poles there and press down the fence and then cross over and then you just put it back and then you'd drive back to the border post on some trail road.

CHAIRPERSON: Were there border post there?

MNR DE KOCK: "Ja, die grenspos is een van die aktiefste grensposte ...(tussenbeide)"

CHAIRPERSON: No, where you went through, was there a border post?

MR DE KOCK: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it just the field and the bush?

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Where did the lights come from?

MR DE KOCK: The lights were at the border post, at the gate. The whole border post, the houses and the border post there are lit up with these halogen lights.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that where you met with Mr Visser?

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: But you went through the fence when you crossed the border.

MR DE KOCK: That's correct, and we drove back up to the border post from there and this was on the tarmac there, and there we spoke and there we reported back to Mr Visser and from there we left.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

WITNESS EXCUSED

MS VAN DER WALT: We would just like to change the microphones, but the next witness will be Mr van Dyk.