CHAIRPERSON: Good afternoon everybody. For the record, I'm Judge Pillay, I'm going to ask both my colleagues to identify themselves for the purposes of the record and so too the various representatives.
MR MALAN: Wynand Malan, Commissioner.
ADV BOSMAN: Francis Bosman, Amnesty Committee Member.
MR HATTINGH: P A Hattingh, Mr Chairman, I appear for Mr de Kock.
MR JANSEN: Thank you, Chair. Adv C R Jansen, on the instructions of Julian Knight Attorneys, we appear for applicant Ras.
MR VAN DER MERWE: Thank you, Chairperson. Francois van der Merwe, I appear on behalf of the applicant, D Baker.
MS PATEL: Ramula Patel, Leader of Evidence.
CHAIRPERSON: Before we proceed I just want to enquire from each of the representatives if anyone is able to assist us in identifying the victim in this matter. I'll put on record everything we've done so far, and we haven't been able to properly identify the victim. Is any one of the legal representatives in a position to indicate that?
MR HATTINGH: No, Mr Chairman.
MR JANSEN: Unfortunately not, Mr Chairman.
MR VAN DER MERWE: Unfortunately not.
CHAIRPERSON: In this matter the applications relate to the death of a person hitherto not identified. It seems, we are told, that the office of the Amnesty Committee in Cape Town, made certain attempts to ascertain the identity through its Investigators and no positive result came from that exercise. This morning we contacted, or we made attempts to contact the office of the Attorney-General in Gauteng, that also produced no positive results. Similarly, the office of the Special Offences Unit was contacted, thereto there has been no positive results as to the identity of the victim in this application.
I am satisfied that we have done all we can up to this stage, to ascertain the identity of that person. I am not sure if there's much more we could do and therefore I am of the view we should proceed with this application. I'm comfortable with doing that, with the proviso that the Rehabilitation and Reparations Committee is directed to this matter and in their investigation, should they be fortunate enough to make a positive identification, they can either refer it back to me in chambers for me to declare any person a victim, or they can just proceed on that basis of dealing with that victim in the normal course of their business. Other than that, I think we should proceed then with the application.
Ms Patel, are you satisfied that we have done all we can thusfar?
MS PATEL: Yes, I am, Honourable Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Let us proceed with the applications.
MS PATEL: Chairperson, before my colleague, Adv Hattingh proceeds, if I may through you place on record that Jan Wagener who appears for - well not appears, who represents both Willem Schoon and Phillip Crause, has submitted affidavits to me. He has indicated that he will not be present at the hearing. If I may formally place these affidavits before you and give them exhibit numbers.
CHAIRPERSON: Have they been informed as implicated people?
MS PATEL: They have, Honourable Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Is it in that capacity that they reply?
MS PATEL: Yes, that is correct. And then also, to place on record that he also represents Loots, Brig Loots, who is also an implicated person, but unfortunately he's of extreme ill health and for that reason he hasn't submitted any papers on Loots's behalf.
CHAIRPERSON: So it's Loots, Schoon, and who?
MS PATEL: Crause, Honourable Chairperson. So if we mark Schoon's affidavit, Exhibit A and Crause's B.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hattingh, is Mr de Kock going to be first, or have you people made other arrangements?
MR HATTINGH: We have agreed to go first, yes, Mr Chairman.
EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: (sworn states)
MR MALAN: Thank you, you may be seated.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hattingh, we're quite comfortable if you go straight to the nub of the application. We are aware of the history, we have seen it before and it's included in the bundles. We're quite acquainted with the facts pertaining to the history and the background.
EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Mr de Kock, you're the applicant in this matter, is that correct?
MR DE KOCK: Yes.
MR HATTINGH: Could you please very briefly in your own words tell us about the events to which this application applies.
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, during the end of '89 and it was in October 1989, I accompanied Brig Schoon along with Capt Baker, or Maj Baker as he then was, I accompanied them to a function in the Western Transvaal, and this function was held at a holiday resort near Mafikeng. The Boputhatswana Internal Intelligence Unit and the Western Transvaal Security Police gave this function for Brig Schoon.
During this function, which was a farewell function, Schoon spoke to Loots and also to Crause and they later asked me if I could not help these people and I ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Who asked you?
MR DE KOCK: It was Brig Schoon.
MR HATTINGH: He was your Commanding Officer, is that correct?
MR DE KOCK: Yes.
MR HATTINGH: You say Crause was present, have you seen his affidavit in which he alleges that he wasn't present at the function at all?
MR DE KOCK: Yes, but he definitely was there.
Chair, I then spoke to Brig Loots, he was the spokesperson with Mr Crause. I said that Capt Baker was with me, I may be wrong, it could also have been Mr Ras. During this discussion, Brig Loots asked me that we should take a man who was in Boputhatswana and who was an ANC member ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: I'm sorry, I'm lost. You said that Crause was present, Loots and before you said who was present you were busy saying that Schoon asked you something.
MR DE KOCK: Yes, he asked if we could help these people. That is a reference to Brig Loots and Mr Crause.
ADV BOSMAN: Can you tell us what Mr Crause's rank was?
INTERPRETER: The speaker is very indistinct.
MR DE KOCK: At that stage he had been seconded ...(intervention)
MS PATEL: Sorry, Mr de Kock, the interpreter - she needs you to speak up.
ADV BOSMAN: I think my microphone may be causing problems here, I can't get it off.
MACHINE SWITCHED OFF
ON RESUMPTION
MR HATTINGH: Brig Schoon asked you to help these people, referring to Crause and Loots, is that correct?
CHAIRPERSON: We haven't heard what rank Loots was.
MR DE KOCK: It was Brig Loots and it was Maj Crause.
At that stage Brig Schoon had already spoken to them, at the stage that he made this request to me and I and, well I thought it was Mr Baker, but I may be wrong, it could also have been Mr Ras, we spoke to them and I spoke to Brig Loots, he was the spokesperson. Brig Loots's request was that we should help them, that is Boputhatswana and the Western Transvaal Units, to get rid of this man. The man was creating a problem and had also already created a problem in that past. When I asked who this person was, they said that it was an ANC member and that they couldn't release this person again.
MR HATTINGH: Did they say why?
MR DE KOCK: I didn't go into the matter in any detail, but he said that this person had already created problems in the past for the Boputhatswana Intelligence Service and also started creating a problem for Western Transvaal and that this person possessed security and intelligence knowledge and information and that the person was a problem for them in that respect. In other words, he was a risk, he was a threat.
MR HATTINGH: Were you told whether this person was an askari, a so-called askari?
MR DE KOCK: No, I was only told that he was an ANC member and they that couldn't release him.
MR HATTINGH: Please continue.
MR DE KOCK: I told Brig Loots that I would help and we in fact later - at Vlakplaas I spoke to Baker and Ras and as far as I can recollect Baker and Ras left for Boputhatswana where they went to collect this person and whereafter he was killed and it was reported back to me. I don't know whether it was only Baker or Baker and Ras who reported back to me, but a report was made back to me.
I never knew this person's name, I don't know who he was, and I was satisfied that he was an ANC member. This was a personal and direct approach for termination of a person's life and we complied with that request.
MR HATTINGH: In the supplementary affidavit, which you've testified on on several occasions, page 29 which relates to Vlakplaas, you refer to the fact that Vlakplaas was often utilised in support of operations of other units and also to conceal the criminal activities by other members of the Security Police, is that correct?
MR DE KOCK: Yes.
MR HATTINGH: How did you feel about the fact that you were once again requested to act on behalf of another unit or section of the Security Police, and to make arrangements for somebody to be killed?
MR DE KOCK: I felt not very happy about this and I took the matter up with Brig Schoon on the journey back, because at that stage the revelation had already been made, as far as I can recall, revelations had been made by Dirk Coetzee and Almond Nofomela and it was in the press, especially in the Vryeweekblad, and Brig Schoon was busy actually leaving the Force and the McNally and Harms Commissions were busy picking up steam and we were busy planning our next murder, so it made me question this.
MR HATTINGH: What was his reaction as far as you can recall?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, his reaction was well let us discuss the matter later.
MR HATTINGH: Did he discuss it with you at a later stage?
MR DE KOCK: No. I did report back to him later that we had killed the person.
MR HATTINGH: Did you say it in so many words?
MR DE KOCK: No. We always used euphemisms such as "a man has said goodbye" or "we won't see him again" or "he doesn't exist anymore". The implication being that the man was killed. If I can give you an example, "the problem which had been discussed at the farewell party or in Mafikeng, had been solved." Something like that, that's how we would have referred to it.
MR HATTINGH: And he would then have understood what you meant?
MR DE KOCK: Yes.
MR HATTINGH: You already said that you didn't know this person at all, so you had no personal feelings towards this person.
MR DE KOCK: No.
MR HATTINGH: Did you receive any benefit from this operation?
MR DE KOCK: No.
MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Chairperson, no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HATTINGH
MR JANSEN: Thank you, Chair. I have no questions.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR JANSEN
CHAIRPERSON: Mr van der Merwe.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DER MERWE: Chairperson, I only have a couple of aspects, and in all justification to Mr de Kock, I just want to put it to him.
Mr de Kock you say your memory fails you. Mr Baker said that he only arrived on the scene after he was given at Vlakplaas to assist Lieut Ras with this operation and that he did not take part in the discussion which you had with Loots and Crause and Schoon during the farewell function. Can you confirm that or not?
MR DE KOCK: That is possible.
MR VAN DER MERWE: Thank you, Chair, no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN DER MERWE
MR MALAN: May I just find out, are you certain that Baker was at the farewell function?
MR DE KOCK: Yes, I'm very certain. I also mentioned this to my legal representative, as I can remember that I was a passenger sitting in the back of the car and Mr Baker was the driver.
MR MALAN: And who else was in the car?
MR DE KOCK: Brig Schoon was the other passenger who sat in front. The reason why I can remember this today is that I had read up about the history of the part where we were driving, Steelpoort, and it was an area where the old boers placed ambushes for the English, for the British troops.
MR MALAN: Was Ras at the farewell function?
MR DE KOCK: Yes.
MR MALAN: Was he also in the car with you?
MR DE KOCK: No. Mr Ras, as far as I can remember - well 10 kilometres outside Mafikeng you have grain silos at the side of the road and there's a turn-off, I don't know whether it leads to Lichtenburg or Koster, and he was supposed to meet us there because we didn't know where the place was, the place where the function was to be held.
MR MALAN: Thank you.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PATEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson.
Mr de Kock, you have had sight of Brig Schoon's affidavit to us, I would imagine. You will note that he denies that his
instruction to you was that the deceased should in fact be killed. His understanding of the instruction to you was in fact that the deceased should be taken back to Vlakplaas and perhaps - I'm not sure whether he used the word disciplined, but in fact that he should be held at Vlakplaas and maybe he could be brought under control there. What is your comment on that?
MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, I'd just like to mention that the Boputhatswana Internal Intelligence Unit also had their own askari unit, just like we did, and this person could have gone to work there. And secondly, if I look at this statement I see that Brig Schoon says that he was at the point of missing the path, deviating from the path. So I don't know, I would definitely have told you if I made the decision, just out of my own to kill a person. I've never previously had any problems to take responsibility for my actions and in this case I wouldn't place the blame on anybody else. Brig Schoon either can't remember it, or he's concealing the truth.
MS PATEL: Okay. And you state that the decision or the request came from, is it Loots specifically?
MR DE KOCK: Loots was the senior person, as far as I can remember he was a Brigadier at the time and he was the Commanding Officer of the whole Western Transvaal Security Police.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr de Kock, all three the other people did not apply for amnesty for whatever reason, in this particular case and I just want to clarify your position. When you were told that this man was a risk, a security risk, did you believe that?
MR DE KOCK: Yes, I did, I had no doubt.
CHAIRPERSON: You were told that he was a member of the ANC.
MR DE KOCK: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: And that he had on a previous occasion or occasions caused problems.
MR DE KOCK: That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON: And you believed that.
MR DE KOCK: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: It sounds to me as if, in this case, a case of you acting on that information and those orders.
MR DE KOCK: Yes, I didn't know the person at all.
CHAIRPERSON: You were not part of the decision making process to kill him, you were just asked to carry it out.
MR DE KOCK: That's correct. The decision had already been taken when I was approached.
CHAIRPERSON: So, how could I put this, you were used, you were utilised to carry out this plan.
MR DE KOCK: Yes. We were carrying out an idea, an idea which was already in existence.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and the decision had already been taken.
MR DE KOCK: Yes. The question wasn't "Do you have the capacity to kill them man?"
CHAIRPERSON: No, I understand that. You see, the question that arises in my mind at the moment is the following; was there or was there not a political reason or motive to kill him? Perhaps there wasn't, but you were put under that impression.
MR DE KOCK: Yes, I definitely had that impression. This morning I sat and I wondered during our consultation, nobody can trace this person, nobody can say who this person was. I don't even know whether he was a South African.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that's right, that's what worries me as well. The man was in custody.
MR DE KOCK: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: And now suddenly nobody knows anything about this man, who he was.
MR DE KOCK: Yes, this morning I tried to remember, because somewhere somebody should have been able to say, either from the organisations, APLA, or whatever, would have been able to say who this man was, and I started wondering whether he perhaps wasn't a Zambian citizen or an agent.
CHAIRPERSON: Or an ordinary South African.
MR DE KOCK: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: With whom perhaps some of those people had had some problem.
MR DE KOCK: Yes, he obviously had to have been in possession of some kind of information which posed a risk or a threat to them.
CHAIRPERSON: And not necessarily a political threat.
MR DE KOCK: Yes, we will have to actually investigate the probability. I had no doubt that ...(intervention)
INTERPRETER: The interpreter could not hear the speaker.
CHAIRPERSON: Please repeat, the interpreter did not hear you.
MR DE KOCK: I have no doubt or had no doubt that we were acting in a political set up.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, no, I understand that as far as you are concerned, but we agreed that it's very strange that nobody knows who this person was, whereas he had already been in custody. Surely there must have been some record of this man, especially if he had been a political activist.
MR DE KOCK: Well Chairperson, there must have been a file, there must have been a photograph, some kind of background information.
CHAIRPERSON: At least.
MR DE KOCK: But we didn't receive any of that information.
CHAIRPERSON: No, I accept that.
MR DE KOCK: I'm just trying to give you a complete picture.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, please continue.
MS PATEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson.
Is it correct that the deceased was held by the Bop Intelligence Unit at the time and not the Security Branch of the Western Transvaal section at the time?
MR DE KOCK: As far as I know he was detained by the Boputhatswana Intelligence Service.
MS PATEL: Who was in charge of the Bop Intelligence Service at the time?
MR DE KOCK: At that stage Mr Dick Knowles(?) and I think his second-in-charge was Mr Esterhuizen. I'm not entirely sure about Mr Esterhuizen, but Knowles was definitely in charge. It was Knowles who - he was actually in charge of the celebration for Mr Schoon's departure, his farewell party.
MS PATEL: And from your information at the time, do you know whether the request to assist would have come from Knowles through Loots to Schoon to you? Or do you not know?
MR DE KOCK: I don't know. I know about Schoon and then the reference or the request whether we could help these people, and then the direct request from Loots.
MS PATEL: Do you have any idea who was in direct control of the deceased at the time, at the Bop Intelligence Unit?
MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, we would have to ask somebody like Mr Crause, he could perhaps tell us.
MS PATEL: Okay. And all the information that you gained about the deceased, came to you from Loots, is that correct?
MR DE KOCK: That's correct.
MS PATEL: Okay. And you say that - you've conceded that Baker may not have been present at the initial discussion at the party with Schoon and Loots.
MR DE KOCK: I conceded that.
MS PATEL: That Ras may have been present during that discussion, how sure are you that Ras would have been present? Or are you assuming?
MR DE KOCK: The probability is very high, because Ras was also ultimately the person who did the shooting and that's how I link it.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr de Kock, please tell me, I don't know if you can perhaps recall, you carried out this instruction or order and it was the murder of a person, in whose interests would that murder have been?
MR DE KOCK: It would have been in the interests of the Boputhatswana Intelligence Unit or their Security Police, and also the Western Transvaal Security Police, because Western Transvaal had a problem in that a part of Boputhatswana fell between Western Transvaal border the Boputhatswana and Western Transvaal therefore worked in that area quite a lot, to give support because the security services were somewhat weaker, so we bolstered it.
CHAIRPERSON: So it would have been in the interests of both parties, both parties would have gained benefit from that.
CHAIRPERSON: The reason why I'm asking this question is this, your evidence thusfar has been that he was a security risk or an intelligence risk for somebody, in any event, it seems to me as if it must have been for the Boputhatswana people.
MR DE KOCK: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: And that was the reason why he was killed?
MR DE KOCK: Yes, he had already caused some problems there for them and had already caused problems for Western Transvaal and that's why I said they couldn't release the man.
CHAIRPERSON: Let's talk about that. He had caused problems for Western Transvaal?
MR DE KOCK: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: But the order which you received, namely "Kill this person because he's an intelligence risk for Boputhatswana", that was the order which you got.
MR DE KOCK: That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Now my question is, was he a security and/or intelligence risk for Western Transvaal, or don't you know?
MR DE KOCK: I believe that the fact that he had been detained in Boputhatswana and the problem existed there in Boputhatswana, he was a problem for the Boputhatswana Intelligence people. I think he was 99% a problem for them.
CHAIRPERSON: You see, I'm comparing it with one of the other cases which I have heard. If a person, or if there had been a person who had been taken from some foreign country by the South African Security Police, and he's been taken to Jeffrey's Bay and there certain things were done to him and ultimately he cooperated and he said that he would operate as an informer, and as a result of that he came into possession of certain important information which made him a threat and a risk. The plan was to send him back to Botswana or wherever, where he could then start feeding information back to the South Africans, but at the last minute the police discovered a letter which he had written to the ANC, in which he had set out what the position was and he had betrayed the police, to put it like that, they then decided that he constituted a threat and they couldn't trust him, that he was a risk and he had to be killed. Do you understand what I'm saying?
MR DE KOCK: Yes, yes.
CHAIRPERSON: And he was then killed, I think it was on the banks of the Limpopo River. Now that I can understand. Now in this case about which you're testifying it becomes of importance to find out in whose interests that person had been killed, that's why I'm asking the question, and it's of extreme importance to determine that because our finding will have to be based on that, do you understand that?
MR DE KOCK: Yes. Chairperson, I just want to mention that I'd thought a lot about this matter because one wants to know why and I thought about it again this morning, was this person - these are the questions I ask myself, wasn't he perhaps a source who was involved or had been involved in something where people had been kidnapped and killed or perhaps he'd been involved in operations in which people had been killed and that he was therefore a risk, he couldn't be trusted anymore. These are just ideas, but those are things which I have thought of. There must have been a very specific reason why they couldn't release him.
MS PATEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson.
Thank you, Mr de Kock. You said that it's highly probable that Ras would have been present during the discussion with Brig Schoon at the party where this discussion about the instruction to you regarding the deceased took place, so whatever information was available to you was available to Ras as well, is that correct?
MR DE KOCK: It was Brig Loots.
MS PATEL: Sorry, yes, yes.
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, yes, I believe to a reasonable extent, it depends on what one's recollection of that is.
MS PATEL: No, the question is, whatever information Ras had at his disposal would have been the same information that you had.
MR DE KOCK: Yes, I accept that.
MS PATEL: Okay. Well Ras states in his application to us and supplementary papers, that the deceased was in fact a PAC member, whereas you state that he was an ANC member. Would you like to comment on that?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, that is my recollection of the matter ...(intervention)
MR JANSEN: Mr Chair, with respect, that's slightly misleading and an unfair question, Ras specifically states that he was not sure, he says it was an ANC or a PAC member, he's not sure.
CHAIRPERSON: What page is that, Mr Jansen?
MR JANSEN: ...(inaudible)
CHAIRPERSON: Is that Volume 1?
MR JANSEN: ...(indistinct - no microphone) page 16.
MR MALAN: Mr Jansen, it's on page 13 where you said on behalf of your client, you answered and you said in paragraph 1.2
"He was an ex-PAC member and not an ANC, as stated in ..."
MR JANSEN: I'm sorry, Mr Chair, I stand to be corrected, yes. That is true, that appears from the further particulars.
MS PATEL: Yes, Mr Jansen, so I wish ...(intervention)
MR MALAN: You're only misleading your client by attributing the statement to him and not to his counsel.
CHAIRPERSON: That happens also, Mr Jansen.
MR JANSEN: Chair, it does indeed.
MS PATEL: Thank you, Mr de Kock. Would you like to comment on the difference between Mr Ras's information and yours?
MR DE KOCK: Chair, I can only ascribe that to the lapse of time and the volume of incidents in which Ras and I had been involved and also the other members, that there could perhaps have been a weaving together of all these aspects. I can't take the matter any further.
MS PATEL: Alright. Then just in terms of the order of command and who was entitled to make requests of the nature that was made, would the request definitely have had to come through Dick Knowles to the Security Branch Divisional Commander through to you, or what was the procedure? If there was one.
MR DE KOCK: These situations were dealt with on a very informal basis, as I said there were many euphemisms that were used, but in this case I can only speculate whether Mr Knowles knew. Maybe he did, but we won't even know because he would never admit it. What I do know is that Schoon asked me whether we could help these people and I went to speak to Loots and then it came from Loots's side. I'm not saying it's impossible that Knowles knew, but I can't testify about that, I can only talk about Loots and Crause and Schoon.
MS PATEL: Would he have had to know about the request though, given that he was in charge of the Intelligence Service at the time, or was it according to the way you all worked? Was it possible for a request to bypass him to you?
MR DE KOCK: I think it is possible, but what I do want to say is that mr Knowles must have known who this person was, because he was the Head of the Boputhatswana Intelligence Service, so there was no way in which he couldn't have known about this person and to know about his arrest.
CHAIRPERSON: No, but the question is, do you think that he would have known about the decision? There's no doubt that he must have known about the existence of this person because it was his department who had arrested the person.
MR DE KOCK: No, I can't testify about that, I can't give you firsthand information about that.
CHAIRPERSON: Maybe it was correct if he worked for the Department of Foreign Affairs.
MR DE KOCK: Yes, they would have had a way of putting that to us.
MS PATEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson.
The reason I ask you this, Mr de Kock, is that Brig Schoon in his affidavit to us on page 3, at paragraph 2.6, states that - well I skip the first line, but he states that he never discussed the situation with Knowles, but he accepts that you in all probability would have done so. So it just seems that he should have - Knowles should have known about the request to you, from what Schoon says in any event.
CHAIRPERSON: Before we get there, Ms Patel, I haven't seen that document, but did Schoon deny knowledge of this whole event in the first place?
MS PATEL: He hasn't really denied knowledge of the event, he denies the interpretation that is put to the instruction, Honourable Chairperson. He says he recalls the incident, but as far as he's concerned, that as far as he recollects it, the instruction was for the deceased to be brought to Vlakplaas and not to be killed. And he goes further, at 2.9 he says when de Kock then later reported to him, he denies that de Kock had said that the person was in fact killed. He says it's possible that de Kock could have said to him that "Die probleem is uit die weg uit geruim", but his understanding of that is that what was meant by that is that the askari has now been handed over to Vlakplaas, to continue working there. That is what he says.
CHAIRPERSON: I must say, you know their language and their understanding at various times confuses me.
MS PATEL: Thank you, Mr de Kock. Do you want me to repeat the question to you?
MR DE KOCK: Yes, if you could repeat it.
MS PATEL: My question, I was questioning you about Knowles's knowledge of the request and whether he should have known, or in fact did know, and I put to you that the reason that I put that to you was that Schoon in his affidavit to us, says that he didn't speak to Knowles, but he says that you in all probability, he accepts that you in all probability, did speak to Knowles.
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, in that respect I got my orders directly from Brig Schoon, directly to Brig Loots and I think - well I was a junior vis à vis Mr Knowles, who was the Head of the Intelligence Service of an independent State at that stage and I couldn't have gone to him and said "Look, can I go and kill this man?" It had already been discussed, we already knew that. And I can just mention too that Mr Knowles was an ex-member of the Rhodesian Intelligence Services, so this would not have been a new kind of activity or information, this sort of work.
MS PATEL: So in terms of the planning, who would you have liaised with at the Bop Intelligence?
MR DE KOCK: I spoke to Brig Loots on the scene and Maj Crause and he was there as a seconder, in other words, as a representative from the Boputhatswana side. I didn't liaise with anybody myself on the Boputhatswana side regarding this incident. As far as I know, Mr Ras and Mr Baker liaised with Crause, to be able to get this person. I didn't liaise with anybody myself during this incident.
CHAIRPERSON: Where did you then find this person who was later killed?
MR DE KOCK: Mr Ras will have to explain that to me because I wasn't present, I was in Pretoria, here. I was busy with trying to sort out the Harms and McNally Commission and things, whereas these two people were on their way to go and commit another murder.
INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.
CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible)
MS PATEL: Alright. Are you saying that the planning for the operation was then left entirely in the hands of Ras and Baker and that they would have known who to consult with at the Bop Intelligence Unit?
MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, as far as I know, Crause was the contact person, because he was at this party, he was present, Brig Loots and himself, when this request was made and the man was detained in Bop and Brig Loots was Head of Western Transvaal Intelligence Unit. So the situation we had was basically the cooperation of two Intelligence Services who had the same purpose.
MR MALAN: Can I just sum it up, so that we can just get the stages right.
INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.
MR MALAN: Schoon said to you "Speak to Loots", you spoke to Loots.
MR DE KOCK: Yes.
MR MALAN: Ras was present, Crause was present.
MR DE KOCK: Yes.
MR MALAN: You knew that Crause was in Bop.
MR DE KOCK: Yes.
MR MALAN: He'd been seconded by the SAP.
MR DE KOCK: Yes.
MR MALAN: And when you gave Ras or Baker the order to go and carry this thing out, he then said "Liaise with Crause, because he knows exactly everything that he needs to know."
MR DE KOCK: Yes, he was the only contact person we could to.
MR MALAN: Yes, and he would have pointed out or delivered this person into their hands.
MR DE KOCK: Yes.
MS PATEL: Thank you, Chairperson.
Just to put to you in fairness, Crause states in his affidavit to us that he denies that he was present at the discussion with yourself and Loots.
MR DE KOCK: No, there is no doubt in my mind about that fact. I know him well, he's also one of those people you can hardly miss. He's quite an imposing presence and he's very well known to me, an ex-Security man.
MS PATEL: Okay. You've also stated in your application to us that it is in fact Crause who handed the deceased over to Baker and Ras.
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, yes, I didn't see him do that and I didn't go over the matter in detail after they reported back to me, but there was nobody else with whom they could have liaised, as far as I could see. There was nobody else present at this discussion of the murder.
MS PATEL: Okay, so your information in this regard is merely an assumption.
MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.
MS PATEL: So that doesn't affect Mr Ras's application or information in his application to us, where he states that it is in fact a person by the name of J P Corrier(?), who handed the deceased over to them.
MR DE KOCK: I can't deny that because he was also a member of ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible)
MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, he on the contrary, was a member of the Boputhatswana Intelligence Service and he was a former member of the French Foreign Legion and an ex-Rhodesian and he was also the person who later shot dead the President of the Seychelles.
MS PATEL: That's interesting information, Mr de Kock, because we haven't ...(intervention)
MR DE KOCK: I beg your pardon, he was the President of the Comores that he shot dead. I think it's Guerriere, I think it's spelt differently here, it's G-u-e-r-r-i-e-r-e, something like that.
MS PATEL: Well that possibly explains why we can't trace him.
MR DE KOCK: Yes, you will find him in a prison in France with Bob Denard. That's as a result of the shooting in the Comores. He was a Lieutenant at that stage.
MS PATEL: Alright. The discussion that you had with Schoon on the way back from the party where you expressed your reluctance, in a sense, to be involved in this kind of operation and you say that Baker was present, he was the driver the vehicle, so he would have been privy to that conversation?
MR DE KOCK: I believe so, Chairperson.
MS PATEL: And the parting words - well, the gist of the parting words from Schoon at that stage, was that the matter needed to be discussed further, is that correct?
MR DE KOCK: Yes.
MS PATEL: And you stated that you didn't discuss the matter further with him.
MR DE KOCK: It was never raised again, he never raised the matter with me again and I believe he would have done so if he had any conscience problems.
MS PATEL: Would there not have been an obligation on you to approach him first before you had instructed Ras and Baker to carry out the operation, just to ensure that the instruction still stands as you perceived it?
MR DE KOCK: No, I don't think so, I already received my orders. In the first place we should not have committed the murder, but upon retrospect, that's I suppose, what we should have done but it's too late today.
MS PATEL: From the discussion between yourself and Schoon at the time, was it your impression that he had still wanted to proceed with the instruction as given you, or that he wanted to think the matter over? Why delay the discussion?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I don't know, maybe it was just a way of putting me in my place. I don't know, I don't know what his reasons could have been.
MS PATEL: Alright. There's one curious aspect about this case that you know, perhaps you can clarify for me. You state that the instruction came to you from Loots, that Crause was present and that he represented Bop Intelligence at the time, it is conceded by you that the deceased was in fact handed over by - or it's possible that the deceased was handed over by Corrier. Now Esterhuizen was Corrier's senior at the time at the Bop Intelligence, do you accept that?
MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, and above Esterhuizen was Knowles, if I understand the chain of command properly.
MS PATEL: Now Ras in his application to us, states that some time after the murder had taken place, Esterhuizen had asked him how the deceased was, now it appears from that that Esterhuizen's understanding, or my inference from that is that Esterhuizen's understanding was that the deceased was in fact to be taken to Vlakplaas to work there, as was Schoon's impression from his affidavit. What is your comment?
MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, "how he was - well he was dead."
MS PATEL: Why would he have asked that question if he was such a great security risk and that he needed to be killed? Why would the second-in-command of Bop Intelligence, labour under an incorrect impression?
MR DE KOCK: I don't know whether his impression was incorrect, perhaps he just wanted to make sure that the everything was clean and quiet. We don't know, I can only speculate.
MS PATEL: But surely then he wouldn't have asked how the deceased is, it would have been couched differently, he would have asked perhaps, "Has the problem been handled", or something to that effect.
MR DE KOCK: I don't know, Chairperson.
MR MALAN: I think we can ask those questions further of Ras.
MS PATEL: Yes, thank you Honourable Chair. Sorry, if you would just grant me a moment.
You don't have any idea what specifically the deceased was detained for, or how long he was detained?
MR DE KOCK: No.
MS PATEL: Or whether any other options were considered by those who had made the request, in terms of dealing with the problem?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I believe that by the time they asked us to kill him, they probably had considered all other options.
MS PATEL: And then Mr de Kock, in your further particulars to us on page 9(C), at paragraph 6(g) you said that you - oh no, sorry, I've misread your response to us, my apologies. I withdraw what would have been my question.
What was the report back to you after the incident, what specifically was said to you?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, only that the man had been killed, he was dead, and that he was safely buried. I can't however remember the specific details, I can't remember what was said to me verbatim.
MS PATEL: Okay. There was some weapons that were planted at the burial site, if I may put it that way, where would Mr Ras have gotten those weapons, would it have come from you?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, no, when I saw his statement I didn't know where it could have come from and I'm still not sure, I still don't know. I can't tell you. Perhaps he can tell us then perhaps I can take the matter further, but I don't know where those weapons came from, or the magazines and the pistol.
MS PATEL: Okay.
MR DE KOCK: I just want to mention that the .22 pistol was a pistol which was one of four pistols supplied with silencers and which had been specially purchased from a special fund for covert operations and these four pistols were later handed back to Col Koekemoer after Vlakplaas was disbanded or closed. They were all Luger .22 pistols and they were handed back.
MS PATEL: No, but this doesn't relate to the weapons that Mr Ras used.
MR DE KOCK: No, but I - yes, one of those .22s used there was the .22 bought specially to kill this person, so I just wanted to paint you a full picture.
MS PATEL: Do you have any idea whether Ras would have questioned the deceased before he was killed ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Let's wait for Ras to come and tell us.
MS PATEL: As part of the report-back, Honourable Chairperson, Mr de Kock can surely testify as to whether further information was then brought back to him after the murder.
MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, it wasn't expected of us to question him and there was no report-back about any interrogation.
MS PATEL: Okay. Regarding your political motivation you stated that the intention or the motivation behind the murder of the deceased was to prevent further acts of terror, what specifically did you base that on, and which acts of terror? Was there specific information that the deceased was in fact involved in ...(intervention)
MR MALAN: You've already asked him that question, Ms Patel, and you've already asked him a question and he answered it, that he had no further information.
MS PATEL: Alright, thank you.
Can I just ask you, in terms of what Baker has said to us in his application and from what Ras has said in his application, that the first time that he was informed about the operation was from Ras and not through you, but you say that he was present in the vehicle, that he was in fact the driver and so he would have been privy to the discussion between yourself and Schoon, about this operation.
MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, I can't say whether he had all the details. I can't give you a complete report. I'd like to do that, but I can't.
MS PATEL: Sorry Honourable Chairperson, I'm just checking my notes, I'm almost through. Thank you, Honourable Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS PATEL
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Mr de Kock, you were questioned about Brig Schoon's affidavit, in his affidavit Exhibit A, paragraph 2.5 he says:
"At one stage Loots called me to one side and told me that Knowles had a problem with one of their askaris and he was at that stage very negative and he was on the point of losing the way."
And then he continues with the request that the askari be brought to Vlakplaas, so that he could make contact with some of his former comrades and if he saw that they were cooperating nicely with the Security Branch, that could bring him to a different way of thinking and "he could then cooperate with us." What is your comment on that?
MR DE KOCK: No, no, that is entirely not the way it was.
MR HATTINGH: Did it sometimes happen that askaris from other units were transferred to Vlakplaas?
MR DE KOCK: No, Vlakplaas, on the contrary, sent people to other units.
MR HATTINGH: Now when did that happen? When that happened was there a file opened for each askari?
MR DE KOCK: Yes, the askaris who were members of the police, they had a complete police file like any ordinary policeman and then the askaris, we also opened files for them because he had a HQ source number and his payment and his medical aid and everything was done in terms of that number and there was also a behavioural code of conduct and statements.
MR HATTINGH: Based on the hypothesis that you were asked to bring this askari to Vlakplaas so that he could be re-orientated, what would your expectation be, what would have happened?
MR DE KOCK: Well that file would have accompanied him and there would have been particulars as to what he was involved in, whether there were any charges pending against him, whether it had been withdrawn, how he had been recruited, there would have been an interrogation report, not only from the Security Branch, but also from Section C2 who did the identification of terrorists, and his suitcase, his clothes and all his other personal possessions.
MR HATTINGH: Did any of these items which you've just mentioned arrive at Vlakplaas?
MR DE KOCK: No, not at all.
MR HATTINGH: If you took in such an askari, who would have had to pay his salary?
MR DE KOCK: Vlakplaas would have paid it.
MR HATTINGH: And in what way would that have happened?
MR DE KOCK: It would have been a re-registration as a source, or whatever his status was. In other words, maybe it was a cancellation of either the Western Transvaal source and then he becomes a Headquarters source and then his salary would have to be paid accordingly.
MR HATTINGH: And would Brig Schoon then ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Were you the Commandant of Vlakplaas at that stage?
MR DE KOCK: Yes, I was the Commanding Officer.
CHAIRPERSON: So if that been the plan you would have been notified of that?
MR DE KOCK: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: You would have been notified that you were to expect a newcomer and that you should make preparations for him, for the payment of his salary etcetera.
MR DE KOCK: Yes, and it was more than that. If a person arrives at Vlakplaas for the first time, we would also have to make arrangements for his living quarters etcetera. He can't just walk in, we'd have to organise a residence for him and we would have to see where and how we could utilise the man, and that we could have done around the fire, we wouldn't have gone to one side to discuss that.
CHAIRPERSON: And there was no request for any of these things?
MR DE KOCK: No, because I would have had to, for instance, say whether I was going to appoint him on the same salary scale or not, or whatever the case may be.
MR MALAN: If you fetched such an askari to Vlakplaas, wouldn't he just have been brought, would you have sent out Ras and Baker, two senior men, to go and fetch him?
MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, and that's what so interesting, 99% of the askaris who came to us were brought by the local Security Police from wherever they'd been before, either after they'd testified or after being recruited they were brought to us and from there onwards we made arrangements.
MR MALAN: And then, were they brought to you before you agreed to take them or were they just dropped off at Vlakplaas?
MR DE KOCK: No, we would first receive a fax sent by the regional Headquarters of that particular area where the person came from, in which there would be mention of his photograph album number, his file number, his name, his MK name, and that would go to Brig Schoon, who would approve it and then it would come to me.
MR MALAN: Did you have any say in whether you would accept these askaris or not, or did you simply have to take them?
MR DE KOCK: No, I wasn't compelled to accept them.
MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Chair.
And then lastly on this aspect, Mr de Kock, would Brig Schoon as overall Commander-in-Chief of C1 or C10, would he have been able to determine that there was such a new member or not amongst the askaris? Would he have been able to determine that such an askari was or was not there?
MR DE KOCK: Yes, because I would have, in respect of his Headquarters approval, his HQ approval with the description of his salary and his medical condition and all that kind of information, I would have had to give that to him and each askari that arrived in Vlakplaas, we followed a standard procedure of a payment of I think R1 000 or R2 000, so that they could buy clothes, toiletries, a sleeping bag etcetera, so we could accommodate the person immediately.
MR HATTINGH: Then just another aspect from Brig Schoon's affidavit, on page 4 of his affidavit, paragraph 3.2 he says the following
"During 1997 I became aware of the allegations as contained in de Kock's amnesty application and the fact that he was directly implicating me in the commission of a murder. If I am guilty of the commission of a delict or an offence, I could easily have applied for amnesty since the final cut-off date for the lodging of applications had not yet arrived at that stage."
Now last week you said before two of the same members of this Commission, you testified that your application for amnesty was lodged at the final moment of the cut-off date, correct, and by that you implied that your application was lodged about half an hour before the cut-off date finally elapsed, is that correct?
MR DE KOCK: I think it was about five minutes before the cut-off time.
MR HATTINGH: So Brig Schoon would in other words, would not have had knowledge of your application for amnesty before the cut-off date had elapsed?
MR DE KOCK: That's quite correct.
MR HATTINGH: Did you during your criminal trial regarding this incident, did you testify in mitigation?
MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: What is the position, is there a criminal case pending about this matter?
MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: You were never charged in respect of this incident.
MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: And nobody, according to your knowledge, was prosecuted in terms of this incident.
MR DE KOCK: That's quite correct.
MR MALAN: I beg your pardon, Mr Hattingh, when you say that half an hour or five minutes before the cut-off time, was that with the last extension?
MR HATTINGH: Chairperson, I don't know what the date was, the date for the lodging of the applications, the very last date, perhaps Mr de Kock can inform us. I don't know whether it was the original date or the extended date.
MR MALAN: Yes, we can look at it ...
MR DE KOCK: It was the very last day of the extended cut-off date.
MR MALAN: There were three last dates which were extended.
MR DE KOCK: It was the very last one.
MR MALAN: Are you sure of that?
MR DE KOCK: Yes.
MR HATTINGH: As one of the reasons for that you said that you didn't want other applicants to know what was in your applications, so that which Schoon is alleging you wanted to prevent, you didn't want other applicants to know what exactly you were applying for so that they could then taylor their amnesty applications accordingly.
MR DE KOCK: That's correct.
MR HATTINGH: Alright.
MS PATEL: Sorry, Honourable Chairperson, I think, I speak under correction, but I think that Mr de Kock's application came in at the end of the first cut-off date. It's not part of the papers and I unfortunately haven't brought his entire application, it's quite voluminous, but I can call the office to double check if you want me to.
MR MALAN: Why I'm asking this, Chair, is that the amnesty number of Mr de Kock is a '96 amnesty number, so that could not have been the last cut-off date. Maybe he put in additional applications, but that was certainly not the final cut-off date.
MR HATTINGH: Your comment Mr de Kock, please.
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, as far as I know I made the cut-off day with five minutes to spare or something like that. I can't dispute that, but that is my recollection.
MR HATTINGH: However, Mr de Kock, what was your understanding of the modus operandi of the Amnesty Committee, did you think that the applicants who were applying for amnesty, that their applications would be made available freely so that other applicants could have a look at these applications before the matters were being heard?
MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, because in that case I could also just sit and wait for the other people's applications and react to their applications, but as far as I know there was a whole confidential aspect in respect of these applications and I did not want to reveal the information to anybody other than my legal representative and the Commission itself.
MR HATTINGH: Very well. And then as regards the conversation in the car going back, was the entire operation discussed or did you just ask Brig Schoon why did you have to do other people's dirty work, or what was the discussion?
MR DE KOCK: It was just that aspect, the aspect of doing other people's dirty work.
MR HATTINGH: In your application itself, on page 4 of Volume 1, you say in the second paragraph
"After this communication I spoke to Brig Schoon and told him that the problem which we had discussed that evening during the function had been solved, sorted out. I understand from Brig Loots that this person had been an ANC member and he had created a big problem, not only for Western Transvaal Security Police, but also for the Boputhatswana Security Police."
MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: Was it your understanding that the Western Transvaal Security Police also had a problem with the person?
MR DE KOCK: Yes.
MR HATTINGH: Thank you Chair, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HATTINGH
MR MALAN: I have no questions, thank you.
ADV BOSMAN: Mr de Kock, if you turn to page 3 of your application, in the middle of the page there's a paragraph which reads ...(intervention)
INTERPRETER: The interpreter can't hear the speaker.
ADV BOSMAN
"Capt Baker and I then spoke to Col Loots and Maj Crause and they told me and Capt Baker that they had a person in the cells at Mmabatho, Mafikeng, whom they couldn't release."
Is Mafikeng not in the former South African territory?
MR DE KOCK: Mafikeng is about 10 kilometres, perhaps less from Mmabatho, it's actually one unit so we usually refer to it like that. You could refer to either, they were actually one and the same place.
ADV BOSMAN: What I then want to know is this, were they detained on the South African side, or rather, not they, this person?
MR DE KOCK: The deceased was held on the Boputhatswana side as far as I know.
ADV BOSMAN: Now if you say that "they said" that "they" had a person in the cells?
MR DE KOCK: That is Loots and Crause, Chairperson.
ADV BOSMAN: But I understood that Loots was attached to Western Transvaal.
MR DE KOCK: Yes, but he was the speaker at this function or party and this request came from him. Maj Crause was with him, but as the representative of the Boputhatswana Intelligence Service, he's been seconded from Western Transvaal Security Police and he was stationed for those purposes, in Boputhatswana, Mafikeng.
ADV BOSMAN: Let me make it very simple. Are you saying that both Western Transvaal and Boputhatswana Security Branches had asked you to get rid of this man?
MR DE KOCK: Yes.
ADV BOSMAN: Then the issue as to the choice of Capt Baker.
MR DE KOCK: It is my recollection and I concede that I may have made a mistake, I linked it to the fact that ultimately it was Mr Ras who did the shooting, so I am accepting that ...(intervention)
ADV BOSMAN: No, I'm talking about the choice of Capt Baker, that it was Baker and Ras who had to go and collect this person.
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, Mr Ras worked in the Western Transvaal area because that's where he originally came from, and Baker was second-in-charge at Vlakplaas and Western Transvaal was one of his areas of speciality or one of his working areas. I usually sent him to those areas. I took him to the Cape, Swaziland and also up to the Mozambican border. So that was his area to which he'd been seconded. And both these people were at the party, so we tried to keep it as small as possible, to try and keep it a close little circle so that not too many people knew about it.
ADV BOSMAN: So was it mainly because of the fact that they had attended the party that you chose them?
MR DE KOCK: Amongst other reasons, yes, and also because it was compact. Apart from the three of us and Brig Schoon, then there could be no security leakage. I didn't have to bring in a foreign person who wasn't at the party, both of these people were totally able to do this kind of work.
ADV BOSMAN: Mr de Kock, I just want to finish my question, I want to make it broader. So as far as Baker and Ras are concerned, you asked them because they were present at the party?
MR DE KOCK: Yes.
ADV BOSMAN: Not because they were Western Transvaal Security Police.
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I can actually link up those two reasons because Ras and Baker were close friends with Crause and also with Crause and Knowles. They were all friends and they were well known to each other, so we weren't bringing in a new element.
MR MALAN: If I understand it you said that Ras and Baker were at the farewell party because they worked in that area, they were the two Vlakplaas men working in that area.
MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.
MR MALAN: So it suited you that they would be there at the function.
MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.
MR MALAN: You asked them because they were at the party and because they knew about it, but you would have asked them anyway because they were Western Transvaal people.
MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.
MR MALAN: That was the interface.
MR DE KOCK: Yes, I wouldn't have asked a foreign person, somebody from the outside.
MR MALAN: And who was not familiar with the area.
MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.
ADV BOSMAN: Just one more question. Can you recall what the discussion was between yourself and Col Loots?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, as I set it out here, that's how I recollect it, whether we could help them with this person, to eliminate him, get rid of him.
ADV BOSMAN: You see, my problem is this, it's not clear to me whether you saw the problem as a problem for Boputhatswana Intelligence or not, in other words whether Loots asked you to help the Boputhatswana Intelligence people.
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, it was a problem to both parties.
ADV BOSMAN: Is that how Loots put it to you?
MR DE KOCK: Yes. As I said, he had already caused problems for Boputhatswana and would cause problems for Western Transvaal, so neither of these two units or parties had any doubt about this person and the risk that he posed.
ADV BOSMAN: Is that not just your inference which you made relating to Western Transvaal?
MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, no, that's also why they were both there together, because Loots could have discussed it with me alone.
ADV BOSMAN: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, you're excused.
MR DE KOCK: Thank you.
WITNESS EXCUSED
