ON RESUMPTION
CHAIRPERSON: Good afternoon. We would continue with the next applications before the same Committee, which has been constituted from Monday the 14th of August 2000, and we'll hear the following applications: Messrs Eugene Alexander de Kock: amnesty number 0066/96, Izak Daniel Bosch: application number 3765/96, Jacobus Francois Kok: application number 3812/96, Leon William John Flores: application number 4361/96, Wybrand Andreas Lodewikus du Toit: application number 5184/96, and the incident we would be hearing is the Parker Pen Set Bomb.
I would request the legal representatives to place their names on record.
MR HUGO: Thank you, Mr Chairman. My name is S W Hugo, I'm acting and appearing on behalf of Mr E A de Kock.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Hugo, we are happy that you have kept us company for the third day. For Izak Daniel Bosch, would it be yourself, Mr Lamey?
MR LAMEY: Indeed, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Any other?
MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Mr Chair. Wim Cornelius, I act on behalf of Leon William John Flores, the fourth applicant.
MR VAN DER MERWE: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Francois van der Merwe on record, I act on behalf of applicant number 3, and may I just correct his name, because in the TRC records it's wrong every time, he is Jacob Francois Kok, not Jacobus.
CHAIRPERSON: Jacob?
MR VAN DER MERWE: Jacob, without the u-s, and number 5, Wybrand Andreas Lodewikus du Toit. Thank you, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr van der Merwe. And our records shall so reflect, that instead of Jacobus, it's Jacob.
MR VAN DER MERWE: I think where the confusion comes in is his brother is Jacobus Kok and that is why there's a confusion.
CHAIRPERSON: Are you saying we are that thorough in our investigations, that we'd pick up that as well?
MR VAN DER MERWE: I would hope so. Thank you, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr ... Ms Patel? I'm also confused by the tie, that's why I'm looking the other way. Ms Patel?
MS PATEL: Well I thought my hair was long enough, but anyway.
CHAIRPERSON: You never know these days, don't assume.
MS PATEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson. Ramula Patel, Leader of Evidence. Chairperson, the position with regard to the victim who allegedly was injured at the post office when he retrieved the envelope, we have been unable to identify who he is and requests were in fact sent via the South African High Commission, who then liaised with the Swaziland Embassy, and we ...
CHAIRPERSON: You drew a blank.
MS PATEL: Yes, Honourable Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Was the request made timeously?
MS PATEL: It was, Honourable Chairperson. In fact, several requests were sent via our Commission, to the Swaziland Embassy.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Patel, but I suppose the applications are right for hearing.
MS PATEL: No, they are, Honourable Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hugo, I think you are going to take the lead again.
MR HUGO: Yes, thank you Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr de Kock, it is a new one, we can't hold you under your former oath, you've got to take another one.
EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: (sworn states)
ADV BOSMAN: The applicant is duly sworn, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Advocate Francis Bosman. Mr Hugo?
EXAMINATION BY MR HUGO: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Mr de Kock, you are the applicant in this matter which is known as the Parker Pen Set Bomb, and your application appears in the bundle from page 2 to 14, and more specifically where you deal with the incident from page 7 to 9, is that correct?
MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct, Chairperson.
MR HUGO: And before you deal with the particulars pertaining to the incident, you request the Honourable Committee to note that you have filed a supplementary affidavit regarding your background, your political motivations and considerations and a further affidavit which was filed by you regarding Vlakplaas, its establishment and the purposes, or the objectives that Vlakplaas sought to achieve during the struggle of the past.
MR DE KOCK: That is correct.
MR HUGO: This incident commenced due to an operation that you launched based upon certain information that you obtained.
MR DE KOCK: That is correct.
MR HUGO: Would you tell the Honourable Committee briefly, what operation it was and how you obtained such further information.
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, during the late '80s, four ANC members were lured into an ambush near Piet Retief, I have already testified about that, and during this ambush the four ANC members were killed. Three of them were black women, and the other one was an Indian man.
During this shooting and the subsequent search conducted through the property of these persons by W/O Pienaar, Mr Pienaar came upon an address on a document which indicated that there was a postal address which would be used contact purposes and that it was a contact address for the ANC, or for ANC members, which then was to be used by this group which had been lured into the ambush.
MR HUGO: May I just ask you, these four persons who were killed, you yourself were at the scene of the incident, you were part of the operation?
MR DE KOCK: That is correct.
MR HUGO: Did you have any doubt in your mind that they were ANC members?
MR DE KOCK: None whatsoever.
MR HUGO: And was this confirmed during the search, that they were ANC members?
MR DE KOCK: Yes.
MR HUGO: You may continue.
MR DE KOCK: W/O Pienaar asked me if we would be willing to launch an attempt to do something with this postal address. The nature of the discussion was that we had to place these persons at a disadvantage or kill them in some or other way, that is what it boiled down to, or we had to injure them. I agree with it, I didn't have any problems with it and then I thought about it. It was my initiative that we use a set of Parker pens which were manufactured of metals, which one could buy in a store and would have a high shrapnel level, to be used against the ANC.
I cleared the operation with Brig Schoon, myself personally, I discussed it with him and he extended his approval and subsequently I approached the Technical division of the SAP, their Security Branch, and I co-opted them to manufacture such a device for me. This device would detonate once the Parker pens had been removed from the holder. They then manufactured such a device, which was linked to these pens and it was my responsibility that they indeed manufactured this device.
Shortly after the first shooting incident, there was a second shooting incident in which I was also involved, during which four armed ANC members were involved and during which these four members were shot dead.
For quite some time nothing was heard of this explosive device and I accepted that the package had been removed from the system, that the device which had been manufactured of batteries, was attached to the device. In other words, the batteries ran out and the parcel was removed from the system, we never heard anything more of it.
Later, however, I read in a Swazi newspaper, and I think that there was also an article in a South African newspaper, that a postal worker from Manzini had taken the parcel for himself, apparently, and had opened it in the toilet and had incurred serious injuries to his hands and face. I suspected that this may have been the explosive device which was composed of the Parker pens and it was this parcel that had injured the postal worker.
Later, by means of Pienaar who informed me, I determined that the address to which we had posted the parcel, was indeed an address which was meant for the second group of ANC members.
MR HUGO: Just to achieve clarity, is this the second group of ANC which was killed in the follow-up operation?
MR DE KOCK: That is correct.
MR HUGO: And regarding the fact that you, upon your own initiative, had the Parker pen device manufactured and that you approached Brig Schoon with the request that he would approve such an operation, what was your motivation for this action?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, it was an action launched against the ANC, for the disruption and suspension of any of their actions by means of death or injury and it was directly aimed against those persons.
MR HUGO: How was the Parker pen set sent and by whom?
MR DE KOCK: The Parker pen set was sent by a black member of Section C1, who entered Swaziland and sent it from a smaller post office to the Manzini Post Office, to the address that we had.
MR HUGO: Very well. And were any other Vlakplaas members co-opted or involved in giving input to, and participating in the completion of this action?
MR DE KOCK: With regard to the manufacturing, I think that I asked Mr Bosch to liaise, he was also the liaison person with the Technical division. As far as I can recall, I sent only the black member in, but later I heard that there was another applicant who stated that he went in with the black member. I cannot recall it, but I would not dispute it if that is what he states.
MR HUGO: And you have already testified about this, but Brig Schoon's reaction when you approached him about it, would you please describe to the Committee what his approach was.
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, he approved of it, it was an action which was aimed against the opposition or the enemy, and we didn't have any doubt that it was an action against the ANC.
MR HUGO: The addressing of the package that was sent to Swaziland, who physically inscribed the address on the package?
MR DE KOCK: I cannot recall. As far as I can recall, when I received the package everything was already done, it had been wrapped and sealed and the address was already on it. I'm open to correction, but that is my recollection.
MR HUGO: Very well. And can you recall whether or not it was addressed to one specific person or to an organisation?
MR DE KOCK: It was addressed to the name and address which was on the document which was found during the search that was conducted with the first group of ANC members.
MR HUGO: And inasfar as it was possible, did you attempt to take any precautionary measures which would prevent the death or injury of innocent persons?
MR DE KOCK: As far as possible, yes Chairperson, we did not put the wrong address on the package, it was only that specific address with that specific name that we used, and it simply wasn't fetched by the ANC.
MR HUGO: Just for the sake of completion, the persons at the Technical division whom you liaised with, who did you deal with specifically?
MR DE KOCK: I suspect that it was Brig WAL du Toit, I'm not certain and I would not dispute it if he says that it was him. That is what I recall.
MR HUGO: And what did you tell them, to whom would this explosive device be sent?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I explained to them that it was an action against the ANC and I gave them the particulars regarding where it was going, as far as I can recall, and what I also told them what I wanted, but I did not brief them any further than what was necessary.
MR HUGO: Thank you, Mr Chairman, that's the evidence.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HUGO
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Hugo. Mr Lamey, any cross-examination?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Chairperson, just here and there a question.
Mr de Kock, Mr Bosch at that stage was used for the technical aspect of the operations at Vlakplaas, is that why you used him to be the liaison person to work with the technical department of the Security Police?
MR DE KOCK: That is correct, yes.
MR LAMEY: Who would have been the addressee, would it have been a single person or an institution, what is your recollection? ...(transcriber's interpretation)
MR DE KOCK: As far as we know, it was an ANC post-box, from the information that I received from Mr Pienaar and from what he got from the document. The name one can assume would have been a codename, they wouldn't have written down their own names, but I cannot say. It was a name of a person.
MR LAMEY: So you say that the addressee was connected to the name of an ANC person, but you cannot recall the name?
MR DE KOCK: No, it was an ANC address, yes.
MR LAMEY: Can you recall who you gave the address to or who did you ask to put the address on the parcel?
MR DE KOCK: No, Mr Chairperson, I do not recall if I gave it to Mr Bosch or to Mr du Toit himself, I think I gave it to Mr du Toit himself. That is my recollection.
MR LAMEY: Mr Bosch's recollection is, and I'd just like to add it here, that the address and the name of the person who he calls the ANC activist, was given to him by you.
MR DE KOCK: I said, I am also under correction, Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: Thank you, Mr Chairperson, I've got no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Lamey. Mr Cornelius?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Mr Chair.
Mr de Kock, you have referred to the two Piet Retief incidents, could you just explain to the Committee, there have already been amnesty application hearings regarding the two Piet Retief incidents, is that correct?
MR DE KOCK: That is correct.
MR CORNELIUS: And during these proceedings you gave thorough evidence about the weapons which were found in the vehicles and the ANC connections of the occupants of the vehicles.
MR DE KOCK: That is correct.
MR CORNELIUS: You agree, and it has been testified to at length before the Committee yesterday, that the parties worked on a need-to-know basis, therefore only the information that was necessary would be conveyed to the particular person.
MR DE KOCK: That is correct.
MR CORNELIUS: And your orders were strictly carried out at all times, otherwise you would have instituted disciplinary measures.
MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, except if you give someone instructions for murder then you wouldn't institute disciplinary measures, but otherwise, yes. ...(transcriber's interpretation)
MR CORNELIUS: And persons such as Brig Schoon, Adrian Vlok and so forth, visited Vlakplaas quite often and attended functions and issued medals, which indicated that the actions Vlakplaas enjoyed the approval of the hierarchy.
MR DE KOCK: That is correct.
MR CORNELIUS: Thus the persons would have accepted if you had taken a decision there would have been a specific political target in Swaziland, and that you would have taken this decision in conjunction with Head Office staff?
MR DE KOCK: That is correct.
MR CORNELIUS: Mr Flores has informed me that he recalls that the parcel was addressed to the Swaziland Council of Churches and that there possibly may have been the name of a person on the parcel, is it possible?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I suspect that he may have confused this with an envelope which was requested for preparation by the Defence Force. I will just explain briefly, because the letter which was intercepted by the Defence Force, was under way to the South African Council of Churches and had to be sent back to the Swazi address with a similar name. But I will not dispute it, however it would have had a name on because somebody, a courier, had to fetch it.
MR CORNELIUS: On page 9 of your application you state that later you determined irrevocably that the address was the address of the second group of ANC members which was killed in the second Piet Retief incident.
MR DE KOCK: Yes, Mr Pienaar established this, it was his baby so to speak.
MR CORNELIUS: So whatever the case may be, it was determined that the address was correct?
MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct.
MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Mr Chair.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CORNELIUS
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Cornelius.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DER MERWE: Thank you, Mr Chair, just one or two aspects.
Mr de Kock, my instructions from Mr du Toit are that he does not have a clear recollection of when you approached him, but at that stage when you did you had already told him that this operation had been cleared at a higher level, that you did not approach him first and then requested authorisation, that you first got authorisation before you requested him.
MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is what I did.
MR VAN DER MERWE: Thank you. And then, as you already conceded that you can be corrected in terms of the, or there were no addresses concerning Mr Kok or du Toit for the technical department, they had nothing to do with it, they did not even make up this parcel, it was wrapped by Mr Bosch, who was used for this purpose.
MR DE KOCK: Yes, I will accept it as such.
MR VAN DER MERWE: Thank you, Mr Chair.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN DER MERWE
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr van der Merwe. Ms Patel?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PATEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson.
Mr de Kock, sorry, I didn't hear your response to Mr van der Merwe's last question to you. Did you concede that the address wasn't given to the Technical division?
MR DE KOCK: I would concede that, it is possible because I have a very vague recollection regarding all the aspects pertaining to this situation.
MS PATEL: Okay. That is certainly clear, Mr de Kock. But in any event, would Mr Flores have been instructed to address the parcel?
MR DE KOCK: I don't know, Chairperson, I cannot recall. I did not bring the address onto the parcel, so it is between Mr Flores and Mr Bosch. That is all that I can think of.
MS PATEL: Would you have handed the address to Mr Bosch, who would then have made the necessary arrangements?
MR DE KOCK: I would have given it to someone to put on the parcel. As I have testified, I thought that I gave it to Mr du Toit, they have refuted this, I have to rely upon the recollection of the others in this case.
MS PATEL: Okay. But surely if the parcel was to be addressed to the Swaziland Council of Churches, which from the name is a religious organisation, you would have remembered this, not so?
MR DE KOCK: No, not necessarily, Chairperson, given the volume of my applications, and we are referring to illegal operations here and not even the legal operations, I cannot take it any further.
MS PATEL: Given the extent of the harm that could be caused by the pen or the parcel when it was opened, were there not other options open to you in terms of getting that pen to its proper destination, rather than send it through the postal system where it could be intercepted by anybody, as has in fact happened here?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, it was not intercepted, it arrived at the address to which it had been posted, it arrived there and it lay there and then it was taken or stolen by a postal worker.
MS PATEL: And you didn't foresee the possibility that it could be taken by somebody other than the person to whom it was addressed?
MR DE KOCK: I did not foresee that a postal worker would steal it, they are supposed to deliver it to the addressee. It was an ANC address, if the ANC did not fetch it, then I am responsible for the it, for the fact that it was posted, but the fact that it was not picked up is the responsibility of the ANC.
ADV BOSMAN: Mr de Kock, what would have triggered the pen, what would have led to its detonation?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I did not work with the mechanism itself, that was the work of the Technical division, but I do know that it was linked to a battery and I think it is something similar to a watch battery, so it would have run out after a period of time, which have rendered the device harmless. ADV BOSMAN: That is what I find somewhat problematic to understand, you wouldn't have known how long it would have taken to be delivered to the person to whom it was addressed. Perhaps this is a question for us to put to the technical people, but how could you have been certain, if it was set according to time, how could you be certain that it would arrive at the correct person and then only detonate?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, the parcel was posted in Swaziland from a smaller post office to an address in Swaziland, so it wasn't a question of the process taking a month between post offices. We tried to get it to the address as swiftly as possible.
ADV BOSMAN: You may proceed, Ms Patel.
CHAIRPERSON: Just one more before you do, Ms Patel. This address you're referring to, was it a box number or a physical address?
MR DE KOCK: Yes, it was a post-box number.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. You may proceed, Ms Patel.
MS PATEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson.
What information did you have at the time that the parcel was posted, about the addressee, the person to whom it was sent, what information was available at that time?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, it was the details that I received from Mr Pienaar, that he got from a document that he got from ANC members who were shot and that it was an ANC address and that it was a contact address for receiving post.
MS PATEL: Do I understand you correctly then to say that you didn't have any information about the person to whom it was being sent, as to his living circumstances, where he would have been residing or who was residing with him, what the possibilities would have been in respect of somebody else opening up the mail, you had no other information except the address and that it was, according to you, an ANC contact address?
MR DE KOCK: The details that it was an ANC address came from Mr Pienaar, that came from an ANC document that was found on the body of an ANC member, and I did not doubt that information because it was information from the ANC itself.
MS PATEL: You state in your application to us on page 9, that you later understood, or it was later ascertained that the postal address which you are referring to now, was in fact the same address of the two ANC members that were then later killed, how was it established that this postal address belonged to the ANC persons that were killed?
MR DE KOCK: Mr Chairperson, you'll have to ask Mr Pienaar, I will not be able to assist you further.
MS PATEL: You didn't request this information from him?
MR DE KOCK: No, Mr Chairperson, I had a task for him, we had to wrap this parcel, I did it, it was all part of a larger project or plan and he just mentioned it to me, and that was the end of it.
MS PATEL: Just in terms of the hierarchy, Mr Pienaar would have fallen under your command or not?
MR DE KOCK: He was of a lower rank, yes, but I did not have authority in his area or district and therefore he was under Col Visser of Middelburg, because I've already testified that if you worked in an area or district, you will fall under that Commander.
MS PATEL: Okay. The discretion or the decision as to whether to assist him or not in his request, would lie with you nonetheless.
MR DE KOCK: Please repeat.
MS PATEL: The decision, if a request comes to you from any other part of the country or from whoever else, the discretion as to whether to assist or not, the decision whether to assist or not, that discretion lies with you.
MR DE KOCK: Mr Chairperson, yes, I would not say that I had complete discretion, I can say that I can assist you or I will assist you, but then I also take it further, and what I did is I did authorise it with Brig Schoon.
MS PATEL: Alright. Thank you, Honourable Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS PATEL
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Patel. Advocate Bosman?
ADV BOSMAN: Thank you, Chairperson.
Mr de Kock, when you asked Col du Toit to manufacture this device for you, what was your request to him, how powerful should it be, did you indicate to him that it should be strong enough to kill or injure somebody?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I am not certain what my specific requirements were, or let me rather say that I cannot recall my specific parameters, but the idea was for the person who opened the parcel to be killed. But then again, if one examines the size of the parcel and the compact nature of it, then it could not be an area weapon, in other words it couldn't kill anybody 10 to 20 paces away from you.
ADV BOSMAN: You see that is what is somewhat problematic to me, if one examines within the context of all the various incidents of yours that I've had to do with, it would appear as if this device should have had nothing more than nuisance value, do you have anything to say about that?
MR DE KOCK: Yes, if it was only nuisance value, then for example, I would have bought a plastic pencil set, but this was the complete Parker set, comprising the pen, the pencil and the fountain pen, which was machinated from steel, such as the steel Parker pens, which would increase the shrapnel affect of the device.
ADV BOSMAN: Was anything done to ascertain that the addressee had a specific position within the ANC, whether or not he was definitely an ANC member, what the nature of his position was and whether or not he posed any danger? Was any attempt made to find out more about him?
MR DE KOCK: I did not personally make such an attempt, I can accept that Mr Pienaar did so, but also within the context of that time it was only an ANC member who would know about an ANC post-box, who would fetch such a parcel.
ADV BOSMAN: You have testified that you could not recall the address, but could you perhaps explain to us somewhat more what one would regard as an ANC address, if it was a post-box number?
MR DE KOCK: Given the particulars that Mr Pienaar obtained from the document which was found on the body of the ANC member who was killed during the first incident, it led to this parcel and to this post-box, or this postal address.
ADV BOSMAN: But you would have to concede that if a person belongs to a specific organisation and an address is found on him, it does not necessarily indicate that it is an address which is connected to his political organisation? This may be a question that we should instead put to Mr Pienaar, but did you determine whether or not it wasn't another address, or did you simply rely upon Mr Pienaar's commentary, as it were, that you had obtained an ANC address?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, he found a document on the body, it had an address and a name on it, it was a contact address at which this first group had to make contact, they had to make contact at that address. In other words, if one had to work by inference, it may have been a telegram, a telex or whatever .... we decided to put something into that system.
ADV BOSMAN: But you cannot tell us that it was positively identified as an ANC contact address by you, because a post-box number, unless it says "The ANC Head Office", which in all likelihood would not have happened, or "The ANC office, P O Box X, Y and Z, Swaziland", you would not be able to say that it was an ANC address because ANC addresses would not only be found on persons belonging to the ANC, unless ANC appeared on the address somewhere, or unless Mr Pienaar obtained other independent information which confirmed it as an ANC address. Do you follow my argument?
MR DE KOCK: Yes, I follow you completely, but I must just state that one does not necessarily have to say "ANC Head Office", we at Vlakplaas for example, had a series of addresses which were located at post offices boxes, we had a variety but there wasn't written on the address, "Vlakplaas C1".
ADV BOSMAN: But that's my question exactly, how would your men know that it was a Vlakplaas address? If the address was found on a Col du Toit, how would they know if it was a Vlakplaas address or a political address? That is what I am trying to clarify.
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I believe that if I was shot on the other side and if a letter was found on my person which had a contact address at Henops Holkers(?) or something which send "Send this message to Henops Holkers CC", the opposition may have sent a bomb to me at that address.
ADV BOSMAN: Then my question is, can you recall whether there was any indication such as "Contact this address", or "Send messages to this address", or was it just a regular address on a document?
MR DE KOCK: I did not handle the document, Chairperson, Mr Pienaar did that. They also dealt with the bodies.
ADV BOSMAN: Well then I think it is a matter to be taken further with Mr Pienaar, but I hope that you understand my problem. Thank you. Thank you, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Advocate Bosman. Advocate Sandi?
ADV SANDI: Yes, thank you Chair, just on the same aspect.
Mr de Kock, when you were approached by Mr Pienaar, did he say to you he was satisfied that this was an ANC address?
MR DE KOCK: Yes, Mr Chairperson, he was satisfied because it was a document that he found on this Indian person that was shot in this vehicle.
ADV SANDI: Yes, and what was your attitude in respect to him saying to you at that stage, "I am satisfied that this is an ANC address"? Did you see it perhaps as part of your function to find out if he was not perhaps making a mistake to so satisfy himself?
MR DE KOCK: Mr Chairperson, no, Mr Pienaar thought about this very long and hard, he was an Intelligence Officer and I think he had 12 to 15 years of experience in the Piet Retief area and on a daily basis he worked in Swaziland, and with his dissection of information there's never been any mistakes. If we have to look at all the other incidents like the shooting of the ANC members, the Nerston incident and the cross-border operation in which he was involved, so I was satisfied with the information that he gave me.
ADV SANDI: Now would I be correct to understand you to say that in the context of the discussion you had with Mr Pienaar, you saw it as your task to assist him with launching the attack at this place, isn't that so?
MR DE KOCK: Yes, Mr Chairperson.
ADV SANDI: If he was making a mistake to think that this was an ANC address, is that something that ever struck your mind at that stage? You were talking about this address.
MR DE KOCK: Mr Chairperson, according to my recollection at that stage and according to my knowledge, he did not make a mistake. I was satisfied with the information that he provided me with.
ADV SANDI: Thank you. Thank you, Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Advocate Sandi. Any re-examination, Mr Hugo?
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR HUGO: Yes, thank you, Chairman.
Mr de Kock, given your position in the operational unit, did you see it within the framework of your task to verify information that was given to you by other departments or other groups, in order to find out if it was correct?
MR DE KOCK: Mr Chairperson, it would have been impossible, because we worked on a national level or basis, and we wouldn't have been able to do this.
MR HUGO: You have already testified concerning Mr Pienaar's co-operation with you, and did you have any doubt concerning his knowledge and ability to gather information?
MR DE KOCK: No, Mr Chairperson, he has never made a mistake which I know of.
MR HUGO: Did Mr Pienaar, in his capacity as one of the Intelligence Officers, according to your knowledge, did he have a detailed knowledge of addresses and movements of the liberation or freedom movements in Swaziland?
MR DE KOCK: Yes, I would just like to add, Mr Chairperson, the first time I met Mr Pienaar was when they abducted four people out of prison cells from Swaziland, and my second meeting with him was when we launched an attack on Zwelibanzi, and from that time onwards and including this incident, his information was always correct.
MR HUGO: Can I ask you the following, concerning the documentation that was found on the body of the deceased, was there any personal documentation, letters or whatever, or any other kind of documentation that had nothing to do with politics?
MR DE KOCK: Mr Chairperson, I wouldn't know because I did not deal with the searching of the bodies, I was only involved in the shooting.
MR HUGO: Once again you believed and acted on the strength of what Mr Pienaar told you?
MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct.
MR HUGO: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HUGO
ADV SANDI: Can I just ask you, Mr de Kock, about another possibility. Yes, but what if this particular address, if you send a parcel there the parcel could land in the hands of someone who was a Security Police informer, but unbeknown to the ANC, wouldn't you in that situation end up killing your own informer? Now when I say "your own informer", I don't mean Mr de Kock's informer but someone within the ANC who was being handled by one of the security officers.
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, in that troubled world of intelligence and askaris, in the struggle of the shadows, one could not exclude something like that, it was possible.
ADV SANDI: Yes, but in the light of such a possibility, wouldn't it then make it even more compelling to try and find out who exactly was using this address?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I did not have any doubt that if Mr Pienaar was satisfied that the address was an ANC address, that I would doubt it.
ADV SANDI: Thank you. Thank you, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: I take it nothing arises from that to take it any further, Mr Hugo?
MR HUGO: No thank you, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr de Kock, you are excused.
WITNESS EXCUSED
CHAIRPERSON: Any evidence to be led in supports of Mr de Kock's ...
MR HUGO: No further evidence, thank you Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Hugo. Mr Lamey?
MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chairperson, I call Mr Bosch.
