WILLEM ALBERTUS NORTJE: (sworn states)
ADV BOSMAN: The applicant is duly sworn, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Advocate Bosman. Mr Lamey?
EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Mr Nortje, during these proceedings you are also applying for your involvement in the arson which took place at Khanya House, is that correct?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: The incident for which you are applying is also one of many incidents for which you have also applied for amnesty before the Amnesty Committee and of which most have been heard.
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: In the bundle before the Committee, from page 54, we found your initial amnesty application to which is attached an annexure and on page 62 there is a summary of your version of the Khanya House incident, is that correct?
MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.
MR LAMEY: From page 63 onwards up to 79, there is an extract from a supplementary amnesty application which was submitted after you obtained legal representation, is that correct?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: And on page 77 to 79, you deal with a supplementary section pertaining to the Khanya House incident.
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: Furthermore, Mr Nortje, in the bundle there is an extract from a statement which you made in Denmark in 1994, before the Goldstone Commission.
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: And therein mention is also made of the Khanya House incident. That is on page 83 of this bundle.
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: Mr Nortje, the first aspect has to do with your supplementary affidavit, where you state a date of approximately 1990, it would appear that it is common cause that the incident took place in October 1988, would you agree with that?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: At that stage you were a member of the Security Police unit, C1, stationed at Vlakplaas.
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: Can you recall your rank at that stage?
MR NORTJE: I was a Sergeant.
MR LAMEY: And you served under Col de Kock, who was your direct Commander.
MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.
MR LAMEY: Do you confirm the content of your affidavit with the exception of further additions and explanations that you will give verbally?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: Is it correct that you received your order in this case from your direct Commander, Mr de Kock?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: You state in your affidavit that the request for the operation was directed to Vlakplaas from the Pretoria Security Branch. I would like to ask you whether you have any personal knowledge of the origin of the request.
MR NORTJE: No, I did not.
MR LAMEY: And during these proceedings you have heard that Brig McIntyre who was the head of the Stratcom division, issued the request.
MR NORTJE: That is correct, I heard so.
MR LAMEY: You do not dispute the evidence?
MR NORTJE: No, I do not dispute it.
MR LAMEY: Could you tell us where the impression came from regarding the request from the Security Branch in Pretoria?
MR NORTJE: I had the idea that it was originally the idea of the Security Branch, because it was their area and I was under the impression that they provided the information indicating the target, the fact that there were not people in the building and so forth.
MR LAMEY: Did you know that the Security Branch in Pretoria also had a desk pertaining to churches?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR LAMEY: Or let's be more specific, the involvement of churches in the liberation struggle.
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: I do not want to reiterate evidence that has already been given by the other applicants pertaining to the meeting that took place at Vlakplaas, I just want to get to your involvement. What was the task that was issued to you and what was your involvement in the incident?
MR NORTJE: During the planning session the tasks were handed out and as far as I can recall I was supposed to assist the men who were opening the locks, and I have mentioned Japie's name, but Kobus was also there, the Kok brothers. I was to assist them in gaining the initial access, I had to provide the necessary protection and once everyone was inside, I had to serve as a guard at the gate in order to prevent anybody from entering via that gate on that evening.
MR LAMEY: I think it was one of the Kok brothers who mentioned that you provided the necessary backup, so to speak, and that you were armed for those purpose, can you recall this, or do you dispute it?
MR NORTJE: No, I cannot dispute it, I cannot recall it pertinently but I do believe that I was armed. It is possible that I was armed with a firearm and I think I also had an item with which to hit. I cannot recall precisely what it was, but I do believe that I would have been equipped with that kind of equipment because it was my job to guard the gate.
MR LAMEY: Did you personally have any expectation or was any admission made to you regarding the fact that people would be in the building when the operation was executed?
MR NORTJE: No, in my mind the Security Branch provided the information and that there would not be any people in the building when we entered it that night.
MR LAMEY: Very well. And did you ever enter the building at any point?
MR NORTJE: No, I did not.
MR LAMEY: And after the building had been set on fire did you depart from the scene?
MR NORTJE: I think that before the igniter cord was ignited, we departed.
MR LAMEY: In what vehicle did you depart?
MR NORTJE: I assume that it must have been the minibus, the minibus which Bosch drove, because that is the vehicle that we arrived there in. I cannot recall pertinently, but I assume that it must have been that vehicle.
MR LAMEY: Did you see at any stage that the fire brigade was assisting the people in the building?
MR NORTJE: No, I did not.
MR LAMEY: And when you departed you returned immediately to Vlakplaas?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: You also state that you were aware of the printing press which would be in the building, similar to the Cosatu House incident.
MR NORTJE: Yes, as far as I can recall the primary target was the printing press because that is where the documents were published. I can recall pertinently that it was specifically stated that it would be in the building itself, otherwise we would only have burnt down the small building in which the printing press was. Therefore the target had to be the building itself as well, but in my mind there was only the printing press.
MR LAMEY: And then from your affidavit it appears that you were under the impression that this building was being used by the South African Council of Churches, you were involved in the Cosatu House incident as well, is that correct?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: But you were not involved in the Khotso House incident?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: Did you know about the Khotso House incident?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR LAMEY: And during the incident did you know who was using the building?
MR NORTJE: I assume that I must have known, but I have stated South African Council of Churches, but I put all these organisations under the same umbrella.
MR LAMEY: That was the impression that you were under?
MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.
MR LAMEY: And during your activities, did you ever hear that the South African Council of Churches as the umbrella institution also showed solidarity, in that some of their members promoted the liberation struggle?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: You do not have any personal knowledge indicating whether anybody was injured during the incident, is that correct?
MR NORTJE: I read about it in the media the next day and when we arrived back at Vlakplaas, Mr de Kock told us that the fire brigade had been there and that they were helping people to escape from the building.
MR LAMEY: So you heard subsequently that people had indeed been in the building?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: Therefore you apply for amnesty for your involvement and your participation in arson and/or malicious damage to property or any other offence or unlawful act that may emanate from your involvement in the incident, is that correct?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: Particularly, "all offences" would indicate any transgression in terms of the Arms and Ammunitions Act, is that correct?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR LAMEY: And in as far as it involves the equipment, the igniter cord and the manufacturing of the fire materials, if this should come down to a transgression of the Act on Arms and Ammunitions and Explosives, you would associate yourself with this?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: And furthermore I want to ask the following, you are not in dispute with the political motivation as provided here by the applicants such as Mr McIntyre and your Commander, Mr de Kock?
MR NORTJE: No, I am not.
MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chairperson, nothing further.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Lamey. Mr Hattingh?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Mr Nortje, I have noted that you have not mentioned all the names of all the Vlakplaas members who were involved in the operation. In your evidence or in your application, are you capable of saying today who the members from Vlakplaas were who were involved in the incident?
MR NORTJE: Chairperson, I was never entirely certain of who was involved. When I made my application I did not make any enquiries, I assumed that those who had been involved would also be applying for amnesty.
MR HATTINGH: Mr Nortje, it is completely understandable that after so many years and after so many operations, one cannot always recall who precisely was involved with you in what operation, therefore it is also so that you and most other Vlakplaas members who have applied for amnesty for other incidents, including Mr de Kock, upon many occasions during your evidence had to concede that members whom you had named as being involved, were not necessarily involved.
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: And that there were also members who were indeed involved, whom you never mentioned.
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: You have heard Mr de Kock's evidence in this matter and he is under the impression that more Vlakplaas members were involved in the operation than those who are applying for amnesty, he mentioned the names of Mr Snyders, Mr Morkel and Mr van Dyk. We have heard that Mr Snyders was away on study leave or something of that nature, but is it possible that there are certain former members who were involved in the matter who did not apply for amnesty?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR HATTINGH: In light of the serious incidents in which you were involved in the past, during which people were killed in a very brutal fashion, this is a relatively minor incident because no-one was injured and the intention was never to injure anybody.
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: There are just a few other aspects I want to examine you on. In your affidavit you state that the entire operation took approximately three to four minutes, that is somewhat short, don't you think, because everybody else has estimated 10 to 15 minutes and there was even someone who estimated up to 30 minutes.
MR NORTJE: I would say that three to four minutes might have been too short, I would also estimate in the vicinity of 10 minutes.
MR HATTINGH: Very well. You were not here all the time while the applicants gave evidence with regard to this application?
MR NORTJE: Yes, I was.
MR HATTINGH: Were you in the TV room next door?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: Did you hear Mr de Kock's evidence that he gave instruction for explosives devices and AK47 magazines to be taken with and planted at the scene?
MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.
MR HATTINGH: Did you hear him issue this order?
MR NORTJE: No, I did not.
MR HATTINGH: And are you aware of who the person was who planted the items there?
MR NORTJE: I can only imagine that it must be some of the members who are not here.
MR HATTINGH: We also know that Mr Vermeulen made an affidavit, but that he did not - I beg your pardon, Mr Willemse made an affidavit, but that he did not testify here.
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: Mr Nortje, I would like to put a hypothetical question to you, if it had been you who had been instructed to plant the items and if you had received the order from Mr de Kock, was there any reason why you would not disclose this?
MR NORTJE: I have no reason, I would definitely have disclosed it if I had done it. The persons who have testified here have no reason to hide this information.
MR NORTJE: Yes, because they were footsoldiers, they received orders from their Commander, Mr de Kock, and they had to carry out these orders.
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Chairperson, nothing further.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HATTINGH
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Hattingh. Mr van der Merwe?
MR VAN DER MERWE: I have no questions, thank you Mr Chair.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR VAN DER MERWE
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nel?
MR NEL: No, thank you. Thank you, Mr Chair.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR NEL
MR WAGENER: No questions, thank you Chair.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR WAGENER
MR BUNN: No questions, thank you Chairman.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR BUNN
MR JOUBERT: No questions, thank you Chair.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR JOUBERT
MR DU PLESSIS: No questions, Mr Chairman.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Cornelius?
MR CORNELIUS: No questions, thank you Chair.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR CORNELIUS
CHAIRPERSON: Ms Cambanis?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS CAMBANIS: Thank you.
Sir, at no time during the operation did you enter into the main building of Khanya House, is that correct?
MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.
MS CAMBANIS: And Mr Hattingh has just asked you, you can't remember who the operatives were, you can't remember anyone who entered the main building of Khanya House that night, except for Mr Kok?
MR NORTJE: I know that our people went in, but I cannot say precisely who went in where. I just know that I was with one of the Kok brothers who was opening the locks and the members entered the building. I remained there. I cannot say who went in where and what they did. I assumed that they came in through the gate, as I recall. I don't know if any of the other members climbed over on the other side, but as I recall, those who passed me went into the building, but I cannot say precisely where in the building they went.
CHAIRPERSON: Let's say when you say "our people went in", my understanding is that even though they all fall under the Security Branch, but there were at least three and you fell under Vlakplaas, let's confine it to members of Vlakplaas, can you say which members of Vlakplaas entered the building? When I say "three" I mean there are three groups, the group of Kotze, the group of the Kok brothers and Vlakplaas, in this instance.
MR NORTJE: Chairperson, I cannot recall precisely who all entered the same gate that I did, I know that one of the Kok brothers unlocked the gate and I waited at the gate. He went in with the rest of the other members. I'm referring to the Vlakplaas members now. I also cannot recall pertinently the size of the petrol cans that they were carrying, I didn't really attend to that.
CHAIRPERSON: Now let's say one of the Kok brothers which you were providing cover for, did he know that the first door was the only door to be opened or he had to open others doors once he has entered the building, and if so, did you provide cover throughout?
MR NORTJE: No, I did not go in with him to the next section, I may have walked a little way with him, but I did not go in directly. I saw photos of the building here, it was dark that evening, but I imagined the appearance of the place completely differently. I cannot recall pertinently that I went with him to the next lock or the lock after that, I just know that I was with him at the first set of locks which was then opened and the rest went in and I waited there.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. You may proceed, Ms Cambanis, thank you very much.
MS CAMBANIS: No Chair, I have nothing further, thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS CAMBANIS
CHAIRPERSON: Oh, I'm sorry to have taken the thunder away from you.
MS CAMBANIS: I'm grateful, thank you Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Ms Patel?
MS PATEL: No questions, thank you Honourable Chair.
NO QUESTIONS BY MS PATEL
CHAIRPERSON: Advocate Bosman?
ADV BOSMAN: Just one question, thank you Chairperson.
Just for the record I would like to clarify something, Mr Nortje, on page 56 of your application, paragraph 10(b), there is the question of whether you drew any benefit from your involvement and your answer is "yes" and then you're asked to explain the scope and you explain that it is "financial".
MR NORTJE: It was in general, regarding all my applications from the beginning. I have been asked about this before. In this particular case I was not placed at any kind of advantage.
ADV BOSMAN: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Advocate Sandi?
ADV SANDI: No questions, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nortje, I perused your application and on page 56 again the question on 11(a)
"Were the deed/deeds, offence/offences, omission or omissions, committed in the execution of an order of or on behalf of or with the approval of the relevant organisation, institution, body, liberation movement, State department or security power?"
and what you have written in is:
"Acts were committed under the order of seniors, Commander and Ministers of the government of the day."
and in your application when you obtained legal assistance, to this question they said:
"Order or approval"
you said "yes", but when you initially filled page 11 on your own without legal representation, what did you have in mind when you said:
"Ministers of the government of the day"
MR NORTJE: Perhaps I could clarify it as I have clarified the previous paragraph. This was in general, from where we obtained our orders, what we believed or where we believed the orders originated from, that these orders came through to our Commanders and that I did not do any of these things without authorisation, so to speak.
CHAIRPERSON: Ja, but when you mentioned Ministers, were you at any given time told that this order, other than that it is from Head Office, emanated, say for instance from the Minister of, in this instance, Safety and Security?
MR NORTJE: At that stage I think the reference is to Minister Vlok, who did take responsibility for our acts and I accepted that we did not do these things without their knowledge.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Nortje. Mr Lamey, any re-examination?
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Mr Nortje, just to clarify the question which was put by the Chairperson and also the question which was put by Adv Bosman. What you did with your initial application when you did not have legal assistance is that you regarded these questions as general questions and you did not answer every question with regard to every individual incident that you were involved with.
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: And as an example of this case, on page 79 we can see that once you had obtained legal assistance all the questions were individualised with reference to all the particular incidents that you were involved with.
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: So the initial form, as filled in by you personally, may create a misconception of the incidents that you were involved in?
MR NORTJE: That's correct, Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: If we look at page 79, paragraphs 10(c) and (d) where you state that you did not receive any specific benefits for this action.
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: And then there is also the reference to the order or approval, on page 79, and all the matters have been individualised as you were involved with them.
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: Regarding the involvement of Ministers, was it your idea and perception - Mr de Kock, Mr Ras and other applicants have also testified to this, your perception is based upon the visits that were paid by Mr Vlok to Vlakplaas, the fact that it emanated, that your inference was justified in light of the Cosatu and Khotso incidents, because the Ministers were involved with that as well.
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chairperson, nothing further.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY
CHAIRPERSON: Thanks Mr Nortje, you are excused.
MR NORTJE: Thank you, Chairperson.
WITNESS EXCUSED
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey?
MR LAMEY: I call the next applicant, Mr Bosch, Izak Daniel Bosch, Chairperson.
