CHAIRPERSON: We are going to be dealing today and the rest of the week with the Nyanda and McFadden matter. The Committee remains the same. Will the legal representatives please put themselves on record?
MR HATTINGH: Hattingh instructed by Mr Hugo on behalf of Mr de Kock, Mr Chairman.
MR KNIGHT: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Julian Knight on behalf of Almond Nofomela who is an implicated person in this matter. He had completed his testimony in this matter in his own amnesty application which was completed on 23 June 1997. Thank you, Mr Chairman. Just one thing I’d like to place on record with regard to the original application of Nofomela, mention was made that three occupants were killed and that is incorrect, Mr Chairman, only two people were killed. So, just so that my colleagues are not confused with cross examination, that it is actually two people and not three people that were killed, Mr Chairman, thank you.
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, Roelof du Plessis instructed by Strydom Britz Attorneys on behalf of Brigadier Jack Cronje who has already received amnesty.
MR PRINSLOO: If it pleases Mr Chairman, Harry Prinsloo appearing on behalf of applicants Pienaar and van Zweel.
MS VAN DER WALT: Chairperson, Louisa van der Walt, I appear on behalf of Mr Rorich and Paul van Dyk as well as Chris Deetlefs who’s an implicated party.
MR WAGENER: Jan Wagener, Mr Chairman, I appear for General Isaac Johannes Engelbrecht.
MR VISSER: May it please you, Mr Chairman and honourable members of the Committee, my name is Louis Visser, I’m instructed by Wagener Muller. I appear for the applicant Brigadier Willem Schoon in the present proceedings as well as certain people who were implicated by Mr de Kock as you will recall, on the first day. They are General Johan Coetzee, General Van Der Merwe, Mr Adrian Vlok, General Bertus Steyn, Brigadier Vickus Loots, Colonel Willem Coetzee, Colonel Jan Coetzee and Colonel Rudi Crause.
MR MOHLABA: Thank you Chairperson. My name is Buka Mohlaba, I am appearing for the family of Nyanda.
MS PATEL: Ramula Patel, Leader of Evidence.
CHAIRPERSON: Right gentlemen, have you decided in what order the hearing will be held?
MR VISSER: For a change, Mr Chairman, it seems that I’m designated to commence the proceedings. Chairperson, we have drawn a document for your possible assistance on behalf of Brigadier Schoon, I believe it has been handed to you, it should be in front of you, which we will lead his evidence from. Chairperson, first of all, may I enquire from you what the bundle, which is now relevant in the present proceedings, is going to be called? My bundle has no ...
CHAIRPERSON: Well, this is the Nyanda McFadden bundle.
CHAIRPERSON: But then when we come to the other documents, we head them Nyanda A, Nyanda B, Nyanda C because otherwise one finds one has five different exhibit A’s.
MR VISSER: Yes. Yes, so we’ll stick with the original Exhibit A which was the ‘Algemene Agtergrond’ and from now on we’ll go on with Nyanda A, B and C.
MR VISSER: Well, may Brigadier Schoon’s statement then be Nyanda A, Chairperson? I beg leave to call Brigadier Schoon.
WILLEM FREDERICK SCHOON: (sworn states)
EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Thank you, please sit. Brigadier Schoon, you an amnesty applicant in this incident and you apply for amnesty for any illegal or unlawful acts or omissions committed by you before, during and after the incident to which is being referred here as well as any other unlawful act which might emanate from this, is that correct?
MR SCHOON: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR VISSER: Your application is in the Nyanda Bundle from pages 22 to 34, is that correct?
MR SCHOON: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR VISSER: Do you confirm as far as your knowledge and except for incidents where you draw the attention of the Committee on, that the contents thereof are true and correct?
MR SCHOON: Yes, I do, Chairperson.
MR VISSER: And you request that certain evidence be incorporated in your evidence and you specifically refer to the evidence which is referred to in Bundle A which serves before the Committee, is that correct?
MR SCHOON: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR VISSER: And you have also given evidence before the Human Rights Violations Committee during December 1996 and on 9 October 1997, is that correct?
MR VISSER: And you specifically ask that the decisions which have been reached by the original Amnesty Committee be applicable to you as well, is that correct?
MR SCHOON: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR VISSER: We shall later arrive at exactly what you apply for amnesty for. If we may go to page 3 of your statement, on that page under the heading "Personal Circumstances and Background" you refer to Exhibit A and specifically the extracts which appear there which was taken from the evidence of General Van Der Merwe and Minister Vlok in the Cosatu-Khotso House incidents as well as judgements of the Amnesty Committee, is that correct?
MR SCHOON: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR VISSER: And as far as your evidence is concerned, is it also applicable to you?
MR SCHOON: It is, Chairperson.
MR VISSER: And then, on page 4, you summarise your career in the police, it speaks for itself. If we could continue on...(indistinct)...
MR SCHOON: My amnesty application did not refer to a date of the incident, Major De Kock places the date at November 1983. I will agree with that date, despite the fact Brigadier J Cronje places that date on February 1983 and the applicants Rorich, Van Dyk and Pienaar places the date at 1984. In my evidence I have referred to the evidence of Brigadier Jack Cronje and I have reconciled myself with it. I wish to point out that I mean at that stage to refer to the amnesty application of Brigadier Cronje because he had not yet given evidence with regard to this incident.
I am quite aware of the evidence of Brigadier Jack Cronje surrounding this incident before the amnesty Committee during February 1997.
MR VISSER: That’s February 1997?
MR SCHOON: That’s correct. Insofar as my own role is regarded with regard to knowledge before and after the incident which I had at my disposal, I accord with the contents of this evidence.
During this incident two persons were killed, namely Zweli Nyanda and Keith McFadden. My role in this incident is as follows. During 1983 I was the commander of the C Group at Security Head Office. General Steenkamp was then the chief of security.
On a day, Brigadier Cronje, who was in command of the Vlakplaas unit, spoke to me at the offices. The discussion surrounded the threat that Mr Nyanda held for the Republic. The reason why Mr Zweli Nyanda was pertinently discussed because it was well known in security circles that he was the commander of MK’s Natal machinery and that he was the person who was at the helm of a large number of violent incidents in South Africa. The discussion with Cronje was to the effect that an attempt had to be launched to kill Mr Nyanda. This discussion has to be judged with regard to the background...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Please excuse me, Brigadier, you might be going too fast, could you please go a little bit slower?
MR SCHOON: Certainly. The discussion has to be judged against the background in the country at that time. Incidents of terror was a daily occurrence and people lost their lives during this violence. The ANC in its submission to the Human Rights Violations Committee of the TRC said that the period from 1980 was a period which they sharpened their armed struggle. I refer to the ANC statement to the TRC, August 1996.
MR VISSER: Chairperson, it’s the white bundle. Please continue.
MR SCHOON: "In mid 1983 MHQ produced a discussion document planning for people’s war. Among the conclusions ...(intervention)"
CHAIRPERSON: Can I interrupt? The white bundle is a different white bundle.
MR VISSER: No, I’m referring to the original statement to...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: No, well we haven’t had that put before us at the moment, the bundle we have had put before us is 12 May 1997.
MR VISSER: Yes, this is the August 1996 one. We didn’t make, we’ll give you the extract, Chairperson. We didn’t think it was necessary to...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: I have copies elsewhere, I just didn’t ...(intervention)
MR VISSER: That’s the only reason why I refer you to the fact that it’s the white bundle as it’s been referred to before. Please continue.
MR SCHOON: "Among the conclusions were that the ANC should continue carrying out and even escalating those actions which had played an important role in stimulating political activity, mass resistance and mass organisation, but that there should be more concentration on destroying enemy personnel. The concept of potential future guerrilla zones inside the country was raised."
Also in the ANC’s Further Submissions to the TRC, May 1997, pages 64 to 66 reference is also made to this aspect of violence.
MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, if I may interrupt the witness, This is the green bundle you will recall. And all that I want to say now, Chairperson, is that there’s virtually a duplication between the two although the green bundle takes it a little bit further but, we don’t intend to go into that much detail, we just wanted to give you the reference in case you wanted to follow it up.
MR SCHOON: Paragraph 15, serious incidents of violence took place in 1983. And so the notorious Church Street bomb of May 1983 exploded leading to the loss of life of 19 persons and the injury of 215 persons approximately. According to my opinion, that bomb was smuggled into the RSA from Swaziland. In conclusion I refer to what the ANC itself said about the violence during 1983 as it appears from the ANC’s Further Submissions to the TRC ...(intervention)
MR VISSER: Chairperson, if I may explain that. In the Further Submissions, under the heading 1983, there are the incidents which the ANC has listed. And this is simply a reference to those listings at page 78, in fact it runs to page 80. Please continue.
MR SCHOON: Paragraph 17, due to the control which the security forces maintained within the borders of the RSA, most of these attacks were orchestrated from the RSA’s neighbouring states, Botswana, Swaziland, Mozambique and Lesotho. In this regard I refer to the general background as sketched in Exhibit A.
MR VISSER: Chairperson, that you will find in Annexure A, from page 16 onwards where we dealt with Botswana, Swaziland and Lesotho. It runs to page 20.
MR SCHOON: Paragraph 18, although Mr Zweli Nyanda was specifically discussed during the discussion between me and Brigadier Cronje, it must be accepted that the underlying problem was not him alone but, the entire MK organisation. Consequently my intention was fixed on a broader scope than just Mr Nyanda and, Brigadier Cronje and I then also discussed the house where Nyanda was living. Seeing as our information indicated that the house was used as a transit and meeting place of MK members. I believed that there would also be other MK members present should an action be taken against Mr Nyanda in that house and, I also expected that the security branch members would also kill such other persons. I believe that the situation was similarly understood by General Steenkamp and Brigadier Cronje.
MR VISSER: So, what you’re saying, Brigadier, is that although Brigadier Cronje, in his evidence before the Amnesty Committee, spoke of Mr Zweli Nyanda, there was a bigger picture that you had in mind? It wasn’t only about Mr Zweli Nyanda and nobody else?
MR VISSER: Very well, continue.
MR SCHOON: Paragraph 19, I agreed with Brigadier Cronje that attempts had to be made to attack the house and, if possible, to kill Zweli Nyanda as well as any other MK members who would be found there. Brigadier Cronje and I discussed the matter with General Steenkamp and he gave the order that the operation be launched.
General Steenkamp and I carried out the planning and execution of the action and conveyed this to the operatives on ground level and we left it up to them. It was reported to me telephonically by Brigadier Cronje that the mission had been successful and I was informed that Zweli Nyanda and Keith McFadden had been killed during the attack and, that the house had been damaged. Cronje brought a number of documents with him among which we found plans for acts of terrorism in the RSA. Mr Keith McFadden was a supporter, member of the ANC, I refer to the ANC’s Statement to the TRC, August 1996, page 94, paragraph 14.
MR VISSER: Chairperson, at that page, page 94 of the Submissions, under paragraph 14, Mr McFadden, Keith McFadden’s name is mentioned and it is stated that he died in a raid. And the date is given as 000083. So, it’s clear that the ANC did not know the exact date but, they did place it in 1983. And that, Chairperson, is under the heading of a list of ANC members who died in exile. Please continue.
MR SCHOON: Paragraph 23, this action by members of the security branch in Swaziland must be regarded against the background of the Simonstown summit about which General Johan Coetzee has given evidence during the London bomb amnesty application hearing. Swaziland was the operational area of the SAP and . I refer to Exhibit A in this regard.
MR VISSER: Perhaps, Chairperson, I could pinpoint the paragraph to you. Just bear with me a moment. Paragraph 56 of Exhibit A. Please continue.
MR SCHOON: Paragraph 24, I acted as a policeman in the execution of my duties within the SAP. I truly believed that such actions were expected of me and that my actions fell within the scope of my express or sworn authorisations. I believed this particularly within the light of the pressure which was placed upon us within the security branch by the political leadership of that time. It was consistently maintained that terrorists had to be destroyed in order to prevent the revolution. My conduct was aimed at protecting the State and the National Party and maintaining that government. I drew no personal benefit from this. I have been informed that the Amnesty Committee has granted Brigadier Jack Cronje amnesty for this incident and, I request, respectfully, that amnesty also be granted to me.
MR VISSER: And if you then page back to page 2, your amnesty application has to do with conspiracy with regard to Zweli Nyanda and other members of uMkhonto weSizwe and Swaziland, the conspiracy to murder these individuals, the murder of Mr Zweli Nyanda and Mr Keith McFadden or any other judgement with regard to these facts. Aiding and abetting before and after the facts, purposeful damage of property to the house, your omission to publicise the true facts after the time and any other offence or delict emanating from this?
CHAIRPERSON: If he is given amnesty in respect of the murder, then the application for accessory before and after the fact falls away?
MR VISSER: That is correct, Chairperson, but of course the converse is also true. If he doesn’t get for murder, then the others will have to follow. Yes, but you’re quite correct, Mr Chairman, thank you. Brigadier Schoon, evidence has been given by Mr de Kock among others, you were involved - Chairperson, I will give the references to the bundle, that was bundle 2 to which Mr de Kock referred to and the paragraphs as far as I can, in order to zoom in on the exact piece of evidence to which I wish to refer. The first was in bundle 2, page 22 paragraph 2.2.15.3. And reference has been made in your evidence to an abduction of an unknown activist from Swaziland. I have been informed that this was a certain Mr Mkomezulu and that this is Mr de Kock’s incident number four, volume 1, page 90. I’m now told that my information about Mr Mkomezulu may be wrong but, it matters not, it’s still the same incident that I’m referring to. Now, Mr de Kock has stated that you gave the order to abduct this unknown activist from Swaziland and to have him delivered to your brother, Gert. Your brother was the then commander of the security branch at Josini. Now, can we just begin with the following. Is it correct that your brother, Gert Schoon, was the commander of the security branch at Josini in 19, I don’t appear to have the date here, at a certain point in time then?
MR SCHOON: I would imagine that when that incident took place, Chairperson, he was not the commander. However, he was a member of that branch.
MR VISSER: You aware of this incident that we are discussing?
MR SCHOON: Yes, it came to my attention later when my brother applied for amnesty.
MR VISSER: And, indeed, this incident will be heard at some or other time in September.
MR SCHOON: I don’t know about that.
MR VISSER: Do you have any knowledge at all about this incident?
MR SCHOON: No, none whatsoever.
MR VISSER: Did you give any orders in this regard?
MR VISSER: Then there is a case which Mr de Kock has referred to in bundle 2 on page 26, paragraph 2.2.15.9. And that refers to his amnesty application, incident one, volume 1, page 218. The allegation could be summarised as follows.
During the late eighties, Mr de Kock was involved in an attack on ANC activists in Zimbabwe. And he gave evidence that this incident took place in co-operation with Mr Peter Castleton, or at least that it was executed in co-operation with Peter Castleton. And, it involved a motor bomb being placed within a BMW and, Mr de Kock then stated that this action was cleared with you.
MR SCHOON: No, Chairperson, I have no knowledge about this incident, I was not involved in it.
MR VISSER: In all fairness, we must say that Mr de Kock, in his application, stated that he is not certain whether this was cleared with you.
However, if we could proceed to the following item which is in bundle 2 on page 30, Mr Chairman, paragraph 2.2.18.5 which refers to an incident 23 in volume 2, page 411. That involves the murder of Japie Maponya and Mr de Kock’s allegation is that he discussed this matter with you or reported about this matter to you, if I understand his evidence correctly. Do you have any knowledge or any involvement in the murder of Japie Maponya?
MR SCHOON: No, none whatsoever.
MR VISSER: Can we then proceed to the following item? Mr Chairman, that’s bundle 2, page 31, paragraph 2.2.19.1 and 2.2.19.2. It refers to Mr de Kock’s incident 16 at volume 2 and, I have question marks at page 360, Chairperson, I’m not quite certain.
MR VISSER: 360. I’m not certain that it was intended that that should be the incident referred to but, it matters not much because it simply deals with weaponry that was brought from Ovamboland.
Brigadier, the allegation of Mr de Kock was that you, in conjunction with General Hans Dreyer, gave the order to Mr de Kock to fetch weaponry from Ovamboland and to store this weaponry at Vlakplaas. He maintains that this was done with a 15 tonne and a five tonne truck and four or five bakkies with tow vehicles and that this was brought to Vlakplaas because it was situated near the Security Branch’s "operational" basis. What do you know about this?
MR SCHOON: During that period in time, when the incident took place Major de Kock, who was then the major, told me that there were weapons in Ovamboland which he could have brought to Vlakplaas because Koevoet no longer required these weapons. At first I questioned the whole story because I wanted to know whether it was necessary and, he said: "Yes, it is necessary, we may need these weapons in future." And, because at that stage, I was practically on the verge of retirement, I think I may have already served my application for pension, I said: "Very well, go ahead."
MR VISSER: And that would have been at the end of October, 1989?
MR SCHOON: No, Chairperson, it would have been before then because I think that, approximately four months before my date of retirement, I had launched my application so, it must have been a few months before the time.
MR VISSER: Very well, continue.
MR SCHOON: And I then allowed him to continue because there were vehicles that were running to Ovamboland from 10 Unit and it wouldn’t have involved any additional cost and I told him that he could go ahead with it.
MR VISSER: Did you regard this as illegal or unlawful, the transport of weapons to South Africa from Ovamboland?
MR VISSER: What sort of weapons were they? Where did it come from?
MR SCHOON: These were weapons which were obtained in altercations with Swapo terrorists and which were taken into possession during such situations.
MR VISSER: Would you say that these were smuggled weapons?
MR SCHOON: No, Chairperson. These were weapons which had been possessed.
MR VISSER: If I may then proceed to the issue which Mr de Kock submitted about the false claims and the funds which he maintained at Vlakplaas. Chairperson, that is bundle 2, pages 56 through to page 59, the paragraphs are 2.5.1 to 2.5.4 dealing with false claims in regard to carpets and furniture and air conditioner and ice machines. And then paragraph 2.5.4 to 2.5.8, again with the question of the ice machines and the furniture, Chairperson and, yes, those are the ones. Mr de Kock, just to cut a long story short, Mr de Kock said that you told him at a certain point that he had to look after his men at Vlakplaas and that he understood this in terms of the fact he had to ensure that they were financially compensated and as I understand it, that this was an order for him to institute false claims to pay them for the long hours which they worked. What is your comment on that?
MR SCHOON: Chairperson, in the first place, I never said this to him. Secondly, the men were remunerated if they went out and spent periods of time away from the usual station, they would be compensated for full accommodation and travel and that would be the compensation that they received.
MR VISSER: Are you aware of any false claims which were instituted by Mr de Kock in order to remunerate persons other than with their usual police salary?
MR SCHOON: No, on the contrary, I am not aware of any remuneration which they may have obtained from the secret fund.
MR VISSER: Are you aware of the purchase of carpeting, furniture, air conditioners and ice machines by means of instituting false claims?
MR SCHOON: Chairperson, there were two instances in which we could apply for these conveniences, it had to be properly motivated and then it would be granted, then there would also be the Facility Fund which was similar to the Southern Cross Fund.
MR VISSER: So, you say that there could be a legal or legitimate application for such items?
MR SCHOON: Yes. I don’t know of any other way by which one could obtain these things.
MR VISSER: Would it have been the same in terms of refurbishments and improvements of Vlakplaas?
MR SCHOON: They would have to be cleared out once again, and the necessary material would be provided if the request had been cleared.
MR VISSER: Incident 27, I’m not sure which volume, page 562, Mr de Kock says that functions and repair to vehicles was paid for by these false claims. What about these functions at Vlakplaas, where would the money for that come from?
MR SCHOON: Functions were held there and this was done from the secret fund by entertaining persons. And then a lawful claim is put in and the repair to damaged vehicles, we did have a mechanic there and he repaired damaged vehicles. Otherwise it was sent to the police’s garages.
MR VISSER: Would it make any difference if the driver himself had damaged the vehicle because of negligence with regard to a claim, a lawful claim within the police?
MR SCHOON: Not as far as I know, Chairperson.
MR VISSER: Thank you, Mr Chairperson, that’s the evidence which I wish to present.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER
CHAIRPERSON: Before we go on with anything else, has the General been to Vlakplaas lately?
MR VISSER: Has who been to Vlakplaas, Chairperson?
MR VISSER: Have I been to Vlakplaas?
CHAIRPERSON: So, he can’t tell us what condition it’s in now?
MR VISSER: But if it’s of any relevance, we could...(intervention)
MR VISSER: No, no, I’ve never been there. But, we can go out there, Chairperson...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Well, it struck me, I don’t know if it would be important but we hear bits and pieces of various applications about things that did or did not happen there, that we might understand the evidence a bit better if we’d actually seen the buildings and things.
MR VISSER: But, Chairperson, why, there could be absolutely no problem with the Committee going out there. Would you like us to make such arrangements?
CHAIRPERSON: No, I just didn’t know for sure if it had been pulled down or was used as a farm now or something else. But if it is still worth looking at, I think it might be a good idea, do you agree? I think my Committee would like, if we have the opportunity.
MR VISSER: Yes, certainly, I’ll convey that, Chairperson and, we’ll attempt it. First of all we’ll find out whether it’s still a police ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: I think we’re getting some information here.
MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, I may be mistaken but I’m under the impression that I received information at some or other stage that the farm has been sold to a private individual.
MR VISSER: Well, we’ll try to get that information for you, Chairperson, and if it’s not, if it’s still in possession of the police, then obviously we’ll try and make arrangements for you.
ADV SANDI: Sorry, just one thing. Mr Schoon, when was the last time you were at Vlakplaas?
MR SCHOON: Chairperson, this was at about 1993, somewhere around there.
ADV SANDI: Was that the time you were still in charge there?
MR SCHOON: No, Chairperson, I was already retired for a few years.
ADV SANDI: Did you, at any stage, go to Vlakplaas at the time you had already retired?
MR SCHOON: Please repeat, please.
ADV SANDI: After retirement, did you at any stage go to Vlakplaas? Did you visit Vlakplaas after your retirement?
MR SCHOON: Yes, Chairperson, I was invited a few times by the members from Vlakplaas when they held functions there. This was about at four of five occasions shortly after I had retired.
MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, I think Mr Du Plessis has a request to make.
MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, Mr Du Plessis has already left. He’s informed me to inform the Committee that he has no questions. Thank you, Mr Chairman.
MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, Hattingh on record on behalf of De Kock, before I proceed with my cross examination of Brigadier Schoon, I would like some guidance from the Committee, Mr Chairman. We are dealing here with the incident relating to the death of Messrs Nyanda and McFadden. Now, my learned friend has lead evidence about various other incidents, some of them, Mr de Kock has applied for amnesty for, some of them we have suggested to the Committee that they should be dealt with in chambers and not ...(indistinct) ...because it doesn’t involve the violation of human rights.
ADV SANDI: Some of them, the applications have been withdrawn, for example ...(indistinct).
MR HATTINGH: Yes, correct, in some instances the applications have been withdrawn. Now, am I, is it expected of me now to cross examine Brigadier Schoon on issues such as Maponya, which is going to be dealt with at a later stage? Surely if the Brigadier, as an implicated person, wants you to draw certain inferences as to whether he was involved in the operation or not that he should come to that hearing ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Well, my view is that, and I’ve expressed it, we have not as a Committee made a formal decision on this, that you cannot, it would be totally wrong to separate each incident as being a separate incident and you decide that only on the evidence you hear there. The Act says "on information which has come to our knowledge", which implies, in my view, that we can, right to the end of the hearing, use information that has come from other sources, that one should of course draw it to the attention of the applicant that there has been such information put before us in some other context. But I do not think we can say: "No, you can’t ask him about that now, he’s given evidence about it." You may feel that you want to put a general remark at this stage and not get involved in details about the event because his evidence has in the main been of a very general nature on each event.
MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Brigadier ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: I don’t know if you have with you, or have had an opportunity to see these bundles that Mr Visser has been referring to.
MR HATTINGH: Unfortunately...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: I’m sure he will, if he has them there, will make them available to you. If we took the short adjournment now, it’s almost time, you could look at these documents before you start questioning because it’s always a little confusing to question on a document you haven’t seen. So, we’ll take a short adjournment now to enable you to do that.
MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, before you commence, my attorney has made some enquiries about Vlakplaas. And in order to establish whether it still belongs to the police and if so, whether the Committee can visit Vlakplaas, and through whom we must make the arrangements, and all of that he’ll hear within a short while. There will be telephone call back to him and he’ll hopefully receive a message on his cellphone when we adjourn and we’ll be able to inform you.
ADV SANDI: Mr Visser, just for my own clarity, is it the position that you do not intend to call your client or he intends not to come and testify when these other matters are dealt with?
MR VISSER: Chairperson, there’s a somewhat longish answer to the question. You will recall when we were here last time at the initial stages a whole number of people were implicated to a greater or lesser extent. At that stage, we asked to be allowed at the first available opportunity to place the versions of these people to Mr de Kock. While Brigadier Schoon has now given his evidence we thought that it would be convenient for him to deal with the matters in which he was implicated. We thereby certainly did not intend to say that we expect that we should go into each and every one of those matters now. There’s only one issue which makes it difficult to say, we’ll deal with them in future when those incidents are heard, because, two things, one, not all of these incidents will heard because some have been withdrawn, etcetera. And the other issue is I’m not entirely certain whether the Department of Justice will allow me to come to each of the incidents where one or more of these people are implicated, to deal with it there. But certainly, we don’t intend dealing with this in any greater extend than what we’ve done. There’s evidence before you which this client has denied and he’s just placed his denials on record. And we ...(tape ends)
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Brigadier Schoon, I cannot question you thoroughly about the issue of false claims and your knowledge or possible involvement with regard to such matters because it would require a great deal of documentation and, it would involve numerous incidents and I don’t believe that we will really have the necessary time to cover these incidents but I would just like to put general questions to you in this regard. Firstly, can you recall that when Vlakplaas was purchased, and I used the word purchased, or acquired rather than purchased, when Vlakplaas was acquired for police use, were there any problems about who would be acquiring the property and in whose name the property would be registered and all other related issues or problems?
MR SCHOON: Yes, Chairperson, I can recall but there weren’t really any problems with the purchase or the acquisition. We followed the proper channels and that was by means of the Department which would be exclusively responsible for the acquisition of fixed property for the State. And the piece of land was ultimately taken by the State and placed at the disposal of the security forces.
MR HATTINGH: Is it correct that before this process which you have just described was finally finished, Vlakplaas had already occupied the property, and when I say Vlakplaas, I refer to C1?
MR SCHOON: Yes, that is correct.
MR HATTINGH: And that this entire process took approximately three years, according to Mr de Kock’s recollection?
MR SCHOON: Yes, that is correct, Chairperson. I think that the police occupied the premises in 1976 approximately and it was only three years later when it actually became State property. And at that stage, there was a dispute regarding who was the actual owner of that piece of land because it was inheritance land which was owned by three or four brothers and the surviving mother. It had been inherited by this group of persons and it was not specified in the testament who would receive which piece of land. And there was a person who claimed property or ownership of the remaining piece of land, consequently there was a dispute regarding who may sell the land and who may not sell the land.
MR HATTINGH: Now Brigadier, during that period, before the land was registered as State property and, while Vlakplaas was already there, who would have paid for any structural improvements which were brought about?
MR SCHOON: Chairperson, no, it would have been us because we were the occupants of that property.
MR HATTINGH: But did you not attempt to consult the Department of Public Works to cover the payment of these structural improvements and so forth?
MR SCHOON: Chairperson, the then commander, General Coetzee, made the funds available and paid for it.
MR HATTINGH: You see, Mr de Kock’s evidence is that there was a myriad of problems in this regard and there was a dispute among departments regarding who was responsible for the payment of structural improvements and who was responsible for the payment of equipment and that this created tremendous problems.
MR SCHOON: I’m not aware of that.
MR HATTINGH: And because of all of this red tape which had to be dealt with, the ultimate decision was taken to use the secret fund to pay for these improvements and the equipment which was acquired but in order to by pass all the prescriptions in this regard, it was decided to do this by means of false claims.
MR SCHOON: No, Chairperson, I don’t know about this.
MR HATTINGH: And Mr de Kock’s version is that you do indeed know about it and that you were involved in it and that you approved some of these false claims by placing your own signature on those claims.
MR SCHOON: No, Chairperson, I never approved any claims. This was done by the person who was in command of accounts.
MR HATTINGH: But shouldn’t the commander of the unit also sign a claim?
MR SCHOON: Yes, he could recommend it or not recommend it.
MR HATTINGH: Very well, then I may have used the incorrect word. You signed these false claims which were instituted and in this manner you recommended it?
MR SCHOON: No, Chairperson, I am not aware of any false claims.
MR HATTINGH: Brigadier, you maintain that you attended a number of functions at Vlakplaas after you retired from service?
MR SCHOON: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: And before you retired from the service, you were, by nature of your position, also present at such Vlakplaas functions.
MR HATTINGH: And this was a reasonably frequent institution at the farm?
MR SCHOON: Chairperson, usually once a month, perhaps even twice a month and it may have been even more, during certain months.
MR HATTINGH: Yes, and sometimes it may also have taken place during the week and not necessarily only on a Friday?
MR HATTINGH: And during these functions, there was a great number of people who were present?
MR HATTINGH: And, in order to hold such a function, it would incur great costs?
MR SCHOON: Yes, that’s correct.
MR HATTINGH: Alcohol and food were expensive?
MR HATTINGH: And those would be the key components of acquisition for the purposes of these functions.
MR SCHOON: Yes, that’s correct.
MR HATTINGH: And you also state that the costs for these functions would be covered by the secret fund in a legal manner.
MR SCHOON: Yes, that’s correct.
MR HATTINGH: With the full knowledge of Head Office, of the Minister, the Cabinet and the Government, this is what you say.
MR SCHOON: No, Chairperson, that is not what I said.
MR HATTINGH: Well then, if it had been officially paid for, how did this come about?
MR SCHOON: It would be paid out of the secret fund as recreational costs.
MR HATTINGH: But was this for the purposes of the war, on such a great scale?
MR SCHOON: Well, Chairperson, it was approved.
MR HATTINGH: By who, by the accountant? And who was that?
MR SCHOON: At a stage it was Brigadier Piet Goosen and after him, I think it was General Malan.
MR HATTINGH: And in your capacity as the head of the unit, you had to sign and recommend these official claims.
MR HATTINGH: Did you do this frequently?
MR HATTINGH: With regard to each and every one of those functions which was held there?
MR SCHOON: No, Chairperson, I was not the only person who signed.
MR HATTINGH: Who else could sign?
MR SCHOON: The next officer if I was not available.
MR HATTINGH: Who would that have been?
MR SCHOON: There was a Colonel Van Rensburg.
MR SCHOON: There was also Brigadier Cronje at a stage.
MR HATTINGH: Yes. And you tell us then that with regard to the official policy, it was an order that a number of policemen regularly held functions at Vlakplaas at State cost or expenditure?
MR SCHOON: It wasn’t only policemen, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: But most of them were policemen.
MR SCHOON: Yes, that’s correct.
MR HATTINGH: And then we also heard of the odd minister, here and there. Who else?
MR SCHOON: That is all, Chairperson.
ADV SANDI: Sorry, you’re saying it was not only policemen, who were the others?
MR SCHOON: That was people who usually assisted the Security branch in the proper execution of their tasks, who performed service without any remuneration.
MR HATTINGH: Brigadier, during the past, at various occasions I was invited to a monthly function which was held at the officer’s club in John Vorster Square in Johannesburg, during which there would also be such private guests. Those functions and the expenditure with regard to those functions would usually be covered by some or other sponsor or a company which would cover or sponsor the expenditure with regard to some or other function. This would also be announced and the sponsor would be officially thanked at such a function. What was the position at Vlakplaas when such private individuals were entertained?
MR SCHOON: Some of the private individuals offered to pay and acted as sponsors.
MR HATTINGH: Did they then cover the expenditure of the entire function?
MR HATTINGH: How often did this take place?
MR HATTINGH: But do you say that, or let me put the question to you like this, did it ever occur that some of these function took place at Vlakplaas during which only police members were present?
MR HATTINGH: And are you then saying that is was in order for policemen to use State funds for functions or entertainment?
MR SCHOON: Chairperson, these functions were not all covered by the State fund. When it was only policemen who would be attending, they would contribute. I know that during Brigadier Cronje’s time, he had such a fund. And that fund was used to pay for these functions at which there would be only policemen in attendance.
MR HATTINGH: You see, Mr de Kock’s evidence is that these functions took place on a regular basis and the costs collected to these functions were covered by means of the secret fund and false claims. And that you and other high ranking officers were indeed thoroughly aware of the situation.
MR SCHOON: I cannot comment on that.
MR HATTINGH: Would you deny it?
MR SCHOON: No. I’m not aware that false claims were instituted. As far as I know, these were legal claims which were instituted.
MR HATTINGH: Was there, at a later date, was there such a fund which you mentioned, the fund that Brigadier Cronje established?
MR SCHOON: There could have been.
MR HATTINGH: So you are not certain?
MR SCHOON: No, I’m not certain.
MR HATTINGH: If it could have been, it could not have been paid out of such a fund. And where would the money have come from then? It was a well known fact that policemen and policemen of rank such as Mr de Kock and policemen who served under him at Vlakplaas did not have a very extensive salary.
MR HATTINGH: And that they could not have used their salaries to cover the costs which were connected with such functions.
MR SCHOON: As far as I know, they made a monthly contribution which came from their travel and accommodation allowances.
MR HATTINGH: In order to cover the costs of other policemen who visited the farm and attended functions?
MR HATTINGH: Yes, I can understand their own but, here we have a great number of guests in attendance and are you telling me that they used some of the funds allocated to their legal travel and accommodation costs in order to entertain other policemen and officers at the farm?
MR SCHOON: I’m not sure of that.
MR HATTINGH: Could the canteen at Vlakplaas have put in a claim for an ice machine?
MR HATTINGH: Why do you say that you think so?
MR SCHOON: Because it would be a convenience that would be provided by the quartermaster or the fund.
MR HATTINGH: Isn’t it true that every other police canteen in the country would generate funds by means of the sale of alcohol in such a police canteen?
MR HATTINGH: And that equipment such as an ice machine had to be purchased through the profits of such sales and not by means of State funds?
MR SCHOON: If a claim was put in with the equipment fund, it would be money which was made available for facilities by means of other institutions.
MR HATTINGH: Mr de Kock’s evidence is that this ice machine as well as the ice machine at Head Office was paid for by means of false claims because they would not usually have qualified for such a piece of equipment.
MR SCHOON: I don’t know about that. That could have been after my time.
MR HATTINGH: Mr de Kock, and I don’t know whether this appears in his submission but, if necessary he will give evidence to this effect. Mr de Kock states that towards the end of the financial book year you came to him and Mr Martin Naude and you told them that the financial year was over or almost complete and that there was still funds remaining and that if these funds were not used, the budget for the next or following year would be cut. And you gave them the order to institute two false claims, one for R48 000.00 and the other for an amount of R46 000.00. And what happened to the money, he doesn’t know.
MR SCHOON: I cannot recall that specifically but, if the claims could be shown to me, I may be able to refresh my memory.
MR HATTINGH: Can you not dispute it?
MR SCHOON: No, Chairperson, I don’t recall it.
MR HATTINGH: Do you recall a person by the name of Ernest Ramatola?
MR SCHOON: Yes, I remember him.
MR HATTINGH: Was he a police member or a so called Askari?
MR SCHOON: I think he was an Askari who came from Bloemfontein.
MR HATTINGH: And he was involved in the attempt on the life of the deceased Mr Chris Hani.
MR SCHOON: Yes, that is what the information appears to be.
MR HATTINGH: And he was involved in that attempt in his capacity as an Askari who was linked to Vlakplaas?
MR HATTINGH: I beg your pardon.
MR HATTINGH: In what capacity was he involved then?
MR SCHOON: It was only after that incident that he arrived at Vlakplaas.
MR HATTINGH: Was he injured during this attempt on Mr Hani’s life?
MR SCHOON: Yes, he was injured. It had something to do with his hearing. I don’t know about all his injuries but I know that he wasn’t normal.
MR HATTINGH: And he asked if he could be compensated?
MR SCHOON: I don’t know about that. But I do know that he was registered as an Askari.
MR HATTINGH: And Mr de Kock’s version is that you then gave the order that a claim be instituted, a false claim be instituted. If you’ll bear with me a moment please, may I just take instructions, Mr Chairman. Thank you, Mr Chairman. The false claim was written out for an amount of R25 000.00 and Mr Ramatola who found himself in Queenstown at the time was brought from there to Vlakplaas where the amount was officially handed over to him at a function. Do you recall this?
MR SCHOON: I did not attend that function.
MR HATTINGH: But do you know anything about it?
MR SCHOON: No, I don’t know anything about it at all.
MR HATTINGH: But Mr de Kock’s version is that you gave the order for this amount to be written out.
MR HATTINGH: Vlakplaas was equipped with a number of weapons which were furnished with silencers?
MR SCHOON: Yes, that is correct.
MR HATTINGH: This is not a fact which you generally publicised.
MR HATTINGH: You didn’t want the public to know about the fact that Vlakplaas made use of silenced weapons.
MR HATTINGH: Among others, there were 21 AK guns which were furnished with silencers.
MR SCHOON: I didn’t know about that.
MR HATTINGH: And those silencers had to be specially manufactured.
MR SCHOON: I don’t know about that.
MR HATTINGH: Mr de Kock will state that you approved that an amount of R21 000.00 be paid out by means of a completion of a false claim to the person who manufactured these silencers.
MR SCHOON: I have absolutely no knowledge of that.
MR HATTINGH: If such silencers existed, how did you obtain them?
MR SCHOON: I don’t know anything about that.
MR HATTINGH: But you do accept that they existed.
MR SCHOON: I don’t know that anything like that existed.
MR HATTINGH: But you have just said that Vlakplaas had weapons which were furnished with silencers.
CHAIRPERSON: He said he didn’t know about these AK-47s.
MR HATTINGH: Oh, I’m sorry, I misunderstood him, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: At the beginning of his evidence he says he knew they had silenced weapons. You asked about the AKs and he said he didn’t know.
MR HATTINGH: Yes, I apologise, I misunderstood him, Mr Chairman. The other silencers that you were indeed aware of, how did you come to know about this?
MR SCHOON: As far as I know, our technical division manufactured this equipment, and if I recall correctly, it was Brigadier Wal du Toit who manufactured it.
MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, may I just take instruction? Mr de Kock will say that it is correct, that there were weapons which you and he went to fetch once which were supposed to have been destroyed but which you kept and had fitted with silencers. And that this was done by Wal du Toit’s technical division.
MR SCHOON: That is what I know of.
MR HATTINGH: But he also maintains that you know about the AK-47s which were furnished with silencers and that you recommended the false claim for the payment of this fitting.
MR SCHOON: I don’t know about that.
MR HATTINGH: As I said, initially, there are literally numerous such false claims which Mr de Kock will give evidence about and regarding which he will maintain that you consistently knew about the fact that false claims were instituted and that you yourself approved the payment of such false claims.
MR SCHOON: No, I did not approve such false claims, neither did I recommend them.
MR HATTINGH: I will not put any more questions to you about false claims at the moment. Perhaps if we could have an opportunity at a later date, we can explore this matter of the false claims more thoroughly and you will have your opportunity to put forward your version.
I would just like to come to this incident. Or just before I get to that, were you involved in the Mxenge incident?
MR SCHOON: In this regard, Chairperson, that I was the courier who delivered money for Captain Dirk Coetzee.
MR HATTINGH: Which money was this?
MR SCHOON: It was money which Brigadier Du Preez had given to me with the request to deliver it to Coetzee.
MR HATTINGH: For which purpose?
MR SCHOON: Apparently it was to remunerate three Askaris for their share in the murder of Mr Mxenge.
MR HATTINGH: And you say apparently, were you not informed for what it was?
MR SCHOON: He told me to give the money to Dirk Coetzee.
MR HATTINGH: And he also told you what it was intended for.
MR SCHOON: I suspect that he told me.
MR HATTINGH: And where did you get the money?
MR SCHOON: From Brigadier Du Preez.
MR HATTINGH: And do you know where he obtained it from?
MR SCHOON: He obtained it from Koevoet.
MR SCHOON: Yes, that is correct.
MR HATTINGH: Is that what he told you?
MR HATTINGH: Did you ever apply for amnesty for any false claims?
MR HATTINGH: So you say that Brigadier Du Preez told you that the money which was given to Mr Nofomela and others, we know it was them, that this money came from Koevoet?
MR HATTINGH: Why was it necessary to obtain money from Koevoet?
MR SCHOON: I don’t know. Perhaps we should ask Brigadier Du Preez.
MR HATTINGH: That Koevoet was also a police unit.
MR HATTINGH: And would this have been official funds or not?
MR SCHOON: I don’t know. I simply took the envelope with the money and delivered it to Coetzee.
MR HATTINGH: Was this your only involvement in the Mxenge matter?
MR SCHOON: Yes, that’s correct.
MR HATTINGH: Let us come to the Nyanda incident. Were any awards given to some of the members who were involved in the incident?
MR SCHOON: If I recall correctly there was an application for medals and these medals were awarded to them.
MR HATTINGH: Can you recall which type of medals these were?
MR SCHOON: It was a medal which would usually, if I recall correctly, only be allocated to generals.
MR SCHOON: Yes, that’s correct.
MR HATTINGH: And, as you have said, usually only generals would be the recipients of such medals?
MR HATTINGH: And in this case it was awarded to who?
MR SCHOON: I think it was Jack Cronje, Mr de Kock and three or four other persons who had been involved in this operation.
MR HATTINGH: You say, in your application, that you agree with the evidence of Mr Cronje. Can I infer from that that with regard to his written amnesty application which is attached to these documents, that you have studied this document, that you understand what appears in this document?
MR HATTINGH: Could I refer you to page 90 of the documentation.
"After that I received an SOE award or medal for exceptional service as well as the following members who were present, namely De Kock, Van Dyk, Pienaar, Rorich, all of whom received the same medal."
MR HATTINGH: The typed page 55 of the bundle now before you, Mr Chairman.
MR HATTINGH: Sorry, that’s 94, the pagination in manuscript, Mr Chairman. What was Mr de Kock’s rank at that stage?
MR SCHOON: He was then a major.
MR SCHOON: He was a lieutenant, I think.
MR SCHOON: He was also a warrant-officer.
MR HATTINGH: So, this medal which would usually only be allocated to generals was now being given to soldiers who were not even officers?
MR HATTINGH: What was the procedure with the award of such a medal, perhaps I could express myself more clearly? Who would know about it and what motivation had to be provided before such a medal could be awarded?
MR SCHOON: Chairperson, in this case, it was only the Commander, and I think at that stage General Steenkamp, and the Commissioner and the Minister who knew. And the motivation was very superficial. It was simply stated that certain members had participated in an operation during which action had been taken against the enemy and it was then recommended that the following medal be awarded to them. And then it would be taken by hand, I suspect to the Commissioner, and he in turn would take the matter up with the Minister.
MR HATTINGH: Apart from the information which appeared in this vague motivation, do you know which information the Commissioner would have had? Do you think he would have known that this was for a cross border operation?
MR SCHOON: Yes, he would have known.
MR HATTINGH: And you cannot say whether he conveyed the information that he had to the Minister?
MR SCHOON: I think he would have because the Minister would certainly have asked: "But what is this for? Why should we award this medal?"
MR HATTINGH: Who was the Commissioner at that stage?
MR SCHOON: If I recall correctly, it was General Coetzee.
MR HATTINGH: Mr Cronje, on page 55, also says that after the operation, he contacted you and informed you about what had taken place there.
MR HATTINGH: And did you in turn report to anybody else who was above you?
MR SCHOON: Yes, to the Commander.
MR HATTINGH: That was General Steenkamp?
MR SCHOON: Yes, that’s correct.
MR HATTINGH: And he was thoroughly informed regarding the operation?
MR SCHOON: Yes, well, the initial report that came to me was that action had been taken against certain persons.
MR HATTINGH: And later, you received thorough information about it?
MR SCHOON: Yes, and this was also conveyed to him.
MR HATTINGH: And the weapons from Ovambo, you were at all times aware of the fact that after, as you say, you gave permission for it to be brought, that the weapons were at Vlakplaas?
MR SCHOON: Yes, that’s correct, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: And you knew that it was a large consignment of arms, including explosives and so forth?
MR SCHOON: I was not aware of explosives because this would not normally be stored there.
MR HATTINGH: The unit C1, were they ever involved in operations where explosives were used?
MR HATTINGH: And where did you think these explosives came from?
MR SCHOON: These were supplied by the explosives unit.
MR HATTINGH: Very well, but if Mr de Kock says that there were explosives amongst the arms which were brought from Namibia, would you be able to dispute it?
MR HATTINGH: And you would also not be able to dispute the fact that some of those explosives were used during later operations?
MR SCHOON: I am not aware of it, Chairperson but I cannot dispute it.
MR HATTINGH: Are you aware thereof that when the Harms Commission was appointed, that these arms were moved from Vlakplaas?
MR SCHOON: Chairperson, Mr de Kock did come to me while I was there and this was in the last month just before I retired, and mentioned the possibility that media personnel might want to have a look at Vlakplaas and this would create an embarrassment if they find the weapons there. And then I suggested that he might want to take a counter-insurgency unit and arrange with General Wandracht that some of these arms be stored at his quarters. I suggested Maleeuwskop where I was aware that they did indeed have places to store arms. And what happened to the arms, I don’t know.
MR HATTINGH: You heard that they were removed?
MR HATTINGH: And this had your approval?
MR SCHOON: Yes, this was after I had already retired, this is when that happened.
MR HATTINGH: The removal or the visit that Mr de Kock paid to you?
MR SCHOON: No, the removal thereof.
MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, we have no further questions at this stage. As I’ve indicated, we may approach the Committee and request the Committee to have a separate hearing in connection with the financial affairs of Vlakplaas at separate stage.
CHAIRPERSON: (Indistinct) I thought all applications for fraud had been withdrawn?
MR HATTINGH: We submit, Mr Chairman, that it might be relevant as far as the credibility of Mr de Kock is concerned, but subject to that Mr Chairman, we have no further questions at this stage.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HATTINGH
MR KNIGHT: Thank you, Mr Chairman, Julian Knight on behalf of Nofomela. No questions.
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR KNIGHT
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, Harry Prinsloo on behalf of van Zweel and Pienaar. Brigadier, there was a similar medal awarded to warrant-officer van Zweel who is also an applicant which was approved by the Minister.
MR PRINSLOO: I have such a certificate which is signed by the Minister, if you want to have a look at it. I will not hand it up as evidence.
MR SCHOON: It is so, Chairperson. This just slipped my mind but I will concede that it is so.
MR PRINSLOO: And the same is applicable to Mr Pienaar?
MR PRINSLOO: No further questions. Thank you, Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRINSLOO
MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Chairperson, Louisa van der Walt on behalf of Mr Rorich and Mr Van Dyk and the implicated Mr Deetlefs. No questions, thank you.
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT
MR MOHLABA: Mohlaba for the Nyanda family. I’ve got no questions, Chairperson, thank you.
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MOHLABA
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PATEL: Thank you, honourable Chairperson, Ramula Patel.
Sir, can you briefly elaborate to us, what information did you, or was given to you regarding Mr Nyanda at the time?
MR SCHOON: Chairperson, it was well known that Mr Nyanda was in Swaziland and that he was the commander of the Natal machinery and that he orchestrated many acts of terror from Swaziland. And, at that stage, it came to our knowledge that his home, the house that he used in Swaziland, that this had become known and, because of this, a decision was taken to launch this operation.
MS PATEL: Okay, do you have any specific knowledge on which acts of terror he might have been involved in?
MR SCHOON: Chairperson, there were numerous incidents. These are all supported and, if it is necessary, we can draw up a table thereof but, off the top of my head, I cannot tell you at this time.
MS PATEL: Okay, and what information was available to you at that time regarding Mr McFadden?
MR SCHOON: At that stage, we did not know about Mr McFadden.
MS PATEL: What was the instruction at the stage? Can you recall, was it to kill whoever was found in the house or was the instruction in respect of Mr Nyanda only?
MR SCHOON: Chairperson, the instruction was to act against Mr Nyanda and we accepted that if other persons were in the house, that action would be taken against them as well.
MS PATEL: Was that conveyed to the persons who were involved in the operation?
MR SCHOON: That’s correct, Chairperson.
MS PATEL: Just to back track, can I just ask you, regarding the Askaris and the payment of bonuses, what was the procedure? Did they receive a monthly salary plus what one could term ‘head money’ for the operations that they were involved in or how did that come about?
MR SCHOON: Chairperson, the Askaris were registered as sources. They received a set salary, monthly and, I think at that stage, when I retired, it was R400.00 a month. And during a certain month, if they had been involved in the identification or elimination of terrorists, then they would also be compensated for that.
MS PATEL: Would the compensation come from the same fund from which they would be paid for their monthly salary?
MR SCHOON: That’s correct, Chairperson.
MS PATEL: Regarding the source of your information as to the location of Mr Nyanda’s whereabouts at the time, what was the source of that information? Who was it?
MR SCHOON: Chairperson, I don’t know. I did not personally have knowledge about this. It was conveyed to my by Brigadier Cronje and I accepted that what he told was correct.
MS PATEL: And you stated that documentation was also seized at the place where Mr Nyanda was killed. Can you tell us in more detail what the content of that documentation was?
MR SCHOON: Chairperson, I am sorry but I cannot recall the detail of that documentation.
MS PATEL: And I would imagine that that documentation was destroyed at some stage or do we still know of the whereabouts of those documents?
MR SCHOON: I don’t know, it’s possible that it might still exist somewhere. In all probability, it probably still exists.
MS PATEL: Where would one find this documentation, sir? Do you have any idea?
MR SCHOON: At Security Headquarters, Chairperson.
MS PATEL: Alright. Thank you, honourable Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS PATEL
CHAIRPERSON: If the Swazi police had found documents there, would they have handed them over to South African sources?
MR SCHOON: I believe so, Chairperson because the co-operation between the Swaziland police and ourselves was on a healthy level. And they periodically did make documentation available to us which was found in Swaziland.
MR VISSER: Mr Chairperson, may I beg an indulgence of a very brief adjournment. There’s just one matter on which I have to obtain instructions from my attorney. I do apologise but it is necessary.
CHAIRPERSON: Well, you let us know when you’re ready.
MR VISSER: Thank you, Chairperson.
MR VISSER: (Indistinct) thank you for the time that you’ve given us. I have one question in re-examination but before I come to that, flowing from what Ms Patel asked the witness, may I just draw your attention to the Further Submissions of the ANC at page 43. That is the Further Submissions, that’s May 1997. And all I want to read to you is that where the ANC dealt with their organs, they dealt with the Natal urban organ at page 43 and it is stated here
"...commanded by Henry Chelisa and later Thami Zulu, Zweli Nyanda and then Cyril Raymonds...(indistinct)"
So, it’s just on that issue of whether he was a commander of the Natal urban in Swaziland.
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Mr Schoon, my learned friend, Mr Hattingh, has asked you a question with regard to certain funds which were available, I think it was the secret funds at the end of a financial book year. Insofar as your answer goes to my learned friend’s questions might have created the impression that you do not recall it at all. I would like to ask you while we were in consultation before these proceedings, you were confronted with this aspect and you then gave us a certain answer, is that correct?
MR SCHOON: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR VISSER: What was that answer?
MR SCHOON: I have a vague recollection that such an occasion might have existed but I cannot recall the particulars and that is why I asked that documentation be submitted to me so that I can refresh my memory therewith.
MR VISSER: So, if documentation exists that would make it much more clearer for you, you will be in a better position to answer the question negatively or positively?
MR SCHOON: That’s correct, Chairperson.
MR VISSER: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER
ADV SANDI: Can I just ask Mr Schoon that you explain...(indistinct). Now, you are being asked to sign for a claim, can you describe the nature of the documentation that would be put before you, on your desk?
MR SCHOON: Chairperson, briefly, it’s a description of the incident and what the payment is requested for, for whom it is and the amount.
ADV SANDI: Would anything make you refuse to sign?
MR SCHOON: Chairperson, if I’m not sure that it is not correct, then I will refuse it.
ADV SANDI: Did it ever happen that you would refuse to sign because the documentation before yourself is not correct?
MR SCHOON: Chairperson, yes, it did occasionally happen that the wording was not complete and then one would ask that the document be completed properly before it is recommended or approved.
ADV SANDI: Would you be able to recall a specific incident when you refused to sign?
MR SCHOON: Chairperson, it happened regularly that there were shortcomings within the claim which had to be corrected.
ADV SANDI: Thank you, thank you, Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: I don’t know if I’m assuming something that I shouldn’t but I assume there would have been more than two copies or at least two copies of such claims. One for your records and one for the people who had to pay the money out.
MR SCHOON: No, Chairperson, there was just one original and there was no duplicate thereof.
CHAIRPERSON: Did you keep no record then?
MR SCHOON: No, Chairperson, just one claim’s come in and you see it before you and if it’s signed, then it goes away again.
CHAIRPERSON: So, if there are records, they would be with the people who paid the claims?
MR SCHOON: That is correct, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Not with...(indistinct).
MR SCHOON: No, Chairperson, not at all.
CHAIRPERSON: Would they keep no record of money they spent?
MR SCHOON: There were complete records thereof, Chairperson and it has to be there.
CHAIRPERSON: They would have a record in their book of the money that they wanted to spend, that they had spent. And they would then claim it. Take the parties that we have heard so much about, they had spent money buying liquor, food for the party. They would have a record of how much they had spent?
MR SCHOON: That’s correct, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: They would then put in a claim to obtain the money from whatever the source was.
MR SCHOON: Which would be supported by receipts and other documentation.
CHAIRPERSON: But they would then keep, in their books what they had spent, they would keep a record and the other people would receive the claim and the receipts and what have you.
MR SCHOON: That is correct Mr Chairman.
ADV SANDI: These monies would range from what amount to what amount? We heard evidence last week and the week before of huge sums of money.
MR SCHOON: Chairperson, there was a limitation in the amount that was paid out. And I think that the commander of the security branch, I’m not sure of what the limitation was but it was not tens of thousands of rands. I think it was limited to R10 000.00 and afterwards, it had to be approved by the Commissioner himself.
ADV SANDI: Would Mr de Kock have been one of the people who would from time to time come to you asking that you sign for these claims?
ADV SANDI: Who were the other people who would come to you for such signatures?
MR SCHOON: Usually it went through him, the pieces which were handled or dealt with by Vlakplaas.
CHAIRPERSON: I think we heard evidence last week, I’m afraid I haven’t got my notes of the evidence with me, of an amount of R100 000.00 being claimed by Mr de Kock which he then proceeded to give R10 000.00 to one of the junior officers.
MR SCHOON: Chairperson, while I was there, the amount would not have been R100 000.00. This would have to be approved by the Commissioner personally.
CHAIRPERSON: No I take it that for a large amount like that, the Commissioner would want to be satisfied that it was not a false claim.
MR SCHOON: That is correct, Chairperson (not through interpreter).
MR SIBANYONI: Mr Schoon, secret funds are necessarily, if I understood your evidence, not illegal funds, am I correct?
MR SCHOON: That’s correct, Chairperson.
MR SIBANYONI: It becomes illegal only if it is false. In other words when the claim is false, then it’s illegal.
MR SCHOON: That is so, Chairperson.
MR SIBANYONI: Do you have an idea what amount was budgeted for the secret funds for the Vlakplaas unit?
MR SCHOON: I don’t have the vaguest idea, Chairperson.
MR SIBANYONI: I heard you saying the amount which was paid to Nofomela came from Koevoet. I also heard you saying Askaris were given some money from time to time. By that I think you would exclude people who were formally employed by the security forces. And my understanding was that Nofomela was a constable, am I correct?
MR SCHOON: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR SIBANYONI: If that is so, why was he supposed to get money?
MR SCHOON: I don’t know, I just acted as the courier and carried the money.
MR SIBANYONI: And then, another aspect is a report was made to you by Cronje about the incident in Swaziland. Were you given the details how the operation was conducted?
MR SCHOON: Chairperson, no. He just told me briefly what had happened and only much later when he came back, then he gave me a full report.
MR SIBANYONI: The impression I’ve got when I read the applicants is that they surprised the occupants of the house. But when one reads the report apparently coming from Lawrence, is that he was working in conjunction with the team. How did you understand the operation? How was it conducted?
MR SCHOON: Chairperson, I cannot comment on the actual happening at the house. I only heard briefly what had happened from Brigadier Cronje
MR SIBANYONI: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.
MR VISSER: I have no further questions, Chairperson, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: (Indistinct) have any further witnesses? Are you now going to produce bundles of documents?
MR VISSER: No chance, Chairperson. This is the evidence which we wish to present. May Brigadier Schoon may be excused if he is no longer required?
CHAIRPERSON: He is available if you need him?