CHAIRPERSON: Good morning everybody. Today is the 28th of August 2000. We are still busy with the applications of Messrs de Kock, Brits and Snyman and Mr Pretorius was still under cross-examination when we adjourned on Friday afternoon.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Jonker, if I'm not mistaken you were still busy cross-examining Mr Pretorius.
MR JONKER: Indeed so, Mr Chairman. May I proceed?
MR JONKER: Thank you Mr Chairman.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR JONKER: (Cont)
Capt Pretorius, in the police if you issued orders, were you supposed to receive feedback based upon these order?
MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.
MR JONKER: And after you had given Mr Olifant the order, did you ever receive any feedback?
MR PRETORIUS: As I've already said, Chairperson, I did not regard it as an order.
MR JONKER: And in the Security Branch, was it common for persons from various branches to give orders to members of another branch without the Commander being aware of it?
MR PRETORIUS: No, Chairperson.
MR JONKER: Apparently this took place at your unit.
MR PRETORIUS: Negative, Chairperson.
MR JONKER: Mr Coetzee testified that he tasked Mr Olifant to find Bambo. Can you recall in his evidence that he said this?
MR PRETORIUS: That is correct. That would be the exception to the rule, Chairperson, as I have already stated. If I can recall correctly Mr Coetzee made use of my members on a regular basis. The reason for that is because Mr Coetzee and I worked together for several years in Soweto and when he left in 1988 I kept a section of the team and he kept a section of the team, so it wasn't strange to me if Mr Coetzee had contact with some of his former members.
MR JONKER: You would agree with me, you were in command at that stage.
MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.
MR JONKER: And wasn't it strange to you that someone would be interfering with your unit, regardless of the fact that he had worked with you for twenty years, he was basically interfering with your activities.
MR PRETORIUS: No he never interfered with my activities whatsoever.
MR JONKER: But out of courtesy he could at least have contact you.
MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, Mr Coetzee and I had regular contact, as I have already stated, so it wasn't strange to me and usually if he saw me he would tell me usually before the time that he wanted to use Mr Olifant or Mr Lengeni again, for example, and subsequently he would tell me whether or not he had used a member.
MR JONKER: But the exception to the rule was that Mr Olifant was tasked to find Mr Bambo. You said that that was the exception, that Olifant was tasked to find Bambo.
MR PRETORIUS: Well, if you want to view this as a task I will accept it as such, Chairperson.
MR JONKER: But you have just stated that it was the exception. Do you recall your evidence of a few moments ago?
MR PRETORIUS: Yes, what I mean by that Chairperson was that there were various occasions upon which Mr Coetzee made use of Mr Olifant and so also with other members of my staff.
MR JONKER: Let us just focus for a moment on the Olifant/Bambo situation. You say that it was the exception, you testified to that.
MR JONKER: It was the exception to the rule that Olifant had to trace Bambo. Coincidentally Olifant was shot dead, or Bambo was shot dead in Nelspruit and coincidentally there was a DLB for which the applicants have applied, coincidentally there was also a hand grenade lying around there, so everything is coincidental with a few exceptions to the rule. Could you comment on that please?
MR PRETORIUS: I do not know anything about the killing of Mr Bambo, the deceased. I do not know anything about the establishment of a DLB, as I have already testified and I don't regard this as coincidence. I have stated this under evidence that Mr Coetzee asked me whether I knew anything about Mr Bambo's criminal activities in which he would have been involved and I stated that I didn't know anything about it.
MR JONKER: So furthermore you testified that Mr Bambo was very undisciplined.
MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.
MR JONKER: And you testified that he was quite a fighter.
MR PRETORIUS: Yes, that is correct.
MR JONKER: Up to 1988 when he was out of prison for 18 months, why instead of chasing the man away didn't you use him? Why didn't you just transfer him? He was with Security, why didn't you just transfer him to the terrorist tracing unit?
MR PRETORIUS: I have already stated that at that stage Mr Coetzee and Mr Bambo left from me in January 1988. I had basically nothing further to do with Mr Bambo and I had nothing to do with the manner and the method that Mr Coetzee followed in the control and management of his unit, so I cannot comment on this question.
MR JONKER: No, I'm asking specifically about the period up to 1988. If you had listened carefully you would have heard me say that since his release from jail in 1986 to 1988, which was a time span of 18 months...
MR PRETORIUS: Yes, Chairperson, if we refer to the period immediately after the deceased's release from prison, I think it was an embarrassment for the Security Police in Soweto at that stage, as Mr Coetzee testified correctly, the Brigadier from the Head Office in Pretoria basically gave the order for us to reinstate Bambo in duty, so it was not the decision of Soweto, it was a Head Office decision.
MR JONKER: But he could just as well have worked at another branch in the terrorism unit, it would still have fallen under Security Head Office as it did in the old days. He could have worked there and done the job just as well.
MR PRETORIUS: That is probably correct, but it was Brig van Rensburg's instruction and we accepted it as such in good faith.
MR JONKER: Then one or two further aspects. You stated that Mr Bambo's Afrikaans was not very good.
MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.
MR JONKER: Are you aware of the fact that while he was in prison he underwent a course in Afrikaans?
MR PRETORIUS: No, I don't know anything about that.
MR JONKER: Then just one further aspect, you just testified that Mr Bambo was an embarrassment to the Security Police, that is what you just said.
MR PRETORIUS: Yes, in the sense that with the first incident where he committed the robbery because the firearm with which he committed the robbery belonged to the Soweto Security Branch.
MR JONKER: And when he became involved in crime once again as a Security informer, it was also an embarrassment.
MR PRETORIUS: I think perhaps I felt like it that way, I thought the man was involved in crime again. It was more a disappointment for me than anything else, more a disappointment than an embarrassment.
MR JONKER: Thank you Chairperson, nothing further.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR JONKER
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Jonker. Ms Patel.
MS PATEL: No, I have no questions thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Adv Bosman?
ADV BOSMAN: I have no questions, thank you Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Adv Sandi?
ADV SANDI: Just one question from me, Mr Chairman, thank you. Mr Pretorius when Mr Coetzee approached you about Mr Bambo and said that you should try and get hold of him, did you get a sense that this was something urgent, or ...
MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, I can try to recall what took place. Mr Coetzee and I would meet under normal work circumstances and during that period that we were together, he mentioned to me or asked me firstly when last I had heard from Bambo and I told him that I hadn't heard from him in a long time and then he told me that what he had heard was that some of his people had reported that it would appear as if Bambo was involved with crime. I said that I didn't know anything about it and his words were then to ask Manuel whether he knew anything about it, whether he knew what Mr Bambo was involved with. That was more or less the gist of the conversation.
ADV SANDI: Because you see the reason why I'm asking you this question is because I noticed that when you spoke with Olifant, you said to him if he happens to see him, he should tell him that you want to talk to him.
MR PRETORIUS: That is correct, Chairperson because as I've also stated, I told Olifant that if he say Bambo he should notify me. The idea was for me to notify Mr Coetzee where the man was or what he was busy with. I wanted to know if I could find anything out, that is correct.
ADV SANDI: Thank you. Thank you Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Adv Sandi. Mr Wagener, any re-examination?
MR WAGENER: Chairman thank you, I've got no re-examination.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Pretorius.
MR PRETORIUS: Thank you Chairperson.
MR WAGENER: May I request, if it is convenient to all the parties, that Mr Pretorius be excused from further attendance? He tells me that he's got urgent work. He will be on standby of roughly one hour if necessary, if it is in order with the Committee.
CHAIRPERSON: You are excused. Silence means consent. You are excused Mr Pretorius.
MR PRETORIUS: Thank you Chairperson.
MR WAGENER: Chairman the next witness is Mr Engelbrecht. He is on my right-hand side. He will also testify in Afrikaans.
ISAK JOHANNES ENGELBRECHT: (sworn states)
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Adv Bosman. Mr Wagener.
EXAMINATION BY MR WAGENER: Mr Engelbrecht in terms of a notification in terms of 19(4) of the TRC Act, you made an affidavit which currently forms part of the documents before the Committee and appears in bundle 3 from page 1 to 6. Is that correct?
MR ENGELBRECHT: Yes, that is correct.
MR WAGENER: And although it is an affidavit under oath, you once again confirm the correctness thereof this morning.
MR ENGELBRECHT: That is correct.
MR WAGENER: I do not aim to take you through the entire affidavit, I think that we are all pressed for time. I would just like to ask you, is it correct that according to this affidavit, you were attached to the detective branch of the South African Police from 1969 to the 4th of November 1990?
MR ENGELBRECHT: Yes, that is correct.
MR WAGENER: And then I also see that you joined the Security Branch Head Office in Pretoria officially on the 5th of November 1990 where you served from the 1st of January 1991 as the Commander of Group C.
MR ENGELBRECHT: That is correct.
MR WAGENER: And we are also aware that the Vlakplaas Unit was known as Unit C10 and that from January 1991 it served under your command.
MR ENGELBRECHT: That is correct.
MR WAGENER: Just perhaps for the information of the Committee, how did it come to be, Mr Engelbrecht that after so many years as a detective, you were transferred to the Security Division of the police?
MR ENGELBRECHT: Chairperson, I was approached in light of the disbandment of the ANC/SACP Alliance and the playing field of Vlakplaas was no longer the political playing field. I was requested to go over so that I could remove the Vlakplaas members, which included the Askari members from the political arena to the criminal arena, which I then did and as soon as the 24th of March 1991 an abridged course was presented to permanent and Askari members of Vlakplaas.
MR WAGENER: You have attended the entire hearing thus far, you have heard all the evidence and all the cross-examination, is that correct?
MR ENGELBRECHT: Yes, that is correct.
MR WAGENER: You were subpoenaed to appear here to respond basically to two aspects. The first one is about the death of a person, Adriano Bambo. You have heard that he died on the 5th of March 1991.
MR ENGELBRECHT: That is correct.
MR WAGENER: Did you know the deceased at any point?
MR ENGELBRECHT: I did not know him at all, Chairperson.
MR WAGENER: You also heard the evidence regarding his death, the evidence which was given by Mr Koekemoer, Mr Kok and so forth.
MR ENGELBRECHT: That is correct.
MR WAGENER: What is your own knowledge regarding his death, that is Mr Bambo?
MR ENGELBRECHT: I did not have any knowledge of his death, or the circumstances surrounding his death.
MR WAGENER: Evidence has been put before the Committee that you were indeed involved specifically the evidence of Mr de Kock. What do you have to say about that?
MR ENGELBRECHT: I deny it emphatically Chairperson.
MR WAGENER: Thank you Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR WAGENER
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Wagener. Mr Hattingh.
MR HATTINGH: Thank you Mr Chairman.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Mr Engelbrecht, with regard to various incidents which have been heard by various committees, you have deposed the affidavits, is that correct?
MR ENGELBRECHT: I don't really understand you.
MR HATTINGH: There were various incidents which were heard by various committees in which you were also incriminated as a result of which you deposed affidavits and submitted such affidavits, is that correct?
MR ENGELBRECHT: No, that is not correct.
MR HATTINGH: Were affidavits not submitted on your behalf in order to deny your involvement in, for example the Brian Nqculanga matter?
MR ENGELBRECHT: I did not appear before any committee, I also did not submit any statement or affidavit before any committee.
MR HATTINGH: No affidavit with regard to any incident?
MR ENGELBRECHT: You will have to be more specific Mr Hattingh, if you are referring to any incident please.
MR HATTINGH: Well, I don't really want to be more specific. I would like to ask you this question in general. With regard to incidents which were heard by Amnesty Committees did you submit any affidavits? You ought to know this.
MR ENGELBRECHT: Well now you're being more specific with regard to Amnesty Committees. I did submit affidavits pertaining to matters for which I was accused and these were submitted to the Amnesty Committees.
MR HATTINGH: Can you recall the number of affidavits that you submitted?
MR ENGELBRECHT: I think it was 6 or 7.
MR HATTINGH: Yes, which relate to various incidents, isn't that correct and with regard to these 6 or 7 incidents you were incriminated by some of the applicants who were requesting amnesty with regard to those incidents?
MR ENGELBRECHT: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: And in all cases you denied your involvement?
MR ENGELBRECHT: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: And consistently it was your attitude that if you were involved in it, you would have applied for amnesty?
MR ENGELBRECHT: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: Did you apply for amnesty for any incident?
MR ENGELBRECHT: I did not apply for amnesty for any incident.
MR HATTINGH: Does that then mean that you can state freely that you are not involved, or were not involved in any gross violation of human rights?
MR ENGELBRECHT: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: You were also appointed to assist and I will ask you to explain in what capacity, to assist with the Harms Commission, is that correct?
MR ENGELBRECHT: Yes, that is correct.
MR HATTINGH: Who appointed you and what was your task?
MR ENGELBRECHT: I was appointed by the Head Office to assist the legal teams of the South African Police.
MR HATTINGH: And did you do this?
MR HATTINGH: And what was the nature of the assistance that you had to give?
MR WAGENER: May I ask from Mr Hattingh, what is the relevance of going to the Harms Commission? This incident that we're here for today was not dealt with at the Harms Commission at all. The way I read the judgment of Judge Pillay and the subpoena here, we are not here today to rehash the Harms Commission.
MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, I have no intention of rehashing the Harms Commission. I am dealing with this witness's credibility. His general claims that he was never involved in any unlawful activities and that he would have applied for amnesty and I'm cross-examining him purely on his credibility at this stage. I'm not going to go into the details of the Harms Commission at all, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: I will allow it on the proviso that you confine yourself within that.
MR HATTINGH: Thank you Mr Chairman.
MR WAGENER: Mr Chairman, sorry, if I may interrupt. Does that mean that Mr Hattingh is allowed on the basis of credibility to cross-examine Mr Engelbrecht on his career, because if then, as I've indicated to you in Chambers before the start of this hearing, I'm going to object and if I'm overruled, I'm going to ask for a postponement. Mr Chairman, we are not here to hear evidence on all those aspects. The way I understand the law, this witness has denied that he was ever involved in anything unlawful and that answer, the way I understand the law of evidence, must be accepted as it stands and no further cross-examination should be allowed.
CHAIRPERSON: If you listen to the question or the response given by Mr Engelbrecht, that whilst he was not involved in any unlawful acts, but in that vein as well, that he was appointed by Head Office to assist the legal teams that appeared before the Harms Commission, why should he be appointed because he knows nothing? What is he assisting with?
MR WAGENER: Mr Chairman, I'm not following. He was a detective. He was asked to assist the Harms Commission. That doesn't mean he knows anything about what now turned out, or what years later turned out to be criminal acts committed by the individual members of Vlakplaas. In the same vein Mr Chairman, I may add, I, as I sit here, was the attorney. Why was I then appointed? Does that mean I knew of the criminal acts committed by Vlakplaas and I will most definitely say no and I deny it.
CHAIRPERSON: Let's not get into a protracted debate. I said Mr Hattingh must keep it within the parameters of his credibility cross-examination, not to go any further. I think that was my ruling. You may proceed, Mr Hattingh.
MR HATTINGH: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Engelbrecht, because of our time restraints I will restrict myself to the following questions and I will put the following to you. Various applicants, amongst others Mr de Kock, implicated you in various incidents as a person who assisted in the illegal activities in which they were involved and you covered it up for them.
MR ENGELBRECHT: And I do categorically deny that.
MR HATTINGH: You were a police officer, highly acclaimed in the police ranks.
MR ENGELBRECHT: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: And you served the police, or you would have done anything within your - that you could to carry out the image of the police.
MR ENGELBRECHT: I myself would have done it, yes.
MR HATTINGH: You career in the police was very important to you and you wanted to ensure that the police were seen in a good light.
MR ENGELBRECHT: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: Let me ask you a hypothetical question. If it came to your knowledge that highly ranked officers like Gen Johan van der Merwe were involved in illegal activities as the explosion at the Khotso House, what would you have done if you were appointed to investigate this matter?
MR ENGELBRECHT: I would have served and done the function and task that was appointed to me. I would have arrested him.
MR HATTINGH: Even if Gen Coetzee, who was then a Commissioner, even if you were told by him that he gave the approval or that the approval came from the highest ranks of the police?
MR ENGELBRECHT: No one can tell you what to do if you want to follow a lawful action in the police.
MR HATTINGH: My question is, if Coetzee, while he was Commissioner, told you that Gen van der Merwe was involved and various others, high ranking officers, but it did carry the approval from the highest ranks in the police, would you have still then insisted that they had to be charged?
MR ENGELBRECHT: Yes, I would have.
MR HATTINGH: And if you were informed that Mr le Grange approved it, would you still have done it?
MR HATTINGH: So you would have charged any person, even if it was the Commissioner of the Police?
MR ENGELBRECHT: That is indeed correct and I would like to tell the Chairperson, I was not a member of the Broederbond, I was not a member of any operation and because of that, because I did not want people to tell me how I must do my duty.
MR HATTINGH: I don't know how the Broederbond comes in here, but let us leave it there. You would not have the Commissioner tell you what to do?
MR ENGELBRECHT: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: And you heard that it was indeed so that high ranking officers in the police like Gen van der Merwe were involved in criminal activities for which they applied for amnesty.
MR ENGELBRECHT: Yes, I heard it.
MR HATTINGH: Did you ever know about it?
MR ENGELBRECHT: Yes, I said I did.
MR HATTINGH: Yes, but I mean before they disclosed it.
MR ENGELBRECHT: No, not before.
MR HATTINGH: You never heard any rumours concerning this?
MR ENGELBRECHT: No, not at all.
MR HATTINGH: And how did you view the ANC in the past?
MR ENGELBRECHT: What do you mean Sir?
MR HATTINGH: Well before their disbandment, they were the enemy.
MR ENGELBRECHT: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: And did you think that they made use of legal activities or means to fight the Government of the day?
MR ENGELBRECHT: No, they did not make use of legal methods.
MR HATTINGH: Did you not think that under the circumstances similar activities justified actions from the police' side?
MR ENGELBRECHT: No, you cannot fight wrong with wrong.
MR HATTINGH: Did you, for example, investigate the Khanya House matter?
MR ENGELBRECHT: I was part of the investigative team and I was under the command of Gen Joubert.
MR HATTINGH: And did you receive any information that indicated that the police were involved in it?
MR ENGELBRECHT: No not at all.
MR HATTINGH: Not even an identikit that correlated with Mr de Kock?
MR ENGELBRECHT: Yes, there was, but it was never identified to me as Mr de Kock.
MR HATTINGH: Were there similarities with Mr de Kock?
MR ENGELBRECHT: Mr de Kock was at that stage not very familiar to me, I did not know him very well.
MR ENGELBRECHT: Yes, I would not have arrested him on an identikit that was presented as his.
MR HATTINGH: Let us forget about arresting him, but was such an identikit presented to you that seemed that it was Mr de Kock's?
MR ENGELBRECHT: Yes, it was, but this identikit was also handed over to Security in order to establish if they cannot get information concerning the two people, there were only two identikits.
MR HATTINGH: Very well. Did you approach Mr de Kock and ask him if he ...
MR ENGELBRECHT: I did not approach him personally, no.
MR HATTINGH: But do you agree that this identikit did correspond with his?
MR HATTINGH: Did anybody else tell you that it looked like Mr de Kock?
MR HATTINGH: And you did not approach anyone at Vlakplaas in order to find out if they had any connections with this incident?
MR ENGELBRECHT: I will say that I did not do it personally, but it could be that I did approach people. In the Khanya House incident, I am not here for the Khanya House incident and I would like you to restrict your questions to the matter on the table right now.
MR HATTINGH: I think maybe you should leave it to the Chairperson about what I can ask and not ask. It is not your decision.
MR ENGELBRECHT: Then, Mr Chairperson, I was subpoenaed to come and appear here concerning the Bambo case and not about the Khanya House incident.
MR HATTINGH: Very well, Mr Engelbrecht, the fact that Mr de Kock incriminated you in this incident, when did you get to know about this?
MR ENGELBRECHT: It was during his hearing.
MR HATTINGH: Are you quite sure about this?
MR HATTINGH: That he incriminated you in this incident today?
MR ENGELBRECHT: Yes and you also asked this question, Mr Hattingh.
MR HATTINGH: I do not follow you.
MR ENGELBRECHT: You put a question Mr Hattingh to Mr Koekemoer, can I read it to you?
"Yes, the task that you did concerning Bambo, where did you find or from whom did you get your instructions? Or let me put it this way. If you cannot recall who gave the instructions, was the Commander aware of your involvement in the incident?"
Mr Hattingh takes instructions.
"MR HATTINGH: My instruction from the accused is that concerning the Bambo incident, that he, the accused, on request of Krappies Engelbrecht, somebody from C10 sent somebody to you and that he was informed that the whole matter was approved by the Brigadier. Do you know about that?"
MR HATTINGH: Is that where you heard about it?
MR HATTINGH: That was under cross-examination of Mr Koekemoer.
MR HATTINGH: And who told you then that it came up in the hearing?
MR ENGELBRECHT: Sir, because I had to appear in front of the TRC I got the records of the hearing in order to find out where I was implicated and then I found this.
MR HATTINGH: Did you read the whole record of Mr de Kock's hearings?
MR ENGELBRECHT: It was on software, where you insert the name. For example, Engelbrecht, and everything related to Engelbrecht will then, or that specific passage will then appear on the screen.
MR HATTINGH: Did you then testify in front of the TRC concerning this?
MR ENGELBRECHT: I was not subpoenaed for this and I also did not testify concerning this.
MR HATTINGH: Did you do any investigation concerning this incident after you heard that you were involved in this, or implicated in it?
MR ENGELBRECHT: No, Sir, I did no investigation because I had already left the Force.
MR HATTINGH: Did you not go to your diary to find out where you were during that time?
MR ENGELBRECHT: No dates were given and the diary wouldn't have helped.
MR HATTINGH: You regularly made use of entries in the diary. How often did you make use of this diary?
MR ENGELBRECHT: It was very often and I kept it up to date.
MR HATTINGH: On the 4th of November 1990 you arrived at the Security Branch of the Police.
MR ENGELBRECHT: That's not correct.
MR HATTINGH: When did you arrive there?
MR ENGELBRECHT: It was on the 5th of November.
MR HATTINGH: Very well. And where were you stationed then?
MR ENGELBRECHT: Under the command of Brig van Rensburg, I was placed under the command of Brig van Rensburg because the Security Branch activities were new to me, I came from the Detective Branch and I had nothing to do with the Security Branch, that is why from the 5th of November he informed me about the workings of the Security Police concerning the C group.
MR HATTINGH: Did he tell you what Vlakplaas was involved in at that stage?
MR ENGELBRECHT: It could be, but I cannot recall it specifically.
MR HATTINGH: He also applied for amnesty for various incidents.
MR ENGELBRECHT: I do not know anything about that.
MR HATTINGH: You do not know that Gen van Rensburg applied for amnesty with regards to various incidents?
MR ENGELBRECHT: I do know of once or twice that he had to appear, but I do not know what his whole application is.
MR HATTINGH: But according to his own admittance, he was involved in criminal activities.
MR ENGELBRECHT: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: And those actions took place while he was involved in Vlakplaas.
MR ENGELBRECHT: I do not know. I do not have any dates.
MR HATTINGH: He did not say to you that Vlakplaas is an operational unit of the South African Police?
MR ENGELBRECHT: No, Sir. In the light of my transferral from the Detective Branch to the Security Branch, my task function and purpose was to take these people away from the criminal field and move them towards the political field, so I did not know if they were still involved in the political field.
MR HATTINGH: You say that you did not know if they were involved in the political field, but it is possible?
MR ENGELBRECHT: Yes, that is correct.
MR HATTINGH: At what stage was that?
MR ENGELBRECHT: That is when I arrived there.
MR HATTINGH: Don't you think it is something that you had to be informed about? You now take over the command of a very sensitive unit which was exposed to a lot of criticism. Don't you think it was necessary that you at least were informed about this?
MR ENGELBRECHT: Sir, I was informed and that's why my task, purpose and function was, or the reason why I was transferred to Security.
MR HATTINGH: But that these people were involved in operations that involved the killing of people?
MR HATTINGH: That they were involved in cross-border operations?
MR HATTINGH: You did not know that they were involved in these operations?
MR HATTINGH: You heard that there was a cross-border operation which took place after you took over the command and this you heard at a later stage?
MR ENGELBRECHT: I'm not quite - I don't understand the question.
MR HATTINGH: After you took over the command of C1, Vlakplaas was involved in an operation in Botswana at the Kahn family.
MR ENGELBRECHT: No, Sir, your dates are wrong.
MR WAGENER: Mr Chairman, the incident Mr Hattingh refers to was on, I think, the 22nd of April 1990.
CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct - mike not on)
MR HATTINGH: Because of the Judgment of Pillay, not ask you or question you about the Chand incident, but did you have knowledge of such an operation when it happened?
MR ENGELBRECHT: No, I deny it.
MR HATTINGH: Did you not read about it in the newspapers?
MR ENGELBRECHT: It was in the media yes, but I did not have first-hand knowledge of it.
MR HATTINGH: And it was also speculated in the media that the Special Forces were involved in this operation.
MR ENGELBRECHT: I cannot even recall that.
MR HATTINGH: You made no enquiries?
MR ENGELBRECHT: It had nothing to do with me. I was then in the Detective Branch and I was busy with other things.
MR HATTINGH: When you took over command, nobody told you that Vlakplaas was involved in such operations?
MR HATTINGH: After you took over, was the unit also involved in certain operations?
MR ENGELBRECHT: No, Sir, you have to be specific, what incidents?
MR HATTINGH: Let's take the Nelspruit incident. You were then in command?
MR ENGELBRECHT: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: And you arrived shortly afterwards.
MR ENGELBRECHT: Please, Sir, don't ask general questions, be specific with the time.
MR HATTINGH: What is wrong with that question?
MR ENGELBRECHT: It is wrong because shortly afterwards can be half an hour, five minutes after the incident.
MR HATTINGH: It can also be five hours.
MR ENGELBRECHT: No, Sir, five hours is still too short.
MR HATTINGH: It can also be ten hours.
MR ENGELBRECHT: It's also still too short.
MR HATTINGH: How long afterwards did you arrive there?
MR ENGELBRECHT: Approximately twelve hours.
MR HATTINGH: Well, I'm very wrong, I'm sorry, I'm wrong. And nothing happened, there was a post mortem inquest and the finding was that ...
MR ENGELBRECHT: What are you insinuating Sir?
MR HATTINGH: I'm not insinuating, but I would like to put it to you that you were involved in a cover-up.
MR ENGELBRECHT: Sir, you have to get your facts in order. You are not here to be excused from civil legal actions.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Engelbrecht, if we are going to go that way we won't finish. If your answer is no, say no. Let's not have this ...(intervention)
MR ENGELBRECHT: But Mr Chairperson, it's very frustrating if you are accused of an incident, or let me tell you what happened when I arrived at the scene and then you can see that I want to restrict myself to this incident. Firstly half an hour after the incident, there were already two officers at the scene. They made records, or they recorded what happened there, what the circumstances were concerning the shooting. They did video recordings. I was on my way to Skukuza after I had an interview with the Section Commissioner of that area in Middelburg and I drove past that scene towards Skukuza and I saw this vehicle standing there and that's when I turned off and that is what is frustrating and that makes me angry is that it's being generalised that I covered it up. It is not the truth and I apologise if I put it very strongly, but I do not like these general accusations. Mr Hattingh was an advocate who was involved in various police matters where I assisted him on behalf of the police and he must say today if I ever told him a lie or at any stage covered up an incident because I did not do it, I'm a very honest person and sincere.
CHAIRPERSON: I'll tell you why I said you should do what I said. He's appearing on instructions of Mr de Kock and amongst the other two or all the applicants, it's only Mr de Kock who said he got instructions from you. What he is attempting to do is to find out that de Kock is right in saying he got instructions from you. I know what might have happened, but you know if we were sitting in Court, it would have been a different picture. You should appreciate these proceedings, even though they are semi legal, that we apply the rules of Court but they are not that stringent, because we are trying in an effort to reconcile. Don't feel upset. Where you were not involved just tell him that it cannot be so and let's have the cordiality of affording each other that opportunity in these proceedings.
MR ENGELBRECHT: I hear what you say. Thank you very much Mr Chairperson. It's just frustrating when somebody generalises and accuses you and more so if he directly asks the question concerning the specific matter, then I will answer him, but he mustn't make allegations that's got nothing to do with this incident.
CHAIRPERSON: Even though he appeared in a number of matters for the police, he is today asking you, on the instructions of Mr de Kock. I'll tell you in practice, I would appear for one person, the next day appear for the other, it happens because as an advocate you are not married to a client. It becomes your mutual client at that stage, so tomorrow you can drift. With an advocate it means nothing. So don't take it badly for him because at every given opportunity as an advocate, you do best to accord with your instructions. Don't take it that he's personal with you because he has known you from the past and I can assure you, if he strays, I'm here to protect you. You are well protected.
MR ENGELBRECHT: Thank you Sir.
MR HATTINGH: Thank you Mr Chairman. On a lighter note, if you react so strongly, it sounds like Shakespeare's wife. I do not know if you prefer me addressing you as Sir or General, but I would like to put it to you, or I'm not putting it to you that you told advocates that you did not cover up, but you gave advocates the covered-up version and they based their case on it.
MR ENGELBRECHT: I do deny it emphatically.
MR HATTINGH: Very well. In this specific incident, you now have knowledge about what was said about you and you do not do anything about it.
MR ENGELBRECHT: Sir, what can I do about it? I am innocent. I was not involved in this matter.
MR HATTINGH: You got along with Mr de Kock?
MR ENGELBRECHT: Yes, but in the beginning there was a little bit of conflict because we came from different work environments. I am from the Detective environment, he's from the Security environment but at a later stage we did get along.
MR HATTINGH: And at a later stage you did have a good relationship with each other?
MR ENGELBRECHT: Yes, that is correct.
MR HATTINGH: And can you think of any reason why he would involved you in these incidents if it's not true?
MR ENGELBRECHT: Yes, I can tell you.
MR HATTINGH: Let me hear then.
MR ENGELBRECHT: Firstly, I was the only police General who supported him morally and there was an incident during his hearings and I withdrew my support, then I provided moral support to another party and because of that, Mr de Kock felt grieved and bitter and he also attempted to implicate and involve me in incidents like this.
MR HATTINGH: At what stage of the hearing did this take place?
MR ENGELBRECHT: I think it was at a very late stage in the hearings because I think I consulted you concerning this.
MR HATTINGH: Let us just try and sort out the ethical rules. You never consulted me concerning this incident, the Bambo case.
MR ENGELBRECHT: Yes, I did, you and your junior advocate.
MR HATTINGH: I cannot recall it. Would you like to just tell us what was said there?
MR HATTINGH: Then I'll leave it there. Was this the incident that led you withdrawing your support?
MR HATTINGH: So he incriminated you falsely and that brought about the fact that you withdrew your support?
MR ENGELBRECHT: No, he did not incriminate me falsely.
MR HATTINGH: But then I do not understand it.
MR ENGELBRECHT: An incident took place that led me to withdraw my moral support.
MR HATTINGH: But I'm talking about the Bambo incident.
MR ENGELBRECHT: No, it was not the Bambo incident.
MR HATTINGH: Yes, that's how I understood you. It was not this matter?
MR ENGELBRECHT: No and you are correct, I also did not consult you concerning the Bambo incident, it was about the other matter that related to the moral support that I gave.
MR HATTINGH: So you never spoke to me about the Bambo incident?
MR ENGELBRECHT: Yes, I never did.
MR HATTINGH: The incident that led you to withdraw your moral support and your trust in him, was it because he incriminated you in an incident?
MR ENGELBRECHT: No, not at all.
MR HATTINGH: Now you say from then on your relationship fell apart and you had nothing to do with him?
MR ENGELBRECHT: I just did not continue giving moral support and I think I left the feeling with him that now the last person who gave him and the only person who gave him moral support of the senior officers, that I also now left him alone.
MR HATTINGH: And that is now why he decided to implicate you in an incident?
MR ENGELBRECHT: That is completely correct.
MR HATTINGH: You heard his evidence in this matter concerning the Sambo incident, the man who was killed with explosives and he testified about it. You did not hear about it?
MR HATTINGH: He testified that Flip de Beer ...
CHAIRPERSON: Could I just interpose here? I've got a note that something urgent is needed. Could we have a quick short adjournment so that - that's a new one, so that we have in focus. We'll adjourn shortly.
CHAIRPERSON: It might happen often. Adv Bosman feels a little indisposed, so from time to time when that feeling comes back, we'll just ask for a short adjournment. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry about that. You may proceed Mr Hattingh.
ISAK JOHANNES ENGELBRECHT: (s.u.o.)
MR HATTINGH: Thank you Mr Chairman.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: (Cont)
Mr Engelbrecht, I do not want to go too deeply into this matter, but Mr de Kock testified that he was approached by Mr de Beer from Nelspruit to assist with the destruction of the body of a person who died during an interrogation which was led by members of his unit.
MR ENGELBRECHT: That is correct and I just want to rectify the record. The word Sambo doesn't really mean anything to me, but if you say that it was the name of the person who was abducted by de Beer, I would say that that is correct and I have already made an affidavit in this regard and I deny it.
MR HATTINGH: You deny that Mr de Kock approached you at all and that he requested authorisation for the incident?
MR ENGELBRECHT: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: Although he maintains that he approached you and that you said: "No, don't do anything about it, let the body be taken to the mortuary instead, don't get involved."
MR ENGELBRECHT: No, I was not involved in it. I deny that this discussion ever took place.
MR HATTINGH: If he wanted to incriminate you falsely in incidents, he could just as well have said that you were with him and you said it was an order for him to assist, isn't that so?
MR ENGELBRECHT: It could be so.
MR HATTINGH: You will recall that during his trial Chappies Klopper also confirmed that he was with Mr de Kock at your house before they departed to fetch the body. Do you still deny this?
MR ENGELBRECHT: Yes, I still deny it.
MR HATTINGH: You say that you are the only person who gave Mr de Kock moral support during his criminal trial.
MR ENGELBRECHT: Yes, from the Generals and staff.
MR HATTINGH: And what was the nature of this moral support that you provided
MR ENGELBRECHT: Chairperson, it was to encourage him. I was the only General who visited him at Christmas in jail.
MR HATTINGH: During his entire period of detention, you visited him once?
MR ENGELBRECHT: No, twice. I was there with you once, as well, Mr Hattingh. You are aware of this. I visited him twice.
MR HATTINGH: Twice. Very well. He spent quite some time in detention, seeing as the trial lasted for over a year.
MR ENGELBRECHT: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: And long before the commencement of his trial, he was already in custody.
MR ENGELBRECHT: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: And you visited him only on two occasions?
MR ENGELBRECHT: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: And otherwise you didn't have any other contact with him?
MR ENGELBRECHT: No, I contact him by means of you.
MR HATTINGH: Did you ever attend his trial?
MR ENGELBRECHT: No, upon your advice I did not attend his trial personally.
MR HATTINGH: You're placing much responsibility on my shoulders.
MR ENGELBRECHT: But it's the truth.
MR HATTINGH: Well, let's leave it at that. And then something happened which resulted in the withdrawal of your moral support of him?
MR ENGELBRECHT: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: ; Did you notify him that you would no longer be offering this moral support.
MR ENGELBRECHT: No, but I have a strong suspicion that you brought it to his attention.
MR HATTINGH: How can you say that?
MR ENGELBRECHT: Because we discussed the matter.
MR HATTINGH: And you say that it was enough for him to implicate you in all these incidents?
MR ENGELBRECHT: Well I believe that he thought that the only person who gave him moral support had also withdrawn and that is another reason why he has implicated me.
MR HATTINGH: But then one would have expected that he would falsely implicate various other members of the Generals and staff because they didn't give him any moral support either.
MR ENGELBRECHT: Sir, certainly I cannot respond to that question. There was no one else among the Generals and staff who gave him moral support, other than me.
MR HATTINGH: What I find curious about this entire incident, Mr Engelbrecht, is the tremendous number of coincidences that we are dealing with. Coincidentally Mr Bambo is shot dead in Nelspruit where according to the evidence of Mr Brits there was an arms cache or stockpile which had been established there. Coincidentally he was an informer for the South African Police and based upon you and Mr Koekemoer and Mr Coetzee's versions, Mr de Kock comes here and makes up something for which he is requesting amnesty, something which never happened, or could have happened and he is creating an incident out of this and requesting amnesty for it. Isn't his version that you approached him to eliminate this person who was threatening to talk more credible?
MR ENGELBRECHT: No, I have heard the evidence that was given here and it is very clear to me that reference is made to two incidents here. The first incident was the establishment of the DLB, merely the establishment thereof as Mr de Kock himself testified, as Mr Snyman did this quite frequently for Pretoria Security Branch and then the other incident is the incident in which Mr Koekemoer was involved in which a person was taken out during which a DLB was identified and during which the person was killed. I base my statement upon this.
MR HATTINGH: And coincidentally these two incidents took place more or less at the same place.
MR ENGELBRECHT: No, Sir, I cannot say coincidentally. If I have listened correctly to the evidence, Mr Brits was not capable of identifying the place certainly and this is in my years of experience, twenty years of experience with Murder and Robbery where I dealt with murderers and rapists and suspects and interviewed them and negotiated with them. I have never found anyone who could not identify the scene or a place, so it must have been impressioned on him, the place where he established a DLB.
MR HATTINGH: But he said that it was near a large rock, as it is visible on the photos.
MR ENGELBRECHT: He testified about that, but he didn't say it, that it was the precise location of the scene of Mr Bambo's death.
MR HATTINGH: Yes, but he offered an explanation for that. He said that floods had taken place in the vicinity and that the place didn't look the same as what it had looked at that stage.
MR ENGELBRECHT: The floods and the expansion of the road. The expansion of the road also bothers me because if something like that took place, then the arms cache would have been scraped open.
MR HATTINGH: Why do you say that?
MR ENGELBRECHT: Because with the expansion of a road, a place would have to be scraped because the road is being expanded. Vehicles have to be able to drive or park there.
MR HATTINGH: But do you know how far they went from the road to establish the cache?
MR ENGELBRECHT: Well, I listened to the evidence here and it wasn't very far from the road.
MR HATTINGH: What was the distance that they gave, according to the evidence that you heard?
MR ENGELBRECHT: I would think that they mentioned something about 5 metres, a distance of 5 metres from the road.
MR HATTINGH: But if the road had not been expanded thus far, the cache would still be there.
MR ENGELBRECHT: But then why did he use the phrase: "expansion of the road"? Maybe it was something that he offered because he could not identify the scene.
MR HATTINGH: Well, let us not waste any further time. You say that there were two incidents?
MR HATTINGH: But does that necessarily entail that Mr Brits falsely incriminated Mr Koekemoer in the establishment of the DLB or are you saying that Mr Koekemoer might have gone with to establish an arms cache with Mr Brits?
MR ENGELBRECHT: I am saying that Mr Brits is falsely implicating Mr Koekemoer with the establishment of the DLB. Furthermore it is interesting to note that they are good friends, they are house friends, they do not discuss what these things are about. Furthermore what I find peculiar is the hand grenade and the fact that Mr Snyman testified that he gave land mines which did not have any detonators and if you look at the photos, there are two land mines which are fitted with detonators and it tells me that it couldn't have been the same explosives or land mines which were used, which then tells me that they must have been two separate incidents.
MR HATTINGH: But most curious of all is the fact that this good friend of Mr Koekemoer has falsely incriminated him in the establishment of an arms cache. Isn't that the most curious of all?
MR ENGELBRECHT: No, that is not the most peculiar of all, if you consider how Mr Klopper falsely accused me at the Goldstone Commission hearings, which led to my dismissal from duties, when you took him under cross-examination and he said things that were not even to the full extent of what he knew.
MR HATTINGH: Let us not compare apples with pears. You and Mr Klopper were not very good friends.
MR ENGELBRECHT: No, we weren't.
MR HATTINGH: But here we have the case of two good friends, Brits and Koekemoer. Now Brits says that Koekemoer was involved in the establishment of a DLB and that is what I tell you is the most peculiar of the version.
MR ENGELBRECHT: I cannot agree with it.
MR HATTINGH: Very well. In conclusion I put it to you that Mr de Kock indeed approached you and that you did give authorisation for an operation without knowing the name Bambo. Mr de Kock didn't even know the name Bambo at that stage, he simply knew that it was a person who was an informer and who was threatening and posing potential danger and who had to be taken out of the picture.
MR HATTINGH: Thank you Chairperson, I have nothing further.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HATTINGH
MR CORNELIUS: Thank you Mr Chair, I don't have any questions.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you Mr Chairperson. Perhaps just a few questions which might assist my client.
Mr Engelbrecht, Mr Koekemoer was extensively questioned regarding the statement that he had to make and the form that he had to fill in and he states that he made notes in his pocket book. Can you make any comments regarding the procedures that he followed as well as the warning statement?
MR ENGELBRECHT: According to what I heard, his evidence was entirely correct and it was the custom that when somebody came to you and alleged that he was involved in a crime and a police case file had not been opened and no statements had been made in order to corroborate the fact that such a crime had been committed, one would have to warn that person in terms of Judges' Rules and notify the Judge that he was busy implicating him in a crime and that if it was proven that this was indeed the case, you could then use the evidence of his implication in his trial as evidence. The other case was that when there was already a police file for example with the case of a murder which already contained statements and a person had been arrested, then during the arrest, the duty was to issue a verbal warning according to Judges' Rules. If he were to make any statements you would have to write this down in your pocket book. These notes could be used in the trial against the person.
The second question was that you had to obtain a statement from him in terms of Judges' Rules if he were to be implicated in terms of the statement and if you were to ask him to identify the scene and if he agreed to do so, then one of two things could take place. One being that if you are a Justice of the Peace, you can take him out and have him identify the scene to you himself. Secondly, you could arrange with another Justice of the Peace, or a police officer and then the prescribed form to which one of the legal representatives here referred, would be used to make the appropriate notes and to conduct the identification.
MR VAN DEN BERG: There was also evidence given by a joint unit which was established at Vlakplaas and Vosloorus, to which Mr Koekemoer was transferred, it was called the Security Police Unit. Can you comment on that?
MR ENGELBRECHT: Yes, Chairperson. During 1992, actually late 1992, up to and including my departure from the Service in 1994, we dealt with many cases, unrest related cases, in that area. The manpower was too little in that area and this necessitated that we had to bring in people from all over the country on a temporary basis for three to six months to perform duty there, in order to investigate the matters for us, so that we could determine whether or not the suspects or the persons responsible for these acts could be apprehended.
MR VAN DEN BERG: And the description of these units as Security Units, is that correct?
MR ENGELBRECHT: No, it is not correct to describe such a unit as a Security Unit. It may have been administered by the Security Branch of the East Rand, but it consisted of Security Members as well as Detective members and uniform members.
MR VAN DEN BERG: And then the last aspect, Mr Koekemoer was questioned regarding the establishment of the arms units. Can you recall when these units were established?
MR ENGELBRECHT: Yes, Chairperson, I had quite a share in that during 1991 or let me rather say, at the time of this incident, there were only two units in the entire RSA namely Greytown and Shongweni Dam and they resorted under the overall command of the Murder and Robbery Unit in Pretoria. But in 1992 as a result of the smuggling of weapons from Mozambique via Swaziland to South Africa, the task was issued to me to arrange with the Mozambican and Swazi police and in light of this, we established a weapons forum which is still in existence today, from which we established further weapons units throughout the entire RSA.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you Chairperson. Nothing further.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN DEN BERG
MR HURWITZ: No questions for this witness, Mr Chairperson.
MR JONKER: Thank you Mr Chairman.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR JONKER: Mr Engelbrecht, have you heard the term truth room?
MR JONKER: Can you tell us what is the truth room to which has been referred?
MR ENGELBRECHT: The truth room has got nothing to do with this incident. I'd like to state that right now. It's more where there's an accusation made during murder and robbery hearings where people are taken to a room and they are told to tell the truth.
MR JONKER: Sir, all the allegations that were made that these people were assaulted at the Murder and Robbery unit, did you investigate them?
MR ENGELBRECHT: I would like to again say, this question's got nothing to do with this incident.
CHAIRPERSON: If you could confine yourself within the terms of the subpoena of Mr Engelbrecht, Mr Jonker.
MR JONKER: Mr Chairman, what I want to try to establish here, Mr Engelbrecht testified that he was never involved in anything unlawful. Furthermore he also said that he had a problem with any policeman who was involved in any crime or offence. It's only to do with the credibility of this witness at this stage. I'm not going to be lengthy with this witness and I think it's important to find out what Mr Engelbrecht's attitude was towards this, if he knew about this, did he investigate the incidents or not, because he testified here that he had a problem even with a General, if a General was doing something wrong. What about the Sergeant at his unit who allegedly did something wrong there, when he was still in command of ...(indistinct)
CHAIRPERSON: But is it not giving you further problems because you are appearing here for the victims, if you adopt that line of cross-examination? Is it not giving you a further problem that you are appearing here for the victims and the victims want to know whether he possessed any knowledge about the deceased and the circumstances relating to his death.
MR JONKER: That might be so, Mr Chairman, but for the same argument, it's quite clear that Mr Engelbrecht denies any allegations by the applicants here. At the end of the day, I'm quite sure the Commission, I don't want to prescribe to the Commission what they're gong to do, but it's about credibility.
CHAIRPERSON: No, no, but further, why I'm mentioning the subpoena is that he's not before us as an applicant where we want to know how the operations happened. It creates a further problem for you because one should not take the advantage of the latitude I allowed Mr Hattingh. Mr Hattingh had a direct interest because Mr Engelbrecht has been implicated by Mr de Kock and if you could tell me how this would assist the victims, I'll probably give you an opportunity to go into that credibility cross-examination.
MR JONKER: Mr Chairman I'll leave it at that. Mr Engelbrecht, you were involved in the Detective Branch for a long time. It was probably 20 to 19 years?
MR ENGELBRECHT: Yes, that's correct.
MR JONKER: And you were known as a very - a person who dealt thoroughly with criminals, that they ended up in jail, you had a strong hand.
MR ENGELBRECHT: That is correct.
MR JONKER: Or let me put it this way, the criminals were enemies of the society, do you agree with me?
MR JONKER: The ANC was at the same time the enemy of the society we had at that stage.
MR ENGELBRECHT: Mr Chairman I had nothing to do with the Security Branch. I was in command of the Murder and Robbery Branch and I had nothing to do with the Security Branch. When I joined them in 1991 my task, purpose and function was to move the Vlakplaas members from a political terrain to a criminal terrain, and I did my utmost best to do that.
MR JONKER: Sir, I will put the question to you again. I did not want to know what you did, I would like to hear what your attitude was towards the following. The ANC was the enemy of the old regime. Were they the enemy or not?
MR ENGELBRECHT: They were the enemies of the State, that is correct, yes.
MR JONKER: And they had to act against the enemies of the State in order to create peace and stability.
MR ENGELBRECHT: That is correct, if you put it that way.
MR JONKER: Mr Chairman I've got no further questions for this witness, I'm going to leave it at that.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR JONKER
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Jonker. Ms Patel.
MS PATEL: Thank you Honourable Chairperson, I have no questions.
ADV BOSMAN: I have no questions, thank you Chairperson.
ADV SANDI: Yes, just one question, Mr Chairman. Gen Engelbrecht, could I just ask you, when you came to the Security Branch of the Police Force, how would you describe the attitudes pertaining to you? Would you say you were well received there?
MR ENGELBRECHT: Sir, I am still today an outsider because I worked in a Detective environment, I didn't know Security, I went through no Security courses, I did no Security investigations, so people did not really accept me very well in the beginning.
ADV SANDI: Yes, would that affect the kind and level of co-operation they would give you?
MR ENGELBRECHT: Yes, to an extent, yes.
ADV SANDI: Can I ask you to elaborate? Can you elaborate?
MR ENGELBRECHT: All that I can say is to an extent because they did not know me, they did not understand me and I would also say to you that I also had a reputation. Before I arrived at Security Branch, I had an investigation against a Murder and Robbery Detective and as a result had to leave the Force. Before that I locked up four detectives because they were dishonest and I think I had that reputation and when I arrived there they already knew about it.
ADV SANDI: Thank you Mr Engelbrecht. Thank you Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Engelbrecht, you say in your affidavit, if I recall it's 3.1 if I'm not mistaken, that the Security Branch was a closely knit unit where no outsider knew what they were doing.
MR ENGELBRECHT: That's correct, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: And I don't know, you say they operated on a need to know basis. Where did you pick that up, or is that your opinion?
MR ENGELBRECHT: That is my experience, Mr Chairperson, with the Security Branch, that they never liaised with us, not even with the 76 unrest in Soweto, they were separate. They never liaised with us. Their grouping was separate and that's where I made the inference.
CHAIRPERSON: I hear you, that you were with the Murder and Robbery Unit and you dealt specifically with those matters which were a threat to society, to normalise society, but what I just want to find out from you is that we all know now that people like Umkhonto weSizwe, APLA, came into the country and targeted for instance the Security people, like the police, whom they had a notion that those are the pillars of the State. Should you arrest those people, say for murders, because shooting at people would be murder or attempted murder and you realised that these were people who infiltrated the country, would you liaise with the Security Branch in that instance, that this fell outside your jurisdiction, or what would the position be?
MR ENGELBRECHT: Definitely Mr Chairperson. Firstly, I never had such a case, but if I did I would have and we did investigate the matter, I would have liaised with the Security Branch with regards to this person.
CHAIRPERSON: I hear you that you say they had little, if any, contact with people who were not, I mean police who were not falling with them, the Security Branch, but I believe there were meetings of a highly sensitive nature at Head Office where the people from Murder and Robbery were invited to these meetings which was purely for the Security of the State.
MR ENGELBRECHT: No, we were never invited to attend them. Mr Chairperson, I can just mention at the police station I served from 1971 or early 80 and I had an office next to the Security Police and they never made contact with me in any circumstance.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Engelbrecht. Any re-examination Mr Wagener?
MR WAGENER: Thank you Chairman.
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR WAGENER: Mr Engelbrecht, maybe just on the last question that was put to you by the Chairperson, we heard evidence at previous Amnesty Hearings that the Security Branch of the police had their own investigative capabilities, do you know about that?
MR ENGELBRECHT: Yes, it is true. I would also like to mention - I'd like to explain how serious it was. The second in command who worked with me at Murder and Robbery asked for a transfer to the Security Police and after he arrived there, he never made contact with me again.
MR WAGENER: Just to finally close on this point, as we heard from previous Amnesty Hearings, there were incidents where the information was that let's say AK47 weapons were involved, but that Murder and Robbery were not investigated but then the Security Branch will take over the investigation and be directly involved in it.
MR ENGELBRECHT: That is correct.
MR WAGENER: A very small issue which I actually forgot to put to the witness in chief, which is rather formal. It's not arising from cross-examination, if you will please allow me I will put it to this witness.
CHAIRPERSON: Before I do that, allow me Mr Engelbrecht, just to ask this. When you were tasked to go to Vlakplaas, if I may say so, to rehabilitate the Security police there and the askaris, were you also tasked to make an inventory of what obtained at Vlakplaas at that stage when you got in?
MR ENGELBRECHT: No. No, Mr Chairperson I was not tasked with that.
CHAIRPERSON: Why I'm asking you this is that I just wanted to find out from you, because we have evidence before us that there were places where they were storing all these weaponry for instance, I think it was Mr Brits who said he got these land mines, if I'm not mistaken and the hand grenades, because there was a place still at Vlakplaas. That wouldn't fall within your jurisdiction?
MR ENGELBRECHT: I did not know of such a place, but what I did know of was that during the Harms Commission or just before the Harms Commission, allegations were made that one of the askaris who went to Lusaka and made a statement there concerning weaponry that was held at Vlakplaas and I do know about it and it's also correct. I was not personally involved in it and that the media was invited to go to Vlakplaas, but when I arrived at Vlakplaas in 1991 and took over officially, I do not know of any explosives or weapons that were held there, I would not have allowed it, in any case, Mr Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Engelbrecht. You may ask that formal question, Mr Wagener.
MR WAGENER: Thank you Chairman. Mr Engelbrecht, there is just a small aspect. You were witness at the hearing of Mr de Kock concerning this current Bambo case and that Mr Brits approached you in this regard, do you know anything about that?
MR ENGELBRECHT: I heard the evidence concerning this and Mr Chairperson, I can just tell you that when this incident took place, Mr Brits was not even known to me. I had no negotiations with them and I deny emphatically that he ever came to me.
MR WAGENER: So you also then deny the evidence that you would have sent him to the East Rand?
MR ENGELBRECHT: Yes I deny it.
MR WAGENER: And that afterwards he would have reported back to you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR WAGENER
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Engelbrecht.
MR WAGENER: Mr Chairman, sorry for interrupting, may I also request that this witness also be excused from further attendance if no objections from any of the parties?
MR HATTINGH: I have no objection, Mr Chairman.
MR VAN DEN BERG: No objection.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hurwitz? Mr Jonker? Ms Patel? Thank you very much Mr Engelbrecht. You are excused from any further attendance.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Wagener, if I may mention this, also Mr Coetzee, though you told me what his business was this morning, I'm indebted to you for informing me timeously, you may inform him too that he is excused from further attendance.
MR WAGENER: Thank you Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Jonker, are you going to tender any evidence?
MR JONKER: No, not at this stage Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ms Patel, are you going to tender any further evidence?
MS PATEL: No thank you, Honourable Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: That brings us to the conclusion of this matter.
MS PATEL: Finally, indeed it does.
CHAIRPERSON: No, no, I mean of the formal evidence.
MS PATEL: Yes. No, it does, that's what I'm referring to.
CHAIRPERSON: I didn't want ...(indistinct - speaking simultaneously) jump up and say they are excused. Could we put our thoughts together during tea? Let's have 15 minutes adjournment for tea and hear argument thereafter? Would that be in order to everybody? Thank you. We adjourn for tea.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. We will now listen to submissions. Don't tell me that I'm going by seniority but it's obvious that Mr Hattingh has got to start.
MR HATTINGH: Thank you Mr Chairman.
MR HATTINGH IN ARGUMENT: Mr Chairman, Members of the Committee, I'm going to be very brief. I submit that the probabilities are overwhelmingly in favour of the version of Mr de Kock. Some time ago, probably round about 1996, Mr de Kock had to apply for amnesty for all the incidents in which he was involved during his career at Vlakplaas and he then decides to apply for this particular incident. He doesn't have, at that stage he didn't have the name of the victim, yet he applies for an incident which he described in his evidence here. Subsequently it turned out that in fact a Mr Bambo was killed and in fact Mr Bambo had been an informer for the Security Police, the Intelligence Police, he worked for Mr Coetzee and Mr Pretorius. In fact he'd been arrested and in fact he knew a lot about the activities of Messrs Coetzee and Pretorius, despite their denial to that effect. Mr Chairman, I submit that it's abundantly clear that he had personal knowledge of some incidents and that he most probably had hearsay information about a lot of other incidents in which these two gentlemen were involved.
What are the probabilities that Mr de Kock would have applied for amnesty in respect of an incident that never occurred? On the version of Coetzee and Pretorius and Koekemoer, this incident never occurred. Certainly not in the way in which Mr de Kock describes it. Why would Mr de Kock then come and incriminate himself, if this incident in fact never occurred, if he was never approached by Gen Engelbrecht to be of assistance, if he didn't send Brits to go and establish an arms cache in the area where Brits said he did?
A very important factor to bear in mind, Mr Chairman is the fact that not only did Mr de Kock apply for amnesty in respect of this incident, but so did Mr Brits, so did Mr Snyman. You have to bear in mind, Mr Chairman, that at the time when Mr de Kock filed his application, he was in prison, he didn't have access to Mr Brits and to Mr Snyman. In fact they turned against him in his criminal trial. Mr Snyman in fact testified against him and Mr Brits asked for permission to go and co-operate with the police against Mr de Kock and in fact he made a statement to the police. They didn't liaise with one another when they filed their applications and yet they talk about the same incident. Mr Brits made his statement, so did Mr Snyman for that matter. They made their first statements to the police and those statements were subsequently used to apply for amnesty in respect of this particular incident.
So independently of Mr de Kock, Mr Brits came and corroborates Mr de Kock's version, he tells you how he was instructed by Mr de Kock to render assistance to Mr Koekemoer. He tells you how he and Mr Koekemoer travelled to Nelspruit and established the arms cache there. He doesn't go further. He doesn't say that: "I then went along with Koekemoer when the killing occurred" or that "Koekemoer subsequently told me that he shot and killed a person", that's all he says. Why would he lie about something like that Mr Chairman?
It was stated here that Vlakplaas was involved in establishing arms caches on several occasions. That is correct, Mr Chairman, but then there's always a purpose for establishing that particular arms cache. It was either to find it and to claim compensation for it, or to put the blame on the ANC for having established an arms cache at that particular point and to use that as an excuse for an attack in Botswana or wherever. What was the purpose of establishing this one, on the evidence before you? Nothing. Nothing whatsoever. No evidence was tendered that this arms cache was established for any other purpose than for the purpose of using it as an excuse to kill Mr Bambo. That's in the evidence before you. I submit Mr Chairman that it is so improbable that Mr Brits and Mr Snyman would have given the evidence which they did, that you can discard that possibility that it's untrue.
Then we come to the version of Mr Koekemoer. Quite fortuitously he, of all people, was approached by the prison authorities and told about this person who now wanted to confess to having established an arms cache in that area. He books him out and takes him to Nelspruit at a time which it would have been impossible for him to return with the prisoner and to get him back by 5 o'clock in prison. He makes no arrangements with the prison authorities for the eventuality that he might not be able to bring him back on time. He knows that he would have to have a photographer there, he even makes arrangements to pick the photographer up in Nelspruit and then because the man tells him that the place is near he drives past without the photographer and goes to the scene. When he finds the cache there he sends the only other witness away so that he is the only one who would be able to tell what happened there. I submit Mr Chairman that he deliberately murdered Mr Bambo there.
His evidence of how he fell for some 40, let it even be 20 metres down the embankment there, without sustaining a single scratch or abrasion, his clothes appear to be neat in the photograph, it is so ridiculous Mr Chairman, that I submit that you can reject it as totally false. I'm not going to deal with all the improbabilities in his version, Mr Chairman. Those that I have mentioned are sufficient, in my submission, for you to be able to reject his evidence as false.
We come to the evidence of Messrs Coetzee and Pretorius. Once again Mr Chairman, I submit that you should disbelieve their version. It's clear that the late Mr Bambo had information which could have caused them great embarrassment and it might even have led to them being prosecuted in respect of crimes that they've committed. It's clear that they were worried about the fact that he is now in prison. It's clear on the evidence of Mr Olifant and I submit that Mr Olifant was a most impressive witness, Mr Chairman. I submit that you can accept his evidence. It's clear that on his evidence Mr Olifant was sent to ask Mr Bambo to come back and to come and work for them again, so that they can exercise control over him. I submit that when Mr Olifant reported back to them that Mr Bambo was not interested in coming back to them and was in fact afraid of them to the extent that he changed his address, probably caused the warning lights to flicker. That probably made them realise that there was a real possibility that Mr Bambo might talk about the incidents in which he was involved with them, in the same way as others had been talking and that was also the evidence of Mr Olifant. There was reference to others who had been talking. That is what they were afraid of Mr Chairman.
They say they wouldn't take part in concealing evidence and yet when Mr Pretorius is asked if he would have admitted his complicity in the incident where a certain lady was abducted and held in custody against her will, he stated quite clearly, no, he would have denied it.
I would submit Mr Chairman that the evidence clearly establishes that Coetzee and Pretorius were worried about the possibility of Mr Bambo talking. They approached probably Mr Koekemoer or perhaps Mr Human and asked him for assistance. They realised that they couldn't get Mr de Kock or Vlakplaas to do the actual killing because at that stage Vlakplaas had already been exposed for what it was and it would have caused great concern if they had been used to do the actual killing, therefore they used Mr Koekemoer, a person who could be trusted, a person who was acceptable as a member of the Vlakplaas unit who later became a member of the Security Police. They used him and they only asked Vlakplaas to render assistance with the establishing of the arms cache. It's clear that Mr de Kock and his men had access to arms and ammunition of East Block origin and that that was a fact that was well-known amongst the Security Police and that that is why they were approached and that they in fact rendered assistance.
I suppose that much is going to be made about the fact that there was only one hand grenade exploded on the scene whereas Mr Snyman said he gave two or three. Mr Chairman Mr Koekemoer was the only person who remained behind at the scene. He could have done with whatever there was, what he wanted to do with it.
It's also clear, Mr Chairman, that argument is going to be put forward to the effect of the hand grenade described by Koekemoer, did not fit the description or that the shrapnel from that grenade that exploded on the scene, doesn't correspond with the hand grenade that Snyman said he gave. But bear in mind, Mr Chairman, Snyman was involved in many, many incidents as a member of Vlakplaas. He was the explosives expert. He must have supplied arms and ammunition on many occasions. You have in his application, I think if it's not in this one it certainly was in a lot of others, certificates from psychologists or psychiatrists to the effect that he's suffering from PTSD and that that affects his memory. It's quite possible that Mr Snyman's recollection of the grenades that he gave to Mr Brits, is incorrect, faulty and therefore much cannot be made of this. The fact remains Mr Chairman that there was at least one hand grenade that exploded and that there were mines which were found in the cache.
MR HATTINGH: And the Makarov. That is a very important point that, Mr Chairman, because Mr Brits said he took a Makarov that belonged to him which he had in his private collection and placed it there. He wasn't asked for it, he placed it there and lo and behold, in this case there was a Makarov which was identified as being similar to the one which Mr Brits says he put in the cache. It's quite clear Mr Chairman, we're talking about the same arms cache that was deliberately established there to serve as an excuse for the killing of Mr Bambo.
ADV BOSMAN: Mr Hattingh there was also evidence by Snyman that he handed hand grenades without pins and the hand grenade that was found there, had a pin in it. Where does that take us?
MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman I think that - I'm not sure whether that - that it was the hand grenade, it was the limpet ...(intervention)
ADV BOSMAN: It was the limpet mine, yes, I stand to be correct, yes.
MR HATTINGH: The limpet mine. Yes, once again Mr Chairman, Mr Snyman's recollection might be faulty. It is just too much of a coincidence that Mr Brits would say: "We placed three mines and some hand grenades in an area near Nelspruit where there's a huge, large rock next to the road. We buried it there" and that Mr Bambo is shot and killed at a place where an arms cache similar to the one described by Mr Brits, in the same area. Mr Brits says when he looked at the photograph: "Yes, it was near that big rock that you see on the photograph". Too much of a coincidence that we are talking about two separate arms caches. And once again, I ask you Mr Chairman, if there was another arms cache established there, what was the purpose of it? No evidence whatsoever as to why another arms cache was established there, it wasn't used for any other purpose that we know of. Mr de Kock would certainly have told you, I submit, if another arms cache had been established there for another purpose.
The evidence of Mr Koekemoer that he told Mr Bambo where to sit with his legs in leg irons and his hands cuffed and it so happened that exactly there where he told him to sit, not where Mr Bambo chose to go and sit, there happened to be a hand grenade and he's standing there watching him all the time and he cannot explain how Mr Bambo got hold of that hand grenade. I submit Mr Chairman that that is a fabrication, that he shot him, killed him and then subsequently allowed the hand grenade to explode to create the impression that Bambo had attacked him in an attempt to kill him with a hand grenade.
Furthermore Mr Chairman, why would Bambo go to such extremes if his intention was to commit suicide? Because that's the only conclusion that you can arrive at, that on the evidence of Mr Koekemoer, that he intended killing himself as well as Koekemoer. There's no way in which he could have escaped harm if he threw that hand grenade at Koekemoer standing, according to the photographs on the plan, I think it was, I can't remember, 2 or 3 paces away from him.
MR HATTINGH: Yes. There's no way whatsoever that he would not have been injured. We've heard that the particular hand grenade contained something like 1 or 2 500 projectiles. I submit Mr Chairman that that hand grenade was thrown sufficiently far away from Mr Bambo so that only two of the projectiles struck him.
When it comes the evidence of Mr Engelbrecht, Mr Chairman, I can only say that I find it totally unbelievable that Mr Engelbrecht, during the struggle when the ANC was regarded as the enemy of the State, and that if he was told that his Commissioner, his Minister, had authorised an attack on Khotso House, that he would, despite that knowledge, have arrested and have had them charged, if he was the Investigating Officer in the matter. I submit that that is totally far fetched. It's untrue, Mr Chairman. Mr Engelbrecht had been accused of covering up offences committed by the Security Police on so many occasions by so many different members of Vlakplaas, that I submit that you can accept that there must be some substance in what they say. Why would they all accuse him? It's easy enough to say Mr de Kock accuses him because he wants to establish that he had authority to carry out the various incidents, by what about these foot soldiers? They got their instructions from Mr de Kock, why would they come and incriminate Mr Engelbrecht? They don't need to - they don't have to show that they had instructions from Gen Engelbrecht to carry out the operation. Quite sufficient for them to say: "de Kock gave me instructions" and they would qualify for amnesty on those grounds, Mr Chairman.
I submit therefore Mr Chairman that if you have to chose between the evidence of Mr Engelbrecht and Mr de Kock, that you will accept the evidence of Mr de Kock. Mr de Kock gave evidence in some incidents where he also said that Gen Engelbrecht authorised the operation and Gen Engelbrecht filed affidavits to the contrary and despite that Mr de Kock was granted amnesty in respect of some of those incidents, Mr Chairman.
ADV BOSMAN: Mr Hattingh, it may be that my recollection of the evidence is not correct, but did Mr Brits and Mr Snyman in this particular incident, incriminate Engelbrecht? I don't think so.
MR HATTINGH: No, Mr Brits said it was possible that he'd been to see Gen Engelbrecht and that he'd reported to him but he didn't have an independent recollection of that, Mr Chairman.
ADV BOSMAN: So your argument, insofar as incrimination by foot soldiers is concerned, relates to other incidents, not to this incident? I just want to make quite sure of that.
MR HATTINGH: That is correct, yes, Mr Chairman. That is correct.
I submit therefore Mr Chairman that you should accept the evidence of Mr de Kock and if you accept that evidence then it's clear that Mr de Kock was told and there was a person who had been attached in some way or another to the Security Police and who had information which could cause the Security Police great embarrassment or even harm, if he was to disclose that information and that that person had to be eliminated, on those facts Mr Chairman, I submit he had a political motive for rendering the assistance which he did. He believed the information that was given to him, he rendered the assistance and that's all he did. He gave instructions for Brits to assist with the establishing of an arms cache and I submit that he therefore, that he met all the requirements of the Act to qualify for amnesty and I apply therefore, Mr Chairman, for amnesty in respect of murder or being an accessory to murder, accessory before the fact and possibly even after the fact as well to murder, possibly conspiracy to commit murder, unlawful possession of arms and explosives and also for any delictual liability, Mr Chairperson.
Might I conclude my argument by saying it's not even necessary for you to find as a positive fact that Gen Engelbrecht is lying. If you are satisfied that Mr de Kock is telling the truth, then it's sufficient for you to grant him amnesty Mr Chairman. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Hattingh. Mr Cornelius.
MR CORNELIUS: Thank you Mr Chairman.
MR CORNELIUS IN ARGUMENT: Mr Chairman, I think it's quite clear that my two clients are the foot soldiers involved in this incident. They carried out all instructions obviously received from their Commanding Officer, Eugene de Kock. There was no disciplinary enquiry held or any steps taken against him for carrying out their instructions and it is quite
clear that all their actions carried the authority or the implied authority of the Security Branch.
We must remember that in the past there were incidents where Ministers visited Vlakplaas, they were awarded medals for their actions and it was quite clear that there must have been a very strong command line from Security Headquarters, so if they received instructions, they accepted that this has been cleared at Security Headquarters that the political motive was formed there to act against this specific victim and they carried out their instructions.
To weigh up the evidence, if my clients in fact made a full disclosure, we need to look at the evidence of Mr Koekemoer. Mr Koekemoer denies that he went with Brits and I want to state that this is clearly highly improbable, due to the fact that they were personal friends, they went to each other's houses, they knew each other and this won't be the type of thing that Brits would have confused. As a matter of fact this series of evidence is something that he would specifically remember.
If we look at Koekemoer's evidence he has a problem. He doesn't apply for amnesty and his whole, all the evidence given on the scene itself is highly improbable. If we keep, my learned colleague Mr Hattingh said the fact in mind that he hid a hand grenade away to defend himself, is highly improbable, he would have rather hidden the Makarov pistol away if he wanted to escape. To hide a hand grenade as a possible method of escape, is highly improbable.
He fell 40 metres although he's not anxious, he wasn't shocked when the first witness came on the scene, what is even worse is when Gunter came on the scene as is indicated in Bundle 2 on page 14, he said that he was in face attacked by Bambo with a gun, a "vuurwapen". This is highly improbable. This is the first witness that arrived on the scene, this is the first report made. And then he carries on and he says that there were other people also there and he says:
"More escaped and other pursued them."
Why would he say this? So this first report doesn't tally at all with what he's trying to testify before this Committee. And then he said and he testified that he requested the support of an ambulance and paramedical, but in paragraph 3 on page 14 he says:
"He made a request to me to get help, for someone to come and help with the search"
this mysterious other people that were involved,
"and to assist with the body"
So at that time when he got to the road he knew that Bambo was dead. This is clearly in support of what my learned colleague, Mr Hattingh, is saying that there was a murder committed there.
Then we find this curious statement on page 15 of bundle 2.
"At no stage did I see a corpse or view one. I also saw a vehicle standing at the side of the road, I think it was a white Sierra."
Now this doesn't support Koekemoer at all, so it's quite clear that the other chap that was there, it sounds to me like he didn't leave the scene. Why would he mention a white Sierra? They only had one car there. So I think its quite clear if we look at the evidence of Koekemoer and we weigh this up against the evidence of Brits, that Brits' evidence can most clearly be accepted. There can be no doubt about it. As far as the witness Pretorius is concerned, I agree with Mr Hattingh that there was a reason to remove Bambo. Bambo was a very dangerous witness for them. If they didn't remove him and eliminate him, they ran a high risk while he was sitting in jail that he might decide to turn against them.
I agree that Mr Snyman might have made a recollection error in the land mines, the composition of the land mines, but as it is well known, he did testify in various amnesty applications regarding the supply of arms and ammunition.
Shortly, I wish to conclude to say that it's quite clear that the evidence of my two clients may be accepted. That their versions are probable and I think it can be accepted that they made a full disclosure and had no reason to bring the applications if the facts weren't absolutely the truth, wherefore I will also apply for amnesty to be granted for conspiracy to murder and murder, quite clear accessory before the fact for both my applicants, all offences under the Arms and Ammunition Act and all offences under the Explosives Act. Then obviously, Mr Chairman, all delicts which might flow from the commission of this deed and the actions. If we take it further, it might be defeating the ends of justice because they didn't disclose the truth of the true facts.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Cornelius. Mr van den Berg.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you Mr Chairperson. I wasn't sure whether Mr Wagener wanted to go before me, or, I don't think it makes much difference in any event.
CHAIRPERSON: It does for my record.
MR VAN DEN BERG IN ARGUMENT: Very briefly Mr Chairperson. Submissions on behalf of Mr Koekemoer who was subpoenaed to give evidence here. The submissions are purely
in respect of him and his testimony here. He has no specific approach to the granting of amnesty of these particular applicants, he doesn't oppose or he doesn't support their applications.
I think the common cause facts here, Mr Chairperson, are that the deceased in this matter was a convicted criminal, he was a former policeman or police informer, he was requisitioned out of the prison by Mr Koekemoer and it's common cause from the inquest and the post-mortem report that the shot which Koekemoer fired, was the shot that killed him.
Mr Koekemoer was a murder and robbery policeman. It is correct that he does have some links to Vlakplaas and those links are through Mr de Kock's brother who was a fellow employee at the Murder and Robbery Unit in the East Rand. It is correct that at a certain stage he had applied for a transfer to Vlakplaas but had had second thoughts in respect of that and finally that he was, on a number of occasions, for social events at Vlakplaas. That is the extent of his link to Vlakplaas.
There's no evidence before this Committee, no evidence whatsoever, to link him to Coetzee and Pretorius prior to the event. There's no evidence at all. There's a great deal of speculation, but from Koekemoer, Coetzee and Pretorius the contacts would have been post this incident. They worked on other ends of the Rand and in completely different units.
Mr Koekemoer is implicated in two very serious criminal acts. Firstly the establishment of a so-called dead letter box, the unlawful possession of weapons, land mines and grenades, he's also implicated in a murder. His implication comes primarily through the evidence of the applicant Brits.
Now if one has a look at the evidence of Mr Brits in respect of the DLB and Mr Hattingh was quite correct that I do want to make some weight of the discrepancies in respect of the contents of that DLB, the primary and most apparent discrepancy is in the type of grenade. It doesn't appear from the papers anywhere, but the description of the hand grenade which was supplied, came initially from Brits. Mr Snyman has no recollection of what in fact was given and his application doesn't deal with it in any detail. Mr Brits was quite categoric in his description, the pineapple, the rough shaped shrapnel producing hand grenade, the F1 as opposed to what was in fact found on the scene were traces of an M75 which quite clearly is a different looking hand grenade.
Secondly is the question of the land mines. There Snyman's evidence, I want to submit, was quite categoric. He said that it was not his modus operandi to provide land mines which were armed, which had detonators in place. He said he may have, on occasion, had such a land mine in his vehicle, but with respect, Mr Chairperson, to drive around with an armed land mine in the boot of your motor vehicle, I want to suggest is highly improbable and rather foolish.
There is then the question of the Makarov pistol which was found in the DLB and I want, Mr Chairperson, I hope that you still have the original photographs.
MR VAN DEN BERG: If one has a careful look at photograph 8, you will see that that is a photograph of the Makarov pistol and I want to invite the Honourable Committee's attention to the detail of that photograph. You will see that there are numerous traces of rust on that Makarov pistol, it's something which had been hidden away for a considerable period of time, exposed to the elements. I want to submit that, well two submissions, firstly that it's unlikely that this is the Makarov pistol which Mr Brits gave, knowing the attention to detail which policemen pay to weapons in their possession and secondly I want to submit that at that time in our history, the country was awash with Makarovs, it was awash with AK47s, it was awash with arms of Eastern European and Soviet origin, so I don't want to put - I don't want to make a submission that this is another coincidence, because this matter is full of coincidences, but it's certainly one possibility.
Mr Chairperson, there were two sets of photographs contained in the bundle. The first set that I want to draw your attention to is the set which appears at page 60 and following and that's a set of photographs taken at the time of the incident. That includes the Makarov pistol and which gives an indication of the lie of the land where this dead letter box was found.
The second set of photographs from page 72 following, were taken ...(intervention)
MR VAN DEN BERG: In 96 as a result of the pointing out by Mr Brits. These photographs from page 72 following, were put to Mr Koekemoer and he denied that this was the place where it might have occurred. He said it's possible that there was a similar type of rock formation but this was not the place where the incident, which you're inquiring into, took place. Mr Brits, on his own versions, says he couldn't find the place again. It's put somewhat differently in his affidavit to the Attorney-General, page 81 of volume 2, I think, page 81, paragraph 15. He says in paragraph 15
"I then identified a place which appeared to me to be very similar to the place where we established the arms cache"
but he couldn't find it again and he tendered an explanation.
In respect of Mr Koekemoer's evidence, there is the single puzzling aspect and he was cross-examined at length by Mr Hattingh and by Mr Cornelius and at the point at which Mr Jonker was going to enter onto the same terrain, I objected, but he was cross-examined at length as to where this hand grenade came from that was in the possession of the deceased. There is no explanation on the papers and Mr Koekemoer was unable to give any explanation as he sat here.
Surely Mr Chairperson, if he wanted to cover up - if Mr Koekemoer wanted to cover up an involvement in a murder, he could very easily have put the deceased at the dead letter box, he could very easily have put him at a point where he had access to a hand grenade or access to another weapon. He didn't. He left this puzzle and I want to submit that similarly from the evidence of Koekemoer, he wasn't a person who was prepared to speculate and I want to submit that that is to his credit. There is no proper explanation. Things occur and one isn't always able to explain how they occur.
Insofar as the other aspects which Mr Cornelius and Mr Hattingh have referred you to, Mr Chairperson, I want to submit that if you take each one of those, that the conclusion which Mr Hattingh and Mr Cornelius want to draw from that, is not necessarily the only conclusion that you can draw and it's evidence that can go one way or the other way.
Finally, if you take into account the character of the deceased and the concerns which were voiced by Mr Coetzee and by Mr Pretorius in terms of his ability to fight, his ability to exist, it's not unlikely that what Mr Koekemoer testified to, is in fact what transpired.
Just to take issue with a number of the points raised, just in conclusion Mr Chairperson, take issue with a number of the points raised by Mr Hattingh and Mr Cornelius, Koekemoer testified that he was the person to whom information from the prison would, in its normal course, have been transmitted, that was the particular function which he served at Murder and Robbery. He may have been negligent in not making timeous arrangements for the return of the prisoner, I think the concern was really the safekeeping of the prisoner rather than his return, insofar as the question of the photographer being left behind, Koekemoer's evidence was clear that he had doubts as to whether there was any veracity to what this man was going to point out and he said the sequence of events were such that he thought he had now been led on a wild goose chase and he wasn't going to detain anybody to follow that up.
The last aspect is this affidavit of Mr Gunter, pages 14 and 15. Firstly Mr Chairperson, it's not under oath. Secondly Mr Chairperson, it contains a number of material discrepancies. An affidavit - well it's not deposed to, but a statement created four years after the event of facts which Mr Koekemoer would never have put to somebody else, they're just so unlikely, if you take for example page 14 paragraph 3, it's referring to Koekemoer:
"He said that he brought people down for identifications"
It's common cause there was only a single person. This is the whole question of the "vuurwapen" and I invite this Honourable Committee's attention to this affidavit for the number of discrepancies that it contains and I want to submit that you can attach absolutely no weight to it whatsoever. Thank you Mr Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr van den Berg. Mr Hurwitz.
MR HURWITZ: Thank you Mr Chairperson.
MR HURWITZ IN ARGUMENT: My brief today was to protect the liability of any possible implications against Mr Olifant, so I'll comment on his credibility as a witness solely. Mr Olifant gave evidence openly and freely. He's currently still in the employ of the SAPS. At all times he co-operated with the investigating team of the Attorney-General. He's evidence was never challenged seriously in any material manner. For what it's worth, Pretorius also stated that he was a good witness, despite the fact that he contradicted him.
The probabilities of whether Mr Olifant had the conversations with Pretorius and Coetzee as testified by Mr Olifant is far more probable than the denial or partial denial by either Coetzee or Pretorius in the light of the totality of the evidence which has been heard. So I would ask the Committee then to accept Mr Olifant's evidence. Thank you Mr Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Hurwitz. Mr Wagener I think I should come back to you now.
MR WAGENER: Thank you Chairman.
MR WAGENER IN ARGUMENT: In the first instance I want to put on record that my clients do not oppose any of the applications before you that were stated in the respective affidavits, but they say that one applicant, Mr de Kock, puts false, or is putting false facts before you and they gave evidence in rectifying that process.
Now Mr Chairman, I think one should start off by having regard to who Mr de Kock is. He is a very, very experienced and accomplished liar. He has lied over many, many years to many Courts, Tribunals, even the Truth Commission. This he has admitted. He admitted this in his own criminal case, where he was taken by the prosecutors through many instances and examples. The same he admitted before the Amnesty Committee when I was personally cross-examining him. As an example Mr Chairman, again here in this very hearing we heard evidence by Mr de Kock of how one of my clients, Mr Engelbrecht, would have manipulated evidence and mention was made to for instance the Maponya case. Now you will remember, Mr Chairman, it was put to him by myself that in that matter when cross-examined he admitted that he had lied, that he had even lied to the very Amnesty Committee and that he had never told Mr Engelbrecht the true facts and that Mr Engelbrecht was never in a position to have manipulated any facts. Only by way of one more further example, Mr Chairman, the so-called Nelspruit incident, reference was made to that earlier this morning again when Mr Engelbrecht was cross-examined, where the allegation was made that Mr Engelbrecht had manipulated evidence. But when properly cross-examined, it became clear to everyone that Mr Engelbrecht was in no position whatsoever to have manipulated any evidence, as Mr de Kock and his team had already, at the scene of the crime, fabricated their version and given that to other investigative officers right there at the scene. So when my client, Mr Engelbrecht, arrived at that scene, he's in no position to manipulate any evidence whatsoever. So my first aspect then, Mr Chairman, is one should never forget the fact that Mr de Kock has a long history of lying and at the end I will conclude by saying he's been lying again here to you in this hearing.
I will quickly deal with my clients and maybe I should start with Mr Engelbrecht. We've heard over many months, allegations implicating him in various criminal acts. It was argued by Mr Hattingh a short while ago, he had been implicated by many members, foot soldiers in many incidents. Mr Hattingh has failed to give you any particulars thereof. As far as I'm concerned, regarding instructions purportedly given by Mr Engelbrecht for the commission of crimes, it has only been Mr de Kock, that is as far as I can remember and all the hearings I had to sit through, being the Chand incident, the Sekekane incident and this incident we hear now. In the Chand incident, Mr Chairman, the allegation by de Kock was that he received instructions from both van Rensburg and Engelbrecht. That was denied by Engelbrecht. It is true that they've received amnesty in the incident. The Amnesty Committee dealt with it in the following way:
"Both van Rensburg and Schoon"
and this is clearly a mistake in the written judgment, it should have been -
"......van Rensburg and Engelbrecht, denied having had such a meeting and giving such an order to de Kock. For our purposes it is not necessary to make a finding on the matter because they say of what happened afterwards, they were of the opinion that de Kock anyway had a political motive."
So no finding was made on this instruction allegedly given by Mr Engelbrecht. In the matter of Sekekane, again Mr de Kock said Engelbrecht gave him instruction to commit a murder. This was denied by Engelbrecht. In fact it was admitted by another Gen Steyn and you also ask for amnesty for that Gen Steyn. Everyone received amnesty in that application without the Amnesty Committee dealing with this apparent dispute of fact between de Kock on the one hand and Engelbrecht and Steyn on the other hand.
I'm not aware of any other instance where Mr Engelbrecht allegedly gave instructions to commit crimes. As far as I can remember, he has been implicated by and I will mention their names now in a few instances having manipulated evidence afterwards. He's been called a so-called "sweeper". I can remember an instance where Mr Chappie Klopper did that. Now I think Mr Hattingh would be the last person to try and put any reliance on the evidence by Mr Klopper. The same goes for another foot soldier Mr Willie Nortje and apart from them, I can only remember one other case where both Mr Baker and Bellingan made an allegation towards Gen Engelbrecht implicating him in a cover-up situation. As I sit here, I'm not aware of any other matters, so except if I'm wrong here, I find it rather disappointing that vague statements can be made to you that many people have done so and so on many occasions. That is simply not correct.
What we know, and that is the uncontested evidence in this matter regarding Engelbrecht, is the following. We know that he had been a detective for many years, during which time he had just about no contact with the Security Branch and those were the years of the so-called struggle or war in our country. We know that he was a detective until the end of 1990. We know that during those years the Security Branch operated always apart, on their own, that was the evidence this morning, that has been the evidence in numerous previous hearings about this closed group that the Security Branch had always been and the strict adherence to the so-called need-to-know principle. We also know Chairman, that Engelbrecht was, during the time of this incident, an outsider, a complete outsider, within the ranks of the Security Branch, a person not to be trusted. In fact, Mr Chairman, on previous occasions when Mr de Kock was cross-examined on this very issue, he admitted this very, very close inner circle of trusted people, of him and the people that served under him and that they kept their secrets to themselves.
We also know, Mr Chairman, that Engelbrecht did not know Coetzee and Pretorius at the time. His evidence is clear, it was not even put to him by Mr Hattingh, anything to the contrary, it stands. We also know, Mr Chairman, that Engelbrecht played a role in bringing a number of ex-policemen into the amnesty process and that he had known about his implication in this very matter at a time when he could have applied for amnesty himself, and he didn't because he was not involved.
Mr Chairman, you heard his evidence here today, albeit somewhat emotional, but he had see on many occasions that he's been accused of irregularities on his side and this was his time to speak out against that. The fact that he told you that he'd always conducted his work in an honest way and that he regarded himself always as an enemy to criminals. somehow that is totally unbelievable to Mr Hattingh. I fail to see why, if a policeman, a respected policeman comes to this forum and tells you that he did his job in the correct and forthwith way, why should that be totally unacceptable as such, when there's no evidence apart from a lot of rumour, scandalous rumour to the contrary, but no evidence whatsoever.
You allowed Mr Hattingh to conduct cross-examination on credibility. You allowed it to some extent. Based upon that, my argument is that in no way can it be said that Engelbrecht contradicted himself or that he gave any evidence of any nature, not to be believed by you.
So my submission is that the evidence of Engelbrecht stands and should be accepted.
Regarding Coetzee and Pretorius, we also have a number of uncontested facts. We know that they were the co-handlers of the deceased. That they knew him well, that they have worked for him for many years, or for a number of years. We also know that the deceased had been in prison at an earlier stage. We haven't got the exact dates but it seems to have been round about 84 to 86. We know that the deceased was involved in an incident for which these two witnesses have applied for amnesty, the Simelane incident, so had he wanted to speak out, he could have done so, he had ample time to do so. We also know that they took the deceased back after his release from prison, although reluctantly so, but on orders from Head Office. We know that the deceased committed further irregularities after that, at which stage it was decided by Coetzee to break all ties with the deceased. He gave extensive evidence, he was cross-examined on this issue when he said that at the time he carefully considered the position of his section and that of the person of the deceased and he came to the conclusion that there was no real security risk in breaking ties as mentioned.
We also know, Mr Chairman, that both these witnesses have applied for amnesty for a wide ranging number of incidents and that they could have applied for amnesty easily had they been involved in this incident and they have not done so. We know Mr Chairman, that at the time of this incident they hardly knew Engelbrecht. Coetzee was quite clear on this. It was not even put to him that he's wrong or that he's lying. It was not even put to him. It's absolutely uncontested. Chairman, you also heard his evidence saying, had there been such a big security risk and had he wanted to eliminate or cause to be eliminated, the deceased, he could have done so himself, or he would have gone to Mr de Kock. He knew Mr de Kock from way back when they were both together in the then South West Africa, but no way would he approach an outsider, a person like Engelbrecht, whom he hardly knew.
Mr Chairman, I've listened to the argument of my colleagues here, or some of my colleagues. I find nothing, nothing improbable in the versions or in the evidence of Coetzee or Pretorius. They were cross-examined for hours and I would submit that their evidence still stands and should in all respects be accepted by you.
That brings us to the question then Mr Chairman and I think that was where Mr Hattingh started off by saying that there was an incident. Of course there was an incident. A man was killed. We know that the deceased was killed by Mr Koekemoer. I'm not here to try to accuse Mr Koekemoer of anything, or even to try and defend his version. You have heard the evidence yourselves. You have heard the various arguments on that score. What we do know, however, Mr Chairman is that Mr Koekemoer, and I referred you to that very briefly when questioning Mr de Kock, he was involved in certain actions of Vlakplaas. I referred you to the criminal case of Mr de Kock, the charge sheet and I referred to count 22 which we know, where the same Mr Koekemoer found weapons in January 1991, found weapons which were put there by the Vlakplaas people and then afterwards rewards were claimed on behalf of fictitious informers being the Vlakplaas people themselves. We know that Mr Koekemoer was involved, so if one has to start speculating, you can speculate for days on end. That I do not intend doing, all I'm saying is that on the evidence before you, my submissions are that the version of Mr de Kock and the way he implicated my clients, should be rejected. He was not even supported by his co-applicant Brits in this respect. At the outset Brits was quite sure that he never saw Engelbrecht and when pushed under cross-examination he ended up with, possibly so, he can't remember. Compared to that we heard the very clear evidence of Engelbrecht.
Except Mr Chairman if there are specific questions, that would be my argument.
CHAIRPERSON: I don't know about my Panel, you know I always interject if there's something worrying me. I don't know about my Panel. Thank you very much Mr Wagener. Mr Jonker what do you find improbable in the evidence we have heard so far in respect of the victims? What do you have to say?
MR JONKER: Thank you Mr Chairman.
MR JONKER IN ARGUMENT: Mr Chairman, there are a couple of attorneys and advocates here. It is quite obvious that everybody tried to defend his own client here, look after his own client's interests as he's supposed to do. There's a golden thread Mr Chairman, which starts in the beginning from Mr de Kock's
evidence till where Mr Bambo is killed. It's very strange, the coincidence is so big, Mr Chairman, that Mr de Kock received instruction from Mr Engelbrecht. Maybe it was from someone else. He received an instruction, let's for one second not implicate Mr Engelbrecht, but he got an instruction from Head Office. He gave an order to two individuals and they complied with this order. Independently from each other, they came to the TRC and applied for amnesty while Mr de Kock is in prison. Why would they do that, if there was not really an incident like this?
Then Mr Chairman, Mr Koekemoer, also coincidentally received this information that, from this person in the prison and he took out Mr Bambo to the scene where he was killed. I'm not going to deal with the improbabilities at the scene of the crime. Mr Koekemoer's legal representative, like any good attorney, has got an answer for every small little issue there. He can answer everything separately, but I think we must look at the totality of the evidence of Mr Koekemoer of what happened there and if we look at the totality of what happened there, it's my submission that it's also not really what happened there because in the totality, everything falls apart because the inconsistency is of the clothing of Mr Koekemoer, where the hand grenade was, that has already been dealt with by some of the legal representatives here. Furthermore Mr Chairman, what I don't understand is there was this exception to the rule by Mr Pretorius. He testified this morning about this. Under cross-examination he agreed that a Commander from Head Office is not going to give one of his people an instruction to comply with, he said that was an exception and then the exception here once again is that Mr Olifant must get hold of Mr Bambo. He didn't know about that. Instruction was given directly to Mr Olifant, the exception. Mr Chairman, with all due respect, if we look at the totality, then it's quite clear that this was not an incident which was not planned by one person, there were a couple of people involved. Mr de Kock was involved, he gave instruction. It's my submission that Mr Pretorius, he didn't know about this instruction, Mr Coetzee gave the instruction, so Mr Coetzee was also involved. It's not impossible that they weren't involved. Mr Koekemoer is a policeman, lot's of experience, or he was a policeman. He testified on lot's of occasions any High Court. He knows how to answer questions and he was evasive. Mr Chairman furthermore, the three applicants, if they didn't apply for amnesty or if Mr de Kock didn't make mention about this, I'm not sure, I'm here to be corrected, if I understand the evidence correctly this came out in Mr de Kock's trial. I'm not sure if that is so. If that is indeed so, Mr Chairman, or if it's not so, if Mr de Kock and the two applicants before this Tribunal didn't apply for amnesty, then nothing would have happened here. This Tribunal wouldn't have been here, the in question would have been finalised and there would have been no problem, but why would people come and incriminate themselves ten years down the line, or six years at that stage, six years down the line, if they kept quiet no one would know anything about this.
Mr Chairman at this stage it's my submission and my instruction that I can't really oppose this application because it's quite clear that Mr de Kock got instructions from somewhere and if we look at the evidence in the totality that a lot of people were involved here and there's a good possibility that it was indeed a political motive. There's no evidence to the contrary of that, Mr Chairman and it's my submission and I actually want to make a proposal to the Commission, that the applicants must be granted amnesty and that this inquest must be reopened. I'm quite sure there are a lot of questions to be asked at this inquest. The original inquest, which was an informal inquest, if this was a formal inquisition, I'm quite sure that today we would have more answers for a lot of questions which would have been asked in a formal inquest. Thank you Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Jonker. Ms Patel, you always have the last word.
ADV SANDI: I'm sorry. Just before Ms Patel, if you don't mind. Mr Jonker, can I take it that from your submission, you're also making a request that we declare the dependants of the deceased victims in terms of the Act.
MR JONKER: Indeed so, Mr Chairman.
MS PATEL: Thank you Honourable Chairperson.
MS PATEL IN ARGUMENT: You've heard lengthy argument here so I'll be very brief. It is my respectful submission that the applicants here today have indeed complied with the requirements of the Act. I wish very simply to lend my support to the arguments raised by my learned colleague, Adv Hattingh and also my learned colleague Mr Jonker on my right here.
My submission is that especially, I see Mr Cornelius is raising his hand, I've omitted to lend my support to his argument as well.
CHAIRPERSON: Please treat him fairly.
MS PATEL: My apologies, Mr Cornelius.
CHAIRPERSON: And tell us those you don't support.
MS PATEL: I believe that if nothing else, the evidence of Mr Koekemoer before you has leant credibility to the applicant's version to you today. Thank you Honourable Chairperson.
ADV SANDI: Yes, except one thing from my point of view. I'm not expressing an opinion anyway at this stage. Regarding the two testimonies, one from Mr de Kock and the other one from Mr Engelbrecht, aren't the two mutually exclusive of each other?
MS PATEL: In respect of the instruction, certainly they are, but then I would accord with my learned colleague, Adv Hattingh's submission to you that in order for you to decide whether to grant Mr de Kock amnesty or not, it is my respectful submission that he in fact does not have to rely on Gen Engelbrecht in order to satisfy the requirements.
ADV BOSMAN: Ms Patel, in the light of the fact that Mr de Kock emphatically stated he knows as a fact that Engelbrecht gave him the order and if we should find that we are not satisfied that Engelbrecht gave the order, is it not a material matter that should be disclosed, where the order came from? Once again, I'm not expressing an opinion at this stage, but it is a particular facet that worries me, as I have been listening to the argument and perhaps that is something that I should have put to Mr Hattingh.
MS PATEL: In that situation, my submission here is that you would then have to make a credibility finding on Gen Engelbrecht and in this case, my bets are placed in favour of Mr de Kock, given the way in which the operation was in fact set up, given the various coincidences that have come to light since his application has indeed been filed by the testimony of the various parties who have been subpoenaed here today.
ADV BOSMAN: Then another difficulty is that it was really only after Brits had been pushed, that he conceded that it was a possibility that he might have had contact with Engelbrecht. He was quite clear at the beginning that he did not have any dealings with Gen Engelbrecht, which also poses some difficulty for us. I would, you know - once again, as I say, I'm not trying to pre-judge the issue, it's just something that bothers me.
ADV SANDI: Perhaps Mr Hattingh is the most appropriate counsel to deal with this issue. Can I just ask, if we ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: No, let's just finish with Ms Patel first.
ADV BOSMAN: I have finished with Ms Patel, thank you Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: ...her response, you can't take it any further.
MS PATEL: No, indeed I cannot. There are in this case, as in various other cases that we have heard, certain unanswered questions and I fear that there are certain questions that will always remain unanswered, so I can't assist you.
CHAIRPERSON: With this jigsaw puzzle which hinges and I'm thinking aloud, I was waiting for assistance from counsel, that we've got to look at the probabilities. What are the probabilities and probably draw inferences, which way would you say we should go in that respect? Don't support Mr Hattingh at this stage, I want to get your independent submission in this respect.
MS PATEL: Well, my submissions are not based necessarily only on what Mr Hattingh said. Those are my independent views as well.
CHAIRPERSON: Oh, he took them out of your mouth?
MS PATEL: Well, like you say, I'm the one to go last always, so I have no control over that.
ADV BOSMAN: You've got less to say ...(indistinct - speaking simultaneously)
MS PATEL: Absolutely and also give the fact that I don't hold a brief for any particular party, I guess that places me in a fairly unique position. I would say though that given the probabilities, a reasonable inference to be drawn here is that in fact, well this goes to - that Mr de Kock was in fact approached by certain members for his assistance. Whether that approach came from Brig Human, Mr Koekemoer at the behest of Mr Pretorius and Mr Coetzee in the background, but the inference is still, in my submission, a reasonable one, that he was in fact approached. There is no evidence before us that Mr de Kock had a personal interest in the killing of Mr Bambo.
ADV SANDI: Yes, but there's also no evidence that Mr de Kock believed that he had an implied authority to do this. His evidence, I think, is very clear. He says he had an order from Mr Engelbrecht. Mr Engelbrecht is denying that.
MS PATEL: Well, I don't hold a brief for Mr de Kock, but we've heard evidence from him in countless amnesty hearings where he's in fact made decisions at his own behest without the authority from anybody above and it has in fact been accepted as such.
CHAIRPERSON: It would be instances of a clearly political opponent, and we look at Bambo who was working with the Security Branch people and suddenly he's got to be eliminated, so we can't say he was a clear political opponent, can we? Other than that he was misled probably, but what are the probabilities to say yes, he was definitely misled?
MS PATEL: I - well, my submission in that regard Honourable Chairperson is that given the evidence that we've heard before us and I say this especially in the light of Mr Koekemoer's evidence before us, that Mr de Kock would have relied on the information that had been given to him and regarding what we would define as a political opponent, I believe that that is one of the vexed questions that we've been faced with as a Commission. Does somebody who from within your own ranks, who then becomes a security risk to your operation, does he then become a political opponent at that stage, is a question that I believe we've answered already, Honourable Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: No, because the question is, we've got to make a finding that he was a threat, probably to Coetzee and Pretorius, because of their criminal actions. Forget Koekemoer, wherever he is in the "bundus", the threat must start here, okay. We know those - we have evidence that those eastern block land mines and the Makarov which was found, that they have eastern origin, if he was coming all alone, that was enough. But with him here it's not enough. We have a member who not only worked in South Africa, a member who worked in South West Africa comes back, works with the Security Branch, he goes to jail, right, he comes out he works with them again. Then he's arrested again, he goes to jail and here becomes this man a threat.
MS PATEL: Honourable Chairperson, my respectful submission in that regard is that perhaps on the facts, Mr Bambo wasn't an actual threat. Whether Mr Coetzee and Mr Pretorius at that stage bona fide believed him to be a threat, is my submission, is what your inquiry ought to be, not whether he in fact was a threat, but be that as it may, that doesn't affect whether you grant amnesty or not to the applicants, because that affects the belief held by Pretorius and Coetzee and that would in fact have been relayed, I believe, to Mr de Kock as he stated in his written application to us. He said that he was approached, I think, let me not get my facts wrong, but he was in fact ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Engelbrecht that they should assist Coetzee in getting rid of this "beruggewer" who was becoming a threat, who seemed like a colonel.
MS PATEL: Yes, that's correct, Honourable Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much Ms Patel. Mr Hattingh, before you reply, my brother here, or half-brother, has this burning question to ask.
ADV SANDI: No, no, I was just going to ask Mr Hattingh, if at the end of the day one comes to the conclusion, I'm not for a moment suggesting that this is what is going to happen, let us suppose at the end of the day one makes a positive credibility finding in favour of Mr Engelbrecht, where would that put your client, Mr de Kock and his evidence?
MR HATTINGH IN REPLY: Naturally, Mr Chairman, his application should then fail because then he hasn't made a full and truthful disclosure of all the facts to you.
Mr Chairman, would you permit me, I'm a bit perturbed about a submission that Mr Wagener made to you that I created the impression that there were many incidents and many people implicated Gen Engelbrecht, whereas in fact that is not so and he then relied on about, I think 3 maybe 4 incidents. Mr Chairman, Mr Engelbrecht was either implicated in the sense that he gave instructions, or implicated in the sense that he covered up criminal activities of members of the Security Police in the Maponya matter, in the Brian Nqculanga matter, in the Chand matter, in the Goodwill Sekekane matter, in the Nelspruit matter and we're dealing with the Nelspruit matter, but the cover-up didn't begin at the scene, it began afterwards when the statements were taken. Many of the members who were involved, or some of the members, let me rather not talk about many again, some of the members who were involved in that operation testified that Gen Engelbrecht assisted at that office where they were based at the time, to make sure that their statements corresponded with each other. That's where the cover-up came in. Nelspruit, Cosatu, Mr de Kock tells me I wasn't there, but he implicated him there as part of the cover-up, Khotso House, ...(indistinct) apparently gave evidence about where Mr Bopape was buried, which didn't fit in with the evidence that was lead and then there is Sambo where Mr de Kock exonerated Mr Engelbrecht by saying that he told him not to go along with that, but then he went along with it and that fact became known, Mr Chairman. The evidence was led that there were newspaper reports about air searches that were carried out for the body of the late Mr Sambo when he couldn't be found and Mr Engelbrecht kept quiet about all of that, so even though Mr de Kock tried to protect him and Sambo, he once again covered-up in Sambo. There was evidence that Mr Engelbrecht gave instructions for false arms caches to be established, inter alia to pay for the heart operation of one of his colleagues, Col Herman du Plessis and things like that, Mr Chairman. I'm sure that if I was given time to go through the record of all the incidents that were dealt with, that I may find even some more incidents where he's been implicated. Quite correctly Mr Wagener points out to you that he was known as the sweeper in the police. Where does he get that reputation from, Mr Chairman, if he wasn't in fact the person responsible for covering-up the acts by his colleagues?
CHAIRPERSON: I thought sweeping the place clean.
MR HATTINGH: Yes, Mr Chairman. Then as to the number of people who implicated him. Baker, who was second in command at Vlakplaas, who had a rank equal to that of Mr de Kock at some stage, he was a Major, implicated him, Kloppers implicated him. Now my learned friend says: "I wouldn't want to rely on Kloppers" but it's good enough for me that the Supreme Court, His Lordship Mr Justice van der Merwe, accepted Mr Kloppers' evidence and in many respects Mr de Kock came and corroborated the evidence which Mr Kloppers gave at Mr de Kock's criminal trial, in his evidence in front of various Amnesty Committees. Nortje, Bellingan, Ras and once again, Mr Chairman, if I was given time to go and search I would probably come up with further names. I seem to recall that Leon Flores also implicated him. Many people implicated him in respect of many incidents. I repeat that Mr Chairman.
Now dealing with the question as to whether Mr Engelbrecht's evidence should be accepted or not, Mr Chairman, I would submit that it would be very naive to believe in the light of all the allegations that were made during the Harms Commission and thereafter, for Mr Engelbrecht to come along and say: "I was unaware of what was going on at Vlakplaas" and then he takes command of that unit thereafter, albeit to change it into a unit responsible for the investigation of ordinary crimes, opposed to political crimes. That I would submit, Mr Chairman, that if he was trusted enough to take command, to be placed in command of a unit such as Vlakplaas, that he would have been informed what Vlakplaas had been busy with in the past and told to make sure that they are no longer involved in operations of that nature. The very fact that he claims that he knows nothing about what Vlakplaas had been doing, Mr Chairman, must be questioned and I submit that if you have to weigh his evidence against that of Mr de Kock, bearing in mind the fact that he'd been implicated in so many other instances where he stands alone and says: "No, that is not true, all these people are lying" and I submit, Mr Chairman, that you should accept Mr de Kock's evidence in the matter and grant him amnesty.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Hattingh. Mr Cornelius, I think you are the last to reply. You've got two applicants.
MR CORNELIUS IN REPLY: I agree with what Mr Hattingh said now. It's quite clear that there should have been some type of knowledge, I think on the side of the Security Heads, from Headquarters and I don't have anything specific to add. I think we're entitled to amnesty. Thank you Mr Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. This brings us to the conclusion of the amnesty applications of the three gentlemen, namely Messrs de Kock, Brits and Snyman. I want to - why shouldn't I start with my interpreters, that for anybody who would have coped with Mr Coetzee deserves to be thanked very much. I thank you very much, you did a splendid job. I want to thank the legal representatives for having been of invaluable assistance. I think you will all agree with me that this was a complex one, it was not one of those run of the mill applications and opposition and what have you. This was really complex. I want to thank each one personally for your assistance herein.
As we are enjoined by the Act, we will reserve our decision, but not indefinitely and give it as soon as practical, because we've got to give it in writing. I must thank everybody who won't be involved in the coming matter, but I suspect Mr Hattingh might be with us. I suspect Mr Cornelius might be with us this afternoon. Mr Wagener, I've got strong suspicions about you as well and obviously you, Ms Patel.
Thank you very much. Let's take the lunch adjournment and I will be generous, we'll start at 2.30. Thank you. We adjourn for lunch.