--------------------------------------------------------------------------CHAIRPERSON: This morning we are doing the matter which has been described as the "Disposal of the Body of Sweet Sambo". The Committee remains the same. Would the representatives of the applicants and of the victim's families or anyone else if anybody, please put themselves on record.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman. P A Hattingh, instructed by Mr Schalk Hugo, on behalf of Mr de Kock.

MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Wim Cornelius, appearing on behalf of the second applicant, Johannes Jakobus Swart, and the fourth applicant, Nicolaas Johannes Vermeulen.

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, thank you. Lamey, I represent applicant Klopper.

MS LOCKHAT: Lynne Lockhat, appearing on behalf of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

Chairperson, just for the record, the victims, the next of kin of the deceased, Mr Mtjaba, we have sent a notice in this instance. We've also sent a police officer from Komatiepoort to go and look for the victims, Chairperson. We've also placed on SABC Radio News an advert informing and requesting any family members to come forward and we've had no response in the circumstances, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: It seems to me probable that the family would have no interest in the present application, which does not involved directly the death of their relative. Their only interest would seem to be that they have been prevented from conducting the normal burial of the deceased. That is a different matter. I think we can continue, except before we do, can I ask the gentleman responsible for providing us with the earphones, whether it's possible for me to get a slightly longer connection. I had the same trouble yesterday, every time I move my head I pull the thing off the table. It's working well, thank you.

Very well, are we ready to continue with this now?

MS LOCKHAT: Yes, Chairperson we are.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, did we get all the - I wasn't paying attention, did we get all the names?

MS LOCKHAT: We'll commence with the first applicant, Mr Eugene de Kock, Chairperson.

MR LAX: Ms Lockhat, don't you just want to indicate that the various implicated parties have been notified etc?

MR SWART: Yes. Mr Engelbrecht has been notified and Mr Jan Wagener is the legal representative for him. He has deposed to an affidavit, Chairperson, which I had forwarded to all parties yesterday. If we can mark that, Chairperson, Exhibit A. And in relation to Mr Chait, Chairperson, I believe he is overseas and we couldn't get hold of him, Chairperson. And then Mr Barend du Plessis has also been notified and he is represented by Adv Booysen, who was here yesterday as well, placed that on record yesterday. And then Mr Flip de Beer was also notified, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: I take it Chait is not an applicant?

MS LOCKHAT: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it also correct that he has not taken part in any of these proceedings, as far as you know?

MR LAMEY: Yes, Chairperson. Chairperson, may I just come in here. My learned friend, Mr Hattingh, will also confirm that Chait was also very much implicated in the death of Brian Ngqulunga, that matter, and he was also not an applicant in that matter.

CHAIRPERSON: Well he's been mentioned in more than one matter, as I can recollect. He was mentioned in yesterday's, as being present ...

MR LAMEY: Yes indeed, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: ... and a suggestion that he may have participated, but I just wanted to confirm. My impression is that he has not been a participant, it's not just this one item that he's gone overseas and hasn't been told about, he has taken no part in the proceedings of the Amnesty Committees.

MR LAMEY: Yes indeed, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Although he was at Vlakplaas and has been mentioned in connection with a number of other incidents.

MR LAMEY: Yes indeed, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman. May I call Mr de Kock?

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, one more matter perhaps I should mention before we continue, is that we have had the affidavit of Gen Engelbrecht filed and we have had an opportunity of considering it and unlike the previous matter, although there is a dispute between the version that appears on the papers of Mr de Kock and others and Gen Engelbrecht, it does not appear to us, subject to what any of you gentlemen may say, to be of the same nature as in the previous matter and we do not consider it necessary that he should come and give evidence.

MR HATTINGH: I agree, with respect. Thank you, Mr Chairman. May I call Mr de Kock?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR LAX: Mr de Kock, your full names please.

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: (sworn states)

MR LAX: Thank you, please be seated. Sworn in, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR HATTINGH: There's a problem with the microphones, Mr Chairman, when I switch mine on his goes off. I don't think he's got the applicant's microphone here.

MR LAX: If you both hold them down together at the same time, they both stay on.

EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Lax.

Mr de Kock, you are an applicant in this matter and your applicant appears in bundle 1, from page 1 to 11.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Have you studied this and do you confirm the correctness thereof?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Very well, then I will lead your evidence about this very briefly. When you received the order from Mr de Beer for assistance, did you then go to the home Gen Engelbrecht?

CHAIRPERSON: It wasn't an order was it, it was a request?

MR HATTINGH: It was a ...(indistinct), yes, Mr Chairman.

Did you then go to Gen Engelbrecht's home?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Did you want authorisation from him to become involved in the matter?

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And did you discuss the matter with him?

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And in contradiction with what a certain attorney has said before the Committee on many previous times, you do not say that you received authorisation from him.

MR DE KOCK: No, I didn't.

MR HATTINGH: In fact, he told you not to get involved.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: But as far as you know, he did not take any steps to act against the persons, such as policemen, who were involved in the killing of a person?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct, he did not take any steps.

MR HATTINGH: Then, did you depart from him?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Mr de Kock, you will recall that Mr Klopper, during your trial and I think also here in his application, has stated that he accompanied you to Gen Engelbrecht's home, can you recall this?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, my recollection is that he was not present, however upon various occasions Mr Klopper did accompany me to Gen Engelbrecht's home and it is possible that I may be mistaken.

MR HATTINGH: So it is possible that he may have accompanied you?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And then, after Gen Engelbrecht told you not to get involved, did you further consider the matter?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, I did.

MR HATTINGH: And what was your decision?

MR DE KOCK: Well my decision was to assist Mr de Beer and his branch. The urgency with which he had addressed me telephonically and the problems which he and the Security Branch and his people in the Security Branch were experiencing, led me to the decision to act and I took that decision independently.

MR HATTINGH: Flip de Beer, he was the Commander of a Security Branch which was temporarily based at a police station in Skwamaans.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct. Skwamaans was a base which fell under the Security Branch of Komatiepoort, Mr de Beer was a commander from Komatiepoort and Skwamaans also resorted under him.

MR HATTINGH: And the persons who were allegedly involved in the interrogation which led to the death of Mr Sambo, were these persons members of the Security Police?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct, all of them were members of the Security Police.

MR HATTINGH: And according to the information, they had interrogated this person in connection with what?

MR DE KOCK: It was in connection with the smuggling of weapons from Mozambique to the RSA.

MR HATTINGH: And the provision or supply of these weapons to conflicting groups in South Africa, particularly. And apart from the fact that these weapons could fall into criminal hands, the purpose of this was the prevention of these weapons ending up in the hands of political organisations.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. In your document regarding Vlakplaas in general, you also dealt with the exercise of your own discretion. Do you recall this?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And also with regard to Vlakplaas' tasks after the unbanning of the ANC.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Very well, and you decided that you would offer assistance. What was your motivation for this decision? What was your major factor of consideration?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, on a very minor scale, perhaps minimal but perhaps just as serious, it was something almost similar to the Steve Biko case, when it is about the death of the person and the dangers that it posed for the Security Police, the image of the police at that stage and then the political implications of the matter. At the time of this person's death, things were very sensitive in this country, the political parties were hurling accusations at one another, accusations pertaining to murder and all sorts of underhanded activity and anything that was connected with this, and based upon this, I decided to act. I had acted in the protection of other branches or institutions and I took the decision here, that I would act in this matter.

MR HATTINGH: Was Capt de Beer known to you?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, he was.

MR HATTINGH: Would you say that you were friends with him?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, I was friends with many other members of the Force.

MR HATTINGH: Would you have assisted him purely because he was your friend?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, I did not carry out any private contracts.

MR LAX: Just one second, Mr Hattingh. Could you just, at a convenient stage, just give us the specific references to those other bundles where Mr de Kock has dealt with those two aspects. It doesn't have to be now, but as long as you make a note to do that in due course, I would appreciate that.

MR HATTINGH: In case I might forget, Mr Chairman, it is in the bundle that Mr de Kock referred to in his evidence on the other incident that we dealt with earlier this week, the bundle on Vlakplaas, which was heard by you yourself, Mr Chairman, and I think Mr Sibanyoni was also a Member of that Panel, at the hearing of the first cluster of incident, the first de Kock cluster, where he dealt extensively with Vlakplaas. And in this document, Mr Chairman, I'll ask my attorney to find the reference to the exercise of own discretion and also the position of Vlakplaas after the unbanning of the ANC and other political organisations.

MR LAX: Mr Hattingh, perhaps we can do it in the tea break or whatever, and if we just carry on. I didn't mean to interrupt your leading of the witness.

MR HATTINGH: Mr de Kock - my attorney has found them now, Mr Chairman. Page 60 of that bundle, that's deals with the exercise of own discretion and page 72 deals with the position of Vlakplaas after the unbanning of the ANC.

Mr de Kock, very well, you were then of the opinion that it was in the best interests of the police and the former State in general, that you offer your assistance.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Did you then issue an order to Mr Klopper and anybody else, to be of assistance in this regard?

MR DE KOCK: It was Mr Swart and then also Mr Vermeulen.

MR HATTINGH: And it was your decision that the body of Mr Sambo be destroyed by means of explosives, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And that is among others, why you involved Mr Vermeulen in the whole matter.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Did you arrange with Mr de Beer for him to meet them at Middelburg with the body and that they would take the body over from him from that point onwards?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, they were to meet at the Ulra City on the Middelburg road.

MR HATTINGH: Perhaps we get to this. Did you do anything, after you had issued the order and they departed to carry out the order, the next day or so, pertaining to the hierarchy of the South African Police?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, I'm not certain whether this took place over a weekend, I would imagine something like that, but upon the first opportunity that we worked together again - it may have been the day after or if it was a weekend, it would have been on the Monday, I was looking for Mr Engelbrecht, but I couldn't find him because he was out of town for about two days, Col Herman du Plessis was then the commander ...(intervention)

MR HATTINGH: May I just interpose here. This is the same Herman du Plessis who was involved in the incident hat we have dealt with earlier this week, who gave the address of the sender for the parcel bomb in the Bheki Mlangeni matter?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: So in the absence then of Gen Engelbrecht, you say that he was in command?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Very well, you went to see him.

MR DE KOCK: I informed him that a problem had originated in Komatiepoort and what the nature of the problem was, that the person had died and that we had assisted in removing the body, that the body was to be destroyed. I did not give him all the particulars, but I also told him that we could expect that there would be a serious inquiry into the matter and that he should prepare himself and that he should notify the senior staff, in other words some of the Generals, that a problem was on the way for the police. Which was indeed so, the press got hold of the story, the media got hold of the story and there was a large-scale search for the body of Sweet Sambo. In other words, the family apparently knew that he had died.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, I think during your trial it emerged that Sweet Sambo's widow testified that she made enquiries about the whereabouts of her husband because she knew that the police had taken him away from their home.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And this led to a large-scale search for Mr Sambo, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct. Among others, river beds were searched - I'm looking for the Afrikaans word for drag, but river beds were dragged in examining the possibility that his body may have been tossed into the river.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, they made use of dogs as well as helicopters and they searched that entire area. It was a particularly large-scale attempt.

MR HATTINGH: And the media offered wide coverage of this incident.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And I think his rank was still Colonel, Col Alberts from the SAP was in command of this investigation as well as the search for Mr Sambo, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Can I interrupt for a moment? Did you tell Col du Plessis that you had discussed the matter with Gen Engelbrecht, who had told you that they should allow the body to go in the normal course and that you should have nothing whatsoever to do with this?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, no, I cannot recall any such discussion.

CHAIRPERSON: Why not? If you were being frank and honest with your seniors, why did you not tell Col du Plessis, why did you mislead him into believing that he could give instructions, that the General hadn't already spoken?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I can recall telling him that we had to remove this body, that there would be problems and I think that I still told him that I would give him feedback later, that the body would not be traceable, but at that stage the media had already gotten hold of the situation. I cannot recall and tell you precisely verbatim what the situation was.

MR HATTINGH: In this regard, may I ask you the following. These problems which you foresaw, were these problems which emanated from your action? In other words, the removal and the destruction of the body, or are these problems that you foresaw due to the information which de Beer had conveyed to you?

MR DE KOCK: As a result of the information that I had received from Flip de Beer.

MR HATTINGH: That they had fetched him from his home and interrogated him and that during the interrogation he had been killed?

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Did you expect that this would come to light and create problems?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. You then reported to Col du Plessis and do you know which steps, if any, were taken by him as a result of this report that you gave to him?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, as far as I know, he went to the Generals in Staff and as far as I know on that very same day the media, as a result of their enquiries, approached du Plessis, Viljoen and Langenhoven from the police and the police flew down in a helicopter to Skwamaans base to investigate the matter and to deal with it.

MR HATTINGH: I'd just like to cut your evidence in this regard short. The name of the fourth person was mentioned during evidence ...(intervention)

MR LAX: It was van der Westhuizen, Ronnie van der Westhuizen, I think.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And his name has also been mentioned with regard to the Bheki Mlangeni matter, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: During the trial it emerged from the evidence given by Col Alberts, who testified during your trial, that these four gentlemen arrived there while he himself was on the base conducting his own investigation.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And that these four policemen who were involved in the interrogation of Mr Sambo, and I think also Mr de Beer, were taken into an office in a building, the door was closed and he, Alberts, was excluded from this conference which took place. Do you recall this?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, he was quite upset because it was his jurisdiction, it was his area of examination.

MR HATTINGH: And the Generals did not allow him to be part of this forum of discussion.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And after this discussion which took place in the room, the delegation then departed without discussing anything with Alberts.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. The fact that you foresaw that problems would arise and decided to offer assistance appeared ex post facto to be correct?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Weren't the major problems, wasn't the major publicity the disappearance of the body? They were searching the rivers, they were flying helicopters, they were using dogs. It was all to look for the body, wasn't it?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, the police from Komatiepoort and particularly the Security Police, denied that this man had died during detention with them, and I think that that was the problem, their denial. I don't think that they denied that they took him from his home, but they denied that he was tortured and that he died as a result of torture.

CHAIRPERSON: You have already told us that the publicity was about the search, that they were searching the river, that they were searching with helicopters, the press was fully conversant with this and were publicising the facts.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. That this all arose out of the disappearance of a body.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, one could possibly interpret the situation as such as well.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr de Kock, if the body hadn't disappeared, they wouldn't have looking for it, would they? If it had been handed in at the mortuary, that would have been that.

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, the ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: As far as the body was concerned.

MR DE KOCK: ... the man was taken from his home and he was tortured to death on the base and according to what Mr de Beer told me ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Was he tortured to death on the base? Are you now saying that?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: It wasn't just assaults during the course of interrogation, you say he was tortured to death by the police.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, during this interrogation he was tortured and he died. Because among others, de Beer told me that they couldn't take him to the mortuary because he had sustained injuries and his head was quite severely swollen.

MR HATTINGH: And some of the black members who were present during this interrogation and the assault, were also State witnesses in your trial, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: They testified that they witnessed this torture and this assault.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And that they saw, shortly after the assault some of them returned to the room and they saw Mr Sambo lying there covered by a blanket and they saw that he was dead.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct. And I just wish to say further that with Col du Plessis' return the following day, I asked him how things looked there or how it was and he said that he couldn't understand what the people had done because the room that they visited, where this person had been tortured, still had a piece of rubber inside containing marks of saliva and slime and this was obviously used to tube the man, in other words, to suffocate or strangle him. And they removed this. He referred to "they", but he did not specify who "they" were.

MR HATTINGH: The evidence of the black persons who were present was also to the effect that one of the torture methods which was applied was the so-called tubing method by means of an inner tube.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct. And I also told Col du Plessis that I would send Klopper to him later so that he, du Plessis, could confirm that the body would not be traced again, so that he then could report this to the higher levels. And as far as I can recall, Mr Klopper went to see Col du Plessis in connection with this and conveyed this information to him.

MR HATTINGH: And did Mr Klopper report to you after their part of the operation?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, he told me that the body had been blown up and there was nothing to be found.

MR HATTINGH: And this was done at a police base, a police training base known as Verdrag, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: There where police persons were trained in the handling of explosives and so forth, on that base, that's where the explosion took place.

MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR SIBANYONI: Excuse me, Mr Hattingh. ...(indistinct - no microphone)

MR DE KOCK: It's in the Western Transvaal. I myself have never been to Verdrag, so I would not be able to indicate how to get there. I have never received my training there, I received my training at Grobblersdal.

MR SIBANYONI: Maybe next to which town?

MR DE KOCK: I would have to depend on my legal representative to assist me with this, I've never visited the place.

MR HATTINGH: We went there, Mr Chairman, and I think Mr Klopper will be able to confirm, it's somewhere near Potgietersrus and Nylstroom, that area.

You did not even know Mr Sambo before this incident?

MR DE KOCK: No, I did not know who he was.

MR HATTINGH: And you did not receive any reward for your participation in this operation?

MR DE KOCK: No, I did not.

MR HATTINGH: You were charged with regard to this incident and you were convicted of culpable homicide in this regard.

MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Can you recall what your sentence was?

MR DE KOCK: I myself am not certain but I think it was six years.

MR HATTINGH: Six years sentence.

MR DE KOCK: That could be, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman, we have no further questions.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Mr Chair.

Mr de Kock, you bona fide accepted the information as conveyed to you by de Beer.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: You believed that you acted against the political enemy of the previous government.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, and in the protection of my own political system.

MR CORNELIUS: Was it normal that it was dangerous for Security to dispose of a body in their own area?

MR DE KOCK: I believe so, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: And that is why they approached C-Section, because it was better to dispose of the body in another area.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson. I would just like qualify. Maybe Mr de Beer foresaw that there could be greater interest in this specific person's death.

MR CORNELIUS: Your political motivations, if I can put it like that, and your bona fide decision to get rid of the body, you also conveyed to Vermeulen and Swart who were the footsoldiers and who acted under your orders, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, I would have given them that indication.

MR CORNELIUS: And Lt Klopper, you placed Lt Klopper in command of the operation of the disposal of the body, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: After you informed Col Herman du Plessis of your action, were any disciplinary steps taken against you?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, the cover-up action was successful because of the fact the body could not be found.

MR CORNELIUS: And you knew that this information would reach Gen Engelbrecht and no disciplinary steps were taken from there?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, he had already known that the person was dead and what the request was from de Beer.

MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Chairperson.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chairperson.

Mr de Kock, just a few aspects. You have already -as I understand your evidence, you have a recollection that Mr Klopper was present with you when you went to Gen Engelbrecht's house, but you say that you might be mistaken. His recollection is clear that he drove there with you, but that he was not present during the discussion between yourself and Gen Engelbrecht, that he waited at the car for you, outside.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, as I have said my recollection is vague about this and I recall that while Klopper - I contacted Klopper and told him to come to my house and then I drove to Gen Engelbrecht's house. That was my recollection thereof, but there is a possibility that my recollection might fail me here.

CHAIRPERSON: Can I interrupt again at this stage. My recollection is, and I'm not sure from where I read it, it's in one of the papers I've read in the last few days, that one of these gentlemen from Vlakplaas said that you normally did have somebody to drive you, to change, it wasn't always the same person, but that this was a normal practice. In which case it would be very difficult to remember a particular incident. Did you often have people driving you?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, it was also the standard practice that persons move in two's or in three's because of the nature of their work.

MR LAMEY: Mr de Kock, just to join up with this - I beg your pardon, maybe we should ... During that time you used amongst others, Mr Klopper, Nortje and Chait and these persons acted as drivers for you.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, and there were also others. I also used - some of the others drove me, it was not only the whites.

MR LAMEY: Yes, Mr Klopper says that that evening he drove your vehicle.

MR DE KOCK: That will his recollection thereof.

MR LAMEY: Or your vehicle or his vehicle, I cannot recall what the instruction is, but he drove the vehicle.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, at various stages we visited Gen Engelbrecht about many matters of interest. ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR LAMEY: Mr Klopper says this time was the first time that he was at Gen Engelbrecht's house, but however that may be, the impression as I have already stated to you, he was not present during the discussion between yourself and Gen Engelbrecht. The impression that Mr Klopper is left with, was that Gen Engelbrecht knew of this and that he had been informed as to what they would do and this had had his approval. You did not tell Mr Klopper anything that "Gen Engelbrecht does not want us to do this, but I have decided to do it anyway", you did not say anything like that?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, I accepted that we informed Gen Engelbrecht about this and he could have accepted possibly that he had given his approval.

MR LAMEY: Col Herman du Plessis was second-in-command under Gen Engelbrecht?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Just another aspect with regard to the place where the meeting had taken place along the road. Mr Klopper says that he met de Beer on the other side of Middelburg, at an Engen garage, if his recollection is correct, and you referred to an Ultra City as a rendezvous point. Mr Klopper says that he recalls that on the way back he stopped at a place close to Ultra City on the N4, where he met with Swart, amongst others. This is just a minute aspect. I would just like to put to you what his recollection is.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I was not there, so I think they should testify about that.

CHAIRPERSON: Does it really matter? We've read the papers, there are some variations about who was in what car, where, but the general picture is the same isn't it?

MR LAMEY: Yes.

And then Mr Klopper also further states that at a stage he also told Col du Plessis that he should not be concerned, that everything had went well. This was after the disposal of the corpse.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, I requested him to give that part of the report because I was not at the scene and I could not confirm that it had really been cleaned up and that is why I requested Mr Klopper to go and do this report.

MR LAMEY: Sorry, to who? Colonel du Plessis?

MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Mr Klopper's recollection is not that you requested him to do it but apparently Col du Plessis enquired himself and I suspect in the light of what you say, this must have been after you'd spoken to him. He apparently enquired from Willie Nortje, but Willie Nortje did not know exactly what had happened and he referred him to Klopper and Klopper informed him then. That is Mr Klopper's recollection.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I will tell you as I recall it. It may be because of lapse of time that there is another version, but it comes down to the same point.

MR LAMEY: No, I do not want to make much of this aspect, I would just tell you what my instructions are.

Thank you, Chairperson, I've got no further questions.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS LOCKHAT: Thank you, Chairperson.

Mr de Kock, how long did you know Mr de Beer?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, at that stage it must have been about four years or so, I think three or four years.

MS LOCKHAT: Did you work on more than one operation before this?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson yes, we worked in the Komatiepoort area, especially in regard to the weapons findings, where there was a phenomenal success, if I may state it as such.

MS LOCKHAT: So would you say that you built up a good friendship and a relationship of trust with Mr de Beer?

MR DE KOCK: I met him, or I knew of him before that, but I also met him when he was a Commander of the Security Branch at Kwandebele and on occasion he helped us with askaris there. But by nature of the situation there was a measure of trust between the two of us.

MS LOCKHAT: And were you also involved in covert operations with Mr de Beer, would you say?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, if one buys weapons undercover, then it would be a covert operation, but we did not execute any cross-border operations together, those types of actions.

MS LOCKHAT: When you said you went to Gen Engelbrecht and he specifically told you that you should take the person to hospital rather, that de Beer should take the person to hospital and that the law should take its own course, what did that imply to you?

MR DE KOCK: That Gen Engelbrecht did not care what happened to the Security Police if there was a scandal after this incident.

MS LOCKHAT: Isn't it true that in fact he didn't authorise this action?

MR DE KOCK: That's what I said, Chairperson, I said I took the decision.

MS LOCKHAT: And when he informed you of this, did you tell him you are going to go ahead and just do it anyway, or did you just leave?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, on more than one occasion I pointed out to him that problems would be caused for the police and in particular the Security Police because of the sensitivity of the matter and that the dust from the Harms Commission investigation had not even settled yet and whatever accompanied that.

MS LOCKHAT: When you say you told him this on more than one occasion, I'm talking about that specific night, Mr de Kock.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, I did not see him at any other evening, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Was that the only evening you say you saw Gen Engelbrecht?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, I went to his house that evening and we discussed it at his house.

MR LAX: Sorry, Mr de Kock. What the Chair is asking you is, is that the only time you went in the evening to see him, or were there other instances?

MR DE KOCK: Oh no, no, there were many other occasions that I went to his house. There were times when I met with Engelbrecht and du Plessis at the General's house, about sensitive aspects, but with regard to the Sambo incident it was only that evening that I went to see him at home. I apologise if I misunderstood you, Chairperson.

MS LOCKHAT: Mr de Kock, you are aware of the hierarchy in the SAP and so forth, isn't that right?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, I worked there.

MS LOCKHAT: And Mr Engelbrecht was your commander.

MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.

MS LOCKHAT: So you just accepted that you would go above your commander and just basically do your own thing, is that right?

MR DE KOCK: It was not about doing my own thing, Chairperson, I felt that Gen Engelbrecht and I were subordinate to the interests of the Security Police and the police and the government and that is why I took that decision.

MR LAX: Perhaps to put it in another way. You felt that he hadn't understood the issues and therefore you could, in those circumstances, disregard his instructions.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I was of the opinion that we had so many times protected the police and the Security Police and we had gone through all that trouble and all that sacrifice and we threw overboard our moral values, and I could not allow that this starts all over again because of de Beer.

MR LAX: You see one of the things Engelbrecht says in every affidavit of his that I've ever read, in relation to these matters, is that he was an outsider ...(intervention)

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson.

MR LAX: ... and that's why you guys didn't listen to him really, because he wasn't an insider as far as the Security establishment went.

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, then it would have been so simple for me to sit here today and say "No, but Gen Engelbrecht told me", because it's one on one. I could say "No, but he told me I could do so". What would he have done then? I refuse to involve a person if a person is not involved and I did it in the Maponya incident. I could have said "Maybe Pienaar was there, I cannot recall it", it was as easy as that, but I refuse. Then I must rather sit in detention for the rest of my life, but I refuse to involve a person if he's not involved. And in this case I will do the six years, I will not involve a person if it's not the case.

MR LAX: Yes. Please continue.

MS LOCKHAT: I just want to refer you to page 4 of bundle 1, Mr de Kock, the fourth line from the bottom of the page, where you stated -

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, I don't think one has to attach anything sinister to this, this accompanies the measure of trust between the two of us, that de Beer was a person who could be trusted and by nature of the situation I place my life and career in his hands.

MS LOCKHAT: The only thing that strange for me in that paragraph, Mr de Kock, is the fact that you put the friendship first and then afterwards you state that it would also have consequences for the South African Police. Can you comment on that for me?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, it's a full disclosure, Chairperson.

MS LOCKHAT: How long after the incident did you tell Mr du Plessis about the disposal of the body?

MR DE KOCK: I am not entirely certain of the dates, somewhere in the back of my mind I think this was on a Friday evening or late Friday ...(end of side A of tape) ... in the weekend press there was a reference to this person who had disappeared. I am vague about this but somewhere it rings a bell.

MS LOCKHAT: Did you tell Mr du Plessis, just to cover yourself in case something would happen because of this?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, he has to cover the whole police and the Security Police in particular.

MS LOCKHAT: Thank you, Chairperson, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Any questions?

MR SIBANYONI: Mr de Kock, you said these weapons which were smuggled by Sambo would get into the hands of political organisations, are you referring to members of political organisations or are you referring to organisations themselves? What was being ...(indistinct)?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I think I have testified previously that with the weapons smugglers it was about the colour of the money, not the colour of the flag of the organisation and whether they sold it to the AWB or the ANC, somebody would get killed. And it was on this basis that I believe that Capt de Beer went about his business.

MR SIBANYONI: Is there anything which we should attach to the fact that Sambo was interrogated by the Security Police and not by the ordinary police, the criminal investigations?

MR DE KOCK: I believe so, Chairperson, because then when we worked there during that time, the normal members of the Force were unaware of these weapons that came through. It was a more advanced specialised situation about the infiltration and management of sources and it dealt with the Mozambican border, it's cross border and so forth. So I believe that de Beer and his men in all aspects approached this from a political aspect.

MR SIBANYONI: Is there any information whether Sambo was affiliated to any political organisation?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I do not have any information to that effect, I only said the we received the body and we will dispose of it.

MR SIBANYONI: The decision to dispose of the body of Sambo, do you think it's one of the matters in which you could exercise your discretion?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson no, that's why initially I went to Gen Engelbrecht, but in the end I did use my own discretion, going contrary to his instructions.

MR SIBANYONI: And what did you intend to achieve by doing that, by going against his decision?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, the purpose was the protection of the Security Police, if there was no corpse, they could not attach those people to the torture and murder of this person, they could not find them guilty of anything. It would prevent - if these persons were charged, then it would prevent that further secrets come out. These are things that one would foresee during those times.

MR SIBANYONI: When there was this wide search for his body, through helicopters and everywhere, did Engelbrecht ever confront you or communicate with you?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, he did not.

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you, Mr Chairperson, no further questions.

MR LAX: Thanks, Chair.

Just one thing that I picked up on the record and that is the nature of that far-reaching search is something which Alberts ordered himself, it wasn't as a result of any public outcry per se, and that's clear from the judgment, if one reads it carefully. In fact Alberts felt quite embarrassed that he'd spent so much money on a purposeless search, in the light of what subsequently came to be revealed.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson. I do not have an answer for you there. Another question which I thought of at some stage was if Alberts knew and there were people from head office here and in spite of all this he embarks on this wide search? I do not have an answer to that.

MR LAX: Let's go to the beginning of this thing. It's clear from the transcript of your trial and the judgment, that Sambo wasn't a political person at all, he wasn't a member of any political party, he wasn't involved in politics in any way whatsoever.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, I cannot testify to that effect because as I've said, I did not know him.

MR LAX: But it certainly will be common cause, that's what the judge found in your trial.

MR DE KOCK: I would accept that, Chairperson.

MR LAX: The second thing is that - the other thing that flows from the record of your trial is that the base at Skwamaans wasn't a Security Branch base per se, it was part of a weapons recovery process. They were working together with the Defence Force, they were working together with border police, they were working together with other groups, going out on a regular basis checking for weapons because they knew that was a point at which weapons were entering the country.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, as I understood it, it was actually Vlakplaas or C1, who uncovered this smuggling system. It's quite an interesting story. But weapons flowed in there for many years and by means of certain methods we exposed this and Skwamaans did fall under the command of Komatiepoort Security Police. The army had their own base there and Skwamaans could have been made available, and on occasion was made available to other divisions if they wanted to work there, the vehicle branch, but when we operated there we did not allow any other persons there.

MR LAX: But at this point in time that was the case, as I've sketched it to you, and that's clear from the transcript of your trial.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, I would just like to give you my version.

MR LAX: Yes. And the policemen who for example, went to fetch Sambo, weren't Security Branch people, they were just uniform branch people.

MR DE KOCK: I don't know, Chairperson, I'm not certain. I was under the impression that it was people from the Security Branch.

MR LAX: No, no, it's clear from the trial, you can rest assured, I'm not misleading you.

MR DE KOCK: Very well then, Chairperson.

MR LAX: The simple point I'm making is that this wasn't the kind of overt Security Branch operation that you're under the impression it was.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson no, but what I did understand is that the persons who tortured him and which led to his death, were Security Police, persons from Komatiepoort. McIntyre and those, they were Security Police officers.

MR LAX: You see my simple assertion to you is this, is that from my reading of the judgment and the way in which the operations were described, they way in which the interrogation was described, this wasn't about political activity, this was about trying to trace weapons. It was the sort of operation that the firearms units in other areas might get engaged in.

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR LAX: Proceeding then from that premise, you weren't covering up the political acts of your colleagues.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, this is how I saw it.

MR LAX: So you feel you were covering up their political acts?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

MR LAX: Because you see, you've conceded that they weren't engaged in political activity, they were engaged in general trying to trace weapons.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I cannot testify what their real consciousness was at that stage, we should find the persons who tortured this person, so that we can find out what their motivation was. My motivation was to prevent any problems for the Security Police.

MR LAX: You will concede though that it's pretty close to the border line of pure politics and more in terms of just covering up activities of your colleagues.

MR DE KOCK: The borders are quite close to each other, yes, Chairperson.

MR LAX: Thank you, Chair, I don't have any further questions on this issue.

CHAIRPERSON: Now I have some problems here that we have a unit, as you're just heard, operating at Skwamaans with other units to check on arms smuggling.

MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And I think you said somewhere that the arms smugglers were not interested in the political parties, they were interested in the colour of the money.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And something goes wrong with the questioning and the smuggler dies.

MR DE KOCK: Correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Why does Mr de Beer not contact his superiors? It's an ordinary police activity, why doesn't he contact Komatiepoort for their assistance, why does he come straight to you?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, one could speculate that de Beer did contact his commander in Nelspruit or Middelburg and that they told him to take this course. I would not be able to say.

CHAIRPERSON: And they didn't contact your superiors, they came to you ...

MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: ... his friend. Wasn't this just to help cover up for him? That he'd made a mistake and he didn't want to be exposed?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I don't believe so. If I understood correctly, de Beer was not even present during the assault and interrogation, his members were there. He did not participate in the assault, so it was here about the Security Branch itself.

CHAIRPERSON: But he was responsible, he'd organised it.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, that is so.

CHAIRPERSON: And when things go wrong he turns to you and you, despite the orders of your superior, the officer in charge, decide you're going to send people to help your friend.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, it was not about the friendship aspects here, on several other occasions we also assisted people with regard to the same situation and it was not about friendship.

MR LAX: But you will concede that the friendship angle helped.

MR DE KOCK: Well the sense in which it helped was that I placed my career in someone's hands and it was somebody whom I could trust.

MR LAX: And if he wasn't your friend you would be less likely to go against Engelbrecht's word.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, that is so. It was not an easy decision to take.

CHAIRPERSON: Any re-examination?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Let us start with the last aspect, this friendship aspect. Were the two of your social friends, did you visit each other at your respective homes?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Did you visit social events together, outside work, to go sport events after work?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: He was a colleague of yours whom you knew during the course of your work?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: As literally hundreds of other police officers were your colleagues?

MR DE KOCK: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: And would you regard them on the same basis as a friend?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Would you then say that the friendship really led to your willingness to help him?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, it was a matter of trust.

MR HATTINGH: Please explain that, the matter of trust. Do you mean by this that he asks you to go outside the bounds of the law?

MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And because you knew him you therefore knew you could trust him?

MR DE KOCK: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: You knew he would not stab you in the back later.

MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson. And he was also the Commander of Komatiepoort.

MR HATTINGH: Now the conversation that you ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: He wasn't was he? He wasn't the Commander of Komatiepoort?

MR DE KOCK: Yes he was, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Komatiepoort, not this place? Of Komatiepoort itself?

MR DE KOCK: Skwamaans was ..(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Skwamaans he was the commander of.

MR DE KOCK: No, Skwamaans was previously a counter-insurgency base, in other words the normal police did border patrol work there and when they withdrew from Skwamaans, Skwamaans then for purposes of control and for guarding the base, the care of the base came under the Komatiepoort Security Police.

MR HATTINGH: And who was the commander?

MR DE KOCK: De Beer.

MR HATTINGH: So de Beer was the Commander of Komatiepoort?

MR DE KOCK: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: And Skwamaans resorts under Komatiepoort?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: You have already said that de Beer was not present during the assault, did he tell you that he was not present during the interrogation?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, we did not speak in detail about this.

MR HATTINGH: The evidence indicated that there was a braai during this interrogation, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: I cannot recall, Chairperson, it's possible.

MR HATTINGH: But that de Beer was not involved in the interrogation whatsoever and they came afterwards to him and told him that there was a problem.

MR DE KOCK: That's how I understood it, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And after your trial these four persons who were involved in the assault, were arrested again and were charged with murder, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And Mr de Beer was also arrested and charged, but he was only charged as being an accessory, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Something else that might not be strictly from ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I haven't looked with great care, but if you look at bundle 3, they there charged de Beer, as I understand it, with direct participation in the assault. At page 50.

MR HATTINGH: Bundle 3, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Number 3 -

Paragraph 1.2 on page 50 -

Was that the State case?

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, may I try and clarify matters? McIntyre and his three colleagues were prosecuted in the Regional Court at Nelspruit, if I remember correctly, on charges of assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm and they were acquitted on those charges. Thereafter, after the de Kock trial, they were re-arrested and charged with murder and this time Mr de Beer was also charged and he was only charged as an accessory to murder.

CHAIRPERSON: Well I'm reading to you the charge sheet ...

MR HATTINGH: Yes I think, Mr Chairman, that the particulars that you're referring to is, originally de Beer was also an accused in the Regional Court matter and he was accused number 1 in that matter and I think ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: In 1996?

MR HATTINGH: Yes, Mr Chairman. But I can assure you, Mr Chairman, I appeared for McIntyre, on the instructions of Mr Hugo, Else and Venter, in the Middelburg matter, the matter where they were charged with murder and Mr Prinsloo and Ms van der Walt appeared for de Beer and he was only charged as an accessory. He wasn't charged with the murder because the evidence, it was common cause that he was at no stage present during the interrogation or the assault upon Mr Sambo, he merely assisted to get - when they came to him for assistance, he got hold of Mr de Kock and arranged for the body to be destroyed.

At the second trial we raised the defence of autre fois aquit on behalf of McIntyre and Else and Venter and the magistrate ruled against us and by consent the matter was then taken on review. I didn't appear at the review, I wasn't available, but the Supreme Court upheld the plea of autre fois aquit in respect of the four people who were engaged in the assault. For some reason or other the Attorney-General thereafter decided not to proceed with the case against Mr de Beer, because the plea of autre fois aquit didn't apply to his matter.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr de Kock, can you recall that the evidence was that the gentlemen, with the assistance of Mr de Beer, pretended that Mr Sambo had escaped during the course of the night, from detention?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And in that regard, Mr de Beer offered assistance.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. With regard to the information which you received, you were informed that the Security Police was involved in this interrogation, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Did you receive any further information indicating that nothing political was involved in the matter, did you have any other information about Mr Sambo?

MR DE KOCK: None.

MR HATTINGH: What was your impression, what was all of this about, why had they interrogated him? What was it about?

MR DE KOCK: It was about arms and in this case, the fact that the Security Police were involved with regard to the detection of these arms and the prevention of these arms ending up in the hands of political opponents.

MR HATTINGH: I don't think you understood Mr Sibanyoni's question in this regard quite thoroughly, he wanted to know from you whether the arms would end up with the organisations themselves or the supporters of these organisations.

MR DE KOCK: I think we may have misunderstood each other on that point. What I meant here is that Sambo was not a member of the ANC or the PAC as such ...(intervention)

MR HATTINGH: No, let us forget about Sambo, the ultimate destination of these arms which were being smuggled, where were these arms going, who would ultimately obtain these arms?

MR DE KOCK: Supporters.

MR HATTINGH: Supporters of political organisations?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: In the Vlakplaas document you give a thorough summary of the information that you had which indicated that particularly in the East Rand, arms would end up in the hands of political supporters who would use these arms against one another in the course of the political struggle of the time.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Did you also accept that this was the purpose why Mr de Beer and the others were involved in this particular case?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

MR LAX: Mr Hattingh, just to be fair to your client, is it also not also equally true that those weapons landed in the hands of criminals, ordinary criminals who weren't fighting each other, they were just involved in highjackings and other things?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, there were such cases. If they weren't fighting among each other, then they would go over to crime.

MR LAX: But there were also criminal gangs who were using the very same weapons that were being smuggled in as well.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: The whole purpose was to prevent people being killed.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, ultimately.

CHAIRPERSON: By illegal weapons.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Mr de Kock, why did they come to you? In this document, the supplementary affidavit regarding Vlakplaas, you deal comprehensively with the manner in which Vlakplaas was applied in solving the problems of other units.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Such as for example, the Goodwill Sikhakhane matter.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Where the Natal Police wanted to get rid of him and asked you to assist them with this and you became involved?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And so also ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Did they ask you directly or did they go through the normal channels and were you then told by your seniors to do things?

MR DE KOCK: These requests came from Gen Steyn and then he liaised with Gen Engelbrecht and I would then have to liaise with Steyn and so forth.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Mr de Kock, if you had to evaluate the matter, do you think that your involvement in this matter should have come to Gen Engelbrecht's knowledge, after the time?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I have no doubt due to the nature of the official prevention or precaution and that this developed into an embarrassment for the police, this was launched from head office. I had absolutely no doubt that it came under his attention.

MR HATTINGH: And was there any stage at which you were addressed by him or any officers on a higher level, that you had disregarded the direct order of a direct commander?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Were any disciplinary steps taken against you at any time?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Perhaps I may ask you this. As you heard the later evidence, if you had not complied with Mr de Beer's request, would this have made any difference to his personal position whatsoever?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I believe that it could most probably have led to an arrest and the revelation of the Security Police and so forth.

MR HATTINGH: But he was not involved in the actual action, he hadn't done anything wrong and he was asking you to do something wrong.

MR DE KOCK: No, his own personal position ...(intervention)

MR HATTINGH: Yes, I wanted to know what would have happened to him personally.

MR DE KOCK: No, he wouldn't have lost his job, they wouldn't have removed him from Komatiepoort.

MR HATTINGH: And he would not have been addressed on a disciplinary level?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.

MR LAX: Just one thing arising, Mr Hattingh.

Mr de Kock, isn't it so that de Beer took steps either at the same time that he spoke to you, or maybe just after, or maybe just before, it's not clear from the record, that he'd already spoken to some of his black members to say "Listen, this man just escaped, you make sure that you go and tell the family that and you go and do the necessary entries in the OB and so on".

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, with respect, all that happened the next day. If I recall the evidence correctly.

MR LAX: Except that it's from the judgment that I read this and just to - if you'll let me complete what I'm saying.

MR HATTINGH: Sorry, I do apologise.

MR LAX: De Beer during the course of the night called Mnisi in. During the course of that very same night he called Mnisi in and he gave him a whole range of instructions which he refused to obey, and it's clear from the judgment. If you like I'll read to you, but you can rest assured I'm not misleading you. So the point is, de Beer by that action he was already in it up to his eyeballs so to speak and whatever steps he may have taken - yes, he wasn't directly responsible for the assault on the man, but he was certainly implicated in trying to cover up the whole operation.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, yes, I would not be able to express any judgement about that because I only began to activate my dealings from the telephone call onwards. Whether they detained the man for two days or where they detained the man is something that I cannot comment on, I don't know what the nature or the duration of it was.

MR LAX: No, it's just clear from the judgment that these things happened in a combined course of events. These people saw this deceased lying in the tent or in that, whatever it was, the eating area, the one chap even felt for a pulse, they were shocked, they were concerned about it and then de Beer started telling them what to do and they just refused and he threatened them in the end.

MR DE KOCK: I would accept that, Chairperson, but as I've said it was only from the telephone discussion onwards that I entered the scenario.

MR LAX: No, thanks, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: May I, arising from Mr Lax's questions, ask one question, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Certainly.

FURTHER EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Thank you.

Mr de Kock, these facts which have just been put to you with regard to de Beer's attempt to persuade the blacks to accompany him on his story, did you know about this when he spoke to you?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

MR SIBANYONI: We've heard evidence before that Vlakplaas was approached by other units of the police to assist, was that assistance in respect of only political issues or matters or it also included ordinary criminal matters?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, all of it was political by nature.

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: I think for the sake of the record we should perhaps place on record that in bundle 2 at page 142 onwards, where they deal with what happened there, what happened with Mnisi.

Thank you.

MR DE KOCK: Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps this would be a convenient stage to take the adjournment.

MR SIBANYONI: Your full names please, Mr Klopper.

KOBUS KLOPPER: (sworn states)

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you, you may be seated. He is sworn in, Chairperson.

EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chairperson.

Chairperson, with your leave, the evidence regarding Mr Klopper's initial application was placed before you yesterday. I'm just going to be very brief in this regard.

Mr Klopper, we have already presented evidence regarding the first application and the mention of so-called informer fees which is embodied in that application, the preamble to your supplementary amnesty application before this Panel.

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: The particulars that you provide pertaining to the matter of Sweet Sambo, appear on page 62 up to and including page 66 of your amnesty application, is that correct? That would be your supplementary amnesty application.

MR KLOPPER: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: Do you confirm the particulars embodied within this document?

MR KLOPPER: Yes.

MR LAMEY: And is it also correct that the extract of your evidence during the de Kock trial, has been placed in a separate bundle before the Committee, and reference can be made to this evidence in as far as the Committee may require to do so?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Now just to come very briefly to one particular aspect, you were called to Col de Kock's residence, is that correct?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: And when you arrived there, did you hear what it was about?

MR KLOPPER: I was contacted telephonically by de Kock and instructed to go to his residence. I cannot recall precisely what was said to me on the phone, but after I received the telephone call I went to his home and this was on a Thursday evening.

CHAIRPERSON: Thursday?

MR KLOPPER: It was a Thursday evening, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: Did you remain there or did you go with him anywhere?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, as far as I can recall, Mr de Kock and I went together to Gen Engelbrecht, and this was the first occasion upon which I visited Gen Engelbrecht's home, that is why I recall this specifically.

MR LAMEY: And can you recall where it was, where it was situated in Pretoria?

MR KLOPPER: If one drives past the Fairy Glen Pick 'n Pay, it would be in that area. Fairy Glen, towards the right of the Pick 'n Pay in Fairy Glen.

MR LAMEY: Once you arrived there, what did you do?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, I remained in the vehicle, Mr de Kock and Engelbrecht stood at the gate discussing the incident. And on the way to Engelbrecht's home I was informed of the circumstances, that Flip de Beer and the others had made a mistake as it was explained to me that somebody had died during interrogation.

MR LAMEY: You state in your statement that Capt Flip de Beer was at that stage the Commander of the Security Branch at the Lebombo border post.

MR KLOPPER: Yes, at the Lebombo border post near Komatiepoort, he was the Commander of the Security Branch there.

MR LAMEY: You did not hear the content of the discussion between Col de Kock and Gen Engelbrecht, is that correct?

MR KLOPPER: As far as I know I was not present during the discussion.

MR LAMEY: Can you recall at which stage you received the instruction to destroy the body, was it before you went to Gen Engelbrecht's home or subsequent to this visit to Gen Engelbrecht's home?

MR KLOPPER: I'm not precisely certain whether it was before we got home that I was informed that we would be destroying the body, but I think it was on the way back to de Kock's residence that I was informed that we would use the buddha method to destroy the body.

MR LAMEY: Were you under the impression when you departed from Gen Engelbrecht's home and when you received the order that you had to destroy the body of a person who had died during detention, that this order came from Gen Engelbrecht?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, my impression after we departed from Gen Engelbrecht's home was that it enjoyed his full approval.

MR LAMEY: Was anything to the contrary communicated to you?

MR KLOPPER: As I've stated, this is the impression that I was under, it was the first time that I heard that Mr de Kock had decided upon his own initiative to do something like this. I believed to this day that it had been exercised with Mr Engelbrecht's approval and knowledge.

MR LAMEY: Could you tell the Committee briefly, from that point onwards did you return to de Kock's home and what happened subsequently.

MR KLOPPER: Once at his home the other members were contacted, that would be Snor Vermeulen, Blackie Swart and Chait, they were also instructed to come to his home and all of us were then there.

MR LAMEY: And then what happened subsequently?

MR KLOPPER: From that point onwards we were sent to meet Flip de Beer, and I recall that during the court trial there was some dispute about this. I cannot recall particularly where the rendezvous point would be. I know that we drove in two vehicles, in my vehicle there was Snor Vermeulen and I and then Blackie Swart and Chait drove in Swart's vehicle.

MR LAMEY: Let us just take this briefly. Ultimately you travelled in two vehicles and Vermeulen was with you in the vehicle?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, he was with me in the vehicle.

MR LAMEY: And Swart and Chait in another vehicle.

MR KLOPPER: Yes.

MR LAMEY: And at a certain point you encountered Flip de Beer on the other side of Middelburg.

MR KLOPPER: Yes. As I recall, Swart and Chait were not with me and Snor when we met the persons. If one drove past Middelburg, there was a garage on the right-hand side and we drove there and Flip de Beer and another person arrived there in a regular police bakkie. On the way back to Middelburg, on the left-hand side of the road, we stopped and the body was loaded from the police vehicle into my vehicle. I recall that the body was in rigor mortis and was wrapped in a blanket.

MR LAMEY: You say the body was naked and wrapped in a blanket?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: And you loaded the body into the vehicle?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, I had to put the left passenger seat back so that I could fit the body into the vehicle, and Snor Vermeulen sat behind me at the back. Because the body was already in rigor mortis we could not fold the body as such.

MR LAMEY: And on the way back you once again were joined by Chait and Swart?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Where did you go then?

MR KLOPPER: From there we went back in the direction of the farm. It was very late. I recall that Snor's vehicle was at de Kock's home. We arranged to fetch the vehicle. If I recall correctly, Snor drove with Chait and Swart to fetch the vehicle and we once again met one another on the gravel road leading to Vlakplaas. We went there to fetch the explosives on the farm.

MR LAMEY: Who fetched the explosives?

MR KLOPPER: It was Snor. I cannot recall who was with Snor. And we then loaded the body back into his bakkie. It was kept there with the explosives.

MR LAMEY: Where did you go then?

MR KLOPPER: From there, I cannot recall the particular point in time, but we departed for Verdrag. I specifically drove along with, Swart and Chait were with the body in the bakkie.

MR LAMEY: Can you tell us where Verdrag is?

MR KLOPPER: It is on the way to Thabazimbi, past Warmbaths. It is actually closer to Thabazimbi than Warmbaths, it is in that environment in the Northern Province.

MR LAMEY: Is it a police training camp?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, it is a police training area.

MR LAMEY: And once you arrived there, did you need to make arrangements to obtain access?

MR KLOPPER: Yes. I recall that we arranged that Chait and Blackie would drive up and down in the road with the body in the bakkie and Snor and I would enter the training area. There was a Captain there, I cannot recall his name, we had to obtain permission from him to use the explosives range. I know that he told us that our explosions should not be too big because there were students who were being trained there and in the past they had explosions that were just too big and they caused considerable damage in the area, that is why we had to promise that the explosion would not be too big. I recall that Snor was familiar to these persons, they knew each other.

MR LAMEY: And ultimately you obtained access?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And did you then destroy the body there by means of explosives?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct. There was a handgrenade range and the range which they used for explosive scenes. We placed the body there. As I've said it was already in rigor mortis. We placed the explosives on the body and detonated the explosion.

MR LAMEY: And these explosions were repeated a number of times?

MR KLOPPER: Yes.

MR LAMEY: That was to completely destroy the body so that no traces of the body could be detected in the area.

MR KLOPPER: Yes, we had to do so on various occasions. I know this is quite shocking. With the initial or first explosion one would find quite large pieces of the body remaining in the area and as one collected these remains, one would re-explode them.

MR LAMEY: Very well. I don't think it's really necessary to go into all the finer detail of the matter, but this was then conducted and after you were finished there, what did you do then?

MR KLOPPER: Once we were finished and there was no evidence remaining ...(intervention)

MR LAMEY: This was on the Friday?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, it was on the Friday because we drove through on the Thursday evening. Yesterday I consulted the computer and ...(intervention)

MR LAMEY: Was this with the 1991 calendar?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, it was a Thursday evening that we drove to fetch the body and the destruction then took place on the Friday.

MR LAMEY: And once you had completed destroying the body, did you go to any place to have drinks?

MR KLOPPER: From that point onwards, Snor and I went back to the Verdrag training area, to the administrative base and we had a few drinks with the people there and thanked them for the use of the farm and handed the keys back, and from that point onwards we went back to Pretoria. I think it was dark when we returned to Pretoria.

MR LAMEY: This was the Friday?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And did you then report any further on the course of the operation?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, on that very same evening I reported to Col de Kock that everything had been achieved successfully.

MR LAMEY: Very well. Could you tell us furthermore, whether there was any discussion regarding this matter between you and Col Herman du Plessis?

MR KLOPPER: What I recall is that on the Monday after the incident, Gen Engelbrecht and Col de Kock were not in Pretoria, they were at some or other conference or something like that. We went to head office every morning because we would have to meet with senior officials there every morning ...(intervention)

MR LAMEY: What was your rank at that stage?

MR KLOPPER: I think I was a Lieutenant. Willie came to me and said that Col du Plessis asked him whether he knew anything about this body and Willie said that he didn't know, he was told to ask me because I was a more senior member. Col du Plessis called me in and I told him yes, this is what happened and that it wasn't necessary for him to worry about anything. He still told me that we would have to inform the Generals because there would be a press conference and he had to give them the assurance that nothing would be traced back to the police's side, and that is when I gave him the assurance.

MNR LAMEY: "En hy het vir u gesê hy moet verder rapport maak aan die Generaals?"

MR KLOPPER: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: You also state in your statement that there was quite a lot of publicity in the media due to the disappearance of the person.

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And that the Detective Branch as well as the army were looking for this person and you heard that the person that they were searching for went by the name of Sweet Sambo.

MR KLOPPER: Yes, the first time that I heard his name was in the press, but I recall that there was an extensive search under the leadership of the then Col Alberts.

MR LAMEY: Very well. And then with regard to the political objective as you have set it out on page 65 and 66, do you confirm this, do you confirm that you regarded it in that light?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, that is correct. If a member of the Security Branch would be arrested and convicted, such as in the case of Nofomela and Coetzee, it would have a domino effect or a snowball effect on the Security Branch, and I think that the risk would have been tremendous for us.

MR LAMEY: And this was seen in the light of the repercussions or the political repercussions which it would create if the circumstances surrounding the death of the person were ever to come to light and more specifically, the role that the Security Branch under the leadership of Flip de Beer, had played in the whole matter?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: You request amnesty for the offence of accessory to murder, defeating the ends of justice, desecration of a body or any other offence or unlawful act which may emanate from the evidence presented here. We could add to that Mr Klopper, under the circumstances, the illegal possession and/or application of explosives, which would be a transgression in terms of the Explosives Act.

MR KLOPPER: I've not discussed this with my legal representative, but I was a trained demolition’s expert, Snor Vermeulen and I, perhaps Chait as well, but Swart wasn't, but under that legislation we were in legal possession of explosives as far as I'm concerned. Perhaps the application was unlawful.

MR LAMEY: Yes, but the application for this purpose.

MR KLOPPER: That would then be so.

MR LAMEY: Yes, the possession of the explosives per se, would then not be unlawful if it was kept by the Security Police or Vlakplaas under those circumstances.

Thank you, Chairperson, I've got no further questions.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Chairperson.

Mr Klopper, can you recall what time it was on the Thursday evening that you received this call from Mr de Kock?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, I cannot recall exactly. I recall that Swart was at my residence with a friend of mine and from there I was called. It's difficult to give you the time, but it was during the evening.

MR HATTINGH: Your evidence during the trial was that you received a radio-paging message.

MR KLOPPER: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And you also testified during the trial that you did not immediately react to it because it was after hours and you continued with your social event there at your flat.

MR KLOPPER: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And at a stage you were asked about time - now I am not certain according to your statement, if the time you refer to here is the time that you received the call or the time that you reacted on the call.

MR KLOPPER: I cannot recall what time it was, Chairperson. What I said in court is closer to what I have can say now, not so much time had elapsed.

MR HATTINGH: I will find the passage now, but one of these events took place at 8 o'clock that evening.

MR KLOPPER: That's possible, that's correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Is it possible that only 8 o'clock that evening you went to Mr de Kock's house?

MR KLOPPER: That is possible, Chairperson. If I recall correctly, I saw in Gen Engelbrecht's statement that I made an entry in my diary at that stage and the entry indicated 8 o'clock, so it is quite possible.

MR HATTINGH: So would that be the time that you arrived at Gen Engelbrecht's house?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, the time that I went to Col de Kock's house and from there we went to Gen Engelbrecht's house.

MR HATTINGH: Does that mean that the radio page message was received before 8 o'clock?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And probably quite a while before 8 o'clock that evening.

MR KLOPPER: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: So it was early evening that you received this call from Mr de Kock, or the message on the radio pager?

MR KLOPPER: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And you have already said that this was the Thursday evening.

MR KLOPPER: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: You don't know whether Mr de Kock was in contact with Col Herman du Plessis on the Friday?

MR KLOPPER: I don't know, Chairperson, we spent the whole day at Verdrag that Friday and we only returned that evening, so it is possible.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, because I get the impression from your evidence, Mr Klopper, that the enquiries that Col du Plessis directed at you indicates that he either knew or had a suspicion that the police could have been involved.

MR KLOPPER: Yes, that was my impression, that he had a suspicion that we were involved, but the impression that I had was that he was not sure.

MR HATTINGH: And the feedback that he had to give was for purposes of the press conference and he had to assure the police that this incident would not return to the police.

MR KLOPPER: Yes, that is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: So he suspected police involvement or he knew of it.

MR KLOPPER: My impression was that he suspected it and he wanted to set it up as such so that he could deny the whole incident.

MR HATTINGH: As a member of Vlakplaas you were also involved in the investigation into smuggling of weapons, specifically in the Skwamaans area.

MR KLOPPER: That's correct, at several occasions. That's correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And you applied for amnesty with regard to an incident that took place at this base?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And is it correct that - I'm not entirely certain if you testified to this effect, but during the hearing of that incident there was evidence that the weapons that entered the country at that point eventually ended up in the hands of the political factions on the East Rand.

MR KLOPPER: Yes, that's correct. As Mr de Kock had said, it also landed up in the hands of criminals.

MR HATTINGH: But it also had a political connotation? ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR KLOPPER: That is correct, yes.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman, we have no further questions.

MR CORNELIUS: I have no questions, thank you, Mr Chair.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS LOCKHAT: Thank you, Chairperson.

You said when you went to Engelbrecht's house you were in the car, that's right?

MR KLOPPER: That's correct.

MS LOCKHAT: Did you actually get to see Mr de Kock and Mr Engelbrecht talking?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, although it was evening they were standing next to the gate and talking, and what I can recall is that de Kock was on the outside of the gate and Engelbrecht on the inside of the gate, but I did see both of them standing there and talking although I could not hear what they were saying.

MS LOCKHAT: Because just in the criminal trial you weren't too certain whether you saw Mr Engelbrecht, can you comment on that?

MR KLOPPER: I cannot comment on that, but what I recall today is specifically that that was as it was, Chairperson.

MS LOCKHAT: Just for page reference, number 30 of bundle 2, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct - no microphone)

MS LOCKHAT: That's correct. Where he states that - it's line 31, where he states that he didn't see whether it was Gen Engelbrecht or not. Just line 31. Shall I read it out, Chairperson or is it necessary?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, may I say that it's as if I saw him standing there and he was waiting standing there. That is the impression that I have of it.

MR LAX: I've just read through that portion myself and basically it says -

So it's not that clear.

MS LOCKHAT: Ja, and he also goes further and says he didn't actually see the General's face. So he wasn't sure whether it was the General anyway. That's just ...

MR KLOPPER: That's correct.

MS LOCKHAT: So we can conclude that you're not certain whether you saw the General or not.

MR KLOPPER: No, but it was said to me that it was Gen Engelbrecht's house and at a later stage when I was at his house I did see that it was his house. But at that stage it was so, yes, as I understood it.

CHAIRPERSON: I think if one looks at that evidence it's fair to say it is clear he saw somebody talking and he wasn't sure if it was the General or the General's wife, but assumed it was the General.

MS LOCKHAT: That's correct, Chairperson.

When Mr de Kock was finished talking to the General, Engelbrecht, did he tell you what the conversation was about, did he say yes, he had authorised it?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, I cannot recall what he said verbatim, but the impression that I had and what I believed up to a moment earlier, was that the circumstances were explained to the General and that it had his approval that we would dispose of the corpse.

MS LOCKHAT: I just want to get just the one issue regarding just the corpse. Was the body very bruised and injured? Because I'm not too sure. Can you just give us just the evidence on that?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, what I do recall is that there were lots of marks on the body, specifically the day - because it was during the day when we eventually embarked on the destruction, there were lots of marks on the body. The head was quite swollen, but I recall lots of marks and the swelling of the head of the body. It was clear to me that this man was tortured quite a lot.

MS LOCKHAT: Just regarding Mr du Plessis's meeting and your meeting, at page 64 of your application, that's bundle 1, you said du Plessis had come to Vlakplaas and he'd asked you -

MR KLOPPER: Yes, that is correct.

MS LOCKHAT: Did he ask you as a general thing if everything went well and then you had informed him of what happened, or can you explain that to us?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, as I have explained to you, he spoke to Willie Nortje first and when Willie Nortje did not have any knowledge of this and he referred him to me, he spoke to me. But as I have tried to explain to you yesterday, it was not necessary to explain or ask pertinently in Afrikaans. By means of language use and in our own type of language which we understood among each other, it wasn't always necessary to ask directly, but that was what was asked of me and I told him everything was clean there and they would not find the body.

MS LOCKHAT: You also said that you suspected that he had an idea that Vlakplaas was involved in this.

MR KLOPPER: Yes, my impression was that he suspected that we were involved, but that he did not know, he did not pertinently know but he did suspect and I could confirm this suspicion of his.

MS LOCKHAT: So would you think that Mr de Kock had spoken to him previously regarding his attitude?

MR KLOPPER: My personal impression was no, nobody spoke to him beforehand. And as I have said to you, my recollection was that Engelbrecht and de Kock were not there during that time and that he was in overall command of C Group at that stage.

MR LAX: Except to say this much, that the words you've used here are that he said to you "Did everything go well?" So I mean, if he asked you "Did everything go well?", he's referring to a specific instance that he clearly knows about.

MR KLOPPER: No, Chairperson, if that is how I expressed myself, it was incorrect. My impression was that he did not know pertinently whether we were involved, that's why he asked Willie and that Willie referred him to me. But my impression was that he suspected that we were involved and that I then said to him everything went well and everything was destroyed, the body was disposed of. ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR LAX: So it was you who said to him everything went okay.

MR KLOPPER: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR LAX: He didn't ask you whether everything went okay?

MR KLOPPER: No, that is why I say my impression was that he did not know whether we were involved there or not.

MS LOCKHAT: And then just the last issue. You said that he was - was he going to report this to the Generals afterwards?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, what my recollection is - and I think it was Gen le Roux that he mentioned to me, who was lying on his neck to find out whether they knew anything about this so that could have a press conference and that the police would deny all of this and that the man did not die in police detention and so forth, Chairperson.

MS LOCKHAT: And which branch was Gen le Roux at?

MR KLOPPER: He was part of the Security Branch, Chairperson.

MS LOCKHAT: Was that at head office?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, that was at Security Head Office. This is the Maponya le Roux that Mr de Kock always refers to.

MS LOCKHAT: Thank you, Chairperson, I have no further questions.

MR LAX: Mr Klopper, isn't it correct that you're relying on the fact that you got an instruction to do this?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, that is correct, Chairperson, but you must understand the culture of the police in general, not necessarily the Security Police, but the culture of the police was as such that we would protect each other. For example, when I used the "ranks" as such I was an outcast and there was a whole system that worked against me, from all levels. You don't work like this, you protect each other. That is the whole culture of the police since those days and I think that today it is still like that, that you protect each other. So it is not necessarily about an instruction itself, the instruction did lend a hand, but that's how it went.

MR LAX: I'm just looking at your political objective, which is quite detailed and wondering whether at the time it even entered your mind or whether it's something you've ex post facto sat down and thought about. You know if you got an instruction to do something, you wouldn't have said no to Col de Kock.

MR KLOPPER: Definitely not, never. Yes, that is correct, but you must understand it was difficult circumstances at that time. This was after Mr de Klerk's address, the police were in the spotlight, the CCB had been exposed, and we learnt to protect each other and we did succeed in this.

MR LAX: I understand the culture, I'm talking more about this fairly elaborate set of reasoning you've developed here for political objective and I mean at the time when you were told to go and do this, you probably didn't sit down and say to yourself hell, ja, no, this is going to do this and that and develop a whole argument.

MR KLOPPER: Entirely correct, you are correct.

CHAIRPERSON: As I understand it, you were all summonsed there that evening, you were told by your commanding officer to go and do something, you believed he had instructions from higher up, so you all went and did it.

MR KLOPPER: Yes, that is correct, absolutely, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Any re-examination?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Just one aspect.

It is indeed so that one - all the information at that stage would not have gone through your mind, Mr Klopper, but isn't it indeed so that when one prepares the application, then one thinks back to the circumstances which reigned at that stage?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, that is correct, and at that stage you were not allowed to think too much, you were just told what to do, you could not think about it, then it would be a problem.

MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chairperson, I've got no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR KLOPPER: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you going to call any ...?

MR LAMEY: No witness, thank you, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: I call Mr Vermeulen.

------------------------------------------------------------------------MR LAX: Mr Vermeulen, your full names for the record.

NICHOLAS JOHANNES VERMEULEN: (sworn states)

MR LAX: Please be seated. Sworn in, Chairperson.

EXAMINATION BY MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Mr Chair. I'll be brief, I think most of the facts before us from now on will be almost on an agreed basis.

Mr Vermeulen, you have prepared an application in terms of Section 18 of the Act, and you have handed it in.

MR VERMEULEN: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: At that stage you were an employee, as described in Section 20(2)(b) and 20(2)(f), Act 34.

MR VERMEULEN: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: You were a member of Vlakplaas, as described in Exhibit A in this hearing and you were of the rank of Warrant Officer.

MR VERMEULEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: You were also an explosives expert or an explosives inspector.

MR VERMEULEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: And at all times, as the Honourable Member Mr Lax said, you acted in the execution of your instructions.

MR VERMEULEN: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: And it is also common cause before this Amnesty Committee, that you received an instruction to go along with Swart and Chait to the house of de Kock.

MR VERMEULEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: And you were given instructions there to assist with the destruction of the body of Sweet Sambo.

MR VERMEULEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you bona fide believe that this instruction came from a higher authority and that you acted against the so-called political enemy of the country?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, that is correct, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you have any ill-feelings towards the particular victim?

MR VERMEULEN: No, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: Except for your salary that you received, did you receive any other reward, bonus or reward?

MR VERMEULEN: No, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: Very well. I want you to very briefly -after the body was collected, did you obtain explosives?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: What did you obtain?

MR VERMEULEN: I obtained explosives at Vlakplaas. It was not prepared, it was pieces that we had taken from old landmines and commercial explosives. It was approximately 20 to 25 kilograms.

MR CORNELIUS: Was this TNT?

MR VERMEULEN: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: And it is common cause that you transported it and took it to Verdrag. What did you do with the corpse and the explosives?

MR VERMEULEN: We laid out the body and we placed the explosives on top of the body and we detonated it several times.

MR CORNELIUS: Was the body clothed, it did not have any clothes on?

MR VERMEULEN: No, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you place it in a hunched position?

MR VERMEULEN: No, Chairperson, it was lying flat.

MR CORNELIUS: And rigor mortis had already set in.

MR VERMEULEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: You apply for amnesty before this Committee, for accessory to murder, transgressions with regard to the Explosives Act, with regard to the transport of explosives.

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: As well as all delicts which might emanate from acts or omissions committed by you.

MR VERMEULEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: I take it it's all delicts committed by you in connection with this offence?

MR CORNELIUS: Oh yes.

CHAIRPERSON: You're not asking for a ...

MR CORNELIUS: No, I'd love to do it on a broader basis, but no, this is regarding this offence. Thank you, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Any questions?

MR HATTINGH: No thank you, Mr Chairman.

MR LAMEY: No questions, Chairperson.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS LOCKHAT: Just one question, Chairperson.

When you got the instruction from Mr de Kock, did he tell you that he'd received authorisation from Mr Engelbrecht or anybody else? When you received the instruction, the initial instruction.

MR VERMEULEN: No, Mr Chairman.

MS LOCKHAT: So you just - you were just told you must go out and dispose of the body?

MR VERMEULEN: That's correct, Mr Chairman.

MS LOCKHAT: I've got no further questions, thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: I take it that was the normal practice at Vlakplaas.

MR VERMEULEN: That's correct, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: De Kock gave the orders, he didn't have to explain to you where or how he got them, he just told you what to do.

MR VERMEULEN: That's correct, Mr Chairman.

MR SIBANYONI: I suppose you didn't have any removal order to transport the body from Middelburg to Verdrag? Maybe your attorney will look to that, there is an offence of transporting a body without a removal order.

MR VERMEULEN: No, we didn't have a ...

MR SIBANYONI: You didn't have an order.

MR VERMEULEN: No, Sir.

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. I take it you have no re-examination.

MR CORNELIUS: There's no re-examination, thank you, Sir.

MR VERMEULEN: Thank you.

MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Mr Chair. My next applicant will be Swart, J J Swart.

MR SIBANYONI: Your full names, Mr Swart.

JOHANNES JAKOBUS SWART: (sworn states)

MR SIBANYONI: Please be seated. Sworn in, Chairperson.

EXAMINATION BY MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Mr Chair.

Mr Swart, you have handed up a proper application in terms of Section 18, and you were an employee as described in Section 20(2)(b) and Section 20(2)(f) of Act 34/95, is that correct?

MR SWART: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: You were also a member of Vlakplaas, as prescribed, and you had the rank of Constable, is that correct?

MR SWART: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: You have already heard the evidence that was led here this morning, and at all times you acted within the scope of your duties in the execution of your instructions from Col de Kock, is that correct?

MR SWART: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you bona fide believe that you acted against a political enemy of the country in the execution of your duties?

MR SWART: Yes, I did.

MR CORNELIUS: You knew the instruction or request came from Security.

MR SWART: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: You worked on a need-to-know basis at all stages and you did not put questions to Mr de Kock with regard to his instructions, is that correct?

MR SWART: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you have any ill-feelings towards the victim, Sweet Sambo?

MR SWART: No, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: Except for your salary, did you receive any remuneration or reward for your services rendered?

MR SWART: Not at all.

MR CORNELIUS: Insofar as it has regard to the evidence of Klopper and Vermeulen, you confirm the contents of your application and you agree with their evidence, is that correct?

MR SWART: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: You apply here for amnesty for your participation as an accessory in a murder, defeating the ends of justice and possible transgressions of the Explosives Act, and delicts which might emanate from acts and/or omissions of this particular incident, is that correct?

MR SWART: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Mr Chair.

MR HATTINGH: I have no questions, thank you, Mr Chairman.

MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chairperson. I've got no questions, I just want to put on record there are certain minor differences about which vehicle, where they got each other. I'm not going to put that, thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: I think we must bear in mind that we're talking of something nine years ago and for people to remember precisely who was in what car at what stage of the journey, is ... Right, questions?

MS LOCKHAT: No, thank you, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: That concludes our presentation, thank you, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: I have one question I meant to put to your previous applicant, but I see he's left us.

MR CORNELIUS: He is available, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Is he? Well could you recall him for one moment.

MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: I've got no questions for this applicant.

MR CORNELIUS: I'll do so.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh wait a bit, no, sorry, it's Mr Klopper I want back.

KOBUS KLOPPER: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Klopper, there's one question I just wanted to clarify with you and that is, you said in your application, page 65, that when you were being told what had happened at the border post - this is the Sweet Sambo thing at the bottom of page 65, isn't it?

MR KLOPPER: That's correct, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: ... that Mr de Kock also told you that alcohol played a role in the behaviour of the younger members.

MR KLOPPER: That's correct, Chairperson. When Flip Hattingh - may I put it, when I received the body I could clearly see a bottle of liquor on the front seat and it was clear that alcohol did play a role here, not only with regard to the what the accused but I saw it myself.

MR LAMEY: You probably mean Flip de Beer, not Flip Hattingh.

MR KLOPPER: Ag, Flip de Beer, I beg your pardon, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And Mr de Kock had told you this, he knew that the alcohol ...(intervention)

MR KLOPPER: That's correct, Chairperson, my impression was that Flip de Beer conveyed it as such to Mr de Kock.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR KLOPPER: Thank you, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: That completes the applications and I think, the applicants.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible)

MS LOCKHAT: No, thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: That completes this hearing, save for the question of argument. Now it struck me, subject to what any of you gentleman, lady, may have to say, we have discussed the matter and we are of the view, subject of course to anything Mr Hattingh may say, that we do not require any further argument from the other applicants, but we would from Mr Hattingh, but that it might be more convenient to him and if he wished to do so, to submit it in writing where he can give us the page references to the passages referred to and matters of that nature. I don't expect or ask for a long detailed argument, merely a reference or references. Would that suit you, Mr Hattingh, or would you rather do it orally now?

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, quite frankly, I'd rather do it orally now, but I'm quite prepared to do it in writing if you could just give me an indication on what matters you'd like me specifically to deal with and to give references to.

CHAIRPERSON: Well we started with Mr de Kock referring to his volume on Vlakplaas, which is what, 150 pages.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, it is, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: It's largely that we don't have to go through the whole of that. It's of that nature, that merely where you have referred us to. We've got quite a few volumes of Mr de Kock's and obviously they don't all apply to everything and it's merely just to save time if you could let us know which pages they are if you want us to have a look at them.

MR HATTINGH: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: If you don't, fair enough.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, I don't think that I'm going to be that long and I think that I can give you the page references at this stage.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, carry on.

MR HATTINGH IN ARGUMENT: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Chairman, perhaps I should start off by giving you the page reference to the document "Vlakplaas". The first one that I would like to give you deals with the exercise of own discretion and that you'll find on page 60 of that particular document. It starts off there by saying that -

And then it continues along this line. Then it refers on page 61, to the evidence that Gen van der Merwe gave in front of the, I think it was the Commission, the Truth Commission, as to the - that they expected of people of lower ranks, also to use their own discretion and not always to wait for instructions in this regard. Now that's what I was referring to as far as the discretion is concerned, Mr Chairman.

Now Mr de Kock's evidence was that he discussed the matter with Mr Engelbrecht and that Mr Engelbrecht was of the opinion - I'm not sure how, I can't remember how Mr de Kock expressed himself here, but my overall recollection is that what Engelbrecht said was something to the effect that they should rather keep out of it, that it wasn't in the nature of a specific prohibition for him to become involved. I may be mistaken as far as that is concerned, I'm prepared to even argue on the basis of a specific prohibition.

CHAIRPERSON: I think that would be safer. My recollection is that it was that he told him specifically not to become involved, not that he didn't think he should be.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, Mr Chairman. I think that I may be misled by what he either said in his application itself ...(intervention)

MR LAX: Just to quote from the application -

This is on page 4 -

MR HATTINGH: ...(inaudible - no microphone)

MR LAX: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you. But be that as it may, Mr Chairman, de Kock then considered the matter and with respect, Mr Chairman, if you look at what happened subsequently, he was probably correct in exercising his discretion in the way in which he did. He decided that it would be to the detriment of the Security Police. The political objective was to save the Security Police from embarrassment and the police in general and then of course the government of the day, not because of the fact that Mr Sambo was involved or whether the interrogation related to political activities, it was sufficient for him to know that it was the Security Police who were involved in the questioning, the torturing of the man and that they are responsible for his death, and that if that alone came to light, it would have caused great political embarrassment. And in my submission, Mr Chairman, that constitutes sufficient political objective for him to become involved in the matter and to satisfy the requirements of the Act. I submit therefore, that he clearly had a political objective, he didn't know exactly what was going on there, he was contacted by a colleague in the Security Police, requested for assistance. And in this regard I would like to refer you to the second reference in this supplementary affidavit of Mr de Kock. That you'll find from page 29 onwards, where he deals with the purpose for which Vlakplaas was being put to use.

CHAIRPERSON: When you say supplementary affidavit, are you referring to the Vlakplaas bundle?

MR HATTINGH: Yes, it is described as a supplementary affidavit, Mr Chairman. Page 29 he says -

... and so forth.

And then on page - he gives examples of such incidents, Mr Chairman, and on page 31 he refers specifically to the Sweet Sambo incident, as an example of where Vlakplaas was called in to assist in order to save the Security Police from embarrassment. Naturally that would also have assisted the people in their personal capacities, it would have saved them, but he says he reconsidered the matter and decided that it was in the interest of the Security Police that he should render his assistance.

And if you look at the actions of the police thereafter, it would seem that they clearly thought that it was necessary to try and cover up, which is exactly what they did. Two Generals went in a helicopter to try and cover up. Du Plessis was told specifically what had happened, and if you listen to the evidence of Mr Klopper, Mr Chairman, du Plessis comes to him and he says "Gen le Roux wants to know what he has to say at this press conference, whether he can say that the police had nothing to do with it". He is then, du Plessis is then told "But the police had everything to do with it, we in fact successfully destroyed the body of this person". And I have no doubt - whether that information was conveyed to le Roux we don't know, but I've no doubt whatsoever that le Roux didn't disclose these facts at the press conference which he had subsequently.

So there was a general cover-up right from the top down to Mr de Kock, and it was clearly done because all these policemen were of the view that it was in the interest of the Security Police and therefore of the government of the day, that their complicity in this embarrassing incident should not be brought to light.

CHAIRPERSON: But must we accept that, Mr Hattingh? If the Security Branch had been embezzling money and thought that it was not in the interests of the government that that should come to light, would you say that that is a political objective?

MR HATTINGH: No, no, Mr Chairman, but ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: What they are trying to do it is to cover up their wrongful acts. We know now that this man was killed partially due to the drunkenness of some of the junior policemen. Is that a political objective as expressed in the Act?

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, they may have been drunk at the time when they tortured and questioned him, but the evidence was quite clearly that they were looking for information about firearms.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, about a smuggler who was smuggling for money.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, and ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: And that is not in my view, a political objective in terms of the Act, this is a police function.

MR HATTINGH: Correct, Mr Chairman, but you must look at it from the point of view of Mr de Kock. The Security Police is now involved in the questioning of a person ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, so you must save the name of the Security Police, whatever they've been doing, you must cover up for the Security Police. Isn't that the position, Mr Hattingh, and that's what worries me. It is precisely because he wanted to cover up for his own people.

MR HATTINGH: That he certainly wanted to do and that all his superiors who became aware of the facts of this incident, they also seemed to want to cover up. But Mr Chairman, the facts also show that the police were involved in interrogating this person, and at the time the interrogation of people in custody which led to their death by the Security Police, that was the sensitive aspect of the whole matter.

I'm not for one moment saying that if the police had become involved in corruption or anything of that nature, that they would have covered it up, but precisely because of the Steve Bikos that happened in the past, no doubt the ANC would have made great capital of this incident and they wouldn't have asked themselves whether the Security Police were involved in doing their jobs or merely covering up for another offence, they would simply have said look, this is another incident where the Security Police take a person, try and beat a confession out of him, kill him in the process and then destroy his body.

CHAIRPERSON: And isn't that normal criticism of any normal people throughout the world? Here is another instance of police brutality that must be condemned. It's not political, Mr Hattingh.

MR HATTINGH: With respect, Mr Chairman, from de Kock's point of view, he was under the impression that it was political. And I submit that ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: The criticism of the police for killing somebody in custody is political?

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, criticism of the Security Police.

CHAIRPERSON: It doesn't matter what branch of the Police Force it is.

MR HATTINGH: With respect, I ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: It's - members of the Police Force kill somebody in custody, is that not something subject to criticism anywhere in the world?

MR HATTINGH: Yes, it would have been subject to criticism, Mr Chairman, but it would have been subject to criticism by the public in general. But if it's the Security Police, then the political organisations would have made, and quite justifiably so, would have made great capital out of those facts, they would have used it to their political advantage to say, "This is what your Security Police, who were placed there to look after the political security of the State, this is the sort of thing that they are doing. And I submit that that is sufficient to constitute a political objective, Mr Chairman.

MR LAX: Mr Hattingh, sorry, if you'll just allow me to interpose. There's no evidence before us that the political parties went crazy over this issue, Mr Sambo wasn't a political member, the human cry was in fact raised by Alberts himself and that's been confirmed by your client. So you know, the flyers that were prepared were distributed to farms and farm workers in the area, it wasn't like this was a big political issue, this was an issue to try and find a man who had disappeared.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, I have to go according to my memory here and I must state this fact first. One should be careful not to rely only on the facts that have been placed before you as far as the criminal proceedings are concerned, because not all of those facts have been placed before you, you haven't got the whole record, you haven't seen the evidence of the witnesses as such.

My recollection, and I don't wish to give evidence, but my recollection is that political parties also climbed on the bandwagon and raised questions and criticised the police, that they also came to the assistance of the widow of Mr Sambo. I may be wrong, but that is my recollection. The fact that there is no evidence before you doesn't prove that Mr de Kock at the time when he decided to assist, didn't have form that opinion. That is the stage that one has to look at, the stage when he performed the act for which he is now seeking amnesty. And at that stage, that was his way of thinking.

One must bear in mind that he didn't have all these facts that we now have at the time, he merely had a request from a colleague in the Security Police that - "We've been interrogating a person, we went too far and the person was killed, help us to get rid of the body". Isn't that sufficient for him to say "Well if these facts have to come to light, then there is going to be great embarrassment for the Security Police and I had better assist"? And that in his own mind therefore, he thought that he was assisting the Security Police to avoid a great political embarrassment for them. And I submit that he has made out a case for that, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Right, thank you.

MR HATTINGH: If you are with me on that, then I submit, Mr Chairman, that he has satisfied all the other requirements for amnesty, he's made a full disclosure of all the facts known to him and ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I think it's clear the full disclosure, there's no personal gain.

MR HATTINGH: No personal gain, anything of that nature. And I submit therefore, Mr Chairman, that he has made out a case for amnesty and we apply therefore for amnesty for Mr de Kock for all offences and delicts arising from the death of Mr Sambo.

CHAIRPERSON: I have a request to address to all of you in this regard - I'm using the excuse that I'm going to be staying in Pretoria and don't have access to any statutes or anything, but if any of you do - I don't know if my colleague has the statute, the statute about transporting bodies, if that is something that an application is being made for, if you could just let us some stage have a reference to the Section of the Act, ...(indistinct) of the Act. I think the rest we know, but this is one that I was not aware of before.

MR HATTINGH: I'm not aware of it either, Mr Chairman, but I will see what I can do about it.

CHAIRPERSON: There's no rush about it, but if you could.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, gentlemen. And thank you all for your assistance today, I had thought that we would be proceeding longer than we have, but with the co-operation of all of you we have managed to get through it very quickly and this means we now adjourn till Monday morning. Are any of you here on Monday morning? We will not start before 10 o'clock, we may be in fact a little bit after 10 o'clock, depending on South African Airways and similar things, but certainly not before ten on Monday morning.

MS LOCKHAT: Thank you, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Thank you.

MS LOCKHAT: All rise.