Amnesty Hearings

CHAIRPERSON: Good morning everybody. Today we are continuing with the hearing and Mr Hattingh is still cross-examining Mr Nortje.

Mr Nortje, I remind you you are still under your former oath.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you Mr Chairman.

WILLEM NORTJE: (s.u.o.)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: (cont)

Mr Nortje, before we continue with the course of events, may we just return to one of the aspects to which I have received a reference and this is the telephone discussion that you had with Mr de Kock from Gen le Roux's office, when you informed Mr de Kock, or requested him, to come to Krugersdorp. May I ask you to study bundle 3(b) at the bottom of page 13, the last paragraph. You were asked:

"To torture him until he talks?"

and you say,

"Yes, and at that stage I said 'No, I cannot continue, I'll have to inform the accused about the situation' and he was as Zeerust. How I knew that, we were personally in contact with him every day and on that specific day'", excuse me, "'when I specifically called that day from the General's office, I found him at Zeerust and I told him, just quickly explained to him over the telephone and he said that very well, he will come through, we have to wait for him,' because I told him then, 'listen we may have to take this may away if he does not talk' in other words we would have to abduct him and speak to him and if he does not want to talk, we may have to take him away. That is the idea that I already had in my head."

Did you tell that to Mr de Kock during this telephone discussion?

MR NORTJE: That is the explanation I gave.

MR HATTINGH: So in the office of Gen le Roux you tell him that you will have to take the man and if he won't talk you would have to take him away, meaning that you will have to kill him?

MR NORTJE: I don't know whether I used those specific words and what I have said here was an explanation.

MR HATTINGH: It was an explanation to whom?

MR NORTJE: To Mr de Kock. I cannot believe that I had given him that detail there.

MR HATTINGH: So why do you say here that that is what you said to him?

MR NORTJE: I don't know. I cannot answer that.

MR HATTINGH: You don't know. Very well, I won't deal with that any further. A second aspect, you say that the panel van which you found him in at the river, you saw the same vehicle in Krugersdorp earlier that day?

MR NORTJE: I imagine that I saw it that day. I believed that I saw it there that day.

MR HATTINGH: Would you have a look at the same bundle, bundle 3(b) on page 15, at the bottom of the page. I ask you the following question, I think this is still evidence in chief, you were asked

"Can you tell us what happened at the farm when you arrived there? What did you do?"

and you say,

"Well it is difficult to remember exactly what I did, but I know I went down to the river. The kombi was there, but he was, or they had put him into another kombi, one of these that is a Volkswagen kombi with an elevated roof. It's higher than the normal kombi, it was specially built for operations, because one could stand upright in it and he was in that kombi."

And now it seems as if he was not in the same kombi as the one you saw earlier in Krugersdorp, or what is the position? You are here in evidence in chief and you say this from your own, that they had him in another kombi, what did you mean by that?

MR NORTJE: I may have contradicted myself but I think it was the same kombi.

MR HATTINGH: You mean it's the same kombi, but you say they put him into another kombi. Is that what you are saying?

MR NORTJE: No, there was only the one kombi.

MR HATTINGH: And consequently, yesterday I told you that, or we concluded with the subject that there was actually no love lost between yourself and Mr de Kock, do you recall that?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: I want to refer you to bundle 1(b), page 339. Maybe I should start at the bottom of page 338, that's where the sentence starts,

"We all knew that when de Kock took such a decision, nobody would dare to go against him and question the decision. At Vlakplaas, already before de Kock's time, there was a culture existing that ANC activists and MK members would be eliminated and if any commander would be, anybody in command, any commander in the position of de Kock would have to prove himself to his seniors as a capable person to continue this task at Vlakplaas. I am also aware that de Kock himself wanted to prove himself towards the others."

What can you say about that?

MR NORTJE: That was my personal opinion.

MR HATTINGH: So that was just an opinion?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: How long were you at Vlakplaas when this incident happened?

MR NORTJE: One year.

MR HATTINGH: Approximately one year?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And what knowledge did you have at that stage? I am not asking about the knowledge that you had at that time, but what knowledge did you have about people who had been eliminated?

MR NORTJE: Not where Mr de Kock had been involved, but there had already been incidents.

MR HATTINGH: That you had personal knowledge of?

MR NORTJE: Of what I heard.

MR HATTINGH: So that would be hearsay?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: So now you're saying that it was just your opinion that Mr de Kock had to prove himself to his seniors to prove that he could, that he is capable of handling the situation. So do you think he was not a capable person when he was appointed to the position?

MR NORTJE: I don't know.

MR HATTINGH: What was the rank of his predecessor at the stage when Mr de Kock took command over at Vlakplaas?

MR NORTJE: I think he was a full colonel.

MR HATTINGH: So he as a captain takes over from a full colonel?

MR NORTJE: That's correct, yes.

MR HATTINGH: So that tells one something, does it not?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: May I just arrive at - no I will get to that later. You have often mentioned the final decision that was taken, in your evidence. I think I have already asked you but would you please explain again, what do you mean with the final explanation or the final decision?

MR NORTJE: The final decision that he would be taken away and killed.

MR HATTINGH: When, according to you, was that final decision taken?

MR NORTJE: The morning when he returned from head office, I would say.

MR HATTINGH: And how was this decision taken?

MR NORTJE: By means of the things that he told me.

MR HATTINGH: What did he tell you?

MR NORTJE: That we had to make preparations to take him to Swaziland.

MR HATTINGH: But that is not a decision that was taken, that is instructions given to you.

MR NORTJE: But in my mind that was the final decision.

MR HATTINGH: Was a decision taken beforehand, before that, that the man would be killed?

MR NORTJE: The previous afternoon it was discussed, yes.

MR HATTINGH: And what was said about it the previous afternoon?

MR NORTJE: I don't remember, but I had in mind, I was under the impression that it would happen the following day.

MR HATTINGH: But you say the previous afternoon the decision was taken?

MR NORTJE: Yes, just after the assault and when he spoke to Kleynhans he pertinently said, I cannot recall the words, but it was clear to me that it would happen. But it was not, that is why I say the final decision that we go over to the deed that we made plans, it was after he came from head office the following day and I was under the impression that he received permission.

MR HATTINGH: But did you not make plans the previous evening?

MR NORTJE: Yes, I would say plans were made, but the final decision had not been taken.

MR HATTINGH: The plans that were made the previous evening were that instruction was given to some people to not return to work the following day.

MR NORTJE: Yes, that was Mr de Kock's decision.

MR HATTINGH: Was that part of the planning?

MR NORTJE: It could have been, in his mind, yes.

MR HATTINGH: Would you want to describe it as anything else than planning?

MR NORTJE: It could have been part of the planning.

MR HATTINGH: And Dunkley and Kleynhans were also asked to come along?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: So that's also part of the planning?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Now in your evidence in chief before this Committee according to my notes, and as I have said previously it goes quickly and one takes telegram-style notes and if you differ from me then I invite you to put me right, according to my notes you told me, this is with reference to the events down by the river the previous evening, that as far as you can recall de Kock said that you must discontinue and you would not get any information from him. Is that correct?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And according to my notes you say that he spoke to Dunkley and Kleynhans?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And then my note reads: At that stage already you had an idea and you interrupted yourself and you said that de Kock must have told me, or words to the effect, that another plan should have to be made.

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Now there you used the expression that you use so often "must have told me". Did he tell you?

MR NORTJE: I believe that he told me.

MR HATTINGH: Now you substitute the must with a believe?

MR NORTJE: Well he must have told me, that's where I had the idea from and once again, in my mind, he must have received further approval or he would have received further approval.

MR HATTINGH: Because he did not have permission from Gen le Roux?

MR NORTJE: I don't believe that was his, that would have been his final decision after Gen le Roux told him, or apparently told him or whatever the case may be, how he explained it, but I assumed that he would first obtain permission from head office.

MR HATTINGH: And according to my note you also said: I had the idea that he would be killed. We could not release him.

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Was it just an idea or was it told to you?

MR NORTJE: It was things that he told me. I cannot exactly recall now, but I would assume that that is what he told me.

MR HATTINGH: And now I draw the inference that as you sit here, that your evidence here about the events there is based on inferences that you drew and deductions that you made and conclusions that you reached, because you cannot recall exactly what he said.

MR NORTJE: No.

MR HATTINGH: Well, I asked you to questions and you answered no. Let us break them up into single questions. I told you that I deduced that your evidence here of the events there is based on conclusions that you have reached and inferences that you drew. Am I correct?

MR NORTJE: Because I cannot recall the words, but what had happened there is as I remember it.

MR HATTINGH: So the second part of your answer is that you cannot recall exactly what he said?

MR NORTJE: Well I cannot recall his words, but it boiled down to that was his plan and what the circumstances were there and I deduced that it would happen, but as I said.

MR HATTINGH: I refer you to page 16 of bundle 3(b). Near to the end of that page, the second last paragraph, the State Advocate tells you that

"Yes, but you knew what would happen the following day" and you say,

"Yes, well he told me that we must make a plan or find a place to get rid of the man" and you were asked "Was this the evening or the morning?"

"Well he could have told this to me the evening, but it was general, that is what I already knew, that that is what would happen. We had already started or we had decided that that is what would happen."

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Now when had you decided that is what would happen?

MR NORTJE: Well I can once again say it was discussed the afternoon when he told Kleynhans and he told me. I had the idea that it would happen. The following morning when he returned I realised that that was the final decision and it would happen. That is all I can say.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Nortje, as you do here, in your evidence there you often used the expressions "I believe" and "it must have" and I drew your attention to the fact that we want to know what you recall and you must say if you cannot recall and in the light thereof that you used those expressions there, you come here and you say: "yes well he told me we must make another plan or find a place to get rid of the man." Not I believe, or he would have told me. You say here that he did tell you.

MR NORTJE: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: Is that what he told you?

MR NORTJE: He could have told me.

MR HATTINGH: And you are also saying that it was general, "I already knew that that is what would happen. We had already decided that is what would happen", not that we must have decided or that he must have told me. This is a positive statement - we have already decided - so the idea was already there at that time.

On page 91 of the same bundle, now it is I putting questions to you and it still has regard to the conversation the previous evening after the assault at the river and off the top I asked you,

"At which time did this discussion take place where it

was decided that the man has to be killed now" and

you say:

"As far as I can recall it was there at the scene."

and I think there you refer to the scene at the river.

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Was the decision taken there?

MR NORTJE: Well it must have been discussed there, the idea was already there, as I understood it.

MR HATTINGH: On page 92, Mr Nortje, the second paragraph, I said to you

"Now I must tell you Mr Nortje, I am totally confused. Let us start from the beginning. After the assault was ceased it was said at the scene where you were still present, the man will be taken away and killed."

And you answer,

"The man was sent to the house with the black members. We remained at the scene and the accused said to me, that is I am not saying it is exact, the order, but it was too long ago and that is how I recall it and he told me that we have to take this man away. He said to me, I am going to ask these people that they accompany us and hear if they want to come along and he went and spoke to them."

Was it told to you then that you had to take this man away?

MR NORTJE: Well he must have told it to me at that stage, or I had the idea that it would happen.

MR HATTINGH: Let me read to you further.

"And then he spoke to them, the Krugersdorp people, there at the scene but not, I would say, to one side. As I recall he came back to me after a while and he said 'They do not want to come along, but it may be better that they do not come along' and from there we all went along and we went to there..."

and I interrupt you and I asked you :

"Why did he tell you that the man will have to be taken away and killed? It was already decided" and you say "Well this was the final decision".

MR NORTJE: At that moment it was a decision as I say that the following day was the final decision taken. At that moment it wasn't the final decision, I just added it, I just put it in there. That's all I can say.

MR HATTINGH: But what you say there is clear in Afrikaans. It was the final decision.

MR NORTJE: But you have to see it in the context.

MR HATTINGH: What is the context? Are you changing the context?

MR NORTJE: I am trying to explain what the circumstances were.

MR HATTINGH: But Mr Nortje I started by asking you what you mean with the final decision and you explained.

MR NORTJE: Well the final decision was not there.

MR HATTINGH: Mr de Kock, I mean Mr Nortje, please don't interrupt me. I asked you "when was the final decision taken?" and you said "the following day".

Now I read to you that you said the final decision was taken the previous evening at the river. What is the answer?

MR NORTJE: The final decision was taken the following day.

But the decision there was already taken, as I say, but I assumed that he, by that time, did not have permission. He should have informed Brig Schoon about the situation.

MR HATTINGH: So are you saying the decision was taken there, the final decision was at the river ...(intervention)

MR NORTJE: No, the decision was already taken.

MR HATTINGH: Please Mr Nortje, I asked you yesterday, let us not interrupt each other. It just messes up the whole record. Are you saying that the final decision was taken at the river and the only thing that had to happen was that Mr de Kock had to inform Brig Schoon.

MR NORTJE: Well, one can put it that way.

MR HATTINGH: But there at the river the previous evening he says, according to what you concluded, he already informs Kleynhans and Dunkley that the man would be killed and they must come along.

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And I put it to you that all these events took place because it was already decided in Gen le Roux's office that if the man does not talk and he could not be released, then he would be eliminated and that Gen le Roux had given his permission. That is why they so freely spoke about take away and kill there at the river. What do you say about that?

MR NORTJE: I've already explained it yesterday. The perception was already there at that time, but it depended on circumstances.

MR HATTINGH: And then, according to my notes, in your evidence-in-chief you also said that by the river, and I read to you the previous note that I had,

"I had the idea that he would be killed. We could not release him."

and then my note reads:

"...would say that de Kock and I spoke about it, the idea would have come from him"

Did you use those words?

MR NORTJE: It is possible. That was the idea. It is possible that he said to me, that is why I knew what the plans were.

MR HATTINGH: What did you mean when you spoke about the idea? Is it the idea that the man had to be killed?

MR NORTJE: After he was assaulted I had the idea from him, or he told me, that we had to make a plan or whatever the case must have been, but the general idea was already there at that time that it would happen. He discussed it with Kleynhans and once again I say the final decision he had to receive and it was taken the following day.

MR HATTINGH: But the impression that I had from your evidence in chief, and correct me if I am mistaken, is that the idea to kill Mr Maponya after it seemed that he would not talk, was formed there at the river and the idea came from Mr de Kock.

MR LAMEY: Which page?

CHAIRPERSON: He is reading from his notes of the evidence in chief.

MR HATTINGH: I put it to him that is the impression that I had from his evidence in chief.

MR NORTJE: I can once again say that at Krugersdorp the impression was created everybody knew what it was about, but it would still have depended on circumstances and the decision was later taken. I cannot say anything about it any more.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. Now at the river, did the accused, or I mean Mr de Kock, did he tell you that he would discuss the incident with Brig Schoon?

MR NORTJE: I cannot recall that but I assumed that that would be his following step.

MR HATTINGH: According to my notes from the evidence in chief, you gave evidence that Mr de Kock told you that he first was going to discuss the matter with Brig Schoon and that is why you said it as well.

MR NORTJE: I don't believe that in either event, he would have acted solely upon the order of Gen le Roux, whatever he had in mind.

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

MR HATTINGH: Were you told that by him that he would first get clearance from Brig Schoon or did you simply assume that he would do this?

MR NORTJE: I can't recall that he said this to me precisely, he must have said this to me because that is why I have it in mind, but I cannot recall pertinently that those were his words, that he was going to Brig Schoon first. He must have mentioned it at some stage and that is why I have that idea and I knew that that was the way that he would work, or go about it.

MR HATTINGH: On page 96, Mr Nortje, I put to you the version of one of the other witnesses. I'm not certain who it was, it was either Mr van der Walt, or Mr Fourie, but it's not really important who it was. I am going to read it to you. We will determine who it was in a moment, but this is the version of one of the other witnesses which appears on page 6169 of the record. On page 5150 or 5105 he gave evidence as follows, he says, the question is asked,

"Was anything decided as to what would happen to Japie Maponya."

The answer is :

"No, nothing was decided. Col de Kock simply said that he would visit head office the next day, security head office, in order to get clearance as to what was going to happen to the man."

And after I had read that portion of van der Walt's evidence to you, I asked you,

"Did you hear that?" and your answer was,

"I did not hear that".

So, did you mean that you did not hear what van der Walt had heard?

MR NORTJE: No.

MR HATTINGH: At that stage you were much closer to Mr de Kock than what Mr van der Walt was. Mr van der Walt had only been there for a few months.

MR NORTJE: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: And out of the three of you, van der Walt, Fourie and yourself, if he was going to take anybody into his confidence, it would have been you?

MR NORTJE: Yes, that's correct.

MR HATTINGH: And it continued on the same page. I read you the further evidence,

"What happened the following day?"

"The following day I reported to Vlakplaas again. I cannot recall exactly what happened the whole day. We may possibly have gone to Krugersdorp, but later that afternoon, Col de Kock returned from head office and said that the clearance had been obtained from a higher level to have the man disappear and at approximately 6.30 or 7 o'clock after everybody had left the farm, we brought Maponya out of the house."

Did you hear those words?

MR NORTJE: No.

MR HATTINGH: That Mr de Kock came back and said words to the effect that clearance had been obtained from a higher level in order to make the man disappear?

MR NORTJE: No, I did not hear that.

MR HATTINGH: In fact, according to your recollection, did he, Mr de Kock, say anything that would indicate that he had obtained clearance from Brig Schoon or anybody else at head office?

MR NORTJE: No.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. Now you took equipment with, is that correct?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: You say in your evidence in chief, according to my notes, that you took a spade and two jerrycans. That you were certain of the spade but that you were not sure whether you took a pickaxe along as well.

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Why did the idea that you took a pick with you emerge in your thoughts when you gave evidence?

MR NORTJE: Because I imagine that he told me to take a pickaxe and a spade, but I cannot recall that we used the pick at any point, so that's why I'm not sure whether we actually loaded the pick in. When we loaded the spade in we may also have loaded the pick in, but that is as far as I know.

CHAIRPERSON: The question put by Mr Hattingh to you is, why did you mention a pick at all when you were giving your evidence in chief, seeing that you can't remember whether you took it or not.

MR NORTJE: I also had a pick in mind Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And what about a fork?

MR NORTJE: No not a fork. I cannot think that we took a fork along.

MR HATTINGH: Can you recall if you mentioned anything about a pick in your evidence in chief?

MR NORTJE: No, I only spoke of a spade.

MR HATTINGH: And if you spoke only of a spade during that evidence, and I want to put it to you that this is correct, what made you recall that there may possibly have been a pick?

MR NORTJE: I've thought about it and that is basically just the idea that came into my mind, that we took a pick with us.

MR HATTINGH: And if you had taken a pick with you, would it have been logical for you to take it out of the vehicle and take it with you because you were going to dig a grave and the easiest or the best instrument for the digging of a grave would have been the pick.

MR NORTJE: I did not remove the spade and the pick from the vehicle as far as I can recall.

MR HATTINGH: Who did?

MR NORTJE: It must have been one of the other members who carried it. I suspect that de Kock or somebody else carried these items. I had the gun and Japie with me, so I cannot recall that I specifically carried the instrument, or instruments.

MR HATTINGH: So these two jerrycans that you have spoken of here, which cans were these? Were they metal cans or plastic cans?

MR NORTJE: I would recall that they were steel cans.

MR HATTINGH: And what was their capacity to carry petrol?

MR NORTJE: 20 litres each.

MR HATTINGH: So you would have had 40 litres of petrol?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: How far would you have been able to travel with that vehicle?

MR NORTJE: About 200 kilometres.

MR HATTINGH: To Piet Retief and to Nerston, what would the distance have been?

MR NORTJE: About 500 or 600.

MR HATTINGH: Back and forth?

CHAIRMAN: That would be from Pretoria, you're talking about. I think the question was from Piet Retief.

MR HATTINGH: No, from Pretoria to Piet Retief and from there to Nerston and the same way back.

CHAIRPERSON: So you're saying it's about what, one way? What would it be one way?

MR NORTJE: To Nerston it would be about 550 perhaps 600 kilometres, but we drove there, at a stage we must have poured the petrol in and when we returned once again we had to stop at a petrol station in order to get more petrol on the way back.

MR HATTINGH: Did you?

CHAIRPERSON: So the round trip was about 1100 to 1200 kilometres.

MR HATTINGH: Now you said you had to stop again to get more petrol.

MR NORTJE: I cannot recall that we loaded four cans, I think it was only two cans.

MR HATTINGH: Is it possible that it was four cans?

MR NORTJE: Yes, it is possible.

MR HATTINGH: Now during the criminal trial and I refer to bundle 3(b), page 112, you gave evidence on page 112, I said to you,

"How much could such a can hold?"

"I think 25 Litres"

"And how many did you have?"

"I would imagine that we had three, three or four".

MR NORTJE: Yes, that's possible. I'm not dead certain about it.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Nortje, just give me a chance please. You have said at various occasions that you have remembered more details because you have had time to think about it and after you have thought about it so carefully, you recall two cans, whereas there you remember three or four?

MR NORTJE: Well there would have been a reason for that, but I imagined that it was only two. I may have been mistaken.

MR HATTINGH: Who unloaded the equipment that you took with you, when you arrived back in Pretoria?

MR NORTJE: I cannot recall.

MR HATTINGH: Do you know where it was unloaded?

MR NORTJE: No, I assume it must have been on the farm.

MR HATTINGH: And the clothing? Japie Maponya's clothing which you had removed?

MR NORTJE: Mr de Kock told me to go and burn it at a stage.

MR HATTINGH: But what did you do with it when you arrived here?

MR NORTJE: I had it in my vehicle and I would imagine that it was in the boot in a plastic bag. He then told me at a stage to burn it but I didn't, I neglected to do it and after a few days after the incident van der Walt and I went to burn it.

MR HATTINGH: So for a few days you were driving around with this damning evidence in your vehicle, is that correct?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And there must have been blood on this clothing or at least on some of the items of this clothing?

MR NORTJE: No.

MR HATTINGH: The man was struck with a spade. His brains were coming out of his skull, there must have been blood.

MR NORTJE: There was not blood.

MR HATTINGH: Did you look for any traces of blood?

MR NORTJE: Well, I didn't have any blood on my hands.

CHAIRPERSON: If a person has been shot, as you said, at the back of the head and been slammed over the head with the sharp edge of a spade which caused a cut from below his crown up to the centre of his head, wouldn't you expect there to be some blood on the clothing that that person was wearing?

MR NORTJE: Well one would have expected there to be blood.

CHAIRPERSON: What sort of clothes was Mr Maponya wearing?

Can you recall?

MR NORTJE: He was wearing a shirt and trousers, but I can't recall whether at that stage, when we brought him through the fence, whether he was still wearing a shirt then. He was definitely wearing trousers. I would imagine that he was not wearing a shirt.

CHAIRPERSON: But why would you imagine that he was not wearing a shirt? I mean what would have happened to his shirt, because one would have imagined that the would have - he was abducted on the way from work and he was a security guard so one would imagine that he would have been wearing a shirt and probably also a type of a jacket.

MR NORTJE: I don't know, I cannot tell you at which stage the shirt was removed, but I would imagine that he was not wearing a shirt. We covered him with a blanket in the vehicle while we were driving there and I would imagine that he was not wearing a shirt.

MR HATTINGH: When you left from Vlakplaas?

MR NORTJE: Yes. I may be mistaken.

MR HATTINGH: Did you remove his trousers after he had died?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: You can recall that clearly?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: In your evidence in chief you said, according to my notes which I will consult, my notes read: "Japie Maponya's clothing removed, bandage removed, cannot recall shoes." Is that correct?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: You did not say then that he was not wearing a shirt, according to your recollection.

MR NORTJE: No.

MR HATTINGH: You could remember detail to the extent of the removal of the bandage, or the blindfold?

MR NORTJE: He was wearing something around his head because we had to lead him into the field and his head was covered, so we must have removed the bandage because we didn't leave anything there.

MR HATTINGH: And when he was shot and struck with the spade, was he still wearing that blindfold made of bandages around his head?

MR NORTJE: He must have been wearing it.

MR HATTINGH: And then I want to put it to you, that would have been drenched with blood and probably with brain material, if your evidence is correct.

MR NORTJE: But I did not see a mass of blood.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry. Mr Nortje, you mentioned that when Mr Maponya was beaten up in the van etc, tortured, that in your opinion it wasn't so serious because there wasn't any blood at that stage. Bearing that in mind would there have been any need to have removed his shirt? One might have understood that if, during the assault on him at the river, his shirt became bloodstained, okay, take it off. But you said there was no blood there, so I'm just trying to think of any reason why his shirt should be removed. It just seems a strange thing to have done.

MR NORTJE: I cannot explain it. I am not dead certain.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman. If that bandage blindfold had still been on his head it would have been drenched in blood, isn't that so?

MR NORTJE: I cannot tell you. It is possible. There definitely wasn't a mass of blood, I didn't have any blood on my hands. I cannot recall that the blood sprayed on him or anything like that.

MR HATTINGH: Who removed the bandages?

MR NORTJE: I don't know, it may have been Fourie or I.

MR HATTINGH: So you said that there was no blood on your hands?

MR NORTJE: I cannot recall that I had blood on my hands.

MR HATTINGH: But at one stage you stuck your finger into the wound.

MR NORTJE: But there was no blood, not that I saw or felt. I may have wiped my hands, but I did not notice that there was a lot of blood.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you sure that Mr Maponya had this blindfold bandage on?

MR NORTJE: Yes, he definitely must have been wearing it when we led him from the vehicle to the scene.

CHAIRPERSON: My recollection of Mr de Kock's evidence is that after he had been shot, Mr de Kock says after you had shot him, he went to look at the body and the eyes were open or half open. That means he couldn't have seen whether his eyes were open or half open if he had the bandage on, that's why I asked are you sure he had the bandage on?

MR NORTJE: The only inference that I can draw is that during the situation there on the ground, the bandage must have come off because I know that at a stage we saw his face, or that his face was open, or at least I saw him from the side because as he lay there, the bandage was already off, so in the process the bandage may have fallen off when he was struck with the spade and I assume that that is what happened.

MR HATTINGH: Isn't Mr de Kock's version the correct version?

He said pertinently that the blindfold bandage, in whatever form it had taken, ...(end of tape)...the fence and walked through the bushes there?

MR NORTJE: No I would rather say that at that stage he still didn't know what was going to happen to him because when we stood there, Mr de Kock immediately began to clear the ground and it was an uncomfortable situation for all of us.

MR HATTINGH: Once again you are speaking of things which have nothing to do with the question. It's not necessary for you to reiterate certain details. The question is simply that Mr de Kock said that the blindfold had been removed to enable him to walk, what do you say about that?

MR NORTJE: Well, it's a possibility but I can't agree with it completely because it doesn't make any sense to me.

MR HATTINGH: Why doesn't it make any sense to you?

MR NORTJE: Because we didn't want him to see where he was going, one attempted to keep it as far away as possible from him until the very last?

MR HATTINGH: Why? Within a question of minutes from there he would die?

MR NORTJE: I think it was just the question of humanity.

MR HATTINGH: Humanity? So you wanted to withhold the fact that he was going to die from him?

MR NORTJE: Up until the very last moment, yes, that was my idea.

MR HATTINGH: I still wanted to look for it and it has escaped me, but one of the witnesses, either Mr Fourie or Mr van der Walt, in response to a question put by Judge van der Merwe, said that on the way there you spoke about the fact that he was going to be killed and this filled Judge van der Merwe with disgust.

MR NORTJE: No, I can't believe that we would have discussed it, it doesn't make any sense to me.

MR HATTINGH: But here is the ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: There couldn't have been much of a sense of humanity prevailing there, surely, at that time. I mean, you'd taken this man, you've got a decision to kill him, you've got the spade, you may have had a pick to dig the grave, you've got your two guns with silencers, you're climbing through the fence, where's the humanity there? Where's the slightest semblance of humanity? You're saying that you were acting humanely by keeping his blindfold on so he wasn't seeing the place where he was going to be executed?

MR NORTJE: Well those were my thoughts, Mr Chairperson. MR HATTINGH: On the way there he lay at the feet of Messrs Fourie and van der Walt.

MR NORTJE: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: And there wasn't that much room between the back rest of the front seat and the back seat itself for a person to lie down without the persons who were seated on the back seat having to place their feet on top of him. Isn't that so?

MR NORTJE: I don't know where they placed their feet, I cannot give any evidence about that?

MR HATTINGH: I'm not asking you if you know whether, or where they put their feet, I just want to know if there was any other room for them to put their feet if there was a person lying in the foot space, as the evidence indicates.

MR NORTJE: I cannot give evidence to that effect.

MR HATTINGH: I will return to the issue of the removal of the clothing and the question of humanity that you have just referred to. I want to deal with what happened to the items when you returned. For a few days you drove with the items of clothing in a plastic bag in your car and then you went and burned these items of clothing.

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: What happened to the spade?

MR NORTJE: I don't know what happened to the spade.

MR HATTINGH: The spade must have had remnants of tissue and blood on it and that was definitely damning evidence.

MR NORTJE: We must have gotten rid of it at a point.

MR HATTINGH: Gotten rid of it or cleaned it?

MR NORTJE: I don't know.

MR HATTINGH: You cannot recall today what happened to that portion of damning evidence?

MR NORTJE: No.

MR HATTINGH: Is the reason why you cannot remember not the fact that the spade remained behind with Freek Pienaar at Piet Retief?

MR NORTJE: Well it wasn't his spade, so I cannot see why we would have left it there.

MR HATTINGH: Very well.

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon. Why isn't it possible that the spade may have been given to Pienaar for him to get rid of, rather than travelling with an item containing brain tissue and blood?

MR NORTJE: Firstly, it wasn't his spade.

MR MALAN: Yes, but what did you want to do with the spade?

MR NORTJE: I didn't think of the spade or what we were going to do with the spade after the time, I didn't think about it again. I cannot recall that I was the one who destroyed the spade, or got rid of it, or cleaned it, I can't recall anything like that.

MR MALAN: So you don't know if the spade was indeed left with Pienaar. Your evidence was that it was not his spade to begin with, so it wouldn't have been left there.

MR NORTJE: There is a possibility that we may have left it there.

MR MALAN: Isn't there a possibility that it may have been Pienaar's spade?

MR NORTJE: No, the reason why I say that is because I know for a fact that we brought it from the farm with us.

MR MALAN: But you cannot recall whether there was a pickaxe as well, you said that it's possible, or not, but you do recall the spade definitely?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hattingh.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you Mr Chairman. Just to follow up on Mr Malan's questions, you say that you wouldn't have left the spade with Mr Pienaar because it wasn't his spade, but in the same breath you say that you had to get rid of the spade, so the value of the spade played no role in your mind, is that so?

MR NORTJE: No, there must have been some value attached to the spade, but I never had anything further to do with the spade.

MR HATTINGH: Would you dispute that Mr de Kock took the pick and the spade into the bush with him?

MR NORTJE: No.

MR HATTINGH: Would you dispute that he took a pick, a spade and a fork with him into the bushes?

MR NORTJE: I would not dispute it.

MR HATTINGH: You cannot dispute it?

MR NORTJE: No, I cannot dispute it because I cannot recall.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. Let us deal with Mr Pienaar's situation somewhat. You say that Mr de Kock asked you to get Pienaar on the line for him.

MR NORTJE: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: And you did so?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And you say here in your evidence in chief according to my notes, that you knew what his request would be towards Mr Pienaar and that is why you did not stand by during the discussion.

MR NORTJE: No, I wasn't standing next to him and listening to what he was saying. I knew that he was having a discussion with the man and I basically knew what he was going to say to him, or at least what it was going to be about.

MR HATTINGH: My notes read: "knew what request would be, did not stand by" and the impression that that created in my mind and if it is a misimpression please say so, the impression was that either you weren't interested in the discussion or that you specifically didn't want to listen to the discussion. Are either one of these two propositions possibly correct?

MR NORTJE: I cannot say that I didn't want to hear. This was a discussion that he had with him and he knew what he wanted from him. I did not listen to the discussion.

MR HATTINGH: But it sounds to me as if you specifically wanted to distance yourself from the discussion.

MR NORTJE: No.

MR HATTINGH: Then why was it necessary for you to add "I knew what the request would be and I didn't stand by during the discussion". Why was that necessary?

MR NORTJE: Because I could not recall the precise wording of their discussion. I knew what the discussion was about.

MR HATTINGH: But had anybody asked you what the discussion had been about at the stage when you uttered these words?

MR NORTJE: No, I cannot recall.

MR HATTINGH: Then I want to put it to you that you were not questioned, because if you had been questioned about this I would understand it, but without being questioned about what the discussion was about you said, out of your own volition that you did not stand by during the discussion, that you knew what it was going to be about.

MR NORTJE: It must be something that is unclear.

MR HATTINGH: So you didn't hear anything of this discussion?

MR NORTJE: I cannot recall.

MR HATTINGH: Is it possible that you may have heard a portion of the discussion?

MR NORTJE: All that I can say is that I knew that he was speaking to Freek Pienaar because I got him on the line and that was in that rondavel, that's where the discussion took place.

MR HATTINGH: Did you leave the rondavel?

MR NORTJE: I suspect so. I may have been standing in the doorway.

MR HATTINGH: Well if you'd been standing in the doorway you would have heard what Mr de Kock said.

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Did you hear what he was saying?

MR NORTJE: No, I simply heard that he was speaking to Pienaar but I did not listen to the specific discussion, I did not stand by during the discussion.

MR HATTINGH: According to my notes you said that you knew what the purpose of the discussion was.

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: What was the purpose of the discussion?

MR NORTJE: That Freek had to find a place, or identify a place, where we could possibly take someone to. He couldn't have told Freek that we had somebody whom we had to get rid of, he must have led him to understand that we were looking for a place in Swaziland. But that was what the discussion would have been about, the idea that we had to identify a place where we could get rid of a person.

MR HATTINGH: I find it interesting that you use the phrase "he had to identify a place", that he had to name a place where you could go to get rid of him. Is that what you are trying to say?

MR NORTJE: Yes, well the reason why we approached Freek was because he knew the area and he would have known best where to do something like this.

MR HATTINGH: Didn't you and Mr Fourie work on the Swaziland border previously?

MR NORTJE: Yes, I presume that he must have. He spent quite some time in Piet Retief.

MR HATTINGH: Didn't he know the area well?

MR NORTJE: I don't know whether he knew the area that well because it is just logical to me that we would have asked Freek. He understood the circumstances on the border and at the border posts.

MR HATTINGH: Precisely, and that is where you are placing the finger on the pulse exactly. You wanted to find out from Freek what the circumstances were there, not where there was a place where you could get rid of somebody. Isn't that the answer Mr NORTJE?

MR NORTJE: No.

MR HATTINGH: Then why did you mention that Freek would be the logical person to describe the circumstances to you?

MR NORTJE: Because he would know what was going on there.

MR HATTINGH: What do you mean? What do you mean when you say that he would have known what was going on there? What are you referring to?

MR NORTJE: Well the movements of the police, or the military or whoever may be there. The dangers that we may have encountered there.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, Mr Pienaar would have known about that.

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And Mr Fourie, even though he knew that area very well, was at that stage based at Vlakplaas and he would not have possessed such information, is that correct? It's a simple question Mr Nortje.

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: I want to put it to you that that was indeed the purpose behind the telephone call to Mr Pienaar, to determine the movement patterns of the troops and the police at the border, not to find a place.

MR NORTJE: Well, I had no reason to implicate Freek if we had done it ourselves. I don't know why it is being denied, I don't know what the reason behind that is. He went with, he was there. Freek showed us the place.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. The discussion took place and after the discussion Mr de Kock said something to you. Where were you when he informed you about the discussion with Mr Pienaar?

MR NORTJE: Well it was there on the farm.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, we know it was on the farm, but where on the farm?

MR NORTJE: I cannot recall.

MR HATTINGH: I beg your pardon?

MR NORTJE: I cannot recall.

MR HATTINGH: So you cannot recall that he was in the rondavel?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: But you know that he came to inform you as to what exemption was achieved as a result of the discussion?

MR NORTJE: Yes. I cannot recall precisely what he said, but he basically said in words to that effect, that it was okay.

MR HATTINGH: What was okay?

MR NORTJE: That he would find a place for us, that he would show us where the place was. At that stage I'd already assumed ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Mr Nortje. When you say Mr de Kock came and said it's okay, did he say "it's okay, he will show us a spot" or did he just say "it's okay" and then you assumed that he was meaning that he would show a spot.

MR NORTJE: Yes, that is how I accepted it, that he would show us the place. It wasn't said that he wasn't going with and that we had to go on our own. I assumed that he was going with on that evening. I didn't understand ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: So all that Mr de Kock said after speaking was, "it's okay"?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR MALAN: Mr Nortje, why isn't it possible that he would have said "it's okay, there aren't any movements"? If de Kock had come to you and said something about police and military movements on the border and that Freek had said that it was safe, wouldn't Mr de Kock also have said to you then "Freek Pienaar says everything is alright"?

MR NORTJE: The idea that I had at that stage, after I had spoken to him ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: No, I'm sorry for interrupting you, I'm not asking for your idea that you had, I am asking whether or not Mr de Kock had a discussion, according to his evidence, to make inquiries about movements so that he could determine whether or not it was safe to visit the border at Nerston.

MR NORTJE: No, he didn't say that to me.

MR MALAN: I know he didn't say that to you. He had a discussion with Pienaar and according to his evidence about that, Pienaar said to him, according to his evidence, that there weren't any movements, that it was reasonably safe, or that it was safe. Wouldn't he then also have said to you "Pienaar says it's alright", wouldn't he have used the same words? Why wouldn't he have used the same words? Pienaar says it's alright, we can come.

MR NORTJE: It's possible that he may have said that.

MR MALAN: Then it's possible that that may have been the content of the discussion.

MR NORTJE: That was not my understanding of it.

MR MALAN: Yes we know that, but we are speaking of possibilities.

MR NORTJE: Yes, it is a possibility.

MR MALAN: Because that is the question that Mr Hattingh is putting to you. Thank you.

MR HATTINGH: You didn't hear what Mr de Kock said, so you don't know what was discussed?

MR NORTJE: No.

MR HATTINGH: So thus you cannot dispute Mr de Kock's version of what was said?

MR NORTJE: No.

MR HATTINGH: Now your evidence during the court case was somewhat different. Page 17 of bundle 3(b), there in the middle of the page, I put it to you,

"after he, that is the accused, had spoken with Freek Pienaar, what did he say to you?"

"No, he told me that Freek said we could come, that he had a place for us." I ask you

"A place, what sort of place?" and you say

"A place to get rid of the body if we have to shoot him."

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Is that what Mr de Kock said to you?

MR NORTJE: Well, it came down to that.

MR HATTINGH: But you have just said that you cannot recall what the discussion was, that he told you that it was alright that you could come, or words to that effect.

MR NORTJE: As I have said I cannot recall the precise choice of words, but the effect was that Freek had agreed to find a place where we could get rid of the body, where we could leave it.

MR HATTINGH: Mr NORTJE earlier in your evidence you also said, specifically with reference to this incident, and also in general, that such matters such as the killing of persons, the shooting of persons and the tracing of a place to get rid of these persons would not be the subject matter of a telephone discussion and according to the evidence that you gave here, it would appear that Mr de Kock said to Mr Pienaar, "listen here, we've got a person that we need to shoot and we need a place where we can get rid of his body".

MR NORTJE: No, I don't believe that he would have said that.

MR HATTINGH: I beg your pardon?

MR NORTJE: I don't believe that he would have said that over the phone.

MR HATTINGH: Then how would he have said it if he came back to you and said, "Freek said we can come, he has a place for us, a place to get rid of the body, should we have to shoot him".

MR NORTJE: Well, that is how I explained it.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, I know that that was your explanation of it, but my question to you is, how could you have said that?

MR NORTJE: That was my understanding of it. Once again I will say that I cannot recall the specific words which he used, but the idea which I had then is what I have stated there, that Freek understood that he should have a place ready, that he will be able to take us to a place and that was the idea that I had then and that is how I expressed myself.

MR HATTINGH: When you arrived at Freek's house in Piet Retief, is it correct, according to your evidence in chief, that he was already waiting for you? Is that correct?

MR NORTJE: Yes, I would imagine that when we arrived there he came walking out of the house.

MR HATTINGH: So by nature of the situation he would have come walking in the direction of the vehicle?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Did you go into his house?

MR NORTJE: Not that I can recall.

MR HATTINGH: So according to your recollection, any discussions which took place, took place outside the house in the vicinity of your vehicle?

MR NORTJE: I would imagine that Mr de Kock climbed out of the vehicle and that they had a discussion to one side and that they re-entered the vehicle.

MR HATTINGH: Once again, Mr Nortje, it would sound to me as if you want to distance yourself from any discussion that took place there, because you remained in the vehicle and you will probably say that you did not hear what was said during that discussion. Is that correct?

MR NORTJE: No, I did not hear what they were saying.

MR HATTINGH: Why didn't you hear?

CHAIRPERSON: You said you would imagine that Mr de Kock would have got out of the vehicle and spoken to Mr Pienaar. Why would you have imagined that? Why wouldn't you imagine that Mr Pienaar got in the vehicle and the discussion took place there? The one is just as logical as the other. The one notion isn't absurd, neither of them are, so I just want to know why you would imagine that he would have got out and spoken to him?

MR NORTJE: I assume that Mr Pienaar already understood at that stage what it was about. Mr de Kock would briefly have informed him. I cannot recall that we discussed those details in the vehicle. I am not certain. I did not pay attention to that, but I would assume that he must have been informed at a certain stage, it must have been said to him that this man was in the vehicle and we did not discuss openly where we were going, he must have just said, "follow this road, turn there".

MR HATTINGH: You're telling a whole long story again, we will get to that.

MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, he gives an explanation, with all due respect, as to, he was asked about the two scenarios and he's giving the explanation. It's really unnecessary for my learned friend to make that comment.

MR HATTINGH: He was asked about the discussion at the vehicle, he wasn't asked about the rest of their journey or what Mr Pienaar may have said to him. This is about the discussion at the vehicle and that is very clear.

MR NORTJE: I beg your pardon. I said that I assumed that Mr de Kock disembarked there and briefly spoke to him. I cannot recall it specifically because I did not notice it. I don't know whether he was briefly informed outside the vehicle, or inside the vehicle. My logical inference is that he must have had a discussion with him outside the vehicle first.

MR HATTINGH: Why couldn't Mr de Kock have informed him in the vehicle.

MR NORTJE: Due to the fact that Maponya was in the car.

MR HATTINGH: But that was the precise reason why he was seated in front, so that Maponya couldn't hear you.

MR NORTJE: Well, I didn't hear the discussion outside the vehicle. I'm saying it's simply an inference that I'm drawing. I cannot recall that they discussed it specifically inside the vehicle or what was said, I simply know that Mr Pienaar showed us the way to Nerston.

MR HATTINGH: Can you truthfully say that Mr de Kock disembarked from the vehicle and that any form of discussion took place outside the vehicle between him and Pienaar?

MR NORTJE: No.

MR HATTINGH: And if one had spent so much time travelling in a vehicle, it would have been logical to climb out and stretch your legs?

MR NORTJE: Yes, that's logical.

MR HATTINGH: Did you do this?

MR NORTJE: I cannot recall disembarking.

MR HATTINGH: Did any of the others disembark?

MR NORTJE: Not that I know of.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. Now without going back into the house, Pienaar climbed into the vehicle?

MR NORTJE: Yes, that's correct as I remember it.

MR HATTINGH: Did you see him lock up his house when he came out? Did he appear to be ready to go somewhere?

MR NORTJE: I don't know but he was already dressed.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. Now you say that you recall that he sat in front? How certain are you of that?

MR NORTJE: I cannot recall that he climbed into the back.

MR HATTINGH: Do you recall that he climbed into the front?

MR NORTJE: I would imagine that he climbed into the front because that would have been the logical place for him to be seated if there was going to be a discussion between us and him or him and Mr de Kock, then.

MR HATTINGH: If three people sat in the front of the vehicle, it would have impeded the driver's management of the gear lever.

MR NORTJE: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Has that vehicle got a bench seat?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Are you certain that he climbed in or is this just another one of your inferences, or your impressions?

MR NORTJE: No, I am certain that he climbed into the front.

MR HATTINGH: So your are certain that he climbed into the front. Very well. Previously in your evidence during the de Kock trial, did you mention anything about Pienaar climbing into the front of the vehicle?

MR NORTJE: No, there I may have said that he could have sat at another place, but today it is logical to me that he must have sat in front. I cannot understand why he would have climbed into the back of the vehicle, because as I have explained to you, Mr de Kock would have spoken to him and he climbed into the front. If I had to tell you today, I would say that he climbed into the front.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, but you say that it may have been possible for him to climb into the back? That is what you said during the criminal trial. Why do you say today that you are certain about the fact that he climbed into the front?

MR NORTJE: Because I wasn't certain back then. I may still be mistaken, but this is the only logical explanation that I can give.

MR HATTINGH: That you may have been mistaken regarding the position of Mr Pienaar in the vehicle?

MR NORTJE: Yes, that he sat in front. I would say that he sat in front.

MR HATTINGH: But a few moments ago you said that you were certain that he sat in front.

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: But now you're saying that you may have been mistaken?

MR NORTJE: At that stage when I said it, then I wasn't certain.

MR HATTINGH: When you said what?

MR NORTJE: I don't know what I said. I said that he may have climbed into the back but it doesn't make any sense to me that he climbed into the back.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Nortje, when you said that you may have been mistaken, you refer to the position of Mr Nortje and not what you said during the court trial, the criminal trial. I am referring to Mr Pienaar, I beg your pardon.

MR NORTJE: As I stated today, I believe that he sat in front.

MR HATTINGH: I have the impression that you are afraid that I may confront you with another contradiction from the criminal trial hearing and you have preceded me.

MR NORTJE: I may have said something different during the criminal trial because I wasn't completely certain.

MR HATTINGH: You didn't say something else during the criminal trial, you said nothing about it. You did not say where Mr Pienaar sat.

MR NORTJE: Oh. But I will say it again. My logical inference is that he must have sat in front.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. Why are you saying that he must have sat in front?

MR NORTJE: Well, due to the reason that he had to indicate the road, he had to show the way and Mr de Kock would have climbed into the front with him so that they could have a discussion.

MR HATTINGH: But wouldn't they have spoken outside the vehicle, according to your recollection? What did they have left to discuss in the vehicle, especially if you didn't want Maponya to hear what was being said?

MR NORTJE: I cannot explain that.

MR HATTINGH: But that is your explanation for why he had to sit in front. There had to be a discussion. What was it that had to be discussed?

MR NORTJE: No, I don't know what was discussed there.

MR HATTINGH: That's not the question. The question is why did you say that he had to sit in front because they had to have a discussion? Can you answer that?

MR NORTJE: No.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. My recollection of Mr Fourie's evidence, it is something I have not studied and I may be faulty in my recollection and if so I will correct it later, I recall that he said that he climbed into the back of the vehicle where the petrol cans were, so that he could make place for Mr Pienaar.

MR NORTJE: I cannot recall that. I cannot recall that he sat in the back of the vehicle.

MR HATTINGH: And if that is correct, what makes you so sure that he sat in front?

MR NORTJE: Well, that is his version, I cannot say that it isn't correct, but I say that he sat in front.

MR HATTINGH: Your reason for saying that he sat in front is that you didn't want Maponya to hear what they were saying. Who sat in the middle?

MR NORTJE: Of Fourie and ?

MR HATTINGH: No between de Kock and Pienaar, because you were the driver. No, who sat in the middle in front, Mr Nortje.

MR NORTJE: As I've said, I suspect that it must have been Mr Pienaar.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. And was there a discussion between him and Mr de Kock?

MR NORTJE: I cannot recall.

MR HATTINGH: You cannot recall?

MR NORTJE: No.

MR HATTINGH: You cannot recall anything?

MR NORTJE: I assume that they must have spoken to each other.

MR HATTINGH: But you cannot recall what was said?

MR NORTJE: No, I didn't pay attention to it.

MR HATTINGH: You say you didn't pay attention to it. Is there a reason for that?

MR NORTJE: I didn't pay attention to what they were saying or what they were speaking about. I know that Mr Pienaar showed us the way.

MR HATTINGH: You distanced yourself from what they were speaking about?

MR NORTJE: No, I didn't.

MR HATTINGH: You also said that Mr Pienaar had to show the way?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Had you visited Piet Retief before that date?

MR NORTJE: I knew where Amsterdam was and he had to show me the way from the Amsterdam road.

MR HATTINGH: So you could get to Amsterdam by yourself?

MR NORTJE: I didn't know the bushes. I could get to Nerston police station on my own.

MR HATTINGH: So you could get to Nerston police station on your own, you didn't need directions for that?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And all that Mr Pienaar had to show you was to turn off at the border post. You knew that you weren't going to go through the border post, so you had to go either left or right at the border post.

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And he then told you to turn right?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And you say that you drove to a certain point. Is this a point that he indicated?

MR NORTJE: As far as I know, yes. We drove. We switched off the lights and at a stage he told us to stop, when we could no longer see as a result of the lights being switched off.

MR HATTINGH: Or, you had to drive until you could no longer see the lights, that is your version.

MR NORTJE: Yes. There were people who could have been living in Swaziland who could have noticed us there, so that was the basic idea. He would know where there were places where there were no people around.

MR HATTINGH: But you said that you drove until you could no longer see the lights, not until you reached a specific place.

MR NORTJE: No, we drove until we could no longer see the lights of the police station.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, and that is when he told you to stop.

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And on the way there, did you see any houses alongside the road, or alongside the border?

MR NORTJE: No, I cannot recall. When I was there later during the day, I saw that there were houses not far off.

MR HATTINGH: Yes and you know that Mr de Kock had previously visited the Nerston border post, isn't that so, before that date?

MR NORTJE: I suspect so, yes.

MR HATTINGH: Have you heard his evidence that there was a place where you could simply drop the fence and drive over the border?

MR NORTJE: When he and I were together we never went over the fence at Nerston. We would drop the fence at other border posts and cross over.

MR HATTINGH: Did you hear him say that there was a place near Nerston where he could drop the fence and cross the border?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Would you dispute that what he says there is correct?

MR NORTJE: No.

MR HATTINGH: And if it is correct, then he must have visited that area previously?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And in order to cross the border fence, he must have followed that road?

MR NORTJE: Well I wasn't with him when he was there at that specific place, or at that specific section of the border.

MR HATTINGH: Then why, Mr Nortje, was it necessary for Mr Pienaar to be present, if we accept all of this?

MR NORTJE: As I have said, to show us a place where we could leave the body.

MR HATTINGH: And you knew how to get to Nerston and Mr de Kock knew the way to Nerston as well and Fourie knew the way there as well.

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, we've handed to Ms Lockhat a bundle of photographs of the area. I wonder if I may have an opportunity to refer to them?

CHAIRPERSON: Certainly. Are these the photographs you mentioned I think it was on the first day, and we said that we'd just circulate it amongst the people.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, thank you Mr Chairman. May I just explain? These photographs were taken at an inspection that was held by Mr de Kock's legal representatives, being myself, my Junior and Mr Hugo next to me, as I recall, shortly before the criminal trial commenced. At that time Mr de Kock was in prison and he didn't get bail, so he couldn't accompany us and we didn't have anybody to show us any spot where the incident occurred. We relied on information which Mr Nortje mentioned in his statement, and he's made reference to that already in his evidence here. He estimated the distance from the road in his statement, about 5 kilometres.

CHAIRPERSON: Well it's varied, I've heard 3.7, 3 to 5 whatever.

MR HATTINGH: Based on that we took photographs of the area in the proximity of roughly 5 kilometres from the area. These photographs do not depict the actual area where the incident occurred. We took various photographs on route to the area of the - and you will see that when we show you these photographs.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Have you see them Mr Lamey?

MR LAMEY: I've seen them Mr Chairman. I haven't - I saw it actually after - during cross-examination of Mr Nortje, I had an opportunity to look at that. I think it would be, perhaps a suggestion on my part, that that be placed before the Committee. There's a specific reason why I ask that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, just as long as there's no objection. There's no objection from anybody else. Are we up to Exhibit E, I think?

MR HATTINGH: Might this be a convenient stage to take the adjournment.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we'll refer to those photographs as E and then whatever page you're on, 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5, whatever.

Yes, I see it's now 11 o'clock. We'll take a 20 minute tea adjournment.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

WILLEM NORTJE: (s.u.o.)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY Mr HATTINGH: (cont)

Thank you Mr Chairman. I wanted to deal with the photos, Mr Nortje, and I think most of them will not be relevant to this incident. The photo 5A which I show to you now, is a photo which indicates the border between South Africa and Swaziland, with Swaziland on the left hand side and the Republic on the right hand side.

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

MR HATTINGH: Photo number 5B also shows the border.

MR NORTJE: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: And 6A shows another place at the border fence with trees on the one side, that's on the Swaziland side.

MR NORTJE: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: And now we cannot say how the trees were there 10 years before these photo's were taken. Can you give us an indication, with reference to photo 6A, the height of the trees there, the trees in the plantation where you took Mr Maponya, in comparison with the height of the trees here in photo 6A?

MR NORTJE: I took the investigative team to the scene and that was about 10 years ago and the trees seemed, or seemed like they were cut down and they started growing, but the original trees were taller than those in photo 6A.

MR HATTINGH: 6B shows the border fence and I want to arrive at a photo where one can see the border post. On most of these photo's one sees the road where you drove along, is that correct?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And now on photo 16A, 16B, one sees a house on the Swaziland border of the house, which is quite close to the border. And on 17A one sees a house reasonably close to the border. Yes, it seems as if it could be the ruins of a house.

MR NORTJE: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: And on 18A one sees a house close to the border.

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And then on 19B, this is the first photo which is really relevant for these purposes. This indicates the road turning off close to the Nerston border post, that was close to the tar road.

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And that indicates how the road goes from there and one could see the safety fence around the border post there and the high lights, the poles with the lights, there next to the border post, which we have already mentioned. Photo 21B shows a military vehicle, I think you would call it a Buffel.

MR NORTJE: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: And it goes, it was on the way to the road where you went into and as it drove there, you came along the tarred road which is visible on the photo and you went along there.

MR NORTJE: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: And photo 22B indicates the border post as one would arrive there.

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And on the right hand side one sees a building with a red roof and before that a pole with a lamp and that is where the road turns off.

MR NORTJE: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: Photo 26B is a clear photo of the fence surrounding the border post and the lights which we have mentioned.

MR HATTINGH: May I hand these up to you Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, continue.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you. So, according to the photo's it is clear that one has to drive to the border post and then turn right.

MR NORTJE: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: And then one follows just the road until you could not see the lights any more from the border post and then you were out of sight?

MR NORTJE: That's correct.

ADV GCABASHE: There is a left turn as well, did you have a choice as to whether you turned right or left? Because you obviously came to a t-junction dead end.

MR NORTJE: As far as I can recall we immediately turned right, there was no left turn.

ADV GCABASHE: So the same little road that went to the right did not go down the left as well?

MR NORTJE: No, not that I knew of.

ADV GCABASHE: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: And I think just for the record, just from these photographs it would seem that the border fence is just an ordinary farm fence. It is not a high fence, it's just 4 horizontal strands of barbed wire, a normal type farm fence.

MR HATTINGH: You have said, Nerston, please just give me the distance in total. You have said it must have been 70, 75 kilometres from Piet Retief?

MR NORTJE: Yes,

MR HATTINGH: You often worked in the vicinity of Piet Retief, is that correct?

MR NORTJE: After the incident I often worked there.

MR HATTINGH: I am talking about knowledge that you have now.

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Indeed the two incidents which the Committee will deal with in Durban, took place in Piet Retief?

MR NORTJE: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: And the incidents are relevant to people who passed the border from Swaziland into the Republic and arrived at Piet Retief.

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: So there - is the border of Swaziland or the border between Swaziland and the Republic as there at Piet Retief, much closer to Piet Retief itself than what Nerston is to Piet Retief?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: This border post where the persons who came through who were shot at, at the Piet Retief incident, can you recall the name of the border post?

MR NORTJE: It was close to Piet Retief, I think it was on the - I cannot recall the post's name.

MR HATTINGH: Have you been to the border post there, the one which you are referring? The Houtkop border post.

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And the size? How does it compare with the Nerston one?

MR NORTJE: It's smaller.

MR HATTINGH: And how far would you say that is from Piet Retief itself, the Houtkop border post?

MR NORTJE: About 30 kilometres.

MR HATTINGH: So it was closer than Nerston was?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And the border there at the Houtkop border post, the border fence is the same as it is at Nerston?

MR NORTJE: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: And during those times, because of the struggle which reigned, the border between Swaziland and the Republic was guarded intensively, is that correct?

MR NORTJE: Yes, that is so.

MR HATTINGH: Military patrols drove all along the border.

MR NORTJE: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: I think at that stage only the police were there, so then it would be police patrols who drove up and down the border?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And for those purposes, like at Nerston, there were gravel roads by which cars or vehicles could move all along the border fence?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: When Mr Pienaar climbed into the vehicle, according to you, Mr Nortje, what according to your knowledge did he know of what you were going to do?

MR NORTJE: That we had a person in the vehicle whom we wanted to leave in Swaziland.

MR HATTINGH: How did you know he knew that?

MR NORTJE: I believe Mr de Kock would have informed him.

MR HATTINGH: But I am asking you about knowledge that you have, not things that you are inferring.

CHAIRPERSON: Wasn't the questions, what did you believe?

MR HATTINGH: No, the question was, what did he have personal knowledge of?

CHAIRPERSON: Did you know what Mr Pienaar knew about the operation when he got in the vehicle? Did you for a fact know what he knew?

MR NORTJE: The only fact that I could say that he knew was that he had to take us to a place close to the Swaziland border and what I assumed was that what he must have known that we had someone in the vehicle.

MR HATTINGH: And now you drive 75 kilometres almost through another fence, while there is another border post closer to Piet Retief?

MR NORTJE: Yes, that is how it happened.

MR HATTINGH: You have already said that you cannot recall whether he was informed in the vehicle about what was going on.

MR NORTJE: No I'm not sure.

MR HATTINGH: And when you arrived at the scene, what was Mr Pienaar's role?

MR NORTJE: I did not notice at that stage, but I know that he and Mr de Kock, when we all climbed out of the vehicle, the two of them walked in front to the border fence.

MR HATTINGH: They walked ahead of you?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And who was the following person who followed?

MR NORTJE: I imagine it must have been me and Fourie.

MR HATTINGH: And where was Mr Maponya?

MR NORTJE: He was with me.

MR HATTINGH: Were you holding on to him?

MR NORTJE: As far as I can recall, yes I was holding on to him.

MR HATTINGH: How were you holding on to him?

MR NORTJE: I was holding him by his arm.

MR HATTINGH: And when you arrived at the fence, how did he cross the fence while he was blindfolded?

MR NORTJE: We lifted up the wire and we helped him through.

MR HATTINGH: Did all of you pass through the border?

MR NORTJE: Yes, as far as I know.

MR HATTINGH: And did all of you go to the place where Mr Maponya was killed?

MR NORTJE: At a stage we realised, oh, I don't know whether it was myself or Mr de Kock, we realised that we could not leave the vehicle alone and we told van der Walt to remain behind.

MR HATTINGH: Who told him, you say us?

MR NORTJE: It must have been Mr de Kock or I.

MR HATTINGH: Can you recall who?

MR NORTJE: No.

MR HATTINGH: Would you have given such an instruction without Mr de Kock approving it or without it being his decision?

MR NORTJE: It's difficult to say now. I don't believe - he would have definitely known about it, it would have been a mutual decision.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you sure that Mr van der Walt was instructed to stay at the car?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: He didn't just do it on his own?

MR NORTJE: No, we were concerned about the vehicle which was there alone and it was decided that he would remain at the vehicle.

MR HATTINGH: Are you sure about that?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And you are sure that he was given instruction to guard the vehicle?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And how far from the border were you when this instruction was given?

MR NORTJE: It must have been, as I recall, we would have just passed through the border fence, it was in between the bush and the border fence.

MR HATTINGH: And that distance there? If you could estimate?

MR NORTJE: It must have been 20 or 30 paces.

MR HATTINGH: And did you see that Mr van der Walt walked back?

MR NORTJE: I didn't notice it but I know he remained behind.

MR HATTINGH: And you walked into the bushes there?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Still with Mr de Kock and Mr Pienaar leading?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And did they stop anywhere?

MR NORTJE: Yes, they stopped at some stage.

MR HATTINGH: And what did they do there?

MR NORTJE: What I can recall is that Mr de Kock took the spade and started clearing the area there. I don't know if I immediately brought Japie closer. I think I held him back a little bit.

MR HATTINGH: No, the question is what did Mr de Kock and Mr Pienaar do there?

MR NORTJE: They were busy clearing the area.

MR HATTINGH: Them, who?

MR NORTJE: Mr de Kock and Mr Pienaar.

MR HATTINGH: Did Mr Pienaar assist?

MR NORTJE: As far as I can recall, yes.

MR HATTINGH: What did he use?

MR NORTJE: I don't know what he used, I did not see. I assumed, because I saw he was standing there and Mr de Kock was busy clearing the area.

MR HATTINGH: Now why do you say that he assisted?

MR NORTJE: Well I assumed he assisted.

MR HATTINGH: Why do you assume?

MR NORTJE: Because he was there.

MR HATTINGH: Is that a logical inference you draw now?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Because he was there, you assumed that he assisted?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nortje when you are giving evidence, rather confine yourself to what you actually know, rather than arriving at conclusions through assumptions because you say you assume that Pienaar was helping him because he was there, but you would agree also that he may not have been helping him. I mean what makes you assume that he was helping? He might have just been standing there. So you see what I mean? It's just wasting time if you come with these assumptions. If you don't know then say so, but just tell us what you actually know rather than what you assume must have happened.

MR NORTJE: I assume, or he was standing there. I was not looking at what he was doing specifically but he and Mr de Kock were there. Mr de Kock was clearing the area and he was standing there.

MR HATTINGH: Could you see what Mr de Kock was doing?

MR NORTJE: Yes, I could see what he was doing. One could hear what he was doing.

MR HATTINGH: So you could hear what he was doing and you could not see Mr Pienaar doing anything? So I would assume that he would not have used his bare hands in clearing the area?

MR NORTJE: One never knows.

MR HATTINGH: Well did he?

MR NORTJE: No.

MR HATTINGH: So Mr Pienaar's role, I am dealing with Mr Pienaar's participation, he walked ahead with the accused and he arrives at a point and now Mr de Kock starts clearing the area. Is that correct?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And thereafter? I will deal in more detail with what happened with the events there, but I am just dealing with Mr Pienaar's role. What, if anything, did he do afterwards with regard to the killing and the burying of Mr Maponya. When I say bury I mean cover up.

MR NORTJE: Nothing that I can recall.

MR HATTINGH: Nothing. So he, as far as you can recall, he fulfilled a passive role. He was there but he didn't do anything?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And after Mr Maponya was killed, he still did not do anything?

MR NORTJE: Not that I know.

MR HATTINGH: And now he walks back with you to the vehicle? He walked with Mr de Kock.

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And from there you drove back. So the sum total of his participation was that it was necessary for him to be present to show you at the Nerston border post to turn right and drive until you are out of the range of the police station's lights.

MR NORTJE: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. I now move away from Mr Pienaar's role and I want to go over to the events there in the bush at the border. You say that Mr van der Walt was told to remain behind and Mr de Kock and Mr Pienaar walked ahead. They arrived at the place. Mr de Kock clears the area and prepares it and what happened next?

MR NORTJE: While he was preparing the place, I cannot recall that we specifically said anything to each other. I made Maponya kneel.

MR HATTINGH: How did you make him kneel?

MR NORTJE: I took him by his arms and I pushed him down.

MR HATTINGH: In other words you forced him to his knees?

MR NORTJE: Well, he was not unwilling.

MR HATTINGH: But you had to use a measure of force to push him down?

MR NORTJE: Yes, I pulled him down.

MR HATTINGH: And now he was kneeling. How far from Mr de Kock and Mr Pienaar?

MR NORTJE: It's difficult to say. I estimate it was between 5 and 10 paces, from here to there at the wire, I am not sure, but it was close to them.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you indicating this wire on the ground here?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: About 5 paces.

MR HATTINGH: Was there a reason why you stopped so far from them with Mr Maponya?

MR NORTJE: Well, in my mind, we did not want to let the man know that we were digging his grave and that is why I wanted to keep him a little away from there.

MR HATTINGH: Do you think that he could not see or hear that this is what was going on 5 paces from where he was in the bush.

MR NORTJE: There was not deep digging or long digging, it was just the leaves and branches which were being cleared away and I cannot recall that he dug a deep hole, it was a shallow hole. The ground was just taken away.

MR HATTINGH: Are you really so naive that under those circumstances, that Mr Maponya had already realised what would happen to him?

MR NORTJE: It was strange to me that he never attempted anything or never said anything.

MR HATTINGH: He did not beg for his life or anything like that?

MR NORTJE: No.

MR HATTINGH: But you say the reason why you were about 5 paces from him was that you did not want him to hear that his grave was being dug?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: You say Mr van der Walt said that from where he was waiting, he could hear the commotion in the bush?

MR NORTJE: Yes, apparently he did say that.

MR HATTINGH: And if he could hear it, then Mr Maponya must have heard it much, much clearer?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And you say, was he still wearing the blindfold, or not?

MR NORTJE: At that stage he still had the blindfold.

MR HATTINGH: Was he wearing the blindfold all the way from Vlakplaas?

MR NORTJE: As far as I can recall, yes.

MR HATTINGH: Would you have brought him from the room at the farm to the vehicle without him seeing anything?

MR NORTJE: Yes. I believe so.

MR HATTINGH: Volume 3(b) page 106: Mr NORTJE, I want to ask you to continue before page 6179: And I say

"yes, do you have recollection that you blindfolded him before he was sitting in the vehicle or do you also now want to say that from the time that he was assaulted that he was blindfolded right through the night?" And you say

"No, no I don't believe so. We closed his eyes. We specifically closed them when we took him out of the vehicle there at the scene."

Excuse me, I don't know if I read it correctly, let me see. "I believe that we did close his eyes, well specifically closed them when we took him out of the vehicle there at the scene."

Is that what happened?

MR NORTJE: I'm not sure.

MR HATTINGH: But could you have said something like that during the trial?

MR NORTJE: It was just a logical inference that we must have blindfolded him.

MR HATTINGH: But why was he not - could he not have been blindfolded from Vlakplaas? Why are you saying that he was blindfolded there at the scene?

MR NORTJE: I think he was blindfolded from Vlakplaas.

MR HATTINGH: Now why did you say that here?

"I believed that we closed his eyes, specifically closed them when we took him out of the vehicle at the scene?"

MR NORTJE: Something made me think at that stage when I said it, but it does not make sense to me.

MR HATTINGH: And I asked you what would have been the reason therefore, and you say that he was not supposed to know what was going on and that impression was still with him, he did not know what would happened. And I tell you

"Was it not because of mercy?"

and you say

"Possibly, yes".

and I say,

"No, we do not want to know what is possible, was

that the reason?"

and you say

"That could have been the reason.

Could or was it?

I am not sure" .

Now I ask you

"But Mr Nortje, one does not do something without a reason. If you had blindfolded him why was it necessary?"

and you say

"I believe so that he could not realise that I had the rifle with me or that the accused had the spade with him or whatever, so that he could not see the spade."

MR NORTJE: That makes sense to me,

MR HATTINGH: But is that what happened?

MR NORTJE: I believe that would have been the one reason why we closed his eyes.

MR HATTINGH: But now you are saying that his eyes were closed from Vlakplaas?

MR NORTJE: As far as I can recall his eyes were closed.

CHAIRPERSON: From Vlakplaas?

MR HATTINGH: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And I ask you the following question,

"Did he not see when the rifle was placed in the vehicle and the spade placed in the vehicle?"

and you say -

"No, as far as I know, he did not"

and I ask you -

"Was he blindfolded before the spade was taken out and the rifle was taken out"

and you say -

"Yes"

and I ask you -

"Now do you recall it clearly?"

and you say -

"No, I assume that is what happened"

and I ask you -

"Do you not recall?"

and you say -

"no, I'm not sure, I did not notice it, I'm just drawing an inference as to how it happened"

So what is the position now?

MR NORTJE: I could say that we must have blindfolded him from the farm.

MR HATTINGH: From the farm. And do you deny Mr de Kock's version that the blindfold was removed after you took him out of the vehicle?

MR NORTJE: I cannot remember that.

MR HATTINGH: Can you deny it, that's the question?

MR NORTJE: No, I cannot deny it?

MR HATTINGH: And now he was kneeling there on his knees about five paces from where Mr de Kock was busy and I would want to refer you to the following sentence from where I have read: Now he was standing there at the scene and you say the accused was scratching around with the spade and you say "yes" and I say "And then?" and "At a stage well I don't know whether Fourie was holding onto him but he went and sat down, as far as I could recall, on his haunches while the scratching around too place and the accused had basically made a hole there." Two things, you cannot recall whether Mr Fourie held onto him and he went and sat on his haunches and he was not forced onto his knees.

MR NORTJE: Well Mr Fourie was with me. That is why I place him in the picture there, but that was basically the order.

MR HATTINGH: Once again you say that Mr Fourie must have been there, that is why you placed him in picture.

MR NORTJE: He was there.

MR HATTINGH: But he, did he hold onto Mr Maponya? Do you know whether Mr Maponya went and sat on his haunches?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Not on his knees?

MR NORTJE: Well, he went and knelt down on his knees, he did not go and sit like this, but he went on his knees.

MR HATTINGH: Well, there's a difference between kneeling and sitting on your haunches.

MR NORTJE: Yes. I recall that he went to his knees.

MR HATTINGH: And what then Mr Nortje?

MR NORTJE: Well at that stage I decided that I will shoot him.

MR HATTINGH: Yes.

MR NORTJE: As I said there, I could not shoot him, I turned the weapon around and I hit him over the head.

MR HATTINGH: Why could you not shoot him?

MR NORTJE: I cannot explain to you who I could not shoot him, I just could not.

MR HATTINGH: Was it because you felt sorry for him, or what?

MR NORTJE: I cannot say.

CHAIRPERSON: But when you say you could not shoot him, you mean you could not bring yourself about to shoot him? It wasn't that at that stage you couldn't shoot him because the gun wasn't working. You couldn't bring yourself about it?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: I have asked you and I want to ask you again, is it more humane to kill a person with a blunt object than what it is to shoot him through the back of his head?

MR NORTJE: I have thought about it many time afterwards why I did not do it at that stage, but I think I wanted to render him unconscious and then shoot him.

MR HATTINGH: If you had shot him, he would have not know anything about it, is that not so?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: He would not even have know that you were at the point of shooting him, because he was blindfolded, according to you?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: So why did you want to render him unconscious first?

MR NORTJE: Because at that stage I took that decision.

MR HATTINGH: Did you not think that you did not want him to hear how you cocked the weapon?

MR NORTJE: That must have been the reason because I had to cock the weapon.

MR HATTINGH: Was that the reason, Mr NORTJE?

MR NORTJE: If I think about it now, that must have been one of the reasons.

MR HATTINGH: Did you present that as a reason?

MR NORTJE: I cannot recall.

MR HATTINGH: Can you just look at page 19 of 3(b)? You say here now just after the middle of the page,

"And in that time..."

no, excuse me, further up, I do not want to read the whole paragraph because the whole paragraph is not relevant, starting with -

"Japie was kneeling and at this stage it came around that I had to shoot him. I don't know what I was thinking at that time, but I could not bring myself to just shoot him, so I took the Uzzi by the barrel and I hit him"

That was in line with what you had said here.

MR NORTJE: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: And if we go to page 107.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry. Mr Nortje, had you killed a person before then?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: This wasn't the first time you killed somebody?

MR NORTJE: No.

MR HATTINGH: On page 107, about a third from the top, I ask you,

"Yes, and then Mr Nortje?

Well then it came to the point that I had to shoot him, but my weapon was not cocked yet and I think that is why I first hit him. I say in my statement that I could not bring myself to, but I think that is the reason why I then did not, because I did not want him to hear how I cocked the weapon because sound travelled far during night time."

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: So you are saying there, in answer to my question in your statement, that you said that you hit with the - because you could not bring yourself to shoot him because that was not really the reason, the reason, or you think the reason why you hit him, was because you did not want him to hear how you cocked the weapon.

MR NORTJE: Yes, then he would have known that I would have shot him.

MR HATTINGH: But why Mr Nortje? Within a second thereafter you could have shot him. It might have not registered with him that weapon was cocked behind him and he would have been dead or at least unconscious. Is that not so?

MR NORTJE: Yes, that is so. We can reason about it but at that stage I took that decision and I did so.

MR HATTINGH: Was he not upright when you hit him?

MR NORTJE: No, he was on his knees.

MR HATTINGH: And you are saying at that stage you had your back to Mr Pienaar and Mr de Kock?

MR NORTJE: Yes, I imagine they were diagonally behind me.

MR HATTINGH: And when you hit him, what did Mr de Kock do?

MR NORTJE: I don't know what he did then, but Mr Maponya fell forward and that is when I tried to cock the weapon and the weapon did not want to cock and I think I said that the weapon would not fire and he came there, because at that stage Maponya fell flat and it was a matter of - I clearly did not give him a proper blow, he started rising and he basically - we had the idea that he was trying to get away and then Mr de Kock came past and hit him with the spade.

MR HATTINGH: Moved past him to you? So he started moving away from you, am I correct? Mr Maponya?

MR NORTJE: Yes, in front of me.

MR HATTINGH: And somewhere in your evidence you say that he moved about 2, maximum 3 steps. Might it have been further?

MR NORTJE: I don't believe that it was much further, these things took place very quickly. I think I was struggling to get the weapon to work.

MR HATTINGH: So you say you did not hit him hard enough, but you hit him hard enough that the weapon or parts of the weapon were bent?

MR NORTJE: Yes, the cover bent.

MR HATTINGH: And then Mr de Kock hit him with the spade. What part of his body was turned to Mr de Kock when he delivered the blow? Did he have his back to Mr de Kock, like a person who wanted to run away, so Mr de Kock hit him from behind? Did you see where he hit him?

MR NORTJE: I cannot recall that I immediately saw. I just saw him hitting at him but I later realised that he hit him on the head.

MR HATTINGH: So you did not see where he hit him?

MR NORTJE: No but I did see him hitting him.

MR HATTINGH: How many blows did he deliver?

MR NORTJE: It's difficult, 2 or 3.

MR HATTINGH: Definitely more than one?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: That is what you said in your evidence in chief.

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: So you have a clear recollection that at that stage he hit him more than once?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: It may have been as much as three blows?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And the first blow, was he down or was he still upright when Mr de Kock was hitting him?

MR NORTJE: No, he fell and as I said, I did not have my eyes on the scene, I was still trying to figure out the weapon.

MR HATTINGH: And what happened there exactly?

MR NORTJE: I assume from what I heard, but as far as I know, he did not hit him many times, he just hit him twice or thrice and at that stage I fixed the weapon, or just afterwards or during that time I took out the magazine from the Uzzi and then I think I must have removed the cover.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, we will get there, let us just limit ourselves to the aspect which we are dealing with. So are you saying that before Mr Maponya had tried to escape, you were inspecting the weapon to see what was wrong with it?

MR NORTJE: Well, just after I had hit him he fell, and then I wanted to cock the weapon to shoot him and in that process Mr de Kock came past and hit him.

MR HATTINGH: Did you see that Mr Maponya came up and tried to run away?

MR NORTJE: Yes, that is when I wanted to shoot him.

MR HATTINGH: So just after you determined that you could not cock the weapon, Mr Maponya tried to get away?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And now Mr de Kock followed him and hit him?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: At that stage you were trying to inspect the weapon?

MR NORTJE: I tried to cock it.

MR HATTINGH: No, but this happened just before he rose. That was during the same time.

MR NORTJE: Yes, during the same time.

MR HATTINGH: So let me put it to you in the following, at this stage you removed a small torch and you wanted to have a look at what was wrong with the weapon and this happened before or after Mr Maponya tried to escape?

MR NORTJE: This was after he was knocked down again and I had shot and I had a look at what was wrong with the weapon. The order is not 100% clear to me. I cannot say this is what I did exactly and that is what I did exactly. That is what happened under those circumstances.

MR HATTINGH: Are you saying, Mr Nortje, that you could not cock the weapon and you took the round out of the magazine and placed it in the pistol and shot Mr Maponya and then had a look what was wrong at the Uzzi?

MR NORTJE: I realised that the Uzzi did not want to fire.

MR HATTINGH: But when did you have a look at what was wrong with the Uzzi?

MR NORTJE: During that process.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, but when during that process?

MR NORTJE: I assumed that there was no time to have a look beforehand because I took out the pistol, so I must have had a look at it afterwards.

MR HATTINGH: So why were you interested, you had already killed the man. Why were you trying to find out what was wrong with the Uzzi?

MR NORTJE: I think it is just a normal reaction, I don't know.

MR HATTINGH: It sounds very abnormal to me, because now you put on a torch after a shot was fired and you were just giving your position away in the bush there.

MR NORTJE: But when one switches on a torch and you put it on the ground...(intervention)

MR HATTINGH: Well, did you put it on the ground?

MR NORTJE: I don't know where I held it.

MR HATTINGH: So why are you saying that when you held it on the ground?

MR NORTJE: Well that's how I would have held it, so it would not shine up into the air.

MR HATTINGH: But you had both your hands free to see what was wrong with the firearm, because - did you hold the torch in your mouth?

MR NORTJE: I cannot recall what type of torch I had with me.

MR HATTINGH: But you said it was small. Are you saying ...(intervention)

MR NORTJE: I think it was one of the small metal ones.

MR HATTINGH: And usually you had those type of torches with you?

MR NORTJE: Yes, at a later stage all of us had them.

MR HATTINGH: So at that stage you were the only one?

MR NORTJE: I assume so.

MR HATTINGH: And when in the evening, when in dark and you worked with them, you held it in your mouth, that is why it was small, is that correct?

MR NORTJE: Probably, yes.

MR HATTINGH: So if you had it in your mouth except for when you were lying down on the ground, anyone could see the torch?

MR NORTJE: If I put the torch on, it would not have been for a long while because one could see immediately that the cover was bent.

MR HATTINGH: Immediately you saw?

MR NORTJE: Yes, I think so.

MR HATTINGH: But now you are concerned after you'd shot the man, you wanted to find out what's wrong with the firearm, not trying to cover the man up and trying to get away and try to get away from the dogs that you heard there?

MR NORTJE: Yes there was that concern there, but there were other people there also.

MR HATTINGH: So your concern was with the weapon?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And you cannot say why?

MR NORTJE: Because it did not want to fire.

MR HATTINGH: But you didn't want to fire again.

MR NORTJE: No, because I had already shot.

MR HATTINGH: So why there and then try to find out why the weapon did not want to fire?

MR NORTJE: I cannot explain it.

MR HATTINGH: You see, Mr Nortje, I want to put it to you that you did not investigate the weapon and that Mr de Kock's version is correct that he went to the vehicle with the firearm to see if it was - to see if he could fix it before Mr Maponya was shot and that is why you are so incoherent and vague as to why you had a look at the weapon.

MR NORTJE: No, I understand what you are trying to say, Mr Hattingh, but that is not so.

MR HATTINGH: You see the problem with the Uzzi was that the cover was bent.

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Could the Uzzi still fire after that cover had been removed?

MR NORTJE: I am not certain.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Mr Hattingh. Mr Nortje, excuse my ignorance but what is a cover? What is the cover of the Uzzi?

MR NORTJE: It is a plate which shifts over the weapon which clips in, which prevents the mechanism from jumping when you fire.

MR HATTINGH: Is it possible for the weapon to be fired when the cover has been removed?

MR NORTJE: It isn't.

MR HATTINGH: Mr de Kock says that it is, but the danger exists that the mechanism can jump out. Well let us not dwell too much on technical terms. You were inspecting the weapon and what happened next?

MR NORTJE: Japie lay still and I think we must have dragged him to the opening or to the hole. I believe that I assisted with that. I must have assisted with that and we began to cover him, Fourie and I.

MR HATTINGH: We are back at believe and must have and so forth, can you not recall?

MR NORTJE: I would say that I did it.

MR HATTINGH: And do you recall this or are you just saying that, because I want you to say something?

MR NORTJE: I cannot precisely recall how I picked him up or whether we dragged him.

MR HATTINGH: But you definitely took him?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: By whatever means, you took him to the place that had been prepared?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Who assisted with that?

MR NORTJE: I am not certain, really, I am not certain. It must have been some of us, Fourie, me, de Kock.

MR HATTINGH: What about Pienaar?

MR NORTJE: I can't recall that he assisted.

MR HATTINGH: Was he just a passive bystander?

MR NORTJE: Well he didn't do much.

MR HATTINGH: Apart from accompanying you and standing by and watching?

MR NORTJE: Correct. I can't recall that he did anything.

MR HATTINGH: Now you cannot recall who did what, is that correct?

MR NORTJE: It's difficult. We carried him to the hole and began to cover him and Mr Fourie was with me. I cannot recall on which side we picked him up. We must have gotten him to the hole at some point.

MR HATTINGH: You can't recall whether Mr de Kock was at the grave site or whether he was assisting you. At that stage he was still at the scene.

MR HATTINGH: Did he assist you?

MR NORTJE: Well I cannot say that I believed that he assisted, but I can say yes, he assisted us.

MR HATTINGH: And you have no recollection of Mr Pienaar?

MR NORTJE: Well he stood to one side.

MR HATTINGH: And if I may just return to one point which is still unclear, when Mr de Kock struck him to the head, you say that you didn't see it, you simply heard it?

MR NORTJE: Yes, he struck him when he tried to jump up and escape.

MR HATTINGH: Did you see him or did you just hear it?

MR NORTJE: I saw him when he struck him the first time, because I was standing there trying to operate the firearm and I definitely saw when he hit him for the first time. He hit him so that he collapsed. And then there were a few more blows.

MR HATTINGH: Did you hear them?

MR NORTJE: Well I cannot pertinently recall where the second and the third blows struck him, but the first blow definitely struck him on the head.

CHAIRPERSON: The question was could you hear the other blows?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And are you certain that there were other blows?

MR NORTJE: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: Let us just look at 1(b) page 10 - I'm sorry it's not 1(b) it's 3(b). Here we have your version under cross-examination, page 109. Here you speak about the battery,

"For a moment he lay down, but then he began to get up again"

"That is after you hit him with the Uzzi?"

"That is correct." And further down I ask you,

"Did he succeed in that?" and your answer is,

"No"

Let me read the previous question:

"If you were to say - if you say jump up or as you have qualified it, struggled back, what do you mean by that?

Well, he tried to get up onto his feet again.

Did he succeed in that?

No, because that is when the accused hit him with the spade."

Now did he manage to get back onto his feet and move 2 to 3 paces away or was he still trying to get back onto his feet when the accused struck him?

MR NORTJE: Well he didn't manage to get completely onto his feet, he struggled forward like somebody who was trying to get away, because he had received the blow to the head and as I've said he didn't manage to get very far, about 2 to 3 paces, and then Mr de Kock struck him.

MR HATTINGH: And then I asked you

"And how many blows did the accused administer to him?"

Your answer is -

"I didn't count."

My question -

"Was it more than one, Mr Nortje?

Your answer -

"Yes.

And could you see in the darkness with which side of the spade he hit him?"

Your answer -

"Well he must have hit him with the sharp side because after a time the wounds on his head - I had to feel the wounds on his head."

My question -

"You could not see with which side of the spade he hit him?"

You answer -

"No, at that stage I wasn't looking, I was busy with the weapon. I was trying to see what was wrong with the weapon."

And then somewhat later - oh no, that is about when you felt the wound, I'll get to that later. So you said that you didn't see when he was shot and that you were inferring that he must have been struck with the sharp side of the spade?

MR NORTJE: I definitely saw the first blow.

MR HATTINGH: Was it with the sharp side?

MR NORTJE: Well, that was the blow which basically ...(intervention)

MR HATTINGH: Was it with the sharp side Mr Nortje?

MR NORTJE: I cannot say.

CHAIRPERSON: The question was, did you see whether it was with the sharp side or not? Not what you assumed or what you might have later deducted.

MR NORTJE: No.

MR HATTINGH: Then I'm going to ask you to go to 1(b), there you have also made it clear that there were more blows, you say that you didn't count them. This is during cross-examination. Go to 1(b) page 340, that is your application in this matter, after you have repeatedly stated that you thought about the matter and so forth. Isn't that so?

I begin at the top of page 340 reading the first line.

"After de Kock had dug a shallow grave, Japie was brought to the side of the grave where he was made to stand on his knees."

Is that correct with your version here? Why did you say this in your application.

MR NORTJE: Well that is basically the idea.

MR HATTINGH: But the impression that is created is that the man's grave has been dug and then he is brought to his knees alongside his grave, so that he will be shot and as it were fall into his grave, quite literally.

MR NORTJE:: I have not got that much detail here.

MR HATTINGH: Right.

"At that stage I could not get it over my heart to shoot him and I hit him with the back side of the Uzzi over his head. After that I tried to shoot him with the Uzzi but the weapon stalled. De Kock then struck Maponya over the head with a spade. This blow..."

and this is in the singular Mr Nortje,

"...this blow which de Kock administered was a fatal blow."

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Now did he strike him only once?

MR NORTJE: No, my inference regarding what I saw was that that was the blow which led to the big wound on his head.

MR HATTINGH: But a few moments ago you were asked whether you could see in the darkness whether this was with the sharp side of the spade, what leads you to believe that that was the fatal blow?

MR NORTJE: That I inferred from later when I touched the man's head, I could see that the biggest wound was the wound from the blow and I assumed that it was from the first blow.

MR HATTINGH: But you don't speak of any other blows. You speak only of one blow. That which de Kock administered which was the fatal blow.

MR NORTJE: At that stage Maponya still showed signs of life and I fired one shot to his head with my Beretta pistol.

MR HATTINGH: Nothing else is mentioned here of any further blows.

MR NORTJE: Well I didn't state it here but there was more than one blow.

MR HATTINGH: While we are at this paragraph, let us deal somewhat further with Pienaar's role.

"De Kock and Pienaar then walked back to the vehicle where van der Walt was waiting. Eugene Fourie and I remained behind and buried Maponya."

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Is that correct?

MR NORTJE: We remained behind.

MR HATTINGH: And did you bury him?

MR NORTJE: He was still showing signs of life. He was breathing, barely breathing, those were his final breaths and we covered him. We did not cover him with a spade.

MR HATTINGH: I beg your pardon Mr Nortje, I am not asking you to give the whole story again, I'm simply asking whether you and Fourie remained behind and buried him?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: So de Kock was no longer there?

MR NORTJE: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: And Pienaar did not participate?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: So if you say that you think that de Kock remained behind and assisted with the burial of the body you are incorrect?

MR NORTJE: I don't believe that I was mistaken.

MR HATTINGH: Well somewhere you must have made a mistake when you said that or when you made this statement because both of them cannot be true. What's the truth?

MR NORTJE: He must have helped us. They must have gotten up and left and we remained there because he wasn't entirely covered. The idea why we remained behind is that we had to stay there until he was dead. The two of them walked off and Fourie and I covered him with the last remaining branches.

MR HATTINGH: We will deal with that later. Once again I find it strange that if Mr de Kock had also assisted, Mr Pienaar would just have been standing around there as a fifth wheel on the wagon.

MR NORTJE: I cannot recall precisely what he did.

MR HATTINGH: Well according to your recollection, he didn't do anything. You say that you and Mr Pienaar then waited there, Mr Fourie. You and Mr Fourie waited there. And why did you wait there?

MR NORTJE: I have just explained that to you.

MR HATTINGH: What was the purpose, why did you remain behind?

MR NORTJE: He was still displaying signs of life.

MR HATTINGH: This was after he had been covered?

MR NORTJE: No, he had not been covered entirely. Basically his head or his upper body could still be seen and that is when I placed my hand on his head and felt the wound.

MR HATTINGH: But that's what I can't understand, Mr NORTJE. You say that you covered him at a stage and that Mr de Kock assisted. They left. You remained there, but now it would appear that the man is not entirely covered because his head is still visible?

MR NORTJE: He had been covered, I recall.

MR LAMEY: He never said that he covered him completely.

MR NORTJE: Well we covered him. I cannot say that Mr de Kock remained there until he was entirely covered. I don't recall at which stage precisely he left, but I know that we covered him with branches and leaves and we remained there until he was still.

MR HATTINGH: This is after you put the branch over him?

MR NORTJE: I think we put the branch over him last.

MR HATTINGH: The question that I actually want to put to you Mr Nortje is, who told you to stay there? Who's idea was that?

MR NORTJE: I don't know. I cannot tell you.

MR HATTINGH: Did you receive an instruction from Mr de Kock to stay there and determine that he is dead?

MR NORTJE: I may have decided this on my own, I'm not certain.

MR HATTINGH: And this is also after the dogs began to bark and you became concerned that you may not be able to get away safely?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And you sat there waiting for the man to die because you still saw signs of life?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And while you were observing those signs, his head was still visible?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And then you felt his wounds?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And when did you cover the head?

MR NORTJE: When we left. Just before we left.

MR HATTINGH: When it was clear to you that he was dead?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry. Mr Nortje, that bullet, that subsonic bullet that you put into your Beretta and which you used to kill Mr Maponya, was it doctored at all? Was it a dumdum?

MR NORTJE: No, it was a regular round. A regular subsonic round.

CHAIRPERSON: And you say you shot the person, Mr Maponya, in the back of the head?

MR NORTJE: Yes, this section at the back. I cannot say precisely where, but it was on the back section of the head.

CHAIRPERSON: And do you know whether the bullet exited the body?

MR NORTJE: I didn't observe anything like that, I didn't inspect it.

MR HATTINGH: So you and Mr Fourie remained there alone?

MR NORTJE: Yes, that's correct.

MR HATTINGH: And Pienaar and de Kock left the scene?

MR NORTJE: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: On page 110 of 3(b) you also describe the events. You say: I ask you "Yes" It's just a few lines below 6183,

"Yes, who of you remained there while these events

took place?

Fourie and I.

Just the two of you?

Yes.

Are you sure about that?

Yes.

Do you have a clear recollection of that?

Yes.

And the accused and Pienaar left the scene?

That is correct

Is there a reason why they left and did not wait there with you?

You say -

"I cannot say why he left, he simply - he also didn't say anything to me. I then did what was left to do and they left because it was about -it happened or they left just after I had shot him. That was when he lay there still and Fourie and I sat there until we were certain that he was no longer breathing."

I then asked you -

"Was that an instruction or was this upon your own initiative?"

Your answer -

"No, it was my own initiative."

Do you still say that Mr Nortje?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And now I put it to you,

"And now where did he lay at that stage, Maponya, with regard to the area which the accused had cleared?"

and you say -

"Well as far as I can recall, we dragged him into the half open hole and covered him."

and I ask you -

"Who is the we?"

and you say -

"Fourie and I.

Yes.

So he did not lay in that place?

No.

So you shot him and the accused and Pienaar left the scene?

That is correct.

You waited until you were certain that he was dead and then you and Fourie dragged him to the area which the accused had cleared?"

and you say -

"I imagine that that is what took place, yes."

Then further down I said -

"You dragged him there and then the two of you covered him?

Yes.

With what?

With leaves and things that were lying around there, which had been scratched out of the hole.

Is that all that you used?

I think that we also put a branch or something over him.

Yes, and are you certain that at that stage the accused and Pienaar were not there?

That is correct."

So according to this it would appear clear that after the shot was fired by you, de Kock and Pienaar left the scene and the two of you sat there waiting for Maponya to die, after which the two of you dragged him and covered him.

MR NORTJE: It would appear that his statement was written out of this, but in either event the sequence that I have here is incorrect, but it is not that I am not trying to place him there. As I recall the events as I have explained it, that is what happened. I'm not saying that Mr de Kock walked away immediately after the shot was fired. He must have stayed there for a moment or two. I did not notice particularly what every person was doing. As far as I can recall, he first helped us to put Japie into the hole and we began to cover him with the leaves. Fourie and I remained there and de Kock and Pienaar then walked away to the vehicle. We were quite hasty because we heard dogs barking. I cannot explain it in any other way. That is what happened, according to my recollection.

MR HATTINGH: I put Mr Fourie's version to you in this regard during the trial. Do you recall that?

MR NORTJE: No I don't.

MR HATTINGH: At the bottom of page 110, the third last line, I said to you "This is once again not in line with Fourie's evidence." And then I read to you what Mr Fourie said on page 4926 as follows,

"Then Japie lay there and what happened next?

He lay there gasping for breath and all of us were afraid. Everybody began to become nervous. We were afraid that as a result of the dogs barking people would arrive there."

And then he says lower down, I beg your pardon, he says that you

all began to cover Maponya. Page 4928, he says:

"He stopped making sounds and then the accused, he scratched like that and he then took the spade and then he found a place to clear where Maponya could lay and when the place was cleared we all took him and put leaves and branches over him and put the branches over him."

MR NORTJE: I am not saying that he is wrong.

MR HATTINGH: "Firstly, he does not say that before Maponya was killed...."

I'm sorry,

"Firstly he does not say that the accused cleared a place with the spade before Maponya was killed, he said that this was only after the man stopped gasping for breath, that you and the accused cleared the area with the spade. What do you say about that?"

and you said -

"That is also possible, I cannot recall it specifically."

Would you still concede to the possibility that after the man had been killed, after he had stopped gasping for breath, you began to clear the area for where he would be placed and covered?

MR NORTJE: No, not the way that I remember the sequence of events.

MR HATTINGH: But there you have conceded the possibility.

MR NORTJE: Yes, I did, but I don't believe that I was correct.

MR HATTINGH: And then he says and I continue, and then he said that after the man had died, the four of you helped to cover him, your answer "No I cannot recall that. I know that Fourie and I covered him and placed the branch over him and sat there until he was completely dead, until he breathed his last breath basically."

Then they had already left.

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Once again you say that de Kock did not assist in covering the body. You say that you know that you and Fourie covered him.

MR NORTJE: Well the last section of the covering of the body was undertaken by Fourie and I.

MR HATTINGH: We are not occupied here with an initial, a middle and a final stage.

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: I have made a mistake in my notes here, I am just looking for the passage of evidence where Mr Fourie said, I cannot find it at the moment, but Fourie says that de Kock gave you the instruction to stay there and wait until you were certain that the man was dead. Do you recall anything like that?

MR NORTJE: I may have said it , yes.

MR HATTINGH: And what is the position? You say that you did not receive an instruction, that this was upon your own initiative.

MR NORTJE: I am not certain, it was one of the two. I don't believe that it would have been a specific instruction. We would have spoken to each other, but when we speak of initiative, I wouldn't have left until I was certain that he was dead and I'm sure that that was the same position from Mr de Kock's side. We may have discussed this.

MR HATTINGH: But according to your observation, the man was dealt a fatal blow with a spade and then shot through the head and you still had to feel his head to see if he was dead.

MR NORTJE: Because there were still signs of life.

MR HATTINGH: But why did you feel his head to determine whether or not he was still alive?

MR NORTJE: I don't know. I didn't put my hand on his head for any specific reason, but when I placed my hand on his head I felt the wound. Those things were coming out of his head. That is what we saw.

MR HATTINGH: Well we don't want to know what was coming out of his skull, we want to know why you placed your hand on his head?

MR NORTJE: I don't know.

MR HATTINGH: Was it to determine whether or not he was dead?

MR NORTJE: No.

MR HATTINGH: Then I would rather have felt his pulse.

MR NORTJE: I cannot explain.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, could you give us any indication of approximately how long you remained with Mr Maponya while he was lying there partially covered, as you say, with leaves before you arrived at the decision or the conclusion that he was in fact dead? Just give us an indication, was it a question of seconds or minutes, half an hour, an hour?

MR NORTJE: Chairperson, if I must give you an estimated time I would say that it was a minute. I cannot say that it was much longer than 3 minutes because our circumstances dictated that we were hasty and nervous and we basically just wanted to get away from there, so it wouldn't have been very long. Once again I must add that I didn't even think about the time at that point.

MR MALAN: Mr Hattingh, while the witness has been interrupted, can we just return to an earlier piece of evidence. If I understand you correctly, you said that Japie Maponya was under your control. You had him with you, you held him throughout the entire operation.

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR MALAN: You hit him with the gun, he was still your responsibility.

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR MALAN: He struggled back up and moved away as if he was attempting to escape. At that stage de Kock was 5 to 10 paces away, he was clearing an area, he came forward with the spade and hit Maponya so that he collapsed. Your Commander came from a distance away, when it looked as if your charge was trying to escape, you did nothing.

MR NORTJE: That is when I tried to cock the gun to shoot and Mr de Kock heard this and he must have thought that I'd already shot him, but it was actually the noise from when I hit him with the gun and that is when he came forward. The weapon malfunctioned.

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone.

MR HATTINGH: You wanted to shoot him, to kill him, not to prevent him from escaping?

MR NORTJE: Yes, that's correct.

MR HATTINGH: So what did you do to avoid his escape? As Mr Malan has put to you, why was it necessary for the commander who was 5 to 10 paces away, to come forward and use the spade?

MR NORTJE: He must have read the situation immediately and decided for himself what was going on.

MR HATTINGH: Did Mr de Kock tell you to wait there and make certain that he was dead?

MR NORTJE: I am not certain.

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon Mr Hattingh, before you proceed. If I understand you correctly you gave evidence that you stood with your back to de Kock at that stage when Japie struggled back onto his feet and tried to get away and he was moving away from you, in other words away from de Kock as well, so de Kock moved those 5 to 10 paces past you and hit him with the spade. While he moved past you, you were still trying to fire a shot. Were you not afraid that you may accidentally shoot your commander because you did not give any evidence about your assistance in attempting to prevent his escape?

MR NORTJE: He would not have escaped.

MR MALAN: He would not have escaped because your commander would have apprehended him, is that what you are trying to say?

MR NORTJE: Well one of us would have apprehended him because he had received a blow to the head and I hit him hard, so he couldn't run away. It was a question of killing him there. It was my objective to shoot but I could not cock the gun at that point.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

MR HATTINGH: Now to get back to the question regarding whether you decided to stay there upon your own initiative, I read to you from page 110 and asked you whether this was an instruction or did you use your own initiative, that is to stay there, to make sure that he wasn't breathing any more and your answer was, no it was my initiative. What do you say now? Is that still correct or not?

MR NORTJE: It is difficult to respond, but I am not saying that it would not have been my initiative. It is something that we did. I didn't do it because he told me to stay there.

MR HATTINGH: When you gave evidence here you didn't have any problems. I asked you whether it was an instruction or whether this was upon your own initiative and your answer was "No, it was my own initiative." Why do you have a problem now?

MR MALAN: Mr Hattingh, didn't you discuss this when he said a few moments ago that he wasn't certain whether this was an instruction or his own initiative? Is it necessary to delve any further into this?

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Chairperson. Can I just then put to him what he said here? In your evidence in chief you said de Kock said "Stay here and make sure that he is dead. They went to the car."

MR NORTJE: He may also have said that. I am not entirely certain because I cannot recall precisely everything which was said there. I will accept responsibility and say that I stayed there upon my own initiative.

MR HATTINGH: Let us get to the removal of the clothing. In the evidence in chief according to my notes, you said that you removed Japie's clothing, but that you don't recall anything about the shoes.

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: You did not say then that you could not remember anything about a shirt. Any reason for that?

MR NORTJE: No.

MR HATTINGH: Did you remove his trousers?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Are you certain about that?

MR NORTJE: Yes, but at which stage I am not sure. It must have been when he lay there.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, there at the scene where he had been killed?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And you are certain that you removed his trousers?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Well it couldn't have taken place at any other stage could it?

MR NORTJE: No.

MR HATTINGH: Please look at 3(b), page 20, this is still your

evidence in chief. The third line from the top you are asked -

"Was he wearing clothing?"

Your answer -

"He was not wearing a shirt as far as I can recall, but we had a bag of clothing of his which we still brought with. These were clothes that he had with him when they abducted him. There was a uniform of clothing that belonged to him in the bag. We had some of the clothing that he had on him. I am not certain whether we removed his trousers, but we removed his shirt and his shoes. I cannot recall the sequence of how we did this. I have provided some measure of a sequence here, but whether it is correct I don't know.

It is not about a sequence, it is about what was removed."

First you say that he wasn't wearing a shirt and then right after that you say that you are not certain whether you removed his trousers, but that you removed his shirt and his shoes, then later you say that you're not sure of the shoes.

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: You say that you may still have removed the shoes in the vehicle, but that you didn't pay particular notice to the shoes.

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Had you already begun the process of disrobement in the vehicle?

MR NORTJE: No.

MR HATTINGH: Because you say that you may also already have removed the shoes in the vehicle.

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: The shoes and other items of clothing then?

MR NORTJE: There I said also, I am not sure.

MR HATTINGH: And here you say that you are certain of the trousers and in other evidence you are not certain about the trousers. That was in evidence in chief. So let us go to page 111, at approximately line 13,

"And what of or how was he dressed, Maponya, at that stage Mr Nortje?"

"I imagine that we removed his shirt. I don't know whether we removed his trousers, but I think that we removed his shoes and I think that his hands were still cuffed and I loosened his hands."

MR HATTINGH: And I suppose that that was to remove the shirt?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: So was he wearing a shirt which you removed? MR NORTJE: I am not certain.

MR HATTINGH: I am putting these questions to you to indicate Mr NORTJE, that your recollection regarding what took place there is so vague and confusing that Mr de Kock has a far more reliable version because he can tell the Committee exactly what took place.

MR NORTJE: Well, I simply told you what I remembered and what the sequence of events was. He has a different recollection. Other people have different recollections, but this is what I recall.

MR HATTINGH: What about the blanket in which you had wrapped him? What happened to that?

MR NORTJE: I think we left the blanket in the vehicle, I can't recall that he had the blanket around him or that he walked with a blanket around him or whether it was taken with at some stage. The blanket did not make an impression on me at any point. I know that he had the blanket around him in the vehicle.

MR HATTINGH: You say that at one point, as a result of the assault his mouth may have been bleeding.

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Was his mouth bleeding as far as you can recall?

MR NORTJE: I am not certain.

MR HATTINGH: Was this blanket later destroyed?

MR NORTJE: I don't know.

MR HATTINGH: On page 113 of 3(b) I put it to you,

"That could have been damning evidence, isn't that so?"

and your answer is "Yes".

Is that still your answer?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And you cannot recall what you did with it?

MR NORTJE: No.

MR HATTINGH: Very well, Mr Nortje, yesterday afternoon during your cross-examination by Mr Visser, you made certain concessions and the extent thereof was that the exposure of Vlakplaas was not the risk which provided the reason for the killing of Mr Maponya, is that correct?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I think we must just put this in the correct perspective. The witness said that on his own evidence in chief. I just took it up at cross-examination. It wasn't something that was raised for the first time in cross-examination.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, Mr Visser.

MR HATTINGH: Nonetheless, under cross-examination you made that concession.

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Now was that a correct concession to make? Are you certain that Vlakplaas was not at risk, the existence of Vlakplaas? Do you know how Mr Maponya was abducted?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And the men who abducted him, were they wearing balaclavas?

MR NORTJE: Yes there was a risk, of course there was a risk.

MR HATTINGH: They even showed their identity appointment cards to him?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And on these cards there were photos of them?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And their names?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And once one had the name of such a person it would be very easy to determine from that point where this person was stationed, just by going to the head office staff division.

MR NORTJE: Yes, if there was an independent investigation, they would probably have been able to trace us.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, and that is why in paragraph 11 on page 339 of your application in bundle 1(b) you said,

"Maponya could also not be released after his assault because the danger existed that he may lay charges against his interrogators and any possible prosecution or evidence of methods used by the security police to obtain information during interrogation was a situation to be avoided. Due to the circumstances of that time, it was also necessary that the identity of Maponya's interrogators and the askari members be protected. All of us operated under strictly covert circumstances."

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And later in that same document page 341 paragraph 10(b) you say

"In order to protect covert activities as Vlakplaas as well as the identities of the members who were involved in his interrogation as well as the identities of the askaris, he was killed under the instruction of de Kock"

So according to you there is a reason why he had to be killed.

My attorney has just reminded me of something which I wanted to deal with in the beginning and which I said I would get to later. The day after the assault at the river, did you see Mr Kleynhans at the farm?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Did you see Mr le Roux there?

MR NORTJE: No. Are you speaking of the day on which they allege having been there?

MR HATTINGH: No, we are speaking past each other. After the assaults on Maponya at the river, the next day when de Kock went to head office, did you see Kleynhans at the farm?

MR NORTJE: No.

MR HATTINGH: Were you at the farm?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: What time did you arrive there?

MR NORTJE: Approximately 8 o'clock.

MR HATTINGH: Who else was there? Would you have known that he was there?

MR NORTJE: Yes, I would have.

MR HATTINGH: And would you also have known if le Roux had arrived there?

MR NORTJE: Yes,

MR HATTINGH: Unless he had remained outside as he says, and you were coincidentally not outside at that moment?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Would you have expected of Kleynhans to tell you, "listen the colonel has just been here and I told him that we don't have a choice other than to take the man out" or words to that effect?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: When you say you got to the farm at 8 o'clock in the morning, were you there the whole day until of course when you left for Piet Retief? Were you there the whole morning?

MR NORTJE: Yes. At a stage I may have left, but that would have been after de Kock arrived back, I may have gone out to go and fetch the petrol or whatever the case may have been.

CHAIRPERSON: He said that he got to the farm and it was just like deserted buildings, and he didn't see any sign of life. Where would you have parked your vehicle?

MR NORTJE: The black members who were there on the farm who didn't know about these circumstances, who would normally have come to the offices or to the farm, were sent away only after de Kock arrived there. Now I think that it may have been at approximately 10 or 11 o'clock when he sent them away, so there were people on the farm. There were vehicles and there was activity.

MR HATTINGH: And after de Kock returned, and you possibly left the farm, would he have been there?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And Mr van der Walt, was he there?

MR NORTJE: I cannot place him there, but as they say, the order was only to be at the farm that afternoon.

MR HATTINGH: Would you remember of other people who were on the farm? If Mr Kleynhans had been there when the colonel arrived there, or let me put it to you like this, upon the occasions when Kleynhans arrived there, where did he park his vehicle?

MR NORTJE: In the beginning at that stage, which would have been 1985, the farm was not as developed. The parking area, there were covers just as you came past the main house.

MR HATTINGH: I'm sorry to interrupt you, just for the sake of the Committee can I give a description, or attempt to give a description, and you can assist me in this regard. One would turn in at the gate towards the farm in a southerly direction.

MR NORTJE: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: And then the road with which you travel in runs right past the main house and at a stage on the right there were temporary huts for accommodation and were there also shade covers there?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: On the right hand side?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And then once you get to the corner of the house you turn immediately left and the road would travel past the back of the house and then there was also parking under shade?

MR NORTJE: Yes. This parking that I think the General is referring to was behind the canteen, but I cannot recall whether at that stage there was a parking area there.

MR HATTINGH: We could discuss that, perhaps we can use the opinions of others, but to get there you had to drive past the back of the house, is that correct?

MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And after you had driven past the house on your left, you would still find the canteen facility?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And then after you had driven past that, or let me put it like this, approximately directly opposite the canteen there was a rondavel.

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: So you would drive through between the rondavel and the canteen facility?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And then you would get to the area which would have been the parking area, or later became the parking area.

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And if somebody came to Vlakplaas, whether they parked in the parking area or under the shade parking, would they have seen other vehicles?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And if Col le Roux's vehicle had been there, you would have recognised it?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Now in the general document which was submitted regarding Vlakplaas, have you studied this document? The document which was compiled by Mr de Kock and submitted and also forms part of this document?

MR NORTJE: I am not certain but we can look at it.

MR HATTINGH: I don't want to examine you at length about it, it is about the origination or the origin of Vlakplaas and the financial aspect of Vlakplaas, the use of the askaris and so forth and in there he states inter alia that Vlakplaas was a covert project, that access was not granted to any person, access to the premises and for those purposes there were guards.

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And would there have been a guard there on that day?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And that guard had the instruction to guard the gate?

MR NORTJE: Yes. Usually we locked the gates.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, usually you locked the gates. How easy would it be for a person who had not yet been at Vlakplaas, to find the place?

MR NORTJE: It was quite difficult to get there if you didn't know where it was. Usually people would bring somebody with to show them where the place was.

MR HATTINGH: I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HATTINGH

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Hattingh

Mr Williams, you have asked questions? You've got no questions?

MR WILLIAMS: No, I've got no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Wagener?

MR WAGENER: Mr Chairman yes, if you can just give me an indication when did you intend to adjourn?

CHAIRPERSON: We'll be adjourning shortly because we have to leave in order to catch an aeroplane so it might be a convenient time to adjourn and then we can recommence then on Monday morning.

MR WAGENER: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Would half past 9 be convenient for Monday morning, Mr Lamey?

MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, I appreciate the position of everyone here. I was wondering whether, well depending on the arrangements that have been made, if we and when everybody has to depart here, but whether we shouldn't perhaps, if possible, endeavour to finish his evidence and re-examination, but if - I'm just making that request.

MR WAGENER: Mr Chairman, my estimate is about half an hour.

CHAIRPERSON: Which will mean it'll definitely take in excess of an hour. I mean, you'll have re-examination, there's Ms Bridjlall to ask questions, Ms Lockhat, Mr Knight.

MR VISSER: And Mr Chairman, as indicated I might wish to visit some of the aspects raised by my learned friend.

CHAIRPERSON: My flight I believe is at something past 3.

MR LAMEY: I perhaps also forgot about the evidence leader and the whole position there. I...(indistinct)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Yes as arranged when we started on Monday that we'd only be sitting until 1 o'clock today for reasons that we have to make travel arrangements, we will now adjourn, but we have made, in consultation with all the legal representatives, arrangements for this particular hearing to continue on Monday. According to the roll we were going to start with a new matter on Monday. We have made arrangements for that to start later in the week, so we will proceed with this matter on Monday 19th July at this venue at 9.30 in the morning. Thank you very much. We will now adjourn until then.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS