Amnesty Hearings

CHAIRPERSON: Before we start today's hearing can I raise other matter. Despite the effort I think all of us made at the pre-trial conference to ensure that these hearings ran smoothly, I am told, and I think you have probably heard, that a certain of the legal representatives are in a faraway land and won't be back during the week that their matter was set down for. So it will mean if we can have your co-operation, that we will try to move the Ngqulunga matter from the 27th of September to the 13th.

ADV STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman ...

MACHINE SWITCHED OFF

CHAIRPERSON: Right, we now are starting with the matter involving the killing of Pumelo Moses Ntehelang in the canteen at Vlakplaas. I, Andrew Wilson am the Chairman of the Committee, the Members are ...

ADV SANDI: I am Nsikilelo Sandi.

MR SIBANYONI: I am J B Sibanyoni.

CHAIRPERSON: And if you gentlemen would kindly say a few words and put yourselves on record, so that the persons responsible for the recording have a note of it.

MR HATTINGH: I am P A Hattingh, Mr Chairman, instructed by Mr Hugo and I appear for Mr de Kock.

MR BOOYENS: Kobus Booyens, instructed by van der Merwe and Bester, Mr Chairman, I appear for number 5, Tait, number 8, Bellingan, number 9, Baker.

MR CORNELIUS: Wim Cornelius, Mr Chairman, I act on behalf of the second applicant, D J Willemse and the 6th applicant, L W J Flores. - pardon, the 3rd applicant, A J van Heerden. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

MR ROSSOUW: Thank you, Mr Chairman, my surname is Rossouw from the firm Rooth and Wessels Attorneys, I represent applicant number 2, Douw Willemse and applicant number 4, Izak Daniel Bosch.

MR BOTHA: Thank you, Mr Chairperson, my name is D J Botha and I'm appearing on instruction of the State Attorney, on behalf of the applicant, P C Snyders.

MR JANSEN: Thank you, Mr Chairman, Adv C R Jansen, on instructions of Mr Julian Knight Attorneys. We act for applicant number 7, Mr Marthinus Dawid Ras junior, thank you.

ADV STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, my surname is Steenkamp, I'm the Evidence Leader in this matter. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Right, is there anything further we have to deal with before we commence?

ADV STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, maybe I can just put on record that there's no appearance on behalf of the victims. It's my submission that all reasonable steps in relation to Section 19(4) of the Act were taken and no next-of-kin or family members could be notified or traced in this matter. So there will be no appearance on behalf of any family or next-of-kin, Mr Chairman. Thank you, Sir.

MR SIBANYONI: Mr Steenkamp, is the name of the victim Ntehelang, his correct name maybe or his codename?

ADV STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, as far as - I'm informed that Ntehelang is actually his correct name, but apparently it's been Nteheleng, but that is his correct surname, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: ... have a list of interested parties?

ADV STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, they were all duly notified. All the interested parties as far as we are concerned, were notified.

CHAIRPERSON: And some of them are represented?

ADV STEENKAMP: That's correct, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Was Mrs Mandela notified?

ADV STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, I think in the circumstances all our notifications went out, we did send notices to each and every party. Some of them we didn't get any feedback from, but the notices were sent out.

CHAIRPERSON: Was she notified?

ADV STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, I don't have the Return of Service with me, but yes, as far as I know on Friday we confirmed that all the interested parties were informed.

CHAIRPERSON: Right, shall we continue and commence the hearing.

MACHINE SWITCHED OFF

CHAIRPERSON: Gentlemen, have you decided the order in which the evidence will be led?

MR HATTINGH: Yes, Mr Chairman, Mr de Kock will go first.

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: (sworn states)

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you, you may be seated.

EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr de Kock, you are an applicant in this matter and your application appears in the very front of the bundle, with regard to this incident, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: ...(indistinct).

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

MR HATTINGH: Shall I start over, Mr Chairman.

Mr de Kock, you are an applicant in this matter and your application appears from page 1 up to and including page 11 of the documents with regard to this incident, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And do you confirm the correctness of the allegations embodied therein?

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: You have also submitted a supplementary affidavit which deals with Vlakplaas as a political operational wing of the South African Police.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: This has already been served before various Committees, among others, also this Committee. Do you once again confirm the correctness of the allegations embodied therein?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Then while we are busy with that, Mr de Kock ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Before you go on, can you just confirm which one it is.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, that is the one which says

"Supplementary Affidavit of E de Kock Re: Vlakplaas"

This document was dealt with during the first two days of the hearing of ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Pages 1 to 102?

MR HATTINGH: That is I think - actually it goes further, Mr Chairman, it goes 102, but then there was certain further pages of the evidence of Gen Nyanda ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: No, I'm just reading from the frontal cover of the bundle.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, yes, that is the document.

CHAIRPERSON: That is the bundle.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I'll have to ask you to keep on assisting us in that way because I have a very large bundle of affidavits and what have you, coming from Mr de Kock.

MR HATTINGH: I will do so, Mr Chairman. May I? Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Now Mr de Kock, would you please consult the bundle, page 42 of the bundle, the supplementary affidavit, which deals with the askaris at Vlakplaas. You have already given evidence about this, but perhaps just for the refreshment of our memories we should deal with it once again very briefly. There you discuss on page 43, paragraph 2.3.4, you discuss the risk attached to members of the enemy being among the ranks of Security Police, and you say that this created quite a high degree of tension, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: In paragraph 2.3.5. you state that due to the fact that you could never completely trust these persons because you had to deal with people who had been with the liberation movements and then had declared their willingness to cooperate with the Security Police, you thought it prudent to establish a counter-insurgency unit within Vlakplaas.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And the task of this group of persons was to monitor the movements of the askaris.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Did you also install tapping devices in order to tap their telephone conversations?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Did it also then happen, Mr de Kock, that some of these askaris once again returned to the organisations to which they had belonged before they joined Vlakplaas?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And did this create problems for you?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: You also state somewhere in this document, if I recall correctly, that there were problems because these askaris were not formal members of the police and consequently the disciplinary code of the South African Police was not applicable to them.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And did this create any problems for you insofar as it was about the discipline of these persons?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And how were you supposed to attempt to maintain discipline to the best of your ability?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, one of the methods that I applied was to select a person who was from the component MK or component PAC and to appoint members of the police to constitute some form of a committee, who would then deal with these matters and then would have disciplined these persons or would have consulted me or would have applied some form of disciplinary action.

MR HATTINGH: And before they became members of the South African Police, there was also a problem with the issue of weapons to them?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: You could not issue official police weapons to them.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, the problem was that we could not give them weapons, but we were obliged to give them weapons.

MR HATTINGH: Why were you obliged to give them weapons?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, these individuals found themselves in a situation and also used this as a form of defence, that they could not provide a service for us if they could not defend themselves. In other words, we expected of them to identify an armed member of the ANC or PAC, but such a person could not defend or protect himself if he were to be approached by a person who already knew that he had defected, or if he found himself in a dangerous situation.

MR HATTINGH: Now in order to combat this problem, were weapons ever issued to them?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, we issued official police weapons to them.

MR HATTINGH: Were they also provided with eastern block weapons from time to time?

MR DE KOCK: No, not during my time. I understand in the early '80s this was the custom.

MR HATTINGH: Did the issue of weapons to the askaris create any problems in practice?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, considerably.

MR HATTINGH: Please tell the Committee briefly what the problems were that you experienced in this regard.

MR DE KOCK: With the exception of the loss or the possible use or sale of these weapons in connection with other offences we had a person who was not trained at that stage when I assumed control, in the aspects of a use of a weapon, especially in terms of Section 49 and some of these cases led to shootings at shebeens, shots were fired where some of the askaris were caught in the act with other people's wives and this created quite a few problems.

MR HATTINGH: Did any of these members lose their weapons?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, there were such cases.

MR HATTINGH: And what sort of explanation did the person who had lost his weapon offer for this loss?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, usually they would say that they didn't know where their weapons were, it was a simple as that, and then this thing would create further problems for us, especially on a level which was departmental.

MR HATTINGH: Could you always accept the explanations that they offered to you?

MR DE KOCK: No, because the Intelligence which was gathered from within the unit and also from some of the other Security Branches later, who had reported via their informers that the askari had most probably used the weapon in an offence or had fired at someone and then disposed of the weapon.

MR HATTINGH: You have already stated that some of them returned to the organisations that they had belonged to before they joined Vlakplaas.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Did some of these person who returned as such to the liberation movements that they had belonged to, take their weapons with them?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I'm not certain, it is possible. I think in the case of the Mnisi brothers it did happen.

MR HATTINGH: And you recall the Mabotha matter?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: He was also an askari who also disappeared from Vlakplaas.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And I cannot recall precisely what your evidence was in response to the question of whether he disappeared with his weapon and all.

MR DE KOCK: I think that there was a case that his weapon had not been handed in.

MR HATTINGH: Yes. ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, can I disturb you again. Gentleman, I don't know what the rest of you feel like, but I think that in view of the climate here, if you wish to take your coats off please feel at liberty to do so.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

When the loss of a weapon was reported, did you simply accept this as a bona fide loss?

MR DE KOCK: No.

MR HATTINGH: Why not?

MR DE KOCK: The weapon was issued to a formally trained military trained member who was trained to commit acts of terror and the possibility always existed that the weapon would be used for such purposes once again, and this then led to an investigation with accompanying problems.

MR HATTINGH: So whenever a weapon went lost you had that suspicion?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that suspicion existed.

MR HATTINGH: That the weapon would once again be used for terror, so to speak?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And did you always investigate such a possibility whenever a weapon was lost?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson. If one looks at the policy of the ANC and the PAC at that time, which was also to kill policemen, it was part of their official policy and as a result of this one could have expected that. It wasn't a question of murdering a policeman, it was an act of terrorism.

MR HATTINGH: Very well then, let us get to this incident, Mr de Kock. Mr Ntehelang was also an askari at Vlakplaas.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Shortly before the assault on him which led to his death, you were somewhere in the former Eastern Transvaal, where you were deployed, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And you went there to apprehend a vehicle which would allegedly enter the country with freedom fighters as passengers.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And the vehicle ever arrived?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And you then returned to Vlakplaas.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: But on the way you spent some time at certain places, I think Middelburg was one of them.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And it was there where you began drinking.

MR DE KOCK: Well Chairperson, we didn't only start drinking, we had a meal there and during the meal we consumed liquor and spent more time there than what the meal would have taken.

MR HATTINGH: How much did you have to drink? I don't need to know the quantity, but was it a few drinks or did you have quite a lot of drinks?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I would have said it was quite a lot. I think I had six to seven beers.

MR HATTINGH: And from that point onwards you departed for Pretoria?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And you came here to a hotel by the name of?

MR DE KOCK: The Polaris Hotel.

MR HATTINGH: And did you spend any time there?

MR DE KOCK: I don't know if I was there, some people say that I was there, I won't dispute it, it is possible that I was also there and that I also drank alcohol.

MR HATTINGH: You don't have a recollection of being there?

MR DE KOCK: No.

MR HATTINGH: If you had been there, would you have had any more drinks?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, I definitely would have had more drinks, definitely.

MR HATTINGH: And it is your recollection that you arrived back at Vlakplaas?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And did you have anymore drinks there in the canteen?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, we off-loaded our vehicles and reorganised the safes with our equipment, I also unlocked the canteen for those who wanted to have more drinks there or wanted to spend some time there relaxing.

MR HATTINGH: And did you have more drinks?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, I did, I think I had a few more beers.

MR HATTINGH: And there was a billiards table in the canteen, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Did you begin to play billiards?

MR DE KOCK: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Ntehelang - or perhaps I should put the following question to you. For how long were you deployed there in the Eastern Transvaal before you returned?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, upon two or three different occasions we were deployed there over weekends. This was the last instance.

MR HATTINGH: Were you only there for the weekend?

MR DE KOCK: Yes. We were waiting for a group of 16 who would enter in a kombi, a Volkswagen kombi from the Intelligence Services.

MR HATTINGH: And before you departed for the Eastern Transvaal, was Mr Ntehelang on the farm?

MR DE KOCK: No, I think that he had already missed one deployment or he hadn't arrived for a deployment. So at that stage he was absent without leave.

MR HATTINGH: In this Vlakplaas document you also deal with askaris who would sometimes be away from the farm for longer periods of time than what they were supposed to be away.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Did this happen frequently?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, it did.

MR HATTINGH: That these persons would leave the farm during their periods off and then stay away for longer than what they were supposed to?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Did that create any suspicion in your minds whenever it happened, or was this a normal phenomenon?

MR DE KOCK: No, it wasn't really normal, in certain instances it did create suspicion. As I've said, we had an Intelligence system or counter-insurgency system on the inside and one could draw the line there between possible defectors and others.

MR HATTINGH: You see, Mr Ntehelang had already missed one deployment, was that the deployment where you went down to the Lowveld?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, it was a normal deployment, as we would have gone out under normal circumstances. This deployment to the Lowveld was beyond our normal duties.

MR HATTINGH: And when you say that, do you mean he sort of deployment where a group of askaris would be under a group leader who was a member of the SAP and there would be one or two other members of the SAP, and this whole group would be deployed to a certain area to see if they could identify any liberation fighters?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And you say that he missed one such a deployment.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Did you receive any feedback from group leaders in this regard?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, he had already been working for us for quite a while, I am not certain of the period, I think it must have been about six to seven months already, and some of the group leaders told me that he was quite impetuous and that he was not providing his full co-operation. The impression that I had was that he was not conducive to his current situation, that was to work at Vlakplaas as an askari. Furthermore, the Counter-Insurgency Service' sources indicated, and I think in this case it was still Steven Mbanda, who was also an askari who belonged to this group, they indicated that we should be cautious, that this was a possible defection. Although it had not really manifested itself at that stage, the symptoms were apparent.

MR HATTINGH: And when you arrived back at the farm, did you receive any feedback regarding Mr Ntehelang?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, when we arrived there and we were busy in the canteen with our relaxation and the consumption of drinks, one of the members came to me and told me that he had heard from the guards that Ntehelang was back at Vlakplaas, that some of the askaris had found him somewhere at a bar and they had brought him back to Vlakplaas. And one of these persons, I think it was W/O Bellingan or Lt Bellingan, went to fetch him along with one of the camp guards and brought him to the canteen.

MR HATTINGH: Whoever it was that fetched him, Mr Ntehelang then entered the canteen.

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And then what happened then, Mr de Kock? Can you tell us briefly the events that took place there.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I was busy playing billiards and I asked him where he had been and he didn't respond to my question. I asked him what he had been doing in the time that he had been away, upon which he did not respond to my question, and then he told me that his pistol had been stolen at a shebeen.

MR HATTINGH: What was his condition, was he sober or -according to your judgement?

MR DE KOCK: No, he had been drinking, he was impetuous so to speak.

MR HATTINGH: And when he told you that he had lost his pistol, what did you do?

MR DE KOCK: I once again asked him where he had been during that month, what he had been up to, where specifically he had been, and I think I asked him who he had been with and he had a very strong sense of contempt and I took the snooker cue that I was playing with and hit him over the head three or four times reasonably hard and then with my right hand, I gave him a smashing blow which made him collapse.

MR HATTINGH: What happened to the cue?

MR DE KOCK: It was one of those where the cue consisted of two sections which were attached to each other and that point of connection snapped as a result of these blows to his head. And upon that it appeared to me that I was going to have a heart attack out of pure rage, because you would try everything in your power to help these persons and that was the tragedy of it. Apart from the fact that we had a latent defection on our hands, I left the canteen in order to calm down.

MR HATTINGH: And did you return to the canteen eventually?

MR DE KOCK: I did not return myself, one of the members called me. I don't know whether it was Flores or Bosch, it was one of the two. I was in my office. He told me that there was a problem in the canteen, that I must come and look and when I arrived there I found Ntehelang laying on the ground, approximately two or three paces away from the sliding doors. I bent down and looked at him and it was clear to me that he had died.

MR HATTINGH: And what did you do then?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I asked one of the members to fetch a blanket and a piece of rope. There was no doubt that Ntehelang was dead, there were no signs if life. We wrapped him up in the blanket and then tied it with the rope.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, and then?

MR DE KOCK: And as far as I know, I contacted Mr Ras -as far as I can recall Mr Ras wasn't there, or if he was there he had arrived there, but I have an idea that I either called Mr Ras or got someone to call him and asked him to come to Vlakplaas. I did not tell him over the phone what the purpose behind his visit would be, I just told him that he might be away for a short while. The idea was for us to bury the body somewhere.

MR HATTINGH: And did he arrive?

MR DE KOCK: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: You were the commanding officer?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you ask what had happened?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, well I did. What I heard from the members who were present there was that this man had been "tubed", in other words the suffocation technique by means of a rubber band which was pulled over his head was employed.

MR HATTINGH: And for which reason was he tortured as such?

MR DE KOCK: Well we didn't handle him in the same way that we would have handled an askari at that stage, we dealt with him in the way that we would have dealt with a terrorist, and he had been suffocated or strangled and seriously assaulted.

MR HATTINGH: What was the objective that you sought to achieve through that?

MR DE KOCK: Firstly we wanted to know where he had been, whether he was back with the ANC, whether he had been collaborating with the ANC. The indications were that the possibility existed and we wanted to know whether the weapon had been employed for the purposes of an offence or for terrorism and whether there was any use of this weapon for the promotion of the interests of terrorism.

MR HATTINGH: You told us that you hit him with the cue. Before you hit him with the cue, did you put any such questions to him, such as where were you, what happened to your weapon and so forth?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, I cannot recall it verbatim, but I did.

MR HATTINGH: And why was it important to you to determine where he had been and where his weapon was?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, for that period of time he had been away, he had already missed a deployment. In his case specifically we took note of the reports which had been submitted by the black members or the black leaders, as well as members of the internal insurgency group and it fortified the idea in my mind that this man had most probably reassumed the direction of his former organisations.

MR HATTINGH: And is that what you attempted to determine?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And you were not there when the other members assaulted him, but you were informed that they had tubed him. Was he assaulted in any other manner, according to what you were told?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, he had been hit and kicked.

MR HATTINGH: Was he strangled, did you see any rope at the scene when you returned?

MR DE KOCK: I didn't see any rope, I called for a rope to tie the blanket that he had been wrapped up in.

MR HATTINGH: Did anyone tell you upon your inquiries, that he had been assaulted for the purposes of obtaining information?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct, that is why he was assaulted.

MR HATTINGH: And you called for the rope and the blanket and he was wrapped in the blanket and the blanket was tied with the rope?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct. After that we placed him in Lt Snyders' vehicle, in the boot of his vehicle in a covered manner, so that the guards wouldn't see what was going on and three other members and I departed. I think it was Mr Ras, Snyders and Flores. I don't know whether anyone else was present. We departed for Western Transvaal.

MR HATTINGH: And somewhere in Western Transvaal you buried the body?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct. There was a farm belonging to a person who was known to Mr Ras and we went to this place. We didn't have anything such a cemetery where one could go. We did not foresee that this person would die. And we then went to bury the man there.

MR HATTINGH: And you then returned to Vlakplaas?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And on the following day, were any precautionary measures taken in order to attempt to cover up the facts of the assault, such as cleaning and so forth?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, the canteen was cleaned, it was always cleaned on a daily basis apart from the fact that once a week we would get carpet cleaners in, but furthermore I asked Maj Baker to create a file for a missing person according to the SAP52 form.

MR HATTINGH: And was such a file opened?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, with the objective that if there were any enquiries about him we could say that the person had defected, that he was not a member of the Force, so it wasn't necessary to open a dossier. And furthermore, I also obtained permission by applying for an extension of salary payment of six months, which would then be paid to his mother.

MR HATTINGH: And to whom did you lodge this request?

MR DE KOCK: It was to Brig Schoon. However I did not inform Brig Schoon that this man had died as well as the circumstances under which he had died.

MR HATTINGH: And then for a period of a further six months, was his salary then paid to his mother?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: The decision that this person had to be buried secretly, the decision that was taken that this person was to be buried secretly, on what was that decision based, what was the motivation therefore?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, firstly it was a member of the ANC and he had died at Vlakplaas and I took that decision, not because of protecting ourselves, but for protecting the Security Police and the unit itself, and to hide the death and to bury the person.

MR HATTINGH: And if the matter had taken its normal course there would have been an investigation and there would have probably been some prosecution.

MR DE KOCK: That is possible, but at that time we knew of actions and cover-up actions and disinformation actions and I believe that on the one hand there may have been a prosecution and on the other side I would have been admonished, but not been removed from the unit.

MR HATTINGH: If there had been a prosecution that would have meant the disclosure of Vlakplaas.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, not only for me but if there was any prosecution, it may have been directed at the other member. But as I've already mentioned, at that stage I had been well aware of cover-up actions, not only in the RSA, but also in Namibia.

MR HATTINGH: So not only for the police, but it would have been a problem for the them government, the existence of Vlakplaas and what had happened there and if what happened there came to light?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, because a disclosure of that would have led to previous incidents since 1983, or even before that. ...(transcriber's interpretation)

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

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HATTINGH

MR SIBANYONI: Mr de Kock, just a point of clarity. How did the mother receive the money for six months, how was it paid to the deceased's mother?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, the procedure was the money was handled by Mr Baker, it was sent to a Security Branch at Kuruman and the mother was paid by the Security Branch of Kuruman. She definitely received the monies.

MR SIBANYONI: So the family stayed around Kuruman?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, if I recall correctly. I will later be able to confirm it with Mr Baker, because he had the file and he maintained the file with regard to the so-called disappearance or defection. He handled that.

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you, Mr de Kock.

CHAIRPERSON: This may be a convenient stage to take the short adjournment.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: You had finished the evidence-in-chief?

MR HATTINGH: Yes I have, thank you, Mr Chairman.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BOOYENS: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Booyens on record.

Mr de Kock, I would just like to deal with some of the practical issues on the ground. I don't know whether you would be able to answer this question of mine. Mr Bellingan tells me that he was in the canteen and as far as he can recall when the deceased arrived there he says a man by the name of Steven was possibly with him and that the deceased had spoken to him and told him that he had lost his firearm. In other words, can you specifically recall that Mr Bellingan physically went somewhere to fetch the person to put it as such?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, that is a recollection that I have of it. I may be mistaken, but that is an image I have in my mind.

MR BOOYENS: Very well, I understand. And then with regard to the assault itself, I don't know, you must be under so much pressure recently that you don't find the time to read up these matters, but Mr Bellingan says that at the stage when the assaults started he walked out of the canteen, can you agree with that? What I'm saying in essence is that he did not participate in the assault.

MR DE KOCK: That is entirely possible, Chairperson.

MR BOOYENS: And then with regard to all three the gentlemen, Mr Tait, Ras and Baker - I beg your pardon, Tait, Bellingan and Baker, I would just to deal with the basic attitude which existed at Vlakplaas. You as commander and the people under you were well aware of the fact that Vlakplaas firstly was a clandestine operation, it was not something that was spoken about openly.

MR DE KOCK: That's correct.

MR BOOYENS: And Vlakplaas on the other hand was very successful in the struggle which reigned in the past against the forces who wanted to usurp the government then. Would I be correct?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Well it may come up that all three the gentlemen, although they did not specifically participate in the assault, heard that the man had died and technically speaking, as police officers they had a duty to report it according to the Police Act?

MR DE KOCK: That's correct.

MR BOOYENS: I would just like to take it further on what Mr Hattingh said. You said it would be covered up, but if one of these members went specifically around the Security Police - I will mention an example, let's say one of them went to central police and said that this incident took place at Vlakplaas, so in other words it would be in the hands of persons outside the Security Police, would it have been expected that there would have been an investigation if there was such a break in trust?

MR DE KOCK: I personally believed that the dossier would have been pulled by Security Head Office and it would have been given over to Gen Ronnie van der Westhuizen, who was then at that stage dealing with sensitive matters and was involved with the cover-up of the Brian Mitchell incident in KwaZulu Natal, where all those people were shot. So that is how I regarded it. And it would have caused enquiries, but it would have been covered up.

MR BOOYENS: So you think with your knowledge of what would have happened then, the matter would never have gone to Court?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, it would not have.

MR BOOYENS: And because of the fact that all of you were made aware that Vlakplaas was a clandestine operation and this type of disloyalty would not have been expected from any of your members, that one of your members would run and go and report this to someone else?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, we have walked a long road with these types of operations.

MR BOOYENS: I know you have touched on it and I know we speak of hypothetical issues, but at that stage if there was an investigation, let us suppose that someone outside the Security Police made enquiries and the matter ended up in Court, would I be correct that the whole Vlakplaas operation would have been jeopardised?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, it would not - not the whole Vlakplaas, but the Brigadiers and the Generals and probably the Ministers and pointed a direct finger at the government.

MR BOOYENS: Yes. And to take it further, it would have been an effective counter-insurgence operation because Vlakplaas was a continuous operation, it was not for one purpose, it would have jeopardised a very successful counter-insurgency operation, not so?

MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR BOOYENS: With regard to the incident concerning the three gentlemen that I have mentioned to you ...

...(end of tape)

MR DE KOCK: ... it was a general attitude at Vlakplaas that look, we are dealing with sensitive issues in the interest of the country, you do not speak out. Would you say - I have now to try and place a telescope together, but would that summarise the attitude there?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson. I can take it further, that all members who came to Vlakplaas and had applied their applications were dealt with firstly by the local Security Branch where a background study was made to see if this person - if I can put it as such, that they are favourable towards the government and are not anti-government.

MR BOOYENS: Yes, that on the one hand and on the other hand I assume that it has been emphasised to people that you have to be careful with regards to the identity of the askaris and the existence of all the askaris should not be disclosed, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: That's correct.

MR BOOYENS: For example on occasion, and I recall a specific incident in Durban, where one of the askaris specifically had been charged with a shooting at the Butterworth Hotel, even at that stage it was not disclosed that the Vlakplaas - as a Vlakplaas askari operation. And that was the attitude, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: That's correct.

MR BOOYENS: I think that was a matter before Judge Howard, I think it was Jimmy Mbane's matter.

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, it was Eric Maluleka. After he was found guilty we had him placed or transferred from Westville to Pretoria and arrangements were made with Brig Schoon and the Department of Correctional Services that he be placed in a security position where he rendered some type of service in the storeroom or in the cafe and we at the same time appointed him on a fictional name as a source and monies were paid later into a bank account which was opened for him and his costs were carried while he was in prison. And when he was released he had an amount of about R45 000 in his bank account and he again came to Vlakplaas, but under this fictional name.

MR BOOYENS: Thank you, Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BOOYENS

CHAIRPERSON: So you're telling us now there was - the Security Police conducted an operation whereby somebody who had been convicted of a serious offence, was paid the sum of R45 000 while he was supposed to be serving imprisonment?

MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson, he received a monthly salary and we carried all his expenses while he was in prison. This was done with approval. One of the reasons for that was that if one would leave the man just like that, it would probably disclose Vlakplaas on a basis that he was one of the loyal askaris and we looked after him.

CHAIRPERSON: Who approved this?

MR DE KOCK: Brig Schoon approved it, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And who was the Police General you say covered up for Mitchell?

MR DE KOCK: Gen Ronnie van der Westhuizen, Chairperson, who before Gen Engelbrecht had dealt with these types of investigations.

CHAIRPERSON: But Mitchell was in fact convicted?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, in the end the investigation was taken away from Gen van der Westhuizen and handed to somebody else and that created that situation.

CHAIRPERSON: A policeman by the name of Dutton?

MR DE KOCK: I understand so, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: So it wasn't a cover-up that worked.

MR DE KOCK: Not when it was taken away from Gen van der Westhuizen. It worked up until the time when the police had control over it. If I say "police" in that sense, the cover-up action, but not afterwards when it was taken away.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Cornelius on behalf of van Heerden and Flores.

Mr de Kock, I want to discuss the deployment with you. You say Moses Ntehelang was missing at the deployment. How long before the murder was that?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I am not entirely certain, I cannot recall the length of times and the dates, but with a deployment they are deployed for approximately a month and if he was not at Vlakplaas with the deployment, then he would have been marked as AWOL, absent without leave and the rest of the group would have been deployed. So I accept that for that period of time of time, for a month, he was not available for service.

MR CORNELIUS: Very well. Now deployment is when all the members of Vlakplaas convene and weapons are issued and the month's activities are planned.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, the unit is divided into groups and we have a look at which divisions have asked for askaris, the group leaders are dealt in, weapons are cleaned, shooting exercises are held. And this usually took place on a Monday and on the Tuesday the members were deployed.

MR CORNELIUS: So it a reasonably serious offence if you are not available for deployment because you will not be available for a whole month?

MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: Did this constitute a question about Moses Ntehelang to you?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, in a sense, and this was because of uncertainty with regard to this person's loyalty towards the unit.

MR CORNELIUS: The full working manner or activities of Vlakplaas serves as Annexure 7 which serves before the Committee and it deals with how the askaris were dealt with, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: If an askari turns and returns back to his previous political affiliation, would that create a serious problem for you?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, it would create a serious problem for everybody, specifically for the askaris who were there.

MR CORNELIUS: Yes, because askaris take part in operations and have intimate knowledge of the members of Vlakplaas, their names, addresses and their vehicles.

MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: So if this list of names and addresses of the members became available to the wrong people, that could have had dire consequences for the members personally, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: And then we must not lose sight that if names and addresses of askaris who act against the liberation movements, when those names are disclosed it would create matters of great danger for those askaris, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson, as well as the working methods.

MR CORNELIUS: Do you know whether information was obtained from Moses Ntehelang that evening or not?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, no information was conveyed to me. Either he did not talk or he did not want to talk or he did not know.

MR CORNELIUS: Very well.

CHAIRPERSON: Can I just clear up something. On this occasion when he was brought in, had he been missing for a month?

MR DE KOCK: That is what I recall, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: So would there have been attempts made to find him?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson yes, but not in such a manner that I would specifically deploy groups to look for him. If they happen on him while they are working in some region, then they would have known that the man is not at Vlakplaas, he was not there, what is he doing?

CHAIRPERSON: But you've just told us how dangerous he could be, surely it was important to find him, bring him back as soon as possible?

MR DE KOCK: That is so, Chairperson, but the work has to continue. If he had already defected to Swaziland or Botswana, I could have looked for six months and I would not have found anything. And on occasion previously we had people who defected and came back and then with investigations we found out that he stayed somewhere else with somebody else's wife for three weeks or some others were just inebriated for a long period of time. So there were those consequences.

CHAIRPERSON: So they weren't defectors, they were just people who had been absent without leave?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, but we had to look at the whole picture, what the people's situation was, how long they had been there, their conduct and whatever accompanies that.

CHAIRPERSON: And this man had been found by askaris in a shebeen?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Drunk.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, he had been drinking.

CHAIRPERSON: And when he was brought back to Vlakplaas, was he locked up?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, we did not have a detention facility there.

CHAIRPERSON: Where was he?

MR DE KOCK: He stayed on the farm, there were guards and I think he had been there a day or two - he had already been there a day or two when we arrived there.

CHAIRPERSON: And he was still drunk when you spoke to him, after he'd been at Vlakplaas under guard for a day or two?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, I don't know if he had been drinking again after they had found him at the shebeen. I accept that, because when I saw him he was under the influence of alcohol. I am not saying that he was drunk for three days, I could just accept that he had drank again.

CHAIRPERSON: While he was in custody at Vlakplaas?

MR DE KOCK: In custody would not be a matter of he sits there with handcuffs and he is lock up in a room, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on.

MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Mr Chair ...(intervention)

MR SIBANYONI: Excuse me, was liquor easily available at Vlakplaas?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, if the people who went out and bought food brought along liquor, it was not forbidden. There was shebeen just on the other side of the river, which was about 500/600 metres from there on another person's premises, which I had closed later by means of getting the Liquor Branch to close the place. So people were not searched at the gate to find out if they had liquor or not.

MR SIBANYONI: The liquor at the canteen, was it available to everybody including ...(intervention)

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, the canteen was locked, it was a specific facility.

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you.

MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Mr Chair.

The information from the members, the askaris, would that have been of value for somebody like Mrs Mandela?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, if it was supplied to her it would be.

MR CORNELIUS: Do you know of any searches of her house?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, there were several over a period of years, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: You cannot recall what information was obtained, whether names and lists were seized with the names of askaris?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, but it's not impossible.

MR CORNELIUS: After the murder of Ntehelang, the body had to be disposed of to prevent disclosure of Vlakplaas, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: You have in the past also experienced that Vlakplaas members were assisted by someone like Gen Krappies Engelbrecht, in order to make false statements and to cover up unpleasant incidents.

MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you feel that it was expected of you to cover up this murder?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson. Had I called them in there would have been - and I have no doubt about it, a process would have been started in order to deal with the situation so that a finger would not be pointed at the Security Police or the members of Vlakplaas. ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CORNELIUS

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR ROSSOUW: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr de Kock, just a few aspects. You have testified that three members drove with you to dispose of the corpse, you have mentioned their names, Mr Ras, Mr Snyders and Mr Flores and then you said possibly another person whom you cannot recall.

MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR ROSSOUW: Can you recall whether it was possibly Mr Douw Willemse?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, it could be him, I could not dispute that.

MR ROSSOUW: I asked that because you specifically mention his name in your amnesty application, on page 6 of the bundle.

MR DE KOCK: Then that would be so, Chairperson.

MR ROSSOUW: You also say there that you gave instruction to Willemse and Flores, who I assume was Mr Douw Willemse, to accompany you so that you could dispose of the body. So it was an instruction from you?

MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR ROSSOUW: And you expected that these members would execute your instructions?

MR DE KOCK: That's correct.

MR ROSSOUW: Seen in the light of what you have just testified, that you felt that it was expected of you to cover up this death of the askari.

MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR ROSSOUW: Very well. And then, can you possibly recall or can you say where Mr Willemse was when you instructed him to accompany you? Was he inside or outside the canteen?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I don't know, I cannot recall that.

MR ROSSOUW: Very well. Can you possibly say or can you dispute that Mr Bosch will testify that he was not in the canteen all the time, but that he had also left the canteen after he saw you hitting Mr Ntehelang with a pool cue?

MR DE KOCK: That is possible.

MR ROSSOUW: And while you were outside, can you recall that there was a conversation between yourself and Mr Bosch, where you requested him to fetch boiling water or hot water for you?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson.

MR ROSSOUW: Can you not recall it?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson.

MR ROSSOUW: And you can also not recall that he reported to you that the kettle was not functioning?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairman, I've got no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR ROSSOUW

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BOTHA: Thank you, Mr Chairman, Botha on record.

Mr de Kock, I appear for the applicant Snyders. Just a few aspects. In the amnesty application of Mr Snyders, he says that before the deceased was taken into the canteen he heard from the deceased that his firearm was lost "en dat hy 'n substansiële bedrag geld by hom gekry het". ...(no English interpretation) Can you recall that?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, the money I cannot remember, the firearm I can, there was an aspect surrounding that.

MR BOTHA: And then he furthermore states that after the initial interrogation by yourself, it was clear to him that the deceased had sold the firearm. Is that the impression that you gained or was it a suspicion that you formulated at that stage?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, there was uncertainty with regard to whether he had lost the weapon or whether he had sold the weapon or whether the firearm was used in any other manner in the furtherance of his own political objectives. And my personal feeling was that he had used the firearm and had gotten rid of it.

MR BOTHA: Thank you, Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BOTHA

CHAIRPERSON: Did you know that Mr Snyders had searched him and found a few thousand rand on him?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, it could have been told to me possibly at that stage, but I don't have any recollection of it, and if it was such a large amount of money, then I believe that I would have recalled it.

CHAIRPERSON: That is what Mr Snyders has said in his amnesty application and that he reported to you after he found this money and that you then took him into the canteen and started questioning him.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I have a clear recollection that I was busy playing pool when this man came in. I know of the firearm situation, but the cash I don't know anything about that and I would have mentioned it if I knew about it.

ADV SANDI: Just one thing, Mr de Kock, when this man was away, did you have any specific plan in your mind as to what you're going to do with him when he comes back?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson. We did not know when he would return or if indeed he would return. We were busy with other operations. Our arrival there and his presence there created the situation where we decided to interrogate him. There was no previous planning that we will jump on this man and work with him.

ADV SANDI: As I recall your evidence you said you asked him where he had been and he did not answer you.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, on the first occasion he did not and then afterwards he took an impetuous attitude, an "I don't care" attitude as well and it seemed to me that he wanted to cover up where he was.

ADV SANDI: Are you saying he was drunk and cheeky?

MR DE KOCK: I would not say that he was malicious, he was "I don't care" and I would not say inebriated in the sense where he could not walk, but he was under the influence of liquor.

ADV SANDI: And his "I don't care" attitude, is that something that upset you?

MR DE KOCK: No, it did not upset me, it created a situation here where it was his attempt to cover up where he had been.

CHAIRPERSON: But he made no attempt to cover up, he just didn't answer your question. That's what you've told us.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, if he does not answer my question so that we can research it, then it is a cover-up of where he had been. There was no reason for him not to tell me, listen I was at house number such and such and stayed there for three weeks, and I can send somebody to verify it. That is what the situation was at that stage.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. You were very drunk yourself, questioning were you not?

MR DE KOCK: Drunk no, but under the influence of liquor, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: You distinguish between the two, do you?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, my opinion of drunk is when one can barely walk or their is no co-ordination of any sorts.

CHAIRPERSON: And you were questioning someone whom you thought was under the influence of liquor?

MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Why didn't you tell them to take him away, keep him till the next morning when the questioning could continue properly? Why did you embark on a violent and vicious attack on this man?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, those were the circumstances. In retrospect one can say so now. I would like to mention that if his attitude was the same the following day, we would have probably interrogated him until he told us where he was.

CHAIRPERSON: And you would have got useful information, rather than hitting him over the head with a billiard cue.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, we could have done that too.

ADV SANDI: And when you started beating him up, what was your objective?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, we wanted information from him, and as I have said the violence or the physical assault was not the actual objective of getting it from him, but the suffocation aspect, yes.

ADV SANDI: But when you left him with your colleagues in the canteen did you give an instruction that they should beat him up to get information from him?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, but I believe that my conduct and my attitude could have been an initiator for that and if I do not get the information from him, then they would get it from him. I believe that is what activated them.

CHAIRPERSON: Because we've been told that a number of the other officers present walked out of the canteen when they saw what was going on and wanted no part of it.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, that is what they are saying now. As far as I know very few of them walked out, we were a large group there.

CHAIRPERSON: ... no doubt they can confirm it when they give evidence.

MR DE KOCK: Very well, Chairperson.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR JANSEN: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Jansen on behalf of Ras.

Mr de Kock, during your criminal trial you were charged with murder in respect of this event, but you were found guilty of accessory to culpable homicide, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR JANSEN: Your rank at that stage?

MR DE KOCK: I think I was a Major, I'm not certain.

MR JANSEN: And Mr Baker's rank at that stage?

MR DE KOCK: He was a Captain.

MR JANSEN: Who of the other persons there were officers at that stage, can you recall?

MR DE KOCK: Mr Snyders was an officer, he was Lieutenant or a Captain, and I'm not certain of the others who were present there.

MR JANSEN: At that stage Mr Ras was a Warrant Officer, can you confirm that?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, I believe he was.

MR JANSEN: In terms of the questions which Mr Booyens put to you, just the following. From Mr Ras' perspective, would it be correct to say that even though the attack on Mr Ntehelang was not justified, it would have had to be covered up in either event due to the number of your officers who were involved in the matter?

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR JANSEN: And Mr Ras who arrived there later, after the time, would also have been expected to participate in the cover-up, if it should come to his attention?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR JANSEN: If you look at page 296 of the documents, that is Mr Ras' affidavit, what he states there according to what you told him. He states as follows in paragraph 3.

INTERPRETER: It's page 269, sorry, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN

"Kol de Kock het na my gekom. De Kock het aan my gesê ..."

269, Mr Chairman. 269. Mr Chairman, just for your information, this is a statement made by Mr Ras in the police docket of this matter, as you will note, but in essence it is the same as what he said in his amnesty application, which is found as from page 168 and further. And if I may quote:

"De Kock told me that they had problems because one of the askaris had died during interrogation. I asked de Kock what had happened. He said that the askari had reported that his weapon had been stolen, but that he was already suspected of liaising with the ANC. Col de Kock mentioned that he was not consistently present during the interrogation and found upon his return that the askari was dead."

And then it continues. Is that in line with you told Mr Ras that day, your version of what you told him?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: Thank you, Mr Chairman, no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR JANSEN

ADV STEENKAMP: I've got no questions, thank you, Mr Chairman.

NO QUESTIONS BY ADV STEENKAMP

ADV SANDI: Mr de Kock, did you at any stage see one of your colleagues beating up the deceased?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, after I beat him with the snooker cue, I put it down and walked out and then a group of these persons, among others, Lt Piet Botha, or W/O Piet Botha I think, tackled him and I'm not certain of the other members, but some of the other members then descended upon him.

ADV SANDI: You mentioned something about the mother who was staying in Kuruman.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, in the area.

ADV SANDI: At what stage did you become aware that the deceased had a mother in Kuruman?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, it was on his interrogation file which was compiled by Section C2.

ADV SANDI: Do you know if the mother of the deceased was contacted in order to establish his whereabouts?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I think it was done, I have an idea that the Kuruman Security Branch were among others, requested that if he should arrive in the area they should be on the lookout for him. I think, but I will have to rely on Capt Baker about this, that enquiries were made about him with his mother and I think he also had a sister, and the basic message was that if he should arrive they should notify the Kuruman Security Branch. The file that we opened indicating that he had defected or was missing, also included indications that he had been spotted in Swaziland at some stage, a source had seen him there or something in that line.

ADV SANDI: You say you believed that the deceased was lying to say that he had lost his firearm and you believed that he had used it somewhere.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, at that stage and by nature of the circumstances which reigned at that stage, it was a feeling that I had. As I've said, as a result of reports given by the section leaders that he worked with, his negative attitude and then also the reports from the internal askari group, which acted as a Counter-Insurgency Unit, who seriously doubted his loyalties.

ADV SANDI: Yes, but let me confirm this with you. As I understand it this was just a feeling you had in your mind, you had no basis for that.

MR DE KOCK: I did not have a fixed or tangible piece of evidence about it, but taken into the consideration of its entirety, his actions and his conduct indicated a situation which could possibly have already manifested itself, and that was the feeling that I had.

ADV SANDI: Yes, what you mean is there had not been any incident during the course of his disappearance, an incident in which you suspected that he may have been involved?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, that is what we wanted to determine, we didn't have any reports from branches or detective branches that such a person was wanted or that such a person may have been connected with any specific incident of terrorism.

ADV SANDI: During the course of his disappearance there had not been - if I understand you, there had not been an attack, an armed attack on members of the Security Police or Vlakplaas members. Is that what you are saying?

MR DE KOCK: Not Vlakplaas members, but it could probably have been that it was not only directed at Security Police, but at your regular policemen who by nature of the situation were part of that policy of the ANC which they developed in terms of attacks.

ADV SANDI: You say one of the factors was his negative attitude. Can you explain that?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, the attitude that he displayed was a question of a return to the ANC and their line of action. It was more a question of his unwillingness to identify people, something in that direction, that he was displaying an inclination back towards the ANC, that he was moving back to the ANC.

ADV SANDI: Ja, but surely if this man had an agenda of being deployed back to Vlakplaas by the ANC, surely one would have expected him to show a co-operative attitude in order to mislead you, not to be cheeky and negative?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I think that such a situation differs from person to person, it depends upon the individual's inherent attitude and background. I don't believe that he had an intelligence background.

ADV SANDI: Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Where was this shebeen that he was found at?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, apparently it was a shebeen in Laudium, which was on the way to Erasmia.

CHAIRPERSON: One that one would expect askaris to visit?

MR DE KOCK: Well among others, Chairperson, one wouldn't say only that specific shebeen, but also others.

CHAIRPERSON: Didn't it surprise you that a man who has reverted back to the ANC after six months working with Vlakplaas, would now just be found sitting drunk in a shebeen, a shebeen that was visited by askaris?

MR DE KOCK: No, not necessarily, Chairperson, one didn't know what he had already done in the preceding period or during that month when he was not deployed, that he may be returning to Vlakplaas with a certain objective or order if he had such an objective or order. As I have said, during that period and within the context of that time when we were working with these people, such a suspicion could very strongly have emerged.

CHAIRPERSON: But if he was returning to Vlakplaas, as my colleague has already put to you, surely he would want to create as good an impression as possible?

MR DE KOCK: Yes possibly, Chairperson, one never knew if he was more difficult as a result of his consumption of alcohol or whether it was his repossession of certain capacities or powers that he had returned to where he had been. It was difficult to lay out the personality structure of such a person and then explain his behaviour accordingly.

CHAIRPERSON: So you couldn't explain his behaviour?

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

CHAIRPERSON: But you decided to assault him and your colleagues went on to kill him when you couldn't determine his behaviour pattern.

MR DE KOCK: No, not just like that. One would look at the entirety of his service that he had given and then consider the reports which were submitted about him, expressing doubt about his loyalties and then also the possibility of a return to the ANC. We did not go and beat every askari to death or strangle every askari to death, this situation was unique in terms of events that occurred at Vlakplaas.

CHAIRPERSON: I have no further questions at this stage. When the other applicants have given their evidence, it may be necessary to recall this applicant. Have you any re-examination?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Yes, thank you, Mr Chairman, just a few questions.

When you returned to Vlakplaas, Mr de Kock, from the Eastern Transvaal, did you know that Mr Ntehelang was on the farm or did you only determine that later during the evening?

MR DE KOCK: We determined that after our arrival back at the farm.

MR HATTINGH: And you say that you did not have detention facilities there. Did he live on the farm before he disappeared from the farm?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, I think he stayed there.

MR HATTINGH: And if he had stayed there and if he had returned, would he have been detained or would he simply have been allowed to reside there once again until your return?

MR DE KOCK: No, he would have stayed there in his room or on his bed or wherever his facility was.

MR HATTINGH: Would he necessarily have been restricted to the farm if for example he had returned - he wanted to go somewhere earlier on that day of your return, would they have prevented him from going anywhere?

MR DE KOCK: No, I wouldn't be able to say that.

MR HATTINGH: And you say that alcohol was brought in and that alcohol was consumed on the premises?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, it occurred that some of the people brought alcohol with, especially those who were off during the week and they consumed this alcohol on the premises.

MR HATTINGH: And you were aware of this and it was permitted?

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And you say that when you left the canteen, you saw some of the other members tackling him and you mentioned the name of Botha.

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Did you see this just before you left the room?

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And at that stage, did you issue any order for them not to continue with the assault of Mr Ntehelang?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: What did you think, what did you think their objective was with the assault on him?

MR DE KOCK: Well they wanted to obtain the information about him pertaining to where he had been, what he had been doing, whether he had returned to the ANC, whether he had spent that month with the ANC, where was the firearm, had it been used during an act of terrorism or during an offence.

MR HATTINGH: You say that they followed your example?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Do you accept responsibility for their actions?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, I accept responsibility, full responsibility for my conduct as well as the conduct of my members and their actions and thoughts, and this would also include the concealment of his body.

MR HATTINGH: During the criminal trial a family member gave evidence, I think it was a sister if I recall correctly.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

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

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HATTINGH

ADV SANDI: Just one question which I thought I would ask, Mr de Kock. You've said something about doubts as to his loyalty to the Security Police. Can you tell us more about that? You say there were doubts about his loyalty.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, the group leaders among others, with their deployment and activities examined whether or not there was a trend among individuals of possible defections. They also examined the possibility of these members identifying their own people and assisting with investigations. Furthermore, information was collected with regard to persons who were possibly displaying a trend for defection or a trend for establishing a defective group, and from that information a complete picture was formulated of a person who may be displaying tendencies of defection or a change in attitude towards Vlakplaas, the Security Police and its activities.

ADV SANDI: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: So with this complete picture of him you were going to deploy him for a month's activities?

MR DE KOCK: Would you repeat that please.

CHAIRPERSON: As I understood your evidence you said he was supposed to have been deployed a month earlier, ...(intervention)

MR DE KOCK: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: ... that is to go out on these operations.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And at that time you had this complete picture of him.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson no, I wouldn't say that it was the complete picture, a suspicion had emerged that this person was not completely bound to the unit, there was a level of dissension within him.

CHAIRPERSON: Right.

MR SIBANYONI: Maybe just one question, Mr de Kock. Among others you said some of these askaris would go away, maybe stay with somebody's wife. If this was the case, if it had happened with Ntehelang, he wouldn't be brave to tell you that he was just on a frolic of his own.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, if he had been with someone else's wife he could have told me because this was the sort of thing that I heard about every day and I had to address on a daily basis. Sometimes I had to appease some of the wives and promise them that it would never happen again. And in this case I don't think that Mr Ntehelang was in that sort of situation. There are many people who wish to create the impression that I was not approachable and in some aspects I was, but generally I had an open door policy and I dealt with more than just the askaris' problems. I also sorted out their extra-marital problems and problems with their children. It wasn't that he didn't have access to me, or that it was necessary for him to adopt that attitude, not at all.

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

WITNESS EXCUSED