NICHOLAAS VERMEULEN: (sworn states)
EXAMINATION BY MR CORNELIUS: Mr Vermeulen, you are an applicant for amnesty and in terms of Section 18 of Act 34 of 1995, you have completed an application and elaborated on the particulars thereof, and handed it into the TRC in Cape Town before the prescribed time?
MR VERMEULEN: That is correct Chairperson.
MR CORNELIUS: As the previous applicant, you are an applicant in terms of Section 20(2)(b) of Act 34 of 1995 and you will try to point out to the Committee that you acted bona fide at all instances with the purpose of combatting the onslaught against the government, by the ANC/SACP alliance and at all times, you acted with a political motive, is that correct?
MR VERMEULEN: That is correct Chairperson.
MR CORNELIUS: And at all times, you acted with a political motive, is that correct?
MR VERMEULEN: That is correct Chairperson.
MR CORNELIUS: Your evidence, and that of the previous applicant goes hand in hand, you followed the same modus operandi, you received an instruction to collect weapons, to prepare the weapons, to pack them into plastic bags and to deliver them in East London, is that correct?
MR VERMEULEN: That is correct Chairperson.
MR CORNELIUS: At all times the previous applicant was with you?
MR VERMEULEN: That is correct Chairperson.
MR CORNELIUS: And then also Eugene de Kock?
MR VERMEULEN: That is correct Chairperson.
MR CORNELIUS: Did you also receive a direct instruction from Mr Eugene de Kock?
MR VERMEULEN: That is correct.
MR CORNELIUS: And did you regard it as a legal, or that is the wrong word, did you see it as a regular instruction from Mr De Kock?
MR VERMEULEN: That is correct.
MR CORNELIUS: And what was your belief, did you believe that this had the approval of the higher echelons?
MR VERMEULEN: Yes, I did Chairperson.
MR CORNELIUS: And in the light of the type of onslaught, you thought that it had to come from a higher authority?
MR VERMEULEN: That is correct Chairperson.
MR CORNELIUS: What would have happened to you if you did not carry out the order from Eugene de Kock?
MR VERMEULEN: I would have been transferred from the Unit and my career would not be the best for the rest of the time that I spent, my time in the Police Force.
MR CORNELIUS: And you would have broken the Police Force Code - was there a danger that you could be injured bodily?
MR VERMEULEN: That is correct Chairperson.
MR CORNELIUS: When you acted as you did, did you believe that you acted to the advantage of the Republic?
MR VERMEULEN: That is correct Chairperson.
MR CORNELIUS: Did you receive any personal reward or were any promises made to you or any proposals that you would receive financial reward after the actions?
MR VERMEULEN: No, Chairperson.
MR CORNELIUS: Did you also receive an amount of R20000 for S&T purposes?
MR VERMEULEN: That is correct Chairperson.
MR CORNELIUS: And as my learned colleague indicated, to fill petrol into your vehicles?
MR VERMEULEN: Yes, I did Chairperson.
MR CORNELIUS: Did you have any feelings of malice towards Gen Holomisa?
MR VERMEULEN: No, I did not Chairperson.
MR CORNELIUS: And you apply for amnesty for conspiracy in and outside the Republic, to commit public violence and conspiracy to murder and any other offences with regard to the Weapons' Act?
MR VERMEULEN: Yes Chairperson.
MR CORNELIUS: Mention was made of a piece of land in the Transkei, what can you tell us about that?
MR VERMEULEN: I believe it was said in a joking manner, and it was never mentioned.
MR CORNELIUS: This mention of the piece of land, was it mentioned before the delivery of the weapons, or after the weapons were delivered?
MR VERMEULEN: After the weapons were delivered.
MR CORNELIUS: So this mention of the land did not play any part when you delivered the weapons?
MR VERMEULEN: No, it did not.
MR CORNELIUS: Did you receive any piece of land from anybody?
MR VERMEULEN: No Chairperson.
MR CORNELIUS: Did you receive any other form of reward or promises to perform your daily tasks?
MR VERMEULEN: No Chairperson.
MR CORNELIUS: What was your rank at that stage when you were involved with the delivery of the weapons?
MR VERMEULEN: I was a Warrant Officer.
MR CORNELIUS: And how long did you know Mr Eugene de Kock?
MR VERMEULEN: Very long Chairperson.
MR CORNELIUS: What was your relationship with him?
MR VERMEULEN: We were very good friends.
MR CORNELIUS: Thank you Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CORNELIUS
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Cornelius. Mr Lamey, do you have any questions?
MR LAMEY: No questions, thank you Mr Chairperson.
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hattingh, do you have any questions?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Vermeulen, Mr De Kock's maintenance of discipline amongst his subordinates, how was his discipline?
MR VERMEULEN: He was very strict, but he was a just man.
MR HATTINGH: Would he not take any disciplinary steps towards you because you were friends?
MR VERMEULEN: No Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: Thank you Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HATTINGH: .
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Muller?
MR MULLER: No questions, thank you Mr Chairman.
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MULLER
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Jansen?
MR JANSEN: Thank you Mr Chairman, no questions.
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR JANSEN
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma?
MR MAPOMA: Thank you Chairperson, no questions.
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MAPOMA
CHAIRPERSON: Any re-examination Mr Cornelius?
MR CORNELIUS: I have no re-examination Mr Chairman.
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR CORNELIUS
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Sandi?
ADV SANDI: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Vermeulen, if this thing about people getting plots for participation, if the coup had been successful in the Transkei, why did you not say in your affidavit, that this was just a joke?
MR VERMEULEN: At that time it just came up into my mind, I didn't think it was very important, but I did mention it Mr Chairman.
ADV SANDI: Are there any other jokes that were said in the course of conversations?
MR VERMEULEN: Not that I can remember of, Mr Chairman.
ADV SANDI: Is this the only, should one understand you to say that this is the only joke that was made or said during the time you were talking amongst yourselves?
MR VERMEULEN: That I can remember of, yes, sir.
ADV SANDI: And indeed, in the end, people were in fact given plots. What do you think about that?
MR VERMEULEN: That was at a very later stage, and that didn't come to me as any surprise.
ADV SANDI: Your relationship with Colonel De Kock, would you say it was one of close friendship, how would you describe it?
MR VERMEULEN: As I said, he was my Commanding Officer, and we had a good relationship after hours and during working hours, we had a formal relationship, Mr Chairman.
ADV SANDI: Thank you. Thank you Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Sibanyoni, do you have any questions?
MR SIBANYONI: Thank you Mr Chairperson, no questions.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Vermeulen, unfortunately my copy is not a very good copy because it is out of alignment, but if I look at paragraph 54 of your affidavit, that appears on page 37, I don't know if yours is also out of alignment, but it says
"... where De Kock had given me money, it is difficult to connect these incidents. I accepted that this was reward for what we had done, and I thought it was legal."
What did you mean by that, could you just explain that?
MR VERMEULEN: Sometimes Mr De Kock did give some remuneration.
CHAIRPERSON: You may speak Afrikaans.
MR VERMEULEN: He gave it to everybody, it was not just for one of us. This was normal practice as what the blacks received money and the whites also received money who worked on the Unit.
CHAIRPERSON: Did you often receive cash from De Kock?
MR VERMEULEN: No sir, it wasn't like on a daily basis or a monthly basis. It came as he felt good.
CHAIRPERSON: And what sort of money are we looking at, what were the amounts?
MR VERMEULEN: I don't know, sometimes it might have been R200-00, sometimes it might have been R1 000-00, I don't know sir, I can't remember any more.
CHAIRPERSON: Was this unsolicited, you didn't ask for it?
MR VERMEULEN: No, you never asked for it, it just came.
CHAIRPERSON: Isn't it strange for somebody just to give somebody money out of the blue or without any explanation?
MR VERMEULEN: We didn't query that.
CHAIRPERSON: I mean wouldn't he say, okay, here is some money, work well done, thanks very much, or happy birthday or Christmas or something like that, you just got money, R1 000-00, R200-00 and you didn't know what it was for?
MR VERMEULEN: We didn't query that Mr Chairman. That was a gesture from Mr De Kock and we thought that was normal.
CHAIRPERSON: When this money was given, were you alone or was it given to other colleagues of yours?
MR VERMEULEN: Sometimes there were people, it came in an envelope and you just received it and that is that. There was nothing funny about it, nobody thought any bad things about it.
CHAIRPERSON: But you thought it was reward for services rendered?
MR VERMEULEN: I just thought it was, I won't say services rendered, I thought it was just for that we were working at the Unit and that, but never for, special payment for a job that we did. No, I won't say that.
CHAIRPERSON: Any questions arising, Mr Cornelius?
FURTHER EXAMINATION BY MR CORNELIUS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Vermeulen, what you are trying to convey to the Committee, is that you were rewarded for your loyalties, is that what you are trying to say, to the Unit?
MR VERMEULEN: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR CORNELIUS: You never committed acts with the idea that you were going to be enriched by the commission of those acts?
MR VERMEULEN: No, never sir.
MR CORNELIUS: Did you ever, when you acted, when you received instructions from Eugene de Kock, feel that you were acting for your own personal gain as envisaged in Section 20(2)(i) of the Act?
MR VERMEULEN: No Mr Chairman.
MR CORNELIUS: Thank you Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CORNELIUS
CHAIRPERSON: Any questions arising Mr Lamey?
MR LAMEY: No questions, thank you Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hattingh?
FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Yes, thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Vermeulen, I would just like to discuss this award aspect, you have heard Mr De Kock's evidence that in other Branches of the South African Police, sometimes bonuses were paid to Police Officers for services well rendered?
MR VERMEULEN: That is correct Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: In your division, there was no provision made for such bonuses, officially?
MR VERMEULEN: That is correct Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: And Mr De Kock felt that this was unfair that other divisions received bonuses for duties well performed, but you not? I believe that that was indeed Mr De Kock's attitude and was this why he from time to time, gave you some cash as bonuses?
MR VERMEULEN: Yes Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: Without it being connected to any specific operation?
MR VERMEULEN: That is correct Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: And you are aware of the fact that you were present during his criminal trial?
MR VERMEULEN: Yes, I was Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: And you are aware that several charges of fraud were put to him, where in terms of - false claims were lodged to pay for these bonuses?
MR VERMEULEN: That is correct Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: And that he was found guilty with regard to those fraud charges and that he is serving a sentence therefore?
MR VERMEULEN: That is correct Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: And then, he does not apply for amnesty for those fraudulent actions?
MR VERMEULEN: That is correct Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: Thank you Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HATTINGH
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Muller?
MR MULLER: No questions, thank you Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MULLER
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Jansen?
MR JANSEN: No questions, thank you Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR JANSEN
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma?
MR MAPOMA: No questions, Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MAPOMA
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Mr Vermeulen, just one question, what was your rank at the time that you were in East London?
MR VERMEULEN: I was a Warrant Officer, Mr Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, that concludes your testimony, you may stand down. Mr Cornelius, do you have any further witnesses?
MR CORNELIUS: I have no further witnesses, thank you Mr Chairman.
WITNESS EXCUSED
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Muller, are you calling any witnesses?
MR MULLER: No Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma?
MR MAPOMA: No, no, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: So, does that then conclude the leading of evidence in this hearing? No further witnesses to be called by anyone? I see it is just about the tea interval, when will it be convenient for legal representatives to make submissions? Do you want to discuss it over the tea break and we can take the tea break now and then if you can let us know, well, we will come in in any event after the tea break, and then take it from there. Thank you. We will now take a short tea adjournment.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Mr Mapoma, has it been decided when submissions will be made?
MR MAPOMA: Yes Chairperson, a proposal is that they argue tomorrow morning.
CHAIRPERSON: Are you all agreed with that? I think with regard to the submissions, if you can concentrate on this question of remuneration and the interpretation of its exclusion for personal gain. I think that is the main aspect to be concentrated on.
MR MAPOMA: One other issue Chairperson, regarding Mr Clive Brink's application. Mr Malan has got an announcement to make.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Malan?
MR MALAN: Thank you Chairperson. I have just received a telephone call from Mr Clive Scrooby to tell the Honourable Committee that he will indeed withdraw the amnesty application of Mr Clive Brink. It was also said to me that he received a fax this morning to the effect, his reasons will be the same as that which was given for Mr Anton Nieuwoudt.
CHAIRPERSON: We don't really need the reasons for a withdrawal, but as long as we know that it has been withdrawn, so that we can then make arrangements that we needn't set up here again on Monday at fairly great expense. So the position then Mr Malan, is that we will not have a hearing next week, seeing that both Messrs Nieuwoudt and Brink have withdrawn their applications.
MR MALAN: Indeed, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. We note then that Mr Clive Brink has withdrawn his application that was set down for hearing at this venue in East London, next week. We will be having argument in this matter that we have heard this week, tomorrow. The legal representatives wish to have some time to prepare that argument, and we will then adjourn until half past nine tomorrow morning and we will then hear submissions at that stage. Thank you very much.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
