TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION COMMISSION

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 ...

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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:

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.

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

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.

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.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Mr Chairman, Cornelius. I wish to call Mr van Heerden.

MR CORNELIUS: We've solved the logistics, Mr Chairman.

MR SIBANYONI: Mr van Heerden, for the purposes of the record will you state your full name and surname.

ANDRIES JOHANNES VAN HEERDEN: (sworn states)

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you, you may be seated.

EXAMINATION BY MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Mr Sibanyoni.

Mr van Heerden, you have prepared a Form 1 application in terms of Section 18 of the Act and you have submitted it to the TRC.

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: At all times you were an employee of the SAP, as defined in Section 20(2)(a) and 20(2)(f) of Act 34 of 1995, is that correct?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: You were deployed to the section known as C1, better known as Vlakplaas. The operations of the unit as it appears from the documents to Judge Wilson in Annexure C, which has been submitted to previous Committees, is that correct?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: With this particular incident, Mr Eugene de Kock was your commander at Vlakplaas.

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: And in general you confirm the content of your amnesty application which has been served before this Committee.

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: Very well. At all times you carried out the orders of Eugene de Kock.

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: And at the time of this incident you were on duty and you occupied the rank of Constable.

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: Very well. Now Col de Kock has provided a reasonable background to this incident. I'm going to place you in the canteen immediately. When you returned all of you were in the canteen?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you have any drinks on that particular night?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: Can you tell the Committee what happened from the point when Moses Ntehelang, the victim, arrived in the canteen. Very briefly please.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Chairperson, I was standing outside the canteen and W/O Bellingan and Steven the camp guard arrived with Bruce. W/O Bellingan made a statement to Col de Kock in respect of Bruce who was missing for quite some time and that his firearm had been stolen and that they had recovered it. ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR CORNELIUS: Very well, what happened then?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Col de Kock took him into the canteen and questioned him about where he had been and where his weapon was. Ntehelang refused to answer him.

MR CORNELIUS: What was Ntehelang's condition as far as you could see?

MR VAN HEERDEN: He was under the influence of alcohol.

MR CORNELIUS: And his attitude?

MR VAN HEERDEN: He was nonchalant, he appeared not to care. That was his attitude, if I can describe it as such.

MR CORNELIUS: Did an assault take place, did Mr de Kock assault him?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Mr de Kock hit him over the head with the thin side of the snooker cue.

MR CORNELIUS: And what did you do?

MR VAN HEERDEN: I was still leaning against the wall while Mr de Kock was beating him and then at a stage Mose Ntehelang collapsed on the floor. I don't know how that happened.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you leave the canteen at a certain stage?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, I left the canteen at that stage and went to stand outside again.

MR CORNELIUS: Very well. And when did you return to the canteen?

MR VAN HEERDEN: At a stage I returned and I found Lt Snyders and Bellingan who were busy tubing Ntehelang on the floor.

MR CORNELIUS: If you say "tube", could you just explain to the Committee what the method is.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Bruce lay on the ground and they were using an inner tube of a car to pull over his head and suffocate him.

MR CORNELIUS: And I understand that the practice was then that once the person was anxious enough it would be lifted so that he could breathe and that was a method which was applied so that a person would give information.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, the regular practice was to suffocate the person for 15 seconds and then to lift the tube so that he could breathe again.

MR CORNELIUS: You entered and Bellingan and Snyders were busy, what happened then?

MR VAN HEERDEN: They carried on for a little while longer and then they stopped.

MR CORNELIUS: What did you do then?

MR VAN HEERDEN: After that Piet Botha and I began to do it.

MR CORNELIUS: So you took over from Snyders and Bellingan?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: What happened then?

MR VAN HEERDEN: We suffocated him and interrogated him, suffocated him and interrogated him, and he repeatedly told us that he wouldn't say anything.

MR CORNELIUS: So you didn't obtain any information?

MR VAN HEERDEN: He refused to tell us where the weapon was and where he had been.

MR CORNELIUS: And then what happened?

MR VAN HEERDEN: We spent quite some time doing this with him and he continuously refused to talk. At a stage I left the canteen to go to the toilet and wash my hands and have some water to drink.

MR CORNELIUS: Yes, and then?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Upon my return to the canteen I found a blanket in the canteen and I also found Piet Botha there holding a rope.

MR CORNELIUS: Yes?

MR VAN HEERDEN: The rope was around Bruce's neck, he was strangling him.

CHAIRPERSON: Who was doing this?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Mr Piet Botha.

MR CORNELIUS: Very well. In your amnesty application you also state that while you were tubing him so to speak, you carried on for too long at a certain stage.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, that may be because when I stopped, Mr Ntehelang just lay there, he didn't respond or fight back when we tubed him.

MR CORNELIUS: So are you trying to tell the Committee that he may have been unconscious or dead at that stage?

MR VAN HEERDEN: It is possible, I cannot deny it.

MR CORNELIUS: What happened next?

MR VAN HEERDEN: We then wrapped Bruce in the blanket and tied it with the rope. I left the canteen.

MR CORNELIUS: Was the rope on the inside or the outside of the blanket?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No, first we wrapped him in the blanket and then we wound the rope around the blanket.

MR CORNELIUS: What did you do then?

MR VAN HEERDEN: I left the canteen and Piet told me that the Colonel and the others would take him away.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you accompany them?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No.

MR CORNELIUS: And who departed from there, according to your knowledge?

MR VAN HEERDEN: According to my knowledge I did not see the person loaded into the vehicle in terms of my evidence given during the criminal trial. I heard that Mr de Kock and certain other people were going to take the person away. Whether he was in the car I cannot tell the Committee.

MR CORNELIUS: You received indemnity in terms of Section 204, and during the criminal trial in the Supreme Court you also testified against Mr de Kock as a State witness.

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: And you were placed under cross-examination regarding the Moses Ntehelang incident.

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: What was your objective when you tortured him, what was the political objective?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Chairperson, firstly to determine where he had been because there was already information which indicated that he possibly wanted to defect to the ANC. The second objective was the fact that he had deserted his duties, and wanting to know where he had been and whether he had had contact with the ANC. Thirdly, we wanted to know where his official weapon was which he should not have had with him, which he should have handed in when he returned from the previous operation. So he had already taken the weapon illegally and he was not supposed to have this weapon in his possession.

MR CORNELIUS: Was that the basis of your interrogation?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, that is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you know that he had not arrived for duty with the previous deployment?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No, I heard that on the evening when we returned.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you have any sense of personal vengeance or malice against Mr Ntehelang?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No, not at all, I lived with him on the farm.

MR CORNELIUS: So you had no reason for revenge to kill him?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No.

MR CORNELIUS: And by nature of the situation, you did not receive any form of compensation for your participation in the deed?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No.

MR CORNELIUS: You apply before this Amnesty Committee for your participation in the murder of Moses Ntehelang, is that correct?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: After this incident, were any statements taken from with regard to this incident?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Never, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: You only received your salary?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

ADV SANDI: Sorry, Mr van Heerden, just one thing to clear. You say you had information that he possibly wanted to defect to the ANC, any specific in the ANC or just the ANC as an organisation?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Back to Mrs Winnie Madikizela.

ADV SANDI: Did anyone give the instructions that you should interrogate him and tube him?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No, Your Honour, what I did I did on my own.

ADV SANDI: Did you take in any liquor?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, Your Honour.

ADV SANDI: Would that have been to the extent of - you were not drunk were you?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No, Your Honour, I knew exactly what I was doing.

ADV SANDI: Thank you.

FURTHER EXAMINATION BY MR CORNELIUS: Just one final matter, Mr Chairman.

If Moses Ntehelang had indeed conveyed or supplied information to for example, Mrs Mandela, would this have jeopardised your existence at Vlakplaas?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Chairperson, the existence of Vlakplaas, the members of Vlakplaas and the people who lived there at Vlakplaas would have all been in danger.

MR CORNELIUS: So if your name and address had been supplied to the political movements, that would have been a problem.

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CORNELIUS

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman, Hattingh on record.

Mr van Heerden, during this incident you have just mentioned that you lived at Vlakplaas.

MR VAN HEERDEN: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: You occupied a room in the house.

MR VAN HEERDEN: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: You were also proficient in several black languages.

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And for that reason, were you used in the past in assistance in interrogation of persons?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: Would you say that you had experience or broad experience of the interrogation of people?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, I would say so.

MR HATTINGH: And when you interrogated this person, Mr Ntehelang, what was your impression? Was your impression that he had information which he did not want to disclose, or was it that this man didn't know anything?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No, he definitely knew something which he did not want to tell us.

MR HATTINGH: Was that your perception?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, that was my perception and observation.

MR HATTINGH: You were also used a group leader of askaris who were deployed in certain areas in order to identify terrorists?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And because you understood the language well you obtained information which other people who were not proficient in the language would have missed?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct. Let me just continue. While I lived on the farm with some of the members there were many discussions between myself and the other members.

MR HATTINGH: If you say "members", do you include the askaris?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And did you obtain information in this manner to the effect that Mr Ntehelang could not be trusted anymore?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That was quite clear, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: One further issue. Mr de Kock's recollection is that he was in the canteen when Mr Ntehelang was brought there, he was playing billiards and that is why he had the cue in his hand. Can you say that he was outside?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Maybe you understood me incorrectly, I was outside and Mr de Kock was inside when he was brought there.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Chairperson.

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

Mr van Heerden, I'm going to cross-examine you in English, but feel free to answer in Afrikaans please, you don't have to answer in the same language that I'm cross-examining in. And if there is anything in my English that you don't understand, you are aware that there is an interpreting facility, or if you don't understand, if you don't make use of that, just tell me and I'll try and explain my questions to you.

MR VAN HEERDEN: That's correct.

MR BOOYENS: Mr van Heerden, Mr ...(indistinct)

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Booyens.

MR BOOYENS: Mr Isak Gerhardus Morkel, was he a member of Vlakplaas?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Is that Sakkie Morkel?

MR BOOYENS: I don't know, I've got a name Isak Gerhardus Morkel.

MR VAN HEERDEN: If it's Sakkie Morkel, yes.

MR BOOYENS: Perhaps I should help you. He's - have you got a copy of a total application in front of you? If you go to page 281.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, that would be correct, that's Sakkie Morkel.

MR BOOYENS: Now Mr Morkel at page 289, line 36, states the following:

And maybe you can help me here, because this doesn't make sense.

CHAIRPERSON: Would it be easier ...(intervention)

MR BOOYENS:

CHAIRPERSON: ... to do the typed version at page 298?

MR BOOYENS: Well my Lord, I've looked at the typed version, that - when I compared the two I thought I better try and stick to the original because here's a character called "Deurwel".

MR VAN HEERDEN: And "Beeltjies".

MR BOOYENS: And "Beeltjies". So I've got even more problems with the typed version I think than of - so I'll try and struggle through it. Perhaps of a comparison and a bit of knowledge of cypher writing, we may be able to make out what this witness is saying.

MR SIBANYONI: Which paragraph are you reading, Mr Booyens?

MR BOOYENS: I beg your pardon, Mr Chairman, it's paragraph 36 at the bottom of page 289 that I started reading from.

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you.

MR BOOYENS: May I continue, Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: Certainly.

MR BOOYENS: Sorry, Mr van Heerden, I think actually - as my learned friend on my right-hand side had pointed out to me, I think what is written here:

He then continues to say:

... something of the Botswana border. And then he continues, he says:

That's the passage that I want to refer you to in the next number of questions. Mr van Heerden, did you speak to Morkel that evening?

MR VAN HEERDEN: I never spoke to him, Chairperson, and I would never have spoken to him about it. I did not trust him, and why would I go to him if I could go to Col de Kock, whom I trusted.

MR BOOYENS: So are you suggesting that Morkel is sucking this out of his thumb?

MR VAN HEERDEN: He's a "jam stealer".

MR BOOYENS: He's a what?

MR VAN HEERDEN: He's a "jam stealer".

MR BOOYENS: Oh a "jam thief". I see. Who was Charlie Luck(?).

MR VAN HEERDEN: Repeat the name.

MR BOOYENS: Charlie Luck.

MR VAN HEERDEN: No, is that Hugh Luck?

MR BOOYENS: Ja, Hugh Luck. The Committee will find his statement at page 272 to 275.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Hugh Luck was an askari.

MR BOOYENS: But he was of European descent, is that correct?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That's correct.

MR BOOYENS: Now have you had an opportunity to read Hugh Luck's statement?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No, Chairperson.

MR BOOYENS: Hugh Luck tells the following story in essence, about the assault. He said that he was outside, he was called to go to the canteen and - I'm referring to page 272, and paragraph 6. He says when he got to the canteen the following persons were not present. In fact he says that you were one of the people that pulled him out of bed, Mr van Heerden, would that be correct?

MR VAN HEERDEN: How could I have taken him out of bed when I was in the canteen tubing the man?

MR BOOYENS: Mr van Heerden, let's not try ...(intervention)

MR CORNELIUS: I'm sorry to interrupt my colleague. He says:

Just in fairness.

MR BOOYENS: I'm indebted to my learned friend. Very well. So you did not pull him out of bed?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No, I did not.

MR BOOYENS: Did you see Charlie Luck there that evening?

MR VAN HEERDEN: He was on the farm.

MR BOOYENS: Was he in the canteen?

MR VAN HEERDEN: At some stage he was in the canteen.

MR BOOYENS: Would you agree with the statement that he makes at the bottom of page 272:

These three?

MR VAN HEERDEN: I can agree with that, I cannot recall that I had seen them.

MR BOOYENS: Very well. Then from page 273, paragraph 8 onwards, he describes how the assault commenced. I'm not going to read everything to you, but I think the essential part is that Luck says that when this person was on the ground he was kicked and jumped upon.

Would that be correct?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Will you please read that to me again.

MR BOOYENS: I'm sorry. Very well, then perhaps I should read it to you. Paragraph 11 of Luck's statement reads the following. In background I should just perhaps tell you he said this person was pushed into the room by Piet Botha and Piet Snyders. He was being shouted at because he'd lost his firearm and that then he does say that Mr de Kock hit him over the head with a snooker cue. He then continues to say the following:

Did you jump on him, Mr van Heerden?

MR VAN HEERDEN: What he says there is a lie, not one of us jumped on him.

MR BOOYENS: And then - in any case, at some stage he seemed to return to the truth because in paragraph 12 he says the following:

Is that correct?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is not correct, that is not correct.

MR BOOYENS: Well you did tube him didn't you?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, Piet Botha and I did, but no, Leon Flores didn't have anything to do with that.

MR BOOYENS: Very well. So it leaves you and - you two did tube the man. He also says that you brought the tube, is that correct?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No, that is incorrect, Bellingan brought the tube.

MR BOOYENS: I see. And he then continues to describe the assault, including the twisting of the testicles of the deceased, or his genitals.

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is a lie, Chairperson.

MR BOOYENS: The one thing that's significant, he doesn't mention the name of Bellingan at all in this assault. Do you wish to comment on that?

MR VAN HEERDEN: I wonder is he was there during the whole time or whether he's just sucking this from his thumb.

MR BOOYENS: Yes, another thumb sucker in other words we're dealing with. A "jam thief" you called him. Very well, let's go on. At page 39 we find your initial amnesty application, is that correct?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR BOOYENS: Now, perhaps you can just explain to me. Then you have got a document referred to, starting at page 46, a typewritten document, the one that's got:

... at the top.

MR VAN HEERDEN: That's correct.

MR BOOYENS: Now Mr van Heerden, was this supposed to be an annexure to your amnesty application? You start off by saying that you were born at Groot Mariko etc., etc., and there seems to be a signature at the bottom of page 52.

MR VAN HEERDEN: I will accept that it's an annexure which was drawn up by my legal representative.

MR BOOYENS: Who was your legal representative at that stage?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Mr Fanie Rossouw who is seated next to you.

MR BOOYENS: And - well look at the - just return to the signature please, at the bottom of page 52. Is that your signature?

MR VAN HEERDEN: It looks like my signature.

MR BOOYENS: Well is it or isn't it? You're not suggesting it's a forgery, are you?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No, I cannot say that, it's a big vague on this photocopy, but I would say it's mine.

MR BOOYENS: Well has my learned friend perhaps got the original here?

ADV STEENKAMP: No, unfortunately not, Mr Chairman.

MR BOOYENS: Well if it comes to - if this really becomes material, we'll try and get the original here. What was the purpose of giving Mr Fanie Rossouw this information?

MR VAN HEERDEN: I don't know, but he was my legal representative who wanted it from me.

MR BOOYENS: Very well. So he asked you about the various incidents, right?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That's correct.

MR BOOYENS: He also asked you who took part in the various incidents, is that correct?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That's correct.

MR BOOYENS: At page 49 there's a section dealing with:

... which reads as follows:

You remember telling your legal representative that?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: And that is true, that statement?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That was Bellingan's version at that stage.

MR BOOYENS: Well that's what Bellingan said to you obviously.

MR VAN HEERDEN: That's correct.

MR BOOYENS: That he wanted to use the man to spread AIDS, is that correct?

MR VAN HEERDEN: But I cannot understand what that has to do with this matter ...(intervention)

MR BOOYENS: You'll find out just now. You'll find out just now, just curb your enthusiasm please. The very previous paragraph deals with the following aspect: "Moord - Moses Ntehelang":

You said that to Mr Rossouw?

MR VAN HEERDEN: If it says it there, then I would have said so.

MR BOOYENS: Well do you accept that you said it to him? Very well, let's deal with this. Here you tell us that he was missing for three days, is that correct?

MR VAN HEERDEN: I had been away for those three days on operations and I accepted those three days when I was missing.

MR BOOYENS: Well if the man had already missed an operation - that's not what's written here, you signed this document.

MR VAN HEERDEN: That's correct.

MR BOOYENS:

... means that the deceased had been missing for three days, not that you were away for three days on an operation. You've already told us that the man has been away for a long time.

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct. There I referred to the three days when we were away, it might have been stated wrong there.

MR BOOYENS: And you didn't notice - did you read this before you signed this?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That was a long time ago.

MR BOOYENS: Did you read it before you signed it? Answer my question.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, I signed it.

MR BOOYENS: Well did you read it before you signed it? Stop hedging and answer my questions please.

MR VAN HEERDEN: I would have read it before I signed it.

MR BOOYENS: Very well, then you would have realised that that statement that the deceased had been away for three days is wrong.

MR VAN HEERDEN: It could be incorrect.

MR BOOYENS: When you read the document at your attorney before you signed it, you would have realised that the statement that the deceased was missing for three days was wrong, yes or no?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That's what I said, it may be wrong. I cannot say it was wrong or it is not wrong.

MR BOOYENS: But how long was the deceased missing?

MR VAN HEERDEN: I am not certain now for how long he was missing.

MR BOOYENS: Okay. The fact that there's no mention of Bellingan in here, that's another mistake. One of the prominent characters, because he tubed him.

MR VAN HEERDEN: If you listened to my statement properly, I said Bellingan brought the tube, I didn't say that Bellingan tubed him.

MR BOOYENS: Did Bellingan not tube him?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No.

MR BOOYENS: At any stage?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Het ek so gesê in my verklaring?

MR BOOYENS: Did Bellingan tube him at any stage?

MR VAN HEERDEN: I did not say he tubed him, I said he brought the tube.

MR BOOYENS: Very well.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, can you just wait ...(intervention)

MR BOOYENS: Would you be so kind to proceed to page ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: He said did he not in his evidence:

MR BOOYENS: Yes, perhaps ...(intervention)

MR VAN HEERDEN: Snyders was doing the tubing, not Bellingan. If I mentioned Bellingan there I have stated it incorrectly, he brought the tube, Piet Snyders was tubing him.

MR BOOYENS: Well ...

CHAIRPERSON: That's not what you said a few minutes ago.

MR BOOYENS: Certainly not. And if you would be so kind to go to page 63 please, the second paragraph there, it's not numbered:

How did Bellingan torture him?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Chairperson, if I could explain it to you. Bellingan brought the tube, he was standing next to Piet when Piet was tubing him. If I refer to Bellingan and Snyders, it was because Bellingan was standing next to him while he was tubing Moses. "Bellingan het nie fisies die "tube" gedoen nie", he was with Piet Snyders while they were doing it. And I described it there as being part of what Piet was doing.

MR BOOYENS: Well my recollection of your viva voce evidence was that you said "Bellingan and Snyders tubed him".

MR VAN HEERDEN: That's what I said in my statement, but now I'm telling you he brought the tube. He was standing next to Piet when Piet was tubing him. I did not say Bellingan personally tubed him.

MR BOOYENS: Mr van Heerden, listen to my questions. Your viva voce evidence, when you were speaking here before His Lordship, you said Bellingan tubed him. Now why this shorthand way of speaking, why did you then at that stage, say look Bellingan brought the tube and Piet Snyders tubed him. No, you said Bellingan tubed him. I want to know why.

MR VAN HEERDEN: I may have been mistaken, Chairperson, in what I had said and I will - if I stated it incorrectly I will place it correctly. Bellingan brought in the tube and Piet Snyders tubed him and Bellingan was standing next to him while the man was being tubed. I may have stated it incorrectly.

MR BOOYENS: Well you see, this second statement of yours, this one that was very clearly signed by you, at page 67, and was in fact sworn to by one, Hartzenberg - I don't know what the man is - well, let's go to page 67, Mr van Heerden. Have you got it? Is that your signature?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That's correct.

MR BOOYENS: And is it correct that you took the oath before one, Hartzenberg, that this statement was correct?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That's correct.

MR BOOYENS: What were the circumstances of making - this is obviously Annexure A, which I presume would be to your amnesty application. When was that - and that was made on the 26th day of June '97. Okay. 26th day of June '97. You took the oath that this statement was correct?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Correct.

MR BOOYENS: You read through this statement before you took the oath?

MR VAN HEERDEN: I believe I read it.

MR BOOYENS: Well did you or didn't you?

MR VAN HEERDEN: I believe I read it.

MR BOOYENS: You're a policeman, you know it's important, especially something like this, not so? Because after all you are applying for amnesty for your - the part you played in the death of Mr Moses Ntehelang.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Correct.

MR BOOYENS: So it's an important document. So can we accept that you would have read through it?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Correct.

MR BOOYENS: Well, then let's return to what you said about Mr Bellingan's role, and we return to page 63. Why didn't you rectify that?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Can you repeat the question?

MR BOOYENS: Why didn't you rectify your statement at page 63, the second paragraph that:

MR VAN HEERDEN: That's what I said, he was there when Piet Snyders was torturing him.

MR BOOYENS: Exactly, but that doesn't mean that:

I am also capable of speaking Afrikaans as you are, that is not what is stated here.

MR VAN HEERDEN: He fetched the tube, Piet Snyders was tubing him and that is why I say he was tortured "want hy het by Piet gestaan".

MR BOOYENS: I see. And why do you carry on in the very next sentence:

MR VAN HEERDEN: That's correct, I did.

MR BOOYENS: Now was it necessary to take over from Bellingan, Bellingan wasn't doing anything he was just standing there looking.

MR VAN HEERDEN: He wasn't - he was not physically doing the tubing, but he was part of the group. When Piet was tubing him, he was putting the questions and also participated, but he did not physically to the tubing.

MR BOOYENS: Oh, so Bellingan was actually busy asking the questions?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That's correct.

MR BOOYENS: Why didn't you tell us that before? Have you got a reply?

MR VAN HEERDEN: What do you want me to say ...(intervention)

MR BOOYENS: Have you got a reply to the question? Why didn't you tell us that before?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That's what I said to the Court, that he was standing next to him. He did not physically do the tubing, but he participated.

MR BOOYENS: In what sense, by asking him ...(intervention)

MR VAN HEERDEN: That he was standing there and told him - put questions to him and those things.

MR BOOYENS: Mr van Heerden, at page 280 there's a further statement ostensibly made by you, and I think that's made to some policeman, I don't know where the original of this is, but it seems to me - perhaps my learned friend can assist us. It is:

When you were sitting in Copenhagen, where you told about having an interview with W/O de Jongh, he showed you a photo, a photographic album, that you identified the deceased. You remember making a supplementary statement to your statement that you made in Copenhagen, is that correct?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, I made this statement at the Attorney-General.

MR BOOYENS: Oh, so you made this to the Attorney-General, at the Attorney-General's office.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, here.

MR BOOYENS: In this one you do not - the only mention that Mr Bellingan gets here is that they brought Steven in - oh, Steven and Bellingan rather, brought the "geeletjie", which we know is that deceased in this matter, in.

MR VAN HEERDEN: That's what I said, yes.

MR BOOYENS: You also in this mention no assault by Bellingan, you mention him not participating at all in the tubing. In fact you mention a number of other people.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Chairperson, when I made this statement - in my original statement I implicated many members of Vlakplaas, what had happened at Vlakplaas. Those people were not involved in this incident and I added this statement to correct that. Where other people's names had been mentioned in the first statement, those people who had been implicated, to get them out of the story. I repeated this story so that I could mention the names of the people who were involved in this incident.

MR BOOYENS: So that's why you excluded Mr Bellingan? Why didn't you mention that he went to fetch the method of, or the tool of torture?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Why did I not?

MR BOOYENS: Mention that Bellingan went to fetch the took of torture?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Because it was part of this statement, to get the people's names out there and to correct the names of the people who were there, it was not about the tube.

MR BOOYENS: I see. Well you did, because you said:

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct. Did I not tell you just now that Bellingan did not physically tube him, he was standing there, but he brought the tube.

MR BOOYENS: Well you mention another statement. This must obviously be the 26 April statement that you are referring to. Did you implicate Bellingan there in the assault? - and other members of Vlakplaas.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, that is the statement which I made the first time where I mention all those members who were involved in the Swaziland operation, who went back to Vlakplaas and this additional statement was made to correct the fact that some of the members who were at Swaziland were not involved in this incident.

MR BOOYENS: You see Mr van Heerden, Mr Bellingan says that the only part he played that evening is, he was standing in the canteen when the deceased reported to him that his (that's the deceased) firearm was missing, he referred to the deceased to Major, I think, de Kock at that stage or the commanding officer, and that thereafter he's aware that an assault started, but he walked out. Is it possible that you are making a mistake about Bellingan's presence?

MR VAN HEERDEN: I beg your pardon, will you please repeat the first part.

MR BOOYENS: Bellingan says that he was standing in the canteen when he was approached by the deceased, he doesn't know how the deceased got there, he might have been fetched by the camp guard, who reported to him that the deceased - the deceased reported to Bellingan that he had lost his firearm, Bellingan said to him "Go and speak to Col de Kock". That's the first time he had anything to do with the deceased that evening. Are you able to dispute that?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, I dispute that because he's lying to you.

MR BOOYENS: Well what did he do?

MR VAN HEERDEN: He arrived there with the guard, Steven and Bruce, he called Col de Kock while Col de Kock was inside.

MR BOOYENS: Sorry, the "he" being Bellingan?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Bellingan.

MR BOOYENS: Did he call Mr de Kock out of the canteen?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Canteen, ja.

MR BOOYENS: So this discussion took place outside?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, at the door.

MR BOOYENS: And was that the occasion when you said Mr Bellingan reported to Col de Kock that the deceased had been missing for a period of time?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No, that the deceased was there "Here is the deceased". I did not hear what he said to the Colonel.

MR BOOYENS: Well you had no problem of hearing it when you were giving your evidence-in-chief, you said that Bellingan reported to Col de Kock that the deceased had been missing and that he'd lost his firearm.

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is what I heard, but that is not all that he said to the Colonel.

MR BOOYENS: So you did hear him reporting that the deceased had been missing?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That's correct.

MR BOOYENS: So your impression was that Mr de Kock didn't even know it?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No, it's not the impression that Col de Kock didn't know, it's that he brought the person to Col de Kock and then informed Col de Kock of what was going on.

CHAIRPERSON: If Col de Kock knew the person had been missing for a month, there was no need to inform him was there?

MR VAN HEERDEN: I accepted that when he brought the person there, that Col de Kock did not know that the person was back on the farm and that this was the first time that Col de Kock had heard "Here is the man, he's at the farm", and that is why he was brought to him.

MR BOOYENS: But Bellingan said - according to what you heard, also one of the things you heard is that he reported to Col de Kock that this is the person that had been missing. Chairperson, I don't have exact notes, but that's a clear recollection that I've got.

MR VAN HEERDEN: It may be so, but what I told the Court is what I can recall and what I heard.

MR BOOYENS: What was your state of sobriety that evening?

MR VAN HEERDEN: What?

MR BOOYENS: What was your state of sobriety that evening?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Wat is "sobriety"?

MR BOOYENS: Were you drunk?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No, I was not drunk.

MR BOOYENS: Were you sober?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No, I also wasn't sober.

MR BOOYENS: Is it possible that you're making mistakes due to the fact that you had been under the influence?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No, perhaps your client is also a "jam thief" and he's trying to place the blame for the incident on the shoulders of another.

MR BOOYENS: In what sense is he implicating other persons?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No, he's too scared to take responsibility for what happened and he's trying to pass the buck to others.

MR BOOYENS: And so obviously one would expect Mr Snyders to be aware of Mr Bellingan's involvement, not so?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Who, Mr Snyders?

MR BOOYENS: Mm.

MR VAN HEERDEN: I'm not sure.

MR BOOYENS: Well Snyders was tubing and Bellingan was asking the questions, Snyders would be a complete idiot if he didn't see that, not so?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That would be his version of what he saw. I have given my version of what I saw and what I can recall.

MR BOOYENS: Just listen to the questions. You would expect Snyders to be able to tell us that he was doing the tubing while Bellingan was asking the questions.

MR VAN HEERDEN: I cannot speak for Mr Snyders.

MR BOOYENS: But that is the way you remember it.

MR VAN HEERDEN: What I said in Court is what I saw and what I can recall.

MR BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, sorry, I see I've ..(indistinct)

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible - no microphone). Would 2 o'clock suit you gentlemen? We'll adjourn till 2 o'clock.

ANDRIES JOHANNES VAN HEERDEN: (s.u.o.)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BOOYENS: (cont)

Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr van Heerden, just switch on your microphone please. Now Mr van Heerden, let us just find out what your current version is about the role of Mr Bellingan. Would you mind repeating to me exactly what role Mr Bellingan played in this incident, in toto.

MR VAN HEERDEN: That evening on the farm while I was standing outside at the door, Mr Bellingan arrived at the canteen with the camp guard and Moses. He called Mr de Kock out of the canteen and reported to Mr de Kock that Moses had returned and that he was there. Col de Kock took Moses Ntehelang into the canteen where he hit him with the snooker cue. After that Balletjies went out. He went to fetch the tube. He returned, upon which Piet Snyders began to tube him and Balletjies stood with him.

MR BOOYENS: Now when Mr de Kock came out of the canteen, did he have the snooker cue in his hand?

MR VAN HEERDEN: I didn't when Mr de Kock came out of the canteen.

MR BOOYENS: You did see Col de Kock hitting the deceased with the snooker cue?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That's right.

MR BOOYENS: And where did he get the snooker cue from, do you know?

MR VAN HEERDEN: He had the snooker cue in his hand in the canteen. I don't know, I stood outside when the man arrived there.

MR BOOYENS: Who told Bellingan to go and fetch the tube?

MR VAN HEERDEN: I don't know.

MR BOOYENS: You were outside?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That's correct.

MR BOOYENS: You remained outside until at a later stage when you came back and saw Mr Snyders in the process of tubing the deceased.

MR VAN HEERDEN: That's right, Balletjies was standing with him.

MR BOOYENS: Standing with him and asking questions? Don't forget that.

MR VAN HEERDEN: That's right.

MR BOOYENS: In which of your statements did you disclose these facts? Would you mind showing it to me.

MR VAN HEERDEN: I cannot recall, I said it in my evidence and in my evidence during the criminal trial.

MR BOOYENS: I'm talking about in your statement that's before us. Did you at any stage mention that Bellingan was just asking the questions whilst Snyders was busy tubing the man? Did you mention that in any statement?

MR VAN HEERDEN: I cannot recall saying something like that, but that is what took place.

MR BOOYENS: Well why didn't you say it? Because that's the truth according to you.

MR VAN HEERDEN: It's very easy for you now to make up things and ask me why I didn't say this or that. At the time when I made this statement, I said what I could recall. I may have omitted that Balletjies did certain things or didn't do certain things, but what I'm telling you now is what I recall having taken place there.

MR BOOYENS: No, but the question is simply the following. Why, if you say you left it out and so on - I mean, what you did say in fact in some of your statements is that Bellingan actually assaulted the man, he took part in the tubing. Did you say in any statement that Piet Snyders was tubing him and Bellingan was asking the questions, yes or no?

MR VAN HEERDEN: I cannot recall, I don't see that I wrote it that way.

MR BOOYENS: Yes, well on what I have read of your statements, you certainly did not. Let us just refer to a few further aspects. Are you aware of the existence of an Intelligence section, a section that was set up by Col de Kock?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No.

MR BOOYENS: You're unaware of it. So you're not in a position to say whether or not Messrs Baker and Bellingan were in fact in charge of this Intelligence gathering capacity on the activities of the askaris, you don't know?

MR VAN HEERDEN: I cannot say that.

MR BOOYENS: This initial, this statement of yours that you made in Copenhagen, you obviously implicated a lot of people in that statement and then subsequently you retracted that, is that correct?

MR VAN HEERDEN: I mentioned the names of persons who were involved in the operation and after that I rectified it by saying which persons from Vlakplaas were involved.

MR BOOYENS: Did you implicate anybody else? And I've got every reason to believe that statement is available, so I'll check it if necessary, but maybe you can help us and make it unnecessary. Did you implicate anybody else in your Copenhagen statement, except the people that you now say were the actual assaulters? - in the assault.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Not that I can understand, because those persons that I know who were involved, were added by me in my additional statement when I returned, the statement that I made to the A-G.

MR BOOYENS: And you stated here that the only people that took an - played an active role in the assault, were yourself, Mr De Kock, Mr Snyders and Mr Botha.

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I've got no further questions.

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

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BOTHA: Thank you, Mr Chairman, Botha. I am appearing on behalf of Snyders.

Mr van Heerden, you say that you drank liquor, and I just want to make certain from you to which extent your capacity to distinguish time and to make observations was affected, can you prove more clarity regarding that?

MR VAN HEERDEN: I don't understand what you want me to say.

MR BOTHA: To what extent were you senses affected, were you still 100% at your full capacity or were you completely drunk?

MR VAN HEERDEN: I was still sober although I had consumed alcohol.

MR BOTHA: To such an extent that you would be able to distinguish exact times?

MR VAN HEERDEN: I provided the times as I perceived them or as I recalled them.

MR BOTHA: And what is your evidence today, were you the cause of the death of the deceased?

MR VAN HEERDEN: As I have told the Court, I participated in his tubing. When I stopped at a stage, I cannot tell the Court that I was responsible for his death, I cannot tell the Court that anyone else was responsible for his death. I accept my share of the responsibility for what I did and not like others who want to run away from their responsibilities.

MR BOTHA: Well the reason why I'm asking you is in reference to page 63 of the record which was made available to us, just before paragraph 9(b), and I quote:

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct, it is just as I have told you. I cannot say whether I was the cause of it or whether Piet was the cause of it. I tubed him and I suffocated him. At a stage when I left the room, I also stated in my statement, the man was just lying there.

MR BOTHA: Just before you began to suffocate the deceased you say that Snyders and Bellingan did this, and I do not refer to Bellingan's inferior role as it is stated in your later version, why did you find it necessary to take over from them?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Do I always have to ask when I want to do something, if there's work to be done?

MR BOTHA: Why did you deem it necessary to take over from them?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Because we had to tube the man, he had to tell us where he had been and where his weapon was.

MR BOTHA: Did you stop them?

MR VAN HEERDEN: They stopped themselves.

MR BOTHA: Do you know why they stopped?

MR VAN HEERDEN: I don't know.

MR BOTHA: And then you decided to continue?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, I did that.

MR BOTHA: The procedure which Bellingan and Snyders used in suffocating this man, could you perhaps clarify that?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Piet sat on top of him and had the tube over his face and suffocated him.

MR BOTHA: And Bellingan?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Bellingan stood next to him, but Bellingan went to fetch the tube in order to do this.

MR BOTHA: What else did he do?

MR VAN HEERDEN: He stood there asking questions as what he would usually have done.

MR BOTHA: While Snyders was suffocating the man?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct.

MR BOTHA: It doesn't sound logical, how could the man answer any questions?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Because you would remove the tube from his face, one wouldn't suffocate him all the time by having the tube on his face.

MR BOTHA: So Bellingan would ask the question when the tube was removed from his face?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes.

MR BOTHA: What was his answer?

MR VAN HEERDEN: He didn't say anything.

MR BOTHA: And then they would just continue?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct.

MR BOTHA: Did they give him the opportunity to speak or was he already unconscious at that stage?

MR VAN HEERDEN: He had opportunities to speak. You would tube him for a while and then give him an opportunity to speak, if he didn't want to respond you would begin again.

MR BOTHA: Was the deceased at that stage on his stomach or on his back?

MR VAN HEERDEN: On his back.

MR BOTHA: Were his hands bound or not?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No, they were not bound.

MR BOTHA: I put it to you that it would have been extremely difficult under those circumstances if one person without assistance, had to suffocate a person in the manner that you have described.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Well then you haven't seen how it is done yet.

MR BOTHA: No, I haven't seen it yet. I also refer you to page 49 of your amnesty application, the second paragraph under the heading "Murder: Moses Ntehelang".

And then you continue by describing the part that de Kock and Lt Snyders were involved in. Is there any reason why you don't mention Bellingan's name?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No, I have no reason for not mentioning his name, what I stated here was a summary of incidents that I was involved in, and what I meant by that is that Piet Botha and I were directly involved or responsible for what happened to Moses Ntehelang. The others were partially involved, but they were not responsible for what happened to Moses Ntehelang.

MR BOTHA: Do I understand you correctly, that at the end of your version Snyders was involved in an assault on Ntehelang?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct.

MR BOTHA: Is there anything that you made mistakes about in your application?

MR VAN HEERDEN: I don't understand, what do you mean?

MR BOTHA: Were you consulted once again before you gave evidence or before your application was submitted?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Consulted with me, before I submitted my application?

MR BOTHA: After you made the statement, did you study it with your legal representative?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, I believe I did.

MR BOTHA: Were you satisfied with the content?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, because it was a summarised version.

MR BOTHA: But in your summary you still state that Botha and you and de Kock and Snyders were involved. Why don't you mention Bellingan's name in your summary, you mention everyone except Bellingan.

MR VAN HEERDEN: I did not put Bellingan's name in this because he did not physically participate in the tubing. He fetched the tube, but he did not participate in the action.

MR BOTHA: I put it to you, Mr van Heerden, that Mr Snyders will deny that he was involved in any way in the suffocation of the deceased as you have described it.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Then he is lying, he was involved, he initiated it.

MR BOTHA: Thank you. Thank you, Chairperson, nothing further.

MR JANSEN: Thank you, Mr Chairman, Jansen on behalf of applicant Ras, I have no questions.

ADV STEENKAMP: No questions, thank you, Mr Chairman.

MR SIBANYONI: Tell me, is it not usual that if a person is suffocated with a tube, he lies on his stomach and the person suffocating him kneels over his back?

MR VAN HEERDEN: I've never done it that way, Mr Chair. How can you suffocate a person lying on his back, how are you going to put the tube on his face? You can't do it.

MR SIBANYONI: We saw it being demonstrated on the hearing - I can't remember the person who was demonstrating it, but he was kneeling over him on his back and then the person was lying on his stomach and the tube was put over his face like that.

MR VAN HEERDEN: I think you're referring to Mr Benzien that used a bag.

MR SIBANYONI: Yes.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Not a tube, a bag, the wet bag. If I'm correct in what you're referring to.

MR SIBANYONI: And then again, was it the liquor which caused you to confuse the time on which you were supposed to put the tube over his nose, or what caused that?

MR VAN HEERDEN: I won't say so. I wouldn't say that.

MR SIBANYONI: You say ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Isn't that precisely what you said in your statement?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct, but it may just be that I kept the tube down too long, that I took too long before removing it. It isn't as a result of the alcohol.

CHAIRPERSON: Well you start off your statement saying:

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Obviously you considered it relevant to explain how you behaved as you did.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Chairperson, there were two options, either I took too long and didn't give him enough oxygen or it may be that seeing as the person was under the influence of alcohol, he may have choked in the process. It may be one of those two reasons.

CHAIRPERSON: And you go on to say:

That's while you were putting the tube on him.

MR VAN HEERDEN: That could be as a result of the tube that I placed, that could be the reason for his suffocation.

MR SIBANYONI: You say thereafter you left the canteen and then when you came - when you left the canteen, was he lying there motionless?

MR VAN HEERDEN: When I went out to go to the toilet he was just lying there. When I returned there was a blanket and a rope and Piet Botha had a rope around his throat.

MR SIBANYONI: And was the deceased motionless while Piet Botha had a rope ...(intervention)

MR VAN HEERDEN: If I refer to the fact that he was motionless, it means that he didn't fight back, he didn't fight back anymore.

CHAIRPERSON: Was Botha strangling him?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That's right.

CHAIRPERSON: And did he fight back before, while you were putting the tube on his face?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That's correct, that's why Piet Botha held his hands.

CHAIRPERSON: And when Snyders was doing it?

MR VAN HEERDEN: I'm not certain how Snyders did it, but when I saw, Snyders was doing it alone.

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

ADV SANDI: Thank you. This suffocating, how long did it take?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Chairperson approximately 10 minutes in the process that one would tube and release and tube and release and put questions.

ADV SANDI: Did you have any reason for not postponing the questioning of a person who was under the influence of liquor? Don't you think it would have achieved better results if you had questioned him the next day?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Would you repeat the question please? There are people talking in the background here and I cannot hear your question properly, could you repeat it please.

ADV SANDI: This man, the deceased, was he drunk?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, he was drunk.

ADV SANDI: Was he very drunk?

MR VAN HEERDEN: When you say "very drunk", it wasn't as if he was stumbling about or falling about, but he was drunk.

ADV SANDI: In your assessment would you say he was so drunk that he would never have known what he was doing?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No, Chairperson, he would have known what we were doing.

ADV SANDI: Was there any reason why you could not postpone your questioning till the next day when you could obtain perhaps better results, by questioning a sober person?

MR VAN HEERDEN: I don't have an answer for that.

ADV SANDI: Was there any compelling reason that you had to question, to torture and beat up a man who was drunk?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Chairperson, the big thing was that when he was brought in and questioned about his whereabouts and where his weapon was, he had a very nonchalant attitude in answering our questions. The second point was the fact that we were concerned about the whereabouts of the weapon and where he had really been, the dangers inherent to that, the possibility of him re-establishing liaison with the ANC and people such as Winnie Mandela. The fact that on that specific evening he was questioned and why this was done, I cannot say. It was initiated and I participated in the interrogation. I did not question the issue of whether this should take place now or later or tomorrow, it was initiated and I participated in it.

ADV SANDI: Ja, but I thought you had said no-one had given you an order that you should take part in the questioning and the beating up of this man.

MR VAN HEERDEN: That's correct, Chairperson and I accept responsibility for what I did. The fact that I was involved and that I participated in the interrogation and the assault, was due to my own decision and my own will because it had already been initiated.

ADV SANDI: You said in your evidence-in-chief you had the advantage of speaking some of the languages that were commonly spoken by the askaris, did I understand you correctly?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct.

ADV SANDI: And in that process you were able to gather some information in the course of the conversations that were taking place amongst the askaris.

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct.

ADV SANDI: What did you do with that information, normally? What did you do with the information obtained from such conversations?

MR VAN HEERDEN: I would have conveyed it to my Section Head.

ADV SANDI: Do you recall gathering anything specific about the deceased?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No, not specifically. It may be, but I cannot tell you definitely that there was anything like that.

ADV SANDI: Where were you when the deceased disappeared from Vlakplaas?

MR VAN HEERDEN: I was on the farm, I was living on the farm.

ADV SANDI: You were aware that he had escaped?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Chairperson, if you say that I was aware that he was gone, I cannot say specifically because he wasn't a member of my team or the group that I worked with, there were various groups. So he may have been a member of another group which had been deployed and I simply accepted that he was in or out. I cannot say that I knew specifically that he had defected. He wasn't under my section that worked with me.

ADV SANDI: I thought in your evidence when you started, you said you gathered from the askaris who were talking amongst themselves, that they did not really trust the deceased.

MR VAN HEERDEN: I don't believe I said that. I may have been mistaken, I cannot recall.

ADV SANDI: Did the askaris say anything in particular about the deceased?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Chairperson, if you ask me a question like that, I would not be able to recall things which are specifically connected to that. I cannot say anything like that.

ADV SANDI: You say you were away, did you say you had to go to hospital for three days?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No, we were busy with an operation at the Swaziland border.

ADV SANDI: Where was the deceased when you were away for three days?

MR VAN HEERDEN: I don't know where he was.

ADV SANDI: It was already known at that stage that he had left Vlakplaas?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That may have been so. The other members may have known, such as Col de Kock, who had his own team of investigators, but it wouldn't have been said to me that he was gone at that stage because I was busy with an operation in Swaziland, so I didn't know specifically. I heard that he had gone, that evening when he was brought to Col de Kock on the farm.

ADV SANDI: Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Re-examination?

MR CORNELIUS: I have no re-examination, thank you, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Who will we have next?

MR BOTHA: I just want to enquire from my one colleague. Thank you, Sir. We'll call Snyders, Mr Chair.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------MR SIBANYONI: Mr Snyders, for the purposes of the record, your full name?

PETRUS CASPARUS SNYDERS: (sworn states)

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you, you may be seated. Sworn in, Chairperson.

EXAMINATION BY MR BOTHA: Thank you, Mr Chairperson. If I may proceed I'm going to refer to pages 262 to 268 of the bundle that has been supplied.

Mr Snyders, you are an amnesty applicant in this matter, is that correct?

MR SNYDERS: That is correct.

MR BOTHA: You have also completed a statement which forms part of your amnesty application, and I refer you to page 262, 263, 264, 265, 267, 268, those pages of your application. Do you confirm the contents of it?

MR SNYDERS: Yes, I do, Chairperson.

MR BOTHA: And do you also confirm the truth of it?

MR SNYDERS: Yes, I do, Chairperson.

MR BOTHA: In your amnesty application you describe the incident which took place in the canteen at Vlakplaas, is it possible that you could inform the Committee and describe to the Committee what happened there according to your recollection.

MR SNYDERS: Chairperson, approximately 18H00 or 19H00 we arrived at Vlakplaas after we went to Swaziland for an operation.

MR BOTHA: Who were these "we" that you refer to?

MR SNYDERS: The members of Vlakplaas whom I can recall according to my application, Leon Flores, Maj de Kock - Col de Kock, Wouter Mentz, Dawid Britz, Willie Nortje, Piet Botha, Capt du Plessis, Johan Hoffman, Bellingan, Douw Willemse, Snor Vermeulen and Lionel Snyman.

MR BOTHA: Is this an all inclusive list or is it that you may be mistaken about the names of some of the people and where you incorrectly are nominating people who were present and that you have omitted persons who were indeed present?

MR SNYDERS: It is possible that my list is not correct, Chairperson. This was 10 years back and it may be that I have omitted some of the names or have placed in names of persons who at that stage were not there.

MR BOTHA: Before you continue, the deceased, Moses Ntehelang, what was his position and what was your position?

MR SNYDERS: He was a worker in my team, I acted as a Lieutenant in command of two teams who operated in the Eastern Transvaal and he was one of the persons who worked in my team.

MR BOTHA: You can continue when you arrived at the canteen.

MR SNYDERS: As I've said we arrived approximately 19H00, we unpacked our equipment and Col de Kock asked us to gather some wood so that we could start a braai. We had bought some meat. We opened the canteen and then enjoyed a few drinks.

MR BOTHA: What was your state of sobriety at that stage?

MR SNYDERS: I had consumed two or three beers, but because I drove all the way from Swaziland I did not drink much and I also had a function at my house, so I decided not to drink too much. So I was totally sober, Chairperson.

MR BOTHA: Yes, you had a braai.

MR SNYDERS: I cannot recall specifically if we braaied that evening, but we opened the canteen and we enjoyed a few more drinks at the canteen and we started playing snooker, and at some stage somebody, I cannot recall who it was, brought Ntehelang to me and he reported that his pistol was missing and I am not certain whether Leon Flores was with me. I took him in to Col de Kock.

MR BOTHA: Did you search the deceased at that stage?

MR SNYDERS: When we arrived in the canteen I searched him, I found a role of notes in his back pocket and I realised that he could not have been mugged or robbed, because he told us he had been robbed of his firearm and I could not believe it because they would have taken his money also if he was robbed.

MR BOTHA: What was the conclusion that you drew under the circumstances?

MR SNYDERS: My first idea was that he had either sold the firearm or that he may have used it in a robbery and robbed somebody of the money and had disposed of the firearm.

MR BOTHA: What happened to the money, can you recall?

MR SNYDERS: I'm not certain, but I think I placed the money on the counter table, whereafter we started questioning the person.

MR BOTHA: When you say "we started questioning the man", what type of questioning are you referring to and which persons questioned him?

MR SNYDERS: Col de Kock started asking questions and I stood by him, asked him questions to explain his absence because he was absent for so long, and where his firearm was and then Col de Kock struck him with the snooker cue. I don't know how many blows.

MR BOTHA: The questioning, did he answer you?

MR SNYDERS: No, he did not pay any attention to us, he did not want to answer any questions.

MR BOTHA: And what happened then?

MR SNYDERS: I saw that the questioning would take place for quite some time and I would not arrive at home in time and I went to a telephone which was in the building adjacent to the canteen, to inform my wife that I would be arriving late that evening. I was away for approximately 15 minutes from the canteen, and when I returned I saw there was something on the floor, wrapped in a blanket and Col de Kock told me to fetch my vehicle and what was lying there. Afterwards I assumed that that has to be the body or that it has to be a person and I assumed that the only person it could be was Ntehelang. The corpse was loaded into the back of my vehicle and we drove in the direction of Rustenburg, to dispose of the corpse.

MR BOTHA: You say you assumed that it was the corpse of the deceased, of Mr Ntehelang. Did you ask any questions at that stage and was it allowed to ask any questions at that stage?

MR SNYDERS: No, I did not ask questions, it was not the policy to ask questions under those circumstances and I would have never questioned instructions from my seniors, I would just execute my orders.

MR BOTHA: Did you play any part in the assault or torture of the deceased as it is described by Mr van Heerden before this Commission?

MR SNYDERS: I don't know of any tube that had taken place, I didn't know there was a tube in the canteen. I myself never tubed Ntehelang.

MR BOTHA: And as you have already stated in your evidence and in your statement, did you observe any assaults from any other person?

MR SNYDERS: No, Chairperson, I did not see him being assaulted after I left the canteen. When I returned I saw that he was not there anymore and I assumed that he was dead.

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

ADV SANDI: Sorry, can you just repeat this. When you came back you say that there was this thing that was wrapped up in the blanket, you didn't ask what is this?

MR SNYDERS: No, as I've already said, Chairperson, I did not ask questions, I assumed that it had to be the man who had been assaulted in the canteen.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Hattingh on record, we have no questions.

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

Mr Snyders, I would just like to clear up a few aspects with you. On page 265 you say the askari arrived - that's in the second paragraph.

Can you recall how he arrived there? I know he walked, but was he brought there or did he come there on his own?

MR SNYDERS: Chairperson, I am not certain. It is not certain whether somebody brought him there or whether he came there by himself. I can just recall he arrived at the canteen.

MR BOOYENS: Now you have possibly heard what I put what Mr Bellingan said, what his role was, he said the askari told him - he found him in the canteen and he said he had lost his firearm. Is it possible that this discussion had taken place?

MR SNYDERS: It is possible, yes.

MR BOOYENS: And that he, Bellingan, then took the person to Maj de Kock.

MR SNYDERS: That is possible, yes.

MR BOOYENS: Just one aspect which is not clear in evidence. What was wrapped in the blanket, did it take on the form of a human body, could you see it was a human body?

MR SNYDERS: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR BOOYENS: And with what you had seen happened earlier, you drew the inference, it was not necessary to ask any questions.

MR SNYDERS: That's correct.

MR BOOYENS: And you have also heard that I put it that Messrs Bellingan, Baker and Tait said that they had all walked out of the canteen when the questioning and assault started. Can you dispute that?

MR SNYDERS: I cannot recall that any of them assaulted the man, Chairperson.

MR BOOYENS: And actually more than that, are you in a position to say - well according to your evidence you are not, because you were not in the vicinity when the assault took place, so they could have been outside, you don't know?

MR SNYDERS: Yes, I would not know.

MR BOOYENS: Very well. If you could assist us with one aspect. When you returned and the person was lying in the blanket, as I understood my instructions, Baker, Bellingan and Tait were not in the canteen at that stage. Are you in a position to say that they were there or not there?

MR SNYDERS: I cannot recall pertinently, but I cannot say who was there and who was not there.

MR BOOYENS: Thank you very much.

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

Mr Snyders, I would just like to address one aspect with you. You've already made the concession in your evidence-in-chief that you may be mistaken about the people whom you said were at Vlakplaas, and my instructions are to put it to you that Mr Willie Nortje was not at Vlakplaas that evening. Will you accord with that?

MR SNYDERS: It is possible, I cannot recall that I saw him there.

MR ROSSOUW: So where you mention him in your statement on page 265 at the bottom of the page, that may be a mistake?

MR SNYDERS: That's possible, Chairperson.

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

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

Captain, can you think of any reason why Mr van Heerden would implicate you in this matter?

MR SNYDERS: No, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: Because he says when he came in you were busy tubing the deceased.

MR SNYDERS: As I have said Chairperson, at no stage did I tube the man. It is possible that Mr van Heerden may have had more to drink than he realised and he may have seen me for somebody else, it was many years ago and it is impossible for me to tube the man all by myself anyway.

MR CORNELIUS: You said that you searched the deceased and found the money on him.

MR SNYDERS: That's correct.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you ask him what he was doing with so much money?

MR SNYDERS: Yes, we asked him many things, but at no stage did he answer.

MR CORNELIUS: But you searched him, that was before you reported to Mr de Kock, did you ask him what was he doing with so much money?

MR SNYDERS: I asked him, yes.

MR CORNELIUS: And what did he say?

MR SNYDERS: He did not give any answer to that.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you tell Mr de Kock that you found this money on him?

MR SNYDERS: I believe I would have told him, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And while you and de Kock were questioning him you would have asked about the money?

MR SNYDERS: Yes, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: And this money, you say you believed that you left it on the counter?

MR SNYDERS: That's correct.

MR CORNELIUS: Do you think it was a wise manner to do that, to put money on the counter at a full bar?

MR SNYDERS: I think all of us were people of the same unit and I think we trusted each other. It was a private bar as well.

MR CORNELIUS: You say it was clear to you that the man had sold the firearm, what brought you to this insight?

MR SNYDERS: As I have said, I weighed up two options. Firstly, he could have possibly sold the firearm, that's where the money came from and secondly, that he might have robbed someone with the firearm, that's where the money came from, and then disposed of the firearm.

MR CORNELIUS: But it was necessary for you to verify this by means of questioning?

MR SNYDERS: That's correct.

MR CORNELIUS: You say you did not participate in the questioning?

MR SNYDERS: I participated in the questioning, but not in the assault.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you see who did the tubing?

MR SNYDERS: No, Chairperson, I don't know of any tube that was in that canteen.

MR CORNELIUS: But were you present during the assault?

MR SNYDERS: As I've already said Chairperson, I went out - after the questioning I went out and called my wife.

MR CORNELIUS: Very well. On page 265 of your application, the second last paragraph, you said:

Is that correct?

MR SNYDERS: That's correct.

MR CORNELIUS: This askaris who is being referred to, is that Moses Ntehelang?

MR SNYDERS: Yes, that's correct.

MR CORNELIUS: And this information came to your knowledge after his death?

MR SNYDERS: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: When you acted and you searched him and you conveyed the information to Col de Kock, what was your political motivation?

MR SNYDERS: I don't understand.

MR CORNELIUS: What was your reason for questioning him and assaulting him, what was your intention?

MR SNYDERS: The intention first and foremost, was to find out what he had done with the firearm. And as I have said in my application, we had information which was not confirmed, but afterwards we had information that he was working with the ANC and it was the further interrogation, to find out whether he had been in contact with the ANC.

MR CORNELIUS: So you felt that the Unit Vlakplaas was endangered by his actions?

MR SNYDERS: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: It was important to find out wasn't it, what he could have told anybody about Vlakplaas?

MR SNYDERS: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Because we've been told that he was away for a month, he could have told everything he knew, couldn't he?

MR SNYDERS: Correct, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: Thank you, Mr Chair. Jansen on behalf of Ras, no questions.

ADV STEENKAMP: No questions, Mr Chairman.

MR SIBANYONI: Mr Snyders, what eventually happened with the money?

MR SNYDERS: Chairperson, I never thought about the money again. From there we went and buried the man and I returned and I never thought about what happened to the money.

MR SIBANYONI: So up to today you don't know what happened to the money?

MR SNYDERS: No.

MR SIBANYONI: We have been hearing this information that usually when the Vlakplaas team was out on an operation, when you returned, either there would be a braai and some function where people would be drinking. Were there any teetotallers, any people who didn't partake in liquor, at Vlakplaas?

MR SNYDERS: Chairperson, it's possible, but I cannot think of anyone now who - I can recall that Steve Bosch drank very little, less than any of us, but I cannot recall if any of them did not drink at all.

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you.

ADV SANDI: Could you just give us names of the people you saw assaulting this man.

MR SNYDERS: Chairperson, I only saw that Col de Kock assaulted the man with the pool cue and from there I left the canteen, and when I returned the man was dead.

ADV SANDI: The assault by Mr de Kock, how long did that take?

MR SNYDERS: For the time period when I was there, approximately 10 to 15 minutes that we questioned him, but I may be mistaken, Chairperson, it was a very long time ago.

ADV SANDI: Is that to say that he was - you were asking him questions and he was assaulting him?

MR SNYDERS: No, I stood there, Col de Kock also put questions, it was not an organised questioning.

ADV SANDI: Is there any reason why you did not take part in the assault of this man?

MR SNYDERS: Yes, I did not want to take a hand and participate in where Col de Kock was busy with the questioning.

ADV SANDI: Did you agree with the assault on the deceased?

MR SNYDERS: At that stage yes, I felt that we had to obtain information from him as quickly as possible, because Vlakplaas was left unprotected, there was no security at Vlakplaas, we were all in a very difficult position. If the man had disclosed information about us, our lives would have been in danger.

ADV SANDI: Should I understand that to mean that you agreed with the assault and torture on this man, right from the beginning to the end?

MR SNYDERS: I agreed with the assault insofar as to obtain information from him and that is as far as it went.

ADV SANDI: Is there any stage at which you did not agree with the assault or any kind of violence on him?

MR SNYDERS: The time period when I was in the canteen, the assault that had taken place there was not to such an extent and so serious that he could have died of the assault.

ADV SANDI: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Re-examination?

MR BOTHA: No re-examination, thank you, Mr Chairman.

MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Mr Chair. I wish to call with your leave, Mr Flores.

MR SIBANYONI: Mr Flores, are you Afrikaans or English speaking?

MR FLORES: English.

MR SIBANYONI: Your full names for the record please.

LEON WILLIAM JOHN FLORES: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Mr Chair.

Mr Flores, you're an applicant in this matter and you've brought an application, a Form 1, in terms of Section 18 of the Act and presented at the ...(indistinct), is that correct?

MR FLORES: That's correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: At all times you were employed by the SAP and you're an applicant in terms of Section 20(2)(a) and Section 20(2)(f) of the act, is that correct?

MR FLORES: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: At the time of this incident you were stationed at the Unit Vlakplaas, as fully described in Annexure C, which is already before this Committee, and you served under the command of Col de Kock, is that correct?

MR FLORES: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: Do you confirm the general background of your application and the merits of the application as before this Committee?

MR FLORES: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: At all times you carried out the instructions of Col Eugene de Kock?

MR FLORES: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: Now we have the general background on what this day. At a certain time when you returned, you were with the other members at the unit canteen at Vlakplaas, is that correct?

MR FLORES: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you consume alcohol that day?

MR FLORES: Yes, I did, Mr Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: Were you present when the victim, Moses Ntehelang was brought into the canteen?

MR FLORES: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: Can you tell the Chairperson what happened from the moment he came into the canteen.

MR FLORES: Yes. Mr Chairperson, at that stage when the deceased was brought into the canteen, he reported to Col de Kock at that stage that his weapon had been lost in some or other shebeen in Laudium.

MR CORNELIUS: Fine. Was he then assaulted by Col de Kock?

MR FLORES: After Col de Kock had a few words with him, he struck him with a pool cue, uttered some more words and then Col de Kock left the canteen, Mr Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: What did the other members do then?

MR FLORES: At that stage, on Col de Kock leaving the canteen, numerous members like swooped down on Mr Ntehelang and started beating him. At that stage I also left the canteen, Mr Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you at that stage participate in the assault yourself?

MR FLORES: Not at all, Mr Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: Fine. When you were outside the canteen, did you hear anything?

MR FLORES: Yes, at that stage outside the canteen, I heard at that stage Lt Snyders talking to Col de Kock, where Col de Kock mentioned to Lt Snyders that the deceased had for some time been a suspect of leaking out information to the ANC as such. With that I went to have a look what was going on in the canteen again.

MR CORNELIUS: Fine. I see you say in your amnesty application:

Are you in doubt about the person he was speaking to?

MR FLORES: I beg your pardon?

MR CORNELIUS: Are you in doubt that it might have been somebody else and not Piet Snyders? Because in your application I see you say:

MR FLORES: That's correct, that's correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: When you went back into the canteen, what did you see then?

MR FLORES: I saw - when peeking back into the canteen, I saw Mr Dries van Heerden and Piet Botha kneeling over Mr Ntehelang, I then went closer to have a closer inspection.

MR CORNELIUS: What did you see?

MR FLORES: I noticed blood coming out of the nose and ears and mouth of Mr Ntehelang and the manner in which he was lying at that stage, Mr Chairperson, he was very motionless. At that stage if he was unconscious or dead at that time, I could not say, but I then left the canteen.

MR CORNELIUS: And when you went out the canteen, what did you go and do then?

MR FLORES: I approached Steve Bosch and asked him to get a blanket and a nylon cord or piece of rope for me.

MR CORNELIUS: I see. Did you receive any instructions then from Col de Kock, what to do?

MR FLORES: At that stage someone else reported to Col de Kock, as they were a couple of yards behind me, that Ntehelang had - was dead. I then took the blanket and the cord and rolled Mr Ntehelang in the blanket and tied him down with the cord in the blanket.

MR CORNELIUS: I see. What did you do then with the body?

MR FLORES: At that stage, while doing that, I was approached by Lt Snyders, who informed me that the instructions from Col de Kock came that we had to load the deceased into Lt Snyders' boot of his vehicle.

MR CORNELIUS: Mr Flores, what was your rank at that time?

MR FLORES: I was a Sergeant at that time, Mr Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: I see. Now I presume that this was done very secretly, not as to inform other askaris, or not?

MR FLORES: That is correct, the loading of the corpse at that stage, because there were guards on the farm and obviously we would not want the word to come out that Mr Ntehelang had been accidentally killed as such.

MR CORNELIUS: You then left Vlakplaas, what happened then?

MR FLORES: That's correct. I was then given instructions to accompany Col de Kock, Lt Snyders and Martiens Ras, there was another person as my statement says, I couldn't recall who it was but as we've heard now, it was Mr Willemse, to escort them somewhere in the Western Transvaal, to dispose of the corpse.

MR CORNELIUS: And you went to a farm in Zeerust area, is that correct?

MR FLORES: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: I think it's common cause that a shallow grave was dug and he was buried.

MR FLORES: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: I see on page 116 you say that there was an attempt to burn the body as well, is that correct?

MR FLORES: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: You then returned and there was no further enquiries about Mr Ntehelang after that, is that correct?

MR FLORES: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: At the time, did you receive - did you have any personal grievance against Mr Ntehelang?

MR FLORES: Nothing at all, Mr Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: And you obviously didn't received any rewards for your participation?

MR FLORES: Nothing at all, Mr Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: And you apply for as far as you were involved, for amnesty as accessory and obviously being on the scene.

MR FLORES: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR CORNELIUS: ... to the murder of Ntehelang.

MR FLORES: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: It seems to me if you say "accidentally", it doesn't seem to me that there was an intention to kill originally.

MR FLORES: Mr Chairperson, if I go according to the evidence I've listened to, from Mr van Heerden, I don't think it was any intention of anyone at that stage to kill Mr Ntehelang, so it's just - that's how I personally just saw it.

MR CORNELIUS: There's an affidavit here of a certain Mr Lugg, is he present as a witness?

MR FLORES: I'm not sure if he's here, Mr Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: I see he implicates - in this application tries to implicate that you partook in this assault. Is that so?

MR FLORES: Not at all, Mr Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Mr Chair.

ADV SANDI: Can you just explain one thing, Mr Flores. With the exception of Mr de Kock, did you see anyone else assaulting the deceased?

MR FLORES: If I understood your question correctly, Mr Chairperson, yes, I only saw, the time when I peeked in, Mr Botha and Mr van Heerden.

ADV SANDI: Was there anyone around whilst Mr Botha and van Heerden were assaulting the deceased?

MR FLORES: I cannot recall, Mr Chairperson.

ADV SANDI: How were they assaulting him?

MR FLORES: At that stage, Mr Chairperson, I only saw them kneeling down on Mr Ntehelang's body. As to what they were doing at that stage, I was not aware of what they were doing.

ADV SANDI: Sorry, that's not very clear to me. You only saw what, the kneeling down?

MR FLORES: The kneeling down over him. I would suggest, most probably in the way of how they were describing how they were tubing the person.

ADV SANDI: Who was doing the kneeling down?

MR FLORES: I beg your pardon?

ADV SANDI: Who was kneeling over the body of ...

MR FLORES: Both persons were down.

ADV SANDI: Were they assisting each other to assault ...(intervention)

MR FLORES: Mr Chairperson, when I put in closer inspection, they were obviously not tubing him because I could notice the blood coming out of his mouth ears and nose, as I've explained.

ADV SANDI: Thank you.

MR FLORES: Thank you, Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: How much blood, was it running freely or just trickling?

MR FLORES: Mr Chairperson, if I could describe I'd say trickling.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Hattingh on record, we have no questions.

MR BOOYENS: Booyens, Mr Chairman, no questions.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR ROSSOUW: Rossouw, Mr Chairman.

Mr Flores, just one aspect. You said that you asked Mr Bosch to get the blanket and the nylon cord.

MR FLORES: That is correct, I did mention that, Mr Chairperson.

MR ROSSOUW: Now my instructions are that Mr Bosch can't remember that. I'm not in dispute with you about that, can you perhaps just help me. Did you perhaps indicate to him where he should get the blanket and the nylon cord from?

MR FLORES: Mr Chairperson, yes, why I said Mr Bosch is because at that stage he was away from the canteen and Mr Bosch had his own office because he was on the Technical Services side of the unit and to my recollection I did definitely ask Mr Bosch.

MR ROSSOUW: Yes, no, no, I just make it clear, I'm not disputing with you, I'm just telling you that my instructions are Mr Bosch can't remember that.

I have no further questions, Mr Chairman.

MR BOTHA: No questions, thank you, Mr Chairperson.

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

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, I've just got one question.

Sir, as I understand you correctly, you only saw two people assaulting the deceased, am I right?

MR FLORES: At that stage, that's correct, Mr Chairperson.

ADV STEENKAMP: And those two people were Botha and van Heerden?

MR FLORES: That's correct, Mr Chairperson.

ADV STEENKAMP: On page 164 of your amnesty application, paragraph 3, I'll read for you:

Do you see that?

MR FLORES: That is correct.

ADV STEENKAMP: Who did this?

MR FLORES: That was Mr Piet Botha.

ADV STEENKAMP: Can you maybe describe, who were the other members swooping down on the deceased?

MR FLORES: I didn't as such - I most probably misinterpreted myself there, but the actual hitting and assaulting of the person, Mr Chairperson, was only those two members I mentioned. The picking up and throwing down of the person I recall correctly as ...(indistinct), was Mr Piet Botha.

ADV STEENKAMP: And the kicking and the hitting of the deceased, who did this?

MR FLORES: That was Mr Piet Botha and Mr van Heerden.

ADV STEENKAMP: So Mr van Heerden also participated in kicking and hitting the deceased?

MR FLORES: That is correct.

ADV STEENKAMP: Right. Can you remember who were all the members in the canteen, can you give us a short list? Can you remember who all the - who were all the other people there, while the deceased was assaulted by these two members?

MR FLORES: Mr Chairperson, all the people in the canteen, it's going to be difficult because there was, at least 90% of the unit was there if I recall correctly. I at one stage thought Mr Nortje was there, and as we heard he wasn't present. I'm scared to mention names, who was there and who wasn't there.

ADV STEENKAMP: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

MR SIBANYONI: Mr Flores, none of the applicants who testified before you spoke about blood, you are the only one to tell us about blood. Was this blood clearly visible?

MR FLORES: Yes, Mr Chairperson, if I recall correctly, the mouth in the mouth, very visible, by the nose, reasonably visible and by the ears, trickling, but not -you could see there was blood coming from the ears, yes.

MR SIBANYONI: Do you perhaps know what caused this blood?

MR FLORES: I would not like to elaborate - I was not present, so I could speculate, but I couldn't pinpoint.

MR ROSSOUW: Did the deceased sustain any other injuries?

MR FLORES: That was all, only what was visible at that time, Mr Chairperson.

MR SIBANYONI: You said this person was buried in a shallow grave.

MR FLORES: That is correct.

MR SIBANYONI: ... next to Zeerust. Was this shallow grave ever pointed out at any stage? Do you perhaps know?

MR FLORES: I have no clue, Mr Chairperson, I'm not sure.

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

ADV SANDI: Would you be able to remember this shallow grave if you would have to go back there today?

MR FLORES: Not at all, Mr Chairperson.

ADV SANDI: Why did you not take part in the assault on this man?

MR FLORES: I think, Mr Chairperson, at that point in time I felt half guilty because I was the responsible member who had to take in Mr Ntehelang's weapon on the previous deployment, on returning back from a deployment and I didn't collect his firearm as such.

ADV SANDI: Sorry, that's not very clear to me. You felt guilty?

MR FLORES: Did use the wrong word "guilty"? Yes, it was my - I was supposed to take in his weapon and the whole incident that sparked off the assault as such was the weapon, so in a certain way yes, it was due the fact that I didn't take in the weapon that sparked off the whole incident.

ADV SANDI: When were you supposed to have taken the weapon from him?

MR FLORES: When you deploy with your group, Mr Chairperson, on returning back to the unit the members who stayed at Vlakplaas had to hand in their weapons and I had to take in their weapons and hand them in for safekeeping. On the previous return of deployment I did not take in his weapon as such.

ADV SANDI: Thank you, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: ... questions arising from your statement. You there say how the drinking you did on the way back from the border post, the Oshoek border post, and you said that by the time you hit Erasmia the majority of the member were well intoxicated.

MR FLORES: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: You confirm that. And that after you opened the canteen and the party continued, you were totally intoxicated as were many others.

MR FLORES: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And it was then that the askari, the deceased, entered the canteen and you could see that he had been drinking as well.

MR FLORES: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Did he give the impression of being drunk?

MR FLORES: Correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And the report was made that he'd been robbed of his money and his official pistol.

MR FLORES: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: How soon after that did Maj de Kock hit him for the first time?

MR FLORES: Mr Chairperson, I think Maj de Kock at that stage first uttered some more words with him and then suddenly just hit him with the pool cue and uttered more words and just left the canteen.

CHAIRPERSON: It was very quick?

MR FLORES: Yes, very quick.

CHAIRPERSON: And I think - I don't know if you noticed, or were able to see, Maj de Kock has told us that he had knocked him down before he left the canteen. That after he'd hit him with the billiard cue, he then hit him on the face or somewhere, he slapped him.

MR FLORES: That could be possible, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And you were asked questions about whether you'd be able to point out where the body had been buried, I think one of your other colleagues knew the farm.

MR FLORES: I recall that's correct, Mr Chairman, Mr Ras.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ras knew the farm, spoke to the farmer. You didn't know, it was a strange place to you?

MR FLORES: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: But Mr Ras did know and should be able to find it.

MR FLORES: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Because the farmer knew you had come there and buried a body there.

MR FLORES: I don't know if he phoned him on that specific incident, but I afterwards did recall - we have heard that Mr Ras had frequented that farm on various occasions.

CHAIRPERSON: He had disposed of a body there before, hadn't he?

MR FLORES: What we believe, yes. That's correct, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Re-examination?

MR CORNELIUS: I have no re-examination, thanks Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR FLORES: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairman, the next witness that I call is Mr Douw Willemse.

MR SIBANYONI: Mr Willemse, are you Afrikaans?

MR WILLEMSE: Yes.

MR SIBANYONI: Would you state your names for the record.

DOUW WILLEMSE: (sworn states)

MR SIBANYONI: Sworn in, Mr Chairperson.

EXAMINATION BY MR ROSSOUW: Thank you, Mr Chairman. You will find the application of Mr Willemse on page 12 and further of the bundle. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Willemse, you are an applicant for amnesty in this incident and your application appears on page 12, is that correct?

MR WILLEMSE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR ROSSOUW: I want to show you writ dated 1993. Before you read the contents thereof to the Committee, is it so that you receive treatment for post-traumatic stress?

MR WILLEMSE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR ROSSOUW: And this writ is before you was signed by a psychiatrist, Dr P H van der Merwe, is this the psychiatrist who treated you?

MR WILLEMSE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR ROSSOUW: And because of this post-traumatic stress, do you have trouble with your memory?

MR WILLEMSE: Yes.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairman, I'd like to hand this letter it, it's the original. Unfortunately I didn't have time to make copies available to the rest of the Committee, I'll see to it - it will be done later, and I beg leave to hand it in.

Mr Willemse, you request that the Committee sees your evidence in the light of this treatment which you receive, is that correct?

MR WILLEMSE: That is correct, Chairperson, I will try my best to give a complete history of what I can recall.

MR ROSSOUW: Very well. Mr Willemse, you have applied for amnesty on this occasion and your amnesty application and specifically the general background with regard to the political objective appears from page 14 and further. Do you confirm the contents thereof?

MR WILLEMSE: Yes.

MR ROSSOUW: And is it your signature which appears on page 18 of this bundle?

MR WILLEMSE: That's correct.

MR ROSSOUW: With regard to this specific incident your amnesty application was supplemented and the incident is described on page 34 and further in the bundle.

MR WILLEMSE: That is correct.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Willemse, when this incident took place, were you stationed at Vlakplaas?

MR WILLEMSE: That is correct.

MR ROSSOUW: And what was your rank at that stage?

MR WILLEMSE: I was a Sergeant.

MR ROSSOUW: And did you resort under the command of Col de Kock?

MR WILLEMSE: That's correct.

MR ROSSOUW: You have now heard testimony that there was an operation in the Eastern Transvaal, on the Swaziland border and members of Vlakplaas returned back to Vlakplaas. Were you among these persons who returned from Swaziland, the Eastern Transvaal?

MR WILLEMSE: Yes, that is correct.

MR ROSSOUW: And you arrived at Vlakplaas, will you please tell the Committee where you were when the canteen was unlocked.

MR WILLEMSE: We had enjoyed some drinks in the canteen.

MR ROSSOUW: And can you briefly describe to the Committee in your own words what had happened there.

MR WILLEMSE: Chairperson, Moses Ntehelang, who was known to me as "The Yellow One", was brought into the canteen and there was a dispute with regard to a firearm which had disappeared. Col de Kock spoke to him and at a stage he became very angry and struck him with a pool cue and he was very angry and at that stage when the assault took place, I walked out of the canteen and stood outside.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Willemse, did you see anybody else who assaulted Mr Ntehelang, except for Mr de Kock?

MR WILLEMSE: Chairperson, no, I cannot specifically say that I saw specific persons, but I can recall that Mr de Kock struck him.

MR ROSSOUW: And you went and stood outside the canteen, did you return?

MR WILLEMSE: Yes, Chairperson. Later when it became quiet in the canteen I returned inside where I observed that Mr Ntehelang was lying on the floor and it seemed to me as if he was dead.

MR ROSSOUW: And you did not see how he had been killed or had become to be lying in such a condition?

MR WILLEMSE: No.

MR ROSSOUW: And you did not see the people who were involved in there as well?

MR ROSSOUW: And what happened then?

MR WILLEMSE: If I recall correctly, Col de Kock approached me and asked me - and I think he also approached Mr Flores, and asked me to be of assistance with the disposal of the body, which I then indeed did. If I recall correctly, I assisted in loading the body into the boot of the vehicle which had been pulled up to the side of the canteen and along with Mr de Kock, Martiens Ras and Leon Flores, whom I can recall, we drove in the vehicle to a place somewhere in Western Transvaal. I heard the other people say it was in Zeerust, I do not know where it was, but it was somewhere in Western Transvaal.

MR ROSSOUW: Very well. You say in your statement that on your way there you fell asleep, did you drink that evening?

MR WILLEMSE: That is correct, Chairperson, I had very much to drink.

MR ROSSOUW: And when you arrived at the particular place, was the body of Mr Ntehelang unloaded from the vehicle? What happened there?

MR WILLEMSE: We attempted - if my recollection is correct here, we tried - it was either a warthog hole that we tried to enlarge, it was in amongst some trees and we tried to fit this body into this hole, which we then indeed did.

MR ROSSOUW: Yes, and you have also heard the evidence of Mr Flores, that attempts were made to burn the body.

MR WILLEMSE: That's correct, I recall something like that.

MR ROSSOUW: Can you recall what attempted were made? Was petrol used, wood used?

MR WILLEMSE: I don't know, but I know that an attempt was made.

MR ROSSOUW: Very well. And is it true that in the attempt of widening the warthog hole you threw up?

MR WILLEMSE: That is correct.

MR ROSSOUW: And you have heard the evidence of Mr de Kock with regard to the dangers and risks which it held for Vlakplaas if the death of Mr Ntehelang had been investigated in the normal manner, and that it could possibly disclose Vlakplaas. Did you hear that evidence?

MR WILLEMSE: That is correct.

MR ROSSOUW: And do you agree with that?

MR WILLEMSE: Yes, I do.

MR ROSSOUW: So did you accept that the instruction you received from Mr de Kock that you had to participate in the disposal of this body was in the interest of the clandestine situation which was applicable to Vlakplaas?

MR WILLEMSE: That is correct.

MR ROSSOUW: And in the protection thereof?

MR WILLEMSE: Yes, that is correct.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Willemse, were you financially or otherwise rewarded for your involvement in this incident?

MR WILLEMSE: No, Chairperson.

MR ROSSOUW: And you were not involved, or you did not participate in any manner in any assault on Mr Ntehelang?

MR WILLEMSE: No, I did not.

MR ROSSOUW: You then request amnesty as an accessory to murder or culpable manslaughter of Mr Ntehelang.

MR WILLEMSE: That's correct.

MR ROSSOUW: You gave evidence in the trial of Mr de Kock, about this incident.

MR WILLEMSE: That is correct.

MR ROSSOUW: And you also received indemnity with regard to this incident.

MR WILLEMSE: Yes, I think it was Section 204.

MR ROSSOUW: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I have no further evidence.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR ROSSOUW

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman, Hattingh on record. We have no questions.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BOOYENS: Booyens, Mr Chairperson.

Mr Willemse, will you please page to page 34, paragraph 9(a)4.2, the first line:

What do you mean with that statement? I would like some clarity there.

MR WILLEMSE: Chairperson, What I meant was not apprehended as in arrested, but he had been traced by other members and had been brought to the farm.

MR BOOYENS: In other words, you don't dispute the version that people had found him in a shebeen and then made him return? That fits with what you are trying to say?

MR WILLEMSE: Yes, that is what I am trying to say.

MR BOOYENS: And you have already heard what I put on behalf of Mr Bellingan, that he says that the man first spoke to him and told him - or I will not say firstly spoke to him, he might have spoken to somebody else, but he told Bellingan that he had lost his firearm and then Bellingan took him to Maj de Kock. Do you know of this, can you comment on it, whether it had happened or not, or do you not know?

MR WILLEMSE: No, Chairperson, what I can recall is that he was brought into the canteen by somebody, but I cannot recall specifically who brought him in.

MR BOOYENS: Thank you, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: Cornelius on record, Mr Chair, I have no questions.

MR BOTHA: Botha, Mr Chairman, I've got no questions.

MR JANSEN: Jansen, Mr Chairman, no questions, thank you.

ADV STEENKAMP: No questions, thank you, Mr Chair.

MR SIBANYONI: Were there any members, were there any black members of the police at Vlakplaas when the event took place?

MR WILLEMSE: Chairperson, no, not in the canteen. Not where the alleged assault had taken place, not there.

MR SIBANYONI: There were also no other askaris around there?

MR WILLEMSE: Not in the canteen, no, not that I can recall.

MR SIBANYONI: You were part of the operation from Swaziland.

MR WILLEMSE: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR SIBANYONI: Were there any members, black members of the Vlakplaas team and/or askaris?

MR WILLEMSE: Chairperson no, I cannot recall whether any black members were present. As a rule we never actually used many of the black members in cross-border operations, but at that instance I cannot recall whether there were any black members involved.

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR WILLEMSE: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm sorry, I ...

MR ROSSOUW: I don't have any re-examination, Mr Chairman.

MR BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, may I at this stage, and I think I speak on behalf of my colleagues, Mr Jansen, I speak on behalf of my colleague, Mr Rossouw as well. I'll take responsibility for this. My situation is that my three clients, both Mr Tait - Mr Tait only arrived here, he was delayed in the Eastern Cape, he only arrived here late last night, I haven't had time to consult with him yet. Mr Baker was in the amnesty hearing last week in Durban, so he only got away from there and he arrived back here. As far as Mr Bellingan is concerned, I took a chance and if the Committee wants to reprimand me, I'll happily accept, but I'm responsible for that. Mr Bellingan unfortunately had to attend to very urgent business this morning and I said to him I do not think we will get to him. I was obviously wrong and I apologise to the Committee, it's my fault that we're not ready to proceed now, Mr Chairman, but I see that we do seem to have got through a fair amount of evidence today. May I ask that we adjourn at this stage, and I think my colleagues are in the same position.

CHAIRPERSON: Well this hearing has been set down for the whole week. I don't think there is any danger of it not being concluded within that time, so I'm quite happy, unless anybody has any strong objections, to grant your application. I also feel that it will not be necessary for us to start as we usually do at 9 o'clock in the morning, as when there are heavy hearings going on, some of you may have come from far away. What time would you suggest, 10?

MR BOOYENS: 10 'clock, Mr Chairman. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, we will now adjourn till 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. There's no possibility of anything else being set down later in the week is there?

ADV STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, there was a request from my colleagues that we put some more matters on the roll. I will look into that immediately.