--------------------------------------------------------------------------CHAIRPERSON: I feel I should once again make certain explanations. Those of you who were here yesterday, will recollect that we adjourned to obtain certain other documents. In this regard I would like to express my thanks, and I think the thanks of all of us, to Lynne Lockhat and to Huet(?) Kok who spent yesterday rushing from place to place, from the Attorney-General's office to Middelburg, to Alberton, to obtain further documents which are relevant to the present proceedings.

We will now start dealing with the evidence of certain of the applicants, but the representative of the victims has not had an opportunity to consult them about the new information that has emerged from the papers we now have, and after we have heard two of the applicants, the matter will probably be adjourned again.

I think we can now start as arranged, dealing with the applicants, leading Mr Tait on the basis that it should be possible to dispose of him and then dealing with Mr de Kock in-chief, his cross-examination to stand over.

MR BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, the parties haven't placed themselves on record yet.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible)

MR BOOYENS: The various legal representatives haven't placed themselves on record yet, I presume ...

CHAIRPERSON: The Committee remains the same. Will the legal representatives please put themselves on record and say a few words for the sake of those transcribing the record.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman. My name is P A Hattingh, I'm instructed by Mr Schalk Hugo, and we appear for Mr de Kock.

MR BOOYENS: May it please the Committee, Mr Chairman, and gentlemen. Kobus Booyens, I appear for the applicant, Mr J H Tait.

MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Wim Cornelius, I appear on behalf of the fourth applicant, Leon William John Flores.

MR LAMEY: As it pleases you, Chairman. Lamey, I act on behalf of applicants Bosch and Nortje.

MR KOOPEDI: Thank you, Chairperson. My name is Brian Koopedi, I appear for the victim in this matter, Ms Tandi Shongo(?)

MS LOCKHAT: Thank you, Chairperson. Lynne Lockhat on behalf of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

CHAIRPERSON: Is your client here?

MR KOOPEDI: My client is here, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: If I could say to her that we have asked our Leader of Evidence to cause further enquiries to be made to ascertain if we possibly can, the whereabouts of your husband's body and that you will be informed as soon as we obtain any such information.

MR BOOYENS: May it please the Committee, Mr Chairman. I call the first applicant to give evidence, Mr Johan Hendrik Tait. He will be giving his evidence in Afrikaans.

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

MR TAIT: Johan Hendrik Tait.

MR LAX: Do you have any objection to taking the oath?

JOHAN HENDRIK TAIT: (sworn states)

MR LAX: Thank you, Chairperson, sworn in. You may be seated.

EXAMINATION BY MR BOOYENS: Thank you, Chairperson.

Mr Tait, your amnesty application appears on page 50 of the bundle, is that correct?

MR TAIT: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: You have on previous occasions given evidence about your background and some of your more senior colleagues will be able to give more thorough evidence about this, but do you confirm the evidence regarding your background, as it appears on page 50, 51, 52 up to and including the top of 53?

MR TAIT: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Now with regard to this particular incident, there are just a number of aspects. At the stage when the incident took place you were not familiar, and even when you compiled your application you did not really know who the deceased person was with regard to the incident.

MR TAIT: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: But you accept that the person who is named is indeed the person who was killed during this incident?

MR TAIT: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Now is it correct that during 1988 you were stationed at Vlakplaas?

MR TAIT: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: And your amnesty application makes the statement on page 53 -

... that isn't exactly correct, you were a member of Vlakplaas and you were with members of the Special Task Force, is that correct?

MR TAIT: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: And were busy following up certain information regarding an MK cadre who found himself in a particular residential area?

MR TAIT: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: You arrived at a house, is that correct?

MR TAIT: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: And there were quite a few people there among others, Mr de Kock and some of your colleagues as well as Task Force people, people that you didn't know?

MR TAIT: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Now the Task Force people, as you've stated on the top of page 54, encircled the house and were busy penetrating the house, is that correct?

MR TAIT: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: And where were you at that stage?

MR TAIT: I was in a plot at the back of the house.

MR BOOYENS: Who was with you?

MR TAIT: As far as I can recall, Mr Flores was also there at that stage.

MR BOOYENS: And tell us briefly what took place.

MR TAIT: The person apparently escaped from the house, he jumped over the wall and saw us where we were in the adjacent plot. He tried to jump back over the wall, upon which Mr Flores fired at him with his uzzi and struck him.

MR BOOYENS: And I assume that the person fell down.

MR TAIT: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Did you yourself fire any shots?

MR TAIT: No.

MR BOOYENS: Can you recall how many shots were fired by Mr Flores?

MR TAIT: No.

MR BOOYENS: Could it have been one or more than one, or are you not sure?

MR TAIT: I cannot say.

MR BOOYENS: This person then fell down, is that correct?

MR TAIT: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: And after that he was arrested so to speak and placed in the back of a police van, is that correct?

MR TAIT: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Did you have anything further to do with him?

MR TAIT: No.

MR BOOYENS: Did you and some of the other Task Force members depart from there to follow up other information?

MR TAIT: Yes, there were other houses that we searched in order to obtain further information.

MR BOOYENS: Just for the sake of clarity, the other houses that you searched, this had nothing to do with any information that was obtained with this particular incident, these were separate operations?

MR TAIT: Yes, that is correct, these were predetermined operations.

MR BOOYENS: Thus you say that you were aware that an ambulance was called in but you never saw any ambulance arriving.

MR TAIT: That is correct. After the incident I departed, we went to the other houses.

MR BOOYENS: And you never again had anything further to do with the deceased.

MR TAIT: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Later you heard that he died during interrogation.

MR TAIT: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: And have you heard now that it is possible that he was assaulted and so forth during interrogation, however you do not know anything about this particularly?

MR TAIT: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: So Mr Tait, the basis upon which you have requested amnesty is your involvement in an incident during which one of your colleagues shot someone under circumstances which could be regarded by prosecuting authorities as unnecessary violence and you know that the man died during interrogation and you did not report anything about this.

MR TAIT: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: You confirm the rest of your application?

MR TAIT: Correct.

MR BOOYENS: That is the evidence, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I have no questions for this witness.

MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Mr Chair. Wim Cornelius for the fourth applicant, I have no questions.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chairperson. Lamey on behalf of Nortje and Bosch.

Mr Tait, I just want to be certain regarding the question of the ambulance which was called. Are you not certain whether this was done or were you no longer there or what is the situation that you recall?

MR TAIT: As far as I can recall an ambulance was called.

MR LAMEY: I just want to put it to you that Mr Nortje's recollection is that an ambulance was not called at any stage.

MR TAIT: Yes, Chairperson, I would not be able to make any statements about Mr Nortje's recollection, but as far as I can recall it was said that an ambulance should be called.

MR LAMEY: Was this before the commencement of the interrogation, or could it have been after his death?

MR TAIT: I cannot recall at which stage this request was put in.

MR LAMEY: You cannot recall at which stage, very well. I've got no further questions, thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: You only came back after his death, as I understand it.

MR TAIT: Yes, Chairperson, after he was shot I departed and I cannot recall whether I did indeed return or whether the person was already gone, but I have no further recollection of that.

MR SIBANYONI: Who said the ambulance should be called?

MR TAIT: I cannot say with certainty who it was, I can no longer recall.

MR LAMEY: No further questions, thank you, Chairperson.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR KOOPEDI: Thank you, Chairperson. One question for Mr Tait.

This wall, where was this wall, was the wall surrounding the house from which the deceased came from? The wall you say he jumped.

MR TAIT: Yes, it was an adjacent wall. As I can imagine the wall was directly behind the house.

MR KOOPEDI: So one could - if I understand you well, one could say that wall served as the boundary between that house and perhaps other houses all to the street.

MR TAIT: Yes.

MR KOOPEDI: Thank you, no further questions for this witness.

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

How far from the house did the deceased fall when he was shot, was it a distance away from the house, was it nearby? Can you give us some information regarding that.

MR TAIT: As far as I can recall he had jumped over the wall and he fell on the other side of the wall.

CHAIRPERSON: The same side as you or back on the house side?

MR TAIT: On the side of the house, on the other side of the wall.

MS LOCKHAT: And then just from the time that you all surrounded the house and the time he was shot, how long did that take place?

MR TAIT: Unfortunately I would not be able to say.

MS LOCKHAT: You can't guess, five minutes or twenty minutes or ...?

MR TAIT: Unfortunately I cannot say.

MS LOCKHAT: And then just your initial instruction, was it just to effect arrest, as you mention in your amnesty application form?

MR TAIT: That is as far as I can recall.

MS LOCKHAT: And on page 54 in your amnesty application form, at the second paragraph you stated that Mr de Kock started questioning the deceased, did you see that yourself or is that just what you heard?

MR TAIT: I did not see this myself because the person was taken and Mr de Kock was in charge, so it would have been logical that he would be the one to commence the interrogation.

MS LOCKHAT: Thank you, Chairperson, I have not further questions.

MR SIBANYONI: But Mr Tait, why did you put it in your statement that as far as you can remember, de Kock started the questioning, if you didn't see it?

MR TAIT: As I've stated, Mr de Kock was in charge of the operation, so it would have been automatic that he would be the one to begin the interrogation of the man. I assumed that he would be interrogated by Mr de Kock.

CHAIRPERSON: Why do you think he was interrogated, this man who had been shot and collapsed?

MR TAIT: There would certainly have been more information which could have been obtained from him regarding whether or not he was alone or whether there were other persons with him.

MR SIBANYONI: I've got no further questions, Mr Chairperson.

MR LAX: Just one thing. As I understood your evidence-in-chief, and it was really the way it was put to you by your counsel, you left the scene of the shooting ...(intervention)

MR TAIT: That is correct.

MR LAX: ... to fulfil other enquiries.

MR TAIT: That's correct, Chairperson, there were still more places which had to be investigated and I departed immediately after the shooting incident with some of the other members of the Special Task Force.

MR LAX: Where were these places in relation to this house?

MR TAIT: Chairperson, I cannot make any statements about this, but as far as I can imagine it was in the same vicinity because I don't believe that we actually drove to these other places.

MR LAX: So it would have been adjacent houses, surely?

MR TAIT: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAX: Was this not as a result of information obtained from the questioning of this person?

MR TAIT: No, Chairperson, according to my recollection these places had already been identified as places that had to be investigated.

MR LAX: You see, Mr de Kock in his application, makes it clear that people were sent off to other places as a result of information obtained from the deceased.

MR TAIT: Chairperson, I cannot recall it as such because I did not remain at the scene. I would have had to remain at the scene for quite some time before my departure and as far as I can recall I left the scene of the incident virtually immediately.

MR LAX: You see if one looks at the general tenor of this operation, it was to attempt to arrest this man. The whole operation was to go to a particular place, to penetrate that house and to find this man Thabang that's mentioned in all the papers. There's no mention made of other houses that needed to be searched as well as part of the operation or anything else, as part of the original planning of the operation. Do you understand what I'm saying?

MR TAIT: Yes, I understand you.

MR LAX: And yet on your version that was part of the plan.

MR TAIT: Chairperson, when I made this statement it may be that I was mistaken with regard to previous actions and I may have confused various incidents.

MR LAX: Now just one small little thing. Just bear with me one second, Chair.

You said that there were Task Force people present and Vlakplaas people present, who else was present as far as you can recall?

MR TAIT: I can recall the Task Force and then also the Vlakplaas members. Unfortunately I cannot give you any names, I just know that the Task Force was applied, but I don't know who these persons were by name.

MR LAX: My question if I can be more specific is, were there members from any other areas there, in addition to, or units, in addition to Task Force and Vlakplaas, as far as you can recall?

MR TAIT: It may be so that I have not mentioned this because it would be logical that the Security Branch members who produced the original information, would also have been present.

MR LAX: And where was that from as far as you know?

MR TAIT: Chairperson, yesterday morning I read my statement and I read about Germiston Security Branch members. I did not mention this in my statement but it would have been so that they would have been there if this was their operation.

MR LAX: Yes. Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: There are various matters which I'm afraid I'm going to introduce. Firstly, who was in command of the unit that left the scene and went off to other houses?

MR TAIT: Chairperson, unfortunately I cannot tell you, I can no longer recall who was in command.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it Mr de Kock?

MR TAIT: No, Chairperson, I would have remembered if it was him who accompanied us to the other houses, but I cannot say with one hundred percent certainty that it is or isn't him. There is a possibility, but I cannot recall anything like that.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you see Mr de Kock fire any shots that day?

MR TAIT: No, Chairperson, because the only shots that I saw at the back of the fence where I was, were those which were fired by Mr Flores.

CHAIRPERSON: And I'm going to ask you about that because we have got statements from Mr Flores and Mr van Dyk, in which they say that they pursued this man for a long distance down the road, round other houses and it took about 20 minutes before they caught up with him and shot him. What do you say to that?

MR TAIT: I cannot recall this. As I have said, what I can recall is that Mr Flores and I found ourselves at the back of the house at a certain stage. It may be that he ran around there, but as far as my memory allows, he and I at that stage were at the back of the fence. This is what I've stated in my affidavit.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and you say he climbed over the fence at the back of the house, he saw you two, he tried to get back again and Flores shot him and he fell into the yard at the back of the house.

MR TAIT: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And there he was arrested and taken away to the house.

MR TAIT: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you see van Dyk there at all?

MR TAIT: Not as far as I can recall, Chairperson. It may be that he was there, but as far as I can recall when I made my statement, I could identify Mr Flores due to the fact that I saw him firing shots at the person.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you see any warning shots being fired?

MR TAIT: I cannot recall that any warning shots were fired, but I cannot exclude the possibility that they were indeed fired. I would not be able to elaborate on this.

CHAIRPERSON: Was any warning shouted?

MR TAIT: Chairperson, I cannot say with certainty.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR LAX: Just one thing, Chair.

With regard to van Dyk, you say you didn't see him and you can't remember him being there, but surely if he had fired shots or a shot, you would recall that, it would have been right next to you or nearby you.

MR TAIT: It would have had to have been near to me, but I cannot recall that I saw Mr van Dyk there or that he fired any shots there.

MR LAX: Mr van Dyk says he was with Flores and you say you were with Flores.

MR TAIT: That is correct.

MR LAX: And van Dyk says he saw Flores shoot the man and you say you saw Flores shoot the man.

MR TAIT: That is correct, Chairperson. I just cannot recall seeing Mr van Dyk shooting the man or that I saw him there. It may be possible, but at the time of making my statement it was about 12 to 13 years of the fact and I couldn't recall everything in precise detail.

MR LAX: Yes, no, no, I understand it's a long time ago, I don't expect you to remember everything. Were other members present there with you or were you just, just the three of you? Or just the two of you. I mean let's assume you're mistaken and it's only the two of you. Were there any other members present there at the time of the shooting?

MR TAIT: According to me Chairperson, and my recollection, at the back of the wall where the man jumped over I can only recall me and Mr Flores and the fact that Mr Flores fired at the man. It may be possible that other people were present there, but I cannot recall this.

MR LAX: And then just one final aspect. Did you and Flores take this man back to the place where he was loaded into the vehicle?

MR TAIT: No, Chairperson, I had nothing further to do with the man.

MR LAX: So did you just leave him lying there?

MR TAIT: Chairperson, I don't know about the other persons who were also present there, but I did not carry him to the vehicle, it must have been some of the other persons whom I cannot recall.

MR LAX: After the man was shot, what exactly did you do? Did you just stand and watch, did you radio for help, did you call for help?

MR TAIT: No, Chairperson, as I have stated, we withdrew and we went to the other houses. There were other members there, quite a few other persons who were present there who would then have assisted the man, but I did not assist in providing any further help to the man and we departed immediately.

MR LAX: Who told you to leave the scene? Somebody must have given you an instruction.

MR TAIT: Yes, that would have been so, but I cannot recall who the person was who told us to deal with the other houses.

MR LAX: And you're quite sure this person was just over the wall at the back of the property?

MR TAIT: That is how I recall it, that he was on the other side of the wall. That is where he collapsed.

MR LAX: Did you actually look over the wall to see him there, or are you just assuming this?

MR TAIT: I cannot say, I may have looked over. I believe that I must have looked over, but I cannot say with certainty.

MR LAX: Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it a solid wall?

MR TAIT: As far as I can recall it was a solid wall.

CHAIRPERSON: And how high, approximately?

MR TAIT: It was the regular style of concrete wall. If I had to give an estimate I would say just over six to seven feet high. If I had to give an estimate.

CHAIRPERSON: Higher than the average man, a little bit higher than the average man.

MR TAIT: Yes, that is correct, one couldn't simply peer over the wall. If one was standing in front of it, one would have to climb up the wall in order to see over to the other side.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Any re-examination?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR BOOYENS: Yes, I would just like to clarify a few things, Mr Chairman.

You were referred to Mr van Dyk. You had a colleague at Vlakplaas, Mr Paul van Dyk, is that correct?

MR TAIT: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: And I think that the Mr van Dyk to which you were referred was a Mr Karel van Dyk from the Germiston Security Branch. Do you know this man? His name was Karel, he's also known as Kallie.

MR TAIT: Yes, I'm aware of a Kallie van Dyk from Germiston.

MR BOOYENS: But you cannot recall that he was there.

MR TAIT: No.

MR BOOYENS: And then just something else. Upon various occasions you stated that you could not recall and so forth, for which reason did you leave the Police Force?

MR TAIT: Post-traumatic stress disorder.

MR BOOYENS: And indeed you are instituting a claim for injury in service in this regard.

MR TAIT: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Does this affect your memory?

MR TAIT: That is correct, my memory is affected by the disorder.

MR BOOYENS: Are you receiving medical treatment for your condition?

MR TAIT: Yes.

MR BOOYENS: Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Have we seen anything in this regard, on an earlier occasion? I think we have, haven't we?

MR BOOYENS: I think you did. In fact I think it was in the Chand matter, Mr Chairman, that's my attorney's recollection. We've got the medical certificate in any case, I'll ask my attorney to bring a copy and ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Well my recollection is we have all seen it in one of the ... Thank you.

MR BOOYENS: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Does that conclude the evidence which you wish to lead?

MR BOOYENS: That concludes the evidence on behalf of this witness, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Well as we have agreed, and I think everyone present agreed to this, we are at this stage prepared to release the applicant from further attendance, subject to the fact that if it should become necessary that he be recalled, you will make

arrangements. It's subject to that he is otherwise released from further attendance.

MR BOOYENS: I'm indebted to the Committee, Mr Chairman, thank you.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman, may I call Mr de Kock as the next applicant.

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

MR DE KOCK: Eugene Alexander de Kock.

MR SIBANYONI: Do you have any objection to taking the prescribed oath?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: (sworn states)

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

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr de Kock, you are an applicant with regard to this incident and your application appears from page 1 to 7 of the bundle, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And in as far as it was possible for you to study your application, I see here on page 3 it is very difficult to decipher everything, do you confirm the correctness of the allegations contained therein?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, my attorney undertook - and it's just as well that he's not here at the moment, undertook to get more legible copies of this particular page, unfortunately he'd forgotten to do so, we will let you have them in due course.

CHAIRPERSON: I have had great difficulty trying to read the bottom half, the top half is alright.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, Mr Chairman, we'll let you have better copies. Mr Chairman, might I at the same time refer to these documents, I assume that they are going to be handed in as exhibits, the documents that we were handed this morning. If we could just number them so that I could refer to them during the evidence of Mr de Kock.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, just before we do that, there's one other matter which I would like to clear up with you, and that is on the document page 4. The last sentence in paragraph 8A, is that that he accepts full responsibility for the death of this MK member's death and the operation - and then I can't read ... "... wat deur ..."

MR LAX: "... wat deur ons uitgevoer is." I think it is.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, I think that is correct, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Right. I've got two bundles, have you got two bundles?

MR HATTINGH: I've actually got two bundles and then the post-mortem ...

CHAIRPERSON: Ja, three. The post-mortem, shall we call that A. That is the post-mortem report and an affidavit by the doctor who performed the post-mortem, well I take it it was going to be an affidavit. My copy is unsigned. Oh, the original hand-written one is signed and attested to.

The next one is a bundle starting with -

We'll call that B, it already has a B on the first page, and that is paginated.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, I see, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: And finally, the bundle starting off -

That will be C. That is also paginated.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Very well, Mr de Kock ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: We had yesterday the affidavit of Mr Bosch, but I think that is to form part of his application, which would then be 49A. Right.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr de Kock, in your application you could not recall the date and we have obtained documentation indicating that the incident took place on the 7th of November 1988, are you prepared to accept this as the correct date?

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Now on that particular date, were you involved in the incident which took place in the Vosloorus area?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Just for the purposes of the record, Vosloorus is a residential area near Alberton, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Who was involved in the operation and how did it come to be that Vlakplaas became involved in the operation?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, the Germiston Security Branch directed a request to Vlakplaas and they requested assistance, among others also askaris. The information which was conveyed to me was that between the Germiston Security Branch and the Witbank Security Branch, between those two branches they were occupied in monitoring the telephones of suspected ANC/MK members who were operating in the Germiston area as well as the Witbank area. They requested that we, Vlakplaas, assist them with the detection of these members and askaris and I also co-opted the Special Task Force of the SAP, to assist us in the event of us requiring more fire power or a larger group.

MR HATTINGH: So ultimately a group of persons went to a particular house in Vosloorus, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, all of us, the Witbank Security Branch as well as the Germiston Branch, me and my unit as well as the Task Force, converged at the Germiston Security Branch offices, with the Task Force for the purposes of services, under my command.

MR HATTINGH: Was any information conveyed to you with regard to the identity of the persons who you would be looking for?

MR DE KOCK: A variety of information was conveyed to us, that this was an operational group of the ANC which was operating there. Among others, the information indicated that there was a plan - and this was specifically stated, there was a plan to bomb a Wimpy Milk Bar, among others. And reference was made to this group as a hard-core MK group. In other words, a hardened core of operatives.

MR HATTINGH: Was any mention made of any possible involvement of this group in previous incidents before this date?

MR DE KOCK: It may have happened. I've noted in the other applications something to this effect, but with the composition of my application I did not have an independent recollection of this and that is the reason why I did not mention this. It may have been mentioned to us.

MR HATTINGH: Do you recall whether any photos were shown to you of possible suspects before you departed for the area?

MR DE KOCK: I don't have an independent recollection of that either. However, I would foresee that this would have happened because the briefing which was given to us was conducted by the Witbank Security Branch.

MR HATTINGH: And there in the offices of the Security Branch of Germiston, did they have any photo albums of persons who were suspected of having been involved in terrorist activities?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, they had such capacity.

MR HATTINGH: Now you had a specific address to which you would have departed, can you recall the number today, or would somebody have pointed out the place to you?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I cannot recall the number, but I would accept that this was the number which was given here in the other reports. What did happen was that the address was provided by the Witbank Security Branch. They undertook tapping at an address in Witbank in the black residential area, from which calls came from the Germiston area and Vosloorus and by means of the number which they picked up, the address was determined.

MR HATTINGH: And who showed you where to go?

MR DE KOCK: The Germiston Security Branch members that accompanied us and who were quite familiar with the area and knew the streets, they accompanied us to this address. In other words, they showed the address to us in that vicinity.

MR HATTINGH: And it was daytime when you went to the house, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Later we will deal more thoroughly with the time, but could you estimate for us whether or not it was in the morning or in the afternoon when you went there?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I believe if my recollection serves me correctly, that it was in the middle of the morning, of the afternoon.

MR HATTINGH: And was there any unrest in the Vosloorus area at the time of this incident?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, it was quite serious, to the extent that the Vosloorus area as well as surrounding areas were regarded as liberated areas.

MR HATTINGH: And was this one of the reasons why you regarded it as necessary to enlist the assistance of the Task Force?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, we went with quite a large Force, because aside from the MK members we could also have expected other attacks.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. And what was your experience with regard to such house penetrations? Was it sufficient to take precautionary measures against attacks from within the particular house that you wanted to search?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, the ANC had a certain standard procedure, they would usually give the number of the house which was actually next-door to the house that they were using and I know that there were cases, particularly in Vryburg, where the address which they had provided was not in actual fact the address where they were residing, they were actually residing in the house on the opposite side of the street. So when the police penetrated the house of which they had the number, shots were fired at them from the back and there were policemen who were killed and injured. That was a standard precautionary measure against being trapped.

MR HATTINGH: And which counter-measures did you take in this regard?

MR DE KOCK: I took enough members along with us, so that with the deployment of the penetration of the house which is done by the Task Force, we would surround the house and then the additional members, among others the askaris, would then give us coverage from the outside parameters. So you had two groups, one looking in and one looking out.

MR HATTINGH: Is that how you planned the operation with this house?

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Tell the Committee what took place when you arrived at the house.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, the minibus in which I was travelling contained me and perhaps another member, I think one of my members drove the vehicle, and there were also Task Force members from the Special Task Force, who would undertake the house penetration. My group would then strike the house, so to speak.

Upon the arrival at this house and the address which was pointed out to us, a vehicle drove away from the front gate of this house and I gave the driver the instruction to follow this vehicle and the vehicle which followed me was instructed to strike the house.

MR HATTINGH: Did you have radio communication?

MR DE KOCK: Yes. I then opened the sliding door of the kombi and leaned out and shot out the left back tyre with the R5.

MR HATTINGH: Did the vehicle come to a standstill?

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: How far away was this from the house that you were supposed to penetrate?

MR DE KOCK: I would say approximately 30 to 40 meters.

MR HATTINGH: So it wasn't very far away?

MR DE KOCK: No, it wasn't.

MR HATTINGH: And you say that the driver of the vehicle was detained.

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Do you know what happened to him later?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, he along with a number of other persons who were in the vicinity of this house in this street but did not reside there or have any business there or any people to visit there, all these persons were collected and detained. And as far as I can recall 11 to 12 of them were detained under emergency regulations for further interrogation and possible identification or clearance, in order to determine whether or not they were not there as collaborators.

MR HATTINGH: And do you know whether the driver of the vehicle was one of these persons who was further detained?

MR DE KOCK: No, but I assume that he would have been.

MR HATTINGH: After this vehicle was stopped and the person was detained, what did you do then, Mr de Kock?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, we then moved back. Myself and the group that were with me went back to the house that was pointed out to us.

MR HATTINGH: May I just interpose here before we continue. Can you recall which members from Vlakplaas were all involved in this operation?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, that would be impossible.

MR HATTINGH: Could you recall some of their names?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, amongst others the persons who applied here and of the Task Force members I can recall two persons, one was a Capt Louw and the other was W/O Floors de Jongh.

MR HATTINGH: And the other Security Police members?

MR DE KOCK: I recall a Lt Lotz and a W/O van Dyk, I recall him specifically.

MR HATTINGH: This was not Paul van Dyk from Vlakplaas?

MR DE KOCK: No, he was from Germiston Security Branch, this van Dyk. And then from the Witbank Security Branch I have a recollection that Capt Rorich who was the Commanding Officer of the Security Branch at Witbank, had briefed us at the Germiston Security Branch, but I cannot place him at the scene during the shooting and the rest. There were two other members from the Witbank Security Branch who were at the scene, I cannot recall their names however.

MR HATTINGH: And the askaris who came along with you?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I cannot recall any names, but it was quite a group.

MR HATTINGH: You then returned to the house with this group who was in your vehicle, and what happened then?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, when we entered the premises one of the members, I cannot recall who, informed me that they had shot a person who had tried to run away from the house, when we drove past the house and were pursuing this other vehicle.

MR HATTINGH: Can you recall whether you heard that shot or shots?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, I was firing my own shots and it was, in that limited space of the vehicle it would have been impossible to hear any other shots.

MR HATTINGH: The report was made to you, and did then find a person who was injured there?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, when I met the person he was already on the front side of the house, from where he ran away in other words. I did not visit the scene where he lay.

MR HATTINGH: Can you recall who brought him to the front, around the front of the house to the front garden?

MR DE KOCK: No, I cannot. I do know that I spoke to Mr Flores and he told me that he fired at the person and that he had struck the person. W/O van Dyk however later came to tell me that he shot the person.

MR HATTINGH: If you say "thereafter", how long thereafter?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I would say it was just a few minutes afterwards, because Mr van Dyk disputed this and said that he shot the person.

MR HATTINGH: Could you see that the person was injured?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, he had a wound to his leg, I cannot recall which leg, but he had an injury to his leg and the bullet entered from the back of his leg. I did not see an exit wound if I can recall correctly. And the Task Force members, there were some of them who were trained paramedics and I asked some of them to apply a tourniquet and to strap the leg in and that they had to give him intravenous blood, which they then did.

MR HATTINGH: Where was this person when this was done, Mr de Kock?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, as far as I can recall he was in the front garden of this house which we had penetrated.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, and was an intravenous drip put on him and what happened to the man then?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, he remained lying down there in the garden. There were guards put with him. By nature of the situation the members had to watch him.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, but what happened afterwards?

MR DE KOCK: And after he was there, Chairperson, we then penetrated the house and searched the house and I gave instructions that this house be searched thoroughly and if it was necessary and they could not do otherwise than to damage it during this search, then they just had to report all this damage because I wanted all equipment, explosives or possible addresses or weapons cache stockpile points, I wanted all that information ...(intervention)

MR HATTINGH: Is that what you suspected you would find there? ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson. And they then continued to search the house, so much so that there was much damage done to some of the things in the house and we carried some of the things out of the house and put it on the lawn and I went so far as to tell the Task Force members to remove the laminating from the doors of the house because it is made out of compressed wood, even to remove those laminated slabs to see if there were any plans hidden in there. I wanted to go as far as having the floors and the garden dug up if it was necessary.

MR HATTINGH: Did you find anything?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, W/O de Jongh called me and in the bathroom of this house we found a Makarov pistol of Russian origin with a magazine and there was also a handgrenade.

MR HATTINGH: Very well, Mr de Kock. With your years of experience you have a thorough knowledge of Eastern Block firearms.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, you could probably mislead me with items such as diamonds or painting, I am not an expert there, but with weapons not you or not anybody else will try and beat about the bush with me.

MR HATTINGH: Was it a Makarov that you found there?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, it was a brand new, brand spanking new firearm and it was Makarov 9mm short barrel.

MR HATTINGH: And was ammunition found for this particular weapon?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, I have a recollection of one magazine that was loaded with ammunition because I was present when this weapon was secured.

MR HATTINGH: Mr de Kock, this morning before the Commission and the proceedings commenced, a document was handed to us and I gave it to you to read and comment on it and a further statement from one, Karel van Dyk, which appears in Exhibit B on page 3, where he says that a paper bag with arms - he received a paper bag with arms and that the pistol was covered in a cloth but later when he checked the pistol he found that it was an FEG pistol and not a Makarov pistol as he thought and that the two were quite similar in appearance. What do you say about that?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, it is perjury in its purest form, that is not so. I was personally present when W/O de Jongh handled the weapon in order to secure the weapon, and I have a clear recollection that we found the weapon in a particular place in the bathroom and it was a Makarov and nothing else.

MR HATTINGH: Very well, while we are dealing with this, maybe we should deal with other relevant factors. Later you were asked to make a statement with regard to this incident, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And the statement, did you write it yourself or was it written down for you?

MR DE KOCK: Was this in regard to the inquest?

MR HATTINGH: The post-mortem inquest.

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, I never wrote out a statement. I have now signed a statement here, I could not even recall that I made any statement there.

MR HATTINGH: Very well, we shall arrive at that, but let's just deal with the Makarov part of this incident. Was it ever asked of you to sign a statement or to make a statement to the extent that an FEG pistol was found in this house?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, Lt Lotz who also worked or was in control of the ANC Desk at Germiston, at that Security Branch, came to see me and wanted an independent statement from me with regard to this particular Makarov and he wanted me to sign a statement that a pistol of foreign origin, which was not even in working order, that I had to say that this was the firearm that was found there.

MR HATTINGH: And the pistol that you had to identify, did he show this pistol to you as the one that was found there?

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Did you handle it?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, one could not even cock this firearm and the working parts would not work on this firearm.

MR HATTINGH: Did you try to determine whether this pistol's firing chamber was suitable for firing Makarov ammunition?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, I later told Lotz. And what irritated me was the fact that he thought that I must believe that it is this weapon, and I went and I took a Makarov round and I told him "You try and fit this into this firearm" and the Makarov round did not fit, it did not even want to go in.

MR HATTINGH: And you were not prepared to make such a statement?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, I refused.

MR HATTINGH: And the Makarov that was found was in a very good condition?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, it was in exceptional condition.

MR HATTINGH: Was it practice for members of the Security Police to collect mementoes, specifically with regard to Eastern Block firearms?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, this did happen. There are many of them who legally went and registered these firearms in their names and obtained licences.

MR HATTINGH: Was this a wanted item amongst police officers?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, personally the Makarov had no value for me because it was of ordinary velocity and it was not really practical.

MR HATTINGH: Very well then. Mr de Kock, you have earlier said that you cannot recall that you did make any statement eventually. This morning a statement was shown to you that was signed by you and this appears in Exhibit C, from page 11, the statement starts on page 11 and the attesting and signature of it appears on page 13. Is that your handwriting?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, it is.

MR HATTINGH: Did you before today have an independent recollection that you had made this statement?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, I cannot even recall this statement. Well up to the point that this statement was shown to me, I believed that I did not make any statement at all.

MR HATTINGH: We will deal with the contents thereof later. Can I refer you to paragraph 4, there you've described the firearm which was found in this house as a Makarov pistol.

MR DE KOCK: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: And not this other type of pistol.

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: We shall return to this statement later. You say that in the house the Makarov pistol, magazine and rounds and a handgrenade was found, can you recall what else was found in the house?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, when I saw the statement it did jog my memory. As far as I know there was a smallish boltcutter found, or something similar. I don't have an independent recollection of what else was found there but there were this thick plastic gloves that one would use while working with chemicals or working in the garden. Somewhere I have a recollection of that.

MR HATTINGH: After these items were found in the house, what did you do then?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, we did not find any other items, I did not also have any other information which could give me tangible evidence, like a chart for any weapons cache point.

MR HATTINGH: Did you find any other persons in the house?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, the house was empty.

MR HATTINGH: What did you do then?

MR DE KOCK: I then decided, Chairperson, that in order to obtain information and to prevent further bomb explosions, that I will interrogate this injured person and if my memory serves correctly, and I do believe that I am correct, I asked the Task Force to apply a second intravenous feeding to this injured person, but not to open it.

There was a drive-up truck there, this is a type of a 5-ton truck that one uses for the transportation of troops and members of the Force, as it was practice during that time. Then I loaded this person into the truck and I tied his hands to the two sides.

One has a seating system on either side where the troops can sit and I cuffed his hands to the welded bars which served as the legs for these seats and I found a cloth in the house and I wet this cloth ...(intervention)

MR HATTINGH: What type of fabric was it, can you recall?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I am not certain, I cannot recall the colour, but it was a thickish cloth.

MR HATTINGH: What was the texture like, fine or coarse?

MR DE KOCK: It was course, and if one wets it less air would come through. And I then was assisted by a member of the Witbank Security Branch, I can however not recall his name, I can give you a description of what he looks like, and also by W/O van Dyk, and then we closed the door to this truck ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Which van Dyk is this?

MR DE KOCK: It's the one from the Germiston Security Branch, Karel van Dyk, Chairperson.

And I then sat on the chest of this MK member and I closed his mouth with this wet cloth ...(intervention)

MR HATTINGH: Only his mouth or his nose as well?

MR DE KOCK: No, it was only over his mouth. And as far as I can recall the person from the Germiston Security Branch squeezed his nose shut ...(intervention)

MR HATTINGH: With his bare hand?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson. ... and we started smothering him.

MR HATTINGH: Did he offer any resistance?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, he was injured in his leg, he couldn't use his leg and his hands were cuffed on both sides of him to the legs of the seats in the truck and I sat on his chest.

MR HATTINGH: May I refer you to Exhibit A, the statement from Doctor Holloway, which is attached to this, paragraph 3 he says -

MR DE KOCK: It was cuffs.

MR HATTINGH: He was cuffed with handcuffs.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson. This is the first time I see this statement.

MR HATTINGH: It was only handed to us when the Committee walked in. And then he says -

MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson. And then W/O Karel van Dyk took notes of what this person said to us.

MR HATTINGH: And for how long did you continue with this questioning and the torturing which accompanied it?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, it was between 15 and 20 minutes, and I depend on a vague recollection, but this is my idea of it. It was not easy for him by nature of the situation, I believe that he endured pain.

MR HATTINGH: Did he give any information?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, he gave us between four and five addresses with numbers of houses. In the one instance he mentioned that this is where the weapons and explosives would be found. And I had these addresses followed up. I and W/O van Dyk from Germiston, and members of the Special Task Force, then went and we departed. I know I took some of my members along with me, and I'm not mistaken there was a group of askaris with as well for the possible identification of persons as we moved through.

And a member of the public who we rounded up there at the scene, I asked him if he knew where this address was, he said "Yes", I told him "Climb into the minibus", he didn't have a choice. The reason why I took him along was to show these addresses to us in order to save time, but in the black residential areas many of the names of the streets, the name boards were removed and I did not want to work according to a chart.

MR HATTINGH: Before you continue, may I just hear from you, you say you had these addresses checked and now you are saying that you and your group went to one address, did you delegate anybody else to go to any other addresses?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, the persons doing this penetration was myself and my group, the other group had to remain with this person because of the condition in the black residential areas and we wanted to have enough of our people around if a crown would congregate there.

MR HATTINGH: So you left from the scene where the deceased was.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Was the person still alive when you left there?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, definitely.

MR HATTINGH: Did you give any instructions to the persons remaining behind, to continue the interrogation?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Did you tell them not to?

MR DE KOCK: No, I did not tell them not to, but I just did not give any instructions for them to do any interrogation.

MR HATTINGH: When you arrived at the other address, what did you find there?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, the first address where we arrived at, the Task Force penetrated the house, not in the main bedroom but in one of the smaller bedrooms according to my memory and as I described it here, I found these items here. There were indeed handgrenades if I recall correctly, and up to today I have a recollection that we found this amount of explosives, demolition charges and an AK47. I may be incorrect. Because of the total of other scenes that we had visited, I might be confusing this, but I do have a recollection that we did find these demolition charges there. And I then ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, when he says "We found these articles", is he looking at paragraph 6 at page 12 of Exhibit C?

MR HATTINGH: No, Mr Chairman.

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, I'm on page 4 of my application.

MR LAX: So that's the last sentence of the first paragraph you're referring to on that page?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, it is the last four lines, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Now there you mention 2 SPM limpet mines.

MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: How clear is your recollection about this?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, my recollection is quite clear because I say this because the two cardboard tubes which were sealed with a type of water resistant substance, it was a cherry coloured substance, I found this with the two limpet mines.

MR HATTINGH: The problem that we have, Mr de Kock, in the later statement which you made, and I will show this to you on page 12, paragraph 6 thereof, no mention is made of limpet mines.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I won't dispute this whole thing but because of the volume of other incidents I may be confused, but I would go into my grave and know that these things were there. I will not dispute it here.

MR HATTINGH: Mr de Kock, was your unit involved in other similar house penetrations in so-called black residential areas?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, many.

MR HATTINGH: Where houses were searched and weapons were found?

MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: So do you say that it is possible that you may be mistaken in this regard?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: But what you do recall is that arms and explosives and equipment was found in the house that this person supplied the address of?

MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson. We however did not find any persons in this house, Chairperson, and we then continued checking the other addresses which were given to us and we penetrated these premises and we did not find anything there and no persons were found there either.

MR HATTINGH: Did you then return to the initial scene where the deceased had been shot?

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

MR HATTINGH: And when you arrived there was he still at the scene?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, yes, he was still in the truck.

MR HATTINGH: Was he still alive or was he dead?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, it was reported to me, and I cannot recall whom it was, that this person had died.

MR HATTINGH: Did you see if this was the case?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, I went and had a look and it was indeed so and among others, I then removed the intravenous feeding.

MR HATTINGH: Speaking of this, do you have any training and experience in the application of intravenous feeding?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, during my service period in Ovamboland, I would not say hundreds but I applied many of these devices as well as the application of sosegrim(?) which is a substance similar to morphine I think, I think it's a derivative of morphine. I also had training with 5 Recce Commando, as well as a month's training with them, and I know how to set up and apply these devices.

MR HATTINGH: You say you removed it, what happened to the deceased then?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, he remained in the truck.

MR HATTINGH: Was he taken away, and to do you recall by whom?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, what had indeed happened was that the Germiston Security Branch contacted the Detective Branch and a Lieutenant or a Captain arrived there along with two other members of the Detective Branch and I made a short report to them that we had shot this person, that he had been an ANC terrorist and that we could not get him to hospital in time - the language was ambiguous, and that he died of his shot wound.

MR HATTINGH: Very well.

MR DE KOCK: I did not inform them that we had tortured this person in any manner.

MR HATTINGH: Did you have any other dealings with the further course of the investigation into his death, or anything in connection with that?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, the Germiston Security Branch continued with their investigation and kept their files up to date. And as I have said to you now, I only heard here this morning that I made this statement and it was not with the same Detective, because I don't even know who took the statement from me.

MR HATTINGH: It is apparently Lotz, it would appear it was Lt Lotz. - the attestation of it in any event.

MR DE KOCK: Lotz never sat next to me and took a statement from me, it could be a statement that was harmonised like the others and put before us to sign, but Lotz never sat next to me and wrote out a statement, I did not even write out a statement.

MR HATTINGH: Very well, let us deal with the statement, you don't have a copy of it so we shall use mine. In paragraph 3 thereof, on page 11 of Exhibit C you say -

Did you see something like that?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, I was busy with the car at which I shot and it would probably have been a report that was made to me, but I did not see something like this. And as I said, I never drew up such a statement. ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR HATTINGH: And then it reads further -

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, we are a counter-terrorist unit, you don't warn a terrorist before you shoot him.

MR HATTINGH: And you also did not hear this warning shouted in Afrikaans and English?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And you were approximately 30 to 40 meters away from there at that stage?

MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson. I would just like to mention, this might diverge a bit, but I read the victim's statement or the next-of-kin of the victim, and reference is made to a Lt Loots. That Loots is not Loots, that's Lotz. I just wanted to point that out, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And then in paragraph 5 you say you received a report about a black man that was injured and you say -

Did you do this or did you say this?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, we already had an outer circle which - in other words, it was a situation where the outer circle were with their backs to the inner circle and this would have been in an adjacent street.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. Then you say -

Did this happen?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, we did not search any of the houses next-door or opposite. The askaris did move around there to see if they could see any familiar faces or do identifications.

MR HATTINGH: And you say in paragraph 6 -

The equipment which you just mentioned in your evidence, namely the AK47 firearm, the AK magazines, the rounds, the handgrenades and the detonators and so forth. Were these found in one of the directly surrounding houses? ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, because we had to left in minibuses and I would not have had my members walk in groups of two or three, where they could be surrounded by very large crowds.

MR HATTINGH: And in paragraph 7 you say -

...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Just before you go on, in paragraph 6 you did give an address of where the weapons were found, which was not in the same street.

MR HATTINGH: That is correct, yes, Mr Chairman.

In paragraph 7 you say -

Did you say this?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, two trained medical orderlies attached to the Task Force Pretoria, gave this man emergency treatment.

MR HATTINGH: This was done, but this was not done at this stage.

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, no, it was just after he was shot.

MR HATTINGH: Then in paragraph 8 -

Is any of that true?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, this was not true for several reasons. We did not drive around with stretchers to carry around terrorists because we did not know whether we would find anybody and the Task Force also did not drive around with stretchers. And furthermore, we would not have taken him to Natalspruit Hospital, but probably to one of the hospitals in Pretoria or Johannesburg. If we took him to Natalspruit he would once again be amongst his people and one could not guard him there.

MR HATTINGH: And then you say later you heard that the black man upon his arrival, was certified as dead.

MR DE KOCK: He may have bee certified dead, Chairperson, but I can assure you that he died at the scene.

MR HATTINGH: And in paragraph 9 you say -

Did you have this information?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I did not have his names, but one our askaris, and I'm trying, I will give his surname to you, it was Lucky - I will get to his surname, but he said that this was MK Valdez, but we didn't have a name, I didn't have a name or surname for him.

MR HATTINGH: And then furthermore -

And the Witbank number is given.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, we were completely and thoroughly informed by Witbank's Security men, and I have this recollection that Capt Rorich gave us this information because it was his area, and this is most probably true.

MR HATTINGH: And then the penultimate paragraph -

Is this true?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, the person who reported to me that he had fired shots was Sgt Flores, but shortly following on the report which Flores gave to me, van Dyk came to me and told me that he shot the person.

MR HATTINGH: Did any of them mention any number of shots which were fired at this person?

MR DE KOCK: Flores mentioned that he had fired one shot at this person, that he had struck him in the leg, van Dyk mentioned more shots, but I cannot recall how many he mentioned. But van Dyk's situation at that stage was - and I will tell you what happened here, it's that he wanted the credit that a terrorist was shot and apprehended here because the moment when it appeared that MK Valdez was dead, van Dyk came to me and said but he did not shoot him. So it's one of those cases.

MR HATTINGH: I see that in this paragraph reference is made to Sgt L W J Flores, attached to Security Head Office, Pretoria, is this a correct description of his position at that stage?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Was Vlakplaas part of head office?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Vlakplaas was the base where we worked from but we were attached directly to Security Head Office.

MR HATTINGH: But would it have been a problem to refer to Vlakplaas, should people want to know at that stage what is Vlakplaas? Was Vlakplaas known at that stage?

MR DE KOCK: No, it was known to certain members of the Security Branch, but if some of the members gave evidence, they stated that they were based at head office, not at Vlakplaas.

MR HATTINGH: Mr de Kock, this morning I showed the statement to you which Mr Flores made and the one of van Dyk, it would appear as if the same person was responsible for the use of language in this statement.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, my use of Afrikaans might be old-fashioned as it was when I grew up and then it is not what was used during that time that was normal usage.

MR HATTINGH: After we've dealt with contents of your statement, would you describe it as a cover-up operation?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, these statements were harmonised in such a manner that the court came to another finding in our favour and in the favour of the State, and this is a different finding to what would have been made if we told what exactly had happened here.

MR HATTINGH: And such a favourable finding was made in the court in the post-mortem inquest which was held, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is what I saw this morning. I never even made any enquiries about the investigation, I never heard about this aspect whatsoever.

MR HATTINGH: You cannot recall this statement, but if such a cover-up statement, if I may put it as such, was put before you in March 1989, would you have signed it?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Was this a foreign phenomenon amongst you, that such cover-up operations be executed?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, this was standard procedure.

MR HATTINGH: And the Committee has many-a-time heard of this course of action?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Is the signature disputed?

MR HATTINGH: No, Chairperson.

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: The political objective which you put forward for your application is what, Mr de Kock, with regard to this incident?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, it was the prevention and combating of terrorism. In this regard persons were sought who had already been trained abroad militarily, with the objective to kill and also in this regard, to prevent that other premises, amongst others as it was mentioned, milk bars where only children go, where they would once again be blown up. I took these steps knowing that it was not right, but that I would strangle this information and these explosives and these weapons out of this man at whatever cost.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. You did not know MK Valdez before this?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: No personal ill-feelings or feelings of malice towards this person?

MR DE KOCK: No, none whatsoever, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: You also did not gain personally from this operation?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Do you know, Mr de Kock - you say you did not have anything further to do with this matter, do you know what happened to the body of the deceased in the end?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, I don't know who handled the person or where this person was buried.

MR HATTINGH: Were you ever informed about any inquest that was held?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: You were also not asked to be present to identify your statement or anything in that regard?

MR DE KOCK: No, not at all, Chairperson.

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

CHAIRPERSON: As I understand the arrangement, we will now adjourn the matter, there will be no further questioning, no cross-examination until the various investigations have been completed and until everyone else is ready to continue. We have no fixed date as yet. I understand from the attitude of all of you, when we were discussing this matter, that you were all as anxious as we are to complete it and to finalise it, and I will ask the Evidence Leader to make every effort if any date should become available, to communicate with you, gentlemen, so that we can make arrangements.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, should any further or new information emerge as a result of the further investigations, then obviously I may have to ask you for leave to deal with that in the evidence-in-chief before cross-examination.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh yes, quite clearly you have only led the evidence you have, on the basis of what is before us at the present time.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Is there anything further anyone else wishes to say?

We now adjourn till tomorrow morning - or Thursday? Thursday.

MS LOCKHAT: Thursday, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: What time? Nine thirty, gentlemen? I've warned you that I may be a little late on Friday, if we're still going on, but we'll now adjourn till nine thirty on Thursday morning.

MS LOCKHAT: All rise.