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

CHAIRPERSON: Good morning everybody. Today is the 16th of August 2000, we're continuing with the application of Mr Eugene de Kock. The incident is that of the Attack on a Transit House in Mbabane, Swaziland, known as MK Jabu - Injured.

When we adjourned yesterday afternoon, the 15th of August 2000, there was an application before us by the legal representative of the victims, Ms Cambanis, that the informer which Mr de Kock referred to whilst giving his evidence, should be made known and at the end of it all a ruling was reserved, to be given this morning. However, the legal representatives went into conference this morning and the position is as follows, that Mr de Kock would continue with his evidence and we need not give a ruling at this stage, but it may become relevant at a later stage. Is that a summary of our understanding? We'll start with Ms Cambanis.

MS CAMBANIS: Yes, thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Cambanis.

MR HUGO: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. I think before Mr de Kock proceeds, there is an omission that for tidiness of our record I would ask Ms Cambanis, just for the record, to state the names of the victims.

MS CAMBANIS: Solly Zacharia Shoke and Charlotte Shoke. I do not have another name except Charlotte. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: What is her relationship to Solly?

MS CAMBANIS: She is married to him, she is she wife. Sorry Chairperson, I'm actually inaccurate, at the house at the time the children of the Shokes were also present. There was a cousin whose name I have - sorry, the youngest brother of Charlotte Shoke, whose name I have only as Cedric, I unfortunately do not know, I cannot place his surname on record, and the three minor children of the Shoke family, Lerato, Tefu and Chris. That totals six persons.

CHAIRPERSON: Were these children in this transit house?

MS CAMBANIS: Yes they were, together with Cedric.

CHAIRPERSON: Cedric.

MS CAMBANIS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Patel, Cedric I assume if he's a brother, would fall under the maiden name of Charlotte Shoke?

MS PATEL: Well I'm not certain, perhaps not necessarily if Charlotte's taken on her married surname, then her brother would have obviously her maiden surname, so it wouldn't be a Shoke, Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Ja, that's what I'm saying.

MS PATEL: Sorry, I misunderstood you.

CHAIRPERSON: And we only know that today there was no way of probably giving him notice.

MS PATEL: That is correct, Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Cambanis?

MS CAMBANIS: Chairperson, I will go on record in respect of all five the Shoke family and the brother, Cedric. I represent all.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, I was about to ask you that.

EXAMINATION BY MR HUGO: (Cont)

Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr de Kock, let us just get back on the track that we had yesterday with the evidence. You stated that this operation originated from a discussion that you had with one, W/O Labuschagne, who made a request to you to launch an operation against Jabu.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HUGO: Very well. And just tell me if I'm incorrect regarding your evidence from yesterday, that the information that was given to you was that Jabu was responsible for the supply of weapons to ANC insurgents who in their turn would place such weapons in the Transvaal?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HUGO: And that Mr Labuschagne during this discussion, informed you that he in his turn had obtained this information from an informer?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HUGO: May I ask you this, the discussion that took place between you and Mr Labuschagne, was it telephonic or did you speak man to man?

MR DE KOCK: It was a personal discussion, it was a person to person discussion in direct view of one another.

MR HUGO: When did this discussion take place?

MR DE KOCK: Unfortunately I cannot remember, I can only infer that it must have been either in Middelburg or in Ermelo, but the discussion definitely took place in the Eastern Transvaal.

MR HUGO: Were you in the Eastern Transvaal coincidentally at that stage, or were you requested by him to move into that area?

MR DE KOCK: No, we had a permanent presence in the area, so I was most probably there and he then found me in the area where I was, near the border.

MR HUGO: And where was Mr Labuschagne's point of station at that point?

MR DE KOCK: I am uncertain whether or not he was at Ermelo or whether he was at Middelburg. He spent some time in Ermelo, but then he was transferred to the Security Branch in the Head Office, which was situated in Middelburg.

MR HUGO: And what was his task and instruction in the Police?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, he was tasked with the collection of information, intelligence work, the recruitment of sources and the infiltration of intelligence networks of the MK.

MR HUGO: And in general terms, would it be correct to say that he was involved with counter-terrorism as part of his task?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, definitely.

MR HUGO: And when he told you about the information that he had, what was his request, what were you supposed to do about it?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, the request was for us to attack the house and we had to kill this person who was known as Jabu.

MR HUGO: And did you have any idea why he specifically made the request to you and not to any other division of the Police?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, it was our task at that stage to execute such actions, or at least it was one of our tasks and then it was also his request to me.

MR HUGO: Were there any other persons present during this discussion? When I refer to any other persons, I refer to those persons specifically from the Eastern Transvaal Security Branch.

MR DE KOCK: As far as I can recall, Capt Johan Botha was the person who was with him. Johan Botha was his senior and he was the head of this intelligence group, although Mr Labuschagne was actually the brain and Mr Botha was the Commander.

MR HUGO: Any other persons?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, not that I can recall.

MR HUGO: And by the way, what was your rank at that stage?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I think I was a Major at that stage.

MR HUGO: You heard the request and what did you do about it then?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, as a result of the sensitivity and the circumstances which led to conflict upon previous occasions with Col Visser, I contacted Brig Schoon at Head Office, I telephoned him and notified him of the request which was put through by Labuschagne and I explained the circumstances to him, explaining why they wanted to do this, who the person was, and he gave permission for us to launch this operation.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr de Kock, may I just interrupt you. I beg your pardon, Mr Hugo. Was Capt Botha present when Labuschagne told you that Jabu had to be killed?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, that is my recollection, that he was the person who was present.

ADV BOSMAN: In other words, by necessary implication did the order come from Botha? Because you have stated ... (intervention)

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, it is one of those cases where Capt Botha, due to his rank, would automatically be the head of that division, but the person who managed the sources and was actually the brain behind the operation, was Labuschagne. So yes, as the senior person it would have been his situation, but Labuschagne was the person managing the sources, who had the information, who knew where these people were. It's almost a case of the tail wagging the dog.

ADV BOSMAN: But my concern is whether or not Capt Botha is aware of the proceedings which are taking place at present.

MR DE KOCK: I mentioned Mr Botha's name because he was present that night in Swaziland, when we sent the askaris in.

ADV BOSMAN: Yes ...(intervention)

MS PATEL: Sorry, if I may just for the record, he has been notified.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you, Ms Patel.

MR HUGO: When you had the telephonic discussion with Brig Schoon, did you have the impression that this was the first time that he came to hear of the proposed operation, or was it your perception that he had already been informed of it?

MR DE KOCK: My impression was clear that he already knew of this person known as Jabu and it wasn't even a question that I had to make a submission to him or had to summarise the proposed operation to him, it was concisely understood that we could continue with this action.

MR HUGO: Very well. He gave you permission after the telephonic discussion, what other arrangements were made?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, due to the information that Labuschagne had provided, we then decided to make use only of black members and of askaris in particular, due to the circumstances on ground level regarding the house which was viewed as a target. If I recall correctly, one or two of these askaris also knew Jabu. I have a vague recollection of that. The reason why no whites participated was because according to Labuschagne's information the house was situated very close to a police station and whites didn't really move around in that area and any white face in that vicinity would have immediately attracted attention and we did not wish to enter into conflict with the police.

MR HUGO: The planning which was then conducted for the operation, where did this take place initially?

MR DE KOCK: Initially on the South African side and then the final ground level planning took place near a park which wasn't very far away from the house, where we made the final arrangements before they were sent in.

MR HUGO: And when you refer to the South African side, was this near a border post or near a town?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I think it was in Piet Retief.

MR HUGO: And during this planning in Piet Retief, can you recall the names of any other persons who were involved in the planning?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I took Mr van Dyk with, I think he was a Captain or a Lieutenant at that point, and then there was Johan Botha, Labuschagne and me.

MR HUGO: Very well. And the askaris that you used, can you recall their names?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, it was Geoffrey Bosigo, he was a former ANC member and he had spent quite some time at Vlakplaas. By that stage he was already a member of the force. I found him at Vlakplaas in 1983 when I returned from South West. Then there was Jimmy Mbane, who was also a former ANC member who had been arrested in Kimberley, and then there was also a former ANC member by the name of VZ, which were his initials, Ndam, N-d-a-m. He had been arrested in Cape Town and recruited there in the Cape.

MR HUGO: And what orders did you issue to the askaris?

MR DE KOCK: The orders to the askaris were that Jabu had to be shot, that he had to be shot dead and then they had to withdraw. In other words, strike and leave.

MR HUGO: And were any weapons given to them for the operation?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, they were issued with three 9mm Walter sub-machine guns with silencers and subsonic ammunition. These weapons I found upon my arrival at Vlakplaas from Ovamboland and it was the same weapons which we used in the Siphiwe Nyanda case or the Zwelibanzi Nyanda case.

MR HUGO: And were vehicles issued to them?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Mr Bosigo was the driver. There was a Secret Fund vehicle which was provided. I can no longer recall the numbers or the make, but it was a Secret Fund vehicle.

MR HUGO: Very well. And were they also involved in the initial planning stage in Piet Retief?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, they were briefed there regarding who the target was, because in general one would conduct the planning there and then as soon as one was closer to one's target, one would begin the final planning, depending upon circumstances in the area at that given time.

MR HUGO: And at what time during the day or night, or for what time during the day or night was the operation planned?

MR DE KOCK: According to Labuschagne it would have to take place at night. According to his source, Jabu would have been at home during the evening. Unfortunately the time was not available due to movements and particularly with operatives one didn't have a fixed routine.

MR HUGO: And the askaris then crossed the border with the vehicle into Swaziland.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, we followed them and in Mbabane at a park, it was some sort of park where people could walk around or sit down, at this park we rendezvoused and once again the matter was discussed in depth with them. The source also arrived there and Mr Labuschagne also spoke to him, I also spoke to him and once again the source was sent to the house in order to determine whether or not Jabu was there. And I'm relying upon my recollection because it was quite some time ago, if I am not mistaken, the source drove with Geoff Bosigo alone, so that they could properly identify the house to Mr Bosigo, so that there wouldn't be a mistake and then the wrong house would be struck.

MR HUGO: Very well. And the white members, what was their role?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, we would remain in the park, we ourselves were also armed and the idea was that if a crisis were to originate at the house, we would then move in regardless of the fact that we were white and we would then get the people out in any manner possible.

MR HUGO: Regarding the attack itself, on the house and the attempt to kill Jabu, what were the orders, who would do the shooting and how would they go about it?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, it was discussed, Mr Bosigo was he leader of this attack, Mr Ndam was his second-in-command if Mr Bosigo would be unavailable for some or other reason, and the orders were to enter the house, shoot Jabu and withdraw.

MR HUGO: Was any description given to the askaris regarding how Jabu appeared?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, I believe it was done but I cannot tell you verbatim how it was described to him, but two of these askaris, as I have already stated, knew Jabu, he was known to them.

MR HUGO: Could you just tell me once again to which two he was known?

MR DE KOCK: I know that Ndam was the one who knew him, I'm not certain of the other one. I don't know if it was Bosigo or Mbane, it was one of those two.

MR HUGO: The role of the informer during the attack, what was his position?

MR DE KOCK: After he had identified the house to Mr Bosigo and the others they returned, Mr Bosigo and the others remained in this park where we were and the informer was once again sent to the house to determine when Jabu would be there or when it was a suitable time. At a certain stage the source returned and he told Mr Labuschagne and me that now was the time, that Jabu was there at that point in time and it would now be the time to launch the attack.

MR HUGO: And you then issued instructions to the askaris to launch the attack?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HUGO: And what happened to the source?

MR DE KOCK: He remained with us in the park and Mr Bosigo, Ndam and Mbane departed from there and approximately twenty minutes later, it may have been longer, it may have been shorter, Mr Bosigo came driving along to the park at a relatively high speed, Ndam was with him. Mr Bosigo was bleeding profusely when he climbed out of the vehicle. He fell to the ground. He had been shot a number of times and Mr Ndam as well. Mbane wasn't there, but approximately ten minutes later he came running to the park as well. He was without his weapon.

At the scene we dealt with Mr Bosigo swiftly and so too with Mr Ndam. We put them in the Land Cruiser that we had, we put the seats down and I was on the point of moving into the house when Mbane came running along. He wasn't injured and he didn't have his weapon either. He said that he had lost his weapon in the house and Botha, Labuschagne, van Dyk, the injured and I went back over the border. At the Nerston border post we crossed the border illegally. There was a section where one could drive over the border if one just flattened the fence. During that journey Bosigo told me that Mbane's weapon had been taken by Jabu in some or other way, I no longer recall the details, and that Jabu had fired back with the weapon and that this had led to the injury of both Mr Ndam and Bosigo. We took the injured to the Piet Retief Security Branch and in the offices we applied further first-aid and set up intravenous drips for them. There was another wound that Mr Bosigo had which I hadn't noticed in Swaziland, and Mr van Dyk and I brought the two injured through to 1 Military Hospital. We arrived here at approximately 5 o'clock/five thirty that morning. We had them admitted to hospital and they went into surgery immediately.

The firearm which was lost, I later heard via Mr Deetleffs from Ermelo, that the police took the weapon into possession and that it was taken to Pretoria for forensic testing and ballistic testing. I informed Brig Schoon and in some or other way, I don't know who he liaised with, the weapon was intercepted between Ermelo and the forensic laboratory and we managed to get the weapon back to Vlakplaas.

MR HUGO: Very well. And what became of the weapon?

MR DE KOCK: This weapon became part of another group of weapons which I had to hand over to Labuschagne under the instruction of Brig Schoon and upon the request of Col Visser, because they wanted to establish their own operational task force, so to speak, and I handed over this ammunition to them.

MR HUGO: I just want to return to the attack in Swaziland itself. What did the askaris report to you regarding precisely what took place during the operation?

MR DE KOCK: As I managed to ascertain from Ndam and Bosigo later on, it was a general failure as a result of Mr Mbane's actions. Mr Mbane on his turn denied it because he lied back and forth as it suited him, but it was due to Jimmy Mbane's conduct that the situation failed. I had to accept the word of all three these persons as it came to me and I knew that I would never really find out what truly happened and why it had failed.

MR HUGO: Very well. With regard to the treatment which was administered at 1 Military Hospital, what was the explanation that you offered regarding the injuries on the persons?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, in Piet Retief I made an entry in the Case Book, because they were members of the force at that stage and in order to deal with the medical expenses and the fact that the incident had to be reported later, I stated that on the RSA/Swazi border there had been crossfire between members of my unit and unknown persons, reputedly ANC members, and that is how I dealt with the Injury Board. Due to the covert nature of this action, I could not state that we had acted in Mbabane with weapons which had been fitted with silencers.

MR HUGO: Regarding the co-operation that you may have obtained from other sources, was there every any co-operation from the Swazi authorities who may have known of the operation which was to be launched?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I would not be able to say that, I think that a person such as Mr Labuschagne or perhaps Mr Deetleffs, would be able to inform you better on that, I myself did not liaise with this person.

MR HUGO: The border that you crossed, was this in the regular course of events or was it an illegal crossing?

MR DE KOCK: When we went in it was illegal, because we made use of false passports and we had also had weapons and upon our return we did not go through the legal structure of the border post, we moved approximately 500-800 metres away from the border post where there was an even area and we flattened the fence, crossed the border and then just put the fence back up.

MR HUGO: And after this operation, did you report back to anybody?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, I reported the incident to Brig Schoon. Indeed it was also his members who were wounded. And naturally there was always the possibility, and usually there would be subsequent inquiries or accusations from other departments, and it was all about damage control which had to be conducted.

MR HUGO: And what was Brig Schoon's attitude when you reported back to him?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, he was non-committal although he wasn't satisfied. I could see by his attitude that he wasn't satisfied with the fact that we had failed.

MR HUGO: Did he admonish you at all regarding the fact that you had launched this operation?

MR DE KOCK: No, definitely not.

MR HUGO: What information did you have, personally, regarding Jabu's activities?

MR DE KOCK: That he was very active in the supply of weapons and ammunition and explosives and particularly pertaining to the landmine issue and that he was a member of the senior personnel operating in Swaziland, and that at that stage he had developed quite a profile as a person who was causing problems in the RSA.

MR HUGO: Did you have this information before Labuschagne liaised with you or was it subsequent to his liaison with you that you obtained the information?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, there were security reports, but I must just tell you that my unit functioned on a national basis and we received reports from all over the country and the volume of names and numbers and particulars were too much to absorb completely, but once there was reference to a particular person, one would research such a person more. At that stage I didn't really concentrate on Jabu, I was more involved in border protection until Labuschagne came to me and said that the person had been identified and that we had to launch an action against him.

MR HUGO: Then I would just like for you to comment regarding a certain affidavit which was filed by Mr Labuschagne. I will take you through it briefly. Mr Chairman, this is part of our bundle. I'm going to refer to pages 58 and 59 up to page 60.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR HUGO: The first aspect that Mr Labuschagne dealt with in his affidavit is where he says that Jabu was identified as a target and Trevits and was involved with the Special Operations section of MK in Swaziland. Did you have any confidential information concerning Trevits and what their actions or operations were?

MR DE KOCK: Mr Chairperson, my knowledge is that it is an Anti-Revolutionary Information Target Committee. This is a group that come together and it consists of National Intelligence, Military Intelligence and then the South African Police, who then consolidate their information of people who are active in South Africa. It is also a type of workshop that clarifies and ensure that if they decide on a target, that this target is not a source, that it is not a source who's been taken out possibly by the Military Intelligence. Then they would decide if this person is a problem to all of them, whether it is National or Military Intelligence. And my knowledge of Trevits is that it fell under the division of the State Security Council. I cannot recall the name now, I think it was the Co-ordinating Information Target Group. This was a more senior group with more senior officers.

MR HUGO: Very well. Did you at any stage have sitting in these Trevits meetings?

MR DE KOCK: No, I was never a member and I was never invited to any of their sittings.

MR HUGO: And did you have any input or insight into some of the documentation of Trevits?

MR DE KOCK: No.

MR HUGO: If Mr Labuschagne says that Jabu was identified as a target by Trevits, can you tell the Honourable Committee if you know if Mr Labuschagne had sitting in the Trevits meetings?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, as far as I know he did.

MR HUGO: Very well. Then Mr Labuschagne continues and says that he was part of the group of terrorists who planted landmines in the Eastern Transvaal. Their activities were very effective, a lot of landmines exploded during that time or were found by Security Forces. Does it also correlate with your information?

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR HUGO: And is this also information that he provided to you?

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR HUGO: Is it also information that was confirmed by the source?

MR DE KOCK: Mr Chairperson, I was not there when the source reported to Mr Labuschagne, but it could be that it was one of the sources' reports. Mr Labuschagne had more than one source and it is a very old custom that if you had one, or that you put one or more source on one target, you can then control the value of the information and the correctness of it.

MR HUGO: Then the next paragraph he says that:

You probably won't be able to comment on this.

MR DE KOCK: No, Mr Chairperson, except that I would not have launched the operation if Schalk Visser did not authorise it. I did not liaise with him directly, I liaised with Schoon, because there was never a good relationship between myself and Col Visser, it could be that it was an ego problem.

MR HUGO: Then he says that he requested the Security Branch to help, or to request Vlakplaas to assist in the elimination of Jabu. Can you just tell the Honourable Committee what was the work ethic concerning the application of Vlakplaas in other divisions?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, when we work to work in another division, usually the Commander of that division or the Section Commander of the Security Branch would then request that we send in a group of askaris concerning, or depending on the nature of the operation, Security Branch Headquarters would then send people immediately or tell us to go later. The work ethic was that if those members of Vlakplaas arrive at that section they will then fall under the command of that section head. This is for the purposes of discipline, their actions and everything that goes with that.

MR HUGO: Could it have happened that for example, the Eastern Transvaal Security Branch will directly contact you and say that you have to launch an operation in their district without your Commander knowing of it?

MR DE KOCK: No, Mr Chairperson, I definitely cleared it up with Brig Schoon.

MR HUGO: And if Mr Labuschagne refers here to the Security Branch Headquarters, to whom is he referring?

MR DE KOCK: I believe that he is referring to Brig Schoon.

MR HUGO: Very well. Then he says:

What was your understanding when you saw "the elimination "?

MR DE KOCK: It was to kill him.

MR HUGO: Then he says that:

Do you agree with this?

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR HUGO: Then he says that:

Let us just pause there for a while. What do you say about this?

MR DE KOCK: No, that is not correct, because I did not have enough people to do that. Then we would have discussed it on the South African side if they wanted it to happen in that way, then I would have taken additional people with me with additional vehicles. I had to have taken a bigger group. Can I just explain the comparison. If you abduct somebody you have a physical situation where you will not use less than four. I would have used at least four, whereas you can send one person to kill somebody. So there was no talk of abduction, it was to eliminate him. It does not help if they take me into Swaziland and now they ask me to abduct him, it means that then I have to return to the Eastern Transvaal and get another group of askaris.

MR HUGO: Then he says:

MR DE KOCK: Well Mr Chairperson, that is not impossible and it did happen in the past.

MR HUGO: Then he continues:

MR DE KOCK: No, they went to go and shoot him.

MR HUGO:

Before I ask your comment on this, you can see that Mr Labuschagne only refers to yourself, himself and the askaris, what is your comment on that?

MR DE KOCK: This is not correct, Mr Chairperson, Capt van Dyk was present too. It was his Land Cruiser, he drove it. He is also knowledgeable concerning Swaziland, he knows the area very well. And then Capt Botha was definitely present too. There's no doubt about that.

MR HUGO: Very well. Then he says that you accompanied Labuschagne and the askaris were dropped off approximately a kilometre from Jabu's house. Was approximately a kilometre according to your recollection?

MR DE KOCK: It is possible, Mr Chairperson, we did not drop them off, we worked from this park because we as whites stood out in that area. It is a park where you could drive in, there were trees and we could park there and reasonable in isolation, where we couldn't draw attention to us.

MR HUGO: He continued and said that:

You just said that the idea was not that he had to be abducted.

MR DE KOCK: No, Mr Chairperson.

MR HUGO: And then he says:

MR DE KOCK: Yes, we had weapons.

MR HUGO: He continues and says:

MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR DE KOCK:

MR DE KOCK: Mr Chairperson, I wasn't sure if Jabu was injured, but it was conveyed to me by the askaris. I only found this out later, or it came under my attention yesterday.

MR HUGO: He then concludes where he says:

MR DE KOCK: Yes, I heard that yesterday that he was injured.

MR HUGO: Concerning the providing of information by Labuschagne in this affidavit, would you say that complete information was supplied, or that it's very scant information that is supplied in his affidavit? ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR DE KOCK: It is very scant, Chairperson, because the whole situation revolves around that which they wanted. And secondly, the fact that he did not mention Capt van Dyk, somebody that you cannot miss, and he did not mention Capt Botha, his own Commander, I would say that information is incomplete.

MR HUGO: Then I'd like you to deal with an affidavit that is been made available to us, it is one of Brig Schoon. Mr Chairman, I don't think this forms part of the bundle as such, but I would imagine that you do have a copy of his affidavit.

CHAIRPERSON: It has been made available to us, we have it.

MR HUGO: May I suggest, Mr Chairman, if we just mark this Exhibit A?

CHAIRPERSON: It shall be so marked.

MR HUGO: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

I am not going to deal with the whole of his affidavit, except on page 2, paragraph 2.3 he says:

Then he says:

What do you say about this?

MR DE KOCK: No, Mr Chairperson, it is not true, it's just a sign of a lack of courage and moral fibre to come forward with the truth.

MR HUGO:

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, he would have definitely - if he didn't reprimand me severely, he would have probably removed me from my position. ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR HUGO Concerning your political objective in this operation, can you just tell this Honourable Committee what you wanted to achieve in this operation?

MR DE KOCK: It was a prevention of terror, terrorist acts, this is now on the side of the Republic. I had to act against trained and active members of the MK, the military wing of the ANC and I also saw it within the framework of my duties.

MR HUGO: Then you also ask the Honourable Committee to give you amnesty for attempted murder, conspiracy to commit murder and all other offences that I will address the Committee on later.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct, yes.

MR HUGO: That is the evidence, thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Hugo. Ms Cambanis?

MS CAMBANIS: Chairperson, my client has arrived now, I will ask for a short adjournment just to brief on the first part of the evidence and raise other questions with him, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Certainly we would afford you that opportunity, we would adjourn. You will advise you when you're ready.

MS CAMBANIS: Yes, thank you Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: We adjourn.

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

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ms Cambanis, have you ...?

MS CAMBANIS ADDRESSES: Thank you, Chair. During the adjournment, for which we thank you, the Evidence Leader facilitated a meeting between the applicant and the family of the victims, as a result of that it is the view of the family that they do not wish me to put any questions whatsoever to the applicant, neither do they wish to oppose his application in any way and to

take the opportunity to thank the Committee for affording us the opportunity to facilitate the meetings and have questions answered. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ms Patel?

MS PATEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson, I have no questions. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hugo, before you do, I have one or two questions for Mr de Kock.

Mr de Kock, when you entered Swaziland, which border post did you use?

MR DE KOCK: We used the Nerston border post.

CHAIRPERSON: It's the same as the one where you came back about 800 metres, where you flattened the fence?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Now you said you had intelligence reports other than what you have been told by Labuschagne about Jabu, now did the intelligence report confirm that this name Jabu is his name or was there another name used in the report?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, the name Jabu was used. I must just state that the Security Police as well as Military Intelligence and National Intelligence had completely thorough structures according to the layout of positions with names and possible successes, second-in-command, third-in-command and MK names. So it would have been incorporated in the report regarding the position and the whereabouts of the person or where he would have come from.

CHAIRPERSON: But can you recall at the moment what the name was?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I have a very vague recollection that there was mention of it in a security report.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

ADV BOSMAN: I have no questions, thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Advocate Sandi?

ADV SANDI: I've got no questions, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: I've got strong suspicions that you don't have re-exam?

MR HUGO: Your suspicions are confirmed, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr de Kock.

MR DE KOCK: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you leading any further evidence, Mr Hugo?

MR HUGO: No thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Cambanis, are you going to lead evidence?

MS CAMBANIS: I'm not, but I'm going to beg to change the information I gave this morning regarding who the victims are, I made some errors and I would just like to correct that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MS CAMBANIS ADDRESSES: Obviously Solly Shoke remains correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, you may proceed Ms Cambanis.

MS CAMBANIS: It is Solly Shoke, Charlotte Shoke.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you removing Zacharia? No, I'm saying so because you say now "Solly".

MS CAMBANIS: I am wrong. Solly Zacharia Shoke.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MS CAMBANIS: Charlotte Shoke, Lerato Shoke. It was Sepho Shoke and then should be added a Chris Dlamini. And the Cedric to whom I referred to is an error that should be removed, it was a Cedric Dlamini. We do not for Cedric Dlamini.

CHAIRPERSON: Now just for the record, would we refer to Mr Shoke as the Jabu being referred to in the documentation?

MS CAMBANIS: Yes, he is Jabu.

CHAIRPERSON: Also known, or alias Jabu? Also known as Jabu or alias Jabu?

MS CAMBANIS: That is correct, Chair.

ADV SANDI: Is he still Jabu today?

MS CAMBANIS: To his friends he is, yes Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: The relationship with Chris Dlamini?

MS CAMBANIS: It is the brother-in-law of Solly Zacharia, the younger brother of Charlotte Shoke.

ADV BOSMAN: And all these people were in the house at the time?

MS CAMBANIS: Yes, they were.

CHAIRPERSON: Has he returned the firearm he took from Mbane?

MS CAMBANIS: We would have enjoyed that cross-examination, because it in fact turned up in South Africa after going to the Swazi - but no we haven't. We are curious to know how it got here, but ... Thank you, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Was anybody injured from Jabu's side? Because we know, apparently it would appear, if I'm not mistaken, that Mr de Kock added later that he learnt yesterday that Jabu was also injured.

MS CAMBANIS: Yes, he was injured in the attack.

ADV BOSMAN: I take it none of the others were injured at all?

MS CAMBANIS: No, not physically injured at all.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Ms Cambanis. I take it you want to address us shortly?

MR HUGO IN ARGUMENT: Yes, very briefly, Mr Chairman.

First of all just in respect of the offences that we're applying for, the first one is the illegal crossing of an international border, then the unlawful possession of firearms and ammunition. It might be a bit of a duplication here but we are, just for the sake of braces and a belt, just applying for conspiracy to murder, attempted murder, defeating the ends of justice and then all other offences and delicts that are coloured by the evidence and the facts in this hearing, Mr Chairman.

ADV SANDI: I hear you say "attempted murder", but were did this - I'm asking myself the question now in terms of the recent decision in the Supreme Court of Appeal, on the question of jurisdiction.

MR HUGO: Yes, I hear what Advocate Sandi is saying. We've been struggling with this particular problem as to whether we should apply for amnesty in respect of offences that occurred outside the borders of this country. We've adopted the attitude that we're applying for that, whether the Amnesty Committee is enjoyed to grant amnesty for those offences is something else, but I mean we're just doing it for completeness sake.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Hugo, if you're asking for something ...(indistinct) a duty to either convince us that we should or not grant it.

ADV SANDI: ...(indistinct) included for the purposes of delictual liability.

MR HUGO: That is in fact one of the reasons why we're doing it, for offences that were committed outside the borders, yes Mr Chairman.

Mr Chairman, as far as the evidence is concerned, I don't intend addressing you in detail. We will obviously rely on the fact that Mr de Kock was acting on instructions here, regardless of the fact that Mr Schoon says in his affidavit that the initial instruction didn't come from him. We're saying that Mr de Kock came to testify, he was open to cross-examination. That's really the only evidence before you and Mr Schoon's affidavit, we submit should be ignored for the purposes of ascertaining as to whether Mr de Kock had authority and orders to execute this particular operation.

Mr Chairman, on this score, Mr de Kock's version is in fact to a large extent corroborated by Mr Labuschagne's affidavit, where he also makes mention of the fact that he liaised with Brig Schalk Visser and he in turn then liaised with Head Office. So it clearly corroborates Mr de Kock's evidence that Jabu's situation had been discussed at the higher echelons, or via the higher echelons in the Security Police.

Mr Chairman, maybe the other thing that needs to be address quickly, is whether this was aimed at a political opponent. I don't think there should be any doubt about that. The source indicated that Jabu was involved in political activities. Mr Labuschagne, his version is also to that effect. Mr Labuschagne sat in on Trevits meetings where Mr Labuschagne says that Jabu was targeted as a person to be eliminated. And then obviously the last thing, which is very important, is the fact that the family, the victims itself hasn't denied that at all and that gives corroboration to Mr de Kock's averment and allegation that he was involved in political activities and an MK Commander.

Honourable Members of the Committee, as far as disclosure is concerned, I think Mr de Kock has done his utmost to give the details that he can. He is the first one to - well, not the first, he's really the only applicant, but in stark contrast to his evidence today, we see for instance, Labuschagne's affidavit which purported to be an application for amnesty, where he sadly neglects to mention all the other names, he just refers to askaris. He neglects to mention the name of Botha, which was obviously, we submit, done on purpose to protect Botha who was his erstwhile Commander and most probably still is. Mr de Kock gives precise details as to the planning of this operation etcetera. We submit that there's nothing else that he could have told you that is being withheld.

The fact that this was certainly decided upon by the higher echelons and that they knew about this is also borne out by the fact that this operation was ratified ex post facto when Mr de Kock reported to Brig Schoon and he wasn't reprimanded, no steps were taken against him whatsoever, save for the fact that Brig Schoon was apparently bitterly disappointed about the fact that Jabu survived this particular attack.

Mr Chairman, those are really the submissions that we want to make. I don't know whether there's anything else that you need us to address.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Hugo. Ms Cambanis?

MS CAMBANIS: Thank you, Chair. We have no submissions.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Patel?

MS PATEL: Same here, thank you Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: This brings us to the conclusion of the application of Mr Eugene Alexander de Kock, in the incident of the attack on a transit house in Mbabane, Swaziland and in respect of MK Jabu.

I must thank you legal representatives and direct this Mr Shoke, who after deliberations with the legal representative, obviously accompanied by his own legal representative, this being facilitated by the Amnesty Committee Evidence Leader, that it curtailed the proceedings. We must thank you very much. This is the first encounter I have had of this nature, that it could be short-circuited in the manner it has been. I know it hasn't been easy on your side, but the courage you have shown that even as an ANC member you had the courage to disclose a few things, we must thank you for that. And we thank you very much for your participation in these proceedings, because as an ANC member and the ANC being in the majority in Parliament, they are bound to bring reconciliation in this country and your participation shows your party's willingness to bring a reconciliation of the sad conflict we had in the past when we were supposed to be one nation, but that nation being polarised in different directions. I hope I'm echoing the sentiments of my Committee here. Thank you very much, Mr Shoke.

I must thank the legal representatives profusely that again we have had courage where there was no splitting of hairs, that people could speak. That is very encouraging because it is the legal system that has to facilitate this kind of reconciliation. I thank you very much. Thank you, Ms Patel.

As it is customary that we are enjoyed by the Act that brought is into existence, that our decision should be in writing. I would assure you that this would be done. Within the next three weeks, you will get that decision in writing. The decision is therefore reserved.

Ms Patel, do we have anything on the plate?

MS PATEL: Unfortunately Honourable Chairperson, I see it's only quarter to twelve, I'd arranged with the legal representatives to be here at 12 o'clock for the next matter, so I request that we stand down for the next few minutes till they arrive.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ms Cambanis, you are excused.

MS CAMBANIS: Thank you, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: We will stand down for a short while. You will advise us when you're ready. Thank you.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: ... of this cluster of hearings. We would be busying ourselves for the coming next two weeks. For the record, I am Motata, I would be chairing this hearing. On my right I have Adv Bosman and on my left Adv Sandi. The hearing would involve the following applicants: Messrs Eugene Alexander de Kock: amnesty number 0066/96, Douw Gerbrand Willemse: amnesty number 3721/96, Izak Daniel Bosch: amnesty number 3765/96 and Eugene Willemse: application number 3767/96. And we would hear the incident of the search at Effesis House, Swaziland.

I would, for the record, request the legal representatives to place their names on record.

MR HUGO: Thank you, Mr Chairman. My name is S W Hugo, I'm appearing on behalf of Mr E A de Kock.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Hugo.

MR LAMEY: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Lamey of the firm Rooth and Wessels, I represent the applicant, Douw Gerbrand Willemse, Izak Daniel Bosch, and then I want to point out the third applicant that I represent, Mr Eugene Fourie. There's an error regarding his name on the bundle, it refers to Eugene Willemse, it's indeed Eugene Fourie.

CHAIRPERSON: Eugene Fourie.

MR LAMEY: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Lamey.

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, perhaps before we start, I don't know whether I should address you at this stage regarding the position of Mr Willemse, who cannot attend the hearing.

CHAIRPERSON: Could we first get everybody, I think we still have our Evidence Leader, who is not on record yet.

MS PATEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson. Ramula Patel, Leader of Evidence. I'm not sure whether I should stand in line now, after Mr Lamey I just wanted to put the position of the victims on record.

CHAIRPERSON: Please do so, it would make ...

MS PATEL: Alright, okay. It was alleged by some of the applicants that certain women were slapped in the corridor just outside the entrance I believe, to the premises that was in fact searched. We have been unable to trace who those, the names of the women who were in fact assaulted. Queries were directed through the South African High Commission to the Swaziland Embassy and we were unable through that route, we didn't have any success in that respect.

As regards the Swedish Embassy itself, we have representatives who are present. My instructions are that they are merely here in the capacity to do a watching brief and do not wish to participate in the proceedings.

CHAIRPERSON: Now these queries were, you say, through the Embassy, is it in Swaziland?

MS PATEL: That's correct, Honourable Chairperson.

And also, finally, members of the Swedish Embassy alerted us to the fact at some stage that according to their records a white woman was also, I think slapped on the premises. She was an ANC person. Queries were directed to the ANC TRD desk for assistance in this regard and we have been unable to trace this woman either.

CHAIRPERSON: Nor could we get a response from the ...(indistinct)

MS PATEL: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And as a result of all the enquiries made, we could proceed with this hearing?

MS PATEL: I am of that respectful opinion, Honourable Chairperson.

ADV BOSMAN: Ms Patel, just for the record as well, all the implicated persons have received notices, I see there's no legal representative in regard to Mr Willie Schutte. Have they all been notified of this hearing?

MS PATEL: Yes.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you.

MS PATEL: Yes, I will just double-check my records in respect of Mr Schutte, but the rest have.

CHAIRPERSON: Whilst you are checking your records, looking at the implicated persons, I see there's one Joe Koole and your name as an attorney appears there, Mr Lamey, are you going to look after his interests as well?

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, I think the only applicant that refers to his name is Mr Willemse.

CHAIRPERSON: Your client?

MR LAMEY: Ja. Chairperson, I'll address you on Mr Willemse's position, but ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, I just want to know about Koole first, whether you are going to take care of his interests as an implicated person.

MR LAMEY: I will, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR LAMEY: But I think that is a bona fide error in the application of Mr Willemse. I think I've good reason to, because he also refers to that fact Mr Koole is deceased and he certainly is not deceased, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: So can we note that he's still alive? If he's not deceased, I think alive would be appropriate.

MS PATEL: Honourable Chairperson, I have double-checked my records, unfortunately the position of Mr Schutte is that they weren't able to trace him.

CHAIRPERSON: Is he not one of the security people?

MS PATEL: I'm not sure what his present position is, Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Would he be the same Schutte we had in the first application we heard here on Monday? Wasn't there a reference to Schutte?

MS PATEL: I'm sorry, you'll have to refresh my memory on that.

CHAIRPERSON: Pardon?

MS PATEL: You'll have to refresh my memory on that, I don't recall.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, thank you very much Ms Patel.

MS PATEL: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey, you wanted to place something on record in respect of Willemse.

MR LAMEY ADDRESSES: Thank you, Chairperson. I beg leave to hand up a psychiatric report relating to the condition of Mr Willemse, to the Committee, it's a copy. This document was also recently handed in, in the part-heard Nerston incident where Mr Willemse was an applicant.

CHAIRPERSON: As a non compos mentis?

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, may I just say this, I have not represented Mr Willemse throughout the amnesty hearings, in fact my colleague, Mr Rossouw, has represented him and also during the Nerston incident. As I understand it he's not non compos mentis in the sense that, in the strict sense of the word. During the Nerston incident I represented other applicants in that incident and Mr Willemse was initially here when the matter started, but during the course of the hearing he developed psychiatric problems, or the psychiatric problem manifested itself again, to the extent that he asked to be excused, through his legal representative, and he went immediately back to Mossel Bay where he stays, for further treatment and recently when the part-heard Nerston incident proceeded before another Committee, of which Mr Justice Wilson was the Chairman, this certificate was placed before the Committee. In that hearing ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: When was that hearing?

MR LAMEY: It was recently, I think about two to three weeks ago that hearing proceeded. And it was during the further continuation of that hearing a couple of weeks ago, that this certificate was handed to the Committee. The Committee dealt with the matter on the basis that there were certain aspects that were contentious and my colleague, Mr Rossouw, was requested by the Committee to obtain a further affidavit on those aspects from Mr Willemse and then to distribute that affidavit to all the interested parties and the Committee. I don't know how far that affidavit is, but I am aware that my colleague went down to Mossel Bay, I think it was the weekend of the, the first weekend of August and further consultation was conducted with Mr Willemse and a further affidavit prepared.

I don't know whether that affidavit has been signed already and has been distributed. What I know, Chairperson, is that the, and as I have been given to understand, that the testifying and the relating of the events themselves for Mr Willemse is problematic for his condition and in actual fact it aggravates every time his condition and he is experiencing the proceedings as a result of that, as very stressful. He's not at this stage, I'm given to understand, feeling well enough to testify.

CHAIRPERSON: Why I am asking you this is that the tenor of this certificate or psychiatric report, and I wouldn't technical speak ...(indistinct) this is a report, it would appear it's a letter informing the Committee and the Chairperson that he has been consulting with Mr Willemse from the 5th of August 1998, but it does not say that, 'I have seen him again on such and such a day and I'm still of the opinion that he would be mentally disturbed if he were to undergo evidence-in-chief and cross-examination'. It doesn't say that, that's why I'm asking you this.

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, if you see the letter is dated the 10th of July and the letter states in the first ... "en is vandag", he said he was seeing him since 5 August 1998 and he says:

That means then on the 10th of July, as recent as the 10th of July. I agree with you yes, we don't have the position as at today, a fresh report. I can endeavour to perhaps obtain a further report if that is required, but I submit that as recently as the 10th of July that was the position. I also, from what was conveyed to me by my colleague when he saw him in, as I said I think it was the first weekend of August, ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Because technically if we look at this letter it was directed or addressed to the Committee you have referred to, not to us. If I understood you correctly, because you say it was presented before Judge Wilson, so it wasn't for our purposes, or are you suggesting that we should take cognisance of this as well?

MR LAMEY: I think we should take cognisance of this as well, I think the letter was relatively recent. But I'm in the hands of the Committee here, if the Committee requires an updated fresh report, Chairperson, I could endeavour to obtain that. But I'm in the hands of the Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: Let me hear what your colleagues say about this. Mr Hugo?

MR HUGO ADDRESSES: Mr Chairman, we don't have any problem, I think that the matter that Mr Lamey has been referring to is the Nerston matter. We've already indicated in writing that we're prepared to accept this certificate, for our purposes, on face value and we don't dispute this and we're prepared to accept what he says in his affidavit, if that could facilitate the whole process. So that's been our attitude.

CHAIRPERSON: You mean the affidavit filed of record?

MR HUGO: Yes. And that would suffice for our purposes.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Hugo. Ms Patel?

MS PATEL ADDRESSES: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson. It is my submission, if one looks at the applications of the rest of the applicants who we have present here, my respectful submission is that they give us a fairly full picture of what had in fact occurred there and my submission is that we will not be seriously prejudiced by the absence of Mr Willemse here today. But I'm in your hands as to the acceptability or otherwise of the letter that we have from Mr Willemse's psychiatrist, or is it a psychologist, I believe a Clinical Psychologist ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: It's a psychiatrist.

MS PATEL: Is it a psychiatrist. ... as to his condition and his inability to testify.

CHAIRPERSON: May I ask that then, you say his condition hasn't changed from the Nerston incident, as the psychiatric report refers to, not to this incident we are busying ourselves with, that in that event even though he doesn't appear, should the evidence of the other applicants be satisfactory in our opinion, we could also grant him amnesty? Are you suggesting that, or should that something crop up which we need his input, that we could delay our decision that he gives us something in writing in the form of an affidavit?

MS PATEL: I would request that your latter suggestion be adopted, that depending on what comes out in oral testimony here today, that if it's something material that he then be given an opportunity to perhaps file a further affidavit, if that is going to be an acceptable way of dealing with it.

CHAIRPERSON: Could we for the moment, gentlemen and lady, approach it in this fashion, that we hear the other applicants and revisit this report when we come to his actual application, obviously depending on what the other applicants would have said before us?

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, I go along with that, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hugo. Thank you very much.

Should we take it from the bundle before us that Mr de Kock would start?

MR HUGO: Yes, thank you Mr Chairman, we're in the habit of starting first now.

CHAIRPERSON: No, I'll rather have him sworn in first. That oath he took this morning is not applicable here.

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: (sworn states)

ADV BOSMAN: That applicant is properly sworn, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Advocate Bosman. Mr Hugo?

EXAMINATION BY MR HUGO: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr de Kock, you're the applicant in this matter known as the amnesty application in the incident which is known as the Swedish International Development Agency, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR HUGO: Your application appears in this bundle from page 2 up until 13 and more specifically where you deal with the details of this incident on page 7, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

MR HUGO: And you confirm the truthfulness and the correctness thereof as you have set it out and that you will furnish further details during your oral evidence, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR HUGO: You then ask that this Committee takes note of the affidavit that you made for the political background, political motives, your career and also a further affidavit that you submitted concerning the creation of Vlakplaas and the activities of Vlakplaas.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR HUGO: Then to get close to the incident itself, you say that you received information from Glory Sedibe that led to this incident. Glory Sedibe - I'm just leading you concerning the introductory aspect, was one of the askaris that was abducted by Vlakplaas and started working for the South African Police.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HUGO: What is the nature of the information that he gave you after he started working for the South African Police? That is now concerning Sida's activities.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, from the information that he provided it seems that Sida is a pay-point for the ANC, not only for the ANC, also for refugees, but a lot of the ANC members came from the refugee ranks and amongst others, payments were made to ANC people living in Swaziland and that the documentation was held in files as well as registers in this building in Manzini.

MR HUGO: And did you get the impression that Sida was indeed a supporter of the ANC and the freedom movement?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Mr Chairperson, it was a well-known fact that the Norwegian countries were large supporters of the ANC and then Sweden particularly.

MR HUGO: Very well. Now on the strength of the information that he gave you, you then decided to launch an operation. What was done then?

MR DE KOCK: Mr Chairperson, I discussed the situation with Mr Pienaar, who was then the Head of the Security Branch at Piet Retief and we came to a decision that the sooner we get these documents the better and on a specific evening, when we received this information, myself and some of my members and also members of the Eastern Transvaal crossed the border and we broke into this building ...(intervention)

MR HUGO: Before we get to the details of that, what did you want to achieve by collecting these documents?

MR DE KOCK: Mr Chairperson, it would have been amongst others that we would have been able to identify how many ANC members were still in Swaziland, members who we do not know of and it would have led to a supplementary contribution to the files that we already had. The refugees from South Africa to Swaziland, we would have been able to bring out files up to date and we would have been able to find out how the Swedish International Development Agency was operated in terms of the refugees and operated in supporting them.

MR HUGO: Very well. In co-operation with Mr Pienaar you then decided to launch this operation. Mr Pienaar's rank at that stage?

MR DE KOCK: He was a Warrant Officer.

MR HUGO: And your own rank?

MR DE KOCK: I think I was a Captain or a Major, Chairperson.

MR HUGO: Very well. Who were the other people who formed part of this operation?

MR DE KOCK: From my ranks it was Mr Schutte, Mr Willemse and I see Mr Fourie is here, I could not recall Mr Bosch and Mr Fourie, and I think there were one or two other members. I cannot recall their names. And then from the Eastern Transvaal Security Branch it was Mr Pienaar and I think there were two or three members from the Eastern Transvaal Security Branch, because they had a lot of interest in these documents because it fell within their district.

MR HUGO: You then came together and you planned this operation, what did this operation entail?

MR DE KOCK: Mr Chairperson, that we will wait in Manzini for a proper time, it would have been the evening when the activities on the street would allow us to break into the offices. I would mention that the offices are about a block and a half away from the Manzini Police Station, we were therefore very careful in order to prevent trouble from arising.

We then that evening, or later that evening, that was approximately 8 or 9 o'clock, I would say between 8 and 10 o'clock that evening we then succeeded in finding the right time to enter the building. We broke down the door and we gathered as many documents and files as we could in that short period of time that we gave ourselves. I think there was a photocopier machine, it was damaged so that it could not be used by the organisation and we then left.

MR HUGO: Very well. Did you go through the border post legally, or did you make use of illegal passports?

MR DE KOCK: No, we made use of illegal passports and if I can recall, we crossed the border, not through a normal border post, we again crossed the border at an illegal post.

MR HUGO: Did you have a weapon with you?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, some of the members did have weapons, not all of them had but those who broke in did have weapons with them.

MR HUGO: Very well. When you arrived at the building approximately 8 o'clock that evening, were there other people in the building?

MR DE KOCK: No, Mr Chairperson, but while we broke in two people arrived, it was a man and a woman and they were detained there and as far as my knowledge goes, they were not assaulted, but they were held there. After we left they probably went to the police, I do not know, but we were already gone at that stage.

MR HUGO: Very well. Can you just give us more detail concerning the goods that you took and what was damaged. You've already said that you took documents, and what else did you "seize"?

MR DE KOCK: There were a lot of files, if I'm correct they were plastic and carton files with documentation and photographs, then there were also ordinary photographs as you find, normal photographs. There were a lot of them. There were registers, accounting registers where amounts had been paid out to people. There were quite a few of the registers and we also took all of them. There were more registers that we could deal with, but we took what we could in that short period of time.

MR HUGO: And the photographs?

MR DE KOCK: We also took photographs. There were photographs in containers, but there were a large amount of photographs.

MR HUGO: What was the purpose of taking the photographs?

MR DE KOCK: Mr Chairperson, that was for identification. We could give these to the askaris for the identification of refugees or ANC members.

MR HUGO: Very well. Maybe I should have asked you this before, but this operation, was this done with your own discretion or did you get authorisation before?

MR DE KOCK: I did it on my own discretion, yes.

MR HUGO: Very well. What did you do with the documentation?

MR DE KOCK: Mr Chairperson, the files, the photographs, were dropped off at the Piet Retief Security Branch in Mr Pienaar's office and his members then started going through them and categorising all the documentation.

MR HUGO: Did you at any stage inform your immediate Commander?

MR DE KOCK: I later informed Brig Schoon, He did have knowledge of this, he did tell me that Col Visser of Middelburg was very unhappy about this, that we went in and did not inform him, but I took the responsibility for it.

MR HUGO: Can you recall if some of these photographs were given to askaris for identification?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Piet Retief Security Branch did identify people, I do not know how many, but they did go through all the photographs with the askaris.

MR HUGO: You then apply for amnesty for this operation and for the specific incidents that we will inform them at a later stage.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Mr Chairperson, and where we held or detained the man and woman at the scene, that it can be seen as abduction.

MR HUGO: Thank you, Mr Chairman, that's the evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey, any cross-examination?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chairperson.

Mr de Kock, just one or two aspects. You've already referred to the run-up of the operation, it was information that was received from Mr Sedibe.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Is it true that in that period of time there was a group of people from Vlakplaas that were active and that they assisted the Piet Retief Security Branch?

MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: There was a contingent of Vlakplaas people with askaris, who assisted in that area and that with the Sedibe abduction there were certain black members present?

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR LAMEY: That evening when you launched this operation, were there any black members, askaris, involved?

MR DE KOCK: I cannot recall any black members who were involved, I do know that we did have radio equipment with us, somebody had to observe the police station while we were busy, in order for us to get out safely. I cannot recall any black members accompanying us.

MR LAMEY: Is it also correct that the breaking in of the house and the removing of the files was done very quickly, because there was a police station close by?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Then Mr Fourie says that some of the black workers who were found in the building made a lot of noise and a few slaps were dealt out and he amongst others, was one of the people who slapped them. He cannot recall who the other person was, just to silence them and they immediately became quiet. But Mr Fourie says that he's not quite sure if you were in the position to observe it, because he thinks that you were at that time breaking the door down.

MR DE KOCK: When I left there, at that stage I had a large pile of files in my arms and there as a woman who walked past me and asked me in an indigenous language what I was doing, she then saw the pistol in my hand, because I still had it in my hand, then started shouting and ran down the street and I do not think that anybody would have been able to catch her, but it could be that there were other people who walked past, who then met up with Mr Fourie and were then dealt with in such a way. I did not observe any assaults at that stage, I was preoccupied at that stage.

MR LAMEY: Mr Bosch says that he also did not observe that and he is one of the other applicants whom I represent. Very well. Just one last aspect, it is Mr Fourie's recollection that some of the floppy disks of the computers were removed.

MR DE KOCK: Mr Chairperson, that is possible, but I cannot recall that, but we took what we could and I will accept it as such.

MR LAMEY: Very well. Can you recall that Mr Fourie testified that Paul van Dyk and Lappies Labuschagne from the Eastern Transvaal Security Branch were both present?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, I will accept it, because can vaguely recall, I was not quite sure when I wrote this application ...(intervention)

MR LAMEY: Especially the area in Swaziland where the Eastern Transvaal Security Branch - you've already said it, but also where Mr Lappies Labuschagne operated, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.

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

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Lamey. Ms Patel?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PATEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson.

Mr de Kock, given that the aim of this operation was simply to break in and search the premises and take documents, were there any specific instructions given to your operatives, should they come across women as they had in the passage, or would that have been left to their discretion?

MR DE KOCK: It would have been left to their discretion, but there were no, at any time an instruction given or that we foresaw that we will shoot. The weapons that we took was that if we met up with any ANC members, we would have used it, or we would have used it to detain the people in order to get away, but to kill or to shoot, no.

MS PATEL: Okay. How did you know that you wouldn't encounter people in the offices at the time that you broke in?

MR DE KOCK: Mr Chairperson, at various opportunities we drove past this building, there was no movement inside the building, there's a ground level and then there was a first floor and the offices were on the first floor. There were no people in the offices. There was also not a night guard or watchman ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: At the proposed time you would attack or storm the house, at the time where you would break in and take the documents away, is that the time when you were driving past?

MR DE KOCK: It would have been a case where it would have been an operation with the minimum risk.

MS PATEL: And just for sake of completeness, the man and woman that were found on the premises, you say they were not assaulted, what exactly was done to them?

MR DE KOCK: Nothing Mr Chairperson, they stood in a corner in that passage between the door and the end of the wall, I think it was a distance of five to six metres, they stood against the wall with their faces turned towards it and there they stood.

MS PATEL: Alright. Thank you, Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Advocate Bosman?

ADV BOSMAN: Thanks Chairperson.

Mr de Kock, maybe I did not hear you, but the weapons that you had, were they legal weapons or illegal weapons?

MR DE KOCK: They were illegal weapons. They also had silencers on them.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you. Did you have the opportunity to read through Mr Willemse's affidavit?

MR DE KOCK: Mr Chairperson, I did not read it, I just testified about what I know.

ADV BOSMAN: Can you just look at page 24 of the bundle, paragraph 17.1, it is very short. Can you just look at it and tell us if you agree with everything that appears in that paragraph.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, I can agree with that.

ADV BOSMAN: Can you recall if you gave Mr Willemse any specific instructions?

MR DE KOCK: I would have given him instructions, I just cannot recall the nature of it or what his role was. I assume that he was in an observation position or post.

ADV BOSMAN: Are you in a position to say if Mr Willemse followed the instructions that were given to him?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, he acted within the instructions that were given to him and he was not involved in any carrying out of files or the breaking down of the door.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you. Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Advocate Bosman. Advocate Sandi?

ADV SANDI: I don't have a question to ask, Chairman, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Just one point, Mr de Kock, you just referred to the breaking down of the door, could you give us details how you broke down the door, was it completely broken down or you used some means to partly break it down and enter? What was the position?

MR DE KOCK: Mr Chairperson, I had a short axe, it was a hand-held axe of which the handle had a very sharp edge, so you can use that as a lever or you can then use the front part to chop and it was used to force open the lock. It was not that I kicked open the door and that the door was on the ground.

CHAIRPERSON: Now when you encountered these two women, did you know the identity, because partly you wanted to establish the number of ANC people in Swaziland through this documentation? Do you have an idea who these women were, or were they questioned who they were?

MR DE KOCK: No, Mr Chairperson, we did not ask them any questions, it was a question that they met up with us, it was unexpected, we spoke English to them, we demanded that they turn their faces towards the wall and remain there. We were not there to interrogate, it was only to break in.

CHAIRPERSON: I heard you previously when I put a question to you, that you drove there a number of times, at the hour you would go in and seize the documents, was it also your reconnaissance that at such hours the building was deserted or the house was deserted?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, the building itself was deserted, there was no guard, our largest problem was the movement on the street. We did not want to go when it was very quiet, otherwise we would stand out and we did not want to do it when it was too busy, otherwise it would draw attention. So we had to look at the movement of the public in that area on the streets.

CHAIRPERSON: Now this axe you have described to us, wouldn't it make a noise, since the police station was not very far from the building?

MR DE KOCK: There where we broke the door it would have made a noise, yes, but we kept this noise to a minimum, it would not have, or the policemen would not have been able to hear it. But we do not know who of the public that you do not see notice something and go and report it that 'I saw people who looked suspicious' or 'something that didn't look normal,' and it was just a precaution that we had a guard looking out for us.

CHAIRPERSON: Glory Sedibe who turned and worked for the South African Police, how long before this incident did he work for the South African Police?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I think that at that stage he was still being detained in Piet Retief. I am speaking under correction, I would have to rely upon Mr Fourie in this regard, but it was quite shortly after his escape from the prison. But as I recall, he was still under detention in Piet Retief at that stage.

CHAIRPERSON: And he carried personal knowledge which was somewhat fresh about the goings of this house in Manzini?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Hugo, any re-examination emanating from the questions asked this far?

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

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr de Kock, you are excused.

MR DE KOCK: Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you leading any further evidence, Mr Hugo?

MR HUGO: No further evidence, thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Lamey?

MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chairperson, I call applicant Fourie.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------ADV BOSMAN: Mr Fourie, will you give your full names for the purposes of the record.

EUGENE FOURIE: (sworn states)

ADV BOSMAN: The applicant has been duly sworn in.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Advocate Bosman. Mr Lamey? You may proceed Mr Lamey.

EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chairperson.

Mr Fourie, you have also applied before the Amnesty Committee for amnesty for various incidents while you were a member of the Security Police and you submitted an initial application which we can find from page 45 in the bundle before the Committee.

MR FOURIE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And therein you referred very briefly to the incident in paragraph 5 thereof, is that correct? The building in Manzini which was searched for documents.

MR FOURIE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And then there is a supplementary document of particulars which has been provided by you, which can be found - or at least at first there is a supplementary amnesty application form, dated January 1998 in Pretoria, is that correct?

MR FOURIE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And then furthermore, there are particulars that you have provided regarding the incident of the search of the offices at the Swedish International Development Aid in Effesis House in Manzini in Swaziland, which can be found from page 65 onwards in the bundle, up to an including page 71, is that correct?

MR FOURIE: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: Do you confirm the particulars as they are set out within this document?

MR FOURIE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And you have also listened to the evidence of Mr de Kock. I would just like to ask you, or before I come to that, at that stage you were a member of Unit C2, is that correct?

MR FOURIE: Yes.

MR LAMEY: Before you went to C2, you yourself were also a member of Vlakplaas.

MR FOURIE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And is it correct that with the events of the search of these premises, it was the same time that you were involved in another operation in conjunction with the Eastern Transvaal Security Branch in Piet Retief, namely the Nerston incident?

MR FOURIE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And you also applied for amnesty for that.

MR FOURIE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And at that stage you were a member of Unit C2 and you were deployed to the Eastern Transvaal Security Branch, is that correct?

MR FOURIE: Yes, specifically Piet Retief.

MR LAMEY: Yes, in Piet Retief under the command of W/O Pienaar.

MR FOURIE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And it was during your activities there that you were also part of an order to become involved in the Nerston incident and then also in this incident.

MR FOURIE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And on this particular evening you were with the team under the leadership of Col de Kock and you went into Swaziland to search these premises.

MR FOURIE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Can you recall you have stated in your affidavit that Freek Pienaar was possibly also there, what is your specific recollection regarding that?

MR FOURIE: I can now recall that Freek Pienaar was indeed there, as well as Lappies Labuschagne from Security Branch Eastern Transvaal.

MR LAMEY: Can you recall whether any black members were part of the operation?

MR FOURIE: According to my recollection, on that specific evening no black members were involved in this incident.

MR LAMEY: And then you also state in paragraph 9 that you encountered a number of black women on the first floor and you ordered them to stand still and to remain silent. You assaulted them by slapping them and they were ordered to lay down on the floor. Can you just tell us precisely how it occurred that they were assaulted, what gave rise to that?

CHAIRPERSON: Could you perhaps just estimate at first how many black women there were?

MR FOURIE: Chairperson, I'm not entirely certain, but I would imagine that there were two black women and two black youths, but I'm not completely certain of the precise number of persons.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR LAMEY: And what precisely took place?

MR FOURIE: As I recall, we did not expect to find anybody in the building. With the previous reconnaissance that we had undertaken on the building, we did not expect to find anybody in the building when we entered it, so we were taken aback when we found these persons in the building, just as they were taken aback by our presence. They came walking down the passage the Sida offices were at the beginning of the passages, on the right-hand side, they saw us and we saw them and both parties were taken aback.

I can recall that they were women, because they screamed from fright, most probably because they had not expected to find white men on that floor. I grabbed one of the women and slapped her through the fact with the open hand in order to silence her, so that they wouldn't make any further noise.

I know that there was another member, I cannot recall precisely whom, who seized one of the adults and instructed them to be silent. I don't know whether they were Swazi citizens or who they were, but they did not come out of the Sida offices, they were present on the same floor however.

CHAIRPERSON: When you say "through our reconnaissance we did not expect to find people there", did your reconnaissance entail that you should get into the building at that hour?

MR FOURIE: We found that if we entered the building once it was dark, there wouldn't be anybody in the offices because they didn't work at night. On previous occasions when we had been in Manzini and drive past the building, we had never viewed any movement or persons in the building in the evening.

MR LAMEY: But you yourself had not previously been in the building to reconnoitre it, you had to make observations from the outside.

MR FOURIE: Yes, and we also relied on information given by Glory Sedibe and MK September, as well as an informer which gave information to the Eastern Transvaal Security Branch.

CHAIRPERSON: Would that be Glory Sedibe?

MR FOURIE: Not necessarily, Glory Sedibe provided information to us himself, but Security Branch Eastern Transvaal also handled informers who were living in Swaziland in Manzini and they had regular contact with them, they were monitoring the Sida building. They were aware that refugees were reporting at the Sida House building, from which point onwards they would proceed to Angola, Mozambique or Lusaka.

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed.

MR LAMEY: Did you yourself have a weapon on that particular evening?

MR FOURIE: I think that I had a weapon with a silencer, but I cannot recall the calibre.

MR LAMEY: Do you recall whether or not it was a legal or an illegal weapon?

MR FOURIE: It would have been illegal.

MR LAMEY: Or at least, a weapon which was applied for an unlawful objective.

MR FOURIE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Mr Fourie, you are then applying for amnesty for burglary with the purpose of stealing documents.

MR FOURIE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: The assault emanating from the assault which took place on the person or persons there.

MR FOURIE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Damage to property, which took place at the Sida building.

MR FOURIE: I don't know if it belonged to them.

MR LAMEY: Well then to the offices of Sida specifically?

MR FOURIE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And then theft of documents.

MR FOURIE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: As it has been referred to in your application and also as it has been testified to by Mr de Kock.

MR FOURIE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And then also for any offence regarding the Arms and Ammunition Act.

MR FOURIE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Do you also concur with Mr de Kock's evidence that you crossed the border by means of false documentation?

MR FOURIE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And that you also did not go through border control when you returned.

MR FOURIE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And in this regard you also apply for any statutory transgression with regard to border control measures.

MR FOURIE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chairperson, that is then the evidence of Mr Fourie.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Lamey. I notice we've gone well past 1 o'clock and I'm not of the opinion that I should starve my staff, they must have something in their tummies to be able to survive. We will adjourn for lunch and we will reconvene within the next forty minutes.

EUGENE FOURIE: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey, you had completed your evidence-in-chief.

MR LAMEY: Yes indeed, thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Lamey. Mr Hugo, any cross-examination?

MR HUGO: No cross-examination, thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ms Patel?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PATEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson.

Just a few aspects, Mr Fourie. The women that you found in the passage, you said there were possibly two woman and two youngsters, what happened to the two young people that were present there?

MR FOURIE: We grouped them all together for them to be quiet, but then later on I went into the office to assist the people in identifying some of the documentation, to get photographs, or documentation with names on and some of the members outside guarded them. I do not know if they were pushed into another room, but they were kept there on the same floor until we were finished.

CHAIRPERSON: How could you go and identify other documentation when you did not know what documentation was kept there, other than what Glory had said?

MR FOURIE: Mr Chairperson, I was part of C2 who did research on MK and APLA members, we did have photo albums of refugees and we also had names of these people that we tried to identify, and I also had an interest in that and I knew that there were names of refugees in that office.

CHAIRPERSON: Ja, but the question is, when you didn't know the documentation, other than the photographs, how would you go and identify documentation you've just been told of?

MR FOURIE: Mr Chairperson, we knew that Sida's office was used by refugees, where they got financial benefits from. There was documentation of these refugees, it was not only Glory Sedibe's information, we also knew that Sida helped the refugees before.

CHAIRPERSON: How far did your information go, because they were also busying themselves by paying other refugees, other than from South Africa?

MR FOURIE: Yes, we were only interested in the refugees, any refugee, not just the ANC members, because most of the recruitment was for the ANC, people would leave the country and in Swaziland or in Maputo more specifically, they would be recruited by the ANC in refugee camps. So the ninety percent of refugees went to the ANC in any case.

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed, Ms Patel.

MS PATEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson.

Were the group of people that you had left outside the offices, still outside when you came out after you had searched and removed the documents and whatever else you took from there?

MR FOURIE: I'm sorry, is that the females or the other members?

MS PATEL: That's correct, yes.

MR FOURIE: The females were still held on the floor when we left.

MS PATEL: Were you present inside when the man and the woman that Mr de Kock had referred to, were held?

MR FOURIE: Mr Chairperson, I think we are talking about the same group of people. I can recall the voice of a woman that was shouting or screaming, I cannot recall if there were black men together. We may be talking about the same people. But when we were finished with the operation, when we went down to the vehicles with the documentation, etcetera, we again met somebody downstairs who then ran away. That was another person.

MS PATEL: No, the person that I - the people that I am referring to, are the people that Mr de Kock had said were instructed inside the premises, to face the wall.

MR FOURIE: That would be the same people then, that I'm talking about.

MS PATEL: Mr de Kock had said that those people were inside the Sida premises, the people that you are referring to were outside the Sida offices, not so?

MR FOURIE: No, I think you misunderstood Mr de Kock, because Sida's office was locked, there was nobody inside. There were people on the same floor of the building, but Sida's offices were locked. While Mr de Kock was busy to break open the door of Sida's office, there was nobody inside. There were people on the same floor however. There were different offices on that floor, there were attorney's offices etcetera, on that same floor, but the black people were not in the Sida office itself, they were just on the same floor on which the Sida office was.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Patel, Mr de Kock made mention of the first floor.

MR FOURIE: That is correct, Mr Chairperson, Sida's offices were on the first floor, as well as other offices of attorneys and other firms. The whole floor did not belong to Sida. And the other people came towards us, towards the Sida's office, on the way out of the building.

MS PATEL: Perhaps I might have misunderstood the evidence, Honourable Chairperson, but I recall, yes, that Mr de Kock had said that he had met the man and the woman that I'd questioned him about afterwards, that they were inside the premises.

CHAIRPERSON: Upon entry and going up to the first floor, that's where they found the offices locked, that's why he had to break open the door.

MS PATEL: Alright, sorry, I withdraw that. I'm certainly confused about who was where. Alright.

Alright, that would then accord with your written application on page 68, paragraph 9, where you speak of the women who were assaulted and told to keep quiet and then only Mr de Kock opened, or broke the front door to the premises of Sida.

MR FOURIE: That's correct, yes.

MS PATEL: Okay. Was Douw Willemse with you?

MR FOURIE: Mr Chairperson, I cannot recall who was with me, but he was part of the group, yes. Some of the people waited outside in the vehicles in order to warn us in case the Swazi Police would come, or anybody would come. Some of the people sat in the vehicles, not all of us went upstairs. I cannot recall who went with us upstairs.

MS PATEL: Alright. And finally, were you part of the group of people that in fact went and sifted through the documentation that was found at the Sida premises, after you got back onto the South African side?

MR FOURIE: That is correct, yes, at the Piet Retief Security Branch offices.

MS PATEL: What was the nature of the documentation that was in fact retrieved? Could you elaborate?

MR FOURIE: There were various application forms of refugees for financial assistance, there were various photographs, there were lists, accounting lists where there were large amounts of money that was paid out to people and there were also lists with names of people who received remuneration every month. It was mostly names of people and amounts that appeared on these lists.

MS PATEL: Alright. Thank you, Honourable Chairperson, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Patel. Advocate Bosman?

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you, Chairperson, just one question.

Mention has been made in Mr Willemse's affidavit, on page 28 of the bundle, unfortunately I did not put this to Mr de Kock, and there is mention made of shots being fired when you drove away, do you know anything about that?

MR FOURIE: No, Mr Chairperson. We had various vehicles there, I do not know if one of the vehicles fired shots, I'm not aware of that, no.

ADV BOSMAN: So you did not hear any shots being fired?

MR FOURIE: No, because we made use of silencers, so I didn't hear anything.

ADV BOSMAN: And then there's also mention of a person, Deetleffs, and it's not quite clear in the way in which it was put, whether he was involved in the planning or if he was present there, can you assist us?

MR FOURIE: Mr Chairperson, I do not know if he accompanied us, he was a member of the Security Branch in the Eastern Transvaal, he could have been part of the planning. Col de Kock would know. I cannot think that he would go with in this operation. All the people from Eastern Transvaal that I can recall was Freek Pienaar and Lappies Labuschagne, and Col de Kock also mentioned it.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you. Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Just to complete this, when you were coming back to the Republic of South Africa, were you followed by the Swaziland Police? This is what Willemse is saying on the same page, 28 of the paginated papers.

MR FOURIE: Mr Chairperson, this incident led to another incident that may be dealt with at a later stage, but after the next incident we again crossed the border illegally and then the Swazi Police, or it could have been the Swazi Police, we saw their vehicles approaching us while we were crossing the border, but at no stage were they very close to us so that they chased us.

CHAIRPERSON: But this specific incident, was there any Swazi Police who followed you?

MR FOURIE: No, Chairperson, because after this incident we went to another incident where we committed other deeds. ...(transcriber's interpretation)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Advocate Sandi?

ADV SANDI: I don't have a question, Mr Chairman, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Any re-examination, Mr Lamey?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Mr Fourie, the other incident was the search, or it was the topic of another hearing that will take place shortly, and that was the search of a safehouse in Swaziland, is that correct?

MR FOURIE: Yes.

MR LAMEY: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Fourie, you are excused.

MR FOURIE: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey, are you calling any other evidence from Mr Fourie. Thank you, that concludes his application. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, the next applicant I wish to call is applicant Izak Daniel Bosch.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------IZAK DANIEL BOSCH: (sworn states)

ADV BOSMAN: The applicant has been sworn, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Lamey, you may proceed.

EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chairperson.

Mr Bosch, you applied for amnesty before this Committee, and this application can be found on page 32, is that correct, and there's also a typed supplement or annexure where you in paragraph 11 on page 41 of the bundle, mention an office in Manzini, Swaziland, that was broken into and where documents were stolen and on the same evening another house close to the Oshoek border post was searched and burnt down. Then is it correct that concerning the latter incident, it forms part of another amnesty hearing, and that is the search of the safehouse?

MR BOSCH: That is correct, yes.

MR LAMEY: Did you have the opportunity before the hearing to read the statement of Mr Eugene Fourie?

MR BOSCH: That is correct, yes.

MR LAMEY: Apart from certain qualifications under which you will testify under oath, do you confirm in essence, his version as it was put by Mr Fourie and also Mr de Kock, and that is correlates with what your recollection is of what happened?

MR BOSCH: That is correct, yes.

MR LAMEY: Can you just tell the Committee, you were at that stage a member of Vlakplaas, is that correct?

MR BOSCH: Yes.

MR LAMEY: And you served under Mr de Kock's command.

MR BOSCH: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Do you also confirm that that was during the time when Glory Sedibe was abducted and when the Nerston incident took place?

MR BOSCH: That is also correct.

MR LAMEY: You also applied for both these incidents.

MR BOSCH: That's correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: For the abduction of Mr Sedibe and also the Nerston incident, is that correct? ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR BOSCH: That's correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: What was your rank at that stage?

MR BOSCH: I was a Sergeant.

MR LAMEY: You were also part of the Vlakplaas contingent that assisted in the fight against the struggle upon the request of the Eastern Transvaal Security Branch, and more specifically also Piet Retief, is that correct?

MR BOSCH: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: What was your role?

MR BOSCH: Mr Chairperson, I went with Mr de Kock, I think we were in two or three groups that entered the building, not at the same time, but one after the other. I was with him when he broke open the door, we went into the office and we started gathering documents.

MR LAMEY: Do you bear any knowledge of any other people who were at the scene?

MR BOSCH: That is correct, Mr Chairperson. My recollection was that it was two women and two children, but the passages were dark and when we came out of the office we saw them standing in the corner. My arms were full, I think I also carried the axe and documents and we immediately left. ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR LAMEY: Did you participate in any assault?

MR BOSCH: No, Mr Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Did you see any assault?

MR BOSCH: No, Mr Chairperson, we were in the office at that stage.

MR LAMEY: Did you have a weapon with you?

MR BOSCH: No, just the axe.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you also have an axe, the same as Mr de Kock?

MR BOSCH: No, it was Mr de Kock's axe that I carried, because then he carried a pistol and files and I carried the axe and files.

MR LAMEY: You also apply for amnesty for breaking and entering, theft, you yourself did not participate in the assault, so you do ask amnesty for that, it fell outside your knowledge, damaging of goods, that is at the offices of Sida.

MR BOSCH: That is correct, yes.

MR LAMEY: Any other offences flowing from this.

MR BOSCH: That's correct, yes.

MR LAMEY: You also had a false passport with which you crossed the border.

MR BOSCH: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: You also then apply for amnesty for any statutory offence concerning border control regulations. ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR BOSCH: That's correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Do you also reconcile yourself with the political objective, as it was described by Mr Fourie and also Mr de Kock in their applications?

MR BOSCH: That is correct.

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

CHAIRPERSON: On page 41, paragraph 11.2:

The point that I would like to make, or I would like to know from you is, were you involved in the abduction of Glory Sedibe?

MR BOSCH: That is correct, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Where was he taken to?

MR BOSCH: Piet Retief, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Hugo?

MR HUGO: No questions, thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Patel?

MS PATEL: Same here, thank you Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Advocate Bosman?

ADV BOSMAN: I have no questions, thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Advocate Sandi?

ADV SANDI: I also sing the same song, Mr Chairman, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: I may have misheard you, but you say when you went out carrying documentation and this axe which Mr de Kock used to break open, that's when you encountered the women. My question is, I just want clarity, when precisely, at what stage did you encounter these two women and two children?

MR BOSCH: Mr Chairperson, when we walked out of the office with the document that I took, then I saw that they were standing in the corner. Then I went down the stairs and I think Mr Fourie said that some people came up and when we walked out, or when I walked out at the bottom, there were still people who wanted to go in or out, but they ran away.

CHAIRPERSON: And further you said:

MR BOSCH: That is correct, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: I thought this incident is that you all went in, because I would understand that getting into a house, you wouldn't all at the same time, you would follow each other, but what I want clarity on is that, did you take breaks when you followed each other inside the building?

MR BOSCH: Yes, there were certain time spans before the first group, or before the second group went in, I was part of the first group. I do not know if we gave them a signal and after a few minutes the second group came in, because they had to cover us while we went in. Then there were also people who remained outside.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Any re-examination, probably emanating from what I asked mostly?

MR LAMEY: No, Chairperson, I've got no re-examination, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Thank you, Mr Bosch, you are excused.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey, are you going to lead any evidence in support of Mr Bosch?

MR LAMEY: No, Chairperson, I've got no further evidence, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Then it leaves us with the document which you handed up and what I could establish from Mr Hugo and Ms Patel, is that they had no objection in us admitting this document. Could we at this stage give it a number, Exhibit A.

MR LAMEY: As it please you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hugo, in the evidence led this far and looking at Mr Willemse's application, did you pick up any contradictions?

MR HUGO: No contradictions whatsoever, Mr Chairman. In fact it's clear from Mr de Kock's evidence as well that he gave these instructions and Mr Willemse was one of the operators under his command and that he just carried out his instructions. So we say that Mr de Kock's version is corroborated by Mr Willemse and vice versa.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Patel?

MS PATEL: No, Honourable, I do not believe that there is anything material that emanates from his application, or Exhibit A to us. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you of the view, I haven't heard argument yet, but are you of the view that if we either grant or refuse, we can do that just on the strength of the evidence we have heard today?

MS PATEL: Yes, Honourable Chairperson, I believe given the circumstances that Mr Willemse finds himself in and the corroborating testimony that has been delivered by the rest of the applicants here, that I do not have an objection if he's included when you make your decision in this regard. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Are we in a position to wrap up with short submissions? I'll start with Mr Hugo.

MR HUGO IN ARGUMENT: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Yes, I'll be very brief.

Mr Chairman, the one aspect that is different in this particular application from the other ones that we've heard, is the fact that Mr de Kock undertook this operation on his own discretion. We say, Mr Chairman, bearing in mind his position as the Commander of Vlakplaas, that it was certainly within his implied authority to act like he did and the fact that he did not have an order from his superiors, shouldn't detract from the fact that this action was taken with a political motive.

Mr Chairman, we're saying that there was a proper disclosure of all the relevant factors. There was only, as far as we're concerned, one problem, and that is that if it had transpired that certain things were taken for personal financial gain, this would obviously have jeopardised this particular application. There was no evidence to that effect.

Mr Chairman, the political motivation has been established, it's in the evidence as far as we're concerned. Mr Fourie has also alluded to the fact that the Security Branch in the Eastern Transvaal, worked extensively on this particular organisation and that they had good reason to believe that they were supporting the ANC in their various endeavours.

Mr Chairman, with all due respect, you also made a very good point when you asked about the recent abduction of Sedibe, to the extent that the information extracted from Mr Sedibe was fresh and that they acted immediately on the strength of this information, which we submit is very reasonable, in that the chances of the persons having changed their modus operandi, are very slim.

Mr Chairman, those are really the submissions that we want to make, save for saying that we're applying for amnesty in respect of the following offences: Damage to property, housebreaking, theft, crossing of the international border, defeating the ends of justice, unlawful detention, illegal possession of firearms and ammunition and, Mr Chairman, I'm just putting ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Unlawful detention of whom?

MR HUGO: Those are the two persons that were ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Encountered.

MR HUGO: ... encountered and told to stay put in the corner. And then assault, Mr Chairman, just on the basis that Mr de Kock associated himself with the assault, even if he wasn't really aware of it at the time, but that it could have been foreseen in an operation of this nature.

CHAIRPERSON: And as an overall Commander, I suppose.

MR HUGO: And as an overall Commander, that he has to take responsibility for that. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Hugo. Mr Lamey?

MR LAMEY IN ARGUMENT: Chairperson yes, I don't want to repeat what Mr Hugo has said, I concur with him. I think in the context of this specific operation, I would submit that the Committee should take into account that Swaziland was as a territory, a place from which infiltration took place at the time. Before other Committees extensive evidence was led and it is also alluded to by Mr Fourie and Mr de Kock in their submissions. And I submit that as far as ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Wouldn't we rather say Sida?

MR LAMEY: Sida, yes, well Swaziland in a broader context, that was the origin for infiltrations to the RSA, of trained MK operatives and the evidence before you is that the modus operandi was that people went into exile from the RSA, to Swaziland, where ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Some.

MR LAMEY: ... where some would be recruited and be sent for military training and who would then re-infiltrate back into the RSA, and the information was that financial assistance was given by the Swedish International Development Aid, to the so-called exiles and the further evidence is that there was information that some of these exiles were then further recruited and assisted. So my submission is it was in the context of the time, reasonable for the Security Police, as well as Mr de Kock and his men, to make a possible link with the financial assistance, exiles and recruitment of people who would re-infiltrate into the RSA, and that the whole purpose of this operation was to enter the premises of Sida and to find further evidence and to look for further evidence in this regard.

CHAIRPERSON: The further evidence that was required, wouldn't it be to identify the other people, rather than the financial assistance given?

MR LAMEY: Ja, to search for documents, to search for names, link that with information of names of exiles, as Mr Fourie has alluded to, Chairperson. But unfortunately we don't have the advantage of the testimony of the Eastern Transvaal Security Force members as to whether there was in fact confirmation of that later with further investigations and from the - that we don't know, but I think at the time, in the context that the Security Police operated and Vlakplaas, that they had reason to believe that they might find evidence of this sort on the premises and for that purpose this premises was broken into and documentation and other material which they thought would be relevant for that purpose, taken from that premises.

Chairperson, as far as proportionality is concerned, I submit that these actions were in proportion, based on the information, as well as to obtain further information which would be available, especially to the Eastern Transvaal Security Police, whose primary task was to combat the infiltration in that area at the time.

Chairperson, then as far as the assault is concerned, I submit that is incidental, it is something that was unexpected. It was a possibility foreseen, but not really expected as a real possibility and the assault was just done in order to overcome alarm to be made by the people that were encountered.

CHAIRPERSON: Wouldn't it be within their plan that if they encounter something untoward, they would have to act in a manner and this manner was the assault, because they carried firearms with silencers when they broke into this office?

MR LAMEY: Well Chairperson, I think the fact that they did not overreact and use their weapons with silencers to kill these people, just indicates the minimum violence that was used in their discretion at the time, to overcome possible resistance or an alarm being made at the time. And I submit that the assault was minimal and was not of a serious nature, and I submit that ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Was it necessary?

MR LAMEY: I think in accordance with the evidence of Mr Fourie, his evidence was there were, the people started to make noises and so forth and it was in order to - I'm sure it was an act, I would think it was more of an act of intimidation, in order to keep the people quiet and to round them up and to get them under control at the time, Chairperson. And I think it was necessary, in order to protect the whole clandestine nature of this operation and to get out there with the least resistance as soon as possible. Also given the fact that there was a police station just across the road, who could easily have been alarmed should anyone make an alarm, Chairperson.

Thank you, Chairperson, those are my submissions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Lamey. Ms Patel, any submissions?

MS PATEL: No, thank you Honourable Chairperson, I leave it in your capable hands.

Honourable Chairperson, there's just one aspect. The letter that was tendered by my learned colleague, Mr Lamey, have we given it an exhibit number for our records, or have I missed it?

CHAIRPERSON: A. We have marked it A.

MS PATEL: Oh, okay. Then would Mr Willemse's application then be B?

CHAIRPERSON: That's correct.

MS PATEL: Okay.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. This brings us to the conclusion of the incident of the Search of Effesis House, in Swaziland.

As enjoined by the Act that brought us into existence, we reserve our decision because it has to be given in writing, which would be done not in the too distant future and all parties involved would be advised accordingly.

Let me take the opportunity of thanking the legal representatives for their invaluable assistance that would enable us to reach a decision in respect of the four applicants. We were advised when we commenced, that there were people from the Embassies having watching briefs, I want to extend our gratitude to such people, that they have found it in themselves to honour these proceedings which are very vital to our new democracy where we reconciling a people within a people that we would be able to live together side by side and in harmony and further strengthen this new democracy. We thank you very much for the efforts you have taken.

Ms Patel, do we have any other incident to go by at this juncture?

MS PATEL: We do, Honourable Chairperson, I see however that my two learned colleagues, Mr Cornelius and Mr van der Merwe, their documents and jackets are here, they will most probably just be outside, if you would grant me a moment to go and call them, we can proceed with the next matter.

CHAIRPERSON: Wouldn't we rather take a short adjournment?

MS PATEL: As it pleases you, Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: I suppose Mr Hugo and Mr Lamey, you are still involved in these proceedings?

MR LAMEY: Yes, indeed.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. We'll take a short adjournment.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Good afternoon. We would continue with the next applications before the same Committee, which has been constituted from Monday the 14th of August 2000, and we'll hear the following applications: Messrs Eugene Alexander de Kock: amnesty number 0066/96, Izak Daniel Bosch: application number 3765/96, Jacobus Francois Kok: application number 3812/96, Leon William John Flores: application number 4361/96, Wybrand Andreas Lodewikus du Toit: application number 5184/96, and the incident we would be hearing is the Parker Pen Set Bomb.

I would request the legal representatives to place their names on record.

MR HUGO: Thank you, Mr Chairman. My name is S W Hugo, I'm acting and appearing on behalf of Mr E A de Kock.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Hugo, we are happy that you have kept us company for the third day. For Izak Daniel Bosch, would it be yourself, Mr Lamey?

MR LAMEY: Indeed, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Any other?

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

MR VAN DER MERWE: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Francois van der Merwe on record, I act on behalf of applicant number 3, and may I just correct his name, because in the TRC records it's wrong every time, he is Jacob Francois Kok, not Jacobus.

CHAIRPERSON: Jacob?

MR VAN DER MERWE: Jacob, without the u-s, and number 5, Wybrand Andreas Lodewikus du Toit. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr van der Merwe. And our records shall so reflect, that instead of Jacobus, it's Jacob.

MR VAN DER MERWE: I think where the confusion comes in is his brother is Jacobus Kok and that is why there's a confusion.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you saying we are that thorough in our investigations, that we'd pick up that as well?

MR VAN DER MERWE: I would hope so. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr ... Ms Patel? I'm also confused by the tie, that's why I'm looking the other way. Ms Patel?

MS PATEL: Well I thought my hair was long enough, but anyway.

CHAIRPERSON: You never know these days, don't assume.

MS PATEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson. Ramula Patel, Leader of Evidence. Chairperson, the position with regard to the victim who allegedly was injured at the post office when he retrieved the envelope, we have been unable to identify who he is and requests were in fact sent via the South African High Commission, who then liaised with the Swaziland Embassy, and we ...

CHAIRPERSON: You drew a blank.

MS PATEL: Yes, Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Was the request made timeously?

MS PATEL: It was, Honourable Chairperson. In fact, several requests were sent via our Commission, to the Swaziland Embassy.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Patel, but I suppose the applications are right for hearing.

MS PATEL: No, they are, Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hugo, I think you are going to take the lead again.

MR HUGO: Yes, thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr de Kock, it is a new one, we can't hold you under your former oath, you've got to take another one.

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: (sworn states)

ADV BOSMAN: The applicant is duly sworn, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Advocate Francis Bosman. Mr Hugo?

EXAMINATION BY MR HUGO: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr de Kock, you are the applicant in this matter which is known as the Parker Pen Set Bomb, and your application appears in the bundle from page 2 to 14, and more specifically where you deal with the incident from page 7 to 9, is that correct?

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

MR HUGO: And before you deal with the particulars pertaining to the incident, you request the Honourable Committee to note that you have filed a supplementary affidavit regarding your background, your political motivations and considerations and a further affidavit which was filed by you regarding Vlakplaas, its establishment and the purposes, or the objectives that Vlakplaas sought to achieve during the struggle of the past.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HUGO: This incident commenced due to an operation that you launched based upon certain information that you obtained.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HUGO: Would you tell the Honourable Committee briefly, what operation it was and how you obtained such further information.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, during the late '80s, four ANC members were lured into an ambush near Piet Retief, I have already testified about that, and during this ambush the four ANC members were killed. Three of them were black women, and the other one was an Indian man.

During this shooting and the subsequent search conducted through the property of these persons by W/O Pienaar, Mr Pienaar came upon an address on a document which indicated that there was a postal address which would be used contact purposes and that it was a contact address for the ANC, or for ANC members, which then was to be used by this group which had been lured into the ambush.

MR HUGO: May I just ask you, these four persons who were killed, you yourself were at the scene of the incident, you were part of the operation?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HUGO: Did you have any doubt in your mind that they were ANC members?

MR DE KOCK: None whatsoever.

MR HUGO: And was this confirmed during the search, that they were ANC members?

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR HUGO: You may continue.

MR DE KOCK: W/O Pienaar asked me if we would be willing to launch an attempt to do something with this postal address. The nature of the discussion was that we had to place these persons at a disadvantage or kill them in some or other way, that is what it boiled down to, or we had to injure them. I agree with it, I didn't have any problems with it and then I thought about it. It was my initiative that we use a set of Parker pens which were manufactured of metals, which one could buy in a store and would have a high shrapnel level, to be used against the ANC.

I cleared the operation with Brig Schoon, myself personally, I discussed it with him and he extended his approval and subsequently I approached the Technical division of the SAP, their Security Branch, and I co-opted them to manufacture such a device for me. This device would detonate once the Parker pens had been removed from the holder. They then manufactured such a device, which was linked to these pens and it was my responsibility that they indeed manufactured this device.

Shortly after the first shooting incident, there was a second shooting incident in which I was also involved, during which four armed ANC members were involved and during which these four members were shot dead.

For quite some time nothing was heard of this explosive device and I accepted that the package had been removed from the system, that the device which had been manufactured of batteries, was attached to the device. In other words, the batteries ran out and the parcel was removed from the system, we never heard anything more of it.

Later, however, I read in a Swazi newspaper, and I think that there was also an article in a South African newspaper, that a postal worker from Manzini had taken the parcel for himself, apparently, and had opened it in the toilet and had incurred serious injuries to his hands and face. I suspected that this may have been the explosive device which was composed of the Parker pens and it was this parcel that had injured the postal worker.

Later, by means of Pienaar who informed me, I determined that the address to which we had posted the parcel, was indeed an address which was meant for the second group of ANC members.

MR HUGO: Just to achieve clarity, is this the second group of ANC which was killed in the follow-up operation?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HUGO: And regarding the fact that you, upon your own initiative, had the Parker pen device manufactured and that you approached Brig Schoon with the request that he would approve such an operation, what was your motivation for this action?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, it was an action launched against the ANC, for the disruption and suspension of any of their actions by means of death or injury and it was directly aimed against those persons.

MR HUGO: How was the Parker pen set sent and by whom?

MR DE KOCK: The Parker pen set was sent by a black member of Section C1, who entered Swaziland and sent it from a smaller post office to the Manzini Post Office, to the address that we had.

MR HUGO: Very well. And were any other Vlakplaas members co-opted or involved in giving input to, and participating in the completion of this action?

MR DE KOCK: With regard to the manufacturing, I think that I asked Mr Bosch to liaise, he was also the liaison person with the Technical division. As far as I can recall, I sent only the black member in, but later I heard that there was another applicant who stated that he went in with the black member. I cannot recall it, but I would not dispute it if that is what he states.

MR HUGO: And you have already testified about this, but Brig Schoon's reaction when you approached him about it, would you please describe to the Committee what his approach was.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, he approved of it, it was an action which was aimed against the opposition or the enemy, and we didn't have any doubt that it was an action against the ANC.

MR HUGO: The addressing of the package that was sent to Swaziland, who physically inscribed the address on the package?

MR DE KOCK: I cannot recall. As far as I can recall, when I received the package everything was already done, it had been wrapped and sealed and the address was already on it. I'm open to correction, but that is my recollection.

MR HUGO: Very well. And can you recall whether or not it was addressed to one specific person or to an organisation?

MR DE KOCK: It was addressed to the name and address which was on the document which was found during the search that was conducted with the first group of ANC members.

MR HUGO: And inasfar as it was possible, did you attempt to take any precautionary measures which would prevent the death or injury of innocent persons?

MR DE KOCK: As far as possible, yes Chairperson, we did not put the wrong address on the package, it was only that specific address with that specific name that we used, and it simply wasn't fetched by the ANC.

MR HUGO: Just for the sake of completion, the persons at the Technical division whom you liaised with, who did you deal with specifically?

MR DE KOCK: I suspect that it was Brig WAL du Toit, I'm not certain and I would not dispute it if he says that it was him. That is what I recall.

MR HUGO: And what did you tell them, to whom would this explosive device be sent?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I explained to them that it was an action against the ANC and I gave them the particulars regarding where it was going, as far as I can recall, and what I also told them what I wanted, but I did not brief them any further than what was necessary.

MR HUGO: Thank you, Mr Chairman, that's the evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Hugo. Mr Lamey, any cross-examination?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Chairperson, just here and there a question.

Mr de Kock, Mr Bosch at that stage was used for the technical aspect of the operations at Vlakplaas, is that why you used him to be the liaison person to work with the technical department of the Security Police?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct, yes.

MR LAMEY: Who would have been the addressee, would it have been a single person or an institution, what is your recollection? ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR DE KOCK: As far as we know, it was an ANC post-box, from the information that I received from Mr Pienaar and from what he got from the document. The name one can assume would have been a codename, they wouldn't have written down their own names, but I cannot say. It was a name of a person.

MR LAMEY: So you say that the addressee was connected to the name of an ANC person, but you cannot recall the name?

MR DE KOCK: No, it was an ANC address, yes.

MR LAMEY: Can you recall who you gave the address to or who did you ask to put the address on the parcel?

MR DE KOCK: No, Mr Chairperson, I do not recall if I gave it to Mr Bosch or to Mr du Toit himself, I think I gave it to Mr du Toit himself. That is my recollection.

MR LAMEY: Mr Bosch's recollection is, and I'd just like to add it here, that the address and the name of the person who he calls the ANC activist, was given to him by you.

MR DE KOCK: I said, I am also under correction, Chairperson.

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

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Lamey. Mr Cornelius?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Mr Chair.

Mr de Kock, you have referred to the two Piet Retief incidents, could you just explain to the Committee, there have already been amnesty application hearings regarding the two Piet Retief incidents, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: And during these proceedings you gave thorough evidence about the weapons which were found in the vehicles and the ANC connections of the occupants of the vehicles.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: You agree, and it has been testified to at length before the Committee yesterday, that the parties worked on a need-to-know basis, therefore only the information that was necessary would be conveyed to the particular person.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: And your orders were strictly carried out at all times, otherwise you would have instituted disciplinary measures.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, except if you give someone instructions for murder then you wouldn't institute disciplinary measures, but otherwise, yes. ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR CORNELIUS: And persons such as Brig Schoon, Adrian Vlok and so forth, visited Vlakplaas quite often and attended functions and issued medals, which indicated that the actions Vlakplaas enjoyed the approval of the hierarchy.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: Thus the persons would have accepted if you had taken a decision there would have been a specific political target in Swaziland, and that you would have taken this decision in conjunction with Head Office staff?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: Mr Flores has informed me that he recalls that the parcel was addressed to the Swaziland Council of Churches and that there possibly may have been the name of a person on the parcel, is it possible?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I suspect that he may have confused this with an envelope which was requested for preparation by the Defence Force. I will just explain briefly, because the letter which was intercepted by the Defence Force, was under way to the South African Council of Churches and had to be sent back to the Swazi address with a similar name. But I will not dispute it, however it would have had a name on because somebody, a courier, had to fetch it.

MR CORNELIUS: On page 9 of your application you state that later you determined irrevocably that the address was the address of the second group of ANC members which was killed in the second Piet Retief incident.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Mr Pienaar established this, it was his baby so to speak.

MR CORNELIUS: So whatever the case may be, it was determined that the address was correct?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Cornelius.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DER MERWE: Thank you, Mr Chair, just one or two aspects.

Mr de Kock, my instructions from Mr du Toit are that he does not have a clear recollection of when you approached him, but at that stage when you did you had already told him that this operation had been cleared at a higher level, that you did not approach him first and then requested authorisation, that you first got authorisation before you requested him.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is what I did.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Thank you. And then, as you already conceded that you can be corrected in terms of the, or there were no addresses concerning Mr Kok or du Toit for the technical department, they had nothing to do with it, they did not even make up this parcel, it was wrapped by Mr Bosch, who was used for this purpose.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, I will accept it as such.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Thank you, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr van der Merwe. Ms Patel?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PATEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson.

Mr de Kock, sorry, I didn't hear your response to Mr van der Merwe's last question to you. Did you concede that the address wasn't given to the Technical division?

MR DE KOCK: I would concede that, it is possible because I have a very vague recollection regarding all the aspects pertaining to this situation.

MS PATEL: Okay. That is certainly clear, Mr de Kock. But in any event, would Mr Flores have been instructed to address the parcel?

MR DE KOCK: I don't know, Chairperson, I cannot recall. I did not bring the address onto the parcel, so it is between Mr Flores and Mr Bosch. That is all that I can think of.

MS PATEL: Would you have handed the address to Mr Bosch, who would then have made the necessary arrangements?

MR DE KOCK: I would have given it to someone to put on the parcel. As I have testified, I thought that I gave it to Mr du Toit, they have refuted this, I have to rely upon the recollection of the others in this case.

MS PATEL: Okay. But surely if the parcel was to be addressed to the Swaziland Council of Churches, which from the name is a religious organisation, you would have remembered this, not so?

MR DE KOCK: No, not necessarily, Chairperson, given the volume of my applications, and we are referring to illegal operations here and not even the legal operations, I cannot take it any further.

MS PATEL: Given the extent of the harm that could be caused by the pen or the parcel when it was opened, were there not other options open to you in terms of getting that pen to its proper destination, rather than send it through the postal system where it could be intercepted by anybody, as has in fact happened here?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, it was not intercepted, it arrived at the address to which it had been posted, it arrived there and it lay there and then it was taken or stolen by a postal worker.

MS PATEL: And you didn't foresee the possibility that it could be taken by somebody other than the person to whom it was addressed?

MR DE KOCK: I did not foresee that a postal worker would steal it, they are supposed to deliver it to the addressee. It was an ANC address, if the ANC did not fetch it, then I am responsible for the it, for the fact that it was posted, but the fact that it was not picked up is the responsibility of the ANC.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr de Kock, what would have triggered the pen, what would have led to its detonation?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I did not work with the mechanism itself, that was the work of the Technical division, but I do know that it was linked to a battery and I think it is something similar to a watch battery, so it would have run out after a period of time, which have rendered the device harmless. ADV BOSMAN: That is what I find somewhat problematic to understand, you wouldn't have known how long it would have taken to be delivered to the person to whom it was addressed. Perhaps this is a question for us to put to the technical people, but how could you have been certain, if it was set according to time, how could you be certain that it would arrive at the correct person and then only detonate?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, the parcel was posted in Swaziland from a smaller post office to an address in Swaziland, so it wasn't a question of the process taking a month between post offices. We tried to get it to the address as swiftly as possible.

ADV BOSMAN: You may proceed, Ms Patel.

CHAIRPERSON: Just one more before you do, Ms Patel. This address you're referring to, was it a box number or a physical address?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, it was a post-box number.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. You may proceed, Ms Patel.

MS PATEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson.

What information did you have at the time that the parcel was posted, about the addressee, the person to whom it was sent, what information was available at that time?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, it was the details that I received from Mr Pienaar, that he got from a document that he got from ANC members who were shot and that it was an ANC address and that it was a contact address for receiving post.

MS PATEL: Do I understand you correctly then to say that you didn't have any information about the person to whom it was being sent, as to his living circumstances, where he would have been residing or who was residing with him, what the possibilities would have been in respect of somebody else opening up the mail, you had no other information except the address and that it was, according to you, an ANC contact address?

MR DE KOCK: The details that it was an ANC address came from Mr Pienaar, that came from an ANC document that was found on the body of an ANC member, and I did not doubt that information because it was information from the ANC itself.

MS PATEL: You state in your application to us on page 9, that you later understood, or it was later ascertained that the postal address which you are referring to now, was in fact the same address of the two ANC members that were then later killed, how was it established that this postal address belonged to the ANC persons that were killed?

MR DE KOCK: Mr Chairperson, you'll have to ask Mr Pienaar, I will not be able to assist you further.

MS PATEL: You didn't request this information from him?

MR DE KOCK: No, Mr Chairperson, I had a task for him, we had to wrap this parcel, I did it, it was all part of a larger project or plan and he just mentioned it to me, and that was the end of it.

MS PATEL: Just in terms of the hierarchy, Mr Pienaar would have fallen under your command or not?

MR DE KOCK: He was of a lower rank, yes, but I did not have authority in his area or district and therefore he was under Col Visser of Middelburg, because I've already testified that if you worked in an area or district, you will fall under that Commander.

MS PATEL: Okay. The discretion or the decision as to whether to assist him or not in his request, would lie with you nonetheless.

MR DE KOCK: Please repeat.

MS PATEL: The decision, if a request comes to you from any other part of the country or from whoever else, the discretion as to whether to assist or not, the decision whether to assist or not, that discretion lies with you.

MR DE KOCK: Mr Chairperson, yes, I would not say that I had complete discretion, I can say that I can assist you or I will assist you, but then I also take it further, and what I did is I did authorise it with Brig Schoon.

MS PATEL: Alright. Thank you, Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Patel. Advocate Bosman?

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you, Chairperson.

Mr de Kock, when you asked Col du Toit to manufacture this device for you, what was your request to him, how powerful should it be, did you indicate to him that it should be strong enough to kill or injure somebody?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I am not certain what my specific requirements were, or let me rather say that I cannot recall my specific parameters, but the idea was for the person who opened the parcel to be killed. But then again, if one examines the size of the parcel and the compact nature of it, then it could not be an area weapon, in other words it couldn't kill anybody 10 to 20 paces away from you.

ADV BOSMAN: You see that is what is somewhat problematic to me, if one examines within the context of all the various incidents of yours that I've had to do with, it would appear as if this device should have had nothing more than nuisance value, do you have anything to say about that?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, if it was only nuisance value, then for example, I would have bought a plastic pencil set, but this was the complete Parker set, comprising the pen, the pencil and the fountain pen, which was machinated from steel, such as the steel Parker pens, which would increase the shrapnel affect of the device.

ADV BOSMAN: Was anything done to ascertain that the addressee had a specific position within the ANC, whether or not he was definitely an ANC member, what the nature of his position was and whether or not he posed any danger? Was any attempt made to find out more about him?

MR DE KOCK: I did not personally make such an attempt, I can accept that Mr Pienaar did so, but also within the context of that time it was only an ANC member who would know about an ANC post-box, who would fetch such a parcel.

ADV BOSMAN: You have testified that you could not recall the address, but could you perhaps explain to us somewhat more what one would regard as an ANC address, if it was a post-box number?

MR DE KOCK: Given the particulars that Mr Pienaar obtained from the document which was found on the body of the ANC member who was killed during the first incident, it led to this parcel and to this post-box, or this postal address.

ADV BOSMAN: But you would have to concede that if a person belongs to a specific organisation and an address is found on him, it does not necessarily indicate that it is an address which is connected to his political organisation? This may be a question that we should instead put to Mr Pienaar, but did you determine whether or not it wasn't another address, or did you simply rely upon Mr Pienaar's commentary, as it were, that you had obtained an ANC address?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, he found a document on the body, it had an address and a name on it, it was a contact address at which this first group had to make contact, they had to make contact at that address. In other words, if one had to work by inference, it may have been a telegram, a telex or whatever .... we decided to put something into that system.

ADV BOSMAN: But you cannot tell us that it was positively identified as an ANC contact address by you, because a post-box number, unless it says "The ANC Head Office", which in all likelihood would not have happened, or "The ANC office, P O Box X, Y and Z, Swaziland", you would not be able to say that it was an ANC address because ANC addresses would not only be found on persons belonging to the ANC, unless ANC appeared on the address somewhere, or unless Mr Pienaar obtained other independent information which confirmed it as an ANC address. Do you follow my argument?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, I follow you completely, but I must just state that one does not necessarily have to say "ANC Head Office", we at Vlakplaas for example, had a series of addresses which were located at post offices boxes, we had a variety but there wasn't written on the address, "Vlakplaas C1".

ADV BOSMAN: But that's my question exactly, how would your men know that it was a Vlakplaas address? If the address was found on a Col du Toit, how would they know if it was a Vlakplaas address or a political address? That is what I am trying to clarify.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I believe that if I was shot on the other side and if a letter was found on my person which had a contact address at Henops Holkers(?) or something which send "Send this message to Henops Holkers CC", the opposition may have sent a bomb to me at that address.

ADV BOSMAN: Then my question is, can you recall whether there was any indication such as "Contact this address", or "Send messages to this address", or was it just a regular address on a document?

MR DE KOCK: I did not handle the document, Chairperson, Mr Pienaar did that. They also dealt with the bodies.

ADV BOSMAN: Well then I think it is a matter to be taken further with Mr Pienaar, but I hope that you understand my problem. Thank you. Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Advocate Bosman. Advocate Sandi?

ADV SANDI: Yes, thank you Chair, just on the same aspect.

Mr de Kock, when you were approached by Mr Pienaar, did he say to you he was satisfied that this was an ANC address?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Mr Chairperson, he was satisfied because it was a document that he found on this Indian person that was shot in this vehicle.

ADV SANDI: Yes, and what was your attitude in respect to him saying to you at that stage, "I am satisfied that this is an ANC address"? Did you see it perhaps as part of your function to find out if he was not perhaps making a mistake to so satisfy himself?

MR DE KOCK: Mr Chairperson, no, Mr Pienaar thought about this very long and hard, he was an Intelligence Officer and I think he had 12 to 15 years of experience in the Piet Retief area and on a daily basis he worked in Swaziland, and with his dissection of information there's never been any mistakes. If we have to look at all the other incidents like the shooting of the ANC members, the Nerston incident and the cross-border operation in which he was involved, so I was satisfied with the information that he gave me.

ADV SANDI: Now would I be correct to understand you to say that in the context of the discussion you had with Mr Pienaar, you saw it as your task to assist him with launching the attack at this place, isn't that so?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

ADV SANDI: If he was making a mistake to think that this was an ANC address, is that something that ever struck your mind at that stage? You were talking about this address.

MR DE KOCK: Mr Chairperson, according to my recollection at that stage and according to my knowledge, he did not make a mistake. I was satisfied with the information that he provided me with.

ADV SANDI: Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Advocate Sandi. Any re-examination, Mr Hugo?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR HUGO: Yes, thank you, Chairman.

Mr de Kock, given your position in the operational unit, did you see it within the framework of your task to verify information that was given to you by other departments or other groups, in order to find out if it was correct?

MR DE KOCK: Mr Chairperson, it would have been impossible, because we worked on a national level or basis, and we wouldn't have been able to do this.

MR HUGO: You have already testified concerning Mr Pienaar's co-operation with you, and did you have any doubt concerning his knowledge and ability to gather information?

MR DE KOCK: No, Mr Chairperson, he has never made a mistake which I know of.

MR HUGO: Did Mr Pienaar, in his capacity as one of the Intelligence Officers, according to your knowledge, did he have a detailed knowledge of addresses and movements of the liberation or freedom movements in Swaziland?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, I would just like to add, Mr Chairperson, the first time I met Mr Pienaar was when they abducted four people out of prison cells from Swaziland, and my second meeting with him was when we launched an attack on Zwelibanzi, and from that time onwards and including this incident, his information was always correct.

MR HUGO: Can I ask you the following, concerning the documentation that was found on the body of the deceased, was there any personal documentation, letters or whatever, or any other kind of documentation that had nothing to do with politics?

MR DE KOCK: Mr Chairperson, I wouldn't know because I did not deal with the searching of the bodies, I was only involved in the shooting.

MR HUGO: Once again you believed and acted on the strength of what Mr Pienaar told you?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct.

MR HUGO: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

ADV SANDI: Can I just ask you, Mr de Kock, about another possibility. Yes, but what if this particular address, if you send a parcel there the parcel could land in the hands of someone who was a Security Police informer, but unbeknown to the ANC, wouldn't you in that situation end up killing your own informer? Now when I say "your own informer", I don't mean Mr de Kock's informer but someone within the ANC who was being handled by one of the security officers.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, in that troubled world of intelligence and askaris, in the struggle of the shadows, one could not exclude something like that, it was possible.

ADV SANDI: Yes, but in the light of such a possibility, wouldn't it then make it even more compelling to try and find out who exactly was using this address?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I did not have any doubt that if Mr Pienaar was satisfied that the address was an ANC address, that I would doubt it.

ADV SANDI: Thank you. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I take it nothing arises from that to take it any further, Mr Hugo?

MR HUGO: No thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr de Kock, you are excused.

CHAIRPERSON: Any evidence to be led in supports of Mr de Kock's ...

MR HUGO: No further evidence, thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Hugo. Mr Lamey?

MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chairperson, I call Mr Bosch.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------ADV BOSMAN: Mr Bosch, your full names are already on record, do you once again prefer to take the oath?

IZAK DANIEL BOSCH: (sworn states)

ADV BOSMAN: The applicant is duly sworn, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Advocate Bosman. Mr Lamey?

EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Bosch, just briefly once again, to reiterate what we testified about earlier this morning. You submitted an initial amnesty application which was undersigned by you and can be found on page 23 of the documents, to which a typed annexure was attached and in your initial application on page 32, you refer very briefly to the incident, this pen set bomb which was manufactured by the Technical division, is that correct?

MR BOSCH: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Then we also find in the bundle from page 38 onwards, up to and including 40, a supplementary document of particulars pertaining to your involvement in the incident, is that correct?

MR BOSCH: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: At this stage you were a member of Vlakplaas, under the command of Mr de Kock.

MR BOSCH: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Is it true that among others your task at Vlakplaas was technical?

MR BOSCH: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Is it also correct that you applied for amnesty for other incidents in which you had liaison with the Technical division, and I am referring specifically now to the parcel bomb, the so-called walkman bomb which you also received an instruction for from Col de Kock, to liaise with the Technical division in an attempt to kill Dirk Coetzee after he had exposed the involvement of the Security Police in gross human rights violations?

MR BOSCH: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Is it correct that your involvement also emanates from an instruction given by Mr de Kock for the Parker pen set bomb in conjunction with the Technical division?

MR BOSCH: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Could you just tell us what information you received from Mr de Kock.

MR BOSCH: Mr de Kock approached me and asked me to go to the Technical division to liaise with Col WAL, who would then send me to Japie or Kobus Kok to prepare a parcel to be sent to Swaziland.

MR LAMEY: Then just on that point, you refer to Japie or Kobus Kok, is Mr Japie Kok one of the applicants here today?

MR BOSCH: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And Kobus Kok, who was that?

MR BOSCH: That is Mr Japie Kok's brother, they worked together.

MR LAMEY: So Kobus Kok also worked at the Technical division?

MR BOSCH: That is correct, and I had liaison with both of them.

MR LAMEY: Very well. What was Mr de Kock's instruction?

MR BOSCH: To prepare a pen set which should contain explosives, so that when it is opened and the pens are removed it would detonate and that this parcel should be sent to Swaziland.

MR LAMEY: And what did you do?

MR BOSCH: I went to the Technical division in Rebecca Street, where at first I discussed it with Col du Toit and asked whether or not de Kock had discussed it with him, he said that he had knowledge about it, then I went to Japie Kok and from there onwards the matter began to take on shape.

MR LAMEY: Who physically prepared the bomb?

MR BOSCH: Japie Kok.

MR LAMEY: Did you possess sufficient technical knowledge to do it yourself?

MR BOSCH: No, not at that stage.

MR LAMEY: Very well. In your affidavit you state that Japie and Kobus Kok prepared the device, can you comment on that?

MR BOSCH: As I've just stated, I usually dealt with Japie and Kobus at the Technical division, at the time of composing this affidavit I made a mistake because I could not recall who assisted me with the preparation of the parcel. Kobus's name has mistakenly been mentioned.

MR LAMEY: And you were under the impression at that stage that it was both of them.

MR BOSCH: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Furthermore, what was your task with regard to liaison with the Technical division and the composition of the parcel?

MR BOSCH: From time to time I went to the Technical division to see if the parcel was ready or not, on a certain day it was indeed ready, I took the parcel and they explained to me how its safety mechanism functioned, it was with a piece of dental floss which had to be pulled out before the parcel was wrapped, it would then protrude and the bomb would detonate itself, then it would be ready. As soon as one opened the container and removed the pen, it would detonate.

I took the parcel to the farm, I wrapped it ...(intervention)

MR LAMEY: Could I just stop you there for a moment. This dental floss mechanism, in other words the dental floss piece was a trigger mechanism, if I had to put it in my own lay terms, which would not activate the bomb at that stage but which would initiate a process which would lead to the detonation of the bomb as soon as the pens were removed?

MR BOSCH: That is correct, as soon as the dental floss was pulled out it would complete the current and a soon as one opened the container and removed the pen, the bomb would detonate. It was just an extra security mechanism.

MR LAMEY: If the dental floss mechanism was not removed, then there would be no activation of the bomb?

MR BOSCH: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Did you have anything to do with the wrapping of the parcel?

MR BOSCH: Yes, I wrapped the parcel. If I could just indicate to the Committee how I did it. I wrapped the parcel, as with this item, but I left the one side open because the dental floss protruded from there, so I could not wrap the parcel over the dental floss, otherwise they would have to open it again. After I wrapped the parcel I kept the one side open and let the dental floss protrude. I gave it to Flores and told him that the dental floss had to be pulled out and snipped. I gave him tape to tape it with, and the address.

MR LAMEY: Did you obtain the address?

MR BOSCH: Yes, I obtained it from Col de Kock.

MR LAMEY: And what did you understand, to whom would the parcel be posted?

MR BOSCH: To an ANC cell in Swaziland.

MR LAMEY: Was there a specific name?

MR BOSCH: Yes, there was a specific name and a postal address. I recall that there was a name on it, I cannot recall what the name was, but there was definitely a name on it.

MR LAMEY: Would you be able to recall the address today?

MR BOSCH: No, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: What was your rank at that point?

MR BOSCH: I was a Sergeant.

MR LAMEY: Were you present when the parcel was finally addressed?

MR BOSCH: No. I think it was addressed in Swaziland, and that is also when the wrapping was completed.

MR LAMEY: You say that a black man took it there.

MR BOSCH: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: And you handed it to Mr Flores, who is also an applicant?

MR BOSCH: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And then furthermore, on page 39 you state that the parcel was never claimed and that it remained in the post office for two years after which it was stolen by a postal worker. Where did you get this information from?

MR BOSCH: After the parcel detonated in the post office, someone told me that it had to have been that parcel which exploded.

MR LAMEY: You yourself did not read any reports or anything like that?

MR BOSCH: No, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Can you recall who told you?

MR BOSCH: I think Col de Kock told me.

MR LAMEY: You do not have any knowledge of the identity of the person who was ultimately injured as a result of the parcel?

MR BOSCH: No.

MR LAMEY: Do you perhaps know what the size of the charge was?

MR BOSCH: It had to have fitted into the pen, but I suppose Mr de Kock would be able to elaborate on that.

MR LAMEY: What sort of Parker pen was it?

MR BOSCH: It was a set of steel Parker pens, it was rather expensive.

MR LAMEY: Did you purchase it yourself?

MR BOSCH: I think Technical purchased it.

MR LAMEY: I don't know if I've asked you this already, what was your rank at that stage?

MR BOSCH: I was a Sergeant.

MR LAMEY: Did you yourself know what the involvement of the addressee was, with the exception that the person was an ANC member?

MR BOSCH: No.

MR LAMEY: Could you just say whether in the normal course of your duties as a subordinate to Mr de Kock, whether you trusted his orders or whether you had any reason to doubt his orders.

MR BOSCH: I never doubted his orders and I always carried them out.

MR LAMEY: Did you accept that the bomb would possibly eliminate the addressee who you assumed to be an ANC member?

MR BOSCH: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Did you accept and believe that your involvement and the order that you received had to do with the task for which Vlakplaas was originated? In other words, the prevention of terrorism in the RSA, as you described it at that time.

MR BOSCH: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: Then on page 40 you also refer to the political objective and you confirm this?

MR BOSCH: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Thank you Chairperson, I have nothing further.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Lamey. Mr Hugo?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HUGO: Thank you, Mr Chair-man.

Mr Bosch, the address to which this parcel was sent, you said that Mr de Kock gave it to you.

MR BOSCH: That is correct, yes.

MR HUGO: Did he write it down for you or did he give it orally?

MR BOSCH: No, it was written down on a piece of paper.

MR HUGO: Was it in Mr de Kock's handwriting or in somebody else's handwriting?

MR BOSCH: No, it was not Mr de Kock's handwriting.

MR HUGO: And then you say that Mr de Kock told you that this parcel must be sent to this address and it's an ANC address.

MR BOSCH: That is correct, yes.

MR HUGO: And you say that there was a name.

MR BOSCH: Yes, there was a person's name, plus other information as well as the postal address. There were quite a few things written down.

MR HUGO: But specifically there was an individual's name written down.

MR BOSCH: Mr Chairperson, as far as I can recall, yes, I think there was a name.

MR HUGO: Let me tell you why I'm asking this question, Mr Flores says in his application, page 86 of the bundle, that he addressed this parcel to the Swaziland Council of Churches and it appears to me that that is an organisation in comparison to an individual that you just now mentioned. You see, Mr de Kock says, and I will also put it to Mr Flores, that he's mistaken when he says that this parcel was sent to the Swaziland Council of Churches, because it was another incident that took place. Do you carry any knowledge of that?

MR BOSCH: No.

MR HUGO: But the reference to the Swaziland Council of Churches, does it ring a bell?

MR BOSCH: No, not at all.

MR HUGO: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Hugo. Mr Cornelius?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Mr Chair.

Mr Bosch, just to put it clearly, Security would usually investigate a certain incident and then put through a request to Vlakplaas, as the operational wing of the Police.

MR BOSCH: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: So usually when such a request was made, the investigation would have been completed and the political decision would have been made and you would have received the request?

MR BOSCH: There was nothing for us to investigate or to clarify or to doubt, orders were given and we dealt strictly according to those parameters.

MR CORNELIUS: That is what Mr de Kock has said, he accepted that Freek Pienaar had conducted a thorough investigation and he acted according to that.

MR BOSCH: Yes, that is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: Magopa, Chris Magopa, was he an askari?

MR BOSCH: That is correct, he was a PAC member, he was an askari.

MR CORNELIUS: You have no doubt that the address was addressed to a particular person?

MR BOSCH: Yes, I can recall a name of a person.

MR CORNELIUS: So this particular course of action was an old modus operandi, do you recall the case of Jeannette Schoon and Ruth First?

MR BOSCH: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: Similar action was taken during those incidents, where parcel bombs were addressed to these persons.

MR BOSCH: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: And in the case of Jeannette Schoon, the daughter was also killed.

MR BOSCH: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: And I understand that amnesty has already been granted for that matter.

MR BOSCH: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: If you state in your application that the address was brought to the parcel by a black Vlakplaas member, are you certain of your facts or not?

MR BOSCH: No, I'm certain of it because Mr Flores and I discussed it. It would have been very difficult for a white person to enter a post office in Swaziland and to post something there, it would have been far easier for one of our black members to go, put the address on the parcel and post it.

MR CORNELIUS: But that is an inference that you have drawn.

MR BOSCH: That is correct, because I was not in Swaziland when it was posted.

MR CORNELIUS: So if Mr Flores says that he sent Chris Magopa in to post it?

MR BOSCH: Thank I would accept it as such.

MR CORNELIUS: Yes, but that does not mean that you are correct in saying that a black man put the address on the parcel?

MR BOSCH: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Cornelius. Mr van der Merwe?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DER MERWE: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Bosch, just firstly, you've already admitted that you made a mistake with Mr Kobus Kok in this matter and I would just like to place on record, and it's my instructions, that he was not involved in this at all.

MR BOSCH: That is correct, yes.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Then in the second instance, my instructions from Mr Japie Kok is that this device was tested at Vlakplaas, at the shooting range, to see if it works properly before they send the final product.

MR BOSCH: Yes, that is possible, we used so much explosives at the Vlakplaas shooting range, I cannot say this was this or this was that, but I do not doubt it.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr van der Merwe. Ms Patel?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PATEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson.

Mr Bosch, the address that was eventually given to Mr Flores to put onto the parcel, can you recall whether you handed the same piece of paper that Mr de Kock had given you, to him, or how was that information relayed to ...(intervention)

MR BOSCH: That is correct, Chairperson, it was the same paper that Mr de Kock gave me and I gave it to Mr Flores. We did not rewrite it or anything like that, it went like that to Mr Flores.

MS PATEL: Alright. Thank you, Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Patel.

ADV BOSMAN: I have no questions for this witness, thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Advocate Sandi?

ADV SANDI: Just one question.

Is it not, Mr Bosch, is it not perhaps possible that Flores is confusing this particular incident with some other incident in which the Swaziland Council of Churches was involved, or was the subject of discussion amongst yourselves?

MR BOSCH: Chairperson, I cannot really respond on that. As I have already stated in my evidence, I cannot recall the Swaziland Council of Churches, I remember a name and I remember a postal address. I'm working on the assumption that if it was the address of the Swaziland Council of Churches, then anyone could have taken it, it may have been a false address or a false post-box where the persons used the name and then attached the Swaziland Council of Churches, so that it would not elicit any suspicion with the Swazi authorities. That is my only conclusion.

ADV SANDI: Do you know if the Swaziland Council of Churches was ever identified as a target or part of the enemy outside there?

MR BOSCH: No, Chairperson, I personally did not work on them.

ADV SANDI: Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Advocate Sandi. Any re-examination, Mr Lamey?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Just to get clarity on the last question, Chairperson, of the Honourable Committee Member Sandi.

Do I understand you correctly to you say that the addressee, the name of the addressee would not be an organisation because then anybody could open it?

MR BOSCH: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: It was an individual?

MR BOSCH: Yes, it was.

MR LAMEY: Did I understand you correctly, and I do not want to lead you or ask leading questions, I just want to clarify this, the rest of the address could have been the Swaziland Council of Churches?

MR BOSCH: Possibly, Chairperson, possibly, but I don't know the postal address of the Swaziland ... (transcriber's interpretation)

MR LAMEY: But your recollection is not very clear concerning this?

MR BOSCH: No.

MR LAMEY: I've got no further questions, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Thank you, Mr Bosch, you are excused.

CHAIRPERSON: Is there any other evidence you want to lead in respect of Mr Bosch, Mr Lamey?

MR LAMEY: I've got no further evidence, thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank concludes Mr Bosch's application?

MR LAMEY: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. I wonder if we are following the sequence, but I'm not married to it, it would appear Mr van der Merwe represents Messrs Kok and du Toit, 3 and 5, would I be correct?

MR VAN DER MERWE: That's right, Mr Chairman, but we have agreed that my colleague, Mr Cornelius, will lead Mr Flores first and then I will be last with the two members of the Technical Section.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr van der Merwe. Mr Cornelius?

MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Mr Chair. I think it's more appropriate that we've got the manufacture of the bomb as the last part.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Will we send it off?

MR CORNELIUS: I call Mr Flores, thank you Mr Chair.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------ADV BOSMAN: Mr Flores, can you just give us your full names.

LEON WILLIAM JOHN FLORES: (sworn states)

ADV BOSMAN: The applicant is duly sworn, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Advocate Bosman. Mr Cornelius?

EXAMINATION BY MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Flores, you're an applicant in this specific amnesty application, you properly prepared the amnesty application and filed it with the Cape Town office, is that correct?

MR FLORES: That's correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: You were a member of C-Section of the Police, called Vlakplaas, in what rank?

MR FLORES: A Sergeant.

MR CORNELIUS: You received an instruction - pardon, Mr Chairman, your application is as referred to in the bundle of documents, starting at folio 53, is that correct?

MR FLORES: That's correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: Do you confirm your political motivation as fully set out in the entrée of this application?

MR FLORES: I do, Mr Chairman.

MR CORNELIUS: More specifically on page 85, you give the merits of this specific application of yours, is that correct?

MR FLORES: That's correct.

MR CORNELIUS: Could you shortly give a resume of what happened. You received instructions, and what happened then?

MR FLORES: Mr Chairperson, I can't recall the specific date and time, but I was called to the office at Vlakplaas, by Mr de Kock. Present with Mr de Kock was Mr Bosch and Mr Japie Kok and together with myself was Mr Chris Magopa, one of the askaris, an ex-PAC member.

Mr de Kock then just told us that he had a, like a mission for us to do, we had to deliver a parcel off at Swaziland. Steve Bosch then gave us a rundown of how the Parker pen worked, due to the fact that before sealing the Parker pen package-wise, I had to activate the first trigger mechanism of the Parker pen, by extracting a piece of dental floss till it cannot go any further and then cut it off flush with the box and then wrap the last piece of that where upon that I had to ...(intervention)

MR CORNELIUS: Can you just hold it one second. Mr Bosch explained that the package was wrapped on all sides except the one side which a little flap was kept open with the dental floss coming out, is that correct?

MR FLORES: Correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: Right.

MR FLORES: On conclusion of the explanation to us, Chris Magopa and myself then left for Swaziland. We entered through Mahamba border post, which is near Piet Retief, and travelled towards Manzini. I estimate at about five kilometres before reaching Manzini we stopped. That's when I did the procedures by pulling out the dental floss, cutting it flush with the box, taping the wrapping closed. Listening to the other gentlemen's statements, I was under the impression I did bring in the address or ...(indistinct) the address, addressed to the Swaziland Council of Churches. I could be mistaken there as other evidence was led now.

MR CORNELIUS: Were you given the address on a piece of paper or not?

MR FLORES: Yes, yes, I was given the address.

MR CORNELIUS: Who gave that to you?

MR FLORES: Steve Bosch, Mr Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: And you kept that with you at all times?

MR FLORES: That's correct.

MR CORNELIUS: You didn't have other letters or documentation with you that you could have become confused with the address?

MR FLORES: No, not at that stage, Mr Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: It is possible that you might be confusing the Swaziland Council of Churches with another operation where you had to deliver a letter like testified by Mr de Kock?

MR FLORES: Yes, once Mr de Kock mentioned that, which was an incident performed by Military Intelligence if I'm not mistaken, it did ring a bell. I could be confusing it, Mr Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: You agree it will be nonsensical to send it to a broad Council of Churches?

MR FLORES: That's for definite.

MR CORNELIUS: What happened then after you activated the bomb and you put the adhesive tape on, what did you do?

MR FLORES: We then drove, I drove towards Manzini, I parked roughly about a block away, Mr Chairperson, from the Manzini Post Office, where I then handed over the parcel to Chris Magopa, who then in his turn went and posted it to the addressee.

We then returned back to Vlakplaas. Mr Chairperson, it would be between six months to year nothing was reported on the incident of the parcel, then I heard, I can't say from who I heard, but on the farm from someone I heard that the parcel had been collected by one of the post office employees, it was opened and it detonated and apparently the person opening it had lost a finger or two or a hand, I'm not sure.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you at the time realise you were committing an offence by posting an explosive device?

MR FLORES: At that time, no Mr Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: You knew it was illegal to post explosive devices?

MR FLORES: Yes, yes.

MR CORNELIUS: And you at all times acted within the course and scope of your duties and in the execution of your instructions from a superior officer, Mr de Kock?

MR FLORES: That's correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you work on a need-to-know basis?

MR FLORES: I did, Mr Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you enquire about the reason why you had to send it to this address or anything of that nature?

MR FLORES: Not at all, Mr Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you accept that there was a political decision made by your seniors?

MR FLORES: I did, Mr Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you at all times act in the interests of your country?

MR FLORES: I did, Mr Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you have any personal hate of this addressed victim?

MR FLORES: Nothing whatsoever, Mr Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you receive any bonus of any nature whatsoever to commit this deed?

MR FLORES: Nothing, Mr Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: You just received your normal salary as envisaged by the Act?

MR FLORES: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: You're applying for amnesty in this matter for conspiracy to commit murder in Swaziland, is that correct?

MR FLORES: That's correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: You're also applying for amnesty for defeating the ends of justice, because you didn't disclose anything when you came back to the Republic.

MR FLORES: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: And you are also asking for amnesty for all possible offences under the Explosives Act, which are numerous, the transportation of illegal explosives, the crossing of the border with explosives an so forth, is that correct?

MR FLORES: That's correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: Lastly, when you crossed the border, did you cross the border legally or illegally?

MR FLORES: Legally, Mr Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: With a passport?

MR FLORES: With a passport.

CHAIRPERSON: In other words, your own passport?

MR FLORES: My own passport, Mr Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: Not a forged passport?

MR FLORES: Not that I can recall, Mr Chairperson.

ADV SANDI: I take it that on the basis of what you've just said you still have the same passport?

MR FLORES: I beg your pardon?

ADV SANDI: Is this the same - this passport you're talking about, is it the same passport you used on the day in question?

CHAIRPERSON: It must have expired.

MR FLORES: No, no, no, Mr Chairperson, no, that one has totally lapsed already.

MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Cornelius. Mr Hugo?

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

Mr Flores, please correct me if I'm wrong, but did Mr de Kock at any stage when you were called in initially, tell you that this particular explosive device was to be sent to Swaziland, more specifically for attention of the ANC?

MR FLORES: It is possible, ja, it is possible, but I cannot recall it as such.

MR HUGO: You just can't recall that?

MR FLORES: That's correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR HUGO: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Lamey?

MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chairperson, I've got no questions to this witness, thank you.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DER MERWE: Thank you. Thank you, Mr Chair, just one question.

Mr Flores, you don't have any technical background regarding the building of bombs and explosive devices, is that correct?

MR FLORES: Nothing whatsoever, Mr Chairperson.

MR VAN DER MERWE: So your evidence you wouldn't describe as the evidence of a specialist or an expert?

MR FLORES: Not at all.

MR VAN DER MERWE: It's just how you perceived what happened?

MR FLORES: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Thank you, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr van der Merwe. Ms Patel?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PATEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson.

Mr Flores, there's this other incident that you say you might have confused this specific incident that we are dealing with now, can you give us a bit of information about that?

MR FLORES: Mr Chairperson, I can't elaborate on that. If I say I recall such an incident, in those years we used to have a component called Trevits, which was like an office desk who did the counter-revolutionary acts or all information, whether it was from National Intelligence, Military Intelligence or the Police as such, the Security Branch, where they evaluated the stuff and we'd get reports and at that stage at Vlakplaas, I worked in the Swaziland/Eastern Transvaal area with Chris Magopa, so all incidents regarding Swaziland as a whole, would come to my attention, I would peruse through those circulars as such and I think one of those I recall that there was such an instance, but I cannot elaborate on that as such.

MS PATEL: So bar the fact that the name rings a bell, the Swaziland Council of Churches, you can't recall what specific information there might have been around that?

MR FLORES: Not at all, no, Mr Chairperson.

MS PATEL: Or whether an operation was launched against them.

MR FLORES: Nothing in specific detail, no.

MS PATEL: Okay. How many other incidents were you involved in, of a similar nature, where you had to drop off a parcel to be posted to another place?

MR FLORES: Chairperson, I've posted many pieces in Swaziland, plain letters just to DLBs and that.

MS PATEL: But where we're dealing with an explosive of this nature, how many other parcels were you involved in posting?

MR FLORES: This was the first one.

MS PATEL: Okay. So it would be very difficult to confuse this with any other incident then, of a similar nature? Given that it's the only incident that you were involved in.

MR FLORES: Mr Chairperson, yes, the package as such, but I could be confused with the address as such.

MS PATEL: Okay. Sorry Honourable Chairperson, grant me a moment.

Besides the fact that you might have confused the question of whether it was addressed to the Swaziland Council of Churches, can you recollect whether a specific person's name was on the envelope or the parcel?

MR FLORES: In my application I didn't mention it, Mr Chairperson, but when the others testified, the other applicants testified now, it did ring a bell, so there is a possibility there was, I did bring on a specific name plus the address.

MS PATEL: But you don't have any independent recollection of that?

MR FLORES: I beg your pardon?

MS PATEL: You don't have an independent recollection?

MR FLORES: No, not at all.

MS PATEL: Alright. Thank you, Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Patel. Advocate Bosman?

ADV BOSMAN: I have no questions, thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Advocate Sandi?

ADV SANDI: I don't have a question, thank you Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Flores, you testified that you heard that it exploded, it was not claimed and it exploded in a toilet, do you recall your evidence in that respect?

MR FLORES: That's correct, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: I see on page 86 of the annexure to your application you say:

That would probably be the third paragraph from the bottom.

MR FLORES: I'm with you, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: So you heard, you never received it because there should be a difference between the two?

MR FLORES: Yes, well what I was trying to emphasise there, I beg your pardon, is that it was brought under my attention that we did hear that, I don't know from where it came, that there was an explosion.

CHAIRPERSON: When you say:

would it be similar to what you've heard?

MR FLORES: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And then the last paragraph is intriguing, that:

What are you referring to there?

MR FLORES: Well what I tried to state there, Mr Chairperson, was I presume that Mr Pienaar at Piet Retief or one of the other members who worked the Swazi area more frequently than we did, obviously had to enquire what happened at the, if it was our parcel or what, seeing that it was gone for such a long time, and I think I tried to reflect here that on the enquiry. I can't specifically say it was my enquiry or whose it was.

CHAIRPERSON: This pen holder, how many pens were inside, did you look?

MR FLORES: I didn't open it, not at all.

CHAIRPERSON: How do you know that there was a brand new Parker pen then?

MR FLORES: It was told to me that it was a Parker pen set. Col de Kock will never use second-hand stuff, he will always buy the best and new ones, for any operations.

CHAIRPERSON: Even if when he was out of pocket he would still go for the new ones? Thank you.

MR FLORES: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Any re-exam, Mr Cornelius?

MR CORNELIUS: I have none, thank you Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Flores, you are excused.

MR FLORES: Thank you, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Any other evidence in support of Mr Flores, Mr Cornelius?

MR CORNELIUS: I have no other evidence, thank you Judge, that concludes ...

CHAIRPERSON: That closes the application of Mr Flores. Thank you very much. Mr van der Merwe, who are you calling first?

MR VAN DER MERWE: I am calling Mr du Toit.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------WYBRAND ANDREAS LODEWIKUS DU TOIT: (sworn states)

ADV BOSMAN: The applicant properly sworn.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Just before you commence, Mr van der Merwe, would your names appear as they appear on our documents?

MR VAN DER MERWE: That is right, Mr Chairman, the names are correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. You may proceed, Mr van der Merwe.

EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DER MERWE: Thank you, Mr Chair.

Mr du Toit, your application is contained in the bundle in front of this Committee, the background or the broader background which you wrote yourself is from page 88 up until page 116 of the bundle, is that correct?

MR DU TOIT: Yes.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Your application itself appears from page 116 to page 128 of the bundle, is that correct?

MR DU TOIT: Yes.

MR VAN DER MERWE: You have at various time appeared in front of the Committee and testified concerning the background to the Technical department of the Security Branch and how you operated and how you fitted in within the security mechanism.

MR DU TOIT: That is correct, yes.

MR VAN DER MERWE: And this background you also on specifically page 109, elaborate on this, up until page 111, specifically the position in which you found yourself in at the Technical department when you were requested to support the footsoldiers, if I can put it in that way.

MR DU TOIT: That is correct, yes.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Mr Chairman, I don't think it is necessary to go through that again, I just wanted to put an exclamation on that, that the Committee may just revisit those parts should there be any difficulty in understanding how the Technical section operated as a separate unit. I think it is well-put there, I don't think it's necessary to repeat it by mouth at this stage.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Mr du Toit, if we can then continue to your application. Can I just go further, you do confirm your whole application from page 88 up until page 128, as correct and truthful, as it is presented to this Committee today.

MR DU TOIT: That is correct, yes.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Then with specific reference to your application, we will go to page 123. You have heard the evidence of Mr de Kock and Mr Bosch, do you confirm what they testified as correct?

MR DU TOIT: Yes.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Do you also confirm that when Mr de Kock approached you to assist in this matter, he told you that he had already cleared up this incident or got authorisation from higher up?

MR DU TOIT: That is correct.

MR VAN DER MERWE: After Mr de Kock approached you, did you task some of the members under you to assist you in this?

MR DU TOIT: That is correct, yes.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Who did you task?

MR DU TOIT: Mr Japie Kok.

MR VAN DER MERWE: And he was the only person who worked with it in your department?

MR DU TOIT: Yes.

MR VAN DER MERWE: During this instruction you were in the position where you only provided support services and you had no choice concerning the choice of target or the justification thereof.

MR DU TOIT: That is correct, yes.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Do you therefore confirm the political motive as it is set out on page 124 and 125 of your application?

MR DU TOIT: That is correct.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Is there anything else that you would like to add?

MR DU TOIT: I will leave it at that.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr van der Merwe. Mr Hugo?

MR HUGO: No questions, thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Hugo. Mr Lamey?

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

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Lamey. Mr Cornelius?

MR CORNELIUS: I've got no questions, thank you Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Cornelius. Ms Patel?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PATEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson, perhaps just one.

Mr du Toit, were you told specifically to whom the parcel was to be addressed?

MR DU TOIT: No, Chairperson, the target was not identified to us.

MS PATEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Advocate Bosman?

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you, Chairperson.

Mr du Toit, was an order given to you regarding how powerful the mechanism was supposed to be or was any specific request made in this regard?

MR DU TOIT: Chairperson, I do not have a clear recollection regarding the specific details of the request, but what I can infer is that if we look at the end product, we can accept that the request was for it not to be so powerful that it would cause more damage than damage to the target who was supposed to open the parcel. In terms of the power of the explosion that had to accompany it, I also had reason to believe that the chances of the target necessarily dying, would exist on a 50/50 basis, due to the size and the range of the parcel as I have viewed these in my own personal experience.

ADV BOSMAN: If I may say again, would you say that this parcel was meant to have more than just nuisance value, that it actually had to cause damage?

MR DU TOIT: Certainly.

ADV BOSMAN: And the injuries which are based upon hearsay, that a person lost his hand, would that be in co-ordination with the power of the device?

MR DU TOIT: Yes.

ADV BOSMAN: What were the chances that this device could injure or kill somebody other than the addressee? What I'm actually trying to ask you is, was there a chance that it could be detonated in any other manner than that in which it was set?

MR DU TOIT: I do not have first-hand knowledge regarding the finer details of this particular parcel, I would sooner leave it to my colleague, Mr Kok, who was the specialist who manufactured the device, but what I can tell you is that in every such case there is a consistent effort to minimise the damage and to limit it to the specific identified target and so doing try to ensure that none other than the target would be affected by it.

ADV BOSMAN: I just want to put another question to you. The nature and the dangers of such a mechanism, would these be cleared with the person who had normally requested it?

MR DU TOIT: Usually such a parcel would be life threatening, regardless of the size, therefore greater efforts were made to ensure that such a parcel would be used by anybody, even a lay person, without causing damage to such a person, therefore the parcel was relatively safe up until the point of detonation.

ADV BOSMAN: Did you explain this to the person who would be handling the parcel? That is my question.

MR DU TOIT: I did not point it out to them personally because I was not involved in the delivery of the parcel, but I accept that my colleague, Mr Kok, would be able to assist you with that seeing as the task was delegated to him.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Advocate Bosman. Advocate Sandi?

ADV SANDI: Yes, just one issue.

You were not told who the parcel was going to be sent to, but did you personally have an opinion as to who possibly was being targeted with the parcel?

MR DU TOIT: Chairperson, I definitely did not know who the specific individual was, if they had mentioned a particular name to me at that point, it wouldn't really have meant much to me, other than the motivation and the fact that a decision had already been taken by a higher authority and by the operational team under the leadership of Mr de Kock, that this was an identified target who had to be addressed in a certain way.

In my documents, I think on page 111, there is the evaluation of the justification for what we did at that time and it is more clearly stipulated in that. It was not necessary for us to verify all the information that we received from the operational wing, it was not our task to evaluate to the extent that we were put in a position where we had to decide whether or not such an operation would be executed. For us the technical nature of the parcel and its composition and its safety was the biggest issue and that is where our responsibility ended.

I have no reason to doubt however, that it was a target which had been evaluated, which had been authorised and approved for the process, and that was conveyed to me.

ADV SANDI: Thank you, Mr du Toit. Thank you, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Advocate Sandi.

Just one aspect for verification. This device was consisting of a set of Parker pens, Mr du Toit, when it is eventually sent off it's got to be activated, so that the target, when he opens it, it must explode. In other words, before it's posted, should it be activated?

MR DU TOIT: Yes, Chairperson, the correct term for that would be arming, and this is to protect the operative to the end, to the point of going over to action.

CHAIRPERSON: Just a follow-up on that, this activation, how long would it last, for instance, before the parcel would be picked up?

MR DU TOIT: It is subject to the shelf life of the power source or battery which was connected to the device. I am not aware of the size or the strength of the power source which Mr Kok used, he would be able to elaborate on that for you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

ADV SANDI: Sorry Mr du Toit, just to expose my ignorance about these very dangerous devices, now if this parcel is never opened at all, what happens if no-one opens this parcel?

MR DU TOIT: Then it would remain in that stage and never detonate.

ADV SANDI: Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Advocate Sandi. Any re-exam, Mr van der Merwe?

MR VAN DER MERWE: No re-examination, thank you Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr du Toit, you are excused.

CHAIRPERSON: Any further evidence in support of Mr du Toit?

MR VAN DER MERWE: No evidence in support of Mr du Toit. Mr next witness I'm calling is applicant, Mr J F Kok, and whom we've indicated already his full names are Jakob, Francois Kok.

CHAIRPERSON: Incidentally, the Amnesty Committee has got it right in the application which is within the documentation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------JAKOB FRANCOIS KOK: (sworn states)

ADV BOSMAN: The applicant is duly sworn, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Advocate Bosman. Mr van der Merwe?

EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DER MERWE: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Kok, your application is in the bundle from page 41 up until page 51, is that correct?

MR J F KOK: Yes.

MR VAN DER MERWE: This application was submitted by yourself without the assistance of a legal representative, is that correct?

MR J F KOK: That is correct, yes.

MR VAN DER MERWE: You confirm the correctness and truthfulness of it.

MR J F KOK: Yes, I do.

MR VAN DER MERWE: If we can go to page 47 of your application where you indeed deal with this specific incident. Just before we get to that, you have heard the evidence that was led thusfar by Mr de Kock, Mr Bosch and also Mr du Toit, do you also agree with it?

MR J F KOK: Yes, I do.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Can you in short tell us in your own words about the request and how you became involved in this operation.

MR J F KOK: It is as I say in my statement, Col de Kock via du Toit, requested a parcel that had to be prepared. I then liaised with Steve Bosch from Vlakplaas. The parcel was a Parker pen that had to be sent to Swaziland and they said that it was going to the ANC's military wing in Swaziland. That's how the request came to us.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Were you involved in the manufacturing of this pen set?

MR J F KOK: I'd just like to confirm from my side, they talked about a set but at the end of the day we only used one pen. With the set of pens, there's not enough room in the packaging for both of them, and then again if there are three pens, which pen will the person take and detonate it. So we only prepared one and placed it in the plastic covering in which it was bought and wrapped it.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Can you just in short explain to the Committee, they would like to know how this device worked and how it was activated.

MR J F KOK: As it was already explained, because we were going to send it through the post we had to do everything in our ability to get the parcel there safely and that it will be the target that will open the parcel. So we prepared the bomb within the packaging. The pen was only the trigger that would detonate the bomb.

We made use of explosives - I just want to explain this, we made use of a pull-trigger, in other words a string tied to the trigger would then make contact and complete the current with the lithium batteries that were used, that will then activate a detonator at the end of the day.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Without the batteries in the bomb would it be able to explode?

MR J F KOK: No, if there's no contact or if the batteries were taken out, there would be no power that would detonate the detonator.

MR VAN DER MERWE: And if the batteries went flat, then the bomb could not be detonated?

MR J F KOK: Yes, the moment when the batteries are too flat or too weak to complete the current, it will not work. So our thinking concerning the safety of this parcel was that it had to be a person that opened the parcel and takes the pen out of the packaging to activate the bomb. If the packaging was broken there was a good chance that the batteries would have fallen out and it wouldn't have worked. So we did everything possible to target only the target.

MR VAN DER MERWE: You also confirm, as I've already put to Mr Bosch, that this device was tested at Vlakplaas before it was sent off.

MR J F KOK: Yes, we had to test it because we would not just build something and send it into the field before we know that it works, we had to ensure that it works.

MR VAN DER MERWE: You also then mention your political objectives in this matter, as it is set out on page 49 of your application, is that correct?

MR J F KOK: Yes, it is.

MR VAN DER MERWE: And you received your instruction to take part in this operation from Mr du Toit, who was then tasked by Col de Kock, who authorised it from higher authorities?

MR J F KOK: That's correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr van der Merwe.

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

Mr Kok, you heard what Mr du Toit testified to regarding the power of the mechanism and that he said that it was designed as such that the damage would be limited to the person who would be opening the parcel. Do you agree with that?

MR J F KOK: Yes, I do.

MR HUGO: And the fact that it would appear as if the person who later opened the parcel lost his arm, is that in concurrence with the perceived or proposed power of the parcel?

MR J F KOK: One would have had to hold the parcel as close as possible to oneself to incur damage.

MR HUGO: And the risk of damage to bystanders or surrounding buildings would have been limited?

MR J F KOK: Yes, limited.

MR HUGO: And indeed it was your order to design it as such, so that it would have that limited degree of damage.

MR J F KOK: Yes, that is what we aimed at. We aimed at taking out the target, not bystanders.

MR HUGO: And I think that you have already addressed this aspect, but it was designed as stably as possible, so that in the process of transportation it would not be set off?

MR J F KOK: Yes, we did everything in our power.

MR HUGO: Thank you, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Hugo. Mr Lamey?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Just to add, Mr Kok, this type of bomb that you made with the mechanism and the restriction to only the pen, it is not a type of bomb that you will send to an organisation, meaning one would surely, if one posted it to an organisation's office, who used a specific or office, if you wanted to disrupt that organisation's office you would not use this type of bomb, you would use a bigger one.

MR J F KOK: Well it's very difficult to answer, but I think if you use your logic, as I understood it this post box that was used is like a dead letter box, people are tasked through these post boxes, they receive orders, so it's not one specific person who uses that post box. They do not want to know who gives orders or receives them at the end of the day, but if you send something like that you send it to a person who will take it out and you must arrange it in such a way - if you want to send it to an organisation, you'll probably send a car bomb. The purpose was therefore to target an individual, to kill an individual rather than the broader in terms of the scope of this bomb ...(intervention)

MR LAMEY: I'm not talking about the psychological impact, I'm talking about the physical impact of it.

MR J F KOK: Yes, it is targeted at one person, the person who took it out of the box.

MR LAMEY: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Lamey. Mr Cornelius?

MR LAMEY: I'm sorry, Mr Chairperson, just another aspect.

Mr Kok, do you also apply for another incident, the so-called Manuscript Bomb?

MR J F KOK: Yes, I have it as a pocket book or diary.

MR LAMEY: I do not have instructions from Mr Bosch, but I will take instructions about it, was he involved in both incidents, according to your recollection? ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR J F KOK: As far as I can recall, yes.

MR LAMEY: I will then leave it for that incident. I will take instructions on that. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Lamey. Mr Cornelius?

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

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Patel?

MS PATEL: Same here, thank you Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

ADV BOSMAN: I have no questions, thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Advocate Sandi?

ADV SANDI: Yes, just one question, thank you Chair.

Mr Kok, what was the arrangement in general, you were in the Technical division, did you have an arrangement whereby you would get reports on the effectiveness of the devices you were manufacturing and have them sent out to the intended targets?

MR J F KOK: There was no arrangement for us to receive feedback regarding what had happened, it was very difficult because we didn't know where ultimately these devices would end up, once they were in the structure or the system. With some of the bombs that we were aware of, that we worked on, that went back to Natal and ultimately went off in Western Transvaal, so it was very difficult to keep track of what the results were, there was no fixed procedure to know exactly what had happened at the end of the day.

ADV SANDI: Thank you, Mr Kok. Thank you, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Advocate Sandi. Any re-examination, Mr van der Merwe?

MR VAN DER MERWE: No re-examination, thank you Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Kok, you are excused.

MR VAN DER MERWE: That concludes the evidence on behalf of this applicant as well, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr van der Merwe. Ms Patel, are you leading any evidence?

MS PATEL: No, thank you Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Gentlemen and Lady, I think we're in a position just to make short submissions in respect of these five applications, are we? May I start with you, Mr Hugo?

MR HUGO IN ARGUMENT: Yes, thank you Mr Chairman.

First of all, let me just intimate to the Committee what we're applying for. We're applying for conspiracy to commit murder, attempted murder in respect of what happened in Swaziland, and then all offences in terms of the Explosives Act, defeating the ends of justice and then all other offences and delicts that might have been covered by the evidence and the facts of this hearing and amnesty application.

Mr Chairman, obviously the one problem in this, not problem, the one aspect I think that you need to be convinced of in this particular situation as far as Mr de Kock is concerned, is the question as to whether this particular device was aimed at a political opponent. We say that Mr de Kock was certainly, with all due respect, entitled to rely on what Mr Pienaar told him. Mr de Kock has testified that Mr Pienaar was a very senior police officer, senior in respect of experience, not so much in rank. Mr de Kock has testified that Mr Pienaar has given him information pertaining to ANC activities in the past and which information was of an impeccable nature and he had no reason whatsoever to question or disbelieve Mr Pienaar. Coupled to that, Mr Chairman, is the fact that when this operation was launched, during which the first four ANC members were killed, documents were found on them, and may I say in a compromising sort of situation, in the sense that these documents were found on ANC members, immediately after that, Mr Pienaar comes to Mr de Kock and says to him, "Look, this is the address that I found on these bodies", and surely it's just reasonable, bearing in mind Mr Pienaar's experience, for Mr de Kock to believe Mr Pienaar and for himself to make the deduction that that is most probably a contact address in Swaziland. Mr Pienaar goes further and he confirms to Mr de Kock that this was in fact a contact address of the ANC in Swaziland. But Mr de Kock can't be blamed for just accepting Mr Pienaar's word, because he did more than that, Mr Chairman, he actually phoned Brig Schoon and he told him of his idea and he asked for permission to proceed with this particular operation. Brigadier Schoon gave his sanction to this, and what is also telling about that, Mr Chairman, is that it would appear that Brig Schoon was also happy with the information that was being given to him, and obviously that must have emanated from Mr Pienaar.

Mr Chairman, as far as the question of the Swazi Council of Churches situation is concerned, I think this has been properly addressed, in that Mr Flores has indicated that he could have made a mistake there and that he might have confused it with some other matter. His confusion is understandable, especially when he says that he posted various other parcels in Swaziland to dead letter boxes and that could have brought about the confusion.

As far as just - I'm just going back to the question of Mr de Kock relying on Mr Pienaar's information, Mr de Kock says it was virtually impossible for him to verify each and every item of information that was given to him by subordinates. And once again it must be borne in mind, Mr Chairman and Honourable Members of the Committee, that Mr de Kock was in a unit that was an operational unit and they weren't meant to go and verify information given to them by other departments, especially if you bear in mind that Mr Pienaar was in Piet Retief and working specifically in the Swaziland area, where he was the so-called specialist.

Mr Chairman, then some other criticism that might be levelled at Mr de Kock and his application is the fact that there could have been a callous disregard for the lives of innocent bystanders. We submit with respect, Mr Chairman, that that is not the case here. We've now heard evidence that it was specifically designed to cause injury to the person that opens the parcel and that the strength of this explosive device was such that it would only injure that particular person. There were certain extra safety mechanisms that were built into this explosive device to make sure and to ensure that it was a stable mechanism that wouldn't detonate and go off in transit for instance.

I have dealt with the question of the address and I have also dealt with Mr WAL du Toit's version as to how powerful this device was. So all in all, Mr Chairman, we're saying that Mr de Kock has complied with the requirements of the Act. We submit that he would be, with due respect, be entitled to be granted amnesty for the offences as prayed. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Hugo. Mr Lamey?

MR LAMEY IN ARGUMENT: Chairperson, I agree with the list of offences listed by my colleague, Mr Hugo, I do with to add, although it could be regarded as a competent verdict on attempted murder, that one should, just to be perhaps over cautious also, include assault to do grievous bodily harm, given also the nature of this particular bomb. That is in addition to attempted murder, conspiracy to murder.

CHAIRPERSON: It would be a ...(indistinct).

MR LAMEY: Yes, but I would submit that one could also list it as an offence for which amnesty is given, assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm.

Chairperson, then Mr Bosch was clear in his recollection, that the address that he received, although he couldn't remember the exact name or particulars it was addressed to and the individual, on the probabilities with the other circumstantial evidence, the nature of the package and the bomb, I submit that that should be accepted as the most probable version, that it was indeed addressed to an individual and not to an organisation such as the Council of Churches.

CHAIRPERSON: He cannot be positive because he merely gave a piece of paper upon which there was an address, but when it was actually addressed, he did not witness that.

MR LAMEY: No, no, Chairperson, his evidence - what I mean is, his evidence was he received particulars of the address from Mr de Kock, but what he recalled exactly was, there as a name, the addressee was a name, an individual, but not the address, the address particulars he couldn't remember. What I'm just saying is, Mr Flores in his statement, although he has said that he could be mistaken, he says:

I'm just saying that one shouldn't in the circumstances, in the light of the evidence, infer that the addressee was the Council of Churches, because it wouldn't make sense in the nature of the parcel, because a messenger could for instance, of the Council of Churches, uplifted it at the post office and it would only then have killed the messenger, which would have had no real purpose and effect, given the intentions and motives here of this particular parcel.

Chairperson, I submit also that Mr Bosch qualifies for amnesty. He also had to rely on his superior, Col de Kock, to a great extent as to the motivation and the political purpose of this and he was also not in the position to verify this and had to execute the orders that he received. Thank you, Chairperson, those are my submissions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Lamey. Mr Cornelius?

MR CORNELIUS IN ARGUMENT: Thank you, Mr Chair, I'll be brief.

My client applies for conspiracy to murder and all the competent decisions that may follow from that, contravention of the Explosives Act, defeating the ends of justice and all delicts which may flow from the actions.

My client was clearly a footsoldier, Mr Chairperson, he carried an order out. He had clear political motive. There was no disciplinary action ever taken against him for his actions. The political decision was already made for him. The Security Branch investigated the address and the target, reported it and gave a specific request to the operational branch of C-Section, and he carried out his orders.

It is clear from the support in the past that it carried the full empowerment of the Security Headquarters, about the presence of Schoon and Ministers on previous occasions, so he had no doubt regarding that. There can be no doubt that he made a full disclosure. We can expect that in this period of time, given this period of time, that there might be small little discrepancies like the address for instance. My client testified and he said it is possible he might have confused it with another issue. He gave leeway to that. I refer to the judgment of Judge Wilson, your brother, in the London Bomb, where he specifically mentioned that we should allow leeway for small little discrepancies like this. He had no financial gain, he had no financial gain in mind, he only received his salary and he had no personal hate or revenge for this poor victim.

It is my submission that he should, and I request you to grant amnesty as requested in my initial prayer to you, Judge by the Committee. Thank you, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Mr Cornelius. Ms van der Merwe.

MR VAN DER MERWE IN ARGUMENT: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

I'm not going to repeat the grounds on which we would request you to grant amnesty, I agree with that which my brethren mentioned earlier to you.

As far as the two applicants that I represent is concerned ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I feel jealous, are they not your colleagues?

MR VAN DER MERWE: I'll have to agree.

I would submit to this Honourable Committee that they had the necessary political motive to act as they did when they did so. They acted clearly on instructions. The instructions were as indicated to du Toit by de Kock, as de Kock also told him that it was cleared out with Schoon. Both of them were acting in a bona fide manner. There is no evidence that they acted out of personal malice, ill-will or spite and I would request that the Committee accepts it as that. There is also no evidence that any of these actions were pursued for monetary gain.

I would further submit that full disclosure was made by both the applicants I represent and that accordingly the Committee should be granting them amnesty. It is also clear that they acted in a unique situation in which they find themselves every time they are confronted with amnesty applications, in that they are not able to verify their targets or decide on who should be targeted or not, they are merely drawn in for support, for technical support and have to accept the bona fides of the other role players in this operation. Therefore, I would submit to this Committee that there is no reason why this Committee would be able to find that they did not act with their political motive as stated. I might just add that Mr du Toit in his amnesty application, refers on page 111 at the top, that they always acted in circumstances like this, which we can actually describe to some extent as blind, under those listed impressions there from (a) to (h), which says that they always accepted that it was in national interest, that it was authorised, that there was an instruction to execute an order, that it was necessary to fight the revolutionary onslaught and to prevent the attack on the government's power, that it was on specific targets and that in instances like that, that everything in their power had to be done to limit their actions to have an affect on the selected target only.

I would submit to the Committee that with all the evidence to this Committee's assistance here, there can be no other finding than that, and I beg that you will grant amnesty to both the applicants as requested. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr van der Merwe. Ms Patel, you have no sisters.

MS PATEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson. It's been a really long day for me, so my submissions to you are going to be very brief.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MS PATEL IN ARGUMENT: My submission in respect of all the footsoldiers present here is that they should be granted amnesty. My submission is that they have satisfied the requirements of the Act. However, in respect of Mr de Kock, I will submit that he hasn't satisfied the requirement of proportionality as set out in the Act, in respect of the selection of the target and the selected choice of method of effecting that target. He relies on Pienaar for the selection of the target, however the evidence is clear, the address was gained from a document that was retrieved from an ANC person who had been killed, there was no information as to who would be clearing that post box, who opens the mail from that post box. The letter - well not the letter bomb, but the parcel bomb method is certainly, in my submission, a reckless way of ensuring that a specific target that you have identified is in fact hit in the manner in which you hope that it would be hit.

And inasmuch as Mr Flores has conceded that his address might be incorrect in terms of the Swaziland Council of Churches, he concedes that this is the only parcel bomb that he was responsible for posting off, that he doesn't really have an independent recollection now of exactly what was written on it in terms of the address. My submission to you in that regard is that it doesn't really solve Mr de Kock's problem in terms of the requirement of proportionality, because it still doesn't take away the risk of exactly who is going open up the parcel. And there can be no guarantee that whoever opens up the parcel is in fact the target, as we have seen has in fact occurred in this case.

ADV SANDI: Yes, but are we not to look at this in terms of the evidence? I mean at the end of the day the parcel ends up being opened up by a thief, a thief opens the parcel at the post office.

MS PATEL: My submission, or my response to that is that it really makes no difference whether he's a thief or not, the point is that it was opened by a person other than the target and that is a possibility that should have been foreseen at the time that the intended choice of method was in fact decided upon.

ADV SANDI: What better method could they have used? Are you in a position to suggest such a method, at this stage, year 2000, and we're talking about 1988?

MS PATEL: We have all sat through countless amnesty hearings in which we have sat and listened to various other methods of eliminating one's opposition with a greater precision than was in fact attempted here. And as we know that the Security Branch had a great network within the Swaziland area, they could have chosen another method that was more specific.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that all?

MS PATEL: Yes, it is, thank you Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. She had a long day, Advocate Sandi. Any response? I think only you, Mr Hugo, could have a response.

MR HUGO: No, no response whatsoever, thank you Mr Chairman.

ADV SANDI: I take it that you mean that you also agree that the application should be refused.

MR HUGO: No, Mr Chairman, I'm being misunderstood on that score.

CHAIRPERSON: This brings us to the conclusion of the Parker Pen Set Bomb incident. We will reserve our decision and as the previous one, I personally undertake that it would be written in the not too distant future.

I want to thank everybody. Mr Hugo, I suppose Ms Patel should have included you, both of you had a long day, but we must thank you for your contribution and the assistance you have rendered to this Panel, that we could deliberate and come to a fair and just decision which shall be given to all parties shortly. Thank you very much.

This is the end of the day I suppose and your roll for today.

MS PATEL: That is correct, Honourable Chairperson, we have one more matter for tomorrow.

CHAIRPERSON: No, I meant today.

MS PATEL: Oh. Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Would it be fair to say we commence at nine thirty tomorrow and inform the parties involved?

MS PATEL: The parties are all present here for tomorrow's matter, Honourable Chairperson, so I'm in their hands and yours.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, then we'll adjourn until tomorrow, nine thirty.