Amnesty Hearings

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: We are now proceeding with what has been referred to as the Komatipoort 4 and their application. I take it that all the implicated parties have been informed, there are a large number of them.

MS PATEL: Honourable Chairperson, we haven't managed to locate all the implicated parties. Notice was sent out to those who we could find, endeavours were made not only by our IU, but by Witness Protection Unit members to assist us in locating some of the implicated parties. Unfortunately as the position stands, not everybody has been notified.

CHAIRPERSON: I am mainly interested here in the various Policemen who had been mentioned, they seemed to have mentioned practically everybody who had any dealings with the Force at that time.

MS PATEL: Honourable Chairperson, at this stage it appears that only Holtzhauzen hasn't been found in terms of the Policemen who were implicated.

CHAIRPERSON: Those of you appearing for the applicants, please put yourself on record.

MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, Lamey, I represent the amnesty applicant Mr Klopper and then implicated person, Mr Nortje.

MR BOOYENS: Booyens Mr Chairman, I appear for the applicant John Hendrik Tait.

MR DU PLESSIS: Roelof du Plessis, Mr Chairman, I appear on instructions of Strydom Britz Attorneys, on behalf of Captain Wouter Mentz. I may just for record purposes place on record that Captain Mentz has given his evidence before the original first Committee of five members and that the decision of that Committee was that they will consider his application once further evidence has been heard in respect of this hearing.

CHAIRPERSON: It wasn't in connection with this hearing only, was it? They mentioned a number of other possible witnesses who could throw some light on it, who are not connected with this hearing?

MR DU PLESSIS: Correct, correct Mr Chairman, but I think the judgement said that they will consider the position once further evidence has become available. It didn't refer specifically to this hearing, you are hundred percent correct, thank you Mr Chairman.

MS PATEL: For the record, Ramula Patel, Leader of Evidence. I may just at this stage mention that none of the deceased were identified, accordingly no victims will form part of this hearing, thank you Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: It appears from the newspaper cutting which is part of the papers, that the deceased in this matter, were buried with a number of other people in some hidden grave somewhere, so it is perhaps understandable that there was no identification.

MR HUGO: Mr Chairman, may I also just come on record, it is Schalk Hugo, I am acting for Mr De Kock, who is an implicated party.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Chairperson, may I put myself on record, I am here on behalf of the IFP, at the moment I am just an observer and I hope that it will stay that way, thank you.

MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, it has been agreed among the legal representatives that Mr Klopper will start with his application. May I just point out that in page 23 he has made a cross-reference to another incident regarding the political objective, namely the Sweet Sambo incident. In order to incorporate what has been stated thereon and also to elaborate on his political motivation specifically regarding this incident, an addendum has been drafted and I beg leave to hand it up to the Committee, it has also been distributed to the other legal representatives.

CHAIRPERSON: I already have one that goes on a bit more?

MR LAMEY: Yes, what has been handed up is actually incorporating two paragraphs of what has been previously handed up. I would request that the previous document be withdrawn, some of that has been incorporated into the new document now before Your Lordship and then there are further, also further elaborations in the new document. I would submit that the other one which has been previously distributed, serves no purpose at this stage.

CHAIRPERSON: Except somebody may want to cross-examine on it?

MR LAMEY: Yes, sure.

CHAIRPERSON: We will put in this then as ...

MR LAMEY: What would the Exhibit number be?

CHAIRPERSON: A, I think, we haven't got any other Exhibits so far in this hearing, have we?

MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, then further on in connection with the specific offences which the applicant is seeking amnesty, on page 22 thereof, there is a reference to that, paragraph 9(a)(i). I have - a further list has been drafted to more specifically state what offences and acts he is seeking amnesty for. I beg leave to hand that also up. I suggest that then would be then Exhibit B if that is acceptable?

CHAIRPERSON: This is an addendum for ...

MR LAMEY: Paragraph 9(a)(i) on page 22 of the paginated Bundle. Mr Chairman, just for clarity purposes, there are two Bundles relating to this incident, there is the first Bundle which is the thick Bundle and then there is the supplementary Bundle.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't really see the relevance of the other Bundle.

MR LAMEY: Yes, except that there is an extract from an affidavit of the applicant relating to the Komatipoort incident.

CHAIRPERSON: Where are you referring to?

MR LAMEY: I am referring to the supplementary Bundle which has also been paginated.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, at what page?

MR LAMEY: Page 1 to 9.

CHAIRPERSON: What portion of the affidavit are you referring to?

MR LAMEY: Well, may I just say this Mr Chairman, generally it contains information about his background and then there is also an extract of a previous affidavit which was we assume made to the Goldstone Commission and to the Investigating Team of the Attorney General, specifically relating to this incident on pages 8 to 9 thereof.

CHAIRPERSON: 8 relates to Brian Ncgqulunga?

MR LAMEY: I beg your pardon, page 6 to 7. I apologise.

CHAIRPERSON: What is the point of it?

MR LAMEY: The point is that it is particulars relating ...

CHAIRPERSON: Have you read the original papers, would you look at page 78?

MR LAMEY: I apologise, it is ...

CHAIRPERSON: It is identical, it is a copy. Why the copy should be put up, I don't know.

MR LAMEY: Let us then leave the supplementary Bundle, as it pleases you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: The same holds good for Nortje.

MR LAMEY: Yes, that is correct. May I proceed further, Mr Chairman. The applicant's mother tongue is Afrikaans, I will proceed in Afrikaans.

C KLOPPER: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Mr Klopper, you apply for amnesty in these proceedings for your involvement at an incident which took place in 1991 at Komatipoort, is that correct?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct Mr Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: At some stage without any legal advice, you handed up an application which is contained in the Bundle before the Committee and what is paginated from pages 1 to 10?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: On page 10 thereof there is also a summary of the version with regard to the particulars of the Komatipoort incident?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Mr Klopper, is it correct that beforehand as was referred to in the Bundle on page 78, a statement was made by you with regard to this incident? On page 78 to 79 of the Bundle before the Goldstone Commission, is that correct?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Your initial amnesty application which you completed yourself, was drawn up with reference to particulars which were extracted from those statements which were in the hands of the Attorney General?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And after you gained legal representation, a further amnesty application was handed up which is found from page 11, up to and including page 25 of the Bundle?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: May I just ask you the following at this stage, when your further amnesty statement was handed in, did you at that stage have to your access to refresh your memory, the previous statements which you made, which were in the hands of the Attorney General?

MR KLOPPER: No Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: At the stage of this incident, you were a member of C10, Vlakplaas, is that correct?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: On page 12 you say you were in the service of the Police from the 1st of January 1985 until the end of 1995, plus minus 11 years and you were in the service of the Security Police?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And later you were transferred to SANAP, but this has no relation to this incident for which you apply for amnesty?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: You have set out as found on page 16, 17 and 18, your background and what is relevant here is the training which you underwent, the whole situation which reigned and this serves as a general background which has to be considered for purposes of this application?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: To just point out some certain aspects therein, during your training - at paragraph 2.14 on page 19 - you say that during your training and specifically as a member of the Security Police, you became aware or you were made aware of the danger of the ANC, SACP, PAC and what this entailed for South Africa?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And with courses and lessons that you attended, these dangers were handled and the members of these organisations were pointed out as the enemy which had to be fought and hated and to a great deal, this objective was successful and you also hated the ANC and SACP and you wanted to fight the organisations with all your power?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Paragraph 2.18 on page 20 there were certain video's shown to you, certain acts by these organisations and this was used to indoctrinate the members who attended these courses and furthermore you say that influential persons in the government, and you specifically refer to the more senior members and politicians, often appeared in public to make the members aware of these dangers and the onslaught which was launched against the government and the citizens of the country and according to this indoctrination you also believed that there was a great danger that the government might be taken over through some revolution and you say that the struggle which was fought by the ANC was also aimed at taking over the government and then with regard to the Komati shooting incident, you say that during 1991 members of Vlakplaas were deployed to the Komatipoort environment along with members of the Task Force in order to combat weapon smuggling?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: At that stage you were based at the Skomaan basis which you describe as a military basis near Komatipoort?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: You describe it as a military basis, but is it also correct that it was also a form of Police basis?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct Chairperson. The Security Police who were stationed at Komatipoort used this basis as a base from where they worked and that is how we also used it.

MR LAMEY: During a certain evening, or before I get to that, is it correct that former Koevoet members who were connected to Vlakplaas, were very usefully applied in establishing networks of weapons or at least combating the networks of weapon smuggling?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct. They all spoke Portuguese and most of the smugglers from Mozambique were Portuguese speaking.

MR LAMEY: Thank you. Then you continue by saying that during a certain evening, one of the Ovambo members referred to one of the Koevoet members or at least that would be one of the former Koevoet members, this person reported to Vlakplaas that there was a shooting incident and that four people had been injured?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Then furthermore you say that "many of our members along with the Task Force went to the scene" and you and Willie Nortje drove together. You say further that you arrived at the scene and found a vehicle with four people inside who had been shot, some of them were dead "however, I cannot recall how many of the four was still alive. Willie Nortje and I then returned to Skomaan base in order to send Police photographers to the scene of the incident along with other necessary persons who would normally go to such a scene?"

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Is it correct that during consultation, this aspect was further discussed with specific reference to the statement which you made before and which is part of the Bundle which has been placed before you in consultation, that is on page 78?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Specifically paragraph 32 where you stated that two Ovambo's, Lukas and Simon, arrived at the base and said that there had been a shooting incident "I cannot recall exactly what they said or what they pertinently reported, but I was present. Wouter and I think other members went along with other members to the scene."

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: With regard to the departure of Wouter, you referred to Wouter Mentz and other members who went with Lukas to the scene?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: In your amnesty affidavit you say that you also at that stage went to the scene? Can you comment on your recollection about this, is it clear, is it precisely clear or is there anything that you would like to add to this matter after you have studied what you have said there?

MR KLOPPER: The statement which is on page 21 is not correct, I did not go along to the scene. As you will see later, I liaised firstly with my Commander, De Kock, and then with Engelbrecht and I then also dispatched the photographers. I did not go to the scene at this stage.

MR LAMEY: But you did go to the scene at a later stage along with the photographers? We will come to that later?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: But for the moment, it appears initially that there were two occasions upon which you visited the scene?

MR KLOPPER: That is not correct.

CHAIRPERSON: You were supposed to be in charge, weren't you?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, no. We were two Lieutenants from Vlakplaas. The command structure of Vlakplaas was different to the usual system, if you could grant me the opportunity, I could explain it to you. We had De Kock who was the Commander and then the rest of the members fell below him and by that I mean that there wasn't necessarily a direct leader in terms of the Lieutenants taking the order and following it through.

MR LAMEY: Let me put it to you this way, with regard to ...

CHAIRPERSON: Are you suggesting that when a group from Vlakplaas is sent to somewhere like Komatipoort and stationed there, there is no Officer in command?

MR KLOPPER: There is an Officer in command sir, what I mean is we've got one Commander at Vlakplaas, we had one Commander, Colonel De Kock, the rest of us fell under him, no specific Commander as such like I would take charge. If you work according to the ranks, then Lieutenant Tait was in charge, he was in charge in any case of the whole gun smuggling situation sir.

MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, I did intend to come to this and to lead evidence in chief about the way that it functioned. May I just proceed here on this aspect. Was there somebody who with regard to the planning of a trap regarding these specific smugglers who would make contact with the former Koevoet members, was there somebody within your group who was in command and control of this operation?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, it was Lieutenant Tait and then a person whose surname I cannot remember, they were in control of the operations surrounding the Koevoet members.

MR LAMEY: Was that Boesman Pretorius?

MR KLOPPER: Pretorius, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: You also mentioned that you and Tait shared the same rank at that stage?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: But you said something about a greater level of seniority with regard to him?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, he had served for longer than I had and the person who had the longer period of service, would be regarded as the most senior even if you shared the same rank as he did.

MR LAMEY: Mr De Kock mentioned in his general submission that the working method was often of such a nature that even a Warrant Officer could in a specific incident be in command where Lieutenants were present?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: Is that what you mean?

CHAIRPERSON: Well, that was a particular Warrant Officer, wasn't it, it was Nortje?

MR LAMEY: No, no Mr Chairman, he mentioned for example Nortje.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR LAMEY: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: As the man who took charge on the operational front, other people took charge on other fronts?

MR LAMEY: Yes.

MR HUGO: Mr Chairman, maybe I can just come in here, I can't remember the exact words, but it was meant to be on a more general basis than just Mr Nortje.

CHAIRPERSON: I merely refer you to Tait's application at page 31 "tot op hierdie stadium", continuing there. Have you got that in front of you?

MR KLOPPER: I've got it sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Did that happen?

MR KLOPPER: I can't tell you precisely that that is how it worked at this stage, I can't recall exactly what was said with regard to this incident, there was more collective discussion about it.

CHAIRPERSON: There was collective discussion you say?

MR KLOPPER: Yes sir.

MR LAMEY: What did indeed happen, is it correct that after the shooting incident was reported to you, you contacted Colonel De Kock and Gen Engelbrecht?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: And you reported the shooting incident?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: You say further that you and Willie Nortje then waited for the photographers and the other persons to take them to the scene of the incident?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Then you say that Wouter Mentz and one of the members of the Task Force remained behind at the scene of the incident. Do you mean that they went to the scene?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: That they went to the scene of the shooting incident, you refer specifically - could you just tell us who were the two members who reported that they had been involved in a shooting incident, what were their names?

MR KLOPPER: Lukas Culino and then Simon, I don't know what his surname was.

MR LAMEY: Is it something like Hiranbawasha, the name that is mentioned in the documents?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, that is possible.

MR LAMEY: You say that he remained behind at the scene. Are you certain about that or what is your position regarding him specifically?

MR KLOPPER: I am not certain which of the two remained with me and Willie and which one went along with Wouter Mentz.

MR LAMEY: You say further that when you and Willie went with the photographers to the scene, the vehicle with the four passengers had been removed from the scene and that there were no other members on the scene of the incident and that you returned to the base?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: Can you recall with regard to how it occurred that Wouter Mentz went to the scene after the shooting incident had been reported? Can you recall what happened there?

MR KLOPPER: Wouter Mentz and Dougie Holtzhauzen were appointed at Vlakplaas among the members to manage the maintenance of the dossiers because they had much experience in this and that is the reason why he went to the scene.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry will you repeat that?

MR KLOPPER: Wouter Mentz came over from Murder and Robbery to the C-Section, Vlakplaas, he had experience in murder scenes, shooting incident scenes and as well as the investigation of dossiers and offences. That is why Wouter Mentz went to the scene.

MR LAMEY: I would just like to take you back somewhat - Wouter Mentz was originally a member of the group of Vlakplaas members who was there with regard to the smuggling activities which were to be combated?

MR KLOPPER: Yes.

MR LAMEY: You say that he was a former Murder and Robbery Detective?

MR KLOPPER: Yes.

MR LAMEY: Do you say by that that he has specific experience in investigative work with regard to taking statements and the compilation of dossiers and so forth?

MR KLOPPER: Yes.

MR LAMEY: And he would then also be used generally for the arrest of smugglers and taking down their statements for the submission for prosecution?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, he would be used for that.

MR LAMEY: Just to return to the shooting incident, what was the objective according to your recollection for the two Koevoet members, what was the objective with them? What would they have done with regard to the weapon smuggling?

MR KLOPPER: They would have infiltrated the smuggling network so that we could intercept the weapons before they arrived at the criminals or the persons who were going to use them in violent activities, before they could obtain them.

MR LAMEY: Why were the Task Force members there?

MR KLOPPER: They were trained to defend themselves and because arms were involved, it was expected that some of these members would fire at us if any incident should occur and also to keep our people further away in case there was such form of an action.

MR LAMEY: Do you recall, or do you know, that the arrangement would have been with the former Koevoet members that they would make contact with the smugglers in order to effect an arms purchasing transaction and that this would lead to a specific point where a Police trap would be set for the purposes of arrest?

MR KLOPPER: I can't recall it precisely that way, but there were certain actions which worked similarly, however I cannot recall exactly that with regard to this incident.

MR LAMEY: Might I put it to you like this, there was not an order that these Ovambo members were to meet the smugglers and eliminate and shoot them?

MR KLOPPER: No, as far as I know, that was not the order.

ADV SANDI: What was the order then?

MR KLOPPER: We attempted to arrest these persons with the arms, that was the ultimate or exclusive objective.

MR LAMEY: Do I understand you correctly that the role of the Task Force specifically would have been that during the entrapment, if there should be a shooting incident from the smugglers' side, they would be able to handle such a situation?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, from a defence point of view.

MR LAMEY: At the stage when the shooting incident had been reported, can you recall how the report sounded to you and what I mean by that is did they simply report that the smugglers had been shot or was there a specific situation which was reported?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, as far as I recall, it was a legitimate shooting incident and that these members had acted in self defence.

MR LAMEY: Can you recall that before Wouter Mentz went to the scene, there was a discussion that because of some or other reason that they had been involved in an illegitimate shooting incident, there was a concern about that and that there was a discussion based upon that?

MR KLOPPER: I can't recall that.

MR LAMEY: Very well, if I might refer you to what Mr Tait says, he says that there was a problem in the sense that the former Koevoet members had to be kept out of shooting incidents or situations because this would create a problem and that there was a discussion pertaining to something to the effect that there had to be a reconstruction?

MR KLOPPER: I can't recall that, should the Koevoet members have been involved in shooting incidents, was a matter of concern.

CHAIRPERSON: Were they entitled to carry firearms?

MR KLOPPER: Firearms were issued to them, but I can't recall which one of them had been appointed as Policemen. I know that Al Culino was appointed as a member of the South African Police Services, the rest of the members, it is unsure to me which ones of them were registered as members of the Police Force, but all of them were issued with weapons.

MR LAMEY: Can you recall why Wouter Mentz specifically went to the scene?

MR KLOPPER: As I have already told you, Wouter Mentz was an experienced Detective, he was the person from Vlakplaas' side who would handle all our files and he was also the person who would know how to handle this type of situation.

MR LAMEY: What do you mean that he would have known how to handle the situation?

MR KLOPPER: In order to keep our side of the story clean and to ensure that everything had gone according to the law.

CHAIRPERSON: You told us that you thought it had, that it was a legitimate shooting incident?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: So there was no need to cover up, why didn't you just call in the local Police?

MR KLOPPER: The person who knew how this operated, would first investigate the scene.

MR LAMEY: Could I just ask you the following, because the two members were alone at the scene, you didn't know exactly what could be found on the scene?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And you say along with that with regard to the application of Koevoet members by Vlakplaas, was there at that stage an investigation into this and were there any problems in this regard?

MR KLOPPER: I cannot recall pertinently, but at a certain stage there were problems. Should this have been made public if it was not already public, it would have caused a terrible problem.

MR LAMEY: The fact that Koevoet members had been used?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: Furthermore you state that you sent photographers?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Was that with the objective of taking them out to the scene?

MR KLOPPER: Yes.

MR LAMEY: And you said that you went to the scene with the photographers and when you arrived there, that the vehicle with the four passengers had been removed?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And you went back to the base?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: After that you determined that the persons had been taken to the Police mortuary in Komatipoort?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: You say that later you determined that Wouter Mentz had shot the wounded people on the scene and removed their bodies, can you comment on this?

MR KLOPPER: I only heard that later, I can't recall from who but that is what happened.

MR LAMEY: You say that - or can you recall specifically what the scene was or what the reports about the scene was?

MR KLOPPER: No, I can't recall specifically.

MR LAMEY: You say that Holtzhauzen was in charge of the post mortem inquest and that you had nothing further to do with the matter?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Was there a reason why you had nothing further to do with the incident?

MR KLOPPER: I cannot give you an exact reason for that today, it wasn't part of my operation, I had nothing further to do with the whole operation, it is as simple as that.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you not know that there was a complete cover up going on?

MR KLOPPER: That is how I understood it, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: You understood there was a cover up?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: That is what Mr Mentz was doing?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: On behalf of the Police Force?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: So he wasn't doing anything wrong, he was carrying out his duties?

MR KLOPPER: No, I don't know if you are trying to say that I should have acted against Wouter Mentz?

CHAIRPERSON: I am not, I am asking you what you believed was happening.

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't want, up to now you have simply been saying "I didn't go back to the scene, I don't know."

MR KLOPPER: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you know that it was arranged that Wouter Mentz would go to the scene to arrange a cover up?

MR KLOPPER: No, not pertinently at the scene. It is possible that it may have been that way, but not pertinently from the base to the scene, no.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you know that it had been agreed and that it was put out that it was the Special Forces that had shot these people?

MR KLOPPER: I can't tell you pertinently that these specific statements were made about Wouter Mentz, but that is how it appeared to me later.

CHAIRPERSON: But did you know that that had been done? You were a senior Officer there?

MR KLOPPER: Afterwards I realised that, yes.

MR LAMEY: Were you upset about any aspect in this regard?

MR KLOPPER: I recall that we were unhappy with Wouter Mentz' conduct - when we arrived at the scene with the photographers, there was nobody there.

MR LAMEY: You were upset, you called in the photographers and you arrived at the scene and there was nothing there?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: You also say in your statement that there was great dissatisfaction among the Vlakplaas members, especially De Kock and you refer specifically to Gen Engelbrecht with regard to Wouter Mentz' conduct which was arbitrary, irrational and unwise. What is your recollection about that?

MR KLOPPER: I remember specifically that there was an argument between Nortje and Mentz the next day.

MR LAMEY: The matter of Gen Engelbrecht was mentioned, you mentioned him here, what is your recollection?

MR KLOPPER: I don't remember anything of that, I can't remember that I had spoken to Gen Engelbrecht.

MR LAMEY: Why did you mention his name here?

MR KLOPPER: As a Commander, that is why I mentioned his name, because he was our Commander.

MR LAMEY: Was he the Overhead Commander?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: You say you can't recall speaking to Gen Engelbrecht?

MR KLOPPER: No.

CHAIRPERSON: At all that evening?

MR KLOPPER: I contacted him, but I can't remember that I spoke to him with regard to his feelings in regard with this action.

MR LAMEY: You called him after this shooting incident was reported?

MR KLOPPER: That is right.

MR LAMEY: And it was reported at that stage the action of Wouter Mentz, it was not discussed, it didn't happen at that stage?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Is it so that you just assumed or drew an inference that Gen Engelbrecht would be informed?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: You don't know?

MR KLOPPER: No, I don't know if he specifically was informed.

MR LAMEY: And then in your initial application you say you apply for amnesty because you had admitted to act against Wouter Mentz and this omission caused that this matter had been covered up, you also apply for amnesty for any actions which might have flowed from this and the members who had been at the scene, have also made statements to the Attorney General?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And then in the document which was handed up as Exhibit B, the specific actions, omissions and offences which could be deduced from these facts, omissions, taking any action against Wouter Mentz, about the weapon smugglers which were killed and conspiracy to defeating the ends of justice and murder by Wouter Mentz, by omitting to take any steps against him and after the first shooting incident, he shot the persons who was still alive there, you don't know exactly what the circumstances are surround this?

MR KLOPPER: No, I don't.

MR LAMEY: Then I would just like to ask you the other applicants' amnesty applications and which form part of the Bundle, you have read this?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: I want to ask you Lieutenant Tait says at some stage Willie Nortje took over the situation as such and took the initiative further with regard to this cover up action after the shooting incident was reported? Can you comment?

MR KLOPPER: No Chairperson, I cannot specifically remember that Willie Nortje took over the command.

MR LAMEY: Was he part of the group? And you say it is possible, or your recollection is not clear, but there was a discussion and he was present during the discussion?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Do you exclude the possibility that you could have made any propositions in this regard?

MR KLOPPER: No.

MR LAMEY: Do you differ with the reason that it was to prevent embarrassment because if the investigation took the normal route, that it would be found out that Koevoet members were used?

MR KLOPPER: Yes Chairperson, that was the reason.

MR LAMEY: Can you specifically recall why at that stage, the former Koevoet members, speaking of 1991, why they were a contingent here?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, it was not long after the unbanning of the ANC and after the Harms Commission if I recall correctly, it was the Harms Commission that was ongoing and they did some investigation in the Army activities and Vlakplaas activities.

MR LAMEY: You don't argue if the evidence is to the effect that there was a discussion with regard to a cover up and that this came about but that Wouter Mentz went to the scene and had to evaluate the situation?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Would you disagree that the agreement was that it should be made out that the Task Force had done the shooting and that Wouter Mentz was sent to the scene to arrange the things there, to create this impression?

MR KLOPPER: I cannot recall such a discussion pertinently and that such a discussion did take place.

MR LAMEY: And then Mr Mentz in his amnesty application says on page 38 with regard to the weapon smuggling, that you were in command of the whole operation and that you were working for National Intelligence?

MR KLOPPER: No, that is wrong, both statements are wrong.

MR LAMEY: Both that you were in command of the operation and that you work for National Intelligence?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: He says you now work, not at that time?

MR KLOPPER: That is wrong.

MR LAMEY: That is not correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you ever worked for them?

MR KLOPPER: No sir.

MR LAMEY: And then furthermore he mentions on page 39 that the Koevoet members made an appointment with the activists, I want to stand here with the word activists, this is how he described them? They weren't activists, they were weapon smugglers?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct, yes.

MR LAMEY: And then furthermore he says after the weapon smugglers, on page 40 the second paragraph, after they were shot, Culino came back to tell us and the discussion took place between us where Nortje and Chappies were involved. You don't differ with this?

MR KLOPPER: I cannot specifically recall it and I cannot remember it.

MR LAMEY: On page 41 he says that it was decided by Lieutenant Chappies Klopper and Nortje and they reconstructed the scene such that the smugglers were shot by the Task Force members? He states it there that somebody was in control of that operation and he mentions you and Willie Nortje there, can you comment?

MR KLOPPER: No, I cannot recall this pertinently whether I or Willie Nortje gave that command or instruction, it is possible that the proposition was made, but with regard to the direct command, I cannot remember.

ADV SANDI: Sorry Mr Lamey, this is very vague for me, what exactly is your answer to this question? Mr Lamey has put to you that according to Mr - he says you were in charge of this operation, you deny that?

MR KLOPPER: I don't know, I was not in command of the operation, that is correct.

ADV SANDI: You were not part of any cover up, were you?

MR KLOPPER: I was, I was part of the cover up but I was not in command of the whole operation, that is not true.

ADV SANDI: What role did you play in that cover up?

MR KLOPPER: The fact that I did not make any information known and that I kept quiet and I played along with the cover up.

ADV SANDI: What information were you supposed to have made known?

MR KLOPPER: The fact that I later heard that instead of the former Koevoet members who shot, that it was the Task Force members who were placed at the scene and that I heard Wouter Mentz shot the persons afterwards.

ADV SANDI: Yes, but were they not acting in self defence, these arms smugglers were trying to shoot at them?

MR KLOPPER: I don't understand, if you can repeat please.

ADV SANDI: The two gentlemen, I think you said it was Lukas and Simon, wasn't the report from these two chaps that they had shot these people because they were acting in self defence?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct, but the fact their presence was covered up and was substituted by Special Task Force teams and that some of the persons were still alive and were killed by Wouter Mentz, this is what I did not disclose. This is what I mean with the conspiracy.

ADV SANDI: Thank you can carry on, Mr Lamey, but I must confess that this is generally very vague for me.

MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, I have taken note of your comments, I will just continue with my examination in chief in this regard. So what you are saying is that you did not play a role afterwards with regard to ...

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, may I perhaps just come in here, I have listened to the evidence up to now from my client's point of view, not knowing if I would have to cross-examine this witness about certain facts in detail or not. But the further we go, the more I come to realise that I will have to do that and the more I want to object against leading questions being asked in the fashion that Mr Lamey is doing, sir. I place my objection on record Mr Chairman, this question was a leading question.

CHAIRPERSON: ... but not lead, but a lot of the leading has been and is throughout these hearings, reference to affidavits or applications that have already been made and are before us.

MR DU PLESSIS: I have no objection against that Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I agree, you shouldn't go further.

MR LAMEY: Thank you Mr Chairman, I just want to come back in order to clarify further, following the question from Adv Sandi. Your evidence was here that you cannot specifically recall the discussion with regard to reconstruction of the scene, immediately after the shooting incident was reported?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct, I cannot specifically recall.

MR LAMEY: And in the same breath, you don't exclude it that it could have been discussed where you were present?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct, I cannot exclude it, I cannot recall it as such.

MR LAMEY: If other facts indicate that you were part of it, then you also apply for amnesty for the fact that you were part of that conspiracy?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: With regard to after the incident, specifically when you arrived with the photographers at the scene, and the scene was not there any more, with regard to you, did this meet with your approval?

MR KLOPPER: No, it didn't.

MR LAMEY: And with regard to the report that was made later to you, that Wouter Mentz had shot one or more of the smugglers which were still alive, you don't have personal knowledge of the circumstances surrounding that, but it was reported to you and do I understand you correctly that you with that knowledge, or with what was known to you, you as an Officer didn't do anything about it?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Did you make any statements during the inquest?

MR KLOPPER: No, I didn't have anything to do with this matter afterwards.

MR LAMEY: Do you know who handled the matter?

MR KLOPPER: As far as I know it is Danny Holtzhauzen who handled the matter.

MR LAMEY: Wouter Mentz continues and says that you gave an instruction, he points you out as the person who gave the instruction to reconstruct the scene, what is your comment?

MR KLOPPER: I cannot recall that I gave such an instruction and as far as I can recall, it was in a group. It is possible, I do not exclude it, but I cannot say that I definitely did give such an instruction.

MR LAMEY: What are you saying is possible?

MR KLOPPER: That I may have told him to do it, but I cannot recall that I ever gave him such an instruction.

MR LAMEY: If you say the possibility exists that you could have mentioned it to him, what do you mean by that, in which context must we see this?

MR KLOPPER: In the sense that the Koevoet members' presence at Vlakplaas and the problems which this could raise for us as Vlakplaas members.

MR LAMEY: Then Mr Mentz states in his affidavit, he speaks about the manner in which things were removed from the scene, the bodies were removed and put into the minibus, do you know anything about that?

MR KLOPPER: No.

MR LAMEY: Can you comment on his modus operandi, how this would have taken place? Was this ever discussed with you, did you give any direction in this regard?

MR KLOPPER: The facts of the matter is that I was trying to get the photographers out there to examine the scene, that is how things worked. When I arrived at the scene with these photographers, me and Willie Nortje, there was nothing, there was no scene to examine.

CHAIRPERSON: How did you know where to go?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, one of the Ovambo members who remained behind, as I have said, I don't remember whether it was Simon or Lukas, but one of them took us to the place where the incident had taken place.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you sure they remained behind and that one of them didn't come later?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, as far as I can recall, one of them remained with me and Willie Nortje and took us along with the photographers we were waiting for, to the scene.

CHAIRPERSON: Because they both say they were there with Nortje in their affidavits.

MR KLOPPER: At which place is this? Where were they with Nortje?

CHAIRPERSON: At the scene, and he told them to go away?

MR KLOPPER: No, Nortje was with me all the time.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, not Nortje, Mentz? They were at the scene with Mentz?

MR KLOPPER: One of these two took us to the scene, I just can't recall which one of the two it was.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well I am asking you if that person can't have come back to you later and then taken you to the scene? You don't seem to remember very well what was happening there?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct. I can't recall specifically, but I do recall that one of them took us to the scene.

CHAIRPERSON: Had you been drinking that night?

MR KLOPPER: Most of us had been drinking throughout that night, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Throughout that night?

MR LAMEY: Might I ask you with regard to Mr Mentz' affidavit where he says that they didn't go in via Skomaan, that they went in through a house at the back of the base and waited for Klopper to join them there? Did you join him there?

MR KLOPPER: No.

MR LAMEY: Do you know whether or not there was an appointment or an arrangement for you to join him there, was there any communication to that effect?

MR KLOPPER: As far as I can recall, we had to meet one another at the scene and that is where I would have taken the photographers.

MR LAMEY: Then I would like to return to your amnesty application and specifically the political objective, could you please look at Exhibit A which has been put before you. You say on page 23 where there is a cross-examination, and you want to refer to the particulars below the heading "Political Objective with regard to the Death of Sweet Sambo, including Weapon Smuggling and Violence".

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: The document which has been placed before you, is it correct that paragraphs 1 and 2 thereof are simply a reiteration of the extract with regard to the political objective that you gave for the Sweet Sambo incident?

MR KLOPPER: Yes.

MR LAMEY: Furthermore there is a paragraph 3, 4 and 5 which have been added?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: In order to supplement your political objective. What you say is that

" ... this incident took place after the unbanning of the ANC and even after the unbanning of the ANC, there was political unrest and incidents of violence during which the Security Forces battled against political organisations, the fact of the matter is that there were many illegal weapons going around and they were used during incidents of violence. I also obtained documentation which was handed over to the Special Investigative Unit of the Attorney General of the Western Transvaal which proved that there were numerous AK47 rifles for which there was no accounting, during this time AK47 rifles were smuggled into the RSA via Mozambique. This also fortified the situation of unrest."

Sorry, I have just been pointed out that I am going perhaps a bit fast, I apologise to the Interpreters. Should I repeat.

CHAIRPERSON: Slow down.

MR LAMEY: Should I repeat anything?

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think so. You managed to interpret almost all of it, haven't you?

INTERPRETER: I should hope so.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR LAMEY: You say with regard to your participation in the restructuring of the shooting incident, to keep the Koevoet members out, was aimed at avoiding embarrassment for the Security Forces and Vlakplaas at that stage, because the political opponents of the government could benefit from such a situation?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: The action of Vlakplaas members also came under investigation at that stage?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: With regard to your omission of acting against Wouter Mentz, it would have a domino effect and create a disadvantageous situation for the Security Forces and the Police?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Remind me, I think you have said somewhere and I think it is correct, that was after Coetzee had already started telling stories, wasn't it? People were already looking at Vlakplaas suspiciously and talking about a Third Force?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct Chairperson, the Harms Commission was already under way.

MR LAMEY: With regard to the order and approval, you say that the initial shooting incident in which the Ovambo members were involved, and the actual incidents of this incident, is not known to you. What you say is that it can be qualified as not being directly known to you?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Apart from that which was reported to you?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Once again, you have referred to the fact that you visited the scene and that after you had visited the scene, you did everything which was expected of you in the execution of your duties, among others the photographing of the scene, you also say that this appears to be faulty in retrospect and if you recall correctly, you visited the scene once during which the photographers accompanied you?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: You also state that the action of which you heard later, that the persons who were wounded were shot at the scene, did not take place in your presence or according to your order?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Might I just ask you in this relation, upon whose order was your group stationed at Komatipoort with regard to arms smuggling?

MR KLOPPER: The arms smuggling group fell below the command of Lieutenant Tait.

MR LAMEY: Yes, but under whose command were you sent there?

MR KLOPPER: Colonel De Kock.

MR LAMEY: Furthermore you state with regard to the action against Mentz, you left this up to De Kock, who was the Commander of Vlakplaas and Gen Engelbrecht, who was involved in being informed about the areas

"... it would have been unthinkable for me to take my own direction in this matter and to act against him, or to provide any information about the true events without De Kock's approval?"

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Furthermore you say that such action could have led to your death?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Did you as a member of Vlakplaas, just to question you further in this relation, did you act under secret and covert circumstances at Vlakplaas?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: You have also mentioned a certain domino effect, could you please inform us regarding your intention with that statement?

MR KLOPPER: What I mean by that is that what happened during the De Kock matter, one person would come forward such as Mr Coetzee did, one person would come forward and create a snowball effect, it would just become more and more, more people would be involved, more people would come forward with information and in that way it would snowball.

MR LAMEY: Very well. Mr Chairman, I think that is the evidence in chief of Mr Klopper.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY

CHAIRPERSON: Where do we start with cross-examination, at the top of the line?

MR HUGO: Maybe I should start Mr Chairman, it is going to be very short.

CHAIRPERSON: Put yourself on record.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HUGO: It is Hugo on behalf of Mr De Kock. Mr Klopper, can you recall what time it was when the Ovambo member reported the incident to you on the evening of the incident?

MR KLOPPER: I can't recall the precise time.

MR HUGO: Who were all present when the report was made?

MR KLOPPER: As far as I can recall, it was a group of us and the group of us who were all present there, were all Task Force members.

MR HUGO: And he reported the incident to you, and was it your perception that this operation had been bona fide and legitimate?

MR KLOPPER: Yes.

MR HUGO: Did you contact Colonel De Kock first or did you contact Gen Engelbrecht first?

MR KLOPPER: I can't recall exactly who I contacted first, but if I were to estimate I would say that I contacted De Kock first.

MR HUGO: May I ask you why you specifically contacted De Kock?

MR KLOPPER: I can't tell you pertinently why I contacted him, but I know that it was left up to me to convey this to De Kock.

MR HUGO: But wasn't the reason that you were the senior person at the scene?

MR KLOPPER: No, I wasn't the senior person.

MR HUGO: What was the gist of the discussion that you had with De Kock, what did you tell him?

MR KLOPPER: This was a long time ago and I can't recall the precise details of the conversation but I would have told him that there was a shooting incident, that some of our members had been involved and that some people may have been killed during the incident.

MR HUGO: Mr De Kock's version is that you contacted him and that you told him that everything was in order and under control and that you arranged for a Staff Officer and photographers to go to the scene and that was the sum total of the conversation?

MR KLOPPER: I can't recall it like that, exactly.

MR HUGO: Yes, but you cannot deny it?

MR KLOPPER: I cannot deny it.

MR HUGO: Then you gave evidence that there was dissatisfaction with Wouter Mentz' conduct to the extent that a fist fight almost ensued the following day between him and Willie Nortje?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR HUGO: What was this dissatisfaction about, what was the reason for it?

MR KLOPPER: The fact that Wouter had acted on his own initiative in the sense that when we arrived at the scene, they had already left. He and Willie had a terrible argument, it was near the hotel or a motel which was there at Komatipoort and it was about this issue that Wouter Mentz had removed the bodies and that the allegation was, or what we heard was, that the had shot these people through the head.

CHAIRPERSON: Can I interrupt at this stage and its got nothing to do with this, but it is just - I have tried as I imagine you have, to read the post mortem reports. I have been totally unable to do so. Is there any possibility of getting further information about the post mortem reports, including if there is any such evidence, the fact that pieces of blanket were picked out of the skull as was said by one of the witnesses?

MS PATEL: Honourable Chairperson, I will endeavour to get the documents to you and just to assist in the meantime, if you look at page 58 of the Bundle, there is a summary obviously from the AG, of those reports, so you know, it just gives us an indication, quite a brief indication.

CHAIRPERSON: It just records the death, there is no mention anywhere of the others.

MS PATEL: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: If you could just see if there is any other information.

MS PATEL: I will, thank you, Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hugo, carry on.

MR HUGO: Thank you.

MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, I think what is stated on page 57 and 58 is actually the summary of the essential facts for purposes of a charge sheet, that is how I assumed it to be.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR HUGO: Mr Klopper, just with regard to the dissatisfaction among the Vlakplaas members, Mr De Kock's recollection is that they were upset because Wouter Mentz used his own initiative and performed certain actions without consulting you or Mr De Kock and that was the sum total for the reason for their dissatisfaction?

MR KLOPPER: Yes. The fact is that he removed the people from the scene upon his own initiative and also shot them upon his own initiative.

MR HUGO: Well, let me put it to you that Mr De Kock maintains that he never heard or at a much later stage, he heard that the persons had been shot and that was not the issue at that stage when this upset occurred according to allegations?

MR KLOPPER: That is not what I recall.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I am sorry to interrupt, may I perhaps just enquire for purposes of my client's position, from Mr Hugo if I understand his, what he put, correctly and the query that I have regarding that is does he say that Mr De Kock, that the fact that Mentz allegedly shot a person who was wounded at the scene, that that was never discussed during those discussions shortly after the incident, is that what he is putting?

CHAIRPERSON: As I understood what Mr Hugo put, it was that De Kock only heard about the alleged shooting, long after the incident, not during the course of the discussions.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, I just want to clear it up, thank you.

MR HUGO: That is indeed correct Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HUGO

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BOOYENS: Thank you Mr Chairman, Booyens on record. Mr Klopper, let us first deal with what you have been referring to as the Ovambo's. This squad consisted I am instructed, of about 15 to 18?

MR LAMEY: Sorry Mr Chairman, I don't want to interrupt my learned friend, he has given evidence in chief in Afrikaans, but he can understand also English, I am not sure, but I leave it open to my learned friend.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think anybody has shown him that there are earphones which can be turned on to Afrikaans and that he can get all the evidence in Afrikaans. Could one of you assist him in Afrikaans, programme 1.

MR LAMEY: We can proceed on this basis that the examination takes place in English and the witness can testify in his own language.

MR BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, it is the part of the country that we come from, we haven't really got only one language that we normally speak, I am comfortable of doing this in English, although my client is also Afrikaans speaking, so unless the Commission directs otherwise, I will switch to Afrikaans. Thank you. This former members of Koevoet, there were 15 to 18 of them involved in this entire operation in the Komatipoort area, would you agree with that?

MR KLOPPER: I can't recall the exact number, but that sounds more or less correct.

MR BOOYENS: And in fact, some of them were not Ovambo's or citizens of the former South West Africa but they were Angolan citizens, is that correct?

MR KLOPPER: I don't know about that.

MR BOOYENS: Well, they were speaking Portuguese which as far as I know, was one of the official languages of Angola and not of South West Africa?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, most of them spoke Portuguese.

MR BOOYENS: And you wouldn't dispute it if Mr Tait were to state that several of them were former Angolan citizens?

MR KLOPPER: No, I would not dispute that.

MR BOOYENS: Are you aware that some of them were former 32 Battalion members?

MR KLOPPER: No, I don't know that.

MR BOOYENS: No, but you won't dispute that?

MR KLOPPER: No.

MR BOOYENS: 32 Battalion, just for clarity sake was a Defence Force Battalion consisting mainly of Portuguese speaking, former Angolan citizens are you aware of that?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Now, is it further correct that Mr Culino was Warrant Officer Willie Nortje's 2IC in his combat team in Angola?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, I do know about that.

MR BOOYENS: And that indeed there was a very close relationship of trust between them obviously?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Would you further agree that as a result of this position of trust in all probability, when Mr Culino arrived back at the base camp, that it was likely that he would report to Mr Nortje about the shooting incident?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Have you got an independent recollection?

MR KLOPPER: No, I have no independent recollection, I can't recall that pertinently, but that sounds logical to me.

MR BOOYENS: Mr Tait says that Mr Culino reported directly to Willie Nortje, but he, that is Tait, was present as were other members?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: I want to get clarity about the discussion at some stage of substituting the Koevoet members with other members of the Force. Do you recollect or know whether that was discussed before or after Mr Mentz left the scene?

MR KLOPPER: No, I don't know at which stage that occurred.

MR BOOYENS: If one just looks at one aspect, did you at any stage discuss this issue with Mr Mentz during the course of the evening, that there was to be a substitution of the shooters by other people?

MR KLOPPER: No, I cannot recall that pertinently, it is possible that that took place, but on the other hand, it is not possible.

MR BOOYENS: Perhaps we can just see if we can't get a little bit further as far as this is concerned, you see, if you would be so kind as to turn to page 118 of the documents, this is what is a standard report made out by the South African Police in the event of a member using a firearm, is that correct?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct, yes.

MR BOOYENS: What is the date of the report?

MR KLOPPER: It is 1991, 22nd of March, or 22nd of April.

MR BOOYENS: If you would go to page 119, you would note right at paragraph (b) that this incident occurred according to this, on the 21st of March 1991, at 19H30, do you see that?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: And would that more or less fit in with your recollection of the incident?

MR KLOPPER: It is possible, I cannot specifically remember the time.

MR BOOYENS: Can we say that the shooting incident occurred in the late afternoon, early evening as far as you can recall?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, it is possible.

MR BOOYENS: And if you would go to paragraph 2 on page 119, do you see that already it is indicated there, the very next day in this report, that the shooting was done by persons other than the Angolans?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: So it seems that the idea to substitute the shootings was not only a proposal, but already but in fruition by the next day?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: So, would it be reasonable to say that Mr Tait's impression that the things went further than a mere proposal that evening, in so far as the substitution of the shooters is concerned, is indeed the correct one if one judges it by these documents?

MR KLOPPER: It seems so, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Now, dealing with Mr Mentz' position just very briefly, he was in reality the expert Police Investigator attached to your Unit, is that correct?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: And would it further be correct to say that Mr Tait specifically to your knowledge, was in fact his entire Police career till that time, was virtually involved either in the Internal Stability Unit, the Task Force - I beg your pardon Mr Chairman - Task Force and Vlakplaas, he was really more of - and Koevoet - which were really all more, shall we call them combat arms of the Police Force than investigative arms of the Police Force?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Mr Klopper, Mr Tait tells me that he agreed with the idea that the Koevoet members, their involvement, should be covered up, you've got no argument with that, is that correct?

MR KLOPPER: I've got no argument with that.

MR BOOYENS: He wasn't the only one who agreed to that, in fact was it the general consensus among the members that the Koevoet members should be kept out of the public eye?

MR KLOPPER: Yes.

MR BOOYENS: Would it further be correct that Mr Tait to your knowledge, after the incident was reported, took no active part whatsoever in the further happenings of that evening?

MR KLOPPER: As far as I know, Lieutenant Tait did have no further involvement.

MR BOOYENS: Just to take a few examples, you telephoned your CO, your Commanding Officer?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct, yes.

MR BOOYENS: You arranged for the ordinary Policemen, the photographers and so on to come out to the scene, is that correct?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct, yes.

MR BOOYENS: Further is it correct that you are the people that went out to the scene, both you and Willie Nortje, that is subsequent, after the arrival of the photographers according to your evidence?

MR KLOPPER: Yes.

MR BOOYENS: So if anything, you and Willie Nortje certainly played a far more active role after the shooting incident was reported than the person in charge of this operation?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct, yes.

MR BOOYENS: And are you, I take it that you are also not in a position to dispute if Mr Tait says that he never went out to the scene and he had nothing to do after the proposal was made that the identity of the shooters be changed, he had nothing to do whatsoever with what happened subsequently?

MR KLOPPER: As far as I recall, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Now, just in so far as the involvement of the Koevoet members are concerned, Mr Tait said that the way he understood it, there was a general reluctance on the side of the Security Police to talk about the involvement of askaris and the involvement of ex-Koevoet members as field workers in operations like this, and other Security operations, was that your impression as well?

MR KLOPPER: No, they were used often in actions.

MR BOOYENS: But listen to the question, there was a general reluctance to talk about it, to publish that factor. I know that they had been used.

MR KLOPPER: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: You didn't talk about that? This against the background of the Harms Commission and the Dirk Coetzee/Nofomela disclosures which were history by 1991, says he accepted that it could have caused enormous embarrassment to the Security establishment and as a result of that, to the government of the day should the fact that ex-Koevoet members were involved in operations inside the borders of the Republic of South Africa?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct, yes.

MR BOOYENS: That is why he said he had no quarrel whatsoever with the proposal that the identity of the shooters be changed?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, that is correct, I can't ...

CHAIRPERSON: It was obvious, was it not, that once that had been decided it would also have to be ensured that there were no survivors?

MR BOOYENS: I think that is a reasonable deduction, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: If we have someone saying we were talking Portuguese to people and you have as the people who say they did the shooting, Sergeant De Jonge, Crooks, Laas and Mentz, it is a little difficult to reconcile the two.

MR BOOYENS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: It must have been implicit in the decision once it had been taken, to cover up, to change, that no one could - there could be no survivors.

MR LAMEY: There could be no survivors.

MR BOOYENS: Mr Klopper, when the initial report was made, that is now by Culino, can you remember whether it was reported that there were survivors or whether it was reported that everybody was killed or have you got no recollection?

MR KLOPPER: I don't have any recollection of that.

MR BOOYENS: Mr Tait says that the impression he gained from the initial report by Culino and company, was that they have shot and killed the arms smugglers, are you in a position to dispute that that impression could have been conveyed?

MR KLOPPER: No.

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

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BOOYENS

CHAIRPERSON: It appears from Culino’s affidavit that that is what he believed, at page 82.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman, may I proceed. Mr Klopper, you are the notorious - let me ask you in English - the well-known, famous Mr X, is that correct?

MR LAMEY: I think the remark is from the outset very sarcastic and I object to this Mr Chairman, I think that is really unnecessary.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't know what you are talking about Mr Du Plessis.

MR DU PLESSIS: I will come to that Mr Chairman. It was not meant to be sarcastic, Mr Chairman, if it is taken up by my learned friend, he is misinterpreting me. You are the famous Mr X, let me repeat the question, you are the famous Mr X, is that correct?

MR KLOPPER: I don't know if he is talking about X, it is Q.

MR DU PLESSIS: Q, Mr Q, which we all read about in the newspaper?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Before your name was published? All right, and at that stage you I think were apart from Dirk Coetzee and Nofomela, the only person who was prepared to speak to the Investigators of the Goldstone Commission about the actions of Vlakplaas, is that correct?

MR KLOPPER: Mr Willie Nortje was also there, as well as Dries van Heerden.

MR DU PLESSIS: Can you explain to us what was the reason why you decided to speak out at that stage?

MR KLOPPER: I am not sure what the Advocate wants to reach with this. Members of the Goldstone Commission approached me to give evidence and I came forward and I made some statements, yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: You had a serious personal difficulty with Eugene de Kock, is that right?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct, yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: Can you remember what that was about?

MR KLOPPER: I cannot specifically recall, but I have been blocking this mostly out of my head, and I just want to continue.

MR DU PLESSIS: All right Mr Klopper, I don't want to unnecessarily embarrass you here in respect of that ...

CHAIRPERSON: If it is not necessary, don't do so.

MR DU PLESSIS: No, I won't, I won't, Mr Chairman. Is it true to say Mr Klopper, that at that stage your motivation to speak to the Goldstone Commission was in fact your dispute you had with not just De Kock, but some other members at Vlakplaas?

MR KLOPPER: No, I had no other problems with the other members there.

MR DU PLESSIS: Is it correct to say that the fact that you decided to speak up was because of your difference with Mr De Kock?

MR KLOPPER: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: You wanted to get back at him, is that correct?

MR KLOPPER: It is not entirely so, but my statements was because of Mr De Kock.

MR DU PLESSIS: So it is true to say that your affidavits which you made at that stage, was then spurred on by personal feelings and not just by a desire to speak necessarily the truth?

MR KLOPPER: No. Statements were taken from me and as far as I can recall then, they were correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: You were, your motivation was not just a bona fide motivation if I can put it like that, your motivation was spurred on by your personal ill-feeling towards Mr De Kock?

MR KLOPPER: No, I don't see it as such.

MR DU PLESSIS: That is what you testified just now, can I just ask you this, you also have a personal clash with Mr Mentz, isn't that correct?

MR KLOPPER: I have never had a clash with Mentz.

MR DU PLESSIS: But you don't get along with Mr Mentz?

MR KLOPPER: He was working in my group for a long time, I performed service with him, I never had a personal problem with him.

MR DU PLESSIS: My instructions are that you don't get along at all with Mr Mentz, or that he doesn't get along with you?

MR KLOPPER: As far as I know, that is untrue.

MR DU PLESSIS: We will explore that a little bit further just now. Mr Klopper, you ask for amnesty for being an accessory after the fact in respect of an alleged murder by Wouter Mentz?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Is that correct?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: And is it correct to say that you are the only person in respect of this incident, who asks for that, for amnesty for that?

MR KLOPPER: I don't know who else applied for that.

MR DU PLESSIS: Well, Mr Tait applies for amnesty and he doesn't ask for amnesty in respect of any alleged murder or acts being accessory after the fact to any alleged murder Mr Mentz has allegedly committed?

MR KLOPPER: I did not look at it Chairperson, I did not look at their applications.

MR DU PLESSIS: All right, so you can't dispute that?

MR KLOPPER: No, I cannot.

MR DU PLESSIS: And Mr Mentz himself did not apply for amnesty in respect of such an alleged murder?

MR KLOPPER: I don't have any knowledge that he did.

MR DU PLESSIS: And nobody else has applied before this Committee for such an alleged murder?

MR KLOPPER: I don't know Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: So you are the only person who does this and upon what is your application based, Mr Klopper, let's explore that?

MR KLOPPER: On the grounds of advice from my legal representative, I applied for amnesty.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, I accept that, but let's explore the facts upon which you base this application for amnesty. Am I correct in saying that is simply rests upon hearsay, is that correct?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, that is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: You were never present when Mr Mentz allegedly committed this murder?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: And can you remember from whom you heard this?

MR KLOPPER: I cannot pertinently remember whom I heard it from.

MR DU PLESSIS: You cannot even remember in what terms it was told to you, is that so?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: So you have this vague recollection of some rumour which you heard?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct, it was a rumour, it is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: When did you hear this rumour, immediately after the incident or a while after it?

MR KLOPPER: I cannot pertinently remember, I am not sure at what stage did I specifically hear it.

MR DU PLESSIS: Would it be fair to say that in all probability you heard it at the same time as Mr De Kock, which we have heard now, he says that he heard it quite a long time later?

MR KLOPPER: It is possible, yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: You can't also remember under what circumstances you heard it?

MR KLOPPER: No, that is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: So it is possible that you could have heard it during a conversation in a bar?

MR KLOPPER: That is possible, yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: While people were drinking?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: And talking?

MR KLOPPER: That is possible.

MR DU PLESSIS: There are all sorts of these possibilities?

MR KLOPPER: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: So it is possible that this could simply be some sort of rumour which could have been started by somebody in a malicious way?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, that is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: All right. Now Mr Klopper, when you spoke to the Goldstone Commission, am I correct in saying that it was also to safeguard your own situation, isn't that so, it was in your own interest?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct, yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: And this application for amnesty for being an accessory after the fact to an alleged murder by Wouter Mentz, is to safeguard your options?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct, yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: So you actually say to the Committee if it appears in some way or another, that Wouter Mentz has perhaps committed this possible murder which I have heard this rumour about, then I want amnesty for that?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct, yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: All right, now you see if we start exploring the probabilities of Mr Mentz having committed such a murder, the only way to do this is to firstly look at his own evidence. Now it is not even necessary for me to refer you to that, but perhaps I can refer you to his application, page 42 of the Bundle. His evidence at the hearing accorded with this, Mr Chairman, so I will refer you to this.

MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, may I just pose a question at this stage. It is not exactly clear in my mind in the way that the proceedings kicked off before the Amnesty Committee, relating to the dealings of the hearings of Mr Mentz and others, I do understand as you have put it that the decision is open relating to his, the decision relating to his amnesty application at this stage, I therefore assume that on that basis, Mr Du Plessis is also cross-examining Mr Klopper. Am I correct in a further assumption that on the same basis, it would be open for the legal representative of Mr Klopper, to call Mr Mentz to the stand in order to cross-examine him?

CHAIRPERSON: You could at his resumed hearing question him if necessary. There will have to be a further hearing.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, your microphone is not on.

CHAIRPERSON: There will have to be a further hearing in the Mentz matter at which stage you would be able to cross-examine him should it become necessary.

MR LAMEY: But not at this hearing?

CHAIRPERSON: He is merely an interested party here, you would have to call him as a witness if you want to call him as a witness, I don't know if Mr Du Plessis is going to call him, you can cross-examine him. If he is not going to call him, he would have to be your witness.

MR LAMEY: I will leave that for the moment.

CHAIRPERSON: But we can leave that for the moment.

MR LAMEY: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Klopper, if we can just see what we can work with to determine the probabilities in this regard and we look at Mr Mentz' version which I have referred you to on page 42. He says there, page 42, he says

"... we waited for Willie Nortje and Chappies Klopper to join us and while we were waiting there, somebody I cannot remember who, made some remark in some joking way that one was still alive. They were upon each other and a blanket was thrown over them, it was dark, I took out my pistol and shot at a body. It was dark, I could not see although I hit the body, I don't know where I hit it. I was certain at that stage that all four the smugglers were dead at that stage. My actions can be described as a very drunk, irrational action which I would not have undertaken normally."

That is his evidence. Do you see that?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, that is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Is there any basis upon which you can dispute that?

MR KLOPPER: No, I was not present Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Does one give any credibility whatsoever to his other affidavit at page 112 where he says

"... in the light of the fact that it appeared that two of the black men were still alive, we decided to immediately take them for medical attention".

It is not a very reliable affidavit?

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, you would have noted that there are, every witness here has given two affidavits, or most of them Mr Chairman, not all of them. The one at the inquest at that time and a subsequent one and my submission would be that the subsequent one would be closer to the truth.

CHAIRPERSON: ... is there any evidence?

MR DU PLESSIS: Correct, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: It wasn't prepared for the inquest by the way, this is part of the cover up.

MR DU PLESSIS: Oh. Part of the cover up, as it pleases you, thank you Mr Chairman, for that correction. If we just have a look at some of the affidavits we have available to determine the question on the probabilities if there was such a murder, may I take you to page 82, the only affidavit of Lukas Culino that we have available, page 82 the third or fourth line from the bottom he says

"... I was under the impression that all four had been killed."

You have no basis upon which you can dispute that statement of Culino under oath in this affidavit, do you?

MR KLOPPER: No.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, obviously I will have to argue on the value of this, I am just trying to point out exactly what facts are before you to work with the probabilities.

CHAIRPERSON: I think you can take it further, I say this with

some hesitation, the medical evidence may disagree with me

entirely, if you look at the other affidavit at page 87 -

"... three were laying outside the vehicle and one inside the

vehicle."

That is how they left them. But by the time other people arrived, all four bodies had been put up, sitting in the car.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: It seems to me extremely unlikely that a wounded person would do that, it seems far more probable that bodies were picked up off the ground and put into the car.

MR DU PLESSIS: Correct. In all fairness Mr Chairman, however, you should turn to page 86 where this Simon says at the last two sentences, he says

"... I think there were three of the four who were shot, I did not investigate."

I have to point that out, obviously.

CHAIRPERSON: No, he did not go until the very next day. He goes to the very next paragraph and refers to four people?

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes. Then if I can refer you to page 92, the evidence becomes a little bit stronger, that is De Jonge's affidavit. De Jonge states on page 92, the last sentence of paragraph 10, he says

"... I had no doubt that they were already dead, they had wounds to their heads and to the sides."

You don't have any reason to dispute this?

MR KLOPPER: No, I was not there so I cannot say.

MR DU PLESSIS: Then Mr Chairman, we can turn to Crooks' affidavit.

CHAIRPERSON: Isn't that one of those?

MR DU PLESSIS: He made two Mr Chairman, you will see the first one you will find on page 94 and the other one, page 97, paragraph 10. He says

"... according to me they were killed and they sat there."

That is now when they arrived at the scene - "according to me they were killed and they sat there." You've got no factual basis to dispute that?

MR KLOPPER: No, no.

MR DU PLESSIS: Then if you can turn to page 100, that is the first affidavit of Laas which he made in 1991 and then his second affidavit which he made in 1994, I want to refer you to page 104, paragraph 11. He says

"... we drove up to a point where we met with a white coloured Cortina. Inside the vehicle were four black men. According to me all four were dead."

You don't have any factual basis to dispute that?

MR KLOPPER: No.

MR DU PLESSIS: All right, and then the next one is Blom's affidavit which you will find on page 115 over to page 116 where he says in paragraph 4, the last two sentences, he says

"... I indeed heard that four persons were killed during the shooting and that an amount of weapons were found."

You can't dispute that?

MR KLOPPER: No.

MR DU PLESSIS: That that is what he heard? Then page 118 is this formal document, Police document, the facts are also contained therein.

MR KLOPPER: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: Where it is also stated the second last sentence

"... all four persons were killed."

If you read the previous sentence, it seems that all four were killed during the shooting.

CHAIRPERSON: But that is based on the first affidavits of Mentz, Laas and Crooks, it is worthless?

MR DU PLESSIS: I know.

CHAIRPERSON: Combrink had no personal knowledge of it and this was apparently prepared after they had made their statements.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, I am just trying to point out all the places Mr Chairman, if that is worthless, then I will have to abide by that, I am just trying to point out all of them, and then the last one, you will find in respect of Stoltz' affidavit on page 132, the fifth sentence where he says

"... four smugglers were killed."

which is based on hearsay which he stated in his affidavit. I am not sure when that affidavit was deposed. If I can just come back to the point that I am trying to make, Mr Klopper, it seems to me that in the face of the evidence pointed out now and especially later affidavits which were made by certain of the witnesses, which did not form part of the cover up and on which we can place some reliance, that nobody there seems to be of the view that Wouter Mentz shot any of these persons while they were wounded, is that correct?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: If I can then, just before I finish this point and I see it is nearly four o'clock, take you to page 21, that is your application, paragraph 2 the fourth sentence you say the following

"... Willie Nortje and I drove together, we arrived at the scene and we saw a vehicle with four persons who were shot. Some of the persons were still alive, I cannot remember how many of the persons were still alive."

That you will agree with me is utterly and totally incorrect?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: All right, Mr Chairman, I am going to go on to another point, so perhaps this is a convenient stage to take the adjournment. May I perhaps just express my gratitude in respect of the fact that we started at two o'clock this afternoon.

CHAIRPERSON: Now, what about tomorrow? Nine, half past nine?

MR DU PLESSIS: Half past nine, if it would please you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: All right, half past nine tomorrow morning.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS