Amnesty Hearings

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Good morning everybody, I apologise for the late start this morning, but there was a difficulty with the Department of Correctional Services, but we are now ready to resume.

WILLEM ALBERTUS NORTJE: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey?

EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: (continued) Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Nortje, yesterday with the adjournment, we were dealing with Mr Maponya, when Mr Maponya was abducted and taken to Vlakplaas. Can you briefly tell us at which stage, I accept that you also went to Vlakplaas?

MR NORTJE: That is correct Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Who accompanied you in the vehicle that you drove?

MR NORTJE: As far as I recall, Mr Van der Walt was with me.

MR LAMEY: You arrived at Vlakplaas and what did you find there? Who was already there?

MR NORTJE: The black members had already gone to the river with Maponya and it is unclear to me who had all stopped at the farm, but I went down to the river because they told me that the kombi had gone down with the people, with Maponya and Van der Walt and I went down to the river and we arrived there and as far as I can recall, Maponya was still sitting in the bus and the blacks were questioning him. The other members arrived at some stage and I know Kleynhans was there, Dunkley arrived there.

MR LAMEY: Can you recall whether Kleynhans and Dunkley arrived there after you?

MR NORTJE: I imagine that they arrived there just after I did.

MR LAMEY: But what you are basically saying is that - and De Kock, was he there when you arrived?

MR NORTJE: I am not sure, I imagine he arrived just after me.

MR LAMEY: And you say that Maponya was at that stage still in the bus?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: What had happened there then? I apologise Mr Chairperson, it appears that the microphone was not on.

MR NORTJE: Maponya was lying in the mini-bus, his hands were tied behind his back and my recollection is that there was a balaclava on his head. The assault took place there, they slapped him with their hands and punched him with their fists and I said that they kicked him, but I cannot see where there were space in the mini-bus to kick him, if I think about it, but he was assaulted there. Up to a stage, he did not want to talk, he may have said something to the black members, but they addressed him in his own language as far as I can recall and if I could sketch the situation, at that stage we did not want him to know that there were whites involved with the abduction, because he did not see any white person, so I think that was in our minds that the whites would keep back a little and let the blacks interrogate him in his own language first. At some stage when it seemed that he did not want to tell us where his brother was, because that was what the interrogation was about, as to the whereabouts of his brother, and then Mr De Kock, at some stage, asked me if I did not have any teargas and I told him that I did have a container in the vehicle. Other things could have happened in between, but that is how I recall it. At that stage I believe that we had forgotten about the case that he should not have it in his mind that there were whites as well, and Mr De Kock sprayed him with the teargas as far as I can recall. He lifted the balaclava up and sprayed it into his mouth, that is how I recall it and when he sprayed it the first time, everybody climbed out because we could not tolerate it.

MR LAMEY: When you speak about the first time, was that in the mini-bus?

MR NORTJE: That is how I recall it.

MR LAMEY: And the time you gave him the canister, where was Maponya then?

MR NORTJE: No, I recall he was in the mini-bus.

MR LAMEY: Very well?

MR NORTJE: And then after a while, somebody opened the door and he was taken out. He was once again slapped and questions put to him, but my recollection is that he was not terribly assaulted as I have seen assaults. There was no blood, he may have been bruised, but that is my opinion. I cannot say that he was so seriously assaulted, but it was clear that he would not talk. But this all happened in the matter of half an hour as far as I can remember, the whole procedure. I know that Kleynhans was standing there and he also asked questions, but no information was forthcoming, whatever information they wanted was not forthcoming and at a stage we realised that he was not going to talk.

MR LAMEY: Before we get to that point, can you recall which members and I refer to the white members and black members, were physically involved in this assault?

MR NORTJE: I can recall that Simon did most of the questioning.

MR LAMEY: Which Simon?

MR NORTJE: Simon Radebe, that he did most of the questioning and Almond was present. I think they put most of the questions to him and then they slapped him.

MR LAMEY: Were any askaris present?

MR NORTJE: Yes, there were and I want to imagine Mzimande was also there, I don't know where he was sitting but I think he was there. I can vaguely recall that he was there, but Nofomela was there.

MR LAMEY: Very well, that is what you can recall?

MR NORTJE: I know there were other members there, black members.

MR LAMEY: So you say no information was forthcoming from Japie?

MR NORTJE: There was no information forthcoming that would have helped Dunkley at that stage, or at any stage.

MR LAMEY: What happened further?

MR NORTJE: As far as I can recall, Mr De Kock said at some stage "let us leave it there, it would not help that we continue" and we discussed it, he and I discussed it and he said that it did not seem that we were getting anything from the man. He had a conversation with Dunkley and Kleynhans because they were standing close by and after the conversation that he had with them, and at that stage I already had the idea or Mr De Kock had told me that we must make another plan, I am not saying that was his specific words, but that is what I had inferred and he also told Dunkley and Kleynhans that, let met put it in the following way, the idea developed at that stage that, or I had the idea that he would be killed. We could not release him, he was assaulted, there might be a chance that he could lay a charge of assault at a Police station, and the idea was that we could not release him. I would say that Mr De Kock and I discussed this matter and as I understood it, it was that the idea came from him because I could not have taken such decisions. He in any case told Dunkley and Kleynhans that, or he asked them if they wanted to accompany us if we take him, to take him out. I was not present when he said this, but he came to me and said that they were not interested. They were not interested in coming along, but it would be better because they would just be in the way or something to that effect, words to that effect were said to me by him, and if I recall correctly, he told the blacks to take Maponya to the house and at this stage, the balaclava was soaked in teargas but it had dissipated by that time but it was still over his head and he told them to take him to the house and tell Matthews, give him some pain tablets or some medicines.

MR LAMEY: Was the balaclava removed?

MR NORTJE: No, I don't believe it would have been removed at that stage. Maybe during the process, but I am not sure and we withdrew from there. He was taken into the house and I was not there, but I know what happened, that was told to me later and ...

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Nortje, sorry to interrupt, this balaclava that Mr Maponya was wearing, was it a typical balaclava, could he see with it, it had the eyes?

MR NORTJE: Yes, as far as I can recall, the balaclava was turned around.

CHAIRPERSON: Turned around, so he couldn't see properly through it and that was as far as you know, except for the occasion when it was lifted to spray the teargas, was on him the whole time?

MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: So what was the difficulty about identification then?

MR NORTJE: The fact that he had seen the people who had abducted him in the vehicle in Krugersdorp, that is the idea that we discussed there, but a decision came there and I have to be honest, it came from - Mr De Kock made me understand, I understood it from him that from there onwards, he would have to go.

MR LAMEY: Very well. You say he was taken into a room in the house?

MR NORTJE: That is correct. There he was treated and food was given to him and the labourer that was there, I know his name was Matthews. Matthews looked after him and Mr De Kock then, the members who were there at the farm, the other members who were on the farm, had already gone home, but the members who were involved there, Mr De Kock told them that they did not have to return to the farm the following day.

MR LAMEY: With regard to the treatment of Maponya thereafter, except for the food and place to sleep, what else was given to him?

MR NORTJE: I think they gave him some pain killers.

MR LAMEY: You say in your statement that his wounds were treated.

MR NORTJE: He did not have any open wounds, I meant the bruises, they might have given him some ointment or pain killers.

MR LAMEY: But your recollection is that there was treatment?

MR NORTJE: Yes, there was definitely treatment, but no serious, he did not need serious medical treatment at that stage because he was not bleeding. His nose might have been bleeding or his lip might have been bleeding, but he was not seriously injured.

MR LAMEY: And you say at a stage, rather what happened further, you say - you were at a point where, were any instructions given to any members to depart or what was the situation?

MR NORTJE: Yes, the black members then departed and I assumed that we must have hung around at the farm and discussed the situation.

MR LAMEY: If you speak about us, who is us?

MR NORTJE: It is Mr De Kock and myself and Fourie and Van der Walt and maybe Kleynhans and Dunkley, I think they might have remained, that was my logical inference.

MR LAMEY: But the black members, what about them?

MR NORTJE: No, they departed. Mr De Kock told them that they could go home and they did not have to come in the following day. They should continue with their own things. I don't think that they realised what would happen further and we, I cannot recall that we discussed anything with them further on about our plans.

MR LAMEY: Very well, did you receive any instruction from Mr De Kock with regard to the following day?

MR NORTJE: I think the following discussion was about where we would take him. Now I cannot recall whether he told me then about thinking of taking him to Swaziland, that was my logical inference that we might have discussed it, but he told me that he would first discuss it with Brigadier Schoon or inform Brigadier Schoon and I assumed that that would be the following morning. We went home, I don't know what he told the other members, but I imagine that he told them to return later that day, that was Fourie and Van der Walt, and I cannot recall whether we ...

MR LAMEY: This was later the following day?

MR NORTJE: No, this was the same evening.

MR LAMEY: But he said they should return later the following day?

MR NORTJE: I think that he might have given them a time, but I am not sure. I want to imagine something like that.

MR LAMEY: Very well.

MR NORTJE: I must have gone home from there and he went home. At that time, we lived in the same, yes, we lived in the same apartment block, but I cannot recall that we drove the same vehicle. The following morning I went to the farm as far as I can recall. I don't know whether he told me that I must tell the blacks who would arrive at the farm that they must also leave because our problems was that we could not have them realise that we were detaining somebody there, the black man who was treating and looking after Maponya, was a trustee of Mr De Kock and he would not have told Mr De Kock about this, but he might have left me a message and called me and told me "tell the other people to go home." This is just a logical inference that I make, I think this is what happened and then he arrived at the farm at some stage. My time might be out a little bit, it must have been about ten o'clock or eleven o'clock. Then he told me when he arrived there "get me Freek, Freek Pienaar from Piet Retief."

MR LAMEY: What did Freek Pienaar do in Piet Retief?

MR NORTJE: Freek Pienaar was the Commander of the Security Branch at Piet Retief. Later on I got to know Freek quite well, but I didn't know him at that stage. I think at some stage, I must have been working in the Swaziland, vicinity of the Swaziland border, but I knew exactly who was Freek Pienaar. I called him and I was still in the rondawel or in the hut that was there on the farm, and I told him that "Colonel De Kock wants to speak to him", but I knew what Mr De Kock would tell him or the request that Mr De Kock would direct at him, but I was not there when the conversation took place and when he came out he told me Freek would find a place for us, meaning that Freek would find a place in Swaziland where we could leave the body and the purpose thereof, or that was the perception that we had, that he had, was that the Swazi Police was not as on our side, if they find a body in investigation is launched. They would not bother to try to identify the body. But I also had the idea and he must have told me or I assumed I think, I cannot pertinently recall that Brigadier Schoon said it is okay, we can continue, I always assumed what he told me was the truth. I believed him blindly and my loyalty was also just blind loyalty.

MR LAMEY: As I understand, he went to Security Head Office, did he usually go to Security Head Office and he returned and you accepted that he had had discussions with Brigadier Schoon?

MR NORTJE: I did not go and ask him "listen, what did the people say, can we take this man away", I just accepted what he said was right and we would continue. I don't know, that is why I am not sure whether we sent the blacks or whether I sent them away beforehand, but the blacks were sent away, there was nobody there besides the two labourers. There might have been one or two other whites there, I am not sure. He told me that we must make some preparations, we would leave late that afternoon and that we would arrive there in the evening and he told me that I must get some petrol. We had some jerrycans there that we had for petrol. I went to the closest petrol station and I imagine that we filled up two jerrycans because we realised that the vehicle was heavy on fuel and we could not drive all the way there without filling gas and we could not fill gas anywhere along the way. The vehicle was a "funds vehicle" as far as I can recall, it was not an SAP vehicle and later I realised that it had to be the new Land Cruiser which we had just acquired.

MR LAMEY: Very well?

MR NORTJE: He told me to load a spade, I don't know whether it was a spade and a pick-axe, but I just recall the spade and he told me to take along the Uzzi with the silencer. I did not go immediately and fetch these things because I told him that I have to get the gas first, but I did this during the course of the afternoon. I am not sure whether I spoke to Eugene Fourie or called them, I am not sure, I want to imagine something like that, but in any case in my statement I say 17H00, but it must have been later, because I recall it was roundabout twilight when they had already arrived there, Fourie and Van der Walt, because they knew they had to come there. I imagine Van der Walt and Fourie fetched Maponya from the room and we placed a blanket on the floor of the vehicle and we stopped in front of the kitchen, the entrance was directly to the house and we stopped right in front of the house.

MR LAMEY: Close to the kitchen?

MR NORTJE: Yes, close to the kitchen and then we placed a blanket and they brought him out. Possibly, I walked with them, I am not sure. We made him lie down in between the front seats and back seats, his hands were cuffed behind his back and at that stage, I thought about this a lot, but at that stage, his eyes were covered again, but usually we had these gagging bandages that we had there, that we used for large injuries, so he was blindfolded again. I don't believe that he would have had the balaclava on because the balaclava was saturated with teargas and this must have been removed the previous evening any way. From there, we drove but it was already getting dark when we left. In the vehicle it was the four of us plus Maponya plus the extra gas, plus the Uzzi and the spade and possibly the pick-axe, but I can only recall the spade. We did not talk much in the vehicle, we might have spoken because Maponya was laying on the floor and there was noise in the vehicle, but we did not specifically discuss what we would do and he did not know what was going to happen to him. From Pretoria to Piet Retief ...

MR LAMEY: What you are saying is that no specific discussion was held where he could surmise what would happen?

MR NORTJE: We wanted to keep it quiet.

MR LAMEY: But you don't know what was going on in his mind?

MR NORTJE: No. When we arrived at Piet Retief, we went straight to Freek Pienaar's house, I recall that he came out of the house when we stopped there. He was waiting for us.

MR LAMEY: What time did you arrive at Piet Retief?

MR NORTJE: I think it was about eleven o'clock, in the vicinity of eleven o'clock.

MR LAMEY: Was he waiting for you there?

MR NORTJE: Yes, he was waiting for us there, when we stopped there, he came out. I want to remember that he climbed in in front between Mr De Kock and I, because I think that that would have been the logical place for him to sit because he had to show us the way and we could have spoken to him without Maponya hearing, because once again the drone of the vehicle would have covered up our conversation. I would not say that we would have talked so he could hear what we were saying.

MR LAMEY: Please tell me, who was driving the vehicle to Piet Retief?

MR NORTJE: I was driving the vehicle.

MR LAMEY: And from Piet Retief?

MR NORTJE: I was still driving.

MR LAMEY: And Freek Pienaar was there?

MR NORTJE: Yes, I imagine that he was sitting between the two of us.

MR LAMEY: If you say you imagine, you say, you talk about the position where he was sitting?

MR NORTJE: I think that he was sitting between the two of us. That is a logical inference I draw because he would have wanted to discuss the thing with Mr De Kock, because he would not have sat at the back seat and Mr Maponya being, laying on the floor behind the two front seats, so I would imagine he would have sat in front.

MR LAMEY: What happened further on?

MR NORTJE: He showed the way to Nesden or he mentioned Amsterdam, but we drove in that direction. Close to Nesden or just before you get Nesden ...

MR LAMEY: May I just interrupt you here, did you load any equipment at Freek Pienaar's place?

MR NORTJE: No, under no circumstances.

MR LAMEY: No garden equipment, nothing like that?

MR NORTJE: No.

MR LAMEY: So you drove in the direction of Nesden?

MR NORTJE: Well, first to Amsterdam.

MR LAMEY: Is this on the way to Nesden, you find Amsterdam?

MR NORTJE: You go to Amsterdam first and then you turn off to Nesden.

MR LAMEY: So you pass Amsterdam?

MR NORTJE: Pass the town or through the town and then you get a road that turns to the right that goes to Nesden. When we arrived at Nesden ...

MR LAMEY: What is Nesden?

MR NORTJE: Nesden is a border post on the Swaziland border. There we turned right, just before the Police station, about 80 or 100 paces, there is a road that turns off and it runs parallel to the lights of the fence and then we went into the plantation. I have been at Nesden, but I have never been down there, so I did not know the vicinity quite that well.

MR LAMEY: Was it a tarred road or a gravel road?

MR NORTJE: It was a kind of a trail, a bush road. We did not see any persons or cars at the Police station because you get the houses first and then further on, one gets the border post.

MR MALAN: Excuse me, did you say you drove pass the lights of the fence?

MR NORTJE: Yes, there are these yellow lights that shine. The fence runs around the Police station and the houses.

CHAIRPERSON: And Nesden border post is not a 24 post, is it, it closes?

MR NORTJE: I think it closes at ten, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: These lights, do they run, the road, does it run parallel down the fence?

MR NORTJE: Yes, it goes down but away from the house, it turns away.

MR LAMEY: And the lights?

MR NORTJE: The car's lights?

MR LAMEY: No, the lights, the border lights?

MR NORTJE: Yes, the border lights were lit, the fence lights. At some stage we killed the headlights of the car, I think we only drove with the parking lights. We came closer to the border fence, because one could see that the fence was on the left hand side and we knew where we were.

MR LAMEY: How far was that? How far did you drive?

MR NORTJE: It wasn't very far, I estimated about, I think we said five kilometres, but it must have been three kilometres, we drove and we drove until we could not see the lights from the Police station which was behind us, any more, because there were hills that we had to go over and we drove up to a stage where we could not see any more lights and then Freek said we must stop. I assumed then that he knew exactly where we were because that is why he accompanied us. We embarked from the vehicle, I took the Uzzi and I also had a pistol and I had a torch, a small torch which I carried in my pocket. I took the Uzzi and I am not sure, I think Mr De Kock carried the spade.

MR LAMEY: Where did you stop the vehicle?

MR NORTJE: We just stopped in the middle of the road, next to the fence, on the right hand side there was a plantation and the border fence was about 20, 30 paces from us, to our left. We took Maponya out, I took him by his arm, he was still cuffed and his eyes were still blindfolded. I think Mr Freek Pienaar and Mr De Kock went on ahead to the border fence. Fourie and I, I am not sure whether he was holding on to Maponya, Van der Walt was also there, and we all climbed through the fence and then I think I told Van der Walt to, or whether Mr De Kock told him to remain with the vehicle, because we thought about it that we could not leave the vehicle there, if somebody had arrived there or if there was a car, then somebody had to warn us because we were parked right in the middle of the road. We stopped or we kept on walking, we went through the fence.

MR LAMEY: Mr Van der Walt then remained behind?

MR NORTJE: Yes, I don't know whether he went back through the fence or whether he stayed on that side of the fence, but he remained behind.

MR LAMEY: So, who continued further on?

MR NORTJE: Freek Pienaar, Mr De Kock, Mr Fourie and I and Mr Maponya.

MR LAMEY: So you continued?

MR NORTJE: Yes, we walked into the bush and about 50, we walked in about 50 paces, it was dark, it was not raining it was misty, it was wet, but it did not rain. There was no serious drops of water falling on us, but as I thought about it afterwards, if it was so misty and the moon was out, if you stop before the plantation, it looks as if it is pitch black within the plantation and once you are in the plantation and the light is from above, it is not so dark so that you cannot see your hand before your eyes because of the clouds, some light shines through so it must have been the moon, some light did shine through. I could see what we were doing there. I could not see any fine details, but I could see there was De Kock standing, and there was Fourie and I knew I had Maponya with me.

MR MALAN: Excuse me Mr Nortje, you speak of bush and plantation, you say where you stopped, there was a plantation to your right on the South African side, you went through the fence and then you came before the bush. Was that also a plantation?

MR NORTJE: As I recall it, it was not as neat as it was on the other side.

MR MALAN: But it was a planted plantation?

MR NORTJE: Yes. Yes, it was a plantation of Eucalyptus trees. We then stopped there and what I can recall is that Mr De Kock started cleaning a place there where we would place him, he did not start digging, he just cleared the area, but maybe he must have started digging and realised that the ground was too hard, but we did not stand there digging and going on, but I kept Japie away, because I did not want him to hear that there was a hole being dug for him. I think I waited for him to clear the place. The distance was about six or seven paces, maybe eight. But at that stage, I had already made Japie go down on his knees.

MR LAMEY: May I just ask you, who would have, how would Japie have been killed?

MR NORTJE: Well, I had to shoot him.

MR LAMEY: With what, with which weapon?

MR NORTJE: With the Uzzi.

MR LAMEY: With the silencer?

MR NORTJE: Yes, that was my task at that stage.

MR LAMEY: Very well. I beg your pardon, I interrupted you, you said something about knees.

MR NORTJE: Yes, I stood behind him while he was on his knees. Mr De Kock and the others were still busy with Freek Pienaar, there were thick leaves, they were trying to dig the hole and I realised that I would have to do something. At that stage I could not succeed because I had to load the weapon first, it did not have a lock action, you had to cock the gun and I had the idea that I would have to hit him unconscious first because then it would be easier. I did not cock the gun, I turned it around and struck him at the back of the head while he stood there. Mr De Kock and the others were basically diagonally behind me, they didn't see when I did it, they heard the blow and he thought that I had fired, it made almost the same noise to him. When I struck him, Japie fell. He made some sort of a sound and I walked closer, that is when I wanted to cock the gun and then it didn't want to. I couldn't realise what was wrong, but at the same time, Japie came up with his hands behind his back, he came up and Mr De Kock came over and took the spade and hit him, but he must have hit him over the head, I didn't see the wound immediately, but he hit him and he collapsed. I think that he gave him two or three blows, but he definitely hit him more than once. At that stage, I switched on my torch to see what the problem was and that is when I realised that the cover was broken and I took the cover off and I was afraid that the gun powder would come out if I removed it. The next idea that I had was to use my pistol, because I had my pistol with me. I removed the magazine from the Uzzi and I removed the subsonic round, because I knew that with the subsonic round, I would be able to keep the shell and if I put it in a usual pistol, it wouldn't eject and I would be able to keep the pattern or the shell and take it with me. At that stage, Japie collapsed, I am not saying that De Kock hit him continuously, but he was still showing signs of life and that is when I fired one shot through his head. As I said, when I shot him, he laid still. What happened then was that we had to take him to the hole or the grave and cover him, but as far as I recall, he still displayed signs of life, but it would have been basically his final breath because I think that the adrenaline caused this reaction. That is when we began to cover him, but Mr De Kock was present, Freek and I and Fourie, all of us were together. We then covered him, Fourie and I did most of that work. I think that Mr De Kock said "stay here and wait, just make sure that he is dead." The two of them then walked back to the vehicle, Pienaar and De Kock walked back to the vehicle. Fourie and I remained there with him because he still displayed slight signs of life, but I knew that it was just a matter of time, until he was dead. We did not hit him any more or anything like that. We sat there and there was a branch nearby which we pulled over him and at a stage, I had my hand on his head, and that is when I felt this big slash in his head. If I placed my hand over his head, my middle finger would disappear into the slash, so it was quite a big cut.

MR LAMEY: At this point I must just ask you, that wound which you discovered there, do you know what caused it?

MR NORTJE: Well, it must have been the spade.

MR LAMEY: Very well.

MR NORTJE: Because it was a long wound, it must definitely have been the spade.

MR LAMEY: Can you describe to us on which part of the head that wound was situated?

MR NORTJE: As I can recall he lay on his stomach when we sat there with him and I placed my hand on his head, I imagine that I must have placed my hand over his head from above, and the wound was over his head.

MR LAMEY: You are demonstrating it would then have been in the middle of his skull, from the top to the bottom?

MR NORTJE: Yes, it was on that part of his head.

MR LAMEY: Yes, I just want to describe your description for the record.

MR NORTJE: I would say that it was middle to left, to the back.

MR LAMEY: Basically, I don't want to say that it was lateral or horizontally over the head.

CHAIRPERSON: ... the crown through the hairline, just to the left, off centre?

MR NORTJE: Yes. I imagine that he lay with his head like that when I placed my hand on his head and it was this part, I think I sat on his right while we sat there. The brains were coming out, we saw the white tissue of the brain emerging.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Lamey, where did you shoot him, at which part of the body?

MR NORTJE: I also shot him somewhere there on his head, but basically on the back section of his skull. I did not shoot him through the temples.

MR LAMEY: In what position was Maponya when you shot him?

MR NORTJE: He was laying down. He was laying flat on his stomach basically.

MR LAMEY: In what position was he when he was struck by the spade?

MR NORTJE: He was busy getting up. He may have taken two steps, at the most three, but I think he took two steps when Mr De Kock struck him with the spade.

MR LAMEY: You heard Mr De Kock's evidence that he attempted to escape and that he was retrieved, brought back and that he was hit with the spade and that is when Mr De Kock went to look at the Uzzi, what do you say about that?

MR NORTJE: I cannot understand how he can put that version, because it is not correct.

MR LAMEY: Very well.

ADV GCABASHE : Let me just get a bit of clarity here, you say that Mr De Kock struck him as he tried to - so he struck him from the back?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

ADV GCABASHE : And he was tall enough to reach to the top of his head from where he was with the spade?

MR NORTJE: Yes, that is why I have said, he must have hit him on this part, not to the front of the head, from above.

CHAIRPERSON: Just for the record, the witness is indicating by pointing his finger to below the crown of the head, about two inches below the crown and bringing his finger through to just short of the hairline.

MR NORTJE: Yes, as I understood it, the spade must have cut very deeply into his head, because it was a digging spade.

CHAIRPERSON: When I say hairline, I am not referring to my hairline, which is almost non-existent, I am referring to a person with a normal head of hair.

MR VISSER: I was just working out on my own skull where?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I was prompted to say that when I looked up and saw Mr Visser's hairline.

MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, if we could just get clarity on this. The hairline on the record, as I see it, the description of Mr Nortje is actually, here, sort of in the middle of the top of the head, towards over the crown, backwards?

MR NORTJE: Yes. That is how I recall that in the dark as I can recall that situation taking place that night.

MR LAMEY: You say that De Kock and Pienaar then walked back to the vehicle?

MR NORTJE: Yes, they walked ahead.

MR LAMEY: You and Eugene remained behind?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR LAMEY: Just to finish the final aspects?

MR NORTJE: That is correct, we sat there until we were absolutely certain that he was no longer breathing.

MR LAMEY: Very well, and from there?

MR NORTJE: We then walked back to the vehicle. I would imagine that somebody else was behind the steering wheel at that stage, because I did not climb in behind the steering wheel. When we began driving, Mr De Kock asked me "are you sure that he is dead", and I said "yes, he won't stand up from there again." De Kock said "I don't want him to arrive at Nesden tomorrow morning." That was just a remark that he made and I said "definitely not, he won't be able to." We then returned to Piet Retief, we dropped Freek Pienaar off and from there, we returned to Pretoria.

MR LAMEY: Where did you drop Pienaar off?

MR NORTJE: At his house.

MR LAMEY: Just on that point, did you do anything with Japie's clothing?

MR NORTJE: We removed his clothing, we removed his handcuffs, we removed the bandage around his head or at least the blindfold that he was wearing, I assumed that that was a bandage, we removed his clothing. I can't recall that he was wearing shoes and we took it with us, we put it in the back of the vehicle, where we placed the gun and the spade.

MR LAMEY: There in the plantation, when you wanted to shoot him, the planning went wrong there?

MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: How quickly did the events ensue after that? After that moment of crisis?

MR NORTJE: Well, after I struck him, because if the weapon hadn't stalled there, I would have fired at him, because for a moment he lay down, he had fallen and he came back up again and it looked as if he was full of life again, but it was just the adrenaline that began pumping and at that point, De Kock came passed and began to hit him with the spade.

MR LAMEY: But if we speak of this in terms of time, how quickly did everything happen?

MR NORTJE: I didn't keep a watch on my watch. It could have been five seconds or ten seconds.

MR LAMEY: Yes, I understand that, but when the crisis moment took place and the firearm didn't want to work, there was an element of haste?

MR NORTJE: Yes, definitely.

MR LAMEY: Do you know whether from anywhere else, there were indications of people in the environment or who may have been in the vicinity? Can you comment on that?

MR NORTJE: I must just say that at a stage the dogs began barking.

MR LAMEY: From somewhere?

MR NORTJE: Yes, from somewhere close by. In the bushes the noise would carry quite far, so when the dogs began barking, I think it was just after I had fired the shot with the pistol, the dogs began barking and we urgently or more hastily began fulfilling the plan because something had gone wrong, there had been a moment of crisis and we had to finish the plan and get away.

MR LAMEY: Very well. You then went back in the vehicle and did you drop Pienaar off again?

MR NORTJE: We went to Piet Retief, we dropped him off at his house and drove back to Pretoria.

MR LAMEY: The spade, where was this?

MR NORTJE: It was with us.

MR LAMEY: In the vehicle?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR LAMEY: I omitted to ask you this previously, how far from Piet Retief, from Freek Pienaar's house was it to Nesden?

MR NORTJE: I would imagine that it was approximately 50 kilometres, it may have been somewhat further, but I think that it was 50 kilometres, and from there it was about 20 to 25 kilometres until Nesden.

MR LAMEY: So we are then speaking of a total of approximately 75 kilometres?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Did you stay at Pienaar's place for a while or what did you do?

MR NORTJE: No, I can't recall that we spent any time there because it was quite late and we had to return to Pretoria. I don't believe that we really had much to say to one another at that stage, after the situation had taken place and we left immediately.

MR LAMEY: And you returned to Vlakplaas? Did you go directly to Vlakplaas?

MR NORTJE: I am not certain whether we went home or what happened then, but we went back to Pretoria.

MR MALAN: Can you recall whether you picked up any beer at Pienaar's house?

MR NORTJE: No, I can't recall that and the reason why I say that is because it was late at night and I still had to drive. He may have loaded beer into the vehicle, but I had to do the driving and I did become tired at some stage and Van der Walt had to finish the rest of the driving.

MR MALAN: It may be but you cannot recall it?

MR NORTJE: No.

MR LAMEY: Mr Nortje, I would just like to take you back, you have given evidence about this incident during the De Kock hearing?

MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: And you received indemnity in terms of Section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Act?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Your evidence regarding this incident is also in cross-examination and evidence in chief, and personally I didn't study the entire document to see if everything is there, but we know that some of your evidence is contained in the Bundles before the Committee?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: You say in your statement that Ondereli Maponya, what else do you know about him?

MR NORTJE: No, all that I know is that later he was killed in Pretoria during an explosion.

MR LAMEY: And then furthermore, I would like to examine you with regard to the political objective. You say in your statement that your action with regard to Japie Maponya must be seen within the broader context of the objective for which Vlakplaas was there and that was the tracing of MK members who could be regarded as terrorists as well as the background of the combat of the revolutionary onslaught against the former government. You say that you regard this incident as a result of the objective mentioned above and that the objective was to obtain information from Japie Maponya regarding the whereabouts and activities of Ondereli Maponya, who according to reliable information, was an MK member and was active within the RSA?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: You say that it was very risky to release Japie Maponya after his interrogation?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And can you just tell us why you say it was a great risk as you saw it?

MR NORTJE: Let me put it this way, I think Mr De Kock tried to explain the seriousness of why we could not release this man to me, but I felt under the circumstances, that we could not release him, that he had been assaulted, that he would lay a charge of assault against us, that he may possibly place us in a very problematic situation, that there may be court cases against us or any other possible results. We were afraid of the consequences and I think that the consequences may have been serious. As I have said ...

MR LAMEY: And let me put this to you, would something like this have caused great humiliation for Vlakplaas and the Security Police and so forth?

MR NORTJE: Yes, I cannot say that I thought about it at that particular point, but in retrospect, yes. It would definitely have created problems for us.

MR LAMEY: Something like that, during that period of time, if we think back, we can all accept that the counter-revolutionary struggle was at the order of the day?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR LAMEY: And that such sort of situations, let me put it to you this way, would this have assisted the revolutionary onslaught in discrediting the Security Police and the government?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR LAMEY: You also say that it was to protect the covert activities of Vlakplaas as well as the identities of those members who had been involved in his interrogation as well as the identities of the askaris?

MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.

MS LOCKHAT: To which askaris had he been exposed?

MR NORTJE: Well, firstly to Chris Mosiane and there was someone else,

MR LAMEY: Chris Mosiane, was he a reasonably fresh, new askari?

MR NORTJE: Yes, as far as I can recall.

MR LAMEY: Do you know that he for example had been the Instructor of Ondereli Maponya?

MR NORTJE: Yes, that is what he said at that stage, that he knew him very well.

MR LAMEY: And you also say that your orders and your involvement emanate from the orders that you received?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR LAMEY: And let me just put it to you in general, in terms of the general activities of the subordinates below De Kock at Vlakplaas, would you have been in the position to question any order that he issued, to question it, to investigate it, to verify information about it? What would you say?

MR NORTJE: Well, in my situation I would never have done it.

MR LAMEY: Did you trust his judgement?

MR NORTJE: Yes, completely.

MR LAMEY: Was he a strong leader?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR LAMEY: And you were also a loyal member?

MR NORTJE: As I have said, I followed him blindly.

MR LAMEY: Due to his leadership, did he also exert a strong influence on his subordinates?

MR NORTJE: Yes, definitely.

MR LAMEY: Then you say with regard to the order and approval, that your inference was that there had been an order and approval for the order?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR LAMEY: And that the final decision to abduct Maponya, was taken by De Kock with the approval of Kleynhans and Le Roux?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR LAMEY: That was in Krugersdorp?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: The order to kill Maponya after his death, came from De Kock?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And you say that at that stage, that the possibility existed that De Kock had received permission for this from Brigadier Schoon, the then Commander of Vlakplaas at Head Office?

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, where is Mr Lamey reading from, could he perhaps just give us an indication?

MR LAMEY: Page 342, I am sorry. You say the possibility existed that he may have obtained permission for this beforehand from Brigadier Schoon, who was the Overall Commander of C1 and Vlakplaas and you say that the order had been given to him the morning after he returned?

MR NORTJE: Yes, I assumed that he had obtained permission. I didn't tell him "listen, what did the Brigadier say, can we do this", I simply assumed that we were permitted to do this.

MR LAMEY: And there was no communication about Martin Naude and so forth?

MR NORTJE: No.

MR MALAN: Why are you leading this evidence that has already been confirmed?

MR LAMEY: I don't know, it isn't really important because Mr Nortje wasn't there.

MR MALAN: Yes, I am just trying to save some time.

MR LAMEY: I have completed by examination. I have omitted one aspect Mr Chairperson. It is an important aspect that I wanted to examine you about, after the death of Japie Maponya, was there any order with regard to covering up the matter?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR LAMEY: Let's take it step by step. What were the actions which were taken with regard to the cover up of the matter?

MR NORTJE: Well, that came after the revelations.

MR LAMEY: No, before we get to that. You say that at a stage you were in Josini?

MR NORTJE: That is correct. Well, firstly after we returned from the Maponya incident, we had to fill out the Travel and Accommodation claims and Mr De Kock told me "remember now, indicate in your claims that you were not at Krugersdorp." Van der Walt and I filled out the claims like that, I don't know if he knew exactly what to do, I think I must have told him because he filled out the claims with me, I filled in the dates and he filled in the figures. Mr De Kock signed the claims.

MR LAMEY: In which manner or what did you have to accomplish with the claims?

MR NORTJE: We had to indicate that we had not been in Krugersdorp, that we had been in Josini.

MR LAMEY: Is that with reference to the dates, the dates which are not correct?

MR NORTJE: Yes. Because normally it would have indicated the 25th or the 26th.

MR LAMEY: Mr Nortje, we have the documentation here, I just want to refer you to it. Chairperson, I am referring to Bundle 2(a). I just want to get to your specific portion, I think it is on page 200 of Bundle 2(a), is that the claim that was completed afterwards?

MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: And a date is given there of the 10th of September until the 27th of September, in total a period of 17 days?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: So this claim had to indicate that you were in Josini until the 27th?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And that wasn't so? You were in Josini, but the date is incorrect?

MR NORTJE: Yes, the date was intentionally changed.

MR MALAN: Mr Lamey, if I can just assist you once again, you have given Exhibit D to us and that is the supplementary statement which covers all these matters and it has been confirmed.

MR LAMEY: In your statement, you say on page 3, paragraph 6.2 that during the post mortem inquest you made false statements?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: The reasons for that have been set out, just to expedite matters, it is set out in Exhibit D and you say that you also received a request from Gen Krappies Engelbrecht to - why did you have to do this?

MR NORTJE: Well, it was part of the cover up, to indicate that we were not at Krugersdorp, because after that, we realised that we had taken petrol at Krugersdorp. Initially we forgot about it, but when the investigation started, we realised that we would have to conceal that evidence or destroy it.

MR LAMEY: I just want to refer you to a passage of Gen Engelbrecht's documents on page 343 of Bundle 2(b) where he gave evidence during the PMI, I just want to read it to you. He is asked by Ms Rebelas who appears to be the legal representative who represented the Maponya family, I am speaking under correction but the question is put to him

"... are you aware that logbooks in which petrol was recorded, were kept by the Police? That is correct. Was something obtained in this relation? I also searched for that, I searched for it, but it had already been destroyed."

What would your commentary be about that if it was given by Engelbrecht?

MR NORTJE: No, I went to fetch the petrol logbooks at Krugersdorp after it had been arranged, we met each other on the road there at Krugersdorp and he brought me three books and the books were from the 11th of the previous month, but the September dates were in both books, I studied the books there and I found the section where the SAP vehicle number of my vehicle was recorded.

MR LAMEY: So you found those books?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR LAMEY: And did you then give it to Engelbrecht?

MR NORTJE: Yes, I took it to him directly. I don't know what else happened after that, what became of the books.

MR LAMEY: And the reason for this action is as explained in paragraph 5 of the supplementary statement?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Thank you Mr Chairman, that is the examination in chief.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Lamey. Mr Visser, would you like to put questions to Mr Nortje?

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I will have a few questions to Mr Nortje, but it has occurred to me with respect, that perhaps, it would be more convenient if my learned friend, Mr Hattingh goes first, because some of my cross-examination may be affected by whatever he puts to the witness.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hattingh, are you taken by surprise now or are you prepared?

MR HATTINGH: I am rather taken by surprise Mr Chairman, I expected that the same sequence would follow.

MR VISSER: I am quite happy to start with the proviso that I might have to come back again after my learned friend has asked his questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR VISSER: If you want me to start, I can start.

CHAIRPERSON: If you can start thank you.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Nortje, let me just be direct, I accept that you have not been examined about this previously so please think very carefully before you give an answer. Is it your evidence that Mr Le Roux on the day when you were at Krugersdorp, you and Mr De Kock, issued an order for Japie Maponya to be killed?

MR NORTJE: No.

MR VISSER: Because that would go against what you had said in your application on page 343.

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Because there you had stated expressly that the final decision to abduct Japie Maponya was taken by De Kock with the approval of Captain Kleynhans as well as Gen Le Roux?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: But it is your pertinent experience of the facts and your recollection of the circumstances that the order to kill Maponya, after his interrogation, came from De Kock?

MR NORTJE: I would say so yes.

MR VISSER: Because that is what you have said on page 342?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Is it your recollection Mr Nortje that this was the first indication that you received of a firm decision or idea that Mr Maponya had to be killed,?

MR NORTJE: That is on the farm?

MR VISSER: Yes, well, I am referring to page 342 of your Bundle, perhaps you should just get this document before you, the second sentence of paragraph 11(b). You say

"... the order to kill Maponya after his interrogation, came from De Kock."

Now I ask you was that the first indication which you received that Japie Maponya was going to be killed, namely after his interrogation?

MR NORTJE: Yes, that is how I recall it.

MR VISSER: Very well. The discussions which took place in Krugersdorp, I just want to discuss this with you somewhat. As I have understood Mr De Kock's evidence, he had two discussions with Mr Le Roux, the Commander and as I understand your evidence and as I have listened to your evidence, it appeared to me that you were referring only to one discussion where you had been with De Kock and Le Roux in Krugersdorp, am I correct or incorrect?

MR NORTJE: No, there may have been two discussions during this time. I think that when Mr De Kock arrived there, I went up with him, but it is possible that he returned to him, but I am not certain about that.

MR VISSER: Yes, you see the question is whether you can recall one discussion during which you were present or is it more than one discussion during which you were present, when De Kock and Le Roux spoke to each other?

MR NORTJE: I must have been present during the first discussion when De Kock and I went up to Le Roux' office.

MR VISSER: And if I understand your evidence correctly as well as that of Mr De Kock and Mr Le Roux, this was the occasion after you had already told him that the askaris suggested that you lift the man and interrogate him?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR VISSER: In other words when De Kock arrived in Krugersdorp, it was already a fact, he had already considered it, that is Le Roux, and decided well, if you think that that is the appropriate method, then continue?

MR NORTJE: Well, I wouldn't say that it was a final decision, I would say that this only took place after we had discussed it again.

MR VISSER: Very well, so you say that the final decision was made after De Kock had been informed regarding the background of Ondereli and all the other details and facts and everything that had already taken place with Chris Mosiane and it was mentioned to him that the plan was to abduct Japie Maponya? That was when the final decision was made?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR VISSER: Well, there isn't really anything of importance surrounding that because you see what I want to ask you is to cast your mind back to that discussion that you can recall when you were present with Mr De Kock with Le Roux. It may have been put to you that Dunkley and Kleynhans were present, but that isn't really of any importance. I want you to cast your mind back to that discussion because you see, when you gave evidence during the De Kock trial - Mr Chairman, perhaps, I see it is eleven o'clock now, before I start referring him to his evidence, perhaps it might be better for you to have a total picture of the three references which I am going to make and not be, so that it is not interrupted in between.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we will take a short tea adjournment for approximately 20 minutes.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

WILLEM ALBERTUS NORTJE: (s.u.o)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Visser.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: (cont)

Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Nortje, before the adjournment I asked that you cast your mind back to that discussion there at the Security Branch offices there at Krugersdorp when you and Mr De Kock and Mr Le Roux discussed the matter of Japie Maponya and Ondereli Maponya and in your evidence you said that you thought that Dunkley and Kleynhans were also present. I just want to ask you about what exactly was said there as far as you can recall, and if you cannot recall, then just say so. Because in your evidence during the De Kock trial, in Bundle 3(b), on page 50, you gave the following evidence. You are asked and I read from just after the half of the page, that is just below the typed page number 602 -

"... what role did he play in the planning according to you?"

I take it that it is Mr Hattingh who is cross-examining you and the "he" refers to Mr De Kock and you say -

"... well, he basically took control."

The question is then -

"... no, but what was his participation in the planning?"

And your answer is -

"... when he arrived there, we went to the General's office again."

And you are referring to Le Roux -

"... and there we put it clearly to the General that if we were going to abduct the man and if he was going to be assaulted like that, see, it would, it is - let me put it like this - if he wanted to cooperate, we would probably not, not away, you know, not have killed him."

If I may pause there for a moment, the first aspect which emerges from this is that the killing of Japie Maponya depended in your opinion to his co-operation or not? If we can just take these words at face value, would that be correct?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR VISSER: Then you continue with your answer and you say

"... but if we had to assault him to such an extent in order to obtain information from him, and if this meant that we could not release him, then we would have had to take him away. That was the discussion and everybody there in the office agreed with that."

Then you are interrupted and you are asked -

"... but that is just the decision?"

And your answer is -

"... yes."

The question -

"... I am speaking of the planning.,"

Your answer is -

"... well, that was the planning."

The question -

"... just that the man be taken?"

And the answer -

"Yes."

This is somewhat confusing.

MR HATTINGH: In fairness, Mr Visser should also read the next question, the question immediately following upon the last one that he read.

MR VISSER: I will keep on reading, my learned friend must just tell me when I must stop.

"... not how it would take place?

... no, it did."

And then another interruption -

"... it was not discussed there?

... no, that would be something that we would have executed.

... and it was then discussed with the blacks?

... yes.

... in the presence of the accused?

... as far as I recall, yes.

... and who was the one who decided how it was going to be done?

... well, I believe it was the accused and I who decided about that jointly."

With great respect, this deals with something which is not on the point which I am busy with at the moment.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you can ask your questions.

MR VISSER: Now I wanted to say Mr Nortje, that it is somewhat confusing with regard to what you are actually saying here. Are you saying here expressly that you there in the office of Mr Le Roux, discussed pertinently that if Japie Maponya were to be assaulted so seriously and if you felt that you could not release him, you would then kill him, is that what you are saying here or do you mean to say something else and I am going to ask you and I will explain to you why I am asking you, because you see up to the point in this hearing, until your evidence, we had only one scenario and that was that Mr De Kock said that Japie had to be abducted and killed. And he says that when you walked out of Le Roux' office, there was no doubt that that was the order and your evidence is different. We have already said this, you were not under that impression, but your evidence creates a second scenario and that scenario is that you foresaw that Japie Maponya during this assault and interrogation, could be killed, is that correct?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR VISSER: That is why I am asking you in the light of those two scenario's, which one are you promoting?

MR NORTJE: It is very difficult to recall exactly what was said, I simply explain things how I assumed they had taken place, but what I had in mind and what I put very clearly there originally to the General was "think about the consequences" or what I foresaw the consequences to be, that being that this man could die during interrogation, during interrogation and that we had to keep this in mind.

MR VISSER: Are you saying that during your evidence which you gave in the De Kock trial, it must be regarded in the light of what you have said now?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR VISSER: Now if we may proceed to Bundle 1(b), page 337, that is your application, I want to ask you this evidence of yours that you gave during the De Kock trial, in what year did this take place? I see we have a 1994 here, would that be correct?

MR NORTJE: No, it was 1995.

MR VISSER: Or 1996, 1995 then. But your statement which appears in Bundle 1(b) and which serves as the basis of your amnesty application, is dated the 22nd of September 1997. Now the point is and we can see this on page 236, the date is not important apart from the fact that you compiled this statement and signed it after you had already given evidence?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Did you cast your thoughts with regard to this discussion with Le Roux in his office after you gave evidence during the De Kock trial and when you once again compiled this statement?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR VISSER: And you would have thought back and in your mind have obtained a measure of certainty regarding what exactly your recollection of that discussion is?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: You see on page 337 I read the following words and that is in paragraph 5, the second last or let us make it the third last sentence of that paragraph

"... I informed Captain Kleynhans as well as Gen Le Roux that it was a suggestion from the black members to abduct Japie and so doing then attempt to obtain the information from him. At this early stage, the elimination of Japie Maponya was not a decision."

You have already said this?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR VISSER: And then the following words follow

"... but I saw this as a possibility that it could happen during or after the interrogation."

And then you say that De Kock joined you and you informed him regarding what the situation was and you say that Gen Le Roux and Captain Kleynhans agreed with the suggestions regarding the abduction. You say in paragraph 6 and informed you that you had to act according to your better judgement. In paragraph 7 you reiterate this, you say that the decision regarding the abduction of Japie Maponya was finalised and De Kock gave further instructions. My question here to you is the following - when you had reconsidered what your recollection of that discussion was on page 337 in your amnesty application, you made absolutely no mention that the possible death of Japie had been discussed, would you agree?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR VISSER: Is that from the ripeness of your reconsideration of the facts as you recalled them at that stage when in September 1997, you signed this statement, the death of Japie was not discussed at all?

MR NORTJE: No, not at that stage, the possibility was discussed.

MR VISSER: Well, you didn't say that, you said that you foresaw it as a possibility?

MR NORTJE: Yes, that is all that I said there, but the possibility was conveyed to those members who were present and that is when everybody realised that it could possibly take place and that we had to keep it in mind.

MR VISSER: I must just tell you that this was not put to Mr Le Roux during cross-examination, but if your proposition did not go any further than when one interrogates somebody, there is the vague possibility as Commissioner Malan expressed it, there is the remote possibility which is always present, that a person could die, if that was the simple proposition that you put, then I don't have a problem with you.

MR LAMEY: I beg your pardon Chairperson, I do recall that I put it to Gen Le Roux, that it was communicated, that this possibility was communicated and verbalised. It was indeed put to him. I don't know what my learned friend is referring to as to what was put, but it is my recollection that I put the issue of the communication thereof to Gen Le Roux.

MR VISSER: I would have thought my cross-examination is crystal clear and the record will speak for itself.

CHAIRPERSON: I was going to say we can check on the record on that one, Mr Lamey.

MR VISSER: But if I might just obtain some clarity from you, the proposition which you put is that there is a remote possibility, there is a vague possibility during any interrogation where there was an assault on a person, that that person may die, is that the proposition that you are putting?

MR NORTJE: Under the circumstances, we would have abducted the person, we would have coerced the person, it wouldn't have been normal detention, we would have forced the person to speak and he could have died during that process.

MR VISSER: And just to join up with you on that, Mr Le Roux, gave evidence to that effect, he said that he knew that Japie was going to be assaulted. But your point does not extend any further than that, that which was discussed?

MR NORTJE: According to what I have written here?

MR VISSER: According to your evidence here today, you haven't taken it any further than that?

MR NORTJE: I have taken it until the possibility of his death.

MR VISSER: As a vague possibility?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR VISSER: In other words, when you walked out of the office after the first or the second or the umpteenth discussion with Mr Le Roux, where you were present, was it not your impression that there was a fixed order for Japie to be abducted and murdered?

MR NORTJE: To be abducted, but not to be murdered.

MR VISSER: And that is the reason why you have said numerous times in your application that Gen Le Roux agreed with the abduction and the interrogation and so forth?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR VISSER: But not the murder?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: The teams at Vlakplaas, would you agree with the allegation that the purpose with the askaris and your members at Vlakplaas, was primarily to attempt to identify members of liberation movements by means of askaris and to arrest them?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: During that process, did it appear quite often that you abducted people, that you lifted people?

MR NORTJE: Yes, it did happen.

MR VISSER: Were all those people who you abducted and I assume that later they would have been interrogated?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR VISSER: Were all those people killed?

MR NORTJE: No.

MR VISSER: Were some of those people taken to Vlakplaas to be interrogated? Just think about the askaris.

MR NORTJE: I think that there was one case in which a person was abducted from Swaziland and then detained at Vlakplaas and assaulted there, but he was later released and he turned.

MR VISSER: But quite a few people were taken to Vlakplaas after they had been abducted? I don't believe that I am incorrect when I say that Mr Mbelo, was abducted from Vlakplaas and my Attorney says that I am incorrect, but there were indeed people who were taken to Vlakplaas who had been abducted?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR VISSER: And who were later released?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR VISSER: Mr De Kock said ...

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Visser, if I could just while on this question, just on this point, Mr Nortje was it not, did it also occur that some of the people that you had abducted were then recruited to work as askaris or to work with you at Vlakplaas after their abduction?

MR NORTJE: It is difficult to think of a specific example at the moment, but I would say yes, it could have happened, but I really can't think of a relevant case, with the exception of the askaris who we arrested at Magaliesburg and rehabilitated or took to our side.

CHAIRPERSON: Because isn't there a situation where a person has been abducted and interrogated and then they are just given the opportunity "either you die or else you work for us", that sort of thing?

MR NORTJE: No, I wouldn't say that that was the norm.

MR VISSER: Because there was also the option of taking such a person to court?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR VISSER: The person that I thought of was Mr Pillay, I don't know whether this was before your time, but he was abducted from Swaziland and taken to Vlakplaas before he was interrogated elsewhere.

MR NORTJE: No, the one that I recall is Msibi.

MR VISSER: Yes, Msibi as well, you are entirely correct, but Pillay as well. And after that they were released?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon, just on this point, you say that they were later released. I heard Mr Nortje say when you referred to the Swaziland example that this person had been turned?

MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.

MR MALAN: It wasn't a release, it was a recruitment?

MR NORTJE: Yes, we were not responsible for the recruitment, we abducted him and took him to the farm and interrogated him and then the military picked him up and after that, they handled him. He didn't work with us.

MR MALAN: And after you had interrogated him, did he express his willingness to you to cooperate?

MR NORTJE: Yes, towards the State or the Defence Force, but he never worked with us. The reason why he was assaulted was because he handled a Policeman in Nelspruit as an informer for the ANC and we wanted that information from him.

MR MALAN: Well, the important point of this question is, can you think of occasions upon which people were interrogated at Vlakplaas and released without having been recruited to work for you at any stage?

MR NORTJE: No, I cannot recall anything.

MR VISSER: The answers which you provided a few moments ago, were these answers with regard to Msibi?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR VISSER: And you say that he later turned?

MR NORTJE: Yes, apparently.

MR VISSER: I just want to put it to you that Pillay never turned?

MR NORTJE: I don't know about the situation regarding Pillay.

MR VISSER: Mr De Kock gave evidence that and I think that he said that Vlakplaas operated in a vacuum to a certain extent in the sense that the actions of Vlakplaas were kept under wraps, it wasn't general knowledge with the rest of the members of the Security Branch, would you agree with that in broad?

MR NORTJE: No, there were many members of the Security Branch who were aware of what we were doing.

MR VISSER: But was it general knowledge that you were killing people?

MR NORTJE: No.

MR VISSER: So in other words, would you agree that the statement that somebody called in Vlakplaas, would just be to kill somebody?

MR NORTJE: No, that isn't true.

MR VISSER: When Mr De Kock spoke to you on the evening after the assault, was the question of identification of the members or the askaris ever put to you by him?

MR NORTJE: No, I cannot recall.

MR VISSER: You see, your evidence is interesting in the sense that it creates the impression that Japie Maponya would have been able to see the three persons who had abducted him and would then conceivably have been able to identify them later?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR VISSER: But your evidence is that after that, Japie Maponya saw no one, because he had a balaclava over his head, back to front, so that he was completely incapable of seeing what was going on or who was interrogating him or who was assaulting him?

MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct. Something else may have happened, but we didn't know about it, for example that the balaclava may have been removed at a stage, but I didn't see anything like that.

MR VISSER: But you were present at all times, or at least for the greater proportion of this on the farm?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR VISSER: And you never saw his balaclava removed, that is your evidence?

MR NORTJE: Yes, I cannot recall that it was ever removed.

MR VISSER: And your recollection is even that on the following day when he was taken out of the room, he was blindfolded?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR VISSER: So what do you say about the idea that Japie had to be killed because he could identify members of Vlakplaas and also jeopardise the secrecy of Vlakplaas?

MR NORTJE: I think it was an idea that originated after the entire process, and it wasn't my decision. I simply listened and I can't recall specifically whether we ever discussed it that we decided that that was the actual reason.

MR VISSER: You see because that is the reason that has been put to Mr Le Roux.

MR NORTJE: I don't know what Mr De Kock discussed with him.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, if it wasn't identification, what other reason would there be to have killed Mr Maponya?

MR NORTJE: Well to be honest with you Mr Chairperson, I still don't know to this very day.

MR VISSER: You see, because to join up with the question put by the Chairperson, the impression which is created by your evidence is that Japie wasn't really tortured in the sense of serious assault.

MR NORTJE: That is correct, according to me it wasn't that serious.

MR VISSER: And in your opinion, in consideration of your observations of the assault and the entire situation, did you deem it necessary to kill Japie?

MR NORTJE: No.

MR VISSER: You did not think so?

MR NORTJE: Not at that stage and after that, I also couldn't think of a good reason why, there was no reason. It was actually unnecessary.

MR VISSER: In the light of what you have said now, let us return to the discussion in Le Roux' office. Did you ever hear that Le Roux said "I never want to see him again?"

MR NORTJE: No.

MR VISSER: Would you have heard it if he had said it?

MR NORTJE: If he had said it, I would have recalled it pertinently because then the decision would have been made there already and the decision had not been made there.

MR VISSER: That is precisely the point. Did you hear Mr De Kock tell Mr Le Roux "what you are asking of us is a capital crime and we could be hanged for it if we were ever caught?"

MR NORTJE: Not when I was present.

MR VISSER: The following day, when you received instructions after Mr De Kock had returned from Head Office, was that really the first occasion upon which you realised that a decision had been made to kill Japie?

MR NORTJE: I must tell you that the idea did originate within my mind the previous afternoon when he said to me, he must have said to me that we were going to kill him, but he said to me that he had spoken to Kleynhans and the others and that it appeared to him as if they were distancing themselves from the matter, that they didn't want to go along and perhaps that was better. That was when I realised what was going to happen. The following day when he returned, he didn't tell me that he had obtained permission or whatever, he just told me "phone Freek, we have to take him to Swaziland."

MR VISSER: Yes, but the point is that it would appear as if this would be the first time when it entered your mind that the final decision to kill him, had been taken and you said that you were under the impression that he had obtained the order from Brigadier Schoon?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Visser. Mr Williams, do you have any questions that you would like to ask?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR WILLIAMS: Yes Mr Chairman, just a few questions. Mr Nortje, you gave evidence yesterday that on the day of the incident, two mini-buses arrived at the Security Branch in Krugersdorp?

MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.

MR WILLIAMS: My order or instruction from Mr Mbelo was that he was in neither one of those two mini-buses on that day?

MR NORTJE: That is entirely possible.

MR WILLIAMS: And that he was also not present when there was a discussion to send Chris Mosiane in to obtain information from Japie?

MR NORTJE: That is possible, I cannot place him there pertinently, I cannot say that I saw him when this took place.

MR WILLIAMS: And that he was also not present when some of the askaris suggested abducting Japie?

MR NORTJE: That is also possible, yes.

MR WILLIAMS: In other words, at the stage when he arrived at the scene, those discussions had already been held and the decision had already been taken to abduct Japie and he simply had to give execution to those decisions?

MR NORTJE: If that is his recollection, yes, I cannot dispute it.

MR WILLIAMS: And then just two further aspects. Mr Mbelo says further that according to his recollection, the Jetta in which they abducted Japie was not in radio contact with either your vehicle or another vehicle, perhaps Chris Mosiane's vehicle was in contact with your vehicle?

MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct. It would make sense that they may not have had a radio with them, but that some of the other members may have observed them while the abduction was taking place and that this vehicle which was observing them, would notify us of what was happening.

MR WILLIAMS: On the way to Vlakplaas, Japie was never transferred from the Jetta to the mini-bus?

MR NORTJE: Well, that is simply something which I heard because when I arrived at the farm, Japie was already in the kombi and I simply assumed that at a stage, they must have transferred him to the kombi.

MR WILLIAMS: Yes, but according to Mbelo this was done only after they arrived at Vlakplaas itself?

MR NORTJE: Yes, that is possible, because they arrived there before me.

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

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR WILLIAMS

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Mr Wagener, I skipped you, do you have any questions you would like to ask?

MR WAGENER: Mr Chairman, for purposes of cross-examination, I merely represent an implicated person, so I think it would be proper to go after the co-applicants. I have discussed this with Mr Hattingh, it should be no surprise.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Hattingh and then I will go to Mr Wagener. I am sorry, at this stage, just for the record, Mr Van der Merwe did excuse himself from further attendance, yesterday.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Nortje, just a few general aspects to begin with. You have given evidence here that in terms of Section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Act, you received indemnity from Justice Van der Merwe with regard to any prosecution relating to the abduction, assault and murder of Japie Maponya, is that correct?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Have you as of yet, received any letters of warning or subpoenas with regard to civil proceedings which may have been instituted by the family members of Japie Maponya against you?

MR NORTJE: No.

MR HATTINGH: And you don't really expect anything of that nature, do you?

MR NORTJE: I don't know.

MR HATTINGH: You do however realise that you are in no danger of losing your individual freedom as a result of your involvement in the murder of Mr Maponya, regardless of whether this Committee grants you amnesty or not?

MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And just for the sake of interest, why are you requesting amnesty if you have already been granted indemnity?

MR NORTJE: Well, my involvement in the entire situation because from the very first moment, I made the information known to the Goldstone Commission, I cannot withdraw now. In terms of the reconciliation process, I am prepared to give my co-operation until the very end.

MR HATTINGH: So for you it is more about co-operation than the achievement of amnesty?

MR NORTJE: Well, it is about the achievement of amnesty.

MR HATTINGH: But you have already obtained indemnity, Mr Nortje, why do you want amnesty?

MR NORTJE: Because I have just told you I am participating in a process, I cannot withdraw now.

MR HATTINGH: So that is why I have put it to you that it is more about the process of co-operation than your actual requirement of amnesty, isn't that so?

MR NORTJE: I am just saying what I have said, I will stand by that.

MR HATTINGH: Very well, we will not dwell upon that any further. You were in the service to the State when you made the information about this incident available to the Investigating Team?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Were you ever suspended from your duties as a Policeman?

MR NORTJE: No.

MR HATTINGH: And you were never discharged?

MR NORTJE: No.

MR HATTINGH: And you are still in service to the State?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: In which Department?

MR NORTJE: National Intelligence Services.

MR HATTINGH: The National Intelligence Agency?

MR NORTJE: Agency.

MR HATTINGH: And I understand that you occupy a rank there which is considerably higher in status and salary and so forth than the Police rank which you occupied before you began your evidence in this matter, is that correct?

MR NORTJE: I can explain that. During the process, I did not see my way open to return to the Police and I approached Adv Tori Pretorius to speak to Min Joe Mhlanga because our problem was, and Dries van Heerden was with me, and he was unemployed, and I did not see my way open any further in the Police and we discussed it as a possibility and he discussed it with the people, he said that we could have an interview, we conducted the interview. He said that we could come in for it, I made the usual application for the position, underwent the psychometric evaluation, they offered me a position and I accepted it as it would be under normal circumstances.

MR HATTINGH: But you haven't answered my question, I am asking you whether the position which you occupy now, offers you considerably greater benefits than the rank of Sergeant or Warrant Officer that you occupied in the Police?

MR NORTJE: Yes, it is considerably better.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you still have ranks in the NIA, do you call yourself Sergeants and Warrant Officers?

MR NORTJE: No, there is no such thing. If you want to compare it, it would be the standard of a Major.

MR HATTINGH: So in other words you went from a Warrant Officer position in the Police to a position in the National Intelligence Agency which is equivalent to a Major? Very well, may I just ask you a few questions. We had evidence here under cross-examination about the terms and the language used by the Security Police. Do you agree that it was used by the Security Police and more so among Vlakplaas members to use these terms when you referred to abduction and assault and murder of people?

MR NORTJE: Yes Chairperson, there was such language.

MR HATTINGH: You never used, you never to use the English expression, you never used to call a spade a spade, you used euphemistic language?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And it was also not because it was easy, it was not so easy to say you were to kill a man, but it was for security purposes?

MR NORTJE: Yes, I can agree with you.

MR HATTINGH: Were you not trained to be cautious and to speak where other ears could not hear you?

MR NORTJE: I was not trained, it was second nature.

MR HATTINGH: But wasn't this brought to your attention?

MR NORTJE: No, I just assumed, I just learnt this as time went by.

MR HATTINGH: So it was the policy to be cautious when you spoke?

MR NORTJE: It was not pertinently said, but we were cautious under the circumstances under which we were.

MR HATTINGH: Please listen carefully to the questions, it was policy with you, whether you were trained or not, it was the policy to be cautious?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: It was specifically the position when you were undertaking telephone calls?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Because you never know who might listen in?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: You have now spoken about the cover up and more specifically Gen Engelbrecht's involvement with the Maponya cover up. How did it happen that he got the information from you that there were petrol registers which might let it be known that you were in Krugersdorp?

MR NORTJE: I don't know how it came about, but I know that at some stage we spoke about it, because all the problems that we had foreseen which might come with the investigation and the allegation that was made and at some stage the petrol registers came about.

MR HATTINGH: When you say we discussed it?

MR NORTJE: It was Mr De Kock and I and the General.

MR HATTINGH: So it was a general discussion saying that these are our problems, we have to do something about this, we must solve these problems and so forth and during the course of that conversation, it came about that there were petrol registers which could explain your presence in Krugersdorp?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And that is when Gen Engelbrecht gave you the instruction to fetch these petrol registers?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And in terms of other incidents, did you have similar experiences with Gen Engelbrecht, that he was involved with cover ups?

MR NORTJE: Yes, there were.

MR HATTINGH: I do not want to go, to discuss that completely, can I mention one by means of example, Nelspruit?

MR NORTJE: Yes Nelspruit.

MR HATTINGH: Was he present when you made your statements, did he check it to see that all of you spoke about the same thing?

MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: To get to your recollection of these events, Mr Nortje, how would you say is your recollection about it today, better than it was when you gave evidence during the trial?

MR NORTJE: Yes, it is much better. As I have said, there are certain things that I cannot recall at all, but I have read many things and some things have juggled my memory and I would say that I do recall it better.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Nortje, when you started giving information about Vlakplaas' activities, you were taken to Denmark, is that correct?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: For your own safety?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And statements were taken from you there?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Then you returned and I would like to put it to you that on a daily basis, you were with the Investigative team, you assisted the Investigative team which investigated the matter against Mr De Kock. You were so to speak, in a position of an assistant?

MR NORTJE: Yes, I did assist them.

MR HATTINGH: And consequently you had insight to all the information which they obtained?

MR NORTJE: No, I would not say that.

MR HATTINGH: Why did they not, would they have refused you if you wanted to read somebody's statement?

MR NORTJE: No, the time when I started making my statements, I had one idea in my mind, I don't have to lie about anything. I could not recall some things, but I did not need to lie about anything, because that was the reason why I was there.

MR HATTINGH: That is not the question Mr Nortje. I asked you previously, please listen carefully to the questions, I want to know from you, in the position which you found yourself in, did you have access to the information that the Investigative team had?

MR NORTJE: Yes, I had access.

MR HATTINGH: And I would assume that you would concede that you with regard to the Maponya incident, were one of the last witnesses who gave evidence about it?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And people like Mr Mbelo or most of the other witnesses, went before you?

MR NORTJE: Yes, but I did not read or hear their evidence.

MR HATTINGH: And I assume that thorough consultation was done with you before you gave your evidence?

MR NORTJE: My version was given to Adv Ackerman as I remembered it, I might have seen other people's things but I did not let it influence me, because we do not all recall these things in the same manner, and I did not want to adjust my evidence to anybody else's.

MR HATTINGH: May I refer you to Bundle 3(b), Mr Chairman, page 24, Mr Nortje. There I ask you the following

"... Mr Nortje, before we continue with the Maponya incident, can we just clear up some aspects. You have many times during your evidence, have used expressions which point to the fact that you cannot recall everything about the incident, is that correct?"

And you say -

"... that is correct."

... now I want to know from you were you given positive evidence to the effect that you can recall some things, are you sure about those incidents and your answer as per example, by means of example, ..."

excuse me, that was still me talking.

"... let's use for example the fact that Dunkley and Kleynhans arrived there, are you certain about that, can you recall it?"

And you say -

"... yes, I can recall it, yes."

"... and can we then also accept that there were incidents or excuse me, can we accept that other incidents to which you have given evidence with regard to the Maponya incident which had taken place a long time ago, where you have given positive evidence, that you indeed remember those incidents?"

And you say -

"... yes, those things I did remember, yes."

So you conceded during cross-examination that there were certain things that you could not recall, but the facts about which you gave evidence, that you said you could recall and that was correct?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Are you still saying the same?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. Let us start with the issue of how it came about that you went to Krugersdorp. You have mentioned positive facts with regard to that?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: You mentioned that Messrs Kleynhans and Dunkley arrived at the farm and were in discussion with Mr De Kock there?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: You have also said that Mr De Kock afterwards gave you information with regard to the conversation because you were not present during the conversation?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: What information did he give you?

MR NORTJE: As I can recall it, this was in regard to the need that they had in Krugersdorp. I want to place myself back into the situation when we spoke there, but I cannot recall the words, but I later realised when I thought about it again, it was in regard with Ondereli, Japie's brother, but he did not elaborate on it, he just told me that "go to Krugersdorp on the 25th and help Kleynhans there with a problem that they apparently had." That was the essence of what he told me. It might have been something else, but that is what I can recall.

MR HATTINGH: So when you went to Krugersdorp, did you have any knowledge as to what was the problem and what Krugersdorp wanted you to do?

MR NORTJE: I might have had an idea but I cannot recall it now.

MR HATTINGH: Did you recall it at an earlier stage?

MR NORTJE: It is possible.

MR HATTINGH: But I thought your memory of the events is now better than it used to be?

MR NORTJE: I said many things long after the time, ten years after the time and I assumed that he would have told me about it, but I did not pay so much attention to it, that I exactly knew what was happening. If I arrived at Krugersdorp, I would get my instructions there or whatever the case might be, from Kleynhans.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Nortje, in the trial of Mr De Kock, you also did not answer the question, you are still not answering the question. The question is, you said that you might have had a recollection earlier, but now I ask you how is it that in the light of the evidence, that today your memory is better than when you gave evidence during the trial, that is the question?

MR NORTJE: It is difficult to answer that question. I cannot say yes and I cannot say no. It is difficult to recall such finer detail.

MR HATTINGH: So you cannot recall what the accused told you?

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Hattingh, did you know Kleynhans before you saw him on the farm?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you know him well, because I think Mr De Kock said he did not know him very well, he knew Dunkley well.

MR NORTJE: I knew Dunkley, but I did not know Kleynhans all that well.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on Mr Hattingh.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you Mr Chairman. So the position is that, or let me put it in the following way, you cannot recall what the accused told you exactly, what you had to go and do there?

MR NORTJE: Well, I had to go to Kleynhans but he did not as I can recall, he did not elaborate in detail. I had to know about the Maponya and Ondereli story because I knew they were there with photo's, but I did not pay much attention to is.

MR HATTINGH: Are you certain that both of them were there at the farm?

MR NORTJE: As far as I can recall, yes.

MR HATTINGH: Is it possible that you might be mistaken?

MR NORTJE: I recall them both.

MR HATTINGH: You would recall that, maybe I should put it to you in this manner, than Kleynhans said he was there alone?

MR NORTJE: That is his version.

MR HATTINGH: And Dunkley denied that he was there?

MR NORTJE: That is his version.

MR HATTINGH: Are you saying that they are not speaking the truth?

MR NORTJE: I cannot say whether they are speaking the truth, but I recall both of them there when I started recalling the story.

MR HATTINGH: So you do not want to concede that you might be mistaken?

MR NORTJE: No, I can say with almost certainty that they were both there, that is how I had the whole story in my idea right from the start, the first time when I had to speak about it, about the Maponya story.

MR HATTINGH: And now you leave for Josini?

MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: With the expressive knowledge that on the 25th of September you had to go to Krugersdorp?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Was there any reason why you did not share this knowledge with the members who were with you?

MR NORTJE: I probably did not deem it necessary, I might have mentioned it, but it was not important.

MR HATTINGH: They were aware that usually if you went out on such a mission, you would be there until the end of the month, is that not so?

MR NORTJE: Yes, or until the last week of the month.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, and you do not assist them, you do not tell them "listen, Tuesday the 25th, we would go back?"

MR NORTJE: Not that I can recall.

MR HATTINGH: Not even to Mr Van der Walt?

MR NORTJE: I may have mentioned it to him, but it was not a concern of mine or a serious matter, I saw it as part of the normal working circumstances.

MR HATTINGH: Because you will recall during the trial, I put questions to you about this, do you recall it?

MR NORTJE: I don't recall what I said there.

MR HATTINGH: But do you recall that I asked you about it?

MR NORTJE: No.

MR HATTINGH: If I asked you about it, then you say that you do not recall what you said there?

MR NORTJE: I am not sure what my answers were there.

MR HATTINGH: If it was the truth it must be the same as you are saying here today?

MR NORTJE: That is what I had in my mind at that stage.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. I put it to you, I do not want to go into too much detail, I want to hear what your answers are that some of the other members, specifically Mr Nofomela were under the impression that the instruction that they had to return, was received after they had been at Josini?

MR NORTJE: Please state that again.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Nofomela, according to my recollection, that the other members were of the impression that the instruction that they had to return and report to Krugersdorp, was received at Josini?

MR NORTJE: Yes, well, I might have told them the day before we left or the previous day before we left, or during that time, I cannot specifically recall. I would have told them. I assume that I would have told them that we will go to Krugersdorp or that we will first go to the farm, I cannot recall.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Hattingh, Mr Nortje, you say that you were advised to go to Krugersdorp on the 25th of September, prior to going to Josini. Now, when you, when I say you, the people from Vlakplaas had an instruction to go somewhere, did you take a whole group with you or would you go by yourself, in other words why did you go there with two mini-buses full of people, why not just go by yourself?

MR NORTJE: We never left the black members alone at some place, after the handlers left, we always took them with us. I think it was one of his instructions, or it was one of our instructions that we never leave them alone. As I understood it from Mr De Kock, I took the whole group to Krugersdorp or back to Pretoria, but we had to go to Krugersdorp and hear from Kleynhans what the problem was. I may have made arrangements during that time, when they went to the farm, because it seems to me that that is what happened, but I took the whole group with me, I never left them alone.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Nortje, to save some time, I would like to refer you to your evidence during Mr De Kock's trial which we find on page 37 of Bundle 3(b), there firstly I put to you the evidence of Mr Nzimande. I give a page reference there Mr Chairman, page 4403, that is an incorrect reference, that should be 4393.

CHAIRPERSON: 4393?

MR HATTINGH: Yes Mr Chairman, and you will find that in Bundle 3(a), the evidence of Mr Nzimande, that I am quoting to Mr Nortje here, you will find that in Bundle 3(a) at page 9. I put it to you - I forget his name, the junior Advocate for the Prosecution.

MR NORTJE: Mr De Meillon.

MR HATTINGH: Mr De Meillon led Mr Nzimande's evidence and he asked the following question

"... cast your mind back to the time in Josini, what was your task in Josini?"

And he said -

"... like I said before, we were on lookout for military trained ANC people."

Then he asks him -

"... was this task in Josini completed or underbroken?"

In other words did you know that you would go there until a certain time or was your task interrupted there and the answer comes -

"... in a way there was some disruption, it was disrupted in the sense that there was a time set that we had to return to Vlakplaas, but we went back to Vlakplaas before the time schedule."

Do you recall that I put that to you?

MR NORTJE: Yes, well, you had to.

MR HATTINGH: And without reading what your answer was to that, can you recall what your answer was to that?

MR NORTJE: No.

MR HATTINGH: Can I ask you now, what do you say of such evidence? I see you are reading, but without reading?

MR NORTJE: Well, that must have been his perception. I don't believe that he actually knew himself at which stage or what the arrangements were, he must have heard later, but I cannot recall that I specifically told them before the time.

MR HATTINGH: But you have also said in your evidence in chief that you returned earlier than you would have, so the version that time was set at which you were to return and that they returned earlier is not mistaken?

MR NORTJE: No.

MR HATTINGH: And then on page 38 I refer you to the evidence of Mr Nofomela if I recall correctly, or excuse me, it is Mr Van der Walt's evidence, excuse me, Nofomela’s is also there. I ask him about other issues and he answers to another question, he spontaneously says

"... yes My Lord, I recall that I was in Josini and while we worked there, on a certain day, Sergeant Willie Nortje told us that the accused wants us at Vlakplaas immediately."

What do you say of that evidence?

MR NORTJE: I cannot believe that he would have said that, or that I would have said so. I cannot think of a reason why we had to go there immediately.

MR HATTINGH: Except if you received instruction to return to Krugersdorp and to come earlier?

MR NORTJE: Mr Hattingh, Head Office never called me.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. You say it was planned beforehand that you would return the 25th?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: But you do not recall when you departed from Josini?

MR NORTJE: No, and I have said already I am not sure how we drove.

MR HATTINGH: Also not where you went to?

MR NORTJE: Not from there, but from Josini, where we went to directly. As I have said, I think that we must have gone to the farm and slept over there.

MR HATTINGH: Are you still saying that and if it was so, where would the accused have been?

MR NORTJE: He must have been at Zeerust.

MR HATTINGH: And you do not recall when you departed from Josini?

MR NORTJE: No, I cannot.

MR HATTINGH: I think at some stage, somewhere in your evidence whether it was here or in Mr De Kock's trial, that you might have departed three days before the time?

MR NORTJE: Yes, but I cannot see what we would have done in those three days because the instruction was that we had to go there the 25th and my logical inferences is that we would have left the 25th, or the evening of the 24th.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Hattingh, was there any particular reason why the 25th of September was arranged and not the 29th or something, some later date after your planned return from Josini?

MR NORTJE: As I understood it Chairperson, that was the day, the 25th was the day that Mr De Kock arranged with Kleynhans that we would be there. That is how I ...

CHAIRPERSON: But you don't know why the 25th, you see what I am trying to enquire, the reason, do you know any reason why Mr De Kock would have arranged the 25th of September when he knew that you and your whole group were due to be in Josini until the 27th, do you know of any reason why he didn't say "well, that week is inconvenient, how about the next week?"

MR NORTJE: Yes, I think there may have been a request that we go there earlier that month, but according to the register we were already booked out to Josini for the month and that he may have said if we come back two days before the time, then you might be able to assist him, I think that is why they decided on the 25th.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Hattingh.

MR HATTINGH: The 25th was a Tuesday, is that correct? This came about during the trial?

MR NORTJE: No, was it not a Wednesday?

MR HATTINGH: Or was it a Wednesday, okay it was a Wednesday. You will recall Mr Van der Walt's evidence that he had a recollection that you returned from Josini on a Sunday?

MR NORTJE: I have read his evidence.

MR HATTINGH: And he attaches that to the fact that from there, you went passed his parents' house where he lived and that you had a braai there?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Are you saying that it is possible that you may have left on the Sunday?

MR NORTJE: I know at some stage we visited his mother's house, but I could not recall that situation that we had left the Sunday already.

MR HATTINGH: What do you say of the evidence of some of the black members that you first went to the farm, spent the night there and that you met the accused there the following day and that he gave you instructions there the following day, what do you say of that?

MR NORTJE: I don't know, I cannot recall that it happened in that way.

MR HATTINGH: And you say, do you know that during the course of his judgement, the Judge mentioned all the contradictions between all the witnesses?

MR LAMEY: I don't know whether it was discussed as contradictions or differences, I do not want to argue with my learned friend.

MR HATTINGH: I could refer you to his judgement.

MR LAMEY: I leave it there, I do not make any objection, we can argue about that later.

MR HATTINGH: Let us just return to the Pretoria area and you go to Krugersdorp. You cannot recall whether you went to the farm first or whether you went directly to Krugersdorp? It sounds that your recollection is here that you first went to the farm and then spent the evening there?

MR NORTJE: Yes, I think.

MR HATTINGH: Do you think that that is what happened?

MR NORTJE: I cannot specifically attach it to anything, but that would be my logical explanation as of what happened.

MR HATTINGH: But what is quite clear in your memory is that when you arrived there, you did not know exactly what it was about and what they wanted of you?

MR NORTJE: I would not say that I did not know, but I had an idea. Maybe, I am not sure.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Hattingh, you say you might have spent the night on the farm, did you have a place to sleep there?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you have rooms and beds?

MR NORTJE: Yes, we usually - there were beds there, but we usually slept in the canteen on the floor.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, sorry Mr Hattingh.

MR HATTINGH: Let us just return, what was your knowledge as to what Krugersdorp wanted, when you arrived there before they informed you about it?

MR NORTJE: I am not entirely certain about everything that I knew, but it was still not a problem because I would still get the information from them.

MR HATTINGH: But can you not recall at all what knowledge you had when you arrived there?

MR NORTJE: If I had to say now, I think it was about the photo's that they came to show there at the farm and the discussion thereafter and it was about the Maponya, the Mainstay story. I might have had Mainstay's name in my head at that stage, but I was not interested in detail. I would have gotten everything from them there.

MR HATTINGH: Did you according to you, have an appointment to meet Mr Kleynhans there that day?

MR NORTJE: Well, I did not call him during the month and tell him that I was on my way, I stayed with the arrangement that Mr De Kock told me that the 25th "you had to go to Krugersdorp and see Kleynhans."

MR HATTINGH: In your mind, was he expecting you?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Because that was the arrangement between Mr De Kock and Kleynhans?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Because Mr De Kock told you to go there the 25th after the discussion with Dunkley and Kleynhans and when you arrived there, did he know what you were there for or let me put it this way, did he expect you there?

MR NORTJE: He did not ask me "what do you want here", he invited me in.

MR HATTINGH: Did he know who you were?

MR NORTJE: Yes, he knew who I was.

MR HATTINGH: How did he know that?

MR NORTJE: Well, he must have seen me that day on the farm, we may have seen each other at some stage, but I think the day at the farm he saw me and as I said, I didn't know him quite that well.

MR HATTINGH: You say that "we might have seen each other at some stage?" To which stage do you refer now?

MR NORTJE: I don't know, but we were not strangers.

MR HATTINGH: No, I am asking you about the statement that you have just made, you said that "we may have seen each other at some stage", and now I ask you which stage?

MR NORTJE: On the farm.

MR HATTINGH: On the farm?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: But you couldn't have seen each other there, you did see each other there?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Now why do you say you may have seen each other?

MR NORTJE: A wrong word choice.

MR HATTINGH: Okay, a wrong choice of words? When you arrived there, did you go directly to Kleynhans?

MR NORTJE: I would imagine that I did not know the place, he told us the Security Branch was there and I would imagine that we first spoke to the Secretary or some of the ladies that worked there and I asked "where is Captain Kleynhans" because that was the person whom I had in mind that I had to see first of all. And he arrived there.

MR HATTINGH: With regard to the Maponya incident, for the first time you arrived in Krugersdorp on the 25th of September, you had not been there earlier with regard to Maponya?

MR NORTJE: No.

MR HATTINGH: There was no operation executed with regard to Mr Maponya or any of the two Maponya's, Mr Japie or Ondereli Maponya, before that date at Krugersdorp?

MR NORTJE: It came to my attention at some stage that a team of our people were in the vicinity, in the Krugersdorp vicinity a month or two before that, but I did not know who was there.

MR HATTINGH: Were you involved there?

MR NORTJE: No, I was not.

ADV GCABASHE : Sorry, when you say a team of our people, you are talking about Vlakplaas?

MR NORTJE: Vlakplaas, yes.

ADV GCABASHE : And would those have been black members?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

ADV GCABASHE : That you heard about who had been there?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

ADV GCABASHE : At the request of Krugersdorp?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

ADV GCABASHE : Did you know all of that details?

MR NORTJE: No, I did not have the details.

ADV GCABASHE : This is just something that you heard about then?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

ADV GCABASHE : In general?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, and those teams, the team that you went to Josini, was that your team? You stuck together throughout or did you interchange?

MR NORTJE: No, we interchanged. Some of the people who were with me at Krugersdorp, had already apparently been at Krugersdorp and they were already looking for Ondereli Maponya, so there was a stage before this point. I didn't know what the details were and that is why during that period of time, I had it in mind that this is where it possibly could have led to. But as I have said, I don't have any details about it. However, they told me that there was and I imagine that Nofomela had been there previously with another team, at Krugersdorp.

MR MALAN: You said that they were looking for Ondereli’s brother?

MR NORTJE: No, Ondereli himself.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hattingh?

MR HATTINGH: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Nortje on page 12 of Bundle 3(b), it is your evidence during the De Kock trial, I ask you the question

"... is it possible that you were at Krugersdorp earlier than the 25?"

And you say -

"... it is possible, but I cannot recall that we were there earlier."

MR HATTINGH: Would you concede that possibility that you may have been in Krugersdorp a little bit earlier?

MR NORTJE: No, but I cannot recall it, I have no recollection of that.

MR HATTINGH: Why would you concede to the possibility at all, according to your recollection of the events, as you have described them here?

MR NORTJE: Let me put it like this, I was not there before the date. I knew about things that had taken place there, but I never went and operated in Krugersdorp with a team before that date.

MR HATTINGH: Then why do you concede to the possibility?

MR NORTJE: At this stage?

MR HATTINGH: Why did you concede to it then?

MR NORTJE: I don't know, I was probably uncertain, but I cannot think of any reason for me to have been there. I don't believe I was. I will stand by that.

CHAIRPERSON: I mean the reason would be to look for Ondereli Maponya?

MR NORTJE: Yes. I was never there with a team that specifically searched for him.

MR HATTINGH: Very well, now you say that you arrived there at the Security offices and who did you go and see?

MR NORTJE: Well, as I have said, I went to see either Dunkley or Kleynhans first.

MR HATTINGH: In their offices or where?

MR NORTJE: I don't know whether it was in their office or in another place. They knew why I was there and they said "let's go and introduce you to the Colonel." He was still Colonel Le Roux at that stage.

MR HATTINGH: And then did both of them accompany you to Colonel Le Roux?

MR NORTJE: Yes, as far as I can recall.

MR HATTINGH: And what took place in Colonel Le Roux' office?

MR NORTJE: Well, we must have discussed the situation, they would have informed me about Japie Maponya.

MR HATTINGH: Sorry to interrupt you Mr Nortje, during the criminal trial I asked you numerous times not to tell us what would have happened, or what may have happened, if you don't know, feel free to say that you don't know what happened, but I want to know what actually happened, not what could have happened.

MR NORTJE: I cannot recall.

MR HATTINGH: Not at all?

MR NORTJE: It is very difficult for me to say precisely what took place. I cannot say who said what, it is impossible for me, I cannot do that. I would like to tell you, but I am speaking of what I think may have happened and I cannot say anything further about that.

CHAIRPERSON: But you didn't go to the office and just sit and look at each other?

MR NORTJE: No.

CHAIRPERSON: There must have been some discussion?

MR NORTJE: Yes, there was a discussion.

MR HATTINGH: What can you remember of that discussion? Something which you can actually remember, not something that you remember by inference?

MR NORTJE: What I can infer is that they must have informed me about the situation, they must have informed me that Japie was Ondereli’s brother, where he was working, they had to have given all that information to me.

MR HATTINGH: You say that you are inferring this?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: You have no independent recollection of it?

MR NORTJE: Well, that was the first time that I heard that Japie worked at the bank, that is the first time I think that I may have heard his name. That is the first time that we discussed the circumstances that they were experiencing.

MR HATTINGH: Once again, you have not answered the question Mr Nortje. I am asking you whether you are inferring that that is what was said to you or is this your independent recollection of what was said?

MR NORTJE: I cannot remember verbatim what was said.

MR HATTINGH: Can you recall anything of what was said to you, not by means of inference but by means of actual recollection?

MR NORTJE: It is difficult to answer.

MR HATTINGH: Why is it difficult to answer?

MR NORTJE: Because I cannot recall.

MR HATTINGH: Well, then say so. You are free to say so. So in actual fact, you cannot recall exactly what was said in that office?

MR NORTJE: No.

MR HATTINGH: You are simply speculating as to what may have been said?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Very well.

MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, I just want to come in here, I want to say that I think the witness is entitled to answer as to what the logical conclusion was at the time, but ...

CHAIRPERSON: I think Mr Hattingh is not being unfair in his questioning, I mean he is merely saying what we have all heard, because he does introduce many of his answers with "it must have happened that this occurred" or "this is the way it should have happened." It is basically speculation.

MR LAMEY: Yes, but Mr Chairman, as I sort of understand the evidence, it is not really sort of vague speculation, it is a logical conclusion as to what took place.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that is surely a point for argument, but I do not think Mr Hattingh's questioning is in any way improper or unfair.

MR LAMEY: As it pleases you Mr Chairman.

MR HATTINGH: You see, Mr Nortje, ultimately this Committee will have to make a decision with regard to whose version will be accepted and to do so, they must take these factors into consideration, who can recall what was said and who cannot recall what was said. Do you understand?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: What would you then do after this discussion in the office? What was your action then?

MR NORTJE: Once I was up to date with what their need was and what they wanted to be done, I went to the black members and I told them what the people expected from us.

MR HATTINGH: Might I just interrupt you there, I will give you the opportunity to complete your statement if you wish to add anything. Can I first ask you what was their need, what did they want you to do?

MR NORTJE: Well, the reason why they called us in was because they would have used the askaris to approach Japie under false pretence. The information that they wanted was where Maponya's brother was. That was the gist or the basic idea that I conveyed, that was the problem that they had. They themselves...

MR HATTINGH: Well, we are not discussing the problem now, we are discussing what they wanted you to do.

MR NORTJE: They wanted us to approach Japie with the assistance of an askari and in so doing, to obtain information about him regarding his brother's whereabouts.

MR HATTINGH: So the idea and I think you refer to it as a false flag or something like that, but the idea that use would be made of false pretences by an askari, came from them?

MR NORTJE: From Kleynhans, yes.

MR HATTINGH: Is that what you are saying?

MR NORTJE: Yes. That is the manner in which we operated and they knew that. And I think that they must have discussed that because it was my idea as well that we should adopt that method in approaching him.

MR HATTINGH: How do you know that they knew what your methods were, I understand that this was the first time that they had enlisted your help?

MR NORTJE: But they must have discussed the situation with Mr De Kock. That is what I had in mind of what they wanted, and we also discussed it.

MR HATTINGH: Was it not your suggestion to make use of an askari and so forth? Didn't they just sketch the problem to you and say "we have a man here who has information about the whereabouts of his brother and we cannot obtain that information from him, we need your help?"

MR NORTJE: That may have been my idea, or my thoughts, I will not dispute it because that is the only way that I understood the situation which I had summarised. That was the only way that we could approach him.

MR HATTINGH: On page 12 of Bundle 3(b) at the bottom of the page in that direction, I ask you

"... I also put it to you, let me put it to you like this, for which purpose did you visit his office? Well, it was for the purpose that the accused told me that I was to go to Kleynhans and the others and when I arrived at the office, at the General's office, I cannot recall whether he called Kleynhans and whether Kleynhans took me there, but we went to the General's office. There they informed me about and at that stage I wasn't completely up to date with what the circumstances were and what they wanted, then they said that Japie is Ondereli’s brother and that he worked at the bank, at United and that they had attempted to recruit him as an informer, but that he didn't want to fall for it, and they now wanted to see whether we could approach him under a false pretence, in other words that we send a fresh askari from abroad, to him under false pretence and tell him 'listen, because he had specifically, it was Chris Mosiane', he had specifically known Ondereli from the camp in Angola ..."

and according to that it sounds to me as if the suggestion that you were to use an unknown askari, came from them?

MR NORTJE: I am not certain. But it was discussed.

MR HATTINGH: Let me just return to my previous questions in this regard, there you give evidence as if you have a recollection of what took place in the office. You don't say that this is an inference or a conclusion that you draw?

MR NORTJE: Yes, but that is what the discussion must have been about. I never said that I recalled those words specifically. I said that that was what I thought that they had said, or I thought that we had discussed or what the discussion had been about or the problem that they had, I am not even certain whether at that stage, I mentioned Chris' name.

MR HATTINGH: But that is not the way it reads here, Mr Nortje? You say here not that they must have told me that or they must have said that.

MR NORTJE: I cannot recall word for word what was said on that day.

MR HATTINGH: You say here

"... then they said Japie is Ondereli’s brother ..."

and so forth. Did you recall this then?

MR NORTJE: No, I recalled it then as I recall it today, that was the discussion, that was what it must have been about, that is the information that they had to give to me.

MR HATTINGH: If we proceed to page 26 of the same Bundle, it is about the question of what the accused would have told you. I ask you

"... what exactly did he tell you, Mr Nortje, with reference to the accused, Mr De Kock? He simply told me that he had arranged a meeting on the 25th of the month with Kleynhans and the others, and that I had to be there to assist them."

I ask you -

"... to help them with what? With the Maponya's, they wanted his brother. As I said, they wanted to get his brother, it was our plan to use a false pretence as we had spoken about it, to attempt to recruit. In other words we would send people to him who would pretend to be MK members and attempt to determine where his brother was. That was the order."

The accused's instruction to you were specifically that you had to be back on the 25th in order to carry out that operation?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: There you say that the accused gave you the order to make use of a pretence to obtain the information which Krugersdorp wanted?

MR NORTJE: That was one of our working methods.

MR HATTINGH: Please Mr Nortje, I am not interested in what the working methods was, did the accused give you the instruction at Vlakplaas to use a pretence or a false flag method and in so doing, obtain the information which Krugersdorp required, because you say that was the order and you say that it came from the accused?

MR NORTJE: I cannot recall.

MR HATTINGH: But if you said it then, would it have been the truth?

MR NORTJE: Yes, it is the truth.

MR HATTINGH: So if you said it then, it would have been the truth?

MR NORTJE: Yes, that is the idea that I had of what we could possibly have discussed. I cannot specifically recall that he used those words. I don't believe that I remembered it then, it was also an inference regarding what the discussion may have been about.

MR HATTINGH: But you don't say here that it is an inference, you say that it was the order and that is unequivocal? You say that that was the order which the accused gave to you?

MR NORTJE: No. That was simply my logical explanation of the discussion.

MR HATTINGH: So, now you say that you couldn't remember it back then, despite that which you have said here, is that correct?

MR NORTJE: Well, the discussion must have been about that, that is what I have in my mind.

MR HATTINGH: Let's leave it at that. There in Mr Le Roux' office when you were introduced to him, by the way, I have just read to you the section in which you say - I will return to it later, let me return to the point that I am busy with at the moment, when you were there in Gen Le Roux' office, was an explanation given to you of what their needs were and what they wanted you to do?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: You cannot recall the exact wording, but you know what the gist of it was, is that correct?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And that was that you had to obtain information from Japie Maponya?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: The first idea was that it could be obtained in this indirect manner?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Did you then go out and give Chris Mosiane the order to approach Mr Maponya?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: You also gave evidence during these proceedings that you gave him a handgrenade and a pistol, is that correct?

MR NORTJE: Yes, I gave those items to him at a stage.

MR HATTINGH: When did you give them to him?

MR NORTJE: I am not certain.

MR HATTINGH: Can you not recall at all?

MR NORTJE: No, I cannot recall precisely when.

MR HATTINGH: And are you certain that you gave him both the pistol and the handgrenade?

MR NORTJE: No.

MR HATTINGH: Then why did you say so here?

MR NORTJE: That is what I had in my mind, that I had given him the handgrenade and the pistol.

MR HATTINGH: You had this in your thoughts when you gave evidence here?

MR NORTJE: Well, actually I know that I did so at a stage, that is the reason why we approached him, or at least it is one of them. There had to be a creation of some credibility, that is why.

MR HATTINGH: The question is when you gave evidence here, your recollection is that you gave him a handgrenade and a pistol, is that so?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: In your evidence in chief, I know that it went very quickly, I have a telegram style note of this, I gave him a makarov and a handgrenade as well.

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Well, are you certain whether you gave him only one or both?

MR NORTJE: Well, I definitely gave him one of the two and I think I gave him both, but I am not certain. But I definitely gave him the weapons at a stage.

MR HATTINGH: That was to mislead Mr Maponya to get him to believe that he was a member of MK?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Do you recall your evidence in this regard during Mr De Kock's trial when it was put to you whether you gave Mosiane a grenade or a pistol?

MR NORTJE: No, but it must have been something in the same line, something that I would have had in mind.

MR HATTINGH: On page 35 of the evidence, in Bundle 3(b), right at the bottom of the page, it is put to you and I think it is still me

"... in order to give him more credibility, you then handed over certain objects to him? That is correct. Who undertook the delivery? It was most probably me, I gave him either a pistol or a handgrenade, but at that stage, I cannot recall, but I heard that I gave him a pistol."

What do you say about that, because there you said either one or the other, but later you heard that it wasn't the handgrenade but indeed the pistol?

MR NORTJE: Well, I gave him one of the two.

MR HATTINGH: But here you say that you gave him a pistol and possibly a handgrenade?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: There you had it as one or the other, and then it became only one in terms of evidence that you received later?

MR NORTJE: The fact remains that I gave him either a pistol or a handgrenade to give him some sense of credibility.

MR HATTINGH: Very well, and he returned to you and said that Maponya had not fallen for this attempt?

MR NORTJE: This is correct. And what his words were after that, I cannot recall.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. And you then first asked the askaris and the black members there, what their suggestions were surrounding the matter?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: What was the suggestion?

MR NORTJE: Well, one of the members or one of the askaris or one of the Policemen then suggested that we take him and force him to talk and I said "no wait, we can't take such drastic action." Once again I cannot recall my exact words, I assume that I said that, I didn't want to jump right into the car and abduct him right there and then, I said that we should first obtain clearance from the people at the Security Branch and explain the situation to them. Once again, I cannot recall my precise choice of words.

MR HATTINGH: Was it then clear to you that their suggestion was abduction and assault to obtain information?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And you felt that this was too drastic to continue with without clearance from a higher authority?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And that is why you returned to Headquarters?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Do you recall what was discussed in Gen Le Roux' office?

MR NORTJE: I cannot recall the words.

MR HATTINGH: Not at all?

MR NORTJE: No. I can recall the gist of what was said.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nortje, it would be remarkable if you could remember the exact words that were used 15 years later, I don't think any one of us expects the exact, a rendition of the exact words, but if you can remember what the discussion was about, what the topic was about, that is fine. As long as you don't say well, I surmise that it might have been about this. If you are not sure what it was, say so, but if you are sure that it was about a certain topic, then just tell us. We don't expect the exact words.

MR NORTJE: Thank you Chairperson. When I returned to the office, I don't know who went back, if Van der Walt went back with me, but we returned to the office and I explained the situation to them and said that our attempts had been unsuccessful and that the black members suggested that we abduct him and force him to talk. Naturally I realised what the black members meant by that when they said that we should force him to talk. At that stage, we discussed it.

MR HATTINGH: I beg your pardon, we, who are we?

MR NORTJE: I am speaking of Gen Le Roux.

MR HATTINGH: Not you and the black members?

MR NORTJE: No, we are in the office now. I made the suggestion or at least I said the black members suggest that we abduct him, or I said let's abduct him, but basically it boiled down to the fact that the black members were willing to do this.

MR HATTINGH: And you agreed with it?

MR NORTJE: I did not agree with it immediately, I also did not object to it. I simply said that this was the other option, that if he didn't want to cooperate, we would force him to give us the information that we wanted.

MR HATTINGH: What was the reaction to this?

MR NORTJE: Well, initially it was well received, or at least I don't know what was going through their minds, at least they didn't say "no, that is too drastic, stop, let's not do that, let's try something else."

MR HATTINGH: But what did they say?

MR NORTJE: I cannot recall.

MR HATTINGH: Once again, as the Chairperson has indicated, not in their precise words, but what did they say, yes, no, it sounds like a good idea?

MR NORTJE: Yes, that is what emerged, that they agreed with it.

MR HATTINGH: Very well,

MR NORTJE: But the next step and this relates to my position, that I could not inform my people in such a situation if I did not notify the accused.

MR HATTINGH: I beg your pardon for interrupting you, once again I will give you the opportunity to deal with the following step thoroughly, but before we get to that ...

CHAIRPERSON: Do you want to finish this before we go for lunch or would this be a convenient stage?

MR HATTINGH: This might be a convenient stage, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, we will now take the lunch adjournment until quarter to two, thank you.

MS LOCKHAT: All rise.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

WILLEM ALBERTUS NORTJE: (still under oath)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Hattingh?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: (cont)

Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Nortje, before I continue with the subject we were dealing with before the adjournment, I have had a look at my notes and there is one or two aspects that I have already dealt with, which I want to draw your attention to. You say or you have said here this morning that if Kleynhans said that he was there alone and Dunkley was not there, and Dunkley said he was not there, then they are wrong and you are correct? This was the first meeting there at the farm, when they asked for assistance?

MR NORTJE: Yes, I recall both of them there.

MR HATTINGH: May I refer you to page 33 of Bundle 3(b), at the bottom of the page you are asked, or you are referred to, let me just find the point so that I know that I am putting it in context to you. Sorry Mr Chairman, page 33, and you are referred to Kleynhans' evidence there during the trial of Mr De Kock and the quote is read to you

"... did you see the accused with regard to the incident? I did. Where did you speak to him? At Vlakplaas and we spoke about it and we agreed that as soon as his working circumstances allowed it, then he would do it for us."

It is in that regard that the conversation continued and then later, I will return to this, I am actually dealing with another point and at the bottom of the page I quote once again -

"... when you spoke to him, were you alone? Was anybody else present? I was alone. No mention of Dunkley?"

I put to you Mr Nortje, and you say -

"... it is possible?

And two or three lines lower down you are asked -

"... what was the following step and you said there it is possible."

Did you say that it was possible that he was there alone?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: So do you concede that, that Mr Dunkley was not there?

MR NORTJE: Well, I once again say that I recall that they were both there.

MR HATTINGH: So do you concede that you may be mistaken?

MR NORTJE: No, I cannot say that I am mistaken. I recall that they were both there.

MR HATTINGH: But in the trail you conceded the possibility?

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Hattingh, is that the quotation right at the bottom of the page?

MR HATTINGH: Yes, that is correct Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: "... when you spoke to him?"

MR HATTINGH: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that not the same, it doesn't mean that Dunkley wasn't there, but he might have just spoken with the one person and Dunkley might have been elsewhere on the farm? He is quoting Kleynhans here, but he said he was alone when he spoke to ...

MR HATTINGH: To De Kock, yes Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: To De Kock, Mr De Kock. Which doesn't necessarily mean that Dunkley wasn't on the farm?

ADV GCABASHE : Or does it?

MR HATTINGH: I think it does Mr Chairman, and I seem to have a recollection, I will check my notes, that Kleynhans on another occasion also confirmed that he went alone. If I may refer you to the same page, higher up, the quotation that I have already read

"... did you speak to the accused with regard to the incident? I did."

It doesn't say "we did".

MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, I think we must in all fairness to the witness, you know, we could extract very minute passages from this whole record, if you turn over just to the previous page, I have just seen it now, I don't want to really be obstructive in cross-examination, just below 20, I just noted this, line 20, it was put in

"... Dunkley denied that three weeks before the time he went to Vlakplaas and as far as I can recall, he was there."

MR HATTINGH: I accept that he said that Mr Chairman, but that doesn't change the import of the question that I put to him at all. I want to put it to you that you conceded the possibility that Dunkley could not have been there and that Kleynhans was there by himself?

MR NORTJE: Why I could say that was because I knew that Dunkley and Mr De Kock knew each other from an earlier time, and it was another reason why Dunkley, can I say that he would have come with Kleynhans and that they had discussed the thing there, but I can say with certainty that they were both there.

MR HATTINGH: You are aware that Dunkley said that he was not there?

MR NORTJE: Yes, I see that here but I did not read it.

MR HATTINGH: And there you said

"... as far as I can recall, he was there."

The section to which your Attorney has drawn our attention to?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: It seems to me that you were a bit uncertain there because you say "as far as I can recall he was there", are you not certain there?

MR NORTJE: If you have to ask me if I am sure or not, then I say I am sure he was there.

MR HATTINGH: And then with regard to the question whether you had an appointment with Mr Kleynhans as you have testified, if you have a look at Bundle 3(b), page 33 - excuse me, maybe I do not have the correct passage, at the top of 34 it is quoted from Mr Kleynhans' evidence when I had you under cross-examination, the following

"... what was the following step in the Maponya matter, what happened?"

And he says -

"... approximately three weeks to a month thereafter, one morning, Warrant Officer Nortje, Willie Nortje, arrived at us and told me that he was tasked to pick up Japie Maponya for the interrogation."

If you read that along with page 48 to 49 of the same Bundle, at the bottom of page 48, once again a quote is read to you of what I put to Kleynhans and I put to him on one day Nortje arrived there unexpectedly and he says that that is right. I told him that there was no appointment made or nothing like that and he says "no". The reference to Kleynhans' evidence Mr Chairman, on this aspect, in Bundle 3(a), pages 202 to 203, so Kleynhans said that there was no appointment arranged?

MR NORTJE: As far as I can recall, there was one, he expected me.

MR HATTINGH: His evidence was in the piece that I mentioned to you was that Mr De Kock told him "I will assist you", I am not sure what the exact words were, but it boiled down to that it could not be then, but he could assist him later, but no appointment was arranged?

MR NORTJE: Well, he sent me there, that is all that I can say about that.

MR HATTINGH: So your evidence is then that you will recall that Mr De Kock also said that there was no date, no date was agreed upon on which he would assist him?

MR NORTJE: No, there was.

MR HATTINGH: So your evidence is that Mr De Kock said or it boils down to the fact that Mr De Kock said to Kleynhans "I cannot assist you now, I will assist you later", but immediately thereafter he tells you that you must be there in Krugersdorp on the 25th of September? That is what it boils down to if you accept Kleynhans' evidence as correct?

MR NORTJE: No, I do not accept his evidence as correct.

MR HATTINGH: And also not Mr De Kock's?

MR NORTJE: No, I don't accept Mr De Kock's either.

MR HATTINGH: And you said here this morning, you said you were not sure whether you went to the farm first or whether you went directly to Krugersdorp, but your recollection is that you went to the farm and that you stayed the night there and you were asked if there was accommodation to sleep, do you recall that? Will you have a look at page 30 of Volume 3(b)? Right at the top you said

"... right from the start, I told the Prosecutor or the Advocate I cannot recall whether we went to Vlakplaas first or to Krugersdorp first or whether we spent the night there, I cannot recall. I know that the morning of the 25th, we were in Krugersdorp."

Now I would like to ask you, or I put more questions to you about this and you say, let me find the passage, it is lower down -

"... is there a possibility that you went to Krugersdorp directly from Josini? Well, that is what I had in mind that we did. Yes, is that your recollection? Yes."

MR NORTJE: Right up to today, I am still not sure whether we went to Krugersdorp first or whether we went to the farm first, I cannot recall.

MR HATTINGH: But this morning your recollection was that you went to the farm?

MR NORTJE: That was just a logical inference that we went directly to the farm.

MR HATTINGH: But during the trial, your recollection was the opposite of that? How do you explain that?

MR NORTJE: Because I was not sure.

MR HATTINGH: Let us arrive at the aspect with which we dealt, this was after the plan to obtain information from Mr Maponya, the first attempt had failed and then you went back to the office and this morning in cross-examination you told Mr Visser that after you had given evidence during the trial, you went and thought about this carefully, why?

MR NORTJE: Because I had a problem in trying to remember exactly how the things followed on each other and exactly what was said.

MR HATTINGH: But you gave a version in your evidence in the De Kock case?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And what made you think that that version may not be the correct version, or let me ask you in the following, did you afterwards doubt whether what you had said there, was the exact version?

MR NORTJE: No, I did not try to mislead anybody or not speak the truth as I have said, my recollection was as I remembered it...

MR HATTINGH: Excuse me for interrupting you Mr Nortje, that was not my question. Did you after you had given evidence in the De Kock trial, did you doubt your evidence that you had given?

MR NORTJE: Yes, to an extent because I could not recall everything one hundred percent and other things came to me afterwards.

MR HATTINGH: Did you realise afterwards that maybe "I did not give the correct evidence there", is that correct? I have to think carefully?

MR NORTJE: I cannot say that I maliciously did not speak the truth, that was my recollection at that stage. As today we are under different circumstances and it is a few years later.

MR HATTINGH: And a few years later when you drew up your application, what was the date thereof, was it 1997 or what?

MR NORTJE: It was in 1997.

MR HATTINGH: Now you think about it again and now you recall better than what you remembered then, is that correct?

MR NORTJE: Yes, there is some of the things that I do remember.

MR HATTINGH: And then when you thought again and you went back to what you said in the trial of Mr De Kock?

MR NORTJE: No, I did not read everything.

MR HATTINGH: Did you think that you may have been incorrect in your evidence?

MR NORTJE: The reason why I did not read it was because I still had the idea as I remember it and had tried to give it. I had no reason to add stories and to add other pieces. It is still difficult today for me to recall all the detail.

MR HATTINGH: In other words are you now telling this Committee, Mr Nortje, that when you prepared your application, you thought carefully about the event and what is in your statement, is what your recollection was then?

MR NORTJE: I did not draw up my statement from my evidence, I drew it up as I remembered it.

MR HATTINGH: You are still not listening to the question, the question is simple. Did you when you drew up your application, think carefully about the events and conveyed it as you remembered it then?

MR NORTJE: Yes, I had tried to convey it as I recalled it.

MR HATTINGH: And that version, did you give that version in your application, did the idea arrive at you that it would be the same as the version you gave in the trial?

MR NORTJE: No, I realised that it could not be the exact version, word for word.

MR HATTINGH: No, I am not talking about word for word.

MR NORTJE: In essence it differed a little, there may have been some things that I have forgotten, that I added.

MR HATTINGH: Did you not think it was a few years ago I have given evidence about this, "let me have a look at as how I put it then to make sure that I do not forget anything, just to refresh my memory?"

MR NORTJE: No, I did not.

MR HATTINGH: So you decided you will not refresh your memory by reading any documents, is that correct?

MR NORTJE: No, I did not.

MR HATTINGH: But did you not say that when your application was drawn up, you had the opportunity of thinking about it again and to consult documents or words to that effect?

MR NORTJE: I am not sure, I cannot recall.

MR HATTINGH: Did you not refer to any previous statement or version when you drew up your version?

MR NORTJE: I think we drew it up from my original statement which I made in Denmark. My statement with regard to when the trial was ongoing or before it.

MR HATTINGH: Let us just get clarity, I am speaking of your version as it is embodied in paragraph 5 of Bundle 1(b). I am sorry Chairperson, 337, specifically the section to which your attention was drawn to by Mr Visser during cross-examination

"... I informed Captain Kleynhans and Gen Le Roux that it was a suggestion by the black members to abduct Japie and to try and obtain information from him, but at this early stage the elimination of Maponya was not decided on, but I foresaw it as a possibility that it might happen during or after the questioning. At this stage, De Kock joined us in Krugersdorp and I informed him about the situation."

Are you saying that when you added that paragraph into your application, you did not have a look at previous versions?

MR NORTJE: I cannot recall now, but that is how I remembered the events.

MR MALAN: Excuse me Mr Hattingh, did he not say that he said that he thought he looked at his statement that he made in Denmark?

MR HATTINGH: That is what I want to put to you, did you not say that you had indeed had a look at your statement that you made in Denmark?

MR NORTJE: I may have, yes.

MR HATTINGH: No, we do not want to know if you could have, if you cannot recall, you must say so.

MR NORTJE: I cannot recall.

MR HATTINGH: But a few minutes earlier you uttered the possibility?

MR NORTJE: Yes, there is a possibility but I cannot recall.

MR HATTINGH: As you are sitting here now, can you recall whether you have consulted any previous version about this for purposes of drawing up this application?

MR NORTJE: No.

MR HATTINGH: And you, when you were under cross-examination by Mr Visser this morning, you said that you have had an opportunity now to consider the incident again and to think carefully about it, I am not saying that those were your exact words, but words to that effect?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: When did you have that opportunity that you had to think about it carefully?

MR NORTJE: I cannot recall now.

CHAIRPERSON: Was there any, I think one would imagine that in that period of several years, you would have had an opportunity to think, was there any special reason for you to sit down and seriously try to remember back to what happened in 1985, September?

MR NORTJE: I did think about it a lot, but certain recollections, certain things I just could not remember. It is difficult, I cannot explain it but I said it because this is how I remembered it.

MR MALAN: Excuse me Mr Nortje, the question, I don't know whether you understood the question correctly or whether I did not understand the question, the question is during that time from the trial up to now, or from the statement to now, was there any reason why you had to go and sit down and think properly about what happened at any stage, that you can recall, that forced you to think about the contents of the first statement?

MR NORTJE: No, I cannot remember it.

MR MALAN: Excuse me, it seems very strange to me. Were you not consulted with?

MR NORTJE: There was a consultation.

MR MALAN: After the statement?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR MALAN: And at other opportunities?

MR NORTJE: I think it was during our consultation and when we drew up this thing, because this is what I had in mind.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hattingh?

MR HATTINGH: Thank you Mr Chairman. The legal representative who assisted you with the application, the statement that we are dealing with, was that Mr Lamey or anybody else?

MR NORTJE: It was Mr Lamey.

MR HATTINGH: Were you - I want to avoid the term legal representative - but were you assisted by anyone else with your application?

MR NORTJE: No.

MR HATTINGH: May I just refer you to the passage to which Mr Visser had also referred you to, on page 50 of Bundle 3(b). This is the passage which he dealt with in his cross-examination?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Let us read it again and then we know what you have said there. The question is put to you

"... what role did he play in the planning according to you."

And the reference was a reference to Mr De Kock and you answered -

"... well, he basically took over control. No, but what was his participation in the planning?"

And you say -

"... when he arrived there, we went back to the General's office and there we put it clearly to the General that we would abduct the man and he would be assaulted. Let me put it to you in the following, if he wanted to cooperate, we would not have killed him, but if we had to assault him so much that we wanted to obtain the information from him, that we could not let him go, then we had to take him away. That was the discussion and everybody agreed there in the office."

Then there was an interruption, let us pause there. Are you saying that the statement as it reads there, is not in its context correct?

MR NORTJE: I would not say that it is wrong.

MR HATTINGH: Would you like to qualify that?

MR NORTJE: I tried to express myself about the conversation, what the conversation was about, that the possibility ...

MR HATTINGH: Excuse me, I will interrupt you there, I do not want to know what you wanted to do there, I ask you please look at that statement as it is on paper there and tell the Committee whether you want to qualify anything or change anything in there.

MR NORTJE: The take away, the meaning of taking away means to kill, then I could say that it was not pertinently mentioned there at that stage.

MR HATTINGH: So the use of the words "take away" was incorrect?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Are you saying that you ...

MR NORTJE: I cannot say that it was in my mind at that stage that we would take him away and kill him, I said it to explain the conversation that took place there.

MR HATTINGH: Let us just see what you understood with regard to the term "take away" or "taken away".

MR NORTJE: The word take away that is there probably means at the end of the day, to kill.

MR HATTINGH: That was in your language, not so?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: In your language "take away" would mean kill?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And you are saying what you had said there, was not discussed?

MR NORTJE: No, take away is not correct in that context, because as I said, it was not our idea at that stage.

MR HATTINGH: Now, why did you state it as such there?

MR NORTJE: I cannot explain now.

MR HATTINGH: "... Then we would have had to take him away, but if we had to assault him to obtain information from him, that we could not release him, we would have had to take him away, that was the conversation and everybody agreed with it."

Very clear? How else would you read it then?

MR NORTJE: Well, that is how I expressed myself.

MR HATTINGH: But what did you mean with that?

MR NORTJE: What would happen at the end of the day to him.

MR HATTINGH: Now I don't understand you, that he would be taken away at the end of the day?

MR NORTJE: That is maybe what I had in mind.

MR HATTINGH: Are you saying that it was discussed there?

MR NORTJE: No.

MR HATTINGH: Are you positive about that?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Very positive?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: You are not mistaken about that?

MR NORTJE: I don't believe so because as I have said, it was not in our minds by that time.

MR HATTINGH: And your recollection is clear about that, is that correct?

MR NORTJE: To be honest, no.

MR HATTINGH: Let me read a section or two sections to you, from the judgement in the De Kock trial. Mr Chairman, if you will give me a moment to find my reference, Volume 3(b), page 244, the fourth line from the top, His Lordship Justice Van der Merwe says the following

"... after accused's arrival, they once again went to Le Roux' office. Le Roux was informed according to Nortje's recollection, in the presence of Kleynhans and Dunkley who had interest in the issue, that the possibility existed that Japie Maponya might be killed. Le Roux' attitude was that they had to continue."

I know I speak here of another meeting, it was not the same meeting of which we were talking about on page 50, because the one on page 50 deals with the arrival and the discussion before the accused's arrival. But did you give evidence that would have led His Lordship Justice Van der Merwe to this conclusion at a discussion where De Kock was not or where he was present?

MR NORTJE: My recollection is that it was still the case that the General had to understand that the possibility does exist that the man may die or would die later or whatever the case may be. But he did not say, the idea was left there, or the idea was discussed there that he may die, but he did not voice his opinion and say "no, don't do it, or don't continue".

MR HATTINGH: But you fell in with the suggestion that Mr Visser put to you during cross-examination that what you wanted to say here was that he - because of the assault, whether it be during the assault or after the assault, that he may die not that he would purposefully be killed afterwards, you have conceded that during cross-examination this morning?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And there is a great difference between the two, is there not?

MR NORTJE: No, I cannot see that it is such a great difference.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, would you, if the use of the term "to take him out, take out", would you include that to mean somebody being killed during the course of an interrogation? Doesn't the term to "take out or take away" indicate that you have an intention to take this man out, that is the intention, you are going to go there and take him out? But if your intention is to interrogate him and he happens to die during the course of that interrogation because of an over-aggressive approach, would you still say that he was "taken out?"

MR NORTJE: May I put it in the following way, I do not want to cause confusion, why I used those words, I may have meant that if he is taken away or if he dies during assault, then we would have had to get rid of the body in any case. I am not trying to put this in another manner now, but that is how I expressed myself, but I am still certain that that was not the intention at that stage, to later go and kill him, because it was not yet a crisis because we did not know what would happen. Circumstances guided us.

MR HATTINGH: Mr De Kock, or excuse me Mr Nortje, will you want to go back to the literal meaning of the word "take away" now?

MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, I really think that this is an unnecessary comment, really the witness is trying to explain to the best of his ability and I don't think that is really a fair statement to make to him.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, what was not fair?

MR LAMEY: My learned friend stated to him "do you now want to retract on what you said", while the witness is trying to explain.

CHAIRPERSON: No, he said he now wants to get to the literal meaning of the word "take away".

MR LAMEY: Sorry, then I misunderstood, sorry.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, okay.

MR HATTINGH: Are you trying to say now that what you meant with the words "take away" was the literal meaning, namely that we took his body away and buried it, something of that nature, is that what you said you meant there?

MR NORTJE: No.

MR HATTINGH: Because you have already conceded that "take away" as you put it there, means to kill?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: The other passage to which I want to refer you to, I think this part of the judgement forms part of the Bundle before you, it is page 12690 of the judgement, I couldn't find it in my Bundle.

CHAIRPERSON: 12690?

MR HATTINGH: Yes Mr Chairman. I have a copy of the judgement itself here. There His Lordship Justice Van der Merwe once again says at the bottom of the page, I will read the whole paragraph to place it into context, the second part of the charge, it deals with charge 119, it seems that Japie Maponya reacted on the interrogation and give information about him being handled and would be released. We know that he was not released, the sole reason for that was that he was assaulted so seriously that the members of C10 could not release him and then the following passage

"... according to the evidence, there was already during the discussion on the 25th of September between accused, Nortje and Colonel Le Roux, that if Maponya did not cooperate, he would be removed."

You were the only person who gave evidence with regard to this instance, because Mr De Kock did not give evidence on the merits thereof.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, is my learned friend going to refer you to the evidence upon which this judgement is based, because as we all know, and with all the respect that we have for Judges of our courts, they do sometimes make mistakes and to confront a witness, with great, it is not my witness, but my witness is now involved, to confront a witness with what a Judge found, perhaps incorrectly, without at least giving him an opportunity of giving his reply to the evidence, or his explanation to the evidence upon which the Judge came to that finding, is grossly unfair.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, it is in the judgement, I don't think any of us had seen the actual evidence with regard to that, but he can comment on whether, what he thinks about that extract from the judgement surely.

MR VISSER: Yes certainly Chairperson, I just would have thought that my learned friend would have presented him with his evidence, upon which the finding was made.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, do you have reference to the evidence on which that part of the judgement is based?

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, I would submit that it was partially based on this page, page 50, but there are other references too, to which my learned friend, Mr Visser, should perhaps have referred him in cross-examination.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Which makes it much clearer than this one, I must say Mr Chairman. I put it to you that that finding of His Lordship Justice Van der Merwe, was based on your evidence, you were the only person of those three gentlemen who were present, who gave evidence.

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And you say today your evidence and to an extent in your statement in your application for amnesty, had adjusted it to give another version?

MR NORTJE: No.

MR HATTINGH: Let us go to certain other passages. Will you please go to page 14 of Bundle 3(b). I want to tell you or perhaps I shouldn't tell you because I don't know whether this is still cross-examination or whether this is evidence in chief, it doesn't really matter, whatever the case may be. At the bottom of page 14, you say approximately the third last paragraph "it is their matter. " You say

"... it was their matter and then I told them that Maponya did not want to speak to Chris about his brother, and they suggested that we should abduct the man, but not specifically abduct him, but at least take him and force him to talk."

Sorry Mr Chairman, I said 14, but then I said perhaps to put it in context, we should start at 13, the bottom of page 13, roundabout line 27 to 28, Mr Chairman. May I read it to you again Mr Nortje. You said -

"... then I said to them that Maponya did not want to speak to Chris about his brother and they suggested that we should now abduct the man or not specifically abduct him, but take him and make him or force him to talk."

Then I ask you -

"... if you say force him to talk, what do you mean by that? To assault him?

And somebody interrupts and then I ask you -

"... to torture until he speaks? Yes. Then at that stage I said "no, I can't continue, I will first have to notify the accused about the situation and he was still at Zeerust."

The rest is not of importance for now. Then you deal with the discussion in the General's office, but the passage that I actually want to refer to is somewhat lower on page 14. You say, that is when you say that you and the accused went to Gen Le Roux' office together and it is put to you -

"... was the accused with somebody?"

And you say -

"... Eugene Fourie drove with him at that stage. He was his driver. At that stage? At that stage. Then we returned to the office and then the General was also present and I think Dunkley was also present. I believe that he was present, they had to have been there, because as I said, these were their interests. Then we told them that we would take the man and talk to him, but if we could not get him to talk, we would have to take him out."

You are asked what do you mean by that and you say -

"... in other words eliminate."

And you are asked -

"... kill, make him disappear completely? Yes. This discussion, where did it take place? In the office. Whose office? The General's office. Was the accused present? He was present, yes, because after that during the Harms Commission, he and I still discussed it and also that the General was now denying everything that took place there, and he openly spoke in Head Office about Maponya Le Roux."

I am reasonably certain that that was still evidence in chief, Mr Nortje?

MR NORTJE: Yes, I said that.

MR HATTINGH: Very well, there you put it clearly and unambiguously that in Gen Le Roux' office it was said to him that if the man does not want to talk, we will have to kill him, eliminate him, remove him permanently, isn't that so?

MR NORTJE: Yes, I said that.

MR HATTINGH: And you cannot even say that you were confused with cross-examination there because that was evidence in chief, what do you say about that?

MR NORTJE: Well, once again I can only say that within the context in which I said it, when we discussed the abduction and what could possibly happen there, the idea was still that if this person could possibly die during the interrogation, it was discussed as a possibility that he would have to be taken out, that he would have to be killed. Let me say it as follows, it was clear to everybody present there that those were the consequences, but my point is that at that stage, I can honestly say today, it had not been pertinently put because we didn't know exactly what was going to happen. The things that ensued, I have incorporated here, but that is basically how it occurred, but I can stand by saying that we did not foresee at that point, or let me put it like this, it had not been a final decision yet.

MR HATTINGH: As it appears there in your evidence, that was the decision?

MR NORTJE: Yes, that is how I expressed myself.

MR HATTINGH: Did you express yourself incorrectly?

MR NORTJE: But my ideas were still the same.

MR HATTINGH: No that is not the question.

MR NORTJE: I must have expressed myself incorrectly, I will state again unequivocally that we didn't know what was going to happen yet.

MR HATTINGH: But wasn't it exactly because you didn't know what was going to happen wasn't it because of that, because of what could happen if a man didn't want to talk after you had abducted and assaulted him, if he still didn't want to talk, what then? Didn't you consider that possibility?

MR NORTJE: Yes, I did consider it.

MR HATTINGH: And?

MR NORTJE: But it wasn't a final decision yet.

MR HATTINGH: Had it been discussed?

MR NORTJE: Yes, it must have been discussed.

MR HATTINGH: No, if you cannot recall, rather say so.

MR NORTJE: At this point in time, I cannot recall the words.

MR HATTINGH: Is that the most logical consideration? Isn't that so?

MR NORTJE: I cannot say that with one hundred percent certainty.

MR HATTINGH: You take a man and you abduct him, isn't that so?

MR NORTJE: But my point is that ...

MR HATTINGH: Correct, you took a man and you abducted him, that is a serious offence in itself, correct?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And you are going to assault him violently in order to get information from him, is that correct? Is it correct?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Didn't you foresee that the man might not talk or even that he would not know, that he wouldn't be able to give you information?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And after you had abducted him and assaulted him and he didn't want to talk, and he also didn't die as a result of the assault which you had seen as a possibility, what then?

MR NORTJE: Well, that decision would not have resided with me.

MR HATTINGH: Would not have been even considered in discussion?

MR NORTJE: Probably.

MR HATTINGH: I am putting it to you that it was and that you gave evidence to that effect, that is what appears here. It was considered, a decision was taken and the decision was that if he didn't want to talk, he would have to be taken out.

MR NORTJE: But that was not the final decision. I must stand by that. That was not the final decision.

MR HATTINGH: Was there any decision as such whether it was final or?

MR NORTJE: Yes, it was discussed.

MR HATTINGH: No, the question is whether there was such a decision.

MR NORTJE: I cannot say with certainty at this point in time. I assume that it must have been discussed, but once again I must say that it was foreseen, that it was seen as a possibility, but that we had not yet reached that point where it was a final decision.

MR HATTINGH: You keep on referring to a final decision?

MR NORTJE: Yes, because that only came later.

MR HATTINGH: A final decision, it appears to me as if you are trying to say that there was a preliminary decision?

MR NORTJE: The General had to understand at that point in time, what the consequences of our actions could be, and that is what I have always said and what I continue to say until this day. It had to be implied to him that this is what could happen, we had to foresee the possibilities. I am not saying that he didn't know or that he didn't think about it, or that we didn't leave that thought with him, he must have known that this could happen.

MR HATTINGH: What must he have known?

MR NORTJE: That the possibility existed that he could die or that he could die later, or whatever the case may have been. We had not yet taken the final decision.

MR HATTINGH: So once again you have returned to the death as a result of assault?

MR NORTJE: Yes, I foresaw that as a possibility, I think all of us did. We may have discussed it, but I cannot recall specifically that we said that we would take him away after the time and kill him. The reason why I think that is because it must have been discussed, but I cannot remember pertinently that the final decision was taken there, that it was said that we would definitely kill him after this operation, or whatever the case might be.

MR HATTINGH: Why are you distinguishing, why are you putting two possibilities, one in your application and one in your evidence as I have understood it now, that he could die during the assault or thereafter, why are you making that distinction?

MR NORTJE: That was my opinion of the situation.

MR HATTINGH: What would he have died of after the interrogation, if he did not die during the interrogation?

MR NORTJE: I don't know.

MR HATTINGH: He would have died as a result of the fact that you had killed him, isn't that so, that is what you are trying to say there, isn't that so Mr Nortje?

MR NORTJE: That is possible.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, I put it to you that this has consistently been your evidence that Gen Le Roux was told that if the man didn't want to talk, he would have to be killed and that he agreed with this.

MR NORTJE: He agreed with our plans, yes.

MR HATTINGH: No, listen to the question, I am not asking whether he agreed with the plans, I am asking whether he agreed with the man being killed if he did not want to talk.

MR NORTJE: I cannot respond to that, he must have known later when Kleynhans informed him that we were taking the man away, that is why I say that he must have known about it or drawn the inference, because Kleynhans would have said to him. He must have asked questions about what had happened to the man. That is where I arrive at my point that he knew or at least that the consequences of the abduction, were put to him and that he cannot say that he did not know. That is how I understand it. I don't know whether Mr De Kock had any other discussion with him when I wasn't present, but he definitely knew when the decision was taken, what was going to happen.

MR HATTINGH: Once again you have said that he knew what the consequences would be. What would the consequences have been, what was put to him with regard to possible consequences?

MR NORTJE: That he would die or that he could die.

MR HATTINGH: As a result of what?

MR NORTJE: As a result of the interrogation.

MR HATTINGH: Only as a result of the interrogation?

MR NORTJE: Yes, that is how I recall it. Well, he must have foreseen the possibility because we would not have been able to leave him after the interrogation in any way. If the assault had been as serious as what we had planned and this in conjunction with how difficult the interrogation was going to be, we made him understand that it was going to be a serious assault and that the possibility existed that he may die. But it may have been that we mentioned it, I didn't mention it specifically. In my mind, at that stage, they had to have foreseen that it could happen, that it would happen and that after the decision was taken, that he was going to be killed. He was definitely notified, because it was conveyed like that to Kleynhans and Dunkley at the farm, that this was what was going to happen to the man.

MR HATTINGH: You say that he must have foreseen the possibility that this was going to happen, what is the this that you are referring to?

MR NORTJE: Well, what do you want me to say, that he was probably going to be killed later.

MR HATTINGH: No, I don't want you to say anything, I just want you to tell the truth in your evidence.

MR NORTJE: I cannot say that the General said "kill him", I cannot say that because I never heard him say that. I wasn't present when he said it, what I am saying is that he must have foreseen the possibility, he was a big man in the Security Branch, he must have understood the nature of the situation.

MR HATTINGH: But that is the point that I am trying to make to you, he was a Colonel in the Security Police and by virtue of his status, it must have been unnecessary to tell him what the implications would be, he must have known what the implications of such an action could be and if the man did not want to talk after an abduction and assault, one couldn't just easily release him back into society? He must have realised that without having to be told?

MR NORTJE: Yes, but the decision was not taken yet at that stage.

MR HATTINGH: Despite your evidence? Let us continue on the same page, you are asked

"... who spoke of Maponya Le Roux? The accused, it was a nickname that he gave the General."

And you are asked -

"... because he later denied it during the Harms Commission, that he denied everything? Yes. In any case we are now at the stage where you then discussed it there in Gen Le Roux' office?"

You answer -

"... yes. And you now decided that you would, what was the decision?"

You say -

"... it was then decided that we would abduct him. The General, I cannot specifically recall his words, but he did not say 'no, okay, do it', he simply gave permission, he did not say 'no, don't do it'."

that was your evidence and it was put to you -

"... in other words he said 'go ahead'?"

And this is you speaking again -

"... I cannot recall the specific words, his words, it is too long ago, but we did it with his permission."

That was just after you said that if he did not want to talk, you would have to eliminate him and you say that you cannot recall his precise words, but that you did this with his permission?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Page 14? That is that last section under 5563.

MR HATTINGH: I want to put it to you Mr Nortje, that you gave unambiguous evidence that it was spelt out very clearly to Gen Le Roux that the man would have to be killed if he did not want to talk, and that you unambiguously said although you could not recall his words, that he gave his permission for this and it is in terms of this evidence, that Judge Van der Merwe, among others came to the decision that he reached.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, it is a matter of argument, but my learned friend is clearly wrong. You only have to read what is in the second last paragraph and the last paragraph to realise that he is talking about the abduction.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but he is putting it to him now, so we can hear the comment, but it is for argument, what you put.

MR HATTINGH: I will leave it for argument, thank you Mr Chairman. Can I also refer you to page 50 of Bundle 3(b), that is the section which we have discussed. I want to put to you that there you said in essence what you have said before. Very well, let's return, after your first discussion with Gen Le Roux, that is the discussion during which you informed him that the attempt to obtain information by means of Mosiane had been unsuccessful, you then decided that you would rather contact Mr De Kock first?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And you did so from Gen Le Roux' office?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: What did you tell him?

MR NORTJE: Well, the gist of the discussion would have been "I think you should come through to Krugersdorp, there is somewhat of a problem or there is a problem here, or the people have a problem here." I may have explained the seriousness of the situation to him, led him to understand that it was quite a serious or an urgent situation. I cannot recall that I gave him specific details over the phone, or told him that we were going to abduct somebody. I cannot recall that at the moment.

MR HATTINGH: Very well, I would just like to refer you to one passage of the evidence to which I have not referred you to, that is page 70, or page 75 at least. Page 75 Mr Chairman, sorry. I am speaking under correction, but I think that I am dealing here in cross-examination with your evidence before the Goldstone Commission or it may have been your statement, no, I think it is your statement. I am examining you about the statement that you made, it would be the statement that you made in Denmark, is that correct or did you make more than one statement regarding Maponya?

MR NORTJE: I am not certain.

MR HATTINGH: Very well.

MR NORTJE: I am not certain at the moment.

MR HATTINGH: There I put it to you on page 6148 of the record

"... yes, you gave evidence here that there were initial discussions during which it was decided in principle to conduct an abduction and after that, the accused was contacted and he agreed to this? That is correct."

Then I read to you further from your statement and then you continue in the same paragraph and I read now from your statement -

"... I also did this telephonically, that is to contact the accused and requested him to visit us at Krugersdorp. On that very same day, he came through and we returned to Gen Le Roux' office. Upon this occasion we made it clear to Le Roux, Kleynhans and Dunkley that if we could force Japie to talk about his brother, we could not release him again if he didn't want to talk. It boiled down to that we would have to get rid of him permanently. Gen Le Roux understood precisely what we were speaking of and agreed with the arrangements. He said that we had to handle the matter according to our best judgement. We decided on a seizure action, in other words that we would abduct Japie."

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Can anything be more clear that what is contained in that passage, Mr Nortje?

MR NORTJE: Well, that is how I expressed myself. Once again I could return to what I have said, everybody understood what the consequences could be that the person could perhaps not return.

MR HATTINGH: If he didn't want to talk?

MR NORTJE: It is difficult for me to say now, that was the gist of the conversation. The General understood what it was about and I cannot say that at that stage, we decided that it was a definite fact that we would kill him later. It would still have depended upon circumstances and I can say nothing further about it. I know that I said certain things here, but my intention was still and I say this in honesty, that the final decision had not yet been taken. The General understood, Kleynhans understood what the consequences could be. However, I will repeat this, the final decision had not yet been taken.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Nortje, what I cannot understand about your evidence, what I understand thus far about your evidence before I began with your cross-examination over here is that it was put to the General, "listen, you must understand that if we are going to abduct and assault the man, he may die as a result of the assault", is that correct?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: But you are also conceding now that he must have realised that if the man didn't want to talk after you had assaulted him, he would probably have had to be removed. Isn't that correct?

MR NORTJE: I will not say that it was discussed then to kill him, that that was the discussion with him, but it may have been said or implied. It is difficult to say.

MR HATTINGH: I am not asking you what is said, I am saying that you have conceded here that the General or the then Colonel must have realised that you couldn't simply release the man after you had abducted and assaulted him?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Shouldn't he also have realised that if you were going to assault him to obtain information from him, he may die from the assault?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Well, then why did you fix his attention only on the one possibility and not on the other, if he had to realise the full extent of both?

MR NORTJE: Well, I will say it again, the General must have realised it.

MR HATTINGH: No, that is not the question Mr Nortje. I am asking why you fixed his attention on the possibility of his death due to the assault and not on the possibility of his intentional murder because he didn't want to talk?

MR NORTJE: Because that hadn't been planned yet. It may have been foreseen, but it had not been planned at that stage.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. You contact Colonel De Kock from the General's office and you say that you cannot recall precisely what you said to him during that telephonic discussion?

MR NORTJE: Not at the moment, I just know that I informed him and told him that he had to come through to Krugersdorp, that there was a problem there. I cannot recall my choice of words.

MR HATTINGH: Would you have told him over the telephone that you had to abduct and assault the man in order to obtain the information from him?

MR NORTJE: I am not entirely certain, I don't believe that I would have said that to him.

MR HATTINGH: So what is your recollection of what you conveyed to him, not the precise choice of words, but in broad terms?

MR NORTJE: He knew why I was there and he may have drawn his own inferences, that is why he did not hesitate to come through, that is why he didn't hesitate to say "I will be there tomorrow" or whatever it is that he said. I think he told me "hold on, I am on my way." I think it was something in that line, but I don't recall that I gave him pertinent details over the phone.

MR HATTINGH: As a result of that discussion that you had with him on the phone, did you make any preparations in anticipation of what you were going to do?

MR NORTJE: I cannot recall.

MR HATTINGH: But if you had told him that you were going to abduct the man, wouldn't you have started preparations?

MR NORTJE: I don't know. I cannot say.

CHAIRPERSON: Such as getting firearms and handgrenades if you had handgrenades or whatever, that sort of preparation?

MR NORTJE: Yes, I would imagine because I could never recall how the kombi's and the Jetta arrived at the farm or at least at Krugersdorp. I would imagine that he told me to get the kombi's and the Jetta there, but I cannot recall at which stage that took place, I am not certain. However, I had the idea when I spoke to him, that he knew what I meant and he told me to "hold on", that is why from that point onwards, it is difficult for me to say which orders he gave me and when he gave those orders. There wasn't much to do. It was simply a question of getting the vehicles there, but I may have waited until he arrived at Krugersdorp and then undertaken the planning or whether we did so on the telephone, I cannot recall.

MR HATTINGH: Please bear with me for a moment, Mr Chairman. Could Gen Le Roux hear what you were discussing with Colonel De Kock over the telephone, with regard to what you said during the discussion.

MR NORTJE: I have never thought about that.

MR HATTINGH: You called De Kock from his office?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And the General was present in the office during this discussion?

MR NORTJE: I would assume that, I cannot say with certainty, but I would accept that he was there.

MR HATTINGH: You said that you wanted to get clearance from your Commander first and he would probably have been interested in whether or not it was in order?

MR NORTJE: I cannot say with certainty.

MR HATTINGH: Now, did Mr De Kock tell you during the discussion that you were to prepare the vehicles so long?

MR NORTJE: I don't know, I cannot recall at which stage he told me that.

MR HATTINGH: Did he tell you this at any stage?

MR NORTJE: I am not certain when, no I am not certain.

MR HATTINGH: Have you given evidence about this previously according to your recollection?

MR NORTJE: I don't know. I think that during the court case, I said something about the kombi's, but I cannot recall at what stage we reached that point, I don't know whether we sent people back to Vlakplaas to get the vehicles.

MR HATTINGH: Please look at page 43 of Bundle 3(b). Perhaps we should go to the bottom of page 42, the final sentence

"... and then he told me, as far as I can recall, I hadn't said it yet, but I will say it now, as far as I can recall he told me 'get the kombi and the Fox' (that is a Volkswagen Fox vehicle, not so), which were on the farm or 'get them to Krugersdorp'."

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, just for the record, the Jetta that we have been referring to in the past, is that in fact a Fox? It is a Volkswagen Fox, is it the same vehicle?

MR NORTJE: Yes, it is the same.

MR HATTINGH: So, did he tell you this?

MR NORTJE: I don't know at which stage he told me this.

MR HATTINGH: But here you say that you recalled that he said this to you during the telephonic discussion?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: So did you make the arrangements in the meantime to get the vehicles to Krugersdorp?

MR NORTJE: Well, I must have, because if he had told me to do it, I would have done it.

MR HATTINGH: In the evidence in chief, before this Committee you said and you repeated it a few moments ago, that you would not have discussed details over the phone with him?

MR NORTJE: I wouldn't have told him 'listen we have to abduct Japie' and other such things. We knew each other and it wasn't necessary for us to speak in such details. He would have said to me 'okay, get the vehicles' or 'start with this' or 'begin with that'. That is how I recall it.

CHAIRPERSON: And prior to that telephone discussion that you had with Mr De Kock, was there any discussion at any time before then between you and Mr De Kock, about the possibility of a kidnapping or an abduction?

MR NORTJE: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Because the original plan was that you would send in somebody to get the information from him who was pretending to be an MK cadre?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: So then would you know, if that is the case, then would you know how it would have come about that they started talking about getting the Fox and the kombi to Krugersdorp?

MR NORTJE: Well, he must have inferred from my discussion with him, that something like that would happen, but we understood each other without providing specific details. I will say it again, I suspect that we spoke about this over the phone, I am not certain but that is the most logical conclusion that I can come to. That is where I must have received the instruction to prepare the vehicles. But it could also have been upon his arrival there and after we had undertaken the initial planning, I am not one hundred percent certain at what stage we made those arrangements. I assumed at one stage that it was the result of the telephone discussion and then at another stage, the time didn't work out correctly for me, we had enough time after his arrival at Krugersdorp and our discussion about the situation, to make these arrangements.

MR HATTINGH: This evidence as I have quoted it to you, was given by you for the first time during those proceedings. Never before in your evidence in chief, had you made mention of that, it was only under cross-examination that this emerged?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: What led you to remember that something like that was said?

MR NORTJE: At that stage?

MR HATTINGH: Yes?

MR NORTJE: Well, I think it was as a result of the fact that I could not remember how the vehicles originally arrived at Krugersdorp. This is something which I could not recall and I think that during the trial, it emerged when I began to think about it, but I know that things like that happened, vehicles arrived there, the vehicles were used, but I think originally when I thought about it, I couldn't remember.

MR HATTINGH: But when I examined you about this later, about this admission that you made on page 49, just after line 20, the paragraph just after line 20, I said to you

"... from what you have said there Mr Nortje, you said that you deduced that the accused must have said this to you."

that is that you had to go and fetch the vehicles in the mean time and your answer was -

"... yes."

I put it to you -

"... you know, this is a very serious piece of evidence against the accused and initially when you suddenly remembered about this here, you said that you had deduced, that you had not deduced that the accused had said this to you, that you were positive that he had said that to you."

And your answer is -

"... well, he must have said that to me."

My question to you -

"... but you cannot remember this?"

And your answer -

"... no, not specifically."

MR NORTJE: I know that he said it to me, I still don't have a clear recollection of whether it was on the phone or when he arrived at Krugersdorp.

MR HATTINGH: Are you basing that statement upon the recollection of him telling you or are you basing this upon the conclusion that he must have said it to you?

MR NORTJE: He must have said it to me.

MR HATTINGH: So you cannot recall whether he said it to you?

MR NORTJE: No, not pertinently and not at which stage.

MR HATTINGH: The decision to abduct Japie, when was that finalised?

MR NORTJE: Well, after Mr De Kock's arrival at Krugersdorp.

MR HATTINGH: I want to put it to you that in your evidence during the De Kock trial, and I put it to you on page 52 that the decision that he was going to be abducted, this is from the previous context, I put it to you the decision had already been taken over the phone, isn't that correct and your answer was

"... yes, but he wanted to be there."

The decision that the abduction was to take place, had already been finalised on the phone, is that correct?

MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, I think this passage is also, I think the interpretation, a matter for argument, because there is a qualification to that question.

CHAIRPERSON: What exactly is this Mr Lamey, which line?

MR LAMEY: My learned friend is referring to page 52.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, which line.

MR HATTINGH: Roundabout line ...

MR LAMEY: Line 8. "Yes, but he wanted to be present."

CHAIRPERSON: What are you saying Mr Lamey, are you saying that this is open to interpretation?

MR LAMEY: Yes, Mr Chairman, because my learned friend put it as if the final decision was made over the telephone. The witness said, he said there "yes, but he wanted to be present."

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well let's perhaps ask what Mr Nortje meant by that.

MR NORTJE: The reason why I said it must have been because he told me to wait, but I also have another idea that these possibilities may have been discussed already when I hadn't been present because when we had the discussion, it wasn't as if he didn't know what I was talking about. That is why I cannot recall that I gave him that much detail.

CHAIRPERSON: This telephone line that you were speaking on, was it any sort of special line or ...

MR NORTJE: No, I don't know, I wouldn't be able to say.

CHAIRPERSON: ... type thing.

MR NORTJE: It was a regular line.

CHAIRPERSON: Regular line?

MR NORTJE: The reason why things fell into place, because I cannot remember everything. There may have been discussions between De Kock and Kleynhans during the month, I am not certain because he immediately knew what I was talking about, it wasn't as if he was surprised. It is very difficult to say, this is an inference I am drawing.

ADV GCABASHE : Mr Nortje, you are loosing me. We are here talking about the decision to abduct.

MR NORTJE: Yes.

ADV GCABASHE : And you had said in your evidence previously that one of the black members had this bright idea, so how could Mr De Kock have discussed the abduction previously with Kleynhans if the idea came from the people who were on the spot at the time, just help me there?

MR NORTJE: As I said, it was their idea, we went to them and discussed the possibility with them, that was what I thought. But because things fell into place in that fashion, or at least not fell into place, when I spoke to Mr De Kock, I cannot recall that I told him specifically that we were going to abduct Japie or that I said something like that to him on the phone. That was a decision and that led me to believe that there may have been other discussions prior to this because things were not strange to him. I am speculating, I cannot give a definite answer.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you Mr Chairman. Just to put that sentence into perspective on page 50, at the bottom of page 51, that final sentence

"I am still trying to determine Mr Nortje, why it was necessary for the accused to be here. The decision had been taken that the man was going to be seized."

And you said -

"As I have said before, such an operation would not be conducted without his notification or without his presence."

So it is clear that that decision to abduct, was taken according to this evidence which you gave here, before Mr De Kock arrived at Krugersdorp, isn't that so?

MR NORTJE: No, that was the suggestion.

MR HATTINGH: Then why did you put it like that?

MR NORTJE: It was a suggestion.

MR HATTINGH: But then in response to that question, you must have said to me when I said to you the decision was already taken that the man would be seized, then you must have said to me "no, that decision had not been taken yet." But look what you say, you say

"... as I have said before, such an operation would not be conducted without his notification or without his presence."

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And with that I want to put it to you, because we dealt with it for quite some time, your evidence indicated that Mr De Kock would not allow an operation to be conducted without his presence, is that what you meant by it?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: So you did not dispute that the decision for the operation had been finalised, all you said was that he wanted to be present when the operation was conducted? Why didn't you respond to my question when I put it to you and say that the decision had not been finalised? That it would only be finalised once Mr De Kock arrived there? Can you respond?

MR NORTJE: I have lost you entirely.

MR HATTINGH: Perhaps you should stop reading over there and concentrate on the question that I put to you, perhaps then you won't loose track with me. The question was very simple, if the decision had not already been finalised before Mr De Kock arrived at Krugersdorp, the decision to seize the man, why in response to my question did you not then answer "no, the decision had not been finalised", why instead did you say "no, the reason was that the operation could not be executed without his knowledge or presence?" When I put that statement to you that the decision had to have been finalised for the man to be seized, why didn't you question or deny my statement?

MR NORTJE: No, the decision was still a suggestion at that stage.

MR HATTINGH: Study it in that context, if you continue with that sentence and I am going to read the next question to you

"... and it was a very simple operation, wasn't it?"

You say -

"... yes, it was, but it was a big decision."

And then I said to you -

"... but the decision had been finalised by him over the phone already, hasn't it?"

And your answer -

"... yes, but he wanted to be present."

MR NORTJE: I cannot explain that. That he told me to wait, was clear to me.

MR HATTINGH: Let us look at page 47 of the record. There below the beginning of page 6079, that is where you say again "get the Jetta ready and get the kombi ready in the mean time", that is what I put to you and your answer "as far as I recall, yes." My question to you

"... is that your recollection Mr Nortje?"

Your answer -

"... yes. Very well, are you then saying that when you telephoned him, you had taken the decision for him already and that the man would be abducted? Yes."

That is when I asked you -

"... why was it necessary for him to come through?"

So on more than one occasion you confirmed that the decision to abduct, had already been finalised before the accused, or Mr De Kock, then arrived at Krugersdorp.

MR NORTJE: No, I cannot say that the decision had finally been taken, I can say that it was still a suggestion. To a certain extent, that was the manner in which we would have continued, but I wanted to inform him about that first, he would have to have been there first. I cannot say that this was the final decision.

MR HATTINGH: Well, let us take that portion of the evidence further, because there are more issues emanating from this. I ask you

"... why was it necessary for him to come through?"

Your answer -

"... it comes back to the operations, at that stage we did not execute operations if he was not present."

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: So he didn't have to come through to help finalise the decision.

MR NORTJE: Are you insinuating that I took the decision?

MR HATTINGH: No, I want to put it to you that your evidence was that the decision was already taken. I think we are interrupting each other, I have a feeling of déjà vu, that I have quite often experienced during Mr De Kock's trial. Let us try and speak one at a time. I want to put it to you that the decision was taken by you and Colonel Le Roux, there in the office, that the abduction was going to be executed, and that Kleynhans was present according to your evidence? Is that not so?

MR NORTJE: It was a suggestion from my side, to them, and they agreed with it. I told them that we could not continue, before we notified Mr De Kock, that is the case.

MR HATTINGH: Let us read further

"... but he sent you there without him."

MR LAMEY: Where are you reading from?

MR HATTINGH: Page 47 still, page 6079 of the record

"... but he then sent you there without him? Yes, but it wasn't serious yet. We had not undertaken the planning to abduct him from the beginning, we would simply have approached him with the people to see if he would speak to us. Was that the plan before you went to Krugersdorp, that you would approach him under a false flag? Not specifically, but it would, that would have been our approach to the issue. In fact Mr Nortje, was that you were subordinate to the instructions put by Kleynhans, isn't that so? Yes. And I put it to you expressly, if Kleynhans had then said to you 'try to recruit him under a false flag', you would have done it?"

And your answer -

"... and I did do that. Then I said to you that if Kleynhans had told you 'go and abduct him and interrogate him, would you have done that'?"

And your answer was -

"... yes."

And your answer was -

"... no, I wouldn't have done that."

I then put it to you -

"... but you said you would?"

And your answer -

"... I would not have done it without the knowledge of the accused.

I put it to you -

"... Mr Nortje, did you say that you would have done it? I cannot recall, I may have said it.

What was the position, would you have taken that decision without the knowledge of the accused or not?

MR NORTJE: At that stage and thereafter, I would never have taken such a decision on my own, not even from the second in command of the farm, or whoever, I would not have done anything without his permission.

MR HATTINGH: But you were not acting alone, you had a Colonel as your Commanding Officer and the circular which was attached to Colonel Le Roux' documents, expressed it clearly that while you are in his area, you fall under his jurisdiction?

MR NORTJE: That was only on paper.

MR HATTINGH: Are you saying that that document meant nothing?

MR NORTJE: It meant nothing to me.

MR HATTINGH: But it definitely meant something to Colonel Le Roux, because he depends quite heavily on that document? Are you saying that it meant nothing?

MR NORTJE: Not to me.

MR HATTINGH: So you are saying that if Gen Le Roux had given you orders there, you would first have finalised this and obtained authorisation for this from Mr De Kock?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: You say that you cannot recall that you said it there, let me take you to page 28, at the very to of page 28 I say to you

"... and the precise order of the accused excepting the fact that you had to report to Kleynhans, what was his instruction to you? No, his instructions were simply to report to Mr Kleynhans and the others and that they would provide further instructions to me regarding what they wanted done."

MR NORTJE: Correct.

MR HATTINGH: There your Commanding Officer say that they would give you instructions, in other words by implication he told you to follow their instructions?

MR NORTJE: Yes, to a certain point.

MR HATTINGH: To what point Mr Nortje?

MR NORTJE: For example I would not have become involved in the abduction without Mr De Kock's authorisation. What we did there was not illegal, we did nothing illegal, it was a normal attempt at infiltration.

MR HATTINGH: Did he qualify it as that, did he tell you "they will give you further instructions, but only do what is legal?"

MR NORTJE: I would have done what Kleynhans wanted me to do to a certain point. I would not have done anything which I felt was not right without the authorisation of the accused.

MR HATTINGH: Here we come to the statement which I put to you, in other words, you were now subordinate to the instructions of Kleynhans. Let me finish this Mr Nortje

"... if had said to you 'try to obtain the information under a false flag' as you put it, then you would have done so? That is correct yes. If he had said to you in opposition to that pick up the man for interrogation, would you have done that?"

And your answer is -

"... I would have done that."

MR NORTJE: Yes, for the usual interrogation as the Security Branch picked up people, but we would not have assaulted him there.

MR HATTINGH: Please Mr Nortje, do you think that Krugersdorp would have you brought in to arrest a man legally and to bring him in for interrogation.

MR NORTJE: That was not the planning.

MR HATTINGH: But what do you say there. I asked you if he told you to pick up the man for interrogation, would you have done that, and your answer was, "I would have done that."

MR NORTJE: Well, that would have depended on circumstances.

MR HATTINGH: What circumstances?

MR NORTJE: Well, what they wanted us to do. I would not have done something, such as an abduction or an assault without notifying Mr De Kock.

MR HATTINGH: Is your evidence then Mr Nortje, that when you informed Colonel Le Roux that you had proposed that you would pick up the man and question him violently, that no such decision was taken and you wanted the accused's authorisation, the accused in that case, Mr De Kock's authorisation?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And that authorisation he only gave to you when he arrived at Krugersdorp?

MR NORTJE: Basically yes.

MR HATTINGH: So now you are in Colonel Le Roux' office, was the proposal made to him there or when was the proposal tabled, when do you inform him about what the proposal was?

MR NORTJE: When I returned, when the askaris came back the first time or the second time or whatever, I went and reported to him and told him that the man did not want to cooperate in this respect.

MR HATTINGH: Reported to whom?

MR NORTJE: To the General.

MR HATTINGH: And then?

MR NORTJE: And then it happened, the telephone call.

MR HATTINGH: Are you saying that the General did not tell you there that it was in order?

MR NORTJE: Yes, no, he agreed there.

MR HATTINGH: And you did not see it as an order?

MR NORTJE: No, I cannot say that I regarded this as an instruction.

MR HATTINGH: Now Mr De Kock arrives there, when do you mention to him what the proposal was? When do you mention it to him?

MR NORTJE: I am not sure.

MR HATTINGH: Well, where were you when he arrived there?

MR NORTJE: I am not sure.

MR HATTINGH: Were you still in Le Roux', Gen Le Roux' office?

MR NORTJE: I cannot say, I don't know.

MR HATTINGH: You have no recollection thereof?

MR NORTJE: Not at this moment.

MR HATTINGH: At this moment, would you get a recollection later?

MR NORTJE: I don't know.

MR HATTINGH: Did you have a recollection of that previously?

CHAIRPERSON: Did you leave that Police station at all?

MR NORTJE: Yes, we did leave the Police station at a stage, we went into town. What we did, we must have gone to eat or whatever the case may be, but I cannot recall at which stage, where I had met him.

MR HATTINGH: When you arrived at Gen Le Roux with Colonel De Kock, did he know what the proposal was or did you explain to him?

MR NORTJE: No, I must have explained to him already by that time.

MR HATTINGH: So what was then to discuss in Gen Le Roux' office?

MR NORTJE: I would assume as to what their opinion was about the situation, how do they see the thing and the consequences and all those things had to be explained to them, as I said. We must have discussed it.

MR HATTINGH: But you don't have a recollection of what you did speak about?

MR NORTJE: Well, be spoke about the abduction and the possibility that the man might not return.

MR HATTINGH: This is when the accused was there, excuse me, I keep referring to the accused.

MR NORTJE: Well, that is what we discussed. We must have exchanged ideas.

MR HATTINGH: Was a decision taken there, did Mr De Kock then made a decision?

MR NORTJE: Well, he decided that we will continue with the abduction.

MR HATTINGH: Can you recall whether he pointed out the possible implications to Gen Le Roux of such an action?

MR NORTJE: I cannot pertinently remember, but I assume that he must have informed the General about it. I don't know in how much detail he spoke to him, because they did not know each other actually.

MR HATTINGH: Was Mr De Kock, according to your recollection, at any stage, was he alone with Gen Le Roux?

MR NORTJE: It may be.

MR HATTINGH: Do you have recollection that it was indeed so?

MR NORTJE: No.

MR HATTINGH: And as far as you can recall, you were in his presence all the time?

MR NORTJE: I am not sure of that.

MR HATTINGH: Now the decision is taken and the decision has to be executed. What did you then?

MR NORTJE: We must have spoken to the blacks and informed them, those who would have been involved with the abduction. That discussion, I don't know, I assume it would have taken place at the Police station. But we had to wait until Maponya came from work, that was the plan, that we would take him as he came from work, that some of the members would walk behind him and at a stage, load him into the vehicle. I cannot recall the order of events specifically there, I think Mr De Kock gave the instructions there.

MR HATTINGH: I am not going to expect of you to give the version again, let me ask you questions and keep it as brief as possible. May I just throw in something here which is totally out of context because I have forgotten it and I have seen it now, before I forget it again, I have also during the trial of Mr De Kock, your evidence I read a section of your evidence before the Goldstone Commission to you, do you recall that?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And on page 57 we deal with it and your evidence before the Goldstone Commission was handed in as Exhibit 1ZZ on page 57. I refer you to page 104 thereof, on page 104 you start to say there is another aspect which comes to the fore from this and I read it to you

"... please tell us the story, this is about Maponya."

And then you say -

"... Maponya, there was a Captain Kleynhans and I think he is now a Colonel, there was a Kleynhans at Klerksdorp. Was it Klerksdorp? Yes. We were on our way to Natal. During that time he said that we must assist him, but he did not say what it was. When I arrived in Natal, Eugene contacted me and he told me 'go through to Krugersdorp' and we went through."

MR NORTJE: Yes, that is what I said.

MR HATTINGH: Did it happen in that way?

MR NORTJE: No.

MR HATTINGH: Why did you say it that way then? Can you explain?

MR NORTJE: It must have been the circumstances because Klerksdorp itself is wrong. These were the circumstances under which I were at those times, I did not maliciously give the wrong information, I wanted to tell the story as quickly as possible. I may have had my facts mixed up. But under the circumstances, that is what I said, but it was not malicious intent.

MR HATTINGH: But such a statement does not concur with your version that you had a previous instruction before you you were in Josini, Josini is in Natal is it not, before you went to Josini, had the instruction to come back on the 25th of September, do you agree, does not concur with Mr De Kock's version, but it concurs with his version to the extent that while you were there, you received the instruction to come back without his knowledge?

MR NORTJE: That is what I said, but that isn't how it happened. That is not what the circumstances were.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Maponya, I am back to the event itself, Mr Maponya is grabbed and placed in a vehicle and taken to Vlakplaas. You drive to Vlakplaas, you go to the river and there you find Mr Maponya inside a bus or a mini-bus, is that correct?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Did you see that mini-bus earlier that day in Krugersdorp?

MR NORTJE: I must have seen it there.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Hattingh, if I could just get clarity, was it a mini-bus or a panel van?

MR NORTJE: It was a panel van.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it a panel van, was the back end of it a flat bottom, it didn't have rows of seats, you couldn't sit people in it?

MR NORTJE: No, there were no seats inside.

CHAIRPERSON: So it is just the driver and passenger seat and then it is a flat back, panel van, thank you.

ADV GCABASHE : And while we are interrupting, what time of the day would this have been when Japie Maponya left work?

MR NORTJE: I know that the banks close at half past three.

ADV GCABASHE : United Building Society?

MR NORTJE: I think it was, there were many people there, it must have been when the people came from work, it must have been four o'clock, quarter past four.

ADV GCABASHE : Somewhere between four and five o'clock?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

ADV GCABASHE : Thank you.

MR HATTINGH: Somewhere in your evidence you said that the Building Society closed at four o'clock, but Mr Maponya as a Security Guard, had to remain for about another half an hour, so this places it at about half past four?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And the vehicle which you refer to, the roof was elevated?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: So would a person of my length be able to stand upright in there?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And are you saying that you saw that vehicle earlier that day in Krugersdorp?

MR NORTJE: I imagine that I saw it at some stage, I know it was there, because we had the vehicle come through, because it would have been part of the abduction.

MR HATTINGH: Did you make arrangements that that specific vehicle come to Krugersdorp?

MR NORTJE: I assume so yes.

MR HATTINGH: And also the other vehicle which was mentioned, the Jetta or the Fox?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Maponya was still in this vehicle when you arrived there?

MR NORTJE: Yes, he was in the kombi.

MR HATTINGH: In the kombi?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon, is this the same vehicle, the panel van that you now refer to as a kombi?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR MALAN: I just want to make sure that you are speaking of the same vehicle.

MR HATTINGH: He was blindfolded by means of a balaclava that was put over his head back to front?

MR NORTJE: Yes, as I recall.

MR HATTINGH: Who was in the vehicle with him at that stage?

MR NORTJE: That is very difficult to say. I know that I mentioned some names. If I recall correctly it was Simon. I want to imagine that there were two people with him in the kombi, the others were standing outside or whatever the case might have been. The assault took place, but everybody who was there, I cannot recall everybody's names who were there.

MR HATTINGH: May I ask you, can you remember whether Mr Eric Sefadi was there?

MR NORTJE: I cannot say with hundred percent certainty.

MR HATTINGH: Because you see we also act on his behalf as an implicated person and his version is that he was not part of these proceedings.

MR NORTJE: Then I would agree with that.

MR HATTINGH: Did you not participate in the assault?

MR NORTJE: No.

MR HATTINGH: Why not, was there a reason therefore?

MR NORTJE: No, I don't know, there was no specific reason but it wasn't necessary for me.

MR HATTINGH: Were there enough people assaulting him?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Where were Mr Dunkley and Mr Kleynhans in relation to the vehicle which Mr Maponya was in?

MR NORTJE: If I recall correctly, they were about 10, 15 maybe 20 paces away from the vehicle.

MR HATTINGH: Could you hear according to what you can recall, whether Mr Maponya had spoken to his interrogators?

MR NORTJE: He did speak.

MR HATTINGH: In what language?

MR NORTJE: That is difficult to say. They spoke to him in a black language.

MR HATTINGH: I don't mean that you must tell me if it was Zulu or Sotho, but was it a black language as opposed to Afrikaans or English? Did you understand the language he was speaking in?

MR NORTJE: No. When he spoke to them, because they were with him, I was not in the kombi myself, I was standing a little way from there. I would imagine that he could speak Afrikaans at some stage.

MR HATTINGH: Did anybody question him in Afrikaans?

MR NORTJE: I don't believe so.

MR HATTINGH: Did Mr De Kock participate in the interrogation?

MR NORTJE: I am not sure, I am not sure whether he put specific questions to him, but at a stage he did come there.

MR HATTINGH: If I listen to your evidence Mr Nortje, it seems as if your memory is very vague about this.

MR NORTJE: I will tell you what I recall and what I do not recall. At a stage, the interrogation did not take very long, he became angry, that is Mr De Kock, because the man did not want to give information. Because they spoke to him and then they said he did not want to talk, or he did not want to say anything and Mr De Kock became angry and he asked me if I did not have any teargas and I told him "yes, I have it in the vehicle", I gave him the canister and he was upset and became angry as I have said. He sprayed him with the gas. As far as I can recall, the gas was sprayed in the kombi first, probably I want to say if he sprayed into the kombi, I am not sure, but what I can recall is that at some stage, he lifted the balaclava up, and he sprayed the teargas into his mouth. I am not sure whether I was inside or outside.

MR HATTINGH: Inside or outside what?

MR NORTJE: Inside the kombi. Because after the kombi was sprayed, one could not get close to it and he was taken out. Then he was outside the vehicle. That is only those two times that I recall of the teargas, but the one pertinent time was that I recall, was when he was sprayed into his mouth, this made somewhat of an impression on me.

MR HATTINGH: How did he do this?

MR NORTJE: This man's hands were behind his back and he took his mouth and he just pressed the canister and put the balaclava back over his head.

MR HATTINGH: The spray can, was it a like a normal aerosol can that contains insecticides?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: It is not one of these oil cans that has a small little plastic pipe so that you can reach places?

MR NORTJE: No.

MR HATTINGH: The opening where the teargas comes out, did he put it into his mouth or did he hold it a little bit away from his mouth?

MR NORTJE: What I can recall is that he pressed it into his mouth.

MR HATTINGH: What did he put into his mouth?

MR NORTJE: The spray nozzle.

MR HATTINGH: On which his finger was on? Did he put all of that into his mouth?

MR NORTJE: No, only where the gas comes out.

MR HATTINGH: May I explain to you my comprehension. I have a pen here, the nozzle is as I indicate to you, I accept it is bigger, so there is a little bit of a spout that stands out, how long is this spout?

MR NORTJE: About 10 mm.

MR HATTINGH: And this he put into his mouth?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: This teargas, is the teargas that one finds in the aerosol can, it is tremendously concentrated?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: So it would have a drastic effect on whoever in the vicinity where it is sprayed?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Indeed if someone in the back, sprayed a aerosol can like that, then we would experience an unpleasant experience here where we are?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: I can recall that one day I was at the scene of an accident and the Police sprayed the can in the open air about 10 or 15 metres away from me, and my eyes were burning. What would be the effect if one sprays it into a person's mouth and he gets it into his lungs?

MR NORTJE: It was not necessarily that he would get it into his lungs, but it would go down his throat and it would burn.

MR HATTINGH: If he swallows it while he has it in his mouth?

MR NORTJE: I do not know what the effect would be, but he did not die.

MR HATTINGH: Did he have burns inside his mouth afterwards?

MR NORTJE: I did not have a look.

MR HATTINGH: You heard that Mr De Kock had denied that he sprayed it into his mouth, that he sprayed it in the direction of his face, but not into his mouth, can you be mistaken about that?

MR NORTJE: I recall that he sprayed it into his mouth.

MR HATTINGH: Was he the only one?

MR NORTJE: I would not have had a problem if he said that he sprayed it into his face, but I recall that he sprayed it into his mouth, not a whole lot, just for one moment, briefly.

MR HATTINGH: Your attitude towards Mr De Kock during his trial, was not very good and it was a mutual feeling?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: He regarded you as a traitor and you indicated that you did not feel much for him in the same way?

MR NORTJE: No, I would not say that. Our paths just departed from then.

MR HATTINGH: Are you just not going out of your way here to incriminate him a little bit more?

MR NORTJE: If he speaks the truth, then it would go much easier and we would have been done by now.

MR HATTINGH: Perhaps, Mr Chairman, that might be convenient to do so tomorrow, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Hattingh. It is now just past four o'clock and we will adjourn for the day and reconvene tomorrow. Would you be able to have Mr De Kock here at half past nine? We will adjourn until half past nine tomorrow morning at the same venue, thank you.

MS LOCKHAT: All rise.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS