WILLIE A NORTJE: (s.u.o.)
CHAIRPERSON: Good morning everybody. We're continuing with the hearing regarding the Maponya incident. Mr Knight?
MR KNIGHT: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Before we begin, I will be withdrawing at this stage and handing over to my colleague. We have discussed this in chambers. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ramawele, would you kindly just place yourself on record please.
MR RAMAWELE: For the record, my name is R P A Ramawele, for Nofomela. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, when we adjourned on Friday, we were still busy with the evidence of Mr Nortje. Mr Nortje, I remind you you're still under your former oath. And we were at the stage where Mr Wagener was to ask questions. Mr Wagener?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR WAGENER: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Mr Nortje, before we arrive at the Nofomela incident, I would just like to refer you to one aspect which was touched upon during cross-examination. - Maponya. Excuse me, Maponya. This was in bundle 1B, page 339. If you can just get it before you. You will see on page 339 at the top, you refer to a
so-called culture at Vlakplaas, to eliminate MK members. Do you see that?
MR NORTJE: Yes, I do.
MR WAGENER: I have two other clients who were also previous commanders of Vlakplaas, the one is General Viktor and his instructions are that at the stage when he was a commander, no such culture existed at Vlakplaas. Can you dispute that?
MR NORTJE: No, I cannot.
MR WAGENER: And I have another client, Col Jan Coetzee, and he also gives instructions that at the stage when he was the commander of Vlakplaas, no such culture existed.
MR NORTJE: I don't know whether it was during his command.
MR WAGENER: And then just to get clarity. Where you refer here to a culture, was this under the command of Brig Cronje?
MR NORTJE: Yes, that was the time when I realised what was happening and that was my opinion from things that I have heard.
MR WAGENER: When you arrived at Vlakplaas, was Brig Cronje already the commander?
MR NORTJE: That's correct.
MR WAGENER: With regard to Japie Maponya, just a few questions. Since September 1985 up to October 1990, in other words when Mr Nofomela made his revelations, did you tell any persons that you had murdered Japie Maponya?
MR NORTJE: It's possible that I might have done so, yes, but I cannot specifically think to whom I might have told it.
MR WAGENER: Who would these persons have been?
MR NORTJE: It would have been people who worked with us, colleagues at the farm.
MR WAGENER: So it would be part of that group, trustees, to which Mr de Kock has testified?
MR NORTJE: That's correct, yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Would you have told anybody beyond that group, your family or social friends or any other member of the Police Force not associated with C1 or C10?
MR NORTJE: No, not that I know of, I don't believe so.
MR WAGENER: So up to October 1989 you felt that your secret was safe?
MR NORTJE: Yes, I may say so.
MR WAGENER: Can you recall the day when the news broke, when Mr Nofomela's Court application became known? Can you recall this day?
MR NORTJE: I don't recall specifically, but I know of the day when the revelations came. I was aware of it, but I don't recall specifically what I did that day.
MR WAGENER: And did this cause chaos in your circles at Vlakplaas?
MR NORTJE: Yes, indeed.
MR WAGENER: So you were still a member of Vlakplaas at that time?
MR NORTJE: That's correct.
MR WAGENER: And Mr de Kock was still the commander?
MR NORTJE: That's correct.
MR WAGENER: When the news broke, did you gather there at Vlakplaas to discuss the situation?
MR NORTJE: I cannot recall how the situation flowed and what happened there, but I think that we would have definitely discussed it, yes.
MR WAGENER: And would you there have agreed as to what your tactic would be with regard to these revelations?
MR NORTJE: I cannot say that everything was discussed immediately, it was a process which followed.
MR WAGENER: And when this news broke, did you decide that you would come with denials?
MR NORTJE: Yes, that was the general idea.
MR WAGENER: And did you discuss it amongst the members, the members of this, if I may call it this inner circle, the persons with the knowledge, that you would just deny everything?
MR NORTJE: Yes, that was the decision.
MR WAGENER: Now I'm not entirely certain, but about a week after Mr Nofomela's revelations some of the Vlakplaas members had held interviews with Gen Conradie, Adv McNally and then Brig Engelbrecht. We know for example that Mr de Kock was one of them. Was an interview held with you at that stage?
MR NORTJE: No, that I can recall, no.
MR WAGENER: Was the first statement that you made, was it the statement - if I recall correctly, the 29th of January the following year? It is in bundle 2A, page 166. You will see there is a statement that you made.
MR NORTJE: Yes, I know of that statement. That's correct, yes.
MR WAGENER: This statement was made to Gen Engelbrecht, or to whom did you make the statement?
MR NORTJE: As I recall the day when the statement was taken from me, Gen Engelbrecht along with Gen Suiker Britz arrived there and he took the statement from me.
MR WAGENER: Yes, that is Gen Engelbrecht's recollection, but he was not entirely certain. When did you meet Gen Engelbrecht for the first time, can you recall?
MR NORTJE: No, I cannot specifically recall, but I know it was one day at the farm when he arrived there, when he basically started with the investigations, as I understood it, of the Cosatu House explosion.
MR WAGENER: Gen Engelbrecht says that in the beginning of 1990, just before the Harms Commission, he said that he did not know you, that he had probably just met you once before that, but he did not know you at all. Would that be correct?
MR NORTJE: No, I think I had met him a few times already and I did not know him very well, but I would not say that this was the first day when I saw him, when I made this statement.
MR WAGENER: Yes, that's what I mean. He does not say that it was the first time that he met you, but he says he barely knew you, he might have seen you once or twice in his life.
MR NORTJE: Yes, that's possible.
MR WAGENER: He was then a Detective?
MR NORTJE: Yes, as far as I know.
MR WAGENER: And up to that stage he was never attached to the Security Branch.
MR NORTJE: No, not as far as I know.
MR WAGENER: Mr Nortje, did you at any stage tell Brig Engelbrecht that you had killed Japie Maponya?
MR NORTJE: No, I did not.
MR WAGENER: You have heard the evidence of Mr de Kock and as it stands now, that he also never told the true facts to Gen Engelbrecht, so I accept that you cannot dispute that.
MR NORTJE: No, I cannot.
MR WAGENER: And I see in Exhibit D, the last statement, the supplementary statement of yourself, you say in paragraph 6.4
"According to my knowledge, Gen Engelbrecht was aware of the true facts all the time."
MR NORTJE: That's correct.
MR WAGENER: On what knowledge do you base this on?
MR NORTJE: Mr de Kock definitely told him about the situation. He never asked me questions, which gave me the indication that he did not know what was going on.
MR WAGENER: Maybe I should help you. Mr de Kock conceded that he did not tell Gen Engelbrecht the true facts. Now I am once again asking you, was this just an inference that you drew, if you say "according to my knowledge"?
MR NORTJE: Yes, but the things that were done and things that I had to do made it clear to me that he knew what the facts were, but I never exactly told him as we are discussing it here about what happened.
MR WAGENER: These things to which you refer, is this the story of the petrol book or is it something else?
MR NORTJE: Yes, but the whole incident of the Japie Maponya incident and what we were involved with there. But the petrol book story is one of the reasons why I knew that he knew what was going on.
MR WAGENER: You have seen that Gen Engelbrecht denies it.
MR NORTJE: I see that, yes.
MR WAGENER: In fact I accept that you have seen what he says about it in paragraph 9.11. I accept you have read it in his statement? If you please study it if you have not read it yet. 9.11.
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR WAGENER: You see Mr Nortje, according to your version there are two other persons who apparently were not members of the Security Branch, who also knew that you and/or you together with Gen Engelbrecht would have stolen this book and that's the person who handled the register at Krugersdorp and the one who would have given it to you along the road?
MR NORTJE: Yes, that's correct.
MR WAGENER: So they, according to you, knew that Gen Engelbrecht had stolen the book?
MR NORTJE: Well I don't know if they knew what it was about, but they gave them the instruction and they did not know what was going on.
MR WAGENER: Now this person who had the register under his control, what would he have written in there do you think? What would he think what would happen to the book?
MR NORTJE: I don't know, I don't think I can answer that question.
MR WAGENER: You see my instruction from Gen Engelbrecht is that the version of yours is not true. The whole version that the book would have been handed over by a mediator to you, he denies this strongly. Have you seen that?
MR NORTJE: Yes, I can see he denies it.
MR WAGENER: And Mr Nortje, if you wanted the book to disappear, was it not more probable that you would have used your Security Branch colleagues in Krugersdorp to steal the book?
MR NORTJE: Well that's probably what we could have done, but it was not my decision.
MR WAGENER: And now two other persons are involved who are not security members.
MR NORTJE: As I have said it was not my decision, that was the General's decision. I would not have unnecessarily involved the General if it was not so, I have not reason to involve him.
MR WAGENER: May I just ask you the following. The issue of the petrol registers. I am informed that these registers are written on carbon paper, there would be the original page and then the carbon copy thereof or probably more.
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR WAGENER: Do you know what happened to the other copies?
MR NORTJE: No, I don't know, I did not ask. I am told that the original was, at the end of the month it was torn out and sent to the Quarter Master in Pretoria.
MR NORTJE: Yes, that's correct.
MR WAGENER: And then the Quarter Master had to see that the petrol company is paid.
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR WAGENER: So this book to which you refer, the only thing that would be in the book is the copy?
MR NORTJE: That's correct, yes.
MR WAGENER: So to have the book disappear does not solve your problem.
MR NORTJE: It is possible, but at that stage it did work. I don't know what the circumstances at the Quarter Master was, whether they went and made enquiries there.
MR WAGENER: Gen Engelbrecht says that that is what he did, he went to the Quarter Master where he made some enquiries about the original page.
MR NORTJE: I don't know about that.
MR WAGENER: And through the course of time - because it was approximately five years after the incident, that documentation would have been during the normal course of events, have been destroyed.
MR NORTJE: I cannot answer to that.
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Wagener, just for interest, was the original ever traced, the original pages?
MR WAGENER: No, Mr Chairman, that was what I've put to the witness just now, that that documentation was also destroyed. In the normal course of events it was only kept for three years.
So therefore Mr Nortje, the conclusion is that Gen Engelbrecht says he, just like other people, was misled by your team at Vlakplaas as to the true facts.
MR NORTJE: I think he was not a person who could be misled, but if that is his perception then it may be so, but that is not what I say. I do not agree with that.
MR WAGENER: And therefore he denies that he was guilty of any irregularity.
MR NORTJE: That is his right, he may do so.
MR WAGENER: Thank you, Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR WAGENER
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Wagener. Mr Ramawele, are you in a position? Do you have any questions to ask the witness?
MR RAMAWELE: No, I don't have any questions.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR RAMAWELE
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ms Bridjlall, do you have any questions you'd like to ask?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS BRIDJLALL: Yes, thank you.
Mr Nortje, it was Mr de Kock's evidence that it was Naude who sent you to Krugersdorp. My question is, would you have taken instructions from Naude?
MR NORTJE: No, under no circumstances without informing Mr de Kock.
MS BRIDJLALL: Why would you not have taken instructions from Naude? If he called you up and said, we need you in Krugersdorp, a unit is needed, please go to Krugersdorp, why would you not have taken instructions from him?
MR NORTJE: I would receive the instruction or have executed it if I had cleared it with Mr de Kock, but I would not have done so without Mr de Kock's permission.
MS BRIDJLALL: When you arrived at Krugersdorp, Mr Nortje, you said that the askaris suggested that Maponya be kidnapped, were any other options explored?
MR NORTJE: I can only say that during the course of time I have thought about it and I think it could not have been the only way. We would have thought of something else, but I cannot recall now whether we specifically thought of other alternatives. It is possible that we would have thought of other alternatives, but that was the decision in the end.
MS BRIDJLALL: What other options would have been available to you?
MR NORTJE: I cannot now ...(intervention)
MS BRIDJLALL: But you concede that there may have been other options?
MR NORTJE: Yes, we may have taken other options.
MS BRIDJLALL: Thank you. Mr Nortje, you explained earlier what the effect of teargas sprayed into the mouth would be, what would the effect be if teargas was sprayed on somebody's face?
CHAIRPERSON: From a close distance.
MR NORTJE: It would burn terribly, but it would go away after a while. It does burn terribly if you spray it from a close distance or any ...(intervention)
MS BRIDJLALL: Would it just be a burning sensation or would it be an injury, would it cause an injury that would be visible?
MR NORTJE: No, it would just be a temporary burning sensation, it would go away.
CHAIRPERSON: That burning sensation on the skin, not only the eyes?
MR NORTJE: On the skin, not specifically, but on the soft places, the mouth and the eyes. Yes, the mouth and eyes and the nose have a burning sensation, but it's not a permanent injury as I understand it.
MS BRIDJLALL: Mr Nortje, do you have knowledge of a telephone call that Mr de Kock says he placed to Kleynhans, in order to get le Roux's okay to go ahead with the - did he not discuss this with you?
MR NORTJE: I don't know about that, he did not discuss it with me.
MS BRIDJLALL: Mr Nortje, at the time that Mr Maponya tried to get to his feet and get away from you, was he handcuffed?
MR NORTJE: Yes, he did have handcuffs.
MS BRIDJLALL: Did he actually get up to his feet?
MR NORTJE: Not entirely, no.
MS BRIDJLALL: So was he crawling away?
MR NORTJE: Yes, basically.
MS BRIDJLALL: Okay. What did Mr de Kock do when he realised that Maponya was trying to get away?
MR NORTJE: That was the first time when he hit him with the spade.
MS BRIDJLALL: Was it necessary to hit a man who had his hands cuffed behind his back, in order to stop him from running away? Would it not have been possible to stop him from running away, just by grabbing him and bringing him back?
MR NORTJE: Yes, but the purpose was - in my mind the purpose was to kill him there, to give him a blow so that he would not get up. It is difficult to what was going on in his mind, but that is how I saw it. He just hit him so that he could not get away again. I don't know whether he meant to kill him right there, but the effect of the blow that he gave knocked him down and he lay there.
MS BRIDJLALL: But my question to you is, was it necessary to hit him in order to stop him from running away? Could Mr de Kock not just as easily have caught him by the handcuffs and wrenched him back?
MR NORTJE: Yes, he could have done so because Fourie was also there, he would not have got away. He would not have been able to run away.
MS BRIDJLALL: What was the plan, Mr Nortje, was it to beat Mr Maponya to death or was it - what was the plan?
MR NORTJE: No, the plan was to shoot him.
MS BRIDJLALL: And it was not necessary to hit in order to ...(intervention)
MR NORTJE: No.
MS BRIDJLALL: Thank you.
ADV GCABASHE: Just a quick bit of clarity. At the time that he was crawling away he was cuffed and blindfolded?
MR NORTJE: As far as I can recall, yes. He was definitely still cuffed. I am not entirely certain, I assume that this was the time when the blow came on his head, that the bandage might have come off, but I would imagine he still had the bandage on when he tried to get away.
MS BRIDJLALL: Mr Nortje, did you drive from Piet Retief - sorry, did you drive from the border post, from the time, from after the murder?
MR NORTJE: No, I don't believe so, I think I was seated in the back, somebody else was behind the steering wheel because Fourie and I came back last and I recall that somebody else was driving up to some stage, but later I did drive again. I cannot recall.
MS BRIDJLALL: Who would have driven if it was not you?
MR NORTJE: It may have been van der Walt or Mr de Kock himself, but it would not have been me or Fourie, not that I can recall, no.
MS BRIDJLALL: Mr Nortje, you mentioned that when all the other black members were sent home, on the day of the murder, that there was one particular guard who was placed to keep watch over Mr Maponya.
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MS BRIDJLALL: Who was this guard?
MR NORTJE: Matthew.
MS BRIDJLALL: Matthew.
MR NORTJE: Yes. I just know his name, I don't know his surname.
MS BRIDJLALL: Did he have knowledge of what was going on, did he know that Maponya was abducted, that hew as placed there and that you were taking him to Swaziland?
MR NORTJE: I cannot say, no. No, he would not have known. I don't believe that he knew what the circumstances were, he may have just seen that the man was detained there. He just executed his instructions which they gave to him, that Mr de Kock gave to him, but I don't believe he knew what the circumstances were.
MS BRIDJLALL: Did he not ask thereafter what happened to Mr Maponya?
MR NORTJE: No, he would not have done so.
MS BRIDJLALL: Thank you, Mr Nortje.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS BRIDJLALL
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Bridjlall. Ms Lockhat, do you
have any questions you'd like to ask?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS LOCKHAT: Yes, thank you, Chairperson.
Mr Nortje tell me, I see in your introduction and your background you said that you'd met de Kock and you were very impressed with him regarding his operations in Ovamboland, is that correct?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MS LOCKHAT: And that you actually asked him for a transfer to the operation Koevoet, is that correct?
MR NORTJE: That's correct.
MS LOCKHAT: Why did you do that?
MR NORTJE: It came out during a discussion. I knew his brother and I think this was in regard to the fact that he was looking for someone, or at that stage he was recruiting people to help. And the reason why we started showing interest was, I had a mechanical background which he did not have, so he recruited me for my mechanical background because I could work on vehicles, and that was one of his needs at that stage. I was interested in going there to participate in the war. That is how I landed up there.
MS LOCKHAT: You also said that you also later on, in 1983, you asked de Kock to be transferred also to Vlakplaas where he was, why?
MR NORTJE: At that stage I was in Oshakati with Koevoet, I was dissatisfied with the circumstances there and I wanted to come back at that stage because some of my people were killed in the field and I did not see any sense in the war there anymore.
MS LOCKHAT: Tell me Mr Nortje, were you impressed by Mr de Kock's style of operations?
MR NORTJE: Yes, I was.
MS LOCKHAT: Wasn't the style more for eliminations and killings and so forth, is that correct?
MR NORTJE: Yes, that was also the idea, it was part of what - in Ovamboland many things happened and that is how we thought, that we will do our part to protect the country. I was impressed with his methods.
MS LOCKHAT: I put it to you, Mr Nortje, that you enjoyed this style of elimination and killing and all these insurgency actions and so forth and the reasons why you wanted to be with de Kock, was because you enjoyed all of this. Can you comment on that?
MR NORTJE: I cannot deny it.
MS LOCKHAT: Would you say that you and de Kock were close friends?
MR NORTJE: Yes, we were.
MS LOCKHAT: Before Japie Maponya was killed, you said that de Kock went to Brig Schoon to get his authorisation to actually kill Japie Maponya, is that correct?
MR NORTJE: Well he just told me that he would go to head office and I assumed that he would not take that final decision if he didn't get clearance. When he came back he did not pertinently tell me that the Brig said yes, or whatever, but with the things he did I assumed that - and the plans that we made there, I assumed that he did get his permission.
MS LOCKHAT: Would it have mattered if de Kock did not get that permission from Brig Schoon? Seeing that you were such close friends, such loyal friends, you trusted one another with your lives, did you think it would have mattered if he had gotten that authorisation from Brig Schoon?
MR NORTJE: I don't believe so.
MS LOCKHAT: So whether he told you he got this authorisation or not, didn't really matter, isn't that correct?
MR NORTJE: I was not interested or concerned about whether he - for me it was enough if it was his decision, we would continue.
MS LOCKHAT: Didn't you tell us in your evidence-in-chief that you followed de Kock blindly?
MR NORTJE: That's correct.
MS LOCKHAT: Do you think that your actions were right in that instance? Now looking back with hindsight?
MR NORTJE: No, not at all.
MS LOCKHAT: Didn't you say that the killing of Japie Maponya was actually unnecessary?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MS LOCKHAT: And that you also had other alternatives to get this information from Japie Maponya?
MR NORTJE: That's correct.
MS LOCKHAT: Would you think that Mr de Kock went - and yourself, went on a frolic of your own to kill Japie Maponya?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MS LOCKHAT: And I put it to you that Brig Schoon's authorisation didn't really matter, because you and de Kock were on a frolic of your own, you didn't need anybody's authorisation.
MR NORTJE: No, if I could just put the perception right. When I say - we knew, or I was under the impression, the protection of head office and the people above us and that is why we also did it. That is why it is strange to me that - I never realised that he did not speak to Brig Schoon, I was under the impression that he had discussed it with Brig Schoon.
One has to think that if we became involved with abductions and such things and a normal police investigation ensued, then we must make sure that we have protection. And I would not become involved if I knew that I was being protected by head office and from the senior people. We just did not go blindly and do it on our own. I don't know what Mr de Kock's idea was, but that was my idea. I would not have become involved in such things if I didn't have permission from higher above, or that I was under the impression that I had permission.
MS LOCKHAT: I just want to put it you again, Mr Nortje, that you and de Kock were friends for a very long time, you enjoyed these operations of eliminations and killing, and whether he had the authority or not, you would still have continued on this mission. And you don't have to comment on that.
MR NORTJE: No, I would have done it in any case, but as I've said there was definitely - as I have explained, I would not or he would not have if he did not know that he would have had protection from above. Even if he went and told Brig Schoon afterwards, I mean if there was an investigation we would have been protected.
MS LOCKHAT: You said, after the operations you were told to cover up this entire mission, the accommodation, your travel plans etc., etc., is that correct?
MR NORTJE: That's correct.
MS LOCKHAT: So surely at that stage, Mr Nortje, you must have also realised that you did not have authorisation because why cover up this whole thing if your brigadiers all knew about it? Didn't you think ...(intervention)
MR NORTJE: Yes, but you have to keep in mind that if there was an investigation, then one would expect an independent person to investigate it. So that chain of evidence would have been found.
MS LOCKHAT: I want to move onto the next issue, the askaris. You said that the askaris suggested to abduct Japie Maponya, how long were you working with these askaris?
MR NORTJE: Why I had - why it had happened, I had the habit of - because I have worked with black people under those circumstances, I always gave them a chance to suggest their opinions because they had to be part of this situation because these were black people, and that is how I saw it. I asked them - I did this often, "what do you think, what should be do now?" And that is the only reason why that happened.
MS LOCKHAT: So they normally participated in covert operations with you, isn't that so, Mr Nortje?
MR NORTJE: Sometimes, yes, there were some of them.
MS LOCKHAT: Is it possible, because they always worked with you, that they suggested this abduction because it was a normal and natural course of events for your unit to participate in these things if people did not want to co-operate with you.
MR NORTJE: Not at that stage, but later indeed, yes some instances came about, but we didn't kill the people, they were just abductions and we got the information. I don't know what their background was, I was not there all that long with that specific team, but I think that is how everybody thought and that is why they made this suggestion. I don't know whether they were personally involved before that with abductions, but that is the idea that they suggested.
MS LOCKHAT: Isn't it, Mr Nortje, if people did not want to co-operate with your unit, C1, C2, that you would actually make them co-operate? That you would get out information at any costs?
MR NORTJE: It would depend on circumstances.
MS LOCKHAT: I want to move onto the issue of Gen le Roux. You said that he must have known, or he must have foreseen the possibility of Japie Maponya being killed, is that correct?
MR NORTJE: That's correct.
MS LOCKHAT: When you informed Gen le Roux about the abduction, that these were the plans, did he tell you to stop at any stage? Did he tell you to think of another plan?
MR NORTJE: No.
MS LOCKHAT: Did he perhaps tell you, look this guy is not an MK soldier, he's just an ordinary security guard, we need information about his brother, so please handle him in a different light?
MR NORTJE: No.
MS LOCKHAT: So do you think that Gen le Roux reconciled himself with the idea that once he's abducted and interrogated, that it was possible for him to be killed?
MR NORTJE: As I've said, as I explained it, it was mentioned to him that something could happen during interrogation, but I cannot say that - we did not tell him that we will kill him, or it was not suggested, or he did not say that we must go and kill him, but it was foreseen and it must have been foreseen. He did not stop us and tell us, don't continue or whatever.
MS LOCKHAT: You also said you saw this operation as Gen le Roux's operation.
MR NORTJE: Meaning that he had knowledge of the incident, afterwards.
MS LOCKHAT: Would you say this operation changed into de Kock's operation, after he abducted and interrogated Japie Maponya?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MS LOCKHAT: So you would say that Gen le Roux had no longer control over your unit at that stage?
MR NORTJE: No, I believe he could still have stopped us, because Kleynhans would have informed him the evening after the assault, about what the plans were. That is my assumption and it was probably his duty to do so, so they could have stopped us, yes.
MS LOCKHAT: Gen le Roux didn't get back to you, contact you or anything of that sort?
MR NORTJE: No, not that I know of.
CHAIRPERSON: Do you know whether Gen le Roux or any of the other members of the Krugersdorp Security Branch were informed of Mr Maponya's death?
MR NORTJE: No, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: If it was their operation, would it not be proper to report?
MR NORTJE: I believe that Mr de Kock would have informed them, but I did not do so and I was not there when he did so, but I assumed that they were informed.
MS LOCKHAT: I want to move onto the issue of Freek Pienaar. Do you think you could be mistaken that Freek Pienaar was with you on this expedition from Piet Retief to the border?
MR NORTJE: No, I am dead certain that he was there.
MS LOCKHAT: Do you think that Mr de Kock just forgot that Freek Pienaar was there, or what?
MR NORTJE: To be honest, I don't know why he denies it, I cannot explain it.
MS LOCKHAT: I just want to get back to one issue. When you were on the border you were - when you hit Japie Maponya with the gun, can you just explain to us why you hit him again please?
MR NORTJE: In the moment thereof I could not bring myself to shoot him, it was a decision that I took there and I decided that I will first knock him unconscious and then would shoot him. At that stage I took that decision, I just could not bring myself to shoot him.
MS LOCKHAT: Why I ask you this question is because Fourie gives a slightly different version to why you actually hit him, he says that you actually hit him because you told Japie Maponya to get on his knees and he didn't get on his knees and therefore you hit him, so that he could follow your instructions. What do you say about that?
MR NORTJE: No, he did kneel down, he did not protest. That might have been his perception of the situation, but that was not the reason, according to me.
MS LOCKHAT: Because Fourie says, on page 249, bundle 3A. I shall read it. It's line seven at the top part of the page
"And then David turned around and when the deceased did not want to kneel, Willie took the HMK and hit him on his head with the firearm."
I'll go down further, just four lines down:
"And he wanted to hit him so that he could fall down, so that he could do what he had to do and when Japie Maponya fell, Willie wanted to shoot him with the firearm."
That is how he experienced it, but at that stage I did not tell him that was my idea, we didn't speak about it. That must have been the inference which he drew on what he say. That may have been his version of the situation there.
MS LOCKHAT: I put it to you that you hit him with this weapon because he didn't want to follow your instructions, you're used to killing people and because he didn't want to follow your orders, you just hit him with the gun so that he could get down on his knees and then you shot him after that. And not because you were feeling sorry for him.
MR NORTJE: When I say that I felt sorry for him, it is really so. I mean, at that stage that was the feeling that I had and I can only be honest about it, that was my feeling. But I did not hit him because he did not want to kneel down or for any other reason.
MS LOCKHAT: Tell me Mr Nortje, did you - who suggested that you should actually kill Japie, that you should be the one to fire? Was it on your own initiative, did you want to do it, or did de Kock instruct you to be the person to shoot Japie Maponya?
MR NORTJE: He not specifically give me the instruction. When he told me to take the uzzi with the silencer, I assumed that it would be my job because previously a long time ago, he had also sent me on such a mission when we were in South West and I assumed that I must do so.
MS LOCKHAT: I put it to you, Mr Nortje, that it seems on the facts, that you didn't need instructions from de Kock anyway, you would have taken this mission on, you would have shot him anyway because you enjoyed this because in your first background, you also said that you loved this action and adventure, isn't that correct?
MR NORTJE: Yes, but times were changing and I have experienced so many circumstances where people had been killed and it just did not appeal to me as much anymore, but I still did so, I saw it as my duty.
MS LOCKHAT: You said that Japie Maponya was blindfolded most of the times, is that correct?
MR NORTJE: As far as I can remember, yes.
MS LOCKHAT: And the only time he wasn't really blindfolded was the time when he was kidnapped.
MR NORTJE: Yes, that's correct.
MS LOCKHAT: So Japie Maponya could be returned to society at any stage after that, isn't that so?
MR NORTJE: Yes, it's possible, it may have happened ...(end of side A of tape)
MS LOCKHAT: I put it to you, Mr Nortje, and on your own admission, that Japie Maponya's death was unnecessary, you could have taken him back, he was just an ordinary security guard, he was no threat to Vlakplaas, he was no threat to your askaris, you could have covered up this whole thing even if he had laid an assault charge against you. You had the power, isn't that so?
MR NORTJE: That's correct, but that is not how we thought at that stage. Now, afterwards, I realise that it was unnecessary, we could have made other plans, but under those circumstances we
did not think so.
MS LOCKHAT: I put it to you, Mr Nortje, because your unit was used to these kind of operations, these covert operations, interrogation, abduction, killing people, that you didn't even think about it, it was normal, it was a natural course of events. You didn't even have to think whether it was right or wrong to kill a person, isn't that so?
MR NORTJE: At that stage, I could say yes.
MS LOCKHAT: And today with hindsight, you can actually say we did the wrong thing?
MR NORTJE: Yes, we acted unnecessarily.
MS LOCKHAT: Thank you, Chairperson, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS LOCKHAT.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Lockhat. Mr Visser?
FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I do apologise, but there is one point which was made, which I would ask your leave just to ask a question or two about. Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Mr Nortje, the issue about whose operation it was, I thought that I understood what you said on page 342 of bundle 1B, because I asked you about this and your evidence here, as far as I can recall, was a confirmation of what you say on page 342, and that is:
"The final decision to abduct Japie Maponya was taken by de Kock, with the approval of Cap Kleynhans as well as Gen le Roux. The instruction to kill Maponya after his interrogation came from Mr de Kock."
Would you like to change that now?
MR NORTJE: No.
MR VISSER: Do you stand by that?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR VISSER: You see the circulars or the circular which deal with under whose command you would be if you were deployed, this we would find on page 706 of bundle 1C, and I would like to read this to you. The circular from Brig Jan du Preez, in paragraph 4 on page 706
"When members of the unit (this is now from Vlakplaas) visited your area (and this is directed to the commanders of divisions or areas) they do as previously said, fall under your command for the duration of their presence."
Do you agree with that?
MR NORTJE: Yes, I agree.
MR VISSER: So that simply means the following, that while you were in Krugersdorp area you were under the command of Col le Roux?
MR NORTJE: That's correct.
MR VISSER: Where was the decision taken to kill Japie, was it not at Vlakplaas?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR VISSER: That is not under the command of Col le Roux.
MR NORTJE: Yes, but that is - I've explained the situation many times to you now. I agree with what you say.
MR VISSER: In other words, if Mr de Kock - and I say for purposes of the question, not he did or he did not, but if he the night of the assault, had decided to eliminate Japie Maponya, then le Roux would not have had anything to say about it, isn't that so?
MR NORTJE: Kleynhans knew what the plans were and it was their duty to inform the General, and if they wanted to stop they would have done so.
MR VISSER: Well that is what it is about and I put it to you, you must please listen carefully to the question, if Mr de Kock the evening of the assault or afterwards, had decided to eliminate Japie Maponya, then le Roux would not have had anything to say about that decision. I put it to you. Because he was not in his area.
MR NORTJE: Yes, but we fetched the person from his region.
MR VISSER: So why did de Kock go to head office the following morning to get permission?
MR NORTJE: I don't know.
MR VISSER: And it is your evidence that you thought that he went there.
MR NORTJE: That's correct.
MR VISSER: So would he do so?
MR NORTJE: It was Mr de Kock's decision.
MR VISSER: No, why did you think it was necessary to go to head office to get authorisation from Brig Schoon?
MR NORTJE: As I have said, in my mind we would not have continued with the operation if we did not have permission from Brig Schoon.
MR VISSER: Yes, because le Roux's yes or no did not amount to anything at that stage, is that not so?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR VISSER: Thank you. Thank you, Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER
ADV GCABASHE: Can I just ask a short question dealing with
this business of taking Japie from Krugersdorp to Vlakplaas and this whole question of authority. Did you discuss with Mr le Roux interrogating Japie at Krugersdorp instead? I just want to understand the taking to Vlakplaas. Just talk me through that again. In light of this business of authority, once he's out of Krugersdorp he's no longer under le Roux's authority.
MR NORTJE: I think the reason why we abducted him - or they did not suggest that we take him to a place in Krugersdorp and interrogate him, Mr de Kock said that we must take him to the farm. I cannot say that - it was decision that was taken then.
ADV GCABASHE: And the option of using Krugersdorp facilities was just not explored at all?
MR NORTJE: No, no, no, it was not mentioned at all. Well, not that I know of, but I understood that we would take him to farm. That was the plan right from the start.
ADV GCABASHE: Then in our own mind as one of the operatives, would you expect to account to Mr le Roux, once you had dealt with Maponya in whichever manner? Nevermind what did happen, but would you then after interrogation, expect to report back to Mr le Roux?
MR NORTJE: Yes, not I personally, but people who were involved there had to report to him, Kleynhans and Dunckley.
ADV GCABASHE: Yes, and that was your understanding? Your participation was because you wanted information to pass back to Mr le Roux?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
ADV GCABASHE: Information that you sourced at Vlakplaas, if you had sourced it at all?
MR NORTJE: Yes, that's correct.
ADV GCABASHE: So there was always a link with Mr le Roux?
MR NORTJE: For sure, yes.
ADV GCABASHE: Thank you.
MR MALAN: Mr Nortje, do you have any knowledge that Kleynhans and Dunckley were informed after the killing of Maponya?
MR NORTJE: No, I don't know.
MR MALAN: So why would you have thought that le Roux would know and that they would report back to him? Or would you have thought de Kock ...(intervention)
MR NORTJE: Well that would have been their concern. I cannot say because I did not do it myself and I don't know whether Mr de Kock did it, but that would be the normal procedure. He would have asked what happened or what happened to the man, or what was the situation and he would have been informed, but I cannot say that I have personal knowledge thereof.
MR MALAN: If you say this is normal procedure, you would say what the book wanted of you, or are you saying this is what happened when you eliminated somebody, that you indeed report back?
MR NORTJE: Yes, everybody would know what was going on, it was not a matter that nobody would know, as if they did know what was going on.
MR MALAN: So after you killed somebody you would inform them, is this the normal procedure?
MR NORTJE: I would say of instances. Anything that happened, there was always feedback under any circumstances.
MR MALAN: But you did not give feedback to anybody?
MR NORTJE: No.
MR MALAN: Did you ask de Kock whether he gave feedback to Kleynhans and Dunckley and le Roux?
MR NORTJE: No, I cannot recall if I asked him.
MR MALAN: I would just like to ask about something else. Ms Lockhat asked you, she put a proposition to you that you and de Kock were friends for a long time and you enjoyed the elimination and she referred to the many instances at Oshakati where you took out people - I take it under Koevoet, not in combat situations and she put it to you that you did not need permission to eliminate any person. I think you answer was you would not have done so if you did not think that you enjoyed protection. Did you get permission there to kill anybody, or was it part of the procedure?
MR NORTJE: No, there were other circumstances there, there we took decisions on our own in the field.
MR MALAN: Yes, you took your decisions there. When you arrived at Vlakplaas, what made you think that it could not go on, that the decisions could still be taken on your own?
MR NORTJE: No, the circumstances were entirely different.
MR MALAN: So when you arrived at Vlakplaas, Eugene told you that things are different here, we cannot just kill people?
MR NORTJE: No, he did not say that. The discussion was not where it was pertinently mentioned.
MR MALAN: But at Vlakplaas you thought that you enjoyed protection.
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR MALAN: As you did in South West.
MR NORTJE: Well I felt that I had protection, yes.
MR MALAN: You see I don't get the impression from your evidence, and that is why I put it to you for your comment, that you believed that it was not necessary to get permission at any place, but that you could use your own judgemnet, operationally, wherever you found yourself or your commander and that Vlakplaas would enjoy the same protection that Koevoet did.
MR NORTJE: Yes, for sure, Sir, that was the impression that I had.
MR MALAN: So why do you put it that Schoon would have to give permission?
MR NORTJE: Because he was our commander.
MR MALAN: So who gave the permission at Koevoet?
MR NORTJE: There it depended on circumstances. General Dreyer was in command there, but ...(intervention)
MR MALAN: But he was in command of Koevoet itself, he was on an overhead commander of anything else, like Schoon was at Vlakplaas.
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR MALAN: Schoon was not the operational commander at Vlakplaas, de Kock was.
MR NORTJE: Our direct - yes, he was just above Mr de Kock. That's correct, yes.
MR MALAN: So he was not stationed at Vlakplaas, he was stationed at head office?
MR NORTJE: That's correct.
MR MALAN: You see, I would just like to put it to you, because that is the impression that I have and if I am incorrect then you must inform me, that in your operations at Vlakplaas you still depended on what the practice was, depending on at best, Mr de Kock's command.
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR MALAN: And at no stage you thought that you had to obtain other permission and that you continually thought that you would be protected.
MR NORTJE: Yes, I went on what Mr de Kock told me, I assumed that he would get permission every time.
MR MALAN: But you did not accept at Koevoet that he received permission every time?
MR NORTJE: It depended on the circumstances there because when we were in the field you took the decision yourself, but when you were in a town I would say they would tell you do this or do that. But I speak of operational combat situations, we acted ourselves and took decisions ourselves.
MR MALAN: And while you were busy with the interrogation and assault of Maponya, is that not an operational situation?
MR NORTJE: But it's not the same circumstances.
MR MALAN: So at Vlakplaas you thought that for every elimination, permission has to come from another place other than Mr de Kock?
MR NORTJE: Yes, I was under that impression.
MR MALAN: Very well.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey, do you have any re-examination?
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Mr Nortje, I would just like to link up with the last number of questions. When you speak of operational circumstances and you think back to the former South West Africa, what do you mean? I want you to try and point out the distinction to us. Please explain.
MR NORTJE: If you were in the field, you would have your group of people with you and there may be certain circumstances where people would remain alive after a shooting incident.
MR LAMEY: Okay, let me put it to you like this. These circumstances that you have referred to, would it be for example that you chased infiltrating terrorists in a bush area which would be referred to as a bush war?
MR MALAN: Mr Lamey, I apologies for interrupting, this must be with regard to my question. I'm not asking about the operational search and chase after terrorists, I think we are
speaking of the elimination of unarmed terrorists. So if this has anything to do with my question, it's not necessary for you to explore this any further.
MR LAMEY: While you were at Koevoet, were there ever any unarmed persons who had been captured who were not themselves terrorists and who were eliminated upon your decision?
MR NORTJE: No.
MR LAMEY: You distinguished this from operational circumstances, or you made the distinction between operational and civil circumstances. With regard to the former South African situation, if there was a civil case or matter, was there any clearance? Can you think of any case?
MR NORTJE: Yes, there was. If anything like that happened, when we had to go and eliminate somebody, it was with authorisation. The circumstances were different in the field than what they were at the base. There we were still operating under command and here, when we arrived here, we also operated under direct command. We were aware of laws that were in place and that we could encounter problems. So according to me, we did not act without permission.
MR MALAN: Mr Nortje, really I don't understand your distinction. You say that you also eliminated civil persons in South West?
MR NORTJE: No.
MR MALAN: But then I misunderstood you completely, isn't that your evidence? What was your evidence regarding civil persons?
MR NORTJE: Civil persons were not eliminated.
MR MALAN: Well then I withdraw the entire question, thank you.
MR LAMEY: Let me put it to you like this before I proceed with this question. In the case of Japie Maponya, was it the first case or not the first case? When you arrived back in the public sector and worked at Vlakplaas, was this the first case in which you had been involved in the elimination of a person?
MR NORTJE: Yes, it was.
MR LAMEY: Were there also cases or a case in which you were involved in the former South West - and before I put the complete question to you, I just want to get to the distinction again. I understand that you operated under strictly operational circumstances in the South West African bush, when you were searching for terrorists and that is when you were involved in eliminations.
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR LAMEY: Let me also ask you, were there cases during which for example, not in the bush situation, someone was interrogated and during interrogation or after that interrogation they were killed?
MR NORTJE: Yes, there were such cases.
MR LAMEY: And these were not under bush circumstances, but at the bases?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR LAMEY: And in such a case you had to obtain clearance from a higher authority, or did you make your own decisions?
MR NORTJE: I wasn't personally present when that was the case, it was an incident which took place, which I simply recall. They also didn't ask for permission to kill the person. Under those circumstances during the interrogation, the person died.
MR LAMEY: He died during interrogation?
MR NORTJE: Yes. And that is what I had in mind later when this thing about the abduction was discussed, that this may also be the case in this matter.
MR LAMEY: Now the question was put to you in English, that with regard to Japie Maponya, you and de Kock went on a frolic of your own. Do you know the meaning of the word "frolic", or the phrase "frolic of your own", what that suggests?
MR NORTJE: Out of control, acting on our own initiative.
MR LAMEY: Yes, that is correct. In other words, beyond the area of your duties.
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR LAMEY: You would decide independently, without consideration or reference to a structure in which you were in service. Was this such a case?
MR NORTJE: No, it wasn't.
MR LAMEY: You gave evidence that Japie Maponya was then the first case in which you had been involved in the elimination of a person. Were you ever - and I refer here to the question of enjoyment of killing people, were you ever involved in the killing or elimination of a person, during which there was no form of connection to the conflict or the struggle and so forth?
MR NORTJE: No.
MR LAMEY: With regard to the question that you would have enjoyed killing somebody, you participated voluntarily and voluntarily ended up with Koevoet. Do I understand you correctly that at that time you believed in the necessity of such a unit and that you wanted to be a part of it, you wanted to be part of an effective unit which combatted terrorism which was aimed at threatening the safety of South West Africa and the Republic at that time?
MR NORTJE: That's correct.
MR LAMEY: And if you had a problem with the dangers that you would encounter in combatting such activities, you would not have been a part of it?
MR NORTJE: That's correct.
MR LAMEY: But there is a difference which is suggested in the question and that is that you eliminated persons for personal satisfaction. If that suggestion is created within that question, would it be correct?
MR NORTJE: No.
MR LAMEY: Mr Nortje, you have touched upon this in your evidence - I cannot recall whether this was during cross-examination or not, but Mr Maponya was during his abduction - or let me put it like this, was he exposed to your identity and the identity of Vlakplaas members, the askaris?
MR NORTJE: Yes, he was.
MR LAMEY: He would also have been abducted on the street or in a town, could any provisions be made that he would not be able to see his abductors?
MR NORTJE: No, it would have depended upon circumstances. He had to have seen them. They could not walk down the street wearing their balaclavas and then abduct a man, that would definitely attract attention. They had to perform the action as quietly or as unseen as possible.
MR LAMEY: Later he was blindfolded at Vlakplaas, by means of a balaclava and so forth.
MR NORTJE: Yes, that's correct.
MR LAMEY: At that stage, he had already seen some of the persons.
MR NORTJE: Yes, that's correct.
MR LAMEY: Can I accept that the purpose there was to limit the recognition of the identity of persons who he had not seen at that stage?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR LAMEY: After he had been assaulted and the decision had ultimately been taken, a person in Japie Maponya's position, due to the time period in which everything took place, would have been able to draw the inference that it was nobody other than the Security Police who were involved in his abduction and his assault.
MR NORTJE: I don't know, he could have thought anything, we were only supposed to arrange for the action.
MR LAMEY: I'm just putting the question for you to think back and regard the position. Here is somebody who is aware that questions have been asked about his brother, Mainstay, he is abducted and those questions are repeated, so at the very least in his mind, there was somebody who wanted to know about Orderele Maponya and where he was.
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR LAMEY: And at that stage it would have been the Security Police who wanted such information.
MR NORTJE: Yes, that's correct.
MR LAMEY: Mr Nortje, you have actually said it yourself already, but I just want to clear it up completely, you left the police, you gave evidence before the Goldstone Commission, you gave evidence during the trial of Mr de Kock and in the meantime you have continued with what one may refer to as a civil life, changes have taken place in our country, we have a new dispensation and if one may put it like that, in the process of the TRC and the process of reconciliation with the takeover of the government, the enmity has also changed with regard to the viewpoints surrounding the government.
MR NORTJE: That's correct.
MR LAMEY: And with all these changes which have taken place in the meantime, in retrospect, could you say today that the death of Japie Maponya was actually unnecessary?
MR NORTJE: I had realised that a long time ago, during the time after the events.
MR LAMEY: When you refer to that period, what are you referring to?
MR NORTJE: I'm referring to the '80's.
MR LAMEY: Did you think about it yourself afterwards?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR LAMEY: And did you begin to doubt what had happened?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
ADV GCABASHE: But at a stage ...(intervention)
ADV GCABASHE: Sorry, Mr Lamey.
Did you discuss that with Mr de Kock at any stage, the fact that some of the things you were doing were totally unnecessary?
MR NORTJE: No.
ADV GCABASHE: Thank you.
MR LAMEY: But at the stage when you were a participant, when decisions were taken, did you view it as such?
MR NORTJE: No. As I've said, I followed him blindly at that stage.
MR LAMEY: Did anything take place in the meantime after the incident, which brought you to different insights with regard to Japie Maponya?
MR NORTJE: Yes, but I cannot say specifically what it was.
MR LAMEY: Let us look at today once again, would the release of Japie Maponya have created a risk of embarrassment, would he for example have gone back to his employer and told him that he had been taken away, abducted and so forth and that he suspected that it was the Security Police, and would there have been an investigation?
MR NORTJE: Those were our fears at that stage, but today I can say that we could have acted differently.
MR LAMEY: But those were your fears at that stage?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Which fears would have existed before the abduction, obviously.
MR NORTJE: The fact about the entire story surrounding him, everything that took place after we had taken him, the fact that he could identify people, that he could lay charges, that the matter could have been investigated and that this could have created problems for us. All those factors led me to believe at that stage, that this was the only way out, that we would have to do the only right thing.
ADV GCABASHE: But Mr Nortje, it was very common in those days for black people to be taken in for interrogation and released again without being charged, it was very common to be beaten up and still be released.
MR NORTJE: Yes.
ADV GCABASHE: To see their interrogators faces and still be released.
MR NORTJE: Yes.
ADV GCABASHE: Not all of them brought charges against the relevant officials.
MR NORTJE: That's correct.
ADV GCABASHE: Yes, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey?
MR LAMEY: Just on this point, Mr Nortje, by nature of the situation interrogation had taken place in the past in the Security Police, but I want to ask you this, at Vlakplaas when you were a member of the South African Security Police, can you recall whether this case of Japie Maponya was the first case, or whether there were others during which somebody had been abducted and interrogated and assaulted? I'm not speaking of someone being detained and interrogated in terms of security legislation.
MR NORTJE: I know that it took place afterwards, but I cannot recall whether it took place in that year, before the incident.
MR LAMEY: During cross-examination you were examined by Adv Flip Hattingh about your motivation for your amnesty application. You have not received a civil subpoena with regard to this matter.
MR NORTJE: No.
MR LAMEY: And the suggestion was actually created that you are applying for amnesty in order to differ with Mr de Kock's version and to jeopardise his application, what would be your response if the is the intention of the question, to create that suggestion?
MR NORTJE: No, it is not my objective to endanger Mr de Kock's version or to imply that he's not speaking the truth.
MR LAMEY: When you complied and signed your amnesty application, and I'm also referring to you supplementary application, were you aware of what Mr de Kock's version is?
MR NORTJE: No.
MR LAMEY: Let me ask you this, you have criminal indemnity for your participation in this event, can you tell me why you are applying for amnesty?
MR NORTJE: Basically because I was one of the members who testified before the Goldstone Commission and so forth, from the very beginning. I cannot withdraw from the process which is aimed at reconciliation, the family must be told what happened. We tried to find the body, we tried very hard to find the body, but I don't know what happened to it, it must have been taken away by somebody, or I don't know and I'm requesting amnesty. That's all that I have to say.
MR LAMEY: You have also been advised that amnesty goes further than criminal liability, it is also about civil liability.
MR NORTJE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Would this be a convenient time to take the tea adjournment, Mr Lamey?
MR LAMEY: Certainly, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. We'll take the short tea adjournment for approximately 20 minutes.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION
WILLIE A NORTJE: (s.u.o.)
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Lamey?
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: (cont)
Thank you, Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, during the adjournment the Evidence Leader just indicated to me that she omitted to ask one or two further questions to Mr Nortje, I indicated to her that I've got no objection. I would however suggest that if there is a further question that she wants to ask Mr Nortje, that she do it now before I complete the re-examination.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, in case it warrants further re-examination from yourself.
MR LAMEY: Yes.
FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS LOCKHAT: Thank you, Chairperson, for indulging me. I just wanted to ask Mr Nortje one question in relation to two plots that he received. Just to clarify that for us and money that he received from Mr de Kock, which he had mentioned in his criminal trial. I just thought that it would be relevant and I just wanted to pose, just to get exactly when he received this money and the plots, which years, how much it was, that type of thing.
MR NORTJE: The plot which I received from him, I received only in 1991. I think that it was during 1991 that I registered in on my name. The plots which were mentioned, I cannot recall what the situation was when the plots were sold, but it wasn't a lot. These were plots which he had and he had originally purchased when he was still in Namibia. It had nothing to do with the circumstances that we were in I believe, but the plots that he gave to me I ultimately sold for R40 000. ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, how many plots? You talk about plots.
MR NORTJE: Yes, Mr de Kock had plots at Delmas, I think they were four and he divided it among us and at a stage I attempted to put it on our names. I cannot recall whether we sold it or whether he took it back. I know that he took it back at a stage, at least some of the plots, but I cannot say that I drew any advantage from those plots. The plots were not registered only in my name, but in two of our names. They were not worth much.
In which year this took place, it had to have been approximately during 1991 or '92, but he had already owned those plots for about 10 years approximately and the plot that he gave to me, I think he had purchased in 1989 and he gave it to me during 1991. That is when it was registered in my name.
MS LOCKHAT: So you didn't pay any - you didn't give him any money for the plots or nothing, it was gifts you could say.
MR NORTJE: No, he gave it to me.
MS LOCKHAT: And could you just elaborate on the cash that you received from Mr de Kock?
MR NORTJE: The total amount, I cannot recall at the moment, but there were various amounts. For example R5 000 and then later R10 000. This took place over a long period of time, from 1989 until the end of 1992, but that was basically about the fact that after we executed operations with weapon stockpiling locations and so forth, he would give us certain amounts of money, but it wasn't specific rewards. There was a stage that he gave me R2 000 after the Grey incident, but it was not his practice to give us money so that we would become involved in operations.
MS LOCKHAT: Did you receive any monies prior to 1985?
MR NORTJE: No.
MS LOCKHAT: Thank you, Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS LOCKHAT
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Lamey?
MR WAGENER: Mr Chairman, sorry to interrupt. Before Mr Lamey proceeds, may I also be permitted to put one issue to the witness, which technically should have been put earlier this morning, please?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR WAGENER: Mr Nortje, during cross-examination by Mr Hattingh, you were referred to the so-called Nelspruit incident and you gave evidence that General Engelbrecht was also guilty of a cover-up action with regard to that incident.
MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.
MR WAGENER: Now when that matter is heard by an Amnesty Committee, you will be cross-examined thoroughly I believe, but at this stage I want to put it to you that General Engelbrecht denies that he was involved in any illegal action.
MR NORTJE: I accept that.
MR WAGENER: And Mr Chairman, in the document, the transcript of the cross-examination of myself and Mr de Kock, I think it is before you now, I dealt with this issue on pages 502 to 507 of that bundle, if you would wish to take that into regard.
MS LOCKHAT: It's bundle 1F, Chairperson.
MR WAGENER: It's pages 502 to 507. There was a line of questioning on behalf of General Engelbrecht. Thank you, Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR WAGENER
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Wagener. Mr Lamey?
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: (cont)
Mr Nortje, just with regard to this last aspect. During the de Kock trial there were many charges of fraud and so forth against Mr de Kock, regarding which you gave evidence and it appeared from these charges - I don't have the details before me, so if I formulate the question incorrectly, please assist me, but there was also an indication that you drew some benefit from this.
MR NORTJE: That's correct.
MR LAMEY: And the money that you have referred to that he gave you, could that also have come from the illegal handling of funds and you did not apply for amnesty for that?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: Where you received any remuneration after the execution of an operation, and where you could recall this, you have mentioned it?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR LAMEY: With regard to the Japie Maponya incident, was any remuneration given to you at any time thereafter, which was connected to the incident?
MR NORTJE: No.
MR LAMEY: Mr Nortje, at a stage during cross-examination you referred to your amnesty application, which was compiled with regard to details in statements which you made in Denmark.
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: Those extracts from the statements that you made in Denmark, would those be the extracts that we find in your first application which was submitted for amnesty?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR LAMEY: It is contained within the bundle. I will just give you an example. For example, the Inkatha involvement, the weapon supply, the Nelspruit incident, the Greytown incident, the Bheki Melangene incident and so forth.
MR NORTJE: Yes, that's correct.
MR LAMEY: The facts that you have given there, or the version that you have provided has been incorporated in your amnesty application in certain cases and in certain cases you have also elaborated somewhat.
MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.
MR LAMEY: I just want to refer you - I don't know if you have had the opportunity to refer to these aspects during your cross-examination, but with regard to Japie Maponya, are there any particulars with regard to that incident which you have included in your amnesty application?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR LAMEY: Could you just look at that please. On page 286 you say
"In September 1985, the Japie Maponya matter took place. I gave evidence with regard to that as State witness."
That which appears on page 286, does that also emanate from your Denmark statement? I myself am not certain about what you mean because what we find after the Japie Maponya incident in your initial application, is a short reference to page 286 and after that the Lesotho operation follows as well as the Chesterville and the Piet Retief incident. So I just want to ask you, if you look at your initial application, have the particulars regarding the Japie Maponya incident been incorporated in your amnesty application? This is with regard to the Denmark statement.
MR NORTJE: Yes, in Denmark I gave an explanation of the Japie Maponya matter.
MR LAMEY: And with regard to your amnesty application, it has not been incorporated in this document?
MR NORTJE: Yes, I see so.
MR LAMEY: Very well. ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Mr Lamey, are you saying it's just these two bottom lines, it's the only extract from the Denmark statement?
MR LAMEY: Ja.
CHAIRPERSON: It's just that in September '85 the Japie Maponya incident took place?
MR LAMEY: Ja. Maar u het wel meer volledig as wat die verwysing is, het u in Denemarke oor getuig?
MR NORTJE: O, ja, ja.
MR LAMEY: And when your supplementary statement was compiled, that which we find on page 336, when you speak of your supplementary application, at that stage before you - did you have your Denmark statement and your evidence during the de Kock trial before you to refresh your memory?
MR NORTJE: No, I spoke from my independent recollection.
MR LAMEY: From your independent recollection as you remembered it then?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR LAMEY: Then just a final aspect, Mr Nortje. Initially you provided a distance, and you gave evidence in the de Kock trial about this, a distance of five kilometres from Nersden, the point at which you entered the plantation.
MR NORTJE: Yes, that's correct.
MR LAMEY: Was there a manner in which this could be determined with greater accuracy than your estimation, and if so, at what point did this take place?
MR NORTJE: That was when the investigating team took me to the scene. I went to look for the place and found the place in a vicinity of 20 to 30 paces from where we had climbed through the fence.
MR LAMEY: So was that distance determined with greater accuracy from Nersden?
MR NORTJE: Yes, it was a distance of 3.7 kilometres. MR LAMEY: You remember this, and in your amnesty application it is also given as 3.7 kilometres?
MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.
MR LAMEY: May I just ask you, the lights that you spoke of from the Nersden border post, how far, according to your approximation, did those lights run alongside the border?
MR NORTJE: No, it was there at the station.
MR LAMEY: I'm not asking you to be exact, but what would be your approximation, how far in the direction that you drove on the gravel road towards the place where Japie was eventually killed, how far would the lights run from the border?
MR NORTJE: No, it was just surrounding the police station.
MR LAMEY: The police station at the border post?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR LAMEY: Then I also want to put it to you, could you at any stage after the death of Japie there in the bushes, before you had covered him so to speak, could you at any stage determine where the bullet that you had fired from the firearm had penetrated?
MR NORTJE: I didn't look again, but I would say that I definitely shot him in the back of the head, or at least at the top, but I suspect that it was somewhere in the vicinity of the back section of the head. I didn't look again.
MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chairperson, I have nothing further.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Lamey. Adv Gcabashe, do you have any questions you'd like to ask?
ADV GCABASHE: No, thank you, Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Malan?
MR MALAN: No thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Nortje, that concludes your testimony, you may stand down.
MR NORTJE: Thank you, Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, may I just ask that Mr Nortje be excused, he's got other plans and can he be excused for the further duration of the hearing?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but would you be on standby in case something crops up, something unforeseen at a stage? You have the right to be here, but if you want to be excused, you may.
MR NORTJE: Thank you, Chairperson.
WITNESS EXCUSED
