Amnesty Hearings

K KLOPPER: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chairperson.

Mr Klopper, you have applied for amnesty for several incidents. Is it correct that some of the things for which you have applied for have already been heard?

MR KLOPPER: That's correct.

MR LAMEY: And you apply for amnesty for your involvement in the Nelspruit incident, during which four persons were killed in an ambush, is that correct?

MR KLOPPER: Yes.

MR LAMEY: An initial application has been drawn up for you, which contains certain summaries of the acts. Some of the facts were, after further consideration, not repeated in your application because of several reasons, is that correct?

MR KLOPPER: That's correct

MR LAMEY: Your initial application is dated the 29th of November 1996. We find that from page 100 to 106, as well as the annexure on page 111.

MR KLOPPER: That's correct.

MR LAMEY: Afterwards you obtained legal representation and then a supplementary affidavit was drawn up, which appears from 112 and the relevant parts thereof, up to page 126 of the bundle, is that correct?

MR KLOPPER: That's correct.

MR LAMEY: In the introductory part you say that the parts which are contained in here are embodied in the application in as far as the incidents occur and further incidents - excuse me, Chairperson, I'm on page 117. And then furthermore there's a summary of your background and your training, on page 118 up to 122, do you confirm that?

MR KLOPPER: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: To arrive at the Nelspruit incident, you mention in paragraph 1 that one of the members of Vlakplaas gained information with regard to ANC persons who wanted to launch an operation.

MR KLOPPER: That's correct.

MR LAMEY: How long before the incident took place did you become aware that such an action would take place?

MR KLOPPER: I cannot recall the specific date and the specific time, but it was a while before that that there was talk that such an incident would take place.

MR LAMEY: And did you hear beforehand who was the source of the information from Holtzhausen?

MR KLOPPER: At some stage I did find out who the source was, but I cannot recall at which stage it was.

MR LAMEY: Who was the source of Mr Holtzhausen?

MR KLOPPER: It was Ben van Zyl.

MR LAMEY: Did you know him?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, I knew him.

MR LAMEY: Were you involved in the planning of the arrangements beforehand, before the Nelspruit incident?

MR KLOPPER: No.

MR LAMEY: Were you involved to some extent or were you informed?

MR KLOPPER: I would say I was informed, I did not participate in the planning.

MR LAMEY: Who did the planning?

MR KLOPPER: As far as I know it was between Holtzhausen and members of Murder and Robbery and I think Mr de Kock.

MR LAMEY: Did you understand that you would accompany them for the operation?

MR KLOPPER: That's correct.

MR LAMEY: Did you know in Pretoria what the operation would be about, that an ambush would be set up?

MR KLOPPER: I cannot recall whether I knew in Pretoria, I cannot remember exactly.

MR LAMEY: If you say that you - are you not sure of Pretoria or Nelspruit?

MR KLOPPER: That's correct.

MR LAMEY: What did you understand about this group? This group of people, were they indeed intent on launching a robbery?

MR KLOPPER: All I knew is that they were members of the ANC and they had committed robberies. What was told to me and what I can recall is, they were involved in a big robbery in Witbank.

ADV DE JAGER: Please go a little bit slower so that we can write down what you are saying. According to your information they were?

MR KLOPPER: They were members of the ANC and they had committed robberies before that, amongst others a big robbery in Witbank.

ADV DE JAGER: Continue please.

MR LAMEY: The connection with Witbank, can you remember where you heard this, in Pretoria or Nelspruit or was there a specific briefing session which you can recall, or was it in general conversation?

MR KLOPPER: I think more it was in general conversation, but I cannot recall pertinently.

MR LAMEY: So you went to Nelspruit.

MR KLOPPER: That's correct, at some stage.

MR LAMEY: And with whom did you travel there?

MR KLOPPER: It was myself, de Kock and the two secretaries of the unit.

MR LAMEY: I would just like to ask you, why did the two secretaries go along?

MR KLOPPER: As far as I can recall, there were problems with previous claims which some of the members had handed in when they had stayed at Malelane Lodge, and that is the reason why they came along.

MR LAMEY: Was there a place when you travelled to Nelspruit, where you met? Or before the incident took place, did you go to a specific place in Nelspruit?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, de Kock and I and the ladies went to the - met the rest of the people at the Drum Rock Hotel.

MR LAMEY: Can you recall who were all present?

MR KLOPPER: There were members from Murder and Robbery.

MR LAMEY: Can you mention the members of Murder and Robbery?

MR KLOPPER: It was Leon Boshoff, Chris Geldenhuys, Deon Gouws. It's the members that I have put in my statement and members from the farm, Holtzhausen, Charlie Tait, Johnny Swart, Hanekom. I cannot recall who the rest were.

MR LAMEY: And the other members - I have just omitted to ask you something. You were at that stage a member of Vlakplaas.

MR KLOPPER: That's correct.

MR LAMEY: What was your rank? If we can just refer to the date, March 1992, you may refer to your statement if your memory fails you. There may be a summary.

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, I was either a Lieutenant or a Captain, I cannot recall what my rank was at that stage.

MR LAMEY: And the other members of C10, other members that you met at the Drum Rock Hotel? After your arrival at the Drum Rock Hotel, you refer to the members of Murder and Robbery.

MR KLOPPER: And the members of Vlakplaas.

MR LAMEY: Who was that?

MR KLOPPER: It was Dougie Holtzhausen, Willie Nortje was there, Johnny Swart, Rolf Gevers, Jannie Hanekom. I cannot recall exactly who the rest were.

MR LAMEY: At what time did you arrive at the Drum Rock Hotel, can you recall?

MR KLOPPER: I cannot recall the time, but I do recall that it was dark when we arrived there, but I cannot recall the specific time when we arrived there.

MR LAMEY: Mr de Kock and yourself, how long did you stay there at the Drum Rock Hotel?

MR KLOPPER: I cannot recall how long we stayed there, but from there we went to the Malelane Lodge and that is where we stayed.

MR LAMEY: Can you recall whether there were any further discussions before you departed from the Drum Rock Hotel to Malelane?

MR KLOPPER: I cannot specifically recall, but I believe the time would have been made so that we could return back to the Drumrock, but I cannot recall.

MR LAMEY: So you would be part of the operation?

MR KLOPPER: Yes.

MR LAMEY: You and Col de Kock?

MR KLOPPER: That's correct, yes.

MR LAMEY: Do you know for what time the operation was planned?

MR KLOPPER: I cannot recall, it was for later that evening.

MR LAMEY: So did you and Col de Kock go to Malelane?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, we went there.

MR LAMEY: And you left the secretaries there?

MR KLOPPER: That's correct.

MR LAMEY: And you returned back to Drumrock?

MR KLOPPER: That's correct, yes.

MR LAMEY: Were the other members there when you arrived at the Drum Rock Hotel, what was the position?

MR KLOPPER: As far as I can recall, we arrived there, we met the other members while they were just about to depart and we almost missed them, and we went to the scene.

MR LAMEY: If you're saying - so you went to the scene?

MR KLOPPER: That's correct.

MR LAMEY: When you arrived at the scene, where was the scene?

MR KLOPPER: It was under a bridge. As one would come out of Nelspruit, I think it's on the Witrivier Road. I cannot recall exactly, but I know it was under a bridge outside Nelspruit, in the direction of some or other residential area, Khanyamazaan.

MR LAMEY: And what happened further at the scene?

MR KLOPPER: Planning was done as to how the line of fire would be set up and I think persons were sent out to drive along the road and to survey the road that the robbers were used. As I've said, the line of fire was set up and Gouws and Holtzhausen would have sat on the bridge and as soon as the vehicle passed them, they would open fire and then the rest of us would open fire.

MR LAMEY: Did you deliver any input with regard to the line of fire and so forth?

MR KLOPPER: It was not my action, I did not have part in the planning, but I recall that we were to be opposite each other and logic told me that we would be firing at each other and I only ventured that we not stand opposite either.

MR LAMEY: Did you know at some stage that the plan would be to cover up any evidence at the scene? Did you know of the petrol, can you recall? Or the AK47s that would be planted?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, no not before the incident. I cannot recall that I knew about it before the incident.

MR LAMEY: Can you continue.

MR KLOPPER: The accused and I waited in the car, the plan was to shoot the people. No attempt was to be made to ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: Who are you referring to when you say "accused"?

MR KLOPPER: I beg your pardon, Mr de Kock, excuse me.

There was no plan to arrest the people, but to shoot and when the planning had been done ...(intervention)

MR LAMEY: What was the purpose of the stop vehicle?

MR KLOPPER: It was my vehicle and it would seem as if there was an attempt to stop the vehicle when they passed through the bridge.

MR LAMEY: Like a roadblock?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, like a roadblock.

MR LAMEY: Please proceed.

MR KLOPPER: Mr de Kock and I remained in my vehicle, we slept for a while, I do not recall how long and a message came that the vehicle was on its way and we moved over to the other side of the road. It is a big road, the bridge on top and it was a small road that passed. And we moved over to the other side of where we had set up the ambush. We waited there. I cannot recall how long afterwards did the vehicle come through and we heard the shots of Holtzhausen and Gouws and we moved in in front of the vehicle and we fired on the minibus with the deceased.

MR LAMEY: Did you also fire shots?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, that's correct.

MR LAMEY: In which direction did you fire shots, did you have a specific target?

MR KLOPPER: As far as I can recall, I fired at the driver and the front passenger. I don't recall whether that was my instruction, but I fired at them. I was almost in front in the line.

MR LAMEY: How many shots did you fire?

MR KLOPPER: As far as I can recall, I exchanged three magazines. I cannot recall how many rounds in a magazine, but I think it's 30 rounds in a magazine, so it may be 90 to 100 shots.

MR LAMEY: And what happened after that?

MR KLOPPER: As we had fired to the driver the minibus did not stop. If I recall correctly, that was one of the things that was said, that if the driver is shot the minibus would stop, but he did not stop. And as the vehicle went further and with all the shots fired at the vehicle and at some point in time it did come to a stop. I recall some of the people moved around the vehicle and fired into the vehicle and everything became quiet at that stage.

MR LAMEY: May I just ask you, were there any signs of life?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, that is why we moved around the vehicle and fired shots.

MR LAMEY: Did you also fire shots?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, I also fired shots. And then at some stage it became quiet and everything was over. If I recall correctly, I moved up and I fetched my car and pulled it into the road so that it would seem that there was a roadblock with the blue light. I cannot recall who went and fetched petrol. Firearms were placed in the vehicle and shots were fired from the vehicle so that it would seem that shots were fired on us from the vehicle and that would be the reason why we shot at the vehicle.

MR LAMEY: And did the vehicle catch fire?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, it started burning tremendously and at some stage other people arrived there. The fire brigade was there, the police arrived. We kept some of the people away because there were explosions in the vehicle because of the handgrenades that were placed in the vehicle.

MR LAMEY: And what came to your knowledge after that?

MR KLOPPER: At some stage it was established that the vehicle belonged to one of de Kock's friends who lived in Springs, the minibus, the kombi ...(intervention)

MR LAMEY: I beg your pardon, may I just ask - I actually wanted to ask you something else. After the shooting had ceased with the people in the minibus and the minibus caught fire, did you know about the persons who were in the vehicle?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, it was established later that there was one person who was not in the vehicle.

MR LAMEY: Did you know who the person was that they mentioned?

MR KLOPPER: Afterwards I heard that his name was Tiso, but at that stage I didn't know who it was.

MR LAMEY: And what happened next?

MR KLOPPER: I think Willie arrived and conveyed a message and it was arranged that Rolf Gevers and Blackie Swart - and I cannot recall who the other one - Charlie Chait, that they would drive and would meet Snor Vermeulen and Dawid Britz on their way back from Nelspruit to Pretoria and they would take the man to Penge Mine.

MR LAMEY: Who gave that instruction?

MR KLOPPER: It came from de Kock.

MR LAMEY: And did you know what Penge Mine would mean?

MR KLOPPER: It is general knowledge that the mine, that was the place where the person was to be Buddha’d.

MR LAMEY: What did that mean?

MR KLOPPER: Not, that the person would be killed, but that they would blow him up with explosives.

CHAIRPERSON: What is the term "Buddha’d"?

MR KLOPPER: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: What does that mean? Does that mean that the body is blown up?

MR KLOPPER: The explosives are put inside the person and he is blown up.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it the position that the person takes up, where the name comes from? Does he sit in the position of a Buddha?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, I was involved once with this instance, but the body was already stiff so we could not Buddha it.

CHAIRPERSON: And here we hear evidence that the person, after he was shot, his clothes were removed and the explosives was put in his lap and taped to his body.

MR KLOPPER: Yes, that's how it works.

CHAIRPERSON: So the person sits in that position?

MR KLOPPER: That's correct, yes. That is where the term Buddha is used.

CHAIRPERSON: Like a statue?

MR KLOPPER: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey?

MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chairperson. Afterwards, was there a post-mortem inquest?

MR KLOPPER: That's correct.

MR LAMEY: Can you just sketch the circumstances surrounding that and mention about it?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, I had already left Vlakplaas and a post-mortem inquest was to be held with this story and we were called in to Adv Coetzee in Pretoria and all the other members who were involved there ...(intervention)

MR LAMEY: May I just ask you, before that did you depose to a statement?

MR KLOPPER: No, I did not make a statement, but I signed one.

MR LAMEY: Was it prepared beforehand?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, it was just given to me to sign.

MR LAMEY: Were these the true facts?

MR KLOPPER: No, it wasn't the true facts which were presented, it was as if - how can I say, that it was a legal police action.

MR LAMEY: In your statement you mention, or you make reference to Gen Engelbrecht ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Page number?

MR LAMEY: Page 124. What is the reference to Gen Engelbrecht there?

MR KLOPPER: Oh, Gen Engelbrecht and of the members, Holtzhausen, de Kock and Geldenhuys, we met at a safe-house in Waterkloof and the statements were drawn up there and it was drawn up in such a manner because most of them had investigative experience.

MR LAMEY: To present false facts?

MR KLOPPER: That's correct, yes.

MR LAMEY: You have referred in your evidence to the minibus, what do you know of that?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, what I can recall, at some stage de Kock and I went to visit this friend of his, Mannie, in Springs. He and de Kock had a conversation in our office and on our way back, de Kock told me that this Mannie was experiencing financial trouble and then we had to steal a minibus for sequestration purposes or whatever. And after the shooting incident, I realised that this was the same vehicle that was referred to.

MR LAMEY: Do you know whether the minibus was stolen and how it arrived at the scene?

MR KLOPPER: No, I don't have firsthand knowledge.

MR LAMEY: And then a following aspect. You then apply for amnesty for the murder of four persons with regard to perjury and defeating the ends of justice and you also apply for accessory with regard to the murder of the fifth person.

Chairperson, I would just request with regard to the fifth person, that we also include conspiracy there because I think it was part of the planning, that he would also be in the minibus, so it boils down to conspiracy. Can we just make that amendment on Mr Klopper's side.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, there's no problem.

MR LAMEY: And then Mr Klopper, on page 125, your amnesty application referred to the political objective and you have set it out there, do you confirm it as you had believed it then, and according to you, was this the motivation for your action?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct, yes.

MR LAMEY: And with regard to approval and command you say "yes" and you say you received instructions from de Kock, but the details were also received from Holtzhausen.

MR KLOPPER: That's correct, yes.

MR LAMEY: And did you understand that although you were a Lieutenant and W/O Holtzhausen, that overall he received the approval, or blessing from de Kock? ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And then with regard to the false statements in the post-mortem inquest, according to you everything had the blessing of Gen Krappies Engelbrecht?

MR KLOPPER: That's correct.

MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chairperson, I think that is the evidence-in-chief.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Lamey.

Mr Klopper, what weapon did you have?

MR KLOPPER: We were all issued with R5 rifles.

CHAIRPERSON: And you changed three magazines.

MR KLOPPER: Yes, that's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Were they all empty?

MR KLOPPER: I cannot recall if they were all empty, I cannot exactly, but there was a lot.

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, there is something that I have omitted.

CHAIRPERSON: Certainly.

FURTHER EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Your question with regard to the firearm and the magazines just promoted me to ask about it.

At the scene did you play a role to minimise the amount of shots and in what manner?

MR KLOPPER: I think I had instruction and Blackie went with me and we picked up most of the - or a lot of shells and we went and threw it away.

MR LAMEY: What was the purpose thereof?

MR KLOPPER: So that it would not seem as if we had shot so many - fired so many shots.

MR LAMEY: Was this to minimise the forensic evidence?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, that's correct.

MR LAMEY: As it pleases you, Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Lamey.

We'll adjourn and reconvene at eleven thirty.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

K KLOPPER: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hattingh?

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

Mr Klopper, the introductory questions that I want to put to you I have put to you previously, but unfortunately this is a new Committee, so I will have to go through it again.

You left Vlakplaas because you were in quite a heavy confrontation with Mr de Kock.

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: You could not get along with him at all, neither could he get along with you.

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And these confrontations were so serious that he physically assaulted you on occasion.

MR KLOPPER: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And you then requested a transfer to SANAB, is that correct?

MR KLOPPER: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And I would like to put it as lightly as possibly, would it be correct to say that there is no love lost between the two of you?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And that is still the case, not so?

MR KLOPPER: I have no sentiments towards him.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. These events took place quite a long time ago and upon repetition you have said that you cannot recall certain things.

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: You were examined at length by me during Mr de Kock's trial.

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And you gave evidence about certain incidents, but with regard to the Nelspruit incident in particular, you were cross-examined at length.

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And Mr Klopper, during the course of cross-examination you were forced to admit that you had committed perjury, not so?

MR KLOPPER: I don't really understand what you mean.

MR HATTINGH: But you would recall without going into too much detail, that I questioned you about your evidence in the District Court, which differed from that which you gave in the Magistrates Court, and the record of those proceedings was presented to you in order for you to admit that you had committed perjury.

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: You received indemnity for, among others, the Nelspruit incident, is that correct?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Very well.

MR HATTINGH: Since you gave evidence against Mr de Kock, I assume that your recollection about these events has become even more vague, not so?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: The statement that you deposed, which served as the foundation for your evidence against Mr de Kock during the criminal trial, was taken from you in Denmark, is that correct?

MR KLOPPER: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And you were Q1 before the Goldstone Commission, not so?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And it was also under great haste and secrecy that you were taken out of the country for the sake of your own safety?

MR KLOPPER: Correct.

MR HATTINGH: You believed that your life was in danger if it should come to light that you had exposed these facts.

MR KLOPPER: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: And it was there that you were visited by investigating officers and the statement was taken from you.

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: You did not have any documentation at your disposal when you made your statement and you could not use any documents to refresh your memory.

MR KLOPPER: No.

MR HATTINGH: You also did not have the opportunity to consult with other colleagues of yours who had been involved in these incidents with you, in order to refresh one another's memories back and forth.

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Is it also then correct that during cross-examination by myself upon various occasions, you had to concede that certain of your allegations within your statement were not correct?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. Let us deal with this matter. Your recollection today is that you were not involved in the planning and that the planning was managed by Mr Holtzhausen and whoever else?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: You simply travelled with to Nelspruit?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And it was there that you became involved in the incident?

MR KLOPPER: Correct.

MR HATTINGH: Your recollection is that you arrived there when it was dark.

MR KLOPPER: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: If it is Mr de Kock's recollection that you arrived at midday, what would your answer be?

MR KLOPPER: That is entirely possible.

MR HATTINGH: It is possible. Very well. Is it also correct that you did not spend much time at the Drum Rock Hotel?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Was there any planning session which was held regarding the incident, that evening at the Drum Rock Hotel when you were present?

MR KLOPPER: No, I was not present. If there was something like that, I wasn't present.

MR HATTINGH: And if you were to be involved in the incident that evening, would there be any reason why you were excluded from such a planning session?

MR KLOPPER: I don't know. As I've said, it was Dougie Holtzhausen's action. That is the only reason I can think of.

MR HATTINGH: I think that we are actually speaking past each other. If the plan was for you to be a participant in the operation that evening and there was a planning session in which the other members were involved, which would inform them of what was going to happen and so forth, is there any reason that you can surmise as to why you would have been excluded, or would you have expected to be a participant in this if it had taken place while you were there?

MR KLOPPER: As I've said, the planning that we attended was at the scene where the action took place.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. You then departed with Mr de Kock and the two ladies. Is it correct that on the way to Malelane you had a meal in Nelspruit?

MR KLOPPER: I cannot recall that we had a meal there, but I know that on the way we stopped at a place.

MR HATTINGH: You say that you returned that evening and when you arrived at the Drumrock, the persons were on the point of departure?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Is it possible that some of them had already departed?

MR KLOPPER: I cannot recall that, I cannot recall that pertinently.

MR HATTINGH: Can you recall, according to the pre-planning, what Mr de Kock's role during this operation would be?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, what I do recall is that Mr de Kock's name would not be mentioned as a member of the action.

MR HATTINGH: Do you not recall that he would undertake observation with Mr Nortje?

MR KLOPPER: No, Chairperson, I cannot recall that.

MR HATTINGH: With whom did he travel to the scene from the Drumrock?

MR KLOPPER: As far as I can recall, Mr de Kock was with me all the time.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, and you went directly to the scene.

MR KLOPPER: Yes, from the hotel.

MR HATTINGH: And from your point of arrival at the scene to the completion of the shooting incident, did you ever leave the scene?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, Mr de Kock and I drove to the police station. I think that was at the point where he went to telephone his brother, Vossie.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, but listen carefully to my question. Up to the shooting incident itself, did you and he ever leave the scene?

MR KLOPPER: From our arrival there?

MR HATTINGH: Yes.

MR KLOPPER: No, not as far as I can recall.

MR HATTINGH: You state that you and he sat in your car sleeping, and you also recall that you were cross-examined at length about this aspect during the criminal trial?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: On page 245, that is the statement which you made in Copenhagen, the last sentence of the first paragraph on the page, there you state

"I then lay down in my car and fell asleep."

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Mr de Kock does not have a version that he was with you, or he wasn't pertinently questioned about that, but his version was not to the extent that he went to the car and slept there with you.

MR KLOPPER: As far as I can recall he was with me in my vehicle.

MR HATTINGH: Yes. Is it possible that you may be mistaken in this regard?

MR KLOPPER: I cannot recall as pertinently, but I recall is that he was there with me.

MR HATTINGH: Yes. And did you possess a police radio at that time?

MR KLOPPER: I cannot recall whether I had one there, but all of us had police hand radios, but I cannot recall whether I specifically had one with me at that point.

MR HATTINGH: Were you aware that the prospective robbers were approaching?

MR KLOPPER: No, I cannot recall.

MR HATTINGH: Because you say in paragraph 35.9

"Suddenly we were informed by radio that the suspected car was approaching."

If you were sleeping in the car, how would you be aware of this?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, as far as I can recall, all of us who were with the vehicles on the same side, which was on the opposite side of the point that we had moved in and where we would open fire, we were contacted by radio that they were approaching, but I wasn't specifically contacted.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. You then describe the events on the scene. And the following day you also went to the game reserve with Mr de Kock.

MR KLOPPER: No, I did not go with.

MR HATTINGH: Did you not go to the conference?

MR KLOPPER: No, it was Willie.

MR HATTINGH: Okay, it was Willie. Very well. You remained behind, and you mentioned something about a braai which was held by Col Alberts.

MR KLOPPER: Yes, the people from Nelspruit.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. Mr Klopper, did you see Gen Engelbrecht at the scene?

MR KLOPPER: What I can recall is that Mr de Kock had not been gone for long when Gen Engelbrecht and Mr van Dyk arrived there and I did see him at the scene, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Is it possible that Mr de Kock may still have been at the scene when Engelbrecht arrived there, because he gave evidence that he indeed spoke to Mr Engelbrecht?

MR KLOPPER: As far as I recall, Mr de Kock had already left, because I spoke to Gen Krappies there.

MR HATTINGH: And what did you tell him, Mr Klopper?

MR KLOPPER: I cannot recall precisely what was said, what I do recall is that Engelbrecht told us that we should not make any statements there, but that we would make the statements once we were back in Pretoria.

MR HATTINGH: Let me just make certain about one of these statements. You say that you told Gen Engelbrecht everything about the incident.

MR KLOPPER: That is in my statement, but I cannot recall precisely what I told him.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, page 248, is that correct?

MR KLOPPER: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH

"Gen Engelbrecht and Paul van Dyk also arrived at the scene, they were on their way to the same conference. I then explained to Gen Engelbrecht what had taken place. I would have told him everything, the full story."

MR KLOPPER: As I've said I would have told him.

MR HATTINGH: Very well, I see I have misread the sentence. Can you recall that you indeed told him the whole story?

MR KLOPPER: I cannot recall that I told him everything precisely, no.

MR HATTINGH: If you use the word "would", would that indicate that your state of mind when you made the statement was of such a nature that you wanted to say by that, that there wouldn't have been any reason for you to withhold anything from him?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: In other words, you would have taken him into your confidence and told him precisely what had taken place?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. Mr de Kock's credibility has been attacked by Mr Engelbrecht's statement, may I question you about Mr Engelbrecht? Did you give evidence during the post-mortem inquest into the death of Mr Webster, David Webster?

MR KLOPPER: No, as far as I know, I did not give evidence.

MR HATTINGH: Were you consulted in that regard?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, I was consulted.

MR HATTINGH: By whom?

MR KLOPPER: By Ferdie Barnard.

MR HATTINGH: And what was it about, just briefly, I don't want the entire version. Let me just put it to you, it was about the shotgun which was used to shoot Mr Webster.

MR KLOPPER: If I recall correctly, it was actually more about the credibility of evidence which was given by witnesses who would testify against Mr Barnard, and he approached me and wanted to know whether I could find out from Gen Krappies whether he would assist him, and I did take him to Mr Engelbrecht.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. You took him to Mr Engelbrecht, where, at his residence?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, at his residence.

MR HATTINGH: And what was planned there?

MR KLOPPER: Gen Engelbrecht gave him advice on how to approach the matter regarding his handlers at the CCB and head office. He advised him on how to discredit them and in so doing get away.

MR HATTINGH: In other words, he assisted him in presenting a version during the Webster incident, which would be false?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Just for clarity's sake, Chairperson, I believe that my learned friend is not referring to the recent trial in the supreme court in Pretoria, this is the post-mortem inquest.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, I said the post-mortem inquest. If I recall correctly, it was before Justice O'Donnel.

MR KLOPPER: I don't know.

MR VAN DEN BERG: It was Judge Stegman.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, I am indebted to my learned friend, Mr van den Berg.

Can you recall whether Gen Engelbrecht gave evidence during that post-mortem inquest?

MR KLOPPER: I cannot recall, I don't know whether he was involved.

MR HATTINGH: I have a vague recollection that he did give evidence and that there was criticism about his testimony, but I will re-examine that fact before I table it again.

In terms of that matter, was Gen Engelbrecht ever involved in other matters, during which he assisted with the cover-up of incidents in which you had been involved, can you recall anything?

MR KLOPPER: As far as I can recall, the Piet Retief incident was led by Gen Engelbrecht, the post-mortem inquest was led by him, and I can tell you directly that it is general knowledge that Gen Krappies was our sweeper.

MR HATTINGH: And when you say "sweeper", do you mean that he had to get rid of the problems?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: By adjusting evidence so that the action would appear to be lawful?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: I would imagine that during the Piet Retief matter you were tasked to do something with regard to the weapons and the firearms which were issued, the weapons registers or something like that.

MR KLOPPER: Yes, I had to create a false image in the register, which would appear that there was control over the issue of these weapons.

MR HATTINGH: But the police rules and regulations stipulate that a register must be kept regarding weapons and the number of rounds of ammunition which are issued.

MR KLOPPER: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And if you have fired, you must apply for the re-issue of that ammunition and you must also account for how those rounds which you fired were fired, under which circumstances they were fired?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And that was in order to control the use of firearms by the police?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And it was your task to adjust that firearm register, so that it would correlate with the false version which was presented for the Piet Retief incidents to the Magistrate who handled the post-mortem inquest?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And under whose order did you do this?

MR KLOPPER: If I may put it this way, it was Gen Engelbrecht, but I don't know who gave me the precise order.

MR HATTINGH: Was he aware that you would tamper with the firearm register?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, it was with his knowledge.

MR HATTINGH: Did you receive any reward for your participation in the Nelspruit incident?

MR KLOPPER: No, I did not receive any reward.

MR HATTINGH: I just want to examine you in general about fraud which was committed at Vlakplaas, in which you were also involved and regarding which you also gave evidence against Mr de Kock in his criminal trial. He has been found guilty of a great deal of fraud charges.

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: One of the methods that you used was to obtain funds for whichever purpose and you did this by means of establishing false stockpiles.

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And then you created the impression that you had found the stockpile in terms of information which an informer had provided.

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And then you would claim a reward for the informer.

MR KLOPPER: Yes, the so-called informer would then receive a reward.

MR HATTINGH: But it was a false informer and a false name was used for this false claim, there was no such person?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And the funds would be obtained in this manner?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Klopper, among others, Mr de Kock upon other occasions has given evidence and also before this Committee, in terms of Exhibit C, that some of the funds were used to pay for functions at Vlakplaas and so forth.

MR KLOPPER: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And that it was also applied in order to replace vehicles which had been damaged due to negligence, to improve Vlakplaas and so forth, to pay for heart operations of officers who were not prepared to undergo the operation with physicians who were appointed by the police. You recall that?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And for the furnishing of the police chapel and so forth?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Let us forget what it was applied for, that's not the most significant matter. If this was done, it means that you received exorbitant amounts of money, not so?

MR KLOPPER: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: At times, if I recall correctly, it would be as much as R60 000 which was paid out for this fund, for this reward for discovering a stockpile.

MR KLOPPER: Yes, it was more than that.

MR HATTINGH: More than that.

MR KLOPPER: Yes, there were large amounts.

MR HATTINGH: And it was a very easy and simple way of obtaining money?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Because you possessed a great deal of weaponry which you could apply for this purpose?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: In fact, on some occasions it was presented that the explosives which were so-called found with these stockpiles, would be so unstable that the weaponry could not be lifted without risk and that meant that the stockpile had to be destroyed.

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: I don't know if photos were taken of the place before the time, or whether notes were simply taken of what was allegedly there.

MR KLOPPER: I can't recall whether we always took photographs of such a case. We had our own explosives persons who worked on the farm, who could decide themselves whether they would explode it. So I cannot remember. ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR HATTINGH: But in actual fact whenever such a stockpile would be blown up, then everything which was allegedly found there would not be destroyed, they would remove certain items for later use and then explode the place so that it would appear to have been completely destroyed.

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, I'm not really sure about that.

MR HATTINGH: Whatever the case may be, Mr Klopper, there were far easier ways to obtain funds than for example to say let us find someone to lure four to five persons into committing a robbery and then all of us will go down to Nelspruit together with Murder and Robbery and shoot them dead and then institute a claim of which we will pay a portion to the informer and keep the rest for ourselves?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, there were far easier ways than that.

MR HATTINGH: And these were methods that you did apply?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: I've just spoken of stockpiles, another case was whenever you possessed rhinoceros horns or any such items which came into your possession, was this ever used to institute false claims?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, various things were used, not necessarily only weapons.

MR HATTINGH: Very well.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Klopper, did you yourself betray the police?

MR KLOPPER: Yes. Everybody at Vlakplaas was a participant to this fraud, I myself as well.

CHAIRPERSON: So in other words, you defrauded the entire police system, so that you could obtain money?

MR KLOPPER: In my opinion a great deal of fraud took place in the top structure and they used Mr de Kock in this respect, but the entire structure was involved in this fraudulent business.

CHAIRPERSON: The entire structure? You see the funding that you obtained by means of this fraud was official police funds.

MR KLOPPER: Yes, it was part of the Secret Fund.

CHAIRPERSON: Were these funds which were meant for paying for such activities?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, for example, the payment of informers and so forth.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Vlok, the former Minister, appeared on TV and offered R6 000 for an AK, or for information which would lead to the possession of an AK, and that just opened the door for that kind of fraud.

CHAIRPERSON: So there was a lawful process for which this money was earmarked?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: But by means of this scene which was used, one could almost say that the money was stolen from the official police structure.

MR KLOPPER: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: So it was then used, among others, for personal reasons?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, or for functions, for a variety of things.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it used for Vlakplaas activities, in order to fund these activities, or were there separate funds, official police funds that would cover Vlakplaas expenses?

MR KLOPPER: If one looks at the way the farm was built up over the years, there are very few state institutions that were as well kept and developed as Vlakplaas. The Generals would make use of it as a recreational area later. If they visited, we had to buy only the best alcohol and the best meat and only the best of everything for them. And Mr de Kock would be responsible for arranging such a function and he also had to appropriate the funds.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't know whether you could clarify this for us, but why would it be necessary for example, to obtain money by fraudulent means in order to improve Vlakplaas?

MR KLOPPER: I don't know whether with regard to the open and the secret system they would have managed to achieve such development, I don't know exactly how it operated.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well. Mr Hattingh?

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Chairperson.

May I just elaborate on this, Mr Klopper. The purchase of Vlakplaas had quite a long history, isn't that so?

MR KLOPPER: I don't know about that.

MR HATTINGH: I can put it to you that initially the farm was rented and then there was an issue of whether it belonged to public works or the police and I think that somewhere in Mr de Kock's version or in his evidence which he has given before another Committee, he testified that the funds for the refurbishment of Vlakplaas could not be obtained from the police, because the property was not acquired or registered in the name of the police.

MR KLOPPER: I don't know about that.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. But we all know that when it came to expenditure for state buildings and State furnishings, the policy was very conservative.

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: That the tender system was used and that there were prescribed items of furniture which had to be purchased.

MR KLOPPER: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And this furniture also had to suit the person's level of seniority. For example, a General could have a bigger and more luxurious desk than a Captain would have.

MR KLOPPER: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And Vlakplaas was more luxuriously furnished as what the standing regulations made provision for.

MR KLOPPER: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And it would have created a tremendous level of red tape if you were to obtain that funding by means of the usual method, and that is why the false claims are used to generate the income for this expenditure.

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And as you have just stated, this was done exactly because Vlakplaas was one of the more popular recreational places used by officers in the South African Police.

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: These false claims according to you were instituted with the knowledge and approval of the entire structure, do you include head office in that?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, I have been sent back by a General once to change a claim because I would be caught out, because the signatures appeared to be too similar. That is how easy it was.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Hattingh, with regard to this matter, are you requesting any amnesty for fraud?

MR HATTINGH: No, Chairperson, it has been foreshadowed by our learned friends on the other side there and also by Ms Patel, that it will be argued that Mr de Kock executed this action for financial gain and I just want to put the evidence of how easy it was to obtain funds with the knowledge and approval of the higher structure, by means of false claims.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, but there has been no suggestion of evidence which will be submitted to indicate that he obtained money.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, it is my intention to address you regarding that in my argument. It would appear to me as if submissions will be made by means of an inference and so far you are entirely correct with regard to us. With respect, no evidence has been submitted to that extent, but I must make provision for the possibility of something like that emerging and therefore I'm acting out of contingency.

CHAIRPERSON: In terms of the apparent shortage of that claim?

MR HATTINGH: Yes, the inferred shortage, yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: The R20 000, R6 500 and R7 000.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Chairperson.

I will not take it any further Mr Klopper. There is just one aspect that I would like to mention. Did you know Mr Koekemoer at head office?

MR KLOPPER: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And what was his capacity?

MR KLOPPER: As far as I recall, he was the person who was in charge of the Secret Fund. We received the money from him.

MR HATTINGH: Did you ever receive any orders from him to submit false claims?

MR KLOPPER: No, not me personally, so I cannot tell you.

MR HATTINGH: Do you know that he was aware of the submission of false claims?

MR KLOPPER: I believe that he was aware. I think that Mr de Kock once sent me to take Makarov or Tokarev bullets to him, so that he would keep quiet.

MR HATTINGH: So that there wouldn't be too many questions asked?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Then just one further aspect, Mr Klopper, and that is the question of the minibus belonging to Mr Aragio. You and I had quite a lengthy debate about this during your cross-examination in Mr de Kock's trial, is that correct?

MR KLOPPER: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And I would like to put it to you, I want to put a version to you, but I will put it to you that Mr de Kock denies, he says that the minibus was stolen without Mr Aragio’s knowledge and that it was not done in order to benefit him. In fact, the minibus was registered in the name of a company.

MR KLOPPER: Yes, I later heard who stole the vehicle, but as I said in my statement regarding that which was put to me, I do not know whether anybody was ever benefited, all I knew was that this person was in financial dire straits and that we had to steal the bus.

MR HATTINGH: Isn't it possible that you may be mistaken in your recollection about this and that Mr de Kock may have said something as follows to you: "I am going to steal Mannie's bus because I know that he will not be prejudiced by this because the insurance will pay out?

MR KLOPPER: No, that is not how I recall it.

MR HATTINGH: But is it possible that your recollection may be mistaken, in the light of your incorrect recollection of so many other aspects, Mr Klopper?

MR KLOPPER: It is possible, but I cannot put it as pertinently as that.

MR HATTINGH: But with regard to the incident itself, your information was that these persons wanted to commit a robbery where?

MR KLOPPER: It was in Nelspruit.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, but at which premises?

MR KLOPPER: It was either Fidelity Guards or Coin.

MR HATTINGH: It was the Coin Security company?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And with regard to you, if they had not been shot there, in terms of your attitude and your knowledge, would they have gone there and attempted to commit the robbery?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, I was under the impression that they would commit this robbery.

MR HATTINGH: And they only reason why they didn't do it is because you thwarted their attempt by luring them into an ambush?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: There is just one further aspect, the Witbank matter. You were also cross-examined quite lengthily about that?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And it was put to you, if I recall correctly, I have not studied this again, but I recall that we consulted with a lady who was a member of the investigating team who investigated that murder and robbery, do you recall that?

MR KLOPPER: No, I don't believe that it was put to me.

MR HATTINGH: And that it was put that it had not been the same persons who had been involved in the incident, the persons that you shot dead during the Nelspruit incident were not the same people.

MR KLOPPER: I don't recall.

MR HATTINGH: Isn't it possible that it may have been put to you and that you just don't recall?

MR KLOPPER: I'm not certain. It is possible, but I cannot recall.

MR HATTINGH: Mr de Kock's evidence is that there was an incident during which a woman was shot dead in Witbank and that in fact he sent some of his members to assist with the investigation, among others, some of the askaris were sent by him. Do you know about that?

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

MR HATTINGH: But that that incident had nothing to do with the Tiso matter?

MR KLOPPER: I don't know.

MR HATTINGH: And then in your affidavit, page 244, you state that - you gave evidence here today that the ladies accompanied in order to rectify certain claims.

MR KLOPPER: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: And that was the actual reason?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, according to my statement this was under cover, I cannot recall the actual reason for their accompaniment. Today I'm sure that it must be fore that claim, but I cannot recall precisely.

MR HATTINGH: Is it possible that that was the actual reason?

MR KLOPPER: I really cannot recall, it may be so.

MR HATTINGH: If you would grant me a moment please, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: While you are looking for that point.

This misunderstanding between you and Mr de Kock, was it among others, about the fact that Mr de Kock had a problem with the fact that you were possibly meddling with some of the female staff members?

MR KLOPPER: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Was Mr de Kock angry with you about that?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, later it appeared to be as such.

MR HATTINGH: In fact he was so angry about it that he even produced a weapon and placed it next to you ear. Can you recall that he hit you with the weapon?

MR KLOPPER: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And you say here on page 244, paragraph 35.5

"(That later some of these girls and women heard that these ladies had been with you and they were upset)"

What was that about?

MR KLOPPER: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: What was that about?

MR KLOPPER: You see, the men that were working at Vlakplaas spent a lot of time travelling and they weren't at home much. The women that worked there, worked in an administrative capacity, and later I heard that the wives were not happy to hear that ladies had accompanied the men on an excursion. It didn't look very good.

CHAIRPERSON: Therefore, the girlfriends and wives didn't believe that this was actually official work.

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Chairperson, we have nothing further.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HATTINGH

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Cornelius?

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

Mr Klopper, there are just three questions that I wish to put to you and this is about your subjective thoughts and the political objective which you had. The most senior rank was de Kock, and second in rank was Chris Geldenhuys and third was you, is that correct?

MR KLOPPER: Gevers and I shared the same rank, but I had spent a longer time at Vlakplaas. He was my senior if we had to approach the rank structure technically speaking, but I was his senior in terms of Vlakplaas, because at Vlakplaas rank didn't really count for much. If I may put it that way.

MR CORNELIUS: In either event, you were the senior to Swart, Hanekom, Britz and Vermeulen?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR SIBANYONI: So it would be significant to examine your political subjective thoughts at that stage in time. If we look at page 125 or your amnesty application, paragraph 10(a), you say

"I inferred or believed that the objective of the robbery would be to generate funds for the ANC or its members."

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: And you, as third in rank and seniority, believed that the robbers were ANC members?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: And furthermore, in 10(b) you state

"As already mentioned, I was not involved in the detailed planning beforehand, but during the action on the ground level, I believed that these persons would be heavily armed."

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: This general belief and these subjective thoughts which you had, were these conveyed to the other members?

MR KLOPPER: It was like that throughout the entire unit.

MR CORNELIUS: So everyone would have believed that these were ANC members who would be heavily armed?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CORNELIUS

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Cornelius.

ADV DE JAGER: While we are at this point I want to ask you something further. All political parties had members who were criminals, there isn't a single organisation which didn't have criminals in its ranks.

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: Then why if it was known that this would be an ANC person who was going to commit a robbery, what would that have to do with the situation?

MR KLOPPER: The majority of white Afrikaners were raised to hate the ANC, let us not fool ourselves about this. Now we had ANC robbers who wanted to rob in order to collect funds for the ANC and that is what we believed sincerely.

ADV DE JAGER: Where did you obtain this information regarding the filling of coffers or why did you believe this?

MR KLOPPER: I don't know exactly from whom I heard it, but this was as a result of discussions among the members. We spent a lot of time together and spoke to one another quite often and this was the information which was conveyed to us, and that is what we believed.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bam, any questions?

MR BAM: Thank you Chairperson, there are just certain aspect which I wish to refer to. Simply that there are differences in detail regarding the events which took place in Nelspruit, however I find it unnecessary to put any questions about it or to place Mr Holtzhausen's version on record at this point. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Bam. Mr van den Berg?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

Mr Klopper, before you started working for Vlakplaas, were you connected to the Soweto Security Branch?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And if one consults your initial amnesty application, especially page 107 and following, there are just singular aspects about which I would like to examine you.

Firstly, during your time at Soweto, were you aware of the activities or not of Mrs Mandela?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And you mention that her telephones were tapped.

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR VAN DEN BERG: You then also state something about a plan to place handgrenades on Mzwake Mbuli, did that take place?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, that is correct.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And this was not a singular occasion upon which something like that took place while you worked in Soweto?

MR KLOPPER: It was the only incident in which I was involved.

MR VAN DEN BERG: I don't know what the Afrikaans word is, but in English we would say "it was a dirty trick".

MR KLOPPER: Yes, that is correct.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And you were aware that this took place from time to time?

MR KLOPPER: Well today all of us know of many cases, yes.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Furthermore you state in paragraph 13 on page 110, that there was a plan to blow up Mrs Mandela's house.

MR KLOPPER: Yes, that is correct.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And this was a plan which was formulated by Mr de Kock.

MR KLOPPER: Yes, the order came to me from Mr de Kock.

MR VAN DEN BERG: What I want to establish is that you were aware of Mrs Mandela and her activities.

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Now if we get to this incident, the Nelspruit incident, what information were you aware of regarding the prospective robbers?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, at a stage it came to my knowledge that Tiso was allegedly Mrs Mandela's driver, but I don't know whether this was before or after the incident.

MR VAN DEN BERG: I put it to various of the other applicants that the involvement of Tiso, Tisetso Leballo, may have created the possibility to implicate Mrs Mandela in the matter, in the sense that there was no the opportunity to arrest a person who was involved with Mrs Mandela and then embarrass her and the ANC. Can you comment on that?

MR KLOPPER: Firstly, I did not do the planning, I don't know about it, but it that was the case we would have arrested Tiso. It would be far easier to turn him as a witness against her, but I really cannot give you a genuine answer about it because I was not part of the planning.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Did this idea ever occur to you?

MR KLOPPER: Which idea?

MR VAN DEN BERG: The idea that I have just put to you.

MR KLOPPER: No, Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And I also put it to some of the other applicants that Tisetso Leballo only began working for Mrs Mandela in March of 1992, you cannot dispute that?

MR KLOPPER: I don't know, Dougie Holtzhausen and Ben van Zyl would perhaps be able to elaborate on that for you because I never met this person.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Were you involved in the matter regarding Coin, the first incident regarding which there is evidence that the group waited for the robbers at the premises?

MR KLOPPER: No.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Did you know about it?

MR KLOPPER: I knew that a team went there.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Once again, what information did you have regarding the prospective robbers?

MR KLOPPER: As I've said, the information that I had indicated that this was a gang of robbers who had been involved in the Witbank robbery as well as other robberies, that they were ANC members and that they were filling the ANC's coffers. That is the information that I had.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Now there are others of you, of the applicants, who refer to ANC/PAC, do you know about that?

MR KLOPPER: No, Chairperson, what I can recall today after the incident, is that I heard that one of the persons in the vehicle was an IFP members, but I never heard of the PAC within this specific context.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Sorry, Mr Chairperson, if I could just have a look at my notes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR VAN DEN BERG: What did you know about the planning - sorry, let me just reformulate this. At a certain stage AK47s were planted in the vehicle, do you know about that?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, that is correct.

MR VAN DEN BERG: What did you know about the planning surrounding that?

MR KLOPPER: You mean the prior planning?

MR VAN DEN BERG: Yes, that is correct.

MR KLOPPER: We believed firmly that these persons would be armed and I really cannot recall whether we prearranged for the weapons to be planted directly into the vehicle. After the shooting - and this is what I think, this was not necessarily part of the planning, I saw that there wasn't any weaponry and that the weapons were stolen, but I cannot recall pertinently.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And the aspect with regard to the petrol ...(intervention)

MR KLOPPER: I'm sorry, could you just repeat.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Now the aspect with regard to the petrol, the fact that the vehicle was set alight by using petrol, did you know about that?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, as far as I can recall the plan was for the vehicle to be set alight, before the incident.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And what was the reason for that, what was said to you?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, as far as I recall in terms of the Piet Retief incident, there had been so many pieces of evidence and if the vehicle was burnt there would be less evidence which could prejudice us.

MR VAN DEN BERG: I don't have any further questions, Mr Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN DEN BERG

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr van den Berg. Mr Francis or Ms Pillay.

MR FRANCIS: It will be me.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Francis then.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR FRANCIS: Mr Klopper, I'm first going to deal with this whole question of the false claims. Am I correct that some - that the members of Vlakplaas did in fact benefit when the false claims were lodged?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, in many instances we did indeed benefit directly from it.

MR FRANCIS: Including Mr de Kock himself?

MR KLOPPER: All of us, that includes everybody, Mr de Kock and the labourers as well.

MR FRANCIS: So it's not just a question that false claims were lodged to improve Vlakplaas?

MR KLOPPER: No, it was not only for non-official/official business, it was for personal business as well.

MR FRANCIS: And if you were to estimate how much benefits you got from lodging the false claims over the years whilst you were at Vlakplaas?

MR KLOPPER: I have been asked that question and I can honestly not say, there were so many false claims. If we went out as a group to go and drink, then it was that money, so it's difficult to estimate.

MR FRANCIS: How much were you earning at that time?

MR KLOPPER: It was long ago.

MR FRANCIS: Let's talk about '91/'92.

MR KLOPPER: 1992?

MR FRANCIS: '91/'92.

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, it's possible that a police captain at that time, between R50 000 and R50 000 maximum, if not less, but maximum R50 000 per annum.

CHAIRPERSON: Gross?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: You don't know how much Mr de Kock was earning?

MR KLOPPER: No, Chairperson, he was a Lieutenant-Colonel at that stage, I don't know, probably R80 000 or R90 000, I'm not certain.

MR FRANCIS: But we all know that policemen don't really earn a lot of money, is that correct?

MR KLOPPER: Ja, they get very little money.

MR FRANCIS: And obviously this false claim was basically to fill the pockets of the police?

MR KLOPPER: No, the Secret Fund was there ...(intervention)

MR FRANCIS: No, I'm talking about the false claims.

MR KLOPPER: Ja, the false claims you see, if the Generals could steal, if they give you instruction to steal, why can't you steal for yourself? I think that was the feeling of the people, it seems even Mr de Kock.

MR FRANCIS: So the feeling was that if the Generals stole, why can't the foot-soldiers steal?

MR KLOPPER: That's correct. If you receive an instruction to kill somebody, an official murder, what is the difference between an official murder and killing somebody else, a non-official murder?

MR FRANCIS: Who authorised those false claims?

MR KLOPPER: The section commander. It was signed by de Kock and from there it would go to Gen Engelbrecht or it was first Griebenauw and then Engelbrecht, and these are persons who had to approve it.

MR FRANCIS: So for your Section 10, all the claims were authorised by Mr Eugene de Kock? Most of the claims.

MR KLOPPER: Of our group, yes, but there were other groups of Baker and du Toit.

MR FRANCIS: So how many false claims do you know about that was authorised by Mr de Kock?

MR KLOPPER: There were many, there were very few real claims, if I can put it like that, so it's difficult to tell you.

CHAIRPERSON: Did Baker and de Kock's people also do that?

MR KLOPPER: The whole group.

MR FRANCIS: You say there were very few true claims?

MR KLOPPER: True claims.

CHAIRPERSON: True claims.

MR KLOPPER: Yes, if I can put it that way.

CHAIRPERSON: There were more false claims?

MR KLOPPER: That's correct.

MR FRANCIS: If you say "many", could that have been 200 false claims, 300 false claims? Give us some you know, guidance because "many" could mean many things to many people.

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, I would say much more than that. It was a lot.

ADV DE JAGER: If you speak of much money, do you speak of much money or many claims? Was it many documents in the sense of one claim or the second claim or were there lots, large amounts of money?

MR KLOPPER: If you speak of the documents themselves, there were a hell of a lot. The money was a lot as well, but there were so many documents. You see we never for example, we never put in claims such as travel claims for more than R500/R600 maximum because then it starts to look suspicious.

If for example a person travels to Swaziland and now he must draw R3 000/R4 000/R5 000, it didn't work like that. But at some stage they would write off R7 000, R8 000 or R10 000 and - let's work it at R500 per claim, then you can look at how many claims there were. Do you understand? So there was a lot of paper work, enormous amounts of paper work, but there was much money. In one instance I claimed R90 000 for arms. So if you want to have a look, there were many thousands of rands.

MR FRANCIS: Mr Klopper, you referred to the false claim for R90 000.

MR KLOPPER: That's correct.

MR FRANCIS: How much did Mr de Kock get from the R90 000?

MR KLOPPER: R80 000.

MR FRANCIS: So he got the bulk of it?

MR KLOPPER: Yes.

MR FRANCIS: So obviously, Mr de Kock lied to his superiors about the claims?

MR KLOPPER: No, I don't think so, I think they knew of it and they had a share in it.

MR FRANCIS: But the fact of the matter is that he lied about it, the false claims, so he took part in this lie.

MR KLOPPER: Yes, if you look at it like that, but the person who signs it and knows it's wrong, then he lies, they're all lying.

MR FRANCIS: So I think there can be no doubt that you lied, Mr de Kock lied and some other members of Vlakplaas lied?

MR KLOPPER: Absolutely.

MR FRANCIS: When it suited them to.

MR KLOPPER: Absolutely.

MR FRANCIS: And you're also saying that Engelbrecht also lied because he was a sweeper?

MR KLOPPER: That's correct.

MR FRANCIS: So that unit consisted of a bunch of liars?

MR KLOPPER: If you put it as such, yes.

MR FRANCIS: But again, just to ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Mr Francis.

What I do not understand, who were you lying to, who were the victims of this fraud school?

MR KLOPPER: The taxpayer, where the money comes from.

CHAIRPERSON: But somebody had to pay these things, now who was it then?

MR KLOPPER: That is Koekemoer, which Mr Hattingh spoke of earlier, the thing that I had to go and give the ammunition so that they don't ask funny questions. They were part of the conspiracy.

CHAIRPERSON: But he was also just in the line, he's the man who issued the cheques, or what did he do?

MR KLOPPER: With regard to the whole administration of this thing, I am not certain how it works, but X amount of money is given to the Police Secret Fund, Koekemoer is the person who decides where that money must go, he and I believe in conjunction with the General's staff. He would decide that X million rand would go to Vlakplaas, X million rands would go to D-Section Intelligence and how they had to spend the money. In our terms this is the persons who we had to account to and Koekemoer and those people, they would have to account to the Finance Department. So I'm not sure who we lied to, but at the end it was the taxpayer.

CHAIRPERSON: So these things were paid out in an irregular manner?

MR KLOPPER: I would not say all, but a great percentage was.

CHAIRPERSON: So there a part of the police, the official police, who were lied to?

MR KLOPPER: Absolutely, yes. It is true, there were police who performed real official duties for which claims were paid out.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well. Sorry, Mr Francis.

MR FRANCIS: How well did you know de Kock?

MR KLOPPER: I knew him very well.

MR FRANCIS: When did you join Vlakplaas?

MR KLOPPER: I think 1989.

MR FRANCIS: And by the time you left Vlakplaas what rank you were?

MR KLOPPER: I was a Captain.

MR FRANCIS: I had put to Mr Engelbrecht that - Mr de Kock, I think, that Engelbrecht had described him - that's now de Kock, as a liar and that he'd lied to his superiors, he lied to the Harms Commission, he lied at the Goldstone Commission, he lied at the Maponya inquest, he lied at every given opportunity. Would you agree with that?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, yes, but Engelbrecht gave him instruction to lie. But if we look at the Harms Commission, who - I don't know what Gen Engelbrecht's involvement was there, but with the post-mortem in question Gen Engelbrecht was the one who had looked after our interests, so it was a collective lie, if I could say it as such.

MR FRANCIS: But Mr Engelbrecht was more of a sweeper, he had to clear up your mess. Especially when an operation had taken place and you guys didn't act professionally and you had left some clues, he just came to sweep away the mess.

MR KLOPPER: That's correct.

MR FRANCIS: I see in your application Mr Klopper, on page 104, that's paragraph (c), you're asked the following question

"Were you benefited in any manner, financially or otherwise?"

MR KLOPPER: In this instance, no ...(intervention)

MR FRANCIS: Sorry, and the answer that you gave was

"Ja"

MR KLOPPER: In certain of the other instances yes, but not in this instance. I did not receive anything for this operation.

MR FRANCIS: For which operations were you paid monies?

MR KLOPPER: The false claims which we sent in, for arms. You will see ...(intervention)

MR FRANCIS: Please just tell us in which matters were you given - did you receive benefits, financial benefits.

MR KLOPPER: Not for any of the applications before the Committee. You will see in my initial application, before I had legal representation, I said everything that I could remember that I had done wrong and offences that I had committed and that included false claims, such as the arms which we would have found and saying that this was from a source. That is what I had to say there.

MR FRANCIS: I think before I move away from the false claims, evidence was led at the de Kock hearing that a claim was lodged for the Nelspruit incident, the R20 000 and I think Ben van Zyl said that he only got between R6 500 or R7 000 and didn't know what had happened to the balance.

MR KLOPPER: I don't know.

MR FRANCIS: But let's talk about the modus operandi. Let's first deal with the instance I think where - you've already said to this Committee that when false claims were lodged, de Kock will get the bulk of it, is that correct?

MR KLOPPER: Correct.

MR FRANCIS: Now in instances I think where there was an informer who informed, would Mr de Kock still get a cut of that money?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, ...(intervention)

MR FRANCIS: Be honest.

MR KLOPPER: Let's say R50 000 is paid out - I'm just mentioning a figure, then that informant would get the half and the rest would be distributed amongst the members. But now there are various claims, you get a real informer where an action is launched and it is successful in police terms, and there are other claims for informers with regard S&T of informers, which covers his travelling costs, his food, so we would have to look at the two.

MR FRANCIS: So are you saying that Mr de Kock would have gotten a cut thereof and it would be shared amongst the members?

MR KLOPPER: In many instances, I don't know of this case.

MR FRANCIS: You were a Captain?

MR KLOPPER: Yes.

MR FRANCIS: You were quite close to Mr de Kock?

MR KLOPPER: Yes.

MR FRANCIS: So I assume that you would have known about his modus operandi, is that correct?

MR KLOPPER: Yes.

MR FRANCIS: Now evidence was led yesterday that - and I think Mr de Kock was asked - well I'm not so sure if it was Mr de Kock or Mr Nortje, but somebody was asked about it and I think it was said that in the Nelspruit incident the claim would have been for the fact that the four robbers were killed and two AK47s were found at the scene. I think it was Mr de Kock.

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, I don't ...(intervention)

MR FRANCIS: I think - the answer I think that was given was that when a claim was lodged, I think it would depend on the nature of the operation, what risks were involved, what else was found at the scene, but this claim I think would also have included you know, AK47s and the - I think the person I think who had to approve it would then decide on the amount.

MR KLOPPER: Absolutely, yes.

MR FRANCIS: Now if Ben van Zyl only got between R6 500 or R7 000, obviously I think from what you've said, it just follows that because Vlakplaas became involved in this they would have received the balance thereof?

MR KLOPPER: Yes.

MR FRANCIS: So they would probably have received R35 000 or R14 000?

MR KLOPPER: Yes.

MR FRANCIS: And the person - I think Mr de Kock I think, led evidence by saying that look what will happen I think is that he would authorise the claim, it will have to go through one of the Generals, it will then land up somewhere at head office and eventually I think when this is approved, a cheque would be cashed and the monies would be taken back to where it came from, or where the claim came from.

MR KLOPPER: Yes.

MR FRANCIS: And they would then give the informer the money and he would sign for it.

MR KLOPPER: That's correct.

MR FRANCIS: And I think evidence was led also at the Criminal Court hearing, that there was a receipt that was issued, again for between R6 500 and R7 000. So you're saying to us that the ...(intervention)

MR HATTINGH: No Chairperson, at the criminal trial the evidence was that a receipt was signed for R20 000.

MR FRANCIS: Chairperson, I think I've put it wrong, incorrectly.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, will you re-put the proper position to the witness.

MR FRANCIS: Ja. Obviously I think Mr van Zyl said that he then got between R6 500 and R7 000 and I think Mr de Kock said that the person concerned I think, would have signed for it, for the cash that was handed over.

MR KLOPPER: Yes.

MR FRANCIS: And you are saying to us that the balance thereof must have been taken by the Vlakplaas persons.

MR KLOPPER: That's correct.

MR FRANCIS: And shared amongst themselves.

MR KLOPPER: That's correct.

MR FRANCIS: I think we also know now that Mr de Kock I think, authorised the claim?

MR KLOPPER: You see what happens ...(intervention)

MR FRANCIS: Well look, I'm not asking for an explanation, but I think it's common cause I think, he said that he authorised the claim that was brought by Ben van Zyl.

MR KLOPPER: You see the handler who arranges the action - if I can explain to you, before it's signed by de Kock it goes to Engelbrecht, he recommends it. Let's say you ask for R20 000, you go to Engelbrecht, he cuts it to R15 000, it goes to the Financial Department at head office, the uniformed personnel, he cuts another R10 000 and then the cheque is signed and then it comes back. So what would happen is we will sign a receipt for R10 000 - or let's say he gets R5 000, he signs a receipt for R5 000, so he's under the impression there was only R5 000. Do you understand now who it works?

TYPED IN AFRIKAANS BECAUSE OF EVIDENCE THAT WAS NOT TRANSLATED

CHAIRPERSON: So daar is twee kwitansies?

MR KLOPPER: Ja, en jy gooi dan net die een weg wat hy geteken het.

CHAIRPERSON: Die beriggewer se kwitansie is - dit weerspieël die werklikheid, die bedrag wat hy ...(tussenbeide)

MR KLOPPER: Die een wat ...(onduidelik) hoofkantoor gee, ja.

CHAIRPERSON: Ja, wat hy gekry het.

MR KLOPPER: Wat hy werklik gekry het, daai kwitansie gooi ons weg.

CHAIRPERSON: Ja, uiteindelik die ...(tussenbeide)

MR KLOPPER: The false receipt.

CHAIRPERSON: You give the informer R5 000 and he signs for R5 000.

MR KLOPPER: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Which is correct, seen from his point of view, and the other one is destroyed and the other one goes back in the official records.

MR KLOPPER: Yes, the one for R10 000.

ADV DE JAGER: Does the informer sign two receipts?

MR KLOPPER: No, he only signs one. Let's say it's R5 000, he only signs that one, so he believes that he received R5 000.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, but head office must have a receipt of the claim which was made out.

MR KLOPPER: The whole file is set up falsely, we had false signatures everything, Chairperson.

ADV DE JAGER: So you sign a false receipt, you sign B van Zyl, and then the guy at head office thinks it's B van Zyl?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, he believes it's the proper B van Zyl.

MR FRANCIS: So in our situation, the Nelspruit one, the claim that was approved by national office - national head office sorry, was R20 000?

MR KLOPPER: Ek dra geen kennis ...(tussenbeide)

MR FRANCIS: No, I'm putting it as a fact.

MR KLOPPER: I don't know, I have no idea.

MR FRANCIS: And what Ben van Zyl got I think was between R6 500 or R7 000.

MR KLOPPER: I did not even know that a claim was put in, but I did not know ...(intervention)

MR FRANCIS: So what you're saying is that the modus operandi that was used was that the receipt coming from head office would indicate that the informer must be paid R20 000.

MR KLOPPER: Correct.

MR FRANCIS: And that would be signed by someone amongst Vlakplaas.

MR KLOPPER: Correct.

MR FRANCIS: To indicate that a Ben van Zyl got R20 000.

MR KLOPPER: Yes.

MR FRANCIS: Where in fact Ben van Zyl would have received R6 500 or R7 000.

MR KLOPPER: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Klopper, in the example you have mentioned where amounts were taken from the claim, that sounds like a real - it doesn't seem like it is part of the false chain.

MR KLOPPER: That's what I'm trying to explain to you. You get the real action money or - where they found a real weapons cache and then there's the other one also. The real claims are also defrauded.

CHAIRPERSON: So in other words, the officials who scale it down, they are rendering an honest service there, they are not in the chain of the fraudsters?

MR KLOPPER: No.

CHAIRPERSON: He looks at the claim and he says it's not so serious that it has to be R50 000, make it R40 000.

MR KLOPPER: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: So those people are not part of that chain?

MR KLOPPER: No, not at all.

CHAIRPERSON: The chain is lower down?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, it's lower down, that's correct.

MR FRANCIS: Mr Klopper, when did you leave Vlakplaas?

MR KLOPPER: At the end of 1992, I'm not certain of the correct date.

MR FRANCIS: Since 1990, changes were taking place in the country, is that correct?

MR KLOPPER: Yes.

MR FRANCIS: And obviously I think you know that the activities of Vlakplaas was exposed in 1989 by Dirk Coetzee and I think Nofemela, is that correct?

MR KLOPPER: That's correct, yes.

MR FRANCIS: And the Harms, or Judge Harms I think was appointed to investigate the activities of Vlakplaas.

MR KLOPPER: That's correct.

MR FRANCIS: And I think we've dealt with this, a lot of lies was told to Harms at the hearings.

MR KLOPPER: That's correct.

MR FRANCIS: I know that - I think it was some Conradie from police and the Attorney-General used to be in KZN, KwaZulu Natal, McNally, was part of the investigation unit.

MR KLOPPER: Yes, that's correct.

MR FRANCIS: Did you give statements there?

MR KLOPPER: No, I was not involved there.

MR FRANCIS: Well obviously I think Engelbrecht also said that Mr de Kock gave statements and gave false statements there.

MR KLOPPER: I know Mr de Kock and Gen Engelbrecht were involved.

MR FRANCIS: And once Vlakplaas was exposed, I think there was an attempt to cover up the activities of Vlakplaas.

MR KLOPPER: It happened all through the years, yes.

MR FRANCIS: And you must be aware that before there was going to be a raid at Vlakplaas, I think weapons were taken away from Vlakplaas and hidden away.

MR KLOPPER: That's correct.

MR FRANCIS: You don't know why the weapons were removed and hidden?

MR KLOPPER: Why?

MR FRANCIS: Ja.

MR KLOPPER: If a raid would follow, then they wouldn't find any weapons there, on the farm.

MR FRANCIS: Why were those weapons kept on the farm?

MR KLOPPER: I don't know if there was any possibility that anybody would come to the farm and search it, I don't know if any organisation had the guts to do anything like that.

MR FRANCIS: Let me rather ask you this way. Did anybody tell the Vlakplaas members after the ANC was unbanned, to keep an arsenal of firearms or weapons?

MR KLOPPER: I don't about that.

MR FRANCIS: And you were a Captain at that time?

MR KLOPPER: No, at that stage - in 1990 I was still a Warrant Officer, before I became an officer.

MR FRANCIS: No, I'm talking about 1990 now.

MR KLOPPER: 1990?

MR FRANCIS: Ja.

MR KLOPPER: That's what I said, in 1990 I was not an officer.

MR FRANCIS: I didn't get that please.

MR KLOPPER: Only in the middle of 1990 I became an officer.

MR FRANCIS: Ja. But during that time you were still -de Kock was your friend?

MR KLOPPER: At a later stage we became close.

MR FRANCIS: When did you become close?

MR KLOPPER: Probably about the middle of 1991, I'm not sure about the date.

MR FRANCIS: But did anybody at any stage tell the members of Vlakplaas that you've got to keep your arsenal of weapons, especially after the ANC was unbanned?

MR KLOPPER: Not that I know of, I never heard anything like that.

MR FRANCIS: And obviously if this was told to the unit, you would have known about it?

MR KLOPPER: No, we just moved the weapons, we didn't destroy them, we just moved them. So I don't think such an instruction was given.

MR FRANCIS: But if there was such an order you would have known about it?

MR KLOPPER: Not necessarily, I think it was more the top structure who would know about that. I don't know if I had to know about it.

MR FRANCIS: But Mr de Kock would have known about it?

MR KLOPPER: He would have known yes.

MR FRANCIS: And he would have told his team about it? You're under oath.

MR KLOPPER: I cant really answer you.

MR FRANCIS: But one assumes that you're a specialised unit, specialised in killing people, so he must - he would have told you.

MR KLOPPER: As I told you, I don't if know any instruction was give to us. No instruction was given to destroy the weapons, but our weapons were just moved from the farm. We didn't go to destroy the weapons or to keep them, it was just moved.

MR FRANCIS: Vlakplaas' role had to change.

MR KLOPPER: That's correct.

MR FRANCIS: And it did change?

MR KLOPPER: Later in 1991, our work did change.

MR FRANCIS: But it started changing - already there were talks about change in 1990, is that correct?

MR KLOPPER: Politically speaking, yes.

MR FRANCIS: And you're saying that during 1991 it changed?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, I think in the later part of 1991 we moved away from political activities to more criminal activities.

MR FRANCIS: In fact I think Engelbrecht I think mentions in Exhibit A that I think the role of Vlakplaas became - had changed completely and then became just - its role was just to investigate crime.

MR KLOPPER: That's correct.

MR FRANCIS: And you confirm that?

MR KLOPPER: At some stage we moved away from political work where we worked against the ANC and the PAC, to more criminal matters.

MR FRANCIS: In fact I think Swart, who is going to be an applicant I think, also confirms this in his application, that the role of Vlakplaas did in fact change. And maybe you know, just in fairness, I think I should probably refer you to the right passage, but I don't think it is in dispute.

CHAIRPERSON: No, apparently not insofar as Mr Klopper is concerned.

MR FRANCIS: So I'm not even going to refer you to what I think Engelbrecht himself - no not Engelbrecht, well in what Engelbrecht himself said about this new role. But as far as you are concerned, that in 1991 your role basically was that of a criminal nature?

MR KLOPPER: That's correct.

MR FRANCIS: And there could not have been any dispute about what your new role was?

MR KLOPPER: No, we focused on criminal matters.

MR FRANCIS: And that's now to be of assistance to the various units, including Murder and Robbery?

MR KLOPPER: Correct.

MR FRANCIS: Including SANAB?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, any ...(intervention)

MR FRANCIS: And you also then worked through a network of informers, is that correct?

MR KLOPPER: Correct.

ADV DE JAGER: Sorry, the last question?

MR FRANCIS: ...(indistinct) Sorry, my mike was off. He worked through a network of informers.

MR KLOPPER: Yes.

MR FRANCIS: And there was no role - no dispute that Vlakplaas changed?

MR KLOPPER: Yes.

MR FRANCIS: You knew that?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, we all knew that.

MR FRANCIS: Everybody working at Vlakplaas would have known that?

MR KLOPPER: Yes.

MR FRANCIS: Let's talk about your trip to Nelspruit with de Kock and the two ladies, do you recall that?

MR KLOPPER: Yes.

MR FRANCIS: I think in your affidavit you mentioned - I'm not so sure when, that you stopped at various places, is that correct?

MR KLOPPER: Yes.

MR FRANCIS: Whilst stopping, can you recall at how many places I think you stopped?

MR KLOPPER: No, I cannot recall how many occasions we stopped.

MR FRANCIS: Whilst stopping there, what did you do?

MR KLOPPER: We drank a lot on the way. If that's what's going to be the question.

MR FRANCIS: If you say that you drank a lot, be more specific, tell us what you drank, where you drank, how much you drank.

MR KLOPPER: I cannot remember exactly how much, but we drank a lot.

MR FRANCIS: So you were very drunk when you arrived there?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, we drank a lot.

MR FRANCIS: Would you regard it as a frolic of your own? So you were on a frolic when you drove from Pretoria to Nelspruit?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, one can put it like that.

MR LAMEY: "Vrolik" of frolic?

MR FRANCIS: Frolic.

CHAIRPERSON: Of albei.

MR FRANCIS: Mr Klopper, when you left Pretoria and you went to Nelspruit, what was in your mind, what - where did you think you were going to?

MR KLOPPER: At that stage I knew there was going to be some action and that this operation will take place. I can't tell you what my state of mind was at that stage.

MR FRANCIS: You say that you drank a lot, did Mr de Kock drink a lot?

MR KLOPPER: We - all four of us drank a lot.

MR FRANCIS: Do you recall what Mr de Kock drank?

MR KLOPPER: No, I cannot recall.

MR FRANCIS: Was it hard liquor or just beers?

MR KLOPPER: It's difficult, I cannot recall exactly what he drank.

MR FRANCIS: Mr de Kock I think testified and said that you know when they go out on operations nobody would drink, they don't drink you know, his members won't do that.

MR KLOPPER: I know at per occasion there was such an instruction that nobody should drink.

MR FRANCIS: But with this operation you drank?

MR KLOPPER: Yes.

MR FRANCIS: Because it was not risky to you, because you guys knew that these armed robbers were set up, they had no firearms and they would be killed and there would be no resistance, so that's why you drank.

MR KLOPPER: No. From my side I cannot say, I believed that these people would be armed. I don't know about the other people, but I believed these persons would be armed.

MR FRANCIS: So why if in other operations you never drank, you decided to drink during this one?

MR KLOPPER: I cannot give you an answer to that.

MR FRANCIS: But when you got to Nelspruit - as we would say in Afrikaans "was u nou lekker dronk gewees"?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, we were under the influence.

MR FRANCIS: That includes Mr de Kock?

MR KLOPPER: That's right.

MR FRANCIS: Do you know if they had any further drinks at the Drumrock?

MR KLOPPER: As far as I can recall, de Kock and I did not have anything else, we went at dropped the girls off at Malelane Lodge.

MR FRANCIS: And do you know whether they drank at Malelane Lodge?

MR KLOPPER: I don't believe so. As far as I can recall we did not.

MR FRANCIS: What time did you arrive in Nelspruit?

MR KLOPPER: It was dark, I cannot give a specific time.

MR FRANCIS: But are you certain that it was dark?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, it was dark.

MR FRANCIS: But now I speak under correct, Mr de Kock said that it was approximately one or two.

MR KLOPPER: The morning?

MR FRANCIS: No the afternoon.

MR KLOPPER: That we arrived there?

MR FRANCIS: Yes.

MR KLOPPER: In the day? I think Mr Hattingh put it to me that it was almost midnight when we arrived there.

MR FRANCIS: No, don't look at Mr Hattingh.

MR KLOPPER: No, I'm not looking at him, but if I recall correctly, Mr Hattingh put it to me that Mr de Kock was put - that it was midnight.

MR FRANCIS: No, it was early in the day.

MR KLOPPER: And if I recall correctly, it was during the night.

MR FRANCIS: How long did you stay there?

MR KLOPPER: At the Drumrock, I ...(intervention)

MR FRANCIS: Before you went to Malelane.

MR KLOPPER: I cannot recall.

MR FRANCIS: Did you stay there for a long time?

MR KLOPPER: I can honestly not recall how long we stayed there.

MR FRANCIS: Mr Nortje said that - I think it's Nortje that said that at some stage all the members who were involved in this operation were in his room. This includes Mr de Kock.

MR KLOPPER: I know we went into the hotel where the people stayed and from the rooms, if I recall correctly - I cannot specifically recall, no.

MR FRANCIS: Do you recall that you were in a room, but you're not sure in which room it was?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, I was in some of the members' rooms, but I ...(intervention)

MR FRANCIS: Along with de Kock?

MR KLOPPER: I cannot recall if I was with de Kock.

MR FRANCIS: Think back.

MR KLOPPER: I can honestly not remember if I was with him.

MR FRANCIS: What were you doing there?

MR KLOPPER: We joined the rest of the members there, for the operation.

MR FRANCIS: And you were not part of the further planning?

MR KLOPPER: No, I had no part in the planning.

MR FRANCIS: Mr Nortje also says I think that in his room de Kock had then asked him about petrol, do you recall that?

MR KLOPPER: I can't answer, I don't know about that.

MR FRANCIS: But you are saying that you were in a room.

MR KLOPPER: I cannot recall that.

MR FRANCIS: And I know that Mr Nortje was cross-examined extensively by Mr Hattingh, but he stood still, he was quite firm, he was quite firm about that he was told to get petrol. It was just a question I think of whether or not it was 20 litres, 15 litres or 10 litres, but he stuck to his story that he was told by de Kock to get petrol.

MR KLOPPER: I don't know about that.

MR FRANCIS: I think we heard that you were assaulted on two occasions by Mr de Kock.

MR KLOPPER: He assaulted me on once.

MR FRANCIS: One is that you were interfering with women, is that correct?

MR KLOPPER: That was one instance, yes.

MR FRANCIS: And I see that in your affidavit I think, you refer to the two women that went with you.

MR KLOPPER: That's correct.

MR FRANCIS: I think you mentioned too that your "meisie", your girlfriend was not happy about that.

MR KLOPPER: Correct.

MR FRANCIS: And obviously if you say "vrouens" I think you're either referring to Mr de Kock's wife?

MR KLOPPER: Some of the other members as well. I don't know whether Mr de Kock's wife was part, I can't recall.

MR FRANCIS: Why did you mention this?

MR KLOPPER: There was - they were upset, amongst the ladies, that it had not happened previously that women had accompanied us according to my knowledge and that the secretaries had accompanied us and it was the first time that it happened and it was found out.

MR FRANCIS: Why mention this fact, I mean it's irrelevant to the murder that took place, why mention that the women were upset about this?

MR KLOPPER: The person who drew up the application - the statement, I must have mentioned it to him and he put it in the statement. I can't say anything about it.

MR FRANCIS: If we look at 244 at page 35 - 35.5, paragraph 35.5 ...(intervention)

MR KLOPPER: What is the page number?

MR FRANCIS: Page 244, paragraph 35.5, and I think it's the third line, you say

"The two women, Jessie and Kobie also accompanied us undercover, so that they could repair our previous claims at Malelane Lodge."

And I see you use the word "dekmantel", that's basically under the cover?

MR KLOPPER: Yes.

MR FRANCIS: What did you mean by that?

MR KLOPPER: It was a long time ago, but at that stage I understood that when the statement was drawn up that the ladies went along to go on a trip with us and that the excuse was that they had to rectify some claims which were outstanding at Malelane Lodge.

MR FRANCIS: Did they have to fix you know - put right some claims at Malelane Lodge, or was it just the cover?

MR KLOPPER: When I drew the claim - or excuse me, when I drew up the statement, that's what I believed, but I cannot answer, I cannot pertinently recall today.

MR FRANCIS: Are you saying that when the women were taken with it was just under the pretext or the cover that they were going to fix up claims in Malelane?

MR KLOPPER: Today I cannot pertinently recall, but when the statement was drawn up, that's what I believed, otherwise I would not have put it as such.

MR FRANCIS: So there were no claims that they had to fix?

MR KLOPPER: I can't recall, but we stayed many times at Malelane Lodge and we had many claims from there. We worked a lot in that vicinity, but I cannot recall this instance.

MR FRANCIS: But did you take Jessie and Kobie to Malelane on a number of occasions?

MR KLOPPER: No, only in one instance that I can recall.

MR FRANCIS: Where Mr de Kock was present?

MR KLOPPER: That's correct.

MR FRANCIS: And this was the Nelspruit one?

MR KLOPPER: Correct.

MR FRANCIS: So why is your memory so vague about this?

MR KLOPPER: As I have told you, the only case that I can recall when they travelled with us was with this specific incident.

MR FRANCIS: So they didn't go there to fix claims?

MR KLOPPER: I cannot recall, it was a long time ago. When the statement was drawn up that was my belief, that they were to rectify some of the claims, but I cannot recall it now.

MR FRANCIS: Or were they just keeping you company?

MR KLOPPER: No, it was not the case.

MR FRANCIS: These claims, were they also false claims?

MR KLOPPER: No, these are S&T claims, where one stays in a hotel and you pay for the room and then you have to hand it in to get the money back. Or if we had the money, then to close it up so that it's not outstanding anymore.

MR FRANCIS: Mr Klopper, when you booked in, under whose name did you book in?

MR KLOPPER: If I recall correctly, under other names, we did not use our proper names. We had false ID documents. It was Martin Reyneke.

MR FRANCIS: And Mr de Kock's one?

MR KLOPPER: He had several names, I think the one he used here and that was also in the court case, was Lourens Vosloo de Wet.

MR FRANCIS: Why did you use false names when - if especially I think you had to fix up claims? Why use a false name?

MR KLOPPER: Most of the times when we travelled, when we stayed at hotels, I always booked under a false name, we never used our own name.

MR FRANCIS: Was it not mainly because you knew that this operation was not authorised by head office? And I think if investigations were going to be conducted they would not be able to trace that de Kock and Klopper spent some time at Malelane Lodge?

MR KLOPPER: No, before one travels from Pretoria you have to draw up a travelling plan which has to be signed by the Generals and you must give an intelligence note and reasons. So you cannot just go out and come back again in that case, you have to draw up a travelling plan.

MR FRANCIS: But obviously it ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: And the names of the ladies?

MR KLOPPER: I cannot recall. I don't even know whether they had nondeplumes of whether they had false identity documents, I cannot recall.

MR FRANCIS: How many rooms did you book?

MR KLOPPER: I cannot recall, I know Willie and I shared a room, I think Mr de Kock had his own room. It should have been three or four rooms.

MR FRANCIS: I think Willie's evidence I think was that he only joined you later I think, after the event.

MR KLOPPER: Yes, I recall that, that he stayed in a room with me, so I think we had three or four rooms, I'm not sure.

MR FRANCIS: No I think Willie Nortje's testimony was that he slept in Mr de Kock's room, slept on the ground, on the floor.

MR KLOPPER: I cannot specifically remember it.

MR FRANCIS: Did Nortje also join you to Malelane Lodge?

MR KLOPPER: No, on the way to Malelane Lodge from Drumrock, no he was not with.

MR FRANCIS: Let's talk about the kombi, and I think it was put to you by Mr Hattingh that because you guys were involved in so many false claims there was no need I think to kill the four persons, to then lodge a false claim. But I think we've covered that because you said look, in any event I think it was - even if there was a genuine operation, you would still lodge a false claim and your members would still benefit from it.

MR KLOPPER: Yes.

MR FRANCIS: Ja, so I'm not going to bother myself about that, but let's talk about the kombi. If one turns to page 244 of your application, it is paragraph 35.4. You say the following, Mr Klopper, I assume that when you gave this affidavit, these events were still fresh in your memory?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, I think this was in 1994/1995, it was a year or two after the incident.

MR FRANCIS: I see it was deposed on the 26th of April 1994?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, that is more ...

MR FRANCIS: Which would have been 22 months after the incident?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR FRANCIS: Well, 23 months after the incident. So your knowledge I think must have been reasonably fresh?

MR KLOPPER: At that stage, yes.

MR FRANCIS: Yes. And in it you mentioned the following, you say

"... de Kock and I per occasion met Manny the owner, at the hotel."

Incidentally, Manny, is he also known as Fatman?

MR KLOPPER: No, I think Fatman is the brother of Manny.

MR FRANCIS: You say

"... Manny and de Kock held a discussion."

MR KLOPPER: Yes.

MR FRANCIS: "... I was not present."

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR FRANCIS: "... on our way back in the vehicle, de Kock told me that Manny was experiencing financial troubles and that the hotel minibus had to be stolen so that he could claim it from the insurance."

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR FRANCIS: Did Mr de Kock say to you that because Manny has got financial difficulties, his kombi should be stolen?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, that is how I understood it at that stage.

MR FRANCIS: When Mr de Kock told you this, were you sober, what was your state of mind?

MR KLOPPER: I cannot recall, I can honestly not recall.

MR FRANCIS: But you recall this?

MR KLOPPER: I can.

MR FRANCIS: There is nothing wrong with your memory?

MR KLOPPER: No.

MR FRANCIS: Do you recall when exactly this was told to you? I mean if one looks at the incident, when before the incident was this told to you?

MR KLOPPER: I cannot recall how long before, maybe a month or two, it could be a week, I cannot remember.

MR FRANCIS: Did Mr de Kock say to you what he was going to do with the vehicle if and when it got stolen?

MR KLOPPER: No, I can't recall anything further and I did not hear anything about it.

MR FRANCIS: Before the Nelspruit incident, did you see the kombi?

MR KLOPPER: No, after the shooting incident, I only saw the minibus.

MR FRANCIS: I think you testified and said that after the shooting incident, Mr de Kock sent you to the post office, is that correct?

MR KLOPPER: No, we together went to the police station.

MR FRANCIS: Why did you go there?

MR KLOPPER: If I recall correctly, at the scene it was established that this vehicle was not reported as stolen and that it was from the hotel. Then we drove so that de Kock could call Manny, I think he said he had to call his brother Vossie to arrange that it be reported as stolen.

MR FRANCIS: I recall I think, having read in your affidavit that you then afterwards realised that Mr de Kock had some ulterior motives when the kombi was set on fire? Do you recall that?

MR KLOPPER: No, I am not following you, can you please repeat.

MR FRANCIS: I think somewhere in your application, in your statement it says that you later surmised that Mr de Kock had ulterior motives with the use of Manny's vehicle?

MR KLOPPER: No, I cannot recall, not now.

MR FRANCIS: Mr Chairperson, if I could ...

MR LAMEY: It is in Mr Nortje's affidavit, it is in Mr Nortje's statement.

MR FRANCIS: Sorry. Mr Nortje, I think in his affidavit said that he later discovered that Mr de Kock had some ulterior motives about this?

MR KLOPPER: I don't know about that.

MR FRANCIS: But you won't dispute that?

MR KLOPPER: No, I will not.

MR FRANCIS: I want us again to look at your application. At the bottom of page 109, read from paragraph 9. If you could read it aloud, please.

MR KLOPPER: "... during 1992, I accompanied members of Vlakplaas and Pretoria Murder and Robbery Unit to ambush a gang of robbers. At that stage I really believed that they were genuine robbers who were to rob a bank and that they were involved in a bank robbery in Witbank. Only later did I realise that these people were set up by us. No effort was made whatsoever to arrest these four robbers and they were killed in cold blood and the minibus they were travelling, was set alight with petrol so that none of them could be identified and little remained of their bodies. There was also guns and handgrenades planted in the minibus to make everything look real. A fifth person was also taken and shot and his body was also blown to pieces with explosives, but I was not involved in this."

MR FRANCIS: You can stop there. Then I want you to turn to page 243 and paragraph 35.2. Read that please.

MR KLOPPER: "... Dougie Holtzhausen had a source, Ben van Zyl. Ben was previously a Detective with Brixton Murder and Robbery. He conveyed information that a certain gang was responsible for the murder in Witbank.

MR FRANCIS: Please read further.

MR KLOPPER: "... Eugene de Kock wanted to teach the robbers a lesson and a plan was made."

MR FRANCIS: That is enough. So you are telling us that Eugene de Kock wanted to teach the robbers a lesson?

MR KLOPPER: That was what was told to me, yes.

MR FRANCIS: Who told you that?

MR KLOPPER: de Kock.

MR FRANCIS: When did he tell you that?

MR KLOPPER: I cannot recall exactly what stage it was put to me, but that is what was put to me.

MR FRANCIS: Was that in Nelspruit?

MR KLOPPER: I could have been there, I cannot exactly remember where it was.

MR FRANCIS: And when he refers to robbers, he is referring to the robbers who were going to rob the Coin Security?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR FRANCIS: So he said to you that, what was your nickname, Chappies?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR FRANCIS: He said to you "Chappies, we have to teach the robbers in Witbank a lesson, we have to teach these robbers a lesson"?

MR KLOPPER: That is how I recall it, when I made the statement.

MR FRANCIS: And you are quite certain about that Mr Klopper that he told you that?

MR KLOPPER: At that stage, yes.

MR FRANCIS: So Mr de Kock's motive was to teach the robbers, who he believed were also involved in Witbank and who were going to rob Nelspruit, a lesson?

MR KLOPPER: That is what I believed, yes.

MR FRANCIS: Mr de Kock, sorry Mr Klopper, you have just now read to me, to us, page 109, paragraph 9 and in it you don't mention that these robbers were members of the ANC or PAC or IFP?

MR KLOPPER: No, with the drawing up of this statement, I didn't have any legal representation.

MR FRANCIS: Come on Mr Klopper.

MR KLOPPER: We were told to put in applications before the cut off date, I did not have any legal representation when I drew up the statement.

MR FRANCIS: Are you saying to us that later when you acquired an Attorney, he said to you "look, let's also talk about the political motive"?

MR KLOPPER: No, but if you look at the statement, you will see that there are several instances which are in the application, which will not fall under for what one can apply for amnesty for.

MR FRANCIS: I see also when looking at this one that I think you read from, that is now from you know, the one that you read from, page 243, I see there is no reference made that these were going to be ANC persons or trained people and this obviously must have been taken 23 months after the incident?

MR KLOPPER: I don't see any mention thereof.

MR FRANCIS: I put it to you that you did not know that these people were linked to the ANC or to a political organisation and that you only became involved in it because a white woman in Witbank got killed or that you were basically told that a white person got killed, and that is why you took part in this to show Mr de Kock who said to you that we need to teach these robbers a lesson, so you acted in terms of that?

MR KLOPPER: No, we believed that these were ANC members as I have said previously.

MR FRANCIS: Why isn't it mentioned in the two affidavits?

MR KLOPPER: I cannot answer you.

MR FRANCIS: You cannot tell me because you did not have the information that these were ANC members?

MR KLOPPER: No, I think Mr Holtzhausen and van Zyl will be able to tell you, that is the information that the guys had.

MR FRANCIS: I know now in the examination-in-chief I think you said that you knew that they were ANC members. Why kill them? Let's assume that I was maybe a member of the IRA that was at war with the country and I was a lawyer acting for them, would you also have killed me if you knew that I was defending people, would you have killed me for that?

MR KLOPPER: This is how this thing was set up, the instruction was that this is how the incident will take place and I dealt along those lines.

MR FRANCIS: Mr Klopper, you are lying now.

MR LAMEY: On what basis is that statement being made, what is the basis of that allegation?

CHAIRPERSON: Just give him a chance, Mr Lamey.

MR FRANCIS: You just now mentioned, I think earlier, that "Mr de Kock told us, we were told that people took part, these robbers took part in the Witbank matter and that we needed to teach these robbers a lesson", and that is why you became involved in it? Now to say that "I knew that they were ANC members", it is just a figment of your imagination?

MR KLOPPER: No, I firmly believed and at the end it was indeed sos that these persons were from the ANC.

MR FRANCIS: But Mr Klopper, you said that the role of Vlakplaas changed in 1991 and your role was just that of, to assist the police in criminal activities? Do you recall that?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct, yes.

MR FRANCIS: So if that was your role and if these guys were just members of the ANC, who then gave you authorisation to kill them, if your role had basically changed?

MR KLOPPER: The ANC at that stage was not our friend. To tell you honestly at Vlakplaas, they were still our enemy. That so many AK47 rifles were used that I believed that these people were to be heavily armed.

MR FRANCIS: Mr Klopper, did you have dealings with Mr van Zyl?

MR KLOPPER: No, I never dealt with Mr van Zyl.

MR FRANCIS: You say the ANC was the enemy?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR FRANCIS: So that is why you killed the five?

MR KLOPPER: No, as I told you, I believed that these people would be heavily armed and the instruction went along, the ambush was set up, I had never met any of these persons before, I only saw Ben van Zyl before that.

MR FRANCIS: You believed that they were armed?

MR KLOPPER: Yes.

MR FRANCIS: Tell us about your belief, who told you that they were armed?

MR KLOPPER: In the discussion earlier with the members, that is why it was drawn up as such that those people did not have a chance to fire.

MR FRANCIS: No, but let us deal with what Mr van Zyl has got in his affidavit.

MR KLOPPER: Ek het nie sy "affidavit" gesien nie ... (no translation)

MR FRANCIS: He does not mention that these guys are going to be armed, he in fact mentions I think, at some stage there was a request for them to be given firearms, AK47's?

MR KLOPPER: I don't know.

MR FRANCIS: I think there was also direct evidence at this enquiry either by, I have forgotten it could have been Gevers or it could have been Nortje, but I think somebody said that. There was a request that they should be armed, or be given two AK47's, I think it was Nortje and the initial, I think, the initial arrangement was that the AK47's were going to be put into the vehicle, but then later I think, they decided not to put the AK47's in the vehicle?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, I don't know, I had nothing to do with the planning, I don't know anything about the planning.

MR FRANCIS: I think Holtzhausen ...

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, I just want to - I had a memory of this and in the statement of van Zyl, page 218, he mentions

"... at that stage I looked into the kombi and I saw that one of the men seated at the back, had an AK47."

Now my instructions also from Mr van Zyl and that would be his evidence, that he saw something which appeared to be an AK47.

MR FRANCIS: I don't know what the point was that you are trying to make, but ...

MR LAMEY: You put it to him that Mr van Zyl's evidence will be that these people were not armed.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes gentlemen, please.

MR FRANCIS: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR FRANCIS: Mr Klopper, the fact of the matter is that only two AK47's were found on the scene, it was planted either by Holtzhausen and another police officer, Gouws, that is a fact.

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR FRANCIS: And obviously if van Zyl had seen an AK47, there should have been three AK47's?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR FRANCIS: This was a setup from the beginning?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, I agree that it was a setup, but I wasn't part of that setup, I believed that those people were armed.

MR FRANCIS: van Zyl must have been in contact with his handler, Holtzhausen at all times?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, that is entirely possible.

MR FRANCIS: You also knew that they had to make use of Mr Araju's vehicle that was parked at the Promenade?

MR KLOPPER: No, I did not know.

MR FRANCIS: I put it to you that no policeman I think would be silly enough to leave AK47's in the kombi?

MR KLOPPER: I don't know about that.

MR FRANCIS: Would you have done that, would you have left AK47's in a kombi and give it to trained robbers? Would you?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, not me, but I cannot speak for everybody. I personally wouldn't have.

MR FRANCIS: Would Mr de Kock have done that?

MR KLOPPER: I doubt that sincerely.

MR FRANCIS: Would Mr Holtzhausen have done that?

MR KLOPPER: I don't know.

MR FRANCIS: Would Capt Gevers have done that?

MR KLOPPER: I cannot speak for anyone of those persons, but speaking personally I wouldn't have done that.

ADV DE JAGER: Really we are speculating, because they didn't leave it there, so it is a fact, they didn't leave it there, there were no weapons inside, it was planted afterwards. Are we having differences about this?

MR FRANCIS: We are disagreeing about whether or not he knew that they were armed, what I am just putting to the witness is that they were not armed and I think van Zyl would have given this information over to the police?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, I am completely convinced that these persons would be armed.

MR FRANCIS: Who told you that they were armed?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, from the discussion and the planning it was indicated that these persons would be armed and that they should not have the opportunity to use those arms.

MR FRANCIS: Who told you, who told you that?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, I don't know that it was Dougie Holtzhausen or Deon van Zyl or whatever, we stood there in a group and undertook the planning, but I cannot tell you pertinently. I could infer that it was Dougie Holtzhausen because he was the handler of the informer, but I cannot state pertinently that it was him, I cannot recall.

MR FRANCIS: That they would be armed with what weapons?

MR KLOPPER: It doesn't matter what sort of weapon it would be, any weapon is dangerous. I cannot even - if a specific sort of weapon was mentioned.

MR FRANCIS: Let's talk about the role of Mr de Kock at the scene. You said that you got to the scene, you were with de Kock in your vehicle, is that correct and at some stage you slept?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR FRANCIS: Was Mr de Kock at all times in your vehicle?

MR KLOPPER: No Chairperson, but as far as I can recall, de Kock lay sleeping in my vehicle to wait for the action to be completed.

MR FRANCIS: You just went to the scene and remained at the scene?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR FRANCIS: At no stage did you go to where I think Nortje was parked?

MR KLOPPER: No, never.

MR FRANCIS: I think he testified and said that at one stage you and de Kock came there whilst they were observing the kombi?

MR KLOPPER: No Chairperson, the vehicle that I was there in was the appointed vehicle to be drawn into the road after the incident with the blue light on.

MR FRANCIS: So Nortje must be lying when he testified before this Commission yesterday?

MR KLOPPER: I wouldn't want to say that he is lying, but I cannot recall that that would ever have taken place.

MR FRANCIS: But you are quite definite that you didn't go to them?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, I didn't leave the scene.

MR FRANCIS: Okay, I won't ask you, I will later argue that he is lying. Let's talk about the role of Mr de Kock at the shooting. Where was he when the shooting started?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, as I have explained Gouws and Holtzhausen were waiting underneath the bridge, they would give us the signal. The rest of us were all positioned in a straight line behind a dam embankment, just behind the bridge. I cannot recall in what precise sequence we stood, I think I stood in front and then there was Chris Geldenhuys, I don't know where Mr de Kock was in terms of this entire sequence of men.

MR FRANCIS: When the shooting commenced, where was he, where was Mr de Kock?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, I cannot recall precisely where he was, because every man had to see to himself and make sure that he didn't get shot. I cannot tell you pertinently.

MR FRANCIS: At that stage, were you still under the influence of alcohol?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, I lay there for quite a while sleeping, so I don't believe that we were all very drunk.

MR FRANCIS: Mr de Kock testified and said that there was a lot of chaos and I think policemen were firing left, right and centre and I think he at one stage decided to call you guys into a line, do you recall that?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, we moved in a line in front of the vehicle and fired at the vehicle. The vehicle moved down and we fired at this vehicle consistently. When it came to a standstill, we stood in a group behind the vehicle and continued to fire at the vehicle upon which we heard groaning noises and we fired at the source of these groaning noises. I don't know whether we were in a line, I cannot recall specifically.

MR FRANCIS: Let me put to you what Mr de Kock said, I think he said there was firing, shooting took place, the kombi accelerated?

MR KLOPPER: Yes.

MR FRANCIS: And he then also became, he also came down from where he was and started firing at this kombi. I think he said he basically used his one magazine, changed his, I think his rifle to semi-automatic and fired between seven to eight shots?

MR KLOPPER: I cannot comment on that.

MR FRANCIS: He had noticed, I think, that the shooting was quite chaotic, he then formed you into a line and the shooting thereafter I think, proceeded I think, you formed a line and then followed the kombi and fired, started firing and he took a few steps forward and then went back?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, I cannot recall it that specifically.

MR FRANCIS: Would you dispute, are you disputing what Mr de Kock is saying or what?

MR KLOPPER: It is possible, because everyone of us has a different recollection of how things took place, I cannot recall that.

MR FRANCIS: Do you recall if Mr de Kock also wanted to shoot at one of the persons I think, who was moaning and groaning?

MR KLOPPER: No, I cannot recall that pertinently.

MR FRANCIS: If you say you don't recall that, are you saying that it is possible, but you don't recall it or he did not do that?

MR KLOPPER: I cannot comment on that, I cannot recall that.

MR FRANCIS: Mr Lamey? I think further Mr Nortje said the following, he said that Mr de Kock had asked him to shoot at this person, the person I think who was moaning and groaning?

MR KLOPPER: Mr Nortje? Chairperson, as far as I know, Nortje was not at the scene until much later, as far as I recall. Nortje only arrived at the scene much later.

MR FRANCIS: Nortje's testimony was I think that, when the shooting commenced I think, he got there. Mr de Kock told him to finish off that person, I think, who was moaning and groaning. He refused and said "no, look ..."

MR LAMEY: Mr Nortje's evidence was not that when the shooting commenced, he was on the scene. It is not what he testified.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, gentlemen please.

MR LAMEY: No. After the shooting was completed, he was on the scene.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Lamey, are you done?

MR LAMEY: Yes Mr Chairperson, my learned friend is putting ...

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, he said, you say that he said that when the shooting commenced, Nortje was on the scene and you are saying that that is not correct.

MR LAMEY: That is not what my client testified.

CHAIRPERSON: Nortje says that he arrived at some time after that point.

MR LAMEY: Yes Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Francis, what is your response to that?

MR FRANCIS: I think Nortje said that when the shooting commenced, I think, he got there at some stage. If I am wrong, I think I am wrong.

CHAIRPERSON: I think Mr Lamey is more correct, Nortje waited for a while and then drove passed the scene, made a U-turn and went back, etc. So won't you deal with it on that basis?

MR FRANCIS: I think I am wrong. But Mr Nortje said that when he got to the scene, I think, he was told by Mr de Kock to shoot the person I think, who was laying down?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, I cannot recall that. We fired many shots by that stage already.

MR FRANCIS: If you say you don't recall it, are you saying that it didn't happen or it could have happened, but I am not so sure?

MR KLOPPER: I don't know, I do not have any knowledge.

MR FRANCIS: If you say I don't know about it, what are you saying, didn't happen at all?

MR KLOPPER: That I don't know whether it is true or not, I didn't hear it, I don't know anything about such a case.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Francis, are you done with this point?

MR FRANCIS: I think it may be an appropriate opportunity to ...

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, we will adjourn and we will reconvene at two o'clock.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

K KLOPPER: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Francis, have you got any more questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR FRANCIS: (cont)

I do have. Mr Klopper, what was the role of Mr de Kock in this matter?

MR KLOPPER: He participated in the shooting.

MR FRANCIS: Was he part of the planning?

MR KLOPPER: I cannot recall whether Mr de Kock offered any input with the planning at the scene, I cannot recall whether he offered any input.

MR FRANCIS: And before he got to the scene?

MR KLOPPER: As I have told you, I was not a member of the planning before the time. I cannot recall whether Mr de Kock was in any way a member of the planning and if he had been, what he would have said.

MR FRANCIS: You say after the kombi was set alight, Mr de Kock had instructed some people to go away, is that correct?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR FRANCIS: Who were those people?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, it was Gevers, Swart and Chait.

MR FRANCIS: Did you see him having a discussion with Holtzhausen and Nortje before they left?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, I cannot recall precisely.

MR FRANCIS: Some of the applicants I think said, I think Nortje himself said that Ben van Zyl got to the scene, he told Holtzhausen that Tiso wasn't there, Holtzhausen and Nortje I think, approached de Kock and de Kock then told them to go and look for Tiso?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, I don't know about that, I cannot recall that.

MR FRANCIS: Are you saying it didn't happen or are you not so sure?

MR KLOPPER: I am not certain, I don't know.

MR FRANCIS: I think Nortje said he then came back and told de Kock that they had found Tiso, do you recall that?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, no, I don't have any knowledge of that.

MR FRANCIS: Did you at any stage hear de Kock say that Tiso should be buddha'ed?

MR KLOPPER: What I did hear is that he told Gevers and Swart and Chait to go and meet Vermeulen, that is what I remember that he said.

MR FRANCIS: So you didn't hear him say buddha'ing?

MR KLOPPER: No, I cannot say that I ever heard that.

MR FRANCIS: In how many instances have you taken part, cases where a person was buddha'ed?

MR KLOPPER: In one case.

MR FRANCIS: What would happen before a person is buddha'ed?

MR KLOPPER: In my case the guy had already died and he was stiff, the way that I can explain is that the explosives would be placed around the person, but as I was involved, the explosives were placed upon and below the person.

MR SIBANYONI: Which incident is that Mr Klopper?

MR KLOPPER: That is the Sweet Sambo, a case which will be dealt with later by you.

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you.

MR FRANCIS: Mr Klopper, who was in control of this whole operation?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, it was Dougie Holtzhausen's action. If one had to look at this according to rank, de Kock was the senior officer at the scene, but I would rather say that it was Dougie Holtzhausen who was in command of the operation.

MR FRANCIS: Why did Geldenhuys go with, Geldenhuys from Pretoria Murder and Robbery?

MR KLOPPER: I cannot respond to that. I cannot explain anything about that.

MR FRANCIS: Was this not just to give it an air of respectability, to mislead people to say that look, this is basically an operation done by Pretoria Murder and Robbery?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, I cannot respond to that because I do not know anything about it.

MR FRANCIS: Were you not told why the other members had to be there from Murder and Robbery?

MR KLOPPER: I could speculate, but I cannot tell you.

MR FRANCIS: Was this a Pretoria Murder and Robbery Unit operation or was it a Vlakplaas one?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, Dougie as a member of Vlakplaas, handled the informer and I would rather call this a Vlakplaas operation, we were also more in number than Murder and Robbery.

MR FRANCIS: I think Geldenhuys himself said that he got the distinct impression that de Kock, I think, was in control of things and the fact that the majority I think, of his members were members of Vlakplaas and he basically thought that it was a Vlakplaas operation?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, it is also my opinion that it was a Vlakplaas operation, but from what I saw, de Kock did not participate that extensively in the planning, from what I saw.

MR FRANCIS: I think he also went further and I think he said that the impression that he got was that they were being used by Vlakplaas and that is why the members of the Murder and Robbery Unit were there?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, I cannot respond to that.

MR FRANCIS: Why are you applying for amnesty?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, ultimately murders were committed, we did not give them any chance to escape.

MR FRANCIS: Om enigsins ... (no translation)

MR KLOPPER: To escape, to be arrested, it was planned that they would not escape from the ambush.

ADV DE JAGER: I think that you misunderstood the question. The question is why are you now requesting amnesty, what is your motivation for requesting amnesty because you obtained 204 indemnity?

MR KLOPPER: I was advised Chairperson, that it would be better for me to apply for amnesty because it was a political incident, in order to prevent any further prosecution.

MR FRANCIS: Will you agree with me that this was a setup from the beginning?

MR KLOPPER: I don't really understand what is meant by setup, I believed that these were bona fide robbers and that they would be armed and that we were launching an action against them.

MR FRANCIS: Let me rather put it to you this way, the robbers I think were told by Ben van Zyl from the statements, I think, to go to Nelspruit?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, I don't know about how the plan was compiled, I don't know anything about that.

MR FRANCIS: They had asked for firearms and Ben van Zyl gave Tiso a 38 revolver, that is according to Ndimande?

MR KLOPPER: I don't know.

MR FRANCIS: Ben van Zyl gave them, gave Tiso a key which he was going to use at some place?

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

MR FRANCIS: They had requested AK47's and these were given to them?

MR KLOPPER: I don't have any knowledge about the dealings with the deceased.

MR FRANCIS: They had asked for a car and they were given a Toyota Cressida which is a police Regulation 80 vehicle.

MR KLOPPER: I don't know anything about that.

MR FRANCIS: They were given a kombi or they were told that they could get a kombi at the Promenade Hotel, just outside?

MR KLOPPER: I don't know about that.

MR FRANCIS: The keys I think, were left on one of the tyres?

MR KLOPPER: I did not participate in that, I don't know about it.

MR FRANCIS: They were told which route to follow?

MR KLOPPER: I don't know about that, I cannot comment on it.

MR FRANCIS: They were told that Ben van Zyl would drive in front of them?

MR KLOPPER: I don't know.

MR FRANCIS: They had no firearms?

ADV DE JAGER: Do you have any knowledge about anything that was said to these persons?

MR KLOPPER: I did not have anything to do with the planning whatsoever, I arrived at the scene which was on the route that they had followed. I didn't know who set up the route or how it came to be that that would be the route.

MR FRANCIS: I think before I finish off Mr Klopper, you spoke about an information note.

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR FRANCIS: I want you to look at page, I think it is ...

CHAIRPERSON: Page 375 of the documents.

MR FRANCIS: Did you see this information note before?

MR KLOPPER: No, I have not seen this. As I have put it to you, with a travel plan such an Intelligence note would also be compiled and especially after actions, this is the sort of note that would be submitted, but I haven't seen this specific one.

MR FRANCIS: Please explain that, what would happen before an operation, at what stage would the information note be drawn up?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, in order to authorise the journey, one would have to explain why the journey was to be undertaken, that is why an Intelligence note would be compiled which would represent the facts of what was going to take place. That would be the initial Intelligence note and then after that, a full Intelligence note would be compiled regarding the things which had taken place.

MR FRANCIS: At what stage would you get authorisation from your seniors?

MR KLOPPER: Before your departure, the route plan had to be undersigned by the Commander, the travel plan.

MR FRANCIS: Look at - well, if Mr de Kock had drawn up the information note, it would then have gone to his seniors?

MR KLOPPER: I beg your pardon?

MR FRANCIS: It would have gone to his senior?

MR KLOPPER: Yes.

MR FRANCIS: And what would happen afterwards, after his senior basically saw this, what would happen next?

MR KLOPPER: It would be approved and then one would have permission to travel. That is why one needed the authorisation for expenses such as accommodation and so forth, for meals and other aspects.

MR FRANCIS: So if you want to ambush and kill people, would you also have to have it in the information note?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, it is difficult to say whether one would explain how it would operate. I don't know whether this is the specific note for this specific case, but it would be stated for example that there would be a possible robbery, but that the group would wait for this gang of robbers, that there would be an attempt to prevent the robbery, but I don't know precisely how things operated in this specific case.

CHAIRPERSON: But that would be part of the official procedure?

MR KLOPPER: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: It wouldn't be an aspect to the fraud?

MR KLOPPER: No.

CHAIRPERSON: This would be in terms of the standing rules?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, that is correct.

MR FRANCIS: So, let's assume that you would obviously want to have some authorisation from your seniors?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR FRANCIS: So that maybe later, I think, they won't blame you and say look you took part in an unlawful activity, that wasn't approved by us, by them?

MR KLOPPER: Yes Chairperson. The basic thing was that if one had authorisation to stay in a hotel, that one would have to draw travel and accommodation fees because if there was some form of car accident while on such an operation, they would hold you responsible for the damages.

MR FRANCIS: Mr Klopper, you said that this was basically to ambush people and to kill them?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR FRANCIS: And what should the information note have contained?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, that there was going to be a robbery and that the group was going to wait for them.

MR FRANCIS: This would go to either Engelbrecht or some senior person and he would authorise it?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR FRANCIS: By signing it?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR FRANCIS: And the signed copy will go back to your Commander?

MR KLOPPER: Yes Chairperson, it would go back to the Unit, to de Kock.

MR FRANCIS: And that would then be kept?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, it would be kept there, that is correct.

MR FRANCIS: And that was the procedure that was followed in all operations?

MR KLOPPER: For example with the Sambo incident, I did not compile an Intelligence note saying that I would fetch a body and blow it up. I did not compile any such notes, I was just told verbally to go.

MR FRANCIS: But in the other operations?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, then it would be the case, but as I have said it did not work that way with every case.

MR FRANCIS: So one would assume that in this one here, the same procedure would have been followed because you got information already sometime, I think, in November, well beginning of December, but you had enough time to get authorisation for this?

MR KLOPPER: I would believe so, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr de Kock states that there were certain cases that did not go onto the system?

MR KLOPPER: For example yes, with the case where I was sent to fetch the body, that was unlawful, even though the police was involved. One could not however place it on paper that one was going to break the law, to put it that way. With the operations that were not authorised, I don't know how to express this, one would not provide an Intelligence note, then there would be an oral or verbal order.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but if it was something that was clearly beyond the parameters of the law?

MR KLOPPER: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Which should never really be authorised, one would not go through this channel where one would leave tracks?

MR KLOPPER: No, there wouldn't be a paper trail.

ADV DE JAGER: Do you know whether an Intelligence note was submitted during the Piet Retief incident?

MR KLOPPER: No, that was before my time, I don't know anything about that. But the procedure worked as such that a list of names would be compiled so that there would be authorisation for the group that would be participating.

ADV DE JAGER: If you received authorisation to commit a murder in Durban, then you wouldn't say I am going to commit a murder, you would say ...

MR KLOPPER: Yes, you would provide some other form of excuse.

ADV DE JAGER: Would you think up an excuse?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, you would justify your journey by proposing something else.

CHAIRPERSON: But you didn't necessarily have to do that, you could just do it upon a verbal order?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, with a verbal order, then the General would take responsibility in the event of an accident or something, he would say "but I gave this man authorisation, there wasn't time to compile an Intelligence note."

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Mr Francis.

MR FRANCIS: If you could look at the same document, page 375, can you read it out please.

MR KLOPPER: "... On 92-03-24 unregistered source of Unit C10 reported that he had gathered information of a consignment of AK47 guns which would be transported between Komatipoort and Mamelodi, Pretoria. Source also reports that weapons would be fetched on 92-03-25 or 92-03-26 and that it was intended for use during a planned armed robbery of a bank in Pretoria. The source will report to his handler as soon as he has gathered further information. Members of Pretoria Murder and Robbery will accompany Unit members of C10 because there are indications that the suspects are wanted by them due to other armed robberies. As soon as further particulars are available, there will be liaison with MID Nelspruit for a police action."

MR FRANCIS: Am I correct that this does not refer to armed action that the police were going to take in Nelspruit?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, that is correct.

MR FRANCIS: And obviously it also states that if and when further information were acquired, they would give it back, they would convey this to the seniors?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: I see at the bottom it says "compiled by Sgt Holtzhausen" and then it has been signed by de Kock?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct. I don't know whether this is his travel plan and Intelligence note in this case. The person who was handling the information with regard to the action, would state that it is he that compiled it.

CHAIRPERSON: It does not appear to be covert?

MR KLOPPER: No, this is not covert, not according to this document.

MR FRANCIS: The person I think who would have, so a senior would then have either signed on this document saying "approved" or "rejected" or "denied"?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR FRANCIS: When you went to Nelspruit, were you thinking that you were going to ambush people who were going to smuggle weapons from Komatipoort with the intention to take it to Pretoria or what were you thinking?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, my knowledge was that these were robbers that we were going to wait for. I cannot recall that I knew anything about weapons or arms smuggling.

MR FRANCIS: I think the only person, I think, who knows about arms smuggling is Mr de Kock?

MR KLOPPER: I don't know, I don't have any knowledge.

MR FRANCIS: And the others?

MR KLOPPER: I don't have any knowledge, Dougie managed the information, I don't know anything about that.

MR FRANCIS: Do you know that Mr Ben van Zyl had asked, I think it is confirmed by Holtzhausen, had asked that well, Holtzhausen I think in his affidavit states that he had asked that - that van Zyl had asked that the robbers be killed because he feared that his cover would be blown?

MR KLOPPER: I don't know about that.

MR FRANCIS: And it would seem to me that they got killed because of the request from Ben van Zyl?

MR KLOPPER: I don't know about that.

MR FRANCIS: Is it common that you would get instructions from an informer?

MR KLOPPER: No, one would usually try to protect your informer, but I cannot say that the informer would launch any action.

MR FRANCIS: This would seem to me like an informer you know, instructing C10 to kill five robbers and they kill them?

MR KLOPPER: No, as I have told you, I did not have any discussions or dealings with him. I cannot cast any light upon that.

MR FRANCIS: If you knew about the request to kill the five to hide the identity of van Zyl, would you have still taken part in the operation?

MR KLOPPER: It is easy to say today "no", but at that stage, I can really not tell you, if one received an order, one would have to follow that order. If you were there and told to do something, you would not be disobedient towards your superior.

MR FRANCIS: Mr Klopper, I think on page 109, I think we have dealt with that but let's turn to 109, paragraph 9. I think it is the fourth line where you say the following

"... only later did I realise that these people were setup by us."

At what stage did you realise this?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, it is difficult for me to give you the precise point in time, it is logical that when the vehicle was set alight and the weapons were planted, that not all the facts were the way I had them. I cannot really tell you what to say.

MR FRANCIS: Mr Klopper, I get the impression from this statement that you must have believed that you were going to apprehend robbers and I think, I think the fact that you drew this up without legal representation, I think you basically told the truth. You must have believed that "I am joining other people to catch these robbers" and the other thing I think is, later I think you changed your version?

MR KLOPPER: I don't think that I changed my version, I cannot tell you at which stage, I think it was probably more in Nelspruit when I realised that there would be no attempt to arrest these persons, but I believed completely that we were going to prevent a robbery. If this person, Tiso, had taken a weapon from Ben, how would one rob a place without being armed, would one rob a place with knives? It wouldn't work that way, not with a place like Coin Security.

MR FRANCIS: So you went down, you wanted to prevent a robbery from taking place?

MR KLOPPER: That was my honest belief.

MR FRANCIS: And your intention was just to prevent the robbery from taking place?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR FRANCIS: In what way were you going to prevent it from taking place?

MR KLOPPER: Through police action. As I have said, I cannot tell you at precisely what stage I realised that these persons would not be arrested, but I believed initially that they would be arrested. Sometimes in certain cases, it would include the shooting of persons.

MR FRANCIS: But Mr Klopper, you hear people moaning and groaning, you believe that you are going to prevent them from robbing the place, they are defenceless and you keep on shooting?

MR KLOPPER: I cannot tell you, if you are working in a group, I really cannot tell you.

MR FRANCIS: I put it to you that you were not even so sure what your role had to be there.

MR KLOPPER: I beg your pardon?

MR FRANCIS: You were not even so sure what your role had to be at the scene?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, I believed that we were going to prevent a robbery.

MR FRANCIS: But not to kill them?

MR KLOPPER: I don't know at which stage it occurred to me that these persons would not be arrested, but at a stage, my belief was that we were going to prevent a robbery.

MR FRANCIS: These were hardened criminals that had to be stopped from robbing?

MR KLOPPER: That was my knowledge.

MR FRANCIS: Is it also true that you got information that Tiso had been involved in the robbing of 16, or the police were seeking him for robbing 16 other places?

MR KLOPPER: I don't know about that.

MR FRANCIS: It was never mentioned at the scene?

MR KLOPPER: Not that I can recall.

MR FRANCIS: So your aim basically was to prevent the robbers from robbing?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, initially.

MR FRANCIS: That was your main aim?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR FRANCIS: To prevent them from robbing Coin Security?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR FRANCIS: Nothing else?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, previously based upon the information that we had, they had been involved in the Witbank robbery, they had committed robberies in order to fill the coffers of the ANC, that is the information that I had. I acted accordingly and I also received an order to be there and to act there.

MR FRANCIS: I put it to you that filling the ANC coffers is an afterthought?

MR KLOPPER: I beg our pardon?

MR FRANCIS: It is an afterthought.

MR KLOPPER: No Chairperson, that was the information which I had.

MR FRANCIS: I think I have dealt with this and that is why I think in the two portions that I referred you to, the two affidavits, I think there was no reference made to ANC people?

MR KLOPPER: It was my understanding, that is what I believed the situation to be.

MR FRANCIS: And I put to you that you are honest, I think when you say that your primary reason was to prevent the robbers from robbing. That is why you went there?

MR KLOPPER: That is the case.

MR FRANCIS: One second please.

CHAIRPERSON: How did you understand the setup to be?

MR KLOPPER: I don't understand?

CHAIRPERSON: At a stage you realised that this was a setup, what did you understand, what was the setup?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, at that time I did not compile a statement, the statement was compiled for me which stated the weapons and the fire. I think that they still wanted to commit the robbery, but it was a conspiracy to cover up the incident. It was covered up to such an extent that nobody would have realised what the actual situation was. All the policemen worked together under the leadership of Gen Engelbrecht so that no one would have the chance to catch us out if anything went wrong.

CHAIRPERSON: The setup refers to the period after the shooting, did you think it was a setup after the shooting or before the shooting?

MR KLOPPER: No, I thought after the shooting, I did not have any prior knowledge.

CHAIRPERSON: So you thought afterwards that it was a setup in order to cover up your action?

MR KLOPPER: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Francis?

MR FRANCIS: Mr Klopper I think that is not what you are saying at page 109, paragraph 9. I think in that you refer to these people were set up?

MR KLOPPER: If you see there I say that no attempt was made to arrest those persons, that they were going to be shot. Everybody cooperated, as I have said the statements were compiled for us. It was Dougie's story, if these persons were set up, I had nothing to do about it, I did not know about that.

MR FRANCIS: Mr Klopper, what was your knowledge about the people in the minibus, the five, what information did you have about them?

MR KLOPPER: As I have stated, that they had been involved in previous robberies, that they were ANC members, that they would be armed.

MR FRANCIS: That all of them were ANC members?

MR KLOPPER: That is difficult to say, I cannot say if it was all of them or just two or three.

MR FRANCIS: No, but I think when Mr Lamey asked you, I think I wrote it down you said "I knew that they were members of the ANC and wanted to rob and I was told that they were involved in the big robbery in Witbank and other robberies."

MR KLOPPER: Yes.

MR FRANCIS: So did you just have knowledge that all five were members of the ANC and were going to rob on behalf of the ANC?

MR KLOPPER: It would have been stated, although I cannot recall as pertinently, that these were members of the ANC, would that mean then that all five of them were ANC members, that is what I am trying to say. It is difficult for me to tell you.

MR FRANCIS: But you put it as a fact that "I knew that they were members of the ANC"?

MR KLOPPER: I believed that the persons involved were members of the ANC.

MR FRANCIS: So you only believed, but didn't know whether they were?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct. As I have said, I did not handle the information from the informer.

MR FRANCIS: But the informer himself doesn't even mention that they were all members of the ANC? The informer did not mention that all of them were members of the ANC?

MR KLOPPER: I received no information from the source, I did not speak to him.

MR FRANCIS: So where did you get the information that they were members of the ANC?

MR KLOPPER: It was from discussions with our members, among one another, where we spoke about the action. For example Dougie who received the information from the informer.

MR FRANCIS: So did Dougie Holtzhausen say to you that these guys were members of the ANC?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, that is where the information would have come from, because he received the information from the informer.

MR FRANCIS: No you are saying it would have come from him, did it come from him?

MR KLOPPER: I cannot tell you pertinently where precisely it came from, but from discussions, we would stand in groups and talk about the matter, but I cannot tell you that Dougie said such and such on this or that day. I cannot recall that pertinently.

MR FRANCIS: I've got no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR FRANCIS

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Francis. Ms Patel, any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PATEL: Thank you Honourable Chairperson. There is just one aspect that I would like to clarify with you, Mr Klopper. Given the manner in which this operation was carried out and the claims that would have been filed afterwards, from your experience, would a claim have been put in for the two AK47's that were found?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, if I was the handler, I would have done so.

MS PATEL: Where would that money have gone to, generally, just from your experience, where would the money have gone to?

MR KLOPPER: I will give you another example, for example if R10 000 is approved, then approximately R5 000 of this R10 000 would go to the informer and the rest would be divided among the Commander and those who were involved, or the handler.

MS PATEL: Okay, would the value of the weapons have been included in the claim for the informer then?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, there will be one claim which would sketch the circumstances and what robbery or act of terror had been prevented and if lives had been protected and if weapons had been involved, everything would be included in that document. The handgrenades which had exploded, would also be included as items of explosives.

MS PATEL: Would the value of those AK's at that stage, have been around R6 000 a piece, or not?

MR KLOPPER: No Chairperson, when Mr Vlok came forward with the R6 000 everybody wanted to hand in an AK47 to get R6 000, which meant that they had decreased the amount, so then it was more about the merits of the matter, not only the R6 000. They abandoned that plan completely. As today they say you can claim up to R250 000, it is not always R250 000 it depends upon the merits of the case.

MS PATEL: All right, from your experience, given the merits of this case, what would the value of those AK's have been?

MR KLOPPER: I really cannot answer you about that, it is very difficult, because the person who would approve the claim is very subjective, for example in the Detective Branch, if Detectives instituted claims, they would get for example R12 000 but in the Security Branch, one could get R60 000 to R70 000 for the same thing. Therefore it was a subjective difference between the person who ultimately sign the claim.

CHAIRPERSON: This question of the R6 000, did this emerge during that time?

MR KLOPPER: No, I think it was at roundabout 1984, 1985, I cannot remember precisely when.

CHAIRPERSON: So you don't know whether this was still of application during your time?

MR KLOPPER: No, it wasn't.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Ms Patel.

MS PATEL: Okay, would you agree with Mr de Kock if he says the average claim at that time would have been between R1 000 to R2 000 per AK47?

MR KLOPPER: It is possible, yes.

MS PATEL: All right, thank you, I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS PATEL

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Patel. Has the panel got any questions? No? Mr Lamey, re-examination?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Thank you Chairperson. Mr Klopper, if we study your initial amnesty application, you have listen 19 incidents within the course of four typed pages?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: The explanations of everything that took place and the full picture, with regard to those incidents, was this ever provided in your initial amnesty application? If you look at page 108 up to 111, you have indicated numbers, 19 instances have been listed and all of these are very short paragraphs. The Nelspruit incident for example is on one typed page and comprises one of seven incidents that have been listed by you. Is it correct to say that this is a rather cramped version of what you stated in your initial amnesty application?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: Can you recall that during consultation, these incidents were discussed?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And they were analysed one by one in consultation with you, and instructions were taken from you regarding which of them were in political relation in order to qualify for the prerequisites of the Act for amnesty?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And when you included this in your amnesty application, were you convinced that the Nelspruit incident was one of these incidents which according to your conviction would qualify for amnesty?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: According to the political criteria which has been set out in the Act?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Then you were asked during cross-examination about the mentioning of ANC connections which did not appear in your Denmark statement. I don't know whether it was Mr Hatting who asked you, but were the circumstances the same with you, that you had to make your statement under great pressure and that there were a number of linguistic problems?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Was any time spent with regard to the Nelspruit incident and examining the political motives and so forth, or did you simply tell the tale of what had happened?

MR KLOPPER: No, I simply told the tale. I had the impression that they simply wanted a statement from me, so that there could be an investigation.

MR LAMEY: Very well. You have also mentioned the abuse with regard to informer fees, did this take place in all cases or were there also some cases in which this did not take place?

MR KLOPPER: There were very few cases in which this did not happen, if it was so.

MR LAMEY: Yes, but with regard to this incident, you do not know?

MR KLOPPER: No, I have no personal knowledge.

MR LAMEY: From your perspective, did you receive any reward from this incident?

MR KLOPPER: No, none whatsoever.

MR LAMEY: Do you know whether of the other members obtained such reward?

MR KLOPPER: I don't know.

MR LAMEY: Did you at any stage claim a reward for your participation?

MR KLOPPER: No.

MR LAMEY: Or did you ever request or demand such a reward?

MR KLOPPER: No.

MR LAMEY: The evidence from the other applicants including Nortje and de Kock also indicate in this case that from the 1990's onwards, you became involved in the switch over from C10's political activities to criminal investigations, is that correct?

MR KLOPPER: Yes.

MR LAMEY: I would just like to ask you, did Vlakplaas up to and including 1992 still fulfil a political role according to your opinion?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, long after the ANC was unbanned for example, we still arrested many of them at Jan Smuts Airport, those who were travelling through who did not have indemnity which rendered them free to enter the country. We still acted against the PAC and the ANC, in our minds, nothing had changed. We still drove with teams of askaris to attempt to arrest these persons and so forth.

MR LAMEY: Very well.

CHAIRPERSON: You drove around with askaris?

MR KLOPPER: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: In residential areas?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, at Jan Smuts Airport for example, we would be there with a whole bunch of askaris and we would monitor the flights coming in and monitor those persons coming in to see if we knew any of them, and if we did know any of them, we would take them in for interrogation. If they did not have indemnity, we would arrest them. The ANC was still regarded as our enemy, we were still working against them.

CHAIRPERSON: Were there ever any prosecutions in terms of those arrests?

MR KLOPPER: I have never been in court, with the exception of Mr de Kock's case, that was the first time that I ever appeared in court. We never managed prosecutions in that respect.

CHAIRPERSON: You simply took them in and your askari personnel would identify them?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, the local Branch would have their own Investigators and Detectives who would deal with the matter.

CHAIRPERSON: So it still worked like it did in the old days, you would arrest a man and if he did not give you satisfactory response to interrogation?

MR KLOPPER: Well, I don't know about that, but from our perspective, nothing had changed.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Lamey.

MR LAMEY: So with regard to that aspect, the askaris still had the same role at Vlakplaas as what they had had during the past?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And in the cases where you had to deal with crime, did you primarily assist other more experienced and qualified Detective Units with the apprehension of criminals?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Very well. My learned friend has put it to you that you were on a frolic, do you know what means? A frolic in terms of unauthorised, uninstruction, unapproved excursions?

MR FRANCIS: I think I need to object, I think let's rather ask the witness whether or not he knew what frolic means.

MR KLOPPER: He spoke Afrikaans to me, so I thought he meant happy. My Commander, he was with me, there was nothing unauthorised about it, there was an order and a Commander was present.

CHAIRPERSON: Anything further Mr Lamey?

MR LAMEY: Then with regard to the Intelligence notes, you indicated that there was a standing procedure with the submission of an Intelligence note?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Now, would one have legal actions in which the procedure was followed?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: In such a case, would the true facts be reflected?

MR KLOPPER: Yes.

MR LAMEY: But then one would also have the standing procedure which was observed for a covert action?

MR KLOPPER: Yes.

MR LAMEY: And there is also documentation which had to be submitted for a covert action?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, in order to justify the travel and accommodation expenses ...

MR LAMEY: What I really want to determine is whether, during a covert action, there was also paper work?

MR KLOPPER: No. Not with regard to the true facts.

MR LAMEY: Just listen to the question, with regard to an unlawful action, would a note to that effect also be submitted which would not reflect the true facts?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, that would be done, the true facts would not be stated.

MR LAMEY: Did you yourself ever see any Intelligence notes in this regard?

MR KLOPPER: No.

MR LAMEY: Let us suppose that a document which is contained within this Bundle is an Intelligence note connected with the incident, page 375 ...

MR FRANCIS: Mr Chairperson, I think, I don't want to interrupt but I think Mr de Kock himself said that it was an info note, and I think it refers to the incident of the 26th. I am not so sure what we will achieve by putting a hypothetical, you know, position to the witness, rather instead of putting to him what Mr de Kock said about it.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, perhaps you must do that Mr Lamey. According to Mr de Kock, this was the Intelligence note which was put in for the Nelspruit incident.

MR LAMEY: Mr Klopper, take it as granted, a point of departure, that this is the Intelligence note, look at the top. This goes to the Chief Crime Prevention and Investigation, the Chief Crime Intelligence and the Chief Crime - do you know, were these notes given to all those divisions?

MR KLOPPER: No.

CHAIRPERSON: So are you not misleading the addressed in that instance, then?

MR KLOPPER: That is my opinion, but I think that these things were only used if there were going to be enquiries or if there was an accident. Let's suppose that somebody rolls a vehicle and somebody is killed, then they use this. They would want to know, but they were indeed misled and we never liaised with them and gave them the true facts.

CHAIRPERSON: So you cannot say that you had authorisation because you misled these people?

MR KLOPPER: It is difficult to answer it. The conduct of others, or let me put it this way, you always leave space for anything else and if you wanted to buy firearms, there would always be some other excuse so that you can amend it as it would be needed, because no operation goes along to the plan.

CHAIRPERSON: I understand that, but if you provide false information to the Chief of Crime Prevention and Investigation, Head Office, Pretoria and Chief Crime Intelligence for example, and all these people, if you gave false information to them, it is not the situation where they approved the false information and you have approval for something which you have not put to them?

MR KLOPPER: It is probably so Chairperson, I don't even know whether they saw these things.

CHAIRPERSON: So it just lay there in the file?

MR KLOPPER: Yes.

MR LAMEY: But I want to ask you the following. Were there instances that you know of where illegal actions were approved higher up than Mr de Kock?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, the Sweet Sambo matter.

MR LAMEY: May I just ask you the following, if the paper work did not reflect the true facts, from your view, could the true facts have been communicated verbally and approval obtained?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, I would believe so.

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, I think I am done, let me just make sure.

CHAIRPERSON: Certainly.

MR LAMEY: That is my re-examination, thank you Chair.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Klopper, thank you very much, you are excused.

WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey, is it Mr van Zyl or Mr Holtzhausen?

MR LAMEY: I understand it is Mr Holtzhausen.

CHAIRPERSON: Just switch off in front of you. Mr Holtzhausen, would you please give us your full names for the record?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Frederik Douglas Reid Holtzhausen.

CHAIRPERSON: They are just going to adjust the microphones, so just give us a minute please. What is the difficulty?

MS PATEL: (Microphone not on)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, now if he sits right next to Mr Bam, does that help or is the position of Mr Lamey a bit better, we don't want to unseat him?

MS PATEL: (Microphone not on)

CHAIRPERSON: They would prefer if he is over here somewhere.

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Die probleem Mnr die Voorsitter, ek het 'n nekbesering gehad en ek kan nie die heeltyd so sit nie ... (no interpretation)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Ek sal moet so skuins sit ... (no interpretation)

CHAIRPERSON: Ja, om na wie te kyk? ... (no interpretation)

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: (Microphone not on)

CHAIRPERSON: As u hierso sit, dan kan u maar net die stoel so 'n bietjie skuif, ons sal 'n plan maak ... (no interpretation). Is it better here? Mr Bam, "kan ons u samewerking vra in hierdie verband? Ek wonder of u nie miskien nader aan mnr Lamey kan skuif nie?" ... (no interpretation)

MR BAM: No problem.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think he would mind.

MR BAM: I am not certain about that.

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, I will move to the other microphone.

CHAIRPERSON: Dit is nie doelbewus nie, mnr Lamey ... (no interpretation)

MR LAMEY: Excuse me?

CHAIRPERSON: We prefer you closer to us, but it is not on purpose.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Holtzhausen, you don't have to look at us. You can look right in front of you.

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Chairperson, I feel I am testifying to the Commission, so I would like to face the Commission.

MR SIBANYONI: Is it not easier if you sit on the right of Mr Bam, so you can look in one direction only.

CHAIRPERSON: Just bear with us for a minute, we are just trying to adjust the sound system and the seating. Ek dink dit is beter ... (no interpretation.

FREDERIK DOUGLAS REID HOLTZHAUSEN: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Please be seated. Mr Bam?

EXAMINATION BY MR BAM: Thank you Chairperson. Mr Holtzhausen, you have been subpoenaed to appear as a witness before this Committee?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR BAM: And you know that the requirements of the Act, more specifically Section 30, that you are obliged to answer questions with regard to the subject which is being discussed?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct Chairperson.

MR BAM: The subject matter. What do you regard as the subject matter of this questioning?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: The Nelspruit incident Chairperson.

MR BAM: With regard to the Nelspruit incident, you have made a statement on the 22nd of August 1995 which forms part of the documents before the Committee, from page 306 to 321?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct Chairperson.

MR BAM: To whom did you make the statement?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: To the Investigative Team of the Attorney General, Chairperson.

MR BAM: Did you write out the statement yourself?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No, I did not.

MR BAM: Was it done in one day?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No Chairperson, it was done over a period of four days.

MR BAM: When you gave the information?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR BAM: And was the statement drawn up afterwards?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR BAM: The statement, does it contain all the detail with regard to the Nelspruit incident?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Not completely Chairperson.

MR BAM: Is it the normal thing that we found find with the affidavit, cryptic with regard to certain aspects?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR BAM: With regard to the sequence of events as it has been set out in the statement, is it in all instances totally correct?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No Chairperson.

MR BAM: Without the statement, with regard to this incident in Nelspruit, do you have an absolute independent recollection of all the events?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No Chairperson.

MR BAM: With regard to this statement to which has been referred, the information which is embodied in there, what do you say of that, is it correct, is it incorrect?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: It is correct chiefly Chairperson.

MR BAM: Does it reflect the picture of what had happened there more or less and do you stand by that?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes, I do Chairperson.

MR BAM: You are aware that several of the representatives here, I would not want to say that they want, but there is, they want to cross-examine you on what happened there.

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I believe so Chairperson.

MR BAM: And consequently I will not go into detail of the aspects which are the issue here, I think you will have enough time to answer that. Chairperson, consequently I close my evidence-in-chief.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BAM

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. And if there are any aspects which come about during cross-examination that you wish, that you want to place a proper perspective on, then you will have an opportunity at the end.

MR BAM: Thank you Chairperson, I realise that.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hattingh?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Thank you Mr Chairperson. Mr Holtzhausen, let us start at the beginning. May I just place on record, during the criminal trial of Mr de Kock, you were also a witness?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And at that stage you were under psychiatric treatment?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Was it for post traumatic stress disorder?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: You were under medication?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And if I recall, to such an extent that we only sat for half a day or we could only sit for as long as you were able to give evidence on a particular day?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Are you still under treatment?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: You were also initially, right at the start, you were also a client of mine and Mr Hugo, is that correct?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And later you and some of the members decided to go to another Attorney?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Discussion was held with the other Attorney and the Advocate in that instance, and with their knowledge and approval, you assisted us during the trial of Mr de Kock, up to the moment when you decided to become a witness yourself in the matter?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Did you ask Mr de Kock what he would feel if you testified against him?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I am not sure if I asked him Chairperson, but I do recall that my consideration to become a witness emanated from the fact that he at some stage told me that everyone has to look out for himself, because the time has come.

MR HATTINGH: Was it to you he asked not to look after yourself, but also to look after the black members of Vlakplaas in that regard?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Did he ask you to take them with you so that they could also get indemnity for them, by testifying against him?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes Chairperson, and to such an extent that it meant that I could not get bail after my arrest.

MR HATTINGH: Very well, you liaised with Mr van Zyl, you were his handler, is that correct?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Initially I understood it was Mr Boshoff, is that correct?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Who handled him first?

MR HATTINGH: Yes?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No, it was Stolz.

MR HATTINGH: Oh, it was Mr Stolz? Did he give any information which led to the arrest of Mr Stolz?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes, it was about four or five AK47's.

MR HATTINGH: I refer to Scholtz, it is not Scholtz, it is Stolz. Were you aware that he gave information to Mr Stolz which led to an arrest?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct, during Mr Stolz' handling of the informer, he conveyed the information to Mr de Kock who gave me instructions to assist him because I had more experience in the setup of police action.

MR HATTINGH: That is to assist Stolz?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: In order to apprehend the person who was in possession of the weapons?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And was the person arrested?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes, he was.

MR HATTINGH: And was he prosecuted?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Was he found guilty?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: So the information was reliable?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Did you afterwards receive instructions from Mr de Kock in the handling of Mr van Zyl, to take over the handling of Mr van Zyl as a informer?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And from then, did you handle Mr van Zyl as a source of Vlakplaas?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Just in general Mr Holtzhausen, did he, except for the AK47's, did he give you any other information which led to police actions which were successful?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And were those actions, did those actions lead to prosecutions that were successful?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Could you ever judge as to the reliability of his information?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes Chairperson, I classified him as an A1 informer.

MR HATTINGH: Please tell us about the classification of sources.

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: An A1 source is a very reliable source whose information does not need to be gleaned in order to believe it, and A2, it comes down and then you have A3 and then down again from B, where you have to go and do some research with regard to the source before one would accept his word.

MR HATTINGH: So he had the highest classification?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Did you regularly liaise with him?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: We have heard that he, on his part, had people under him who would gather information for him?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Did you know Mr Hamilton Ndimande?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: From very early on or only later, during your relationship with Mr van Zyl?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Not immediately, but at a stage during some of the actions where Hamilton was involved, I did indeed meet him.

MR HATTINGH: And did he on his part, convey some of the information which Mr van Zyl conveyed to you?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And was it the information from him which appeared to be reliable?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: So you then received information from Mr van Zyl regarding the Carousel incident?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And you planned a police action with regard to that?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Did you know Mr de Kock in this regard, Mr Holtzhausen?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes, I did Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Did you inform him with regard to what it was about?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Did he authorise you to continue with the planning of the operation?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Indeed Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Was he involved with the action there?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Did you keep him up to date of your planning?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Was the operation eventually launched?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: If I recall correctly, at most than one instance, you were ready to execute operations where the prospective robbers did not arrive?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Chairperson, they had arrived, they had arrived and they did not hit.

MR HATTINGH: How many times did this happen?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: At least five times Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And eventually they hit?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And then you acted and they were all killed?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Was Mr de Kock involved with the execution of the operation?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Was he informed afterwards?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Did you draw up an Intelligence note with regard to the planning of the operation?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I believe so Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And did you present it to t de Kock?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Did he sign it?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: But he did not have firsthand knowledge with regard to the contents thereof?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No Chairperson, that was something that only you had firsthand knowledge of?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: So he had relied on you?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: yes.

MR HATTINGH: Now you have information with regard to the Nelspruit incident. Can you recall when you received information about this for the first time?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I cannot recall.

MR HATTINGH: Can you recall what the extent of the information was that you received?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: What was it?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That a group of trained MK members, in short terrorists, were planning to rob a bank. If I recall correctly, the bank was in Pretoria.

MR HATTINGH: Was it told to you how many persons planned to commit this robbery?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Not at that stage, if I recall correctly Chairperson. I know at some stage, we went and had a look at a bank, I don't know whether that was the target, I felt that many innocent people could be injured.

MR HATTINGH: Was this a bank in Pretoria?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct. I told Ben van Zyl that we must try and prevent it, to which he made a proposal that he knew somebody at Coin Security in Nelspruit and that he would attempt to send them in that direction.

MR HATTINGH: The them is now the prospective robbers?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes, that is correct. During the same time, I beg your pardon, sorry.

MR HATTINGH: Did Mr van Zyl then succeed in drawing their attention away from Pretoria and channelling it to Nelspruit?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Holtzhausen, was there ever talk that these people would fetch weapons or anything to that nature?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I cannot really recall that Chairperson, at some stage, during the initial run up, there was mention that they had smuggled with weapons, but it did not play a specific part with regard to the action.

MR HATTINGH: You say Mr van Zyl succeeded in directing their interest to Coin in Nelspruit?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And was something planned with regard to Coin Security in Nelspruit?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: In brief, what was, or maybe I should ask you, did you once again inform Mr de Kock about this?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And did he authorise you to continue with the planning of it?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Was he tasked with the planning at that stage?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Not at all Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Did you then plan an operation at Coin Security?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Briefly what was the plan?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I cannot recall, I recall that I took Gouws, Hanekom, Gevers as well as Eric Sefadi and Simon Radebe.

MR HATTINGH: Let us just pause there for one moment, why Gouws?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Because he was a Detective with Murder and Robbery.

MR HATTINGH: You have heard the evidence with regard to a visit to Vlakplaas by Gen Engelbrecht and the Chiefs of various Murder and Robbery Units?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Were you present at that instance?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Was it told to you that there should be close cooperation between Vlakplaas and Murder and Robbery?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: That Vlakplaas had to assist Murder and Robbery Units in the prevention of crime?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And was this flowing from that?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Cross-examination has been done on the grounds that you were chosen, or that you had chosen Gouws for a specific reason, namely that he was a former Koevoet member and that he was more suited for this type of action which you had in mind, was that the reason?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: According to my knowledge, Gouws was never with Koevoet, he was indeed my personal friend.

MR HATTINGH: Before this incident?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Was there a reason why you only took along one person from Murder and Robbery Unit?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No Chairperson, I asked members to accompany us, they did not have any members available, most of the people were busy with other investigations and the services of Gouws was rendered to me.

MR HATTINGH: Did you liaise with Capt Geldenhuys in this regard?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Briefly, what was the plan in Nelspruit?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Firstly Chairperson, we had to go and look what the place looked like and to familiarise ourselves with what was going on there.

MR HATTINGH: Did you go? Were you accompanied?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: By whom?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I am not entirely certain, but I think it was Gouws and I and a member of the Nelspruit Murder and Robbery.

MR HATTINGH: You have heard Mr Nortje's evidence that he also accompanied you and that he said that he was in the vicinity and you asked him to accompany you?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I cannot recall that he was present, but it is possible Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Did you then go and have a look at the premises of Coin Security?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And the people who were in control there, did you inform there, did you inform them with regard to what it was about?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes Chairperson, because they would have to leave the premises open for us, so that we could take up their positions in order to prevent the robbery.

MR HATTINGH: May I just ask you about Coin Security, we know that they are a security company, but were they also the firm who made up Mondi Paper's factory employees' salary packages and paid it out to them?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And somewhere I heard a figure of R80 million, in my head, which would be at a given moment in their office, or R8 million, I am not certain?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I know that it is millions Chairperson, but I cannot recall how many millions, but it was more than one million.

MR HATTINGH: But at times there are millions of rands cash in their offices?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And with their approval and permission, was the action planned at Coin Security?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And did you then choose people who would assist you with this?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Who did you choose?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: The persons who originally went with me, it was Gouws and if I recall correctly Gevers was also present, Sefadi, Radebe, I know Jannie Hanekom was also there. I think four or five members of the Murder and Robbery Unit, whom I did not know at all, they were also present.

MR HATTINGH: Did you approach their Commander in this regard?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Did he choose the people who would assist you?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Did you take up position there in various places in the building and awaited the arrival of the robbers?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: What was the intention Mr Holtzhausen, did you want to kill them, did you want to arrest them, what was the position?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: The initial intention was to arrest them Chairperson, but if they had entered armed, we foresaw the possibility that they would summarily be shot in order to protect our own lives.

MR HATTINGH: When you took up position there, was Mr van Zyl with you?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Did he arrive there during the course of the evening?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Before or after the prospective robbers arrived?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Approximately 10 to 15 minutes before he made me aware of their presence Chairperson, he came from Johannesburg with them, they in one vehicle and he in one vehicle. He then came inside.

MR HATTINGH: Alone? He was not accompanied by them?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No, they were somewhere outside.

MR HATTINGH: He entered and?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: He informed me that they were indeed there. I asked him how they were armed and he informed me that all of them had handweapons.

MR HATTINGH: Did you accept that?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes I did Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Did this influence your planning in any manner?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: But the decision as to how you would act against them, did it influence that decision with regard to the question of whether you would arrest or not?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: My standing order Chairperson, in such an action was that I would inform the members that everybody has to act on his own initiative, but if any danger existed, he had to fire first, and we would explain later.

MR HATTINGH: Did these prospective robbers arrive?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes, they were Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Did you see them yourself?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Was it reported to you?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Where did you take up position?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I was in the foyer or at reception, I cannot recall whether it was a small kitchenette or a toilet, Gouws and I were in the toilet and Gevers was in the small kitchenette.

MR HATTINGH: On the ground floor?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: I understand that you used a black member from Murder and Robbery who dressed himself as one of the Coin Security members?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct Chairperson, he manned the reception desk.

MR HATTINGH: Could you see the street from where you took up position?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No.

MR HATTINGH: We have heard that the building was a double storey, who was on the second level?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I had Jannie Hanekom at a window, he later reported to me that he did see them, and the Nelspruit Murder and Robbery Unit people were on the first floor.

MR HATTINGH: Did you know with what vehicle these persons would be arriving?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Is this the Cressida which we have heard of?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Did Hanekom report to you that he had seen that vehicle at the building?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: I understand that Springbok Patrol's premises are opposite those of Coin Security?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Chairperson, I am not certain whether it is Springbok Patrol's premises, there is an industrial area and there are several security guards at these premises, although a Springbok Patrol vehicle approached which might have frightened them off.

MR HATTINGH: So the prospected robbery never took place?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No.

MR HATTINGH: And you withdrew?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And the Carousel incident took place a day or two after this incident?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I think so Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Did you receive information again with regard to the people who would be involved with the first attempt?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: What was the information?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: van Zyl came to me and if I recall correctly, it was at this stage when he informed me that the one prospected robber, or ANC terrorist, was Mrs Winnie Mandela's driver.

MR HATTINGH: And the information with regard to this person, did it remain unchanged, they were members of the ANC, trained MK members and so forth?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: What did Mr van Zyl tell you with regard to them, what did they want to do again?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: They still wanted to commit a robbery, and that - I don't know exactly at which stage, he told me that these robberies are committed on the instructions of the ANC, for financial gain. Whether he told me that Mrs Mandela was involved, but it was during that time, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: May I refer you in this regard to your statement, Mr Holtzhausen, I am looking for the statement itself. It starts on page 306 and more in particular I want to refer you to page 309, paragraph - at the top of the page, paragraph 10 which follows on page 309

"... Ben informed me with regards to ANC member, Titetso Leballo who was an employee of Winnie Mandela, apparently a vehicle driver. According to Ben, Titetso was a trained member, a military trained member, his nickname was Tiso. I was also informed that he was handling a robbery gang for Mrs Mandela and that according to Ben that there was a dispute between Tiso and Mrs Mandela with regard to robbed money and because of this, they wanted to commit their own robbery independent of Mrs Mandela."

Did you receive that information and at what time did you receive that information?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Chairperson, I cannot recall exactly at which time, but I want to imagine that it was initially, in the initial stages of van Zyl's information, but I do speak under correction.

MR HATTINGH: Let us look at the rest of the sentence, the previous sentence

"... that according to Ben, there was a dispute between Tiso and Winnie Mandela with regard to money,"

and as I interpret that sentence, it means that in the past they had committed for Mrs Winnie Mandela and in that regard, there was a dispute with regard to money?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct Chairperson, I understood so from Ben van Zyl.

MR HATTINGH: These were people, according to that information, who were committing robberies in order to fill the coffers of the ANC?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you think that they were in regard with Mrs Winnie Mandela, led to the fact that you thought that they were robbing for the ANC?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Not necessarily Chairperson, the dispute about the money, maybe they did not receive their rightful part of the money, or because she used the largest part of the money and wanted to keep it for her and did not want to use it for the benefit of the ANC.

CHAIRPERSON: Was there any information that it was for the coffers of the ANC?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is what I understood from van Zyl, Chairperson, that they were robbing for the ANC and that specifically they had committed robberies for Mrs Winnie Mandela.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hattingh?

MR HATTINGH: Thank you Chairperson. Mrs Mandela was at that time a very active member of the ANC?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. You say you have a vague recollection that the information which indicated that they wanted to commit their own robbery, indicated that this was an earlier position?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: So you don't have any better recollection of it?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No Chairperson, I cannot recall the exact sequence.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. In any case, that is the information which you received from Mr van Zyl now, that the same members and you have added anything, you have found out more, that the one was working for Mrs Mandela and they were still interested in committing robberies?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Was another plan made?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: I don't mean a plan, with regard to your action, would there be a place to be found which they could rob?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Chairperson, I hope I understand Mr Hattingh correctly, afterwards I went to Mr de Kock.

MR HATTINGH: No, I think we are at cross purposes here. Mr van Zyl came to you and he told you that these people still wanted to commit a robbery.

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: This was after the first attempt?

MR HATTINGH: Yes.

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And did you tell him what he should do?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I told him to continue with the arrangements and keep me up to date Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: What would the arrangements be at that stage? Would a place be proposed to them or what was the position?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: It would still be the same place which they would have robbed.

MR HATTINGH: Coin Security?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Did you then report to Mr de Kock?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Did he give you an instruction with regard to this?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: He was very interested that Mrs Mandela was involved, and he gave me instructions to monitor it further and to keep him up to date.

MR HATTINGH: Just to monitor it or to plan an operation?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: The information which was obtained, was to be monitored and to use it to plan an operation.

MR HATTINGH: Can we just digress from the sequence of events. We are at this point, many times it has been mentioned now the robbery in Witbank, during which a white woman was killed. Did that incident have any relation to the information which you received from Mr van Zyl?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Did he in any way tell you that these were the same people who were involved in the Witbank robberies where a white woman was shot?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No Chairperson, not at any stage.

MR HATTINGH: You have heard Mr de Kock's evidence that such an incident had indeed taken place and some of you people were devolved to Witbank so that you and some of the askaris could assist in the investigation, were you one of the persons who were sent to Witbank?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No.

MR HATTINGH: Did you know that persons were indeed sent there?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: According to your knowledge, that robbery had no relation to the Nelspruit incident?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Not at all Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: You also did not receive such information from Mr van Zyl and did you convey the information to Mr Klopper or Mr Nortje?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No, not in that context Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Very well, you said that you received the order to monitor the situation further and to plan an operation for when the circumstances would justify that?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And did you then reach that point?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: What was planned?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Initially a plan was for the persons to go to Nelspruit, I drew up a list of names of those who would have to assist me with the action.

MR HATTINGH: Did you select these persons?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes, I did the selection.

MR HATTINGH: Upon what basis did you undertake these selections?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: On the basis of experience and the fact that I trusted them because ...

MR HATTINGH: Because?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I already knew at that point that we were going to shoot them dead.

MR HATTINGH: I will get to that. The names of those persons whom you selected were - just to save time, on page 307 of your statement, you mention the names of certain persons. Who of those persons were selected by you, I think it begins on page 306 actually. Did you select Gevers?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Klopper?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No.

MR HATTINGH: Did you - on page 313 your initial list of names appears.

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct, yes.

MR HATTINGH: It was you, Dawid Britz, Vermeulen, Gevers, Simon Radebe, Eric Sefadi, Willie Nortje, Leon Boshoff, Deon Gouws, Chris Geldenhuys and Snyman?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Were all of these experienced members?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Who especially were experienced in combat situations?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Did Mr de Kock bring any amendments to this list?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And did he include Mr Klopper?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: How much experience in combat did he have?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: None.

MR HATTINGH: And Mr Hanekom was also added? How long had he spent at Vlakplaas by that stage?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: A very brief time.

MR HATTINGH: He also had quite a lack of experience?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: He also included Blackie Swart?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: What was his rank at that stage?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: He was a Constable.

MR HATTINGH: Very well, so three inexperienced persons were substituted by Mr de Kock in the place of three experienced persons and those three experienced persons who were left out were Dawid Britz, Vermeulen and Lionel Snyman who would most probably have been the three most experienced members with the exception of Nortje from Vlakplaas?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Did Mr de Kock perhaps tell you anything indicating that he wanted these junior members who were quite inexperienced to be exposed to more experience?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I don't recall anything as such.

MR HATTINGH: Very well, in either event these were the members who were selected?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: What did you tell those members who had been selected, what were they going to be involved in?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I simply informed them that a possible robbery would be committed and that their assistance was required in Nelspruit and that at a certain time, they would meet in Nelspruit.

MR HATTINGH: Did you tell them at that stage about the prospective robbers, did you provide any further information?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No.

MR HATTINGH: You did not indicate what their political affiliations were and so forth?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I may have said that it was a group of terrorists who were planning to rob a place, but I cannot recall my precise choice of words. I simply told them that they would have to see to it that they were there at that place.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. What was the arrangement with regard to vehicles, did these prospective robbers require a vehicle or did they have their own vehicles?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Chairperson, after the first failed or aborted attempt at the Coin premises, a second request was directed indicating that these persons wanted an additional vehicle and that they also wanted AK47 guns.

MR HATTINGH: Did he say why they required an additional vehicle?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Chairperson, it was generally known that robbers made use of a vehicle, they would commit a robbery, drive some distance and dump the vehicle or set it alight or simply just leave it there and escape further on foot.

MR HATTINGH: That would be the so-called getaway car?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And was this the reason which was provided?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Did you tell him anything about his request for a vehicle?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I said that I would discuss the matter and get back to him regarding it.

MR HATTINGH: Did you then discuss the matter with Mr de Kock?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: What was the discussion in this regard?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Well, I informed him that the robbers requested a second vehicle as well as the arms.

MR HATTINGH: Did they request a specific vehicle?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No.

MR HATTINGH: Were you at that stage aware that there was a minibus belonging to Mr Araju or the hotel where he worked, that this vehicle was available?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No, I was not informed about that.

MR HATTINGH: Very well, how long before the incident took place, did you direct this request to Mr de Kock?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: It wasn't very long, I don't know whether it was two or three days, but it was shortly before the incident.

MR HATTINGH: What did he say with regard to your request for a vehicle?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: He told me that he would see what he could do and that he thought that he might just be able to find something.

MR HATTINGH: The request for the weapons, what did you tell Mr van Zyl about that?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I also told him that I would discuss this, although I was not very favourably inclined towards it, but if it were to facilitate the situation, I would provide the weapons.

MR HATTINGH: Did you discuss this with Mr de Kock?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: What was his viewpoint in this regard?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I cannot recall precisely, but I would imagine that he said that he would think about it and that he would get back to me about it later.

MR HATTINGH: Did Mr de Kock then get back to you with regard to the vehicle?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: What was his response?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That there was a vehicle which was available.

MR HATTINGH: Was this the minibus which was involved in the incident?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Did he tell you where the vehicle was?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No Chairperson. However, before our departure, I found the vehicle in Willie Nortje's garage.

MR HATTINGH: This vehicle, Mr Holtzhausen, did you know that this was a vehicle which was used by the Off-Sales division of the hotel for the delivery of alcohol or liquor?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: This is something that I only heard during his trial, I had no idea from where this minibus came.

MR HATTINGH: Did Mr Araju testify to that effect?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: It was also not the usual type of kombi, it was a panel van in the sense that it did not have any seating at the back, and that the windows at the back, had been replaced by metal plates?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Can you recall whether Mr de Kock returned to you with regard to the AK's?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I do not have a clear recollection of that, I know that Nortje at a certain point, because Nortje also sat in from time to time with the planning where van Zyl and I were busy, and Nortje and I also had quite a few discussions with each other, and he told me at a certain point that I shouldn't worry about the AK's.

MR HATTINGH: Did he tell you not to worry about the AK's?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: What did he mean by that?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Well, I simply accepted that they would be available and indeed these AK's were available later.

MR HATTINGH: At that stage, did you still intend to provide AK's to these persons?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: It would have been an absolutely final resort.

MR HATTINGH: What would you have proposed instead of that if they could not get the weapons that they requested, wouldn't it have created some sense of suspicion in their minds?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: It may have, but by nature of the situation, because they were going to obtain the vehicle in Nelspruit and the same excuse would be used for them to obtain the weapons elsewhere.

MR HATTINGH: I beg your pardon, you refer to the same excuse, with the first incident, was there also an excuse about the weapons?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No, what I mean is the same excuse as for the vehicle being in Nelspruit, could also be used by saying that the weapons would be in Nelspruit as well.

MR HATTINGH: In other words you did not want to provide the weapons to them here in Pretoria or Johannesburg?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No, because then I wouldn't have any control over the situation.

MR HATTINGH: Was it ever your real intention to provide them with weapons?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No.

MR HATTINGH: Why not?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Because firstly as with the first incident, they could simply have decided not to commit the robbery and then they would disappear with the weapons, and that would be a situation beyond my control. Secondly, these weapons could be used against us.

MR HATTINGH: During the incident?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes, during the incident.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. What was the planning for this operation?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Would you tell me at which stage?

MR HATTINGH: At the stage when you decided that the time was right, you approached Mr de Kock for the minibus and for weapons and so forth, and now you were planning the operation. You have already mentioned that at times Mr Nortje was present, but I would just like to know in general, what the planning for the operation entailed?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Initially the proposal and the request from van Zyl was that these persons be shot dead.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Hattingh, perhaps it would assist us somewhat, if we approached this planning in three stages, because a part of that was managed here in Pretoria. Could we first discuss the Pretoria planning phase and then the other two phases.

MR HATTINGH: Certainly Chairperson, it was my intention for him to discuss at first what was planned here in Pretoria, please go ahead Mr Holtzhausen.

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Here in Pretoria I informed Mr de Kock of Ben van Zyl's request for these persons to be killed, along with the fact that these persons were Winnie Mandela's own robbers and so forth.

MR HATTINGH: Please continue.

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That they were her own gang of robbers, that is how I understood it, that they were handled by her.

MR HATTINGH: Are you certain that you told Mr de Kock that these robbers had to be killed upon the request of Mr van Zyl?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I think that I mentioned to him at a certain point that van Zyl had also directed such a request because he was very scared specifically of Tiso. But that was not the ultimate consideration to kill them. We had a brief discussion about that.

MR HATTINGH: Tell us what this discussion involved, Mr Holtzhausen.

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I cannot recall the details, but we regarded this as an opportunity to get to Mrs Winnie Mandela specifically and to bring herself and the ANC into disfavour possibly.

MR HATTINGH: What was Mr de Kock's reaction?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: He did not give me an immediate answer. I was under the impression that he would have to discuss this on a higher level first and he told me that he would return to me later.

MR HATTINGH: I have a problem with that, Mr Holtzhausen and I will tell you what my problem is. Just now you mentioned that at an earlier stage it had already been decided that these persons would be shot dead. Was this ever decided at an earlier stage?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Do you mean by myself?

MR HATTINGH: Well, by whoever?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I, myself, also thought that these persons had to be shot dead.

MR HATTINGH: Was the operation planned upon the supposition that these persons would be shot dead?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: So therefore it wasn't really necessary to direct a request for them to be shot dead for the sake of Mr van Zyl, if in either event it was the plan to shoot them dead?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: That is why I am asking you are you sure that you would have mentioned something like that to them?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I am not entirely certain.

MR HATTINGH: Did you hear his evidence and I am speaking under correction, but if I recall correctly, he does not recall anything like this?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: It is possible.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. We are still dealing with the planning here in Pretoria. The team was selected, the names were selected and what else was planned here in Pretoria?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Not much further.

MR HATTINGH: You requested a vehicle, later you were told that the vehicle was indeed available?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Was any feedback given to you regarding the request for the firearms?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Well, Nortje told me not to worry about it, and I accepted it as such.

MR HATTINGH: So you did not make any further enquiries from Mr de Kock regarding the firearms?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No.

MR HATTINGH: And the information from him that the vehicle was available, what did he tell you? Did he tell you what sort of vehicle it was and where it was situated?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: He did not tell me what sort of vehicle it was, I think that at a certain point, Nortje told me that the vehicle was at his house and that we could fetch it from there. That was the first time that I saw that it was a minibus.

MR HATTINGH: So you didn't know before the time that it would be a minibus?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No.

MR HATTINGH: What do you say about the evidence that in Pretoria it had already been planned that the vehicle would be set alight?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: What do you say about Mr Nortje's evidence that Mr de Kock wanted the vehicle to burn so that his friend Manny Araju, could institute an insurance claim for the loss of the vehicle?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Chairperson, as I have stated, I never knew who the owner of the vehicle was before the time at least. If my memory serves me well, I requested the petrol at a certain point.

MR HATTINGH: Can you recall when?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That was in Nelspruit during the planning there.

MR HATTINGH: Very well, so in Pretoria there was no plan to set the vehicle alight?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No, because the final planning had not already been completed.

MR HATTINGH: Was the plan in Pretoria already that AK's would be planted within the vehicle after the incident?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes, however it was planned by me and Mr Nortje.

MR HATTINGH: Was Mr de Kock aware of this?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I am not certain, I cannot recall that I ever informed him about this.

MR HATTINGH: And with regard to the handgrenades, what was your position surrounding this?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: If I recall correctly, I also requested Nortje for the handgrenades.

MR HATTINGH: Why did you also want handgrenades Mr Holtzhausen?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: To place inside the minibus and to bring specific damage if it be necessary.

MR HATTINGH: Damage to the bus?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Did you wish to damage the minibus in order to damage the minibus or did you want to create some or other impression through that?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: It was to create the impression that these persons perhaps had wanted to throw a handgrenade or two and also to shoot them into pieces, which would circumvent the forensic's team.

MR HATTINGH: So you requested the handgrenades?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Who did you request them from?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Nortje.

MR HATTINGH: And was Mr de Kock aware of this?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I don't think so.

MR HATTINGH: Was he informed in general surrounding the planning?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Was he aware of your intention to lure these persons into an ambush?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: At a stage he was informed about it.

MR HATTINGH: Was that still here in Pretoria?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I am not completely sure about that.

MR HATTINGH: I think he gave evidence to that effect, but I am subject to correction.

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I am not entirely certain about that.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. The planning which was completed here in Pretoria, was then concluded?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Were the men instructed to depart for Nelspruit and was a date fixed for the action?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: The Intelligence note which we can find on page 375, who compiled this? No, I beg your pardon it is 275, sorry, not 375.

ADV DE JAGER: It is 375.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you Chairperson. Yes, it is on page 375, do you have it Mr Holtzhausen?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Did you compile this?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes, I compiled this.

MR HATTINGH: Let us just deal with that. There is a heading which reads or at least it is addressed to Crime Prevention and Investigation in Pretoria and then the Head of Crime Intelligence Service, Head Office Pretoria and the Head Crime Investigation Services, Head Office Pretoria and it is also directed at a General, who is this General?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That will be Engelbrecht.

MR HATTINGH: Then Smuggling of Weapons of Terror, Komatipoort to Mamelodi. Is that an exact version of what you were occupied with here?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No.

MR HATTINGH: Why did you place that heading on the Intelligence note?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Because at this stage, we were not entirely certain where the incident would take place. That is the reason why I put it as such.

MR HATTINGH: Did you write the Intelligence note?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And I see that it is dated the 24th of March, I think?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Did you know at that stage that this would take place in Nelspruit at the Coin Security premises?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No.

MR HATTINGH: When did you establish this?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: The objective or the ultimate objective was Coin Security, but at that stage I had already decided that we had to get to them somewhere along the road and Komatipoort to Mamelodi left various options open to me.

MR HATTINGH: And what about smuggling of weapons of terror, is that what you had to deal with here?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No, not entirely.

MR HATTINGH: Then why did you use that expression?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: It would also give me a broader option because we had the AK's and something was happening and if they were shot dead alongside the road somewhere else, it could also be explained.

MR HATTINGH: You did not have any information that these persons were indeed involved in the smuggling of arms?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No, with the exception that van Zyl at an early stage mentioned that they were also dealing in arms.

MR HATTINGH: That they were dealing in arms? That they were offering arms for sale?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: That appears somewhere in one of the Intelligence notes, I think it would be Mr Ndimande's Intelligence note from van Zyl?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I am not very sure about it, but I would assume. I think he was the source for that.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. The rest of the Intelligence note, what do you say about the content thereof? Just study it for a moment.

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: In certain aspects it is false, but then once again I have left options open to myself.

MR HATTINGH: Let's take it paragraph by paragraph. Is there anything false in the first paragraph?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: What is it that is false and why is it false?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: It is false because they did not go to fetch a consignment of AK47 guns to bring here.

MR HATTINGH: Why is it false, why did you report it as such?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: As I have stated, to give myself the option for further planning.

MR HATTINGH: Is that all that you can say about the first paragraph?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: The second?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: The dates are more or less correct, because that was according to plan.

MR HATTINGH: Is it correct that weapons would be fetched and that they were intended for use during a planned armed robbery of a bank in Pretoria?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No, that is not correct.

MR HATTINGH: Why did you express it as such?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: It gave us a reason to take along the Murder and Robbery members which we ultimately did. And to create the further facade that this was actually a Murder and Robbery action.

MR HATTINGH: Is that all that you can say about that paragraph?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And then

"... the source will report to his handler as soon as he has obtained further information. Members of Pretoria Murder and Robbery Unit will accompany members of Unit C10 as there are indications that the suspects are wanted by them due to other armed robberies."

Is that an exact version?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No.

MR HATTINGH: What is not exact about that?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: At that stage, we did not have any specific bank robberies as such to link these persons to.

MR HATTINGH: So they were not wanted for participation in specific bank robberies?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No.

MR HATTINGH: But the information indicated that they had been involved in robberies?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Did you have any further information about the robberies in which they had previously been involved?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No.

MR HATTINGH: Why did you report it as such?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Once again, it was offered as an explanation for the presence of Murder and Robbery Unit, Pretoria. If we had not said that they were linked to certain robberies, I could just as well have obtained the Murder and Robbery Unit from Nelspruit to assist us.

MR HATTINGH: Why didn't you want to do that?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: I didn't trust them.

MR HATTINGH: Why couldn't Vlakplaas operate alone in this case?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Because the facade had to be created that this was a Murder and Robbery action, that we simply assisted.

MR HATTINGH: Why did Vlakplaas become involved at all?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: The fact that terrorists were involved here.

MR HATTINGH: Very well, you have heard the evidence - or at least, I don't know if you do know, were you present during the Zero-Zero grenade hearings?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No.

MR HATTINGH: Did you hear that I put it that when Gen Van der Merwe said that unlawful actions were planned, nothing should be reported about that on paper?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: At this stage, you had already planned to trap these persons in a ambush?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Would you have included any kind of Intelligence note?

MR HOLTZHAUSEN: No, not at all.

MR HATTINGH: Chairperson, would this perhaps be an appropriate time to take the adjournment?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we have come to the end of the day. We will adjourn and reconvene tomorrow morning, here, at half past nine.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS