Amnesty Hearings

CHAIRPERSON: Please proceed?

MR BOOYENS: Mr Chairman and Members of the Commission, part of the evidence of the witness, Mr van Heerden, that was given in the trial of the applicant Mr de Kock, I presume the Committee has had an opportunity to look at it.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR BOOYENS: Of significance in here, perhaps I should add, I also contacted my learned friend appearing for Mr van Heerden, Mr Cornelius, and I informed him of the existence of the document yesterday. Of significance here is that nowhere in the pages, is any bigger role referred to for the applicant Bellingan, than to the fact that he was in the canteen when the assault started, which you would see Mr Chairman, at page 7087, at approximately line 8

"... some of the members who were still in the canteen when we began, was Snyders, Bellingan and Lugg."

And then also of significance on the same page -

"... at a stage I became tired and told Piet that I needed to go to the toilet to have some water, upon which I saw that there was no one else in the canteen any more."

Also of significance at page 7086, line 18 -

"...do you know where this piece of inner-tube came from? No, I don't know where it came from, I simply saw that they were busy with it."

Mr Chairman, Mr van Heerden is available I see and perhaps, depending on what the Committee's attitude is, perhaps I should put these passages to him in the light of what we're now seeing.

CHAIRPERSON: I think they are obviously relevant to the, both the general question and as to your client's interests.

MR BOOYENS: I agree.

CHAIRPERSON: There are one or two other points that arise, too.

MR BOOYENS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: I think, do you apply for the recall of Mr van Heerden?

MR BOOYENS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR CORNELIUS: I have made him available, and he is available to testify Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Before we proceed, the gentleman behind the

gentleman with the camera, do we have to do anything to microphones or can Mr van Heerden give evidence from where he is or should he ...

ANDRIES JOHANNES VAN HEERDEN: (s.u.o.)

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BOOYENS: Mr van Heerden, did you have an opportunity of going through this excerpt of your evidence in the trial of Mr de Kock?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct Chairperson.

MR BOOYENS: Now, I want to give you an opportunity to have a re-think of what you testified earlier on. I know it is always difficult for one to say that I might have made a mistake, especially if you believe that what you are saying, is the truth, but we do know that there has been a fair amount of drinking going on that day, do you agree with that?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct Chairperson.

MR BOOYENS: The situation in that canteen that evening when this incident occurred, must have been to put it mildly, chaotic, is that correct?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct Chairperson.

MR BOOYENS: And in a situation like that, coupled with the fact that one has partaken of some liquor, although you believe what you tell us, is the truth, there is always the possibility that you may make a mistake, not so?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct Chairperson.

MR BOOYENS: And dealing more specifically with two aspects, you testified earlier on that Bellingan went to fetch the piece of tubing, is that correct?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct Chairperson.

MR BOOYENS: You have now read and heard what I said what you stated in Mr de Kock's trial, is that correct?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: And do you confirm that what the record reflects, is indeed what you stated there?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct Chairperson.

MR BOOYENS: So do you concede that you could very easily have made a mistake in light of what you see now when you said that Mr Bellingan fetched the tube?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct Chairperson, as a result of the chaos and what my recollection told me about what took place that evening.

MR BOOYENS: Yes, I am not suggesting that you are lying deliberately Mr van Heerden, I am suggesting that one can make a mistake. Similarly ...

CHAIRPERSON: Do I understand that you are now saying Mr Bellingan did not fetch the tubing?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No Chairperson, I say that I may have been mistaken. I gave evidence according to my recollection, but I may also have been mistaken. I am not saying that Mr Bellingan did not fetch it or that he did fetch it, my recollection says that he fetched it, but I may have been mistaken.

CHAIRPERSON: When did you give evidence at the trial? 1994, was it?

MR VAN HEERDEN: 1995.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, because I see a 1994 date on the top left hand corner of the page.

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is the case number.

CHAIRPERSON: Case number? Well, 1995, four years ago?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes.

MR BOOYENS: And on that occasion you didn't know where the tube came from, is that correct?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct Chairperson.

MR BOOYENS: Mr van Heerden and similarly, do you concede that the involvement of people and exactly what they did pertaining the assault perpetrated upon the deceased, even there might be some mistakes in your evidence which you would genuinely believe to be true, but which might be mistakes?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Would you repeat the question please?

MR BOOYENS: Let me try and put it simpler. You have already conceded that you can be mistaken about the fetching of the tube, now let's deal with the actual assault perpetrated on the accused. If there is room for a mistake about who fetched the tube, there is also room for a mistake on your part as to what exactly happened when the deceased was assaulted?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No, about that I am certain of my facts.

MR BOOYENS: Are you still adamant that Mr Bellingan asked the questions?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes sir.

MR BOOYENS: Mr van Heerden, even in Mr de Kock's trial, you didn't mention that, in this excerpt, why not?

MR VAN HEERDEN: It appears on page 7147 of the record.

MR BOOYENS: 7147? Have you got another page there.

MR CORNELIUS: We have part of the record here which he had personally, page 7147. It is not before the Committee, I can table it to you.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you going to hand in or read that passage that he says is there?

MR CORNELIUS: He will read the passage Mr Chair.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Mr Hattingh asked me

"... was it only Snyders who was busy with it, Balletjies stood with him and did what? He just stood there, nobody held him down. Mr Piet Snyders did this alone."

MR BOOYENS: So that is substantially the same that you said here?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Could you read that passage again?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Chairperson it begins when Mr Hattingh asked me

"... was it only Snyders who was busy with it."

If I could just go back somewhat further -

"... you described to us how it took place, that he sat on top of the man's chest? That is correct? And he held the inner-tube over his face? That is correct. Was it only Snyders who was busy with that? Balletjies stood with him. What did he do? He simply stood there, speaking. Nobody held him back then? No, Piet Snyders did this alone."

MR BOOYENS: I see, so on that, that is more or less the version that you had given earlier on in your evidence, is that correct?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: My Lord, I apologise, I must confess, I haven't come across that specific passage, otherwise I would have placed it before the Committee. Thank you Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BOOYENS

MR HATTINGH: No questions, thank you Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HATTINGH

MR ROSSOUW: No questions, Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR ROSSOUW

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BOTHA: Thank you Mr Chairman, it is Botha on behalf of Snyders. Mr van Heerden, I would just like to determine once again from you for the sake of certainty, why did you continue to suffocate the deceased, what was the reason?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Are you referring to after Mr Snyders stopped?

MR BOTHA: Yes.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Because he still hadn't spoken and we wanted him to speak and to give us the information that we sought.

MR BOTHA: Was it your decision?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, that is correct, I gave evidence that it was my own idea, no one gave me the order to do it.

MR BOTHA: I refer you to the record, page 7086, the third last line

"... Piet Snyders was busy doing this."

Piet Snyders was a Lieutenant, you were subordinate to him at that stage, is that correct?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes.

MR BOTHA: So if he gave you an order, it would have been an order?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct.

MR BOTHA: You say

"... yes, he then stood up and said that we should tube him further so that he could tell us where the weapon was."

MR VAN HEERDEN: Chairperson, if I could explain this sentence to you, Piet Snyders never gave me an order to do it, he stood up and that was after I started tubing, and he said "tube him so that he talks", he never gave me an order. Mr Snyders never gave me an order to tube him.

MR BOTHA: Did he say that?

MR VAN HEERDEN: He said "tube him", but he did not give me an indirect order to tube him, because I had already started doing that.

MR BOTHA: Very well, then just one more aspect. The vehicle in which the body was taken away, do you know what vehicle it was?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No. At a stage I knew something about a Jetta or Piet Snyders said something about taking him in a Jetta, but I did not see the car when the man was loaded into the car.

MR BOTHA: I put it to you that you have made a reasonable number of mistakes in your delivery of evidence, and that is what I will later argue, that indeed you testified according to what you believed to be correct, but that your memory fails you and this is the result of your consumption of liquor. What do you say about that?

MR VAN HEERDEN: I deny that, Chairperson.

MR BOTHA: Thank you Chairperson, nothing further.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BOTHA

MR JANSEN: Thank you Mr Chair, Jansen, no questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR JANSEN

ADV STEENKAMP: No questions, thank you Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV STEENKAMP

ADV SANDI: Just one or two Mr Chairman, did you know how the deceased had come back to Vlakplaas?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No Chairperson, when we arrived there, he had already arrived on the farm.

ADV SANDI: You say you had to go to the toilet to wash your hands, what were they dirty from?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Chairperson, while we were tubing him and on the place of the tube where you grip the tube, there was perspiration and dirt, so I went to the toilet to wash my hands, so to speak.

ADV SANDI: You did not go to the toilet to wash blood from your hands?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No Chairperson, it more sweat and grime which would come onto our hands while we were tubing the man.

ADV SANDI: Did you see any blood on this man whilst you were busy suffocating him?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Chairperson, I stated so in my affidavit, that there was a light flow of blood and when I refer to light blood, I would say that it was blood that came from a bruise, there was no open wound or profuse flow of blood.

CHAIRPERSON: You said in fact I think, that the blood was as a result of the blows struck by Mr de Kock?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct Chairperson, where the cue had struck him, it would cause a small wound with a light flow of blood.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Heerden, was there any ill-feeling between yourself and Bellingan? Was there anything like that, I am not sure if I am remembering, but I thought there was something in the nature of personal vendetta?

MR BOOYENS: The relevant passage may be at page 703, line 7, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: 7 what?

MR BOOYENS: 703. 7083 sorry, 7083.

CHAIRPERSON: I was thinking of the evidence of Mr Bellingan himself.

MR BOOYENS: He said that there were problems between you?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Were there personal problems between you?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No Chairperson, there was never any personal problem between me and him.

CHAIRPERSON: Why should he think there was?

MR VAN HEERDEN: I don't know Your Honour.

CHAIRPERSON: I have not, as you all know, read the whole of your evidence, but I noticed that at page 7084 you say, dealing with what happened when the deceased, Bruce, came into the canteen

"... the accused then took a snooker cue because there was a pool table in the canteen, he took a pool cue and asked Bruce where his weapon was."

You go on to describe how he then struck him. At page 7086, the passage you have just referred us to, you say that Snyders when he stood up, said -

"... he then stood up and said that we should tube him further so that he would tell us where the weapon was."

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct Chairperson. As I have said, when Mr Snyders got up, I myself went to tube the person. Mr Snyders simply said "tube him", he never gave me an indirect order to tube the person.

CHAIRPERSON: But in the passages put before us, the only questioning referred to, is questioning as to where the weapon was.

MR VAN HEERDEN: At that stage, we wanted to obtain the weapon.

CHAIRPERSON: It appears that everybody left the canteen while you were tubing him?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct Chairperson, after I returned and began tubing him, most of the members had also moved out, although some of the members had already been outside at that stage.

CHAIRPERSON: And you also said in your evidence that you saw the deceased for the first time when he was questioned after his arrest at Soweto, is that correct?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct, when he began working on the farm.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. And you said you used to talk to him over the weekends and he told you that he came from Kuruman?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct Your Worship.

CHAIRPERSON: And you said if he had problems, he should go to your brother, who is in the Security Police at Kuruman?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct Chairperson, many times some of the people went home and then picked up problems on the way home, or if they were to run into other people, and I told him if he ever had any problems, he should contact my brother who would contact us.

CHAIRPERSON: You then said that he had been on the farm for three months before this incident?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is my recollection.

CHAIRPERSON: Is there any reference in your evidence to his having disappeared from the farm?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And perhaps you can help, I don't know, matters that arose yesterday, that pay-day, can you remember what day it was?

INTERPRETER: Speaker's microphone?

CHAIRPERSON: It's gone off.

MR VAN HEERDEN: ... specifically when they received their salaries. If I recall correctly, I think it was at the end of the month, because he was not yet a policeman at that stage.

CHAIRPERSON: No, the end of the month, now the end of this month, the last end of the month, as I gained from your evidence, would have been Friday, the 30th of June?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is possible. I am not certain what the end of the month was.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, you say in the statement that it was on Monday, the 3rd of July that you returned to Vlakplaas? Working back from that, one gets Friday, the 30th of June?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That may be correct Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Sorry, re-examination, I always forget.

MR CORNELIUS: I have no re-examination, thank you Mr Chair.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CORNELIUS

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: Does that conclude, finally, all the evidence that we are now going to hear? I will not commit myself to that, until I have heard all your arguments, you might raise all sorts of interesting things. Mr Hattingh, it looks as if you are going to have to start as usual.

MR HATTINGH IN ARGUMENT: Thank you Mr Chairman. May I start off by referring you to page 1 of the Bundle before you Mr Chairman, and to paragraph 9(a)(i). There it states that the crime for which Mr de Kock is applying for amnesty is the crime of culpable homicide, that is a mistake, Mr Chairman, it should actually read accessory to culpable manslaughter. Mr Chairman and members of the Committee, Mr de Kock was charged with a crime of murder, the Court accepted that the State had failed to prove an intend to murder or even to establish that there was culpa on his part, which in turn led to the death of Mr Ntehelang.

Perhaps I should just refer you to the Court's judgement in this regard, Mr Chairman, the documents that we handed up to you yesterday, at page 12694. There at roundabout line 13, I think Mr Chairman, that new paragraph there, his Lordship Mr Justice van der Merwe said the following -

"... with the evidence in its entirety only van Heerden or Botha could have been directly responsible for Ntehelang's death. With regard to which crime was committed during the killing of Mr Ntehelang, their guilt must be examined."

The last paragraph, or the second last paragraph on that same page -

"... we are of the opinion that the only reasonable inference to be drawn from these facts is not that van Heerden, Botha, Snyders or accused subjectively realised that Ntehelang may die and were regardless of the death. We are however, of the opinion that van Heerden, Botha and Snyders must have realised that their action could have Ntehelang's death as a consequence. Their actions do not fulfil to these conditions and we are of the opinion that Mr Ntehelang's death was caused by their negligent conduct after which it came to the attention of the accused."

And then at the foot of page 12695, the very last sentence there Mr Chairman -

"... the accused knew that Ntehelang had died as a result of the attack on him and in particular as a result of the suffocation. The evidence has unequivocally indicated that culpable manslaughter was committed, a fact of which the accused was aware. It is that offence which he attempted to cover up, thus he is guilty of accessory to manslaughter."

That is what he was convicted of Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Where is that?

MR HATTINGH: At page, the last part that I was reading from is 12696, Mr Chairman, the top of the page. He was convicted of being an accessory to a crime of culpable homicide, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: He may have been lucky in the light of van Heerden's evidence, Mr Hattingh?

MR HATTINGH: Well, Mr Chairman, Mr van Heerden's - we have only seen a little bit of Mr van Heerden's evidence, as my learned friend, Mr Booyens told you yesterday, he was extensively cross-examined and I ...

CHAIRPERSON: It doesn't affect the argument, but hitting someone over the head with the blunt end of a billiard cue, has a potential for causing certain brain injury, but there was no evidence of any ...

MR HATTINGH: The evidence was not that he hit him with the blunt end, he hit him with the thin end.

CHAIRPERSON: But after it broke, he turned round ...

MR HATTINGH: Yes, there was some evidence to that effect, yes Mr Chairman. But it is clear that he was still alive at the time when the other members of Vlakplaas started interrogating him. But be that as it may, with respect, Mr Chairman, that was the finding and if I may just refer you back to page 12206 of the judgement which is the second page of the pages that we handed to you yesterday, just briefly on the question, the definition of the crime of being an accessory, right at the top of 12206

"... the concept accessory is not defined in the section. In general it can be said that an accessory is involved in an offence, but not a participant in the offence, because he does not cause the commission of the murder, nor does he promote the commission. He only arrives at the scene after the offence has been performed and assists the accomplice in evading the law, therefore the accessory acts with a particular purpose, namely to defeat the ends of justice."

And then reference is made to Mloi's case, Mr Chairman -

"... knowing a crime to have been committed, harbours or conceals the criminal or assist him in any way in order that he may escape from justice."

Ex parte Min of Justice in Ray v Massero -

"... in order to assist him to evade justice ..."

and so on Mr Chairman. The submission that we make therefore Mr Chairman, is that Mr de Kock was convicted of being an accessory to the crime of culpable homicide and that is the crime for which he is applying for amnesty.

ADV SANDI: What was the sentence, Mr Hattingh?

MR HATTINGH: The sentence was 12 years imprisonment, Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman ...

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hattingh, is it your argument and I think it has in fact been our practice, but - that it is not for us to re-consider the verdict when someone is asking for amnesty in respect of a matter in which he has been convicted. I ask you this because the conviction apparently is based on an act committed to assist somebody to evade justice, but a great deal of evidence has been led before us that the whole purpose of this was to safeguard Vlakplaas which was essential for the security of the country and matters of that nature. The suggestion before us has certainly not that it was to assist people to evade justice, it was to try to put it on a much higher level?

MR HATTINGH: That is - we concede that that was the true intention to, as testified by Mr de Kock. What we are saying Mr Chairman, is that Mr de Kock is only seeking amnesty for his participation in the events which commenced after he discovered that Mr Ntehelang was dead. He is not seeking amnesty for his participation in the assault.

CHAIRPERSON: No, but I am saying if we decide, if we were to and I am not saying for a moment we have, that he was not trying to assist anyone to evade justice, we should still have regard to the conviction, it will be a little artificial to say we think, we believe the man, we think this and that, but we think he was wrongly convicted, so we won't grant him amnesty, he can continue sitting there for 12 years. That will be a very artificial approach, wouldn't it?

MR HATTINGH: No, no, that would indeed be so, with respect Mr Chairman. No, you should still have regard to the fact that he was only convicted of being an accessory in the sense that he tried to assist these members of Vlakplaas and to escape the consequences of their assault upon Mr Ntehelang, but Mr Chairman, that was probably one of the motives that he had in mind. I concede that he had another motive in mind at the time, and that was to protect Vlakplaas and to protect the Security Police in general. One must bear in mind Mr Chairman, his evidence to the effect that he was convinced that had the matter been reported to his superiors, they would have instructed him to conceal the whole incident and ...

CHAIRPERSON: There was no need to conceal it from his superiors, was there Mr Hattingh?

MR HATTINGH: No, there was not, Mr Chairman, and I think...

CHAIRPERSON: There is no reason for - if it was committed in this way, why he didn't tell his superiors.

MR HATTINGH: With respect not, Mr Chairman, he was the Commanding Officer, he exercised his discretion and decided that it would be very detrimental to the South African Police in general, even the government of the day, if this incident were to...

CHAIRPERSON: You have just agreed Mr Hattingh, that if he told his superiors, they would say cover up.

MR HATTINGH: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: So it would not be detrimental to anyone? He would cover up, it would not be detrimental, if he had told Brig Schoon and Schoon said "well, bad luck, keep it covered."

MR HATTINGH: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Which you say is what would have happened?

MR HATTINGH: Yes, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: So why didn't he tell his superiors? He didn't conceal it from his superior, his immediate superior, to protect the government or the reputation of the Police Force, why did he conceal it from his superiors?

MR HATTINGH: Probably because he didn't think it was necessary, Mr Chairman, because he assumed that they would have agreed with his decision.

CHAIRPERSON: Or because he didn't want to tell his superiors what had happened that night?

MR HATTINGH: Well Mr Chairman, that is a possible inference that one can draw from the facts.

CHAIRPERSON: Isn't that the only probable inference?

MR HATTINGH: With respect, not, Mr Chairman, and that is not, there is no evidence to that effect. You are seeking to make that finding on the basis of drawing inferences only. The only positive evidence before you is that ...

CHAIRPERSON: He did not report something that had happened, he did not report a matter, he goes halfway across the Transvaal to some farmer's farm to bury a body which might be unearthed there later and cause all sorts of havoc.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, if I may by way of an example, I don't know if you are going to hear that matter, but there is another incident that still has to be heard by the Amnesty Committee, the matter of Sambo, where the Security Police at a place called Skomaans interrogated a person, also tubed him and he also died probably as a result of suffocation. Mr de Kock was then phoned by the member of the - the Commander of that Security Branch and requested to assist them. He sent some of his members to Middelburg where they collected the body from the Commanding Officer at Skomaans and they took it to Verdrag where they blew it up. Mr Chairman, once again there, he didn't report the matter to his superiors, but it did come to their attention and the evidence will show there that some Generals and very high ranking officials flew down to Skomaans and assisted in the cover up of the incident. There was no reason for him to fear that steps might be taken against him if he were to report the matter, because in that particular instance, no steps were taken against the members of the police there.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it a matter like this, where they had spent the whole day pub-crawling across the Transvaal, getting very drunk, buying bottles of beer to continue drinking in their vehicles, arriving at Vlakplaas and opening the canteen and drinking more and in that state, embarking on an assault that killed a man?

MR HATTINGH: No, there was no such evidence Mr Chairman, but one must bear in mind that the fact that they had been drinking, shouldn't necessarily be held against them. They had just finished an operation, they didn't expect to become involved in an incident like this. They were to all intends and purposes, they were off duty at the time when this incident occurred.

CHAIRPERSON: They shouldn't have been involved. As Mr Baker said, he walked out of the room.

MR HATTINGH: I fully agree, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: And that is why Mr de Kock did not want to tell his seniors, because he did get involved, he started hitting the man over the head with a billiard cue when he was in a drunken state. He saw the rest of his men rushing towards this man and he walked out of the room.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, I have no doubt in my own mind, bearing in mind the evidence of Mr de Kock and having listened to some of his other applications, even if those facts were to come to the attention of his superiors, no steps would have been taken against them, not ever in the span of his career which was something like nine years as Commander of Vlakplaas, were any disciplinary steps of whatsoever nature taken against him, although in some instances his action might have called for disciplinary action against him. I submit Mr Chairman, that this was a simple case where he realised the implications of what had happened, he realised what would happen if the matter were to be disclosed to the public in general, he exercised his discretion, he decided that the body had to be buried and the whole incident had to be concealed, he fully believed that he Commanding Officers would have agreed with that decision of his and that is why he didn't report it to them Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, our submission is that for purposes of deciding whether Mr de Kock qualifies for amnesty in respect of this incident, the only relevant facts before you, we submit that the only relevant facts before you as far as Mr de Kock's application is concerned, are those facts which relate to the cover up, the decision that was taken after the death of Mr Ntehelang.

CHAIRPERSON: No Mr Hattingh, what we have to decide is whether he has told us the complete truth.

MR HATTINGH: Well, Mr Chairman, the complete truth in relation to the relevant facts.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, as to why he started assaulting and questioning the deceased. The version put to us as I understand it, was that he had disappeared for a month, he was now questioning him about where he had been and who he had been with and that it was that that caused the incident. We have just heard Mr van Heerden's evidence, we have heard the other evidence that the man said he had lost his gun and he was being questioned about that. A very different state of affairs, Mr Hattingh, perhaps you would like to deal with that.

MR HATTINGH: I will deal with that Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, I think the evidence was given before you and maybe some of your colleagues when Mr de Kock explained how his application for amnesty was drawn up. He explained the circumstances, he told you that his lawyer, Mr Hugo, only had access to him from about nine till three in the mornings, that he was frequently consulted by members of the Attorney-General's staff and so on and so forth and the result was that his application was only ready to be handed in at the very last moment, Mr Chairman, some ten minutes before the cut-off time. He also explained Mr Chairman, that he was told that he could elaborate on the facts contained in his written application during the course of oral evidence, and he has been permitted to do so and he has in several instances, Mr Chairman, elaborated on facts contained in that document, and stated facts which were not contained in that document. Mr Chairman, let us deal with the question as to why he does not mention the fact that there was some suspicion that Mr Ntehelang was in the process of changing his allegiance. It isn't there, it should have been there, but it is, we submit that it can be attributed to an oversight. The reason why we say that Mr Chairman ...

CHAIRPERSON: I am not putting that to you Mr Hattingh, what I am putting is the direct evidence of other people that conflicts. Mr de Kock gave his explanation yesterday about his difficulties in his application and this and that, we have heard that version, what I am putting to you now is there is a lot of other evidence that it was in fact only in connection with the missing firearm which is what Mr de Kock said in his application and if we accept that evidence, we will then reject Mr de Kock's evidence.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, there may be some evidence which indicates that that was not the reason, but there is ample evidence to corroborate him in this regard and may I refer you to that evidence, Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, may I just, before I refer you to the relevant passages, make this point - the other applicants in this matter were represented by different legal representatives, their applications were drawn up by different legal representatives. In his application Mr Chairman, on page 64 of the Bundle, Mr van Heerden said the following, paragraph 10.8

"... the objectives with the torture of Moses Ntehelang was to obtain information from him regarding his whereabouts. This information was essential because it was known on Vlakplaas that before his death, Moses Ntehelang had allegedly obtained more information from Winnie Mandela and when he disappeared, the suspicion arose that he may have returned to Winnie Mandela and her revolutionary movement."

That information is contained in his application, which is dated, that affidavit is dated the 26th of June and I don't see the year.

CHAIRPERSON: Why wasn't that put to him when I asked him whether the deceased had disappeared, whether he knew of any disappearance?

MR HATTINGH: Well Mr Chairman, he might now have heard about the disappearance, but he had the information to the effect that Mr Ntehelang was in the process or that there was a suspicion that he might be in the process ...

CHAIRPERSON: That is not what he told us this morning. His evidence as I understood it this morning was perfectly clear, that he hadn't heard of anything, it was just the firearm, missing firearm.

MR HATTINGH: No with respect Mr Chairman, then I misheard his evidence. I heard him to say that he was only at that stage, only questioned about the missing firearm.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and he had seen him two or three weeks before?

MR HATTINGH: Yes? Yes, Mr Chairman, but Mr Chairman, the question of ...

CHAIRPERSON: It has happened again and again, we have evidence led, counsel appearing for applicants don't bother to put their clients' versions, don't bother to put other versions and then we are left to say well, this or that.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, in his evidence, and I am not talking about his evidence this morning, his evidence before this Committee the day before yesterday I think, he clearly gave that evidence. He clearly stated that he heard the information to the effect that Mr Ntehelang was busy changing his allegiance. There can be no doubt that that was the tenure of his evidence, and therefore it wasn't necessary for me to put anything to him, he had already given that evidence without it being necessary for me to cross-examine him about that.

CHAIRPERSON: I will check on that.

MR HATTINGH: You will recall Mr Chairman, that I asked him whether he had been involved in the questioning of people because of his ability to speak several black languages and whether he had picked up the information to that effect and it is my, to the best of my recollection, his evidence was very clear, yes, that he did pick up such information. That accords with respect Mr Chairman, with the facts stated in his application. CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, I was wrong there, he said that at the beginning of his evidence.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, Mr Chairman, and therefore ...

CHAIRPERSON: And what he said today, contradicted what he said earlier.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, Mr Chairman, that may be, but there was that evidence and that accords with the facts contained in his written application. If we come to Mr Ras' evidence, Mr Chairman, and bear in mind that Mr Julian Knight and Mr Jansen are appearing for him, different legal representatives, if I may refer you to his evidence on page 174 - under (iv), the middle of the second, the long paragraph, he says

"... I asked de Kock what had happened."

Remember, he arrives at the farm and he is sober, Mr Chairman -

"... he said that the askari had reported that his firearm had been stolen, but that he had already been suspected of re-establish liaison with the ANC."

That is his evidence Mr Chairman, and that is what de Kock told him at the time, so therefore Mr de Kock, there is some evidence that that was the state of mind of Mr de Kock at the time, although he, himself, does not say so in his application. Then Mr Chairman, if I may refer you to the application of Snyders, at page 265. Page 265 Mr Chairman, the second paragraph from the top -

"... at approximately 19H00 one of the askaris whose name I forget, arrived at the canteen. I saw that he was quite inebriated. I took him out of the canteen upon which he told me that he had been robbed of his firearm, the askari had for some time been suspected of being a double-agent and providing information to the ANC regarding Vlakplaas. I searched him and found a few thousand rands, I cannot recall precisely how much on his person."

Once again Mr Chairman, Mr Snyders was represented by Mr Botha here.

CHAIRPERSON: He goes on to say that he called Mr de Kock and he told him of this, doesn't he?

MR HATTINGH: Yes, Mr Chairman, yes, indeed, he does.

ADV SANDI: Yes, but I thought Mr de Kock did not know anything about the money that was found in his possession?

MR HATTINGH: That was Mr de Kock's evidence, that he does not know anything about it. But the point that we are dealing with Mr Chairman ...

CHAIRPERSON: You've got direct evidence here that this man said that he called him and told him?

MR HATTINGH: Yes, but Mr Chairman, the point that I am busy addressing you on is the question as to whether there was knowledge amongst the members of Vlakplaas that the man was busy changing his allegiance.

ADV SANDI: Sorry, just to take a closer examination of what I think was the evidence of Mr Ras at page 174

"... you said that the askari had reported that his firearm had been stolen, but that he had already been suspected of re-establishing liaison with the ANC."

But that doesn't appear to me to be an expression of a personal knowledge, he is simply reporting a conversation between him and Mr de Kock?

MR HATTINGH: I am not saying that he had personal knowledge, Ras had personal knowledge, I am saying that that is confirmation of the fact that Mr de Kock had knowledge. This is what Mr de Kock is saying to him.

ADV SANDI: Yes, but if there was such a suspicion about the deceased for some time, surely one would expect Mr Ras to know about that as well?

MR HATTINGH: Once again Mr Chairman, one mustn't only look at his application and his evidence, I am subject to correction, but as far as I recall his evidence was to that effect that he was aware of the fact that this man was in the process or that there was a suspicion that he was changing his allegiance, that was his evidence before this Committee.

MR JANSEN: If I could maybe assist, I know I am out of turn Mr Chairman, but I don't recollect Ras saying that he was aware of it prior, what Ras did say was that he did not work with Ntehelang at all, he just knew who he was. He did not work in his groups or anything, so he had very little contact with him.

MR HATTINGH: I am indebted to my learned friend, and then I stand corrected on that aspect, Mr Chairman, but that statement of his clearly indicates that Mr de Kock knew about it, because he says that is what Mr de Kock told him. Mr Chairman, I am just checking on Mr Flores, I have his name down here, but I do not have a page reference, so I cannot tell you off-hand whether he mentions this in his application.

MR CORNELIUS: Page 163.

MR HATTINGH: Page 163, it is actually 164 Mr Chairman, the paragraph that I wish to refer to, the second last paragraph

"... outside the canteen I heard Maj de Kock telling Lt Piet Snyders if I recall correctly, that Ntehelang had been suspected for quite a while that he was giving Vlakplaas information back to the ANC and he wouldn't be surprised if he did not give his pistol away."

This confirms the conversation in broad outlines that Ras overheard, and it is further confirmation of the fact that Mr de Kock did entertain such a suspicion at the time, Mr Chairman. The point that I would like to make then Mr Chairman, is not only in the applications but some of the other applicants in their evidence, testified that there was such a suspicion. I think if I remember correctly Mr Bellingan, although he does not state so in his application, also gave evidence, viva voce evidence to that effect and if I may lastly refer you to the evidence of Mr Baker, page 251, he doesn't deal with this aspect directly, but there is some passage in his affidavit which is relevant in this regard in our submission, Mr Chairman.

ADV SANDI: What is the page, sorry?

MR HATTINGH: Page 251, the middle paragraph where he says

"... in the period that Vlakplaas was operational, approximately 20 askaris deserted or deflected back to the ANC or PAC. The possibility of double-agents as spies in the Unit, was a very real one with information from time to time confirming the existence of double-agents. The very real threat posed by such agents was that the lives of askaris, their handlers and their families were endangered, as well as the whole Vlakplaas operation and its security network, including the identity of informers."

The fact of an askari deserting back of deflecting back to the ANC or PAC was not a rare event, Mr Chairman, it happened on several occasions, and if I then may refer you to the section in the supplementary affidavit of Mr de Kock, dealing with Vlakplaas, at page 42 he starts dealing with the askaris at Vlakplaas and then at page 44, 2.3.5 he says -

"... as a result of the uncertainty, I created an internal counter-insurgency Unit within Vlakplaas. All telephones which were used by the askaris, were tapped."

There he says in his supplementary affidavit, he confirms the evidence which he gave yesterday, Mr Chairman, and then at 2.3.6 he says -

"... from these tapping devices, we also determined that some of the askaris were not favourably inclined towards the Security Police and continued only to further their own interest in co-operating with us."

Paragraph 2.3.8 he deals with the problem that they had with the issuing of firearms to the askaris and the last sentence in that paragraph reads -

"... nonetheless firearms were issued to them in order to give them the capacity to defend themselves against attacks and also for them to use during operations of Vlakplaas when necessary. The issuing of firearms to them created great problems for me."

Paragraph 2.3.9 he says -

"... this created the uncertainty of whether their explanation for the loss of weapons, could be accepted."

There already he mentions in fact that they couldn't always accept

the explanations which were profit for the loss of firearms.

"... the possibility that such firearms could have been handed over to terrorists in order to establish approach, could never be determined."

Page 47, 2.3.11 -

"... apart from this, there were also some of them who according to information received, had either considered or threatened rejoining the political organisations who they had betrayed."

So although he does not specifically deal with Mr Ntehelang Mr Chairman, he does refer to the problems that they had, the suspicions that they had, the problems with askaris defecting back to the political organisations that they belonged to before they became askaris, problems with their firearms, suspicions that they had and so on and so forth. All these facts Mr Chairman, the evidence of the other applicants, the contents of their written applications, strongly corroborates the evidence of Mr de Kock to the effect that that is indeed the suspicion that they had at the time when they decided to question Mr Ntehelang.

CHAIRPERSON: And that he had been missing for how long?

MR HATTINGH: May I deal with that after the short adjournment, Mr Chairman.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

MR HATTINGH IN ARGUMENT: (cont)

Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, on the question as to how long Mr Ntehelang was away from the farm, there is the evidence of Mr de Kock and then there is the evidence of Mr Snyders, Mr Snyders who was his group leader who said that he was, my Attorney's note is that he had been away for a long time. Mr Chairman, then there is the evidence of Mr Mbane himself, I am not going to rely too much on him, because I am going to criticise his evidence in other respect, but for what it is worth Mr Chairman, he himself says that Mr Ntehelang did disappear for something like three weeks, that is the period that he mentioned. Mr Chairman, he thought that he was deployed elsewhere, but he also, the effect of his evidence was that he wouldn't have known whether that was so or not. But the people who would know and that is stated quite explicitly, were his Commanders. They would have known if he was deployed elsewhere or whether he was AWOL, and I submit Mr Chairman, that that is strong corroboration for Mr de Kock's version in this regard, that there is Snyders, there is Mr Mbane and then there is Mr de Kock's evidence itself. The question of him receiving payment at the end of the month, Mr Chairman, that is an inference that with respect, you seem to seek to draw from the evidence about the Exhibit, I think it was 120X.

CHAIRPERSON: Exhibit 121X.

MR HATTINGH: And K if I remember correctly Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, bear in mind that that exhibit was tendered into evidence to corroborate or to prove that Mr Ntehelang was not at Vlakplaas at the end of July and at the end of August to receive his salary. There was no necessity for the State in the criminal case, to place evidence before the Court as to whether Mr Ntehelang received a salary at the end of June, because the incident had occurred on the 3rd of July, the relevant date therefore would have been the end of July and that was to establish the fact that he had in fact disappeared. We unfortunately do not have the exhibit, we do not know what is shows for the end of June, but in this regard, you must also bear in mind Mr Chairman, that the Vlakplaas group who went down to the Eastern Transvaal, probably deployed before that Friday or at the very latest, on that Friday. What evidence is there to show that Mr Ntehelang did not come back on the Friday and received his salary in the ordinary course of events without Mr de Kock being aware of the fact that he had in fact returned and received his salary?

CHAIRPERSON: One would have thought that if an askari had been missing for a month, and it was feared he had returned to the ANC and was giving information about Vlakplaas to them and that people were in danger, that people would have known of the fact, that those paying out the salaries, would have known when this man suddenly reappears?

MR HATTINGH: Well Mr Chairman, you have no evidence before you as to who was responsible for paying out the salaries. The evidence in this regard was led of a female member of staff, Jessie van Vuuren, she was the person apparently in charge of that register. Would she necessarily have known about the suspicions against Mr Ntehelang, would she have known that he had been away?

CHAIRPERSON: Wouldn't the others have known, wouldn't you ask? If somebody had done this, if this is a great danger as we are told, surely inquiries would be made as to where he might be found so that you could arrest him, bring him back as quickly as possible?

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, I will deal with that point, may I deal with the question as to the payment of the salary? Ms van Vuuren probably and you have heard, you have frequently heard about the need to know principle, she probably would not have been aware of the fact that Mr Ntehelang was away without leave and the others, Mr Chairman, de Kock, Baker, all the other people who would have known, weren't there. If he returned on the Friday, they weren't there to tell her "look here, don't pay this man, we first want to know where he was" and so on and so forth. The mere fact that that exhibit does not mention the fact that he did not receive payment at the end of July, is not conclusive evidence from which the only inference can be drawn that Mr Ntehelang was there on the Friday, but even if he was, he could have returned on the Friday. Even on Mr Mbane's evidence, he returned a day before the day of the incident. He might be mistaken in that regard, Mr Chairman. We submit therefore Mr Chairman, that what other evidence is there before you which proves that Mr Mbane was not away, sorry that Mr Ntehelang was not away? There is no evidence, no conclusive and direct evidence to the effect that he was indeed there all the time. Mr van Heerden says he saw him there, but can he really after all these years, having regard to the mistakes that he made about the incident itself, can he really say that for three weeks before this weekend, he was there all the time, I know that? We submit Mr Chairman, that there is no evidence before you from which you can draw the inference or on which you can find, bring out a finding, that Mr Ntehelang did not disappear for some time. The only evidence is to the contrary, that in fact, he did disappear.

ADV SANDI: Sorry Mr Hattingh, the only problem about the gentleman that testified yesterday, Mr Mbane, is that he does not only claim that he was there, but he goes further and give a lot of detail about what he thinks happened there on that day.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, I am not sure what inference you wish to draw from that fact. We are now dealing with the question as to whether Mr Ntehelang had disappeared from the farm, and even Mr Mbane conceded that that was so, and Mr Mbane went further, he said that even if Mr Ntehelang had plans to defect back to the ANC, they would not necessarily have known about it, because they did not tell each other about such plans.

ADV SANDI: They did not trust each other?

MR HATTINGH: That is correct Mr Chairman. And there are other ways in which the fact that he might have had plans to defect, could have come to light. You heard examples when Mr - I can't remember who was giving that evidence, to the effect, I think it was Mr Bellingan, that people were seen at a bus stop, a so-called terrorist was seen at a bus stop where a particular askari was on duty, he did not report that fact, and that is one way of picking up that the person is no longer loyal to the organisation, to Vlakplaas as such, Mr Chairman. The overall submission that we make, Mr Chairman is that all the evidence that you have before you, strongly indicate that Mr Ntehelang was in fact suspected of having had plans to defect back to the ANC, that he was away for some time from the farm and that that was the reason for his interrogation at the time that the incident occurred.

CHAIRPERSON: If it was a reason, a valid reason, wanting to get information, would there be an interrogation at seven o'clock at night of a man who was drunk, by a lot of other drunks?

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, obviously that was not the time that they should have questioned him, but their judgement was probably impaired by the fact, the very fact that they had been drinking too much, but that doesn't take away the fact that they had this political object, even in their drunken state, they could have had that objective to try and find out whether this man was in fact busy defecting and whether in fact he disposed of his firearm into the ANC.

CHAIRPERSON: But the man who actually tired him and continued till his death, told us he was asking about the firearm.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, I got the clear impression from his evidence that at that stage, at that stage of the interrogation, he was asking him about the firearm. Mr Chairman, if the information was and as I stated before, there seems to be ample corroboration for that fact, that he was, that there was in fact a suspicion that he was busy, that he was in the process of defecting, then it is only logical that they would have asked him about that as well, not only about the firearm. They were asking him about the firearm to ascertain whether he had not disposed of that firearm to the ANC.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you Mr Chairman. We submit therefore Mr Chairman, that Mr de Kock in fact made a full disclosure as to the political objective that they had in mind at the time of the interrogation. Mr de Kock probably in his state of intoxication realised that that was not the best time to do so and he hit him and then came to his senses and left the canteen and went to his office and only later on discovered that the man was dead. He certainly had no intention of the man being killed. He said so explicitly on being recalled yesterday, and therefore Mr Chairman, I submit that he has made a full disclosure of all the relevant facts relating to the assault and the interrogation of the late Mr Ntehelang. That bring us then to the question of the concealment of his death. There we submit Mr Chairman, the political objective is different from the political objective which they had in mind with the assault. The political objective for the assault was to ascertain whether this man had in fact disposed of his firearm to the ANC and whether in fact he was busy or in the process of defecting to the ANC, that was the political objective that they had at the time. That, for purposes of this hearing, is not relevant as far as Mr de Kock is concerned, because he is not seeking amnesty in respect of the assault, as such Mr Chairman. The political objective with the concealment of the crime thereafter, is totally different from that, that they had in mind with the assault. The political objective was clearly that he realised that they couldn't allow this matter, or allow the law to take its course otherwise Vlakplaas would have come to the attention of the public at large, more particularly the ANC and Mr Chairman, I don't think that I have to address you at any length as to the repercussions.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't understand this submission, we have just been told that 20 askaris had defected, I presume the ANC had learnt about Vlakplaas from one of the 20?

MR HATTINGH: Do we know that Mr Chairman, is there evidence to that effect? Surely if the ANC had in fact become aware of the existence of Vlakplaas, one can think of no reason why they wouldn't have taken steps to bring this to the attention of the whole world.

CHAIRPERSON: That their askaris had been turned and were being used by the South African Forces to identify terrorists coming into the country?

MR HATTINGH: Yes, that inter alia yes, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't see that that would have caused any great shock to the world, they would have thought that it was rather clever of them and they would have wondered about the loyalties of the askaris, that they could be turned like this.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, that might be so Mr Chairman, here we are dealing with an askari who had now been killed. It is not the mere fact that askaris were being used at Vlakplaas, but now an askari had been killed in order, in the process of trying to find out whether he was busy deflecting back to the ANC. That would have caused a lot of harm to the South African Police, to the government of the day and so on. That is why such incidents were invariably covered up, like the Sambo incident that I have told you Mr Chairman, the evidence there will be that Generals flew down in a helicopter to assist with the covering up, because they realised and there Vlakplaas wasn't even involved in the killing. The fact that a person had been interrogated and killed by members of the South African Police, as such, would have caused sufficient harm to the South African Police and this is something that the ANC could have made a lot of political capital of, Mr Chairman. We submit that that was the political objective that Mr de Kock had in mind. We submit that as far as the concealment of the incident and the death of Mr Ntehelang is concerned, Mr de Kock made a full disclosure and he received no benefit from the incident. Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I think that applies equally to all the applicants.

MR HATTINGH: Yes. We submit therefore Mr Chairman, that he has made a full disclosure and that he has complied with all the provisions of the Act and that he qualifies in our respectful submission, for amnesty for the crime of being an accessory to the crime of culpable homicide. May we add also Mr Chairman, that we are also seeking amnesty for defeating the ends of justice and then I think probably also for fraud, Mr Chairman in as much as they misled the South African Police to believe that Mr Ntehelang was still alive and entitled to receive a salary for some six months after they knew he was dead, and that money was paid out to his mother. That clearly amounts to fraud, we therefore seek amnesty in respect of those crimes, Mr Chairman.

ADV SANDI: Sorry Mr Hattingh, just one question on the very last thing about fraud, pertaining to the salary having been paid to the family of the deceased. Has that been corroborated?

MR HATTINGH: Well, if it hasn't Mr Chairman, then we need not ask for amnesty in respect thereof. The evidence of Mr de Kock was that that is what happened, and there is no evidence to the contrary, no evidence to contradict that.

CHAIRPERSON: There is the evidence that his salary was not paid for the months July and August and that money was redeposited, so that did not go to his mother.

MR HATTINGH: Well Mr Chairman, not at that stage, but it may have gone to her at a later stage. The evidence was that his salary was paid out of the Secret Fund for something like six months thereafter. I don't want to make too much of this Mr Chairman, I doubt whether he will ever be prosecuted in respect of fraud, but we submit that if you accept that he did in fact arrange for the salary of Mr Ntehelang to be paid out to the mother ...

CHAIRPERSON: By way of a pension?

MR HATTINGH: By way of a pension, yes, Mr Chairman, that that would have amounted to fraud. I am subject to correction, I am going to say this tongue-in-cheek, Mr Chairman, but I seem to have a vague recollection that the sister who gave evidence at the criminal trial, confirmed that money had in fact been paid out to them, but be that as it may, I cannot take that aspect any further, Mr Chairman.

MR BOOYENS IN ARGUMENT: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, in so far as the applicants Baker and Tait is concerned, there has been no gain-say evidence, hardly any attack on their evidence and I would submit that the evidence they had given, should be the basis upon which their applications should be judged. As far as Bellingan is concerned, there is a contradiction between him and van Heerden on a number of aspects and it seems to me that it would be necessary just to address what is really the - it started off with much more conflicts. The Commission would recall that Mr van Heerden's initial evidence was, viva voce and in his application, that Bellingan took part in the torture of the deceased, that was ultimately watered down to the fact that he only stood there and asked questions. As far as the rest of Mr van Heerden's evidence is concerned about the involvement of Mr Bellingan, if I may just enumerate them, he contradicts himself as to whether or not Bellingan fetched the tube; he contradicts himself as to whether or not Bellingan tortured the man; he contradicts himself as to what the nature of the questions were because as my learned friend, Mr Hattingh, has pointed out, initially it was much broader than that about this possible defection when he gave his evidence initially, this morning it is only questioning about the pistol. I would submit with respect that if one looks, if one have to supply the civil test of a balance of probabilities, if you compare the evidence of Bellingan on the one hand and the evidence of Mr van Heerden on the other hand, that it would be wrong to rely on van Heerden's evidence to make a finding that Bellingan did not make a full disclosure and that he played a bigger role there, than he actually, he on his version, played. It is my respectful submission that in this regard, Bellingan will have to receive the benefit of, if there is any doubt, of such doubt.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Booyens, it seems to us and I think it applies perhaps to some of the others, that in the light of the evidence that we have had as to the protracted drinking by most of the people there, there are one or two exceptions and we will have regard to them, but as regards all the others, it is obvious that everybody had consumed a lot of alcohol that day, it seems in those circumstances, it would be extremely dangerous where there is a one on one contradiction, to accept one against the other.

MR BOOYENS: I am indebted to the Committee, Mr Chairman, I won't then bore the Committee any further as far as this is concerned. Mr Chairman, as far as these three applicants are concerned, it is completely immaterial whether or not the deceased was a good askari or an askari in the process of turning to the opposition side, or whether there was suspicions about him. As far as they are concerned, it does not matter. The only question that remains is their reason for not acting as in terms of the Police Act and Your Lordship, Mr Chairman, you are no doubt aware of the full-bench decision in State v Barnes & Another in the NPD, it is reported in the SACR 1990 (2) 485, what was basically said in that case by the Natal full-bench was that a policeman has got a duty if he becomes aware of an offence being committed, he has a duty to report it, etc, etc. In this instance however, Mr Chairman, accepting that that is indeed the correct legal position, the question that this Committee will have to ask itself, is we heard the evidence and I am going to approach it slightly different, it is no so much as to whether the ANC would find out about Vlakplaas, but if in the first place they succeeded in getting passed the stop-gaps put up by the Security establishment of the Police Force and for example go to Central police station and report it to a uniform policeman who would decide that he is going to investigate this and if this gets covered up, he is going to make a noise about it, then Mr Chairman, what would the effect of that have been in real terms? The effect of that would have been and that they say and they answered in a question to Your Lordship, when Your Lordship telescoped the whole Vlakplaas situation to them, that it was not just for this case, it was the attitude of Vlakplaas, you don't talk about Vlakplaas because if you talk about Vlakplaas and Die Vrye Weekblad, the press or it comes to a court or something like that, gets hold of that, then obviously in this case, questions will be asked, who was this man, where did he come from, what is this Vlakplaas? That invariably would have resulted, the politicians would have had to at least pretend they did not know and you would have had a Commission of Inquiry and what they perceived to be an effective part of the opposition to the struggle of the liberation movements, would have been either abandoned or would have been compromised to such an extent that its value would not have been very much. It is at the background of that Mr Chairman, that I submit that as far as these three applicants are concerned and on the limited issue of being accessories after the fact, that they most certainly had a political motive in keeping quiet. Now, the other question is Mr Chairman, what you would notice that all three of them ask for amnesty for any offence, what should it be? In my submission, irrespective of the finding of another Court I think it is conceivable that it could be argued that this was not culpable homicide, but could be a murder. The Attorney-General may be able to argue that this could have been a murder on the basis of dolus eventualis and it may be a case of ex abundanti cautela, but I would submit that the applicants should be granted amnesty as being accessories after the fact, to the murder which would immediately follow, or any lesser offence of the deceased in this matter.

CHAIRPERSON: Any lesser offence arising from ...

MR BOOYENS: Or any lesser offence arising from that. Mr Chairman, those are the submissions. Mr Baker of course, has got a slightly different position. The Committee would recall that he actually confirmed that he opened that file for the missing person and so on, so he actually, he wasn't only a negative performance, but was certainly, he did something positive, but I would submit that the same would apply to him, and I do not think if one say a lesser offence, I don't think it is necessary to add an attempt to defeat the ends of justice there, but of course it would immediately follow from that because that would be an accessory after the fact and you would, if they tried to charge him as an accessory after the fact and of defeating the ends of justice, that would clearly be an improper splitting of the charges. I would submit that if the Court grants amnesty in the form suggested by me, that should cover that as well, unless the Committee holds another view.

CHAIRPERSON: Can I raise something with you and hear your views, and if anybody wants to add theirs later. We have heard in many applications about the activities of Vlakplaas and of what I can perhaps call the Vlakplaas hit-squads that were used all over the country.

MR BOOYENS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: We have heard that there was never any problem arising, they would go and commit, be asked to come down to the Eastern Cape, commit what were blatantly illegal acts there and return home and that they were also of the view that what they were doing, was in the interest of the country and was approved of, by the higher authorities because they were regularly visited at Vlakplaas by Generals, by Ministers who would frequently congratulate them on an operation. Can one have regard to that and say that as a result of the way in which Vlakplaas was conducted, that all operatives at Vlakplaas formed the opinion, were under the opinion, that they were entitled to disregard the law if it was in the interest of achieving ...

MR BOOYENS: Subject to certain qualifications.

CHAIRPERSON: The operation, of carrying out their operation successfully?

MR BOOYENS: I think it is an inescapable conclusion, Mr Chairman, with respect, and I think ...

CHAIRPERSON: You know, you have raised the question of reporting this incident, but there were other much worse incidents that they were present at, but because of the whole cultural background if one can call it that, of Vlakplaas, the question of telling tales, reporting it to someone outside the immediate circle, never arose?

MR BOOYENS: No, it would stifle, Mr Chairman, but that would not solve my problem with respect, that you are still a policeman and you've got a duty to report. One can very easily understand why they did not.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, they were breaking the law, they must still ask amnesty, but the question is that one doesn't really have to have a great detailed explanation from them?

MR BOOYENS: No, you don't.

CHAIRPERSON: They were a Vlakplaas operative and you did not speak?

MR BOOYENS: I think one can simply summarise it with one word, and that is that there was a certain mindset at Vlakplaas, an attitude of at the end of the day, the end would justify the means.

CHAIRPERSON: And we keep to ourselves?

MR BOOYENS: And we keep it amongst ourselves. Mr Chairman, unless there is something specific on which the Committee would like to hear me, those are my submissions, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, no.

MR ROSSOUW IN ARGUMENT: Thank you Mr Chairman,

Rossouw on behalf of applicants Willemse and Bosch. Mr Chairman, may I at this last point that you have raised with Mr Booyens, as far as that is concerned, may I just add that an element also to be considered in this scenario that you sketch as far as the perception of the members and let's call them footsoldiers of Vlakplaas, were concerned, that it should also be linked to the orders that they received. It was now put Mr Chairman, that they had basically a blatant disregard for the law, but it does not extend, it does not go that far Mr Chairman, that they would necessarily have acted without instructions. Mr Chairman, as far as especially Mr Willemse is concerned in this matter, his participation in this matter in disposing of the body, it is uncontested that he received an order to participate and to accompany the people who went to dispose of the body. CHAIRPERSON: Well, here again, can I raise a question, perhaps being technical, my impression has been that there were few orders given at Vlakplaas in the ordinary sense of the word order. It was just a request and it was taken for granted you would do anything you were asked to do?

MR ROSSOUW: Yes Mr Chairman, that bring us to the semantics of some suggestions ...

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, "come along, we want some help doing this", you would go along and help?

MR ROSSOUW: One should perhaps say they considered it to be an order, such a request.

CHAIRPERSON: Or they were considered, they were bound to assist where they could?

MR ROSSOUW: I submit that that was indeed the case Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, these two applicants have complied with the requirements of Section 20(1)(a) as far as their applications are concerned, the formal requirements; I submit that they have made a full disclosure of all relevant facts within their knowledge. Mr Chairman, they have testified openly and there is no evidence that contradicts them. Mr Chairman, the one aspect that seems to have been contentious was the allegation by Mr Flores that he sent Mr Bosch to collect he blanket and the nylon cord, which Mr Chairman, Mr Bosch stated that he cannot remember that. He also cannot dispute that, Mr Chairman. I submit that as far as the relevant facts are concerned, they have made a full disclosure, there has been no contradictions in their own testimony and Mr Chairman, they didn't try and dissociate themselves or place themselves away from the incident here, they have told this Committee what they had seen and what they have heard. Mr Chairman, I fully agree what has been canvassed by Mr Booyens as far as the political objective is concerned, in disposing of this body Mr Chairman, and on those grounds, I submit that the same applies to these two applicants and that they will therefore also apply for amnesty in respect of being accessories after the fact.

CHAIRPERSON: To murder you say?

MR ROSSOUW: To murder, Mr Chairman. You will note from the applications that especially the application of Mr Bosch, it is indicated either murder of culpable homicide because he cannot be certain what was perpetrated as far as Mr van Heerden is concerned Mr Chairman, and it might be that the Attorney-General might by way of dolus eventualis prove a case for murder.

CHAIRPERSON: I must say at the moment, gentlemen, I haven't of late read the amnesty applications, I take it that they are all sufficiently wide to cover what you are asking for. The question doesn't arise in this, my recollection is that they are all extremely wide and a lot of detail is given. It doesn't arise, but applicants are now asking for amnesty for something that was not included in their applications, I don't think that is. If any of you have that problem, can you draw our attention to it.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairman, these two applicants, both apply for any other offence, so it has that safety net. Mr Chairman, especially as far as Mr Willemse is concerned, amnesty should also be granted or I would request the Committee to grant amnesty to him in respect of desecration of a body. He has testified that they attempted to set the body alight and he was present there, Mr Chairman and also in respect of both Willemse and Bosch, defeating the ends of justice. Mr Chairman, I need not go into the matter further of why they weren't in a position to report on the incidents that took place, I fully subscribe to the view expressed by the Chairperson, during the evidence of I think Mr Baker, it was as far as the members of Vlakplaas were concerned. Unless there is anything else that the Committee wishes me to address them on? Mr Chairman, I submit that these applicants have satisfied the Committee and the Committee can be satisfied that they have complied with all the requirements of the Act and I request that amnesty be granted to them, as I have indicated for those offences.

MR BOTHA IN ARGUMENT: Thank you Mr Chairperson, Botha on behalf of the applicant Snyders. Yesterday I handed copies of my Heads of argument to the Committee as well as to my colleagues. May I request the Committee to receive the Heads of argument being my submissions in regard to the application of Snyders. Unless the Committee wishes me to elaborate on anything further than that, that will be my submissions.

CHAIRPERSON: We are extremely obliged to you, Mr Botha, thank you.

MR BOTHA: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, have you set out, I have glanced at them, precisely what you want amnesty for?

MR BOTHA: Mr Chairperson, the application in the documents, is for murder. I think amnesty on the charge of murder will be sufficient, accessory after the fact.

CHAIRPERSON: And any ...

MR BOTHA: And any, perhaps crime flowing from ...

CHAIRPERSON: He was actually involved in the, it should be murder, I think because medical evidence, the lack of any medical evidence makes it very difficult to say precisely who was responsible, murder or any lesser, or any other offence arising out of the killing of ...

MR BOTHA: Indeed, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR BOTHA: Thank you Mr Chairman.

MR CORNELIUS IN ARGUMENT: Thank you Mr Chairman, Cornelius on behalf of van Heerden and Flores. Both the applicants presented their applications on the prescribed form in terms of Section 18, both the applicants are as defined in Section 20(2)(b) and Section 20(2)(f) of the Act, both applicants obviously were members of Vlakplaas as is fully described in Annexure C which has already been tabled before this Committee

and they served under the command of Col de Kock. As far as the cause and scope of duties are concerned, my previous colleagues have not referred to that, but I think it is common cause, there is wide coverage for that in the judgement of Mkhize v Martins 1914 Mr Chairman, that you referred to in the Cosatu, Khotso House incident. I think it covers even for the functions that were committed which the employer failed to prevent. It is a very wide coverage in terms of Mkhize.

If we look at certain incidents, it has been fully covered by my previous colleagues and political objectives, but if a member decided or van Heerden decided or Flores decided to report this matter, it would have obviously resulted in serious consequences for them, and obviously they also knew that after de Kock left the canteen, that the further assault carried his approval. The experiences had in the past and the mindset as was clearly put by my learned colleague, Adv Booyens, and the remark made by Mr Chairman, of the opinion to disregard the law, I think they accepted that they could carry on. But it is quite clear if you look at the evidence, that on the outset, I don't think the intention was to kill. This thing ran array during the torture and as clearly put by Mr van Heerden on page 63 of his amnesty application which is in my respectful submission, clearly indicates a full disclosure on his part, he says -

"... on that particular evening I had already had quite a few drinks and at one point, I mistook the time when the inner-tube was placed over the air channels of Moses Ntehelang and he suffocated during this."

He is not trying to shunt his responsibility, he says look, I think it is my actions that could have killed him. CHAIRPERSON: There is a problem in that, isn't there that he then goes out of the room and he comes back and he discovers that Botha has now put a rope around his neck, which raises a little doubt as to whether he in fact had killed him or whether Botha did it later. You cannot come, I don't think we can come, he is accepting responsibility that if he was already dead, he was responsible, but he cannot state as a fact that he did kill him?

MR CORNELIUS: Yes. The learned Judge in the judgement and in the sentence, well in the judgement specifically refers to that as well, there is doubt upon that. If we look at the interrogation itself, my client, Mr van Heerden testified that his object was surely to find out where the weapon was. He testified that obviously there were questions asked, where Moses Ntehelang was, what happened to the weapon. It was a serious offence that was committed to lose a weapon, I think, that is without a doubt and if we look at the evidence given by Frank Mbane, he confirms that, that it was a serious offence.

CHAIRPERSON: Looking at my notes which are not all that accurate, I will read the record when it becomes available, it does appear that Mr van Heerden's questioning was not where have you been for the last month, but where were you when you lost the weapon, when you say you lost the weapon?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: It was designed to try to find out the facts relating to this alleged loss?

MR CORNELIUS: That is quite correct Mr Chairman, it was obviously where he was, where the loss took place and I think if the answers were given there, the questioning obviously would have led further. If you look at the contradictory statement of Lugg, Hugh Lugg, that is part of the documents before the Committee, I don't want to deal in great detail over that, but ...

CHAIRPERSON: I am quite open to suggestions if you feel it is important that we should consider it, that we adjourn to continue the hearing where Mr Lugg is ...

MR CORNELIUS: I would most, I would definitely second that suggestion Mr Chairman. But if you look at paragraph 8 and 10 and 11 his whole statement is with think, I think, de Kock, he contradicts on various statements and he makes an interesting finding, he says that Moses Ntehelang according to him, was in his sound and sober senses, which is directly contradicted by the other witness, Frank Mbane, who testified before the Committee. I think finally, I don't need to elaborate much further, the actions were clearly to cover up the tracks of Vlakplaas and their involvement and their obvious disclosure. I would suggest that my client, van Heerden, would then apply for amnesty for murder and any lesser offence, and the matter of Leon Flores, that is not clear in my amnesty application, I have given a very broad description there. I would suggest that he applies and he does apply for amnesty for accessory after the facts for murder and desecration of the body.

ADV SANDI: Except that, Mr Cornelius, Flores, you are representing Mr Flores also?

MR CORNELIUS: Correct Mr Chair.

ADV SANDI: He was the only witness to testify about money and none of the others knew anything about that?

MR CORNELIUS: No, Mr Sandi, that was Mr Snyders.

ADV SANDI: Sorry, thank you for that.

MR CORNELIUS: That concludes my argument.

CHAIRPERSON: There was evidence led and there is evidence appearing in the affidavits filed, supporting the applications, that certain of the people felt that they could not report because they would have been in personal danger if they had done so. Is that a relevant factor?

MR CORNELIUS: Mr Chairman, I think in the instance of maybe the askaris, they were very strictly controlled, but the members itself, they were very loyal to Vlakplaas itself and I don't, there might have been a certain amount of fear, not a real fear. I think the major factor was the mindset and the loyalty towards the cause.

ADV SANDI: Is it not the fact of the matter that they generally agreed with all the operations that had been carried out by the Vlakplaas Unit?

MR CORNELIUS: They obviously agreed with all the operations, I've got no doubt about that Mr Chair.

ADV SANDI: Thank you.

MR CORNELIUS: Thank you Mr Chair.

MR JANSEN IN ARGUMENT: Thank you Mr Chairman and honourable members, it is Jansen on behalf of Ras. Mr Chairman, the position of Ras is even, there are two distinguishing features, firstly he is one step further removed from the incident than even those people who were mere onlookers, so therefore firstly he was not present at the scene, so therefore he is a classic case of an accessory, he assisted afterwards. The other distinguishing factor Mr Chairman, is that his version is not subject to any contradiction. He came there afterwards, he had returned also from Swaziland but via a

different route having had other business to attend to, with the agreement to meet up with the rest of the people at Vlakplaas. It would seem as if it was coincidental that it happened at a time when Ntehelang had just been killed, he was then asked to assist in the discarding of the body. His evidence stands uncontradicted. I submit in light of all the arguments relating to what is such a person's position, a person in the rank of Warrant Officer as he was at the time, what would be a reasonable approach considering how would he have considered such a request by de Kock. I submit he would most certainly have regarded that as an order in the sense that although it was probably in the form of just an ordinary informal request, it is regarded as something that he had to comply with and that he was certainly in no position to judge what had happened previously, whether it was justified or not, therefore what had happened previously was to a large extent irrelevant and he knew that somebody had been killed, that it was an askari and he knew that for purposes of the security at Vlakplaas, he had to be a party to concealing the death. In my respectful submission, Mr Chairman, there is very little that is controversial in the application of Ras. He complies with all those requirements set out in Section 20, clearly falls under Section 20(2)(b) or then (f) and I don't want to fall into that big debate about what are the requirements of some of the Sections, especially in subsection (3), that debate may be relevant for purposes of the perpetrators of the torture and possibly to a lesser extent to the onlookers, but certainly not in the case of Ras. Mr Chairman, as far as what Ras seeks amnesty for, I will, I am quite happy with the wording as I think given by Mr Booyens, I do think that there are some other aspects that one must consider, the one being wording to the effect that he be granted amnesty for being an accessory to any offence committed in the cause of the killing of Mr Ntehelang. It is a slightly wider wording, but I believe justified under the circumstances. The other issue that you must consider Mr Chairman, is that you are not only dealing with amnesty in the criminal law sense, you are also dealing with the amnesty in civil law. The position of an onlooker might be slightly different - an onlooker may be held liable in delict for the actual killing, the unlawful killing, whatever the basis of that unlawful killing is, especially if that onlooker is a policeman. It may be that in civil law, you have to for the delict itself, you may have to grant amnesty for the killing itself and not just as being an accessory. Mr Chairman, again, I believe that does not really apply to the position of Ras and I submit that just dealing with, just wording the word accessory for any offence, and then as a separate adjunct to that, any omission or delict flowing from that incident because the concept of an accessory as far as I know, I speak subject to correction, but the concept of an accessory does not really, is not really relevant in civil liability, something more peculiar to criminal law and again one obviously in these kinds of proceedings, you have traditionally dealt with both in the same order, but it may be that you have to slightly separate the issue of an accessory and the delictual liability.

CHAIRPERSON: Don't you want more than that because my recollection is that Ras did more than carry out orders? That Ras was requested by Mr de Kock to assist in the disposal of the body, and he, Ras, suggested that they should bury the body on a farm on the Western Transvaal that he knew of, that he had already buried a body on a previous occasion.

MR JANSEN: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And I think he in fact spoke to the farmer, didn't he?

MR JANSEN: Yes, no he was certainly very active in ...

CHAIRPERSON: So that is more than being an accessory after the fact, he played a role in the disposal of the body, the concealment of the body?

MR JANSEN: Mr Chairman, if you are referring to the whole issue of defeating the ends of justice?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR JANSEN: That is some separate offence, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: A separate offence, yes, shouldn't he also ask for defeating the ends of justice?

MR JANSEN: Yes, as an independent offence, yes, that would certainly be so Mr Chairman. Again, there is some debate, I have never really understood what the borders are between those two offences but certainly to be complete, certainly ...

CHAIRPERSON: You know the other one, accessory after the fact, but he clearly wasn't an accessory after the fact to the burial, he assisted in the burial?

MR JANSEN: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't know if we should, I have never heard of a prosecution for it, include for all of them the desecration of the body. Is it perhaps an issue where the person said I tried to burn it, a deliberate attempt to do something, I don't think the others, they need include that in their applications, but I think it should be in charge of defeating the ends of justice, arising from the disposal of the body?

MR JANSEN: Yes, that is correct Mr Chairman, I hadn't quite applied my mind to that, but it may then be - Mr Chairman, then just finally as far as the question you raised about this problem at Vlakplaas that one sits with where people realise a general disregard of the law, and where they realise that no matter what they do, they will never be held accountable, I think in many of the other hearings there has been a lot of debate about that and it really falls to be decided by virtue of that wording in Section 20(2)(b) which talks about express or implied authority, which can obviously only mean some subjective belief that what is done there, is in compliance with what they generally do. Mr Chairman, in this regard, the culture at Vlakplaas and that mindset at Vlakplaas that was referred to, is relevant and I want to refer you to just one passage in the initial evidence given by Mr de Kock at the initial, if one can call it the Vlakplaas hearing, it is at page 148 of that evidence. Specifically as far as the ...

CHAIRPERSON: Which Bundle is that?

MR JANSEN: It is the Bundle headed, it is the start of the de Kock Cluster 1, Mr Chairman, it was those two or three days spent only in respect of Vlakplaas in general as a political motive and it has been incorporated in all the evidence, the applications, since then.

CHAIRPERSON: I've got one here, "Matter de Kock hearing 1, Day 1, 24 July?"

MR JANSEN: Yes, that is it Mr Chairman, page 148 of that Bundle. Unfortunately the English translation to some extent of the questions, are not as successful as it should be, but I will read there at the bottom a question that I asked Mr de Kock. It says

"... once again one gets the impression if one studies some of the incidents before your time and during your time, during which askaris and other people were killed, sources and potential alleged double-agents and so forth, it would appear that there was a very low tolerance for security risks at Vlakplaas? Yes, that is correct."

Then the next page -

"... in fact one would get the impression that there was a zero tolerance policy towards any suspected security risk? De Kock - I would agree with that."

And then, and this is important with respect Mr Chairman -

... and this was the culture which you found there when you arrived there, just like any other person such as Mr Ras would have found it there when he arrived there?"

The answer is that is correct. Now, again from the position of Mr Ras and probably most of the applicants, when Mr Ras heard that somebody has been killed because he posed a potential threat, an askari and there were rumours that he had possibly made contact with the ANC or was acting as a double-agent, certainly the whole incident and his role further, just fitted and must have fitted in in that general approach and that general mindset of Vlakplaas and I don't believe that it is necessary for purposes of this incident, to sort of test the outer boundaries of this general statement that they could have a general disregard for the law, because obviously at some or other point, even to that, there must be an end and then one falls into that whole debate that I think has already been probably dealt with in a lot of detail, the whole subjective and objective approach to politically motivated offences. Mr Chairman, certainly as far as this incident is concerned, it relates to that very low tolerance that that place had to security risks. Maybe, I should just remind you, it wasn't specifically dealt with here, but there was for instance I remember in the application of Mr Dirk Coetzee, there was - where you sat on the panel - a case of an askari Peter, who was probably one of the first askaris to be killed because of suspicions and you will recollect if you go through that evidence again, the suspicions against Peter were very ephemeral, it was literally, people were not happy with the way he acted, he was new on the farm, they just got a bad vibe, they discussed it with somebody senior and they decided they were not prepared to take the risk. That is where that culture and that mindset comes from and by the time that these incidents, this specific incident of Mr Ntehelang took place, that culture had been there for a very, very long time. Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Arising from what you have just quoted, I think we have all had sufficient experience of this, is this not brought about by the fact that Vlakplaas was in no sense of the word, a police station? It had no charge office, it had no cells, it had none of the normal, the pertinencies of a police station, it was far more typical of a security operation and this passage you read of Mr de Kock, is the same as one would find applicable to security operations throughout the world, this code of secrecy that applied? The fact that operations must not be disclosed, the identity of persons must not be disclosed, it is not something unique to Vlakplaas. Vlakplaas was and had been before Mr de Kock came there, managed on the basis that the rules applicable to security operations and security organisations perhaps not to the American CIA but certainly most of the European ones, applied. It was not a major mindset for people to suddenly say "oh, I've got to start thinking", it was something that you could accept as applying to that type of operation.

ADV SANDI: Sorry, maybe it will be correct to say Vlakplaas was some kind of a para-military unit and the footsoldiers just like in all operations as Mr Chairman says, they simply carry out the orders. You just do what you are told to do, you don't question.

MR JANSEN: Yes, no, certainly, you are correct when you say that.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Steenkamp?

ADV STEENKAMP: No comment, thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Gentlemen, we are obliged to all of you for the assistance you have given us and for the speed with which we got through this hearing. We will obviously take time now and it may be that on considering the precise wording of what was said, we may have further inquiries, if so, we will direct them personally to any one of you, we will obviously notify all the others if that should be done, but otherwise we will deliver our decision in due course.

If any of you have brainwaves in the next day or two and want to add anything to what you have said today, please feel free to do so. That concludes this week's hearing and if it wasn't for our thoughts of yesterday, we would probably have finished yesterday, but we now start on Tuesday, is that?

ADV STEENKAMP: That is correct Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: What time, have you told the people?

ADV STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, I think in the circumstances, taking the magnitude of the work, I would suggest nine o'clock on Tuesday morning.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't know how many of you gentlemen are going to be here, can you manage nine o'clock?

MR HATTINGH: I can Mr Chairman, but the old problem is whether Mr de Kock is going to be here at nine o'clock.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, it is not Mr de Kock's fault, we are aware of the problem, let's say nine o'clock, even if we start a little later, because it will give some opportunity for discussion between you as to who is appearing for what and it may be that there may be some consultations that have to take place, I don't know.

ADV STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, there is a possibility that the victims' lawyers will be changed, probably, but that will be sorted out during today and tomorrow.

CHAIRPERSON: If we could do, otherwise I don't know how many of you I will have the pleasure of seeing on Tuesday, we will adjourn till Tuesday. I have no doubt I will see you all at some subsequent hearing. Thank you once again.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS