MR SIBANYONI: For the purposes of the record, your full names, Mr Nortje.
WILLEM ALBERTUS NORTJE: (sworn states)
MR SIBANYONI: Please be seated. Duly sworn in, Chairperson.
EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chairperson.
Mr Nortje, you have handed in an application for amnesty in which you apply for several incidents and operations, for which you apply for amnesty, is that correct?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: And among others before this Panel, the incident where the deceased, Brian Ngqulunga was eliminated.
MR NORTJE: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: I would just like to refer you to the bundle. On page 239 up to page 247, is an extract of your initial application for amnesty, is that correct?
MR NORTJE: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: And this was dated in November of 1996, is that correct?
MR NORTJE: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: And after you had obtained legal representation, a supplementary application was handed in from which we find the extract of that supplementary application and the relevant sections, from page 248 up to page 265, is that correct?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: And do you confirm that according to the best of your knowledge it is correct, according to your recollection?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: To return back to an aspect before we return to the particulars of the incident, on page 241 on the question under 10(d), it was asked of you if you received any benefit from this, and in paragraph 10(d) you refer to financial remuneration and promotion and rank. Is it correct that with your initial amnesty application before you received legal representation, you made a very general statement there without specific reference to particular incidents, is that correct?
MR NORTJE: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: And in your supplementary application you had indeed, where you received additional benefit, you mentioned it, specifically with regard to that incident, is that correct?
MR NORTJE: That is correct, yes.
MR LAMEY: There was evidence earlier, and for purposes of this Panel, let us just place it on record, that your participation was not motivated because of the expectation of a bonus or financial benefit which you would receive with regard to operations.
MR NORTJE: Not at all.
MR LAMEY: With regard to this incident, the incident of Brian Ngqulunga, did you receive any additional financial benefit?
MR NORTJE: No, I did not.
MR LAMEY: In your supplementary application the particulars which you have mentioned on page 245 to 247 is incorporated.
MR NORTJE: That's correct.
MR LAMEY: Those particulars which you convey there, is it correct that it was an extract which we incorporated from a statement which you had made before the Goldstone Commission in Denmark?
MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.
MR LAMEY: You were also a State witness in the de Kock trial with regard to this incident.
MR NORTJE: That's correct.
MR LAMEY: And is it correct that you also received indemnity in terms of Section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Act?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: Mr Nortje, just to arrive at the particulars of this incident, you mention in the first paragraph that Brian Ngqulunga gave evidence before the Harms Commission, is that correct?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: With regard to the incident in Durban, where Griffiths Mxenge was murdered.
MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.
MR LAMEY: And you yourself only arrived later at Vlakplaas, is that correct? - after the Mxenge murder.
MR NORTJE: Yes, only in 1984.
MR LAMEY: But you knew that Vlakplaas was involved there?
MR NORTJE: Yes, that is what I heard.
MR LAMEY: And then you say that Brian Ngqulunga had trouble with his nerves as he went in to give evidence.
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR LAMEY: Are you aware that he had trouble with his nerves before then and that he had been involved in a shooting incident with his spouse?
MR NORTJE: Yes, he had trouble with his nerves. It was general, but not general, it was - I heard this from conversations with Mr de Kock. I saw Brian himself, he was always shaking and he definitely had problems.
MR LAMEY: Very well. Now you mention that there were rumours from police head office that he wanted to tell the story to the ANC. Where did you hear this?
MR NORTJE: Most of my information I received from Mr de Kock, but the story was that because of the fact that he had testified and he still had to testify and his nerves started breaking and there was talk that he was walking over to the ANC and telling them about his involvement with the Mxenge story.
MR LAMEY: Very well. Did you hear this from Mr de Kock?
MR NORTJE: Yes, I heard this from Mr de Kock. But he himself I would say was not very concerned about it because it had nothing with us personally, because the people who had been involved there were people who were at Vlakplaas before our time and the Security Branch in general.
MR LAMEY: Did Mr de Kock tell you that because of this tension and the fact that he wanted to tell the story to the ANC - if you refer to the story, this is the true disclosure with regard to Griffiths Mxenge, did Mr de Kock mention anything of a decision that was taken in this regard?
MR NORTJE: Yes, at a stage - I spent much time with him at that stage and he told me that people at head office, it is difficult to say the people, it was Gen van Rensburg who was in command ...(intervention)
MR LAMEY: If you say Gen van Rensburg was in command, what do you mean?
MR NORTJE: He was the Head of C10.
MR LAMEY: So he was overhead commander of Vlakplaas?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: Yes?
MR NORTJE: And it was their concern that Brian would go and talk and a decision was taken that he would be eliminated, or that he had to be eliminated.
MR LAMEY: And what did Mr de Kock tell you how he felt about this?
MR NORTJE: Initially, during the discussions, I cannot specifically remember the times when we spoke about it, but it was a few times and he mentioned to me that he was not favourable towards this idea. He did not have anything personal against Brian and it could not - should not be of concern to us personally, but it would place the Security Branch in an awkward position and things would come out there and he could also support what Dirk Coetzee and Nofomela had revealed and he could be a witness for the Commission or for whoever had undertaken investigations.
MR LAMEY: Yes. So he did testify before the Commission?
MR NORTJE: Yes, he did.
MR LAMEY: And it went well?
MR NORTJE: Yes, it did.
MR LAMEY: But what would the impact be if he would tell the story to the ANC?
MR NORTJE: Well the activities of the Security Branch would have been disclosed, as I have said and it would have corroborated what Coetzee and Nofomela had said earlier.
MR LAMEY: Was there at that stage much tension with regard to the Harms Commission and concern in security circles, according to your knowledge?
MR NORTJE: Yes, there was some serious concerns in head office and specifically us at the farm.
MR LAMEY: Very well. How long before the eventual elimination of Brian Ngqulunga did you know that there was an instruction from head office to Mr de Kock to eliminate him?
MR NORTJE: Well I have been thinking about this and I would estimate it was about three weeks to a month that there was talk about it, but I know that approximately two weeks before the time he tasked Simon to approach Brian.
MR LAMEY: And you say he tasked him, he tasked Simon specifically to move closer to Brian.
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR LAMEY: And how would he do that?
MR NORTJE: As I understood, in the afternoons when Brian comes from the office he would invite him to drive with him and then they would per occasion enjoy drinks together. The idea was more to win his trust so that he does not become suspicious about anything if anything should happen that was out of the norm.
MR LAMEY: May I just ask you, you were a witness specifically with regard to a meeting which Col de Kock had with Capt Baker, Bellingan, Wouter Mentz and Botha at the House of Coffees, can you recall whether you were present at such a meeting?
MR NORTJE: I cannot recall the meeting specifically. I want to recall that there was such a meeting, but I cannot recall that I was present. I know at stage he told me that he wanted to attach Dave Baker and Balletjies to this incident, and I think that he decided then that he would use the two of them. For what reason specifically I do not know. There was nothing strange about them because they had already been involved in other matters, but he definitely put it to me as such and that is how I recall it. And the other members were Piet Botha and Wouter Mentz.
MR LAMEY: No if you say that he wanted to involve Baker, Bellingan, Mentz, is this to execute the elimination?
MR NORTJE: Yes, they would be the team to execute the elimination.
MR LAMEY: What were your instructions, what did you have to do beforehand? If we now approach closer to the day on which the elimination had to take place.
MR NORTJE: What I can recall is that when I became directly involved, when I had to hire the kombi and the Mercedes, I am not entirely certain about that, I think it came about in the Court as to how it worked, but I want to recall that I fetched the kombi from Avis in Schoeman Street and the Mercedes we rented from Budget.
MR LAMEY: Can you recall whether Mr Baker was present when you did this?
MR NORTJE: Yes, I want to imagine that I gave him the kombi and I drove the Mercedes and we drove to the Holiday Inn, but how the chain ...(intervention)
MR LAMEY: Can you recall how long before the eventual day of the killing did you get the vehicles?
MR NORTJE: I think it was the morning of the day, and we left it at the Holiday Inn.
MR LAMEY: Did they use false names there?
MR NORTJE: I used my false identity document. I had a credit card and an ID document.
MR LAMEY: You were part of the evidence as how this was issued.
MR NORTJE: Yes, that was the process in how I obtained it.
CHAIRPERSON: Did you change the numberplates?
MR NORTJE: Yes, we changed the numberplates at some stage. At that stage I did not do it, I just know that the numberplates were changed after I handed over the vehicles.
MR LAMEY: To whom did you hand over the vehicles?
MR NORTJE: I recall that I gave the kombi to Dave Baker, but I drove the Mercedes because Mr de Kock and I drove with the Mercedes and it was part of the plan that we would change the numberplates.
MR LAMEY: So the Mercedes also had other numberplates?
MR NORTJE: I want to imagine that I changed the numberplates, but I am not certain.
MR LAMEY: The purpose of the instruction with regard to the Mercedes Benz was that you would drive Mr de Kock that day.
MR NORTJE: Yes, he decided we would hire the Mercedes.
MR LAMEY: And then what would you and Mr de Kock do?
MR NORTJE: We had radios with us, one which was set in into the police frequency and one which was in connection with the other member, but I want to recall that we would not have specifically spoken to each other, only if it was very necessary. So I cannot recall at this stage if we had direct contact.
MR LAMEY: But Baker would know where he would find Simon Radebe?
MR NORTJE: Yes, that arrangement was made beforehand.
MR LAMEY: And the purpose of linking up with the police frequency, what was the purpose thereof?
MR NORTJE: It was in case something went wrong and the police reacted in that direction and then Mr de Kock and I would also have gone there and tried to save the situation or whatever the case may be. It was just a precaution.
MR LAMEY: Mr de Kock said at some stage that you drove a roundabout way in the direction of where the murder would take place. Do you have a recollection of it?
MR NORTJE: Yes, we drove out on that road from Pretoria North to Marula Sun and there we turned away and passed Marula Sun. I cannot recall correctly which road we drove on, but at some stage we were in the vicinity, after they would have taken Brian.
MR LAMEY: Can you recall I took instructions from you with regard to Mr Chate. You did not initially mention his name here, but the other members have mentioned his name here and I heard you mention Mr Chate during instructions. What is your recollection about Mr Chate?
MR NORTJE: I have forgotten about Chate's involvement. I know he was involved, but the arrangements that Dave Baker had I did not about, but I cannot recall whether we were at the Wonderpark. I don't know whether we drove past there, but it is indeed so that Chate had been involved there and he would hand over the weapons to the kombi there or something to that effect, but I know later he joined us because this was the kombi with which we went to Johannesburg later that evening, if I am not incorrect.
MR LAMEY: And Chate was along?
MR NORTJE: Yes, he was.
MR LAMEY: Where did Chate also join you that you can recall?
MR NORTJE: It had to be at the Holiday Inn. I cannot pertinently place him there, but it had to be there.
MR LAMEY: There was evidence that after the incident, that you had met at the Holiday Inn.
MR NORTJE: Yes, that was the prearranged place.
MR LAMEY: Did you enjoy drinks there?
MR NORTJE: Yes, we did.
MR LAMEY: And from there is it correct that you also went to the so-called Spur restaurant?
MR NORTJE: No, we were all very tense and it was not a situation where everyone wanted to party because of what had happened, it was to calm the nerves and we did not stay there for very long and then we went to Johannesburg.
MR LAMEY: Why did you go to Johannesburg?
MR NORTJE: It was to create an alibi that we were not in Pretoria that evening.
MR LAMEY: Very well. Your version - you have also given a version as to how Brian Ngqulunga was eventually shot with an AK47, through his body and head. Is this as it was conveyed to you afterwards?
MR NORTJE: Yes, there was some discussion in the vehicle on the way to Johannesburg, but they did not go into as much detail, the detail came out much later and Bellingan told me things of what had happened there and people told me things, so it was information which at that stage I had just collected, or which came to me.
MR LAMEY: And which you added into your statement?
MR NORTJE: Yes, which I mentioned there.
MR LAMEY: And then in Johannesburg you slept at the hotel.
MR NORTJE: That's correct, the Braamfontein Hotel.
MR LAMEY: You also mention that specifically Wouter Mentz and Baker were very nervous.
MR NORTJE: Yes, this is something that Bellingan told me afterwards.
MR LAMEY: So this is all hearsay, so these are all things that were conveyed to you. And you speak about the vehicle.
MR NORTJE: Yes, the kombi had been dinged and I had to fix it.
MR LAMEY: Which funds were used to hire the kombi and to fix the kombi?
MR NORTJE: It was from the Secret Fund.
MR LAMEY: Mr Nortje, to take it further, on page 263 you say that you were not involved with the planning and the execution of the idea, is this now with regard to the detailed planning in order to execute the execution? You do not want to convey the idea that you did not know about it because you had certain functions to perform.
MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct. I would just like to correct something that Radebe had said of the hospital. When he spoke of the hospital, Chairperson, I recall at a stage we visited him in hospital because I can recall the day I stood, or he stood on the veranda at the hospital, but I cannot recall that we pertinently fetched him from the hospital to instruct him to do this. I can only say that the hospital story is so, I was there, but I cannot say - it doesn't make sense to me.
MR LAMEY: Before you yourself had testified about this I wanted to direct your attention to Mr Radebe. What I want to ask you is, is it your recollection that he was in the hospital shortly before the Ngqulunga elimination?
MR NORTJE: I am not entirely certain at which stage he was in the hospital.
MR LAMEY: But did you and Mr Willemse visit him in hospital to fetch him in order to tell him, according to his evidence, to give him instruction that he had to take Brian to that specific place?
MR NORTJE: No, I did not.
CHAIRPERSON: I don't think that was his evidence, was it? Wasn't the evidence that this witness came to tell him to get a discharge from the hospital?
MR LAMEY: Yes, initially in his affidavit in his application he stated that, but he did, in verbal evidence he did qualify that, that is correct.
Let us take it as follows. Can you recall that you visited him at some stage in the hospital?
MR NORTJE: When he gave evidence about it a few moments earlier, I recalled that I did visit him in hospital, but I think it was just a visit to, it was just a visit to him. I don't believe that we would have told him to orchestrate his release from the hospital.
MR LAMEY: So you did not request him to release himself from the hospital?
MR NORTJE: No, it does not make sense that I would have done that.
MR LAMEY: Let us just look at this, Mr Nortje. If you wanted to have him released for purposes that he - and there a urgency about it, that he had to take Brian Ngqulunga to the place where he would meet Baker, then you would have had him released right from there and taken him to Vlakplaas yourself?
MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.
MR LAMEY: What is your recollection, was he in the hospital during these days before he had to befriend Brian Ngqulunga, or what is your recollection about that?
MR NORTJE: I don't know whether it was during this time, but I know it depended on Simon, he would have taken the decision as to when he thought Brian was ready or when he thought that he had enough trust in Brian now to do it, and then he would report to us. According to me it depended on him, he would have taken the last decision to say listen I am now ready, or he is now ready or whatever the case may be. I think that it is on that basis that we dealt with the thing.
CHAIRPERSON: He said at some stage of his evidence, that the two of you came and brought him biltong, would that be an ordinary social visit to somebody in hospital?
MR NORTJE: I think so, Chairperson, yes.
MR LAMEY: Because nobody mentioned Mr Willemse's name here actually and if Mr Willemse on the basis that he went along with you to visit Mr Radebe, then Mr Willemse would have known about the actual operation.
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR LAMEY: And according to you Mr Willemse was not involved.
MR NORTJE: No, he was not part of the operation.
MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, as far as the specific offences are concerned, I understand the practice is that we give a list. There are certain offences listed on page 264 of Mr Nortje's evidence. I must say that obviously that is the inputs of the legal representative more in after and the interpretation from the facts. I must say that considering the totality here I would like to just expand on that when I make the submissions to the Committee.
CHAIRPERSON: "List", do you mean list of the precise offences for which you seek amnesty?
MR LAMEY: Yes, that is indeed so.
CHAIRPERSON: Well the practice we have followed is that during the course of argument you give us that.
MR LAMEY: Yes.
Mr Nortje, with regard to your political objective, on 264 and 265, do you confirm that as you understood it and as it came from Mr de Kock?
MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.
MR LAMEY: And then with regard to the approval, you say that the incident or your involvement in hiring the minibus was an instruction from Mr de Kock.
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR LAMEY: And then according to you, according to your knowledge, the overhead instruction to kill Brian came from Gen Nick van Rensburg?
MR NORTJE: Yes, that's what I understood.
MR LAMEY: And then you say that Krappies Engelbrecht knew about the incident, what do you base that information on?
MR NORTJE: Because Mr de Kock told me.
MR LAMEY: Is that what he told you then?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR LAMEY: And then when you made this statement you said that
"If I recall correctly, it was at the stage when the take-over of Brig Engelbrecht from Brig van Rensburg, was in the process."
Can you comment on that?
MR NORTJE: Well now I know that Brig Engelbrecht only took over in the beginning of 1991, but it was during that period ...(intervention)
MR LAMEY: When you made the statement, did you see it in that time context?
MR NORTJE: Yes. Brig Engelbrecht was in the picture at that stage.
MR LAMEY: So he was not unknown at Vlakplaas?
MR NORTJE: No, he was not.
CHAIRPERSON: If you want time to look through your notes before deciding to stop, this may be a convenient stage.
MR LAMEY: I think I'm complete, but I'll rather wait until after the adjournment, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: How long gentlemen? 2 o'clock? We'll now take the adjournment till 2 o'clock.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION
WILLEM ALBERTUS NORTJE: (s.u.o.)
MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chairperson, I've got no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Chairperson, Hattingh on record.
Mr Nortje, during those times, that would be at the time of the death of Mr Ngqulunga, did the police regard it as a very serious case if a policeman was murdered?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: Everything was invested in apprehending the criminal.
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: Now when Mr Ngqulunga was killed, he wasn't a policeman but he was also a Security Policeman, who worked in head office.
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: Are you aware of any special police investigations which were launched by the South African Police, in order to apprehend these criminals?
MR NORTJE: Chairperson, as far as I know it was the police from Bophuthatswana who investigated the murder.
MR HATTINGH: Yes, they left it to Bophuthatswana.
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR HATTINGH: Isn't the reason for that, that the South African Police knew what the position was and that was why they didn't go out of their way to attempt to trace the murderer of Mr Ngqulunga?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: Because you would know that if policemen were killed, and if I think back to the Maponya incident, Japie Maponya's brother Orderele was suspected of killing or murdering a policeman in Bophuthatswana I think.
MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.
MR HATTINGH: And heaven and earth were moved in order to apprehend Orderele, among others, for this murder.
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: Vlakplaas' assistance was enlisted.
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR HATTINGH: The men from Vlakplaas were enlisted to assist with tracing Orderele.
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR HATTINGH: Was anything like that done with regard to Mr Ngqulunga?
MR NORTJE: No, no that I know of.
MR HATTINGH: Were the askaris used in order to attempt to apprehend the murderer of Mr Ngqulunga?
MR NORTJE: Not that I know of.
MR HATTINGH: And you would probably have known about it?
MR NORTJE: Yes, I believe I would have.
MR HATTINGH: While in the case of the policeman who allegedly was murdered by Orderele Maponya, the services of the askaris were indeed used.
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: Then just one or two other aspects, Mr Nortje. The Harms Commission was still in session at the time of the death of Mr Ngqulunga.
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: And for quite some time subsequent to his death, sat for a few more years.
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: And the police went out of their way to attempt to waylay the allegations made by Messrs Nofomela and Coetzee.
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: Two advocates were appointed to represent the police at the Commission.
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: One for the officers and one for the subordinate officers, or officers of a lower rank. Do you recall what the position was?
MR NORTJE: I don't have those particulars, but it is possible.
MR HATTINGH: Whatever the case may be, two senior advocates were appointed for the police, Mr Visser and Mr Sam Maritz.
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: And each one of them had a junior advocate to assist.
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: And no trouble was spared in submitting the case of the police to the Commission.
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: Now I would just like to find out from you, perhaps you can assist us, I'm not certain. Gen Ronnie van der Westhuizen was indeed seconded to the Harms Commission, in order to assist the Commission with investigations that they wanted to execute.
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: And so also Brig Wright.
MR NORTJE: Yes, I heard that.
MR HATTINGH: They sat in offices in the centre where the Harms Commission was in session, they sat there full time and they were available for the services of Mr Harms and his Commission on a full time basis.
MR NORTJE: I'm not certain about that.
MR HATTINGH: Very well. That is my knowledge about the matter, I just thought that maybe you could help us. Gen Engelbrecht on the other hand, do you know what his involvement was?
MR NORTJE: Well he was involved, I can only speak of when the post-mortem report from Maponya came.
MR HATTINGH: Well let us leave the post-mortem inquest there for a while because I'm still dealing with the Harms Commission. Do you know whether he was involved in investigations pertaining to the Harms Commission?
MR NORTJE: Yes, as far as I know.
MR HATTINGH: Is it correct that Gen Engelbrecht assisted the police with their submission before the Harms Commission and that it was his task?
MR NORTJE: Yes, that is how I understood it.
MR HATTINGH: He wasn't the investigating officer for the Harms Commission as such. - Mr Engelbrecht.
MR NORTJE: No, he worked for the police.
MR HATTINGH: Very well. And ultimately, Mr Nortje, the Harms Commission then brought out a report, which I haven't studied for quite some time and I did not appear for the police, so I wasn't really very interested in that part of the findings, but if I recall correctly - let me put it like this, at least there was not a finding brought out against the police in the report of the Commission.
MR NORTJE: Well I'm not entirely certain of that.
MR HATTINGH: Very well. If Mr Ngqulunga while the Harms Commission was still in session, had gone to the ANC and said look, I was involved in the Mxenge murder, which is one of the investigations that the Harms Commission instated, what would the repercussions of that have been for the police?
MR NORTJE: It would have created chaos.
MR HATTINGH: It would probably have meant that Mr Ngqulunga would have been recalled by the Harms Commission and been asked about changing his version.
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: And that could have had the result that the Harms Commission brought out a finding that the South African Police was responsible for the death of Mr Mxenge. And at that stage the former government and the ANC were still in the negotiating phase with the objective of a new government dispensation for the future.
MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.
MR HATTINGH: And it would also have damaged those proceedings, if not destroyed them.
MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.
MR HATTINGH: Then just with regard to Mr Radebe, initially you could not recall that you had visited him in hospital, is that correct?
MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.
MR HATTINGH: It was only when you heard his evidence here that it refreshed your recollection.
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: I'm speaking under correction but it is my recollection that your attorney put it to Mr Radebe that you had not visited him in hospital.
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR HATTINGH: And you say that you now have a recollection of visiting him, but that it was not in the company of Willemse, or was it?
MR NORTJE: It is possible that Willemse was there.
MR HATTINGH: Do you have a recollection of taking him biltong?
MR NORTJE: No, I cannot recall that specifically, but I recall the day when we were there. As I've said I'm not certain whether Willemse was with me. If he says that Willemse was there, then I agree that it is possible.
MR HATTINGH: And you could not recall this until Mr Radebe gave evidence. Isn't it possible that the purpose of your visit was to request him to discharge himself? He wasn't that seriously ill was he?
MR NORTJE: No.
MR HATTINGH: He had high blood pressure and high blood sugar and he was back on his feet, he was sitting on the veranda when you arrived there.
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR HATTINGH: Is it possible that it was the purpose of your visit to indicate the urgency of the Ngqulunga matter to him and that he had been the one who had been instructed to befriend Ngqulunga?
MR NORTJE: Yes, it is possible, but I cannot recall pertinently that we said this to him on that day, or that on the following day when he left the hospital, he came to know about it. I cannot recall it as pertinently as that, but I know that we visited him, as he has stated.
MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Chairperson, nothing further.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HATTINGH
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BOOYENS: You cannot recall that you were present during the discussion in the House of Coffees?
MR NORTJE: No, I cannot recall that.
MR BOOYENS: I beg your pardon, this is Booyens on record, Chairperson.
And this is something that I would have expected, that if you were there you would have recalled it because it was quite a pertinent aspect to the entire operation with regard to Mr Ngqulunga, is that correct?
MR NORTJE: Yes, I think I would have recalled it, especially with regard to the information which was conveyed during that meeting.
MR BOOYENS: So actually you can't really help us when it comes to information which was conveyed to that group of people regarding possible further activities of Mr Ngqulunga, which had come to light?
MR NORTJE: No, I cannot.
MR BOOYENS: You see the reason why I state this specifically is that if I understand Mr de Kock's application correctly, initially certain things were said to him and then upon a later occasion he says the Gen van Rensburg told him that this man was seeking access to the ANC as well. In other words, he was changing his allegiance. So it could be very possible that this information was later conveyed to the group, but when you were not there you did not come to hear of this information.
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR BOOYENS: So let me put it this way. If you had been there one would have expected of you to remember this information.
MR NORTJE: Yes, I would have remembered it, naturally.
MR BOOYENS: Just a moment please. Thank you, Chairperson, I have nothing further.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BOOYENS
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR WAGENER: Jan Wagener, Mr Chairperson.
Mr Nortje, may I refer you to the bundle. If you could just obtain it from Mr Lamey. Page 265. At the bottom of the page, under "Instruction or Approval", you say that the overall order for the commission of this deed came from Brig Nick van Rensburg.
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR WAGENER: How do you know this?
MR NORTJE: Mr de Kock told me.
MR WAGENER: So it's hearsay?
MR NORTJE: Yes. I was not present when the instruction was issued to him.
MR WAGENER: Did you ask Mr de Kock from where the order came and then he said this, or how did it happen?
MR NORTJE: It was in discussion that he said this to me.
MR WAGENER: Exactly what did he say?
MR NORTJE: I cannot recall, but it boiled down to the fact that Nick van Rensburg had approached him and said that Brian was suspected of being on the point of speaking out, that his nerves were collapsing and that they couldn't afford this.
MR WAGENER: I beg your pardon, Mr Nortje, you refer to "they" all the time, who are "they"?
MR NORTJE: That is Brig Nick van Rensburg and the others. When I speak of "them" I speak of head office, the immediate command above Mr de Kock.
MR WAGENER: Couldn't it be somebody else other than Mr van Rensburg?
MR NORTJE: No, as I understand it was Mr van Rensburg.
MR WAGENER: Was it he alone?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR WAGENER: Did you ask anything further from Mr de Kock, regarding the origin of the order?
MR NORTJE: No, I didn't.
MR WAGENER: Were you satisfied with his response?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR WAGENER: Now in the following sentence you say
"I know ..."
So you know ...
"I know that Gen Engelbrecht knew about the incident."
What do you mean when you say that he knew about the incident?
MR NORTJE: Well that is the inference that I drew, that he must have known, because he was closely involved with us and I mean, he would have asked what happened, what took place there. He was a senior officer who knew what was happening. Mr de Kock would also have said this to me, that he had informed them. Brig van Rensburg was specifically informed, I cannot say that he informed Mr Engelbrecht, but I accepted that he would also know as a result of the discussions that we held.
MR WAGENER: Mr Nortje, you have given quite an exhaustive answer and stated quite a number of things in that answer, but is the short answer that you don't know whether Gen Engelbrecht knew about it or not?
MR NORTJE: No, it is my inference. That is correct, that is my answer regarding the information that I had.
MR WAGENER: Well my instructions are that Gen Engelbrecht - and when I say he knew, meaning he knew that it was Vlakplaas who killed the man, in that sense my instructions are that Gen Engelbrecht did not know. Can you dispute this?
MR NORTJE: I cannot dispute it. If he denies it, then it is his right. That is how I understood it.
MR WAGENER: Would you have expected, Mr Nortje, that if Gen van Rensburg and Gen Engelbrecht together were present when this order was given to Mr de Kock, that would be according to the version of Mr de Kock, that he wouldn't have said so to you? - Mr de Kock now.
MR NORTJE: He could have mentioned it to me, but I cannot recall specifically, that is why I have stated that I know that Gen Engelbrecht knew.
MR WAGENER: All that you know is that de Kock said van Rensburg. That is how I understood your evidence.
MR NORTJE: Initially he may have said just van Rensburg, but later it must have been discussed once again and it could have been then. That is how I know that he mentioned it at a certain stage, that Gen Engelbrecht knew about it.
MR WAGENER: Is it your evidence now that Mr de Kock mentioned it?
MR NORTJE: That is what I said.
MR WAGENER: When did he say it?
MR NORTJE: At some or other point.
MR WAGENER: Mr Nortje, are you certain of what you are saying now?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR WAGENER: Then why didn't you mention this in 1994, when you made yours statement in Denmark, for example?
MR NORTJE: I did mention it.
MR WAGENER: No, you didn't, you never mentioned it. You can consult your Denmark statement.
MR NORTJE: The statement that I made there was an explanation of everything that I knew, as I've already stated. We sorted out the particulars later.
MR WAGENER: Mr Nortje, the statement that you made in Denmark is a very thorough statement, it is something like 70 typed pages.
MR NORTJE: Yes, but there were other aspects of detail which were not incorporated.
MR WAGENER: And in that statement you refer frequently to Generals, who according to your knowledge, would have been involved in certain deeds.
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR WAGENER: And you refer frequently to Gen Engelbrecht in that statement as well.
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR WAGENER: Well then once again I will ask you why didn't you already refer to Gen Engelbrecht at that stage, if according to your knowledge he would have been involved?
MR NORTJE: No, I don't know why I didn't.
MR WAGENER: Didn't you come to hear of Gen Engelbrecht's alleged involvement for the fist time during the criminal trial of Mr de Kock?
MR NORTJE: No, I don't believe so. When I made the statement at that stage I did not mention his name, but I assumed that later the details would be discussed. But I was still under the impression that he was definitely informed about what happened.
MR WAGENER: And even when you made your initial amnesty application you did not mention it.
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR WAGENER: Would you agree that Gen Engelbrecht was not one of your commanders in the so-called line-of-command?
MR NORTJE: No, he wasn't.
MR WAGENER: Thank you, Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR WAGENER
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DER WALT: Thank you, Chairperson. Mr van der Walt for the record.
Mr Nortje, this concern regarding Mr Ngqulunga's possible information which he could provide to the Harms Commission, was this only about his knowledge and participation in the murder of Griffiths Mxenge or did it also have to do with the fact that there was concern that he could provide information about general misdeeds within the Security Police?
MR NORTJE: No, I think it was only about the Griffiths Mxenge story. Brian was never directly involved in operations as far as I can recall, so I don't believe that it was a danger to us at that stage if he were to speak out, not directly. What I mean is that he would not have been able to involve me or Mr de Kock or out team in something directly.
MR VAN DER WALT: Is it so that one of the objectives with the Harms Commission was also to investigate general crime or criminality within the Force, as a result of allegations that were made?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR VAN DER WALT: Now this information which you received from Mr de Kock regarding the reason why Mr Ngqulunga had to be eliminated, this is the information which is embodied within your initial amnesty application?
MR NORTJE: Yes, that is how I understand it.
MR VAN DER WALT: And you confirm this as correct.
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR VAN DER WALT: I would just like to refer you to page 246 of the bundle, that would be the relevant passage from your initial amnesty application, where you state in the second line that
"Gen van Rensburg was at that stage in control of C-Group of Vlakplaas and de Kock mentioned to me that they had decided to eliminate Brian."
Was any reason given to you as to why this decision was made? Was it only about the concern regarding his evidence or further evidence before the Harms Commission?
MR NORTJE: I must tell you that what was also said was that the information that he had, or what Mr de Kock said to me, was that he wanted to go to the ANC to tell them about this. Going to the other side could also have meant going over to the Harms Commission.
MR VAN DER WALT: Then you say
"De Kock was not happy with this suggestion and told me that it was against his principles to eliminate his own people. He also mentioned to me that there were staff members on the farm who had not been attached to incidents during which people had to be eliminated."
What does that mean, what do you understand from that aspect -
"... that there were people on the farm who had not yet been attached to incidents during which people had to be eliminated."
MR NORTJE: That is just my means of expression, because I recall what he told me about Baker and Bellingan. He said that he wanted to use them to execute this elimination. What his specific reason for that was or may have been, I cannot see because they were already involved in other incidents. Perhaps he didn't want to do it himself, he didn't want to do it himself and as I understood from him he wanted to use these persons to be involved in the incident.
MR VAN DER WALT: Well from the syntax of this section, the way you have formulated it, I have the impression that you want to say that Mr de Kock wanted to have a hold over Bellingan and Baker, isn't that what you are trying to say?
MR NORTJE: That is how I understood it, but I never questioned him about it subsequently or even at that stage, it's just a remark that he made to me. But when I think about it, it didn't really make any sense as to why he specifically wanted to involve them because they had already been involved in other incidents. That's the only explanation that I have to offer about that.
MR VAN DER WALT: Well let us assume for the moment that Baker and Bellingan were not yet involved in other incidents, why would Mr de Kock have said this?
MR NORTJE: I don't know, perhaps he was angry with them for some or other reason.
MR VAN DER WALT: In order to have some form of control over them?
MR NORTJE: I don't know, I cannot tell you what was going through his mind. That is how he explained it to me and I drew my inferences. He may have had other reasons when he said it to me, I don't know.
MR VAN DER WALT: Isn't it perhaps to have such a level of control over these particular members that they would not continue to give information to the Harms Commission?
MR NORTJE: No, I don't believe so, I think you have misunderstood him.
MR VAN DER WALT: Then you must tell me what there is to understand, because this is your choice of words.
MR NORTJE: No, I cannot believe that. If that is your inference, they would never have done that, no. Perhaps he had reason to believe it, I don't know. I cannot give you an answer to that.
MR VAN DER WALT: But would you agree with me that it is not a farfetched possibility?
MR NORTJE: No, it isn't farfetched, but I don't know, he never discussed it with me.
MR VAN DER WALT: You didn't attempt to obtain information from other sources later on, in order to determine why it was necessary to eliminate the deceased?
MR NORTJE: No.
MR VAN DER WALT: Thank you, Chairperson, I have nothing further.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN DER WALT
ADV STEENKAMP: No questions, thank you, Mr Chairman.
MR SIBANYONI: On page 246 you said the deceased was attacked and he lost consciousness, but according to Mr Botha, he didn't loose consciousness. On page 246 there is a passage where you say
"They took him out of the kombi, bound him and according to what I know, put him out of action by striking him unconscious."
MR NORTJE: Yes. I would recall that Bellingan mentioned this to me at a stage, but that is how he has related it. I don't believe that that is exactly what took place. They have said what happened, so this is basically hearsay.
MR SIBANYONI: Thank you, Mr Chairperson, that was the only question.
ADV SANDI: Thank you, no questions, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: In your additional affidavit on page 264 and 265, you confirm what you have said here about ...(indistinct - no microphone) aspects.
MR NORTJE: That is correct, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
MR SIBANYONI: Can I ask you one last question. You said after the incident you went to the Holiday Inn to enjoy some drinks to calm your nerves, but also to provide an alibi. To whom?
CHAIRPERSON: They went to Johannesburg for an alibi.
MR SIBANYONI: Yes, you went to Johannesburg for an alibi, I'm sorry. But for whom were you creating that alibi?
MR NORTJE: It was just a precautionary measure that Mr de Kock instructed us to take. It would have been the alibi if anybody had asked us, or if there had been an independent investigation from the police. It was just a precautionary measure for the purposes of a police investigation because one would never know what could happen subsequently. It would just have been for the police, I would say.
MR SIBANYONI: It was not for your seniors at Vlakplaas?
MR NORTJE: No.
MR SIBANYONI: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Re-examination?
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Mr Nortje, with regard to the questions put by Mr Wagener, in your Denmark statement you say that
"Gen van Rensburg was at that stage in control of C-Group, Vlakplaas and de Kock mentioned to me that they had decided to eliminate Brian."
Who is this they that you refer to? Are you talking about de Kock and van Rensburg or are you referring to a plurality of persons, someone other than Mr de Kock?
CHAIRPERSON: What page?
MR LAMEY: Page 246, Mr Chairperson.
MR NORTJE: Well if I have to remark on that, I had this person in my mind, Engelbrecht and van Rensburg, when I stated it. I believe that that is why I said that I had the idea at that stage already. But these were the only persons who played a pertinent role in the matter.
MR LAMEY: But you don't refer to de Kock and van Rensburg when you refer to the plurality "they"?
MR NORTJE: No.
MR LAMEY: Then under the Denmark conditions when you made your statement, you had to think back and recall various incidents, is that correct?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR LAMEY: And this was also done under conditions of tremendous pressure and tension when you made your statement?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR LAMEY: And there was quite a degree of haste to finish off these statements?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: And when you compiled your supplementary application, is it correct that specifically you had to pause at all those persons above you who had given approval or orders according to you and your knowledge and inference, in terms of where the orders came from?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: At the stage when you drafted your supplementary application in 19 - let me just find the date, in 1997, did you have any insight whatsoever into the amnesty application of Mr de Kock?
MR NORTJE: No.
MR LAMEY: At that stage did you state it as such independently from your own recollection?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: Then just with regard to the final aspect. After you had heard Mr Radebe's evidence you recalled that you had indeed visited him at a stage when he was in hospital.
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: Is it your recollection that that visit was connected to Brian Ngqulunga?
MR NORTJE: I'm not completely certain about that.
MR LAMEY: Very well. Let me just ask you this, if it was related to Mr Ngqulunga, then Mr Willemse must have been aware?
MR NORTJE: Yes. And what I mean is that we would then have picked him up and taken him somewhere.
MR LAMEY: But did Mr Willemse know, was he at any stage informed or involved about this incident?
MR NORTJE: I cannot place him at the scene. I cannot say that he knew.
MR LAMEY: Very well. Thank you, Chairperson, I have nothing further.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
WITNESS EXCUSED
MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, I would like to apply for leave to recall Mr de Kock on the question of that part of the record, the Maponya record that was handed in to you.
CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible - no microphone)
MR WAGENER: Not at all, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible - no microphone)
MR WAGENER: Of course.
