CHAIRPERSON: Good morning to you all. Today we are going to hear the amnesty applications of the following applicants; Mr Eugene Alexander de Kock, Mr Johannes Koole, Mr Kipani Peter Mogoai, Tapelo Johannes Mbelo, Gerhardus Stephanus Schoon, Paul Jakobus van Dyk, Frederick Johannes Pienaar, Gerhardus Cornelius Beeslaar, Mzuzu Aubrey Mgade and Almond Butana Nofomela.
The Panel that will sit to consider these applications comprises myself, on my right-hand side, Adv Motata, on my left-hand side, Mr Wynand Malan. I'm going to request counsel who will be representing the applicants, to place their names on record.
MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Chairperson. My name is P A Hattingh, I'm instructed by Mr Schalk Hugo and we appear for Mr de Kock.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Hattingh.
MR SWART: Conrad Swart on behalf of the applicant, Beeslaar.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Swart.
MR WILLIAMS: The name is Peter Williams, from the firm Moosa, ...(indistinct) and Petersen, on behalf of the applicant, Mr Mbelo.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
MR LAMEY: Chairperson, the name is Lamey. I represent the applicants K P Mogoai and Johannes Koole.
MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, Harry Prinsloo, I appear on behalf of the applicants, Schoon and Pienaar respectively, 5 and 7.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Sir.
MS VAN DER WALT: Louisa van der Walt, I appear for Mr van Dyk, number 6.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms van der Walt.
MR NEL: Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is Christo Nel and I appear for the applicant Mzuzu Aubrey Mgade.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Nel.
MR KGASI: Chairperson, my name is Kgasi. I'm appearing on behalf of the family of James Mngomezulu.
ADV STEENKAMP: Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm André Steenkamp, I will be the Evidence Leader. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Steenkamp, what is the position with Mr Nofomela?
ADV STEENKAMP ADDRESSES: Madam Chair, Honourable Members, the position as far as I was under the impression, Mr Knight used to appear for Mr Nofomela. He informed me that he is not appearing for him anymore, but a certain Mr Ramawele - just for the record, his surname is spelt R-a-m-a-w-e-l-e, is appearing for Mr Nofomela. He's from the same name firm of attorneys as well in Pretoria.
I contacted Mr Ramawele early this morning. He said indeed he confirms that he is appearing on behalf of Mr Nofomela, but his instructions as it stands now, are that Mr Nofomela is not an applicant in this matter and furthermore, that Mr Nofomela instructed him that all his matters where he has applied for amnesty, have been dealt with by the Amnesty Committee.
I've taken precautions in asking Mr Ramawele to be here early this morning, I mean as soon as he can. He's informed me that he will probably be here at about 12 o'clock, but he also asked me to inform the Committee that Mr Nofomela is indeed not an applicant. I've also taken the precaution of asking that Mr Nofomela be brought from prison. The prison authorities are here and they are in the process of bringing Mr Nofomela to the hearing itself now. I envisage that Mr Nofomela will probably be here round about 11 o'clock at the latest. All arrangements in that regard have been taken as well.
Just on behalf of Mr Ramawele, he's apologising for not being here, but he was under the impression that Mr Nofomela - well, it's his instruction that Mr Nofomela is not an applicant in this matter at all. That is the position of Mr Nofomela. He also further requested me to ask the Committee that we can proceed without his presence or that of Mr Nofomela. That is as far as I can take it, Madam Chair. Thank you, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ramawele will be expected to attend these hearings at 12 o'clock.
ADV STEENKAMP: Indeed, Madam Chair, he will probably be here at the latest at 12 o'clock. Just for the record, I've also asked him to at least submit a withdrawal statement or an indication that he's actually physically withdrawing from the hearing, or his applicant at least, since he's still on record. This is now Mr Ramawele. He says he thinks in the circumstances, it's better that he attends the hearing himself and place it on the record himself. So he will be here at 12 o'clock. Thank you, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: I think there will be no prejudice to be suffered by Mr Nofomela if these proceedings were to continue in Mr Ramawele's absence, particularly because there is now an indication that Mr Nofomela wishes to withdraw his application.
ADV STEENKAMP: Indeed, thank you, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: We'll now proceed with the incident that we are seized with today. Which applicant is going to start? Mr Hattingh?
MR HATTINGH: Mr de Kock, Chairperson, will start.
ADV STEENKAMP: Madam Chair, if I may be so rude to interrupt again, but I know as a practice, you would like to sort out household difficulties before we start with the actual hearing. I can just maybe place on record furthermore - I'm not appearing on behalf of the applicant, but there was a difficulty with Mr Beeslaar as well. I've discussed this with my learned colleague, Mr Swart, and I think it's just fair that he must maybe place on record that there is a difficulty in locating Mr Beeslaar as well. Just before we start, if I may suggest. Thank you, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Swart is on record as appearing for Mr Beeslaar. We have not been advised of any difficulties. Are you having any difficulties, Mr Swart?
MR SWART ADDRESSES: For a number of weeks, Madam Chair, we were not able to locate Mr Beeslaar. We are in the process of trying to locate him. There is an indication that we may have an answer at 11 o'clock, but in the meantime we are of the opinion that it will be best if we continue with the hearings and we will represent him until we have instructions to the opposite.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Are you properly instructed by Mr Beeslaar?
MR SWART: Yes, we are.
CHAIRPERSON: You've taken instructions from him?
MR SWART: Not in this incident, no.
CHAIRPERSON: What is the basis of your representation today, if no instructions have been taken in relation to this incident?
MR SWART: Strydom Britz Attorneys were involved in drawing up his amnesty applications and he is our client.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. So you are instructed in relation to this incident?
MR SWART: Ja, but we didn't consult with him to prepare for this hearing as such.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. When last were you in touch with Mr Beeslaar?
MR SWART: I'm not sure, Madam Chair, but I think it was with his previous amnesty application. I forgot the name.
CHAIRPERSON: Maybe to ask a pointed question, when did you get notification of the present hearing?
MR SWART: At the pre-trial hearing of this cluster we were told that this matter will be set down for tomorrow and during last week we were informed that the matter will proceed today. But we were trying for the last couple of weeks to get hold of Mr Beeslaar and we were unsuccessful.
CHAIRPERSON: This matter is being set down after it was removed from the role of the hearing in a cluster that was for some time in September or August. What were your instructions then?
MR SWART: Well we didn't take instructions then, what we do - the practice at our firm is to send registered mail to addresses and before we got hold of the client, we were told that the matter will be removed from the roll and placed on a later date and that we received the date at the pre-trial of this cluster.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. What do you wish to do now? Do you want us to proceed? You are properly instructed before us? You have to tell us if you are properly instructed in this matter.
MR SWART: Well Madam Chair, I think it will be unfair to our client just because we didn't contact him for this hearing, nor to be able, just as watching brief until we get instructions from him as to what his position is. Or until we are able to contact him.
CHAIRPERSON: We will request you to make the best in trying to locate Mr Beeslaar.
MR SWART: Madam Chair, can you just repeat that please.
CHAIRPERSON: We are going to request you to try your level best to locate Mr Beeslaar.
MR SWART: Yes, we are trying our best.
CHAIRPERSON: You have indicated that you will be getting some indication as to whether he has been located or not, by 11 o'clock. It is almost 11 o'clock.
MR SWART: Gen Steyn is helping us to try and locate Mr Beeslaar and we will get an answer from him later today, but we will still continue to try and locate Mr Beeslaar during the whole week.
CHAIRPERSON: You have no objection in this matter proceeding?
MR SWART: No, we don't have any objection. I'll just be sitting here as a watching brief and I will be joined later during the day by Adv Roelof du Plessis.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Hattingh, you were at the point of leading Mr de Kock, when this problem was raised to the Committee.
MR HATTINGH: May I call Mr de Kock, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: You may.
MR MALAN: Mr de Kock, you still have no objection to taking the oath.
EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: (sworn states)
MR MALAN: Thank you, you may be seated. Sworn in, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Malan. You may proceed, Mr Hattingh.
EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Chairperson.
Mr de Kock, you are an applicant in this incident and your application appears from page 1 of the bundle which serves before the Committee, is that correct?
MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, correct.
MR HATTINGH: Do you confirm the correctness of the allegations embodied in that statement?
MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: And as it has become a matter of course, do you confirm the contents of your supplementary affidavit where you deal with Vlakplaas, which has served before several other Committees?
MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: Very well. You have confirmed what is said in the statement there, will you please briefly tell the Committee with regard to the knowledge of this incident.
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, according to the date given here, it might be wrong because of the volume of incidents in which Vlakplaas was involved and where I where I was involved. I mention the date here of 1986 or 1987, when I was approached by Lt Gert Schoon of the Security Branch Josini, who telephonically requested me to assist him with the abduction of a Swazi citizen from Swaziland who they wanted to question.
MR HATTINGH: Did he mention the name of this person?
MR DE KOCK: This person's name was Jameson Mngomezulu. I have to mention that there were reports from the Northern Natal Security Branches with regard to Jameson Mngomezulu, as well as from the Eastern Transvaal Security Branches, with regard to his involvement with the ANC.
MR HATTINGH: Are these reports which were circulated amongst Security Branches?
MR DE KOCK: Yes, and it would have been marked as "Top Secret", because it had to do with a foreign subject.
MR HATTINGH: So you were already aware of this person and his activities in the ANC before Mr Schoon approached you for assistance?
MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: Did you know where this person lived?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, not exactly. I was shown his house on three or four occasions, it was not far from a tarred road. But we never acted against him because he was not pointed out as a target to us, or no request was directed at us for us to act against him.
MR HATTINGH: What exactly did Mr Schoon want you to do?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, it was to abduct this person from Swaziland and bring him to the RSA, so that by means of interrogation they could determine from him what his involvement was and information with regard to the movement of ANC terrorists to the rural areas in the Northern Natal area, where he according to reports, served as a transit facility as well as a person who would accompany or give directions. And there were also reports that he was stockpiling arms for ANC members in transit and as I have said, this was information which was gleamed from reports and not information that I obtained from persons.
MR HATTINGH: Did Mr Schoon tell you why they wanted to question this person?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, there was an indication that, I could not confirm it, but that he would have had knowledge or was involved in an infiltration in the rural area in Northern Natal, the Josini area or Nongoma area, where a group of the ANC, heavily armed, had already found accommodation and accommodated themselves there in an area that was mountainous on the South African side. These persons were later involved in shooting incidents with the SAP and had killed members of the SAP. And I believe this was also in regard to weapons cache points and an enlargement of the elaboration of possible rural terrorist groups. That is my opinion.
MR HATTINGH: Mr de Kock, we notice in some of the other applicants' applications that mention is made of the fact that Mr Mngomezulu was involved with the PAC. Do you have any information in that regard?
MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, as far as I know the PAC did not have any base in Swaziland and as far as I know, they also did not have any offices. They were not allowed in Swaziland. The Swazis only allowed the ANC and provided asylum to the ANC in Swaziland. I would not say to operate there, but the PAC worked from Botswana and they also had a faction in Lesotho, until the time that the ANC drove them from there.
MR HATTINGH: So your information was that Mr Mngomezulu was involved with the ANC?
MR DE KOCK: Yes, explicitly the ANC.
MR HATTINGH: And then you received this request that you had to abduct him. What did you do about it?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I discussed this request with Brig Schoon, my Commander. It was very brief and it was about what the request was and "die aard of die trant van sy antwoord was" continue or go and do it. We did not have long discussions about these aspects. I would have discussed it with him because his brother was the Branch Commander who directed this request, so there could be no secrecy about this.
MR HATTINGH: Very well. Did you the appoint some of your members to assist in this regard?
MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: Can you recall whom you appointed to assist him in this regard?
MR DE KOCK: I requested Lt van Dyk to lead the group and W/O Beeslaar was also with this group, and then I also appointed black members. I recall W/O Koole and W/O Mgade and Mogoai. I could not recall the others. I was not certain and I did not want to implicate anyone. But these were all persons to whom we can refer as the heavyweight operatives, the whole group was made up of well experienced operatives.
MR HATTINGH: Mr de Kock, the modus operandi of Vlakplaas was then to place so-called askaris under the command of certain police officers and send them to certain areas to be of assistance in those areas. Was Lt van Dyk and Mr Beeslaar and the black members specifically sent for this abduction or were they already in that area? Were they already deployed in that area?
MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, it was a normal deployment which lasts for three weeks and from this deployment this would be an additional function that they would have performed for that area, for Josini, which was included in Northern Natal. They operated in the Piet Retief area of Eastern Transvaal.
MR HATTINGH: And the bundle which contains the applications of the other applicants, have you read it?
MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: And did this refresh your memory with regard to the persons who were involved in this incident?
MR DE KOCK: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: Because when you drew up your own application you said you could not recall all the names of the black members.
MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson. I later mentioned names, but as I have said, I did not want to just suck any names from my thumb and implicate persons in here.
MR HATTINGH: On page 5 you mention the name of Mr Koole, Mbelo and Mr Mogoai and Mr van Dyk as well.
MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: You instructed them, or you instructed Mr van Dyk to see to the abduction of Mr Mngomezulu.
MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: Did you receive any feedback?
MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson. After the operation, with our return to Pretoria. I'm not certain on which date this abduction had taken place, but with regard to the end of service of that specific three week deployment, Mr van Dyk did report to me and I also held discussions with Mr Beeslaar.
MR HATTINGH: And were you informed that the person had been killed?
MR DE KOCK: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: And what happened to his body, according to what was told to you?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, that it was blown up at some missile range in the area, close to Sodwana.
MR HATTINGH: And did you then report to Brig Schoon?
MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, I briefly mentioned to him that the task had been performed. We never held any one hour or two hour post-mortems after operations, it either went well or it went bad.
MR HATTINGH: Did you inform him that the person had been killed?
MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson. I said, and this was usually my - the euphemism that I had used was that the person did not exist anymore. In other words, there was no danger from this person.
MR HATTINGH: Were you yourself involved in the abduction, questioning and killing of Mr Mngomezulu?
MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: You are aware that some of the applicants allege that you arrived there where he was questioned and one or more of them said that you instructed them to kill him.
MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, I was not there and I did not give such an instruction. What I would mention is that, and I am not trying to avoid this, but one can foresee the possibility or probability that this person would be killed. There is also the possibility that this person could be recruited, but if he is not recruited then one could reasonably foresee that he would be killed.
MR HATTINGH: Very well. What was your political objective with regard to the assistance which you gave in this regard?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, firstly, it was in order to trace whether there more transit facilities and cache points in the area of the ANC, were there weapons on the RSA or the Swaziland side that we could destroy, how many people has he taken to the RSA/Swaziland border and how many of them have returned and who were they, so that one could determine whether we have a greater terrorist situation in the rural area than we thought. And in the nature of the situation one then destroys this ANC facility by the removal of the person.
MR HATTINGH: Did you have any personal feelings towards Mr Mngomezulu?
MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, I did not know him at all. I knew that he was of assistance to the ANC, but as I have said, we have on a previous occasion driven past his house but we did not take any action because we did not have any instructions.
MR HATTINGH: Did you receive any reward for your assistance in this matter?
MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: Can you recall where you were when this abduction had taken place?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, the fact that I was not present meant that I was probably busy with something else which was more urgent and I suspect that I was on my way to Cape Town in connection with the spate of violence and unrest in Guguletu/Khayelitsha/Crossroads area. I think I was on my way to Cape Town and that is why I did not accompany them on this operation.
MR HATTINGH: So you were not in the area, not in Natal at all?
MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Chairperson, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HATTINGH
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Hattingh. Mr Swart, do you have any questions to put to Mr de Kock?
MR SWART: No questions, Madam Chair.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR SWART
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Samuels?
MR WILLIAMS: Williams.
CHAIRPERSON: Williams, sorry.
MR WILLIAMS: I've got no questions, Madam Chair.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR WILLIAMS
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chairperson.
Mr de Kock, insofar as it may still be relevant, I would wish to ask you something in connection with what Mr Nofomela says on page 170. He says -
"After the incident, Mgade and Koole both received a so-called reward of R300 from Maj de Kock."
My instructions from Mr Koole is that he did not receive any reward from you. Do you have any recollection of it?
MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, no reward was paid out to them.
CHAIRPERSON: What page is that, Mr Lamey?
MR MALAN: What are you referring to?
CHAIRPERSON: What page? Did you say 170?
MR LAMEY: Yes, 170. It's the statement of Mr Nofomela, as far as it may still be relevant.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes
MR LAMEY: As it pleases you, Chairperson.
Mr de Kock, you're not entirely certain of the date of this incident, is that correct?
MR DE KOCK: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: And it would seem as if your answer - that your explanation that you were not there at a stage sounds to me as if that is also speculation, that you probably were on your way to Cape Town to Guguletu. Are you certain about your movements there?
MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, I'm not. I cannot tell you exactly where I was. I do know that I was not in the Piet Retief area because then I would have participated in this operation personally. As in many operations I took the lead. I however never had any problem with the leadership of Lt van Dyk, he knows Swaziland much better than he knows Pretoria I think. The group who was appointed to him was a heavyweight group who were used for cross-border clandestine operations previously. And in an incident like this one would not easily forget it.
MR LAMEY: And today, do you have a better recollection of the date?
MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, I still don't have a recollection about the date. I can for example give it to you as a barometer, that I had to make enquiries as to when the London bomb was, which was something quite extraordinary and I could not recall it, I had to make some enquiries about the date.
MR LAMEY: Is it your clear recollection that - do I understand your evidence correctly, that you say Mr Mogoai at that stage was a member of Vlakplaas still?
MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, he was.
MR LAMEY: Are you very certain about this, or could you be mistaken about this?
MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, I would not be mistaken here. What has happened sometimes is that a person, specifically former ANC members or askaris would be deployed for services to head office, but he is still a member of Vlakplaas for purposes of salary and his administration duties and his medical files and so forth.
MR LAMEY: You have testified that you gave instructions to the members after you received the request from Gert Schoon to abduct Mngomezulu. Whom did you give the instruction to? Did you personally speak to all the members, amongst others, Mogoai as well or did you give the instruction to van Dyk while he was deployed in that area?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, as far as I can recall I gave the instruction to van Dyk, this was at Vlakplaas if I recall correctly, and I could have told some of the black members that they have a special task. If I recall correctly, I supplied ...(end of side A of tape)
... Makarovs, Russian pistols to them, so that if a shooting incident ensued, then nothing could be found from the South African Forces' side.
MR LAMEY: Are you saying that the group was sent down for this purpose to this area to specifically execute this abduction?
MR DE KOCK: Not specifically, but amongst others, to perform a duty in the Piet Retief area. The Piet Retief area or the Eastern Transvaal area and that of Northern Natal border each other and the border is at Golel and still falls comes under the Eastern Transvaal area and from there it becomes Northern Natal. So for us to go and work from the one area to the other area was not something new.
MR LAMEY: But can you specifically recall that at Vlakplaas you specifically spoke to Piet Mogoai?
MR DE KOCK: Today I do not have an independent recollection thereof, Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: And for that purpose you also spoke to Koole?
MR DE KOCK: That is possible, Chairperson. As I have said, I do not have an independent recollection thereof.
MR LAMEY: My instructions from Mr Mogoai are that at that stage he resorted under the command of Brig McIntyre at head office and Brig McIntyre, my instructions are that at that stage he was the Chief of C2, amongst others, the Stratcom Division of Security Head Office and that on a day he was request, or was given instructions by Brig McIntyre to accompany Beeslaar and he drove down with Beeslaar, and initially he did not know what it was all about until he arrived at the other members and the person was brought there after his abduction near Piet Retief and the interrogation ensued and he participated therein. What I would like to put to you is that Mogoai says that from head office he went there and that at that stage he was not at Vlakplaas any longer.
MR DE KOCK: Brig McIntyre was never in command of Section C2, Chairperson, and Brig McIntyre could not have instructed Beeslaar, he would for example have to go to Brig Schoon, so that he could instruct Beeslaar.
MR LAMEY: No, he does not say that McIntyre gave Beeslaar instructions. Was Brig McIntyre indeed ...(intervention)
MR MALAN: Mr Lamey, I think you did say that he was asked by McIntyre to accompany Beeslaar. That was your statement to Mr de Kock.
MR LAMEY: That's correct. Mogoai was requested to accompany Beeslaar and not that McIntyre had given any instruction to Beeslaar.
MR DE KOCK: But I can also not believe - it could not have worked on that basis because McIntyre could not give Mogoai an instruction to go and work with my group. Firstly, I would have had to ask McIntyre and receive permission from Brig Schoon afterwards and in that regard there was compartmentalisation. I do know that Mogoai at some stage did work at Stratcom, but not during this time, as far as I know, Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: Very well, but do you know that Brig McIntyre was in command of Stratcom?
MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, at a later stage, I think '87/'88, somewhere around there.
CHAIRPERSON: May I interpose, Mr Lamey?
Did you around this time, Mr de Kock, have any occasion to speak to Brig McIntyre about the fact that you had been approached by Mr Gert Schoon in connection with the proposed abduction of Mr Mngomezulu?
MR DE KOCK: No, I did not have any negotiations with Brig McIntyre in this regard.
MR MALAN: I beg your pardon, Mr Lamey, may I just ask this question of Mr de Kock.
Mr de Kock, you said that you sent a heavyweight group and you asked van Dyk to lead the group.
MR DE KOCK: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR MALAN: Can you recall whether you introduced the other members to him?
MR DE KOCK: I would have made recommendations to him as to who he must take, because it has to certainty here and these were persons who were all involved in the killing and abduction of persons.
MR MALAN: So you may have asked him to include Mogoai?
MR DE KOCK: Yes, I could have, Chairperson.
MR MALAN: And then he would have had to take the following steps.
MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson. In no operation did I tie someone to such an extent that he could not use his own initiative if he wanted to bring in anybody else.
MR MALAN: But in other words, it is possible that - we'll hear what Mr van Dyk says, but it is possible from Mr Mogoai's angle, that Mr van Dyk liaised with Brig McIntyre, if he was deployed at that stage.
MR DE KOCK: Yes, something in the way could have happened, Chairperson.
MR MALAN: Thank you.
MR LAMEY: And then Mr Koole says that they were already working in that area when he received the instruction from van Dyk to abduct this man along with the other members. He, Koole, was already there when he received the instruction.
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I will not dispute that. Once again I can just tell you what I recall here, and I do not want to use the excuse that it was a long time ago, I will tell you what I recall and then we have to weigh it up.
MR MALAN: I don't think it is entirely essential. I think it is common cause that they were out for a three week deployment.
MR LAMEY: As it pleases you.
Mr de Kock, then I would like to go over to Koole and Mogoai who place you at the scene with the interrogation as well as assault after the man was abducted. Is it so that you on a regular basis, you visited groups who were deployed in certain areas?
MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: You have also previously testified, and I think it is common cause, that you were involved personally in many incidents and in previous amnesty proceedings you have laid the grounds that you experienced much problems with the preparation of your amnesty applications because of your position and your access to your legal representatives and that ground were laid with regard to other incidents before the Amnesty Committee, where there was possibly mistakes or problems with your memory with your regard to your application.
Now I accept that you have heard what Koole and Mogoai had said, that you were present during the interrogation and assault of Mr Mngomezulu. Is this not an aspect, is it not possible that you visited the group there at some stage, especially where one has to deal with the serious case of abduction and assault where a person was abducted from Swaziland and that your presence there had escaped your memory?
MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, there was something specific there which I was informed about, either by Mr Beeslaar or by Mr van Dyk, and if I observed it myself I could testify about it, but with the report-back at Vlakplaas to me, either by Lt van Dyk or W/O Beeslaar, one of the two specifically mentioned to me that we should never use Mogoai for interrogation and absolutely never again. And the reason therefore was that with the interrogation of this Mr Jameson, he applied a method which I had not even previously known of, and that was by forcing a piece of wire or barbed wire up the urethra of Mr Jameson Mngomezulu, like one would clean a rifle, and that Mr Mngomezulu was seriously injured in that manner, as I've stated in my application. So if I was there, I would have seen this and without sounding coy, I would not have allowed it because I do not know of any of such interrogation methods.
MR LAMEY: Who told you this?
MR DE KOCK: It was either Mr van Dyk or Mr Beeslaar.
MR LAMEY: You are not certain who told you this?
MR DE KOCK: No, but it was definitely told to me, because thereafter I did not use Mr Mogoai again in interrogations.
MR LAMEY: Chairperson, this is new evidence, may I take instructions?
CHAIRPERSON: You may, Mr Lamey.
MR LAMEY: Mr de Kock, my instructions from Mr Mogoai are that never at any stage did he do anything as you have now mentioned and he does not have any knowledge that anybody else did so either. With regard to this aspect, did you address Mr Mogoai?
MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, it would have been futile.
MR LAMEY: Why would it have been futile if a man went out of line while he was interrogating a person?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, well what shall I do now, the man deceased, he's already been tortured, he's already been killed. All that I can do is try and prevent that something like this happens ever again.
MR LAMEY: You will agree with me that this type of assault by a member, of which you know, and possibly van Dyk or Beeslaar, is serious and is ...(indistinct) that a person expects that those applicants would mention it in their amnesty application and yourself too.
MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, one would expect that if they were present there while it happened, then I believe they could have mentioned it.
MR LAMEY: You don't even mention it.
MR DE KOCK: No, I mentioned here that he was seriously injured and by nature and volume of my application, I could not go into detail completely. And one's memory is jogged as time goes by.
MR LAMEY: Even in your evidence-in-chief you did not mention it.
MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, I mentioned that he was seriously injured and that is what I had in mind.
MR LAMEY: It is only when we arrived at this point in cross-examination where Mogoai amongst others, implicates you, that you mention this new evidence.
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I have taken the oath of making a full disclosure.
MR LAMEY: Well Mr Mogoai says and Mr Koole also says it, that you were present during his interrogation and assault at Josini dam and Mogoai also says furthermore that you also arrived there before the victim was moved to Josini dam and that you amongst others, had at some stage struck the deceased to his testicles.
MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, I would have said if I was there. And the ones who sat on Panels, I have never tried to hide from them that which had happened in the past and I do not try to run away from any form of how serious the gross human violations were and I've taken account of the instructions that I have taken. If I was there, I would have told you so, I would definitely not have tried to hide this fact.
MR LAMEY: I will put it to you that these are their statements and specifically Mogoai, with regard to your specific conduct to which I had referred, and that Mr Mogoai will testify that he has a definite recollection with regard to that and also Mr Koole, that he has a definite recollection with regard to your presence during the interrogation.
Just another aspect. In your amnesty statement on page 5, you mention persons who were present. This follows after the paragraph where van Dyk told you that Schoon had blown up this person on the missile range that was adjacent to the sea and then you mention names there. What I would like to ask you there, do you refer to the persons who were present as such, who were present during interrogation or do you refer to the blowing up of the person at the missile range? This is not clear to me.
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I refer to the persons present at the abduction. I did not have complete detail, but you will see there I mention Piet Mogoai. He was definitely present because he undertook the interrogation and this I said on the grounds of the information that I had and because of time, I could not sit and spell out every detail here. For example, I could not recall that Nofomela was there, of all people I could not even recall that Nofomela was there. But I did not want to implicate people and drag them through the mud ...(intervention)
MR MALAN: Mr de Kock, I think the question was about where were they involved. You refer to the abduction, you don't refer to the blowing up.
MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.
MR MALAN: And you don't refer specifically to everybody who was present there.
MR DE KOCK: That's correct.
MR LAMEY: Now with regard to Mr Mogoai, he was one of the persons involved in the abduction from Swaziland, from the point where he was abducted, or are you not certain of this?
MR DE KOCK: That would have been, amongst others, Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: Well I would like to put it to you that that information that you have available was incorrect because Mogoai only joined them later and Mogoai was not part of the group that undertook the abduction from Swaziland. He was present when the person was taken from Piet Retief to Josini.
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I believe other persons would be able to give detail here, I will stand by the detail as I have told you here.
MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chairperson, I've got no further questions. Sorry, just one last aspect about
Mr de Kock, with regard to the PAC aspect, is it your recollection that nowhere with regard to Mngomezulu's assistance, was it to PAC? Was this never brought to your knowledge with regard to the PAC?
MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson. As I've mentioned, the PAC did not have offices and they did not operate in Swaziland, they were not allowed there. We never operated against the PAC in Swaziland. There were no facilities for them there.
MR LAMEY: Very well. I will just put it to you, it is already in the statement of Mr Mogoai, that when he was tasked with the interrogation he was informed there that he would have had contact with PAC members and that he had to interrogate him with regard to this subject as well. I just put it to you.
Thank you, Chairperson, no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Lamey. Mr Prinsloo?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Chairperson.
Mr de Kock, for the perspective of the matter, according to Mr Schoon the deceased during the middle '70s, was trained in Libya by the PAC. Do you know of this?
MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, I did not know that.
MR PRINSLOO: And that the PAC in the middle '70s was also active to an extent in Swaziland.
MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, I was still in South West during that time.
MR PRINSLOO: And Mr Schoon as well as Mr Pienaar support your version that you were not present during any interrogation of the person.
MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.
MR PRINSLOO: And both these gentlemen, according to them they do not have any knowledge of any person who forced a piece of barbed wire up the urethra of Mr Mngomezulu.
MR DE KOCK: I would accept that, I just mentioned what was mentioned to me, but I would not dispute this.
MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Chairperson, no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRINSLOO
CHAIRPERSON: Ms van der Walt.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you, Chairperson.
Mr de Kock, I would just like to refer you to page 5 of your application. You mention that Mr Mngomezulu was amongst others, interrogated at Island Rock, and if put it to you that Mr van Dyk would say that this was outside Piet Retief at a place by the name of Moolman and then later at Leeupoort. This was close to Josini dam. Would you be able to dispute that?
MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson.
MS VAN DER WALT: And then on the same page, third paragraph you say
"I was furthermore informed by Mr Paul van Dyk, that the member was then killed."
Mr Paul van Dyk will testify that he reported back to you that the person was dead and this was because of a severe assault and that his body was blown up.
MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, I did not receive any record from Mr van Dyk that the person was shot at a missile range. What he did indeed tell me was that this man was killed. I don't have a recollection whether it was during interrogation or after the interrogation had been concluded, whether he was killed then at the scene where the interrogation had taken place. That is my recollection.
MS VAN DER WALT: Mr van Dyk on page 86 of his application says that you gave him instructions to execute this abduction, as you have testified. That is correct.
MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.
MS VAN DER WALT: And he will also testify further that he was present up to the moment that this person was blown up, but you were never present.
MR DE KOCK: That is correct, Chairperson.
MS VAN DER WALT: No further questions, thank you Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS VAN DER WALT
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nel?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR NEL: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr de Kock, I would just put it to you, as Mr Nofomela says on page 170 of his application, he also refers to my client, Aubrey Mgade, where he says that Mgade also received R300 from you, and I would like to put it to you that he supports your version that he did not receive any reward for his participation in this operation.
MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, there were no rewards.
MR NEL: And the other aspect which I would like to put to you is that Mgade differs with some of the other applicants with regard to the date, and he says specifically it had to be in 1986, because he only arrived at Vlakplaas in 1986 and he had never previously worked with C1 and that is why he says specifically that it was in 1986.
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I will not dispute that because as I am sitting here I still do not have the correct date. I do not know what day or month it was, I cannot recall.
MR NEL: The only point, according to my instructions, that Mr Mgade might differ from you is that at that stage he was not one of the older experienced members, because of the fact that he only arrived there in 1986. And to an extent he is supported by one of the other applicants, Mr Koole, on page 23 where he for example says that Mgade was only the driver of the minibus and he was not involved in the actual abduction. Can you dispute that?
MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson. My background knowledge of Mgade with his application to Vlakplaas, was that he was a reliable person, he was a hardened person that one could use. I would not say that he was experienced in C1 operations, but he has been under pressure previously.
MR NEL: Then it is my mistake, Mr de Kock, I may have misunderstood you. I don't dispute that he was a hardened experienced operative, but at that stage he was not experienced in C1 and Vlakplaas.
MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.
MR NEL: Thank you, Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR NEL
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Nel. Mr Kgasi on behalf of the victims, do you wish to put any questions to Mr de Kock?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR KGASI: Yes, Madam Chairperson.
Mr de Kock, I am more interested in the line of command here. You testified that Mr Schoon gave you instructions to go and abduct and bring the deceased to South Africa. Now you have further testified that you appointed Mr van Dyk to lead the group, is that so?
MR DE KOCK: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR KGASI: And now the process of reporting back, was Mr van Dyk supposed to report back to you on the mission?
MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, he would supply the detail to me, not complete detail, but whether it was successful or not. In other words, did we reach our objective by abducting the person and secondly, would fingers be pointed at the SAP, in other words, to us. Those were the two extremely important aspects to us.
MR KGASI: Now when you gave Mr van Dyk the instructions to lead the group, did you fully brief him on the methods that they were supposed to use, or did you just leave it up to his own discretion?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, this was quite some time back, but the instruction was that if we could not abduct the man and take him to the person who wanted him, if the persons encountered resistance at this house, then they would have shot them. One overcomes that resistance, but leaves it to the operative's initiative. When one selects operatives, we're looking for individual thinking persons who can act independently if it is necessary and there are always permutations involved in this type of work.
MR KGASI: Alright, thank you. And now regarding Mr Mogoai. You testified that he employed methods that you have never heard of in interrogating the deceased, do you say that that was part of this discretion that you are talking about, or would you just say that he acted -loosely I would use the words like, that he was a loose cannon?
MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, I would not say that he was a loose cannon. It might have been in his psyche that he belied that he could extract information in this manner. Why I say that I have never heard of this is because I did not hear that the SS or the Croats or the Serbs had used this, not even the ANC at Quatro and at Sun City employed this tactic. It was entirely strange to me, entirely foreign.
CHAIRPERSON: May I interpose, Mr Kgasi?
MR KGASI: Alright. Thank you ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: May I interpose, just on a follow-up to that question before I lose the angle.
Mr de Kock, what I really would like to be clarified on is, you seem to have disapproved of the method used by Mr Mogoai.
MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, there are certainly well used methods, one could strangle him with a bag or you can tube him or you can electrocute him or you can make him ride a scooter or he is struck or he'll ride a helicopter, people have used methods of burning to bring people to other insights, break their arms. We have heard in Port Elizabeth what methods they used, but this was, I don't know, this was "beyond the pale" type of situation for me certainly. And I'm not being coy, but I have never, not in Rhodesia, not in South West, not in Angola and not here, have I heard or seen this method being used.
CHAIRPERSON: What I want to know is, were there accepted methods that could be used by Vlakplaas operatives during an interrogation of their subjects?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, we previously have smothered persons, I don't know if I understand you correctly, or a person was assaulted, but in that line, no never.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. And you have also stated that you actually left the method to the initiative of the operative concerned, during an interrogation.
MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, these are methods which we have grown up with, if I may put it as such, but this is not one that I have heard of on a previous occasion, I've never even read of it anywhere, not in the Gulaks, not in Germany, nowhere else.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Kgasi, you may proceed.
MR KGASI: Thank you.
One last question, Mr de Kock. Is it your testimony today that you deny ever being present during the interrogation, despite what the other applicants are saying?
MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, because that is the truth, and if I was there you can be certain I would have told you.
MR KGASI: Thank you, Mr de Kock. Madam Chairperson, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR KGASI
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Kgasi. Mr Steenkamp?
ADV STEENKAMP: Thank you, Madam Chair, no questions.
NO QUESTIONS BY ADV STEENKAMP
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I would like to mention that I take responsibility for the actions of persons who acted under my command the instructions that I gave, and I take responsibility for the persons who were co-opted by Lt van Dyk, for example, Mr Pienaar and those persons. I would have wanted to include Mr Schoon, but I believe that his Commander of Northern Natal has to do that if he has the courage to, but I take responsibility for the members of Vlakplaas and those who were co-opted.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Malan, do you have any questions to put to Mr de Kock.
MR MALAN: Thank you, Chairperson.
Mr de Kock, you say three or four times you drove past the deceased's house.
MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.
MR MALAN: If I recall correctly it was in Swaziland and in a traditional area.
MR DE KOCK: Yes, it's traditional rural area.
MR MALAN: Like a "kraal"?
MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.
MR MALAN: Did you regularly pass there, how did it happen, is it on the main road?
MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, what we did - and in my case, is that I had to get to know Swaziland and the only way I could get to know this place was from Lt van Dyk and he took me to the different places, small turn off roads, the shortcuts that go through plantations and so forth. I would have neglected my operational duty if I did not do this.
MR MALAN: One of the applicants - I don't find my notes now, allege that Mr Nzimande also exactly knew where the deceased lived.
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, that is probably so because he was one of the insurgents that were caught in that infiltration in the Josini/Nongoma area.
MR MALAN: Very well. Mr de Kock, can you please try and tell us how it came about that Beeslaar was present? If we read his application - I just put it to you quickly, he's not here now, but he says that he had to go down for an audit, that is now my paraphrase, but he was not involved in operations, he was a technical person.
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, at that stage I had a shortage of white members and at times I sent him out more as a control. It could be that amongst others, he had to complete some of the admin work, but amongst others, he would have gone on patrols. I was busy building up new things, I was not the Commander for a long time then, and I was busy building a new unit.
MR MALAN: But you cannot recall that you sent him out specifically to assist in this operation.
MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, definitely not. As far as I can recall he was not supposed to be involved in the abduction.
MR MALAN: So while he was there, would he serve under the command of any of the other applicants there?
MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, he would have served under the command of the highest ranked person, and that would have been Lt van Dyk.
MR MALAN: I believe he was a Lieutenant then.
MR DE KOCK: Yes, I think he was a Lieutenant then.
MR MALAN: Very well. You have also said that if such a person is abducted he would be killed if he is not recruited.
MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, one can foresee that.
MR MALAN: Did you take note in the applications that Pienaar, Schoon and van Dyk say that they took a decision to drop him off at the border post because it was no longer worth undertaking the interrogation, and at some stage when they were on their way they lifted up the tarpaulin and saw he was dead. Did you read this?
MR DE KOCK: Yes, I did.
MR MALAN: Did you earlier receive this in a report from van Dyk?
MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson.
MR MALAN: Are you saying this is outside the scope of your memory?
MR DE KOCK: Yes.
MR MALAN: If they say the did, would you deny it?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I cannot recall it. It may be that they could have told me, but I cannot recall.
MR MALAN: Very well. I beg your pardon, Chairperson, I think there's one more question which I would like to put.
I do not understand, you said that you received feedback from van Dyk, but I think in your evidence-in-chief you said "with our return to Pretoria they informed me that the person was killed and had been blown up". You probably wanted to say with their return.
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, it could be. When these groups returned to Vlakplaas it was all on the same day, so Piet Retief and the people from Cape Town would all arrive at Vlakplaas on the same day.
MR MALAN: And you probably would have arrived from some other area.
MR DE KOCK: Yes, I probably would have arrived there the same day.
MR MALAN: I wanted to find out what you meant by that. Thank you very much, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Malan. Mr Motata?
ADV MOTATA: Thank you, Chairperson.
Mr de Kock, when people were interrogated it was paramount that information regarding their terrorist activities should be obtained, would I be understanding it correctly?
MR DE KOCK: Correct, Chairperson.
ADV MOTATA: And during that period when people were interrogated, obviously unconventional means were utilised to obtain information, that for instance the type of assaults that were perpetrated on the victims was not the kind of assault we know, like hitting somebody with the open hand or a fist.
MR DE KOCK: If you could repeat that please, I have lost you there somewhere.
ADV MOTATA: I said the type of assaults perpetrated, in short were not the conventional assaults we know that probably with an open hand, a clap, a fist, but all sorts of assaults were perpetrated on the victims.
MR DE KOCK: Yes, that's correct, Chairperson.
ADV MOTATA: Was there - that is my interest, any specific instructions given that when we interrogate these are the methods we are going to use and you don't go outside these methods?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, in my instance I had some guidelines, amongst others, that women and children are left alone. I've previously put it that if anybody messed with children or women I would have executed them myself and today I will not even think twice about it, I will execute him if he messes with the women and children. But one would accept out of reasonability, and how rough it may get, that the person would probably be sjamboked and be struck so as to bleed eventually, but placing this wire up the urethra, I cannot answer to that. This is outside the scope of the imagination.
ADV MOTATA: Now let's take it a step further. If somebody is for instance, interrogated and he refuses with this kind of information or information say which is of importance like, where are you hiding the weapons, weaponry and all that, that person would at some stage be eliminated.
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, not necessarily, we had cases where persons were abducted and were questioned on this side and they fetched the firearms and they later became askaris at Vlakplaas. I refer here for example to Chris Mosiane. I think one of the situations was that a person who is interrogated determines in many cases his manner of interrogation, depending on how urgent the interrogator wants it. If I have five days time to interrogate a person, then the interrogation can take a different course than if I had an hour's time and if I could just use and hour and if you don't tell me in an hour where the car bomb is, I will use everything in my power.
ADV MOTATA: Now in this instance, Mr de Kock, where Mr Mngomezulu eventually lost his life, is it of utmost importance how he was interrogated and what methods of assaults were utilised?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, no, I would not say that. It is just the method, as it was reported to me that Mr Mogoai used, was to me totally unacceptable. And as I have said, without being coy because that I am not, but this was an unacceptable method.
ADV MOTATA: So even when it is accepted that you have mentioned that you take responsibility of the, even the ultimate killing of Mr Mngomezulu, how he met his death, does it matter to you, because he didn't provide the information required by van Dyk and company, he had to die as they saw it fit in their discretion, that this person refuses with information, he's got to die.
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, no necessarily because one afterwards over a course of time may have recruited him, but this is pure speculation. He was abducted without other persons knowing, without the Swazi Government knowing. As far as I know it was a clean operation. But what happened at the scene there, what decision was taken there and what his attitude was, I could not testify to that, I cannot tell you.
ADV MOTATA: Let's suppose - Mr Mogoai has an application even though that is not mentioned, you have mentioned that you take responsibility.
MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.
ADV MOTATA: Are you taking responsibility for Mr Mogoai in employing this method which you disapprove of?
MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson. It was a once-off. Why he used that method I do not know, maybe he thought that obtaining this information was of an urgent nature, which is why he thought he could take such a step. And I would not be any kind of Commander if I left him in the lurch right now.
ADV MOTATA: Thank you, Mr de Kock.
MR DE KOCK: Thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON: And on a follow-up on that one, Mr de Kock. We all know by now that Vlakplaas did not possess a set of guidelines with regard to methods of torture that could be employed by its operatives on their subjects. Is it not so?
MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: And as you have previously testified, this was left largely to one's initiative.
MR DE KOCK: Correct, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: I think what is very interesting to ask as a Panel, is the fact that you found the method used by Mr Mogoai offensive.
MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Notwithstanding the fact that there were no boundaries beyond which one could not go in trying to extract information from the subject.
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, boundaries, when one has these situations, is also dependant on one's inherent psychology. It is not acceptable to me, maybe it was acceptable to Mr Mogoai and therefore the request, it was either van Dyk or Beeslaar, that we should not use this person again because this would have been offensive for that person too.
CHAIRPERSON: Well coming back to what was previously put to you by Mr Kgasi with regard to the chain of command. The way I understand your evidence is that you were requested by Lt Schoon to assist with the abduction and by that I want to understand that he was requesting you for resources, for you to make use of Vlakplaas operatives to assist in the abduction of Mr Mngomezulu.
MR DE KOCK: Correct, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: In your opinion, did he have authority to direct such a request to you?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson yes, I may tell you that I believed that it came on the basis of his Divisional Commander and that it was cleared with him. I cannot testify about that. And after that request I went to my commander who was the Chief of C-Section.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Was it necessary for you to get an approval of Brig Schoon in connection with a request conveyed to you by Lt Schoon?
MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Is that instructions had to be carried out from one division to your ...(indistinct).
MR DE KOCK: I would have gone to my Commander, yes, Chairperson, and I would have informed him about it. Such request were directed previously and also afterwards, but that is the manner in which we went about.
CHAIRPERSON: Were these approvals in writing or it was verbal?
MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, one of Brig Schoon's gold jewels all the years was, when I put in a request for an operation, was this must not go on paper and you write too much, come speak to me, this is verbatim.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. When you instructed van Dyk to take charge of command of the operation, did you specify to him how he was to execute the abduction, or you left it to his initiative?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, that one would leave to the operative, because the situation on ground level can be different to what it was a month previously and one has to look at the circumstances there. I supplied them with Russian firearms in case there was any resistance or they might arrive at this kraal and instead of Mr Jameson there, they would also find three ANC members. These are things that one has to foresee even if they do not use the firearms. But one leaves it to the operative on the ground to choose his own time, whether it be day or night, to execute any operation.
CHAIRPERSON: Were there any explicit instructions to Mr van Dyk with regard to how many askaris or black members he was to include in his operation?
MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, once again one leaves this to the operative because he, because of the nature of the area, he has to decide on the approach of the target, how many people will he use, will he have a fall back group if he gets attacked. It was not just driving in and grabbing someone, one has to plan it properly. If my people are injured, would there be an additional vehicle to transport the injured, or something in that line. It takes co-ordination and it takes planning.
CHAIRPERSON: You've also stated that you take responsibility for persons co-opted by Mr van Dyk in this operation, and you mentioned Mr Pienaar.
MR DE KOCK: Correct, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: He was the Station Commander in Piet Retief.
MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Would Mr Pienaar have fallen under the command of Mr van Dyk for purposes of this operation? If so, why?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, only in this application did I see that Mr Pienaar was there, I was not aware of it. But by nature of the situation, Mr Pienaar would have had an interest because Eastern Transvaal also had an interest in this Jameson person and rank-wise, W/O Pienaar would resort under the command of Lt van Dyk if they moved to the Northern Natal area. And that is why in that regard I take responsibility.
CHAIRPERSON: But would he ordinarily have been under the command of Mr van Dyk, bearing in mind that Mr van Dyk was from Vlakplaas ...(intervention)
MR DE KOCK: Correct, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: ... and he was there merely to provide the necessary resources.
MR DE KOCK: Correct, Chairperson. With the performance of duty of the askaris in this area, Lt van Dyk will resort under the command of the Divisional Commander of the Eastern Transvaal area, but the moment that they leave that area, Mr Pienaar would then resort under the command of Mr van Dyk, and in that regard I take responsibility.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Malan wishes to raise one issue with you that he omitted to during his examination of you.
MR MALAN: I apologise, but it also came about from the follow-up questions. I would like to make certain, who was Schoon's direct Commander?
MR DE KOCK: I cannot recall the surname, I cannot recall the name of the person who was in command of Division Northern Natal, but with regard to Vlakplaas, van Dyk, then myself, then Brig Schoon at head office.
MR MALAN: So Schoon was on the lowest officer's rank when he contacted you, he was a Lieutenant.
MR DE KOCK: Yes, he was a Lieutenant but he was the Commander of Josini Branch himself. So that whole area resorted under his command.
MR MALAN: So as Lieutenant he was Commander of Josini Branch.
MR DE KOCK: That's correct.
MR MALAN: And Pienaar?
MR DE KOCK: Pienaar was a Warrant Officer, but he was in command of the Piet Retief Branch, under the Divisional Commander in Middelburg.
MR MALAN: And van Dyk was a Captain, he had the highest rank.
MR DE KOCK: I think he was also a Lieutenant, Chairperson.
MR MALAN: Very well.
MR DE KOCK: But he would resort under my command for purposes of work there and the operation there.
MR MALAN: There's just another thing and this is the thing that I actually want to follow up. These allegations - we don't have evidence, you would not be able to comment on this, that after this interrogation which according to all evidence and according to your evidence of the feedback, was a very serious assault.
MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.
MR MALAN: Does a decision get taken to release this man that he could go freely back into Swaziland? Can you comment?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, the only thing that I can say is that the circumstances on the ground level will lead you to what then would be a decision. Let us speculate, let's say that they recruited him and he is sent back ...(intervention)
MR MALAN: But now it is clear that they did not recruit him.
MR DE KOCK: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR MALAN: The evidence is clear, there is a man who did not give any information in spite of the fact that he was severely assaulted and much worse, according to the evidence that you can recall, who did not cooperate, who was entirely confused afterwards, I think he moved and did not act normal. Can you think of any reason why one would release such a man on the border and indeed in an unconscious condition?
MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, this would have caused an international outcry. This would have caused an international condemnation.
MR MALAN: So more probable it is that you heard that the man was interrogated, seriously assaulted, did not cooperate and was eliminated.
MR DE KOCK: Yes.
MR MALAN: And this would have carried your approval?
MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, because ...(intervention)
MR MALAN: If they reported to you that they released him in that condition, you would not have approved of it?
MR DE KOCK: No, I cannot say that, Chairperson, because circumstances on the ground would have determined whether they recruited him or not.
MR MALAN: But on this evidence you would not for a moment have thought that they would release him?
MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, not at all.
MR MALAN: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hattingh, do you wish to re-examine?
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Chairperson.
Mr de Kock, this was a cross-border operation, is that correct?
MR DE KOCK: That's correct.
MR HATTINGH: You have previously given evidence with regard to cross-border operations. What was the position with regard to the approval of cross-border operations?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, one had to obtain permission or approval or authorisation from the Commander of the unit and the one case where I did not do it, I was severely reprimanded and I did not do so again.
MR HATTINGH: Was this because it could have had international repercussions?
MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Chairperson, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HATTINGH
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. And the Commander of this Unit being?
MR DE KOCK: The Commander of Section C was Brig Schoon, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Hattingh. Mr de Kock, you are excused as a witness.
MR DE KOCK: Thank you very much.
WITNESS EXCUSED
CHAIRPERSON: Will this be an appropriate time to take a short adjournment. Will five minutes be okay. We'll take a very short adjournment for five minutes.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
