CHAIRPERSON: Oh wait a bit, no, sorry, it's Mr Klopper I want back.
KOBUS KLOPPER: (s.u.o.)
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Klopper, there's one question I just wanted to clarify with you and that is, you said in your application, page 65, that when you were being told what had happened at the border post - this is the Sweet Sambo thing at the bottom of page 65, isn't it?
MR KLOPPER: That's correct, yes.
CHAIRPERSON: ... that Mr de Kock also told you that alcohol played a role in the behaviour of the younger members.
MR KLOPPER: That's correct, Chairperson. When Flip Hattingh - may I put it, when I received the body I could clearly see a bottle of liquor on the front seat and it was clear that alcohol did play a role here, not only with regard to the what the accused but I saw it myself.
MR LAMEY: You probably mean Flip de Beer, not Flip Hattingh.
MR KLOPPER: Ag, Flip de Beer, I beg your pardon, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: And Mr de Kock had told you this, he knew that the alcohol ...(intervention)
MR KLOPPER: That's correct, Chairperson, my impression was that Flip de Beer conveyed it as such to Mr de Kock.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
MR KLOPPER: Thank you, Chairperson.
WITNESS EXCUSED
MR CORNELIUS: That completes the applications and I think, the applicants.
MACHINE SWITCHED OFF
CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible)
MS LOCKHAT: No, thank you, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: That completes this hearing, save for the question of argument. Now it struck me, subject to what any of you gentleman, lady, may have to say, we have discussed the matter and we are of the view, subject of course to anything Mr Hattingh may say, that we do not require any further argument from the other applicants, but we would from Mr Hattingh, but that it might be more convenient to him and if he wished to do so, to submit it in writing where he can give us the page references to the passages referred to and matters of that nature. I don't expect or ask for a long detailed argument, merely a reference or references. Would that suit you, Mr Hattingh, or would you rather do it orally now?
MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, quite frankly, I'd rather do it orally now, but I'm quite prepared to do it in writing if you could just give me an indication on what matters you'd like me specifically to deal with and to give references to.
CHAIRPERSON: Well we started with Mr de Kock referring to his volume on Vlakplaas, which is what, 150 pages.
MR HATTINGH: Yes, it is, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: It's largely that we don't have to go through the whole of that. It's of that nature, that merely where you have referred us to. We've got quite a few volumes of Mr de Kock's and obviously they don't all apply to everything and it's merely just to save time if you could let us know which pages they are if you want us to have a look at them.
MR HATTINGH: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: If you don't, fair enough.
MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, I don't think that I'm going to be that long and I think that I can give you the page references at this stage.
CHAIRPERSON: Very well, carry on.
MR HATTINGH IN ARGUMENT: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Mr Chairman, perhaps I should start off by giving you the page reference to the document "Vlakplaas". The first one that I would like to give you deals with the exercise of own discretion and that you'll find on page 60 of that particular document. It starts off there by saying that -
"Most of Vlakplaas' actions were executed under instruction of senior officers, which appears from the particulars. Sometimes it happened that the instruction was received from senior officers who were not connected to the unit."
And then it continues along this line. Then it refers on page 61, to the evidence that Gen van der Merwe gave in front of the, I think it was the Commission, the Truth Commission, as to the - that they expected of people of lower ranks, also to use their own discretion and not always to wait for instructions in this regard. Now that's what I was referring to as far as the discretion is concerned, Mr Chairman.
Now Mr de Kock's evidence was that he discussed the matter with Mr Engelbrecht and that Mr Engelbrecht was of the opinion - I'm not sure how, I can't remember how Mr de Kock expressed himself here, but my overall recollection is that what Engelbrecht said was something to the effect that they should rather keep out of it, that it wasn't in the nature of a specific prohibition for him to become involved. I may be mistaken as far as that is concerned, I'm prepared to even argue on the basis of a specific prohibition.
CHAIRPERSON: I think that would be safer. My recollection is that it was that he told him specifically not to become involved, not that he didn't think he should be.
MR HATTINGH: Yes, Mr Chairman. I think that I may be misled by what he either said in his application itself ...(intervention)
MR LAX: Just to quote from the application
"Gen Engelbrecht het my afgeraai ..."
This is on page 4 -
"... om enigsins betrokke te raak."
MR HATTINGH: ...(inaudible - no microphone)
MR LAX: Yes.
MR HATTINGH: Thank you. But be that as it may, Mr Chairman, de Kock then considered the matter and with respect, Mr Chairman, if you look at what happened subsequently, he was probably correct in exercising his discretion in the way in which he did. He decided that it would be to the detriment of the Security Police. The political objective was to save the Security Police from embarrassment and the police in general and then of course the government of the day, not because of the fact that Mr Sambo was involved or whether the interrogation related to political activities, it was sufficient for him to know that it was the Security Police who were involved in the questioning, the torturing of the man and that they are responsible for his death, and that if that alone came to light, it would have caused great political embarrassment. And in my submission, Mr Chairman, that constitutes sufficient political objective for him to become involved in the matter and to satisfy the requirements of the Act. I submit therefore, that he clearly had a political objective, he didn't know exactly what was going on there, he was contacted by a colleague in the Security Police, requested for assistance. And in this regard I would like to refer you to the second reference in this supplementary affidavit of Mr de Kock. That you'll find from page 29 onwards, where he deals with the purpose for which Vlakplaas was being put to use.
CHAIRPERSON: When you say supplementary affidavit, are you referring to the Vlakplaas bundle?
MR HATTINGH: Yes, it is described as a supplementary affidavit, Mr Chairman. Page 29 he says
"Vlakplaas was not only used in support of operations of other Security Branches, but also to cover up any actions of members of other Security Branches. It was done in order to prevent that the Security Police be placed in an embarrassing situation because of their involvement in such acts. Whenever Security Branches found themselves in trouble, Vlakplaas was requested to help assist them with this. The instruction usually came from a commander."
... and so forth.
And then on page - he gives examples of such incidents, Mr Chairman, and on page 31 he refers specifically to the Sweet Sambo incident, as an example of where Vlakplaas was called in to assist in order to save the Security Police from embarrassment. Naturally that would also have assisted the people in their personal capacities, it would have saved them, but he says he reconsidered the matter and decided that it was in the interest of the Security Police that he should render his assistance.
And if you look at the actions of the police thereafter, it would seem that they clearly thought that it was necessary to try and cover up, which is exactly what they did. Two Generals went in a helicopter to try and cover up. Du Plessis was told specifically what had happened, and if you listen to the evidence of Mr Klopper, Mr Chairman, du Plessis comes to him and he says "Gen le Roux wants to know what he has to say at this press conference, whether he can say that the police had nothing to do with it". He is then, du Plessis is then told "But the police had everything to do with it, we in fact successfully destroyed the body of this person". And I have no doubt - whether that information was conveyed to le Roux we don't know, but I've no doubt whatsoever that le Roux didn't disclose these facts at the press conference which he had subsequently.
So there was a general cover-up right from the top down to Mr de Kock, and it was clearly done because all these policemen were of the view that it was in the interest of the Security Police and therefore of the government of the day, that their complicity in this embarrassing incident should not be brought to light.
CHAIRPERSON: But must we accept that, Mr Hattingh? If the Security Branch had been embezzling money and thought that it was not in the interests of the government that that should come to light, would you say that that is a political objective?
MR HATTINGH: No, no, Mr Chairman, but ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: What they are trying to do it is to cover up their wrongful acts. We know now that this man was killed partially due to the drunkenness of some of the junior policemen. Is that a political objective as expressed in the Act?
MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, they may have been drunk at the time when they tortured and questioned him, but the evidence was quite clearly that they were looking for information about firearms.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, about a smuggler who was smuggling for money.
MR HATTINGH: Yes, and ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: And that is not in my view, a political objective in terms of the Act, this is a police function.
MR HATTINGH: Correct, Mr Chairman, but you must look at it from the point of view of Mr de Kock. The Security Police is now involved in the questioning of a person ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, so you must save the name of the Security Police, whatever they've been doing, you must cover up for the Security Police. Isn't that the position, Mr Hattingh, and that's what worries me. It is precisely because he wanted to cover up for his own people.
MR HATTINGH: That he certainly wanted to do and that all his superiors who became aware of the facts of this incident, they also seemed to want to cover up. But Mr Chairman, the facts also show that the police were involved in interrogating this person, and at the time the interrogation of people in custody which led to their death by the Security Police, that was the sensitive aspect of the whole matter.
I'm not for one moment saying that if the police had become involved in corruption or anything of that nature, that they would have covered it up, but precisely because of the Steve Bikos that happened in the past, no doubt the ANC would have made great capital of this incident and they wouldn't have asked themselves whether the Security Police were involved in doing their jobs or merely covering up for another offence, they would simply have said look, this is another incident where the Security Police take a person, try and beat a confession out of him, kill him in the process and then destroy his body.
CHAIRPERSON: And isn't that normal criticism of any normal people throughout the world? Here is another instance of police brutality that must be condemned. It's not political, Mr Hattingh.
MR HATTINGH: With respect, Mr Chairman, from de Kock's point of view, he was under the impression that it was political. And I submit that ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: The criticism of the police for killing somebody in custody is political?
MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, criticism of the Security Police.
CHAIRPERSON: It doesn't matter what branch of the Police Force it is.
MR HATTINGH: With respect, I ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: It's - members of the Police Force kill somebody in custody, is that not something subject to criticism anywhere in the world?
MR HATTINGH: Yes, it would have been subject to criticism, Mr Chairman, but it would have been subject to criticism by the public in general. But if it's the Security Police, then the political organisations would have made, and quite justifiably so, would have made great capital out of those facts, they would have used it to their political advantage to say, "This is what your Security Police, who were placed there to look after the political security of the State, this is the sort of thing that they are doing. And I submit that that is sufficient to constitute a political objective, Mr Chairman.
MR LAX: Mr Hattingh, sorry, if you'll just allow me to interpose. There's no evidence before us that the political parties went crazy over this issue, Mr Sambo wasn't a political member, the human cry was in fact raised by Alberts himself and that's been confirmed by your client. So you know, the flyers that were prepared were distributed to farms and farm workers in the area, it wasn't like this was a big political issue, this was an issue to try and find a man who had disappeared.
MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, I have to go according to my memory here and I must state this fact first. One should be careful not to rely only on the facts that have been placed before you as far as the criminal proceedings are concerned, because not all of those facts have been placed before you, you haven't got the whole record, you haven't seen the evidence of the witnesses as such.
My recollection, and I don't wish to give evidence, but my recollection is that political parties also climbed on the bandwagon and raised questions and criticised the police, that they also came to the assistance of the widow of Mr Sambo. I may be wrong, but that is my recollection. The fact that there is no evidence before you doesn't prove that Mr de Kock at the time when he decided to assist, didn't have form that opinion. That is the stage that one has to look at, the stage when he performed the act for which he is now seeking amnesty. And at that stage, that was his way of thinking.
One must bear in mind that he didn't have all these facts that we now have at the time, he merely had a request from a colleague in the Security Police that - "We've been interrogating a person, we went too far and the person was killed, help us to get rid of the body". Isn't that sufficient for him to say "Well if these facts have to come to light, then there is going to be great embarrassment for the Security Police and I had better assist"? And that in his own mind therefore, he thought that he was assisting the Security Police to avoid a great political embarrassment for them. And I submit that he has made out a case for that, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Right, thank you.
MR HATTINGH: If you are with me on that, then I submit, Mr Chairman, that he has satisfied all the other requirements for amnesty, he's made a full disclosure of all the facts known to him and ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: I think it's clear the full disclosure, there's no personal gain.
MR HATTINGH: No personal gain, anything of that nature. And I submit therefore, Mr Chairman, that he has made out a case for amnesty and we apply therefore for amnesty for Mr de Kock for all offences and delicts arising from the death of Mr Sambo.
CHAIRPERSON: I have a request to address to all of you in this regard - I'm using the excuse that I'm going to be staying in Pretoria and don't have access to any statutes or anything, but if any of you do - I don't know if my colleague has the statute, the statute about transporting bodies, if that is something that an application is being made for, if you could just let us some stage have a reference to the Section of the Act, ...(indistinct) of the Act. I think the rest we know, but this is one that I was not aware of before.
MR HATTINGH: I'm not aware of it either, Mr Chairman, but I will see what I can do about it.
CHAIRPERSON: There's no rush about it, but if you could.
MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, gentlemen. And thank you all for your assistance today, I had thought that we would be proceeding longer than we have, but with the co-operation of all of you we have managed to get through it very quickly and this means we now adjourn till Monday morning. Are any of you here on Monday morning? We will not start before 10 o'clock, we may be in fact a little bit after 10 o'clock, depending on South African Airways and similar things, but certainly not before ten on Monday morning.
MS LOCKHAT: Thank you, Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: Thank you.
MS LOCKHAT: All rise.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
