JAKOB FRANCOIS KOK: (sworn states)
ADV BOSMAN: The applicant is duly sworn, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Advocate Bosman. Mr van der Merwe?
EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DER MERWE: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Mr Kok, your application is in the bundle from page 41 up until page 51, is that correct?
MR J F KOK: Yes.
MR VAN DER MERWE: This application was submitted by yourself without the assistance of a legal representative, is that correct?
MR J F KOK: That is correct, yes.
MR VAN DER MERWE: You confirm the correctness and truthfulness of it.
MR J F KOK: Yes, I do.
MR VAN DER MERWE: If we can go to page 47 of your application where you indeed deal with this specific incident. Just before we get to that, you have heard the evidence that was led thusfar by Mr de Kock, Mr Bosch and also Mr du Toit, do you also agree with it?
MR J F KOK: Yes, I do.
MR VAN DER MERWE: Can you in short tell us in your own words about the request and how you became involved in this operation.
MR J F KOK: It is as I say in my statement, Col de Kock via du Toit, requested a parcel that had to be prepared. I then liaised with Steve Bosch from Vlakplaas. The parcel was a Parker pen that had to be sent to Swaziland and they said that it was going to the ANC's military wing in Swaziland. That's how the request came to us.
MR VAN DER MERWE: Were you involved in the manufacturing of this pen set?
MR J F KOK: I'd just like to confirm from my side, they talked about a set but at the end of the day we only used one pen. With the set of pens, there's not enough room in the packaging for both of them, and then again if there are three pens, which pen will the person take and detonate it. So we only prepared one and placed it in the plastic covering in which it was bought and wrapped it.
MR VAN DER MERWE: Can you just in short explain to the Committee, they would like to know how this device worked and how it was activated.
MR J F KOK: As it was already explained, because we were going to send it through the post we had to do everything in our ability to get the parcel there safely and that it will be the target that will open the parcel. So we prepared the bomb within the packaging. The pen was only the trigger that would detonate the bomb.
We made use of explosives - I just want to explain this, we made use of a pull-trigger, in other words a string tied to the trigger would then make contact and complete the current with the lithium batteries that were used, that will then activate a detonator at the end of the day.
MR VAN DER MERWE: Without the batteries in the bomb would it be able to explode?
MR J F KOK: No, if there's no contact or if the batteries were taken out, there would be no power that would detonate the detonator.
MR VAN DER MERWE: And if the batteries went flat, then the bomb could not be detonated?
MR J F KOK: Yes, the moment when the batteries are too flat or too weak to complete the current, it will not work. So our thinking concerning the safety of this parcel was that it had to be a person that opened the parcel and takes the pen out of the packaging to activate the bomb. If the packaging was broken there was a good chance that the batteries would have fallen out and it wouldn't have worked. So we did everything possible to target only the target.
MR VAN DER MERWE: You also confirm, as I've already put to Mr Bosch, that this device was tested at Vlakplaas before it was sent off.
MR J F KOK: Yes, we had to test it because we would not just build something and send it into the field before we know that it works, we had to ensure that it works.
MR VAN DER MERWE: You also then mention your political objectives in this matter, as it is set out on page 49 of your application, is that correct?
MR J F KOK: Yes, it is.
MR VAN DER MERWE: And you received your instruction to take part in this operation from Mr du Toit, who was then tasked by Col de Kock, who authorised it from higher authorities?
MR J F KOK: That's correct, Mr Chairperson.
MR VAN DER MERWE: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN DER MERWE
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr van der Merwe.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HUGO: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Mr Kok, you heard what Mr du Toit testified to regarding the power of the mechanism and that he said that it was designed as such that the damage would be limited to the person who would be opening the parcel. Do you agree with that?
MR J F KOK: Yes, I do.
MR HUGO: And the fact that it would appear as if the person who later opened the parcel lost his arm, is that in concurrence with the perceived or proposed power of the parcel?
MR J F KOK: One would have had to hold the parcel as close as possible to oneself to incur damage.
MR HUGO: And the risk of damage to bystanders or surrounding buildings would have been limited?
MR J F KOK: Yes, limited.
MR HUGO: And indeed it was your order to design it as such, so that it would have that limited degree of damage.
MR J F KOK: Yes, that is what we aimed at. We aimed at taking out the target, not bystanders.
MR HUGO: And I think that you have already addressed this aspect, but it was designed as stably as possible, so that in the process of transportation it would not be set off?
MR J F KOK: Yes, we did everything in our power.
MR HUGO: Thank you, Chair.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HUGO
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Hugo. Mr Lamey?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Just to add, Mr Kok, this type of bomb that you made with the mechanism and the restriction to only the pen, it is not a type of bomb that you will send to an organisation, meaning one would surely, if one posted it to an organisation's office, who used a specific or office, if you wanted to disrupt that organisation's office you would not use this type of bomb, you would use a bigger one.
MR J F KOK: Well it's very difficult to answer, but I think if you use your logic, as I understood it this post box that was used is like a dead letter box, people are tasked through these post boxes, they receive orders, so it's not one specific person who uses that post box. They do not want to know who gives orders or receives them at the end of the day, but if you send something like that you send it to a person who will take it out and you must arrange it in such a way - if you want to send it to an organisation, you'll probably send a car bomb. The purpose was therefore to target an individual, to kill an individual rather than the broader in terms of the scope of this bomb ...(intervention)
MR LAMEY: I'm not talking about the psychological impact, I'm talking about the physical impact of it.
MR J F KOK: Yes, it is targeted at one person, the person who took it out of the box.
MR LAMEY: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Lamey. Mr Cornelius?
MR LAMEY: I'm sorry, Mr Chairperson, just another aspect.
Mr Kok, do you also apply for another incident, the so-called Manuscript Bomb?
MR J F KOK: Yes, I have it as a pocket book or diary.
MR LAMEY: I do not have instructions from Mr Bosch, but I will take instructions about it, was he involved in both incidents, according to your recollection? ...(transcriber's interpretation)
MR J F KOK: As far as I can recall, yes.
MR LAMEY: I will then leave it for that incident. I will take instructions on that. Thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Lamey. Mr Cornelius?
MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Mr Chairperson, I've got no questions.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR CORNELIUS
CHAIRPERSON: Ms Patel?
MS PATEL: Same here, thank you Honourable Chairperson.
NO QUESTIONS BY MS PATEL
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
ADV BOSMAN: I have no questions, thank you Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Advocate Sandi?
ADV SANDI: Yes, just one question, thank you Chair.
Mr Kok, what was the arrangement in general, you were in the Technical division, did you have an arrangement whereby you would get reports on the effectiveness of the devices you were manufacturing and have them sent out to the intended targets?
MR J F KOK: There was no arrangement for us to receive feedback regarding what had happened, it was very difficult because we didn't know where ultimately these devices would end up, once they were in the structure or the system. With some of the bombs that we were aware of, that we worked on, that went back to Natal and ultimately went off in Western Transvaal, so it was very difficult to keep track of what the results were, there was no fixed procedure to know exactly what had happened at the end of the day.
ADV SANDI: Thank you, Mr Kok. Thank you, Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Advocate Sandi. Any re-examination, Mr van der Merwe?
MR VAN DER MERWE: No re-examination, thank you Mr Chair.
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DER MERWE
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Kok, you are excused.
WITNESS EXCUSED
MR VAN DER MERWE: That concludes the evidence on behalf of this applicant as well, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr van der Merwe. Ms Patel, are you leading any evidence?
MS PATEL: No, thank you Honourable Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Gentlemen and Lady, I think we're in a position just to make short submissions in respect of these five applications, are we? May I start with you, Mr Hugo?
MR HUGO IN ARGUMENT: Yes, thank you Mr Chairman.
First of all, let me just intimate to the Committee what we're applying for. We're applying for conspiracy to commit murder, attempted murder in respect of what happened in Swaziland, and then all offences in terms of the Explosives Act, defeating the ends of justice and then all other offences and delicts that might have been covered by the evidence and the facts of this hearing and amnesty application.
Mr Chairman, obviously the one problem in this, not problem, the one aspect I think that you need to be convinced of in this particular situation as far as Mr de Kock is concerned, is the question as to whether this particular device was aimed at a political opponent. We say that Mr de Kock was certainly, with all due respect, entitled to rely on what Mr Pienaar told him. Mr de Kock has testified that Mr Pienaar was a very senior police officer, senior in respect of experience, not so much in rank. Mr de Kock has testified that Mr Pienaar has given him information pertaining to ANC activities in the past and which information was of an impeccable nature and he had no reason whatsoever to question or disbelieve Mr Pienaar. Coupled to that, Mr Chairman, is the fact that when this operation was launched, during which the first four ANC members were killed, documents were found on them, and may I say in a compromising sort of situation, in the sense that these documents were found on ANC members, immediately after that, Mr Pienaar comes to Mr de Kock and says to him, "Look, this is the address that I found on these bodies", and surely it's just reasonable, bearing in mind Mr Pienaar's experience, for Mr de Kock to believe Mr Pienaar and for himself to make the deduction that that is most probably a contact address in Swaziland. Mr Pienaar goes further and he confirms to Mr de Kock that this was in fact a contact address of the ANC in Swaziland. But Mr de Kock can't be blamed for just accepting Mr Pienaar's word, because he did more than that, Mr Chairman, he actually phoned Brig Schoon and he told him of his idea and he asked for permission to proceed with this particular operation. Brigadier Schoon gave his sanction to this, and what is also telling about that, Mr Chairman, is that it would appear that Brig Schoon was also happy with the information that was being given to him, and obviously that must have emanated from Mr Pienaar.
Mr Chairman, as far as the question of the Swazi Council of Churches situation is concerned, I think this has been properly addressed, in that Mr Flores has indicated that he could have made a mistake there and that he might have confused it with some other matter. His confusion is understandable, especially when he says that he posted various other parcels in Swaziland to dead letter boxes and that could have brought about the confusion.
As far as just - I'm just going back to the question of Mr de Kock relying on Mr Pienaar's information, Mr de Kock says it was virtually impossible for him to verify each and every item of information that was given to him by subordinates. And once again it must be borne in mind, Mr Chairman and Honourable Members of the Committee, that Mr de Kock was in a unit that was an operational unit and they weren't meant to go and verify information given to them by other departments, especially if you bear in mind that Mr Pienaar was in Piet Retief and working specifically in the Swaziland area, where he was the so-called specialist.
Mr Chairman, then some other criticism that might be levelled at Mr de Kock and his application is the fact that there could have been a callous disregard for the lives of innocent bystanders. We submit with respect, Mr Chairman, that that is not the case here. We've now heard evidence that it was specifically designed to cause injury to the person that opens the parcel and that the strength of this explosive device was such that it would only injure that particular person. There were certain extra safety mechanisms that were built into this explosive device to make sure and to ensure that it was a stable mechanism that wouldn't detonate and go off in transit for instance.
I have dealt with the question of the address and I have also dealt with Mr WAL du Toit's version as to how powerful this device was. So all in all, Mr Chairman, we're saying that Mr de Kock has complied with the requirements of the Act. We submit that he would be, with due respect, be entitled to be granted amnesty for the offences as prayed. Thank you, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Hugo. Mr Lamey?
MR LAMEY IN ARGUMENT: Chairperson, I agree with the list of offences listed by my colleague, Mr Hugo, I do with to add, although it could be regarded as a competent verdict on attempted murder, that one should, just to be perhaps over cautious also, include assault to do grievous bodily harm, given also the nature of this particular bomb. That is in addition to attempted murder, conspiracy to murder.
CHAIRPERSON: It would be a ...(indistinct).
MR LAMEY: Yes, but I would submit that one could also list it as an offence for which amnesty is given, assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm.
Chairperson, then Mr Bosch was clear in his recollection, that the address that he received, although he couldn't remember the exact name or particulars it was addressed to and the individual, on the probabilities with the other circumstantial evidence, the nature of the package and the bomb, I submit that that should be accepted as the most probable version, that it was indeed addressed to an individual and not to an organisation such as the Council of Churches.
CHAIRPERSON: He cannot be positive because he merely gave a piece of paper upon which there was an address, but when it was actually addressed, he did not witness that.
MR LAMEY: No, no, Chairperson, his evidence - what I mean is, his evidence was he received particulars of the address from Mr de Kock, but what he recalled exactly was, there as a name, the addressee was a name, an individual, but not the address, the address particulars he couldn't remember. What I'm just saying is, Mr Flores in his statement, although he has said that he could be mistaken, he says
"I addressed the pen box to the Swaziland Council of Churches"
I'm just saying that one shouldn't in the circumstances, in the light of the evidence, infer that the addressee was the Council of Churches, because it wouldn't make sense in the nature of the parcel, because a messenger could for instance, of the Council of Churches, uplifted it at the post office and it would only then have killed the messenger, which would have had no real purpose and effect, given the intentions and motives here of this particular parcel.
Chairperson, I submit also that Mr Bosch qualifies for amnesty. He also had to rely on his superior, Col de Kock, to a great extent as to the motivation and the political purpose of this and he was also not in the position to verify this and had to execute the orders that he received. Thank you, Chairperson, those are my submissions.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Lamey. Mr Cornelius?
MR CORNELIUS IN ARGUMENT: Thank you, Mr Chair, I'll be brief.
My client applies for conspiracy to murder and all the competent decisions that may follow from that, contravention of the Explosives Act, defeating the ends of justice and all delicts which may flow from the actions.
My client was clearly a footsoldier, Mr Chairperson, he carried an order out. He had clear political motive. There was no disciplinary action ever taken against him for his actions. The political decision was already made for him. The Security Branch investigated the address and the target, reported it and gave a specific request to the operational branch of C-Section, and he carried out his orders.
It is clear from the support in the past that it carried the full empowerment of the Security Headquarters, about the presence of Schoon and Ministers on previous occasions, so he had no doubt regarding that. There can be no doubt that he made a full disclosure. We can expect that in this period of time, given this period of time, that there might be small little discrepancies like the address for instance. My client testified and he said it is possible he might have confused it with another issue. He gave leeway to that. I refer to the judgment of Judge Wilson, your brother, in the London Bomb, where he specifically mentioned that we should allow leeway for small little discrepancies like this. He had no financial gain, he had no financial gain in mind, he only received his salary and he had no personal hate or revenge for this poor victim.
It is my submission that he should, and I request you to grant amnesty as requested in my initial prayer to you, Judge by the Committee. Thank you, Mr Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Mr Cornelius. Ms van der Merwe.
MR VAN DER MERWE IN ARGUMENT: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
I'm not going to repeat the grounds on which we would request you to grant amnesty, I agree with that which my brethren mentioned earlier to you.
As far as the two applicants that I represent is concerned ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: I feel jealous, are they not your colleagues?
MR VAN DER MERWE: I'll have to agree.
I would submit to this Honourable Committee that they had the necessary political motive to act as they did when they did so. They acted clearly on instructions. The instructions were as indicated to du Toit by de Kock, as de Kock also told him that it was cleared out with Schoon. Both of them were acting in a bona fide manner. There is no evidence that they acted out of personal malice, ill-will or spite and I would request that the Committee accepts it as that. There is also no evidence that any of these actions were pursued for monetary gain.
I would further submit that full disclosure was made by both the applicants I represent and that accordingly the Committee should be granting them amnesty. It is also clear that they acted in a unique situation in which they find themselves every time they are confronted with amnesty applications, in that they are not able to verify their targets or decide on who should be targeted or not, they are merely drawn in for support, for technical support and have to accept the bona fides of the other role players in this operation. Therefore, I would submit to this Committee that there is no reason why this Committee would be able to find that they did not act with their political motive as stated. I might just add that Mr du Toit in his amnesty application, refers on page 111 at the top, that they always acted in circumstances like this, which we can actually describe to some extent as blind, under those listed impressions there from (a) to (h), which says that they always accepted that it was in national interest, that it was authorised, that there was an instruction to execute an order, that it was necessary to fight the revolutionary onslaught and to prevent the attack on the government's power, that it was on specific targets and that in instances like that, that everything in their power had to be done to limit their actions to have an affect on the selected target only.
I would submit to the Committee that with all the evidence to this Committee's assistance here, there can be no other finding than that, and I beg that you will grant amnesty to both the applicants as requested. Thank you, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr van der Merwe. Ms Patel, you have no sisters.
MS PATEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson. It's been a really long day for me, so my submissions to you are going to be very brief.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
MS PATEL IN ARGUMENT: My submission in respect of all the footsoldiers present here is that they should be granted amnesty. My submission is that they have satisfied the requirements of the Act. However, in respect of Mr de Kock, I will submit that he hasn't satisfied the requirement of proportionality as set out in the Act, in respect of the selection of the target and the selected choice of method of effecting that target. He relies on Pienaar for the selection of the target, however the evidence is clear, the address was gained from a document that was retrieved from an ANC person who had been killed, there was no information as to who would be clearing that post box, who opens the mail from that post box. The letter - well not the letter bomb, but the parcel bomb method is certainly, in my submission, a reckless way of ensuring that a specific target that you have identified is in fact hit in the manner in which you hope that it would be hit.
And inasmuch as Mr Flores has conceded that his address might be incorrect in terms of the Swaziland Council of Churches, he concedes that this is the only parcel bomb that he was responsible for posting off, that he doesn't really have an independent recollection now of exactly what was written on it in terms of the address. My submission to you in that regard is that it doesn't really solve Mr de Kock's problem in terms of the requirement of proportionality, because it still doesn't take away the risk of exactly who is going open up the parcel. And there can be no guarantee that whoever opens up the parcel is in fact the target, as we have seen has in fact occurred in this case.
ADV SANDI: Yes, but are we not to look at this in terms of the evidence? I mean at the end of the day the parcel ends up being opened up by a thief, a thief opens the parcel at the post office.
MS PATEL: My submission, or my response to that is that it really makes no difference whether he's a thief or not, the point is that it was opened by a person other than the target and that is a possibility that should have been foreseen at the time that the intended choice of method was in fact decided upon.
ADV SANDI: What better method could they have used? Are you in a position to suggest such a method, at this stage, year 2000, and we're talking about 1988?
MS PATEL: We have all sat through countless amnesty hearings in which we have sat and listened to various other methods of eliminating one's opposition with a greater precision than was in fact attempted here. And as we know that the Security Branch had a great network within the Swaziland area, they could have chosen another method that was more specific.
CHAIRPERSON: Is that all?
MS PATEL: Yes, it is, thank you Honourable Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. She had a long day, Advocate Sandi. Any response? I think only you, Mr Hugo, could have a response.
MR HUGO: No, no response whatsoever, thank you Mr Chairman.
NO REPLY BY MR HUGO
ADV SANDI: I take it that you mean that you also agree that the application should be refused.
MR HUGO: No, Mr Chairman, I'm being misunderstood on that score.
CHAIRPERSON: This brings us to the conclusion of the Parker Pen Set Bomb incident. We will reserve our decision and as the previous one, I personally undertake that it would be written in the not too distant future.
I want to thank everybody. Mr Hugo, I suppose Ms Patel should have included you, both of you had a long day, but we must thank you for your contribution and the assistance you have rendered to this Panel, that we could deliberate and come to a fair and just decision which shall be given to all parties shortly. Thank you very much.
This is the end of the day I suppose and your roll for today.
MS PATEL: That is correct, Honourable Chairperson, we have one more matter for tomorrow.
CHAIRPERSON: No, I meant today.
MS PATEL: Oh. Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Would it be fair to say we commence at nine thirty tomorrow and inform the parties involved?
MS PATEL: The parties are all present here for tomorrow's matter, Honourable Chairperson, so I'm in their hands and yours.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, then we'll adjourn until tomorrow, nine thirty.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
