CHAIRPERSON: Before we commence the hearings of the three applicants which I will come to later, I would request everybody present that we rise and observe a minute of silence in memory of our Chairperson, Judge Hassan Mall, who passed away on Friday.
A MINUTE'S SILENCE AS A MARK OF RESPECT FOR THE LATE JUDGE MALL
CHAIRPERSON: For the record, I am Motata, I would be chairing the hearings for this week. Today is the 21st of August 2000. On my right I have Adv Bosman and on my left I have Adv Sandi. We would be hearing the applications of Messrs Eugene Alexander de Kock, amnesty number 0066/96, Dawid Jakobus Brits, amnesty number 3745/96 and Daniel Lionel Snyman, amnesty number 3766/96. I would in the same vein, request the legal representatives who would be participating in this hearing, to place themselves on record.
MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I am P A Hattingh, and I appear on behalf of Mr de Kock.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Hattingh.
MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Mr Chair. Wim Cornelius, I appear on behalf of the second applicant, Dawid Jakobus Brits and the third applicant, Daniel Lionel Snyman.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Cornelius.
MR WAGENER: Chairman, Jan Wagener, I appear on behalf of three witnesses, subpoenaed to be here and give evidence, they are Izak Johannes Engelbrecht, Willem Helm (and he's got a third name that I've just forgotten), Coetzee - Johannes, sorry, Willem Helm Johannes Coetzee, and the third person is Anton Pretorius. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Wagener.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Mr Chairperson, Eric van den Berg, attorneys Bell Dewar and Hall, on behalf of Johannes Petrus Koekemoer, who has been subpoenaed to testify at these hearings.
MR HURWITZ: Mr Chairperson, it's Julian Hurwitz on behalf of Manuel Antonio Olifant, subpoenaed witness.
MR JONKER: Mr Chairperson, Dolf Jonker, on behalf of the family of the deceased, Mr Adriano Bambo.
CHAIRPERSON: Adrian?
MR JONKER: Adriano Bambo. Mr Bambo.
MS PATEL: Ramula Patel, Leader of Evidence.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Patel. I take it Mr Hattingh, if I'm correct, in terms of the bundles you'd be having the first bite?
MR HATTINGH: Yes indeed, thank you Mr Chairman. May I call Mr de Kock?
CHAIRPERSON: Mr de Kock, you may come forward.
EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: (sworn states)
ADV BOSMAN: The applicant is properly sworn in, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr de Kock, you may be seated. Mr Hattingh?
EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Mr de Kock, you are an applicant in this matter and your application appears in bundle 1, from page 1 to page 8, is that correct?
MR DE KOCK: Yes, Mr Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: Can you just in short tell the Committee what your version was concerning this incident?
MR DE KOCK: In Gen Engelbrecht's office at the Security Headquarters, he requested me to instruct one of my members of Vlakplaas to accompany the Murder and Robbery unit of the East Rand, to eliminate a former informer of Capt Coetzee, also known as Timul Coetzee.
My instructions were that this informer involved himself in an armed robbery and that he was on the point to disclose very sensitive information. Afterwards I instructed W/O Brits to accompany this member of this unit, who was stationed at Benoni. ...(transcriber's interpretation)
MR HATTINGH: Did you know who the member was?
MR DE KOCK: No, Mr Chairperson, I did not.
MR HATTINGH: Can I just also ask you, did you know who the person was who had to be eliminated?
MR DE KOCK: Mr Chairperson, only that he was a source of the Intelligence Service, he was under the command of this Capt Coetzee.
MR HATTINGH: You did not know his name?
MR DE KOCK: No, I also did not know him personally.
MR HATTINGH: Was his name ever mentioned to you?
MR DE KOCK: No, Mr Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: Very well, continue.
MR DE KOCK: W/O Snyman of C1, then created a false weapon stash point, there were landmines that were placed in this storage point.
MR HATTINGH: Were you sure that Mr Snyman assisted with the creation of this weapons cache pile?
MR DE KOCK: It was initially my recollection yes, but there can be some confusion, but I want to qualify it by saying, Mr Snyman on instruction of the Security Branch in Pretoria, had to create other weapons cache piles close to Bapsfontein, for the purposes of the Pretoria Security Branch, and at another opportunity, close to the highway in the direction of Bronkhorstspruit, I cannot exactly recall the name of the place, but I could have confused it with that incident.
MR HATTINGH: Very well. Please continue.
MR DE KOCK: It was then arranged that the former source will then identify this stock pile and will in the process be eliminated, because he would then have tried to escape.
MR HATTINGH: Was that the knowledge that you yourself personally gained, or was this told to you?
MR DE KOCK: The information that was conveyed to me by W/O Brits, because he was involved in the arrangement and planning of this. I did not participate in the planning of this operation, except in the sense that I provided Mr Brits and I provided the equipment.
MR HATTINGH: Do you have today a recollection if Mr Brits accompanied the people to create this weapons cache pile?
MR DE KOCK: No, otherwise I would have mentioned it here. I did not know, or I could not recall that he accompanied them. I have to mention though that because of the volume of my applications, I couldn't really recall everything in such detail, but certain aspects I was very clear about though.
MR HATTINGH: Did you receive a report after the operation?
MR DE KOCK: Mr Chairperson, at a later stage I heard from W/O Brits that the source was killed in this way as it was planned, and that W/O Brits reported to Gen Engelbrecht that the source is dead. The reason for this is that I did not have the facts of the process between the East Rand and Nelspruit.
MR HATTINGH: Very well. Did you give instructions to Mr Brits to report back, or did he do it by himself?
MR DE KOCK: No, I gave him the instructions to do it, because I did not have the details.
MR HATTINGH: Is that the knowledge that you have concerning this incident?
MR DE KOCK: Yes, Mr Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: Can I just ask you a few questions concerning a few other matters. Gen Engelbrecht at a later stage became the Commander of C1, 2 and 3, is that correct?
MR DE KOCK: Yes.
MR HATTINGH: Before he says in his affidavit that he was part of the Detective Branch and he was not part of the Security Branch.
MR DE KOCK: That is correct, yes.
MR HATTINGH: Before he was appointed as the Commander of C1, under which Vlakplaas fell, did you have any dealings with him in your official capacity?
MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: Before he took over as Commander of C1, did he ever visit Vlakplaas?
MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: Did he assist in the Harms Commission?
MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: And when he assisted in the Harms Commission, was he then already the Commander of C1?
MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: Did you have any discussions with him concerning incidents that were investigated by the Harms Commission?
MR DE KOCK: Yes, Mr Chairperson, on a daily basis.
MR HATTINGH: And did you disclose any information that pointed to your guilt concerning some of the incidents that was investigated by the Harms Commission?
MR DE KOCK: Yes, Mr Chairperson, there were incidents or cases where you did not reveal all the information, but in order to manipulate the investigation in such a way that he will be able to cover facts and evidence, one had to make certain disclosures.
MR HATTINGH: In his capacity as Commander of C1, did he give you instructions?
MR DE KOCK: Yes, Mr Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: Was this concerning legal or illegal actions?
MR DE KOCK: They were illegal actions, Mr Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: Chairperson, because of the finding of your colleague, I am not going into the particulars of this incident, I'll lead it in general. ...(transcriber's interpretation)
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR HATTINGH: And did it happen on one or more occasions?
MR DE KOCK: No, various occasions, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: At various opportunities you testified that your actions concerning incidents for which you applied for amnesty, was covered up with post-mortem inquests in the Harms Commission and so forth.
MR DE KOCK: Yes, for example the Maponya case is one of the more prominent examples.
MR HATTINGH: Was Gen Engelbrecht aware of this cover-up?
MR DE KOCK: Yes, he was part of this cover-up operation.
MR HATTINGH: You also have knowledge that in his affidavit he denies the version that you have just testified about.
MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, but I understand it, because it was his work to ensure that the Security Police get out of all these accusations. ...(transcriber's interpretation)
MR HATTINGH: Mr de Kock, during your criminal trial you gave evidence in mitigation, is that correct? ...(transcriber's interpretation)
MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: And during the course of your evidence you made a revelation of many unlawful incidents in which you were involved. ...(transcriber's interpretation)
MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: You also testified about Chappies Klopper and Willie Nortje, is that correct?
MR DE KOCK: That's correct.
MR HATTINGH: Were they the two people who made the first disclosure concerning Vlakplaas activities, before the Goldstone Commission?
MR DE KOCK: No, Mr Chairperson, I know Dirk Coetzee was the first person who already in '98, made certain disclosures.
MR HATTINGH: But in front of the Goldstone Commission they were the first who made these disclosures.
MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct.
MR HATTINGH: Did Mr Klopper have knowledge of this specific incident that we are dealing with now?
MR DE KOCK: No, Mr Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: Did Mr Nortje?
MR DE KOCK: No, Mr Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: And did they testify concerning this incident, either before the Goldstone Commission or in the criminal trial?
MR DE KOCK: No, Mr Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: Can you recall if you testified about this?
MR DE KOCK: Yes, Mr Chairperson, in front of the Goldstone Commission, I ...(intervention)
MR HATTINGH: I'm talking about the criminal trial now.
MR DE KOCK: In this case, Mr Chairperson, no, not as far as I can recall.
MR HATTINGH: This matter came up when Mr Koekemoer testified in the criminal trial, is that correct?
MR DE KOCK: That is correct, Mr Chairperson. I would just like to qualify here, what I heard later, and that is during my criminal trial, but that was information that was generated, that W/O Brits told the investigative teams and they mentioned this incident, amongst others.
MR HATTINGH: What was your political consideration, why did you participate in this operation?
MR DE KOCK: Mr Chairperson, if this person was not on my side, then he was against me. We were in the epicentre of the Harms Commission and the earthquakes that followed. And to inform you, we also eliminated Brian Ngqulunga, an askari from Vlakplaas, because it seemed as if he wanted to walk over to the ANC's side. And in this case it was about the protection of the members to whom the deceased wanted to make certain statements. It was for the protection of the Security Branch and for the force in general.
MR HATTINGH: This morning I received a quite bulky affidavit of Manuel Olifant, did you know him?
MR DE KOCK: No.
MR HATTINGH: From this statement it seems that the deceased in this matter was involved in various operations, amongst others, with Mr Coetzee and Pretorius.
MR DE KOCK: That is correct, yes.
MR HATTINGH: And if this information that is contained in this affidavit is correct, and if that was disclosed at that stage, what influence would that have had on the Security Police at that stage?
MR DE KOCK: Dirk Coetzee became a white askari and his allegations concerning Vlakplaas, it would support his allegations first of all and it would have decentralised Vlakplaas and it would have pulled in all the Security Branch members in actions that were geared against the enemy.
MR HATTINGH: I may have put it in the wrong way, but the deceased was involved in various operations. I may have to qualify that and say that he was involved in some operations, in the reading of it.
MR DE KOCK: I did not carry any knowledge of these operations.
MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairperson, I've got no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HATTINGH
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Hugo - Mr Hattingh, sorry, I confused you with your attorney, he was occupying that seat for the entire week. Please pardon me for that. Mr Cornelius?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Mr Chair.
Col de Kock, these incidents took place a few years ago.
MR DE KOCK: That is correct.
MR CORNELIUS: And because of that, one can become confused with names and dates, taking into consideration the amount of operations you were involved in.
MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.
MR CORNELIUS: I put it you, if we look at the application of the applicant Snyman, it is that he provided the East-bloc weapons but that did not go with to Nelspruit to plant the weapons.
MR DE KOCK: Yes, I will concede that.
MR CORNELIUS: And that he also did not accompany Brits, but that Brits was accompanied by somebody from Murder and Robbery.
MR DE KOCK: That is correct, yes, I will accept it as such.
MR CORNELIUS: The instructions came from Gen Engelbrecht, and I assume that you accepted that he already made the political decision concerning further actions that had to follow.
MR DE KOCK: That is correct, yes.
MR CORNELIUS: And it was also custom that Security Branch will request, make certain requests to Vlakplaas to launch certain operations.
MR DE KOCK: Yes, it was our task at that stage, as in the past.
MR CORNELIUS: So I will accept that Security contacted Engelbrecht, who then gave you the instructions.
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I do not know who approached Engelbrecht, I did not know how that whole liaison between the East Rand and Engelbrecht worked, or if another Intelligence department contacted him. I was not part of the whole planning.
MR CORNELIUS: But there would have been no doubt in your mind that this victim was a danger for the institution in the information that he would have disclosed?
MR DE KOCK: No, Mr Chairperson. I did know that Mr Coetzee them were involved in covert operations and I accept then that there were very sensitive situations.
MR CORNELIUS: The instructions that you gave for these footsoldiers, if I can put it this way, Snyman and Brits, also occurred on a need-to-know basis, you did not give them the details of this operation?
MR DE KOCK: No, I could only give them what I knew.
MR CORNELIUS: Very well. You never took disciplinary actions against Snyman and Brits for their actions?
MR DE KOCK: No.
MR CORNELIUS: And there were no disciplinary actions against you from Head Office, because of actions in this specific matter?
MR DE KOCK: No, Mr Chairperson.
MR CORNELIUS: So the Head Office of Security gave authorisation for this whole operation.
MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct.
MR CORNELIUS: You also did have knowledge of the fact that a person will be killed and you also then apply for conspiracy to murder and murder.
MR DE KOCK: That's one of the charges.
MR CORNELIUS: One last aspect that gives problems, and that is, according to Mr Brits’ recollection is that he couldn't remember that he ever reported to Gen Engelbrecht, because he did not receive instructions in this specific matter from Gen Engelbrecht.
MR DE KOCK: Mr Chairperson, I do have a recollection and it is very vague, I did not participate in the planning but how this whole task would be approached, because I was not part of it and Mr Brits requested landmines and explosives and it was then provided. In other words, I did not sit in in any way and make that decision, his request was for landmines and explosives. I then gave W/O Snyman permission to issue that or to take it.
MR CORNELIUS: These weapons and ammunition, this was kept in a store at Vlakplaas, is that correct? ...(transcriber's interpretation)
MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.
MR CORNELIUS: And it was most East-bloc weapons and ammunition that was kept for actions.
MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, that's correct.
MR CORNELIUS: And you will not dispute the fact that three landmines could have been issued, or handgrenades could have been issued?
MR DE KOCK: What they needed, I would have given.
MR CORNELIUS: Very well. Thank you, Mr Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CORNELIUS
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Cornelius. Mr van den Berg?
MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you, Mr Chairperson, I don't have any questions for this witness, or this applicant.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR VAN DEN BERG
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Hurwitz?
MR HURWITZ: Thank you. May I just take instructions from my client on a piece of evidence given by the applicant?
CHAIRPERSON: Would you want us to stand down?
MR HURWITZ: I'll just be a few minutes.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay, you'll tell us, we'll be outside.
MR HURWITZ: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. We'll adjourn for a few minutes.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION
EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: (s.u.o.)
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hurwitz?
MR VAN DEN BERG: Mr Chairperson, if I might come in, there seems to be a bit of confusion about the fact that I didn't put any questions to Mr de Kock, and just for the sake of whatever confusion there may be, I would ask consent to put a number of questions to Mr de Kock, relating primarily to my client's version in respect of this incident.
CHAIRPERSON: You may do so. Mr Hurwitz, we would delay yours in that respect.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DEN BERG: Mr de Kock, if I understand your evidence correctly, during this what you call an operation, you did not know of the name or the identity of the police officer who was involved at Murder and Robbery ...(intervention)
MR DE KOCK: Just one moment please, can we just shift that light, I can't ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: I beg your pardon?
MR DE KOCK: If they can just move the light, I also had an operation on the left eye and it really irritates it extremely.
CHAIRPERSON: Could we have that light not reflecting on Mr de Kock, because of his eye operation please.
CHAIRPERSON: Tell me if you are okay, Mr de Kock.
MR DE KOCK: Thank you, yes, it is okay.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. You may proceed, Mr van den Berg. May you restate or rephrase your question.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Mr de Kock, as I understand your evidence, during what you call this operation, you did not know the name or the identity of the person at Murder and Robbery unit on the East Rand, who was involved here, is that correct?
MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson, I did not know.
MR VAN DEN BERG: And you only attached his name to what you think is this incident during your criminal trial when Mr Koekemoer gave evidence.
MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Mr Koekemoer denies that he at any time accompanied any of your members and in particular Mr Brits was involved in the creation of a weapons cache point. I just put that to you.
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I can only mention that I did supply the weapons or the landmines and Mr Brits did indeed give feedback afterwards, but I was not there at the scene. I did not accompany them to the scene, so I cannot give evidence to that part.
MR VAN DEN BERG: And then furthermore, there was no discussion between him and Mr Brits with regard to the fact that the deceased, Mr Bambo, had to be killed and this was flowing from an instruction which you gave to Brits or any other person.
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I did not liaise with Mr Koekemoer myself so I cannot give evidence about that aspect.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Mr Koekemoer made an affidavit in the post-mortem inquest in Nelspruit, it's page 98 of volume 2 of the bundle of documents, and just to say I do not wish to take you to each aspect that is written here, but just to state that he will stay with this affidavit.
MR DE KOCK: I won't dispute that, Chairperson.
MR VAN DEN BERG: In other words, that this person had to be killed in a type of self-defence situation, as it was found in the post-mortem inquest.
MR DE KOCK: I cannot dispute that, Chairperson.
MR VAN DEN BERG: I have no further questions, Mr Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN DEN BERG
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr van den Berg. Mr Hurwitz, I suppose your instructions can enable you to ask a few questions. You may proceed.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HURWITZ: That is correct.
Col de Kock, there seems to have been a bit of a misunderstanding, my client, Sgt Olifant, says he knows you well, he has known you since 1980, you served on missions together in Namibia whilst you were a Commander of Koevoet, can you perhaps stand up and would you perhaps recognise him better?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, he looks familiar, but it's not a person who worked with me.
MR HURWITZ: Did you not perhaps know him as Manuel, the Portuguese?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I had three members of Renamo who worked with me, one went back to the Republic within two months and the other two were thrown over the border by Mr Craig Williamson, so that they could be murdered, in order to establish a certain Mr de Costa's bona fides, and if I'm correct he was the Chief of the Security Police in Mozambique and he lost those three persons.
MR HURWITZ: So do I understand you correctly by saying that you don't know him by his name, is that correct?
MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.
MR HURWITZ: And was there an occasion in 1990, at Vlakplaas, where you bought him and Oscar Moni a beer, you shared a beer together?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I cannot recall such an incident, but that does not mean it did not happen, but I cannot recall that.
MR HURWITZ: Now Mr Olifant's evidence will be that contrary to page 12 of bundle 2, paragraph 9 - if I could read it into the record. Is that necessary, Mr Chairperson? Must I read it in?
CHAIRPERSON: Ja, read it into the record.
MR HURWITZ
"Capt Pretorius contacted me and said that we had problems because Strongman had been apprehended and had escaped and that I had to trace him and kill him because he would cause trouble for everyone if he would talk about the operations of which he was part."
CHAIRPERSON: Just for the record, Mr Hurwitz, that would be paragraph 9?
MR HURWITZ: Yes, that was a statement which was recorded at Braamfontein, Johannesburg, on the 1st of July 1996, by Sgt Andre Louis Groenewald.
Now Col de Kock, did you know Mr Olifant's position in the Security Police, who his direct superiors were?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, no, as I have said, I cannot recall him and I would not have denied it if I did know him.
MR HURWITZ: So could you comment, Mr - my instructions are that Mr Olifant never received an instruction to track down Strongman, which is Bambo, and to kill him. Can you comment on his ...?
MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, because I did not liaise with him.
MR HURWITZ: Furthermore, there is further statements which I handed in this morning, these were statements taken by Capt Liesk, perhaps these could be handed in as exhibits.
CHAIRPERSON: That would be the first exhibit, Ms Patel, wouldn't it be?
MS PATEL: That's correct, Honourable Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Let's mark it A, Exhibit A.
MR HURWITZ: These were statements taken by ...(intervention)
INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.
CHAIRPERSON: Your microphone is not on, Mr Hurwitz.
MR HURWITZ: These were statements recorded by Capt Andrew Gordon Liesk of the Attorney-General's Investigation Team. It's undated. It's a statement comprising of approximately 34 pages, in English.
CHAIRPERSON: And Afrikaans.
MR HURWITZ: No, it's the - yes, it's English and Afrikaans. Page 6 thereof is somewhat different to the previous statement which has been read into the record, if I could read it into the record. The paragraph is unnumbered, it's the second-last paragraph
"I was approached by Pretorius and requested to keep and ear out for him.
This is referring to Bambo.
"I was to pass the information on to them. Pretorius told me that if he was caught, he would have to be killed, as he would talk like others were busy doing. I later read that Adriano was arrested and taken to Modderbee. At a stage he was allegedly taken to Nelspruit where he was killed. After Adriano was arrested, the others involved were released, charges were withdrawn."
Now this statement is unsigned. My client's instructions are, the discussion which took place with Coetzee and Pretorius, there was no instruction to Olifant himself to arrange to have him killed, the fear was - first of all, Coetzee's request was that they should try and encourage Bambo to rejoin the ranks and they would train him and get him back to work. Can you comment on that?
CHAIRPERSON: No, I don't think he can.
MR DE KOCK: No, I cannot.
MR HURWITZ: Yes, I just have to put the version.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
MR HURWITZ: Okay. The second version, or Pretorius told him that he was worried the police might kill him, and that's perhaps how it crept into the statements that there was an instruction to Olifant to have him killed, can you comment on that?
MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson.
MR HURWITZ: Thank you, I have no further questions for the witness.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HURWITZ
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Hurwitz. Mr Jonker?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR JONKER: Thank you, Sir.
Mr de Kock, you started your evidence by saying that you were at Gen Engelbrecht's office, where you received these instructions, is that correct?
MR DE KOCK: That is correct.
MR JONKER: Mr de Kock, on occasion when you received these instructions, how would you have received these instructions, per telephone or at the General's office or where would you have received them?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, the methods varied according to circumstances, and on this occasion it was in his office.
MR JONKER: The instruction you received was just to supply arms?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, no, I did not receive an instruction to supply arms, I had to devolve a member to go and see Gen Engelbrecht.
MR JONKER: If I understand you correctly, you went to the General in his office, you had to go back to Vlakplaas, find someone to go back to the General, is that correct?
MR DE KOCK: Yes, that's correct, Chairperson.
MR JONKER: And you found Brits to do this?
MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, because he was someone I could trust.
MR JONKER: This Capt Koekemoer, have you met him previously?
MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.
MR JONKER: Did you know him well?
MR DE KOCK: I knew him reasonably well, yes Chairperson.
MR JONKER: Did he visit Vlakplaas regularly?
MR DE KOCK: I wouldn't say regularly, Chairperson, but as an outsider of the Vlakplaas unit, I would regard it as regular, yes.
MR JONKER: Was this general practice at Vlakplaas, this canteen, that actions were discussed there in the canteen?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, yes. I would just like to qualify by saying that some of the Botswana attacks were planned there and an attack in Swaziland was planned there, the Khanya House, Khotso House, Cosatu House, all those incidents were planned there, because it was an operational centre, the canteen was just a facility for the members.
MR JONKER: The reason why you sent Brits was because you could trust him specifically?
MR DE KOCK: I trusted my other members as well, Chairperson, but Brits came from the East Rand, he came from the Gold and Diamond Branch in the East Rand, and he was a person I could trust, yes.
MR JONKER: Because I note according to the statements, I think it is Mr Snyman's statement, he mentions that he heard about this incident in the canteen, so it would appear that everybody knew about this incident where weapons had to be supplied and somebody had to be taken out, everyone knew.
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, no, there were occasions where not only on the East Rand Murder and Robbery unit, but also of the other units, selected members were invited to Vlakplaas, but this incident was not discussed in the canteen.
MR JONKER: Bundle 1, I have a statement of Mr Snyman, he says that
"From a discussion in the canteen I inferred that the black person had to be shot. I also understood that the incident had to take place in Eastern Transvaal and that Dawid would help with this. I read somewhere about this and that is how I attached it to the incident."
So this was general information that this person had to be killed?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I don't know, because I did not have that information available to me.
MR JONKER: Mr de Kock, Gen Engelbrecht, how often did he visit Vlakplaas?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, during, or before the Harms Commission he arrived there with a W/O Mostert, who was attached to the Security Branch of John Vorster Square, that's the first time I met him and that was about the blowing up of Khotso House. Gen Engelbrecht was still a Colonel then, he was a full Colonel then. He wanted the list of names from me of who had been involved in the explosion and I told him that I was not aware of who was involved there or who did it, and eventually so much so that I went and telephoned Brig Schoon and told him there was this person here at Vlakplaas, and Brig Schoon then told me that I could freely speak to him, and I then accepted his presence there, but I only gave him my name and I did not supply any other members' names.
MR JONKER: Mr de Kock, for purposes of the record, the Harms Commission, when did this take place?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, before Judge Harms it was Mr McNally and there was a Gen Conradie involved and later somebody else took over from Gen Conradie. I think it was in 1990, in that vicinity, I'm not sure. I cannot recall all these dates.
MR JONKER: You cannot recall more-or-less when Gen Engelbrecht arrived there at Vlakplaas, as a Colonel?
MR DE KOCK: It was between the explosion at Khotso House and a week.
MR JONKER: You do not recall which year it was?
MR DE KOCK: I cannot recall that, Chairperson, I've been involved in too many operations.
MR JONKER: Mr de Kock, tell me, Capt Koekemoer and Gen Engelbrecht, did they meet each other there at Vlakplaas, or do you not know?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, on occasion they were there. I believe that they could have met there. I know of one occasion when Col Koekemoer was there and some other members were also there, because what I recalled, and I'm not saying this in trying to be funny, but this is something that I do recall, and it is that Gen Engelbrecht drinks his whisky with coke, which I regard as a definite no-no, one does not mix coke with whisky. But I'm not trying to say this to make a fool of him, it's just something that I noted that day.
MR JONKER: So he did enjoy some drinks with some other people there?
MR DE KOCK: I have to admit that he was not a drinker, he would just consume two glasses and then that was it.
MR JONKER: Col de Kock, while you were there in the Police, you, as time had elapsed, with the different units there would be close co-operation between the different units, the people of Murder and Robbery would work with Security and the other specialised units, because at the end of the day - I do not want to give evidence here, but it is so that the robber at that stage committed robberies and bought weapons and ammunition with that robbed money, so they knew each other, the various branches of the Police, is that correct?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, with specialist units, we knew of each other, but from Vlakplaas' circumstances and what was attached to Vlakplaas and because of our own consciousness of illegal activities, only selected members of a unit could be allowed there. I'll give you an example. Let's say we invite Brixton Murder and Robbery, then whoever made the arrangements, he would bring along the person who he thought was okay, and I use the word, people who are "alright", and then one would get three or four persons but not a whole unit.
MR JONKER: These persons who came to the canteen there at your place, these were persons who you could trust to go and execute a specific task for you and would not talk about it?
MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, one can put it as such, but we did not go out with the outside units and execute our tasks.
MR JONKER: Mr de Kock, Capt Koekemoer, would you say that he was one of those persons whom you could give a task, who would perform it and not talk about it?
MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.
MR JONKER: And he may have performed a task for you which was not entirely politically correct, if we could express it as such, or which may have bordered on a semi-criminal nature, but he would have done it?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, whether it's politically correct or not, it was still a criminal act and I believe that if he had the necessary motivation and instruction from somebody higher up than he, then he would have executed it. He would not have taken an instruction to murder someone from me.
MR JONKER: Mr de Kock, for argument's sake, Capt Koekemoer comes there, or any other person and you know this person, you met him there at your canteen where everything happened, and this person tells you that Gen Engelbrecht said that a specific person had to be killed or a weapons cache point had to be set up, would you clear this with the General first, or would you accept the person's word for it?
MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, as you put it now, it had to be cleared with the General first, but in this regard it came from the General to me and not from Mr Koekemoer.
MR JONKER: Is there any specific reason, Mr de Kock, why the General would deny these allegations of yours?
MR DE KOCK: It's about self-preservation, Chairperson, and this is not uncommon, it would be something new if we get police officers who were involved in something illegal and then they confess to it.
MR JONKER: Sir, is it not so that your experience in the Police Force, you were at a selective unit, but is it not so that many police officers, as soon as they are caught, they talk, they do not want to take the blame, he actually wants to pass on the blame to the next person and the next person? Did you not experience this many times?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, in my own criminal trial I discovered this when a myriad of white askaris stood up and it looked like an asparagus garden as they jumped up. Yes, we found that, and everything was placed on my shoulders. But in my case and before the TRC, every time I have taken the responsibility for myself and the members under my command, whatever had happened. And there are incidents where I gave instructions myself and I take responsibility for that, without implicating anybody higher up. And where I gave instructions myself, I would have said so. So I never hesitated to accept responsibility or to apply for amnesty where I felt that it would be right to do so.
MR JONKER: Mr de Kock, earlier in your evidence-in-chief you said that persons were either with you or against you, do you recall that?
MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.
MR JONKER: Mr de Kock, Capt Dirk Coetzee, or Col Dirk Coetzee, he was against you was he not?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I think he was against the whole system. I never met him, I did not know him, but eventually he found my name somewhere and developed it into some or other sort of fantasy, some sort of obsession.
MR JONKER: Chairperson, I would like to put two more questions to the witness which might be out of line, if it is indeed so, then please stop me.
CHAIRPERSON: I'll make a ruling if it is so.
MR JONKER: Thank you, Chairperson.
Mr de Kock, persons who were not with you were killed, or some of them, may I put it as that, there were some of these persons, in your evidence you said that there were persons who were not with you, when they were not with you, you got rid of them, is that correct?
MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, one could say it's a general principle in intelligence services, as British Intelligence officer said to me, "We take care of our own sick". I here refer to the Goodwill Sikhakane matter in Natal, where the person who exposed Operation Vula, who was an askari, was killed and Vlakplaas was co-opted for this. I refer to Brian Ngqulunga.
MR JONKER: Mr de Kock, for what reason did you not make a plan with Mr Coetzee?
MR DE KOCK: But we did, Chairperson.
MR JONKER: You were just not successful?
MR DE KOCK: No, we were not successful.
MR JONKER: Thank you, Chairperson, no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR JONKER
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Jonker. Mr Wagener, you might just tell us how whisky and coke tastes.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR WAGENER: Thank you, Chairman.
Mr de Kock, this morning you testified that you were involved in many operations and your elaborate amnesty application speaks of this, is that correct?
MR DE KOCK: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR WAGENER: And we know that many of these operations took place many years ago.
MR DE KOCK: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR WAGENER: This morning you gave evidence that during this process one becomes confused and one makes mistakes with facts and names.
MR DE KOCK: Yes, that could happen, Chairperson.
MR WAGENER: This particular incident, are you certain of your facts and names in this particular incident?
MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.
MR WAGENER: So what's different about this incident from the others?
MR DE KOCK: Because I had to delegate a person and send him to Gen Engelbrecht, and I was not involved in the planning myself. In other words, the arrangements were made, either by Gen Engelbrecht or somebody whom he appoints. Usually with the other operations I was involved directly.
MR WAGENER: Do I then understand you correctly, I'm reading page 3 of bundle 1, it says at the top
"Gen Engelbrecht requested me to delegate one of my members to accompany another member to go and kill a source of Capt Coetzee."
Is that what you are saying now?
MR DE KOCK: No, he asked me to delegate a person to him, I did not know who the member was of that unit there in Benoni. It was the Murder and Robbery unit, but I do not know who would have to go on this operation.
MR WAGENER: If you did not even know that, what did you have to tell your member, what did he have to do?
MR DE KOCK: That he had to go and see Gen Engelbrecht and Gen Engelbrecht will give him a task.
MR WAGENER: And was that member, Mr Brits?
MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.
MR WAGENER: You saw this statement that we have received from Mr Brits this morning, it hasn't got an exhibit number yet, but I assume that you've seen it.
MR DE KOCK: No, I haven't.
MR WAGENER: Maybe I can just ask your legal representative to place this in front of you.
MR DE KOCK: Yes, I do have it in front of me.
MR WAGENER: Mr Chairman, this is an affidavit I received earlier this morning, it has not been referred to, maybe we should refer to this as Exhibit B.
CHAIRPERSON: I don't know if we've got it. Would this be the one? Ja, it looks like it. Could we mark it B, to obviate confusion in future?
MR WAGENER: Will you just look, Mr de Kock, at the second page under the heading "Merits", there Mr Brits deals with his version of the incident. It is a statement that he gave this morning.
MR DE KOCK: Yes, I do have it in front of me.
MR WAGENER: What is your comment on the first paragraph, under the heading "Merits", where he differs from your version?
MR DE KOCK: Mr Chairperson, I can give you no explanation, I do know, and I have to say this, and it appears on another page in the bundle, I will refer you to it at a later stage, that Mr Brits did make other statements to the D'Oliviera Investigative team, and I stick to my version because I do know that that is the correct version.
MR WAGENER: What was Mr Brits' rank at that stage?
MR DE KOCK: He was a Warrant Officer.
MR WAGENER: Was it practice, Mr de Kock, to delegate a officer, a subordinate officer to your Commander, and where you then plan an incident without you being present?
MR DE KOCK: Yes, well if the Commander gave such an instruction it could have happened, because he arranges his operation himself, the General works on a need-to-know basis and I cannot overrule him.
MR WAGENER: Because I have listened or heard much evidence where you've testified about operations and my impression has always been that you were always, if I can call it the Operational Commander, even in cases where you were not physically present at the actual execution of an operation.
MR DE KOCK: Mr Chairperson, in this case I will have to say that Gen Engelbrecht was the Operational Commander.
MR WAGENER: I do not want to take you through a cross-examination that we've had at previous opportunities, but I would just like to make a few short comments. Firstly, you do repeat your evidence that Vlakplaas worked on a very strict need-to-know basis.
MR DE KOCK: That is correct, yes.
MR WAGENER: That within this principle even other branches of the Security Police were excluded. You've already testified concerning this.
MR DE KOCK: That is correct, yes.
MR WAGENER: It is also common cause that Gen Engelbrecht, during this incident, was a newcomer in the Security Branch, we know this.
MR DE KOCK: Yes, Mr Chairperson.
MR WAGENER: As he said and will testify here, he was not one of the inner circle people from the Security Branch, and more specifically from Vlakplaas.
MR DE KOCK: Mr Chairperson, I will not say it is not so, but I would just like to mention that he enjoyed a lot of trust within the organisation and he was appointed to assist the Harms Commission and the case of the Security Police.
MR WAGENER: On this last point, Mr de Kock, I do not want to cross-examine on which you always refer to as the "cover-up" actions, only two statements. I heard again this morning when you testified, that Gen Engelbrecht covered up the facts of the Maponya case, apparently after you made certain disclosures to him.
MR DE KOCK: That is correct, yes.
MR WAGENER: Can you recall that your evidence last year at the Maponya Amnesty Hearing, was exactly the opposite?
MR DE KOCK: Certain aspects were mentioned to him, Chairperson.
MR WAGENER: Well I will put it to you, Mr de Kock, that at that amnesty hearing, you at a later stage conceded that you misled Gen Engelbrecht, and that he never knew the true facts.
MR DE KOCK: No, Mr Chairperson, the necessary facts were given to him to ensure that the Security Branch and Vlakplaas especially, would emerge out of this situation unmarked. ...(transcriber's interpretation)
MR WAGENER: In other words, you now change your evidence?
MR DE KOCK: No, Mr Chairperson. Let me refer you to a different situation ...(intervention)
MR WAGENER: I'm talking about the Maponya case. Let me tell you what you testified, page 341 of the record of the Maponya matter
"So Mr de Kock, (this is me cross-examining you) did I hear you correctly, you misled Gen Engelbrecht?"
"Yes, Chairperson, the whole action was a misleading action."
MR DE KOCK: Let's then inform the Panel of two cases at Vlakplaas on the day when Gen Engelbrecht was there to investigate the Maponya incident. Firstly, Nofomela who was a deponent together with Dirk Coetzee, said that Mr Maponya was put in a Datsun Safari station wagon and I indicated to Gen Engelbrecht that it was not the Datsun Safari, but it was the Land Cruiser station wagon, and he then said that it's even better.
The second aspect was concerning a point that Mr Nofomela pointed out, where he said I killed Maponya with a pistol which had a silencer, and I assured Gen Engelbrecht that Maponya was not killed there with a firearm, but that he was killed at a different place. I did not take it any further. ...(transcriber's interpretation)
MR WAGENER: Very well. Just another quote from the Maponya case, on page 342 I put it to you
"So your misleading of this experienced Detective (and this is now Gen Engelbrecht), was one hundred percent?"
Then you answer:
"Yes, that is the impression that is created."
Then I put it to you:
"Mr de Kock, you have even misled Gen Engelbrecht, just as - and at previous occasions we dealt with this, in your career you have lied to many Courts, Tribunals and Judges, successfully."
Then you answer:
"Chairman, yes."
MR DE KOCK: That is correct, yes, but let me qualify it for you. You can only do it and get away with it if you do have the power of the State behind you. There's no other way in which you can do it.
MR WAGENER: Well I will argue, Mr de Kock, that you already conceded there that you did not give Gen Engelbrecht the true facts and that your evidence today denies that.
MR DE KOCK: Well it is your right, Mr Chairperson, I cannot make decisions concerning that.
MR WAGENER: You testified that you knew Capt Koekemoer at that stage, this is now early in 1991.
MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.
MR WAGENER: How did you know him?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, relatively well.
MR WAGENER: Was it because he was a friend of your brother?
MR DE KOCK: No, Mr Chairperson, I did not trust all my brother's friends, I actually did not trust most of them. Capt Koekemoer had a good investigative record, he was one of the best Investigators in the country and he was a person you could trust and a person who knew the intrinsic aspects concerning the protection of the State.
MR WAGENER: What do you mean with that last statement?
MR DE KOCK: That if it was necessary, the State's interests will come first.
MR WAGENER: But what do you mean, "he knew how to protect the State's interests"? How and when would he have done this? What do you base it on?
MR DE KOCK: Mr Chairperson, not on personal experience, but from his attitude, his actions, discussions that I had with him and with others. He was a person who you could trust with such a task.
MR WAGENER: I saw, Mr de Kock, that at least one of the charges on which you were found guilty, and that is fraud, where you planted weapons and which then were apparently found by fictional informers, who were then paid rewards, and that he was involved in this.
MR DE KOCK: Yes, Mr Chairperson.
MR WAGENER: Did he know what it was about?
MR DE KOCK: In Capt Koekemoer's case, no. General Engelbrecht, yes.
MR WAGENER: No, we'll get to Gen Engelbrecht at a later stage, I'm talking about something completely different. I'm now talking about, if I can recall, charge 22 in the criminal trial, weapons that you planted in the East Rand were found and then rewards were received in a fraudulent way, you were found guilty of that.
MR DE KOCK: Yes.
MR WAGENER: And in some of those instances, Capt Koekemoer was the person who found the weapons.
MR DE KOCK: I can see that in the statement, yes, I cannot recall who the person was who worked with that, but if you say it to me, yes, according to the statements, I will concede.
MR WAGENER: But my question is, did he know what the situation was, that it was actually fraud? That is my question.
MR DE KOCK: I believe so, Mr Chairperson, because if we give him weapons to plant, then it is very clear that it is not come from the enemy.
MR WAGENER: Is that the reason why he was involved in this specific operation? This specific operation about which this application is today?
MR DE KOCK: No, Mr Chairperson, I wouldn't say that.
Gen Engelbrecht was the person who knew who in the Murder and Robbery unit, were the people who you could trust with something like this, the tough ones.
MR WAGENER: So is it your evidence that Mr Brits heard from Gen Engelbrecht that he had to go and see Koekemoer at the East Rand Murder and Robbery unit?
MR DE KOCK: Mr Chairperson, yes, I would say so, because I did not tell Mr Brits to go to Mr Koekemoer, otherwise I would have had to make certain arrangements with Mr Koekemoer.
MR WAGENER: So in other words, you do not know, it's an inference that you are making now?
MR DE KOCK: Yes, I would say it's a very healthy inference that can be drawn, because I made no arrangements concerning this operation, or with Mr Koekemoer himself.
MR WAGENER: But you also saw Mr Brits' version that he never spoke to Gen Engelbrecht, that he got the instructions from you.
MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is Mr Brits' version, I believe that it will be tested.
MR WAGENER: Did you know a Mr Human at that stage?
MR DE KOCK: I did not know him very well, but I had met him a few times.
MR WAGENER: Was he involved in any matter that you would consider being illegal?
MR DE KOCK: Yes.
MR WAGENER: Was he involved in this operation concerning the hearing of today?
MR DE KOCK: I cannot say, Mr Chairperson, because I did not liaise with him.
CHAIRPERSON: You only provided the equipment.
MR DE KOCK: I only supplied the equipment, Chairperson.
MR WAGENER: You saw Mr Snyman's version of the bar talk at Vlakplaas, in which Mr Human was involved, do you carry any knowledge concerning this?
MR DE KOCK: As I said, Mr Chairperson, if there was talk, I do not know of it. My specific recollection is, and that's also why I'm applying for amnesty for this, is that this was discussed in the office of Gen Engelbrecht.
MR WAGENER: You are now referring to the discussion between yourself and Gen Engelbrecht. That's all that you know about.
MR DE KOCK: Yes. The bar talk - well they did come to the canteen, but I cannot recall any such discussions.
MR WAGENER: If I now refer to Coetzee, I'm not talking about Dirk Coetzee, I'm referring to Willem Coetzee, did you know Capt Coetzee at that stage?
MR DE KOCK: Yes.
MR WAGENER: Did you know him very well?
MR DE KOCK: Yes, Mr Chairperson.
MR WAGENER: I'm not quite sure, he could have been a Lieutenant or a Colonel, but did you know a Pretorius?
MR DE KOCK: Yes.
MR WAGENER: Did you know him very well?
MR DE KOCK: Yes.
MR WAGENER: Did you know in what they were involved?
MR DE KOCK: They were involved in intelligence work and they were also involved in covert operations.
MR WAGENER: Did you know that they were involved in certain illegal actions?
MR DE KOCK: Yes, Mr Chairperson, I can refer to the Pantso incident in Swaziland, where we killed three ANC members and it was actually Capt Coetzee's operation and we did participate in it.
MR WAGENER: That is correct, yes. And Pretorius and Coetzee also applied for amnesty for that, together with yourself and you've all already received amnesty for that.
MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.
MR WAGENER: Are you aware that both Coetzee and Pretorius made quite large amnesty applications?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I read in the newspapers that they do appear on occasions in front of the TRC, but I did not have any insight in their applications.
MR WAGENER: You will see that they also refer to it in their affidavits that form part of bundle 3, that they do apply for amnesty for various incidents.
MR DE KOCK: I cannot deny it, Chairperson.
MR WAGENER: I can also put it to you that apart from the case to which you refer, the Pantso case, there are also various other instances where they apply for amnesty, where people were killed or murdered.
MR DE KOCK: I believe so, yes.
MR WAGENER: If they were involved in this incident of today, then I will put it to you that it would have been very easy for them to have applied for amnesty for that too, and they did not.
MR DE KOCK: I cannot comment on that, Mr Chairperson, people do what I think is in their best interest. I've got no doubt, I cannot really make a statement about why they applied or did not apply for amnesty for this.
MR WAGENER: Can you see that both Pretorius and Coetzee mention in their affidavits that the deceased, or they refer to him as Strongman, this is now Mr Adriano Bambo, that he did not really, he was not really that big a risk in terms of security. Did you see that?
MR DE KOCK: Mr Chairperson, yes, I did see a list of incidents in which they were involved and I believe that it was quite serious, but I based my actions on what Gen Engelbrecht told me his office. I did not have interviews with Mr Coetzee or Mr Pretorius.
MR WAGENER: This same deceased, are you aware of the fact that at an early - I will give you the dates in a minute, it is in bundle 2, page 36, that even in '84/'85, he served a two-year sentence? Are you aware of that fact?
MR DE KOCK: No, Mr Chairperson.
MR WAGENER: I will put it to you and it will also be their evidence. You will see it is in the bundle. What is your comment on that, that this person had already served a sentence and that nobody tried to kill him there, that he apparently held no risk or was not a risk for Coetzee and Pretorius, if he wanted to talk he could have, he had enough time.
MR DE KOCK: Mr Chairperson, yes, I suppose so, it depended on whether they took care of him. I can enlighten it with a case where an askari was charged with murder in Durban, he had to serve a sentence of seven years. We gave him a false name, he received a full salary, we took care of him in prison, we ensured that he was safe, that he gets a job where he is protected, and we made it very comfortable for him and his family. Maybe it can be that it happened here, I don't know, there are possibilities of control in such cases. ...(transcriber's interpretation)
MR WAGENER: You have told us now how things worked, but both these people will testify that if Bambo was such a big risk, then he had enough opportunity to talk. He was in jail and he didn't talk.
MR DE KOCK: I cannot really comment on this, I cannot speculate.
MR WAGENER: Furthermore, Mr de Kock, both Mr Coetzee and Pretorius will testify that in the beginning of 1991, they did not know Gen Engelbrecht very well, he was a newcomer in the Security Branch and they did not have a lot of contact with him at that stage. Can you deny that?
MR DE KOCK: No, Mr Chairperson, except that he did call them in one afternoon. They were present in his office, also concerning a problem with a worker of theirs, and at various opportunities he asked them if he was an informant or not and they denied it. I still do not know why it happened or what the nature of it was, but that was the only opportunity when I saw them at Gen Engelbrecht.
MR WAGENER: The fact is that I do not know what you are talking about, but your statement is clear, that they did not know Gen Engelbrecht very well.
MR DE KOCK: I do not know, Mr Chairperson.
MR WAGENER: And then their evidence will also be that if they wanted to kill Bambo, they wouldn't have done it through mediation of an outsider and a stranger such as Gen Engelbrecht.
MR DE KOCK: I cannot comment on that.
MR WAGENER: They knew you well enough, they could have approached you directly if they wanted to kill this person.
MR DE KOCK: Yes, Mr Chairperson, but I would in any event have had to go to Gen Engelbrecht.
MR WAGENER: Or they could have done it themselves.
MR DE KOCK: I believe so, but that did not happen in that way, it happened in the manner which we are now busy with.
MR WAGENER: Although you do not have firsthand knowledge of what they would have said to Gen Engelbrecht.
MR DE KOCK: They would have contacted me if they wanted to, and they didn't. I can only tell what I know.
MR WAGENER: Just a second, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Certainly.
MR WAGENER: Mr de Kock, before his death, Mr Bambo was apparently detained for quite some time, that is now the day before Mr Koekemoer out of jail.
MR DE KOCK: I did not know that, Mr Chairperson.
MR WAGENER: I can give you the pages, but I mean that he had been detained for approximately two to three months.
MR DE KOCK: Yes, Mr Chairperson, that was not the knowledge that I had then. I did not know that at all.
MR WAGENER: It was about a robbery and later an escape, together with the robbery, and that is why he was detained.
MR DE KOCK: I cannot deny it, I do not have any knowledge concerning this. What I do know is what Gen Engelbrecht told me.
MR WAGENER: Now we also know, Mr de Kock, that the investigative officer of this case was a Mr Grimbeek.
MR DE KOCK: I don't know a Mr Grundling, Mr Chairperson.
MR WAGENER: Grimbeek.
MR DE KOCK: I do not know such a person.
MR WAGENER: Mr Chairman, there's a short statement of Mr Grimbeek, in bundle 2 on page 38. He was and apparently he still is attached to the East Rand Murder and Robbery. Now if Bambo wanted to disclose this sensitive information, to whom would he tell this? To whom would he disclose this?
MR DE KOCK: I do not know, Chairperson.
MR WAGENER: Is the apparent person not Mr Grimbeek, the one who questioned him?
MR DE KOCK: Not necessarily, Chairperson.
MR WAGENER: Is he not one of the obvious persons?
MR DE KOCK: I don't know, if one could draw further inferences, then he could have called someone at Lawyers for Human Rights or the Human Rights Commission or at the Legal Aid System, and just like Dirk Coetzee on the same basis, wanted to make statements.
MR WAGENER: In any case it's been minuted here that your legal representatives acceded and accept that Bambo didn't even tell Grimbeek that he had a previous attachment with the Security Branch.
MR DE KOCK: I cannot dispute that, Chairperson.
MR WAGENER: And I shall argue that if he was such a great risk and if he was on the point of making disclosures and revelations, at least Grimbeek would have been one of the obvious persons to whom he would have made these revelations.
MR DE KOCK: I cannot comment on that, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: What about - you heard what Mr Hurwitz read from page 6, what Olifant said about Coetzee and Pretorius, what they told him, that Adriano Bambo would pass information which was of a serious nature and he would sing like a canary and people would be in trouble. Now if you question him on Grimbeek, he was merely in the Murder and Robbery unit and he might have concerned himself with robberies, not with anything of a political nature, wouldn't that be so? I'm saying the direction of your questions, Mr Wagener, you should bear in mind that Grimbeek was attached to the East Rand Murder and Robbery unit, but we have evidence that has been presented in cross-examination about what Olifant says about Adriano Bambo, that he was a security risk and he would sing like a canary. So I don't think that's a fair question to Mr de Kock, when we have this evidence before us and you just put it about Grimbeek only.
MR WAGENER: Chairman, I heard Mr Hurwitz wrong then, but I heard him to say that Olifant will not in fact testify as is stated in this paragraph. That's what I heard Mr Hurwitz to say.
CHAIRPERSON: Not as stated in the previous paragraphs, but what is said in the new Annexure A, page 6 thereof, the penultimate paragraph.
MR WAGENER: Yes Mr Chairman, that is what I referred to. I understood Mr Hurwitz to say that Mr Manuel Olifant would say he did not receive such instructions from Pretorius or Coetzee.
CHAIRPERSON: I have heard him wrongly, you may proceed.
MR WAGENER: Maybe he can assist here on this misunderstanding then.
MR HURWITZ: The instruction was on the talking, it was on the aspect of the murder or the killing. I didn't deal with that in detail.
CHAIRPERSON: Then it would appear I heard you correctly.
MR HURWITZ: That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
MR WAGENER: Anyway, Mr Chairman, if it was an unfair question, I will retract, but I'm still not sure what the position is, but I think we should wait for Mr Olifant then to testify on this, maybe he can clarify whatever misunderstanding ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: No, no, what I was drawing your attention to, not to muzzle you, was that if you ask him a question only about Grimbeek, it would be unfair because of this evidence that is before us. That's all I was saying, not that I was muzzling you.
MR WAGENER: Yes, yes.
Mr de Kock, then I want to make it quite clear, I did not say that Grimbeek would be the only person, my question was, would Grimbeek not be one of the obvious persons to whom Bambo would make these revelations, I did not limit it to Grimbeek alone. That was my intention with the question. Can you comment?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I can only say that I did not know what the relationship of trust was between Mr Grimbeek and Mr Bambo.
MR WAGENER: Then I would just like to put it to you Mr de Kock, that your spokesman, Mr Hattingh, put it to you that he had studied Exhibit A, it's quite a long statement from Olifant, 34 typed pages, and initially he put it to you that "the deceased in our case was involved in many unlawful actions along with Coetzee and Pretorius", and you agreed. I do not know whether you meant to do it, did you study the statement?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, shortly after we received it, I read through it quickly and certain aspects were pointed out to me, but I did not study it intensively.
MR WAGENER: Very well, but in fairness I would like to put it to you that according to Coetzee and Pretorius, the deceased was only involved in three incidents, three unlawful incidents for which they applied for amnesty.
MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson, I can only mention that during that time when Mr Bambo died, the amnesty process did not exist.
MR WAGENER: I heard what you're saying, but I would just like clarity about this. They will testify that the deceased was not involved in many unlawful incidents, they only referred to three.
MR DE KOCK: I cannot comment on that, Chairperson, I did not work with them.
MR WAGENER: And that some of these incidents had taken place before he was incarcerated for approximately two years. Some of these incidents took place in 1983, that was before he was detained.
MR DE KOCK: I would have to depend on that information, Chairperson, I don't know.
MR WAGENER: So I would like to repeat my point, if he wanted to disclose those operations, he could have done so during his previous term of incarceration, and he did not. And a final incident, Mr de Kock, it is still regarding Gen Engelbrecht, instructions which he would have given for unlawful operations. This morning you referred to two, if I recall correctly, the Maponya incident and the Sikhakane incident.
MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.
MR WAGENER: I would just like to ask a few questions with regard to the Sikhakane incident. You were present during the amnesty application with regard to the death of Mr Sikhakane.
MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.
MR WAGENER: And you heard there that it was another General who applied for amnesty, because he said he gave the instruction. It's Gen Steyn.
MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, but that General called Gen Engelbrecht and when I arrived in Gen Engelbrecht's office, Gen Engelbrecht asked me to call Gen Steyn, he said that I knew what it was about.
MR WAGENER: But you also heard the evidence of Gen Steyn that you are incorrect in that regard, that he gave the instruction solely and that Gen Engelbrecht was not involved.
MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson, I stand alone and independent in my amnesty application, I did not have the privilege of forming any coalitions outside, and I can only testify to what I know, I cannot add to that.
MR WAGENER: And what you can recall?
MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, and surprisingly that's a lot.
MR WAGENER: But you have on more than one occasion conceded that there are things you cannot recall.
MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, but when someone joggles my memory, facts are remembered. I am not infallible and I am open to making mistakes, but throughout the whole amnesty hearings it was only by exception that I made such concessions.
MR WAGENER: And then to summarise, Mr de Kock, Coetzee and Pretorius concede that the deceased worked for them, but they deny any part in his death.
MR DE KOCK: I cannot give evidence about that, Chairperson.
MR WAGENER: Gen Engelbrecht will testify that he did not know the deceased and that he was not involved in his death at all.
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, my evidence, I shall stick to my evidence. And I think this has to be decided upon by the Panel later.
MR WAGENER: Thank you, Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR WAGENER
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Wagener. Ms Patel?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PATEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson.
Mr de Kock, just a few single aspects. Kindly refer to page 3 of bundle 1, that is your application, in the second paragraph you say that:
"My instructions was that this informer was involved in an armed robbery and that he was about to reveal certain sensitive information."
Where did you get that information from?
MR DE KOCK: This came directly from Gen Engelbrecht, from no other person.
MS PATEL: Okay. And the other information that you give to us in paragraph 3 on the same page, that there was then an arrangement made that this former source would point out the arms cache and would be then killed in the process, where did that information come from?
MR DE KOCK: That came from W/O Dawid Brits after he came from Gen Engelbrecht, because I delegated him and sent him to the General, and he came back and then told me about this. He came to ask for the specific logistical support.
MS PATEL: Alright. Can I ask you, to what extent did you discuss this matter with Snyman, before the execution of the operation?
MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, upon Mr Brits' request I told Mr Snyman to give to him what he needed. As I have already said, I had nothing to do with the arrangements, I did not plan anything with regard to the operation, I was just making provision with regard to logistics.
ADV SANDI: If I can just ask here, Mr de Kock is there any reason why in this particular incident, you did not play an active role as you have done in several of these things when they happened?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, it's because Gen Engelbrecht arranged the operation himself, for some or other reason I was not needed. That is the only way I can explain it. To enlighten you, it would have been easier for me if I was involved, to make the person disappear myself, but that was not how this thing was planned.
ADV SANDI: Thank you.
ADV BOSMAN: May I just follow up on my colleague's question, Mr de Kock. In how many other incidents for which you have applied, did you play such a lesser role, can you give us an indication?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, for example, in the Goodwill Sikhakane incident I did not go to Durban myself, I sent members and in this regard, it was also W/O Brits with W/O Nortje and another person, because they were in that position of trust.
ADV BOSMAN: Did you participate in the planning here?
MR DE KOCK: No, in that regard I delegated the persons and the planning was done in Durban, by, if I recall correctly, Col Taylor, Mr Hanton. And Gen Steyn was informed, if I recall correctly. So with regard to that incident, I did not have any dealings at the scene or input at the scene myself.
ADV BOSMAN: Why in this regard, did you play such a lesser role?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, because it was expected of me. If Gen Engelbrecht told me, "take this person and make him disappear", I would have done so, but here I believe there must have been other reasons why I was not involved.
ADV BOSMAN: Do you refer to the Sikhakane incident?
MR DE KOCK: No, I refer to this Bambo, Chairperson.
ADV BOSMAN: No, I want to know if you could indicate to us why in the Sikhakane incident you did not participate to a greater extent.
MR DE KOCK: Because the request was only for a few of my members and I sent those members down.
ADV BOSMAN: But were you up to date with the planning in the Sikhakane incident?
MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, only that Sikhakane had disclosed the Vula incident and that two ANC members had been killed, namely Charles Ndaba and another person.
ADV BOSMAN: And except for the Sikhakane incident, are there any other incidents where you played a lesser role?
MR DE KOCK: There may be, Chairperson, but I would have to research that and it will take some time.
ADV BOSMAN: The Sikhakane one is the one you can recall?
MR DE KOCK: Yes, out of hand.
ADV BOSMAN: Thank you. Thank you, Chairperson.
ADV SANDI: Sorry, Ms Patel, if I can just come back to Mr de Kock on this.
But were you personally anxious that this operation should be a success?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson yes, but I myself did not believe that it would not be a success, because we had a man who was actually tied up, he couldn't go anywhere, you don't have to go looking for him, and who was under control all of the time, and these are experienced police officers taking him away.
ADV SANDI: Thank you. Thank you, Ms Patel.
MS PATEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson.
If I can just refer you to Mr Snyman's application, page 31 of Volume 1, Honourable Chairperson. He states in paragraph 4 at the bottom, that he wouldn't have gotten involved in this incident had it not been for an instruction from you to assist, and you've already conceded that you've instructed him to assist Mr Brits in this matter. He then goes on further, to say that he accepted and in fact, believed that the person who was to be killed, and he says he believed this because he says specifically:
"I enquired about this specifically"
he says that the person that had to be killed, according to his information, was that he was an ANC terrorist, as stated in the application before us, that was involved in political activity and then was arrested subsequent to that. Can you comment on the source of this information?
MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson.
MS PATEL: Alright. Sorry, Honourable Chairperson, if you would just grant me a moment. Alright, no fine, thank you, Honourable Chairperson.
Then just finally, I suppose it's an aside, but to satisfy my curiosity if you can, this person was in lawful custody at the time that he was removed, he was then killed, obviously he never returned, how would that have been explained, or what processes would have had to be put into place in order to cover up what had in fact happened there? Just from your knowledge and experience generally, can you comment?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, no, I cannot, because I was not involved in any other planning. I cannot tell you how the lines would have run.
MS PATEL: Alright. Thank you, Honourable Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS PATEL
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Patel. Any re-examination, Mr Hattingh?
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Just a few matters, thank you Mr Chairman.
Mr de Kock, if Gen Engelbrecht did not ask you to assist and if you did not send Brits to assist, would you have had knowledge of this person who was killed there in Nelspruit?
MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: You were asked about other incidents where you played a less active role, can you recall the Sambo incident?
MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: Briefly, very briefly, what was the role that you played there?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, the Security Branch at Komatipoort questioned a person with regard to weapons and he was killed during their questioning and I was called from Pretoria to assist with the disposal of the corpse and to go and hide the corpse somewhere. I then told them they must wait. I went to Gen Engelbrecht's house. I discussed it with him. He told me not to participate in it, to leave it, they should take the man to a mortuary. I then decided myself to assist the persons and I also took responsibility there. That was my evidence then, that I took the decision to assist and took the responsibility for it.
MR HATTINGH: Briefly, what did you do to oblige the request?
MR DE KOCK: I sent three or four of my members where they met with the members of Komatipoort, halfway, close to Middelburg, where the corpse was loaded over and the corpse was destroyed at an explosives range.
MR HATTINGH: You did not go yourself?
MR DE KOCK: No.
MR HATTINGH: And you were not involved in any other way in the execution of this act?
MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: You've already answered the question which I wanted to ask you. In this regard, Gen Engelbrecht told you do not continue, and you decided to indeed become involved.
MR DE KOCK: That's correct.
MR HATTINGH: And you did not come to the Amnesty Committee to say Gen Engelbrecht said that you should continue, is that correct?
MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson, I told them that I took the decision in spite of the fact that he told me that I should not become involved, and I did become involved.
MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Chairperson, no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HATTINGH
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. I see that I did not ask my Committee Members if they have any questions, the reason therefore was that I could hear the hungry voices in the boxes. We will adjourn for lunch and come back at quarter to two.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION
CHAIRPERSON: Mr de Kock, I don't know if my Committee Members have questions to ask, but may I just remind you that you're still under oath.
EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: (s.u.o.)
ADV BOSMAN: I have no questions, Chairperson, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Advocate Sandi?
ADV SANDI: Yes, I do, thank you.
Mr de Kock, you mentioned something about Mr Brits coming back to you to give a report, where was this and when did he come back to you to give the report that the operation had been carried out?
MR DE KOCK: Mr Chairperson, I've got a very vague recollection, but I think he came to Vlakplaas and I then sent him to Head Office.
ADV SANDI: Would you recall who was in your company at the time he came back to you?
MR DE KOCK: Unfortunately not, Mr Chairperson, but if he had referred to something like that, he would have ensured that we were alone, because it was a very closed situation.
ADV SANDI: Exactly what did he say to you, to be precise? What did he report to you?
MR DE KOCK: Mr Chairperson, I cannot recall, but the way in which things usually were referred to, euphemisms were used and I cannot really specifically tell you what he said.
ADV SANDI: You also mentioned something about the same Mr Brits giving a report to Mr Engelbrecht, did I understand you correctly?
MR DE KOCK: Well he had to go and report about this situation, because I was not there myself.
ADV SANDI: Did you know personally if he did in fact give such a report to Mr Engelbrecht?
MR DE KOCK: Mr Chairperson yes, he wouldn't have, concerning this instruction, have refused to make a report.
ADV SANDI: Yes, but did you, you personally have any discussions with Mr Engelbrecht after the operation had been carried out? Did you subsequently have any discussion with him about the matter?
MR DE KOCK: No, Mr Chairperson.
ADV SANDI: Thank you. Thank you, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Advocate Sandi. Anything arising from that, Mr Hattingh?
MR HATTINGH: No thank you, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Mr de Kock, you're excused.
MR DE KOCK: Thank you, Chairperson.
WITNESS EXCUSED
CHAIRPERSON: Before you call any other new evidence in respect of Mr de Kock, or evidence in support or a witness in support of Mr de Kock, I just want to make this announcement early, so that everybody knows the position. It's that you would have noticed that this morning we were delayed by the arrival of Mr de Kock. There were logistical problems at the Department of Correctional Services, and they want to correct that this afternoon and they requested that Mr de Kock be taken back at three thirty. My view is that we should adjourn at three thirty, because in all honesty and in the fair administration of this process, Mr de Kock must hear everybody speaking or questions asked. I would not want anything to be said in his absence, and I intimated that to Mr Hattingh, that it is my belief that whatever is said in these hearings where he is involved, he should hear himself. So we will adjourn at three thirty. Should I forget, please anybody, feel free to remind me at three thirty that we should adjourn. Thank you.
Mr Hattingh, are you calling any further evidence?
MR HATTINGH: Not as presently advised, Mr Chairman, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Cornelius, I think you are next.
MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Mr Chair. I call Dawid Jakobus Brits, the second applicant.
