amntrans AMNESTY HEARINGS 1999-08-23 PRETORIA 5 https://sabctrc.saha.org.za/hearing.php?id=53644&t=&tab=hearings https://sabctrc.saha.org.za/originals/amntrans/1999/99081631_pre_990823pt.htm CHAIRPERSON: For the record, it is Monday the 23rd of August 1999, we are continuing with the amnesty applications of E.A. de Kock and nine others in respect of the Nelspruit and Tiso incidents. Mr De Kock was still under cross-examination. EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK (s.u.o.) CHAIRPERSON Please be seated. Mr Francis? CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR FRANCIS (cont) Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr De Kock, is it correct that a book was written on your behalf, called "A Long Night's Damage"? MR DE KOCK Yes Chairperson. MR FRANCIS And if one turns to page, I think, 14 of this book, you are doped as Prime Evil, is that correct? MR DE KOCK Yes Chairperson, it is a reference which was given to me by the press which was unknown to me and then it became some sort of a nickname. MR FRANCIS If one turns to page 14, I think it is the first paragraph, the following appears "... Eugene Alexander de Kock, allegedly doped Prime Evil by his men and Scorch of God by his adversaries ...", so you don't know how this name was given to you? MR DE KOCK No Chairperson, the Prime Evil aspect I enquired about and somebody told me that it was a character in a cartoon story which was shown to children on TV. I don't know whether it had anything to do with some or other children's programme. In a certain children's programme, there was a character by that name. Scorch of God, that I don't know, I have never heard of that or at least nobody has called me that to my face or behind my back as far as I know. MR FRANCIS How many murders have you committed whilst you were a Commander of Vlakplaas and also I think during the time that you spent at Namibia? MR DE KOCK Personally or in group relation? MR FRANCIS Well, let's first deal with personally? MR DE KOCK In Ovamboland, man to man, I think I would say maybe eight to nine, person to person. MR FRANCIS And as a group? MR DE KOCK In our conflicts there were many people who died, maybe 150 or more. Not everybody died, there were also persons who were captured, but this is my estimation. MR FRANCIS Tell me, why was some men caught during or whilst you were busy in Ovamboland? MR DE KOCK Why were they captured? MR FRANCIS Yes, why were some of them caught? MR DE KOCK Well, they made it possible or at least the operational circumstances were of such a nature, that they could be captured. MR FRANCIS Are you saying to us that in some instances during your operations, you could in fact arrest some people? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, what sometimes happened is that the situation within the combat context, whether it was mobile or on foot, indicated that as one shot and drove by, one would drive through the entire combat area and you couldn't leave people behind. Whether a person stood up or was laying down, you would fire, the person behind you or the vehicle behind you, would also fire. It was usually those people at the end of the combat area, the last section of the combat area, after you had cleaned the area, that you would capture if they surrendered or if they made it possible. MR FRANCIS When you assumed the responsibilities of Vlakplaas, how many people did you personally kill? MR DE KOCK I would say that it could be approximately, with the inclusion of Swaziland, I would say five people approximately. MR FRANCIS Is that now excluding the Nelspruit 4? MR DE KOCK Yes, because I didn't personally kill every person, we acted in a group regard. MR FRANCIS How many people have you arrested whilst you were a Commander of Vlakplaas? MR DE KOCK We arrested quite a few. Among others we also broke persons out of jail in Swaziland and brought them back to this side. MR FRANCIS On Friday, I think if you recall, you confirmed that you told lied on several occasions, is that correct? MR DE KOCK That is correct. MR FRANCIS You also said that Gen Engelbrecht himself has lied on several occasions, is that correct? MR DE KOCK That is correct. MR FRANCIS If one was now to compare the lies that you have told with that of Engelbrecht, who would you say is a bigger liar? MR DE KOCK I would say Engelbrecht is the liar. MR FRANCIS You also said, I think, that Engelbrecht has not referred to some of the murders that he had committed in his affidavit, is that correct? MR DE KOCK Could you repeat? MR FRANCIS I think you said also that Engelbrecht had committed some murders and he didn't refer to it in his affidavit? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, he arranged a murder, I had to allocate two of my persons to him to make arrangements for the operation and the execution thereof. MR FRANCIS What did you do about this fact that Engelbrecht arranged for a killing to take place, which you also - having made available two of your employers? Have you done something about it? MR DE KOCK What do you mean? Did I do something at that time? MR FRANCIS I think you are saying that this Engelbrecht is a liar, he was involved, I think made arrangements to have somebody killed, what did you do about it? I mean, did you inform the authorities that your superior has in fact arranged a murder, has arranged that somebody should be killed? MR DE KOCK No Chairperson, it was not an unusual situation that we had to clean up after him, if I might put it that way, I am referring to the case of Brian Ngqulunga which will be heard later, I am referring to Goodwill Sekakani, whose case will also be heard. MR FRANCIS Can you explain why Engelbrecht says that you should not be believed? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, I am sure that it is the way it worked at that stage in the Security Branch, within the Security Police itself, that it was all about denial, the question of disassociation. None of them would want to be associated very closely with any of these incidents. For example we did not see Gen Van der Merwe during the Harms Commission when evidence was given about those persons whose hands were blown off with handgrenades. We did not see that Mr Vlok came to the Harms Commission and say "we blew up Khotso House". It was all part of a policy I would say, a policy of deception. MR FRANCIS If you recall I think, I will ask you if any version was put to any of the witnesses during your criminal case, do you recall that? MR DE KOCK Yes, there was a version that was put. MR FRANCIS What was your answer to that? MR DE KOCK My version was incorrect. MR FRANCIS Mr Chairperson, I think I would like to hand one document in, I think I made copies for the Chair. The one starts, I think from page 595 to 596. CHAIRPERSON Yes, that is an extract of the testimony of Geldenhuys, witness Geldenhuys, according to the copies. Which Exhibit number would this be? Where did we end, with E? MR FRANCIS Yes, this should be F. CHAIRPERSON This should be F then? MR FRANCIS Yes. CHAIRPERSON So it is the extract from the evidence of Geldenhuys, page 595 and 596 which would be Exhibit F. MR FRANCIS We could probably also Mr Chairperson, mark the one that commences from page 218 to 224, probably then as G, Exhibit G. CHAIRPERSON Very well, that is also Geldenhuys' testimony it seems. Yes? MR FRANCIS Mr De Kock, I think before I refer to this, before I refer to this, so you admit that you put a version through to your counsel, is that correct? MR DE KOCK That is correct. MR FRANCIS The version that you put to him, was that a pack of lies? MR DE KOCK Yes, it was a lie. I misled my legal team in that regard. MR FRANCIS Can you tell us why you misled your legal counsel? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, it was out of self-defence and in order to correlate with the versions of the past. MR FRANCIS Could you expand on self-defence, your protecting of self, what do you mean by that? MR DE KOCK It is obvious that one would not place oneself in a situation which would be destructive to oneself, that would be self-defence. MR FRANCIS So it would obviously appear that you had a propensity to tell lies, is that correct? MR DE KOCK No Chairperson. In this case, I tackled the situation myself, I misled my legal team and after this occasion, I was very sharply and strongly addressed by the legal team and I realised that the past could never be repeated and from that point on, I cleaned the slate entirely and I refer to my evidence during the Motherwell case in the Eastern Cape Supreme Court, as well as my evidence given during the case of President P.W. Botha. That was the change. MR FRANCIS I am still going to put this, you know the version, I am going to read it out and then we can deal with it. I think it commences on page 595, from lines 28 where you counsel said the following "... if you could grant me a moment, Your Worship, I am going to put to you in general what the version of the accused would be, should he give evidence. The accused will deny that he participated in any planning with regard to this incident which took place in Nelspruit. That is planning here in Pretoria or in Nelspruit? You have already conceded that he was not party to such planning." The response was the following - "... with the exception of what I have said, referring to his presence under the bridge, yes. But I am referring to Pretoria and the Drum Rock Hotel. That is correct. He will deny that he was aware that this was anything other than a bona fide police action during which members of his Unit would assist. I believe that he knew exactly what would happen, I don't think that he can deny it. He will deny that he was present or involved on the scene or at any other stage in the planning of the incident, or that he participated in any way in the incident. That is not so." Mr De Kock, can you tell us what was, what is wrong about the version that was put to Geldenhuys, where did you lie? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, the fact that I said that I was not on the scene and that I did not participate in the planning. ADV DE JAGER I beg your pardon, we don't have the entire record before us Mr Hattingh, could you assist us. In the evidence which he gave later, what was his viewpoint then or did he not give evidence at a later stage during the sentencing? MR HATTINGH Unfortunately I will have to explain somewhat with this aspect. When Mr De Kock was called to sentence, I led him and told him "you realise of course that the Court has already made findings based upon facts regarding the incidents" of which he was found guilty and if he were to put a version which would clash with the versions accepted by the Court, the Court could not do anything about it, because the original version had already been accepted and that is why we abstained from examining the merits of every charge that was laid against him. There was cross-examination about some of the charges. On that basis I cannot tell you according to my recollection, whether there was cross-examination regarding his involvement in the Nelspruit incident. ADV DE JAGER But he, himself, did not give evidence about it? MR HATTINGH Not, not evidence-in-chief. ADV DE JAGER Thank you. MR FRANCIS Mr De Kock, I was still asking you what was incorrect, what else was incorrect about the version that was put to Mr Geldenhuys? I think you mentioned that you were not at the scene, you did not take part in the incident, what else was incorrect about it? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, I cannot say off the top of my head. I would say that the comprehensiveness thereof is also incorrect. MR HATTINGH Chairperson, may I just interpose here. In this portion of evidence, I do not find any denial on behalf of Mr De Kock, that he was at the scene. He simply states, or I said that "... he will deny that he was aware of it or that it was anything other than a bona fide police action during which members of his Unit would assist" and then he responds and then I say that - "... he will deny that he was present or involved on the scene or at any other stage of the planning or that he participated in it." CHAIRPERSON Yes, so in other words it is an explanation of the denial that he was involved, whether it was during the planning or at the scene or at any other stage. MR HATTINGH But it was not a denial that he was present at the scene. CHAIRPERSON Yes, because it would appear that Geldenhuys says somewhat higher in the page, 596, he says he was present under the bridge, so Geldenhuys places him at the scene and that is not disputed? MR HATTINGH That is correct. CHAIRPERSON Yes, Mr Francis, have you noted that? MR FRANCIS I have noted that and I am asking for De Kock to tell us what else was wrong about this version. MR DE KOCK Chairperson, I cannot say immediately. MR FRANCIS You have the version in front of you Mr De Kock. MR DE KOCK I beg your pardon. MR FRANCIS You've got the version in front of you, you can read it? MR DE KOCK Yes, that is correct. MR FRANCIS Take your time and then tell us what else was wrong about that version. MR DE KOCK As far as I can surmise, it has to do with my active participation in the shooting. MR FRANCIS Is that the only thing? MR DE KOCK Well, that is what I can recall at the moment. MR FRANCIS I don't want you to think about it, it is in front of you. I don't want us later I think, to come up with an argument saying that you could not recall what else was wrong about it. You've got the version in front of you, if you need some time, I think we could ask the Commission I think, to maybe give you some time to look at the version and then tell us what the position is. MR DE KOCK Yes Chairperson, I think that my examiner should put his questions. MR FRANCIS I am not going to allow you to dictate to me as to what I should do. I've got the version in front of you, I want you to tell us what is in fact wrong, what else is wrong about this version. MR DE KOCK Chairperson, a second aspect is that there is a denial that I participated in any aspect of the planning, so that would also be incorrect. I cannot continue on a superficial basis. MR FRANCIS Do you need some more time? MR DE KOCK No, you may proceed. MR FRANCIS So the only incorrect thing is your participation in the shooting and also the fact that you didn't take part in the planning of the operation? MR DE KOCK The total planning. MR FRANCIS The total planning? MR DE KOCK That is correct. MR FRANCIS That is the only incorrect thing that appears in the version? MR DE KOCK Well Chairperson, in that aspect, it is comprehensive. MR FRANCIS I want you to look at page 596 again, from lines 8 and I think I will read it to you. "... He will deny that he was aware that this was anything other than a bona fide police action and that there would be members of his Unit that would assist." So the impression I think, that one gets, that was put to Geldenhuys was that this was a bona fide police action that involved I think the assistance of the Murder and Robbery Unit? That is also wrong, isn't that so? MR DE KOCK Well Chairperson, I am sure that one could look at both sides of the issue, it was a bona fide police action, but there is a difference that the counter-insurgency aspect was also involved. MR FRANCIS So are you saying that the action against the Nelspruit 4 that includes also Tiso, was a bona fide police action, is that what you are saying? MR DE KOCK Yes Chairperson, if I look at our past during which we killed other persons, once again I refer to the Motherwell bomb incident during which members of the SAP or the Security Police were killed, for C1 it was not a strange situation. MR FRANCIS I take it obviously then, if this was a bona fide police action, you would have acted in terms of Section 5 of the old Police Act, is that correct? MR DE KOCK Yes, would you read it to me? MR FRANCIS This incident happened in March 1992, is that correct? MR DE KOCK That is correct. MR FRANCIS And at that time the old Police Act was still in force, is that correct? MR DE KOCK That is correct. MR FRANCIS In terms of the old Police Act, what were the functions of police officers and what were their duties? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, the four principles of the Police were the maintenance of internal security, the prevention of crime, the investigation of crime and then there was also something which had to do with the security situation. MR FRANCIS So in terms of what Section of the Police Act, were you acting then? MR DE KOCK I am sure that it was a section thereof, the initial version that was put will be connected to Section 49, but it has been adjusted of course. MR FRANCIS Well, let me read to you - I didn't make a copy of this, but I think it is common knowledge, let me read to you what Section 5 of the Police Act stated. It says the functions of the South African Police shall be inter alia the preservation of the internal security of the Republic, the maintenance of law and order, the investigation of any offence or alleged offence and the prevention of crime. MR DE KOCK That is correct. MR FRANCIS Those were the functions of the police at that time. In terms of what Section, if this was a bona fide police operation, in terms of what Section did you act? MR DE KOCK Well Chairperson, we were focused on the mandate which C1 had to act internally and externally, people also died during such actions. It was not promulgated as a parliamental Act although the State presented it as such, that was not really what happened. MR FRANCIS I can probably understand what happened before 1990, you know, when there was a war situation in the country, but this was obviously after 1990 when there were talks about peace? MR DE KOCK Yes Chairperson, but then I refer to Vula and the situations in East London where people in a bar were shot, where elderly persons were shot dead at a Club House, people were shot on roads, people were shot in the back in a church, grenades were tossed in between them, if that was aimed at peace, then I must have missed something somewhere. MR FRANCIS I will obviously come back just now to Operation Vula and I think we will test your knowledge about it, but again, am I then correct in saying that you didn't act in terms of Section 5 of the Police Act? MR DE KOCK No, as in previous cases, we intercepted it. MR SIBANYONI Excuse me Mr Francis, I am sorry to interrupt, I am not trying to curtail your questioning, the problem is we do not have the benefit of the people defending the families' attitude, are you people opposing the application or not and then also, I am asking you this question at this point in time, you know, if he had acted within the law, he would not have contravened, he would not have committed any offence, crime, etc, in other words, he would not be before this Committee to ask for amnesty. If he has acted in terms of that Section 5, being a pure police action, then that would not have been an offence, they acted in contravention of the law, that is why they are applying for amnesty. MR FRANCIS Mr Chairperson, I think maybe I should have mentioned this earlier, but I thought the fact that we are present, I think, indicates that we are opposing the application of Eugene de Kock and the nine policemen, I think to put it maybe much more clearer, I think we do, my instructions are to oppose the application of all ten applicants. Secondly I think my question, I think around the question of the Police Act, I think is based on what Mr De Kock said that this was a bona fide police action and obviously I think he has also mentioned that authority had been sought, you know, for him to act in this and I think this is why I think, I wanted to point out that this obviously, if he says that it was a bona fide action, I think it would have to be in terms of Section 5 of the Police Act. MR SIBANYONI Is it possible maybe to indicate briefly on what grounds is the application opposed? Are you opposing them on the fact that it was not an act associated with a political objective? Are you maybe saying that they are not telling the truth? MR FRANCIS Well Chair, I think we are basically opposing I think, on the basis that the act performed was not done with a political objective and that - which I think is tied to the question of whether or not he had been given authority by his seniors to commit the offences, I think that he committed. Also too, Mr Chairperson, I think that it is so that there has not been full disclosure on the part of Mr De Kock. MR SIBANYONI Maybe lastly, are you asking the Committee not to believe him if during the criminal trial, he gave a version which is different from the version he is giving before the Committee today? MR FRANCIS No Mr Chairperson, that is not what I am saying, I am saying that when one deals with the evidence of Mr De Kock, and I think on Friday we dealt with this, it was quite clear that even his superiors I think, had said that he had a propensity to tell lies and I will obviously argue, I think later, once I have dealt fully with the cross-examination and when I will be referring him to some of the affidavits deposed to by his comrades, that there has not been any full disclosure. I think the only point that I am making is that we are told by his senior that you can't really believe him, he has a propensity to tell lies and I think I am just building on that. MR SIBANYONI Thank you Mr Francis. MR FRANCIS Mr De Kock, let's deal with Operation Vula. When did the ANC decide to launch Operation Vula, do you know? MR DE KOCK Chairperson no, but if my memory serves me well, the foundation of Operation Vula had been laid before 1990 and it continued. MR FRANCIS Was this some time in 1988, whilst the ANC was in exile? MR DE KOCK I have a vague recollection thereof, yes. MR FRANCIS If you say you've got a vague knowledge, are you agreeing that it could have been in 1988? MR DE KOCK That is possible Chairperson. MR FRANCIS And is it also not true that the rank and file of the ANC members were caught off-guard when the former President, De Klerk, announced the unbanning of the organisations on the 2nd of February 1990? MR DE KOCK No, I don't think that they were caught by surprise because at Vlakplaas there was a meeting during December 1989 or in January 1990 during which 60 officers were present, among others officers from Head Office and the various security regions, I think there were nine, during which Gen Smit informed us, this was Gen Basie Smit who was the Head of Security, he informed us that the prisoner, Mandela, would be released. This information was limited to this small group, so I assume that the senior structure of the ANC must have known about that. MR FRANCIS I was referring to rank and file, the rank and file, the members, the supporters, I think were caught off-guard when it was announced that the ANC and other organisations were going to be unbanned? MR DE KOCK That is possible. MR FRANCIS And is it also not true that there was a lot of - measure of distrust amongst the ANC when the unbanning was announced? MR DE KOCK Yes, it was mutual. MR FRANCIS Could you deny that the ANC suspended the armed struggle after the Pretoria Minute was signed in August 1990? MR DE KOCK No, that is perhaps what they presented, but that is not what took place on ground level. Those who were involved in Operation Vula, were not rank and file members. MR FRANCIS I am dealing with the announcement of the suspension of the armed struggle, not whether or not it took place still despite the announcement? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, they could sign treaties if they wanted to, but whether that actually meant that political groups still cherished their own expectations of what they wanted, or whether it meant that there were people who still did not agree with it, this appear to be the case if we examine the actions that took place. What was decided on the top level, might not have filtered through to the ground level. MR FRANCIS I am putting something quite simple to you, that the armed struggle was suspended after the Pretoria Minute was sealed in August 1990, yes or no? MR DE KOCK Yes, I cannot dispute the date. MR FRANCIS Is it also true that during the period, the ANC began to establish its legal presence in the country by recruiting members by issuing membership cards and by building a mass political movement, is that correct? MR DE KOCK Yes Chairperson, they didn't really have much to build on, or at least they didn't need much to build on, because the structures were already in place. If we take the Trade Union systems, the systems which had already been created internally such as the UDF and other organisations. MR FRANCIS Am I correct to say that Operation Vula commenced before the unbanning of the ANC and other organisations? MR DE KOCK Yes, I have a vague recollection that there was more than one operation. I cannot put my thumb specifically on Vula, but it is possible. MR FRANCIS But Mr De Kock, you were asked by Mr Lamey and you testified about Operation Vula and now you say that you are not so sure about it? MR DE KOCK No Chairperson, I said that I have a vague recollection that such an operation was indeed underway and that it never ceased. MR FRANCIS I think you must be aware that on the 6th of July 1990, the Durban Security Branch arrested Charles Ndaba and Vusi Tshabalala who were part of Vula Operation? MR DE KOCK That is correct. ADV DE JAGER The date again please Mr Francis? MR FRANCIS 6th of July 1990, is that correct? MR DE KOCK Yes, I would not dispute the date. MR FRANCIS Is it also correct that one Capt Hentie Botha of the Security Branch said that this whole thing was a fiasco? MR DE KOCK It may have turned into a fiasco afterwards. MR FRANCIS And he said so for the following reason, I think he mentioned that Ndaba had been recruited as an informer already in 1988? MR DE KOCK No Chairperson, I did not know about that. As far as I knew, Ndaba was not an informer, Ndaba was identified by an askari under the command of Col Taylor, that is how he was captured. After he was captured, he in turn pointed out Tshabalala. Furthermore this took place in secrecy, Hentie Botha was not at the arrest and certainly he would not have the information which was later obtained from Tshabalala or Ndaba. MR FRANCIS Is it also true that persons I think who were involved in Operation Vula, were later granted indemnity from prosecution? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, I am not so sure whether there was another form of amnesty, I don't know whether De Klerk signed anything like that, it includes Maharaj and Kassrils who were still on the run, as well as various other persons. MR FRANCIS Is it also not true that the Security Police discovered information that were found on the disc in the Vula safehouses, that weapons were brought into the country from the 23rd of September 1989 to the 24th of June 1990? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, it is possible. All the information which was on computer, was withdrawn at Vlakplaas in a specially prepared room, I did not have access to everything. Weapons were found during Ndaba's arrest and the arrest of Tshabalala. Weapons were retrieved from houses. MR FRANCIS Obviously I think when Operation Vula was exposed, it caused a lot of embarrassment to the ANC, is that correct? MR DE KOCK Yes Chairperson, the embarrassment was that they had been captured, not because they had done it and that led to a hardening in these persons, including myself, who realised that this situation would be revolutionised by these persons. MR FRANCIS I put it to you that there were nine trialists in the Operation Vula, that involved inter alia Mac Maharaj, Ronnie Kassrils and they received indemnity against prosecution on the 22nd of March 1991 and that basically was the end of Operation Vula. MR DE KOCK No Chairperson, I would not know, perhaps afterwards they continued and gave it another name. Mr Kassrils and Mr Maharaj were most probably some of the persons who knew very well after 1990, on the 2nd of February that there were peace negotiations and that enmities had been suspended and so forth. MR FRANCIS But you are now speculating whether or not it carried on under some other disguise, aren't you? MR DE KOCK Yes, I think one could readily accept it if one looks at what took place afterwards. MR FRANCIS Is it a fact that Operation Vula was commenced under some disguise? MR DE KOCK Yes, it was a clandestine operation, it was not openly publicised in the media. The ANC did not inform the former National Party, they were very sophisticated in their functions, they used satellite communication which the government and the military could not break. MR FRANCIS Mr De Kock, I am talking about after the people were exposed, you said I think, it then operated under some other guise. I am asking you if it is a fact that they did in fact operate under some other guise after they were exposed? MR DE KOCK I accepted that they did. MR FRANCIS It is not based on any factual evidence that you have? MR DE KOCK Well, all the terrorism that ensued. MR FRANCIS So, am I correct that the Nelspruit incident took place after Operation Vula was exposed? MR DE KOCK Yes Chairperson. MR FRANCIS It also took place after the National Peace Accord was signed? MR DE KOCK Yes, I am not certain of the date, but I would accept it if you would put the date to me. MR FRANCIS Let's just deal with the National Peace Accord. Do you know who the signatories were to the National Peace Accord? MR DE KOCK I would accept that it was between two parties or more than two parties. MR FRANCIS Those parties would have involved the government and the political (indistinct), is that correct? MR DE KOCK That would be correct. MR FRANCIS The government comprises of different components, it would also have involved the Security Police and the police? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, yes, it would be like that. MR FRANCIS It was the commitment to peace on both parties, is that correct? MR DE KOCK That is correct. MR FRANCIS And the police I think, had indicated that they would act in a certain manner, is that correct? MR DE KOCK Yes Chairperson, there was some or other reference to that. MR FRANCIS And it basically I think, brought an end to armed conflict, it was hoping to bring an end to armed conflict, is that correct? MR DE KOCK That was the expectation. MR FRANCIS You were also asked I think, and you testified about - or before I move away from Operation Vula, I have looked at Gen Nyanda's testimony that appears in Exhibit C and nowhere in it does he mention that one of the objects of Operation Vula was to rob banks for the liberation movements and in particular the ANC. He talks about yes, that there was - arms were being smuggled into the country, but nowhere does he in fact refer to it that one of the policies or one of the aims and objectives of this was to rob banks on behalf of the ANC. MR DE KOCK No, such things would never be put on paper. It was also not the policy of the National Party to do cross-border operations or to kill members of other countries if it was necessary. MR FRANCIS But I think, I am not talking about, I am talking about the evidence that was given by Gen Nyanda at your trial? MR DE KOCK Yes. MR FRANCIS Bear with me, he was cross-examined, he was led by Mr Ackerman about Operation Vula and he was also cross-examined by your own counsel, is that correct? MR DE KOCK Yes Chairperson, he would not have given anything different to the official version. MR FRANCIS But even if one looks at the documentation that was available, there was nothing about robbing banks to fill the coffers of the ANC and that wasn't part of Operation Vula? MR DE KOCK It was not an officially written policy and I don't even know whether it was an official spoken policy. MR FRANCIS You were asked by Mr Lamey to deal with the question of Self Defence Units, do you recall that? MR DE KOCK Yes, I did speak about it. MR FRANCIS I think before I ask you about that, I had spoken to Mr Van den Berg's client, that is the mother of Tiso and she said that at no stage was Tiso a member of any Self Defence Unit. MR DE KOCK Chairperson, that may be her recollection. MR FRANCIS But have you got proof that he was a member of the Self Defence Units? MR DE KOCK No Chairperson, I have no evidence, or written evidence, the information which I had is that which we received. MR FRANCIS We will come just now to the information that you received. Further, that he was at no stage a member of the Mandela Football Club? MR DE KOCK I would not be able to elaborate on that. MR FRANCIS You cannot deny that, can you? MR DE KOCK No Chairperson, he may also have been. MR FRANCIS Well, it is put to you that he was not a member of the Mandela United Football Club. You can't dispute that, can you? MR DE KOCK No Chairperson. MR FRANCIS And you can't dispute that he was - you can't dispute that he was not a member of the Self Defence Unit, can you? MR DE KOCK No Chairperson, but I can also not confirm it. MR FRANCIS Evidence was led that he was wanted by the police for 16 robberies? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, that is possible. MR FRANCIS Now, let's not talk about what is possible, let's talk about facts. Did you have knowledge that he was a member - that he was wanted for 16 previous robbery counts? MR DE KOCK No Chairperson, I do not have any independent recollection thereof. MR FRANCIS None of the five members or none of the five persons that were killed, had any previous criminal convictions, do you know of that? MR DE KOCK I cannot say. MR FRANCIS I put it to you as a fact that none of them had criminal, previous criminal convictions. MR DE KOCK I don't know Chairperson, somewhere in my recollection I know that one or two of them had a record. I am not certain, I will have to rely upon someone else's evidence if they can testify about that. Somewhere I am not sure, but I would rather that someone else give evidence about this. MR FRANCIS I put it to you as a fact that none of them do have criminal convictions. MR DE KOCK Very well. MR FRANCIS Do you know why Defence Units were established in the townships? MR DE KOCK Yes Chairperson, the idea was that this would work according to a block system, and that would be to protect the ordinary public who was living in the area. MR FRANCIS To protect them against what? MR DE KOCK There was armed conflict between the Inkatha Freedom Party, the UDF, there were factions of the UDF who were opposed in the West Rand and then the Self Defence Units which were affiliated to the ANC. MR FRANCIS So this was more a protective reaction on the part of the Self Defence Units? MR DE KOCK I think that it was interchangeable from protector to assailant. The one could lead to the other. MR FRANCIS Is it also true that at some stage the Inkatha Freedom Party had received support from the police, some elements from the police? MR DE KOCK Yes Chairperson, I cannot speak for others but I can only refer to my own unit and certain individuals. MR FRANCIS So there was a time when black on black violence was fermented by some elements of the State? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, black on black violence was something which occurred in 1976 already, when I became involved in it for the first time. It wasn't a new facet. MR FRANCIS We are talking about 1990 now, Mr De Kock, from 1990 onwards? MR DE KOCK I would just like to take you back in history so that we can understand the broader concept thereof. It already began during 1976, I was a personal witness to it in Katlehong, Vosloorus and Tembisa. MR FRANCIS What about Boipatong? Was it not a classical example where the State was involved? MR DE KOCK No Chairperson ... MR HATTINGH I beg your pardon Chairperson, if I may interpose at this point. I acted on behalf of the police during the Boipatong investigation and the position which is being adopted by my learned friend, I would like to know whether this is based upon the official report of the Goldstone Commission which indicates that the State in particularly the police, were involved in the incident or is he depending upon one-sided evidence with regard to the incident? CHAIRPERSON Mr Francis, do you want to expand on that question? MR FRANCIS Mr Chairperson, I think let me rather move away from that and maybe rephrase the question differently. CHAIRPERSON Well, go ahead. Do you know what happened in Tokoza during the early 1990's? MR DE KOCK Well Chairperson, I cannot recall specific incidents, but we operated on a national basis, so the incidents and situations were various. MR FRANCIS Is it also true that there were some elements of the State that were involved on the side of the hostel dwellers? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, I don't know. I could refer to the assistance which I and two or three other persons gave. I cannot say that ... (tape ends) ... MR FRANCIS ... do you have it in front of you? Sorry, Exhibit E, I made a mistake. Exhibit E? MR DE KOCK Yes. MR FRANCIS And you gave some testimony about, on page 2 thereof? You were asked about what the four pillars were, do you recall? MR DE KOCK Yes, that is correct. MR FRANCIS And you said, I think, that one of the pillars included the armed struggle, is that correct? MR DE KOCK That is correct. MR FRANCIS I want you to look at this document, what is the date of this document? It is right on top? MR DE KOCK July 1991. MR FRANCIS It was before the Nelspruit 4 or 5 were killed? MR DE KOCK That is correct. MR FRANCIS I want you to read at page 2 of the said document where it appears "conference further resolves", it is one to three, please read it aloud please. MR DE KOCK Are you going to read it or do you want me to read it? MR FRANCIS I think I referred you to the wrong passage, it should be also on page 2, from paragraph 3.1 up to the end of 3.1. Let me read this aloud for you. It says "... 3.1 Armed Struggle. Armed action has been suspended, the armed struggle remains a pillar of our struggle." I think what you were not asked was the bottom of that page - "... in a situation where the regime pursues or allows violence against us as part of its negotiations' strategy, it is essential for us to defend our People's Army, Umkhonto WeSizwe, contribute decisively to building the defensive capacity of communities who are victims or potential victims of the current reign of terror." It doesn't say that the armed struggle will continue, is that correct, it explains why it remains a pillar, but states that it is for defensive, it is a defensive mechanism? MR DE KOCK Yes Chairperson, the struggle remains a pillar of our struggle and the difference between defensive and offensive is very, very narrow, a very thin line. MR FRANCIS But the word suspend or suspended is used? It is a simple question. MR DE KOCK That is what was officially said to people. MR FRANCIS The question, is the word suspended used? MR DE KOCK Yes, those words are used. MR FRANCIS Do you know what the political climate was at that time, that is now 1991? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, between the politicians one would never know, because what actually happened is not something that one would see in the media, but on ground level, there was confusion. From my perspective and my view, there was a reasonable level of intolerance. MR FRANCIS You were not asked to read what appears on page 2 where it is found on the right side of the document, and I will read it to you "... Conference further resolves (1) to continue pursuing negotiations as a means towards achieving our strategic objective of transfer of power to the people; (2) to strengthen the ANC as a mass bass democratic organisation rooted amongst the people through systematic organisations and mobilisation; (3) to increase the capacity of the ANC to creatively lead the people in mass action and for the masses to participate actively and take initiatives at various levels." It doesn't refer to whether or not the armed struggle will continue, and that was a resolution that was passed at the ANC National Conference in July 1991, is that correct? MR DE KOCK Yes Chairperson, that may be so, but I just want to qualify that this meant that when diplomats and the necessary political structure fell, they would not go over into covert or armed action. MR FRANCIS I want you also to read at page 4 of the same document where it deals with the "On Violence", and I think I will read it to you. MR DE KOCK Could you just refer me to the paragraph please. MR FRANCIS It is the one where it is written in bold "On Violence", it is on your right hand side. MR DE KOCK Very well. MR FRANCIS: Noting that (1) many thousands of our people have been attacked and killed and continue to be killed, especially in the recent period by apartheid sponsored violence carried out by Inkatha, askaris, (indistinct) Death Forces and others whose aim is to weaken and destroy the ANC and other democratic forces; (2) this violence is taking place in a counter-revolutionary context directed by agencies of the State and its surrogate Forces in the form of councillors, warlords, vigilantes, death squads and certain white right wing elements; (3) the ANC together with other democratic Forces, such as COSATU, UDF and churches has attempted to find peaceful solutions to violence by (and if you turn to the next page) entering in peace talks with Inkatha, making submissions, representations and demands to the South African government to end the violence and despite the peace initiatives with Inkatha, violence still persists and despite the machinery at the disposal of the regime, it is refusing to take the necessary steps to end the violence." I think maybe (5) too - "... the response of the democratic Forces in dealing with this counter-revolutionary violence has not been adequate and at the December 1990 National Consultive Conference took a resolution to build Defence Committees and that the organisation has made insufficient progress in setting up of Defence Committees." Okay, let me ask you, you know you gave evidence about this, is it correct that there was counter-revolutionary violence taking place during that period? MR DE KOCK Yes Chairperson, I believe that it did take place. MR FRANCIS And that was, I think, one of the reasons why there was a scramble basically to set up Defence Units in the various townships? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, I wouldn't say that it was a scramble, if one looks at the speed with which it was started, it was simply a question of arming people. I think that the infrastructure had already been established. MR FRANCIS Then I want also on the very same page, I think let's just see what the ANC resolved. Again at page 5, the right hand side of the document "... we therefore resolve to support the current initiative of the church and business leaders in (a) developing a code of conduct for Security Forces, (b) developing a code of conduct for political organisations, (c) developing an enforcement mechanism to monitor the codes that will involve a white range of groupings; (d) developing a programme of reconstruction." That was basically the ANC's way in which they wanted to address the problems that existed in the townships? MR DE KOCK Yes Chairperson, that is what the official version would have been. MR FRANCIS You don't know why you were not referred to portions of this document whilst you were being cross-examined, do you? MR HATTINGH No Chairperson, how would he know that Chairperson, that is ridiculous. MR DE KOCK No. CHAIRPERSON Yes, that is so Mr Francis. MR FRANCIS Let's look at page 9 of the said document where we've got further resolves "... that the role of MK in the present period shall be to act in defence of peace and stability, to guarantee the people's political victories by imparting the necessary skills, to participate in rebuilding the organisation of the ANC, to act in defence of the personnel and property of the ANC, to encourage MK cadres to join and to channel their political concerns to the established branches." Again, it doesn't refer to taking up the armed struggle? MR DE KOCK No Chairperson, but one could read what one wants to into this, if we couldn't defend any more, we would have to attack? MR FRANCIS Yes, probably I think that you mentioned - let me not mention it. MR DE KOCK Well, let me put it like this, in order to render it comprehensive. We haven't discussed this yet, but that would be a word which was taken up by the country, Third Force, I think that every party to this situation had their own Third Force, I think there must have been about 18 to 20 Third Forces eventually. MR FRANCIS You also gave testimony about, you were asked to look at Exhibit 13 and 14. MR DE KOCK 13? MR FRANCIS 13 and 14, sorry page 13, sorry. MR DE KOCK Yes, I have that. MR FRANCIS What is the date appearing on this document? MR DE KOCK The 16th of June 1989. MR FRANCIS That was before the ANC was unbanned, is that correct? MR DE KOCK Yes, the official unbanning. MR FRANCIS This was again before the Nelspruit killings, is that correct? MR DE KOCK Yes Chairperson. MR FRANCIS You were also referred to page 15 of the same document and I think you read at paragraph 17? MR DE KOCK I didn't read it, it must have been put to me. MR FRANCIS Yes, it was put to you, but let me read to you what appears on page 19 of the said document. "... We must therefore treat the issue of negotiations as one that also involved struggle, a struggle by other means and a struggle that is a continuation of our defensive for the fundamental transformation of our country. Such positions as may emerge in the course of our discussions, should therefore be such that they strengthen our overall offensive (the copy that I have is not clear, I am not sure what the bottom...) and defeat (the one that I have here, is not clear, I am not sure if Mr Lamey has got a much more better copy)? CHAIRPERSON Is that page 19 Mr Francis? MR FRANCIS No sorry, it is page 15 paragraph 19. CHAIRPERSON Sorry, paragraph 19, oh, I see. MR FRANCIS Perhaps Mr Lamey could help us. CHAIRPERSON What is the word that you ... MR FRANCIS It is just attempts ... MR HATTINGH Defeat all efforts to disarm us. ADV DE JAGER All attempts? MR HATTINGH Yes. ADV DE JAGER: "Our overall offensive and defeat all attempts to disarm us and immobilise the people...", it seems to be. MR LAMEY I am just trying to search for the other copy that I might, the copy from which the copies were made. I have it, I will place it on record. CHAIRPERSON Yes, my colleague's rendition seems to be fairly accurate. MR FRANCIS In this passage nothing has referred to the armed struggle? MR DE KOCK No Chairperson, but as I read the document at that time, I would have said a struggle by other means and then I would know what would other means indicate? To me, according to my perception, in terms of my service, it was armed struggle, a struggle by other means could only mean one thing and that would be armed struggle. MR FRANCIS Yes, and I think that we have seen that this happened in 1989, it was before the ANC was unbanned? MR DE KOCK Yes Chairperson, that is correct. MR FRANCIS So at that time there was an armed struggle? MR DE KOCK Yes, it was on the way all the time. MR FRANCIS You were also asked to read from Mayibua, the July/August 1990 edition. MR DE KOCK On what page is that? MR FRANCIS I think it is from page 22 onwards. Just for the record, what date is that document? MR DE KOCK August - no July/August 1990. MR FRANCIS And this again was before the Nelspruit killings? MR DE KOCK Yes. MR FRANCIS I have looked at this document and there is no reference to the fact that the ANC or the PAC would be involved in robbing of banks to fill the coffers of the said organisations? MR DE KOCK No Chairperson, it would not have been the official policy as I have said, and also that it was a global trend for terrorist organisations to fill their coffers by means of organised crime, under which robbery resorted. It wasn't a new concept which had been discovered. MR FRANCIS Okay, and you were asked to look at page 28 of the said Exhibit? Was this a PAC document? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, I wouldn't be able to say because I didn't compile the document, I would have to request assistance with this. MR FRANCIS Do you know who drew up these documents? MR DE KOCK Well, if I look at the emblem on page 30, I would say that it was an ANC document. The man with the assegai and the loincloth, would be the emblem of the ANC. MR FRANCIS I have again looked at this document, there is no reference to the fact that the ANC, the PAC will act jointly to act banks to fill its coffers. MR DE KOCK Well Chairperson, I don't believe that they had a Robbers' Forum, the organisations could think for themselves and if they required funds, they would obtain these funds as they thought fitting. MR FRANCIS I have also looked at this document, it refers more to defensive mechanism that could be used by the ANC in particular, to defend themselves against various things? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, it may be so, but what one could not to legitimately or overtly, would be done covertly as we have seen with the Vula situation. MR FRANCIS Again, I want you to turn to page 30 of the said document, it is on your right hand side, paragraph 1.5. I think you probably read that, it says "... Self defence structures need by definition to be paramilitary, they differ from all the other forms or organisations referred to, including State Committees." At the bottom of that page, it says - "... the August 6 ceasefire does not neutralise MK", that is on page 31, top of page 31 - "... it has an important role to play. MK cadres, particularly ex-prisoners and those due to return from exile, must play a leading, an active role in the establishment of the defence structures." Again I think you have already alluded to the fact that they were primarily used to defend the communities? MR DE KOCK Yes Chairperson, as it has been said defensive and offense if one may put it that way, is so close to each other that there is actually a grey area. There is a saying that goes in order to defend ourselves, we will have to attack. It is an accepted term in the military. MR FRANCIS If one turns to page 45 of the same document, I have read this document and nowhere again, does it refer to the PAC giving its members instructions to rob banks, to fill the coffers of the PAC? MR DE KOCK No, and we also don't see that it is stated that they should attack churches, Club Houses and elderly persons either, however, it did happen. MR FRANCIS Mr De Kock, is it quite true that when a lot of returnees came back from exile, the Defence Force could not employ many of them? MR DE KOCK Are these MK members who had returned or persons who had been in detention who had returned? MR FRANCIS No, I am referring to MK members and also PAC members. MR DE KOCK Chairperson, I am not sure, I know that there was a great number of MK members, or newly recruited MK members who were sent out during the time, for training in Tanzania if I am not mistaken. CHAIRPERSON Mr Francis, I am going to adjourn for 15 minutes. We are adjourned. COMMITTEE ADJOURNS EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK (s.u.o.) MS PATEL Sorry Honourable Chairperson, before we proceed, I failed to alert you to the fact that Adv Bam has now joined us, he is appearing on behalf of the implicated party, Holtzhausen, so if he could just place himself on record, thank you. CHAIRPERSON Yes. For purposes of the record Mr Chairperson, my name is A.J. Bam from the Pretoria Bar and I have instructions to represent Mr Holtzhausen. I confirm so. CHAIRPERSON Certainly, welcome Mr Bam. Mr Francis? CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR FRANCIS (cont) Mr De Kock, when did you assume or when did you become the Commander of Vlakplaas? MR DE KOCK The 1st of July 1985. MR FRANCIS What was the reporting structures like at Vlakplaas? MR DE KOCK From me as Commander, it was directly to Brigadier Schoon, who was the Chief of C-Section which consisted of three components and from Brigadier Schoon to the Chief of Security and from the Chief of Security, to the Commissioner. MR FRANCIS Let's assume that you wanted to take part in an operation, did you have to get permission from one of your seniors before you could launch the operation? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, not necessarily. It was left to our discretion in many instances. The work was against terrorism and I may just mention if we went over the border, we were the terrorists. You may use your own discretion and at that stage, I would have asked him at a regular basis, I was at the rank of Capt. MR FRANCIS What was the position like in 1991, the reporting structures in 1991? MR DE KOCK Brigadier Schoon had already retired with pension, Gen Van Rensburg had been transferred and I think Gen Engelbrecht was in command of C-Section and from there, to him. MR FRANCIS Tell us what the role of Holtzhausen was in this period. MR DE KOCK Holtzhausen was stationed at C-Section or C1 and his role would have been that of a counter-insurgent if needed and he was a highly qualified source analyst, he had handled sources with the Diamond Section and he was a person who had rendered service in Koevoet, he had good combat record which he built up in Ovamboland. We had a qualified person if I may put it, as such, he was an allrounder. MR FRANCIS Did he also act as a Detective at Vlakplaas? MR DE KOCK We were not in investigations, but from certain aspects and enquiries and from certain bases, it would be needed to take statements, but all of the members could do so. MR FRANCIS Mr De Kock, is it quite correct that from 1990 we started living in a new political, well, there were talks about negotiations, the ANC and other organisations were unbanned, a new political climate ensued? MR DE KOCK It may be for certain or some of us might have had that impression. MR FRANCIS How did the members of Vlakplaas feel when the President, former President, had announced the unbanning of the ANC? MR DE KOCK I can only speak for myself, and to this extent for some other persons, we thought that we were misused and that we had been misused and that because of that, our service had to be sacrificed. MR FRANCIS So there was a lot of bitterness amongst you and some other members? MR DE KOCK No, I would not say there was bitterness, but there was reason for concern. MR FRANCIS Why were you worried about the new era? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, we had just had, or four years before that, the Berlin wall had fallen and I had read up on it in international newspapers with regard to the East German police and their politicians and afterwards it was Russia and we saw that there was protest there and from the ranks of the police and the military, and how people had been betrayed overnight and so forth and this gave us an indication as to what our own fate would be. MR FRANCIS Were you, as members of Vlakplaas, told about negotiations that were taking place between the government and some leaders of the ANC? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, we were not only informed, but it was in the media everyday. MR FRANCIS So you were not really caught off-guard about the changes that were going to take place? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, the 2nd of April 1990's announcement, it caught everybody unawares. I had knowledge beforehand because of that meeting, where it was mentioned to us but no date was given. There was not firm policy at that stage. ADV DE JAGER Was it not the 2nd of February? MR DE KOCK Yes, it is the 2nd of February, with the proclamation of the unbanning of the liberation movements. ADV DE JAGER I think you said the second of April? MR DE KOCK No, no, it is the 2nd of February. MR FRANCIS Were there any, I think as you would call it, any terrorists or insurgents that entered the country illegally from 1990 to 1994? MR DE KOCK Illegal persons, or people did come into the country illegally. We were for example involved in such a situation in Johannesburg, where the guard of Alfred Nzo had handled an MK member, we caught an MK member, he was illegally here and he was gathering Intelligence and this ended up in a shooting incident between my members and the members of Alfred Nzo and two of them were in possession of handgrenades and a pistol. I know of occasions where weapons were found in Johannesburg, in the vicinity of the zoo and so forth. MR FRANCIS But you are also saying that some of these people got arrested by your Unit, is that correct? MR DE KOCK Yes Chairperson. For example a Mr Nene was arrested, I did not catch him, the askaris caught him, I took him back to Shell House and I dropped him off there. MR FRANCIS Why wasn't he killed? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, he was not busy with anything illegal. MR FRANCIS How many people got arrested by your Unit from 1990 to 1993, before I think you went, before you took your package? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, it was not many, it was a few. I would say about six or seven. With some of them, there was a feeling of cooperation. MR FRANCIS Why were these six or seven not killed? MR DE KOCK They were not undertaking acts of terror. MR FRANCIS Is it correct for me to say that the role of Vlakplaas started changing since 1990? MR DE KOCK Could you repeat please. MR FRANCIS Is it not correct for me to say that the role of Vlakplaas started changing from 1990? MR DE KOCK Yes, other objectives were established, but the mandate with regard to counter-insurgency remained, although it was not published in the media. MR FRANCIS The Nelspruit 4 or 5 were not counter-insurgents, were they? MR DE KOCK Well, the information indicated that they were busying themselves with acts of terror in urban areas. MR FRANCIS But were they counter-insurgents? MR DE KOCK Were they counter-insurgents? MR FRANCIS Yes? MR DE KOCK No, we were the counter-insurgents. MR FRANCIS Insurgents, sorry? MR DE KOCK Not in terms that they had crossed the borders at some illegal place and had acted then. MR FRANCIS All of them had entered the country, well, some of them, maybe just one was from the Quatro Camp, but the rest I think were in the country legally so there was no talk of any insurgents that had entered the country? MR DE KOCK No, as I had said, it is not a question that they had crossed the borders illegally, I would not know. MR FRANCIS Glenet Masillo was born in the country and did not leave the country illegally, so he could not have been an insurgent, could he? MR DE KOCK No, but he could have been trained inside the country, Chairperson. MR FRANCIS We are speculating? MR DE KOCK No, we have just read through these sections here and people had to be trained defensively, but they were not trained with knopkieries. MR FRANCIS But we are talking about Glenet Masillo who was one of the Nelspruit 4 who got killed? MR DE KOCK Yes, but he could have been trained inside the country. MR FRANCIS He could, you say he could, but that is mere speculation? MR DE KOCK Yes, I would concede. MR FRANCIS So let's not deal with speculations, let's deal with facts. MR DE KOCK Very well. MR FRANCIS Is it correct that you were addressed by your superiors about the new role of Vlakplaas? MR DE KOCK Yes Chairperson, they moved right throughout the country. MR FRANCIS One of them who happens to be Gen Engelbrecht? MR DE KOCK That is correct Chairperson. MR FRANCIS I think you must have seen his affidavit, that is I think, Exhibit A where he said he took over officially on the 1st of January 1991, is that correct? MR DE KOCK I did not have a look at his statement Chairperson, not at all. MR FRANCIS You recall that Geldenhuys testified at your criminal trial, is that correct? MR DE KOCK That is correct Chairperson. MR FRANCIS And he was asked questions about what the new role of Vlakplaas was going to be? MR DE KOCK I believe it was asked Chairperson, I did not read his statement. MR FRANCIS I am going to refer you to Exhibit G1, that is from page 220 and it is from line 20. He was asked the following MR DE KOCK I am not certain if I ... CHAIRPERSON It is G, the record, page 220? MR FRANCIS It is page 219, lines 20, you've got that? Page 219? MR DE KOCK I have that. MR FRANCIS He was asked the following question "... can you briefly tell us what you know of Vlakplaas, what is Vlakplaas?" And his answer was - "... Vlakplaas was a base from where they identified and traced terrorists in the Republic. I was a secret Unit and I do not have much internal knowledge of their activities at that stage. Later, after I had been with Murder and Robbery in Pretoria, and the government had started changing, they acted more as a support basis for other branches." Do you confirm that this basically was the role that Vlakplaas assumed after changes had taken place, namely to be a tracing unit for weapons and a supportive unit for other branches? MR DE KOCK Yes Chairperson, you can say it was the double role that we played. MR FRANCIS And then further on page 220, that is from the sixth line, he was asked "... and later, it changed? That is correct. May you please repeat to us for what purpose, to what had it changed? It was for them, they had to assist us as Detective Branches and in a supportive capacity and they also assisted us in the tracing of weapons and the general prevention of crimes." Do you confirm that that was the general role of Vlakplaas? MR DE KOCK Yes, it was one of our roles, Chairperson. MR FRANCIS And then from lines 12, from that same page "... how do you know that this description had changed? I attended a meeting at Vlakplaas which was led by Gen Engelbrecht, during which he informed us as the Commanders of the different Branches, of the changes and how the people would assist us. We can firstly start by saying, you say, where was this meeting held? It was at Vlakplaas, in one of their offices. And you say it was Gen Engelbrecht who called the different divisions together? That is correct. And who were these various divisions? It was branchings of Security and others of the Force, I cannot recall. It was too long ago. Who spoke? Who spoke there? It was done by Col De Kock and Gen Engelbrecht, chiefly Gen Engelbrecht. What was said there? We were informed that the members would assist us and under which circumstances and we were also informed (on the following page) that they were better able to recruit informers and they were divided into groups who would assist us at our different Branches with the gathering of information and the tracing of suspects and so forth. Do you know when this meeting was? Can you mention a year? I would say it was towards the end of 1991, the beginning of 1992. Where were you when you were asked to go to the meeting? I was attached to the Murder and Robbery Unit, Pretoria, and I was in command of the Field Team at that stage. What do you mean when you say you were part of a Field Team of the Murder and Robbery Unit? That is the team at Murder and Robbery who worked on information and the gathering of information and the tracing of suspects." Would you disagree with what Geldenhuys said about what the new role of Vlakplaas was? MR DE KOCK No Chairperson, that is what he would have been informed along with the others. MR FRANCIS Very well. Did you know a Johannes Jakobus Swart who was also a Constable at Vlakplaas? MR DE KOCK Yes Chairperson. MR FRANCIS I think he also confirms on page 51 of the Bundle, and that is I think where it starts, I will read to you "... at Vlakplaas I worked under the command of Lt-Col De Kock. The nature of my service entailed the tracing of terrorists and later during 1990, this was changed and our chief objective was the prevention of weapon smuggling, we also assisted other Units and Security Branches." Would you confirm that this again was the role of Vlakplaas? MR DE KOCK Yes, it was one of the roles Chairperson. MR FRANCIS And you obviously agree that the role of Vlakplaas changed? MR DE KOCK No Chairperson, it was just a question that we had diversified. We were still kept ready for counter-terrorism and in certain instances, as I had said to the Ngqulunga and Sekakani matters, we still fulfilled those tasks like we had in the past. MR FRANCIS I am going to read to you what Engelbrecht said about the role of Vlakplaas and I think one should refer to Exhibit A. That would be Exhibit A, but it is found on Annexure E1, at page 2, paragraph 3.2. Have you got that, do you have it with you? MR HATTINGH Might I just ask my learned friend, E1, is that an Annexure to Exhibit A? CHAIRPERSON Yes, it looks like it. Exhibit A runs up to page, the main section, up to typed page 7 and then you find E1 and that is numbered again consecutively from 1 to whatever. It is the very first of the Annexures, Mr Francis seems to be referring to paragraph 3.2. MR FRANCIS On page 2. CHAIRPERSON On page 2, yes. MR FRANCIS Yes. At paragraph 3.2 he says the following "... I want to place it on record again that on the 1st of January I officially took over command of C1 at Head Office Security and that before this date, I was attached to the Detective Branch of the South African Police." And on the next page, that is page 3, paragraph 3.7 he says the following - "... it is a well known fact that certain political organisations had been unbanned on the 2nd of February 1990 and that the role of the then Security Force had to be changed dramatically in the light thereof. I was not involved in the initial process in this regard, because on the 5th of November 1990, I commenced work at the Security Branch along with Brigadier Van Rensburg from whence I took over his post from the 1st of January 1991." Paragraph 3.8 - "... Lt-Gen Basie Smit had previously also been attached to the Detective Branch for many years, where we were colleagues and he was up to date with my abilities in that regard and consequently during 1990, he proposed that I be transferred to the Security Branch where I would take command of C1 with the specific instruction to see that the members attached to that Unit, be linked up to normal police functions and other crimes, where politics played no part." Do you agree with this, this basically was now the new role that Vlakplaas assumed? MR DE KOCK No Chairperson, because that is the official version which we would propose, we were still involved and I refer to my conversation with Gen Engelbrecht where I requested from him why we did not disband the Unit and he said that we had to be ready if the negotiations did not succeed. I must mention that Gen Engelbrecht is not correct when he says that as late as November 1990 he arrived, because already with the Harms Commission, he was the Investigative Officer and amongst others, he also flew to London in 1990 if I am correct, to hear the evidence of Dirk Coetzee. He gives an incorrect version. MR FRANCIS Mr De Kock are you saying that Engelbrecht said that in the event of negotiations faltering, falling apart, Vlakplaas should be on standby to deal with any eventuality? MR DE KOCK Yes, we were placed as such permanently, we kept our weapons and if I speak of weapons, the mortars and grenade throwers, that is not something that one would use in normal crime. MR FRANCIS But the question is sir, you were basically in a state of preparedness or readiness in the event of negotiations faltering? MR DE KOCK Yes Chairperson, it was foreseen the whole time Chairperson. MR FRANCIS But Engelbrecht didn't tell you to still wage a campaign against some individual members of the political parties, he only said "look, in the event of the political discussions falling apart, you must be ready, basically be prepared to enter into any action if necessary?" MR DE KOCK No Chairperson, with regard to terrorism, we would have acted. MR FRANCIS As normal police officers? MR DE KOCK Yes Chairperson, as normal or usual police officers we were sent across the border. MR FRANCIS Again, I think if one looks at the Nelspruit incident, it wasn't a question of having to attack people outside the borders of the country, is that correct? MR DE KOCK No Chairperson, we also attacked people in the country, I refer to Khotso House, COSATU House, Khanya House. We refer for example to the people in kwaThema whose hands were blown off. MR FRANCIS And then I want to refer you again to Exhibit A, but this I think you would find on page - I think Engelbrecht refers to - and it is marked A, it starts by - it is written on top "Statement to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission by Gen-Maj E.J. Engelbrecht", and in particular to page 19 thereof. CHAIRPERSON That follows upon E1, does it? MR FRANCIS It follows upon E1. CHAIRPERSON And what particular section of that? MR FRANCIS It is at page 19. CHAIRPERSON 19, thank you. MR FRANCIS The bottom of page 19. CHAIRPERSON Yes. MR FRANCIS It says "... members initially were used for identifications of MK and PAC members, specifically where information was known that members of the mentioned organisations were busy undermining the negotiation process and they were busy collecting arms. This threat vaguely decreased." MR DE KOCK No Chairperson, we still fulfilled the other function. I refer once again to Vula, Operation Vula and I don't think the persons of Operation Vula would have received amnesty if it was normal crime and that is how these different groups, during that time, in that context, but in expectation of each other, were placed opposite each other. MR FRANCIS What I find just strange is the following, I have referred you to what Swart said about the new role of Vlakplaas, what Engelbrecht said about it, who was attached to the Pretoria Murder and Robbery Unit, to what sorry Geldenhuys, to what Engelbrecht himself said ... (tape ends) ... talk about the other role of your Unit, it seems to be the only person, I think, who is talking about the other role of Vlakplaas? MR DE KOCK No Chairperson, we still acted. MR FRANCIS Who else except for you, knew what the other role of Vlakplaas was? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, the members knew that we at all times had to be ready for counter-terrorism and their weapons speak of that, the appearance thereof and the fact that they still were in possession of their explosives and handgrenades. MR FRANCIS Who are those members? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, the members were all issued with sub-machine guns, R5's, handgrenades, M26 handgrenades. MR FRANCIS Mr De Kock, I am not asking about what weapons those members have, I am asking about who the other members were who knew about what the other role of Vlakplaas was. MR DE KOCK Chairperson, I would say that Mr Nortje would definitely know, Holtzhausen would know, the senior members would know, the junior members' perception might have been that they were only busy with crime, although they knew that there was a counter-insurgency role for which they had initially arrived there. MR FRANCIS Let's just deal with it again, you said Nortje should know, Holtzhausen? Who else amongst the senior members should have known? MR DE KOCK Britz, all the persons, all the persons at C1. MR FRANCIS Klopper? MR DE KOCK Yes, he would have known. MR FRANCIS You obviously can't say why Geldenhuys, who I assume was a senior member to you, was he senior? MR DE KOCK He was a Capt, but he was a senior policeman in the Service, but he was not attached to my Unit. MR FRANCIS You won't know why Capt Geldenhuys does not refer to the other role of Vlakplaas? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, he did not even know of our cross-border operations, he did not know of the hands that had been blown off. He did not know of the buildings that we had blown up. Something like that would have been dangerous for him to know. MR FRANCIS I want you to tell us in your own words what the new role of Vlakplaas was. MR DE KOCK Chairperson, we had a double agenda. We at all times had a counter-terror capability, we were focused for that and amongst others, we started with the identification and tracing of weapons. MR FRANCIS What was your primary role? MR DE KOCK I would give both 50/50, Chairperson. MR FRANCIS The members who were higher than yourself, did they know about the new role of Vlakplaas, that is like Engelbrecht and the senior police officers? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, I believe that they would have discussed this policy, they would not have written on this policy document that we remain a counter-insurgency Unit. MR FRANCIS When was this conveyed to you? MR DE KOCK I beg your pardon? MR FRANCIS When was this conveyed to you that the other role would be counter-terrorism? MR DE KOCK No, it had never been replaced. It was just added to it, the tracing of weapons, and the tracing of weapons would lead to the prevention of terrorism. MR FRANCIS So when Engelbrecht says that "... eventually this threat went away and members were used against crime ..." he used the word full-time basis, he is telling a lie? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, we were on a contingency basis and my people were on that basis, and I think that the decreasing of the terror situation came with the other role. MR FRANCIS There is a difference of, when one talks about a "gereedsheidsbasis aan te hou" and also being involved in certain activities, is that correct? MR DE KOCK Yes, if you are ready, you can act immediately Chairperson. MR FRANCIS In the event of peace talks faltering? MR DE KOCK Yes Chairperson, if the things had gone wrong at Codessa and the ANC had said that we are in a state of war, or the National Party says, then within the next five people I can deploy people, I can deploy equipment, I can call in assistance. MR FRANCIS When was Codessa? MR DE KOCK I am not certain of the date. MR FRANCIS It was before the 22nd of March 1992, before the Nelspruit killings? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, I am not certain Chairperson. MR FRANCIS It could have been I think, in November/December 1991, but ... ADV DE JAGER But the first Codessa failed and then there was a second Codessa starting in 1993, I think? MR FRANCIS That is correct. CHAIRPERSON Will you endeavour to, if it is possible, to ascertain those details and perhaps put it to the witness in more detail? It will assist us. MR FRANCIS I will endeavour to do so. CHAIRPERSON Yes, thank you. MR FRANCIS Mr De Kock, I see that one of the things that you had to do was to work through a network of informers, is that correct? MR DE KOCK Yes, there were some of these sources. MR FRANCIS And that is also I think, in line with what Geldenhuys testified about, that there was, you would be able to have access to finances for informers? MR DE KOCK Yes Chairperson, the matter of finance for sources was not confined to the Security Branch. The Detective Branch had this and the Uniform Branch had this, all of them had money for the informers. MR FRANCIS How did you feel about this new role of Vlakplaas? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, it did not bring any additional tension with me, it was not a situation that we were being pushed aside, we were still on a contingency basis and at times there were some tension between the different parties and we foresaw that things could go wrong. I did not have a specific negative feeling with regard to my work. MR FRANCIS I think before I deal with the question of informers, I don't think you mentioned as to who among the senior officers told you about, that your role still was to counter-terrorism, can you just be more, tell us, you know, who told you about this? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, may I put it as follows, we were never taken off counter-terrorism, we were never told "now you will cease all counter-terrorism", the askaris were not taken away. As I have said, none of our equipment was handed back and we did not disband. MR FRANCIS But you were told about the new role or the other role of Vlakplaas? MR DE KOCK Yes Chairperson, another role was put to us. MR FRANCIS In other words Engelbrecht is lying about that you had to be full time, just dealing with crime alone? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, I would say yes, he does not make a full disclosure, he is keeping some of the facts back. CHAIRPERSON Mr De Kock, was it your understanding that the original function of counter-insurgency will continue? MR DE KOCK Yes Chairperson. CHAIRPERSON Nobody at a later stage confirmed it again? MR DE KOCK No Chairperson, if I could say so, we were never taken off terrorism or counter-terrorism and for example, with the death of Sekakani and all these other people which followed, it was not a strange facet to us that we moved out of crime and we started with the cleaning system saying that the Security Branch could come to a fall. CHAIRPERSON So you understood that the initial situation continued, you were not told to cease and you were not expressively told to continue with it, practically your Unit was still in the same situation where you had equipment and so forth? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, we were a fully operational Unit, we could be deployed rurally or in an urban area and we were on a contingency basis all the time for any facet of the continuation of the struggle. CHAIRPERSON You understood that your role was to remain as it had been previously? MR DE KOCK That is correct. MR FRANCIS He is also saying that you were on alert to resume the armed struggle if necessary or the struggle if it was necessary? MR DE KOCK Yes Chairperson, as I have said we were ready at all times. I refer to the instance in December 1991 where we acted against the PAC at Sterkspruit. MR FRANCIS But wasn't Vlakplaas at the time given publicity in the papers about its activities after Nofemela and Dirk Coetzee had started spilling the beans about it? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, Vlakplaas was in the news before October 1989 and I will take it back as far as when Dirk Coetzee left or was removed from Vlakplaas and he spoke to persons like Van Zyl Slabbert and Rev Dennis Hurley and gave reports and then it was covered up. In that sense, all the reports were covered up and denied and so forth. MR FRANCIS Ben van Zyl was one of your informers? MR DE KOCK I beg your pardon? MR FRANCIS Ben van Zyl was one of your informers? MR DE KOCK Yes Chairperson, he did render service as an informer. MR FRANCIS I think he was, in his affidavit I think he mentions that he had met with you on one occasion? MR DE KOCK Could you repeat please. MR FRANCIS I think in his affidavit he mentions that he had met with you on one occasion? MR DE KOCK Yes Chairperson, that was after he had identified a person who were selling AK47's and a person was arrested, he walked in with a bag of AK's in the Johannesburg Sun Hotel and he was caught and with the payment of his claim, it was the first time that I met him, I did not know who he was. MR FRANCIS Is it also correct that Ben van Zyl had on a number of occasions given you false information, namely by planting weapons by people and then alerting the police about it? MR DE KOCK No Chairperson, he didn't give us any false information. MR FRANCIS Do you know when Ben was recruited as an informer? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, was it for us or in general? MR FRANCIS For Vlakplaas? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, this was not a type of a specific recruitment, he gave the information with regard to the AK's. If he had that type of access to the information, then I would not be doing my duty if I was interested and tell him, "if you have more information or whatever the nature of it might be, please inform us." MR FRANCIS What steps did you take to verify the information that was given by Ben van Zyl to ascertain whether or not it was true or false? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, there were occasions when he gave information, besides the rifles, where there was a bank robbery in Johannesburg, we caught some of the people and we found some of the weapons and the car and there was the shooting at the Carousel and then I refer to an occasion where he identified a person who was smuggling with rhino horns. He had rendered successful service for the Unit of Endangered Species where he played a prominent role in combatting ... MR FRANCIS You are not answering my question, my question is what steps were taken to verify whether or not the information that Ben van Zyl gave, was correct or not? MR DE KOCK Was this in the Nelspruit incident? MR FRANCIS Generally, just what steps were taken to make sure that the information that Ben gave, was correct or not? MR DE KOCK The arrests indicated here clearly Chairperson, the information was of such a nature what he said would happen and it happened at the specific time. MR FRANCIS You are not answering my question Mr De Kock. What steps did you take to verify that the information that Ben van Zyl gave, was correct or not? I am not talking about what eventually, what the outcome of the information was, what steps did you take to verify that the information was correct or not? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, the results of the information is confirmation to us that this person was a source who knew what he was talking about, he had access to this type of information. MR FRANCIS I put it to you again that you are not answering my question, it is a simple question. Listen to the question. What steps did you take to verify the information that Ben van Zyl gave you, as correct or as true or false? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, I read the reports which in the case of Holtzhausen, which he would give me with regard to the success of an operation and that would be confirmation. MR FRANCIS Did you not verify the information to see whether or not Ben van Zyl was telling ... ADV DE JAGER Yes, may we assist, did you before the action took place, take any steps to verify, for example the Carousel? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, no, I did not personally go but Sgt Holtzhausen who was his handler, the source's handler, went and gave the confirmation. I had no reason to doubt him. MR FRANCIS You obviously won't know how Holtzhausen went about verifying information? MR DE KOCK No Chairperson, I don't believe that he would have had a problem in establishing the correctness or not thereof. MR FRANCIS Was Holtzhausen a trusted person? MR DE KOCK Yes. MR FRANCIS You had no reason to disbelieve his information? MR DE KOCK No Chairperson. MR FRANCIS I assume that you must have kept notes of all the discussions that you had with Holtzhausen? MR DE KOCK No Chairperson. MR FRANCIS I will later come to the information that Holtzhausen gave, but it would obviously seem to be different from what you are saying? MR DE KOCK I don't know Chairperson. MR FRANCIS Holtzhausen was a Sergeant at the time of Nelspruit, is that correct? MR DE KOCK That is correct Chairperson. MR FRANCIS Did you take instructions from him? MR DE KOCK No Chairperson. MR FRANCIS Is it quite correct that you were a feared Commander at Vlakplaas? MR DE KOCK No. MR FRANCIS You were not feared? MR DE KOCK No Chairperson, otherwise I would have not had any people under my command. MR FRANCIS How would you describe yourself as a Commander at Vlakplaas? MR DE KOCK I don't know Chairperson, I leave that to my friends and enemies. MR FRANCIS How did your enemies perceive you as? MR DE KOCK Ruthless. MR FRANCIS And, but your colleagues had a different view of you? MR DE KOCK I don't know Chairperson, they probably regarded me as loyal which they must have made use of in many instances. MR FRANCIS You were quite bitter when your colleagues testified against you at the criminal trial? MR DE KOCK Funnily enough, not Chairperson, for many of them I told them to give evidence and to make statements. I was not bitter. MR FRANCIS You don't know why the other applicants are applying for amnesty when they have been given Section 204 indemnity? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, the TRC has a broad scope, the definition might be too small for it, they might have a reason for it. MR FRANCIS I get a sense that they basically are testifying or applying for amnesty, to try and give you some support? MR DE KOCK No Chairperson, despite their loyalties and friendships which have now crumbled, I cannot say that. We still have the ways, a way of greeting each other, it is not a time for bitterness, I will not accomplish anything by prejudicing these people. As difficult as it may be, and as sick as it makes me, it leads to involuntarily vomiting, I cannot go and hold it against a person who had given evidence against me, that is the course of life. Everybody has his reasons. MR FRANCIS Why do you say that they committed treason, what was so treasonable about testifying against you? MR DE KOCK Well, they walked over before the end of May 1994, that was treason. If it had happened at an earlier stage, and the NP was still in government, it would still have been regarded as treason. MR FRANCIS Let's talk about the Carousel incident. Is it correct that the Carousel incident was similar to the Nelspruit one in certain respects? MR DE KOCK Yes Chairperson, I received that detail when I was under trial. MR FRANCIS Who authorised the intended action that Vlakplaas had to take, on behalf of the Pretoria Murder and Robbery Unit? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, during that meeting, it was proposed by Gen Engelbrecht, that was the cooperative or access agreement between the parties. MR FRANCIS Mr De Kock tell us in what way or manner the Carousel incident is similar to Nelspruit. MR DE KOCK Chairperson, I would say with regard to the issue that the information came from the same informer. MR FRANCIS That informer is Ben van Zyl? MR DE KOCK That is correct. Furthermore, I cannot say that the rest of the modus operandi is the same, with the exception that the element of surprise was also relied upon from our side and that Murder and Robbery was involved with us. MR FRANCIS Ben van Zyl's handler was Holtzhausen, is that correct? MR DE KOCK That is correct. MR FRANCIS Which was the same position in the Nelspruit incident? MR DE KOCK Yes Chairperson. MR FRANCIS The Carousel robbers were given a Toyota Cressida, is that correct? MR DE KOCK Yes, that is what I understood. MR FRANCIS Which was also a vehicle that was used in the Nelspruit incident? MR DE KOCK That is what I understood. MR FRANCIS Weapons were planted with the deceased after they were shot and killed at the Carousel, is that correct? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, this is the information which Gen Geldenhuys brought forward during my trial. I, myself, was not familiar with the planing of weapons. MR FRANCIS But you cannot dispute that? MR DE KOCK No, but I cannot confirm it either. MR FRANCIS I think if my memory serves me correctly, I think Holtzhausen also confirmed that weapons were planted there? MR DE KOCK Very well, then I will not dispute it. MR FRANCIS He also said that a handgrenade was planted next to one of the deceased person? MR DE KOCK I know that there was a handgrenade which was destroyed on the scene, if I recall the report back correctly. MR FRANCIS And I think he also mentioned that a, I think it was a 38 Special revolver was also planted with one of the deceased at the Carousel? MR DE KOCK If that is his evidence, then I will not dispute it. MR FRANCIS The information that Ben van Zyl gave was that these were members of the ANC, who were going to rob on behalf of the ANC, in Carousel? MR DE KOCK I think so. MR FRANCIS If one looks at the Nelspruit incident, there are a lot of similarities? MR DE KOCK I would concede that. MR FRANCIS Who authorised the action at Carousel? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, it would have been signed by me, the Intelligence notes. The transfer of information to Head Office would have gone via me. MR FRANCIS Didn't you find it quite strange that, in respect of the Carousel incident, that the robbers would ask for a police vehicle and be given the Toyota Cressida? MR DE KOCK I don't think that they would have requested a police vehicle. MR FRANCIS I beg your pardon? MR DE KOCK I say I don't believe that they would have requested a police vehicle. MR FRANCIS Well, they asked for a police vehicle because James who worked for Ben van Zyl, was the driver of that vehicle, one James, I don't know what his surname was. MR DE KOCK Chairperson, I do not know that these persons requested a police vehicle. MR FRANCIS Well, the Toyota Cressida was going to be used the day before the Carousel incident, when I think the robbers or when Tiso and his companions I think, saw some guards at Coin Security and they then went back to Johannesburg and it was used the next day? ADV DE JAGER Aren't you perhaps at cross-purposes, the robbers asked for a vehicle, not for a police vehicle? MR FRANCIS Maybe I can be at cross-purposes. But the fact of the matter Mr De Kock is that a Toyota Cressida was given to the robbers? MR DE KOCK Yes Chairperson, that is what I understood. MR FRANCIS Which was going to be used in first Coin Security incident and Nelspruit? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, I am not really up to date regarding the Coin Security company. The information that I had regarding that, emanated from my court trial. MR FRANCIS Well, Mr De Kock, you just now said that you were basically kept abreast of developments by Holtzhausen? MR DE KOCK I know that there was an attempt. MR FRANCIS First listen to my question. You were informed by Holtzhausen? MR DE KOCK Yes Chairperson. MR FRANCIS I think in his affidavit he also mentions that he gave a Toyota Cressida to Ben van Zyl during the first Nelspruit incident? MR DE KOCK Yes. MR FRANCIS You confirm that? MR DE KOCK Yes Chairperson, I cannot dispute it. MR FRANCIS And do you also confirm that the same vehicle was used in Carousel? MR DE KOCK Yes Chairperson, I believe that it was the same vehicle. MR FRANCIS And again was used in Nelspruit? MR DE KOCK It may probably be the same vehicle. MR FRANCIS I assume that Ben van Zyl was paid an informer's fee for the information that he had given in Carousel? MR DE KOCK I believe that an amount was paid out to him, yes. MR FRANCIS And this obviously must have indicated to your superiors that the new Vlakplaas is quite an effective force? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, Vlakplaas was an effective force long before this incident, from the early 1980's. MR FRANCIS I am talking of the new Vlakplaas. MR DE KOCK There wasn't really a new Vlakplaas, it was more an expansion of our role as such. MR FRANCIS Well, I am talking about the enlarged role of Vlakplaas, that which had to be involved in investigation of crime? MR DE KOCK Yes, as I have said, we had a double role. MR FRANCIS So your superiors must have been happy that Ben van Zyl gave information, you were able to apprehend and kill three suspects who were going to rob a bank or who were going to take part in this robbery? MR DE KOCK I wouldn't say that they were happy, there was no applause. It was simply a question of the fact that there had been a robbery and that these people had been shot, those were the consequences of a robbery. MR FRANCIS Would you agree with me that the three robbers in Carousel, were set up by Ben van Zyl in conjunction with Holtzhausen? MR DE KOCK I cannot give evidence about that Chairperson. MR FRANCIS Shortly after the police had opened fire on the robbers, James drove away in the Toyota Cressida. MR DE KOCK Chairperson, I don't know, I wasn't there. MR FRANCIS I put it to you that you are quite bitter about the Carousel incident because you construed this as a cold-blooded murder, is that correct? MR DE KOCK No, I am not bitter. MR FRANCIS You are happy about it? MR DE KOCK No Chairperson, I am neutral about it. MR FRANCIS Let's read from page 9 of your application and that is the second or the first paragraph thereof. You said the following "... eventually Gen Engelbrecht also arrived at the scene and I also informed him that something was wrong with the shooting. The shooting followed exactly the same pattern as the Carousel shooting, during which Holtzhausen and Ben van Zyl were also involved. During my trial in the Supreme Court, it appeared that the so-called armed robbers had blatantly been murdered by Holtzhausen and Geldenhuys in an operation and that absolutely no steps had yet been taken to prosecute those persons who had participated in the Carousel operation." MR DE KOCK Chairperson, that was my impression. Geldenhuys' evidence in court is as I interpreted it. MR FRANCIS But I sense some bitterness appearing on page 9? MR DE KOCK No Chairperson. MR FRANCIS You are basically unhappy that - you know, you said it was a blatant, these robbers were blatantly killed in an operation and no steps were taken to prosecute those who had taken part? MR DE KOCK No Chairperson, that is how it sounded, the way that Geldenhuys expressed it during my trial when he gave evidence, at that time and even now still, I personally, perceived him as a person possessing double standards when it came to the Prosecutor as we saw from examples in the past. MR FRANCIS You believe that those people who had taken part in the Carousel, should also be prosecuted for murder? MR DE KOCK No Chairperson, I simply expressed my understanding of the situation. MR FRANCIS Has your understanding changed? MR DE KOCK I cannot say that it has changed, because I wasn't involved in it. As I have said, my feelings are neutral about it. MR FRANCIS Mr De Kock, if I read this and the sense that I get was that Carousel was a purely criminal activity and not political? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, I am not entirely certain, I cannot rely upon my memory regarding the full information of the incident. MR FRANCIS You had petty criminals who were not members of any organisation, they had followed the same modus operandi as the Nelspruit one? MR DE KOCK No Chairperson. MR FRANCIS You disagree? MR DE KOCK With regard to petty criminals, many were captured and this was not political by nature, they were not shot or injured. MR FRANCIS I am putting to you that the Carousel incident was not politically motivated? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, I cannot make any statements about that. MR FRANCIS Mr De Kock, on page 9 again, you refer to "very wrong", why if Carousel was not a political, it was not of a political nature, you referred to "very wrong" and it is basically in inverted commas, you say "very wrong"? MR DE KOCK Yes, that was my perception at the scene. Among others I was not aware of the handgrenades which would be planted and that gave me the impression that there could be problems with this. We did not speak directly of persons who had been killed or murdered, we would use euphemisms to refer to situations throughout my entire existence in the Security Branch, this was the case, and this was the understanding of the shooting. That is why I said to him that among others, would it be advisable or inadvisable for the members to make statements. MR FRANCIS But why refer to "very wrong"? MR DE KOCK Well, that is the reference in order to convey the gravity of the matter to him. MR FRANCIS And then you draw a comparison between the two? MR DE KOCK Yes Chairperson, very wrong is a question of gravity. MR FRANCIS If Carousel was done with a political objective, I mean you won't even talk about "very wrong", you won't even draw that distinction between Carousel and Nelspruit? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, I was not there during the Carousel incident and the Carousel incident was not handled by the SAP, but by the Botswana Police if I recall correctly. MR FRANCIS No, that is not correct. MR DE KOCK Well, then I would accept it as such. MR FRANCIS It was dealt with by Vlakplaas together with the police, the Murder and Robbery Unit and the Bophuthatswana Police, I think were notified afterwards. MR DE KOCK Chairperson, I don't know, the Deputy Commissioner of the Botswana Police was there as I understood it. If I understand correctly, the incident took place within their territory? MR FRANCIS Yes, I think there is no dispute that Carousel used to be part of the former Bophuthatswana? MR DE KOCK No, I just want to mention this for the sake of completion. MR FRANCIS I think also, is it correct that you were later seen at some hotel after the Carousel incident had taken place? MR DE KOCK Yes Chairperson, I was there with the members. MR FRANCIS What were you doing there? MR DE KOCK I had a few drinks. MR FRANCIS So late at night? MR DE KOCK Yes Chairperson, I have seen many persons such as Directors of companies, drink until three o'clock or four o'clock in the morning. MR FRANCIS With your men who had taken part in a cold-blooded murder? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, whether you have a drink the same day or three days later, I cannot really see what the difference would be. MR FRANCIS Mr De Kock, I put it to you that the Carousel incident and also the Nelspruit incident was purely criminal and there was nothing about politics? MR DE KOCK No Chairperson, that is incorrect. MR FRANCIS I think on Thursday you were asked by Mr Hattingh if Holtzhausen had reported the Carousel incident to you, do you recall that? MR DE KOCK Yes Chairperson. MR FRANCIS What was your answer? MR DE KOCK I am not certain, I think he did. That evening when we gathered, he gave me a report already. MR FRANCIS Why was it necessary for him to give you a report? MR DE KOCK Well Chairperson, he handled the source and he was also a representative of Vlakplaas during this operation. MR FRANCIS Mr De Kock, let's deal now with the evidence or the information that was conveyed to you by Holtzhausen. Do you still recall that? MR DE KOCK Yes Chairperson, I have a very vague recollection thereof. I will attempt to assist you wherever I can. MR FRANCIS I am now dealing with the question of the Nelspruit incident, are you with me? MR DE KOCK No, I am not. Are you dealing with the Carousel? MR FRANCIS I am dealing with Nelspruit. MR DE KOCK Very well. MR FRANCIS Can you tell us when exactly in 1992 did Holtzhausen approach you about the information that he got from Ben van Zyl? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, I am not certain of the time or the date. MR FRANCIS What did he tell you about this person? MR DE KOCK Which person? MR FRANCIS That is now Tiso? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, the information indicated that Tiso was a trained member of the ANC, that he was working for Winnie Mandela, that he was her driver and that they were planning a robbery in order to fortify the coffers of the ANC. That was the information which I had. MR FRANCIS And obviously I would assume that Holtzhausen will say the same thing about what information he had given to you? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, I cannot say what Holtzhausen is going to say. I have not had any contact with any of these members during the last five and a half years, we haven't spoken, we haven't seen each other. MR FRANCIS And you say you didn't keep any notes about your discussion with Holtzhausen? MR DE KOCK No Chairperson. MR FRANCIS Let's turn to page 3 of your application and I want to ask you about the last sentence on the first paragraph, where you've got the following "... during 1992 Sgt Douglas Holtzhausen from my Unit, approached me and reported to me that a source of his, one Mr Ben van Zyl had informed him that a trained member of the ANC who was also the personal vehicle driver of Mrs Winnie Mandela, was in the process of smuggling arms." When you talk about in the process of smuggling arms, what did you mean by that? MR DE KOCK That arms had already been smuggled and that this was a process which had already been put into motion. MR FRANCIS Isn't this subject to two different interpretations, Mr De Kock? MR DE KOCK Well Chairperson, that is how I understood it. MR FRANCIS Let me put you what the interpretations are. He could be in the process of smuggling firearms, it could either mean that he is busy preparing and busy on the lookout to smuggle firearms, or that he is smuggling firearms. MR DE KOCK Well, I have already given evidence to that effect, that is how I understood it. MR FRANCIS You didn't write that he was smuggling weapons, you referred to in the process of smuggling weapons. MR DE KOCK Well Chairperson, that is the process that he was occupied with. MR FRANCIS So what exactly did Holtzhausen say to you about Tiso? What exactly was he doing? Was he smuggling firearms or was he in the process of smuggling firearms? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, as I understood it, he was in the process, he was busy with the smuggling of arms. MR FRANCIS But you don't use the word busy? MR DE KOCK I beg your pardon? MR FRANCIS You did not use the word busy? MR DE KOCK Well, I guess that is just a question of language usage. MR FRANCIS No, it is not a question of the use of language, it is a question of what information you were given. MR DE KOCK Chairperson, I don't have the benefit of notes or anything such as cassette recordings on which I can rely, it is the way I mentioned it here. MR FRANCIS Did Holtzhausen say to you that Tiso alone was busy or was in the process of smuggling firearms or was he doing it with other members or other friends of his? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, I am not certain. I have a vague recollection that somewhere Mrs Mandela was involved, I think, but this is a very, very vague recollection. I cannot attach it specifically to this. There was information from the Intelligence Services in Soweto that arms were being smuggled from her house. MR FRANCIS Mr De Kock, I am not going to let you off the hook so easily, I am going to come back again to when in 1992 did you get the information from Sgt Douglas Holtzhausen, I think it is quite crucial for us to know when exactly you got that information from? MR DE KOCK As I have told you, I cannot give you a date or a specific time. I don't know if it was him or not. MR FRANCIS Well, was it in January, was it in February, was it in March? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, I cannot say. I would be speculating. MR FRANCIS Was it before the first Coin incident? MR HATTINGH Mr Chairperson, the witness has repeatedly stated that he cannot make any definite statements when he was asked what the date or the time was, he responded that he could not give a definite answer. CHAIRPERSON Yes, Mr Francis, can you take it any further than that? MR FRANCIS Chairperson, maybe if you could allow me just one more question, then hopefully I will be able to take it further from there. CHAIRPERSON Okay. MR FRANCIS I think you must have heard when Mr Van den Berg had questioned I think it was Gevers and he put to him that Tiso was only employed by Winnie Mandela as a driver on the 1st of March 1992, I think you were not present, I think you must have been off sick, but that was the evidence that was given that he was employed as a driver for Winnie Mandela on the 1st of March 1992. MR DE KOCK I don't know Chairperson. MR FRANCIS I think we also know that John, Ben van Zyl, alias John, had been talking to Tiso already in December 1991. MR DE KOCK I would accept that, I am not going to dispute it, but I cannot confirm it either. MR FRANCIS I think the evidence was led by Gevers that Tiso and his comrades were going to be killed during the first Coin Security incident. MR DE KOCK I am not certain Chairperson. I think that such evidence was given during my criminal trial. MR FRANCIS No, he led evidence here too. MR DE KOCK Very well then, I am not aware of it. MR FRANCIS So you don't know if you got information after the Coin Security incident or before? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, I can really not say anything. Whatever I could say is something that I would not be able to confirm. MR FRANCIS Why then do you use the word during 1992, if you are not so sure about when exactly you were told? MR DE KOCK Because I don't know. MR FRANCIS It could also have been in 1991? MR DE KOCK I don't know. MR FRANCIS So what reliance can one place on this paragraph if you are not so sure when exactly you think it happened? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, I cannot provide a date if I don't know the date. If one looks for example at all my other applications, one would see at times that initially dates were not inserted because I could not recall dates, not even years. MR FRANCIS But why then say during 1992? MR DE KOCK Well Chairperson, that is my recollection. MR FRANCIS Where exactly in Pretoria was the robbery going to take place? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, there was talk that it could take place in Lynwood or in Lynwood Road, I think there was a Volkskas Bank there, I am not certain. MR FRANCIS On page 3, the second paragraph you say the following "... this ANC member by the name of Tiso would along with other MK members commit an armed robbery in either Pretoria or Nelspruit." You've got that? MR DE KOCK Yes Chairperson. MR FRANCIS Who were the other MK members? MR DE KOCK I don't know Chairperson, I don't know them. MR FRANCIS I think you were present, or you may have been absent, when Mr Van den Berg had put a version to Gevers? MR DE KOCK I was not here. MR FRANCIS I think he mentioned that the second person that he was acting for, I have just forgotten his name, Nalinda, was not a member of any, well, was not an MK member. He had in fact left the country and went to Zimbabwe where he took up his schooling and when he left, he left with a passport and left legally and came back, and was not a member of any political organisation? MR DE KOCK Yes Chairperson, I would not dispute that. MR FRANCIS But in your application you say that him and other MK members? MR DE KOCK That is correct Chairperson. MR FRANCIS And you obviously believed Holtzhausen? MR DE KOCK Yes Chairperson, I had no reason to doubt his information. MR FRANCIS And he won't tell any lies to you? MR DE KOCK No Chairperson, we didn't know that we would be sitting here giving evidence, there was no reason for him to mislead me at that time. MR FRANCIS Glenet Masillo Mama was not a member of MK? MR DE KOCK I don't know. MR FRANCIS You won't dispute that? MR DE KOCK No, I cannot confirm or deny that. MR FRANCIS I think before I move on, let's talk about, I think Mr Van den Berg had put to Gevers or it could have been you too, I am not so sure, that Tiso was kept in Quatro Camp? You can't dispute that? MR DE KOCK No Chairperson, I cannot dispute it. MR FRANCIS I think you must have some knowledge about Quatro Camp? MR DE KOCK Yes Chairperson, I do. MR FRANCIS Who were basically kept at Quatro Camp? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, as far as I know, it would be persons who were regarded as spies, persons about which there were suspicions of disloyalty, persons who were displaying behavioural problems, persons who had for example sold their weapons or disposed of their weapons, but most of all it was persons who had fallen out with the ANC and were being detained there. This is where many murders took place of persons who were members of the ANC who were South African citizens, women were raped and there were many incidents of abuse. MR FRANCIS And I think you must be aware of some of some of the returnees that came back, who wanted the atrocities that took place in Quatro Camp to be investigated? MR DE KOCK Yes Chairperson, with good reason. If one understands that women were raped and sodomised on a daily basis, that would be a crime which we would have to solve at some point, because this forum does not address it. It is ironic that we see that hearings for the women have been held and these issues have not been addressed. The victims have not had their chance to speak and the dead have not been returned. MR FRANCIS But there was also a lot of bitterness amongst people I think, who were kept in Quatro about what had happened to them? MR DE KOCK If you were sodomised four times a day, you would probably be very bitter. MR FRANCIS And obviously don't you find it then strange that if Tiso himself was kept in Quatro, he would still want to associate himself with the ANC? MR DE KOCK No Chairperson, I know that among those who had returned, two factions originated, promises were made to them I think that with regard to an incident in Johannesburg, these persons were visited by Mrs Mandela and other members of the ANC, promises were made which promised maintenance for them if they didn't speak out about what had happened. Then there were other members who had returned, who were recruited by the Security Branches and so the information filtered out. ADV DE JAGER It is common cause that he was employed by Mrs Mandela from the 1st of March at least? MR FRANCIS I don't have a problem with that. ADV DE JAGER Yes, but you said didn't think it would be strange for him to associate with the ANC? MR FRANCIS I think my difficulty is that Mr De Kock is not clear as to when exactly he was told that ANC members and other persons were going to rob. ADV DE JAGER No, but as I understood you, you said wouldn't you find it strange that a person in Quatro, coming back, will still associate with the ANC, but it is common cause that he did associate with the ANC and he was employed by Mrs Mandela? MR FRANCIS Well Mr Chairperson, I think I am not so sure if it is common cause that by being just Winnie Mandela's driver that you are associating yourself with the ANC. I don't think that is quite common cause. ADV DE JAGER Okay, well, I understand you then. CHAIRPERSON Mr Francis, will this be convenient? We will adjourn and we will reconvene at two o'clock. COMMITTEE ADJOURNS EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK (s.u.o.) CHAIRPERSON Mr Francis? CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR FRANCIS (cont) Thank you Mr Chair. Mr De Kock, who told you that Tiso's mother was living in Nelspruit? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, if I recall correctly then it was Sgt Holtzhausen. MR FRANCIS Well, I have looked at Holtzhausen's statement, affidavit, and he doesn't refer to the fact that Tiso's mother lived in Nelspruit? MR DE KOCK No Chairperson, that is the information which I had, that is why I have also reflected it as such. MR FRANCIS In fact I was told by my learned colleague, Mr Van den Berg, that Tiso's mother has never lived in Nelspruit at all? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, that is the information which I had, if not, I would not have expressed it as such. MR FRANCIS Somebody must be lying here about the fact that the mother lived in Nelspruit, who is lying? Is it you or is it Holtzhausen? MR DE KOCK No Chairperson, it is not a question of a lie. As I have said, that is my recollection, that is all that I can say. MR FRANCIS But your memory of course would have been based by information you acquired, is that not so? MR DE KOCK Yes Chairperson. MR FRANCIS And one would expect Holtzhausen to confirm that? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, yes, that is why I stated it. This is not something that one can just make up. MR FRANCIS Van Zyl himself in his affidavit, does not even refer to this? MR DE KOCK Yes Chairperson, I cannot assume responsibility for that, I can only be responsible for what I have said. MR FRANCIS On Friday you testified about the fact that Tiso and them were going to get a vehicle from his uncle, do you recall that, in Nelspruit? MR DE KOCK Yes, that is correct. MR FRANCIS Where did you get that from? MR DE KOCK I also got that from Holtzhausen. MR FRANCIS It doesn't appear in your application for amnesty? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, it may be so. I believe that if one studies the entirety of my amnesty application, it is indeed very extensive, or at least not extensive, but broad in its application and upon various occasions we have had to submit supplementary statements in order to supplement it. MR FRANCIS I agree with you that you did a supplementary affidavit, but in that too, no reference is made about his mother living in Nelspruit or about the fact that he had asked for a vehicle, or that he was going to get a vehicle from his uncle in Nelspruit? MR DE KOCK No Chairperson, that may be so, but this is my recollection. MR FRANCIS And you trusted Holtzhausen? MR DE KOCK Yes Chairperson. MR FRANCIS You also trusted Van Zyl? MR DE KOCK By nature of the situation, yes. MR FRANCIS They won't have any reason to lie? MR DE KOCK No Chairperson. MR FRANCIS If they don't have any reason to lie, who is lying now? ADV DE JAGER We don't know yet whether they will give evidence and say they told him this? They might have omitted it from their applications too, because they might have thought that it is not material? If you can tell us they will come and deny that they ever told him that, then we could start discussing this line. MR FRANCIS Well, of course I think I can't say what they will say, I am basically bound by what appears in their affidavits and obviously I am just putting it to the witness and he could probably deal with it, and I think later in argument, I think I can address the Honourable Chairperson. ADV DE JAGER But he told you this is his recollection, now you are asking him "who is lying", him or they and we don't know whether they would admit that they have told him this or not? MR FRANCIS Mr Chair, I won't take it further, I think I will leave it until they testify about their affidavits. CHAIRPERSON Yes, very well Mr Francis. MR FRANCIS Mr De Kock, I put it to you that you are not being candid with this Commission about what appears in the second paragraph of page 3 when you said that Tiso's mother was living in the Nelspruit region, because she has never lived there? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, I believe that I have fulfilled completely to the requirements for making a full disclosure as I have done here, this is the information that I can recall and I have expressed it. I suppose I could also have withheld it or left it out, but I gave the information according to my recollection. MR FRANCIS What planning was Holtzhausen supposed to have taken to keep the Pretoria Murder and Robbery Unit abreast of the developments? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, that would be the information that he received from Van Zyl and the nature of the development of this project and the robbery. MR FRANCIS And again, what planning are you referring to on page 3 of your affidavit, the third paragraph? You talk about with "his planning" - what planning are you referring to? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, I have no specific recollection thereof, but basically it would be what the approach to the matter would be, how the operational aspect would be approached. It would be a comprehensive approach. MR FRANCIS What planning were the members of Vlakplaas going to do? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, that is difficult. The planning would have been conducted in terms of the information, the nature of the information, the persons who were involved, the methods involved. MR FRANCIS And what else? MR DE KOCK There may have been a variety of other aspects. It was about one's own safety and how this would take place. It would cover all aspects. MR FRANCIS Let's talk about the kombi that you referred to on page 4 of your application. Whose kombi was this? MR DE KOCK It was a vehicle which belonged to a Mr Aragio, a person that I had known for quite a few years. MR FRANCIS Did you know him from Springs? MR DE KOCK I beg your pardon? MR FRANCIS You knew him from Springs? MR DE KOCK Yes Chairperson. MR FRANCIS How did you meet him? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, I have known him for 20 years. MR FRANCIS Why did you decide to make use of his vehicle? MR DE KOCK It was the one vehicle which was very easily available, to which I had access in terms of the method of taking the vehicle. MR FRANCIS What else? MR DE KOCK That would be the basic reason. MR FRANCIS Are you saying to us that you made use of his vehicle because it was readily available? MR DE KOCK Well, it was more easily available. I could obtain this vehicle much easier in an illegal manner than what one would normally have been able to do. MR FRANCIS Is that the only reason that motivated you to make use of his vehicle? MR DE KOCK Yes Chairperson. MR FRANCIS Because it was readily available, and you could get it at any time? MR DE KOCK Well, not at any time, the access was that one could take it with certainty, without ending up in trouble. MR FRANCIS Let me ask you again, was it the only reason why you made use of the kombi? MR DE KOCK No Chairperson, originally my idea and objective was to use this vehicle at Sterkspruit or in that vicinity. MR FRANCIS What else made you make use of his vehicle? MR DE KOCK I don't understand. MR FRANCIS Let me - you say that a reason why you made use of his vehicle was that the vehicle was readily available? MR DE KOCK Yes Chairperson, I had better access to the vehicle and I could more easily obtain that vehicle without ending up in trouble. MR FRANCIS What do you mean without getting into any difficulties? MR DE KOCK Well, one would know the man and know what the habits of this person were. We knew where he kept his vehicle and whether or not this vehicle was appropriately seen to or not and that would make it easier and more accessible and that would include the taking of his vehicle. MR FRANCIS Did he agree that you could take his vehicle? MR DE KOCK No Chairperson, he did not give permission at all. MR FRANCIS So why take your best friend's, or why take your friend's vehicle to use for this operation? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, it was more readily available as I have said, and I determined out of discussions whether the vehicle was insured and it was insured and upon that I decided that I would not render any serious damage to the vehicle, and upon that basis I took the vehicle. MR FRANCIS How did you ascertain that the vehicle was insured? MR DE KOCK I asked him. MR FRANCIS At what stage did you ask him if the vehicle was insured? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, any time before we took the vehicle and I think that it was some time before we took the vehicle, it may have been about two to three months. MR FRANCIS So this would have been roundabout December 1991? MR DE KOCK I don't know, I am just giving an estimate of the time. MR FRANCIS How did the discussion ensue about whether or not the vehicle was insured or not? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, there was no discussion. I can give you an example of what I said, for example "listen, aren't you scared that you vehicle is going to be stolen, there are many taxi's in the vicinity", and he could have said "well, you know, I am insured", or something in that line. It wasn't that I went to him specifically and said "listen, is your vehicle insured". MR FRANCIS This friend of yours, was he having some financial difficulties? MR DE KOCK Well, he had already been sequestrated. MR FRANCIS That means he must have had some financial difficulties? MR DE KOCK I think that if one is sequestrated, one is experiencing serious financial difficulties, yes. MR FRANCIS So what was the idea with using his vehicle, except that it was easily and readily available? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, as I have said the objective was for us to use it in the Transkei. I could have loaded that vehicle with certain things, a ton of dynamite if necessary as I have already given evidence. I was planning to wipe those facilities off the ground. MR FRANCIS He was obviously going to lodge a claim with his insurance company? MR DE KOCK I would accept that he would have done so. ADV DE JAGER Or perhaps his trustee would lodge a claim? MR FRANCIS But Mr De Kock, I think you mentioned in your affidavit that you first had to ensure that the vehicle was insured? MR FRANCIS Chairperson, he was a friend of mine and I didn't want to place him in any financial disadvantage, he was already experiencing financial problems. One could not replace such a vehicle at the same price. But it was just one of those situations where I felt he had to bring his part for the country. MR FRANCIS Either him or his trustee was going to lodge a claim and in fact did lodge a claim? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, yes, I am not familiar with the law, but I am sure that if one is sequestrated, only one's trustee could take the matter further. MR FRANCIS I put it to you that at the criminal court case, your case, I think evidence was led that in fact, IGI had paid out money for the kombi? MR DE KOCK I think that that evidence was led, yes. I have a recollection of that. MR FRANCIS And if I am not mistaken, I think an amount of R17 000 was paid out? MR DE KOCK Yes, I would accept that. MR FRANCIS And I think if I recall Roger testified and said that he only got a portion of that money? MR DE KOCK I don't know Chairperson. MR FRANCIS And nobody knew what had happened to the balance thereof? MR DE KOCK Yes, well, I don't know. I cannot assist you in that matter. MR FRANCIS Mr De Kock, you said that you didn't tell Roger that you were going to use his vehicle? MR DE KOCK No Chairperson, I did not tell him. MR FRANCIS I want you to explain to me what Mr Nortje deposed to on page 233 of his affidavit, 232, sorry, 232. I think it is the seventh line and I will read it to you "... here De Kock suggested to use the vehicle of a friend of his, Fatman, who had a hotel in Springs, called The Riebeeck. The vehicle, a Toyota panel van, was then taken on the operation with the permission of the owner. Dougie then made the arrangements for Ben to bring the robbers down from Nelspruit." Any comments on that? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, that maybe Mr Nortje's perception. I must just mention that the Fatman that is referred to here by Mr Nortje, is not the same person as Mr Aragio. They are family members, but they are two different people. MR FRANCIS Well, obviously I think I will ask Mr Nortje further about it, but the impression that he gives here is that the vehicle was taken, depending on who the owner is, with the permission of the owner. MR DE KOCK No Chairperson, no permission was extended. MR FRANCIS Do you recall Mr De Kock, that when Capt Alberts got to the scene, he made enquiries about the kombi? MR DE KOCK Yes Chairperson. MR FRANCIS And I think it was put to him that the vehicle had been stolen? MR DE KOCK I think so, yes, I have a recollection of that. MR FRANCIS And he then discovered that the vehicle had not been reported as stolen as yet? Do you recall that? MR DE KOCK Yes. MR FRANCIS And that your brother, Vossie de Kock, then had to go and speak to Mr Aragio and told him to report the vehicle as stolen, do you recall that? MR DE KOCK That is correct. MR FRANCIS Let's talk about the other vehicle, you also referred to a BMW vehicle in your application? MR DE KOCK That is correct. MR FRANCIS And there too, you also mentioned that the, you also made sure that the vehicle was insured? MR DE KOCK Yes Chairperson, when I received the information, it was already stated to me that this vehicle was insured. MR FRANCIS Whose vehicle was the BMW? MR DE KOCK I am not certain. The information that was given to me indicated that it was former agents who wanted to leave the country. MR FRANCIS Mr De Kock, I want to put this to you, that you basically stole or you acted in cahoots with Mr Aragio so that his vehicle could be used, so that you could benefit him financially and later tell him to lodge a claim on the insurance company? MR DE KOCK No Chairperson, I believe that I inherently placed him at a disadvantage, because as I have said, he could not replace the vehicle for the same value. MR FRANCIS I recall also reading Klopper's affidavit and I think he mentioned that you had some additional motives? MR DE KOCK No Chairperson, there were not additional motives. MR FRANCIS Sorry, one second, let me just put this to you, I think he referred that you had certain additional motives when you made use of your friend's vehicle? If Mr Chairperson could bear with me - Mr De Kock, if you could turn to page 244, that is paragraph 35.4 and I will read it to you "... on the way back in the car, De Kock told me that Manny was experiencing financial problems and that his hotel mini-bus had to be stolen so that he could claim the insurance money." MR DE KOCK No Chairperson, I believe that he may have spoken about this afterwards, but there was no situation to benefit Aragio financially, I think I may actually have prejudiced him. MR FRANCIS Mr De Kock, I know that - maybe I will come back later to that, but I think Klopper also testified or not testified, has got it in his affidavit that he realised that you had some other ulterior motives when you made use of your friend's vehicle? I just cannot lay my hands on it, but I think it appears somewhere. It is in fact on page 157. In fact I think it is my mistake, it is not De Kock, but I think it is Nortje, sorry Nortje not Klopper. I am going to read to you at page 157 where Nortje I think said the following, that is the third paragraph and I think it is towards the end "... after the initial order I realised that De Kock also had included certain additional motives in the planning, namely to use the vehicle during the incident in favour of a Portuguese friend so that it would be replaced ultimately with another vehicle after the insurance claim had been paid out for the vehicle." MR DE KOCK No Chairperson. MR FRANCIS I put it to you that that obviously was your ulterior motive, your motive was to benefit a friend of yours? MR DE KOCK No Chairperson, that may have been his perception, but that is not what happened, definitely not. MR FRANCIS Mr De Kock, you were an experienced police officer, is that correct? MR DE KOCK Yes, in certain aspects. MR FRANCIS You had access to motor vehicles? MR DE KOCK Yes. MR FRANCIS You testified about Regulation 80 vehicles? MR DE KOCK That is correct. MR FRANCIS And I think the Toyota Cressida was a Regulation 80 vehicle? MR DE KOCK That is correct. MR FRANCIS I put it to you that you could easily have obtained any other Regulation 80 vehicle that would have been a kombi, but this was an instance where you wanted to benefit a friend of yours who was in financial difficulty? MR DE KOCK No Chairperson, this was a question of denial. A Regulation 80 vehicle would have pointed at the police, whereas this vehicle wouldn't have and indeed, it did not. MR FRANCIS Mr De Kock, I think we have dealt with the, with what Engelbrecht basically was saying, but I want to refer to page 4 of your application. At the bottom of page 4, the second last line from the bottom of page 4, you refer to "gereedheidsgrondslag gehou moes word", is that correct? MR DE KOCK That is correct. MR FRANCIS Nowhere do you deal with the question that you were told that Vlakplaas should still be a counter-insurgent Unit. MR HATTINGH Mr Chairperson, may I interpose here. My learned friend has dealt with this extensively and now he returns to it. Mr De Kock's evidence was express, it was never said to him "you must go ahead", his evidence was that they were never told that this was no longer part of their task, that is why he assumed that it was still part of their task. CHAIRPERSON Yes, I understood he said in response to questions that I posed to him. Are you embroidering on that aspect taking into account that was his response? MR FRANCIS No Mr Chair, I am just now dealing with what appears in his application. Maybe if he is still sticking to his version, this is basically what was said to him. CHAIRPERSON Yes, well bearing in mind what he had testified already quite explicitly that there was no express fresh confirmation that they could continue with the original line of business of Vlakplaas, but there was also no express indication that they should not, so he had attached a certain interpretation to that in view of the fact that their weaponry wasn't taken away, etc. You heard what he said. MR FRANCIS Yes. CHAIRPERSON So in that context you want to deal with it? MR FRANCIS I think I will leave it at that. CHAIRPERSON Very well. MR FRANCIS Mr De Kock, I think you said that the BMW belonged to some people who had left the country? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, I understood that these were persons who wanted to leave the country and that they were former agents. MR FRANCIS Did they also tell you that the vehicle was not insured? MR DE KOCK No Chairperson, the person who contacted me informed me that this vehicle was indeed insured. MR FRANCIS Was this vehicle used in any ambush? MR DE KOCK No, among others we would also have used it most probably in the Transkei direction, however the vehicle was later borrowed from me for Organised Crime in Botswana. Afterwards the vehicle was left with them, and I understand that - from sources within the Organised Crime, the vehicle was retraced. MR FRANCIS Did Engelbrecht give you any authority to take part in illegal activities? MR DE KOCK Yes Chairperson. I can refer for example to the case of Chand where we crossed the border. I can also refer to the death of Goodwill Sekakani where he told me that I should contact Gen Steyn in Durban, that he had a task that we had to perform for him, and this led to the death of Goodwill Sekakani. I can once again refer to the man who died at Nelspruit, where he requested the assistance of some of my members. Yes, he did. MR FRANCIS Did he give specific authorisation for the killing of the four and Tiso? MR DE KOCK Which four? MR FRANCIS The Nelspruit 4 and Tiso? MR DE KOCK No. As I have said, I have also mentioned in my supplementary statement, that I took decisions myself. MR FRANCIS On page 5 of your affidavit you say that you were told by Holtzhausen that Tiso and his comrades were going to rob to fill the coffers of the ANC, is that correct? MR DE KOCK That is correct. MR FRANCIS But again you don't know what the other four's political affiliations were? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, as I understood it, or as I had the information, they were MK members. MR FRANCIS Why was it necessary for Holtzhausen to include your name and that of Nortje in this planning or in this operation? MR DE KOCK It is a matter of completion Chairperson. MR FRANCIS Can you expand on that? MR DE KOCK Well, you would add everybody's names in. May I qualify as follows, before we could depart for any town or any place for any operation, then we have to fill in a travelling form with all the persons who would work in that area. Together with the Intelligence notes, it is placed before the General for his approval, so in other words there is a record of who is in Pretoria and who is not. MR FRANCIS So you were going to take part in this operation? MR DE KOCK Yes Chairperson, as I have said where I had been deployed to the observation. MR FRANCIS At what stage was your name included in this list? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, as far as I know my name was there in all instances because I went to the meeting in the Game reserve and that is why my name would be on this list. MR FRANCIS When was this list drawn up? MR DE KOCK I beg your pardon? MR FRANCIS When was the list drawn up? MR DE KOCK Before we went down to Nelspruit Chairperson. MR FRANCIS Is that now the 24th of March 1992? MR DE KOCK I am not certain Chairperson, I will not be able to give you the date. MR FRANCIS I think on Friday you testified and said that you were supposed to have gone to I think Bophuthatswana or some other operation? MR DE KOCK Yes Chairperson, there was a problem there and in that sense I asked Gen Engelbrecht if I could not send my second in command and then he said no, that I should go. MR FRANCIS I think you were asked then if it was just coincidental that you landed up in Nelspruit, do you recall that? MR DE KOCK Correct Chairperson. MR FRANCIS What was your answer then? MR DE KOCK I believe that it was so. MR FRANCIS It was coincidental? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, yes, it is how it developed. MR FRANCIS If it was - I put it to you that it was not coincidental. You were going to be part of the group that was going to take part in the killing of the four or the killing of the five, there is nothing coincidental. MR DE KOCK Chairperson, I would not say that that is so because I am still a member of the Force. MR FRANCIS I think in one of the affidavits, I think it is mentioned that the list was given to you, you deleted some names and added some other names? MR DE KOCK Yes, I cancelled about three or four persons and I added the others. MR FRANCIS Why did you cancel the names of the three? MR DE KOCK I cannot recall Chairperson, there would have been a reason, but I cannot say why I did so. MR FRANCIS Is the reason not that you feared that they would have told on you? They would have come up and have told the police about what had happened there, that you couldn't really trust them? MR DE KOCK No Chairperson, those were indeed the persons who I could say were experienced policemen. CHAIRPERSON Mr De Kock, according to the original plan, would this operation have been able to be carried out without your cooperation? MR DE KOCK Yes. CHAIRPERSON So you would have just observed and kept surveillance? MR DE KOCK That is correct. CHAIRPERSON Would you have done what Nortje would have done with the radio, where the other members said "here comes the BMW"? MR DE KOCK Yes, I would have been with him Chairperson, the two of us would have been there together. I had a set arrangement without exception, that any of the C1 members, black or white, do not move alone, because of the fact that they could be attacked and abducted, we had a standard procedure of moving in two's or in three's. CHAIRPERSON You also had other business? MR DE KOCK Yes Chairperson, the following morning I had to be at the Game reserve for a meeting. CHAIRPERSON But you also had a problem getting there? MR DE KOCK That is correct Chairperson, because some of my people had at a previous instance worked there for three weeks and the claims were incomplete and we had to rectify that. CHAIRPERSON Was it far from Nelspruit, the Lodge? MR DE KOCK I think Malelane is about 80 kilometres from there. CHAIRPERSON Mr Francis? MR FRANCIS Thank you Mr Chair. Mr De Kock, I have looked at Van Zyl's affidavit and nowhere does he mention that Tiso and his friends wanted to rob to fill the coffers of the ANC? Where did you get that from? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, that was the information that was given to me on which we made our preparations. MR FRANCIS I am going to read to you what Holtzhausen says in his affidavit, that is on page 309 at paragraph 10, at the top of 309 ... Ben informed me with regard to an ANC member, Tihetso Leballo, who was an employee of Winnie Mandela, apparently her vehicle driver. According to Ben, Tihetso had been trained abroad. His name was Tiso. I was informed that he was at the head of a gang for Mrs Mandela and that there had been a dispute between Tiso and Mandela with regard to money that had been stolen and the reason was they had independently robbed." The point that I am putting to you is that this gives the impression that Tiso and his comrades wanted to rob banks for their own personal, you know, interest and not for Winnie Mandela or for the ANC? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, I would not be able to say. The possibility existed that Tiso would have channelled the money into some other direction of the ANC. MR FRANCIS I agree with you, it is not even speculation, it is basically blatant lies that they wanted to rob on behalf of the ANC? MR DE KOCK No. MR FRANCIS And if one looks at 309 I think it is quite clear that what Van Zyl basically said, what Van Zyl allegedly said to Holtzhausen was that these guys wanted to rob not for Winnie Mandela but for themselves, because there was some dispute that had arisen about moneys that were robbed previously? MR DE KOCK Maybe all the money did not go to the ANC, maybe they wanted the money and I cannot testify to that. MR FRANCIS You are speculating? MR DE KOCK That is correct. MR FRANCIS I want to refer you to page 377, it seems to be a report that was drawn up by H. Ndimande. I think he was working for Ben van Zyl? ADV DE JAGER Before we leave, whose affidavit is this, Holtzhausen, perhaps in view of the previous questions, one should have a look at paragraph 15.2. Paragraph 15 on page 310, because it seems as though Holtzhausen had the impression that there was a change of mind or something, I don't know? MR FRANCIS That is correct, but I think if one looks at the last sentence there, where he says "... whether she would assist in the planning or whether she would accompany them, I don't know and whether Ben spoke to her or not, I also don't know." ADV DE JAGER After all, De Kock would not know what was in Holtzhausen's mind or what information he had, he only told De Kock about it? MR FRANCIS I agree with you Chairperson. I think if one looks at page 377, it is a note by H. Ndimande. I think I put it to you that he was employed, he was working for Mr Van Zyl and the following appears, it says "... as a follow up on this investigation, we managed to meet Mr Tiso at Carlton Centre on the 6th of December 1991. The main objective for the meeting was to test the sample that he had brought. Likewise Mr B.B. tested a sample and informed Tiso that the sample was not real and that it looks like it is baby powder. Mr Tiso then said that most of the people that had tested the sample had said the same all the time. He then enquired from Mr B.B. on how the Nelspruit issue was going and Mr B.B. informed him that he is still waiting for him and his people. Mr Tiso however said that he will need tools for the job as he does not have any tools at the moment. He then asked Mr Tiso whether he had pulled any job before, but he said that he had not. Neither of his men had done any job before. Mr B.B. informed him that he needs experienced people as this is a place that needs such people. Next meeting was not arranged, follow up is continuing." From this note that was already drafted or that is dated the 9th of December 1991, it is quite clear that Tiso himself had not taken part in any armed robberies? What is your comment about that? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, I cannot testify to this Chairperson. If Mr Tiso was cheating him with baby powder, he can cheat him about anything. It is open for speculation. MR FRANCIS This, I take it, and obviously I think I will ask Mr Van Zyl later, but it seems to have been drawn up by Ndimande when he was present during the discussion between Tiso and Ben van Zyl? It is quite clear that Tiso had not taken part in any armed robberies before? MR DE KOCK I cannot testify to that Chairperson. MR FRANCIS And this that he had robbed 16 banks before, is a pack of lies? MR DE KOCK I don't know Chairperson, maybe it is so that evidence is not available, I don't know. It is speculation. MR FRANCIS Mr De Kock, why was it necessary for you to do observation at Nelspruit? You were such a senior police officer, why take instructions from a junior officer who tells you "look, I think you must do certain observations"? MR DE KOCK No Chairperson, it would have been a matter that I had probably requested it myself, because the next morning we had to depart for the Game reserve, Nortje and I. What happened there was that we were much more tired and exhausted. MR FRANCIS Mr De Kock, you testified about Operation Vula, is that correct? MR DE KOCK Who is that? MR FRANCIS You testified about Operation Vula? MR DE KOCK Yes, I mentioned it. MR FRANCIS If one looks again at 377, it is quite clear that Tiso and his comrades did not even have weapons to pull this job? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, I cannot comment. I cannot comment to the deceased Tiso's credibility. MR FRANCIS No, but I am talking about the note, I am talking about the note that was compiled by Ndimande. MR DE KOCK Yes, I do not know this Mr Ndimande. MR FRANCIS The point that I am making Mr De Kock is that they themselves, did not even have enough jobs or weapons to do the job with? MR DE KOCK It seems from this note. MR FRANCIS Isn't it also strange that they didn't even have a weapon, I mean a motor vehicle to go to Nelspruit with? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, I don't know. They might have had vehicles, they might not have wanted to use their own vehicles. I know in my criminal trial, a Peugeot vehicle was mentioned that they had, I am not certain how this issue came about. I think Mr Van Zyl would be able to shed some light here. MR FRANCIS I think the Peugeot 404 was basically used to travel from Soweto to the Carlton Centre, that is where they met Ben van Zyl, then they went back to Soweto, I think, that is when they travelled in the Toyota Cressida to Nelspruit? MR DE KOCK Yes, I just mention it to you. I cannot attach any value to Hamilton's report. MR FRANCIS But don't you find it strange that highly trained MK members, first of all don't have any weapons to rob the bank or the places with? And don't even have any vehicles to travel to Nelspruit? MR DE KOCK No Chairperson, I cannot say that. If they had any weapons, they could have robbed a vehicle, anything is possible, I cannot speculate. MR FRANCIS I am not asking you to speculate. MR DE KOCK But the question leads me to speculation. I cannot give exception to Mr Ndimande's report. MR FRANCIS I think ... CHAIRPERSON Did you regard the sources as reliable? MR DE KOCK Yes Chairperson, because of previous information and for example a bank robbery in Doornfontein where we not only prevented the bank robbery, but we arrested persons as well. MR FRANCIS Mr De Kock, in your application I think you also referred to the fact that Holtzhausen asked you to make a vehicle - or let me just get the right passage. MR DE KOCK Can you please give the page number? MR FRANCIS Mr De Kock, if one turns to page 5, that is I think the second last paragraph where the following appears "... Mr Holtzhausen did not want to use the Cressida vehicle in the Komatipoort vicinity because the Cressida had been previously used there." Have you got that? MR DE KOCK Yes, that is correct. MR FRANCIS And then I think you go further, you say that "... the supposition was that this mini-bus would only be used to fetch arms and not for the robbery itself." MR DE KOCK Yes Chairperson. MR FRANCIS I have again looked at the affidavit of Holtzhausen, nowhere does he refer to the fact that Tiso had asked that a vehicle be given to enable them to fetch weapons in Komatipoort? MR DE KOCK No Chairperson, that is my recollection of what Mr Holtzhausen told me. Whether it had changed between the request to me and afterwards, it is possible. MR FRANCIS Nowhere does Ben van Zyl make any mention about Tiso and his comrades fetching weapons from Komatipoort? MR DE KOCK No Chairperson, I would not be able to say, but that is my recollection and not to tell this, would not to be give the information. MR FRANCIS Hamilton Ndimande also deposed to an affidavit, it forms part of the documents, he doesn't refer to anything about Tiso and them having to go to Komatipoort to fetch weapons? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, that may be so. Whether things have changed since the discussion phase and the planning phase and afterwards, I would not be able to say, but that is my recollection and I have disclosed it as complete as possible, so that it could not be questioned later that I gave you what I knew. MR FRANCIS So again, you don't know why their versions are different from yours? MR DE KOCK No Chairperson, I would say it differs because it is my recollection. Somebody may have a more vague or a better recollection, but that is not the argument. I told you what I know. What I have said here is what I remember. MR FRANCIS And you say that these two were trusted employees or trusted people, who you could trust? MR DE KOCK Yes Chairperson. MR FRANCIS So they won't have any reason not to tell the truth in their affidavits? MR DE KOCK No Chairperson. I cannot point them out as liars, and that does not mean that I am not speaking the truth, because as I have told you, this is what I recall and this is how I convey it here. MR FRANCIS It seems to me that the truth in this instance, is much more strange than fiction? MR DE KOCK If we look at the past Chairperson, and what had been disclosed at the TRC, then this falls outside all of our imaginations and yet it did happen. MR FRANCIS Of course somebody must be lying? MR DE KOCK I don't know Chairperson. I will stick to what the Commission finds. MR FRANCIS It is either Ben van Zyl or Holtzhausen or you? MR DE KOCK I don't know Chairperson, I don't know whether it is a lie. I don't know whether it may be a vague recollection, it may be anything, but I will not speculate as to what it is. MR FRANCIS Where were the robbers going to get this vehicle from, this kombi from? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, they would have received it from Mr Nortje or rather Mr Holtzhausen. I am not sure, he asked for the vehicle and I believe it was a matter of keeping control. MR FRANCIS Mr De Kock, when he asked you for this vehicle, did you not ask him why he wanted this kombi? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, I may have. I don't have an independent recollection thereof, but I might have. MR FRANCIS Mr De Kock, with all due respect, you are now being evasive. One moment I think you would use your lack of memory to answer questions and when it suits you, you recall certain incidents. MR DE KOCK No Chairperson, I can make up anything here, I am not doing that. I would be wrong in telling you that I am sure of something when I am not sure of something. MR HATTINGH Chairperson, may I just interpose, excuse me that I have to do it so often, Mr De Kock's evidence was never that Holtzhausen asked him for the mini-bus, Holtzhausen asked him for a vehicle and Mr De Kock decided to give him a mini-bus. CHAIRPERSON Yes, well, I don't have a very clear recollection about that, but if that is Mr Hattingh's recollection, what is your ... MR FRANCIS Well, Mr Chair, I think if one looks at page 5, it is as clear as daylight, the second paragraph "... Sgt Holtzhausen asked for the bus which I found by stealing it from Mr Aragio." MR HATTINGH Perhaps my learned colleague should read the second paragraph " ... Sgt Holtzhausen asked if I could borrow him or lend a vehicle to him with which he, Tiso and his cohorts in order to fetch their AK47's in Komatipoort." Then it follows from afterwards that he asked for the mini-bus. MR FRANCIS Mr Chair, I think if one looks at what follows after steal, the following appears "... Mr Holtzhausen did not want to use the Cressida vehicle in the Komatipoort vicinity because it had been used before." I think that should basically answer the question that my learned friend raised. CHAIRPERSON Yes. What I was saying was that I am not sure what Mr De Kock's version, if there is a version before us on that matter, I cannot recall what the record reflects. Is your question based on the application, the wording of the application? MR FRANCIS It is based on what appears on page 5 of the effidavit. CHAIRPERSON Yes. There hasn't been a version yet on that in testimony here before us? MR FRANCIS If the Chairperson could give me an opportunity just to look at my notes, to see if there was. CHAIRPERSON No, it is not very important because what you are saying, seems to be borne out by what he said here. I am not quite sure whether there was not a version already on the record, that is all I am asking. MR FRANCIS I don't recall. CHAIRPERSON Yes. Very well then, I don't know if you still want to deal with the question, then you can do so. MR FRANCIS Yes. Mr De Kock, at what stage did you discover that - before I ask you that, you are saying that the information that you got was that they were going to fetch weapons from Komatipoort? MR DE KOCK Yes Chairperson. MR FRANCIS How does one travel to Komatipoort? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, if one gets to Nelspruit, from there you drive directly in an easterly direction and you keep moving east, you will eventually get to the border post. MR FRANCIS Would that be away from the industrial area? MR DE KOCK At Komatipoort? MR FRANCIS No, Nelspruit? You get into Nelspruit, you get the Wit River turn off, would it be somewhere around there? MR DE KOCK Yes Chairperson, I think when one enters there, the Wit River turns away in a northerly direction, or north-easterly direction. MR FRANCIS And would one take that route to go to Komatipoort? MR DE KOCK One could if you wanted to Chairperson, I am not certain of Wit River, if you could move in that direction, but one could probably drive up to Hazyview and from there, I am not certain. MR FRANCIS The place where the ambush took place, was that on your way to Komatipoort or was it on your way to the industrial area? MR DE KOCK No Chairperson, it was on the way to the industrial area. MR FRANCIS So if you believed that they were going to go to Komatipoort or coming from Komatipoort, then why set the ambush on the way to the Coin Security premises? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, that is how it was planned. I did not have that intimate knowledge of the handling of the situation. An operation is handled sometimes by the source itself and that is how it worked. MR FRANCIS You don't want us to believe that, do you? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, I am just answering the question. MR FRANCIS You are now saying that you believed the vehicle, the kombi, was going to be used to fetch the weapons from Komatipoort? MR DE KOCK That was one of the points which was raised, yes Chairperson. MR FRANCIS None of the other, Holtzhausen or Van Zyl refers to that? MR DE KOCK No Chairperson, I am not certain whether they do so, but that is my recollection. MR FRANCIS You set up an ambush on your way to the industrial area? MR DE KOCK Yes, an ambush was set up, that is correct. MR FRANCIS At what stage were you then told that the robbers had basically changed their plans, Mr De Kock? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, I don't think the collecting of the arms and place where they were to rob, was relevant because from Komatipoort, they could drive with their AK's to the industrial area. MR FRANCIS But that is not correct Mr De Kock, you don't want us to believe that, do you? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, I am just answering. I don't know if there is any suspicion, but that is the answer. ADV DE JAGER But that evening, you awaited them where they were on their way to rob some place or did you wait for them where they collected the weapons? MR DE KOCK No, it was for the robbery. ADV DE JAGER And when would the weapon smuggling be an issue? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, it would be before we had departed for Nelspruit. Such a situation emanated, I think it was from the planning and the discussion and that is why I mentioned it here. MR FRANCIS Mr De Kock, what time did you leave Pretoria or what time did you leave Vlakplaas on the day of the incident? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, I think it was approximately ten o'clock, I am not certain. It could have been between nine and ten o'clock. MR FRANCIS Did you travel straight to Nelspruit? MR DE KOCK Yes Chairperson, at one occasion we did pull off the road and afterwards we went straight to Nelspruit. MR FRANCIS And what time did you get to Nelspruit? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, I am not certain, I think it was approximately one o'clock, in that vicinity. MR FRANCIS So when you left Vlakplaas at ten o'clock, you knew that these robbers were going to go to Komatipoort, make us of the bus to get weapons? MR DE KOCK Yes, that is the recollection that I have. MR FRANCIS When were you told that the robbers had changed their plans? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, that may have been at the scene where we set up the ambush. MR FRANCIS Don't you find it strange Mr De Kock, that you are the Commander of Vlakplaas, you are told that the robbers are going to go to Komatipoort, make use of a kombi to get weapons, and then take it through to Pretoria where they were going to rob a bank and now suddenly you are only told at the time of the incident, that things have changed? MR DE KOCK No Chairperson, one cannot tell what to do, specifically if you are not dealing with experts. An operation like this, does not follow any set down plans. MR FRANCIS No, but this was a planned and staged operation, or the so-called robbery was planned from the beginning? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, yes but one cannot stand in for what the robbers would do. They could at any time change their minds or decide that they would want to do it the following day, anything could happen. MR FRANCIS No Mr De Kock, Mr Van Zyl had met with the robbers in Soweto, the so-called robbers in Soweto that evening, he must have been in contact with Holtzhausen to tell you what the plans of the robbers were? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, I believe so. I believe he had contact with him. MR FRANCIS Again, they don't talk about a robbery or smuggling of arms that was going to take place in Komatipoort. I put it to you that you are telling this Commission a blatant lie. MR DE KOCK No Chairperson, if I wanted to lie, then I would have gone and amended my evidence at the trial. I could have omitted this, I mentioned this because I recall it and for the sake of completion, I would mention it. MR FRANCIS Well, I think you mention this question of the arms smuggling to give it a political flavour, this was a purely criminal deed and now you are using AK47's and that is why I think you talked about Operation Vula, to give the impression that it was a smuggling of firearms taking place. MR DE KOCK No Chairperson, I would also like to mention if one looks at it logically, you can commit an act of terror with any firearm. It could be a 9mm, it doesn't need to be an AK47 for it to be an act of terror. MR FRANCIS We will come just now to the question of whether or not the robbers had any firearms on them. But what I am just putting to you is that this whole question I think of smuggling of firearms, is just a figment of your imagination? MR DE KOCK No Chairperson, I would not have mentioned it here. I do not deal with figments. MR FRANCIS I put it to you that you've got such a fertile imagination to tell lies. MR DE KOCK That is incorrect Chairperson. MR FRANCIS Mr De Kock, what was the planning for the evening of the 25th of March? MR DE KOCK May you repeat please. MR FRANCIS What were you going to plan, or what was the planning that was going to take place around the events of the 25th of March 1992? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, as I have already said here that Nortje and I would do surveillance and it would seem to me we had a look at the place where they could set up the ambush and those arrangements and aspects were dealt with by Geldenhuys and Holtzhausen in my absence and those were the arrangements that were made. MR FRANCIS But didn't you say to them "look guys, you mentioned something about Komatipoort, why has this changed"? You didn't say anything about it? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, it may be that the planning or the discussion had changed when I saw Geldenhuys, when I arrived at the Drum Rock, he didn't mention this to me. I had experienced police officers there who knew how to handle the situation. MR FRANCIS I don't want there to be any confusion between me and you. You went down to Nelspruit because you believed that these robbers were going to smuggle weapons from Komatipoort and take it back to Pretoria, is that correct? MR DE KOCK No, I never said that. That is a lie which is being put to me now. MR FRANCIS Let's test it Mr De Kock. Let's look at the information note, that is on page 375, Mr De Kock. If you turn to page 376 Mr De Kock, whose signature appears on it? Whose signature is that Mr De Kock? MR DE KOCK That is my signature. MR FRANCIS And by whom was it drawn up Mr De Kock? MR DE KOCK By Sgt Holtzhausen. MR FRANCIS What is the date appearing on it, Mr De Kock? MR DE KOCK It would appear to be the 24th. MR FRANCIS Of which month Mr De Kock? MR DE KOCK The third month. MR FRANCIS Who was it sent to, Mr De Kock? MR DE KOCK To the Head of Crime Investigations. MR FRANCIS Who else, Mr De Kock? MR DE KOCK The Crime Information Services, the Head thereof, the Head of the Crime Intelligence Services. MR FRANCIS And who else, Mr De Kock? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, I believe that there would have been a copy that would have been sent to Murder and Robbery, I am not certain. MR FRANCIS Mr De Kock, please read this out for us, aloud please. MR DE KOCK What do you want me to read? MR FRANCIS From "Smuggling of Weapons of Terror - Komatipoort", you can start with Dear General. MR DE KOCK Yes Chairperson. MR FRANCIS Please read it aloud. MR DE KOCK: "Dear General, smuggling of weapons of terror, Komatipoort to Mamelodi." MR FRANCIS Carry on please. MR DE KOCK: "On the 24-03-1992 an unregistered source of Unit C10 reported that he had collected information that a consignment of AK47 guns will be transported between Komatipoort and Mamelodi, Pretoria. Source reports further more that the weapons will be fetched on the 23-03-1992 or the 26-03-1992 and that it will be used during a planned armed robbery of a bank in Pretoria. The source will report to his handler as soon as he has collected further information. Members of Pretoria Murder and Robbery will accompany members of Unit C10, seeing as there are indications that the suspects are wanted for other armed robberies. As soon as further particulars are known, liaison will be made with MID Nelspruit for a police action." MR FRANCIS So, am I correct that this makes it quite clear that this note was sent to your superiors? MR DE KOCK Yes Chairperson, that is correct. MR FRANCIS And it refers to smuggling of weapons to use by so-called terrorists? MR DE KOCK That is correct. MR FRANCIS From Komatipoort to Mamelodi? MR DE KOCK That is correct. MR FRANCIS And this was, and I think in it you mentioned that you received the information from your source, from a source? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, well, yes, that is correct. MR FRANCIS I would take it that the source was Ben van Zyl? MR DE KOCK Yes Chairperson. MR FRANCIS And the incident, this robbery was or the smuggling was going to take place either on the night or the morning of the Nelspruit incident? MR DE KOCK That is correct. MR FRANCIS And in it I think you also mentioned that once you acquire further information, you will notify the authorities, is that correct? MR DE KOCK That is correct. MR FRANCIS Did Engelbrecht see this? MR DE KOCK Yes Chairperson. MR FRANCIS Did you return, did you go back to him to tell him what intended action you wanted to take? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, I think that there is a follow up information note which followed this particular note, I have a vague recollection thereof, but this was not the only one. MR FRANCIS But again, the impression that you gave was that the robbery was going to take place on the 25th, 26th of March 1992? MR DE KOCK Well yes Chairperson, that would be the impression because the information indicated that. MR FRANCIS Was the contents hereof quite correct? MR DE KOCK Yes Chairperson, as I have said in my original amnesty applications, all indications were that such information existed, that is why I have a recollection thereof. MR FRANCIS I may be wrong, but I think you could have been asked either on Friday or Wednesday about this Intelligence note and I think that you said that the contents thereof was false? Again, I may be mistaken but that is my recollection, in fact I believe that you were asked and you said that the contents of this was false. MR DE KOCK No, I know that there were other information notes, there was more than one. MR FRANCIS Mr De Kock, I am asking you, I was asking you about 375 and 376. MR DE KOCK Very well. MR FRANCIS And you said that this information that is contained in 375 and 376, is correct? Is that what you said? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, I think so, yes. MR FRANCIS And then I put it to you that you were asked either on Friday, well, I think on Friday, whether or not 375 and 376 was incorrect and you said yes, it was incorrect, it contained false information? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, yes. I will concede to that because it is not complete with regards to the robbery. MR FRANCIS I put it to you Mr De Kock, that you lied to this Commission about 375 and 376? MR DE KOCK No Chairperson, I have given evidence according to my recollection. I want to state it that there was probably another information note which would have been sent to Nelspruit and that there may have been further information. MR FRANCIS Well, we are dealing with this where you sent it to your superiors? What I am putting to you is that you seem to have a selective memory, Mr De Kock? MR DE KOCK No Chairperson, I am giving evidence to the best of my recollection. If I cannot recall something, then I cannot recall it. MR FRANCIS What is now correct, the answer that you gave to Mr Van den Berg or the one that you have given to me now? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, the answers that I have given, are correct? MR FRANCIS They can't both be correct? One of it must be correct? MR DE KOCK No Chairperson, I gave evidence to my recollection, and that is correct. MR FRANCIS You see Mr De Kock, in your application for amnesty, you also referred to these weapons, that the kombi was going to be used to fetch the weapons from Komatipoort which seems to tie in with 375 and 376. If you give two different answers, then there must be a problem I think with your application, that it is not a full disclosure Mr De Kock? MR DE KOCK No Chairperson. ADV DE JAGER It was the answer on Mr Van den Berg's cross-examination. MR FRANCIS Yes sir. ADV DE JAGER You can't perhaps put the answer? Have you got a note of the answer? CHAIRPERSON Well, that is my recollection as well. I am not sure at what stage of the questioning, but that is the effect of the answer. MR FRANCIS In fact, I have found it. CHAIRPERSON You have? MR FRANCIS He was asked I mean, did he know about the Information note on page 375 and he said yes. CHAIRPERSON By whom? MR FRANCIS By Mr Van den Berg. CHAIRPERSON Oh, okay. MR FRANCIS He said yes, it was about weapon smuggling. Correct. Not true version? No, not probably. Mr De Kock, you have basically now given two different versions on the issue about the smuggling of firearms? MR DE KOCK Well Chairperson, I have given evidence to the best of my recollection and I will stand by what I have said. MR FRANCIS You are saying that you remain to your version? Which version are you remaining to, are you sticking to? Which one now? The one that you have given to Mr Van den Berg or the one that you have given to me? MR DE KOCK No Chairperson, I will stand by my statements and I will not change anything about them. MR FRANCIS Which statements Mr De Kock? MR DE KOCK Those which were put to me and upon which I responded. MR FRANCIS But with regard to one statement, you gave two different answers? MR DE KOCK No Chairperson, that depends upon the question. I am not going to change anything. MR FRANCIS But you would agree with me that there are two different answers which have been provided? MR DE KOCK Yes Chairperson. MR FRANCIS And only one of them can or must be true? MR DE KOCK Within that context, I have answered appropriately. MR FRANCIS I will come back just now to the information note when I deal with the question of cause and scope, in a short while. Mr De Kock, in your application for amnesty, you mention that you realised when you got to the scene that you were not supposed to have been at the scene at all? I think I must just find it to see where exactly you have mentioned this. That is on page 6 of your application, the second sentence and the following appears "... in retrospect it is clear that I was not supposed to be at the scene whatsoever. At the scene I was informed by Holtzhausen that the mini-bus would be used in the incident and by nature of the situation, it was too late to make different arrangements." You testified earlier and said that you were going to be on the scene, but you were going to do observation together with Nortje, is that correct? MR DE KOCK Yes, that is correct. MR FRANCIS And here you say "look, if I really think about this, in retrospect, I was not supposed to have been at the scene"? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, I have already testified that I arrived late, Klopper and I and when we arrived, some of the vehicles had already departed. I explained that we had to catch up with the last vehicle which departed. There was no point at which I could have been briefed, because the arrangements had already been made and that is the fact in terms of which I constructed the sentence. MR FRANCIS You said that you were going to do observation? That must have been discussed at the Drum Rock Hotel before you left with the two ladies to go to Malelane Lodge? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, no, I think that that was already with the allocation of the names in Pretoria. MR FRANCIS That you were going to do observations? MR DE KOCK Yes, that is correct. MR FRANCIS Mr Holtzhausen, you say - sorry, I am so sorry, Mr De Kock, sorry, you say that a meeting had taken place at Pretoria or at Vlakplaas at ten o'clock that morning, or before ten when you were divided into the different positions. MR DE KOCK At Vlakplaas? MR FRANCIS Vlakplaas or somewhere in Pretoria before you left? MR DE KOCK No Chairperson, I never said anything like that. The other members had already departed a day before the time. MR FRANCIS No, but you said that you were divided into groups? MR DE KOCK No Chairperson. MR FRANCIS Not into groups, this list, I think this list was drawn up and your name was put into, amongst one of those lists, is that correct? MR DE KOCK Yes, that was prior. MR FRANCIS I then asked you if you were told at Drum Rock Hotel that you were going to do observations and you said no. Is that correct? MR DE KOCK No Chairperson, I cannot recall that such a question was put. CHAIRPERSON Yes. Mr De Kock, when you were questioned regarding whether you had been appointed at the Drum Rock Hotel, you said that it was your understanding that this had already been done in Pretoria and that you had been appointed to undertake observation, in Pretoria already. MR DE KOCK That is correct. CHAIRPERSON I think that that is the point that Mr Francis is dealing with. MR FRANCIS Is that correct Mr De Kock? MR DE KOCK Yes Chairperson, that is my recollection. MR FRANCIS So you were divided in Pretoria? MR DE KOCK That is correct. MR FRANCIS When was that? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, I think it may have been a day or two before the situation. MR FRANCIS And you were told that you would have to do observations together with Nortje? MR DE KOCK I wasn't given an order to undertake observation, it would have been my choice because the following day, as I have already stated, I had to be in the Game reserve. MR FRANCIS So Mr De Kock, why then do you say on page 6, that is now paragraph 428 the following "... in retrospect it is clear that I was not supposed to be at the scene at all and I was also informed on the scene, by Holtzhausen, that the mini-bus would be used during the robbery and by nature of the situation is was too late to make other arrangements"? If you are saying that maybe two days or one day before the incident, you were already told what your position would be, why would you then say in retrospect, you know, I should not really have been there? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, that was the choice of words I used in the compilation of my statement. It is entirely correct, in retrospect I wasn't really supposed to be there. I have already given evidence a few minutes ago that changes must have taken place with regard to this robbery and there were certain things that one couldn't change. MR FRANCIS Mr De Kock, am I then correct to say that this operation was planned a day or two before you went to Nelspruit? You were already told that you and Nortje would wait at a certain place, you would be observing and that X, Y and Z will take place? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, I am not certain about the exact time, it was definitely before this operation, that it was planned, that is logical, but I cannot give you a fixed time. I cannot tell you whether it was X amount of days or X amount of weeks. MR FRANCIS But it was before you went down to Nelspruit? MR DE KOCK Yes. MR FRANCIS So I think this where you say later in your affidavit that you and Klopper came late from Malelane Lodge, that you didn't know what was happening, can't then be correct because the planning had taken place in Pretoria? MR DE KOCK No Chairperson, I specified it clearly that the divisions and allocations were undertaken in Pretoria. For example at that stage, I did not know when I arrived at the Drum Rock Hotel and saw Geldenhuys that afternoon, where exactly the ambush would be situated. I had no idea of what the situation would be, to the extent that if Klopper and I had arrived a few minutes later, we wouldn't even have had space. MR FRANCIS The fact of the matter is that you got there, you travelled with them? MR DE KOCK Well, we caught the last vehicle departing from the Drum Rock Hotel. I can recall that some of the members' guns were on the roof of the vehicle as they were packing. MR FRANCIS Mr De Kock, I think at page 6, paragraph 428 you say, second paragraph "... at the scene itself, I was not divided into any position, and I did not offer any input"? MR DE KOCK That is correct. MR FRANCIS But you already knew that you had to observe the vehicle, the vehicles when they were coming? MR DE KOCK I already knew that the vehicle would be under observation because Nortje wasn't there. MR FRANCIS Well, I am putting to you that you were supposed to have done the observance, the observation? MR DE KOCK Yes, I would have been one of those who was undertaking observation. MR FRANCIS I recall that I think you also mentioned that you made no inputs at the scene, that is also on page 428, paragraph 6. "... at the scene itself I was not divided into any position and I offered no input." Is that correct? MR DE KOCK Yes Chairperson. MR FRANCIS Geldenhuys at the criminal trial said that he got the distinct impression that you were in control and that the majority of the members were members of Vlakplaas, basically in other words that you were the senior police officer, you were in control of the operation and the majority of the members present, were Vlakplaas members, do you recall that? MR DE KOCK Yes Chairperson, the majority of them were Vlakplaas members and the arrangements had already been made. There was no further input to be offered. MR FRANCIS So the arrangements were made again in Pretoria? MR DE KOCK No Chairperson, I did not say that. The handling of the source, in my opinion, functioned on hour to hour or two hour to two hour basis and the situation would change as the information changed. Those arrangements were made without my knowledge, I didn't even know where the ambush would be situated. It is not that I want to disassociate myself from the operation, I am just giving you the information that I had. MR FRANCIS I think before I forget this, you recall that Ben van Zyl was taken under heavy cross-examination by Mr Hattingh in the criminal trial? Do you recall that? MR DE KOCK Yes Chairperson. MR FRANCIS And there was also I think put to him that he was an addict, do you recall that, a drug addict? MR DE KOCK I cannot recall that. MR FRANCIS You don't recall that? MR DE KOCK No. MR HATTINGH Chairperson, I would prefer that Mr Francis give us the reference in the record because neither my client nor I can recall that I put anything like that to Mr Van Zyl. I have no recollection of that. CHAIRPERSON You would obviously have that reference Mr Francis? MR FRANCIS Chairperson, I think I will bring that reference tomorrow. CHAIRPERSON Yes, please do that. MR ROSSOUW My instructions from Mr Van Zyl are that he also cannot recall that this was ever put to him. CHAIRPERSON Yes, I think that the record will probably be the most reliable source. MR FRANCIS Mr De Kock, in what state of sobriety were the members of Vlakplaas at the scene of the incident? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, according to what I could see, all of them were sober and they were suitable for service. MR FRANCIS Is that correct? MR DE KOCK Yes Chairperson. MR FRANCIS You don't know if they had taken any drinks at the Drum Rock Hotel? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, they may have, but they knew what the rules were. These were standard rules which had been in use over a period of years and I believe that they stuck to these rules. MR FRANCIS If my memory doesn't fail me, I think Gevers I think, mentioned that he had drank at the Hotel? MR DE KOCK That may be so Chairperson, however that would be not in accordance with the rules. MR FRANCIS I think Gevers also mentioned, I think, on his way to Nelspruit, I think they had stopped at several places where he had taken some alcohol? MR HATTINGH That was the day before, Mr Chairman. ADV DE JAGER But on that morning Gevers went to the bottle store and then to the police canteen and that is where he had about three beers I think, and when they returned to Drum Rock, I think he also mentioned something of a possible drink? MR FRANCIS In fact, I think I was still getting there, he said, I think him and Chait had left the day before and had stopped at different places, do you know that Mr De Kock? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, yes, later I was informed regarding what had taken place. MR FRANCIS He said that he was quite drunk whilst travelling to Nelspruit? MR DE KOCK Yes Chairperson, that is when the accident happened. MR FRANCIS He said he was involved in a single motor vehicle collision? MR DE KOCK That is correct. MR FRANCIS Yes, and I think the Chairperson has already referred to what he said about that he went to the canteen, I think they had some drinks there and at the Drum Rock Hotel too. MR DE KOCK Chairperson, I don't believe that that was the same night of the action. MR FRANCIS No, the next day? The day of the incident, the incident took place in the early hours of the morning, but the 25th? MR DE KOCK He didn't have the accident on the day of the incident. MR FRANCIS No, I agree with you, I said that it happened before, he was involved in this collision, he was taken to hospital for observations, Chait was kept there overnight and the day, that is the 25th of March, he went to the police canteen, he drank and at Drum Rock I think he drank and I think he mentioned that you and the other ladies, I think, were in the bar, ladies' bar? MR DE KOCK No Chairperson. MR FRANCIS Or the ladies were in the ladies' bar? MR DE KOCK No Chairperson, the ladies would also not have been in the ladies' bar. They would have been in the reception area and Geldenhuys and I that afternoon when we arrived, at about one or two o'clock, had a conversation. MR FRANCIS Mr De Kock, you say that you have never been involved in a frolic of your own? MR DE KOCK No Chairperson. MR FRANCIS How do you regard Klopper? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, he is an intelligent person. As I have mentioned he has an ability which one can gauge later, he tends to get under one's skin. I would not say that he was a bad person, and I still cannot say so. MR FRANCIS He said that, I think that you mentioned, you travelled, you left at ten o'clock that morning? MR DE KOCK That is correct. MR FRANCIS You got to Nelspruit at about one-ish? MR DE KOCK Yes Chairperson, it could have been a bit later. MR FRANCIS You stopped at a place? MR DE KOCK Yes, at a waterfall, at the old hotel we stopped there. MR FRANCIS What did you have there? MR DE KOCK I had a beer, I don't know what the ladies had. I think Klopper also had a beer and then we left again. MR FRANCIS The impression, I think that I got from Klopper's application was that you stopped at various places where you took, you had some drinks? MR DE KOCK No Chairperson, there were no other places where we had stopped and where we had drinks. It was at this hotel, I went there because of the historical value thereof, I usually did so and I had one beer and he had one beer. MR FRANCIS Mr De Kock, you said that the two witnesses were taken, or the two ladies were taken to sort out some claims, is that correct? Sort out some claims? MR DE KOCK Yes. MR FRANCIS How many claims were those? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, the total amount for the group who stayed at Malelane was R21 000 or R22 000 and it was at least waiting for a month and a half and it was because of double accounting, and that had to be sorted out. MR FRANCIS Why was it necessary to take two ladies to sort this out? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, they have to accompany each other in two's, so that there would be no gossiping stories. MR FRANCIS So were there any gossiping stories? MR DE KOCK No. MR FRANCIS Were there any stories afterwards? MR DE KOCK No, I prevented such stories. MR FRANCIS So you won't say, you won't know why Klopper I think, said the following on page 244 of his application, at paragraph 35.5, I quote "... an action was arranged at Nelspruit where the gang of robbers would rob the gang of fidelity guards allegedly. De Kock and I only departed a day afterwards. The two girls, Jessie and Kobie also accompanied us under the cover that they had to rectify certain claims of us, at Malelane and later our wives heard that they were with us, and they were quite upset about this." Klopper says that these two ladies were taken with under the pretext or under the cover that they were going to sort out claims? MR DE KOCK No Chairperson, there was no pretext and I think W/O Jessie van Vuuren testified in the trial and they said they did sort out the claims there and I had the practice of informing my wife if we were to use any ladies to accompany us and there might be some possible confusion in the future or some suspicion and I did so. MR FRANCIS Why would Klopper you know, mention this? MR DE KOCK I don't believe Klopper was favourably inclined towards me when he made these statements because he had interfered with some of the ladies and I did not allow this in my office. MR FRANCIS How many rooms did you book in the Malelane Lodge?MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I don't recall. I had a room, Klopper had one and then the ladies shared one room. MR FRANCIS I don't have a record of the criminal evidence that was led, but Klopper was again taken under extensive cross-examination and I think was asked as to why they had booked in under false names, your name and Klopper's name wasn't given. Do you recall that he was asked about the fact that bookings were made under false names? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, I am not certain. We moved covertly and I know the accounts of the claims that had to be rectified were under false names for the people there, who had worked there. Although there is nothing sinister about it, I have no guilt in that essence and I do not have a problem answering that question. ADV DE JAGER May I just have clarity here, I am a bit confused with the dates. You departed the morning at approximately one o'clock and you arrived at one o'clock at Nelspruit. Did you go through to Malelane the same afternoon? MR DE KOCK Yes. ADV DE JAGER And when did you return from Malelane? MR DE KOCK We departed the evening again, just before we had to go to the Drum Rock. We were asked at Malelane whether we were still coming through and we said yes, we will go, and we went. ADV DE JAGER So you did not spend the night at Malelane? MR DE KOCK No Chairperson. We stayed at the scene and the following morning, I can recall I had a shower at the Drum Rock and I put on my old clothes and went to the Game reserve, from there. ADV DE JAGER Thank you. MR FRANCIS Mr De Kock, what time did you leave Drum Rock to take the ladies to Malelane Lodge? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, I am not sure, it would have been after I spoke to Geldenhuys. MR FRANCIS Late afternoon, early evening? MR DE KOCK No Chairperson. It may have been in the vicinity of two o'clock, I am not certain. MR FRANCIS If you say two o'clock, you are referring to 2 pm? MR DE KOCK Yes, afternoon. MR FRANCIS And how far is Malelane Lodge from Nelspruit? MR DE KOCK I think it is approximately 80 kilometres Chairperson. MR FRANCIS What did you do when you got to Malelane Lodge? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, I went to sleep. I went and had a shower and I went to sleep and I think Klopper did the same. The ladies continued with their work, and that was sorting the claim. MR FRANCIS You say there was nothing sinister about taking the women with you? MR HATTINGH Chairperson, I have been very patient and I have listened to this cross-examination, but what does this have to do with the five people killed at Nelspruit? The Act requires for there to be a disclosure of all relevant facts, but all kinds of innuendo's are being made here and insinuated with regard to the two ladies and everything accompanied with that. How is that relevant to the Nelspruit shooting and the killing there? CHAIRPERSON Mr Francis, if indeed it is, if the objective is as Mr Hattingh has pointed out, of course, then it is very, very hard to see the relevance of that to the questions before us, unless there is some other relevance to this Malelane question? MR FRANCIS Mr Chair, I think I was not suggesting, I think one moment that Mr De Kock, I think, was having an affair with one of the ladies. I was basically just referring him to what a co-applicant I think, has mentioned here. MR DE KOCK I don't think I would have been that lucky Mr Chairperson. MR FRANCIS Mr Hattingh himself, I think, had decided to, you know, to lead evidence about the two ladies that went there. Talking about relevance, I don't know why he brought this up during examination in chief, Mr Chairperson. But anyway, I think I would not dwell I think, on that point. CHAIRPERSON Yes. MR DE KOCK We can continue Chairperson, I sit here with a clear conscience here today, I don't believe that I would have been so lucky that they wanted to start a relationship with me. CHAIRPERSON Yes, we could have continued, but not here. We don't have enough time for that. Mr Francis? MR FRANCIS Mr De Kock, why - you know, initially when I looked at your affidavit, or your application, and I think you have also now confirmed that you were not going to take part in the shooting at all, except for observing the incident, is that correct? MR DE KOCK That is correct Chairperson. MR FRANCIS Why was it necessary for you to have run down from where you stood and fire upon this kombi, if your role I think, was only to observe and also I think, bearing in mind that the information I think, that you sought from your Generals, was just about arms smuggling? Why was it necessary for you to run down and have fired upon the kombi? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, in all reality I believed that when I saw the vehicle accelerating, it seemed to me as if the driver would succeed in escaping and that is why I ran down. If the vehicle at that stage, where it had been hit, had overturned or had swerved left or right, then I would have accepted that the vehicle would come to a stop, but from my position, it was clear that there was some acceleration and that is why I ran down and fired shots. MR FRANCIS How many members of the Vlakplaas Unit except for yourself, had at that point in time, taken part in the shooting, before you became involved in the shooting? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, the signal from Gouws and Holtzhausen led to an immediate start of firing, I don't, I won't be able to say who shot at which stage and who started firing first, but my impression was clear that there was some acceleration and that is why I ran down. MR FRANCIS You have not answered my question, I think. My question is I mean, can you tell us how many of the Vlakplaas members, except for yourself, fired at this kombi? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, I did not count them when they started firing, I was looking at the vehicle. I believe that most of them would have opened fire. MR FRANCIS And all of them could not bring this vehicle to a standstill? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, the bullets would not have brought the vehicle to a stop immediately. One might just wound them, but it would not mean that everybody was hit in the kombi. MR FRANCIS It says much about the firing capabilities of your members which either means that they must have been under the influence of alcohol, couldn't do a proper job and you had to intervene to stop it from getting away? MR DE KOCK No Chairperson, if we look at the photo's of the kombi, it is quite clear that I believe the kombi had been hit most of the time, if not all the time. MR FRANCIS But I think your affidavit, you state that it is only after you had become personally involved in the firing of the kombi, that the vehicle eventually came to a standstill? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, it may be so that I indeed did impart my part there, it is not necessarily so that I may have hit or which parts of the vehicle I hit or which parts of the vehicle I had hit. I accept that I did play a part. MR FRANCIS But your evidence was quite clear, that you aimed, I think you said that you aimed in the direction of the driver and also the machine? MR DE KOCK Yes, in between the machine and the driver. MR FRANCIS So what I am just putting to you is that it would either appear to me that the other guys were just, couldn't fire properly and you basically brought this vehicle to a standstill? MR DE KOCK No Chairperson, I would not say that was so. MR FRANCIS What weapons were all of these people carrying, your people? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, they had R5's, 5.56 calibre and then their service firearms. MR FRANCIS How many shots were fired? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, I don't know, I cannot recall. I do know after the shooting had ceased, shells were picked up at the scene to have it seem that less shots were fired. MR FRANCIS I think we also heard that Mr Hattingh had mentioned that, or somebody had mentioned that one of the policemen I think had some bag that after firing shots, the shells just went into this whole thing? That I think, you can't really say how many shots exactly were fired? MR DE KOCK No Chairperson, because the shooting report had been amended and the shooting report did not reflect the exact amount of shots fired. MR FRANCIS Mr De Kock, I think if one looks at your affidavit, I think you previously denied that you had taken part in the planning of the operation? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, I did not partake in the planning as in right up to the finer detail thereof, as to where the ambush would take place and the situation there. MR FRANCIS But you took part in firing at the vehicle and stopping them? MR DE KOCK Yes Chairperson, yes. MR FRANCIS Why was it necessary to fire 48 rounds of ammunition, automatic fire with your weapon and then fire seven to eight shots thereafter? MR DE KOCK It was, if it was possible, to shoot the vehicle right off the road, not that the rounds would move the vehicle, but that the concentration thereof, might break the machine or parts thereof. MR FRANCIS Why was it necessary to get your members in a line and then tell them how to go about firing? MR DE KOCK Because they would have hit each other if there had been any disorder. MR FRANCIS What caused this chaos, is it because most of them were drunk? MR DE KOCK No Chairperson, none of the members were drunk or inebriated. I think it was just a bad signal on the open fire signal from Capt Geldenhuys and the people probably concentrated too much on the mini-bus and did not look around them. MR FRANCIS There must have been excitement that took place when shots were fired at this kombi? MR DE KOCK There was no excitement. MR FRANCIS But you say in your affidavit that you have always acted fearlessly against members of the opposite camp? MR DE KOCK Yes Chairperson. MR FRANCIS So there must have been excitement? MR DE KOCK No, there is no excitement, and there was no pleasure in the whole story. MR FRANCIS How far were you from the kombi when you fired the shots at it? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, I think if I have to estimate, approximately 60 metres. The kombi proceeded for a little while after I had fired, I don't know how far. MR FRANCIS I am not so sure who the witness was, but I can recall that at the criminal trial, one of them said that you started swearing and said "f..., the kombi, it is getting away", and that is when you became involved in the shooting. Do you recall that? MR DE KOCK That is possible Chairperson. MR FRANCIS So your concern was that this vehicle was going to get away? MR DE KOCK Yes, that is what I have said Chairperson. MR FRANCIS And were they still going to proceed to carry out the robbery after you had fired at them? MR DE KOCK I don't believe that they would have proceeded. MR FRANCIS So why was it necessary to continue with the shooting? MR DE KOCK As I have said previously in my evidence-in-chief Chairperson, was that we would stop them in their tracks and we would kill them. MR FRANCIS But Mr De Kock, this morning you said that this was a bona fide police action. Remember I think when I put Geldenhuys' version to you, do you recall that evidence? MR DE KOCK That is correct Chairperson. MR FRANCIS Do you recall that I have asked you I think four or five times to tell us what was wrong with it? MR DE KOCK Yes Chairperson, and as I have said it did not comply with all the requirements of that Section 5. MR FRANCIS Yes, and I think you still insisted that you thought it was a bona fide police action? MR DE KOCK With regard to the mandate of my work, yes. MR FRANCIS And obviously if this was a bona fide police action, why after firing at the vehicle was it necessary still to keep on firing at it, if this was indeed a bona fide police action? MR DE KOCK To ensure that no survivors remained. MR FRANCIS It could not and I put it to you, I put it to you that it could not have been a bona fide police action. MR DE KOCK By the nature of my mandate for counter-terrorism, yes, because we were bona fide sent over the border and people were killed there, in just about all the neighbouring States as well as inside the country. MR FRANCIS Mr De Kock, I can probably understand, not that I condone, I can probably understand I think before 1990 when there was still a political war that took place, when there was a need, I think to go to the so-called terrorist camps and fight a war there, but this was two years after the event and you are saying that this was a bona fide police action? I can understand what had happened in the past, but I cannot understand I think, why if this was a bona fide police action, your actions are justified? MR DE KOCK According to my mandate of counter-terrorism Chairperson, it was. This concurs with the shooting incident at Piet Retief and Amsterdam. MR FRANCIS I have mentioned to you that we will just now come back to your mandate, we well just now come back to the information note. Mr De Kock, please tell me what your aim and intention was when you fired at this kombi, what objectives were you trying to achieve? MR DE KOCK To kill the persons Chairperson, and the combatting of further acts of terror by these persons. MR FRANCIS But we have ascertained Mr De Kock, that in the instance of Glenet Masillo Mama, you didn't know what his political affiliation was? MR DE KOCK That Chairperson, is not the information that I had then. MR FRANCIS Please tell us what the information was Mr De Kock? MR HATTINGH Excuse me Chairperson, please, he has repeated that many times. MR FRANCIS Mr Chair, maybe I should just move on from there. CHAIRPERSON Yes, you would recall that according to the applicant he had a general impression that these were trained MK members, etc, etc? MR FRANCIS What was your other objective Mr De Kock? MR DE KOCK The combatting of urban terrorism Chairperson, and this would also prevent that the ANC's coffers be filled more. MR FRANCIS Well, I think we have dealt with this whole question of whether or not they were robbing on behalf of the ANC, I don't have to put that to you, but I put it to you that Glenet Masillo Mama was not a member of the ANC, so there was no need for him to have filled the coffers of the ANC. MR DE KOCK Yes Chairperson, we don't know whether he received training within the boundaries of the country, that is speculation and that is the information which I had. MR FRANCIS I think it was also put to you that Mealande was not a member of any political organisation, so there was no need for him to rob on behalf of the ANC? MR DE KOCK Chairperson, we would not know. MR FRANCIS I am putting to you this as a fact, not a speculation, that he was not. ADV DE JAGER He did not know, he had information from, according to him, from Holtzhausen who got the information from Van Zyl and according to him, the information was that they were or some of them were trained members of MK. He didn't know whether they were indeed or whether they weren't. He was acting on the information and that is what he told us all along. MR FRANCIS I agree with you Chairperson. ADV DE JAGER He cannot, he told you he cannot dispute whether they were members or not members. MR FRANCIS Mr De Kock, I put it to you that these five were killed because Van Zyl had asked that the five of them should be killed, and that was the only reason I think, why they were killed? MR DE KOCK No Chairperson, that is not how I see it. MR FRANCIS In fact, your trusted I think police officer, Holtzhausen himself, I think in his affidavit said that he had mentioned to you specifically that there was a request from Ben van Zyl that these five should be killed? Maybe I think, in fairness I should probably refer you to the portion of his application. CHAIRPERSON While you are looking there Mr Francis, on which basis was Van Zyl paid, was he paid per head of the person that was killed or in general, was he paid a salary? MR DE KOCK No Chairperson, he did not receive a salary, he was not a registered source. I think what they did, they were not paid per head but a global figure. But one could for instance lay a claim for R50 000 and then it is brought down to R20 000 or R15 000, depending on circumstances or items which were found at the scene and whatever accompanies that. CHAIRPERSON So Holtzhausen would have been directly involved with that reward aspect? MR DE KOCK Yes, he would have proposed reward and I would have recommended it, but then it would go to Gen Engelbrecht who would approve it and from there to the Chief of Security who gives a final approval and it goes through a process of four or five persons. CHAIRPERSON Thank you Mr De Kock. Mr Francis? MR FRANCIS Thank you. If one turns to page 309 of the affidavit and if one looks at paragraph 12 and 13, in fact in paragraph 12, it should be the last sentence, I quote as follows "... at that stage, Ben told me that there was a great risk of handing these people over to the police and requested me that if these robbers went ahead with their robbery, they would be killed, in order to protect his identity and I kept Lt De Kock up to date with regard to the discussions and the information that Ben had given to me and on request of Ben, with regard to the shooting dead of these people that was carried over, I had the impression that Lt De Kock had to clear the information with somebody else, but it was not mentioned." I put it to you Mr De Kock, that the only reason, the only reason why the four and Tiso were killed, was really to protect the identity of Ben van Zyl. MR DE KOCK Chairperson, no, that was not my perspective. It may have arisen during a discussion, but it would not have been a determining factor, not in any way, because Ben van Zyl was not known to these persons, except when he used his cover name. MR FRANCIS Let me rather qualify that by putting it as follows, I think I missed out something, that it was to protect the identity of Ben van Zyl and also to benefit your friend, Aragio, so that he could lodge a claim for the motor vehicle that was stolen? So those were the two reasons why these people were killed? MR DE KOCK No Chairperson, no Chairperson, the statement is untrue. MR FRANCIS Mr Chairman, I am not so sure if this would be an appropriate time to take the adjournment? CHAIRPERSON Yes. Do you still have some ground to cover? MR FRANCIS I think I am still going to be another half a day tomorrow? CHAIRPERSON Yes, well, then I am going to adjourn. MR HATTINGH Mr Chairman, may I just inform you that there is a strike on tomorrow and it is not certain at all, in fact, quite the contrary might be the position, whether Mr De Kock is going to be here tomorrow. CHAIRPERSON Yes, Mr Hattingh, we have been informed about this prospect which is not a very pleasing one. I suppose we will have to assess the situation tomorrow. We are very anxious not to lose any time in this matter. We trust first of all that Correctional Services will ensure that Mr De Kock is here. If he is not here, then we will have to find ways and means of continuing with the hearing in a sense which doesn't prejudice Mr De Kock, but I think you know, we will have to assess the situation in the morning and see. As I say, we are hoping that we can proceed, but if we can't, then we will have to find some other way. Yes, in fact, could the legal representatives just please take note that in so far as we are concerned, this doesn't affect us, we are not planning on the basis of this. If it materialises, well, then so be it, so that for your purposes of course, your clients would be required and yourself, would be required to be available tomorrow. We have come to the end of the proceedings, there is apparently still a bit of cross-examination that has to be done in respect of Mr De Kock's testimony, so we cannot conclude that at this stage. We will therefore adjourn the proceedings until tomorrow morning and we will reconvene here at half past nine. We are adjourned. COMMITTEE ADJOURNS