-------------------------------------------------------------------------CHAIRPERSON: We are going to be dealing today and the rest of the week with the Nyanda and McFadden matter. The Committee remains the same. Will the legal representatives please put themselves on record?

MR HATTINGH: Hattingh instructed by Mr Hugo on behalf of Mr de Kock, Mr Chairman.

MR KNIGHT: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Julian Knight on behalf of Almond Nofomela who is an implicated person in this matter. He had completed his testimony in this matter in his own amnesty application which was completed on 23 June 1997. Thank you, Mr Chairman. Just one thing I’d like to place on record with regard to the original application of Nofomela, mention was made that three occupants were killed and that is incorrect, Mr Chairman, only two people were killed. So, just so that my colleagues are not confused with cross examination, that it is actually two people and not three people that were killed, Mr Chairman, thank you.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, Roelof du Plessis instructed by Strydom Britz Attorneys on behalf of Brigadier Jack Cronje who has already received amnesty.

MR PRINSLOO: If it pleases Mr Chairman, Harry Prinsloo appearing on behalf of applicants Pienaar and van Zweel.

MS VAN DER WALT: Chairperson, Louisa van der Walt, I appear on behalf of Mr Rorich and Paul van Dyk as well as Chris Deetlefs who’s an implicated party.

MR WAGENER: Jan Wagener, Mr Chairman, I appear for General Isaac Johannes Engelbrecht.

MR VISSER: May it please you, Mr Chairman and honourable members of the Committee, my name is Louis Visser, I’m instructed by Wagener Muller. I appear for the applicant Brigadier Willem Schoon in the present proceedings as well as certain people who were implicated by Mr de Kock as you will recall, on the first day. They are General Johan Coetzee, General Van Der Merwe, Mr Adrian Vlok, General Bertus Steyn, Brigadier Vickus Loots, Colonel Willem Coetzee, Colonel Jan Coetzee and Colonel Rudi Crause.

MR MOHLABA: Thank you Chairperson. My name is Buka Mohlaba, I am appearing for the family of Nyanda.

MS PATEL: Ramula Patel, Leader of Evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Right gentlemen, have you decided in what order the hearing will be held?

MR VISSER: For a change, Mr Chairman, it seems that I’m designated to commence the proceedings. Chairperson, we have drawn a document for your possible assistance on behalf of Brigadier Schoon, I believe it has been handed to you, it should be in front of you, which we will lead his evidence from. Chairperson, first of all, may I enquire from you what the bundle, which is now relevant in the present proceedings, is going to be called? My bundle has no ...

CHAIRPERSON: Well, this is the Nyanda McFadden bundle.

MR VISSER: Just the bundle?

CHAIRPERSON: But then when we come to the other documents, we head them Nyanda A, Nyanda B, Nyanda C because otherwise one finds one has five different exhibit A’s.

MR VISSER: Yes. Yes, so we’ll stick with the original Exhibit A which was the ‘Algemene Agtergrond’ and from now on we’ll go on with Nyanda A, B and C.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR VISSER: Well, may Brigadier Schoon’s statement then be Nyanda A, Chairperson? I beg leave to call Brigadier Schoon.

CHAIRPERSON: All right.

WILLEM FREDERICK SCHOON: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Thank you, please sit. Brigadier Schoon, you an amnesty applicant in this incident and you apply for amnesty for any illegal or unlawful acts or omissions committed by you before, during and after the incident to which is being referred here as well as any other unlawful act which might emanate from this, is that correct?

MR SCHOON: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Your application is in the Nyanda Bundle from pages 22 to 34, is that correct?

MR SCHOON: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Do you confirm as far as your knowledge and except for incidents where you draw the attention of the Committee on, that the contents thereof are true and correct?

MR SCHOON: Yes, I do, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: And you request that certain evidence be incorporated in your evidence and you specifically refer to the evidence which is referred to in Bundle A which serves before the Committee, is that correct?

MR SCHOON: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: And you have also given evidence before the Human Rights Violations Committee during December 1996 and on 9 October 1997, is that correct?

MR SCHOON: Yes, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: And you specifically ask that the decisions which have been reached by the original Amnesty Committee be applicable to you as well, is that correct?

MR SCHOON: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: We shall later arrive at exactly what you apply for amnesty for. If we may go to page 3 of your statement, on that page under the heading "Personal Circumstances and Background" you refer to Exhibit A and specifically the extracts which appear there which was taken from the evidence of General Van Der Merwe and Minister Vlok in the Cosatu-Khotso House incidents as well as judgements of the Amnesty Committee, is that correct?

MR SCHOON: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: And as far as your evidence is concerned, is it also applicable to you?

MR SCHOON: It is, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: And then, on page 4, you summarise your career in the police, it speaks for itself. If we could continue on...(indistinct)...

MR SCHOON: My amnesty application did not refer to a date of the incident, Major De Kock places the date at November 1983. I will agree with that date, despite the fact Brigadier J Cronje places that date on February 1983 and the applicants Rorich, Van Dyk and Pienaar places the date at 1984. In my evidence I have referred to the evidence of Brigadier Jack Cronje and I have reconciled myself with it. I wish to point out that I mean at that stage to refer to the amnesty application of Brigadier Cronje because he had not yet given evidence with regard to this incident.

I am quite aware of the evidence of Brigadier Jack Cronje surrounding this incident before the amnesty Committee during February 1997.

MR VISSER: That’s February 1997?

MR SCHOON: That’s correct. Insofar as my own role is regarded with regard to knowledge before and after the incident which I had at my disposal, I accord with the contents of this evidence.

During this incident two persons were killed, namely Zweli Nyanda and Keith McFadden. My role in this incident is as follows. During 1983 I was the commander of the C Group at Security Head Office. General Steenkamp was then the chief of security.

On a day, Brigadier Cronje, who was in command of the Vlakplaas unit, spoke to me at the offices. The discussion surrounded the threat that Mr Nyanda held for the Republic. The reason why Mr Zweli Nyanda was pertinently discussed because it was well known in security circles that he was the commander of MK’s Natal machinery and that he was the person who was at the helm of a large number of violent incidents in South Africa. The discussion with Cronje was to the effect that an attempt had to be launched to kill Mr Nyanda. This discussion has to be judged with regard to the background...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Please excuse me, Brigadier, you might be going too fast, could you please go a little bit slower?

MR SCHOON: Certainly. The discussion has to be judged against the background in the country at that time. Incidents of terror was a daily occurrence and people lost their lives during this violence. The ANC in its submission to the Human Rights Violations Committee of the TRC said that the period from 1980 was a period which they sharpened their armed struggle. I refer to the ANC statement to the TRC, August 1996.

MR VISSER: Chairperson, it’s the white bundle. Please continue.

CHAIRPERSON: Can I interrupt? The white bundle is a different white bundle.

MR VISSER: No, I’m referring to the original statement to...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: No, well we haven’t had that put before us at the moment, the bundle we have had put before us is 12 May 1997.

MR VISSER: Yes, this is the August 1996 one. We didn’t make, we’ll give you the extract, Chairperson. We didn’t think it was necessary to...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I have copies elsewhere, I just didn’t ...(intervention)

MR VISSER: That’s the only reason why I refer you to the fact that it’s the white bundle as it’s been referred to before. Please continue.

Also in the ANC’s Further Submissions to the TRC, May 1997, pages 64 to 66 reference is also made to this aspect of violence.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, if I may interrupt the witness, This is the green bundle you will recall. And all that I want to say now, Chairperson, is that there’s virtually a duplication between the two although the green bundle takes it a little bit further but, we don’t intend to go into that much detail, we just wanted to give you the reference in case you wanted to follow it up.

MR SCHOON: Paragraph 15, serious incidents of violence took place in 1983. And so the notorious Church Street bomb of May 1983 exploded leading to the loss of life of 19 persons and the injury of 215 persons approximately. According to my opinion, that bomb was smuggled into the RSA from Swaziland. In conclusion I refer to what the ANC itself said about the violence during 1983 as it appears from the ANC’s Further Submissions to the TRC ...(intervention)

MR VISSER: Chairperson, if I may explain that. In the Further Submissions, under the heading 1983, there are the incidents which the ANC has listed. And this is simply a reference to those listings at page 78, in fact it runs to page 80. Please continue.

MR SCHOON: Paragraph 17, due to the control which the security forces maintained within the borders of the RSA, most of these attacks were orchestrated from the RSA’s neighbouring states, Botswana, Swaziland, Mozambique and Lesotho. In this regard I refer to the general background as sketched in Exhibit A.

MR VISSER: Chairperson, that you will find in Annexure A, from page 16 onwards where we dealt with Botswana, Swaziland and Lesotho. It runs to page 20.

MR SCHOON: Paragraph 18, although Mr Zweli Nyanda was specifically discussed during the discussion between me and Brigadier Cronje, it must be accepted that the underlying problem was not him alone but, the entire MK organisation. Consequently my intention was fixed on a broader scope than just Mr Nyanda and, Brigadier Cronje and I then also discussed the house where Nyanda was living. Seeing as our information indicated that the house was used as a transit and meeting place of MK members. I believed that there would also be other MK members present should an action be taken against Mr Nyanda in that house and, I also expected that the security branch members would also kill such other persons. I believe that the situation was similarly understood by General Steenkamp and Brigadier Cronje.

MR VISSER: So, what you’re saying, Brigadier, is that although Brigadier Cronje, in his evidence before the Amnesty Committee, spoke of Mr Zweli Nyanda, there was a bigger picture that you had in mind? It wasn’t only about Mr Zweli Nyanda and nobody else?

MR SCHOON: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Very well, continue.

MR SCHOON: Paragraph 19, I agreed with Brigadier Cronje that attempts had to be made to attack the house and, if possible, to kill Zweli Nyanda as well as any other MK members who would be found there. Brigadier Cronje and I discussed the matter with General Steenkamp and he gave the order that the operation be launched.

General Steenkamp and I carried out the planning and execution of the action and conveyed this to the operatives on ground level and we left it up to them. It was reported to me telephonically by Brigadier Cronje that the mission had been successful and I was informed that Zweli Nyanda and Keith McFadden had been killed during the attack and, that the house had been damaged. Cronje brought a number of documents with him among which we found plans for acts of terrorism in the RSA. Mr Keith McFadden was a supporter, member of the ANC, I refer to the ANC’s Statement to the TRC, August 1996, page 94, paragraph 14.

MR VISSER: Chairperson, at that page, page 94 of the Submissions, under paragraph 14, Mr McFadden, Keith McFadden’s name is mentioned and it is stated that he died in a raid. And the date is given as 000083. So, it’s clear that the ANC did not know the exact date but, they did place it in 1983. And that, Chairperson, is under the heading of a list of ANC members who died in exile. Please continue.

MR SCHOON: Paragraph 23, this action by members of the security branch in Swaziland must be regarded against the background of the Simonstown summit about which General Johan Coetzee has given evidence during the London bomb amnesty application hearing. Swaziland was the operational area of the SAP and . I refer to Exhibit A in this regard.

MR VISSER: Perhaps, Chairperson, I could pinpoint the paragraph to you. Just bear with me a moment. Paragraph 56 of Exhibit A. Please continue.

MR SCHOON: Paragraph 24, I acted as a policeman in the execution of my duties within the SAP. I truly believed that such actions were expected of me and that my actions fell within the scope of my express or sworn authorisations. I believed this particularly within the light of the pressure which was placed upon us within the security branch by the political leadership of that time. It was consistently maintained that terrorists had to be destroyed in order to prevent the revolution. My conduct was aimed at protecting the State and the National Party and maintaining that government. I drew no personal benefit from this. I have been informed that the Amnesty Committee has granted Brigadier Jack Cronje amnesty for this incident and, I request, respectfully, that amnesty also be granted to me.

MR VISSER: And if you then page back to page 2, your amnesty application has to do with conspiracy with regard to Zweli Nyanda and other members of uMkhonto weSizwe and Swaziland, the conspiracy to murder these individuals, the murder of Mr Zweli Nyanda and Mr Keith McFadden or any other judgement with regard to these facts. Aiding and abetting before and after the facts, purposeful damage of property to the house, your omission to publicise the true facts after the time and any other offence or delict emanating from this?

MR SCHOON: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: If he is given amnesty in respect of the murder, then the application for accessory before and after the fact falls away?

MR VISSER: That is correct, Chairperson, but of course the converse is also true. If he doesn’t get for murder, then the others will have to follow. Yes, but you’re quite correct, Mr Chairman, thank you. Brigadier Schoon, evidence has been given by Mr de Kock among others, you were involved - Chairperson, I will give the references to the bundle, that was bundle 2 to which Mr de Kock referred to and the paragraphs as far as I can, in order to zoom in on the exact piece of evidence to which I wish to refer. The first was in bundle 2, page 22 paragraph 2.2.15.3. And reference has been made in your evidence to an abduction of an unknown activist from Swaziland. I have been informed that this was a certain Mr Mkomezulu and that this is Mr de Kock’s incident number four, volume 1, page 90. I’m now told that my information about Mr Mkomezulu may be wrong but, it matters not, it’s still the same incident that I’m referring to. Now, Mr de Kock has stated that you gave the order to abduct this unknown activist from Swaziland and to have him delivered to your brother, Gert. Your brother was the then commander of the security branch at Josini. Now, can we just begin with the following. Is it correct that your brother, Gert Schoon, was the commander of the security branch at Josini in 19, I don’t appear to have the date here, at a certain point in time then?

MR SCHOON: I would imagine that when that incident took place, Chairperson, he was not the commander. However, he was a member of that branch.

MR VISSER: You aware of this incident that we are discussing?

MR SCHOON: Yes, it came to my attention later when my brother applied for amnesty.

MR VISSER: And, indeed, this incident will be heard at some or other time in September.

MR SCHOON: I don’t know about that.

MR VISSER: Do you have any knowledge at all about this incident?

MR SCHOON: No, none whatsoever.

MR VISSER: Did you give any orders in this regard?

MR SCHOON: No, none.

MR VISSER: Then there is a case which Mr de Kock has referred to in bundle 2 on page 26, paragraph 2.2.15.9. And that refers to his amnesty application, incident one, volume 1, page 218. The allegation could be summarised as follows.

During the late eighties, Mr de Kock was involved in an attack on ANC activists in Zimbabwe. And he gave evidence that this incident took place in co-operation with Mr Peter Castleton, or at least that it was executed in co-operation with Peter Castleton. And, it involved a motor bomb being placed within a BMW and, Mr de Kock then stated that this action was cleared with you.

MR SCHOON: No, Chairperson, I have no knowledge about this incident, I was not involved in it.

MR VISSER: In all fairness, we must say that Mr de Kock, in his application, stated that he is not certain whether this was cleared with you.

However, if we could proceed to the following item which is in bundle 2 on page 30, Mr Chairman, paragraph 2.2.18.5 which refers to an incident 23 in volume 2, page 411. That involves the murder of Japie Maponya and Mr de Kock’s allegation is that he discussed this matter with you or reported about this matter to you, if I understand his evidence correctly. Do you have any knowledge or any involvement in the murder of Japie Maponya?

MR SCHOON: No, none whatsoever.

MR VISSER: Can we then proceed to the following item? Mr Chairman, that’s bundle 2, page 31, paragraph 2.2.19.1 and 2.2.19.2. It refers to Mr de Kock’s incident 16 at volume 2 and, I have question marks at page 360, Chairperson, I’m not quite certain.

CHAIRPERSON: Where?

MR VISSER: 360. I’m not certain that it was intended that that should be the incident referred to but, it matters not much because it simply deals with weaponry that was brought from Ovamboland.

Brigadier, the allegation of Mr de Kock was that you, in conjunction with General Hans Dreyer, gave the order to Mr de Kock to fetch weaponry from Ovamboland and to store this weaponry at Vlakplaas. He maintains that this was done with a 15 tonne and a five tonne truck and four or five bakkies with tow vehicles and that this was brought to Vlakplaas because it was situated near the Security Branch’s "operational" basis. What do you know about this?

MR SCHOON: During that period in time, when the incident took place Major de Kock, who was then the major, told me that there were weapons in Ovamboland which he could have brought to Vlakplaas because Koevoet no longer required these weapons. At first I questioned the whole story because I wanted to know whether it was necessary and, he said: "Yes, it is necessary, we may need these weapons in future." And, because at that stage, I was practically on the verge of retirement, I think I may have already served my application for pension, I said: "Very well, go ahead."

MR VISSER: And that would have been at the end of October, 1989?

MR SCHOON: No, Chairperson, it would have been before then because I think that, approximately four months before my date of retirement, I had launched my application so, it must have been a few months before the time.

MR VISSER: Very well, continue.

MR SCHOON: And I then allowed him to continue because there were vehicles that were running to Ovamboland from 10 Unit and it wouldn’t have involved any additional cost and I told him that he could go ahead with it.

MR VISSER: Did you regard this as illegal or unlawful, the transport of weapons to South Africa from Ovamboland?

MR SCHOON: No.

MR VISSER: What sort of weapons were they? Where did it come from?

MR SCHOON: These were weapons which were obtained in altercations with Swapo terrorists and which were taken into possession during such situations.

MR VISSER: Would you say that these were smuggled weapons?

MR SCHOON: No, Chairperson. These were weapons which had been possessed.

MR VISSER: If I may then proceed to the issue which Mr de Kock submitted about the false claims and the funds which he maintained at Vlakplaas. Chairperson, that is bundle 2, pages 56 through to page 59, the paragraphs are 2.5.1 to 2.5.4 dealing with false claims in regard to carpets and furniture and air conditioner and ice machines. And then paragraph 2.5.4 to 2.5.8, again with the question of the ice machines and the furniture, Chairperson and, yes, those are the ones. Mr de Kock, just to cut a long story short, Mr de Kock said that you told him at a certain point that he had to look after his men at Vlakplaas and that he understood this in terms of the fact he had to ensure that they were financially compensated and as I understand it, that this was an order for him to institute false claims to pay them for the long hours which they worked. What is your comment on that?

MR SCHOON: Chairperson, in the first place, I never said this to him. Secondly, the men were remunerated if they went out and spent periods of time away from the usual station, they would be compensated for full accommodation and travel and that would be the compensation that they received.

MR VISSER: Are you aware of any false claims which were instituted by Mr de Kock in order to remunerate persons other than with their usual police salary?

MR SCHOON: No, on the contrary, I am not aware of any remuneration which they may have obtained from the secret fund.

MR VISSER: Are you aware of the purchase of carpeting, furniture, air conditioners and ice machines by means of instituting false claims?

MR SCHOON: Chairperson, there were two instances in which we could apply for these conveniences, it had to be properly motivated and then it would be granted, then there would also be the Facility Fund which was similar to the Southern Cross Fund.

MR VISSER: So, you say that there could be a legal or legitimate application for such items?

MR SCHOON: Yes. I don’t know of any other way by which one could obtain these things.

MR VISSER: Would it have been the same in terms of refurbishments and improvements of Vlakplaas?

MR SCHOON: They would have to be cleared out once again, and the necessary material would be provided if the request had been cleared.

MR VISSER: Incident 27, I’m not sure which volume, page 562, Mr de Kock says that functions and repair to vehicles was paid for by these false claims. What about these functions at Vlakplaas, where would the money for that come from?

MR SCHOON: Functions were held there and this was done from the secret fund by entertaining persons. And then a lawful claim is put in and the repair to damaged vehicles, we did have a mechanic there and he repaired damaged vehicles. Otherwise it was sent to the police’s garages.

MR VISSER: Would it make any difference if the driver himself had damaged the vehicle because of negligence with regard to a claim, a lawful claim within the police?

MR SCHOON: Not as far as I know, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Thank you, Mr Chairperson, that’s the evidence which I wish to present.

CHAIRPERSON: Before we go on with anything else, has the General been to Vlakplaas lately?

MR VISSER: Has who been to Vlakplaas, Chairperson?

CHAIRPERSON: Lately?

MR VISSER: Have I been to Vlakplaas?

CHAIRPERSON: No.

MR VISSER: Oh, Mr Schoon?

MR SCHOON: No, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: So, he can’t tell us what condition it’s in now?

MR SCHOON: No, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: But if it’s of any relevance, we could...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Have you been?

MR VISSER: No, no, I’ve never been there. But, we can go out there, Chairperson...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Well, it struck me, I don’t know if it would be important but we hear bits and pieces of various applications about things that did or did not happen there, that we might understand the evidence a bit better if we’d actually seen the buildings and things.

MR VISSER: But, Chairperson, why, there could be absolutely no problem with the Committee going out there. Would you like us to make such arrangements?

CHAIRPERSON: No, I just didn’t know for sure if it had been pulled down or was used as a farm now or something else. But if it is still worth looking at, I think it might be a good idea, do you agree? I think my Committee would like, if we have the opportunity.

MR VISSER: Yes, certainly, I’ll convey that, Chairperson and, we’ll attempt it. First of all we’ll find out whether it’s still a police ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I think we’re getting some information here.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, I may be mistaken but I’m under the impression that I received information at some or other stage that the farm has been sold to a private individual.

MR VISSER: Well, we’ll try to get that information for you, Chairperson, and if it’s not, if it’s still in possession of the police, then obviously we’ll try and make arrangements for you.

ADV SANDI: Sorry, just one thing. Mr Schoon, when was the last time you were at Vlakplaas?

MR SCHOON: Chairperson, this was at about 1993, somewhere around there.

ADV SANDI: Was that the time you were still in charge there?

MR SCHOON: No, Chairperson, I was already retired for a few years.

ADV SANDI: Did you, at any stage, go to Vlakplaas at the time you had already retired?

MR SCHOON: Please repeat, please.

ADV SANDI: After retirement, did you at any stage go to Vlakplaas? Did you visit Vlakplaas after your retirement?

MR SCHOON: Yes, Chairperson, I was invited a few times by the members from Vlakplaas when they held functions there. This was about at four of five occasions shortly after I had retired.

ADV SANDI: Thank you.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, I think Mr Du Plessis has a request to make.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, Mr Du Plessis has already left. He’s informed me to inform the Committee that he has no questions. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, Hattingh on record on behalf of De Kock, before I proceed with my cross examination of Brigadier Schoon, I would like some guidance from the Committee, Mr Chairman. We are dealing here with the incident relating to the death of Messrs Nyanda and McFadden. Now, my learned friend has lead evidence about various other incidents, some of them, Mr de Kock has applied for amnesty for, some of them we have suggested to the Committee that they should be dealt with in chambers and not ...(indistinct) ...because it doesn’t involve the violation of human rights.

ADV SANDI: Some of them, the applications have been withdrawn, for example ...(indistinct).

MR HATTINGH: Yes, correct, in some instances the applications have been withdrawn. Now, am I, is it expected of me now to cross examine Brigadier Schoon on issues such as Maponya, which is going to be dealt with at a later stage? Surely if the Brigadier, as an implicated person, wants you to draw certain inferences as to whether he was involved in the operation or not that he should come to that hearing ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Well, my view is that, and I’ve expressed it, we have not as a Committee made a formal decision on this, that you cannot, it would be totally wrong to separate each incident as being a separate incident and you decide that only on the evidence you hear there. The Act says "on information which has come to our knowledge", which implies, in my view, that we can, right to the end of the hearing, use information that has come from other sources, that one should of course draw it to the attention of the applicant that there has been such information put before us in some other context. But I do not think we can say: "No, you can’t ask him about that now, he’s given evidence about it." You may feel that you want to put a general remark at this stage and not get involved in details about the event because his evidence has in the main been of a very general nature on each event.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Brigadier ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I don’t know if you have with you, or have had an opportunity to see these bundles that Mr Visser has been referring to.

MR HATTINGH: Unfortunately...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I’m sure he will, if he has them there, will make them available to you. If we took the short adjournment now, it’s almost time, you could look at these documents before you start questioning because it’s always a little confusing to question on a document you haven’t seen. So, we’ll take a short adjournment now to enable you to do that.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, before you commence, my attorney has made some enquiries about Vlakplaas. And in order to establish whether it still belongs to the police and if so, whether the Committee can visit Vlakplaas, and through whom we must make the arrangements, and all of that he’ll hear within a short while. There will be telephone call back to him and he’ll hopefully receive a message on his cellphone when we adjourn and we’ll be able to inform you.

ADV SANDI: Mr Visser, just for my own clarity, is it the position that you do not intend to call your client or he intends not to come and testify when these other matters are dealt with?

MR VISSER: Chairperson, there’s a somewhat longish answer to the question. You will recall when we were here last time at the initial stages a whole number of people were implicated to a greater or lesser extent. At that stage, we asked to be allowed at the first available opportunity to place the versions of these people to Mr de Kock. While Brigadier Schoon has now given his evidence we thought that it would be convenient for him to deal with the matters in which he was implicated. We thereby certainly did not intend to say that we expect that we should go into each and every one of those matters now. There’s only one issue which makes it difficult to say, we’ll deal with them in future when those incidents are heard, because, two things, one, not all of these incidents will heard because some have been withdrawn, etcetera. And the other issue is I’m not entirely certain whether the Department of Justice will allow me to come to each of the incidents where one or more of these people are implicated, to deal with it there. But certainly, we don’t intend dealing with this in any greater extend than what we’ve done. There’s evidence before you which this client has denied and he’s just placed his denials on record. And we ...(tape ends)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Brigadier Schoon, I cannot question you thoroughly about the issue of false claims and your knowledge or possible involvement with regard to such matters because it would require a great deal of documentation and, it would involve numerous incidents and I don’t believe that we will really have the necessary time to cover these incidents but I would just like to put general questions to you in this regard. Firstly, can you recall that when Vlakplaas was purchased, and I used the word purchased, or acquired rather than purchased, when Vlakplaas was acquired for police use, were there any problems about who would be acquiring the property and in whose name the property would be registered and all other related issues or problems?

MR SCHOON: Yes, Chairperson, I can recall but there weren’t really any problems with the purchase or the acquisition. We followed the proper channels and that was by means of the Department which would be exclusively responsible for the acquisition of fixed property for the State. And the piece of land was ultimately taken by the State and placed at the disposal of the security forces.

MR HATTINGH: Is it correct that before this process which you have just described was finally finished, Vlakplaas had already occupied the property, and when I say Vlakplaas, I refer to C1?

MR SCHOON: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And that this entire process took approximately three years, according to Mr de Kock’s recollection?

MR SCHOON: Yes, that is correct, Chairperson. I think that the police occupied the premises in 1976 approximately and it was only three years later when it actually became State property. And at that stage, there was a dispute regarding who was the actual owner of that piece of land because it was inheritance land which was owned by three or four brothers and the surviving mother. It had been inherited by this group of persons and it was not specified in the testament who would receive which piece of land. And there was a person who claimed property or ownership of the remaining piece of land, consequently there was a dispute regarding who may sell the land and who may not sell the land.

MR HATTINGH: Now Brigadier, during that period, before the land was registered as State property and, while Vlakplaas was already there, who would have paid for any structural improvements which were brought about?

MR SCHOON: Chairperson, no, it would have been us because we were the occupants of that property.

MR HATTINGH: But did you not attempt to consult the Department of Public Works to cover the payment of these structural improvements and so forth?

MR SCHOON: Chairperson, the then commander, General Coetzee, made the funds available and paid for it.

MR HATTINGH: You see, Mr de Kock’s evidence is that there was a myriad of problems in this regard and there was a dispute among departments regarding who was responsible for the payment of structural improvements and who was responsible for the payment of equipment and that this created tremendous problems.

MR SCHOON: I’m not aware of that.

MR HATTINGH: And because of all of this red tape which had to be dealt with, the ultimate decision was taken to use the secret fund to pay for these improvements and the equipment which was acquired but in order to by pass all the prescriptions in this regard, it was decided to do this by means of false claims.

MR SCHOON: No, Chairperson, I don’t know about this.

MR HATTINGH: And Mr de Kock’s version is that you do indeed know about it and that you were involved in it and that you approved some of these false claims by placing your own signature on those claims.

MR SCHOON: No, Chairperson, I never approved any claims. This was done by the person who was in command of accounts.

MR HATTINGH: But shouldn’t the commander of the unit also sign a claim?

MR SCHOON: Yes, he could recommend it or not recommend it.

MR HATTINGH: Very well, then I may have used the incorrect word. You signed these false claims which were instituted and in this manner you recommended it?

MR SCHOON: No, Chairperson, I am not aware of any false claims.

MR HATTINGH: Brigadier, you maintain that you attended a number of functions at Vlakplaas after you retired from service?

MR SCHOON: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And before you retired from the service, you were, by nature of your position, also present at such Vlakplaas functions.

MR SCHOON: That’s correct.

MR HATTINGH: And this was a reasonably frequent institution at the farm?

MR SCHOON: Chairperson, usually once a month, perhaps even twice a month and it may have been even more, during certain months.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, and sometimes it may also have taken place during the week and not necessarily only on a Friday?

MR SCHOON: That’s correct.

MR HATTINGH: And during these functions, there was a great number of people who were present?

MR SCHOON: Usually, yes.

MR HATTINGH: And, in order to hold such a function, it would incur great costs?

MR SCHOON: Yes, that’s correct.

MR HATTINGH: Alcohol and food were expensive?

MR SCHOON: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And those would be the key components of acquisition for the purposes of these functions.

MR SCHOON: Yes, that’s correct.

MR HATTINGH: And you also state that the costs for these functions would be covered by the secret fund in a legal manner.

MR SCHOON: Yes, that’s correct.

MR HATTINGH: With the full knowledge of Head Office, of the Minister, the Cabinet and the Government, this is what you say.

MR SCHOON: No, Chairperson, that is not what I said.

MR HATTINGH: Well then, if it had been officially paid for, how did this come about?

MR SCHOON: It would be paid out of the secret fund as recreational costs.

MR HATTINGH: But was this for the purposes of the war, on such a great scale?

MR SCHOON: Well, Chairperson, it was approved.

MR HATTINGH: By who, by the accountant? And who was that?

MR SCHOON: At a stage it was Brigadier Piet Goosen and after him, I think it was General Malan.

MR HATTINGH: And in your capacity as the head of the unit, you had to sign and recommend these official claims.

MR SCHOON: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Did you do this frequently?

MR SCHOON: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: With regard to each and every one of those functions which was held there?

MR SCHOON: No, Chairperson, I was not the only person who signed.

MR HATTINGH: Who else could sign?

MR SCHOON: The next officer if I was not available.

MR HATTINGH: Who would that have been?

MR SCHOON: There was a Colonel Van Rensburg.

MR HATTINGH: Only him?

MR SCHOON: There was also Brigadier Cronje at a stage.

MR HATTINGH: Yes. And you tell us then that with regard to the official policy, it was an order that a number of policemen regularly held functions at Vlakplaas at State cost or expenditure?

MR SCHOON: It wasn’t only policemen, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: But most of them were policemen.

MR SCHOON: Yes, that’s correct.

MR HATTINGH: And then we also heard of the odd minister, here and there. Who else?

MR SCHOON: That is all, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Is that all?

ADV SANDI: Sorry, you’re saying it was not only policemen, who were the others?

MR SCHOON: That was people who usually assisted the Security branch in the proper execution of their tasks, who performed service without any remuneration.

ADV SANDI: Thank you.

MR HATTINGH: Brigadier, during the past, at various occasions I was invited to a monthly function which was held at the officer’s club in John Vorster Square in Johannesburg, during which there would also be such private guests. Those functions and the expenditure with regard to those functions would usually be covered by some or other sponsor or a company which would cover or sponsor the expenditure with regard to some or other function. This would also be announced and the sponsor would be officially thanked at such a function. What was the position at Vlakplaas when such private individuals were entertained?

MR SCHOON: Some of the private individuals offered to pay and acted as sponsors.

MR HATTINGH: Did they then cover the expenditure of the entire function?

MR SCHOON: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: How often did this take place?

MR SCHOON: Not very often.

MR HATTINGH: But do you say that, or let me put the question to you like this, did it ever occur that some of these function took place at Vlakplaas during which only police members were present?

MR SCHOON: I think so.

MR HATTINGH: And are you then saying that is was in order for policemen to use State funds for functions or entertainment?

MR SCHOON: Chairperson, these functions were not all covered by the State fund. When it was only policemen who would be attending, they would contribute. I know that during Brigadier Cronje’s time, he had such a fund. And that fund was used to pay for these functions at which there would be only policemen in attendance.

MR HATTINGH: You see, Mr de Kock’s evidence is that these functions took place on a regular basis and the costs collected to these functions were covered by means of the secret fund and false claims. And that you and other high ranking officers were indeed thoroughly aware of the situation.

MR SCHOON: I cannot comment on that.

MR HATTINGH: Would you deny it?

MR SCHOON: No. I’m not aware that false claims were instituted. As far as I know, these were legal claims which were instituted.

MR HATTINGH: Was there, at a later date, was there such a fund which you mentioned, the fund that Brigadier Cronje established?

MR SCHOON: There could have been.

MR HATTINGH: So you are not certain?

MR SCHOON: No, I’m not certain.

MR HATTINGH: If it could have been, it could not have been paid out of such a fund. And where would the money have come from then? It was a well known fact that policemen and policemen of rank such as Mr de Kock and policemen who served under him at Vlakplaas did not have a very extensive salary.

MR SCHOON: That’s correct.

MR HATTINGH: And that they could not have used their salaries to cover the costs which were connected with such functions.

MR SCHOON: As far as I know, they made a monthly contribution which came from their travel and accommodation allowances.

MR HATTINGH: In order to cover the costs of other policemen who visited the farm and attended functions?

MR SCHOON: And their own.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, I can understand their own but, here we have a great number of guests in attendance and are you telling me that they used some of the funds allocated to their legal travel and accommodation costs in order to entertain other policemen and officers at the farm?

MR SCHOON: I’m not sure of that.

MR HATTINGH: Could the canteen at Vlakplaas have put in a claim for an ice machine?

MR SCHOON: Yes, I think so.

MR HATTINGH: Why do you say that you think so?

MR SCHOON: Because it would be a convenience that would be provided by the quartermaster or the fund.

MR HATTINGH: Isn’t it true that every other police canteen in the country would generate funds by means of the sale of alcohol in such a police canteen?

MR SCHOON: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And that equipment such as an ice machine had to be purchased through the profits of such sales and not by means of State funds?

MR SCHOON: If a claim was put in with the equipment fund, it would be money which was made available for facilities by means of other institutions.

MR HATTINGH: Mr de Kock’s evidence is that this ice machine as well as the ice machine at Head Office was paid for by means of false claims because they would not usually have qualified for such a piece of equipment.

MR SCHOON: I don’t know about that. That could have been after my time.

MR HATTINGH: Mr de Kock, and I don’t know whether this appears in his submission but, if necessary he will give evidence to this effect. Mr de Kock states that towards the end of the financial book year you came to him and Mr Martin Naude and you told them that the financial year was over or almost complete and that there was still funds remaining and that if these funds were not used, the budget for the next or following year would be cut. And you gave them the order to institute two false claims, one for R48 000.00 and the other for an amount of R46 000.00. And what happened to the money, he doesn’t know.

MR SCHOON: I cannot recall that specifically but, if the claims could be shown to me, I may be able to refresh my memory.

MR HATTINGH: Can you not dispute it?

MR SCHOON: No, Chairperson, I don’t recall it.

MR HATTINGH: Do you recall a person by the name of Ernest Ramatola?

MR SCHOON: Yes, I remember him.

MR HATTINGH: Was he a police member or a so called Askari?

MR SCHOON: I think he was an Askari who came from Bloemfontein.

MR HATTINGH: And he was involved in the attempt on the life of the deceased Mr Chris Hani.

MR SCHOON: Yes, that is what the information appears to be.

MR HATTINGH: And he was involved in that attempt in his capacity as an Askari who was linked to Vlakplaas?

MR SCHOON: No, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: I beg your pardon.

MR SCHOON: No.

MR HATTINGH: In what capacity was he involved then?

MR SCHOON: It was only after that incident that he arrived at Vlakplaas.

MR HATTINGH: Was he injured during this attempt on Mr Hani’s life?

MR SCHOON: Yes, he was injured. It had something to do with his hearing. I don’t know about all his injuries but I know that he wasn’t normal.

MR HATTINGH: And he asked if he could be compensated?

MR SCHOON: I don’t know about that. But I do know that he was registered as an Askari.

MR HATTINGH: And Mr de Kock’s version is that you then gave the order that a claim be instituted, a false claim be instituted. If you’ll bear with me a moment please, may I just take instructions, Mr Chairman. Thank you, Mr Chairman. The false claim was written out for an amount of R25 000.00 and Mr Ramatola who found himself in Queenstown at the time was brought from there to Vlakplaas where the amount was officially handed over to him at a function. Do you recall this?

MR SCHOON: I did not attend that function.

MR HATTINGH: But do you know anything about it?

MR SCHOON: No, I don’t know anything about it at all.

MR HATTINGH: But Mr de Kock’s version is that you gave the order for this amount to be written out.

MR SCHOON: No, I deny that.

MR HATTINGH: Vlakplaas was equipped with a number of weapons which were furnished with silencers?

MR SCHOON: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: This is not a fact which you generally publicised.

MR SCHOON: No.

MR HATTINGH: You didn’t want the public to know about the fact that Vlakplaas made use of silenced weapons.

MR SCHOON: That’s correct.

MR HATTINGH: Among others, there were 21 AK guns which were furnished with silencers.

MR SCHOON: I didn’t know about that.

MR HATTINGH: And those silencers had to be specially manufactured.

MR SCHOON: I don’t know about that.

MR HATTINGH: Mr de Kock will state that you approved that an amount of R21 000.00 be paid out by means of a completion of a false claim to the person who manufactured these silencers.

MR SCHOON: I have absolutely no knowledge of that.

MR HATTINGH: If such silencers existed, how did you obtain them?

MR SCHOON: I don’t know anything about that.

MR HATTINGH: But you do accept that they existed.

MR SCHOON: I don’t know that anything like that existed.

MR HATTINGH: Really?

MR SCHOON: Really.

MR HATTINGH: But you have just said that Vlakplaas had weapons which were furnished with silencers.

CHAIRPERSON: He said he didn’t know about these AK-47s.

MR HATTINGH: Oh, I’m sorry, I misunderstood him, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: At the beginning of his evidence he says he knew they had silenced weapons. You asked about the AKs and he said he didn’t know.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, I apologise, I misunderstood him, Mr Chairman. The other silencers that you were indeed aware of, how did you come to know about this?

MR SCHOON: As far as I know, our technical division manufactured this equipment, and if I recall correctly, it was Brigadier Wal du Toit who manufactured it.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, may I just take instruction? Mr de Kock will say that it is correct, that there were weapons which you and he went to fetch once which were supposed to have been destroyed but which you kept and had fitted with silencers. And that this was done by Wal du Toit’s technical division.

MR SCHOON: That is what I know of.

MR HATTINGH: But he also maintains that you know about the AK-47s which were furnished with silencers and that you recommended the false claim for the payment of this fitting.

MR SCHOON: I don’t know about that.

MR HATTINGH: As I said, initially, there are literally numerous such false claims which Mr de Kock will give evidence about and regarding which he will maintain that you consistently knew about the fact that false claims were instituted and that you yourself approved the payment of such false claims.

MR SCHOON: No, I did not approve such false claims, neither did I recommend them.

MR HATTINGH: I will not put any more questions to you about false claims at the moment. Perhaps if we could have an opportunity at a later date, we can explore this matter of the false claims more thoroughly and you will have your opportunity to put forward your version.

I would just like to come to this incident. Or just before I get to that, were you involved in the Mxenge incident?

MR SCHOON: In this regard, Chairperson, that I was the courier who delivered money for Captain Dirk Coetzee.

MR HATTINGH: Which money was this?

MR SCHOON: It was money which Brigadier Du Preez had given to me with the request to deliver it to Coetzee.

MR HATTINGH: For which purpose?

MR SCHOON: Apparently it was to remunerate three Askaris for their share in the murder of Mr Mxenge.

MR HATTINGH: And you say apparently, were you not informed for what it was?

MR SCHOON: He told me to give the money to Dirk Coetzee.

MR HATTINGH: And he also told you what it was intended for.

MR SCHOON: I suspect that he told me.

MR HATTINGH: And where did you get the money?

MR SCHOON: From Brigadier Du Preez.

MR HATTINGH: And do you know where he obtained it from?

MR SCHOON: He obtained it from Koevoet.

MR HATTINGH: From Koevoet?

MR SCHOON: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Is that what he told you?

MR SCHOON: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Did you ever apply for amnesty for any false claims?

MR SCHOON: No, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: So you say that Brigadier Du Preez told you that the money which was given to Mr Nofomela and others, we know it was them, that this money came from Koevoet?

MR SCHOON: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Why was it necessary to obtain money from Koevoet?

MR SCHOON: I don’t know. Perhaps we should ask Brigadier Du Preez.

MR HATTINGH: That Koevoet was also a police unit.

MR SCHOON: That’s correct.

MR HATTINGH: And would this have been official funds or not?

MR SCHOON: I don’t know. I simply took the envelope with the money and delivered it to Coetzee.

MR HATTINGH: Was this your only involvement in the Mxenge matter?

MR SCHOON: Yes, that’s correct.

MR HATTINGH: Let us come to the Nyanda incident. Were any awards given to some of the members who were involved in the incident?

MR SCHOON: If I recall correctly there was an application for medals and these medals were awarded to them.

MR HATTINGH: Can you recall which type of medals these were?

MR SCHOON: It was a medal which would usually, if I recall correctly, only be allocated to generals.

MR HATTINGH: The SOE?

MR SCHOON: Yes, that’s correct.

MR HATTINGH: And, as you have said, usually only generals would be the recipients of such medals?

MR SCHOON: That’s correct.

MR HATTINGH: And in this case it was awarded to who?

MR SCHOON: I think it was Jack Cronje, Mr de Kock and three or four other persons who had been involved in this operation.

MR HATTINGH: You say, in your application, that you agree with the evidence of Mr Cronje. Can I infer from that that with regard to his written amnesty application which is attached to these documents, that you have studied this document, that you understand what appears in this document?

MR SCHOON: That’s correct.

MR HATTINGH: Could I refer you to page 90 of the documentation.

MR SCHOON: Yes, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: There he says:

MR SCHOON: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: The typed page 55 of the bundle now before you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: (Indistinct).

MR HATTINGH: Sorry, that’s 94, the pagination in manuscript, Mr Chairman. What was Mr de Kock’s rank at that stage?

MR SCHOON: He was then a major.

MR HATTINGH: And Mr Van Dyk?

MR SCHOON: He was a lieutenant, I think.

MR HATTINGH: And Mr Pienaar?

MR SCHOON: A warrant-officer.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Rorich?

MR SCHOON: He was also a warrant-officer.

MR HATTINGH: So, this medal which would usually only be allocated to generals was now being given to soldiers who were not even officers?

MR SCHOON: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: What was the procedure with the award of such a medal, perhaps I could express myself more clearly? Who would know about it and what motivation had to be provided before such a medal could be awarded?

MR SCHOON: Chairperson, in this case, it was only the Commander, and I think at that stage General Steenkamp, and the Commissioner and the Minister who knew. And the motivation was very superficial. It was simply stated that certain members had participated in an operation during which action had been taken against the enemy and it was then recommended that the following medal be awarded to them. And then it would be taken by hand, I suspect to the Commissioner, and he in turn would take the matter up with the Minister.

MR HATTINGH: Apart from the information which appeared in this vague motivation, do you know which information the Commissioner would have had? Do you think he would have known that this was for a cross border operation?

MR SCHOON: Yes, he would have known.

MR HATTINGH: And you cannot say whether he conveyed the information that he had to the Minister?

MR SCHOON: I think he would have because the Minister would certainly have asked: "But what is this for? Why should we award this medal?"

MR HATTINGH: Who was the Commissioner at that stage?

MR SCHOON: If I recall correctly, it was General Coetzee.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Cronje, on page 55, also says that after the operation, he contacted you and informed you about what had taken place there.

MR SCHOON: That’s correct.

MR HATTINGH: And did you in turn report to anybody else who was above you?

MR SCHOON: Yes, to the Commander.

MR HATTINGH: That was General Steenkamp?

MR SCHOON: Yes, that’s correct.

MR HATTINGH: And he was thoroughly informed regarding the operation?

MR SCHOON: Yes, well, the initial report that came to me was that action had been taken against certain persons.

MR HATTINGH: And later, you received thorough information about it?

MR SCHOON: Yes, and this was also conveyed to him.

MR HATTINGH: And the weapons from Ovambo, you were at all times aware of the fact that after, as you say, you gave permission for it to be brought, that the weapons were at Vlakplaas?

MR SCHOON: Yes, that’s correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And you knew that it was a large consignment of arms, including explosives and so forth?

MR SCHOON: I was not aware of explosives because this would not normally be stored there.

MR HATTINGH: The unit C1, were they ever involved in operations where explosives were used?

MR SCHOON: Yes, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And where did you think these explosives came from?

MR SCHOON: These were supplied by the explosives unit.

MR HATTINGH: Very well, but if Mr de Kock says that there were explosives amongst the arms which were brought from Namibia, would you be able to dispute it?

MR SCHOON: No, I can’t.

MR HATTINGH: And you would also not be able to dispute the fact that some of those explosives were used during later operations?

MR SCHOON: I am not aware of it, Chairperson but I cannot dispute it.

MR HATTINGH: Are you aware thereof that when the Harms Commission was appointed, that these arms were moved from Vlakplaas?

MR SCHOON: Chairperson, Mr de Kock did come to me while I was there and this was in the last month just before I retired, and mentioned the possibility that media personnel might want to have a look at Vlakplaas and this would create an embarrassment if they find the weapons there. And then I suggested that he might want to take a counter-insurgency unit and arrange with General Wandracht that some of these arms be stored at his quarters. I suggested Maleeuwskop where I was aware that they did indeed have places to store arms. And what happened to the arms, I don’t know.

MR HATTINGH: You heard that they were removed?

MR SCHOON: Yes, I heard.

MR HATTINGH: And this had your approval?

MR SCHOON: Yes, this was after I had already retired, this is when that happened.

MR HATTINGH: The removal or the visit that Mr de Kock paid to you?

MR SCHOON: No, the removal thereof.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, we have no further questions at this stage. As I’ve indicated, we may approach the Committee and request the Committee to have a separate hearing in connection with the financial affairs of Vlakplaas at separate stage.

CHAIRPERSON: (Indistinct) I thought all applications for fraud had been withdrawn?

MR HATTINGH: We submit, Mr Chairman, that it might be relevant as far as the credibility of Mr de Kock is concerned, but subject to that Mr Chairman, we have no further questions at this stage.

MR KNIGHT: Thank you, Mr Chairman, Julian Knight on behalf of Nofomela. No questions.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, Harry Prinsloo on behalf of van Zweel and Pienaar. Brigadier, there was a similar medal awarded to warrant-officer van Zweel who is also an applicant which was approved by the Minister.

MR SCHOON: It is possible.

MR PRINSLOO: I have such a certificate which is signed by the Minister, if you want to have a look at it. I will not hand it up as evidence.

MR SCHOON: It is so, Chairperson. This just slipped my mind but I will concede that it is so.

MR PRINSLOO: And the same is applicable to Mr Pienaar?

MR SCHOON: Yes, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: No further questions. Thank you, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Chairperson, Louisa van der Walt on behalf of Mr Rorich and Mr Van Dyk and the implicated Mr Deetlefs. No questions, thank you.

MR MOHLABA: Mohlaba for the Nyanda family. I’ve got no questions, Chairperson, thank you.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PATEL: Thank you, honourable Chairperson, Ramula Patel.

Sir, can you briefly elaborate to us, what information did you, or was given to you regarding Mr Nyanda at the time?

MR SCHOON: Chairperson, it was well known that Mr Nyanda was in Swaziland and that he was the commander of the Natal machinery and that he orchestrated many acts of terror from Swaziland. And, at that stage, it came to our knowledge that his home, the house that he used in Swaziland, that this had become known and, because of this, a decision was taken to launch this operation.

MS PATEL: Okay, do you have any specific knowledge on which acts of terror he might have been involved in?

MR SCHOON: Chairperson, there were numerous incidents. These are all supported and, if it is necessary, we can draw up a table thereof but, off the top of my head, I cannot tell you at this time.

MS PATEL: Okay, and what information was available to you at that time regarding Mr McFadden?

MR SCHOON: At that stage, we did not know about Mr McFadden.

MS PATEL: What was the instruction at the stage? Can you recall, was it to kill whoever was found in the house or was the instruction in respect of Mr Nyanda only?

MR SCHOON: Chairperson, the instruction was to act against Mr Nyanda and we accepted that if other persons were in the house, that action would be taken against them as well.

MS PATEL: Was that conveyed to the persons who were involved in the operation?

MR SCHOON: That’s correct, Chairperson.

MS PATEL: Just to back track, can I just ask you, regarding the Askaris and the payment of bonuses, what was the procedure? Did they receive a monthly salary plus what one could term ‘head money’ for the operations that they were involved in or how did that come about?

MR SCHOON: Chairperson, the Askaris were registered as sources. They received a set salary, monthly and, I think at that stage, when I retired, it was R400.00 a month. And during a certain month, if they had been involved in the identification or elimination of terrorists, then they would also be compensated for that.

MS PATEL: Would the compensation come from the same fund from which they would be paid for their monthly salary?

MR SCHOON: That’s correct, Chairperson.

MS PATEL: Regarding the source of your information as to the location of Mr Nyanda’s whereabouts at the time, what was the source of that information? Who was it?

MR SCHOON: Chairperson, I don’t know. I did not personally have knowledge about this. It was conveyed to my by Brigadier Cronje and I accepted that what he told was correct.

MS PATEL: And you stated that documentation was also seized at the place where Mr Nyanda was killed. Can you tell us in more detail what the content of that documentation was?

MR SCHOON: Chairperson, I am sorry but I cannot recall the detail of that documentation.

MS PATEL: And I would imagine that that documentation was destroyed at some stage or do we still know of the whereabouts of those documents?

MR SCHOON: I don’t know, it’s possible that it might still exist somewhere. In all probability, it probably still exists.

MS PATEL: Where would one find this documentation, sir? Do you have any idea?

MR SCHOON: At Security Headquarters, Chairperson.

MS PATEL: Alright. Thank you, honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: If the Swazi police had found documents there, would they have handed them over to South African sources?

MR SCHOON: I believe so, Chairperson because the co-operation between the Swaziland police and ourselves was on a healthy level. And they periodically did make documentation available to us which was found in Swaziland.

CHAIRPERSON: (Indistinct).

MR VISSER: Mr Chairperson, may I beg an indulgence of a very brief adjournment. There’s just one matter on which I have to obtain instructions from my attorney. I do apologise but it is necessary.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, you let us know when you’re ready.

MR VISSER: Thank you, Chairperson.

ON RESUMPTION:

MR VISSER: (Indistinct) thank you for the time that you’ve given us. I have one question in re-examination but before I come to that, flowing from what Ms Patel asked the witness, may I just draw your attention to the Further Submissions of the ANC at page 43. That is the Further Submissions, that’s May 1997. And all I want to read to you is that where the ANC dealt with their organs, they dealt with the Natal urban organ at page 43 and it is stated here:

So, it’s just on that issue of whether he was a commander of the Natal urban in Swaziland.

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Mr Schoon, my learned friend, Mr Hattingh, has asked you a question with regard to certain funds which were available, I think it was the secret funds at the end of a financial book year. Insofar as your answer goes to my learned friend’s questions might have created the impression that you do not recall it at all. I would like to ask you while we were in consultation before these proceedings, you were confronted with this aspect and you then gave us a certain answer, is that correct?

MR SCHOON: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: What was that answer?

MR SCHOON: I have a vague recollection that such an occasion might have existed but I cannot recall the particulars and that is why I asked that documentation be submitted to me so that I can refresh my memory therewith.

MR VISSER: So, if documentation exists that would make it much more clearer for you, you will be in a better position to answer the question negatively or positively?

MR SCHOON: That’s correct, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

ADV SANDI: Can I just ask Mr Schoon that you explain...(indistinct). Now, you are being asked to sign for a claim, can you describe the nature of the documentation that would be put before you, on your desk?

MR SCHOON: Chairperson, briefly, it’s a description of the incident and what the payment is requested for, for whom it is and the amount.

ADV SANDI: Would anything make you refuse to sign?

MR SCHOON: Chairperson, if I’m not sure that it is not correct, then I will refuse it.

ADV SANDI: Did it ever happen that you would refuse to sign because the documentation before yourself is not correct?

MR SCHOON: Chairperson, yes, it did occasionally happen that the wording was not complete and then one would ask that the document be completed properly before it is recommended or approved.

ADV SANDI: Would you be able to recall a specific incident when you refused to sign?

MR SCHOON: Chairperson, it happened regularly that there were shortcomings within the claim which had to be corrected.

ADV SANDI: Thank you, thank you, Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I don’t know if I’m assuming something that I shouldn’t but I assume there would have been more than two copies or at least two copies of such claims. One for your records and one for the people who had to pay the money out.

MR SCHOON: No, Chairperson, there was just one original and there was no duplicate thereof.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you keep no record then?

MR SCHOON: No, Chairperson, just one claim’s come in and you see it before you and if it’s signed, then it goes away again.

CHAIRPERSON: So, if there are records, they would be with the people who paid the claims?

MR SCHOON: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Not with...(indistinct).

MR SCHOON: No, Chairperson, not at all.

CHAIRPERSON: Would they keep no record of money they spent?

MR SCHOON: There were complete records thereof, Chairperson and it has to be there.

CHAIRPERSON: They would have a record in their book of the money that they wanted to spend, that they had spent. And they would then claim it. Take the parties that we have heard so much about, they had spent money buying liquor, food for the party. They would have a record of how much they had spent?

MR SCHOON: That’s correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: They would then put in a claim to obtain the money from whatever the source was.

MR SCHOON: Which would be supported by receipts and other documentation.

CHAIRPERSON: But they would then keep, in their books what they had spent, they would keep a record and the other people would receive the claim and the receipts and what have you.

MR SCHOON: That is correct Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

ADV SANDI: These monies would range from what amount to what amount? We heard evidence last week and the week before of huge sums of money.

MR SCHOON: Chairperson, there was a limitation in the amount that was paid out. And I think that the commander of the security branch, I’m not sure of what the limitation was but it was not tens of thousands of rands. I think it was limited to R10 000.00 and afterwards, it had to be approved by the Commissioner himself.

ADV SANDI: Would Mr de Kock have been one of the people who would from time to time come to you asking that you sign for these claims?

MR SCHOON: Yes, Chairperson.

ADV SANDI: Who were the other people who would come to you for such signatures?

MR SCHOON: Usually it went through him, the pieces which were handled or dealt with by Vlakplaas.

ADV SANDI: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: I think we heard evidence last week, I’m afraid I haven’t got my notes of the evidence with me, of an amount of R100 000.00 being claimed by Mr de Kock which he then proceeded to give R10 000.00 to one of the junior officers.

MR SCHOON: Chairperson, while I was there, the amount would not have been R100 000.00. This would have to be approved by the Commissioner personally.

CHAIRPERSON: No I take it that for a large amount like that, the Commissioner would want to be satisfied that it was not a false claim.

MR SCHOON: That is correct, Chairperson (not through interpreter).

MR SIBANYONI: Mr Schoon, secret funds are necessarily, if I understood your evidence, not illegal funds, am I correct?

MR SCHOON: That’s correct, Chairperson.

MR SIBANYONI: It becomes illegal only if it is false. In other words when the claim is false, then it’s illegal.

MR SCHOON: That is so, Chairperson.

MR SIBANYONI: Do you have an idea what amount was budgeted for the secret funds for the Vlakplaas unit?

MR SCHOON: I don’t have the vaguest idea, Chairperson.

MR SIBANYONI: I heard you saying the amount which was paid to Nofomela came from Koevoet. I also heard you saying Askaris were given some money from time to time. By that I think you would exclude people who were formally employed by the security forces. And my understanding was that Nofomela was a constable, am I correct?

MR SCHOON: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR SIBANYONI: If that is so, why was he supposed to get money?

MR SCHOON: I don’t know, I just acted as the courier and carried the money.

MR SIBANYONI: And then, another aspect is a report was made to you by Cronje about the incident in Swaziland. Were you given the details how the operation was conducted?

MR SCHOON: Chairperson, no. He just told me briefly what had happened and only much later when he came back, then he gave me a full report.

MR SIBANYONI: The impression I’ve got when I read the applicants is that they surprised the occupants of the house. But when one reads the report apparently coming from Lawrence, is that he was working in conjunction with the team. How did you understand the operation? How was it conducted?

MR SCHOON: Chairperson, I cannot comment on the actual happening at the house. I only heard briefly what had happened from Brigadier Cronje

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

MR VISSER: I have no further questions, Chairperson, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: (Indistinct) have any further witnesses? Are you now going to produce bundles of documents?

MR VISSER: No chance, Chairperson. This is the evidence which we wish to present. May Brigadier Schoon may be excused if he is no longer required?

CHAIRPERSON: He is available if you need him?

MR VISSER: Indeed, yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Right, who is the next applicant?

MR HATTINGH: I think, with your approval, Mr de Kock should be the next one, Mr Chairman. May I call him?

CHAIRPERSON: I think you can sit down for the moment because they seem to be having trouble.

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman, Hattingh on record. Mr de Kock, you’re one of the applicants with regard to this incident, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And, upon previous occasions you have already given evidence and, upon those occasions you have given a general submission regarding your application with reference to various incidents. And you confirm the content thereof?

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And do you once again confirm that today?

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And also in your supplementary affidavit with regard to Vlakplaas, you have studied this and do you confirm the correctness thereof?

MR DE KOCK: That’s correct.

MR HATTINGH: Upon the occasion when the evidence about Vlakplaas in general was heard, you referred to a document which was handed over by Mr Visser and others to us and has been marked as Exhibit A during that hearing, do you recall this?

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And you studied this document and do you once again confirm the correctness of the content of the allegations contained within this document?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And then, on page 9 of the bundle with regard to this incident, you discuss your version regarding the particular incident.

MR DE KOCK: That’s correct.

MR HATTINGH: Have you studied this and do you confirm the correctness of the content thereof?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that’s correct.

MR HATTINGH: At that stage, how long had you been at Vlakplaas when this operation took place?

MR DE KOCK: Approximately four months.

MR HATTINGH: And you were under the command of Brigadier Cronje?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: What was his rank at that stage?

MR DE KOCK: He was a lieutenant-colonel.

MR HATTINGH: And did you give you the order to become involved in this operation?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Did you comply or participate in the planning for the operation?

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Where was this planning undertaken?

MR DE KOCK: Among others, discussions were held at Vlakplaas and further discussions were also held in Swaziland itself.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. The members who were involved, were they you, yourself, from Vlakplaas and who else?

MR DE KOCK: Colonel Cronje, warrant-officer Van Dyk, Mr Bosego, Nofomela and Joe Mamosela.

MR HATTINGH: And then there were also members from other security units, from the South African Police who were involved?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Mr Rorich, Mr Pienaar and Mr van Zweel. There was also a Mr Deetlefs but he was not present during this particular incident.

MR HATTINGH: Can you tell us briefly what the order was which you received with regard to this operation?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, the order was that Mr Nyanda, Mr McFadden and Mr Lawrence were very active in Swaziland and were creating great problems in the Northern Natal area. That this group had to be wiped out and this phrase was used repeatedly by Colonel Cronje. The group that had to be wiped out here would then be Messrs Nyanda, McFadden and Lawrence.

MR HATTINGH: How did you go about launching the operation?

MR DE KOCK: Preparations were made here in Pretoria with regard to weaponry. After it was established what the structure of the house was, and we went with these weapons from Vlakplaas in a vehicle which had been prepared with a secret compartment. We went to Swaziland, I’m not certain where we rendezvoused with the members from Eastern Transvaal, whether it was in Swaziland or whether it was in Ermelo. However, in Swaziland, we stayed in the same hotel where we rented a room and we worked from there.

MR HATTINGH: Very well, how did the operation unfold from there?

MR DE KOCK: On a regular basis, or at least let me put it like this, the house was pointed out to me by warrant-officer Pienaar if I recall correctly. The members who would be involved in the operation were taken one by one to the house. We couldn’t all travel there in a group. The house was situated near to one of the residences of the Swazi king and there was an also an entrance gate to the area. I confirmed for myself that this house was a temporary structure, it was an asbestos panelled house, I looked at environment, there were various aspects of importance such as lighting and so forth.

MR HATTINGH: So, in other words you did reconnaissance first?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, we reconnoitred the area.

MR HATTINGH: And during this reconnaissance, did you notice any persons within the house or outside the house?

MR DE KOCK: No, it appeared to be entirely deserted. It stood there deserted, there were no other vehicles parked there. It was clear that there was no person residing there on a permanent basis.

MR HATTINGH: And once you had completed the reconnaissance?

MR DE KOCK: As far as I can recall, I’m not certain whether this was on the first or the second evening, my recollection indicates that on the first evening Mr Nyanda and his company did not arrive. We stayed over for a day and the following evening we once again, on the hour drove to the house regularly.

MR HATTINGH: Can I just interrupt you once again? You’ve just spoken about what took place the previous evening. Was Mr Deetlefs present at that stage?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, I cannot recall whether he went to the house as well. As I’ve said, the house was pointed out to me by Pienaar but, he was in Swaziland and he stayed in the same hotel as us.

MR HATTINGH: And he had to depart for some or other reason and could not be present the following evening?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Let’s get to the next evening then.

MR DE KOCK: Me, warrant-officer Pienaar and warrant-officer van Zweel on a regular basis, around the hour, drove from the hotel to this house and we went to see whether Mr Nyanda’s vehicle had arrived yet. And it was only between 00h00 and 01h00 or 00h00 and 02h00 that morning that we saw the vehicle standing there. The house was dark and we assumed that the people were at home.

MR HATTINGH: What did you do then?

MR DE KOCK: Pienaar, van Zweel and I returned to the hotel where we found Colonel Cronje. We awoke him and the other members and we took our weapons out of the place where we concealed them and we moved in the vehicle to this house for the attack.

MR HATTINGH: Were these weapons fitted with silencers?

MR DE KOCK: Yes. There was two Perchets, those are British weapons with an integrated silencer system.

MR HATTINGH: Is it a hand weapon or a gun?

MR DE KOCK: They are hand carbine types, almost similar to the Sting but just upgraded. We also had HMKs, those are 9mm hand carbines with silencers and we also had two AK-47s.

MR HATTINGH: With silencers?

MR DE KOCK: No, they didn’t have any silencers. Then there was also a Scorpion hand carbine which was also fitted with a silencer.

MR HATTINGH: Why was it necessary to make use of such weapons such as AKs?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, this would have been in case we encounter extra or more resistance in the house or if we ran into security forces in order to get out of the situation.

MR HATTINGH: That would be the similar reason for taking AK-47s to the Chand residence as you have given evidence previously?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that’s correct. Chairperson, upon our arrival, we approached the house, I jumped out first and went to my position which was one of the bedrooms on the south eastern corner. I didn’t know who was sleeping there. Another person would have been there to break the window, I would have tossed a hand grenade through of which the pin had already been pulled out.

MR HATTINGH: Can I just interrupt you there for a moment, please, Mr de Kock? This morning an extract was given to us and we have been informed that this is from the TRC’s written report. You have not had the opportunity to peruse this?

MR DE KOCK: That’s correct.

MR HATTINGH: I myself have briefly studied the documents. I could not obtain the name of the person whose report appears here and he’s referred to as ‘the subject.’ However, on page 121 of this report, the person states:

Now when you arrived there, did you see any person running to the vehicles to report to you as the allegation here maintains?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, the back door was broken down by me in co-operation with Cronje. Nobody came out of the back door and nobody came running to the vehicles. We also didn’t drive with a Mercedes and two vans, if I may put it that way.

MR HATTINGH: What did you drive in?

MR DE KOCK: They were sedan vehicles.

MR HATTINGH: How many?

MR DE KOCK: I think there were three vehicles. I know that warrant-officer Pienaar’s vehicle was there, I also drove a sedan with Colonel Cronje. I don’t know what Nofomela and Bosego were driving in.

MR HATTINGH: But there were two vehicles which were described as vans, were there any such vehicles?

MR DE KOCK: No, not according to my recollection.

MR HATTINGH: And you say that there was no Mercedes?

MR DE KOCK: That’s correct.

MR HATTINGH: You have given a description about how you took in your position at the window where you were supposed to take your position in the first place.

MR DE KOCK: That’s correct.

MR HATTINGH: What happened next?

MR DE KOCK: I looked back to the vehicles and saw that some of the people were still seated. Pienaar was still seated behind the steering wheel, if I recall correctly, his door was open. At that stage, the other person was not with me. I can’t recall who had been allocated to me and with the one hand, I hit the window of the house out with the AK-47 and tossed the grenade through the window. As I hit the window, I heard one of the persons rolling off the bed, however I could not determine his position, I could also not stick my head through the window because I wasn’t certain whether or not there were any weapons inside the house.

MR HATTINGH: What happened next? Did the shock grenade go off?

MR DE KOCK: Yes. It had a double action, it would give two explosions. The objective was disorientation without shrapnel. I then observed that Colonel Cronje was standing in front of the back door that he was firing his Machete into the door at the lock and handle section.

MR HATTINGH: Was the door closed?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, it was closed and locked. Mr van Zweel was with him. I then left that section where I had been stationed and ran to Colonel Cronje to help him to kick the door in. In the process, I seriously injured my foot, I broke my toe and in the process, when the door finally went open, Colonel Cronje ran in with van Zweel behind him.

At first I tried to step on my foot, at that stage bullets which I thought originally came from within the house, about 30 rounds of bullets were fired approximately two metres away from us. The entire place was full of steam, it fired the heating system of the house. At that stage, I saw a person moving away from the house in an easterly direction. It was a shadowy figure, I wanted to fire but abstained because I didn’t know whether or not it was Bosego or Nofomela who were seeking shelter. I didn’t want to risk shooting one of my own members.

Upon that, I moved into the house where I found Cronje in the first bedroom on the left side. I don’t know who was in the second bedroom, I went straight through to the room that I had tossed the shock grenade into, I found nobody there.

From there van Zweel and I went to the lounge, Mr van Zweel fired shots with the Scorpion into the lounge and I went in. His shooting was to provide extra fire should there be anybody there. I looked around with a torch. I couldn’t switch on any lights and I didn’t find any form of occupation or any clothing or bags or documentation.

From there, van Zweel and I moved into the room into which I had tossed the shock grenade and I saw that there was blood on the floor which lead to the bathroom. The bathroom was on the right hand side. I tried to break the lock but the door was locked and there was blood of approximately knee length against the wall. I still asked somebody whether they knew whether this person had been killed but they said he had been shot. I left van Zweel at the door of the bathroom and went outside with the idea to throw a shock grenade through the bathroom window. And as I exited at the kitchen window and I was busy obtaining the grenade, a person burst through this window. He broke through, physically, through that part of the window and, I immediately opened fire. I have a vague recollection, I think I fired about six or seven shots on this person, it didn’t appear that there was any impact on this person’s body. He fell down, on to the ground and then jumped up and once again began to run. Initially I couldn’t shoot because it would have been in line with Bosego and as soon as he moved out of that line of fire, he started firing again. I fired about three or four shots at his back, he was a target which was moving away from me. And once again, it appeared to me that this person could not be killed or I wasn’t firing, that I was missing. A metre or a metre and a half from the gate, he collapsed, I approached him and saw that Mr Pienaar was approaching from my right hand side. He fired two shots with the Perchet at the person who had fallen, he fired two shots at his head. However I accepted that he had already died because he had the position of somebody who was dead.

MR HATTINGH: Could you identify this person?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, he looked like the person who I had seen on photos, he looked like the person who had been identified as Mr Nyanda.

MR HATTINGH: Had you ever seen this person in real life before this incident?

MR DE KOCK: Yes. On one incident when we had tried to attack the group and it looked to me to be the same person. In his right hand there was a hand palm case and, warrant-officer Pienaar tried to remove it. We saw that is was attached to his wrist by means of a loop and I think that he had vehicle keys or what appeared to be car keys. The rest of the group moved up from behind and we began to withdraw.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, might this be a convenient stage to take the adjournment?

CHAIRPERSON: Take the adjournment?

MR HATTINGH: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: We’ll adjourn till 14h00.

ON RESUMPTION:

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: (s.u.o.)

EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: (cont)

Thank you, Mr Chairman, Hattingh on record. Mr de Kock, just to correct something, before I continue. I read an extract of a document to you which I described as an extract from the TRC’s report. That is incorrect, the document is entitled ‘Further Submissions and Responses by the African National Congress to Questions raised by the Commission for Truth and Reconciliation.’

MR DE KOCK: That is correct and I have just been informed of that by Mr Hattingh.

MR HATTINGH: You explained that after the shooting in the house you withdrew back to the vehicles, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Can you say, from within your own knowledge that you saw how many people in the house were shot dead?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I saw a man lying in the one room on the left side, if you move down in an eastern direction, in the passage. However I did not know who it was. I saw no other dead persons there apart from the blood mark which lead to the bathroom. And that person who was in that room was also shot dead.

MR HATTINGH: Outside the house?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Do you know whether there were any women in the house? Did you hear or see any women?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson. When we arrived at the hotel, we had a quick discussion which was very brief and orders were given by Cronje and there I was informed that there had been a woman who had hidden in a cupboard or underneath a bed, I am not entirely certain.

MR HATTINGH: And that she was not harmed in any way?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Of your own people, were any one of you injured?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson. When I arrived at my vehicle upon our withdrawal, Bosego called me, he was approximately 12 metres to the east of the vehicles. I moved in that direction, he got up and then fell down again. He told me that he had been shot, at that stage the vehicles began to pull away, they were approximately 20 metres away but the back vehicle reversed. I then helped Bosego from there and we left in that vehicle.

MR HATTINGH: You did not see when he was shot.

MR DE KOCK: No.

MR HATTINGH: So you don’t know whether you shot him or who shot him?

MR DE KOCK: No.

MR HATTINGH: In your application you state that he was shot by Mr Rorich. Does he know about that?

MR DE KOCK: I did not see that. At the discussion that we had at the hotel after the incident it was mentioned, I don’t know exactly who mentioned it, I don’t know whether it was Rorich himself, but it was mentioned that it had been Rorich who had thought that Bosego was a person who was trying to escape or coming from the house and that is when he fired the shot. And I would concede that in that regard, it was here say.

MR HATTINGH: Did you then withdraw from the scene as you’ve said, and then you returned to the hotel where you had the debriefing and after that, the next day, you went back to Pretoria?

MR DE KOCK: No, we prepared there, immediately and departed. Colonel Cronje made the arrangements that Bosego would receive medical treatment. I think that he arranged for him to be treated in Ermelo and Cronje and I went to Pretoria. The other members, I’m not certain about where they went, I didn’t ask them. Cronje drove to Pretoria, that night, near the border post, there was a place where one could move over the international border and, in such a fashion we then moved over the border.

MR HATTINGH: You mean other than at the regular border post?

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: In other words you moved across the border illegally?

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And did you report to anybody when you arrived back in Pretoria?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson. I was the driver of the vehicle, early that morning we arrived in Pretoria. It was between 06h00 and 08h00. I remained in the vehicle and Colonel Cronje went in to Head Office to report.

MR HATTINGH: And is that the sum total of your knowledge of this incident?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that’s correct.

MR HATTINGH: Do you know whether anything was found in the house?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I didn’t see that there were any documents in the house but I would accept that there were because I didn’t search the rooms and, I didn’t see any documentation but I accepted that documentation had been found in the hand briefcase.

MR HATTINGH: Was anything said about this after the time?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, at the debriefing, it was said that documentation had been found.

MR HATTINGH: Did you study these documents?

MR DE KOCK: No. However I saw the top document, it was an A4 paper when Colonel Cronje climbed out of the vehicle at Head Office. And it looked like a sketch as if it was some form of a sketch of a road system or an environment, it was a hand sketch.

MR HATTINGH: How did you regard this operation? In what light did you regard it?

MR DE KOCK: Well, it was an operation which was aimed against terrorism and terrorist activities, it was cross border, whether you shoot on this side of the border or that side, it still remains murder. And for me it was just another foreign operation.

MR HATTINGH: And you acted under the orders of Colonel Cronje?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct. But I would like to use this opportunity to say that I personally accept responsibility for my own actions and my own conduct at the scene. I do not ask that Cronje do this, I do not want it, I will bear my own responsibilities.

MR HATTINGH: And the prevention of terrorism, to combat terrorism in an internal community, the security of the Republic and a service to the National Party which was the government. One cannot say that this was a community service but it was a service to the State. Community service would be to save an elderly person from a burning house but to go and shoot somebody on the other side of the border who held different views to you was a service to the State.

MR HATTINGH: Then, in conclusion, you have heard what I put to Brigadier Schoon with regard to false claims and so forth.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson. I will stand by my affidavits in that regard. I will stand by what I have stated about that and I believe that in future we will receive further evidence about this.

MR HATTINGH: In other words, do you confirm your versions as contained within your original application and supplemented within the document which deals with Vlakplaas specifically?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, I will stand by that.

MR HATTINGH: And do you also confirm the correctness of the statements which I put on your behalf to Brigadier Schoon?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, unequivocally.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman, we have no further questions.

MR KNIGHT: Thank you, Mr Chairman, Julian Knight on behalf of implicated person Nofomela, I have no questions.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Chairperson. Prinsloo on behalf of applicant Pienaar and van Zweel.

Mr de Kock, is it correct that initially the then Colonel Deetlefs pointed the house out to Cronje while Pienaar was present? Do you recall that?

MR DE KOCK: I cannot recall that but I will not dispute it. I know that the house was pointed out to me by Pienaar, but, as I’ve said, we could not move around in large groups, only in twos and threes so that we could avoid any attention. I will not dispute it however.

MR PRINSLOO: Is it correct that afterwards, Mr Pienaar went to the house and pointed this house to you?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that’s correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Furthermore, with regard to your action there at that specific house, according to Mr Pienaar and Mr van Zweel, there may be a possibility of confusion in your mind regarding who entered the house. Pienaar says that he entered the house along with you and that in the house, he shot a person there who later appeared to be McFadden.

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, first it was Cronje and then it was van Zweel because they were the two persons who were at the back door. I followed them, and upon Colonel Cronje’s entry, I heard him shooting with a Perchet, it was quite a silenced sound but, I cannot say that Pienaar did not enter the house at some stage. I cannot dispute. But the shooting was initiated by Colonel Cronje

MR PRINSLOO: According to Mr Pienaar, he did indeed enter the house and he along with Mr Cronje fired at that person who later appeared to be Mr McFadden. According to Mr van Zweel he was initially at the door with Mr Cronje but when they could not open the door, you kicked the door open and that is when van Zweel moved around the house and held watch outside the house at a window. And that is why I am putting it to you that Mr Pienaar is the person who moved in and that you are confused between the two.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, that may be their perception but the reason why I recall Mr van Zweel specifically is because that he was the one who fired the Scorpion in the lounge. It wasn’t a very powerful weapon, it was a 7.65 calibre, very low penetration capacity and the bullets were flying all over the room. And the second reason is because I left van Zweel at the bathroom door so that when I ran out after throwing the grenade, nobody else would be able to run back in.

MR PRINSLOO: According to Mr van Zweel, he did not fire any shots in the house at all and he remained outside.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, that may be his recollection. However he made specific use of the Scorpion which was a low calibre weapon.

MR PRINSLOO: Furthermore, Mr Pienaar will give evidence that in the house, in a wardrobe, he found documents which he removed, can you be confusing the removal of the documents from the wardrobe with the case that you found in the person’s hands?

MR DE KOCK: No, I’m not confusing it, there was a briefcase there, it was in his right hand, there was a loop attached to it. After Mr Pienaar had fired the two shots into the head of Mr Nyanda, he removed the case. I would imagine, I’m relying on vague recollection here, that it was a red-rusty brown colour if I’m not mistaken and there were also keys which looked like car keys.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Pienaar says that things happened very quickly there and that he indeed fire in one shot to the head of the person who was known to him to be Zweli Nyanda and it appeared at that stage that the person was still alive. But, he does not recall anything about a case which was removed from the person.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I will not dispute the number of shots that he fired into the head of the victim. The case was there, I have no doubt about that.

MR PRINSLOO: And Mr Pienaar’s further evidence will also be that the documents which he took into possession in that house, he handed over to Brigadier Cronje.

MR DE KOCK: I will not dispute that, I didn’t see it but I would not dispute it because Cronje took documentation with him to Pretoria.

MR PRINSLOO: And, Mr de Kock, at that stage, were there many attacks which were launched by the ANC from Swaziland?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that’s correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: Louisa van der Walt for the record. Mr de Kock, upon conclusion of your evidence, you have put your initial application more clearly with regard to Mr Rorich denies that he shot this person in the foot but, you have just rectified the matter, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: No further questions, thank you.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR WAGENER: Jan Wagener, Mr Chairman.

Mr de Kock, you have not given evidence about this matter today but in your application on page 15, you mention an incident during which General Engelbrecht apparently would have made a proposal regarding the amputation of Mr Bosego’s foot. Do you recall that?

MR DE KOCK: I recall that very clearly.

MR WAGENER: Are you saying through that that General Engelbrecht attempted to defeat the ends of justice?

MR DE KOCK: Yes. And to harm a person as well.

MR WAGENER: Now, I see that you mention here that the object of that would have been to prove that Nofomela was not telling the truth. Do you mean that Nofomela gave evidence that he shot Bosego and you say that the purpose of this amputation would have been to prove that Nofomela was not telling the truth?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, because then there would be no scar on the foot that had been shot.

MR WAGENER: Mr de Kock, this entire statement that you make here with regard to General Engelbrecht, are you serious about this?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, I am being serious because it’s the truth.

MR WAGENER: Do you say that seven years after the incident, during the Harms Commission when this incident came to light, that this was a reasonable idea, to amputate the man’s foot all of a sudden?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, in my mind it was about how serious we were but, the security police as well, in the removal of any form of evidence. We would have gone as far as radiating Mr Bosego’s foot with X-rays in order to determine whether there would be any scar around that wound.

MR WAGENER: Exactly, can you recall? And it would appear that you recall that during the Harms Commission, medical evidence was given to the effect that the man had not been shot at in the foot.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, we made certain of this before Bosego gave his evidence. There was a mark on his foot which appeared to be the result of having stepped on a hot coal with a bare foot. It would be the similar kind of mark that that would leave and I am very aware of that.

MR WAGENER: Mr de Kock, General Engelbrecht denies this allegation of yours.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I expected that. I would have been surprised if he had reacted any differently. This works according to the same system which we maintained at the Harms Commission, the system of denials.

MR WAGENER: To tell you the truth, Mr de Kock, it would have been absurd to amputate the man’s foot because that would have indicated that there was indeed something to hide on his foot while the medical evidence indicated that there was nothing.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, that is something which one cannot make up. I sat there, that is what General Engelbrecht said, I have repeated it and I will stand by it.

CHAIRPERSON: And what would Mr Bosego have said about the loss of his foot ...(indistinct) he was having his foot removed.

MR DE KOCK: He would definitely not have agreed with it. On the contrary, Mr Bosego disappeared at a stage and he found himself in the Mafikeng area to the extent that Mr Nortje and Ras went to look for Mr Bosego. They went there by helicopter.

MR WAGENER: Mr de Kock, I put it to you that this is just another attempt of yours to get at the generals.

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, I would say that that is part of a discreditation campaign.

MR WAGENER: Your discreditation campaign towards the generals.

MR DE KOCK: No, it worked for Dirk Coetzee, it worked for Nofomela. The situation about the Griffiths Mxenge story, it's an historical fact, my own evidence during the Harms Commission is an historical face, we cannot distort that.

MR WAGENER: No further questions, thank you, Chairperson.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Thank you, Mr Chairman, Visser on record.

Mr de Kock, I understand that Mr Wagener has already placed you under cross-examination with regard to matters that he has already mentioned just before. There are indications that you are attempting to get at generals, I’m not going to repeat that cross-examination, I would just like to refer you briefly to evidence which you have given. You have already, in your evidence in chief stated you will stand by your evidence despite what Brigadier Schoon has stated here this morning and I will not examine this with you any further. But, I would like to ask you the following. These weapons from Ovamboland which were stored at Vlakplaas, is my recollection correct that you spoke of smuggled weapons when you gave evidence or am I incorrect?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I am not certain.

MR VISSER: Well, let me put it to you like this, according to your insight, was there anything illegal about bringing weapons which had been possessed by the police in Ovamboland to South Africa?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, we brought these weapons in for our duties.

MR VISSER: Very well, then I would like to take you to what you said with regard to the supply of weapons and the submission of so called false claims regarding Mr Steyn. Just for the benefit of the Committee, that is bundle 2, page 30, paragraph 2.2.18.2. This refers to incident 12 in volume 2, page 332, incident 13, volume 2, page 339 as well. And there is a further reference, that would be bundle 2, page 36, paragraph 2.2.22.1 and 2.2.22.2. And that refers to incident 12, volume 1 page 325, in volume 12, page 332 and this is the allegation. You say that you provided AK-47 guns to General Steyn for their own purposes as you put it. Can you recall this?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: If General Steyn says that upon one occasion he received one AK-47 from you, would you say that that would be a correct statement or an incorrect statement?

MR DE KOCK: No, that is incorrect.

MR VISSER: Well, that is what he says and he denies that on any other occasion except one occasion he received an AK-47 from you and this is a matter for which amnesty has been applied. Mr Chairman, you might remember reference was made to the Quarry road incident during the Natal hearings and that is in connection with that particular incident. General Steyn says that you are mistaken when you say or when you recall it as such, that he requested you to falsely claim money to give to him in order to remunerate his informers. He denies this, he maintains that he had almost a half a million rands in funds which he could use for this purpose and that this money had been allocated to his division.

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, then I must say that General Steyn is a liar.

MR VISSER: Very well. Let us hear what you have to say about Mr Adriaan Vlok because he maintains that the reference to the purchase of furniture from your fund, if this is intended to refer to him, he maintains that this is untrue.

MR DE KOCK: Furniture was acquired for the Minister’s office.

MR VISSER: Which Minister?

MR DE KOCK: Minister Adriaan Vlok.

MR VISSER: Well, he denies this.

MR DE KOCK: I have no problem with that. I would expect that.

MR VISSER: Just tell the Committee please, did you hear that he wanted furniture or did you see that his furniture was not up to standard? How did it come about that you decided to purchase the furniture from the fund?

MR DE KOCK: I was approached by Brigadier Schoon and Louis Koekemoer worked with that aspect. I did not fill in the false claim, I did not purchase the furniture, I did not obtain the money.

MR VISSER: Why would they have made a false claim for furniture for the Minister’s office? Didn’t the police have furniture for the offices of their Ministers?

MR DE KOCK: We will have to hear that from them.

MR VISSER: But, you see, you have once again dragged Brigadier Schoon into this story. And this differs from what you did in your evidence in chief. But let us just leave it at that. Can you think of any reason why furniture would be acquired for a Minister's office by means of false claims?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, that is not the reason for me. I simply provided the money and it was used for that purpose. The ministers will have to answer to that if they wish to be honest and that would include, among others, Colonel Koekemoer and Brigadier Schoon.

MR VISSER: Did Mr Vlok thank you for these furniture items which you would have purchased for him?

MR DE KOCK: No, we simply received a stiff handshake and a piece of meat to braai.

MR VISSER: For these items of furniture that you had purchased?

MR DE KOCK: No, just in general.

MR VISSER: Mr Willem Coetzee says that he was not involved with the establishment of a dead letter box at Krugersdorp. In bundle 2 on page 30, you refer to that.

MR DE KOCK: I think the word Willem Coetzee is incorrect, it was Colonel Jan Coetzee from Krugersdorp who was the previous commander of Vlakplaas.

MR VISSER: We agree with that. That might have been just a mistake of yours in your evidence in chief or maybe I have heard wrongly but I heard you said Willem Coetzee. But, Jan Coetzee would be correct. And then, finally, Mr de Kock, in bundle 2 on page 30 where you refer to incident 37, in volume 3 page 522, you allege that Brigadier Loots and Crause, you didn’t say which Crause, there are two Crauses.

MR DE KOCK: It was Colonel Rudi Crause.

MR VISSER: Requested from Brigadier Willem Schoon that you, Mr de Kock, supplied him with explosives to blow up the body of an ANC member who was killed in the cells in Mafikeng, do you recall that?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson. The request was that we had to remove that person and to take his life which was done.

MR VISSER: Very well. Crause and Loots, and I am afraid I did not ask Mr Schoon while he was here, he also denies any knowledge of this incident.

MR DE KOCK: He would, Chairperson, but it’s a clear picture in my memory as to where it happened and what the circumstances are and there are two witnesses to that incident.

MR VISSER: Mr de Kock, this is the second time that you say that you don’t expect them to say anything else but, why do you say this? Why do you say that Brigadier Willem Schoon would deny it?

MR DE KOCK: It’s on the same basis at the Harms Commission, Chairperson, everything was denied, we had an incidence where a question was put to me in the Harms Commission: "You do cross border operations?" The answer must be yes. "Did you shoot any people?" The answer must be no. "What did you do there?" The answer was "I just collected information." And Nofomela said we used weapons with silencers, this was denied right to the end. And that was the whole story.

MR VISSER: That was the Harms Commission, but let’s speak about now. For what reason would you say that any of these people would deny it?

MR DE KOCK: If they did play a role in there, because they would apply for amnesty. I think they want to keep their egos intact and Brigadier Schoon did this by applying for amnesty in 18 incidents, then he did not apply for everything, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Would you bear with me a moment please, Mr Chairman? My attorney tells me that he has a recollection that you have also named Mr Willem Coetzee in another issue. I don’t have any recollection of that, maybe you can help us Mr de Kock. We now know that Mr Willem Coetzee, if you did mention him, or incorrectly called him Mr Jan Coetzee with regard to the dead letter box at Krugersdorp, is there any instance where you name Mr Willem Coetzee?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, there would be two instances. The one is with the killing of ANC terrorists in Manzini and if I think of the names, it was Maris, Pantso and another person.

And then there was a second instance where along with General Erasmus, General Gerrit Erasmus, Brigadier Schoon, Brigadier Oosthuizen and Willem Coetzee as the handler wanted to lure a group of people to Swaziland...(interjects)

MR VISSER: These are the seven members?

MR DE KOCK: Excuse me.

MR VISSER: These are the seven members?

MR DE KOCK: No, it was a kombi with more, I think there were ten or 12 but, then it was only a vehicle with three persons who were lured to there and we shot them there.

MR VISSER: And this is what you refer to in bundle 2, page 22 on incident 5? Indeed, Chairperson. Amnesty is sought for both these incidents by these persons so I don’t have anything to dispute with Mr de Kock there. Thank you, Chairperson.

CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR MOHLABA: Thank you, Chairperson, B Mohlaba on record. I have a few questions. Grant me a moment, please. Thank you. Mr de Kock, how did you know about the existence of Zweli Nyanda and his activities?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I read some security reports which came from Natal and the Eastern Transvaal. I want to imagine that there were some reports from Northern Natal and I was also informed by Colonel Cronje and amongst others, the Eastern Transvaal security branch.

MR MOHLABA: And you mentioned that the planning for the wiping out of Zweli Nyanda and the others was carried out in Pretoria as well as in Swaziland, did I get you correctly?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson. Some of the planning took place at Vlakplaas and then as far as I know, the rest was done in Swaziland at the scene.

MR MOHLABA: The planning in Pretoria, are you able to tell us who was taking part in such planning? Was it in a particular forum where this issue was discussed?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, no. It was at Vlakplaas as far as I recall. And it was just the group who would participate there. I don’t know whether Mr Bosego sat there, I know they received instructions to prepare to go to Swaziland because they were in possession of passports in other names but, all the arms were prepared at Vlakplaas and the stun grenades were also there. And that we prepared there.

MR MOHLABA: To put it differently, before you could move to Swaziland, to carry out this operation, I assume that some discussion was conducted at Pretoria before you could go out. Could you remember who participated in such a discussion, if any?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, what was discussed at Vlakplaas is what Colonel Cronje said where he spoke, Van Dyk spoke and I believe that Cronje also because I know the black members had to use false passports just like us. It was not a normal situation, the needs were not so many. We had limited needs.

MR MOHLABA: If you could recall, was there any responsibilities allocated to the people who were to move out to Swaziland for this operation?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson, Col Cronje was the responsible person for this operation.

MR MOHLABA: Was there a detailed discussion as to the type of rules which each individual was to play, that is amongst the group which went to Swaziland for this operation?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, no. We waited until we got to Swaziland before places or posts were appointed. In other words, who will stand on which corner, who will break the window, who will penetrate the house first. Those details were done at the hotel where we staying in Swaziland.

MR MOHLABA: And according to what was discussed at the hotel in Swaziland, how many people were to participate in this actual operation? Was it yourself and who else?

MR DE KOCK: It was the whole group as I put it here in my application. In other words, it’s myself, Colonel Cronje and van Zweel, Van Dyk, Rorich, Bosego, Nofomela, Mamosela, I don’t know what his role was there because he was not present at the shooting but he also went through.

CHAIRPERSON: Can I interrupt for a moment? I think I understood from your evidence that you had not been a description of the house. You were merely told it was a house there and you were taken to it after you arrived in Swaziland?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Try again. You didn’t know what the house was like till you got to Swaziland and you were taken and shown it?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, the only information that we had was that it was a temporary structure. The panels, the walls were a type of asbestos, it was a removable thing, that is why we used stun grenades.

CHAIRPERSON: Had you been told that before you went?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, there was information. The size of the house was not available to us, whether it was a five bedroomed house or a two bedroomed house but, the information with regard to the structure was at our disposal because Colonel Cronje wanted to use M26 handgrenades which contained explosives and we would have been hit by the shrapnel if we did use them.

MR MOHLABA: De Kock, do you remember who provided you with the information regarding the location of this house where the attack was carried out?

MR DE KOCK: Please repeat, please.

MR MOHLABA: Do you remember the person who provided information about the exact location of the house in which the attack was carried out?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, it was warrant-officer Pienaar who pointed out the house.

MR MOHLABA: And do you carry any knowledge how warrant-officer Pienaar obtained such information? You don’t know.

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson. I would accept that Mr Deetlefs must have told him.

MR MOHLABA: In this particular operation, were you assisted by way of information by other persons who were not necessarily members of the security forces or Askaris? That is it could be Swaziland citizens or other people within South Africa?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson. Here we will refer to a source, never mind the nationality of the person.

MR MOHLABA: Are you saying that in this particular case, you had a source which provided you with information, which source was not security officer or an Askari, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, it’s not that I had a source, there was a source. Specifically whose source or sources these were is unknown to me.

MR MOHLABA: Have you ever heard of the name Edward Lawrence or Cyril Raymond in relation to this particular incident?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson. He’s the person who had to be killed along with McFadden and Mr Nyanda.

MR MOHLABA: Was he present in this particular house when the operation was launched?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I could not identify him. One person did get away but I don’t know whether it was Lawrence. But, I accept that it was him because he moved with Mr Nyanda.

MR MOHLABA: Can you just expand on that? You said he moved with Mr Nyanda, at what stage? You referring to a moment when Mr Nyanda burst out of the bathroom window, are you referring to that moment?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, just before I went into the house, after the long burst that came from the other side of the house, I did indeed see somebody running in an easterly direction. In other words, away from the house where at that point I wanted to fired on this person and decided not to because I was not sure whether it was one of my members who ran there. Or whether he was following somebody else.

MR MOHLABA: So you could not fire at this person because it may have occurred that it’s one of your members, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, that’s correct.

MR MOHLABA: Would one of your members run away from the scene of the target where you were supposed to attack?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson. I did not say somebody ran away or that one of my members ran away. One of the members might have decided to follow somebody who was running away. But I could not take the risk, in that case I must allow that person to get away before I shoot one of my own people. And as I have said previously, policemen learn to think on the ground, think on your feet, one of our greatest problems at that stage was that we did not have internal radio communication at that stage.

MR MOHLABA: And was it dark within the vicinity where this attack was carried out? What was the source of light there?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, yes, it was dark. I want to imagine and I use the word imagine, that there was a street light or a street lamp there. It was quite a weak light though.

MR MOHLABA: Did you at the time or subsequently after the fact, did you identify the owner of the house in which these people were killed?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, I did not. I continued with my normal services and I did not enquire about it afterwards.

MR MOHLABA: You have mentioned that at the debriefing after the attack, that is at the hotel, there was mention of a woman who was left unharmed, did I get you correctly?

MR DE KOCK: That’s correct, Chairperson.

MR MOHLABA: Was there any reason why this woman was not shot at?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I was not in the room. People take decisions right there where they are on the ground and my memory is that we, according to the debriefing session before the attack, we could expect five to six people in the house. I did not know of the woman and, as I say, by nature of the situation I believe that Colonel Cronje decided at the scene to leave the woman there. His reasons would have been immediate, they would have taken that decision right there within a thousandths of a second. That’s an operational decision at the scene, it was a decision taken in the field.

MR MOHLABA: Thank you, Chairperson, I’ve got no further questions.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PATEL: Ramula Patel.

Sir, you’ve stated that Edward Lawrence was also to be killed along with McFadden and Nyanda. At what stage was this decision taken and by whom?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, we departed with that knowledge. It was emphasised by Colonel Cronje that Head Quarters wants this group, Nyanda, McFadden and Lawrence, they wanted them wiped out. It was also emphasised in Swaziland at the hotel where we went.

CHAIRPERSON: In Pretoria and again in Swaziland?

MR DE KOCK: That’s correct, Chairperson. If I refer to Pretoria, it was at Vlakplaas.

MS PATEL: Brigadier Schoon’s testimony this morning, he stated that the only person that was identified to be killed was Mr Nyanda and that it was accepted that if there was somebody else there, that they should be killed as well but there was no mention made of Edward Lawrence or of McFadden. In fact, the information about McFadden only came to his attention afterwards. What is your comment on that?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson. That information was given to us here and this why the group was adjusted to the amount of men that there were. And those names were mentioned according to the information notes and the security reports that I read. I mean Mr Lawrence was just as active in the ANC ranks as Mr Nyanda.

MS PATEL: Sorry, I didn’t get the last name. Who was just as active as Mr Nyanda?

MR DE KOCK: It was Mr Lawrence, Chairperson.

MS PATEL: Was this information relayed to you by Mr Cronje or was it given to you by Brigadier Schoon as well? Can you recall?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, it was given to me by Colonel Cronje.

MS PATEL: Regarding Mr Deetlefs role, was he present at the planning meeting at Vlakplaas where the conspiracy to murder had taken place?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson. I don’t have any memory of him there. As far as I remember, he was in Swaziland when we arrived there, when we reconnoitred at the hotel and it was again discussed then.

MS PATEL: Okay, so he was present at the second discussion in Swaziland?

MR DE KOCK: He was involved with the discussion that we had in Swaziland, yes.

MS PATEL: Was he involved in the reconnoitring of the target? Of the physical structure, that is?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I don’t know. This house was just pointed out to me by warrant-officer Pienaar. There was information beforehand with regard to the nature of the structure, that it would not be a stone house but these types of panels.

MS PATEL: You have stated to us in your evidence in chief that certain members went back to the house on an hourly basis to check whether parties had returned or not. Was Mr Deetlefs one of those people who would have been involved in that part of the operation or the preparation rather?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson. It was Mr Pienaar and Mr van Zweel.

MS PATEL: Regarding the information that you say must have come from Mr Pienaar. Do you have any idea what his sources would have been at that stage?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson.

MS PATEL: Can you tell us what specific information was given to you about Mr McFadden at the planning meeting?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, that he was a citizen of Swaziland, that he was a member of the ANC and that he was closely involved with the arrangements of safe houses. And then I have a memory that mention was made that he had contact with government officials in the Swazi government which made a valuable person of him.

MS PATEL: What kind of contacts would this have been with the government officials? To do what?

CHAIRPERSON: Contacts, I think he said.

MS PATEL: Oh, okay.

MR DE KOCK: I don’t know who these people were, Chairperson. All that I know that these were government contacts. I don’t know what is the nature of their ranks or their positions or in which departments they are.

MS PATEL: Would this important? Or why was this a threat?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, in that sense, he was directly involved with the support of acts of terror in the Republic of South Africa, and he was a member of the ANC, according to that information he actively helped in the destabilisation and terrorism in the Republic of South Africa.

MS PATEL: Can you confirm Brigadier Schoon’s testimony this morning that the instruction was that everybody was to be killed? Or were specific persons targeted only?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I did not have any contact with Brigadier Schoon with regard to targets. It was conveyed to me by Colonel Cronje and it was only the three persons that were targeted.

MS PATEL: Would that then be an explanation for why the woman wasn’t killed?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I don’t know. I think, in that sense, it was a decision taken in the field. There would be reasons therefor. I think Colonel Cronje would be able to give a better answer.

MS PATEL: Alright. If you’d just grant me a moment, or perhaps you can assist, you didn’t mention in your application that Edwards Lawrence, was also a target, did you? I don’t recall reading it in your application, I don’t believe that you mentioned it there.

ADV SANDI: Are you asking about Edward Lawrence?

MS PATEL: Yes.

ADV SANDI: Yes, he said Lawrence was as active as Nyanda. That is according to the information that he had obtained from Mr Cronje.

CHAIRPERSON: (Indistinct)

MS PATEL: I’m just double checking, I don’t recall this being in his application to us.

ADV SANDI: Well, he said that in his overall evidence to us.

MS PATEL: But not the application. Why was such crucial information left out of your application? Why do we only hear of it now, after my learned colleague on my left hand side has asked you about? You didn’t even raise it in your evidence in chief.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, it might be a mistake or I might have just omitted it, just not completed but, I think the Eastern Transvaal security branch people, like Mr Pienaar would be able to testify to that but after Mr Nyanda’s death, Mr Lawrence took over as far as I know and he filled that role for some time.

MS PATEL: Are you saying that Mr Lawrence took over from Mr Nyanda after Mr Nyanda’s death?

MR DE KOCK: That’s correct, Chairperson.

MS PATEL: And what is the source of that information, Sir?

MR DE KOCK: Once again it was security reports not only from Ermelo but from places like Piet Retief and from Middelburg that he had taken over that role, that he was once again active.

MS PATEL: And who would have draft those reports? Do you have any idea?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, it would be members of the security branches. These were field workers and they would receive that information from near sources.

MS PATEL: Do you know who the authors of these security reports would have been that you refer to, sir?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson. I cannot recall.

MS PATEL: Sorry, honourable Chairperson. I think I’m almost done I just want to double check. Thank you, honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Re-examination?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr de Kock, when you compiled your amnesty application, you applied for amnesty for the death of a person, that’s correct

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that’s correct.

MR HATTINGH: Is Mr Lawrence, the person who is referred to as Lawrence, the person who was killed during this operation?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman, we have no further questions.

MR SIBANYONI: I’ve got no questions, Mr Chairperson.

ADV SANDI: Yes, Mr de Kock, are you able to say what role exactly was played by Mr Joe Mamosela because I understand he’s one of the people who were given a promotion after this operation.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, before this occasion upon which we killed Nyanda, there was another attempt and Mr Mamosela was involved in that attempt with regard to observation. And he was not involved during this second attempt during which the victim was killed. My recollection is that he went through to Swaziland but that he was not present during the shooting incident, in that regard my recollection may not be sufficient but, he was definitely involved in the first attempt on Nyanda’s life.

ADV SANDI: I get the impression that your instructions before you went out to attack these people, your instruction was to kill everyone who was there in that building, is that so?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, the emphasis given by Cronje was that this group was to be obliterated and, that would be Lawrence, Nyanda and McFadden, that group. If we had found Lawrence there, in the room or outside, we would have shot him dead, definitely.

ADV SANDI: And when you went back to the hotel, and Mr Cronje tells you that there was a lady who was hiding somewhere in the building and she had not been killed, were you not interested to find out as to what could have been the reason why she was not killed as well?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson. Let me just sketch this to you. During these events on ground level, the persons who launched the action would be the script writers of the event, so to speak. But things could change on a momentary basis on ground level and this would have been the decision of Colonel Cronje to leave her or not to leave her. She could have led to the identification of operatives, that they were whites, that they were not an ANC group but, I didn’t ask him.

ADV SANDI: Thank you. Thank you, Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I’m in a state of complete confusion. We were given, this morning, the Further Submissions and Responses by the African National Congress, 12 May 1997 which appears to refer to an agent Edward Lawrence and it sets out certain dealings of his. And how he was introduced to two Boers who introduced themselves as Captain Van Niekerk and Captain Van Der Walt. He apparently became an informer, or gave them information as to the house that was to be attacked. And he was told what he should do during the course of the attack. And yet we are now told that he was one of the most dangerous of people.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson. I would just like to mention at this point, that the history of Lawrence, if I have it correctly from reports, is that upon a previous occasion with the Defence Force’s attack on Matola, near Maputo, he was one of the few who escaped. And that suspicion fell upon him after he escaped for a second time from Swaziland. Me, a DCC officer and a former officer were in Vienna busy with the recruitment of another agent with the Department of Intelligence and Security, the specific division referred to as Lombokodo which was highly feared. This person enquired about two persons from me consistently after we met and became acquainted. There was MK Thami Zulu, his name was Bonniface who operated in Swaziland and about whom we later made a terrible mistake.

He also asked me whether Lawrence was a source and I told him that he was not a source, that he was a very effective operative. And he once again said that we made a terrible mistake with him as well. And the idea that I had from this was that both had been murdered by the ANC.

CHAIRPERSON: If he was telling members of the South African Police Force, that he would tell them when the comrades were asleep, that he would unlock the doors and switch off the outside light for the attack, should other policemen be telling you to murder him?

MR DE KOCK: No, that doesn’t make any sense. The simple reason for that being that nothing like that happened. The back door was not open, we had to kick it in because it was locked. And it was rather solid as well. No person came out of the building, nobody came up to your vehicles. Lawrence’s escape can be ascribed to the fact that I left my post to assist Cronje and that is the only reason why he escaped.

CHAIRPERSON: Have any enquiries been made to verify this ANC information...(intervention)

MS PATEL: I’ll have to double check ...(indistinct) ...Chairperson, as to whether we have.

CHAIRPERSON: ...as to whether he was acting for the South African Police Force at the time.

MS PATEL: Okay, and honourable Chairperson, if I may, I’ve omitted to put to Mr de Kock that, in the testimony of Brigadier Cronje to us, he merely mentions that the only target that was only identified was Mr Nyanda and he gave some other version in respect of why Mr McFadden was killed and that only information was given about McFadden to them afterwards but, I see Mr Du Plessis is not here, perhaps I should confirm with him first whether that is in fact the position?

MR VISSER: Yes, well, Chairperson, we dealt with that, Visser on record, in Brigadier Schoon’s evidence. And we actually specifically refer to the evidence of Brigadier Cronje where he stated that Zweli Nyanda was the person who was targeted. And Schoon’s evidence was that that is correct although there was a broader issue at stake and he was certain that Brigadier Cronje must have understood it that way. And if we look at Mr de Kock’s evidence now it's quite clear that he did look at it that way because he said: "We have to go and take out that cell."

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that is if there were other people there that night.

MR VISSER: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr de Kock’s evidence is different. Mr de Kock’s evidence is this was a specific target they were going to Swaziland to get rid of.

MR VISSER: Yes, Mr Chairman, I’m not ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: He said he was as dangerous.

MR VISSER: Referring to Lawrence?

CHAIRPERSON: Lawrence, yes.

MR VISSER: Yes, yes, I’m not talking about Lawrence, I’m just dealing the last issue which Ms Patel raised as to whether it was only Zweli Nyanda or more people than that.

MS PATEL: No, with respect, honourable Chairperson, it deals with Mr McFadden as well. Mr de Kock is saying that there were three parties who were clearly identified during the planning stages whereas the evidence of Brigadier Schoon and Brigadier Cronje to us at the amnesty hearing was that it was only Mr Nyanda who was clearly identified as a target but, if there were other people there, then that’s a different issue.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you wish to ask any questions or are you going to investigate?

MS PATEL: I’ll investigate it first with Mr Du Plessis, thank you...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: There is reference in the other documents we were given as A this morning, Nyanda A to the Statement to the TRC, dated August 1996 where they did list McFadden as a supporter of the ANC.

MS PATEL: Yes, my understanding was that that ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Do you want to make further enquiries and lead further reference tomorrow, you can do so.

MS PATEL: Okay.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR VISSER: Perhaps if I could be of assistance. On the issue of Mr Lawrence, on the little document that you got this morning, you will see his aliases. That is stated to be stated to be alias Fear or Ralph or M’China or Cyril Raymonds. Now, if you look at page 43 of the Further Submissions, Chairperson, of the ANC of M set out was, and Mr de Kock is quite correct,

So, Mr de Kock’s quite correct, that he followed up apparently Mr Zweli Nyanda. And that is Lawrence, the Lawrence that we’re talking about here, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: In the document we’ve been given, page 120, paragraph...(indistinct)...(microphone not on).

INTERPRETER: Speaker’s microphone is not on.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, in 1983. Page 120 of the document we were given this morning, 12 May 1997 Submissions, it said that while deployed as a leading cadre in the Natal Military Machinery in Swaziland, he was arrested by the Swazi police.

MR VISSER: Yes, yes, there can be no doubt his status, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And he apparently gave them certain information.

MR VISSER: Of that we have no information, Chairperson, we know that there was a source involved. Whether it was specifically Mr Lawrence who was involved in that particular operation that evening, Brigadier Schoon doesn’t know anything about. And you will recall, when Brigadier Cronje gave evidence, he was asked the question: "Who is this informant?" And he said: "I can’t remember." Or "I didn’t know." That’s around page 300 of his evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, the enquiries I think, should be made from the Eastern Transvaal people, not from the people here today.

MR VISSER: Well, there are some Eastern Transvaal people here.

ADV SANDI: He must have been very lucky as well, this Mr Lawrence, not to be killed on this day.

MS PATEL: If I may, just for the record, honourable Chairperson, state that my problem with this is not the information as to what he might have been involved with subsequent to the operation. It goes to the question of what the specific instruction was and who was to be eliminated.

CHAIRPERSON: If what they say here is true, it seems very odd that he should have been picked as a target when he was the person who was assisting in the raid.

MR VISSER: Precisely, Chairperson, and therefor the only inference, except that we could only deal with what information we have. The only inference from this information is that it couldn’t have been him. But that’s speculation on our part. Perhaps the people from the Eastern Transvaal might shed light on ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Or the Swazis, Swaziland police.

MR VISSER: Yes. And Mr Sandi’s question, Chairperson, is answered in the same document at page 120, at the end of that paragraph. At the end of paragraph 7 where it says:

So, according to the ANC, he died, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: But the next plan is the raid in 1983, Deaths of Zweli Nyanda and Keith McFadden.

MR VISSER: Yes, all right.

CHAIRPERSON: (Microphone in not on)

INTERPRETER: The speaker’s microphone.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, page 122, the third paragraph on the right-hand side. It sets out that he was the chief of communications at the same time as Zweli Nyanda was the chief of staff. So, he was, if one can believe this at all, a very active double agent.

MR VISSER: That would be our submission at the end, yes, Chairperson. Of course, there is another matter to this, one must bear in mind that this was a man who had been arrested and who’s making a confession. And his confession starts off by the drafter of the document saying that first of all he made an incomplete confession, whatever that may be, and there after he made a full confession so, one doesn’t know what happened to the poor fellow before he made what was regarded as a complete confession. And what still one, has to put in it. There is of course that to it but, clearly there could be no reason for anyone to lie about his position in the ANC in Swaziland at the time.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

CHAIRPERSON: Who do we go to now?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairperson, the following witness is Mr Pienaar. This is Prinsloo on the record.

F J PIENAAR: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Mr Pienaar, you are the applicant in this matter with regard to McFadden and Zweli Nyanda.

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Your application appears on page 63 and goes until page 65 of the bundle, do you have this before you?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, I do.

MR PRINSLOO: And the facts with regard to this specific case, are contained in Annexure A which goes from page 66 to 68, is that correct?

MR PIENAAR: That’s correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And then your political background appears on page 69 and 70.

MR PIENAAR: That's correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And do you confirm those sections?

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And, along with this, we have documentation which you have already studied, that is Exhibit A which is the General Background to Amnesty Applications.

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Do you reconcile yourself with this?

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Apart from the section that deals with Botswana?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Pienaar, at the time of these events, you were a warrant-officer stationed at Piet Retief.

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And you were primarily involved in actions in the Eastern Transvaal and in Swaziland.

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And your period of service there, in the SAP security branch, also indicated that you had to deal with certain informers.

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And the persons who are referred to here as Lawrence and Lawrence Fear and so forth, was he an informer of yours?

MR PIENAAR: No.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Pienaar, did you by means of informers, gather information which had to do with Zweli Nyanda and did you provide this information to your command structure in the Eastern Transvaal and was this information then sent through to Head Office in Pretoria.

MR PIENAAR: That’s correct.

MR PRINSLOO: With regard to Zweli Nyanda, did you have specific information with regard to his structure in Swaziland and his capacity there?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, I did.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you provide such information to your command structure and to the Head Office?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, I did.

MR PRINSLOO: Zweli Nyanda’s position, what was it?

MR PIENAAR: He was the commander of the ANC in Natal from Swaziland.

MR PRINSLOO: Did that involve the planning of acts of terrorism in Natal?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, among others, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And in Eastern Transvaal?

MR PIENAAR: Not as much in Eastern Transvaal, Chairperson. It also involved the insurgency of trained persons into the Republic.

MR PRINSLOO: Was a person by the name of McFadden known to you at that point?

MR PIENAAR: At a later stage, he became known to me.

MR PRINSLOO: And this person called Lawrence, was he known to you?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, he was very well known to me.

MR PRINSLOO: And what position did he occupy in Swaziland?

MR PIENAAR: He was with Mr Nyanda and he was involved in the Natal Machinery.

MR PRINSLOO: And was he also one of the persons who was sought after by the security branch?

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: According to information which you provided to the security police head office, is it correct that during 1983, you were given an order to report to the Oshoek border post?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And which transport did you use?

MR PIENAAR: I used my own State vehicle.

MR PRINSLOO: Was it a Mercedes Benz or a bakkie?

MR PIENAAR: It was a Cortina.

MR PRINSLOO: Was there any person who made use of a bakkie or a Mercedes Benz?

MR PIENAAR: No, there was nobody like that.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you have access along with these other person, as you have heard, with regard to the evidence of Mr de Kock, who along with Brigadier Cronje entered Swaziland?

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you enter by means of a border post?

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you use your legal passport?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, I used my own legal passport.

MR PRINSLOO: And was this specific house in which Zweli Nyanda would have been pointed out to Brigadier Cronje?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, it was pointed out to Brigadier Cronje. I was with Deetlefs.

MR PRINSLOO: And Colonel Deetlefs, was he in any way involved in the planning of the attack and the obliteration of these persons in Swaziland?

MR PIENAAR: When there was nobody at the house, Mr Deetlefs went through to Ermelo but he was no longer involved in anything.

MR PRINSLOO: The order and planning surrounding this action in Swaziland against this person, Zweli Nyanda, was this undertaken at a hotel in Swaziland?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that’s correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And at that stage, was the planning according to your application the elimination of Zweli Nyanda and was the plan, as it appears on page 66 or your application, according to Lawrence?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that’s correct.

MR PRINSLOO: What was that order?

MR PIENAAR: That the persons had to be eliminated.

MR PRINSLOO: And if there were other persons in the house?

MR PIENAAR: They should also be taken out.

MR PRINSLOO: And that house, according to the information that you had, was it a house which was generally used by the ANC or not?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, it was generally used by the ANC.

MR PRINSLOO: And was it clear to you that this was a transit house?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that's correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And were any visits paid to this particular house. You have heard the evidence given by Mr de Kock that the premises were visited periodically during that evening to see who was there and who wasn’t.

MR PIENAAR: Yes, Colonel De Kock was correct, it did take place that way.

MR PRINSLOO: And, with the action at the house itself, did you enter the house?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, I also entered the house.

MR PRINSLOO: And, before you entered the house, how did you obtain access to the house?

MR PIENAAR: Originally the plan was that Brigadier Cronje and Mr van Zweel would break the door open in order to obtain access. However they could not succeed in this, Colonel De Kock moved around from his position to the door and assisted with that. He managed to kick the door open and access was then obtained.

MR PRINSLOO: And, with regard to the rest of your planning after access had been obtained to the house?

MR PIENAAR: I moved with Brigadier Cronje into a room where there was a person who was standing next to the wall. It was quite dark in the room, we immediately opened fire on this person after which he fell down. I went out of the room upon which I found Mr de Kock. I also fired shots in the lounge after which we returned and then Colonel De Kock told me that there was blood leading to a bathroom. He moved in that direction. Somebody joined him there, I cannot recall who it was. I went to another bedroom where I began to search cupboards in which I also found a number of documents which I later handed over to Brigadier Cronje. Once again a shooting ensued, I moved outside, I found Colonel De Kock outside with a person who had collapsed on the sidewalk, the sidewalk which lead to the gate. The person was struggling to breathe. I shot him, I fired one shot to his head, just to ensure that he had died. I cannot imagine that I took any form of case or briefcase from the person at that stage. Everything was quite chaotic because things had not gone according to plan, the AKs had been used and they were not fitted with silencers and this created quite a noise. We then left.

MR PRINSLOO: The person who lay there, on the sidewalk which lead to the gate, who was that?

MR PIENAAR: That was Zweli Nyanda.

MR PRINSLOO: Could you identify him as he lay there?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, I could.

MR PRINSLOO: How was he known to you?

MR PIENAAR: He was known to me by photos and also by means of my own observation that I had undertaken on a previous occasion.

MR PRINSLOO: And these documents which you took from the cupboard, did you hand them over to Brigadier Cronje?

MR PIENAAR: I did.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you later receive any feedback about what the nature of those documents were?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, I received feedback that there had been very important documents among those papers which contained certain plans for attacks in Natal.

MR PRINSLOO: Now, this person that you shot inside the house along with Brigadier Cronje, did you know who that person was?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, the following day I was informed that it had been Mr McFadden. Mr McFadden was known to me by means of information, he was a known conspirator of the ANC, he was also involved in the transportation of trained MK members from Mozambique to Swaziland and from there to the RSA.

MR PRINSLOO: And did you notice a woman in the house at all?

MR PIENAAR: No, I did not notice any woman in the house.

MR PRINSLOO: Just a moment, please Chairperson. Now, Mr Pienaar, you have already given evidence that Lawrence was not an informer. But on that specific evening, the evidence has been that a person ran away, did you have any information about who that person was?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, on the following day I received information that among others, Mr Lawrence had run away from the house. He had been naked upon which he had run to a police station to go and report these events.

MR PRINSLOO: Now, this person who was known as Lawrence, according to a document which was submitted here, apparently by the family of Nyanda, there is a reference to the idea that Lawrence was an informer or would have given information. Do you have any knowledge of that?

MR PIENAAR: No, I have no such knowledge.

MR PRINSLOO: Now Mr van Zweel, did he enter the house at all?

MR PIENAAR: As far as I know Mr van Zweel did not enter the house.

MR PRINSLOO: Did he fire any shots?

MR PIENAAR: According to my knowledge, no, but I’m not entirely certain about that.

MR PRINSLOO: Now, at the time of this action of yours, you were a member of the South African Police Force?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, that’s correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And you were a member of the National Party?

MR PIENAAR: That’s correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And did you at that stage, act within the execution of your duties whether that be express or sworn, as a member of the South African Police?

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you, in any way, fire shots or attempt to fire shots at those persons for any financial benefit or gain?

MR PIENAAR: No.

MR PRINSLOO: And you are applying for the two murders of McFadden and Nyanda respectively?

MR PIENAAR: That’s correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And you also submit that you did not convey the true facts about the incident at that stage?

MR PIENAAR: That’s correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And you are also applying for malicious damage to property of the house.

MR PIENAAR: Yes

MR PRINSLOO: Or any other omission or offence which may emanate from this situation?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And for any unlawful deed which may emanate from this situation.

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Chairperson.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman, Hattingh on record. Mr Pienaar, you now tell us about incidents which took place about 16 years ago. Isn’t that correct?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And, this was the type of action where, at several other instances you were also involved with during your career?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: When one is involved with an operation such as this, especially with the execution thereof, then one’s attention would be directed at what one is busy with?

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: One may be aware of the people around or that there are other people shooting elsewhere. You may see who it is but your attention is not drawn to the members of your unit but rather to the people whom you have to attack.

MR PIENAAR: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And with the passage of time one’s memory becomes vague, is it not true?

MR PIENAAR: In certain instances, yes.

MR HATTINGH: And certain instances can be confused with other ones, isn’t that correct?

MR PIENAAR: That’s correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: The action takes place quite quickly, it’s not very slow, it’s a fast moving incident, isn’t it?

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: One can almost say that at times chaos reigns because shots are fired and stun grenades are thrown and all these type of things, not true?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: This is all activities which are not progressive for reliable observation under the circumstances.

MR PIENAAR: That’s correct.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Chairperson, no further questions.

MR KNIGHT: Thank you, Mr Chairman, similarly I have no questions on behalf of Nofomela.

MS VAN DER WALT: Louisa Van Der Walt for the record, no questions, thank you.

MR WAGENER: Jan Wagener, Mr Chairman, I have no questions.

MR VISSER: Louis Visser, Chairperson, I have no questions, thank you.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MOHLABA: Thank you, Chairman, B Mohlaba, I’ve got a few questions.

Were you present at the hotel when this operation was planned? We heard evidence by Mr de Kock that part of the operation was planned in Pretoria and also in Swaziland, were you present when any planning was done in Swaziland?

MR PIENAAR: I was present during the planning in Swaziland, Chairperson.

MR MOHLABA: Could you remember specifically who was to be wiped out in that particular house?

MR PIENAAR: Our knowledge was that the house was occupied by Mr Nyanda as well as Mr Lawrence. They would have been killed but, as well as any other person who was present in the house because it was regarded as a transit house for trained MK members to come to South Africa.

MR MOHLABA: And was Mr de Kock present when this discussion took place?

MR PIENAAR: He was present, Chairperson.

MR MOHLABA: Was Lawrence specifically mentioned by name to be a target, to be eliminated on that particular day?

MR PIENAAR: Definitely, Chairperson. As I say, it was known that Mr Lawrence and Mr Nyanda occupied the house together. He was definitely one the targets there.

MR MOHLABA: So the known occupants of that particular house was Mr Nyanda and Mr Lawrence according to the information you had at that moment?

MR PIENAAR: That’s correct, Chairperson.

MR MOHLABA: And these two people were the people who you intended to wipe out, is that correct?

MR PIENAAR: That’s correct, Chairperson.

MR MOHLABA: And there was a mention of a woman who was in that house at the time of the attack who was left unharmed. Do you know anything about that?

MR PIENAAR: As I have said, I did not see the woman. I only heard later that there was a woman who was in the house.

MR MOHLABA: And that you heard the debriefing meeting at the hotel, is that correct?

MR PIENAAR: I don’t believe it was in the hotel, Chairperson, it might have been but I think I only heard this the following day during the session where we heard that Mr Lawrence went to the police station and about Mr McFadden who was killed in the house.

MR MOHLABA: And can you remember who gave you the information about this woman?

MR PIENAAR: I cannot recall specifically whom it was, I’m not sure.

MR MOHLABA: Was there any reason furnished why this woman was not killed?

MR PIENAAR: No reason was furnished, Chairperson.

MR MOHLABA: Did it appear strange to you that there was somebody who clearly witnessed this incident, who could come out and identify the attackers as Whites and, didn’t you make any enquiries why was she left out?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, is this question with retrospect, the witness’s evidence is clear that he never saw a woman in that house at the time. So how can he answer that? That the person had to be wiped out if he didn’t see that person?

CHAIRPERSON: (Indistinct)are you asking whether he raised the question at this meeting?

MR MOHLABA: Certainly, Chairperson. Why was this...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: And to why the person...(intervention)

MR MOHLABA: ...person left out. Didn’t you enquire then? Didn’t you enquire from where you were, from the source who told you about the woman, why was this woman left out?

MR PIENAAR: I did not ask anybody why she was left out, Chairperson.

MR MOHLABA: Yes, the question was why didn’t you ask? Didn’t you find it strange that she left out?

MR PIENAAR: Because I did not see the woman, and I did not ask any questions about her.

MR MOHLABA: You also mentioned that you subsequently learned that a person ran away from that house and you later learned that that person could be Lawrence, did I get you correctly?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct. I knew that somebody had run away from the house and the following day I established that it was indeed Mr Lawrence.

MR MOHLABA: And did you see this person running away?

MR PIENAAR: I did not see him, Chairperson because I was inside the house. I could not see what was going on outside from where I was.

MR MOHLABA: And who told you of this person running away? That there was somebody who ran away? Can you remember?

MR PIENAAR: It was later discussed at the hotel and, as I say, the following morning, I established that it was Mr Lawrence who had run away from the house.

CHAIRPERSON: Was that one of the reason why you all left the hotel that evening and got away? That you’d realised that somebody had run away and could have gone to the police?

MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, that was one of the reasons. And the others were as I’ve said, things did not go as planned, the shots were fired with the AKs and they were not supplied with silencers, it made quite a noise. And the premises where Mr Nyanda stayed was not far from a Swaziland Defence Force base and that is why we left Swaziland that same evening.

MR SIBANYONI: Excuse me, Mr Mohlaba. How were you able to establish on the following morning that the person who ran away was Lawrence?

MR PIENAAR: It was in co-operation with the Swaziland police where we discovered that it was Mr Lawrence who arrived at the police station and told them about an attack on a house.

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you, Mr Mohlaba.

MR MOHLABA: Thank you, Chairperson. I’ve just been handed a note by my client here. If the Chairperson can bear with me a moment.

MR SIBANYONI: Maybe let me take this opportunity. Mr Pienaar, the person who was your informer, without mentioning his nationality, was he staying in Swaziland or was that person staying the Republic of South Africa?

MR PIENAAR: He lived in Swaziland, Chairperson.

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you.

ADV SANDI: Just one thing which did not sound very clear to me, you say the Swaziland police told you that the person who had escaped was Lawrence?

MR PIENAAR: That’s correct, Chairperson.

ADV SANDI: How did they communicate that information to you?

MR PIENAAR: Telephonically, Chairperson. I called a person who informed me.

ADV SANDI: Was that person a member of the Swaziland police, I take it?

MR PIENAAR: He was a member of the police, yes.

ADV SANDI: How would you describe the relationship and the Swaziland police and the SA police where you were stationed?

MR PIENAAR: I would say it was very good, Chairperson.

ADV SANDI: Would it have gone as far as the South African security police having informers within the ranks of the Swaziland police?

MR PIENAAR: It is indeed so, Chairperson.

ADV SANDI: This person you were contacting from the Swaziland police, in what capacity was he or she talking to you?

MR PIENAAR: As a friend.

ADV SANDI: Was he or she your informer?

MR PIENAAR: No, Chairperson, it was an acquaintance of mine which I built up with some time but, it was not a source.

ADV SANDI: Thank you. Thank you, Mr Mohlaba.

MR MOHLABA: Thank you, Chairperson. There was a mention of some planning having been done in Pretoria. Were you part of the Pretoria planning or you only participated in the second part in Swaziland?

MR PIENAAR: I only participated in Swaziland, Chairperson.

MR MOHLABA: Could you remember who provided information about the exact location of the house where this attack was to be carried out?

MR PIENAAR: Colonel Deetlefs pointed this house out to myself and Colonel Cronje.

MR MOHLABA: And, do you by any chance know how the Colonel got that information?

MR PIENAAR: No, unfortunately I do not.

MR MOHLABA: Thank you, Chairperson, I’ve got no further questions.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PATEL: Ramula Patel.

Sir, can you tell us at the meeting in Swaziland where you were present, the planning meeting, how many targets were specifically identified?

MR PIENAAR: There were two persons, namely Mr Nyanda and Mr Lawrence. And as well as any other person who might have been in the house. It could not be determined how many people there would be, it might have been four or five but, mention was made specifically of Mr Nyanda and Mr Lawrence.

MS PATEL: Okay, I’m slightly confused now because if my memory serves me correctly, Mr de Kock, in his re-examination stated that the Lawrence that he mentions in his application was the person who was killed. And you are saying that this Lawrence was in fact the person who went to the police station, the person who was naked, who had gotten away from...(intervention)

MR HATTINGH: Hattingh on record, Mr Chairman. Mr de Kock’s evidence was that Mr Lawrence was subsequently, later killed. And he even expressed the opinion that he was killed by the ANC.

MS PATEL: All right, yes. No, then I misunderstood his evidence. Sorry, I withdraw that. Was there any mention made of Mr McFadden at that planning meeting?

MR PIENAAR: As far as I know, no.

MS PATEL: The information about Mr McFadden, according to your memory, was that only gained after the operation?

MR PIENAAR: No, Mr Chairperson, it was known that Mr McFadden was a conspirator and assisted the ANC but, after the operation I heard that Mr McFadden had indeed been killed in the house.

MS PATEL: But you didn’t expect him there at the time though?

MR PIENAAR: No, Chairperson.

MS PATEL: And your information about Lawrence, was that conveyed to Brigadier Cronje?

MR PIENAAR: All information which was received was sent through the correct channels to head office and, amongst others, Brigadier Cronje might have had insight to this information.

MS PATEL: Once again, honourable Chairperson, I speak under correction but, I don’t believe that Brigadier Cronje when he testified to the Amnesty Committee on this incident had mentioned that Lawrence was specifically foreseen as a target.

MR PIENAAR: I was not present when Brigadier Cronje gave evidence so I would not know.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, if you want his evidence, I’ve got an extract from his evidence here.

CHAIRPERSON: We’ll lend it overnight. Ms Patel, we will be proceeding tomorrow.

MS PATEL: It was faxed to me late today, honourable Chairperson, so I’ve had a cursory glance at it. I wouldn’t want to put something to the applicant that might be incorrect. So, in fairness to him, I’d like to hold that over and I put my question to him on that basis.

MR PRINSLOO: But, Ms Patel is quite correct. Cronje didn’t talk about McFadden. She’s quite correct.

MS PATEL: Or questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Re-examination?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Chairperson.

You in the reports that you sent up mentioned Lawrence in the report. The report that was sent to Eastern Transvaal which was sent through to Head Office.

MR PIENAAR: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: No further questions, thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: In your application you say, at page 68, paragraph 7:

MR PIENAAR: That’s correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you remember where you got that information from?

MR PIENAAR: This was through information which several sources conveyed as well as later persons who were arrested and how were interrogated who gave us this information. I was never certain thereof.

CHAIRPERSON: It is quite clear from the document we got and from what you learnt that the ANC suspected him of being the traitor, a double agent.

MR PIENAAR: That’s correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: One other matter, we have had it in other applications as I think you have raised it again here. Was the position that if you raided a transit house, you had to expect that there would be armed men in it?

MR PIENAAR: That was always the case. Any attack which was launched at a base or a transit house, it would be expected that the occupants will be armed.

CHAIRPERSON: So you would naturally enough shoot anyone you saw? You’d shoot on sight?

MR PIENAAR: That’s correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And that was the normal practice either way?

MR PIENAAR: That’s correct, Chairperson.

ADV SANDI: No questions, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: (Microphone not switched on) We will adjourn till 9h30 tomorrow morning.